Assessing Container Terminals’ Environmental Efficiency: The Modified Slack-Based Measure Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please check the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear the reviewer,

The point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments is shown in the attached file.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the evaluation of the environmental performance of container terminals with undesirable outcomes. Energy consumption is taken into account to calculate the amount of CO2 emitted by container terminal operators (CTOs) in relation to the different primary energy sources. They select a CT and CTO in Vietnam

The paper has potential, but it is unclear how the results of this study will help to improve the efficiency of the analysed terminals and the management of the local port sector. The authors should have said this in the conclusion if they have already emphasised it in the abstract, so the recommendation is missing

Author Response

Dear the reviewer,

The point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments is shown in the attached file.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work is interesting. Modified SBM model to describe container terminals' efficiency is proposed to include undesirable outputs. The model guarantees that terminal efficiency will drop when undesirable outputs are considered and allows the identification of return-to-scale characteristics for container terminals.

 

I have some concerns:

 

Major issue:

 

the suggested efficiency assessment method guarantees that DMU’s efficiency will drop when undesirable outputs are considered. This point may be pointed clearly when the equatoins1-7 is given.

 

 

the efficiency of DMUs in VT is low, with an average score of 0.357. and CTO.3 is chosen as the perfect terminal.

Reasons for cto3 is best may be given, more electricity? More gas? Or others?

Reasons for 0.357 efficiency may also be given, coal? Gas?

 

 

 

DMUs deployed too many input factors and produced excessive undesirable output (i.e., CO2). inefficient CTOs might become overall efficient by eliminating both inputs and undesirable outputs without decreasing desirable outputs. Cto12 is then suggested to reduce its berth length, or cranes to increase efficiency. Are any suggestions to improve the efficiency of cto12 while keep its berth length, cranes unchanged?

 

 

 

 

Minor issue:

 

Physical meanings of equatoins1-7 may be given.

 

Fig. 4 is missed.

 

Author Response

Dear the reviewer,

The point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments is shown in the attached file.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my concerns are resolved, no further comments.