When Circular Economy Meets Inclusive Development. Insights from Urban Recycling and Rural Water Access in Argentina
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents two case studies addressing the social and innovation aspects of circular economy approaches in the Latin American context. The topic is highly relevant, given that these aspects have mostly been neglected in favour of technology- and industrialised country-centred solutions. The two selected case studies are success cases, where synergies between the ecological, economic, and social dimensions of a sustainable CE could be created.
It is not immediately clear though why these two cases are representative enough to answer questions which go beyond these individual contexts. I feel that there is much more to learn. While both cases are presented with main lessons, it would be good to add a discussion of the transferability to other cases, the key success factors of each of the cases, stumbling blocks other cases can avoid etc. Why did these cases work, were there moments when their success was at risk, how were they handled, by whom...? This would not only add to academic literature, but also be valuable for practitioners striving to implement similar exercises in other contexts.
The abstract should then summarise not just the main questions to be answered, but also the main (transferable) findings. Furthermore, some more detail on methodology would be helpful in the abstract (e.g. which kind of data was collected and how?).
As a technical comment, language editing by an English native speaker would be helpful.
Author Response
Dear Respected Review,
We are highly appreciate the comprehensive feedback throughout the review process. We think that your comments resulted in a significant improvement of the document.
In relation with the comments and suggestions, we made the following changes:
Comment 1: It is not immediately clear though why these two cases are representative enough to answer questions which go beyond these individual contexts. I feel that there is much more to learn. While both cases are presented with main lessons, it would be good to add a discussion of the transferability to other cases, the key success factors of each of the cases, stumbling blocks other cases can avoid etc. Why did these cases work, were there moments when their success was at risk, how were they handled, by whom...? This would not only add to academic literature, but also be valuable for practitioners striving to implement similar exercises in other contexts”
Authors’ response: This comment represented a full revision of the document. Particularly, we wrote again the learning sections (please, see lines 403 to 448 and lines 583 to 637) of both cases and the last section “discussion”. We introduced analysis and statements related to why the initiatives worked and what kind of typical actions must be avoid to obtain successful results working in this kind of participatory projects. We included a Table with stylized learning (please, see line 701). We think the table can work as a check list for “valuable for practitioners striving to implement similar exercises in other contexts”.
Comment 2: The abstract should then summarise not just the main questions to be answered, but also the main (transferable) findings. Furthermore, some more detail on methodology would be helpful in the abstract (e.g. which kind of data was collected and how?).
Authors’ response: Taking into account this comment, we wrote again the abstract (keeping it below 200 words) and we include more details about methodology and findings.
Comment 3: As a technical comment, language editing by an English native speaker would be helpful.
Authors’ response: The text was revised by a professional native speaker editor.
We hope that changes included in the document satisfice your requirements.
Thank you again for you time dedicated to the review.
Kind regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
An important contribution to the CE concept that is derived from notions, ideas and contexts of the Global North, and if the Global South has been considered, usually not the informal sectors. Therefor, an important paper informed by highly interesting cases. Thank you for doing this research. However, a language edit would be necessary.
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer,
We are highly appreciate the comprehensive feedback throughout the review process. We are very happy with your words about our work.
In relation with the comments and suggestions, we made the following actions:
Comment 1: a language edit would be necessary
Authors’ response: The text was edited by a professional native speaker editor.
We hope that changes included in the document satisfice your requirements.
Thank you again for you time dedicated to the review.
Kind regards,
Dr. Lucas Becerra
Reviewer 3 Report
The title of the article is too long and should be shortened to be understandable. The article should be supplemented with the results of empirical research or practical examples in the form of case studies. There are no conclusions to be completed to summarize the article.Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer,
We are highly appreciate the comprehensive feedback throughout the review process. We think that your comments resulted in a significant improvement of the document.
In relation with the comments and suggestions, we made the following changes:
Comment 1: The title of the article is too long and should be shortened to be understandable.
Authors’ response: The tittle was cut. The original tittle had 23 words and the new one has 16 words. The new tittle is: “When Circular Economy Meets Inclusive Development. Insights From Urban Recycling and Rural Water Access in Argentina”
Comment 2: The article should be supplemented with the results of empirical research or practical examples in the form of case studies.
Authors’ response: This comment represented a full revision of the document. Particularly, we wrote again the learning sections (please, see lines 403 to 448 and lines 583 to 637) of both cases, we included two new graph (please, see lines 306 and 371) in the first case in order to gain symmetry between analysis and we wrote again last section “discussion”. We introduced analysis and statements related to why the initiatives worked and what kind of typical actions must be avoid to obtain successful results working in this kind of participatory projects.
Comment 3: There are no conclusions to be completed to summarize the article.
Authors’ response: Following author guidelines, we didn’t include a section labeled as “conclusions”. According to this guidelines “This section (conclusions) is not mandatory, but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex”. However, taking into account your recommendations we wrote again the section “discussion” in order to include general conclusions.
We hope that changes included in the document satisfice your requirements.
Thank you again for you time dedicated to the review.
Kind regards.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors should specify the purpose of the article and the purpose of the research.Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer,
We are highly appreciate the your feedback.
In relation with your comment, we made the following changes:
- We include an explicit mention of the purpose in the introduction of the document (please, see line 132-135)
- We include (following your first suggestion) the integration of a "Conclusion" section. In this section, we think that the purpose and the final remarks (general deductive statements) are more clear.
We hope that changes included in the document satisfice your requirements.
Thank you again for you time dedicated to the review.
Kind regards,
Dr. Lucas Becerra
