Intersecting Systems of Power Shaping Health and Wellbeing of Urban Waste Workers in the Context of COVID-19 in Vijayawada and Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with an important issue which is the health and well-being of waste pickers in India. The study the problems faced by people waste pickers, and also how their standard of living was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, was presented.

My insights to be developed:

- In the subject of the study, the Authors refer to the issue of COVID-19, however, in the introduction in this respect there is only a short mention - line 56. It would be worth expanding this topic;

- The Authors focused on the problem of waste collection in India. Has similar research been carried out in other countries ? Have the Authors made such a literature review ?

- line 49 - the parenthesis is missing – (…; Gidwani and Baviskar 2011);

- lines 54 - 55 - references should be standardized;

- line 55 - put a full stop at the end of the sentence;

- lines 65-66 - the explanation should be on one line, no need to move to a new paragraph;

- line 73 – full stop in sentence between Welfare and Government;

- line 78 - there should be a space after the full stop at the end of the sentence;

- line 134 - there should be a space after the parenthesis;

- lines 200-201, line 871 - without ":" at the end of the chapter name;

- line 399 - error in the sentence;

- line 833 – period in the sentence;

- line 951 – space between (2013) and ability…;

- the references should be revised according to the Social Science guidelines.

I hope that my insights will be useful for the Authors of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We hope we have been able to satisfactorily address your comments. 

Regards

Reply to Reviewer 1
1. In the subject of the study, the Authors refer to the issue of COVID-19, however, in the
introduction in this respect there is only a short mention - line 56. It would be worth
expanding this topic;
We have added information with references- now at line 60.
2. The Authors focused on the problem of waste collection in India. Has similar research
been carried out in other countries? Have the Authors made such a literature review?
We have done a preliminary review but a scoping review is being done systematically
and we are in the process of writing a manuscript on the same.
3. line 49 - the parenthesis is missing – (…; Gidwani and Baviskar 2011);
Edited -now at line 50-51.
4. lines 54 - 55 - references should be standardized;
Edited- now at line 56.
5. line 55 - put a full stop at the end of the sentence;
Edited- now at line 57.
6. lines 65-66 - the explanation should be on one line, no need to move to a new paragraph;
Now at line 73- The explanation begins as a new paragraph because the definition is
presented as a quote taken from a policy documented, and is indented. We have formatted
the quote into italics to reflect the same.
7. line 73 – full stop in sentence between Welfare and Government;
Now at line 80- Edited and inserted a comma instead of the full stop. Have also
standardized the reference.
8. line 78 - there should be a space after the full stop at the end of the sentence;
Now at line 85- Edited.
9. line 134 - there should be a space after the parenthesis;
Now at line 141- Edited.
10. lines 200-201, line 871 - without ":" at the end of the chapter name;
Now at line 208 and line 884- Edited in both places.
11. line 399 - error in the sentence;
Now at line 412-413. The sentence was grammatically incorrect and repetitive. Edited.
12. line 833 – period in the sentence;
Now at line 845- Edited.
13. line 951 – space between (2013) and ability…;
Now at line 969- Edited.
14. the references should be revised according to the Social Science guidelines.
Edited.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study. If published,  it will add to exiting literature on the subject. The introduction literature is adequate, the quality of writing is quiet good, though it will need minor edit work.  However, authors should consider addressing the following:

1.       In the abstract, authors indicated that the “ study aims to understand how intersecting systems and relations of power impact agency of waste workers to shape their health and wellbeing.”  This study goal is restated in the introduction.  But under the material and methods, authors stated that the “focus of the interviews and focus groups was to understand experiences of participants  during the covid-19 pandemic and explore resilience and coping strategies (page 5, from lines 212-214). My question is: how is the study goal related to the focus of the interviews and focus group discussions? I suggest you consider aligning the focus of the interviews & group discussions with the study goal.

2.       The concluding statement in the abstract is a bit confusing. The use of the terms “power with” “power over”, “power within”  and “power to” makes the concluding statement confusing. Please consider revising the conclusion. You do not need to include all those terms in the abstract’s conclusion.

3.       The conceptual framework. Please consider creating a model or a flow chart from the text. This will be a graphic representation of your study’s conceptual framework and illustrate how relations of power intersect to impact the health and well-being of waste workers….

4.       The description of the study participants on page 5 (lines 219-220) does not match with the description in the appendix 1.  On page 5 , authors reported that “seven waste pickers …….were interviewed.” But appendix 1 shows only five waste pickers taking part in the interview. Who are the contractual waste workers? Are they also waste pickers? Authors also reported that “41 waste pickers” participated in the FGDs.  But the FGD participants are all “self-employed” or “GMC worker[s]” as shown in the appendix 1. Are both waste pickers as well? If so, please revise.

5.       Is the ARISE team part of the research team?  Are they key informants? If they are the key informants, then describe them as key informants…

6.       On page 6 (lines 272-273), authors stated that “………………….and grouped into 5 analytical themes…” What are the 5 analytical themes? Please consider stating those 5 themes.

7.       Authors mentioned on page 6 (on line 276) that “result are divided into three sections. But the results are not divided into 3 sections. They are five sections:  “3.1 Material dimensions”,   “3.2 Human dimensions”,  “3.3 Social dimensions”,  “3.4 Community”,   “3.5 Civil society.”

8.       The results section is very dense. It makes the reading a bit overwhelming. I suggest you take some out or condense the presentation of your findings.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We hope we have been able to satisfactorily address your comments. 

Regards

Reply to Reviewer 2
1. In the abstract, authors indicated that the “study aims to understand how intersecting
systems and relations of power impact agency of waste workers to shape their health and
wellbeing.” This study goal is restated in the introduction. But under the material and
methods, authors stated that the “focus of the interviews and focus groups was to
understand experiences of participants during the covid-19 pandemic and explore
resilience and coping strategies (page 5, from lines 212-214). My question is: how is the
study goal related to the focus of the interviews and focus group discussions? I suggest
you consider aligning the focus of the interviews & group discussions with the study
goal.
Now at line 228-230. The focus group discussions and interviews were conducted during
the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic when the ARISE team researchers were
carrying out relief work for the communities, and hence the questions were designed to
understand resilience and coping strategies. For the purpose of this paper a deeper
analysis of the data was conducted by applying theories of power and well-being.
2. The concluding statement in the abstract is a bit confusing. The use of the terms “power
with” “power over”, “power within” and “power to” makes the concluding statement
confusing. Please consider revising the conclusion. You do not need to include all those
terms in the abstract’s conclusion.
Edited.
3. The conceptual framework. Please consider creating a model or a flow chart from the
text. This will be a graphic representation of your study’s conceptual framework and
illustrate how relations of power intersect to impact the health and well-being of waste
workers….
We have created a figure depicting the findings in the context of out conceptual
framework. This figure has been added to the discussion section at line Created and
added into the manuscript at line 895.
4. The description of the study participants on page 5 (lines 219-220) does not match with
the description in the appendix 1. On page 5 , authors reported that “seven waste pickers
…….were interviewed.” But appendix 1 shows only five waste pickers taking part in the
interview. Who are the contractual waste workers? Are they also waste pickers? Authors
also reported that “41 waste pickers” participated in the FGDs. But the FGD participants
are all “self-employed” or “GMC worker[s]” as shown in the appendix 1. Are both waste
pickers as well? If so, please revise.
Waste workers is an umbrella term that we are using in our study to refer to both
contractual waste workers and waste pickers. We use the term 'Contractual Waste
Worker' to refer to sanitation workers and door to door garbage collectors who are
contractual workers, contracted by the municipal corporation either directly or through
an NGO; and we use the term 'Waste Picker' to refer to individuals who pick waste off
the streets and sell recyclables to scrap dealers to earn a livelihood. We have made edits
at lines 212-227, 235-237.
In the Appendix, for the FGDs, self-employed was a term used to refer to waste pickers,
and GMC worker is a term used to refer to contractual waste workers. We have revised
the terms used under FGDs in the Appendix to as per the definitions provided in the
paragraph above.
5. Is the ARISE team part of the research team? Are they key informants? If they are the
key informants, then describe them as key informants…
The ARISE team is the research team that undertook the data collection and analysis.
None of them were key informants in the study.
6. On page 6 (lines 272-273), authors stated that “………………….and grouped into 5
analytical themes…” What are the 5 analytical themes? Please consider stating those 5
themes.
Now at lines 289. The five themes are- lived realities, power over, power with, power
within and power to. These have been added to the manuscript at lines lines 289 and 290.
7. Authors mentioned on page 6 (on line 276) that “result are divided into three sections”.
But the results are not divided into 3 sections. They are five sections: “3.1 Material
dimensions”, “3.2 Human dimensions”, “3.3 Social dimensions”, “3.4 Community”,
“3.5 Civil society.”
Now at line 292. This was a formatting error. The results are divided into three sections3.1 Material dimensions, 3.2 Human Dimensions and 3.3 Social Relations. ‘Community’
and ‘Civil Society’ are subsections under 3.3.3 Power With (under Social Relations).
Edits have been made to correctly number the sections as- 3.3.3.1 Community (line 759)
and 3.3.3.2 Civil Society (line 827).
8. The results section is very dense. It makes the reading a bit overwhelming. I suggest you
take some out or condense the presentation of your findings.
We have written the findings in a way that reflects the complicated lived reality of waste
pickers. Simplifying and condensing them will not do justice to the lived realities and
experiences of the communities. We have however edited to reduce repetition and
simplify language in the specific places pointed to by reviewers.