Research on Parking Recommendation Methods Considering Travelers’ Decision Behaviors and Psychological Characteristics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thanks for sending your manuscript. I think you address an interesting topic within the theme of parking and mobility. Yet, in its present form, the paper is not suitable for publication. I strongly suggest you to:

1) read more papers on parking to have a better idea of what problem you are actually addressing. For example, you refer to cruising by mentioning the study of Shoup carried out almost 20 years ago. There are more studies on cruising that that. You also mention the parking problems, but you don't define them.

2) Your paper will benefit from an extensive editing of the English language; many parts are difficult to understand. For example, what do you mean for individual psychological thresholds? 

Some other random issues:

- I don't see any revealed preference in your study;

- if you are not familiar with China you don't know what Baidu map is (I presume it's a city??);  or what Parker or SpotAngel are

Generally speaking, you should try to better describe what you have done, considering that not every reader has your own background.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper deals with parking choice and reservation behavior at different stages of travel.  Finally, the paper provides some significant findings that have implications for intelligent parking services. The topic is research worthy and has practical implications. The paper is also well structured. The research methodology is robust and comfortably described.

The main strength of the paper is the parking decision choice model, parking regulation thresholds, and specific recommendations. 

On the other hand, one of the major drawbacks of this study is the selection of responders. The study concentrated on only shopping trips. However, shopping trips are generally more relaxing trips than other trips, especially office or work trips. The inclusion of those trips could provide better insight. The authors should clearly highlight this limitation of the study. 

The word "Preliminary" in section 3.2 does not go with the technical term. It could be changed, like demographic characteristics or inferential statistics of the sample. 

Before the way forward, there should be a section on the study's limitations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The overall quality of this paper is good, reservation for parking is an interesting and popular angle in relative research area. The authors took travelers’ psychological factors into consideration and proposed a series of scenarios to verified their results and conclusions. Certainly, some contributions are made. Here are some minor comments for the authors to consider after my review.

3.2. Preliminary analysis of the survey data: Line 203-204. The later part of the sentence used to descript the occupations of the participants is confusing, “followed by 26% and 18% for freelancers, and public institutions and enterprise personnel respectively.” There are 3 different vocations but the number of the percentage you gave to descript is only 2.

3.2. Preliminary analysis of the survey data: Line 212-213. Why choose the choice proportion of “more important” instead of “very important”?

3.2. Preliminary analysis of the survey data: Line 217-218. What is the meaning of these “Any” in each factor in Figure 4? For instance, is the “Any” in “Walking distance after parking” means shorter than 100m or longer than 1000m?

4.1. Parking recommendation model: Line 276-277. Please explain more about the “certain range”, is there a specific value or what?

4.1. Parking recommendation model: Line 291. A space is missing between “for” and “the”.

5.1. Initial settings of parking simulation: Line 351. Since the parking prices applied in these parking lots are affected by the distance to the destination, I suggest you use a column to show the distance between these parking lots to the destination, the Joy City in this case, instead of the “Walking distance after parking” you used here.

5.1. Initial settings of parking simulation: Line 365-367. The explanations for these three decision points here in the parentheses (for instance, location of trip generation for point called before the trip) are different from these in Section 3.1 (15km away from the destination for the point called before the trip). Some interpretations or modifications will be appreciated.

5.2. Analysis of parking simulation under different parking recommendation schemes: Line 429-430. What are these two factors, primary factor and secondary factor, refer to?

5.2. Analysis of parking simulation under different parking recommendation schemes: Line 433-434. According to the text, the statistics are divided into two groups while the results presented in Table 3 are followed a three groups patten (All/parking reservation group/non-parking reservation group). Some explanations are needed.

5.2. Analysis of parking simulation under different parking recommendation schemes: Line 457. The phrase you used to describe the change of average walking distance after parking between the parking reservation group and the non-parking reservation group is “significantly higher”. However, “slightly increase” were used to summarize the finding of Table 3 in term of walking distance after parking. It is obviously contradictory. Please explain.

5.4. Analysis of simulation results under different parking reservation proportions: Line 552-553. The discussion about Figure 8 is missing.

Please consider these comments and update the manuscript accordingly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thanks for the response. The paper has benefited from the English editing and now it is much easier to read. Yet, you don't address my main critics:

1) Extra literature on cruising: actually there is more literature suggesting cruising is not that big problem as you described. You simply added two papers saying what are the negative aspects of cruising. 

2) Asking a question in a survey is almost per definition a stated preference; revealed preference is when you observe an event.

3) I am sure YOU are familiar with China and Baidu; my point is that most readers are not

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I first rejected your paper and then asked for a major revision. That is not the kind of comments you can address in a few days. You can ask the editor to not consider my review if you want to publish this version of your study.

Author Response

非常感谢您的冗长评论。我们已经与编辑进行了沟通。笔者认真考虑了以往的审稿问题和建议，并作了必要的修改。请参阅附件。

Thank you very much for your detailed comments. We have communicated with the editor and we seriously considered the previous review problems and suggestions, and made necessary revisions. Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf