The Sustainability Potential of Upcycling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

The paper is interesting, but It lacks a clear overview and the description of the structure of the paper at the end of the introduction.

Some improvements are required before reconsideration after major revision.

I think that this paper requires a few improvements as below:

1. The abstract needs to get improved and in this case a part of the Introduction is actually a part that could be included in the paragraph of Abstract.
2. It is necessary to highlight the novelty and contribution of the paper in the introduction.
3. The introduction needs to improve, I am thinking about lacking theoretical background of the study. This should be located in the Introduction or in independent section.
4. It is necessary to add some information about methodology and key results to make them clear.
5. The methodology fails to prove that is reliable in selecting with high accuracy the papers: what databases were used (ISI, Ebsco, etc ..)?, what period was included in the analysis?, what keywords were used in the paper selection and how many results were obtained? How were selected the final list pf papers? etc..
6. The conclusion part must be improved based on the academic paper.
7. That would be good if you references also previous studies in the field.
8. The results should be gathered independently so that authors‘ contribution is clear.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my research work. Please see the attached pdf file for my response to the review comments. I hope you agree to the clarifications, edits, and responses that I have provided. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented article is an analysis of the potential for sustainable development of society on the example of several bicycle workshops. The topic of the article is relevant and may be of interest to specialists and researchers in the areas of repair, secondary and optimal use of resources. The author have done a certain search and analysis of sources, however, as comments and recommendations, several points should be noted:

1. The title of the work should be specified according to the subject under study.
2. Using several sources at the same time in quoting is incorrect (for example - [1], [2] [3] ; [11], [18], [20], [21] ; [11], [18], [21] , [28], [29]) – the author should separate the sources and references to them in the text according to the information cited from each source.
3. The author should carefully edit the text and add commas, spaces, etc. in the text. On lines 202, 257, 274, 322, 355, 370, 397, and 415, the author should add the necessary sources "(see Error! Reference source not found.)".
4. How expedient is upcycle for people with different cost of paying an hour of a person's work at their main job - when is it profitable and when is it not?
5. Has the economic impact of reuse and repair been assessed for manufacturers of refurbished equipment and the end user?
6. The conclusion of the article should be expanded, concretized and given, if possible, numerical values. The Conclusion itself should be numbered with the number "4" instead of "5".
7. The author should add a subsection "Directions for further research", where he describes plans for the implementation of the results obtained and for further research.
8. The list of sources used should be edited and relevant publications from high-ranking journals should be added to it, and obsolete and non-main references should be shortened.

In general, the presented article leaves a positive impression, but is not without flaws. After eliminating these comments and taking into account the recommendations made, the presented article can be recommended for publication in the journal Sustainability.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my research work. I have now responded to your comments. Please check my detailed response in the track changes in the manuscript and the attached response document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author(s)

thank you for your feedback.

Some improvements are required to accept it after minor revision.

1. The abstract still needs to get improved
2. It is necessary to highlight the novelty and contribution of the paper in the introduction.
3. The introduction needs to improve, I am thinking about lacking theoretical background of the study. This should be located in the Introduction or in independent section.
4. It is necessary to add some information about methodology and key results to make them clear.
5. The conclusion part must be improved

Author Response

My responses are given in green text below along with your original comments for your ease. Please refer to the track changes in the manuscript wherever, necessary to see my responses.

1. The abstract still needs to get improved

The Abstract has been improved now. Please see the track changes. It now reads as below:

Upcycling trend has received renewed attention in the past few years due to growing concerns for the environment related to increased resource consumption and waste volumes. Indeed, cities across the world are supporting resource upcycling initiatives by establishing do-it-yourself (DIY) repair cafes and makerspaces as means to transform societies towards sustainable devel-opment. However, sustainability potential of such upcycling initiative is unknown due to the lack of theoretical frameworks. This research aims to explore the direct and indirect social, economic, and environmental implications of upcycling activities at DIY bicycle repair studios. The main objectives of the study were to: (1) examine the upcycling activities in these studios that contribute to slowing and closing the material cycles, (2) explore the behavioral implications of the users of these maker spaces in the context of environmental sustainability, and (3) propose ways to evaluate the broad environmental impacts of the upcycling activities at these studios. The objectives were explored in three case studies – 2 in Sweden (Cykelköket in Malmö and Bagarmossens Cykelköket in Stockholm) and 1 in Switzerland (Point Vélo, Lausanne). Semi-structured interviews, user surveys, and participant observation methods are employed to collect qualitative and quantitative data to formulate a systemic exploration of major activities and socio-economic ex-changes at these repair cafes. The study identified multiple social, economic, and environmental impacts of upcycling activities and represented them in causal loop diagrams. Based on this, a framework for evaluating and governing the overall sustainability potential of upcycling activi-ties is proposed..

.

1. It is necessary to highlight the novelty and contribution of the paper in the introduction.

A few sentences have been added, see below and the track changes

The study employs multiple research methods for empirical data collection and analysis to draw inferences. The study contributes to the understanding of the multifaceted sustainability impacts of upcycling activities. The study proposes a framework to assess and govern the sustainability profile of upcycling initiatives.

1. The introduction needs to improve, I am thinking about lacking theoretical background of the study. This should be located in the Introduction or in independent section.

In the previous version, Sections 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 describe the theoretical background, that contextualizes upcycling with relevant literature to address the objectives of the study. These sections now have been put under a separate Section 2 as Theoretical background.

2. Theoretical Background

This section contextualizes the concept of upcycling with the relevant literature on collaborative production, circular economy, and indirect and indirect impacts.

…………..

1. It is necessary to add some information about methodology and key results to make them clear.

The abstract section includes the following sentences about the methodology – methods for data collection and analysis.

Semi-structured interviews, user surveys, and participant observation methods are employed to collect qualitative and quantitative data to formulate a systemic exploration of major activities and socio-economic exchanges at these repair cafes. The study identified multiple social, economic, and environmental impacts of upcycling activities and represented them in causal loop diagrams.

1. The conclusion part must be improved

The Conclusion section is re-written now. See the track changes. It now reads as below.

The study examined the direct and indirect sustainability impacts of upcycling activities at the bicycle repair studios in Sweden and Switzerland. The study concludes that the direct sustainability impacts of upcycling include (1) material resource recovery through the reuse of spare parts and avoided purchase of new spare parts, (2) economic benefits to the users, and (3) social benefits due to the socialization of the users. Due to the changes in the users’ individual time use and behavioral patterns, upcycling activities could indirectly contribute to reducing material consumption activities. Based on this study, a stepwise framework is proposed to (i) explore, conceptualize, and define the broad socio-economic and environmental interactions, (ii) evaluate the sustainability impacts, (iii) set goals and agendas for the upcycling activities, and (iv) identify and implement the management strategies to enhance the sustainability profile of upcycling initiatives.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf