Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Using Post-Kerbside Organics Treatment Systems to Engage Australian Communities with Pro-Environmental Household Food Waste Behaviours
, Anjum Naweed 3, David H. Pearson 1,2, Gamithri G. Karunasena 1,2 and Samuel Oakden 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript describes the difficulties of moving Australia's current household food waste collection system to one that is more environmentally sustainable. The authors review the literature and propose some means necessary to make the population more collaborative and responsible. Although the manuscript is well written, some integrations are required to improve the paper before acceptance.
As follows some comments and suggestions:
line 36 (FOGO), l.53 (pa), l.61 (Mtpa): abbreviations must be defined
l.61 (Co2): change to CO2
l. 69 (FOGO): each abbreviations must be defined in full on first appearance in text
l.73 (with 79%): which year does this data refer to?
l.115-116 (p.8, p.1) and in the rest of the manuscript: the page number is generally not cited
l.140-150: a more detailed description of the domestic kerbside collection system is needed. What fraction of waste is put into the recycling lid (paper, cardboard, plastics, metals, glass or what?)? Which fractions are allowed into the organic food lid (is paper / cardboard allowed?)? It is necessary to detail this part
l.158-167 (Figure 1): Does the 2-bin system have two containers, green (food waste plus non-recyclables?) and yellow (recyclables), plus green waste (I assume) and bulk verge waste (what kind of waste is it?)? From the figure of the GO and FOGO system there does not seem to be any difference. A more detailed description of the figure 1 is needed
l.174 (NSW): each abbreviations must be defined in full on first appearance in text
l.227-280: a generic description of composting and anaerobic digestion systems has been reported. What is the current situation in Australia? How many composting and/or anaerobic digestion plants are in operation? How many tons of food waste do they process? How many tons of compost and/or biogas do they produce? Etc. etc. Current data must be entered.
l.254-257: There are many different composting methods both on industrial and farm scale, which include outdoor or indoor composting, vermicomposting, aerated static piles, in-vessel and windrow composting. Figure 3 shows the detail of a turning and maturation machinery. Is this the only type of composting process used in Australia? What composting techniques are currently used? it is necessary to detail this part with current data.
L.507-510: Table 1 and Table 2 are too large compared to the rest of the manuscript.
References section: the links of the internet references are missing (see for example ref.#1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, etc. etc.)
Extra space is present in several places in the manuscript: l.26, 91, 119, 309, 387, 403, 483, 504, 521, 527
l.50, 52, 61: a round bracket seems to be missing
l.260 (anaerobic): change to Anaerobic
l.431 ([130]): change to [130].
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, the manuscript is interesting and scientifically sound, and I think it is suitable for publication after minor revision.
- Please reduce and organize the abstract according to the following context:
A short introduction, hypothesis (aim) of the study, methods, the most important quantitative results, a general conclusion, and future prospective.
- Manuscript has some grammatical errors, please check.
- Conclusions section should be rewritten with more detail.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
I read your manuscript and I find it overall compelling. However, I have 3 main points.
1) In your problem statement, you mention social practice theory as the appropriate lens for this work. However social practice theory is never anywhere presented. Please add. Are their alternative theoretical perspectives to be considered. Please justify your choice in addition
2) In order to completely comprehend your work and put results and discussion into perspective a material and methods section is required. Up to now the proceeding, the methodological approach remains unclear to me. I am currently not sure if this work builds on papers, what empirical work has been done or if this was some form of action research. Please add a material and method section.
3) Conclusion: The conclusion is a bit short. Can you add suggestions for future research and be critical of your own work and methodological proceeding and add a limitation section to the work
4) Please fix the formatting and referencing as required by the author guidelines
Looking forward to seeing the revised manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
All my suggestions have been considered. Thank you!
