Cost Efficiency in Municipal Solid Waste (MSW): Different Alternatives in Service Delivery for Small and Medium Sized Spanish Local Governments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript with title " Cost efficiency in Municipal Solid Waste (MSW): different alternatives in service delivery for small and medium sized Spanish local governments ", The topic is interesting. However, it can be considering after minor revision of the following comments.
· All figures and images quality should be improved
· please check carefully whole manuscript, there is a need to improve on the English language.
· All sources in the list of references should be checked and formatted consistently according to the journal template.
· What is the Statistical Software that you are used?
· If that possible to summarized in table, the result of this study with previous studies.
Author Response
Dear Editor(s),
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript, having read the Reviewers’ and Editor reports. We are grateful for all the comments, suggestions and recommendations made. Due to the similarity of the comments received, we present our considerations as follows:
Reviewer 1
- All figures and images quality should be improved
Response 1: We acknowledge the comment. We have improved the quality of the figures and images according to the journal template.
- Please check carefully the whole manuscript, there is a need to improve on the English language.
Response 2: We have checked the manuscript and we have tried to improve on the English language as much as possible.
- All sources in the list of references should be checked and formatted consistently according to the journal template.
Response 3: We acknowledge the comment. We have checked and formatted the references according to the journal template.
- What is the Statistical Software that you are used?
Response 4: We use the software called Rstudio R 4.2.1. We have introduced the name of this software in “3.2. Methodology”.
- If that possible to summarize in table, the result of this study with previous studies.
Response 5: You could find a table with a summary of this study with previous studies at the end (appendix E).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article deals with a relevant topic and well related to the scope of the journal. Few comments are made to improve the quality of the manuscript.
1) The cited references are not mostly recent publications, less than 25% were published in the last 5 years.
2) Ideally, the text should be impersonal and authors should avoid the expressions: "we propose", "we find"...
3) In my opinion, the discussion should be presented together with the results and not with the conclusion.
4) In the discussion, the authors could compare the results obtained with others available in the literature, if any.
Author Response
Dear Editor(s),
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript, having read the Reviewers’ and Editor reports. We are grateful for all the comments, suggestions and recommendations made. Due to the similarity of the comments received, we present our considerations as follows:
Reviewer 2
- The cited references are not mostly recent publications, less than 25% were published in the last 5 years.
Response 1: We acknowledge the comment.We have changed some of the references for other more recently published.
- Ideally, the text should be impersonal and authors should avoid the expressions: "we propose", "we find"...
Response 2: We have changed the text to be impersonal.
- In my opinion, the discussion should be presented together with the results and not with the conclusion.
Response 3: The discussion appears in chapter 4 “Implementation and results” where, at the end of this chapter, we have compared our findings with others authors (according to the next comment). Instead, we have modified the title of chapter five to “5. Conclusions”.
- In the discussion, the authors could compare the results obtained with others available in the literature, if any.
Response 4: According to this comment, we have compared our findings with others at the end of chapter 4.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This research work studies four forms of the provision of the Municipal Solid Waste management of small and medium-sized Spanish local governments through a Free Disposal Hull Data Panel (FDHDP) methodology for the 2014-2016 period.
This paper is well-written and well-structured. The findings are interesting and useful for the research community. Although it is good research work I believe needs some improvement to be published.
Please specify which municipality is small and which is medium. Which are the criteria to categorize them?
Why did the authors focus on 2014-2016? Why do they choose 2 years and not 5 for example or more?
On page 2 the sentence " using the meta-frontier methodology developed by [19] and [20]." I suggest rewriting it with the name of the authors.
On page 4 first paragraph "...1,000 and 50,000 inhabitants, which represents 82% and 50% respectively of all the municipalities of this population section." I suggest to rephrase the sentence. The meaning is not clear.
Why is it useful table 1?
On page 5 the researchers claim "...the Technology Gap Ratio (TGR), which is the lowest possible cost per municipality" Who says that?
In Table 3 "Tons* quality" Authors must describe what the star is, or they have to remove it.
I suggest to change the title of chapter 4 to " Implementation and results"
On table 4,5,6,7,8 "Source: The authors." I don't think it is necessary
The title of chapter 5 is proposed to be "Discussion and conclusions" (we don't have only one conclusion)
Author Response
Reviewer 3
- Please specify which municipality is small and which is medium. Which are the criteria to categorize them?
Response 1: Based on governed of Law 7/1985, Regulating the Bases of Local Regime (incorporated by Law 53/2003, on measures for the modernization of local government) there are municipalities classified as “large population”, which are those with between 20000 and 50000 inhabitants; “medium population”, with between 5000 and 20000 inhabitants and finally, “small population” with between 1000 and 5000 inhabitants.
This criteria you would find on page 9 to the paper.
- Why did the authors focus on 2014-2016? Why do they choose 2 years and not 5 for example or more?
Response 2: The choice of this period is due to the fact that 2014 is the first year in which information on the actual cost of local public services appears. Stopping in 2016 is due to the fact that from 2017 onwards the sample of municipalities decreased considerably, so we decided that in order to make the sample as representative as possible
- On page 2 the sentence " using the meta-frontier methodology developed by [19] and [20]." I suggest rewriting it with the name of the authors.
Response 3: We acknowledge the comment and we have written the name of the authors.
- On page 4 first paragraph "...1,000 and 50,000 inhabitants, which represents 82% and 50% respectively of all the municipalities of this population section." I suggest to rephrase the sentence. The meaning is not clear.
Response 4: We appreciate the comment. We have to rephrase the sentence.
- Why is it useful table 1?
Response 5: This table is useful to know the quality of the waste collection services based on the availability and cleaning of containers and the collection periodicity. Both characteristics are valued as adequate or inadequate by citizens.
- On page 5 the researchers claim "...the Technology Gap Ratio (TGR), which is the lowest possible cost per municipality" Who says that?
Response 6: We acknowledge the comment. We have cited the reference about that.
- In Table 3 "Tons* quality" Authors must describe what the star is, or they have to remove it.
Response 7: We have removed it.
- I suggest to change the title of chapter 4 to " Implementation and results"
Response 8: we appreciate the comment and we have modified the title of chapter 4.
- On table 4,5,6,7,8 "Source: The authors." I don't think it is necessary
Response 9: We have removed it.
- The title of chapter 5 is proposed to be "Discussion and conclusions" (we don't have only one conclusion)
Response 10: We appreciate the comment and we have modified the title of chapter 5:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors complied with all my indications and the paper can be accepted for now.
