Up-the-Pipe Solutions: A Best Practice Framework to Engage Communities in Reducing Chemical Contamination in Waste

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After major revisions, this manuscript can be considered for publication.

1. The present investigation lacks noteworthy novelty, and it is crucial to underscore this particular aspect in the manuscript.

2. Authors are urged to furnish a thorough justification for their work, highlighting its originality. This can be accomplished through a comparative analysis with previously published materials that share similar objectives. Moreover, it is imperative for authors to articulate the significance of their work, elucidating why it holds importance in the respective field.

3. The introduction should be precise and stick to the original content.

4. The introduction should be revised. It should deal with environmental challenges such wastewater and soil contamination caused by waste. The introduction can be improved by suggesting appropriate references on wastewater and soil pollution. Chemosphere. 288 (2022) 132403;J. Hazard. Mater. 417 (2021) 126039;  Environ. Res. 207 (2022) 112609

5. In the Conclusion section, succinctly summarize the key findings of your study and elucidate how your work contributes to the field in a manner fundamentally distinct from previous studies. Highlight the unique perspectives or insights that set your research apart and advance the understanding of the subject.

Author Response

Reviewer no 1

 

1. The present investigation lacks noteworthy novelty, and it is crucial to underscore this particular aspect in the manuscript.

Reply: Thank you for this comment. We are not sure what the meaning is so we focused on the criticism of the “novelty” of our study. We agree that we had not fully described the gap that our study tried to fill. We have amended the Intro section to clarify the objective of the study which was to address a gap in methodologies/framework to incorporate social dimensions in community engagement processes.

2. Authors are urged to furnish a thorough justification for their work, highlighting its originality. This can be accomplished through a comparative analysis with previously published materials that share similar objectives. Moreover, it is imperative for authors to articulate the significance of their work, elucidating why it holds importance in the respective field.

Reply: We have amended the Intro section and highlighted the novelty of the outcomes in the Discussion.

3. The introduction should be precise and stick to the original content.

Reply: Thank you for the advice. We have clarified the Introduction section. 

4. The introduction should be revised. It should deal with environmental challenges such wastewater and soil contamination caused by waste. The introduction can be improved by suggesting appropriate references on wastewater and soil pollution. Chemosphere. 288 (2022) 132403;J. Hazard. Mater. 417 (2021) 126039; Environ. Res. 207 (2022) 112609

Reply: Thank you for suggesting these references. We have included the Chemosphere reference by Khan et al. as it does provide background. We have amended the Intro section and provided additional background information.

5. In the Conclusion section, succinctly summarize the key findings of your study and elucidate how your work contributes to the field in a manner fundamentally distinct from previous studies. Highlight the unique perspectives or insights that set your research apart and advance the understanding of the subject.

Reply: We have amended the Conclusion paragraph to emphasize the outcomes from the study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "Up-the-Pipe Solutions: a best practice framework to engage community to reduce chemical contamination in waste" provides a comprehensive examination of the issue of anthropogenic chemical contaminants originating from common household products and their potential impact on the environment. The paper introduces and elaborates upon the "Up-the-pipe Solutions" framework as a novel approach to mitigate the presence of these contaminants in waste streams. Overall, the paper addresses a pressing environmental concern and proposes a well-structured framework for addressing it. However, there are some suggestions for minor revisions and improvements.

 

1. Clarity and Organization:

The paper's structure is generally well-organized, with clear headings and subheadings. However, some sections could benefit from further clarification and coherence. In particular, the connection between the Up-the-pipe Solutions framework and The Natural Step framework could be articulated more explicitly. Additionally, providing a roadmap or overview of the paper's structure in the introduction would enhance reader orientation.

2. Methodology and Case Studies:

While the paper effectively introduces the Up-the-pipe Solutions framework, it would greatly benefit from practical examples or case studies that demonstrate its application. Real-world examples would illustrate how the framework can be implemented and provide a more concrete understanding of its potential impact.

3. Data and Evidence:

The paper makes several claims regarding the presence and risks of anthropogenic chemical contaminants in household waste streams. To strengthen these claims, it is advisable to incorporate relevant data and evidence, such as statistics on the prevalence of specific contaminants or their impact on the environment. This would enhance the paper's credibility and persuasiveness.

4. Community Engagement and Behavioural Change:

The paper emphasizes the importance of community engagement in raising awareness about the consequences of daily activities that lead to contaminant release. To expand on this, consider including strategies or recommendations for fostering behavioural change within communities. Practical insights into how to engage and educate the public would enhance the applicability of the framework.

