The Effects of Ecological Policy of Kyrgyzstan Based on Data Envelope Analysis
, Jingjing Yin 1,3, Xi Chen 1,4, Anming Bao 1, Miao Wu 1 and Xiaoyun Zhang 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you – a very interesting paper and application of the DEA in the context of this type of environmental policy environment. A few comments to consider are detailed below.
Abstract
Although a word count limitation, clarity is required. For example, the aim needs to be more specific – at present it relates more to process. You note this is the first time that the method has been used in this context and also the results – justification and explanation would strengthen this area. For example, a short statement to highlight the importance of the results.
Introduction
The word 'disaster' – meany definitions in the literature: an explanation is required as appears to be overall environmental degradation (which you allude to – possibly a small realignment with content in future sections may assist that explain the environmental situation in detail). Statements such as decreasing the welfare of the people require context or explanation. Why DEA in the context of this paper – justification.
Definition required for ‘green silk road’.
It is noted that few studies examined policy – what were they missing that you are addressing via this research?
Content commencing line 47 may be better in table format for enhance readability.
Potentially restructure few paragraphs in this section as content form Line 58 (e.g. how area faces many ecological problems) may be better prior to detail on the research strategy.
Aim: as before intent required rather than just process. Further detail….’characterises the structure into different stages’ to what end/why?
Method and data
It is noted that scholars used different DEA models – why did you select the Super-CCR-I? Although you note an improved model, how does it differ to ‘other DEA models’ as the sentence implies that there are multiple to choose from. Justification needs to be strengthened in this section.
Policy system
Maybe more effective prior to the method section to provide context for the research.
Conclusion and policy suggestions
Suggestions introduce education and training, public participation etc. as new concepts at the final stage – evidence to support these is missing/how made such conclusions?
Few grammatical errors to be rectified.
Author Response
Point 1: Abstract
Although a word count limitation, clarity is required. For example, the aim needs to be more specific – at present it relates more to process. You note this is the first time that the method has been used in this context and also the results – justification and explanation would strengthen this area. For example, a short statement to highlight the importance of the results.
Response 1: Thanks for the suggestion. According to your suggestion, we add more specific information about the aim in line 16-18, page 1. We add a short statement to highlight the inprotance of the result in line 24-25, page 1.
It seems the transition from "command and control" to "market-based" ecological policy. The priority of ecological policy was changed from "sustain economics growth and poverty reduction" to "sustainable development and green economy".
The model results can reflect comprehensive effects of ecological policy in social, economic and ecological aspects.
Point 2: Introduction
The word 'disaster' – meany definitions in the literature: an explanation is required as appears to be overall environmental degradation (which you allude to – possibly a small realignment with content in future sections may assist that explain the environmental situation in detail). Statements such as decreasing the welfare of the people require context or explanation. Why DEA in the context of this paper – justification.
Response 2: Thank you for your reminding. We add some explanations in Line 37-43, page 1-2. The answer for “why DEA in the context of this paper – justification” in Method and data part in Line 116-118, page 4.
“However, nowadays the Aral Sea was divided into south and north parts, while south part was further separated into the east and west parts. Surface area is sharply shrinking. More than 80% of the Central Asian population lives under water scarcity[1]. Dust storms and agricultural chemical material, flowing into the lake for many years, makes surrounding of residential areas worse.”
“Data envelope analysis method has strong objectivity. No weighting assumptions are required. Eliminate the evaluator's subjective preference for evaluation indicators. No need to consider the dimension. Reduce dimensional constraints and ensure data integrity.”
Point 3: Definition required for ‘green silk road’.
Response 3: Thanks for the reminding. We add the definition for “green silk road” in Line 91-93, page 3.
“The ecological protection is of great significance for building a green silk road, which is sustainable progress of building the Belt with continuous exploitation of natural resources.”
Point 4: It is noted that few studies examined policy – what were they missing that you are addressing via this research?
Response 4: Thank you for the reminding. We add some information in Line 58-60, page 2.
