Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The Data and Methods section needs to be supplemented with specific figures (facts). The material uses the terms "Large", "smaller" many times. . At the same time, there are no specific examples that could confirm the conclusions made.

It is unclear whether it is possible to predict trends in the change in the degree of waste recycling based on the analysis performed.

 

It is unclear what is the subject of the study: municipal solid waste or all waste sent to landfills?

 

Author Response

Identifying the Determinants of Recycling Rates in the US: A Multi-level Analysis

November 26, 2024.

Manuscript: sustainability-3308010

Response to Reviewer 1

1. Concerns about Specific Facts (Figures) in Data and Methods Section
   • The reviewer 1 indicated that the data and methods section need to be supplemented with specific figures (facts). Per the comment, we added a state’s recycling rate variation fact. Please also note that we have two tables in Methods, and one table in Results.

 

2. The material uses the term “Large”, “smaller” many times.
   • We reduced the uses of “Large” and “smaller” terms. For instance, the largest number in line 175 was changed to the highest number.

 

3. Comment about “there are no specific examples that could confirm the conclusions made.”
   • Thank you for the comment. We updated the conclusion section, and you can find more specific details in lines of 417-466.

 

4. Concern about “it is unclear whether it is possible to predict trends in the change in the degree of waste recycling based on the analysis performed”
   • We didn’t intend to predict trends of recycling performance change, but we aimed to explore the factors that could affect state recycling rates. We clarify this points by refining our discussion and expanding our conclusion section. Thank you for your comment.

 

5. Concern about “it is unclear what is the subject of the study, municipal solid waste or all waste sent to landfills.”

• We are focusing on recycled items from municipal solid waste, not all waste sent to landfills, and in lines 97-99, we defined recycling rate used in our study according to the US Environmental Protection Agency’s definition.

We all thank you for Reviewer 1, which helped strengthen our paper.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The U.S. recycling rate remains relatively unchanged over the last two decades. By utilizing publicly available data and multivariate regression analysis, this study investigates the state-level variations that contribute to the overall U.S. recycling rate. This research provides important insights into how states can improve recycling rates, which could enhance national recycling outcomes. The following issues in the revised manuscript should be addressed.

1.“Despite the nationwide effort and attention to recycling, it is unclear the US can improve its recycling rate from 32% to 50% by 230 (Rosengren, 2020).” What’s about 230? Please carefully review the entire text to avoid similar low-level errors.

2.In the Data and Methods section, a graphical representation of the data distribution is required; 

3.In addition, a specific description of the method used should be provided, including the expression of multiple regression and its input-output meanings.

4.Similarly, the Results section should also provide a graphical representation.

5.The logic of the Discussion section is not very clear. It should first briefly outline the various sub-topics of the discussion, and then provide analysis and corresponding suggestions. Relevant methods reported in the literature can be used for references

Author Response

Identifying the Determinants of Recycling Rates in the US: A Multi-level Analysis

November 26, 2024.

Manuscript: sustainability-3308010

Response to Reviewer 2

 

1. Addressing mechanical typos
   • The Reviewer 2 indicated about our typo such as “230” which indicates “2030” and advised us to carefully review the entire text to avoid similar low-level errors. Thank you for the comment. We changed “230” to “2030” and reviewed the entire text to check if there are any typos.

 

2. Comment about a graphical representation of the data distribution is required in Data, Methods section.
   • Reviewer 2 suggested an insertion of graphical representation of the data distribution. We couldn’t find a proper one to visualize our data distribution, but we added a table of states with high recycling rates and states with low recycling rates (Table 3).  

 

3. Comment about “a specific description of the method used should be provided, including the expression of multiple regression and its input-output meanings”
   • Thank you for the comment. Per the suggestion, we clarified our independent and dependent variables. Line 252-255 are re-written in that regard. “We employed multivariate linear regression analysis, with the recycling rate serving as the dependent variable. Table 1 includes the summary of independent variables in four different categories that could relate to states’ recycling rates, which is a dependent variable. Table 2 illustrates the descriptive statistics of all variables included.”

 

4. Comment about “Results section should also provide a graphical representation.”

• The authors suggested a graphical representation in the Results section, but we couldn’t find proper graphics that could be inserted. However, there is a table that presents our statistical results (Table 4), which adds readability and attention to our findings. Thank you for your comment.

 

5. “Discussion section” The logic of the Discussion section is not very clear.
   • Reviewer 2 suggested that we should first briefly outline the various sub-topics of the discussion, and then provide analysis and corresponding suggestions.
   • Per the guidance, we improved our discussion session by expanding it and by making it more logically flow. Thank you for this comment, which supported us in improving our discussion session.

Overall, thank you for Reviewer 2, which helped strengthen our paper.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has the potential for a novel scientific contribution but would benefit from a clearer presentation of its innovative aspects to avoid giving the impression of a literature review. Additional analyses, deeper theoretical discussion, and highlighting unique findings would strengthen its scientific value and bolster the paper's impact as original research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Identifying the Determinants of Recycling Rates in the US: A Multi-level Analysis

November 22, 2024.

Manuscript: sustainability-3308010

Response to Reviewer 3

Reviewer 3 offered significant and valuable comments, and our responses are summarized in the text colored red.

1. Addressing minor grammatical errors and ambiguities

• Lines 49-50: "it is unclear the US can improve its recycling rate from 32% to 50% by 2030" should be "it is unclear whether the US can improve its recycling rate from 32% to 50% by 2030" as it lacks the proper interrogative structure.
  • The change was made, and please find it in lines of 50-51
• Line 159: “tipping fees and landfill capacity significantly affect the waste management performance of local authorities” could be clearer as “tipping fees and landfill capacity significantly influence the waste management performance of local authorities” since "influence" better conveys the effect in this context.
  • The change was made, and please find it in lines of 158-161.
• Lines 201–202: “Figure 1 presents states with enacted plastic bag legislation as of 2021 when the global pandemic crisis placed a heavy weight on public health and safety over environmental protection.” This sentence could be more clearly structured as “Figure 1 illustrates the states with enacted plastic bag legislation as of 2021, a time when the global pandemic crisis prioritized public health and safety over environmental protection.”
  • The change was made, and please find the change in the lines of 196-198.
• Additionally:
  • Shorter and more direct sentences would improve readability in places, such as lines 76-80 and 102-112.
  • Thank you for the suggestion. The change was made in lines of 77-80, and “This article is presented as follows. In the next section, the issues of the US recycling system are presented with an emphasis on policy and infrastructure. We then outline our methods and data, present results, and discuss their implications for state and national recycling performance.”
  • Thank you for the suggestion. The change was made in lines of 103-111. “Waste management and recycling in the US are governed by laws like the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), with oversight from the EPA in collaboration with state and local governments. States have regulatory authority under partial preemption, provided their laws align with federal regulations. Local governments, with varying autonomy, manage waste programs, reporting to states, which then report to the EPA. This decentralized system allows flexibility, enabling state and local recycling policies to be more efficient, cost-effective, and tailored to regional needs while upholding democratic values (Lester, 1995; Kincaid, 2018).”

 

• The title “Figure 1” should be placed below the
• The change was made, and the title “Figure 1” is presented below the figure.

 

2. Addressing minor grammatical errors and ambiguities in Chapter Data and Methods

• Lines 220-221: “We posited that states with greater number of big or middle cities would be more likely to be associated with high recycling rates” should be: “We posited that states with a greater number of large or medium-sized cities would be more likely associated with high recycling rates.”
  • Thank you for your suggestion. We changed the sentence per your suggestion.
• Lines 253-255: In the sentence "Table 1 includes the summaries of the variables in four different categories that could relate to recycling rates," “summaries” might be better replaced with “summary” to make the sentence sound more natural.
  • Thank you for your suggestion. “Summary” is the word used instead of “summaries.”

 

3.      Comments about Chapter 4. Results

• "We didn’t find heteroskedasticity based on the Breusch-Pagan test (p<0.01)" could be rephrased as "The Breusch-Pagan test indicated no evidence of heteroskedasticity (p<0.01)."
  • Thank you for your suggestion. We changed the sentence per your suggestion. Please refer to lines of 270-271.
• Instead of "we didn’t find the statistical significance," a more precise phrase would be "we did not find statistical significance."
  • “the” was removed. Thank you!

 

4.      Comments about Chapter 5. Discussion

• Some expressions could be formulated more precisely for added clarity. For example, instead of "states with fewer landfill sites are more inclined to engage in recycling efforts," a more precise phrase could be "states with limited landfill availability may prioritize recycling to reduce waste "
  • Thank you for the suggestion. The change was made per your suggestion.

 

• Several parts could be further For instance, when discussing preemptive laws, more details about how these laws specifically impact recycling in comparison to plastic bag bans would be useful.
  • Lines of 319 – 350, we updated and elaborated on how states’ preemptive laws would discourage recycling. Please find the updated content.

 

5. Superfund section improvement
   • Similarly, the section on Superfund sites could be expanded with additional details on how these sites raise awareness about recycling.
   • Thank you for your suggestion. Superfund site discussion has been expanded per your suggestion. Lines 369-391 has been updated and includes the texts like below:

