Addressing Peripherality in Italy: A Critical Comparison between Inner Areas and Territorial Capital-Based Evaluations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes a new comprehensive assessment model of peripherality, based on the evaluation of eight dimensions that cover a broad spectrum of the SDGs of the 2030 Agenda. Unfortunately, it is sometimes difficult to follow the rationale of the paper, due to some inaccuracies and a use of the English language not always correct.

Authors are suggested to revise the manuscript according to the following suggestions.

Lines 37-41: Reference or evidence is missing.

Line 48: perhaps the word "and" has to be deleted (?)

Line 57: it would be useful to illustrate the concept of "territorial imbalances".

Line 116: it is not clear whose the structure is. It looks like it is of the evaluation methodology. If that is the case, the adjective has to be changed to the singular form.

Line 140: what is the subject of "are". It looks like it is accessibility. If that is the case, the verb needs to be changed to the singular voice.

Line 178:  the first area of intervention is not clear. Is it the increase of the number of protected areas, the count of the protected areas of something else?

Line 199: if the subject is "service provision centre", the verb has to be changed to the third person.

Figure 1: The legend has 6 colors, but only 5 descriptions. In addition, in the numbered list, poles and intermunicipal poles constitute one element, whereas in the legend they are two separated elements. Moreover, the intermediate areas are not reported in the legend.

Table 1: It is not very clear to me how university students improve the production and efficiency of public service delivery. Do they deliver public service? Are we assuming that they will get graduated one day and that they will possibly get a job in the public sector, thus improving the public service delivery?

Line 237: you write that SDG 15 is not included in this model, but it is reported in table 1 in the dimension "Environmental capital".

Line 355: encompass or overstep the municipal boundaries?

Line 338: you write that the TC classification displays a more articulated pattern than the IA classification. However, if we look at the results section, we can see that the TC classification presents a pattern that is not just more detailed, but often sensibly different. For example, areas classified as peripheral in the IA model, became central in your model. What is the explanation of this significant change? Should we conclude that the IA model is not accurate and/or reliable?

Line 361: How would the model benefit from the inclusion of indicators related to the SDG 14 (conserve and sustainably use of the oceans, seas and marine resources)? Why SDG 4 and SDG 5 are not already included? As said before, SDG 15 is already included.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We thank you for your constructive observations and comments, which have helped us to improve the paper.

Following is a detailed response to specific comments and observations which we have taken into consideration, together with the indication of changes made in the newly submitted version of the paper (Please see the attachment).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Point 1: The article is based on a clear research question such as sustainable development, a complex and highly important issue, and has established a clear objective. However, the authors need to give more details about the modeling process, the research gap, and be much more precise about the article's contribution to the existing literature.

Point 2: The theoretical framework should be expanded with more  bibliographical references on local development, territorial planning...

·       Zeng, X.; Yu, Y.; Yang, S.; Lv, Y.; Sarker, M.N.I. Urban Resilience for Urban Sustainability: Concepts, Dimensions, and Perspectives. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2481. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052481

·       Adinyira, E.; Oteng-Seifah, S.; Adjei-Kumi, T. A Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Methodologies Emmanuel. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and Its Asses, Glasgow, UK, 27–29 June 2007; pp. 1–8

·       Tanguay, G.A.; Rajaonson, J.; Lefebvre, J.F.; Lanoie, P. Measuring the sustainability of cities: An analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 407–418.

·      Andrade-Suárez, M.; Caamaño-Franco, I. The Relationship between Industrial Heritage, Wine Tourism, and Sustainability: A Case of Local Community Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187453

Point 3:  The proposed model evaluates 18 eight dimensions of TC. It is interesting, but the selection of the elements must be better justified and describe the process in a more detailed way.

Point 4: Finally, I would recommend the authors to increase the discussion part and the conclusions with more reference to the previous theory. Of course, the advanced results in the abstract should be numbered and described in this section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We thank you for your constructive observations and comments, which have helped us to improve the paper.

Following is a detailed response to specific comments and observations which we have taken into consideration, together with the indication of changes made in the newly submitted version of the paper (Please see the attachment).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank first the authors and the editor for giving me a chance to read this manuscript. Here some advices based on my experiences at about 20 years on land management.

I have tried to write something in the revision file of the article.

Thanks to reviewers’ effort as you know an article is to be much better than its current situation by giving some different perspective. I hope all my criticisms are to be taken into account and reflected on the paper properly.

Thanks again for the authors for their time and mind on the article.

Regards.

Question about summary

The summary should be reconsidered in a very understandable and clear way. Only the work done and the results obtained should be included. In addition to a basic knowledge of the literature, it should reflect the definition of the problem and the purpose of the study. It should include conclusions and recommendations and hints on the issues to be included in the discussion sections.

About “1.Introduction”section

Stated in the article: It is widely recognized that the transition to sustainability is a global challenge that requires local government action to be effective. As highlighted by the United Nations, the global Sustainable Development Goals for the period 2016-2030 [1] should be achieved in local and national contexts and call for place-based development strategies to scale down sustainability issues.

Question: Actually, spatial physical plans are made for the execution of these works. Why is it so important to implement plans at the country, region, province and district levels, thanks to the principle of gradual coexistence of spaces. Please read this article (especially focus on figure 8) on this subject. (Web of science: Zoning plan-based legal confiscation without expropriation in Turkey in light of ECHR decisions). Comment also on the relationship between spatial planning in Italy and your work.

It is emphasized that EU Member States have different priorities and needs regarding different sustainability dimensions due to their different geographical characteristics and socio-economic structures.

Question: Based on this information, write down what kind of suggestions you have at the end of the study on what to do or not to do in the harmonization process of the member states as well as the countries with the potential to become a member.

As stated in the article: A balanced and harmonious regional development efforts are encouraged by the European Community with a locally based approach. The Treaty on European Union, which entered into force in 1993, introduced the concept of Regional Cohesion to strengthen the need to promote solidarity between Member States, between and within countries, regions, cities and municipalities.

Question: I think this harmonization does not exist among the current EU member states. Because, while there are highly developed countries such as Germany and France, there are less developed or developing countries. Of course, this is a targeted situation, but it is unlikely to be implemented in practice. Please review this situation in the discussion section.

Stated in the article: Recent research indicates that, in fact, the inner periphery extends to 45% of European territory and 80% of rural areas [9,10,15]. In addition, more than 30% of the Inner Peripheries overlap with the Remaining Regions [7]; this puts the Inner Environments in a more favourable position from a disadvantaged position due to the specific EU funds allocated for these areas [11].

Question: Can some incentives be considered for tradesmen or residents in areas like this one? Please address this issue in the discussion.

Expressed in the article: in this paper, we present a new framework for mapping the periphery through the absence of Regional Capital that leverages open data sources in a multi-criteria spatial assessment procedure [25]. This assessment provides an accurate modeling of the geographic distributions of different regional capital indicators, divided into eight sub-dimensions (human, social, cognitive, infrastructure, productive, relational, environmental and residential capital).

Question: Could you elaborate on this information a little more? What is meant by an accurate modelling?

About “2. Towards a map of territorial peripherally”section

Stated in the article: In the last three decades, many tools have been developed to measure and spatialize Inner Circles. The first maps were based on the Newtonian model of gravity, which was used to analyze spatial interactions between places on the basis of "economic potential" [26–30]. It was widely believed that physical distance from the main centers of economic activity could determine patterns of economic growth and prosperity.

Question: Currently, is this situation and thought still valid? Or has it changed? Please provide some more detailed information on this. How would you interpret the positive or negative aspects of this?

Expressed in the article: The growing concern for the well-being (or quality of life) of citizens in the least developed regions, «the provision of integrated packages of public goods and services aimed at triggering institutional change, increasing people's well-being and productivity of enterprises, and promoting innovation" ([34], p. XI). Contrary to typical formulations of GDP per capita as a measure of inequality, access to a minimum of 'Services of General Interest' (SGIs) by citizens and economic stakeholders is promoted as a 'vital prerequisite for balanced development' [35].

Question: Considering what kind of criteria as a measure of development, did you introduce the definition of "underdeveloped regions". Is GDP alone sufficient as a criterion? What other concrete criteria do you think could be used to formulate this definition?

About “2.1. The Italian map of Inner Areas”section

What is expressed in the article: The Italian settlement system is structured on a dense and differentiated polycentric network of towns and cities with various dimensions of population and regional and environmental, social, economic and institutional aspects. In this context, there are strong imbalances and inequalities between cities and “small centers” in terms of innovation processes and development dynamics.

Question: Explain the concepts of innovation processes and development dynamics and give some more detailed information.

Stated in the article: Among the most vulnerable regions are the “Inner Areas”, which are considered by European society as components of 'citizenship', defined on the basis of their significant distance from essential services such as education, health, mobility and virtual connectivity (internet access). can be a deterrent to live and work in these places. This is particularly critical, as the Inner Regions account for 53% (4,261) of Italian municipalities where, according to the 2011 census, 23% of the total population live, this equates to more than 13,540 people residing in more than 60% of the national population. region [24]. That's why in 2012 the Italian government launched the "National Strategy for the Interior" (SNAI). In 2019, SNAI was implemented in 72 project areas in 1,077 municipalities with 2,072,718 inhabitants, with a national investment of over 590 million Euros, in addition to the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI funds) and other public private financial resources [38]. In 2021, SNAI became the backbone of the Italian National Plan for Recovery and Resilience (PNRR), which allocates certain amounts of funds for interventions in these areas that are most hit by the COVID-19 pandemic [8].

Question: As it is known, places where people can live in more suitable living conditions in terms of suitable place selection criteria and geographical features can be analyzed with the help of GIS. There are many studies on this field in the literature. Please read this article about it. (Web of science: Revealing the solar energy potential by integration of GIS and AHP in order to compare decisions of the land use on the environmental plans). With a similar approach, can Italian Municipalities analyse the places where they want to place people and put these choices into practice with spatial plans?

Question about Figure 1: find a place on these maps, can you rearrange the map in a more attractive way by adding explanations stating the north arrow, the capital of the country, the names of the seas and the location and names of a few neighbouring countries?

Question about Table1: Is there an e-governance system that continuously delivers this open data? From which institutions and for which years did you obtain all these data, how and with what reliability conditions?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your constructive observations and comments, which have helped us to improve the paper.

Following is a detailed response to specific comments and observations which we have taken into consideration, together with the indication of changes made in the newly submitted version of the paper (Please see the attachment).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf