Air Quality and Active Transportation Modes: A Spatiotemporal Concurrence Analysis in Guadalajara, Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, I found the paper is interesting. Unfortunately, it is not written with a good flow of information. There are so much unnecessary information in the Introduction and Methodology section. The paper is more like a report rather than a scientific paper. The authors really need to restructure the manuscript and present this in a good flow of information before it can be accepted for publication.

Detail comment

1. Abstract: The information from the results in the abstract is too general. What the author means by “Results show that the number of cyclists and BRT passengers exposed to poor air quality episodes is considerable in absolute terms, while it is marginal when compared to the total number of users exposed to better air quality categories in the study area”? Please support the “main finding” in the abstract with data.
2. The authors need to restructure their introduction with good paragraphing and flow of introduction. One paragraph should have one main point of information.
3. The authors should include related problem statements and gaps they want to fulfil in the study. The current Introduction consists of too much general information.
4. Remove Table 1 from the Introduction.
5. Line 85-100: Include information related to Methodology in the Methodology section.
6. Line 101: I do not understand why the authors mention on “A priori..’ in the Introduction.
7. Section 2.1 is about “The Guadalajara Metropolitan Area” but the content of this section is beyond the title of this section. Table 2. I don’t think this table is needed in this section.
8. The methodology is too long and consists of unnecessary information.
9. The discussion of the manuscript does not base on the results presented in this study.
10. The conclusion does not fully answer the objective of this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The novelty of the research should be highlighted in the abstract and introduction.
A flowchart should be included in the introduction that clarifies the steps of the research conducted.
It is necessary to include the sources of the cartographies used.
The manuscript as a whole is lacking in references, especially in the part describing the general mobility and environmental effects and possible solutions; therefore the following research works should be read

1) Lejda, K., Mądziel, M., Siedlecka, S., & Zielińska, E. (2017). The future of public transport in light of solutions for sustainable transport development. Zeszyty Naukowe. Transport/Politechnika Śląska.

2)Alemdar, K. D., Kaya, Ö., Canale, A., Çodur, M. Y., & Campisi, T. (2021). Evaluation of Air Quality Index by Spatial Analysis Depending on Vehicle Traffic during the COVID-19 Outbreak in Turkey. Energies, 14(18), 5729.

3)Qazi, M. Y. S., Niazi, M. H. K., & Niazi, A. R. K. (2021). Environmental and Social Challenges for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Peshawar, Using Culture as a Moderator: An Empirical Study in Peshawar Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 15.

Which sources were considered in order to assess the concentrations? It is not clear from the paragraphs whether the measurements were made from real time stations located near the roads or in other contexts.
The various acronyms should be included in an expanded form when they appear for the first time in the manuscript.
Have climatic and wind variations been considered when estimating concentrations?
Can the methodology be applied to other metropolitan contexts?
It has been noted that there are many limitations as described in the concluding section and the authors are therefore asked to highlight innovative aspects of the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the manuscript based on my suggestion.

Author Response

December 2, 2021

Dear reviewer 1,

Thank you for your helpful previous review. Your suggestions have greatly improved the paper. In this communication, I detail the changes that have been made in the “sustainability-1462745 – Round2.docx” file. The use of the “Track Changes” function in Microsoft Word makes the differences easily visible. The changes marked on the first round were accepted, thus only the second-round changes are visible.

The answers (A) follow the reviewer’s comments (RC). The adjustments refer to lines of the file before changes’ acceptance.

Comments

RC1.1: The authors have improved the manuscript based on my suggestion.

A1.1: Thank you again for your previous suggestions. They greatly improved the paper.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

the text still has numerous grammatical errors and some formatting mistakes.
Images should be inserted in high resolution
The caption of figure 1 should be revised and inserted a legend to accompany the image as well as in figure 2 and 3
The graphs in figure 4 should be more commented in the light of the results obtained, motivating for example the peaks of value reached 

Author Response

December 2, 2021

Dear reviewer 2,

Thank you for your helpful review. Your suggestions have greatly improved the paper. In this communication, I detail the changes that have been made in the “sustainability-1462745 – Round2.docx” file. The use of the “Track Changes” function in Microsoft Word makes the differences easily visible. The changes marked on the first round were accepted, thus only the second-round changes are visible.

The answers (A) follow the reviewer’s suggestion (RS). The adjustments refer to lines of the file before changes’ acceptance.

RS2.1: The text still has numerous grammatical errors and some formatting mistakes

A2.1:  Spelling and grammatical errors were corrected throughout the text.

RS2.2: Images should be inserted in high resolution.

A2.2: All images were uploaded with 300 dpi resolution and 1653 X 1653 pixels with 24 bits, as required by the journal’s Instructions for Authors: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/journal/sustainability/instructions#figures

RS2.3: The caption of figure 1 should be revised and inserted a legend to accompany the image as well as in figures 2 and 3.

A2.3: The figure 1 caption was modified to “Figure 1. Air quality monitoring stations and active modes stations in the Guadalajara Metropolitan.” (lines 121-122). Figures 1 and 2 already included a legend inside the map area. A legend was added for Figure 3 (line 268).

RS2.4: The graphs in figure 4 should be more commented in the light of the results obtained, motivating for example the peaks of value reached 

A2.4: Figure 4 included both active modes (4a and 4b) and air quality analyses (4c and 4d). The pick values of the former were commented in section “4.1 Active mode data management” (lines 319-321 and 323). The latter’s pick values were commented in section “4.2 Allocation of episodes by AQI category” (lines 355-356). Table 3 also included values (line 361).

Please, let me know if we need to change anything else to improve the paper.

Kind regards,

Gabriela Ochoa-Covarrubias

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf