The Role of Market Insights in Shaping Sustainable Mobility in Fast Developing Countries: The Case of Vietnam

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the context of emission reduction, it is an interesting topic to study the role of market insights in shaping sustainable transport in rapidly developing countries: the case of Vietnam. The overall structure of the paper is very clear. However, the factors influencing travel choices in this study seem to be too idealistic, and some policy design and implementation plans for shifting to sustainable transportation lack concrete computational support. In addition, this manuscript shows a number of areas for improvement, as described in the comments below.

（1）     This paper designed a questionnaire for investigation, but it did not explain whether the age stratification of the respondents was reasonable, gender, family income, and whether individuals owned private cars. Individual rating is too subjective. The factors influencing mode selection are not explained and verified. And whether other factors were tested.

（2）     The data collection was made during the period of the novel coronavirus epidemic, so it may have affected the experimental conclusions, and the extent of the impact is not explored in this paper. Whether it is feasible to modify the survey method previously used in Western developed countries to apply to developing countries is not further demonstrated. At present, the argument in this paper lacks theoretical support.

（3）     This paper says that developing countries have a weak awareness of green environmental protection, and pay more attention to medical health, living standards and other factors, and lack of data demonstration. The background part of the argument is not enough, the jump is too strong. Linguistic coherence needs to be improved.

（4）     To introduce why Vietnam is chosen as the country for data collection, it is mentioned that the increase of the middle class and the improvement of the level of economic development, but the average age of the subjects set in this paper is not quite consistent with 23.

（5）     In the policy design part of this paper, Vietnam should improve education and influence the choice of individual transportation modes, whether the support is valid. Whether other ways are needed to change individual travel choices. And whether the proposal is reasonable, and whether the government will implement the proposal of raising taxes on private cars and banning them from entering the city center.

（6）     It is said in this paper that the West, due to its strong awareness of environmental protection, has an impact on the choice of travel modes. Whether to consider the fare, travel distance and other factors. Or make evidence to support the environmental awareness of Western developed countries.

（7）     The data collection was made during the period of the novel coronavirus epidemic, so it may have affected the experimental conclusions, and the extent of the impact is not explored in this paper. Whether it is feasible to modify the survey method previously used in western developed countries and apply it to developing countries is not further demonstrated, and the statement in this paper lacks theoretical support.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

            Venice, December 19th, 2023

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to further revise and resubmit our paper, entitled “The Role of Market Insight in Shaping Sustainable Mobility in Fast Developing Countries: The Case of Vietnam”.

We integrated the manuscript in accordance with your comments and recommendations, and we hope that our revised contribution will meet your expectations.

We thank you for your attention and we remain at full disposal.

Best regards

The authors

Reviewer  1

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Despite being an interesting and timeless topic, especially considering the research area, the paper lacks significant innovation in relation to Sustainable Urban Mobility. The authors extensively present the available models regarding transport mode choice. Additionally, they propose a new (hybrid) model, which they apply to the research area. However, at this point, the innovation of the paper is exhausted.

The authors fail to develop/ present the following issues:

1. The research was conducted after the COVID-19 pandemic, with the authors acknowledging that this factor may have influenced the results. Why did the research not focus on two time periods (before and after the pandemic)? Also, why is this element not mentioned as a restriction of the research?

2. The authors do not provide sufficient information about the participants in the research (age distribution, educational level, gender, income, etc.). The few details mentioned are found in the discussion section, where they should not be.

3. The research was conducted through social media. How did the authors ensure that the 898 participants were unique? Could the same person participate multiple times through various social media accounts?

4. There is limited reference to the existing conditions of the urban road network in Vietnam, available public transportation, policies already in place (if any), the status vehicles' fleet, and the ownership percentage of private cars, bicycles, and motorbikes—essential elements in formulating policies for sustainable urban mobility.

5. The paper disproportionately addresses models for transport mode choice and sustainable urban mobility. Although the results of various models are presented in tables, the equations are not provided, making it difficult to verify the correctness of numerical values.

