Maritime or Rail: Which of These Will Save the Planet? EU Macro-Regional Strategies and Reality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript describes, from a quantitative perspective, some variables measuring the scale of goods transport (level of greenhouse gas emissions, volume, and structure of transport, amount of investment by mode of transport) in two macro-regions, the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) and the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR). Subsequently, using data on a small set of countries, the Author(s) assess the linear relationship between the aforementioned variables.

The paper deals with an interesting topic. I believe that a slightly more advanced statistical analysis can provide further food for thought and give the paper more interest.

• In general, I would avoid the use of acronyms if their meaning has not been illustrated first (see EUSAIR and EUSBSR) in the Abstract. Their acronyms will be shown in the first section.
• Authors should discuss more in detail what their new angle adds to the literature and why their contribution can be relevant to a wider audience.
• I find the first part on general and technical aspects of EUSAIR and EUSBSR really excessive. I would like to summarise this part and give more emphasis to subsection 4.2 in which some descriptive statistical analyses are proposed. Therefore, the content of subsection 4.2 should also be reorganised more effectively.
• I would suggest to the Author(s) to go beyond the simple correlation analysis and try, through regression methods, to study the potential cause-effect relationship between the variables. Linear correlation investigates the interdependence between variables without assuming any causality. I would invite the Author(s) to explore and, subsequently, discuss potential causal dependency between these variables (please, see Castellano et al., 2019). Then, the linear correlation methodology is intuitive and well known to all. Therefore, I would avoid wasting space to report and illustrate the formulas.
• Table 9 itself makes no sense, at least in the way it is reported. This is the data matrix on which correlation analyses were performed. If the Author(s) want to report the data matrix, I would suggest putting it in the Appendix or reorganising the content in the form of a statistical table that is really informative. The way in which Pearson’s linear correlation coefficients are proposed also seems ineffective. Is it not more appropriate to show the correlation matrix? Then, what is the use of reporting the determination coefficient (R squared) if no regression analysis has been performed?

Additional references:

Castellano, R., Musella, G., Punzo, G. (2019). Exploring changes in the employment structure and wage inequality in Western Europe using the unconditional quantile regression. Empirica, 46(2), 249-304.

Author Response

Warsaw/Olsztyn/Lodz, 15.02.2022

Karolina Krzykowska-Piotrowska
Warsaw University of Technology

Marek Piotrowski, Anna Organiściak-Krzykowska
University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn

Emilia Kwiatkowska
Spatial Planning Office of the Lodz Region in Lodz

Dear Distinguished Reviewer of the Sustainability Journal,

thank You very much for considering our manuscript entitled “Maritime or rail-which of these will save the planet? EU macro-regional strategies and reality”. We are also very grateful for the review report obtained. Taking into account the Reviewer comments and suggestions for authors we submit point-by-point answers below (in blue).

Thank You for considering this article. Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to [email protected] .

Sincerely,
Authors

Dr. Karolina Krzykowska-Piotrowska
Dr. Marek Piotrowski
Prof. Anna Organiściak-Krzykowska
Dr. Emilia Kwiatkowska

Reviewer 1:

The manuscript describes, from a quantitative perspective, some variables measuring the scale of goods transport (level of greenhouse gas emissions, volume, and structure of transport, amount of investment by mode of transport) in two macro-regions, the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) and the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR). Subsequently, using data on a small set of countries, the Author(s) assess the linear relationship between the aforementioned variables.

The paper deals with an interesting topic. I believe that a slightly more advanced statistical analysis can provide further food for thought and give the paper more interest.

We would like to thank the Reviewer for all the valuable recommendations provided in the review, which contributed to the broadening of our image of the article and its content. The answers to individual points are included below.

In general, I would avoid the use of acronyms if their meaning has not been illustrated first (see EUSAIR and EUSBSR) in the Abstract. Their acronyms will be shown in the first section.

Thank You for this remark. Of course, the Reviewer is right. We developed the abbreviations the first time they were used, in the abstract (p. 1, l. 20-21).

Authors should discuss more in detail what their new angle adds to the literature and why their contribution can be relevant to a wider audience.

Thank you for this remark. The new approach presented in the article is described in part 1. Introduction (p. 2-3, l. 92-109). An excerpt on the new contribution of research to the literature has also been added. The content is as follows:

„The new approach presented in the article includes aspects concerning, inter alia:

- analysis and evaluation of the coherence of several policies, i.e. macro-regional strategies, White Paper on Transport, EU funds spending under CEF;

- the allocation of EU CEF funds and the coherence of these investments with the strategies of macro-regions;

- verification of the correlation of investments with CEF and the volume of transport in individual countries and macro-regions;

- isolation of rail transport as the one with the largest invested resources, and omitted in the strategies of macro-regions;

- indication of differences between the strategies of macro-regions and the White Paper on Transport;

- identifying gaps in EU action in the context of transport decarbonization;

- verification of policy assumptions with reality.

The novelty of the paper may constitute a significant contribution to the literature, and may also be treated as a form of recommendation for regulatory institutions or bodies preparing regional development strategies. So far, no work has been done on a document which is a critical analysis of the coherence of the macro-regions strategies and the White Paper on Transport.”

I find the first part on general and technical aspects of EUSAIR and EUSBSR really excessive. I would like to summarise this part and give more emphasis to subsection 4.2 in which some descriptive statistical analyses are proposed. Therefore, the content of subsection 4.2 should also be reorganised more effectively.

Thank you very much for this important remark. We changed the layout of Chapter 4 quite a bit. Firstly, we significantly shortened the description of the TEN-T corridors in part 4.1. We have only left the key information about the corridors passing through the described macro-regions. Secondly, in section 4.2. we removed some of the graphs, especially those showing the intensity of the phenomenon in selected countries, and not entire macro-regions. We hope that the new layout of this part of the article will be more readable for the recipient.

I would suggest to the Author(s) to go beyond the simple correlation analysis and try, through regression methods, to study the potential cause-effect relationship between the variables. Linear correlation investigates the interdependence between variables without assuming any causality. I would invite the Author(s) to explore and, subsequently, discuss potential causal dependency between these variables (please, see Castellano et al., 2019). Then, the linear correlation methodology is intuitive and well known to all. Therefore, I would avoid wasting space to report and illustrate the formulas.

Thank you for this opinion. We agree with the Reviewer's proposal and decided to add a completely new point 4.5., which presents the econometric model to assess the significance and influence direction of the volume of freight transport on the amount of air pollution with greenhouse gases. The conclusions of this model are presented in two places: at the end of section 4.5. and in chapter 5. Due to the introduction of a completely new point, model and research concept, we could not omit the full description of the model with the formulas. The new elements must also be fully legible for the second Reviewer. So we count on your understanding in this matter. Unfortunately, adding a new item despite the reduction of other parts of the article increases the overall volume of the publication.

Table 9 itself makes no sense, at least in the way it is reported. This is the data matrix on which correlation analyses were performed. If the Author(s) want to report the data matrix, I would suggest putting it in the Appendix or reorganising the content in the form of a statistical table that is really informative. The way in which Pearson’s linear correlation coefficients are proposed also seems ineffective. Is it not more appropriate to show the correlation matrix? Then, what is the use of reporting the determination coefficient (R squared) if no regression analysis has been performed?

In fact, we decided to move Table 9 to Appendix A. Regarding the second part of the question, we hope that now it makes sense to present the coefficient (R squared), as regression analysis has also been developed. At the same time, we hope that this form of adapting the article meets the Reviewer's expectations.

Additional references:

Castellano, R., Musella, G., Punzo, G. (2019). Exploring changes in the employment structure and wage inequality in Western Europe using the unconditional quantile regression. Empirica, 46(2), 249-304.

Thank You for suggestion. This publication has been added to the references list.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

A well-thought-out strategy for shaping the future of transport is a challenge for both individual countries and the EU as a whole. The answer to which modes of transport should be prioritized in the context of ongoing and planned investments should largely depend on their observable and predicted environmental impact. The main objectives of the study were to identify common assumptions and differences between EUSAIR and EUSBSR in terms of sustainable transport, and to critically assess the compliance of EUSAIR and EUSBSR with the provisions of the White Paper. In the light of the documentation, reports, strategies and assumptions under analysis, it seems appropriate to clearly emphasize the role of rail transport in reducing transport carbon dioxide. According to the authors, this transport sector can significantly reduce emissions and thus contribute to the so-called "green deal". However, for this to happen, many activities are needed, not just investment. In particular, the compatibility of regional strategies with the European Transport Development Plan in the White Paper is worth noting. The authors attempted to diagnose linear relationships between the volume of freight transport between different modes of transport based on CEF costs.Some interesting conclusions can be drawn from the statistical considerations presented.Disadvantages: The style of writing the article is reminiscent of a book for teaching students, the text describes the projects and transport corridors in too much detail. I suggest shortening the text The essence is a comparison of transport development between the two regions, but the conclusions do not reflect this, they are limited to general statements. Highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the strategies of the regions being compared? Deeper insights can be provided based on the performed linear correlation analysis. To better substantiate the results of the correlation analysis, which analysis methods would be appropriate in the future,Is it possible to compare other macro-regions on the same basis and what difficulties will we face?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Warsaw/Olsztyn/Lodz, 15.02.2022

Karolina Krzykowska-Piotrowska
Warsaw University of Technology

Marek Piotrowski, Anna Organiściak-Krzykowska
University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn

Emilia Kwiatkowska
Spatial Planning Office of the Lodz Region in Lodz

Dear Distinguished Reviewer of the Sustainability Journal,

thank You very much for considering our manuscript entitled “Maritime or rail-which of these will save the planet? EU macro-regional strategies and reality”. We are also very grateful for the review report obtained. Taking into account the Reviewer comments and suggestions for authors we submit point-by-point answers below (in blue).

Thank You for considering this article. Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to [email protected] .

Sincerely,
Authors

Dr. Karolina Krzykowska-Piotrowska
Dr. Marek Piotrowski
Prof. Anna Organiściak-Krzykowska
Dr. Emilia Kwiatkowska

Reviewer 2:

We would like to thank the Reviewer for all the valuable recommendations provided in the review, which contributed to the broadening of our image of the article and its content. The answers to individual points are included below.

A well-thought-out strategy for shaping the future of transport is a challenge for both individual countries and the EU as a whole. The answer to which modes of transport should be prioritized in the context of ongoing and planned investments should largely depend on their observable and predicted environmental impact. The main objectives of the study were to identify common assumptions and differences between EUSAIR and EUSBSR in terms of sustainable transport, and to critically assess the compliance of EUSAIR and EUSBSR with the provisions of the White Paper. In the light of the documentation, reports, strategies and assumptions under analysis, it seems appropriate to clearly emphasize the role of rail transport in reducing transport carbon dioxide. According to the authors, this transport sector can significantly reduce emissions and thus contribute to the so-called "green deal". However, for this to happen, many activities are needed, not just investment. In particular, the compatibility of regional strategies with the European Transport Development Plan in the White Paper is worth noting. The authors attempted to diagnose linear relationships between the volume of freight transport between different modes of transport based on CEF costs.Some interesting conclusions can be drawn from the statistical considerations presented.

Disadvantages:

The style of writing the article is reminiscent of a book for teaching students, the text describes the projects and transport corridors in too much detail. I suggest shortening the text.

Thank you very much for this important remark. In chapter 3, we have significantly shortened tables 1 and 3. We have only left in them exemplary, illustrative information. We also changed the layout of chapter 4 quite a bit. Firstly, we significantly shortened the description of the TEN-T corridors in part 4.1. We have only left the key information about the corridors passing through the described macro-regions. Secondly, in section 4.2. we removed some of the graphs, especially those showing the intensity of the phenomenon in selected countries, and not entire macro-regions. We hope that the new layout of this part of the article will be more readable for the recipient.

The essence is a comparison of transport development between the two regions, but the conclusions do not reflect this, they are limited to general statements. Highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the strategies of the regions being compared?

Thank you for this remark. The conclusions now also include the results of new analyzes carried out additionally with the use of an econometric model. The strengths and weaknesses of the strategies are highlighted in table 4 and at the beggining of chapter 3.3 (l. 366-378).

Deeper insights can be provided based on the performed linear correlation analysis. To better substantiate the results of the correlation analysis, which analysis methods would be appropriate in the future,

Thank you for this opinion. We agree with the Reviewer's proposal and decided to add a completely new point 4.5., which presents the econometric model to assess the significance and influence direction of the volume of freight transport on the amount of air pollution with greenhouse gases. The conclusions of this model are presented in two places: at the end of section 4.5. and in chapter 5. Due to the introduction of a completely new point, model and research concept, we could not omit the full description of the model with the formulas. The new elements must also be fully legible for the second Reviewer. So we count on your understanding in this matter. Unfortunately, adding a new item despite the reduction of other parts of the article increases the overall volume of the publication.

Is it possible to compare other macro-regions on the same basis and what difficulties will we face?

It is worth emphasizing that the selection of macro-regions in this case was deliberate and resulted from numerous similarities between them, which were emphasized in the study. Of course, it is possible to investigate the linear relationships between the analyzed variables, also taking into account other macro-regions. Thank you for such a suggestion. It is an inspiration for us to work on the entire series of articles focused on this subject.

We hope that this form of adapting the article meets the Reviewer's expectations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors have successfully implemented my comments. I believe the paper can be published in its current form. Best regards.

Author Response

Thank You for Your valuable suggestions.