Exploring the Influence of Parking Penalties on Bike-Sharing System with Willingness Constraints: A Case Study of Beijing, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper explores the impact of parking penalties on bike-sharing systems. SP questionnaire survey and binary Logistic model were used to analyze the consumption behavior of shared bicycle users. Clarifications and revisions are needed to fully appreciate the study. Please see the below comments.
1, Introduction, “With the rapid process of…some progress of cities.”
“Leveraging the power of the Internet and mobile payment platforms, bike-sharing not only retains…d governmental entities alike.”
“In terms of regulatory measures, …respective shortcomings.”
Some references should be added in the Introduction.
2, Line 153-line 221. Please streamline your statements. It’s too long.
3, The font format in Figure 3 is different and needs to be adjusted.
4, From line 410-line 419, the meaning of the numbers should be noted.
5, Please pay attention to the written English grammar, and avoid Chinglish expressions.
6, Please summarise after line 392 in one or two sentences, it will be clearer.
7, Many literature has been reviewed, but the following three studies could be beneficial to enrich the state-of-the-art summary.
Data-driven Interpretation on interactive and nonlinear effects of the correlated built environment on shared mobility
Examining the influence of social norms on orderly parking behavior of dockless bike-sharing users
minor English revision
Author Response
Please see the attachment. The file will be clearer because it has a better format.
Report on the revision of the paper
“Exploring the Influence of Parking Penalties on Bike-sharing System with Willingness Constraints: A Case Study of Beijing, China”
by Jiayu Bao, Guojun Chen and Zhenghua Liu
Resubmitted to Sustainability
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2518297
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciations of your letter and reviewers’ constructive comments concerning our article. These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. According to your comments, we have made extensive modifications to our manuscript and supplemented extra data to make our results convincing. In this revised version, changes to our manuscript were all yellow highlighted within the document by using red-colored text. The detailed point-by-point responses are listed below this report; comments are italicized in black, and our responses are in red.
- We have streamlined the description of the cited literature, enhancing its logical flow, and enriched the paper with additional literature and methodologies.
- We have included a new chapter titled "Methodology," which provides a comprehensive breakdown of our research methods and highlights the usage patterns of shared bicycles in Beijing.
- We have expanded the explanation and clarification of the content in our questionnaire survey.
- We have incorporated data presentations in the application aspect of the results to demonstrate the effectiveness of our improvements.
We hope that these major changes will be able to address the reviewers’ comments.
Point 1: Introduction, “With the rapid process of…some progress of cities.”
“Leveraging the power of the Internet and mobile payment platforms, bike-sharing not only retains…d governmental entities alike.”
“In terms of regulatory measures, …respective shortcomings.”
Some references should be added in the Introduction.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback on the Introduction of our manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments and the revised sentence now better elucidates the context of our study. In line with your suggestion, we have added relevant references to the Introduction to support the points presented and to strengthen the background and significance of our research. By rearranging these references, we believe the Introduction is now more well-supported, lending greater credibility to the arguments presented in the manuscript.
Specifically, we added 8 more references to the Introduction as follows:
1) “the act of traversing on bicycles yields benefits such as emission reduction, congestion alleviation, and has provided a new solution for last-kilometer connection [1], thereby fostering the wholesome progress of cities.”
2) “while offering heightened accessibility and spatiotemporal heterogeneity in the economic benefits [3], but also surmounts the issue of theft, thereby enhancing travel reliability.”
3) “Nevertheless, despite the market's enthusiastic response, it concurrently unveils a novel predicament concerning parking: the occupation of public spaces by bike-sharing [4],”
4) “which escalates the expenses associated with urban space management and bicycle operation and maintenance [5].”
5) “the current stage of standardized bike-sharing predominantly employs electronic fence technology, utilizing GPS [7] or Bluetooth within urban areas to establish a judicious allocation of virtual parking spots.”
6) “Users are required to park their bikes within these designated areas [8];”
7) “otherwise, penalties are imposed. This virtual ‘electronic fence’ sup-plants traditional docking systems [9], facilitating flexible layout adjustments and reducing facility construction costs.”
8) “Bike-sharing system, which had been designated parking spots effectively in the effects of built environment factors [10], manages the occupation of public space while leveraging the combined advantages of the two preceding bicycle models to overcome their respective shortcomings.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 2: Line 153-line 221. Please streamline your statements. It’s too long.
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. We have streamlined the statements to improve the readability of the manuscript. In response to your suggestion, we have made these adjustments. Condensed sentences, We have revised lengthy sentences by breaking them into shorter, more concise statements without compromising the clarity and coherence of the content. Eliminated redundant information, We carefully reviewed the text and removed any repetitive or unnecessary details, ensuring that the essential points are conveyed effectively. Reorganized paragraphs, To enhance the flow of information, we have restructured some paragraphs to present the ideas in a more coherent and logical manner. By implementing these modifications, we have streamlined the content from Line 161 to Line 186, making it more concise and accessible to readers while retaining the key information.
Below are the specific sentences from our draft that we have modified based on your recommendations:
“Previous research on parking violation behavior in various transportation modes has shown the potential of economic incentives to influence bike-sharing parking practices. Hess and Polak developed a mixed Logit model to explore parking violations under different conditions [32]. Morillo and Campos emphasized the importance of curb-ing street parking violations to enhance road capacity [33]. However, Lu et al. found limited effectiveness of warning messages in deterring parking violations [34]. Studies on travel mode selection and behavior have also shown the influence of economic factors. Zhang et al. investigated the impact of cost disparity on users' cycling behaviors [35]. The consensus is that economic interventions can significantly influence travel behavior and enhance alternative transportation modes. Economic interventions shape travel behavior; integrating incentives in bike-sharing parking fosters responsible practices and sustainability.”
“Scholarly works highlight monetary incentives' potential in controlling bike-sharing parking behavior. Within the realm of bike-sharing, Shi et al. used social network analysis to examine influential factors in the bike-sharing system [36]. Shui and Szeto (2020) highlighted the economic benefits at various levels [37], while Pfrommer et al. optimized sharing system efficiency through intelligent route decision-making and price incentives [38]. They developed an effective mechanism for seamless system operation through intelligent route decision-making and realtime price incentives. Wang et al. have illuminated the in-direct impact of social norms on users' attitudes toward standard parking [5], highlighting the role of individual norms. By employing the mixed Logit model, Gao et al. explored the bandwagon effect of economic measures on bike-sharing users [39]. Their findings re-veal that increasing incentive intensity makes rewards more effective, but unscientific penalties limit bike-sharing adoption as a transportation mode. Médard de Chardon dis-cussed the complexities of deploying bike-sharing systems and the unequal distribution of benefits [40]. Zhao and Wang investigated the determinants of disorderly parking and the importance of collaboration in promoting standard parking practices [41].”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 3: The font format in Figure 3 is different and needs to be adjusted.
Response 3: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript and for bringing to our attention the issue with Figure 3. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused by the oversight, and we appreciate your keen observation, and we have made the necessary adjustments to address the font format inconsistency in the figure. In the revised version, we have ensured that the font format in Figure 3 is consistent with the rest of the figures and the text throughout the manuscript. The font size, style, and formatting have been standardized to enhance the visual coherence of the figure and improve its overall clarity.
It should be noted that, in light of other reviewer comments, we have included additional content in the manuscript, resulting in a reorganization of the figures. The original Figure 3 has now become Figure 4 in the revised version.
The chart is titled “Figure 4. Questionnaire data distribution. (a) Purpose; (b) Weekly usage; (c) Duration of each use; (d) Daily traffic cost; (e) Concern on travel costs; (f) Attitude to parking spots.”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 4: From line 410-line 419, the meaning of the numbers should be noted.
Response 4: Thank you for your attention to the specific numerical data presented in our study. We have taken significant efforts to ensure the clarity and coherence of the numerical information in the revised manuscript. As you correctly pointed out, the numbers represent various aspects, including the statistical descriptions and validity tests of the variables used for the modeling process. To improve the reader's understanding and maintain a coherent flow in the manuscript, we have now placed these numerical values in their corresponding sections. This will enable readers to grasp the context and relevance of the data in relation to the topics discussed in each part of the paper.
1) The statistical descriptions of the variables is from Line 373 to Line 380. We have taken steps to enhance the presentation of the statistical characteristics of the variables used in our study. To achieve this, we even have included a new table “Table 2. The coding table of the categorical variables and the continuous variables.” that provides a comprehensive display of the relevant statistical data for each variable. This addition aims to offer readers a clearer and more structured view of the variables' statistical properties, facilitating better understanding and interpretation of our findings. We believe that the incorporation of this table has significantly improved the quality of our manuscript and has further strengthened the robustness of our analysis. The revised draft is as follows:
“Due to the limited scope of the questionnaire, this survey encompasses 9 categorical variables and 5 continuous variables. The modeling variables involved in this survey questionnaire are encoded as shown in Table 2, The categorical variables are coded as dummy variables,and the continuous variables are coded as numerical.”
2) The validity tests of the variables used for the modeling is from Line 380 to Line 393. In response to your comments, we wrote clearly that we had performed necessary correlation tests and significance tests to assess the relationships between the variables used in our model. Additionally, we have provided statistical descriptions, including measures of skewness and kurtosis, for some of the variables. And we have included a new table “Table 3. Descriptive statistical table for continuous variables.” These measures allow us to observe the distribution characteristics of the data and validate the appropriateness of the questionnaire design and the scientific validity of the chosen variables. By conducting these analyses, we have ensured that our model is built on a solid foundation, and we have further strengthened the robustness and reliability of our findings. The revised draft is as follows:
“Through a thorough examination of the independent variables in the survey, it has been determined that each variable exhibits a Tolerance significantly surpassing 0.1, while the VIF remains below 10. Most studies on bike-sharing usage consider the correlation between variables essential, as it serves as a crucial link in verifying data and establishing predictive models [46]. The elegant portrayal of each variable's heatmap can be observed in Figure 3, which shows the all variables’ Pearson Correlation Coefficient lie beneath 0.6, thereby affirming the appropriateness of the correlation amongst model variables.”
“Mean values can be used to observe the level of agreement among respondents for each option, and the standard deviation can be used to observe the degree of convergence in their choices. All variables display an absolute Skewness below 2, and their absolute Kurtosis is substantially lower than 10, except DTC, signifying the conformity of the questionnaire design and the collected data to a multivariate normal distribution. The descriptive statistical table for continuous variables shows as Table 3.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 5: Please pay attention to the written English grammar, and avoid Chinglish expressions.
Response 5: We feel sorry for our poor writings, however, we tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes to the manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and made necessary revisions to ensure that the written English adheres to proper grammar rules and avoids any Chinglish expressions. We understand the significance of clear and coherent language in conveying our research effectively. Additionally, we have conducted thorough proofreading to address any language-related issues and ensure the manuscript's readability and professionalism. Your feedback has been immensely helpful in enhancing the quality of our paper, and we are grateful for your attention to detail.These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in the revised paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 6: Please summarise after line 392 in one or two sentences, it will be clearer.
Response 6: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We truly appreciate your thoughtful comments. In response to your suggestions, we have provided a concise summary of the differences in usage patterns among users of different characteristics of shared bicycles. This summary not only consolidates the findings from the previous sections but also serves as a foundation for the subsequent modeling study on parking behavior. After line 417 in the new manuscript, a concise summary is as follows:
"The survey reveals noteworthy characteristics of bike-sharing users' behavior, showing that different user groups have varying preferences for trip purposes and travel frequency. Bike-sharing is predominantly used for short to medium distances, and most users are sensitive to travel costs, making them attentive to parking violation penalties."
We are grateful for your insightful advice, which has not only improved the readability and structure of our manuscript but also enhanced the logical flow of our writing. This summary captures the main points of the section in one sentence, providing a clearer overview of the content for the reviewer. Your valuable input has been instrumental in enhancing the overall quality of our research.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 7: Many literature has been reviewed, but the following these studies could be beneficial to enrich the state-of-the-art summary.
Data-driven Interpretation on interactive and nonlinear effects of the correlated built environment on shared mobility.
Examining the influence of social norms on orderly parking behavior of dockless bike-sharing users.
Response 7: We have carefully reviewed these studies and acknowledge their relevance to our research topic. We will incorporate these valuable references into our literature review to further enrich the summary. We have carefully reviewed the two papers you recommended and found them to be highly relevant to our research topic. After thorough study, we have made necessary modifications to our manuscript and appropriately cited these papers. Your guidance has been instrumental in enhancing the comprehensiveness and depth of our paper, and we are grateful for your valuable input. If you have any further recommendations or comments, please feel free to share them with us. Your feedback is of immense value to us.
1) The first paper utilizes an unbiased data-driven method called cumulative effects analysis to examine the complex (nonlinear and interactive) impact of correlated built environment factors on shared mobility usage. The study specifically focuses on using an unbiased and data-driven approach to reveal intricate effects, which can overcome the impact of correlations among built environment factors. The empirical analysis is based on comprehensive data from dockless bike-sharing systems (DLBS) and on-site datasets.
“Gao et al. (2023) leverages accumulated effect analysis for examining the complex (non-linear and interactive) effects of correlated built environment factors on the usage of bike-sharing [18]. Constructing a parking behavior model must consider various factors: users' attributes, bike usage patterns, sharing economy perspectives, and transportation positions. Existing research shows benefits: enhancing public transportation, diversifying travel options, yielding economic and environmental advantages, and revitalizing cy-cling.”
2) The second paper proposes a comprehensive model and recruits 1722 participants from various professions and geographical locations in China to investigate the influence of individual and social environmental factors on orderly parking behavior. The study demonstrates that descriptive social norms directly or indirectly affect users' attitudes towards orderly parking, thereby influencing their intentions for orderly parking behavior.
“They developed an effective mechanism for seamless system operation through intelligent route decision-making and realtime price incentives. Wang et al. have illuminated the in-direct impact of social norms on users' attitudes toward standard parking [5], highlight-ing the role of individual norms.”
Thank you again for your comments and suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help. Thank you very much for your help.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic discussed in the article is up-to-date. The methodology is fully described. The test results are clearly presented and described. Conclusions summarize the discussed problem and provide an answer to the research hypotheses set out in the work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. The file will be clearer because it has a better format.
Report on the revision of the paper
“Exploring the Influence of Parking Penalties on Bike-sharing System with Willingness Constraints: A Case Study of Beijing, China”
by Jiayu Bao, Guojun Chen and Zhenghua Liu
Resubmitted to Sustainability
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2518297
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciations of your letter and reviewers’ constructive comments concerning our article. These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. According to your comments, we have made extensive modifications to our manuscript and supplemented extra data to make our results convincing. In this revised version, changes to our manuscript were all yellow highlighted within the document by using red-colored text. The detailed point-by-point responses are listed below this report; comments are italicized in black, and our responses are in red.
- We have streamlined the description of the cited literature, enhanced its logical flow, and enriched the paper with additional literature and methodologies.
- We have included a new chapter titled "Methodology," which provides a comprehensive breakdown of our research methods and highlights the usage patterns of shared bicycles in Beijing.
- We have expanded the explanation and clarification of the content in our questionnaire survey.
- We have incorporated data presentations in the application aspect of the results to demonstrate the effectiveness of our improvements.
We hope that these major changes will be able to address the reviewers’ comments.
Point 1: The topic discussed in the article is up-to-date. The methodology is fully described. The test results are clearly presented and described. Conclusions summarize the discussed problem and provide an answer to the research hypotheses set out in the work.
Response 1: Thank you sincerely for your positive and encouraging feedback on our article. Your kind remarks have affirmed the relevance and quality of our research, and we are truly grateful for your recognition of our efforts. Your acknowledgment of the up-to-date topic, comprehensive methodology description, clear presentation of test results, and well-summarized conclusions reassures us that we have successfully conveyed our research objectives and findings to the readers.
Your positive evaluation serves as a significant encouragement for us to continue striving for excellence in our academic pursuits. Your constructive comments have guided us to make further improvements, and we are delighted to inform you that we have enhanced the manuscript by adding additional data and incorporating additional charts and figures to bolster the clarity and comprehensiveness of our research. We deeply value your expertise and thorough review, which have undeniably contributed to the refinement of our work. Your feedback has inspired us to redouble our efforts, and we are committed to delivering research of the highest quality in our academic endeavors.
Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help. Thank you very much for your help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
A very interesting idea for an article and a lot of results were presented. However, it is difficult to assess the value of the presented research, because the description of the individual steps is laconic, and the data presented in charts and tables are often not explained at all. For this reason, I recommend the article for re-editing, but I also provide some examples of detailed comments:
1) Research steps mentioned in the introduction (lines 82-86) should be described in more detail in the “methodology” chapter (approximately 1.5 pages), and following – in specific chapters detailed steps should be described (in my opinion, research procedure should be shown in a detailed way, to let others repeat your steps to compare if the results are similar)
2) The introduction or literature review should consist of more facts about the Beijing bike-sharing system. How it works, how many bikes there are, what are paring rules now, if they were different in the past – and how it affects proper parking
3) The survey, that the results were shown from line 369 and further – what were the exact questions? What were the possible answers? Were the responder's bike-sharing system users or just random people? The daily traffic costs (fig. 3 d) for bike usage or also other public and/or private transport means?
4) Fig. 4 What do these shortcuts stand for? What is the role of showing the correlation between those factors especially if they can be answered in linear and nonlinear ways?
5) Similar: table 2. What do those symbols stand for? What is AGE/AGE(1)/AGE(2)? And more interesting: occupation?? How did you convert the occupation into numbers?
6) Table 3, what are those arrows?
7) And finally: you present the results – which are very interesting if the research was conducted in the correct way – they are significant. But you do not write a word of what you can do with these results. Did you try to use it in your bike-sharing system? What was the result?
I hope you find my remarks useful.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. The file will be clearer because it has a better format.
Report on the revision of the paper
“Exploring the Influence of Parking Penalties on Bike-sharing System with Willingness Constraints: A Case Study of Beijing, China”
by Jiayu Bao, Guojun Chen and Zhenghua Liu
Resubmitted to Sustainability
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2518297
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciations of your letter and reviewers’ constructive comments concerning our article. These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. According to your comments, we have made extensive modifications to our manuscript and supplemented extra data to make our results convincing. In this revised version, changes to our manuscript were all yellow highlighted within the document by using red-colored text. The detailed point-by-point responses are listed below this report; comments are italicized in black, and our responses are in red.
- We have streamlined the description of the cited literature, enhancing its logical flow, and enriched the paper with additional literature and methodologies.
- We have included a new chapter titled "Methodology," which provides a comprehensive breakdown of our research methods and highlights the usage patterns of shared bicycles in Beijing.
- We have expanded the explanation and clarification of the content in our questionnaire survey.
- We have incorporated data presentations in the application aspect of the results to demonstrate the effectiveness of our improvements.
We hope that these major changes will be able to address the reviewers’ comments.
Point 1: Research steps mentioned in the introduction (lines 82-86) should be described in more detail in the “methodology” chapter (approximately 1.5 pages), and following – in specific chapters detailed steps should be described (in my opinion, research procedure should be shown in a detailed way, to let others repeat your steps to compare if the results are similar).
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestion to provide more detailed descriptions of the research steps mentioned. In response to your feedback, we have introduced a comprehensive "Methodology" chapter from Line 197 to Line 251. We have dedicated a comprehensive explanation of each research step, ensuring readers can follow our methodology. This new chapter encompasses the following key components:
1) The main technical approach adopted in our study involves first examining the behavior of penalty-free bike-sharing parking, then investigating the scenario with penalties, and also considering user usage preferences.
2) An introduction to the bike-sharing usage in Beijing, our research subject, along with a discussion of its suitability as a case study, enhancing the scientific rigor of our work.
3) A brief overview of the questionnaire deployment method and the hypotheses formulated for the survey.
We believe that the inclusion of this new chapter provides readers with a better understanding of our research and contributes to a more coherent and logical flow throughout the manuscript.
Moreover, we have reorganized and optimized the language of this paragraph that you have identified:
“The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 offers a review of relevant literature on parking spot layout and the impact of rewards and punishments on parking behavior. We present research procedures in Section 3. The calculation of penalty-free parking spot layout radius in Beijing is described in Section 4. The modeling of the effect of parking spot layout on parking behavior under penalty conditions in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 offers some managerial insights and concluding remarks.”
Your guidance and insightful recommendations have been invaluable in shaping the manuscript's clarity and effectiveness. We genuinely appreciate your guidance, which has been instrumental in strengthening the robustness and reliability of our research.
Below are the specific chapter “methodology” from our draft that we have modified based on your recommendations.
“In the optimization problem of parking spot layout, the higher the parking spot density, the shorter the walking distance for accessing bike-sharing, resulting in greater convenience of use and a stronger willingness to standard parking. Conversely, lower parking spot density leads to longer walking distances, making it less convenient and increasing the tendency to parking violation.”
“To regulate and standardize bike-sharing parking behavior, some areas have implemented a radius constraint on the layout of electronic parking spots. Without penalty conditions, as the parking spot radius increases, the reduction in the actual number of parking spots rises parking cost and undermines user convenience, which may lead to a trend of noncompliance, thereby increasing the probability of parking violation. Therefore, Section 4 first calculates a reasonable parking spot layout radius for Beijing based on the development and utilization of parking spots, ensuring that it achieves the ‘electronic dock’ effect while meeting requirements in traffic management and service levels.”
“Bike-sharing system in Beijing were selected as sample objects ……The bike-shring system stations were spread across the city and each district has homogeneity with respect to the intensity of bike-sharing spots use.” (The specific content in this chapter about the introduction to the bike-sharing usage in Beijing is in the Point 2 and Response 2.)
“Clearly, solely setting up electronic parking spots will not be sufficient to constrain bike-sharing parking with the parking spot radius expanding. Thus, financial penalties are required to incentivize compliance. On one hand, different parking spot layout radius require varying degrees of penalties for effective regulation. On the other hand, excessively severe penalties may lead to a loss of bike-sharing users. Therefore, Section 5 establishes a binary logistic model based on a SP questionnaire survey to investigate these two issues. The questionnaire design is predicated upon the following underlying assumptions:
H1: The level of acceptance among bike-sharing users towards standard parking is influenced by their individual attributes, encompassing their perception of parking spots and their considerations regarding travel expenses.
H2: The level of acceptance among bike-sharing users towards standard parking is influenced by their patterns of bike-sharing usage, including the frequency, purpose, and duration of their trips.
H3: The acceptance of standard parking by bike-sharing users is influenced by the additional walking distance required for parking. Users possess predefined expectations for this walking distance, which can be influenced by personal factors and alternative transportation modes.
H4: The acceptability of standard parking among bike-sharing users is influenced by the consequences of violating parking regulations. Users' responsiveness to penalties is contingent upon their daily travel costs and their degree of reliance on bike-sharing services.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 2: The introduction or literature review should consist of more facts about the Beijing bike-sharing system. How it works, how many bikes there are, what are paring rules now, if they were different in the past – and how it affects proper parking.
Response 2: Thank you for your insightful feedback on our manuscript. We acknowledge your comment regarding the need for more factual information about the Beijing bike-sharing system in the “Methodology”. In response to your advice, we have made significant additions to the introduction, incorporating a comprehensive overview of the Beijing bike-sharing system. The new part includes the following key elements:
1) An introduction to Beijing's urban shared transportation: We have provided an overview of the shared transportation system in Beijing, outlining its significance and impact on urban mobility.
2) Development stages of bike-sharing in Beijing: We have elucidated the three major developmental phases of bike-sharing in Beijing, highlighting the defining milestones, corresponding development data, and the sources of this information.
3) Rationality of selecting Beijing as the research subject: We have elaborated on the reasons for choosing Beijing as the research object, considering its extensive coverage across most areas.
We have provided details on how the system operates, the total number of bikes available, the current parking rules, and any changes that might have occurred in the past. Additionally, we have discussed how these factors impact proper parking behavior among users. By incorporating these detailed aspects, we aim to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the Beijing bike-sharing system and its relevance to our research.The revised draft is as follows:
“Bike-sharing system in Beijing were selected as sample objects. As the capital of the People’s Republic of China and the second most populous city of the world, Beijing is the first operating city of bike-sharing in China. Meanwhile, Beijing is a typical city with intense competition among different shared mobility services [42].”
“As a green and environmentally friendly way for travel, bike-sharing has achieved rapid development after entering the market. It was launched in October 2016 and in less than 10 months, there were a total of 2.35 million bikes operated by 16 bike-sharing companies in Beijing [43]. But the problem of disorderly parking has also aroused great attention of the government [41]. In October 2018, Beijing Municipal Commission of Transport issued ‘The service quality of shared bikes operation(trial)’, and formulated the special regulation action manual for the control of disorderly parking of bike-sharing. Beijing restricted the volume of operated bike-sharing in the city to a total of 1.91 million bicycles from nine operators with an average of 1.42 million rides per day [44]. It marked Beijing bike-sharing system had experienced three stages [45]: from public bicycles to dockless bike-sharing, and then to bike-sharing with electronic fences.”
