What Influences Home Gardeners’ Food Waste Composting Intention in High-Rise Buildings in Dhaka Megacity, Bangladesh? An Integrated Model of TPB and DMP
and Ghazanfer Ali Abbasi 4,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you really much for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “What influences home food waste compositing? A prospective from TPB and DMP by applying hybrid PLS-SEM and ANN method”. The manuscript deals with a topical concern, namely composting as a sustainable way to turn organic waste into fertilizers among households. The manuscript is clear, and its scientific soundness is good. You should enhance the description of the methodology, as suggested below. Once you have addressed some minor and major issues, I can suggest the acceptance of the manuscript in Sustainability.
Best regards
Reviewer's comments:
Title: Is it possible to shorten the title? It seems a bit complex. It should be more intuitive and appealing to readers. Readers can understand through the abstract the methods applied in the manuscript.
Abstract: The abstract is clear and comprehensive.
General comments: Some grammar typos and mistakes must be revised. The manuscript must follow the instruction for authors proved by MDPI.
Introduction:
Lines 38-39. The authors should cite the reference related to “daily waste generation in cities ranges from 0.47 to 0.5 kilogram per person”.
Line 43. The authors refer for the first time to “Bangladesh”. If Bangladesh represent the study location of the research, the authors should give relevance to such a choice (also including it in the abstract). Why the authors have selected the Bangladesh metropolitan regions? Which are the main characteristics of Dhaka (line 76)? How much inhabitants does Dhaka account? Which percentage of the entire Bangladesh people does it represent? Please, add more details and justify such a choice.
Lines 57-67 are important to understand the core purpose of the manuscript. The authors investigate the variables which influence household composting. It should be better clarified the importance of composting among other food waste pathways. Is composting more sustainable? Why households should prefer composting instead of reuse or recycle food waste, for instance? Which are (briefly) the main environmental impacts associated with food waste disposal routes? Is composting more sustainable than other pathways? Please, refer to the subsequent article, which can help you in highlighting the need to enhance composting behaviors among households.
Amicarelli, V., Lagioia, G. and Bux, C. (2021). Global warming potential of food waste through the life cycle assessment: An analytical review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 91 (2021), 106677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106677
I would avoid lines 94-96.
Research gap:
Lin 159: The authors cite for the first time “Appendix 2”. However, no Appendix is available for review. Further, where is also “Appendix 1”? I suppose that, if Appendix 2 exists, also Appendix 1 must exist.
Line 172 cites for the first time the participants to the research, who are “home gardeners”. I understand that this represents a research gap, but the authors should better contextualize and justify why the research focuses solely on home gardeners instead of focusing on the entire households. Who are home gardeners? How have been home gardeners identified during the survey?
Research methodology: The authors could enhance the description of the research methodology, by adding more insights related to the sample and data collection. Further, several details should be added. For instance: when was the questionnaire developed and distributed? Where was the questionnaire implemented? How was distributed? Was it a written questionnaire? I cannot understand how “home gardeners” have been selected as a sample category. Please, give more details which are essential to understand the robustness of your questionnaire and sample strategy. Further, discuss more the biases related to the purposive sampling technique. See, for instance:
Tongo, D.C. (2007). Purposive Sampling as a Tool for Informant Selection. Ethnobotany Research & Applications, 5, 147-158. www.ethnobotanyjournal.org/vol5/i1547-3465-05-147.pdf
Please, consider the subsequent articles dealing with questionnaires among households, to understand how to describe sampling technique and questionnaire development. It is important to cite previous articles applying questionnaire in the field of food waste (and food waste composting) in order to strengthen the methodology applied.
Sayara, T., Hanoun, R., Hamdan, Y. (2022). Survey on the factors and social perspectives to participate in home composting schemes in Palestine: Anabta case study. AIMS Environmental Science, 9(3), 216-227. 10.3934/environsci.2022016
Amicarelli, V., Lagioia, G., Sampietro, S. and Bux, C. (2021). Has the COVID-19 pandemic changed food waste perception and behavior? Evidence from Italian consumers. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 101095. 10.1016/j.seps.2021.101095
Line 271: Why Table 2 is cited before Table 1? Please, revise it. Table 2 described at line 271 (i.e., “presents the list of constructs and measurement items”) does not correspond to Table 2 provided at line 319. Please, add the subsequent Table, it is important to understand how many questions, which constructs, and which measurement items have been included in the research.
I would join sub-section 3.2. and subsection 3.3.
Results: Results are clear and comprehensive.
Line 313: Are home gardeners intended as “person in charge of waste management in their house and involved in home gardening?” Such an information is essential. This should be the description of the “home gardener” as a participant to the questionnaire.
Discussion: Discussions are clear and comprehensive.
Author Response
Comment 1: Title: Is it possible to shorten the title? It seems a bit complex. It should be more intuitive and appealing to readers. Readers can understand through the abstract the methods applied in the manuscript.
Reply: Thank you so much for your comment. In this revised version, we have modified the title “What influences home gardener’s food waste compositing intention at high-rise buildings in Dhaka megacity, Bangladesh? An integrated model of TPB and DMP.”. This correction is made at (line 1-4).
Abstract: The abstract is clear and comprehensive.
General comments: Some grammar typos and mistakes must be revised. The manuscript must follow the instruction for authors proved by MDPI.
Introduction:
Comment 2: Lines 38-39. The authors should cite the reference related to “daily waste generation in cities ranges from 0.47 to 0.5 kilogram per person”.
Reply: Thank you so much for your comment. We have cited this sentence [8]. (Line 38)
Comment 3: Line 43. The authors refer for the first time to “Bangladesh”. If Bangladesh represent the study location of the research, the authors should give relevance to such a choice (also including it in the abstract
Reply: Thank you so much for your valuable comments. The study location “Bangladesh” has included in the abstract section, (line 26)
Comment 4: Why have the authors selected the Bangladesh metropolitan regions? Which are the main characteristics of Dhaka (line 76)?
Reply: The justification is given at line 100-102. “Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh was selected, as the study location. Because this city has huge number of residents (19.5 million) and produces record amount of waste daily which causes serious waste production issues, and the government incurs huge municipal waste management costs as a result”. (Line 278-280).
Comment 5: How much inhabitants does Dhaka account? Which percentage of the entire Bangladesh people does it represent? Please, add more details and justify such a choice.
Reply: This correction is done in Study Area & Respondents section. Which can find at (line 278-292). “Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh was selected in Bangladesh, as the study location. Because this city has hugea high number of residents (19.5 million) and produces record amount of waste daily, which causes serious waste production issues, and the government incurs huge municipal waste management costs as a result [120]. Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh, also considered to be “one of the largest and most densely populated cities in the world,” with a density of 23,234 people per square kilometre within a total area of 300 square kilometres. Moreover, 38% of Bangladesh’s city population residing here [121, 122]. Geographically this city located between 23.8103◦N latitude and 90.4125◦ E longitude. The average annual rainfall is 2077.2 mm and daily average temperature is 26.6 ◦C, also fluctuates from 21.7 ◦C to 30.8 ◦C [5]. Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) area was taken into consideration as study area since the percentage of rooftop gardeners are promising in number[islam]. The number of high-rise buildings in Dhaka city are increasing remarkably for last decade. Therefore, the population is growing drastically with its vertical high-rise development [5]. Thus, it is essential to identify the residents residing in high-rise buildings have alternate food/organic waste recycling techniques. This study primarily focuses on exploring the resident’s (Home gardeners) food waste composting intention in high-rise residential buildings in Dhaka. All home gardeners/rooftop gardeners are the target respondents for this study. As a consequence, empirical study that particularly concentrates on home gardeners could be important and beneficial to policy makers to develop home gardener’s food waste /composting recycling behaviour.”.
Comment 6: Lines 57-67 are important to understand the core purpose of the manuscript. The authors investigate the variables which influence household composting. It should be better clarified the importance of composting among other food waste pathways. Is composting more sustainable? Why households should prefer composting instead of reuse or recycle food waste, for instance? Which are (briefly) the main environmental impacts associated with food waste disposal routes? Is composting more sustainable than other pathways? Please, refer to the subsequent article, which can help you in highlighting the need to enhance composting behaviors among households.
Reply: Thank you so much for your important comments. We have included the justification based on your comments. Which can be found at (line 57-73). “Compost is the ultimate end product of the aerobic breakdown of organic substance [17] and is considered a soil conditioner as well as widely used as a natural fertilizer in agricultural fields [5]. Home composting includes the biodegradation of municipal organic waste including food/kitchen waste [18]. In terms of sustainable waste management tactics, home composting is a productive option for dealing with kitchen waste at source, which is recognized for its numerous benefits, for instance, creating intrinsic value products by enhancing soil structure and fertility [19,21,22], as and enjoy experimentation and an environmentally friendly lifestyle. The composting mechanism can represent a feasible option for the managing of the biological fraction of municipal waste specially in developing countries, due to its lack of complication and quick setup process. Furthermore, this process entails lower economic costs compared to other recycling alternatives, which needs sophisticated resources for both operation and maintenance. Therefore, composting is considerate as a more sustainable efficient alternative of food recycling because of its less harm on environment and lower economic costs (UNEP, 2011). Additionally, prior environmental studies have stated that composting is an eco-friendlier recycling option than any other food/organic waste recycling categories, for instance landfilling and incineration (Samaniego et al., 2017, Saer et al., 2013). Moreover, home composting makes easier for the individual homeowner to recycle organic waste in a sustainable way [20]. An exploratory study by Fernando [150] concluded the reasons for people’s participation in home composting. For example, convenient way to dispose of food waste, using organic fertilizer in home gardening, concern about the environment and good health and for economic benefits”.
Comment 7: I would avoid lines 94-96.
Research gap:
Comment 8: Line 159: The authors cite for the first time “Appendix 2”. However, no Appendix is available for review. Further, where is also “Appendix 1”? I suppose that, if Appendix 2 exists, also Appendix 1 must exist.
Reply: Thank you so much for your comment. We have uploaded the Appendix-1 file along with the manuscript. Appendix-1 file contains systematic literature review table.
Comment 9: Line 172 cites for the first time the participants to the research, who are “home gardeners”. I understand that this represents a research gap, but the authors should better contextualize and justify why the research focuses solely on home gardeners instead of focusing on the entire households. Who are home gardeners? How have been home gardeners identified during the survey?
Reply: Thank you so much for your comments. The justification for the above-mentioned comment is given here “However, limited number of empirical studies have investigated home gardeners' intention to compost/recycle food waste. Therefore, current study focuses solely on home gardeners, as they use fertilizer for growing their plants & vegetables [128]. Although it is mentioned in the previous studies that, composting can minimize the food waste issue at household level. Therefore, it is needed to examine individuals who engages in home gardening such as home gardeners”. (Line 172-176).
Research methodology
Comment 10: The authors could enhance the description of the research methodology, by adding more insights related to the sample and data collection. Further, several details should be added. For instance: when was the questionnaire developed and distributed? Where was the questionnaire implemented? How was distributed? Was it a written questionnaire? I cannot understand how “home gardeners” have been selected as a sample category. Please, give more details which are essential to understand the robustness of your questionnaire and sample strategy. Further, discuss more the biases related to the purposive sampling technique. See, for instance:
Reply: Thank you so much for your valuable comments. The correction is “A face-to-face questionnaire was used to conduct the survey. The study was conducted in three purposively selected overpopulated area of Dhaka city named by Dhanmondi, Mirpur and Mohammadpur. Followed by cross sectional method, primary data was collected during the period of 15 March to 2022 April of 2022. Data collection procedure contained three steps. First, rooftop garden apartments were identified through information gathered from Dhaka city corporation. Secondly, questionnaires were approached to the households through the apartment management office. Finally, total 500 questionnaires were distributed, with the 41% response rate only 203 valid questionnaires were received” Which can be found in 3.3 Data Collection section: (line 294-300).
Comment 11: Please, consider the subsequent articles dealing with questionnaires among households, to understand how to describe sampling technique and questionnaire development. It is important to cite previous articles applying questionnaire in the field of food waste (and food waste composting) in order to strengthen the methodology applied.
Reply: Thank you so much for your useful comments. We have cited the articles [111,62] relevant to food waste composting study. This correction can be found at (line 262).
Comment 12: Line 271: Why Table 2 is cited before Table 1? Please, revise it. Table 2 described at line 271 (i.e., “presents the list of constructs and measurement items”) does not correspond to Table 2 provided at line 319. Please, add the subsequent Table, it is important to understand how many questions, which constructs, and which measurement items have been included in the research.
Reply: Thank you so much for your insightful comments. In the revised version, the table has rearranged accordingly. Table 1 represents measurement items (Line 275) and table 2 demonstrates demographic information (Line 337).
Comment 13: I would join sub-section 3.2. and subsection 3.3.
Reply: Thank you so much for your comment. We have added new section (3.2 Study Area & Respondents) and (3.3 Data Collection) mentioned at (Line 277, 293).
Results: Results are clear and comprehensive.
Comment 14: Line 313: Are home gardeners intended as “person in charge of waste management in their house and involved in home gardening?” Such an information is essential. This should be the description of the “home gardener” as a participant to the questionnaire.
Reply: Thank you so much for your important comment. This revision (Line 313) is altered by “This bias was caused by targeted interviewee (women) who mostly reside at home and engage with household activities”. (Line 331-332).
Discussion: Discussions are clear and comprehensive.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is a good work, which is based on a fairly well-documented research. However, the primary data collected on the basis of the mentioned questionnaires were not provided. Also, I do not think that the editing requirements mentioned in the template have been met. There are many numbered rows that have no content. Thus, it is difficult to follow and comment on the content. The paper truly highlights the fact that the current study results not only highlight the importance of passion in determining food waste composting intent, but rather provide helpful information for designing effective sustainable tactics to encourage residents to compost food waste at home. These aspects give value to the work and its publication. I recommend to correct the aspects regarding the numbered rows that have no content.
Author Response
Comment 1: It is a good work, which is based on fairly well-documented research. However, the primary data collected on the basis of the mentioned questionnaires were not provided. Also, I do not think that the editing requirements mentioned in the template have been met. There are many numbered rows that have no content. Thus, it is difficult to follow and comment on the content. The paper truly highlights the fact that the current study results not only highlight the importance of passion in determining food waste composting intent, but rather provide helpful information for designing effective sustainable tactics to encourage residents to compost food waste at home. These aspects give value to the work and its publication. I recommend to correct the aspects regarding the numbered rows that have no content.
Reply: Thank you so much for your valuable comments. In the revised section, the questionnaire table is given, which can be found at (line 275).
Reviewer 3 Report
It seems that the topic of this study is very interesting. However, to help this research improve, I would like to leave some comments.
Introduction
In this study, justification is very weak. This section is very difficult to convince people to explain why this study is needed. There is just one reason: “Limited empirical studies have investigated…”. However, it seems that this reason is hard to justify to performing this research. Please provide more stubborn reasons to convince people regarding the need of this study.
In addition, in this section, the authors introduced the situation regarding diverse waste in this society. However, this section also needs the academic world with regards to MSW. It may help this study improve its justification.
Literature review
It would be good to start this section with the theoretical background of TPB and the dualistic model of passion. In my opinion, however, it would help readers better understand if you could make different subheadings to account for each theory (TPB) and model (dualistic model of passion).
For the subheading of research gap (I guess you wanted to make this subheading 2.2, right?), I would suggest authors to explain this subject (research gap) after the theoretical background in a natural way without independent subheading.
