Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) for Measuring the Efficiency of the Hotel Industry in Ecuador
, Christian Viñan-Merecí 1, Zulema Malo-Montoya 1 and Valentín-Alejandro Martínez-Fernández 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There are many limitations of the research presented in the paper. The first is that an adequate review of the literature is not carried out. The objective is poor, the methodology used is very simple and has no scientific validity. But the main limitation is the poor contribution of research to both academic and business.
The research and the results obtained are not relevant for a high-impact scientific journal. The bibliography presented is very poor, and not current. Researchers can correct some of the limitations of the research in relation to the content of the article and present it to a magazine of lower impact, since the research is very poor and does not allow conclusions or relevant results.
1.- In the introduction section, all the relevant information of a scientific article is missing. The scope of study is described, this would be more appropriate in the methodology, however the following information is missing:
- Contextualize the subject under study (efficiency).
- What studies have been carried out in this context? What gap is identified? Why is this study proposed? What gap is intended to be covered? What is the novelty of the study? What methodology? In what space field is studied? etc.
The introduction lacks all the necessary information to present the study properly.
2.- The literature review begins with: "studies that apply DEA to determine the efficiency of the hotel industry and 78 tourism." But there is no correct review of: efficiency, methods to measure it, etc. Nor is it explained what is or what is DEA ?.
Review of very poor literature.
3.- The results are poor and confusing.
4- The results are poor and without relevance. The usefulness of the study, as well as its methodology is poor.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1, we express our most sincere thanks for your work and notes that have significantly improved the work. About their recommendations, we allow ourselves to comment on the following:
Indication 1) It is collected as follows, on lines 53 to 61 efficiency is defined, a summary of the main studies. Line 69 refers to hotels in Ecuador as a space field. On the other hand, in the review of the literature, in the last paragraph, line 200, it is indicated that, in Ecuador, this type of study has not been carried out.
Indication 2) It is collected as follows, the authors have considered that there is enough material already worked, indicating the different types of efficiency measurement. However, in the methodology, a synthesis of it is covered.
Indication 3) and 4). We appreciate the reviewer's appreciation. These are the results that have shown the application of the model, which can be used by public bodies to direct policies towards those provinces that are being less efficient and be able to achieve the development of the hotel industry that the State seeks. The study of efficiency, the DEA methodology has occupied important spaces in the literature, and its incorporation is justified in the sense that it can be used with various inputs and outputs, not assuming a behavior.
In the thank you section, the name of the professional who has done the translation of the work has been incorporated.
On the other hand, this is the first efficiency work, which is done in the Ecuadorian hotel industry and will serve as a basis to strengthen this line of research, with the incorporation of new techniques, inputs and outputs.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper was corrected by considering all my comments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2, we express our most sincere thanks for your work and notes that have significantly improved the work.
Reviewer 3 Report
The Authors have chosen a interesting research topic on the measuring the efficiency and productivity of the hotel industry in Ecuador. The literature review is correct. The Authors conducted analyzes and obtained interesting results. They applied the correct research methods; described in detail the results of the research and used appropriate method to analyze them. The Authors pointed out and described the limitations of their research and indicated future directions of research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3, we express our most sincere thanks for your work and notes that have significantly improved the work.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear author/s,
the topic of your paper is interesting, however I have a few recommendations:
For a better visibility on databases, the authors are asked not to repeat among keyword the words/concepts included on the title of the article
In the methodology section please explain how you select the hotel, when the research was conducted? Why the sample is represenative for the entire population?
You have nice statistical results, but not very helpful the discussions. Please add a section with the discussions.
Deeper mention the managerial implications of your study and future research directions.
Mention how the current research fulfill the gap in the literature.
Good luck!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 4, we express our most sincere thanks for your work and notes that have significantly improved the work. About their recommendations, we allow ourselves to comment on the following:
Indication 1) It is collected as follows, the following words were incorporated: hotel efficiency; productivity change; panel data; leaving the words DEA and Ecuador, for believing that they are convenient for your search.
Indication 2) It is collected as follows, the following expression was incorporated. Only the hotels that had provided financial information to the SUPERCÍA for all the years of studies were selected, obtaining data from all types of hotels and from the provinces in which tourism plays an important role in the economy.
Indication 3) It is collected as follows, the conclusions section was modified, called Discussion and conclusions, following some styles of articles in this magazine. In this section several paragraphs (shaded with yellow color) were added, in which the results obtained are compared with other studies.
Indication 4) It is collected as follows, the main idea was incorporated in the last paragraph about the variables to be used and their impact on Ecuadorian tourism policies (shaded with yellow color)
Indication 5) It is collected as follows, a paragraph was added indicating that this work is the pioneer of efficiency in the Ecuadorian hotel industry (shaded with yellow).
On the other hand, the professional who has done the translation of the work has been incorporated in the acknowledgment section.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have not carried out, nor have they considered the requested revisions, nor did they respond adequately to them, justifying that it has been carried out and if not carried out, justify why? As a reviewer I feel confused since it is the fourth revision that he made of the paper and none of them took into account my suggestions and recommendations. For all these reasons, my decision cannot, nor has it changed, is still rejecting the paper, the reason being the same as the one I expressed in the previous three revisions:
There are many limitations of the research presented in the paper. The first is that an adequate review of the literature is not carried out. The objective is poor, the methodology used is very simple and has no scientific validity. But the main limitation is the poor contribution of research to both academic and business.
The research and the results obtained are not relevant for a high-impact scientific journal. The bibliography presented is very poor, and not current. Researchers can correct some of the limitations of the research in relation to the content of the article and present it to a magazine of lower impact, since the research is very poor and does not allow conclusions or relevant results.
1.- In the introduction section, all the relevant information of a scientific article is missing. The scope of study is described, this would be more appropriate in the methodology, however the following information is missing:
- Contextualize the subject under study (efficiency).
- What studies have been carried out in this context? What gap is identified? Why is this study proposed? What gap is intended to be covered? What is the novelty of the study? What methodology? In what space field is studied? etc.
The introduction lacks all the necessary information to present the study properly.
2.- The literature review begins with: "studies that apply DEA to determine the efficiency of the hotel industry and 78 tourism." But there is no correct review of: efficiency, methods to measure it, etc. Nor is it explained what is or what is DEA ?.
Review of very poor literature.
3.- The results are poor and confusing.
4- The results are poor and without relevance. The usefulness of the study, as well as its methodology is poor.
Author Response
The authors want to express, first of all, their recognition and thanks to you as a reviewer, since their indications contribute significantly to the improvement of the work and to achieve a better quality and impact of it. In this sense, we consider that the proposed improvements, in addition to objective and substantial, provide the article with greater strength. These were mostly collected by the authors and their incorporation has been placed with red letters in the document. According to the comments of the reviewers it is possible to indicate:
Point 1: In the introduction section, all the relevant information of a scientific article is missing. The scope of study is described, this would be more appropriate in the methodology, however the following information is missing:
- Contextualize the subject under study (efficiency).
- What studies have been carried out in this context? What gap is identified? Why is this study proposed? What gap is intended to be covered? What is the novelty of the study? What methodology? In what space field is studied? etc.
The introduction lacks all the necessary information to present the study properly.
Response 1. The following paragraphs have been added.
Concern for the hotel and tourism industry has been frequent worldwide, for the contribution to the complications of countries (Kundu & Contractor [4]). There are various approaches to studies carried out in the hotel industry, an environmental approach and performance management by Molina-Azorín, Claver-Cortés, Pereira-Moliner & Tarí [5], income management (IM) worked by Rodríguez-Algeciras & Talón-Ballestero [6], and the importance of consumer perceptions regarding the strength and height of a hotel industry brand Forgacs [7].
Efficiency studies in this sector in Latin America are not abundant, and in Ecuador, an efficiency analysis has not been carried out to date, which allows tourism companies and rectors to have knowledge about this aspect. Research has been conducted on management models, strategic plans, quality management, and customer service.
In an emerging economy like Ecuador, the efficiency of the business fabric is transcendental. The hotel industry is one of the five main economic activities that concentrate more than 72.35% of the companies that contribute to its development (INEC) [8]; so knowing with certainty if resources are managed efficiently is a concern of the managers The implementation of appropriate strategies will allow companies in the hotel sector to be more efficient and productive and thereby contribute to a better level of competitiveness to be more sustainable in a globalized economy.
Point 2.- The literature review begins with: "studies that apply DEA to determine the efficiency of the hotel industry and 78 tourism." But there is no correct review of: efficiency, methods to measure it, etc. Nor is it explained what is or what is DEA ?.
Response 2. The DEA is defined in the methodology. It was considered convenient not to repeat again.
It is necessary to point out that the method applied for determining efficiency is the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). This technique, whose precursor was Boles [42], uses linear programming algorithms for frontier estimation. In its implementation, we must consider that a business is efficient if there is not another one or a combination that provides more than some product, given the inputs; or uses less of some input, given the outputs. The advantage is that this technique does not impose any a priori functional form on the data, which can accommodate multiple inputs and outputs and generate information about “reference businesses” for each of the inefficient businesses. In other words, the businesses have the following aspects that are similar to an efficient business: output mix, input mix and scale operations. As mentioned in the literature review, several studies on the efficiency of the hotel industry have used this method with some variations.
Point 3. The results are poor and confusing.
Response 3. The results obtained with this methodology help the managers of the different hotels and governing bodies, to improve the management in this sector, since it shows them how the different hotels are in terms of resource management.
Point 4. The results are poor and without relevance. The usefulness of the study, as well as its methodology is poor.
Response 4. Different paragraphs have been added in the Situation of the hotel sector section, which highlights the importance of the hotel sector in Ecuador and use of these results.
According to the tourism indicators of CGEIMINTUR [28], in Ecuador, tourism activity plays a fundamental role in the engine of the economy, becoming one of the main sources of economic income for the country, in addition to conceiving a series of benefits, reflected in the generation of work, it is so, the employment in the industry according to the Ministry of tourism in the 3rd quarter of 2019 represented around 522,508 employees, and in relation to the same period of 2018 an increase of 1.8% was generated which it represents 6.6% of national employment; The contribution to the tourism sector of WTTC data of 2018 indicates that GDP corresponds to 2.8% directly and 6% of the total, while in relation to employment it is considered that 2.6% generates directly and total 5.5.%, finally an investment in capital of 1.2 billion dollars, also foreign investment in this tourist activity represented 5.01% of the total FDI in this period
Continuing, with the indicators of the Ministry of Tourism, international arrivals according to nationality from January to December 2018 have reached 2.4 million people with an increase of 50.9% compared to 2017. Generating 1,878.6 million dollars for the tourism industry and an average expenditure per person of $ 1287. The main issuing markets are the United States, Colombia, Peru and Spain. Another important fact is that 44.4% are arrivals by air.
According to the new National Tourism Plan 2030 proposed by the Ministry of Tourism, which sets out the main strategies for development and investment in the tourism sector, in which, with the correct intervention of the public, private and society in general could have an expectation of growth in the medium and long term. Currently, tourism has become the third source of non-oil revenues, after bananas and shrimp. Importance that is recognized by the extraordinary biodiversity that creates a natural and cultural heritage for current and future generations, proposed in two words as unique places. To this is added that, at present, for the development of tourist products in the different destinations, the new tourist or hiker who is willing to pay more for the incorporation of true intangible values to their travel experience should be considered.
On the other hand, the use of the DEA is justified by adding the following paragraph in the methodology.
Recently the DEA model has been used in other sectors, with some modifications, but maintaining the principles of this methodology. In the energy sector Chai, Fan and Han [43], use the DEA with some novelties to determine the efficiency in this sector, justifying its use in that you have great advantages in avoiding subjective factors, simplifying algorithms, and reducing errors; it gradually developed into one of the most commonly used tools for evaluation efficiency in many fields. This same DEA model has also been used in the environmental sector, by Łozowicka [44] to measure the efficiency of European community countries. In the water industry Sun, Yang, Zhang and Chen [45] evaluated the efficiency of the use of this product in the municipalities of China, using the traditional DEA model, but modifying the indices used. In the hotel sector, Lee, Kuo, Jiang and Li [46], to evaluate the efficiency in this sector of Taiwan; To do this, I use the DEA and added a mega frontier, modifying the directional distance function in the meta-frontier model in order to consider expanding outputs, contracting inputs, and fixed quasi-fixed inputs in the short-run.
Also, in the section on discussion of results and conclusion, the following paragraph was added.
The DEA model, constant returns to scale (CCR) was used with orientation to the inputs, due to its better adaptation to the tourism sector, and that is a methodology of easy interpretation before people who did not have great knowledge for the interpretation of this and its results, thus facilitating the use of tourism planning and control agency members in Ecuador.
Dear Reviewer 1, again express our sincere thanks for their hard work and their annotations that have allowed us to significantly improve not only work but also reflect on future research.
Sincerely,
The authors
Angel Higuerey, Christian Viñan-I deserved, Zulema Malo-Montoya and Valentin-Alejandro Martinez-Fernandez
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear author/s,
thank you for the improved version of your manuscript. The topic of the paper sound interesting, but the methodology is poor. At the same time is not clear which is the link between the topic of the jurnal and the manuscript. Please review these aspectes.
Good luck!
Author Response
The authors want to express, first of all, their recognition and thanks to you as a reviewer, since their indications contribute significantly to the improvement of the work and to achieve a better quality and impact of it. In this sense, we consider that the proposed improvements, in addition to objective and substantial, provide the article with greater strength. These were mostly collected by the authors and their incorporation has been placed with red letters in the document. According to the comments of the reviewers it is possible to indicate:
Point 1: The topic of the paper sound interesting, but the methodology is poor.
Response 1. The use of the DEA is justified by adding the following paragraph in the methodology.
Recently the DEA model has been used in other sectors, with some modifications, but maintaining the principles of this methodology. In the energy sector Chai, Fan and Han [43], use the DEA with some novelties to determine the efficiency in this sector, justifying its use in that you have great advantages in avoiding subjective factors, simplifying algorithms, and reducing errors; it gradually developed into one of the most commonly used tools for evaluation efficiency in many fields. This same DEA model has also been used in the environmental sector, by Łozowicka [44] to measure the efficiency of European community countries. In the water industry Sun, Yang, Zhang and Chen [45] evaluated the efficiency of the use of this product in the municipalities of China, using the traditional DEA model, but modifying the indices used. In the hotel sector, Lee, Kuo, Jiang and Li [46], to evaluate the efficiency in this sector of Taiwan; To do this, I use the DEA and added a mega frontier, modifying the directional distance function in the meta-frontier model in order to consider expanding outputs, contracting inputs, and fixed quasi-fixed inputs in the short-run.
Also, in the section on discussion of results and conclusion, the following paragraph was added.
The DEA model, constant returns to scale (CCR) was used with orientation to the inputs, due to its better adaptation to the tourism sector, and that is a methodology of easy interpretation before people who did not have great knowledge for the interpretation of this and its results, thus facilitating the use of tourism planning and control agency members in Ecuador.
Point 2: At the same time is not clear which is the link between the topic of the jurnal and the manuscript. Please review these aspects
Response 2. At present, tourism activities have generated important developments in the economies of different countries, one of these impacts is denoted in the positive and also negative aspects of sustainable tourism. The positive is based on business, economic and social growth, that is to say these issues contribute to sustainability because business issues should never be separated from sustainability, because if hotel companies or any tourism company brings I get the increase of labor supply, financial benefits and increase in the quality of life.
Currently, most companies engaged in tourism, such as hotels, do not take into account aspects of negative impact such as environmental wear and do not have corrective actions or comprehensive maintenance plans, because we do not evaluate this important sector, the interest of publishing in this magazine is because efficiency is a fundamental factor in the development of sustainability, in which companies in this case of the hotel industry must generate towards the destination.
Dear Reviewer 4, again express our sincere thanks for their hard work and their annotations that have allowed us to significantly improve not only work but also reflect on future research.
Sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear author/s,
Thank you for the improved version of the manuscript.
Still there are some aspects that could be improved:
Please mention the year for which is presented the distribution of the hotels, in the title of the table. The word gender is more appropiate instead of sex. Line 292 is there any reference missing? Please mention the references for the new pharagraphs (lines 255-259, lines 323-331) Please pay attention to the format of the references. Emphasize even in the paper the link between the aim.of the journal.and objectives of the research.Good luck!
Author Response
The authors want to express, first of all, their recognition and thanks to you as a reviewer, since their indications contribute significantly to the improvement of the work and to achieve a better quality and impact of it. In this sense, we consider that the proposed improvements, in addition to objective and substantial, provide the article with greater strength. These were mostly collected by the authors and their incorporation has been placed with red letters in the document. According to the comments of the reviewers it is possible to indicate:
Point 1: Please mention the year for which is presented the distribution of the hotels, in the title of the table.
Response 1. The year was added, in the table title.
Point 2: The word gender is more appropiate instead of sex.
Response 2. The word sex was changed to gender in the title of table 1.
Point 3: Line 292 is there any reference missing?
Response 3. It is a textual quote. The quotes have been incorporated and the paragraph has been pasted with the previous one. Corresponds to the quotation of the author Herrera Rivas & Espinoza.
Point 4: Please mention the references for the new pharagraphs (lines 255-259, lines 323-331) Please pay attention to the format of the references.
Response 4. The reference has been added on lines 255-259.
Lines 323-331, were not taken from a particular reference.
Point 5: Emphasize even in the paper the link between the aim.of the journal.and objectives of the research..
Response 5. The following paragraph was added in the introduction:
It is necessary to highlight that tourism activities have currently generated important developments, resulting in positive and negative impacts. Among the first is business, economic and social growth. While the negative aspects include environmental wear and that do not have corrective actions or comprehensive support plans. In this sense, efficiency studies are fundamental factors for the development of sustainability, in the case of the hotel service.
Dear Reviewer 4, again express our sincere thanks for their hard work and their annotations that have allowed us to significantly improve not only work but also reflect on future research.
Sincerely,
The authors
Angel Higuerey, Christian Viñan-I deserved, Zulema Malo-Montoya and Valentin-Alejandro Martinez-Fernandez
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Although research on hotel industry in Ecuador seems interesting, overall contribution of this paper is very weak. The paper should be restreamlined with a significant revision.
Overall: The terms sector and industry are used throughout the paper. Hotel industry seems appropriate.
Abstract: The findings should be clarified with interesting results. The authors should explain what three inputs are.
Introduction:
The major problem is that appropriate references are missing. Why Ecuadorian hotel industry was studied should be justified. We don't know which province certain cities (e.g., Quito) belong to. It is not clear what important messages are delivered through Table 1. In addition, is it 5-year cumulative or yearly average situation? Research gaps and research questions are not clearly defined.Literature review
This section is lengthy and listing up all the studies related to DEA method is not appropriate. A table should be created to compared previous studies with this study if there exists any difference. If there is no difference, this section should be reduced.Situation of the hotel sector
The authors should justify why studying Ecuadorian hotel industry is timely and important.Methods
Sampling process should be explained in detail. It is not clear why considering the distribution of the sample by province is appropriate. Also not clear why 12 out of 24 provinces were selected. Table 4 needs to include correlation matrix.Results: It is not clear what main messages the authors attempted to deliver.
Conclusions: Theoretical and/or managerial implications are not clearly described.
Reviewer 2 Report
There are many limitations of the research presented in the paper. The first is that an adequate review of the literature is not carried out. The objective is poor, the methodology used is very simple and has no scientific validity. But the main limitation is the poor contribution of research to both academic and business. The research and the results obtained are not relevant for a high-impact scientific journal. The bibliography presented is very poor, and not current. Researchers can correct some of the limitations of the research in relation to the content of the article and present it to a magazine of lower impact, since the research is very poor and does not allow conclusions or relevant results.
1.- Throughout the article there are many statements that make no sense. For example in the abstract “The level of contribution of the hotel sector depends on different factors”, the level of contribution to what?
“In this respect, this article synthesizes research that takes Ecuador as an example due to the emerging and strategic nature of tourism regarding policies for social and economic development that have been implemented over the last few years in this country”. So that the research is synthesized ?, what purpose does it have ?, taking into account the objective.
2.- In the introduction section, all the relevant information of a scientific article is missing. The scope of study is described, this would be more appropriate in the methodology, however the following information is missing:
- Contextualize the subject under study (efficiency).
- What studies have been carried out in this context? What gap is identified? Why is this study proposed? What gap is intended to be covered? What is the novelty of the study? What methodology? In what space field is studied? etc.
The introduction lacks all the necessary information to present the study properly.
3.- The literature review begins with: "studies that apply DEA to determine the efficiency of the hotel industry and 78 tourism." But there is no correct review of: efficiency, methods to measure it, etc. Nor is it explained what is or what is DEA ?.
Review of very poor literature.
4.- Situation of the hotel sector section.The information is distributed in different sections of the article, in this section and in the introduction. Its content is very long. Its purpose should be to contextualize the geographical scope. Much of the information is irrelevant to the purpose of the investigation. This information should appear synthesized in the presentation of the geographical scope in the methodology.
5.- The reader has to read up to the methodology section to know that it is about measuring “Economic efficiency”.
6.- What variables ?, specify. Reference studies. "In the determination of efficiency, there has not been an agreement related to the variables to be 287 used in order to measure inputs and outputs. Some authors have suggested the use of variables that 288 can be physically measured [21], while others recommend the use of variables quantified in monetary 289 units with the purpose of determining economic efficiency and profitability [22]. "
7.- Quote with the name, not just the number. "Table 5 shows the results of efficiency in the provinces and years of study in Ecuador in 336 using the approach of [28].".
8.- Until section 5, it is only mentioned that the objective is to measure efficiency. This section talks about efficiency and productivity. It's confusing.
9.- Table 7. How is productivity measured? in the methods section the same is not explained, nor how to measure it.
10.- The results are poor and confusing.
11.- The results are poor and without relevance. The usefulness of the study, as well as its methodology is poor.
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of this paper seems to be interesting. However, the authors should revise their paper by following my comments below:
In Introduction, Table 1 should be better placed in the section 3: Situation of the hotel sector.
In Page 3, line 81, and others, the citation number (out of parentheses) should include the authors. For example, Lado-Sestayo and Fernández-Castro [31]. This issue must be corrected throughout the manuscript.
In Page 10, line 353, the authors indicated that “The Galapagos Islands… occupied the first position in the year 2013”, but I believe that this province occupied the fith position, according Table 5.
In Page 12, line 382, the authors said that “Pichincha… is represented by 37 businesses”, but Table 6 indicated 47 businesses.
In the conclusions, could the authors compare their results with other studies? Finally, the authors should add some limitations of their study.
Good luck with the revision
Reviewer 4 Report
Strengths of the article:
- the Authors have chosen a very interesting research topic on the measuring the efficiency and productivity of the hotel industry in Ecuador;
- the literature review is correct;
- the Authors conducted analyzes and obtained interesting results. They applied the correct research methods;
- the Authors described in detail the results of the research and used appropriate method to analyze them;
- the Authors pointed out and described the limitations of their research and indicated future directions of research.
Weaknesses in the article that need to be corrected:
- for example, in lines 81, 88, 99, 106, 124, 136, 165 the sentence should not begin with a bibliographic footnote like a [3]. It should begin with the names of the authors of the book to which the text refers.
In my opinion, this is a interesting scientific article.
