The Impacts of Low-Carbon Incentives and Carbon-Reduction Awareness on Airport Ground Access Mode Choice under Travel Time Uncertainty: A Hybrid CPT-MNL Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors deliver a coherent paper with an interesting addition to the commonly seen choice experiment methodology. Here are some suggestions and observations that need to be addressed in order to move forward with publication:

1. In line 112 you present the share of passengers not using public transport to travel to ZLXY. It would be useful for readers to know how these figures compare to other major airports in China (and, perhaps, others in the region or abroad).

2. The low-carbon incentives, which are one of the key elements of distinction that the study brings to its readers, are practically addressed starting with line 213. Instead of a very generic and brief discussion of low-carbon incentives between lines 71-78, a more expanded discussion, including examples of use, would help readers understand the concept that you are including in the experiment.

3. For the sake of other researchers who may wish to build upon your work, please state the software solution useed to generate the fractional orthogonal experimental design (discussed in lines 225-232). In additon, please provide some more details on the method/practical approach through which you obtained the hybrid CPT-MNL model estimations (aside from simply "based on Biogeme 412 and Python self-coding" mentioned on line 412).

4. Please consider reporting the McFadden R2 value for the model. Based on my estimations, the result shows a relatively good predictive power, which could be further discussed.

5. The conclusions between lines 521-527 are somewhat overstated and should be slightly revised towards less certainty. For example, the low-carbon incentives are only significant at the 90% confidence interval, limiting the certainty of the finding. Similarly, carbon reduction awareness is not significant for the most important mode of sustainable transportation - public transport. Please reconsider the phrasing of this section of the conclusion.

6.Finally, within the limitations, please consider what was the effect of conducting the interviews during the peak growth period of the COVID-19 pandemic, considering potential travel restrictions that may have already been in place, as well as other factors of influence.

 

There are a few relatively minor English errors that should be eliminated. Some examples include:

line 51 - "is growing interests betwee"

line 95 - "mode choie behaviors"

line 160 - "To ensure the choice tasks realistic and align with authentic experience"

There are a few relatively minor English errors that should be eliminated. Some examples include:

line 51 - "is growing interests betwee"

line 95 - "mode choie behaviors"

line 160 - "To ensure the choice tasks realistic and align with authentic experience"

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

We recommend that authors fix/address the following issues:

- some statements are too general and not supported by enough evidence/references (see, e.g., As of 2023, Xi’an Xianyang International Airport (ZLXY) has been recognized as one of the eight airports in China to receive the national “Dual Carbon Airport”..., the airport is actively pursuing,,,, the current mode shares for travels to ZLXY is 143 dominated by private cars, accounting for 60% of the trips....;Based on the data provided by the Airport authority, approximately 60% of the trips to Xi'an Xianyang International Airport (ZLXY..? (moreover, these sentence it is not complete...Based on the data provided by the Airport authority..), China are currently made???), Given the similarities between taxis and private cars?!;

- there are no supported arguments for -  study specifically included the factor of carbon-reduction percentage, which is proposed to be varying at three levels: -0%, - 197 20%, and -40%...or the carbon-reduction percentage 211 for public transport were set at three levels of -50%, -70%, and -90%...;

-  there are not mentioned the research questions;

-  there are not mentioned the research hypothesis ( and with the supported arguments);

- some information is too general or not sufficiently correlated with - a random sampling  method was employed- see - a  multi-channel approach, incuding social media platforms, email invitations (why it is randomized in this case?), and face-to-face interactions (how, where?);

- there is no sufficient data about the sample's representativeness- a comparison is made between the demographic attributes of the sample and the seventh population census of Shaanxi Province. The results indicate a relatively balanced representation in terms of gender...?;

- there are no sufficient arguments - After excluding those surveys with short response times (less than 5 minutes)?;

- there is no sufficient data about the validity and  reliability of the research method, of the internal consistency of the questionnaire;

- the research results are not discussed in light of other studies/research;

- the source of Figure 1 and Figure 2 is not specified;

- there are some spelling errors, see e.g.  decusuin-making..between..

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.The similarity of the paper is too high. After checking with the TURNITIN plagiarism detection system and excluding citations and references, the similarity still reaches 15%. Moreover, the paper contains some internet sources that have not been properly interpreted. There are issues with citations and interpretations that need to be corrected to ensure the paper meets the requirements for submission to an SSCI journal.

 

2.There are too many terms and claims with political connotations in the paper. It is recommended to remove these political propaganda or political dogma parts.

 

3.The introduction and the research conclusion should be consistent to ensure they support each other and are coherent.

 

4.The research conclusion needs further validation to ensure it is based on the research question.

 

5.The main purpose of the paper should be clearly stated as providing learning opportunities for readers.

 

6.The relevant discussion before the conclusion should be more focused, avoiding directly giving the conclusion.

 

7.The paper lacks important discussion of relevant literature in the field. It is recommended to supplement with references to relevant important concepts to enhance the academic rigor of the paper.

 

If the author can make revisions and improvements based on this reviewer's feedback, this paper has the potential to become a worthwhile read.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors are invited to address the following comments, before the final decision or a new round of review:

- draft an unstructured abstract the same as other published papers - see the instruction.

- the introduction needs to refer to a fact-based problem or motivation by referring to a fresh paper/citation.

- insert the „gap” in the literature review section.  The gap that is addressed in this paper should be clear.

- how the paper which is related to the infrastructure investment efficiency (carbon emission constraints – this is the main goal – to attempts are being made to reduce these emissions) are related to this journal's „sustainability”?

 

-can you discuss if the sample size gives reliability to the findings? How generalizable they are?".

 

 

I read the article and certain phrases can be improved in terms of expression, so small corrections in terms of English would be good. Anyway, the article is one that can be read and understood.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors,

I have included detailed comments in the manuscript file, 12 comments in total - most of which require your correction.

I also have one comment regarding the research method. You write that you are using a research experiment as a method. However, according to the definition of "An experiment is a method of data collection designed to test hypotheses under controlled conditions, with the goal to eliminate threats to internal validity.", I'm not sure if you actually used an experiment here, or rather analyzed a case. Please refer to this comment. Since my comments require your response, I recommend a "major revision", but I want to emphasize that the article is interesting and you should put some effort into improving it.

Kind regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 Accept the paper in its present form; the authors addressed the recommendations made.

Author Response

It is much appreciated that the reviewer gave us good recommendations to improve our study. Thank you!

Reviewer 3 Report

In the previous review, the reviewer provided significant revision suggestions for the manuscript. The author's commendable efforts to swiftly address these issues while maintaining scientific rigor are noteworthy. The reviewer acknowledges substantial improvements in certain aspects, applauding the author's dedication and hard work.

 

Abstract Enhancement: The abstract should be more concise and clearly express the research objectives and methods of evidence analysis, thus reinforcing its brevity.

 

Literature Review Improvement: Condense the historical background and popular science knowledge sections, focusing more on summarizing and synthesizing relevant literature to effectively present the literature review. Given that the target readership of SSCI journals comprises professionals in the relevant field, many of whom hold doctoral degrees, the author should adopt a systematic and succinct approach to present the literature review.

 

English Language Concerns: There are still some sentences and errors in the English section that require attention. The author is advised to thoroughly proofread the English and consider seeking professional English editing assistance.

English Language Concerns: There are still some sentences and errors in the English section that require attention. The author is advised to thoroughly proofread the English and consider seeking professional English editing assistance.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for responding to my recommendations and comments. The answer and the corrections made meet my expectations. The article is interesting and I think it should be published.

I wish you further publishing success.

Kind regards,

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks very much for your recognition to our research and good suggestions to improve our study. 

Wish you success in your career!

Kind regards,

The authors