Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper’s title aligns well with the study's content and objectives. It aligns with the journal's focus on sustainability. However, some findings and remarks should be taken into account:

 - abstract could benefit from clearer articulation of specific findings and their implications for waste management practices,

- reducing redundancy in the introduction could improve clarity of the paper.

- the framework for integrating WebGIS into waste management practices is more conceptual than actionable, case studies would strengthen the proposed methodology. I recommend to read a paper "21 - Application of remote sensing and GIS in integrated solid waste management - a short review"

- the analysis lacks a detailed assessment of how the zero-waste model interacts with varying socio-economic and political conditions. The paper acknowledges the challenges of digitizing waste management systems but does not sufficiently explore the financial, technical and human aspects that might obstruct implementation. In general the paper would benefit from deeper exploration of barriers, stakeholder roles and practical implementation pathways.

- why authors indicate figures in text as Figure 0x, when figures are sign as Figure x

Author Response

In the box

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

Please rewrite your objective in a more concise manner. A good practice is to use the template "The aim of this paper is to...", similar to what is presented in the introduction section.

In general, the authors need to rewrite the abstract to be more objective, including a brief definition of the objective, method, and results.

 

1.        Introduction

Although well-founded, the introduction section needs adjustments to improve clarity and objectivity. One suggestion is for the authors to structure it as follows: the theme addressed and the relationship between variables, the observed gap, the objective, and the presentation of the paper’s structure.

Any content exceeding this structure can be reviewed and moved to the literature review section.

 

2.        Material and Methods

Similarly, the methodology section should present only the methodology used in the paper. Figure 1 provides a good illustration of what is expected in the methodology section for this type of work.

Another suggestion is for the authors to review the necessity of including citations in the methodology section, particularly outdated ones, such as the Lévy reference from 1997.

In this section, the authors mention a questionnaire, but its structure, analysis method, and target audience are not presented.

In the results check phase, even if there is subjective analysis, the authors need to indicate the criteria for this analysis. Please check the spelling.

Overall, many topics related to the methodology were left unexplained. The main suggestion is for the authors to use Figure 1 as a base and provide a brief explanation for each of the stages.

 

3.        Results

The objective of this section is unclear. If these are the results from the literature review mentioned in the previous section, this section must contribute to the main objective of the paper. This needs to be made clear to the reader.

A critical analysis in the paragraph starting at line 336 is a good example of this lack of clarity, which can be adjusted!

Please consider providing Figure 4 in English.

It is unclear how the authors constructed the proposed models shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4. This issue can be addressed once the material and methods section is clarified.

 

4.        Discussion

The discussions are too brief for the work carried out. This is the section where the authors should discuss the proposed model, how it can be validated (if applicable), and other relevant points. Again, this section would benefit from clarification in the methodology section. Given the large volume of literature on the topic of zero waste cities, it is assumed the authors have sufficient material to support their discussions.

 

5.        Conclusions

Please adhere to the journal’s formatting rules.

With a clearly structured methodology, the authors should focus on presenting only the conclusions of their work in this section.

The authors need to present both theoretical and practical applications. A good practice is to remind the reader of the initial objective and explain how each stage of the paper contributed to the conclusions.

An additional valuable point is to list practical actions in bullet points.

Author Response

In the box

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments concerning manuscript sustainability-3366283

General comments:

The authors of the text explore the complex challenge of waste management and propose the use of digital solutions, particularly WebGIS, to address it. They hypothesize that a systemic and disruptive innovation process in the economic value chain and municipal solid waste management, supported by WebGIS, can contribute to achieving a circular economy and zero-waste cities. Through exploratory bibliographic research, they analyze concepts of sustainability, zero-waste methodologies, and digital governance frameworks. Their work aims to develop an initial model for digital government policies aligned with national waste and circular economy policies, presenting preliminary research findings. The subject is interesting, but the manuscript quality is poor and an important revision is required. The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in this Journal under its present form. To help the authors in the eventual revision of the manuscript, some relevant comments are listed below:

-  Clarify what is the diagram made with ChatGPT, it is not understood.

-  If the figure is cited like “Figure 01”, then, the caption must be “Figure 01” and not be “Figure 1”.

-  Please, the references must be written like “et al.”, with final point. Also, the references in line 295 need to be corrected (Zang at all). Please, check all references.

-   Objective and novelty must be included in the introduction, not in the conclusion.

-   The conclusions section should not contain references

 

 

Final assessment: Minor Revision is required.

Author Response

In the box

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I do not have any additional remarks. All my previous considerations were taken into account.