The First Step of Single-Use Plastics Reduction in Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The examined topic is interesting but the paper has many inconsistencies. I recommend revising it and submitting it to a national journal of Thailand. More specifically:

1. The aim of the study is vague.
2. In line 55, the literature gap is stated and the authors must have meant that this gap exists on a national level. The problem is that there is substantial literature on this topic. For instance, a good practice would be to take into account the studies which helped to raise public awareness in Thailand about paper recycling, aluminum recycling and so forth. I believe that qualitative data from such studies could help reach safe conclusions.
3. The way in which primary data was collected does not allow the generalization of results on the population under study. This kind of data collection would be only suitable for cases that there is no relevant international literature or for cases that the intention is to delve into issues that emerged from the quantitative study. In other words, the conclusions that the authors reach are not safe and represent only the respondents. Expressions used in the conclusions and recommendations should be revised according to this.
4. I advise the authors to conduct a study using structured questionnaire and simple random sampling after having considered the qualitative data of their research along with the international literature. In this way, conclusions will be safe and their research will be able to contribute to the development of science and the reduction of plastic use in Thailand.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have processed the major revision in the manuscript with Microsoft Word "Track Changes" feature. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of the manuscript approach a critical and timely issue in Thailand, a large contributor to global plastics pollution.

The study is original, and would be a contribution to the literature but in its current form is not suitable for publication. Therefore, I recommend a major revision along the following priorities:

1) the study should be more clearly nested in the literature. Specifically another paragraph or two is needed that contextualize(s) previous approaches to plastics across scales (subnational to international)

2) the methods section needs to be more specific. What design considerations were made in the research design process? What biases might the formulation of questions and the targeted interview population result in? Who was interviewed, and who refused? How was content analysis performed (i.e. how many coders, inter-rater reliability estimates, etc...)? How were main coded themes "discovered"?

3) A discussion of introduced biases is needed based on the methodology chosen.

4) How were the policy recommendations formulated? These recommendations do not seem to be nested in current legislative frameworks, laws enacted, etc. in Thailand. Is that by design? National, and perhaps subnational policy approaches must have been implemented, and not mentioning these is a gap in this section of the manuscript. If such approaches have not been implemented, this should be stated.

5) throughout the manuscript and in the results, the authors should provide some comparisons with other countries to serve and inform a larger number of potential readers from academics to policy makers

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. 

We have done the major revision and rearranged the manuscript to be more precise and easier for readers with references added. All revisions are marked using Microsoft Word "Track Changes" feature. 

Best regards  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I suggest one section should be added before section 4 to summarize the inferences drawn from data, before moving on to policy recommendation.

Secondly, the argument should be more cogent and convincing. As of now, it needs improvement in that aspect.

Thirdly, the section numbering (e.g. 4.1.2 in section 3) needs to be rectified.

Idea is good but authors must articulate  "What is new" and answer the question "So what" for all stakeholders including practitioners, academicians besides policy makers and regulators 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. 

We have done the major revision and rearranged the manuscript to be more precise and easier for readers with references added. All revisions are marked using Microsoft Word "Track Changes" feature. 

Best regards  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I can see that this paper has been improved and is now a well-written manuscript that focuses on an interesting topic that has been attracting a lot of debate. For this reason, I recommend the acceptance of the paper.