5. Conclusion and Future Directions:

The paper's conclusion briefly summarizes the key points but could be expanded to provide a more robust synthesis of the findings and implications of the Up-the-pipe Solutions framework. Additionally, it would be beneficial to suggest future research directions or potential policy implications arising from this framework.

6. Language and Grammar:

The paper is generally well-written, but there are minor grammatical and language issues that should be addressed for clarity and readability. Proofreading for typos, consistency in terminology, and sentence structure would improve the overall quality of the paper.

Overall Assessment:

The paper presents a valuable contribution to the understanding of anthropogenic chemical contaminants in household waste streams and proposes a promising framework for addressing this issue. With some minor revisions, including clearer articulation of the framework's relationship with The Natural Step framework, incorporation of practical examples, and the inclusion of relevant data, this paper has the potential to make a significant impact in the field of environmental sustainability. It effectively raises awareness of the issue and highlights the importance of community engagement and behavioural change in mitigating the release of contaminants into waste streams.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is generally well-written, but there are minor grammatical and language issues that should be addressed for clarity and readability. Proofreading for typos, consistency in terminology, and sentence structure would improve the overall quality of the paper.

Author Response

Reviewer #2

The paper titled "Up-the-Pipe Solutions: a best practice framework to engage community to reduce chemical contamination in waste" provides a comprehensive examination of the issue of anthropogenic chemical contaminants originating from common household products and their potential impact on the environment. The paper introduces and elaborates upon the "Up-the-pipe Solutions" framework as a novel approach to mitigate the presence of these contaminants in waste streams. Overall, the paper addresses a pressing environmental concern and proposes a well-structured framework for addressing it. However, there are some suggestions for minor revisions and improvements.

 

1. Clarity and Organization:

The paper's structure is generally well-organized, with clear headings and subheadings. However, some sections could benefit from further clarification and coherence. In particular, the connection between the Up-the-pipe Solutions framework and The Natural Step framework could be articulated more explicitly. Additionally, providing a roadmap or overview of the paper's structure in the introduction would enhance reader orientation.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. The connection between TNS and the ‘Up-the-Pipe Solutions’ is highlighted in the Workstation 3 under Section 3.4. The main element on TNS remains these principles that were included to make the link between TNS and the Up-the-pipe solutions frameworks clearer: “The four system conditions in the sustainable society provided the foundation that underpinned the engagement with the students.”

2. Methodology and Case Studies:

While the paper effectively introduces the Up-the-pipe Solutions framework, it would greatly benefit from practical examples or case studies that demonstrate its application. Real-world examples would illustrate how the framework can be implemented and provide a more concrete understanding of its potential impact.

Reply: There has been low uptake of the Framework mainly due to funding limitations. However, the framework was used successfully in Ireland and details have been included in the Discussion section.

3. Data and Evidence:

The paper makes several claims regarding the presence and risks of anthropogenic chemical contaminants in household waste streams. To strengthen these claims, it is advisable to incorporate relevant data and evidence, such as statistics on the prevalence of specific contaminants or their impact on the environment. This would enhance the paper's credibility and persuasiveness.

Reply: Thank you for this comment, in addition to the first 2 paragraphs of the Introduction section that provide background and highlight households as a key source of chemicals and wastes, we have included further evidence of this issue in a new paragraph in the Introduction with additional references.

4. Community Engagement and Behavioural Change:

The paper emphasizes the importance of community engagement in raising awareness about the consequences of daily activities that lead to contaminant release. To expand on this, consider including strategies or recommendations for fostering behavioural change within communities. Practical insights into how to engage and educate the public would enhance the applicability of the framework.

Reply: Thank you for these relevant suggestions. These aspects were beyond the scope of our study where the objective was to develop and trial the framework. We recognize that the implementation of the outcomes of the workshop is the next step. We have made a few amendment to address these comments and have inserted recommendations for future work at the end of the discussion.

5. Conclusion and Future Directions:

The paper's conclusion briefly summarizes the key points but could be expanded to provide a more robust synthesis of the findings and implications of the Up-the-pipe Solutions framework. Additionally, it would be beneficial to suggest future research directions or potential policy implications arising from this framework.

Reply: We have provided more info in the last paragraph of the Discussion and some recommendations for future follow up work.   

6. Language and Grammar:

The paper is generally well-written, but there are minor grammatical and language issues that should be addressed for clarity and readability. Proofreading for typos, consistency in terminology, and sentence structure would improve the overall quality of the paper.

Reply: Thank you, we have reviewed the manuscript in addition to being reviewed by an English editor- acknowledged.  

Overall Assessment:

The paper presents a valuable contribution to the understanding of anthropogenic chemical contaminants in household waste streams and proposes a promising framework for addressing this issue. With some minor revisions, including clearer articulation of the framework's relationship with The Natural Step framework, incorporation of practical examples, and the inclusion of relevant data, this paper has the potential to make a significant impact in the field of environmental sustainability. It effectively raises awareness of the issue and highlights the importance of community engagement and behavioural change in mitigating the release of contaminants into waste streams.

The paper is generally well-written, but there are minor grammatical and language issues that should be addressed for clarity and readability. Proofreading for typos, consistency in terminology, and sentence structure would improve the overall quality of the paper.

Reply: Thank you for these comments. We agree that the framework provides a platform to engage communities including Māori which as relevance to New Zealand but also in countries with indigenous populations. We appreciate these comments and suggestions as this revised version of our manuscript is much improved. The text has been reviewed by an English editor.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer comments:

Dear authors pay attention to the revisions, addressing each and every comment.

1.    The summary is very general, it does not talk about the most important results and conclusions, nor does it highlight the novelty of the work, nor its scientific contribution. In summary, it is missing to specify which are the high-value products they found.

2.    Limit yourself to the keywords that are requested in the preference guidelines maximum use two words.

3.    Please highlight the most important originalities of the research at the end of the introduction.

4.    I recommend the inclusion of new references. I guess they'll help to increase the visibility of your work. The list is below:

Analysis of the generation of household solid wastes, household hazardous wastes and sustainable alternative handling. Int. J. Sustainable Society, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2012

Published Online:June 18, 2012pp 280-299https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSOC.2012.047282

5.    The title of figures 1 and 3 is very long. The title should be brief and precise. The explanation of the figure must go in the text.

6.    It is recommended to put some numerical data or graphs in the results, it is a lot of text. It seems like just discussion, not results.

7.    There is one parenthesis left over line 364, page 9 and [36], (Figure 3), remove where it is left over and put where it is missing.

8.    There are no conclusions adding to the conclusions.

9.    It is recommended to explain what the contribution of your work was to science, what is the novelty of your work.

 

 Please read the attachment.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Reviewer # 3

Dear authors pay attention to the revisions, addressing each and every comment.

1. The summary is very general, it does not talk about the most important results and conclusions, nor does it highlight the novelty of the work, nor its scientific contribution. In summary, it is missing to specify which are the high-value products they found.

Reply: Thank you for these comments. We have amended the Abstract to address the criticism including a concluding remark on the outcome of the of the research.

2. Limit yourself to the keywords that are requested in the preference guidelines maximum use two words.

Reply: There is one keyword that require 3 words and we feel that this will be addressed with the galley. Thank you.

3. Please highlight the most important originalities of the research at the end of the introduction.

Reply: We inserted a sentence at the end of the Abstract. Thank you for this suggestion.

4. I recommend the inclusion of new references. I guess they'll help to increase the visibility of your work. The list is below:

Analysis of the generation of household solid wastes, household hazardous wastes and sustainable alternative handling. Int. J. Sustainable Society, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2012

Published Online:June 18, 2012pp 280-299https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSOC.2012.047282

Reply: We have included the suggested citation in the Introduction.

5. The title of figures 1 and 3 is very long. The title should be brief and precise. The explanation of the figure must go in the text.

Reply: This is a question of preference as there are 2 schools of thought with one where the figure captions provide the information required as stand alone. This is the case for the 2 figures mentioned. Figure 2 did not require that extent of explanation and details. We prefer the captions as presented.

6. It is recommended to put some numerical data or graphs in the results, it is a lot of text. It seems like just discussion, not results.

Reply: This comment is challenging to address. The study was the development of the framework that as described in the Material & Methods section. The Results is where we ran the framework. This is mainly a Social Science study and there were no data to be analysed so this explains the lack of figures and data.   

7. There is one parenthesis left over line 364, page 9 and [36], (Figure 3), remove where it is left over and put where it is missing.

Reply: Done.

8. There are no conclusions adding to the conclusions.

Reply: We are not sure what this comment refers to but we have amended the last paragraph of the Discussion section that should address the reviewer’s concern.