“In order for the sample to be representative, the survey follows a spatially stratified strategy covering the 16 districts in Beijing. The bike-shring system stations were spread across the city and each district has homogeneity with respect to the intensity of bike-sharing spots use.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 3: The survey, that the results were shown from line 369 and further – what were the exact questions? What were the possible answers? Were the responder's bike-sharing system users or just random people? The daily traffic costs (fig. 3 d) for bike usage or also other public and/or private transport means?
Response 3: Thank you for your essential questions and comments, which have prompted us to realize that certain aspects of our paper required further clarity. We genuinely appreciate your thorough review and apologize for any confusion caused. We have carefully considered your suggestions and made the necessary revisions to address the areas of confusion and potential misunderstandings. We have made significant revisions to Section "5.1 Questionnaire Design" and included more details about the survey questionnaire. We have included a new table “Table 2. The coding table of the categorical variables and the continuous variables.” that provides a comprehensive display of the survey Questionnaire. Figure 1 has also been redrawn and the title has been adjusted as “Figure 4. Questionnaire data distribution. (a) Purpose; (b) Weekly usage; (c) Duration of each use; (d) Daily traffic cost (public transport); (e) Concern on travel costs; (f) Attitude to parking spots.”. Below, we provide a concise summary of the modifications we have made:
1) Survey Questionnaire: We have introduced specific examples of the questions in the questionnaire and outlined the logical flow of the survey. Additionally, we have elaborated on the options provided and their respective meanings to ensure a better understanding for readers.
2) Survey Respondents and Distribution: We have explicitly stated that the survey was conducted among bike-sharing system users. Respondents who had never used a bike-sharing system were deemed ineligible, leading to the exclusion of their questionnaires from the analysis. The total number of valid questionnaires obtained was clarified as 217 after conducting rigorous validity checks.
3) "The daily traffic costs": We have now provided a more detailed explanation to clarify that this term encompasses the expenses related to all forms of public transportation. Moreover, we have acknowledged the presence of high kurtosis in the variable and recognized the need for further refinement in this aspect of our study.
We are grateful for your insightful feedback, as it has helped us enhance the overall clarity and cohesiveness of our paper. We are committed to producing a high-quality research contribution and appreciate your guidance throughout this process. The revised draft is as follows:
“Only bike-sharing system users can receive this questionnaire and answer it. Respondents in the questionnaire were faced with multiple stated preference (SP) scenarios what they normally did on their bike-sharing parking behavior, for example:
If you are currently 2 minutes (150 meters) walking distance away from the nearest parking spot, but you can park here by paying an extra 0.5 yuan. Are you willing to park directly?
- A) pay and park directly; B) go to the parking spot.
The walking time mentioned in the question is used to help respondents estimate the walking distance. If choice A) is selected, which is considered parking violation, the next question will present in the same distance but with an increased fine amount. If choice B) is selected, which is considered standard parking, the questionnaire will jump to the SP scenario with a longer distance. To obtain the corresponding binary decisions for the 48 SP hypotheses within the questionnaire, independent logical judgments were made based on 217 data points, resulting in a total of 10,416 0-1 judgments.”
“Mean values can be used to observe the level of agreement among respondents for each option, and the standard deviation can be used to observe the degree of convergence in their choices. All variables display an absolute Skewness below 2, and their absolute Kurtosis is substantially lower than 10, except DTC, signifying the conformity of the questionnaire design and the collected data to a multivariate normal distribution. The descriptive statistical table for continuous variables shows as Table 3.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 4: Fig. 4 What do these shortcuts stand for? What is the role of showing the correlation between those factors especially if they can be answered in linear and nonlinear ways?
Response 4: Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has prompted us to make significant improvements to the corresponding sections of our paper. We sincerely apologize for any confusion caused, and we have taken the following actions to address your concerns:
1) To enhance clarity and aid comprehension, we have added a new table (“Table 2. The coding table of the categorical variables and the continuous variables.”) before the Figure 4 you referred to. This new table provides a detailed explanation of each questionnaire item and its corresponding variables. Moreover, we have included explanations for the abbreviations, meanings, alternative options, and data values associated with each variable.
2) We apologize for the oversight in not providing explicit labels for the shortcuts in the figure. In response to other suggestions, we have renumbered the figures, and the original Figure 4 is now labeled as “Figure 3. Model variable heat map.” The meaning of these shortcuts, which is same as the new table:
“GD: Gender; Age: AGE; Occupation: OCP; Income: ICM
Purposes: PURP; Weekly usage: WU; Compare bus service: CBS
Concern on travel costs: CTC; Attitude to parking spots: APS
Duration of each use: DEU; Daily traffic cost (public transport): DTC
Maximum walking distance: MWD; Walking distance: WD; Fine: FIN”
3) We acknowledge the significance of discussing in linear correlations. Displaying correlations between factors plays a crucial role in research and data analysis. In this context, the role of correlation analysis in our study includes: identifying relationships between variables, guiding appropriate model selection, assessing the foundation of predictive capabilities, and performing data quality checks.
We believe that these additions strengthen the manuscript by providing a clearer understanding of the data and analysis presented. We sincerely appreciate your astute observations, as they have undoubtedly enhanced the rigor and validity of our research. The relevant content in the manuscript is:
“Most studies on bike-sharing usage consider the correlation between variables essential, as it serves as a crucial link in verifying data and establishing predictive models [46]. The elegant portrayal of each variable's heatmap can be observed in Figure 3, which shows the all variables’ Pearson Correlation Coefficient lie beneath 0.6, thereby affirming the appropriateness of the correlation amongst model variables.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 5: Similar: table 2. What do those symbols stand for? What is AGE/AGE(1)/AGE(2)? And more interesting: occupation?? How did you convert the occupation into numbers?
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable feedback and insightful questions. We sincerely apologize for any confusion caused and appreciate the opportunity to provide further clarification and updates regarding the modifications we have made in response to your previous review. Below are the specific changes we implemented:
1) Clarification of Variables in Table 2. We have addressed your concerns by adding two new tables (“Table 2. The coding table of the categorical variables and the continuous variables.” and “Table 3. Descriptive statistical table for continuous variables.”) to the manuscript. These tables provide detailed explanations for the variables previously presented in Table 2 (now labeled as “Table 4. Model categorize factor variables and parameters.”). We believe that these additional tables will significantly enhance the understanding of the data and improve the overall readability of the manuscript.
2) Explanation of AGE/AGE(1)/AGE(2). In our study, the variable "AGE" represents the respondents' actual ages, which were originally collected as a categorical variable in our questionnaire. To facilitate statistical analysis, we transformed this categorical variable into a set of dummy variables. Each dummy variable corresponds to a specific age range, allowing us to examine the impact of different age groups on our research outcomes. For clarity, we have included a detailed breakdown of the dummy variable coding in Table 2 (now labeled as “Table 4. Model categorize factor variables and parameters.”). Specifically, the meaning of each dummy variable:
AGE: 0)Under 17; 1)18~25; 2)26~25; 3)45~60; 4)Above 60
2) Treatment of Occupation. Similarly, the variable "occupation" was originally collected as a categorical variable in our survey. Respondents were provided with multiple options to select their occupation category based on their individual circumstances. We then converted this categorical variable into a set of dummy variables, each representing a distinct occupation category. The corresponding numeric codes for each occupation category are provided in Table 2 (now labeled as “Table 4. Model categorize factor variables and parameters.”). Specifically, the meaning of each dummy variable:
OCP: 0)College students; 1)Middle school student; 2)Business employees;
3)Public service workers; 4)Freelancers; 5)Others
By incorporating these changes, we aimed to address the concerns you raised and ensure the accuracy and clarity of our research findings. We hope that the new tables and the detailed explanations provided in Table 4 will facilitate a better understanding of the variables and their treatment in our study. The relevant content in the manuscript is:
“Due to the limited scope of the questionnaire, this survey encompasses 9 categorical variables and 5 continuous variables. The modeling variables involved in this survey questionnaire are encoded as shown in Table 2, The categorical variables are coded as dummy variables,and the continuous variables are coded as numerical.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 6: Table 3, what are those arrows?
Response 6: We sincerely apologize for any confusion caused by the representation of Table 3 in our previous submission. Your feedback has prompted us to reevaluate the clarity of the table and make necessary revisions. We are grateful for your valuable reminder. In response to your comment, we have now renumbered Table 3 as “Table 5. The cross list of standard parking intentions and riding purposes.” in the revised manuscript. Table 5 is specifically designed to analyze the "purpose" variable, which is a multiple-choice variable in our questionnaire. In this question, respondents were allowed to select multiple options to indicate their reasons for bike usage, as bike purposes can encompass multiple factors. “The multi-choice variable of riding purpose is analyzed using a crosslist of multiple responses, as presented in Table 5, and the Response Rate represent the standard parking response rate for multiplechoice questions.” To provide a comprehensive analysis, we have organized the table as follows:
1) The first row examines the distribution of various travel purposes under the "Parking violation" scenario, illustrating the percentage of respondents selecting each purpose option.
2) The second row investigates the distribution of travel purposes under the "Standard parking" scenario, showing the percentage of respondents selecting each purpose option.
3) In the third row, we calculated the response rate for the "Standard parking" situation. This allows us to study the cross-tabulation of this multiple-choice variable, enabling a deeper understanding of the relationship between parking preference and the purposes of bike usage.
These modifications aim to present the data in a more reader-friendly and coherent manner, ensuring that the information is readily understandable for readers.We sincerely appreciate your meticulous review, which has significantly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 7: And finally: you present the results – which are very interesting if the research was conducted in the correct way – they are significant. But you do not write a word of what you can do with these results. Did you try to use it in your bike-sharing system? What was the result?
Response 7: We are immensely grateful for your valuable suggestions, as they have significantly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript's structure and overall quality. In response to your insightful comments, we have made substantial revisions to “5.3. Stepwise punishment incentive” in the following ways:
1) Emphasis on Practical Application: To emphasize the realworld significance of our research, we have highlighted that " Table 7. Penalty schedule." represents an actual case of practical application. Building upon the initial research findings and questionnaire survey results, we successfully applied the research outcomes to a real bike-sharing system. Our analysis focused on evaluating the effectiveness of implementing the proposed penalty system. The relevant content in the manuscript is:
“According to the above theoretical research and practical questionnaire survey results, we designed a stepwise punishment penalty schedule for Beijing. Table 7 presents the penalty scheme specifically applicable to the central urban area. Distances less than 500 meters should incur fines below 2.5 yuan, while distances exceeding 500 meters should be penalized with fines exceeding 2.5 yuan.”
2) Implementation Analysis: We conducted a study involving a random selection of 25 Points of Interest (POIs) to assess the effectiveness of our proposed bike-sharing system with the stepwise punishment incentive. We have included a new table “Table 8. The Proportion of Standard Parking for 25 POIs.” The results demonstrated a notable improvement in bike parking behavior, with an average enhancement ratio of 23.20% in promoting proper bike parking practices.
These modifications ensure that our research is not only grounded in theoretical exploration but also validated through practical application and empirical analysis. By providing concrete evidence of the penalty system's effectiveness, we offer valuable insights for policymakers and bike-sharing operators seeking effective solutions to promote responsible bike parking behavior. The relevant content in the manuscript is:
“Then, 25 POI were randomly set in the area surrounding the questionnaire distribution zone, compare the proportion of standard parking to test the improvement as shown in Table 8. Minimum distance is the walking distance from the POI to the nearest parking spot, measured by the Amap API
(https://lbs.amap.com/api/webservice/guide/api/direction).”
3) Refinement of Result Presentation: We have reorganized and clarified the process of deriving the research results to enhance both the logical flow and language clarity. By doing so, we aim to ensure that the readers can easily follow the steps leading to our conclusions. The relevant content in the manuscript is:
“The case regulated the parking behavior in the bike-sharing system, and the average improvement effect reached 23.20% under stepwise penalty with willingness constraints. It indicated that it has played an optimizing role in the planning and management of the bike-sharing system in Beijing.”
Once again, we express our heartfelt gratitude for your thoughtful review and expert guidance. The revisions we have made based on your feedback have significantly enriched the manuscript's content and applicability.
Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help. Thank you very much for your help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I appreciate the great effort put into improving the article, but in my opinion, some of the added fragments made it more difficult to understand the research and convince me that it is inadequately described. Due to the length of the text, I suggest dividing the article into two or three parts and describing the individual steps.
As for detailed comments:
1) Chapter 3 does not describe the methodology. It is more the introduction. Please search the methodology chapters in other papers to compare what should be in them.
2) Between lines 225 and 226 it looks like a paragraph is missing.
3) There is no explanation of why you choose to conduct the survey, what was the purpose, how was it conducted, when, and so on. As an introduction to using this method.
4) Where do the values adopted in equation (3) come from?
5) The title of Chapter 5 does not represent its contents.
6) What is the purpose of Chapter 5.1? I have serious doubts about its correctness (especially calculating some factors out of nonlinear variables).
7) Still most of the tables and figures do not have describes axes and headers.
It is a lot of effort but compiled in a non-academic way.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. The file will be clearer because it has a better format.
Report on the revision of the paper
“Exploring the Influence of Parking Penalties on Bike-sharing System with Willingness Constraints: A Case Study of Beijing, China”
by Jiayu Bao, Guojun Chen and Zhenghua Liu
Resubmitted to Sustainability
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2518297
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
(Round 2)
Dear Reviewer,
We very much appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions given by the reviewer, which have helped to substantially improve this paper. Below, we list major changes incorporated in the revised paper. The responses to the reviewer’s comments are presented in the next section; comments are italicized in black, and our responses are in blue. Changes to our manuscript were all yellow highlighted within the document by using red-colored text.
- We have meticulously restructured the manuscript, with special attention to the Methodology section. The new manuscript was consolidated from the six chapters into the five chapters. The content arrangement has been reorganized in a more academic way.
- We have amplified the level of detail in our manuscript to undertake a comprehensive reevaluation of the questionnaire and variable, which emphasizes the criticality of these elements.
- We have reexamined each figure and table to enrich the content of these visual elements, providing detailed explanations and annotations.
We hope that these major changes will be able to address the reviewers’ comments.
Point 1: Chapter 3 does not describe the methodology. It is more the introduction. Please search the methodology chapters in other papers to compare what should be in them.
Response 1: In response to your comment, I conducted a comprehensive review of several research papers in the field. This comparative analysis allowed me to better understand the essential components and structure of a Methodology chapter in accordance with established conventions. Drawing upon these insights, I have undertaken significant revisions to Chapter 3 of the manuscript from Line 197 to Line 356. The revised Chapter 3 now emphasizes a meticulous presentation of both theoretical and practical methods. This new chapter encompasses the following key components:
1) The theoretical methods encompass the computing method, underscoring the rigor and scientific basis of our approach. This includes a detailed explanation of the algorithms employed, their underlying assumptions, and how to divide the city to the ‘Spots in high-density areas’, the ‘Spots in medium-density areas’, and the ‘Spots in low-density areas’. The revised draft is as ‘5.1. Spot radius computation’.
2) The practical methods section ’3.2. Questionnaire design’ provides a detailed account of our survey questionnaire design and the systematic collection of data variables. This comprehensive depiction not only showcases the application of our methodology but also ensures the reproducibility of our study by providing necessary details for fellow researchers.
3) To enhance the structural coherence of the paper, I have restructured the introductory portion of Chapter 3. While retaining the essence of the Beijing case study, I have succinctly streamlined the presentation, ensuring a smooth transition into the subsequent methodology discussion.
“Bike-sharing system in Beijing were selected as sample objects. As the capital of the People’s Republic of China and the second most populous city in the world, Beijing is the first operating city of bike-sharing in China. Meanwhile, Beijing is a typical city with intense competition among different shared mobility services [42].”
“As a green and environmentally-friendly way for travel, bike-sharing has achieved rapid development after entering the market. It was launched in October 2016, and in less than 10 months, there were a total of 2.35 million bikes operated by 16 bike-sharing companies in Beijing [43]. However, the problem of disorderly parking has also aroused great attention of the government [41]. In October 2018, Beijing Municipal Commission of Transport issued ‘The service quality of shared bikes operation(trial)’, and formulated the special regulation action manual for the control of disorderly parking of bike-sharing. Beijing restricted the volume of operated bike-sharing in the city to a total of 1.91 million bicycles from nine operators with an average of 1.42 million rides per day [44]. It marked Beijing bike-sharing system had experienced three stages [45]: from public bicycles to dockless bike-sharing, and then to bike-sharing with electronic fences.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 2: Between lines 225 and 226 it looks like a paragraph is missing.
Response 2: I appreciate your clarification. It seems that there is a need for smoother transition and coherence between lines 225 and 226. Your observation is astute, and I apologize for any confusion. In response to your feedback, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript. During the revision of the methodology chapter, we have given special attention to addressing the transition concern you raised. Upon revisiting this section, I have restructured the content to achieve a smoother and more coherent flow.
Specifically, the first half of the missing content has been incorporated into the introduction of the methodology section from Line 207 to Line 217, providing essential contextual information. The latter half has been strategically placed within the "Spot Radius Computation for Beijing" subsection from Line 226 to Line 229, aligning it with the specific discussion on the computation process. This strategic arrangement ensures that both aspects serve their intended purposes effectively within the broader structure of the manuscript. The revised paragraph is as follows:
“In an earnest endeavor to examine the tangible impact of spot density arrangements, so we employ Beijing as a case study to determine whether a critical density threshold exists, facilitating judicious control of parking spot density to encourage users' inclination toward standard parking while concurrently conserving urban parking space. Information encompassing 2,775 public bicycle stations, including their respective names, quantity of available locks, geographic coordinates, and administrative regions, was scrupulously sourced from the official website of the Beijing Municipal Commission of Transport. In order for the sample to be representative, the survey follows a spatially stratified strategy covering the 16 districts in Beijing. The bike-sharing system stations were spread across the city, and each district has homogeneity with respect to the intensity of bike-sharing spots use.”
I hope that these adjustments have improved the readability and continuity of the text, addressing the gap you pointed out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 3: There is no explanation of why you choose to conduct the survey, what was the purpose, how was it conducted, when, and so on. As an introduction to using this method.
Response 3: Taking your comments into consideration, I delved further into relevant literature, particularly drawing inspiration from the experimental approach outlined by the following study:
[11] Su, D.; Wang, Y.; Yang, N.; Wang, X. Promoting Considerate Parking Behavior in Dockless Bike-Sharing: An Experimental Study. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2020, 140, 153–165, doi:10.1016/j.tra.2020.08.006.
In response to the need for a more comprehensive introduction to our survey methodology, I have made substantial enhancements. Add an introduction to provide a clear rationale for the survey, elucidating the underlying reasons and research objectives that prompted its implementation. Furthermore, the methodological details in “3.2. Questionnaire design” have been thoroughly elaborated upon, including the survey design, administration process, and the timeframe in which it was conducted.
1) The reasons and the experiment's purpose. many existing literatures “[48-50]” use SP questionnaire to study this bike-sharing parking issue.
“Therefore, the setting for the observed behavior is more realistic. Especially in the context of our study, surveys can cause subjects to exhibit parking violation. Different parking spot layout radii require varying degrees of penalties for effective regulation, but excessively severe penalties may lead to a loss of bike-sharing users. Therefore, we designed a SP questionnaire survey to investigate these two issues.”
2) How and when we conducted the survey. I am pleased to inform you that “we conducted the questionnaire survey through the WeChat app in July, 2021.” This temporal context not only enriches the methodological description but also adds depth to the overall study.
“Only bike-sharing system users can receive this questionnaire and answer it. Respondents in the questionnaire were faced with multiple SP scenarios that they usually did on their bike-sharing parking behavior”.
As for the form of the questionnaire :“… which is considered a parking violation, the next question will present in the same distance but with an increased penalty amount.” “… which is considered standard parking, the questionnaire will jump to the SP scenario with a longer distance. To obtain the corresponding binary decisions for the 48 SP hypotheses within the questionnaire,”
I believe these modifications have significantly fortified the introductory aspect of our chosen method, providing readers with a well-rounded understanding of the survey's purpose, execution, and contextual backdrop.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 4: Where do the values adopted in equation (3) come from?.
Response 4: I apologize for the confusion caused. The values used for the non-linear coefficient in Equation (3) are sourced from the literature, specifically referenced in the citation “[46,47]”. This addition has been made to the references section to provide clarity.
“Where Cnl is the average value of the non-linear coefficient of city’s bus lines, and Cnl = 1.56 for Beijing.”
The inclusion of these values in the equation is integral to the model considered in this paper. The calculation process of "P≤d" can be simplified, yielding a result that demonstrates the direct dependence of "P≤d" solely on the urban road network conditions.
Furthermore, as part of our commitment to ensuring accuracy, we conducted a thorough review of all the equations in the manuscript. Any similar discrepancies have been identified and rectified. We appreciate your attention to detail and your feedback has been immensely valuable in refining the paper.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 5: The title of Chapter 5 does not represent its contents.
Response 5: Your assessment is accurate, and a revision is indeed necessary. I aim to underscore the chapter's (the original Chapter 5 becomes the Chapter 4 now) focus on promoting parking behavior while emphasizing the crucial balance between penalties and user willingness.
My revised sentence "4. Parking behavior promotion balancing the penalty and willingness constraints" is grammatically correct and effectively conveys the main idea of promoting parking behavior while emphasizing the need to balance the penalty and willingness constraints. It clearly emphasizes the focus on "promotion" as the primary intention of the sentence. This revised version sounds natural and maintains the intended meaning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 6: What is the purpose of Chapter 5.1? I have serious doubts about its correctness (especially calculating some factors out of nonlinear variables).
Response 6:
1) Chapter 5.1 (“3.2. Questionnaire design” now, from Line 283 to Line 356) serves as a crucial component within the methodology section. It provides an intricate depiction of the questionnaire survey undertaken in this study. The detailed description encompasses various facets, including the questionnaire's context, formulation of questions, available options, questionnaire validation, and an analysis of data distribution. This comprehensive coverage lays the foundation for the subsequent section, where we establish models and analyze parking constraints.
“Reliability and validity indices were computed for the 217 valid questionnaires to ensure the randomness and scientific validity of the collected data. The results revealed a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.928, indicating high internal consistency. The α value remained stable even after removing individual questions. Moreover, the questionnaire's factor analysis (EFA) yielded a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of 0.603, and the cumulative variance of the standardized factor loading reached 54.592%, meeting the standard requirements for index values.”
2) Addressing your concerns about non-linear correlations, we have undertaken a thorough reassessment of our data and meticulously verified the inputs and outputs of our models. The data collection process involved utilizing a widely used platform in China, the WJX website (https://www.wjx.cn/). Additionally, the participants for the survey were rigorously selected, and the validity of the questionnaire was rigorously examined.
”Only bike-sharing system users can receive this questionnaire and answer it. Respondents in the questionnaire were faced with multiple SP scenarios that they usually did on their bike-sharing parking behavior”
“the survey follows a spatially stratified strategy covering the 16 districts in Beijing. The bike-sharing system stations were spread across the city, and each district has homogeneity with respect to the intensity of bike-sharing spots use.”
While it is possible that certain limitations exist in the data processing and analysis, such as the potential incomplete representation of the entire user demographic of shared bicycles, the overall research approach remains aligned with the study's objectives. We draw upon technical methodologies and data variable handling techniques from established sources such as references ”[5, 11, 17, 39] ”, among others, to ensure robustness and comparability.
This meticulous attention to data collection, validation, and processing, along with the incorporation of established technical approaches from relevant literature, reinforces the reliability and integrity of the research outcomes. The rigorous steps taken underscore our commitment to addressing potential limitations and producing accurate, well-informed results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 7: Still most of the tables and figures do not have describes axes and headers.
Response 7: We appreciate your attention to detail and your thorough review of the tables and figures in our manuscript. We apologize for the oversight in not providing proper axis labels and headers for some of the tables and figures in the manuscript. We understand the importance of clear and informative visual representation, and we will promptly address this issue.In the revised version of the manuscript, we will ensure that all tables and figures are accompanied by accurate and descriptive axis labels and headers. This will enhance the reader's understanding and interpretation of the presented data.
1) All tables are rechecked to ensure that they match the title or table header in content and format.
2) The Figures add more elements and details, and provides instructions to make it easier for the reader to understand.
“Figure 1. Spots spacing calculation diagram.”
” Figure 3. Parking violations under categorical variables. Where the number _0, _1, _2, … represent the dummy variables, like Variable(0), Variable(1), Variable(2), ...”
“Figure 6. Parking choice scatter plot. Where the redder the dot, the higher the probability of parking violation, and the greener the dot, the higher the probability of standard parking. The diagonal represents the Kernel Density Estimation of the variable.”
3) The Figures add and verifies describes axes and headers.
“Figure 2. Questionnaire data distribution. (a) Purpose; (b) Weekly usage; (c) Duration of each use; (d) Daily traffic cost (public transport); (e) Concern on travel costs; (f) Attitude to parking spots.”
” Figure 4. The cumulative percentage of the maximum distance.”
“Figure 5. Stacking diagram of three types of spots at different distances.”
“Figure 6. Parking choice scatter plot. Where the redder the dot, the higher the probability of parking violation, and the greener the dot, the higher the probability of standard parking. The diagonal represents the Kernel Density Estimation of the variable.”
Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help. Thank you very much for your help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
I still have doubts about the scientific aspect, but as the statistics is not my field of expertise, I have no further requests.
