Multi-Factor GIS Modeling for Solid Waste Dumpsite Selection in Lilongwe, Malawi
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article “Multi-Factor GIS Modelling for Solid Waste Dumpsites in Lilongwe” is about finding appropriate solid waste disposal facilities in Lilongwe without logistical or operational difficulties as the engineering background. The goal of this study was to locate solid waste disposal facilities in Lilongwe that would not present logistical or operational difficulties. It used a hybrid approach, analysed site selection techniques, evaluated the current dumpsite, and created a multi-factor GIS model. The study found that the current dumpsite is dangerous for human health. Additionally, the research reveals that the most popular techniques for choosing the location of a solid waste disposal facility are the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Weighted Linear Combination (WLC) coupled with GIS. Waste recycling initiatives are recommended to reduce solid waste volume and promote sustainable waste management practices.
However, there are some limitations in this article, as follows:
1.The article uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process, which has limited quantitative data and more qualitative components, making it less convincing.
2.The formatting of the images in the article is biased towards the left, suggesting that a centered layout would be more appropriate.
3.The article mentions “dynamic factors in the integrated model” but fails to explain what these dynamic factors are.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe main question addressed by the research is the identification of suitable solid waste disposal facilities in Lilongwe, with a focus on minimizing logistical and operational challenges. The study aims to overcome the challenge of finding appropriate dumpsites for solid waste disposal, considering factors such as proximity to residential areas, environmental impact, and operational costs.
The topic is highly relevant as effective solid waste management is a critical aspect of urban planning and environmental sustainability. The research addresses a specific gap in the field by employing a hybrid approach that integrates site selection techniques, evaluates an existing dumpsite, and utilizes a multi-factor GIS model. This combination of methodologies is relatively novel and contributes to the existing literature on waste management.
The research adds value to the subject area by providing a comprehensive analysis of solid waste disposal site selection in Lilongwe. The use of GIS modeling, coupled with popular techniques like Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Weighted Linear Combination (WLC), enhances the precision of site identification. The identification of optimal sites with specific capacities demonstrates a practical application of the research findings, offering tangible solutions for reducing operational costs in waste management.
There are a few suggestions that could help improve the content and clarity of the research:
1. Some drawings. For example, figure 1 is poorly visible. Perhaps it would be better to separate Figures 1 and 2 and make Figure 1 larger.
2. While the methodology is robust, the authors might consider providing more details on the specific criteria and factors used in the GIS model. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis could be beneficial to assess the model's robustness to changes in input parameters. Moreover, considering stakeholder input and public opinion in the site selection process could enhance the study's applicability and address potential social concerns.
3. The references appear to be appropriate, covering relevant literature on waste management, GIS modeling, and site selection techniques. However, it would have been useful for the authors to include still the most emerging research in waste management practices to ensure that the research is in line with the latest developments in the field.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have studied the GIS modeling solid waste dumpsites. This manuscript has to revise carefully.
Comments
Page 10, According to [34] - the sentence need to modify as According to Alanbari et al. (2014). similar modification for 35, 33 etc.
Discussion part should be improved by comparing with other's reports.
Figure legends must extend for clear understanding.
In conclusion, the future perspective and novelty of this study
should be provided.
1. English corrections must be checked.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe authors have studied the GIS modeling solid waste dumpsites. This manuscript has to revise carefully.
Comments
Page 10, According to [34] - the sentence need to modify as According to Alanbari et al. (2014). similar modification for 35, 33 etc.
Discussion part should be improved by comparing with other's reports.
Figure legends must extend for clear understanding.
In conclusion, the future perspective and novelty of this study
should be provided.
1. English corrections must be checked.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study's approach to identifying suitable solid waste disposal sites in Lilongwe, yet a few critical aspects warrant closer examination. The emphasis on environmental safety, community involvement, and long-term viability seems pivotal. Evaluating potential environmental impacts, considering community perspectives, and ensuring compliance with waste management regulations are paramount for sustainable waste disposal solutions.
1. How extensively was the potential environmental impact of these newly proposed sites evaluated, especially concerning groundwater contamination and air quality degradation?
2. Was there any public consultation or community involvement in the selection process of these sites? Local communities are crucial stakeholders affected by waste disposal decisions.
3. While the selected sites might be optimal now, were future city expansion plans or changing demographics considered? How adaptable are these sites to future urban growth?
4. Are there plans to incorporate advanced waste management technologies within these disposal sites, such as methane capture for energy production or leachate treatment facilities?
5. How aligned are these site selections with Lilongwe's waste management policies and regulations? Were legal considerations and compliance issues accounted for in the selection process?
6. Addressing the dangers of the current dumpsite is crucial. Were relocation plans for affected residents considered, and what are the social implications of relocating these communities?
7.Besides operational cost reduction, how was the economic viability of these sites assessed? Were cost-benefit analyses performed to determine the overall economic impact of these proposed solutions?
8. While waste recycling initiatives are recommended, how feasible and integrated are these suggestions within Lilongwe's current waste management infrastructure?
9.What strategies are in place to monitor these sites continuously and ensure their ongoing maintenance to prevent adverse effects on the surrounding environment?
10.Could a comparative study with similar-sized cities or regions be undertaken to validate the effectiveness of these identified sites and techniques for solid waste disposal?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is a pleasure to greet the authors of the article titled: Multi-Factor GIS Modeling for Solid Waste Dumpsites in Lilongwe. I have read and reviewed the article proposed for the Journal Sustainability. It is an interesting topic, which provides contributions on the responsible management of solid waste in cities and the importance of making an adequate selection of storage sites, in order to avoid socio-environmental impacts on the territory.
I consider that the article has a state of major revisions, and to be published it must respond to the following observations. Below, I communicate my impressions and recommendations to further increase the quality of the document submitted for peer review:
1.- The manuscript has the following title: Multi-Factor GIS Modeling for Solid Waste Dumpsites in Lilongwe. Please consider that since the article wants to be published in an open access magazine with people from all over the world viewing, I suggest adding information about the country to which the city of Lilongwe corresponds. Furthermore, according to what was stated in the abstract, one of the focuses of the article is the procedure for selecting sites for solid waste landfills, therefore, I believe it is necessary to point that out in the title of the article. I suggest considering the following title: Multi-Factor GIS Modeling for Solid Waste Dump Site Selection in Lilongwe city in Malawi.
2.- In the abstract, a brief context of the research is presented at the beginning. Then, very briefly, the methodology to be implemented is discussed. Finally, the main results and findings of the research are presented. Considering this, I believe it is necessary to improve the abstract by adding 2 to 3 lines with more information about the methodology to be used in the development of the research. Furthermore, it is necessary to define in parentheses the meaning of the abbreviation GIS (Geographical Information System or Geospatial Information System, please define one).
3.- Regarding the keywords, I suggest eliminating the following abbreviations: MCE; MCDA What do they mean? Many readers will probably not understand these abbreviations at first. I suggest adding the following keywords instead: site selection, Sustainability.
4.- It is necessary in the introduction of the article to provide a context of what waste management means worldwide, which is linked to the problems that currently exist in Malawi. It is recommended in the introduction chapter specifically in the first paragraphs to mention, for example, aspects of waste management and governance in different industries (mining, cities, wood industry, among others) and countries around the world. To do this, I recommend adding quotes and references from researchers from different places in the world, and not just considering Malawi. Consider for example the following articles:
• Szpilko, D.; de la Torre Gallegos, A.; Jimenez Naharro, F.; Rzepka, A.; Remiszewska, A. Waste Management in the Smart City: Current Practices and Future Directions. Resources 2023, 12, 115.
• Cacciuttolo, C.; Atencio, E. Past, Present, and Future of Copper Mine Tailings Governance in Chile (1905–2022): A Review in One of the Leading Mining Countries in the World. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13060.
5.- The article uses many abbreviations. Therefore, it is necessary to generate a subchapter called a list of abbreviations with a table, a subchapter that must be located after the subchapter called conflicts of interest and before the references chapter. Consider the following example:
Abbreviations
|
ICTs |
Information and Communication Technologies |
|
CAPEX |
Capital Costs |
|
OPEX |
Operational Costs |
|
masl |
Meters above sea level |
6.- Do not place figures 1 and 2 in parallel, the information on the map and images is not adequately appreciated. Please place figure 1 and figure 2 separately, one above and one below.
7.- In the materials and methods chapter, table 2 is shown, but in the previous text said table is not cited, please write a text where that table is cited.
8.- Throughout the article, the units of hectares are considered to quantify the area of solid waste deposits, please write the units of measurement as Ha and not as ha.
9.- At the beginning of chapter 3.2.1 Individual suitability factors, a brief introductory text needs to be added.
10.- This article, as it considers the use of GIS and declares to carry out modeling for the selection of sites in solid waste landfills, is expected to present high-level maps or cartographies. I think that the maps presented in figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are very simple, without a clear contribution and are seen with little detail. Please it is necessary to improve the quality of the information presented in these maps to add value to this article as stated in the abstract. I think that the maps as part of the research results in this article should be one of the main contributions considering the topic declared in the title of the research, please improve.
11.- In chapter 3.2.2 Criteria evaluation using AHP and WLC there is an equation that says the following:
WLC = 0.3 * [BU] + 0.16 * [RV] + 0.11 * [RD] + 0.08 * [AP] + 0.08 * [WL] +0.05 * [SP] + 0.06 * 292
[SL] + 0.04 * [CD] + 0.04 * [FP] + 0.06 * [RW] = 1
Please, if it is an equation considered in the research, you must indicate the equation and its respective correlative number and then define each of its variables.
12.- In the chapter discussing the results of the article, it is necessary to explicitly declare the contribution of this research to the management of urban solid waste, also indicating the advantages and disadvantages of the methods used in this research, along with pointing out the limitations of the study. Finally, it is necessary to compare the results obtained in this research with respect to other research that has considered different realities regarding the selection of sites and management of solid waste in different cities around the world. Please properly cite and reference the information you find in your literature review.
13.- A review of the English in the article by a native english person is suggested.
Regards,
Comments on the Quality of English Language
A review of the English in the article by a native english person is suggested.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe current version is ready for publication
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, I have revised the new version of your article. I've noted that the new version of the article considers my recommendations. From my point of view, I don't have more comments.
Regards,
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
