Operational Efficiency and Environmental Impacts of Food Service Establishments in Phuket, Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Language and technical care:

The manuscript requires fairly extensive attention in terms of overall language and technical aspects, with a few examples highlighted below:

-          Page 1, line 4 in the abstract – consider changing the word “caused by” to something such as “associated with”;

-          Page 2, line 4 from the top – consider changing “source” – please see the previous comment – it does not read correctly that the authors write that an establishment per se can be the “source” of pollution;

-          Page 2, line 8 from the bottom – LCA + DEA – change to LCA and DEA;

-          Page 2, line 8 from the bottom – mores specificity of the concept of “tertiary sectors” – define them;

-          Page 2, last line – rather “could” than “would”;

-          Page 2, first line from the top – Capitalise This;

-          Page 3, line 6 in paragraph 2.1 – ASEAN – define?

-          Page 4, Figure 1 – the reference for this map is not clear – and cloud probably be added in the line of the figure title;

-          Page 4, line 3 from the bottom – perhaps better to have these concepts in exactly the same wording as in Figure 2 on page 5;

-          Page 5, 8^th line in paragraph after Figure 2 – in detail;

-          Page 5, 4^th line from the bottom before the mathematical formula – explain to the reader what Recipe 2016 is, or provide a reference;

-          Page 5, 8^th line from the bottom – formula reference on the side – brackets not Italics;

-          Page 5, 7 lines from the bottom – these are all sentence in one paragraph – no indents;

-          Page 6, lines 1 – 7 in paragraph 3 – refer these results to Figure 3;

-          Page 6, line 5 from the bottom – on the other hand;

-          Page 6, lines 2 and 3 from the bottom – refer to the correct figures – indicate in Figure 3 which is figure 3a and figure 3b;

-          Page 7, line 8 from the top – “from location” is difficult to understand – rather “from specific locations”;

-          Page 7, line 15 from the bottom – remove the end bracket );

-          Page 7 last paragraph on the page – consistency of “open duration”, “business hours”, “opening duration”;

-          Page 8, line 5 from the top – consistency in writing 9 A.M. or 9 A.M;

-          Page 8, line 8 from the top – “hours in period” – rephrase;

-          Page 8, line 10 from the bottom – “food times” – this is another strange reference, probably to operational hours;

-          Page 9, line 8 from the bottom – remove space after ‘outputs,’;

-          Page 9, line 8 from the bottom – insert ‘an’ before ‘efficiency score’;

-          Page 9, line 3 from the bottom – ‘needed’ should be replaced by a more appropriate word;

-          Page 10, 2^nd word in 1^st paragraph – ‘consumed’ should be replaced by a more appropriate word;

-          Page 11, line 9 from the bottom – rephrase or replace “where” with “that” or “which”;

-          Page 12, paragraph 3.2.1 and 1^st line of paragraph – consistency of non-air-conditioned or non-air conditioned use;

-          Page 13, heading descriptions for Figure 7 – ensure that the reader knows which is which – Figure 7a and Figure 7b – also layout a problem;

-          Page 15, line 1 – the area of Ko Kaeo;

The manuscript is adequately referenced using relevant, up-to-date references.

 

Literature Review:

The reviewer felt no shortcomings in terms of literature. However, as the methodology and particularly the use of LCA and DEA are somewhat complex factors, the authors could consider explaining their application better in both the Literature Review as well as the Methodology sections.

 

Methodology and materials:

The methodology is not entirely clear – particularly paragraph 2.1 needs much better clarity – the study area discussion should be very precise and not have unnecessary information. See the comment above regarding the use of LCA and DEA.

 

Results and Discussion:

Page 7, second paragraph – this entire paragraph needs re-wording – it is not clearly stated what the authors mean here;

Page 8 – it would be much easier for the reader to follow if these results were all available in one table or diagram – so that perhaps all the different influencing factors that contribute to unsustainable operational behaviour is available in one figure, to be compared against areas.

 

Conclusion:

The conclusions are adequately presented and requires no changes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Review of manuscript Sustainability-2704365-peer-review-v1 - Operational efficiency and environmental impacts of food service establishments in Phuket, Thailand.

Date: Monday 6 November 2023

Language and technical care:

The manuscript requires fairly extensive attention in terms of overall language and technical aspects, with a few examples highlighted below:

-          Page 1, line 4 in the abstract – consider changing the word “caused by” to something such as “associated with”;

-          Page 2, line 4 from the top – consider changing “source” – please see the previous comment – it does not read correctly that the authors write that an establishment per se can be the “source” of pollution;

-          Page 2, line 8 from the bottom – LCA + DEA – change to LCA and DEA;

-          Page 2, line 8 from the bottom – mores specificity of the concept of “tertiary sectors” – define them;

-          Page 2, last line – rather “could” than “would”;

-          Page 2, first line from the top – Capitalise This;

-          Page 3, line 6 in paragraph 2.1 – ASEAN – define?

-          Page 4, Figure 1 – the reference for this map is not clear – and cloud probably be added in the line of the figure title;

-          Page 4, line 3 from the bottom – perhaps better to have these concepts in exactly the same wording as in Figure 2 on page 5;

-          Page 5, 8^th line in paragraph after Figure 2 – in detail;

-          Page 5, 4^th line from the bottom before the mathematical formula – explain to the reader what Recipe 2016 is, or provide a reference;

-          Page 5, 8^th line from the bottom – formula reference on the side – brackets not Italics;

-          Page 5, 7 lines from the bottom – these are all sentence in one paragraph – no indents;

-          Page 6, lines 1 – 7 in paragraph 3 – refer these results to Figure 3;

-          Page 6, line 5 from the bottom – on the other hand;

-          Page 6, lines 2 and 3 from the bottom – refer to the correct figures – indicate in Figure 3 which is figure 3a and figure 3b;

-          Page 7, line 8 from the top – “from location” is difficult to understand – rather “from specific locations”;

-          Page 7, line 15 from the bottom – remove the end bracket );

-          Page 7 last paragraph on the page – consistency of “open duration”, “business hours”, “opening duration”;

-          Page 8, line 5 from the top – consistency in writing 9 A.M. or 9 A.M;

-          Page 8, line 8 from the top – “hours in period” – rephrase;

-          Page 8, line 10 from the bottom – “food times” – this is another strange reference, probably to operational hours;

-          Page 9, line 8 from the bottom – remove space after ‘outputs,’;

-          Page 9, line 8 from the bottom – insert ‘an’ before ‘efficiency score’;

-          Page 9, line 3 from the bottom – ‘needed’ should be replaced by a more appropriate word;

-          Page 10, 2^nd word in 1^st paragraph – ‘consumed’ should be replaced by a more appropriate word;

-          Page 11, line 9 from the bottom – rephrase or replace “where” with “that” or “which”;

-          Page 12, paragraph 3.2.1 and 1^st line of paragraph – consistency of non-air-conditioned or non-air conditioned use;

-          Page 13, heading descriptions for Figure 7 – ensure that the reader knows which is which – Figure 7a and Figure 7b – also layout a problem;

-          Page 15, line 1 – the area of Ko Kaeo;

The manuscript is adequately referenced using relevant, up-to-date references.

 

Literature Review:

The reviewer felt no shortcomings in terms of literature. However, as the methodology and particularly the use of LCA and DEA are somewhat complex factors, the authors could consider explaining their application better in both the Literature Review as well as the Methodology sections.

 

Methodology and materials:

The methodology is not entirely clear – particularly paragraph 2.1 needs much better clarity – the study area discussion should be very precise and not have unnecessary information. See the comment above regarding the use of LCA and DEA.

 

Results and Discussion:

Page 7, second paragraph – this entire paragraph needs re-wording – it is not clearly stated what the authors mean here;

Page 8 – it would be much easier for the reader to follow if these results were all available in one table or diagram – so that perhaps all the different influencing factors that contribute to unsustainable operational behaviour is available in one figure, to be compared against areas.

 

Conclusion:

The conclusions are adequately presented and requires no changes.

 

Overall recommendation:

Overall, this is a paper with a lot of promise. This reviewer believes that the application of the methodology needs better clarity, including adding some of the results together in one table/figure. In such a case the results would also not feel somewhat drawn out, as is currently the case. The manuscript is suitable for publication in Sustainability journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses the operational performance and the environmental impacts caused by food service establishments in Phuket, an international tourist island in Thailand. The authors apply life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis (DEA)  to evaluate environmental burdens and calculate efficiency scores encompassing several inputs and outputs of each food service establishment. The study consists of four sections. Section 1, Introduction, serves also as a brief literature review section. Hence, the study has an appropriate structure. The authors employ a very sophisticated empirical strategy and address a topical research question in the context of a developing country. The authors succeed in putting forward the research gap and refer to the literature both in the context of advanced and developing economies. 

The central shortcoming of the article is the lacking embedment of the research question in a broader context of the development-environment debate. This is compulsory also because of the recent evidence that the empirically established Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis is no more a dominant paradigm and based on the state of the art knowledge developing countries like Thailand can achieve growth that is in line with environmental conservation/protection. Add a very short passage on this issue after your discussions of the case of China as a davaloping country in section1. To this end, refer to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.131 (for EKC conjecture in general), https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043595 and https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3880 Furtehrmore, you number the sections. Hence, number also the first section, Introduction. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English, especially in the last section is very hard to read.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A good manuscript, relevant to the field and with the current theme. Congratulations to the authors for this! However, in order for it to be published, and to subsequently attract as many readings, downloads and citations as possible, certain changes and additions are needed. I consider they are:

 

1. The formula (page 5) must be explained better, so that a reader not very experienced in the field can understand and apply it.

2. The explanations of the figures, including the titles of the figures, must be eloquent and representative.

3. The conclusions must be expanded, in accordance with the content of the work, especially as the article presents relevant data and information.

4. The abstract, after completing the conclusions, must be modified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors addressed this reviewer's concerns and suggestions adequately.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the manuscript is really awesome and must be published! The authors have done even more than the requests of the reviewers.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was greatly improved, and all my observations were taken into account and operated accordingly.