Ecological Transition without Change: A Paradox, a Misinterpretation, or a Renounce?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The analyzed paper puts the finger on a topic asked by „real life” from the local and regional levels. This approach is very interesting from the academic point of view, and planning policies, too. In my opinion, the journal needs this kind of articles, which surely increase its visibility and deeper implication inside of the debates on the weaknesses and contradictions between the political strategies of the European Union and the concrete their application on the real life of the Europe’s inhabitants. Well written and structured, the proposed article touches on an important category of problems, especially connected with spatial and urban planning at the urban level.
Please, find below my comments and suggestions:
a) The Title of the paper is very attractive! By formulation, this title arouses the readers curiosity, because most study premises are in the mind of many European researchers in the field. Personally, I highly appreciate the courage of the author to make a critical analysis of the relationships between the European documents and the application ways of the general policies to the local and regional levels.
b) The Abstract is relevant for the readers covering the main points of analysis, the findings, and synthetically providing the results of case study.
c) The Introduction seems to be well conceived, adapted to the topic and offering a very good context analysis. Citing the European and United Nation documents connected with the green transition, the comments are well correlated with global events (such pandemic period and Russia-Ukraine war), and with the real possibilities to mitigate the obstacles during their application at the urban level. The case study on Rome municipality demonstrates the clash between green transition process and local economic-political elites, who see a good opportunity to develop their affairs using the National Plan for Recovery and Resilience (PNRR) funds through the old and consecrated ways”.
d) Framing the case is the second section, well-developed for a better understanding of the obtained results. I find that the three sub-chapters are relevant for this kind of study, making distinction between a first theoretical issues set focused especially on the concepts, from the planning perspective, and the second one which is dedicated to other issues set grouping the ideas on the planning models, behaviors, and responsibility of the main actors. I underline the critical methodological vision on the connection between the RRF and local actions. In the last sub-chapter, the author makes an interesting analysis on the translation of the facilities from RRF to the plan in the case of Rome. Lack of territorialization by plan means that one important goal of the European strategy is not fully achieved. The comments of Fig.1 are welcomed to show the territorial differences between the resources invested for ecological transition at the country, and Lazio Region levels.
e) An excellent study case represents section 3, with an incitant title: Rome in transition: towards what? The main ideas come from a deep analysis of two „integrated projects” which follow to be implemented in Rome city: „Caput Mundi” and „Cinecittà Project” and their less connection with „green transition”. All the results are convicting to learn that such projects financed by PNRR are in contradiction with the master plan and could be well valorized by different real-estate developers. Entire this section is a model of critical analysis for other similar case studies.
I recommend making more visible the Fig.2
f) The Discussion and concluding remarks section synthetizes some important conclusions regarding the need for correlation between the financing by PNRR and the implementation instruments and policies of the local levels. Usually, the main obstacles during the implementation process are the specific of spatial planning at the local and regional levels. It is again demonstrated the important role of economic interests in comparison with ecological goals and social sustainability.
I suggest just adding a phrase or a paragraph calling researchers to multiply the case studies on the relationships between the European documents on the „ecological transition” and the implementation experiences of the national recover and resilience plans on the local and regional levels. This could have as result a database on different experiences during implementation process of the European strategies in the field.
To conclude, in my opinion, this paper is required by existing literature in the field and represents an excellent critical analysis on a complicated process regarding the efficiency of the national recover and resilience plans implementation by all European countries.
Author Response
I thank the reviewer for having caught the “spirit” that animated this work, that is exactly to point out the weaknesses and contradictions between declared goals, supra-local (trans-national and, in this case, namely European) political strategies, and their concrete application “on the real life of Europe’s inhabitants” - as the reviewers precisely acknowledged.
Considering the topic of the Special Issue, I find it of the utmost importance to explore and understand the actual role of urban and spatial planning in pursuing sustainability goals.
I improved all three pictures both in readability and aesthetic, providing them also with a far better resolution.
Regarding point f in particular:
I also thank the reviewer for the very good suggestion of including a reflection on possible further developments of this same approach, e.g. “Adding a phrase or a paragraph calling researchers to multiply the case studies on the relationships between the European documents on the ‘ecological transition’ and the implementation experiences of the national recovery and resilience plans on the local and regional levels” – a suggestion that I followed (see revised paper). In fact, it is important to consider that we do not have any PNRR (RRP) project fully realized and ready for a more detailed assessment yet – so this paper should be useful as a frame for all those who will be interested in critically analyzing and evaluating the many projects related to that European measure, and maybe also to other trans-national policies oriented towards “green transition”.
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the authors for an interesting topic. The abstract contains all the necessary segments of the manuscript. I will give some suggestions in order to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Reduce the number of keywords.
The manuscript is of an overview nature, therefore I believe that it could be improved by an even larger review of the literature, more precisely by citing more research that deals with the given issue. The figures and maps are very clear and the methodology is explained. I believe that the manuscript, if improved in terms of strengthening the review of literature, can be published as a review manuscript. To expand the discussion, to state the wider practical significance of this manuscript, in a theoretical and applied sense.
Minor check spelling of English
Author Response
I thank the reviewer for the very useful suggestions for improving the manuscript.
I reduced the keywords to 4 (see revised paper).
Regarding the “overview nature” of the manuscript, in my perspective it presents a case in detail – with the details that are available at this stage of implementation of a transnational measure that must land on the city of Rome, clashing with the political, administrative, socio-economic environment, and with the trajectories of different local interests. All these aspects have been introduced and explained according to their stage of implementation.
One could say that there are no “results”, and this would be true if it were dealing with the evaluation of one specific project, while the focus here is on the inconsistency between the EU measure and the way in which it is translated into local policies and choices, the perspective is nearer to policy analysis, where “results” can be different things. Thus, I respectfully do not agree with the idea of publishing it as a review manuscript. But I took the comment seriously, clarifying better the aim of the paper, which evidently was not fully clear yet.
I tried to strengthen the aim and scope of the paper, explicating that it should be read with the lens of policy analysis and not with that of project evaluation: although the term “project” appears in the text, it is used for referring to what has been envisioned and in its more general meaning.
I agree with the idea of explaining better how this manuscript could expand the discussion (I get it also as a proposal to point out the possible further directions of this reflection) and to “state the wider practical significance of this manuscript, in a theoretical and applied sense”, which is, to some extent, near to the suggestion of Reviewer 1, when he/she proposed to “Adding a phrase or a paragraph calling researchers to multiply the case studies on the relationships between the European documents on the ‘ecological transition’ and the implementation experiences of the national recovery and resilience plans on the local and regional levels”.
I really hope to have caught and answered these very useful suggestions in the revised paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article entitled "Ecological transition without change: a paradox, a misinterpretation, or a renounce?" brings a possible conflict between the green agendas, the signatory countries of the United Nations Organization's 2030 Agenda, and the "European Green Deal" that is being adopted by Europe due to existing public policies, the current "status quo".
Let's consider the adjustments:
Point 1. Decrease the number of keywords to a maximum of 5.
Point 2. In item 1. What is the relationship between Europe's post-crisis recovery policies and the policies of the United Nations for Smart and Sustainable Cities? Answer in the text bringing the main drivers that should be considered for a city to be smarter or more sustainable.
Point 3. In item 2 as a whole. The goals indicated are not only for the European Union but for all signatory countries of the United Nations, to include this global public policy in the scope of the literature review.
Many articles in the MDPI itself deal with Sustainable Development Goals, in particular number eleven.
Point 4. Lines 203 to 208. The author needs to correlate this paragraph with articles on Smart Cities and Sustainable Cities because the foundation of this passage is in their concepts.
Point 5, Lines 219 to 221. How do the authors point out which drivers should be relevant for mapping investment priorities for a greener Europe? Consider putting in the text, as well, the challenges with the current war between Ukraine and Russia. The war again changed Europe's green goals, such as those regarding the import of oil and gas supplies.
Point 6. Still, on item 2, what would be an adequate solution for the region of Lávio and Rome to reach the necessary goals for a transition to zero carbon? Insert the reflection in the text, if the authors prefer, it can be in item 3.
Point 7. Item 3.1. Does the author understand that it would be better to use the brownfield instead of the greenfield technique as is being done to sustainably recover the uninhabited regions in the interior of Italy?
Point 8. How could tools like Building Information Modeling (BIM) be incorporated to improve urban planning in projects for the Rome region or throughout Italy with a view to the European plan for recovery and resilience?
Bring references on the topic to the text.
Point 9. Would it be possible to increase the green area in Rome? Based on the comments made about Figure 2?
Point 10. In item 4, the author makes no reference to projects already carried out and the objective metrics achieved with the adoption of the 2030 agenda in Rome and the region, especially in the territories of Italy.
Please add references and data to the text.
Point 11. Finally, when bringing the conclusions, it is worth revisiting all requests made previously, considering a wide and significant increase in the bibliography used, several of which can be found in the journal for which the author applied.
In general, this is a literature review article, with little real data from local applications.
Author Response
I thank very much the reviewer for the very punctual comments and suggestions, to which I will try to respond here thoroughly.
***
The article entitled “Ecological transition without change: a paradox, a misinterpretation, or a renounce?” brings a possible conflict between the green agendas, the signatory countries of the United Nations Organization’s 2030 Agenda, and the "European Green Deal" that is being adopted by Europe due to existing public policies, the current "status quo".
From this preliminary statement, I think that a potential misunderstanding should be avoided through a better initial clarification, which I hope to have provided (see revised paper). Indeed, the paper focuses on European Green Deal and on the “Green Transition” as it is presented within EU–RRP and tries to show the problems and inconsistencies that are emerging when actualizing those policy measures at the local level. Although EU policies are in close relation to the UN 2030 Agenda, that Agenda is only briefly mentioned since it is assumed here as a wider framework, which remains in the background. To deepen it would mean to refer to other streams of literature and research, and to change the focus of the paper – limited as for any paper – that is to highlight the (in)consistency between EU-RRP “green transition” in words, and in practice. More importantly, it would be impossible to evaluate in the same way the measures contained in the UN 2030 Agenda, because it is a more general policy document, and it is not conceived to impact directly on urban decision-making and on urban transformation choices as the RRP instead does. It has a different policy horizon and a different compulsoriness. Thus, to enter more deeply into UN agendas would result in a loss of focus on an already rather complicated question – and, to me, the paper would lose its soundness.
Nonetheless, I tried to better clarify this point throughout the paper.
Let’s consider the adjustments:
Point 1. Decrease the number of keywords to a maximum of 5.
I decreased the number of keywords to 4 (see revised paper) – this suggestion came from two out of three reviewers.
Point 2. In item 1. What is the relationship between Europe’s post-crisis recovery policies and the policies of the United Nations for Smart and Sustainable Cities? Answer in the text bringing the main drivers that should be considered for a city to be smarter or more sustainable.
In my opinion, this suggestion will lead to a different direction from the chosen one, and to a less consistent argumentation. In particular, the Smart City framework is very debated (and I would say also contested, particularly among urban scholars) and cannot be “just” mentioned. To me, to name it means to deepen it, and the reviewer seems to go for such a solution, which I find impracticable considering the limitation of this as of any paper. However, I added a couple of hints to that issue in order to fill (potential) voids that the reviewer signaled, at the same time very careful to not lose the red thread of the argumentation.
Point 3. In item 2 as a whole. The goals indicated are not only for the European Union but for all signatory countries of the United Nations, to include this global public policy in the scope of the literature review.
I understand this point, but I am dealing with the EU policies, as I hope to have better explained in my previous answer. I clarified the point anyway (see revised paper).
Many articles in the MDPI itself deal with Sustainable Development Goals, in particular number eleven.
I added a sentence and the related references (see revised paper), thank you.
Point 4. Lines 203 to 208. The author needs to correlate this paragraph with articles on Smart Cities and Sustainable Cities because the foundation of this passage is in their concepts.
I added some references to this, thank you.
Point 5, Lines 219 to 221. How do the authors point out which drivers should be relevant for mapping investment priorities for a greener Europe? Consider putting in the text, as well, the challenges with the current war between Ukraine and Russia. The war again changed Europe's green goals, such as those regarding the import of oil and gas supplies.
Regarding the first part of the comment, at lines 219 to 221 there is a passage taken from an EU document (European Commission, Green Transition. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/recovery-and-resilience-scoreboard/green.html), numbered [35] in the reference list:
“To that end, the measures supported by the RRF should contribute to the green transition, including biodiversity. Member States have put forward reforms and investments in green technologies and capacities, including in sustainable mobility, energy efficiency, renewable energy, climate change adaptation, circular economy, and biodiversity”.
Regarding the second part of the comment, indeed, I mentioned the consequences of the war in terms of a “new need” to revise (and first of all, to postpone) the established deadline for reaching the green goals at the very beginning of the paper. Surely this issue would require a much deeper reflection, which I fear I cannot provide since it has to do with global geographies of resources, international relations, trade, and commerce, not to mention the very different understanding and responses of the countries of the world to the climate and environmental crisis on the one side, and to the war on the other side… These are very sensitive issues, that cannot be tackled superficially as I could do in the limited space of this present article, with its present scope and structure. Nonetheless, I added references that can widen the perspective on this topic.
Point 6. Still, on item 2, what would be an adequate solution for the region of Lávio and Rome to reach the necessary goals for a transition to zero carbon? Insert the reflection in the text, if the authors prefer, it can be in item 3.
Apologies, but to respond to this issue would require changing radically the “nature” of this article. Throughout the text, there are more than a few suggestions regarding which solution would fit better with the declared goals of green transition, but the paper has been conceived not as a normative contribution, but to highlight the problems and open issues instead, in order to make the whole issue of sustainable development more consistent to what the first reviewer, having caught the intention of this paper, called the “real life”.
Point 7. Item 3.1. Does the author understand that it would be better to use the brownfield instead of the greenfield technique as is being done to sustainably recover the uninhabited regions in the interior of Italy?
This is not a normative paper, what the paper expects to do is provide an analysis of how a transnational policy is going to be implemented and which are the problems that are emerging. Of course, reading the paper one gets the awareness of the inconsistency between e.g., the declared goal of “zero soil consumption” (or “zero land take”) and the choice to use a greenfield instead of a brownfield. This is what the paper wants to focus on. I sentence that I added maybe would help in better explaining this point.
Point 8. How could tools like Building Information Modeling (BIM) be incorporated to improve urban planning in projects for the Rome region or throughout Italy with a view to the European plan for recovery and resilience?
I think that the preliminary question would be: why such tools should be incorporated? To obtain what? Anyway, I am not an expert in the field, I just had the chance to discuss these tools with some colleagues, maybe in the next paper!
Point 9. Would it be possible to increase the green area in Rome? Based on the comments made about Figure 2?
Figure 2 represents the sites of the project “Mitingodiverde” – so, sorry, but I fear I do not get what it means to “increase the green area in Rome”. (Just to be sure to have been clear: The different width of the circles is related to the funds dedicated to each green site). With this contribution, we aim at raising awareness of the need to not continue depriving the city of its green (natural and rural) spaces, which are progressively decreasing due to urban projects and the land use regulations of the master plan in force. In brief, the current way of conceiving and implementing urban development, and even the planning rules embedded within planning tools, are substantially incompatible with the “green transition” objectives. This is what the paper aims at highlighting. Nonetheless, I added a sentence to explain better this point.
Point 10. In item 4, the author makes no reference to projects already carried out and the objective metrics achieved with the adoption of the 2030 agenda in Rome and the region, especially in the territories of Italy.
It is not among the aim of this paper, which is dedicated to one specific transnational policy, to one specific EU policy measure, and to how they are going to be implemented in “reality”.
Point 11. Finally, when bringing the conclusions, it is worth revisiting all requests made previously, considering a wide and significant increase in the bibliography used, several of which can be found in the journal for which the author applied.
Thank you, I considered this suggestion, in light of what I already responded for each single point.
In general, this is a literature review article, with little real data from local applications.
I am sorry I respectfully disagree with that. It is a paper that provides all the real data available at the present stage of implementation of a policy program that derives from an EU policy measure, showing how that EU policy measure is being ‘translated’ at the local scale and highlighting the problems that should be tackled at the local level when transnational policy measures come to implementation.
Of course, it is not a quantitative analysis paper, but a qualitative policy analysis one, which considers planning systems, approaches, and tools, together with the implementation problems of a super-ordinated policy measure. I think that such a contribution fits into the Special Issue where it should be included.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
All corrections have been made. I propose to publish the manuscript
Author Response
I sincerely thank the reviewer for her/his approval of the paper
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author, thank you very much for considering part of the contributions to the article. However, transnational policies directly relate to national and local sustainable development issues.
Despite the disagreements raised by the author and considered by this reviewer regarding the focus of the article, that is, a literature review article instead of a results article, the explanation regarding the qualitative bias can be inserted and justified in the research methodology used by the author.
As for the decision not to comply with the issues related to the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goal number 11, I believe that citation and correlations are mandatory.
The present reviewer is only one of the voices that evaluate this article, the others can approve it, in case they disagree with my evaluation. However, without the requested revisions, it will not be possible for this reviewer to approve this article.
As a researcher, I respect the author. Still, I consider the correlations fundamental to justify this article's objectives clearly and avoid any kind of political judgment on the data collected, even if superficially, as pointed out by the author himself in his answer.
I hope to be able to contribute even more to the article, with new and better revisions in the future.
Author Response
I thank again the reviewer for his/her commitment to improving the paper. I hope that with this revision I responded more precisely to his/her comments.
Concerning the first point, I added a clarification related to the "qualitative" nature of the contribution to the research methodology, as suggested. I think that policy analysis is a very relevant perspective for sustainability (for reaching the goal, and also for this journal), which can contribute to framing also the more quantitative analyses that are elaborated and published.
Concerning UN 2030 Agenda, indeed I added references and explanations, already in the previous round (see in particular: section 1, pp. 1-2, from line 23 to line 50, and the related quotations; see section 2.4, lines 223-226 and the related quotations; section 4, lines 469-475 and the related quotations – and I added others here, in the present revision – please see the version with visible track-change – including an important reading that is another SI of Sustainability and namely:
Miralles-Quirós, M.M.; Miralles-Quirós, J.L. Sustainable Finance and the 2030 Agenda: Investing to Transform the World. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10505. [https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910505], that I promptly added.
Then I re-read the whole paper and sincerely I do not find any "void", meaning missing correlation to add. If the reviewer has other particular references to suggest, I would be happy to take them into consideration. Otherwise, I respectfully propose to consider the paper for publication as in this version.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, thanks a lot but I don't any commentary for your work.
