You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Asif Iqbal1,*,
  • Abdullah Yasar1 and
  • Muhammad Murtaza Chaudhary5,6
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: B. P. Naveen Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has made a good attempt to understand " Cost-Effective and Equitable Solid Waste Management Model for Low–Income Countries: A Case Study of Lahore, Pakistan", However, few comments are mentioned below:

1.  Aim and objective should be defined effectively

2. Existing literature is missing

3. Methodology should be improved a lot

4. Reference of the equation is missing

5.  Table 1 discussion is not effectively

6. Results and discussion should be more effective

7. Conclusion should be rewritten effectively. 

Author Response

Comments and Replies 

  1. Aim and objective should be defined effectively

Reply: Compliance ensured on page 4 in para 2 and on page 5 please as per suggestion. Thanks for highlighting.

  1. Existing literature is missing

Reply: A literature review is added in Introduction Section.

  1. Methodology should be improved a lot

Reply: The methodology section is revised and tried to improve as per valuable comments. Compliance ensured, please.

  1. Reference of the equation is missing

Reply: references are added, please.

  1. Table 1 discussion is not effectively

Reply: Discussed in detail. Compliance ensured, please

  1. Results and discussion should be more effective

Reply: results and discussion sections are revised and updated as per valuable comments.

  1. Conclusion should be rewritten effectively. 

Reply: compliance ensured, please.

The authors tried their best to improve the manuscript as per highlight in the open review.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper's title is not professional. There could be a far better title for the paper. Some keywords in the title should be used with caution, such as "equitable".

Particularly in the abstract, there are some very big claims. However, I don't see enough evidence to support their claims.

The provided keywords are not acceptable. "sustainable waste management" is very generic.

"Three types of models are in practice in the SWM sector considered decision-making tools, i.e., Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) perspective, and......." this claim is not professional. Any reference?

The logic of the introduction is difficult to follow. Despite providing some general information, the authors failed to narrow down the introduction to the proper research question. It is not clear from the introduction what the issues in Pakistan are, and how this study is going to address them.

In this study, the authors failed to review any of the studies that fall within the scope of the study. It is important to provide a clear literature review and highlight the gaps in a table. It is also important that the authors explain why the previous models cannot be used in this context. Some papers are:

·         Asefi, Hossein, and Samsung Lim. "A novel multi-dimensional modeling approach to integrated municipal solid waste management." Journal of cleaner production 166 (2017): 1131-1143.

·         Asefi, Hossein, et al. "Variable fleet size and mix VRP with fleet heterogeneity in Integrated Solid Waste Management." Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019): 1376-1395.

·         Asefi, Hossein, Shahrooz Shahparvari, and Prem Chhetri. "Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management under uncertainty: A tri-echelon city logistics and transportation context." Sustainable Cities and Society 50 (2019): 101606.

·         Yazdani, Maziar, et al. "Improving construction and demolition waste collection service in an urban area using a simheuristic approach: A case study in Sydney, Australia." Journal of Cleaner Production 280 (2021): 124138.

·         Ghafourian, Kambiz, et al. "A synthesis of express analytic hierarchy process (EAHP) and partial least squares-structural equations modeling (PLS-SEM) for sustainable construction and demolition waste management assessment: The case of Malaysia." Recycling 6.4 (2021): 73.

·         Mojtahedi, Mohammad, et al. "Sustainable vehicle routing problem for coordinated solid waste management." Journal of Industrial Information Integration 23 (2021): 100220.

·         Rabbani, Masoud, Kimiya Rahmani Mokarrari, and Niloofar Akbarian-saravi. "A multi-objective location inventory routing problem with pricing decisions in a sustainable waste management system." Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021): 103319.

·         Rabbani, Masoud, Razieh Heidari, and Reza Yazdanparast. "A stochastic multi-period industrial hazardous waste location-routing problem: Integrating NSGA-II and Monte Carlo simulation." European Journal of Operational Research 272.3 (2019): 945-961.

Section 2 of the paper provides some formulations without any supporting evidence, yet it is hard to say that they are correct. However, some of them are not reasonable. Strong evidence is needed to provide such formulations.

The representations of such formulas should be revised and provided systematically.

 

 

Author Response

Comment-1: This paper's title is not professional. There could be a far better title for the paper. Some keywords in the title should be used with caution, such as "equitable".

Reply: Title has been revised. Keyword compliance ensured, please.

Comments-2: Particularly in the abstract, there are some very big claims. However, I don't see enough evidence to support their claims.

Reply: Abstract also revised. (A) material recovery of up to 33% is explained on page 31 in para 1. (B) 26% saving on fuel is explained on page 34 in para 2. (C) economic potential to cater to 35% of the current operating is explained on page 35 in para 1. GHGs emission reduction is explained on pages 27 and 34.

Comment 3: The provided keywords are not acceptable. "sustainable waste management" is very generic.

Reply: compliance ensured, please.

Comment-4: "Three types of models are in practice in the SWM sector considered decision-making tools, i.e., Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) perspective, and......." this claim is not professional. Any reference?

Reply: A paragraph is revised as per valuable comments.

Comment -5: The logic of the introduction is difficult to follow. Despite providing some general information, the authors failed to narrow down the introduction to the proper research question. It is not clear from the introduction what the issues in Pakistan are, and how this study is going to address them.

Reply: introduction section is revised and updated as per comments.

Comments-6: In this study, the authors failed to review any of the studies that fall within the scope of the study. It is important to provide a clear literature review and highlight the gaps in a table. It is also important that the authors explain why the previous models cannot be used in this context. Some papers are:...

(papers reference)

Reply: Literature review added as per suggestion. Thanks for the valuable comments that helped to improve the manuscript.

Comments -7: Section 2 of the paper provides some formulations without any supporting evidence, yet it is hard to say that they are correct. However, some of them are not reasonable. Strong evidence is needed to provide such formulations.

Reply: Supporting references are added in section 2. The excel sheet/ calculator based on formulas is attached in supplementary material and correctness may be checked.  

Comment 8: The representations of such formulas should be revised and provided systematically.

Reply: Authors try their best and improved the representation in a systematic way as per kind observation.

The authors also try to improve the manuscript as per highlights in the open review table, please.