The Bottom-Up Development Model as a Governance Instrument for the Rural Areas. The Cases of Four Local Action Groups (LAGs) in the United Kingdom and in Italy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is well written from the language perspective, but is relatively unbalanced in its specific parts.
- I think the manuscript is too long.
- I believe a different organization of chapters is necessary, avoiding a too long conclusions' chapter.
- I don't see a substantial linkage with sustainability. I suggest authors to improve this part, focusing better on the relationship between policy and sustainable development in Europe.
- I would encourage the authors to reduce substantially the length of the title.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I really thank you very much for your time and consideration in reviewing my manuscript. Below my reply to your Review Report.
I think the manuscript is too long
All the manuscript has been duly revised according to your suggestions and duly reduced in attempt to not reduce the information concerning the four case studies.
I don't see a substantial linkage with sustainability. I suggest authors to improve this part, focusing better on the relationship between policy and sustainable development in Europe.
Concerning the substantial linkage with sustainability, the manuscript was aimed to respond mainly to the fifth point of the Special issue information:
5) In many countries rural development policies show better outcomes if implemented by community-led local initiatives than via top-down approaches: what kind of institutional challenges are faced by local communities, and what evidence can be produced in this field?
And subsequently to the following points:
4) Rural development policies often are implemented via multi-level governance, involving different government tiers (national, regional, and local). Which innovative institutional solutions can be highlighted in different socio-economic settings with the aim of improving policy effectiveness and efficiency? How can policy efficiency be measured at different scales? How can policy makers deal with trade-offs between policy efficiency and effectiveness?
3) What is the contribution of rural development policies to reducing territorial disparities in terms of income and unemployment and access to social services and infrastructure, in combination with other territorial policies?
1) What are the main objectives and functions of rural development policies within the broader range of policies addressing rural areas, and what relations have been established between them over time (complementarities, synergies, conflicts, etc.)?
2) What is the effectiveness of rural development policy instruments in pursuing objectives of social inclusion, environmental sustainability (including the provision of specific environmental public goods such as biodiversity, landscape conservation, etc.), agricultural competitiveness, and diversification of rural economies through multi-functional agricultural systems?
Therefore, the objectives of environmental sustainability as well as social inclusion, agricultural competitiveness and diversification of rural economies have been considered in the section “Outcomes, achievements and added value of the local partnership practice” of each case study.
I believe a different organization of chapters is necessary, avoiding a too long conclusions' chapter.
The manuscript has been revised also taking into consideration the Reviewer 2’ suggestions
I would encourage the authors to reduce substantially the length of the title.
The title has been duly reduced as following: The bottom-up development model as a governance instrument for the rural areas. The cases of four Local Action Groups (LAGs) in the United Kingdom and in Italy.
Finally, If the revisions are fine, I will proceed to revise the numbering of the references.
You can find enclosed the manuscript duly revised in track changes
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper addresses a timely topic. The author clearly identifies a gap in knowledge that he/she aims to tackle providing a detailed empirical and comparative study about the LAGs. The case studies in UK and Italy are clearly illustrated, but I would encourage a wider explanation behind their choice.
I am not sure if section 4 (Multi-Level Framework) is right positioned. As it delves into the theoretical framework, I would probably move within or to the aftermath of the Literature Review. I would expect a debate on the results after the section concerning the research design.
I warmly suggest the author carefully revise minor typos, as you mention "thesis" #208. Also, the first sentence in the abstract could be moved elsewhere to explain the source of this paper.
Taking into account that this paper originates from a Ph.D. Dissertation,. I found that Sections 5 and 6 are too long. I would invite the author to shorten them. Sections 7 and 7.1 should be revised extensively to allow the readership to identify the main takeaways and outcomes of the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I really thank you very much for your time and consideration in revising my manuscript. Your suggestions were very useful. I really appreciate it. Below, my reply to your review report:
The paper addresses a timely topic. The author clearly identifies a gap in knowledge that he/she aims to tackle providing a detailed empirical and comparative study about the LAGs. The case studies in UK and Italy are clearly illustrated, but I would encourage a wider explanation behind their choice.
A wider explanation behind the choice of the case studies in UK and Italy has been duly provided during the revision.
I am not sure if section 4 (Multi-Level Framework) is right positioned. As it delves into the theoretical framework, I would probably move within or to the aftermath of the Literature Review. I would expect a debate on the results after the section concerning the research design.
Section 4 (Multi-Level Framework) has been positioned after section 1 – introduction. It was included a debate on results in the section Research design.
I warmly suggest the author carefully revise minor typos, as you mention "thesis" #208. Also, the first sentence in the abstract could be moved elsewhere to explain the source of this paper.
The minor typos such as the word “"thesis" #208” was replaced with the word “article” and also the first sentence has been modified as following: “The present research which originates from the author’s PhD dissertation awarded at the School of Politics of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in 2019, explores the comparative evolution of rural development policies”
Taking into account that this paper originates from a Ph.D. Dissertation,. I found that Sections 5 and 6 are too long. I would invite the author to shorten them. Sections 7 and 7.1 should be revised extensively to allow the readership to identify the main takeaways and outcomes of the paper.
Sections 5 and 6 have been shortened as well as all the other sections of the manuscript. Sections 7 and 7.1 have also been revised extensively to allow the readership to identify the main takeaways and outcomes of the paper.
If the revisions are fine, I will proceed to revise the numbering of the references.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Language editing should be refined, see for instance line 494. The present revision is very light, despite important requests. Some of them were treater superficially.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
Thank you so much for your further reviews. The whole manuscript has been revised according to your suggestions.
Concerning the language editing, please note it has been used the British English since the manuscript originates from a PhD dissertation awarded at the University of Newcastle.
A further light organisation of the chapters has been carried out.
The discussions of the findings in the conclusion chapter has been further developed and linked to the theoretical background and empirical research.
The numbering of the references has been revised.
Reviewer 2 Report
I think it is ok.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
Thank you so much for accepting my revisions.
Anyway, please note that the whole manuscript has been revised according to the suggestions of Reviewer 1.
A further light organisation of the chapters has been carried out.
The discussions of the findings in the conclusion chapter has been further developed and linked to the theoretical background and empirical research.
The numbering of the references has been revised.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration
