Sequential Methodology for the Selection of Municipal Waste Treatment Alternatives Applied to a Case Study in Chile
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This work proposes a sequential methodology to evaluate MSWM alternatives by considering various criteria to be applied in developing countries. The paper can be accepted after a minor revision.
1. In Methodology section, I think some of the paragraphs do not belong to the method, but are like literature reviews with the examples of in lines 144-152, 201-209, 227-245, et al. The Methodology section should be as simple as possible, and only describe the research method. As for the indicators used in the research method, I recommend it being discussed in the later research sections.
2. The title of the sections 3 and 4 are same, so please check it.
3. In Conclusions section, the conclusions obtained in this study should be highlighted rather than a repeated description of the research methods.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for his/her thorough review and valuable observations, which have helped us to improve the manuscript.
Point 1: In Methodology section, I think some of the paragraphs do not belong to the method, but are like literature reviews with the examples of in lines 144-152, 201-209, 227-245, et al. The Methodology section should be as simple as possible, and only describe the research method. As for the indicators used in the research method, I recommend it being discussed in the later research sections.
Response 1: The Methodology section has been restructured, following your recommendations and the comment of other reviewers. Part of the paragraphs have been moved to the Introduction, so that the new version of the Methodology describes, in an orderly manner, the steps carried out to apply the proposed methodology.
- Methodology
2.1. Proposed sequence
2.2. Case study
2.3. Screening matrix
2.4. Ranking method
2.4.1. Assessment criteria and indicators
2.4.2. Criteria integration and weighting
2.5. Sensitivity analysis
The description and valuation of the indicators suggested and used in the case study are now included in subsection 2.4. Ranking method, to follow the sequence of the method followed for the assessment of the treatment alternatives studied.
On the other hand, lines 144-152 of the original manuscript now belong to the introduction in section 1.2. (lines 89-97); lines 201-209 are now lines 205-214; lines 227-245 are lines 232-250, in Methodology, section 2.4.1.
Point 2: The title of the sections 3 and 4 are same, so please check it.
Response 2: It was misspelled. We have renamed the sections, as follows: 3. Results and discussion; 4. Conclusions.
Point 3: In Conclusions section, the conclusions obtained in this study should be highlighted rather than a repeated description of the research methods.
Response 3: We have restructured the Conclusions section and removed the paragraphs recalling the resarch methods. The new version focuses on the conclusions obtained in the study, the robustness of the results according to the sensitivity analysis, and the usefulness of our contribution in this work. Please, see section 4. Conclusions in the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The study proposed by the authors aims to present and apply, with reference to a case study in Chile, a methodology based on multi-criteria analysis in order to analyze (and select) municipal solid waste management alternatives.
The study is sure to be of interest to readers of Sustainability, and the presence of the Chile case study may be an added value to the literature. A literature that, in this field, also needs case studies.
Below are my requests for corrections:
1) Paper organization
The article should be structured differently, respecting:
1) Introduction; 2) Methodological approach; 3) Results and discussion; 4) Conclusions.
In particular, the Methodological Approach section should contain brief indications of the case study addressed (generally, in section 2.1) and the theoretical description of the methodology developed (alternatives to be compared, evaluation criteria, weights to be assigned to criteria, etc.).
Section 3 will present the results of the study. The reader, since it will be specified above, knows that the case study is nothing more than the means by which the authors will present the methodology they have developed (already described theoretically in section 2).
2) Thoroughness of the introduction
Introduction needs to be strengthened by considering other work in MCDA + environmental applications topic. Example of potential publication is listed below:
A comparison of the efficacy of organic and mixed-organic polymers with polyaluminium chloride in chemically assisted primary sedimentation (CAPS), Environmental Technology, Volume 34(10), pages 1297-1305 (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09593330.2012.745622?journalCode=tent20).
3) Conclusions:
Conclusions need to be significantly revised. In my opinion they are very generalist and do not show the results obtained well.
1) Avoid reporting the “narrative" of the article, focusing instead in the key message to be transferred. The sentences present from lines 530 to lines 554, can be written in 3-4 lines.
2) Include quantitative information about the results obtained. With reference to the case study, what is the best alternative from a multi-criteria point of view when varying the weights given to the criteria and overall?
3) How robust are the results obtained? and in this case refer to the results of the sensitivity analysis.
4) What is the home message that the authors want to begin to the reader and the usefulness of this contribution.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for his/her thorough review and valuable observations, which have helped us to improve the manuscript.
Point 1: Paper organization. The article should be structured differently, respecting: 1) Introduction; 2) Methodological approach; 3) Results and discussion; 4) Conclusions. In particular, the Methodological Approach section should contain brief indications of the case study addressed (generally, in section 2.1) and the theoretical description of the methodology developed (alternatives to be compared, evaluation criteria, weights to be assigned to criteria, etc.). Section 3 will present the results of the study. The reader, since it will be specified above, knows that the case study is nothing more than the means by which the authors will present the methodology they have developed (already described theoretically in section 2).
Response 1: The Methodology section has been restructured, following your recommendations and the comment of other reviewers. Part of the paragraphs have been moved to the Introduction, so that the new version of Methodology describes, in an orderly manner, the steps carried out to apply the proposed methodology.
- Methodology
2.1. Proposed sequence
2.2. Case study
2.3. Screening matrix
2.4. Ranking method
2.4.1. Assessment criteria and indicators
2.4.2. Criteria integration and weighting
2.5. Sensitivity analysis
Point 2: Thoroughness of the introduction. Introduction needs to be strengthened by considering other work in MCDA + environmental applications topic. Example of potential publication is listed below:
A comparison of the efficacy of organic and mixed-organic polymers with polyaluminium chloride in chemically assisted primary sedimentation (CAPS), Environmental Technology, Volume 34(10), pages 1297-1305 (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09593330.2012.745622?journalCode=tent20).
Response 2: We have strengthen the literature review on multicriteria methods and their application to different topics. We have added the suggested reference (line 134) and another one (line 145).
Point 3: Conclusions. Conclusions need to be significantly revised. In my opinion they are very generalist and do not show the results obtained well.
1) Avoid reporting the “narrative" of the article, focusing instead in the key message to be transferred. The sentences present from lines 530 to lines 554, can be written in 3-4 lines.
2) Include quantitative information about the results obtained. With reference to the case study, what is the best alternative from a multi-criteria point of view when varying the weights given to the criteria and overall?
3) How robust are the results obtained? and in this case refer to the results of the sensitivity analysis.
4) What is the home message that the authors want to begin to the reader and the usefulness of this contribution.
Response 3: We have rewritten the conclusions following your recommendations. According to the suggestions, lines 530 to 554 have been reduced to four lines (563 to 566); 2) has been addressed in lines 571 to 580; 3) in Lines 570 to 571 and 581 to 582 ); and 4) in Lines 588 to 593.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, the topic related to municipal waste management optimization is very important, but the manuscript needs improvement. Firstly, the title should be revised to avoid two sentences. Secondly, the use and consistency of abbreviations should be revised as in the current version the paper is very hard to read due to many abbreviations. It is not clear why two sections, 3 and 4, respectively have the same name. The scientific soundness and clarity of expression of the manuscript should be improved. The calculation and selected criteria should be explained in a clear manner. The methodological part of the study is poorly written to understand the justification of presented assumptions.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for his/her thorough review and valuable observations, which have helped us to improve the manuscript.
Point 1: Firstly, the title should be revised to avoid two sentences.
Response 1: We have modified the title so it can be read as one sentence: “Sequential methodology for the selection of municipal waste treatment alternatives applied to a case study in Chile”.
Point 2: Secondly, the use and consistency of abbreviations should be revised as in the current version the paper is very hard to read due to many abbreviations.
Response 2: We have reviewed the abbreviations and some of them have been removed, since their use was limited to once or twice in the manuscript: anaerobic digestion (AD); energy potential of waste in landfill gas (EPWL); non-conventional renewable energy (NCRE). Besides, the abreviation LF for the word “landfill”, which is repeated several times throughout the manuscript, is now only used in the tables to describe technologies. This way, the size of the tables is minimized. Finally, the list of abbreviations considered is maintained, to help the reader follow the manuscript.
Point 3: It is not clear why two sections, 3 and 4, respectively have the same name.
Response 3: It was misspelled. We have renamed the sections, as follows: 3. Results and discussion; 4. Conclusions.
Point 4: The scientific soundness and clarity of expression of the manuscript should be improved.
Response 4: To improve the clarity of the manuscript, we have restructured the introduction and the methodology section, and rewritten the Conclusions sections.
The introduction has been restructured using three sections to reflect the main topics addressed in the stud:
1.1. MSWM in Latin American and the Caribbean
1.2. Available treatment technologies
1.3. Tools for decision-making.
The Methodology section has been restructured, following your recommendations and the comment of other reviewers. Part of the paragraphs have been moved to the Introduction, so that the new version of Methodology describes, in an orderly manner, the steps carried out to apply the proposed methodology.
- Methodology
2.1. Proposed sequence
2.2. Case study
2.3. Screening matrix
2.4. Ranking method
2.4.1. Assessment criteria and indicators
2.4.2. Criteria integration and weighting
2.5. Sensitivity analysis
Point 5: The calculation and selected criteria should be explained in a clear manner.
Response 5: We have reinforced the description of the methodology proposed and used in the case study by reestructuring the section and including some paragraphs that partially develop the calculation method for the assessment of alternatives based on the chosen criteria and indicators.
Point 6: The methodological part of the study is poorly written to understand the justification of presented assumptions.
Response 6: We have tried to make clear the methodology and assumptions made for the case study in the new version of the Methodology section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
