Exploring Countermeasures from a Psychological Perspective to Create a Safe Driving Environment for Personal Mobility Devices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the paper is up-to-date. Micromobility is a sustainable means for accommodating short distances in urban areas. Safety, related to micromobility is of outmost importance, as the regulations are new and not yet adopted by the users and the overall transportation system. However, this dimension is not explicit in the paper, especially as regards the context of micromobility environments, as their circulation varies from collectors and arterials to pathways in parks and pedestrian ways. Also, the safety issues should be clearly documented. State-of-the-art focuses mainly on Segway. Other types of micromobility should be also searched. 

The objectives of the research are missing in the main text body. The experimental design is not described and there is a concern about the sample choice and size. The authors mention the term "psychological attitudes", however, these attitudes should be considered as the results of the experience, on which the authors focus. Thus, I suggest adaptation of the title and sub-titles.

The sample is separated in two groups, (users and non-users) but it is not clear which group is considered in the further analysis. This should be clearly stated. Tables/figures should be made reference in the text. 

Also, a complete list of the variables considered in the study should be provided, using also a consistent terminology. Authors should explain why the analysis differs for different variables, e.g. willingness-related variables are not examined for user vs non-users. For some variables, only, their distributions are presented.

Bicycle road is mentioned. Does this imply that vehicles are assumed to move only on such roads? How is the impact of previous experience in accident used? What is perception of personal mobility? It has not been introduced amongst the variables, neither explained in the text. Maybe, it's a matter of inconsistent terminology, as I mentioned above. 

The conclusions should only be based on analysis results. In this section, new variables appear. 

Author Response

Thank you for the comment. We revised the manuscript based on the review comments and changed the title into "Exploring countermeasures to make a safe driving environment for personal mobility devices from psychological perspective". 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Your manuscript is impressive. I have some technical notes:

1. Numbers in Figures 2, 3, and 4 should be bigger (more readable). I recommend better formatting of these graphs.
2. I am not sure if the word "lantern" (pages 8 and 9) is appropriate for this topic. Please, consider revision.
3. I think it should be better if, in Figure 5, Table 5, and Table 6 will be the word "Infrastructure" instead of "Infra".
4. There is missing one chapter - Discussion. Chapter "Conclusions" is also too short. Therefore I recommend adding some discussion about the results and limitations of the study.

I also have a few simple comments on the manuscript content. You should add few sentences to these points:

1. In the first figure, there is also showed a micro electric car. What is the limitation (for example of its power, weight, number of seats, etc.) for driving this kind of vehicle without a driving license? This definition will define the boundary of the vehicles you examined. 
2. How did you calculate the sample size of 432 respondents?
3. From your research is obvious that many users are not satisfied with carrying "PM" in public transport vehicles. What are the conditions of carrying "PM" in public transportation? Please write it to the discussion.
4. What are examples of the most valuable personal mobility additional facilities for users of personal mobility devices?
5. In Tables 2 and 3 are mean values (for example 3.98), but it is not clear what values all answers had. I think that "1" was "strongly disagree" and "5" was "strongly agree" but I am not sure. You should add it as the table note.

I am sure that these changes can significantly improve the quality of your manuscript.

Author Response

We would like to submit the attached revised manuscript “Understanding Psychological Attitudes on Intention to Use Personal Mobility Device in South Korea” for consideration with Sustainability.  We largely agree with your comments and revised manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is very current at the moment.

1. The paper has no discussion and the conclusions are insufficient
2. I miss the calculation of the number of respondents.
3. Was the number of respondents sufficient for the above mentioned conclusions? How many people are there in Suwon?
4. The formal arrangement of the contribution needs to be improved.
5. I recommend making a review of the problem solved based on existing research published in the WOS database and include this review in the papier

Author Response

We would like to submit the attached revised manuscript “Understanding Psychological Attitudes on Intention to Use Personal Mobility Device in South Korea” for consideration with Sustainability.  We largely agree with your comments and revised manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Most of my comments have been addressed. Those which have not been taken into account in this new version, are set as next steps in the authors' research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We are pleased to submit this manuscript and many thanks for consideration of our work for revision.

With best regards, 
Junghwa Kim (on behalf of all authors)