Barriers and Enablers to Buying Biodegradable and Compostable Plastic Packaging
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper makes an interesting approach to a very important issue in the Environmental topic: Plastic packaging.
Barriers and enablers are considered according to the components of the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model of behaviour. Some authors are doing important research about “green” behaviour in the new generations of consumers: Millennials (Y) and Zoomers (Z) and this could be considered in this research (Climate Emergency Movements, “Class Strikes” for Climate Action, etc).
The abstract ends with this sentence: This will not be sufficient unless facilities for local BCPP waste collection and processing are increased. According to this, authorities (national, regional and local) needs to implement policies to encourage the behaviour (of consumers, or citizens as correctly highlight the authors) and the strategies (of different companies and stakeholders) to achieve a better environmental performance.
The authors refer that “… research into the impact of human behaviour in relation to producing, consuming and disposing of plastics is lacking”, and nowadays with the increase of takeaway services and new wastes generated due to pandemic COVID, stresses more and more the environment.
Although the study analyses cross-sectional survey responses collected from November 2019 up until March 2020 (before the impact of lockdown measures in many countries), the main assumptions to this research remains relevant.
A total of 6523 participants responded to the survey (a large sample) and 84,1% of the respondents to the first question (with a frequency of 5176 of valid respondents) is very impressive. In the analysis of the results, the authors describe each one of the barriers and enablers, doing the precisely citation of the respondents. It seems correct to the research and Table 2 synthetises “the frequencies and illustrative quotes for each theme mapped to COM-B categories” in a clear way.
Discussion chapter is very well explained and complete. As it is written in line 355, “In the current study, intention was taken as a proxy for behaviour. Gaps between the reported intention to perform a behaviour and subsequent performance of that behaviour are well established (referred to as the ‘intention-behaviour’ gap)” state Webb and Sheeran in 2006. There are many others recent articles that could be considered, per example: “Do as I say, not as I do” - a systematic literature review on the attitude behaviour gap towards sustainable consumption of Generation Y”, Bernardes, J.P. et al, IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 459 (2019) 012089, IOP Publishing: doi:10.1088/1757-899X/459/1/012089.
About the emergency of a new attitude towards sustainability and circular economy, I recommend the research article “Homo Sustentabilis: circular economy and new business models in fashion industry”, Marques, A. et al, (2020), SN Applied Sciences, Springer Nature https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2094-8
To close the review, in my opinion, the conclusion is to short and could be more explored and extended because the data obtained are enough to ensure a more complete final chapter.
The article is written in a very good English, without mistakes, and can be published in the Sustainability Journal. Few recommendations were done to the authors in order to improve the final document.
This topic needs continuous research and with pandemic COVID situation, maybe will influence the behaviour of consumers (citizens), companies and politicians at different levels.
Author Response
Thank you for your overwhelmingly positive review. Please see the attached PDF file for responses to your feedback and relevant amendments to the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
This is a well-structured research; however, some parts of the paper need improvement before publication.
Introduction
Please move the theoretical framework out from the introduction. The theoretical framework is the key to understand and interpret results and should be explained more in detail, especially by providing more examples from the published literature, in a dedicated paragraph. Please remember that the theoretical frameworks lay the basis for the coding framework.
Methods
- I like the idea of linking to an open data repository; however, the article should be self-contained. Please provide explanation for questionnaire design and describe the questionnaire, provide summary statistics and a description of the dataset. While preparing those revisions, please keep in mind the focus of this research
- The structure of the paragraph should be simplified and contents reorganised; for example, the first subparagraph confuses me… this is not the research design, then I think that disclosure statements should be moved to dedicated sections of the article.
Generally, you first explain the method (including interpretation) in theory, then you go to its practical implementation, i.e. questionnaire design, data collection, data description; please mention any QDA software you used (if any).
Results
I would prefer reading a narrative rather than individual questionnaire items.
I think some comparison with the existing literature is needed.
I don’t understand the practical usefulness of the tables with frequencies; please explain their purpose and the way how they support result interpretation in the methods section.
Conclusions
Please develop this section, by identifying the practical usefulness of your research, its limits, its implications for researchers, decision makers and policy makers, and by giving recommendations
Author Response
Thank you for your extremely thorough and detailed feedback. It is much appreciated. Please find responses to your comments and relevant changes to the manuscript in the attached PDF.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Please find my response as follows:
The manuscript "Barriers and enablers to buying biodegradable and compostable plastic packaging" submitted to the Journal “Sustainability” is prepared in appropriate format, but revisions should be done.
Authors prepared interesting research and thematic analysis.
1) In abstract should be pointed out, that the analysis was done in the UK.
2) At line 178 the Table 2 is mentioned. This should be corrected, since the data are connected and presented to the Table 1.
3) The same mistake is at line 187: Table 3 it is mentioned and should be corrected to Table 2, due to the explanation and presented results.
4) Correct Table 2 at the column “Example quote(s)”. The quotes are written together and it is difficult to distinguish to which theme belongs.
5) Authors have mentioned that they received 6523 answers, at which 5176 were complete.
At chapter Data analysis they mention, they have analysed random 200 free text responds from “yes” etc. (line 141-143). Why random 200±5 answers?
6) Did they check all 4353 for yes, 491 for no and 403 for “I don’t know”? Why did they decide to analyse at each 200 answers only?
7) At the Discussion chapter, authors state that their results are in line with previous findings. Add which are the previous findings important for their conclusions.
Author Response
Thank you for your detailed and thorough feedback. It is much appreciated. Please find attached (PDF) responses with relevant amendments to the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Justifications are not necessary.
Most of my previous comments to the previous version of the article are intended to improve the scientific soundness of the article and to suggest a more logical structure.
Here, I am not copying my previous comments, most of which still apply to this manuscript draft, but I just mention the most sticking examples:
- Theoretical framework: the theory is weak and there is no way this links to questionnaire design, within the article
- The article has to be self-contained
- Data are not results!!!
- Excess sub-paragraphing in the results section: I assumed that the sub-paragraph headings were linked to the questionnaire… if it no so, then this require explanation, i.e. how to interpret the results in the methods section (interpretation). 2-row long sub-paragraphs are odd and maybe not explanatory enough
- Frequencies: you have to explain how those figures support the interpretation of your findings; this is not clear.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I admit I don't understand you. You cite a highlight cited paper (...ok) and provide a questionnaire with no theory behind it (...ok) and provide justifications rather than accepting suggestions (... ok). The article is going to be published anyway, so...
Author Response
Thank you for your reviewing.
