The Limitations of EMSs in Comparison with the SDGs When Considering Infrastructure Sustainability: The Case of the Terzo Valico Dei Giovi, Italy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper touched on several widely recognised topics which are relevant to readers of Sustainability. Its readability needs improvement before consideration of its publication.
The paper title and section/sub-section headings need improvement.
Too many abbreviations are used in his paper and some of them are not provided their full words.
The authors should articulate the research question and demonstrate it has not been answered.
In Section 2, the authors need to clearly present what they define and what they assume.
In Section 3, it is not clear what the "methods" are and in which sub-sections they are introduced.
In Section 4, it is not clear what the "results" are and how they were produced according to the "methods" step by step.
Section 5 should only include the conclusions of this paper. Introduction of background or literature and discussion should be moved to other sections.
Overall, the paper requires a major revision for possible publication.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are many grammatical errors throughout the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA very large number of approaches to assessing social and environmental impacts exist today, and a better understanding of what these approaches represent and how they can be applied is useful to both policy-makers and industries. Due to the large impacts of infrastructure, and the substantial investment costs that they entail, as well as the long life span of infrastructure projects and their structuring influence on other human activities, careful well-informed planning is crucial. Also, both industry actors and local authorities need to be proactive and consider possible future developments at landscape and regulatory levels. The overall topic of your study is therefore highly relevant. However, the manuscript in its present form does not clearly contribute to addressing these issues, and would need substantial revisions before resubmission.
Among my main concerns with the manuscript are the following:
If I understand correctly, you have developed a methodology to assess to which extent the Envision support tool allows projects or individual companies to adhere to the SDGs, by verifying which aspects the 59 criteria of the Envision scoring system cover. You further wish to argue for the usefulness of the methodology you propose, by applying it to the case of a railway infrastructure project in Italy. For this case, you additionally assess the alignment with the SDGs of the EMAS protocol (which is based on assessments Significant Environmental Aspects). Both Envision and EMAS are used certify companies, but Envision is specifically designed for infrastructure assessments. EMAS is incentivised by the Italian regulatory environment, and controlled and updated by authorities, which is not the case for Envision.
- The core points of your study need to be perfectly clear in the title, abstract, keywords and Introduction of the paper, as well as in the initial wording in your Materials and Methods section, but as the manuscript stands, I had to search for clues scattered across the paper to grasp what your study was about.
- If you wish to develop arguments concerning integrated planning in particular (as suggested in the title), this would require substantial modifications to the text and numerous additional references relevant to issues of integrated planning with respect to infrastructure. My recommendation is not to make issues of integrated planning your focus, although you can of course discuss the implications of your findings for integrated planning.
You argue that EMAS (like other EMSs) is limited by only considering SEAs, and by being tied to individual companies rather than to impacts of entire projects, whereas the Envision criteria cover more of the SDGs, and allows an assessment at project level.
- These conclusions are interesting, but to be credible, the description of how you proceeded to reach them needs to be much clearer and provide sufficient detail. A weakness in your methodology is that it to a large extent operates within the closed box of indicators and assessment systems. You provide very little discussion of how measurements used for the assessments relate to scientific findings on their relevance to the local environment or to global disruptions in earth systems, including climate. A major limitation is that what you term "indirect" effects are not considered at all, and the implications of the fact that Envision criteria do not consider poverty, gender or life below water are not discussed.
- Much of what is now in the conclusions should be stated already in the discussion section, and only be summarised in the conclusions. In particular also, your discussion of limitations should be presented in a separate Limitations section.
- In the Introduction and Definitions and Assumptions sections, please consistently clarify the time (or time period), geographical context and actors involved for all of the points mentioned and statements made. For instance, although the population of certain regions in Italy may be increasing "sharply", this is not true for the Italian population as a whole (lines 30-31).
The text in the Introduction and Definitions and Assumptions sections is very jumbled, and needs a much clearer structure. Already the initial line on the Covid-19 pandemic (line 28) is confusing, since the pandemic only appears to be relevant to the topic of your paper due to the Italian National Plan for Recovery and Resilience, that was drawn up in order to access funds from the EU Recovery Fund (lines 40-47 ff). Since the main topic has to do with advantages and disadvantages of different environmental impact assessment tools for evaluating social and environmental impacts of infrastructure projects (a topic of concern long before the pandemic), you need to review both the general framing and the precise order of the arguments and the background that you present.
- Please clearly distinguish between families of assessment methodologies (such as LCA or EIA), and specific tools.
- The concept of "sustainability" can be used in two different ways: one has to do with political agreements or commitments (such as the SDGs), while the other has to do with what is needed for the planet to be able to continue to sustain life, including human societies (a useful concept here is "planetary boundaries"). This distinction should be clarified in your arguments. For instance your statement "Since the SDGs can be related to the concept of sustainable development, then they are representative of an end result that can be achieved through the construction of a system of ecological and social principles for a favourable outcome for the whole system: sustainability" (lines 81-84, referring to Robert, 2000) is incoherent, not only because the SDGs did not exist in 2000, but because the statement confuses the expressed aims of a political commitment, with the actual outcomes for human societies and earth systems.
- The concept of sustainable development (and subsequently the SDGs) focused on the question of how economic and human development could be achieved in less "developed" countries to achieve the same levels as in the most "developed" countries, in view of limited and non-renewable resources, on the one hand, and on the other, the environmental destruction that such development could be anticipated to entail, on the other. The concept has been critiqued from the outset, and notably for its emphasis on an assumption of benefits of economic growth (or even the possibility that growth could be unlimited), as well as the assumption that technological advances would solve fundamental issues of social and global inequalities, or avert the dangers of negative impacts of human activities for life on earth. Some mention (with suitable references) should be made of these critiques.
- Similarly, the assumptions made lines 119-130 that economic growth and free trade will improve quality of life and reduce social, global or regional inequalities should be problematised. Indeed, numerous reports and studies show that negative impacts of climate change and environmental degradation are carried by the poorest countries and populations, while benefits of such development tend to be enjoyed by those who are already privileged.
- If you speak about climate, then climate-specific international agreements and monitoring mechanisms should be mentioned, and you also need to be much more explicit and clear when you speak of mitigation and adaptation (mitigation means mitigating the negative effects of human activities on the climate, which is different from mitigating the consequences on human societies of climate change) (see for instance line 133).
- Also, since categorisations and timespans considered when attributing GHG emissions to sector are conducted differently in various publications, some note should be made of methodological issues when quoting the UNOPS report's conclusion that infrastructure is responsible for 79 % of all GHG emissions. (It should also be clarified that Thacker et al. 2021 is a UNOPS report).
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Several of the problems in this manuscript may well be due to mistranslation, so I would recommend the authors to consult with colleagues and researchers in their network familiar with the technical and scientific topics, as well as calling on professional editing and proofreading services to ensure clarity, correction and that the English wording corresponds to the authors' intentions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper "A methodology to get a comprehensive view on infrastructure sustainability. The limitations of EMSs in comparison with the SDGs. Applications on the case of the Terzo Valico del Giovi, Italy." falls within the scope of the journal " Sustainability" but doesn't meet the standard quality of the paper that should be published in one prestigious journal in the current version. A lot of core elements of one well-written and performed study are missing, so the paper needs major improvements.
- The title of the paper is too long, should be shorter.
- Figures shouldn’t be part of the Introduction.
- Clear aims, the main contributions, and novelty are missing in the abstract.
- In the introduction section the following tasks should be fulfilled: the introduction should give an overview of the field significance, and should consider the following main questions: What are the gaps in literature? What are the main aims of this article?"
- Figure 2 should be TAble not Figure.
- It is redundant to write pie chart in Figure titles.
- The literature review is poor. Should be considered more relevant studies.
Roy, S. (2023). Ecological Consequences of Railway Infrastructure Development: A Case Study of the Belgrade-Novi Sad Corridor. Oppor Chall. Sustain., 2(3), 116-129. https://doi.org/10.56578/ocs020301
Roy, S., Debnath, P., Vulevic, A., & Mitra, S. (2023). Incorporating Climate Change Resilience in India’s Railway Infrastructure: Challenges and Potential. Mechatron. Intell Transp. Syst., 2(2), 102-116. https://doi.org/10.56578/mits020205
Li, M., Zhou, X., Liu, J., Ma, W., & Li, X. (2022). Topological modeling and analysis of urban rail transit safety risk relationship. J. Intell. Manag. Decis, 1, 108-117.
- Results and discussion now is one section. Would be better to separate it.
The conclusion section should be shorter and more clear with included limitations of study and clear guidelines for future studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPage 1, title: My suggestion is to shorten the title, if possible. A possible title could be “The limitations of EMSs in comparison with the SDGs when considering infrastructure sustainability: The case of the Terzo Valico del Giovi, Italy”.
Page 1, Abstract: Please also include the full name for the acronyms SDG, EMAS and EIA.
Page 1, Keywords: My suggestion is to change “environmental impact” to ““environmental impact assessment”.
Page 3, Figure 1: Please change “Pie” to “Pie”.
Page 5, Subsection 2.2. Voluntary tools for infrastructure sustainability: Envision: My suggestion is to include the following reference since you refer to sustainability indicators:
Sdoukopoulos, A., Pitsiava-Latinopoulou, M., Basbas, S., Papaioannou, P. Measuring progress towards transport sustainability through indicators: Analysis and metrics of the main indicator initiatives, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 67, 2019, Pages 316-333, ISSN 1361-9209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.11.020.
Page 8, line 290: Please change “Target-based” to “target-based”.
Page 10, Figure 5: Please include the source of the map.
Page 13, Section 4. Results and Discussion: My suggestion is to have a separate section for the “Results” and a separate section for the “Discussion”, for the benefit of the reader.
Page 14: please change “4.1. SDGs in the Envision Protoco” to “4.1. SDGs in the Envision Protocol”.
Page 16, line 584: Please check the specific sentence (…[57]is…).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have improved the paper. I am happy to recommend the paper be published in Sustainability.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for his kind response and help in finalising the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI find the paper much improved after the revisions. However, some points remain before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
In the Abstract, kindly make the following modifications to the wording:
... The article introduces a methodology to examine how tools used in environmental impact assessments of transport infrastructure projects, regardless of the actor implementing them, align with different sustainable development objectives. Moreover, it identifies 16 the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a reference point that can be used in estimating the validity of these instruments. The paper also validates the methodology proposed in our study, by comparing the results obtained on the Envision model with those obtained from the application on a case study, the Terzo Valico dei Giovi, a railway infrastructure in Italy. The article shows although the final target is in many respects the same, the nuances with which actors pursue sustainability through the different instruments varies.
Introduction
line 33: Currently, the Next Generation EU policy, in YEAR allocated 738.8 million Euros for the YEAR-YEAR period, to address ....
line 34: ... crisis. This policy not only ....
lines 35-36: ... [4,5], which aims to develop ...
line 45: ... while EMS certifies ...
lines 50-51: Numerous methodologies .... are thus available today.
line 59: ... involve conflicting goals that raise ...
lines 63-64: ... check which of the objectives for sustainable development are covered by such instruments, and in which manner they are assessed. To answer ...
lines 67-68: ... determine a suitable development direction for a process of infrastructural development and a transformation of territory that is socially and environmentally sustainable.
line 69: EMAS
Definitions and Assumptions
lines 82-83: ... literature that examines issues of infrastructure development with respect to the socio-environmental ....
line 93: labor - considering that the study focuses a European project, I would recommend to avoid US spelling throughout
lines 111-114: Not surprisingly, the Next Generation EU and the resulting Recovery and Resilience Fund (RRF) - which are part of development and growth policy promoted by the European Union to overcome the COVID-19 post-pandemic crisis - are based on principles of both reducing economic disparities, and promoting economic development and territorial cohesion.
line 115: NRRP - introduce the abbreviation before using it
line 135: ... introduction in YEAR of the EU Directive ....
line 150: ... how the EIA provides a snapshot ...
line 157: ... tool, such as Envision, useful ...
lines 158-159: These various approaches will all be analyzed below.
line 164: please delete "in this case"
line 169: ... has since YEAR incorporated ...
line 177: ... EMAS standards thereby aims to ...
line 183: This is further evidenced ...
line 185: the greater adherence by private companies, compared to XXXX,
(greater is a relative term, so you have to explain compared to what or when - otherwise you could rephrase: the adherence by substantial numbers of private companies in the transport industry (REF) )
line 187: what do you mean by "in derivation"???
line 205: reduced ambition - "reduced" is a relative term, please clarify what exactly you mean here
line 223-224: Periodic updates are subject to control by the Environmental Observatory and the competent administrative authorities - periodic updates of what? where does this apply? please specify! (you can additionally refer to the section where you give more details on the context, e.g.: (see section 4.1 below) )
line 244: The current regulatory regime - where? please specify!
Materials and Methods
lines 258-259: Recalling the considerations presented in 2000 by Robèrt [10], the metrics through which sustainable development is currently measured either ...
line 283: one of the SDGs
line 285: each of the SDGs
line 305: ... compared to the methodology used in the the first Goals-Based step of our analysis, given ...
line 329: "Sustainable Cities"
Case study
line 416: More particularly, the EMAS ...
line 432: ... approach was used in our case study to check ...
Results
lines 465-466: ... Target-465 based methodologies (described in section XXX above) on ...
lines 469-472: your argument here is not entirely clear - please develop and clarify!
line 474 (and within Table 3): EMAS
line 477: delete the word "which"
lines 478-484: I do not understand the logic of your reasoning here - it seems to me that your study simply documented which SDGs were covered by Envision and EMAS, which does not say anything about what is "necessary", please clarify your wording to better convey your intended meaning.
line 484: Three main conditions ...
line 493: "Climate Action",
line 496: "Clean Water" and "Clean Energy",
line 502: "Good Health and Well-being"
line 504: 'Clean water' - please be consistent with capitalisation and use of single or double quotation marks throughout the manuscript
line 507: Discussion
line 509: please replace "In detail," by More particularly, or In particular, or Specifically, throughout the manuscript (for line 509 I suggest that you simply delete the phrase, starting the sentence: The focus ...)
lines 533-534: 'No poverty', and 5, 'Gender equality', - see earlier comment on consistency
lines 594-595: please reword the phrase "ideally arbitrary" (or the entire sentence) to provide a more coherent and logical argument in the following sentence: Since the objectives through which to describe the sustainable development adopted by a company are ideally arbitrary, they are limiting ....
(I assume that part of your argument is that from the perspective of companies, the criteria that they decide to voluntarily comply with and prioritise in environmental impact assessments should be freely chosen by the company, rather than imposed by regulation? if so, this cannot be understood from your wording)
lines 602-604: I am unable to understand the intended meaning of this sentence: "Therefore, it can be said that the construction of a system of ecological and social principles for a favorable outcome for the entire system, seen in the introduction, is not aimed at sustainability but rather at construction." - please rephrase and clarify your argument!
line 607: rewarded
lines 609-612: please replace the words "correct" and "gregarious" with expressions more appropriate for an academic publication. Please delete "and unsolicited"
line 634: Envision
lines 652-653: The aleatoriness stems from subjective interpretations .... - kindly find another English expression instead of "aleatoriness" to convey your intended meaning
line 655: it is not entirely clear what you mean here by "cross-referenced", kindly rephrase and provide more detail to clarify your intended meaning
line 660: ... shows different degrees of alignment with the SDGs ...
line 668: ... to their pursuit, in the context of major transport infrastructure projects.
lines 671-672: The fact that the Envision protocol is less frequently applied by XXX than XXXX in the context of XXXX, is therefore even more significant ...
line 673: ... even though this protocol was ...
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English has been improved, but still requires additional editing for correction, consistency, clarity, appropriate word choice, and logical structure of your arguments.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for his kind response and help in finalising the paper
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has been improved according to my suggestions, so now can be accepted.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for his kind response and help in finalising the paper
