The Impact of Citizen Participation on Public Sentiments during Crises: Comparative Study of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article provides some insightful elements linked to the dual phenomenon of citizen participation during the crisis (Covid-19 pandemic) by addressing the following research question: Does citizen participation makes a direct and measurable impact on their sense of security and their attitude toward the future? In order to answer this question, the authors use evidence collected through a cross-country omnibus survey and a total sample of 2,875 citizens in the three Baltic countries (959 in Estonia, 931 in Latvia and 985 in Lithuania).
The recent Covid 19 pandemic literature can be better addressed within the section of literature review.
The authors should provide further details on sampling procedures because they claim that “Probability sampling was used, in which every element of the population had an equal chance of being included in the sample.” They have to renounce to this statement or they have to explain the exact sampling procedures employed for assuring equal chances to be included in the sample.
Whitin the Method section - the authors should provide the exact period of time when the data were collected (the COVID 19 pandemic was a dynamic phenomenon where the time is an important element). At the same time, if the data were collected in 2022, the war in Ukraine changed individuals’ perceptions in terms sense of security and future.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive and valuable review. In the revision process we tried to follow all the critical points. Please find our changes made in the manuscript and answers to your questions and remarks. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is a well written and researched article on a crucial topic. I have following suggestions for improving the article.
1) Research question: does citizen participation makes a direct and measurable impact on their sense of security and their attitude toward the future?. Would it to better formulate two separate questions. If answer to sense of security is different from attitude toward the future, how would authors discuss the findings.
2) Please explain the relevance of studying Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for those who do not live in these countries or investigate them. Why these countries are relevant for other scholars globally? Are these countries somehow representative of larger population of countries? If so, why?
3) Theoretical framework is relatively thin. One way to increase conceptual richness is to link it to the literature on public goods and polycentric governance. Crisis management can be seen as a semi-public good where both citizens and governments contribute. Elinor Ostrom has developed frameworks showing how such goods can be delivered in collaboration between government and citizens, i.e. policing in LA where citizen-led neighborhood watch helps police to deliver better public good - safe neighborhoods.
4) Hypotheses. Why is H5 about citizen participation while you don't have hypothesis about government-led participation in these three countries? Should there be more specific hypotheses considering each country?
5) In the end of introduction, please add a paragraph how your article is structured.
6) Please indicate when surveys were carried out in 3.1. Would the Russian invasion in Ukraine somehow affect responses to the survey?
7) You measure citizen-led participation by trust in government which is one your three indicators. This needs some justification. Would citizen-led participation be a complementary or substitute for government action? It seems that in some countries it is substitute (e.g. Brazil where mafia-like structures dealt with Covid while government was inactive). In some countries it can be complementary which would allow to deliver better public goods (this would fit well with Ostrom's theory).
For instance, in your own findings it is revealed that Estonians are least likely to think that government values citizen contribution in a crisis (lines 291-292), while citizen-led participation is the highest (line 307). Would that reveal that citizen-led participation somehow is a substitute for limited and insufficient government action?
8) Some findings are vaguely stated. For instance "Those who earn more and live in the capital feel more secure than those who live in the peripheries (mean difference = -4.60; 246 –1.79). The attitude toward the future is almost equal among these groups of respondents" (line 244-246). What do you mean by "equal"? That they are similar, almost same distribution along ethnic, wealth and other parameters.
9) Please be more careful with your language concerning hypotheses. You either reject or fail to reject hypotheses. Hence, it is difficult to understand terminology such as "refuted H5", "support hypotheses" or "partly confirmed" hypotheses (pp. 11-12). You may need to revise your hypotheses. If they cannot be rejected or failed to reject, then they are not proper hypotheses.
10) Minor English editing is needed. For instance. Lines 52-53, page 2. Research question: "does citizen participation makes a direct and measurable impact on their sense of security and their attitude toward the future?" It should be "make" instead of "makes".
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive and valuable review. In the revision process we tried to follow all the critical points. Please find our changes made in the manuscript and answers to your questions and remarks. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The paper assesses how the variables of citizen participation are linked to a sense of security and attitude towards the future among the populations of the three Baltic countries: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
Some suggestions to consider when reviewing this paper:
→ In the abstract I recommend introducing the analyzes used (Poisson regression, linear regression analysis);
→ At the end of the "Introduction" section, I recommend introducing the way the article is organized;
→ The sampling methodology is not very clear. What type of probability sampling did you use? (simple random, with random numbers or computerized method). How did you build the sampling base for the 3 countries? What are the investigated collective units in percentage? Have you assigned numbers/codes to each unit in the investigated community? Did you randomly draw a number of components equal to the probabilistic sample size? How did you arrive at the analyzed data (Lithuanian – 985 questionnaires, Estonian – 959 questionnaires, Latvian – 931 questionnaires)? Is the sample size for this study representative? I recommend reviewing the "Participants and Procedures" section;
→ Highlight the theoretical and practical implications (citizens, governments of the three countries) of your study
→ I recommend relocating the limiting conditions of the study in the conclusions part and expanding them on the side of sampling;
→ Extending the conclusions and including some future research directions.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive and valuable review. In the revision process we tried to follow all the critical points. Please find our changes made in the manuscript and answers to your questions and remarks. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
No comment
