Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this paper, which has an interesting theme. The overall approach is good, and the embedding in the literature is strong. However, the paper possesses a large level of complexity (unneeded), which negatively affects the clarity of the argument and findings. Some suggestions are below.

The paper is said to be an evaluation of the impact of an elite-dominated approach (lacking public participation) in public art planning on public art reception in Shanghai.

In my opinion, the aim of the paper could be explained slightly different, and more general, without using notions that are not easily understood (elite-dominated approach; public art reception).

For example: “The paper evaluates the impact of a case of public planning, and more specifically the effects on public art reception when the planning project is developed by an elite, without the involvement and participation of residents. The project is… and situated in Shanghai. The methods are a questionnaire survey that ….”

I would also avoid using explanations in which is being referred to ‘variables’. Keep he notion ‘variables’ for sections that elaborate on the methods, and use a language that is more relatable to when discussing the findings. Hence, the section is the abstract (“This paper argues that public participation…”) is not entirely clear.

The RQ is interesting, but not entirely clear: “Most research on the effectiveness of public participation was designed to evaluate the impact of public participation; an unaddressed knowledge gap is that the scholarship has not yet tested the otherwise such as: will lacking public participation cause public dissatisfaction and opposition, and then result in negative reception of the planning project?”

Is “place-based emotional involvement of community members” the key construct? If so, introduce it in the abstract, and give it a role throughout the text (including: operaionalization in variables). Cf. “This present research explores the place-based emotional involvement of community members to fill this vacuum.”

Check the appropriateness of the notion “mentality”. It does not seem to be the right concept. Mentality is a rather stable state of mind. Is “attitude” more appropriate?

Which three variables? Cf. “This paper creates a theoretical framework that explains how three extra variables (other than public participation), particularly locality, influence public art reception.”

The introduction of the paper is too long. Use the introduction to develop the argument, and introduce the key variables and the issue at stake (gap in the literature). Parts of the introduction can move to the literature section.

Hypothesis development: consider formulating the hypotheses in the present tense. For example: from “The cultural-elite state approach to public participation has primarily resulted in discontent with artworks installed in neighborhoods.” To: A cultural-elite led approach to public participation results to discontent with artwork in neighborhoods.

The me, the ‘classical experimental research design (Meier, et al., 2014)’ is not clear. The methods section could start with “This paper utilizes quantitative and qualitative research methods to assess the recep[1]tion of public artworks in Shanghai by collecting and analyzing respondents’ opinions and attitudes towards the sampled art localities. “ Moreover, it can be divided in sub-sections: data collection and sample, operationalization of variables, data analysis. The reliability and validity of the study should be discussed.

The results section could get a separate heading. I was surprised to see only diagrams based on Likert-scale questions addressing the level of agreement of groups.

 

The conclusion is well-written, but could better connect to the above, from the moment the above gains clarity.

Author Response

Please see the attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented work focuses on the public participation for urban and sculpture planning in Shanghai. The argument is very interesting and the research is well conducted, however here some suggestion:

-        -Introduction chapter can be implemented with more background and sentences

-          -Would be better to split chapter 4 and then create a “results” chapter refferred to surveys results.

-         -Please include a discussion chapter on which describe critic analyses

-          -Conclusion can be implemented with more sentences.

-          -References could be implemented

thank you

Author Response

Please see the attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has improved and become much clearer now.

Some minor things should be corrected.

Last sentence in abstract: “We finally suggest that the key problem of lacking public participation is not negative reception; rather, this is culturally unsustainable.” Is unclear.

In the methods: “Qualitative research method was also utilized in this research as the questionnaire survey includes a qualitative section that encourages free expression of opinions.” I understand what you mean, but the formulation is a bit unusual. There are several ways of adjusting this. One could be: “The research method entailed a qualitative component in the open-ended sections of the questionnaire that allow respondents to express their opinions on themes such as….”

Unclear: “Questionnaire surveys can be run in the localities.”

Something can become said about the representativeness of the sample or the generalizability of the findings. For example in relation to the age of the survey (data collected in 2016)

 

Check the quality of the figures. The diagrams in the appendix are much sharper: is this under control? Some of the diagrams have a border, while others’ don’t: be consistent. 

Author Response

Please see attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf