Analysis of Zero-Waste City Policy in China: Based on Three-Dimensional Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comprehensive analysis of China's waste-free city policies using a content analysis methodology. It is well-structured. The three-dimensional analytical framework based on the 'PDDS' model is helpful to provide a structured approach to analyzing the policies. Here are some review comments.

1.     The content analysis is appropriate for the study's objectives, allowing for a systematic examination of a large number of policy documents. It is suggested to clarify the process of manual identification, screening, and filtering of texts to ensure the relevance and accuracy of the data.

2.     While the study provides a detailed analysis of national policies, it could benefit from incorporating perspectives from local governments and other stakeholders involved in the implementation of these policies. Additionally, a comparative analysis with waste-free city policies in other countries could provide a broader context and enhance the study's global relevance.

3.     The format of the references is confused. Pls refer to the guideline of the journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The format of the manuscript should be revised to meet the requirements of the journal.

2. Some first used abbreviations should be explained, e.g. PDDS, etc.

3. The macro results are listed in the abstract and conclusion sections. It is suggested that some numerical results should be supplied in the abstract and conclusion sections. “Firstly, Secondly, Thirdly, etc” are not recommended.

4. The format of references should be unified, e.g. [1] or (D'Adamo et al., 2022)? Choose one?

5. The references of 2024 are less. Some references on waste treatment should be cited and analyzed, e.g., https://doi.org/10.3390/min14100981; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124388.

6. Compared with tables, the amount of figures is less. Figure 3 should be redrawn.

7. The content in Section 4.Conclusions and Suggestion should be simplified.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some syntax errors, sentence errors and other English Language errors that must be corrected, e.g. “Furthermore” is continuously used, etc. Possibly, a native English Language speaking Scientists should be employed for the final editing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the article provides a comprehensive theoretical background through a review of both national and international literature and policy precedents, as well as incorporating previous studies on waste management and zero-waste city policies, the content could benefit from a more critical analysis of the differences and similarities between China's approach and that of other countries in terms of environmental policies.

The "PDDS" (Prevention, Discovery, Disposal, Service) analytical model and the three-dimensional research framework are well-defined. However, it would be advisable to introduce explicit hypotheses, which could better structure the findings and enhance methodological clarity.

The data analysis is rigorous. Nonetheless, the discussion tends to focus excessively on data description rather than interpreting it within a broader or more critical context. Thus, it would be beneficial to allocate more space to a critical analysis that explores the implications of these results for future policy-making in other jurisdictions.

For a more comprehensive perspective, the inclusion of qualitative methodologies, such as interviews with policymakers or case studies, could be considered to complement the analysis. This approach could provide deeper insights into the underlying intentions of the policies examined.

Lastly, the conclusions could be strengthened by adopting a more detailed focus on the research findings rather than relying on a generalized approach.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer cannot support the publication of the manuscript because of the following reasons:

-        The manuscript looks like a technical report rather than a research article. Its scientific merits and contribution remain marginal.

-        The manuscript is definitely not well-prepared. Some important information is missing, e.g., Figure 1 was not referred to in the main text.

-        The English writing of the paper is poor and should be significantly improved.

-        The reference citation style should be consistent throughout the text. But the citations appear jumbled.

-        Part 4, the conclusions and suggestions should be summarized in a concise way.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see my comments above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved according to the comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has improved the manuscript.