Assessing the Ecological Cost of Material Flow in China’s Waste Paper Recycling System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments are listed below:

-        I find the title of the paper a little confusing. Please provide a clearer and more straightforward title. Also, it should definitely be mentioned that this study refers to China. A better title might be: "Assessing the Ecological Cost of Material and Energy Flow in China's Waste Paper Recycling System" or "Ecological Cost Assessment of Material and Energy Flow in Waste Paper Recycling: A Focus on China"

-        The abstract is quite lengthy. The first eight lines of the abstract are redundant. The style of the English language is also questionable and requires expert proofreading, as it is difficult to read and some sentences are too long.

-        The literature review section in the introduction is too long and not properly structured. I recommend that the literature review becomes a separate section, and then you find a logical flow to how you present the existing literature — either by methodological approach or by groupings of similar findings. It needs a more logical flow.

-        The rest of the introduction lacks a clearly stated aim of the paper, information about the novelty of the paper, and an outline on the remainder of the paper. You need to show why this paper is novel, worth reading, and what gap in the literature gap it fills.

-        Are there any specific assumptions made in constructing the "closed one-way" benchmark material flow diagram?

-        How was MFA specifically applied to track and analyze the flow and quantity of materials within the recycling system? Details on the software tools used would provide clarity on how the analysis was conducted.

-        What are the limitations or challenges of using the LIME method, especially in the context of the Chinese waste paper recycling industry?

-        Considering the specific focus on China's waste paper recycling processes, how generalizable are the findings to other countries or regions with different waste management practices and policies?

-        Was any sensitivity analysis conducted to understand how changes in key variables affect the overall ecological cost?

-        The conclusion needs to be more than just a taxative list of the results of the paper. We need a summary in the form of a regular text, but also clear limitations and directions for future research. The conclusion must be appropriate in both structure and content.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The entire paper has questionable English quality and is, therefore difficult to read. 

Author Response

I thank the reviewers for their constructive evaluation and helpful comments on my article. I have modified the manuscript taking account into the reviewer’s suggestions. Point-by-point responses to all of the review’s comments are given below. 

1、I find the title of the paper a little confusing. Please provide a clearer and more straightforward title. Also, it should definitely be mentioned that this study refers to China. A better title might be: "Assessing the Ecological Cost of Material and Energy Flow in China's Waste Paper Recycling System" or "Ecological Cost Assessment of Material and Energy Flow in Waste Paper Recycling: A Focus on China"

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The title has been revised to 'Assessing the Ecological Cost of Material in China's Waste Paper Recycling System'.

Section 4.2 (4.2 Impact of Each Energy Flow Deviating from the Benchmark Material Flow on Its Ecological Costs) and Section 5.2 (5.2. Impact of Energy Flow of Waste Paper Recycling System on Ecological Cost) on the ecological impacts of energy flows in waste paper recycling systems has been removed to improve the thesis structure and content.

2、The abstract is quite lengthy. The first eight lines of the abstract are redundant. The style of the English language is also questionable and requires expert proofreading, as it is difficult to read and some sentences are too long.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. The abstract has been rewritten in response to the commenter's suggestion. I have revised it as shown on Page 1.

3、The literature review section in the introduction is too long and not properly structured. I recommend that the literature review becomes a separate section, and then you find a logical flow to how you present the existing literature — either by methodological approach or by groupings of similar findings. It needs a more logical flow.

Response: Thank you very much for the suggestion, I have shortened the introduction and the literature review section has been organized according to the methodological approach. To improve logic and coherence, the introduction has been reorganized into the order "Background - Current Status - Methodology - Purpose". Relevant content has also been added and improved based on the following specific comments. I have revised it, see pages 1-3.

4、The rest of the introduction lacks a clearly stated aim of the paper, information about the novelty of the paper, and an outline on the remainder of the paper. You need to show why this paper is novel, worth reading, and what gap in the literature gap it fills.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestions, I have added and improved the relevant content, which I have revised, see pages 1-3.

5、Are there any specific assumptions made in constructing the "closed one-way" benchmark material flow diagram?

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestions, I have made specific assumptions in mapping the 'closed one-way' benchmark material flow, see page 8.

6、How was MFA specifically applied to track and analyze the flow and quantity of materials within the recycling system? Details on the software tools used would provide clarity on how the analysis was conducted.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestions. Various methods can be used to analyze material flows, such as MFA, SFA, and b-MFA. This study aims to analyze the impact of material flows on the ecological costs of the waste paper recycling system. It is crucial to consider the quantities of input and output material flows in the recycling system. The study primarily utilizes the law of conservation of matter in its material flow analysis method to account for the material balance between the input and output of matter in each waste paper recycling system. The relevant software tools for material flow analysis were not used in this study, which is the main idea.

7、What are the limitations or challenges of using the LIME method, especially in the context of the Chinese waste paper recycling industry?

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. The accounting of ecological costs involves considering both internal and external costs associated with resources, energy, and waste. The LIME (Life-cycle Impact Assessment Method based on Endpoint Modeling) method, developed in Japan, is suitable for analyzing the internal and external costs of resources, energy, and waste in China's waste paper recycling industry. This paper utilizes the LIME method to account for the ecological costs resulting from resource depletion and ecological degradation. It is also necessary to establish LIME coefficients that correspond to China's national situation, as the LIME coefficients in the LIME method do not fully reflect the country's situation. It is important to note that the focus of this study is to analyze the influence of material flow on the ecological cost of the waste paper recycling system. Therefore, changes in the 'LIME coefficient' have no impact on this study.

8、Considering the specific focus on China's waste paper recycling processes, how generalizable are the findings to other countries or regions with different waste management practices and policies?

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. This study focuses on the waste paper recycling system and analyzes how the material flows from different input and output waste paper recycling systems impact ecological costs. Similar to waste paper recycling, other waste recycling systems also have input and output material flows that affect the ecological cost of their recycling system. Therefore, the findings of this study can be applied to other countries or regions with different waste recycling management practices.

9、Was any sensitivity analysis conducted to understand how changes in key variables affect the overall ecological cost?

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. The sensitivity analysis method is a technique used to determine the impact of various uncertainty factors on the economic efficiency indicators of an investment project. It identifies the sensitivity factors that have the most significant impact on the project's economic indicators and measures their degree of impact to assess the project's ability to bear risks. By analyzing the degree of sensitivity of the project's economic efficiency indicators to different uncertainty factors, it identifies the sensitivity factors and their maximum changes and assesses the project's risk-bearing capacity accordingly.

In the study, the impact of material flows of the input and output waste paper recycling system on ecological costs is the main focus. Specific data is not used for the analysis; therefore, if the analysis is done with specific data, a sensitivity analysis is necessary due to the possible uncertainty of the data. In the future, we will keep this in mind while performing data analysis. Thank you for the reminder.

10、The conclusion needs to be more than just a taxative list of the results of the paper. We need a summary in the form of a regular text, but also clear limitations and directions for future research. The conclusion must be appropriate in both structure and content.

Response: I appreciate the valuable feedback and suggestions provided by the reviewer. I consulted with several native English speakers and made necessary revisions to improve the language and readability of the manuscript.

I hope the revised manuscript is now acceptable to you. If not, I am glad to receive any further feedback which I shall continue to apply our best effort to address.

Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. I tried my best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in red in the revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. I appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that our responses and edits will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

I feel sorry for our poor writing. We revised the whole manuscript carefully to avoid language errors. In addition, we consulted several colleagues who are native English speakers to check the manuscript. We appreciate your warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript prepared not in accordance with the Journal's requirements. Numerous editorial errors. Abstract should be concise, limited to a maximum of 200 words. Line 377 should be not below, but according to the template (5).

The Author draws attention to the limitations of China's economy due to a lack of respect for the natural environment. Achieving sustainable development has made recycling and the use of renewable resources a crucial issue. Comparing year to year, there is a visible improvement in the recycling rates of ten major waste categories in China, amounting to approximately 10%. This article focuses on paper recycling in China. The author refers to paper as "urban forest," considering it the most important raw material for paper production, constituting 65% of the annual consumption.

The analysis presented in the paper can influence public policy, regulations regarding recycling, and business practices in the industry. It also provides an opportunity to create more sustainable, efficient, and environmentally friendly solutions in the waste recycling sector.

Author Response

I thank the reviewers for their constructive evaluation and helpful comments on my article. I have modified the manuscript taking account into the reviewer’s suggestions. Point-by-point responses to all of the review’s comments are given below.

Manuscript prepared not in accordance with the Journal's requirements. Numerous editorial errors. Abstract should be concise, limited to a maximum of 200 words. Line 377 should be not below, but according to the template (5).

The Author draws attention to the limitations of China's economy due to a lack of respect for the natural environment. Achieving sustainable development has made recycling and the use of renewable resources a crucial issue. Comparing year to year, there is a visible improvement in the recycling rates of ten major waste categories in China, amounting to approximately 10%. This article focuses on paper recycling in China. The author refers to paper as "urban forest," considering it the most important raw material for paper production, constituting 65% of the annual consumption.

The analysis presented in the paper can influence public policy, regulations regarding recycling, and business practices in the industry. It also provides an opportunity to create more sustainable, efficient, and environmentally friendly solutions in the waste recycling sector.

Response: I am grateful for the feedback provided by the reviewers of my paper. I have requested the journal to permit me to revise the manuscript and make necessary corrections. At the moment, I am in the process of revising the abstract to meet the word limit of 200. Additionally, I have incorporated the changes suggested by the reviewers in other sections of the paper.

I hope the revised manuscript is now acceptable to you. If not, I am glad to receive any further feedback which I shall continue to apply our best effort to address.

Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. I tried my best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in red in the revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. I appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that our responses and edits will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

I feel sorry for our poor writing. We revised the whole manuscript carefully to avoid language errors. In addition, we consulted several colleagues who are native English speakers to check the manuscript. We appreciate your warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my comments have been properly addressed. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The quality of the language is improved.