Public Policies for Territorial Cohesion and Sustainability in Europe: An Overview

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General remarks:

-        If the paper’s scope is to analyse public policies for territorial cohesion and sustainability in Europe and in order to make title coherent with the text, Public Policies should go first in the keyword list, otherwise territorial cohesion is dominant. I suggest the following order: public policies, European Union, territorial cohesion; sustainability, regional development; smart specialization (also if this last word is few discussed)

-        Paper’s objectives are very ambitious and too many and not developed in deep. The paper looks like the result of a (no quoted) project more than a scientific work. Nothing original contribution is presented.

-        Methods: theoretical approaches by literature review is not robust and empirical studies are not justified in the adopted comparative approach.

-        The work’s development is confused.

Detailing:

1. Introduction: sentences in lines 26-30 need to be sustained by both citations and more updated European documents or at least the 8° Report of Cohesion.

2. Line 40: Why spatial planning topic is introduced? Explain: SP is a Public Policy tool not a Policy. In theory the A. should refer to the Regional Operational Programs (ROP)

3. Line 45: the sentence “Move to capacity building with which you make efficient public policies” introduce another theme no developed

4. Line 47: “They cover a range of topics, including EU cohesion policy”, which is not analysed in the paper

5.         Lines 49-52: We can conclude that while “the positive points were in the effectiveness of EU public policies to promote territorial cohesion, There are also negative points and challenges that need to be addressed to ensure 51 more effective policy making, implementation and monitoring”. Where did this phrase come from? Please quote

6. the Sustainable Development Goals are not EU but UN 2017. The EU has transposed in its directive and regulations. Please, put dates to the mentioned policies

7. lines 63-65: the sentence “However, some EU policies may have unintended negative consequences, such as the promotion of biofuels leading to deforestation and increased food prices” has to be quoted

8. Line 68: “in promoting these goals”. What goals? Do those refer in point 6 or 7?

9. Line 69:Another new paper’s scope is introduced and not discussed or supported by literature “reviewing the literature on public policies for 69 territorial cohesion and sustainability in Europe”

Par 2:

10.: At the beginning the A. says: “The methods used consist of literature review, policy documents analysis and field-work, with project analysis and two exploratory interviews in each region (namely with the public entity representative and the project manager). The lit. review method should be robust, and it is not so; the Interviews contents should be clarified or declared the used statistical method.

11. Line 78: What are the geographical/…or other basis orienting the choice of the convergence three areas? E.g. Tâmega e Sousa and Jaén are regions (NUTS2), Avellino is a province (NUTS3). The cohesion policy is managed by Regions!

12. Lines 79-81: “A conceptual framework…. provides a structured approach TARD”. This model should be recalled before within Method part. “Recent trends, goals and objectives” where and what are they? Where are data in supporting?

13: Line 162: quotes [31-33] are not appropriate and referred to other. All this subparagraph doesn't make any sense, as well as the two paragrapher following.

14: Table 1: the sentence “EU Cohesion Policy: The EU Cohesion Policy has played a key role in promoting territorial cohesion and reducing regional disparities in economic devel-opment across Europe. The policy has provided sig-nificant funding for infrastructure development, re-search and innovation, and social inclusion initiatives in less developed regions, contributing to economic growth and social development” has already been used and is a repetition. Anyway the table 1 is very confused.

15.            In the par. 5 “discussion” The A. no longer talks about territorial cohesion.

16.            References have to be upgraded

 

 

 

I have not suggestions

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

ublic policies for territorial cohesion and sustainability in Eu- rope: an onverview

General Comments

The paper addresses two important public policy goals: territorial cohesion (TC) and Sustainability. However, it lacks an adequate guiding line and conceptual soundness. The conclusions are mere opinions from a shallow analysis not supported by concrete data.

To be publishable the author needs to address several issues:

1.     Start by proposing one or two guiding research questions. Explain better why the three cases were selected.

2.     Engage in a scientific discussion on the concept TC and why the selection of the use of a simple (economy + society + environment) TC conceptual prism. Use current literature review in a proper manner.

3.     Use concrete data to support the analysis and conclusions. Please do not make unsupported claims on the impacts of EU policies on TC trends without literature review support or concrete data.

4.     Present the dates for the analyses of the three case studies. TC is about territorial development trends during a certain period of time.

5.     Please do not confuse EE funds and strategies with EU programmes and policies.

 

In all, the paper is still very raw and requires a substantial revision to be published. See more specific comment below.

Specific Comments

- Title: Is it onverview or overview?

 P1 - “Territorial cohesion refers to the idea that all regions in Europe should have similar opportunities for economic growth and social development, regardless of their location or size.”.  This is one perspective (the limited one) of territorial cohesion (TC). The author should engage on a literature review (see recommended literature on this concept) on this part of the article on other TC perspectives and justify is selection for the used one.

P2 – “Three convergence regions were  chosen: Tâmega e Sousa (Portugal), Jaén (Spain) and Province of Avellino (Italy).” – Why three regions? Please provide further explanations.

P2 – “… This may include economic development, social inclusion, environmental sustainability, and territorial cohesion”. This is a bit confusing conceptually. In P1 the author mentions that TC is about ‘economic growth’ and ‘social development’. Now he adds ‘environmental sustainability’ to the mix. This shows conceptual confusion. Again, this paper needs to start with a sound conceptual discussion based on available literature and then move on to the analysis so all makes sense in the end.  

P2 – “Outcomes and Impact: “The fourth and final element” – Do you mean the ‘third element’

P 3 – “The most relevant programs and policies were:” ERDF is neither a programme or policy. It is an EU fund for regional development. Please rephrase the sentence. Moreover Europe 2020 is an EU strategy just like the European Green Deal and the Urban Agenda. Again, related to the latter, it is neither a social, an economic or an environmental EU agenda. It is related to the urban or polycentric dimension of which is not addressed by the author understanding of TC. Hence, the importance of reading literature on the TC before starting these analyses and writing these papers.

 P 4 – Table 1 “The EU Cohesion Policy has played a key role in promoting territorial cohesion and reducing regional disparities in economic devel-opment across Europe. The policy has provided sig-nificant funding for infrastructure development, re-search and innovation, and social inclusion initiatives in less developed regions, contributing to economic growth and social development.” – Really,? In the EU as a whole perhaps. Not on the member-states scales for sure (see proposed literesture and see the case of Portugal, for instance”. The author needs to answer this question: I Portugal more cohesive in 2023 than in 2003 from a territorial development standpoint?

 

 

P 4 – Table 1 “The adoption of the SDGs by the United Nations in 2015 has also had a significant impact on public policies for territorial cohesion and sustainability in Europe.” Really? In Spain probably. The literature I read for the impacts on the UN Agenda 2030 in Portugal concludes otherwise. Please be careful when making these generic claim without literature support.

 

P 4 – Table 1 - On the smart Specialization - “This approach has led to the development of regional innovation strategies and funding programs that support research, innovation, and entrepreneurship in specific regions”. Really? Where is this written in sound literature?

 

- Table 1 - I recommend that the remarks provided on table 1 are supported by existing literature. As it stands, they are unfounded and unscientific.

 

P 5 ”Overall, while there have been significant gains in public policies for territorial cohesion and sustainability in Europe …”. Again, see existing studies on measuring territorial cohesion. No study that I know shows gains in territorial cohesion in any EU member state over the past 20y. Please do not make unscientific comments in a paper.

 

I recommend adding a map with the location of the case-studies.

 

Recommended literature:

 

Abrahams, G. (2014) What “Is” Territorial Cohesion? What Does It “Do”?: Essentialist Versus Pragmatic Approaches to Using Concepts, European Planning Studies, 22(10): 2134-2155

 

Camagni R. (2020) The Pioneering Quantitative Model for TIA: TEQUILA. In: Medeiros E. (eds) Territorial Impact Assessment. Advances in Spatial Science (The Regional Science Series). Springer, Cham, pp. 27.54.

 

Medeiros. E., Zaucha, J. & Ciołek, D. (2022) Measuring Territorial Cohesion trends in Europe. A correlation with EU Cohesion Policy, European Planning Studies, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2143713

 

Medeiros E. (ed.) (2023) Public Policies for Territorial Cohesion. Springer, Cham - https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26228-9

 

Zaucha J. & Böhme, K. (2020) Measuring territorial cohesion is not a mission impossible, European Planning Studies, 28(3): 627-649.

 

 

..

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 32: I suggest to substitute "more cohesive" with 'more integrated and cooperative"

Line 47: quote the report in the References

Line 214: probably the A. is referring to ESDP 1999. Please, control

Line 221: added environmental

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which have allowed us to improve the quality of the article. The four comments have been accepted and the necessary corrections/changes have been made.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

General Comments

 

The author prepared a revised version which is far better than the initial version. I continue to see some conceptual confusion on the use, for instance, of the term ‘territory’ in a context of public policies. In sum, territory is a circle embracing all development dimensions such as social cohesion, economic competitiveness «, environmental sustainability etc. The author associates the social and economic dimensions alongside the territorial dimension of policies, which, in my opinion is not appropriate.

 

Now the author proposes a definition of TC in the introduction. I do not agree with it but at least he clarifies the concept to be applied in the analysis. On the rest there are some interesting results from the conducted research on the three cases, mostly based on the interview. No Impact scores are obtained, and no territorial cohesion trends are analyzed in detailed.

 

The author continues not to present the dates selected to analyze territorial cohesion processes in the three case-studies. As it stands, the analysis results from a TC snapshot of a certain year – please clarify this and mention the year.

 

The conclusions are broad and partly interesting.

 

Specific comments_

 

P3 – The analysis intends to present ‘Outcomes and Impacts’. TI suggest to change this to ‘results’ as I see no methodology to assess policy impacts.  

 

P 6  “Based on this analysis, we can argue that, over the past decades, there have been  significant gains in terms of public policies for territorial cohesion and sustainability in  Europe, but there are also obstacles and problems that persist”- Where does the analysis conclude this? Where is literature which supports this claim?

 

P 6 – Table 1 was not sufficiently addressed. It continues to make several scientifically unfound statements.

 

P 6 – “Overall, while there have been significant gains in public policies for territorial cohesion and sustainability in Europe” – This conclusion is based on what?. The author then uses literature which analyses economic and social cohesion on territory (this is not territorial cohesion – it is a common confusion made by economists) and not territorial cohesion trends based on a holistic scientific approach. Territory in public policies is a holistic concept.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which have allowed us to improve the quality of the article.

General Comments

The author prepared a revised version which is far better than the initial version. I continue to see some conceptual confusion on the use, for instance, of the term ‘territory’ in a context of public policies. In sum, territory is a circle embracing all development dimensions such as social cohesion, economic competitiveness «, environmental sustainability etc. The author associates the social and economic dimensions alongside the territorial dimension of policies, which, in my opinion is not appropriate.

Now the author proposes a definition of TC in the introduction. I do not agree with it but at least he clarifies the concept to be applied in the analysis. On the rest there are some interesting results from the conducted research on the three cases, mostly based on the interview. No Impact scores are obtained, and no territorial cohesion trends are analyzed in detailed.

The author continues not to present the dates selected to analyze territorial cohesion processes in the three case-studies. As it stands, the analysis results from a TC snapshot of a certain year – please clarify this and mention the year.

The conclusions are broad and partly interesting.

 In my opinion, territory is a central aspect of public policies because it influences the way societies and economies function. Public policies, whether they are related to social, economic, or environmental issues, are implemented within specific territories, and their effectiveness is often determined by local conditions and characteristics. The specific features of a territory, such as its physical geography, demography, infrastructure, and economic structure, can affect the way policies are designed, implemented, and evaluated. Therefore, territorial analysis is a crucial element in the formulation and implementation of public policies. That is the rationale of this research, which I believe has not conceptual confusion.

The dates were already included on the last version of the manuscript. The case study analysis is dated at the end of the first paragraph of the Methods section.

 

Specific comments

P3 – The analysis intends to present ‘Outcomes and Impacts’. TI suggest to change this to ‘results’ as I see no methodology to assess policy impacts.  

 I accept the suggestion. The change was introduced.

P 6  “Based on this analysis, we can argue that, over the past decades, there have been  significant gains in terms of public policies for territorial cohesion and sustainability in  Europe, but there are also obstacles and problems that persist”- Where does the analysis conclude this? Where is literature which supports this claim?

I changed gains for advances. The literature that supports it is listed in the above paragraphs, as this one is a short one connecting to the table.

P 6 – Table 1 was not sufficiently addressed. It continues to make several scientifically unfound statements.

It was further developed, explaining the ideas with more detail.

 

P 6 – “Overall, while there have been significant gains in public policies for territorial cohesion and sustainability in Europe” – This conclusion is based on what?. The author then uses literature which analyses economic and social cohesion on territory (this is not territorial cohesion – it is a common confusion made by economists) and not territorial cohesion trends based on a holistic scientific approach. Territory in public policies is a holistic concept.

A small change was introduced, trying to make it more clear and consistent with the territory rationale used.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

....