“Policy is an important factor affecting the effect of ecological protection, even more important than technology progress. Policy priority and focus embodies the national interests.”
Point 5: Content commencing line 47 may be better in table format for enhance readability.
Response 5: Thanks for the suggestion. According to your suggestion, we add table 1 Search strategy for eco-policy of Central Asia in Line 71-72, page 3.
Table 1 Search strategy for eco-policy of Central Asia
No. | Name | Content |
1 | Search strategy | TS = ("Central Asia" or "Middle Asia" or Kazakhstan or (Kyrgyz Republic) or Kyrgyzstan or Kirgizstan or Tajikistan or Tadzhikistan or Tajikstan or Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan or Alma-Ata or Almaty or Astana or Aqmola or Ashgabat or Bishkek or Dushanbe or Tashkent or "Aral sea" or Amu$darya or Syr$darya or Issyk$Kul or Balkhash or "Naryn River" or "Chu River" or "Talas River" or "Lake Alakol" or "Zeravshan River" or "Kara Darya" or "Vakhsh River" or "Rogun Dam" or "Nurek Dam" or "Toktogul Dam" or "Kapchagay Dam" or "Alai Range" or "Fergana Valley" or "Karakum Desert" or "Kyzyl Kum" or "Severnaya Golodnaya Steppe" or "Betpak-Dala" or Samarkand or "Turan Depression") and TS=(eco-policy or "ecological policy" or "environmental policy" or eco-efficiency) |
2 | Publication year | 1990-2018 |
3 | Document type | article, proceeding paper and review |
4 | Database | SCI-Expanded, SSCI |
5 | Search time | 17 October 2018 |
Point 6: Potentially restructure few paragraphs in this section as content form Line 58 (e.g. how area faces many ecological problems) may be better prior to detail on the research strategy.
Response 6: Thank you for the suggestion. We adjusted the order of few paragraphs in Line 61-67, page 2.
Point 7: Aim: as before intent required rather than just process. Further detail….’characterises the structure into different stages’ to what end/why?
Response 7: Thanks for the suggestion. According to your suggestion, we add more specific information about the aim in Line 91-93, 96-97, page 3.
It means the transition from “command and control” to “market-based” ecological policy. The priority of ecological policy was changed from “sustain economic growth and poverty reduction” to “sustainable development and green economy”.
“The model results can reflect comprehensive effect of ecological policy in social, economic and ecological aspects.”
Point 8: Method and data
It is noted that scholars used different DEA models – why did you select the Super-CCR-I? Although you note an improved model, how does it differ to ‘other DEA models’ as the sentence implies that there are multiple to choose from. Justification needs to be strengthened in this section.
Response 8: Thank you for the suggestion. We added some explanations about classical CCR model and Super-CCR-I to show the advantage of Super-CCR-I model in Line 142-151, 157-168, page 5.
“Data envelope analysis method has strong objectivity. No weighting assumptions are required. Eliminate the evaluator's subjective preference for evaluation indicators. No need to consider the dimension. Reduce dimensional constraints and ensure data integrity.
In 1978 A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper and E. Rhodes proposed the first DEA model named CCR.[2]
≥0
xi–X≥0
≥0
i =1, 2, …, N
Y means output, X is input. is an N*1 dimensional constant vector, represents the efficiency of the i DMU, and meet the conditions 0≤≤1. When =1, it means that the DMU is on the production frontier, that is, the technical effective. Continuously solve the above equation N times, and you will get the efficiency value of each DMU. The above is the most basic CCR model principle.
After that, scholars developed different DEA models. Super-radial model, i.e. Super-CCR-I, was an improved model (based on classical CCR model). Its advantage was that it can rank efficient decision-making Units (DMUs).[3],[4] The input-oriented Super-CCR-I model exhibiting constant returns to scale (CRS) can be shown as follows:[5]
Xj represents the j th DMU’s m-dimensional input variable; Yj represents the j th DMU’s s-dimensional output variable; X0 represents the input variable of the evaluated DMU; Y0 represents the output variable of the evaluated DMU; represents non-alginimimid infinitesimal, the actual operation takes 10-6; S+ and S- represent slack variables. k represents an excluded DMU[6],[7].
The evaluation logic of super efficiency DEA model is as follows: to evaluate the efficiency of a DMU, firstly exclude it. In the evaluation, the production frontier is unchanged for the invalid DMU, so the final efficiency value is the same as that measured by the classical CCR model. However, in the case of an effective DMU, the input is proportionally increased on the premise that the efficiency value is constant, and the ratio of the input increase is recorded as the super efficiency evaluation value. Since the production frontier moves backwards, the measured super efficiency value is greater than the efficiency value measured by the classical CCR model. The efficient DMUs can be sorted in this way.”
Point 9: Policy system
Maybe more effective prior to the method section to provide context for the research.
Response 9: Thanks for the recommendation. We Adjusted paragraph order.
Point 10: Conclusion and policy suggestions
Suggestions introduce education and training, public participation etc. as new concepts at the final stage – evidence to support these is missing/how made such conclusions?
Response 10: Thanks for your suggestions. We added some descriptions about the science and technology situation of Kyrgyzstan in Line 508-519, page 17. There is a paragraph mentioned about the significance of local community in Line 275-278, page9.
“According to UNESCO's data, during 2009-2015 Central Asian state’s science and technology funds accounted for the least of the world as 0.1% and remained unchanged for years.[8] The proportion was even lower than the sub-Saharan Africa region. Most of Kyrgyzstan’s science and technology funds come from state-owned institutions. The number of scientific researchers in Kyrgyzstan is the lowest among the five Central Asian countries. From the perspective of scientific and technological output, during 1991-2016 Kyrgyzstan's SCI, EI, and CPCI-S papers were very few and did not show a significant increase trend.[9] In general, the situation has not yet been fundamentally changed in Kyrgyzstan: low investment in science and technology, shortage of scientific and technological talents and backward development of science and technology. Therefore, the contribution of technology development to eco-environmental protection and the economy is weak. When we explore the influencing factors of eco-efficiency, we do not consider the factors of scientific and technology development.”
“Another tendency of ecological policy was that local community and stakeholders will more frequently participate in legislation improving process.[10],[11],[12] The new law On Pasture was adopted in 2009. It created Pasture User Unions and Pasture Committees, and transferred the competence for pasture management to local municipalities.[13]”
Point 11: Few grammatical errors to be rectified.
Response 11: Thank you for your reminding. After careful examination, we found that there are indeed some typing and grammar errors in our manuscript. We will retouche the manuscript by English native speaker.
[1] Karthe D, Abdullaev I, Boldgiv B, Borchardt D, Chalov S, Jarsjo J, Li LH, Nittrouer J. A.,2017. Water in Central Asia: an integrated assessment for science-based management. Environmental Earth Science, 76,690.
[2] Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Rhodes, E.Measuring the Efficiency of Decision-making Units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1978, 2(6), 429-444.
[3] Wu, P.C.; Huang, T.H; Pan, S.C. Country Performance Evaluation: The DEA Model Approach. Soc. Indic. Res. 2014, 118(2), 835–849.
[4] Guo, I.L.; Lee, H.S.; Lee, D. An Integrated Model for Slack-based Measure of Super-efficiency in Additive DEA. Omega-Int. J. Manage. Sci. 2017, 67, 160-167.
[5] Andersen, P.; Petersen, N.C. A Procedure for Ranking Efficient Units in Data Envelopment Analysis. Manage. Sci. 1993, 39(10), 1261-1264.
[6] Li, Y.J.; Xie, J.H.; Wang, M.Q.; Liang, L. Super Efficiency Evaluation Using a Common Platform on a Cooperative Game. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 255(3), 884-892.
[7] Fu, L.N.; Chen, X.H.; Leng, Z.H. Urban agglomerations eco-efficiency analysis based on super-efficiency DEA model: Case study of Chang-Zhu-Tan “3 + 5” urban agglomeration. China Population, Resources and Environ. 2013, 23(4), 169-175.
[8] UNESCO Institute of Statistics. Global Investments in R&D. Paris :UNESCO, 2018
[9] Wu, M.; Wang, L.X.; Zhang, X.Y.; Hao, Y.; He, J.J. Comparative Analysis on Scientific and Technological Strength of the Five Countries of Central Asia. World Sci-Tech R&D, 2018, 40(05): 454-464.
[10] Baerlein, T.; Kasymov, U.; Zikos, D. Self-Governance and Sustainable Common Pool Resource Management in Kyrgyzstan. Sustainability 2015, 7(1):496-521.
[11] Nixon, R.; Owusu, F. Choice, Inclusion, and Access to Information: Understanding Female Farmers’ Participation in Kyrgyzstan’s Water-User Associations. Sustainability 2017, 9(12), 2346.
[12] Ecological Informational Service.Концепция Зеленой Экономики в Кыргызской Республике «Кыргызстан — Страна Зеленой Экономики». Available online: http://ekois.net/kontseptsiya-zelenoj-ekonomiki-v-kyrgyzskoj-respublike-kyrgyzstan-strana-zelenoj-ekonomiki/ (accessed on 23 August 2018). (In Russian)
[13] Kasymov, U.; Hamidov, A. Comparative Analysis of Nature-Related Transactions and Governance Structures in Pasture Use and Irrigation Water in Central Asia. Sustainability 2017, 9(9), arctical number 1633.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript does not follow the format given by the magazine.
Large problems in methodology and data. Are insufficient.
In more details:
The charts do not give the corresponding source (Figure 2 should give the source and date of navigation).
Unsatisfactory diagrams (such as the models on page 3 and the diagram on page 6).
Bibliography refers to the text without numbering (line112).
Points with an incomprehensible meaning, e.g., line 200-202, line 208).
Deep in numbering chart 4 and on page 12 and on page 13.
The formatting of the bibliography must be changed
Author Response
Point 1: The charts do not give the corresponding source (Figure 2 should give the source and date of navigation).
Response 1: Thank you for the reminding. We reformatted the figure according to the source to make sure that it is not the same as the original.
Point 2: Unsatisfactory diagrams (such as the models on page 3 and the diagram on page 6).
Response 2: Thank you for the reminding. We provided higher resolution figures for all the figures in the main text.
Point 3: Bibliography refers to the text without numbering (line112).
Response 3: Thanks for the reminding. We changed the bibliography into endnote.
Point 4: Points with an incomprehensible meaning, e.g., line 200-202, line 208).
Response 4: Many thanks for you. Here is the explanation. The figures in the amendment became bigger, which means water quality standards were lower than before. So we think improving law system did not mean the higher standards, the better.
In March 2017, some water quality indicators were changed in the amendment of Law on Technical Regulations of Drinking Water Safety in order to be in line with international standards. In article 34 "the chemical indicator" of figure 0.015 was replaced by 0.030; "The radiation security indicator" of figure 0.1 was replaced by 0.5.
Point 5: Deep in numbering chart 4 and on page 12 and on page 13.
Response 5: Thank you for your reminding. We changed the number.
Point 6: The formatting of the bibliography must be changed
Response 6: Thank you very much. We changed the format of the bibliography according to requirement of the journal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the authors explored the effects of ecological policy ofKyrgyzstanusing Data Envelope Analysis. In my opinion, this manuscript seems to be a project report rather than an academic article, according to its content and layout. Some concerns listed below are of great necessity to be addressed before potential publication. Overall, I would like to recommend this manuscript for major revisions.
l Layout: the free-style layout failed to present the in-depth and concrete discussion at all. I would like to suggest that the authors shall stick with the standard form, namely Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions, to reorganize the manuscript and rewrite the Discussion section.
l Abbreviations: normally, the abbreviations shall not be used in the Title, Abstract, Keywords, Highlights, and Conclusions sections. Please revise accordingly throughout the manuscript.
l Policy recommendations: Since the authors submit this manuscript to the journal sustainability, they shall link the key findings toKyrgyzstan’s SDGs, in particular, which means of policy measures will helpKyrgyzstanenable and accelerate the progress towards achieving the SDGs.
l Language: The proofreading by a native English speaker is needed. For instance, the first sentence of the Introduction section, apparently Central Asia is the arid zone, rather than Central Asian countries.
Author Response
Point 1: Layout: the free-style layout failed to present the in-depth and concrete discussion at all. I would like to suggest that the authors shall stick with the standard form, namely Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions, to reorganize the manuscript and rewrite the Discussion section.
Response 1: Thanks for recommendations. We revised our manuscript.
Point 2: Abbreviations: normally, the abbreviations shall not be used in the Title, Abstract, Keywords, Highlights, and Conclusions sections. Please revise accordingly throughout the manuscript.
Response 2: Thanks for the reminding. We revised the manuscript accordingly in Line 31, page 1; Line546, page 18.
Point 3: Policy recommendations: Since the authors submit this manuscript to the journal sustainability, they shall link the key findings to Kyrgyzstan’s SDGs, in particular, which means of policy measures will help Kyrgyzstan enable and accelerate the progress towards achieving the SDGs.
Response 3: Thanks for the suggession. Kyrgyzstan's sustainable development is in the very early stages. We add tow paragraph about such content in Line 308-314, 322-326, page 14.
“National Strategy on Sustainable Development of Mountainous Area was developed within the framework of the Central Asian Mountain Information Network. The sustainable development goals of this strategy was that the natural resources of mountain are used in an environmental, social and economic friendly way for optimum benefit to the people of Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia. Development of mountain tourism is one of the measures for the sustainable development of Kyrgyzstan[i]. From 2006 to 2010 gross output of tourism increased about twofold, and share of tourism activity in GDP was 3.5% (2006) and 3.8% (2010).
The former strategy was the first independent sustainable development strategy of Kyrgyzstan (without international help). The goals of this strategy was that in the period 2013–2017, Kyrgyzstan faces the task of becoming a democratic state with a stable political system, a dynamic economy and steadily growing incomes of the population. Formation of law system including mentioned above eco-environmental laws and regulations was the basic measure to fulfill the goals.”
Point 4: Language: The proofreading by a native English speaker is needed. For instance, the first sentence of the Introduction section, apparently Central Asia is the arid zone, rather than Central Asian countries.
Response 4: Thank you for your reminding. After careful examination, we found that there are indeed some typing and grammar errors in our manuscript. We will retouche the manuscript by English native speaker.
[i] Министерство Юстиции Кыргызской Республики. Пастановление Правительства Кыргызской Республики об Одобрении Проекта Национальной Стратегии и Плана Действий по Устойчивому Развитию Горных Территорий Кыргызской Республики. Министерство Юстиции Кыргызской Республики, 21 января 2002 года. Available online: http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/53132 (accessed on 14 March 2019, in Russian)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
As a runoff formation but semi-arid area, Kyrgyzstan definitely needs more attentions from researchers on its ecological protection and sustainable development. This study characterized the historical eco-policy system structure of Kyrgyzstan and used a method of data envelope analysis to evaluate the effects of these eco-policy systems on the eco-efficiency. Their results show that the eco-efficiency achieved relative optimal state which means the ecological policy obtained positive effects as a whole, and economic development and environmental protection have mutual promoted effects for each other. The value of this study lies on providing a framework in studying the eco-environmental policies in Central Asian countries. Generally, I think the topic is valuable, but I would like to challenge the method the study used and require more key information to be complemented before it could be considered for publication.
General comment:
1. For the section 4.2.2, the authors simply applied correction coefficient to show which factor in water diversion, air pollutants emission, GDP, reforestation and non-poverty rate affects the eco-efficiency most. However, in fact a high value of correlation coefficient does not ensure a strong relationship between two variables! So I don't think we can conclude that the economic development and the ecological environment protection have mutual promoted to each other simply through the high value of correlation coefficient between GDP and eco-efficiency. Maybe they were both promoted by a third factor (such as technology development). More evidences need to be shown and some mechanisms need to be explained to add credit on this conclusion.
2. The data envelope analysis (DEA) method was introduced too little in the text. After reading through the manuscript, I still can’t understand what is the DEA model and how does it work. In this study, I think the outputs of the DEA model are the eco-efficiency values, but what are the input values? How did the DEA model transfer the input values to the output values? What is the uncertainty level for the model and why did the author select this model? Too much key information is missing. Since the DEA model is a major part of this manuscript, I don’t think simply listing some references for the method is a good way for readers to understand their results. At least some basic introduction to the DEA method should be complemented in the main text.
Specific comments:
L90: Only showing some equations without explanation is meaningless. Please explain the meaning of each term in the equations.
L98-100: Please be specific what data the authors used and what international organizations provided them?
L312: “Annual average value of Kyrgyzstan all above 1” to “All annual average values of Kyrgyzstan are above 1”.
L312: What is the definition of the eco-efficiency in the study?
Author Response
Point 1: For the section 4.2.2, the authors simply applied correction coefficient to show which factor in water diversion, air pollutants emission, GDP, reforestation and non-poverty rate affects the eco-efficiency most. However, in fact a high value of correlation coefficient does not ensure a strong relationship between two variables! So I don't think we can conclude that the economic development and the ecological environment protection have mutual promoted to each other simply through the high value of correlation coefficient between GDP and eco-efficiency. Maybe they were both promoted by a third factor (such as technology development). More evidences need to be shown and some mechanisms need to be explained to add credit on this conclusion.
Response 1: Thanks for the comments and suggestions. This section is short of arguments. We added some evidences to prove that economic development promotes the protection of the ecological environment in Line 495-519, page 17.
“In this part, we discussed the key factors which impact the eco-efficiency most.
After independence, economic policy of Kyrgyzstan has been a fundamental shift from relative closure to an open economy. Kyrgyzstan's per capita GDP increased by about 25 times in 2017 compared to 1995. As the economic situation improves, investment in eco-environmental protection was also increasing. Kyrgyzstan’s eco-environmental protection investment increased by about 148 times in 2017 compared to 1995 (Figure). Eco-environmental protection investment means investment in construction, reconstruction, expansion and technical re-equipment of environmental and resource-saving capacities, structures, installations, etc. Therefore, it can be speculated that the eco-efficiency annual average value is related to economic development.
Figure Environmental protection investment of Kyrgyzstan during 1995,2000-2017. Resource: Statistical Yearbook of Kyrgyz Republic.
According to UNESCO's data, during 2009-2015 Central Asian state’s science and technology funds accounted for the least of the world as 0.1% and remained unchanged for years. The proportion was even lower than the sub-Saharan Africa region. Most of Kyrgyzstan’s science and technology funds come from state-owned institutions. The number of scientific researchers in the country is the lowest among the five Central Asian countries. From the perspective of scientific and technological output, during 1991-2016 Kyrgyzstan's SCI, EI, and CPCI-S papers were very few and did not show a significant increase trend. In general, the situation has not yet been fundamentally changed in Kyrgyzstan: low investment in science and technology, shortage of scientific and technological talents and backward development of science and technology. Therefore, the contribution of technology development to eco-environmental protection and the economy is weak. When we explore the influencing factors of eco-efficiency, we do not consider the factors of scientific and technology development.
The relationship was studied using correlation coefficient between annual average value (AAV) and five indicators of Kyrgyzstan: total water diversion (X1), emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources (X2), per-capita GDP (Y1), reforestation (Y2) and non-poverty rate (Y3) (Table 4).
The correlation coefficient showed a good linearity of 0.714 (P<0.05) between annual average value and per-capita GDP (Table5). It indicated that they have positive correlation. According to the analysis above, during 2008-2015 economic development promotes the protection of the ecological environment.”
Point 2: The data envelope analysis (DEA) method was introduced too little in the text. After reading through the manuscript, I still can’t understand what is the DEA model and how does it work. In this study, I think the outputs of the DEA model are the eco-efficiency values, but what are the input values? How did the DEA model transfer the input values to the output values? What is the uncertainty level for the model and why did the author select this model? Too much key information is missing. Since the DEA model is a major part of this manuscript, I don’t think simply listing some references for the method is a good way for readers to understand their results. At least some basic introduction to the DEA method should be complemented in the main text.
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. We added some basic introduction to the super efficiency DEA model in Line 161-168, page 5.
“The evaluation logic of super efficiency DEA model is as follows: to evaluate the efficiency of a DMU, firstly exclude it. In the evaluation, the production frontier is unchanged for the invalid DMU, so the final efficiency value is the same as that measured by the classical CCR model. However, in the case of an effective DMU, the input is proportionally increased on the premise that the efficiency value is constant, and the ratio of the input increase is recorded as the super efficiency evaluation value. Since the production frontier moves backwards, the measured super efficiency value is greater than the efficiency value measured by the classical CCR model. The efficient DMUs can be sorted in this way.”
Specific comments:
Point 3: L90: Only showing some equations without explanation is meaningless. Please explain the meaning of each term in the equations.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We added the explanation of the equation in Line 141-151, 157-160, page 5.
“In 1978 A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper and E. Rhodes proposed the first DEA model named CCR.[1]
s.t. – yi + Y≥0
xi–X≥0
≥0
i =1, 2, …, N
Y means output, X is input. is an N*1 dimensional constant vector, represents the efficiency of the i DMU, and meet the conditions 0≤≤1. When =1, it means that the DMU is on the production frontier, that is, the technical effective. Continuously solve the above equation N times, and you will get the efficiency value of each DMU. The above is the most basic CCR model principle.
After that, scholars developed different DEA models. Super-radial model, i.e. Super-CCR-I, was an improved model (based on classical CCR model). Its advantage was that it can rank efficient decision-making Units (DMUs).[2],[3] The input-oriented Super-CCR-I model exhibiting constant returns to scale (CRS) can be shown as follows:[4]
Xj represents the j th DMU’s m-dimensional input variable; Yj represents the j th DMU’s s-dimensional output variable; X0 represents the input variable of the evaluated DMU; Y0 represents the output variable of the evaluated DMU; represents non-alginimimid infinitesimal, the actual operation takes 10-6; S+ and S- represent slack variables. k represents an excluded DMU.”
Point 4: L98-100: Please be specific what data the authors used and what international organizations provided them?
Response 4: Thanks for the suggestion. According to your suggestion, we add specific information about the data used for the DEA model in Line 130-132, page 4.
“The data used for DEA evaluation were all from National Statistical Committee of Kyrgyzstan. Data of total water diversion, emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources, reforestation is from statistical yearbook Environmental Protection in the Kyrgyz Republic. Data of per-capita GDP and poverty rate is from Statistical Yearbook of Kyrgyz Republic.”
Point 5: L312: “Annual average value of Kyrgyzstan all above 1” to “All annual average values of Kyrgyzstan are above 1”.
Response 5: Thank you for your reminding. We revised the mistake.
Point 6: L312: What is the definition of the eco-efficiency in the study?
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. We add the definition of the eco-efficiency in Line 348-351, page 12.
“Usually, eco-efficiency is used to evaluate the relationship between Human activities and regional ecological capacity. In this study the definition of eco-efficiency is defined as an aspect of sustainability relating eco-environmental performance along with the comprehensive benefits.”
[1] Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Rhodes, E.Measuring the Efficiency of Decision-making Units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1978, 2(6), 429-444.
[2] Wu, P.C.; Huang, T.H; Pan, S.C. Country Performance Evaluation: The DEA Model Approach. Soc. Indic. Res. 2014, 118(2), 835–849.
[3] Guo, I.L.; Lee, H.S.; Lee, D. An Integrated Model for Slack-based Measure of Super-efficiency in Additive DEA. Omega-Int. J. Manage. Sci. 2017, 67, 160-167.
[4] Andersen, P.; Petersen, N.C. A Procedure for Ranking Efficient Units in Data Envelopment Analysis. Manage. Sci. 1993, 39(10), 1261-1264.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors
you have made a very good efford to improve your article.
So more comments:
Line 35 (Figure 1)1 but line 46 Figure 1. The Aral Sea Basin 5 WHICH ONE IS CORECT?
LINE 60-61 REFERENCES degradation18 → degradation18 AND THE SAME 19, 20
LINE 69 WHERE IS TABLE 1 IN THE TEXT?
LINE 84 Lackey R.T. (2007)24 …..
LINE 97 REFERENCE
LINE 123 BETTER IMAGE
LINE 250 REFERENCE AND INTERNET ACCESS
LINE298 CHANGE NUMBERING ON AXIS X e.g. 0.00 → 0
LINE 312 GIVE YEAR
LINE 363 TABLE 4 IN THE TEXT
LINE 368 ARE ABOVE
LINE 373 THERE IS A GAP
LINE 379 MAYBE (BELOW FIGURE 5.1)?
LINE 384 ?
LINE 403 (FIGURE 6)
LINE 409 FIGURE 6
LINE 410 INTERNET ACCESS
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Line 35 (Figure 1)1 but line 46 Figure 1. The Aral Sea Basin 5 WHICH ONE IS CORECT?
Response 1: Thanks for the reminding. They are both correct. Citation 1 is for the sentence, while citation 5 is for the map.
Point 2: LINE 60-61 REFERENCES degradation18 → degradation18 AND THE SAME 19, 20
Response 2: Thanks for the reminding. We changed them into right format.
Point 3: LINE 69 WHERE IS TABLE 1 IN THE TEXT?
Response 3: Thanks for your reminding. We added “Table 1” in Line 66, page 2.
Point 4: LINE 84 Lackey R.T. (2007)24 …..
Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. We changed it.
Point 5: LINE 97 REFERENCE
Response 5: Thanks for the reminding. We added references for them.
Point 6: LINE 123 BETTER IMAGE
Response 6: Thanks for your suggestion. We import the equation.
Point 7: LINE 250 REFERENCE AND INTERNET ACCESS
Response 7: Thanks for the reminding. We added the reference.
Point 8: LINE298 CHANGE NUMBERING ON AXIS X e.g. 0.00 → 0
Response 8: Thanks for the reminding. We changed the number in X.
Point 9: LINE 312 GIVE YEAR
Response 9: Thanks for the reminding. We added “2006, 2008-2015” at the end.
Point 10: LINE 363 TABLE 4 IN THE TEXT
Response 10: Thanks for the reminding. We changed the number in the text.
Point 11: LINE 368 ARE ABOVE
Response 11: Thanks for the reminding. We changed it in the text.
Point 12: LINE 373 THERE IS A GAP
Response 12: Thanks for the reminding. We changed it in the text.
Point 13: LINE 379 MAYBE (BELOW FIGURE 5.1)?
Response 13: Thanks for the reminding. Yes.
Point 14: LINE 384 ?
Response 14: Thanks for the reminding. Maybe you mean Line 385? We add the “values were below 1”.
Point 15: LINE 403 (FIGURE 6)
Response 15: Thanks for the reminding. We changed it in the text.
Point 1: LINE 409 FIGURE 6
Response 15: Thanks for the reminding. We changed it in the text.
Point 16: LINE 410 INTERNET ACCESS
Response 16: Thanks for the reminding. We changed it in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I am very happy that the authors have addressed my concerns point by point precisely. However, I think the language itself still needs some improvements. Overall, I would like to recommend this manuscript to be published.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have addressed all my concerns. I have no more comments at this stage.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
