Implementation of Circular Economy Principles in Regional Solid Municipal Waste Management: The Case of Sverdlovskaya Oblast (Russian Federation)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors propose a potentially very topical subject: the most efficient management of municipal waste to move towards the circular economy. However, the introduction of the paper is a bit too general. For example: prevention, reuse and recycling, which are the cornerstones of the circular economy, are not sufficiently argued and above all related to the issue of waste management. Moreover, the analysis of the literature is not up to date, there is a lack of important scientific contributions on this issue published in recent years. Among these, I would like to mention:
Ghinea, C., & Gavrilescu, M. (2019). Solid Waste Management for Circular Economy: Challenges and Opportunities in Romania–The Case Study of Iasi County. In Towards Zero Waste (pp. 25-60). Springer, Cham.
Zeller, V., Towa, E., Degrez, M., & Achten, W. M. (2019). Urban waste flows and their potential for a circular economy model at city-region level. Waste Management, 83, 83-94.
Romero‐Hernández, O., & Romero, S. (2018). Maximizing the value of waste: From waste management to the circular economy. Thunderbird International Business Review, 60(5), 757-764.
Fernández-González, J. M., Grindlay, A. L., Serrano-Bernardo, F., Rodríguez-Rojas, M. I., & Zamorano, M. (2017). Economic and environmental review of Waste-to-Energy systems for municipal solid waste management in medium and small municipalities. Waste Management, 67, 360-374.
Haupt, M., Vadenbo, C., & Hellweg, S. (2017). Do we have the right performance indicators for the circular economy?: insight into the Swiss waste management system. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 615-627.
Malinauskaite, J., Jouhara, H., Czajczyńska, D., Stanchev, P., Katsou, E., Rostkowski, P., ... & Anguilano, L. (2017). Municipal solid waste management and waste-to-energy in the context of a circular economy and energy recycling in Europe. Energy, 141, 2013-2044.
Schneider, P., Anh, L., Wagner, J., Reichenbach, J., & Hebner, A. (2017). Solid waste management in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: moving towards a circular economy?. Sustainability, 9(2), 286.
Nelles, M., Grünes, J., & Morscheck, G. (2016). Waste management in Germany–development to a sustainable circular economy?. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 6-14.
The purpose of the work as stated from line 130 is a bit elusive. On the basis of a more detailed analysis of the literature, it would have been desirable to define the research questions in greater detail. The consequence is that the authors do not propose a real method, but rather a set of techniques applied in a framework that has not been sufficiently delimited.
In the paragraph of the method, the calculation of the Circular Economy Development Index (CEDI) obtained on the basis of data from secondary sources is presented. It is not clear that this calculation contributes to the method of analysis proposed by the authors. Similarly, reference is made to the LCA methodology, without, however, clarifying whether and how it will be used for this study. The results are based exclusively on the calculation of the Circular Economy Development Index based on secondary data obtained from a report of a regional authority, it is not sufficiently highlighted how this case study contributes to the knowledge on waste management and the application of the principles of circular economy.
In their conclusions, the authors set out a detailed list of weaknesses in waste management at regional level. The link they have with the results of the CEDI calculation has not been sufficiently clarified, as it is difficult to distinguish the opinion (and expectations) of the authors from the results of the case study analysis.
In order to be able to publish their paper, I suggest that the authors carry out a more accurate analysis of the literature, define some research issues and establish a clear methodological path to analyze the case study and reach conclusions validated by empirical evidence.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! We thank you for making competent criticisms!
The introduction of the paper is a bit too general. For example: prevention, reuse and recycling, which are the cornerstones of the circular economy, are not sufficiently argued and above all related to the issue of waste management. Moreover, the analysis of the literature is not up to date, there is a lack of important scientific contributions on this issue published in recent years. Among these, I would like to mention:
1Ghinea, C., & Gavrilescu, M. (2019). Solid Waste Management for Circular Economy: Challenges and Opportunities in Romania–The Case Study of Iasi County. In Towards Zero Waste (pp. 25-60). Springer, Cham.
2 Zeller, V., Towa, E., Degrez, M., & Achten, W. M. (2019). Urban waste flows and their potential for a circular economy model at city-region level. Waste Management, 83, 83-94.
3 Romero‐Hernández, O., & Romero, S. (2018). Maximizing the value of waste: From waste management to the circular economy. Thunderbird International Business Review, 60(5), 757-764.
4Fernández-González, J. M., Grindlay, A. L., Serrano-Bernardo, F., Rodríguez-Rojas, M. I., & Zamorano, M. (2017). Economic and environmental review of Waste-to-Energy systems for municipal solid waste management in medium and small municipalities. Waste Management, 67, 360-374.
5Haupt, M., Vadenbo, C., & Hellweg, S. (2017). Do we have the right performance indicators for the circular economy?: insight into the Swiss waste management system. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 615-627.
6Malinauskaite, J., Jouhara, H., Czajczyńska, D., Stanchev, P., Katsou, E., Rostkowski, P., ... & Anguilano, L. (2017). Municipal solid waste management and waste-to-energy in the context of a circular economy and energy recycling in Europe. Energy, 141, 2013-2044.
7Schneider, P., Anh, L., Wagner, J., Reichenbach, J., & Hebner, A.(2017). Solid waste management in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: moving towards a circular economy?. Sustainability, 9(2), 286.
8 Nelles, M., Grünes, J., & Morscheck, G. (2016). Waste management in Germany–development to a sustainable circular economy?. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 6-14.
The Authors shortened the Introduction and made a separate theoretical section (2. Theoretical framing of Research). In paragraph 2.1, the authors specified the important stages of the circular economy related to the recycling and reuse of resources. In the Theoretical section (paragraphs 2.1. and 2.2.), as well as in the Discussion, the authors added references to sources recommended by the Reviewer in paragraphs 2.1 [15,16,20,21,24-26] and 5 [50].
The purpose of the work as stated from line 130 is a bit elusive. On the basis of a more detailed analysis of the literature, it would have been desirable to define the research questions in greater detail. The consequence is that the authors do not propose a real method, but rather a set of techniques applied in a framework that has not been sufficiently delimited.
Comments were taken into account. We added a clearly formulated purpose of the work, briefly explained the methods and results of the work.
In the paragraph of the method, the calculation of the Circular Economy Development Index (CEDI) obtained on the basis of data from secondary sources is presented. It is not clear that this calculation contributes to the method of analysis proposed by the authors. Similarly, reference is made to the LCA methodology, without, however, clarifying whether and how it will be used for this study. The results are based exclusively on the calculation of the Circular Economy Development Index based on secondary data obtained from a report of a regional authority, it is not sufficiently highlighted how this case study contributes to the knowledge on waste management and the application of the principles of circular economy.
Comments were taken into account. The edited paragraph Methods and materials (paragraph 3) explains the purpose of using the Сircular Economy Development Index (CEDI) (paragraph 3.2.) and the LCA methodology (paragraph 3.3.). The Results and Discussion paragraphs (4 and 5) focus on the meaning and results of the analysis of the relevant indicators.
In their conclusions, the authors set out a detailed list of weaknesses in waste management at regional level. The link they have with the results of the CEDI calculation has not been sufficiently clarified, as it is difficult to distinguish the opinion (and expectations) of the authors from the results of the case study analysis.
The authors took into account the comments and clarified the link these weaknesses have with the results of the CEDI calculation in the Introduction and in the Discussion (paragraph 5).
In order to be able to publish their paper, I suggest that the authors carry out a more accurate analysis of the literature, define some research issues and establish a clear methodological path to analyze the case study and reach conclusions validated by empirical evidence.
Suggested recommendations were accepted. The Authors carried out a more accurate analysis of the literature and added references to sources in paragraphs 2.1, 2.2., 2.3, 3.1, 5. In the Introduction and Methods sections (3) a clear methodological path to analyze the case study was established. Materials to form the theoretical basis of methods were added. The text of the conclusion (6) was corrected, specific data obtained from the study were added.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear editors of Resources,
thank you for the possibility to review an interesting paper. I think that the paper surely has potential for international journal, however, before it is ready for publishing, it needs revsion. I am summarizing my comments and recommendations in the bullet points below:
- Title. This is fine, however, I would recommend adding the name of the case study (Sverdlovskaja Oblast) and to put the Russian Federation in the brackets behind.
- Abstract. I think it is not necessary to use MSW abbreviation in abstract. Could you please add one or two sentences on Methods and one or two sentences on your Results? This will surely help international reader in making choice if the paper is interesting or not.
- Keywords. Could you please add Russia among keywords?
- I would use the term "Circular Economy" with capital letters throughout the text.
- I recommend addition of short independent section Introduction. This might be easily derived from current Introduction which is rather Theoretical framing of study (this section should be, in my opinion, named this way or similarly).
- Theoretical framing of the study (currently Introduction) declares overview of authors and is good but could be more in-depth more developed. May be some more studies that I believe (from my subjetive point of view) as valuable to be discussed could be also included. For example:
Hobson, K. (2016). Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy. Progress in Human Geography, 40(1), 88-104.
Hobson, K., & Lynch, N. (2016). Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy: Radical social transformation in a resource-scarce world. Futures, 82, 15-25.
- I think that the part of current Introduction below the table 1 (in MSW in Russia), should not be part of Theory and rather be in independent (MSW in Russia). In this section, some references to authors dealing with this issue in Russia could be added and maybe the table could be developed that basic points and specifics of MSW in Russia are summarized.
- Methods. Could you please develop more on Methods? You are mentioning the observations. How these were conducted, how questionnaires were distrubuted (how many companies, when it wa done, the aim and description of the survey must be added, how and where and when a survey with population was done. Generally, the Methods should be more developed and as the section stands now, it is not sufficient.
- Section MSW in Russia. Please add more information about MSW in Sverdlovskaja Oblast (may be as subsection). Could you please add some exact number about waste? Some information on Sverdlovskaja Oblast MSW is included in 2.2 (Figure 2 - why last year included is 2015?) and shoud be shifted to section MSW in Russia.
- Results. The Section Results is very good and the results are reasonable. Could please add independent section Discussion and shift there parts of the Results where they are discussed? This will certainly enable better orientation in the text. It is not clear why suveys with population and companies are mentioned in the Methods. Could you please explain or adapt?
- Conclusion. Is it possible to generalize more your findings in Conclusion? I recommend adding a paragraph (at the end of Conclusion) on the Limitations of the study.
I think that the authors did good job in the paper but I also think that the revision of the paper could make it more competitive. The topic has very good potential to be developed with Resources and I am very happy to read the revised version of the paper again. I recomment major revision.
Kind regards,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Your comments are very useful for improving the quality of our article!
- Title. I would recommend adding the name of the case study (Sverdlovskaja Oblast) and to put the Russian Federation in the brackets behind.
The authors implemented the recommendations and concretized the object of the study in the title of the article.
- Abstract. I think it is not necessary to use MSW abbreviation in abstract. Could you please add one or two sentences on Methods and one or two sentences on your Results? This will surely help international reader in making choice if the paper is interesting or not.
The abbreviation from the Abstract was removed. Information about the methods and the main results of the research was added.
- Keywords. Could you please add Russia among keywords?
The name of the country (Russia) where the study had been conducted was added among Keywords
- I would use the term "Circular Economy" with capital letters throughout the text.
The term "Circular Economy" was replaced by the abbreviation CE throughout the text of the article.
- I recommend addition of short independent section Introduction. This might be easily derived from current Introduction which is rather Theoretical framing of study (this section should be, in my opinion, named this way or similarly).
According to the recommendation, short independent section Introduction and the Theoretical framing of Research section with three independent sub-items were added.
- Theoretical framing of the study (currently Introduction) declares overview of authors and is good but could be more in-depth more developed. May be some more studies that I believe (from my subjetive point of view) as valuable to be discussed could be also included. For example:
Hobson, K. (2016). Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy. Progress in Human Geography, 40(1), 88-104.
Hobson, K., & Lynch, N. (2016). Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy: Radical social transformation in a resource-scarce world. Futures, 82, 15-25..
In accordance with the comments, an additional analysis of the literature was carried out and references to recommended sources were added in paragraphs 2.1 [22,23].
- I think that the part of current Introduction below the table 1 (in MSW in Russia), should not be part of Theory and rather be in independent (MSW in Russia). In this section, some references to authors dealing with this issue in Russia could be added and maybe the table could be developed that basic points and specifics of MSW in Russia are summarized.
Part of the Introduction was moved to the section Theoretical framing of Research, references to Russian authors dealing with the problem of waste management and Circular Economics were added. The material about the situation with the volume of MSW and its utilization in Russia was added to the text.
Methods. Could you please develop more on Methods? You are mentioning the observations. How these were conducted, how questionnaires were distrubuted (how many companies, when it wa done, the aim and description of the survey must be added, how and where and when a survey with population was done. Generally, the Methods should be more developed and as the section stands now, it is not sufficient.
This deficiency was addressed. The purpose (in the Introduction) and the results of the opinion polls and questionnaires (paragraphs 3.1 Methods and Materials and 5 Discussion) were explained more clearly.
- Section MSW in Russia. Please add more information about MSW in Sverdlovskaja Oblast (may be as subsection). Could you please add some exact number about waste? Some information on Sverdlovskaja Oblast MSW is included in 2.2 (Figure 2 - why last year included is 2015?) and shoud be shifted to section MSW in Russia.
Information about MSW in Russia and in Sverdlovskaja Oblast is presented in Tables 2 and 3 (paragraph 2.2) and 4 (paragraf 3.1), making it more specific. Figure 2 (now Figure 3) shows the years before 2015, because sources of reliable information from a later period, unfortunately, were not found. However, thanks to the latest state reports, data on waste generation and CEDI values were updated.
- Results. The Section Results is very good and the results are reasonable. Could please add independent section Discussion and shift there parts of the Results where they are discussed? This will certainly enable better orientation in the text. It is not clear why suveys with population and companies are mentioned in the Methods. Could you please explain or adapt?
The independent section Discussion was added. Data on the discussion of the results were shifted to this section, new data were added, which made it possible to better understand the results of the study. Suveys with population and companies were moved to paragraph 3.1 Materials and methods and to paragraph 5 Discussion.
- Conclusion. Is it possible to generalize more your findings in Conclusion? I recommend adding a paragraph (at the end of Conclusion) on the Limitations of the study.
Empirical results of the of the research were generalized more in Conclusion. An information on the Limitations of the study was added.
Reviewer 3 Report
CEDI is an important index in this paper. The index is based on the Ellen MacArthur Foundation's general theoretical circular economy model. But the explanations on this model were deficient in this paper. So, please give a bit explanations on this model.
In figure 2, the rod graphs were not classified in good resolutions. please use lines or cross-line patterns inside the rod to be discernable.
In conclusions, last lists were written on the weaknesses. The strong and affirmative points by the results can be emphasized for results spreads in this summary.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! We thank you for your critical comments on our article!
CEDI is an important index in this paper. The index is based on the Ellen MacArthur Foundation's general theoretical circular economy model. But the explanations on this model were deficient in this paper. So, please give a bit explanations on this model.
According to the constructive comment on paragraph 3.2., a more accurate explanation of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation's Circular Economy model was added, which made the meaning of CEDI more understandable.
In figure 2, the rod graphs were not classified in good resolutions. please use lines or cross-line patterns inside the rod to be discernable.
Fig. 2 (now Fig. 3) has been improved by using contrasting colors for better data perception.
In conclusions, last lists were written on the weaknesses. The strong and affirmative points by the results can be emphasized for results spreads in this summary.
ACcording to the recommendation, the findings were added to the Conclusions, additional explanations were given and possible directions for further research and areas of application were described.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, I appreciate the work you have done to structure your paper in a more rational way. Now the manuscript enhances the contents of the empirical part resulting from the analysis of the case study. Therefore, in this form I consider the article to be publishable in the journal.
