Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Collection Methods Focusing on Zero-Waste Management Using an Analytical Hierarchy Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to read your paper. I have found the application interesting. The paper has a good structure with a clear explanation. However, some concerns should be attended to by the authors.

1. I encourage you to add more detail about the novelty of the research in the abstract. Abstract has five sections, and you should follow the best practices in your area!

2. There is a problem in defining abbreviations. Why is the full phrase of "MSW" undefined? Please check and revise the similar errors.

3. Please add a paragraph at the last of the Introduction section as the "rest of the paper". In that paragraph, the author should briefly explain what will be presented in each section. The author can see similar examples in published scientific articles. Because in all articles, the last paragraph is related to the rest of the paper description.

4. The literature review is old! The authors added only two site addresses from 2023! We are now in the second half of 2023. The authors should review newly published papers related to the waste management field. The following references are related to waste management that authors can read and use to update references.

- "Sustainable resilient recycling partner selection for urban waste management: Consolidating perspectives of decision-makers and experts." Applied Soft Computing 137 (2023): 110120.

-  "Assessment of sustainable waste management alternatives using the extensions of the base criterion method and combined compromise solution based on the fuzzy Z-numbers." Environmental Science and Pollution Research 30.22 (2023): 62121-62136.

- "Extended base-criterion method based on the spherical fuzzy sets to evaluate waste management." Soft Computing 26.19 (2022): 9979-9992.

5. The limitations of this research can be discussed more in the conclusion section.

6. Please focus on the future direction in that last of the conclusion section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for accepting to evaluate our article and for your valuable comments. The articles you suggested were also very helpful in updating our article. We tried to make the corrections you suggested and the changes you stated that should be in the article. We hope we were able to make the corrections you requested.

Thank you again and we wish you good work

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to read your paper. I have found the application interesting. The paper has a good structure with a clear explanation. However, some concerns should be attended to by the authors.

1. I encourage you to add more detail about the novelty of the research in the abstract. Abstract has five sections, and you should follow the best practices in your area!

Authors: The abstract aws rewritten according to your suggesions.

2. There is a problem in defining abbreviations. Why is the full phrase of "MSW" undefined? Please check and revise the similar errors.

Authors: The abbreviations were corrected.

3. Please add a paragraph at the last of the Introduction section as the "rest of the paper". In that paragraph, the author should briefly explain what will be presented in each section. The author can see similar examples in published scientific articles. Because in all articles, the last paragraph is related to the rest of the paper description.

Authors: The rest of the paper description was added to introduction section.

4. The literature review is old! The authors added only two site addresses from 2023! We are now in the second half of 2023. The authors should review newly published papers related to the waste management field. The following references are related to waste management that authors can read and use to update references.

-"Sustainable resilient recycling partner selection for urban waste management: Consolidating perspectives of decision-makers and experts."Applied Soft Computing 137 (2023): 110120.

-"Assessment of sustainable waste management alternatives using the extensions of the base criterion method and combined compromise solution based on the fuzzy Z-numbers."Environmental Science and Pollution Research 30.22 (2023): 62121-62136.

-"Extended base-criterion method based on the spherical fuzzy sets to evaluate waste management."Soft Computing 26.19 (2022): 9979-9992.

Authors: The literature review was updated.

5.The limitations of this research can be discussed more in the conclusion section.

Limitations were discussed in the conlusion section.

6.Please focus on the future direction in that last of the conclusion section.

Authors: Futur directions were added in the conlusion section.

Thank you so much again your valuable suggestion and time.

Sincirely.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editors:

Thank you very much for the recommendation to review the manuscript entitled " Analysis of municipal solid waste collection methods focus on zero waste management with using analytical hierarchy process ". I would like to send you my comments on it.

Revision

The authors present a study of five different methods for separation at source were analyzed with the help of analytical hierarchy process. The article is good and well structured.

However, the abstract needs to be written better.

It suggests that:

Review the language and the use of punctuation marks, excessive use of ;.

Line 35 ZWM, acronyms must be defined

The references, which are scientific articles, have Available at, to place the doi. It is suggested to only put the DOI and the corresponding number as it has the MDPI bibliographic style. Example:

Ricket, A.L.; Jolley, G.J.; Knutsen, F.B.; Davis, S.C. Rural Sustainable Prosperity: Social Enterprise Ecosystems as a Framework for Sustainable Rural Development. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11339. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su151411339

Review the language and the use of punctuation marks, excessive use of ;.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for accepting to evaluate our article and for your valuable comments. We tried to make the corrections you suggested and the changes you stated that should be in the article, item by item. We hope we were able to make the corrections you suggested.

Thank you again and we wish you good work

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors:

Thank you very much for the recommendation to review the manuscript entitled " Analysis of municipal solid waste collection methods focus on zero waste management with using analytical hierarchy process ". I would like to send you my comments on it.

Revision

The authors present a study of five different methods for separation at source were analyzed with the help of analytical hierarchy process. The article is good and well structured.

However, the abstract needs to be written better.

Authors: The abstract was rewritten according to your suggestion.

It suggests that:

Review the language and the use of punctuation marks, excessive use of ;.

Authors: The language of the article has been tried to be corrected.

Line 35 ZWM, acronyms must be defined

Authors: Acronyms were defined.

The references, which are scientific articles, have Available at, to place the doi. It is suggested to only put the DOI and the corresponding number as it has the MDPI bibliographic style. Example:

Ricket, A.L.; Jolley, G.J.; Knutsen, F.B.; Davis, S.C. Rural Sustainable Prosperity: Social Enterprise Ecosystems as a Framework for Sustainable Rural Development. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11339. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su151411339.

Authors: Related corrections were done about it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Review the language and the use of punctuation marks, excessive use of ;

Authors: The language of the article has also been tried to be corrected, but no certified service support has been received yet. After the last changes, it was planned to receive certified service support.

Thank you so much again your valuable suggestion and time.

Sincirely.

Reviewer 3 Report

Title: Analysis of municipal solid waste collection methods focus on zero waste management with using analytical hierarchy process

This paper is quite good and needs a lot of correction, here are some comments from me to improve this paper.

Introduction:

 1.    The introduction lacks a clear and focused research question or objective. It would greatly benefit from a concise statement at the end of the introduction, outlining the specific goals of the study.

 2. The introduction makes multiple claims about the consensus among policymakers and the necessity of waste separation at source. However, these claims lack specific citations or references to support them. Including evidence to substantiate these assertions is crucial.

 3.    Some of the sentences in the introduction are overly wordy and convoluted, making the reading experience less enjoyable and difficult to follow. The text should be revised for better clarity and readability.

 4.    There is a lack of a clear research gap statement. The introduction should explicitly state what specific aspects of the zero waste management system, waste separation at source, or MSWM require further investigation and how the current research aims to address those gaps.

 5.    The "Zero Waste Regulation" description in Turkey is brief and lacks sufficient detail to fully understand its implications. Providing more specific information about the regulation and its impact on waste management practices in Turkey would be beneficial.

Method:

 1.   Lack of Detail in Estimating Residence Density: The method for estimating residence density (subsection 2.1) lacks specific details on data collection methods and sample size determination. The authors should provide more information on the data sources, sampling strategy, and statistical techniques used to classify the study area into different density classes.

 2.   Justification for AHP Usage: In subsection 2.2, the use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is mentioned briefly without a clear justification for its selection as the decision-making tool. The authors should elaborate on why AHP was chosen over other methods and how it aligns with the research objectives.

3.   GIS-Based Method Details: The GIS-based method (subsection 2.3) needs more comprehensive explanations. Specific details about the collected data types, sources, and any preprocessing steps conducted should be included. The ArcGIS Network Analyst module's parameters and configurations used in solving routing problems should also be described.

4.   Zero Waste-Based Method Clarity: The description of the "zero waste-based method" (subsection 2.4) lacks clarity. It is essential to clearly outline the steps involved in examining separation at the source point and optimizing solid waste collection processes. Additionally, the minimum requirement of ZW regulation in Turkey (mentioned in [33]) should be explained in more detail.

5.   Inadequate Explanation of Emission Factors: In subsection 2.5, the estimation of emissions based on data obtained from Barnaud et al. [43] is mentioned, but the specific emission estimation procedures and their relevance to the current study are not provided. It is crucial to explain how these emission factors were applied to the study area and why this particular study was chosen as a reference.

1

6.   References to Supplementary Materials: Some subsections refer to supplementary materials (e.g., "see Text S4," "see Figure S6 or Figure S9"). These references should be accompanied by a brief explanation of the relevant information in the main text or provided directly in the main manuscript.

