Freight-Efficient Land Uses: Methodology, Strategies, and Tools

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article violates important and current topics. The article has been prepared with a high level of care and scientific clarity, except that it is conceptual in nature. On the one hand, there is no sign of empirical research - in the sense of the use of statistical methods - it does not have a negative effect on knowledge value.

Author Response

We want to thank the reviewer for the comments provided. The paper is indeed conceptual in nature, which was intended. This is a direct consequence of the materials discussed.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper discusses the findings of the Freight-Efficient Land Uses project and discusses its relevant methodologies, principles, and processes. The topic is interesting and timely. Here are my comments to improve the paper:

1- in the abstract, include some more details of your findings and conclusions. It is not easy to understand what you have done and achieved in this research.

2- put more emphasis on the knowledge gaps in the introduction section.

3- The novelty/originality should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective.  What new things (new theories, new methods, or new policies) can the paper contribute to the existing international literature? This point must be reasonably justified by a Literature Review, clearly introduced in Introduction Section, and completely discussed in Discussion Section.

4- Literature review should be section 2, rather 1.1

5- the paper draws on a good range of literature. However, some of the relevant concepts are missing. Including the following would add interesting insights to the paper:

5.1. transaction costs:

https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000294556

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.028

5.2. Coasian solutions and property rights:

doi.org/10.3828/tpr.79.6.3

doi/10.1177/1473095220923629

6- what are the limitations of your methodology/study?

7- you need to refer back to the literature and previous studies in your result, discussion and conclusion sections.

8- it is not always clear what is ‘your argument and analysis’ and what is from the project. Please make this clearer throughout the paper.

Author Response

We want to thank the reviewer for the suggestion (1-4) provided. In response to the suggestions, the abstract and introduction have been modified. We could not address the rest of the suggestions because they do not seem to apply to our paper.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is an interesting one and holds the overall merit to tackle a little explored topic, whose importante is however growing in the most recent times.

The paper is in general well structured and organized, adequately supported by maps, images and tables, the discussion is pertinent and conclusions appear generally sound.

It appears however necessary to provide some changes and improvement to the text itself before  accepting it for publication.

• literature review and references. References need to be reinforced particularly in the part related to freight & city in the introduction.  References should be also reinforced in paragraph 3, where they are quite limited. 
• Please spend some words talking about FELU, particularly stating if it is an original concept hereby introduced by authors or if it is already existing in literature. In this latter case please cite appropriate references. 
• Given the particular moment in time, it should be stressed how the topic becomes important as retail and on-line, e-commerce particularly sky-rocketed, thanks to the pandemic that actually boosted an already ongoing process.
• Put better references and attributions to figures - mansion particular. Add scalebars, North arrows and legends into maps!

Author Response

Reviewer #3: The paper is an interesting one and holds the overall merit to tackle a little explored topic, whose importance is however growing in the most recent times. The paper is in general well structured and organized, adequately supported by maps, images and tables, the discussion is pertinent and conclusions appear generally sound.

 

We are grateful for your generous assessment of the paper and constructive comments, which helped us improved the paper.

 

It appears however necessary to provide some changes and improvement to the text itself before accepting it for publication.

 

• literature review and references. References need to be reinforced particularly in the part related to freight & city in the introduction. References should be also reinforced in paragraph 3, where they are quite limited.

 

Thank you. We added references to our introduction section. See modified text below:

 

 “As implied in consideration (1), it is important to consider the production and consumption of goods separately from the freight traffic that is generated [7]. The reason is that freight generation—both freight production and attraction—is, in most cases, an inherently beneficial activity that increases economic welfare and wellbeing by making it possible for businesses and individuals to access needed supplies. Moreover, the places of production are often physically separated from the places of consumption, therefore the physical transport of goods to consumption locations is required [8]. The resulting freight traffic—a byproduct of the economic transactions—produces negative externalities. Instead of curtailing freight traffic, which is bound to have negative impacts on the economy, the best approach is to use policies to maximize the benefits of the activities that produce and consume goods, while minimizing the negative externalities produced by the associated freight traffic [9].”

 

“Properly accounting for the effects of e-commerce and emergent technologies on consumer behavior, transportation systems, land use, and the economy—as suggested in consideration (2)—is imperative because their interactions determine the amount and nature of the freight activity. It suffices to say that the number of deliveries and shipments in the US, driven by e-commerce, has more than tripled since before e-commerce [10]. With the growth of e-commerce transactions, there is evidence of an increase in truck traffic entering the cities causing negative externalities, including congestion and pollution [11].  Notwithstanding the major changes already produced by e-commerce, all signs indicate that the speed of the transformation and the depth of the impacts produced by e-commerce will increase with the eventual deployment of such emergent vehicular technologies as autonomous freight vehicles, including delivery droids, drones and others [12]. These trends have direct impacts on land use and transportation.”

 

The literature review section was also enhanced with an additional discussion suggested by reviewer 2.

 

• Please spend some words talking about FELU, particularly stating if it is an original concept hereby introduced by authors or if it is already existing in literature. In this latter case please cite appropriate references.

 

Thank you for pointing this out. The formal definitions of FELU was made by the authors. We moved the definition to the beginning of the introduction to connect it with the discussion of land-use planning and freight. Please see the added text below:

 

 “Freight-Efficient Land Uses (FELUs) is a new concept defined by the authors as “the land-use patterns that minimize the social costs (private plus external costs) associated with both the supply chains and the economic activities that consume and produce goods, at all stages of production and consumption; including reverse and waste logistics.” [12].

 

• Given the particular moment in time, it should be stressed how the topic becomes important as retail and on-line, e-commerce particularly sky-rocketed, thanks to the pandemic that actually boosted an already ongoing process.

 

Thank you for your suggestion. We added a brief discussion about these considerations in the paper as indicated below.

 

The following paragraph was added to the Introduction section:

 “The recent COVID-19 pandemic has made matters worse as e-commerce purchases have skyrocketed. Recent studies have evidenced these increases in different parts of the world, where logistical decisions like stockpiling for e-commerce purchases affects the space requirements and location of establishments [13-16].”

 

The following paragraph was added to the Local Conditions section:

“The production of a FELU plan should also be flexible to adapt to future disruptive events. An example of the plan’s flexibility is the impact of COVID-19 in land-use. The effect of this pandemic can be used to repurposed urban structures as an example of having legal work completed in or-der to take advantage of sudden changes in the real estate market (e.g., very expensive locations could become available as property owners look for ways to mitigate economic impacts of losing regular tenants).”

 

• Put better references and attributions to figures - mansion particular. Add scalebars, North arrows and legends into maps!.

 

Thank you for pointing this. We edited the figure mentions throughout the paper and edited the maps based on your suggestions.

 

 

References:

 

1. Holguín-Veras, J. and C. Lawson, NCHRP 08-111: Effective Decision-Making Methods for Freight-Efficient Land Use. 2017, National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
2. Coase, R.H., The Problem of Social Cost. The Journal of Law and Economics, 1960. 3.
3. Buitelaar, E., A Transaction-cost Analysis of the Land Development Process. Urban Studies, 2016. 41(13): p. 2539-2553.
4. Shahab, S., J.P. Clinch, and E. O’Neill, Accounting for Transaction Costs in Planning Policy Evaluation. Land Use Policy, 2018. 70: p. 263-272.
5. Clinch, J.P., E. O'Neill, and P. Russell, 'Pure' and 'Impure' Coasian Solutions in Planning. Town Planning Review, 2008. 79(6): p. 623-650.
6. Shahab, S. and F.X. Viallon, Swiss Land Improvement Syndicates: ‘Impure’ Coasian Solutions? Planning Theory, 2020: p. 1-19.
7. Holguín-Veras, J., et al., Using Commodity Flow Survey and Other Microdata to Estimate the Generation of Freight, Freight Trip Generation, and Service Trips: Guidebook, in National Cooperative Highway Research Program / National Cooperative Freight Research Program. 2017, Transportation Research Board: Washington, D.C.
8. Holguín-Veras, J., et al., NCHRP Report 739 / NCFRP Report 19: Freight Trip Generation and Land Use, in National Cooperative Highway Research Program / National Cooperative Freight Research Program. 2012, Transportation Research Board: Washington D.C. p. 165.
9. Holguín-Veras, J., J. Amaya Leal, and B.B. Seruya, Urban Freight Policymaking: The Role of Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Transport Policy, 2017. 56: p. 75–85.
10. Pew Research Center. Online Shopping and E-Commerce. 2016 19 December 2016 24 April 2017]; Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/19/online-shopping-and-e-commerce/.
11. Jaller, M. and A. Pahwa, Evaluating the Environmental Impacts of Online Shopping: A Behavioral and Transportation Approach. Transportation Research Part D, 2020. 80(102223): p. 1-15.
12. Holguín-Veras, J., et al., Planning Freight-Efficient Land Uses: Methodology, Strategies, and Tools: Guidebook, in National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 2020, Transportation Research Board.
13. The Wall Street Journal. Grocers Stockpile, Build ‘Pandemic Pallets’ Ahead of Winter. 2020; Available from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/grocers-stockpile-build-pandemic-pallets-ahead-of-winter-11601199000.
14. Hao, N., H. Wang, and Q. Zhou, The Impact of Online Grocery Shopping on Stockpile Behavior in Covid-19. China Agricultural Economic Review, 2020. 12(3): p. 459-470.
15. Vancic, A. and G.F.A. Parson, Changed Buying Behavior in the COVID-19 pandemic: the influence of Price Sensitivity and Perceived Quality, in Faculty of Business. 2020, Kristianstad University: Sweden.
16. Eriksson, N. and M. Stenius, Changing Behavioral Patterns in Grocery Shopping in the Initial Phase of the Covid-19 Crisis—A Qualitative Study of News Articles. Open Journal of Business and Management, 2020. 8: p. 1946-1961.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors refused to address all the comments and I am unable to accept the paper for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer #2: This paper discusses the findings of the Freight-Efficient Land Uses project and discusses its relevant methodologies, principles, and processes. The topic is interesting and timely.

 

We want to thank you for your generous assessment of the paper, and for your time and effort in this review.

 

Here are my comments to improve the paper:

1- in the abstract, include some more details of your findings and conclusions. It is not easy to understand what you have done and achieved in this research.

 

Thank you for your recommendation. We have modified the abstract accordingly.

 

2- put more emphasis on the knowledge gaps in the introduction section.

 

Thank you for the suggestion. We enhanced this section to account for the knowledge gaps.

 

3- The novelty/originality should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective.  What new things (new theories, new methods, or new policies) can the paper contribute to the existing international literature? This point must be reasonably justified by a Literature Review, clearly introduced in Introduction Section, and completely discussed in Discussion Section.

 

Thank you for pointing this out.

 

As indicated in our reply to Reviewer 1, the paper is not an isolated piece of research. Instead it is part of the largest investigation to date on the development of methodologies to foster Freight-Efficient Land Uses. This was a project funded by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is one the largest and most important transportation research programs in the world (see https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4187). The paper is the conceptual part of the Guidebook. Given that the Guidebook is in publication, we decided to share a copy here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/npfd84pestm3fnq/FELU%20Guide%20Final_Oct2020.pdf?dl=0

 

We suggest you browse at the report, specifically sections 5 and 6. This should be treated as a confidential document as NCHRP specifically asked us not to post the draft report in the Internet.

 

In response to your comment, we added text to the paper to ensure readers are aware that the paper is part of a much larger and comprehensive research effort, as shown below.

“This paper summarizes the main concepts and principles for freight-efficient land-use (FELU) planning, the steps and elements to consider as part of a FELU plan, and the main findings as part of the project funded by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), NCFRP 08-111 Project “Effective Decision-Making Methods for Freight-Efficient Land Use (FELU)” [1]. The latter is probably the most comprehensive investigation made to date on the development of the methodologies to foster Freight-Efficient Land Uses. This discusses the conceptual aspects of FELUs, how can it be translating into a FELU plan, and present illustrative examples that motivate the need to incorporate FELUs into planning and policy.”

 

Thank you for pointing this out. 

 

Literature review should be section 2, rather 1.1.

 

Thank you for pointing this out. We have made the corrections in the manuscript.  

 

5- the paper draws on a good range of literature. However, some of the relevant concepts are missing. Including the following would add interesting insights to the paper:

5.1. transaction costs:

https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000294556

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.028

5.2. Coasian solutions and property rights:

doi.org/10.3828/tpr.79.6.3

doi/10.1177/1473095220923629

 

Thank you for the references. We agree and have incorporated them in the paper, as shown below:

 

“One of the chief challenges in land-use planning is managing the negative externalities produced by human activity. The Coase theorem, developed in 1960, proposes that the issue of negative externalities produced by firms could be handled optimally in the private market, as long as property rights—including the rights to land, noise, emissions—are clearly defined and there are no transaction costs [2]. Thus, firms can negotiate over the production of externalities in markets to reach the socially optimal levels without further governmental or institutional intervention.

However, this ideal market stands in contrast with the realities of land-use planning where property rights are difficult to define and quantify, as in the case of pollution and noise, or where there are many stakeholders involved, such as in urban areas where externalities may affect broad communities Clinch, O'Neill [5]. Instead, planners may achieve what they call “impure Coasian solutions” where property rights are negotiated under regulatory and planning agencies [5]. Clinch, O'Neill [5] study how these solutions have been implemented in planning scenarios in Ireland by developing agencies to regulate rights to development. Shahab and Viallon [6] studied the case of Switzerland and showed how planning organizations can minimize transaction costs in the transfer of property rights.”

 

 

6- what are the limitations of your methodology/study?

 

As the first systematic research project on FELUs in the world, we faced tremendous limitations. We had to define FELU, identify the key principles, etc. etc. all of that from scratch. Although we are proud of what we accomplished, in all likelihood future researchers will find plenty of flaws in our analyses. Time will tell…

 

7- you need to refer back to the literature and previous studies in your result, discussion and conclusion sections.

 

Good point, thank you. We added these discussions to the conclusions section.  

 

8- it is not always clear what is ‘your argument and analysis’ and what is from the project. Please make this clearer throughout the paper.

 

Thank you. We have revised and made the necessary clarifications throughout the manuscript.  

 

Reviewer 3 Report

I confirm the interest towards the topic and the paper.

Authors did an important effort to reply to the questions and notes raised after the first round of revisions. The paper appears now suitable for publication.