Sustainability of the Integrated Waste Management System: A Case Study of Bihor County, Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Tips for Authors

The introduction covers the most important elements. The research method requires clarification. The research includes existing analyses, no real measurements.

There are many tables in the work that were taken from many sources - the authors did not clearly indicate the place of origin.

The review should also include your own research in this area. On this basis, it would be useful to prepare a study that would compare existing studies with our own research.

Achieving sustainable development and energy conservation should involve conducting an initial statistical analysis including real data or sample fragments of simulations.

On this basis, it can be concluded whether there are opportunities to increase energy recovery (as the authors claim) - if so, what technological solutions exist? – at what point in technology can a technical improvement be introduced.  This is where preliminary calculations of indicators that can confirm or deny this phenomenon would be useful.

A number of criteria are listed as corrective actions, but forecasting must be based on an analysis of current technologies with an indication of improvement actions, even within a narrow scope.  At these stages you may be tempted to set emission levels.

Conclusions too general, should include direct analysis.

Author Response

Comments 1: The introduction covers the most important elements. The research method requires clarification. The research includes existing analyses, no real measurements.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your recommendations, they were very helpful for us. We have revised the whole paper, both the abstract and the introductory part have been redone to explain more clearly the state of the art in Integrated Waste Management System research, as well as our research hypothesis, to highlight the sustainability aspects in our case study in Bihor county, Romania. The research methodology was clarified for better accuracy.

Comments 2: There are many tables in the work that were taken from many sources - the authors did not clearly indicate the place of origin.

Response 2: It uses a rigorous approach for estimating the amount of waste generated in Bihor until 2040, based on socio-economic, demographic and macroeconomic factors. The projections are detailed and include several scenarios, providing a realistic picture of future developments.

Comments 3: The review should also include your own research in this area. On this basis, it would be useful to prepare a study that would compare existing studies with our own research.

Response 3: The presentation of the results has been refined to go beyond a description of the current situation and analyzes three alternatives for waste management: maintaining the current system ("zero alternatives") and two alternatives with investments in infrastructure. This comparative approach allows a clear assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

Comments 4: Achieving sustainable development and energy conservation should involve conducting an initial statistical analysis including real data or sample fragments of simulations.

Response 4: The study has been refined to focus on reducing biodegradable waste landfilling, increasing recycling rates and energy recovery, thus aligning with EU targets. The proposals included can significantly contribute to improving the sustainability of the system.

Comments 5: On this basis, it can be concluded whether there are opportunities to increase energy recovery (as the authors claim) - if so, what technological solutions exist? – at what point in technology can a technical improvement be introduced.  This is where preliminary calculations of indicators that can confirm or deny this phenomenon would be useful.

Response 5: The paper not only analyzes the current situation but also provides a forecast up to 2040, using demographic and economic data to estimate the amounts of waste generated. This makes the study more valuable for policy makers and long-term planning.

Comments 6: A number of criteria are listed as corrective actions, but forecasting must be based on an analysis of current technologies with an indication of improvement actions, even within a narrow scope.  At these stages you may be tempted to set emission levels.

Response 6: The issue of waste management sustainability is of great importance, both at national and European level, in the context of the transition to the circular economy. The study analyzes a specific county in Romania, providing a local perspective on a global issue.

Comments 7: Conclusions too general, should include direct analysis.

Response 7: The conclusions take into account the concrete case study (Bihor), and thus it is necessary to provide through the paper relevant information for local authorities and sanitation operators, who can use the findings and recommendations to improve waste management in the county.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current study focuses on analyzing the projection of the quantity of waste generated in Bihor County for the period 2020-2040, with an emphasis on the objectives set for the years 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and the end of the planning period in 2040. The study addresses socio-economic, mac-economic, demographic, household income, economic activities, quantities and compositions, waste flows to achieve realistic projections. The investigation analyzes three alternatives, including the "zero" option and two alternatives involving new investments to achieve the objectives.

The research topic is important and relevant to the sustainability journal. However, it contains too much data and reads more like a report than a journal article. Anyhow, the authors should make substantial changes including reconsidering the overall structure before the manuscript is accepted for publication.

General concept comments

• Authors need to improve the abstract by adding some key findings and conclusions, currently it is mainly describing what the study contains and methodology.
• I think the novelty statement in the final paragraph of introduction can be further refined to make a strong case.
• The results and discussion section is very weak and must be improved. Currently, authors just added lots of tables with huge data and the results interpretation is weak, the discussion style does not match with standard journal articles. There is cross comparison of this study results with other published data, in fact there is not even a single citation in this whole section.
• The conclusion section also needs improvement, there is no need to reinstate the aim of the study in the conclusion section. Author should clearly write the main solutions found and what were there conclusion with respect to the proposed methodology.
• Where did authors got the waste generated data from? Why some of the figures are too similar year by year, for example, table 1 mixed household waste from year 2014, 2015 and 2017 are almost exactly the same?
• Similar data issues in table 2, for example, urban and rural household waste seem too small, 33 kg/inhabitant/year ?
• The manuscript contains 46 tables with huge data sets, which are too many in my opinion. Authors should re-consider arranging the data and tables, may be some of the data can go to supplementary.
• Authors should re-structure and use more balanced sized paragraphs, currently there are many only 2-3 lines paragraphs, and organize all sections properly.

Specific comments

• Authors should use commas between figures, for example, line 336, “156401 tons in 2020 to 152603 tons in 2025” should be changed to 156,401 tons in 2020 to 152,603 tons in 2025.
• Line 397, correct “collectionOver the 2020-2040”.
• Subscripts are missing in many places, for example, CO2 in line 467, 482, 487, 491 and many more.
• I don’t think you need and in the authors list.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language in this manuscript can be further improved for clarity and readability

Author Response

Comments 1: The current study focuses on analyzing the projection of the quantity of waste generated in Bihor County for the period 2020-2040, with an emphasis on the objectives set for the years 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and the end of the planning period in 2040. The study addresses socio-economic, mac-economic, demographic, household income, economic activities, quantities and compositions, waste flows to achieve realistic projections. The investigation analyzes three alternatives, including the "zero" option and two alternatives involving new investments to achieve the objectives.The research topic is important and relevant to the sustainability journal. However, it contains too much data and reads more like a report than a journal article. Anyhow, the authors should make substantial changes including reconsidering the overall structure before the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your recommendations, they were very helpful for us.

General concept comments

Comments 2: Authors need to improve the abstract by adding some key findings and conclusions, currently it is mainly describing what the study contains and methodology. I think the novelty statement in the final paragraph of introduction can be further refined to make a strong case.

Response 2: We have revised the whole paper, both the abstract and the introductory part have been redone to explain more clearly the state of the art in Integrated Waste Management System research, as well as our research hypothesis, to highlight the sustainability aspects in our case study in Bihor county, Romania. The research methodology was clarified for better accuracy.

Comments 3: The results and discussion section is very weak and must be improved. Currently, authors just added lots of tables with huge data and the results interpretation is weak, the discussion style does not match with standard journal articles. There is cross comparison of this study results with other published data, in fact there is not even a single citation in this whole section.

Response 3: The study has been refined to focus on reducing biodegradable waste landfilling, increasing recycling rates and energy recovery, thus aligning with EU targets. The proposals included can significantly contribute to improving the sustainability of the system.

Comments 4: The conclusion section also needs improvement, there is no need to reinstate the aim of the study in the conclusion section. Author should clearly write the main solutions found and what were there conclusion with respect to the proposed methodology.

Response 4: The conclusions take into account the concrete case study (Bihor), and thus it is necessary to provide through the paper relevant information for local authorities and sanitation operators, who can use the findings and recommendations to improve waste management in the county.

Comments 5: Where did authors got the waste generated data from? Why some of the figures are too similar year by year, for example, table 1 mixed household waste from year 2014, 2015 and 2017 are almost exactly the same? Similar data issues in table 2, for example, urban and rural household waste seem too small, 33 kg/inhabitant/year ?

Response 5: The presentation of the results has been refined to go beyond a description of the current situation and analyzes three alternatives for waste management: maintaining the current system ("zero alternatives") and two alternatives with investments in infrastructure. This comparative approach allows a clear assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

Comments 6: The manuscript contains 46 tables with huge data sets, which are too many in my opinion. Authors should re-consider arranging the data and tables, may be some of the data can go to supplementary.

Response 6: It uses a rigorous approach for estimating the amount of waste generated in Bihor until 2040, based on socio-economic, demographic and macroeconomic factors. The projections are detailed and include several scenarios, providing a realistic picture of future developments.

Comments 7: Authors should re-structure and use more balanced sized paragraphs, currently there are many only 2-3 lines paragraphs, and organize all sections properly.

Response 7: The study has been refined to focus on reducing biodegradable waste landfilling, increasing recycling rates and energy recovery, thus aligning with EU targets. The proposals included can significantly contribute to improving the sustainability of the system.

Specific comments

Comments 8: Authors should use commas between figures, for example, line 336, “156401 tons in 2020 to 152603 tons in 2025” should be changed to 156,401 tons in 2020 to 152,603 tons in 2025.

Line 397, correct “collectionOver the 2020-2040”.

Subscripts are missing in many places, for example, CO2 in line 467, 482, 487, 491 and many more.

I don’t think you need and in the authors list.

Response 8: All these have been corrected in the revised paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• for the abstract; more clarification on the practical implementation of the proposed alternatives, especially the "zero" option, would enhance its applicability.
• The author in the study did not refer to any citation reference to establish or give evidence or validation as benchmark for their work
• Section 2, need source of all this data
• More than 46 tables and no figure to simplify the study for reader
• The study doesn't offer much that's new in sustainable waste management, mostly just repeating what's already known about targets and policies
• This paper suggests some theoretical waste management ideas but doesn't explain how to actually put them into practice, making them less useful for real-world decisions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

it is accepted 

Author Response

Comments 1: for the abstract; more clarification on the practical implementation of the proposed alternatives, especially the "zero" option, would enhance its applicability.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your recommendations, they were very helpful for us. The presentation of the results has been refined to go beyond a description of the current situation and analyzes three alternatives for waste management: maintaining the current system ("zero alternatives") and two alternatives with investments in infrastructure. This comparative approach allows a clear assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

Comments 2: The author in the study did not refer to any citation reference to establish or give evidence or validation as benchmark for their work

Response 2: We have revised the whole paper, both the abstract and the introductory part have been redone to explain more clearly the state of the art in Integrated Waste Management System research, as well as our research hypothesis, to highlight the sustainability aspects in our case study in Bihor county, Romania. The research methodology was clarified for better accuracy.

Comments 3: Section 2, need source of all this data. More than 46 tables and no figure to simplify the study for reader

Response 3: It uses a rigorous approach for estimating the amount of waste generated in Bihor until 2040, based on socio-economic, demographic and macroeconomic factors. The projections are detailed and include several scenarios, providing a realistic picture of future developments. The paper not only analyzes the current situation but also provides a forecast up to 2040, using demographic and economic data to estimate the amounts of waste generated. This makes the study more valuable for policy makers and long-term planning.

Comments 4: The study doesn't offer much that's new in sustainable waste management, mostly just repeating what's already known about targets and policies

Response 4: The study has been refined to focus on reducing biodegradable waste landfilling, increasing recycling rates and energy recovery, thus aligning with EU targets. The proposals included can significantly contribute to improving the sustainability of the system.

Comments 5: This paper suggests some theoretical waste management ideas but doesn't explain how to actually put them into practice, making them less useful for real-world decisions.

Response 5: The conclusions take into account the concrete case study (Bihor), and thus it is necessary to provide through the paper relevant information for local authorities and sanitation operators, who can use the findings and recommendations to improve waste management in the county.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Some elements have been improved. It is worth considering the image of future events based on a realistic set of studies, such that from the point of view of the analysis conducted - is possible to perform. For this, it is necessary to determine emission levels.

The next stage is the analysis of the trend of changes based on real technologies, possible for quick use. The work should take into account such elements.

The conclusions are still too general, they require detailing to the previously made comments.

Author Response

Comments 1: Some elements have been improved. It is worth considering the image of future events based on a realistic set of studies, such that from the point of view of the analysis conducted - is possible to perform. For this, it is necessary to determine emission levels.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for your recommendations. They were all taken into consideration and helped us to improve the paper. We have incorporated your suggestions, including the need for further studies in the future.

Comments 2: The next stage is the analysis of the trend of changes based on real technologies, possible for quick use. The work should take into account such elements.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your recommendations, they are very useful in future research in which we will consider these elements.

Comments 3: The conclusions are still too general, they require detailing to the previously made comments.

Response 3: The conclusions have been completely redrafted to remove generalities and to be much clearer and more precise.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have made satisfactory corrections based on the comments and the revised manuscript can be accepted now. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend adding some figures to simplify the subject for the reader.

Additionally, the review section should conclude with the paper's hypothesis and its novelty rather than citing other works.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

accepted 

Author Response

Comments 1: I recommend adding some figures to simplify the subject for the reader.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for your recommendations. They were all taken into consideration and helped us to improve the paper.

Comments 2: Additionally, the review section should conclude with the paper's hypothesis and its novelty rather than citing other works.

Response 2: The introductory part of the literature review concludes with the purpose of our paper and the novelty brought by it.