Qualitative and Quantitative Characterization of Municipal Waste in Uncontrolled Dumpsites and Landfills Using Integrated Remote Sensing, Geological and Geophysical Data: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has improved from the previous version.

Author Response

Please find the attached cover letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript "Qualitative and quantitative characterization of municipal waste in uncontrolled dumpsites and landfills using integrated remote sensing, geological and geophysical data: A case study" was submitted to sustainability journal. It's nice research about assessing uncontrolled dumpsites and landfill leachate using RS and ground data. Authors didn’t send the final clean version and reading track changes file was very difficult for me. Also, I am reviewed this article for the second time and my decision is minor revision because there is some concerns such as follows:

1. The concepts of sustainability should be mentioned more at the beginning of the introduction. This is a very important.
2. The methodology section is too long and the trivial content should be removed.
3. Separate the results and discussion sections.
4. Authors should answer some of my questions such as: “According to figure 6, how do you describe the increase in temperature and the decrease in landfill area over time?”
5. In the discussion, more attention should be paid to environmental sustainability.
6. I checked plagiarism detection of this research and there are no concerns.
7. Please be sure that all the references cited in the manuscript are also included in the reference list and vice versa with matching spellings and dates.

Author Response

Please find the attached cover letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a resubmitted manuscript. It is obvious that the authors tried to respond to the reviewer's suggestions, but my opinion is that everything was more of a cosmetic nature. The authors have changed the title of the paper, one chapter title, added two references, shortened and reconfigured some sentences, but I do not see any scientific advantages. So my review is the same as before.

The paper was done according to the instructions given in the instructions for the journal. The organization of work with sections (Introduction, Description of study location and problem description, Workflow of this study, Data and methodology, Results and discussion and Conclusion) is different, but adequate with the recommended (Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions). The material is arranged in a way that is logical, clear and easy to follow.

The author adequately and appropriately cited the sources, and all citations in the text are listed in the References section. The list is short, but it covers everything. English language and style are fine, but I would recommend editing the language.

Research and experiment data are presented and visualized in a clear way, all of which makes the paper readable. The paper is well structured and well written.

This paper introduces an innovative integrated approach to municipal waste assessment using remote, geological, geophysical and well data. Based on that, the authors tested the workflow on the analysis of surface data and mapping of underground surfaces.

This paper is more of a research test report and as a case study is very good. The workflow used is somewhat new and has great practical benefits. There are no new methods or techniques. The data processing algorithm used is well known and documented. It’s more of an improvement in workflow.

Author Response

Please find the attached cover letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx