Gender Disparities in the Access and Use of Urban Public Transport in Abuja, Nigeria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper ”Gender disparities in the access and use of urban public transport in Abuja, Nigeria” focuses on gender disparities in access and use of public transport by investigating how the (structure of) the public transport system affects men and women differently – using a mixed methods approach.

The topic is interesting, important and welcome. However, given the several flaws and problems of the paper, which I list below, I would not normally propose a revision but reject.

Having said that, as the study area is understudied although important, alongside the need that studies from understudied areas are highlighted and published in order to shed light on context-specific transport and accessibility issues, I think it is important that the authors are given a chance to revise the paper and clarify their study, as their findings have merit for academia. I therefore propose major revisions.

General comments:

Abstract: Seems a bit long and could be shortened keeping most of the information.

Most importantly:

1. The research aim is not properly specified and clarified (what is the gap, why is it important to address, how will you address it [given that mixed methods may be important to mention here]).
2.  Moreover, there are no research questions or hypotheses stated given the 4 broad objectives (that suddenly appear in the discussions section but not before), or specified for the different methods used in the study (qualitative and survey-data), thus the reader is not informed of what problem/questions the study will address- or how.
3. I cannot find any qualitative analyses - so what do the focus groups, qualitative approach,  and mixed methods refer to?
4. The methodology section is also heavily lacking in information, and needs clarification and plenty more information added. Perhaps subheadings can be helpful here (e.g. participants, procedure, instruments etc.). More specifically the reader needs to be informed of the procedure, who the participants are (e.g. what are the different selection techniques based on for this particular sample – not in general why these techniques are used), what the instruments were more specifically – i.e. was the qualitative “interview guide” based on the themes you mention (or are these the results? From where were they taken? Why are these important to include, why would you say the data was qualitative?), In the guide/interviews/discussions (not sure what went on as the information is missing) were there only specific questions asked or open questions, how many questions? How many meetings? Did one or several researchers participate in the focus groups meetings? Where were they held? How many participants at a time? Was the material transcribed (the focus group discussions), and how were they analysed (very important to describe the procedure for analysis and type of analysis – i.e thematic or content for instance)…and so on (a lot needs to be clarified here). You also mention a specific data-collection in the section for the focus group – did they also answer a questionnaire?

What was the procedure for the main survey? Where, when, how, by whom, what were the questions – were these based on previously used (validated) instruments or did you validate them afterwards? There are no research questions at the moment – but if you add research questions it is sometimes helpful to describe the instruments/questions used in the methodology in accordance with these (and especially the results section).

4. The introduction addresses important topics, and gives examples of previous findings of gender differences in access as well as travel behavior. However, in part these examples are listed one by one and thus the text becomes less clear and coherent. I would try to rearrange the introduction by A. initially explain the problem the paper addresses (e.g. for instance the text that can be found in the second section of the introduction, starting with “Gender dimensions in public transport…..” and also in the first section of the literature review), B. describe overall differences (in access and use/behavior between men and women) and then C. go into explanations of these differences in patterns, rather than mixing overall findings and topics with more detailed findings/explanations. (and, in the introduction at least, try focusing on Africa when possible, and when not – highlighting that gap).

I think that would make the text easier to follow, and also open up for some references being used together to strengthen certain claims/findings. I am also missing references for some parts, se “specific comments” for an example – however given a clarification of the introduction this might be solved.

5. The review section is very repetitive, both in itself (within and between the sections) and in relation to the introduction. I would suggest a thorough read-through and a heavy restructure of the text so that the text fits the proposed headings (this may also help in being less repetitive). Moreover, it is not clear if the examples given address African conditions or overall or other conditions/gender differences, so perhaps you can specify where the studies have been conducted and also reflect in the text on what is known and what isn´t (i.e refer to the research gap you address) prior to the last section.

More specific comments:

Introduction: The claim “Gender is frequently mentioned as a major determinant of mobility access” (line 5) would benefit from a reference, to provide an example.

First section, bottom part - I am not sure I understand this, please consider rephrasing the severly complicated sentences – or when working on the text, include the specifics in other relevant parts (e.g. what are “them”?; and what does “making the best practical decisions” refer to?): “Women are more reliant on them because they are handier for shorter trips and have more accessible stops. In the end, given their gendered roles and obligations, women make the best practical decisions, which include reliability and convenience, just like men. The distinction is in the services provided by the mode and how well it fits their accessibility requirements. (ITDP, 2018)”.

Literature review:

2.1: For the heading 2.1, I would suggest you add “in Africa” (to clarify).

2.2: The first sentence is somewhat unclear, I take it that women entering the job market to a greater extent has increased the need for travel also for other groups. Also the example “most patients visit doctors rather than hospitals” may be confusing for a non-African as to how this adds to increased needs for travel.

Bottom section: This sentence is incomplete: “Physical impediments, such as high kerbs and steps, are more significant than men.”. It is also unclear whether all the information in this section refers to Kebeck et al (2017).

The two last sections (in 2.2), and also parts of the first section appear to refer to travel (mobility) behavior rather than accessibility. Behavior is, as trip purpose, of course, an antecedent for accessibility but it would be clearer if these were not mixed but clarified under the correct heading. Moreover, a lot of examples and findings are repeated at several places in the text (in different sections), and the text would be easier to follow if it was restructured into dealing with one issue at a time - preferably in some logical order that is easy to follow for readers that are not well into these issues. Like for example, you could first state the overall gender differences in access [that are “known”], then summarize probable causes for this with appropriate references (be it travel behavior or other), rather than summarize the findings of one referenced study at a time (leading to repetitions). Consider this for all the sections in part 2.

In 2.3, again, concepts and findings are repeated (although some findings regarding the behavior of women that are listed earlier would rather benefit from being under this heading – or the next 2.4), so please consider revising the entire section 2 for a better flow, clarification and aggregate similar findings.

2.4 In the last section you have a few sentences referring to a study, which I do not follow (what study?); I refer to the part in the text starting with “understandings of the nature of Nigeria´s transportation system…. “.  Please clarify.

Moreover, is 2.4 needed if you list these factors under the other headings? Please consider doing one way or the other – rather than both.

The last part of section 2.4 states the aim/context of the study, I would consider putting this under a separate heading where you elaborate on, and clarify, the aim and research questions that you address in the study. Reading this far I am still not sure exactly what you intend to do.

Methodology:

The sampling procedure is a bit confusing, I suppose you mean that you had 2 different sampling techniques – rather than dividing the participants into categories. As I wrote earlier, a lot of information is missing so part 3 needs to be heavily revised and plenty of information added. (see most important comment above)

Data analysis and results:

4.1 It is customary to not list all information in the text which is also given in a Table, I suggest you highlight the most important information in the text and also separate the demographics per study setting (focus groups or survey). Some of this information is good to have in the methods section (i.e age-span and gender of the samples etc. also specific characteristics given the selection techniques used). Also,the text in relation to – and the actual Table 2 -  could be simplified (both percentage and frequency are not needed – but need to be clarified in the table (percentage of what).

I cannot see any results from the qualitative analyses – i.e that consider the material recorded from the focus groups? If you refer to experiences listed (by answering a questionnaire with pre-specified questions in a “numeric scale”) I would not say that is "qualitative data or analysis" - This is a MAJOR issue.

The rest of this section:

The results section is confusing. What is being answered needs to be clear (E.g. “in order to look at the differences between ……a …..-test was conducted, finding that …..”)

It would be helpful to also sort all the inferential analyses below the research question that each (or several) analysis(es) addresses – comment on the choice of analysis and purpose given the RQ  - and write the results in text (i.e. words) and then refer to the specific statistics that support this, and giving a brief summary initially or at the end of each section (question/hypothesis). Some results may also be highlighted in a figure (or several comparisons etc.). 

In all, the quantitative analyses need to be motivated and this section needs to clarify the need and use of each analysis in relation to the research question it is supposed to answer. 

Discussion and conclusions:

I did not comment on these as I am unsure of the more specific study aims and gaps, the background, the research questions, the methodology (in particular), and analyses – so I save these for later when the rest has been clarified – my feedback will be of better use then.

Best of luck if you decide go ahead with this, I hope you do.

Author Response

Good day Prof, I hope this meets you well. Thank you very much for taking time out to look at my work. I appreciate the time and effort. I have looked at your review and I have made corrections as suggested. 

Please find attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study applies mixed-methods to examine the gender disparities in the access and use of urban public transport in Abuja, Nigeria. I would like to provide some comments that will hopefully help the authors to further improve the work.

1. In the abstract, the author should indicate clearly the purpose of the study and the reference to practice.

2. The introduction section needs to be reorganized. Although the author provided an overview of the reason why it's important to study gender differences in public transportation access, they need to add some necessary parts to better position their work within the introduction section. For example, what is the purpose and significance of this research? What are the methods and results of the relevant studies? What is the structure and main findings of this work? It is worth noting that the authors need to summarize the research gaps in the existing research literature to support the study's contribution.

3. The literature review section needs to be reorganized. (1) Section 2.1 (The Structure and institutional arrangement of Urban Transportation) focuses on modern urban contexts and national conditions, which does not correspond to the title of this section, and should give more attention to studies related to urban transport systems and summarize the different structural and institutional arrangements of urban transport. (3) The last paragraph of section 2.4 should indicate a research gap in existing studies and the need to include gender inequality in the transit system.

4. The methodology section need to provide more details. (1) Please add introduction of Mann-Whitney U test. (2) The authors should clearly indicate the advantages of the methods in the methodology section.

5. Please provide more details about the data. For example, what are all the variables used? What is the definition of variables? What about descriptive analysis of variables? Let me give you some examples of data description, see (1) Park et al. (2020) Guidelines for a Polycentric Region to Reduce Vehicle Use and Increase Walking and Transit Use. (2) Zhang et al. (2022). Incorporating polycentric development and neighborhood life-circle planning for reducing driving in Beijing : Nonlinear and threshold analysis.

6. In conclusions, please clarify the advantages and limitation. For example, why this study is unique? What can we learn from this work? What are the disadvantages and uncertainties of this study?

7. I also suggest that in future studies, authors could define individual travel characteristics in terms of built environment accessibility. Several studies have already examined residential travel behavior from such a perspective, see (1) Zhang et al. (2021). Land use densification revisited: Nonlinear mediation relationships with car ownership and use. (2) Krizek (2003). Operationalizing Neighborhood Accessibility for Land Use-Travel Behavior Research and Regional Modeling

8. There are several grammar errors in the paper. Please improve the language.

Author Response

Good day Prof, I hope this meets you well. Thank you very much for taking time out to look at my work. I appreciate the time and effort. I have looked at your review and I have made corrections as suggested. 

Please find attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript focuses on a still current theme such as gender equity related to the use of transport. It is considered appropriate to include a greater overview of literature pertaining to the problem of gender equity in the mobility sector and therefore we recommend reading the following research works:

1)Leuenberger, D. Z., & Lutte, R. (2022). Sustainability, Gender Equity, and Air Transport: Planning a Stronger Future. Public Works Management & Policy, 1087724X221075044.

2)Campisi, T., Nahiduzzaman, K. M., Akgün, N., Ticali, D., & Tesoriere, G. (2021, March). Gender equality on developing transport system in sicily: A consideration on regional scale. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2343, No. 1, p. 090003). AIP Publishing LLC.it is necessary to better emphasize the novelty of the research in the introductory part, while in the concluding part it is necessary to highlight the limitations of the research conducted. It is considered appropriate to better specify the unit of measurement of the budgets defined among the variables analyzed. The text overall has some formatting and grammatical errors.

Author Response

Good day Prof, I hope this meets you well. Thank you very much for taking time out to look at my work. I appreciate the time and effort. I have looked at your review and I have made corrections as suggested. 

Please find attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Although the paper is much improved, I still have concerns. One major is regarding the research questions and how these are addressed. I have difficulty in seeing how you would answer RQ no 1 given the methods used (the structure of PT services can be explained and described, sure, but that would constitute background information – contextual – and not answered by the focus group study - which would inform RQ 2 and 3). Moreover, the survey would also inform RQ 2 and RQ 3 – whereas RQ 4 is not answered in this study? (I would say that one can offer conclusions and recommendations – but that each research question needs to be addressed by a corresponding analysis!). Given that the variables included are not listed in the methods section, I have difficulty following the results and how each analysis answer to the research questions. I would suggest that the variables included are presented in the methods section (especially those included in analysis, the full questionnaire can be in an appendix), and also that the results (and analyses) are presented in relation to the research question they inform (except, naturally, the descriptives section). I think that will improve the clarity of the paper. You use this layout in the discussion section already.

The qualitative information, however, is much improved given that the choice of and steps of the analysis are now included.

The language needs to be edited again (proofread and language check by native speaker). There are several flaws in the grammar and some sentences are incomplete, and most importantly - information is still partly missing (especially in the methods-section).

To give a few examples: 1) the last sentence in 3.2 is incomplete, 2) The focus groups are described as 15 participants but 8 men and 10 women (?), 3) the section on focus groups is not clear in language use (applies to several sections, this is an example), 4) The first section of “questionnaire design” is incomplete, 5) Methods: You say that the participants were chosen based on their relevance – for what? Needs to be specified. 6) as I stated before, the variables are only briefly described, and need to be thoroughly described here – what is used for what analysis, and how are they measured (e.g. 1-5, dichotomous), and are there any indexes that need to be validated? If there are many examples (for a specific concept) you can give examples of questions to save space. Moreover, there are many tables and figures, consider if they are all needed or if they can be merged somehow, or are already explained in the text (or vice versa).

Author Response

Hello,

Please find attached response to the comments.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made considerable improvements followed up my comments. However, there are still a few paragraphs that could be improved.

1. The introduction section needs to be improved. Although the author provided an overview of the reason why they used GIS and remote sensing as methods. But the authors need to clearly present the use of GIS and remote sensing data and methods such as Land Change Modeler (LCM) and CA -Markov models. Methods used in other land use change studies also need to be briefly introduced in this section, such as (1) Xie et al. (2022). Extracting land use change patterns of rural-town settlements with sequence alignment method. (2) Cegielska et al. (2018) Land use and land cover changes in post-socialist countries: Some observations from Hungary and Poland.

2. Please give more details about CA-Markov model and its advantages.

3. There are two section 4.1 in the article. In section 4. 1. Urban land development policies, I suggested that in the discussion of policies (lines: 406-415) should compare with international land development policies. Several studies have already studied such policy, see (1) Van der Krabben et al. (2013). Public land development as a strategic tool for redevelopment: Reflections on the Dutch experience. (2) Zhou et al. (2020). Actors and network in the marketization of rural collectively-owned commercial construction land (RCOCCL) in China: A pilot case of Langfa, Beijing.

4. There are several sections with wrong serial numbers, please check them.

Author Response

Hello,

Please find attached responses to the comments.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

At present, the manuscript has not filled the gaps that I pointed out during the first revision phase.

The text still contains numerous grammatical and formatting errors. I stress that it is considered appropriate to include a greater overview of literature pertaining to the problem of gender equity in the mobility sector and therefore we recommend reading the following research works:

1)Leuenberger, D. Z., & Lutte, R. (2022). Sustainability, Gender Equity, and Air Transport: Planning a Stronger Future. Public Works Management & Policy, 1087724X221075044.

2)Campisi, T., Nahiduzzaman, K. M., Akgün, N., Ticali, D., & Tesoriere, G. (2021, March). Gender equality on developing transport system in sicily: A consideration on regional scale. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2343, No. 1, p. 090003). AIP Publishing LLC.

It is necessary to better emphasize the novelty of the research in the introductory part, while in the concluding part it is necessary to highlight the limitations of the research conducted. 

More comments are needed on figure 3 and  4 and also to table 9

Author Response

Hello, 

Please find attached responses to the comments.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, you have worked on the manuscript and addressed most of my concerns adequately, I think the paper now merits publication. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This version is a significant improvement over the first submission. I think this paper can be accepted. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript still contains some grammatical errors. Once this is corrected, the paper will be eligible for publication