Assessing Land Use Efficiencies and Land Quality Impacts of Renewable Transportation Energy Systems for Passenger Cars Using the LANCA® Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript investigates the use specific LCA model - LANCA® model to produce information on land use (LU) efficiency and land quality impacts of renewable transport energy systems for passenger cars and to compare these impacts to those stemming from fossil gasoline and diesel use. This manuscript is interesting but requires a major, good revision. Some detailed comments are listed below.
Detailed Comments:
In lines 41 and 42 authors state “Approximately 15% of global GHG emissions are related to the transportation sector“ ”. based on literary sources from 2014 and 2015. This data is currently almost doubled, so please update it with the appropriate literature sources.
When quoting literary sources, I ask authors to use the form [5,6] and [7,8] instead of [5] [6] and [7] [8]
I ask the authors to list references in line 100 in the way [20-23]
Please make corrections in the citations in the complete paper according to the previously mentioned recommendations given in the Instructions for authors
Please in Lines 23 and 131 number 18 600 replace with 18,600 and in the rest of the manuscript use a comma as a separator thousand
In lines [265-267] the authors state „The GaBi PV process does not include land occupation by solar panels. Therefore, this case can be assumed to represent a situation where solar PVs have been installed e.g. on rooftops.” This is a major constraint for application because electricity produced from on-site solar power plants has great potential for use in electric vehicles when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions from the transport sector. On the other hand, these solar power plants occupy large areas, so analyzes such as the one given in the paper represent valuable material for an objective view of this solution for combating GHG emissions, ie climate change. Given this limitation of the software used, the validity of the conclusions in Chapters 4 Discussion and 5 Conclusions is questioned. So please sentences that contain land use of the electricity-based systems you reformulate in such a way that for the analyzes were not used land that would be used for the installation of solar power plants, but only PVs on the rooftops.
It is necessary to make certain changes in Figure 1. I assume that in the vertical “PALM FRUITS” to “DIESEL VEHICLES” the authors meant “BIODIESEL” and not “DIESEL”. In the fields "DISTRIBUTIONS BY TRACKS" I do not see the need for the symbol "e" for electricity…
I ask the authors to clarify in the manuscript the data "1.7 passengers" in Line 300 "All these values are presented for 1.7 passengers"
I am not sure that I understand the meaning of Table 2 in the best way, which contains the thermal powers of conventional fossil fuels, biofuels and the charging time of an electric vehicle. Diesel, gasoline and propane cannot be in the row (category) of "Renewable diesel production" and so on.
I ask the authors to fill in all parts of the paper after Chapter 5. Conclusions (Author Contributions and others)
I ask the authors to list the References according to the Instructions for Authors
The question about the references [29]: Why use the data for 2018 when there are available data for 2021 (https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/14d7e768-1b50-11ec-b4fe-01aa75ed71a1)”?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The abstract is neatly formulated. However, the orientation of the paper is not clear: Is it about comparing different transport systems with regard to their land use impacts and making recommendations for a perspective transport development or is the focus on applying the LANCA method and using the example of transport concepts. This must be made clearer in the abstract and also in the introduction.
Introduction
According to the comments for the abstract, the orientation of the paper is not clear: Is it about comparing different transport systems with regard to their land use impacts and making recommendations for a perspective transport development or is the focus on applying the LANCA method and using the example of transport concepts for this purpose.
However, the confusion in the introduction goes much further: the introduction talks a lot about biodiversity, habitat losses, endangered bird populations. The rest of the article and the LANCA method have nothing to do with this (so far). A connection between LANCA and biodiversity is not argued in this article. Therefore, this remains unclear.
The introduction should be revised, the aims of the paper should be made clear and the introduction should be structured more convenient.
Results
What is missing is an intermediate step of the results regarding the life cycle inventory. How much biomass from wood, vegetable oil, etc. is necessary to fulfil the FU, how much electrical energy, diesel, etc. is necessary. How much biomass (wood, sugar cane) etc. can be generated per year from the calculated area. This is important in order to better understand the connection to the land use indicators.
In the introduction, climate change was mentioned as an argument. But there is no statement or evaluation of the extent to which increased land use is (or is not) associated with a lower contribution to climate change.
The results in Graph 2 and Graph 3 seem clear. However, the reader is left with the results in Table 2, although these are much more complex and less intuitive. There are many results in different categories that at least point in the same direction, but whose differences seem understandable. For example, in several categories, such as "Groundwater Regeneration Reduction Potential (Occupation) [m³]", "Groundwater Regeneration Reduction Potential (Transformation) [m³/a]" or Infiltration Reduction Potential (Occupation) [m³], there are mathematically positive as well as mathematically negative results. The origin of these results is no longer trivial and should at least be explained in some detail. The authors have several sources in their bibliography that can provide sufficient justification for this and the theoretical background to it, e.g. De Laurentiis et al. (2019), Beck et al. (2010) or Bos et al. (2016). At the very least, the basic mechanisms that presumably influence these results (initial quality of soil – reference situation, transformation, occupation, etc.) should be explained by, for example, explaining individual exemplary results a little better.
Discussion
The discussion is very concise. The land use impact for different types of propulsion was determined and compared, with a focus on biofuels. Nevertheless, the question always arises: Are biofuels an alternative to fossil fuels? This question, which is not at the core of the analysis but will be asked nevertheless, is avoided. A projection that goes beyond the life cycle of a vehicle would be helpful in shedding more light on this. What conclusions can be drawn if we consider not 1 vehicle but 1,000,000 vehicles that are fuelled with biofuels? Are there tipping points in the use of land? Or are there clear tendencies that biomass should be used less for intensive to produce, but short-lived products such as fuel, and that the use of land and its effects should be used more for long-lived products, and mobility should be executed with a focus on electromobility. These questions do not have to be answered comprehensively, but the claim to include such questions in a discussion should be present.
In the introduction, climate change was mentioned as an argument. But there is no statement or evaluation of the extent to which an increased use of land is (or is not) associated with a lower contribution to climate change. This was also not included in the discussion. It would be nice to get some impetus here for this important discussion that needs to be had (not in this article, but as a results of further research).
Sentences like: "The LANCA® method seems to be applicable in assessing land quality impacts related LU." are superfluous, as it can be assumed that this works, as the method seems to be made for exactly this purpose.
Appendix.
The results in Appendix B add little to understanding if they are not explained or discussed in the main text. It is advised that they should be accompanied by a brief explanation.,
Although there are still some gaps in the article, the topic and the discussion of it seem to be very important. The mechanisms of land use impacts need to be better understood, for which scientific articles help enormously. However, in order to meet this demand, revisions are absolutely necessary. Due to the relevance of the topic, especially in view of the increasing application in the context of the EC's Environmental Footprint, minor revisions will be necessary, but should be done carefully. However, the technical qualifications of the authors seem to be suitable for this. Good luck. I look forward to the revised article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article titled »Assessing Land Use Efficiencies and Land Quality Impacts of Renewable Transportation Energy Systems for Passenger Cars Using the LANCA® Method« focused on an attempt to calculate land use efficiency (concerning occupation and transformation) and land quality impacts of different renewable transport energy systems for passenger cars, using the Land Use Indicator Calculation in Life Cycle Assessment (LANCA®) model. The land-use impacts were normalized according to the Soil Quality Index building on LANCA® and included in the environmental footprint. The analysis included biomass electricity, electricity to fuels, and fossil-based energy systems.
The researched topics of comparative analysis between different biofuels and their side effects are very relevant, especially now during the Ukrainian crisis.
I appreciate the attempt, although I am not entirely satisfied with the results. I found some inconsistencies there that I will address in my review.
My main comments are as follows:
1. When presenting the results, it is unclear whether these are the results of authors’ sources or just summarized as a slightly modified compilation of already existing work of others. All tables and figures require a clear definition of where they came from. The authors must provide this information in such a way as to allow the study to repeat. In my opinion, substantiated scientific research must be repeatable. That is the essence of science.
2. In my opinion, some of the actual results are set out in the annex. To improve the readability and understanding of the article, I recommend placing them in the main text.
3. Chapters Discussion and Conclusion:
Both chapters must be expanded. Include a clear interpretation of Table 2, Figure 2, and Figure 3.
4. There is a lack of placement of presented research compared to other relevant scientific sources. This link is not discussed and presented at all.
5. Choice of literature: A lot of literature is of an older date. I recommend an update with current literature. I recommend including the following source:
- An applicability assessment and sensitivity analysis of land use impact models: application of the LANCA model in site-specific conditions
Authors: D. Terranova, E. Balugani, S. Righi, D. Marazza
Published in: International journal of life cycle assessment 2021 v.26 no.11 pp. 2215-2231
My other comments are as follows:
Figure 2: Is this own or summarized source from literature No. 13?
The last column deals with Methane from wood FI. The Scandinavian forest is discussed. The Scandinavian forest is a specific type of forest in terms of annual tree growth. This forest is significantly different from the average temperate zone forest or the subtropical or the tropical forest.
It makes sense to point out this difference. The results would have been significantly different if such research had been conducted in a different geographical and vegetation zone.
This difference is seen and it is essential. Please see recommended article:
- Using the LANCA® model to account for soil quality within LCA: first application andapproach comparison in two contrasted tropical case studies
Authors: Alexis Thoumazeau, Céline Bustanya, Jérémy Rodrigues, Cécile Bessou
Published in: IjoLCAS 2018
Table 3: An explanation of Table 3 and its results are not included in the article. Missing is textual explanation and citation of the source (own or foreign source?). It is necessary to compare and analyze the results.
Figure 3: Is this own or foreign source?
The picture is difficult to read. Colors do not differ much from each other (especially blue shades). Color contrasts should be obvious.
All the colors in the legend are not in the figure (especially the third and sixth colors). Why are they placed in the legend if they are not in the picture?
Write Author Contributions, Funding, and other statements from 433 to 478 appropriately.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your answers and corrections
Reviewer 3 Report
The article titled »Assessing Land Use Efficiencies and Land Quality Impacts of Renewable Transportation Energy Systems for Passenger Cars Using the LANCA® Method« focused on an attempt to calculate land use efficiency (concerning occupation and transformation) and land quality impacts of different renewable transport energy systems for passenger cars, using the Land Use Indicator Calculation in Life Cycle Assessment (LANCA®) model. The land-use impacts were normalized according to the Soil Quality Index building on LANCA® and included in the environmental footprint. The analysis included biomass electricity, electricity to fuels, and fossil-based energy systems.
This is the second submission of this paper to the Sustainability. I have reviewed it before and concluded that it needs a major revision. At the moment, I think the authors have improved their work as much as possible. My general impression is that my advices have been taken into account. I agree that this paper is much better at the moment. It fits the scope of the Sustainability and I recommend publishing it to initiate a discussion among researchers.
