In My Backyard? Discussing the NIMBY Effect, Social Acceptability, and Residents’ Involvement in Community-Based Solid Waste Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please read the attachment. Thank you.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for submitting you paper for susytanability. This is a well-written paper that explore an experience in Belo Horizonte city, Brazil, in which an ecosystem of cooperation was formed by a waste pickers cooperative, a collective of urban agroecology activists, an alliance of social actors including a university, NGOs and MBOs, and a local community in a collaborative experience of zero waste integrating waste pickers. There are many aspects that need to be addressed by the authors.
1. The introduction must include the importance of this work can be highlighted at the end of the introduction. Also, the novelty of this paper should be further justified by highlighting main contributions to the existing literature. Additionally, the authors need to to provide clear research question(s) or objectives.
2. The introduction is too long. The authors need to include sub-section (i.e. significance of the study, research problem etc).
3. The authors need to justify the use of "a posteriori reflection on interventions" as the main methodology of this paper.
4. The authors need to include a paragraph at the end of the introduction section to show the structure of the paper.
5. The authors are advised to include a figure highlights the stages of data collection process.
6. The result section is too long. The authors need to separate the results from the discussion.
7. The practical implications should be highlighted and reported clearly after the discussion section.
8. The conclusion section is missed as well as research limitation and future work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The review topic is really interesting and the manuscript is well-written. Therefore, the manuscript has some problems that are listed below:
1) Please, define the abbreviation in the text such as NIMBY, NGOs, and MBOs.
2) The abstract is too confusing. Please, rewrite it. What is the novelty of your study? What is the impact of your work? The results are poorly shown in the abstract. Why does it write in the future? (e.g., We will see and we will present)
3) Introduction. What is the novelty of your study? What is the aim? The authors should improve the discussion of similar studies to improve the discussion of your study.
4) The authors should reduce the length of the paper. It is too long and loses focus because of it.
5) Figures 1,2,3,4 should be added in English.
6) The decimal separation is “.” instead of “,”. Please modify it in the text and mostly in Table 3.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have corrected and answered my comments and questions.
The reviewer suggests the manuscript be accepted for publication.
Thank you for reading.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for all your contributions. It is here attached the last version of the article, with some minor English grammar revisions recommended by the academic editor.
Kind regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for resubmitting the revised version of your research paper. The paper has enhanced significantly after addressing the reviewers' comments. I am satisfied with the current version.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for all your contributions. It is here attached the last version of the article, with some minor English grammar revisions recommended by the academic editor.
Kind regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
