Working Conditions and Career Aspirations of Waste Pickers in Lagos State
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Working Conditions and Career Aspirations of Informal Waste Pickers in Lagos State
Abstract
It sound like you are going to investigate ‘The Relation between Working Conditions and Career Aspirations of Informal Waste Pickers in Lagos State’. Make sure that your wording reflects the correct title.
30 backlog coverage – delete coverage or backlog in waste collection coverage
31 huge amount must read a huge amount
34 a lot of waste – ‘lot’ is not an acceptable academic word replace: suggestion ‘large tonnages’
37 picture of an environmental
38-40 notable to reduce to almost only organic, dumpsite waste. Reword I do not know what you want to say maybe ‘renowed to reduce dumpsite waste by recovering items such as metals, glass, polythene materials, plastic, irons, shopping bags, hospital drip bags, paper, cellular phones, wood, wire, batteries, and textile for sale.
41 Waste Pickers, delete: ‘also known as scavengers’
43 reduces must be reduce only organic must read only organic waste
45 most notable in must read most notable element in
50 There is wide knowledge that waste pickers suggested it must read ‘it is widely known…..’
60 ‘as due to’ must read ‘due to’ delete ‘as’
65 assumption - please provide a reference
66 lagos must read Lagos
67 implication must read implications
2012); Others, The informal must read ‘2012), others, the informal
69 add ‘According to Oates, Sudmant…..
70 (2018); Binion change to (2018) and Binion
71 all, remarkably change to ‘all. Remarkably…’
76 section 5. Must read section five.
81-82 ‘activities and the fact that they work under conditions’ will be better if changed to ‘activities as they work under conditions…’because you are emphasising what you say.
88 compounds inhaled in the in the combustion delete the repeat.
89 ‘and fuel exhaust can’ must read ‘and fuel exhaust fumes can’
92 ‘In the study of Gutberlet’ must read ‘The studies by Gutberlet’
93 ‘..kneeling, and this’… must read ‘…kneeling which..’
102 ‘review, a number of males and females report’ must read ‘review, males s well as females reported’
105 ‘studied into the barriers’ must read ‘studied the barriers’
107 interview must read interviews
109 proficiency; low change to proficiency, low
110 language low must read language skills, low
112 addressing, human capital must read addressing human capital
115 such intervention policy must read such an intervention policy
117 on the interesting issue of solid waste must read on the issue of solid waste
118 benefits that households derive must read benefits to households.
120 the benefit and perception of recycling must read the benefit of and perception towards recycling
127 Questionnaire must read questionnaire
129 Scavengers change to scavengers
131 materials (organic) do you mean materials (an-organic)? Or, it leaves only organic material to be buried.
138 premised change to based
140 Stockholders must read stockholders
144 ‘Also, search for valuables’ add the ‘Also, the search for valuables’
145 reusable at dump suggested: reusable items at dump
147 asset to them at risk for must read asset to them, at risk for
151 the bank of industry is this a type of bank? Then is must be in caps.
159-160 Assumption: reference the statement about improvement or use it in a new paragraph to make a conclusion of the literature review. A conclusion in a new paragraph is recommended.
169 katangowa must be Katangowa
168-170 sentence need a verb like ..participated / were interviewed
176 lagos must read LOGOS
178 Others, The informal must read Others investigated the informal
180 2006). Oates, Sudmant must read ‘….2006). in studies done by Oates, Sudmant…’
184-185 edit to bring out the meaning – it does not make sense
186 Table 4.1 State your gender * Current employment status Crosstabulation not an acceptable label select the issue you are displaying and use that for the heading of the table, for example ’Table 4.1: Current employment status’
188 remove this sentence as you have already stated it above
The table reveals a total of 125 employed respondents, with 25 female workers and 100 male workers.
192-193 this is speculation – you did not test it – remove the sentence of provide a refence from another study:
The large percentage male waste pickers over female workers could be 192 as a result of the demands of the job which females could find inconvenient and stressful.
195 heading correct for the table
196 heading incorrect- replace with heading in 195
Section above lacks an explanation of the term ‘safety kids’.
202-203 acceptable assumption
Table 4.2b you must correct headings of all table throughout
207 acceptable assumption
210 claimed should read stated
217-218 the minority works for employers – rather make the statement that protective footwear is important
222 replace ‘admitted’ with ‘responded’ – it is not wrong to take herbs
223 assumption – you have not tested it – only keep it if you can reference it.
227 assumption acceptable
229 realise was not the correct word to use but cannot be changed now, but it might be explained that it means how much do they earn.
231 examines must read examined
232 earn lee than N2500 must read earn less than N2500 it would help the reader if you put in a footnote the meaning of N as a currency
236 I suggest you change ’ job as being a dirty job’ to job as being a job for the poor’ since it stays a dirty type of work.
236 citizen must read citizens
238 4.3 Waste Picking and Employment Creation. Should be the table heading
Delete crosstabulation throughout the document
253 working conditions; most waste pickers must read …working conditions. Waste pickers (you cannot use the word ‘most’ for three categories.
258 aspiration. . Also, should read aspiration. Also,
To provide a holistic picture of your study, you should report briefly on all the results: Employment status, Working Conditions; personal safety kits; payment, hazardous, health; days spend; income;
Referencing
Errors were detected – it is suggested that you apply consistency. Arrange references alphabetically.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I found the subject of the paper important. However, the novelty and contribution of the paper have to be clearly identified not only in terms of social/policy implications but also in the terms of theory/knowledge building. What is the added value to that research? Furthermore, the stated methodology has not been used, at all. Some statements, the findings, and conclusions are not justified. The format must be improved. It is a promising working paper with promising literature review but it is not publishable at this stage. You will find some detailed comments directly in the text.
Good luck
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Corrections duly noted
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is a descriptive investigation in the situation and motivation of waste pickers in Lagos, Nigeria. The descriptive data is collected by field research (questionnaires). However, I am not sure if this sufficient for a publication in an international journal. Particularly, it would be good if the authors would provide more detailed background information, like what is the average income in Lagos, otherwise the income of waste pickers have no meaning for the international reader.
It does not become clear how the authors define “informal sector”. Usually, activities in informal sector are illegal economic activities, particularly the sector does no pay taxes, contribution to social security, fees, does not have no necessary licenses, no insurances, and the sector cannot make legal contracts or working contracts. Thus, are employed waste pickers or self-employed waste pickers are working illegally? Or are the are working in the legal sector, if they are employed? This does not become clear in the paper.
Line 41: The recommendation “This means that the organic waste remaining can be used as fertilizers (Afon, 2012)” is dangerous, because the remaining organic waste is probably contaminated with toxics and heavy metals, which will have a negative impact on the quality of the plants. Many Western countries in which the recommendation was applied has experienced fatal outcomes.
Line 66: correct: “lagos”
It would be interesting to know how many people in Lagos are working as waste pickers?
Line 192: The ad-hoc explanation “The large percentage male waste pickers over female workers could be
193 as a result of the demands of the job which females could find inconvenient and stressful.” should be deleted, because this is simply a sexist argument, because why should females recognize stress od inconvenience recognize other than males? The roots which lead to a lower female participation rate in this sector may be culture, education, prejudgments et cetera, but this also only speculative.
L
Line 210: I think the right number is not “14” but “12”.
Line 219: What kind of infections do the authors have precisely in mind? For e.g. Sepsis, bacterial infections, virus infections? What are local herbs? Are they scientifically validated regarding their health effects? Antibiotics have only an effect if they are taken in the case of bacterial infections, in the case of a virus infection they have no positive impact.
Line 232: correct “lee” (less?)
Line 232: What means N (probably the Nigerian currency?), how much is the value of 1 N in US $?
The reference list has to adjusted to the required standard of the journal.
Author Response
Please see the attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I found the subject of the paper important. The paper has already been improved significantly. The first section builds study justification however there are some flaws which need to be corrected. The literature review is the strongest part of the paper. The results of the survey are very interesting. It is really a promising working paper with promising literature review and important research but it is not publishable at this stage. There are some comments in the text that I hope to be helpful for the authors. The presentation of the data, analysis, the discussion must be improved. The conclusion must link back to the introduction. Finally, as I am not a native speaker, I always say that I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style but your work needs extensive editing of English language and style.
Good luck
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment. The presentation of the data, analysis, the discussion have been improved upon. The conclusion has been linked back to the introduction.
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
-In my view, the formal part (around equations (1) and (2)) is not well embedded in rest of the section. Only to write down the formulas is not very enlightening; either the authors relate the formulas to the context of waste pickers or they omit that part (given that the other reviewer did not request these formulas).
-Correct table 4b “donot”.
-Row 365 Correct: “2021 will impact on their means of livelihood” It is unclear to whom “their” is related, (I assume to waste-pickers)
I also would like to recommend that the authors should compare in their future work with a cost-benefit analysis the idea of the blue box initiative with the existing method of recycling, because in principle (given that I understand the idea correctly) the blue box initiative have the following effects, the work of separation has to done for free by the households and a government owned firm receives the valuables of the waste, more or less for free. These system change leads to the loss of jobs on the side of the waste pickers and create only a few jobs. A problem could be the households’ quality of free work, because bad separation will lead to higher costs. However, this would be an interesting extension of the paper under review.
Author Response
"I also would like to recommend that the authors should compare in their future work with a cost-benefit analysis the idea of the blue box initiative with the existing method of recycling, because in principle (given that I understand the idea correctly) the blue box initiative have the following effects, the work of separation has to done for free by the households and a government owned firm receives the valuables of the waste, more or less for free. These system change leads to the loss of jobs on the side of the waste pickers and create only a few jobs. A problem could be the households’ quality of free work, because bad separation will lead to higher costs. However, this would be an interesting extension of the paper under review" ------- Thank you for drawing our attention to this.
The equations were just a representation of the theories. The SCT guided the questions that were asked the respondents. Safe to say, the variables used for the study.
Please see the attachment for other corrections
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