“Third, our study reveals that state governments can leverage Superfund sites to enhance public awareness of waste management issues, which may lead to increased recycling rates. The EPA's Superfund program is a well-recognized corrective measure, addressing the persistence of hazardous substances in soil, sediment, and groundwater at many contaminated locations, which pose risks to public health. The cleanup and reuse of these sites offer multiple advantages, such as lowering health risks, reducing human exposure to contaminants, reclaiming land for commercial, residential, industrial, or recreational purposes, and fostering community economic development (EPA, n.d.). Our study identifies an additional benefit that Superfund sites can provide. Beyond the benefits associated with the removal and remediation processes, Superfund sites can also serve as a platform to raise public awareness of the detrimental effects of landfilled waste and the heightened risks to vulnerable communities, thereby increasing recycling rates. Indeed, superfund sites have been identified as a legal response to several alarming and poorly managed hazardous waste practices in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Layzer & Rinfret, 2024). However, not many people would know of the high costs of improper waste handling, including hazardous waste. Ultimately, the best way to avoid the need for superfund site remediation is to prevent these environmental cleanups in the first place, and stories of superfund sites could be materialized to elicit the public's attitude toward preventive measures and proactive pollution prevention behaviors by minimizing waste, recycling more, and reducing environmental and economic impacts of wastes. In this way, our research supports the need for states to prioritize Superfund cleanups while also considering these sites as opportunities to encourage state-level focus on recycling.”

 

6. Comments about Chapter Conclusion:

• It may be useful to slightly refine the opening sentence: "This research underscores the wide disparity in recycling rates among U.S. states, a factor that has hindered national recycling progress for over a decade" to further emphasize the long-standing impact of these disparities on progress toward national goals.
  • Thank you for the critical suggestion. It is now updated in lines 417-466, and please find the updated content.
• The phrase "financially supporting municipal recycling programs" could benefit from further specification. For example, the addition of "By allocating state or federal grants specifically for local recycling facilities and public awareness campaigns, municipalities can develop more robust recycling programs and increase public engagement" would add clarity.
  • Thank you for your suggestion. The modification was made in lines 439-441.

 

7. Recommendations for Enhancing Scientific Contribution

• The paper could highlight specific data that hasn’t been analyzed in this way before, such as a unique dataset compiled on recycling policies. Emphasizing this in conclusion would underscore it as a key contribution.
  • Thank you for your comment. The research contribution was emphasized in Discussion and Conclusion.
• Including a discussion of theoretical implications beyond simply describing the roles of major cities or plastic bag bans could strengthen the paper's scientific contribution. For example, exploring why and how local policies contribute to or limit recycling on specific examples, and adding a comparative analysis across states, could add valuable insights.
  • Thank you for your suggestion, and the update was made in the first discussion point.

Thank you for the very extensive comments from Reviewer 3. We particularly appreciate the reviewer’s valuable insights and comments which evidently strengthened our paper.  

-The End-

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the article “Identifying the Determinants of Recycling Rates in the US: A Multi-level Analysis” is very timely. All proposals that advocate waste recycling are well received by the global community. Moreover, articles that contribute to the circular economy (CE) are of great importance at present. The article is very well written and structured with updated bibliographic references. The presented research results and provided implications for state-level recycling rates affect national recycling efficiency. The article lacks hypotheses. The article is consistent with the journal's topic, but needs to be supplemented. There is no broader description of the characteristics of waste management in individual U.S. states (item 2). Conclusions need to be supplemented. Line 50 - “... its recycling rate from 32% to 50% by 230 (Rosengren, 2020). Should be: “... to 50% by 2030”.

Author Response

Identifying the Determinants of Recycling Rates in the US: A Multi-level Analysis

November 26, 2024.

Manuscript: sustainability-3308010

Response to Reviewer 4

1. The article lacks hypotheses. 
   • Our aim is to explore what driving forces relate to states’ recycling rates that could influence recycling efficiency. To this end, we have not focused on a couple of hypotheses. Rather, we incorporated 16 variables from the four different categories (demographic, infrastructural, environmental, and policy and political) in our empirical model, and hypothesize that they would relate to state recycling rate. This is our unique contribution to the literature of circular economy.

 

2. Comments about more specific information
   • Reviewer 2 stated that the article is consistent with the journal's topic, but needs to be supplemented. The reviewer also indicated that our manuscript lacks a broader description of the characteristics of waste management in individual U.S. states.
   • Thank you for the comments and per the comments, we added more specific details. For instance, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Florida, Michigan, California’s recycling policies are discussed throughout the paper.

 

3. Conclusions need to be supplemented.
   • Thank you for the comment. We acknowledged that our former conclusion was abrupt and don’t include much deeper concluding thought.
   • We updated our conclusion by expanding the content and elaborating on our research value.

 

4. Typo of “230” in line 50.
   • We made a mistake of putting “230” instead of “2030) in line 50, and Reviewer 4 pointed out this typo. We fixed this error and reviewed the entire text to avoid minor but significant mechanical errors.

We thank you for Reviewer 4, which helped strengthen our paper.

-The End-

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It's OK.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

I thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. The review was carried out, and in accordance with the agreement, all necessary corrections and suggestions were considered and implemented in the paper.

 

I consider that the paper now meets the standards and guidelines of your journal and is ready for publication. If there is a need for additional clarifications or minor refinements, I am at your disposal.

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

Best regards,