Green GDP Indicator with Application to Life Cycle of Sugar Industry in Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors should edit English language and style. It is necessary to find out whether there is a calculated Green GDP for Thailand at the macro level and analyze the calculations of Green GDP for Thailand at the macro level (which exist calculated by other authors) and compare with the Green GDP of the sugar industry. That is, show how much the Green GDP of the sugar industry affects the total Green GDP, in what amount and percentage. In this way we can see the importance of the impact of the Green GDP of the sugar industry.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Poor usage of English language. Improve English language (‘This done by separate from’, ‘The increasing trend of sugar consumption in many countries, generally makes the 30 production activities of the sugar industry have a significant impact on the environment’, etc.) – a need for professional evaluation of English language (this fact alone is a valid reason for the rejection of the paper)!!!!
2. Author(s) states that: ‘The scope of the study began with cultivation and planting, transportation, and sugar production’. Did they really start the study with cultivation, or is it just a bad English?
3. Literature review should be placed in a separate section (not within the Introduction part); dividing general conclusions on the topic from Thailand’s experience (empirics). Empirical background should be improved with elaboration of more significant literature on the topic.
4. What do you mean with the term environmental cost in the sentence (p. 3, line 124-126) – what kind of cost is that, who pays for that cost, etc.
5. Source of data in Table 1. should be unambiguously noted (for example: Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council. I/O table of Thailand 2015.)

6. Sub-section 2.3. is composed of some irrelevant data (could be placed in the footnote or even eliminated; especially 2.3.1., 2.3.2., 2.3.3.), whereas authors should clearly state whether the calculations from 2.3.4. and 2.3.5. are of their own work or they collected the other resources.
7. Also, when referring to equations (5) and (6), you mention acts like can be evaluated or can found, so the reader cannot be aware if those calculations are made with those formulas or could be made?
8. Description of the life cycle inventory in sub-section 3.1. should be shortened.
9. Figure 2. has no explanation. Figure itself is irrelevant, and since it consumes space it could be described with few sentences.
10. On page 10 line 389, authors mention results, however Table 2 is just a list of life cycle inventories, even though they had to calculate some of them.
11. Figure 7. second circle, what does it mean etc.?
12. Page 13 line 464; the difference is what? On Average over the whole period or what?
13. On what basis or calculations do you conclude that a reduction of 35% in GHG emissions would improve Green GDP for 2-4%?
14. Sensitivity analysis did not provide any useful information; hence it is only a basic/elementary statistical calculation.
15. The methodological part relying just on the LCA method to provide relevant information and suggestions for socio-economic policies can be labelled as insufficient and elementary. However, it provides good basis for the elementary analysis of environmental impact assessment.
16. Suggestions: (1) expand your data series (4 year span is rather limited for any serious evaluation, thus suggestions for distinct strategies); (2) though there is an evident importance of sugar industry for Thailand industry, there is no real evidence for its importance on macro scale (whole economic potential – importance for aggregate GDP of Thailand), hence the reader could miss the relevant point of the paper; (3) authors have chosen ‘their own’ approach in calculating green GDP without even referring to the complexity of the green GDP approximation, let alone citing relevant paper that dealt with the topic of theoretical dilemmas and evaluation problems (should cite authors like Boyd, J. (2006), Stjepanović, S., Tomić, D., & Škare, M. (2019). Rauch, J. N., & Chi, Y. F. (2010)., Vimochana, M. (2017).); (4) in addition evaluation of relations GDP-sugar industry vs. green GDP-sugar industry should be evaluated on more complexed calculations, multivariate analysis or GMM. Therefore, authors should consider the usage of more serious statistical and econometrical tools.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It is hard to convince the reader of the questionnaire data you are using.

Contribution and analysis is not sufficient

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Please review and underline better in the discussions and conclusions the relationship, between the analysis LCA- Life Cycle Assessment- LCI- Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and the most important for real life practical application, Life Cycle Costing (LCC), that in your article you've called Life Cycle Environmental Costs

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer 2 Report

(should cite authors like Boyd, J. (2006), Stjepanović, S., Tomić, D., & Škare, M. (2019). Rauch, J. N., & Chi, Y. F. (2010)., Vimochana, M. (2017).)