Improving Municipal Solid Waste Services: Insights into Efficiency, Productivity, and Recycling in Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

At point 210: what configurations are meant?

At point 211: what national policies are meant?

At point 253: what efficiency gain is considered?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

By analyzing the interaction between efficiency, productivity, and recyclable material recovery policies for MSW services in Brazil, this article finds that recycling policies are negatively correlated with service efficiency and technological progress, and are influenced by factors such as population density, GDP, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Some problems still need to be strengthened.

1. Lines 13-25: The article mentions that the use of the "dynamic DEA (DSBM)" model is one of the innovations of this study. Does the author fully explain the differences and advantages of this model compared with the traditional method? Can you specifically explain its necessity in the research objectives?

2. Lines 105-108: The article mentions that the research objective is to analyze the interaction between recycling policy of recyclable materials and efficiency and productivity. Is the research hypothesis or question clear in the introduction? A description of research on MSW is missing from the Introduction, please refer to

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.109196

3. Lines 109-119: Does the author mention the contribution of research to the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals), in particular SDGS 12 and 6, detailing how methods can be used to achieve these goals?

4. Line 254-281: The data sample covers 199 MSW. How did the author ensure that the sample data are representative in terms of geographical distribution and time span? Are the effects of outliers or unavailable data excluded?

5. Line 293-322: The author classifies "carry-over" (intertemporal variable) and classifies operating expenditure as "bad transfer variable". Is there any relevant literature or case to support the rationality of this classification?

6. The authors provide a detailed description of the dynamic data envelopment analysis (DEA) and Malmquist productivity index, but the transparency of data sources and preprocessing needs to be improved. Authors are advised to detail the data collection process, data cleaning steps, and any possible handling of missing data or outliers.

7. Graphs and tables in the paper may need further refinement to improve visual clarity and ease of understanding.

8. The content of some literature reviews is relatively broad, and the limitations and differential contributions of existing studies are not fully discussed. It is suggested to supplement more literature on solid waste management efficiency in Brazil or other developing countries to highlight the research differences in the articles.

9. Lines 117-118: Are there sufficient data to support the author's conjecture about the effectiveness of regulations, such as the 2024 regulation, when he mentions that they may provide incentives for the recycling industry?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides an in-depth analysis of the interaction between efficiency, productivity, and recyclable material recycling policies in Brazilian municipal solid waste (MSW) services, which is of great significance for understanding and improving waste management practices. Therefore, I would recommend the publication of the manuscript after minor revisions. This paper is attractive but some point needs to be further addressed. 

1. I noticed that the discussion on international comparisons in the literature review section of the article is relatively limited. Given that waste management is a global issue and different countries have adopted different strategies and policies in MSW management, author should expand the literature review section to include comparative analysis of research on MSW management efficiency and productivity in other countries. This will help readers better understand the position of Brazilian MSW management practices in a global context. 

2. I suggest the author further discuss the implications of the research results for future research directions in the conclusion section. For example, has the study identified which specific policy areas require further research? What factors may have the greatest impact on improving MSW management efficiency and productivity? 

3. The article mentions the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on MSW management, but does not provide a detailed analysis of the nature and extent of this impact. Further exploration is needed on the impact of the pandemic on the efficiency and productivity of MSW service providers. 

4. The time range covered by the study is from 2013 to 2022. This time constraint may affect the long-term trend analysis and predictive ability of the results. It is necessary to consider whether it is necessary to expand the time range of the data to obtain a more comprehensive understanding.

 5. Can the research results be extended to other countries or regions outside of Brazil? The article needs to discuss the universality and limitations of its findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed this article, its study on solid waste recycling and management has some contributions to scientific community. But I think it is not suitable for publication at present edition. The reason is as follows:

1. The introduction is too long, many addressed are repeated, it should be more concise. 

For example, in page 2. paragraph 3 and 4 represent the same meaning, it seems to be similar.

2.  In page 3, author said "our findings reveal a scenario of inadequate waste disposal and

greater inefficiency among operators with selective collection systems, highlighting gaps

in implementation and incentives for the recycling industry."  In fact, author has expressed the same means at the previous context.  How to show the innovativeness of this article?

3. In abstract, many abbreviations were showed. It should be not so because readers do not understand these abbreviatoins.  

4. In context, many abbreviation fist appear, but the full names did not be offered. For example, in line 44, page 2, BRICS.  at the same page, UN Agenda 21;  line 81 in page 2, DEA,  many thus error in many places, etc.

