UK Government Policy and the Transition to a Circular Nutrient Economy
, Shane Rothwell 1, Lynsay Blake 2, Kirsty J. Forber 1, Rachel Marshall 1, Richard Rhodes 3, Claire Waterton 4 and Paul J. A. Withers 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The proposed research problems are significant. The authors takes the UK as a case study in which both the Circular Economy and the management of nutrients are increasingly becoming a focus of policy. They analysed six recent UK Government strategies that have the most direct bearing on developing a Circular Nutrient Economy as an essential component of Circular Economic. The review was informed by an interpretive policy analysis approach.
The article is clear and presented in a well-structured manner. The cited references are current. Figures (1 and 2) and table are appropriate with very ell descriptions. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the preview sections: Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion.
Author Response
Very many thanks for your positive comments, which we copy below. We do not believe that your comments suggest the need for any revisions, and so our response is simply to sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.
Reviewer's comments:
The proposed research problems are significant. The authors takes the UK as a case study in which both the Circular Economy and the management of nutrients are increasingly becoming a focus of policy. They analysed six recent UK Government strategies that have the most direct bearing on developing a Circular Nutrient Economy as an essential component of Circular Economic. The review was informed by an interpretive policy analysis approach.
The article is clear and presented in a well-structured manner. The cited references are current. Figures (1 and 2) and table are appropriate with very ell descriptions. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the preview sections: Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion.
Reviewer 2 Report
GENERAL COMMENTS
This manuscript aims to 6 UK policies and their commitment/contribution to a circular economy, especially with regard to the recovery and maintenance of nutrients. The manuscript is well-written. I only have a few suggestions, as I address below, which I believe should be followed before the article can be ready for publication.
ABSTRACT
Although you abstract gives a fair overview of the context in which the research takes place, I believe you should include a brief definition of what you consider a “circular nutrient economy” and you should also summarize the introduction and provide more results. The “findings” you provide are too vague to call the reader’s attention to want to read the entire article. Keep it concise but try to be more to the point and bring more specific findings to the abstract.
INTRODUCTION
Your introduction is well-versed and I believe it makes justice to your research aims. However, once again, I believe you could be more objective about what you consider a CNE. Please provide a concise definition of what you consider a CNE. It seeps all throughout your introduction, but you should make your case by providing a short definition and making the reader aware of it.
METHODS
The first paragraphs of this section provide an overview or background explaining the methods you used and justifying their use. I believe that is unnecessary. This section should only contain the explanation of how your research was conducted. If it does not fit this purpose, please consider deleting it.
Moreover, please make your methods more systematic. Clearly state, perhaps in bullet points or with the aid of a drawing/scheme, the steps you took while going through the policies, the pieces of information you took from each of them, and how you treated it. It is easier for the reader to understand, and it makes it easier to be replicated. It is all in your text, but you should make it more objective and structure it in a clearer way.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
After page 10, when you break the page because of table 1, the page number starts at 1 again. Please correct it.
The presentation of results and your discussions are well-placed. However, I believe you should be more concise and “to the point” about them. I strongly suggest that you revise and shorten your results and discussions. If possible structure the topics you discuss the same way you did in the conclusions, with the recommendations.
Author Response
We are very grateful for your helpful and constructive comments, and we believe that in responding to them we have improved the quality of the article. We note below how we have revised the article, copying your comments and then providing our response to them, section by section, .
ABSTRACT
Although your abstract gives a fair overview of the context in which the research takes place, I believe you should include a brief definition of what you consider a “circular nutrient economy” and you should also summarize the introduction and provide more results. The “findings” you provide are too vague to call the reader’s attention to want to read the entire article. Keep it concise but try to be more to the point and bring more specific findings to the abstract.
- We have substantially revised the abstract to include a definition of a circular nutrient economy and to provide a more detailed and specific summary of our results.
INTRODUCTION
Your introduction is well-versed and I believe it makes justice to your research aims. However, once again, I believe you could be more objective about what you consider a CNE. Please provide a concise definition of what you consider a CNE. It seeps all throughout your introduction, but you should make your case by providing a short definition and making the reader aware of it.
- We have provided a working definition of a circular nutrient economy immediately after the term is first introduced. We have added a link to a recent paper where this definition can be found. We have also highlighted that there is not currently a commonly-accepted definition of ‘circular nutrient economy’ (making the link to this new reference more important), and have brought forward a reference to a paper that discusses this same problem with regards to ‘circular economy’ more widely.
METHODS
The first paragraphs of this section provide an overview or background explaining the methods you used and justifying their use. I believe that is unnecessary. This section should only contain the explanation of how your research was conducted. If it does not fit this purpose, please consider deleting it.
Moreover, please make your methods more systematic. Clearly state, perhaps in bullet points or with the aid of a drawing/scheme, the steps you took while going through the policies, the pieces of information you took from each of them, and how you treated it. It is easier for the reader to understand, and it makes it easier to be replicated. It is all in your text, but you should make it more objective and structure it in a clearer way.
- While we appreciate the reviewer’s comment that the methods section should only contain an explanation of how the research was conducted, we believe that the first introductory paragraphs to this section are an important part of that explanation. Not all readers will be familiar with IPA as a method, and we think that a basic, limited description of IPA is necessary to enable readers to understand the way that policy and ‘policy artefacts’ are treated using this method. This will enable readers to better understand the results and discussion. However, we have shortened these sections and made them more focused to reflect the reviewer’s comments.
- We have incorporated a numbered list of steps which we followed in conducting the analysis in order to provide a clearer structure to this section and to make our method more replicable. We have also retained some of the detailed description of the method, as much of this would not be suited to inclusion in a list or diagram. We believe that the inclusion of the numbered list provides a systematic context which is complemented by the further detail in the following paragraphs. We are particularly grateful to the reviewer for this suggestion.
- We have also added in-text references for each of the strategies analysed at this point to provide greater consistency with later sections.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
After page 10, when you break the page because of table 1, the page number starts at 1 again. Please correct it.
The presentation of results and your discussions are well-placed. However, I believe you should be more concise and “to the point” about them. I strongly suggest that you revise and shorten your results and discussions. If possible structure the topics you discuss the same way you did in the conclusions, with the recommendations.
- We are aware of the discrepancy with page numbers and have asked the journal editors to resolve the problem, as we are unable to. [Note to editor – please address this problem as requested by the reviewer – many thanks].
- We have revised the results and discussion sections to make them more focused and concise. As requested, the topics are structured in the same way as the recommendations in the conclusions. We have re-ordered one of the recommendations to ensure that the results and discussion sections and conclusions mirror each other exactly. In the results section, we have explicitly noted that each sub-section of the results and discussion relates to a recommendation in the conclusions (with the exception of section 4.1, which relates to two recommendations). We reiterate this in the conclusions, to give a clearer structure to the argument.