9. It is recommended to explain what the contribution of your work was to science, what is the novelty of your work.

Reply: Again, we have amended various sections of the manuscript as per comments from other reviewers to highlight the novel aspects of this research and how it advances the field.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Pollutants- 2651981

Up-the Pipe Solutions; a best practice framework to engage community to reduce chemical contaminants.

An interesting piece on educational approaches to affect behavior but lacking details in methods, results and discussion. Specific comments include:

 

Materials and Methods

How was the school survey mentioned under section 3.2 lines 195-205 constructed? How were questions derived? What was the format of the school survey? How was it distributed- random or rational? How was the survey analyzed?

 

Results

Lines 195-205 3.2 school survey – same comments as above. It would be good to include the actual survey as an appendix plus more detailed results.

3.3. the Video lines 208- might want to discuss the video as a source of survey response bias – or was that intended?

3.4 The hui-workshop-

Lines 240 -244 how was the discussion guided?

Overall – was there an evaluation done for any of the workshop segments?

 

Discussion

Discussion should stem from the results of the survey and workshop segments. How did this affect behavior or at least intention? Then how did these results relate to other similar studies.

 

There is no conclusion. What are the limitations of this approach and what further studies or steps are needed?

Author Response

Reviewer # 4

An interesting piece on educational approaches to affect behavior but lacking details in methods, results and discussion. Specific comments include:

 

Materials and Methods

 

How was the school survey mentioned under section 3.2 lines 195-205 constructed? How were questions derived? What was the format of the school survey? How was it distributed- random or rational? How was the survey analyzed?

Reply: Thank you for these comments. The questions were derived from the teams experience and a pilot survey was developed and tested with a science teacher in another school (Tawa College in Wellington). The school survey was printed and distributed by teachers in school assembly with instructions for students to take home and complete with parents or guardians. The size of the school (it is a composite rural school and therefore approx. 200-300 pupils in total) did not enable the ability to randomise participation due to sample size - which was already low. It was a pilot technique for schools to see if a survey would help support the project in engaging more widely with whanau/households.   The low response suggested survey was not a very effective mechanism for engagement. The responses were collated in tables for the school and community to use.

Results

 

Lines 195-205 3.2 school survey – same comments as above. It would be good to include the actual survey as an appendix plus more detailed results.

Reply: We appreciate this comment. The survey was developed in partnership with the Schools and they were given full ownership of the results that were used internally for their purposes. We don’t have their approval to distribute the data. Their reason being that they would be more open if this had been a national initiative involving schools across the country so that their school could not be identified. On the onset, the survey was a pilot not intended to be statistically relevant.

3.3. the Video lines 208- might want to discuss the video as a source of survey response bias – or was that intended?

Reply: Bias is not a relevant concern in this context. The survey and video were intended as tools together to help raise awareness in households. Further, if they were shown after the survey then this approach is not necessary.

3.4 The hui-workshop-

 

Lines 240 -244 how was the discussion guided?

Reply: The process was conducted workshop style with facilitated discussions with key inputs from community and technical experts from the project team. This is based on the concept of a hui, a traditional meeting to facilitate discussions and share experiences.   

Overall – was there an evaluation done for any of the workshop segments?

Reply: Yes, the students were asked to provide feedback that have been summarized in the text and Table 1.

Discussion

 

Discussion should stem from the results of the survey and workshop segments. How did this affect behavior or at least intention? Then how did these results relate to other similar studies.

Reply: These are all very good comments, but the survey data was not intended to be used like this. The project had a limited budget and overall this was a test run of the framework that was done in Kaikoura and subsequently at another location in NZ and in Ireland- we have included outlines of these workshops. We did not have the resources to conduct a formal evaluation post workshop, and nor was the project designed for this.  It was simply to help raise awareness through complimentary activities to engage community in context of the bigger council community engagement for decision making on waste management such as the reuse biosolids.  Some local politicians and businesses did get very involved which was a good indicator of the workshops and interventions having some effect in terms of uptake and raising awareness.

There is no conclusion. What are the limitations of this approach and what further studies or steps are needed?

Reply: The focus was on how the methods/approach used helped us develop/refine useful resources to better engage households, and to test our working hypothesis that schools are good pathways to engage families and households. Refining interactive methods for engagement was the focus. We confirmed that interactive is very important, the limited evaluation and feedback gained on the day was that making products was most popular activity for engagement. These insights have been reflected in the school curriculum resources including the video that have been refined and used since, e.g. the Ireland workshop. We have amended the Conclusion and provided recommendations for future work.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is greatly improved and authors have responded to all reviewer comments.