Procedural Fairness and Expected Outcome Evaluations in the Public Acceptance of Sustainability Policymaking: A Case Study of Multiple Stepwise Participatory Programs to Develop an Environmental Master Plan for Sapporo, Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

To start with I must repeat the quality of the quantitative analysis is outside of my competence, hence, I will not comment on that.

With regard to the issues I brought up in relation to the original submission I find that they have been addressed. The authors have successfully clarified the claims they make about different participatory approaches. The explanation of both benefits and constraints of the stepwise participatory programme positions their own perspective well.

The explanation of the participatory programme has become much clearer in the re-write and the point of comparing participants and non-participants is communicated effectively to the reader.

The authors have done a good job positioning their work in current debates and thereby updated the literature references. The continuity of discussions as well as the gap that this paper is intended to fill are clearly outlined.

The only remaining issues are minor and relates to language: the grammar and choice of words are at times a bit odd, some more language editing is needed. An example is the very first sentence in the introduction:

“Designing a master plan for the achievement of sustainable goals is critical that becomes the foundation to be laid for the implementation of a systematic series of specific plans containing the concrete measures to promote a pro-environmental lifestyle.”

What does this mean? 

There are also some rather substantial claims about things that would need references. An example (also from the very beginning of the paper):

“However, policy planning performed only by decision-makers such as politicians, bureau officers, and experts is inadequate for the realization of policy objectives.”

According to whom?

There are more instances of strange grammar and seemingly unsubstantiated claims throughout the paper. However, this is a minor issue that proper language editing will address.

Author Response

We appreciate the patient review again.

We revised the introduction section and inserted citations for each sentence of the first paragraph. We hope these revisions help clarify the manuscript.

We also asked for language editing support from a major service company. We hope the paper becomes more sophisticated.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised paper has taken into consideration some of my suggestions. The paper has improved through the review process. However, I have a few remarks:
• First of all, in my opinion, the description of case study should be provided in a separate section. 
• Secondly, the Conclusions section needs to be improved by highlighting the findings of the research. Also, the limitations of the study and future lines of research should be added.
• Thirdly, literature review is weak. Previous studies dealing with the topic must be reviewed.

Author Response

Thank you for admitting the improvement of our paper.

1. As per your suggestion, the description of the case is provided in a separate section, i.e., Section 2, which has been separated from the theory part. Moreover, based on the case study, the sections for the survey and the analysis are placed in a usual scientific manner: Methods, Results, and Discussion. We would be grateful if you tell us what you meant exactly.
2. We separated the Discussion section. We remained in the interpretation of the results whether the hypotheses were supported in the Discussion section. We moved the broader argument about participatory programs to the Conclusion section, which includes the future research possibilities and disadvantages. We hope these changes are consistent with your suggestion. Further, we would be grateful if you guided us to suit your suggestion.
3. We added some more literature. In particular, we inserted the references for each sentence in the first paragraph of the Introduction. We would be grateful if you pointed out the parts to be inserted into the references.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have reviewed this manuscript with the amendments the authors have made. The authors have made very substantial revisions and on the basis of their revisions, I would recommend acceptance of the manuscript. The English language is good, the article is logically structured and the findings are supported by the evidence. Although I am no an expert in the statistical procedures employed, these seem appropriate and well-presented. The article uses appropriate literature.

Overall, a very competent and substantial set of revisions. 

Author Response

We appreciate your high appraisal of our paper.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The quantitative analysis undertaken in this paper lies outside my competence, I work qualitatively. However, I am able to understand the argument the authors are trying to make and unfortunately, I don’t think they are successful in this pursuit.

The authors claim that ‘multiple stepwise participatory programmes’ leads to ‘procedural fairness’ which in turn increase the acceptance of the resulting plan. They base this argument on a study of a participatory programme comprising three steps in a process leading to an environmental master plan for Sapporo, Japan. In every step of the programme a representative sample of the local population was invited to engage with experts and decision makers in developing the plan. Each step focussed on a different stage in the evolutionary process of the plan and the participating lay people had full access to the materials used in deliberation. The study of this programme that the paper is based on comprised surveys of participants and a representative sample of non-participants. These two samples were compared.  The authors found that the participants considered the process to be fair in a procedural sense. The participants rated the process more positively than what non-participants did. Both participants and non-participants evaluated the procedure as fair and as having good outcomes over time. These findings were established through hypothesis-testing quantitative analysis that is described in great detail.

I may not be able to assess the methodology of this study, but I still think that there are major flaws in the reasoning. Firstly, the authors appear to be claiming that ‘stepwise participatory programmes’ are the only, or best, way to achieve ‘procedural fairness’. However, there is nothing in the paper about other participatory approaches, as far as we know singular participatory events could be even more effective (and possibly more feasible in most cases). The authors overreach in their claims for this particular participatory approach. 

Secondly, the analysis establishes that participants appreciated the procedural fairness and outcomes of the process (more than non-participants). This is arguably the case with all well-designed participatory activities. In this regard the authors add another observation confirming what is already known without adding anything to the knowledge about participatory planning. This finding is trivial.

The third major problem I have with this paper is that it seems dated. The references are mostly more than a decade old (except references to one author’s own works). In order to contribute in a meaningful way to the international academic debate it is necessary to position one’s contribution in relation to ongoing debates and this paper does not do that. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript analyses whether people will accept a sustainability plan consisting of stepwise participatory programs and examines the determinants of acceptance and the changes in evaluations from the viewpoint of procedural and outcome fairness.  In general, the paper is good. However, the submitted manuscript requires major improvements. The comments after a careful revision are the following:

• The structure of the article needs to be reconsidered. In the current version Introduction is too long, the methodology part is divided into very small sub-sections. In my opinion, the description of the case could be provided in a separate section.

• Reviewed scientific literature sources are quite old. The latest research in the field must be added.

• Before or in the beginning point 2.1, I suggest to add a graphical methodological framework that reflects the mechanisms used for the analysis of the research in a general way.
• Conclusions section needs to be improved by highlighting the findings of analysis conducted in the paper.
• Line 41, line 46. Literature sources should be detailed. There is no sense to provide a list of authors without commenting on their work.
• Line 62, line 65. References should be provided according to the requirements of the Journal. Please check carefully all article.
• Duplication of the text should be avoided, e.g. line 81-83 and 222-224, etc.
• The title of Table 1 should be reconsidered. I think the title could be "demographic characteristics" or something similar. The page layout should be horizontal.
• Figures should be updated according to the requirements of the Journal (font, size, quality).
• In my opinion Table 5 should be provided in appendix.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is solid piece of academic research that uses empirical data from work with participants in a specified case study. The material presented is robust, technically well-presented and the conclusions are supported by the data.

The main challenge for the paper as it currently stands is the structure and contextualisation of the research.

First, the case study needs to be introduced after the context, in academic terms, has been set. This will increase the academic impact of the paper and ensure that the academic context guides the reader into the case study.

Second, the abstract needs to be contextualised so that the wider purpose of the research is clearer at the start. I did not feel I really understood what the paper was about from the abstract and felt the authors assumed too much knowledge of readers about the topic.

Third, the introduction section of the paper also needed to set out the broader context of the paper. Again, the authors assume too much knowledge about the topic at this point. 

Fourth, the end of the introduction section needs to set out the paper's purpose, intellectual aims and structure.

Fifth, revisiting this context and making wider points about the paper's intellectual impact in the conclusion is also required for the paper to increase its reach and significance.

By setting this wider context, the paper will have more impact.