Construction of Biophysical Indicators for the Catalan Economy: Building a New Conceptual Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Minor comments

In the line “this respect, Spain – _Catalonia to a lesser extent, attending to the projects inserted in the 22 @ district,”, page 6, please you need to give the meaning of “22@ distict”

The bibliographical references to de evolutionary economics is partial and in fact is centered in an only author (Carlota Pérez)

Main comments

The principal problem of the article is the first paragraph of the page 11, just under the table 3

1. The Catalan GDP in 2016 was 23.78% higher than that in 2000, while the GDP per capita was 4.3%. The increase in the population of Catalonia stood at 18.53%. This circumstance shows an increase in GDP driven, among other factors, by an increase in population; therefore, the data indicate how this increase in production was insufficient to maintain the GDP per capita in stable and constant terms during the period studied. The productive structure of Catalonia, therefore, has not been able to generate a growth rate of GDP above the growth rate of the population.

Sincerely, I am unable to reproduce the calculations indicated in the text. An explanation of how the percentages have been calculated is essential. In addition, if the calculations are different, the wording of the paragraph must be checked.

The second problem is also relevant. It is a problem that affects the conclusions. In the conclusions, the explanatory hypothesis is proposed that the positive correlation between economic growth and environmental efficiency is due to the structural change in the Catalan economy (decrease in the industrial sector and growth in services). However, no evidence or explicit bibliographic reference is provided. Outsourcing and structural change are processes prior to the period studied (2000-2016). It is necessary to show a table with the evolution of structural change and compare its rhythm with that of the less use of energy, water and reduction of CO₂ emissions

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS

Point 1: In the line “this respect, Spain – _Catalonia to a lesser extent, attending to the projects inserted in the 22 @ district,”, page 6, please you need to give the meaning of “22@ distict”

Response 1: In connection with the request on what the 22 @ district is, the following explanation has been added:

“The 22@ district is an already developed project of urban change and integration of new economic activities related to technology. The collaboration between public administrations, companies, universities and research centers, allowed the recovery of an urban public space, very degraded. At present, the 22@ technology district is an important pole of economic development and the capture of business experiences linked to Industry 4.0.”

Point 2: The bibliographical references to de evolutionary economics is partial and in fact is centered in an only author (Carlota Pérez)

Response 2: The following bibliographic references to evolutionary economics has been added to Carlota Pérez:

• Witt, U. (1993). Evolutionary economics. Aldershot, UK.
• Witt, U. (2016). What is specific about evolutionary economics?. In Rethinking Economic Evolution. Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Nelson, R. R., Dosi, G., Helfat, C. E., & Winter, S. G. (2018). Modern evolutionary economics: An overview.

Point 3: The principal problem of the article is the first paragraph of the page 11, just under the table 3

1. The Catalan GDP in 2016 was 23.78% higher than that in 2000, while the GDP per capita was 4.3%. The increase in the population of Catalonia stood at 18.53%. This circumstance shows an increase in GDP driven, among other factors, by an increase in population; therefore, the data indicate how this increase in production was insufficient to maintain the GDP per capita in stable and constant terms during the period studied. The productive structure of Catalonia, therefore, has not been able to generate a growth rate of GDP above the growth rate of the population.

Sincerely, I am unable to reproduce the calculations indicated in the text. An explanation of how the percentages have been calculated is essential. In addition, if the calculations are different, the wording of the paragraph must be checked.

Response 3: The constant GDP (Base = 2000) from Idescat, in Millions of euros. The result is derived from multiplying the deflator of the year 2000 by real GDP. The GDP per capita (Base = 2000) based on Idescat, is obtained by dividing the constant GDP (Base = 2000) by the population.

Point 4: The second problem is also relevant. It is a problem that affects the conclusions. In the conclusions, the explanatory hypothesis is proposed that the positive correlation between economic growth and environmental efficiency is due to the structural change in the Catalan economy (decrease in the industrial sector and growth in services). However, no evidence or explicit bibliographic reference is provided. Outsourcing and structural change are processes prior to the period studied (2000-2016). It is necessary to show a table with the evolution of structural change and compare its rhythm with that of the less use of energy, water and reduction of CO₂ emissions

Response 4: Regarding your comment in relation to have a table on the structure of the Catalan economy in the conclusions section, the authors have made a new compilation effort, as it is shown in the two tables and explanation given. The following tables and explanation  had been incorporated in the conclusions section as you suggested:

Table 6. Evolution of sectoral economic growth in the Catalan economy

Source: Own elaboration based on Idescat: http://economia.gencat.cat/ca/ambits-actuacio/economia-catalana/trets/estructura-productiva/dades-basiques/

Table 7. Sectoral composition of the GDP of the Catalan economy

Source: Own elaboration based on Idescat: http://economia.gencat.cat/ca/ambits-actuacio/economia-catalana/trets/estructura-productiva/dades-basiques/

The agricultural sector has lost weight in the total GDP, going from 1.7% in 2000 to 0.9% in 2016. The industry, which in 2000 generated 26.9% of Catalan GDP, fell to 19.8% in 2016. Between 2010 and 2016 it gained weight slightly (up to 20.0%). Construction fell from a high of 11.9% in 2006 (and values above 10% during the period 2002-2009) to 4.9% in 2016. Since then it has regained weight slightly, up to at 5.3% in 2019. The services sector gained 13.1 percentage points in the productive structure of the Catalan economy between 2001 and 2013 (up to 74.8%). The process where the services sector dominates is obvious. But, as indicated, this new orientation of the Catalan economy (with a loss of industrial prominence) does not eliminate the negative environmental externalities, although the indicators we have built suggest improvements in energy efficiency.

The authors hope to capture the deepest meaning of your considerations and the new version will satisfactory for you. Thank you very much again for your attention and interest.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Relation between the economic growth and the environment (both the use of the natural resources and pollution) are a valid concern from the point of view of different stakeholders and an interesting research area for scientists. The reviewed paper fits that general idea with the attempt to provide a new approach to analysing the Catalan economy.

General comments:

- the structure of the abstract is lacking, usually abstract is the “selling point” of whether to read or not the article and should include such information as: the general context, aim and novelty of the work, a brief description of used methodology and then main results and related interpretations. As it is the abstract describes what the authors had done but other elements are lacking.

- Introduction should briefly place the study in a wide context and explain why this venue of research is important. The purpose of the work and its significance should be clearly stated. The section in its current form is a mix of literature research (without properly placing the undertaken research in the context) and the limitations of the used methodology (which is important to point out but either in the methodology section or in the conclusion). To sum up, this section should be reworked to properly introduce the reader into the paper, so once again elements as placing in the context, reasoning for undertaking that research, expected contribution (both of scientific nature and to potential stakeholders) should be stated. To be honest, I have mixed feelings about what the authors want to achieve with their work. The title says “building a new conceptual framework”; the objective in section 1.2 tells about the adoption of a small battery of biophysical indicators (chosen from a far wider list) and points to the possibility of further research (is it wise to point at this moment that whatever the authors will present in this paper further work will be needed?” and then (in the same section 1.2) authors go on explain there is “… no theoretical model behind it…” and that communicating the problems with current approaches to people is difficult. Do the authors try to present some new framework or do they try to start a discussion about the fact that the current ones are unsuitable? After reading the introduction one should expect what awaits in further sections, and in its current form, this section does not provide it and should be reworked.

- also, the explanation why Catalonia was picked as an example should be provided somewhere in the Introduction. Or the explanation about the technical revolution 2.1 should provide such an explanation? It is the first time Catalonia is mentioned in the text. And once again, I am not sure if section 2 aims to provide the background for why the given region is analysed or why technology is an important factor to consider when proposing new economical metrics. If perchance it was to serve those both purposes at the same time it fails – there is some connection given between technological progress and environment (changes and opportunities for greening the economy) but it is too elaborate and not adding too much value to the stated objective (cut it out or rework to be more relevant to the whole theme of the paper).

- section 3 starts with the sentence “To answer the questions raised in this paper, eight indicators were processed for the period 2000-2016.” Two things should be made clear: which questions? So far there were objectives stated in section 1.2 and a lot of deliberations about how the current indicators are lacking but nothing that could be seen as research questions per se – if you want to answer questions, clearly formulate them first. And the second thing, the “eight indicators were processed”, all right we know what was done but we get no explanation why those eight indicators were chosen in the first place, and as that choice influence the results it should be explained. We have some explanation GDP, GDP per capita and Gini Index were included but not much explanation for the rest. There is some explanation later on of how things were done, but not why they were done that way. The authors provided a graphical representation of the correlation between GDP and some of the biophysical indicators, trying to notice the underlying trends. Finally, the authors used the analysis of the main components (ACP) method to develop a synthetic indicator. The obtained results pointed to the conclusion that economic growth may be a reason for lowering the use of natural resources.

- the conclusion provides a lot of statements that do not stem only from the obtained results but from the discussion with the general context that was not provided in the paper till this point. The limitations, findings, potential points of interest to stakeholders and further directions of the research are provided in a chaotic way. The added value of this paper lays mostly in it reinforcing the previous researches in this area. Do Authors see any possibilities of using the proposed approach for other regions that Catalonia, for example as a new synthetic indicator/index?

As for the paper being mostly descriptive and theoretical (based on previous research) the references list should be broadened to include more works dealing with including the aspects of sustainable development into the economy models.

Minor language verification is also recommended.

To sum it up, the topic is interesting and up-to-date but the execution of the idea is lacking. Authors should rethink what they wanted to convey and rework their paper accordingly towards that goal.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2 COMMENTS

Relation between the economic growth and the environment (both the use of the natural resources and pollution) are a valid concern from the point of view of different stakeholders and an interesting research area for scientists. The reviewed paper fits that general idea with the attempt to provide a new approach to analysing the Catalan economy.

Thank you very much for your comments and appreciations, which we have read with great interest and have largely incorporated in the new version of the text. We will comment on the following:

General comments:

Point 1: the structure of the abstract is lacking, usually abstract is the “selling point” of whether to read or not the article and should include such information as: the general context, aim and novelty of the work, a brief description of used methodology and then main results and related interpretations. As it is the abstract describes what the authors had done but other elements are lacking.

Response 1: Thanks for your comments. New information has been added following your suggestions. The new elements highlighted in yellow in the text are:

The study is novel in the panorama of the regional economy of Spain, by incorporating biophysical variables to the applied economic analysis. The methodology used is focused on the systematization of descriptive statistics and econometric review.

Point 2: Introduction should briefly place the study in a wide context and explain why this venue of research is important. The purpose of the work and its significance should be clearly stated. The section in its current form is a mix of literature research (without properly placing the undertaken research in the context) and the limitations of the used methodology (which is important to point out but either in the methodology section or in the conclusion). To sum up, this section should be reworked to properly introduce the reader into the paper, so once again elements as placing in the context, reasoning for undertaking that research, expected contribution (both of scientific nature and to potential stakeholders) should be stated. To be honest, I have mixed feelings about what the authors want to achieve with their work. The title says “building a new conceptual framework”; the objective in section 1.2 tells about the adoption of a small battery of biophysical indicators (chosen from a far wider list) and points to the possibility of further research (is it wise to point at this moment that whatever the authors will present in this paper further work will be needed?” and then (in the same section 1.2) authors go on explain there is “… no theoretical model behind it…” and that communicating the problems with current approaches to people is difficult. Do the authors try to present some new framework or do they try to start a discussion about the fact that the current ones are unsuitable? After reading the introduction one should expect what awaits in further sections, and in its current form, this section does not provide it and should be reworked.

- also, the explanation why Catalonia was picked as an example should be provided somewhere in the Introduction. Or the explanation about the technical revolution 2.1 should provide such an explanation? It is the first time Catalonia is mentioned in the text. And once again, I am not sure if section 2 aims to provide the background for why the given region is analysed or why technology is an important factor to consider when proposing new economical metrics. If perchance it was to serve those both purposes at the same time it fails – there is some connection given between technological progress and environment (changes and opportunities for greening the economy) but it is too elaborate and not adding too much value to the stated objective (cut it out or rework to be more relevant to the whole theme of the paper).

Response 2: The new text incorporated in the Introduction is the following:

• “This research focuses an empirical analysis on a very powerful regional economy in Spain, the economy of Catalonia. The economic process experienced by the Catalan economy has been characterized by a stylized fact: a predominance of the industrial sector, historical, since the 19th century, in such a way that it constituted, together with the economy of the Basque Country, a tractor of Spanish industrial development. But as a result of the transition to the service sector, which European economies have experienced since the 1960s, Catalonia has also had a very decisive development of the service sector, to the point that it has surpassed the industrial sector and even dominates the structure regional economic.

