Google Location History as an Alternative Data Source for Understanding Travel Behavior in Medan, Binjai, and Deli Serdang (Mebidang), Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the manuscript, I do not judge the paper as acceptable for publication as it is in the Future Transportation journal. I would suggest reconsidering it (and reviewing it once again in detail) after the following major points have been addressed:

1) Contribution of the paper: Please clearly specify whether the contribution of the paper is methodological, related to the data used, or focused on the case study analyzed. All types of contributions can add value to the scientific community, but this distinction should be explicitly stated at the end of the introduction. Additionally, please clearly define your research questions. For each type of contribution, the following is expected: i) If the contribution is methodological, a comparison with other state-of-the-art methods should be included in the results/discussion section. ii) If the contribution involves the use of innovative data sources, a comparison with results obtained using more “traditional” data sources should be provided. iii) If the contribution is based on the case study application, a comparison with findings from existing studies should be presented (e.g., how do your results align with or differ from those of similar studies?).

2) The paper combines different concepts (use of Google data, decarbonization, tactical urbanism, cycling, etc.) at various points throughout the manuscript, which makes it challenging to follow in terms of narrative coherence. A clearer narrative and a more explicit connection between these concepts would significantly improve the readability and overall flow of the paper. The initial impression for the reader, as in my case, is that this appears to be a traditional application (described in extensive—perhaps overly detailed—terms in the results section) that has been rearranged to resemble a scientific paper. While this is likely not the case, it should be clearly demonstrated by restructuring the overall storytelling.

3) The authors opted for a combined introduction-state of the art section, which is something that I appreciate. However, I would suggest deepening the “wider scene” (in Section 1, the combined Introduction-State of the Art section). For instance, you can refer to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2024.12.158 for a review on innovative data sources, use cases and criticalities that could be . Please do not limit to the suggested reference. Given that you adopted an all-in-one Introduction-SoA section, I would expect this to be more framed in the current wordwide literature.

4) I recommend presenting a general methodological section without specific references to the case study. This approach would enhance the transferability of the methodology to similar studies. Additionally, a flow diagram illustrating the methodological approach could be useful for improving the clarity and coherence of the overall narrative (see point 2 of this report).

5) The discussion should be expanded significantly, as it seems to represent the primary contribution of the paper to the literature. The findings should be contextualized within existing studies (e.g., how do they compare to other similar studies? The whole section should be better framed in the literature). Additionally, policy implications should be clearly articulated. For example: What are the key takeaways for public planners? What are the main insights for transport or energy planners at a national level?

Author Response

Comment from Reviewer 1

After reviewing the manuscript, I do not judge the paper as acceptable for publication as it is in the Future Transportation journal. I would suggest reconsidering it (and reviewing it once again in detail) after the following major points have been addressed:

 

1) Contribution of the paper: Please clearly specify whether the contribution of the paper is methodological, related to the data used, or focused on the case study analyzed. All types of contributions can add value to the scientific community, but this distinction should be explicitly stated at the end of the introduction. Additionally, please clearly define your research questions. For each type of contribution, the following is expected:

1. i) If the contribution is methodological, a comparison with other state-of-the-art methods should be included in the results/discussion section. ii) If the contribution involves the use of innovative data sources, a comparison with results obtained using more “traditional” data sources should be provided. iii) If the contribution is based on the case study application, a comparison with findings from existing studies should be presented (e.g., how do your results align with or differ from those of similar studies?).

 

2) The paper combines different concepts (use of Google data, decarbonization, tactical urbanism, cycling, etc.) at various points throughout the manuscript, which makes it challenging to follow in terms of narrative coherence. A clearer narrative and a more explicit connection between these concepts would significantly improve the readability and overall flow of the paper. The initial impression for the reader, as in my case, is that this appears to be a traditional application (described in extensive—perhaps overly detailed—terms in the results section) that has been rearranged to resemble a scientific paper. While this is likely not the case, it should be clearly demonstrated by restructuring the overall storytelling.

 

3) The authors opted for a combined introduction-state of the art section, which is something that I appreciate. However, I would suggest deepening the “wider scene” (in Section 1, the combined Introduction-State of the Art section). For instance, you can refer to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2024.12.158 for a review on innovative data sources, use cases and criticalities that could be . Please do not limit to the suggested reference. Given that you adopted an all-in-one Introduction-SoA section, I would expect this to be more framed in the current wordwide literature.

 

4) I recommend presenting a general methodological section without specific references to the case study. This approach would enhance the transferability of the methodology to similar studies. Additionally, a flow diagram illustrating the methodological approach could be useful for improving the clarity and coherence of the overall narrative (see point 2 of this report).

 

5) The discussion should be expanded significantly, as it seems to represent the primary contribution of the paper to the literature. The findings should be contextualized within existing studies (e.g., how do they compare to other similar studies? The whole section should be better framed in the literature). Additionally, policy implications should be clearly articulated. For example: What are the key takeaways for public planners? What are the main insights for transport or energy planners at a national level?

 

Response:

 

1. Contribution of the paper:

At the end of the introduction, we have clearly specified that the purpose of the study is to acquire more detailed data from participatory mapping to better understand citizens’ mobility. We have chosen Google Location History (GLH) as a free tool with great potential for acquiring detailed information based on GPS recorded in personal smartphones. We have also clearly defined our research questions. For each type of contribution:

• Methodological: We have included a comparison with other state-of-the-art methods in the results/discussion section.
• Innovative Data Sources: We have compared our results with those obtained using more traditional data sources of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP).
• Case Study Application: We have presented a comparison with findings from existing studies to show how our results align with or differ from similar studies.

 

2. Narrative Coherence:

We have revised the narrative to focus on GLH as a new data source and its comparison to the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP) data. We have also reported adjustments made to using GLH. Few studies have used GLH for travel surveys, and we have highlighted one similar study using 7 days of KML data but with a different approach in data collection and analysis.

 

3. Introduction and Literature Review:

We have separated the introduction and literature review to provide an elaborated review of past studies on GLH, demonstrating how this study takes a different approach and why testing it in a developing country is important. We hope our method is more universally accessible and can be replicated in other places.

 

4. Methodological Section:

We have focused the methods part on the technical methodology of the study and included a general methodological section without specific references to the case study. Additionally, we have added a flow diagram illustrating the methodological approach to improve clarity and coherence.

 

5. Discussion and Policy Implications:

We have significantly expanded the discussion section, contextualizing our findings within existing studies and clearly articulating the policy implications. We have highlighted key takeaways for public planners and main insights for transport or energy planners at a national level.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The focus of the study is using google map location information as a means of obtaining detailed information about travel behavior. The authors frame the study from the perspective of needing data for models for Greenhouse gas reduction, but that framing is not well integrated into the remainder of the paper. To my mind, this is a paper about a new method for collecting detailed travel behavior that has a wide array of potential uses. The contrast is with more traditional surveying methods. I think the paper would be stronger with this explicit framing with a much reduced emphasis on the GHG reduction and modeling piece. This would require some revision of the introduction and literature review but not much revision of the body of the paper. The study itself is clearly described and the discussion section is very appropriate given the findings. I’d recommend careful review of the text for clarity sake.

Author Response

Comment from Reviewer 2

The focus of the study is using google map location information as a means of obtaining detailed information about travel behavior. The authors frame the study from the perspective of needing data for models for Greenhouse gas reduction, but that framing is not well integrated into the remainder of the paper. To my mind, this is a paper about a new method for collecting detailed travel behavior that has a wide array of potential uses. The contrast is with more traditional surveying methods. I think the paper would be stronger with this explicit framing with a much reduced emphasis on the GHG reduction and modeling piece. This would require some revision of the introduction and literature review but not much revision of the body of the paper. The study itself is clearly described and the discussion section is very appropriate given the findings. I’d recommend careful review of the text for clarity sake.

 

Response:

We have focused the narrative on the GLH method and findings to better understand urban mobility.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposes a GLH-based method for mobility surveys, which provides a good complement to traditional methods. I think this paper has a good contribution to the related field. There are still some minor issues that can be improved.

1. The title does not describe the content of the paper accurately enough.

2. Are "disadvantaged groups" and "vulnerable groups" the same meaning?

3. Some figures are not mentioned in main text, such as Figure 2, table8, etc. 

4. Some figures are not standardized or clear, such as Figure 3, 5, 6, etc.

5. The structure of the paper needs to be adjusted. Data processing is recommended not to be placed in the results.

6.The methods in section 2.2 are not written in enough detail.

Author Response

Comment from Reviewer 3

The paper proposes a GLH-based method for mobility surveys, which provides a good complement to traditional methods. I think this paper has a good contribution to the related field. There are still some minor issues that can be improved.

1. The title does not describe the content of the paper accurately enough.
2. Are "disadvantaged groups" and "vulnerable groups" the same meaning?
3. Some figures are not mentioned in main text, such as Figure 2, table8, etc. 
4. Some figures are not standardized or clear, such as Figure 3, 5, 6, etc.
5. The structure of the paper needs to be adjusted. Data processing is recommended not to be placed in the results.
6. The methods in section 2.2 are not written in enough detail.

 

Response:

 

1. We have adjusted the title into “Google Location History as an alternative data source for un-derstanding travel behavior in Medan, Binjai, and Deli Serdang (Mebidang), Indonesia”.
2. We have adjusted the words, and consistently use “vulnerable groups”
3. We have add description for the figures and tables
4. Diagrams have been standardized
5. Data processing moved to methods
6. We elaborated the methods

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for submitting a revised version of the manuscript. While some comments have been addressed, I still see room for improvement. I recommend incorporating the following revisions before considering the paper acceptable for publication in Future Transportation.

1) The contribution of the paper should be more clearly specified and demonstrated. The authors state that the study introduces innovations on multiple fronts: “Methodological: We have included a comparison with other state-of-the-art methods in the results/discussion section. Innovative Data Sources: We have compared our results with those obtained using more traditional data sources of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP). Case Study Application: We have presented a comparison with findings from existing studies to show how our results align with or differ from similar studies.” I suggest focusing on the Innovative Data Sources aspect and providing a more in-depth discussion of its novelty and implications.

2) The authors have restructured the paper to include separate introduction and state-of-the-art sections. I recommend expanding the state-of-the-art section on innovative data sources, for instance, by referencing https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2024.12.158

3) A comparison with population statistics should be included, and any potential imbalances in the data should be discussed.

4) There is significant room for improvement in the Discussion section. It should be more clearly framed within the existing literature. Additionally, I recommend discussing the study’s limitations, including the relatively small sample size on which the analysis is based.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors 2

 

I thank the authors for submitting a revised version of the manuscript. While some comments have been addressed, I still see room for improvement. I recommend incorporating the following revisions before considering the paper acceptable for publication in Future Transportation.

 

Comment 1:

The contribution of the paper should be more clearly specified and demonstrated. The authors state that the study introduces innovations on multiple fronts: “Methodological: We have included a comparison with other state-of-the-art methods in the results/discussion section. Innovative Data Sources: We have compared our results with those obtained using more traditional data sources of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP). Case Study Application: We have presented a comparison with findings from existing studies to show how our results align with or differ from similar studies.” I suggest focusing on the Innovative Data Sources aspect and providing a more in-depth discussion of its novelty and implications.

 

Response from the authors:

 

Thank you for your suggestions. We have adjusted the discussion to focus on how GLH data as an innovative data source supports more detailed analysis rather than as state-of-the-art method. Even though it is the first GLH survey in Indonesia that we know of, previous studies have been conducted with various differences in data collection method and analysis. This study builds upon existing literature and adjust it in the context of Mebidang, Indonesia.

 

Comment 2:

 

The authors have restructured the paper to include separate introduction and state-of-the-art sections. I recommend expanding the state-of-the-art section on innovative data sources, for instance, by referencing https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2024.12.158

 

Response from the authors:

 

Thank you for the suggested reference, it is a good example of how to analyse data from mobile using machine learning. We added this reference and several other references to our literature review section.

 

Comment 3:

 

A comparison with population statistics should be included, and any potential imbalances in the data should be discussed.

 

Response from the authors:

 

We have addressed this in the beginning of the results section, to highlight data imbalances and to limit generalization from this study. This study focuses on innovative data from GLH to complement the existing transportation and mobility data.

 

Comment 4:

 

There is significant room for improvement in the Discussion section. It should be more clearly framed within the existing literature. Additionally, I recommend discussing the study’s limitations, including the relatively small sample size on which the analysis is based.

 

Response from the authors:

 

We have addressed this by discussing how this study fits in with the wider literature on travel data from mobile phone. We have also highlighted again, the challenges of obtaining larger samples, and the limitation of sample size in this study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am comfortable with the revisions to the paper.

Author Response

Comment: 

I am comfortable with the revisions to the paper.

Response:

Thank you very much for providing valueable input for the paper.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for having submitted the revised version of the paper, which has been improved and have addressed all of my previous comments. Therefore, I would suggest the current version of the manuscript to be accepted for publication in the Future Transportation journal.