Behavioural Factors for Users of Bicycles as a Transport Alternative: A Case Study
, LucÃa Palacios-Moya 2 and Nelly Dioses Lescano 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is well structured. The reviewers have a few concerns and comments.
1. The paper has clear goals, but fails to convince the reader how the authors use the results to generate actionable insights.
2. Current research on public transportation travel choice behavior has used theories such as random utility theory, prospect theory, and theory of planned behavior. Please explain the reasons for the theories you use in the paper.
3. Are the main behavioral factors of public bicycle users that you have considered reasonable, and you need to ensure that they are meaningful. Consider adding the findings of other researchers' studies on these behavioral factors in the introduction section of the article.
3. The sample size for the questionnaire in this article is over 200, please make sure that this sample size is sufficient to support the research in this article and that the conclusions drawn are reliable.
4. The main behavioral factors of public bicycle program users considered in this paper are mostly the same factors considered in traditional studies, what are the innovative points? Is it considered to expand the variables to enrich the study.
5. It is suggested that the questionnaire data be presented in table form, followed by descriptive analysis.
Author Response
November 22, 2022
Dear
Odelia Zhou
Editor-in-Chief
Sustainability
Kind regards
According to the review of our article by the reviewer 1, the following changes were made, properly marked with red letters in the article:
|
|
Reviewer Comments |
Answer |
|
R1 |
1. The paper has clear goals but fails to convince the reader how the authors use the results to generate actionable insights. |
Section 7 is designed. Practical implications to guide the reader on the usefulness of the results. |
|
R1 |
2. Current research on public transportation travel choice behavior has used theories such as random utility theory, prospect theory, and theory of planned behavior. Please explain the reasons for the theories you use in the paper. |
The argumentation presented in section 2.2 is reinforced, referring that there are other models, such as those suggested by the reviewer, as well as the theory of reasoned action, which was replaced by the Theory of Planned Behavior, arguing that it has a greater capacity to 1) understand behavior and 2) predict it. |
|
R1 |
The sample size for the questionnaire in this article is over 200, please make sure that this sample size is sufficient to support the research in this article and that the conclusions drawn are reliable. |
The feasibility of the sample used is clarified in section 3.3. |
|
R1 |
The main behavioral factors of public bicycle program users considered in this paper are mostly the same factors considered in traditional studies, what are the innovative points? Is it considered to expand the variables to enrich the study. |
It is mentioned, in section 2.2, that there are no applications of the theory of planned behavior to understand the use of bicycles as a sustainable means of transportation for contexts of emerging economies, such as the city of Medellin, Colombia, which is why the original theory is used before analyzing extensions or new latent variables. |
|
R1 |
It is suggested that the questionnaire data be presented in table form, followed by descriptive analysis. |
Table 2 is included in section 4 to show the descriptive results of the instrument. |
We look forward to your comments and hope to hear from you soon.
Thank you very much
_____
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study is to identify the main behavioural factors among users of the public bicycle programme EnCicla in the city Of Medellin, Colombia. It is interesting to use the theory of planned behaviour for research. However, some issues need to be addressed in order to be ready for publication. My comments are as follows:
1. Page 1, The model used in this paper is mentioned in the keywords but not in the abstract. It is recommended to supplement it in the abstract.
2. Page 2, What is the research goal? Where is the innovation? It is suggested to add the contents discussed on Page 10 to the introduction and emphasize the contribution of the paper.
3. Page 3, The next paragraph of H1 does not show the relationship between ATT and PC.
4. Page 3, Subjective norms are not defined in the article, which is inconsistent with the description in the next paragraph of H2.
5. Page 3, lack of explanation for H3.
6. Page 5， Can you elaborate on exactly how it was sampled? Does the sample reflect the characteristics of the urban population?
7. Page 8, lack the analysis of discriminant validity results.
8. Page 8, The article needs to explain the term when it appears for the first time and add CFA's English explanation.
9. Page 11, Clarify the meaning of XXX in the author contribution.
10. There are too many references in the article.
11. Keep the indentation of figure names and table names consistent throughout the article.
12. Some sentences are too long. It is suggested to divide them appropriately.
Author Response
November 22, 2022
Dear
Odelia Zhou
Editor-in-Chief
Sustainability
Kind regards
According to the review of our article by the reviewer 2, the following changes were made, properly marked with red letters in the article:
|
|
Reviewer Comments |
Answer |
|
R2 |
Page 1, The model used in this paper is mentioned in the keywords but not in the abstract. It is recommended to supplement it in the abstract. |
The Abstract was modified to indicate that the instrument used was constructed based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour. |
|
R2 |
Page 2, What is the research goal? Where is the innovation? It is suggested to add the contents discussed on Page 10 to the introduction and emphasize the contribution of the paper. |
According to the reviewer's indications, the objective of the research is specified and complemented with innovative expected results, extracted from page 10, discussion section. |
|
R2 |
Page 3, The next paragraph of H1 does not show the relationship between ATT and PC. |
The relationship between ATT and PC is described in the 3 paragraphs above H1. |
|
R2 |
Page 3, lack of explanation for H3. |
The explanation of H3 is expanded, alluding to the basic theory that underlies the Theory of Planned Behavior proposed by Ajzen. |
|
R2 |
Page 5. Can you elaborate on exactly how it was sampled? Does the sample reflect the characteristics of the urban population? |
The application of the instrument used was explained in section 3.3. |
|
R2 |
Page 8, lack the analysis of discriminant validity results. |
The final analysis of the discriminant validity results is adjusted, detailing that none of the confidence intervals is equal to 1, except for those variables measured with itself, according to the described theory. |
|
R2 |
Page 8, The article needs to explain the term when it appears for the first time and add CFA's English explanation. |
Section 4.1. validates the specification of the acronym, mentioning that it stands for Confirmatory Factorial Analysis, and explaining its meaning |
|
R2 |
Page 11, Clarify the meaning of XXX in the author contribution. |
The acronym Nelly Dioses Lescano is specified in the authors' contribution section, without mentioning the full name, in order to guarantee anonymity. |
|
R2 |
There are too many references in the article |
Although as authors we are aware of the limits of the journal for the number of references that should be used in the paper, we respectfully request that an exception be made for this study, since it is an exploratory research, which in the case analyzed (city of Medellin) lacks previous studies, it is important to have sufficient theoretical and conceptual support to generate a starting point for future research that will enrich this important topic. In this sense, the references used allow us to provide theoretical support to the elements we propose. |
|
R2 |
Keep the indentation of figure names and table names consistent throughout the article. |
The names of all tables and figures are revised and aligned in a consistent way, unifying the indentation. |
|
R2 |
Some sentences are too long. It is suggested to divide them appropriately. |
The longest paragraphs are identified, and we proceed with the recommended appropriate division |
We look forward to your comments and hope to hear from you soon.
Thank you very much
_____
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Abstract should be polished, at present, it cannot catch reader attention.
2. Paper needs polished more. Some typos in the main content, e.g., modelling,
3. figure titles is too simple should describe the essential content.
4. Can the author explain why choose the model proposed by the theory of planned behaviour? Are there any others similar models? What's the comparison?
5. Can the author explain why 210 people is enough for questionnaire? How is the people selected? Will the selection lead to some bias?
6. The citation format is inconsistent. Citations should be consistent with the requirement of sustainability.
Author Response
November 22, 2022
Dear
Odelia Zhou
Editor-in-Chief
Sustainability
Kind regards
According to the review of our article by the reviewer 3, the following changes were made, properly marked with red letters in the article:
|
|
Reviewer Comments |
Answer |
|
R3 |
Abstract should be polished, at present, it cannot catch reader attention. |
The Abstract is modified in relation to the importance of deepening the subject matter and attracting the reader's attention. |
|
R3 |
Paper needs polished more. Some typos in the main content, e.g., modelling, |
A general revision of the writing of the paper was carried out and the errors identified were corrected. |
|
R3 |
figure titles is too simple should describe the essential content. |
The titles of the figures have been modified to indicate more precisely the essential content. |
|
R3 |
Can the author explain why choose the model proposed by the theory of planned behaviour? Are there any others similar models? What's the comparison? |
The argumentation presented in section 2.2 is reinforced, referring that there are other models, such as those suggested by the reviewer, as well as the theory of reasoned action, which was replaced by the Theory of Planned Behavior, arguing that it has a greater capacity to 1) understand behavior and 2) predict it. |
|
R3 |
Can the author explain why 210 people is enough for questionnaire? How is the people selected? Will the selection lead to some bias? |
Section 3.3 clarifies the feasibility of the sample used and defines the bias control. |
|
R3 |
The citation format is inconsistent. Citations should be consistent with the requirement of sustainability. |
The 103 bibliographic references contained in the article are checked, verifying that they comply with the parameters of Sustainability, which, being IEEE format, requires: |
We look forward to your comments and hope to hear from you soon.
Thank you very much
_____
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The comments have been well addressed.
Author Response
November 29, 2022
Dear
Odelia Zhou
Editor-in-Chief Sustainability
Kind regards
According to the review of our article by the reviewers, the following changes were made, properly marked with red letters in the article:
|
Reviewer |
Reviewer comments |
Answer |
|
R1 |
The comments have been well addressed |
We appreciate the reviewer's willingness, as well as his quality suggestions for the article. |
|
R2 |
No more comments |
We appreciate the reviewer's willingness, as well as his quality suggestions for the article. |
|
R3 |
In citation 1, the Year should be bold. Citation format should be consistent. All concerns are solved. I recommend publication in Sustainability |
The year of Citation 1 is adjusted
We appreciate the reviewer's willingness, as well as his quality suggestions for the article. |
We look forward to your comments and hope to hear from you soon. Thank you very much
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
no more comments
Author Response
November 29, 2022
Dear
Odelia Zhou Editor-in-Chief Sustainability
Kind regards
According to the review of our article by the reviewers, the following changes were made, properly marked with red letters in the article:
|
Reviewer |
Reviewer comments |
Answer |
|
R1 |
The comments have been well addressed |
We appreciate the reviewer's willingness, as well as his quality suggestions for the article. |
|
R2 |
No more comments |
We appreciate the reviewer's willingness, as well as his quality suggestions for the article. |
|
R3 |
In citation 1, the Year should be bold. Citation format should be consistent. All concerns are solved. I recommend publication in Sustainability |
The year of Citation 1 is adjusted
We appreciate the reviewer's willingness, as well as his quality suggestions for the article. |
We look forward to your comments and hope to hear from you soon. Thank you very much
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In citation 1, the Year should be bold. Citation format should be consistent.
All concerns are solved. I recommend publication in Sustainability.
Author Response
November 29, 2022
Dear
Odelia Zhou Editor-in-Chief Sustainability
Kind regards
According to the review of our article by the reviewers, the following changes were made, properly marked with red letters in the article:
|
Reviewer |
Reviewer comments |
Answer |
|
R1 |
The comments have been well addressed |
We appreciate the reviewer's willingness, as well as his quality suggestions for the article. |
|
R2 |
No more comments |
We appreciate the reviewer's willingness, as well as his quality suggestions for the article. |
|
R3 |
In citation 1, the Year should be bold. Citation format should be consistent. All concerns are solved. I recommend publication in Sustainability |
The year of Citation 1 is adjusted
We appreciate the reviewer's willingness, as well as his quality suggestions for the article. |
We look forward to your comments and hope to hear from you soon. Thank you very much
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
