Accessing Consumer Perceptions of the Effectiveness of the Deposit Refund System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present study aims to explore consumers' perceptions of the Deposit Refund System (DRS) initiative in Greece. Overall, the paper is engaging and well-written, but there are some areas that require attention before publication.
The authors stated in the abstract that "Data were gathered using a mail-out survey to randomly chosen consumers in various cities in Greece." However, based on the information provided, it appears that the sampling method used was convenience sampling rather than random sampling. It would be helpful to clarify the sampling procedure in the methodology section to ensure accuracy in reporting.
At the end of the introduction please add the structure of the paper.
References are not written appropriately in the text. For example: “Vigsø (2004) evaluated the beverage packaging deposit refund system considering the cost-benefit analysis in Denmark [9]” should be written: Vigsø [9] evaluated the beverage packaging deposit refund system considering the cost-benefit analysis in Denmark
To strengthen the clarity and organization of the paper, it would be beneficial to include the hypotheses formed after the relevant literature within each subsection rather than all at the end of the section. This approach will help readers to better understand the specific hypotheses being tested in relation to each motive for the usage of Deposit Refund Systems.
In the methodology section, it would be helpful to specify the studies from which you have adopted or adapted the latent variables and items.
In the conclusions section, it would be beneficial to discuss the findings and implications of each hypothesis separately. This approach will help readers to more clearly understand the main findings and the significance of each hypothesis. Furthermore, a separate discussion for each hypothesis will provide more focused and in-depth insights into the implications of the study.
Lastly, it would be important to include a section outlining the limitations of the study.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We have completed the review of our paper, titled “Accessing consumer perceptions of the effectiveness of the Deposit Refund System” based on your comments and suggestions.
We would like to thank you for the time and effort you devoted to studying our paper and for your very constructive and helpful comments. We feel that your extensive comments and suggestions have greatly helped us to significantly improve our work.
In addition, some of your suggestions, although not possible to be implemented in this paper, gave us new ideas for further research on this topic and we greatly appreciate that.
Thank you again for your precious input. We really appreciate your excellent suggestions.
Kind Regards,
Dimitris Folinas.
Attached are our responses to your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Accessing consumer perceptions on the effectiveness of the Deposit Refund System
Dear authors,
It is a pleasure to assess your essay. Below, please find my comments and recommendations:
Abstract
- Please include 2-3 quantitative achievements.
- Is there any theory that supports your study?
Introduction
- In line 32, “It a tool…”, this sentence is incomplete.
- In line 37, the authors defined DRS before, then I do not understand the meaning of “also known”. Please, remove it from the sentence.
- In line 42, “Recycling decreases the dependence on new raw materials, and lessens the damage on natural resources. Additionally, it results to a decrease of energy requirements for the production of goods.” Can you provide academic sources that support these strong statements?
- In line 58 and across the paper, authors use deposit refund systems, which should be DRF. Please, review and correct.
- I cannot appreciate the research aim. The introduction needs to be more comprehensive, and the authors need to explain why this research is necessary and provide an in-depth explanation of the research gap.
- The authors have added some background and related literature, but they should consider more details about the research topic's methodology, empirical results, and policy implications.
- The introduction should be revised.
Literature review
- I did not see this subtitle: Conceptual Framework and Research Model. Please, can you add it?
- I consider the authors are overquoting (lines 93-99). Please, paraphrase.
- Information from lines 113 to 135, Where does it come from? Please, can you explain?
- Is 2.1. Assessment of the effectiveness of the DRS initiatives in various countries influences the research model part of the conceptual framework?
- I cannot see a theory that supports this study.
- In line 152 authors mentioned “consumers’ behavior”, are you conducting marketing research or social research related to DRS? This must be explained.
- Authors present three main variables that support the research model (Perception of refund recycling, motives, and deposit refund recycling), which are not explained in the literature review. How perception can be explained? Can the authors include studies about that variable and the others?
- This section MUST be reviewed entirely. The authors are not supporting with academic literature the aim of this study.
- How authors will measure and explain H1 “The DRS motives affect positively the process of recycling.”?
- Each hypothesis must be supported by at least 150 words.
- Authors have four hypotheses; I see three in the research model.
- Can the authors provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the literature review that supports this paper, “state of the art”?
Research Methodology
1. Can the authors explain how they select participants?
2. Can the authors explain the scales that were selected to create the questionnaire?
3. What are the questions that are included in the literature review?
4. Who asked participants if they had used DRS? Is that a filter question?
5. How many questionnaires were distributed?
6. How the authors obtained the information to mail the questionnaire to potential participants?
7. What was the percentage of accepted questionnaires?
8. Authors say there are 3 latent variables (motivations, consumers’ perception of DRS recycling, and adoption of DRS), but I do not see the process of recycling. How can you explain these hypotheses based on this model?
H1: The DRS (where is this represented in the model) motives affect positively the process of recycling.
H2: The DRS motives affect positively the perception of the DRS users.
H3: DRS perception affects positively the adoption of DRS.
H4: DRS users’ perception complementary mediates the effect of motives of DRS adoption
9. Did the research team design the questionnaire? If so, did you validate the questionnaire? Reliability? KMO? EFA? Etc…
Results
I cannot review results if previous questions are not responded.
Discussion
I cannot review the discussion if previous questions are not responded.
Conclusions
I cannot review conclusions if previous questions are not responded.
Finally, I wish you the best in this peer-review process,
Regards,
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We have completed the review of our paper, titled “Accessing consumer perceptions of the effectiveness of the Deposit Refund System” based on your comments and suggestions.
We would like to thank you for the time and effort you devoted to studying our paper and for your very constructive and helpful comments. We feel that your extensive comments and suggestions have greatly helped us to significantly improve our work.
In addition, some of your suggestions, although not possible to be implemented in this paper, gave us new ideas for further research on this topic and we greatly appreciate that.
Thank you again for your precious input. We really appreciate your excellent suggestions.
Kind Regards,
Dimitris Folinas.
Attached are our responses to your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The work deals with how consumers’ perceptions on DRS affect their participation to DRS and the topic is suited for the special issue. The manuscript contains some unique findings and it will contribute to improving the present DRS for a better recycle rate. The reviewer, however, expects the authors to revise the manuscript considering the following particular comments for publication.
1. Though it is stated the model shown in Fig. 3 was derived from previous studies, it is hard to understand which literature was the origin of a particular part of the model. The summary of previous works is given in Table 1, but it is better to indicate clearly which work was the basis for selecting each motivation indicator of MOT1-MOT5 and each perception indicator of PER1-PER3.
2. The reviewer supposes the parameters of MOT1-MOT5, PER1-PER2, and REC1-REC3 were asked in the questionnaire, but it is not clearly stated in the methodology chapter. It is mentioned, "Since the questionnaire was based on questions included in published work, there were no issues of clarity and structure" in Line 188-189, but it is better to describe more about the contents of the questionnaire.
3. Just the motives of DRS are explained in Section 2.2, but the consumers’ perceptions are not. Since the contents of questionnaire depend on these indicators, they should also be explained beforehand.
4. Notating just 'DRS' will be confusing for the readers, and 'adoption of DRS' is an exact notation of the variable.
5. The authors ignored the questionnaire data of those who are not using DRS, but presumably comparing questionnaire data between participants and non-participants of DRS will give some remarkable differences in the motives and perceptions of DRS. Why didn’t the authors analyzed the questionnaire data of non-participants?
6. "It a tool to 32 collect high quantities of beverage containers for reuse and for high-quality recycling" in Line 32-33 is an incomprehensible sentence. Correct some other peculiar English expressions.
7. What does '2939/2001 and 4496/2017' in Line 107 mean? Is this the standard numbering scheme of Greek laws?
8. Table 8 and 9 are referred to in Line 321 and 330, respectively, but no such tables are given in the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We have completed the review of our paper, titled “Accessing consumer perceptions of the effectiveness of the Deposit Refund System” based on your comments and suggestions.
We would like to thank you for the time and effort you devoted to studying our paper and for your very constructive and helpful comments. We feel that your extensive comments and suggestions have greatly helped us to significantly improve our work.
In addition, some of your suggestions, although not possible to be implemented in this paper, gave us new ideas for further research on this topic and we greatly appreciate that.
Thank you again for your precious input. We really appreciate your excellent suggestions.
Kind Regards,
Dimitris Folinas.
Attached are our responses to your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This publication outlines consumer perceptions of the Deposit Refund Scheme (DRS) initiative in Greece. The main objectives were to measure the effectiveness of DRS systems in Greece and to identify the motives of DRS users. Their impact on the use and perception of DRS was analysed. The analytical part is based on data collected through surveys carried out among randomly selected consumers in various cities in Greece. In addition, structural equations were used to build modeling (SEM) and verify research hypotheses. The work is based on a proper literature review and properly selected research methods. In order to complete the conclusions, I suggest expanding this part of the work with recommendations for further in-depth research and proposals for practical applications of the results obtained.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We have completed the review of our paper, titled “Accessing consumer perceptions of the effectiveness of the Deposit Refund System” based on your comments and suggestions.
We would like to thank you for the time and effort you devoted to studying our paper and for your very constructive and helpful comments. We feel that your extensive comments and suggestions have greatly helped us to significantly improve our work.
In addition, some of your suggestions, although not possible to be implemented in this paper, gave us new ideas for further research on this topic and we greatly appreciate that.
Thank you again for your precious input. We really appreciate your excellent suggestions.
Kind Regards,
Dimitris Folinas.
Attached are our responses to your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accessing consumer perceptions on the effectiveness of the Deposit Refund System
Dear authors,
It is a pleasure to assess your revised essay. Below, please find my comments and recommendations:
Abstract
- Please include 2-3 quantitative achievements.
- You should declare a theory/ies that support this research. Which one is it?
Introduction
- Thank you for revising this section.
Literature review
- Variables titles must be the same in the literature review and research model. Readers can be confused because there are differences. Please, correct that.
- Can you include the hypotheses in the research model (H1, H2,…)
- Authors are using “motives” and “motivations”. Which one is part of this study? You cannot interchange these two concepts because they are similar but have different meanings. Please, can you clarify this? In line 223 (motivations is the independent variable).
Research Methodology
1. Participant selection still needs to be clarified. Participants are retail customers; where and how they received the cover letter? Who gave them the survey link? Were fieldwork workers in different retail stores? If yes, how were those stores selected? Why only five cities? Please, can you explain?
2. Originally, authors obtained the information to mail the questionnaire to potential participants; now, participants were accessed in retail stores. Please, can you confirm this?
3. Authors said questionnaires were created using components of the literature review. Can the authors explain the scales that were selected to develop the questionnaire? Without this explanation, the questionnaire cannot be validated.
4. Was the statistical analysis to validate the questionnaire only Cronbach’s Alpha? Did the authors complete a KMO, EFA, or CFA? Were all variables included in the research model? Were none of them rejected?
5. Can the authors present descriptive statistics? M, SD, CA, correlations, etc.
6. As I said before, variable tiles must be the same all across the paper. Therefore, there are three latent variables (motivations, consumers’ perception of DRS recycling, and adoption of DRS), but I do not see the process of recycling. How can you explain these hypotheses based on this model?
Results
I cannot review results if previous questions are not responded.
Discussion
I cannot review the discussion if previous questions are not responded.
Conclusions
I cannot review conclusions if previous questions are not responded.
Finally, I wish you the best in this peer-review process,
Regards,
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We have completed the review of our paper, titled “Accessing consumer perceptions of the effectiveness of the Deposit Refund System” based on your comments and suggestions. We would like to thank you for the time and effort you devoted to studying our paper. We feel that your extensive comments and suggestions have greatly helped us to significantly improve our work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It is better to state in the final chapter that this work focused just on DRS users and that comparison between users and no-users will be a future work.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We have completed the review of our paper, titled “Accessing consumer perceptions of the effectiveness of the Deposit Refund System” based on your comments and suggestions. We would like to thank you for the time and effort you devoted into studying our paper. We feel that your extensive comments and suggestions have greatly helped us to significantly improve our work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
