A Meta-Analysis of Shared Mobility Adoption: The Role of Cultural Moderators and Key Psychological Determinants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic addressed in the article is highly relevant and falls well within the scope of the journal.
The most innovative element is the consideration of psychological and cultural factors in the context of how selected societies approach new shared mobility solutions.

The authors identify 8 factors that influence public attitudes toward shared mobility. The scope of these factors appears sufficient. The conclusions are logical and coherent, primarily referring to cultural aspects such as individualism and openness to new experiences. The practical recommendations provided for stakeholders shaping the shared transport market are a valuable addition to the study’s findings.

Authors should consider the following remarks:

1. The literature review could be improved by placing greater emphasis on countries other than China. Currently, half of the cited publications focus on the Chinese market, while the remaining references relate to the USA, Germany, and the Netherlands.
2. The analysis could benefit from including the following publications:
   • Sendek-Matysiak, E. (2024). The assessment of the use of vehicles with different types of drive in car-sharing systems. Archives of Transport, 72(4), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.61089/aot2024.bg4xmr95
   • Nuzzolo, A., Comi, A., & Polimeni, A. (2019). Exploring on-demand service use in large urban areas: the case of Rome. Archives of Transport, 50(2), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.5681
   • Krukowicz, T., Firląg, K., Sobota, A., Kołodziej, T., & Novačko, L. (2021). The relationship between bicycle traffic and the development of bicycle infrastructure on the example of Warsaw. Archives of Transport, 60(4), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0015.6930
3. The imbalance in the geographical focus is visible in the paper. For example, the variables “Trust” and “Perceived Risk” are analyzed mainly in studies conducted in China. This may have affected the quality of the results, particularly in the context of generalizing the conclusions to countries beyond China.
4. The analysis focuses exclusively on two Hofstede dimensions (Individualism/Collectivism and Uncertainty Avoidance). Including additional dimensions such as power distance or long-term orientation could provide a more comprehensive understanding of cross-cultural variation in shared mobility adoption (if possible).
5. The paper does not address potential mediation or moderation mechanisms (e.g., attitude mediating the relationship between subjective norms and intention), but Authors don’t provide sufficient explanation why not.
6. Several emerging factors (e.g., hedonic motivation, innovation orientation, or environmental concern) were excluded due to limited coverage in primary studies. Although methodologically justifiable, this exclusion reduces the scope for identifying novel predictors in shared mobility research.
7. A substantial portion of the included studies originates from China, especially those related to "trust" and "perceived risk". This geographical concentration may compromise the generalizability of findings across different cultural and regulatory contexts.
8. The meta-analysis combines results from different types of shared mobility services (e.g., bike-sharing, ride-sharing, e-scooters), despite known differences in user expectations and adoption factors. Future work should consider disaggregating results by transport mode.

Editorial suggestions:

9. Punctuation: There are several instances of incorrect punctuation (e.g., periods placed before parentheses). Some commas or spaces are also missing.
10. Language editing: In some places, literal translations are used that may be unclear or unnatural in English (e.g., "the relationship between attitude and subjective norms in relation to the willingness to utilize shared mobility is represented by 17 articles", "result in an underestimation of the actual influence of social factors"). These should be revised for clarity and fluency.
11. References: Some entries in the “References” section lack DOI numbers.
12. Figures: Figure 1 is of relatively low quality. In Figure 2, some of the provisional labels are partially cut off, and the overall resolution is insufficient.
13. Formulas: The font used for equations and their numbering differs noticeably from the rest of the article and should be standardized.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language editing: In some places, literal translations are used that may be unclear or unnatural in English (e.g., "the relationship between attitude and subjective norms in relation to the willingness to utilize shared mobility is represented by 17 articles", "result in an underestimation of the actual influence of social factors"). These should be revised for clarity and fluency.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I highly appreciate your article.

I found deep meanings in the article and, at the same time, confirmation of the conclusions by statistical characteristics.

The topic of your article is very relevant, although it may not be obvious at first glance.

Nevertheless, I have some suggestions for improving the article. They are listed below.

1. Figure 1. The "Influencing factors Meta-analysis Forest plot" needs to be enlarged and divided into 8 figures. Each of them should be signed and illustrated with explanations of the influencing factor in question and the indicators illustrating this factor. As far as I understand, this is 21 factors for Attitude, etc. The question - what are these factors? This is very interesting. This part of the study is interesting and there is no need to hide the results of this study. They need to be presented more broadly.

2. In Table 1. "Descriptive statistics of each influencing factor and usage intention" you show the number of articles arguing the importance of a factor. It would be correct to make references in Table 1 to the articles from the Reference list.

3. If you focus on cultural and psychological differences in the behavior of users of shared mobility tools in different countries (the United States versus China), then it is probably necessary to explore this topic more deeply. Additional information on this topic should be provided.

In general, I am happy to recommend this article for publication. Nevertheless, it needs to be slightly improved. 

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx