How Government’s Policy Implementation Methods Influence Urban Villagers’ Acceptance of Urban Revitalization Programs: Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some comments to the authors:

1) Literature review needs to be improved.

2) Panel B should not be included in the results Section?

3) Table 2 and Table 4 should be included in the results section.

4) English writing needs to be improved. Example: paragraphs from line 47 to line 68.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful inputs. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Suggestions for authors are in the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful inputs. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Paper addresses a very interesting subject on urban revitalization in China

The summary does not clearly presenting the objectives and the results, some parts need to be rephrased. line 21-25

The introduction presents some information and arguments for the study. A more detailed and structured exposition of the topic of urban village in China, would be useful. This is however presented further -3.1. Suggestion is to include this part as well as literature review part in introduction section. Explaining for the broader audience what this process of internalization of externalities represents would be useful as well

Methods and data are well described .

Figure 1 shows a distribution of urban villages in the main area of ​​Hangzhou. Suggestion is to add data source, map legend as well as to highlight on the map the 20 mentioned urban villages selected.

Suggestion to use only one term: or field survey, or questionnaire survey, or survey;

The variables introduced in the model need to be more clearly exposed.

The conclusions should be extended and more clearly formulated (lines 421-425).

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful inputs. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper the authors examine how government’s policy implementation methods influence urban villagers’ acceptance of urban revitalization programs in Hangzhou city, China. While the authors’ approach is fine by conducting a survey and performing a series of binary logistic regressions, there are some shortcomings that lessen the value of the study, which I will describe below:

 

I find the literature review section rather thin. I would suggest the authors to talk about the compensation structure and include further information as to how the amount of compensation is determined.

 

The main issue is incomplete binary logistic regression analysis results reporting and interpretation. The authors rely solely on the coefficient B to interpret the likelihood of outcome (accept or reject redevelopment programs) of a given variable. However, the coefficients are mostly commonly used to assess the overall outcome probability when all variables (not on an individual-variable basis) are entered into the binary logistic regression model. To examine each individual variable’s influence on the outcome odds, odds ratio, Exp(B) in SPSS, should be reported and discussed. I would suggest the authors to revise their binary logistic regression tables to include odds ratios, and to discuss each variable’s influence based on its odd ratio.

 

The perception on compensation is an interesting variable. The authors may want to perform a separate analysis by considering it as a dependent variable. It may offer some insights for policy consideration as to how other variables affect the perception on compensation.

 

In the Conclusions and Implications section, the authors offer three positive suggestions as to what “should” be done. This section can be more valuable if more detailed “how to” discussions are included.

 

There are a few typos in Table 3. For variable #8, value 5 should be reasonable. For variables #12, 13, value 5 should be uncommon or very uncommon.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful inputs. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the authors effort of improving the paper.

I just would like to suggest to the authors to concentrate on conclusions

How their research could support governmental decisions and why?

Can the results of the survey be intented as a best practices or guidelines for the improvement of the revitalization processes?

Which could be the further development of their research in future?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors made some useful changes in the article or justified some inconsistencies based on reviewers observations. This version seems much clearer to a wider audience. I have no comments, maybe just in summary-section, line17-22 -authors might rephrase, thus not repeting the word 'Redevelopment' so many times.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The revised version is much improved and the authors have made some critical revisions.

Author Response

We are grateful for the reviewer's very helpful comments during the first round of review. In the second round of revision, we have revised the language one more time and improved the abstract and conclusion.

 

Sincerecely thanks to the reviewer again.