Impact of Urban Spatial Transformation on the Mobility of Commuters with Different Transportation Modes in China: Evidence from Kunming 2011–2016
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper discusses the impact of urbanization on the mobility needs of people using different modes of transport. The general conclusion is that car users are able to participate in the social activities more easily and frequently than non-car users who face transport-related social exclusion. The authors have used econometric-based approach (with PS matching and logit models) to compare the changes in people's mobility habits using different modes of transport and at different time periods (2011 and 2016). I think that the topic is interesting for the scientific community not only in econometrics and urban planning but also for GIS and social sciences communities. However, I wonder about the motivation for this particular study. The authors have mentioned some related work in this domain which reached the same conclusion as this study that car users have high rates of activity participation and time use. So, what is the novelty in this paper? Is the approach different than previous work? Can the existing methods for this research question be compared with the one proposed in this paper? In the following, I give more detailed review:
line 21: "Three conclusions can be drawn ... " First conclusion is clear but second is not so clear
line 24-25: For second conclusion:: "degree of impact of urban space transformation on personal mobility is ranked in descending order .... " Where is it ranked in the paper? Is this ranking a conclusion in itself or some conclusions can be drawn from this ranking?
line 57-63: the authors discuss some related work regarding the effect of transportation modes in activity participation and time use and mention that non-car users are a disadvantaged group as compared to car users. The general idea and the conclusions drawn in this paper are similar to the existing research. I wonder about the motivation behind this paper. I think that authors should compare their models with existing ones and discuss the novelty of their approach. Same remark for lines 463-466. Is it possible to compare the approach between this paper and existing work?
line 109: I am not sure that the answer to the question "What social exclusions and inequalities might non-car commuters encounter?" is higlighted in the paper other than the fact that they find it difficult to participate in social activites.
line 116: I think that the title for Section 2.1 "Research on individual mobility" is very generic and there is a lot of research in this field which is not mentioned (such as trajectory mining, clustering etc.) I would suggest to change the section title to something specific to what is described in it.
Table 1: The term "Bus ownership" is not clear.
line 226-227: The physiological, love and belonging, and self-actualization needs are ranked in ascending order. Shouldn't it be descending (according to lines 165-168)?
line 233-234: I would suggest to list the six categories and 15 sub-categories of activities in the text because from Table 2 it is not clear.
Section 3.2.3: Please explain all the notations used in the equations 4 and 5. What is m, M, n, k, r in these two equations?
Figs 3(a) and (d): On y-axis, Time/min is not clear. I think it should be Time (min). Same remark for Fig 4 (Activity Duration/min). Also how is the Participation Rate in Fig. 4 calculated?
Section 4.2 is really hard to follow. Please use the same vocabulary in the text and in Fig 5. Secondly, it should be clarified that Non-motor transport includes cycling which is not the same category as E-bike. Also why differentiate between cycling and E-bike?
line 365: "we categorized commuters into four groups" but there are five groups. It is not clear that bicycle and walking is the same group (Non-motor). Same remark in line 375
lines 382-385: The economic conditions of the people who buy E-bikes are better or worse than those who walk or use normal bicycle (also line 413-414)? It could be that economic conditions are better but people who use E-bikes are more environment conscious so they don't use private cars. Were the opinions of the people about different modes of transport taken into account?
line 519: "Expectedly, the car group is least affected by urbanization" It would be interesting to see the effect of household income on car use in a future paper.
Finally, I have two general questions.
Q1: Authors mention that Subsistence activites such as work must be performed to maintain basic essence of life. I wonder why activities at home (like eating, sleeping etc.) are not in this category. Why caring for children is of secondary importance (line 141) as compared to working? This point is also related to the classification of activities in Table 2.
Q2: As for the differentiation between travel and commute activities (Table 2), is it possible that the user stops at an intermediate point between home and workplace for some work related activity? Will this be classified as a Travel activity or a Commute activity?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work concerns a very interesting issue, which is the Impact of urban spatial transformation on the mobility of commuters with different transportation modes in China: Evidence from Kunming 2011–2016. The article deals with the approach to mobility of the inhabitants of Kunming. It is an interesting study that fills the research gap in the field of scientific articles on counteracting transport exclusion.
Overall, I find the article good. I only have a few remarks that would help enrich the work.
From the editorial point of view, the article is written legibly and correctly. The only thing I have to say is to check the formatting of the literature. Various formatting styles appear in it. Sometimes the authors' initials are used, and sometimes their full names are used. Please standardize it according to the requirements of the MDPI. Additionally, please pay attention to the text formatting. The text is not justified everywhere.
From the substantive point of view, the article is correct. In the part of the literature review I propose to refer to the Church Framework regarding transport exclusion. These references may be helpful, among others Church et al. - Transport and social exclusion in London (...), Turoń - Social barriers and transportation social exclusion issues (...) and Luo et al. - What Kind of Travelers Are Using Carsharing in Beijing? A Study Based on Selective Ensemble Learning.
The research part is fine. However, it would be worthwhile to enrich the discussion and the summary. I propose to divide the last chapter into two. We will then receive a separate discussion and summary. Please enrich the article with recommendations regarding the identification of the dynamics of inhabitants' mobility. Such recommendations would be very good for policy makers, for example. It is worth pointing out how to persuade residents to use specific means of transport, how to educate about electric mobility in the case of e-bikes or how to counteract transport exclusion. For example, the e-mobility education reference of the authors of Chen et. al - When, What and How to Teach about Electric Mobility? (...) and Huba et. al - New challenges in e-mobility (...). Please also indicate what further research plans the authors have in the topic. Do I plan to extend the analyzes to other cities?
After completing the indicated comments, the article will be ready for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper proposed an approach to investigate how the daily mobility of different modes of transport is evolving based on the in Kunming. The topic is interesting, and the article is well-organized, and the writing is fluent. Although the overall quality looks good, this paper needs to elaborate on implementation and demonstration specifications further. My detailed comments are as follows:
1. Table 1 summarizes the information for Kunming in 2011 and 2016, including basic socio-demographics, built environment, and public transport information. However, there are some interesting factors related, such as length of urban road, length of freeway, land-use characteristics. The authors are advised to take these factors into consideration.
2. The pseudo-R2 is used to evaluate the performance of models. The authors are advised to use some other widely used metrics to indicate the good performance of the proposed model.
3. There are several typos and grammar errors. Please find a native speaker to proofread it in the revision.
4. The literature review is incomplete. Several seminal and recent studies should be discussed, including but not limited to:
[1] Li Y, Chen Z, Wang P. Impact of high-speed rail on urban economic efficiency in China[J]. Transport Policy, 2020, 97: 220-231.
[2] Peled I, Lee K, Jiang Y, et al. On the quality requirements of demand prediction for dynamic public transport[J]. Communications in Transportation Research, 2021, 1: 100008.
[3] Gaduh A, Gracner T, Rothenberg A D. Improving mobility in developing country cities: Evaluating bus rapid transit and other policies in Jakarta[J]. 2017.
[4] Ortuzar J D. Future transportation: sustainability, complexity and individualization of choices[J]. Communications in transportation research, 2021, 1: e100010-e100010.
[5] Tao S, Zhang M, Wu J. Big data applications in urban transport research in Chinese cities: An overview[J]. Big Data Applications in Geograp
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the authors for resolving most of my concerns about the first version of the paper. I just have a few additional points to mention:
Firstly, in figures 3 and 4, Time/min and Activity Duration/min on y-axis is not clear. Secondly, in lines 90-92, the description related to ref. 22 is not at all related to the what is written in the reference (found here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277242472100010X). Finally, there are some typos (like line 583: "Finally...") which should be corrected.
Looking at the comments from other reviewers, I would also recommend to mention some literature related to traffic-related social exclusion from other parts of the world and comparison with the approach proposed in this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
thank you very much for the changes made. Unfortunately, you did not fully address the issues that I have indicated.
There are still no references to literature. They are important because they indicate the worldwide knowledge of the analyzed problem, not only the Asian scientific market that you focused on.
There is also no reference to the need for mobility education, which I mentioned previously, to be included in the discussion.
In summary, there is no reference to your further research plans.
Additionally, there are typos and linguistic errors in the text - please check it.
Please make the changes again.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed all my comments. I recommend acceptance.
Author Response
Thank you for your previous suggestions for this paper, and we feel that the manuscript has benefited greatly from these two revisions.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the authors for their rigorous work in improving the quality of the manuscript and recommend acceptance.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions for this paper, which have benefited us a lot.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
thank you for the clarifications sent and the corrections made. A few remarks have not been corrected further, so below are specific actions that should be taken into account.
In the literary part on the transport exclusion, you have indicated the literature, however, you have omitted the canon developed by Church. Once again, please indicate the main assumptions of the Church regarding transport exclusion. You will find them in the following publications. Please refer to each of them in chapter 2.2:
- Church et al. - Transport and social exclusion in London (...),
- Turoń - Social barriers and transportation social exclusion issues (...)
- Luo et al. - What Kind of Travelers Are Using Carsharing in Beijing? A Study Based on Selective Ensemble Learning.
In the summary on electric vehicles, the reference to the education about electricity I mentioned is still missing. Please indicate the need for its implementation, referring to the sources:
- Chen et. al - When, What and How to Teach about Electric Mobility? (...),
- Huba et. al - New challenges in e-mobility (...).
In addition, once again, I am asking you to analyze the article in terms of the English language. In my opinion, sufficient corrections have not been made.
In conclusion, minor adjustments to the main assumptions of the transport exclusion and education about electric mobility are required. After these corrections are made, the article will be ready for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
