Risk Evaluation of “Not-In-My-Back-Yard” Conflict Potential in Facilities Group: A Case Study of Chemical Park in Xuwei New District, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I'm not an expert of English language, however I think that a thorough linguistic review of the paper is needed.
Regarding the theory of risk perception (sec. 2.1) it may be important to recall the chapter of the World Heath Organization volume: "Human Health in Areas with Industrial Contamination" (Copenhagen, 2014) (chapter 15, where a specific methodology is developed and a Risk Perception Index is described). This reference would be particularly appropriate for this paper, given that the volume is devoted to the topic of health health risk and risk perception in petrochemical sites.
In the same section 2.1 we find a review of the literature relating to both risk perception and risck assessment. Although linked, the two topics are methodologically, technically and socially different; this difference should be highligted.
In the conclusion lf section 2.2 (page 3, lines 138-143) the role of the government as a "risk regulator" is not correctly described. In a "at risk" territory, the rolo of the government should not be to "improve the support of residents for petrochemical projects", but rather to guarantee correct and balanced information of the actual health risk, avoiding distorted preceptions of dangerous underestimations.
I don't quite understand what is written in section 3.2.1 about the alleged difficulties to describe "in detail the risk value of chemical accidents" (line 223). There is extensive literature that estimates and assesses the risk of accidents in the chemical industry (among many others: Ignatowsi, Rosenthal (2001), "The chemical accident risk assessment thesaurus: ...", Risk Analysis; Gerba (2009), "Risk Assessment ... - 2nd edition, chpt. 29; Si Hu et al. (2012), "Quantitative risk assessment model of hazardous chemicals ...", Sagety Science; Heo Seongbobg et al. (2017), "Chemical accident hazard assessment ...", Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction). Authors shoud quote literature relative to specific chemical risk assessment and evaluation and specify that, for simplicity's sake, they prefer to estimate the "perceived" risk base value using what the assume to be an acceptable rule of thum. They shoud also explain why, in the precence of a "natural mortality rate" of 0.7%, they adopt an annual mortality rate of 1%. This vaue is significantily higher (42.9%) than the assessed natural mortality rate (0.7%); the use of a higher value for the "basic rate" obvioulsy produce a lower "risk base value of the project", explaining this point is very important because otherwise the arbitrary use of a 1% level as a benkmark may appear an opportunistic ad hocery. Also the statement that "the chemical park project does not significantly increase the direct death risk of residents" is not proven - authors need to explain it, even with simple references to official data or other studies.
In section 3.2.3 (page 7, lines 263-271) the way in which the "opinion of experts" results into the second-level indicator wheight sets is unclear. In the following lines (273-280) the sampling strategy, the number of samples and teir composition are not described.
In section 3.3.1 (page 8, line 315) no description is provided as far as the composition and the selection criteria of the four groups are concerned.
I would recommend that authors introduce the description and use of fuzzy methods and probit models witn some reference to methodological literature.
In section 4.4 (p. 11, line 412), in the "general" Probit regression model presentation the Yi variable is marked with an asterisk, that shoud be explained (theoretical / actual values for the Y's). In line 413, the Yi variable is improperly described as the "explanatory variale": it is acually the "response" (dependent) variable. It is not clear what the authors mean by "project planning rationality" and how tis regressor is estimated and proposed. If the question was purely "perceptual" (the perceived degree of rationality of the project), the variable is probably overlapped with the ones of: "project understanding" and "trust in information".
In section 4.5, the meaning of numbers in squared brckets in Table 4 shoud be specified in its introduction or comment.
In section 5.1 (page 13, lines 481-486) the relevance of the references to Ul-Abdin (2019) and Plywarin and Sangsomboon (2018) for the purposes of the paper is unclear (it might be interesting to know if the risk perception factors and the public response is similar/different in the two studies compared to the survey conducted by the authors).
The discussiono of risk control policies (section 5.3) is somewhat repetetive and does not offer concrete operational indications.
In the text, the references to the bibliography are not homogeneous: in some cases the names of the authors' are reported, while in other cases only the order number of the quotation in the bibliography is reported. Authors should uniform. Authors should use a uniform citation style in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper tries to address an important research question, but, at this stage, it is not acceptable for some serious issues: (1) there are several structural and grammatical issues. It needs to be rewritten; (2) methodology is not clear and variables are confusing; (3) as population is not provided, it is not clear whether the sample size is enough and it truly represent the population; (4) in whole introduction section, no single literatures are discussed; and (5) this is an international journal. In order to make it interesting for global readers, first one or two paragraphs would have discussed the importance of petrochemical industry and its environmental and economic implications. Instead, whole paper is focussed on China. My specific comments are:
Abstract: Not comprehensive, need to rewrite Write method on how you assessed risks What you mean by “The 11 enterprise group (7×10-4) can accept greater risks of the weaker risk perception of the petrochemical project” These sentences can be merged into 1 sentence “The results show that residents and government departments have a strong sense of risk 10 to the project, and they have a resistance to risk (the group risk perception value is 7×10-6 ). The enterprise group (7×10-4) can accept greater risks of the weaker risk perception of the petrochemical project; the expert group (7×10-5 ) have a normal level of risk perception of petrochemical projects? This is very interesting finding “The higher the level of education, the more support the petrochemical project”. I expect lengthy discussions on this issue with valid reasons. Last 8 sentences to some extent are contradicting with the initial statement “There is no significant correlation between the personal factors….. Introduction This is an international journal. In order to make it interesting for global readers, first one or two paragraphs should discuss the importance of petrochemical industry and its environmental and economic implications. No literatures are discussed/cited in the introduction section. Methodology Need stepwise methods with discussion of all related parameters. Readers should know how different types of risk values are derived. Currently information is there but it is not systematic and they are not clear. Please include total populations within 10km of the boundary of the petrochemical base. You have valid sample size of 500. Can you please suggest whether this sample size is enough and whether it represent the total population. Table 4: what you mean by “More satisfied”? which one is at higher level of satisfaction “very satisfied” or “more satisfied”? Similarly, statements to other variables are also confusing. Please check and correct. Make it more of global using global practices. Section 6 Several repetitions with abstract, avoid them. Provide only take home message from your study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version. The paper has been improved but not at a publishable level. There are several structural and grammatical issues, very hard to understand in many places. The entire article need to be rewritten by professional subject-based editor. There are still some confusions in methodology, particularly in selecting variables. Moreover, this is an international journal. In order to make it interesting for global readers, first one or two paragraphs would have discussed the importance of petrochemical industry and its environmental and economic implications at a global level. Instead, whole paper is focussed on China.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript has been improved a lot but there are still some issues that need to be resolved before accepting it: writing should be tighten up, repetition should be avoided and arguments in discussion section should be supported with literature/citation.
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer for his/her valuable comments and suggestions. The writing was tighten up in the revision along with the correction of repetition. The citation/literature was cited for the supporting of argument in discussion section.