The Influence of Origin Attributes on the Destination Choice of Discretionary Home-Based Walk Trips

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research require hard and intense work which is obvious throughout the paper. I have included some suggestions on the attached file.  I would also work on the paragraphs (some are too short). In addition, I am not "convinced" regarding significance, limitations and suggestions. It would make the paper stronger if you reworked them.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current article is an interesting article however several issues must be corrected in order to be publication:

 

1.      The article collects data based on 4,729 questionnaires, but only 1,547 individuals responded regarding past-day walk trips. It would be useful to describe the specific information included in those questionnaires. Additionally, it is not clear how some information was collected and estimated (e.g., non-walk trip rate, travel rate comparisons between men and women, etc.). It would also be beneficial to explain why the period for questionnaire collection was from August to November and how this period is relevant to the study.

2.      The accessibility was estimated using the indicator Ped distance, which was declared as: „Ped distanceij represents the distance between the centroids of zones i and j. If i equals j, this distance is set equal to the square of the area of that zone”. This type of calculation of Pedestrian distance is not correct since does not take in consideration the actual street network, blocks, pedestrian crossings, so on. The accessibility must be estimated based on real data not starting from centers of different areas (centroid analysis). Since this element is an extremely important one, it should be corrected.

3.      The usage of Herfindal-Hershman Index (HHI)in this article is extremely interesting. It should be better described.

4.      The authors should correct the first equation (1). It has missing elements.

5.      The authors should detail the Equation 3, especially what Beta represents and which are the data specifically used for it.

6.      After analyzing the article, it is not clear at all if the results can be replicated on a different set of data.

 

Analyzing the article's results, discussion, and conclusions, we can observe that some conclusions appear evident from the outset. For instance, individuals living in unattractive neighborhoods are likely to walk, visit, and spend time in more attractive neighborhoods rather than in other unattractive ones. Another logical conclusion from the article is that "the behavior of the age variable in the models indicates that individuals of both younger and older ages tend to choose destinations closer to them for walk trips and avoid traveling to distant zones." Additionally, people often travel to external areas for "utility walks."

The article needs to be revised, especially regarding accessibility, to be prepared for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I find your paper very interesting, and satisfactory in the merit of scientifical contribution. The structure is fine and clear, and all illustrations are good, in the context of the research. Sections, starting with Introduction, then Literature Review, Methodology, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions are well tailored and explained. 

In the beginning, clarify all possible pedestrian needs and necessary or choice and pleasure walk trips (I will try to attach some schematic drawings about the topic, that may inspire you) and possible obstacles (crime/safety issues, weather/climatic conditions, accessibility, gender/age preferences...).

Maybe you can consult some extra references, classics in the sphere of the urban public space, and choices of use, such as Gehl Architects, Urban Quality Consultants: Towards the fine City for People, Public spaces and public life – London; 2004. OR Gehl J.: Life Between Buildings, Using Public Space; The Danish Architectural Press, København, 2006.

OR

 

 

 https://www.pps.org/publications 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944363.2022.2123382#2b85d6ca-6520-4a3d-8e4a-aa9f2ee3f33d-b6de7b7c-de82-45a5-9538-313dd15c6659 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920920306040

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study introduces a method focusing on the origin characteristics of walking trips, a less explored planning area. This could help bridge a gap in the existing literature and improve planning models. Using choice logit models to study how socioeconomic and environmental factors impact destination choices, the research brings aspects of urban insights to the field.

 

The literature review is thorough, encompassing studies on similar subjects, demonstrating a solid grasp of the field. However, it could elaborate more on how it differs from or builds upon methodologies and findings to position itself better in current research trends. This would justify the methods employed.

 

The robust theoretical framework establishes connections between urban planning theories and the empirical analyses conducted. Using a logit model aligns well with the data and research questions. Moreover, certain aspects of the methodology, such as choice set selection and limitations, could be further clarified to address any biases or design constraints.

 

To enrich the discussion further, it would be beneficial to address potential study limitations and propose future research directions based on the findings. While the paper outlines the implications, it could benefit from providing more specific recommendations for practitioners and explaining how these findings could directly impact public policy.

Lines 33-62: While the introduction highlights the study's importance, it could strengthen its connection to a theoretical framework. Linking the hypotheses would offer a more solid theoretical basis for this study. One way to relate this through the study is to theories of urban morphology or human behavioral geography.

 

Lines 119-152: Although the literature review is thorough, it could further clarify how this research builds upon or differs from previous studies. Creating a table summarizing past findings and comparing them to the current study's results would help highlight this paper's unique contribution to the field.

Lines 228-251: The section discussing study variables should explain why these specific variables were chosen and how they align with the hypotheses under examination. Additionally, discussing why certain potential variables that might impact the model were excluded could add insights.

Lines 289-321: Should explain the underlying assumptions behind selecting the logistic model used in this study. These assumptions could impact the study results by restricting the understanding of the causal connections between different variables.

Lines 387-421: Although the data has been statistically analyzed, it would be beneficial to have a thorough examination of the implications of key variables. One approach could involve clarifying the significance of coefficients in simple language or demonstrating how changes in factors such as green space availability or land use diversity could influence walkability ratings across various cities.

Lines 500-512: It is essential to broaden the discussion on policy implications by proposing urban planning strategies or policy measures that can be guided by the research outcomes. This may involve offering suggestions for urban zoning regulations, public space design, or transportation policies aimed at promoting walkability.

Lines 605-617: Expanding on the limitations section to address biases stemming from data collection methods (e.g., online surveys) and geographical focus (Shiraz City) would be valuable. Exploring how these limitations might impact the applicability of findings and suggesting ways to mitigate them in studies would enhance the study's robustness.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations! You corrected all the issues properly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx