Dear Dr. Hu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 25 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Md Nazirul Islam Sarker, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf .

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“This research is supported by the 2020 General Project of the National Social Science Fund of China (20BZZ040).”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This research is supported by the 2020 General Project of the National Social Science Fund of China (20BZZ040).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This research is supported by the 2020 General Project of the National Social Science Fund of China (20BZZ040).”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This research is supported by the 2020 General Project of the National Social Science Fund of China (20BZZ040).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

7. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

1. The manuscript’s theoretical contribution is weak, offering limited novelty beyond existing participatory governance and satisfaction frameworks.

2. The research gap is not sharply defined, reducing the strength of the originality claim.

3. The case selection of Hangzhou lacks a compelling analytical justification and discussion of generalizability.

4. The operationalization of key constructs with binary indicators oversimplifies complex concepts and may compromise validity.

5. The instrumental variable choice—especially distance to the provincial government—has weak conceptual justification and questionable exclusion restriction validity.

6. Dichotomizing the dependent variable causes loss of information and statistical precision.

7. Mediation analysis may suffer from endogeneity between the mediator and outcome, undermining causal claims.

8. The discussion section offers limited theoretical engagement and critical interpretation beyond restating results.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The manuscript presents a timely and well-executed study on how self-governance willingness and participation efficacy influence satisfaction with urban public services in Hangzhou. The introduction is well-structured and clearly identifies the research gap by shifting focus from government-centric to resident-centered governance. The literature review is rich and cites relevant theoretical and empirical studies; however, further inclusion of global comparative studies on participatory governance would enhance the contextual breadth.

The methodology is a major strength, employing a two-stage least squares (2SLS) strategy to address endogeneity, supported by strong diagnostic tests. However, the justification for using geographic distance as an instrument for self-governance willingness, though standard, could be debated and would benefit from more robust theoretical underpinning.

The results are clearly presented and well-interpreted. The mediation analysis using perceived neighborhood disparities adds depth, and the heterogeneity analysis across socioeconomic groups offers valuable insight. Nonetheless, more visualization (e.g., interaction plots or marginal effects) could enhance accessibility for non-technical readers.

The discussion is theoretically grounded and policy-relevant, but limitations could be discussed more critically—particularly the reliance on cross-sectional data and potential measurement bias in self-reported variables. Future research directions could include experimental or longitudinal designs.

Overall, this is a rigorous and significant contribution to urban governance literature, with room for modest enhancements.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presents a timely and empirically rich investigation into how self-governance willingness and participation efficacy shape residents’ satisfaction with urban public services in the context of neighborhood renewal in Hangzhou, China. Drawing upon a large-scale household survey (n=2,202) and employing a robust two-stage least squares (2SLS) estimation strategy to address endogeneity concerns, the authors offer a resident-centric perspective that advances the literature on participatory urban governance.

Strengths:

The study’s strengths lie in its comprehensive conceptual framework, methodological rigor, and clear policy relevance. The operationalization of self-governance willingness and participation efficacy as latent constructs derived from factor analysis is theoretically sound and empirically well-justified. Furthermore, the integration of perceived neighborhood disparity as a mediating mechanism—situated within relative deprivation and social equity theory—adds conceptual depth and analytical nuance. The heterogeneity analyses, disaggregated by income, hukou status, housing size, and ownership type, significantly enhance the manuscript’s empirical granularity and practical value.

The authors' use of distance to the provincial administrative office and residents’ policy awareness/community participation as instruments is innovative and justified, and the IV diagnostics demonstrate the robustness of the approach. The findings—that both self-governance willingness and participation efficacy positively influence public service satisfaction, though via distinct pathways—are both plausible and insightful.

Weaknesses and Limitations:

Despite these merits, the manuscript has several critical limitations:

Theoretical Overextension and Redundancy: While the authors ground their work in a broad swath of literature, the introduction and theory sections are overly dense and, at times, repetitive. The manuscript attempts to synthesize too many theoretical strands (e.g., participatory governance, relative deprivation, institutional design, procedural legitimacy) without fully integrating them into a coherent theoretical contribution. A more focused and critical engagement with the most relevant theoretical streams would enhance conceptual clarity.

Endogeneity Strategy Concerns: While the instrumental variables chosen are empirically tested, the theoretical justification for their exogeneity is somewhat weak. The assumption that distance to the provincial government’s office affects satisfaction only through self-governance willingness could be challenged, especially in a context where spatial inequality might independently influence satisfaction. A more robust defense of the exclusion restriction is warranted.

Measurement Validity: The use of binary items to measure complex constructs such as “participation efficacy” and “self-governance willingness” raises questions about construct validity. While exploratory factor analysis supports the unidimensionality of the constructs, the dichotomous nature of the input variables limits the interpretive richness of the measures and may mask variation in resident attitudes.

Cross-sectional Design and Causality: As acknowledged by the authors, the cross-sectional nature of the data limits causal inference despite the use of IV estimation. Panel data or experimental interventions would provide stronger grounds for claiming causal effects. Furthermore, the assumed stability of attitudinal constructs like “willingness” and “efficacy” cannot be verified within the current design.

Overinterpretation of Subgroup Analyses: While the heterogeneity analyses are empirically interesting, the causal interpretation of subgroup effects may be overstated. The sample sizes in some subgroups (e.g., rural hukou holders, residents in reform-era housing) are relatively small, and confidence intervals are not reported. These limitations should be more explicitly acknowledged.

Lack of Critical Reflection on Participatory Governance in Authoritarian Contexts: The manuscript largely adopts a normative stance on participatory governance without engaging critically with the limitations of participation under authoritarian regimes. Issues such as tokenistic participation, constrained political space, or top-down orchestration of “voluntarism” are not discussed, which limits the critical depth of the paper.

Conclusion:

This manuscript offers an important empirical contribution to the literature on participatory urban governance in China. Its methodological rigor, large-scale dataset, and nuanced findings are commendable. However, the paper would benefit from tighter theoretical framing, a more cautious interpretation of the IV strategy and subgroup effects, and deeper critical engagement with the institutional context in which participation occurs. Subject to revision, the manuscript has the potential to make a significant impact in the field.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes: salman iqbal

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Dear Dr. Hu,

plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Md Nazirul Islam Sarker, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: The revised manuscript examines how “self-governance willingness” and “participation efficacy” shape residents’ satisfaction with urban public services during neighborhood renewal in Hangzhou (n=2,202; 36 neighborhoods; survey in Sept 2024). Endogeneity is addressed with 2SLS: distance to the provincial government instruments willingness; policy awareness and community activity instrument efficacy. Key estimates remain positive and significant; mediation via perceived disparity is presented as interpretive, not fully causal.

Did they fix what the editor/reviewers asked?

Formatting & style. Authors say they aligned files to PLOS ONE templates (titles, captions, numbering, references). However, the R1 package still shows visible Word formatting artifacts (“Formatted: Font: Not Bold”) in several places—these must be cleaned before acceptance.

Ethics & consent. Expanded and now explicit: informed verbal consent, script read by enumerators, consent recorded on the questionnaire cover sheet; adults only; de-identification at collection; field dates listed (Sept 15, 20–22, 2024). This addresses the consent/documentation request. One potential gap remains: the statement does not name an IRB/ethics committee or approval/waiver number. For human-participant surveys, PLOS typically expects the committee name and approval details or an explicit statement of exemption/waiver by that body. Please add the committee name and approval ID (or formal waiver).

Funding & funder role. Funding statement amended as requested and funder role clarified (“no role”); funding text removed from Acknowledgments. Good.

Data availability. Authors confirm the minimal dataset is included as S1 Dataset with variable names matching the manuscript; no extra permissions required. This satisfies PLOS ONE’s data policy (assuming the file is indeed present in the submission).

Theoretical contribution & case justification. The revision clarifies contribution (resident-centered mechanism; disparate roles of willingness vs efficacy) and justifies Hangzhou as a “most-likely” case with legally binding participation (“double two-thirds” rule). This substantially strengthens the framing.

Measurement concerns. Constructs are now clearly modeled as latent factors using EFA with diagnostics (eigenvalues, variance explained, KMO, Bartlett’s χ²) and estimated as continuous factor scores; robustness with additive indices and the original 5-point outcome is reported. This is a solid improvement.

Endogeneity/IV design. The distance-to-provincial-office instrument is better theorized and embedded in the program’s institutional context; first-stage strength and Hansen tests are reported; district and street fixed effects are included. This is materially improved, though see “Remaining weaknesses” below.

Mediation claims. Language is softened; authors present the disparity pathway as consistent with mediation and caution about endogeneity in the mediator. Good.

Heterogeneity & presentation. The revision reports subgroup Ns, adds visualization (forest/marginal-effects style plot), and treats subgroup patterns as descriptive rather than separate causal claims. This addresses the over-interpretation concern.

Remaining weaknesses (actionable)

Ethics committee identification still needed. The consent procedure is now clear, but the manuscript/cover materials (as shown) don’t name an IRB/ethics committee or provide approval/waiver identifiers. Add: committee name, approval number/date, and whether it covered verbal consent; or state that the committee granted a waiver/exemption, with details. This is the most important compliance gap to close.

Instrument exclusion restriction remains contestable. While the authors argue municipal governance and the “double two-thirds” rule localize decision authority, distance to the provincial government could still proxy unobserved spatial amenities or historic investment patterns affecting satisfaction directly. Consider (i) reporting robustness with additional spatial controls (e.g., distance to city center/rail hub, pre-renewal neighborhood quality), (ii) province-level road-network or historical connectivity controls, or (iii) a multi-instrument/over-ID setup using alternative plausibly exogenous instruments (e.g., historical administrative boundaries). At minimum, add a sensitivity table showing stability to richer spatial controls.

Cross-sectional design limits causal dynamics. The authors acknowledge this; the 2SLS yields contemporaneous LATEs. The Discussion could further emphasize that effects may incorporate short-term “halo” responses right after renewal and may attenuate over time; suggest a follow-up panel or pre/post cohort in future work.

Self-report bias and common-method variance. The survey timing and factor modeling help, but the paper could add explicit checks (e.g., negative-control items or administrative corroboration of renewal features) or at least a brief CMV diagnostic and discussion. (Not a blocker, but strengthens credibility.)

Minor but visible production issues. Remove residual Word markup (“Formatted: Font: Not Bold”) and ensure figure/table cross-references are clean and consistent before acceptance.

Verdict

Substantial improvement; nearly there. The R1 addresses most editorial and reviewer requests convincingly: funding/role statements, data availability, theory sharpening, measurement transparency, IV reporting, mediation framing, and heterogeneity presentation are all improved. The one material compliance gap is the absence (in the provided materials) of an explicit IRB/ethics committee name and approval/waiver information. Add that, plus a short robustness note on the IV exclusion restriction and a final formatting pass, and the manuscript would be ready for consideration.

If you’d like, I can draft a short author checklist paragraph that you can paste into your cover note summarizing these last fixes.

Reviewer #3: The authors have satisfactorily addressed all comments raised in the previous round of review. The manuscript is now technically sound, with robust methodology and data that clearly support the stated conclusions. The statistical analyses have been conducted with rigor and are appropriate for the research objectives. All underlying data have been made fully available, ensuring transparency and reproducibility. The manuscript is well-organized, clearly written in standard academic English, and presented in an intelligible manner. Overall, the revisions have strengthened the quality of the paper, and it is now suitable for publication.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

How self-governance willingness and participation efficacy shape residents’ satisfaction with urban public services: Evidence from neighborhood renewal in Hangzhou, China

PONE-D-25-24601R2

Dear Dr. Hu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Md Nazirul Islam Sarker, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: