Access to Essential Services in Rural Europe: A Systematic Review for Fostering Sustainable Rural Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following suggestions are intended to help improve the manuscript and facilitate its publication.

1. The manuscript does not provide a clear definition of "rural areas." Definitions of rural areas vary considerably across European countries and at the EU level. For example, the population-density criteria developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Degree of Urbanisation (DEGURBA) classification published by Eurostat, and the Functional Urban Area (FUA) framework all adopt different definitions and classifications of rural areas. Moreover, the provision logic and accessibility thresholds for essential services differ substantially among peri-urban, remote, and mountainous rural areas. However, this manuscript treats all rural samples as homogeneous and fails to distinguish variations in service provision across different rural typologies. These two issues make the research object insufficiently defined.

Although the manuscript reviews 30 European studies, without a clear definition and classification of rural areas, the criteria used to identify "rural" contexts are likely to differ substantially among the included studies. Depending on whether studies adopt the DEGURBA grid classification, the OECD regional typology, or administrative definitions such as rural municipalities, the characteristics of the rural samples may vary considerably. For instance, peri-urban villages adjacent to large metropolitan areas are fundamentally different from remote rural communities in the Alps or the Scottish Highlands, and their service accessibility thresholds are not directly comparable. Therefore, I believe that the absence of a clear definition of "rural areas" seriously obscures the spatial heterogeneity of service accessibility across different rural types and undermines the comparability of findings among the reviewed studies. I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript accordingly or provide a detailed response to this issue.

2. The manuscript also lacks a clear definition and conceptual description of its key term, "essential services." Within the European spatial planning framework, Services of General Interest (SGI) constitute the principal policy framework for rural service provision, while Christaller's Central Place Theory provides the theoretical foundation for the hierarchical allocation of service facilities. The topic of this manuscript is highly relevant to these policy and theoretical frameworks, yet they are not explicitly discussed. I therefore recommend that the authors incorporate a discussion of the relationships between their hierarchical framework and relevant theories, such as Central Place Theory, the life-circle (living circle) concept, and the 20-minute neighbourhood model. Such discussion would help clarify the theoretical foundations of the study and better demonstrate its contributions beyond the existing theoretical frameworks.

3. The Introduction does not review existing literature reviews in this field, nor does it explain how the present review differs from previous review studies in terms of coverage, study period, analytical dimensions, or other aspects. Consequently, the manuscript lacks a comparative analysis between the present review and existing review literature. I strongly recommend that the authors address this issue, as such a comparison would also provide a more explicit justification of the manuscript's academic contribution.

4. In Lines 45–48, the manuscript states: "Over the past decade, researchers and policymakers have developed a variety of methodologies to assess service accessibility across European rural contexts [9,13–16]. However, a consolidated view of these approaches and their findings remain limited." Given that this is a review article, I recommend that the authors briefly summarize the major categories of methodologies used to assess service accessibility in European rural areas, together with representative studies employing each approach.

5. The European Commission's policy document, A Long-Term Vision for the EU's Rural Areas: Towards Stronger, Connected, Resilient and Prosperous Rural Areas by 2040 (COM(2021) 345 final), published in 2021, explicitly identifies digital infrastructure and digital services as a key strategy for compensating for the shortage of physical services in rural areas. Telemedicine, online education, and digital public services have become integral components of essential rural services. The document states under "Pillar 2: Connected Rural Areas" that universal high-speed broadband coverage, improved transport connections, and digital technologies should be leveraged to ensure that all rural residents have access to essential services regardless of their location. However, the present manuscript does not include any discussion of digital service accessibility, nor does it examine the integration of physical and digital service provision. Consequently, the scope of the review does not fully reflect current policy priorities or recent research developments in European rural planning. I therefore recommend that the authors incorporate literature on rural digital service accessibility and discuss, in Section 4 (Discussion), the implications of integrated physical–digital service provision for rural residents.

6. Differences in service accessibility among different population groups (e.g., older adults, children, low-income households, and households without private vehicles) have become an important research topic in architecture and urban and rural planning. However, the manuscript focuses only on average accessibility thresholds and does not consider accessibility disparities among different demographic groups. In particular, it overlooks the mobility and service accessibility challenges faced by vulnerable populations such as older adults and residents without access to private vehicles. As a result, the review lacks a discussion of equity and differentiated service provision from the perspective of rural planning and the built environment. I therefore recommend that the authors include a review of studies examining accessibility for different rural population groups and expand the Discussion section to include implications and policy recommendations for vulnerable populations.

7. In Lines 299–301, the manuscript states: "This tiered structure highlights the varying spatial expectations for service accessibility in rural contexts and provides a framework for differentiated planning strategies based on service criticality and frequency of use [9,50]." However, Section 4 (Discussion) does not further explore how the findings of this review can be translated into practical planning tools. I suggest that the authors discuss how their findings could be incorporated into the LEADER (Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l'Économie Rurale) programme, how land-use planning could be employed to safeguard land for rural service facilities, and how architectural design strategies could enhance the spatial coverage and accessibility of rural services. Drawing on their expertise in architecture or urban planning, the authors could further propose practical recommendations from the perspectives of spatial planning systems, facility allocation strategies, and architectural design approaches.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I like this paper. It is a systematic review of 30 studies on access to services in rural Europe. It maps which services get studied, which transport modes are used, and how distance/travel time is measured. It ends with a 3-tier framework for service accessibility. The topic is timely and the PRISMA process is clear. But there are several gaps that need fixing before this is ready.
The PRISMA flow is well documented, so readers can follow exactly how 870 records became 30.
The three research questions are clear and the paper answers all three. Table 6 and Figure 4 are genuinely useful. Turning messy literature into a simple ideal/maximum threshold table is the kind of output planners can actually use. The writing is clear and easy to follow throughout.

Main issues that need to be addressed:
The article is based on a single database. Only Scopus was searched. For a topic like this, a lot of relevant work sits in policy reports, EU documents, and grey literature, not just journals. I would suggest to add Web of Science at minimum, and explain why grey literature was excluded (or include some).
Sample size is rather small for a "systematic review." 30 papers covering all of Europe over 25 years is small. The search string is also narrow ("rural AND access* W/3 (essential OR primary OR basic...)"). Papers using different wording (e.g. "service provision," "spatial equity," "remoteness") may have been missed. I suggest to justify the string choice or broaden it and re-run.
Quality or risk-of-bias assessment is missing. All 30 studies are treated as equally reliable. A systematic review normally needs some quality appraisal (sample size, methodology soundness, etc.) so readers know how much weight to give each finding.
The "maximum = 2x ideal" rule needs support. This is the core of the proposed accessibility framework, and it rests on two citations without any empirical justification. I recommend the author to show data supporting the 2x multiplier, or to be upfront that it's a working assumption, not a finding.
The 50 km/h conversion is too simple for rural areas. The author uses this to compare km and minutes across the dataset, but rural roads vary a lot (mountains, seasonal closures, unpaved roads). The author noted this causes inconsistencies in the mobility/entertainment categories, but  don't address how it affects the framework's validity elsewhere. I think it would be good to discuss this limitation directly, ideally in a dedicated limitations paragraph.
Table 1 doesn't fit the paper. The global breakdown (Asia, Africa, etc. from the 871 pre-filtered records) doesn't answer any of the three research questions and takes up space that could go to more analysis of the 30 included studies. I would consider cutting it or moving to supplementary material.
Discussion and Conclusion overlap too much with Results. Right now they mostly repeat findings already stated. Please add real discussion: how does the 3-tier framework compare to existing accessibility frameworks in the literature? What would change if a study used bike or public transit as the primary mode instead of car? What are the practical implications for policy, beyond stating that the framework "provides a framework"?
Limitations section is missing. It should cover at least single database, small sample, no quality appraisal, car-centric bias in source studies (26/30 use cars, which the paper itself flags as a problem, yet the framework is entirely built on car travel time).

Small issues:

Line 118: broken reference ("Error! Reference source not found.Table 1") needs fixing.
Table 4 and Table 5: consider merging into Table 6 to avoid repeating the same information three times.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the manuscript is highly relevant and important for rural development. However, I would like to highlight several key shortcomings that, in my opinion, reduce its scientific contribution and methodological robustness.

The review relies exclusively on the Scopus database, which increases the risk of overlooking relevant studies indexed in other major databases such as Web of Science, PubMed, or Google Scholar.

The final sample comprises only 30 studies, which is relatively small for drawing broad conclusions about access to services across rural areas in Europe.

Most of the reviewed studies focus on healthcare services, whereas education, commerce, culture, and mobility receive considerably less attention, thereby limiting the comprehensiveness of the review.

The analysis predominantly considers travel by private car, while public transport, cycling, and walking are underrepresented, despite their importance for a substantial proportion of the rural population. The proposed accessibility thresholds are derived from average values reported in different studies, without empirical validation in specific rural contexts. The assumption of an average driving speed of 50 km/h, used to compare travel time and distance, may not be realistic for many mountainous, island, or infrastructure-deficient rural areas. Furthermore, rural regions across Europe are highly heterogeneous, yet the findings are presented as being almost universally applicable, without sufficient consideration of regional differences.

The manuscript does not include an assessment of the quality or risk of bias of the included studies, although this is an essential component of contemporary systematic literature reviews.

The proposed three-level classification of services is based primarily on the authors' interpretation and has not been validated through empirical evidence, stakeholder consultation, or expert consensus.

Although the manuscript identifies research gaps and provides a useful conceptual framework, it does not offer sufficiently specific policy recommendations, nor does it demonstrate the applicability of the proposed model through a case study or empirical validation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have provided effective responses and made targeted revisions to most of the comments from the previous review, and the overall revision has shown some improvement. Nevertheless, I believe that the manuscript still contains two fundamental issues that cannot be overlooked.

1. Regarding the definition of the research object, "rural areas" (in response to my initial Comment 1)

It should be clarified that my previous comment was not intended to ask the authors to derive a universal definition of rural areas from the existing literature. Rather, I was emphasizing a fundamental requirement of academic research: the research object itself must be clearly defined for readers at the outset of the paper. When investigating rural service accessibility, the first step should be to explicitly define the meaning and scope of rural areas within the context of the present study. Only after establishing this conceptual foundation should the subsequent literature review be organized. This is a basic principle of academic writing and is indispensable.

Based on the current revision, the authors have merely supplemented the Methods, Discussion, and Limitations sections with an explanation of their inclusive literature selection criteria. However, they still have not provided a clear and internally consistent conceptual definition of the core research object, "rural areas", in the Introduction. Simply relying on whether the original authors described their study areas as "rural" cannot substitute for a rigorous definition of the scope of the present review. Without a clear explanation of the concept and boundaries of rural areas at the beginning of the manuscript, readers cannot accurately understand the scope and positioning of this review, and the comparability and explanatory power of the review's conclusions are consequently weakened. I therefore recommend that the authors explicitly define the concept of rural areas in the Introduction and use this definition as the basis for organizing the subsequent literature review.

2. Regarding the practical applications and theoretical extension of the research findings (in response to my initial Comment 6)

I cannot agree with the authors' response or the corresponding revision on this issue. Discussing the theoretical significance of the findings and their practical implications is a central component of the Discussion section rather than supplementary content that falls outside the scope of the study. The hierarchical accessibility framework proposed in this review represents the manuscript's primary contribution. Without adequately explaining how this framework advances existing theories of rural development and how it can inform rural planning and development practices in Europe, both the depth of the Discussion and the academic value of the study are substantially diminished.

The authors argue that providing specific planning and policy recommendations falls outside the scope of a review paper. I do not agree with this position. Even a systematic literature review should clearly articulate the theoretical contributions of the synthesized framework, as well as its practical implications for mainstream European rural development policies (e.g., the LEADER programme), rural spatial planning, and the planning and design of public service facilities. I therefore recommend that the authors substantially expand the Discussion section by systematically explaining how the hierarchical accessibility framework can be applied within existing theoretical frameworks of rural studies and in European rural planning practice. Furthermore, based on the review findings, the authors should provide targeted recommendations from the perspectives of spatial planning and architectural design. At a minimum, the Discussion should examine the implications of the proposed framework for future European rural development from the perspectives of policy formulation, spatial planning, and architectural design.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have greatly improved their work and I now recommend it for publication.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors’ dedicated efforts in this round of revision, as well as the valuable further reflections presented in the revised manuscript. I am pleased to see that all of my review comments have been fully addressed and that the authors have made excellent revisions. I consider that the current version of the manuscript has attained the depth and quality appropriate for publication in Sustainability journal.