Analysis and Estimation of Short Term Residual Household Waste Production: Case Study Reunion Island

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

This is the review for the paper titled "Analysis and estimation of short term residual household waste production: Case study Reunion Island".

There are 3 scenarios addressed in this study: SC1 which follows the current trend, SC2 which is the zero waste approach, and SC3 which also aims to reduce the waste production to 50%. The forcast found in these 3 scenarios are as expected. 

 

The author has done the writing part pretty well but I still don't see the contribution of this paper clearly. 

Author Response

Comment 1

The author has done the writing part pretty well but I still don't see the contribution of this paper clearly. 

As suggested in the commentary, additional elements in red have been added to the introduction to describe the process.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

General comments:

The title and abstract accurately describe the contents. The abstract include all the main ideas presented in the article. In the introduction all necessary information  are presented and the introduction itself is well organized. The topic is interesting but the manuscript still needs to clarify a few issues or reorganize. Also the description of testing methods and tested materials are not sufficient.

It is not entirely clear what year the actual data is from and why it is so ? This should be better explained and justified:

In line 156, the authors write that the data is updated every two years. The last ones they give are for 2019, why aren't data from 2021 given?

In lines 250-253 the authors write "Indicators are updated every four years. The timeliness of the databases is based on the reference year 2015, which is the date when data on household waste generation as well as individual variables are complete for the subject of the study.

Is it to be understood that the 2019 data presented earlier is not actual, but an estimate ? Questions arise:

1. Why actual data from 2019 or later are not given since they are updated every 2 years. We are at the end of 2022.

2. Why were the indicators taken for the reference year 2015 since they are updated every 4 years. 

If the projections for the years after 2019 (later in the manuscript) were adopted based on the results from 2000-2015/2019, how effective will they be after the COVID pandemic era. It is known that COVID has affected the amount and type of waste. It should be discussed.

In point 2, the authors provide a lot of data. It would be better if the materials and methods were in section 2, where it is explained where the data came from.

Data in data analysis section 4.1. should be from 2019 or later

Why do the authors still refer to 2015 in the scenarios (section 4.5)?

Statistical analysis of the results is sufficiently insightful and correct.

Authors need to expand their bibliographic review to compare their results with and consider recent articles (last 3 years).

Other comments:

Lines 9-10 please delete the repeated words

Fig.1,2 should be on the same page as the reference

Fig. 3 hazardous waste should be a different color because it blends with the household waste

Line 179. 201ç  Should be 2019

References 44-50 should be an English

Lines 249, 256-262 add references

Author Response

Reviewer #2 Comments

1. In line 156, the authors write that the data is updated every two years. The last ones they give are for 2019, why aren't data from 2021 given?

The reports on the price and quality of the public household waste disposal service are not all available for the 2021 execution year. Some local authorities are still publishing their reports for the 2020 or even 2019 year of execution.

 

2. In lines 250-253 the authors write "Indicators are updated every four years. The timeliness of the databases is based on the reference year 2015, which is the date when data on household waste generation as well as individual variables are complete for the subject of the study. Is it to be understood that the 2019 data presented earlier is not actual, but an estimate ? Questions arise: Why actual data from 2019 or later are not given since they are updated every 2 years. We are at the end of 2022.

The reports on the price and quality of the public household waste disposal service are normally updated annually, but local authorities are late in publishing these documents, resulting in additional delays in the collection, processing and dissemination of data at national level.

 

3. Why were the indicators taken for the reference year 2015 since they are updated every 4 years.

The information especially in the area of Equipment is not given for the year 2019. The National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies is planning an update for 2021, which forces the classification on earlier data. Additional explanations have been added to clarify this confusion in section 2.4.

 

4. If the projections for the years after 2019 (later in the manuscript) were adopted based on the results from 2000-2015/2019, how effective will they be after the COVID pandemic era. It is known that COVID has affected the amount and type of waste. It should be discussed..

Unfortunately, the COVID 2019 pandemic cannot be discussed due to the lack of information as mentioned in answer 1

 

5. Data in data analysis section 4.1. should be from 2019 or later

As suggested, section 4.1 has been updated with 2019 data

 

6. Why do the authors still refer to 2015 in the scenarios (section 4.5 -> 3.5)?

This is the latest official report on potential waste management strategies for Reunion Island and future plans begin in 2015

 

7. Authors need to expand their bibliographic review to compare their results with and consider recent articles (last 3 years).

As suggested the bibliography has been expanded with more recent studies

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

It looks great now after the updates that can be published. 

Author Response

Thanks you for the feedback

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The authors did not make a lot of changes to the article however, in its current form, the manuscript is clearer ( e.g., the division of point 2 into sections or the clarification of the year from which the data for analysis came).  Although the data is not up to date for the year of publication, in the future it can serve as comparative data.

In my opinion, the article can be published after making editorial corrections f.ex.

line 168 and line 170; line 235 and line 239; etc…no spaces after commas; lack of dots

Bibliographic footnotes should be in English even if the original language was in French

Lines 927-943 text to be removed ?

Author Response

Thanks for the feedback and comments
Editorial corrections have been made and the bibliographic references have been adapted

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a review for the paper titled "Analysis and estimation of short term residual household waste production: Case study Reunion Island". 

 

First of all, the title and the abstract seem to be promising and the topic analized is quite interesting and should be of interests to the audiences of Sustainability.  However, I think the contribution of the paper is too slim. For example why linear regression could represent the population and waste generation. The authors should give a thoroughly analysis on that. Second of all the 3 scenarios seem to be reasonable. However, there should be something afterward. What are the effects from those scenarios? What are the suggestions analyzed from the study? Just understand it better is not enough for a publication. 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 8 prove Why? This is not obvious

Lines 95-115 What are the reasons for these observations? The analysis is not very insightful. Why didn't the authors compare waste management with other island nations? or show other publications discussing waste management on Reunion Island?

The authors should rewrite the manuscript based on the latest knowledge. The publication is based on data from the 2005- 2015 range, which does not correspond to current scientific standards. It is true that predictive analyses based on historical data are possible and performed, but why predict what will be in 2022 without even referring to what is there now. Current data is essential if the publication is to contribute any new knowledge. The authors, will not achieve the main goal of the publication - to get answers about waste management and governance, if they have conducted analyses on outdated results. In addition, there is no explanation of the reasons for the observed variability at each stage of the analyses. Also missing are possible guidelines and steps for waste management to ensure sustainability. The authors should also describe the data collection methodology. It is true that lines 229-233 mention the documents from which the data was drawn, but this is still not a methodology. What is important is how these institutions collected data, what are the discrepancies, if any.

There are results from other countries in Materials and Methods. In a table it would look more transparent. Besides, such information fits more into the discussion. In this section there should be a description of the methodology with an explanation of why it was chosen, whether someone has already used it .... It would be more transparent if the statistical description was in a separate methodology subsection.

In the results section - The characteristics of waste generation as a function of demographics is a relationship that is well-known in the scientific community. Waste managers of many countries make waste management fees dependent on population. Some deviation, the authors noted, is also observed in the world literature. The authors, knowing their country, should discuss in more detail the possible causes of these deviations and propose remedies. The division into 3 groups alone is insufficient. Analyses should be more in-depth.

Fig.7 -symbols need to be explained next to the figure.

The conclusions are not very consistent. It seems that the results obtained do not have scientific value rather technical value.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is about estimation of waste generation in a small island with linear regression model and principal component analysis (PCA). I enjoy reading the paper as it explains the relationship of population growth and the waste generation. Here are my specific comments/suggestions: 

1. The estimation of the waste generation has to be related to the population growth and per capita waste generation. It is not clear what kind of models were used to estimate the future population.  The paper can be improved by inclusion of the suggested changes.

2. Waste management hierarchy suggested by USEPA and other organizations can be used to improve the final waste stream and amount of waste ultimately goes to landfill. 

3. Figure 14: The 3 scenarios SC-1 (current approach), SC-2 (recommendations of the Regional Council of Reunion), SC-3 (recommendation of GCESD) are not explained properly as to how they are used and estimated the waste generation. Scenario 2 - SC2, shows very promising performance. But reality could be different for community commitments. Simple community commitment may not match with the reality. Please elaborate this scenario.