Spatial Analysis of Bike-Sharing Ridership for Sustainable Transportation in Houston, Texas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors!
Your topic is interesting, and I think you will continue your research or move from the BSS world to another transport-sharing mode. You should have in mind to promote no-private-car transport in urban areas. It would be interesting to add these things in the future, but it would be particularly interesting to learn continuously with an online spatial analyzer.
Please see the attached document for comments and suggestions for improvement.
Regards.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article analyzes information on bicycle sharing and related urban factors to encourage the use of this mode of transportation in Houston. This is an interesting topic with practical applications of interest, especially in the field of urban mobility and sustainability. The paper is well presented, so I will only make a few minor suggestions.
The introduction adequately contextualizes the reader on the problem, summarizing the main findings in the literature and highlighting the importance of the study of bike sharing. However, brief mention should be made of the characteristics and behavioral patterns of cyclists, in relation to their offending behaviors and their positive behaviors. There is a lot of international research that provides evidence in this regard (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2022.10.025 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103754).
Regarding the method, I recommend including a subsection on the ethical aspects of the study. The presentation of the results is clear and adequate.
However, the discussion should be developed further. This section should contrast the data obtained with other research. Thus, the authors should answer questions such as: were the results in accordance with expectations, are the results congruent with other similar research? And, if they were not, what elements explain the discrepancies that have occurred?
In addition, I recommend including a specific section with the limitations of the study and future lines of research.
Author Response
Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper investigates Bike-Sharing ridership for sustainable transportation in Houston, assessing how bike-sharing have adapted to sustainable transportation and mobility in cities. Their study stablishes a 0.25- and 0.50-mile buffers that we found very specific of what they are trying to study. Nevertheless, the figures, 1, 2, 3, 4 should be improved in order to be understable. Even Figure 1 should be considered to change colors.
Table 1 its connected with the previous paragraphs, explaining the variables, but the values does appear aut hors, but authors do not specify where they got the data set to be analyzed, and they do it as the results do appear in the referred table 1.
Authors explain in Research Methodology that they are using Stepwise regression, and then appear formula 2; the text requires a little explanation to connect both as they do it, as the references used.
Author Response
See attached. We additionally respond to reviewer 3.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper gives an interesting take on a relatively unexplored topic, which is the correlation between bike-share ridership and various urban factors. The research is also backed up by a case study focusing on a specific bike-sharing program, providing a significant practical relevance for the analysis.
The results of the study are clearly interesting and provide some unique insights into the factors affecting the utilization of bike-sharing services. The most interesting finding is probably the correlation between the tree canopy coverage of the studied area and the bike-sharing ridership.
It is obvious that the research is of high relevance for the journal, as bike-sharing is one of the most sustainable forms of transportation. The unique results of the study also makes it highly relevant both from an academic and from a practical perspective.
The structure of the publication is also clear and easily followable, even if the paper has a relatively compact size. The literature review is adequately realized, and the utilized methods are also clearly explained and well implemented.
As a result of the previous, the opinion of this reviewer is that the paper can be accepted in its current form without any modifications. However, a minor editing of the language of the paper would probably be useful, for example in row 50-51, the question "and what are the key neighboring characteristics impacting bike-sharing program?" is clearly slightly icomplete (perhaps the authors originally meant "......a bike-sharing program?").
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA slight editing of the English language would probably be useful, even if in general it is of exceptional quality.
Author Response
Reviewer 4
However, a minor editing of the language of the paper would probably be useful, for example in row 50-51, the question “and what are the key neighboring characteristics impacting bike-sharing program?” is clearly slightly incomplete (perhaps the authors originally meant “….a bike-sharing program?”).
- Thank you for the point. We updated it.
A slight editing of the English language would probably be useful, even if in general it is of exceptional quality.
- This manuscript is grammatically reviewed by a professional editor.
