Waste Bank Policy Implementation through Collaborative Approach: Comparative Study—Makassar and Bantaeng, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a proposal to seek improvements in the waste management system in two populations analyzed using a collaborative approach. In my opinion, the proposal is interesting because of the scope and benefits it can bring to local society, but it must be substantially improved, the manuscript is presented as a technical report, not as a scientific article for the approach of the Journal; and it has several limitations that make it difficult to understand and read the objectives. Here are some comments that I hope will serve to improve the document:

• It is important that the authors carry out a contextual analysis of the case study in a textual and graphical way.
• The description of the materials and methods is quite interpretative, since the procedures that support the research are not described in detail. Several references are used, but it should not only be said which methods were used, but also describe them and mention the reason for their choice. Otherwise it seems that only a theoretical method was replicated.
• The presentation of results is shown as a technical report, not as the results of an academic article.
• The discussion of results focuses on mentioning the experience of public policy management on waste, but it is not compared critically with the literature of the specialty.
• The discussion is more oriented to be a report for the government sector of the localities studied; it should maintain this regional focus but also show global perspectives as it is an internationally read article.
• Although the environmental impacts of poor waste management are mentioned and can be inferred, in the manuscript they are mentioned interchangeably, it is necessary to specify some of the environmental and economic impacts linked to the case studies described. The way to show the efficiency or inefficiency of the current waste management system is through more specific analyzes of the economic and environmental impacts that it generates, and the improvements that a new system with assertive communication will bring about.
• The manuscript only addresses a perspective from effective communication as a guarantee of an efficient waste bank management system, but it does not explain how or the consequences of poor communication in some of the actors involved. It seems that good or bad communication is reduced to subjective decisions that may or may not have an impact on waste management.
• The 2 figures mentioned are limited to understand the research carried out, and the description is superficial, the authors should be more explicit in each of the components included in the figures mentioned.
• It is not clear if the objective of the manuscript is only to mention the limitations of the current waste management system or to propose a new scheme.
• It is necessary that the authors consider that they are only approaching the research from a dimension of sustainability, the social one. But they do not describe this situation in the document, nor do they analyze the economic and environmental impacts that can be generated. When it comes to waste management, the approach should not only be oriented towards public policies without considering the economic and environmental impact scenarios.
I hope these comments will help improve the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for the Comments and Suggestions from the reviewers.
The advice given is very helpful for the author to continue to learn and improve the quality of this article.

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript. Number.: Sustainability-1697769

Title: Waste Bank Policy Implementation Through Collaborative Approach: Comparative Study – Makassar and Bantaeng, Indonesia

 

Revisions are needed for this manuscript.

In general, this article is written as a research review. No statistical analysis was performed between the factors.

In the results section written 3.1 but, 3.2 sub-section not written sub-results. If 3.2 does not exist, why 3.1. Explain that it is divided into subsections.

Figure 2 and Figure 3 need to be improved again.

The results are quite chaotic, so please rewrite this section.

Quantitative analysis of the results needs to be added to the research.

Author Response

Thank you for the Comments and Suggestions from the reviewers.
The advice given is very helpful for the author to continue to learn and improve the quality of this article.

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has potential and it can be a good contribution to the literature. The authors aimed to determine the dynamics of implementing waste management policies through the Waste Bank program and the influencing factors through a collaborative approach based on communication between community stakeholders, entrepreneurs, and the government in Makassar City and Bantaeng Regency. Nevertheless, some aspects need to be changed or better explained before being considered for publication, for example:

• The abstract could be improved, for example including more achievements and more clear about the objectives of the study;
• The introduction can be improved, for example emphasizing the diverse aspects that are related to sustainability (see Cruz and Marques, 2014);
• Highlight the novelty of this study in the introduction;
• A paragraph presenting the organization of the paper should be included in the end of the chapter;
• Literature review can be improved;
• Regulation can play an important role in the waste sector (Simões and Marques, 2012);
• All the abbreviations must be presented in the text;
• Regarding the methodology, the model must be better justified, including the limitations;
• Explain better the Figure 2;
• How regulation can play a better role for the development of the sector;
• The authors could improve the discussion providing more insights about the future with this approach;
• The limitations of the study and future research can be highlighted in the conclusions;
• More recommendations for the decision makers were expected in the conclusions;
• The references must be homogenized and in line with the author guidelines (for example, some issues are missing).

References:

CRUZ, N.; MARQUES, R. (2014). Scorecards for sustainable local governments. Cities. Elsevier. ISSN: 0264-2751. Vol. 39, pp. 165–170.

SIMÕES, P.; MARQUES, R. (2012). Influence of regulation on the productivity of waste utilities. What can we learn with the Portuguese experience? Waste Management. Elsevier. ISSN: 0956-053X. Vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1266-1275.

Author Response

Thank you for the Comments and Suggestions from the reviewers.
The advice given is very helpful for the author to continue to learn and improve the quality of this article.

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have heeded the recommendations I have made. As a last recommendation, they could further discuss the environmental, economic, and social impacts that this proposal could have in the short, medium, and long term, and how it could affect public policies that could spread the proposal to more populations.

Author Response

Point by point author responses from reviewer recommendations:
1. We note and add in our research that there is an increase in people's income which provides significant benefits, as well as an increase in environmental health, better social interaction between communities, and a cleaner environment due to the implementation of policies in these 2 cities in managing waste through the waste bank. so that it affects the environmental, economic, and social impacts that arise in the short, medium and long term.
2. You have also improved the quality of English in our manuscripts.

Reviewer 2 Report

Figures 2 and 3 should be redrawn and improved. No changes have been made.

Author Response

Point by point author responses from reviewer recommendations:
1. we have improved and changed the quality of figure 2 & figure 3 in our script. The quality, shape, pattern, and items in figures 2 & 3 in our manuscript follow the standardization in the qualitative research tools we use, so that the model becomes as it can be seen. the quality of the text in the image will be visible when enlarged.
2. You have also improved the quality of English in our manuscripts.

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.