How Governance Tools Facilitate Citizen Co-Production Behavior in Urban Community Micro-Regeneration: Evidence from Shanghai
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
the research is very interesting and well structured.
I would only suggest implementing the literature on the information-based and incentive-based tools in citizen co-production behavior. This suggestion aims to better highlight the reasons for the selection of these tools.
Author Response
Dear authors, the research is very interesting and well structured.
Point 1: I would only suggest implementing the literature on the information-based and incentive-based tools in citizen co-production behavior. This suggestion aims to better highlight the reasons for the selection of these tools.
Response 1: Thanks for your positive feedback and comments, that helped us improve the article.
We have improved the literature review on the information-based and incentive-based tools in citizen co-production behavior. Previous studies mainly focus on the effectiveness of two governance tools, i.e., providing materials and information to citizens, which can be classified as information-based and incentive-based governance tools respectively. So, we added the literature on the effect of the materials and information provided to citizens on citizen co-production behavior.
Meanwhile, we emphasized the limitations of extant empirical studies, namely existing studies neglected other diverse tools. Insight into how governance tools can increase citizen coproduction requires novel extension and categorization of governance tools. Based on a field investigation focused on the practice of urban community micro-regeneration in Shanghai, we divided governance tools into two types: information-based and incentive-based.
The modifications can find in page 4 in the revised manuscript (in red).
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
In the part of your paper entitled: “Discussion” has to change the arrangement and content.
Under the title “Discussion” you can include the paragraphs 6.2. Theoretical Implications, 6.3. Managerial Implications and the Limitations of the paragraph 6.4.
Under the title “Conclusions” you can include the paragraph 6.1. Conclusions and the Future Study of the paragraph 6.4.
Author Response
Point 1: Dear Authors, In the part of your paper entitled: “Discussion” has to change the arrangement and content. Under the title “Discussion” you can include the paragraphs 6.2. Theoretical Implications, 6.3. Managerial Implications and the Limitations of the paragraph 6.4. Under the title “Conclusions” you can include the paragraph 6.1. Conclusions and the Future Study of the paragraph 6.4.
Response 1: Thanks for the comment and suggestion. We adjusted the content and arrangement of the discussion and conclusions section according to reviewer’s suggestion. We include the paragraphs 6.2, 6.3 and the Limitations of the paragraph 6.4 as “6. Discussions”. We include the paragraphs 6.1 and the Future Study of the paragraph 6.4 as “7. Conclusions”.
The modifications can find in page 14 and 15.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper has very different first and second halves. I read the first half of the paper - and its discussion of current approaches and experiences of co-production in community regeneration - with great interest. I thought this first part of the paper was rich, cogent and convincing. By contrast and as someone with only a moderate understanding of statistics, I found the second half of the paper difficult to penetrate. I am not at all clear what the empirical findings of the paper really are and I do worry both that the methods of analysis are overly elaborate for a relatively small data set and that the paper will be useful to the comparatively small readership interested in the topic and able to navigate through the empirical parts of the paper. By contrast and in view of the questionnaire sample size, I feel that straightforward descriptive statistics and commentary would make the paper accessible to a much wider audience and join more appropriately with the first part of the paper.
Author Response
Point 1: This paper has very different first and second halves. I read the first half of the paper - and its discussion of current approaches and experiences of co-production in community regeneration - with great interest. I thought this first part of the paper was rich, cogent and convincing. By contrast and as someone with only a moderate understanding of statistics, I found the second half of the paper difficult to penetrate. I am not at all clear what the empirical findings of the paper really are and I do worry both that the methods of analysis are overly elaborate for a relatively small data set and that the paper will be useful to the comparatively small readership interested in the topic and able to navigate through the empirical parts of the paper. By contrast and in view of the questionnaire sample size, I feel that straightforward descriptive statistics and commentary would make the paper accessible to a much wider audience and join more appropriately with the first part of the paper.
Response 1: Thanks for your positive feedback and comments. We revised the manuscript in four steps to make it easier for much wider audience to understand.
First, in order to make it easier for readers to understand the second half of the paper, we added sentences connecting the first half and the second half of the paper at the “4. Research Method” section. We added: “Based on the co-production literature and field investigation, we theoretically propose that governance tools have a positive and significant influence on citizen co-production behavior as mediated by the effect of their perceived benefits. However, we do not yet know the validity of these hypotheses, the extent to which governance tools influence citizen co-production, and the difference in the impact of information-based and incentive-based tools on citizen in-role and extra-role co-production behavior. To solve the above problems and deepen the research, we conducted a large-N quantitative analysis based on a cross-sectional questionnaire survey of residents in Shanghai, China. This study employed the partial least squares–structural equation model (PLS-SEM) analytical tool.” The modifications can find in page 7 (in red).
Second, we have improved the “7. Conclusions” section to better present the conclusions of this study, corresponding to the answer the questions at the “4. Research Method” section. We made revisions in the revised manuscript: “The analysis results show that hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a, 2b, 4a and 4c were supported, but hypotheses 4b, 4d were rejected. While information-based tools have a stronger effect on in-role co-production behavior, incentive-based tools have a stronger effect on extra-role co-production behavior. The differences in the degree of impact are related to the attributes of citizen co-production behaviors and governance tools.” The modifications can find in page 15 (in red).
Third, we further demonstrate the applicability of PLS-SEM analysis in this paper. We added an introduction of PLS-SEM at the beginning of “4. Research Method” section: “PLS-SEM requires neither a large sample size nor a specific assumption on the distribution of the data, or even the missing data [53]. PLS-SEM has been widely used in the research of co-production and individual behavior [54,55].” At the “4.2 Data Collection” section, we added: “Determining sample size requirements for structural equation models (SEM) is a frequent challenge faced by researchers. Previous studies mainly followed rules-of-thumb, including (a) a minimum sample size of 100 or 200, (b) 5 or 10 observations per estimated parameter [57]. For example, in a previous study containing 20 observed variables, the minimum sample size for the model structure was 100, and the recommended minimum sample size was 150 [58]. The model of this study contains 23 observed variables and 5 construct latent variables. With the assistance of local communities, a total of 441 questionnaires were randomly distributed and 405 questionnaires were considered valid, which is above the minimum sample size of 115 respondents for the research model.” In all, we think this analysis method is suitable for the data set of 405. The modifications can find in page 7and 8 (in red).
- Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage: Thousand Oak, 2013.
- Namisango, F.; Kang, K.; Beydoun, G. How the structures provided by social media enable collaborative outcomes: a study of service co-creation in nonprofits. Information Systems Frontiers 2022, 24, 517–535.
- Kwon, A.-M.; Namkung, Y. The Impact of the Perceived Values of Social Network Services (SNSs) on Brand Attitude and Value-Co-Creation Behavior in the Coffee Industry. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425.
- Wolf, E. J.; Harrington, K. M.; Clark, S. L.; Miller, M. W. Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety. Educational and psychological measurement 2013, 76(6), 913–934.
- Abab, S.A.; Wakjira, F.S.; Negash, T.T. Factors Influencing the Formalization of Rural Land Transactions in Ethiopia: A Theory of Planned Behavior Approach. Land 2022, 11, 633.
Fourth, we added section “5.2. Descriptive analysis” to present the descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of variables. The modifications can find in page 11 and 12 (in red).
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, it is impossible to get an idea of what the research actually covered from the content of the article, and to what extent they actually contributed to the improvement of the revitalization process. The presented text is a form of mathematical simulation, which, unfortunately, does not have much in common in the reviewer's experience with the participatory system for carrying out revitalization. I would suggest supplementing the text extensively with the assumptions and detailed descriptions of individual models. What is the significance in the revitalization process of sharing selection criteria as well as introducing and educating at the basic level, and what impact this may have on the results of research and revitalization itself? I believe that too few practical aspects have been dealt with, which in many cases are much more valuable than a simple mathematical simulation.
Best regards
Reviewer
Author Response
Point 1: Dear authors, Unfortunately, it is impossible to get an idea of what the research actually covered from the content of the article, and to what extent they actually contributed to the improvement of the revitalization process.
Response 1: Thanks for the comment. This paper mainly studies citizen co-production in urban community micro-regeneration, which is a way to realize the urban vitality revitalization. We have improved both the content and structure of the study to make the research content clearer. In the revised manuscript, the “1. Introduction” section describes the importance of investigating how governance tools can facilitate citizen co-production in community micro-regeneration. The “2. Literature Review” section presents a brief overview of the research literature on citizen co-production and its application to the community micro-regeneration domain is given. The “3. Research Framework and Hypothesis” section elaborates the research framework and key hypotheses based on the theoretical discussions and field investigation. The “4. Research Method” section describes our research method, including the survey area, the data collection procedure, and the variable measurements. The “5. Empirical Results” section presents the empirical results of the causal relationship between variables. The “6. Discussions and 7. Conclusions” section discusses the main theoretical and practical implications to urban regeneration and public service co-production, and suggests directions for future research. This study provides several important practical insights for public administrators to improve the performance of community micro-regeneration. Please see section “1. Introduction”, paragraph 6 (in red).
Point 2: The presented text is a form of mathematical simulation, which, unfortunately, does not have much in common in the reviewer's experience with the participatory system for carrying out revitalization.
Response 2: Thanks for the comment. In the revised manuscript, we highlight that this paper is an empirical study based on field investigation and questionnaire survey. In the first half of the paper, we theoretically propose that governance tools have a positive and significant influence on citizen co-production behavior as mediated by the effect of their perceived benefits based on the co-production literature and field investigation. And in the second half of the paper, we employed the structural equation model analysis based on a cross-sectional questionnaire survey of residents in Shanghai to empirically validate our theoretical proposition. The modifications can find in page 7 (in red).
Point 3: I would suggest supplementing the text extensively with the assumptions and detailed descriptions of individual models. What is the significance in the revitalization process of sharing selection criteria as well as introducing and educating at the basic level, and what impact this may have on the results of research and revitalization itself? I believe that too few practical aspects have been dealt with, which in many cases are much more valuable than a simple mathematical simulation.
Response 3: Thanks for the suggestion. We improved the “3. Research Framework and Hypothesis” section to supplementing the text. The theoretical model and hypothesis propositions in this research are based on the theoretical discussions on co-production and a field investigation focused on the practice of urban community micro-regeneration in Shanghai. This research approach of proposing theoretical framework and hypothesis is closer to community micro-regeneration practice. Please see section “3. Research Framework and Hypothesis” in page 5-7 (in red).
The SEM analysis results show that citizen co-production behavior in community micro-regeneration is at a medium level. While information-based tools have a stronger effect on in-role co-production behavior, incentive-based tools have a stronger effect on extra-role co-production behavior. The empirical results provide several important theoretical contributions and practical insights for public administrators to promote community micro-regeneration governance. Please see section “6. Discussions” in page 14 (in red).
