The Moderating Effect of Perceived Policy Effectiveness in Residents’ Waste Classification Intentions: A Study of Bengbu, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The design of the study is interesting and could potentially further current understanding of Moderating Effect of Perceived Policy Effectiveness on Residents' Waste Classification Intention. However, the paper would need more work to reach this stage. I outline the areas that would deserve further discussion or clarification below.

1. The abstract should report the main research findings
2. The hypothesis of the moderating effect is presented in an incomplete form.
3. As a random samplesurvey, I did not find the details of the recruitment process of participants, the distribution and collection of questionnaires.
4. Structural equation models dealing with regulatory effects are not very popular.  In addition, the analysis of the moderating effect should be represented by more detailed line segment diagrams.
5. The conclusion need to explain why the results were presented the way they were, or what the academic significance of the results was. This research needs more engages in theoretical dialogue and reflection.

Author Response

We carefully read and studied all your questions and suggestions, and modified the paper accordingly. Thank you for your time. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in the current form 

Author Response

Thank you for your time. We carefully checked the manuscript again for grammatical errors, readability, etc.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have reviewed the article entitled “The Moderating effect of perceived policy effectiveness on residents’ waste classification intention: a study of Bengu, China”. It’s a good effort but need some major revisions before final submission

Abstract: the findings of the study are summarized in a single and simple sentence which is not justifiable. You need to elaborate some of your findings in a systematic way.

Introduction: the language used in introduction is not scientific and not understand able. It seems that the paragraphs are plagiarism free through some software’s either or via internet sources which is not acceptable at any stance.

Line 69-70: only few studies are investigating. Mention those studies with complete citation.

Methodology: methodology is too wordy with various unnecessary information. Its needed to rewrite by eliminating that information. Arial view of study site is missing in this section which is needed.

 Results: result section consisting only simple tables with no graphical representation.

Discussion: discussion is poorly written. The needful is to add some more relevant and strong material in this section.

Conclusion: the conclusion should be brief and concise. Not too wordy.

Overall manuscript is required for grammar check.

Author Response

We carefully read and studied all your questions and suggestions, and modified the paper accordingly. Thank you for your time. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Some of my concerns have been addressed, howerver, the conclusion and discussion section still needs improving. The section needs to explain why the results were presented the way they were, or what the academic significance of the results was. This research needs more engages in theoretical dialogue and reflection.

Author Response

                       Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Some of my concerns have been addressed, however, the conclusion and discussion section still needs improving. The section needs to explain why the results were presented the way they were, or what the academic significance of the results was. This research needs more engages in theoretical dialogue and reflection.

Response :

(1)We reorganize the conclusion and discussion section.  

This study contributes to the existing literature in three aspects. First, it is one of the first papers to explore the psychological predictors of waste classification intentions in the rural and urban areas of China. Previous studies mainly deal with macro social-demographic determinants within a single area (Pan et al., 2017; Tian et al.,2019).  Second, our study expands the previous research using the TPB Model by integrating it with the NAT and the NAM model. Specifically, the paper includes variables “Awareness of Consequences” and “Perceived Policy Effectiveness“ to analyze residents' waste classification intentions based on data for Bengbu (China). Third, the paper signals that the Perceived Policy Effectiveness has a negative impact on the link between Awareness of Consequence and Waste Classification Intentions.

（2）Specifically, we explain what the academic significance of the results was and add more theoretical dialogue and reflection in the section. For more details please look into the revised manuscript.

 （3）We have further proofread and corrected the grammar and text of the whole paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have reviewed the revised manuscript and the authors have addressed the concerns and updated the manuscript accordingly.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

Thanks again for your time and we will double-check the manuscript.

All the best,

Xin

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The author made several revisions and I think there is still much room for improvement. Nevertheless, it can be recommended for publication.