Is a Carbon-Neutral Pathway in Road Transport Possible? A Case Study from Slovakia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 9-10 – perhaps there is a typo in numbers? 99% seems a bit too much (cf. line 59) or perhaps clarify this figure more because it is unclear what it means
Line 39-41 – the nexus of transport sector and the climate change should be described in more detail with some more references
Part 2.1 – could you explain in more detail why the COPERT model was used and what other alternatives are used while performing similar measures?
Line 141–145 – could you discuss the issue of privacy protection for the used data? I suppose the data were aggregated in some way to also comply with GDPR
In the paper you discuss electric vehicles and how their rate will increase, this seems like a linear understanding, would you consider that the number of vehicles was decreasing as a result of new modes or new ways to use vehicles (e.g. more car sharing and therefore less overall cars)?
You are referring to Slovakia as a single unit, but one of the characteristics of the country is a huge regional polarization, in particular the capital and the regions on the far east. This is important because in your research you focus a lot on electric vehicles whose affordability is an issue and will remain an issue (and therefore people buy used engine cars which have huge emissions). I would advise to address this issue at least in the discussion.
What are the limitations of this study? What are the limits of the used methodology? Each solid research needs to address this.
What do you suggest as the implications of your study and what is the added value you are offering? You have plenty of space in the discussion / conclusion section to discuss this and focus on what new you have found using this COPERT model.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
sustainabolity-2519904-review-V1
Is a carbon-neutral road transport in small countries possible? 2 A case study in Slovakia
This study explores various emission reduction strategies for the road transport sector, including reducing travel demand, improving efficiency, and utilizing advanced technologies with alternative fuels. Overall, the paper focus on an interesting and important topic. However, I think the authors need to address the following comments.
1. It is suggested that the manuscript should be more precise. The current version exposes travel demand, efficiency and alternative fuels as factors to reduce carbon emission in Abstract section. However, in Results and discussion section or in COPERT model section, it seems to miss the discussion.
2. It is suggested to discuss the successful experiences from other countries, which may be possible solutions of carbon-neutral road transport. Some examples include demand responsive bus system, electric bus system, and so on. Please refer to the following publications.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2022.10.008
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.09.022
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-023-02411-6
3. The section 2.1 is more like an introduction to the COPERT model on emission analysis, which does not match the title of "Establishing emission inventories, reference and base years". Consider revising the title of 2.1.
4. Some words have ambiguous meanings. For example, in 2.4, what is “Silver Bullet (SB) scenarios”? And what difference between Silver Bullet and Low-Carbon scenarios? It’s ambiguous. A simple sentence is required to explain. In Figure 2 and Figure 5, what is ‘TJ’? Please double-check and explain ambiguous words in this paper.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article ‘Is a carbon-neutral road transport in small countries possible? A case study in Slovakia’’ is interested article, however, it require major changes. Moreover the technical, novel side of the paper is very week. Following are the comments for the authors to improve the article:
Ø The article title is a general statement, authors are suggested to re-write the title with the research impact and novelty perspective.
Ø Also please avoid general information in the title i.e. small countries.
Ø A lot of research is going on carbon-neutral road transport. How authors claim the new aspect for the need of this publication?
Ø Problem statement should be mentioned at the start of the abstract, Why the study is important? What is the novelty aspect?
Ø What is the base of selection of this study? Author should define some specific criteria.
Ø Section of literature review should be merged in Introduction section instead of separate section.
Ø The keywords should be specific.
Ø Cumulative references should be avoided. There should be only 1-2 references. Instead of merging references, authors should add more up to date and state of the art literature, if possible.
Ø Table 1: 1990 and 2019 Slovakia road transport energy use and GHG emissions by subsector should include some reference.
Ø Table 3 and 4 should be presented in graphical form instead of tabular form.
Ø Table 5 is mere a literature review. It should be added in introduction section.
Ø There should be some statistical figured values in the abstract which can quantify the research / optimization and it can make readership of the journal easy.
Ø Figure 3 and 4: what is the representation at Y axis? Please mention on axis.
Ø There are few old references, authors are encouraged to add latest literature.
Ø There are same type of results presented. Paper need data analysis on the results from different perspectives.
Ø Conclusion section is totally missing. It should be added and should be compact and straightforward.
moderate
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Good job, thanks for including my comments and other reviewers' comments
Reviewer 2 Report
I have no more comments.
Minor editing of English language required.
Reviewer 3 Report
accept
ok
