Analysis of the Potential Economic Impact of Parking Space Comprehensive Utilization on Traditional Business District

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article does not directly fall within the scope of the journal, which is sustainability. Even policy recommendations are not related to sustainability issues. the authors need to relate their work, at least at the recommendation level, to SDG such as goal 3 ( Good health and well-being) and/or goal 11 ( sustainable cities and communities)

Author Response

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestions. Although the sustainability addressed in this paper may be implicit, its objective aligns with the goals of Journal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

In response to the reviewer's suggestions, the author has included additional content in the concluding recommendations section.

By dividing the customer market and promoting cooperation between merchants, once-autonomous businesses change into connected corporations, modifying the operational environment of the complete TBD. This collaborative approach helps in fulfilling harmonious and economic development initiatives within the established business district. The enhancement of the economic conditions of the TBD ensures the sustainable growth of urban areas.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The objective of this paper is to investigate the latent classes of parking preference for drivers and the economic effects after implementing parking space co-utilization in traditional business districts, with a particular focus on the parking preferences of electric vehicle users.

The paper is very interesting, and it is fairly well written. The authors have conducted a comprehensive literature review including some of the important literature. Authors have also described well the research methodology in the materials and methods section.

However, one of the major problems in the manuscript is the use of many abbreviations. It makes the reader go back and forth to identify what a given abbreviation means.

The authors have discussed the results of the paper well. However, the authors have also not compared the findings of this study to that of previous studies. In addition, though the objective of the paper indicates that the study will have a particular focus on the parking preferences of electric vehicle users, authors have not highlighted the parking preferences of electric vehicle users when discussing the results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is good.

Author Response

The reviewer's affirmation is appreciated. In response to the raised questions and suggestions, the author would like to address the following:

(1) Abbreviations: Excessive abbreviations can potentially impact readability. Therefore, the author has provided explanations upon their first occurrence and eliminated unnecessary abbreviations to ensure clear comprehension.

(2) Comparative Results: Figure 19 illustrates a comparison of "increased economy," indicating the economic advantages of the proposed method over previous approaches.

(3) Electric vehicle user (EVU) preferences: In section 4.3 (3), we have analysed the distribution of EVU among high-income individuals. This suggests that electric vehicle users could potentially make a significant contribution to the economic growth of the business district and should receive more attention. It is likely that CCS and RCS in the conclusion will represent the majority of electric vehicle users.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

 

I would like to comment on the manuscript:

 

Line 31-32 abbreviation is not logical: Parking Space Comprehensive Utilization (PSC) as

In line 10: Parking Space Co-utilization (PSC) do you mean the same?

Could you put  (Fig. 1) after when it is mentioned in the text?

 

Line 128 capitalize title: 2.2. shared parking economy

Increase size in brackets: and increase revenues [21],

 

Line 157 capitalize title: 2.3. shared parking behavior

 

3. Materials and methods

This section should start with the methodology and not the scenarios and the experimental design

What you state in line 330 is not the valid response rate.

What kind of statistical software was used for the analysis?

 

In line 614 there is an extra letter: F In the future

 Where do you address the three research questions exactly?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

line 53 Firstly, in homogeneous parking spaces.

line 56 Thirdly, endogenous parking fees. Try to formulate a full sentence here.

Too long block, please put the question to new lines: line 87-90

Therefore, returning to the initial research objectives, based on parking considerations, the question of whether customers can bring sustainable benefits to non-target shops within the TBD is divided into the following three questions: Question 1: Based on the survey data, what are the different customer classes, and what are the heterogeneities among EVU?

 

Author Response

The author is deeply grateful for the meticulous review and valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer. The following modifications have been made in response:

1. Unified the meaning of "Parking Space Co-utilization (PSC)" at line 10 and "Parking Space Comprehensive Utilization (PSC)" at line 31.

2. Adhered to the format of placing images above and text below for better readability.

3. Corrected the capitalization in titles 2.2 and 2.3.

4. Introduced the scenario design first to allow the reviewer to understand the research background early on, followed by the methodology.

5. Revised the expression of "valid response rate": "A total of 522 responses were collected, and 483 of them were deemed valid. The number of valid questionnaires answered is 477. The valid response rate was 98.8%."

6. Clarified the use of SPSS and LatentGOLD statistical software.

7. Deleted F in line 614.

8. Reformulated the description of the three research questions:
Question one: Identified customer latent categories through a questionnaire survey based on the latent class model.
Question two: Analyzed the heterogeneity of different latent category customers and their potential economic potential.
Question three: Compared the economic impact before and after implementing shared parking space utilization, incorporating psychological variables, revealing the specific economic enhancement abilities of each customer category.

9. Modified line 53 for improved clarity.

10. In lines 87-90, broke down the expression of questions 1, 2, and 3 into separate lines.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 I have had the opportunity to review your manuscript, and I commend you on your insightful investigation into the economic implications of Parking Space Comprehensive Utilization (PSC) in traditional business districts (TBD). Your study, with a particular focus on the preferences of electric vehicle users, presents valuable insights into the complexities of parking issues in TBD and their impact on sustainable development.

 I appreciate the clear and well-structured presentation of your research, particularly in the sections on customer classification and economic effects. Your methodology, involving Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Latent Class Model (LCM), provides a robust foundation for the analysis.

 To enhance the manuscript, I suggest the following revisions:

 1. In the abstract, consider incorporating specific keywords related to sustainability, shared parking, and economic impact for better discoverability. Additionally, provide a brief summary of the key findings to offer readers a quick overview.

 2. In the introduction, establish a more explicit link between parking challenges and sustainable development. Clearly state the research objectives to guide readers in understanding the paper's purpose.

 3. Expand the literature review section to include recent studies on shared parking, sustainable economic benefits, and behavioral patterns in parking. This will help contextualize your research within the existing body of knowledge.

 4. Briefly explain the rationale behind selecting specific psychological factors for analysis.

 5. Connect the identified customer classes and their preferences more explicitly to potential positive impacts on merchants in the discussion section. Address potential limitations of the study, such as biases in survey data or assumptions made during classification.

 6. In the conclusion, summarize key findings concisely and suggest directions for future research based on identified gaps or limitations.

 I believe these revisions will enhance the clarity and impact of your manuscript. Overall, your paper has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field of sustainability, and I look forward to seeing the updated version.

Author Response

The author expresses gratitude for the reviewer's suggestions and provides the following responses:

1. Keywords related to "shared parking" have been added to the abstract. Additionally, the main findings have been incorporated into the brief summary.

2. In the introduction, emphasis has been placed on the relationship between parking challenges and sustainability. Due to the competitive relationships among merchants, parking resources are underutilized, leading to the discouragement of drivers from visiting business districts. This paper addresses these challenges by promoting cooperation among merchants through parking initiatives, thereby improving the business environment in the district for sustainable development. Consequently, an analysis of the customer market in the commercial area is needed to understand the heterogeneity of different customers regarding parking preferences.

3. The literature review section has been expanded to include studies on shared parking, the sharing economy, and parking policy.

4. Psychological scores of customers were found to be consistently high through previous survey data analysis. Moreover, customers' choices are influenced by psychological factors, indicating that customers exhibit bounded rationality, a phenomenon well-established by numerous scholars.

5. Quantitative analysis of the potential economic impact on identified customer segments has been conducted.

6. The conclusion has been summarized and includes prospects for future research.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have explained and developed a section on the sustainability goal. now the paper is much more related to the journal goals.

i recommend its acceptance 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their response, the authors have answered my questions about the original version of the manuscript. The revised version of the manuscript shows some improvement over the original version.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is good.