Identification and Evaluation of Determining Factors and Actors in the Management and Use of Biosolids through Prospective Analysis (MicMac and Mactor) and Social Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did a good job in embedding the necessary requirements. All the best to this interesting paper.

Author Response

Thanks dear Reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, I compared the last revised version of the manuscript with the previous ones.

In the previous version, you can read: 

from the abstract: 

28 actors were questioned, and their answers were analyzed using 2 prospective methods and Social Network  Analysis (ASN) identifying between 14 and 19 variables"

from Section 2.3 -  Surveys and private interviews

The survey was applied to the 28 entities from January to March in 2021

from section 2.4.3 Social network analysis (SNA):

Based on the evaluations obtained from the surveys carried out in the 28 entities where the level of work or communication with the different entities was asked, the average of each of the relationships was entered through adjacency matrices to the Gephi software.

In the current version of the manuscript, you did not mention the number of actors or entities involved in the questionnaires. Furthermore, in your specific answer to me, you wrote:  "A review of the number of actors or interested parties within the study was carried out, for which the (n) was adjusted from 28 to 53 participants. This is because initially the total number of groups or entities belonging to an entity X that have participated was considered. By this, it was proceeded to review and specify within the document that the research consisted of conducting 53 surveys of actors or interested parties related to the management and use of biosolids.

Of the 53 participants, two or more may belong to the same group of actors from the different entities evaluated (public, private or mixed organizations, communities, WWTP, waste managers, agribusiness, farmers, control and surveillance entities, academia, WWTP) both at the national and municipal levels.

It is important to mention that the results of this research do not vary since initially the 53 responses were processed in the different software mentioned in the article."  

In my opinion, your answer is very vague and confusing. It appears to me as a way to avoid changing the results, saving time at the cost of the scientific quality of the research.

As a consequence, I would expect the authors to refine their results and discuss them better.  

Sincerely,

The reviewer

Author Response

Thanks Reviewer

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have responded to my comments in an acceptable manner and the manuscript can be accepted.

Author Response

Kind regards, Reviewer

Thank you for your response and comments made to strengthen the manuscript.

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

To guarantee an adequate quality of the peer-review process, I suggest the Editors involve an additional reviewer or read the manuscript themselves. Indeed, in my opinion, the point I highlighted is crucial, and your answer was not satisfactory to me; though, I wish to give you a chance.

Sincerely

Author Response

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the article is interesting and attractive, but the respected authors should be more careful and make corrections in the different sections of the article, which are mentioned below:

The abstract is not comprehensive. Contains some additional content and lacks results and suggestions.

Some explanations in Introduction section, that highlighted in text, are more relevant to the methodology section than the introduction.

It is better to show the location of the study area by adding a map in the research method section.

Some explanations (such as Page 7 Lines 243-246) should be mentioned in the results section.

Some content needs to be referenced, such as page 7, lines 248-256.

Some references entered incorrectly, such as page 7, line 265 and page 8, lines 280, 286 288 and 292, etc.

Figure3 (Page 10): Inside the figure you have to explain what the horizontal axis numbers represent.

Paper have two Figure 3 (in Pages 10 and 11) and Figure 5 does not exist in the text!

In my opinion, it is better to structure the Discussion section based on the main goals presented at the end of the introduction section to help the reader to understand the topic.

In Conclusion you should add some examples of new insights of your study into WWTPs in Colombia.

Please use a single standard for listing resources (for example, some years are written in bold and some are not).

Author Response

Best regard

Thank you very much for your review and comments.

According to the comments that you send us, we give the following answers, trying to respond and strengthen the article: Identification and Evaluation of Determining Factors and Ac-tors in the Management and Use of Biosolids Through Pro-spective Analysis (MicMac and Mactor) And Social Networks. The changes that were made from your comments were identified in green.

Reviewer 1

• The abstract is not comprehensive. Contains some additional content and lacks results and suggestions.

Answer: The abstract was rewritten considering the indications of the journal (MDPI) and mentioned results that were not previously mentioned

• Some explanations in Introduction section, that highlighted in text, are more relevant to the methodology section than the introduction.

Answer: The introduction was revised and the wording and grammar of this section were adjusted

• It is better to show the location of the study area by adding a map in the research method section.

Answer: A map was added indicating the study area. The map is in number 2.1

• Some content needs to be referenced, such as page 7, lines 248-256.

Answer: We add the references related to the meanings of Betweenness centrality, Degree centrality Closeness centrality and Density.

• Some references entered incorrectly, such as page 7, line 265 and page 8, lines 280, 286 288 and 292, etc.

Answer: References that appear as: Error! Reference source not found, they were reviewed and adjusted in compliance with the reference format of the MDPI journal.

• Figure3 (Page 10): Inside the figure you have to explain what the horizontal axis numbers represent.

Answer: The explanation of what the values of the X axis represent was made.

• Paper have two Figure 3 (in Pages 10 and 11) and Figure 5 does not exist in the text!

Answer: The numbering of the figures was revised adjusting the numbering error identified. The mention of the tables/figure within the text was also revised and adjusted.

• In my opinion, it is better to structure the Discussion section based on the main goals presented at the end of the introduction section to help the reader to understand the topic.

Answer: The subtitles of the results and discussion part were rewritten, relating them to the objectives proposed in the last part of the introduction. Likewise, within the discussion, some paragraphs or ideas were reduced to be clearer

• In Conclusion you should add some examples of new insights of your study into WWTPs in Colombia.

Answer: We reviewed the conclusions part and some adjustments were made emphasizing the importance of the results

• Please use a single standard for listing resources (for example, some years are written in bold and some are not).

Answer: The references were reviewed and adjusted as indicated by the MDPI journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The manuscript needs substantial improvements before publication.

In particular, it appears that you involved too few stakeholders to give significance to this research.

Here below are further comments.

Abstract (1): First, you wrote “28 stakeholders involved”, then you wrote “20 actors analysed”. It is not clear to me if you refer to different subjects or it is a typo. Please, recheck it.

Abstract (2): You should improve your abstract. Please, refer to Instructions for Authors of Sustainability: “The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. The abstract should be a single paragraph and should follow the style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used. 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article: it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.”

Line 40: “biosolids”.

Please, share a definition or explain to readers what you mean as biosolids.

Lines 42-43: “Annually, around 2.5x107 to 6.0x107 tons of dry biosolids are being generated in the world”.

What do you mean by “dry biosolids”? Are you referring to those coming from Municipal Solid Waste, or do you also mean other categories (e.g. sludge from WWTP)? Please, clarify it.

Lines 56-57: “Decree 1287 of 2014 [19] and the Colombian Technical Standard (NTC) 5167 (2011) [20] and 1927 (2019)”.

You mentioned Decree and Colombian Technical Standard. However, it would be helpful also to provide information concerning the quality that these norms ask for the use of these residues in agriculture.

Lines 110-112: “A prospective analysis is a method of reflection that allows you to visualize future scenarios and be prepared by making decisions that help to reduce possible dangers and take advantage of opportunities that others have not identified.”

Please, use a more formal tone.

Section 2.1 - Location and characteristics of the WWTP.

Please provide more information on the WWTP, particularly wastewater flow (m³/day), BOD, COD, etc., both inflow and outflow.

Furthermore, please, provide information on the sludge (i.e. m³ generated per day and/year, pollutants concentration in terms of microorganism and trace elements such as some heavy metals etc.).

Finally, clarify which limits were exceeded.

Editing issues: In many parts of the manuscript, “Error! Reference source not found” appears. In particular, the problem begins in the Results section.

Author Response

Best regard

Thank you very much for your review and comments.

According to the comments that you send us, we give the following answers, trying to respond and strengthen the article: Identification and Evaluation of Determining Factors and Ac-tors in the Management and Use of Biosolids Through Pro-spective Analysis (MicMac and Mactor) And Social Networks. The changes that were made from your comments were identified in yellow.

Reviewer 2

Abstract (1): First, you wrote “28 stakeholders involved”, then you wrote, “20 actors analysed”. It is not clear to me if you refer to different subjects or it is a typo. Please, recheck it. And Abstract (2): You should improve your abstract. Please, refer to Instructions for Authors of Sustainability: “The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. The abstract should be a single paragraph and should follow the style of structured abstracts but without headings: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used. 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article: it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.”

Answer:  The abstract was rewritten considering the indications of the journal (MDPI) and mentioned results that were not previously mentioned

• Line 40: “biosolids”.

Please, share a definition or explain to readers what you mean by biosolids.

Answer:  Within the introduction, the definition of the word biosolids is made

• Lines 42-43: “Annually, around 2.5x107 to 6.0x107 tons of dry biosolids are being generated in the world”. What do you mean by “dry biosolids”? Are you referring to those coming from Municipal Solid Waste, or do you also mean other categories (e.g. sludge from WWTP)? Please, clarify it.

Answer:  We clarify within the article which is the origin when talking about dry biosolids

• Lines 56-57: “Decree 1287 of 2014 [19] and the Colombian Technical Standard (NTC) 5167 (2011) [20] and 1927 (2019)”. You mentioned Decree and Colombian Technical Standard. However, it would be helpful also to provide information concerning the quality that these norms ask for the use of these residues in agriculture.

Answer:  About the two Colombian documents that are mentioned in the introduction, we proceed to give more information about these documents in a summarized way.

• Lines 110-112: “A prospective analysis is a method of reflection that allows you to visualize future scenarios and be prepared by making decisions that help to reduce possible dangers and take advantage of opportunities that others have not identified.” Please, use a more formal tone.

Answer: How the paragraph had been written was adjusted, moving to a more formal tone

• Section 2.1 - Location and characteristics of the WWTP.

Please provide more information on the WWTP, particularly wastewater flow (m³/day), BOD, COD, etc., both inflow and outflow. Furthermore, please, provide information on the sludge (i.e. m³ generated per day and/year, pollutants concentration in terms of microorganism and trace elements such as some heavy metals, etc.). Finally, clarify which limits were exceeded.

Answer:  Information was added on the concentration of metals and microbiological metals, which describe the characteristics of the biosolids generated in the study area. And finally, we clarify which parameter exceeds the permissible limits.

• Editing issues: In many parts of the manuscript, “Error! Reference source not found” appears. In particular, the problem begins in the Results section.

Answer:  We review both the bibliography. The references that presented errors were adjusted and corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of the paper is interesting, paper has potential. Colombia is a very interesting case study when the management and use of biosolids is under discussion. However, the manuscript should be majorly revised based on the given comments to raise quality and clarity for publication in a journal such as Sustainability. More specifically, please look into my recommendations:

1. Highlight more intensively the main research outcomes in quantitative terms the abstract section. There are important quantitative results beneficial for the abstract that are missing.

2. In addition, please consider defining/checking the acronyms throughout the paper; in my opinion it would be better to define acronyms in the main manuscript and not in the abstract section). Check throughout the manuscript and possibly make an acronyms Table!

3. The authors should consider synthesizing the basic structure and components of their methodology into a methodological diagram.

4. Literature review section, although well organized, needs improvement and should contain some more recent references related to policies, decision support systems and regulations. This is crucial in order to better discuss the research gap and intensify the innovation of the approach. For the authors’ convenience, and among others, I recommend:

Gontard, N., Sonesson, U., Birkved, M., Majone, M., Bolzonella, D., Celli, A., Angellier-Coussy, H., Jang, G.-W., Verniquet, A., Broeze, J., Schaer, B., Batista, A.P., Sebok, A.; A research challenge vision regarding management of agricultural waste in a circular bio-based economy (2018) Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 48 (6), pp. 614-654.

Vlachokostas, C., Achillas, C., Diamantis, V., Michailidou, A.V., Baginetas, K., Aidonis, D. Supporting decision making to achieve circularity via a biodegradable waste-to-bioenergy and compost facility (2021) Journal of Environmental Management, 285, art. no. 112215.

