Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study uses a mixed methods approach to study how residents of two residential developments with flexible parking requirements and mobility packages changed their parking habits, use of mobility services, and car ownership. The authors’ methods nicely match their theoretical approach, and the entire study yields interesting and policy-relevant insights, especially with respect to the importance of mobility services such as carsharing and transit.

The authors do a nice job weaving in some references in the introduction to motivate the paper. I think they could make their argument stronger, though, and also provide a bit more context, if they incorporated some further background in a number of different areas. For example, in addition to the arguments against minimum car parking standards listed in lines 36-39, the authors should consider dedicating some space to noting and quantifying the negative externalities of minimum parking standards, such as stormwater runoff, greenfield development, and induced travel. Good references include:

Chester et al 2010

McCahill et al 2016

They could also strengthen their argument by noting that in many cases the space that is allocated to cars is underutilized, even at times of peak demand (i.e., at night). Example studies that have documented this include:

Single-family residential neighborhoods:

Roth 2016

Schlossberg & Amos 2015

Multi-family residential neighborhoods:

Thigpen 2018

Willson and Roberts 2011

Commercial settings

Marshall & Garrick 2006

The sections devoted to interpreting the results in light of SPT could also benefit from acknowledging the theoretical and applied work of scholars focusing on the concept of “motility”, which is closely aligned with the meaning of the quote from Shove & Pantzar (lines 412-413). Example work includes:

Flamm & Kaufmann 2006

Kaufmann and Wilmer 2006

Shliseberg and Givoni 2017

Lastly, there is a whole literature using the mobility biographies approach as a framework to understand the role of life events, such as residential relocation, marriage, childbirth, etc., on travel behavior. This study represents a special case of this literature, in that it looks at a particular type of residential relocation, where the new residence is in some ways a “treatment” relative to the predominant development standards and patterns. Good references include:

Muggenburg et al 2015

Scheiner 2018

Maybe consider creating a “Study Area” section for the paragraph starting on line 99, and perhaps moving it down into the Materials and Methods section? There is a natural break here that would be useful to flag for readers.

I would get rid of the paragraph starting on line 176.

Section 3.2.1 is very thorough - at times, I wanted to see the data presented in a table, as it could be difficult to keep everything straight.

Figures 3 and 4 needs a y-axis label, and the caption should note that the numbers presented are averages. It would also be useful to differentiate private car use from car club/carshare use. Does that account for the relatively stable car us in HOA Haninge?

The conclusion asserted in section 4.2, lines 416-417, doesn’t seem entirely accurate. The authors describe lower car use in HOA Elvsjoe but similar rates of car use (driver + passenger) in HOA Haninge. More accurate would be to say that the authors observe an increase in transit use.

Was there a reservation system available for the car club/carshare program?

To what extent do the authors feel that the patterns they observe are due to self-selection (i.e. people naturally inclined to lower car ownership and use being attracted to a setting with less car parking availability) versus the impacts of the policy itself? I think the authors can comment on this, but it would be useful in any case for them to mention this travel behavior research dilemma. Relevant literature includes:

Handy et al 2005

General comments:

At times, the writing in this paper was a little confusing, with vague, awkward, or non-standard word choices. I would highly suggest the authors ask a peer review the paper for grammatical issues. For example: line 16 uses commas in an unusual way, “indicatively” on line 18 is a unclear word choice, “respectively” on line 19 is also unclear in this context, “slow and unspectacular” on lines 21-22 is unclear, etc.

There are also a few instances where a clarification/translation might be useful - for example, the authors use the term “car club” and “bicycle club” to refer to what I think would be called “carshare program” or “bikeshare program” in the US.

Author Response

Reviewer 1.

This study uses a mixed methods approach to study how residents of two residential developments with flexible parking requirements and mobility packages changed their parking habits, use of mobility services, and car ownership. The authors’ methods nicely match their theoretical approach, and the entire study yields interesting and policy-relevant insights, especially with respect to the importance of mobility services such as carsharing and transit.

The authors do a nice job weaving in some references in the introduction to motivate the paper. I think they could make their argument stronger, though, and also provide a bit more context, if they incorporated some further background in a number of different areas. For example, in addition to the arguments against minimum car parking standards listed in lines 36-39, the authors should consider dedicating some space to noting and quantifying the negative externalities of minimum parking standards, such as stormwater runoff, greenfield development, and induced travel. Good references include:

Chester et al 2010

McCahill et al 2016

They could also strengthen their argument by noting that in many cases the space that is allocated to cars is underutilized, even at times of peak demand (i.e., at night). Example studies that have documented this include:

Single-family residential neighborhoods:

Roth 2016

Schlossberg & Amos 2015

Multi-family residential neighborhoods:

Thigpen 2018

Willson and Roberts 2011

Commercial settings

Marshall & Garrick 2006

- Thank you for your comments and constructive feedback. We have added some more references on line 40-41 and line 42-43, as a way to provide a better and more nuanced picture of the drawbacks with minimum parking standards.

The sections devoted to interpreting the results in light of SPT could also benefit from acknowledging the theoretical and applied work of scholars focusing on the concept of “motility”, which is closely aligned with the meaning of the quote from Shove & Pantzar (lines 412-413). Example work includes:

Flamm & Kaufmann 2006

Kaufmann and Wilmer 2006

Shliseberg and Givoni 2017

- Thank you for the suggestions. The motility concept is indeed tightly connected to our theoretical approach. We have paragraphs with reference to motility on line 487 - 493 and 516-525.

Lastly, there is a whole literature using the mobility biographies approach as a framework to understand the role of life events, such as residential relocation, marriage, childbirth, etc., on travel behavior. This study represents a special case of this literature, in that it looks at a particular type of residential relocation, where the new residence is in some ways a “treatment” relative to the predominant development standards and patterns. Good references include:

Muggenburg et al 2015

Scheiner 2018

- The concept of mobility biographies is also relevant for our study, especially as we are studying a shift in life events with potential impact on travel habits. We have added a paragraph about this on line 146-154 .

Maybe consider creating a “Study Area” section for the paragraph starting on line 99, and perhaps moving it down into the Materials and Methods section? There is a natural break here that would be useful to flag for readers.

- We have added a section for Study area. See line 212 (section 2.1)

I would get rid of the paragraph starting on line 176.

- This paragraph has been deleted.

Section 3.2.1 is very thorough - at times, I wanted to see the data presented in a table, as it could be difficult to keep everything straight.

- Thank you for the feedback. We think it’s easier to read with a table, and have added table 2, together with an explanation, on line 304-313.

Figures 3 and 4 needs a y-axis label, and the caption should note that the numbers presented are averages. It would also be useful to differentiate private car use from car club/carshare use. Does that account for the relatively stable car use in HOA Haninge?

- We have added labels for figure 1-4.

- Regarding the stability of car use in HOA Haninge, the questionnire does not explicitly differentiate between car trips with a car club and other car trips. However, among the 14 people in the panel (who answered both surveys in HOA Haninge) only one had used the car club, and he had only made one car trips during the survey week (0 trips before). The increase in number of car trips with the car club thus seems marginal, and cannot explain the stability in travel habits. More likely explanations are the following:

- The residents in HOA Haninge had only lived in the residencies up to 2 of months before they answered the questionnaire (they moved in during Sept. 2018 and the survey was answered around 1-2 months later). Results from the interviews and data from the car club provider indicate that it takes time for a new travel practice to grow and recruit new practitioners. Larger changes in travel patterns might be expected in the long term (which we intend to follow up in a new research project).

- The bicycle club was not in place at the time of answering the questionnaire (it is now in place and data indicate that the bicycle club is used frequently by a not insignificant proportion of the residents)

- Parking fees. The parking facility is still not finished (expected to be finished by December 2019). The residents can park on a provisional parking in the meantime. The cost for a parking space at the provisional parking is 500 sek per month. The cost will increase to 1000 sek per month when the parking facility is finished. This may affect the car ownership.

- Explanations about the above has been added on line 100-104, line 353 and footnote 2 and 3.

The conclusion asserted in section 4.2, lines 416-417, doesn’t seem entirely accurate. The authors describe lower car use in HOA Elvsjoe but similar rates of car use (driver + passenger) in HOA Haninge. More accurate would be to say that the authors observe an increase in transit use.

- Thank you for the observation. We have changed this in the abstract, on line 100 - 104 and line 612 - 616

Was there a reservation system available for the car club/carshare program?

- There is a reservation system available. We have added an explanation about this on line 287-288 and line 295-296.

To what extent do the authors feel that the patterns they observe are due to self-selection (i.e. people naturally inclined to lower car ownership and use being attracted to a setting with less car parking availability) versus the impacts of the policy itself? I think the authors can comment on this, but it would be useful in any case for them to mention this travel behavior research dilemma. Relevant literature includes:

Handy et al 2005

- This is an important comment that we have discussed among the authors, but not addressed in the first version of the paper. Thank you for pointing this out. We have added text about this on line 151 -154, footnote 4 about our interview method, line 196-207 and footnote 7 about the issue with self-selection bias and analytical generalizations, line 469 – 476 about reasons for moving to the apartments, line 539 – 546, line 645-662 about the discussion about analytical generalization.

General comments:

At times, the writing in this paper was a little confusing, with vague, awkward, or non-standard word choices. I would highly suggest the authors ask a peer review the paper for grammatical issues. For example: line 16 uses commas in an unusual way, “indicatively” on line 18 is a unclear word choice, “respectively” on line 19 is also unclear in this context, “slow and unspectacular” on lines 21-22 is unclear, etc.

- The paper has now been language checked.

There are also a few instances where a clarification/translation might be useful - for example, the authors use the term “car club” and “bicycle club” to refer to what I think would be called “carshare program” or “bikeshare program” in the US.

- Car club is the term used in the UK. This article is written in British English.  But at least in the first mention (abstract) we have used the term car (sharing) club.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article concerns a very current topic in the field of new sustainable mobility. The text is based on the authors' own research. In addition, it invokes a case study. 

I have only a few minor editing corrections:

Please sign the axes of the graph presented as Figures 1,2,3 and 4. I suggest to correct in the text English phrases in such a way to write in the third person, for example, "something has been done" and not personally like "we did."

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The article concerns a very current topic in the field of new sustainable mobility. The text is based on the authors' own research. In addition, it invokes a case study. 

I have only a few minor editing corrections:

Please sign the axes of the graph presented as Figures 1,2,3 and 4.

- Thank you for your review and comments. We have added labels to the tables.

I suggest to correct in the text English phrases in such a way to write in the third person, for example, "something has been done" and not personally like "we did."

- We have sent the paper for a language check, and now resubmit the checked/amended version..

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper does some interesting work, and I like it. The main problem with this paper, and it is a substantial problem, is that (if I understand correctly) it uses case studies of private developments to make claims about the likely effectiveness of public interventions. This approach raises serious concerns about self-selection. The people who moved into these HOAs did so knowing that private vehicle access would be restricted. It is therefore at least possible, and maybe even likely, that they had some unobserved predisposition toward driving less to start. These people may have chosen their housing because they wanted to change their travel behavior, and if this is the case it is not appropriate to suggest—as the article does—that they changed their travel behavior because of their housing choice. Possibly the authors cannot control for this issue. But the issue must at the very least be discussed, and the implications of the study should be changed to reflect this concern. Otherwise the paper is not valid as-is. Without addressing selection, the most we have here is a very interesting qualitative examination of how people who decide to go car-lite are able to make that transition. That’s useful, but it says little about the impact of compulsory municipal policies.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Open Review

This paper does some interesting work, and I like it. The main problem with this paper, and it is a substantial problem, is that (if I understand correctly) it uses case studies of private developments to make claims about the likely effectiveness of public interventions. This approach raises serious concerns about self-selection. The people who moved into these HOAs did so knowing that private vehicle access would be restricted.

It is therefore at least possible, and maybe even likely, that they had some unobserved predisposition toward driving less to start. These people may have chosen their housing because they wanted to change their travel behavior, and if this is the case it is not appropriate to suggest—as the article does—that they changed their travel behavior because of their housing choice.

Possibly the authors cannot control for this issue. But the issue must at the very least be discussed, and the implications of the study should be changed to reflect this concern. Otherwise the paper is not valid as-is. Without addressing selection, the most we have here is a very interesting qualitative examination of how people who decide to go car-lite are able to make that transition. That’s useful, but it says little about the impact of compulsory municipal policies.

- Thank your for your review. This is an important comment that we have already discussed among the authors, but not addressed sufficiently in the first version of the paper. Thank you for pointing this out. We have added text about this on line 151 -154, footnote 4 about our interview method, line 196-207 and footnote 7 about the issue with self-selection bias and analytical generalizations, line 469 – 476 about reasons for moving to the apartments, line 539 – 546, line 645-662 about the discussion about analytical generalization.

- The projects evaluates two block of flats being built according to new parking policies (replacing the traditional minimum standards). The new standards make it possible for developers to build fewer parking spaces if the provide so-called mobility services. We have added more text about this in the beginning of the paper (line 84-87)

- You are right that residents that move to the new apartments may do so as they have a predisposition towards driving less (and more car dependent people not moving to the apartments). To what extent the choice of specifically these dwellings was a result of a predisposition towards driving less, was studied through the interviews. From this we got mostly negative findings, that the choice of these dwellings was not to any detectable degree a result of a predisposition towards driving less, rather the interviewees told mainly about other reasons for choosing these dwellings. Of course, the opposite is still reasonable to believe, and we actually believe so: individuals who are strongly predisposed to carry on driving private cars have not chosen these dwellings, and if they have moved there, and experienced problems with parking or private driving, they are more likely to move away. But about this we have little information, we have not interviewed people who didn’t move in, or have possibly already moved out, for such reasons. However, as a part of the study we contacted the developers and asked whether they knew about potential buyers who chose not to buy an apartment due to the relatively few number of parking spaces (see lines 194-196 in the revised manuscript). To clarify our stance on this we have pointed out that the generalizations in our paper are not based on statistical generalizations but analytical generalizations, see e g lines 645-662.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I think the authors have now done a reasonable job of addressing my concerns as best they can given their data constraints. I must say, though, that I find their footnote incomprehensible. It's probably best to simply admit you cant fully control for self-selection, rather than resort to gobbledygook about the difference between isolating variables and seeing them as holistic and mutually constituent. Or, at the very least, write in plain language.

 

I am comfortable with this being published.