Using Precision Agriculture (PA) Approach to Select Suitable Final Disposal Sites for Energy Generation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, this manuscript is demonstrating an important and promising research direction, however part of this manuscript seems to be enhanced in much clearer discussion. Herein, it is suggested that the manuscript could be accepted for publication in Information unless major corrections has been conducted according to the recommended points.

 Required corrections:

1) Abstract:

The research gap of this study should be mentioned at the beginning.

Besides, it is suggested that the authors should emphasize and point out the importance and significance of this study, not only citing more numerical conclusions, and future application also need to be added. Please balance this situation.

2) Keywords:

Waste disposal and sustainable development should be added. 

3) Introduction:

This section need to be modified, since the authors have selected the landfill technology as the municipal solid waste treatment. However, other technologies, such as pyrolysis technology etc., were less mentioned and compared with landfilling technology for the suitable option used in this manuscript. It is suggested that the authors should give a brief comparison in this study, and some recent literature related to could be referred to, such as (a) and (b): (a) Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022, 355, 131768; (b) Bioengineering, 2022, 9(11), 637.

 4) Methodology:

What is the current application of SDLC? The authors should give a brief introduction in this section.

Statistical analysis must be mentioned.

5) Implementation:

Figure 5 was missing in this manuscript, please check this.

Besides, figures in this section should be modified for clearly demonstration, and some ones moved to the appendix section, for example figure 4, 8, 9.  

6) Line 227: 3. System Testing… should be changed into 4. System Testing…

Besides, the comparison between this study and other similar studies need to be further discussed in the whole section, and explain the reason. 

7) Text must grammar improves and in some cases it is very weak.

8) There are many format errors which suggested the authors need to be modified carefully throughout the whole manuscript.

 

Author Response

REVIEWER #1:

Overall, this manuscript demonstrates an important and promising research direction, however, part of this manuscript seems to be enhanced in much clearer discussion. Herein, it is suggested that the manuscript could be accepted for publication in Information unless major corrections have been conducted according to the recommended points.

 

Response

• The authors would like to give special thanks to anonymous Reviewer #1 for its insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which significantly improved the manuscript.

 

• Abstract: The research gap of this study should be mentioned at the beginning.

Response

• The research gap has been added in the abstract (line 23-25).
• Abstract: Besides, it is suggested that the authors should emphasize and point out the importance and significance of this study, not only citing more numerical conclusions, and future applications also need to be added. Please balance this situation

Response

• The future application has been added at the end of abstract (line 29-31).

 

• Keywords: Waste disposal and sustainable development should be added.

Response

• The keyword has been modified (line 32).
• Introduction: This section needs to be modified, since the authors have selected the landfill technology as the municipal solid waste treatment. However, other technologies, such as pyrolysis technology etc., were less mentioned and compared with landfilling technology for the suitable option used in this manuscript. It is suggested that the authors should give a brief comparison in this study, and some recent literature related to could be referred to, such as (a) and (b): (a) Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022, 355, 131768; (b) Bioengineering, 2022, 9(11), 637

Response

• The landfill technology has been added in the Introduction and those references have been cited (line 70-84 ).
• Methodology: What is the current application of SDLC? The authors should give a brief introduction in this section.

Response

• The SDLC theory has been added to the methodology (line 176-186).
• Statistical analysis must be mentioned.

Response

• We don’t use a statistical evaluation but use a confusion matrix to evaluate the developed system prototype. Based on the evaluation, the suitability map for energy generation has 84.3% accuracy and 15.7% error (line 352).
• Implementation: Figure 5 was missing in this manuscript, please check this.

Response

• The numbering error has been corrected. It is a numbering error and there is no figure missing (line 259).
• Besides, figures in this section should be modified for clearly demonstration, and some ones moved to the appendix section, for example figure 4, 8, 9.

Response

• We decided not to use an appendix because the images are relatively few and can be displayed in the article body.
• Line 227: 3. System Testing… should be changed into 4. System Testing

Response

• It is already corrected (line 286).
• Besides, the comparison between this study and other similar studies need to be further discussed in the whole section, and explain the reason.

Response

• A comparison to other similar studies has been added in introduction & methodology (line 70-113)
• Text must grammar improves and in some case it is very weak.

Response

• The English language has been improved.
• There are many format errors which suggested the authors need to be modified carefully throughout the whole manuscript.

Response

• The format errors have been modified.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

 

The topic of the manuscript “Selecting Suitable Final Disposal Sites for Energy Generation from Municipal Solid Waste Using Approaches of Precision Agriculture” in my opinion will interesting for readers of “Information”.

In my opinion the research is important to the practice field, human health, ecosystems and also for science. Unfortunately, the manuscript contains some errors that need to be corrected before its publication. The analytical methodologies and techniques are not adequate described. 

Below you can find some comments which can improve the quality of your manuscript:

 

Title

The title is too long. Consider shortening it. I'm not sure if you should put in the title: Using Approaches of Precision Agriculture. Because "using spatial mapping based on socio-environment factors and sustainable principles ..." is not only … just an "approach of precision agriculture"

 

Abstract:

Line 24 – „for better waste management” - remove that part, it's inaccurate

 

Keywords:  Please delete or replace the keywords that are also in the title of the work. Keywords cannot duplicate parts of the title.

 

Introduction:

In my opinion you have to write something about use of AHP method in selecting suitable place for MSW facilities localization (not only GIS).

You may consider citing the following articles:

DOI 10.1016/j. resconrec.2019.05.027.

DOI: 10.24425/jwld.2021.139019

DOI 10.31590/ejosat.763866

What is the novelty of research - please complete in Introduction

There is no research problem - please complete it in Introduction section before the aim of research.

 

Material and methods:

The methodology is not well explained.

Some comments:

What thematic layers have you rejected and why?

Please explain in a few words what the AHP method is all about.

 

General comments:

Check the notation of numbers and units.

Author Response

REVIEWER #2:

 

The topic of the manuscript “Selecting Suitable Final Disposal Sites for Energy Generation from Municipal Solid Waste Using Approaches of Precision Agriculture” in my opinion will interesting for readers of “Information. In my opinion the research is Important to the practice field, human health, ecosystems and science. Unfortunately, the manuscript contains some errors that must be corrected before publication. The analytical methodologies and techniques are not adequate described. Below you can find some comments which can improve the quality of your manuscript:

 

Response

• The authors would like to give special thanks to anonymous Reviewer #2 for its insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which significantly improved the manuscript.

 

• Title: The title is too long. Consider shortening it. I'm not sure if you should put in the title: Using Approaches of Precision Agriculture. Because "using spatial mapping based on socio-environment factors and sustainable principles ..." is not only … just an "approach of precision agriculture.

Response

• The title has been revised as suggested, and we place municipal solid waste in the Keywords, and municipal solid waste has been addressed in the goal of the research in the abstract and addressed in the introduction (line 1-3).
• Abstract: Line 24 – „for better waste management” - remove that part, it's inaccurate.

Response

• This issue has been removed.
• Keywords:  Please delete or replace the keywords that are also in the title of the work. Keywords cannot duplicate parts of the title.

Response

• The keyword has been modified (line 32-34).
• Introduction: In my opinion, you have to write something about use of AHP method in selecting suitable place for MSW facilities localization (not only GIS). You may consider citing the following articles:

DOI 10.1016/j. resconrec.2019.05.027.

DOI: 10.24425/jwld.2021.139019

DOI 10.31590/ejosat.763866

Response

• AHP method has been added and discussed in introduction and methodology, and those references have been cited (line 204-216).

 

• What is the novelty of research - please complete in Introduction

Response

• The novelty has been added in the abstract and introduction (line 140-146).
• There is no research problem - please complete it in Introduction section before the aim of the research.

Response

• The research problem has been added in the introduction before the aim of research (line 137-148).
• Material and methods: The methodology is not well explained.

Response

• The methodology has been revised and improved (line 175-242).
• Some comments: What thematic layers have you rejected and why?

Response

• Sub-factors such as social acceptance, distance from the power grid, and land cost are not used as the thematic layers because these data are not openly accessible and require very strict government permits (line 213-216).
• Please explain in a few words what the AHP method is all about.

Response

• The AHP method has been added in methodology (line 204-216).
• Check the notation of numbers and units.

Response

• The section number and units have been checked and corrected.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript is clear and significantly improved. Acceptance is recommended.

Author Response

Response

• The authors would like to give special thanks to anonymous Reviewer #1 for its insightful

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

Thank you very much for considering my comments. Please consider these two more:

1. All added fragments in the revised version of the manuscript should be checked by a native speaker

2. Some words from keywords also appear in the title - this should be corrected

Best regards

Reviewer

Author Response

REVIEWER #2:

Thank you very much for considering my comments.

 

Response

• The authors would like to give special thanks to anonymous Reviewer #2 for its insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which significantly improved the manuscript.

 

1. All added fragments in the revised version of the manuscript should be checked by a native speaker

Response

• A native professional English editing service has proofread the this manuscript. Herewith, we attach the proofreading certificates.

 

    2. Some words from keywords also appear in the title - this should be corrected

Response

• The keywords have been corrected (line 31).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf