Customized Approach to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations in Railway Freight Transport
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic is interesting from the point of view of global warming and transportation. The study has good potential and the manuscript is well written.
Comments:
- It is necessary to define the importance of the presented research on a global scale, not only by referring to the presented example. Please describe the novelty of the research in the Introduction section.
- There are no significant worldwide references. Please complete and include them in the new version of the manuscript.
- The manuscript should be adapted to the editorial requirements.
Author Response
Dear and esteemed reviewer,
First, let us thank you for reviewing the article, providing feedback, and sending inspiring comments and suggestions. We tried our best to incorporate all the comments and we send as we incorporated them.
It is necessary to define the importance of the presented research on a global scale, not only by referring to the presented example. Please describe the novelty of the research in the Introduction section.
These statements have been added to the Introduction section (lines 98-109): “The aim of this article also supports the fact that the AI has global impacts not only from an economic point of view but also from a social and especially environmental point of view. The economies of some countries, such as China, Japan, USA, Germany, are com-pletely dependent on the AI. The AI industry has very specific supply chains that consist of many logistic chain members located worldwide. This places enormous demands on the management of these supply chains, but above all on transport as one of the most im-portant logistic activities. Inbound and outbound logistic processes within AI produce significant volumes of GHG emissions with global social and environmental impacts. This implies the need to develop a fully customized tools for calculating GHG emissions. The novelty of this research lies in the proposal of a fully customized and unique ap-proach to the GHG emissions calculations in RFT for the AI.”.
There are no significant worldwide references. Please complete and include them in the new version of the manuscript.
The highly cited papers from Web of Science database have been added to the article (reference no. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 21, 22, 36).
The manuscript should be adapted to the editorial requirements.
The manuscript has been adapted to the editorial requirements.
Thank you very much.
Pardubice, 22nd September 2021
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please find my comments in the attached report.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear and esteemed reviewer,
First, let us thank you for reviewing the article, providing feedback, and sending inspiring comments and suggestions. We tried our best to incorporate all the comments and we send as we incorporated them.
Introduction
The section can be slightly improved. The authors could have included a few more references to support the opening statements in L45-46 of p.2, before presenting the European standard EN 16258 Methodology.
The opening statements in L. 52-55 of p. 2 has been supplemented by these references:
- Matusiewicz, M. Towards Sustainable Urban Logistics: Creating Sustainable Urban Freight Transport on the Example of a Limited Accessibility Zone in Gdansk. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3879, doi:10.3390/su11143879
- Nikas, A. et al. Where is the EU headed given its current climate policy? A stakeholder-driven model inter-comparison. Science of the Total Environment 2021, 793, 148549, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148549
- Egli, F., Stunzi, A. A dynamic climate finance allocation mechanism reflecting the Paris Agreement. Environmental Re-search Letters 2019, 14, 114024, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab443b
The reference to the study of Skrúcany et al (L.82-84, p. 3) is more relevant to the previous paragraph.
The reference to the study of Skrúcany et al. was also added to the previous paragraph (L. 65-67,
p. 2).
The rest of the paragraph (L.84-88) require further elaboration in order to provide the reader with a clear and comprehensive statement on the aim of the article and its relation the concept of supply chain pooling and to the existing GHG emission calculators.
The paragraph (L. 92-95, p. 3) has been supplemented by these references and statements in order to provide the reader with a clear and comprehensive statement on the aim of the article and its relation the concept of supply chain pooling and to the existing GHG emission calculators:
- Rouquet, A.; Vauché, L. A Typology of Logistics Pooling in Supply Chains. Sup. Ch. For.: An Int. J. 2015, 16, 2–12. doi:10.1080/16258312.2015.1167382
- Senkel, M-P.; Durand, B.; Hoa Vo T. La mutualisation logistique: entre théories et pratiques. Logist. et Manag. 2013, 21, 19–30. doi:10.1080/12507970.2013.11517006
At the same time, the novelty of the manuscript was supported and emphasized (L. 98-109, p. 3).
Materials and Methods
Rephrase: “The manuscript processing process methodological approach consists of four basic steps.”
The statement has been rephrased (L. 111, p. 3).
In section 2.2, the authors should explicitly state why the preferred method is suitable.
The explicitly state why the preferred method is suitable was added (L. 153-158, p. 4) with relevant references:
- Schreier, M. Ways of doing qualitative content analysis: Disentangling terms and terminologies. Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 2014, 15, 1–27, doi:10.17169/fqs-15.1.204374
- Bryman, A. Social research methods; Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012.
The fully customized approach to the GHG emissions as per step 3 is not included in this section, where it is more relevant. Instead, the authors jump from the method of step 2 to that of step 4.
We did not respectfully dare to incorporate this comment. We assume that Chapter 2 (Materials and Methods) contains a theoretical description of the materials and methods used to process the article. In addition, the results of using these methods are given below in Chapter 3 (Mathematical Formulation). The equations themselves are not a method, but the result of a solution, respectively they are part of the proposed framework. For these reasons, we have left the theoretical description of the methods in Chapter 2 (Materials and Methods) and the results of the use of these methods, including the equations in Chapter 3 (Mathematical Formulation).
Results
First of all, it is recommended that the section should be renamed “Analysis” or “Mathematical Formulation”, as it essentially refers to the analysis of the methodology presented in section 2 and its implementation. Subsequently rename Section “Discussion” to “Results and Discussion”.
The Results section was renamed as “Mathematical Formulation”. The Discussion section was renamed as “Results and Discussion”.
Beginning from table 1 and the part from L.216-231 onwards, it is recommended to either clarify the SO2e relation to the GHG emission calculation of the paper or omit SO2e as it is a non GHG.
We fully understand this comment. Sulfur dioxide is not a GHG, but based on semi-structured interviews with experts from the automotive industry (Appendix A-B), the need to calculate sulfur dioxide emissions also emerged. Due to this fact, the proposed framework also includes sulfur dioxide emissions. This justification has been added to L. 213-215, p. 5.
L.241 p.6 “The proposed of the approach […]”
It was corrected.
Section 3.4 essentially contains the assumptions and the calculation of the case study of the paper. As a result it is recommended to rename the section title appropriately.
The section was renamed as “Case Study Assumptions and Calculation”.
Discussion
With regards to the section title please refer to the relevant comment above.
The Discussion section was renamed as “Results and Discussion”.
The section should include a paragraph elaborating on the validity of the proposed methodology and calculator, based on the results. Are the results within reasonable limits, according to industrial or scholar references? Do they change reasonably in case an input parameter is altered?
These statements were added (L. 640-643, p. 18): “The overall results of the model calculation were compared with the results of the Eco-TransIT emission calculator and can be considered valid. If the input parameters change, the results also change reasonably.”.
L.614 p.17 “This study contains some limitsations that are worth discussing.” Please correct the phrasing in all similar occasions.
It was corrected in all similar occasions.
L.627 p.18 “The last potential limit may lies in”.
It was corrected.
Conclusions
The authors should elaborate on possible extension of the research.
These statements were added to the Conclusions section (L. 681-684): “The possible extension of the research may focus on proposal a framework to the GHG emissions calculations in multimodal transport. Another option is to specialize in RFT in the context of GHG emissions calculations in another very specific sector, such as the chemical industry.“
Thank you very much.
Pardubice, 22nd September 2021
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study is focusing on simplification of calculations about CO2 emission. What is innovation of this study compared with previous studies?
What is contribution to application by this study?
What is the difference of this study in advantage and disadvantage from another similar studies?
Author Response
Dear and esteemed reviewer,
First, let us thank you for reviewing the article, providing feedback, and sending inspiring comments and suggestions. We tried our best to incorporate all the comments and we send as we incorporated them.
What is innovation of this study compared with previous studies?
The novelty of this study (compared with previous studies) lies in the proposal of a fully customized and unique approach to the GHG emissions calculations in railway freight transport for the automotive industry. These statements have been added to the Introduction section (lines 98-109, p. 3).
What is contribution to application by this study?
The contribution to application by this study is the basis for creating a software tool (railway freight transport fully customized emission calculator for automotive industry) to support logistic planning and decision-making (lines 11-13, p. 1 and lines 679-681, p. 19).
What is the difference of this study in advantage and disadvantage from another similar studies?
The biggest advantage of this study is a proposal of a fully customized approach to the greenhouse gas emissions calculations for the automotive industry but on the other hand, the disadvantage of this approach is the fact that it is not possible to fully use it, for example, in another sector or for another mode of transport.
Thank you very much.
Pardubice, 22nd September 2021
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The suggested changes after the first review have been incorporated in the article.
Author Response
Dear and esteemed reviewer,
First, let us thank you for repeat reviewing the article, providing feedback, and sending inspiring comments and suggestions. We tried our best to incorporate all the comments and we send as we incorporated them.
The English language of the manuscript was corrected.
Thank you very much.
Authors
