Sustainable Strategies for Ports and Maritime Logistics: A Methodological Approach to Green Transition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a structured methodology for identifying sustainable strategies in ports and maritime logistics to support a green transition. The research combines: (i) a review of international and European legislation to identify key sustainability challenges; (ii) an assessment of literature and best practices to identify tested solutions; (iii) a stakeholder engagement process (focus groups involving port authorities, logistics firms, civil society, etc.) to derive practical strategies. The methodology is partially implemented through the DEMASTER project and aims to contribute to port decarbonization, climate resilience, and sustainable integration with urban settings. 

1/ The stakeholder engagement process could be described in more detail including the sampling process, session design, data analysis protocols, or how stakeholder views were synthesized. The authors are suggested to provide a clearer explanation of the stakeholder selection process, number of participants, and how qualitative inputs were coded, analyzed, and linked to the proposed strategies.

2/ The authors are recommended to strengthen the contextual discussion by highlighting that ports' roles in maritime climate action—particularly through onshore power supply, infrastructure for alternative fuels, and climate adaptation measures—have been recognized as key emerging research challenges in the maritime sector, by considering recent literature including but not limited to:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2024.103753
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2021.100021

The added discussion would help situate the paper within contemporary research discourse and clarify its relevance in addressing priority areas for decarbonizing port operations and enhancing climate resilience.

3/ While the paper lists critical issues and best practices (Tables 1 and 2), it could benefit from further discussion that evaluates the effectiveness or feasibility of each solution in different contexts. There could be more discussion on trade-offs, financial costs, or implementation barriers for these strategies, making the analysis more descriptive than analytical. The authors are encouraged to include a comparative assessment or ranking of strategies based on criteria such as cost, scalability, policy alignment, or stakeholder acceptance to enhance analytical depth. If it may not be possible to do so at this stage, then the authors are suggested to add this discussion as part of future research work.

4/ The authors are recommended to clarify that the sample size, even if small, is not uncommon in the literature on expert surveys.

5/ While stakeholder feedback is summarized in Table 3, the paper could further discuss how these insights were prioritized or converted into actionable recommendations, i.e., providing a clear decision-making framework linking stakeholder priorities to the solutions proposed. The authors are encouraged to introduce a prioritization matrix or multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach to structure and justify how stakeholder inputs inform strategy design. If it may not be possible to do so at this stage, then the authors are suggested to add this discussion as part of future research work.

Author Response

Comment 1/ The stakeholder engagement process could be described in more detail including the sampling process, session design, data analysis protocols, or how stakeholder views were synthesized. The authors are suggested to provide a clearer explanation of the stakeholder selection process, number of participants, and how qualitative inputs were coded, analyzed, and linked to the proposed strategies.

Response 1. Firt of all, we thank the reviewer for the comment. The manuscript has been revised accordingly to provide a more detailed description of the stakeholder engagement process.   We have integrated what is requested on page 6, in section 3.1.2. Stakeholder engagement process. 

 

Comment 2/ The authors are recommended to strengthen the contextual discussion by highlighting that ports' roles in maritime climate action—particularly through onshore power supply, infrastructure for alternative fuels, and climate adaptation measures—have been recognized as key emerging research challenges in the maritime sector, by considering recent literature including but not limited to:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2024.103753
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2021.100021

The added discussion would help situate the paper within contemporary research discourse and clarify its relevance in addressing priority areas for decarbonizing port operations and enhancing climate resilience.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion. As recommended, we have strengthened the contextual discussion in Section 2. State of the Art where we have incorporated  the suggested sources (see references 19 and 20), which highlight key research challenges and frameworks related to port-based decarbonization strategies. 

 

Comment 3/ While the paper lists critical issues and best practices (Tables 1 and 2), it could benefit from further discussion that evaluates the effectiveness or feasibility of each solution in different contexts. There could be more discussion on trade-offs, financial costs, or implementation barriers for these strategies, making the analysis more descriptive than analytical. The authors are encouraged to include a comparative assessment or ranking of strategies based on criteria such as cost, scalability, policy alignment, or stakeholder acceptance to enhance analytical depth. If it may not be possible to do so at this stage, then the authors are suggested to add this discussion as part of future research work.

Response 3: Thank you for the valuable suggestion. While it is not possible to go into a detailed comparative analysis of the effectiveness, feasibility, costs and obstacles of the presented strategies at this stage, we recognise the importance of such an evaluation. Therefore, we plan to include this in-depth analysis as part of future developments of the research work. We have included this possible research development in the section 5. Conclusions.

 

Comment 4/ The authors are recommended to clarify that the sample size, even if small, is not uncommon in the literature on expert surveys.

Response 4: Thank you for the comment. We agree that the sample size can often be limited, but it still adds value to the research.

 

Comment 5/ While stakeholder feedback is summarized in Table 3, the paper could further discuss how these insights were prioritized or converted into actionable recommendations, i.e., providing a clear decision-making framework linking stakeholder priorities to the solutions proposed. The authors are encouraged to introduce a prioritization matrix or multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach to structure and justify how stakeholder inputs inform strategy design. If it may not be possible to do so at this stage, then the authors are suggested to add this discussion as part of future research work.

Response 5: We have addressed the suggestion by including it as a potential direction for future research, consistent with the approach taken in response to the third comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.  Please provide more specifics about the qualitative data collection and processing procedures to enhance reproducibility.

2.  While Table 3 summarizes stakeholder priorities and strategies, the manuscript does not elaborate on how these findings influenced the final strategic proposals. Consider discussing how stakeholder insights were synthesized into concrete policy recommendations.

3.There are no citations in the earlier parts of this article. Overall citations are low. It is recommended that the following articles be referenced or cited to enrich the text:

(1)Critical Success Factors for Green Port Transformation Using Digital Technology

(2)Key factors for non-polar use of the Northern Sea Route: A Korean point of view

(3)China futures market and world container shipping economy: An exploratory analysis based on deep learning

4. The paper promotes several sustainable strategies without critically discussing potential trade-offs, such as economic costs, labor impacts, or technological feasibility. A balanced analysis of barriers and limitations is encouraged.

5. Terminology needs standardization. Providing a glossary or standard definitions could improve conceptual clarity.

6. The conclusions summarize well but could be enhanced by suggesting specific areas for future research or pilot testing of the identified strategies.

Author Response

Comment 1.  Please provide more specifics about the qualitative data collection and processing procedures to enhance reproducibility.

Response 1: Thank you for the suggestion. We have addressed this point by providing more details on the qualitative data collection and processing procedures in Section 3.1.2. Stakeholder Engagement Process, with the aim of enhancing the clarity and reproducibility of the methodology.

Comment 2.  While Table 3 summarizes stakeholder priorities and strategies, the manuscript does not elaborate on how these findings influenced the final strategic proposals. Consider discussing how stakeholder insights were synthesized into concrete policy recommendations.

Response 2: Thanks for the suggestion. 

Comment 3.There are no citations in the earlier parts of this article. Overall citations are low. It is recommended that the following articles be referenced or cited to enrich the text:

(1)Critical Success Factors for Green Port Transformation Using Digital Technology

(2)Key factors for non-polar use of the Northern Sea Route: A Korean point of view

(3)China futures market and world container shipping economy: An exploratory analysis based on deep learning

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have taken up the recommendation and integrated citations of the indicated articles into the text in order to enrich the theoretical framework and strengthen the scientific basis in the initial sections of the manuscript, see references 21, 22 and 23.

Comment 4. The paper promotes several sustainable strategies without critically discussing potential trade-offs, such as economic costs, labor impacts, or technological feasibility. A balanced analysis of barriers and limitations is encouraged.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment, we will keep it in mind for possible future research development.

Comment 5. Terminology needs standardization. Providing a glossary or standard definitions could improve conceptual clarity.

Response 5: Thank you for the valuable suggestion. In the manuscript, we have adopted established technical terminology in the field of study in order to maintain consistency with the existing literature; however, we welcome the idea of incorporating a glossary or standard definitions to further improve clarity and make it more accessible in future developments of the work.

 

Comment 6. The conclusions summarize well but could be enhanced by suggesting specific areas for future research or pilot testing of the identified strategies.

Response 6: Thank you for your comment, which we have taken on board by specifying in the paragraph 5. Conclusions what you requested. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current paper primarily relies on literature review and qualitative analysis, and lacks support from empirical data. In my opinion, the paper in its current form falls far short of the standards required for publication as a research article. To enhance the scientific rigor and persuasiveness of the study, I recommend the authors conduct quantitative research (e.g., statistical analysis or case-based data collection) to substantiate their methodological framework before resubmission.

Author Response

Comment The current paper primarily relies on literature review and qualitative analysis, and lacks support from empirical data. In my opinion, the paper in its current form falls far short of the standards required for publication as a research article. To enhance the scientific rigor and persuasiveness of the study, I recommend the authors conduct quantitative research (e.g., statistical analysis or case-based data collection) to substantiate their methodological framework before resubmission.

Responsive: Thank you for your feedback and valuable comments. We take note of the suggestion regarding the integration of quantitative data to strengthen the scientific rigour of the study. However, we would like to emphasise that the main objective of our work is to provide an in-depth qualitative analysis and critical synthesis of the existing literature, which we believe is a valuable contribution in the current context. We will however carefully evaluate this aspect for possible future developments.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title and objectives stated by the authors in the abstract of the paper largely correspond to its content.

Some questions for the authors:

• The identification of the tested solutions is based on a systematic literature review – however, the authors do not detail the selection criteria for the literature nor the analysis methodology.
• The authors do not explicitly mention whether they used specific qualitative analysis tools (e.g., thematic coding, SWOT analysis). Including such methods would have strengthened the validity of the research.
• In the section 3.1.2 regarding Stakeholder Engagement, it is not mentioned to what extent the stakeholders’ conclusions are integrated into concrete decisions.
• Strategies such as “integration of renewable energy” are presented in a general manner. I suggest providing concrete examples (e.g., where? when? how?).
• There is no information provided about monitoring/evaluating the impact of implementing the compression and decompression system (e.g., KPIs, risks).

The conclusions are general. Please provide more detailed conclusions.

Author Response

Comment 

The title and objectives stated by the authors in the abstract of the paper largely correspond to its content.

Some questions for the authors:

• The identification of the tested solutions is based on a systematic literature review – however, the authors do not detail the selection criteria for the literature nor the analysis methodology.
• The authors do not explicitly mention whether they used specific qualitative analysis tools (e.g., thematic coding, SWOT analysis). Including such methods would have strengthened the validity of the research.
• In the section 3.1.2 regarding Stakeholder Engagement, it is not mentioned to what extent the stakeholders’ conclusions are integrated into concrete decisions.
• Strategies such as “integration of renewable energy” are presented in a general manner. I suggest providing concrete examples (e.g., where? when? how?).
• There is no information provided about monitoring/evaluating the impact of implementing the compression and decompression system (e.g., KPIs, risks).

The conclusions are general. Please provide more detailed conclusions.

Responsive: Thank you for the suggestions, some of which have been integrated into the text in sections 3.1.2 Stakeholder Engagement Process and 5 Conclusions, which have been made more detailed to better reflect the results that emerged. Other suggestions, such as including information on monitoring/evaluating the impact of the implementation of the compression and decompression system (e.g. KPIs, risks), will certainly be the subject of possible future developments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All of my previous round comments have been adequately addressed. The manuscript merits acceptance in my view.

Author Response

Comment 1/All of my previous round comments have been adequately addressed. The manuscript merits acceptance in my view.

Response 1: Thank you  for your positive feedback and for your careful review throughout the process. We're glad to hear that you find the manuscript suitable for acceptance.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author solved my problem.作者解决了我的问题。

Author Response

Comment 1: The author solved my problem.

Response 1: Thank you for your kind feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It seems that no substantial improvements have been made to the paper. I stand by my previous review comments.

Author Response

Comment 1: It seems that no substantial improvements have been made to the paper. I stand by my previous review comments.

Response 1: Thanks again for your feedback. We appreciate the suggestion and would like to reiterate what was already expressed in our previous response. However, we will take your observation into consideration for any future developments of the research.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors stated that they organized thematic working groups in four ports: Catania, Augusta, Koper and Bar. These groups included representatives from the following categories:

• Port authorities and terminal operators
• Shipping and logistics companies
• Professional and trade associations
• Urban planning specialists and environmental consultants
• Civil society representatives

Some questions for the authors:

• A structured questionnaire was used, consisting of 10 questions, focused on key areas.

The authors do not specify how many people the questionnaire was distributed to and how many responded.

• The following analyses should be applied:
  • Statistics (relative, absolute frequency of each question in the questionnaire, graphical representations, etc.)
  • Inferential analysis (Chi-square (χ²) test, T-test, etc.)
• The data from the questionnaires after centralization were interpreted according to the context of each port? What are the common parts? A SWOT analysis should have been done.

Although the paper does not provide quantitative data or explicit final conclusions, the methodology presented suggests that the analysis of the questionnaires led to an in-depth and balanced understanding of the needs and priorities of the ports involved.

Can we say that this participatory approach is essential for the development of coherent and sustainable strategies in the field of port logistics?

Author Response

Comments: 

The authors stated that they organized thematic working groups in four ports: Catania, Augusta, Koper and Bar. These groups included representatives from the following categories:

• Port authorities and terminal operators
• Shipping and logistics companies
• Professional and trade associations
• Urban planning specialists and environmental consultants
• Civil society representatives

Some questions for the authors:

• A structured questionnaire was used, consisting of 10 questions, focused on key areas.

The authors do not specify how many people the questionnaire was distributed to and how many responded.

• The following analyses should be applied:
  • Statistics (relative, absolute frequency of each question in the questionnaire, graphical representations, etc.)
  • Inferential analysis (Chi-square (χ²) test, T-test, etc.)
• The data from the questionnaires after centralization were interpreted according to the context of each port? What are the common parts? A SWOT analysis should have been done.

Although the paper does not provide quantitative data or explicit final conclusions, the methodology presented suggests that the analysis of the questionnaires led to an in-depth and balanced understanding of the needs and priorities of the ports involved.

Can we say that this participatory approach is essential for the development of coherent and sustainable strategies in the field of port logistics?

 

Response 1: Thanks for the comments and questions. As indicated in the manuscript, the thematic working groups were composed of at least one representative from each of the internal and external stakeholders in the following categories in each of the four ports: port authorities and terminal operators, shipping and logistics companies, professional and trade associations, urban planning experts and environmental consultants, and civil society representatives. This composition was designed to ensure a balanced and multidisciplinary perspective within each group. It is possible to assume that due to the qualitative and exploratory nature of the research and the number of participants, no statistical or inferential analyzes such as the Chi-square test or the T-test were applied. However, the structured questionnaire guided in-depth discussions on key themes, and the results were interpreted according to the specific context of each port, highlighting both common critical issues and local peculiarities. We believe that this participatory approach is essential for the development of coherent and sustainable strategies in the field of port logistics, as it allows to align planning processes with stakeholder needs and promote inclusive decision-making. However, for future research in other ports, we will certainly take this valuable suggestion into account.