Applying Data Analytics to Analyze Activity Sequences for an Assessment of Fragmentation in Daily Travel Patterns: A Case Study of the Metropolitan Region of Barcelona

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The team of 3 authors submitted a manuscript that is interesting and is linked to the objectives of the journal, however, some issues have to be reconsidered.

The objective of the manuscript is to provide an original methodological approach to discover homogeneous travel behavioral segments from diaries included in travel surveys to refine transport policies to selected segments by transportation planners and authorities.

 

The subject area is rather interesting, and, possibly, not enough approached by other scholars, so there is potential room for this manuscript to bring new information, once it reaches the expected level of quality.  

The Abstract has to be reconsidered. The general information provided into the beginning must be condensed as this part is too large. The Abstract fails in presenting the objectives of the study and the main findings.  

In the introduction, the scientific gap of the study is not clearly enough pointed out nor enough explained and defined. There is some information provided, but they are not enough systematized I recommend to the authors pay attention to that issue. As a consequence, the part of the Literature Review is not enough constructed and it is difficult to point out the scientific gap. I recommend further developing this part.

The methodology part. Please make clear distinction on Part 2.1. Context between information belonging to Literature review and the one related to methodology. At the moment they are diffusing.

The Results part is the longest one in the manuscript and it pointed out relevant information, they are presented and correlated.

-        Figure 4 is not clear and needs a better resolution to be understood.

 

The discussion part is not consistent in comparing the amount of the results and fails in bringing important information for scholars, by comparing the obtained results with the literature review. The conclusion part is not distinct (I recommend creating a distinct part).

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for the positive feedback and comments that will improve the quality of the paper. We address your comments one by one:

1. Abstract has been reduced and now highlights the objectives and the limitations of the study. We have explicitly included that the aim of the manuscript is to provide an original methodological approach to discover homogeneous travel behavioural segments from diaries included in travel surveys to refine transport policies to selected segments by transportation planners and authorities. Limitations of analysed travel surveys is included (as suggested by reviewer 2).
2. In the introduction, in the context of the comment is not clear what the reviewer means by scientific gap, however we interpret this it in the terms of the new paragraph in lines 109 to 121 that we expect that clearly explains the scientific gap of the study and aligns it to the literature review that has been extended.
3. The methodology part. Methodology is based in the application of concepts described in the literature review, but the methodology is applied to a particular case. References to SA in the literature are clearly stated (Section 2.1) and how they have been applied to a case study (Section 2.2) that include substantial differences to other in literature, as availability of compact and varied multimodal transport network.
4. We have tried to underline these features in the new version. Context between information belonging to Literature review and the one related to methodology have been highlighted.
5. In The Results, Figure 4 has been improved.
6. Results in literature refer to scenarios where family structure is available, but multimodal transport systems are not considered, for example in literature transitions between states are coded just as T (transport, any mode), but we have included the detail of the transportation mode in the alphabet definition of the activities. The discussion part now is focused on results as far as the scenarios in the literature are not homogenous.
7. We hope that now is consistent in comparing the amount of the results and brings important information for scholars, by comparing the obtained results with the literature review.
8. The conclusion part is now a distinct section following the recommendation.

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction: The paper does not provide information on the specific limitations of the research methodology or data collection process.

 

Line 257 to 266: Some missing data, such as family size and structure, limit the comprehensiveness of the analysis.

 

The study is based on cross-sectional travel surveys, and no panel data is available, which may limit the ability to capture longitudinal changes in travel patterns.

 

Line 272: The sample size for individuals is 37.877 units, but it is unclear if this is representative of the entire population.

 

The paper does not discuss potential biases or limitations related to the use of self-reported travel diaries or the accuracy of the data collected.

 

Line 126: Check the sentence […]

 

Proper Literature is missing.

 

Only 30 ref papers are used.

 Line 138: Unable to understand the sentence framing. Rewrite properly

 Figure 3. Methodological workflow Blur. Need to change.

 Daily-travel pattern example for three units of the working sample based on an alphabet of 11 activities. How Table 3 shows total duration is the same for all 3 cases.?

 How you have calculated Entropy Turbulence Complexity

 All figures are not high definition. Need to replace

 Paragraph should contain at least 7 to 10 line.

 

 

 

 

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for the positive feedback and comments that will improve the quality of the paper. We address your comments one by one:

1. The paper has been modified to highlight the specific limitations of the research methodology and data collection process in the Introduction section.
2. Family size and structure are missing in the data collection process, we totally agree about the importance of these data, as we have highlighted in the abstract and the introduction, since they are not available for the 2018 to 2020 datasets, although it limits the analysis, we think it does not invalidate the methodology nor the results.
3. The annual surveys provide cross-sectional data, no panel data is available. We realize the limitations that this fact implies, anyway the methodological approach is not invalidated according to the authors’ point of view. We hope to address family size and structure in the future (from 2021 these fields are available).
4. The sample size for individuals is 37,877 units, and it is representative of the entire population according to the sample design and data collection control claimed by authorities in charge of EMEF travel surveys. We have added the issue of representativeness of samples in the text.
5. The paper does not discuss potential biases or limitations because sample design and field data collection is guaranteed by the authorities in charge of EMEF travel surveys. These surveys have been in progress by the regional authorities for more than 20 years (see webpage https://omc.cat/en/w/surveys-emef).
6. Original manuscript Line 126: Sentence has been checked and it is correctly cited
7. The referee indicates that important literature is missing and 51 articles are included in the references of the revised paper (a paragraph has been added, lines 109 to 121). Concerning travel surveys, since it is a well-known topic, we have only added some remarkable references related to activity modelling. We have included the most relevant papers, to the best of our knowledge, in this type of research.
8. Line 138 (original manuscript) has been rewritten. Thank you very much for pointing out, it was not correct.
9. Figure 3 has been improved in order to make the text more readable and an extended caption has been included. It conveys the main logic of the flow of data and the main tools are explained in the text of the paper.
10. Daily-travel pattern example for three units in Table 1 and Table 3 of the working sample based on an alphabet of 11 activities are the same units and day duration is 1,440 minutes for all of them. They correspond to daily travel patterns of one day of duration that is 1,440 minutes, that it is common for most of the units, except for those arriving home at night after midnight (not the case for the 3 units in the example).
11. The indicators Entropy, Turbulence, Complexity and TTR are calculated according to the formulas included in the references [5,20–22] (now references [5,32–35]), as indicated in the original text in lines 194-195 (now lines 201-202). These references are well-known in literature addressing these topics and therefore we thought it would be redundant to include formulas from these papers.
12. We have checked that all figures are the best quality we can achieve. Some figures have been improved.
13. We have modified the text in such a way that Paragraphs contain at least 7 to 10 lines wherever it makes sense.
14. English has been checked using a professional tool before the original submission and none of the reviewers has indicated any concern about the quality of English in the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

1- The scientific term is mentioned with the abbreviation at the first appearance only. Please correct the matter for all terms such as Sequence analysis

2- Why wasn't information about the case study collected from a more recent reference (published in 2023)? And is Figure 2 taken from a reference? If so, please refer to the reference

3-Figure 3 is not clear

4-It would have been better to include references explaining the reasons for choosing what was included in the points mentioned on page 7 "The approach to be applied to travel surveys and daily travel behavior relies on the following steps:"

5-No proposed algorithm has been structured for work or a general outline of the proposed method has been developed

6-In the discussion and conclusions, the researcher reiterated that sequence analysis of EMEF travel surveys and daily travel behavior without explaining the advantages or disadvantages of each point in the proposed work

7-Standardization of reference format

Author Response

Thank you very much for the positive feedback and comments that will improve the quality of the paper. We address your comments one by one:

1. All references to Sequence Analysis but the first one has been replaced by SA.
2. EMEF travel surveys are regularly addressed for the last 20 years by regional authorities. We have added the webpage (in catalan) referred to description of the particular travel survey for each selected year (2018 to 2021). Data for 2022 EMEF survey is not available for analysis yet (at the end of 2023 we will have access to it).
3. Figure 3 has been modified and caption has been extended.
4. Thanks for pointing out the need of including references for each step. Now, references are included in the new version of the paper in Page 7 “The approach to be applied to travel surveys and daily travel behaviour relies on the following steps:”.
5. The approach is a pipeline which is composed by a link of steps each one using an adhoc algorithmic approach and we have used the generic implementation in the available software tools. The methodological steps in the pipeline are indicated in Figure 3. The novelty relies on the workflow and the use of data analytics tools in the analysis as highlighted in the Conclusions.
6. In the Discussion (now Discussion and Conclusions are split into 2 different sections as suggested by reviewer 1), we have added several paragraphs explaining the advantages or disadvantages of the proposed analysis. Most papers in literature make use of transitions between states with just an activity T (transport, any mode), but we have included the detail of the transportation mode in the alphabet definition of the activities.
7. Standardization of reference format has been addressed in the new version of the paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors deal with the complex topic of assessing fragmentation in daily travel patterns using data analytics for the analysis of activity sequences. I would like to make a few suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. The title is adequate. The abstract is quite appropriate and a short description of the research problem. Reduce the number of keywords. Expand the references in the literature review. The methodology is quite clearly explained and no corrections are needed. The authors shared the methodology and specially inserted subtitles and expanded the methodological approach, which makes the manuscript of higher quality. The results are presented in a very clear format and easy to understand for all readers. I think that part of the link should only be expanded, with possible limitations and future implications. Also, I need to add many more references to this type of research dealing with the same or similar research. I suggest some

Stereotypes and Prejudices as (Non) Attractors for Willingness to Revisit Tourist-Spatial Hotspots in Serbia. Sustainability, 15, 5130. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065130

 

Risks in the Role of Co-Creating the Future of Tourism in "Stigmatized" Destinations. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1-19, 15530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315530

 

COVID-19 Certificate as a Cutting-Edge Issue in Changing the Perception of Restaurants' Visitors - Illustrations From Serbian Urban Centers. Front. Psychol. 13:914484, 1-11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.914484

 

After minor corrections, publication of the manuscript is possible

Author Response

Thank you very much for the positive feedback and comments that will improve the quality of the paper. We address your comments one by one:

1. We have reduced the number of keywords
2. Unfortunately, we have thought that we could not include the suggested references since they are not related to the scope of our research. Suggested references are very relevant to highlight the impact of COVID in the selection of touristic destinations. Our findings show how travel patterns are affected by COVID (EMEF 2020) and post COVID (EMEF 2021) in the whole population of residents in a metropolitan area (Barcelona) involving a common set of activities, not in particular for tourist activities. Furthermore, tourist activities are not collected in the EMEF surveys.
3. We have included possible limitations and future implications in the Discussion Section, now Discussion and Conclusions are split into two different sections as suggested by one of the reviewers.

Reviewer 5 Report

The article presents the results of an advanced statistical analysis of data from a travel survey conducted in the metropolitan area of Barcelona. Thanks to the large dataset available to the authors, they discovered interesting findings and connections within the framework of statistical analyses, which are subsequently discussed.

The literature search is relatively shorter, but this is due to the fact that travel surveys are a sufficiently well-known topic. The methodology is designed correctly, only I believe that in certain cases (lines 269 - 272), a dot is used instead of a comma separating tens of thousands. Furthermore, I would enlarge Figure 3 to the full width of the page, as it is difficult to read at 100% magnification.

The results are presented in the next chapter. Here, I would recommend splitting Figure 4 into three separate figures, as the top three graphs, in particular, are almost unreadable in their current form. I would also consider using a vector image format as the raster blurs small text. In Figure 14, the labels of the graph (individual lines) are not legible, and there is a typo in the word "turbulence".

The article closes with a short discussion and summary of conclusions; due to the extensive previous chapter with results, there is no need to expand this section further. Overall, the article is interesting; it processes a large dataset using advanced statistical methods and presents the obtained results in a high-quality way.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the positive feedback and comments that will improve the quality of the paper. We address your comments one by one:

 

1. The literature search has been expanded as requested by some reviewers, but only concerning to the methodological aspects, since as you indicate, it is relatively short with respect to travel surveys, because they are a sufficiently well-known topic.
2. We have revised lines 269 - 272, and corrected those figures where a dot is used instead of a comma separating tens of thousands. Thanks for pointing out these mistakes.
3. Figure 3 has been enlarged to the full width of the page and caption has been expanded.
4. Figure 4 has been improved, the top three graphs, are now 2 readable graphs in their new version.
5. In Figure 14, the labels of the graph (individual lines) are now legible, and the indicated typo in the word "turbulence" has been fixed.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is suitable for publication.  The authors succeeded in answering my concerns. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form

Accept in present form