6. The most significant problem is in the formulation of conclusions in the paper. While the authors claim to have gained significant knowledge about transport mode choice in Vietnam through the research, they limit themselves to the formulation of a few generally stated measures and policies. Instead, they should present parameterized and specific measures based on the knowledge derived from their research analysis.

7. It is unclear whether the model they developed and propose can be applied to other areas with the appropriate parameterization

Please check;

Line 33 "[t]he sustainability..."

Line 37 "underpinning  modal choice" (double space)

Line 47 "in in years" (double in)

Line 194 "applying  extended versions" (double space). 

Overall, check the manuscript for misspelling, syntax and grammar issues.

Author Response

Venice, December 19th, 2023

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to further revise and resubmit our paper, entitled “The Role of Market Insight in Shaping Sustainable Mobility in Fast Developing Countries: The Case of Vietnam”.

We integrated the manuscript in accordance with your comments and recommendations, and we hope that our revised contribution will meet your expectations.

We thank you for your attention and we remain at full disposal.

Best regards

The authors

Reviewer  2

2.1 - The research was conducted after the COVID-19 pandemic, with the authors acknowledging that this factor may have influenced the results. Why did the research not focus on two time periods (before and after the pandemic)? Also, why is this element not mentioned as a restriction of the research?

We thank the reviewer for this comment, which made us understand that we used the wrong terminology in our draft. Indeed, data collection has not been performed neither during nor in the “aftermath” of the Covid pandemic: it has been conducted over one year after the emergency phase. Further, Vietnam has been hit by the pandemic very marginally, with extremely brief mobility restrictions and a very limited number of casualties (due to few infections and very young population), compared to other countries and geographical areas (90% less - in terms of casualties/population - than the US, for instance). Data show that by the end of 2020 travelling behaviors and public transport ridership were back to pre-pandemic levels in Vietnam (Nguyen & Poyani, 2021). According to a WHO report published before data collection started, most of the Country (10 provinces out of 13) did not report any new covid case for at least one month, and Hanoi has been praised as a case of successful handling of the pandemic with little to no restrictions to commuters’ mobility (Nguyen & Poyani, 2021).

We understand this point needed a better clarification to the reader, so we integrated the section on the limitations of the study with the following:

As a caveat to the reader it is also worth stressing that the Covid pandemic spreading in early 2020 heavily affected mobility and travel behaviors worldwide. The need for social distancing led to a temporary shift to individual modes (private cars, active transportation, etc.) at the expenses of Public Transport, and one may argue that the effects on modal choice might show some persistence over time, even after the end of the pandemic.. The possible effects on the results of the present study should not be however overemphasized, as Vietnam (unlike other countries in the area) has been only marginally struck by the pandemic  and data collection took place over one year after the end of the emergency phase. Indeed, Vietnamese cities have been praised as a virtuous example of successful handling of the pandemic where public transportation policies focused on safety measures such as face masks and hand sanitizers rather than travel restrictions, and commuters showed great compliance with such measures and little changes in travel behaviors, as public transport ridership was back to pre-pandemic numbers by the end of 2020, months before data was collected for this paper (Nguyen & Poyani, 2021).

Added References (selected):

Nguyen MH, Pojani D. Covid-19 need not spell the death of public transport: Learning from Hanoi's safety measures. J Transp Health. 2021

 World Health Organization.  Viet Nam Covid-19 situation – Report 33, March 2021

2.2 The authors do not provide sufficient information about the participants in the research (age distribution, educational level, gender, income, etc.). The few details mentioned are found in the discussion section, where they should not be.

We agree with the reviewer that we needed to integrate the manuscript with more details about the socio-demographics of the sample. Accordingly, we added a table (Table 1) with all the required information, in section 4.1 about participants.

The mean age of the sample and the percentage of respondents living in urban areas are coherent with the stated aim of “analyzing younger generations living in urban areas, and is representative of a country with a very young population with around 50% of citizens being under 30 years old”.

The percentage of individuals owning private vehicles is almost identical to the national average (around 70%).

2.3 The research was conducted through social media. How did the authors ensure that the 898 participants were unique? Could the same person participate multiple times through various social media accounts?

As multiple responses represent a potential threat to the reliability of the results in online surveys, we strictly followed all protocols and well-established procedures to avoid such occurrence. For instance, in order to avoid the so-called “Ballot Box Stuffing” phenomenon, we adopted the “Prevent Multiple Submissions” feature provided by Qualtrics (and many similar survey tools), so that it was not possible for the same person to participate multiple times, not even by accessing the link through various accounts.

2.4 There is limited reference to the existing conditions of the urban road network in Vietnam, available public transportation, policies already in place (if any), the status vehicles' fleet, and the ownership percentage of private cars, bicycles, and motorbikes—essential elements in formulating policies for sustainable urban mobility.

 Agreeing with the reviewer, we have incorporated the suggested information in our policy implications section in order to better our arguments.

Overall, we added around two pages of additional information and references in our policy implications section at the end of the paper to provide the elements mentioned by the reviewer (please see the re-drafted section 6 for the full details)

2.5 The paper disproportionately addresses models for transport mode choice and sustainable urban mobility. Although the results of various models are presented in tables, the equations are not provided, making it difficult to verify the correctness of numerical values.

We synthesized some parts addressing the transport mode choice frameworks, as to make the description more concise. Just as an example, we can here mention deleting the explanation of TRA, streamlining the description of VBN, and so on.

As regards presentation of results, we took as a reference papers on modal choice adopting the SEM technique, published in Sustainability (just as an example, please refer to the article: Investigation of Influential Factors of Intention to Adopt Electric Vehicles for Motorcyclists in Vietnam. Sustainability, 2023).

Nevertheless, we did our best to integrate the text with further details and specific references to PLS_SEM for a more in-depth description of the theory and equations underlying the model.

2.6 The most significant problem is in the formulation of conclusions in the paper. While the authors claim to have gained significant knowledge about transport mode choice in Vietnam through the research, they limit themselves to the formulation of a few generally stated measures and policies. Instead, they should present parameterized and specific measures based on the knowledge derived from their research analysis. It is unclear whether the model they developed and propose can be applied to other areas with the appropriate parameterization

In our original draft we did not provide parameterized and specific measures, as we felt it fell out of the scope of the article. Our goal is not that of proposing specific and well-detailed measures, but rather to provide policy makers and all interested parties with the tools needed to frame and implement sound strategies and policies. In other words, we provide the informational background for policy makers to decline in specific measures (tailored to the specificities of the city/region) the key findings of our research that shed light on the behavioral drivers behind modal choices of Vietnamese commuters. This is what Reviewer 3 labels as “foundation”:

“The policy implications offer a robust foundation for government policy recommendations” (Reviewer 3)

By gaining further insights on this, a top-down approach is to be integrated with a bottom-up perspective where commuters’ concerns and expectations play a relevant role for the shaping of effective strategies.

Nevertheless, we understand that we needed to heavily integrate this section, so we completely reframed it adding over 2 pages to the original draft, with many further details and specifications that go in the direction suggested by the reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Title: The Role of Market Insight in Shaping Sustainable Mobility in Fast Developing Countries: The Case of Vietnam.

Reviews:

1.     Abstract:

·       The abstract presents a clear overview of the research conducted. It effectively outlines the problem, methodology, and implications of the study.

2.     Introduction:

·       The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the transportation sector’s contribution to climate change and the multifaceted approaches needed for sustainable mobility. However, it could benefit from a more concise structure and a clearer focus on the study's specific context (Vietnam).

3.     Theoretical framework:

·       The theoretical framework provides a comprehensive overview of three main streams of research regarding transport mode choice: egoistic and altruistic drivers, and the role of habits. While detailed and thorough, it could benefit from concise structuring for clarity and focus of the study. For example: if TPB is more relevant to the study, it should not need to explain the TRA.

·       While the theoretical explanation is exhaustive, it requires adding a hypothesis development relevant to the theoretical background as well as giving each hypothesis a unique code for easier identification purposes (H₁ for hypothesis 1, etc.)

4.     Research setting:

·       The selection of Vietnam as the research setting for investigating sustainable mobility in fast-developing societies is well-founded and substantiated by critical societal and environmental factors.

5.     Methodology:

·       The research method (4.1) described a structured approach to gathering data. It is well-explained.

·       The methodology section regarding the construct (4.2) used in the study is detailed, covering various scales and modifications made for the current research context. It is well-explained.

6.     Results

·       The results of this study are interpretable within a scientific framework adhering to SEM principles. Nevertheless, a concise and general statement specifying the acceptance or rejection of each hypothesis is necessary.

7.     Discussion and implication

·       The rationale and underlying reasons behind the hypothesis results are articulated coherently within the discussion section. Similarly, the policy implications offer a robust foundation for government policy recommendations. However, for clarity and enhanced readability, it would be advantageous to separate the limitations and future research into a distinct subsection rather than combine these explanations in discussion and policy implications.

Author Response

            Venice, December 19th, 2023

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to further revise and resubmit our paper, entitled “The Role of Market Insight in Shaping Sustainable Mobility in Fast Developing Countries: The Case of Vietnam”.

We integrated the manuscript in accordance with your comments and recommendations, and we hope that our revised contribution will meet your expectations.

We thank you for your attention and we remain at full disposal.

Best regards

The authors

Reviewer 3

3.1 Abstract: The abstract presents a clear overview of the research conducted. It effectively outlines the problem, methodology, and implications of the study.

3.2 Introduction: The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the transportation sector’s contribution to climate change and the multifaceted approaches needed for sustainable mobility. However, it could benefit from a more concise structure and a clearer focus on the study's specific context (Vietnam).

We followed the suggestion and we deleted some sentences that were either redundant or not essential, as to make the section more concise. For instance, we deleted (among other things) the paragraph on covid (which is mentioned in the final section of the manuscript).

3.3a Theoretical framework:  The theoretical framework provides a comprehensive overview of three main streams of research regarding transport mode choice: egoistic and altruistic drivers, and the role of habits. While detailed and thorough, it could benefit from concise structuring for clarity and focus of the study. For example: if TPB is more relevant to the study, it should not need to explain the TRA.

Thank you for your comment, which allowed us to review this section and “trim” some parts and sentences. For instance, we followed the advice of deleting the explanation of TRA, but we also streamlined and made more concise other parts of the section, like in the case of VBN.

3.3b While the theoretical explanation is exhaustive, it requires adding a hypothesis development relevant to the theoretical background as well as giving each hypothesis a unique code for easier identification purposes (H1 for hypothesis 1, etc.)

Following the reviewer’s suggestions, we have now added 12 clear hypotheses (H1-H12), as follows:

“Acknowledging the need to combine all three main streams of research into a clear, coherent, and comprehensive framework and inspired by the CADM of Klöckner and Blöbaum (2010), our paper proposes a simplified research model (Figure 1) with the following hypotheses:

TPB-related hypotheses:

• Hypothesis 1 (H1): Positive attitudes towards green transport modes lead to higher intention to use these modes.
• Hypothesis 2 (H2): Positive subjective norms towards green transport modes lead to higher intention to use these modes.
• Hypothesis 3 (H3): Higher perceived behavioral control over green transport modes results in higher intention to use these modes.
• Hypothesis 4 (H4): Higher intention to use green transport modes results in higher actual use of these modes (i.e. actual behaviors)

NAM-related hypotheses:

• Hypothesis 5 (H5): Individuals’ awareness of the adverse consequences of car/motorcycle transport positively correlates with their ascription of personal responsibility for such negative outcomes.
• Hypothesis 6 (H6): Individuals’ ascription of responsibility positively corre-lates with their personal norms on transport mode choice.
• Hypothesis 7 (H7): Positive personal norms towards green transport modes lead to higher intention to use these modes.
• Hypothesis 8 (H8): Positive personal norms towards green transport modes lead to higher actual use of these modes (i.e. actual behaviors).

Habit-related hypothesis:

• Hypothesis 9 (H9): Stronger habits of using green transport modes result in higher actual use of these modes (i.e. actual behaviors).

Additional, CADM-related hypotheses:

• Hypothesis 10 (H10): Positive personal norms towards green transport modes lead to stronger habits of using these modes.
• Hypothesis 11 (H11): Personal norms towards green transport modes indirectly affect actual use of these modes through intention.
• Hypothesis 12 (H12): Personal norms towards green transport modes indirectly affect actual use of these modes through habits.”

 3.4 Research setting: The selection of Vietnam as the research setting for investigating sustainable mobility in fast-developing societies is well-founded and substantiated by critical societal and environmental factors.

3.5 Methodology: The research method (4.1) described a structured approach to gathering data. It is well-explained. The methodology section regarding the construct (4.2) used in the study is detailed, covering various scales and modifications made for the current research context. It is well-explained.

3.6 Results: The results of this study are interpretable within a scientific framework adhering to SEM principles. Nevertheless, a concise and general statement specifying the acceptance or rejection of each hypothesis is necessary.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added a concise and general statement specifying the acceptance or rejection of each hypothesis in the SEM results table, as well as the discussion section.

Overall, H1, H2, and H8 are not supported, while H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H9, H10, H11, H12 are supported.

3.7 Discussion and implication: The rationale and underlying reasons behind the hypothesis results are articulated coherently within the discussion section. Similarly, the policy implications offer a robust foundation for government policy recommendations. However, for clarity and enhanced readability, it would be advantageous to separate the limitations and future research into a distinct subsection rather than combine these explanations in discussion and policy implications.

Thank you for pointing out this aspect: we have now modified the structure of the paper, with a distinct section (Section 7) dedicated to “Limitations and Avenues for Future Research”.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am pleased to see that most of the issues with your manuscript have been addressed in the revision. Here is my report on the revised paper:

1. (1) One of the key concepts in your paper is "Fast Developing Countries," and you have noted that existing research has primarily focused on Western countries. Consequently, I recommend that you further elaborate on the necessity of studying "Fast Developing Countries" in the introduction. It's important to clearly articulate what sets these countries apart and why they warrant specific attention in your research.

2. (2) In lines 376-378, you state, "while in western societies there is an important (and growing) share of citizens with strong environmental concerns guiding choices also..." This statement requires further literature support to strengthen its credibility. Ensure that you provide adequate references to back up this claim, making the argument more robust and well-grounded in existing research.

3. (3) Additionally, I suggest that you emphasize the distinct aspects of "Fast Developing Countries" in the "5. Results and Discussion" section of your paper. This emphasis should echo the necessity of the study mentioned in the introduction. It’s crucial to draw a clear connection between the introductory arguments for studying these countries and the findings you present later in the paper. This will provide coherence to your research and reinforce the significance of your study's focus on "Fast Developing Countries."

Overall, your revisions have significantly improved the manuscript. However, addressing these additional points will further enhance the clarity and impact of your research.

Author Response

Venice, December 29th, 2023

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to further revise and resubmit our paper, entitled “The Role of Market Insight in Shaping Sustainable Mobility in Fast Developing Countries: The Case of Vietnam”.

We integrated the manuscript in accordance with your comments and recommendations, and we hope that our revised contribution will meet your expectations.

We thank you for your attention and we remain at full disposal.

Best regards

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Firstly, I would like to thank you for taking into consideration my comments. Secondly, I find this version of your manuscript very improved. The structure and clarity are now aligned with the demands of the journal, and the findings and conclusions can become beneficial to other researchers. It is easier for someone to read it and, mostly, to understand your approach and methodology.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your support, and for your suggestions that helped us improve our manuscript.

Best regards

The authors

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I am happy with the modification. Thank you.