Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

(1) The research period from 2006 to 2016 spans over 10 years, during which factors such as urban infrastructure development and socio-economic progress may have significantly influenced residents' travel habits. How can you demonstrate the impact of past travel patterns on current travel mode choices?

(2) Table 1 needs to indicate the sample size, and "size of in-migrant dependent" should specify the unit of measurement.

(3) What are the specific variables being referred to in the correlation mentioned in lines 325-328?

(4) Lines 331-340, the author's statements lack supporting data.

(5) Is there any basis for distinguishing between voluntary and forced migration? Please provide a detailed explanation of how these two categories are differentiated at the data level.

(6) The author's research focuses on residents' travel behavior, but the data selection and processing methods employed rely on aggregated approaches. As a result, the research conclusions primarily reflect the evolution of travel patterns rather than specific travel behavior characteristics.

(7) Further clarification is needed regarding the research's contributions and the specific research gap it aims to address.

The overall quality of the English language is good, effectively conveying the author's intentions accurately and comprehensively. No further suggestions are provided.

Author Response

Please find an attached docoment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript investigates the long-term impact of past travel behavior on current travel mode choices following residential relocation within the Seoul Metropolitan Area (SMA). The study focuses on distinguishing between forced and voluntary relocations and examines how residential self-selection and habitual behavior influence travel mode shares. The research employs a series of linear regression models, accounting for socio-demographic and built environment factors. The article is will-written. However, there is a room for improvements. Please see my remarks below:

1.       The paper mentions the need to convert 2016 HTS data into the 2006 data format due to differences in the format of trip diaries. Could the paper elaborate on the methodology used for this conversion? It's crucial to ensure that the conversion process does not introduce biases or errors into the analysis.

2.       The paper mentions that neighborhoods with fewer than ten samples for each travel mode were excluded. Could the paper discuss the rationale behind this exclusion criterion?

3.       It's important to discuss the implications of a relatively low model fit. Are there potential limitations in the data or model specification that may contribute to this result?

4.       It is recommended to evaluate your model in comparison with other research used the same model in similar context. Here are some suggestions:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2019.09.001

https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v35i1.67

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9574-x

 

 

Author Response

Please find an attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract

The abstract is well-structured and provides a good overview of the article. The brevity of the results statement hinders its ability to substantiate the subsequent conclusions and discussion.

 

Introduction

The introduction should be improved to provide clearer guidance for readers to acknowledge the purpose and goal of the article. The sequence used by the authors is not clear. Moreover, it doesn't clarify the research gap that the paper aims to fulfill.

 

Literature Review

The literature review cites the most important concepts on the research topic. However, similar to the introduction, the structure and sequence of the concepts can be improved.

 

Methodology

The applied methodology is adequately described and fits the purpose of the article. The different OLS models suggest different population sizes; thus, the number of individuals considered in each model should be indicated. Additionally, the different types of relocation should be better described.

 

Discussion and Conclusion

The discussion and conclusion chapters point to interesting results of the research. The chapters are well-written and highlight the most important conclusions of the paper and the impact of the research on the topic. Unfortunately, the limitations pointed out are significant, and authors should consider a different title for the article.

 

Summary

The article is interesting and has a strong and updated methodology in line with the research goals. The structure of the introduction and literature review can be improved to provide a clearer presentation of the research gap and justification for the use of the selected indicators.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find an attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The paper is revised according to previous comments, and the authors addressed my remarks. The paper is acceptable to me and seems publishable.