In this sense, it is important to introduce a different vision in the economic analysis, with the use of other metrics. The aim is to obtain new indicators that facilitate decision-making in the field of Economic Policy (Iriarte & Goñi, 2021). The study that is presented will require, in the future, a new challenge: the possibility of developing a synthetic index of environmental sustainability based on the results of this work and other contributions that complement it.”

 Furthermore, the explanation of the organization of the paper included in section 1.3 has been moved at the end of the Introduction section. Some changes in the titles of the sections had been made in order to clarify some points. The new organizations is as follows:  

• “The work is organized as follows. After this introduction, in a second section, the objectives of the research and derived arguments are presented. Third, a sustained economic contextualization on technological change is realized, which is crucial to adopting new production processes that tend to reformulate the growth models and economics in a clear direction: the de-carbonization of the economy. Therefore, methodologies that measure the economy with different, non-chrematistic parameters are urgently needed. The fourth section of this work describes the indicators and the econometric interrelationships that are developed, with a purely empirical and descriptive character for the period 2000-2016. The research closes with qualitative conclusions derived from the previous sections.”

Point 3: section 3 starts with the sentence “To answer the questions raised in this paper, eight indicators were processed for the period 2000-2016.” Two things should be made clear: which questions? So far there were objectives stated in section 1.2 and a lot of deliberations about how the current indicators are lacking but nothing that could be seen as research questions per se – if you want to answer questions, clearly formulate them first. And the second thing, the “eight indicators were processed”, all right we know what was done but we get no explanation why those eight indicators were chosen in the first place, and as that choice influence the results it should be explained. We have some explanation GDP, GDP per capita and Gini Index were included but not much explanation for the rest. There is some explanation later on of how things were done, but not why they were done that way. The authors provided a graphical representation of the correlation between GDP and some of the biophysical indicators, trying to notice the underlying trends. Finally, the authors used the analysis of the main components (ACP) method to develop a synthetic indicator. The obtained results pointed to the conclusion that economic growth may be a reason for lowering the use of natural resources.

Response 3: The authors had replaced the word "questions" for "objectives". Continuing with this section, the referee asks why we have chosen these indicators and we others. The new paragrpah added is as follows:  

“These indicators have been chosen according to two important parameters. In the first place, because of its explanatory capacity, which also links with other case studies (Schipper et al., 1992; Esseghir & Khouni, 2014). Waste and gas emissions are emphasized, while determining consumption such as energy and water are underlined. The indicators are therefore highly explanatory if, in addition, they are related to the evolution of GDP. The Chrematistic gives way, thus, to the Economy.”

 The concern that you manifest between the technology-ecology connection, we have not been able to deepen because this is a future research line we proposed. Nevertheless, we have added some authors in this line:

• Schipper, L., Howarth, R., & Carlassare, E. (1992). Energy intensity, sectoral activity, and structural change in the Norwegian economy. Energy, 17(3), 215-233.
• Sue Wing, I., & Eckaus, R. S. (2004). Explaining long-run changes in the energy intensity of the us economy.
• Esseghir, A., & Khouni, L. H. (2014). Economic growth, energy consumption and sustainable development: The case of the Union for the Mediterranean countries. Energy, 71, 218-225.

Furthermore, the following explanation has been added:

“The connection between environment and technology, which can be deduced from the results obtained, is not addressed in this research. Its analysis requires a specific, extensive study, which goes beyond the purposes of the approach in this research, which has been defined above. The authors propose future research lines on this connection”

Point 4: the conclusion provides a lot of statements that do not stem only from the obtained results but from the discussion with the general context that was not provided in the paper till this point. The limitations, findings, potential points of interest to stakeholders and further directions of the research are provided in a chaotic way. The added value of this paper lays mostly in it reinforcing the previous researches in this area. Do Authors see any possibilities of using the proposed approach for other regions that Catalonia, for example as a new synthetic indicator/index?

Response 4: The authors had included the following paragraph at the end of the conclusion section:  

“The present study can serve as a possible methodological guide for other regional economic studies. Studies on sustainability often have methodological difficulties due to their complexity in the choice and process of indicators. We believe that the simplicity of our study, at this point, with the adoption of robust variables in terms of their explanation and the mathematical method chosen, can facilitate their application to other cases.”

Point 5: As for the paper being mostly descriptive and theoretical (based on previous research) the references list should be broadened to include more works dealing with including the aspects of sustainable development into the economy models.

The following references had been added:

[18] Iriarte Goñi, I., & Barberán, R. Presentación. Cuadernos Económicos de ICE, 2021  101. doi:10.32796/cice.2021.101.7201

[26]Witt, U. Evolutionary economics. Aldershot, UK. 1993

[27]Witt, U. What is specific about evolutionary economics?. In Rethinking Economic Evolution. Edward Elgar Publishing. 2016

[28]Nelson, R. R., Dosi, G., Helfat, C. E., & Winter, S. G. Modern evolutionary economics: An overview. 2018

[34]Schipper, L., Howarth, R., & Carlassare, E. Energy intensity, sectoral activity, and structural change in the Norwegian economy. Energy 1992 17(3), 215-233.

[35]Sue Wing, I., & Eckaus, R. S. Explaining long-run changes in the energy intensity of the us economy. 2004

[36]Esseghir, A., & Khouni, L. H.. Economic growth, energy consumption and sustainable development: The case of the Union for the Mediterranean countries. Energy 2014  71, 218-225.

Point 6: Minor language verification is also recommended.

English review certificate from American Journal Experts (AJE) has been included.

To sum it up, the topic is interesting and up-to-date but the execution of the idea is lacking. Authors should rethink what they wanted to convey and rework their paper accordingly towards that goal.

The authors hope the improvements will be satisfactory for you. Thank you very much again for your attention and interest.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors implemented most of my comments but mostly by adding new content than reworking the existing one. In case of the Introduction it was a good idea but in case of the conclusion it did not change the issues previously noted – “the conclusion provides a lot of statements that do not stem only from the obtained results but from the discussion with the general context that was not provided in the paper till this point. The limitations, findings, potential points of interest to stakeholders and further directions of the research are provided in a chaotic way.”

Adding and discussing table 6 and 7 in the conclusion further muddies the argumentation instead of clarifying it. If current section 5 should work both as discussion and conclusion its structure should be reworked – discussion first (table 6 and 7 and their description) and the main points later.

Author Response

Point 1: Adding and discussing table 6 and 7 in the conclusion further muddies the argumentation instead of clarifying it. If current section 5 should work both as discussion and conclusion its structure should be reworked – discussion first (table 6 and 7 and their description) and the main points later.

Response 1: First, we greatly appreciate your feedback. We think that the work has gained a lot with their contributions, which we share almost entirely.

We have moved tables 6 and 7, which appeared in the Conclusions, to section 4.1. as you indicated. This clarifies the presentation better, since it opens the Methodology section with the macroeconomic context of the Catalan economy. This means that we have renumbered the following tables and references in the text. At the same time, this change has introduced a new wording in this Methodology section.

Point 2: Authors implemented most of my comments but mostly by adding new content than reworking the existing one. In case of the Introduction it was a good idea but in case of the conclusion it did not change the issues previously noted – “the conclusion provides a lot of statements that do not stem only from the obtained results but from the discussion with the general context that was not provided in the paper till this point. The limitations, findings, potential points of interest to stakeholders and further directions of the research are provided in a chaotic way.”

Response 2: Regarding the Conclusions, we believe that they faithfully reflect what we have researched and developed. However, you are correct as to a possible disorderly view of these conclusions. We try to fix the situation with a new wording at the end of this section, considering the difficulties that the social sciences have in adopting various indicators to analyze an economic and social process. The text that we propose, which does not eliminate the partial conclusions, is this:

“These specific findings, just listed, are intended to rank the main ideas that emerge from the research that has been presented. We have provided biophysical indicators to complement other more conventional ones. In this regard, the following should be taken into account. First, research that affects ecological and social metabolisms are complex, because they must address multiple variables, which are often difficult to fit into a holistic discourse. Second, this research, which is only the beginning of others that should be encouraged along a similar line, while being complemented with other indicators, has the added value that it puts these variables on the table. They take precedence in a very dynamic regional economy, a leader in historical industrial growth, and with an important process of deindustrialization, as has been indicated in the work.”  

We think it is a more appropriate way to "close" the job, partially responding to your suggestion. We hope that all of this is satisfactory for you. We reiterate our deep appreciation for your insightful comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf