Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REVIEW SUGGESTIONS

Revised Title:

"Facilitating Sustainability Transitions: The Impact of Policy Measures and Stakeholder Engagement"

Abstract:

Important Errors and Corrections:

Line 1:

Error: "The sustainability transition in recent years has received significant attention."
Correction: "The transition to sustainability has garnered considerable attention in recent years."

Line 2:

Error: "It requires addressing various challenges posed by increasing human activities and the consequent environmental impacts."
Correction: "This transition necessitates addressing numerous challenges arising from increased human activities and their consequent environmental impacts."

Line 3:

Error: "This study explores the role of policy measures and stakeholder engagement in facilitating sustainability transition and presents recommendations based on the findings."
Correction: "This study examines the role of policy interventions and stakeholder involvement in facilitating the transition to sustainability and presents recommendations based on the findings."

Line 5:

Error: "Our findings suggest that effective policy measures are crucial in driving sustainability transitions, while active stakeholder engagement ensures the success of these policies."
Correction: "Our findings suggest that effective policy interventions are crucial in driving sustainability transitions, while active stakeholder engagement ensures the success of these policies."

Introduction

Suggestions

Include References:

Add citations to support statements about the importance of sustainable development, the impact of traditional energy sources, and the potential of renewable energy and nanomaterials.

Specific Examples:

Include specific studies or technologies that highlight advancements in renewable energy and nanomaterials to provide concrete evidence for the claims made.

Transitional Phrases:

Use transitional phrases to improve the flow between sentences and paragraphs. For example, "Furthermore," "In addition," "Moreover," and "However."

Detail Advancements:

Expand on the advancements in nanomaterials, providing examples of specific improvements in solar cells, batteries, and fuel cells.

Material and Methods

Suggestions

Add Details:

Provide more specific details about the synthesis parameters. For example, specify the exact temperatures, times, concentrations of precursor solutions, and the ratio of components.

Characterization Techniques:

Include more information about the characterization techniques. For example, describe the conditions under which XRD and SEM were conducted and any specific settings or parameters used.

Electrochemical Measurements:

Detail the conditions of the cyclic voltammetry (CV) and galvanostatic charge-discharge (GCD) tests, such as the scan rate, potential range, and current density.

Ensure Clarity:

Make sure each step of the methods is clearly described to allow reproducibility. Consider including any equipment brands and models used.

Results and Discussion

Suggestions

Avoid Redundancy:

Avoid repeating information already mentioned in the Materials and Methods section. Focus on interpreting and discussing the results.

Specific Data:

Include specific data points, such as the exact values of capacitance, energy density, and any other relevant metrics. Present these data in tables or figures if possible.

Comparative Analysis:

Compare the results with previous studies or expected outcomes. Discuss any deviations or improvements in detail.

Detailed Interpretation:

Provide a deeper interpretation of the results, explaining the significance of the findings and how they contribute to the field.

Discuss Limitations:

Address any limitations of the study or areas where the results could be improved. Suggest future research directions to address these limitations.

Conclusion

Suggestions

Summarize Key Findings:

Clearly summarize the key findings of the study, emphasizing the most significant results.

Highlight Contributions:

Highlight the contributions of the study to the field of renewable energy and nanomaterials. Explain how the findings advance current knowledge.

Future Work:

Provide more detailed suggestions for future research, including specific areas where further investigation is needed.

Practical Implications:

Discuss the practical implications of the findings and how they could be applied in real-world energy storage applications.

Overall Suggestions

Consistency:

Ensure consistency in terminology and units throughout the document.

Grammar and Style:

Review for grammatical errors and ensure the writing style is formal and scientific.

Figures and Tables:

Make sure all figures and tables are properly labeled and referenced in the text. They should be clear and informative, providing visual support for the data discussed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

revised a little

Author Response

Response: Thank you very much for the editor's and the reviewer's careful suggestions. The followed content is reviewer 1's review suggestions in the system, we have some doubts about this. For example, in the Important Errors and Corrections, lines are listed and the specific modification methods are kindly replied. However, these sentences do not exist in our manuscript (sustainability-3128628). We are very interested in your suggestions. We will consider adding your Characterization Techniques and Electrochemical Measurements in other article studies. Of course, this is a hot topic of academic research. Your questions about the details of the language revision will also be of great help to our manuscript (sustainability-3128628). Thanks for your review comments, whether it is for our manuscript or the solid waste management industry. We will consider the opinions of the other two reviewers and find that this manuscript is more in line with the requirements of Sustainability. Thanks again for your revision comments.

With best wishes!

REVIEW SUGGESTIONS

Revised Title:

"Facilitating Sustainability Transitions: The Impact of Policy Measures and Stakeholder Engagement"

Abstract:

Important Errors and Corrections:

Line 1:

Error: "The sustainability transition in recent years has received significant attention."
Correction: "The transition to sustainability has garnered considerable attention in recent years."

Line 2:

Error: "It requires addressing various challenges posed by increasing human activities and the consequent environmental impacts."
Correction: "This transition necessitates addressing numerous challenges arising from increased human activities and their consequent environmental impacts."

Line 3:

Error: "This study explores the role of policy measures and stakeholder engagement in facilitating sustainability transition and presents recommendations based on the findings."
Correction: "This study examines the role of policy interventions and stakeholder involvement in facilitating the transition to sustainability and presents recommendations based on the findings."

Line 5:

Error: "Our findings suggest that effective policy measures are crucial in driving sustainability transitions, while active stakeholder engagement ensures the success of these policies."
Correction: "Our findings suggest that effective policy interventions are crucial in driving sustainability transitions, while active stakeholder engagement ensures the success of these policies."

Introduction

Suggestions

Include References:

Add citations to support statements about the importance of sustainable development, the impact of traditional energy sources, and the potential of renewable energy and nanomaterials.

Specific Examples:

Include specific studies or technologies that highlight advancements in renewable energy and nanomaterials to provide concrete evidence for the claims made.

Transitional Phrases:

Use transitional phrases to improve the flow between sentences and paragraphs. For example, "Furthermore," "In addition," "Moreover," and "However."

Detail Advancements:

Expand on the advancements in nanomaterials, providing examples of specific improvements in solar cells, batteries, and fuel cells.

Material and Methods

Suggestions

Add Details:

Provide more specific details about the synthesis parameters. For example, specify the exact temperatures, times, concentrations of precursor solutions, and the ratio of components.

Characterization Techniques:

Include more information about the characterization techniques. For example, describe the conditions under which XRD and SEM were conducted and any specific settings or parameters used.

Electrochemical Measurements:

Detail the conditions of the cyclic voltammetry (CV) and galvanostatic charge-discharge (GCD) tests, such as the scan rate, potential range, and current density.

Ensure Clarity:

Make sure each step of the methods is clearly described to allow reproducibility. Consider including any equipment brands and models used.

Results and Discussion

Suggestions

Avoid Redundancy:

Avoid repeating information already mentioned in the Materials and Methods section. Focus on interpreting and discussing the results.

Specific Data:

Include specific data points, such as the exact values of capacitance, energy density, and any other relevant metrics. Present these data in tables or figures if possible.

Comparative Analysis:

Compare the results with previous studies or expected outcomes. Discuss any deviations or improvements in detail.

Detailed Interpretation:

Provide a deeper interpretation of the results, explaining the significance of the findings and how they contribute to the field.

Discuss Limitations:

Address any limitations of the study or areas where the results could be improved. Suggest future research directions to address these limitations.

Conclusion

Suggestions

Summarize Key Findings:

Clearly summarize the key findings of the study, emphasizing the most significant results.

Highlight Contributions:

Highlight the contributions of the study to the field of renewable energy and nanomaterials. Explain how the findings advance current knowledge.

Future Work:

Provide more detailed suggestions for future research, including specific areas where further investigation is needed.

Practical Implications:

Discuss the practical implications of the findings and how they could be applied in real-world energy storage applications.

Overall Suggestions

Consistency:

Ensure consistency in terminology and units throughout the document.

Grammar and Style:

Review for grammatical errors and ensure the writing style is formal and scientific.

Figures and Tables:

Make sure all figures and tables are properly labeled and referenced in the text. They should be clear and informative, providing visual support for the data discussed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

One remark for previous submission were not taken into account:

Line 28: “…exploring the sustainable development potential of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao model”. I didn’t find any model analysis in the paper.

Materials and methods

1. Section 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 contain no any information on methods used in the study. This is known information from a literature. Instead, authors are encouraged to explain how this study was performed (except network analysis - it is clearly described)

2. Part of the section 2.4 (Lines 165-187) describes the results and must be placed in relevant section

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality of English language is acceptable

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

One remark for previous submission were not taken into account:

Line 28: “…exploring the sustainable development potential of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao model”. I didn’t find any model analysis in the paper.

Response: Thank you for this comment. As for "…exploring the sustainable development potential of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao model" proposed in Abstract, we have changed model to mode to avoid ambiguity. Furthermore, we have made content additions in the paper (see 3.2.3, line 28 and 327-330). In addition, we have made specific recommendations for implementing the sustainable development pattern (see 3.3).

Materials and methods

Section 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 contain no any information on methods used in the study. This is known information from a literature. Instead, authors are encouraged to explain how this study was performed (except network analysis - it is clearly described)

Response: Thank you for this good suggestion. It has been followed. The section of materials and methods has been wholly adjusted. To ensure the integrity of the article, we have reduced 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 instead of deleting them. In addition, we have also supplemented some detailed information in 2.4 network analysis. Please see line 139-142, 152 and 154-155.

Part of the section 2.4 (Lines 165-187) describes the results and must be placed in relevant section

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have adjusted Part of the section 2.4 network analysis method to the result section 3.1. Please see line 164-175 of new version.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality of English language is acceptable

Response: Thanks a lot for your recognition and advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article concerns a very important and current problem of solid waste management. This is especially important and difficult in China, which is developing rapidly and has a large population. The authors conducted research on the disposal of solid waste from many sources, including park management in some cities in China. The article has an appropriate structure. The added content increased the value of the article and it is substantively complete. Below are the reviewer's detailed comments:

· The abstract has been well-revised. Provides general information on waste management. The methodology and the main observations and conclusions from the conducted research are described. All this makes the abstract complete.

· the introduction well-added classifications of municipal solid waste, described regulations regarding the operation of industrial parks in China and challenges regarding waste. management. The authors also specified the purpose of the manuscript and the research being conducted. According to the reviewer, the introduction is adequate and complete.

· Table 1 - according to the reviewer, presenting the data in the table in the form of a bar chart will be more transparent and will enable easier comparison of data.

· the methodology is described comprehensively, Figure 1 has been corrected.

· Results - added information about the energy center and the transformation of thermal waste, which is valuable information. Also strong points are Suggestions for industrial park sustainable development and Advanced of China's solid waste industry development, where the approaches of developed countries to waste management are compared in some way.

· the conclusions have been rewritten and are correct.

· throughout the text, the unit ton appears in the context of the amount of waste. According to the reviewer, it would be better to use the Mg unit.

· the text requires minor linguistic corrections.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response: Thank you very much. We have modified in detail to make the manuscript more substantive and readable according to the comments and suggestion from reviewers and editors. Please see line 62-64, 104-105, 115,123-126, 128-129, 135-137, 139-142, 152, 154-155, 164-175 and 327-330.

The abstract has been well-revised. Provides general information on waste management. The methodology and the main observations and conclusions from the conducted research are described. All this makes the abstract complete.

Response: We’re very appreciated with your hard work and careful revision to help us improve this manuscript for publication. Thank you.

the introduction well-added classifications of municipal solid waste, described regulations regarding the operation of industrial parks in China and challenges regarding waste. management. The authors also specified the purpose of the manuscript and the research being conducted. According to the reviewer, the introduction is adequate and complete.

Response: Thank you again for your good suggestions and comments in each round.

Table 1 - according to the reviewer, presenting the data in the table in the form of a bar chart will be more transparent and will enable easier comparison of data.

Response: According to your suggestion, we have modified Table 1 into a bar chart as Figure 1 to make manuscript data more transparent and accessible. Please see line 62-64 in the new version.

the methodology is described comprehensively, Figure 1 has been corrected.

Response: Thank you for your approval of the revised manuscript.

Results - added information about the energy center and the transformation of thermal waste, which is valuable information. Also strong points are Suggestions for industrial park sustainable development and Advanced of China's solid waste industry development, where the approaches of developed countries to waste management are compared in some way.

Response: Thank you for the amendments you proposed during the last round of review. We made specific changes to make this manuscript more complete and readable.

the conclusions have been rewritten and are correct.

Response: Thanks to you and other reviewers for suggestions, this manuscript is even better.

throughout the text, the unit ton appears in the context of the amount of waste. According to the reviewer, it would be better to use the Mg unit.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We consider Mg unit you proposed is good, but according to the magnitude of the data in this manuscript, we choose a larger million ton (Mt) as the unit of the manuscript in response to your suggestion, and unify the whole text.

the text requires minor linguistic corrections.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Response: Thank you for your careful guidance of this manuscript. We have further sought more experts and professional language institutions for detailed revision and polishing. Hope English language of this version is much improved to meet the journal’s requirements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Analysis of solid waste treatment and management in typical industrial parks of China with the goal of sustainable development and future suggestions

With an emphasis on technical approaches (landfill, incineration, digestion by anaerobic bacteria, and aerobic compost), the evaluation of networks, and case studies of industrial parks, the paper investigates solid waste removal and management in China. The findings emphasize how crucial cooperative recycling and disposal are to protecting the environment and conserving resources. In order to overcome the dispute over economic development and environmental conservation, the study recommends tactics like sharing-saving-cycling, propagandist education, and environmentally friendly and green activities. This will support sustainable urban development.

The need for solid waste disposal in China is expanding quickly, which is driving the development of industrial parks for recycling and trash treatment. Depending on the size of the city, various disposal alternatives are recommended to increase sustainability and efficiency: cycle mode for megacities, urban-rural integration for large-medium cities, and collaborative disposal for small- to medium-sized cities. There are three main points highlighted:

1. Sharing-saving-recycling: to maximize the reuse of waste resources, centralized construction, technology sharing, and resource cooperation are employed.

2. Publicity and education: Through public events and media, government agencies and educational institutions should encourage recycling of waste, waste classification, and environmental awareness.

3. Green and low-carbon concepts: most cities aim to create a low-carbon and environmentally friendly demonstration park by utilizing new energy, water flow, material distribution, and novel technology.

By implementing resource intensification, these policies seek to tackle environmental issues, promote sustainable development, and increase the effectiveness of solid waste disposal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

average

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed manuscript sustainability-3020370 titled „Analysis of solid waste treatment and management in typical industrial parks of China with the goal of sustainable development and future suggestions” under its current state is in my opinion unpublishable in Sustainability by MDPI.

The type of paper was described by the Authors as “Article”, thus, it should contain scientific research and should be composed according to the IMRAD method (Introduction, Materials and methods, Results and Discussion). But, there is no precise scientific aim of the research defined in the paper and the detailed presentation of research methodology is missing. Paper contains, beside the introductory part and some literature keywords analysis, only description of three solid waste management systems in the selected industrial parks in China. No comparative analysis of several presented systems of solid waste management on selected locations (which selection key was also unclear) was presented. There is a significant amount of quantitative data presented in the supplementary materials which was hardly used and discussed in the main text of manuscript. Moreover, no statistical procedures were used to analyze and compare the presented data. There is also a discussion part missing in this paper. The presented conclusions are hardly related to main text of manuscript. Moreover, “Conclusions” part looks like the presentation of general information, typical for the introductory part, with numerous literature references quoted.

In my opinion this paper should be completely rearranged and rewritten to fit requirements for the scientific reports – original papers.

Additionally, please find below the several detailed issues found in the text:

L 22-40 Abstract should be precise and informative, thus should present briefly aim of the paper, applied methodology, obtained results and drawn conclusions.

L 61 “Major cities” where?

L 62-68 The references should be provided according to Sustainability requirements.

L 70-72 References for presented data are missing.

L 87 The presented sentence does not reflect the typical aim of a scientific paper, rather is suitable to the popular paper.

L 98 Worldwide or China? Please be precise. Additionally, is quoted literature a primary source of information concerning the actual data and state of knowledge?

L 150 and below “Network analysis method” is a part of methodology applied in this paper? If so, it should be placed in “Materials and methods” section.

Fig. 1. Captions are hardly visible.

Fig. 2. Hardly readable, lacking units. Are these results of this research?

Figs. 3-5. All figures should be self-explanatory. Thus meaning of different colors should be explained in the figure legend, not only below the figure, in its captions.

Fig. 6. Why this figure is presented in “Conclusions” section? Is it presenting the outcome of your research? How it was elaborated, basing on what data? How this scheme is related to sustainable development? Was the used quantitative data discussed according to the three main pillars of sustainability: environmental, social and economic?

L 337 and below “Conclusions”, which is not obligatory in Sustainability, MDPI, should present underlined main findings from the discussion of the results of research. Here, without the Discussion section and without properly presented obtained results, Conclusions chapter looks like prolonged Introduction, presenting information from references. Conclusions should be rewritten and should contain bullet-pointed main and most important findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is fine and readable, in my opinion only moderate editing is required.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper contains a few analysis but more literature review. My remarks are as follows:

Abstract

1. Lines 26-27: “…network analysis was applied for seeking an optimized solid waste disposal method”. In the appropriate section (3.1), there is no optimized solid waste disposal methodю

2. Lines 29-30: “…exploring the sustainable development potential of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao model”. I didn’t find any model analysis in the paper.

Introduction

1. The terminology must be reviewed since list of waste (lines 50-51) does not correspond to the list in the Table 1.

2. Introduction also must include some information on industrial parks because they unexpectedly appear in the end.

3. The section “Material and methods” is usually used to describe the methodology of study. Lines 84-87 contain some information that can be moved to Material and methods.

Solid waste disposal technology

1. This section is a prolongation of the introduction as it introduces known facts. But for introduction, you don’t need so much details otherwise introduction becomes too long.

2. Line 91: “…solid wastes are difficult to dispose…” – perhaps authors mean difficult to decompose?

Solid waste management

1. Lines 151-159: this is definitely a part for Material and methods section

2. Line 184. What is “venous industrial park”?

3. Subsection 3.1 looks not related to other parts of the paper and is out of scope.

4. Subsection 3.2 must include more clear explanation what is “solid waste management demonstration park”. From the text, it is not clear.

5. Fig. 2 contains the volume of solid waste, while the reference text for this figure contains “volume of general industrial waste and hazardous waste” (lines 193-194).

6. Lines 195-197: Here is the information on typical solid waste management parks, though previously only demonstration park was mentioned.

7. What is a difference between solid waste disposal park in the small-medium cities and large-medium cities? From subsections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, one can conclude that similar system is used: recycling (treatment) – incineration – landfilling of incineration residues. If authors distinguish waste disposal park for different size of cities, then some summary must be provided in order to analyze the differences. Subsection 3.2 is mainly based on literature review, not an original research of authors. In current form, it is the overview of waste management in cities.

8. Lines 255-256: “Taking the Yangtze River Economic Belt as an example, the basic idea is to promote the urban-rural integration to build a new model of collaborative solid waste disposal”. There is no any new model in this section.

Conclusions

1. References and figures in a conclusion is not accepted.

2. Conclusion seems to consist of literature review.

General remarks

1. I didn’t find any results received by the authors except the short key-words analysis of publications on selected topic.

2. English language editing is needed

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language editing is needed

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article concerns a very important and current problem regarding solid waste management. This is especially crucial and difficult in China, which is growing rapidly and has a population of people. The authors conducted a study on the disposal of solid waste from multiple sources, as well as on the management of parks in some cities in China. The article has an appropriate structure. Each chapter is well-thought-out and has comprehensive content. The authors performed a good literature review and put a lot of effort and work into creating the manuscript. However, the work lacks a comparison of the waste management system with other countries and requires language correction. The reviewer presents his comments below:

· abstract - abstract is very general. Please improve the abstract to include more details about management in typical industrial parks of China

· Introduction - it is worth writing in general at the beginning that human activity is associated with the generation of waste, sewage and air pollution, and then move on to solid waste.

· Line 61 – „tonnes”, please consider using Mg units throughout the manuscript

· Table 1 - please consider presenting your table data as a bar chart. Then it would be easier to compare the data

· Line 132 – replace „these volatiles” with this volatiles

· Lines 151-152 – „In order to improve the efficiency of multi-source solid waste disposal and management [46], network analysis tool named VOSviewer 1.6.18 was applied”. Please describe the details of how the tool works, how the algorithms are used, and then how the data is used. Authors can also refer to articles that used this tool to create publications.

· Fig.1. Please enlarge the font of individual inscriptions in the drawing as much as possible

· Line 205 – replace „ accouting” with accounting

· Lines 266-278 - the sentence requires linguistic improvement

· There is no comparison of China's waste management system with other countries. Please add a section before your conclusions in which you compare the waste management system in China with systems e.g. in the USA and Europe. Once you complete this information, the article will be comprehensive.

· the article is written understandably, but there are linguistic errors. I ask the authors to have their text proofread by a native speaker.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Review Reports

Revised Title:

Abstract: