Influential Factors Affecting Recycling Behavior toward Cardboard Boxes in the Logistics Sector: An Empirical Analysis from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I send you some suggestions for improving the Manuscript:

Corrugated packaging materials are valuable material for recycling. Each corrugate industry wants the wooden fibers to be recycled. Moreover, corrugate paper is 100% recyclable and fibers can be reused up to more than 2 times. I suggest that authors pay attention to creating short paragraph about corrugate packaging. This paragraph should be added before 2. Theoretical and practical background.

The conclusions need to be improved. The analyzes of influential variables towards recycling fluted corrugated paperboard shows positive effect on recycling behavior. Conclusions are too simplified like “willing of consumer to participate in recycling activities”. The authors should provide some novelties and concrete conclusions. The authors are used statistical analyses by which they can certainly confirm or refute the set hypotheses.

Line 28: The consumption of cartons in express packaging must be precisely determined. The brown carton is named fluted corrugated paperboard with minimum one flat linerboards. Also, it would improve other terminology connected with term packaging (express packaging, express carton, corrugated cartons, recycling cartons, express cartons, a courier carton recycling, life cycle of cartons, carton recycling).

Line 194: It is not understandable which is the second part of questionnaire content. Moreover, the collected relevant information about consumers´ recycling behaviors that author measured (AT1-AT2, SN1-SN4, PBC1-PBC5, IN1-IN4) must be better presented. The abbreviations need to be added to manuscript and connected them with relevant statements from the questionnaire.

Line 223: It is an unproven claim “people are interested in the issue of corrugated paperboard recycling and have a good awareness on environmental protection” because the authors didn’t give any explanation about corrugate packaging recycling solutions.

Line 299: Please, list determined variables and common factors, give their names not only the abbreviations like in Table 3. In addition, line 314-315 include abbreviations SN1, SN4, SN2, SN3 with their results of effects decision-making. Please could you give decision-making lists from 1 to 4. The other abbreviations by vertical order, in Table 4 need to be explained.

Reference list needs to be improved by No number from 1., 2., 3. 4., to 22.

Best regards,

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript titled "Influential factors of recycling behavior towards express pack-2 aging: An empirical analysis from China" showcases the importance of packaging recycling in the express delivery industry. It emphasizes the environmental pressure and the need for a sustainable approach in the logistics sector. Before accepting the article, the following comments should be addressed:

 

The introduction could benefit from a more concise and focused approach. Some sentences can be rephrased or merged to enhance readability and clarity.

 

It would be helpful to include specific statistics or data to support the claims made in the introduction. This would provide a stronger foundation for the study.

 

The introduction briefly mentions previous studies on cardboard recycling but does not clearly establish the research gap that this study intends to address. It would be beneficial to explicitly state the research objectives and how this study contributes to the existing literature.

 

In Section 2, aim to make the sentences clearer and more concise. Some sentences are quite long and may be difficult to follow. Breaking them into shorter sentences can improve readability and understanding. Ensure that the wording is consistent in terms of tense and sentence structure. For example, in some parts, the present simple tense is used, while in others, the past simple tense is used. Maintain a consistent structure throughout the entire text. Consider including more information or examples regarding the relationship between the variables under study. For instance, you could mention how they have been measured or evaluated in previous research and what results have been obtained. When discussing the relationship between variables, consider citing previous studies that support the proposed hypotheses. This will help strengthen your argument and demonstrate that there is existing evidence for those relationships.

 

In Section 3, provide a brief explanation of the purpose of the methodology. This will help readers understand the general approach of your research before delving into the specific details of the methodology.

 

Consider providing a brief justification or explanation of why specific measurement items were chosen for each variable. This will help readers understand the logic behind the selection of those items.

 

When mentioning the multinomial logistic regression analysis, provide a brief explanation of how this analysis will be used to explore the relationship between the influencing factors and recycling behavior.

 

In the section discussing data analysis methods, briefly explain why reliability, validity, and principal component analysis (PCA) were used. This will help readers understand the usefulness of these methods in your research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

line 24 - the terms "it's well known" should not be used in scientific studies;

line 24 - the term "express packaging" is colloquial and not used in the generally accepted packaging nomenclature; if the authors want to use it, it should be precisely defined, because an indication of its use in e-commerce is not sufficient; a "shipping cardboard box" could be considered;

line 26 - the term "recycling packaging" is unclear, because it is not known whether it refers to packaging made of recyclate or recyclable;

line 28 - "consumption of cartons" requires a source of information; please check the correctness of the use of "cartons" because in many markets this term is no longer used because there are not enough details and new criteria for the division of products made of paper have been introduced, maybe it will be more appropriate to indicate "corrugated fiberboard" or "corrugated cardboard" or "cardboard boxes ";

line 29-30 - is very general, does not bring anything valuable to introduce;

lines 31 and 34 - it is not clear which "enterprises in China" are meant;

line 36 - "the final goal" is not defined;

paragraphs 24-37 are vague, too general, not based on data and do not represent the model of packaging flow in the Chinese market;

line 38-40 - the sentence is illogical and difficult to understand;

line 58, 59 - "design express" and "recycle express" should be replaced with proper term;

lines 52-65 - the examples seem to be completely random, because they concern different cases and different aspects;

lines 79-81 - this comment is unnecessary, but it shows the authors' high level of satisfaction and faith in their own work;

line 83-88 - showing the structure of the article is not essential;

Introduction needs significant improvement and should not be published in this form.

Chapter 2 - is written in a good and communicative language. The selected TPB model is often used in research.

H1: it is uncomplicated and can be answered without research; "recycling attitude" and "recycling behavior" indicate a broad context, while the work concerns only one type of packaging used in e-commerce;

The question was not asked why consumers can keep this packaging instead of recycling it?

line 153 - the use of "e-waste's" is risky because the prefix "e-" means "electronic"

chapter 2.2 should have been included in the introduction or presented much sooner; introduction is completely vague and badly written, it is only in chapter 2.2 that it becomes clear what the system looks like and where the problem lies;

"510 questionnaires were collected based on the final item sets" - sample selection is one of the most important aspects of the study, which allows drawing credible conclusions representing the attitudes and behaviors of the surveyed population - here should reflect the population of e-commerce users; the selection of the sample was not indicated, the number 510 is insufficient, because the sample should be twice as large!;

table 1 currency must be specified;

chapter 3.3 - descriptions and formulas are given in this chapter without indicating the source; in my opinion, the formulas are not necessary, especially since such calculations are not made manually, but using statistical calculation programs (which indicated in Fig. 3);

lines 471-472 - "The conclusion ... provide a valuable reference for some departments concerned and scholars" - leave them to assess the quality of your work;

line 481 - replace "propaganda" with "communication";

the article was written by 3 people and when reading it, I have the impression that it is 3 separate parts that do not really connect with each other; different levels of detail, language and wording are used to address the same topic; the article is to be available in generally available literature, therefore it should clearly describe the packaging marketing system, stakeholders, the packaging waste cycle, the recycling system and its objectives; conclusions should be formulated taking into account the needs of the system, operator and consumers;

 

the introduction part in particular requires considerable editorial work;

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

In terms of research content, the authors designed questionnaire based on E-TPB which completes the theoretical innovation, and analyzed the influential factors affecting the recycling behavior express carton of consumers, finally gave us the policy recommendations based on regression model, thus the study has practical implications for the study of sustainable development of express packaging. As for the research ideas, the overall level of the paper is logical and state the problem clearly. However, there are still several issues that need to be fixed as follows:

(1) The language of the article needs further checking, some words still have spelling errors and some sentences have grammatical errors, thus the manuscript needs to be edited for grammar and syntax.

(2) Some references are incorrectly formatted, please standardize the format according to the journal requirements

     

The language of the article needs further checking, some words still have spelling errors and some sentences have grammatical errors, thus the manuscript needs to be edited for grammar and syntax.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

It is hard to say that the changes introduced were sufficient. The article does not present a high scientific level, sometimes it is difficult to understand what the authors mean. The design of the study and its implementation were not clearly described. I still remain of the opinion that the research sample is too small.

Further comments below:

1. Introduction. There is no thread link between the first and second paragraph.

express corrugated boxes - such nomenclature is not used, you can use "shipping boxes", "ecommerce boxes", "cardboard boxes"; there are no "express packaging";

line 43 - what is "pearl cotton"? I am not familiar with such packaging material.

line 44 - 50 - the authors have no idea what they are writing about; packaging waste is not the only problem of environmental pollution and recycling is not a global prescription; the authors cite information in a generalized way, which makes them incorrect;

line 51-60 - conclusions from the 2019 market case study are general and one-sided, perhaps the lack of success of this project was due to other reasons than just low consumer involvement; a story presented in this way does not contribute valuable knowledge to the discussion;

line 73 - the sentence is incomprehensible;

lines 83-86 - questions formulated in this way are not clear and it is difficult to understand what the actual subject of the study is

line 278 - if the recycling bin is too far from the place where the parcels are collected, it is enough to place it closer.

The article should be corrected by an experienced researcher who will improve the substantive and linguistic part.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The article has been corrected enough.