Moving from Directives toward Audience Empowerment: A Typology of Recycling Communication Strategies of Local Governments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Since we have this discussion in many parts of the world and we are working on that in Europe as well, it would be great, to see (in the next stages of research and follwing publications) if specific differences in the argumentation will lead to more or less intrinsic motivation for recycling (what are personal or social benefits apart from financial aspects?)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The thematic of the research is of great interest and represents a critical issue in waste management. Indeed, the citizen as consumer and waste producer must actively participate in its management starting from its early stages, taking the ecological citizen role. I was expecting to read a scientific manuscript that provides accurate data, numbers, statistical significance, future projections. Please find my specific comments below.
Paragraph 1 (Lines 32-34): Add U.S.A. and 2015.
Line 36: Please explain what contamination means in this context. Explain in one phrase what is the recycling contamination. Are you referring to the waste selective collection quality index?
Line 103. Please explain in one phrase what the attributes of a county recycling coordinator?
Line 109: Explain the acronyms full upon their first appearance in the text (e.g IRB).
Line 122: Please provide the script used in the interviews.
Line 122-130: Please provide data about the number of inhabitants of studied counties? What is the waste generation index? How is the waste selective collection done in that areas (separation on a single fraction- common bins/door to door/commingled etc.? How many bringing points exist in each county? How is the waste collected? Is it a specific weekly schedule? Are there any fees/ taxes/ actions taken in case of an improper selective collection? Are there any benefits that the resident receives in case of proper waste management? How many treatment plants/material recovery facilities are in the area? From how long the recycling/separate collection has been implemented and promoted in the counties that were included in the study?
Table 1: Define high/middle/low recycling rate. And by recycling, I’m meaning selective collection rate. From my point of view, recycling is the process that combines both the collection and treatment stages. Here in this study, as I understood you are referring strictly to the separate collection rate?! The latter should be explained better in the entire manuscript.
Results/Discussion/Conclusion: What are the research outcomes in terms of their applicability supported by mapping/models/strategies expressed in representative unit reference.
Best regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Fig 1 Typology of Municipal Recycling Communication Strategies – First, it is not a figure it’s a table. Then, there is no point to quote statements and the opinions of the participants. Based on research (interviews), the Authors should analyse the participants’ motivations/problems in implementing communication strategies. Then, the Authors should present their opinion on applied communication strategies and describe their characteristics /strengths and weaknesses (in this table).
In last part of the paper (Conclusions) the results should be analysed in order to assess the specificity of the strategies regarding the characteristics of the state that was the subject of the research.
Minor remarks:
Line 109 - the abbreviation IRB should be explained
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I'm satisfied with the modifications made in the revised manuscript and recommend it for publication.
Best regards,
