Exploring Tourists’ Preferences for Bike-Sharing Services in the Context of Tourism
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The study investigates tourists' preferences for bike-sharing services in Da Nang, Vietnam, with the goal of optimizing bike-sharing models to better serve tourist cities. Despite the growing interest in sustainable transportation options among tourists, research on their specific preferences for bike-sharing features has been limited. Utilizing a latent class behavior model developed from a survey of 800 individuals, this research identifies key attributes that influence tourists' bike-sharing choices, including 24/7 availability, proximity to origin and destination, designated docking stations, and diverse payment options, particularly QR code payments at an affordable rate of $1 per hour. This study underscores the importance of understanding tourists' preferences to enhance bike-sharing utilization, thereby supporting traffic management and policy formulation aimed at bridging the supply-demand gap in tourist cities. By incorporating tourists' feedback on preferred features, this research contributes to the broader effort to promote sustainable urban mobility and can guide other cities in developing or refining their bike-sharing systems to align with tourist expectations and sustainability goals.
- The manuscript suggests specific preferences for bike sharing features among tourists based on the study's findings. However, it doesn't clearly articulate the link between these preferences and the direct impact on bike sharing usage rates. A more explicit connection between tourists' preferences and actual behavioral outcomes would strengthen the argument.
- The manuscript assumes that "searching time" for a bike is irrelevant due to smartphone app availability. This assumption overlooks tourists without access to smartphones or those unfamiliar with the app, potentially skewing the understanding of convenience factors in bike sharing.
- The manuscript discusses pricing strategies but does not fully explore how price elasticity affects demand and, subsequently, the utilization rates of bike-sharing services. Integrating findings from price sensitivity analysis could provide a more nuanced understanding of pricing's role in promoting bike sharing.
- While authors mention non-monetary determinants such as access and egress time, it does not sufficiently discuss how these factors interact with monetary considerations like cost. Expanding on this interaction would offer a more comprehensive view of decision-making processes among tourists.
- The rationale behind using a latent class model for analysis is not fully explained. Discussing why this model was chosen over other potential analytical methods would enhance the logical flow and justify the approach taken.
- The manuscript suggests policy implications based on the study's findings without adequately considering the feasibility of implementing such policies in various urban contexts. A discussion on the practicality of recommendations would enhance the logical applicability of the study's conclusions.
- Abstract: Consider changing "This study explores a tourists’ preference for bike sharing service" to "This study explores tourists' preferences for bike-sharing services" for grammatical accuracy and consistency in plural usage.
- Introduction: "One such service is a bike sharing in addition to traditional public transport." could be rephrased for clarity to "One such service, in addition to traditional public transport, is bike sharing."
- Materials and Methods: There's a typo in "waking time from bike location to tourist destination," which should be "walking time from bike location to tourist destination."
- Discussion: "Results indicates that on average 41.72% of the sample will choose bike sharing as an option" - "Results indicate" should be singular to match the subject.
- Conclusions: "Overall the study suggests both pricing and non-pricing strategies for bike sharing" could be enhanced by specifying examples of non-pricing strategies for clearer understanding.
- Ensure consistency in terms such as "bike sharing," "bike-sharing," or "bicycle sharing" throughout the document. Choose one and stick with it for uniformity.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
- Proofread the article for grammar, spelling, and formatting errors to ensure clarity and readability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article develops an underlying class behavior model to explore different tastes and preferences for bike-sharing services, and the findings from this study suggest that an optimal bike sharing model should incorporate specific features. The research topic is novel, but it needs to be improved to meet publication requirements.
1. The abstract needs to be revised. Abstract is on the basis of a simple description of the research background, focus on the research ideas and conclusions, but at present the conclusions are vague and cumbersome.
2. Please state the marginal contribution of the article in the introduction section.
3. In the literature review section, the author extends the research significance of shared bikes from the perspective of sustainability. The following studies may provide valuable insights for strengthening the aspect in your analysis:
[1] Li Z, Huang Z, Su Y. New media environment, environmental regulation and corporate green technology innovation: Evidence from China[J]. Energy Economics, 2023, 119: 106545.
[2] Idowu A, Ohikhuare O M, Chowdhury M A. Does industrialization trigger carbon emissions through energy consumption? Evidence from OPEC countries and high industrialised countries[J]. Quant. Financ. Econ, 2023, 7: 165-186.
4. In the data and case analysis section of Section 3.3, please add detailed information about the time span of the research sample, that is, when the investigation began and ended, to provide rationality for the investigation.
5. In the analysis of model estimation results in 4.1, the analysis of estimation results of other influencing variables should also be supplemented, so as to further explore the specific factors affecting the preferences of the two types of people in the research samples for sharing transportation.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of this paper is interesting. Still, the authors did not fully manage to process it.
Abstract:
In the abstract, it should be emphasized the methods used in this paper,
Line 26
It is unclear why "The introduction" is written at the beginning of the sentence.
Line 28
Instead of "One such service" you should use a nicer expression such as "Among these services". There are more such expressions in the text that the authors should change, after re-reading the text.
Line 47/55
The text should be completed and modified after the inclusion of new literature. See the reviewer's notes regarding the literature.
Line 61
Expand the Literature Review section.
Conclusion
The conclusion is more general than specifically addressed.
The authors state in the conclusion that their data are limited to one destination and disclaim the validity of the conclusion. This is because they did not use a larger source of literature and did not compare it with other similar studies.
While the Authors claim that they will continue their research, I suggest that they improve this paper first, by using more recent, adequate literature.
Authors are recommended to consult a much wider literature and incorporate this knowledge into the paper.
Lines 406,407
This sentence does not belong here in the text.
Literature
The literature under number 26 and 27 are the same, so it should be cited only once.
Literature numbered 31 and 32 are the same, so it should be mentioned only once.
References numbered 36, 37 and 38 are the same work, so it should be cited only once.
Expand the literature with new works in this area.
A list of some important works in this field can be found in the following paper:
João Filipe Teixeira, Cecília Silva & Frederico Moura e Sá (2021) Empirical evidence on the impacts of bike sharing: a literature review, Transport Reviews, 41:3, 329-351, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2020.1841328
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to express my gratitude to the authors for their efforts in presenting the bike-sharing service from the perspective of tourists. While the authors have done repecetd work, I believe there are some areas that require some edits to enhance the solidity and academic soundness of the article:
- In the introduction section, particularly the first two paragraphs, the authors should include more references to support their claims.
- On page 1, line 37, the phrase "these studies" lacks clarity. It is unclear which specific studies the authors are referring to, as only one study is mentioned which does not support their claims. This requires revision.
- Certain words and expressions, such as "pioneering" (Page 2, Line 53) and "an extensive" (Page 3, Line 114), may not sound sufficiently academic and should be reconsidered.
- At the end of the literature review section, I suggest adding a short paragraph to explain the constraints or challenges faced by tourists in using bike-sharing services. This addition would enhance the comprehensiveness of the literature review.
- The maps in Figure 2 need to be more professional and should be improved.
- In the methodology section, further explanation is needed for the latent class model (LCM) before delving into the various equations presented.
- On Page 15, Line 406, the sentence "This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex", explain?!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think there are some revisions needed in this submission. Please address all comments:
1) The methodology section can be enhanced by including a Bayesian Network modeling between class variables. The suggested class probabilities can be used in bayesian modeling of higher level variables.
2) The contributions of this submissions are not well discussed in the introduction. This should be improved.
3) The impact of public transport on bike sharing is not well discussed. I encourage you read and cite following paper and discuss that substitution makes bike sharing more important:
Basak, E. and Iris, Ç., 2023. Do the First-and Last-Mile Matter? Examining the Complementary and Substitution Effects of Bike-Sharing Platforms on Public Transit. SSRN Pre-print.
4) The robustness of the results should be better highlighted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAgreed with the revisions made by authors.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is ready to be published.
