The Role of Communication Channels in Promoting Sustainable Wood Waste Management in the Czech Republic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 1. Introduction & Theoretical Framework  
- Strengths: Clear alignment with SDGs 12/13 and use of diffusion of innovations theory.  
- Improvements Needed:  
  - Contextual Gap: Explicitly link the Czech Republic’s post-socialist media landscape (e.g., centralized TV trust) to communication efficacy. Example: Cite Hlásková et al. (2023) on Czech media consumption patterns.  
  - Bioeconomy Framing: Strengthen ties to EU/Central European bioeconomy strategies. Add: "The Czech National Bioeconomy Strategy (2021-2030)" and Purwestri et al. (2020).  

 2. Methods  
- Strengths: Transparent CAWI methodology, robust sampling (n=1,050), and ethical compliance.  
- Improvements Needed:  
  - OLS Justification: Clarify why OLS was chosen over models accounting for binary outcomes (e.g., logistic regression for individual practices like "carpenter workshop use").  
  - Variable Construction: Explain the "composite engagement score" weighting. Example: "Equal weights were assigned to all practices; sensitivity analysis confirmed robustness."  
  - County Codes: Label counties in Table 1 (e.g., "County 0 = Prague") to avoid ambiguity.  

 3. Results & Discussion  
- Strengths: Well-presented tables, statistically significant findings (TV’s impact, age/place size effects).  
- Improvements Needed:  
  - Low R² (5.3%): Address this limitation explicitly. Example: "While consistent with behavioural studies (Kala et al., 2020), the modest variance explained underscores unmeasured factors (e.g., infrastructure proximity). Future work should integrate spatial variables."  
  - Gender Findings: Deepen analysis of gendered roles. Example: "Qualitative responses (e.g., ‘Woodwork is my husband’s responsibility’) suggest cultural norms limit female engagement—aligning with Gifford’s (2011) ‘dragons of inaction’."  
  - Digital Media Paradox: Reconcile non-significant digital results with literature. Example: "Unlike Fasola et al. (2023), passive scrolling may explain low impact; future campaigns should leverage active platforms like eco-focused apps."  

 4. Policy Implications & Conclusions  
- Strengths: Actionable SDG-aligned recommendations (e.g., TV campaigns, rural infrastructure).  
- Improvements Needed:  
  - Digital Recommendations: Soften claims given non-significant results. Revise: "While TV remains dominant, exploratory digital outreach (e.g., youth-targeted social media) warrants pilot testing."  
  - EU Funding Links: Connect infrastructure proposals to EU mechanisms. Add: "Align with the Just Transition Fund to bolster rural waste facilities."  

 5. References  
- Strengths: Recent citations (2020–2024), key theories (Rogers 2010).  
- Improvements Needed:  
  - Add 3–5 seminal works:  
    1. Kirchherr et al. (2017) on circular economy barriers.  
    2. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019) frameworks.  
    3. Hájek (2021) on Czech wood waste valorization.  
  - Include EU policy documents (e.g., "European Green Deal").

 Other points to consider  
- Table 1: Label "County" codes (footnote or appendix).  
- Section 3.3: Clarify if "no wood waste" responses imply effective management or sampling bias (e.g., urban vs. rural respondents).  
- Abstract: Highlight low R² as a limitation.  

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to submit our manuscript to this journal and the thorough review and the constructive feedback on our manuscript titled "The Role of Communication Channels in Promoting Sustainable Wood Waste Management in the Czech Republic". Below are our responses to each of the comments and describe the corresponding changes made in the revised manuscript.

1. Introduction & Theoretical Framework

Comment: Explicitly link the Czech Republic’s post-socialist media landscape (e.g., centralized TV trust) to communication efficacy. Example: Cite Hlásková et al. (2023) on Czech media consumption patterns.  

Response: In line 87 – 89, we have incorporated the context into the theoretical framework section, although we didn’t cite the reference the reviewer suggested because the work doesn’t align with our view and discussion.

Comment: Strengthen ties to EU/Central European bioeconomy strategies. Add: "The Czech National Bioeconomy Strategy (2021-2030)" and Purwestri et al. (2020).  

Response: In line 122 – 125, we now reference the Czech National Bioeconomy Strategy (2021–2030) and Purwestri et al. (2020) to contextualize the study within national and EU-wide bioeconomy goals.

2. Methods

Comment: Clarify why OLS was chosen over models accounting for binary outcomes (e.g., logistic regression for individual practices like "carpenter workshop use").  

Response: A justification for choosing OLS has been added in line 180 – 185 of the data analysis section. While individual behaviors are binary, our use of a composite engagement score as a continuous variable justifies the OLS approach. We also mention robustness checks with logistic regression.

Comment: Explain the "composite engagement score" weighting. Example: "Equal weights were assigned to all practices; sensitivity analysis confirmed robustness." 

Response: We clarified that equal weights were used in line 180 – 185.

Comment: Label counties in Table 1 (e.g., "County 0 = Prague") to avoid ambiguity.  

Response: County codes are now explained in a note below Table 1 in line 222 – 223 and cross-referenced to an appendix A for full detail in line 514.

3. Results & Discussion

Comment: Address this limitation explicitly. Example: "While consistent with behavioural studies (Kala et al., 2020), the modest variance explained underscores unmeasured factors (e.g., infrastructure proximity). Future work should integrate spatial variables."

Response: We acknowledged the low R² in line 284 – 289 and align it to literature on behavioral models with similar variance explained (Kala et al., 2020). The manuscript also propose future research should be conducted to account for unobserved barriers.

Comment: Deepen analysis of gendered roles. Example: "Qualitative responses (e.g., ‘Woodwork is my husband’s responsibility’) suggest cultural norms limit female engagement—aligning with Gifford’s (2011) ‘dragons of inaction’."  

Response: We discussed that the result could be a psychological barrier that is rooted in the cultural norms of the country in line 322 – 325 and this can be a base for another study.

Comment: Reconcile non-significant digital results with literature.

Response: We now discuss the result we got from the data though it is a contrasting situation from the literature, we emphasize that discrepancy could a habitual or infrastructural problem which will be a good prerequisite for behavioral research and circular economy. This is in line 341 – 346.

4. Policy Implications & Conclusions

Comment: Soften claims given non-significant results.

Response: We revised our policy recommendations to accommodate this comment

Comment: Connect infrastructure proposals to EU mechanisms

Response: In line 364 – 367, we highlight alignment infrastructural recommendations with the EU’s Just Transition Fund for rural investment support

5. References

Comment: Add seminal works (Kirchherr et al., Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Hájek 2021, EU Green Deal).
Response: The appropriate reference(s) have been added to the manuscript and cited appropriately.

6. Other Points Addressed

Comment: Table 1: Label "County" codes (footnote or appendix)

Response: The full details were updated in appendix A

Comment: Section 3.3 Clarify if "no wood waste" responses imply effective management or sampling bias (e.g., urban vs. rural respondents).

Response: We clarified that “no wood waste” indicated effective waste management practices or limited wood usage in line 243 – 244

Comment: Abstract: Highlight low R² as a limitation.

Response: The low low R² as a limitation was highlighted and discussed in the discussion section

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the article presented wood waste management in the aspect of environmental degradation and development of sustainable circular economy that values material recovery and reuse. Besides that there is a need of effective communication between stakeholders to share information, technologies and best practices. Authors concentrated in a good way on proper analysis of barriers concerning efficient wood waste management, as there is lack of such coordination among stakeholders. Obtained gap represents an environmental problem and bioeconomic opportunity. About 30% of biomass waste comes from forestry and agricultural activities. It is predicted that on year 2030 we will have to deal with an amount of 1,200 mililion m3 of waste wood.

In Section Conclusion please add Sub Sections with a description of the most important findings of the study.

Author Response

Comment: In the article, wood waste management presented in the aspect of environmental degradation and development of sustainable circular economy that values material recovery and reuse. Besides that there is a need of effective communication between stakeholders to share information, technologies and best practices. Authors concentrated in a good way on proper analysis of barriers concerning efficient wood waste management, as there is lack of such coordination among stakeholders. Obtained gap represents an environmental problem and bioeconomic opportunity. About 30% of biomass waste comes from forestry and agricultural activities. It is predicted that on year 2030 we will have to deal with an amount of 1,200 mililion m3 of waste wood.

In Section Conclusion please add Sub Sections with a description of the most important findings of the study.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment, and the most important findings were extensively discussed in the conclusion section of the manuscript

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigated the effect of media sources on wood waste management practices in the Czech Republic. The findings reveal that television remains a dominant and effective medium for disseminating information on wood waste management, particularly among older demographics. Younger respondents and those residing in larger communities exhibited higher engagement in sustainable practices, aligning with recent studies highlighting younger populations' environmental consciousness and the infrastructure's role in facilitating waste management. However, the limited impact of digital media, suggests that these platforms require more targeted and engaging content to promote sustainable behaviors effectively. The study also emphasizes the prevalence of alternative disposal methods, such as burning, particularly in smaller communities, which raises concerns about these practices' environmental and health impacts. This finding underscores the urgent need for interventions addressing rural information and infrastructure gaps and fostering stakeholder collaboration to promote sustainable wood waste management practices. This study provides actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners seeking to promote sustainable wood waste management practices in the Czech Republic. By leveraging effective communication channels, targeting key demographics, and improving infrastructure, stakeholders can contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and fostering a more sustainable and circular bioeconomy.

The paper content valuable data but it could be published after minor revision as below.

 

General Remarks

 

Abstract

Please do not use abbreviation in abstract and keywords or provide the full name.

Recommendations should be a part of Conclusions. These parts could be shorter at minimum 40%.  

 

Detailed remarks

 

1. Line 29-39 - some references should be added
2. Line 75-83 – some references should be added
3. Line 129-136 – some references should be added

Author Response

Comment:

Abstract

Please do not use abbreviation in abstract and keywords or provide the full name.

Recommendations should be a part of Conclusions. These parts could be shorter at minimum 40%.  

 Detailed remarks

1. Line 29-39 - some references should be added (References have been added)
2. Line 75-83 – some references should be added (References have been added)
3. Line 129-136 – some references should be added (References have been added)

Response: The abbreviation in the abstract and keywords has been replaced with their full name

Response: We decided to make a new heading in for recommendations and expand it for full knowledge expansion

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very good article. The content concerns the management of wood waste and the social interpretation of such activities. In the aspect of sustainable development and climate action, this is of great importance due to the social factor. The article examines the role of communication channels in promoting sustainable practices in wood waste management, taking into account a case study - the Czech Republic. The study was of a survey nature, 1050 respondents and statistical research was used.

Comments:
1. Very interesting and well-presented statistical results indicate the groups most and least interesting in terms of the need to undertake educational activities.
2. What was the aim of the research - it is worth defining it based on literature research
3. can the methodology be applied to other types of research or other types of waste, e.g. selectively collected biodegradable waste
4. Was the aim of the research achieved? - please emphasize this in the summary
5. Very well-developed research methodology
6. The article must be formatted to the requirements of the journal !!!!

The article fits very well into the profile of the journal.

Author Response

REVIEWER 4

Comments: Very interesting and well-presented statistical results indicate the groups most and least interesting in terms of the need to undertake educational activities.

Response: we appreciate the reviewer’s comments in commending the methodology aspect of the work

Comments: What was the aim of the research - it is worth defining it based on literature research

Response: We highlighted the aim as to examine how different communication channels influence wood waste management practices in the Czech Republic, and this can be found in line 109 – 117

Comments: can the methodology be applied to other types of research or other types of waste, e.g. selectively collected biodegradable waste

Response: The methodology can be applied to other types of research or other types of waste

Comments: Was the aim of the research achieved? - please emphasize this in the summary

Response: The aim of the research was achieved, and the work had established ground for further research in the field

Comments: Very well-developed research methodology

Response: We appreciate the reviewer for the comment
Comments: The article must be formatted to the requirements of the journal!!!!

Response: The manuscript will be formatted to the requirement of the journal after all the review has been completed

Comments: The article fits very well into the profile of the journal.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript excels in contextualizing its research within existing theoretical and empirical frameworks. It effectively anchors the study in the diffusion of innovations theory and thoroughly reviews recent literature (2020–2025) on sustainable waste management, communication barriers, and bioeconomy potential. By aligning with global SDGs (particularly Goals 12 and 13) and Czech-specific strategies like the National Bioeconomy Strategy, the work establishes a clear and relevant foundation for its investigation into the role of communication channels in wood waste management.

The research design, methodology, and results presentation are exceptionally clear and robust. Three specific research questions are explicitly stated, and the mixed-methods approach—using a representative survey (n=1,050) analyzed via OLS regression—is meticulously described, including sampling, variable construction, and ethical considerations. Results are systematically organized through descriptive tables and regression outputs (e.g., TV's significant positive effect: β = 0.0273, p < 0.10), with key demographic predictors (age, place size) clearly highlighted. The discussion coherently interprets these findings, balances contradictions (e.g., digital media's underperformance vs. Fasola et al.'s 2023 results) and acknowledges limitations like the model's explanatory power (R² = 5.3%).

The article is well-referenced, and conclusions are strongly supported. All arguments and policy recommendations (e.g., leveraging TV campaigns, targeting youth, improving rural infrastructure) are grounded in the study's empirical results and bolstered by 30 relevant, recent citations spanning theory, regional case studies, and SDG frameworks. Conclusions directly reflect core findings—TV's dominance, demographic influences, and infrastructure gaps—while practical implications are explicitly linked to SDGs 4, 9, 12, and 17, demonstrating thorough scholarly rigor and actionable relevance.

 

Minor Suggestions  
1. Theoretical Integration: Explicitly link findings to Rogers' diffusion theory (e.g., TV’s success aligns with observability and authority constructs; digital media’s failure reflects compatibility gaps). Currently, theory is mentioned but not operationalized in interpreting results.  
2. Digital Media Paradox: Address the contradiction between high youth engagement (β<0) and non-significant digital media effects. Probe whether survey limitations (e.g., measuring usage intensity) or cultural factors explain this.  
3. Gender Analysis: Deepen discussion of lower female engagement using open-response quotes and literature (e.g., Kirchherr et al., 2018 on cultural barriers)—currently underdeveloped despite being statistically significant (β=−0.0277, p<0.10).  

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to submit our manuscript to this journal and the thorough review and the constructive feedback on our manuscript titled "The Role of Communication Channels in Promoting Sustainable Wood Waste Management in the Czech Republic." Below are our responses to each of the comments and describe the corresponding changes made in the revised manuscript.

REVIEWER

Minor Suggestions  
Comment: Theoretical Integration: Explicitly link findings to Rogers' diffusion theory (e.g., TV’s success aligns with observability and authority constructs; digital media’s failure reflects compatibility gaps). Currently, theory is mentioned but not operationalized in interpreting results.  

Response: The findings has been linked with the Roger’s diffusion theory in line 347 - 352 and 410 - 413

Comment: Digital Media Paradox: Address the contradiction between high youth engagement (β<0) and non-significant digital media effects. Probe whether survey limitations (e.g., measuring usage intensity) or cultural factors explain this.

Response: In lines 322-326, the digital media paradox was addressed, which could be how the sample data was analysed since the researchers looked into participants exposure to digital media rather than usage intensity. We also recommend a future study to look into this so as to unravel this paradox.

Comment: Gender Analysis: Deepen discussion of lower female engagement using open-response quotes and literature (e.g., Kirchherr et al., 2018 on cultural barriers)—currently underdeveloped despite being statistically significant (β=−0.0277, p<0.10).

Response: This has been discussed in the discussion section, and it was linked to the cultural norms, which is also found in literature

Author Response File: Author Response.docx