The Tragedy of the Nurdles: Governing Global Externalities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, the manuscript provides an introduction to the issue of nurdles and their impact on the environment. However, the logical coherence needs to be significantly improved, especially that many contents in introduction needs to serve in results. The abstract is not very clear and needs improvements. For example, please point out why fracking is and why it is a controversial practice. The authors mentioned Bloomington School, but didn't provide any explanation of why it is relevant to the issues of nurdles. It needs more examples of how nurdles pollute waterways and harm wildlife (and maybe human). What are your solutions to the issues of nurdles? The use of Dutch Shell Cracker is a case study in the manuscript, but the implications need to be strengthened.
Author Response
[Comment] Overall, the manuscript provides an introduction to the issue of nurdles and their impact on the environment.
However, the logical coherence needs to be significantly improved, especially that many contents in introduction needs to serve in results.
[Response] I believe that we have sufficiently achieved this. And Reviewers #2 and #3 appear to agree.
After incorporating the other comments, our scan finds better logical coherence.
[Comment] The abstract is not very clear and needs improvements. For example, please point out why fracking is and why it is a controversial practice.
[Response] Second and third line edited. Better defines terms and importance.
[Comment] Abstract. The authors mentioned Bloomington School, but didn't provide any explanation of why it is relevant to the issues of nurdles. It needs more examples of how nurdles pollute waterways and harm wildlife (and maybe human). What are your solutions to the issues of nurdles?
[Response] First, shifted around the language about polycentricity from the end of the abstract to this section.
Second, that amount of detail would expand the abstract beyond the purposes of what an abstract is supposed to direct the reader to.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper and topic addressed are relevant and interesting
The title is too generic and it does not evidence the focus of paper, which is yes, nurdles, but what aspectof the tragedy? it is mostly about regulation (how to address it) and not only decscribing the tragedy. I strongly reccommend to improve the title
while the paper claims to explore the topic generally, in some points specifically refers to USA situation. Please specify clerly from the beginning if the paper refers to USA only, if not, please modify points where USA context is taken for granted (i.e. lines 353-361, lines 424 -429, lines447 - 452, lines 486 - 494)
In some points references would be needed (i.e. line 30-32, line 38 - 42, line 108-111, line 111-113, lines 417-423, line 511, line533)
Line 13 addressed?
Line 35: nurdles are not only produced from ethan gases in crackers, mostly? or in USA?
Line 27 and line 45 repetition
Line 49 maybe there is a missing subject of sentence?
line 58 they to wht refers to? to unclear
line 87-89 is not clear
line 102 why controintuitively? who affirms the contrary?
Even if the methodology was named, I think the paper would benefit of some more details on how the review was conducted. whre sources come from? why a theory was selected over others, how? where info come from? how documents and info were analysed?
line 235: offers a solution, but at the end no solution is presented, please specify 'offer an oportunity?'
line 318: were polycentric approaces explained earlier on? plese give more context or refrence
Paragraph 5.3 in the first part I am missing the point: is it to review existing policy solutions, or to list hypotetical solutions (on what criteria, all posible ones? just examples?
line 551, point a is unclear, need to be reformulated
line 562-564: it seems a strong statement
line 582: this is an interesting part dedicated to examples on citizien involvement, I suggest to give more space or more detail or more references
line 595 How did you come to conclude7state that on the basis of the abovementioned examples?
Author Response
[Comment] The paper and topic addressed are relevant and interesting. The title is too generic and it does not evidence the focus of paper, which is yes, nurdles, but what aspect of the tragedy? it is mostly about regulation (how to address it) and not only describing the tragedy. I strongly recommend to improve the title
[Response] From “The Tragedy of the Nurdles” to “The Tragedy of the Nurdles: Governing Global Externalities”
[Comment] while the paper claims to explore the topic generally, in some points specifically refers to USA situation. Please specify clearly from the beginning if the paper refers to USA only, if not, please modify points where USA context is taken for granted (i.e. lines 353-361, lines 424 -429, lines447 - 452, lines 486 - 494)
[Response] Updated in like 37 to reflect this is indeed an American situation.
[Comment] In some points references would be needed (i.e. line 30-32, line 38 - 42, line 108-111, line 111-113, lines 417-423, line 511, line533)
We have added references, thanks for this suggestion.
[Comment] Line 13 addressed?
[Response] Yes. It is addressed in the main text. See paragraph beginning on line 43.
[Comment] Line 35: nurdles are not only produced from ethan gases in crackers, mostly? or in USA?
We clarified that nurdles are not only produced with ethane from shale – thanks for pointing this out.
[Comment] Line 27 and line 45 repetition
[Response] I can understand why it seems repetitive, but I believe it’s necessary for the narrative.
[Comment] Line 49 maybe there is a missing subject of sentence?
We revised the sentence.
[Comment] line 58 they to what refers to? to unclear
[Response] changed to “these global externalities.”
[Comment] line 87-89 is not clear
We edited for clarity.
[Comment] line 102 why controintuitively? who affirms the contrary?
[Response] I don’t see what the reviewer is referring to in this line.
[Comment] Even if the methodology was named, I think the paper would benefit of some more details on how the review was conducted.
[Response] Ilia, I was not as involved in the analyses as the two of you.
[Comment] where sources come from?
[Response] We provided more references on the theory and methods, as well as explain why we focused on the Bloomington school perspective.
[Comment] why a theory was selected over others, how?
[Response] Please see the comment above.
[Comment] where info come from? how documents and info were analyzed?
[Response] We added additional information about the case analysis.
[Comment] line 235: offers a solution, but at the end no solution is presented, please specify 'offer an opportunity?'
[Response] Agreed. Adjusted
[Comment] line 318: were polycentric approaches explained earlier on? please give more context or reference
[Response] yes, but even then, I believe we provide enough elaboration throughout the paper.
[Comment] Paragraph 5.3 in the first part I am missing the point: is it to review existing policy solutions, or to list hypothetical solutions (on what criteria, all possible ones? just examples?
[Response] At the end of the paragraph, added “And polycentric approaches provide the most optimal pathways for constructive experimentation.”
[Comment] line 551, point a is unclear, need to be reformulated
[Response] We revised as suggested. Thanks for this comment.
[Comment] line 562-564: it seems a strong statement
[Response] Adjusted to add more nuance.
[Comment] line 582: this is an interesting part dedicated to examples on citizien involvement, I suggest to give more space or more detail or more references
[Response] We agree and added a reference.
[Comment] line 595 How did you come to conclude7state that on the basis of the abovementioned examples?
[Response] Provided nuance by adjusting the content as followed “they are challenged to do so without appropriate vehicles for inputs from citizens. The coproductive nature of the global externalities problem and of its solutions means that any program or policy that disregards or crowds out private entrepreneurship and citizen participation will likely exacerbate the problem.”
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript entitled “The Tragedy of the Nurdles” related to global environmental disaster. the authors focused on stating the large-scale productive of plastics worldwide, and summaries the negative environmental impacts as well as the externalities that are difficult to contain and address within a fixed geographical boundary governed by a static jurisdictional authority. The authors, reported the need for centralized and global solutions, which must include detailed information, laws and policy, that should be internationally applied in a co-operative mode. This issue is important for each person in the world. The manuscript is well organized with systematic establishment design. This manuscript will be highly interested for the sustainability journal readers. I advise for acceptance in its present form.
Author Response
Many thanks for your comments. The manuscript has been revised and we believe is even more effective now in communicating our argument.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for your replies, I think your manuscript has been improved. still, i find some difficulties in understanding the methodology you applied, that I suggest to clarify, in particular the following comment andyour rely was not completeed. tanks
[Comment] Even if the methodology was named, I think the paper would benefit of some more details on how the review was conducted.
[Response] Ilia, I was not as involved in the analyses as the two of you.
Author Response
Many thanks for this comment. We have added to our discussion of the methods, including why we relied on desk research and why we chose the Dutch Shell cracker plant. We have also revised the manuscript for clarity and conclude with a call for additional research on governance of nurdles. We appreciate these insights and the previous comments, both of which improved the quality of our manuscript.
