The Role of the Access Environment in Metro Commute Travel Satisfaction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting study that presents the results potentially useful for other research in similar locations. The manuscript is constructed well in general, however, needs some improvements to make the content more clear and understandable.

The Authors cite pretty much literature sources, but only from selected publishers and not very fresh. I found only one position from the year 2020, the rest are older. Please develop the literature basis using other publishers and the newest papers. For example, when using the keywords “railway access” I found 37 articles (including 11 from the year 2022) only in the journal “Sustainability” (MDPI Group). Searching in all journals published by MDPI indicates 84 results using the same keywords. The enhanced list of references should be described in the section “literature review” and commented on in the discussion.

The study areas contain Beijing metro network. In the text (including title) the words “(urban) rail” and partially “subway” is used. I think “metro/subway” (underground) and rail are little different transport means and the analyses of access to them could differ. Please clarify the terminology.

Are they all considered stations underground? Please add the map of the Beijing metro network with the location of the considered stations. Add the information about the parts of metro lines located under ground level.

Please change the number of subsection 1.1 into 2 (main section) and renumber all the next sections (and subsections).

Section 2.1: are 3 factors or 3 groups of factors? I think a better description will be “groups” (with the following factors in the selected group) – see also figure 4. Authors can use the classification of “three-factor” but this should be clarified. Meanwhile, table 1 presents three groups (basic performance, exciting factors), but figure 1, basic performance, exciting factor (three-factor structure). Similar misunderstandings are in the text.

Is the number of questionnaires (60 in the pilot survey and 332 in the final survey) valid for all three stations? Which is this number in each of them? How looks this number in comparison with the total number of passengers using these stations between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.? Is the number of questionnaires statistically important?

Please, actualize the data in section 2.2 (about the Beijing metro system).

Please, explain in more detail the content of figure 2 and its parts. The scale of the considered area (line represents some distance, for example, 200 or 500 meters) will be nice. 

 

Section 5 (section 6 after renumbering), change the title: not “conclusion” that “conclusions”.

Author Response

This is an interesting study that presents the results potentially useful for other research in similar locations. The manuscript is constructed well in general, however, needs some improvements to make the content more clear and understandable.

The Authors cite pretty much literature sources, but only from selected publishers and not very fresh. I found only one position from the year 2020, the rest are older. Please develop the literature basis using other publishers and the newest papers. For example, when using the keywords “railway access” I found 37 articles (including 11 from the year 2022) only in the journal “Sustainability” (MDPI Group). Searching in all journals published by MDPI indicates 84 results using the same keywords. The enhanced list of references should be described in the section “literature review” and commented on in the discussion.

We have conducted a thorough new literature search focussing on perceptions of the access and egress experience, the topic of the paper. Using a variety of keywords this produced 10 viable new works of recent date, including four from 2022, that have now supplemented and replaced older references. The new references include MDPI-group publications. They are listed below. It is worth noting that the literature on the access environments for urban rail is quite rich, but the vast majority of publications focus on the behaviour of travellers, usually based on big data sets, or on characteristics of the environment. The perceived environment of access and egress to metro stations is a specialized literature, not because it is not important – indeed, it appears increasingly important – but is methodologically difficult. Nevertheless, we have tried to be as up-to-date as possible given these limitations.

Kar, M., Sadhukhan, S., Parida, M. (2022). Measuring heterogeneity in perceived satisfaction of private vehicle users towards attributes affecting access to metro stations: a case study of Delhi. Case Studies on Transport Policy 10, 1790-1803; doi:10.1016.j.cstp.2022.07.009.

Yu, B., Cui, X., Li, H., Luo, P., Liu, R, Yang T. (2022). TOD and vibrancy: the spatio-temporal impacts of the built environment on vibrancy. Frontiers in Environmental Science 10:1009094; doi:10.3389/fenvs.2022.1009094.

Zhai, J., Wu, W., Yun, Y., Jia, B., Sun, Y., Wang, Q. (2021). Travel satisfaction and rail accessibility. Transportation Research Part D 100, 103052; doi:10.1016/j.trd.2021.103052.

Sakhukhan, S., Banerjee, U.K., Maitra, B. (2018). Preference heterogeneity towards the importance of transfer facility attributes at metro stations in Kolkata. Travel Behaviour and Society 12, 72-83.

Zhou, Z., Yang, M., Cheng, L., Yuan, Y. Gan, Z. (2022). Do passengers feel convenient when they transfer at the transportation hub? Travel Behaviour and Society 29, 65-77; doi:10.1016/j.tbs.2022.05.007.

Bivina, G.R., Gupta, A., Parida, M. (2020). Walk accessibility to metro stations: an analysis based on meso- or micro-scale built environment factors. Sustainable Cities and Society 55, 102047; doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102047.

Wu, J., Yang, M., Sun, S., Zhao, Jingyao (2018). Modeling travel mode choices in connection to metro stations by mixed logit models: a case study in Nanjing, China. Promet – Traffic & Transportation 30, 5, 549-561.

Ye, J., Chen, J., Bai, H., Yue, Y. (2018). Analyzing transfer commuting attitudes using a market segmentation approach. Sustainability 10, 2194; doi:10.3390/su10072194.

Pineda, C. and Mella, B.M. (2019). Travel time savings perception and well-being through public transport projects: the case of metro de Santiago. Urban Sciences 3, 35; doi:10.3390/urbansci3010035.

Xiao, G., Xiao, Y., Ni, A., Zhang, C., Zong, F. (2022). Exploring influence mechanism of bikesharing on the use of public transportation – a case of Shanghai. Transportation Letters doi:10.1080/19427867.2022.2093287.

The study areas contain Beijing metro network. In the text (including title) the words “(urban) rail” and partially “subway” is used. I think “metro/subway” (underground) and rail are little different transport means and the analyses of access to them could differ. Please clarify the terminology.

Thank you for pointing out these various terms used in the manuscript. To be consistent and clear, we have changed all “subway” references to “metro”. Since the focus is on the metro, the title is also changed to use the term “metro”. Indeed, in English, subway is a more general term that may not mean underground urban rail at all. The term is nevertheless used in some areas of the United States (but not Washington, DC, for example) to refer to mass underground passenger rail. Subway is never used in Europe, while “metro” is almost universal, except in the UK which has a unique nomenclature. Given all this diversity, it is best to stick to “metro” as the clearest indicator of what we are talking about.

Are they all considered stations underground? Please add the map of the Beijing metro network with the location of the considered stations. Add the information about the parts of metro lines located under ground level.

A new figure showing the location of the study station areas is now included. Our study did not specifically consider the conditions of the stations, which might involve access bridges or underground tunnels. Rather the study focussed on the access environment up to, but not including the facilities of the stations themselves. It is true that HLG is above ground while the other two stations are underground.

Please change the number of subsection 1.1 into 2 (main section) and renumber all the next sections (and subsections).

Done.

Section 2.1: are 3 factors or 3 groups of factors? I think a better description will be “groups” (with the following factors in the selected group) – see also figure 4. Authors can use the classification of “three-factor” but this should be clarified. Meanwhile, table 1 presents three groups (basic performance, exciting factors), but figure 1, basic performance, exciting factor (three-factor structure). Similar misunderstandings are in the text.

Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy – now corrected. The “three-factor model” term is important to retain because it is in the literature going back about 20 years.

Is the number of questionnaires (60 in the pilot survey and 332 in the final survey) valid for all three stations? Which is this number in each of them? How looks this number in comparison with the total number of passengers using these stations between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.? Is the number of questionnaires statistically important?

Fortunately, in psychometric measures, there is little need to seek population representativity. The reason is that we are dealing with environmental perceptions, which are not shown to vary significantly across population groups by age, ethnicity, education or experience. These issues of heterogeneity in environmental perceptions were extensively investigated by Arthur Stamps, among others, who also proposed sample size requirements based on meta-analyses of many studies, mostly from psychology. As a result, studies in psychology, using psychometric measures such as the ones we are using, tend to have small sample sizes, often much smaller than the one we have used. That being said, the close relationship between the independent, mystery evaluators and the regular commuting travellers, as shown in our study, supports the findings in psychology.

Please, actualize the data in section 2.2 (about the Beijing metro system).

This has been done for 2019, which after all was the year of the field study, before the pandemic and its drastically reduced ridership numbers.

Please, explain in more detail the content of figure 2 and its parts. The scale of the considered area (line represents some distance, for example, 200 or 500 meters) will be nice.

An additional section of explanation is provided in the text.  

Section 5 (section 6 after renumbering), change the title: not “conclusion” that “conclusions”.

Done.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper measured the impact of access and egress stages of travel in rail-based commuter trips on overall travel satisfaction by means of the three-factor theory and dummy variable regression methods. Generally speaking, it is easy to follow. However, I have several comments as follows.

 

(1) The structure of the paper needs to be further optimized. For example, there is 1.1 section but no corresponding parallel 1.2 follow-up. The setting of sections is unreasonable. The model, theoretical method and questionnaire design in the second part need to be reorganized to make the paper more logical. Besides, the paper organization explanation is also needed.

(2) The pictures and typesetting of the paper are too rough, for example, the pictures are not clear enough, and the font setting of “comfort” in line 207 are different, so more inspections are needed.

(3) A more detailed definition and interpretation of the attribute variables in this research is needed, such as “access time”. In addition, the terms of special nouns in the paper are not uniform. For example, “basic factors” turn into “underlying factors”, which is easy to misunderstand.

(4) There are many expressions in the thesis that are not standardized and misrepresented. For example, “In 2017, 21.5 m inhabitants generated 12.4 m metro trips per day”, where the appearance of data “12.4 m” is not explained.

(5) The title of the picture in this paper can be more concise, such as Figure 2. The contents of the picture can be explained in more detail below, and the actual comparison of different metro stations and the meaning of green in land diversity can be added. In line 260, the definition of building environment attribute set may be more concise and clearer if it is shown in the form of table.

(6) The literature review should be improved by citing more relevant papers. Just list several as follows.

Travel satisfaction and rail accessibility[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2021, 100: 103052.

Exploring influence mechanism of bikesharing on the use of public transportation — a case of Shanghai, Transportation Letters, DOI: 10.1080/19427867.2022.2093287

Author Response

This paper measured the impact of access and egress stages of travel in rail-based commuter trips on overall travel satisfaction by means of the three-factor theory and dummy variable regression methods. Generally speaking, it is easy to follow. However, I have several comments as follows.

(1) The structure of the paper needs to be further optimized. For example, there is 1.1 section but no corresponding parallel 1.2 follow-up. The setting of sections is unreasonable. The model, theoretical method and questionnaire design in the second part need to be reorganized to make the paper more logical. Besides, the paper organization explanation is also needed.

The section 1.1 has been changed to 2 since it is the major presentation of the relevant research findings. While the structure of the paper was presented in lines 102-106, we now think this is too brief a coverage and have considerably expanded the presentation of the structure with reference to specific numbered sections. The analysis and results are complex with three environments two investigative methods and a multi-stage analysis.

The outline of methods in the Methods and Materials section is mirrored in the Results section. The order of presentation is as follows:

The Materials and Methods section is in four parts: 1-the presentation of the three-factor model, following the literature; 2-the case and its description; 3-the mystery consumer survey to validate the perceptions of intercepted commuters; 4-the analytical approach including the multivariate analysis.

The Results section is in five parts as follows: 1-the descriptive results from three stations for environmental attributes and for mode of access to the station; 2-the mystery consumer results compared with the responses from intercepted commuters; 3-the multivariate analysis of all environmental attributes; 4-the breakdown in evaluations by commuters by access mode; 5-finally, the interpretation of these results in terms of the three-factor model.

Frankly, I cannot see how else this investigation could be analyzed and the results presented. Granted that there is a lot in the data and much analysis is needed, which leads to a more complex presentation than is usual in a simple research paper focussed on a single issue and a single result. But this is a more comprehensive analysis of the perception of the environmental attributes of the access trip to the metro station and is further validated with a consumer survey. Nevertheless, we are open to suggestions on how to present the results differently.

(2) The pictures and typesetting of the paper are too rough, for example, the pictures are not clear enough, and the font setting of “comfort” in line 207 are different, so more inspections are needed. 

The graphics are all reproduced and to print standards. I picked up the “comfort” font difference but cannot control the appearance of the output. The template of the journal has been used.

(3) A more detailed definition and interpretation of the attribute variables in this research is needed, such as “access time”. In addition, the terms of special nouns in the paper are not uniform. For example, “basic factors” turn into “underlying factors”, which is easy to misunderstand.

The terminology has been uniformized for clarity.

(4) There are many expressions in the thesis that are not standardized and misrepresented. For example, “In 2017, 21.5 m inhabitants generated 12.4 m metro trips per day”, where the appearance of data “12.4 m” is not explained.

The cited sentence has been reformulated and updated with the relevant reference.

(5) The title of the picture in this paper can be more concise, such as Figure 2. The contents of the picture can be explained in more detail below, and the actual comparison of different metro stations and the meaning of green in land diversity can be added. In line 260, the definition of building environment attribute set may be more concise and clearer if it is shown in the form of table.

A new section explaining the conventional colours used in land use maps is provided in the text. As suggested, the listing of environmental attributes that were assessed by commuters at the stations has been reformatted as a table for ease of reading.

(6) The literature review should be improved by citing more relevant papers. Just list several as follows.

Travel satisfaction and rail accessibility[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2021, 100: 103052.

Exploring influence mechanism of bikesharing on the use of public transportation — a case of Shanghai, Transportation Letters, DOI: 10.1080/19427867.2022.2093287

The Literature Review has been updated with 10 new references, including several from 2022 and the ones mentioned above. It is worth noting, however, that the published work on perceptions of access to public transport is quite thin, even if consistent over time. The challenge is the methodology. It is much easier to use smart cards and big data to analyze what people do but much more difficult to find out how they feel about it, the experience, and perceptions of the environment. Thus, it is expected that the accumulation of research on this topic is not overwhelming even if it clearly becomes more important for public transport operators. Of that, the literature is very clear.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am reporting that the Authors considered all my remarks effectively and I am satisfied with them. Now, the paper is more clear and readable. Especially advantageous is new fresh literature and actualization of data concerns Being metro system.

I will comment on my remarks and respond to them.

I asked about the statistical importance of questionnaires:

Is the number of questionnaires (60 in the pilot survey and 332 in the final survey) valid for all three stations? Which is this number in each of them? How looks this number in comparison with the total number of passengers using these stations between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.? Is the number of questionnaires statistically important?

And the Authors response was:

Fortunately, in psychometric measures, there is little need to seek population representativity. The reason is that we are dealing with environmental perceptions, which are not shown to vary significantly across population groups by age, ethnicity, education or experience. These issues of heterogeneity in environmental perceptions were extensively investigated by Arthur Stamps, among others, who also proposed sample size requirements based on meta-analyses of many studies, mostly from psychology. As a result, studies in psychology, using psychometric measures such as the ones we are using, tend to have small sample sizes, often much smaller than the one we have used. That being said, the close relationship between the independent, mystery evaluators and the regular commuting travellers, as shown in our study, supports the findings in psychology.

This answer is satisfactory. But I suggest composing it into the paper, for example, in section 4.1.

I think, that now this manuscript will be ready for publishing, after the correction of some technical problems:

- aligning the text to both margins (starting from row 197),

- construction of tables and division of it between the pages,

- formatting of formulas (e.g. in row 312).

Author Response

The reviewer's suggestion to include a comment on sampling for psycho-metric surveys is a good one, for readers unfamiliar with the field. I have included this statement in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the great effort of the authors in revising the paper. I think the current version can be published in Sustainability.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript.