Acceptance of ELV Management: The Role of Social Influence, Knowledge, Attitude, Institutional Trust, and Health Issues
, Rozmi Ismail 1,*, Zurinah Tahir 2, Rizqon Fajar 3, Wiyanti Fransisca Simanullang 4,5, Edward Bantu 6, Karuhanga Samuel 6, Rosniza Aznie Che Rose 2, Muhamad Razuhanafi Mat Yazid 7 and Zambri Harun 8
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
11) Why is the research limit to 309 responses? I don´t understand why pandemic is a problem. Was it not possible to make the questionnaire on-line? Can this sample really be considered enough? Why don´t you try to populate the study with a bigger sample?
22) It is explained the lack of a proper recycling of ELV in some countries but I miss a review about the state of the art of a proper ELV recycling. What should be done? What are currently the best available technologies? I suggest you to read some of these papers:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092134491830137X#!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092134491100245X
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0892687505002967
33) How these challenges were overcome in other countries? Did you look for literature about it?
44) In table 2 the evolution of ELV is shown. Why the number of ELV is multiplied by 2 in only 7 years?
55) Figure 2 represents a flow chart of the methodology. I recommend to remake it and to explain clearly the steps. A real flowchart represents clearly the ways after one or other decision.
66) It should be explained the method used by WARPLS 7.0 to analyze the result. What is the methodology used by the software?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
For the Authors, an ELV is a vehicle that is still in use. Meanwhile, it is common to define an ELV as a vehicle that is no longer used (i.e. according to the EU directive ELV means a vehicle which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard). The Authors define ELVs differently (more as old vehicles) and this definition should be given in the introduction.
The sample of respondents is not representative for the country population as 66% of respondents had master's or doctoral degrees and 88% lived in their own or family house. It should be clearly stated in the paper. Due to the fact that the respondents mostly have higher education their attitude towards ELV management is positive, they support implementation of ELV policy and are aware of health issues. It would be interesting if the Authors could conduct the same survey among people with lower education and compare the results. In conclusions the Authors state that “since this research is limited to JABODETABEK, it cannot describe the acceptance of the ELV policy by the entire Indonesian population”. That is true but also because of the respondent’s education and status, not only because of the place they live.
In table 5 and 6 there is the same question (number 3) but the answers are completely different. Regarding the social acceptance, only 68 respondents agree that important people in government support to implement the ELV policy (120 of them disagree) while regarding the attitude 180 agree that important people in government support to implement the ELV policy (and only 41 disagree), There is no comment on that from the Authors. It could mean that the respondents did not understand the questions.
Other remarks:
Translation of survey questions should be improved.
Lines 35-36 “This increase in the automotive sector also contributes to environmental hunting by contributing to 5% of industrial waste worldwide”. Reference is needed.
Line 37 - Abbreviation (ELV) should be placed directly after the word end-of-life-vehicles.
Lines 41-42 “According to the Organization Internationale des Constructeurs d’Automobiles (OICA) [1], which keeps track of car production and sales.” This sentence relates to the previous or following one? It is not clear and should be corrected.
Line 45 The full name should be given (Association of South-East Asian Nations).
Line 51 “The impact of ELV on health is terrible” The Authors should avoid this kind of expressions.
Line 116 “Like other developing countries, Indonesia still has no landfills for vehicle waste (ELV).” ELV waste should not be landfilled but recycled or recovered. That is why the recovery ratio in EU or Japan is 95%.
Line 304 Table 6 relates to the attitude toward ELV management and not to the effects of each of the variables on the acceptance of ELV.
Line 399 It should be explained that “JABODETABEK” relates to metropolitan area of Jakarta.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript reports the role of social influence, knowledge, attitude, institutional trust, and health issue on the acceptance of end-of-life vehicle management. In my opinion, this manuscript can be accepted with major amendments at Sustainability.
- English writing needs further polish.
- The keywords provided by the authors are mainly derived from the main title. The authors should try to provide some different keywords. This would increase the visibility of the paper by search engines if accepted for publication by the journal.
- The authors should try to bring out what is the originality of the work done and why the results may have a particular interest for the scientific community.
- The quality of all figures must be improved.
- P 13, L 327: 'Figure 2' must be changed to 'Figure 4'.
- The quality of the discussion section must be improved. In so doing, the authors must be organized the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then practice and avoid repetition from the introduction.
- The "literature review" section of the manuscript is poor. It is necessary to compare the results of the present study with previous similar studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the review. I accept the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you Sir/Madam for your advice. all your commend ist valuable and help me to make our work better
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors corrected the text and completed according to the comments provided. The paper can be accepted in present form.
Author Response
Thank you Sir/Madam for your valuable commend. All points that you highlight help me to make our paper sound better.
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised manuscript has addressed my concerns and I agree with its publication after minor revisions in Sustainability.
- The keywords provided by the authors are mainly derived from the main title. The authors should try to provide some different keywords. This would increase the visibility of the paper by search engines if accepted for publication by the journal.
- Ensure that all of the figure's number is cited in the text.
Author Response
Dear sir or madam, am so grateful and thankful for your commend, all your commend very helpful for us to make our work more perfect, due to your final commend here I attach the final version
we add new keywords:
Attitude, end-of-life vehicles, institutional trust, Knowledge, social influence, solid waste management.
we also put cite in all our figure
please kindly check our final version
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
