Identifying Priorities for the Development of Waste Management Systems in ASEAN Cities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe scientific paper entitled "Assessment of Waste Management Systems in ASEAN Capital Cities using the Waste Management System-Development Stage Concept Approach" provides a comprehensive analysis of the challenges and development stages of waste management systems (WMS) in nine capital cities within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region. The study addresses the critical need to evaluate and understand the current state of waste management in ASEAN region experiencing rapid economic growth and urbanization.
The paper introduces the Waste Management System-Development Stage Concept (WMS-DSC) as a novel approach for evaluating WMS development in various ASEAN cities. The five-stage framework, spanning from an absence of essential waste management components to a circular economy model, provides a structured assessment of WMS progression. The inclusion of seven key waste management components and their subcomponents ensures a comprehensive evaluation of each city's waste management practices.
The selection of nine capital cities with diverse characteristics, income levels, waste generation rates, and collection efficiencies for the case study enhances the study's robustness. This inclusivity allows for a comprehensive analysis of waste management practices in the region.
The authors demonstrate a systematic data acquisition process through desk research, utilizing publicly available documents and materials. However, the limitation of utilizing only English, Thai, and Laotian sources might restrict the depth of information, potentially excluding valuable insights from other languages prevalent in ASEAN countries.
The paper effectively outlines the detailed analysis and reasoning behind the evaluation of each city's waste management components using the WMS-DSC approach. However, the paper lacks a comprehensive discussion of the life cycle assessment (LCA) and how it will be integrated into subsequent studies for evaluating the next steps in WMS development, as indicated in the introduction. A more explicit connection between the WMS-DSC evaluation and the planned LCA integration could strengthen the paper's overall contribution.
In general, paper has several strengths:
- The study offers an in-depth evaluation of each component, detailing the stages of development within the waste management systems of the assessed cities.
- The paper effectively compares and contrasts the waste management systems across nine ASEAN cities, highlighting their similarities, differences, and common challenges.
- The paper critically examines the limitations and challenges faced by each city's waste management system.
- In conclusion, the scientific paper serves as a valuable contribution to the field of solid waste management, offering an in-depth analysis of the waste management systems in ASEAN cities.
But I have also some recommendations for authors:
- Clarify the integration of life cycle assessment (LCA) into future studies for evaluating WMS development.
- Strengthen the discussion section by exploring potential policy implications or practical recommendations derived from the WMS-DSC evaluation.
The fact also is that the paper is rich in content, but its extensive nature could overwhelm readers. However I do not have an idea how to improve readability and comprehension of the text. Maybe adding some visual aids like diagrams or graphs could help.
Author Response
Please kindly refer to the word document for all modications of the manuscript according to the feedback.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study presents a comprehensive review and comparison of waste management strategies for 9 cities in southeast Asia. I think that there is a lot of interesting information here, but more work is needed to pare down what seems to have been a long report into a manageable paper. Specific comments incude:
1. Way too many acronyms! I spent a lot of time searching for acronym definitions. For example, WMS (L68) was not previously defined in the bady of the paper (acronyms defined in the abstracts should be defined again). All non "typical" acronyms should not be used as pervasively.
2. the WMS-DSC sould be described more in the intro as part of justification for its use. All of the background on this method seems out of place in Section 2.1.
3. The supplemental mateials include all results for all cities. That is good to include, but is not adequate for really providing a sense of the criteria for each stage. A summary table that lists all criteria for all stages and subcomponents is also needed (like Fig. 2)
4. Fig. 2 and L140-141. It is hard to understand what "available, which can be assigned in the orange tap of each subcomponent" meansand how the info in the figure results in a single criterion. There are multiple scores (nm, pm, m) for each of the stages. Need more information about how you used these multiple scores to come up with a single score. The text in L154-155 does not really help if the information in Fig 3 is suppose to align with info in Fig 2. (stage 4 for CT1 should be pm (light blue))
5. I do not understand meaning or implication of sentence in L156-158
6. Throughout - it is better to refer to the table oor figure being discussed near the start of the paragraph rather than at the end. The visuals should be supporting information so should be obviously connected to the text when reading a description of your results.
7. Table 2 (and others). The fonts are way too small. It might work better here and other tables to have the cities in rows instead of columns. Please also add country names as well as city names in table headers for those of us less familiar with city nnames in this region.
8. L181-183 - Please add some more info about which cities or types of data were unavailable due to language accessability.
9. Fig 4 - it looks like there is no collection of recyclables (CT5=stage 1), yet the text discusses significant recyclingin activities (e.g.., L229). Stage 1 was assigned here due to no data BUT, there is a big difference in interpretation between no WM and no data. There should be a separate differentiation for no data rather than assigning stage 1. This is true for other tables/figures too and has implications for the discussion (e.g., L311-312, L588-589)
10. L239-241. There is not enough info about the city to understand this list of areas. The names are not important, but it would be nice to know what % of the population these areas represent, and if they only the most affluent areas.
11. The informal and semi-informal sectors are interesting, but the scope of how they work is not apparent (and I assume different in different cities). It would be good to describe these briefly (e.g., L243-246). How do they find and gather - from households directly? pick from dumpsters? pick from waste piles?
12. L309-310. Based on the text, it seems that both Hanoi and Singapore doing the same for CT3. But in reality, stage 5 fully met for Singapore, but mix of stage 2,3,5 all partially met for Hanoi. These are quite different. More attention needed to the description of the results (this is true elsewhere as well, but not all articulated here)
13 - there is duplication of mateials between the results and discussion. For example (Table 2 (L308) and Figure 9 have the same information (more detail in Table 2) and the discusson in L322-324 is repeated in the discussion of Fig 9. It is not clear what the purpose of the current discussion section is, it does not add much more insight. Reorganization necessary
14. L329 - Banda Seri Begawan has a low score for waste transport so it is not clear why it is included in this sentence
15. Throughout - the table and figure #s and designations as a figure or table are messed up. Need them to match what is defined between text and caption and consistency in what is a table and what is a figure.
16. L594-599. If you already struggle with limited data to support this qualitative assessment, an LCA will notbe a good next step. That requires a lot of quantitative information.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagemostly good
Author Response
Please kindly refer to the word document attached for detailed modification of the manuscript according to the feedback.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript has been significantly improved and is now much easier to understand
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno comment
