Exploring the Impact of Different Port Governances on Smart Port Development Strategy in Taiwan and Spain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments
1. Reasons why Spain is a comparative target are weak. For example, Japan, an island nation geographically close to Taiwan, has conservative port governance and PAs have many functions and authorities, which may make a more clear difference than Spain in comparison with Taiwan. More convincing reasons are needed for selecting Spain as a comparison rather than such countries.
2. As this paper shows, if we look at the SPD strategy from the PA's point of view, it is natural that it will vary according to the functions that the PA has based on the port governance in the country. The authors should explain how all port stakeholders, including PAs and TOs, are involved in the SPD strategy, and if the TOs complement where the PAs are not interested, is it not possible that the port as a whole will have a similar SPD orientation? Or should the PA play a key role under any port governance.
3. While the analytical method does not seem problematic, the result that "t a different degree of port privatization is the key factor indirectly affecting the SPD strategies" seems a bit short-sighted in the approach from the PA perspective, as mentioned above. Other than port privatization (or the function of PAs), can authors show that differences in port governance in the two countries affect SPD strategies? Or, rather than just one word "port privatization", can authors provide a more detailed explanation of the functions that PAs have and the　characteristics of TOs?
4. Since port governance is an important topic, a more extensive review of previous studies should be conducted.
Minor comments
1. There should be no citation in the abstract.
2. The MCDM approach is included in the "2. Literature review", but since it is a well-established method, wouldn't it be cleaner to cite it in "3. Research Methodology"?
3. Is it necessary to make WBPRTK an abbreviation, or can World Bank model be used?
4. "all port services for the operator functions in Spanish ports are provided only by mixed sectors (Line 375-376)" would be easier to understand if it were explained in detail, for example, the shareholder structure of the TOs.
5. Please add why "similar studies should be conducted in other ports in different geographical regions using the methodology of this study in the future to make the theoretical and practical contributions of this study more meaningful (Line 433-436)" Is it important that the regions are different? Or does it matter that the port governance is different?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I have made detailed comments in your manuscript as attached. The authors' responses to them should be made one by one.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I have a few suggestions for the authors:
1. I recommend the authors to avoid references and abbreviations in the abstract.
2. I recommend to rewrite the abstract using active voice instead of passive. It is not convenient for english-speaking readers to see so many passive forms. For axamle, the lines 18-21: "indicators ... are then compared with those of Spanish 18 ports presented .... comparison is found. ...The port devolution matrix is then performed..." It is better to use active forms.
3. I/d be glad to see a Discussion section in the article
Otherwise, I appreciate the thorough references used in the paper and the way the authors used the methodology in their research. The results are well presented and supported by the method used and also other papers in the field.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
Exploring the impact of different port governances on smart port development strategy in Taiwan and Spain
An important research issue.
"Smart port development (SPD) has been currently regarded as the top priority for every international benchmark port. Singapore, Germany, and the Netherlands all have recently included SPD in their national plans [4-6].” What are the strategies in these countries? And in China and USA? And in Korea?
Please refer to developments in Portugal also, with Nexus project:
Port Community Systems: Accelerating the Transition of Seaports toward the Physical Internet—The Portuguese Case. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(2), 152.
Please, build a table with the main SPD in different countries?
Table 1, should refer to authors in references in not to papers.
About PG, please read :
The nexus between port governance and performance. Maritime policy and management, 45 (7), 877-89 and others from 2017 to 2022.
Port management and governance in a post-COVID-19 era: quo vadis?
HERCULES E. HARALAMBIDES, Port Management.
The impacts of port governance reform on port competition in China.
The PG literature that authors present is too old.
“Brooks [25] compared the features of three models [23,24, 173 26]. He concluded that the WBPRTK model” She, not he.
It is not easy to understand how the variables in Appendix A can allow classifying the smart port strategy since it includes many operational indicators that have nothing to do with the greater or lesser intelligence of the port.
Are more or less energy use and sustainability and pollution issues also related to a smart port and this concept? in which authors? This are results from smart port strategies, not the smart port instruments or imputs. These variables do not characterize if a port has a smart port strategy and use smatr instruments like IoT, BigData, artificial inteligence, digital twins, PCS systems, open data, port collaboration systems, and other smatr port systems that characterize SP. A port can have no SPD and have good operational, social and environmental results. But is it a SP or not? The variables do not characterize a SP.
This are employment issues and social issues, and port city relation for maritime areas for the use of the population. is this a Smart Port or a sustainable port or an efficient port?
Nothing is seen about big Data, artificial intelligence, open data, Internet og Things, smart Gate, logistical transparency, physical Internet. it seems after all we are not dealing with smart ports but sustainable ports, so perhaps it is necessary to change the entire content of the introduction and literature review for these issues. Seems like a big jumble and confusion of port basic concepts.
Smart port uses smart systems, like Molavi, Anahita; Lim, Gino J.; Race, Bruce (2019). A framework for building a smart port and smart port index. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, (), 1–13. doi:10.1080/15568318.2019.1610919, explain to influence the operational, energy and envorinmental performance. But authors can not characterize a smart port by it performance, but by it smart instruments.
I would say that we are looking more at an investigation of how Port's governance influences Port's sustainability policy and development and Port's operational performance.
In the PG part there is an error: In Spain Cargo and passenger handling, Pilotage and towage, Line handling (correct is mooring), and Ship waste disposal are also private in almost of ports and most of cargo and passengers flows. Correct this please.
Thera are no conclusions about SPD. And the ones about sustainable and efficient ports and PG are mistaked. Please do a general revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I can confirm that I don't have further recommendations for the authors to address, good luck with the publication of this paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
I think the authors have tried to their best to respond to my comments. But I am disappointed to see they have not cited my questions and comments in their response report. Please try to save reviewers' times because this review job is voluntary.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Editors,
Please, Accept in present form.
