Risk Perception Thresholds and Their Impact on the Behavior of Nearby Residents in Waste to Energy Project Conflict: An Evolutionary Game Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors try to deduce the risk perception threshold of local residents towards to a WTE NIMBY conflict based on evolutionary game theory. The topic had been discussed intensively in the past decades but still interesting, and may be valuable for relevant authorities and professions in potentially hazardous facilities siting. However, from my point of view, there are some key issues should be addressed thoroughly before publication. I have made some suggestions, which I think may be helpful for the authors to significantly revise this manuscript.
(1) The authors failed to clearly address the knowledge gap of presented study. Please present the research gap clearly in the Introduction section and verify why a two-parties evolutionary game matters in shaping a WTE NIMBY conflict.
(2) The literature review is insufficient, and should be enhanced thoroughly. A substantial body of relevant literature are not included in the Literature Review section.
(3) The Discussion should be enhanced. In an academic article, the authors must analyze the results in a closing discussion within the study's theoretical framework to arrive at the calculations and implications permitted by the results. Thus, the Discussion Section, which can be seen as a section to interpret the research results and guide the readers gently by logical steps to see things from the author's point of view, should be revised significantly.
(4) It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing, and pay particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your manuscript.
The comments are as follow’
- There is no explanation of NIMBY.
- Would you please use the differential as “” instead of “.”? It is difficult to recognize.
- Change yuan to dollar
- line 474, “residents’ risk perception is 10%, i.e., i=10%”, please revise this part
- 5.2, it is important to validate the model. However, the results are not easy to read.
For example, the result of Fig.7 is derived from model, but the authors didn’t put the model with parameters here. It is difficult to understand how you get the results.
Fig. 8, 9, 10, 11 have the same problems.
There is a paper related with risk perception using game theory, please read that one, and make the results easy to understand.
“A Stackelberg Game Theoretic Analysis of Incentive Effects under Perceived Risk for China’s Straw-Based Power Plant Supply Chain”
- 6.2, this part is too short. Please deepen the discussion
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please carefully justify and explain on all comments.
1. In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. Please follow the literature review by a clear and concise state of the art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals. Clearly discuss what the previous studies that you are referring to.
What are the Research Gaps/Contributions? Please note that the paper may not be considered further without a clear research gap and novelty of the study.
2. Please underscore the scientific value-added to your paper in your abstract. Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did and what you found and recommend.
That would help a prospective reader of the abstract to decide if they wish to read the entire article.
3. In your discussion section, please link your empirical results with a broader and deeper literature review.
4. Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study.
In addition to summarising the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning comparing with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work.
5. Please consult the journal's reference style for the exact appearance of these elements, and use of punctuation and capitalisation.
Bibliography style is not always consistent, please check the reference section carefully and correct the inconsistency.
6. Please eliminate those multiple references. After that please check the manuscript thoroughly and eliminate ALL the lumps in the manuscript. This should be done by characterising each reference individually. This can be done by mentioning 1 or 2 phrases per reference to show how it is different from the others and why it deserves mentioning.
7. Please eliminate the use of redundant words. Eg. In this way, Recently, Respectively, therefore, currently, thus, hence, finally, to do this, first, in order, however, moreover, nowadays, today, consequently, in addition, additionally, on the other hand, furthermore. – Please revise all similar cases, as removing these term(s) would not significantly affect the meaning of the sentence. This will keep the manuscript as CONCISE as possible. Please check ALL.
Avoid beginning or end a sentence with one or a few words, they are usually redundant. E.g. Today,.Avoid beginning a sentence with a conjunction term, e.g. And, Which, Where, Because.
8. Please check if you have cited each Eq./Fig./Table/Section with its SPECIFIC NUMBER you referred in the TEXT? E.g. It should be stated in the text: …..as shown in Fig. 1 (Fig. capitalize). Please avoid stating ambiguous referencing e.g. …...is as follow…; based on the above/below table/fig.
9. Please use SI unit. E,g, m instead of meter, t instead of tons. d instead of day, y instead of years or yr, h instead of hours, M instead of million, kg instead of kilogram (including those in figures/tables) and leave a space between the value and unit.
10. Corresponding author should use institutional Email ID.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors efficiently responded to the comments initially made. I think the manuscript should be accepted by the Journal
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for intensively revising English.
There is one comments. As I mentioned in the first round, the describe of the derive the results is not clear enough. You explained that in the response but didn’t explain in the manuscript. Would you please explain in detail in the manuscript? Because people who are interested in your paper may to calculate the results. Please open the information as much as possible including the version of software.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
