Systems Thinking and Solid Waste Management in Puerto Rico: Feedback Loops over Time
, Timothy G. Townsend 2, David C. Diehl 3, Katherine Deliz Quiñones 2 and Mark M. Lichtenstein 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The structure of this article is not clear and seems confusing for a reader (like me) that doesn’t work in the systems thinking field. The style is more like a storytelling or a newspaper article and not as a scientific one (most of the intormation are presented as an interview but the interviewed could be anyone, lacking in scientific rigour). In addition is not clear the objective of the study as well as the methodology. I think the topic could be interesting but the whole manuscript should be re-written in a suitable form.
Minor comments:
Figure 1: why is it indicated “Note” in the caption?
The section 1.1 should be schematized in a specific flowchart, identifying the main events and laws and indicating the new request from the government. In the form of text, this section is hard to read and follow as well as the message is not easy to understand.
In section 1.2.1 I think is necessary to add also the multi-criteria approach as a support for decision-making in the choice on waste management systems by different stakeholders. Some hints could be find in the following reference: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.10.023
Lines 175-176. It is not clear for me what actually is the “systems thinking”. Could you provide more explanation about it?
Lines 224-226: what X stands for? And what is the aim of this first investigation?
Is it possible to have a table that summarizes the 36 interviews involved?
Lines 267-272: what do you mean with question1 and 2?
Line 355: this should be 3.1.2.
Line 450: what do you mean with #1 and #2?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see my comments in a separate document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have replied to all my comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been significantly improved and can be published. One minor remark is that there is only section 1.2 in chapter 1. (There is no section 1.1 in chapter 1).
