Enhancing Road Safety Decision-Making through Analysis of Youth Survey Data: A Descriptive Statistical Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents the results of a youth survey of road safety perceptions and practice in Morocco. The topic is of interest, especially given the substantial number of youth involved in traffic fatalities globally. However, the paper may benefit from substantial revision to make the survey findings more applicable to a wide audience. In revising the paper, the authors may consider the following suggestions:

1. The literature review is perhaps overly broad and adds unnecessary length to a paper that would benefit from greater discussion of its methods and the implications of its results. To improve the literature review, the authors may consider cutting most of the content from lines 76 to line 113, as this general overview of road safety practice has little relevance to the actual methods used in the paper. The authors may also consider cutting the content from lines 173-179 and 182-188. If the authors cut this content, the literature review would likely need to be reorganized. My suggestion would be to present the topics related to the UN and WHO first, especially with an overview of the UN's road safety strategies (https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2020/09/road_safety_strategy_booklet.pdf). Then present the overview of Morocco's safety statistics, and then discuss Morocco's road safety strategy. Consider highlighting any actual recommendations that are included in Morocco's road safety strategy. Then present the research on the importance of youth contributions and perhaps include some references to the Vision for Youth movement (https://www.visionzeroforyouth.org/) and some research of modal affordance (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02198/full) to tie the importance of youth perspectives back to road safety strategies.

2. Readers may benefit from an enhanced discussion of the survey design. For example, the two paragraphs between lines 238-248 are unnecessary. Instead, the authors may consider providing any theoretical bases for the questions asked in the survey (i.e., were questions based on elements of the national safety strategy?), providing examples of questions (e.g., "Have you ever been involved in a crash?"), and improving the presentation of the survey results to make the findings more easily understood by readers. Table 1 does not actually list gender, and the explanations for some items are quite vague. What did the researchers mean by "57% stated that they fully comprehend it [the road safety agency's role]"? Are you certain that the youth comprehend what this agency does? Seeing the questions listed out in the Appendix may give readers a better sense of the validity of the findings. The items shown in Figure 5 are also not clear. What was being measured?

3. While the survey findings are useful, readers may be left to wonder if the youth's suggestions shown in Table 4 are of practical value. The authors assert that the suggestions are important, but no comparison is made to either the countermeasures listed in the national safety strategy (if any are listed) or to the UN strategies (linked above). Consider adding an additional section to section 5 to further emphasize why the results of the survey are important and how they can actually improve policymaking and road safety. This revision to the paper would also help readers understand which suggestions may be more valuable; the research literature generally indicates, for example, that raising awareness and driver education are less effective than reducing speeds and improving infrastructure, but the listed suggestions provide no insights into efficacy.

4. Other suggestions include:
a) Update the appendix with highlights from comment 3 above after revisions.
b) Line 29 - mobility itself is not a negative.
c) Line 56 and 162 - lack of seat belt or helmet do not cause crashes; they can only increase severity if a crash occurs.
d) Line 64 - reverse the order of the words "statistics descriptive."
e) Lines 65-69 and 329-333 - check and revise the punctuation on lists.
f) Line 146 - remove the word "impressive."
g) What does the sentence starting on line 150 mean? Please clarify.
h) Check the paper for consistency of acronym use (e.g., with UN).
i) Figure 4 seems to have several errors: The type of questions in B cuts off after "and," and the type of questions for E is a copy of C.
j) Line 288 - consider deleting this first sentence and rewriting this whole paragraph to be clearer.
k) Check Table 4 for consistency of capitalization. Also, what does sustainability have to do with the traffic safety topic?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in this paper is generally easy to understand, but I have highlighted some suggestions to improve it under comment 4.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper's content suits the journal aim. The following comments are recommended for the authors:

1_ Please elaborate further on the objective of the study. Why the focus was put on youth. Albeit rational, it needs enhancement.

2_ Please include study limitations, future prospects and research directions.

3_ Did you make any investigation about the pavement condition status on the incident rate? For instance, the presence of distresses, poor skid resistance, etc. have an impact on drivers' safety. Please elaborate.

4_ Please include more recent references from the period 2022-2023.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate check is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is really interesting - without a doubt, improving the safety of young road users is important and valuable. However, the paper has some limitations.

Section 2 (Literature review) is overly long - but it misses the important element: stating the objective of the study and its novelty (how does it differ from previous studies, how does it extend the state-of-the-art?).

In contrast, section 3 (Materials and Methods) should not introduce any additional references - all these should be mentioned in section 2.

And the final question: how were the questionnaire topics defined? Why did authors choose such questions? Is there any background for this selection, is it clear that they are related to the required safety impacts? These elements need to be clearly explained and discussed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Thank you to the authors for the revisions made to the paper. Several of my previous comments have been sufficiently impressed. However, my major concern with the paper remains with the applicability. While the authors have added some discussion of the National Road Safety Strategy to the literature review and to the discussion section, I am still concerned that the link between the findings and claims like "This discussion emphasizes the significance of youth engagement in decision-making processes related to road safety in Morocco, based on an analysis of almost 300 youth suggestions." (page 14, line 370). The study shows what some youth believe is needed and something of what they know about road safety, but there is insufficient evidence about how this input will actually benefit road safety in Morocco. To address this shortcoming the authors may consider adding an actual list of safety strategies or countermeasures suggested in the National Safety Strategy if they exist (my apologies, but it does not appear that the relevant references are available for my review in English) and then identify the specific suggestions and survey findings from the youth that either address unaddressed risks in the safety strategy or validate proposed countermeasures in the new section 5.2. As it stands, the link between youth involvement and actual crash prevention is suggested but not proven in this paper. 

2. I appreciate the authors providing the survey instrument in the appendix. Did the authors validate the survey instrument? Were the questions focus grouped with road safety professionals. Some of the questions, like "Have you or anyone in your immediate surroundings experienced a traffic collision before?" are double-barreled and may not be presenting a valid measure, as written. Did the authors solicit feedback from NARSA on the survey responses? Is there any indication that the youth suggestions may be considered in future policy? Addressing these shortcomings may help address my concern expressed in comment 1.

3. The paragraph starting at line 95 feels disconnected from the previous paragraph. Perhaps another sentence is needed the Safe System Approach to the WHO (I recognize SSA is recommended, but it is not clear here).

4. The paragraph starting at line 143 contains several fragments and could benefit from being rewritten for clarity.

5. In the paragraph starting at line 156, the authors bounce between discussion of 15-34 year olds and 15-24 year olds, and the subsequent statistics do not feel consistent. Consider picking one demographic group to focus on.

6. Figure 4 has been substantially improved, but some of the text on the left (i.e., items A-F) is now blurry.

7. Section 3.3 could likely be deleted to make the paper more concise.

8. Some of the text in Figure 6 (e.g., representative) spills over the line in the text box.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper may benefit from an additional edit to fix certain typographical errors introduced during the revision. See:

1. Line 76, the phrasing of "analyzing the impact predicted by" is unclear. Please revise.

2. Line 88, delete "states"

3. Line 101, "Several" does not need to be capitalized.

4. Line 144, "showen" should be "shown."

5. Line 150, "an" should be "a."

6. Line 177, "know" should be "known."

7. Line 220, "Bases" does not need to be capitalized.

8. Line 294, "regarding" is missing a d. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

None.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fine.

Author Response

Thank you!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revision. I can see that the review comments were addressed and the paper quality has improved. I recommend the paper to be accepted for publication in the journal.

Author Response

Thank you!

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have mostly addressed my concerns. I appreciate their efforts to improve the quality of the paper and only have minor remaining comments.

1) Subtitle 2.1 is a little confusing. Maybe "Global" would make more sense than "World's" in this title.

2) In the author response to my comments, the authors explained the survey development and instrument validation process. Please consider adding a concise summary of this response to section 3.1.

3) Thank you for adding Table 5. To make it easier to follow, please consider aligning the findings in the right column with the strategic issues in the left. For example, I think "Implement solar and wind energy solutions for street lighting" could be relevant to pedestrian safety. At present, it is not clear from the table's organization how the findings and strategies are connected.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing has been improved, but the paper would still benefit from a technical review to catch typos.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for these revisions. You have adequately addressed my concerns. My only remaining comment is that the "N" symbol in Table 5 may be unclear to readers. Consider replacing "N" with "*" and adding a note under the table denoting what the asterisk means.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper will benefit from a minor language review.

Author Response

Thank you for these revisions. You have adequately addressed my concerns. My only remaining comment is that the "N" symbol in Table 5 may be unclear to readers. Consider replacing "N" with "*" and adding a note under the table denoting what the asterisk means.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your attention to detail. Regarding the clarity of the 'N' symbol in Table 5, your suggestion to replace it with '*' and provide a note explaining its meaning is duly noted. We have implemented this change to enhance reader comprehension. Please check the table 5 in the new revised manuscript.