Social Innovation in Rural Areas of the European Union Learnings from Neo-Endogenous Development Projects in Italy and Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors investigate an interesting and highly relevant topic, the role of neo-endogenous development projects in the context of the LEADER program of the EU for inducing and facilitating social innovations in rural areas. Empirically, they look at a broad range of selected projects in Spain and Italy, drawing on the analysis of information on these projects compiled in the ENRD database as well as some additional "in-depth interviews". Conceptually, the authors relate to the academic discourse on social innovation, dimensions of entrepreneurship, and 'neo-endogenous rural development'.

While the manuscript contains some interesting conceptual and analytical thoughts as well as relevant and empirical insights worth publishing and adding to the scientific discourse, there are quite a few major and many minor flaws that would need to be addressed before the paper can be published.

1) Although being no English native speaker and certainly not a language purist expecting perfect British/American English, I found many sentences very difficult to comprehend. Sometimes, the wording and grammar seemed odd - sometimes plainly wrong -; sometimes, the use of commata and semicolons was confusing; in some cases, a verb seemed to be missing; and often, the relation to the previous sentence or paragraph was implied by using 'thus' and ' therefore', but content-wise absent or very difficult to detect. For example, a sentence like "This attention arouses research, policy documents, data collection of different nature; however, leaving opened and discussed the question of how innovation is interpreted especially at the local scale and it is actually affected by regulatory indications and above all by contextual factors" does not seem to be much sense. I acknowledge that some of my comments or questions on the text might be due to my difficulties in really understanding the meaning of many sentences. Thus, as a crucial step for revising the manuscript, I strongly advise professional English editing.

2) The introduction and the second Section touches upon relevant conceptual approaches and policies like LEADER, yet, it fails in presenting them in a clear and structured way. For example, 'social innovation' is somehow defined, but respective strands and academic debates, incl. its position in the literature on innovation in general, are not presented. The link to social learning processes, trust, social capital, local entrepreneurship, etc. is not really clear - terms are mentioned and 'dropped' but the logic behind this is often not clear. Further, the key policy in this manuscript, the LEADER program, is not really introduced in sufficient detail so that readers who are not familiar with this key EU rural development policy and its characteristics might find it difficult to understand the role of LAGs, the way funding is provided, what "corrective measures" compared to the last programming cycle are. What is more, a definition or conceptualization of 'neo-endogenous development' is missing - what is the 'neo' standing for?

3) Often, a "logical framework from our recent research" is mentioned, but not clearly referenced. How is this informed/complemented by the concepts mentioned in the first two Sections?

4) With respect to methods, I would expect more details on how the analysis of the entries in the project database at ENRD has been carried out? Was any text analysis software used for this; if so, how was coding done? Further, in-depth interviews are mentioned without providing information on the number, of interviewees, key questions, etc.

5) The structure of the results sections makes sense - by and large. Yet, I wonder why the 'nature of innovation' is not presented first, followed by the role of actors and networks, and then the value-added. Further, it does not become clear why you refer only to some project cases (from the 24 that you investigated) and - more importantly - why you choose those and not others. While I appreciate figures when presenting networks of actors and various degrees of complexity, I have to admit that I did not really understand the logic behind them: there are different color schemes used in figures 1 and 2. Perhaps a legend would help. And why are two projects presented in figure 1, while figure 2 contains only 1?

In the following, I list more minor or detailed comments that would need to be addressed when resubmitting the manuscript.

• Line 13: what are "deep" rural areas?
• Line 19: TNCP not introduced
• Line 29: do you refer to social innovation?
• Lines 32-35: sorry, I do not understand this sentence.
• Line 36: what is 'it' referring to?
• Line 37: please provide a definition of 'neo-endogenous development' here or later in the text. The same goes for LEADER.
• Line 41: "action of local"
• Lines 41f.: This sentence does not make sense.
• LIne 44: what is 'it' referring to?
• LInes 47: please provide examples of corrective measures
• LInes 49ff.: what is this statement/claim based on.
• LInes 52f: MIght be true, but why?
• LInes 61f.: what is the relation between LEADER and TNCPs?
• LIne 65: "we argue"
• LInes 74-78: please revise sentence; split?
• Line 77: LEADER does not have agency, thus, it cannot be an 'actor'.
• LIne 107: "by extending their"
• LInes 110f.: I do not understand this sentence.
• LIne 139: who defined projects as being 'innovative', or not?
• Line 144: "After having framed the context"
• Line 148: CAP not introduced
• LInes 148ff: sentence unclear
• LInes 159ff: How does/did PEI-AGRI work?
• Line 168: What is the Oslo Manual - please revise the sentence
• Line 179: what is "this approach" referring to?
• LIne 192: "initiatives were created" - Please revise sentences.
• Line 196: well, "dark aspects" is a bit melodramatic...
• LIne 210: "contributions, such as...."
• LIne 220: what are "compatible" indicators?
• Line 221: again, what is meant by recent research?
• LInes 234-237: please revise
• Line 236, and in general: I guess you mean 'type', not typology/typologies.
• Table 1: who defines what a "better solution" is?
• Line 250: please check the last part of the sentence
• Lines 280-283: please revise the sentence
• Line 284: "an inventory"
• Lines 333: please provide 'title' of project.
• LIne 355: nice one ;) - "revenge from pastoralists"
• Figures 1 and 2: "Financing"
• LInes 366f.: "restructuring an old farm...started a donkey"
• Lines 390f.: The sentence does not seem to make sense.
• LIne 460: "in the first place"?
• LInes 474f: Well, I found the crucial roles of facilitators and local leaders not really presented as key in the result Section. Rather implicit, I find.
• LInes 499ff: Why? Where did you show this?
• LIne 527: contributions of what
• LIne 535, and in general: stay consistent - "added-value" or "value-added".
• Line 576: well, "extreme" is a bit strong; substantial/significant, perhaps radical, yes, but extreme??? Often, it is rather the high number of marginal changes that do the trick.

Author Response

Dear Ms/Mr Editor,

Please, find enclosed a revised version of our manuscript. We would like to thank you, the editor and the reviewers, for giving us the chance to revise and improve our manuscript. We have considered all of your suggestions and incorporated them into our new, revised manuscript. We believe our manuscript is stronger as a result of these changes. An itemized point-by-point response to the comments of the reviewers and the editor is presented below.

We would like to thank the reviewers for their diligent reviews of the paper and their useful comments and suggestions. We have extensively rewritten the paper in line with these suggestions and corrected the English. We hope it is now ready for publication.

Note: Because of the high number of modifications/new sentences and paragraphs, mixed comments from reviewers, these are reflected in the text in green colour.

Reviewer 1

1.- Sometimes, the wording and grammar seemed odd - sometimes plainly wrong -; sometimes, the use of commata and semicolons was confusing; in some cases, a verb seemed to be missing; and often, the relation to the previous sentence or paragraph was implied by using 'thus' and ' therefore', but content-wise absent or very difficult to detect. For example, a sentence like "This attention arouses research, policy documents, data collection of different nature; however, leaving opened and discussed the question of how innovation is interpreted especially at the local scale and it is actually affected by regulatory indications and above all by contextual factors'' does not seem to be much sense. I acknowledge that some of my comments or questions on the text might be due to my difficulties in really understanding the meaning of many sentences. Thus, as a crucial step for revising the manuscript, I strongly advise professional English editing.

Response: A native English translator has revised and edited the manuscript in this step to avoid these language errors. In the context where the words “thus” and “therefore” are mentioned, with a difficult understanding, these words have been deleted. Also, the sentence mentioned has been removed.

2.- The introduction and the second Section touches upon relevant conceptual approaches and policies like LEADER, yet, it fails in presenting them in a clear and structured way. For example, 'social innovation' is somehow defined, but respective strands and academic debates, incl. its position in the literature on innovation in general, are not presented. The link to social learning processes, trust, social capital, local entrepreneurship, etc. is not really clear - terms are mentioned and 'dropped' but the logic behind this is often not clear. Further, the key policy in this manuscript, the LEADER program, is not really introduced in sufficient detail so that readers who are not familiar with this key EU rural development policy and its characteristics might find it difficult to understand the role of LAGs, the way funding is provided, what "corrective measures" compared to the last programming cycle are. What is more, a definition or conceptualization of 'neo-endogenous development' is missing - what is the 'neo' standing for?

Response: It has introduced the concepts of neo-endogenous rural development, social innovation and LEADER, and these have been presented in a clear and structured way. Also, the links between these processes and implications.

3.- Often, a "logical framework from our recent research" is mentioned, but not clearly referenced. How is this informed/complemented by the concepts mentioned in the first two Sections?

The mention “logical framework from our recent research” has been deleted. The method has been explained in the section of Methodology.

4.- With respect to methods, I would expect more details on how the analysis of the entries in the project database at ENRD has been carried out? Was any text analysis software used for this; if so, how was coding done? Further, in-depth interviews are mentioned without providing information on the number, of interviewees, key questions, etc.

Response: It has been added more details about the analysis of the entries in the project database at ENRD.

“This research used a selection of projects for the Italian and Spanish rural areas, through the choice of specific keywords. Firstly, the words to make the search were: “depopulation” and “marginal rural areas”. After that, the keywords were “innovation”, “entrepreneurship” and “LEADER”. In this first phase, the number of initiatives were 24, 13 for Spain, and 11 for Italy.       

Following the selection, among all the chosen projects, only were analysed one or two according to the type of entrepreneurs: TNCPs promoted by several LAGs; projects supported by public entities (mainly municipalities); and finally, those led by small companies and entrepreneurs”.

About the in-depth interviews, it has been clarified the number of interviews and key questions threated.

“Additionally, in-depth interviews were conducted, one for each profile established (one for small entrepreneur -Agroberry-, one for TNCPs from LAGs -Wolf-, and one from public entities -Living Villages-), examining the types and roles of stakeholders in the implementation phase, the contributions of these projects in social innovation, and their added value”.

5.- The structure of the results sections makes sense - by and large. Yet, I wonder why the 'nature of innovation' is not presented first, followed by the role of actors and networks, and then the value-added. Further, it does not become clear why you refer only to some project cases (from the 24 that you investigated) and - more importantly - why you choose those and not others. While I appreciate figures when presenting networks of actors and various degrees of complexity, I have to admit that I did not really understand the logic behind them: there are different color schemes used in figures 1 and 2. Perhaps a legend would help. And why are two projects presented in figure 1, while figure 2 contains only 1?

The order of paragraphs in the Section of results shows, firstly, the tangible actors, and secondly, the social innovations and value-added. A network of actors has to be constituted to generate these social innovations. And social innovations and added values in these projects sometimes are inseparable. One contribution to social innovation could be an added value and vice-versa. It has been added and explained in the Methodology section.  

On the other hand, these specific cases were chosen according to the profile of the actor (private, public or public-private), and because in these concrete cases is easier to detect the network of actors, types of social innovations and value-added. Both of the figures show an unique project, one of these is a concrete private entrepreneur and the other one is a network of LAGs. It has been chosen to compare the less or more complexity of these networks of actors.

In the following, I list more minor or detailed comments that would need to be addressed when resubmitting the manuscript.

6.- Line 13: what are "deep" rural areas?

Response: It has been changed the word by “marginal”. It is easier to understand. Also, in an abstract, do not proceed to define the concept.

7.- Line 19: TNCP not introduced

Response: It has been introduced: Transnational Cooperation Projects

8.- Line 29: do you refer to social innovation?

Response: It has been specified.

9.- Lines 32-35: sorry, I do not understand this sentence.

Response: This sentence has been re-written: “There is a strong interest in understanding how innovation is interpreted at European level”.

10.- Line 36: what is 'it' referring to?

Response: The sentence has been re-written:

“This attention arouses research, policy documents, and data collection of different nature; however, leaving opened and discussed the question of how innovation is interpreted, especially at the local scale and how innovation is affected by regulatory indications and, above all, by contextual factors.

11.- Line 37: please provide a definition of 'neo-endogenous development' here or later in the text.

Response: It has been provided a definition of neo-endogenous development.

“Considering the literature about rural development, concretely in the context of neo-endogenous development -understood this beyond endogenous and exogenous models, focusing on the dynamic interactions between rural areas and their broader political and other institutional, trading and natural environments’ and contexts [5]-. The neo-endogenous aproach tries to merge the positive aspects of exogenous and endogenous theories, combining bottom-up and top-down planning, internal and external participation and networks, and vertical political-administrative relationships and horizontal inter-territorial and local actors contexts [1, 2]”.

12.- The same goes for LEADER.

Response: It has been added the definition of LEADER approach:

“The LEADER approach is one of the most emblematic practices of rural development that builds on recent theories of neo-endogenous rural development (Barke and Newton, 1997), which is at the same time, an approach, a method and a way to apply rural development. It derives from the French words: Liaisons Entre Actions de Developpement de l´Economie Rurale, in English language, “Links between the rural economy and development actions”. It works as a rural development “seed”, playing with a mix of governance and government. In a tangible and practical way, it is traduced in direct grants to co-finance direct investments.

This approach of rural development has played with several main specificities: networking, territorial perspective, integrated and multisectoral actions, local decision-making, economic diversification, bottom-up approach, innovation, local action groups (LAGs), public-private partnerships, networking, territorial perspective, and integrated and multisectoral actions. This initiative has been implemented over almost thirty years, firstly at the nineties as a Communitarian Initiative; and finally, the last fifteen years as specific actions inside of national or regional Rural Development Programmes (RDPs)”.

13.- Line 41: "action of local"

Response: It has been modified: “action of local”.

14.- Lines 41f.: This sentence does not make sense.

Response: Removed the sentence.

15.- LIne 44: what is 'it' referring to?

Response: The sentence has been modified, introducing the word “the LEADER approach”:

“International and comparative studies [3, 9, 10, 11, 12 13, 14, 15, 16, 17] confirm that the implementation of the LEADER approach in various European countries shows critical issues and limitations mainly to locally embedded factors (such as local governance, styles of government, the active awareness of local resources and needs, the existence of social capital and local entrepreneurship, etc.)”.

16.- LInes 47: please provide examples of corrective measures

This sentence has been removed.

17.- LInes 49ff.: what is this statement/claim based on.

The sentence has been reformalulated and clarified:

“Also, the future of the LEADER will necessarily foresee changes and innovations coming from within rather than from outside and reaffirming the role of the small scale in projects and actors, initiatives based on internal decision-making and local strategy plans”.

18.- LInes 52f: MIght be true, but why?

The sentence has been removed.

19.- LInes 61f.: what is the relation between LEADER and TNCPs?

Response: It has been clarified the relation between LEADER and TNCPs, TNCPs belong to one of the relevant features of the LEADER approach.

“In many cases, this is reflected in large-scale projects, such as Transnational Cooperation Projects (TNCPs), which belong to one of the more relevant features of this LEADER approach. Also, in the strategies of each LAG sharing more than one project, i.e. micro-projects included within a cluster. And finally, inside of actions that transcend the LEADER approach but in which the rural territories actively participate”.

20.- LIne 65: "we argue"

Response: It has been removed.

21.- LInes 74-78: please revise sentence; split?

Response: The sentence has been split:

“Therefore, in rural areas, where the enormous unexpressed potential has been recognized and, on the other, the problems of marginalization that are still current, the LEADER approach can be considered an important actor of innovation. Furthermore, this initiative has focused on an inclusive territorial approach instead of being limited to certain aspects or sectors”.

22.- Line 77: LEADER does not have agency, thus, it cannot be an 'actor'.

Response: It has been replaced “actor” by “element”.

23.- LIne 107: "by extending their"

Response: It has been replaced “extension” by “extending”.

24.- LInes 110f.: I do not understand this sentence.

Response: The sentence has been modified:

“In fact, the social aspects are continuously referenced in the European political debate”.

25.- LIne 139: who defined projects as being 'innovative', or not?

Response: The projects are defined as innovative by the European Network of Rural Development.

“The projects defined as innovative under the LEADER approach throughout the European Rural Network database -ENRD- will be analysed. Then, at last, we could understand the projects defined as innovative by the ENRD, how much these projects are affected by traditional models and/or external solicitations, and how relevant is the LEADER contribution to these practices. In the following paragraphs, starting from the literature, we will try better delineate the relationship between LEADER, entrepreneurship and innovation, trying to identify useful elements for the selection of the projects to investigate”.

26.- Line 144: "After having framed the context"

Response: It has been modified this sentence:

“After having framed the context of innovation in which we move, the methodology adopted, the results of the project analysis, and finally conclusions will be discussed”.

27.- Line 148: CAP not introduced

Response: It has been introduced:

“In recent years, the European Common Agrarian Policy (CAP) has been the subject of essential changes in the growing importance of knowledge…”

28.- LInes 148ff: sentence unclear

Response: The sentence has been clarified and reformulated.

29.- LInes 159ff: How does/did PEI-AGRI work?

Response: The sentence has been deleted, because its non-relevance for the aim of this manuscript.

30.- Line 168: What is the Oslo Manual - please revise the sentence

Response: The Oslo Manual has been identified:

“… to study the types of innovation detected in these LEADER projects can be followed the Oslo Manual [25], which is the international reference guide for collecting and using data on innovation”.

31.- Line 179: what is "this approach" referring to?

Response: It is referring to: LEADER approach. The sentence has been modified:

“Economic diversification, set in rural areas, added value in the production chains, and generating other complementary activities to the agrarian sector have been other achievements of LEADER”.

32.- LIne 192: "initiatives were created" - Please revise sentences.

Response: The sentence has been revised:

“It cannot be forgotten that most companies and initiatives created a long time ago, i.e., the nineties decade of the twenty century, are still working”.

33.- Line 196: well, "dark aspects" is a bit melodramatic...

Response: It has been changed the word “dark” by “negative”.

34.- LIne 210: "contributions, such as...."

Response: The sentence has been extended:

“Even if LEADER projects are insufficient to achieve and complete break-through, and not always establish concrete measures for sparsely populated areas, having produced poor results in specific types of rural areas, and also, some opportunities have not been sufficiently taken into account, they are excellent mirrors in which observe and learn of good practices, experiencing a huge number of contributions, such us rural tourism activities, valorisation of heritage, of local assets, proximity services -public and private-, valorisation of local food, etc.”.

35.- LIne 220: what are "compatible" indicators?

Response: The concrete indicators have been noted:

“In this study, for analysing public projects carried out in Spain and Italy, we used compatible indicators of social innovation deriving from literature [25]: cooperation between actors, creation of new networks and partnerships, organizational/identity changes, social groups working for the same goals, institutional and collectives learning aimed at a better knowledge of common problems, increasing the capacity of people to engage in cultural interaction and exchange, and new ways of organizing and involving people in the decision-making process”.

36.- Line 221: again, what is meant by recent research?

Response: It has been removed, and it has been added the main reference:

37.- LInes 234-237: please revise

Response: It has been revised:

“TNCPs promoted by several LAGs; projects generated by public entities (mainly municipalities); and finally, those led by small companies and entrepreneurs”.

38.- Line 236, and in general: I guess you mean 'type', not typology/typologies.

Response: It has been changed “typology” by “type”.

39.- Table 1: who defines what a "better solution" is?

Response: The column and sentence has been deleted.

40.- Line 250: please check the last part of the sentence

Response: The sentence has been abbreviated:

“It is essential to clarify the changes produced in the local organization [1, 7, 8]”.

41.- Lines 280-283: please revise the sentence

Response: The sentence has been revised:

“In the case of the initiative Living Villages, the municipalities (28 in total) played an important role raising awareness in local communities about the problem of depopulation”.

42.- Line 284: "an inventory"

Response: It has been corrected.

43.- Lines 333: please provide 'title' of project.

 Response: the title of the project has been provided:

“A very similar project called Diversifying a young female farmer’s income by investing in farm tourism, in the case of Italy, was carried out from the Marche region”.

44.- LIne 355: nice one ;) - "revenge from pastoralists"

Response: Thanks, the expression has been quoted: “revenge from pastors”.

45.- Figures 1 and 2: "Financing"

Response: In both figures the word has been corrected.

46.- LInes 366f.: "restructuring an old farm...started a donkey"

Response: Corrected.

 47.- Lines 390f.: The sentence does not seem to make sense.

Response: It has been extended and clarified.

“Finally, the continuity of these initiatives with other parallels, improved or concrete projects seeking similar or complementarity goals”.

48.- LIne 460: "in the first place"?

Response: It has been revised, thanks.

49.- LInes 474f: Well, I found the crucial roles of facilitators and local leaders not really presented as key in the result Section. Rather implicit, I find.

Response: It has been presented the crucial roles of facilitators and local leaders in the result section.

“The mix of external actors (universities, immigrants, new settlers, new young promoters) and internal actors (volunteers, municipalities, older people, unemployed, entrepreneurs); the inclusion of marginal or non-favoured collectives (youth people, women, unemployed, cattlemen and farmers, older adults, and immigrants); the active involvement of local inhabitants and farmers/cattlemen; the creation of new networks thanks to these initial projects (associations, collaborative work between entrepreneurs or between different stakeholders -i.e., cattlemen and ecologists-, with universities, extending to other rural areas); the crucial role of facilitators -LAGs- and local leaders -majors, entrepreneurs, visionaries-; are common crucial aspects in all of these initiatives; and finally, the continuity of these projects with other parallels, improved or concrete initiatives seeking for similar or complementarity goals”.

50.- LInes 499ff: Why? Where did you show this?

Response: It has been reformulated the paragraph explaining the strong social role of the LAG with other collectives, the reasons why, and the concrete project where this is shown.

“The comparison between the different projects and the executors clearly shows the strong social role of the LAGs: tackling problems affecting to disadvantaged collectives (Terre & Comuni lands);, conforming spaces for learning of a shared problem (Wolf project) or teaching the LEADER approach; , exchange between different actors and territories (Living Villages); discussion and intermediation between actors in conflict (Wolf) [39]; training, tutoring and advising for local entrepreneurs about local assets or local potentialities (Agroberry); building networks and connections of rural areas with similar problems (Wolf); and favouring the communication and transferability of results; crucial for the continuous engagement of local actors in social innovation projects”.

51.- LIne 527: contributions of what

Response: It is referred to the projects. The sentence has been reformulated.

“Definitively, the contributions, impacts and effects of these projects are more relevant than involved actors”.

52.- LIne 535, and in general: stay consistent - "added-value" or "value-added".

Response: It has been corrected.

53.- Line 576: well, "extreme" is a bit strong; substantial/significant, perhaps radical, yes, but extreme??? Often, it is rather the high number of marginal changes that do the trick.

Response: It has been corrected, adding the suggestion of the reviewer.

“In these experiences, the added value of the LEADER approach is the ability to produce a substantial cultural and social change compared to the initial situation of the context, or marginal changes that do the trick, favouring a significant change of perspective in the local community, supporting empowerment, and greater awareness about local resources”.

Reviewer 2 (1)

1.- The English MUST be revised by a proficient English writer. The sentence structure needs to be revised, the argumentation of each paragraph made clear and the verb tenses must follow a logical and grammatical sense. Also points and commas have not been throughly checked. The text reads like a literal translation from Italian.

As it stands, it is very difficult to read and understand the article.

Response: It has been revised by an English writer and native.

2.- Abstract: avoid using acronyms without introducing them first (TNCP)

Response: It has been introduced: Transnational Cooperation Projects

3.- attention to wording "between light and shadow", use of necessarily renders the meaning deterministic when it is not; "reaffirming the role of the small" which is unclear what it means, and also not clear when looking at the sentence in line 61 (large scale projects...?)

Response: It has been removed the expression “between light and shadow”, the expression “large-scale projects” has been change to “multi-territorial projects”, and finally, the expression “reaffirming the role of the small” has been completed: “reaffirming the role of the small in projects and actors”.

“International and comparative studies [3, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17] confirm that the implementation of the LEADER approach in various European countries shows critical issues and limitations mainly to locally embedded factors (such as local governance, styles of government, the active awareness of local resources and needs, the existence of social capital and local entrepreneurship, etc.). However, some corrective measures have been adopted in recent years (particularly in the last programming cycles), revealing the innovative character of the approach once again. This also leads to the belief that the future of the LEADER will necessarily foresee changes and innovations coming from within rather than from outside and reaffirming the role of the small scale in projects and actors.

Therefore, from a programmatic point of view, it is possible to argue that the link between LEADER and social innovation is clear. In fact, among the main features of the first ones are the innovation, the improvement of social capital, and the creation of public-private partnerships, networks and organisations to promote territorial and community projects. According to Neumeier (2017, 35) [18]: “innovation affects at least one user or context or procedure: produces a solution more effectively than the pre-existing alternatives could; constitutes a long-term solution; and it is adopted by “others” compared to the initial group of innovators”. Schematically, social innovation is attributable to three fundamental phases: problematization (the identification of a need or a solution by an actor or group of actors); expression of interest (the recognition of the collective advantage and the addition of other actors); delineation and coordination (the last step that identifies the birth of a new form of coordination and organisation) [18]. In many cases, this is reflected in multi-territorial projects, such as Transnational Cooperation Projects (TNCPs), which belong to one of the more relevant features of this LEADER approach. Also, in the strategies of each LAG sharing more than one project, i.e. micro-projects included within a cluster. And finally, inside of actions that transcend the LEADER approach but in which the rural territories actively participate”.

4.- There is no explanation to a sentences in line 52-53." How is this "robustness" actually demonstrated?

Response: The word “robust” has been changed to “clear”, and it has been explained in other sentences the link between LEADER and social innovation.

“Therefore, from a programmatic point of view, it is possible to argue that the link between LEADER and social innovation is clear. In fact, among the main features of the first ones are the innovation, the improvement of social capital, and the creation of public-private partnerships, networks and organisations to promote territorial and community projects.”

5.- There is also no reference to the sentence in 65-67

Response: The quotes have been removed, and it has been added the reference.

“In fact, in the context of neo-endogenous development, the success of social innovation is closely related to the quality of a set of physical-environmental and socio-cultural elements that authoritative literature calls territorial capital [1]”.

6.- line 69-70: how can the "action of the LEADER approach... influence the innovative approach"...? 

Response: The sentence has been clarified.

“In this way, being the territorial context permeable to external stimuli, but not passive, the actions of the LEADER approach could play a key role because they can influence the innovation process -through creative and new investments, projects and public and private funds-, from the outside only to the extent that they can remove obstacles or fill in infrastructure bottlenecks [1]”.

7.- line 75: "enormous unexpressed potential" what does it mean??

Response: This affirmation has been removed:

“Therefore, in rural areas, the LEADER approach can be considered a relevant element of innovation. Furthermore, this initiative has focused on an inclusive territorial approach instead of being limited to certain aspects or sectors”.

8.- line 79"given the results", which results? there is no explanation of the connection between results in the territory and the definition of LEADER. it also seems that these results stem from the definition, which is of course missing the ways in which uneven and heterogenous territorial processes occur. 

Response: The sentence has been removed.

9.- line 92: "this change was aligned with..." the reasoning in the paragraph is not clearly explained... confounding change in the rural context (which again is quite diversified) with change in the literature...

The first sentence, relative to the rural context, has been removed.

10.- line 99-101 it assumes the reader known what you are referring to...but how can "innovation...embrace"?

Response: The sentence has been clarified.

“Then social innovation initiatives try to embrace the whole context and focuse on specific assets of places, especially immaterial ones [1, 8], of knowledge and social networks. In this sense, social innovation took on new features, however challenging to interpret and measure enough to represent an essential and still open debate in the literature [19, 20, 21]”.

11.- line 102 "it becomes inevitable.." this language is not very useful in a research paper. 

Response: These words have been deleted, and the sentence has been reformulated.

“It is significant the role played by the social capital for the effectiveness of development programmes, particularly the LEADER approach, because it lends itself to developing all the main elements that we have seen to be decisive for the activation of rural development paths”.

12.- from line 124 on: it is not clear what the aim of the paper is. It needs to be contextualised and explained better. What does "nature" and "value added" mean? it seems that we are missing a theoretical framework to understand the analysis of the paper.

It has been contextualised the aim of this paper, adding the meanings and relevant publications about social innovation and added-values. The theoretical framework has been improved.

Background literature:

13.- line 155-156: what does it mean?

Response: The sentence has been clarified.

“In the official document “The Future of Food and Farming” [24], it is recognized the role played by development policy in the agricultural economy and, concretely, in the conditions of subsistence in favour of the rural population in terms not only of investments but also for the acquisition of knowledge, know-how, training and information, definitively in the improvement of social capital”.

14.- line 164: why "access to external knowledge still limited"? isn't this a paternalistic approach?

Response: The affirmation has been clarified.

“Additionally, the fact that farmers' access to knowledge is still limited is particularly evident in many rural areas characterised by strong marginalisation, because of the virtual and geographical distance to scientific and academic centres”.

 15.- line 168: why the Oslo Manual? What and how is it being used from the manual?

Response: It has been clarified the use of the Oslo Manual, which is commonly used by the LAGs to define and interpret the concept of innovation.

“Thus, to study the types and interpretations of innovation detected in these LEADER projects can be followed the Oslo Manual [25], which is the international reference guide for collecting and using data on innovation, being the main and specific component of these the input of social innovation, and additionally, an increasing tendency to complexity and sophistication in them, leading to good practices [2]”.

16.- 172-173: how do you back up this statement? what does it mean "external knowledge" and how about internal/local knowledge?

The sentence has been changed, introducing the meanings of internal and external knowledge:

“In this context, entrepreneurship is promoted by the neo-endogenous rural development practice, being one of its main specificities. Local entrepreneurship uses territorial assets, internal and traditional knowledge and know-how combined with external/technical and scientific knowledge and technologies to create new economic initiatives”.

17.- 179: mentality change?

Response: It has been clarified the concept of “mentality change”:

“The mentality change of the inhabitants of rural areas, from negative and passive perceptions to positive and pro-active behaviours, their changes of perception of rural areas along the EU has been a significant contribution, making real the sentence “Rural areas have possibilities of development”.

Chapter 3: Methodology

18.- There is no reference to which cases were identified and which framework was used to analyse them. It would be useful to have a table that lists all the cases, where they are located and how they are characterised.

Response: It has been identified the specific projects analysed in Table 1, and the framework in Table 2.    

19.- The first para doesn't hold: what key elements from the previous para does it refer to?  In other words, it is not clear what framework of social innovation is being used to analyse the data.

The section of Methodology has been reformulated. Therefore, the first paragraph has been changed, and the framework of social innovation.

20.- How are the indicators in table 2 drawn?

Response: It is explained in the text, extracted from Oslo Manual.

“The indicators were extracted from Oslo Manual [29], to study the types and interpretations of innovation detected in these LEADER projects”.

21.- It would be useful to know the list of cases before they are described in chapter 4 (results).

Response: The list of cases has been incorporated, in Table 1, in the paragraph of Materials and methods.

Results:

22.- the framework used is not clear, the tables do not have clear headings. It is not always clear if the authors refer to results or to suggestions and recommendations. 

The framework used has been clarified, and the tables too. In Table 2 we refer to the framework of analysis in the section of Results.

23.- Case from line 280: it is not clear what the case is about, rather it is inferred from the analysis.

Response: It has been clearly explained the objective of this project:

“In the case of the initiative Living Villages, a project focused on attracting immigrants,....”

24.- line 308-209: the authors refer to how this initiatives led to various projects but examples would help understand the types of projects they are referring to.

Response: The projects were not mentioned in the interviews and/or the report of the project in the European Network of Rural Development.

25.- 333- which project?

Response: the title of the project has been provided:

“A very similar project called Diversifying a young female farmer’s income by investing in farm tourism, in the case of Italy, was carried out from the Marche region”.

26.- 383 to 390 - incomplete sentences

Response: the sentence has been completed.

“The mix of external actors (universities, immigrants, new settlers, new young promoters) and internal actors (volunteers, municipalities, older people, unemployed, entrepreneurs); the inclusion of marginal or non-favoured collectives (youth people, women, unemployed, cattlemen and farmers, older adults, and immigrants); the active involvement of local inhabitants and farmers/cattlemen; the creation of new networks thanks to these initial projects (associations, collaborative work between entrepreneurs or between different stakeholders -i.e., cattlemen and ecologists-, with universities, extending to other rural areas); are common crucial aspects in all of these initiatives”.

27.- Why figure 1 refers to one case which does not seem to be innovative? Why not make a figure for the previous two cases showing where the innovation is?

Response: The innovations generated in this project are mentioned in the next paragraph of the text.

“The initiative Agroberry Original from Zamora, a young female farmer, introduced a blackberry plantation into a wheat and barley production area and created added value by developing a new range of products, selling directly to fruit consumers and stores. In this, the role of the family supporting the physical infrastructure and land has been highly relevant. The network is simple, having also, a special enrollment the LAG of this area, advising about the innovations products to introduce (Figure 1) [34]”.

Figure 1 contrasts with figure 2, in the number of involved actors, the more or less complexity of the networks of actors.

In this section of the manuscript the focus is focused on the role of actors.  

28.- Another example is the wolf: the authors state that now there is very limited conflict, but there is no analysis of how this result was achieved. what are the processes that led to this change?

Response: It has been detailed the processes that led to this change:

“In the case of the TNCP Wolf, the new forms of dialogue and consensus, and the resolution of local conflicts, have been obtained thanks to the following participative tools: seminars, meetings, debates, and working days, in which, participated all the actors involved; and through different actions of environmental training”.

29.- 402: why social capital "becomes the main reason for implementing these projects"? what does it mean? it is a stated objective or a consequence? 

Response: This question is clarified in the next paragraph:

“It is found that the most relevant and paradigmatic typologies of innovations are those related to the creation and promotion of social capital, which becomes one of the main reasons for the implementation of these concrete projects. Infact, knowledge transfer, social inclusion, resolution of conflicts, settlement of young and female people, creation of networks between internal-external actors, and the support to non-privileged collectives, are the main and stated objectives of these initiatives”.

30.- 421-422: how do you show that this statement is correct?

Response: It is explained the correct of this statement in the following added sentence:

“The involvement and participation of local actors, and the improvement of social capital, produce a new form of coordination and organisation rarely existing in other types of initiatives”.

31 .- 428-29? can you say "reduce"?

Response: The sentence has been corrected.

“In these, the sectorial approach, the high technological, scientific, and research components, and finally, the economic priority reduce other types of social, territorial, and global impacts”.

32.- 470………………….2 on: it is not clear where all these elements come from since they are not described in the cases analysed before.

Response: The cases analysed have been added in each of the noted points:

“At last, we can argue that the further key points emerging from the comparative study, under the lens of social innovation are: innovation comes from a concrete need or emergency that is really felt by the people involved (Terre & Communi, Living Villages); the crucial role of facilitators, local leaders, and visionaries, who know in-depth the local context and that they are capable of producing greater awareness in the community, in many cases reducing the local conflicts (Wolf); the ability of the facilitators, the members of the LAGs, to create networks synergistically and proactively (Cowocat, Wolf); the presence of that we can define in this work as a cooperating (cooperate and operate) community (local inhabitants and often people at risk of marginalisation involved in the process) actively operating together and strongly collaborative (Cowocat, Terre and Communi); the external support, considered as an opportunity, never the final goal (Innovative business opportunities from donkey milk); new forms of cooperation usually experimented between different actors, increasing and improving the collective knowledge, involved actors with different backgrounds represent a resource but if they know and interpret the local context adequately (Innovative business opportunities from donkey milk)”.

Conclusions:

33.- 533: can you actually claim to have demonstrated your hypothesis or your argument?

Response: The paragraph has been re-written to respond to the reviewer.

“The analysis of the projects selected for Spain and Italy revealed essential aspects of the role of the actors, the nature of innovation under the lens of social innovation, and the added-value in rural areas affected by depopulation and hard physical and accessibility conditions of Italy and Spain”.

34.- It is now clear also because you use terms like "significantly affect" or "produce extreme cultural and social change" (576)

Response: We appreciate your comment. The paragraph has been softly modified.

“In these experiences, the added value of the LEADER approach is the ability to produce a substantial  cultural and social change compared to the initial situation of the context, or marginal changes that do the trick, favouring a significant change of perspective in the local community, supporting empowerment, and greater awareness about local resources. Other interesting elements that would emerge from the projects is the need to take into account the realistic situation of the contexts which can only come from exercises that lead to the progressive and greater local awareness of needs and resources useful to the whole community, bringing out different visions through the effective inclusion of all the actors, current and future ones, living in rural territories”.

35.- Also role of the community is reified, as if it was a single entity and not subject to its own dynamics

Response: The paragraph has been nuanced avoiding the reification of the community.

“In these experiences, the added value of the LEADER approach is the ability to produce a substantialn  extreme cultural and social change compared to the initial situation of the context, or marginal changes that do the trick, favouring a significant change of perspective and perception in the local community, supporting empowerment, and greater awareness about local resources. Other interesting elements that would emerge from the projects is the need to take into account the realistic situation of the contexts which can only come from exercises that lead to the progressive and greater local awareness of needs and resources useful to the whole community, bringing out different visions through the effective inclusion of all the actors, current and future ones, living in rural territories. The inclusion, involvement and participation of all the inhabitants is a crucial point to generating positive dynamics in rural areas, and not only the leaders of these communities”.

36.- Almost a third of the references include at least one of the authors. It would be better to diversify the references and avoid so much self-referencing.

Some references have been removed, and it has been diversified and increased the number of references. As a result, the percentage now is lower than 10%.  

Reviewer 3 (3)

1.- Overall, the paper has some interesting things to say to about rural innovation, though I would advise the authors to, for lack of a better word, tighten the article to give it more focus and a consistent structure. For instance, the introduction addresses many relevant topics, but the throughline is not immediately apparent to me.

Response: the language has been improved, giving it a more consistent structure. In the case of the introduction, it has been re-structured. The throughline has been improved: the relevance of social innovation in rural development practice, the definition of neo-endogenous rural development, and the LEADER approach are the main aspects considered.

2.- The aim of the article (Page 3) is quite general for an article, and I am not sure that you explicitly address all of it in the conclusions (i.e. you don’t really talk about the nature of social innovation in the conclusions). Likewise, I found your account of social innovation unsatisfactory – I would like to see a more detailed discussion of what it means or at least a clear explanation of why you took the approach that you did without considering the alternatives.

Response: In the Conclusion Section, it has been added the nature of social innovation, and the less or more implications of the studied projects.

Additionally, in the Discussion Section, it has been added a more detailed discussion of interpretations, relevance and implications of social innovation in the analysed initiatives. 

3.- I would also suggest that you revisit Section 3 to make the methodology more transparent. For example, you refer to elements that you had identified in the previous paragraphs, and I am not sure to what elements you are referring. You mention in-depth interviews, but it is not clear whom you interviewed.

The methodology section has been clarified and modified.

For in-depth interviews, it is specified the concrete actors interviewed.

4.- I found Section 4 somewhat unclear and lacking in internal consistency. Sub-sections 4.1 and 4.2 are organised differently and this has a slightly disorienting effect. In 4.1 you describe several projects, but it is not clear whether these examples were chosen because they illustrate a trend or serve as “ideal-types”. You conclude with a summary paragraph.

Response: it has been explained the reason of the selection of these specific projects in the “Materials and methods” section.

“Following the selection, among all the chosen projects, only were analysed one or two according to the type of entrepreneurs: TNCPs promoted by several LAGs; projects supported by public entities (mainly municipalities); and finally, those led by small companies and entrepreneurs (Table 1). These projects serve as common trend in each of the profiles of actors detected. The analysis used the information contained in the description of these eight projects”.

5.- In 4.2 you provide more of an overview, focusing on general observations and identifying differences and similarities between the countries. Both approaches are fine in principle, but I would suggest that you find a way of integrating them.

Response: It has been been introduced some new paragraphs (3) and a table (Table 3), to deepen in the affections of the analysed projects in social innovation. Also, it has been removed the last paragraph, which could induce to wrong reflections.

6.- Also, you identify several important factors in the first paragraph of Section 5, and I think it would be good to relate these observations to what has been previously discussed in the literature.

Response: The first paragraph of the Discussion Section has been reformulated, adding to these observations to what has been previously written in the literature. 

7.- Finally, I would suggest “tightening” the connection between the results, the discussion and your conclusions, so that it is clear to the reader how the projects you looked and the issues you raise in the discussion led you to your conclusions. Again, much like in the introduction, there’s a lot of good stuff here, but the throughline (and how your research supports it) should be more apparent.

Response: It has reinforced the connections between results, discussion and conclusions, showing the projects and issues in the discussion, which is the base for the conclusions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Even though this is a topic I think is very relevant, I believe the authors need to significantly review the paper before they can submit it again. The paper rests on many assumptions which are not clearly defined in the literature as a framework and are not adequately analysed leading to confusion as to whether the authors refer to analysis, suggestion or inference. 

Below I provide some suggestions on where the text is unclear but as it stands each para and the para within the section need to be checked for logic, coherence and style, which is often inadequate to an academic paper. 

The English MUST be revised by a proficient English writer. The sentence structure needs to be revised, the argumentation of each paragraph made clear and the verb tenses must follow a logical and grammatical sense. Also points and commas have not been throughly checked. The text reads like a literal translation from Italian.

As it stands, it is very difficult to read and understand the article.

Abstract: avoid using acronyms without introducing them first (TNCP)

attention to wording "between light and shadow", use of necessarily renders the meaning deterministic when it is not; "reaffirming the role of the small" which is unclear what it means, and also not clear when looking at the sentence in line 61 (large scale projects...?)

There is no explanation to a sentence sin line 52-53." How is this "robustness" actually demonstrated?

There is also no reference to the sentence in 65-67

line 69-70: how can the "action of the LEADER approach... influence the innovative approach"...? 

line 75: "enormous unexpressed potential" what does it mean??

line 79"given the results", which results? there is no explanation of the connection between results in the territory and the definition of LEADER. it also seems that these results stem from the definition, which is of course missing the ways in which uneven and heterogenous territorial processes occur. 

line 92: "this change was aligned with..." the reasoning in the paragraph is not clearly explained... confounding change in the rural context (which again is quite diversified) with change in the literature...

line 99-101 it assumes the reader known what you are referring to...but how can "innovation...embrace"?

line 102 "it becomes inevitable.." this language is not very useful in a research paper. 

from line 124 on: it is not clear what the aim of the paper is. It needs to be contextualised and explained better. What does "nature" and "value added" mean? it seems that we are missing a theoretical framework to understand the analysis of the paper. 

Background literature:

line 155-156: what does it mean?

line 164: why "access to external knowledge still limited"? isn't this a paternalistic approach?  

line 168: why the Oslo Manual? What and how is it being used from the manual?

172-173: how do you back up this statement? what does it mean "external knowledge" and how about internal/local knowledge?

179: mentality change?

Chapter 3: Methodology

There is no reference to which cases were identified and which framework was used to analyse them. It would be useful to have a table that lists all the cases, where they are located and how they are characterised.

The first para doesn't hold: what key elements from the previous para does it refer to?  In other words, it is not clear what framework of social innovation is being used to analyse the data.

How are the indicators in table 2 drawn?

It would be useful to know the list of cases before they are described in chapter 4 (results).

Results:

the framework used is not clear, the tables do not have clear headings. It is not always clear if the authors refer to results or to suggestions and recommendations. 

Case from line 280: it is not clear what the case is about, rather it is inferred from the analysis.

line 308-209: the authors refer to how this initiatives led to various projects but examples would help understand the types of projects they are referring to.

333- which project?

383 to 390 - incomplete sentences

Why figure 1 refers to one case which does not seem to be innovative? Why not make a figure for the previous two cases showing where the innovation is?

Another example is the wolf: the authors state that now there is very limited conflict, but there is no analysis of how this result was achieved. what are the processes that led to this change?

402: why social capital "becomes the main reason for implementing these projects"? what does it mean? it is a stated objective or a consequence? 

421-422: how do you show that this statement is correct?

428-29? can you say "reduce"?

472 on: it is not clear where all these elements come from since they are not described in the cases analysed before.

Conclusions:

533: can you actually claim to have demonstrated your hypothesis or your argument?

It is now clear also because you use terms like "significantly affect" or "produce extreme cultural and social change" (576)

Also role of the community is reified, as if it was a single entity and not subject to its own dynamics

Almost a third of the references include at least one of the authors. It would be better to diversify the references and avoid so much self-referencing.

Author Response

Dear Ms/Mr Editor,

Please, find enclosed a revised version of our manuscript. We would like to thank you, the editor and the reviewers, for giving us the chance to revise and improve our manuscript. We have considered all of your suggestions and incorporated them into our new, revised manuscript. We believe our manuscript is stronger as a result of these changes. An itemized point-by-point response to the comments of the reviewers and the editor is presented below.

We would like to thank the reviewers for their diligent reviews of the paper and their useful comments and suggestions. We have extensively rewritten the paper in line with these suggestions and corrected the English. We hope it is now ready for publication.

Note: Because of the high number of modifications/new sentences and paragraphs, mixed comments from reviewers, these are reflected in the text in green colour.

Reviewer 1

1.- Sometimes, the wording and grammar seemed odd - sometimes plainly wrong -; sometimes, the use of commata and semicolons was confusing; in some cases, a verb seemed to be missing; and often, the relation to the previous sentence or paragraph was implied by using 'thus' and ' therefore', but content-wise absent or very difficult to detect. For example, a sentence like "This attention arouses research, policy documents, data collection of different nature; however, leaving opened and discussed the question of how innovation is interpreted especially at the local scale and it is actually affected by regulatory indications and above all by contextual factors'' does not seem to be much sense. I acknowledge that some of my comments or questions on the text might be due to my difficulties in really understanding the meaning of many sentences. Thus, as a crucial step for revising the manuscript, I strongly advise professional English editing.

Response: A native English translator has revised and edited the manuscript in this step to avoid these language errors. In the context where the words “thus” and “therefore” are mentioned, with a difficult understanding, these words have been deleted. Also, the sentence mentioned has been removed.

2.- The introduction and the second Section touches upon relevant conceptual approaches and policies like LEADER, yet, it fails in presenting them in a clear and structured way. For example, 'social innovation' is somehow defined, but respective strands and academic debates, incl. its position in the literature on innovation in general, are not presented. The link to social learning processes, trust, social capital, local entrepreneurship, etc. is not really clear - terms are mentioned and 'dropped' but the logic behind this is often not clear. Further, the key policy in this manuscript, the LEADER program, is not really introduced in sufficient detail so that readers who are not familiar with this key EU rural development policy and its characteristics might find it difficult to understand the role of LAGs, the way funding is provided, what "corrective measures" compared to the last programming cycle are. What is more, a definition or conceptualization of 'neo-endogenous development' is missing - what is the 'neo' standing for?

Response: It has introduced the concepts of neo-endogenous rural development, social innovation and LEADER, and these have been presented in a clear and structured way. Also, the links between these processes and implications.

3.- Often, a "logical framework from our recent research" is mentioned, but not clearly referenced. How is this informed/complemented by the concepts mentioned in the first two Sections?

The mention “logical framework from our recent research” has been deleted. The method has been explained in the section of Methodology.

4.- With respect to methods, I would expect more details on how the analysis of the entries in the project database at ENRD has been carried out? Was any text analysis software used for this; if so, how was coding done? Further, in-depth interviews are mentioned without providing information on the number, of interviewees, key questions, etc.

Response: It has been added more details about the analysis of the entries in the project database at ENRD.

“This research used a selection of projects for the Italian and Spanish rural areas, through the choice of specific keywords. Firstly, the words to make the search were: “depopulation” and “marginal rural areas”. After that, the keywords were “innovation”, “entrepreneurship” and “LEADER”. In this first phase, the number of initiatives were 24, 13 for Spain, and 11 for Italy.       

Following the selection, among all the chosen projects, only were analysed one or two according to the type of entrepreneurs: TNCPs promoted by several LAGs; projects supported by public entities (mainly municipalities); and finally, those led by small companies and entrepreneurs”.

About the in-depth interviews, it has been clarified the number of interviews and key questions threated.

“Additionally, in-depth interviews were conducted, one for each profile established (one for small entrepreneur -Agroberry-, one for TNCPs from LAGs -Wolf-, and one from public entities -Living Villages-), examining the types and roles of stakeholders in the implementation phase, the contributions of these projects in social innovation, and their added value”.

5.- The structure of the results sections makes sense - by and large. Yet, I wonder why the 'nature of innovation' is not presented first, followed by the role of actors and networks, and then the value-added. Further, it does not become clear why you refer only to some project cases (from the 24 that you investigated) and - more importantly - why you choose those and not others. While I appreciate figures when presenting networks of actors and various degrees of complexity, I have to admit that I did not really understand the logic behind them: there are different color schemes used in figures 1 and 2. Perhaps a legend would help. And why are two projects presented in figure 1, while figure 2 contains only 1?

The order of paragraphs in the Section of results shows, firstly, the tangible actors, and secondly, the social innovations and value-added. A network of actors has to be constituted to generate these social innovations. And social innovations and added values in these projects sometimes are inseparable. One contribution to social innovation could be an added value and vice-versa. It has been added and explained in the Methodology section.  

On the other hand, these specific cases were chosen according to the profile of the actor (private, public or public-private), and because in these concrete cases is easier to detect the network of actors, types of social innovations and value-added. Both of the figures show an unique project, one of these is a concrete private entrepreneur and the other one is a network of LAGs. It has been chosen to compare the less or more complexity of these networks of actors.

In the following, I list more minor or detailed comments that would need to be addressed when resubmitting the manuscript.

6.- Line 13: what are "deep" rural areas?

Response: It has been changed the word by “marginal”. It is easier to understand. Also, in an abstract, do not proceed to define the concept.

7.- Line 19: TNCP not introduced

Response: It has been introduced: Transnational Cooperation Projects

8.- Line 29: do you refer to social innovation?

Response: It has been specified.

9.- Lines 32-35: sorry, I do not understand this sentence.

Response: This sentence has been re-written: “There is a strong interest in understanding how innovation is interpreted at European level”.

10.- Line 36: what is 'it' referring to?

Response: The sentence has been re-written:

“This attention arouses research, policy documents, and data collection of different nature; however, leaving opened and discussed the question of how innovation is interpreted, especially at the local scale and how innovation is affected by regulatory indications and, above all, by contextual factors.

11.- Line 37: please provide a definition of 'neo-endogenous development' here or later in the text.

Response: It has been provided a definition of neo-endogenous development.

“Considering the literature about rural development, concretely in the context of neo-endogenous development -understood this beyond endogenous and exogenous models, focusing on the dynamic interactions between rural areas and their broader political and other institutional, trading and natural environments’ and contexts [5]-. The neo-endogenous aproach tries to merge the positive aspects of exogenous and endogenous theories, combining bottom-up and top-down planning, internal and external participation and networks, and vertical political-administrative relationships and horizontal inter-territorial and local actors contexts [1, 2]”.

12.- The same goes for LEADER.

Response: It has been added the definition of LEADER approach:

“The LEADER approach is one of the most emblematic practices of rural development that builds on recent theories of neo-endogenous rural development (Barke and Newton, 1997), which is at the same time, an approach, a method and a way to apply rural development. It derives from the French words: Liaisons Entre Actions de Developpement de l´Economie Rurale, in English language, “Links between the rural economy and development actions”. It works as a rural development “seed”, playing with a mix of governance and government. In a tangible and practical way, it is traduced in direct grants to co-finance direct investments.

This approach of rural development has played with several main specificities: networking, territorial perspective, integrated and multisectoral actions, local decision-making, economic diversification, bottom-up approach, innovation, local action groups (LAGs), public-private partnerships, networking, territorial perspective, and integrated and multisectoral actions. This initiative has been implemented over almost thirty years, firstly at the nineties as a Communitarian Initiative; and finally, the last fifteen years as specific actions inside of national or regional Rural Development Programmes (RDPs)”.

13.- Line 41: "action of local"

Response: It has been modified: “action of local”.

14.- Lines 41f.: This sentence does not make sense.

Response: Removed the sentence.

15.- LIne 44: what is 'it' referring to?

Response: The sentence has been modified, introducing the word “the LEADER approach”:

“International and comparative studies [3, 9, 10, 11, 12 13, 14, 15, 16, 17] confirm that the implementation of the LEADER approach in various European countries shows critical issues and limitations mainly to locally embedded factors (such as local governance, styles of government, the active awareness of local resources and needs, the existence of social capital and local entrepreneurship, etc.)”.

16.- LInes 47: please provide examples of corrective measures

This sentence has been removed.

17.- LInes 49ff.: what is this statement/claim based on.

The sentence has been reformalulated and clarified:

“Also, the future of the LEADER will necessarily foresee changes and innovations coming from within rather than from outside and reaffirming the role of the small scale in projects and actors, initiatives based on internal decision-making and local strategy plans”.

18.- LInes 52f: MIght be true, but why?

The sentence has been removed.

19.- LInes 61f.: what is the relation between LEADER and TNCPs?

Response: It has been clarified the relation between LEADER and TNCPs, TNCPs belong to one of the relevant features of the LEADER approach.

“In many cases, this is reflected in large-scale projects, such as Transnational Cooperation Projects (TNCPs), which belong to one of the more relevant features of this LEADER approach. Also, in the strategies of each LAG sharing more than one project, i.e. micro-projects included within a cluster. And finally, inside of actions that transcend the LEADER approach but in which the rural territories actively participate”.

20.- LIne 65: "we argue"

Response: It has been removed.

21.- LInes 74-78: please revise sentence; split?

Response: The sentence has been split:

“Therefore, in rural areas, where the enormous unexpressed potential has been recognized and, on the other, the problems of marginalization that are still current, the LEADER approach can be considered an important actor of innovation. Furthermore, this initiative has focused on an inclusive territorial approach instead of being limited to certain aspects or sectors”.

22.- Line 77: LEADER does not have agency, thus, it cannot be an 'actor'.

Response: It has been replaced “actor” by “element”.

23.- LIne 107: "by extending their"

Response: It has been replaced “extension” by “extending”.

24.- LInes 110f.: I do not understand this sentence.

Response: The sentence has been modified:

“In fact, the social aspects are continuously referenced in the European political debate”.

25.- LIne 139: who defined projects as being 'innovative', or not?

Response: The projects are defined as innovative by the European Network of Rural Development.

“The projects defined as innovative under the LEADER approach throughout the European Rural Network database -ENRD- will be analysed. Then, at last, we could understand the projects defined as innovative by the ENRD, how much these projects are affected by traditional models and/or external solicitations, and how relevant is the LEADER contribution to these practices. In the following paragraphs, starting from the literature, we will try better delineate the relationship between LEADER, entrepreneurship and innovation, trying to identify useful elements for the selection of the projects to investigate”.

26.- Line 144: "After having framed the context"

Response: It has been modified this sentence:

“After having framed the context of innovation in which we move, the methodology adopted, the results of the project analysis, and finally conclusions will be discussed”.

27.- Line 148: CAP not introduced

Response: It has been introduced:

“In recent years, the European Common Agrarian Policy (CAP) has been the subject of essential changes in the growing importance of knowledge…”

28.- LInes 148ff: sentence unclear

Response: The sentence has been clarified and reformulated.

29.- LInes 159ff: How does/did PEI-AGRI work?

Response: The sentence has been deleted, because its non-relevance for the aim of this manuscript.

30.- Line 168: What is the Oslo Manual - please revise the sentence

Response: The Oslo Manual has been identified:

“… to study the types of innovation detected in these LEADER projects can be followed the Oslo Manual [25], which is the international reference guide for collecting and using data on innovation”.

31.- Line 179: what is "this approach" referring to?

Response: It is referring to: LEADER approach. The sentence has been modified:

“Economic diversification, set in rural areas, added value in the production chains, and generating other complementary activities to the agrarian sector have been other achievements of LEADER”.

32.- LIne 192: "initiatives were created" - Please revise sentences.

Response: The sentence has been revised:

“It cannot be forgotten that most companies and initiatives created a long time ago, i.e., the nineties decade of the twenty century, are still working”.

33.- Line 196: well, "dark aspects" is a bit melodramatic...

Response: It has been changed the word “dark” by “negative”.

34.- LIne 210: "contributions, such as...."

Response: The sentence has been extended:

“Even if LEADER projects are insufficient to achieve and complete break-through, and not always establish concrete measures for sparsely populated areas, having produced poor results in specific types of rural areas, and also, some opportunities have not been sufficiently taken into account, they are excellent mirrors in which observe and learn of good practices, experiencing a huge number of contributions, such us rural tourism activities, valorisation of heritage, of local assets, proximity services -public and private-, valorisation of local food, etc.”.

35.- LIne 220: what are "compatible" indicators?

Response: The concrete indicators have been noted:

“In this study, for analysing public projects carried out in Spain and Italy, we used compatible indicators of social innovation deriving from literature [25]: cooperation between actors, creation of new networks and partnerships, organizational/identity changes, social groups working for the same goals, institutional and collectives learning aimed at a better knowledge of common problems, increasing the capacity of people to engage in cultural interaction and exchange, and new ways of organizing and involving people in the decision-making process”.

36.- Line 221: again, what is meant by recent research?

Response: It has been removed, and it has been added the main reference:

37.- LInes 234-237: please revise

Response: It has been revised:

“TNCPs promoted by several LAGs; projects generated by public entities (mainly municipalities); and finally, those led by small companies and entrepreneurs”.

38.- Line 236, and in general: I guess you mean 'type', not typology/typologies.

Response: It has been changed “typology” by “type”.

39.- Table 1: who defines what a "better solution" is?

Response: The column and sentence has been deleted.

40.- Line 250: please check the last part of the sentence

Response: The sentence has been abbreviated:

“It is essential to clarify the changes produced in the local organization [1, 7, 8]”.

41.- Lines 280-283: please revise the sentence

Response: The sentence has been revised:

“In the case of the initiative Living Villages, the municipalities (28 in total) played an important role raising awareness in local communities about the problem of depopulation”.

42.- Line 284: "an inventory"

Response: It has been corrected.

43.- Lines 333: please provide 'title' of project.

 Response: the title of the project has been provided:

“A very similar project called Diversifying a young female farmer’s income by investing in farm tourism, in the case of Italy, was carried out from the Marche region”.

44.- LIne 355: nice one ;) - "revenge from pastoralists"

Response: Thanks, the expression has been quoted: “revenge from pastors”.

45.- Figures 1 and 2: "Financing"

Response: In both figures the word has been corrected.

46.- LInes 366f.: "restructuring an old farm...started a donkey"

Response: Corrected.

 47.- Lines 390f.: The sentence does not seem to make sense.

Response: It has been extended and clarified.

“Finally, the continuity of these initiatives with other parallels, improved or concrete projects seeking similar or complementarity goals”.

48.- LIne 460: "in the first place"?

Response: It has been revised, thanks.

49.- LInes 474f: Well, I found the crucial roles of facilitators and local leaders not really presented as key in the result Section. Rather implicit, I find.

Response: It has been presented the crucial roles of facilitators and local leaders in the result section.

“The mix of external actors (universities, immigrants, new settlers, new young promoters) and internal actors (volunteers, municipalities, older people, unemployed, entrepreneurs); the inclusion of marginal or non-favoured collectives (youth people, women, unemployed, cattlemen and farmers, older adults, and immigrants); the active involvement of local inhabitants and farmers/cattlemen; the creation of new networks thanks to these initial projects (associations, collaborative work between entrepreneurs or between different stakeholders -i.e., cattlemen and ecologists-, with universities, extending to other rural areas); the crucial role of facilitators -LAGs- and local leaders -majors, entrepreneurs, visionaries-; are common crucial aspects in all of these initiatives; and finally, the continuity of these projects with other parallels, improved or concrete initiatives seeking for similar or complementarity goals”.

50.- LInes 499ff: Why? Where did you show this?

Response: It has been reformulated the paragraph explaining the strong social role of the LAG with other collectives, the reasons why, and the concrete project where this is shown.

“The comparison between the different projects and the executors clearly shows the strong social role of the LAGs: tackling problems affecting to disadvantaged collectives (Terre & Comuni lands);, conforming spaces for learning of a shared problem (Wolf project) or teaching the LEADER approach; , exchange between different actors and territories (Living Villages); discussion and intermediation between actors in conflict (Wolf) [39]; training, tutoring and advising for local entrepreneurs about local assets or local potentialities (Agroberry); building networks and connections of rural areas with similar problems (Wolf); and favouring the communication and transferability of results; crucial for the continuous engagement of local actors in social innovation projects”.

51.- LIne 527: contributions of what

Response: It is referred to the projects. The sentence has been reformulated.

“Definitively, the contributions, impacts and effects of these projects are more relevant than involved actors”.

52.- LIne 535, and in general: stay consistent - "added-value" or "value-added".

Response: It has been corrected.

53.- Line 576: well, "extreme" is a bit strong; substantial/significant, perhaps radical, yes, but extreme??? Often, it is rather the high number of marginal changes that do the trick.

Response: It has been corrected, adding the suggestion of the reviewer.

“In these experiences, the added value of the LEADER approach is the ability to produce a substantial cultural and social change compared to the initial situation of the context, or marginal changes that do the trick, favouring a significant change of perspective in the local community, supporting empowerment, and greater awareness about local resources”.

Reviewer 2 (1)

1.- The English MUST be revised by a proficient English writer. The sentence structure needs to be revised, the argumentation of each paragraph made clear and the verb tenses must follow a logical and grammatical sense. Also points and commas have not been throughly checked. The text reads like a literal translation from Italian.

As it stands, it is very difficult to read and understand the article.

Response: It has been revised by an English writer and native.

2.- Abstract: avoid using acronyms without introducing them first (TNCP)

Response: It has been introduced: Transnational Cooperation Projects

3.- attention to wording "between light and shadow", use of necessarily renders the meaning deterministic when it is not; "reaffirming the role of the small" which is unclear what it means, and also not clear when looking at the sentence in line 61 (large scale projects...?)

Response: It has been removed the expression “between light and shadow”, the expression “large-scale projects” has been change to “multi-territorial projects”, and finally, the expression “reaffirming the role of the small” has been completed: “reaffirming the role of the small in projects and actors”.

“International and comparative studies [3, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17] confirm that the implementation of the LEADER approach in various European countries shows critical issues and limitations mainly to locally embedded factors (such as local governance, styles of government, the active awareness of local resources and needs, the existence of social capital and local entrepreneurship, etc.). However, some corrective measures have been adopted in recent years (particularly in the last programming cycles), revealing the innovative character of the approach once again. This also leads to the belief that the future of the LEADER will necessarily foresee changes and innovations coming from within rather than from outside and reaffirming the role of the small scale in projects and actors.

Therefore, from a programmatic point of view, it is possible to argue that the link between LEADER and social innovation is clear. In fact, among the main features of the first ones are the innovation, the improvement of social capital, and the creation of public-private partnerships, networks and organisations to promote territorial and community projects. According to Neumeier (2017, 35) [18]: “innovation affects at least one user or context or procedure: produces a solution more effectively than the pre-existing alternatives could; constitutes a long-term solution; and it is adopted by “others” compared to the initial group of innovators”. Schematically, social innovation is attributable to three fundamental phases: problematization (the identification of a need or a solution by an actor or group of actors); expression of interest (the recognition of the collective advantage and the addition of other actors); delineation and coordination (the last step that identifies the birth of a new form of coordination and organisation) [18]. In many cases, this is reflected in multi-territorial projects, such as Transnational Cooperation Projects (TNCPs), which belong to one of the more relevant features of this LEADER approach. Also, in the strategies of each LAG sharing more than one project, i.e. micro-projects included within a cluster. And finally, inside of actions that transcend the LEADER approach but in which the rural territories actively participate”.

4.- There is no explanation to a sentences in line 52-53." How is this "robustness" actually demonstrated?

Response: The word “robust” has been changed to “clear”, and it has been explained in other sentences the link between LEADER and social innovation.

“Therefore, from a programmatic point of view, it is possible to argue that the link between LEADER and social innovation is clear. In fact, among the main features of the first ones are the innovation, the improvement of social capital, and the creation of public-private partnerships, networks and organisations to promote territorial and community projects.”

5.- There is also no reference to the sentence in 65-67

Response: The quotes have been removed, and it has been added the reference.

“In fact, in the context of neo-endogenous development, the success of social innovation is closely related to the quality of a set of physical-environmental and socio-cultural elements that authoritative literature calls territorial capital [1]”.

6.- line 69-70: how can the "action of the LEADER approach... influence the innovative approach"...? 

Response: The sentence has been clarified.

“In this way, being the territorial context permeable to external stimuli, but not passive, the actions of the LEADER approach could play a key role because they can influence the innovation process -through creative and new investments, projects and public and private funds-, from the outside only to the extent that they can remove obstacles or fill in infrastructure bottlenecks [1]”.

7.- line 75: "enormous unexpressed potential" what does it mean??

Response: This affirmation has been removed:

“Therefore, in rural areas, the LEADER approach can be considered a relevant element of innovation. Furthermore, this initiative has focused on an inclusive territorial approach instead of being limited to certain aspects or sectors”.

8.- line 79"given the results", which results? there is no explanation of the connection between results in the territory and the definition of LEADER. it also seems that these results stem from the definition, which is of course missing the ways in which uneven and heterogenous territorial processes occur. 

Response: The sentence has been removed.

9.- line 92: "this change was aligned with..." the reasoning in the paragraph is not clearly explained... confounding change in the rural context (which again is quite diversified) with change in the literature...

The first sentence, relative to the rural context, has been removed.

10.- line 99-101 it assumes the reader known what you are referring to...but how can "innovation...embrace"?

Response: The sentence has been clarified.

“Then social innovation initiatives try to embrace the whole context and focuse on specific assets of places, especially immaterial ones [1, 8], of knowledge and social networks. In this sense, social innovation took on new features, however challenging to interpret and measure enough to represent an essential and still open debate in the literature [19, 20, 21]”.

11.- line 102 "it becomes inevitable.." this language is not very useful in a research paper. 

Response: These words have been deleted, and the sentence has been reformulated.

“It is significant the role played by the social capital for the effectiveness of development programmes, particularly the LEADER approach, because it lends itself to developing all the main elements that we have seen to be decisive for the activation of rural development paths”.

12.- from line 124 on: it is not clear what the aim of the paper is. It needs to be contextualised and explained better. What does "nature" and "value added" mean? it seems that we are missing a theoretical framework to understand the analysis of the paper.

It has been contextualised the aim of this paper, adding the meanings and relevant publications about social innovation and added-values. The theoretical framework has been improved.

Background literature:

13.- line 155-156: what does it mean?

Response: The sentence has been clarified.

“In the official document “The Future of Food and Farming” [24], it is recognized the role played by development policy in the agricultural economy and, concretely, in the conditions of subsistence in favour of the rural population in terms not only of investments but also for the acquisition of knowledge, know-how, training and information, definitively in the improvement of social capital”.

14.- line 164: why "access to external knowledge still limited"? isn't this a paternalistic approach?

Response: The affirmation has been clarified.

“Additionally, the fact that farmers' access to knowledge is still limited is particularly evident in many rural areas characterised by strong marginalisation, because of the virtual and geographical distance to scientific and academic centres”.

 15.- line 168: why the Oslo Manual? What and how is it being used from the manual?

Response: It has been clarified the use of the Oslo Manual, which is commonly used by the LAGs to define and interpret the concept of innovation.

“Thus, to study the types and interpretations of innovation detected in these LEADER projects can be followed the Oslo Manual [25], which is the international reference guide for collecting and using data on innovation, being the main and specific component of these the input of social innovation, and additionally, an increasing tendency to complexity and sophistication in them, leading to good practices [2]”.

16.- 172-173: how do you back up this statement? what does it mean "external knowledge" and how about internal/local knowledge?

The sentence has been changed, introducing the meanings of internal and external knowledge:

“In this context, entrepreneurship is promoted by the neo-endogenous rural development practice, being one of its main specificities. Local entrepreneurship uses territorial assets, internal and traditional knowledge and know-how combined with external/technical and scientific knowledge and technologies to create new economic initiatives”.

17.- 179: mentality change?

Response: It has been clarified the concept of “mentality change”:

“The mentality change of the inhabitants of rural areas, from negative and passive perceptions to positive and pro-active behaviours, their changes of perception of rural areas along the EU has been a significant contribution, making real the sentence “Rural areas have possibilities of development”.

Chapter 3: Methodology

18.- There is no reference to which cases were identified and which framework was used to analyse them. It would be useful to have a table that lists all the cases, where they are located and how they are characterised.

Response: It has been identified the specific projects analysed in Table 1, and the framework in Table 2.    

19.- The first para doesn't hold: what key elements from the previous para does it refer to?  In other words, it is not clear what framework of social innovation is being used to analyse the data.

The section of Methodology has been reformulated. Therefore, the first paragraph has been changed, and the framework of social innovation.

20.- How are the indicators in table 2 drawn?

Response: It is explained in the text, extracted from Oslo Manual.

“The indicators were extracted from Oslo Manual [29], to study the types and interpretations of innovation detected in these LEADER projects”.

21.- It would be useful to know the list of cases before they are described in chapter 4 (results).

Response: The list of cases has been incorporated, in Table 1, in the paragraph of Materials and methods.

Results:

22.- the framework used is not clear, the tables do not have clear headings. It is not always clear if the authors refer to results or to suggestions and recommendations. 

The framework used has been clarified, and the tables too. In Table 2 we refer to the framework of analysis in the section of Results.

23.- Case from line 280: it is not clear what the case is about, rather it is inferred from the analysis.

Response: It has been clearly explained the objective of this project:

“In the case of the initiative Living Villages, a project focused on attracting immigrants,....”

24.- line 308-209: the authors refer to how this initiatives led to various projects but examples would help understand the types of projects they are referring to.

Response: The projects were not mentioned in the interviews and/or the report of the project in the European Network of Rural Development.

25.- 333- which project?

Response: the title of the project has been provided:

“A very similar project called Diversifying a young female farmer’s income by investing in farm tourism, in the case of Italy, was carried out from the Marche region”.

26.- 383 to 390 - incomplete sentences

Response: the sentence has been completed.

“The mix of external actors (universities, immigrants, new settlers, new young promoters) and internal actors (volunteers, municipalities, older people, unemployed, entrepreneurs); the inclusion of marginal or non-favoured collectives (youth people, women, unemployed, cattlemen and farmers, older adults, and immigrants); the active involvement of local inhabitants and farmers/cattlemen; the creation of new networks thanks to these initial projects (associations, collaborative work between entrepreneurs or between different stakeholders -i.e., cattlemen and ecologists-, with universities, extending to other rural areas); are common crucial aspects in all of these initiatives”.

27.- Why figure 1 refers to one case which does not seem to be innovative? Why not make a figure for the previous two cases showing where the innovation is?

Response: The innovations generated in this project are mentioned in the next paragraph of the text.

“The initiative Agroberry Original from Zamora, a young female farmer, introduced a blackberry plantation into a wheat and barley production area and created added value by developing a new range of products, selling directly to fruit consumers and stores. In this, the role of the family supporting the physical infrastructure and land has been highly relevant. The network is simple, having also, a special enrollment the LAG of this area, advising about the innovations products to introduce (Figure 1) [34]”.

Figure 1 contrasts with figure 2, in the number of involved actors, the more or less complexity of the networks of actors.

In this section of the manuscript the focus is focused on the role of actors.  

28.- Another example is the wolf: the authors state that now there is very limited conflict, but there is no analysis of how this result was achieved. what are the processes that led to this change?

Response: It has been detailed the processes that led to this change:

“In the case of the TNCP Wolf, the new forms of dialogue and consensus, and the resolution of local conflicts, have been obtained thanks to the following participative tools: seminars, meetings, debates, and working days, in which, participated all the actors involved; and through different actions of environmental training”.

29.- 402: why social capital "becomes the main reason for implementing these projects"? what does it mean? it is a stated objective or a consequence? 

Response: This question is clarified in the next paragraph:

“It is found that the most relevant and paradigmatic typologies of innovations are those related to the creation and promotion of social capital, which becomes one of the main reasons for the implementation of these concrete projects. Infact, knowledge transfer, social inclusion, resolution of conflicts, settlement of young and female people, creation of networks between internal-external actors, and the support to non-privileged collectives, are the main and stated objectives of these initiatives”.

30.- 421-422: how do you show that this statement is correct?

Response: It is explained the correct of this statement in the following added sentence:

“The involvement and participation of local actors, and the improvement of social capital, produce a new form of coordination and organisation rarely existing in other types of initiatives”.

31 .- 428-29? can you say "reduce"?

Response: The sentence has been corrected.

“In these, the sectorial approach, the high technological, scientific, and research components, and finally, the economic priority reduce other types of social, territorial, and global impacts”.

32.- 470………………….2 on: it is not clear where all these elements come from since they are not described in the cases analysed before.

Response: The cases analysed have been added in each of the noted points:

“At last, we can argue that the further key points emerging from the comparative study, under the lens of social innovation are: innovation comes from a concrete need or emergency that is really felt by the people involved (Terre & Communi, Living Villages); the crucial role of facilitators, local leaders, and visionaries, who know in-depth the local context and that they are capable of producing greater awareness in the community, in many cases reducing the local conflicts (Wolf); the ability of the facilitators, the members of the LAGs, to create networks synergistically and proactively (Cowocat, Wolf); the presence of that we can define in this work as a cooperating (cooperate and operate) community (local inhabitants and often people at risk of marginalisation involved in the process) actively operating together and strongly collaborative (Cowocat, Terre and Communi); the external support, considered as an opportunity, never the final goal (Innovative business opportunities from donkey milk); new forms of cooperation usually experimented between different actors, increasing and improving the collective knowledge, involved actors with different backgrounds represent a resource but if they know and interpret the local context adequately (Innovative business opportunities from donkey milk)”.

Conclusions:

33.- 533: can you actually claim to have demonstrated your hypothesis or your argument?

Response: The paragraph has been re-written to respond to the reviewer.

“The analysis of the projects selected for Spain and Italy revealed essential aspects of the role of the actors, the nature of innovation under the lens of social innovation, and the added-value in rural areas affected by depopulation and hard physical and accessibility conditions of Italy and Spain”.

34.- It is now clear also because you use terms like "significantly affect" or "produce extreme cultural and social change" (576)

Response: We appreciate your comment. The paragraph has been softly modified.

“In these experiences, the added value of the LEADER approach is the ability to produce a substantial  cultural and social change compared to the initial situation of the context, or marginal changes that do the trick, favouring a significant change of perspective in the local community, supporting empowerment, and greater awareness about local resources. Other interesting elements that would emerge from the projects is the need to take into account the realistic situation of the contexts which can only come from exercises that lead to the progressive and greater local awareness of needs and resources useful to the whole community, bringing out different visions through the effective inclusion of all the actors, current and future ones, living in rural territories”.

35.- Also role of the community is reified, as if it was a single entity and not subject to its own dynamics

Response: The paragraph has been nuanced avoiding the reification of the community.

“In these experiences, the added value of the LEADER approach is the ability to produce a substantialn  extreme cultural and social change compared to the initial situation of the context, or marginal changes that do the trick, favouring a significant change of perspective and perception in the local community, supporting empowerment, and greater awareness about local resources. Other interesting elements that would emerge from the projects is the need to take into account the realistic situation of the contexts which can only come from exercises that lead to the progressive and greater local awareness of needs and resources useful to the whole community, bringing out different visions through the effective inclusion of all the actors, current and future ones, living in rural territories. The inclusion, involvement and participation of all the inhabitants is a crucial point to generating positive dynamics in rural areas, and not only the leaders of these communities”.

36.- Almost a third of the references include at least one of the authors. It would be better to diversify the references and avoid so much self-referencing.

Some references have been removed, and it has been diversified and increased the number of references. As a result, the percentage now is lower than 10%.  

Reviewer 3 (3)

1.- Overall, the paper has some interesting things to say to about rural innovation, though I would advise the authors to, for lack of a better word, tighten the article to give it more focus and a consistent structure. For instance, the introduction addresses many relevant topics, but the throughline is not immediately apparent to me.

Response: the language has been improved, giving it a more consistent structure. In the case of the introduction, it has been re-structured. The throughline has been improved: the relevance of social innovation in rural development practice, the definition of neo-endogenous rural development, and the LEADER approach are the main aspects considered.

2.- The aim of the article (Page 3) is quite general for an article, and I am not sure that you explicitly address all of it in the conclusions (i.e. you don’t really talk about the nature of social innovation in the conclusions). Likewise, I found your account of social innovation unsatisfactory – I would like to see a more detailed discussion of what it means or at least a clear explanation of why you took the approach that you did without considering the alternatives.

Response: In the Conclusion Section, it has been added the nature of social innovation, and the less or more implications of the studied projects.

Additionally, in the Discussion Section, it has been added a more detailed discussion of interpretations, relevance and implications of social innovation in the analysed initiatives. 

3.- I would also suggest that you revisit Section 3 to make the methodology more transparent. For example, you refer to elements that you had identified in the previous paragraphs, and I am not sure to what elements you are referring. You mention in-depth interviews, but it is not clear whom you interviewed.

The methodology section has been clarified and modified.

For in-depth interviews, it is specified the concrete actors interviewed.

4.- I found Section 4 somewhat unclear and lacking in internal consistency. Sub-sections 4.1 and 4.2 are organised differently and this has a slightly disorienting effect. In 4.1 you describe several projects, but it is not clear whether these examples were chosen because they illustrate a trend or serve as “ideal-types”. You conclude with a summary paragraph.

Response: it has been explained the reason of the selection of these specific projects in the “Materials and methods” section.

“Following the selection, among all the chosen projects, only were analysed one or two according to the type of entrepreneurs: TNCPs promoted by several LAGs; projects supported by public entities (mainly municipalities); and finally, those led by small companies and entrepreneurs (Table 1). These projects serve as common trend in each of the profiles of actors detected. The analysis used the information contained in the description of these eight projects”.

5.- In 4.2 you provide more of an overview, focusing on general observations and identifying differences and similarities between the countries. Both approaches are fine in principle, but I would suggest that you find a way of integrating them.

Response: It has been been introduced some new paragraphs (3) and a table (Table 3), to deepen in the affections of the analysed projects in social innovation. Also, it has been removed the last paragraph, which could induce to wrong reflections.

6.- Also, you identify several important factors in the first paragraph of Section 5, and I think it would be good to relate these observations to what has been previously discussed in the literature.

Response: The first paragraph of the Discussion Section has been reformulated, adding to these observations to what has been previously written in the literature. 

7.- Finally, I would suggest “tightening” the connection between the results, the discussion and your conclusions, so that it is clear to the reader how the projects you looked and the issues you raise in the discussion led you to your conclusions. Again, much like in the introduction, there’s a lot of good stuff here, but the throughline (and how your research supports it) should be more apparent.

Response: It has reinforced the connections between results, discussion and conclusions, showing the projects and issues in the discussion, which is the base for the conclusions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article aims to understand social innovation and the added value of specific initiatives (as part of the LEADER approach) in the rural areas of Italy and Spain. It is based on an exploratory study that looked at projects selected on the basis of several keywords.

Overall, the paper has some interesting things to say to about rural innovation, though I would advise the authors to, for lack of a better word, tighten the article to give it more focus and a consistent structure. For instance, the introduction addresses many relevant topics, but the throughline is not immediately apparent to me.

The aim of the article (Page 3) is quite general for an article, and I am not sure that you explicitly address all of it in the conclusions (i.e. you don’t really talk about the nature of social innovation in the conclusions). Likewise, I found your account of social innovation unsatisfactory – I would like to see a more detailed discussion of what it means or at least a clear explanation of why you took the approach that you did without considering the alternatives.

I would also suggest that you revisit Section 3 to make the methodology more transparent. For example, you refer to elements that you had identified in the previous paragraphs, and I am not sure to what elements you are referring. You mention in-depth interviews, but it is not clear whom you interviewed.

I found Section 4 somewhat unclear and lacking in internal consistency. Sub-sections 4.1 and 4.2 are organised differently and this has a slightly disorienting effect. In 4.1 you describe several projects, but it is not clear whether these examples were chosen because they illustrate a trend or serve as “ideal-types”. You conclude with a summary paragraph. In 4.2 you provide more of an overview, focusing on general observations and identifying differences and similarities between the countries. Both approaches are fine in principle, but I would suggest that you find a way of integrating them. Also, you identify several important factors in the first paragraph of Section 5, and I think it would be good to relate these observations to what has been previously discussed in the literature.

Finally, I would suggest “tightening” the connection between the results, the discussion and your conclusions, so that it is clear to the reader how the projects you looked and the issues you raise in the discussion led you to your conclusions. Again, much like in the introduction, there’s a lot of good stuff here, but the throughline (and how your research supports it) should be more apparent.

Author Response

Dear Ms/Mr Editor,

Please, find enclosed a revised version of our manuscript. We would like to thank you, the editor and the reviewers, for giving us the chance to revise and improve our manuscript. We have considered all of your suggestions and incorporated them into our new, revised manuscript. We believe our manuscript is stronger as a result of these changes. An itemized point-by-point response to the comments of the reviewers and the editor is presented below.

We would like to thank the reviewers for their diligent reviews of the paper and their useful comments and suggestions. We have extensively rewritten the paper in line with these suggestions and corrected the English. We hope it is now ready for publication.

Note: Because of the high number of modifications/new sentences and paragraphs, mixed comments from reviewers, these are reflected in the text in green colour.

Reviewer 1

1.- Sometimes, the wording and grammar seemed odd - sometimes plainly wrong -; sometimes, the use of commata and semicolons was confusing; in some cases, a verb seemed to be missing; and often, the relation to the previous sentence or paragraph was implied by using 'thus' and ' therefore', but content-wise absent or very difficult to detect. For example, a sentence like "This attention arouses research, policy documents, data collection of different nature; however, leaving opened and discussed the question of how innovation is interpreted especially at the local scale and it is actually affected by regulatory indications and above all by contextual factors'' does not seem to be much sense. I acknowledge that some of my comments or questions on the text might be due to my difficulties in really understanding the meaning of many sentences. Thus, as a crucial step for revising the manuscript, I strongly advise professional English editing.

Response: A native English translator has revised and edited the manuscript in this step to avoid these language errors. In the context where the words “thus” and “therefore” are mentioned, with a difficult understanding, these words have been deleted. Also, the sentence mentioned has been removed.

2.- The introduction and the second Section touches upon relevant conceptual approaches and policies like LEADER, yet, it fails in presenting them in a clear and structured way. For example, 'social innovation' is somehow defined, but respective strands and academic debates, incl. its position in the literature on innovation in general, are not presented. The link to social learning processes, trust, social capital, local entrepreneurship, etc. is not really clear - terms are mentioned and 'dropped' but the logic behind this is often not clear. Further, the key policy in this manuscript, the LEADER program, is not really introduced in sufficient detail so that readers who are not familiar with this key EU rural development policy and its characteristics might find it difficult to understand the role of LAGs, the way funding is provided, what "corrective measures" compared to the last programming cycle are. What is more, a definition or conceptualization of 'neo-endogenous development' is missing - what is the 'neo' standing for?

Response: It has introduced the concepts of neo-endogenous rural development, social innovation and LEADER, and these have been presented in a clear and structured way. Also, the links between these processes and implications.

3.- Often, a "logical framework from our recent research" is mentioned, but not clearly referenced. How is this informed/complemented by the concepts mentioned in the first two Sections?

The mention “logical framework from our recent research” has been deleted. The method has been explained in the section of Methodology.

4.- With respect to methods, I would expect more details on how the analysis of the entries in the project database at ENRD has been carried out? Was any text analysis software used for this; if so, how was coding done? Further, in-depth interviews are mentioned without providing information on the number, of interviewees, key questions, etc.

Response: It has been added more details about the analysis of the entries in the project database at ENRD.

“This research used a selection of projects for the Italian and Spanish rural areas, through the choice of specific keywords. Firstly, the words to make the search were: “depopulation” and “marginal rural areas”. After that, the keywords were “innovation”, “entrepreneurship” and “LEADER”. In this first phase, the number of initiatives were 24, 13 for Spain, and 11 for Italy.       

Following the selection, among all the chosen projects, only were analysed one or two according to the type of entrepreneurs: TNCPs promoted by several LAGs; projects supported by public entities (mainly municipalities); and finally, those led by small companies and entrepreneurs”.

About the in-depth interviews, it has been clarified the number of interviews and key questions threated.

“Additionally, in-depth interviews were conducted, one for each profile established (one for small entrepreneur -Agroberry-, one for TNCPs from LAGs -Wolf-, and one from public entities -Living Villages-), examining the types and roles of stakeholders in the implementation phase, the contributions of these projects in social innovation, and their added value”.

5.- The structure of the results sections makes sense - by and large. Yet, I wonder why the 'nature of innovation' is not presented first, followed by the role of actors and networks, and then the value-added. Further, it does not become clear why you refer only to some project cases (from the 24 that you investigated) and - more importantly - why you choose those and not others. While I appreciate figures when presenting networks of actors and various degrees of complexity, I have to admit that I did not really understand the logic behind them: there are different color schemes used in figures 1 and 2. Perhaps a legend would help. And why are two projects presented in figure 1, while figure 2 contains only 1?

The order of paragraphs in the Section of results shows, firstly, the tangible actors, and secondly, the social innovations and value-added. A network of actors has to be constituted to generate these social innovations. And social innovations and added values in these projects sometimes are inseparable. One contribution to social innovation could be an added value and vice-versa. It has been added and explained in the Methodology section.  

On the other hand, these specific cases were chosen according to the profile of the actor (private, public or public-private), and because in these concrete cases is easier to detect the network of actors, types of social innovations and value-added. Both of the figures show an unique project, one of these is a concrete private entrepreneur and the other one is a network of LAGs. It has been chosen to compare the less or more complexity of these networks of actors.

In the following, I list more minor or detailed comments that would need to be addressed when resubmitting the manuscript.

6.- Line 13: what are "deep" rural areas?

Response: It has been changed the word by “marginal”. It is easier to understand. Also, in an abstract, do not proceed to define the concept.

7.- Line 19: TNCP not introduced

Response: It has been introduced: Transnational Cooperation Projects

8.- Line 29: do you refer to social innovation?

Response: It has been specified.

9.- Lines 32-35: sorry, I do not understand this sentence.

Response: This sentence has been re-written: “There is a strong interest in understanding how innovation is interpreted at European level”.

10.- Line 36: what is 'it' referring to?

Response: The sentence has been re-written:

“This attention arouses research, policy documents, and data collection of different nature; however, leaving opened and discussed the question of how innovation is interpreted, especially at the local scale and how innovation is affected by regulatory indications and, above all, by contextual factors.

11.- Line 37: please provide a definition of 'neo-endogenous development' here or later in the text.

Response: It has been provided a definition of neo-endogenous development.

“Considering the literature about rural development, concretely in the context of neo-endogenous development -understood this beyond endogenous and exogenous models, focusing on the dynamic interactions between rural areas and their broader political and other institutional, trading and natural environments’ and contexts [5]-. The neo-endogenous aproach tries to merge the positive aspects of exogenous and endogenous theories, combining bottom-up and top-down planning, internal and external participation and networks, and vertical political-administrative relationships and horizontal inter-territorial and local actors contexts [1, 2]”.

12.- The same goes for LEADER.

Response: It has been added the definition of LEADER approach:

“The LEADER approach is one of the most emblematic practices of rural development that builds on recent theories of neo-endogenous rural development (Barke and Newton, 1997), which is at the same time, an approach, a method and a way to apply rural development. It derives from the French words: Liaisons Entre Actions de Developpement de l´Economie Rurale, in English language, “Links between the rural economy and development actions”. It works as a rural development “seed”, playing with a mix of governance and government. In a tangible and practical way, it is traduced in direct grants to co-finance direct investments.

This approach of rural development has played with several main specificities: networking, territorial perspective, integrated and multisectoral actions, local decision-making, economic diversification, bottom-up approach, innovation, local action groups (LAGs), public-private partnerships, networking, territorial perspective, and integrated and multisectoral actions. This initiative has been implemented over almost thirty years, firstly at the nineties as a Communitarian Initiative; and finally, the last fifteen years as specific actions inside of national or regional Rural Development Programmes (RDPs)”.

13.- Line 41: "action of local"

Response: It has been modified: “action of local”.

14.- Lines 41f.: This sentence does not make sense.

Response: Removed the sentence.

15.- LIne 44: what is 'it' referring to?

Response: The sentence has been modified, introducing the word “the LEADER approach”:

“International and comparative studies [3, 9, 10, 11, 12 13, 14, 15, 16, 17] confirm that the implementation of the LEADER approach in various European countries shows critical issues and limitations mainly to locally embedded factors (such as local governance, styles of government, the active awareness of local resources and needs, the existence of social capital and local entrepreneurship, etc.)”.

16.- LInes 47: please provide examples of corrective measures

This sentence has been removed.

17.- LInes 49ff.: what is this statement/claim based on.

The sentence has been reformalulated and clarified:

“Also, the future of the LEADER will necessarily foresee changes and innovations coming from within rather than from outside and reaffirming the role of the small scale in projects and actors, initiatives based on internal decision-making and local strategy plans”.

18.- LInes 52f: MIght be true, but why?

The sentence has been removed.

19.- LInes 61f.: what is the relation between LEADER and TNCPs?

Response: It has been clarified the relation between LEADER and TNCPs, TNCPs belong to one of the relevant features of the LEADER approach.

“In many cases, this is reflected in large-scale projects, such as Transnational Cooperation Projects (TNCPs), which belong to one of the more relevant features of this LEADER approach. Also, in the strategies of each LAG sharing more than one project, i.e. micro-projects included within a cluster. And finally, inside of actions that transcend the LEADER approach but in which the rural territories actively participate”.

20.- LIne 65: "we argue"

Response: It has been removed.

21.- LInes 74-78: please revise sentence; split?

Response: The sentence has been split:

“Therefore, in rural areas, where the enormous unexpressed potential has been recognized and, on the other, the problems of marginalization that are still current, the LEADER approach can be considered an important actor of innovation. Furthermore, this initiative has focused on an inclusive territorial approach instead of being limited to certain aspects or sectors”.

22.- Line 77: LEADER does not have agency, thus, it cannot be an 'actor'.

Response: It has been replaced “actor” by “element”.

23.- LIne 107: "by extending their"

Response: It has been replaced “extension” by “extending”.

24.- LInes 110f.: I do not understand this sentence.

Response: The sentence has been modified:

“In fact, the social aspects are continuously referenced in the European political debate”.

25.- LIne 139: who defined projects as being 'innovative', or not?

Response: The projects are defined as innovative by the European Network of Rural Development.

“The projects defined as innovative under the LEADER approach throughout the European Rural Network database -ENRD- will be analysed. Then, at last, we could understand the projects defined as innovative by the ENRD, how much these projects are affected by traditional models and/or external solicitations, and how relevant is the LEADER contribution to these practices. In the following paragraphs, starting from the literature, we will try better delineate the relationship between LEADER, entrepreneurship and innovation, trying to identify useful elements for the selection of the projects to investigate”.

26.- Line 144: "After having framed the context"

Response: It has been modified this sentence:

“After having framed the context of innovation in which we move, the methodology adopted, the results of the project analysis, and finally conclusions will be discussed”.

27.- Line 148: CAP not introduced

Response: It has been introduced:

“In recent years, the European Common Agrarian Policy (CAP) has been the subject of essential changes in the growing importance of knowledge…”

28.- LInes 148ff: sentence unclear

Response: The sentence has been clarified and reformulated.

29.- LInes 159ff: How does/did PEI-AGRI work?

Response: The sentence has been deleted, because its non-relevance for the aim of this manuscript.

30.- Line 168: What is the Oslo Manual - please revise the sentence

Response: The Oslo Manual has been identified:

“… to study the types of innovation detected in these LEADER projects can be followed the Oslo Manual [25], which is the international reference guide for collecting and using data on innovation”.

31.- Line 179: what is "this approach" referring to?

Response: It is referring to: LEADER approach. The sentence has been modified:

“Economic diversification, set in rural areas, added value in the production chains, and generating other complementary activities to the agrarian sector have been other achievements of LEADER”.

32.- LIne 192: "initiatives were created" - Please revise sentences.

Response: The sentence has been revised:

“It cannot be forgotten that most companies and initiatives created a long time ago, i.e., the nineties decade of the twenty century, are still working”.

33.- Line 196: well, "dark aspects" is a bit melodramatic...

Response: It has been changed the word “dark” by “negative”.

34.- LIne 210: "contributions, such as...."

Response: The sentence has been extended:

“Even if LEADER projects are insufficient to achieve and complete break-through, and not always establish concrete measures for sparsely populated areas, having produced poor results in specific types of rural areas, and also, some opportunities have not been sufficiently taken into account, they are excellent mirrors in which observe and learn of good practices, experiencing a huge number of contributions, such us rural tourism activities, valorisation of heritage, of local assets, proximity services -public and private-, valorisation of local food, etc.”.

35.- LIne 220: what are "compatible" indicators?

Response: The concrete indicators have been noted:

“In this study, for analysing public projects carried out in Spain and Italy, we used compatible indicators of social innovation deriving from literature [25]: cooperation between actors, creation of new networks and partnerships, organizational/identity changes, social groups working for the same goals, institutional and collectives learning aimed at a better knowledge of common problems, increasing the capacity of people to engage in cultural interaction and exchange, and new ways of organizing and involving people in the decision-making process”.

36.- Line 221: again, what is meant by recent research?

Response: It has been removed, and it has been added the main reference:

37.- LInes 234-237: please revise

Response: It has been revised:

“TNCPs promoted by several LAGs; projects generated by public entities (mainly municipalities); and finally, those led by small companies and entrepreneurs”.

38.- Line 236, and in general: I guess you mean 'type', not typology/typologies.

Response: It has been changed “typology” by “type”.

39.- Table 1: who defines what a "better solution" is?

Response: The column and sentence has been deleted.

40.- Line 250: please check the last part of the sentence

Response: The sentence has been abbreviated:

“It is essential to clarify the changes produced in the local organization [1, 7, 8]”.

41.- Lines 280-283: please revise the sentence

Response: The sentence has been revised:

“In the case of the initiative Living Villages, the municipalities (28 in total) played an important role raising awareness in local communities about the problem of depopulation”.

42.- Line 284: "an inventory"

Response: It has been corrected.

43.- Lines 333: please provide 'title' of project.

 Response: the title of the project has been provided:

“A very similar project called Diversifying a young female farmer’s income by investing in farm tourism, in the case of Italy, was carried out from the Marche region”.

44.- LIne 355: nice one ;) - "revenge from pastoralists"

Response: Thanks, the expression has been quoted: “revenge from pastors”.

45.- Figures 1 and 2: "Financing"

Response: In both figures the word has been corrected.

46.- LInes 366f.: "restructuring an old farm...started a donkey"

Response: Corrected.

 47.- Lines 390f.: The sentence does not seem to make sense.

Response: It has been extended and clarified.

“Finally, the continuity of these initiatives with other parallels, improved or concrete projects seeking similar or complementarity goals”.

48.- LIne 460: "in the first place"?

Response: It has been revised, thanks.

49.- LInes 474f: Well, I found the crucial roles of facilitators and local leaders not really presented as key in the result Section. Rather implicit, I find.

Response: It has been presented the crucial roles of facilitators and local leaders in the result section.

“The mix of external actors (universities, immigrants, new settlers, new young promoters) and internal actors (volunteers, municipalities, older people, unemployed, entrepreneurs); the inclusion of marginal or non-favoured collectives (youth people, women, unemployed, cattlemen and farmers, older adults, and immigrants); the active involvement of local inhabitants and farmers/cattlemen; the creation of new networks thanks to these initial projects (associations, collaborative work between entrepreneurs or between different stakeholders -i.e., cattlemen and ecologists-, with universities, extending to other rural areas); the crucial role of facilitators -LAGs- and local leaders -majors, entrepreneurs, visionaries-; are common crucial aspects in all of these initiatives; and finally, the continuity of these projects with other parallels, improved or concrete initiatives seeking for similar or complementarity goals”.

50.- LInes 499ff: Why? Where did you show this?

Response: It has been reformulated the paragraph explaining the strong social role of the LAG with other collectives, the reasons why, and the concrete project where this is shown.

“The comparison between the different projects and the executors clearly shows the strong social role of the LAGs: tackling problems affecting to disadvantaged collectives (Terre & Comuni lands);, conforming spaces for learning of a shared problem (Wolf project) or teaching the LEADER approach; , exchange between different actors and territories (Living Villages); discussion and intermediation between actors in conflict (Wolf) [39]; training, tutoring and advising for local entrepreneurs about local assets or local potentialities (Agroberry); building networks and connections of rural areas with similar problems (Wolf); and favouring the communication and transferability of results; crucial for the continuous engagement of local actors in social innovation projects”.

51.- LIne 527: contributions of what

Response: It is referred to the projects. The sentence has been reformulated.

“Definitively, the contributions, impacts and effects of these projects are more relevant than involved actors”.

52.- LIne 535, and in general: stay consistent - "added-value" or "value-added".

Response: It has been corrected.

53.- Line 576: well, "extreme" is a bit strong; substantial/significant, perhaps radical, yes, but extreme??? Often, it is rather the high number of marginal changes that do the trick.

Response: It has been corrected, adding the suggestion of the reviewer.

“In these experiences, the added value of the LEADER approach is the ability to produce a substantial cultural and social change compared to the initial situation of the context, or marginal changes that do the trick, favouring a significant change of perspective in the local community, supporting empowerment, and greater awareness about local resources”.

Reviewer 2 (1)

1.- The English MUST be revised by a proficient English writer. The sentence structure needs to be revised, the argumentation of each paragraph made clear and the verb tenses must follow a logical and grammatical sense. Also points and commas have not been throughly checked. The text reads like a literal translation from Italian.

As it stands, it is very difficult to read and understand the article.

Response: It has been revised by an English writer and native.

2.- Abstract: avoid using acronyms without introducing them first (TNCP)

Response: It has been introduced: Transnational Cooperation Projects

3.- attention to wording "between light and shadow", use of necessarily renders the meaning deterministic when it is not; "reaffirming the role of the small" which is unclear what it means, and also not clear when looking at the sentence in line 61 (large scale projects...?)

Response: It has been removed the expression “between light and shadow”, the expression “large-scale projects” has been change to “multi-territorial projects”, and finally, the expression “reaffirming the role of the small” has been completed: “reaffirming the role of the small in projects and actors”.

“International and comparative studies [3, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17] confirm that the implementation of the LEADER approach in various European countries shows critical issues and limitations mainly to locally embedded factors (such as local governance, styles of government, the active awareness of local resources and needs, the existence of social capital and local entrepreneurship, etc.). However, some corrective measures have been adopted in recent years (particularly in the last programming cycles), revealing the innovative character of the approach once again. This also leads to the belief that the future of the LEADER will necessarily foresee changes and innovations coming from within rather than from outside and reaffirming the role of the small scale in projects and actors.

Therefore, from a programmatic point of view, it is possible to argue that the link between LEADER and social innovation is clear. In fact, among the main features of the first ones are the innovation, the improvement of social capital, and the creation of public-private partnerships, networks and organisations to promote territorial and community projects. According to Neumeier (2017, 35) [18]: “innovation affects at least one user or context or procedure: produces a solution more effectively than the pre-existing alternatives could; constitutes a long-term solution; and it is adopted by “others” compared to the initial group of innovators”. Schematically, social innovation is attributable to three fundamental phases: problematization (the identification of a need or a solution by an actor or group of actors); expression of interest (the recognition of the collective advantage and the addition of other actors); delineation and coordination (the last step that identifies the birth of a new form of coordination and organisation) [18]. In many cases, this is reflected in multi-territorial projects, such as Transnational Cooperation Projects (TNCPs), which belong to one of the more relevant features of this LEADER approach. Also, in the strategies of each LAG sharing more than one project, i.e. micro-projects included within a cluster. And finally, inside of actions that transcend the LEADER approach but in which the rural territories actively participate”.

4.- There is no explanation to a sentences in line 52-53." How is this "robustness" actually demonstrated?

Response: The word “robust” has been changed to “clear”, and it has been explained in other sentences the link between LEADER and social innovation.

“Therefore, from a programmatic point of view, it is possible to argue that the link between LEADER and social innovation is clear. In fact, among the main features of the first ones are the innovation, the improvement of social capital, and the creation of public-private partnerships, networks and organisations to promote territorial and community projects.”

5.- There is also no reference to the sentence in 65-67

Response: The quotes have been removed, and it has been added the reference.

“In fact, in the context of neo-endogenous development, the success of social innovation is closely related to the quality of a set of physical-environmental and socio-cultural elements that authoritative literature calls territorial capital [1]”.

6.- line 69-70: how can the "action of the LEADER approach... influence the innovative approach"...? 

Response: The sentence has been clarified.

“In this way, being the territorial context permeable to external stimuli, but not passive, the actions of the LEADER approach could play a key role because they can influence the innovation process -through creative and new investments, projects and public and private funds-, from the outside only to the extent that they can remove obstacles or fill in infrastructure bottlenecks [1]”.

7.- line 75: "enormous unexpressed potential" what does it mean??

Response: This affirmation has been removed:

“Therefore, in rural areas, the LEADER approach can be considered a relevant element of innovation. Furthermore, this initiative has focused on an inclusive territorial approach instead of being limited to certain aspects or sectors”.

8.- line 79"given the results", which results? there is no explanation of the connection between results in the territory and the definition of LEADER. it also seems that these results stem from the definition, which is of course missing the ways in which uneven and heterogenous territorial processes occur. 

Response: The sentence has been removed.

9.- line 92: "this change was aligned with..." the reasoning in the paragraph is not clearly explained... confounding change in the rural context (which again is quite diversified) with change in the literature...

The first sentence, relative to the rural context, has been removed.

10.- line 99-101 it assumes the reader known what you are referring to...but how can "innovation...embrace"?

Response: The sentence has been clarified.

“Then social innovation initiatives try to embrace the whole context and focuse on specific assets of places, especially immaterial ones [1, 8], of knowledge and social networks. In this sense, social innovation took on new features, however challenging to interpret and measure enough to represent an essential and still open debate in the literature [19, 20, 21]”.

11.- line 102 "it becomes inevitable.." this language is not very useful in a research paper. 

Response: These words have been deleted, and the sentence has been reformulated.

“It is significant the role played by the social capital for the effectiveness of development programmes, particularly the LEADER approach, because it lends itself to developing all the main elements that we have seen to be decisive for the activation of rural development paths”.

12.- from line 124 on: it is not clear what the aim of the paper is. It needs to be contextualised and explained better. What does "nature" and "value added" mean? it seems that we are missing a theoretical framework to understand the analysis of the paper.

It has been contextualised the aim of this paper, adding the meanings and relevant publications about social innovation and added-values. The theoretical framework has been improved.

Background literature:

13.- line 155-156: what does it mean?

Response: The sentence has been clarified.

“In the official document “The Future of Food and Farming” [24], it is recognized the role played by development policy in the agricultural economy and, concretely, in the conditions of subsistence in favour of the rural population in terms not only of investments but also for the acquisition of knowledge, know-how, training and information, definitively in the improvement of social capital”.

14.- line 164: why "access to external knowledge still limited"? isn't this a paternalistic approach?

Response: The affirmation has been clarified.

“Additionally, the fact that farmers' access to knowledge is still limited is particularly evident in many rural areas characterised by strong marginalisation, because of the virtual and geographical distance to scientific and academic centres”.

 15.- line 168: why the Oslo Manual? What and how is it being used from the manual?

Response: It has been clarified the use of the Oslo Manual, which is commonly used by the LAGs to define and interpret the concept of innovation.

“Thus, to study the types and interpretations of innovation detected in these LEADER projects can be followed the Oslo Manual [25], which is the international reference guide for collecting and using data on innovation, being the main and specific component of these the input of social innovation, and additionally, an increasing tendency to complexity and sophistication in them, leading to good practices [2]”.

16.- 172-173: how do you back up this statement? what does it mean "external knowledge" and how about internal/local knowledge?

The sentence has been changed, introducing the meanings of internal and external knowledge:

“In this context, entrepreneurship is promoted by the neo-endogenous rural development practice, being one of its main specificities. Local entrepreneurship uses territorial assets, internal and traditional knowledge and know-how combined with external/technical and scientific knowledge and technologies to create new economic initiatives”.

17.- 179: mentality change?

Response: It has been clarified the concept of “mentality change”:

“The mentality change of the inhabitants of rural areas, from negative and passive perceptions to positive and pro-active behaviours, their changes of perception of rural areas along the EU has been a significant contribution, making real the sentence “Rural areas have possibilities of development”.

Chapter 3: Methodology

18.- There is no reference to which cases were identified and which framework was used to analyse them. It would be useful to have a table that lists all the cases, where they are located and how they are characterised.

Response: It has been identified the specific projects analysed in Table 1, and the framework in Table 2.    

19.- The first para doesn't hold: what key elements from the previous para does it refer to?  In other words, it is not clear what framework of social innovation is being used to analyse the data.

The section of Methodology has been reformulated. Therefore, the first paragraph has been changed, and the framework of social innovation.

20.- How are the indicators in table 2 drawn?

Response: It is explained in the text, extracted from Oslo Manual.

“The indicators were extracted from Oslo Manual [29], to study the types and interpretations of innovation detected in these LEADER projects”.

21.- It would be useful to know the list of cases before they are described in chapter 4 (results).

Response: The list of cases has been incorporated, in Table 1, in the paragraph of Materials and methods.

Results:

22.- the framework used is not clear, the tables do not have clear headings. It is not always clear if the authors refer to results or to suggestions and recommendations. 

The framework used has been clarified, and the tables too. In Table 2 we refer to the framework of analysis in the section of Results.

23.- Case from line 280: it is not clear what the case is about, rather it is inferred from the analysis.

Response: It has been clearly explained the objective of this project:

“In the case of the initiative Living Villages, a project focused on attracting immigrants,....”

24.- line 308-209: the authors refer to how this initiatives led to various projects but examples would help understand the types of projects they are referring to.

Response: The projects were not mentioned in the interviews and/or the report of the project in the European Network of Rural Development.

25.- 333- which project?

Response: the title of the project has been provided:

“A very similar project called Diversifying a young female farmer’s income by investing in farm tourism, in the case of Italy, was carried out from the Marche region”.

26.- 383 to 390 - incomplete sentences

Response: the sentence has been completed.

“The mix of external actors (universities, immigrants, new settlers, new young promoters) and internal actors (volunteers, municipalities, older people, unemployed, entrepreneurs); the inclusion of marginal or non-favoured collectives (youth people, women, unemployed, cattlemen and farmers, older adults, and immigrants); the active involvement of local inhabitants and farmers/cattlemen; the creation of new networks thanks to these initial projects (associations, collaborative work between entrepreneurs or between different stakeholders -i.e., cattlemen and ecologists-, with universities, extending to other rural areas); are common crucial aspects in all of these initiatives”.

27.- Why figure 1 refers to one case which does not seem to be innovative? Why not make a figure for the previous two cases showing where the innovation is?

Response: The innovations generated in this project are mentioned in the next paragraph of the text.

“The initiative Agroberry Original from Zamora, a young female farmer, introduced a blackberry plantation into a wheat and barley production area and created added value by developing a new range of products, selling directly to fruit consumers and stores. In this, the role of the family supporting the physical infrastructure and land has been highly relevant. The network is simple, having also, a special enrollment the LAG of this area, advising about the innovations products to introduce (Figure 1) [34]”.

Figure 1 contrasts with figure 2, in the number of involved actors, the more or less complexity of the networks of actors.

In this section of the manuscript the focus is focused on the role of actors.  

28.- Another example is the wolf: the authors state that now there is very limited conflict, but there is no analysis of how this result was achieved. what are the processes that led to this change?

Response: It has been detailed the processes that led to this change:

“In the case of the TNCP Wolf, the new forms of dialogue and consensus, and the resolution of local conflicts, have been obtained thanks to the following participative tools: seminars, meetings, debates, and working days, in which, participated all the actors involved; and through different actions of environmental training”.

29.- 402: why social capital "becomes the main reason for implementing these projects"? what does it mean? it is a stated objective or a consequence? 

Response: This question is clarified in the next paragraph:

“It is found that the most relevant and paradigmatic typologies of innovations are those related to the creation and promotion of social capital, which becomes one of the main reasons for the implementation of these concrete projects. Infact, knowledge transfer, social inclusion, resolution of conflicts, settlement of young and female people, creation of networks between internal-external actors, and the support to non-privileged collectives, are the main and stated objectives of these initiatives”.

30.- 421-422: how do you show that this statement is correct?

Response: It is explained the correct of this statement in the following added sentence:

“The involvement and participation of local actors, and the improvement of social capital, produce a new form of coordination and organisation rarely existing in other types of initiatives”.

31 .- 428-29? can you say "reduce"?

Response: The sentence has been corrected.

“In these, the sectorial approach, the high technological, scientific, and research components, and finally, the economic priority reduce other types of social, territorial, and global impacts”.

32.- 470………………….2 on: it is not clear where all these elements come from since they are not described in the cases analysed before.

Response: The cases analysed have been added in each of the noted points:

“At last, we can argue that the further key points emerging from the comparative study, under the lens of social innovation are: innovation comes from a concrete need or emergency that is really felt by the people involved (Terre & Communi, Living Villages); the crucial role of facilitators, local leaders, and visionaries, who know in-depth the local context and that they are capable of producing greater awareness in the community, in many cases reducing the local conflicts (Wolf); the ability of the facilitators, the members of the LAGs, to create networks synergistically and proactively (Cowocat, Wolf); the presence of that we can define in this work as a cooperating (cooperate and operate) community (local inhabitants and often people at risk of marginalisation involved in the process) actively operating together and strongly collaborative (Cowocat, Terre and Communi); the external support, considered as an opportunity, never the final goal (Innovative business opportunities from donkey milk); new forms of cooperation usually experimented between different actors, increasing and improving the collective knowledge, involved actors with different backgrounds represent a resource but if they know and interpret the local context adequately (Innovative business opportunities from donkey milk)”.

Conclusions:

33.- 533: can you actually claim to have demonstrated your hypothesis or your argument?

Response: The paragraph has been re-written to respond to the reviewer.

“The analysis of the projects selected for Spain and Italy revealed essential aspects of the role of the actors, the nature of innovation under the lens of social innovation, and the added-value in rural areas affected by depopulation and hard physical and accessibility conditions of Italy and Spain”.

34.- It is now clear also because you use terms like "significantly affect" or "produce extreme cultural and social change" (576)

Response: We appreciate your comment. The paragraph has been softly modified.

“In these experiences, the added value of the LEADER approach is the ability to produce a substantial  cultural and social change compared to the initial situation of the context, or marginal changes that do the trick, favouring a significant change of perspective in the local community, supporting empowerment, and greater awareness about local resources. Other interesting elements that would emerge from the projects is the need to take into account the realistic situation of the contexts which can only come from exercises that lead to the progressive and greater local awareness of needs and resources useful to the whole community, bringing out different visions through the effective inclusion of all the actors, current and future ones, living in rural territories”.

35.- Also role of the community is reified, as if it was a single entity and not subject to its own dynamics

Response: The paragraph has been nuanced avoiding the reification of the community.

“In these experiences, the added value of the LEADER approach is the ability to produce a substantialn  extreme cultural and social change compared to the initial situation of the context, or marginal changes that do the trick, favouring a significant change of perspective and perception in the local community, supporting empowerment, and greater awareness about local resources. Other interesting elements that would emerge from the projects is the need to take into account the realistic situation of the contexts which can only come from exercises that lead to the progressive and greater local awareness of needs and resources useful to the whole community, bringing out different visions through the effective inclusion of all the actors, current and future ones, living in rural territories. The inclusion, involvement and participation of all the inhabitants is a crucial point to generating positive dynamics in rural areas, and not only the leaders of these communities”.

36.- Almost a third of the references include at least one of the authors. It would be better to diversify the references and avoid so much self-referencing.

Some references have been removed, and it has been diversified and increased the number of references. As a result, the percentage now is lower than 10%.  

Reviewer 3 (3)

1.- Overall, the paper has some interesting things to say to about rural innovation, though I would advise the authors to, for lack of a better word, tighten the article to give it more focus and a consistent structure. For instance, the introduction addresses many relevant topics, but the throughline is not immediately apparent to me.

Response: the language has been improved, giving it a more consistent structure. In the case of the introduction, it has been re-structured. The throughline has been improved: the relevance of social innovation in rural development practice, the definition of neo-endogenous rural development, and the LEADER approach are the main aspects considered.

2.- The aim of the article (Page 3) is quite general for an article, and I am not sure that you explicitly address all of it in the conclusions (i.e. you don’t really talk about the nature of social innovation in the conclusions). Likewise, I found your account of social innovation unsatisfactory – I would like to see a more detailed discussion of what it means or at least a clear explanation of why you took the approach that you did without considering the alternatives.

Response: In the Conclusion Section, it has been added the nature of social innovation, and the less or more implications of the studied projects.

Additionally, in the Discussion Section, it has been added a more detailed discussion of interpretations, relevance and implications of social innovation in the analysed initiatives. 

3.- I would also suggest that you revisit Section 3 to make the methodology more transparent. For example, you refer to elements that you had identified in the previous paragraphs, and I am not sure to what elements you are referring. You mention in-depth interviews, but it is not clear whom you interviewed.

The methodology section has been clarified and modified.

For in-depth interviews, it is specified the concrete actors interviewed.

4.- I found Section 4 somewhat unclear and lacking in internal consistency. Sub-sections 4.1 and 4.2 are organised differently and this has a slightly disorienting effect. In 4.1 you describe several projects, but it is not clear whether these examples were chosen because they illustrate a trend or serve as “ideal-types”. You conclude with a summary paragraph.

Response: it has been explained the reason of the selection of these specific projects in the “Materials and methods” section.

“Following the selection, among all the chosen projects, only were analysed one or two according to the type of entrepreneurs: TNCPs promoted by several LAGs; projects supported by public entities (mainly municipalities); and finally, those led by small companies and entrepreneurs (Table 1). These projects serve as common trend in each of the profiles of actors detected. The analysis used the information contained in the description of these eight projects”.

5.- In 4.2 you provide more of an overview, focusing on general observations and identifying differences and similarities between the countries. Both approaches are fine in principle, but I would suggest that you find a way of integrating them.

Response: It has been been introduced some new paragraphs (3) and a table (Table 3), to deepen in the affections of the analysed projects in social innovation. Also, it has been removed the last paragraph, which could induce to wrong reflections.

6.- Also, you identify several important factors in the first paragraph of Section 5, and I think it would be good to relate these observations to what has been previously discussed in the literature.

Response: The first paragraph of the Discussion Section has been reformulated, adding to these observations to what has been previously written in the literature. 

7.- Finally, I would suggest “tightening” the connection between the results, the discussion and your conclusions, so that it is clear to the reader how the projects you looked and the issues you raise in the discussion led you to your conclusions. Again, much like in the introduction, there’s a lot of good stuff here, but the throughline (and how your research supports it) should be more apparent.

Response: It has reinforced the connections between results, discussion and conclusions, showing the projects and issues in the discussion, which is the base for the conclusions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have carefully read the revised manuscript. I find that the authors improved the quality of the article substantially and added much useful and needed information. Further, the arguments are more clear now. There are still quite a few edit mistakes in the text. I corrected a few in the text attached. Before being published, the text would need to be carefully edited again. 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Ms/Mr Editor,

Please, find enclosed a revised version of our manuscript. We would like to thank you, the editor and the reviewers, for giving us the chance to revise and improve our manuscript. We have edited the manuscript. We believe our manuscript is stronger as a result of these changes. An itemized point-by-point response to the comments of the reviewers and the editor is presented below.

We would like to thank the reviewers for their comments, especially as regards the edit mistakes, which have now been corrected.

Note: The modifications are reflected in the text in green colour.

Reviewer 1

1.- I have carefully read the revised manuscript. I find that the authors improved the quality of the article substantially and added much useful and needed information. Further, the arguments are more clear now. There are still quite a few edit mistakes in the text. I corrected a few in the text attached. Before being published, the text would need to be carefully edited again.

Response: We appreciate your support and comments. Following your suggestions, we revised the manuscript entirely. The edit mistakes have been corrected, accepting the changes noted.

Reviewer 3

1.- Thank you for taking my comments and suggestions into account. No further objections.

Response: We appreciate your support, suggestions, and comments, which have improved the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for taking my comments and suggestions into account. No further objections.

Author Response

Dear Ms/Mr Editor,

Please, find enclosed a revised version of our manuscript. We would like to thank you, the editor and the reviewers, for giving us the chance to revise and improve our manuscript. We have edited the manuscript. We believe our manuscript is stronger as a result of these changes. An itemized point-by-point response to the comments of the reviewers and the editor is presented below.

We would like to thank the reviewers for their comments, especially as regards the edit mistakes, which have now been corrected.

Note: The modifications are reflected in the text in green colour.

Reviewer 1

1.- I have carefully read the revised manuscript. I find that the authors improved the quality of the article substantially and added much useful and needed information. Further, the arguments are more clear now. There are still quite a few edit mistakes in the text. I corrected a few in the text attached. Before being published, the text would need to be carefully edited again.

Response: We appreciate your support and comments. Following your suggestions, we revised the manuscript entirely. The edit mistakes have been corrected, accepting the changes noted.

Reviewer 3

1.- Thank you for taking my comments and suggestions into account. No further objections.

Response: We appreciate your support, suggestions, and comments, which have improved the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx