The Influence of Changing Socioeconomic Conditions in Europe on the Prioritisation of Risks in Travel Behaviour: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2746005

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: The influence of changing socioeconomic conditions in Europe on the prioritisation of risks in travel behaviour. A case study.

 

Dear Authors,

The research deals with the interesting and important current topic of the influence of socioeconomic conditions on travel behavior. As the authors argue, understanding travel behavior preferences is key to developing efficient and sustainable transportation systems. The work is methodologically well-founded and provides a detailed overview of the literature in the researched area.

Along with the strong sides of this work, in order to make the work even better, I am free to mention a few weaknesses of this research:

- Even though the authors said their research is at the level of Europe, three important large countries are missing  (UK, FR, IT), so the representativeness of the research is reduced to a smaller scale.

- Table 3, Does not indicate the years for the population.

- Figure 3, It would be better to draw a diagram in the form of two columns (linear graphs are usually used to show time series - processes).

- Why Images 2 and 4 are not showing the same geographical area of the research?

- Figure 5, titlex2 (missing description)?

- The part of the conclusion from lines 458 to 467 is more suitable for discussion.

- The specific contribution that should be clearly stated (lines 477-482) is missing.

Perhaps an additional contribution would be gained by commenting and explaining the differences between the countries.

The paper in its current state has a weak contribution. Maybe it can be upgraded with a proposal of some concrete policies that should be implemented and with what goal (for example: highlighting the differences between countries).

 

I believe that the paper (with some minor additions and changes) is suitable for publishing.

Kind regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments regarding our work. We appreciate the constructive criticism, which will undoubtedly help us to improve our study. Below you can find our response to the issues you raised:

- Even though the authors said their research is at the level of Europe, three important large countries are missing  (UK, FR, IT), so the representativeness of the research is reduced to a smaller scale.

We acknowledge the limitation in not including three important large countries (UK, FR, IT) in our research. To avoid misleading readers, we have clarified in the abstract that the study was conducted in 22 European countries. The sentence now reads: "The level of significance, similarities, and differences in the prioritization of threats during the COVID-19 pandemic and the energy crisis after the outbreak of the military conflict in Ukraine (duration and range) were compared across 22 European countries. There is also an information about it in section 3.2: Study area.

- Table 3, Does not indicate the years for the population.

We have added the year 2021 for the population data in Table 3 to provide clarity on the timeframe.

- Figure 3, It would be better to draw a diagram in the form of two columns (linear graphs are usually used to show time series - processes).

Considering your suggestion, we have changed the format of Figure 3 to a column chart, which is more suitable for displaying time series processes.

- Why Images 2 and 4 are not showing the same geographical area of the research?

We acknowledge the discrepancy in the geographical representation of Images 2 and 4. Image 4 illustrates the countries where experts responded to the survey, while Image 2 presents the final scope of the study. The variation is due to insufficient responses from certain countries, leading to their exclusion from further analysis.

- Figure 5, titlex2 (missing description)?

Thank you for noting the missing description in Figure 5. We have now added a description: "Figure 5. Expert Characteristics. A. Distribution of Respondents by Professional Specialty. B. Years of Expertise."

- The part of the conclusion from lines 458 to 467 is more suitable for discussion.

We agree with your suggestion regarding the content from lines 458 to 467. To address this, we have added a discussion section to the article and moved the mentioned paragraph to the discussion.

- The specific contribution that should be clearly stated (lines 477-482) is missing.

We appreciate your recommendation to clearly state the specific contribution (lines 477-482). In response, we have added a description emphasizing the study's significant contribution to understanding the impact of changing socio-economic conditions on travel behaviour in Europe.

Perhaps an additional contribution would be gained by commenting and explaining the differences between the countries.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper identifies and classifies threat factors that affect travel behavior (TB) in various passenger transport modes in Functional Urban Areas (FUAs). The study identified 46 threats, grouped them into six categories, and used expert surveys to rank them based on their perceived significance during different periods, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic and after the outbreak of a geopolitical conflict.

Drawbacks:

1. The paper's findings, primarily based on European data, might limit its applicability to other geographic contexts with different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds.

2. The paper acknowledges that the long-term consequences of geopolitical crises are difficult to predict, suggesting that the findings might quickly become outdated as new threats emerge or existing ones evolve.

3. The study disregarded threats that impact public and private transport, potentially overlooking significant aspects of travel behavior.

4. The reliance on expert surveys could introduce biases, as these are based on subjective perceptions rather than objective data.

Recommendations: 

1. Including threats that affect both public and private transport could provide a more holistic understanding of travel behavior.

2. Complementing expert surveys with objective data sources, such as traffic and travel data, can provide a more balanced view of the threats to TB.

The paper provides valuable insights into the factors influencing travel behavior during the crisis, emphasizing the need for regular monitoring and tailored approaches to designing sustainable transport systems. However, its scope and methodology have limitations that should be addressed in future research for more comprehensive and universally applicable findings.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments regarding our work. We appreciate the constructive criticism, which will undoubtedly help us to improve our study. Below you can find our response to the issues you raised:

Recommendations: 

1. Including threats that affect both public and private transport could provide a more holistic understanding of travel behavior.

We understand the importance of considering a wider range of threats to mobility. In our study, we focused on identifying and analyzing 46 different threats that were presented to experts during the survey. Unfortunately, the list of threats is not exhaustive, and changing realities may introduce new aspects that we did not consider. In the future, we aim to incorporate new threats as much as possible to make our analysis more comprehensive.

2. Complementing expert surveys with objective data sources, such as traffic and travel data, can provide a more balanced view of the threats to TB.

The paper provides valuable insights into the factors influencing travel behavior during the crisis, emphasizing the need for regular monitoring and tailored approaches to designing sustainable transport systems. However, its scope and methodology have limitations that should be addressed in future research for more comprehensive and universally applicable findings.

Thank you for noting the importance of complementing expert surveys with objective data sources. In response to this recommendation, we additionally analyzed data on the number of cars sold in EU countries from 2012 to 2022 and the number of registered cars in Poland from 2019 to 2022. This analysis aligns with the approach used by Ku et al. (2021) and provided an additional perspective on changes in travel behavior in the context of crises. These data confirm that there was indeed a  decrease in interest in purchasing private cars in 2022, coinciding with the energy crisis.

Moreover, it is important to note the increase in interest in public mass transport from 2021 onwards (after the decline caused by the Covid-19 pandemic).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is easy to read and the topic of the paper is of main relevance and the work provides sufficient background information and relevant and updated literature review.The paper addresses the appropriate content for the theme. However, there is missing information related with future research directions.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the positive feedback and valuable insights regarding our article. We are pleased that the paper is clear, and the topic is considered as significant. In response to the suggestion regarding the lack of information on future research directions, we have included this aspect in section 6: conclusions:

Our forthcoming investigations will center on examining and analyzing disparities between countries, aiming to enhance their understanding and provide detailed explanations for variations in prioritization among European nations

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this article is very interesting and current.

This issue of travel behavior is relevant today.

The abstract is accurate and the keywords are appropriate and sufficient.

The Introduction part is a bit long, but it is meaningful so it can stay in that scope. The authors have provided a literature review with very current articles and research.

The authors explain their sample with 212 responses from 22 countries, but they should explain the reason that not include other countries from Europe.

Tables and figures are useful and transparent.

The list of references is very long and up-to-date and relevant to the topic.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our article on travel behaviour. We are pleased that the article is clear, and the topic is considered as significant.

We explain the limitation of our sample to 22 countries due to the lack of representativeness in responses from other European countries. Some countries didn't respond to our invitation to participate in the expert survey, and in other cases, the number of responses was very limited (less than five experts), preventing us from obtaining a representative population sample. We conducted the study in two stages, and we handed out the questionnaire to the same group of experts from the same countries in both stages.