PONE-D-25-22742Determinants of sustainable solid waste management in Jimma City, Southwest EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Haile,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 Both reviewers are largely complimentary of the paper but both propose some minor changes to improve it.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 18 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alison Parker

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that all relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. If additional data required including raw data of the survey, it will be provided upon request.

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set.

Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This research will make an important contribution to the currently insufficient data on waste arisings in non-OECD countries and will be a useful resource for local and regional policymakers. I am excited to see the final version!

However, there are some minor changes and improvements that are needed in order to increase the quality and impact of this research. I am presenting these as a series of questions, which I hope you can answer, followed by some comments:

1) Are waste volumes increasing only because of urban growth, or because of population growth and changes in consumption?

2) Is there any data to support the claim on line 88 that the country has 'enormous' waste arisings? Are waste arisings they larger than in neighbouring countries?

3) On line 98, how does the quantity of waste being generated in Jimma City compare to elsewhere? Are the figures given higher or lower than elsewhere. Figures from neighbouring locations given later in the document could be moved here for context.

4) On line 100, who is emptying these containers? Is there information about how formal or informal collections are undertaken that you can share?

5) On line 105 - what are the actual discrepancies? The descriptive words used are too vague. Do you mean 'differences' rather than discrepancies?

6) Lines 105/106 refers to data on the human and environmental effects of waste management in the city - this sounds really interesting. Can you add some lines to say what they are? This adds to the importance of this research because you are suggesting ways to avoid future negative effects of poor waste management.

7) In Line 109 - does the development plan contain any waste management objectives that you can address?

8) In line 140, by 'far' do you mean 'outer'. Far is an unusual word to use in this context.

9) In line 152 - was any guidance used to help design the questionnaire? Was it based on a similar study? Can a link be provided to it?

10) In line 183, by 'reuse' do you mean recycling? It is different to reuse which may happen in the home or commercially.

11) In line 185, does uncontrolled incineration encompass open burning?

12) In lines 353-356: Are these locations comparable to the study location? If these locations are completely different, then the comparison to them needs to state this. Are the towns with higher waste arisings bigger cities, and the ones with less smaller?

Line 477: was any record made of whether food waste was cooked or uncooked which could influence whether it could be avoided? Also, was the time of year a factor? Were there more leaves than other times of the year for example (or fewer)?

Also, on line 59, the terms 'hardware' and 'software' are not common terms in this context and the former is not used by the authors quoted. Would suggest the terms 'physical elements' and 'governance aspects' including strategies and regulations.

Line 61: different referencing style used here and elsewhere. Please use the same style throughout.

Line 97: please put Jimma City in context. E.g. it is the xx biggest city in Ethiopia with a population of xxx,000 plus location etc. Global readers may not be familiar with the city.

In the introduction, please state more specific aims of the research - to contribute to the development plan or policies for example? What gaps are being filled?

Line 124: please add ", or local administrative wards," after kebeles. The definition is explained later in the document but this needs to be done the first time the word is used.

Line 141: change 'proximate' to 'proximity'

Lines 187/188: It would be useful to have a table in an appendix that explains the different category descriptions in more technical detail. Many will be quite simple and self-explanatory, but some could be open to misinterpretation if not explained clearly.

Line 265: suggest changing 'their' to 'owned'

Lines 279/80: this sentence hasn't been concluded. Could delete "As a result" and end it with "as shown in Table 3."

Lines 288/289: this graph needs to be clearer. Total composition. Spread out the labels. Include complete legend showing all materials included in the audit. A more detailed breakdown of the waste would be useful. Cooked and uncooked organic waste, different types of plastic and metals etc. Rubber and leather are very different materials - why are they together (shoes?). If the data isn't available then perhaps add observational data. Were the plastics predominantly a certain item for example.

Lines 288/289: look at how graphs are presented in other papers - you don't need the boxes around the text. Satisfation should have a capital S.

Lines 310/11 - Table 4: the figs in the right hand column should be < 0.001 and not 0

Line 329: higher odds? The use of this term here and going forward is confusing. Do you mean higher/increased likelihood or increased probability? Suggest describing what you mean by this and then make reference to the table.

Line 331-3: this sentence isn't very clear - suggest rewording it.

Line 350: compared to the figure for the same city cited in line 98?

Line 410: suggest briefly explaining what these are and why banning them makes a difference

Line 432/433: So renting has a positive impact? Results suggested ownership had this impact. Please clarify.

Reviewer #2: From my reading, this article offers an important contribution to the study of sustainable solid waste management (SSWM) by examining the socio-demographic, attitudinal and spatial factors shaping household practices in Jimma City. The authors use survey data from households alongside waste sampling, using ordinal logistic regression to identify key predictors. The study highlights a particular disconnect, the low adoption of composting and recycling despite biodegradable waste being the most common.

Introduction:

The introduction sets the topic well, situating it within both global and regional contexts and referencing relevant literature to establish its significance. However, there are some minor inconsistencies in reference formatting, for example, in lines 61 and 69 that should be standardised. I also recommend checking the accuracy of some citations: reference 5 (Kaza et al., 2018) is cited in relation to population growth figures in Africa, but these figures do not appear in that source. You may find that reference 4 contains the relevant data. In addition, references 5 and 7 appear to be duplicated in the bibliography. The 30–50% statistic attributed to source 11, I could not locate; it may originate from Kaza et al? but this should be confirmed and clearly referenced.

Methodology:

The methodology is clear and well explained. The use of stratified sampling based on kebele characteristics adds strength by enhancing representativeness. The sample size calculation using Cochran’s formula is appropriate, with assumptions stated clearly. The statistical analysis appears appropriate and is carried out with reasonable rigour. Descriptive statistics are well presented and effectively summarise key variables across different levels of sustainability. One area that would benefit from clarification is the 9-question scoring tool used to assess SSWM practices. Was this adapted from a validated instrument or developed specifically for this study? Further detail on this would improve transparency and support reproducibility. It would also be helpful to briefly explain why the study was limited to six kebeles, whether this was for reasons of representativeness, resource constraints, or other practical considerations.

Results:

The results section is thorough and informative. To improve readability, reducing some repetition between the text and tables would help. There is also an inconsistency regarding sample size: the methods mention 836 households surveyed, but the results section starts of saying 820 households participated. Table 2 mostly sums to 836, so this discrepancy needs clarification and consistent reporting throughout. Minor rounding differences appear too, for instance, “31.37%” satisfaction in the text versus “31.34%” in Figure 3; these should be aligned for accuracy. There is also a typo error in the percentage reported on line 327.

Discussion and Conclusion:

The discussion appropriately places findings within Ethiopian and wider literature, indicative of thoughtful interpretation. However, a few reference issues should be addressed. Reference 41 does not appear to include the cited statistic, though the author has another relevant publication (Quantification and Characterization of MSW) that may be more appropriate. The daily waste generation figure in reference 43 (0.60kg versus 0.56kg) should also be checked. Reference 49 discusses Bangladesh; it would be helpful to note this explicitly to avoid confusion with the Ethiopian context. Formatting issues (line 361) need review. Finally, the claim that the ban on the Khat market has influenced waste practices (line 410) should either be supported with a citation or reframed more cautiously rather than a confirmed finding. The conclusion offers a clear and concise summary of the main findings and their implications. Your recommendations, particularly those related to composting and decentralised waste management are timely and actionable.

Limitations:

This section is well presented and transparent.

Additional points:

No concerns were identified in relation to dual-use research or ethical risks.

Overall assessment:

This manuscript addresses an important topic with well-designed methodology and clear implications for solid waste management policy in Ethiopia. Clarifying inconsistencies noted, verifying references and improving methodological transparency would strengthen the paper. I encourage the authors to revise accordingly as the study shows strong potential for publication in PLOS ONE.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Elizabeth Cullen

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

<div>PONE-D-25-22742R1Determinants of sustainable solid waste management in Jimma City, Southwest EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Haile,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Reviewer 1 has some further minor comments to address.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 26 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alison Parker

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has been significantly improved since the first draft - congratulations!

Minor comments:

Lines 90-92: Please state which year(s) these figures refer to. As waste arisings are increasing so quickly, it is useful to know how recent this data is.

Line 105: by “evergreen” do you mean “agricultural”? Replace the full-stop at the end of this short sentence with a comma to incorporate it into the first part of next sentence, making the next sentence shorter.

Line 107: no exception to what? Suggest removing this and starting sentence with “In Jimma City…”

Lines 323 and 333: the numbers are not visible when referring to the Figures.

In table 4, the < symbols are not visible.

The manuscript would benefit from a final proof read for minor grammatical inconsistencies but otherwise reads well.

Reviewer #2: Hello Authors,

Thank you for your careful and thorough revisions. It is clear that you have addressed each of the points raised. The paper now reads with greater clarity and precision, and the changes you have made are evident across several sections.

In the introduction, the correction of referencing inconsistencies, the removal of duplicate entries, and the rectification of the citation swap between references 4 and 5 have strengthened the accuracy of the background. The decision to replace the earlier 30–50% statistic with a more precise figure and source not only improves the reliability of the statement but also brings the framing of the problem into sharper focus.

Your methodology section benefits from a fuller account of how the 9-question scoring tool was developed, combining insights from the literature with input from experts in the field. The explanation for selecting six kebeles, balancing resource limitations with the need for representativeness is now set out with clarity, making the study design easier to follow.

The results section now resolves the earlier uncertainty around household numbers, distinguishing clearly between the 836 initially surveyed and the 820 analysed in detail. Small but important corrections to rounding and typographical error have also been addressed.

In the discussion and conclusion, the replacement of an incorrect reference, the update to the waste generation figure, and the note that references 52 and 53 relate to Bangladesh all add precision. I also welcome the more measured statement regarding the Khat market ban, which now acknowledges the absence of any formal study to support the claim. This adjustment strengthens the balance of the discussion and ensures it rests on secure evidential ground.

These revisions have strengthened the manuscript considerably. It now presents its findings with accuracy, clarity, and a coherent flow. I would recommend it for the next stage in the publication process, and I appreciate the time and care you have invested in addressing the feedback.

All the best!

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Elizabeth Cullen

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Determinants of sustainable solid waste management in Jimma City, Southwest Ethiopia

PONE-D-25-22742R2

Dear Dr. Haile,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alison Parker

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: