Developing a Comprehensive Framework for Assessing Airports’ Environmental Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It is important to analyse and to compare the environmental performance of airports. The authors collect 37 indicators from the literature, assign between 1 and 5 points to each indicator (Likert scale) and present the results.
There are several shortcomings of this approach:
1. Some indicators refer to the use of instruments by the airport, others to the results (e.g. number of people affected or number of complaints). There is no explicit weighting.
2. Some indicators are subjective, esp. ‘Importance given by the airport operator to noise pollution on a scale of 1 to 5’ – How do you assess this? How do you compare this between airports?
To sum up, there is little additional insight from this approach, the entire concept is not well structured.
Additional points:
Language should be checked by a native speaker.
‘According to [12], in the European Union (EU) alone, more than 100 million people
are exposed to dangerous levels of airport noise’ – EU has 450 million inhabitants, that would be more than 20% - is this realistic?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some editiong required
Author Response
Authors appreciate and thank the reviewer for the opportunity to access and evaluate the submitted work. Please find below a detailed answer to your very relevant points. You can also find the changes in the attached manuscript in blue.
1) Some indicators refer to the use of instruments by the airport, others to the results (e.g. number of people affected or number of complaints). There is no explicit weighting.
Authors Response: Reviewer is correct. In the formulation a weighing must be present, since some indicators are more relevant than others. The Equation (1) and Equation (3) (previously referred to as Equation (2)) has been changed to reflect a general weighing for each indicator. Also, a new equation, referred to as Equation (2), has been added to formulate the weighting quantification. An explanation is given about the weighing in lines 303 to 308.
2) Some indicators are subjective, esp. ‘Importance given by the airport operator to noise pollution on a scale of 1 to 5’ – How do you assess this? How do you compare this between airports? To sum up, there is little additional insight from this approach, the entire concept is not well structured.
Authors Response: Reviewer is again correct in the assessment. Authors had much thought that some indicators (fortunately not much) might be a little subjective in nature. I remind the reviewers that all the indicators are already used in airport sustainability reports (the authors just concatenate all of them under the same working framework). Nevertheless, after a careful analysis it was possible to perceive that: 1) The used scale is a normalized Likert Scale which is also used by the airports in their sustainability reports. 2) The classification that the several airports have under these indicators are not the same and are aligned with the other indicators from the same environmental area. Showing coherence in the evaluation under this KPI’s.
3) Language should be checked by a native speaker.
Authors Response: Article have been again reviewed and went through Grammarly to improve its readability and corrections. Grammar corrections are not marked in the manuscript to avoid overfilling the article with different colors.
4) ‘According to [12], in the European Union (EU) alone, more than 100 million people are exposed to dangerous levels of airport noise’ – EU has 450 million inhabitants, that would be more than 20% - is this realistic?
Authors Response: Reviewer is correct. A mistake has been committed while citing reference [12]. The original text from [12] is: “Health impact assessment studies estimated that 104 million U.S. citizens have sufficient annual noise exposure to be at risk of noise-related health effects [34]. In Europe, even 15 years after the implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive [35], 40% of the European population remains exposed to road traffic noise levels over 55 dB (A) of Lden (average noise level over a 24 h period) and 15% to levels greater than 65 dB (A). Road traffic remains the most widespread source in the urban environment, followed by railway noise, with 22 million people exposed to noise levels higher than 55 dB (A) of Lden [36], then by aircraft noise with more than 4 million people, and industrial noise with 1 million people exposed.” Regarding this, changes have been made and reflected in the lines 113-114.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I feel like this manuscript potentially makes an interesting contribution to airport sustainability. My comments are as follows:
- The authors should discuss the following existing review on airport performance, given that this review already identified the trend of including more sustainability-related indicators into evaluation. Accordingly, the authors should identify and report their novel contribution in light of this existing overview.
o Yu, C. (2023). Airport Performance - a multifarious review of literature. Journal of the Air Transport Research Society, 1 (1), 22-39
- In general, I feel like the authors should remove some of the non-scientific references in favor for recent overview works and related papers, for instance, the following:
o Jia, X., Macário, R., & Buyle, S. (2023). Expanding horizons: a review of sustainability evaluation methodologies in the airport sector and beyond. Sustainability, 15(15), 11584.
o S, P., Upadhyay, R. (2024). Reformation and optimization of cargo handling operation at Indian air cargo terminals. Journal of the Air Transport Research Society, 2, 100022
o Raimundo, R. J., Baltazar, M. E., & Cruz, S. P. (2023). Sustainability in the airports ecosystem: a literature review. Sustainability, 15(16), 12325.
o Wandelt, S., Antoniou, C., Birolini, S., Delahaye, D., Dresner, M., Fu, X., Gössling, S., Hong, S., Odoni, A., Zanin, M., Zhang, A., Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., Sun, X. (2024). Status quo and challenges in air transport management research. Journal of the Air Transport Research Society, 2, 100014
- The authors should carefully use airport names in their study, instead of statements like “airports such as Athens, Hong Kong, Sofia, Sydney”. The latter are cities, not airports.
- Please provide a reference for uses of the Sum of Rankings Method
- I miss a paragraph discussing the limitations of this study.
While the study presents a reasonable effort in exploring airport performance under sustainability considerations, the manuscript would benefit significantly from a more thorough engagement with the existing body of literature. The authors should better acknowledge the state of the art by critically discussing recent advancements and identifying gaps that their work addresses. This improvement includes a more detailed review of contemporary studies and methodologies (see various suggestions in my comments), demonstrating how their research builds upon or diverges from these foundations. Furthermore, the novel sustainability indicators introduced need to be clearly delineated, including a comprehensive explanation and evaluation of their uniqueness and relevance compared to existing metrics. Providing concrete definitions, methodologies for calculation, and potential applications of these indicators will clarify their significance and practical utility. Additionally, the paper should clarify the novel managerial insights derived from the study, highlighting their practical implications and potential impact on airport management practices. This involves offering specific examples or case studies demonstrating how these insights can be implemented in real-world scenarios. By addressing these aspects, the authors would not only strengthen the contribution of the paper but also provide clearer guidance for practitioners in the field, and increasing the chance of their study to have an actual, impact on the literature.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
See above.
Author Response
Authors appreciate and thank the reviewer for the opportunity to access and evaluate the submitted work. Please find below a detailed answer to your very relevant points. You can also find the changes in the attached manuscript in red.
1) The authors should discuss the following existing review on airport performance, given that this review already identified the trend of including more sustainability-related indicators into evaluation. Accordingly, the authors should identify and report their novel contribution in light of this existing overview.
- Yu, C. (2023). Airport Performance - a multifarious review of literature. Journal of the Air Transport Research Society, 1 (1), 22-39
Author’s Response: Thank you for your proposal. Indeed, Yu’s work was a valuable study. The Yu’s work that were focusses on the energy assessment of airport performance has been added to the KPI’s references (Table 1 – Reference [48]) since it covers most of the Energy part of our proposed framework.
2) In general, I feel like the authors should remove some of the non-scientific references in favor for recent overview works and related papers, for instance, the following:
- Jia, X., Macário, R., & Buyle, S. (2023). Expanding horizons: a review of sustainability evaluation methodologies in the airport sector and beyond. Sustainability, 15(15), 11584.
- S, P., Upadhyay, R. (2024). Reformation and optimization of cargo handling operation at Indian air cargo terminals. Journal of the Air Transport Research Society, 2, 100022
- Raimundo, R. J., Baltazar, M. E., & Cruz, S. P. (2023). Sustainability in the airports ecosystem: a literature review. Sustainability, 15(16), 12325.
- Wandelt, S., Antoniou, C., Birolini, S., Delahaye, D., Dresner, M., Fu, X., Gössling, S., Hong, S., Odoni, A., Zanin, M., Zhang, A., Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., Sun, X. (2024). Status quo and challenges in air transport management research. Journal of the Air Transport Research Society, 2, 100014
Authors Response: Thank you very much for your feedback. New text with the referred literature has been added to lines 40 to 69.
3) The authors should carefully use airport names in their study, instead of statements like “airports such as Athens, Hong Kong, Sofia, Sydney”. The latter are cities, not airports.
Authors Response: Reviewer is correct. The manuscript is now updated with the airport names. Please check the revised manuscript lines 360 to 368. Across the manuscript, the city was replaced by ICAO airport code. This method was chosen because of the construction of all the tables. If the full airport name is used, the tables become non-readable in latex, so the ICAO code reference method to the airport was chosen to be the most appropriate.
4) Please provide a reference for uses of the Sum of Rankings Method.
Authors Response: It was added 4 references for the SRM methods. Also, a more descriptive text was added in lines 268 to 277.
5) I miss a paragraph discussing the limitations of this study.
Authors Response: A paragraph was added to conclusions addressing the limitations of the study. Please check lines 513 to 520.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. The paper utilizes data from various airports without specifying the exact timeframe of data collection. It is recommended that the authors provide specific time points or ranges for data collection to ensure the currency and comparability of the research findings.
2. The paper proposes multiple Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) derived from researchers and industry practices; however, it does not deeply explore whether these indicators can constitute an evaluation system. It is needed to add the intercorrelations among these indicators, their applicability across different airports, and the universality of the indicators in this paper.
3. While the paper mentions the use of the Sum of Ranking Method (SRM), there is insufficient detail on the specific implementation of this method and how missing or outlier data are handled. The authors are advised to provide more detailed steps and criteria in the methodology section to improve transparency and replicability of the research.
4. It is recommended to add an explanation of the relationship between the magnitude of the numbers and their significance for indicators, such as indicators 10-13, 31, and 32.
Author Response
Authors appreciate and thank the reviewer for the opportunity to access and evaluate the submitted work. Please find below a detailed answer to your very relevant points. You can also find the changes in the attached manuscript in green.
1) The paper utilizes data from various airports without specifying the exact timeframe of data collection. It is recommended that the authors provide specific time points or ranges for data collection to ensure the currency and comparability of the research findings.
Authors Response: Reviewer is correct. Information about the data timeframe has been added to the manuscript. Authors have added information about the timeframe of the data. Please check lines 93-94 and 370.
2) The paper proposes multiple Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) derived from researchers and industry practices; however, it does not deeply explore whether these indicators can constitute an evaluation system. It is needed to add the intercorrelations among these indicators, their applicability across different airports, and the universality of the indicators in this paper.
Authors Response: Reviewer is correct. There isn’t any universal environmental sustainability evaluation framework, which is the intent of the work developed in this manuscript. The main concern in the development of the KPIs of the proposed framework was to address universal indicators which can be assessed independently of any airport, region or geographical constraint. This means that the proposed KPI are universal enough to be applicable to any airport in any region of the world. Regarding this, it was added a new text with this matter to lines 247 to 264.
3) While the paper mentions the use of the Sum of Ranking Method (SRM), there is insufficient detail on the specific implementation of this method and how missing or outlier data are handled. The authors are advised to provide more detailed steps and criteria in the methodology section to improve transparency and replicability of the research.
Authors Response: Reviewer is correct in the assessment. It is necessary to have a more comprehensive and direct approach in the explanation of how the SRM is applied. Regarding this, it was added to the manuscript a more detailed explanation about the direct application of SRM and a small analytical example. Please find this in lines 339 to 359.
4) It is recommended to add an explanation of the relationship between the magnitude of the numbers and their significance for indicators, such as indicators 10-13, 31, and 32.
Authors Response: Reviewer is correct. The following text has been added in line 429 to 439: The indicators that measure the given importance by the airport operator and stakeholders to the different areas of environmental performance allow us to have a better understanding of the obtained results since it would be expected that an airport that scores 1 in these indicators would have worse general results than those of an airport that obtains a 5. This, in turn, will also help the airports to conduct a self-evaluation and understand which areas a bigger engagement is needed to enhance performance. On the other hand, an airport that doesn't have available data to answer these KPIs could mean that there is a lack of focus on that specific environmental area or a lack of transparency, by not providing data that would disclose unfavorable information and create a negative public perspective about the airport commitment towards the environment, therefor these are valuable KPIs for a complete evaluation of an airport sustainability.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper introduces a framework that encompasses the requirements of aviation regulators, industry and academic metrics, aiming for a standardized approach to environmental sustainability assessments at airports. The developed framework unifies all the major performance indicators for a comprehensive standardized evaluation, and makes it possible to identify the best practices and areas for improvement in various environmental domains.
Paper is well-structured, including all necessary elements such as introduction, materials and methods including theoretical assessment, framework development and application, results, discussion and the conclusion.
Background for the development of the framework and results are presented in a detailed and clear manner.
The topic is relevant to the field, i.e., framework can enhance airport sustainability assessment and facilitate a consistent and objective evaluation of the key environmental areas identified by the academy, airports, industry and aviation ecosystem stakeholders. This can help detect areas for improvement.
The introduction part is adequately written.
Literature overview is appropriate and well-covered. Cited references include relevant and recent publications. Some of them should be written with more details, as per attached pdf.
Definitions of the variables and formulas are adequately presented.
Tables reflect appropriately indicators, developed framework and research results.
There are some grammar mistakes, such as double spaces or unnecessary caps in the text, that should be corrected by proofreading the paper (as per attached pdf).
The conclusion part could be improved by describing in more detail future work and limitations.
Reference list is adequate, but it should be written as per MDPI guidelines, for example, names of the journals should be written as abbreviations, followed by year, then the volume and pages, etc.
Altogether, nice work!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Authors appreciate and thank the reviewer for the opportunity to access and evaluate the submitted work. Please find below a detailed answer to your very relevant points. You can also find the changes in the attached manuscript in yellow.
1) Some of the literature reference list should be written with more details, as per attached pdf.
Authors Response: Reviewer is correct. Several corrections have been made to the manuscript in this regard.
2) Grammar mistakes, double spacing and unnecessary caps.
Authors Response: Reviewer is correct. Many corrections were made through the manuscript. Coloring the changes was omitted. Regarding the double spacing, it was detected several cases, but in the majority of the pointed cases it’s an illusion given by the overleaf processing.
3) The conclusion part could be improved by describing in more detail future work and limitations.
Authors Response: Reviewer is correct. Limitations (in red because was also another previous reviewer comment) and future work was added to the conclusions. Please check lines 513 to 520 and also from 533 to 536.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper concerns development of a framework for assessing airport sustainability. Airport sustainability is clearly a topical and relevant subject.
The introduction section sets the scene well. The only main gap would be to Include more of a background at the start on sustainability. For me, sustainability covers environmental, economic and social aspects and this paper primarily covers environmental sustainability.
I wouldn’t use Chapter, rather Sections within a paper, as stated in the final paragraph of the introduction section.
From the Abstract, the methodology uses a Sum of Ranking Method to “precisely” evaluate each environmental indicator. The title also states a “comprehensive” framework. I am not convinced by either of these words which should be taken out. It is a simple evaluation and so not precise or comprehensive.
The Methods section is in three parts: a theoretical assessment, theoretical framework development and framework application. Given that the paper is about developing a framework the application could be in the Results section. Parts of the initial Methods section is overly long and should be more of a concise, practical outline of the various KPIs (I would take out “n0” for the KPI and just label them as KPI 1, KPI 2 etc.).
There is no real analysis in the paper. It is just counting. Given the simplicity of the Sum of Ranking Methods I am not convinced that formulae are needed.
There are 5 airports studied, there could have been a clearer justification on how they were chosen than just a spread across continents. There is subjectivity and bias with the way the airports were allocated and evaluated. It would be useful to be clear the size of airports for which the results are better applied. A summary of each airport (e.g. number of passengers pa, routes) would help, perhaps as a Table.
The Results, Discussion and Conclusions section need further development. I’d like to see some more detailed findings relating to the airports studied, plus links backs to the literature.
Author Response
Authors appreciate and thank the reviewer for the opportunity to access and evaluate the submitted work. Please find below a detailed answer to your very relevant points. You can also find the changes in the attached manuscript in orange.
1) Include more of a background at the start on sustainability. For me, sustainability covers environmental, economic and social aspects and this paper primarily covers environmental sustainability.
Authors Response: Reviewer is correct. The title of the work has been changed and the references in the body of the manuscript to include “Environmental Sustainability”.
2) I wouldn’t use Chapter, rather Sections within a paper, as stated in the final paragraph of the introduction section.
Authors Response: Authors have interpreted this comment as changing the name from Chapters to sections in the final paragraph of Introduction. Regarding this, Reviewer is correct and Chapters reference was eliminated for referring Sections. These changes are outlined from lines 82 to 87.
3) Given that the paper is about developing a framework the application could be in the Results section. Parts of the initial Methods section is overly long and should be more of a concise, practical outline of the various KPIs (I would take out “n0” for the KPI and just label them as KPI 1, KPI 2 etc.).
Authors Response: Reviewer is correct. Addressing the KPI is now in accordance with the reviewer suggestion across the manuscript.
Regarding moving section “2.3. Framework Application” to the results section, we understand the reviewer point of view and agree with that point since this section was rather small in description and size before the current peer-review. Nevertheless, and considering the comments from Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3, this section was enlarged to encompass a more detailed explanation of how the SRM is applied and how the different airports are addressed. Regarding this, and if Reviewer agrees with it, we will keep this enhanced version of the “2.3. Framework Application” instead of migrating it to the Results section. These added texts are lines 339 to 373.
4) There is no real analysis in the paper. It is just counting. Given the simplicity of the Sum of Ranking Methods I am not convinced that formulae are needed.
Authors Response: The Mathematical formulation in authors opinion provide a clear and precise description of the methods used, ensuring that the process of ranking and data aggregation is transparent and precisely communicated. Despite the SRM is rather simple, authors also believe that this is crucial for the reproducibility of the research, because it allows other researchers to understand and replicate our methodology accurately. Besides that, Reviewer 1 suggests including a revised parameter to the Equation (1), which is the weights of each KPI.
5) There are 5 airports studied, there could have been a clearer justification on how they were chosen than just a spread across continents. There is subjectivity and bias with the way the airports were allocated and evaluated. It would be useful to be clear the size of airports for which the results are better applied. A summary of each airport (e.g. number of passengers pa, routes) would help, perhaps as a Table.
Authors Response: Reviewer is correct. The entire paragraph has been re-written. Please check lines from 360 to 373. Please note that this paragraph contains comments from several reviewers. Also, a new table with the Studied Airports Analytical Movements Data has been added after the above paragraph and referred as Table 2.
6) The Results, Discussion and Conclusions section need further development. I’d like to see some more detailed findings relating to the airports studied, plus links backs to the literature.
Authors Response: Reviewer is correct. Many of the changes are already implemented by previous reviewer’s comments. Additionally, it was added a text from line 486 to line 498 relating our findings with the studied literature.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for the comprehensive revision.
Given that the authors claim that their study provides a 'standardized and comprehensive approach', a 'unique framework', that 'precisely' evaluates performance and 'could be accepted and utilized worldwide' (all quotes from the abstract) there are too many methodological issues.
The authors take indicators from different studies and classify the performance in each category from 1 to 5. However, these indicators cover areas of different importance, and the metrics used are in many cases debateable. Some example:
In many cases, the autors use percentage changes instead of absolute values (KPIs 14, 15, 28, 29, 36, 37). This benefits airports that have a high level of emissions in the starting period, because it is easy to reduce emissions, energy use, etc.
Some indicators are general, which would be appropiate, e.g, CO2 emissions, other cover details like the use of LED lighting or the use of single taxi procedures. If the airport uses LED lighting it also affects the average use of energy, so why report it seperately?
The authors use number of complaints. As in some countries, several residents complain on a regular basis, a difference should be made between number of complaints and number of people that complain.
Passenger awareness programs are 'counted'. Therefore, if you have three small programs it is better than one (expensive and comprehensive) program?
To sum up, there are many 'pitfalls' when using KPIs for environmental performance. Each indicator has its pros and cons, and there are also some interdependencies. Please do not claim that you found the 'unique' approach that could be utilized worldwide but clearly show also the problems in apllying this methodology.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Only minor editing required.
Author Response
The authors would like to express the best gratitude to all the reviewers. All comments were highly relevant and provided us the chance to improve our research manuscript. All comments from all the reviewers were carefully addressed and implemented. Please check on the following pages the answer to each reviewer. Please note that the comments from Round 1 have already been embodied in this version and are not highlighted. Only comments from Round 2 are highlighted.
Reviewer 1
Authors appreciate and thank the reviewer for the opportunity to access and evaluate the submitted work. Please find below a detailed answer to your very relevant points. You can also find the changes in the attached manuscript in blue.
1) Reviewer Comment: Given that the authors claim that their study provides a 'standardized and comprehensive approach', a 'unique framework', that 'precisely' evaluates performance and 'could be accepted and utilized worldwide' (all quotes from the abstract) there are too many methodological issues.
Authors Reply: Reviewer is correct. The abstract and in certain parts of the manuscript have been reviewed to remove such type of expressions. Please check lines: 4 to 10, 72 to 77 and 80 to 83.
2) Reviewer Comment: The authors take indicators from different studies and classify the performance in each category from 1 to 5. However, these indicators cover areas of different importance, and the metrics used are in many cases debateable. Some example: In many cases, the autors use percentage changes instead of absolute values (KPIs 14, 15, 28, 29, 36, 37). This benefits airports that have a high level of emissions in the starting period, because it is easy to reduce emissions, energy use, etc.
Authors Reply: Reviewer is correct in the assessment; however, it is important to recognize the challenges in accessing (from 1 to 5) absolute values as opposed to dimensionless ones such as percentages. We have acknowledged this limitation and addressed it in the manuscript; please refer to lines 514-515 for further details.
3) Reviewer Comment: Some indicators are general, which would be appropiate, e.g, CO2 emissions, other cover details like the use of LED lighting or the use of single taxi procedures. If the airport uses LED lighting it also affects the average use of energy, so why report it seperately?
Authors Reply: The reviewer's assessment is accurate; however, it is crucial to consider that with this perspective, only four indicators were available to assess environmental sustainability: Noise, Water, Emissions, and Energy. The proposed framework expands the evaluation capacity by offering multiple KPIs for each environmental area. This approach is particularly beneficial as no airport simultaneously implements all measures. The framework is designed to rank Environmental Area A by the potential application of KPIs X, Y, and Z, thereby providing a more comprehensive and global assessment.
4) Reviewer Comment: The authors use number of complaints. As in some countries, several residents complain on a regular basis, a difference should be made between number of complaints and number of people that complain. Passenger awareness programs are 'counted'. Therefore, if you have three small programs it is better than one (expensive and comprehensive) program?
Authors Reply: Reviewer is correct in the observations regarding the noise complaints (KPI 6), the distinction between the number of complaints and the number of complainants indeed presents a methodological challenge since authorities don’t provide that information because of RGPD concerns. After a direct assessment with a couple of airports, even airports themselves don’t have the exact number of individuals, just the number of complaints they receive from the authorities.
As for the passenger awareness programs (KPI 17), the metric prioritizes the number of initiatives over their cost. This approach was chosen to reflect the breadth of engagement efforts.
5) Reviewer Comment: To sum up, there are many 'pitfalls' when using KPIs for environmental performance. Each indicator has its pros and cons, and there are also some interdependencies. Please do not claim that you found the 'unique' approach that could be utilized worldwide but clearly show also the problems in apllying this methodology.
Authors Reply: Reviewer is correct in the observations. Unfortunately, there isn’t in any field any ranking method that is universally accepted. All have their pros and cons. Nevertheless, and because authors are engaged with the reviewer comments, such expressions were removed from the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Most comments have been addressed, but think the authors should have more carefully worked in the revision. Some references are clearly incorrect, mixing journals and titles across difference papers. For instance: 7. Jia, X.; Macário, R.; Buyle, S. Expanding Horizons: A Review of Sustainability Evaluation Methodologies in the Airport Sector 566 and Beyond. J. of the Air Transp. Res. Society 2023, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511584. 567 8. Nath S, P.; Upadhyay, R.K. Expanding Horizons: A Review of Sustainability Evaluation Methodologies in the Airport Sector and 568 Beyond. J. of the Air Transp. Res. Society 2024, 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jatrs.2024.100022. should be: 7. Jia, X.; Macário, R.; Buyle, S. Expanding Horizons: A Review of Sustainability Evaluation Methodologies in the Airport Sector and Beyond. Sust. 2023, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511584. 567 8. Nath S, P.; Upadhyay, R.K. Expanding Horizons: Reformation and optimization of cargo handling operation at Indian air cargo terminals. J. of the Air Transp. Res. Society 2024, 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jatrs.2024.100022. The authors should diligently check all their references again before publication.
Author Response
The authors would like to express the best gratitude to all the reviewers. All comments were highly relevant and provided us the chance to improve our research manuscript. All comments from all the reviewers were carefully addressed and implemented. Please check on the following pages the answer to each reviewer. Please note that the comments from Round 1 have already been embodied in this version and are not highlighted. Only comments from Round 2 are highlighted.
Reviewer 2
Authors appreciate and thank the reviewer for the opportunity to access and evaluate the submitted work.
6) Reviewer Comment: Most comments have been addressed, but think the authors should have more carefully worked in the revision. Some references are clearly incorrect, mixing journals and titles across difference papers. For instance: 7. Jia, X.; Macário, R.; Buyle, S. Expanding Horizons: A Review of Sustainability Evaluation Methodologies in the Airport Sector 566 and Beyond. J. of the Air Transp. Res. Society 2023, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511584. 567 8. Nath S, P.; Upadhyay, R.K. Expanding Horizons: A Review of Sustainability Evaluation Methodologies in the Airport Sector and 568 Beyond. J. of the Air Transp. Res. Society 2024, 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jatrs.2024.100022. should be: 7. Jia, X.; Macário, R.; Buyle, S. Expanding Horizons: A Review of Sustainability Evaluation Methodologies in the Airport Sector and Beyond. Sust. 2023, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511584. 567 8. Nath S, P.; Upadhyay, R.K. Expanding Horizons: Reformation and optimization of cargo handling operation at Indian air cargo terminals. J. of the Air Transp. Res. Society 2024, 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jatrs.2024.100022. The authors should diligently check all their references again before publication.
Authors Reply: Reviewer is correct. Authors used external software to generate the bib file. We have reviewed each reference used in the manuscript since some of them needed to be added manually. We indeed have found several discrepancies, including the ones Reviewer 2 mentioned. We have corrected all the discrepancies.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have responded well and thoroughly to my previous review. I am fine for acceptance.
Author Response
The authors would like to express the best gratitude to all the reviewers. All comments were highly relevant and provided us the chance to improve our research manuscript. All comments from all the reviewers were carefully addressed and implemented. Please check on the following pages the answer to each reviewer. Please note that the comments from Round 1 have already been embodied in this version and are not highlighted. Only comments from Round 2 are highlighted.
Reviewer 5
7) Reviewer Comment: The authors have responded well and thoroughly to my previous review. I am fine for acceptance.
Authors Reply: Authors thank the reviewer for his help in improving the manuscript.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thanks for the additional changes.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Only minor issues.
