When Heritage and Landscape Values Are Confronted by Planned Infrastructures: A Glance at ‘Public Debate’ (‘Dibattito Pubblico’) Procedures in Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper lacks a summary regarding:

·        how many times the particular phrases examined appeared in documents or at meetings relating to the 17 analyzed investments,

·        frequency indicator of the above-mentioned phrases (described in line 184),

·        information in the statements of which stakeholders, divided into the groups mentioned, these formulations appeared,

·        how many documents relating to individual investments were analysed.

 

I suggest preparing such a summary in the form of a table and placing it in a paper or appendix.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments, which I hope to have made the most of (please see the attachment):

• I added Table S1. Appearances of the concepts listed in Table 1 within stakeholders' contributions and meetings' minutes and frequency indicators. Since documents by proponents and coordinators are (contrarily to those presented by "the public") formally required for each procedure, another table presenting the few indicators highlighted in the text (e.g. thematic sections) seems rather redundant to me, but I can provide it if necessary.
• This should be made clearer, as well as par. 3's structure, by some rewriting of the presentation of the three groups, which I placed at the end of par. 2.

In addition to several corrections (highlighted in the file attached), I also made syntax and grammar corrections throughout the text after revision by an English-speaking person.

Should time allow it I am eager to work on further suggestions to improve the article.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors.

I have finished reviewing the manuscript “When heritage and landscape values come accross planned infrastructures: a glance at Dibattito pubblico procedures in Italy”. Unfortunately, I consider that it lacks any structure that may fulfill the requirements for a research manuscript to be part of the journal. The Introduction section is full of paragraphs (7) without any clear intention and they even have interpretation sentences. The Methods section states others’ work, which is full of opinions. The Results section shows a division of stakeholders based on perceptions rather than on real results. The Discussion section states interesting things, but they are not supported by the results. Finally, the Conclusions section introduces more opinions, which are fine, but are not based on the manuscript.

Unfortunately, I consider this manuscript as an opinion text rather than a research manuscript. Based on this, I cannot recommend the manuscript for being published in Sustainability.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, first of all thank you for your comments.

I understand your evaluation of numerous "opinions" and "interpretations" in this submission, and wish to highlight the fact that it is a research piece aiming precisely to shed some light on "opinions" and "interpretations" from different stakeholders, related to two concepts themselves variously interpreted (in academic literature as much as in legislation, professional practice and so on). Not only: DP procedures have been identified as the field of study precisely for the "lay" evaluations on projects and their impacts they offer to analysis.

Should time allow it I am eager to work on further suggestions to improve the article.

I still hope the revisions I have made (following other reviewers' comments) make it clearer and more convincing. The most relevant are highlighted in the file attached, whereas syntax and grammar corrections have been made throughout the text after revision by an English-speaking person.

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article discusses the application of the DP process in Italy and argues for the need for a closer dialog between infrastructure planning, heritage and landscape planning, and political ecology. However, the article still suffers from the following problems:

Format: Sustainability has changed its template, so please renew it (The author’s template is the 2021 version).

English language and style: Certain words in the article seem Italian and not English. Unfortunately, this journal is an English-language journal for a global audience. It requires a higher standard of authentic expression, so I hope the author has touched up the language rather than filling it with Italian. (1) In the title, you spelled the word “cross” as “across.” (2) In the eighth paragraph, you used the syntax “participation into,” whereas the syntax should be “participation in.”

(3) In the ninth paragraph, it seems that you use the Italian syntax “Inspired to”; the English syntax should be “Inspired by”. (4) In paragraph 30, it seems that you spelled “insistence” as “insistance”. (5) In Paragraph 46, your sentence is incomplete. There is no citation after “according to.” (6) In paragraph 49, a space had been added in the middle of “social acceptance.” (7) In paragraph 63, why did you put “infrastructural” in parentheses? (8) In paragraph 73, you should use “set” instead of “sets”. （9）In paragraph 88, it seems that you should use the grammar “the fact that” instead of “the fact the”, maybe you use other standards for this grammar, but I think you should use the English standard.. （10）In the 100 paragraph, you should use “are” instead of “is”. （11）In paragraph 144, you should add “the” before the word “same.” (12) In paragraph 204, you should add “on” after the word “concentrate”.（13）In paragraph 247, you should delete the word “among”. （14）In paragraph 273, you should use the grammar “have an interest in” instead of “have an interest for.” （15）In paragraphs 302 and 304, you should use the word “are” instead of “is.” （16）In paragraph 351, you misspelled “whereas” instead of “whether.”

It looks like you are not too strict in some grammar usage and word spelling; maybe you can submit the article again after proofreading its content, or perhaps you used some Italian standards for word spelling or grammar usage, but unfortunately, we would like you to change these descriptions to English standards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A great deal of Italian in current English expression needs extensive editing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and corrections, which I have all taken into account. An English-speaking person has extensively revised the text, which has also been re-written in some parts (the most relevant are highlighted in the file attached) for further clarity in the argumentation following other reviewers' comments. As for the template I downloaded it from the mdpi/Sustainability page, but I can still adapt the manuscript to the latest version if available.

Should time allow it I am eager to work on further suggestions to improve the article.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author.

After the restructuring of the manuscript, I can recommend it for publication in Sustainability.

Sincerely yours.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you again for the opportunity to improve my manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript analyzes the heritage and landscape values from planned infrastructures. The results are discussed in the current literature and used to build policy recommendations. The manuscript seems to be original and may provide some contributions to the existing literature. And the level of English is acceptable. However, in my opinion, several important points need to be addressed to exploit the potential of the manuscript:

Format: （1）The introduction section does not present the problem in a cohesive enough manner; please try to condense the introduction section of the article into a single paragraph and focus the content on the issue that the article will examine.

English language and style: Some English expressions and terminology still need to be improved. For example, (1) Some abbreviations in an article can cause dyslexia; try not to use abbreviations in place of specific words, as it can cause misunderstanding by the writer, and the words abbreviated in the article are not very long.（2）The article uses more compound sentences, which can be confusing to the reader, and asks the writer to try to use simple sentences rather than long sentences made up of multiple phrases, especially in the text where more words are put in quotes, which can be confusing to the reader, and to use specific words rather than words that have referential meanings.

 

Results: (1) In Chapter 2, "Materials and Methods," at the beginning of the second paragraph, the author mentions that "the scope of this institution is at the same time broader and narrower. Perhaps the author could have described it differently, "broader and narrower" seems contradictory and should have been more specific about where it is broader and where it is narrower. （2）Given the lack of a relevant literature review in this paper, the authors should include a discussion that compares the article's findings with existing studies both vertically and horizontally, highlighting the innovative nature of the findings of this paper.

Conclusions and Policy Implications: （1）The authors should compare the findings of this paper with existing studies and explain the innovation or contribution of this study in the relevant research area.

         

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your comments, which I have tried to make the most of (within the few days I've been given to rework the manuscript):

• I have only slightly revised the Introduction, with a view to condense it without oversimplifying the article's themes and related literature;
• I have limited the use of abbreviations to DP (the article's focus) and EIA, which is of common use and which comparison with DP helps clarifying the latter's peculiarities;
• I have rewritten several compound sentences;
• I have susbstantially revised the first and second paragraph in section 2, also with a view to present dedicated literature (which is scarce) in a clearer and more coherent way;
• I have substantially revised the conclusion, with a view to clarify the article's contribution to relevant research areas and including perspectives for further research.

In addition to smaller corrections, the main revisions are highlighted in the file attached.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf