Shared Parking Decision Behavior of Parking Space Owners and Car Travelers Based on Prospect Theory—A Case Study of Nanchang City, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors thank you for interesting read on Shared Parking Decision Behavior of Parking Space Owners 2 and Car Travelers Based on Prospect Theory——Case Study of 3 Nanchang City, China, that shed a light on decision behavior of parking space owners and car travelers as it gives some practical insights on personal characteristics and behavioral habits and its impact on decision making process especially under uncertain conditions.

 

Introduction part and literature review are well structured and developed in the line with proposed research questions.

 

In regard to the methodology, prospect theory is adequate one and contributing to the research framework of the manuscript. It is well laid out and straight forward.

 

Please add scale to the map in Figure 4

 

Yes we understand that it is a key study, but it should be expanded to provide insights for policy makers, for academic research (both in theory and in practice). Also, study limitations should be presented. 

 

We would recommend separating conclusion and recommendation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors examined the factors affecting the decision behavior of parking space owners and car travelers in sharing parking spaces in Nanchang City. The paper has an interesting research topic, but not fit for publication in its current form. My recommendation is to return the paper to the authors with an invitation to re-resubmit the paper after major revision. My specific comments are as follows:

1)     First of all, I think the authors may want to carefully proofread the entire manuscript before re-submission. Some of the wordings used in this paper are confusing; while grammatical issues can also be noticed throughout the manuscript. For example, in the abstract section:

“…the owner feels the benefit and is willing to share the private parking space”, I think the authors mean to say “the owner is satisfied with the benefit”. “feels the benefit” sounds too ambiguous and subject.

“when the rental price is too different from the maximum price desired by the owner”, the “different” in this sentence should be replaced with the word “far”.

“the owner feels the loss and is not willing to share the parking space”. Again, instead of using “feels the loss”, the authors should use “is unsatisfied with the loss” to avoid using the ambiguous word.

Through the manuscript, there are many issues with the wording chosen by the authors. Besides, there are also grammatical issue. For example, again, in the abstract section:

“the shared parking space rental price that both parties are satisfied with in this case was analyzed.”. This sentence is hard to read and has some grammatical issues. The authors may want to change it into “in this case, the shared parking space rental price, with which both parties are satisfied, was analyzed.”

That’s some of the writing issues with the Abstract section in this manuscript, which is why I strongly recommend the authors professionally proofread the manuscript by carefully checking the grammar and wording in the entire paper before re-submission.

2)     Line 53-58 of Page 2: Besides the challenges mentioned by the authors, there are two additional challenges of travels facing public transportation that could be added. First, the inequal spatial distribution of public transport means that not everyone can access and use the public transportation equally (Guzman and Oviedo, 2018; Liu, Kwan and Kan, 2021). Second, the affordability issue (i.e., high transit fare cost) of the public transportation also means that people of low-income status may not use public transportation for traveling. Moreover, the affordability of public transportation can be further compounded by the housing affordability issue as people relying on public transportation may have to choose to live in proximity to transit, which increase their housing costs (Dewita, Yen and Burke, 2018; Dewita, Burke and Yen, 2020; Liu et al., 2021). The authors may want to talk about these challenges of public transportation by referring those existing studies.

·       Dewita Y, Yen BT, Burke M. The effect of transport cost on housing affordability: Experiences from the Bandung Metropolitan Area, Indonesia. Land use policy. 2018 Dec 1;79:507-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.043

·       Dewita Y, Burke M, Yen BT. The relationship between transport, housing and urban form: Affordability of transport and housing in Indonesia. Case Studies on Transport Policy. 2020 Mar 1;8(1):252-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2019.01.004

·       Guzman LA, Oviedo D. Accessibility, affordability and equity: Assessing ‘pro-poor’public transport subsidies in Bogotá. Transport Policy. 2018 Sep 30;68:37-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.04.012

·       Guzman, L.A. and Hessel, P., 2022. The effects of public transport subsidies for lower-income users on public transport use: A quasi-experimental study. Transport Policy, 126, pp.215-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.07.016

·       Liu D, Kwan MP, Kan Z. Assessing job-access inequity for transit-based workers across space and race with the Palma ratio. Urban Research & Practice. 2021 May 16:1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2021.1923795

·       Liu D, Kwan MP, Kan Z, Song Y. An integrated analysis of housing and transit affordability in the Chicago metropolitan area. The Geographical Journal. 2021 Jun;187(2):110-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12377

3)     Besides taking public transportation, carsharing (Huang, de Almeida Correia and An, 2018; Jian et al., 2020) and ride-hailing (Du et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022) are also common ways of solving the parking problem. The authors may want to elaborate on how carsharing and ride-hailing can help alleviate the parking challenges.

·       Du M, Cheng L, Li X, Liu Q, Yang J. Spatial variation of ridesplitting adoption rate in Chicago. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2022 Oct 1;164:13-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.07.018

·       Huang K, de Almeida Correia GH, An K. Solving the station-based one-way carsharing network planning problem with relocations and non-linear demand. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. 2018 May 1;90:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.02.020

·       Jian S, Liu W, Wang X, Yang H, Waller ST. On integrating carsharing and parking sharing services. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological. 2020 Dec 1;142:19-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2020.09.013

·       Li X, Du M, Zhang Y, Yang J. Identifying the factors influencing the choice of different ride-hailing services in Shenzhen, China. Travel Behaviour and Society. 2022 Oct 1;29:53-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2022.05.006

4)     Line 83 of Page 2: For “The United States put forward the theory of berth sharing as early as 1983.”, the authors is advised to cite the source for the original proposal of this berth sharing concept and elaborate on this concept.

5)     Line 108 of Page 3: It should be “...has yielded a lot of results” not “…has achieved a lot of results”

6)     Line 114 of Page 3: What is the authors’ definition for “car traveler”? Do you mean “people commute by car”, “people who use car for all kinds of trips”? What about people who travel by car only on weekend but travel by public transportation on weekday, are these people considered as car travelers? The authors’ should provide a clear definition for “car traveler” here.

7)     Line 120 of Page 3: “In summary, it can be…”. Usually, the word “in summary” only appears by the end of one section. It doesn’t look like this paragraph ends the Introduction section. Therefore, the authors may consider dropping the word “In summary”, replacing it with more appropriate word or simply merging this paragraph with the previous paragraph.

8)     Line 132-135 of Page 3: “In the decision behavior of shared parking spaces, the parking space owners and car travelers cannot obtain complete information, because they are influenced by personal experience and personal characteristics (personality, age, mood, and hobbies), etc.”. This is a very interesting and important statement. The authors should cite the sources/bases for this statement to lend it support.

9)     Line 158-159 of Page 4: “In response to the questions raised above, this study conducted SP (Stated Preference) survey and RP(Revealed-Preference) survey”. Why did the authors choose SP (Stated Preference) survey and RP(Revealed-Preference) survey? The rationale (e.g., advantages about these two surveys compared to other surveys) behind the choice should be clearly provided here.

10)  I cannot find some of the literature cited by the authors.

For example,

a)     She, F., J. Qiu and M. Tang, Simulation of prediction for free parking spaces in large parking lots. Application Research of Computers, 2019. 36(03): p. 851-854.”.

b)     Jin, Y., Parking Demand Prediction Based on LSTM Recurrent Neural Network. Logistics Engineering and Management, 2020. 42(10): p. 147-150.

I cannot find these papers in any journal database and strongly recommend the authors providing the DOI information for all cited papers in the Reference section in order to facilitate the searching for the cited papers.

11)  Some of the cited papers doesn’t have the right format in the Reference section. For example,

in “Calvin, G.T., Giving parking the time of day: A case study of a novel parking occupancy measure and an evaluation of infill development and carsharing as solutions to parking oversupply. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 2018. 29.”, Calvin is the first name of the author, here you should start with the last name of the author (i.e., Thigpen CG). It seems that the authors are using a Reference style similar to the Vancouver Reference Style. Whatever the reference style, the authors need to make sure the style for all cited papers in the Reference section is uniform. The authors need to carefully check all cited papers for reference style (i.e., incorrect placement of the last name; lack of volume/issue info etc.).

12)  Figure 4. looks like a screenshot from a random web mapping platform instead of Figure made by the authors themselves. There is not even a north arrow on the map. The authors should consider producing a map of the study area using the polygon boundary data. Otherwise, a screenshot with a simple rectangle is not acceptable.

13)  I wonder whether the authors can talk about some of the real-world policy implications and identify some of the limitations of this study in the last section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing all the suggestions for improvement. Good luck with the publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the valuable comments. 

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the authors’ efforts in addressing my comments. The revised manuscript has been improved. I am now satisfied with authors’ revision and have no further comments. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for the valuable comments.