the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 04 May 2026
Regional development in the context of major infrastructure projects: participatory processes, governance challenges, and patterns for success
Abstract. This article addresses questions of institutional anchoring, coordination and participatory approaches with a comparative, case-based examination of regional development practices in selected large-scale infrastructure projects. It draws on four case studies – the expansion of Frankfurt Airport, the decommissioning of the Asse II mine in Germany, the Swiss sectoral plan procedure for deep geological repositories, and the Swedish repository siting process – as exemplary constellations of how regional development is institutionally and procedurally designed in practice. The case studies are used to abstract typical instruments, actor constellations, and modes of interaction between formal planning, participation, and informal regional development approaches. Based on a cross-case synthesis, the article identifies recurring challenges and patterns of success.
- Preprint
(712 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on sand-2026-8', Olaf Kühne, 11 May 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Franziska Sperfeld, 09 Sep 2026
Dear Prof. Kühne,
We sincerely thank you for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We particularly appreciate the suggestions concerning the comparative logic of the study, the relationship between the hypotheses and the empirical findings, and the role of conflict and democratic contestation in participatory processes. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we respond to each comment individually.
Comment 1: The four case studies cannot fully support the claim of “patterns for success.”
Thank you for this important observation. We agree that four case studies do not allow us to establish universal patterns of success or causal relationships. We have therefore revised the framing throughout the manuscript to make the exploratory and context-sensitive character of the findings more explicit.
In particular, we have changed the framing of the cross-case results from “patterns for success” towards “recurring enabling conditions, challenges and areas of tension.” We have also revised the abstract, research questions, and the discussion of the cross-case findings accordingly. we have revised the title and several formulations throughout the manuscript to avoid overly strong claims about “success.” We have replaced or softened formulations such as “critical success factor” and “indispensable” where the empirical evidence does not warrant such categorical statements. The revised discussion now distinguishes more clearly between enabling conditions, empirical support, tensions and contextual limitations. In addition, the limitations section already explicitly states that the four cases were selected for theoretical relevance and variation rather than representativeness, and that the findings should be understood as heuristic, context-sensitive insights rather than a generalizable blueprint.
Comment 2: The logic underlying the comparison of the four cases should be clarified.
We agree that the comparative logic required further explanation. We have therefore strengthened the methodological section by explaining that the cases are not compared on the assumption that their institutional arrangements are directly equivalent. Instead, the cross-case analysis compares common governance functions and dimensions across different institutional and national contexts.
The revised methodology specifies four dimensions derived from the conceptual framework and hypotheses: (1) the delineation of the affected region and integration of existing governance structures, (2) the organization of participation, (3) institutional and financial arrangements for regional development, and (4) monitoring and transparency. Differences in infrastructure type, procedural phase and societal contestation are treated as contextual conditions rather than variables to be controlled. The synthesis therefore examines where similar enabling conditions and challenges occur and where differences can be explained by contextual characteristics.
Comment 3: The hypotheses should be linked more systematically to the case findings.
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the structure of the cross-case analysis to make this link explicit. Section 5.1 now begins by stating that the cross-case synthesis is structured around the four hypotheses introduced in Section 2.5. The subsequent subsections explicitly address each of the four hypotheses and discuss supporting evidence as well as qualifications and countervailing findings across the cases.
We have also strengthened the conceptual transition from the literature review to the hypotheses. At the end of Section 2.4, we now summarize the main dimensions emerging from the literature—regional specificities, institutionalized cooperation, long-term strategies, and transparent governance arrangements—and explicitly state that these dimensions provide the basis for the heuristic hypotheses.
Comment 4: Participation should be understood not only as a resource for acceptance and regional development, but also as a conflict-laden democratic practice.
We very much appreciate this suggestion and have incorporated it into the conceptual framing. We added a paragraph in Section 2.4 that explicitly distinguishes participation as an instrument for facilitating project development from participation as a democratic practice. This perspective is also reflected in Section 5.2, where the empirical findings show that participatory formats can make conflicts more visible, create arenas for disagreement, and redistribute opportunities to influence decisions. Our case studies definitely support this perspective/ arguments.
Comment 5: The manuscript should distinguish more clearly between findings specific to final repository processes and findings that may apply more broadly to large infrastructure projects.
We agree and have clarified this distinction in several places. We have deliberately avoided presenting this transferability as established generalization and instead frame it as a potential area of applicability requiring further empirical investigation.
Thank you again for your constructive and helpful comments, which have contributed to improving the clarity and quality of the revised manuscript.
Franziska SperfeldCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2026-8-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Franziska Sperfeld, 09 Sep 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on sand-2026-8', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Jul 2026
For author
I have read this paper with interest. It explores the relationships between participatory approaches to infrastructure planning and regional development processes. It uses four case studies of large infrastructure projects in Germany, Switzerland and Sweden as empirical examples.
The paper is well-written and easy to read. It is a rather ‘dry’ and pedestrian read, but that is probably due to the topic rather than the style of writing. I found the four empirical case studies straightforward to understand and the analysis and conclusions drawn from them seemed sound and defensible.
Is the discussion (on pp.2-3) of the various ways of defining and conceptualising a region necessary? There are two definitional discussions – first what is a region and then what is regional development? If the first discussion is retained, then it is worth distinguishing between regions and sub-national geographical units and regions as supranational units. Some writers (especially in North America) use regions to imply continental scale units. (Middle East Region, central and Eastern European region etc).
The paper references a review of the literature on participatory regional development (p.6, line 151), and it might be more helpful to have a bit more detail on what that literature has to say.
Overall, with minor modifications, I would be comfortable with seeing the paper published. (Some minor detailed text edits follow below).
Detailed text comments
p.1, line 12: delete “as it draws on four case studies constellations”.
p.3, line 85: delete “Here,”
p.4, line 96: replace “paragraphs” with “section”
p.4, line 100: avoid 1-sentence paragraphs. Run this sentence on with the following paragraph
p.4, line 104: (2015), [insert comma]
p.5, line 141: “socio-psychological factors” or “social factors” (rather than mental factors)?
p.6, line 166: avoid 1-sentence paragraphs. Run this sentence on with the following paragraph
p.8, line 231: “sustainable local development” reads oddly here. What is meant? Local sustainability projects?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2026-8-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Franziska Sperfeld, 09 Sep 2026
Dear Anonymous reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for the careful reading of the manuscript and for the detailed and constructive comments. We particularly appreciate the suggestions concerning the conceptualization of “region,” the positioning of the literature review, and the clarity and readability of the manuscript. We have addressed the comments individually as follows.Comment 1: The discussion of different definitions of “region” may be unnecessary; if retained, the manuscript should distinguish sub-national regions from supranational regions.
Thank you for this helpful clarification. We decided to retain the discussion because the question of how a region is defined and delineated is directly relevant to our empirical analysis and subsequently forms the basis of the first heuristic hypothesis.
At the same time, we have clarified the scale of the concept used in this article. A footnote now specifies that the definitions discussed refer to regions at the sub-national level and are distinct from approaches addressing supranational regions in other strands of the literature. We additionally clarify in the main text that, in this article, a region refers primarily to a sub-national socially produced space in which the impacts and development effects of an infrastructure project are negotiated.
Comment 2: The literature review on participatory regional development should be elaborated.We agree that the connection between the literature review and the hypotheses could be made more explicit. We have therefore strengthened the relevant discussion in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 rather than adding a separate literature review section.
Section 2.2 now provides the conceptual foundation concerning regional development as a dynamic, socially constructed and governance-related process, including endogenous potentials, adaptive capacities, cooperative planning and capacity building. Section 2.4 then connects these perspectives explicitly to the particular challenges of regional development in large infrastructure and repository processes. At the end of Section 2.4, we added a synthesis stating that the literature points to four central dimensions—regional specificities, institutionalized cooperation, long-term strategies and transparent governance arrangements—which provide the basis for the four heuristic hypotheses in Section 2.5.
We thank the reviewer for the careful attention to the manuscript’s wording and presentation. We have incorporated all of the editorial and minor textual corrections suggested by the reviewer. Overall, these revisions helped to improve the readability, consistency, and linguistic precision of the manuscript without changing its substantive argument.
We would like to thank the reviewer once again for the careful and constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate the time and effort devoted to reviewing our manuscript and believe that the suggestions have helped us to strengthen the manuscript considerably.
Franziska SperfeldCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2026-8-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Franziska Sperfeld, 09 Sep 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 237 | 56 | 20 | 313 | 27 | 22 |
- HTML: 237
- PDF: 56
- XML: 20
- Total: 313
- BibTeX: 27
- EndNote: 22
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript addresses a relevant topic. I consider the approach to this topic, which utilizes various concepts of region, to be innovative and instructive. The connection to the topic of procedural justice appears substantial. The case studies are characterized by a wealth of material.
In addition to these positive aspects, however, the manuscript should be revised in several respects prior to publication:
· Given that it includes only four case studies, the manuscript cannot live up to the claim of “patterns for success.”
· The logic of comparison among the four cases should be clarified.
· It would be advisable to link the hypotheses more systematically to the case findings.
· Participation should not only be considered as a resource for acceptance or development, but also as a conflict-laden democratic practice. Such a framing would give the article greater depth.
· Furthermore, it should be made clearer which statements apply specifically to final repository processes and which apply more generally to large infrastructure projects.
With these adjustments, I believe the manuscript is ready for publication.