5. line 134 in page 3, "literature" should be "literatures"

6. In the whole context, many places, the sentences were written using the red color, others using black.  Why ?

7.  In the whole context, many sentences are too long, which is not conducive to understand fully. Author should use concise sentences as possible as.

8. In page 9, line 385, what is OECD ?  please clarify it.  at the same line, "CO2" should be " CO₂".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. adjust the positions of figures and tables to remove the blanks

2. revise each sentence carefully to remove plagiarism. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article analyzes the efficiency, productivity, and recycling policies in Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) services in Brazil. This study is novel as the research on Brazilian Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) efficiency using DSBM and GEE modeling is limited. The study showed a negative relationship between recyclable material recovery and MSW efficiency, which are significant as they offer a new perspective on MSW efficiency.

This paper can be accepted after minor revision:

(1)  A rationale for separately focusing on efficiency and productivity and how these relate to broader sustainability concerns.

(2)  The study focuses exclusively on efficiency and productivity, without considering the potential environmental benefits of recycling. Please highlight the environmental outcomes and impact. This can be done at the end of the abstract.  Likewise, consider the environmental benefits of recycling, even if it comes at the cost of efficiency.

(3)  Figure 1 is repeated. i.e. the caption of Figure 2 is wrong, pls. correct and verify all tables and figures through the text.

(4) Please provide examples of recent studies that have close results similar to the finding in this study.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good of presentations

Author Response

Thank you for the comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has been revised and improved according to the reviewers and agrees to be hired

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After careful review of your submitted paper 'Improving Municipal Solid Waste Services: Insights on Efficiency, Productivity and Recycling in Brazil', I regret to inform you that the paper did not pass peer review and cannot be published in the journal 'Sustainability'. The following are main reasons for rejection:

1.The author did not carefully read the proposed opinions, resulting in varying degrees of formatting errors throughout the entire text, such as line 276, “Sharholy et al. [37]Cruz et al. [19]Incorporating selective collection (selective col-lection) and recycling into eco-efficiency measurement.”

2.The entire text contains various grammatical errors, such as line 274.

3.Although you used the Dynamic Data Envelopment Analysis (DSBM) model to evaluate the efficiency and productivity of municipal solid waste (MSW) services in Brazil, the model may have limitations when dealing with large-scale panel data. For example, the DSBM model may not accurately capture all relevant factors affecting efficiency and productivity when dealing with decision units (DMUs) of different sizes and heterogeneity. In addition, the model requires high robustness of the data, and the data you provide may have certain missing values and outliers, which may affect the reliability of the model results. We suggest that you consider introducing other supplementary models or methods, such as stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) or network data envelopment analysis (NDEA), to enhance the diversity of research methods and the robustness of results.

4.The chart names in the text are incorrect, please carefully check.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript revised version (sustainability-3328192) and thought it still needed to be revised carefully before the formal publication.  The reasons are as the following:

1. Some abbreviations still are not corrected, authors only corrected the places pointed by reviewers. For example, in abstract, line 13 to 14.   in this context, the study employed Slacks-based Dynamic Data Envelopment Analysis-DEA (DSBM),  How to understand it?  Which is abbreviation ? DEA or DSBM?
2. The same mistake appear in page 2 line 94, Please correct it. 
3. In page 22, line 742 to 749, this paragraph still used the red word to write, why?
4. In the whole revised manuscript, many sentences are too long to understand by reader, at least by reviewer as me. Authors should revise and make them more concise to fully understand by reader before publication if possible.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

  Some sentence still is too long to be fully understood by reader in the future after possible publication.  

Author Response

.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have addressed all comments. The manuscript can be accepted at this point.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article focuses on the dynamic relationship between the efficiency, productivity, and recyclability policies of municipal solid waste (MSW) services in Brazil. Using methods such as dynamic relaxation basis data envelopment analysis (DSBM) model and generalized estimation equation (GEE), the data from 2013 to 2022 were analyzed in depth. The research findings revealed the efficiency and productivity issues of MSW services in Brazil, and explored the impact of recyclability policies on these indicators. The research method of the article is scientific and reasonable, with detailed data and clear logic, which has important theoretical and practical significance for understanding solid waste management in Brazil and other developing countries. Overall, I believe this article has high academic value and is worth recommending for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.