Nonlinear Influence Model of Built Environment of Residential Area on Electric Vehicle Miles Traveled
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The use intensity of EVs is represented by electric vehicle miles traveled (eVMT); variables such as the charging time, travel preference, and annual income are used to describe the travel characteristics. Seven variables are extracted from different dimensions to describe the built environment for exploring impact of the travel behavior mode and built environment on EV use. From the eVMT survey data, points of interest (POI) data, urban road network data, and other heterogeneous data of Chongqing, an empirical analysis of EV usage intensity is conducted. The results show that the error of the GBDT model (9.62%) is 11.72% lower than that of the OLS model (21.34%). The charging time is the most important factor affecting the service intensity of EVs (18.37%). The charging pile density (15.24%), electric vehicle preference (11.52%), and distance to the nearest business district (10.28%) also have a significant influence. In this regard, the paper is interesting and has a potential. Figures quality is poor. I cant read some of them. Conclusions should show the authors final recommendations. Novelty and merits should be stated. I think the paper results cant be generalized because of the factors investigated. Please comment on this. Literature an be supported. Related works section to be enhanced.Examples: Gandoman, Foad H., et al. "Reliability Evaluation of Lithium-Ion Batteries for E-Mobility Applications from Practical and Technical Perspectives: A Case Study." Sustainability 13.21 (2021): 11688. Mohamed, Naoui, et al. "Efficient power management strategy of electric vehicles based hybrid renewable energy." Sustainability 13.13 (2021): 7351.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Interesting and well-constructed paper. In the paper, the Authors presented the nonlinear influence model of the built environment of a residential areas on electric vehicle miles traveled. The Authors, in order to systematically measure the influencing factors and action laws of electric vehicle use from the perspective of travelers, and considering the impact of the built environment of residential spots, a gradient boosting decision tree model and ordinary least squares model constructed. In my opinion, the paper can be published, after taking into account the following remarks:
- at the end of Introduction secion, the Authors should write what was the main aim of this paper as well as, what was contained in each paper section,
- in "Table 1. Description of questionnaire statistics" the Authors presented the annual income in CNY. It would be good add also information in the brackets about annual income in Euro or dollars. Then, this information will be more readible for wider audience,
- In the paper, the Authors deal with the issues of electric vehicles. In the Introduction section, apart from the general description of the research problem, which the Authors undertake in the paper, unfortunately, there is no description of the advantages and disadvantages of electric vehicles. A short description of the advantages and disadvantages of electric vehicles should be added in the Inroduction section, thus citing the latest scientific literature on the subject in this regard, i.e. "Electric vehicles - problems and issues", doi 10.1007 / 978-3-030-35543-2_14; "Determining the Factors That Influence Electric Vehicle Adoption: A Stated Preference Survey Study in Beijing, China", doi.org / 10.3390 / su132111719; "E-mobility infrastructure in the Górnoslasko - Zaglebiowska Metropolis, Poland, and potential for development", doi 10.11159 / icert19.108. One short paragraph of the characteristics in the Introduction section will be enought,
- line 167: acronym "Pij" shpuld be write in small letter, i.e. "pij",
- the Authors should provided in the paper text a more detailed description of the hyperparameters adjustment process which they made,
- the paper is missing a "Discussion" section. But the Authors have included extensive discussion in subsubsubsections from 4.3.1 to 4.3.6, which can be considered a substitute for the "Discussion" section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
the paper has a high academic quality, there are some minor suggestions (around 10), please see the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
