Determinants of Dockless Bicycle-Sharing Adoption and Usage Intensity for Commuting and Errands: Evidence from Disadvantaged Neighborhoods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript conducts a study on the influencing factors of bike-sharing usage in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, which is novel in terms of the choice of the study area, but there are still some issues that need to be improved.

1.the distillation of the contribution points of this article is not deep enough.

2.How are disadvantaged neighbourhoods defined in the survey implementation process?

3.The outstanding point of this article is the use of face-to-face interviews, but the manuscript is not detailed enough to narrate the details of that survey, and it needs a convincing explanation of the data sources.

4. Among the respondents, the number of females far exceeds the number of males, what is the reason for this and is it representative?

5. The R2 of the models are all very small, please explain the reasons for this and the impact on the results of the models.

6.Is there a difference between the results of the analysis for disadvantaged neighbourhoods and the results for regular neighbourhoods, and the differences in the impact of the factors on bike sharing usage from regular neighbourhoods need to be reflected in the analysis of the results and Policy Implications. In the current version, the conclusions of the analysis also apply to regular neighbourhoods, and should be compared to the regular conclusions and policy recommendations in the existing literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This high-quality paper not only investigates the usage profile of shared bikes but also effectively assesses policy decisions on bike sharing. All methodological steps are very solid, in selecting the case study, in identifying the variables and measuring/modeling their influence, in discarding misleading assumptions, and, finally, in defining the service policy implications. As the authors point out, bike sharing is influenced by both individual and urban factors, reflecting the profile of users, who can be local frequent users or errands. Hence, this paper gives a solid strategy for localizing the dockless shared bikes. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive and inspiring feedback. We are delighted that you recognize our research, and your feedback motivates us to continue our research on sustainable urban mobility!

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates the factors influencing individuals’ decisions to adopt and intensively use dockless bicycle-sharing for commuting and errands in China. While the study’s objective is clear, the introduction could be strengthened by addressing several elements:

1. What is the general phenomenon being studied, and why is it important? The current introduction does not sufficiently frame the research problem or its significance. Providing broader context on the phenomenon under study, such as the importance of bike-sharing in disadvantaged communities or neighborhoods, would help readers better understand the relevance of this research. Additionally, the case of China is introduced in the second paragraph without clear justification. The authors should explicitly address why the Chinese context is pertinent and significant for this topic.

2.  What are the limitations or gaps in current research? A brief discussion of the advantages and limitations of the selected keywords would help clarify the research’s relevance and potential challenges. Currently, only one source (citation 12) is used to identify research gaps, which is insufficient for providing a thorough context.

3.What solution does this study propose to address the identified problem or gap? If the study addresses a specific research gap or makes a unique contribution, this should be explicitly stated to highlight the importance of the work.

Structuring the introduction along these lines would provide readers with a clearer understanding of the study’s objectives, context, and unique contribution to the field. 

Literature Review

The literature review is well-structured with relevant references, but it would be beneficial to include, at the end of the section, a 1) summary of findings and 2) identification of research gaps. This addition would help consolidate key points and clarify the study’s positioning within the existing research landscape.

In the methodology section, it would be helpful to begin with a brief overview that explains how the methodology, dataset, and analytical process align with the study’s objectives. Additionally, providing a general overview of the case study area, Xi’an, China, would aid readers unfamiliar with the location and context in understanding the study better. 

The results section is currently combined with the discussion. It would be helpful to separate these sections for clarity. Including a concise summary of key findings at the end of the results section would also provide readers with an organized overview of the study’s primary outcomes.

Currently, the discussion is interwoven with the results. I suggest separating these sections for clarity, given the length of the text. The discussion section would also benefit from greater engagement with relevant literature, helping readers understand how this study’s findings relate to prior research. For instance, does this study confirm, extend, or challenge existing findings? Discussing these implications in relation to other studies would make the discussion more balanced and compelling.

Rather than re-summarizing the study in detail, the conclusion could be enhanced by offering a brief one-paragraph summary. Additionally, including suggestions for future research directions would add depth. Recommendations or identifying areas for further exploration would provide readers with a sense of how this study contributes to the field and suggests avenues for continued investigation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the issues that I concern.