Sustainable Consumer Behavior: Identifying Behavior Change Stages in Recycling in the USA
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations
This is a study on a relevant topic. Its results can be used by different stakeholders, generating impact.
The Introduction is clear and contextualizes the study. It explains both the theoretical and practical importance well. It also explains the study's three innovations. It is suggested that you briefly explain the relationship between the research questions you pose and the theoretical TTM study.
The Method is well presented, organized, and consistent with the research.
It is suggested that you define IRB online 84, as well as Qualtrics online 85.
The results are well presented. It is suggested that your present section 3.5 Discussions and Implications as an additional section 4. In this section, you mention that some results do not completely follow the TTM predictions. It is suggested that you discuss in depth why this might be the case and if there is a way to compare it with previous research, if any.
The tables and graphs clearly complement the research findings.
It is suggested that you include a Conclusions section 5 with the main conclusions of the study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1, thanks for the helpful comments. We have done our best to respond to your comments. See below for details.
Authors
Reviewer 1: This is a study on a relevant topic. Its results can be used by different stakeholders, generating impact.
Response: Thanks.
Reviewer 1: The Introduction is clear and contextualizes the study. It explains both the theoretical and practical importance well. It also explains the study’s three innovations. It is suggested that you briefly explain the relationship between the research questions you pose and the theoretical TTM study.
Response: The relationship between our research questions and the TTM is explained in the Introduction in this version.
Reviewer 1: The Method is well presented, organized, and consistent with the research.
Response: Thanks.
Reviewer 1: It is suggested that you define IRB online 84, as well as Qualtrics online 85.
Response: IRB and Qualtrics are defined in the Method section in this version.
Reviewer 1: The results are well presented. It is suggested that your present section 3.5 Discussions and Implications as an additional section 4. In this section, you mention that some results do not completely follow the TTM predictions. It is suggested that you discuss in depth why this might be the case and if there is a way to compare it with previous research, if any.
Response: Following your suggestion, now section 3.5 is changed to section 4. Also, we discussed why some TTM predictions are not consistent with the empirical findings, and compared it with previous research in the new section 4.
Revier 1: The tables and graphs clearly complement the research findings.
Response: Thanks.
Reviewer 1: It is suggested that you include a Conclusions section 5 with the main conclusions of the study.
Response: Following your suggestion, a new section 5 is added to be the main conclusion of the study in this version.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
the paper investigates the stages of behavior change related to consumer recycling habits in the U.S., using the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change (TTM). A national survey was conducted via CloudResearch, yielding a weighted sample of 1321 participants. The study examines the prevalence of each TTM stage (precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, habit) within the sample and analyzes how psychological factors (behavioral skill, social motivation, perceived cost, attitude) and cognitive factors (subjective/objective recycling knowledge) vary across these stages. The findings suggest that while most respondents engage in recycling, a substantial minority do not, and that different change processes might be effective at different stages.
Strengths aspect of the research:
Theory-driven approach: Utilizing TTM provides a strong framework for understanding and categorizing recycling behavior change.
National sample: The use of CloudResearch allows for a more representative sample compared to convenience samples often used in similar studies.
Collaboration with practitioners: The involvement of environmental agencies and a recovery corporation enhances the study's practical relevance.
Exploration of multiple factors: Examining both psychological and cognitive factors offers a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of recycling behavior.
Clear presentation of results: The use of figures and tables effectively communicates the findings.
Weaknesses:
Cross-sectional design: The study acknowledges this as a major limitation. Cross-sectional data cannot establish causal relationships between variables or definitively demonstrate the progression through TTM stages. Longitudinal data would be much more informative.
Limited discussion of TTM inconsistencies: While the authors note that the observed patterns of change processes don't fully align with TTM predictions, this discrepancy isn't explored in depth. Further discussion of potential reasons for these inconsistencies would strengthen the paper.
Limited practical implications: While the study mentions implications for policy makers and educators, these are quite general. More specific recommendations for interventions tailored to each stage would be beneficial.
Lack of demographic analysis: While the data was weighted based on region, sex, and age, the study doesn't analyze potential differences in recycling behavior across these demographics. Exploring such differences could be valuable.
Simplified measure of "pros": Using only social motivation and attitude to represent the "pros" of recycling may be overly simplistic. Other potential benefits, such as environmental concern or financial incentives, are not considered.
Suggestions for Improvement:
Address the limitations of the cross-sectional design more thoroughly: Discuss the specific challenges of inferring causality and stage progression with this type of data. Suggest future research using longitudinal methods to address these limitations.
Analyze and interpret the deviations from TTM predictions: Offer potential explanations for why the observed patterns of change processes differ from the theoretical model. This could involve exploring alternative behavioral models or considering contextual factors specific to recycling.
Develop more concrete recommendations for interventions: Based on the findings, propose targeted strategies for encouraging recycling behavior at each TTM stage. For example, suggest specific educational materials or incentive programs that might be effective.
Incorporate demographic analysis: Explore potential differences in recycling behavior and change stages based on demographics such as age, sex, region, and socioeconomic status. This would enhance the practical applicability of the findings.
Expand the measurement of "pros": Include additional variables to capture a wider range of potential benefits of recycling, such as environmental concern, personal values, and financial incentives. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the motivational factors influencing recycling behavior.
Consider other relevant variables: Explore the potential influence of factors such as access to recycling facilities, convenience, and social norms.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language used in the manuscript is generally clear and understandable. However, some minor revisions are needed to improve clarity and precision. There are occasional instances of awkward phrasing and grammatical errors, particularly in the discussion section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2, thanks for summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of this study and providing a list of suggestions for improvement. In the following, we respond to your suggestions specifically:
Reviewer 2: Address the limitations of the cross-sectional design more thoroughly: Discuss the specific challenges of inferring causality and stage progression with this type of data. Suggest future research using longitudinal methods to address these limitations.
Response: In this version, we discussed specific challenges of inferring causality and stage progression with this type of data. Also suggested using longitudinal data in future research in the new Section 4.
Reviewer 2: Analyze and interpret the deviations from TTM predictions: Offer potential explanations for why the observed patterns of change processes differ from the theoretical model. This could involve exploring alternative behavioral models or considering contextual factors specific to recycling.
Response: In this version, we discussed deviations from TTM predictions, explored alternative behavioral models such as the theory of planned behavior in explain recycling behavior. Also, we added new analyses in Table 2 discuss group differences in sociodemographic and environmental factor differences in behavior change stages.
Reviewer 2: Develop more concrete recommendations for interventions: Based on the findings, propose targeted strategies for encouraging recycling behavior at each TTM stage. For example, suggest specific educational materials or incentive programs that might be effective.
Response: In this version, we provided more concrete recommendations for intervention strategies in the new section 4.
Reviewer 2: Incorporate demographic analysis: Explore potential differences in recycling behavior and change stages based on demographics such as age, sex, region, and socioeconomic status. This would enhance the practical applicability of the findings.
Response: In this version, we tested group differences in terms of age, sex, region, and socioeconomic status in terms of behavioral change stages (see Table 2 and relevant text).
Reviewer 2: Expand the measurement of "pros": Include additional variables to capture a wider range of potential benefits of recycling, such as environmental concern, personal values, and financial incentives. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the motivational factors influencing recycling behavior.
Response: these suggestions are very helpful. We discussed these factors as limitations in the new section 4.
Reviewer 2: Consider other relevant variables: Explore the potential influence of factors such as access to recycling facilities, convenience, and social norms.
Response: we added analyses of group differences of recycling facilities and convenience (measured by the distance to facility) in terms of behavioral change stages (see Table 2 and relevant text). We don’t have data for measuring social norm.
Reviewer 2: The English language used in the manuscript is generally clear and understandable. However, some minor revisions are needed to improve clarity and precision. There are occasional instances of awkward phrasing and grammatical errors, particularly in the discussion section.
Response: We asked a native speaker who is also an experienced copy editor for a professional journal to help copyedit this version.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for this interesting approach towards recycling behavior. According to many scientific publications and day-by-day experience many people are in favor of environmental protection, but do not put it into practice. Therefore, It is questionable whether (pre-)contemplation about recycling will ever result in reasonable action. I agree that many different measures are necessary to incentivise citizens for recycling (and especially correct separation of waste fractions). Financial incentives are necessary as well. From my personal experience (managing director of WM companies over 15 years plus research and education over 12 years) I can understand the result of the study that people who are actively separating their waste ("habit") may be disappointed with the overall success due to misbehaviour of their neighbours, technical roblems, and products that are not designed for recycling.
Author Response
We agree that it is a change to motivate consumers who never consider recycling in near future. We included this point in the discussion section.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction
Thank you for sending the revised manuscript for review. I do believe the manuscript is improved as compared to the previous version. However, I did not find any research gap in the introduction. It is exciting to see if the author provides some statistics and facts about the topic and the research's motivation.
After proposing the research question, it is better to propose a research gap with evidence from the literature. As you can see, you did not incorporate a single citation, which shocked me about the manuscript. In fact, it is important to provide evidence from the literature. So, I request that you explore the literature as you explored a new phenomenon with a significant sample.
Literature Review
I would truly appreciate it if you could provide a literature review section after the introduction, but I am not sure why you did not include it. If you have a valid reason, please answer me; if not, please develop the literature review section.
Data collection
Regarding the data collection, I agree with the revised version. I am just curious if you can change the word sex as gender. It is my minor suggestion, of course, you can ignore it.
Analysis
Can you please mention the software information? I did not get any information about it.
Results
Overall, it is permissible.
Discussions, Limitations, and Implications
First, you can change this heading to Discussions, Implications, and Limitations.
Can you develop this section under the specific headings for the readers' convenience?
Discussion
In this section, the general discussion about the results should be presented in the first paragraph, and then the second paragraph answers your research questions.
Implications
Starting from theoretical to managerial and specific to the general audience, like policymakers.
Limitations
Here you can discuss potential limitations in a neutral tone.
I hope you can improve the manuscript.
Author Response
See the response letter.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors:
Some comments for you.
- Please, be careful with writing, because there are some errors, for example: Table 2, it says p=005 and it must be 0.005.
- All numbers with a point must include a zero at the beginning, especially when checking for Appendix A.
- For the methodology section, why one-way ANOVA? If you have multiple factors, did you consider 2-way ANOVA? Please, explain this.
- In section 3.5, it must say "Socioeconomic..." for the title. In addition, Table 2 must be relocated in this section according to the text.
- The discussion section has important information, however, there is a lack of references in paragraphs highlighted in yellow. It is necessary to include the information of other authors to compare your findings.
- Your conclusions are limited. It is necessary to include the novelty of this research and the benefits for other countries, too.
- Please, be more specific about developing intervention strategies (lines 400-401)
Author Response
See the response letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors:
1. The graphs are hard to read, please use a bigger font size.
2. Including information about the number of citations in Google Scholar for Dr. James O. Prochaska is unnecessary.
3. Lines 291-292 are not clear. Please explain these 2 lines in detail. What limitations are you talking about? What kind of policies?
4. Lines 426-428 are not clear, and the word "behavior" is not well written 2 times. Line 427 says "apply a behavior change...." but how? Did you achieve that goal? Please explain in detail this last paragraph.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are some errors, line 427, for example. It would be desirable to revise the grammar and the typographical errors.
Author Response
Please see the response letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