Avadi, A., Nitschelm, L., Corson, M., & Vertès, F. (2016). Data strategy for environmental assessment of agricultural regions via LCA: Case study of a French catchment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(4), 476–491. 

There are also some more relevant excellent papers published. Please revise accordingly and apart from the above references add some more to better discuss the methodology adopted and the little stepping stone placed in the research gap.

5. In any case, I suggest some more discussion on the practical dimensions of the results emphasizing on the differences between the two countries. Emphasis should be given on essential critical analysis emphasizing on traditional management of sludges and biosolids (and not just describing the Figures of the results).

6. A good rule for keywords and retrieval systems is to avoid as possible to use keywords that are already stated in the title. Please revise!

7. A revision of minor aspects related to English should be addressed. In some places of the manuscript there are no references (Error! Reference source not found).

I will be glad to review a major revision of this manuscript.

Author Response

Best regard

Thank you very much for your review and comments.

According to the comments that you send us, we give the following answers, trying to respond and strengthen the article: Identification and Evaluation of Determining Factors and Ac-tors in the Management and Use of Biosolids Through Pro-spective Analysis (MicMac and Mactor) And Social Networks. The changes that were made from your comments were identified in blue.

Reviewer 3

• Highlight more intensively the main research outcomes in quantitative terms the abstract section. There are important quantitative results beneficial for the abstract that is missing.

Answer: The abstract was rewritten considering the indications of the journal (MDPI) and mentioned results that were not previously mentioned.

• In addition, please consider defining/checking the acronyms throughout the paper; in my opinion it would be better to define acronyms in the main manuscript and not in the abstract section). Check throughout the manuscript and possibly make an acronyms Table!

Answer: We unified all the words with their respective acronyms or abbreviations, and these were arranged in a table to facilitate their understanding.

• The authors should consider synthesizing the basic structure and components of their methodology into a methodological diagram.

Answer: We made a diagram in the materials and methods section explaining in a general way the applied methodology

• Literature review section, although well organized, needs improvement and should contain some more recent references related to policies, decision support systems, and regulations. This is crucial in order to better discuss the research gap and intensify the innovation of the approach. For the authors’ convenience, and among others, I recommend:
• Gontard, N., Sonesson, U., Birkved, M., Majone, M., Bolzonella, D., Celli, A., Angellier-Coussy, H., Jang, G.-W., Verniquet, A., Broeze, J., Schaer, B., Batista, A.P., Sebok, A.; A research challenge vision regarding management of agricultural waste in a circular bio-based economy (2018) Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 48 (6), pp. 614-654.
• Vlachokostas, C., Achillas, C., Diamantis, V., Michailidou, A.V., Baginetas, K., Aidonis, D. Supporting decision making to achieve circularity via a biodegradable waste-to-bioenergy and compost facility (2021) Journal of Environmental Management, 285, art. no. 112215.
• Avadi, A., Nitschelm, L., Corson, M., & Vertès, F. (2016). Data strategy for environmental assessment of agricultural regions via LCA: Case study of a French catchment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(4), 476–491. 

There are also some more relevant excellent papers published. Please revise accordingly and apart from the above references add some more to better discuss the methodology adopted and the little stepping stone placed in the research gap.

In any case, I suggest some more discussion on the practical dimensions of the results emphasizing on the differences between the two countries. Emphasis should be given on essential critical analysis emphasizing on traditional management of sludges and biosolids (and not just describing the Figures of the results).

Answer: The suggested bibliography was reviewed and another was consulted, according to which some paragraphs related to the policy and regulations were added in the discussion part, relating it to the results obtained.

• A good rule for keywords and retrieval systems is to avoid as possible to use keywords that are already stated in the title. Please revise!

Answer: The keywords that had been placed were reviewed and those that already appeared in the title were deleted and new keywords were placed.

• A revision of minor aspects related to English should be addressed. In some places of the manuscript there are no references (Error! Reference source not found).

Answer: The error (Reference source not found) was reviewed and the references within the text were corrected and adjusted according to the format of the journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

You improved the manuscript.

However, my main doubt remains: "It appears that you involved too few stakeholders to give significance to this research".

In addition, here is a typo that you should correct.

Lines 42-43: "Annually, around 2.5x107 to 6.0x107 tons of dry biosolids from Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) are generated annually in the world [6]."

You wrote "annually" two times.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thanks for your evaluation.

Reviewer 2

• However, my main doubt remains: "It appears that you involved too few stakeholders to give significance to this research".

Answer: We agree that the study could have had more stakeholder participation; however, the study carried out is carried out in a municipality in Colombia. Currently, this site does not have a management of biosolids nor entities that are in charge beyond their disposal. For this reason, the largest number of actors were involved at the municipal level (private, public, mixed organizations, communities, WTTPS, waste managers, agribusiness,s and farmers) who agreed to participate and who had some relationship other than the WWTP. At the national level, the participation of the entities that currently carry out control and monitoring activities was considered. As well as the entity, that structured the document that would allow biosolids or waste from water treatment to be incorporated into the circular economy model. On the other hand, the research activities were carried out at a time when there were mobility restrictions and more so in this type of area.

• In addition, here is a typo that you should correct: Lines 42-43: "Annually, around 2.5x107 to 6.0x107 tons of dry biosolids from Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) are generated annually in the world [6]." You wrote "annually" two times.

Answer: We made the adjustment, and the repeated word was eliminated. Changes and adjustments are in yellow.

Best Regards., Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors did not improve their references section as suggested in my first review. Literature review section needs improvement and should contain some more recent references related to policies, decision support systems, and regulations. This is crucial in order to better discuss the research gap and intensify the innovation of the approach. For the authors’ convenience, and among others, I recommend:

• Gontard, N., Sonesson, U., Birkved, M., Majone, M., Bolzonella, D., Celli, A., Angellier-Coussy, H., Jang, G.-W., Verniquet, A., Broeze, J., Schaer, B., Batista, A.P., Sebok, A.; A research challenge vision regarding management of agricultural waste in a circular bio-based economy (2018) Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 48 (6), pp. 614-654.
• Vlachokostas, C., Achillas, C., Diamantis, V., Michailidou, A.V., Baginetas, K., Aidonis, D. Supporting decision making to achieve circularity via a biodegradable waste-to-bioenergy and compost facility (2021) Journal of Environmental Management, 285, art. no. 112215.
• Avadi, A., Nitschelm, L., Corson, M., & Vertès, F. (2016). Data strategy for environmental assessment of agricultural regions via LCA: Case study of a French catchment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(4), 476–491. 

A revision of minor aspects related to English should still be addressed. In addition there are still many places in the revised manuscript where the "Error! Reference source not found" is present. 

In overall the paper should improve the references section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. Thanks for your evaluation.

Reviewer 3

The authors did not improve their references section as suggested in my first review. Literature review section needs improvement and should contain some more recent references related to policies, decision support systems, and regulations. This is crucial in order to better discuss the research gap and intensify the innovation of the approach. For the authors’ convenience, and among others, I recommend:

• Gontard, N., Sonesson, U., Birkved, M., Majone, M., Bolzonella, D., Celli, A., Angellier-Coussy, H., Jang, G.-W., Verniquet, A., Broeze, J., Schaer, B., Batista, A.P., Sebok, A.; A research challenge vision regarding management of agricultural waste in a circular bio-based economy (2018) Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 48 (6), pp. 614-654.
• Vlachokostas, C., Achillas, C., Diamantis, V., Michailidou, A.V., Baginetas, K., Aidonis, D. Supporting decision making to achieve circularity via a biodegradable waste-to-bioenergy and compost facility (2021) Journal of Environmental Management, 285, art. no. 112215.
• Avadi, A., Nitschelm, L., Corson, M., & Vertès, F. (2016). Data strategy for environmental assessment of agricultural regions via LCA: Case study of a French catchment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(4), 476–491. 

Answer: We have reviewed the suggested documents and searched others recents articles, and have added other paragraphs that are identified in green. Of the suggested articles, the following were taken into account:

• Gontard, N., Sonesson, U., Birkved, M., Majone, M., Bolzonella, D., Celli, A., Angellier-Coussy, H., Jang, G.-W., Verniquet, A. , Broeze, J., Schaer, B., Batista, AP, Sebok, A.; A research challenge vision regarding management of agricultural waste in a circular bio-based economy (2018) Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 48 (6), pp. 614-654.
• Vlachokostas, C., Achillas, C., Diamantis, V., Michailidou, AV, Baginetas, K., Aidonis, D. Supporting decision making to achieve circularity via a biodegradable waste-to-bioenergy and compost facility (2021) Journal of Environmental Management, 285, art. no. 112215.

Additionally, the following articles related to the topic of policies, decision support systems, and regulations were posted:

• Palma-Heredia, D.; Poch, M.; Cugueró-Escofet, M.À. Implementation of a Decision Support System for Sewage Sludge Management. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9089, doi:10.3390/su12219089.
• van Dam, K.H.; Feng, B.; Wang, X.; Guo, M.; Shah, N.; Passmore, S. Model-Based Decision-Support for Waste-to-Energy Pathways in New South Wales, Australia. Aided Chem. Eng. 2019, 46, 1765–1770, doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-818634-3.50295-2.
• Margallo, M.; Ziegler-Rodriguez, K.; Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Aldaco, R.; Irabien, Á.; Kahhat, R. Enhancing Waste Management Strategies in Latin America under a Holistic Environmental Assessment Perspective: A Review for Policy Support. Total Environ. 2019, 689, 1255-1275, doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.393.
• Koukoulakis, P.H.; Kyritsis, S.S.; Kalavrouziotis, I.K. The Contribution of Decision Support System (DSS) to the Approach of the Safe Wastewater and Biosolid Reuse. In Wastewater and Biosolids Management; 2020.
• Castillo, A.; Porro, J.; Garrido-Baserba, M.; Rosso, D.; Renzi, D.; Fatone, F.; Gómez, V.; Comas, J.; Poch, M. Validation of a Decision Support Tool for Wastewater Treatment Selection. Environ. Manag. 2016, 184, 409–418, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.087.
• Bittencourt, S.; Aisse, M.M.; Serrat, B.M. Gestão do Uso Agrícola do Lodo de Esgoto: Estudo de Caso Do Estado Do Paraná, Brasil. Sanit. e Ambient. 2017, 22, 1129–1139, doi:10.1590/s1413-41522017156260.
• Rivera León, F.A. Los Sistemas de Apoyo en la Toma de Decisiones. Terc. Milen. 2014, 17, 69–75, doi:10.15381/gtm.v17i33.11683.
• Horn, A.L.; Düring, R.-A.; Gäth, S. Comparison of Decision Support Systems for an Optimised Application of Compost and Sewage Sludge on Agricultural Land Based on Heavy Metal Accumulation in Soil. Total Environ. 2003, 311, 35–48, doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(03)00133-5.
• Spinosa, L. Status and Perspectives of Sludge Management. IWA Publishing 2007, 103–108.

We would like to mention that in the first round we did have your comments and we had added some paragraphs that are in blue.

• A revision of minor aspects related to English should still be addressed. In addition, there are still many places in the revised manuscript where the "Error! Reference source not found" is present. 

Answer: When reviewing the PDF file effectively in several references, the "Error! Reference source not found" comes out and we do not know what happens when generating this type of file. However, the word file does come out with the references as they should be, nowhere in the document in the WORD version was this evidenced.

• In overall the paper should improve the references section

Answer: The form and type of reference were revised again and minor punctuation adjustments were made. On the other hand, we consider that the bibliography found in the article and from the discussion section is adequate and updated, considering that articles are mentioned from 2017 to 2021; as well as base studies from years before 2017. Changes and adjustments to the type of references so that they fit with the journal's criteria are in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I confirm that my main doubt remains: "It appears that you involved too few stakeholders to give significance to this research".

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors did a great job in icorporating the necessary improvements!