Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Evaluating the Socio-Economic Factors Impacting Foreign Trade Development in Port Areas

Sustainability 2021, 13(15), 8447; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158447

by Roman Fedorenko^1,*

, Irina Yakhneeva², Nadezhda Zaychikova³ and Dmitry Lipinsky⁴

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Sustainability 2021, 13(15), 8447; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158447

Submission received: 11 June 2021 / Revised: 24 July 2021 / Accepted: 27 July 2021 / Published: 28 July 2021

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Sustainable Trade Issues and Policies)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract should state the linkage of this paper with sustainability, orginality, practical and academic contribution (policy implications, if any)

Abstract, "This paper analyzes the impact of seaports on export and import indicators, and the labor force size in the regions" Why?

The abstract part should state clear its linkage with sustainability side as well.

Missing citation in the first paragraph of introduction

Line 31, the word thesis should be replaced by other word, "a number of researchers question the theses of the positive impact of..."

Table 2, why all except Caspian Basin have objectives? All projects should have objectives.

Line 157, The objectives to be accomplished only indirectly indicate the expected effect. This sentence looks odd, either expand it or delete it.

All tables should use repeat header row, as such, please change that for Table 3.

Table 4, citations should follow MDPI’s requirements.

Why there are two territory use Y=AX^2+BX+C but one use another model? How can we compare when one is different from the other two?

The model coefficient is NOT acceptable. No matter Investment, Investment^2 and Ln(Investment), all come from investment. Square an item can only capture the non-linear relationship but how can we imagine a figure is only affected by investment? Any items must be affected by a basket of factors. These three models also reflect the inadequency in literature review and ill consideration in model construction. Please rerun the model by including a lot more different factors, e.g. this journal is related to sustainability, see if some related factors can be added. Or else, it should not appear in Sustainability journal.

Notes under the table * is correct at significance value of 10% is also not what we normally write. Please revise.

Table 5, again, not sure why the factors can be compared when the models are different in different regions and same problem as Table 4, how come the authors only consider investment? These models have to be rerun by using more variables including sustainability related ones.

Similar problem for Tables 6 and 7.

Point 13

Point 14

Please consider the following papers and sustainability related variables must be added to the models:

Risk Management in Large Physical Infrastructure Investments: The Context of Seaport Infrastructure Development and Investment | SpringerLink

Port infrastructure investment and regional economic growth in China: Panel evidence in port regions and provinces - ScienceDirect

And variables like interest rate, unemployment rate as listed in https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/34

Point 14

We are deeply grateful for such a clear review with a number of extremely useful links. We have recalculated all models with wider arrangement of factors. We mainly used relative indicators, which allowed us to improve the quality of the models and to formulate general dependencies

Reviewer 2 Report

Important note: The paper was submitted to Sustainability journal, section: Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability, and "The Sustainable Trade Issues and Policies" special issue. I reviewed it regarding this fact.

I like the justification of the paper. I agree the relationship between the port infrastructure and the adjacent territory development should be analysed and discussed, and this academic discussion fits well in the sustainable development approach.
However, the study presented in the paper is much away from the sustainable approach when it comes to details. First, the conceptual part is blurred and loosely refers to the issues raised in the Special Issue "The Sustainable Trade Issues and Policies" call for papers. Second, the indicators used (how?; the authors do not explain it) are quantitative, aggregated, and most economical(market)-oriented. A socio-economic factor is the only indicator that could be specified as sustainable if it were not that general. Not a sustainable-oriented study. The introduction, the research concept, and the indicator design should be revised to meet the special issue approach.

The first paragraph of the introduction lacks references.
The literature review is relatively concise but informative and persuasive. However, the lack of its conclusion in the form of the conceptual model is the weakness of this part.

I think the purpose of the paper also needs verifying. My guess, it is a paragraph between lines 89-95. 'Particular studies and 'certain factors' are not scientifically acceptable. The conceptual framework or approach and also the method should be identified. In the following sentences, I feel confused about what does 'it' refers to. Moreover, is 'another problematic issues' part of the purpose?

The Materials and Method part is vague and weak. The conceptual framework of the research is not explained. I do not understand why the authors describe the assessments methods used in the literature in part 3.3 instead of here; however, they do not address them by explaining their framework. The indicator design should also be justified. I would also like to know the criterium of the location sample choice.
An informative map indicating the study areas and port locations could also clarify the geographical aspects of the regional development within the cases studies.

The result part focuses on the general view, which results from the indicator design. The sustainability issues are not discussed. The impact on the labour force could be even called unsustainable. Moreover, the authors admit that "the study sample did not allow to build models of good statistical quality using panel data analysis in the study sample" (224-227). This is not bad news for the authors. Not at all; if they raised this issue in the discussion, there is plenty of room for substantial and sustainable implications and suggestions for further action. Maybe a new design of indicators is needed?

The discussion part is loosely connected with the introduction and the results. Nevertheless, the authors refer to sustainable issues in the very last paragraph, but in a general and unrelated way in terms of the results of their study. They do not present the managerial and theoretical implications of the study. Also, the impact of central policy on regional development is not discussed. This is a significant issue in terms of their study, as they mention that the infrastructure projects are the realisation of Russia's Seaport Infrastructure Development Strategy.

The result and discussion sections present Russian-centric conclusions. The authors must be aware that Sustainability is a genuinely global journal. The authors should provide the international audience with the paper's contribution more comprehensively (but not generally). It means they should focus on similarities of regional/economic/social aspects between ports.

To summarise, the authors should elaborate on the aspects indicated in the review to meet the scope of the journal and the special issue. The revised manuscript would circulate in the second round of the review process. Fingers crossed.

Author Response

Point 1

However, the study presented in the paper is much away from the sustainable approach when it comes to details. First, the conceptual part is blurred and loosely refers to the issues raised in the Special Issue "The Sustainable Trade Issues and Policies" call for papers. Second, the indicators used (how?; the authors do not explain it) are quantitative, aggregated, and most economical(market)-oriented. A socio-economic factor is the only indicator that could be specified as sustainable if it were not that general. Not a sustainable-oriented study. The introduction, the research concept, and the indicator design should be revised to meet the special issue approach.

Point 1

We revised introduction, the research concept, the indicator design and discussion. According to this and several other comments, we have recalculated all models with wider arrangement of factors. We mainly used relative indicators, which allowed us to improve the quality of the models and to formulate general dependencies. Much more attention was given to sustainable approach. During this new stage of our research we came to additional conclusion, that there exists the inverse dependence of the volume of exports and imports on the level of costs for environmental protection. All recalculations affected the whole article body making it much closer to Special Issue theme.

Point 2

We added some references and concluded introduction with claiming our aims and hypothesis.

Pont 3

Point 3

We corrected the wording of our aims and hypothesis. The whole Materials and Method part was revised. The mentioned sentence was redone.

Point 4

The whole Materials and Method part was revised. The mentioned sentence was redone. We followed the reviewer’s advice and used some information from part 3.3. Also we described all indicators. According to other comments, we have recalculated all models with wider arrangement of factors. We mainly used relative indicators, which allowed us to improve the quality of the models and to formulate general dependencies. Describing additional indicators was added in this part as well as modelling explanation.

Point 5
An informative map indicating the study areas and port locations could also clarify the geographical aspects of the regional development within the cases studies.

Point 5

We added map

Point 6

According to this and several other comments, we have recalculated all models with wider arrangement of factors. We mainly used relative indicators, which allowed us to improve the quality of the models and to formulate general dependencies. Much more attention was given to sustainable approach. During this new stage of our research we came to additional conclusion, that there exists the inverse dependence of the volume of exports and imports on the level of costs for environmental protection. All recalculations affected the whole article body making it much closer to Special Issue theme.

Point 7

As we added new indicators and models it affected discussion part. We added some conclusions based on results and payed more attention to sustainability issues. We also discussed the issue of possibly diverging aims of central policy and regional development.

Point 8

We tried to avoid specific problems of Russian regions and used generalized approach instead.

Point 9

We are deeply grateful for such a clear review with a number of useful comments. We have recalculated all models with wider arrangement of factors. We mainly used relative indicators, which allowed us to improve the quality of the models and to formulate general dependencies. By adding several sustainability indicators we were able to achieve some new results. Also we made this article more suitable for the special issue theme.

Reviewer 3 Report

General remarks:

The research seeks answer to how to evaluate the wider economic (foreign trade) impacts of port developments in Russia. However, it only focuses on some selected factors and neglects fundamental issues, like seaports are „only” ports of trading, so their role is to letting the cargo to/from the hinterland, and the characteristics of the hinterland industry definitely determine the economic activities. (With low level industry, the relative impacts of port development can be higher than in case of high level industry.) Furthermore, the paper misses to analyse the potential impacts on competition between the Russian ports, as it may happen, that port development only relocates trade performances from one domestic port to another domestic port – so it may remain a zero-sum game.

What are the main objectives of the paper? To find dependencies between certain factors and to test/validate the applicability of some models/methods? The authors already found in the international literature, that dependencies exist, so I think first objective is unnecessary. The second objective is interesting and have scientific meaning, nevertheless, authors only concluded that the investigated models cannot be applied uniformly to all cases, but there is no answer on the reasons of inapplicability. That would have also scientific sense. Anyway, the question still remains: how can we mathematically describe and prove the regional economic/trade impacts of port development?

I guess „effects” and „impacts” are not clearly and consequently used through the text, please revise the use of these two expressions

I strongly advise a thorough restructuring of the paper as some sub-/chapters could have better place than in the current form.

Title: to be more specific and mention ports instead of generally infrastructure. The title denotes validation of evaluation methods in the selected field, while the paper itself presents evaluation results. Please revise the title accordingly.

Specific remarks:

Line 49-50: „that” duplicated

Line 67: „that” duplicated

Line 91: „…contributes to THE understanding of…”

Table 1: please re-edit the table and make more clear the distinction of the two main groups for indicators (exogenous, endogenous). Furthermore, Table 1 is not referred in the text.

Chapter 3. Results – 3.1. Port infrastructure development in Russia: these data are not results of the authors, these are inputs for the analysis, please reconsider the structure of the paper and the insert into Chapter 2. Materials and methods. Furthermore, a detailed introduction (characteristics) to ports and their developments, mainly the types of handled cargo, inbound-outbound / import-export-domestic performances, hinterland connections, would be useful (see [12] and Line 273, 291-292)

Line 157: I suggest to mention that this is only a remark by the authors.

Chapter 3.3. – this should be rather part of Chapter 2. Materials and methods.

Line 176: „…consequences of THE project implementation…”

Line 179: Table 4 doesn’t only contain the method referred as [14], but all the others, so referring to Table 4 should be reconsidered.

The are two Table 4 (line 212 and 245) in the text.

What is the message of Figure 1 and how it underlines the research findings? The grey colors cannot be clearly distinguished. Source of Figure 1 is missing.

Table 5 is not referred in the text.

Author Response

Point 1

Pont 1

The main objective is to estimate the impact of investments in the development of ports and several other socio-economic factors on the volume of foreign trade in the coastal and neighboring regions. As ports play a major role in socio-economic development of coastal region, we added more socio-economic indicators and recalculated all models. We used 5 different basins to decrease possibility of simple switching of trade flows. We added a map to clear the distance between assessed ports and regions. The problem of zero-sum game has scientific significance and can be explored in future works, but this article is concerned on development of certain regions.

Point 2

We rewrote the aims, added hypothesis and added much more socio-economic indicators. The main question is how can we mathematically describe and prove the influence of investments and all regional socio-economic indicators on export/import trade flows generated in the port.

Point 3

I guess „effects” and „impacts” are not clearly and consequently used through the text, please revise the use of these two expressions:.

Point 3

We revised the use of this terms in the text.

Pont 4

I strongly advise a thorough restructuring of the paper as some sub-/chapters could have better place than in the current form.

Point 4

We made restructuring of the paper. As we added new indicators and recalculated all models, whole article was changed significantly.

Point 5

We revised the title. However, as the objectives of the study are 5 different ports, we decided not to mention them in the title. It seems inappropriately long with 5 names,

Points 6 -19

Specific remarks:

Line 49-50: „that” duplicated

Line 67: „that” duplicated

Line 91: „…contributes to THE understanding of…”

Table 1: please re-edit the table and make more clear the distinction of the two main groups for indicators (exogenous, endogenous). Furthermore, Table 1 is not referred in the text.

Line 157: I suggest to mention that this is only a remark by the authors.

Chapter 3.3. – this should be rather part of Chapter 2. Materials and methods.

Line 176: „…consequences of THE project implementation…”

Line 179: Table 4 doesn’t only contain the method referred as [14], but all the others, so referring to Table 4 should be reconsidered.

The are two Table 4 (line 212 and 245) in the text.

What is the message of Figure 1 and how it underlines the research findings? The grey colors cannot be clearly distinguished. Source of Figure 1 is missing.

Table 5 is not referred in the text.

Point 6-19

All specific remarks were taken into account during revision process.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

State the practical, academic and policy implications in the abstract on top of gap of research.

Introduction part, The problems of assessing the transport and logistics infrastructure impact on re- 29 gional development have been considered in the scientific literature for more than a dec- 30 ade [1,2,3,4]. An important area of research is to find the relationship between the port 31 infrastructure and the adjacent territory development [3,5,6,7].

Please elaborate for 1-4, 3-7 instead of a whole trunk of citations that may lead to the problem of over cite.

Lines 279-281, please change + to English words instead.

Table 2, The increase of throughput, is there anything missing here?

Figure 1. Localization or Location?

The following data should be replaced by some wordings like Data in Table xx…

Please check and revise the format of the Table.

Lines 527-532, please use paragraph form instead of point form.

Table 5 needs a data summary table such as mean, mode, media, SD for all data.

Table 6 (all the results are significant at the 1% level, please check again if there is something wrong in the results. Normally we have some less significant factors

Some factors can be found in Table 6 but not Table 5, check Table 6 and 7 as well

Author Response

Point 1

State the practical, academic and policy implications in the abstract on top of gap of research.

Point 1

We added the statement of practical, academic and policy implications

Point 2

Please elaborate for 1-4, 3-7 instead of a whole trunk of citations that may lead to the problem of over cite.

Point 2

We elaborated the links

Point 3

Lines 279-281, please change + to English words instead.

Point 3

We changed + to English words

Point 4

Table 2, The increase of throughput, is there anything missing here?

Point 4

We added some information

Point 5

Figure 1. Localization or Location?

Point 5

We changed the term to Location

Point 6

The following data should be replaced by some wordings like Data in Table xx…

Point 6

We changed the words

Point 7

Please check and revise the format of the Table.

Point 7

We revised the format of all tables

Point 8

Lines 527-532, please use paragraph form instead of point form.

Point 8

We used paragraphs instead of point forms

Point 9

Table 5 needs a data summary table such as mean, mode, media, SD for all data.

Point 9

We added a data summary table

Point 10

Table 6 (all the results are significant at the 1% level, please check again if there is something wrong in the results. Normally we have some less significant factors

Point 10

Although normally we use the results significant at the 5% level, in this case we got even more significant factors. Using 1% level can't be a mistake as it makes the results even more signoficant. We also took into account the recommended article - https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/34

In that article the same approach was used.

Point 11

Some factors can be found in Table 6 but not Table 5, check Table 6 and 7 as well

Point 11

Once again, we used the same approach as in recommended article. Table 5 (now table 6) describes all considered factors, and table 6 (now table 7) describes only those with the significant results. We added some explanation to make it more clear.

Reviewer 2 Report

I admit the authors have made much effort to improve the manuscript substantially, so now it works better for the Special Issue. Please read my further comments. Thanks,

Introduction.
I like the direction the introduction has been changed. I would only comment on two things:
(1) "The key hypothesis of the study is the assumption" – this sentence is not clear and methodologically correct. I suggest 'refers to' instead of 'is';
(2) The remainder of the paper would guide readers through its logic and substantial design.

The materials and Method part has been substantially revised. I am not an expert in quantitative study methods and tools, so please confront the details with the other reviewers. Adding sub-section 2.3 helps readers understand the research design. However, the following issues arise:
(1) As measuring sustainability using mezzo-economic indicators struggles with the low availability of reliable data, so I assume (and understand) that the ones you used are the best possible set you could create. However, you must admit that the result is not very impressive. So, I suggest removing or changing the word 'systematic' in line 122 as it seems you address the gap issued in the sentence 122-152 by carrying out the study presented in the paper. Well, it could not be objectively defined as systematic in terms of the verity of factors used to cover the subject (as the data sources are not impressive). Moreover, please link this fact in the discussion and conclusion parts while discussing the avenues of further research.
(2) You use the term 'it is hypothesized that...' instead of 'hypothesis 1,2,3 etc. claims' (also in the result section). It seems like it is not your hypothesis, or it might be not apparent to the readers. Please consider the changes here.

Results. Similar to the methodological part, the result section has been extensively revised to pump up the scientific contribution of the study.
(1) You claim that you found a significant result: the inverse relationship between costs for environmental protection and export level. It is fine but needs sufficient deliberation as you put this even in the abstract as a relevant study result. You mentioned the local governments' role in this process (lines 789-791), which is a way to manage this, but this is only one direction. What about central state interventionism and its effect in terms of international trade/regional development nexus?
(2) Something is missing in line 711.

Discussion. I miss this part. I think scientific work should have one. Maybe at least Discussion and Conclusion part?

Author Response

Point 1

Introduction.
I like the direction the introduction has been changed. I would only comment on two things:

(1) "The key hypothesis of the study is the assumption" – this sentence is not clear and methodologically correct. I suggest 'refers to' instead of 'is';
(2) The remainder of the paper would guide readers through its logic and substantial design.

Point 1

We changed the sentence and added a bit more information in the introduction part

Point 2

We removed the term “systematic”

Point 3
(2) You use the term 'it is hypothesized that...' instead of 'hypothesis 1,2,3 etc. claims' (also in the result section). It seems like it is not your hypothesis, or it might be not apparent to the readers. Please consider the changes here.

Point 3

We used the term 'it is hypothesized that...' due to recommendation of another expert, so we can’t fully revise it. But we want the article to be apparent to all our future readers, so we changed the line to 'hypothesis 1,2 claims'

Point 4

We added a paragraph about central state interventionism and its effect in terms of international trade/regional development.

Point 5
(2) Something is missing in line 711.

Point 5

We fixed a typo

Point 6

Discussion. I miss this part. I think scientific work should have one. Maybe at least Discussion and Conclusion part?

Point 6

We divided Discussion and Conclusion into different parts.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank the authors for the revised version, I appreciate the changes!

Author Response

Thank you for your review!

Article Menu

Evaluating the Socio-Economic Factors Impacting Foreign Trade Development in Port Areas

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI