Economic Impact Assessment of Regulatory Changes: A Case Study of a Proposed New ICAO Standard for Contaminated Runways
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript tackles an interesting topic that is suitable for consideration in a journal like Sustainability. There is adequate background and a detailed summary of the literature provided. The calculation of the central scenario is very detailed, well rooted in economic theory and it is supported by a good number of assumptions and references. Still, I have a few comments to help improve the quality of the manuscript. - Anote revision of written English is necessary. I noticed several instances of lack of concordance between subject and verb (see e.g. line 99)- I wonder if the driving times considered in the study do specifically account for bad weather conditions on top of the accident rates.
- The manuscript has several formatting problems (for example, line 138 is incomplete)
- What could be the reason for the deviation noted in footnotes 4 and 5? General aviation or emergency flights?
- The literature review section needs a small paragraph at the end to summarize your contribution to the CBA literature on this subject and the main methodological lessons from past studies. As it stands, the sections ends rather abruptly without a clear conclusion.
- My main concern with your results is light way in which you handle demand elasticity. I don't think using "own assessment" should be acceptable given the large number of academic and industry publications on price elasticity for air travel. I wonder if authors can support their central elasticity value with references and comment on the robustness of their conclusions to changes in the assumed price elasticity.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The reviewer’s comments are reproduced in extenso. We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments.
Point 1: Anote revision of written English is necessary. I noticed several instances of lack of concordance between subject and verb (see e.g. line 99)
Response 1: We have made minor to moderate improvements throughout the document.
Point 2: I wonder if the driving times considered in the study do specifically account for bad weather conditions on top of the accident rates.
Response 2: We have now briefly discussed this point on the middle of page 19 and in footnote 8 on page 22.
Point 3: The manuscript has several formatting problems (for example, line 138 is incomplete)
Response 3: We have corrected the formatting errors.
Point 4: What could be the reason for the deviation noted in footnotes 4 and 5? General aviation or emergency flights?
Response 4: The deviation was carried over from an earlier version, and it was later corrected. Furthermore, the table had numbers not adding up. The footnote is now removed and Table 2 is corrected (page 7). None of these flaws affected the results and conclusions, though.
Point 5: The literature review section needs a small paragraph at the end to summarize your contribution to the CBA literature on this subject and the main methodological lessons from past studies. As it stands, the sections ends rather abruptly without a clear conclusion.
Response 5: Two small paragraphs are added to the end of the literature review (page 13).
Point 6: My main concern with your results is light way in which you handle demand elasticity. I don't think using "own assessment" should be acceptable given the large number of academic and industry publications on price elasticity for air travel. I wonder if authors can support their central elasticity value with references and comment on the robustness of their conclusions to changes in the assumed price elasticity.
Response 6: “Own assessment” was indeed not precise enough. We have added text with references after Figure 4 (page 17) and changed footnote 6 in connection with Table 4 (page 21).
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper quantifies the economic effects of the proposed regulatory changes for airports.
Comments:
Please clearly state the contributions of the paper in the Introduction.
In Section 3, the authors state that a number of papers are both criticizing and supporting the applicability of CBA. How this study justifies the use of CBA and replies to the criticism of its use?
There seem to be formatting issues, such as different font sizes and missing references.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The reviewer’s comments are reproduced in extenso. We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments.
Point 1: Please clearly state the contributions of the paper in the Introduction.
Response 1: We have now stated the main contributions on page 1.
Point 2: In Section 3, the authors state that a number of papers are both criticizing and supporting the applicability of CBA. How this study justifies the use of CBA and replies to the criticism of its use?
Response 2: We have added two paragraphs to the end of the literature review (page 13).
Point 3: There seem to be formatting issues, such as different font sizes and missing references
Response 3: We have corrected the formatting issues and added a few references, missing as well as some additional ones.
