Towards Efficient Mapping of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case Study of the Port of Tallinn
, Mihhail Fetissov 1, Ellen Kaasik 3, Janis Väät 3, Stanislav Štõkov 4 and Ulla Pirita Tapaninen 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is relatively complete in structure, and it is consistent with the main content of the article title in general. However, there are some areas that need to be improved. They are as follows:
1.There are too few specific formula derivation and algorithm cases related to the Port of Tallinn described in the article, which may be lack of sufficient evidence to support the analysis of GHG emissions in ports.
2.The figures and tables content are not enough to fully reflect the content of the article, which may lead to confusion for some readers, and the case studies are not sufficient.
3.When it comes to the linking central database with external information sources, the article does not depict the datum in detail and provide specific mathematical derivation and algorithm process, which may lead to some misunderstandings of readers.
4.The datum on greenhouse gas emissions from the Port of Tallinn are not clearly shown, which cannot confirm the point of view of data analysis in the paper.
5.There is no separate conclusion part to summarize the main ideas of the article and make prospects for future work.
6.When describing the construction of greenhouse evaluation system in the Port of Tallinn, the description of the scene is not precise enough, and no corresponding mathematical model evaluation system has been established to support the description.
7.As a review article, there are only few references in this paper, which is not enough to support the comprehensiveness of the content of the article. Besides, some references are too old, which have been more than 20 years, so the reference is of little significance.
Here are some suggestions in the following:
1.It’s suggested to provide more specific formula derivation and algorithm cases to support the idea of the GHG emissions in ports, so as to make the analysis more complete and cogent.
2.The paper should take more figures and tables into consideration. For example, the specific datum of GHG emissions should be presented in more figures and tables to make the analysis visual and pellucid.
3.The article should add separate conclusion part to summarize the article briefly, and put forward the following works for prospects.
4.The construction of greenhouse evaluation system part should add some mathematical derivation and establish simple models to make the article more complete and understandable.
5.The references should be complete and abundant to support description of the article, and the references should not be too old to be adapted for the paper.
Moderate editing of English language
Author Response
The article is relatively complete in structure, and it is consistent with the main content of the article title in general. However, there are some areas that need to be improved. They are as follows:
1.There are too few specific formula derivation and algorithm cases related to the Port of Tallinn described in the article, which may be lack of sufficient evidence to support the analysis of GHG emissions in ports.
Response: In the revised version of the paper, we have added generalised formulas and algorithms to support the analysis of GHG emissions in the Port of Tallinn.
2.The figures and tables content are not enough to fully reflect the content of the article, which may lead to confusion for some readers, and the case studies are not sufficient.
Response: In the revised version of the paper, we have added an additional table showing the actual mapping results of the analysis of GHG emissions in the Port of Tallinn. This allows readers to better understand how different elements of the emissions assessment (data collection, analysis and reporting) are linked.
3.When it comes to the linking central database with external information sources, the article does not depict the datum in detail and provide specific mathematical derivation and algorithm process, which may lead to some misunderstandings of readers.
Response: In the revised version of the paper, we have added generalised formulas and algorithms to support the analysis of GHG emissions in the Port of Tallinn. When it comes to linking different external databases, these solutions are very database specific and involve a lot of IT details and are therefore beyond the scope of this study, which only outlines the general approach to GHG emissions in ports. All these specific IT solutions deserve to be published in another article.
4.The datum on greenhouse gas emissions from the Port of Tallinn are not clearly shown, which cannot confirm the point of view of data analysis in the paper.
Response: In the revised version of the paper, we have included actual mapping results from the analysis of GHG emissions in the Port of Tallinn. This allows readers to better understand how the different elements of the emissions assessment (data collection, analysis and reporting) are linked.
5.There is no separate conclusion part to summarize the main ideas of the article and make prospects for future work.
Response: The subsection entitled "Advantages and Disadvantages of Current Approaches and Worthwhile Ways Forward" essentially plays the role of the "Conclusions" section in our paper. Since the formatting of this particular journal does not standardise the inclusion of a separate "Conclusions" sub-section, we have chosen the above title. We believe that this title provides a more descriptive insight into the content of the section, thereby improving the reader's understanding.
6.When describing the construction of greenhouse evaluation system in the Port of Tallinn, the description of the scene is not precise enough, and no corresponding mathematical model evaluation system has been established to support the description.
Response: In the revised version of the paper, we have added generalised formulas and algorithms to support the analysis of GHG emissions in the Port of Tallinn. However, we respectfully disagree with the critique regarding the depiction of the scene in the Port of Tallinn. Our description was designed to provide an encompassing overview of the main actors in the ports, crucial digital infrastructures, web tools, and databases employed in the assessment of GHG emissions. The intention was to ensure a balanced overview that provides sufficient context, without overloading the reader with excessive detail. We believe that this approach effectively communicates the complexity of the GHG emissions assessment procedure in the port environment.
7.As a review article, there are only few references in this paper, which is not enough to support the comprehensiveness of the content of the article. Besides, some references are too old, which have been more than 20 years, so the reference is of little significance.
Response: Thank you for your critique regarding the references in our paper. However, our intent was to produce a synthetic paper aimed at identifying best practices for GHG emission mapping in port areas, and utilize this information to construct an efficient GHG mapping system to evaluate emissions in the Port of Tallinn in 2021. This objective differs slightly from the structure of a traditional review paper.
In response to your feedback, we have indeed broadened the scope of our references in the revised manuscript to improve the diversity of information sources. However, we respectfully disagree with your view on the use of older references. Despite their age, these documents have been instrumental in forming the basis for GHG emission calculations in notable locations such as the Ports of Helsinki and Stockholm. We believe these references provide crucial context and add value to our study, demonstrating a distinctive approach compared to other traditional assessments.
Here are some suggestions in the following:
1.It’s suggested to provide more specific formula derivation and algorithm cases to support the idea of the GHG emissions in ports, so as to make the analysis more complete and cogent.
Response: Done in the revised version of the manuscript.
2.The paper should take more figures and tables into consideration. For example, the specific datum of GHG emissions should be presented in more figures and tables to make the analysis visual and pellucid.
Response: Done in the revised version of the manuscript. In the revised version of the paper, we have included actual mapping results from the analysis of GHG emissions in the Port of Tallinn. This allows readers to better understand how the different elements of the emissions assessment (data collection, analysis and reporting) are linked.
3.The article should add separate conclusion part to summarize the article briefly, and put forward the following works for prospects.
Response: The subsection entitled "Advantages and Disadvantages of Current Approaches and Worthwhile Ways Forward" essentially plays the role of the "Conclusions" section in our paper. Since the formatting of this particular journal does not standardise the inclusion of a separate "Conclusions" sub-section, we have chosen the above title. We believe that this title provides a more descriptive insight into the content of the section, thereby improving the reader's understanding.
4.The construction of greenhouse evaluation system part should add some mathematical derivation and establish simple models to make the article more complete and understandable.
Response: Done in the revised version of the manuscript. In the revised version of the paper, we have added generalised formulas and algorithms to support the analysis of GHG emissions in the Port of Tallinn.
5.The references should be complete and abundant to support description of the article, and the references should not be too old to be adapted for the paper.
Response: In response to your feedback, we have indeed broadened the scope of our references in the revised manuscript to improve the diversity of information sources. However, we respectfully disagree with your view on the use of older references. Despite their age, these documents have been instrumental in forming the basis for GHG emission calculations in notable locations such as the Ports of Helsinki and Stockholm. We believe these references provide crucial context and add value to our study, demonstrating a distinctive approach compared to other traditional assessments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Generally, your research is important in terms of mapping greenhouse gas emissions for ports. The used or suggested methodology helps collect emissions data and assess emissions in ports. Though I enjoyed reading the article, it can still be improved, especially for structure and clarity. There are several statements that are difficult to understand and should be improved; some of these are highlighted in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
There are several writing errors which must be revised before publishing.
Author Response
Response: We have carefully reviewed all the points outlined in the attached file and incorporated the necessary revisions into the updated version of the manuscript accordingly. In the revised version of the paper, we have added generalised formulas and algorithms to support the analysis of GHG emissions in the Port of Tallinn.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Need to improve
Author Response
Response: Thank you for your feedback. In the revised version of the paper, we have included actual mapping results from the analysis of GHG emissions in the Port of Tallinn. This allows readers to better understand how the different elements of the emissions assessment (data collection, analysis and reporting) are linked.
We respectfully disagree with the assessment that our research structure is chaotic. In this study, we sought to demonstrate the interconnectedness of various elements of emissions assessment, including data collection, analysis and reporting, by integrating actual GHG emissions data. Our approach used established GHG mapping protocols and standards to collect emissions data from multiple sources. As a result, mapping was performed based on activities such as ship and heavy vehicle movements, stationary equipment operations, heat production and consumption, and electricity consumption. However, the results of the mapping could be presented either by activity or by source and type of emissions. The intention was not to imply that the technologies themselves are the sources of emissions. Instead, we wanted to highlight the different operations or activities that contribute to the total emissions.
Regarding your comment on air pollutants, while our focus is on GHG emissions, it is important to note that GHGs make up a significant proportion of air pollutants. Nevertheless, in a few cases we have changed the term air pollution to GHG emissions.
In response, we would also like to emphasize that the subsection "4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Current Approaches and Rewarding Ways Forward" provides a comprehensive outline of the distinct contributions and novel aspects of our study. This section elucidates both the general and specific novelties, demonstrating how our research builds upon and moves beyond the existing knowledge in the field. We invite you to review this subsection for a detailed understanding of the novelty points that our research offers.
As stated in the manuscript, our intent was to produce a synthetic paper aimed at identifying best practices for GHG emission mapping in port areas, and utilize this information to construct an efficient GHG mapping system to evaluate emissions in the Port of Tallinn in 2021. This objective differs from the structure of a traditional review paper and we have never stated that this is a systematic literature review.
We appreciate your feedback on the clarity of our method statement. In response to your comments, we have carefully revised the text to improve clarity and consistency. We have also included equations to better illustrate the process of quantifying GHG emissions at the Port of Tallinn.
The figures in the revised paper have been improved.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
There are no comments.
Minor editing of English language required