Research methodology
In this section, the authors mentioned “the questionnaire was evaluated by a panel of five experts prior to data collection…”. Does this mean that survey items were not adopted from prior studies, but developed by them (five experts)?
If this study applied totally new question items which were developed by the experts, I do not think it is a good idea to perform the research with them. First, survey items require intensive validation to use in research. Second, it would be much better to adopt survey items from prior studies because two theories of TPB and DMP were utilized in numerous prior studies which means they are already validated.
For these reasons, I would like to check out the survey items first. In addition, the authors also should provide one table including survey items in this paper. Or, if you adopted survey items from prior studies, please clearly indicate references where they are adopted from.
Results
For the demographic information, they don’t seem enough. Why did you include housewives and senior citizens in one option? They should be in different option. Is senior citizen employment status? I don’t think so. They are closer in age or generation.
Also, the authors broke down the income into just two options which is inappropriate. Please break down this variable into more detailed options.
Implication
Theoretical and practical implications are not enough to show very effective implication that practitioners could apply in the real world. Based on the results, please provide more critical and unique implication
Minor points
Please reorganize some paragraphs. For example, in the literature review section, remove the vacant lines between paragraphs (page 4). On page 4, the second paragraph (Vallerand and ~~) and the third paragraph (Vallerand et al) are connected, so these two paragraphs should be integrated.
These are just examples. Please reorganize the paragraphs in this study.
In addition, please check the formatting. Some paragraphs are located next to the table (page 15).
Author Response
Introduction
Comment 1: In this study, justification is very weak. This section is very difficult to convince people to explain why this study is needed. There is just one reason: “Limited empirical studies have investigated…”. However, it seems that this reason is hard to justify to performing this research. Please provide more stubborn reasons to convince people regarding the need of this study.
Reply: Thank you so much for the comment. The correction is done by adding the following paragraph into the revised version. (Line 85-90) “Considering the most significant and leading role performed by home gardeners in food waste composting in Bangladesh, this study for the first time examines the factors of the food waste composting intention. Succinctly, this study makes three major contributions. Firstly, this research examines the food waste composting intention of Bangladeshi home gardeners. Secondly, the combined model of TPB and DMP are employed as the theoretical framework for the empirical analysis, confirming the feasibility and validity of the estimation outcomes. Finally, this study achieves comprehensive findings and proposes strong policy implications by contemplating the intention of the targeted group”.
Comment 2: In addition, in this section, the authors introduced the situation regarding diverse waste in this society. However, this section also needs the academic world with regards to MSW. It may help this study improve its justification
Reply: Thank you so much for the comment. The correction is done by adding the following paragraph into the revised version. (Line 91-95) “Furthermore, the resident’s willingness to take part in the composting activity was previously examined in light of composting behaviour. Loan et al. [93] measured the composting behavior on sustainable MSW management in developing nations. To measure green composting intention, Mamun et al., 2020 have examined perceived benefits, normative beliefs and start up resources. Dwinadine & Dewi [123] have examined the intention to use waste for composting and found significant factors: perceived value, trust, knowledge”.
Literature review
Comment 3: It would be good to start this section with the theoretical background of TPB and the dualistic model of passion. In my opinion, however, it would help readers better understand if you could make different subheadings to account for each theory (TPB) and model (dualistic model of passion).
Reply: Thank you so much for this comment. This section is corrected by putting different subheading for each theory. (Line 108 and Line 133).
Comment 4: For the subheading of research gap (I guess you wanted to make this subheading 2.2, right?), I would suggest authors to explain this subject (research gap) after the theoretical background in a natural way without independent subheading.
Reply: Thank you so much for your comment. In the corrected version, we have eliminated the subheading of research gap and placed right after the theoretical background. (Line 155-175).
Research methodology
Comment 5: In this section, the authors mentioned “the questionnaire was evaluated by a panel of five experts prior to data collection…”. Does this mean that survey items were not adopted from prior studies, but developed by them (five experts)?
Reply: Thank you so much for your valuable comments. The justification for this comment is mentioned in the revised version. “. Since the data collection destination was in Dhaka city, therefore questionnaire was translated to Bengali version. Then the questionnaire was evaluated by a panel of five experts prior to data collection to ensure that it met the requirements of face and content validity”. (Line 263-266).
Comment 6: If this study applied totally new question items which were developed by the experts, I do not think it is a good idea to perform the research with them. First, survey items require intensive validation to use in research. Second, it would be much better to adopt survey items from prior studies because two theories of TPB and DMP were utilized in numerous prior studies which means they are already validated.
For these reasons, I would like to check out the survey items first. In addition, the authors also should provide one table including survey items in this paper. Or, if you adopted survey items from prior studies, please clearly indicate references where they are adopted from.
Reply: Thank you so much for your comments. In the revised section, the questionnaire table is given, which can be found at (line 275).
Results
Comment 7: For the demographic information, they don’t seem enough. Why did you include housewives and senior citizens in one option? They should be in different option. Is senior citizen employment status? I don’t think so. They are closer in age or generation.
Also, the authors broke down the income into just two options which is inappropriate. Please break down this variable into more detailed options.
Reply: Thank you so much for your important comments. Demographic section is corrected by replacing “Housewives/ senior citizen” to “Housewives/ non-employed” (Line 337). Also, income is corrected by Tk 10000-30000, Tk 30001-50000, Tk 50001-70000, Tk 70001-90000, >TK90000. (Line 337).
Implication
Comment 8: Theoretical and practical implications are not enough to show very effective implication that practitioners could apply in the real world. Based on the results, please provide more critical and unique implication
Reply: Thank you so much for your valuable comments. In the revised version both practical and theoretical contribution have extended by following 2 paragraphs.
Practical implication: “In addition, local organic fertilizer manufacturer can provide composting tools to the households and purchase fertilizer from them. As a consequence, two parties can be benefited, and also non-gardeners may motivate to engage in composting food waste at home. Additionally, government and educational institution should educate young generation about the effectiveness of the composting system and environmental agency can conveying the food waste management awareness through social media and campaign”. (Line 518-522)
Theoretical implication: “. Thus, the outcome of this research shows some theoretical implications. Particularly, this research contributes to the waste management/recycling literature by offering a more comprehensive model that includes passion constructs namely, harmonious passion and obsessive passion” (Line 485-487)
“This current study also enriches the waste management domain by serving as a starting point for future study. Although this research, to the best of our knowledge, is the first to prioritize on the connection between dualistic model of passion and home gardeners’ food waste composting at high-rise building in Dhaka, Bangladesh. None the less prior researchers have rarely examined DMP along with TPB factors in waste recycling studies”. (Line 491-494)
Minor points
Comment 9: Please reorganize some paragraphs. For example, in the literature review section, remove the vacant lines between paragraphs (page 4). On page 4, the second paragraph (Vallerand and ~~) and the third paragraph (Vallerand et al) are connected, so these two paragraphs should be integrated.
Reply: Thank you so much for the comments. The correction is done by connected 2nd & 3rd paragraph. Mentioned at page 4
Comment 10: These are just examples. Please reorganize the paragraphs in this study.
In addition, please check the formatting. Some paragraphs are located next to the table (page 15)
Reply: Thank you so much for your comment. In the revised version, (page 15) table formatting has been corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for the opportunity to read the revised version of the manuscript entitled “What influences home gardener’s food waste compositing intention at high-rise buildings in Dhaka megacity, Bangladesh? An integrated model of TPB and DMP”. I thank you for reviewing your article achieving good levels of quality and clarity. Therefore, I suggest the acceptance of the manuscript in its present form.
Best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment (Revised manuscript)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It seems that the authors have made a lot of efforts to improve the quality of this paper. They have accepted most of my comments and suggestions.
I would like the authors to revise the English language and style, correct the typos, and check the reference. Then, I belive this paper will be ready to publish.
Thank you for your efforts.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
