Circular Economy Concept at the Micro-Level: A Case Study of Taruna Mukti Farmer Group, Bandung Regency, West Java, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for your contribution about circular economy adoption at micro level.

Some comments are below reported with the intention to improve the manuscript.

·      Introduction:

o   It is suggested to insert additional references to justify the different sentences and also the research objective

o   Moreover, it could be better explained the theoretical background of the research. For instance, the sentence “Circularity validation of dairy farm waste management can be 43 based on Circular Performance Indicators (CPIs). The CPIs consist of a short list of indicators which are based on the three circular economy principles” could be better explained in terms of the type of indicators used and the three principles mentioned. Where do they come from? Which one have been selected for the validation?

·      Materials and Methods

o   It could be useful for the reader to better explain the reason why it was chosen the interpretative Structural Modeling approach and the MIMAC method (also it is suggested to explain all the acronyms used).

o   It is suggested to justify the reason why it was chosen this specific case study for the validation and who were the respondents. In addition, usually the validation could be done based on more than one case study.

o   It is suggested to specify where the scores come from.

o   It is suggested to better specify how the assessment of the influences have been carried out

o   It is suggested to provide at least an example of the questionnaire demands.

·      Results and discussion

o   This part is well articulated although the structure should be anticipated when describing the indicators investigated and validated

·      Conclusions

o   It is suggested to clarify what has been validated and what are the theoretical and practical implications of this study.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your insightful comments, we are really appreciated.

We already response your comments and improve the manuscript.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

 

Best,

Authors

 

• Introduction:

o   It is suggested to insert additional references to justify the different sentences and also the research objective

 

Already revised, reference has been added

 

o   Moreover, it could be better explained the theoretical background of the research. For instance, the sentence “Circularity validation of dairy farm waste management can be 43 based on Circular Performance Indicators (CPIs). The CPIs consist of a short list of indicators which are based on the three circular economy principles” could be better explained in terms of the type of indicators used and the three principles mentioned. Where do they come from? Which one have been selected for the validation?

 

 

Already revised, supporting explanation has been added

 

 

• Materials and Methods

o   It could be useful for the reader to better explain the reason why it was chosen the interpretative Structural Modeling approach and the MIMAC method (also it is suggested to explain all the acronyms used).

 

Already revised, the rationale for using ISM and MICMAC has been explained

 

 

 

o   It is suggested to justify the reason why it was chosen this specific case study for the validation and who were the respondents. In addition, usually the validation could be done based on more than one case study.

 

Already revised, research focuses more on identifying circular economy indicators based on CPIs

 

 

 

 

o   It is suggested to specify where the scores come from.

 

Already revised

 

o   It is suggested to better specify how the assessment of the influences have been carried out

 

Already revised

 

 

o   It is suggested to provide at least an example of the questionnaire demands.

 

The questionnaire has been attached

 

•  

Results and discussion

o   This part is well articulated although the structure should be anticipated when describing the indicators investigated and validated

 

Already revised

 

 

• Conclusions

o   It is suggested to clarify what has been validated and what are the theoretical and practical implications of this study. (Disarankan untuk mengklarifikasi apa yang telah divalidasi dan apa implikasi teoretis dan praktis dari penelitian ini) Poin9

 

Already revised, “... Based on the research it is known that the results of identifying indicators on the CPIS get an average score of 2.57 with achievement level value of 85.5% (very good). The re-sults of the MICMAC analysis show the key indicator in the CPIs of livestock waste management in Taruna Mukti Farmer Group is addition-al income/income from the processing of livestock waste (C1)...”

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented study is very thoroughly processed and provides an interesting insight into the issue of the circular economy in the field of diary farming. It is very easy to read for the reader, the procedures are always well described and the conclusions justified.

Table 3 shows an overview of indicators divided into three categories. Individual indicators are then labeled A1..A14. Although these markings are introduced, they are not systematically used in the following text, for example table 4. It would be more appropriate to change the marking so that it also reflects the group from which it originates. Eg A1..A5, B1..B4, C1..C5.

This would highlight the importance of individual categories in other tables and results.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your insightful comments, we are really appreciated.

We already response your comments and improve the manuscript.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

 

Best,

Authors

 

The presented study is very thoroughly processed and provides an interesting insight into the issue of the circular economy in the field of diary farming. It is very easy to read for the reader, the procedures are always well described and the conclusions justified

Already revised, conclusions have been improved

Table 3 shows an overview of indicators divided into three categories. Individual indicators are then labeled A1..A14. Although these markings are introduced, they are not systematically used in the following text, for example table 4. It would be more appropriate to change the marking so that it also reflects the group from which it originates. Eg A1..A5, B1..B4, C1..C5

This would highlight the importance of individual categories in other tables and results.

Already revised, the indicator label has been fixed