Evaluating the Benefits and Potential of “Plastic Reduction”: A Case Study of College Students in Western China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Primarily, I would like to appreciate the authors for identifying the relevant area of study. However, the manuscript needs a thorough revision to be accepted further.

However, the methodology section has some serious shortcomings and need a thorough revision. Further, the paper needs to be professionally checked for spelling and Grammer as the spelling and Grammer corrections will significantly improve the readability and understandability of the manuscript. Some of the spelling and grammatical mistakes are highlighted below.

1.     Page 3 - Sentence 82, 'it' may not be required here. 

2.     Page 4 - Sentence 104-105, grammatically not sound - check 'revealing' word

3.     Page 5 - Sentence 129-130, Grammatically, it is not sound

4.     Page 5 - Sentence 136-137, Check for Grammar

5.     Page 5 - Sentence 146-147, Check for Grammar

6.     Methodology: The methodology lacks clarity. As

7.     The Pilot study method of 100 students should be substantiated with a reference.

8.       Page 8, sentence 214, the sampling technique is referred to as convenience sampling and not convenient sampling

9.       The methodology section talks about data collected based on voluntary responses received from students. Is it a standard method? Can student data based used as a valid source of information for analysis? How do we validate this method?

10.   Page 9, sentence 223-224, DO you mean stratified sampling here? It has been mentioned that the convenience sampling method is employees and later stratified sampling technique. Authors have to be clear about the same. Also, authors will have to see if they can provide relevant justification for the sampling technique applied. Authors have to provide more clarity about this.

11.   Page 9, sentence 227-229, sentence grammatically not sound.

12.   Page 9, sentences 228, Do you mean garbage can or garbage bins? Please check.

13.   Page 9, sentence 236 – In the previous line you are mentioning about waste generated and daily consumption. It should be clear here, as to what consumption are we talking about in the previous line as well as these statements.

14.   Page 9, line 239, the word is introduced for the first time, need to be defined in the manuscript.

15.   Figure 2 – flow means movement, figure 2 talks about where the waste is located the flow word is leading to confusion – kindly recheck.

16.   Page 10 – sentence 246, do you ‘average plastic waste’ here or ‘emissions from plastic waste’ – please clarify.

17.   The authors need to re-look as usage of 2 terminologies ‘plastic waste’ and ‘plastic waste emissions. Where authors want to relate this to plastic waste generation and emission of harmful gases from ‘plastic waste’ generated.

18.   Page 11, sentence 269, value 1.1 is not self-indicative or can there be any further reference provided here? Which figure are you referring to in this case.

19.   Page 12, sentence 309- 310, grammatically incorrect sentence. ‘Generally generalised’? ‘Local management, - statement unclear to the reader.

20.   Page 12, sentence 311- 312 – grammatically unclear statement.

21.   The authors have used the two terms ‘university’ and school, wherein at places both the terms are used in a single sentence itself. The title of the manuscript talks about study being conducted in a university. Authors have to provide a clarification as to how the two terms university and school are related in this study.

22.   Page 13, sentence 329, what does the term ‘catering consumption’ mean? Authors need to provide clarification

23.   Page 13, line 330-332 – the sentence is not grammatically sound.

24.   Although, ‘green consumption’ as a terminology is used in the title & sparingly used on the manuscript, but the same is not well justified. Since the paper mainly focuses on waste, technically we consider packaging leading to plastic waste. Hence the manuscript fails to give a clearer understanding as to how green consumption is related to waste.

25.   In case of Figure 5 on page 15, how are the authors looking at inclusion of student life in the study. How/what do we measure student life? The term is used thrice in the manuscript. Authors need to provide suitable justification for the same.

26.   The authors have also reffered to ‘environmental subsidies in the manuscript’, but what environmental subsidies are is not mentioned throughout the manuscript. Authors have stated that it can be a good strategy to encourage waste reduction behaviours. In such case, it is important that the authors give a clear explanation.

Primarily, I would like to appreciate the authors for identifying the relevant area of study. However, the manuscript needs a thorough revision to be accepted further.

However, the methodology section has some serious shortcomings and need a thorough revision. Further, the paper needs to be professionally checked for spelling and Grammer as the spelling and Grammer corrections will significantly improve the readability and understandability of the manuscript. Some of the spelling and grammatical mistakes are highlighted below.

1.     Page 3 - Sentence 82, 'it' may not be required here. 

2.     Page 4 - Sentence 104-105, grammatically not sound - check 'revealing' word

3.     Page 5 - Sentence 129-130, Grammatically, it is not sound

4.     Page 5 - Sentence 136-137, Check for Grammar

5.     Page 5 - Sentence 146-147, Check for Grammar

6.     Methodology: The methodology lacks clarity. As

7.     The Pilot study method of 100 students should be substantiated with a reference.

8.       Page 8, sentence 214, the sampling technique is referred to as convenience sampling and not convenient sampling

9.       The methodology section talks about data collected based on voluntary responses received from students. Is it a standard method? Can student data based used as a valid source of information for analysis? How do we validate this method?

10.   Page 9, sentence 223-224, DO you mean stratified sampling here? It has been mentioned that the convenience sampling method is employees and later stratified sampling technique. Authors have to be clear about the same. Also, authors will have to see if they can provide relevant justification for the sampling technique applied. Authors have to provide more clarity about this.

11.   Page 9, sentence 227-229, sentence grammatically not sound.

12.   Page 9, sentences 228, Do you mean garbage can or garbage bins? Please check.

13.   Page 9, sentence 236 – In the previous line you are mentioning about waste generated and daily consumption. It should be clear here, as to what consumption are we talking about in the previous line as well as these statements.

14.   Page 9, line 239, the word is introduced for the first time, need to be defined in the manuscript.

15.   Figure 2 – flow means movement, figure 2 talks about where the waste is located the flow word is leading to confusion – kindly recheck.

16.   Page 10 – sentence 246, do you ‘average plastic waste’ here or ‘emissions from plastic waste’ – please clarify.

17.   The authors need to re-look as usage of 2 terminologies ‘plastic waste’ and ‘plastic waste emissions. Where authors want to relate this to plastic waste generation and emission of harmful gases from ‘plastic waste’ generated.

18.   Page 11, sentence 269, value 1.1 is not self-indicative or can there be any further reference provided here? Which figure are you referring to in this case.

19.   Page 12, sentence 309- 310, grammatically incorrect sentence. ‘Generally generalised’? ‘Local management, - statement unclear to the reader.

20.   Page 12, sentence 311- 312 – grammatically unclear statement.

21.   The authors have used the two terms ‘university’ and school, wherein at places both the terms are used in a single sentence itself. The title of the manuscript talks about study being conducted in a university. Authors have to provide a clarification as to how the two terms university and school are related in this study.

22.   Page 13, sentence 329, what does the term ‘catering consumption’ mean? Authors need to provide clarification

23.   Page 13, line 330-332 – the sentence is not grammatically sound.

24.   Although, ‘green consumption’ as a terminology is used in the title & sparingly used on the manuscript, but the same is not well justified. Since the paper mainly focuses on waste, technically we consider packaging leading to plastic waste. Hence the manuscript fails to give a clearer understanding as to how green consumption is related to waste.

25.   In case of Figure 5 on page 15, how are the authors looking at inclusion of student life in the study. How/what do we measure student life? The term is used thrice in the manuscript. Authors need to provide suitable justification for the same.

26.   The authors have also reffered to ‘environmental subsidies in the manuscript’, but what environmental subsidies are is not mentioned throughout the manuscript. Authors have stated that it can be a good strategy to encourage waste reduction behaviours. In such case, it is important that the authors give a clear explanation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Although the manuscript is well written, it lacks of originality. It would be much interesting if it was on the data of effective plastic reduction instead of the potential of reduction. 

line 44-46: "As a committed to achieving "carbon peak" by 2030 and "carbon neutrality" by 2060" based on which regulation?

line 47: the link between plastic and colleges is missing. Please add a sentence that meke the reader uderstand why you chose to take colleges into account, or just rewrite the sentence.

line 58: behaviour., typing error, delete the dot

line 82: revision of enghlish required

line  83: revise publicly whit public

line 208: capital letters missing

lines 219-220: "868 college students, accounting for 36.76%, 656 college students, accounting for 27.78%, 481 college students, accounting for 20.37%, and 356 college students, accounting for 15.08%" not clear the difference between the four groups, all of them all only college students

line 223: what do you mean by Stratified?

line 230-231 the sentence "The sample size ratio to the entire population was approximately 1:6" is not clear

line 235: you might wanted to say that plastic consumption is waste generating, non generated

line 243: the average plastic waste emissions from students amount to 816 kg/246 d, of what?plastics? CO2? GHG estimated as CO2?

Line 248-249: reference missing on the study in Nigeria

line 289: dot missing

lines 309-310: english revision required

lines 313-314 not clear

English must be improved, there are lots of typing errors and non-sense phrases. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper is does not discuss alternatives to regular plastics (e.g. bioplastics), neither the waste hierarchy (reduce, reuse, ...). The derivation of reduction potenial is not explained clearly.

Some other points:

line 13: SEG evaluation framework: put acronym in brackets

line 45: "carbon peak" by 2030 and "carbon neutrality" by 2060: pls. give a reference

line 73: a representative university of higher education: Please give reasoning: Number of students compared to the average, etc.

line 112: waste. "Karayilan[27] conducted --> waste. Karayilan [27] conducted

line 125: plastic, film, and PVC waste collected: film is made from plastics, and PVC is a plastics material. So the list is not logic.

line 147: Figure 1 depicts the SEG. Explain acronym in brackets

line 163: Are there not more outlets, e.g. littering?

line 164: Figure 1 SEG evaluation framework (put SEG acronym in brackets)

line 196: 1.8 tce/t: What is tce? You only explain in line 389!

line 244: show the difference in the 2 figures, e.g. number and weight?

line 155: Did the data come from the same year (e.g. with COVID/without?) are they comparable?

line 271: What is the unit? %? kg?

Line 340: The reduction potential for plastic waste in students' offline and online shopping is estimated to be 10% and 5%: Why these numbers? Pls. give justification, also in the table above

line 371: What is the *?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Abstract:

The paper has significantly improved since its first revision. and I would like to appreciate the efforts put in by the authors to improve the same.

The methodology section has significantly improved and provides clarity on what the authors have done to get the results. However, there are some suggestions below to be incorporated in the paper. It is advised that the authors read through the entire paper and understood any other corrections required further.

1.       The paper needs to be checked with a formal spelling and grammar editing software to improve readability of the same. This is important for the reading of the paper.

2.       University in Western China as the research object – University as research object? University cannot be a research object. It is advised to use an alternate term here.

3.       The 20 aforementioned leads to four environmental benefits, namely of raw materials – What is raw materials as a benefit. The other three sound as benefit. How raw materials?

4.       Page 2, sentence 39-41, the sentence 1 talks about number of bags and later moves to kg of plastic waste. The same needs to be linked.

5.       Taking Xi'an Shiyou University, a representative university of higher education in central and Western China, as an example – page 3

6.       Through consulting a large number of the literature, the current focus on plastic consumption primarily revolves around research on waste classification. – Grammatically incorrect.

7.       However, publicly available literature is scarce assessing the current state of plastic waste management in academic institutions and proposing strategic initiatives to mitigate its impact – grammatically incorrect

8.       Page 7, sentence 171, what do you mean by social food delivery?

Abstract:

The paper has significantly improved since its first revision. and I would like to appreciate the efforts put in by the authors to improve the same.

The methodology section has significantly improved and provides clarity on what the authors have done to get the results. However, there are some suggestions below to be incorporated in the paper. It is advised that the authors read through the entire paper and understood any other corrections required further.

1.       The paper needs to be checked with a formal spelling and grammar editing software to improve readability of the same. This is important for the reading of the paper.

2.       University in Western China as the research object – University as research object? University cannot be a research object. It is advised to use an alternate term here.

3.       The 20 aforementioned leads to four environmental benefits, namely of raw materials – What is raw materials as a benefit. The other three sound as benefit. How raw materials?

4.       Page 2, sentence 39-41, the sentence 1 talks about number of bags and later moves to kg of plastic waste. The same needs to be linked.

5.       Taking Xi'an Shiyou University, a representative university of higher education in central and Western China, as an example – page 3

6.       Through consulting a large number of the literature, the current focus on plastic consumption primarily revolves around research on waste classification. – Grammatically incorrect.

7.       However, publicly available literature is scarce assessing the current state of plastic waste management in academic institutions and proposing strategic initiatives to mitigate its impact – grammatically incorrect

8.       Page 7, sentence 171, what do you mean by social food delivery?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper was improved as per the reviewers' comments, it can be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors are commended on this submitted manuscript. This paper developed a framework for potential and benefits of reduction of plastic for green consumption guidance in university campuses using a university in China’s north region as a case study. The authors should kindly attend to the following;

i. The manuscript title is fundamentally flawed. It is suggested the title of the manuscript should be revised or rephrased to clearly reflect manuscript content which is about developing a framework for achieving green consumption ……..

ii. The abstract as presented in the manuscript is fundamentally unsound and will required a major revision. Kindly revised the abstract to be concise with brief introduction, a clear aim of the study without repeating the paper title, materials and methods adopted, results and conclusion drawn/ significant contribution of study. Further, the abstract should be revised in good written English and carefully proof read to ensure the research findings are communicated clearly including the novelty of the work.

iii.    Kindly improve on the keywords.

iv. The introduction/literature review is sound, however, author(s) need to mention any gap(s) identified from previous studies on use of MFA and green consumption guidance as relates to plastic reduction or any other materials as adopted in other climes, and what has been the impact. And why this current study is necessary, how this current study will help to fill some of the identified knowledge gap if any?

v.      Clearly specify the aim and significance of this study. Show clearly the novelty.

vi. Please remove lumped references in the entire manuscript and cite each paper one by one with 1-2 sentences describing the contribution from each paper. Also, try to define all abbreviations or acronyms at first mentioning.

vii. The methodology is fundamentally unsound. It is suggested that this section should be CAREFULLY revised and re-presented for clarity in order to allow for repeatability and clarity to readers. Details on the MFA, questionnaires used and method of analyzing the response are missing. Kindly improve on this part. Details on MFA is still very limited and scanty. It is suggested to authors to re-examine this section and try to provide more details on the MFA in a way that makes it easier for readers and be able to repeat the process

viii.   Some of the information in methodology should be under the literature review or create a subsection on study significance to further highlight the importance of this study. Let the methodology be strictly focus on clearly presenting your methods.

ix. The results and discussions section in this paper is fundamentally unsound, very basic and of very limited interest to read. It is strongly recommended that the results presentation and discussion be improved upon and expanded by comparing the obtained results with those available in the literature on the subject area/focus. Also, expand the discussion to highlight the relevance and interest of this study for its aimed scientific community. There is need for more clarity on all the figures presented.  The discussion seems more like presenting a report and not a research findings.

x. The conclusion required some major revisions and clarity on the specific contributions of this paper without repeating the discussions or discussing the result. Also, there is a needs to highlight the wider implication(s) of this current study. Kindly try not to merged conclusion and discussion together.

xi.  Author should kindly improve on the quality and quantity of the cited references. More emphasis should be on very recent literature.

xii. Generally, the writing style is fundamentally flawed. It is kindly suggested to author(s) to improve on the writing style and do a thorough English language editing and proof read on all sections of this paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Generally, it is kindly suggested to author(s) to improve on the writing style and do a thorough English language editing and proof read on all sections of this paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract and introducton have not included the main findings of the paper with clear methodologies such as doing survey, statistical analyzing methods, etc. Introduction part is too long with too much backgroud and the manuscript contains another section of literature review as well. Some of the review parts are repetitive and should be more concise.

The sample size is extremely low (302 valid samples), which is generally not acceptable for pulications. 

In the "Plastic reduction program" discussion, there are no detailed explainations on how the plastic reduction is estimated. For example, "Together with the plastic reduction contributed by the food delivery industry, it is estimated that the students on campus could reduce the usage of plastic packaging by 30%." How did the authors get the number 30%? It seems the estimate is very rough and rough estimates are everywhere in this model. The results from this section are not solid and I can not recommend for publication with it.

English needs to be improved because some setences are hard to read. For example:

"In 2023, there will be more than 37 million students enrolled in colleges and universities nationwide, slightly more than the total population of first-tier cities and equivalent to 1,900 of the universities in the northwest region."  I do not understand what it means by the number of students nationwide is equivalent to (the number of students?) of 1900 universities in the northwest region.