Public Participation and Information Disclosure for Environmental Sustainability of 2022 Winter Olympics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article contains a lot of interesting elements. However, some aspects should be taken into account for improving it. 

Keywords:

A part of the words have been chosen correctly, but the second part repeats the title.

 

Abstract:

Abstract is correct.

 

In terms of literature:  

Please expand your literature review in terms of public participation, its role, importance, types etc. The description in chapter 3.1 and 3.3. is too short (insufficient). The importance of public participation is constantly growing. It would be good to discuss ICT tools (types, uses) more widely. Maybe it would be worth referring to social/public participation, ICT and sustainable development in the context of the smart city concept? It can enrich the description of the analyzed phenomenon and interest a larger numbers of readers.

 

Introduction:

Introduction is correct. More information in the section “In terms of literature”. 

 

Materials and methods:

Data collections:

Please, provide an introduction with a brief information about a research method (type of the research: quali-, quantitative, case studies etc, whether the research sample was randomly chosen or not, single and/or multiple choice questions, etc.)

Lines 115-116: Did all respondents receive  the same questions?

Lines 117-119: Was testing the questionnaire design on 5 experts and 12 inhabitants sufficient? What distinguished the experts from the residents? Who were the experts?

Is 650 residents a sufficient research sample for the entire population of the area?  It should be explain much better why the sample size is statistically enough for research purposes.

Finally, you should have attached survey questionnaire, that is, each sections of questions which are later posed and discuss in Results.

In the "Materials and Methods" chapter (2.2. Data analysis), it is worth mentioning the statistical analysis used (Spearman, Pearson correlations) and the Likert scale.

 

Results:

At the beginning of the Results chapter, there should be a short introduction, which will present the division of test results into the main sections.

Lines 281-282: “Trust is a desirable Chinese traditional cultural value. Compared with Western societies such as the United States, Chinese societies are low-trust societies”. Literature source needed.

 

Conclusions and Implication:

I have no major objections to the conclusion part. A short chapter “Discussion” is missing. The Discussion chapter should contain answers to research questions. The Discussion chapter can be separated from the Conclusions and Implication chapter and supplemented/extended. Reference should be made to similar studies contained in world literature (with reference to sources). This would be a good complement to the manuscript.

Lines 444-445, Authors wrote: “This study has theoretical implications and contributes to the burgeoning literature surrounding the Olympic Games by providing an in-depth analysis of public participation in relation to the theory.” Therefore, the article should briefly present the existing situation / literature review regarding the above issue, in order to include the contribution of this publication in it. It can enrich the description of the analyzed phenomenon and interest a larger numbers of readers. It should be short described how the presented research can be translate into good management in other parts of the world in the context of the Olympic Games.

 

Figures:

All Figures should have the same legend signed on the horizontal axis. In Figures 1 and 4, each value is marked with the symbol "%" and in Figures 2, 3 and 5 the horizontal axis "percent (%)" is signed. It should be harmonized.

In Figure 2, the borders should be removed from the graph bars. There are no borders in the rest of the figures.

Figure 2 - The sum of the percentages is greater than 100%. Were these multiple choice questions? In lines 218-219 Authors wrote: „For the factors influencing public participation, respondents could select between ten options (Figure 2).”

 

 

The comments are disputable. I hope that including them in the final version will increase its scientific value.

Conclusion from the review – the manuscript requires minor changes recommended by the reviewer.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: Keywords: A part of the words have been chosen correctly, but the second part repeats the title.

Response 1: Some key words are changed, such as questionnaire survey; resident opinion.

 

Point 2: In terms of literature: Please expand your literature review in terms of public participation, its role, importance, types etc. The description in chapter 3.1 and 3.3. is too short (insufficient). The importance of public participation is constantly growing. It would be good to discuss ICT tools (types, uses) more widely. Maybe it would be worth referring to social/public participation, ICT and sustainable development in the context of the smart city concept? It can enrich the description of the analyzed phenomenon and interest a larger numbers of readers.

Response 2:  We added section 2 literature review. It describes the environmental public participation including its linkage with governance models, role, models, and actors. E-participation and ICTs application were also reviewed such as concept, ICT types and advantages, practical uses.

 

 

Point 3: Introduction: Introduction is correct. More information in the section “In terms of literature”.

Response 3: Some changes are in red colour in the introduction section. We also added the section 2 literature review.

 

 

Point 4: Data collections:

Please, provide an introduction with a brief information about a research method (type of the research: quali-, quantitative, case studies etc, whether the research sample was randomly chosen or not, single and/or multiple choice questions, etc.)

Lines 115-116: Did all respondents receive the same questions?

Lines 117-119: Was testing the questionnaire design on 5 experts and 12 inhabitants sufficient? What distinguished the experts from the residents? Who were the experts?

Is 650 residents a sufficient research sample for the entire population of the area?  It should be explain much better why the sample size is statistically enough for research purposes.

Finally, you should have attached survey questionnaire, that is, each sections of questions which are later posed and discuss in Results.

In the "Materials and Methods" chapter (2.2. Data analysis), it is worth mentioning the statistical analysis used and the Likert scale.

Response 4: Data collections:

Line 316: This study is a quantitative research in general. The research samples are randomly chosen. Some are single and some are multiple choice questions.

Sure, all respondents receive the same questions by a questionnaire. Please see line 317.

Lines 331-337: The authors designed carefully the questions based on our objective and required data. Before the pre-test, the authors checked and revised several times. Considering the cost and professional experience, we invited 5 experts and 12 residents. These experts have experiences of professional knowledge and survey. The residents live near the venues of Beijing 2022. Their feedback is helpful for the questionnaire improvement.   

We referred the published studies. Based on the previous studies, 650 residents are sufficient research sample. Please see lines 358-366.

The survey questionnaire is attached in appendix.

Lines 382-401: In the "Materials and Methods" chapter (current 3.3. Data analysis), we provide more information of the statistical analysis methods.

Lines 323-327: The Likert scale is presented in current section 3.2.

 

 

Point 5: At the beginning of the Results chapter, there should be a short introduction, which will present the division of test results into the main sections.

Lines 281-282: “Trust is a desirable Chinese traditional cultural value. Compared with Western societies such as the United States, Chinese societies are low-trust societies”. Literature source needed.

Response 5: A short introduction is added. Please see line 403-407.

Current Lines 591-593: Literature source is added.

 

Point 6:  Conclusions and Implication:

I have no major objections to the conclusion part. A short chapter “Discussion” is missing. The Discussion chapter should contain answers to research questions. The Discussion chapter can be separated from the Conclusions and Implication chapter and supplemented/extended. Reference should be made to similar studies contained in world literature (with reference to sources). This would be a good complement to the manuscript.

Lines 444-445, Authors wrote: “This study has theoretical implications and contributes to the burgeoning literature surrounding the Olympic Games by providing an in-depth analysis of public participation in relation to the theory.” Therefore, the article should briefly present the existing situation / literature review regarding the above issue, in order to include the contribution of this publication in it. It can enrich the description of the analyzed phenomenon and interest a larger numbers of readers. It should be short described how the presented research can be translate into good management in other parts of the world in the context of the Olympic Games.

Response 6:  Section 5 Discussion and implication is added.

 

 

Point 7: Figures:

All Figures should have the same legend signed on the horizontal axis. In Figures 1 and 4, each value is marked with the symbol "%" and in Figures 2, 3 and 5 the horizontal axis "percent (%)" is signed. It should be harmonized.

In Figure 2, the borders should be removed from the graph bars. There are no borders in the rest of the figures.

Figure 2 - The sum of the percentages is greater than 100%. Were these multiple choice questions? In lines 218-219 Authors wrote: “For the factors influencing public participation, respondents could select between ten options (Figure 2).”

Response 7:  Figures 3 and 5 are changed. Each value is marked with the symbol "%"

Figure 2: it is deleted.

Sure, it is a multiple-choice question. Now it is “…respondents could select at most three between ten options (Figure 3).” Please see line 518.

 

Point 8: Conclusion from the review – the manuscript requires minor changes recommended by the reviewer.

Response 8:  It is revised accordingly. Please see main text of the revision.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents the results of a survey indicating public attitudes towards environmental sustainability of the 2022 Winter Olympics.

In my opinion:

• You should present the values, Standard deviation and Mean of the variables in the Tables.
• If you add the percentage of, for instance, “Satisfied” and “Very satisfied”, you could better present the public attitudes in the text.
• Did you run a non-parametric test to investigate if there are statistically significant differences between the responses of male and female participants in the survey (a Mann-Whitney test) or a Kruskal-Wallis among ages or education levels?
• In the Conclusions section, it is not clear what are your suggestions, implications consistent with the results for the promotion of environmental sustainability. How can the practitioners, the policymakers in the field use your findings?

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

This paper presents the results of a survey indicating public attitudes towards environmental sustainability of the 2022 Winter Olympics.

 

Point 1: You should present the values, Standard deviation and Mean of the variables in the Tables.

Response 1: New Table 2 and Table 3 present the mean and SD.

 

 

Point 2:  If you add the percentage of, for instance, “Satisfied” and “Very satisfied”, you could better present the public attitudes in the text.

Response 2:  Please see section 4.2

 

 

Point 3: Did you run a non-parametric test to investigate if there are statistically significant differences between the responses of male and female participants in the survey (a Mann-Whitney test) or a Kruskal-Wallis among ages or education levels?

Response 3:  Mann-Whitney test is conducted to analyse the differences between the responses of male and female participants. Please see lines 430-438, lines 470-486, lines 564-573, lines 584-590, lines 616-619, and lines 656-661.

 

Point 4: In the Conclusions section, it is not clear what are your suggestions, implications consistent with the results for the promotion of environmental sustainability. How can the practitioners, the policymakers in the field use your findings?

Response 4:  Section 5 Discussion and implication is added. Please see the revision in the main text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents an interesting case for the research on citizen participation and environmental sustainability. However, I think it cannot be considered now an academic paper because it does not have any theoretical framework or enough background that support the research carried out, which leads to conclusions that almost only revise the empirical findings. Moreover, the statistical analysis should be revised because the statistical technics used could be wrong. I suggest the following improvements and revisions:

• A theoretical framework should be included to support the research design and include theoretical implications in the discussion and conclusions.
• The background is mixed with the results. In the last 20 years there has been a lot of experiences in citizen participation and e-participation, in public organizations and events. The effect of this experiences has been widely analysed in previous research. A more elaborated background should be included. Some definitions could be better supported by more recognised and accurate references. It can also help to support the research design and compare the previous experiences with this one in the conclusions.
• The research design enounced that the sample is 650 (line 130) but then in the results the number of respondents is 614 (table 1, line 148). It may be better to explain the rank of the section 3.4. in the research design. In the research design it is enounced that “The exploratory study combines multiple methods.” but it only consists on a desk-research and a survey. Moreover, the survey is a method which purpose is usually not exploratory, if it is a consequence of the limitations of the research, it should be included in the limitations (not in the definition of this research).
• Some of the variables of this research are qualitative, e.g., all the variables included in table 1 (line 148). In a lot of statistical analysis (lines 159-162, 181-184, 263-266, 275-278, 304-306, 345-347, 362-364, 377-382, 396-398) the technique used is wrong, the Pearson and Spearman correlations cannot be used. To compare the different levels of a quantitative variable between different categories of a qualitative variable other techniques should be used (contrast with t-student, chi-square, ANOVA…).

Regarding the references:

• The link of the reference 7 is not a safe link. It may be better use another link to this document.
• The reference 10 used in the lines 82-84 is not correctly used. The ladder of participation of Arnstein is a very common reference of citizen participation. However, it has no relation to social media, the research of Arnstein was published in 1969. There are many other researches on Social Media and ICT and citizen participation that can be used.
• The reference 30 of the lines 152-154 is a conference More prestigious and accurate references can be used to define public participation.
• I cannot find the quote use in the lines 267-269 in the reference 36, it may be wrong.
• The reference (ITU (2008)) used in the lines 326-330 is not included in the reference list.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

This paper presents an interesting case for the research on citizen participation and environmental sustainability. However, I think it cannot be considered now an academic paper because it does not have any theoretical framework or enough background that support the research carried out, which leads to conclusions that almost only revise the empirical findings. Moreover, the statistical analysis should be revised because the statistical technics used could be wrong. I suggest the following improvements and revisions:

Thanks for your suggestions.

 

Point 1: A theoretical framework should be included to support the research design and include theoretical implications in the discussion and conclusions.

Response 1:  Please section 3.1 Research framework and questions, section 5 discussion and implication in the revision version.

 

 

Point 2:  The background is mixed with the results. In the last 20 years there has been a lot of experiences in citizen participation and e-participation, in public organizations and events. The effect of this experiences has been widely analysed in previous research. A more elaborated background should be included. Some definitions could be better supported by more recognised and accurate references. It can also help to support the research design and compare the previous experiences with this one in the conclusions.

Response 2: Some changes are in the introduction section. Section 2 literature review give more information. 

 

 

Point 3: The research design enounced that the sample is 650 (line 130) but then in the results the number of respondents is 614 (table 1, line 148).

It may be better to explain the rank of the section 3.4. in the research design.

In the research design it is enounced that “The exploratory study combines multiple methods.” but it only consists on a desk-research and a survey. Moreover, the survey is a method which purpose is usually not exploratory, if it is a consequence of the limitations of the research, it should be included in the limitations (not in the definition of this research).

Response 3: We surveyed face-to-face 650 residents but a total of 614 valid questionnaires were returned (average response rate of 94.3%). Therefore, we analysed the data from 614 respondents. Please see lines 350-353.

The rank of the ICTs and the functions, please see lines 326-329.

We delete the sentence “The exploratory study….”. Please see lines 316-318.

 

 

Point 4: Some of the variables of this research are qualitative, e.g., all the variables included in table 1 (line 148). In a lot of statistical analysis (lines 159-162, 181-184, 263-266, 275-278, 304-306, 345-347, 362-364, 377-382, 396-398) the technique used is wrong, the Pearson and Spearman correlations cannot be used. To compare the different levels of a quantitative variable between different categories of a qualitative variable other techniques should be used (contrast with t-student, chi-square, ANOVA…).

Response 4: We revised the statistical analysis technique. The new analysis results are presented in current revision. Please see current lines 430-438, lines 470-486, lines 564-573, lines 584-590, lines 616-619, and lines 656-661.  (previous lines 159-162, 181-184, 263-266, 275-278, 304-306, 345-347, 362-364, 377-382, 396-398)

 

 

Point 5: Regarding the references:

• The link of the reference 7 is not a safe link. It may be better use another link to this document.
• The reference 10 used in the lines 82-84 is not correctly used. The ladder of participation of Arnstein is a very common reference of citizen participation. However, it has no relation to social media, the research of Arnstein was published in 1969. There are many other researches on Social Media and ICT and citizen participation that can be used.

Response:

• The reference 30 of the lines 152-154 is a conference More prestigious and accurate references can be used to define public participation.

Response:

• I cannot find the quote use in the lines 267-269 in the reference 36, it may be wrong.
• The reference (ITU (2008)) used in the lines 326-330 is not included in the reference list.

Response 5:

• The reference 7: The new link is added.
• The previous reference 10 used in the lines 82-84 is changed. Please see current lines 83-86.
• The reference 30 of the lines 152-154: It is moved to section 1 and reference is changed.
• The previous reference 36 is deleted.
• The reference ITU (2008) is included. Please see 75 in the reference list.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has been significantly improved.

 

The introduction should more emphasize the aim and scope of the research, research area and the importance and role of the conducted research. Currently, this information is found in various parts of the manuscript.

Line 747 "Regarding the second question ..." What question? Please explain in more detail (research question).

Line 749-750 "Such results have a little different from our previous study on the high-speed railway." What research? This applies to the 22nd point in the literature?

Line 780 "For the third research question ...."  What question? Please explain in more detail (research question).

 

I think that the presented manuscript is a valuable study.

Conclusion from the review – the manuscript requires minor changes recommended by the reviewer. I recommend publishing it.

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable comments. We revised the manuscript and please see point-by-point response.

Point 1: The introduction should more emphasize the aim and scope of the research, research area and the importance and role of the conducted research. Currently, this information is found in various parts of the manuscript.
Response 1: We agree with you. The description is presented on the aim, scope, research area and importance. Please see lines 120-129.

Point 2:  Line 747 "Regarding the second question ..." What question? Please explain in more detail (research question).
Response 2: Please see current lines 756-757. The question is added.

Point 3: Line 749-750 "Such results have a little different from our previous study on the high-speed railway." What research? This applies to the 2nd point in the literature?
Response 3: More information is provided. Please see current lines 760-764.

Point 4: Line 780 "For the third research question ...."  What question? Please explain in more detail (research question).

Response 4: Please see current lines 792-793. The third question is added.

Point 5: Conclusion from the review – the manuscript requires minor changes recommended by the reviewer.  

Response 5:  We checked and made some revisions. Please see current lines 868-870, 888-889, and 912.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript satisfactorily.

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made substantial improvements to the article: Public Participation and Information Disclosure for Environmental Sustainability of 2022 Winter Olympics.

The article now presents enough background and the research framework is appropiate. The methodology is well explained and the statistical analysis seems correct. The authors had added a discussion and implications section that compare the public participation case anaysed with previous experiences and research. 

My recommendation is accept after minor revision. There is sometimes a typing mistake: the correct abbreviation of the analysis of variance is ANOVA and  sometimes ANOWA is written in the article.

 

 

 

Author Response

Point: My recommendation is accept after minor revision. There is sometimes a typing mistake: the correct abbreviation of the analysis of variance is ANOVA and  sometimes ANOWA is written in the article.

Response 1: Thank you. We checked again and revised all typing mistake of ANOWA.