Residents’ Willingness to Participate in E-Waste Recycling: Evidence by Theory of Reasoned Action
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper showed an investigation of the residents' willingness to participate in e-waste recycling based on the theory of reasoned action. This topic is interesting, and this paper can be considered after the following comments being addressed in the revised version.
(1) The reference format in this paper should follow the journal's required style, using numbered citations like [1],[2],[3]...
(2) As a research paper, the authors should supplement some quantitative data in both the abstract and conclusion sections to demonstrate this study's innovative findings.
(3) The quality and quantity of figures/tables in this paper need improvement, particularly lacking some crucial data plots."
(4) At the begin of the introduction section, the author should give a review of the recycling of various waste as recycled materials. The following references can be cited and discussed: The following references can be cited and discussed: (a) In-situ 4D CT analysis of microcrack evolution in carbonated fiber-reinforced recycled aggregate concrete. (b) Developing fully recycled alkali-activated mortar made with waste concrete fines as a substitute for both binder and sand: Multi-properties evaluation.
(5) Please specify the data source for Table 1, indicating whether the data were obtained through experimental measurements or derived from existing literature. If the latter applies, proper citations must be provided.
(6) The conclusion should be rewritten. Highlighting the new findings of this study.
Author Response
Comment 1:
The reference format in this paper should follow the journal's required style, using numbered citations like [1],[2],[3]...
Response 1:
Thank you for your observation. The reference format has been revised throughout the manuscript to conform to the journal's required numbered citation style, as per your suggestion.
Comment 2:
As a research paper, the authors should supplement some quantitative data in both the abstract and conclusion sections to demonstrate this study's innovative findings.
Response 2:
We appreciate this valuable recommendation. Quantitative data such as sample size (400 valid responses), model explanatory power (R² = 0.829), and key path coefficients have been added to both the abstract and conclusion to better reflect the study’s empirical contributions (line 18-20).
Comment 3:
The quality and quantity of figures/tables in this paper need improvement, particularly lacking some crucial data plots.
Response 3:
Thank you for pointing this out. The manuscript has been revised to improve the visual presentation. Additional tables summarizing measurement model validity (Table 2) and path analysis (Table 4) were clarified, and one additional visualization (Figure 3: Group-wise Willingness Comparison) was included to strengthen the presentation of results.
Comment 4:
At the beginning of the introduction section, the author should give a review of the recycling of various waste as recycled materials. The following references can be cited and discussed...
Response 4:
Thank you for your helpful suggestion. The introduction has been revised to include a review of recent studies on the recycling of construction and industrial waste “Report indicates the global consumer electronics market is projected to grow from USD 864.73 billion in 2025 to USD 1,467.94 billion by 2032, exhibiting a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 7.85% during this forecast period” and “According to the Global E-waste Monitoring Report is the Global E-waste Monitor 2024 reveals that a record 62 million tonnes (Mt) of e-waste was produced in 2022, an 82% increase from 2010. The report projects that this figure is on track to rise another 32% to 82 million tonnes by 2030. Worryingly, the global generation of electronic waste is rising five times faster than documented e-waste recycling. In 2022, less than a quarter (22.3%) of the year's e-waste was documented as properly collected and recycled [3]”. The suggested references have been discussed to broaden the background context and demonstrate how recycling efforts in other domains inform the present research (line 66-76)
Comment 5:
Please specify the data source for Table 1, indicating whether the data were obtained through experimental measurements or derived from existing literature.
Response 5:
Thank you for your suggestion. The source for Table 1 has been clarified in the manuscript. It is now clearly stated that the demographic data were obtained from the authors’ survey using 400 valid responses collected via an online questionnaire (page 10, line 342)
Comment 6:
The conclusion should be rewritten. Highlighting the new findings of this study.
Response 6:
We appreciate this feedback. The conclusion section has been thoroughly revised to succinctly emphasize the key findings, including the mediating role of attitude and subjective norms, the significant impact of impression management motivation, and the improved explanatory power of the extended TRA model.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study is focused on investigating the factors influencing residents’ willingness to participate in e-waste recycling in Jiangsu, China, using the Theory of Reasoned Action, and introducing impression management motivation and awareness of physical health benefits.
The manuscript is not entirely novel but represents a strong piece of incremental research, addressing three clear questions with clarity and practical policy relevance. It is a well-written contribution and can be accepted after the suggested minor revisions mentioned below.
Comments for the authors:
- In the Introduction, the data cited for global e-waste generation is from Forti et al. (2020), based on 2019 figures. However, more recent data is available in the Global E-waste Monitoring Report 2024. Please update the figures and references accordingly to reflect the latest situation.
- Lines 44–45 state: “open burning is the preferred option for improper disposal, which results in harmful compounds such as hydrocarbons being released into the environment.” Please clarify what specific hydrocarbons are referred to here, as not all hydrocarbons are necessarily harmful. Consider rephrasing to improve precision.
- There are multiple instances of inconsistent or incorrect spacing, particularly before parentheses throughout the manuscript. Please carefully proofread and correct spacing issues to improve readability.
- The font size of Table 6 appears noticeably larger than the surrounding text. Please adjust it for consistency with the rest of the manuscript.
- Also, include some recent study references on AI-based techniques for e-waste sorting to strengthen the discussion of modern approaches.
Author Response
Comment 1:
Update the global e-waste data using the latest Global E-waste Monitoring Report 2024.
Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. The introduction has been updated with the most recent figures from the Global E-waste Monitoring Report 2024, reflecting the 62 million tonnes of e-waste generated in 2022 and the projected increase to 82 million tonnes by 2030 (31-34 and 38 44).
Comment 2:
Clarify what specific hydrocarbons are referred to in the discussion of open burning.
Response 2:
This has been revised for clarity. The term "hydrocarbons" has been replaced with more specific compounds, such as “Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Halogenated Hydrocarbons, Dioxins, and Furans,” to improve scientific accuracy. (49-50)
Comment 3:
Correct inconsistent spacing issues, especially before parentheses.
Response 3:
Thank you for the observation. The entire manuscript has been carefully proofread and edited to resolve spacing inconsistencies and improve overall formatting and readability.
Comment 4:
Adjust the font size of Table 6 to match the surrounding text.
Response 4:
The font size of Table 6 has been corrected for consistency with the rest of the manuscript.
Comment 5:
Include recent references on AI-based techniques for e-waste sorting.
Response 5:
We agree this addition strengthens the discussion. Relevant studies [86, 87] on AI-based sorting technologies, including IoT-enabled CNN systems and the EWasteNet classification model, have been cited in the discussion section to highlight emerging technical solutions complementing behavioral strategies (502-513).
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article addresses an important and interesting issue of e-waste recycling from an environmental perspective.
The quantitative problem of e-waste generation is sufficiently emphasized, and attention is also drawn to the environmental risks caused by improper disposal. The authors present the possibilities of green processing of e-waste.
They apply the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) to develop a research model through which they analyze the factors influencing residents' willingness to participate in e-waste recycling.
The conceptual framework, formulated hypotheses, and research methodology are described in detail. The results of the conducted study are also presented in a sufficiently comprehensive and accurate manner.
As rightly noted by the authors, the research provides valuable insights for public policy, which can help decision-makers more effectively promote e-waste recycling.
A significant contribution to the topic is the introduction of the concept of image management motivation and the presentation of the Hawthorne effect in the context of e-waste recycling.
However, the article has certain limitations and simplifications; therefore, to validate the obtained data, it seems necessary to conduct further series of studies that would take into account differences in consumer behavior, culture, and institutional context. This would make the results much more representative of a broader spectrum of society, allowing for the generalization of findings and a better understanding of the factors influencing willingness to participate in recycling across different regions and socio-economic environments.
Additionally, the "Conclusion" section should be slightly expanded to include summarized research findings presented at a higher level of generality than in the preceding sections.
Author Response
Comment 1:
The article has certain limitations and simplifications; additional studies are needed across different cultural and regional contexts.
Response 1:
We appreciate this insightful comment. The limitation section has been expanded to acknowledge this point and now explicitly suggests cross-regional or international studies to validate and generalize the findings across diverse consumer and policy environments (line 532-533).
Comment 2:
The conclusion section should be expanded to summarize research findings at a higher level of generality.
Response 2:
Thank you for your recommendation. The conclusion has been revised to include a more generalized synthesis of the study's findings, with emphasis on theoretical contributions, practical implications, and avenues for future research.
