Analysis of Malfunctions in Selected Parking Systems in the Czech Republic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Literature review is poor. The authors do not refer to the current state of knowledge about parking systems solutions. In the part devoted to the discussion of the results, it is also difficult to look for verification with other authors. The research carried out in the article is based on a simple comparison of two systems (devices) in terms of failure rate. In addition, as they themselves indicate, these systems are different and this affects the results obtained. There is no broader context, e.g. calculating the resulting losses for users or for the environment. The conducted research brings nothing to the global state of knowledge. In my opinion, the issues raised do not correspond to the subject matter of the journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,   thank you very much for your review and also for your time. As for your notes:   - Literature review was extended, the same goes for references list. - Our work regarding APSs is only in the beginning and we have no knowledge of other authors with same approach for APSs, thus we can not directly compare our results to other works. - The differences between facilities in question were more stressed out, described in more detail and added to evaluation. The overall functioning was matter of study rather than calculation of specific financial losses in this phase of our work.   Thank you once again and have a nice day.   Sincerely, Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for sending your paper to the journal Sustainability. Your paper is interesting and in the scope of the journal.

Your paper analyses malfunctions in selected parking systems in the Czech Republic, respectively Brno and Slany. This is quite an interesting topic for researching.

I want to propose to you some improvements to the current version of the paper:

1. The missing part of your research is the Literature review. This chapter must introduce the research topic and define a research gap.
2. Connecting to comment 1, your literature list is relatively weak.
3. Line 45 and 46: between chapter and subchapter, there is a need for at least one paragraph. There is this issue across the paper.
4. In both cities, you used data from MULTITOWER. According to your text, it is not the story. Please rewrote subchapter 2.4
5. Also, you can adjust the title of subchapters 2.1 and 2.2. There is not necessary to point out MULTITOWER.
6. In subchapter 2.3 you have explained three Categorization of possible malfunctions. It is necesser<y to connect those with your research.
7. In chapter Method it will be good to add a block diagram of your methodology.
8. It will be good to know data about parking facility: capacity, average occupancy, charging fees, etc
9. Chapter Results and Discussion are in very novel form. I expected concrete scientific results and afterwards fruitful discussion.
10. Please carefully read your conclusion. For example last paragraph: “Customers are the biggest problem. They do not read the instructions, they do not place the car in the check-in area properly, they do not brake the car (parking gear in automatic cars is insufficient), they do not give proper instructions, they move around the check-in area even after the parking process beings, etc. These problems do not exist in Warsaw, where there is an APS for a residential building.” We are now in Warsaw. The conclusion is based on your research, and it is presenting your results with future steps in a research topic. This part is missing.

Regards,

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your time, which you gave for review of our manuscript. As for your notes:

1. The chapter Literature review was added.
2. Literature list was significantly extended.
3. This was unintentional omission, thank you, an introductory sentence was added.
4. We modified chapter 2.4 (now 3.4) to not cause contradictory impression.
5. Titles were adjusted.
6. We put results to certain context with malfunction categories.
7. Thank you for your suggestion, in this phase of our work we do not consider the methodology to be complex enough for block diagram to be necessary. In future, when we hope for more methods utilized and also more detailed input and output, we will definitely reconsider using block diagram.
8. The data provided by practitioners are limited, but we added some available information about facilities in question.
9. We adjusted some of the paragraphs in mentioned sections to give more precise conclusions.
10. The formulation about customers were quite unfortunate. We adjusted it to be not so offensive and to capture more precisely what we actually meant. Nods towards the future work were added to Conclusion.

Thank you once again and have a pleasant day.

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has to be revised in its formatting by inserting some paragraphs or detailing others. 
A description of the area examined could help better understand the case study, starting from the demand for mobility, car ownership by citizens and the other possible modal choices present. 
The novelty of the research should be better emphasised in the introductory part, while the limitations should be emphasised in the conclusions.
In the introductory part it could be useful to refer to the evolution of the different types of parking and also to refer to the recent pandemic with an increased use of private vehicles and therefore the use of parking spaces:

1)Rifai, A. I. (2021, December). Analysis of Impact COVID-19 on Parking Characteristics in the Office Area: Case of Jakarta City. In Proceeding of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (pp. 487-495).

2)Gong, S., Mo, X., Cao, R., Liu, Y., Tu, W., & Bai, R. (2021). Spatio-temporal Parking Behaviour Forecasting and Analysis Before and During COVID-19. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07731.

3)Ortega, J., Tóth, J., Péter, T., & Moslem, S. (2020). An integrated model of park-and-ride facilities for sustainable urban mobility. Sustainability, 12(11), 4631.

4) Ortega, J., Moslem, S., Palaguachi, J., Ortega, M., Campisi, T., & Torrisi, V. (2021). An Integrated Multi Criteria Decision Making Model for Evaluating Park-and-Ride Facility Location Issue: A Case Study for Cuenca City in Ecuador. Sustainability, 13(13), 7461.

Paragraph 2 should contain a map in which the different car parks examined and their location in relation to the city centre and/or major attractions are included.
Probably the title of paragraph 2 should be corrected.
All figures should be inserted in high resolution with larger and more visible text.

How many parking spaces are related to the two car parks analysed? How many parking spaces in total and of what type are located in the analysed areas? 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your time, which you gave for review of our manuscript. As for your notes:

• We tried to give a little more detailed info about facilities, this includes capacity and some technical parameters of both APSs.
• Novelty was emphasized in new section Literature review, so were the limitations in the same section and in Conclusion.
• Thank you very much for inspiration for introductory section, we humbly utilized your suggestions, as well as references.
• We are planning to take other parking facilities into account in more detailed manner in the future.
• All Figures were adjusted and recreated, this time in vector format.

Thank you once again and have a pleasant day.

Sincerely,

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Agree in present form

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your time, which you gave for review of our manuscript. 

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

You did not upload the version with which is visible what you have changed in your new version of the paper.

It s challenging to follow what the authors have changed in the new version of the paper.
Nevertheless, I have carefully read a new version and compare the answer to my review.
It is still paper on the border between professional and scientific papers.
I think this is the maximum that we can get from the authors.

Regards,

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

we are sorry for inconvenience of not highlighting our adjustments, we mistakenly considered them clear enough.

Thank you and have a pleasant day.

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It is still necessary to 
1) Correct some grammatical errors in the manuscript. 
2) revise the formatting of the references
3 ) better underline the motivation for the choice of the case studies 
4) better underline the novelty of the research

Finally ,the acronyms should be included in an expanded form when used for the first time in the text. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your time, which you gave for review of our manuscript. As for your notes:

1) English in the manuscript has been revised and corrected at some places (grammar, clarity, interpunction, etc.)

2) The formatting of the references has been unified, one source has been replaced with more appropriate one.

3) The reasons for the choice of APSs in Brno and Slaný were emphasized.

4) The novelty of using statistical methods for analysis of APSs was a bit more stressed out.

Thank you once again and have a pleasant day.

Sincerely,

Authors

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf