Influence Mechanism of Urban Staggered Shared Parking Policy on Behavioral Intentions of Users and Providers Based on Extended Planned Behavior Theory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very serious and interesting study which investigates the intentions of drivers and representants of businesses to participate in the process of staggered shared parking policy. The authors used, mainly, the well-known model of the Planned Behaviour to explore the perceived behavioural intentions of both, users, and providers, towards the staggered shared parking event. The theoretical models used gave the opportunity to the authors to formulate and control various hypothesis using structural equation approaches.
In my opinion this is an important paper for your International Journal and audience since, among others a) it provides theoretical applications on the impact of policy implementation in shared parking field, b) explores the perceived intention of this complex behaviour during the implementation of a staggered shared parking policy, c) examines the core factors that inherently affect its implementation, d) focuses more on the influence mechanism of the implementation of the staggered shared parking policy and last but not least e) provides an extensive literature and information on China policy and the authorities advices relevant to the staggered shared parking policy and the traffic management.
To improve the quality of this paper I would like to put some questions and make some remarks.
2. Theoretical integration and research hypotheses
I believe this section should be shorten since well-known knowledge is repeated.
2.3. Research Hypothesis
I wonder whether is preferable to better formulate some of them, e.g.,
H1. Attitude toward the urban staggered shared parking system has a positive effect on the intention to use the urban staggered shared parking system.
What about if the ATT is negative if the participant disagrees and reports low levels rates?
3.2. Survey and data collection
I suggest providing some relevant information concerning the sample design and the procedure.
4.4. Governmental Explanation
I am not convinced that the results section is the appropriate one for this text, I believe it should move to the discussion section.
Author Response
We appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have read your comments carefully and have modified them point-by-point in accordance with them. Since only one can be added to the attachment, the modified full answer is as follows. Please see the attachment for the revised manuscript. And we eagerly expect your further corrections
List of actions
LOA1: Theoretical integration and research hypotheses has been shorten.
LOA2: Research Hypothesis H1 has been argued.
LOA3: 3.2. Survey and data collection has been refined.
LOA4: 4.4. Governmental Explanation has been moved to the discussion section.
Additional revisions, a fund number was added and a reference was changed.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Theoretical integration and research hypotheses
I believe this section should be shorten since well-known knowledge is repeated.
Response 1: We appreciate the reviewers pointing out. We agree with the reviewers that this section focuses on the introduction of the original theoretical concepts and the formulation of new model construction ideas. We have made modifications to minimize the repetition of concepts and expressions. The revisions are shown in the manuscript, and we would like to receive your further guidance.
Point 2: 2.3. Research Hypothesis
I wonder whether is preferable to better formulate some of them, e.g.,
H1. Attitude toward the urban staggered shared parking system has a positive effect on the intention to use the urban staggered shared parking system.
What about if the ATT is negative if the participant disagrees and reports low levels rates?
Response 2: We appreciate you pointing out. And we agree with your question, this concern is very likely to arise. If the disagreement and reports low levels rates, it is possible that the attitude of participation in staggered shared parking is negative when the questionnaire results are analyzed. However, without knowing the specific findings, 1) we base on the established authoritative references, 2) Considering the purpose of the establishment of the Staggered Shared Parking Policy, that the behavior is for the benefit of residents and bring profits to businesses. Therefore, the assumption that attitudes have a positive effect on the behavioral intention is more reasonable when the hypothesis model is constructed.
Point 3: 3.2. Survey and data collection
I suggest providing some relevant information concerning the sample design and the procedure.
Response 2: Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion. We received the reviewers' comments and have refined the manuscript at section 3.2. Additional information includes the design of the questionnaire and the process of the questionnaire.
Point 4: 4.4. Governmental Explanation
I am not convinced that the results section is the appropriate one for this text, I believe it should move to the discussion section.
Response 4: We appreciate the reviewers' guidance. Your suggestion is very reasonable, the government explanation is mainly based on the conclusions of the model proposed measures to the government. In terms of the structure of the paper, it would be more appropriate to be placed in the discussion section. This section has been modified in the manuscript.
Additional revisions
Point 1: In page 19, the references [20,53] in the third sentence of the first paragraph was modified.
Point 2: A fund number is added in the acknowledgments section, and due to the limit of fund amount declared by the same group, another fund number of the same project is added at this time for the expense fee of subsequent papers.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper investigated the residents' and businesses' intention to participate in the process of staggered shared parking policy. Two extended theoretical models of planned behavior were constructed to reveal the behavioral intentions of users and providers, respectively. Then, a structural equation approach was introduced with a survey on 323 residents and 282 enterprises in the urban area of Beijing. The results indicated that, for residents, perceptual behavior control has the large impact on perceived intention, while perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness play a crucial influential role in the willingness to use staggered shared parking. For companies, the attitude has the strongest impact on perceived intention. Findings of this study may contribute to the precise policy implementation in alleviating urban parking problems. The entire paper is in a rather good logic, which is much appreciated. Some questions and comments were provided as follows:
1. The current abstract should be modified, to include background, objective, method, results, conclusion and possible applications.
2. references should be provided for Figure 1. (Theory of planned behavior).
3. In page 4, the 1st sentence of paragraph 3, "The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [31] is the most well-known theory ..." here "the most well-known" is not appropriate, please modify.
4. In page 5 the 1st sentence of paragraph 1, "Talyor and Todd proposed an extended model combining Technology Acceptance Theory (TAM) and Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)." please provide the reference
5. How were the factors in Tables 1 and 2 were obtained? please provide the references.
6. addtional references related to parking behavior modeling may be added. For example,
An Agent-Based Simulation Model for Parking Variable Message Sign Location Problem, Transportation Research Record, 2018
A comparative analysis of information provision strategies for parking variable message sign display problems. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2020.
Author Response
We appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have read your comments carefully and have modified them point-by-point in accordance with them. Since only one can be added to the attachment, the modified full answer is as follows. Please see the attachment for the revised manuscript. And we eagerly expect your further corrections
List of actions
LOA1: The abstract has been modified.
LOA2: The reference of Figure 1 has been provided.
LOA3: The 1st sentence of paragraph 3 in page 4 has been modified.
LOA4: In page 5, the reference of the 1st sentence of paragraph 1 has been provided.
LOA5: The sources and references of the influencing factors in Tables 1 and 2 have been argued.
LOA6: Additional references has been added.
Additional revisions, a fund number was added and a reference was changed.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The current abstract should be modified, to include background, objective, method, results, conclusion and possible applications.
Response 1: Thanks to the reviewers for the suggestion. The abstract section has been modified, as described in the manuscript. We hope to receive your further guidance.
Point 2: references should be provided for Figure 1. (Theory of planned behavior).
Response 2: Thanks to the reviewer's careful correction, the reference has been added in the manuscript. In page4, the 2st sentence of paragraph 1, which introduces the structure of the theory of planned behavior, citing reference [33] containing the content of Figure 1. And this reference is attached to the body of the paper.
Point 3: In page 4, the 1st sentence of paragraph 3, "The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [31] is the most well-known theory ..." here "the most well-known" is not appropriate, please modify.
Response 3: Thanks to the reviewer for the point. The sentence is inappropriately expressed and has been changed to " The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [31] is a well-known theory to research the influence of individual behavior using IT. " in the manuscript.
Point 4: In page 5 the 1st sentence of paragraph 1, "Talyor and Todd proposed an extended model combining Technology Acceptance Theory (TAM) and Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)." please provide the reference
Response 4: We are grateful for the reviewer's careful correction, and this sentence has been cited in [35] references. This reference is also attached to the body of the paper.
Point 5: How were the factors in Tables 1 and 2 were obtained? please provide the references.
Response 5: We appreciate the reviewers pointing out. Considering your suggestion, Tables 1 and 2 were obtained from two aspects. On one hand, it is obtained based on the practical experience of our group. As shown in section 3.1 of the manuscript, our team previously used the rooting theory to follow the implementation process of Beijing's staggered shared parking policy so as to explore the influencing factors that affect the implementation of this policy. On the other hand, refer to the validation results of the shared parking study. The specific reference citations are shown in the Resources and Literature column in Tables 1 and 2 of the manuscript. The design of the questionnaire items adheres to the design principles and design paradigms. It also draws on the results of known findings in this field.
I don't know whether my understanding and explanation have answered your question, but if you think there might be something else inappropriate, please discuss it with me further. Thanks again for your suggestion.
Point 6: Additional references related to parking behavior modeling may be added. For example,
An Agent-Based Simulation Model for Parking Variable Message Sign Location Problem, Transportation Research Record, 2018
A comparative analysis of information provision strategies for parking variable message sign display problems. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2020.
Response 6: We appreciate the reviewers pointing out. In accordance with the considerations of the thesis, two additional papers have been added in 1. Introduction. Meanwhile, this reference [7-8] is also attached to the body of the paper.
Additional revisions
Point 1: In page 19, the references [20,53] in the third sentence of the first paragraph was modified.
Point 2: A fund number is added in the acknowledgments section, and due to the limit of fund amount declared by the same group, another fund number of the same project is added at this time for the expense fee of subsequent papers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewer was satisfied with the modification and improvements, and consequently would recommend to accept the submission for possible publication in the journal of Sustainability.
