A Community-Based Intervention Proposal for Municipal Solid Waste Management: Analyzing Willingness, Barriers and Spatial Strategies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores the impact of community participation on municipal solid waste management through mixed methods, offering valuable insights into sustainable practices in conflict-affected regions. However, issues such as sampling bias, underdeveloped theoretical frameworks, and insufficient feasibility of proposed interventions somewhat weaken the reliability of the conclusions. The following revisions are required, ordered by their appearance in the manuscript:

1. The abstract should more explicitly articulate the study’s innovative contributions.
2. The abstract lacks a concise synthesis of recent literature on municipal solid waste management. A brief review highlighting gaps would better contextualize the study significance and theoretical advancement.
3. (Section 2.1 Participants, Page 4) The representativeness of the sample may be compromised by snowball sampling. Additional analysis of non-participant groups or clarification on how triangulation mitigates bias is needed.
4. (Section 2.1 Participants, Page 4) The impact of armed conflict and border dynamics on community engagement like distrust, safety concerns require deeper contextual analysis.
5. (Section 4 Intervention Proposal, Page 11) Long-term evaluation metrics and maintenance mechanisms are undefined.
6. The conclusion could be strengthened by more explicitly connecting the study’s empirical findings to broader theoretical contributions and practical scalability. Additionally, specifying actionable policy recommendations and unresolved research questions would enhance its academic and societal impact.

Author Response

We thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments. These have helped to improve our manuscript further. In the following, please allow us to describe in detail how we addressed the revisions recommended to our manuscript.

Comment 1: The abstract should more explicitly articulate the study’s innovative contributions.

 Response 1: In response, we have revised the Abstract in the updated version of the manuscript to more clearly highlight the study’s innovative contributions. The updated version of the Abstract now reads as follows: “Our study presents a novel integration of psychosocial and geospatial data to inform MSW interventions in low-resource settings. We identified that the awareness of the consequences of poor MSW management, the awareness of environmental benefits of delivery and the subjective norm predict the willingness to separate and deliver MSW. Nonetheless, various psychosocial and contextual barriers hinder these actions. Based on these insights, we propose a low-cost, community-tailored intervention to enhance the separation and delivery of difficult-to-manage MSW and foster civic engagement in similar socio-environmental contexts.”

 Comment 2: The abstract lacks a concise synthesis of recent literature on municipal solid waste management. A brief review highlighting gaps would better contextualize the study significance and theoretical advancement.           

 Response 2: In response, we have revised the Abstract in the updated version of the manuscript to more clearly highlight the study’s innovative contributions. The updated version of the abstract now reads as follows: “Most existing research tends to focus on infrastructure improvements or behavioral interventions, with little integration of psychosocial and contextual analyses to develop evidence-based strategies for increasing community participation in the sustainable management of MSW. To address this gap, we conducted a study combining quantitative data from surveys with qualitative and geospatial data obtained through social mapping sessions and information obtained from local waste collectors in five municipalities in Norte de Santander, Colombia—a region marked by high socioeconomic vulnerability.”

 Comment 3: (Section 2.1 Participants, Page 4) The representativeness of the sample may be compromised by snowball sampling. Additional analysis of non-participant groups or clarification on how triangulation mitigates bias is needed.        

 Response 3: We understand the concerns regarding sample representativeness due to the use of snowball sampling. As noted in the manuscript (Section 5.1), this represents a methodological limitation of our study.

 This sampling strategy was employed due to the particular sociopolitical conditions of the Norte de Santander region at the time of data collection, characterized by problems of public insecurity, forced displacement, and social tensions associated with the Colombian armed conflict and proximity to the border with Venezuela.

Such conditions made it difficult to apply probability sampling methods or to directly access more diverse segments of the population, especially those with fewer connections to social organizations or community leaders. Consequently, we recognize that the sample may not fully represent the population's diversity across the five municipalities studied.

 Regarding the triangulation, our study utilized a mixed-methods design, integrating quantitative (surveys), qualitative (content analysis of discussions from social mapping), and geospatial (community maps, participant locations, and management points) data. The primary goal of this triangulation was to develop a richer and more multifaceted understanding of participants' perceptions, barriers, and suggestions. This approach allowed us to complement survey findings (psychosocial factors and dispositions) with the narratives from discussions (perceptions of the problem, qualitative barriers, and recommendations) and to contextualize this information spatially (through distance analysis and mapping of management points).

 While triangulation enhanced the internal validity and depth of understanding within our study sample, it does not mitigate the bias inherent in sample selection regarding external representativeness. Due to the retrospective nature of the analysis and the operational context, we were unable to conduct a comparative analysis with non-participant groups as suggested. We explicitly acknowledge this limitation in the manuscript to inform readers about the scope of the findings and emphasize the need for future studies—ideally with longitudinal or experimental designs—that can address these methodological gaps when contextual conditions permit.

In light of this, we have revised Section 5.1 to clarify this limitation more explicitly with the following text:

 "As a result, the sample composition may not accurately reflect the heterogeneity of the population, particularly among those groups with fewer connections to social organizations or community leaders. Future research could enhance this approach by incorporating alternative methods such as quota sampling or using mixed strategies that combine targeted recruitment through key stakeholders with open sampling techniques in public spaces or on digital platforms."

Comment 4: (Section 2.1 Participants, Page 4) The impact of armed conflict and border dynamics on community engagement like distrust, safety concerns require deeper contextual analysis.           

Response 4: In the revised version of the manuscript, we have added a paragraph in Section 2.1 (Participants, Page 4) to provide deeper contextual insight into how armed conflict and border dynamics shaped our engagement approach. The added text reads as follows:

 " As part of our recruitment strategy, we contacted trusted networks within the community to establish connections with educational institutions (both public and private), local businesses, environmental and community leaders, and public officials. Making initial contact through recognized stakeholders was crucial for building the trust necessary to encourage participation in the data collection sessions and to facilitate the open sharing of perceptions and experiences."

 Comment 5: (Section 4 Intervention Proposal, Page 11) Long-term evaluation metrics and maintenance mechanisms are undefined.   

 Response 5: We have revised the final section of the Intervention Proposal to include a detailed description of the implementation process and the mechanisms for long-term evaluation and sustainability. The updated text reads as follows:

 " The intervention will be implemented in two phases. The first phase consists of a pilot implementation in one municipality to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed strategies. This phase includes close coordination with local stakeholders to install MSW LLEBIPC bins, launch the public education program and implement the communication plan. Feedback from participants and professionals involved in the implementation will be collected to guide necessary adjustments, alongside monitoring changes in community waste management behaviors —the quantity of MSW LLEBIPC collected and the reduction in previously reported informal dumping sites.

The second phase consists of scaling up the intervention to the four remaining municipalities. During this phase, all core components of the intervention— the bin installation, the educational program and the communication plan—will be replicated and adapted as needed. Monitoring efforts will continue, with a focus on changes in community waste management behaviors, as well as community perceptions regarding MSW LLEBIPC practices. This phased structure ensures a flexible, evidence-based and context-sensitive implementation.

To ensure long-term sustainability, the intervention’s promoters will collaborate with local stakeholders to foster a sense of ownership and institutional support. These partnerships will facilitate the ongoing monitoring of waste management behaviors and help integrate the program into local governance frameworks."

Comment 6: The conclusion could be strengthened by more explicitly connecting the study’s empirical findings to broader theoretical contributions and practical scalability. Additionally, specifying actionable policy recommendations and unresolved research questions would enhance its academic and societal impact.  

Response 6: To address this comment, we have revised the Conclusion section to more clearly connect our empirical findings to broader theoretical contributions, highlight the practical scalability of the intervention proposal, and specify actionable policy recommendations and future research directions. The revised conclusion now reads as follows:

 “By employing a mixed-method design that integrates quantitative, qualitative and geospatial data, this study provides evidence on the psychosocial, contextual and infrastructural factors influencing the willingness to engage in pro-environmental MSW management in Colombia, particularly in the administrative region of Norte de Santander, which borders Venezuela.

First, based on quantitative analyses, we identified that environmental awareness—both the perceived consequences of inaction and the benefits of pro-environmental behavior—along with perceived social support, are key interdependent predictors of the willingness to participate in MSW separation and delivery. This interdependence should be considered at both theoretical and practical levels. Future interventions could focus on enhancing environmental knowledge and social norms favorable to sustainable behaviors, as these factors seem to promote more sustainable long-term behavioral change.

Second, from a community perspective, we identified psychosocial and contextual barriers that limit citizen participation. These include low environmental literacy, apathy, resistance to change, and a lack of public education and awareness campaigns regarding pro-environmental MSW separation and delivery. These results emphasize the need to develop more comprehensive frameworks that consider personal, community and structural levels to analyze citizen engagement in pro-environmental behavior, and to highlight the role of stakeholders, such as local governments and MSW collection and treatment companies, in implementing measures to facilitate more efficient management and promote citizen engagement.

Finally, based on a geospatial and distance analysis, we confirmed the existence of infrastructure deficiencies that hinder the proper disposal of difficult-to-handle MSW, underscoring the importance of optimizing the location of bins and collection points. These findings show the potential of a geospatial analysis to enhance environmental behavior research.

In addition, we are making progress in developing a contextualized intervention proposal that integrates community needs and recommendations with the goal of increasing the separation and delivery of difficult-to-manage MSW.

Overall, this research integrates psychosocial and geospatial analyses to design evidence-based pro-environmental interventions, underscoring the importance of a multilevel approach to promote sustainable waste practices, particularly in regions facing social and infrastructural challenges.”

Additionally, we would like to mention that the revised version of the manuscript has been professionally edited for English language by MDPI. The text has been reviewed for grammatical accuracy and appropriate use of technical terminology, ensuring it meets the standards required for publication in a scholarly journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It addresses a major gap  separation and delivery of MSW, especially when it comes to difficult-to-manage MSW such as  household appliances, batteries, or electronic devices.

Firsst it provides quantitative analyses based on future intervention strategies that prioritizes strengthening environmental awareness and social support, rather than economic incentives, to ensure the sustainability of MSW separation and delivery practices.

Second, from a community perspective, it identified psychosocial and contextual barriers that limit citizen participation, highlighting the need for local governments and MSW collection and treatment companies to implement measures to facilitate more efficient management.

Finally, based on geospatial and distance analysis, it confirmed the existence of infrastructure deficiencies that hinder the proper disposal of difficult-to-handle MSW, underscoring the importance of optimizing the location of bins and collection points.

The tables and figures are well presented.

Author Response

We thank you for your thoughtful comments.

Additionally, we would like to mention that the revised version of the manuscript has been professionally edited for English language by MDPI. The text has been reviewed for grammatical accuracy and appropriate use of technical terminology, ensuring it meets the standards required for publication in a scholarly journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled “A Community-Based Intervention Proposal for Municipal Solid Waste Management: Analyzing Willingness, Barriers, and Spatial Strategies” conducted a questionnaire survey to develop a community-based intervention proposal for municipal solid waste management. This research topic is needed, and the findings will benefit the waste management industry. However, this paper is not concise, and it is a little bit hard to read. Please try to be more specific and concise. Below are my detailed comments.

1. In the abstract, please briefly describe the method instead of saying “mixed-method study” (Lines 14-15).
2. Line 129, What is the LLEBIPC project?
3. In the Methods section, please briefly describe your methodology before digging into the details.
4. I recommend sharing the questionnaire (Line 177) in the supplement materials.
5. The interpretation and discussion of the results are redundant. Please try to focus on the most important findings of your results.
6. Figure 2 is confusing. What do the colored circles mean?
7. Please provide a step-by-step guide on how to apply the intervention proposal
8. Figure 4 cannot be the graph abstract.
9. Figure 4 is very crowded. You may consider splitting Figure 4 into two, with one to summarize the results of this study and another to illustrate how to apply this proposal to other cities.

Author Response

We thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments. These have helped to improve our manuscript further. In the following, please allow us to describe in detail how we addressed the revisions recommended to our manuscript.

Comment 1: In the abstract, please briefly describe the method instead of saying “mixed-method study” (Lines 14-15).

 Response 1: We have revised the Abstract to replace the general term “mixed-methods study” with a more specific description of the methods used, including the quantitative, qualitative, and geospatial components. The updated version of the abstract now reads as follows:

 " To address this gap, we conducted a study combining quantitative data from surveys with qualitative and geospatial data obtained through social mapping sessions and information obtained from local waste collectors in five municipalities in Norte de Santander, Colombia—a region marked by high socioeconomic vulnerability. Our study presents a novel integration of psychosocial and geospatial data to inform MSW interventions in low-resource settings."

 Comment 2: Line 129, What is the LLEBIPC project?      

 Response 2: In the updated version of the manuscript, we have clarified the meaning of the LLEBIPC project in the first paragraph of the “The Current Research” section. The revised text reads as follows:

 " This study is part of the LLEBIPC project, which aims to increase the separation and delivery of difficult-to-manage MSW. We focused on specific types of MSW such as tires, household appliances, batteries, household insecticides, computers and peripherals, in the administrative region of Norte de Santander, Colombia.  The acronym LLEBIPC comes from the initials of these types of MSW in Spanish."

 Comment 3: In the Methods section, please briefly describe your methodology before digging into the details. 

 Response 3: We have added a paragraph at the beginning of the Methods section to provide a brief overview of our methodology. The revised text reads as follows:

 " We conducted our study using a concurrent mixed-method design, which enabled us to integrate qualitative, quantitative and geospatial data. We collected quantitative data through a questionnaire focused on variables related to the separation and delivery of MSW. For qualitative and geospatial data, we employed social mapping, a participatory technique that facilitates collaborative community map development. Additionally, we triangulated data from these social maps with information obtained from local waste collectors regarding the current locations of MSW bins for LLEBIPC waste in each municipality, as well as the residential locations of the study participants.”

 Comment 4: I recommend sharing the questionnaire (Line 177) in the supplement materials.

 Response 4: We would like to clarify that the items in the questionnaire were included in the supplementary materials submitted with the initial manuscript. You can find them on the Open Science Framework (OSF) at https://osf.io/75kyc/?view_only=439142a21ad04b3a82986fa17dfb6627, specifically in Appendix B, Table 2.

 Comment 5: The interpretation and discussion of the results are redundant. Please try to focus on the most important findings of your results. 

 Response 5: In the revised version of the manuscript, we have streamlined the Discussion section by reducing the length of the text dedicated to restating the results. We now focus more selectively on the most relevant findings, emphasizing their theoretical and practical implications, and avoiding unnecessary repetition of the Results section. These adjustments were made to enhance clarity, reduce redundancy, and improve the overall focus of the Discussion.

  Comment 6: Figure 2 is confusing. What do the colored circles mean?        

 Response 6: An adjustment was made to the figure presenting the results of the social mapping developed using the ArcGIS program. In this updated version, the following elements are more clearly highlighted: open dumps, existing MSW bins, future MSW bins, and the circular green buffer zones surrounding the future MSW bins.

 Additionally, the following explanatory note was added to the figure:

“Buffer: Area surrounding a MSW location that represents the proximity distance people are willing or able to travel to dispose of LLEBIPC waste.”

Comment 7: Please provide a step-by-step guide on how to apply the intervention proposal

Response 7: We have added three new paragraphs at the end of the Intervention Proposal section to provide a clear, step-by-step description of how the proposal will be implemented. The updated text reads as follows:

"The intervention will be implemented in two phases. The first phase consists of a pilot implementation in one municipality to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed strategies. This phase includes close coordination with local stakeholders to install MSW LLEBIPC bins, launch the public education program and implement the communication plan. Feedback from participants and professionals involved in the implementation will be collected to guide necessary adjustments, alongside monitoring changes in community waste management behaviors —the quantity of MSW LLEBIPC collected and the reduction in previously reported informal dumping sites.

The second phase consists of scaling up the intervention to the four remaining municipalities. During this phase, all core components of the intervention— the bin installation, the educational program and the communication plan—will be replicated and adapted as needed. Monitoring efforts will continue, with a focus on changes in community waste management behaviors, as well as community perceptions regarding MSW LLEBIPC practices. This phased structure ensures a flexible, evidence-based and context-sensitive implementation.

To ensure long-term sustainability, the intervention’s promoters will collaborate with local stakeholders to foster a sense of ownership and institutional support. These partnerships will facilitate the ongoing monitoring of waste management behaviors and help integrate the program into local governance frameworks."

Comment 8: Figure 4 cannot be the graph abstract.          

Response 8: A horizontal graphical abstract was developed to present the information from the original infographic in a more concise and visually accessible format, as shown in Figure 5 of the updated manuscript.

Comment 9: Figure 4 is very crowded. You may consider splitting Figure 4 into two, with one to summarize the results of this study and another to illustrate how to apply this proposal to other cities.    

Response 9: A new horizontal-format figure was designed to present the information from the original infographic in a more concise and visual manner. This has been included as Figure 4 and summarizes the four phases of the research process: research, design, pilot testing, and full-scale implementation.

The figure illustrates the overall process and the strategies implemented in each phase. It is organized as a horizontal flowchart to represent the sequential progression of the project.

Additionally, we would like to mention that the revised version of the manuscript has been professionally edited for English language by MDPI. The text has been reviewed for grammatical accuracy and appropriate use of technical terminology, ensuring it meets the standards required for publication in a scholarly journal.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments addressed.