Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. I have reviewed the document carefully and would like to provide some constructive feedback. While I appreciate the effort that went into this study, I regret to inform you that I cannot recommend it for publication at this time. I believe that addressing the following suggestions can greatly improve the overall quality and impact of your work:

1. The introduction of the article can clearly state the research question and goal, as well as the significance and contribution of the research. At present, the introduction lacks critical analysis of the existing literature and gap identification.

2. The method section of the article can describe the process of literature search and selection in more detail, including the database used, search terms, search scope, inclusion/exclusion criteria, etc. At present, the methods section only provides some general information and lacks transparency and reproducibility.

3. The results of the article can organize and present the results of literature review more systematically, such as summarizing and comparing the viewpoints, methods, results and conclusions of different literatures by using tables, charts or other visual elements. Currently, the results section is only divided into paragraphs by topic, lacking a clear logical structure and key information highlighted.

4. The discussion section of the article allows for a more in-depth analysis of the implications and insights of the literature review, as well as the challenges and opportunities of transitioning to sustainable transportation. At present, the discussion part only briefly restates the results part, lacking the evaluation and explanation of the similarities and differences, advantages and disadvantages, consistency and differences among literatures.

5. The conclusion of the paper can more clearly summarize the main findings and contributions of the paper, and provide some concrete and feasible policy suggestions and future research directions. At present, the conclusion only reviews the purpose and method of the paper, and lacks reflection and prospect on the value and limitations of the paper.

6. In order to improve the quality of the article, some high-quality pictures should be added. Use images to provide more information to the reader, such as "Figure 2. Main categories of Intelligent transportation Systems and Figure 3. An example of a photovoltaic based electric vehicle charging parking lot "can be optimized."

7. Delete the subtitle of section 1: "1.1 Background".

8, please check and unify the font format of the full text title.

9. Some of the problems with alternative fuels are summarized in the last paragraph of section 5.1 and in table 2. Can you briefly summarize the future direction of the alternative fuel field?

I understand that incorporating these recommendations may require additional effort, but they are essential to improving the quality and impact of research. I appreciate your efforts and look forward to seeing improvements in your revised work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is no problem with the English of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, We would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude for your time, dedication, and invaluable insights in reviewing our paper. Your positive feedback and constructive comments were instrumental in improving the quality and relevance of our work. We are pleased to provide you a summary of the revisions that have been incorporated into the manuscript, highlighted in yellow.

Point 1: The introduction of the article can clearly state the research question and goal, as well as the significance and contribution of the research. At present, the introduction lacks critical analysis of the existing literature and gap identification.  Response 1:  Agreed. We have revised this part of the paper "1. Introduction", changing the numbering level of the sections "1.1 General considerations", which covers 4 aspects (climate change, social and health, economic and energy use), with a new section "1.1.3. Economic aspects" (line from 107 to 130), highlighting some key insights of transportation from an economic point of view.  In addition, we have added a new section "1.2. Contribution and objectives of the paper", in particular the line from 154 to 165.  Point 2: The method section of the article can describe the process of literature search and selection in more detail, including the database used, search terms, search scope, inclusion/exclusion criteria, etc. At present, the methods section only provides some general information and lacks transparency and reproducibility. Response 2:  Agreed. We have revised this part of the paper "2. Methodology", adding some relevant details of the whole phases of the approach, highlighted in yellow, as well as Figure 1.  The addition of a new keyword was used in the second phase, called “["governance" and "transport"]. Point 3: The results of the article can organize and present the results of literature review more systematically, such as summarizing and comparing the viewpoints, methods, results and conclusions of different literatures by using tables, charts or other visual elements. Currently, the results section is only divided into paragraphs by topic, lacking a clear logical structure and key information highlighted. The discussion section of the article allows for a more in-depth analysis of the implications and insights of the literature review, as well as the challenges and opportunities of transitioning to sustainable transportation. At present, the discussion part only briefly restates the results part, lacking the evaluation and explanation of the similarities and differences, advantages and disadvantages, consistency and differences among literatures. Response 3:  Thank you for highlighting this point.  The literature review framework has been designed to identify the key areas of interest in sustainable transportation through the implementation of a systematic literature review approach. The focus was on barriers to sustainable transportation, related research and development (R&D) efforts and potential policy implications. Please see the revised paper, which highlights further clarifications, particularly in the two sections "3. barriers against a sustainable transportation sector" and "4. research and development (R&D) efforts": -In section "3. Barriers against a sustainable transportation sector", a change in the title of sub-section "3.1. Governance and regulatory barriers" (line 240), highlighting additional details on governance and regulatory issues affecting the transition to sustainable transportation. Similarly, detailed explanations of the financial, organizational and social barriers were incorporated, highlighted in yellow. -In section "4. Research and development (R&D), added insightful aspects were introduced for alternative fuels (lines 387 to 398), public transportation (lines 428 to 438), eco-driving practices (lines 440 to 443, lines 452 to 463, and figure 2), connected autonomous vehicles (line 465 to 473), transportation infrastructure (line 516 to 531).  Point 4: The conclusion of the paper can more clearly summarize the main findings and contributions of the paper, and provide some concrete and feasible policy suggestions and future research directions. At present, the conclusion only reviews the purpose and method of the paper, and lacks reflection and prospect on the value and limitations of the paper. Response 4:  Thank you for pointing this out. Please see the revised paper, especially the line from 747 to 760, Which highlights the future perspectives toward sustainable transportation. Point 5: In order to improve the quality of the article, some high-quality pictures should be added. Use images to provide more information to the reader, such as "Figure 2. Main categories of Intelligent transportation Systems and Figure 3. An example of a photovoltaic based electric vehicle charging parking lot "can be optimized." Response 5:  Thank you for pointing this out. Please see the revised paper, in particular, eco-driving (figure 2 showing the practices of eco-driving), connected autonomous vehicles (figure 3 illustrating the link between automated vehicles, connected vehicles and connected automated vehicles), transportation infrastructure (figure 4 demonstrating some examples of three classes of intelligent transportation systems) and shared transportation systems (figure 6 showing technologies for shared mobility). Point 6: Delete the subtitle of section 1: "1.1 Background". Response 6:  Agreed. Please see the revised paper. Point 7: please check and unify the font format of the full text title. Response 7:  Agreed. Please see the revised paper. Point 8: Some of the problems with alternative fuels are summarized in the last paragraph of section 5.1 and in table 2. Can you briefly summarize the future direction of the alternative fuel field? Response 8:  Thank you for pointing this out. Please see the revised paper in the section “4.1. Alternative fuels”, especially the line from 387 to 398.

We believe these revisions have enhanced the overall quality of our paper. Your thoughtful feedback has been instrumental in helping us refine our work and make it more valuable to the academic community.

 

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The introduction is relatively weak, and the structure of this part is not complete. I suggest deleting the tier2 heading 1.1 and expanding the first part.

2. In line 85-87, it has been mentioned that different policies have different effects on public health and social equity. The policies mentioned in the paper and the impacts they have led to, remain unclear through out the text. I think it will be better if you clearly sort out what policies should be adopted, and what are the relevant effects.

3. There is serial number error in part 4.3. “4.3 Organizational barriers” should be changed to “4.4 Organizational barriers”,  please check serial number of the title.

4. In figure 2, the classification of infrastructure-based ITS and vehicle-based ITS is obscure. I wonder if you could describe these two type of systems more clearly so as to tell the difference between them easily.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, We would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude for your time, dedication, and invaluable insights in reviewing our paper. Your positive feedback and constructive comments were instrumental in improving the quality and relevance of our work. We are pleased to provide you a summary of the revisions that have been incorporated into the manuscript, highlighted in yellow.

Point 1: The introduction is relatively weak, and the structure of this part is not complete. I suggest deleting the tier2 heading 1.1 and expanding the first part.  Response 1:  Thank you for pointing this out. The introduction was improved as per suggestion. Please see the revised paper.  Point 2: In line 85-87, it has been mentioned that different policies have different effects on public health and social equity. The policies mentioned in the paper and the impacts they have led to, remain unclear through out the text. I think it will be better if you clearly sort out what policies should be adopted, and what are the relevant effects. Response 2:  Agreed. We revised and improved this subsection of the paper “2.2. Social and health aspects”, especially the line from 84 to 88.  Point 3: There is serial number error in part 4.3. “4.3 Organizational barriers” should be changed to “4.4 Organizational barriers”,  please check serial number of the title. Response 3:  Thank you for pointing this out. Please see the revised paper. Point 4: In figure 2, the classification of infrastructure-based ITS and vehicle-based ITS is obscure. I wonder if you could describe these two type of systems more clearly so as to tell the difference between them easily. Response 4:  Agreed. We have made the difference clearer. Please refer to "5.2.4. Transportation Infrastructure", especially the line from 516 to 531. We also add Figure 4, which shows examples of three classes of intelligent transportation systems.

We believe these revisions have enhanced the overall quality of our paper. Your thoughtful feedback has been instrumental in helping us refine our work and make it more valuable to the academic community.

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am impressed by this review article. You have carefully documented your processes, and you have posted and searched almost all the key elements. As a public health person, I would like more on that subject. But frankly, there's no room for it because the paper has a big hole in it, which is a failure to call out the key overarching role of political and corporate leaders who are tap dancing around what needs to be done. 

They are all waiting for miraculous new technologies and the other country  to change their policies. No one wants to be the first to reduce their economic output and anger their populations. I would like you to include a section of maybe 2-3 paragraphs. Here are several citations as examples, but there are hundreds. International representation in this, so do reach out to to key countries. None of what you want to accomplish will happen unless the politics permits it. One could write an entire review paper on the politics of this. I'm not looking fro that. I want it acknowledged.

AManda Root , Laurie Schintler & KEnneth Button (2000) Women,
travel and the idea of 'sustainable transport', Transport Reviews, 20:3, 369-383, DOI:10.1080/014416400412850

Elizabeth Deakin, (2001) Sustainable Development and Sustainable Transportation: Strategies for Economic  Prosperity, Environmental Quality, and Equity Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0m1047xc
UC Berkeley IURD Working Paper Series.

Drive Clean Indiana. (2020) Opinion. Sustainable Transportation Transcends Partisan Politics.   https://www.fuelsfix.com/2020/11/opinion-benefits-of-sustainable-transportation-transcend-partisan-politics/

 

   

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude for your time, dedication, and invaluable insights in reviewing our paper. Your positive feedback and constructive comments were instrumental in improving the quality and relevance of our work.

We fully acknowledge your insights regarding the pivotal roles played by policymakers and corporate leaders in steering and shaping sustainable transportation. Your valuable recommendations and suggestions have been thoughtfully reviewed and implemented, while also considering the paper's primary focus, the reference period spanning from 2013 to 2023, and the feedback from other reviewers. We are pleased to provide you a summary of the revisions that have been incorporated into the manuscript:

• Change the numbering level of sub-section "1.1. General considerations", which covers 4 aspects (climate change, social and health, economics and energy use), to the Introduction section, and add a new part of sub-section "1.1.3. Economic aspects", which highlights some relevant aspects of transportation from an economic point of view.
• A new section was added to the introduction "1.2 Contribution and objectives of the paper", in particular the lines from 154 to 165.
• A new keyword was added for the second phase, called "["governance" and "transport"] (line 202).
• Additional clarifications were incorporated on the three phases of the SLR approach, highlighted in yellow, while Figure 1 was updated.
• Change of sub-title “4.1. Regulatory barriers” to “4.1. Governance and regulatory barriers” (line 240), to be inclusive and representative of the stakeholders and processes involved. The term “governance” and regulatory issue is also included in line 238 as one of the main barriers categories.
• Addition of two specifically related paragraphs, highlighting the role of policy makers and corporate leaders, as well as their field of action and possible impact (lines 258 to 275 and 283 to 289).
• Additional clarifications were provided concerning financial, organizational and social barriers, highlighted in yellow.
• Additional meaningful insights into innovation advances related to section "4. Research and development (R&D) efforts" were incorporated to cover alternative fuels (lines 387 to 398), public transportation (lines 428 to 438), eco-driving practices (lines 440 to 443, lines 452 to 463, and Figure 2), connected autonomous vehicles (lines 465 to 473), transportation infrastructure (lines 516 to 531).
• Addition of new Figures: Figure 2 shows the practices of eco-driving, Figure 3 illustrates the link between automated vehicles, connected vehicles and connected automated vehicles, Figure 4 demonstrates some examples of three classes of intelligent transportation systems, and Figure 6 shows technologies for shared mobility.
• Addition of future perspectives on the sustainable transportation sector, to the conclusion section (line from 747 to 760).
• Addition of references: 13 references from the period considered in this review i.e. 2013 to 2023 have been added as applicable:                        1/OECD, Transport Bridging Divides. 2020. 80                                        2/Forum, I.T., ITF Transport Outlook 2023. 2023                                   3/Forward, S., et al., Challenges and barriers for a sustainable transport system-state of the art report. 2014                                                       4/Acuto, M., City Leadership in Global Governance. Global Governance, 2013. 19(3): p. 481-498                                                                              5/Khan, J., What role for network governance in urban low carbon transitions? Journal of Cleaner Production, 2013. 50: p. 133-139.    6/Schwedes, O., V. Riedel, and K. Dziekan, Project planning vs. strategic planning: Promoting a different perspective for sustainable transport policy in European R&D projects. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 2017. 5(1): p. 31-37.                                                                                                   7/Serafeim, G., Social-impact efforts that create real value. Harvard Business Review, 2020. 98(5): p. 38-48                                                8/Kalghatgi, G., Development of Fuel/Engine Systems—The Way Forward to Sustainable Transport. Engineering, 2019. 5(3): p. 510- 518.                     9/Yang, H. and L. Fulton, Future Electric Vehicle Production in the United States and Europe–Will It Be Enough? 2023                                       10/Fafoutellis, P., E.G. Mantouka, and E.I. Vlahogianni, Eco-Driving and Its Impacts on Fuel Efficiency: An Overview of Technologies and Data-Driven Methods. Sustainability, 2021. 13(1): p. 226                                           11/Grosso, R., C. Dougherty, and A. Ooms, Connected & Automated Vehicle Working Group Strategic Plan. 2021.                                            12/Zhao, L. and Y. Jia, Intelligent transportation system for sustainable environment in smart cities. International Journal of Electrical Engineering & Education. 0(0): p. 0020720920983503                                                  13/SAE, Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Shared Mobility and Enabling Technologies. 2018, SAE International Warrendale, Pennsylvania, USA.

We believe these revisions have enhanced the overall quality of our paper. Your thoughtful feedback has been instrumental in helping us refine our work and make it more valuable to the academic community.

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made good revisions based on their opinions, improved thequality of the manuscript, and made revisions according to the correspondingrequirements. The revised manuscript has met the publication standards and jsconsidered suitable for publication in the journal.