Identification of Causal Relationship between Attitudinal Factors and Intention to Use Transportation Mode
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This research aims to identify the causal relationship between attitudinal factors and intention to use transportation mode using SEM method to verify twelve hypothesis. Intention to use personal vehicles, public transportations, and micro-mobility transportation were investigated in regards to six attitudinal factors (car symbolic, negative perception of travel, fun-driving, positive for waiting, willingness to pay extra, and new technology). The research contributed in presenting the implication of some prominent attitudinal factors towards the intention to use transportation mode and suggesting solutions to the possible problems that may arise.
The article in general are well written, the aim of the paper are stated clearly, the highlight of findings and the implications correspond well with the purpose. To improve the flow of the article, several changes are suggested: Firstly, the Conclusion section should only contain the overview of the paper: the aim, the methods, and the answer of the research questions; as well as future research suggestions. Discussion and implication should be placed at the end of Section 4, and it is suggested to rename the section to "Results and Discussion". Please adjust the writing of the Conclusion section accordingly.
The following revisions are suggested as well:
a. Page 9 line 325: "if no correlation between factors" --> "if there is no correlation between factors".
b. Page 10 line 365: "As a result of analyzing..." --> "The SEM model is found statistically approved as a result of analyzing ... with the RMSEA value of ...etc."
c. Page 10 line 379: Do not start a new sentence with the word "And". Use "Moreover" or other similar conjunctive words.
d. Page 10 line 387: "A person who is negative about travel..." --> "A per son who feels negative about travel recognizes it as disutility and tries to reduce travel time."
e. Page 10 line 394: "...to support..." --> "...which support..."
f. Page 11 line 399: "The more positive for waiting," --> "The more positive user feels about waiting..."
g. Page 11 line 400: "...of operating according to a fixed schedule..." --> "...of operating in a fixed schedule..."
h. Page 11 line 401: "...the more positive for waiting time," --> "...the more positive user feels about waiting time,"
i. Page 11 line 410: "Considering this, the more positive the waiting time is, the higher the PT." --> "Considering this, we can conclude that the more positive users feel about waiting time, the higher their preference towards PT."
j. Page 11 line 414: "...even if the toll is high" --> "...even if the toll fee is high"
k. Page 11 line 416: "...have high MM" --> "...have high MM preference"
l. Page 11 line 421: "...who prefer new technology prefer micro-mobility" --> change the wording so it doesn't repeat the word "prefer" in one sentence.
m. Page 11 Figure 2: On the blocks after MM, the abbreviation "PM" are used (PM preference, Number of PM trips, Travel time of PM). Authors should stick to MM to avoid confusion, as MM is also used everywhere in the article.
n. Page 12 line 429: As explained on the previous paragraph, this subsection should be placed at the end of Section 4 (Results and Discussion).
o. Page 12 line 434: "People" --> should start with lowercase
p. Page 12 line 435: "buy a cars" --> "buy a car"
q. Page 12 line 443: "...where individuals can be expressed" --> "...where individual characteristics can be expressed"
r. Page 12 line 466: "This study can be expected to be improved by several proposed methods." --> "This study can be improved ... by several suggestions."
s. Page 12 line 471: "There are various factors..." --> "Another suggestion is related to the various factors..."
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Comment 1: The article in general are well written, the aim of the paper are stated clearly, the highlight of findings and the implications correspond well with the purpose. To improve the flow of the article, several changes are suggested: Firstly, the Conclusion section should only contain the overview of the paper: the aim, the methods, and the answer of the research questions; as well as future research suggestions. Discussion and implication should be placed at the end of Section 4, and it is suggested to rename the section to "Results and Discussion". Please adjust the writing of the Conclusion section accordingly.
Response 1: We intend to interpret the result of factor analysis and structural equation models in section 5 (Result). Accordingly, the goodness-of-fit of the model was examined, and the relationship and influence between the variables derived from the model were described. In section 6 (conclusion), implications were drived based on the results interpreted in section 5. In other words, the conclusion (section 6) of the study was drawn based on the result of the model (section 5). Therefore, the discussions and implications are considered to be more appropriate for entering the section 6.
Comment 2: The following revisions are suggested as well
Response 2: We applied all the revisions to the sentence you suggested.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors reached for many new items, but a significant part of the references (over 60%) have not been published in the last 5 years. Many of them have been published in the past millennium. In some threads, these are already outdated items. It is recommended to update them.
I have no complaints about the introduction. It only lacks a brief description of the structure of the article. It is advisable to supplement with a newer reference.
Please add 5 different references to the sentence on lines 70-71 (pointing to different examples - different than in the rest of the article). Maybe the authors will draw inspiration from:
Szaruga, E.; Załoga, E. Qualitative–Quantitative Warning Modeling of Energy Consumption Processes in Inland Waterway Freight Transport on River Sections for Environmental Management. Energies 2022, 15, 4660. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134660
Literature review in section 2.1. sufficient and interesting. Could include newer references. The last two paragraphs also seem to lack references that could reinforce the article.
I would also add a paragraph in general about the study of cause-and-effect relationships.
Hypotheses H1-H12 are not hypotheses, but conclusions. Some of these "hypotheses" are too obvious, sometimes they are mutually exclusive or alternative. I suggest that the authors remove the terms "positively/negatively" etc. and focus on the relationship itself, whether it exists at all (statistically significant). The analysis will show the direction. Please also pay attention to the complementary and substitutive property of public and private transport. The omission of substitution and complementarity undermines hypotheses H1 and H2. So it's better to remove the direction (positive/negative).
As for the methodology, I have no objections, it is correct. Data description too. The authors have described the primary data quite clearly and extensively.
I keep my fingers crossed for a quick publication and congratulations on the high level of research.
The resulting part is the icing on the cake. Nevertheless, the authors should mention in the methodology that they will assume a p-value < 10% threshold for the entire study (the standard one is 0.05 and provide a description for the three thresholds with asterisks). There are differences in the study, which may raise doubts. The universal designations are *** for p-value < 0.01, ** for p-value < 0.05, and * for p-value < 0.1.
The discussion section with conclusions and limitations is of adequate length. Contains the necessary elements.
Author Response
Pleases see the attachment.
Comment 1: The authors reached for many new items, but a significant part of the references (over 60%) have not been published in the last 5 years. Many of them have been published in the past millennium. In some threads, these are already outdated items. It is recommended to update them.
Response 1: We updated literature review including the studies conducted in the last 5 years. Therefore, a total of 14 recent studies have been added.
- The added reference numbers are as follows:
- 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 59
Comment 2: Please add 5 different references to the sentence on lines 70-71 (pointing to different examples - different than in the rest of the article).
Response 2: We added 5 different references (Line 70).
- The added reference numbers are as follows:
- 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
Comment 3: Hypotheses H1-H12 are not hypotheses, but conclusions. Some of these "hypotheses" are too obvious, sometimes they are mutually exclusive or alternative. I suggest that the authors remove the terms "positively/negatively" etc. and focus on the relationship itself, whether it exists at all (statistically significant). The analysis will show the direction. Please also pay attention to the complementary and substitutive property of public and private transport. The omission of substitution and complementarity undermines hypotheses H1 and H2. So it's better to remove the direction (positive/negative).
Response 3: As you segessted, we removed the direction (positive/negative) of the variable from the hypotheses (Line 150-192).
Comment 4: The resulting part is the icing on the cake. Nevertheless, the authors should mention in the methodology that they will assume a p-value < 10% threshold for the entire study (the standard one is 0.05 and provide a description for the three thresholds with asterisks). There are differences in the study, which may raise doubts. The universal designations are *** for p-value < 0.01, ** for p-value < 0.05, and * for p-value < 0.1.
Response 4: We changed the notation for p-value to universal designations (Figure 2).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The abstract has to be rewritten as follows. You should summarize your findings where you include only your main findings. The abstract should also contain a hint about your contribution, originality and practical implications. Also, add a part in the abstract that shows your methodology.
You mention in your title and abstract, that you are examining the causal relationship. The causal relationship is recommended to be examined through experiments.
General comment
I think that the paper needs major developments. Although it is written in an interesting way, I think that there is no contribution in the paper in its current form. The authors have neglected the main pillars of the theory of planned behavior which are attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control.
The paper should focus on a certain mode of transportation. For example airlines. Also, it is unclear why the authors chose to have three dependent variables, is it a comparative study?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Comment 1: The abstract has to be rewritten as follows. You should summarize your findings where you include only your main findings. The abstract should also contain a hint about your contribution, originality and practical implications. Also, add a part in the abstract that shows your methodology.
Response 1: We derived three implications as the main result of the study. Therefore, in the abstract, three implications were written (Line 11-21). We performed the analysis using structural equation model. The abstract was briefly written according to the limit on the number of characters (Line 9-10).
Comment 2: You mention in your title and abstract, that you are examining the causal relationship. The causal relationship is recommended to be examined through experiments.
Response 2: In order to find out the relationship between the latent variable of attitudinal factors and the latent variable of intention to use transportation mode, we conducted a survey on the items that can derive the latent variable. The survey can be said to be a way of experiments. In addition, most studies generally use structural equation model to analyze causality, and our studies also use structural equation model.
Comment 3: I think that the paper needs major developments. Although it is written in an interesting way, I think that there is no contribution in the paper in its current form. The authors have neglected the main pillars of the theory of planned behavior which are attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control.
Response 3: The theory of planned behavior explains that attitudinal factors affect intention, and intention affects behavior. In this study, a structural equation model was designed based on the causal relationship presented in the theory of planned behavior. In previous studies, intention was regareded as an behavior and designed so that attitudinal factors directly affect behavior. In this study, since the latent variable of intention was derived through behavior and designed to have an indirect effect, it can be said that it was designed more suitable for the theory of planned behavior than previous studies.
Comment 4: The paper should focus on a certain mode of transportation. For example airlines. Also, it is unclear why the authors chose to have three dependent variables, is it a comparative study?
Response 4: We would like to identify the relationship between attitudinal factors and intention to use transportation mode. There are various modes in the transportation mode, and each mode is a competitive or complementary relationship. In other words, there are cases where transportation has similar characteristics, and there are cases where it has different characteristics. Therefore, the same attitudinal factor may have a positive or negative effect depending on the transportation mode. In order to move, at least one transportation mode ust be used. At this time, people choose different modes of transportation depending on individual characteristics (such as the attitudinal factors). In order words, transportation mode is selected according to the attitudinal factor. Therefore, rather than analyzing the effect of attitudinal factors on one transportation mode, we intend to analyze the effect on various transportation mode.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for improving the manuscript.
