sustainability

Article
Measuring the Operational Efficiency and the Water Resources
Management Efficiency for Industrial Parks: Empirical Study of
Industrial Parks in Taiwan
Chui-Yu Chiu 1 and William Tang 2, *

1 Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Taipei University of Technology,

Taipei 10608, Taiwan
2 College of Management, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei 10608, Taiwan
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The efficiency of an industrial park’s operations is an indicator of how well the park
can serve the companies located there. These supports include support for environmental water
resources and business operations. In this study, a model for measuring water resources management
efficiency is developed at the conceptual level using the management mindset of relative efficiency
and management by objectives, and a modified Delphi method is used to determine the feasibility of
a measurement model for water resources management efficiency. Furthermore, DEA data envelop-
ment analysis was used to analyze the overall operational efficiency of the park. The results of the
study showed that the model developed in this study for measuring water resources efficiency is of
practical use. In addition, water resource management efficiency can be used as an indicator to assist
in the determination of the operating efficiency of the industrial park when it is derived from the
DEA analysis. In this study, among the 31 industrial parks in Taiwan, the operating efficiency values
were classified into four categories, and the results show that the operating efficiency of most of the
Citation: Chiu, C.-Y.; Tang, W. industrial parks need to be improved.
Measuring the Operational Efficiency
and the Water Resources Keywords: industrial park; operational efficiency; water resource management; WRM; data envelop-
Management Efficiency for Industrial ment analysis; DEA; the modified Delphi method
Parks: Empirical Study of Industrial
Parks in Taiwan. Sustainability 2022,
14, 14198. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su142114198 1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Hossein Bonakdari Water is a resource necessary for human life and socio-economic progress [1]. However,
water is considered to be a limited resource [2]. Water scarcity [3] and water pollution are
Received: 30 September 2022
the two major crises in global water management [4]. However, global water scarcity poses
Accepted: 28 October 2022
a great threat to the future development of societies and economies [5]. Industrial parks,
Published: 31 October 2022
areas heavily dependent on water, are spaces in which enterprises converge for production,
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral similar to residential spaces, and are important urban functional spaces [6]. The strategic
with regard to jurisdictional claims in planning of industrial parks and the effectiveness of their management are key factors
published maps and institutional affil- affecting their level of economic, social and environmental performance [7].
iations. Internationally, the management of industrial parks is trending towards a transfor-
mation into eco-industrial parks [7]. Enterprise clusters are a mainstream approach to
promoting regional economic development and they play an important role in optimizing
redevelopment [8]. In China, for example, the rapid development of industrial parks in
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
China, such as Shekou Industrial Zone in Shenzhen and the Zhongguancun Science and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Technology Park and Suzhou Industrial Park, has played an important role in leading
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
China’s economy to an era of prosperity since its economic reform and opening over
conditions of the Creative Commons
40 years ago [9]. Thus, the operational efficiency of industrial parks is of paramount impor-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// tance. In recent years, the amount of unused industrial land in China has been increasing, which
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ may have led to a series of urban problems that hinder sustainable urban development [10].
4.0/).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114198 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 2 of 22

Research on industrial parks has focused on the area of sustainability, enabling the
performance of industrial parks and their return on investment to be assessed and com-
pared [11]. However, most sustainability-related research focuses on the environment in
the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) domain [12]. The best way to identify the
operational efficiency of an industrial park is to design a set of economic and non-economic
variables that are of practical use and take into account the economic and non-economic
aspects of sustainable development. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the importance
of traditional or basic industries has been recognized around the world. For example,
the assembly of mask machines and the production of their key components are a living
example of the capacity of traditional industries in an economy that was difficult to find in
the early stages of the outbreak [13].
The purposes of this study are (1) to create a novel and practical model for measuring
the operational efficiency of industrial parks, (2) to validate the new model developed in
this study by using industrial parks managed by government departments in Taiwan, and
(3) to use the results of the analysis of industrial parks in Taiwan as an important reference
for investment in Taiwan.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Industry Cluster
The study of industrial agglomeration began in the late 19th century with the British
economist Marshall, who found that clusters of industries could facilitate knowledge
sharing and technology diffusion among firms, leading to the prosperity of industries
in cities [14]. In the case of manufacturing industries, they will first be concentrated in
the more developed centres in pursuit of higher corporate profits, thus creating a spatial
pattern [15,16]. In addition to its economic benefits, manufacturing agglomeration is also an
important driver of urban spatial transformation and upgrading [17]. Subsequently, studies
on the spatial effects of agglomeration economies have also been increasingly common [18,19].
In the 1980s and 1990s, Europe witnessed the fruitful economic results of industrial
clusters of technology parks [20]. The rapid development of the Chinese economy over
the past 30 years has led to the emergence of manufacturing industries in China as a
result of investment and the establishment of factories in the country, driving changes in
production locations and reshaping the geographic clustering of the Chinese economy [21].
Technological parks offer a cluster effect by bringing together upstream, midstream and
downstream manufacturers, professional suppliers and equipment manufacturers in the
park space and collaborating with intermediaries to produce industries [22]. The clustering
of industries in technology parks increases the employment rate of the local space and the
construction of the parks, and has the effect of generating higher output and tax revenues
than in traditional industrial areas [23].
Rapid economic development can have both positive and negative effects. Studies
show that industrial clusters can attract the attention and resources needed to reduce the
rate of environmental pollution and incentivize enterprises to apply cleaner production
technologies [24]. However, scholars have suggested that after industrial agglomeration
reaches a certain level of development, enterprises will generate serious environmental
pollution and environmental pollutants [25]. This suggests that the environmental impacts
of industrial agglomeration need to be reviewed on a regular basis in order to avoid
irreversible environmental pollution. Industry clusters are affected by environmental
pollution and environmental policies [26]. Increasing reduced emissions productivity
would support the pollution heaven hypothesis [27]. The higher the level of contamination
damage, the lower the cluster stability [28].

2.2. Industry Park

The success of the Hsinchu Science Park, an industrial park in the Hsinchu area of
northern Taiwan, where Taiwan’s high-tech industries are concentrated, comes from the
regional development of technology clusters [29]. Successful technology parks are built and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 3 of 22

maintained by the government, universities, and private organizations, each with its own
role to play [30]. The establishment and successful operation of the Hsinchu Science Park has
led to the prosperous development of the entire electronic information industry in Taiwan [31].
An industrial park is a multi-functional vehicle that offers many functions, such as
manufacturing, services, science, research and training, and provides a full range of services
to enterprises and employees. Efficiently operated industrial parks create employment
opportunities, increase the value added of land and reduce the wealth gap in society [11].
Industrial clustering, in turn, affects industrial development and helps to increase the value
of industrial land [32]. The choice of location and the dissatisfaction of enterprises with the
management services of industrial estates also affect the price of industrial land [32].
Eco-industrial parks (EIPs) have attracted the interest of many scholars as a way to
promote the circular economy [33–35]. In many countries, eco-industrial parks, in which
companies share materials and resources and can optimize economic and environmental
performance, are emerging [36]. Eco-industrial parks can also reduce resource waste and
pollution and increase economic benefits, thereby reducing global impacts [35]. Industrial
parks are one of the leading factors influencing the layouts of manufacturing industries [14].
The relative performance of the industrial parks is also an important factor in the field of
industry management. In the case of industrial zones in China, where land is state-owned,
an increase in the size of industrial land leases could create greater fiscal revenue potential
for local governments [37]. Ref. [6] used a time-series analysis tool to systematically
sort out the planning standards of industrial parks in China from 1985 to 2021, and the
study covered the development history of industrial zones in China from land-oriented, to
industry-oriented, and more recently, to people-oriented.
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Logic (FL) were implemented for
accessing the industrial impact on water sustainability using official statistics from El Bajío,
Guanajuato State, Mexico [38]. Applying the [38] model to analyze the efficiency of water
management in industrial parks requires a large amount of data, but whether these data
can be obtained outside of Mexico is a test of practical application. In China, state-level
high-tech enterprises will not only reduce the pollution intensity of the local area, but also
the pollution intensity of the surrounding area [39]. This means that the more technological
the industrial park is, the lower the relative pollution it causes. However, the focus of this
research is not high-tech industry, therefore, when studying the operational efficiency of
industrial parks, the study must also be combined with non-financial indicators to enable a
comprehensive analysis.

2.3. Water Resource Management

Water is one of the essential resources for human survival and development [40]. It
provides essential ecosystem services and, at the same time, is relevant to human well
being and constrains sustainable regional development [41]. Forty percent of the world’s
population faces a shortage of freshwater, and this proportion is expected to increase to
67% by 2050 [42]. The limited and uneven distribution of freshwater resources has led
to a water crisis in many regions, and this problem is becoming more pronounced as
the demand for water increases for industrial, agricultural and domestic use [43,44]. To
achieve sustainability and efficiency in the use of available resources, the UN Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) are the main guidelines to be considered [45]. The UN General
Assembly has implemented Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2015–2030 to address
global challenges, including air pollution, energy and food security and water scarcity [46].
In recent years, many governments have been faced with the enormous problem
of increasing global warming [47]. Energy management issues are one of the topics of
interest to researchers [48]. Water-related, sewage and sludge treatment issues lead to CO2
emissions [49], which, in turn, affects climate change. This sort of anthropogenic climate
change affects water resources and water demand, including water for irrigation [50].
Sustainable use of water resources is essential to overcome this problem [51,52]. The
relatively stable supply of recycled water, which is less affected by climate and seasonal
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 4 of 22

changes, has become the preferred strategy in many countries [53–55]. Developed countries,
such as the United States and Israel, have achieved a recycled water utilization rates of over
70%, while the current rate in most countries is still small (for example, mainland China is
only around 10%) [56,57]. The basic water quality discharge target values for industrial
water are higher than those for other water uses. This is to ensure the safety of industrial
reuse; higher treatment requirements need to be imposed on water reclamation plants [58].
The design of the wastewater treatment process first needs to meet the legal requirements
for the quality of the wastewater to be discharged into the river. This means that some of
the organic matter carried by the wastewater is released into the environment as an output
from the plant [59]. From the point of view of resource sustainability, the recovery of water
from waste water is an important aspect [2]. The most direct and important service, whether
from groundwater or surface water, is the supply of water for domestic and productive
use. The value of water services is reflected in the price of water [60]. In order to assess the
economic rationale for investing in pumped storage power stations, a very precise method
is used to cover the uncertainties associated with the electricity market [61].
Ref. [62] highlights the importance of water management and protection in addressing
critical water resource issues related to scarcity and sustainability. Ref. [63] developed a
potential framework for water resources management. Ref. [64] emphasizes that such a
framework depends on national water policies. Water efficiency is a multi-input and multi-
output issue [65], and data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a non-parametric approach
that can be used without assuming production functions and setting relevant weights [66].
DEA has advantages when dealing with multiple input/output problems [67]. Because
of the deterioration of the aquatic ecosystems as a result of rapid economic development,
previous evaluations of the aquatic ecosystem have generally focused on the economic and
ecological environment [68]. Ref. [69] evaluates the sustainability of corporate water use,
with indicators including environmental, economic, social and resource indicators. Water
footprints have been emphasized by academic scholars, including concepts, methods and
applications for better management of water resources and water ecology [70,71].
In China, for example, chemical oxygen demand (COD) emissions and ammonia
nitrogen (NH3 ) emissions fell significantly by 2.99% in response to the government’s envi-
ronmental investment policy [72]. This shows that investment policies are closely related
to the efficiency of water management. If the government can have a better understanding
of the efficiency of water resources management at the management level, it will be assist
the government in formulating investment policies for industrial parks in the future.
ESG principles represent a framework system (Figure 1) that includes environmental
(E), social (S) and governance (G) factors [73]. ESG factors help to measure the sustain-
ability and social impact of business activities [74]. Previous studies on ESG have focused
on the issue of investment [75]. The water-related aspects of this study fall within the
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
environmental aspects of ESG. In summary, there is a wide range of research on 5water of 22

resources, but little research on the efficiency of water resources application.

Figure 1. Framework system for ESG principles [73].

2.4. Operating Efficiency

Many scholars have conducted studies on the planning standards of industrial parks
[6,76–78], including local parks, logistics parks, agricultural parks, cultural and creative
parks and other specialized parks. They have also examined the significance of the plan-
ning and development of the parks as well as the technical progress of the park man-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 5 of 22
Figure 1. Framework system for ESG principles [73].

2.4. Operating Efficiency

2.4. Operating Efficiency
Many scholars have conducted studies on the planning standards of industrial parks
Manyincluding
[6,76–78], scholars local
haveparks,
conducted studies
logistics parks,on the planning
agricultural parks,standards
cultural of andindustrial
creative
parks and
parks [6,76–78],including
other specialized local parks,
parks. Theylogistics parks,
have also agricultural
examined parks, cultural
the significance and
of the cre-
plan-
ative parks and other specialized parks. They have also examined
ning and development of the parks as well as the technical progress of the park man- the significance of
the planning and development of the parks as well as the technical
agement and service standards. The modern environment is characterized by the beliefprogress of the park
management
that every inch andofservice
land isstandards.
precious. The modern
In China, environment
the is characterized
standardization by the belief
of land planning and
that every inch of land is precious. In China, the standardization of
policy reform of industrial parks have brought development opportunities and demands land planning and
policy reform of industrial
for industrial parks [79]. parks have brought development opportunities and demands
for industrial
The four parks [79].
key performance measures (Figure 2): park management performance, en-
The four key performance
vironmental performance, social measures (Figure
performance 2): economic
and park management
performance performance,
compriseenvi-
the
ronmental performance, social performance and economic performance
key framework for evaluating international eco-industrial parks [80]. The key framework comprise the key
framework
of for evaluating
international eco-industrial international
parks can beeco-industrial parksto
used as a method [80]. Thethe
assess keyperformance
framework of of
international eco-industrial parks can be used as a method to assess the
industrial parks and as a basis to enhance their performance [7]. Tian et al. [81] studied performance of
industrial parks and as a basis to enhance their performance [7]. Tian et al. [81] studied the
the performance of eco-industrial parks in China. A set of related indicators, including
performance of eco-industrial parks in China. A set of related indicators, including resource
resource consumption, economic development and waste emissions, was applied in the
consumption, economic development and waste emissions, was applied in the performance
performance assessment process. In their study, the indicators focused on consumption
assessment process. In their study, the indicators focused on consumption and pollutant
and pollutant production; absolute energy consumption, freshwater consumption, in-
production; absolute energy consumption, freshwater consumption, industrial wastewater
dustrial wastewater production and solid waste production increased in all the industrial
production and solid waste production increased in all the industrial parks studied, while
parks studied, while the average emission intensity (tons of pollutants per million in-
the average emission intensity (tons of pollutants per million investment) decreased for the
vestment) decreased for the four indicators. In sum, the study of industrial parks requires
four indicators. In sum, the study of industrial parks requires that attention be paid to both
that attention be paid to both economic and non-economic factors, as well as to con-
economic and non-economic factors, as well as to consumption and pollution, especially in
sumption and pollution, especially in the area of water resources.
the area of water resources.

Figure 2.
Figure The four
2. The four dimensions
dimensions of
of industrial
industrial park
park management
management performance.
performance.

The DEA method can calculate the distance from each decision-making unit (DMU) to
the boundary and is used to evaluate the relative efficiency of a single DMU [82]. The DEA
method can deal with single or multiple input variables and output variables at the same time,
enabling an understanding of the reasons for DMU inefficiencies by analyzing the results.
The theory of DEA originates from the concept of deterministic nonparametric fron-
tiers proposed by Farrel (1957) and uses a mathematical planning model to calculate the
efficiency frontier, which forms the basis of DEA theory. Ref. [82] had three basic assump-
tions in his theory.
(1) The Productive Frontier is made up of the most efficient DMUs, with other inefficient
units located outside this frontier.
(2) Production technology is Constant Return to Scale (CRTS), i.e., an increase of one unit
of input gives the same rate of output.
(3) The leading edge of production is convex and the slope of each point is less than or
equal to zero.
 (1) The Productive Frontier is made up of the most efficient DMUs, with other ineffi-
cient units located outside this frontier.
(2) Production technology is Constant Return to Scale (CRTS), i.e., an increase of one
unit of input gives the same rate of output.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 (3) The leading edge of production is convex and the slope of each point is less than
6 ofor
22
equal to zero.
Farrell based his concept on Plato’s concept of optimal fit, believing that manufac-
turersFarrell
will produce
based histwo kindsonofPlato’s
concept efficiency in production
concept due
of optimal fit, to the influence
believing of input
that manufacturers
allocation
will produceandtwo
cost price,
kinds namely: technical
of efficiency efficiency
in production due to(TE)
the of actual input
influence and
of input output
allocation
and cost price,
conversion namely: technical
and allocative efficiencyefficiency (TE) of factor
(AE) of optimal actualallocation
input andcombination.
output conversion
When
and allocative
these efficiency
two efficiencies are (AE) of optimal
combined, factor allocation
the manufacturer’s combination.
total When
cost efficiency these
(CE) cantwo
be
efficiencies
obtained. arerelationship
The combined, the manufacturer’s
between the three total
typescost efficiency is
of efficiency (CE) can be obtained. The
as follows:
relationship between the three types of efficiency is as follows:
CE = TE × AE (1)
Farrell assumes that a production = TE × AE
CEfunction y = f(x1, x2), as shown in Figure 3, as- (1)
sumes that two inputs (x1 and x2) are used to produce an output (y) at a fixed scale re-
Farrell assumes that a production function y = f(x1 , x2 ), as shown in Figure 3, assumes
muneration, and if the actual output y* of the manufacturer is equal to its potential
that two inputs (x1 and x2 ) are used to produce an output (y) at a fixed scale remuneration,
maximum level y, then the firm is technically efficient, and vice versa. AA’ is the most
and if the actual output y* of the manufacturer is equal to its potential maximum level y,
efficient equivalent output curve for producing one unit of output, and point D is the
then the firm is technically efficient, and vice versa. AA’ is the most efficient equivalent
actual input combination point of the manufacturer’s production of one unit of output.
output curve for producing one unit of output, and point D is the actual input combination
Point E and point D use the same scale of features, but point E uses x1 and x2 only the
point of the manufacturer’s production of one unit of output. Point E and point D use the
OE/OD of point
same scale D, representing
of features, but point the difference
E uses x1 and xin2 production technology
only the OE/OD between
of point the best
D, representing
possible combination
the difference and thetechnology
in production actual input combination,
between the best therefore, Farrell defines
possible combination and the
the
technical efficiency of point D into the surface as:
actual input combination, therefore, Farrell defines the technical efficiency of point D into
the surface as: Technical efficiency (TE) = OE/OD.
Technical efficiency (TE) = OE/OD.

Figure 3. Technical efficiency and configuration efficiency of Farrell model.

Figure 3. Technical efficiency and configuration efficiency of Farrell model.
The technical efficiency value is between 0 and 1, and the manufacturer’s technical
efficiency value of 1 indicates technical efficiency, for example: point E that falls on the
equal yield curve.
Although point E is located on the equal production curve, technical efficiency is not
achieved at the lowest cost. The lowest cost combination point occurs at point E’, which is
tangent to the equal production curve AA’ and the equal cost line BB’. Although points
E and E’ have the same technical efficiency, the production cost of point E’ is OC, which
is lower than the production cost of point E OE. Therefore, the allocation efficiency of the
input side of point D is defined as: allocation efficiency (AE) = OC/OE; the allocation
efficiency value is also between 0 and 1.
Total cost efficiency is the product of technical efficiency and configuration efficiency,
and its relationship can be expressed as follows:
   
OE OC OC
CE = TE × AE = × = (2)
OD OE OD
 ficiency value is also between 0 and 1.
Total cost efficiency is the product of technical efficiency and configuration effi-
ciency, and its relationship can be expressed as follows:
OE OC OC
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 CE = TE × AE = ( ) × ( ) = 7 of(2)
22
OD OE OD
As shown in Figure 2, the total cost efficiency value is 1 only at the point where the
equal yield line and the equal cost line are tangent.
As shown in Figure 2, the total cost efficiency value is 1 only at the point where the
DEA is a good research tool for evaluating resource and environmental efficiency
equal yield line and the equal cost line are tangent.
[83–85]. DEA tools have been widely used for infrastructure, regulatory and management
DEA is a good research tool for evaluating resource and environmental efficiency [83–85].
improvements in water and wastewater systems [86]. DEA can perform correlation op-
DEA tools have been widely used for infrastructure, regulatory and management improve-
erations under the assumption of Constant Returns to Scale (CRS) [87] or Variable Re-
ments in water and wastewater systems [86]. DEA can perform correlation operations
turns to Scale (VRS) [88].
under the assumption of Constant Returns to Scale (CRS) [87] or Variable Returns to Scale
In the DEA–BCC model (Banker, Charnes and Cooper, the three scholars who pro-
(VRS) [88].
posedInthis model, named
the DEA–BCC model it (Banker,
after theCharnes
first letter
andofCooper,
their surnames) [89], the
the three scholars whooverall effi-
proposed
ciency valuenamed
this model, of technical efficiency
it after the (TE)
first letter ofistheir
calculated
surnames)as the
[89],product of scale
the overall efficiency
efficiency value
(SE) and pure technical efficiency (PTE) [89]. DEA has been applied in many
of technical efficiency (TE) is calculated as the product of scale efficiency (SE) and pure studies to
assess the efficiency of water use [83–85,90–95]. However, these studies are limited
technical efficiency (PTE) [89]. DEA has been applied in many studies to assess the efficiency to the
operational efficiency values,
of water use [83–85,90–95]. However,and these
few studies
studiesarehave
limitedintegrated the analysis
to the operational of
efficiency
non-operational efficiency
values, and few studies havevalues. To address
integrated this research
the analysis gap, this research
of non-operational integrates
efficiency values.
the efficiency of water resources with the operational efficiency of industrial
To address this research gap, this research integrates the efficiency of water resources with parks.
the operational efficiency of industrial parks.
3. Research Methods
3. Research
MeasuringMethods
the operational efficiency of an industrial park requires a measuring
model that includes
Measuring the establishment
the operational of metrics
efficiency and associated
of an industrial variables.
park requires In this section,
a measuring model
we
thatexplain
includeshow
thewe (1) construct of
establishment themetrics
development of indicators
and associated for measuring
variables. the opera-
In this section, we
explainefficiency
tional how we (1) of construct
industrialthe development
areas, of indicators
(2) evaluate for measuring
the efficiency the operational
of water resources man-
efficiencyand
agement of industrial
(3) develop areas,
and (2) evaluate
apply the efficiency
a production of water
function modelresources management
for the operational ef-
and (3) develop
ficiency and apply
of industrial a production
areas. Figure 4 below function
shows themodel
flowfor
ofthe
the operational efficiency
three main stages of
of the
industrial areas. Figure 4 below shows the flow of the three main stages of the study.
study.

Flow of
Figure 4. Flow of the
the three
three main stages of this study.

3.1. Developing Operational Efficiency Indicators

This study used the four performance components of the industrial park performance
study [81] as the key reference to examine the operational efficiency of industrial parks.
Seven experts with research and practical experience were selected to fill out the question-
naire. Their academic and work experience is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. List of the seven experts with research and practical experience were selected this study.

Item Qualifications Experiences Seniority

Academic Practical
Description Master Ph.D. 10~20 years Over 20 years
Specialists Specialists
Number of Persons 4 3 2 5 2 5
Remark The average length of service of an expert is 18.6 years

In order to increase the efficiency of communication with experts, this study used
the Modified Delphi Method to identify the indicators. The four performance dimensions
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 8 of 22

of Park Management, Environmental, Social and Economic were used as the theoretical
basis for this study, and the six indicators listed in Table 2 below were agreed upon by the
experts in the first round.

Table 2. List of indicators corresponding to the four performance dimensions of the industrial park
and this study.

Four Key Performance Components Indicators for This Research Definition of Indicators
Number of enterprises with plants in the Total number of enterprises with factories
Park Management park in the park
Total area of factories in the park
Land of plants in the park
(hectares)
Total number of employees of the
Social Number of employees in park
enterprises in the Park
Total capital of plants in the park Factory capital of enterprises in the Park
Economic
Park turnover Total revenue of enterprises in the park
The management attitude of water
Environmental Efficiency of water resource management
resources is described in Section 3.2
The research is based on industrial parks under the direct management of the
Remark
government, so the issue of service quality is not considered.

3.2. Efficiency of Water Resources Management

In this study, water resource management efficiency is considered one of the indicators
for measuring the operational efficiency of industrial zones. In addition, since in practice,
the discharge of wastewater in each industrial park must meet the standard set by the
government, the difference between the discharge of wastewater and the target value [96] in
each industrial park should be taken into consideration in setting the measurement model
of water resource management efficiency. The efficiency of the water resource management
(EWRM ) measurement model and its description are as follows:

Score EWRM = Score C + Score H + Score T (3)

Score EWRM ≤ 1,
0 ≤ Score C ≤ 1, Score C: The score from Conductivity of water
0 ≤ Score H ≤ 1, Score H: The score from Hydrogen ion concentration of water
0 ≤ Score T ≤ 1, Score T: The score from Temperature of water
The calculation is illustrated by setting the target value as an average (average = target)
and dividing the Achievement Level (AL) into nine levels, illustrating the scores corre-
sponding to each level as follows:
1.00 = AL1: C, H or T more than 60% lower than the target
0.95 = AL2: C, H or T lower than the target 40.01–60%
0.90 = AL3: C, H or T lower than the target 20.01–40%
0.85 = AL4: C, H or T lower than the target 5.01–20%
0.80 = AL5: C, H or T equivalent to the target ±5%
0.75 = AL6: C, H or T higher than the target 5.01–20%
0.70 = AL7: C, H or T higher than the target 20.01–40%
0.65 = AL8: C, H or T higher than the target 40.01–60%
0.60 = AL9: C, H or T over 60% higher than target
An example of a water resource management efficiency value calculation is shown
in Table 3.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 9 of 22

Table 3. Example of calculation of water resource management efficiency values.

Hydrogen Ion Water

Conductivity
Industrial Park Score Concentration Score Temperature Score
(µ s/cm)
Index (◦ C)
AAA 5289 0.7 6.48 0.85 29.69 0.80
22.28% higher than target 8.1% lower than target 0.98% higher than target
Goal Attainment
(AL7 ) (AL4 ) (AL5 )
Average 4325 7.05 29.4
Water Resource Management Efficiency Values (0.7 + 0.85 + 0.8)/3 = 0.78

3.3. Industrial Park Operational Efficiency Model and the Evaluation Methodology
In Section 3.1 a total of five indicators were developed, one output variable and four
input variables. This section will explain the production function model consisting of these
five variables and the way in which DEA is used to evaluate the operational efficiency of
an industrial park.

3.3.1. Identifying Output and Input Items and Build Production Function Models
In this study, each indicator is represented by its abbreviation and set as either an
output variable or an input variable. The variable descriptions are presented in Table 4
below and the production function model is given in Equation (4).

Park T = Park N + Park L + Park E + Park C (4)

Park T ≤ 1

Table 4. Summary table of output and input variables for the measurement model.

Indicators for This Research Indicator Abbreviation Variables: Output/Input

Park turnover Park T Output
Number of enterprises with
Park N Input
plants in the park
Land of plants in the park Park L Input
Number of employees in park Park E Input
Total capital of plants in the park Park C Input

3.3.2. Identifying Output and Input Items and Build Production Function Models
The above section illustrates the application of DEA to measure the operational effi-
ciency of an industrial park. This section illustrates the application of DEA to measure the
efficiency of industrial area operations. After selecting the study population and setting the
purpose of the analysis, the evaluation unit is selected and input and output-related vari-
ables are selected and examined. Then, correlation analysis is applied to determine whether
the input- and output-related variables are homogeneous. In addition, after the initial DEA
trial of inputs and outputs, sensitivity analysis is used to confirm the availability of indi-
cators and DMUs. Finally, the results of the analysis can be used to conduct (1) aggregate
analysis, (2) input-output analysis and (3) reference set analysis. The application process of
the DEA method in this study is illustrated in Figure 5 below.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22

Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198

used to conduct (1) aggregate analysis, (2) input-output analysis and (3) reference set
10 of 22
analysis. The application process of the DEA method in this study is illustrated in Figure
5 below.

Figure 5. The operational procedure of the DEA used in this study.

Figure 5. The operational procedure of the DEA used in this study.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 11 of 22

4. Case Study
4. Case
4.1. Study Operational Efficiency Indicators
Developing
4.1. Developing Operational Efficiency Indicators
Taiwan has a land area of about 36,000 square kilometres. This study divides Taiwan
Taiwan
into four has a land
geographic area ofNorth,
regions: about Central,
36,000 square
Southkilometres. This study
and East. Figure 6 showsdivides Taiwan
the location
into four geographic regions: North, Central, South and East. Figure
of these regions. Table 5 gives a list of industrial zones in Taiwan that are 6 shows the location
of these regions. Table
non-technological and5have
givesindependent
a list of industrial zones intreatment
wastewater Taiwan that are non-technological
facilities. The 31 indus-
and have independent wastewater treatment facilities. The 31
trial zones in Table 5 are homogeneous in the following ways: (1) they are industrial zones in Table 5
all industrial
are homogeneous
zones developed by in the
the following
Industrial ways: (1) they are
Development all industrial
Bureau zones developed
of the Ministry of Economic by
the Industrial Development Bureau of the Ministry of Economic Affairs
Affairs of Taiwan and are under the direct control of the Industrial Development Bureau; of Taiwan and
are under
(2) thehouse
they all direct control of the Industrial
non-technological Development
industries and (3)Bureau; (2) have
they all they all house non-
independent
technological industries and
wastewater treatment facilities. (3) they all have independent wastewater treatment facilities.

Figure 6. Location of the Taiwan Industrial Parks.

Table 5. List of industrial areas targeted in this study.

DMU Name of Industrial Park Location in Taiwan City

DMU1 Tucheng Industrial Park North New Taipei City
DMU2 Dawulun Industrial Park North Keelung City
DMU3 Dayuan Industrial Park North Taoyuan City
DMU4 Jhongli Industrial Park North Taoyuan City
DMU5 Pinjhen Industrial Park North Taoyuan City
DMU6 Letzer Industrial Park East Yilan County
DMU7 Hsinchu Industrial Park North Hsinchu County
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 12 of 22

Table 5. List of industrial areas targeted in this study.

DMU Name of Industrial Park Location in Taiwan City

DMU1 Tucheng Industrial Park North New Taipei City
DMU2 Dawulun Industrial Park North Keelung City
DMU3 Dayuan Industrial Park North Taoyuan City
DMU4 Jhongli Industrial Park North Taoyuan City
DMU5 Pinjhen Industrial Park North Taoyuan City
DMU6 Letzer Industrial Park East Yilan County
DMU7 Hsinchu Industrial Park North Hsinchu County
DMU8 Loung Te Industrial Park East Yilan County
DMU9 Guishan Industrial Park North Taoyuan City
DMU10 Guanyin Industrial Park North Taoyuan City
DMU11 Dajia Youth Industrial Park Central Taichung City
DMU12 Douliu Industrial Park Central Taichung City
DMU13 Taichung Industrial Park Central Taichung City
DMU14 Chuansing Industrial Park Central Changhua County
DMU15 Fangyuan Industrial Park Central Changhua County
DMU16 Nangang Industrial Park Central Nantou County
Yunlin Technology-based
DMU17 South Yunlin County
Industrial Park
DMU18 Dashe Industrial Park South Kaohsiung City
DMU19 Dafa Industrial Park South Kaohsiung City
DMU20 Neipu Industrial Park South Pingtung County
DMU21 Tainan Technology Industrial Park South Tainan City
DMU22 Minsyong Industrial Park South Chiayi County
DMU23 Yongan Industrial Park South Kaohsiung City
DMU24 Yongkang Industrial Park South Tainan City
DMU25 An Ping Industrial Park South Tainan City
DMU26 Guantian Industrial Park South Tainan City
DMU27 Linyuan Industrial Park South Kaohsiung City
DMU28 Pingnan Industrial Park South Pingtung County
DMU29 Sinying Industrial Park South Tainan City
DMU30 Jiatai Industrial Park South Chiayi County
DMU31 Kahsiung Linhai Industrial Park South Kaohsiung City

4.2. Overview of Study Variables and Relevance Analysis

4.2.1. Overview of the Basic Values of the Variables Related to Water Resources
Management Efficiency
The data source for calculating the efficiency of water resources management in this
study was the “Water Quality Information of Effluent from Industrial Areas” on the Open
Platform of Taiwan Regional Government Data, which was opened on 16 April 2021. In
this study, the one-year average values of the three indicators for the 31 industrial areas
in Table 6 (see Equation (3)) were used to compile water quality information for each
industrial area for the period from 16 April 2021 to 15 April 2022. The basic statistical
values of the three indicators are shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Summary of basic values of water quality indicators for the parks in this study.

Hydrogen Ion Concentration Index Conductivity (µ s/cm) Water Temperature (◦ C)

Average 7.10 4869 28.38
Maximum value 7.65 10,433 34.57
Minimum value 6.44 1290 23.76

4.2.2. Summary of Basic Values of Operating Efficiency-Related Variables in Industrial Areas

Referring to Equation (4), based on the data revealed in the 2022 Annual Report on
Industrial Zone Development Management issued by the Industrial Zone of the Ministry
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 13 of 22

of Economic Affairs of Taiwan, the basic values of the variables used in this study are
summarized in Table 7 below.

Table 7. Summary of basic values of input and output variables for the subjects of this study.

Park T Park N Park L Park E Park C

Average 2241.32 181.55 166.71 13,581.45 25,198,591.32
Maximum value 9416.00 739 1204.20 38,671 423,977,587.00
Minimum value 100.00 14 15.42 1219 202,282.00

4.2.3. Correlation between Output Variables and Input Variables in Industrial Area
Operating Efficiency
In order to ensure the homogeneity between output variables and input variables,
it is necessary to check their correlation. This study used Pearson correlation analysis
to check the correlation between one output variable and four input variables (Table 8).
The correlation between the total revenue of the park and the number of factory owners,
land and employees in the park were all positive, and the total revenue of the park and
the total capital of the park were also correlated, which indicated that the capital of the
park enterprises was correlated with the revenue of the park, but this correlation was not
significant.

Table 8. Correlation analysis of output variables with input variables.

Park N Park L Park E Park C

Park T 0.402 * 0.677 ** 0.701 ** 0.213
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

In this study, the correlation between the water management efficiency values and
the four input variables of the 31 parks was not significant, as shown in Table 9, but the
correlation between the water management efficiency and the number of enterprises, land
area, number of employees and corporate capital of the parks was significant. In practice,
this means that there is no significant correlation between the discharge quality of the parks
and the input variables at the economic level of these parks. Only the size of the industrial
park shows a significant negative correlation with the efficiency of water management,
which, in practice, means that the smaller the land area of the park, the higher the value of
water management efficiency, which is to be expected.

Table 9. Correlation analysis of water resources management efficiency values with input variables.

Park N Park L Park E Park C

Score EWRM 0.098 −0.394 * 0.075 −0.182
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

4.3. Sensitivity Analysis

In order to ensure that the DMUs and variables under study do not have particularly
high variability in the analysis results due to the presence or absence of certain DMUs, a
sensitivity analysis was conducted. In this study, after calculating the Technical Efficiency
(TE) values of 31 DMUs and the number of references for each DMU, the TE value of DMU7
before the sensitivity test was 1, and it had the highest number of references. Thus, the
analysis variables of the original DMU7 were removed. There were 30 DMUs after the
sensitivity test and the TE of each DMU before and after the sensitivity analysis and the
number of times it was referenced are shown in Table 10 below. For example, since DMU8
and DMU9 , which both have a TE value of 1, have the highest number of references, the
effect between the study subjects and the variables set in this study was determined by
sensitivity analysis.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 14 of 22

Table 10. Pre- and post-test DMU TE values and number of times each was referenced for sensitivity
analysis in this study.

Pre-Test Post-Test
DMU Name of Industrial Park
TE Peer Count TE Peer Count
DMU1 Tucheng Industrial Park 0.249 0 0.275 0
DMU2 Dawulun Industrial Park 0.274 0 0.348 0
DMU3 Dayuan Industrial Park 0.311 0 0.492 0
DMU4 Jhongli Industrial Park 0.305 0 0.524 0
DMU5 Pinjhen Industrial Park 0.234 0 0.327 0
DMU6 Letzer Industrial Park 0.670 0 1.000 10
DMU7 Hsinchu Industrial Park 1.000 27 – –
DMU8 Loung Te Industrial Park 1.000 14 1.000 15
DMU9 Guishan Industrial Park 1.000 3 1.000 16
DMU10 Guanyin Industrial Park 0.233 0 0.320 0
DMU11 Dajia Youth Industrial Park 0.157 0 0.203 0
DMU12 Douliu Industrial Park 0.131 0 0.181 0
DMU13 Taichung Industrial Park 0.414 0 0.742 0
DMU14 Chuansing Industrial Park 0.328 0 0.500 0
DMU15 Fangyuan Industrial Park 0.201 0 0.265 0
DMU16 Nangang Industrial Park 0.557 0 0.681 0
DMU17 Yunlin Technology-based Industrial Park 0.143 0 0.272 0
DMU18 Dashe Industrial Park 0.488 0 0.599 0
DMU19 Dafa Industrial Park 0.376 0 0.577 0
DMU20 Neipu Industrial Park 0.574 0 0.590 0
DMU21 Tainan Technology Industrial Park 0.609 0 1.000 9
DMU22 Minsyong Industrial Park 0.138 0 0.188 0
DMU23 Yongan Industrial Park 0.477 0 0.710 0
DMU24 Yongkang Industrial Park 0.183 0 0.243 0
DMU25 An Ping Industrial Park 0.118 0 0.172 0
DMU26 Guantian Industrial Park 0.343 0 0.482 0
DMU27 Linyuan Industrial Park 1.000 10 1.000 16
DMU28 Pingnan Industrial Park 0.422 0 0.501 0
DMU29 Sinying Industrial Park 0.245 0 0.323 0
DMU30 Jiatai Industrial Park 0.810 0 0.964 0
DMU31 Kahsiung Linhai Industrial Park 0.513 0 0.722 0
Mean 0.436 0.540
Note: TE; Technical Efficiency from CRS DEA.

4.4. Overall Analysis

The total discharge of each park is summed up by the discharge of each enterprise in
the park, and this study was conducted to evaluate the operational efficiency of each park,
not to evaluate the efficiency of individual enterprises.
The Deap 2.1 software calculates the TE (Technical Efficiency from CRS DEA), PTE
(Pure Technical Efficiency from VRS DEA) and SE (Scale Efficiency is TE/PTE) efficiency
values of 31 DMUs. Table 11 shows that three have an efficiency value of 1, namely DMU7 ,
DMU8 and DMU9 , while 27 have an efficiency value of less than 1, indicating that the
efficiency of the park needs to be improved.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 15 of 22

Table 11. TE, PTE and SE efficiency values for the 31 DMUs.

DMU Name of Industrial Park TE PTE SE

DMU1 Tucheng Industrial Park 0.249 0.270 0.924
DMU2 Dawulun Industrial Park 0.274 1.000 0.274
DMU3 Dayuan Industrial Park 0.311 0.312 0.997
DMU4 Jhongli Industrial Park 0.305 0.640 0.476
DMU5 Pinjhen Industrial Park 0.234 0.239 0.980
DMU6 Letzer Industrial Park 0.670 0.694 0.966
DMU7 Hsinchu Industrial Park 1.000 1.000 1.000
DMU8 Loung Te Industrial Park 1.000 1.000 1.000
DMU9 Guishan Industrial Park 1.000 1.000 1.000
DMU10 Guanyin Industrial Park 0.233 0.419 0.557
DMU11 Dajia Youth Industrial Park 0.157 0.159 0.989
DMU12 Douliu Industrial Park 0.131 0.133 0.991
DMU13 Taichung Industrial Park 0.414 1.000 0.414
DMU14 Chuansing Industrial Park 0.328 0.376 0.872
DMU15 Fangyuan Industrial Park 0.201 0.218 0.921
DMU16 Nangang Industrial Park 0.557 0.585 0.952
DMU17 Yunlin Technology-based Industrial Park 0.143 0.204 0.701
DMU18 Dashe Industrial Park 0.488 1.000 0.488
DMU19 Dafa Industrial Park 0.376 0.432 0.871
DMU20 Neipu Industrial Park 0.574 1.000 0.574
DMU21 Tainan Technology Industrial Park 0.609 0.813 0.749
DMU22 Minsyong Industrial Park 0.138 0.152 0.911
DMU23 Yongan Industrial Park 0.477 0.578 0.825
DMU24 Yongkang Industrial Park 0.183 0.207 0.885
DMU25 An Ping Industrial Park 0.118 0.125 0.941
DMU26 Guantian Industrial Park 0.343 0.364 0.942
DMU27 Linyuan Industrial Park 1.000 1.000 1.000
DMU28 Pingnan Industrial Park 0.422 0.492 0.858
DMU29 Sinying Industrial Park 0.245 0.296 0.827
DMU30 Jiatai Industrial Park 0.810 1.000 0.810
DMU31 Kahsiung Linhai Industrial Park 0.513 1.000 0.513
Mean 0.436 0.571 0.813

4.5. Individual Analysis

When the non-economic efficiency of the 31 DMUs is examined from an economic
perspective, only DMU7 , DMU8 , DMU9 and DMU27 have a relative efficiency value of 1.
When the non-economic efficiency of these four DMUs is examined in conjunction with
the Score EWRM of the Environmental Water Resources topic, the TE relative efficiency of
DMU9 and DMU27 , for example, is 1. Both DMU9 and DMU27 have a TE relative efficiency
value of 1, with DMU90 s Score EWRM of 0.8333 higher than average, but DMU270 s Score
EWRM of 0.6833 much lower than the average. This shows that the water management
efficiency of DMU27 is lower than average, meaning that the park is facing more challenges
on the ESG indicators and other issues. This also provides a more complete reference for
companies who wish to invest in the park.
Among the industrial parks, nine industrial zones are decreasing in size, namely
DMU3 , DMU4 , DMU10 , DMU13 , DMU17 , DMU19 , DMU21 , DMU25 and DMU31 . The
management service centre should pay special attention to whether there is a continuous
withdrawal of enterprises from the park, and should provide timely management of
the park’s incoming enterprises, to grasp their needs and provide them with immediate
assistance.
Figure 7 also shows that the 13 DMUs with water management efficiency values below
the average target are: DMU3 , DMU6 , DMU10 , DMU11 , DMU16 , DMU18 , DMU19 , DMU21 ,
DMU22 , DMU27 , DMU28 , DMU30 and DMU31 . These 13 industrial areas all discharge
wastewater in compliance with the discharge standards, but are more environmentally
unfriendly than the other parks. However, the level of environmental unfriendliness is
 park’s incoming enterprises, to grasp their needs and provide them with immediate as-
sistance.
Figure 7 also shows that the 13 DMUs with water management efficiency values
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198
below the average target are: DMU3, DMU6, DMU10, DMU11, DMU16, DMU18, DMU 19,
16 of 22
DMU21, DMU22, DMU27, DMU28, DMU30 and DMU31. These 13 industrial areas all dis-
charge wastewater in compliance with the discharge standards, but are more environ-
mentally unfriendly than the other parks. However, the level of environmental un-
higher than that of the other industrial parks. The enterprises and the service centres of
friendliness is higher than that of the other industrial parks. The enterprises and the ser-
these industrial parks should understand that environmental friendliness is a matter of
vice centres of these industrial parks should understand that environmental friendliness
comparison, and that only by comparing with other industrial parks can we know our
is a matter of comparison, and that only by comparing with other industrial parks can we
shortcomings and make continuous improvement.
know our shortcomings and make continuous improvement.

Figure 7. Score EWRM and TE efficiency values for the 31 DMUs.

Figure 7. Score EWRM and TE efficiency values for the 31 DMUs.

