Fortifying Social Acceptance When Designing Circular Economy Business Models on Biowaste Related Products

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “Fortifying social acceptance when designing circular economy business models on biowaste related products” investigated social acceptance on the biowaste, especially on single cell proteins. It is highly interesting to know customers' acceptance of biowaste conversion to new bio-products including food, feed, and fertilizer. However, there is a reluctant perception to see ‘biowaste’ as ‘food’ to be eatable. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that education level has an impact on social acceptance to new products. 

 

The introduction section is not compelling enough to provide the background and the objective of the study. For instance, it is confusing to see why the authors targeted insect-based protein. Information on what is biowaste, why it is important, and what the readers can obtain from the study should be clearly stated. The description on distinct characteristics of the “two contrasting cities” would be helpful for readers to follow the story. On top of that, different results between the two cities should be more discussed in the Discussion and Conclusion section.

 

I hope the following comments help the manuscript being more improved.

-        There is too much double spacing in the body texts.

-        Line #23-25: Results should provide more specific context even in the abstract.

-        Line #85: There is no abbreviation information in the body text on what “CE” is.

-        Line#174: typo “30”

-        Line#220: “Figure 6”, the numbering on the figures should be revised.

-        Line#298-300: Figure 2 and Figure 3 should be divided and represented separately.

-        Line#378, #603, #612. #617, #665, #669, #675: Table captions should be placed above the table.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, here our responses to your valuable comments:

The introduction section is not compelling enough to provide the background and the objective of the study. For instance, it is confusing to see why the authors targeted insect-based protein. Information on what is biowaste, why it is important, and what the readers can obtain from the study should be clearly stated. The description on distinct characteristics of the “two contrasting cities” would be helpful for readers to follow the story. On top of that, different results between the two cities should be more discussed in the Discussion and Conclusion section.

- We have introduced the background addressing biowaste generation in Europe and opportunities related to value creation

-We agree with the comment on insect-based protein sentence. A sentence from the beginning was remowed “Insect protein responds to the demand for sustainable and high-quality protein to feed a growing population”

- We agree with the comment on “two contrasting cities”. We have added to Introduction demographic  data and explanation on the both cities

- We have added details to clarify the results between  the two regions in the discussion and conclusions

 

 

 

I hope the following comments help the manuscript being more improved.

-        There is too much double spacing in the body texts /over 70 double spaces deleted

-        Line #23-25: Results should provide more specific context even in the /We have revised the abstract, and we believe the abstract describes the specific context in accordance with the research question, for this reason we have not made any changes

-        Line #85: There is no abbreviation information in the body text on what “CE” is. /An abbreviation to Circular Economy (CE) has been added

-        Line#174: typo “30” /Typo has been deleted

-        Line#220: “Figure 6”, the numbering on the figures should be revised /All graphs and tables are given correct numbers. All graphs and tables are aligned like the text.

-        Line#298-300: Figure 2 and Figure 3 should be divided and represented separately /The idea of these graphs was to place them as a pair, one beside the other (like the next pair of graphs). Due to journal’ text formatting it was put one below the other. This time we have reduced the size of each graph, so they look correct now. However, if they still should be recommended to be place separately – we will redo.

-        Line#378, #603, #612. #617, #665, #669, #675: Table captions should be placed above the table. /All table’s captions are now placed above the tables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear atuhors of the manuscript "Fortifying Social Acceptance when Designing Circular Econ-2 omy Business Models on Biowaste Related Products", 

 

I recommend that your manuscript goes through minor revisions before considered for publication.

In particular,  in your conclussion section, you must relate your findings to a literature that consistently report findings that, at first glance, seem to be in contrast with yours. 

You conclude that "Social acceptance is an important factor when developing new products from the biowaste: the citizens are well informed and deeply interested in such new products and their properties". But there is evidence in other literatures that points to the opposite direction of your findings. For instance, there is a stated preferences economic literature that has documented that that willingness to pay is actually the lowest when it comes to renewable energy coming from biomass --which is one important good produced with biowaste. In a recent study, Martinez-Cruz and Nunez (2021) conclude that "Taking solar-biomass mix as reference category, the positive sign of the solar energy parameter implies that solar is preferred over the mix; and the negative sign of the biomass parameter implies that the mix is preferred over biomass. This ordering of preferences is consistent with results from previous studies that have also documented a disutility from biomass ( e.g. Cicia et al., 2012; Gracia et al., 2012; Yoo and Ready, 2014). As Gracia et al. (2012) have pointed out, this disutility may be explained by a lack of knowledge on how to use biomass sustainably, and/or may be associated with negative externalities from its use in the past." (Martinez-Cruz and Nunez, 2021, p. 9).

This well-established literature on stated preferences for residential renewable electricity has documented that, in general, consumers are willing to pay for additional renewable energy sources, but bioenergy reports the lowest WTP when comparing one-to-one to other sources such as solar and wind, as confirmed in the  meta-analysis by Chaikumbung (2021)  using 91 studies.

Importantly, what I am saying is that your findings should be put in context with respect to findings that consistently point to the fact that social acceptance (measured as willingness to pay, which is how economists measure acceptance) of a specific product generated with biowaste seems to be negative --people seem to not like biomass. How do we make sense of your findings and stated preferences' findings?

Looking forward to reading your revised manuscript.

 

REFERENCES:

Chaikumbung, M. (2021). Institutions and consumer preferences for renewable energy: a meta-regression analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 146, 111143.

Martinez-Cruz, A. L., & Nunez, H. M. (2021). Tension in Mexico's energy transition: Are urban residential consumers in Aguascalientes willing to pay for renewable energy and green jobs?. Energy Policy, 150, 112145.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your valuable comments, and provide here our responses:

We have revised the suggestions for literature. The studies by Chaikumbung (2021) and Martinez-Cruz & Nunez (2021) report result on biomass utilisation as energy.  We recognise the importance of comparing our results and study approach with existing studies. We have added these studies, and used when making the conclusions of our study.  

Sincerely yours,

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been well-revised regarding the previous comments. The Abstract and Conclusion are considered compelling and interesting for readers. 

The following points need to be corrected. 

- Typo in Line #105: Circulation -> Circular

- Figure 6 (Line #240) - Fig.4, Fig.5(Line #480, 481): which way is correct? Authors should represent them in a consistent way.

One minor thing to point out: what is the concept of 'bioeconomy (bio-economy in Line #180; bioeconomy in Line #768)' ? What is difference between circular economy and circular bioeconomy? Do they imply the same meaning?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We appreciate your valuable comments, and have made the following changes:

- Typo in Line #105: Circulation -> Circular   /The word has been corrected.

 

- Figure 6 (Line #240) - Fig.4, Fig.5(Line #480, 481): which way is correct? Authors should represent them in a consistent way.  /The words at lines #480, 481 have been changed by using the word “Figure”. Also, the whole documents has been revised for consistency: same correction has been made at Lines #311 and #314.

 

One minor thing to point out: what is the concept of 'bioeconomy (bio-economy in Line #180; bioeconomy in Line #768)' ? What is difference between circular economy and circular bioeconomy? Do they imply the same meaning? /

We use the word bioeconomy without a dash, Line#180 has been changed, and also the consistency throughout the document has been revised; same change at Lines #37, and #48. The both terms, circular economy and circular bioeconomy are used; circular economy is a more general and wider approach and as such mainly used in this paper. However, since the topic is dealing with valorisation of products from biowaste, also circular bioeconomy as a more specific term is used. We use the bioeocomy term, for example, when  referring to food waste and losses along the food chain [5], at line #48. For clarity, we have added at line #48 the abbreviation “CBE”, and its explanation “Circular Bioeconomy” at Line #802.  

Sincerely yours,

Tuomo Eskelinen

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

This manuscript relates its findings to those of a literature that report findings that contrast with yours. I would have preferred that you ellaborate further in terms of similarities and differences, but it is up to you to decide the final take.

The paper can be published as it is now.

Best!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We appreciate your valuable comments. At this point, we have made no changes based on your feedback.

Sincerely yours,

Tuomo Eskelinen