Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is engaging and tackles an important topic.

It has the potential for publication. I believe the authors should provide at least a literature review. Several studies have been conducted on a problem with similar characteristics. Or, numerous papers have examined the experiences of past disasters.

Author Response

A brief literature has now been added by adding a new section (section 2).

Reviewer 2 Report

The research conducted only in one training session. It is quite small sample and sampling could be biased. The concept of paper is good. There is need to conduct such assessment in bigger training sessions and if possible in multiple regions. Therefore, result of such study can not be generalized. 

Author Response

The paper does not suggest that the results are generalisable. It only mentions that the lessons learned could help to guide future training programs. It is mentioned that more action research in this space would build on the experience and outcomes of this project.

Reviewer 3 Report

I think that this document could be published in the journal “Sustainability” after addressing the following comments.

 

Comments:

 

In the abstract, it is mentioned that the ToT model could be used effectively to strengthen DWM capacity in other Pacific Island nations. Could this model be used in other regions of the world?

 

I do not find in the introduction if there are studies reported in the literature related to the topic addressed. It is important to comment on the background or what has been reported on the subject. Must be strengthened

 

In section 4, line 181, it would be advisable to mention in a general way the types of waste that can occur most in natural disasters for the study region.

 

In section 5, line 260, it is mentioned that given the limited information on DWM in the Pacific, the draft guidelines produced by SPREP served as a key reference for producing the ToT DWM handbook, however, those limited information sources are not mentioned or cited.

 

From Table 2, you can avoid putting "%" after each number and just specify it in the header. I think it is also necessary to place the header of column 1.

I suggest discussing the results a little more, what is reported in other studies?

Author Response

A sentence has been added stating that some of the lessons learned could be valuable to island nations in other regions that face similar hazards on line 407.

A brief literature has now been added by adding a new section (section 2).

This is addressed in lines 63-65 and 185-187.

A brief literature has now been added by adding a new section (section 2).

The table has been mended accordingly.

Reviewer 4 Report

This research is done to explore the effectiveness of a training program in strengthening the capacity of disaster waste management (DWM) in Vanuatu, drawing on an action research project undertaken during the delivery of a Training of Trainers (ToT) program in Port Vila and Ifira Island. The researchers gathered feedback through questionnaires, host group discussions, and park sheets from the participants. The outcome of this research is used to inform revisions of the Disaster Waste Management Handbook, and to understand the potential benefits for similar programs in other countries across the Pacific Region.

Although the paper does not seem to have a novel theoretical contribution, the overall writing and structure of the paper is acceptable and provides an applicable experimental study. There are some concerns that seems to be addressed in this paper before publication:

1- It is recommended the authors provide a rational explanation about the relation of the main topic (i.e., Disaster waste management) to the Sustainability concept due to journal main concern. 

2- The "Strengthening Capacity" phrase contains general meaning. Please provide explanations about the intended meaning.

3- Are there any concerns about the specific features/characteristics/qualification of trainers who participated in this project?

4- Please provide more details about this training program.

5- Are the questionnaires designed based a standard framework/scientific process? How?

6- It is recommended to add statistical analysis for the validity and reliability of the results.

7- Which parts/modules of the program should be modified to make it reusable for other Pacific Island nations? Please provide a clear explanation.

8- Finally I recommend to provide a wider range of new papers in the literature review/introduction section.

Author Response

It is now mentioned how this is related to sustainability and specific SDGs on lines 35-40.

See the new section 2. This term has now been clarified there.

There are no specific concerns. 

Details of the each of the modules are provided in lines 284-305.

This paper is not based on such a scientific study. The evaluation questions were based on the authors’ extensive experience of running previous training courses.

This is not applicable to this paper. See the point above.

The case studies and the transect walk would need to be localised for use in other regions. This is mentioned in lines 407-408.

A brief literature has now been added by adding a new section (section 2).