Unveiling Environmental Potential in Smartphone Repair Practices in Vientiane Capital, Laos

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with a highly relevant and topical issue, namely the waste of electrical and electronic equipment. The study employs a clear case study approach, incorporating multiple data sources such as interviews, surveys and secondary data from existing LCAs. This study utilized a combination of face-to-face interviews, observations and an online survey to gather data on WEEE management and smartphone repair practices in the capital city of Vientiane, Laos. Such work is not easy to be conducted specially with the lake of real data. The manuscript is well structured. However, there is room for improvement in some areas to enhance the clarity, readability and impact of the work. Below you will find my comments:

 

1-      The sample size for households (52) and repair shops (16) is relatively small, which may affect generalizability.

2-      The authors could consider addressing whether repair activities are affordable for the average consumers in Laos. This would increase the policy relevance of the manuscript.

3-      The manuscript criticizes the lack of specific legislation for WEEE in Laos, but does not delve deeply into how the existing waste management frameworks can be adapted or integrated into the informal repair systems.

4-      The discussion mentions a high rate of repair failures (e.g., 70% in some cases), but the causes of this are not adequately explained and the environmental impacts are not quantified in the scenarios.

5-      The study focuses primarily on GHG emissions and GWP, while other important environmental impact categories such as resource depletion, ecotoxicity and human toxicity are not considered. A more comprehensive LCA covering a broader range of impact categories would provide a more holistic understanding of the environmental implications of smartphone repair.

6-      The study relies on several assumptions and hypothetical scenarios to assess the environmental impact of smartphone repair. While these scenarios are reasonable, they may not fully reflect actual consumer behavior and repair success rates, which may vary in practice.

7-      Furthermore, the study relies on data from previous LCA studies, which may limit the precision and accuracy of the findings, as the specific context and assumptions of these studies may not fully align with Laos country context.

8-      Some readers may not be aware of the existing research gap that this study aims to fill. However, from the information provided, it appears that the authors have mentioned several pieces of information related to the following issues:

·         Lack of comprehensive understanding of WEEE management in Laos

·         Limited research on smartphone repair practices and their environmental impacts

·         Linking global initiatives to local practices

 

The authors could therefore focus on these three points and make them clearer for readers

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewers, 

We sincerely thank you for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable feedback. We have carefully addressed the suggested revisions, and the revised manuscript is attached for your consideration.

Warm regards,

Souphaphone Soudachanh, Stefan Salhofer

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores smartphone repair practices in Vientiane, the capital of Laos, and their environmental potential, particularly in the management of electronic waste (WEEE). Through interviews and online surveys with 82 households, 17 waste shops, and 16 repair shops, the article provides detailed data support. These data not only reveal current repair practices but also demonstrate the potential impact of repairs in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The study employs a life cycle assessment (LCA) method to quantitatively analyze the environmental impact of smartphone repairs. This method is widely recognized in environmental science research for its ability to provide a systematic and comprehensive assessment of environmental impacts. The reviewer would recommend the following revisions before accepted.

1)      It is recommended that future studies expand the scope of data collection to cover more geographic areas and additional types of electronic devices to improve the generalizability and representativeness of the research results.

2)      In the life cycle assessment, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions, other environmental impacts such as resource consumption, ecotoxicity, and human health effects should also be considered to provide a more comprehensive environmental impact evaluation.

 

3)     When discussing the environmental benefits of repair, it is suggested that more specific policy recommendations be provided, such as how to improve the standardization of the repair industry, how to raise public awareness of repairs, and how to establish more effective recycling and reuse systems, in order to enhance the practical application value of the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We sincerely thank you for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable feedback. We have carefully addressed the suggested revisions, and the revised manuscript is attached for your consideration.

Warm regards,

Souphaphone Soudachanh and Stefan Salhofer

Author Response File: Author Response.docx