Participatory Planning for the Drafting of a Regional Law on the Bioeconomy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The argument of (i) this is what we know about the problem to (ii) this is what our participants came up with could be improved, preferably with a conceptual model

More importantly, tie the results back to the literature in the Conclusions

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The proposed publication is de facto a report on the research carried out in the framework of the project implementation. For this reason, most of it constitutes the law and Justice party on the way research is conducted and the results obtained within them. Due to the low research sample, it is not possible to talk about statistical research but only to obtain the position of the entities participating in the project. Of course, which is not an objection in itself, but it affects the way the obtained data is interpreted.

The following comments should be taken into account in the discussion.

They cannot be taken into account as cross-cutting studies using statistical methods. Despite this, indicated in the punt conclusions that the implementation of the bio-economy should be based on activities within the regions, and with increased participation and participation of various stakeholders is appropriate. It is also appropriate to strengthen participation in the creation of legal solutions in the field of bioeconomy. In my opinion, it is necessary to extend the legal issues related to social participation in the creation of regional legal solutions concerning the introduction of various aspects of the bio-economy.

And how stakeholders indicate how the implementation of EU solutions is carried out at the regional level. However, the publication does not indicate ways of public participation in the legislative process, also in the legal and comparative aspect. It is worth pointing out that since 2021, a number of new documents and programs related to the bioeconomy have been introduced, for example, the document “fit for 55”, which increase the emphasis not only on the circular economy, but also on the broadly understood bioeconomy.

Indicate how these changes may affect the results obtained under the project. It is also worth considering the participation of regions in energy changes caused by the conflict in Ukraine and the resulting emphasis on renewable energy sources. One of the effects of these actions is COUNCIL Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 of 22 December 2022 on speeding up the authorization process for investments in renewable energy sources.

It is also worth mentioning the issues related to biomass (which appears in the Article) but the discussion on limiting the use of primary biomass. Therefore, the Article should not only focus on the description of the results themselves, but also take into account the changes that occurred after the completion of the project and indicate the legal ways of social participation in creating legal solutions for regions. It is also possible to indicate, in addition, how the public will participate in the implementation of the legal regulations adopted by the regions and their models.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The work is well described, but very repetitive in its assertions such as the importance of the participation of different actors in the construction of this policy. This repetition is present in the introduction, results and conclusions.

There is no clear exposition of the objective of the work at the end of the introduction.

The presentation of the results is also largely repetitive, as the texts only describe what the figures already show.

The conclusion extrapolates the specific considerations that should be made about the object of the work. In fact, it is much more configured as a discussion of points related to the topic addressed.

Punctual comments:

page 11: What MOCAs are?

page 13, line 344: correct the word equilibrium

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Pretty much the manuscript remained the same, only some texts were added in the introduction and conclusion. The comments about reptition, lackness of a clear objective and a too much discursive conclusion are stated again. A suggestion is to move section 2 of the introdcution to Material and Methods and reprhase de paragraph of lines 132 to 136 in order to clear state the objctive of this work.

Punctual comments:

 

Page17 lines 518 – 521. Exchange the following sentence “has carried on a comprehensiveanalysis of the participatory process that led to the development elaborate a proposal” by “has carried on a comprehensive analysis ofthe participatory process that led to the development of a proposal”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx