Micromunicipality (MM) and Inner Areas in Italy: A Challenge for National Land Policy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an nice work on community urban planning within a country, which well summarizes the community urban planning work in Italy, as well as the relevant research ideas and prospects in the future.

There are some issues that can be added to the paper.

1-The foreword can appropriately add some content of the territorial space planning in Europe and other parts of the world, as well as the research background of the planning and renovation of small areas within cities.

2-The discussion part of the paper can appropriately add some research literature, such as some good practices of other countries when discussing urban planning policy choices.

3-Page 7，with an area of 37,627 km2 and。。。。

4-There are many asterisks******** in the article, which need to be added by the author。

5-The end of the paper lacks much information necessary for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1-The foreword can appropriately add some content of the territorial space planning in Europe and other parts of the world, as well as the research background of the planning and renovation of small areas within cities.

Have been add the following text and references

The theme of the municipal dimension is closely associated with that of spatial planning and urban regeneration, to which bodies in Europe, but also on other continents, are particularly sensitive, as emerges from the relevant scientific literature (Parkinson, 2005; Servillo et al., 2017; Tulumello et al., 2020; Colomb and Tomaney, 2021).

Colomb, C., Tomaney, J. (2021). Spatial planning, nationalism and territorial politics in Europe. Regional Studies, 55(1), 101-114.

Tulumello, S., Cotella, G., Othengrafen, F. (2020). Spatial planning and territorial governance in Southern Europe between economic crisis and austerity policies. International planning studies, 25(1), 72-87.

Parkinson, M. (2005). Urban policy in Europe: where have we been and where are we going. en Antalowsky, E., Dangschat, JS y Parkinson, M.(ed.). European Metropolitan Governance: Cities in Europe-Europe in Cities, proyecto NODE (Ministerio Austriaco de Educacion, Ciencia y Cultura), 7-32.

Servillo, L., Atkinson, R., & Hamdouch, A. (2017). Small and medium‐sized towns in Europe: conceptual, methodological and policy issues. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 108(4), 365-379.

 

2-The discussion part of the paper can appropriately add some research literature, such as some good practices of other countries when discussing urban planning policy choices.

Have been add the following text and references

In concrete terms, however, it cannot be forgotten how the subject of municipal planning affects the much broader framework of urban planning policy choices, for which there are important and numerous international experiences (Andersen and Van Kempen, 2003; Sýkora, 2017; De Gregorio Hurtado, 2018; Cavaco et al., 2020)

Andersen, H. T., & Van Kempen, R. (2003). New trends in urban policies in Europe: evidence from the Netherlands and Denmark. Cities, 20(2), 77-86.

Cavaco, C., Florentino, R., & Pagliuso, A. (2020). Urban policies in Portugal. In Foregrounding Urban Agendas (pp. 49-73). Springer, Cham.

De Gregorio Hurtado, S. (2018). The EU urban policy in the period 2007–13: lessons from the Spanish experience. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 5(1), 212-230.

Sýkora, L. (2017). Urban development, policy and planning in the Czech Republic and Prague. In Spatial planning and urban development in the new EU member states (pp. 127-154). Routledge.

3-Page 7，with an area of 37,627 km2 and。。。。

All unit superscripts have been corrected

4-There are many asterisks******** in the article, which need to be added by the author。

All asterisks have been removed

5-The end of the paper lacks much information necessary for publication.

Have been add the following Acknowledgments

This paper picks up stimuli and research contents that are being developed within the following projects developed by the University of L'Aquila:

2020-2022 - Sost.EN.&Re “Sustainability, Resilience, Adaptation for Ecosystem Protection and Physical Reconstruction in Central Italy". National Strategy for Sustainable Development, Ministry of Ecological Transition - Abruzzo Region.

We thank Cheryl Di Lorenzo for her precious collaboration in the preparation of the text and the anonymous reviewers who, with their comments, have allowed us to significantly improve the quality of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your paper to the Sustainability journal. It provides a great insight into the current issues of Italian public administration.
I have some comments, which in my view should be addressed:

1, In terms of content, your work is absolutely sound. I think you should put more effort in formal design. I provide you a non-exhaustive list:

-The map of figure 1 (right hand side) is hard to read.
- Considering table 1 quantity (or percentage of total municipalities) of each category would be useful addition
-Use of space a little bit wasteful between Figure 1 and 3, including figure captions.Authors should adjust spacing.
- Authors use  ******  to link, but it is not clear, what do you exactly what to link. I think these kind of marking could be omitted.
-Referring to figure 4, legend should be on the same page as the figure.

Content reflections:

-What do the authors mean by urban density? Number of municipalities with city status out of the total?Make it more clear.
 
-It would be a great added value to the paper, if the authors could reveal the underlying causes, why are the small municipalities concentrating (mostly) in the northern part of Italy?

-Another interesting question to be answered: Is it  common in Europe that VS+S municipalities' growing over the past few decades or is it an Italian specific feature? Is it not only the result of suburbanization?

-Authors claim that "VS+S municipalities also account for the highest urbanization density: over 8%, higher than the national average of about 7%, falling to 5% in the next class (M) and thenas low as 6% in the largest classes of municipalities (L+VL) (Table 2)". Why do such small settlements have city status at all? Is the city status a representative value for mayors or other stakeholders?

-Although it is an absolute advantage of the manuscript that the authors offer therapy to the aforementioned challenges, I would consider a dedicated policy recommendation chapter, in which the authors enumerate that in which  services and domains would profit the most of restructuring of the public administration in Italy.  Would it open the way to a more effective and socially reasonable public transport? Development of ICT infrastructure (broadband network, etc.).

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

-The map of figure 1 (right hand side) is hard to read.

I think this problem is an editing problem that needs to be reported to the editor. Perhaps the maps can be made larger. We are however available to provide them at the highest resolution

- Considering table 1 quantity (or percentage of total municipalities) of each category would be useful addition

Table 1 has been modified

-Use of space a little bit wasteful between Figure 1 and 3, including figure captions. Authors should adjust spacing.

I think this problem is an editing problem that needs to be reported to the editor.

- Authors use  ******  to link, but it is not clear, what do you exactly what to link. I think these kind of marking could be omitted.

All asterisks have been removed

-Referring to figure 4, legend should be on the same page as the figure.

I think this problem is an editing problem that needs to be reported to the editor.

Content reflections:

-What do the authors mean by urban density? Number of municipalities with city status out of the total? Make it more clear.

The meaning of urbanisation density has been clarified

The urban density has expressed as following:    where Ua = Urbanized area, Ma=Municipal area
 
-It would be a great added value to the paper, if the authors could reveal the underlying causes, why are the small municipalities concentrating (mostly) in the northern part of Italy?

Has been added the following text

The prevailing small size of the municipalities in northern Italy can be attributed to their development between the mid-11th and early 12th centuries as an autonomistic push by the numerous large and small towns and rural communities against the weakened feudal power of the Emperor. This process developed in a very widespread and capillary manner precisely in northern Italy and only later extended to other parts of the country, which thus remained for a long time still characterised by feudal management with large territories entrusted to the noble and religious classes. In southern Italy, the solidity of the Norman Kingdom did not allow for the development of forms of autonomous government that would only express themselves, on the basis of large fiefdoms, between the 12th and 14th centuries.

 

-Another interesting question to be answered: Is it common in Europe that VS+S municipalities' growing over the past few decades or is it an Italian specific feature? Is it not only the result of suburbanization?

Has been added the following text

 

The development of municipalities has also affected other European countries and, for example, France is characterised by the presence of very small municipalities. The size of municipalities has not changed much over time, the most recent of which date back to the era of the Fascist government and subsequently to very few cases of voluntary amalgamation managed directly by some administrations.

 

-Authors claim that "VS+S municipalities also account for the highest urbanization density: over 8%, higher than the national average of about 7%, falling to 5% in the next class (M) and thenas low as 6% in the largest classes of municipalities (L+VL) (Table 2)". Why do such small settlements have city status at all? Is the city status a representative value for mayors or other stakeholders?

Has been added the following text

 

The reasons for the average high urban density in VS+S municipalities are many and very often influenced by local social and economic aspects. However, it is also true that since the 1950s the administrations of smaller municipalities have planned extensive new urbanisation in an attempt to counteract the phenomena of abandonment and loss of economic and productive interest. Until the 1980s, when the strength of the construction sector was substantial, this resulted in widespread urban growth, both for second homes, but also for housing in municipalities closer to the large metropolitan poles.

-Although it is an absolute advantage of the manuscript that the authors offer therapy to the aforementioned challenges, I would consider a dedicated policy recommendation chapter, in which the authors enumerate that in which  services and domains would profit the most of restructuring of the public administration in Italy.  Would it open the way to a more effective and socially reasonable public transport? Development of ICT infrastructure (broadband network, etc.).

In the Conclusion section has been added the following text

Uniformly managed spatial and urban planning for larger administrative aggregations, i.e. over larger municipal territories, would certainly entail a number of positive consequences, especially in terms of efficiency and cost savings. These would translate into more effective management of collective services (such as schools and social facilities), less duplication of market services (especially commercial ones), more optimised and, therefore, more efficient and economical hub-and-spoke public transport systems, and better organisation of other network services, such as ICT, but also energy distribution and other urban wiring.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx