The Network of Protected Areas (NPA) as an Instrument to Implement Cross-Border Public Services
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I suggest to the authors to write in the introduction how the work will be articulated in the following paragraphs to help the reader to better understand all the steps of the research.
I suggest to the authors to clarify some passages:
234-236 - " The plurality of competent actors on PA makes it difficult to manage a CPS and soft governance mechanisms - built using a polycentric approach based on networks - implemented in the framework of non-formalized agreements, appears a
possible solution" . Why the plurality of competent actors on PA makes it difficult to manage...? Please clarify
274 e segg - "The networks analyzed have been divided by geographical scale (international, cross-border, regional and local), investigating on the four domains common to each model:
territorial impact, exchange and cooperation, national and regional policy strategies, economic resources. In the context of a territorial planning strategy a general governance model has been developed (Figure 3), where the four common domains are present in all....".
I suggest to introduce this research better. The transition between the former and this is not clear. One sentence would be enough to make it more explicit and better introduce this passage.
Finally I suggest checking the bibliographic references and softly reviewing some sentences. Please, verify some repetitions for example:
338 -340 "In the PAs, the territorial diversity appears crucial for sustainable and polycentric spatial planning mechanisms and it appears as the starting point for an efficient and sustainable development strategy"
341-342 The accessibility and connectivity (physical and strategic) between the territories increases their attractiveness by increasing the inflows of people and businesses".
I suggest to the authors to rethink the title of the third paragraph: It could be the "role" instead of the"weight"?
Author Response
I suggest to the authors to write in the introduction how the work will be articulated in the following paragraphs to help the reader to better understand all the steps of the research.
Done
I suggest to the authors to clarify some passages:
234-236 - " The plurality of competent actors on PA makes it difficult to manage a CPS and soft governance mechanisms - built using a polycentric approach based on networks - implemented in the framework of non-formalized agreements, appears a
possible solution" . Why the plurality of competent actors on PA makes it difficult to manage...? Please clarify
The plurality of competent actors that insist on PA makes it difficult to manage a CPS because each actors have a own interest and missions. Sometimes the institutional and legislative set up (often planned in a top down approach) is not coherent with the territorial need so becoming a limits for the development
274 e segg - "The networks analyzed have been divided by geographical scale (international, cross-border, regional and local), investigating on the four domains common to each model:
territorial impact, exchange and cooperation, national and regional policy strategies, economic resources. In the context of a territorial planning strategy a general governance model has been developed (Figure 3),
where the four common domains are present in all....".
Done
Finally I suggest checking the bibliographic references (done) and softly reviewing some sentences. Please, verify some repetitions for example:
338 -340 "In the PAs, the territorial diversity appears crucial for sustainable and polycentric spatial planning mechanisms and it appears as the starting point for an efficient and sustainable development strategy"
Changed in In the PAs, the territorial diversity appears crucial for sustainable and polycentric spatial planning mechanisms becoming the starting point for an efficient and sustainable development strategy.
341-342 The accessibility and connectivity (physical and strategic) between the territories increases their attractiveness by increasing the inflows of people and businesses".
Changed in: The accessibility and connectivity (physical and strategic) among the territories attract the inflows of people and businesses.
I suggest to the authors to rethink the title of the third paragraph: It could be the "role" instead of the"weight"? done
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with a very interesting topic: about the role of networks of Protected Areas (NPAs) in implementing important goals included in European policies and strategies (territorial cohesion, polycentricity, territorial diversity, Green Infrastructure, etc), in order to achieve better sharing of cross-border public services.
By making so many references to the LinkPas ESPON study (2018), it is obvious that the paper aims at disseminating the key findings of this project. However, this not at all clear to the readers. And this is something the authors should start from, whit their revision.
The paper misses an essential introduction section (explaining the interest in the topic presented, the structure of the paper, etc) and a section describing the methodology of the paper or the project LinkPas itself (aims, context, etc).
Current sections 1, 2 and 3, although make reference to the key concepts and terms of the paper, they fail to provide deductive conclusions and thus, support the key argument of the paper, which is mentioned in the abstract “NPAs appear an institutional intermedium policy actor that can be connected with regional and central bodies to identify cross-border services (CPS) to share”. All these sections need reconstruction and essential editing, to avoid all the confusion that is created by the mistakes (grammar, conceptual, in terminology, etc) in the English language.
Another major important issue is that section titles are not aligned with the content of the texts that follow. This should be addressed. More issues to be addressed per section are described below:
Title: the title of the paper is not comprehensive. Also, the last section (5.Remarks) correlates NPAs with GIs. Not NPAs with cross-border services (as the title suggests). This issue has to be addressed.
Abstract: The abstract does not need citations.
Section 1: The section introduces the reader to certain concepts, such as “polycentric development”, “territorial diversity”, “territorial cohesion”, “multi-level governance”, etc . But what is not at all clear is, how the authors correlate these terms by including them in the same section and which is the key point of the section. If the last sentence is the key point, then this point is not supported by the discussion provided earlier in the section. (By a polycentric territorial approach the protected areas, by sectoral networks based on local identity, become the territorial unit able to connect local dimension to the political dimension).
Section 2: The section tackles “polycentricity”, “Network of Protected Areas” and Green Infrastructure”, trying to interlink those three concepts. This is not successfully done. Nor this is relevant to the title given in the section (2.Short literature review on the NPAs role). Again, which is the key argument of the section. The last paragraph neither summarizes the discussion, nor is related to the title of the section.
Minor issues: The second sentence of the first paragraph, does not make clear sense. The same goes for the first sentence in the second paragraph. By the way, what is “territorial wellbeing“? (see last sentence of the section). First part of the 6th paragraph is more relative to the next section (at least to the title given to the section).
Section 3: The use of English language is very confusing to the reader. Most sentences do not make clear sense. They are long and confusing. Please see: a) The two last sentences of the first paragraph do not make clear sense, b) the second sentence of the second paragraph and c) the two last sentences of the second paragraph, c) the first sentence of the forth paragraph and so on….
Also, there are many spelling and grammar mistakes. The discussion is not clear. Nor are the key arguments of the sections. At some point CPS is mentioned for the first time (line 140) without explaining what it stands for. Nor which is the real correlation to what was previously discussed.
Minor issues: In line 173, what are the “PA Characters”? Watch the use “informal”, “non-formal”, “non-formalized” throughout the section and the paper.
Section 4: It is less confusing, including the key findings of the project presented in the paper. Concepts and discussion are clearer (although language editing is need here too).
Section 5: It can be improved, following and summarizing the text, after the revisions made.
Other issues of minor importance:
Abbreviations for several terms are not the same throughout the text (a term is abbreviated in different ways throughout the text). The use of terms and concepts is not consistent and accurate throughout the text.The authors have done a lot of work and their topic is very interesting. Therefore it is worthy of getting published. However, the paper needs major revisions to make it stand for publication in a scientific journal.
Author Response
The paper deals with a very interesting topic: about the role of networks of Protected Areas (NPAs) in implementing important goals included in European policies and strategies (territorial cohesion, polycentricity, territorial diversity, Green Infrastructure, etc), in order to achieve better sharing of cross-border public services.
By making so many references to the LinkPas ESPON study (2018), it is obvious that the paper aims at disseminating the key findings of this project. However, this not at all clear to the readers. And this is something the authors should start from, whit their revision.
Done
The paper misses an essential introduction section (explaining the interest in the topic presented, the structure of the paper, etc) and a section describing the methodology of the paper or the project LinkPas itself (aims, context, etc).
Done
Current sections 1, 2 and 3, although make reference to the key concepts and terms of the paper, they fail to provide deductive conclusions and thus, support the key argument of the paper, which is mentioned in the abstract “NPAs appear an institutional intermedium policy actor that can be connected with regional and central bodies to identify cross-border services (CPS) to share”. All these sections need reconstruction and essential editing, to avoid all the confusion that is created by the mistakes (grammar, conceptual, in terminology, etc) in the English language.
The sections 1,2 and 3 are been reconstructed
Another major important issue is that section titles are not aligned with the content of the texts that follow. This should be addressed.
New Title for the research paper: The Network of Protected Areas (NPAs) as an instrument to implement cross-border public services
And new titles for the sections
More issues to be addressed per section are described below:
Title: the title of the paper is not comprehensive. Also, the last section (5.Remarks) correlates NPAs with GIs. Not NPAs with cross-border services (as the title suggests). This issue has to be addressed
The titles of the sessions has been modified on the base of content
Abstract: The abstract does not need citations. Deleted
Section 1: The section introduces the reader to certain concepts, such as “polycentric development”, “territorial diversity”, “territorial cohesion”, “multi-level governance”, etc . But what is not at all clear is, how the authors correlate these terms by including them in the same section and which is the key point of the section. If the last sentence is the key point, then this point is not supported by the discussion provided earlier in the section. (By a polycentric territorial approach the protected areas, by sectoral networks based on local identity, become the territorial unit able to connect local dimension to the political dimension).
Reconstructed
Section 2: The section tackles “polycentricity”, “Network of Protected Areas” and Green Infrastructure”, trying to interlink those three concepts. This is not successfully done. Nor this is relevant to the title given in the section (2.Short literature review on the NPAs role). Again, which is the key argument of the section. The last paragraph neither summarizes the discussion, nor is related to the title of the section.
Reconstructed and modified title of session
Minor issues: The second sentence of the first paragraph, does not make clear sense. The same goes for the first sentence in the second paragraph. By the way, what is “territorial wellbeing“? (see last sentence of the section). First part of the 6th paragraph is more relative to the next section (at least to the title given to the section).
Reconstructed
Section 3: The use of English language is very confusing to the reader. Most sentences do not make clear sense. They are long and confusing. Please see: a) The two last sentences of the first paragraph do not make clear sense, b) the second sentence of the second paragraph and c) the two last sentences of the second paragraph, c) the first sentence of the forth paragraph and so on….
Also, there are many spelling and grammar mistakes. The discussion is not clear. Nor are the key arguments of the sections. At some point CPS is mentioned for the first time (line 140) without explaining what it stands for. Nor which is the real correlation to what was previously discussed.
Minor issues: In line 173, what are the “PA Characters”? Watch the use “informal”, “non-formal”, “non-formalized” throughout the section and the paper.
Reconstructed
Section 4: It is less confusing, including the key findings of the project presented in the paper. Concepts and discussion are clearer (although language editing is need here too).
Language editing revisited
Section 5: It can be improved, following and summarizing the text, after the revisions made.
Reconstructed
Other issues of minor importance:
Abbreviations for several terms are not the same throughout the text (a term is abbreviated in different ways throughout the text). The use of terms and concepts is not consistent and accurate throughout the text.
The authors have done a lot of work and their topic is very interesting. Therefore it is worthy of getting published. However, the paper needs major revisions to make it stand for publication in a scientific journal.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors significantly upgraded their work.
