E-Waste Management in Rwanda: A Situational and Capacity Need Assessment
Carlos Alberto Quintal-Franco
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is a survey report of the e-waste management and capacity need for the capital city of Kigali and a few secondary cities in Rwanda. The survey was participated by over 500 respondents from 5 representative groups from the EEE value chain mainly and carried out via questionnaires. Pearson Chi-Square tests indicated significant association between education levels and awareness level on e-waste. Imports of electrical and electronic equipment within the past 4 years, the value chain of EEE in Rwanda and the current practice and operations in E-waste disposal were also tabulated and interpreted. Based on the survey results and the current policies and legal framework in Rwanda, the authors identified several urgent needs and made specific recommendations.
The paper did some solid survey work to fill the current no-data blank of e-waste management in Rwanda, which is of great significance under the severe situation where there is an increasing amount of E-waste but the processing capacity falls far behind. Based on the low level of awareness of e-waste legislation and general knowledge on e-waste, the insufficient collection strategies and inadequate regulatory enforcement, the authors call for an urgent need to introduce an extended producer responsibility and introduction of a disposal fees for every sale of EEE. These original founding could be used as a referential for policy-makers and education professionals.
This paper did a survey to investigate e-waste management and capacity need assessment for both the City of Kigali and secondary cities in Rwanda and got some original data. To further improve this manuscript and better fit the scope of the Journal of Sustainability, I think more correlation analysis between the survey results for each city and the general demographic composition and economic status should be incorporated to make this manuscript more substantiated, and the writing could also be improved to present the results and discussions in a clearer and more concise manner.
1. The author has enough data on the current status of E-wastes disposal at all the mentioned cities, however, the statistical analysis is currently biased on the awareness of legislation and general background info. The difference between cities, and its relevance to the general demographic composition and economic status are not fully compared and discussed. While additional sampling is probably not necessary, a comprehensive and substantiated analytical approach would lead to a more informed and in-depth understanding of the problem.
2. In part 6 Specific recommendations the suggestions are currently listed in bullets and some of them read scattered and not so relevant to the context of E-waste disposal, such as line 432 the disposing of biomedical waste (BMW). I would recommend to rephrase these suggestions in paragraphs and align the proposed solutions with the issues identified in the 5.8 "need" section and the current policies and legal framework in Rwanda part in section 2, so that the proposed solutions would be more feasible and tailored to the specific contexts.
3. The discussion could include some insights and viewpoints from experts across multiple fields, such as waste management, environmental science, and policy-makers, which would provide readers with a more comprehensive perspective on the complexities of the problem of E-waste disposal. And the article would thus have the potential to become a more authoritative resource on electronic waste disposal, helping to inform and influence decision-making in the field.
The author has done a solid survey job. The writing and discussion need to be improved and supplemented to ensure it doesn’t read like a generic survey report. Overall, it is possible to be published on Sustainability after full consideration of the aforementioned issues.
1. The denotations for parameter q in line 147 and 152 are not consistent.
2. Is the data in Figure 3 Line 221 a partial duplicate of that in Figure 2 line 211?
3. Figure 8 appears blur. Is there a way to acquire high resolution original pictures here?
4. The data in section 5.6 is now presented verbally. A detailed data table with regional distributions could better present the data here.
Author Response
TABULAR FORM CONTAINING RSPONSES TO THE REVIEWRS’ COMMENTS
I do really thank all the five reviewers who have helped me to improve this manuscript. In the table below you will find my responses to the raised points
|
COMMENT |
RESPONSE |
|
Reviewer 1 |
|
|
1. I think more correlation analysis between the survey results for each city and the general demographic composition and economic status should be incorporated to make this manuscript more substantiated, and the writing could also be improved to present the results and discussions in a clearer and more concise manner. |
An improvement in writing has been done but more correlation analysis between the survey results for each city and the general demographic composition and economic status was not really in the scope of this study. This is the first effort in Rwanda to write a research paper on e-waste in Rwanda |
|
2. The author has enough data on the current status of E-wastes disposal at all the mentioned cities, however, the statistical analysis is currently biased on the awareness of legislation and general background info. The difference between cities, and its relevance to the general demographic composition and economic status are not fully compared and discussed. While additional sampling is probably not necessary, a comprehensive and substantiated analytical approach would lead to a more informed and in-depth understanding of the problem.
|
A table was added: Urbanization rate projection in the city of Kigali and secondary cities
|
|
3. In part 6 Specific recommendations the suggestions are currently listed in bullets and some of them read scattered and not so relevant to the context of E-waste disposal, such as line 432 the disposing of biomedical waste (BMW). I would recommend to rephrase these suggestions in paragraphs and align the proposed solutions with the issues identified in the 5.8 "need" section and the current policies and legal framework in Rwanda part in section 2, so that the proposed solutions would be more feasible and tailored to the specific contexts.
|
The disposing of biomedical waste has been removed.
|
|
4. The discussion could include some insights and viewpoints from experts across multiple fields, such as waste management, environmental science, and policy-makers, which would provide readers with a more comprehensive perspective on the complexities of the problem of E-waste disposal. And the article would thus have the potential to become a more authoritative resource on electronic waste disposal, helping to inform and influence decision-making in the field.
|
Experts were interviewed i.e E-waste collecting company “Enviroserve”, Ministry of Infrastructure, Water and Sanitation corporation, the City of Kigali and Rwanda Utility Regulatory Authority (RURA). |
|
5. The denotations for parameter q in line 147 and 152 are not consistent. |
Corrected |
|
6. Is the data in Figure 3 Line 221 a partial duplicate of that in Figure 2 line 211? |
No they are not. Data from Figure 2 were used in order to get data for Figure 3 |
|
7. Figure 8 appears blur. Is there a way to acquire high resolution original pictures here? |
The problem with this figure is the background color and the color of the container: they are all white. |
|
8. The data in section 5.6 is now presented verbally. A detailed data table with regional distributions could better present the data here. |
A table has been added |
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript talked about the e-waste management in Rwanda, current situation and need, based on the results of the questionnaire survey conducted in Kigari and 6 secondary cities. The questionnaire contains 5 questions on e-waste legislation in Rwanda and e-waste general knowledge, and the number of respondents was 519. The method used by the authors to estimate the amount of e-waste produced in Rwanda every year is too simple to get reliable results. After reading the manuscript, it is still difficult to get a clear picture of the situation for e-waste management in Rwanda, such as how much e-waste disposed each year and the dismantling method used. The manuscript should be a good report for the local government to read.
Some specific comments:
1. The manuscript is clearly written but should in a more concise way. For example, the sentence in line 88-89 should be deleted as it is a repeat of the earlier content, Table 1 should be part of the supporting information, and figure 4 is not a need as the content of figure 4 has been clearly stated in the text.
2. "p=1-p" in line 147 should be "q=1-p"?
3. Figure 3 seems to be part of figure 2, I would suggest to delete it.
The sentence in line 204-207 is not a complete sentence. I think it's due to a misuse of the punctuation mark. The authors should have a careful check to avoid thus mistakes. Generally, the language usage of the manuscript is good.
Author Response
TABULAR FORM CONTAINING RSPONSES TO THE REVIEWRS’ COMMENTS
I do really thank all the five reviewers who have helped me to improve this manuscript. In the table below you will find my responses to the raised points
|
COMMENT |
RESPONSE |
|
Reviewer 2 |
|
|
1. After reading the manuscript, it is still difficult to get a clear picture of the situation for e-waste management in Rwanda, such as how much e-waste disposed each year and the dismantling method used. |
The information about the quantity of e-waste disposed is not available because no single organization which records those info. The main dismantling method is manual with equipment such as screwdriver, etc… |
|
2. The manuscript is clearly written but should in a more concise way. For example, the sentence in line 88-89 should be deleted as it is a repeat of the earlier content, Table 1 should be part of the supporting information, and figure 4 is not a need as the content of figure 4 has been clearly stated in the text. |
The repetition has been deleted and the writing in the text was elaborating what is plotted on the figure 4.
|
|
3. "p=1-p" in line 147 should be "q=1-p"? |
Corrected |
|
4. Figure 3 seems to be part of figure 2, I would suggest to delete it.
|
No. Figure 3 represents the e-waste from figure 2 |
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript with the title “E-waste Management in Rwanda: A Situational and Capacity need assessment” is an interesting paper and it should be attractive to the readers of the Sustainability journal.
The rapid development of the industry of electrical and electronic devices and equipment as well as a constant need for new and more advanced products has resulted in the generation of large quantities of waste. E-waste is becoming a growing problem in countries all around the world that are still struggling to raise public awareness and take effective efforts to safeguard the environment from fast degradation. Solving problems with hazardous e-waste materials is of crucial importance today.
The authors have done a significant job of collecting data related to the sources of e-waste, the importance of e-waste management, waste recovery and recycling and the hazardous and precious metals contamination in e-waste, and successfully summarized them in one place.
This article has also critically reviewed the growth rate of e-waste environmental impacts, economic impact, waste recovery and recycling and future outlook. Also, the authors discuss different e-waste disposal methodologies and their advantages.
In addition, based on the critical review of various aspects, authors give future suggestions that have been highlighted to improve the formal sector of e-waste safer disposal as well as the importance of e-waste management.
I would recommend the authors to add a section on the impact of e-waste on the economy to their paper, maybe as part of their further investigations.
The reference list is up to date and more than adequate
I can recommend the publication of the following manuscript in present form.
Author Response
TABULAR FORM CONTAINING RSPONSES TO THE REVIEWRS’ COMMENTS
I do really thank all the five reviewers who have helped me to improve this manuscript. In the table below you will find my responses to the raised points
|
Reviewer 3 |
|
|
I would recommend the authors to add a section on the impact of e-waste on the economy to their paper, maybe as part of their further investigations. |
This was added in the recommendation section |
Reviewer 4 Report
The work, entitled “E-waste Management in Rwanda: A Situational and Capacity need assessment” is a scholarly work and deals with a pertinent subject: e-wastes management. The content is relevant to Sustainability Journal. Although the paper addresses an interesting and relevant topic some improvements must be made to increase its quality.
General comments are as follows:
Page 3, Table 1. Font type and size should be homogeneous.
Page 5, line 147: Please change the sentence: I have assumed…. To: It was assumed…
Page 8, Lines 214-215: There is no need to use both kg and tons; it should be just tons
Page 13, line 13: What is the meaning for “Kasi ni Kasi”? Does it mean “any kind of job”? please do not use regional language o sentences without an explanation.
Page 14, Line 372: Please remove points after the coma
Page 16, Lines 410-441: Final recommendations are only useful for people of Rwanda and can be removed from the paper.
Figures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 the title inside the frame should be removed.
Figure 8. does not look like a drop off point, it looks like a photo of a poster. Please use a more suitable one.
Figure 9. Please use same size for both photos
Figure 10. Please remove title “Medical ventilator”
Author Response
TABULAR FORM CONTAINING RSPONSES TO THE REVIEWRS’ COMMENTS
I do really thank all the five reviewers who have helped me to improve this manuscript. In the table below you will find my responses to the raised points
|
COMMENT |
RESPONSE |
|
Reviewer 4 |
|
|
Page 3, Table 1. Font type and size should be homogeneous. |
Done |
|
Page 5, line 147: Please change the sentence: I have assumed…. To: It was assumed… |
Done |
|
Page 8, Lines 214-215: There is no need to use both kg and tons; it should be just tons |
Done |
|
Page 13, line 13: What is the meaning for “Kasi ni Kasi”? Does it mean “any kind of job”? please do not use regional language o sentences without an explanation.
|
The meaning has been provided |
|
Page 14, Line 372: Please remove points after the coma |
Done |
|
Page 16, Lines 410-441: Final recommendations are only useful for people of Rwanda and can be removed from the paper. |
Yes recommendations are for the Rwanda as a country and I do not see the reason of removing. Some countries with similar problems can learn from those recommendations |
|
Figures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 the title inside the frame should be removed |
|
|
Figure 8 does not look like a drop off point, it looks like a photo of a poster. Please use a more suitable one.
|
This is a picture taken by the corresponding author and the problem is the background and the container which of white color |
|
Figure 9. Please use same size for both photos
|
Done |
|
Figure 10. Please remove title “Medical ventilator” |
Done |
Reviewer 5 Report
Minor English revision is required.
I believe the manuscript is a report rather than a scientific paper. There is also no in-depth discussion. Data treatment is also superficial. However, since there is a great lack of data on e-waste management in Rwanda, it might be considered for publication.
Avoid using too many zeros on the graph axis. Change kg units to either tons or 10^3 kg. Note: unit is kg and not Kg (K is used for Kelvin).
Fig 4: y-axis is in tons, but figure caption is in kg
The report is easy to read. Only minor grammar mistakes and typos.
Author Response
TABULAR FORM CONTAINING RSPONSES TO THE REVIEWRS’ COMMENTS
I do really thank all the five reviewers who have helped me to improve this manuscript. In the table below you will find my responses to the raised points
|
COMMENT |
RESPONSE |
|
Reviewer 5 |
|
|
Avoid using too many zeros on the graph axis. Change kg units to either tons or 10^3 kg. Note: unit is kg and not Kg (K is used for Kelvin). Fig 4: y-axis is in tons, but figure caption is in kg |
Done (See what became figure 6) |
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors responded to the comments raised by the reviewers and modified the manuscript accordingly. Though the questionnaire used quite simple, the content of the manuscript could be helpful to the understanding of the situation of e-waste management in Rwanda and other African countries. In this point of view, the manuscript could be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Comment: The authors responded to the comments raised by the reviewers and modified the manuscript accordingly. Though the questionnaire used quite simple, the content of the manuscript could be helpful to the understanding of the situation of e-waste management in Rwanda and other African countries. In this point of view, the manuscript could be accepted for publication.
Response: We really thank the reviewer’s comments which helped us to improve the manuscript
Reviewer 5 Report
Authors did not address the issue regarding too many zeros on the graph axis.
They should either use scientific notation or mention in the fig. title, e.g. household (in Mg or in 10^6 kg).
The manuscript can be accepted after the above-mentioned changes.
Author Response
Comment: Authors did not address the issue regarding too many zeros on the graph axis.
They should either use scientific notation or mention in the fig. title, e.g. household (in Mg or in 10^6 kg)
Response: We have addressed the comment. See Figure 5 and figure 6
