Perception of the Impacts of Urban Mobility Interventions in the Niterói Oceanic Region, Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewer thanks you for the article: “Perception of the Impacts of Urban Mobility Interventions in the Niterói Oceanic Region – Brazil” developed by: José Augusto Paixão Gomes; Orlando Celso Longo; Luciane Ferreira Alcoforado; Andre Luiz Azevedo Guedes

The publication is distinguished by its reference to its own research with noticeable practical experience. The adopted and implemented structure of publications is well suited to the objective, allowing a wide range of conclusions to be drawn. The high value of the work lies in the efficient development of the outline of the theoretical background in combination with practical issues, and above all in the combination of theory and practice. As a result, the implementation of the created methodological workshop in the selection of own research is visible.

The work requires corrections and additions:

27 Enter a semicolon ";" before the keyword "Urban traffic". And remove the dot "."

135 The title of subsection "Study 3eig" is better to modify. This abbreviation has also other explanations. It can be confusing.

146 Remove dash and do not use bold: CVT’s Direct Influence Area; Source: AGRAR / 2014.

167 – 168 Remove dash and do not use bold: Current connection (prior to the construction of the Cafubá-Charitas tunnel) between the Oceanic Region and the central areas of Niterói and Rio de Janeiro. Source: SINERGIA, 2014.

169 – 179 I propose that the content of Chapter 2.2 should be amended. From this content the reader does not receive direct or indirect knowledge.

I propose to replace subsection 2.2 as "Related Work" and to indicate the specific related works referred to as "These articles were read in full and 56 articles were used".

Indicate work on e.g. selected environmental protection equipment in transport infrastructure (air protection, climate (microclimate) shaping purposes, e.g.: city greenery, forest protection strips, combatting noise - noise barriers (acoustic screens, noise barriers), strategic noise maps.

I propose to refer in the publication to the strategic noise maps in perception of the Impacts of Urban Mobility Interventions in the Niterói Oceanic Region - Brazil.

I believe that strategic noise maps will enrich publications and the readership. Think about it.

196 – 197 Remove dash: Impacts considered in the survey, its conceptualization and the scenario defined when planning the project.

254 Remove dash: Figure 3. Degree of perception of CVT impacts.

259 Remove dash: Table 3. Comparison between the scenario foreseen for CVT impacts and the research result.

259 – 260 In Table 3 - explain directly below the table the meaning of red and black arrows.

318 – 319 Remove dash: Tree of classification of the perception about the change in the standard of living of residents of Niterói after the implementation of the CVT. Estimated accuracy of 93%.

335 – 336 Remove dash: Tree of classification of the perception about the change in urban mobility after the implantation of the CVT. Estimated accuracy of 89%.

In Chapter 3 "Results and discussion", reference should be made to the research literature - to other research papers. Do the authors agree or disagree with the theses contained in other works. Are there any controversies - pay attention, see this element. The discussion should be supplemented by these elements.

In Chapter 4 "Conclusion" - It is worth indicating which element of research will be done in the future. Then what limitations were encountered in the course of the research and how it is worth to solve them.

This completes the review.

Kind regards,

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Here we are presenting our explanations for the comments received, which we agree with all. We are also attaching a version of the paper with the highlighted changes since we have kept Word in change tracking mode.

 

We take this opportunity to thank you for the time and effort you have taken to review our paper. The comments received undoubtedly improved the quality and level of the paper understanding.

 

We hope this new version is more suitable for publication.

 

Regards,

 

The authors

 

 

Point 1 - 27 Enter a semicolon ";" before the keyword "Urban traffic". And remove the dot "."

We fixed this error.

 

Point 2 - 135 The title of subsection "Study 3eig" is better to modify. This abbreviation has also other explanations. It can be confusing.

We fixed this error. The correct text is "Study area"

 

Point 3 - 146 Remove dash and do not use bold: CVT’s Direct Influence Area; Source: AGRAR / 2014.

We fixed this error.

 

Point 4 - 167 – 168 Remove dash and do not use bold: Current connection (prior to the construction of the Cafubá-Charitas tunnel) between the Oceanic Region and the central areas of Niterói and Rio de Janeiro. Source: SINERGIA, 2014.

We fixed this error.

 

Point 5 - 169 – 179 I propose that the content of Chapter 2.2 should be amended. From this content the reader does not receive direct or indirect knowledge. I propose to replace subsection 2.2 as "Related Work" and to indicate the specific related works referred to as "These articles were read in full and 56 articles were used". Indicate work on e.g. selected environmental protection equipment in transport infrastructure (air protection, climate (microclimate) shaping purposes, e.g.: city greenery, forest protection strips, combatting noise - noise barriers (acoustic screens, noise barriers), strategic noise maps. I propose to refer in the publication to the strategic noise maps in perception of the Impacts of Urban Mobility Interventions in the Niterói Oceanic Region - Brazil. I believe that strategic noise maps will enrich publications and the readership. Think about it.

We have inserted a table showing the works used for each theme. Regarding strategic noise maps, it was not possible to access these maps. This material is also not present in the documents issued during the impact assessment carried out at the project planning stage.

 

Point 6 - 196 – 197 Remove dash: Impacts considered in the survey, its  conceptualization and the scenario defined when planning the project.

We fixed this error.

 

Point 7 - 254 Remove dash: Figure 3. Degree of perception of CVT impacts.

We fixed this error.

 

Point 8 - 259 Remove dash: Table 3. Comparison between the scenario foreseen for CVT impacts and the research result.

We fixed this error.

 

Point 9 - 259 – 260 In Table 3 - explain directly below the table the meaning of red and black arrows.

We insert this explanation.

 

Point 10 - 318 – 319 Remove dash: Tree of classification of the perception about the change in the standard of living of residents of Niterói after the implementation of the CVT. Estimated accuracy of 93%.

We fixed this error.

 

Point 11 - 335 – 336 Remove dash: Tree of classification of the perception about the change in urban mobility after the implantation of the CVT. Estimated accuracy of 89%.

We fixed this error.

 

Point 12 - In Chapter 3 "Results and discussion", reference should be made to the research literature - to other research papers. Do the authors agree or disagree with the theses contained in other works. Are there any controversies - pay attention, see this element. The discussion should be supplemented by these elements.

We broaden the discussion and refer to the literature. In this section, we also better address the contribution of the results from the comparative analysis carried out.

Point 13 - In Chapter 4 "Conclusion" - It is worth indicating which element of research will be done in the future. Then what limitations were encountered in the course of the research and how it is worth to solve them.

We inserted the limitations of the research and what we evaluated as a possible outcome.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Straightforward survey design and analysis based study.  The reviewer has several major concerns regarding the data and results presented.  They are:

1. There is no description provided on the ethical approval of the survey. Was it considered during the survey design?
2. The background/motivation needs more work.  In this current format, it is not that compelling.
3. [Line: 206] What do you mean by heating of commercial and service activities?
4. [Lines: 209-218] How were these variables considered? In other words, what is the rationale behind considering these variables?
5. [Table 3] X3 to X6 have contradicting results in the predicted scenario and survey result? Is there any specific reason behind this?
6. All the figures have some sort of issues.  Some have legends not in the English language, some have incorrect axis labels, etc.
7. The writing needs significant improvement.  There are hundreds of proof-reading errors.  References are not formatted correctly either.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Here we are presenting our explanations for the comments received, which we agree with all. We are also attaching a version of the paper with the highlighted changes since we have kept Word in change tracking mode.

 

We take this opportunity to thank you for the time and effort you have taken to review our paper. The comments received undoubtedly improved the quality and level of the paper understanding.

 

We hope this new version is more suitable for publication.

 

Regards,

 

The authors

 

 

 

Point 1. There is no description provided on the ethical approval of the survey. Was it considered during the survey design?

In Brazil, research such as that carried out in this article does not need approval from the Research Ethics Committee. However, this research was submitted to and approved by the Graduate Program Council to which we are linked.

Point 2. The background/motivation needs more work. In this current format, it is not that compelling.

We expanded the introduction, reformulated the presentation of the objective, and, based on this and the results obtained, we presented the relevance of the work.

Point 3. [Line: 206] What do you mean by heating of commercial and service activities?

We mistakenly used a Brazilian idiomatic expression. The correct expression is " increase of commercial and service activities". We fixed this error.

Point 4. [Lines: 209-218] How were these variables considered? In other words, what is the rationale behind considering these variables?

Variables P1 a P4 refer to demographic issues, variable Xo refers to the frequency of use of the CVT and variables X1 a X18 refer to the impacts anticipated in the project's planning phase. Variables X1 a  X9 identify the occurrence of a certain impact (yes / no) and variables X10 a  X18 identify whether the impact is positive or negative. We insert this information in the article

Point 5. [Table 3] X3 to X6 have contradicting results in the predicted scenario and survey result? Is there any specific reason behind this?

We expanded the discussion to address these aspects

Point 6. All the figures have some sort of issues. Some have legends not in the English language, some have incorrect axis labels, etc.  and    Point 7. The writing needs significant improvement. There are hundreds of proof-reading errors. References are not formatted correctly either.

We apologize. We reviewed the entire text to correct these errors. Also, in some sections, we made changes in the way of presenting information and judgments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper entitled "Perception of the impact of urban mobility interventions in the Niteroi oceanic region-Brazil" was well written to identify the perception of the population directly affected by the CVT. 

There are several comments for the paper such as:

1. The objective of the research should be presented more specifically including the significance of the research.
2. The scope of the work should be presented in terms of time, space, or survey respondents.
3. The number of respondents is 350. It would be great to show the 350 is enough to insist the conclusion.
4. It would also be great to present a sampling method that the authors adopted for the study.
5. It would be great to show how the results of the study could be utilized or what the significance of the study is in relation to the results of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Here we are presenting our explanations for the comments received, which we agree with all. We are also attaching a version of the paper with the highlighted changes since we have kept Word in change tracking mode.

 

We take this opportunity to thank you for the time and effort you have taken to review our paper. The comments received undoubtedly improved the quality and level of the paper understanding.

 

We hope this new version is more suitable for publication.

 

Regards,

 

The authors

 

Point 1. The objective of the research should be presented more specifically including the significance of the research

We expanded the introduction, reformulated the presentation of the objective, and, based on this and the results obtained, we presented the relevance of the work.

Point 2. The scope of the work should be presented in terms of time, space, or survey respondents.

We characterize according to the area covered and number of inhabitants

Point 3. The number of respondents is 350. It would be great to show the 350 is enough to insist the conclusion, and   Point 4. It would also be great to present a sampling method that the authors adopted for the study.

Na seção “2.4. Survey” we insert the following text:

To determine the sample size, we used Equation 1 (Gil, 2007)

Where

n = sample size

θ = Confidence level chosen, expressed as the number of standard deviations

p  =Percentage with which the phenomenon occurs.

q = Supplementary percentage (100 - p).

e = Maximum allowed sample error

 

The relationship between p and q represents the degree of homogeneity of the population. Usually, an 80/20 ratio is used for homogeneous populations and 50/50 for heterogeneous populations. To consider the most unfavorable case, we used the 50/50 ratio. Also, we established a 95% confidence level (two standard deviations) and a maximum allowed sample error of 10%. Due to these values, the minimum sample size must be 96, which is smaller than the one used (350).

 

Point 5.  It would be great to show how the results of the study could be utilized or what the significance of the study is in relation to the results of the study.

Throughout section “3. Results and discussion ”we inserted new texts in which we expanded the discussion, referred to the researched literature, and presented contributions to the success of similar undertakings based on the results obtained.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Fig. 1 still has a very low resolution.

[Lines 275-278] The reviewer wanted to know why those variables are chosen?  The authors provided some description of the variables; however, it doesn't answer the question.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Dear Reviewer,

 

Here we are presenting our explanations for the comments received, which we agree with all. We are also attaching a version of the paper with the highlighted changes since we have kept Word in change tracking mode.

 

We take this opportunity to thank you for the time and effort you have taken to review our paper. The comments received undoubtedly improved the quality and level of the paper understanding.

 

We hope this new version is more suitable for publication.

 

Regards,

 

The authors

 

Point 1. Due to the "Moderate English changes required" recommendation, we have decided that we will hire the MDPI English Editing Services

Point 2. Fig. 1 still has a very low resolution.

We agree. We replaced the Figure 1 with another one with an appropriate resolution. We also increased the resolution of Figure 2.

Point 3. [Lines 275-278] The reviewer wanted to know why those variables are chosen?  The authors provided some description of the variables; however, it doesn't answer the question.

We agree. We decided to rewrite the item "2.5. Data analysis" to consider these aspects and provide additional information.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

...

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.