4.6. Comparative Set Analysis

Operational efficiency values can be reinforced by the concept of clustering. This study
refers to Norman and Stoker [97] for the classification of DMU efficiency values, which
divides the evaluation of DMU operational efficiency into four groups: Robustly Efficient
Units (TE is 1 and peer reference more than 3 times), Marginally Efficient Units (TE is 1 and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 17 of 22

peer reference is or less than 3 times), Marginally Inefficient Units (TE is bigger than 0.8 or
less than 1) and Distinctly Inefficient Units (TE is less than 0.8).
According to the summary table of the operating efficiency values and the number
of references for each DMU in Table 10, the three DMUs with an operating efficiency of 1
and which are referenced over 3 times are: DMU7 , DMU8 , and DMU27 . These three are
classified as Robustly Efficient Units. The 31 DMUs were categorized according to the
comparative set analysis, as shown in Table 12.

Table 12. Classification of efficiency strength by DMU.

Classification DMU
Robustly Efficient Units
TE = 1 and DMU7 , DMU8 , DMU27
peer reference > 3 times
Marginal Efficient Units
TE = 1 and DMU9
peer reference < 3 times
Marginal Inefficient Units
DMU30
0.8 < TE < 1
DMU1 , DMU2 , DMU3 , DMU4 , DMU5 , DMU6 ,
DMU10 , DMU11 , DMU12 , DMU13 , DMU14 ,
Distinctly Inefficient Units
DMU15 , DMU16 , DMU17 , DMU18 , DMU19 ,
TE < 0.8
DMU20 , DMU21 , DMU22 , DMU23 , DMU24 ,
DMU25 , DMU26 , DMU27 , DMU28 , DMU29 , DMU31

5. Conclusions
5.1. Conclusions and Suggestions
5.1.1. Conclusions
This study develops a model for measuring the efficiency of water resources man-
agement, and uses 31 industrial zones in Taiwan as its target population to measure the
operational efficiency of industrial zones and their water resources management efficiency.
While the traditional focus on economic efficiency is important, it is critical that business
owners and investors give attention to the importance of ESG areas, such as water manage-
ment. The old days of focusing only on economic efficiency are over, and it is now possible
to inform the stakeholders of the park about the non-economic aspects of the park and their
impact. Overall, the average relative efficiency of the DMUs must be improved.
Efficiency in water management is important, and how well a company does its job as
a global citizen can be reflected in the way it manages its business on a daily basis. If more
industrial estates were to set their targets to exceed the required industrial estate average,
this would create a virtuous cycle of water improvement, which would have a significant
impact on the efficiency of water management. It is also recommended that government
authorities disclose information on the ESG of industrial parks in a timely manner, and
through the sharing of comparative information between industrial parks, stakeholders in
the parks can be made more aware of the economic and non-economic aspects and impacts,
which will have a positive effect on the competitiveness of the industries therein.

5.1.2. Suggestions
It is suggested that future research could extend the application of this research to
technology-based or eco-integrated parks and consider more indicators in the ESG field
to measure the sustainable operational efficiency of the parks in a more comprehensive
manner so that the issue of sustainability of enterprises and the planet will continue to be
of concern to all sectors.
This study suggested that industrial park managers should collect and make public
the data values of water quality monitoring programs in their parks, especially BOD, SS
and COD, which are important indicators for wastewater monitoring. In addition, the
water consumption, recycled percentage and effluent discharge of industrial parks are also
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 18 of 22

important information for the research of water resources and ecological environments.
The research suggests that industrial parks can produce more friendly environments for
public evaluation and research.

5.2. Limitations of the Study

Although the study achieved its objectives, limitations due to time and resource
constraints and difficulties in obtaining data remain.
1. This study only focuses on 31 manufacturing industrial zones in Taiwan, not on
technology parks and other ecological parks.
2. In applying the knowledge of the ESG domain, only the efficiency value of water
resources management in the E environment dimension is used to investigate the
efficiency of non-economic aspects.
3. In this study, a model for evaluating the efficiency of water resources management
was successfully constructed; the input variables in the model can be flexibly extended
in the evaluation model with the data collection situation. The existing model uses
three input variables, which have some shortcomings, mainly due to the limited
resources and the inability to collect large-scale data values of indicators for water
quality monitoring projects in industrial parks. According to the Environmental
Protection Administration Executive Yuan for Taiwan, there should be 12 indicators
for water quality monitoring projects, namely: (1) Biochemical Oxygen Demand,
BOD; (2) Suspended Solids, SS; (3) Chemical Oxygen Demand, COD; (4) Temperature;
(5) Turbidity; (6) pH; (7) Dissolved Oxygen, DO; (8) Electrical Conductivity, EC;
(9) Ammonia Nitrogen; (10) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN; (11) Phosphorus; and
(12) River Pollution Index, RPI.

5.3. Management Implications

For industrial parks established and managed by the government, the role of the
government has been elevated from the management level in the past to the service level.
In addition to adhering to the same government policies, enterprises in industrial parks
also need soft services from industrial zones. The assessment of the park’s operational
efficiency is an important basis for the Park Service Centre’s evaluation of the needed
services, such as whether the park is in a state of increasing or decreasing returns to
scale, or whether the park’s operational efficiency and its non-economic water resources
management are efficient. In addition, investors who will soon move into an industrial park
will be concerned with both the operational efficiency of the park’s industrial chain and the
non-economic aspects of ESG, which can be of great help in reducing global warming and
improving environmental protection.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.-Y.C. and W.T.; methodology, W.T.; validation, C.-Y.C.
and W.T.; formal analysis, W.T.; investigation, W.T.; resources, C.-Y.C.; data curation, W.T.; writing—
original draft preparation, W.T.; writing—review and editing, C.-Y.C. and W.T.; visualization, W.T.;
supervision, C.-Y.C.; project administration, W.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 19 of 22

Abbreviations

WRM Water Resource Management

DEA Data Envelopment Analysis
ESG Environmental, Social and Governance
EIPs Eco-Industrial Parks
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
DMU Decision Making Unit
DMUs Decision Making Units
CRS Constant Returns to Scale
VRS Variable Returns to Scale
TE Technical Efficiency
SE Scale Efficiency
PTE Pure Technical Efficiency
IRS Increasing Returns to Scale
DRS Decreasing Returns to Scale
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
SS Suspended Solids
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
DO Dissolved Oxygen
EC Electrical Conductivity
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
RPI River Pollution Index

References
1. Doeffinger, T.; Hall, J.W. Water Stress and Productivity: An Empirical Analysis of Trends and Drivers. Water Resour. Res. 2020, 56,
e2019WR025925. [CrossRef]
2. Wu, T.; Song, H.; Wang, J.; Friedler, E. Framework, Procedure, and Tools for Comprehensive Evaluation of Sustainable Stormwater
Management: A Review. Water 2020, 12, 1231. [CrossRef]
3. Intaraburt, W.; Sangsanont, J.; Limpiyakorn, T.; Ruangrassamee, P.; Suttinon, P.; Suwannasilp, B.B. Feasibility Study of Water
Reclamation Projects in Industrial Parks Incorporating Environmental Benefits: A Case Study in Chonburi, Thailand. Water 2022,
14, 1172. [CrossRef]
4. Yang, T.; Zhu, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhou, B. Achieving win-win policy outcomes for water resource management and economic development:
The experience of Chinese cities. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 873–888. [CrossRef]
5. Cotterill, S.; Bracken, L.J. Assessing the Effectiveness of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS): Interventions, Impacts and
Challenges. Water 2020, 12, 3160. [CrossRef]
6. Tumilar, A.S.; Milani, D.; Cohn, Z.; Florin, N.; Abbas, A. A Modelling Framework for the Conceptual Design of Low-Emission
Eco-Industrial Parks in the Circular Economy: A Case for Algae-Centered Business Consortia. Water 2021, 13, 69. [CrossRef]
7. van Beers, D.; Tyrkko, K.; Flammini, A.; Barahona, C.; Susan, C. Results and Lessons Learned from Assessing 50 Industrial Parks
in Eight Countries against the International Framework for Eco-Industrial Parks. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10611. [CrossRef]
8. Chen, S.C.; Huang, C.Y.; Lee, D.S. Integrating the Diamond Model and PDSA to Explore the Sustainable Competitiveness of
Industrial Clusters-Mask Machine Alliance in Taiwan during COVID-19. J. JINWEN Univ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 31, 1–14. (In Chinese)
9. Ng, K.M. Strategic Planning of China’s First Special Economic Zone: Shenzhen City Master Plan (2010–2020). Plan. Theory Pract.
2011, 12, 638–642. [CrossRef]
10. Zhang, M.; Liu, H.; Su, Y.; Zhou, X.; Li, Z.; Chen, C. Assessment and Decomposition of Regional Land Use Efficiency of the
Service Sector in China. Land 2022, 11, 1911. [CrossRef]
11. Vabuolytė, V.; Burinskienė, M.; Sousa, S.; Petrakovska, O.; Trehub, M.; Tiboni, M. Increase in the Value Added of Land Due to the
Establishment of Industrial Parks. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8541. [CrossRef]
12. Alexakis, D.E. Meta-Evaluation of Water Quality Indices. Application into Groundwater Resources. Water 2020, 12, 1890. [CrossRef]
13. Chen, S.-C.; Lee, D.-S.; Huang, C.-Y. Evaluating the Sustainable Operating Performance of Electronics Industry Groups: Taiwanese
Firms in Mainland China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12030. [CrossRef]
14. Luo, L.; Zheng, Z.; Luo, J.; Jia, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Wu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, J. Spatial Agglomeration of Manufacturing in the Wuhan
Metropolitan Area: An Analysis of Sectoral Patterns and Determinants. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8005. [CrossRef]
15. Baldwin, R.E.; Krugman, P. Agglomeration, Integration and Tax Harmonization. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2004, 48, 1–23. [CrossRef]
16. Moses, L.N. Location and the Theory of Production. Q. J. Econ. 1958, 72, 259–272. [CrossRef]
17. Henderson, J.V. Marshall’s scale economies. J. Urban Econ. 2003, 53, 1–28. [CrossRef]
18. Mori, T.; Smith, T.E. On the spatial scale of industrial agglomerations. J. Urban Econ. 2015, 89, 1–20. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 20 of 22

19. Andersson, M.; Klaesson, J.; Larsson, J.P. How local are spatial density externalities? Neighbourhood effects in agglomeration
economies. Reg. Stud. 2016, 50, 1082–1095. [CrossRef]
20. Hobbs, K.G.; Link, A.N.; Scott, J.T. Science and technology parks: An annotated and analytical literature review. J. Technol. Transf.
2017, 42, 957–976. [CrossRef]
21. He, C.; Zhu, S. Evolutionary Economic Geography in China; Springer: Singapore, 2019.
22. Gerschenkron, A. Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective—The Political Economy Reader: Markets as Institutions; Routledge:
London, UK, 1962; pp. 211–228.
23. Castells, M. Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st Century Industrial Complexes; Routledge: London, UK, 2014.
24. Liu, Q.L.; Wang, Q. How China achieved its 11th Five-Year Plan emissions reduction target: A structural decomposition analysis
of industrial SO2 and chemical oxygen demand. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 574, 110–1116. [CrossRef]
25. Xiao, Z.Y.; Shen, Z.C. The temporal and spatial evolution of population & industrial agglomeration and environmental pollution
and the relevance analysis. J. Arid Resour. Environ. 2019, 33, e8.
26. Elbers, C.; Withagen, C. Environmental policy, population dynamics and agglomeration. Contrib. Econ. Anal. Policy 2003, 3. [CrossRef]
27. Hamaguchi, Y. Polluting firms’ location choices and pollution havens in an R&D-based growth model for an international
emissions trading market. J. Int. Trade Econ. Dev. 2021, 30, 625–642.
28. Lange, A.; Quaas, M.F. Economic geography and the effect of environmental pollution on agglomeration. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy
2007, 7, 1724. [CrossRef]
29. Chen, F.-H.; Liu, H.-R. Evaluation of Sustainable Development in Six Transformation Fields of the Central Taiwan Science Park.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4336. [CrossRef]
30. Löfsten, H.; Lindelöf, P. Science Parks and the Growth of New Technology-Based Firms—Academic-Industry Links, Innova-tion
and Markets. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 859–876. [CrossRef]
31. Lee, W.-H.; Yang, W.-T. The cradle of Taiwan high technology industry development—Hsinchu Science Park (HSP). Technovation
2000, 20, 55–59. [CrossRef]
32. Lin, S.W.; Ben, T.M. Impact of Government and Industrial Agglomeration on Industrial Land Prices: A Taiwanese Case Study.
Habitat Int. 2009, 33, 412–418. [CrossRef]
33. Martín Gómez, A.M.; Aguayo González, F.; Marcos Bárcena, M. Smart eco-industrial parks: A circular economy implementation
based on industrial metabolism. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 135, 58–69. [CrossRef]
34. Alabaeva, N.S.; Velitskaya, S.V.; Malahova, O.S.; Koroliova, C.P. Development of eco-industrial parks in Russia and abroad.
J. Econ. Bus. 2019, 6, 19–22.
35. Al-Quradaghi, S.; Zheng, Q.P.; Elkamel, A. Generalized framework for the design of eco-industrial parks: Case study of end-of-life
vehicles. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6612. [CrossRef]
36. Mousqué, F.; Boix, M.; Négny, S.; Montastruc, L.; Genty, L.; Domenech, S. Optimal On-Grid Hybrid Power System for Eco-
Industrial Parks Planning and Influence of Geographical Position. In Proceedings of the 28th European Symposium on Computer
Aided Process Engineering, Graz, Austria, 10–13 June 2018; Elsevier Masson SAS: Issy-les-Moulineaux, France, 2018; Volume 43,
ISBN 9780444642356.
37. Zhang, L.; Nian, Y.; Pi, J.; Zhou, Y. Land policy, land supply structure and housing prices. China J. Econ. 2017, 4, 91–118.
38. Flores Casamayor, H.; Morales Martínez, J.L.; Mora-Rodríguez, J.; Delgado-Galván, X. Assessing Industrial Impact on Water
Sustainability in El Bajío, Guanajuato State, Mexico. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6161. [CrossRef]
39. Jiang, W.; Cao, K.; Jin, L.; Cheng, Y.; Xu, Q. How Do China’s Development Zones Affect Environmental Pollution under
Government Domination. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3790. [CrossRef]
40. Mendoza Gómez, M.; Tagle-Zamora, D.; Morales Martínez, J.L.; Caldera Ortega, A.R.; Mora Rodríguez, J.d.J.; Delgado-Galván, X.
Water Supply Management Index: Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico. Water 2022, 14, 919. [CrossRef]
41. Zhu, H.; Zhu, J.; Zou, Q. Comprehensive Analysis of Coordination Relationship between Water Resources Environment and
High-Quality Economic Development in Urban Agglomeration in the Middle Reaches of Yangtze River. Water 2020, 12, 1301. [CrossRef]
42. Li, W.; Xi, Y.; Wu, F.; Masoud, M.; Liu, S. Green development performance of water resources and its economic-related
determinants. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 239, 118048. [CrossRef]
43. Gassert, F.; Luck, M.; Landis, M.; Reig, P.; Shiao, T. Aqueduct Global Maps 2.1: Constructing Decision-Relevant Global Water Risk
Indicators; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
44. Service, R.F. Desalination freshens up. Science 2006, 313, 1088–1090. [CrossRef]
45. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/
goals (accessed on 22 July 2022).
46. Liu, J.; Mooney, H.; Hull, V.; Davis, S.J.; Gaskell, J.; Hertel, T.; Lubchenco, J.; Seto, K.C.; Gleick, P.; Kremen, C.; et al. Systems
integration for global sustainability. Science 2015, 347, 1258832. [CrossRef]
47. Zand, M.; Nasab, M.A.; Hatami, A.; Kargar, M.; Chamorro, H.R. Using adaptive fuzzy logic for intelligent energy management in
hybrid vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2020 28th Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE), Tabriz, Iran, 4–6 August
2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 1–7.
48. Zand, M.; Nasab, M.A.; Sanjeevikumar, P.; Maroti, P.K.; Holm-Nielsen, J.B. Energy management strategy for solid-state transformer-
based solar charging station for electric vehicles in smart grids. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2020, 14, 3843–3852. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 21 of 22

49. Masuda, S.; Sano, I.; Hojo, T.; Li, Y.Y.; Nishimura, O. The comparison of greenhouse gas emissions in sewage treatment plants
with different treatment processes. Chemosphere 2018, 193, 581–590. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Rehana, S.; Rajulapati, C.R.; Ghosh, S.; Karmakar, S.; Mujumdar, P. Uncertainty Quantification in Water Resource Systems
Modeling: Case Studies from India. Water 2020, 12, 1793. [CrossRef]
51. Hoekstra, A.; Chapagain, A.; Van Oel, P. Advancing Water Footprint Assessment Research: Challenges in Monitoring Progress
towards Sustainable Development Goal 6. Water 2017, 9, 438. [CrossRef]
52. Song, J.; Yin, Y.; Xu, H.; Wang, Y.; Wu, P.; Sun, S. Drivers of domestic grain virtual water flow: A study for China. Agric. Water
Manag. 2020, 239, 106175. [CrossRef]
53. Du, Y.; Lv, X.-T.; Wu, Q.-Y.; Zhang, D.-Y.; Zhou, Y.-T.; Peng, L.; Hu, H.-Y. Formation and control of disinfection byproducts and
toxicity during reclaimed water chlorination: A review. J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 58, 51–63. [CrossRef]
54. Salgot, M.; Folch, M. Wastewater treatment and water reuse. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 2, 64–74. [CrossRef]
55. Racar, M.; Dolar, D.; Farkas, M.; Milcic, N.; Spehar, A.; Kosutic, K. Rendering plant wastewater reclamation by coagulation, sand
filtration, and ultrafiltration. Chemosphere 2019, 227, 207–215. [CrossRef]
56. Li, Q.; Wang, W.; Jiang, X.; Lu, D.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J. Analysis of the potential of reclaimed water utilization in typical inland cities in
northwest China via system dynamics. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 270, 110878. [CrossRef]
57. Cherchi, C.; Kesaano, M.; Badruzzaman, M.; Schwab, K.; Jacangelo, J.G. Municipal reclaimed water for multi-purpose applications
in the power sector: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 236, 561–570. [CrossRef]
58. Revollar, S.; Meneses, M.; Vilanova, R.; Vega, P.; Francisco, M. Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Control Actions in Wastewater
Treatment Plants. Water 2021, 13, 612. [CrossRef]
59. Jorge, C.; Almeida, M.d.C.; Covas, D. Performance Assessment System for Energy Efficiency in Wastewater Systems. Water 2021,
13, 1807. [CrossRef]
60. Seidl, C.; Wheeler, S.A.; Zuo, A. High turbidity: Water valuation and accounting in the Murray-Darling Basin. Agric. Water Manag.
2020, 230, 105929. [CrossRef]
61. Nasab, M.A.; Zand, M.; Padmanaban, S.; Bhaskar, M.S.; Guerrero, J.M. An efficient, robust optimization model for the unit
commitment considering renewable uncertainty and pumped-storage hydropower. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2022, 100, 107846. [CrossRef]
62. Zhang, B.; Meng, Z.; Zhang, L.; Sun, X.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A.; Ahmad, B. Exergy-based systems account of national resource
utilization: China 2012. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 132, 324–338. [CrossRef]
63. Huang, X.; Hua, W.; Dai, X. Performance Evaluation of Watershed Environment Governance—A Case Study of Taihu Basin.
Water 2022, 14, 158. [CrossRef]
64. Lee, M.; Kim, H.; Lee, J.Y.; Yang, J.E.; Lim, C. A Shift Towards Integrated and Adaptive Water Management in South Korea:
Building Resilience Against Climate Change. Water Resour. Manag. 2022, 36, 1611–1625. [CrossRef]
65. Hu, J.; Wang, S.; Yeh, F.Y. Total-factor water efficiency of regions in China. Resour. Policy 2006, 31, 217–230. [CrossRef]
66. Li, M.; Long, K. Direct or Spillover Effect: The Impact of Pure Technical and Scale Efficiencies of Water Use on Water Scarcity in
China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3401. [CrossRef]
67. Geng, Q.; Ren, Q.; Nolan, R.H.; Wu, P.; Yu, Q. Assessing China’s agricultural water use efficiency in a green-blue water perspective:
A study based on data envelopment analysis. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 96, 329–335. [CrossRef]
68. Deng, G.; Li, L.; Song, Y. Provincial water use efficiency measurement and factor analysis in China: Based on SBM-DEA model.
Ecol. Indic. 2016, 69, 12–18. [CrossRef]
69. Zhang, L.; Luan, X.; Chen, X.; Zhang, S.; Liang, Y.; Cui, Z. Water Footprint Inventory Construction of Cathode Copper Products in
a Chinese Eco-Industry. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5962. [CrossRef]
70. Muratoglu, A. Applications and Response Formulations of Water Footprint Methodology for Conservation of Water Resources.
Imp. Encycl. Conserv. 2021, 360–370. [CrossRef]
71. Muratoglu, A. Water Footprint: Concept and Methodology. Imp. Encycl. Conserv. 2021, 351–359. [CrossRef]
72. She, Y.; Liu, Y.; Deng, Y.; Jiang, L. Can China’s Government-Oriented Environmental Regulation Reduce Water Pollution?
Evidence from Water Pollution Intensive Firms. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7841.
73. EBA. EBA Report on Management and Supervision of ESG Risks for Credit Institutions and Investment Firms. Available
online: https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/fifiles/document_library/Publications/Reports/2021/10156
56/EBA%20Report%20on%20ESG%20risks%20management%20and%20supervision.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2022).
74. EBA. Environmental Social and Governance Disclosures. Available online: https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/
documents/files/document_library/Publications/Consultations/2021/Consultation%20on%20draft%20ITS%20on%20Pillar%
20disclosures%20on%20ESG%20risk/963626/Factsheet%20-%20ESG%20disclosures.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2022).
75. Daugaard, D. Emerging new themes in environmental, social and governance investing: A systematic literature review. Account.
Financ. 2020, 60, 1501–1530. [CrossRef]
76. Yan, S. Basic Functions and Normative Development of Logistics Park. Qual. Stand. 2006, 8, 17–21.
77. Zhang, S.; Hou, Y.; Gu, C. Research on the Development and Countermeasures of Jiangsu Cultural and Creative Industry Park.
China Stand. 2013, 12, 105–108.
78. An, J.; Liang, Y.; Yang, R.; Zhai, H. Research on Standardized Construction and Evaluation Path of Modern Ecological Circular
Agriculture Park. China Stand. 2018, 1, 64–68.
79. Duan, J.; Lu, Q. New Process of Group Standards. Urban Plan. 2019, 43, 33–39.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14198 22 of 22

80. United Nations Industrial Development Organization; World Bank Group; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusamme-
narbeit. An International Framework for Eco-Industrial Parks; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
81. Tian, J.; Liu, W.; Lai, B.; Li, X.; Chen, L. Study of the performance of eco-industrial park development in China. J. Clean. Prod.
2014, 64, 486–494. [CrossRef]
82. Farrell, M.J. The measurement of productive efficiency. J. R. Stat. Soc. 1957, 120, 253–281. [CrossRef]
83. Hsieh, J.-C.; Ma, L.-H.; Chiu, Y.-H. Assessing China’s Use Efficiency of Water Resources from the Resampling Super Data
Envelopment Analysis Approach. Water 2019, 11, 1069. [CrossRef]
84. Mardani, A.; Edmundas, K.Z.; Dalia, S.; Ahmad, J.; Masoumeh, K. A comprehensive review of data envelopment analysis (DEA)
approach in energy efficiency. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 1298–1322. [CrossRef]
85. Mardani, A.; Streimikiene, D.; Balezentis, T.; Saman, M.Z.M.; Nor, K.M.; Khoshnava, S.M. Data envelopment analysis in energy
and environmental economics: An overview of the state-of-the-art and recent development trends. Energies 2018, 11, 2002. [CrossRef]
86. Ablanedo-Rosas, J.H.; Guerrero Campanur, A.; Olivares-Benitez, E.; Sánchez-García, J.Y.; Nuñez-Ríos, J.E. Operational Efficiency
of Mexican Water Utilities: Results of a Double-Bootstrap Data Envelopment Analysis. Water 2020, 12, 553. [CrossRef]
87. Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Rhodes, E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1978, 2, 429–444. [CrossRef]
88. Banker, R.D.; Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W. Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment
Analysis. Manag. Sci. 1984, 30, 1078–1092. [CrossRef]
89. Yang, H.; Pollitt, M. Incorporating both undesirable outputs and uncontrollable variables into DEA: The performance of Chinese
coal-fired power plants. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009, 197, 1095–1105. [CrossRef]
90. Cao, Y.; Zhang, W.; Ren, J. Efficiency Analysis of the Input for Water-Saving Agriculture in China. Water 2020, 12, 207. [CrossRef]
91. Ali, M.K.; Klein, K.K. Water use efficiency and productivity of the irrigation districts in Southern Alberta. Water Resour. Manag.
2014, 28, 2751–2766. [CrossRef]
92. Azad, M.A.S.; Ancev, T.; Hernández-Sancho, F. Efficient water use for sustainable irrigation industry. Water Resour. Manag. 2015,
29, 1683–1696. [CrossRef]
93. Li, W.; Zuo, Q.; Jiang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Ma, J.; Wang, J. Evaluation of Regional Water Resources Management Performance and
Analysis of the Influencing Factors: A Case Study in China. Water 2022, 14, 574. [CrossRef]
94. Gungor-Demirci, G.; Lee, J.; Keck, J. Assessing the performance of a California water utility using two-stage data envelopment
analysis. J. Water Res. Plan. Manag. 2018, 144, 1943–5452. [CrossRef]
95. Kamarudin, N.; Ismail, W.R. Establishment of performance indicators for Malaysian water utilities with the presence of undesir-
able output. J. Teknol. 2016, 78, 99–105. [CrossRef]
96. Chen, C.-G.; Cheng, W.-Y.; Chen, S.-C. The establishment of cost-effectiveness, objective oriented LSP performance measurement.
In Proceedings of the IIE Annual Conference and Expo 2007—Industrial Engineering’s Critical Role in a Flat World—Conference
Proceedings, Nashville, TN, USA, 19–23 May 2007.
97. Norman, M.; Stoker, B. Data Envelopment Analysis: The Assessment of Performance; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1991.