Governance Assessment of Community-Based Waste Reduction Program in Makassar

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The MS reported on the governance assessment of community based reduction waste programs in a city from Indonesia. The authors concluded that the policy implementation was limited, analyzed the possible reasons, and proposed the potential improvement directions. In my opinion, the MS was well-designed and well-written, I agree with the publication of this article in present form. Congratulation to authors!

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Please see the attachment

 

Kind regards,

Michael D Latanna

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This research proposed community-based reduction waste programs for a region in Indonesia. There are some concerns related to this manuscript of this research, that should be addressed them.

1.      Please revise the title of the manuscript. One of the names of the region or country in the title is sufficient. For example, in the title, write only Indonesia or the name of the region.

2.      The abstract section is good.

3.     Please bring clear explanations regarding the innovation and main contributions of this research in the introduction section.

4.     Please add a paragraph at the last of the Introduction section as the "rest of the paper". In that paragraph, the author should briefly explain what will be presented in each section. The author can see similar examples in published scientific articles. Because in all articles, the last paragraph is related to the rest of the paper description.

5.      The references are old! There are no references from 2022 and 2023! We are now in the second half of 2023. The authors should review newly published papers related to the waste management field. The following references are related to waste management that authors can read and use to update references.

- "Assessment of sustainable waste management alternatives using the extensions of the base criterion method and combined compromise solution based on the fuzzy Z-numbers." Environmental Science and Pollution Research 30.22 (2023): 62121-62136.

- "Sustainable resilient recycling partner selection for urban waste management: Consolidating perspectives of decision-makers and experts." Applied Soft Computing 137 (2023): 110120.

6.     Research methodology and discussions are good.

7.     The limitations of this research can be discussed more in the conclusion section.

8.     Please focus on the future direction in the last of the conclusion section.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Please see the attachment

 

Kind regards,

Michael D Latanna

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments to the author(s)

Manuscript id.: sustainability-2543257

Title of the manuscript: Governance Assessment of Community Based Reduction Waste Programs in Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia

There are some comments, which are to be incorporated in order to improve the manuscript, as given below:

* The manuscript's title should be rigorously revised in order to justify the study.

Introduction

*Hypothesis of the work is not well formulated in the ‘Introduction’ section. The authors did not present a novel justification for carrying out this study. What is the hypothesis of the present study?

*It is insufficient and needs more improvement.

*The novelty of the work must be identified and stated more carefully. The authors have to try to explain why this paper is relevant to the wider readership.

*Authors should show the limitations of previous papers.

Results

*Figure 2, quality should be improved.

*Result should be written in concise way.

Discussion

*Need more improvement. It is too superficial and not a meaningful discussion. Author should try to strengthen the discussion part.

*Put reason why this type of result is obtained.

Conclusions

*Authors need to rephrase the "Conclusions" section.

*Add some limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future scope of study.

*Overall, the manuscript needs extensive language editing and formatting. There are so many typography mistakes in the manuscript.

*Put some recent references in the study.

Recommendation: Major revision and extensive language editing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Please see the attachment

 

Kind regards,

Michael D Latanna

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All my concerns have been resolved.