Status of the Marinas’ Development in the Southern Region of the Romanian Sea Coast: Implications for Sustainable Recreational Transport in the Black Sea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper focuses on the development of tourist ports in the Romanian Black Sea coastal area and their implications for sustainable recreational transport. The authors provide statistical and qualitative analyses of the sustainable practices related to environmental, social, and economic systems of the four most developed marinas along the coast. The study highlights the gaps and practices that require improvement and provides recommendations for enhancing sustainability. The research findings can guide policymakers and stakeholders in developing sustainable practices for promoting the growth of recreational nautical transport in Romania. Overall, this paper provides valuable insights into the current state of tourist ports in the region and their potential for sustainable development. However, this paper could still be improved, with the following suggestions given:

1)     In the ABSTRACT, there is too much background description and less description of the research methods and findings used in this paper.

2)     The paper mentions that research on commercial ports possesses a wide range of interest and suggests that the authors could add descriptions of relevant research on commercial ports or containers ports for broaden the breadth of the literature review, such as:

[1] Tang, M., Ji, B., Fang, X., & Yu, S. S. Discretization-Strategy-Based Solution for Berth Allocation and Quay Crane Assignment Problem. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2022, 10(4), 495.

[2] Deng G, Chen J, Liu Q. Influence mechanism and evolutionary game of environmental regulation on green port construction. Sustainability, 2022, 14(5): 2930.

[3] Zhang Q, Wang S, Zhen L. Yard truck retrofitting and deployment for hazardous material transportation in green ports. Annals of Operations Research, 2022: 1-32.

3)     The terminology in the paper is as uniform as possible or explained accordingly, for example in 3.1, “Romania is a region with a low number of marinas ……. Ports have the roles of accommodating vessels…” , the words "marinas" and "ports" appear in succession, but do they mean the same thing?

4)     The paper mentions that a questionnaire survey was conducted to collect information, but no description of this appears in the analysis of the results and conclusions, and the author is also asked to add information on the size and composition of the respondents to the questionnaire survey.

5)     The description of the SWOT analysis is too concise.

6)     The study on low carbon in ports only makes a relatively small contribution, and it is suggested that the authors could add some data to make the study more convincing.

This paper should  be improved as far as the quality of English.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

I express my gratitude to the reviewer for the opportunity to improve the quality of the manuscript through the shared comments and suggestions. Taking into consideration the comments, I have made the needed changes to the manuscript with the corresponding position for the no markup file.

1)     In the ABSTRACT, there is too much background description and less description of the research methods and findings used in this paper.

Response 1)

Thank you to the reviewer for this comment. I have updated the abstract to be more focused on the methods used and findings. The study's main objective is to assess sustainable practices in relation to the environmental, social, and economic systems, with a focus on environmental protection, the use of renewable energy sources, and the implementation of quality management standards. The study uses a mix of quantitative and qualitative analyses to achieve this. Interviews with representatives of the four coastal marinas helped gather the data. The size of boat traffic was evaluated by taking into consideration the data from the local harbor master. These changes can be found in the reviewed manuscript, lines 21-26, pg.1

2)     The paper mentions that research on commercial ports possesses a wide range of interest and suggests that the authors could add descriptions of relevant research on commercial ports or containers ports to broaden the breadth of the literature review, such as:

[1] Tang, M., Ji, B., Fang, X., & Yu, S. S. Discretization-Strategy-Based Solution for Berth Allocation and Quay Crane Assignment Problem. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2022, 10(4), 495.

 [2] Deng G, Chen J, Liu Q. Influence mechanism and evolutionary game of environmental regulation on green port construction. Sustainability, 2022, 14(5): 2930.

[3] Zhang Q, Wang S, Zhen L. Yard truck retrofitting and deployment for hazardous material transportation in green ports. Annals of Operations Research, 2022: 1-32.

Response 2)

Thanks to the reviewer for providing this suggestion. Upon reviewing the work of the authors mentioned, I have identified several valuable conclusions and methods that can be applied to the development of marinas and leisure ports. The concept of the green port is multifaceted and can be achieved through the utilization of various approaches, such as the BAP model studied by Tang et al. to optimize the time of stay. Another excellent example is the study of the mechanism of the green port concept, which concluded that the most effective policy approach involves a collaboration between the government, port enterprises, and transportation enterprises. For this reason, I have included in the literature review, references to the mentioned studies. Lines 96 – 109, pg.2

3)     The terminology in the paper is as uniform as possible or explained accordingly, for example in 3.1, “Romania is a region with a low number of marinas ……. Ports have the roles of accommodating vessels…” , the words "marinas" and "ports" appear in succession, but do they mean the same thing?

Response 3)

Thank you for this observation. For the scope of this study, marinas refer to touristic ports used by sailboats or other kinds of nautical recreational activities such as yachting or rafting. I have corrected the manuscript to be more precise in regards to the terms marina and port.

4)     The paper mentions that a questionnaire survey was conducted to collect information, but no description of this appears in the analysis of the results and conclusions, and the author is also asked to add information on the size and composition of the respondents to the questionnaire survey.

Response 4)

Many thanks to the reviewer for this comment. I have updated the manuscript including details about the size of the interviewed group. The interviews were conducted with representatives from the four locations under study, involving a group of 14 individuals, out of which 6 were managers and 8 were workers associated with the marinas. This can be seen in paragraph 3.3, lines 333-339, page 10.

5)     The description of the SWOT analysis is too concise.

Response 5)

Thanks to the reviewer for this comment. I have modified the manuscript with a detailed description of the SWOT analyses, emphasizing the observed factors and their impact on the activity of the tourist ports. The updated discussion can be found in paragraph 5, lines 635-664, page 18.

6)     The study on low carbon in ports only makes a relatively small contribution, and it is suggested that the authors could add some data to make the study more convincing.

Response 6)

Many thanks to the reviewer for this comment and suggestion. I have updated the manuscript in paragraph 3.4.2, lines 421-443, page 13, and added a data framework for key factors needed in the assessment of the carbon footprint of the marinas. Such further research could provide critical insights into the environmental impact of these activities and identify strategies to reduce their carbon footprint.

The manuscript was revised and with the help of MDPI language services the quality of English was improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper represents introductory overview to current state of Romanian Black Sea marinas with properly addressed structure providing fundamental insight into topic suitable for further scientific research. No issues and/or remarks have been found.

From technical point of view article has been properly structured and 

addresses topic which definitely has shown to be very interesting from 

multiple aspects of which the most important have been tackled by 

authors (i.e. pollution, standardization, equipment, economical aspects, 

etc.). Originality of the article regarding focus of research is quite 

relative - not very original on the global scale but definitely original 

regarding Romanian scope. Therefore it definitely tackles a gap in the 

field. Applied scientific methodology is appropriate and results have 

been presented in clear and understandable way. References are relevant 

and properly analyzed.

Overall, as previously mentioned I find this article to be empirically 

applicable and a very good starting point for future research in the 

named field.

 

 

Author Response

Response :

I express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to the reviewer for their insightful comments and recommendations. I acknowledge that the topic under study is indeed a crucial one, particularly with regard to the development of leisure port activities in Romania.

As stated in the review, the article tries to fill a gap in this field but also to raise the interest of future research and discussions that can lead to sustainable industry development.

Thank you!

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Your paper provides an interesting and exhaustive description of Status of the Marinas’ Development in the

Southern Region of the Romanian Sea Coast.

In my opinion It is not a scientific paper in strict sense, but quite a good discussion about Marina’s

development . Since it is claimed that statistical analysis has been performed. It would be helpful to provide

some detail of this analysis and of the model that has been used

Moreover it would be helpful more focus on the potentiality of a sustainable and green approach together with

a cost benefit analysis (even a simple one)

Also a very rough estimation of costs involved in the development of the services would be useful.

Competitiveness is taken into account but a bit more quantitative approach might be interesting, in other

words discuss the Potential advantages of sustainability and a green approach and also a possible timing and

priorities

The paper provides a readable and interesting picture of the current situation and may be the basis for a

future more quantitative approach and author are encouraged to perform quantitative analysis

Generally speaking the paper might be shortened someway

Author Response

I express my gratitude to the reviewer for the opportunity to improve the quality of the manuscript through the shared comments and suggestions. Taking into consideration the comments, I have made the needed changes to the manuscript with the corresponding position for the no markup file.

1) Since it is claimed that statistical analysis has been performed. It would be helpful to provide some detail of this analysis and of the model that has been used.

Response 1)

Thanks to the reviewer for this useful remark. In regard to the methods used, I have updated the manuscript to be more accurate. This research employed a mixed-methods approach, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative analysis methods. The qualitative method employed thematic analysis as the primary means of data analysis. Data was primarily collected through interviews conducted with representatives from marinas. Secondary data collection methods included observation and the collection of data from naval authorities or public documents. The thematic analysis approach was used to identify and interpret patterns and themes in the data collected from the interviews and other sources. A quantitative approach was used to complement the qualitative approach, providing additional insights into the size of boat traffic in local marinas. 

2) Moreover, it would be helpful more focus on the potentiality of a sustainable and green approach together with a cost-benefit analysis (even a simple one)Also, a very rough estimation of costs involved in the development of the services would be useful.

Response 2)

Many thanks for this suggestion. Updated the manuscript with a practical case analysis for the improvement of Mangalia port with EU funds. Funds were prioritized to improve environmental protection by the installation of new, environmentally friendly floating quays, cleaning the water basin of old structures, green landscaping, installing energy-efficient lighting systems, and improvements in the waste collection systems. With an investment of 4 million euros, 146 berths were newly created, increasing the possibility of revenue for the local community. The Mangalia port improvement project had a positive economic impact and a rough cost-benefit analysis would suggest that the investment was economically feasible. Added discussion to paragraph 4, lines 516-528, pg.16

3) Potential advantages of sustainability and a green approach and also possible timing and priorities.

Thanks to the reviewer for the remarks. The research aimed to identify areas where improvements could be made to achieve a more environmentally friendly approach, more green. Addressing the findings can bring the activity closer to being environmentally sustainable. Sustainability and a green approach can bring a number of potential advantages to society, the economy, and the environment. Some of these advantages include reduced environmental impact, improved health of the fauna, improved cost savings, increased innovation, and enhanced business reputation. The timing and priorities for a marina's green approach investment will depend on a variety of factors, including the marina's current environmental impact, the availability of funding and resources, and the marina's goals and priorities. Changes can be found in the Introduction, page 2, lines 81-91.

4) The paper might be shortened.

Thank you for the useful observation. I have updated the manuscript and removed some of the general discussion text in order to shorten the article.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,  

The paper entitled "Status of the Marinas’ Development in the Southern Region of the Romanian Sea Coast: Implications for Sustainable 

Recreational Transport in the Black Sea" aims to present the status of the development of tourist ports in the Romanian Black Sea coastal zone and their implications for sustainable provision of quality recreational transport.

After reviewing the work, I have comments and suggestions for improving the work as follows: 

 1. Introduction   

I suggest revising this passage. I suggest introducing information on why research about the marinas is very important for the development of touristic in Romania? Why was this research addressed? Is it a continuation of the research? It should introduce the topic and end with the purpose of the work.

 It also lacks research questions.  There is also no research hypothesis. 

 2. literature review

A review of the world literature is missing. I suggest citing examples of marinas in the world.  What state-of-the-art environmental solutions do they use? 

I suggest renaming the chapter according to the guidelines of the journal to 3.Materials and methods 

 This chapter is too long with 10 pages! In my opinion, some of the material should be in the Resultats chapter. I propose to introduce a scheme of research procedure.   

Results.  

The results are presented and described in a good way, they are very interesting and important for future planning and management of marinas in accordance with sustainable development.

In the Discussion chapter, the authors should further discuss and explain the findings and results of the work. This will improve the quality of the work. The authors should compare their project and results with the results of similar studies conducted on this topic in other parts of Europe and the world.   Especially since marina is now one of the forms of sustainable tourism. 

Correct literature according to the rules of the journal 

In conclusion, I recommend this paper for publication in the journal Sustainability with minor changes. 

Kind regards,

Author Response

I express my gratitude to the reviewer for the opportunity to improve the quality of the manuscript through the shared comments and suggestions. Taking into consideration the comments, I have made the needed changes to the manuscript with the corresponding position for the no markup file.

 1. Introduction   

I suggest revising this passage. I suggest introducing information on why research about the marinas is very important for the development of touristic in Romania? Why was this research addressed? Is it a continuation of the research? It should introduce the topic and end with the purpose of the work. It also lacks research questions.  There is also no research hypothesis. 

Response 1.

Thanks for this very useful observation.Updated manuscript in Introduction, pg.2, lines 51-59 and also rewritten Abstract sections to address the observations in the comments.  So far there was no published research evaluating the impact of regional marinas on the Romanian coastal waters. Conducting research on marinas development in Romania lies in its potential to provide valuable insights that can guide the establishment of policies and practices that foster sustainable and conscientious growth, generate economic prospects, and safeguard the environment. The question is: can the development of these new marinas be carried out in a sustainable manner that ensures adherence to contemporary standards of environmental preservation and activities with minimal impact? Conducting an assessment of the current operations of established marinas, evaluating their impact on the environment, and identifying areas that need improvement can guide the sustainable development of new marinas in compliance with contemporary standards of environmental preservation and activities with minimal impact.

2. Literature review

A review of the world literature is missing. I suggest citing examples of marinas in the world.  What state-of-the-art environmental solutions do they use? 

Response 2.

Thank you for this comment. Added references 16,17,20:   and completed the manuscript with a discussion regarding state-of-the-art technologies and innovations in the field. Updates in paragraph 2 Literature Review, lines 116-136 pg.3

3. I suggest renaming chapter 3 according to the guidelines of the journal to  Materials and Methods. This chapter is too long with 10 pages! In my opinion, some of the material should be in the Results chapter. I propose to introduce a scheme of research procedure. 

Response 3. Thank you for the comment. Chapter 3 was renamed. The material was shortened and added some paragraphs in the results section. An updated research procedure flow is presented in paragraph 3.3, pg.9, Figure 7. 

4. In the Discussion chapter, the authors should further discuss and explain the findings and results of the work. This will improve the quality of the work. The authors should compare their project and results with the results of similar studies conducted on this topic in other parts of Europe and the world.   Especially since marina is now one of the forms of sustainable tourism. 

Response 4.

Thank you for the useful observations. The discussion about the findings was updated as can be seen in paragraph 5, lines 644-684, pg.18.Limitations of the study and future ideas for research were also discussed. In terms of sustainability, references to results from similar projects were mentioned.