Environmental Sustainability and Territorial Competitiveness: A Comparison between Italian Provinces

Abstract

The emergence of globalisation and the removal of obstacles between markets have heightened rivalry between territorial areas. To have a competitive advantage, the regions have to be unique. As one of the tactics used to boost their reputation on a territorial level, territories are progressively adopting environmental policies for sustainable and shared prosperity. Indeed, effective management of urban growth depends heavily on sustainable development. In this regard, the literature occasionally refers to the “green branding” of cities, a strategy that makes use of environmental aspects to boost the allure of metropolitan environments. There is currently little consensus in the literature on the measuring of environmental performance, and no statistical study has been done to confirm the efficacy of these measures in terms of territorial competitiveness. Therefore, it is important to determine whether there is a relationship between a territory’s level of sustainability and competitiveness in Italy. According to the statistical analysis of the Italian provinces, the Northeast, Northwest, Centre, and Islands are the four geographical regions with the highest average scores. This unquestionably indicates a basic comprehension and supports the notion that there is a relationship between the two variables. However, it also serves as a warning about how geographical disparities in Italy represent a major issue affecting the most diverse sectors. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic problem has drastically altered consumer demands and goals, leading consumers to seek out more sustainable travel and cities that are designed with citizens’ requirements in mind. It will therefore become more and more important to research how public and private administrators, as well as policy makers, react to these changes.

1. Introduction

To ensure their existence in the modern world, territorial systems must be able to withstand the complexity and, most importantly, the speed of the socio-economic changes that influence them. In this regard, the geographical component assumes a more central position in the execution of coherent and successful policies designed to ensure a high degree of competitiveness while also ensuring sustainable development. In fact, as the climate change issue worsens and more people become aware of how serious the situation is, national, regional, and international governments, as well as international organizations, are being forced to take action to reduce the problem’s effects and the risks associated with it. Because the health of the ecosystem directly affects human well-being, the unprecedented human pressure on the world has reignited interest in how dependent we are on nature [1]. As a result, several specialists in town planning, public management, and geography have questioned the contribution of the urban context to the current environmental issue. Modern urban growth management places a high priority on sustainable development, particularly in areas where population growth is expected to be the primary factor accelerating urbanisation [2]. Unquestionably, comprehensive policy coordination and investment decisions are needed to create territories that are more inclusive, resilient, sustainable, and healthy. Depending on the economic, social, and biological conditions in a given area, environmental sustainability requirements might vary significantly. According to the literature on the subject, the first wave of environmental policies began in the 1960s, when command-and-control legislative interventions spread, and the ideas of ecology and environment started to become more established. The imposition of quantitative restrictions on potential polluters, with sanctions in place in the event of violation, was a defining feature of these interventions. Nevertheless, the European Commission deemed these initiatives ineffective because the national bureaucratic apparatus was unable to exert control over all stakeholders. The so-called voluntary instruments, such as product certification, environmental management systems, voluntary agreements, and environmental accounting and communication tools, were therefore developed from the 1980s onwards because many green principles and corporate responsibilities have been combined under the umbrella word “sustainability”, especially after the 1992 UN Commission on Environment and Development conference held in Rio de Janeiro [3]. Companies started using them on their own initiative, later formalising and systematising them [4]. The “green economy”, defined by Treccani as an economic form in which public and private investments aim to reduce carbon emissions and pollution, increase efficiency in energy and resources, avoid the loss of biodiversity, and conserve the ecosystem, has grown because of the failure shown by the “business as usual” development models at the beginning of the new millennium. The primary goal of these policies is to eliminate the conventional conflict between environmental and economic goals. By implementing the operational cooperation of the stakeholders for improved growth, environmental protection might be a chance to uncover new creative and useful solutions. In this regard, the public sector’s function is crucial to the creation of a set of regulations and other interventions that alter the pattern of consumption of goods and services with a view to safeguarding the environment [5].

The structure of this study is as follows: the first paragraph examines the development of the idea and the metrics of sustainability while highlighting the significance and function of the evolving urban context, which is the focal point of current challenges. The second paragraph of the essay examines territorial competitiveness and its definitions and measurements after analysing the context and development of environmental policies related to the idea of sustainability. It aims to identify the most appropriate methodology for gauging territorial competitiveness at the provincial level. The goals and study technique were the main topics of the paper’s final paragraph. The examination of various pertinent articles on the subject using key words such as “sustainability”, “competitiveness”, “territorial competitiveness”, and their combinations formed the methodological framework for this research to reach its research goal.

2. Sustainable Cities as an Opportunity: Urban Green Branding

As stated above, the environmental issue is not only a human threat but also brings with it opportunities for innovation, development, and change. The concept of green branding of territories is emblematic in this respect [6]. A relevant strand of the literature identifies green branding as an effective strategy to improve the governance, livability, and competitiveness of cities [7], asserting that green resources can strengthen local identity and create an attractive brand for different types of users and visitors [8]. Moreover, as stated in the SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) goal to build resilient infrastructure, promoting sustainable industrialisation and fostering innovation can help generate employment and income by aiding dynamic and competitive economic forces [9]. Therefore, expanding investments in a proper green transformation will reduce the risks of future crises and adequately mitigate the shocks of climate change [10].

The notion of a green city encompasses both micro factors, such as urban planning and tree planting, and broader aspects, such as sustainable development and clean energy use [11]. From the outset, it is necessary to state that green branding should not be a mere communication campaign but rather a process that involves different stakeholders in a common interest—in this case, the environment—to enhance the specific characteristics of the place. Without permeating the territorial identity with the culture and history of the site, the green label would remain abstract and unattractive in the eyes of potential users [12]. A set of attributes contributing to the green branding of the city was defined by academics Chan and Marafa [13], who created the so-called Green Brand Hexagon (Figure 1), a reinterpretation of the previous City Brand Hexagon devised by Anholt a few years earlier.

This diagram shows that having a favourable reputation requires more than just having green spaces; it also calls for citizen education and other types of participatory consent. Additionally, by guaranteeing the quality and accessibility of green spaces and by offering a variety of educational and recreational activities, a location may become a meeting place for many targets [12]. According to a review of the literature, a city is considered to be green when it maximises social well-being, reduces raw material and energy consumption as well as overall environmental impact, and meets basic human needs in harmony with the natural world [14] without eroding the conditions for its reproduction over time [15].

Cities, as complex systems promoting a sense of community and building local resilience and sustainability [16], are the main hubs of modern human lives. Occupying only 2 percent of the Earth’s surface but consuming 75 percent of the available resources [14], cities have a crucial role as they globally accommodate most of the human population (i.e., as reported by the United Nations, 2.3 billion people live in cities today [17]) and are also powerhouses of economic growth [9]. As theatres of new challenges, cities are investigating how to address the wide range of current urban threats since urban population growth is expected to continue and is estimated to be greater than the cumulative urban expansion of human history [18].

Granted that sustainability is becoming increasingly essential in the present day and that, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit [19], Europe is the second most urbanised region (70 percent) after North and South America (80 percent), the European Union [20] and the United Nations [21] have set ambitious climate and energy targets for the next few years to address the current challenges. The European Union intervenes in its report, “Cities of the Future”, stating that cities are places where problems emerge but where solutions can be found. Cities are a breeding ground for science and technology, culture, and innovation; additionally, they play a key role in the effort to mitigate the impact of climate change [22]. For this reason, there has been a growing interest in the relationship between urban planning and public health since numerous cities are already struggling with environmental degradation and inadequate urban infrastructure. As engines of dynamism and innovation, cities throughout the world are rethinking the concept of urban space from the perspective of health and ecology, significantly investing in sustainable infrastructure, reducing disaster risks, and using nature-based solutions [23]. Therefore, some cities have already undertaken huge steps towards creating a greener future, and, according to new needs, attempts have been made to respond to global societal challenges through the application of nature-based solutions (NbS) to empower better decision-making. Nature-based solutions (NbS) are defined by the European Union as solutions inspired and supported by nature that are cost-effective, provide simultaneous environmental, social, and economic benefits, and help build resilience. These interventions, like numerous alternatives designed over the years, aim to mitigate risks due to human activity and excessive land consumption by building structures that mimic nature’s behaviour and replace grey infrastructure [24], designing a sustainability transition by looking at urban sustainability. In the direction of reducing the human impact on the natural environment by creating eco-conscious living spaces, from 2002 to 2005, the EU project “Urban Development Towards Appropriate Structures for Sustainable Transport” was also implemented, with the aim of encouraging public transportation and the construction of bicycle paths and pedestrian areas [14].

There are numerous examples of moral cities that show how an area’s level of sustainability may play a significant role in drawing tourists and potential residents. Chan and Marafa conduct their research in Hong Kong, which has risen in the rankings for both livability and urban beauty [13] as a result of the abundance of green spaces. However, the governments of the Øresund region in Denmark were the first to recognise that environmental regulations would be crucial not only for quality of life but also for the region’s competitiveness. The goal, stated in 1994, was to have the two most significant cities in the region—Copenhagen and Malmö—become “one of the cleanest metropolitan regions in Europe” and to serve as an international role model for green territorial marketing. The primary goal of territorial marketing is, in particular, to make a region more competitive in order to draw visitors, investments, and enterprises while also enhancing the quality of life for both existing and future residents [25].

Along with the recognition on a large scale that achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change will require a variation in the way global development trajectory is managed [26], there is also no shortage of initiatives for measuring environmental performance. As this is a very broad concept, the measurements are more heterogeneous because, depending on the research objective, certain indicators—perhaps concerning the perception of targets with respect to environmental interventions—will be chosen over others, such as more technical environmental impact assessment indicators. For instance, the Sustainable City Index proposed by Arcadis and the initiatives of the Network of Sustainable Municipalities formed in Italy in response to the objectives in agreement with the SDGs declared in UN resolution A/RES/70/1, specifically the 11th goal titled “Sustainable Cities and Communities”, are evidence of the need for prompt action towards more sustainable initiatives [27].

The Green City Index, which was introduced in 2008 and measures roughly 30 variables across 8 to 9 categories, is another assessment approach that might be discussed [28]. The development of green areas and water cycle management are also considered, along with energy efficiency, renewable energy, low-emission transportation systems, environmentally friendly infrastructure, waste management, and waste reduction [29].

Additionally, it has become abundantly obvious since the start of the current epidemic that governments can make the required changes and adaptations, coordinating urban growth and planning with environmental and human health to reduce and prevent ecological imbalances [10].

The various issues related to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), waste generation, susceptibility to shocks such as epidemics, and natural resource usage would be helped by more sustainable cities [30]. It has never been more crucial to embrace the idea of public health and prevent a return to the pre-pandemic status quo by rebuilding urban areas for future resilience, inclusion, greenness, and economic sustainability [10].

3. Definitions and Measurement of Territorial Competitiveness

After analysing the context and evolution of environmental policies, urban areas are under constant pressure to address several considerable issues, such as the living environment, competitiveness, and sustainability [31]. In particular, the diffusion of place branding strategies focused on sustainability motivates cities to turn to smart solutions and to transit as models of economic growth that are environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive [32]. For this reason, cities nowadays try to provide better quality services, increase effectiveness and productivity, address congestion and environmental issues, and promote local economic competitiveness [33].

For the purposes of this analysis, it is necessary to comprehend what territorial competitiveness is and what is the most suitable methodology for measuring it at the provincial level.

To be defined as competitive, a territory must attract resources within it, metabolise them and be able to translate them into a real advantage in favour of the territorial actors that determine the physiological evolution of the territory through their actions. Nonetheless, the debate about the definition of competitiveness has often been confused, as there are no agreed definitions of this term [34].

The OECD has provided a potential definition of international competitiveness that has received widespread support. According to the OECD’s definition, competitiveness is “the degree to which [a country] can, under free and fair market conditions, produce goods and services that meet the test of international markets while simultaneously maintaining and expanding the real incomes of its people over the longer term” [35] (p. 237).

Some national and international organisations have tried to quantify and measure competitiveness. The International Institute for Management Development (IMD) of Lausanne, with the creation of a synthetic index that uses four variables such as government efficiency, business efficiency, economic performance, and local infrastructures, provides different classifications of competitiveness published periodically in the World Competitiveness Yearbook. Furthermore, the World Economic Forum annually publishes the Global Competitiveness Report, which classifies countries based on two indices: the Growth Competitiveness Index (GCI), which includes a technological index, a macroeconomic environment index, and a political institutions index; and the Business Competitiveness Index (BCI), which includes a company sophistication index and the quality of the national business environment. The two indices summarise, respectively, the level of potential competitiveness of the countries considered and the intensity of competitiveness of the productive structure. Finally, more recently, the European Commission has introduced a tool with the scope to provide useful information to ensure the improvement of the economic performance of European regions through the Regional Competitiveness Index. This index is created by considering the level of innovation, the quality of institutions and governance, transport, digital infrastructure, health, and human capital. Through this tool, it is possible to identify strengths and weaknesses and elaborate new development strategies. The study of competitiveness has focused exclusively on companies and their reference markets for years [36,37].

The global expansion of companies’ localisation horizons has placed the various countries—and even more so, the local governments within them—in the position of having to maintain a competitive advantage over other territories to increase income and local employment [38]. In turn, a territory with the ability to innovate and implement new technologies quickly has a better chance of preserving or improving its international competitiveness [39]. According to Paoli [40], the different attitude towards the environment generates a distinct relationship with it because the company can only advance and develop if the surrounding area does as well. Therefore, the companies in that area are designated to operate jointly to develop the environment in which they operate. Despite this, the role of the territory goes beyond the geographical–spatial dimension that intervenes in support of the company. The goal of a territory is to increase the wealth of its population, according to U.S. economist Porter [41], who focused on the competitiveness–productivity combination. The growth of wealth depends on the ability of companies to increase their production efficiency over time. Thus, at the heart of Porter’s theory is the impact of the local and regional environment on the development of the company itself. For these reasons, the study of competitiveness has progressively shifted from enterprises to the territories that host them. Ciccarelli [42] defines territorial competitiveness at the macroeconomic level as the ability to attract and retain entrepreneurial activities and production factors. In contrast, the Economist Intelligence Unit focused on urban competitiveness, defining it as the ability to attract capital, economic activity, talent, and visitors [43]. Therefore, there are several definitions of the same concept, and, above all, there are many dimensions that come into play when talking about such a vast concept which combines the material and immaterial factors of an area. Indeed, the LEADER European Observatory takes into account several areas of competitiveness, such as social competitiveness, i.e., the ability of actors to act effectively together on the basis of a common project; environmental competitiveness, i.e., the ability of actors to enhance their heritage as a distinctive feature of the area; and economic competitiveness, i.e., the ability to maximise added value and enhance the specificity of local goods and services in relation to the global context [44]. Nevertheless, some scholars have criticised the application of the notion of competitiveness to the territorial dimension. Among them, Krugman [45] has referred to it as a “dangerous obsession” that might lead to completely incorrect political and economic decisions. Over time, this multidimensional character of competitiveness has also led to difficulties in measuring it, with different views on the dimensions to be analysed. Some of them have been considered:

• Il Sole 24 Ore identifies six dimensions in its ranking of Italian cities, ranging from individual income to managerial system variables and a wide range of services provided in the territory, such as standard of living, business and work, services and environment, crime, population, and leisure.
• Paoli [35] identifies five factors in which the competition between areas takes place, such as infrastructural factors, functional factors concerning the availability of valuable services, territorial and economic productivity factors—such as the presence and quality of business networks in the area—and demographic factors.
• Repurposing a method that has already been tested by the Tagliacarne Institute, Ciccarelli [46] suggests considering the following factors: the local economic context, the availability of basic infrastructure, the competitiveness of the productive fabric, service diffusion, the ability to produce scientific and technological innovation, the size of labour pools, tourist appeal, the effectiveness of public administration, and quality of life.

Therefore, marketing as a management philosophy and corpus of strategic and operational tools becomes one of the key references [47], and thanks to territorial marketing, it is possible to identify the real needs of the territory and start the strategic planning to benefit the territory itself [48]. Particularly, it must be stressed that a good marketing campaign must take into consideration the different types of target groups the city addresses (entrepreneurs, investors, NGOs, students, residents, tourists, etc.) to analyse their needs and draw up a list of priorities. From defining the local identity to deciding on the outcomes and objectives to be achieved through planned interventions, planning, resident involvement, and effective communication are indispensable tools to make an area attractive [7].

4. Research Objectives and Methodology

A consideration that can easily be reached by analysing previous studies on the topic that led to the design of this research work is the application of green marketing principles for the business sector. Nowadays, the business sector is widespread and conceived as an effective strategy for the image and success of the product or service to be sold. Unlike traditional marketing, in territorial marketing there does not yet seem to be, or at least not systematically, the awareness that building a place with a high level of environmental sustainability can be a factor of satisfaction for numerous targets, from residents to tourists and businesses. Currently, there are few articles in the literature about this topic, and the ones that exist focus on the place where these environmental measures are applied. However, statistical studies that could verify a valid correlation on the topic between the two dimensions considered were few: environmental sustainability and territorial competitiveness. Therefore, through a quantitative analysis of the correlation between these two variables in the Italian provinces, the heart of this paper is centred on the Italian scene, where the research on the subject is almost non-existent. The provincial level was chosen, based on previous studies on competitiveness [46], as the meeting point between two requirements: territorial homogeneity, which would not have been guaranteed by a vast geographical area like the regional one, which contains areas that can be very different from one another in terms of the phenomena considered, and data availability, because existing data at the municipal level would not have ensured the completeness of the analysis. As far as sustainability is concerned, it must be specified that this work takes into consideration indicators concerning the provincial capitals, since it is possible to consider that the environmental policies implemented at the urban level affect the attractiveness of the entire provincial area, of which the capital is the economic and social engine. As far as competitiveness is concerned, since the latter is a highly complex and multidimensional phenomenon, it has been tried to select several indicators that are explanatory of the results achieved by the territories in those areas that the literature has analysed so far and considers crucial for the area’s development, such as enterprises, tourism, security, internationalisation, innovation, demographic trends, services, and human capital.

It has been used in the ISTAT database referring to the year 2019:

-

COEWEB database, foreign trade statistics;

-

Territorial indicators for development policy databases;

-

Permanent Population and Housing Census;

-

Permanent Business Census.

The selected indicators are as follows:

-

The tourism rate (average number of days of presence per inhabitant in establishment accommodation) is indicative of territorial attractiveness in the tourism sector;

-

Employment, indicating the robustness of the labour market;

-

Youth unemployment (percentage of residents aged 15–24 looking for a job);

-

Exports (value in euros) to give a measure of the internationalisation of the place;

-

Number of companies registered in the commercial register on 31 December 2018;

-

Hospital out-migration rate (defined as the percentage of tips for hospitalisation in another region out of the total number of resident hospitalised people) to indicate the level of efficiency of essential services in the area;

-

Theft rate (robberies and thefts per 100 inhabitants) as an indicator of security;

-

Robbery rate (robberies reported per 100 inhabitants) for the same reason as above;

-

Percentage of broadband subscribers in the total population;

-

Migration rate, calculated from the net migration balance of the ISTAT statistics and compared with the resident population in that area;

-

Graduation rate and illiteracy rate—also obtained from the number of graduates and the number of illiterates in the provincial ISTAT databases and compared with the resident population—describe the human capital present in the territory;

-

Number of enterprises involved in innovation projects, collective welfare actions, actions to reduce consumption, and relevant variables to describe the relationship between enterprises and the territory in the environmental, technological, and corporate social responsibility fields.

The indicators aimed at measuring environmental sustainability were also selected from the ISTAT database of the year 2018. In particular: urban environment tables 2018; ISTAT report on ecomanagement; and ISTAT report on urban mobility. Variables more immediately perceptible to the urban space’s user were considered, neglecting some more technical data that could not have directly affected the perception of the place by the different targets. In particular, the following were considered:

-

Density of natural and urban green areas (percentage of municipal area);

-

Number of organisations with environmental management certifications;

-

Percentage of separate collection of total waste;

-

Number of public vehicles per 100,000 inhabitants;

-

Percentage of LPG/methane/electric/hybrid buses in total;

-

Car sharing vehicles per inhabitants 100,000;

-

Number of kilometres of cycle paths per 100 square kilometres of surface area;

-

Presence of solar panels on administration buildings (in m² per 1000 inhabitants).

The analysis was carried out on Excel with the intention of constructing two indices, namely, the environmental sustainability index and the territorial competitiveness index, which could summarise the values of the different indicators analysed (see

Table 1. Sustainability and Competitiveness in Italian Provinces.

Provinces	Zone	Sustainability	Competitiveness
Agrigento	South	−0.526	−0.441
Alessandria	Northwest	−1.354	−0.159
Ancona	Center	0.418	0.226
Aosta	Northwest	1.503	−0.107
Arezzo	Center	−2.152	0.063
Ascoli Piceno	Center	1.075	−0.067
Asti	Northwest	1.407	−0.302
Avellino	South	1.894	−0.231
Bari	South	−1.592	0.137
Barletta-Andria-Trani	South	−1.103	−0.517
Belluno	Northeast	3.342	0.085
Benevento	South	0.665	−0.350
Bergamo	Northwest	3.040	0.406
Biella	Northwest	2.732	−0.355
Bologna	Northeast	0.306	0.740
Bolzano -	Northeast	1.938	0.589
Brescia	Northwest	3.046	0.667
Brindisi	South	−0.778	−0.153
Cagliari	Islands	−1.628	0.102
Caltanissetta	Islands	−3.727	−0.625
Campobasso	South	−4.903	−0.460
Carbonia	Islands	2.156	−0.760
Caserta	South	−1.267	−0.334
Catania	Islands	−5.855	−0.320
Catanzaro	South	1.236	−0.191
Chieti	South	1.116	0.071
Como	Northwest	2.367	−0.102
Cosenza	South	0.787	−0.093
Cremona	Northwest	2.799	−0.163
Crotone	South	−6.390	−0.214
Cuneo	Northwest	2.120	0.069
Enna	Islands	−2.839	−0.526
Fermo	Center	−0.026	−0.068
Ferrara	Northeast	3.841	−0.028
Florence	Center	0.838	0.588
Foggia	South	−4.666	−0.412
Forlì	Northeast	−0.029	0.218
Frosinone	Center	−1.334	−0.196
Genoa	Northwest	−2.599	0.245
Gorizia	Northeast	0.934	−0.074
Grosseto	Center	−2.620	−0.049
Imperia	Northwest	−2.843	−0.513
Isernia	South	−0.094	−0.550
La Spezia	Northwest	1.664	−0.114
L’Aquila	South	−1.522	−0.156
Latina	Center	−3.885	−0.059
Lecce	South	1.116	0.087
Lecco	Northwest	1.112	−0.019
Livorno	Center	−0.212	0.080
Lodi	Northwest	2.854	−0.091
Lucca	Center	3.141	−0.068
Macerata	Center	2.384	−0.095
Mantua	Northwest	4.183	−0.054
Massa–Carrara	Center	−3.017	−0.370
Matera	South	−3.446	−0.102
Messina	Islands	−4.682	−0.182
Milan	Northwest	2.239	2.100
Modena	Northeast	1.114	0.512
Monza	Northwest	1.409	0.251
Naples	South	−2.356	0.088
Novara	Northwest	2.026	−0.082
Nuoro	Islands	1.727	−0.356
Oristano	Islands	2.084	−0.336
Padua	Northeast	0.728	0.506
Palermo	Islands	−5.585	−0.209
Parma	Northeast	3.453	0.244
Pavia	Northwest	1.598	−0.020
Perugia	Center	1.147	0.156
Pesaro	Center	1.242	0.092
Pescara	South	−1.391	−0.041
Piacenza	Northeast	1.465	0.084
Pisa	Center	1.249	0.020
Pistoia	Center	−2.163	−0.121
Pordenone	Northeast	3.976	−0.011
Potenza	South	0.972	−0.055
Prato	Center	2.214	0.076
Ragusa	Islands	−2.356	−0.217
Ravenna	Northeast	0.567	−0.117
Reggio Calabria	South	−2.078	−0.117
Reggio Emilia	Northeast	3.063	−0.022
Rieti	Center	−2.678	−0.363
Rimini	Northeast	1.986	0.254
Rome	Center	−0.903	1.643
Rovigo	Northeast	0.720	−0.218
Salerno	South	0.449	0.089
Sassari	Islands	−0.497	0.000
Savona	Northwest	−1.866	−0.105
Siena	Center	−1.669	0.193
Syracuse	Islands	−5.019	−0.210
Sondrio	Northwest	0.210	−0.155
Taranto	South	−5.082	−0.310
Teramo	South	0.806	−0.121
Terni	Center	2.517	−0.188
Turin	Northwest	0.128	0.780
Trapani	Islands	−6.316	−0.491
Trento	Northeast	3.922	0.318
Treviso	Northeast	4.187	0.442
Trieste	Northeast	−1.370	0.205
Udine	Northeast	1.384	0.098
Varese	Northwest	1.520	0.367
Venice	Northeast	1.696	0.492
Verbania	Northwest	2.956	−0.102
Vercelli	Northwest	1.605	−0.219
Verona	Northeast	−0.270	0.558
Vibo Valentia	South	−1.274	−0.263
Vicenza	Northeast	2.783	0.414
Viterbo	Center	0.495	0.344

Source: Author’s elaboration on ISTAT data, 2019.

). The first step was to assign a zero value to the indicators of those territories where, according to ISTAT, the phenomenon did not exist, so that we could then proceed to calculate the mean and standard deviation of each set of indicators considered. It is worth recalling that the standard deviation is a statistical index of variability that allows one to estimate the dispersion of the data of a distribution with respect to its mean according to the following formula:

$$\sigma =\sqrt{\frac{{\sum }_{i=1}^n{\left(x_i-\stackrel{-}{x}\right)}^2}{n}}$$

For the purposes of the analysis, the mean and standard deviation of the values of each variable considered are useful to standardise each of them. This means subtracting the mean of the distribution from each recorded value and dividing it by the standard deviation of the same. In this way, comparable values can be obtained between them as a result of the units of measurement (see Figure 2). The same procedure is implemented for both the sustainability and competitiveness variables (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). Before proceeding, some methodological clarifications should be made:

-

While the data on sustainability differentiated the areas of Andria, Barletta, and Trani, those on competitiveness considered the single province of Barletta-Andria-Trani established in 2004. To standardise the analysis of the indicators, the standardised averages on the sustainability of the three areas were combined into a single indicator through an arithmetic average of the same.

-

The province of South Sardinia is referred to as Carbonia in the tables for simplification, as the sustainability data refers to the provincial capital.

-

For some provinces, which are not significant, some categories of data were missing but never more than 17%; in these cases, the missing variables were excluded from the calculation of the standardised data for the provinces under analysis.

Before proceeding to the calculation of the indices, it was necessary, as far as the competitiveness data were concerned, to put a negative sign in front of the standardisation formula of those variables that concerned phenomena that have a negative impact on the competitiveness of the territories, in particular: youth unemployment, theft rate, robbery rate, hospital emigration rate, and illiteracy rate. Finally, a further variable of geographical location (i.e., northeast, northwest, center, south, islands) was added next to the column of provinces according to the ISTAT classification, which will be useful for our analysis because it will be explained. Once these operations were completed, the construction of the environmental sustainability index and the territorial competitiveness index took place through an arithmetic average of the standardised data for each province.

5. Discussion of Results

The construction of the indices gave rise to the following results, which are useful for calculating the correlation coefficient between the two variables considered, i.e., measuring the linear link between them.

The correlation coefficient has a value of 0.31429. Therefore, it is possible to affirm the existence of a link, albeit not an excessively high one, between the level of sustainability and the level of competitiveness of an area. Additionally, it is necessary to note the presence of atypical values that are far from the cloud of points that the distribution of data creates. This is for the cities of Milan and Rome, which both have high competitiveness beyond their level of sustainability, and the city of Carbonia, which has low competitiveness, although its level of sustainability is not particularly low. Below, a graphical representation of the dispersion of the two variables analysed has been placed.

What needs to be investigated is the possible presence of a block correlation. In this regard, the subdivision into geographical macro regions mentioned above is useful, as it allows analysing the correlation by focusing on them individually. From the filtered analysis of the indicators, the following results have been obtained:

South and islands: the correlation coefficient is 0.1577. In this case, too, there is the atypical value of Carbonia, which has the worst performance in terms of competitiveness. Without considering this value, the correlation rises to 0.28582.

Center: the correlation coefficient is 0.08699. Far away from the point cloud is the province of Rome (Figure 5). If this value is excluded from the calculation of the correlation, the latter will be equal to 0.29237.

North: the coefficient of the whole area consisting of the northeast and the northwest is 0.09384. Taken individually, the northwest area has a correlation of 0.15627; the northeast area has a negative value of −0.14.

To explain the negative correlation of the indexes analysed in the northeast area Figure 6), it is necessary to verify whether there is a block correlation problem even in this group. From the graphs shown below, there seems to be two clouds of different points. Dividing the observations of these two groups, it has been recorded that the provinces of the upper-left group are: Bologna, Bolzano, Forlì, Modena, Padua, Rimini, Trieste, and Venice. On the other side, the provinces of the lower-right group are Belluno, Ferrara, Gorizia, Parma, Piacenza, Pordenone, Ravenna, Reggio Emilia, Rovigo, Trento, Treviso, Udine, and Vicenza. Through a brief demographic analysis which considers inhabitants, surface, and population density of both capitals and of the entire provincial area, it can be observed that the cities of the block at the top-right are cities that have significantly higher average, median, and maximum values both by inhabitants and by population density.

To analyse the correlation properly, it is therefore necessary to separate the two blocks. In this way, it can be noted that the correlation coefficient of the two blocks is not only positive but also high. It corresponds to 0.58741 for block 1 (Figure 7); while for block 2 (Figure 8)—that of the big cities—it is registered a correlation equal to 0.26512.

Other considerations can be made by looking at the individual indices that have been constructed. Regarding the competitiveness index, the following values should be reported:

The graph (Figure 9) opposite shows the position indices, in particular the minimum value, maximum value, quartiles, mean, and median of the distribution. The lowest value is recorded in the province of Carbonia, whereas the best data are recorded in the metropolitan areas of Milan and Rome.

In the same way, these values can be reported for the sustainability index:

In this case (Figure 10), the city of Crotone is the worst performer from an environmental point of view. Treviso, once again a city in northern Italy, is the one with the highest score. This leads to making geographical observations, which can be further investigated by calculating the arithmetic mean of the indices of competitiveness and sustainability in the geographical regions considered. The results are shown in

Table 2. Competitiveness and Sustainability averages by Italian macro region. Source: Author’s elaboration, 2019.

Northeast	0.24043	Northeast	1.80620
Northwest	0.08891	Northwest	1.35419
Center	0.05224	Center	−0.22406
South	−0.18554	South	−1.17712

.

The last attempt that has been considered relevant was to calculate the correlation by breaking down the composite indicators that have been built and considering only the correlation of one of the variables provided with the other overall index of sustainability or competitiveness.

Indeed, some sustainability variables have proved to be poorly correlated with the competitiveness index. There appears to be, to name a few attempts, a strong correlation between the sustainability index and the percentage of occupation of a territory, equal to 0.6363. Even with the migration rate, the correlation is fairly high with a value of 0.4165. Conversely, the correlation is almost nil between competitiveness and graduate rate.

6. Conclusions

The development of the two indices would allow confirming whether there is a relationship between the degree of environmental sustainability and the degree of territorial competitiveness of the geographic region taken into consideration at the provincial level, based on ideas from the literature. It has been noted from the data that there is a correlation between these two variables, and this may be confirmed. However, it is undeniable that the amount of correlation achieved is not too great, and this may be because of several factors. First off, it is undeniable that territorial competitiveness is a complicated phenomenon that has many different elements, many of which may not always be related to the idea of sustainability examined in this study. The choice of competitiveness indicators was made to provide a general evaluation of the territory in the factors considered important for competitiveness itself, including business, tourism, safety, labour, human capital, and internationalisation. However, they cannot be viewed as exhaustive in describing such a multifaceted phenomenon. The last portion of the preceding paragraph discussed calculating the connection with indicators, and these calculations have been crucial in showing how certain indicators are linked to some dimensions but not to others. It merely serves to confirm that not all the factors previously considered in terms of the competitiveness aspect can have anything to do with a phenomenon like environmental sustainability, which, despite being connected, turns out to have quite different features and drivers. It should be highlighted that this analysis also made it feasible to confirm the presence of a block correlation inside the Italian state. This shows that the degree of association varies from region to region, sometimes significantly. If the atypical value of the province of Carbonia-Iglesias is ignored, there is a strong association between competitiveness and sustainability in the south. The level of correlation is lower in the north as a whole. There are numerous ways to explain it, and it is only natural to assume that outside variables are involved. First, despite its level of environmental sustainability, the region is more competitive due to its higher level of industrialisation, better income conditions, greater connections to the rest of Europe, and abundance of Special Statute Regions and Autonomous Provinces. Large cities must be distinguished since any discussion of competitiveness seems to have nothing to do with their competitiveness. When compared to other cities with the same level of environmental sustainability, the atypical values observed in the dispersion graphs are those of cities such as Rome, Milan, and Bologna, which are distinguished by a significantly higher level of competitiveness. Due to its rich historical and cultural heritage, tourism, and strong territorial vocation, Rome’s capital has become more appealing. Milan is extremely competitive despite not ranking among the top 20 cities for environmental performance because of its capacity to draw tourists, investors, and students while serving as the nation’s financial hub. Moreover, the Milan example provides interesting food for thought when considering the environmental point of view.

The perception of a city’s sustainability may not always match reality. Some cities are successful in establishing for the user the idea of a sustainable city through a good communication strategy, focusing more on the experience to offer the client and the message to express than on the accomplishment of specific environmental targets. It is important to note that this article almost entirely concentrates on the product from the perspective of the marketing mix, excluding factors like communication that could be crucial in shaping how people perceive so-called green towns. It makes sense from a statistical perspective to stress the two ideas. It is worth remembering first and foremost that correlation does not imply causation. Since the two factors do not imply that one of them is in any way responsible for the other, this research does not attempt to demonstrate that sustainability is a source of competitiveness. Another methodological point is that creating the sustainability and competitiveness indexes was made easier by applying the arithmetic mean to standardised data. Future studies should, however, first concentrate on a classification criterion for the indications to give them weight and make the index creation even more effective and realistic. When the top cities for sustainability and competition are compared, the Northeast, Northwest, Center, and Island regions have the same classification for average geographic scores. Unquestionably, this indicates a basic comprehension and supports the idea that there is a relationship between the two variables. However, it also serves as a warning sign for Italy’s growing concern over territorial inequality, which affects even the most diverse economic sectors.

The following research will focus on a deeper study of the link between sustainability and competitiveness, with regard not only to the results obtained by the territories but also to the root causes of inequalities and the way in which environmental policies are carried out. From the point of view of the territory, the study of how sustainability can increase the attractiveness of a territory is at the beginning and at a crucial moment at the same time. The crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic has radically changed the needs and objectives of consumers in search of more sustainable tourism [49] and a city optimised for the needs of residents. Therefore, it will be increasingly necessary to study how public and private administrators and policy makers respond to these changes.