The Spatial Distribution of Taxi Stations in Bangkok

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper aims to evaluate the relationship 12 between the spatial distribution of taxi stations in Bangkok and various spatial variables, including 13 land price, land use mix index, population density, and gas station locations. The topic of the paper is interesting and worthy of research. At the same time, the paper has to be improved to be ready for publication.

 

First, the authors should explain according to which procedure taxi stations are located in Bangkok. Are they planned by the public city administration? Are the locations chosen by private actors and then authorized by the local public administration? Or no authorization by the public is required? This is important in order to understand how free the promotors of taxi stations are in choosing a specific location (Are they supposed to buy the land, or they can rent it?).

 

Second, sections 2.1 and 2.2 seem to be poorly related to sections 2.3 and 3. As the authors state in the conclusion, “the Location Theory incorporates numerous variables that were not included in this study but can significantly influence location”. The authors should justify how and why they selected only a few variables and not others. Are these others not relevant for the spatial analysis?

 

Section 3.1: which is the area of the 50 districts? It is important to understand their dimensions, which can influence the calculation of the indicators and the heterogeneity of these values throughout each district.

 

Section 3.2.1: I suggest to explain the difference between cooperative taxis, taxi companies, and taxi limited partnerships, also in terms of how they locate their stations.

 

Section 3.2.3: it is not clear if Land Price Data are related to each station or to the average land price of each district in which taxi station are located.

 

Section 3.2.5. Gas Station Data. Looking at figure 5, it seems that NGV and LPG stations are so many that the average distance between them is less that 3 km, so it is natural that taxi stations are generally not so far from these fuel stations.

 

Section 3.4. “The Anselin Local Moran's I model was applied to analyze the intensity degree of the distribution pattern…” What is the “intensity degree of the distribution pattern”?

Row 294: “in the seventh model”. Which is the seventh model?

 

Section 4.2: “There was only 1 taxi station (1.25 percent) exhibiting 342 this pattern, and it was spatially clustered in the inner-city area”. Does it make sense to consider a cluster of 1 single station?

“There were 16 taxi stations (20.00 percent) 333 in this pattern, which is higher than the average land use mix index degree in Bangkok” (and so in next section): what does it mean that a pattern (which is in reality a number of taxis) is “higher” than the average land use mix index?

 

Section 4.3: “Table 5. The number of routes that taxi stations can access to NGV and LPG stations classify by 423 range of distance.” It must be wrong

 

Section 5: “The results revealed that taxi station locations were chosen to maximize profits rather than minimize costs, prioritizing”. It is not clear how this conclusion is drawn from the analysis part of the paper.

 

In conclusion, I suggest that the authors strengthen the relationship between the location theory and the methodology they use, which seems more related to tradition spatial analysis and correlation methodologies.

To be proofread

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have explained the revisions based on comments, Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Suthikasem Weladee and Peamsook Sanit.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General Comments

1.     The authors need to recheck the grammatical structure and cohesiveness in the whole manuscript.

2.      The abstract is confusing especially the first 5 lines, the motivation or the study or problem statement is too weak “ However, previous research has primarily focused on taxis as vehicles, without considering the spatial distribution of taxi stations in cities. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the spatial distribution of taxi stations in Bangkok and various spatial variables, including land price, land use mix index, population density, and gas station locations.” This particular is contradicting what was written in the last paragraph of the introduction section.

3.     The authors should find other keywords to use rather than using Bangkok and Thailand

4.     This whole research is centred around Bangkok, Thailand. The question is why? Considering that Thailand is regarded as a developing country, can the results of this research be apply in a developed country.

5.     The introduction section is not enough and there are some serious traditional things lacking, for example the problem statement is still lacking the cohesiveness and the literature review is more of a definition than a review of past literatures on past studies.

6.     In the methodology section, subsection 3.1, the authors should explain more on the geographical location of the study.

7.     “To ensure the accuracy of the addresses, Google Earth Pro was employed to verify them, as some registered addresses did not correspond to the actual operating locations of the taxi stations” how did the authors use google earth pro to verify them. The authors should go into more depth here.

8.     So many paragraphs under the literature review that are not referenced.

9.     Why are the authors using a land use data of 2013, this is 2023. That is 10 years ago.

10.  Figure 9 is too vague to understand.

11.  The first two lines under the “research limitation’ is contradicting the supposed novelty of this research.

 

12.  The first two lines under the “conclusions’ is contradicting the supposed novelty of this research. It seems for the novelty the authors want to hold on to the application of location theory which is contradicting the novelty and the first few lines of the abstract.

Moderate English changes needed.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have explained the revisions based on comments, Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Suthikasem Weladee and Peamsook Sanit.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript adds significant findings to the state-of-the-art and would prove useful to the policymakers in developing nations like Thailand. I have some minor comments for improvement of the manuscript: 

1. The authors can provide few quantitative findings in the abstract.

2. The discussion section can include a table highlighting the similarities and contradictions of the present study from the past research.

3. A separate section on practical and policy implications will be useful for the policymakers.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have explained the revisions based on comments, Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Suthikasem Weladee and Peamsook Sanit.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did not answer any of all the issues I raised pertaining to this manuscript.

 

Moderate English editing needed

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Based on the feedback from the editor and reviewer 2, the authors have made revisions, which are highlighted in yellow within the manuscript. Please refer to the attached document for details.

Best regards,

Suthikasem Weladee and Peamsook Sanit.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Your response is okay 

Moderate editing needed

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Taking into account the feedback from reviewer 2, the authors have implemented revisions that are marked in yellow within the manuscript. Additionally, we have edited the entire paper to ensure alignment with academic writing conventions and the patterns of the English language.

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Sincerely,

Suthikasem Weladee and Peamsook Sanit.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf