Next Article in Journal
An Improved Method for Obtaining Solar Irradiation Data at Temporal High-Resolution
Previous Article in Journal
Nordic Student Teachers’ Views on the Most Efficient Teaching and Learning Methods for Species and Species Identification
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Success of Water Refill Stations Reducing Single-Use Plastic Bottle Litter

Sustainability 2019, 11(19), 5232; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195232
by Kathryn Willis 1,2,3,*, Britta Denise Hardesty 2, Joanna Vince 1,3 and Chris Wilcox 2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Sustainability 2019, 11(19), 5232; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195232
Submission received: 2 September 2019 / Revised: 20 September 2019 / Accepted: 20 September 2019 / Published: 24 September 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Sustainability and Applications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This research examines a timely and valuable academic & applied topic with broad interest and application. Offering a few sentences about the disciplinary area(s) the research aims to address & conceptual lens used (ie, is this addressing the broader marketing, enviro sci, NRM, soc psych, etc. literature??) would be useful minor additions. The research design, presentation of findings, & discussion are suitable, informative, & well presented, with clear written expression. The Conclusion is just a little brief; it would be great if a couple sentences towards the end could relate the key 'take away insights' back to the academic literature gaps filled and environmental benefits/challenges, particularly for readers who may be outside of Australia and seeking to reproduce such analyses / add water refilling stations in their areas.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This research examines a timely and valuable academic & applied topic with broad interest and application.

Comment 1: Offering a few sentences about the disciplinary area(s) the research aims to address & conceptual lens used (ie, is this addressing the broader marketing, enviro sci, NRM, soc psych, etc. literature??) would be useful minor additions.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their comment. Text addressing the above comment has been added to the manuscript. Please see lines 90 -92 and 96-99.

Comment 2: The research design, presentation of findings, & discussion are suitable, informative, & well presented, with clear written expression.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their comment.

Comment 3: The Conclusion is just a little brief; it would be great if a couple sentences towards the end could relate the key 'take away insights' back to the academic literature gaps filled and environmental benefits/challenges, particularly for readers who may be outside of Australia and seeking to reproduce such analyses / add water refilling stations in their areas.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their suggestions. We have added text to the conclusion. Please see lines 458 - 471.

Reviewer 2 Report

1) I can't understand the meaning of "Block Dist" shown in Fig.2. Block Dist of Block ID 10 and 13 are shown 2 and 3 km. From anywhere?

2) The number of litter items each block also should be shown. If not so, we can't know how to analyse statistically.

3) The unit of the y axes in Fig.3 should be indicated. It is better to make the size of Fig.3 smaller (go out of the paper frame) .

4) We can't see the characteristics in Fig.4 and Fig.5. It is better to make them bigger. But, these figures go out of the paper frame. It is better to make them smaller. What do the dotted lines in these figures show?

5) 4.3.1 Location, Location, Location. Is it right?

Author Response

Comment 1: I can't understand the meaning of "Block Dist" shown in Fig.2. Block Dist of Block ID 10 and 13 are shown 2 and 3 km. From anywhere?

Response: Block Dist in table of Figure 2 indicates the distance each block is from the analysed installation point. Block ID 10 has a Block Dist of 2 as it is 2 blocks away from the analysed installation point. Block Dist description in figure caption has been edited to remove confusion. Line 165-166.

Comment 2: The number of litter items each block also should be shown. If not so, we can't know how to analyse statistically.

Response: The authors have not supplied number of litter items per block in the manuscript due to data agreement contract with the Healthy Land and Water organisation (data owners). Rachael Nasplezes from Healthy Land and Water can be contacted directly for access to non-aggregated data used in this study. Authors have acknowledged Healthy Land and Water with data ownership in the acknowledgements line 480 onwards.

Comment 3: The unit of the y axes in Fig.3 should be indicated. It is better to make the size of Fig.3 smaller (go out of the paper frame).

Response: Authors have not changed the size of figure 3 as the manuscript we received back from the journal does not show the figure going outside of the document frame margins. Units have been added to the y axes. Line 221.

Comment 4: We can't see the characteristics in Fig.4 and Fig.5. It is better to make them bigger. But these figures go out of the paper frame. It is better to make them smaller. What do the dotted lines in these figures show?

Response: High resolution images for figure 4 and 5 were supplied at first submission to enable readers to zoom in and see the detail of each plot. Increasing the size of the figures would cause the figure to go outside of the word document frame. The authors have changed the figure captions of figure 4 and 5 to describe what the dotted lines indicate in each plot. See lines 247 and 285.

Reviewer comment 5: 4.3.1 Location, Location, Location. Is it right?

Response: Yes. We are stating the importance of location by using repetition.

Back to TopTop