7.   Clarity and Organization: The Methods section would benefit from better organization and a clearer flow of information. Each subsection should have a concise introduction explaining the relevance of the method to the study, followed by a detailed description of the methods used.

8.   Inclusion of Assumptions and Limitations: The authors should consider incorporating a subsection or paragraph discussing the assumptions and limitations of the methods used. This would help readers understand the potential constraints and implications of the study's findings.

9.   Standardization of Terminology: Some acronyms and terms, such as "ZWM," "MSW," and "GIS," are used without prior definition or explanation. All technical terms and abbreviations should be introduced and defined when first mentioned to ensure clarity and understanding.

Result:

Lack of Comparative Analysis: While the authors highlight that their study is the first in some areas, such as modeling waste separation based on density or analyzing waste disposal methods with AHP, there is limited discussion on how their findings compare to existing studies in related fields. A more comprehensive comparison with relevant literature would provide a stronger context for the significance and novelty of their research.

Insufficient Explanation of AHP Results: The discussion of AHP results and their implications (subsection 2) is rather concise. It would be beneficial to provide a more detailed interpretation of the AHP analysis and how it supports the chosen waste disposal methods. Additionally, the limitations of the AHP approach and potential sources of bias in expert knowledge should be addressed.

Clarification of Sustainability Claims: The authors assert that higher waste separation at the source leads to more sustainable disposal methods. However, this claim lacks empirical evidence or life cycle assessments to substantiate the sustainability claims. It is crucial to provide a clearer rationale for considering separation at the source as a sustainable practice in waste management.

Exhaust Emission Factors: While the authors briefly discuss the optimization of routes to reduce exhaust emissions (subsection 4), there is no in-depth analysis of the actual environmental impact of these emissions and how the proposed waste management system contributes to overall sustainability goals. A more comprehensive assessment of the environmental impact of diesel- fueled collection trucks and the potential benefits of transitioning to cleaner alternatives should be included.

Feedback Mechanism and Stakeholder Engagement: The authors mention the importance of receiving feedback from households and businesses through surveys, but there is no detailed discussion on the implementation of such a feedback mechanism. Including a section on stakeholder engagement strategies, the challenges of obtaining feedback, and the potential implications on system updates and efficiency would strengthen the study.

Generalization of Findings: The study is conducted in a specific district of Istanbul, and the findings may not be directly applicable to other regions or countries. The discussion should address the limitations of generalizing the results and potential variations in waste management practices in different settings.

Addressing Trade-offs: The discussion could benefit from a more nuanced analysis of trade-offs between waste separation, collection costs, and environmental impact. Sustainable waste

management often involves balancing multiple objectives, and addressing potential conflicts between these objectives would enhance the discussion.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Extensive editing of English language required, so many typos there 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for accepting to evaluate our article and for your valuable comments. Thank you for your detailed evaluation and valuable suggestions. We tried to make the corrections you suggested and the changes you stated that should be in the article, item by item. We hope we were able to make the corrections you requested.

Thank you again for your valuable suggestion and time.

This paper is quite good and needs a lot of correction, here are some comments from me to improve this paper.

Introduction:

1. The introduction lacks a clear and focused research question or objective. It would greatly benefit from a concise statement at the end of the introduction, outlining the specific goals of the study.

Authors: You are right. Recquired additions were done.

2. The introduction makes multiple claims about the consensus among policymakers and the necessity of waste separation at source. However, these claims lack specific citations or references to support them. Including evidence to substantiate these assertions is crucial.

Authors: You are right. Recquired additions were done.

3. Some of the sentences in the introduction are overly wordy and convoluted, making the reading experience less enjoyable and difficult to follow. The text should be revised for better clarity and readability.

Authors: The text was revised.

4. There is a lack of a clear research gap statement. The introduction should explicitly state what specific aspects of the zero waste management system, waste separation at source, or MSWM require further investigation and how the current research aims to address those gaps.

Authors: The text was revised according to reviewers’ suggestion.

5. The "Zero Waste Regulation" description in Turkey is brief and lacks sufficient detail to fully understand its implications. Providing more specific information about the regulation and its impact on waste management practices in Turkey would be beneficial.

Authors: The information about Zero Waste Regulation was updated .

Method:

1. Lack of Detail in Estimating Residence Density: The method for estimating residence density (subsection 2.1) lacks specific details on data collection methods and sample size determination. The authorsshould provide more information on the data sources, sampling strategy, and statistical techniques used to classify the study area into different density classes.

Authors: Residence density is a new suggestion for MSW. So, It can be only given statistical information about it.

2. Justification for AHP Usage: In subsection 2.2, the use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is mentioned briefly without a clear justification for its selection as the decision-making tool. The authors should elaborate on why AHP was chosen over other methods and how it aligns with the research objectives.

Authors: Literature about AHP usage were updated.

3. GIS-Based Method Details: The GIS-based method (subsection 2.3) needs more comprehensive explanations. Specific details about the collected data types, sources, and any preprocessing steps conducted should be included. The ArcGIS Network Analyst module's parameters and configurations used in solving routing problems should also be described.

Authors: Literature about ArcGIS usage was updated.

4. Zero Waste-Based Method Clarity: The description of the "zero waste-based method" (subsection 2.4) lacks clarity. It is essential to clearly outline the steps involved in examining separation at the source point and optimizing solid waste collection processes. Additionally, the minimum requirement of ZW regulation in Turkey (mentioned in [33]) should be explained in more detail.

Authors: The section was updated.

5. Inadequate Explanation of Emission Factors: In subsection 2.5, the estimation of emissions based on data obtained from Barnaud et al. [43] is mentioned, but the specific emission estimation procedures and their relevance to the current study are not provided. It is crucial to explain how these emission factors were applied tothe study areaand why this particular study was chosen as a reference.

Authors: The section was updated.

6. References to Supplementary Materials: Some subsections refer to supplementary materials (e.g.,"see Text S4," "see Figure S6 or Figure S9"). These references should be accompanied by a brief explanation of the relevant information in the main text or provided directly in the main manuscript.

Authors: The section was updated.

7. Clarity and Organization: The Methods section would benefit from better organization and a clearer flow of information. Each subsection should have a concise introduction explaining the relevance of the method to the study, followed by a detailed description of the methods used.

Authors: The section was updated.

8. Inclusion of Assumptions and Limitations: The authors should consider incorporating a subsection or paragraph discussing the assumptions and limitations of the methods used. This would help readers understand the potential constraints and implications of the study's findings.

Authors: The limitations were discussed in the conlusion section.

9. Standardization of Terminology: Some acronyms andterms, such as"ZWM," "MSW," and "GIS," are used without prior definition or explanation. All technical terms and abbreviations should be introduced and defined when first mentioned to ensure clarity and understanding.

Authors: Terminology was corrected.

Result:

Lack of Comparative Analysis: While the authors highlight that their study is the first in some areas, such as modeling waste separation based on density or analyzing waste disposal methods with AHP, there is limited discussion on how their findings compare to existing studies in related fields. A more comprehensive comparison with relevant literature would provide a stronger context for the significance and novelty of their research.

Insufficient Explanation of AHP Results: The discussion of AHP results and their implications (subsection 2) is rather concise. It would be beneficial to provide a more detailed interpretation of the AHP analysis and how it supports the chosen waste disposal methods. Additionally, the limitations of the AHP approach and potential sources of bias in expert knowledge should be addressed.

Authors: AHP results were updated.

Clarification of Sustainability Claims: The authors assert that higher waste separation at the source leads to more sustainable disposal methods. However, this claim lacks empirical evidence or life cycle assessments to substantiate the sustainability claims. It is crucial to provide a clearer rationale for considering separation at the source as a sustainable practice in waste management.

Authors: The justification for the stated claim is the knowledge that waste disposal methods will work in the most efficient way. Related section was updated.

Exhaust Emission Factors: While the authors briefly discuss the optimization of routes to reduce exhaust emissions (subsection 4), there is no in-depth analysis of the actual environmental impact of these emissions and how the proposed waste management system contributes to overall sustainability goals.

A more comprehensive assessment of the environmental impact of diesel- fueled collection trucks and the potential benefits of transitioning to cleaner alternatives should be included.

Authors: The source used is the most recent available source containing information on emission loads based on traveled distance . The section was updated.

Feedback Mechanism and Stakeholder Engagement: The authors mention the importance of receiving feedback from households and businesses through surveys, but there is no detailed discussion on the implementation of such a feedback mechanism. Including a section on stakeholder engagement strategies, the challenges of obtaining feedback, and the potential implications on system updates and efficiency would strengthen the study.

Authors: The section was updated.

Generalization of Findings: The study is conducted in a specific district of Istanbul, and the findings may not be directly applicable to other regions or countries. The discussion should address the limitations of generalizing the results and potential variations in waste management practices in different settings.

Authors: The section was updated.

Addressing Trade-offs: The discussion could benefit from a more nuanced analysis of trade-offs between waste separation, collection costs, and environmental impact. Sustainable waste management often involves balancing multiple objectives, and addressing potential conflicts between these objectives would enhance the discussion.

Authors: The discussion section was updated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required, so many typos there 

Authors: The language of the article has also been tried to be corrected, but no certified service support has been received yet. After the last changes, it was planned to receive certified service support.

Thank you so much again for your valuable suggestion.

Sincirely.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have carried out an exhaustive study in order to select the best alternative for collection and management of municipal solid wastes generated in the region of Istambul.

First of all, I would like to encourage the authors to keep on working on this research line.

I also would like to say that, in general, the idea is good and the manuscript is obviously the result of a hard work carried out by the authors. However, I am trying to provide some comments and suggestions in order to help the authors to improve the quality of the manuscript prior to be published:

1.     Please, conscientiously revise the English language. Many mistakes (is instead of are, present instead of past form of the verbs, etc.) can be found along the text.

2.     I strongly suggest to review and homogenize the use of acronyms, as some of them have been described after being used previously or they have not been defined the first time they appear in the text (examples: lines 32 or 35, MSW and ZWM should be defined the first time they appear in the manuscript). Other examples can be found later.

3.     Moreover, along the text, sometimes they use the acronyms, other times, the words. For example, MSW management or MSWM?, CO2 or carbon dioxide?

4.     Another example is that in Figure 3, authors define which is MRF (material recovery facility), CP, BMP, etc. but they have previously used in table 1 using the acronyms without defining it. Please, organize better the definitions and the use of acronyms.

5.     Introduction is not clear for me as it includes many sentences not really connected, using many references although not all of them are really necessary in this case and it is a little bit disordered.

6.     Line 100 and line 101 are not connected, line 100 says: “As of 2021,” and line 101 starts with “Turkey is among the countries…” in a new paragraph. Please, revise this kind of mistakes.

7.     Materials and methods described in section 2.1. is not clearly defined. In general, some parts of the document are hard to read.

8.     In my opinion, it is not clear the selection of Scenario 3 for being applied in the study area. If it has been selected due to the existing collecting method and equipments, it is not as the result of the AHP analysis, because this analysis led to other alternative scenarios with a higher score in the priority table.

9.     I could not find equations 4 and 5 in the manuscript. They are mentioned in the text (lines 320 and 323, respectively) but they are not included.

10.  Authors mention that the containers volume was 0.77 m3, which is the most common volume used in the studied district. However, containers volume is known to be one of the most influencing variables for waste management and collecting optimization as the number of trucks, routes and so on mainly depends on the type of container. Did the authors think about using the type of container as a variable to be taken into account in the analyses instead of fixing an unique container capacity?

11.  I think that the Discussion section need to be improved, first of all, it is not necessary to explain that this study is within the scope of a doctoral thesis. Secondly, because there are no references in the whole section. Authors expressed the lack of publications regarding these headings but there are publications related to these issues, eventhough they are not exactly the same and it would be appropriate to include them in this section. A Discussion section without any reference can not be considered as Discussion.

12.  Also Conclusions need to be reviewed and some conclusions reported during the Discussion section should be clearly included.

Hope these suggestions are taken into consideration and help to improve the quality of this manuscript.

Thank you.

I strongly recommend the authors to send the manuscript for language review to an expertise person. Some paragraphs included in the text have been really difficult to understand for me and many language mistakes have been found along the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for accepting to evaluate our article and for your valuable comments. Thank you for your detailed evaluation and valuable suggestions. We tried to make the corrections you suggested and the changes you stated that should be in the article, item by item. We hope we were able to make the corrections you requested.

Thank you again for your valuable suggestion and time.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have carried out an exhaustive study in order to select the best alternative for collection and management of municipal solid wastes generated in the region of Istambul.

First of all, I would like to encourage the authors to keep on working on this research line.

I also would like to say that, in general, the idea is good and the manuscript is obviously the result of a hard work carried out by the authors. However, I am trying to provide some comments and suggestions in order to help the authors to improve the quality of the manuscript prior to be published:

1. Please, conscientiously revise the English language. Many mistakes (is instead of are, present instead of past form of the verbs, etc.) can be found along the text.

Authors: The language of the article has also been tried to be corrected, but no certified service support has been received yet. After the last changes, it was planned to receive certified service support.

2.I strongly suggest to review and homogenize the use of acronyms, as some of them have been described after being used previously or they have not been defined the first time they appear in the text (examples: lines 32 or 35, MSW and ZWM should be defined the first time they appear in the manuscript). Other examples can be found later.

Authors: The acronyms were corrected.

3.Moreover, along the text, sometimes they use the acronyms, other times, the words. For example, MSW management or MSWM?, CO2 or carbon dioxide?

Authors: The acronyms were corrected.

4.Another example is that in Figure 3, authors define which is MRF (material recovery facility), CP, BMP, etc. but they have previously used in table 1 using the acronyms without defining it. Please, organize better the definitions and the use of acronyms.

Authors: The acronyms were corrected.

5.Introduction is not clear for me as it includes many sentences not really connected, using many references although not all of them are really necessary in this case and it is a little bit disordered.

Authors: Introduction section was updated.

6.Line 100 and line 101 are not connected, line 100 says: “As of 2021,” and line 101 starts with “Turkey is among the countries…” in a new paragraph. Please, revise this kind of mistakes.

Authors: The mistakes were corrected from the beginning of te paper to the end.

7.Materials and methods described in section 2.1. is not clearly defined. In general, some parts of the document are hard to read.

Authors: The section was updated.

8.In my opinion, it is not clear the selection of Scenario 3 for being applied in the study area. If it has been selected due to the existing collecting method and equipments, it is not as the result of the AHP analysis, because this analysis led to other alternative scenarios with a higher score in the priority table.

Authors: You are right. You are right, but as it is known, collection vehicles are generally designed to collect one type of waste. Therefore, the more components there are, the more vehicles (or increase the number of voyages) have to be used. In order to develop an urgent solution in the work area, route optimization was made for triple separation and the option to collect the waste separated at the source with three different vehicles (scenario 3). As you have stated, it is desirable to prioritize scenario 1 or 2. Considering the decision makers and the municipality, the current option is used in the article.

9.I could not find equations 4 and 5 in the manuscript. They are mentioned in the text (lines 320 and 323, respectively) but they are not included.

Author: It was corrected (some equations exist in the supplementary materials file)

10.Authors mention that the containers volume was 0.77 m3, which is the most common volume used in the studied district. However, containers volume is known to be one of the most influencing variables for waste management and collecting optimization as the number of trucks, routes and so on mainly depends on the type of container. Did the authors think about using the type of container as a variable to be taken into account in the analyses instead of fixing an unique container capacity?

Author: You are right, but 0.77 m3 bulk containers were chosen so that they can implement the minimum requirements of the Zero Waste Regulation in Turkey by transforming the existing system. For example, a container with a volume of 1m3 can also be considered. The projection in the article reflects that the container with a volume of 1m3 is filled with 77% solid waste.

11.I think that the Discussion section need to be improved, first of all, it is not necessary to explain that this study is within the scope of a doctoral thesis. Secondly, because there are no references in the whole section. Authors expressed the lack of publications regarding these headings but there are publications related to these issues, eventhough they are not exactly the same and it would be appropriate to include them in this section. A Discussion section without any reference can not be considered as Discussion.

Authors: You are right. Discussion section was updated.

12.Also Conclusions need to be reviewed and some conclusions reported during the Discussion section should be clearly included.

Hope these suggestions are taken into consideration and help to improve the quality of this manuscript.

Thank you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I strongly recommend the authors to send the manuscript for language review to an expertise person. Some paragraphs included in the text have been really difficult to understand for me and many language mistakes have been found along the text.

Authors: The language of the article has also been tried to be corrected, but no certified service support has been received yet. After the last changes, it was planned to receive certified service support.

Thank you so much again for your valuable suggestion.

Sincirely.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In this revised version, all my concerns have been addressed well by the authors. I recommend accepting this version for publishing in this journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you again for your valuable comments and time.

Thank you

Sincerely

Reviewer 3 Report

the author has made good improvements, and can adequately answer all the comments given. only the language used is still very lacking. please send this manuscript to native for proofreading. there are still typos and grammatical errors there.

the author has made good improvements, and can adequately answer all the comments given. only the language used is still very lacking. please send this manuscript to native for proofreading. there are still typos and grammatical errors there.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 We would like to thank you again for your valuable suggestion and time.

