Electrifying Freight: Modeling the Decision-Making Process for Battery Electric Truck Procurement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This paper investigates the factors influencing the adoption of Battery Electric Trucks in the transportation sector, utilizing fuzzy logic and the Delphi method to assess qualitative and quantitative aspects. It finds that while economic considerations are significant, social benefits also influence the procurement decision, offering insights for stakeholders aiming to promote sustainable freight solutions. The article is well written, but needs further improvement to be considered. Feedback: 1. The research gap should be presented in a more precise manner. Discuss the research gap again after presenting the State of the art. This way the gap is clearer to grasp for the reader.
2. The Overall structure of the article should be improved. Section-Headlines(Method) are missing. The section numbers are in no clear sequence (3.1,3.2,...). Next to these points chapter 4, which includes Results AND Discussion should be divided in two separate chapters. Additionally the discussion part should be extended.
3. The full term for abbreviations should be shown only with the first occurrence (e.g. BET)
4. Consider moving Table 3,4,7 into the appendix.
5. Line 304-308: you mention that you agreed with all experts to include payload loss into the TCO calculation. How do you do this ? Since Payload loss is not included in the final model structure ?
6. Did you consider any factors, which include the satisfaction of drivers ? Since there is a significant driver shortage in the EU ?
7. You present a detailed model structure. For someone to use your model I recommend to show an exemplary application.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fine

Author Response

This paper investigates the factors influencing the adoption of Battery Electric Trucks in the transportation sector, utilizing fuzzy logic and the Delphi method to assess qualitative and quantitative aspects. It finds that while economic considerations are significant, social benefits also influence the procurement decision, offering insights for stakeholders aiming to promote sustainable freight solutions. The article is well written, but needs further improvement to be considered.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. You may find our responses to your comments below.

Feedback:

1. The research gap should be presented in a more precise manner. Discuss the research gap again after presenting the State of the art. This way the gap is clearer to grasp for the reader.

Authors’ response: To address the clarity of the research gap, the introduction chapter has been revised to more precisely delineate the research gap. The revisions have been highlighted in red for ease of identification and to better illustrate the progression from the state of the art to the identified research gaps.

2. The Overall structure of the article should be improved. Section-Headlines(Method) are missing. The section numbers are in no clear sequence (3.1,3.2,...). Next to these points chapter 4, which includes Results AND Discussion should be divided in two separate chapters. Additionally the discussion part should be extended.

Authors’ response: Section headlines and numbers have been updated for clarity. Chapter 4, previously "Results and Discussions," has been separated into two distinct chapters: Chapter 4 titled "Results" and Chapter 5 titled "Discussions." Additionally, Chapter 5, "Discussions," has been expanded to provide more detailed analysis and interpretation.

3. The full term for abbreviations should be shown only with the first occurrence (e.g. BET)

Authors’ response: Full term for abbreviations were checked and shown only with the first occurrence.

4. Consider moving Table 3,4,7 into the appendix.

Authors’ response: Tables 3, 5, 7 are moved to Appendix.

5. Line 304-308: you mention that you agreed with all experts to include payload loss into the TCO calculation. How do you do this ? Since Payload loss is not included in the final model structure ?

Authors’ response: Payload loss was initially referred to as “additional costs attributable to payload loss” under the term TCO for BET while defining terms in the model. To clarify, a detailed calculation of payload loss has been included in the description and highlighted in red.

6. Did you consider any factors, which include the satisfaction of drivers? Since there is a significant driver shortage in the EU ?

Authors’ response: Driver satisfaction was not explicitly modeled as a primary factor in our study, as evidenced by Table S2, which indicates that the majority of studies primarily focus on economic and social factors. While driver satisfaction plays a significant role in the purchasing decisions for passenger vehicles, its impact on the purchasing decisions for Battery Electric Trucks (BETs) appears to be relatively minor. However, acknowledging the importance of driver satisfaction, especially in the context of the current driver shortage in the EU, we have included a discussion on drivers' opinions of BETs and emphasized the critical role of driver involvement in the planning process. This addition aims to ensure a smoother implementation of BETs and address any concerns that might affect driver satisfaction. This is detailed further in the expanded Discussions chapter of our report.

7. You present a detailed model structure. For someone to use your model I recommend to show an exemplary application.

Authors’ response: Exemplary Application is added to Appendix 2.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors conducted a literature review and a Delphi study about electric trucks.

1.       How did you remove grey literature from the google scholar results?

2.       Your search terms you used are rather vouge. For example, I am sure that you did not use the key word “life cycle emissions” by itself as this would result in many irrelevant publications being returned by google. I would recommend removing that paragraph as it is rather clear from this that you have not used a structured methodology to find the papers.

3.       Please list some research questions. Please also add another paragraph illustrating how other researchers have addressed the same research questions. Please illustrate their methodology briefly and explain why your methodology is better/provides another perspective?

4.       Please list a table with all the papers that you have included in the literature review. The table should include columns such as first author, year, research objective, method, main conclusion, focus area etc.

 

 

Author Response

Authors’ response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. You may find our responses to your comments below.

1. How did you remove grey literature from the google scholar results?

Authors’ response: In our selection of academic publications, we primarily utilized Google Scholar to access a broad range of peer-reviewed articles. To ensure the exclusion of grey literature and maintain the credibility of our review, we focused predominantly on reputable sources, including Springer publications and doctoral dissertations, which adhere to stringent academic standards. Additionally, authoritative reports from established organizations like the International Energy Agency were also considered due to their relevance and credibility in the field.

2. Your search terms you used are rather vouge. For example, I am sure that you did not use the key word “life cycle emissions” by itself as this would result in many irrelevant publications being returned by google. I would recommend removing that paragraph as it is rather clear from this that you have not used a structured methodology to find the papers.

Authors’ response: We appreciate your feedback regarding the clarity of our search methodology. To address your concerns, we did not use individual keywords in isolation during our literature search. Instead, we employed combinations of keywords to refine our search results and ensure relevance to our research objectives. The specific terms and combinations used have been thoroughly outlined and revised in the literature review chapter. These revisions are highlighted in red to easily distinguish the changes.

3. Please list some research questions. Please also add another paragraph illustrating how other researchers have addressed the same research questions. Please illustrate their methodology briefly and explain why your methodology is better/provides another perspective?

Authors’ response: The Introduction chapter has been revised and a Discussions chapter has been added to the article to incorporate the recommended changes. To facilitate easy identification of these updates, all revised sections have been highlighted in red.

4. Please list a table with all the papers that you have included in the literature review. The table should include columns such as first author, year, research objective, method, main conclusion, focus area etc.

Authors’ response: We have included the "EFV Adoption Literature Summary" in Table S3 of the Electronic Supplementary Information (ESI) to enhance our resource database. Additionally, the "Electric Vehicles Fleet Management Literature Summary" can be found in Tables S1 and S2 of the ESI, providing comprehensive coverage of the relevant literature.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments are addressed comprehensively. Publish as it is.

Author Response

All comments are addressed comprehensively. Publish as it is.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your valuable feedback and approval.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I was hoping that you would add your answer to my first comment to the paper.

Since you now provided specific keywords, could you please:

1. Specify how many papers you have derived from each specific set of keywords.

2. How many of these were duplicates when you combined all these together?

3. How many of the papers were disregarded due to being irrelevant or grey literature?

4. How many additional papers did you derive through snowbaling? and please explain why these were not found in your original search. Should you have added additional keywords?

Author Response

I was hoping that you would add your answer to my first comment to the paper. Since you now provided specific keywords, could you please:

Authors’ response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. You may find our responses to your comments below.

1. Specify how many papers you have derived from each specific set of keywords.

Authors’ response: This study was not designed as a systematic literature review; therefore, we did not systematically collect data or quantify the number of papers during our research phase. As such, we are unable to provide specific figures from that period. Additionally, it is important to note that these numbers are subject to change due to the dynamic nature of literature updates. Below, we present the figures as of April 21, 2024, but we were unable to access comparable data from the time of our initial literature review.

 Searched Term    (year:2015-2024)                                                        Count

• “Battery electric vehicle” AND “long haul transportation”                113
• “Battery electric logistics vehicles” AND “long haul transportation”    1
• “Electric trucks” AND “long haul transportation”                              230
• “Electric trucks” AND “lifetime costs”                                                145
• “Battery electric trucks” AND “life cycle emissions”                          189
• "Electric vehicles" AND "logistic fleets"                                              28

2. How many of these were duplicates when you combined all these together?

Authors’ response: We are unable to provide the number of duplicates for all searched terms combined, as these figures were not collected during the course of our study.

3. How many of the papers were disregarded due to being irrelevant or grey literature?

Authors’ response: We are unable to provide the number of papers that were disregarded due to irrelevance or because they were considered grey literature, as these figures were not collected during our study.

4. How many additional papers did you derive through snowbaling? and please explain why these were not found in your original search. Should you have added additional keywords?

Authors’ response: We did not quantify the number of additional papers derived through snowballing during our study, and thus cannot provide a specific figure. The papers accessed through this method were not found in our original search because the exact terms we targeted initially did not appear in these additional papers. When we subsequently searched using the terms from the snowballed papers, the search yielded many irrelevant results. Based on these outcomes, we opted to maintain our original search criteria without adding new keywords, to keep our review focused and manageable.