Analysis and Prediction Model of Resident Travel Satisfaction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
For the Analysis of residents travel satisfaction, I suggest the authors to better explain the sample construction. The authors mentioned that the sample size is proportional with the population in each district. The data should be present in the research for the soundness of the research. What are the numbers for the population, how are the proportions in the sample and in the total population?
In conclusions, the authors should present also the limits of the research especially those linked to the sample construction and others if any. And better highlight the novelty/originality of their research and their contribution to the model used.
The first reference should have the institution first, that is the General Office.... and afterwards the title of the paper issued by the General Office.
As a suggestion, I would also add some research in the introduction related to similar studies conducted in other parts of the world that is Europe, USA etc. The introduction should be extended with more references to support your research.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to check my paper and put forward your valuable suggestions for revision.Please refer to the Word file for details of modification.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article it is interesting for tourism area and concentrated on statistical topic, but he needs improvements:
Line 137 2. Analysis of residents' travel satisfaction
Maybe the author can illustrate the zone selected for research to have an image of region.
A new section and a short presentation of : Research design and methods
- Will be useful for readers if they present a complete structure of survey what they want to identify from the 8 information plus what it is presented in the following text.
Line 152 The data distribution is relatively reasonable. 45.6% of the respondents don’t own a car, 50.2% own one car, 4.2% own two cars.
Line 155 There are five levels of residents' travel satisfaction evaluation, 155 namely "very satisfied", "relatively satisfied", "generally satisfied", "dissatisfied" and "very 156 dissatisfied".
- The period when they apply they survey
- How he apply the survey
- What programs they used ?
Line 370 References
Can be improve with new literature research
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to check my paper and put forward your valuable suggestions for revision.Please refer to the Word file for details of modification.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper attempts to identify the significant factors related to residents travel satisfaction using prediction models. Authors are advised to incorporate below comments/suggestions.
- First sentence of abstract is required to rephrase as it present form it is confusing.
- Authors should consider to introduce a separate section for literature review. In this way, introduction section can be shortened and it should focus on main research hypothesis and objectives.
- Around 33% of the collected samples were discarded and 3141 usable questionnaire were used in the analysis. Authors should provide a discussion on major reasons of discarding this huge amount of samples.
- Figure 1: the satisfaction scale used in this study looks a combination of balanced and unbalanced ranking scales. it is preferable to use either balanced or unbalanced scale, not a combination of both?
- if possible, it will be interesting if authors can include a geographical position of survey locations in the study area.
- Equation 1: it is better to use correct symbol for random error instead of using beta.
- Lines 201-203: it is suggested to include relevant reference relate to permissible values of three pseudo-R square? Comparison should be made with reference values.
- Line 302: "It can be seen from Table 4-1" it should be Table 4.
- Authors did not present any comparison of present study results with the results/findings of previous studies. A separate discussion section may be included and results should be compared with other studies.
- Conclusion. Include scientific limitations of findings in relevance to collected data and used prediction models.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to check my paper and put forward your valuable suggestions for revision.Please refer to the Word file for details of modification.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper is well-scoped. However, there are several errors that need to be improved.
First, Abstract
Line 9-12 To promote the sustainable development of urban traffic and improve residents' travel satisfaction, in this paper, the significant factors affecting residents' travel satisfaction are analyzed, and an evaluation and prediction model of travel satisfaction based on Support Vector Machine (SVM) is constructed. - Please check the grammar once again.
Line 11-15. Then, a travel satisfaction evaluation model based on the Support Vector Machine (SVM) is constructed by taking significant factors as independent variables. - Since you already wrote SVM from the previous sentence, do not need to write Support Vector Machine here.
Line 26-29.
With the rapid development of economy and society, the number of motor vehicles has been increasing year by year. So the proportion of residents relying on cars to travel has been increasing, which also leads to the increasingly serious congestion of urban roads and the frequent occurrence of various travel safety problems. - I think you need to add references to these sentences.
Line 30-31. "Opinions on Promoting Urban Safety Development" was 30 issued by the General Office of the State Council of the Communist Party of China in January 2018. - This part also needs a reference.
Line 34-35. It can be seen that our country attaches great importance to traffic 34 safety. Today, our country vigorously advocates "Green travel", so how to provide residents a safe, - What do you mean "our country" in the sentence? The paper should be objective, not subjective.
Line 69-72. Wang Rong[9] et al. built an SEM-based satisfaction evaluation model for bus transfer preferential policies, and took Suzhou bus transfer preferential policies as an example to verify the rationality of the model. Zhu Tong[10] et al. used the structural equation model to establish the quantitative relationship - You already mentioned SEM from the starting part. However, the later sentence used a structural equation model. I recommend you to switch this part.
Line 85-90. The nonaggregate model is often used in the study of residents' travel behavior, mainly including the Multiple Logit Model, Nested Logit model, paired combination Logit Model, Mixed 86 Logit Model, and so on[13]. Besides, improved models of the NL model and the Probit Model are also adopted. Shuhong Ma[14] et al. used a factor analysis method to study the significant factors 88 influencing the bicycle riding characteristics of college students, and a two-layer nested logit (NL) model combining riding frequency and travel mode was established. - NL should be addressed from the first sentence.
Line 99-101. Jiang Wei[18] et al. took dynamic factors as independent variables and built an MNL model to analyze the impact of these factors on residents' 100 car rental choice behavior. In this sentence, you need to explain multinomial logit model (MNL).
Line 138. A survey was conducted on the travel data of residents in Futian District, Shenzhen. - Need a data collection period.
Line 192. Inside of table, 1 = [10,18)years old, 2 = [18,25)years old, 3 = [25,35)years old, 4 = [35,45)years old, 5 = [45, 100)years old - How 25 years old can be either 1 or 2? 25, 35, 45 also same situation.
Income
1 = (0,50000], 2 = (50000,100000], 3 = (100000,200000]ï¼›4 = (200000,500000], 5 = more than 500000 - The number here also had same issues (50000, 10000,..).
In general, this paper needs to edit and update an abbreviation part and check grammatical errors.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to check my paper and put forward your valuable suggestions for revision.Please refer to the Word file for details of modification.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
No comments.
