The Importance of Public Transport for Mobility and Everyday Activities among Rural Residents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study presents a qualitative analysis exploring the role of pubic transportation in rural mobility and travel. The topic is of interest and in an area of research with many research gaps. However, the authors have not fully described their research efforts (framework, methods, etc.), the work is not well connected with the literature, the presentation of the results could be improved, and the discussion throughout the sections can be enhanced. Furthermore, given the very small sample size, the validity of the study should be established. In addition, the manuscript should be proofread to correct the numerous typos and other language mistakes and improve clarity. Below are a few specific comments.  

 -The abstract and the intro (within the first few paragraphs) should clearly state the focus and methodological approach of this paper. The authors leave notes throughout section 1 (such as p.3, lns.106-107; p.3, lns.127-129; p.3, lns.132-134) that are out of context without this information.

-Sections 1 and 2 could benefit from restructuring. A lot of loosely connected info is presented in a long section 1, the subsections could benefit from revisions to improve the transitions between them, and it is unclear why section 2 is a separate section (it is as long as one of the shortest subsections of section 1 and does not seem self-contained).

-The methods section should be enhanced.

--The authors should provide more information on the study and sample design. (a) Was the target population all households in rural areas as defined by the stated criteria? Why were only 14 households selected? Was the sample a convenience sample? What kind of sampling method was used? The authors should address issues of validity and reliability as well (both in this section to explain how the study addressed these issues and/or in the conclusion section as limitations). How did the authors deal with the nested structure of the data collection? (b) More information on the type of qualitative analysis should be given. What type of coding methods were used, what kind of thematic analysis, etc. Were the codes pre-defined or emerge from the interviews?

--The authors should clarify the following sentence as well “The relatively wide recruitment criteria were employed in order to cover a large field of possible perceptions and life situations.”

--What is the justification behind the 45 min. by car from a small time of max 3,000 residents? And how did the authors assess the 45 min. by car?

-The presentation of the results could be improved and the section should be proofread and reviewed for clarity and flow.

--The authors might want to present the results in a consistent manner. For example, some sections include quotes from the participants, while authors don’t.

--Names should probably be avoided. Perhaps include numbers instead (participant 1, 2, etc.).

--Perhaps the authors should consider other ways of summarizing some of the results (such as tables), especially in larger sections.

--The overall comment of “contradictory narratives” could be more clearly and explicitly presented in the sections (e.g., some participants felt that… but others…) or the comment should be revised. As the discussions currently stands, it points out to a plurality of opinions, but not necessarily contradictory.  

--I am not sure what the authors mean by time-geographical approach in the context of this study. If it is a central point as presented in this draft, the approach should be explained in the methods and in the results the “time-space” aspect should be explicitly discussed.

-Sections 5-6: The sections should be restructured and enhanced.

--Section 5 should be revised to reduce redundancies, as many points seems to be a repetition from the previous section.

--Methodological and data limitations as well as future research directions should be discussed in the conclusions sections.

--Section 6 discusses recommendations for improvement and not conclusions. Perhaps Section 5 could be revised to include the discussion and recommendations and Section 6 can include conclusions, and a discussion on the implications, limitations, and future research directions.  

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you for all the valuable comments on our manuscript. We have taken the comments into consideration. Please find our response to the comments below.

Point 1: The authors have not fully described their research efforts (framework, methods, etc.), the work is not well connected with the literature, the presentation of the results could be improved, and the discussion throughout the sections can be enhanced. Furthermore, given the very small sample size, the validity of the study should be established. In addition, the manuscript should be proofread to correct the numerous typos and other language mistakes and improve clarity. Below are a few specific comments. 

Response 1: Throughout the manuscript, we have made changes and improvements according to the reviewer’s specific comments, including consideration of methodological aspects. The original manuscript was proofread by an English native speaker with extensive editing experience.

Point 2: The abstract and the intro (within the first few paragraphs) should clearly state the focus and methodological approach of this paper. The authors leave notes throughout section 1 (such as p.3, lns.106-107; p.3, lns.127-129; p.3, lns.132-134) that are out of context without this information.

Response 2: We have clarified the focus and methodological approach in the abstract. Some of the notes mentioned above that were said to be out of context has been moved and/or clarified in order to fit in the right paragraphs. We have also clarified the aim.

Point 3: Sections 1 and 2 could benefit from restructuring. A lot of loosely connected info is presented in a long section 1, the subsections could benefit from revisions to improve the transitions between them, and it is unclear why section 2 is a separate section (it is as long as one of the shortest subsections of section 1 and does not seem self-contained).

Response 3: Sections 1 has been restructured. Some info has been deleted and some has been moved to another section where it fits better. For example, Ins. 30-34 has been deleted since we considered it move the focus from transport and more to rural decline/development. Sections 2 was separated in the original draft because it describes the time-geographical approach. The time-geographical approach is not only a method but a way to look upon the world and provides concepts that are useful in the analytic work, and it is therefore not self-evident where to put it. However, considering the reviewers’ suggestions, we have now moved the section 2 in the method section and developed the description of the TG-approach.

Point 4-6: The methods section should be enhanced.

--The authors should provide more information on the study and sample design. (a) Was the target population all households in rural areas as defined by the stated criteria? Why were only 14 households selected? Was the sample a convenience sample? What kind of sampling method was used?

The authors should address issues of validity and reliability as well (both in this section to explain how the study addressed these issues and/or in the conclusion section as limitations). How did the authors deal with the nested structure of the data collection? (b) More information on the type of qualitative analysis should be given. What type of coding methods were used, what kind of thematic analysis, etc. Were the codes pre-defined or emerge from the interviews?

--The authors should clarify the following sentence as well “The relatively wide recruitment criteria were employed in order to cover a large field of possible perceptions and life situations.”

Response 4-6. Method section has been updated generally. More content and clarifications added. More information regarding the recruitment process and the selection of participants have been added. The comment about number of participants and its relation to validity has been discussed in the new section “Methodological reflections” (5.1), where issues about the degree of transferability and its limitations also have been discussed. Clarifications in the analysis section have been added. 

Point 7: What is the justification behind the 45 min. by car from a small time of max 3,000 residents? And how did the authors assess the 45 min. by car?

Response 7: 5-45 min. by car is based on a commonly used definition of rural areas in Sweden, which we now have described in section 1. The assessment of 45 min. by car is now described in section 3.2.

Point 8-11: The presentation of the results could be improved and the section should be proofread and reviewed for clarity and flow.

--The authors might want to present the results in a consistent manner. For example, some sections include quotes from the participants, while authors don’t.

--Names should probably be avoided. Perhaps include numbers instead (participant 1, 2, etc.).

--Perhaps the authors should consider other ways of summarizing some of the results (such as tables), especially in larger sections.

--The overall comment of “contradictory narratives” could be more clearly and explicitly presented in the sections (e.g., some participants felt that… but others…) or the comment should be revised. As the discussions currently stands, it points out to a plurality of opinions, but not necessarily contradictory. 

Response 8-11: We have now changed the result section accordingly. However, quotes are used to highlight complex situations, experiences etc in the narratives and are used when we believe it adds more to the article than the author’s descriptions of the data. Sometimes it is difficult to write quotes, when the meaning of their narratives is spread out throughout the interview.

We do not consider using quotes for balancing the result sections.  Also, a further proofreading would require more time before we can resubmit the article.  We are happy to send it to proofreading again if you think it is still needed after a second review.

Point 12: I am not sure what the authors mean by time-geographical approach in the context of this study. If it is a central point as presented in this draft, the approach should be explained in the methods and in the results the “time-space” aspect should be explicitly discussed.

Response 12: The time-geographical approach and how it is used is described in the method section, with relevant references. Time-geographical restrictions and resources are now further highlighted in the result section and discussed.

Point 13-14: Sections 5-6: The sections should be restructured and enhanced.

--Section 5 should be revised to reduce redundancies, as many points seems to be a repetition from the previous section.

Response 13-14: This has been done.

Point 15: Methodological and data limitations as well as future research directions should be discussed in the conclusions sections.

Response 15: Methodological reflections has been added as 5.1. Future research directions has been added in section 6.

Point 16: Section 6 discusses recommendations for improvement and not conclusions. Perhaps Section 5 could be revised to include the discussion and recommendations and Section 6 can include conclusions, and a discussion on the implications, limitations, and future research directions. 

Response 16: We have changed section 6 in the revised paper accordingly.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author/s,

after I read the manuscript I have a few recommendations:

Please highlight the originality and novelty of your paper.

How representative do you consider your sample is for such an research? Add some socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Please mention the limitations of your study and managerial implications.

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for all the valuable comments on our manuscript. We have taken the comments into consideration. Please find our response to the comments below.

Point 1-3: Please highlight the originality and novelty of your paper.

How representative do you consider your sample is for such a research? Add some socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Response 1-3: The socio-demographic characteristics that we have information about have been added in the method section.

Please mention the limitations of your study and managerial implications.

Response: This has been done in section 5.1.

Reviewer 3 Report

 The project is interesting in that it is replicates previous research that has been carried out, primarily in the UK (particularly in Scotland). Indeed, the data and conclusions replicate previous research carried out in Scotland, despite the counties having very different public transport governance, regulation and funding regimes. However, much of this previous research has not been captured in the literature and  a much more extensive literature search review is required as several key papers from authors such as Farrington, Gray, Nutley, Mosely,  Cloke, etc.  have been missed which provide important context for this particular topic. Some of these text are also  important Governmental reports or book chapters which will not necessarily show up in a basic literature search.  So a much more rigorous understanding of the literature is required to establish a better theoretical understanding of rural transport, which can then more effectively contextualise the findings and conclusions.  As such, I disagree that few studies have looked at how rural transport is integrated into every day life activities. There is literature out there‍

  In particular, it is recommended that the authors make a more direct comparison between Sweden and Scotland, as the data generated and conclusions reached are strikingly similar to Scottish studies.  The central-time concept is interesting and seems to be an elaboration on the theme of rural journey making opportunity and constraint Gray, Farrington and Kagermeier (2008). These ideas could be developed further in the paper.

I think there needs to be more discussion of the rationale for the study area (between 5 and 45 minutes from a very small town). This seems to be aimed at very remote rural areas, rather than small towns themselves or rural areas proximate to larger towns and cities. Why not a comparison ( such as in the Scottish Car dependence study) of different types of rural. While it is absolutely fine to go with 'remote rural' there needs to be some justification and discussion of the different types of 'rural transport rurals', perhaps with reference to previous studies which have considered with this in more detail.

I like the qualitative approach to rural transport (there has not been enough of it), but the paper needs more illustrative quotes. if the interview reveals contradictory narratives, then why not provide an example?

Overall, I like a lot of the paper, but it needs a more thorough literature search and review and the data and findings need to be compared  more explicitly to previous research in other countries (most obviously Scotland)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for all the valuable comments on our manuscript. We have taken the comments into consideration. Please find our response to the comments below.

Point 1-2: The project is interesting in that it is replicates previous research that has been carried out, primarily in the UK (particularly in Scotland). Indeed, the data and conclusions replicate previous research carried out in Scotland, despite the counties having very different public transport governance, regulation and funding regimes. However, much of this previous research has not been captured in the literature and a much more extensive literature search review is required as several key papers from authors such as Farrington, Gray, Nutley, Mosely,  Cloke, etc. have been missed which provide important context for this particular topic. Some of these text are also important Governmental reports or book chapters which will not necessarily show up in a basic literature search.  So a much more rigorous understanding of the literature is required to establish a better theoretical understanding of rural transport, which can then more effectively contextualise the findings and conclusions.  As such, I disagree that few studies have looked at how rural transport is integrated into every day life activities. There is literature out there.

In particular, it is recommended that the authors make a more direct comparison between Sweden and Scotland, as the data generated and conclusions reached are strikingly similar to Scottish studies.  The central-time concept is interesting and seems to be an elaboration on the theme of rural journey making opportunity and constraint Gray, Farrington and Kagermeier (2008). These ideas could be developed further in the paper.

Response 1-2: We have referred to literature relevant for the aim of our study, including those mentioned above. Comparison with studies in Scotland and elsewhere have been made in the discussion when relevant.

Point 3: I think there needs to be more discussion of the rationale for the study area (between 5 and 45 minutes from a very small town). This seems to be aimed at very remote rural areas, rather than small towns themselves or rural areas proximate to larger towns and cities. Why not a comparison (such as in the Scottish Car dependence study) of different types of rural. While it is absolutely fine to go with 'remote rural' there needs to be some justification and discussion of the different types of 'rural transport rurals', perhaps with reference to previous studies which have considered with this in more detail.

Response 3: In the revised paper, we have clarified what type of rural areas the informants live in. According to the definition of rural areas proximate to urban areas, the informants do not live in remote areas, and most of them live in villages. For example, some live 30 minutes by car from a town of 100 000 inhabitants. This has been clarified in the method section.

Point 4: I like the qualitative approach to rural transport (there has not been enough of it), but the paper needs more illustrative quotes. if the interview reveals contradictory narratives, then why not provide an example?

Response 4: Contradicting narratives has been clarified in the result section. A few more quotes have been added where relevant. However, quotes are used to highlight complex situations, experiences etc in the narratives and are used only when we believe it adds more to the article than the author’s descriptions of the data. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has benefited from the content revisions. Proofreading and revisions to improve the manuscript's clarity and flow would further benefit the paper.

Author Response

Dear reviwer,

Thank you again for comments and suggestions. The article has been proofread which has improved the flow and clarity.  

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors,

improved their paper. However more attention should be paid to the format of the paper.

Author Response

Dear reviwer,

Thank you again for comments and suggestions. The article has been proofread which has improved the format.