Spatiotemporal Variability in Municipal Solid Waste Production and the Determinants in Hefei’s Core Urban Districts
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article topic is really interesting; however, the paper has some problems that should be addressed to be considered for publication.
1) Please, add the manuscript to the Journal’s template. The reference format should be revised according to the Journal’s guidelines.
2) The abstract should be improved. Please, rewrite it. What is the novelty of your study? What is the impact of your work? What are GTWR and PCA? The key findings should be more concise.
3) The results and discussion are very limited. Please, compare the results found in the manuscript to other models in the literature. Please, add a table with the variables used in each one, the most significant variables and the advantages and disadvantages of each model. It will help to compare your data to the literature and highlight the impact of your work on the topic.
4) The conclusion should be more concise and highlight only the significant findings. Please, rewrite it.
Author Response
The first opinion of the first expert: Please, add the manuscript to the Journal’s template. The reference format should be revised according to the Journal’s guidelines.
Reply: Thank you for the reviewer's comments. We have formatted the manuscript according to the journal's template, and have revised the references according to the journal's format.
The second opinion of the first expert: The abstract should be improved. Please, rewrite it. What is the novelty of your study? What is the impact of your work? What are GTWR and PCA? The key findings should be more concise.
Reply: Thank you for the reviewer's comments. We have rewritten the manuscript's abstract to make it more concise and to highlight the main and innovative points of our work, and have explained the PCA-GTWR model.
The third opinion of the first expert:The results and discussion are very limited. Please, compare the results found in the manuscript to other models in the literature. Please, add a table with the variables used in each one, the most significant variables and the advantages and disadvantages of each model. It will help to compare your data to the literature and highlight the impact of your work on the topic.
Reply: Thank you for the reviewer's comments. We have added two tables to section 4.4.2 of the manuscript to present the estimation results of the important variables in the OLS, GWR, and GTWR models, and to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of each model.
The fouth opinion of the first expert: The conclusion should be more concise and highlight only the significant findings. Please, rewrite it.
Reply: We are grateful for the reviewer's insights. The conclusion has been rewritten to emphasize the key findings.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsJournal: Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2640448
Type: Article
Title: Spatiotemporal Variability in Municipal Solid Waste Production and the Determinants in Hefei's Core Urban Districts
Authors: Fangke Chen , Shiwen Zhang * , Yuwei Liang , Aojie Yin
Section: Environmental Sustainability and Applications
Abstract:
Elucidating the spatiotemporal dynamics of municipal solid waste (MSW) production and their underlying determinants is instrumental for the nuanced management and resource optimization of urban waste streams. Utilizing night-time light data for the core urban expanse of Hefei—comprising Yaohe, Baohe, Luyang, and Shushan districts—spanning all four quarters of the year 2022, this study deploys spatial autocorrelation metrics to scrutinize the evolution and spatial interconnectedness of MSW production patterns. Additionally, we employ GTWR model enriched by PCA to dissect the multivariate influences exerted by natural phenomena, socioeconomic parameters, and residential living standards on the observed waste production patterns. Key Findings(1)The integration of PCA-GTWR framework substantially mitigates multicollinearity complications, providing a nuanced and accurate portrayal of both the temporal and spatial intricacies in waste production, while simultaneously pinpointing the contributory factors.(2) A hierarchical trend in MSW production is evident across the districts: Baohe > Shushan > Yaohai > Luyang, wide disparity in MSW production in different districts. (3)The spatial aggregation of MSW production in residential areas is obvious, forming a pattern of "HH type aggregation along the Second Ring Road and LL type aggregation in the peripheral areas".(4)Among the influencing determinants, socio-economic variables indices wield the most substantial impact on MSW production, trailed by residents' livin g standards variables. Conversely, natural variables exert a minimal effect. The regression coefficients for these categorical variables are 0.61, -1.84, and -0.01, respectively. In sum, the level of socio-economic variables exerts a predominantly positive effect on MSW production across Hefei’s core urban districts, the positive effect of residents' living standards variables in emergent urban zones is more significant. Natural variables display a seasonally modulated impact—initially augmenting and subsequently diminishing. The findings of this research offer empirically substantiated insights valuable for the strategizing of effective municipal solid waste management policies.
Review No. 10092023-1
The research, in this article explores in depth the patterns and factors that influence the production of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the districts of Hefei, China. The study employs an approach called Principal Component Analysis Geographic Temporally Weighted Regression (PCA GTWR) to analyze how various factors contribute to waste generation.
In summary, this article offers a data-driven analysis of MSW production in Hefeis urban districts. It sheds light on the interplay of factors that affect waste generation and emphasizes the importance of considering dynamics and contextual factors when devising waste management policies.
A notable strength of this article is its utilization of the PCA methodology. This approach provides an understanding of how spatial and temporal dynamics impact MSW production addressing limitations found in previous studies.
The research draws upon a range of data sources including remote sensing light data, meteorological data, population density data, and socio-economic indicators. This comprehensive dataset strengthens the reliability and validity of the analysis conducted. By examining both temporal aspects of MSW production this study presents a view of the problem, at hand. By taking into account the data, for each quarter and considering differences in areas it provides insights that can be used to 2 shape waste management policies. The article is well organized and successfully presents its discoveries by utilizing tables, figures, and maps to communicate information. This approach makes it easily understandable, for a range of readers, including policymakers and researchers. The study focuses on an issue considering the rapid urbanization and increasing waste generation, in China. It is crucial to understand the factors that influence the production of waste (MSW) in urban areas for effective and sustainable waste management.
While the article has strengths such as its methodology, comprehensive data analysis, and clear presentation of findings some weaknesses could be addressed. These include discussion of policy implications considerations of data quality and limitations generalizability concerns, insufficient discussion on impact and not providing a broader policy context for the research. To make it even stronger the article could benefit from discussing policy implications addressing any limitations in data quality considering generalizability issues more broadly including a more comprehensive discussion, on environmental impact aspects, and providing a wider context within which its research can be understood.
Author Response
Esteemed reviewer, we deeply appreciate your valuable comments on our manuscript, which have been most enlightening. In response to your remarks, we have made amendments in the discussion section. Please refer to the Word attachment for details
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is an interesting approach worth publishing with a minor revision.
There are some discrepancies in using volume and weight units, that need to be corrected, more in the attached file.
Spatiotemporal Variability in Municipal Solid Waste Production and the Determinants in Hefei's Core Urban Districts
General remarks:
Rather complicated statistical analysis can give some correlations among parameters of different origins and waste generation in the regional entity (mostly urban).
It is an interesting approach worth publishing with a minor revision.
English is excellent and needs only minor revision in some parts.
There is no explicit presentation of the HH and LL types of aggregation.
Many spaces in many lines among letters and words around the manuscript need to be included.
Lines are not enumerated, so details cannot be described.
HEFEI STATISTICAL YEARBOOK is an important data source; why is it not among the references accessible to other researchers?
Table 1 and all large numbers will be more visible if we use a thousand separators (comma) for those numbers.
Equations enumeration should be right aligned.
In Eq. 1, there is presented a Volume of MSW in “ten thousand metric tons.” As is understood, this is not a measure or unit for Volume but weight.
In other parts of the manuscript, the discussion is mainly about the weight in metric tons.
It is necessary to clarify this discrepancy while there needs to be a defined BULK weight of MSW.
It is necessary to check all the text regarding the use of Volume and weight, and the definition of weight in metric tons should be used precisely.
References are not presented uniquely in square brackets before the point (“ [x].”) or inside the text but not after the point; correct this in a unique way in all manuscripts.
I hope this discussion will help the authors to present an interesting project.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo issues.
Author Response
The first opinion of the third expert: There is no explicit presentation of the HH and LL types of aggregation.
Reply: A table has been incorporated to account for the proportional distribution of local clustering areas across the four quarters, clarifying the localized spatial clustering characteristics of MSW production in the central urban districts, accompanied by updated descriptions.
The second opinion of the third expert:Many spaces in many lines among letters and words around the manuscript need to be included. Lines are not enumerated, so details cannot be described.
Reply: Thank you for the reviewer's observations. We have inserted the manuscript into the journal's template and revised the format of the references according to the journal's guidelines.
The third opinion of the third expert: HEFEI STATISTICAL YEARBOOK is an important data source; why is it not among the references accessible to other researchers?
Reply: We sincerely apologize for not providing a special note on this important data source. The HEFEI STATISTICAL YEARBOOK used in our study is publicly available, produced by the Hefei Municipal Bureau of Statistics, published by China Statistics Press, and is available in PDF format as well as in print and on CD. The electronic version can be downloaded from the official website of the Hefei Municipal Bureau of Statistics at: https://www.hefei.gov.cn/mlhf/sj/nd/index.html?ivk_sa=1024320u
The fouth opinion of the third expert: Table 1 and all large numbers will be more visible if we use a thousand separators (comma) for those numbers. Equations enumeration should be right aligned.
Reply: We are thankful for the reviewer's feedback. We have now included thousand separators in the large numbers presented in the tables and throughout the manuscript. The equations mentioned have been right-aligned as per the suggestions.
The fifth opinion of the third expert: In Eq. 1, there is presented a Volume of MSW in “ten thousand metric tons.” As is understood, this is not a measure or unit for Volume but weight. In other parts of the manuscript, the discussion is mainly about the weight in metric tons. It is necessary to clarify this discrepancy while there needs to be a defined BULK weight of MSW. It is necessary to check all the text regarding the use of Volume and weight, and the definition of weight in metric tons should be used precisely.
Reply: Thank you for your observations. The error you pointed out was indeed a grammatical oversight for which we sincerely apologize. We hereby clarify that all references to the weight of MSW in the manuscript are measured in tonnes, with no discussion pertaining to the volume of MSW.The reason for employing 'ten thousand tonnes' as the unit of measurement in Equation 1 is that this is the unit used to quantify the generation of MSW in the HEFEI STATISTICAL YEARBOOK. For the sake of computational convenience, we have adopted this same unit. In the manuscript, we have uniformly replaced the term 'Volume' with 'production'.
The sixth opinion of the third expert: References are not presented uniquely in square brackets before the point (“ [x].”) or inside the text but not after the point; correct this in a unique way in all manuscripts.
Reply: We are grateful for the reviewer’s remarks. The issues pertaining to the non-standard citation of references within the manuscript have been rectified.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe quality of the manuscript has improved
