How to Shape Local Public Acceptance of Not-in-My-Backyard Infrastructures? A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

Overall, your introduction is well-written and presents a strong argument for the need for further research into the public acceptance of Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) facilities. Here are a few suggestions to further improve your introduction:

The problem statement could be better structured. You might consider organizing your identified gaps in the literature into a numbered list for clarity.

Justify why you have chosen to use the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) perspective. What does SCT add to your analysis that other theories do not?

Adding an outline of the rest of the paper at the end of the introduction can be helpful to guide readers through the rest of the content.

 

Questionnaire design: It might be useful to provide a bit more detail on the demographic information you're collecting. Why are these particular demographics relevant to your study?

 

Sample and data collection: There is a lack of justification for some of the choices you've made. For example, why were four cities selected? Why were these types of facilities chosen? etc

 

Discussion: While you've done well to explain your findings, more emphasis could be placed on interpreting these results. Why are these findings significant? How do they contribute to our understanding of the topic? Answering these questions can make your discussion more impactful.\

 

Conclusion: The section on future research could benefit from more specificity. For example, it's excellent that you acknowledge the limitation of the research being confined to Zhejiang province. To build upon this, you could suggest specific regions or populations that future research could focus on, turning this limitation into an opportunity for further study.

 

Formatting: Ensure that your section headings, referencing style, and overall format adhere strictly to the journal's guidelines. 

 

Citations: Check that all citations follow the journal's reference style. Also, ensure that all sources mentioned are included in the reference list and that no sources are missing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language: Use the professional, academic language that's expected in scholarly articles. While your language is generally appropriate, there are instances where sentences could be simplified for clarity and readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The overall logic of the article is clear and the structure is complete, but in some processing details it is considered that there is still room for further improvement, and the following suggestions are put forward for reference:

1. In the introduction, it is suggested that the background be clarified first, with a concise introduction to the research field or phenomenon, and the necessity and importance of this study be put forward, which can help the readers to understand the problem, field or phenomenon involved in the study, and to realize that it is valuable to carry out the study. It is recommended to start with the broader context of the problem, for example, from the perspective of environmental and health concerns or from the perspective of conflicting values, etc., which leads to the NIMBY phenomenon, and then cuts to the focus of this study. After the introduction, it is recommended to draw a graphic summary to make it more concise and understandable as to why this issue is being studied.

2. Lines 38-42 point out the effects of the former of NIMBY facilities on human physiological health and give examples of waste incineration power stations and sewage treatment plants, but the harm of these facilities should ultimately fall into a larger context, such as the aspect of carbon emissions. Similarly, the latter should be supported by references to the Spatial - temporal evolution and driving factors of carbon emission efficiency of cities in the Yellow River Basin. The article "Spatial - temporal evolution and driving factors of carbon emission efficiency of cities in the Yellow River Basin

3. In lines 48-60, the author lists the factors that shape the amenities acceptable to residents. These factors are convincing, but they do not form a complete logic, so it is recommended to categorize and sort them out to make the logic clearer.

4. Lines 38 and 90 both mention that infrastructure can increase the carrying capacity of a city. Infrastructure construction as an important foundation for urban construction, but with the further upgrading of the city, only consider infrastructure construction alone to reflect the urban problem is more one-sided, inevitably closely linked with ecological protection, economic development and other factors, which involves the concept of urban resilience, it is recommended to read the Digital Economy, Technological Innovation and Urban Resilience. Innovation and Urban Resilience" to make the article more convincing.

5. It is suggested to add corresponding data graphs to make the article more readable and help readers understand better. For example, we can add NIMBY's conflict case type and time distribution charts, or add sample type distribution charts in the Sample and data collection, etc. We suggest to read 'Evolutionary game analysis of stakeholder behavior strategies in 'Not in My Backyard' conflicts: effect of the intervention by environmental Non-Governmental Organizations' is an article to make the article more readable.

6. Lines 348-355 are persuasive in that the p-value indicates that the test of significance has been passed, but it is advisable to analyze the combined standard errors to determine the magnitude of the difference between the sample and the true population, which, of course, depends on one's own viewpoint.

7. Lines 489-490 suggest that this study is of some practical significance in promoting the high-quality development of China's non-core infrastructure, but in what way is this practical significance reflected? It is suggested to add the practical significance of the conclusions in the final conclusion to better understand the theoretical value and practical application value of the research results and to recognize the important contribution of the research to related fields.

8. It is recommended to double-check the necessity as well as the reference value of the cited references to ensure the authority, validity, and timeliness of the references, so as to enhance the credibility of this paper.

 

9. Write relevant countermeasures and suggestions according to the conclusions of the study. The article, titled How to shape local public acceptance of Not-In-My-Backyard infrastructures? A social cognitive theory perspective, explores local public acceptance of different types of hazard-impacted non-core facilities It discusses the differences in the mechanisms that shape local public acceptance of different types of hazard-impacted non-core facilities, and explains only the "what" of the problem, without addressing the "how" of the problem, and suggests that in the conclusion to address the "h" of the problem, the public acceptance of non-core facilities should be addressed.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the manuscript with great interest and enthusiasm. This piece of work is thoughtfully crafted and impressively written, particularly in its literature review, where the conceptual model's theoretical foundation is convincingly established. The authors' adept integration of the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) is especially commendable. The methodology section is well-suited to the study's objectives, and the results section is appropriately presented.

Nonetheless, I have reservations regarding the applicability of the findings beyond the Chinese context, especially in other Asian countries. It would be valuable to include a brief discussion on how these results could be extrapolated to other countries and contexts. This addition would enhance the manuscript's overall robustness.

Overall, this manuscript is well written and aligns well with the journal's focus. Best of luck with your work!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All ok 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

no

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc