Economic and Environmental Benefits from Municipal Solid Waste Recycling in the Murmansk Region
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, the submitted paper represents an interesting case-study on the given topic in the presented region. it may be a contribution to the field, however to make it more tentative, more information needs to be provided in the abstract section.
The introduction section provides significant information, however please consider to place a diagram which would be up-to-date, at least from 2020. The scale of the problem changes over years, therefore it is quite important, also as habits have changed due to pandemic. (fig. 1 and 2)
The given equations and discussion is carried properly, however the provided data do not provide SD or any other statistical concerns.
The conclusions and future insights are of good value, however comparison with other regions would be of great value, as the background in this case may be diversified.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks a lot for your detailed and constructive comments on the paper, which we highly appreciate. Please find below our explanations on how we took your comments into consideration one by one. Our response is in red. Our revisions to the manuscript (except some minor language edits) are marked up suing the “Track Changes” function. We also added a new figure (see Figure 3), which show the annual average GHG emissions from different types of MSW treatment and types of waste in the Murmansk region. Furthermore, we updated the calculations. Please see the attachment.
With kind regards
the authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript shares interesting information concerning MSW management in Russia. However, some improvements are needed.
Lines 29-30 (Landfilling and incineration of waste is associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and air and groundwater pollution): Please, provide some sources. Furthermore, write “are associated”.
Line 32: Please, mention that some studies have also found possible adverse health outcomes for people living near landfills. Here are some examples (feel free to take these or other studies as references):
- Mataloni, F.; Badaloni, C.; Golini, M.N.; Bolignano, A.; Bucci, S.; Sozzi, R.; Forastiere, F.; Davoli, M.; Ancona, C. Morbidity and mortality of people who live close to municipal waste landfills: A multisite cohort study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2016, 45, 806–815.
- Mattiello, A.; Chiodini, P.; Bianco, E.; Forgione, N.; Flammia, I.; Gallo, C.; Pizzuti, R.; Panico, S. Health effects associated with the disposal of solid waste in landfills and incinerators in populations living in surrounding areas: A systematic review. Int. J. Public Health 2013, 58, 725–735.
- Vinti, G.; Bauza, V.; Clasen, T.; Medlicott, K.; Tudor, T.; Zurbrügg, C.; Vaccari, M. Municipal Solid Waste Management and Adverse Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4331.
Lines 48-49 (Korppoo et al., forthcoming): I suggest you only refer to articles already published or in press in some journals. Please, provide such references.
Figure 1: Please, write “million m3” instead of “million m3”.
Figure 1: Please, recheck the percentage from the figure.
Introduction: Please, add a paragraph in which you highlight the benefits of waste recycling in reducing natural resources consumption.
Section 2.1 (Job creation): Could you please write how many people live in the Murmansk region? It would allow having an idea of MSW generation per capita.
Material and Methods: Please, provide the annual amount of waste that the recycling plant receives. Furthermore, give more details concerning the recycling plant.
Lines 139-148: Although I agree with you when you write that it can be an apparent conflict of interest between waste recycling and landfills/incinerators companies, I think you should explain it more deeply. Furthermore, this kind of “rivalry” could happen between landfills and incinerators companies as well. Giving the importance of your considerations, to avoid misunderstanding and critics, please discuss the issue in a more detailed and coherent way, using some references as well.
Lines 211-212 (For example, in Murmansk, recycling MSW led to two times increase in communal fees): In my opinion, it is very strange. In many cases, when you shift from landfilling to recycling waste, people save money (because the garbage can become a resource). Please, discuss this issue deeply, trying to find some solutions. Here are some possible ideas (feel free to take clues from this or other research):
- De Feo, G., & Polito, A. R. (2015). Using economic benefits for recycling in a separate collection centre managed as a "reverse supermarket": a sociological survey. Waste management 38, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.029
- Hoogmartens, R., Eyckmans, J., & Van Passel, S. (2016). Landfill taxes and Enhanced Waste Management: Combining valuable practices with respect to future waste streams. Waste management 55, 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.052
Line 212 (Which is especially problematic for low-income groups.1): You should provide your reference correctly.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks a lot for your detailed and constructive comments on the paper, which we highly appreciate. Please find below our explanations on how we took your comments into consideration one by one. Our response is in red. Our revisions to the manuscript (except some minor language edits) are marked up suing the “Track Changes” function. We also added a new figure (see Figure 3), which show the annual average GHG emissions from different types of MSW treatment and types of waste in the Murmansk region. Furthermore, we updated the calculations. Please see the attachment.
With kind regards
the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
You have fulfilled my suggestions and significantly improved your manuscript. I am glad about it.
I only suggest the following recheck:
- In the text, when you use the "thousands", please use only numbers (for instance, in line 175, you wrote "748 thousand in 2019", but it is better "748,000 .."). Please, recheck the whole manuscrip;
- Please, recheck Table 1. Indeed, currently, I see an empty and a full table.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
many thanks for the improvement suggestions. We rechecked the empty table and replaced "thousands" with numbers as suggested. Moreover, the paper was English edited.
Best wishes,
the authors
