Consumer-based actions to reduce plastic pollution in rivers: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach

Luca Marazzi; Steven Loiselle; Lucy G. Anderson; Stephen Rocliffe; Debbie J. Winton

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236410

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 5, 2020
9 Mar 2020 Decision Letter - Vassilis G. Aschonitis, Editor PONE-D-20-03363 Consumer-Based Actions to Reduce Plastic Pollution in Rivers: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Marazzi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 20 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Vassilis G. Aschonitis Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional information on participant consent to take part in the study, and whether consent was written or verbal. We also note that some of the participants appear to be named in the Acknowledgements - please clarify whether these individuals explicitly consented to be named in the Acknowledgements. 3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section: "Lucy Anderson and Stephen Rocliffe were funded for this work by Earthwatch as external collaborators. ". We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: 'Earthwatch Institute and Independent research consultant, Bath'. 1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.” If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. 2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. * Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The manuscript uses a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to contextualise and prioritise actions related to plastic pollution. In addition, plastic reduction consumer-based actions using SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis were explored. The article is well organized and written and gives adequate references to related work. Figures and tables are helpful to resume the text. The goals of the study are clearly formulated, the technical procedures (MCDA analysis etc) are well described. The results are adequate and presented in a clear manner. Overall, the paper is of general interest. However, some points should be better explained. Specific comments • Did the authors consider any barriers or constrains of the for the MCDA? Please comment. • Did the authors notice any conflicts in customer actions in the MCDA? • Some data for uncertainty of the input data to the MCDA method selection rules should be added in the manuscript. • The findings are not compared with similar studies in the open literature. Please comment. • Page, lines 212-235: this paragraph should be re-written by describing the scores with a more effective way. • I would suggest the authors to include a figure or diagram describing the main steps of the methodology used. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236410.r001
Revision 1
14 May 2020 Author Response Dear Dr. Aschonitis Thank you again for the constructive review and the opportunity to submit our revised manuscript. In the following paragraphs, we describe the revisions made to our manuscript, PONE-D-20-03363, with respect to the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewer. We have followed all the suggestions and we thank the reviewer for their constructive comments and ideas to further improve our manuscript. We have also made some other minor changes to enhance the readability of the text; all the changes made are marked in the version with tracked changes. Reviewer #1: The manuscript uses a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to contextualise and prioritise actions related to plastic pollution. In addition, plastic reduction consumer-based actions using SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis were explored. The article is well organized and written and gives adequate references to related work. Figures and tables are helpful to resume the text. The goals of the study are clearly formulated, the technical procedures (MCDA analysis etc) are well described. The results are adequate and presented in a clear manner. Overall, the paper is of general interest. However, some points should be better explained. Specific comments 1) Did the authors consider any barriers or constraints of the … for the MCDA? Please comment. Authors’ response: Thank you for this suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we added a discussion point on how MCDA has limitations and other techniques could be used to integrate additional information in future studies. “Although MCDA is a commonly used method in various disciplines, it presents some limitations linked to, for example, the meaning of the weights and scores of the individual criteria, the validity of the aggregate multi-attribute value function, and the use of a single score to adequately characterize a complex situation44. Therefore, more work is needed to expand and strengthen the evidence base on the effectiveness, practicality, and environmental impacts of different plastic pollution reduction actions. This can be done by using alternative and/or complementary methodologies to MCDA (e.g. Life Cycle Assessment) to obtain additional environmental impact information45, to assess unassessed actions (see Table S4), and to generate a broader picture of what people can do to reduce plastic pollution. Here, we excluded bioplastics (i.e. plastic materials produced from renewable biomass sources, such as vegetable fats and oils, corn starch, and recycled food waste) from our analysis of possible actions, as benefits and environmental costs of these materials have yet to be fully determined46. It is therefore a priority to generate new insights into viability and sustainability of alternative products, materials, and options so that researchers, policymakers, and citizens can all do their part in tackling the growing environmental and societal challenge represented by plastic pollution.” 2) Did the authors notice any conflicts in customer actions in the MCDA? Authors’ response: We included a short discussion on how most actions are complementary to one another and they add up to reducing plastic waste. We note that some actions are alternative to one another because they relate to choosing between different types of non-plastic toothbrush or straw. “Consumer-based actions are limited for some of the key plastic items; for example, most consumers can only dispose correctly of food wrappers, cigarette butts and cigarette packaging to reduce plastic pollution. However, recycling schemes are emerging that can recycle food wrappers and cigarette waste (e.g. Terracycle®), although their economic feasibility and sustainability have not been well documented. While most actions are complementary to one another and they add up to reducing plastic waste and thus pollution, a few actions are alternative to one another because they deal with using a reusable product made from different materials (e.g. for straws and toothbrushes).” 3) Some data for uncertainty of the input data to the MCDA method selection rules should be added in the manuscript. Authors’ response: We included an improved explanation in the Methods and Discussion on how ranking scores 1-5 were determined (literature review), their uncertainty and the need for further study. [Methods] (2) Twelve professionals working on plastics pollution in research, engagement or business and three authors (i.e. LM, SL, and DJW) assigned a weight (%) to each criterion based on a total weight of 100% per expert. The median weights were calculated for each criterion and the uncertainty around each median weight was determined using the interquartile range (Table 1). (3) We assigned scores, from 1 to 5, to each action based on available data related to their immediate and potential environmental impact, for example, the volume of different single-use items potentially reduced by that action (Table S2). Higher scores represent actions that have a higher positive impact (e.g. feasibility) to reduce plastic pollution or lower financial or environmental impacts (Table 1). Where no prior research was available, we assigned a score of ‘1’ (very low). [Discussion] “Although MCDA is a commonly used method in various disciplines, it presents some limitations linked to, for example, the meaning of the weights and scores of the individual criteria, the validity of the aggregate multi-attribute value function, and the use of a single score to adequately characterize a complex situation44. Therefore, more work is needed to expand and strengthen the evidence base on the effectiveness, practicality, and environmental impacts of different plastic pollution reduction actions. This can be done by using alternative and/or complementary methodologies to MCDA (e.g. Life Cycle Assessment) to obtain additional environmental impact information45, to assess unassessed actions (see Table S4), and to generate a broader picture of what people can do to reduce plastic pollution.” 4) The findings are not compared with similar studies in the open literature. Please comment. Authors’ response: Our MCDA analysis was built upon the latest quantitative studies around individual consumer plastic waste items. We are not aware of a similar study comparing the relative opportunities and challenges around different consumer, business and policy actions to address consumer plastic waste, hence not referencing similar analyses in the discussion. We are aware of a recent MCDA study to evaluate end-of-life management options for plastic fishing gear (e.g. see Deshpande et al. 2020) and an opinion piece arguing the need for consumer, business and governance actions in a study of plastic waste in marine and coastal environments (see Vince & Hardesty, 2016). However, these studies do not quantify actions to reduce consumer plastic waste so it is not possible to make direct comparisons. 5) Page, lines 212-235: this paragraph should be re-written by describing the scores with a more effective way. Authors’ response: We revised the paragraph and re-ordered Table 1 columns for better clarity. “(3) We assigned scores, from 1 to 5, to each action based on available data related to their immediate and potential environmental impact, for example, the volume of different single-use items potentially reduced by that action (Table S2). Higher scores represent actions that have a higher positive impact (e.g. feasibility) to reduce plastic pollution or lower financial or environmental impacts (Table 1). Where no prior research was available, we assigned a score of ‘1’ (very low).” 6) I would suggest the authors to include a figure or diagram describing the main steps of the methodology used. Authors’ response: Thank you for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we added a diagram of the main steps to the approach (Fig 1). Figure 1. Summary of the different steps of our analyses: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Strengths Weaknesses Threats and Opportunities (SWOT) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Marazzi_et al. PONE-D-20-03363 - Response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236410.r002
8 Jul 2020 Decision Letter - Vassilis G. Aschonitis, Editor Consumer-Based Actions to Reduce Plastic Pollution in Rivers: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach PONE-D-20-03363R1 Dear Dr. Marazzi, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Vassilis G. Aschonitis Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The manuscript has been improved taking into consideration the reviewers' suggestions. All comments have been addressed. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236410.r003
Formally Accepted
6 Aug 2020 Acceptance Letter - Vassilis G. Aschonitis, Editor PONE-D-20-03363R1 Consumer-Based Actions to Reduce Plastic Pollution in Rivers: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach Dear Dr. Marazzi: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Vassilis G. Aschonitis Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236410.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .