Mode of Transport and Inequity in a Least Developed Country: The Case of Vientiane, Lao PDR
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study makes descriptive analysis and employs a multilevel logit model to identify the flow of transport and mode choices in Vientiane, Lao PDR, which reveals the insufficiency of public transit and inequality between low and high-income groups. However, in its present form, the paper has some serious shortcomings that must be amended.
- Please cite some articles about transit and urban development policies when you mentioned in introduction (Pg. 2, line 64). For example, see Shao, Q. et al (2020). Threshold and moderating effects of land use on metro ridership in Shenzhen. Zhang et al. (2022). Incorporating polycentric development and neighborhood life-circle planning for reducing driving in Beijing; Zhou and Yang (2021). Transit-based accessibility and urban development: An exploratory study of Shenzhen based on big and/or open data.
- In the theory and research question section, please reorganize cited researches by category. For example, you mentioned the high usage of personal trips in the US and South Korean cities separately. You can make summary first and give two examples above to prove your opinion.
- This study tries to identify inequity between different income groups in mode choices of transport. However, in the theory and research question section, you compare mode choices in countries with different income levels, why not cite some articles which is similar to your research question, that is, mode choices of different income groups in one country, especially least developed countries like Lao PDR.
- Please add unit to horizontal and longitudinal axis in figure2.
- Please clarify the acquirement and procession of OD data further.
- In the findings and discussion section, please provide the calculation formula of multilevel logit model, with the explanation of each level and the reason.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments. We have revised our manuscript based on your suggestions, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper aims to study traffic congestion and inequity among commuters in Vientiane. It is a case study. The authors clarified one of their contributions is fewer studies being studied in South Asia. Generally, it is not enough for an academic paper. Thus, the authors need to clarify their contributions clearly.
Another problem with the manuscript is the lack of references. In the second section, the authors summarized the studies related to public transit, choice of transport modes, and income. But the authors ignored the impact of the value of time, which is also an important factor for the choice model. A reference may be useful (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277242472100007X). In addition, line 126 claimed that “Choice of mode of transport in many developing nations primarily consists of two-wheeled motorbikes and automobiles”, another reference should be added.
L224. Are there any references?
Another reference can also be considered.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772424721000068
Figure 2. the upper sub-figure is overlapped with the bottom sub-figure.
The process of data collection is too simple. For example, L209 only gives one sentence, “A transport and travel survey was conducted in the inner area of Vientiane which is considered as high-density place. Both primary and secondary data were collected”. How many people participated? What are their attributes? There is no introduction to these questions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments. We have revised our manuscript based on your suggestions, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, the authors dealt very well with other comments. This version is a significant improvement over the first submission. Thus, I appreciate their attention to most of my suggestions. There are some minor problems as follows:
- The case showed in line 132-136 is about the differences in mode choices of transport, without comparing with different income levels, as I mentioned before.
- Please improve your language in the paper. For example, “Number of vehicle” -> “Number of vehicles” in figure 2.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your help, we have revised our manuscript based on your suggestions, please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I suggest the authors still need to clarify their contributions and creativity. A case in a new place cannot be viewed as creativeness.
The language should be refined.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank your so much for your help, we have revised some references based on your suggestions, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
