External Transport Costs and Implications for Sustainable Transport Policy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "External Transport Costs and Implications for Sustainable Transport Policy" presents an insightful exploration of the external costs associated with different transport modalities. The identification and quantification of external costs using the INCONE60 Cargo Flow Model is commendable. It contributes significantly to understanding the broader implications of transport decisions on sustainability and public health.

However, there are several areas for improvement:

While the draft is comprehensive, it occasionally suffers from verbose explanations. Simplifying complex sentences and removing redundancy will enhance readability and retain the reader's attention. For example, the discussion of statistical methods could be streamlined to focus more on findings rather than procedural details.

The organization of content can be refined for a smoother narrative flow. For instance, the implications for sustainable transport policy could be integrated more cohesively with results to create a stronger connection between findings and recommendations.

While the local context is essential, expanding the discussion on how these findings align with global sustainability goals and trends in transport policy could provide a richer context and wider relevance.

To strengthen the theoretical framework and provide greater context, the authors should refer to more recent publications in the field. Studies such as the followings can provide additional insights and support for the arguments presented:

Enhancing supply chain relationships in the circular economy: Strategies for a green centralized supply chain with deteriorating products, Journal of Environmental Management, 367, p.121738, 2024.

Promoting green supply chain under carbon tax, carbon cap, and carbon trading policies, Business Strategy and the Environment, 2024.

Ensure consistency in referencing styles throughout the document. Adding a few more recent studies or statistics might enhance the credibility of arguments and show the research's relevance to current transport policy debates.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

1. Simplifying complex sentences and removing redundancy to enhance readability

We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript to simplify complex sentences and eliminate redundancy throughout the text. Specifically:

• Reduction of verbose explanations: We have rephrased sections where explanations were overly detailed, ensuring that each sentence conveys clear and concise information without unnecessary complexity.
• Streamlining language: Technical jargon has been minimized or clearly explained, and we have aimed for a more straightforward narrative to retain the reader's attention.
• Focused presentation: We have ensured that each paragraph has a clear purpose, contributing directly to developing our arguments and findings.

2. Streamlining the discussion of statistical methods to focus on findings

We have refined the discussion of statistical methods by:

• Condensing procedural details: While maintaining the necessary methodological rigour, we have summarized the procedural aspects of our statistical analyses.
• Emphasizing key findings: The focus has been shifted towards interpreting the results and their implications rather than detailing every step of the analysis.
• Clarity in results presentation: Tables and figures have been used to present data succinctly, allowing readers to grasp the essential findings at a glance.

3. Refining the organization of content for a smoother narrative flow

To improve the narrative flow:

• Integrating policy implications with results: We have reorganized the "Implications for sustainable transport policy" section to more cohesively align with the results, creating a stronger connection between our findings and recommendations.
• Logical progression: The manuscript now follows a more transparent structure, progressing logically from the Introduction and literature review to methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions.
• Coherent transitions: Transitional sentences between sections and paragraphs have been added to guide the reader through the narrative.

4. Expanding the discussion to align with global sustainability goals and trends in transport policy

We have expanded our discussion to place our findings within the broader context of global sustainability efforts:

• Alignment with global goals: To demonstrate how our research supports the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 13 (Climate Action), references to these goals have been incorporated.
• Current policy trends: We have discussed the European Green Deal and the European Commission's Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, highlighting how our findings contribute to these policy initiatives.
• Broader relevance: By connecting our results to global trends, we have enhanced the manuscript's relevance and provided a richer context for our research.

5. Including recent publications to strengthen the theoretical framework and provide greater context

We have incorporated the recent publications you suggested:

• Eslamipoor, R., & Sepehriar, A. (2024). "Enhancing supply chain relationships in the circular economy: Strategies for a green centralized supply chain with deteriorating products." Journal of Environmental Management, 367, 121738.
• Eslamipoor, R., & Sepehriar, A. (2024). "Promoting green supply chain under carbon tax, carbon cap, and carbon trading policies." Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(5), 4901-4912.

6. Ensuring consistency in referencing styles throughout the document

We have meticulously reviewed all references to ensure consistency with the journal's referencing style:

• Uniform Format: All citations and bibliography entries have been standardized according to the required style, ensuring uniformity throughout the manuscript.
• Verification of Details: We have double-checked all references for accuracy in authors' names, publication years, titles, journal names, volume and issue numbers, and page ranges.

7. Adding more recent studies or statistics to enhance credibility and show relevance to current transport policy debates

Additional recent studies and statistics have been incorporated:

• Updated Data: We have included the latest statistics on transport emissions, modal share, and external costs from authoritative sources such as the European Commission and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
• Recent Research: New references have been added to reflect the latest developments in sustainable transport policy and external cost assessment, enhancing the credibility of our arguments.
• Policy Documents: We have cited current policy documents to demonstrate the immediate relevance of our research to ongoing debates in transport policy.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Improve the abstract: make it in one paragraph and emphasize the entire paper within the abstract; write it in the past tense; include all keywords; avoid to write what is already known.

If the authors choose to have the Introduction part as an extended summary of the research, then it is recommended to write the Literature Review chapter in which the authors are supposed to reveal the state-of-the-art in the field and topic of their research in detail.

This scientific paper should have more originality by clearly establishing the purpose of the research and the objectives of the research.

To be structured in a clear and logical way:

The review of the literature must be in full consistency with the purpose of the research.

The problem must be more precisely defined and the hypothesis more complete (of course, it is always desirable to assume something that is not known).

The research methodology should be clearly defined and explained so that it is understandable for the reader.

The collection, selection and data analyzes should be presented more clearly. It should be clearly shown how the hypotheses were tested.

The results should be compact and clearly and visually presented.

This study seems to be intended to use comparative empirical research methods, it could be concluded by supporting empirical results.

 

 

 

Author Response

1. Improve the abstract: make it in one paragraph and emphasize the entire paper within the abstract; write it in the past tense; include all keywords; avoid writing what is already known.

Response:

We have revised the abstract to meet the recommendations:

• One paragraph: The abstract is now consolidated into a single paragraph succinctly summarises the paper.
• Past tense: The abstract has been rewritten in the past tense to reflect the completed nature of the research.
• Emphasize the entire paper: We ensured that the abstract covers the purpose, methodology, key findings, and implications of the study, providing a comprehensive overview.
• Include all keywords: We reviewed and updated the keywords to accurately reflect the paper's main topics, ensuring they align with the content and facilitate discoverability.
• Avoid known information: We removed any statements that present well-known information without adding value to the abstract, focusing instead on our research's novel contributions.

2. If the authors choose to have the Introduction part as an extended summary of the research, then it is recommended to write the Literature Review chapter in which the authors are supposed to reveal the state-of-the-art in the field and topic of their research in detail.

Response:

We have retained the Introduction as an extended summary that includes the literature review. To address the recommendation, we have enhanced the Introduction to include a detailed review of the state-of-the-art in the field:

• Expanded literature review in the Introduction: We have integrated a comprehensive literature review, discussing relevant studies and theoretical frameworks related to external transport costs, modal shift strategies, and sustainable transport policies.
• Detailed examination of relevant studies: The Introduction now includes in-depth discussions of recent publications to provide greater context and support for our research.
• Contextualized our research: By embedding the literature review within the Introduction, we maintain a cohesive narrative that positions our study within the broader academic discourse and highlights the gaps our research aims to fill.
• Clarity and flow: This approach seamlessly transitions from background information to our study's specific objectives and hypotheses, enhancing the overall narrative flow.

3. This scientific paper should have more originality by clearly establishing the purpose of the research and the objectives of the research.

Response:

We have enhanced the originality of our paper by:

• Establishing the purpose clearly: In the Introduction, we explicitly stated the purpose of our research, emphasizing the need to quantify external costs and their implications for sustainable transport policy.
• Defining research objectives: In Section 2, "Evaluating road versus maritime transport," we have clearly outlined our research's primary objectives, providing specific and measurable goals.
• Highlighting novel contributions: Throughout the manuscript, we have emphasized how our use of the INCONE60 Cargo Flow Model and our comprehensive analysis offer new insights into external costs and policy implications.

4. To be structured in a clear and logical way:

Response:

We have restructured the manuscript to improve clarity and logical flow:

• Logical section progression: The paper now follows a coherent structure: an introduction with a literature review, methodology, results, discussion, implications for sustainable transport policy, and conclusions.
• Clear headings and subheadings: We have used descriptive headings to guide the reader through the manuscript, ensuring each section builds upon the previous one.
• Consistent formatting: Formatting has been standardized throughout the document, enhancing readability.

5. The review of the literature must be in full consistency with the purpose of the research.

Response:

In the enhanced Introduction, we have:

• Aligned the literature review with research purpose: The literature review focuses on studies directly related to our research objectives, such as external cost estimation, modal shift strategies, and sustainable transport policies.
• Identified gaps: We have highlighted gaps in the existing literature that our study addresses, demonstrating the necessity and relevance of our research.
• Synthesized relevant studies: By synthesizing findings from recent studies, we provide a coherent background that supports our research purpose.

6. The problem must be more precisely defined and the hypothesis more complete (of course, it is always desirable to assume something that is not known).

Response:

We have refined the problem statement and expanded our hypothesis:

• Precise problem definition: In the Introduction and Section 2, we have precisely defined the problem by stating the lack of comprehensive external cost quantification in transport logistics and its impact on policy-making.
• Assumptions Clarified: We have clearly stated our assumptions and the rationale behind our hypothesis, emphasizing the novelty of our investigation.

7. The research methodology should be clearly defined and explained so that it is understandable for the reader.

Response:

We have expanded the Methodology section to ensure clarity:

• Detailed explanation: We provided a step-by-step explanation of our research design, data collection methods, and analytical procedures.
• Justification of methods: We explained why certain methods were chosen, such as using the INCONE60 model and specific statistical tests.
• Transparency: All parameters, variables, and calculations are thoroughly described to allow readers to understand and replicate the study.

8. The collection, selection, and data analyses should be presented more clearly. It should be clearly shown how the hypotheses were tested.

Response:

We have clarified the data collection, selection, and analysis processes:

• Data collection: Detailed information on data sources, types of data collected, and the criteria for route selection are provided in the methodology.
• Data selection: We explained how routes were chosen based on geographical relevance, cargo compatibility, and operational feasibility.
• Data analysis: The statistical analyses used to test our hypotheses are described in detail, including descriptive statistics, normality testing, variance analysis, and hypothesis testing using t-tests.
• Hypothesis testing: We clearly demonstrated how each hypothesis was tested, presenting the results of statistical tests that support our conclusions.

 

9. The results should be compact and clearly and visually presented.

Response:

We have improved the presentation of results:

• Clear descriptions: Each table and figure is accompanied by a clear description and analysis in the text.
• Focused presentation: The results are presented concisely, highlighting key findings relevant to our hypotheses and objectives.

10. This study seems to be intended to use comparative empirical research methods; it could be concluded by supporting empirical results.

Response:

We have strengthened the empirical basis of our conclusions:

• Support for hypotheses: We summarized how the empirical findings support our hypotheses and objectives.
• Implications: We discussed the implications of our empirical results for sustainable transport policy, linking them to the literature and global sustainability goals.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have solved interesting problems in the manuscript that are still current. In general, their research and results are acceptable for publication, but it is necessary to correct the formal side of the manuscript.
1. Please add references to the text, because in your manuscript there are no references in the text. For example, you have some claims and statements in the first chapter, but there are no references - this needs to be improved. please refer to the journal template.
 2. Your manuscript lacks a literature overview of the problem. no one has solved similar problems, why is your research new and innovative?
3. Please correct the chapters 2 and 3 because you describe model and you can join it and named (for example): Research methodology or similar.

Author Response

1. Please add references to the text, because in your manuscript there are no references in the text. For example, you have some claims and statements in the first chapter, but there are no references - this needs to be improved. Please refer to the journal template.

Response:

We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and have added appropriate references throughout the text, ensuring that credible sources support all claims and statements. Specifically:

• Introduction: We have incorporated numerous references to support the presented background information, statements, and claims. This includes citations of recent studies, policy documents, and authoritative reports relevant to our research topic.
• Consistent referencing style: All references have been formatted according to the journal's template and guidelines. In-text citations and the reference list have been standardized for consistency and compliance.

2. Your manuscript lacks a literature overview of the problem. No one has solved similar problems; why is your research new and innovative?

Response:

We have expanded the Introduction to include a literature review that provides an overview of current research on external transport costs and sustainable transport policy. In this expanded section:

• State-of-the-art review: We discussed previous studies that have addressed modal shifts, external cost estimation, and sustainable logistics practices. This includes referencing recent publications that have explored the challenges and benefits of shifting freight from road to more environmentally friendly modes.
• Identification of research gaps: We highlighted the limitations and gaps in existing research, such as the lack of detailed analytical models that integrate environmental, economic, and social costs into a unified decision-making process.
• Novelty and innovation of our research: We explained how our study advances the field by utilizing the INCONE60 Cargo Flow Model, which provides a more precise and actionable assessment compared to earlier approaches.
• Contribution to the literature: By introducing a novel approach to evaluating policy implications for sustainable transport practices, our work bridges the gap between economic efficiency and environmental sustainability, offering practical solutions for reducing external costs in global supply chains.

1. Please correct Chapters 2 and 3 because you describe the model, and you can join it and name it (for example): Research Methodology or similar.

Response:

We carefully considered the suggestion to merge Chapters 2 and 3 into a single section titled "Research Methodology." Upon reviewing the manuscript, we recognized that while Chapters 2 and 3 contribute to explaining our research approach, they serve distinct important purposes for clarity and logical flow.

• Chapter 2: Evaluating road versus maritime transport
• Content: This chapter outlines the objectives and hypotheses of our research. It sets the stage by presenting the problem statement and explaining why comparing road and maritime transport is critical for sustainable transport policy.
• Chapter 3: The INCONE60 model in sustainable transport analysis
• Content: This chapter provides a detailed description of the INCONE60 Cargo Flow Model, explaining its features, capabilities, and relevance to our study. It discusses how the model integrates multimodal data and offers comprehensive economic and environmental assessments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

: The authors have effectively addressed the issues I raised in this revised version, and I believe this paper is now suitable for publication.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the reviewer's positive feedback and are pleased that the revisions have effectively addressed the initial concerns. They acknowledge the reviewer’s valuable insights, which were instrumental in refining the manuscript and bringing it to a publication-ready standard.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is obvious the author's attempt to improve this paper. Technically speaking, most of the issues are improved.  However, this paper requires further improvement.

1) This article needs more information within the Section Literature review related to:

What is known in literature?

What is not known yet (future studies)?

What is contested?

For all critical questions add some more international proper literature. 

2) Based on the findings from these three literature questions, authors may develop a more visionary view about the transport system and may re-design their hypothesis. 

3) Hypothesis may sound e.eg ' Shifting from road transport to more maritime transport may reduce transport cost by increasing transport efficiency and by making transport more sustainable'. 

This would help the authors to reconfigure the results by establishing a relationship between the variables and ultimately the results would be consistent with their findings (results should be more concise and more related to hypothesis testing).

4) Improve the structure by defining : Introduction (with literature review); Methods and materials (make clear the research methods, materials and instruments, ) problem defined (with the hypothesis as a possible solution). Results (all main results from quantitative and from qualitative research, including results analyses and hypothesis testing ).

Improve the reference list!

Author Response

The introduction has been updated to strengthen the literature review section, focusing on the following points as per the reviewer’s suggestions:

1. What is known in literature: Additional paragraphs discuss the established research on external costs in transport, particularly the environmental benefits of shifting freight from road to maritime modes.
2. What is not known (future studies): Gaps in current methodologies and the challenges of implementing modal shift strategies in practice are outlined.
3. What is contested: Debates in the literature, such as the economic feasibility of green supply chains and the varying costs of alternative fuels, are highlighted.

The hypothesis has also been revised to better align with these insights, focusing on how a shift to maritime transport can reduce costs and improve sustainability. The structural improvements further clarify these connections, supporting a cohesive flow from hypothesis to results.

We have also thoroughly revised the reference list to align with MDPI's guidelines, ensuring proper formatting of author names, consistent journal abbreviations, and full DOI links and access dates for online sources.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors added necessary information to the manuscript and improved It. Based on the review of the manuscript, I agree to its publication.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the reviewer's positive assessment and are pleased that the revisions and additional information have met the standards required for publication. The constructive feedback received has been invaluable in improving the manuscript's clarity and depth.