Community-Level Household Waste Disposal Behavior Simulation and Visualization under Multiple Incentive Policies—An Agent-Based Modelling Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations
The article presents a topic of great relevance and impact
The introduction is complete and well contextualized, leading the reader to understand the current situation.
It meets the objectives set.
The characterization of the residents is clear in the methodology.
The results are shown sequentially, complying with the objectives presented.
The discussion and conclusions are very clear.
The tables and figures allow for greater clarity of the information presented, good job
It is suggested that a paragraph be added indicating the type of separation, that is, how many types of separation exist for urban residential waste. From there, relevant information about the difficulty of separating can appear.
What is the way to check which family is doing the classification correctly when it is taken to the fixed installations? It can be taken into account for further work that brings it closer to reality.
Does the design of the 8 scenarios take into account successful cases in other countries or in China itself? what are they? If you haven't considered them, I suggest you include some of them.
They have talked about reward and punishment. In the scenarios the reward appears but the punishment does not appear. Is it possible to add other scenarios? I understand that this would imply running the simulation again and perhaps it is more relevant for future work.
Author Response
Thank you for the helpful and constructive comments! We have read through the comments carefully and made revises accordingly. My point-by-point response is as follow.
Point 1: It is suggested that a paragraph be added indicating the type of separation, that is, how many types of separation exist for urban residential waste. From there, relevant information about the difficulty of separating can appear.
Response 1: In China, household waste is asked to be sorted into four categories, which are recyclable waste, kitchen waste, hazardous waste and other waste. Our research focus on only one of the four categories, that is, the recyclable waste. Information about China's waste sorting rule is added in the Introduction part of the revised manuscript.
Point 2: What is the way to check which family is doing the classification correctly when it is taken to the fixed installations? It can be taken into account for further work that brings it closer to reality.
Response 2: Many communities in China set up special recyclers, who will check whether the garbage classification is correct while standing next to the garbage disposal facilities at a fixed time every morning and evening, which plays a certain auxiliary role in garbage recycling. In Community H that our experiment took place, each family has a special garbage bag with a special QR code that allows recyclers to check if the sorting is correct when they open the bag. We do not ask residents to separate different types of garbage, all the recyclables can be dumped into the garbage bag together, so it is not a hassle for the residents. We believe communities in China can copy this method in order to stimulate residents to follow the waste seperation rule. Information is added in the Discussion part of the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Does the design of the 8 scenarios take into account successful cases in other countries or in China itself? what are they? If you haven't considered them, I suggest you include some of them.
Response 3: The 8 scenarios refer to behavioral interventions commonly used in garbage sorting in different urban communities in China. Such as providing financial incentives for recycling facilities or door-to-door recycling, using red and black lists to encourage or criticize, and promoting participation through community awareness and education campaigns.
Point 4: They have talked about reward and punishment. In the scenarios the reward appears but the punishment does not appear. Is it possible to add other scenarios? I understand that this would imply running the simulation again and perhaps it is more relevant for future work.
Response 4: The description of each scenatios are listed in Table 1. Scenario 8 includes criticize to those who failed to sort, which is one kind of punishment, only of moral impact. There has been discussions of increasing penalties in China, but the reality is that punishments are difficult to implement for it is not the community’s decision to make. As a result, we didn’t include monetery penalty as one of the scenarios. As for adding other scenarios, it can be done by changing the parameters in the code and running the simulation again.
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is really important and interesting for studying, but monetary incentive as stimulus for sorting different types of packaking was proved in a lot of countries. That is why packaging deposit system is one of the most efective tool for sorting and motivating.
I'm not sure about research method eligibility and the results adaptability.
Disscusion part is dediated direcly to few group of interest but I would indicate them as a small part.
Author Response
Thank you for the helpful and constructive comments! We have read through the comments carefully and made revises accordingly. My point-by-point response is as follow.
Point 1: I'm not sure about research method eligibility and the results adaptability. Disscusion part is dediated direcly to few group of interest but I would indicate them as a small part.
Response 1: This experiment mainly aims to simulate and evaluate the business model emerging in the community garbage classification in Beijing. As a result, it is indeed greatly affected by the local background. But we hope that we can take more incentive mechanism into consideration in our future work. This content is added in the Conclusions part of the revised manuscript, indicating the shortcomings of this research.
Point 2: Monetary incentive as stimulus for sorting different types of packaking was proved in a lot of countries. That is why packaging deposit system is one of the most effective tool for sorting and motivating.
Response 2: As for the packaging deposit system, policies and regulations designed by parties other than a single community are required, which is not within the scope of this paper's experimental design. Our research group has covered such policies and institutions in studies about EPR(Extended Producer Responsibility). Chinese scholars have discussed about introducing such a system with some recycling companies, but it has not been realized.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript provides a feasible model to understand the community waste management and select a certain area in China to perform the model validation. Minor revision is needed.
(1) Page 2, line 46, reference is needed.
(2) Page 3, line 146, any reference? why did you chose this community?
(3) Page 4, line 159, how to justify the environmental awareness?
(4) Figure 1, any scale bar?
(5) Page 8, line 289, how many survey did you do?
(6) Page 12, line 422, any reference?
(7) Figure 5, move the platform interface to supplemental information
Author Response
Thank you for the helpful and constructive comments! We have read through the comments carefully and made revises accordingly. My point-by-point response is as follow.
Point 1: Page 2, line 46, reference is needed.
Response 1: Reference added in the revised manuscript (page 2, line 49).
Point 2: Page 3, line 146, any reference? why did you chose this community?
Response 2: Our research is based on the previous research of Tong (2018), referenced in page 3, line 121 of the revised manuscript. The reason our study chose this community is that this place is a rapidly urbanizing new community, which is relatively independent and easy to conduct the experiment. Additional information was added in the revised manuscript (page 3, line 148).
Point 3: Page 4, line 159, how to justify the environmental awareness?
Response 3: Environmental awareness is how a person cares about environmental protection. A questionnaire survey was conducted, asking participants about their perception of the environmental impact caused by different types of solid waste. We believe their responds can show their environmental awareness.
Point 4: Figure 1, any scale bar?
Response 4: Scale bar added to Figure 1(a) and Figure 1(b) in the revised manuscript.
Point 5: Page 8, line 289, how many survey did you do?
Response 5: 500 families in the experimental community took part in the survey from year 2013 to 2016. Information was added in the revised manuscript (page 8, line 294).
Point 6: Page 12, line 422, any reference?
Response 6: Reference added in the revised manuscript (page 12, line 431).
Point 7: Figure 5, move the platform interface to supplemental information
Response 7: The original Figure 5 was moved to Appendix A and was numbered Figure A1.
Reviewer 4 Report
The research is very meaningful, the scheme design is also very novel, worthy of recognition. But two improvements are needed.
First, the introduction is too long and lacks a summary of the innovation of the article. In this part, you should tell the reader what your contribution is.
Secondly, the typicality and representation of the selected communities need to be enhanced.
Third, the discussion requires a fuller dialogue with the existing literature.
no comments