 Thank you again for your contribution to the development of the article in terms of its purpose, scope and results. We have updated the article completely in line with your suggestions. We wish we were able to improve the article at the expected level.

Edits and updates were made especially in the introduction, materials and methods, and discussion sections. The changes made are traceable on the article. Information about the changes and updates has been tried to be given below:

 1. Introduction section:

The article has a wide scope that can be examined under the headings of "solid waste management, zero waste, waste separation methods at source, waste disposal methods and the status of these methods according to separation methods at source, geographic information system, route optimization, analytical hierarchy process as a decision-making tool". Therefore, in line with your suggestions; The introduction section was tried to be developed to cover these main topics, and updates were made regarding zero waste management. It has been tried to include some studies on the criterion on which the separation in the source depends, and some related studies where the geographic information system is applied. While updating the introduction, the fourth paragraph in the previous copy was edited as the second paragraph and updated. The second and third paragraphs in the previous copy were arranged as the third and fourth paragraphs, respectively. Updated the research questions added at the end of the paragraph and the objectives of the article.

 2. Material and method section:

This section, which is gathered under five headings, has been revised to emphasize and understand the methods used, and additional updates have been tried to be made.

 3. Discussion section:

A paragraph has been added to Section 3.3 where the conclusions reached as a result of the AHP analyzes made in the study are discussed. In the study area, the reasons for the option used in the route optimization process were tried to be expressed. The section was reviewed from beginning to end and necessary updates were made.

 Quality of English language:

The article has been corrected in terms of English language quality by Ms. Ceren Ürkmeztürk, who is a translator/interpreter, but since some additions and updates were made after the correction, we will receive proofreading support again after the last changes.

 Sincerely

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, thank you for taking into account our comments and suggestions. I really appreciate your efforts to modify it following our suggestions step by step.

In my opinion, the manuscript has been highly improved after this review, especially the Introduction and Discussion sections and it can be considered suitable for publication.

Some errors with the English language still can be found in the text, but I trust that the authors will finally receive the certified service support, as they had planned.

On the other hand, my last recommendation would be that, as the authors have explained in their response to the review, in section 3.3, when they indicate that Scenario 3 is selected, it would be appropiate to explain the reasons for its selection even though it is not the most recommended option according to the AHP analysis.

Thank you 

Sincerely

Some errors with the English language still can be found in the text, but I trust that the authors will finally receive the certified service support, as they had planned.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 We would like to thank you again for your contribution to the development of the article in terms of its purpose, scope and results.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for taking into account our comments and suggestions. I really appreciate your efforts to modify it following our suggestions step by step.

Authors: Thank you

In my opinion, the manuscript has been highly improved after this review, especially the Introduction and Discussion sections and it can be considered suitable for publication.

Authors: Thank you

Some errors with the English language still can be found in the text, but I trust that the authors will finally receive the certified service support, as they had planned.

Authors: We had the current version corrected by our translator-interpreter expert friend. We will finally receive the certified service support, as we had planned.

On the other hand, my last recommendation would be that, as the authors have explained in their response to the review, in section 3.3, when they indicate that Scenario 3 is selected, it would be appropiate to explain the reasons for its selection even though it is not the most recommended option according to the AHP analysis.

Authors: Thank you so much again for your valuable suggestions. Related paragraph in the paper was updated again. The paragraph below was added to section 3.3.

“As a result of AHP analyses, the first of the waste separation scenarios at the source (scenario 1) was primarily suggested for optimizing disposal methods (se table). However, in this study, scenario 3, which is 14% lower than secenario 1 and recommended in the third place, was chosen for study area. Beşiktaş District was chosen as the study area (see Text S4). The reasons for choosing scenario 3 are: 1- ZWM-oriented waste need (MRF, CP, BMP) for the disposal facilities established in Istanbul, 2- The necessity of adapting the Beşiktaş District to the ZWM regulation in a short time, 3- The existing infrastructure in the district is suitable for triple separation, 4- The necessity of making additional investment for the scenario 1 proposed with priority (The collection vehicles in the district are designed for single type or mixed waste).”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some errors with the English language still can be found in the text, but I trust that the authors will finally receive the certified service support, as they had planned.

Authors: The article has been corrected in terms of English language quality by Ms. Ceren Ürkmeztürk, who is a translator/interpreter, but since some additions and updates were made after the correction, we will receive proofreading support again after the last changes.

Thank you

Sincerely