Travel Characteristics of Urban Residents Based on Taxi Trajectories in China: Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Wuhan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy impressions of the reviewed article are for serious research with thorough and objective formulation and evaluation of the studied issues. The topic is current, especially related to the issues of environmental protection and the direct and indirect impacts of due to transport and urban residents’ travel.
To realize the set goal and to solve the research tasks, theoretical and empirical research methods, modeling and forecasting methods are used, which form a stable basis for deriving results applicable to the real socio-economic system for which they are intended. Own and new research results are presented. The literary sources used are relevant, although presented within the region.
What makes an impression, however, despite the thoroughness of the research and the excellent impressions it leaves as argumentation and justification, is the period in which the study was conducted. A period from March to May 2015 is mentioned. As a time frame, I consider it to be small, but also far enough away from the present moment. In my opinion, whatever conclusions are drawn on this basis, they can only represent the probabilistic description of the logistics system in question, without taking into account the changes that have occurred between 2015 and 2023, including the Covid pandemic (especially for Wuhan). In this regard, it would be good if, in the Discussion and/or Conclusion section, a reference is made to the current moment, commenting on the existing strategies for ensuring a sustainable urban environment.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe only comment I would allow myself here is related to the choice of pronoun and verb tense - it would be good if the authors stick to the generalized present tense - it gives information about permanent facts, the action is always happening, regardless of the moment of speaking.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe overall evaluation of this paper is low. No innovation was found in the paper, the research and analysis of the paper were not deep enough, the research data used were outdated, and the research results were not new.
See the comments in the review draft for specific review suggestions.
It is recommended to reject the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
See the comments in the review draft for specific review suggestions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The English of the paper is not clear in several parts, and some parts are not clear enough to understand the authors' idea. The English should be improved and the grammatical mistakes should be corrected.
- Can you provide a succinct summary of the key findings or implications of the study in the abstract to ensure readers grasp the core contributions of your research?
- In the introduction section, you mention that addressing issues like traffic congestion and environmental degradation is crucial for sustainable development. Can you elaborate on how understanding the travel behavior of urban residents through taxi trajectory data contributes specifically to addressing these challenges?
- In the section discussing the study areas, you mention that the areas were selected based on various criteria such as urban status and traffic volume. How did you ensure that the selected areas are representative of the overall urban characteristics of each city?
- Regarding the OLS method, could you provide more details on how the specific variables related to daytime taxi drop-off points and urban facilities were chosen and measured? How were these variables expected to influence the drop-off locations?
- In the GWR section, you mention using spatial weights determined by kernel functions and bandwidth. How were these parameters selected, and what considerations were taken into account to ensure the reliability of the GWR results?
- Can you clarify the rationale behind using R-squared and adjusted R-squared as evaluation metrics for the models? How do these metrics help in assessing the goodness-of-fit and the contribution of independent variables to the model?
- In the results section, you discuss the temporal trajectory characteristics of travel volume in different cities. Could you explain why specific time periods, such as early morning and lunchtime, show distinct patterns in travel volume? Are there any external factors or events influencing these patterns?
- Regarding the analysis of origin-destination (OD) points, what criteria were used to determine significant points of interaction between vehicle boarding and deboarding activities? How were these interactions quantified and visualized?
- In the discussion of travel patterns within each city, you mention the flow of residents between external traffic stations and commercial districts. Can you discuss the implications of this flow on urban planning and transportation management? How can this information be used to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce congestion?
- Lastly, while each city has unique travel patterns, you note commonalities in the interaction between external traffic stations and business districts. How do these commonalities reflect broader trends in urban travel behavior, and what insights can be drawn from them for urban planning strategies across different cities?
- You mention the identification of 'three peaks and three valleys' in residents' traffic patterns as valuable insights for optimizing transportation services. Can you elaborate on how these insights can be practically applied to improve traffic management and infrastructure in the studied cities? Are there specific measures or interventions that could be implemented based on these patterns?
- Regarding the limitations of the study, you note that focusing solely on taxi trajectories may not capture the full range of urban travel behavior. Could you suggest additional data sources or methodologies that could complement taxi trajectory data to provide a more comprehensive understanding of residents' travel behavior?
- Expanding the analysis to consider factors like environmental impact and access to sustainable transportation options is mentioned as essential for future research. Can you propose specific research directions or methodologies to incorporate these aspects into the analysis effectively?
- In the conclusions, you summarize the findings related to temporal and spatial travel patterns and their influencing factors. How do these findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge on urban transportation planning and management, particularly in the context of Chinese cities?
- Regarding the comparison between the OLS and GWR models, you mentioned that the GWR model showed a better fit. Can you discuss the implications of this result for future research and practical applications? How can the GWR model's ability to capture spatial heterogeneity inform more targeted and effective transportation planning strategies?
- Please ensure consistency in using different key terms.
- Please improve the introduction section by providing the background, gaps, and contributions of the study in a more specific way. A couple of examples from real-life examples would enhance the motivation of the study.
- The literature review should be enhanced by presenting a critical review, not just presenting information about who did what. The authors should prepare a table to highlight the previous contributions and research gaps in a more robust way. The recent references must be cited and explained. The references from top journals should be explored.
- Identifying key factors should not be a part of the literature review. It should be a part of the result analysis. Literature review analyses the closely related papers to identify research gaps.
- The result analysis should be improved based on the unique findings, interesting insights, and how these results will be useful to the practice.
- The managerial implications should be provided based on numerical results and findings. How would the manager be benefited from the findings of the study? What are the specific action plans based on the research findings?
- The conclusion section can be revised considering unique findings, contributions, limitations, and future research directions.
- Check the citations and references (one by one) if there is any missing information. Citations and references must be 100% accurate.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
- The English of the paper is not clear in several parts, and some parts are not clear enough to understand the authors' idea. The English should be improved and the grammatical mistakes should be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study explores the travel characteristics of urban residents, which can help urban planners understand travel patterns more effectively. First, the relationship between daytime taxi drop-off points and urban amenities is explored using ordinary least squares (OLS). Subsequently, geographically weighted regression (GWR) techniques were applied to identify spatial differences in these urban drivers. Subsequently, geographically weighted regression (GWR) techniques are applied to identify spatial differences in these urban drivers. The results show that commonalities emerge across the four cities in the interaction between external transport stops and commercial areas and the GWR model shows a better fit than the OLS model.
However, this paper has some shortcomings that require revision:
(1) There are some insufficient format problems in the paper. The abscissa of the figure on page 7 should not be a "start time", but a "time point", and the ordinate should have units of measurement. And the city map on page 9 is not clear, difficult to read, and there is no specific city name. (2) This paper does not specify how the ordinary least squares (OLS) model is used to explore the relationship between daytime taxi drop-off points and urban amenities. Moreover, the experimental data of the article is too old, which may be quite different from the current situation, without considering the reality. In addition, the explanation for the change of travel frequency is based on speculation, which is inaccuracy. (3) The discussion or comparisons with more recent related schemes, such as ppru: a privacy-preserving reputation updating scheme for cloud-assisted vehicular networks, tfl-dt a trust evaluation scheme for federated learning in digital twin for mobile networks, instead of conventional schemes are suggested. (4) This paper does not explain the reliability of the experimental results investigated by this scheme. Moreover, this paper does not compare with the relevant schemes in the past three years, which cannot reflect its innovation and improvement.
To sum up, I think this paper can be accepted if all the above problems are solved well.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGood
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author did not make significant improvements to the issues pointed out by the reviewers. The problems that originally existed in the paper are still unresolved.
The data in the paper is outdated, lacks innovation, and the overall quality of the paper is low.
Still suggest rejecting the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageStill suggest rejecting the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCheck English to be clearer and no grammatical mistakes.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageCheck English to be clearer and no grammatical mistakes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
