Modelling Parking Choice Behaviour Considering Alternative Availability and Systematic and Random Variations in User Tastes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The main question addressed by the research is how to select a parking lot based on preferences. The topic has contributions but I could not understand it completely. This methodology has made it possible to provide greater realism in the generation of 20 fictitious parking scenarios.
The article is to about a parking problem but I could not understand the methodology and I suggest to elaborate the proposed method in details and step by step. It is mentioned that the simulation method is employed to analyze the different scenarios thus I think adding the algorithm, of each simulation program can be so helpful. I did not understand how the trip data are employed and combined with each other to create scenarios.
They should clarification about procedure of selecting parking based on alternative availability and systematic and random variations in user tastes. for example, I did not understand the paragraph"The new variables EA and LA were included in a temporal context that can influence the choices drivers' choices detected in the FG. The D-Error technique was applied in the design of the SP survey [39] produced 12 scenarios divided into two blocks which made the survey easier to manage for the interviewees who do not usually have much time available." if it is about design of experiment then they should introduce the design in detail.The most problem of this article is lack of flowchart or algorithms to describe how the method works and I thing adding a simple numerical or practical example for incoming driver and denote his method of decision making for parking lot can be helpful for readers.
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented but need revision.
The references are appropriate.
Author Response
The main question addressed by the research is how to select a parking lot based on preferences. The topic has contributions but I could not understand it completely. This methodology has made it possible to provide greater realism in the generation of 20 fictitious parking scenarios.
We appreciate the comments and the time spent on the review. We also want to achieve the best result in our research so we have proceeded to modify the summary and introduction making the gap covered much more visible in order to show more efficiently the improvements introduced by our methodology. Through these changes we intend to clarify, as you ask us, the contributions made.
The article is to about a parking problem but I could not understand the methodology and I suggest to elaborate the proposed method in details and step by step. It is mentioned that the simulation method is employed to analyze the different scenarios thus I think adding the algorithm, of each simulation program can be so helpful. I did not understand how the trip data are employed and combined with each other to create scenarios.
The study is based on a stated preference survey (see Figure 1). Once the survey was correctly designed, the definitive survey was carried out obtaining answers of the different parking users to six scenarios. With these answers we could estimate the discrete choice models presented on Table 3. Finally applying the ECML model we tested the results of different future parking policy scenarios, i.e. changes in different variables contained in the model to observe how the drivers surveyed could change their behaviour under these new circumstances (for example, increases in the FEE of the POSP alternative). This allowed us to obtain some conclusions about which policies could be more effective and efficient to push a more sustainable mobility increasing the use of the paid parking and P&R alternatives.
We have tried to improve the understanding of the methodology including a Figure4 that shows better how the survey was applied and we have also included an extended version of Figure 1 (Scheme of the methodology proposed.) adding a more complete and exhaustive explanation of the whole methodological process.
Regarding your suggestion on the simulation algorithm, we appreciate your comment and your interest in better understanding our work. Let us explain how the travel data are used and how they are combined to create the scenarios.
In our study, we use the NLOGIT software to simulate different parking policy scenarios. This software is based on the estimated Error Component Mixed Logit (ECML). It uses existing travel data (such as travel time, cost, parking availability, etc.) to model how users make decisions about where to park.
To create the scenarios, we change the values of certain trip attributes and observe how these changes affect users' choices. For example, in the first scenario, we increase the time to destination by 100% for the free on-street parking (FOSP) option. This is done to simulate the effect of a policy that limits the availability of free parking near destination areas. The other scenarios combine this change with others, such as increases in paid on-street parking (POSP) and underground parking (PUP) fees, and a decrease in park-and-ride (P&R) fee.
As for the incorporation of each programme's simulation algorithm, while I understand that this detail may be of interest to some readers, it may not be appropriate for this particular study. The inclusion of the algorithms behind the NLOGIT software could unnecessarily complicate the article and detract attention from the main results and conclusions. Our aim is to provide a clear picture of the policy implications of our simulations and how these could help to formulate more efficient parking policies. However, for those interested in the technical details of the software, we would recommend consulting the official NLOGIT documentation.
In order to justify this, we have added the citation to the NLOGIT software we use for the scenario simulations. And we have added in this section more text explaining the generated scenarios for a better understanding of the readers.
They should clarification about procedure of selecting parking based on alternative availability and systematic and random variations in user tastes. for example, I did not understand the paragraph"The new variables EA and LA were included in a temporal context that can influence the choices drivers' choices detected in the FG. The D-Error technique was applied in the design of the SP survey [39] produced 12 scenarios divided into two blocks which made the survey easier to manage for the interviewees who do not usually have much time available." if it is about design of experiment then they should introduce the design in detail.
Thanks for the feedback on the procedure, we have added in figure 4 a new flow chart explaining the process of dividing the survey. Also, during the design of the experiment, we divided the study area into five zones. Each driver was shown scenarios with the parking alternatives available in the zone where they were currently parked. Therefore, the availability of parking alternatives for respondents was determined based on their location within the study area.
The variables EA and LA were included to proxy for early or late arrival at the destination. These variables take into account the amount of time drivers may spend at their destination after parking. Their purpose was to indicate whether an individual would arrive late or early when opting for the street parking alternative (referred to as POSP). The variables EA and LA aimed to capture the possibility of arriving too early due to a quicker parking spot discovery than anticipated or arriving too late due to a prolonged search for an available parking space.The variables were included in response to the findings of our focus group (FG) whee it was found that time of arrival can influence drivers' choice of parking.
In this paragraph we try to explain that the variables EA and LA (early or late arrival compared to expected) were included in the stated preference scenarios because in the FG was detected that they can influence the choices of the drivers in the case of the paid on street parking alternative. For example, if a driver is making a trip for work purpose, probably he/she will tend to avoid all the alternatives that can imply a late arrival to the final destination. On the other hand, in the case of leisure trips, the drivers could not be influence by an early or late arrival. The details of the attributes and levels introduced in the survey can be seen in Table 1.
A paragraph has been added to explain more clearly their inclusion in section 3.3 at the end of this section.
The most problem of this article is lack of flowchart or algorithms to describe how the method works and I thing adding a simple numerical or practical example for incoming driver and denote his method of decision making for parking lot can be helpful for readers.
The new Figure 4 tries to describe better the method followed to obtain the answers of the drivers to the different scenarios. We have made an effort to increase the realism of the survey questions (scenarios) being this the main contributions of the research and of the methodology followed. Finally, a paragraph on scenarios has been added to paragraph 6 to clarify the procedures followed.
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented but need revision.
In this version the conclusions have been revised to increase its readability.
The references are appropriate.
Thank you for your reply on the references included.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The title of the work corresponds to the content.
A clearly defined goal - to improve the models for choosing a parking space by residents of city centers and their outskirts.
Well described methodology, characterized stages of research work. A clearly described survey, including further questions and answer options. Well-chosen selection attributes, established on the basis of a proper literature review.
Pilot studies were carried out to simulate several scenarios, which were then tested. All test results well presented in tables. Tables properly constructed.
Conclusions supported by reliable research material and analysis.
The basic conclusion that removing free parking spaces or reducing free parking in favor of regulating parking charges in congested areas can be an effective policy measure to promote other parking alternatives and reduce the number of vehicles searching for a parking space is unquestionable.
If changes were made to the parking policy of the analyzed city, the authors could verify their conclusions from the described research in subsequent studies.
Author Response
A clearly defined goal - to improve the models for choosing a parking space by residents of city centers and their outskirts.
Well described methodology, characterized stages of research work. A clearly described survey, including further questions and answer options. Well-chosen selection attributes, established on the basis of a proper literature review.
Pilot studies were carried out to simulate several scenarios, which were then tested. All test results well presented in tables. Tables properly constructed.
Conclusions supported by reliable research material and analysis.
The basic conclusion that removing free parking spaces or reducing free parking in favor of regulating parking charges in congested areas can be an effective policy measure to promote other parking alternatives and reduce the number of vehicles searching for a parking space is unquestionable.
If changes were made to the parking policy of the analyzed city, the authors could verify their conclusions from the described research in subsequent studies.
We greatly appreciate your detailed comments and observations on our work. It is encouraging to see that you have appreciated the objective of our study and the methodology we have employed, as well as the clarity with which we have presented our survey and results.
We agree with you that the conclusion - the elimination or reduction of free parking spaces in favour of parking fee regulation in congested areas can be an effective policy measure to promote alternative parking and reduce the number of vehicles looking for parking - is a sound idea and supported by our analysis.
Your suggestions regarding the possibility of verifying our findings in future studies if changes in the parking policy of the studied city are implemented are very valuable. We have decided to include a reference as a future line in a new section of clarified conclusions to bring simplicity and understanding to the conclusions. This would certainly provide an excellent opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed policies and to further refine our models.
Finally, we again sincerely appreciate your time and effort in providing this valuable feedback.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is well designed and any extensive revisions are not required. This section contains the literature review. The extension of the section is sufficient. It is arranged logically. This section includes four subsections. The text is supported by the figures and tables. Provided information are interesting. The methodology includes interesting information and provides the important data for the research. The authors introduce the finding of the presented research. The layout seems to be suitable for presentation in the journal. The reference presents the scenarios of parking manners. It includes the results of the specific research.
I recommend:
- The article should begin by the section „Introduction“, I recommend to entitled the section only “Introduction”. The content of the section is clear, it introduces a reader to the topic in a proper way.
- The conclusion section should be shortened and the previous sections should be written as Discussion,
Author Response
The manuscript is well designed and any extensive revisions are not required. This section contains the literature review. The extension of the section is sufficient. It is arranged logically. This section includes four subsections. The text is supported by the figures and tables. Provided information are interesting. The methodology includes interesting information and provides the important data for the research. The authors introduce the finding of the presented research. The layout seems to be suitable for presentation in the journal. The reference presents the scenarios of parking manners. It includes the results of the specific research.
We sincerely appreciate your positive feedback on our manuscript. We are pleased that you found our research's organisation, design and presentation to be appropriate and the information we provided to be interesting and relevant.
We are especially pleased that you appreciated the methodology we used and the data we collected for our research. Our aim was to provide a solid basis for our findings regarding the methodology developed for the parking surveys and we are happy to know that we have succeeded in this respect.
Regarding the parking mode scenarios and the results of our research, we are pleased that these elements have been presented clearly and understandably. We strive to ensure that our findings are easily accessible and useful to readers.
Your feedback is very valuable to us, and we will consider it in our future work.
I recommend:
The article should begin by the section „Introduction“, I recommend to entitled the section only “Introduction”. The content of the section is clear, it introduces a reader to the topic in a proper way.
Thank you very much for your contribution to the clarity of the nomenclature of the section. We have made the indicated change.
The conclusion section should be shortened and the previous sections should be written as Discussion,
We have rewritten this section in a clearer way to make it understandable and comprehensible more quickly and to improve its readability, and we have adopted the name indicated in the previous section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
- For self-citation, several papers published by authors are cited in References [6],[7],[22],[23],[38]. Such a number of self-citation behaviors should not appear in academic papers and is not appropriate.
- Too much repetition in the citations throughout the paper.
- Sections names should be revised.
- Simulation setup/ parameters are required for the reader to visualize and understand simulation scenarios clearly.
Acceptable in present form.
Author Response
For self-citation, several papers published by authors are cited in References [6],[7],[22],[23],[38]. Such a number of self-citation behaviors should not appear in academic papers and is not appropriate.
We are grateful for this appreciation as it was an aspect that we had not considered during the elaboration of the document. We see this research as a mature state of a field in which we have been working for years and have done a lot of work. However, we understand that there are a large number of self-citations, and we have eliminated those that are less relevant to the current work, keeping only 3 of the initial ones.
Too much repetition in the citations throughout the paper.
Thank you very much, indeed, sometimes some citations such as 3, 2, 6, or 34 (referred to the first version of the manuscript) could be very repetitive. On the other hand, some of them, such as 25, 36 or 24, we have decided to keep them in 2 places as they are essential for the explanation of the variables. In general, however, we have simplified the redundancy that existed in some cases by leaving the citations that we considered most relevant.
Section names should be revised.
Thank you for this contribution. We have simplified the name of the introduction, renamed section 3 to Methodology and section 6 to discussion for a better overall understanding of the headings.
Simulation setup/ parameters are required for the reader to visualize and understand simulation scenarios clearly.
We appreciate this comment and the need to provide more clarity around the configuration and parameters of the simulation scenarios. We have incorporated a new paragraph to better detail these aspects. We hope that clarifications allow to understand better the scenario development.
Scenario 1: 100% increase in time to destination for free on-street parking (FOSP), which could represent an increase in distance from parking locations to destination due to a reduction in the number of free parking spaces available..
Scenario 2: Based on Scenario 1, with an additional 50% increase in the parking fee for paid on-street parking (POSP), making this option more expensive.
Scenario 3: Adds to Scenario 2 by introducing a 50% increase in the parking fee for paid on-street parking (PUP), making both on-street and paid underground parking more expensive.
Scenario 4: Starts with the changes of Scenario 1 (i.e. 100% increase in destination time for FOSP) and adds a 75% increase in parking fees for POSP and PUP, representing a significant increase in the cost of both parking options.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for revisions. I have understood the whole idea but the methodology is still a little confusing for me and I think a it is hard for other practitioners to apply the procedure in real case problems. I suggest to to add a section named numerical example to elaborate step by step what happens for an incoming driver via a decision tree approach. my general decision is to accept
