Sustainable Mobility as a Service: Dynamic Models for Agenda 2030 Policies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please, check the paper for minor typos (e.g., page 3, line 122 ‘Itis’ should be ‘It is’; page 14, line 582 ‘residues’ should be ‘residuals’)

Page 5: I suggest moving figure 2 before the sentence “The Goals … [19,20]”

Page 11, line 434: please, clarify if omega is only for transit system

Page 11, figure 3: please, indicate omega_s, omega_d, omega_ae in figure 3

Page 11, line 457: the element on the left of the equation should be “g_k”

Page 12, line 482: I suggest using a bullet point

Page 12, eq. 3.4: define beta

Page 13, equation 3.10: define symbol xi

Page 15, lines 645-654: check the symbol teta

Page 17, line 751: I suggest using a bullet point

Page 18, line 809: I suggest using a bullet point

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In general

The author touches on an important and interesting topic. However, this manuscript is written more like an essay than a scientific article. Based on the manuscript, it is difficult to understand the shortcomings of the previous work, as well as the purpose and novelty of the results in this manuscript. The manuscript should contain five sections: introduction, methods, results, discussion and conclusions. This construction will help other researchers understand the purpose and novelty of this manuscript.

In specific

When the following abbreviations: GDP, ICT technologies, GHG, PMx, etc. appear for the first time, the full name should be given.

There is no logic between the sentence (lines 34-35) and the sentence (lines 36-37).According to these two sentences, road transport accounts for 73% of CO2 emissions and about 25% of air pollution caused by particulate matter in the transport sector. The author must provide one reference for CO2 emissions and particulate air pollution.

Lines 59-62. A critical analysis of the "extensive literature" should be presented in detail.

Lines 79-84. The author cites four articles that are directly related to the stated topic. However, a critical analysis of these articles is not presented. Perhaps the introduction should begin with an analysis of these articles.

Lines 101-106. The “novelty of the paper” (see line 101) cannot be determined due to the lack of scientific analysis in the introduction.

Line 356. Author noted that “Today the most advanced synthesis is the MaaS, as seen in the introduction”. If there is a need to refer to previously stated information, then the exact reference should be indicated. Usually this technique is not used in a scientific article.

Lines 356-357. Author also noted that “Various definitions have been given of MaaS [27] and various experiments are underway”. Why was this information not detailed in the introduction?

Lines 395-396. The author lists four technologies and provides seven references. It is not clear in which reference which technology was analyzed.

Lines 397-415. The author uses a popular science style of presentation.

Lines 395-415. These seven references (i.e., [30–36]) are subject to critical analysis in this manuscript.

Lines 420-421. Cascetta 2013. Cascetta is not the only author of the reference [37].

Lines 583-588. The author noted “The scientific literature has proposed various models to study…” However, there are no references in this paragraph.

Lines 874-910. The discussion section should contain a comparative analysis of the results of similar studies with the results of the author in the current manuscript.

Lines 920-921. The author is critical of his own research, which is an excellent feature for a scientist.

Author Response

Pleae see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In general

There is moderate progress in the new version of the manuscript. However, due to the lack of an introduction, it is very difficult to understand the novelty of this manuscript. The background must be described in order to appreciate the novelty of this manuscript.

In specific

Lines 68- 74. Specifying geographic locations for links [5-7] is not an essential description of the essence of MaaS.

Lines 79-84 (old version). The author cites four articles that are directly related to the stated topic. However, a critical analysis of these articles is not presented. Perhaps the introduction should begin with an analysis of these articles. This remark was ignored.

Lines 79-84 (old version). “The theme becomes to identify the indicators of Agenda 2030 that require the use of the TSM in order to verify the policies that you want to implement. It emerges that the availability of advanced modeling tools is essential to be able to verify the results of public policies, both for goals on which MaaS impacts directly and for goals on which it indirectly impacts. The MaaS evolved in the TSM field, which allows to study the impacts, is called Sustainable MaaS, SmaaS [3–7]”.

Lines 121-127. The authors provide three areas of novelty. However, the above introduction does not allow us to appreciate these three areas of novelty.

(1)   Lines 49-54, “…in the identification of the Agenda 2030”.

The following sentences “…The economic, social and environmental impacts are the founding elements for a sustainable development strategy, defined starting from the Brundtland report [3] and specified by Agenda 2030. [4]. The policies that can be pursued to a sustainable development, concern interventions on vehicles, material and immaterial infrastructures and governance, with the aim of enhancing the positive (economic and social) impacts, while reducing the negative (environmental) ones…” contain only a general explanation of the “2030 Agenda.

      Linea 93-97. The following sentences “The theme becomes to identify the indicators of Agenda 2030 that require the use of the TSM in order to verify the policies that you want to implement. It emerges that the availability of advanced modeling tools is essential to be able to verify the results of public policies, both for goals on which MaaS impacts directly and for goals on which it indirectly impacts…” contain also only a general explanation of the “2030 Agenda.

      Lines  105-106. It was written: “After a brief review of the main characteristics of MaaS, the goals of Agenda 2030, on which the policies related to the MaaS impact, are recalled…”. However, there was no "... a brief review" in the introduction.

(2)   Line 123. “dynamic model”. The introduction does not contain this term.

(3)   Lines 126. “dynamic model”. The introduction does not contain this term.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form.

Author Response

Both Reviewers accepted the previous version