Characterization and Planning of Household Waste Management: A Case Study from the MENA Region
, Florin-Constantin Mihai 3, Moustafa Houda 4, Mostefa Ababsa 2, Marc Azab 4, Alexandru-Ionut Petrisor 5,6,7 and Christine Fürst 8,9Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is interested to read. The authors applied the dynamic data analysis model using secondary and primary data. Following are several minor issues that I believe should be revised before we can move the manuscript forward in the process of publication.
(1) It is recommended to improve the section of materials and methods (2). Authors have used several variables for the analysis. More explanation is required showing all variables used in this paper, justifications for their selection based on any literature and the data sets used for each variable. Need to give more explanations about the variables. This can be a separate sub-section or the combination with the sub-section 2.2 or 2.3, making it clear for readers.
(2) It is recommended to re-check the global data related to waste generation and collection in the introduction, particularly references no. 4 to 10 with the global data published by UNEP (Global Waste Management outlook) and World Bank (What a Waste 2.0) in 2015 and 2018, respectively.
(3) Discussion looks very general. It is recommended to adjust the discussions on key findings from the data analysis in line with analytical results and spatial data connection.
(4) One of the important findings of the study is waste management is mainly influenced by drivers related to the size of settlement (area and population) and characteristics of the waste management companies (number of collection route sand number of employees). None of the socio-demographic variables (level of education, employment rate) were found to influence significantly the production of waste. Need more clarifications for this in the discussion section.
(5) It is better to re-check the English again carefully.
Author Response
We want to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer #1 for the time dedicated to the review and the comprehensive, profound, and constructive remarks, which allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript. The table below presents in detail how to address each comment; the references are to the final line numbers of the revised article. In addition, the added or changed text of the manuscript was marked using a “track changes” of Microsoft Word. We believe that, this one will also be cited frequently by other authors.
Kindly see the attachment (responses to reviewer 1).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article deals with waste management in Algeria, mainly household waste. The present study analyzes the factors that influence waste production. The study reinforces the importance of expanding the source separated waste collection systems in order to reduce waste production and landfilling. It is clearly processed and has visualized results.
The authors can add in the introduction (where they write about Smart Cities) what Smart Technologies are used in waste management.
Author Response
We want to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer #2 for the time dedicated to the review and the comprehensive, profound, and constructive remarks, which allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript. The table below presents in detail how to address each comment; the references are to the final line numbers of the revised article. In addition, the added or changed text of the manuscript was marked using a “track changes” of Microsoft Word. We believe that, this one will also be cited frequently by other authors.
Kindly see the attachment (responses to reviewer 2).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It would be useful if you could specify more clearly the variables used in the models.
The most important quantitative values ​​obtained from this research could be included in the conclusions section.
It would be useful if you could specify more clearly the efficiency, relevance and reliability of the proposed models in the conclusions section.
Author Response
We want to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer #3 for the time dedicated to the review and the comprehensive, profound, and constructive remarks, which allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript. The table below presents in detail how to address each comment; the references are to the final line numbers of the revised article. In addition, the added or changed text of the manuscript was marked using a “track changes” of Microsoft Word. We believe that, this one will also be cited frequently by other authors.
Kindly see the attachment (responses to reviewer 3).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for revising the paper based on the comments. No any more comments
Reviewer 2 Report
-
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for taking into account my comments and suggestion.
The authors have done a good job revising the document.
