Public Acceptance of Smart and Green Mobility Hubs in Attica, Greece

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. To better represent the specific focus of the research, it is recommended to revise the title to "Public Acceptance of Smart and Green Mobility Hubs in Attica, Greece." This change will clarify the geographic specificity of the study, aligning reader expectations with the content. Or expand the study to include more varied geographical areas in Mediterranean region. This could enhance the generalisability of the findings.

2. The study's reliance on a quantitative stated preference survey may not fully capture the complex motivations and attitudes of participants toward mobility hubs. Incorporating qualitative research methods, such as interviews or focus groups, could enrich the findings by uncovering deeper insights into individual and community-level perceptions and resistance factors.

3. . I recommend expanding the Discussion section by incorporating findings from previous research, such as those presented in (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2024.104275) and (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2023.101052). This comparison could provide a broader context and enrich the understanding of how the findings from the current study align with or diverge from other international efforts.

 

4. The study could be enhanced by providing explicit policy recommendations based on the findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Reviewer#1, Concern#1:

To better represent the specific focus of the research, it is recommended to revise the title to "Public Acceptance of Smart and Green Mobility Hubs in Attica, Greece." This change will clarify the geographic specificity of the study, aligning reader expectations with the content. Or expand the study to include more varied geographical areas in Mediterranean region. This could enhance the generalisability of the findings.

Author response: Thank you very much for the suggestion

Author action: The title has been modified according to your suggestion, see line 3.

 

Reviewer#1, Concern#2:

 The study's reliance on a quantitative stated preference survey may not fully capture the complex motivations and attitudes of participants toward mobility hubs. Incorporating qualitative research methods, such as interviews or focus groups, could enrich the findings by uncovering deeper insights into individual and community-level perceptions and resistance factors.

Author response: Thank you very much for the suggestion

Author action: The integration of qualitative methods has been mentioned as limitation of the current research and as an opportunity for future research suggestions in Discussion section, see lines 820-824 and 849-850.

 

Reviewer#1, Concern#3:

I recommend expanding the Discussion section by incorporating findings from previous research, such as those presented in (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2024.104275) and (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2023.101052). This comparison could provide a broader context and enrich the understanding of how the findings from the current study align with or diverge from other international efforts.

Author response: Thank you very much for the suggestion

Author action: The literature review is deeply enhanced by 31 new related references in general as evident by the increased References list. Moreover, the specific two papers proposed by the reviewer herein have been studied and incorporated into the text, see lines 718 and 722-723.

 

 Reviewer#1, Concern#4:

The study could be enhanced by providing explicit policy recommendations based on the findings.

Author response: Thank you very much for your comment.

Author action: Policy recommendations are indeed a valid comment, and they comprise a part of the overall GREENMO project, in the frame of which this study was funded. However, more data are going to be collected during the next months, e.g. through interviews with stakeholders and experts, in order to produce more holistic and cohesive policy recommendations that incorporate the expectations/needs of both citizens and stakeholders. We have added the relevant information in lines 896-898.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Referee's Report

Title: Public Acceptance of Smart and Green Mobility Hubs in the Mediterranean Region 

Authors: Panagiotis Papantoniou, Dimosthenis Pavlou, Vasiliki Amprasi and Maria Sinou 

MS. Ref. No. urbansci-3388417

 

    Dear Authors

    The purpose of this study is to evaluate public acceptance of smart and green mobility hubs, which is a critical factor in the successful shift from passenger automobiles to public transportation. To achieve this goal, a stated preference survey was constructed and delivered to 152 participants in two stations, Voula and Irakleio, representing different forms of public transportation, tram and metro. The results showed a generally positive attitude toward the construction of green and smart mobility hubs. The poll indicated differences in commuting preferences between the two locations, with green spaces and smart charging benches rated highly. Finally, our study demonstrated that well-designed mobility hubs play an important role in constructing efficient, sustainable, and livable urban settings, establishing a new benchmark for future urban planning and development. The suggested interventions are intended to provide a significant contribution to the promotion of sustainable urban mobility in their particular areas and throughout the city, improving quality of life and lowering environmental impact. 

    I have few remarks listed below regarding this study:

 

1.Abstract is written well and it clearly explains what actual problem is being targeted and what strategies the authors are apply to solve this problem. I suggest to keep it as it is.

2.Introduction looks fine and all the studies with references have been mentioned in this section. I think no amendments are required for this section too. Moreover, the section Background is written well.

3.In the section "Materials and Methods", the authors clearly explains that a preference survey was conductions and how this survey was conducted. This section is also fine. Put commas at the end of (1), (2) and a full stop at the end of (3).

4.The section "Results" and subsection "Descriptive Statistics" is quite interesting with graphs and explanation of the statistics calculated from the data.

5.I think, "Conclusion" section must be shorten.

6.References are fine.

 

    Generally speaking the manuscript has the potential to be published in Urban Science after very minor revision.

    sincerely yours,

    Reviewer

Author Response

Reviewer#2, Concern#1:

The purpose of this study is to evaluate public acceptance of smart and green mobility hubs, which is a critical factor in the successful shift from passenger automobiles to public transportation. To achieve this goal, a stated preference survey was constructed and delivered to 152 participants in two stations, Voula and Irakleio, representing different forms of public transportation, tram and metro. The results showed a generally positive attitude toward the construction of green and smart mobility hubs. The poll indicated differences in commuting preferences between the two locations, with green spaces and smart charging benches rated highly. Finally, our study demonstrated that well-designed mobility hubs play an important role in constructing efficient, sustainable, and livable urban settings, establishing a new benchmark for future urban planning and development. The suggested interventions are intended to provide a significant contribution to the promotion of sustainable urban mobility in their particular areas and throughout the city, improving quality of life and lowering environmental impact. 

Author response: Thank you very much for your comments.

 

 Reviewer#2, Concern#2:

Abstract is written well and it clearly explains what actual problem is being targeted and what strategies the authors are apply to solve this problem. I suggest to keep it as it is.

Author response: Thank you very much for your positive comment.

 

 Reviewer#2, Concern#3:

Introduction looks fine and all the studies with references have been mentioned in this section. I think no amendments are required for this section too. Moreover, the section Background is written well.

Author response: Thank you very much for your comment. Please note that we have further improved the first sections of the paper by adding 31 new references

 

Reviewer#2, Concern#4:

In the section "Materials and Methods", the authors clearly explains that a preference survey was conductions and how this survey was conducted. This section is also fine. Put commas at the end of (1), (2) and a full stop at the end of (3).

Author response: Thank you for your remark.

Author action: Commas and full stop are included.

 

Reviewer#2, Concern#5:

The section "Results" and subsection "Descriptive Statistics" is quite interesting with graphs and explanation of the statistics calculated from the data.

Author response: Thank you very much for your comment.

 

Reviewer#2, Concern#6:

I think, "Conclusion" section must be shorten.

Author response: Thank you for your remark.

Author action: Conclusion has been edited and shortened by removing lines 862-881 and 899-915. 

 

Reviewer#2, Concern#7:

References are fine.

Author response: Thank you for your remark.

 

 Reviewer#2, Concern#8:

Generally speaking the manuscript has the potential to be published in Urban Science after very minor revision.

Author response: Thank you for all your valuable remarks.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of study is of great importance. The authors did a good job. The coherence of the paper and the originality a visible. The readability is also quite good. However, the article has several shortfalls.

1. The sample size is very small for SP study. If possible to get more data, would be a good option. How does the corrected data generalise with the studied population?

2. The map of the studied area would be a perfect addition to the methodology and importantly give the readers an overview of sthe tudied location.

3. the hypothetical bias related to the study is not explained as such studies ought to be. How it was dealt with should be equally stated in the work.

4. The discussion section needs to be improved for the novelty of the study. How do the current results reflect and compare with previous studies? Regional study comparisons should also be captured. These should be cited and referenced as necessary.

5. The references for such an important study should be improved, more than 15 studies (references) including intercontinental studies must be used in expounding the discussion section.

 

Author Response

Reviewer#3, Concern#1:

The subject of study is of great importance. The authors did a good job. The coherence of the paper and the originality a visible. The readability is also quite good. However, the article has several shortfalls.

Author response: Thank you for your remark.

 

Reviewer#3, Concern#2:

The sample size is very small for SP study. If possible to get more data, would be a good option. How does the corrected data generalise with the studied population?

Author response: Thank you for your remark.

Author action: We acknowledge the concern regarding the sample size for the stated preference approach. While we agree that a larger sample size would improve the robustness of the findings and their generalizability, logistical constraints prevented us from collecting additional responses during the study period. We discuss this limitation in lines 830-833. Moreover, to address this limitation, we carefully selected the participants to reflect the demographic and socio-economic diversity of the population in Attica, Greece, ensuring that the sample is representative of key characteristics relevant to mobility behavior.

 

Reviewer#3, Concern#3

The map of the studied area would be a perfect addition to the methodology and importantly give the readers an overview of the tudied location.

Author response: Thank you for your remark.

Author action: A map is included in the revised version of the paper in line 296.

 

Reviewer#3, Concern#4

the hypothetical bias related to the study is not explained as such studies ought to be. How it was dealt with should be equally stated in the work.

Author response: Thank you for your remark.

Author action: The hypothetical bias of the study has been commented in lines 814-817 and 846-848. Also, a new paragraph has been added to the Materials and Methods section, see lines 330-336.

 

Reviewer#3, Concern#5

The discussion section needs to be improved for the novelty of the study. How do the current results reflect and compare with previous studies? Regional study comparisons should also be captured. These should be cited and referenced as necessary.

Author response: Thank you for your remark.

Author action: Additional references regarding the specific subject are included in general as evident by the increased References list.

 

Reviewer#3, Concern#6

The references for such an important study should be improved, more than 15 studies (references) including intercontinental studies must be used in expanding the discussion section.

Author response: Thank you for your remark.

Author action: Based on your comment 31 additional references regarding the specific subject are included in the revised version of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors satisfactorily improved the paper. I have no more comments and suggest acceptance.