Deep Dive into the Recovery Fund: A (Real) Chance for Inner Areas? The Abruzzo Region Study Case, Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is one of many examples of analyzing the impact of regional policy on Europe's economic development. The analyzed data is presented spatially, but limited to the studied region. This research approach may be flawed. This raises the question: what is happening beyond the region's borders? The presented results are interesting, but they require a clear research objective. It calls for improving the description of the research goal or research hypotheses. In relation to the formulated research objective, there will be a change in the content of the conclusions.

Technical notes: correction of the footnote: (Di Giovanni, 2016) and the legend in figure 5 (it is not understandable in this form) I would suggest marking the cities mentioned in the text on the cartograms.

After considering the above comments by the authors, the article deserves publication.

Author Response

This article is one of many examples of analyzing the impact of regional policy on Europe's economic development. The analyzed data is presented spatially, but limited to the studied region. This research approach may be flawed.

Authors response: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. The following provides our detailed, point-by-point responses to your comments.

This raises the question: what is happening beyond the region's borders?

Authors response: The reviewer's comment regarding the limitation of focusing exclusively on the Abruzzo region and the potential implications of processes occurring beyond regional boundaries is well noted. As in most spatial analyses, our study is inevitably subject to the ‘boundary effect’, as the influence of neighboring territories outside the study area cannot be fully incorporated into the clustering process. This limitation has been explicitly discussed in the revised version of the manuscript, in the conclusions section. Although this effect may limit the interpretation of spatial dynamics, we believe that the regional focus remains valuable for shedding light on patterns of intra-regional allocation of NRRP funds. Future research could extend the analysis to interregional comparisons or adopt multiscale approaches to address cross-border interactions more systematically.

The presented results are interesting, but they require a clear research objective. It calls for improving the description of the research goal or research hypotheses. In relation to the formulated research objective, there will be a change in the content of the conclusions.

Authors response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. Following the suggestion, the introduction has been substantially revised to better clarify the research goal and articulate it in the form of a research question. Specifically, we now frame the study around the extent to which the NRRP identifies and addresses the needs of municipalities, with a particular focus on the inner areas defined by the NSIA. Two key issues are highlighted: (i) the criteria and mechanisms for allocating funds, which determine the capacity of municipalities to access and manage financial resources, and (ii) the extent to which NRRP measures address the specific structural challenges of inland areas. This framing provides a clear conceptual context and research objective, which in turn informs both the methodological design and the discussion of the results. Furthermore, the conclusions have been aligned with this revised research goal, ensuring greater consistency between the research question, methodological approach, and results. Finally, the abstract has also been expanded to better reflect the scope of the study, the methodological steps, and the significance of the results.

Technical notes: correction of the footnote: (Di Giovanni, 2016) and the legend in figure 5 (it is not understandable in this form) I would suggest marking the cities mentioned in the text on the cartograms.

Authors response: We thank the reviewer for their useful suggestions. We have revised the note (Di Giovanni, 2016) by adding the reference to the bibliography. In Figure 5, we have improved the legend by adding both the cluster number and the word ‘cluster’ for better readability. In addition, we have added the names of the provincial capitals to the maps as suggested. The same has been done for Figure 3.

After considering the above comments by the authors, the article deserves publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research addresses current issues and is of scientific and practical interest. At the same time, some aspects of the presented study require more detailed presentation and refinement, namely:

1. The abstract looks rather poor. It should more clearly define the purpose of the study, hypotheses or research questions, more broadly disclose the data sets and methodology used, and emphasize the novelty and importance of the results obtained.
2. It is advisable to more clearly define the purpose of the study, its hypotheses and/or research questions. This could be done in the methodology section, before describing the main stages of the study.
3. The study methodology should be described in greater detail, and the choice of the research methods used should be briefly justified. It would also be useful to consider whether similar studies have been conducted on comparable research questions: what approaches they used and what conclusions they reached. This would allow linking the manuscript’s findings to existing research - confirming, refuting, or complementing them.
4. The results of the study are of an applied nature. An important conclusion to the study would be to formulate recommendations for policymakers taking these results into account and outline directions for further research to eliminate the identified problems.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript uses both American and British English, which appears inconsistent. For example, p.5 - "were analysed and spatialized", etc. The manuscript should be reviewed and these inconsistencies corrected.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research addresses current issues and is of scientific and practical interest.

Authors response: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. The following provides our detailed, point-by-point responses to your comments.

At the same time, some aspects of the presented study require more detailed presentation and refinement, namely:

1. The abstract looks rather poor. It should more clearly define the purpose of the study, hypotheses or research questions, more broadly disclose the data sets and methodology used, and emphasize the novelty and importance of the results obtained.

Authors response: Thanks to your comment, we have completely rewritten the abstract. The revised version now clearly states the purpose of the study, highlights the research questions, and provides a more detailed overview of the data sets and methodology used. In addition, we have emphasized the importance of the Inner Areas Strategy in the management and distribution of funding, specified the case study of the Abruzzo region, and specified the methodology applied.

2. It is advisable to more clearly define the purpose of the study, its hypotheses and/or research questions. This could be done in the methodology section, before describing the main stages of the study.

Authors response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. As requested by other reviewers, the introduction has been substantially revised to better clarify the research objective and articulate it in the form of a research question. Specifically, we now frame the study around the extent to which the NRRP identifies and addresses the needs of municipalities, with a particular focus on the inland areas defined by the NSIA. Two key issues are highlighted: (i) the criteria and mechanisms for allocating funds, which determine the capacity of municipalities to access and manage financial resources, and (ii) the extent to which NRRP measures address the specific structural challenges of inland areas. This framing provides a clear conceptual context and research objective, which in turn informs both the methodological design and the discussion of the results. Furthermore, the conclusions have been aligned with this revised research objective, ensuring greater consistency between the research question, methodological approach, and results. Finally, the abstract has also been expanded to better reflect the scope of the study, the methodological steps, and the significance of the results.

3. The study methodology should be described in greater detail, and the choice of the research methods used should be briefly justified. It would also be useful to consider whether similar studies have been conducted on comparable research questions: what approaches they used and what conclusions they reached. This would allow linking the manuscript’s findings to existing research - confirming, refuting, or complementing them.

Authors response: Thank you for your comment, which prompted us to broaden the research framework and to compare our approach with other academic works. As can be seen in the tracked-changes version, we have improved the description of the developed methodology, including a flowchart illustrating the main steps of the research. The discussion of our results has been substantially expanded, incorporating a series of additional references on the management of funding programs and the implications of such investments at the territorial level, with particular attention to inner areas, as defined by the National Strategy for Inner Areas.

4. The results of the study are of an applied nature. An important conclusion to the study would be to formulate recommendations for policymakers taking these results into account and outline directions for further research to eliminate the identified problems.

Authors response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. The Conclusions section has been revised, expanded, and separated from the discussions to provide explicit recommendations to policymakers. Based on the applied nature of our findings, we emphasize the importance of (i) strengthening local administrative capacities to ensure that NRRP resources are tailored to municipal needs, particularly in inland areas, (ii) improving decision-support systems to guide more effective allocation of funds, and (iii) promoting multilevel governance mechanisms to improve coordination between national programming and local development strategies.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript uses both American and British English, which appears inconsistent. For example, p.5 - "were analysed and spatialized", etc. The manuscript should be reviewed and these inconsistencies corrected.

Authors response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The manuscript has undergone a detailed revision, in which all incongruities between American and British English have been corrected to ensure linguistic consistency throughout the text.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) The title is too concise or too artistic, making it difficult for readers to extract information about the region (Italy?), theme (regional coordinated development?), methods, etc.
(2) Abstract: The necessity of adding Abruzzo region as a representative area.
(3) Lines 84-85, this paragraph is a bit abrupt and has no obvious connection or foreshadowing with the previous text.
(4) Method and Results: Does the data in this study meet spatial clustering requirements? It is necessary to first report the results of spatial autocorrelation analysis, such as Moran's index, which was not mentioned in the results.
(5) The circular diagrams in Figures 2, 3, and 5 have unclear internal text.
(6) Figures 3-5 suggest adding the administrative boundaries of higher-level cities (similar to Figure 1) and the location of the city capital. Because it facilitates readers to compare text and maps to understand information.
(7) Suggest separating discussion and conclusion. The current conclusion section does not reflect sufficient content and is only vague.
(8) Although this study mainly focuses on the investment of the NRRP program, especially regional differences, I suggest adding GDP or other indicators to measure the level of economic development in appropriate places (results or discussions) and comparing them with the NRRP program.
(9) In the discussion, the author seems to have only focused on the research area and did not mention similar economic plans in other regions of Italy, Europe, and other parts of the world, which will limit the author and readers' in-depth understanding and regional comparison of the topic.
(10) Discussion, I suggest dividing into sections and adding policy recommendations. The focus of this study is of great practical value, therefore, if appropriate policy recommendations can be proposed, it will be beneficial for both the academic community and policy makers.
(11) To be honest, I think this study still needs further exploration. At present, only the distribution of funds and spatial clustering characteristics of the NRRP program have been analyzed, but this is limited to preliminary data collection. I suggest the author consider how to integrate NRRP with SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals)? Especially how to evaluate the effectiveness of the current NRRP program? How is the NRRP program rated for its help in narrowing regional disparities?

Author Response

Authors response: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. The following provides our detailed, point-by-point responses to your comments.

(1) The title is too concise or too artistic, making it difficult for readers to extract information about the region (Italy?), theme (regional coordinated development?), methods, etc.

Authors response: We acknowledge the reviewer's concern regarding the conciseness of the title. Our intention was to keep the title clear and accessible, while reflecting the main objective of the study and provoking curiosity in the reader. However, we agree that adding a geographical reference would improve readability and make the context immediately identifiable. Therefore, we have slightly modified the title by including the case study to ensure clarity without compromising its original structure. The new title is now: “Deep dive into the recovery fund: a (real) chance for inner areas? The Abruzzo region study case (Italy).”

(2) Abstract: The necessity of adding Abruzzo region as a representative area.

Authors response: we have completely rewritten the abstract. The revised version now clearly states the purpose of the study, highlights the importance of the strategy for inner regions in the management and distribution of funding, specifies the case study of the Abruzzo region, and details the methodology applied.

(3) Lines 84-85, this paragraph is a bit abrupt and has no obvious connection or foreshadowing with the previous text.

Authors response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. The sentence “This document analyzes the case study of the Abruzzo Region, focusing on the funding allocated by each municipality for each PNRR mission” has been rewritten and integrated more fluidly into the context, ensuring continuity with the presentation of the methodological framework.

(4) Method and Results: Does the data in this study meet spatial clustering requirements? It is necessary to first report the results of spatial autocorrelation analysis, such as Moran's index, which was not mentioned in the results.

Authors response: We thank the reviewer for underlining this point. In the original manuscript, the Local Moran index was indeed mentioned, but we decided to remove these references during revision to avoid potential misunderstandings. However, we would like to clarify that Local Moran's I, used in our analysis (LISA), is in fact a local version of global Moran's I. This tool allows us to assess spatial autocorrelation on each individual territorial unit as illustrated in numerous methodological scientific articles. Therefore, the LISA index can also be called local Moran's I. In order to improve the readability of the methodological section, we added a flowchart describing the main steps of our research.

(5) The circular diagrams in Figures 2, 3, and 5 have unclear internal text.

Authors response: Thank you for pointing this out. Figures 2, 3, and 5 have been modified by increasing the size of the text and adding references to provincial capitals on the maps.

(6) Figures 3-5 suggest adding the administrative boundaries of higher-level cities (similar to Figure 1) and the location of the city capital. Because it facilitates readers to compare text and maps to understand information.

Authors response: Figures 3 and 5 have been modified. We have added the names of provincial capitals to the maps, as suggested. Furthermore, in Figure 5, we have improved the legend by adding both the cluster number and the word “cluster” for better readability.

(7) Suggest separating discussion and conclusion. The current conclusion section does not reflect sufficient content and is only vague.

Authors response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. In the revised manuscript, the Discussion and Conclusion sections have been separated. The Conclusions section has been expanded to summarize the main contributions of the study, explicitly address the research question, and provide concrete recommendations for policymakers, as well as directions for future research. We hope that this restructuring will improve the overall clarity and coherence of the manuscript.

(8) Although this study mainly focuses on the investment of the NRRP program, especially regional differences, I suggest adding GDP or other indicators to measure the level of economic development in appropriate places (results or discussions) and comparing them with the NRRP program.

Authors response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Although we did not include GDP or other direct economic indicators in the analysis, we strongly believe that the dimension of economic development is addressed indirectly through the discussion of inner areas. These areas are characterized by structural disadvantages in terms of accessibility and economic opportunities. In this sense, economic and social aspects are intrinsically considered in their designation as inner areas. According to the national strategy for inner areas, these territories are characterized by a considerable distance from essential services such as healthcare, secondary education, and mobility, based on an accessibility criterion that classifies municipalities in relation to their connection to a principal pole. Inner areas are also characterized by demographic decline and lower economic vitality, despite the presence of important environmental and cultural resources. For this reason, NRRP investments in these territories are intrinsically linked to their potential for socioeconomic development. In summary, we believe that the study already intrinsically considers economic aspects in a broader territorial perspective, linking the allocation of NRRP resources to patterns of socioeconomic marginality and development potential.

(9) In the discussion, the author seems to have only focused on the research area and did not mention similar economic plans in other regions of Italy, Europe, and other parts of the world, which will limit the author and readers' in-depth understanding and regional comparison of the topic.

Authors response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Has you suggested, the discussion of our results has been substantially expanded, incorporating a series of additional references on the management of funding programs and the implications of such investments at the territorial level, with particular attention to inner areas, as defined by the National Strategy for Inner Areas.

(10) Discussion, I suggest dividing into sections and adding policy recommendations. The focus of this study is of great practical value, therefore, if appropriate policy recommendations can be proposed, it will be beneficial for both the academic community and policy makers.

Authors response: We appreciate this constructive suggestion. In the revised version of the manuscript, the Conclusions section has been expanded and separated from the discussions to include specific recommendations for policymakers. In particular, we emphasize the importance of strengthening local administrative capacity and decision-making tools to ensure that NRRP funds are allocated and managed in a way that takes into account territorial specificities, especially in inland areas. Furthermore, the results suggest the need for multiscale coordination mechanisms capable of mitigating regional disparities and enhancing the transformative impact of investments.

We have also outlined some potential directions for further research, such as extending the spatial analysis to interregional comparisons, refining methods to reduce boundary effects, and integrating complementary socioeconomic indicators. These extensions would help address some of the limitations identified and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between national funding programs and territorial development.

(11) To be honest, I think this study still needs further exploration. At present, only the distribution of funds and spatial clustering characteristics of the NRRP program have been analyzed, but this is limited to preliminary data collection. I suggest the author consider how to integrate NRRP with SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals)? Especially how to evaluate the effectiveness of the current NRRP program? How is the NRRP program rated for its help in narrowing regional disparities?

Authors response: Thank you for your comments. We agree that the current analysis focuses mainly on the distribution of funds and their territorial allocation. Integrating the NRRP with the SDGs is indeed an important step to be taken in the future. Future work could map investments to specific SDG targets (e.g., clean energy, infrastructure, sustainable communities) and assess their effectiveness using specific indicators, including the contribution of the NRRP to reducing regional disparities. More detailed data at the municipal level and cross-sectional analyses that take multiple factors into account will be essential to capture these effects. Future developments have been added to the conclusions section. At present, however, our results support a broader reflection (reported in the discussions section) on the methods of public fund allocation by municipalities, particularly in areas at risk of marginalization.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to thank the journal editor for giving me this opportunity to review the manuscript.

This paper is based on the context in which the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) was proposed, aiming to reveal how funding investments interact with existing spatial planning and development strategies, and to emphasize the critical role of infrastructure and public services in promoting sustainable regional development. The study employs spatial clustering analysis to examine the distribution of NRRP funds across municipalities in the Abruzzo region and links this to the National Strategy for Inland Areas (NSIA). The findings suggest that this analysis offers insights into addressing structural disparities and enhancing regional cohesion, and holds significant implications for policy coordination across multiple governance levels. Overall, the paper’s logical framework is clear and provides valuable reference material for promoting regional equity and sustainable development. However, there are still shortcomings in the paper’s format and content, specifically in the following areas.

Suggestions for improvement

1. The first half of the article lacks an overall technical roadmap. It is recommended that a technical roadmap be added.
2. The paper lacks a comparison with existing research methods, focusing solely on a logical analysis and application of the methods used. It is recommended to include a comparison with other methods to enhance the rationality of the argumentation.
3. In the third section of the paper, when constructing the dataset, two types of datasets are mentioned, and the necessity of merging them is proposed. However, there is no explanation of the merged dataset. It is recommended to supplement this section.
4. The fifth section of the paper, which discusses the conclusions, is a summary of the research conducted in the paper. It focuses more on reflections on the research content rather than supporting this section with extensive references to other literature. It is recommended to further refine and revise this section.

Suggestions for revision before publication

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank the journal editor for giving me this opportunity to review the manuscript.

This paper is based on the context in which the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) was proposed, aiming to reveal how funding investments interact with existing spatial planning and development strategies, and to emphasize the critical role of infrastructure and public services in promoting sustainable regional development. The study employs spatial clustering analysis to examine the distribution of NRRP funds across municipalities in the Abruzzo region and links this to the National Strategy for Inland Areas (NSIA). The findings suggest that this analysis offers insights into addressing structural disparities and enhancing regional cohesion, and holds significant implications for policy coordination across multiple governance levels. Overall, the paper’s logical framework is clear and provides valuable reference material for promoting regional equity and sustainable development. However, there are still shortcomings in the paper’s format and content, specifically in the following areas.

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. The following provides our detailed, point-by-point responses to your comments.

Suggestions for improvement

1. The first half of the article lacks an overall technical roadmap. It is recommended that a technical roadmap be added.

Authors response: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. We have added a synthetic methodological scheme in Section 3, which clearly illustrates the main steps of the analysis: dataset building, spatial autocorrelation analysis, and cluster analysis. we hope that this schematic representation provides readers with an immediate overview of the technical workflow, improving the clarity and reproducibility of the study.

2. The paper lacks a comparison with existing research methods, focusing solely on a logical analysis and application of the methods used. It is recommended to include a comparison with other methods to enhance the rationality of the argumentation.

Authors response: Thank you for your valuable comment. As you suggested, the discussion of our results has been substantially expanded, incorporating a series of additional references on the management of funding programs and the implications of such investments at the territorial level, with particular attention to inner areas, as defined by the National Strategy for Inner Areas.

3. In the third section of the paper, when constructing the dataset, two types of datasets are mentioned, and the necessity of merging them is proposed. However, there is no explanation of the merged dataset. It is recommended to supplement this section.

Authors response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this gap. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have expanded Section 3.1 to provide a clearer description of the unified dataset. Specifically, the combined dataset contains, for each municipality in the case study, the number of projects funded and the corresponding NRRP resources received, organized by mission and specific components. We hope that this addition will contribute to a better understanding of the subsequent analyses.

4. The fifth section of the paper, which discusses the conclusions, is a summary of the research conducted in the paper. It focuses more on reflections on the research content rather than supporting this section with extensive references to other literature. It is recommended to further refine and revise this section.

Authors response: Thank you for your comment. The Discussion and conclusions section has been divided into two distinct sections, and numerous bibliographic references have been added, expanding both paragraphs. The Conclusions section has been revised and expanded to provide explicit recommendations to policymakers. Based on the applied nature of our findings, we emphasize the importance of (i) strengthening local administrative capacities to ensure that NRRP resources are tailored to municipal needs, particularly in inland areas, (ii) improving decision-support systems to guide more effective allocation of funds, and (iii) promoting multilevel governance mechanisms to improve coordination between national programming and local development strategies.

Suggestions for revision before publication

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is obvious that the authors have made the greatest effort to revise and improve the manuscript. There are two more suggestions:
(1) Improve the readability of the image, especially when the text in the image is too small.
(2) Add shortcomings and prospects at the end of the discussion, as the last suggestion I mentioned in the previous round.

Author Response

It is obvious that the authors have made the greatest effort to revise and improve the manuscript.
Authors response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for recognising our efforts in revising and improving the manuscript.

There are two more suggestions:

(1) Improve the readability of the image, especially when the text in the image is too small.
Authors response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The figures have been revised to improve their readability, particularly by enlarging the textual elements. In addition, we will provide all figures separately in high resolution, where necessary, to ensure full clarity and readability.

(2) Add shortcomings and prospects at the end of the discussion, as the last suggestion I mentioned in the previous round.
Authors response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We would like to point out that the shortcomings and prospects mentioned are already included in the conclusions section of the manuscript. In particular, we discuss the methodological limitations (such as the edge effect and the indirect consideration of economic indicators), as well as the prospects for future research, including the use of more detailed municipal-level data, interscalar approaches, and the integration of NRRP investments with the Sustainable Development Goals. We believe that, in our case, the conclusions section is the most appropriate place to summarise both the limitations of the study and the recommendations for future research. This placement allows us to close the paper with a comprehensive overview that links the results to their broader implications, avoiding repetition between sections.