E-Bike Charging Infrastructure in the Workplace—Should Employers Provide It?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study explored the factors influencing the charging frequency of e-bikes using a mixed logit model considering variables like commuting distance, e-bike’s resale value, age of the owner, student status, and employment group. The data have been obtained through a questionnaire survey and observations. Overall, the paper is well-written and addresses a very important and timely issue. My main concerns are as follows;

- Does the "Companies" in the title refer to the e-bike companies or the workplace where the e-bike users work? 

- What type of questions were asked in the questionnaire? In addition to the questions on trip characteristics and socio-economic factors (stated in lines 11-12), were employees' opinions about the availability of charging facilities at the workplace inquired?

- As mentioned in Section 2.1, 281 survey responses have been obtained (line 126). The adequacy of this sample size should be explained. The authors are recommended to perform a power analysis to explain the minimum required sample size.  

- As mentioned in the abstract and line 163, a dataset with 1091 observations has been obtained. More details regarding these "observations" should be provided. For example, how was this observational study done? What was the method (e.g., video recording, CCTV)? 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors focus on the analysis of the potential charging frequency of e-bike commuters to RWTH Aachen University. The paper analyzes the charging frequency of 281 e-bikers based on survey data with 1091 observations for free charging and the same for hypothetical paid charging. The content is well described and contextualized with respect to the literature.

The research design is well structured, presenting the hypotheses for developing a mixed logit model to estimate the factors influencing charging frequency, focusing on commuting distance, e-bike’s resale value, age of owner, student status, and employment group. This could enable researchers to replicate the suggested methodology although caution would be expected in confirming the properties of future samples, as the needed external validation is lacking.

The discussion of findings is coherent to the content presented; it includes useful arguments on the research carried out, and interesting comparative points with the literature. The results are clearly presented. However, more details on their analysis can be added and a deeper elaboration on implications should be provided. For instance, what are the implications of the distribution in Figure 2. The section of results can be enriched.

This research is contributing to the current literature by providing a combination of practices in the field of e-bikes charging preferences using a sample of users. Nevertheless, the extent to which this sample is representative of the whole population could be further discussed, especially in view of transferability potential.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Very glad to review this paper (sustainability-2458721). Thanks for your waiting. This paper focuses on work and study locations and analyzes the charging frequency of 281 e-bike commuters of RWTH Aachen University based on survey data with 1091 observations for free charging and the same for hypothetical paid charging. This paper uses a mixed logit model to estimate the factors influencing the charging frequency, focusing on the commuting distance, e-bike’s resale value, age of the owner, student status, and employment group. In a word, this study is very meaningful, but there are some questions in the article that make me confused that can help the author improve.

 

Main problems:

i.              Uppercase is recommended for the first letter of the keywords.

ii.              Is the title of the article too colloquial and does it need to be revised?

iii.              The sample of the article is 281 e-bike commuters of RWTH Aachen University . Is the sample representative? Please provide a specific explanation?

iv.              Section 2.1 mentions “Although the main groups of university members are students, they are a minority in our sample”, please explain the reason? Is it unreasonable?

v.              Is the horizontal axis scale in Figure 2 too chaotic? Please make appropriate adjustments?

vi.              Section 3.2 mentions "This mixed result contradicts our expectation that an older age leads to lower fitness and a significantly higher likelihood of charging the e-bike.", please explain the specific reason?

vii.              The conclusion mentions "However, under German law and legislation in other countries, even free charging of e-bikes is taxable. ", and it is best to consider tax fees simultaneously during the research process?

 

viii.              Some references list too many authors, so it is recommended to list only the first three authors for simplicity.

The language level is clear. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my comments and updated the paper accordingly. I have no further comments. 

 

Author Response

No reply to the reviewer. 

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Thanks for the authors’ revision (ID: sustainability-2458721) in the 2nd round. 

I am satisfied with the revision and responses. Please allow me to recommend an acceptable decision. 

The only concern is to remind the authors to check and improve the level of language further.

Author Response

We improved the language.