Urban Shrinking Cities in Romania and The Netherlands—A Possible Policy Framing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

While this is an important and interesting topic, I find the way the article handles the topic quite confusing. I think the authors want to identify the reasons for urban shrinkage and suggest policies to deal with such phenomena drawing form the Netherlands experience, while this is valid and vital, the argument does not show this clearly. I still could not find anywhere in the article a strong justification on why the Netherlands is compared to Romania and not any other country!! Is the Netherlands the best case to handle “urban shrinkage”? what is the base of this comparison? This should be clearly stated. The early parts of the manuscript claims that a comparison will take place: “The comparison will provide certain demographic tendencies and will conclude in a policy framing based on mutual learning from both parties at regional scale” on page 3 and again on page 4: “First, in order to analyze the meaning of the phenomenon of urban shrinkage, we will mainly refer to a comparative study between shrinking cities as Doetinchem, Zutphen and Winterswijk from the Netherlands and shrinking cities …. on demographic and economic level”. Yet  the authors state several times that this comparison is not possible in many occasions; on page 16: “On behalf of our analysis, we deduce the fact that shrinking cities from both regions respectively Netherlands and Romania are facing in a distinct way the process of urban shrinkage”, and “Although, are evident differences between a developed country as the Netherlands and a  post-socialist country as Romania, by using SSA we can encompass some similarities re-garding the peculiarities of demographic changes visible in shrinking cities compared to  shrinking regions as a larger whole” page 11, so why then did they decide to compare? I suggest that they reframe their argument as learning from the Netherlands case to draw policies into the Romanian case and drop comparisons!!!

 

These both sentences: “By using this analysis, we can observe ‘the flow’  of urban shrinkage at the local and regional level so we can anticipate demographic dynamics and identify different types of shrinking cities. Taking into consideration demographic trajectories of total population evolution in shrinking cities, we can emphasize the main causes and effects of shrinking process, lastly, we can propose some  directives for a mutual learning”. And “The aim: The aim is to identify the peculiarities of urban shrinkage not only in peripheral cities but also in central and touristic cities taking into consideration the demographic  trajectories based on statistical data. Hence, we tend to observe the widespread of urban shrinkage multidimensional process interfering with non-evident similarities and visible  differences between analyzed cities. The comparison will provide certain demographic tendencies and will conclude in a policy framing based on mutual learning from both parties at regional scale” need to be more consistent with what you intend to do. Where are the findings regrading “identify different types of shrinking cities”, “causes and effects of shrinking process”, “directives”,  “peculiarities of urban shrinkage” of the urban areas you addressed in details? Consider and clarify!

 

 

Another issue here is the sentence on page 13: “The urban shrinkage phenomenon noticed in the shrinking cities of Transylvania become an issue with spatial, demographic, and economic implications starting to manifest since 1992s but triggered  the attention of public discourse since the research provided by Nadolu et al, 2010” seems to me that such issues had been addressed in research and data so what does this study provide further? Nadolu’s study was released in 2010 and the data encompassed by the author here is till the year 2011, what happened till the year 2022 (sometime you mention the year 2013, so which years do you have the data for and what is projected into the future should be stated clearly)? This supports the need for the authors to address the issue of “policy framing” further. I think that the study, as its title claim, should address policies to deal with such phenomena, however, policies suggested here are very shortly addressed in section 5, and are not clearly stated. A large focus (from page 3-10) are introducing the data and barely argue the reasons behind the shrinkage or strategic policies to deal with it!! Therefore more attention should be put to section 5 and show the ideas/suggestions drawn from the Netherlands case into bolder/clear points with clear titles and strategies as a more synthesized set of observations--will animate and tie together both cases and would be well placed both in the introduction and as part of the conclusion. Given your title as a policy framing, isolating these factors for the reader will help policy-makers, those observing the region, and those trying to emulate this work.

 

More specific points:

 

Page 1, line 37: Urban shrinkage is becoming a challenge not only in developed countries as USA, Germany, Japan, or China,  but also in Central and East European Countries affected by the post-socialist transition as Romania. This needs a reference

 

 

A ‘shrinking city’ can be defined as 57 an urban area – a city, part of a city, an entire metropolitan area, or a town – that has  experienced population loss, economic downturn, employment decline and social problems as symptoms of a structural crisis [13]. I think this needs to be put earlier, to define what you mean early in the text.

 

Romanian should be written with capital “R”

 

On page 3, paragraph 4, I think you can add a table or a graph to show what is compared to what and what has been done with the justification in a clearer manner.

 

The methodology section is left way behind on page 10, I think this needs to come earlier in the article.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I think this work is very interesting. However, some revisions are suggested to ameliorate the standard of the paper. Please find attached detailed comments and suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Clear and assertive paper. It addresses a problem that is very present in European cities and approaches it from a constructive point of view.

Theoretical support is robust and adequate to the analysis of the problem. The methodology is coherent, current and suitable for the study of the exposed problem.

The cartographic and graphic basis are clear and help the reading of the issue.

The authors make a sound discussion of the results and the conclusions are interesting and well supported.

It will be interesting to point out new paths of investigation. The text can provide a good basis for further work on the same problem, in other geographic and social contexts.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the efforts put to develop the manuscript especially the last parts, however, I feel a strong revision of the English language is needed especially in the red text, I suggest revising the text with a native speaker before it goes on to publication.

One small comment: the sentence: Shrinking cities’ can be defined as urban areas (cities and towns) or regions (system of towns) that over the past 40– _50 years have experienced population loss, employment decline or/and protracted economic  downturn until very recently, repeats again on page 2 line 59, it is already mentioned exactly the same at the introductory paragraph of the same section.

Author Response

Point 1: I appreciate the efforts put to develop the manuscript especially the last parts, however, I feel a strong revision of the English language is needed especially in the red text, I suggest revising the text with a native speaker before it goes on to publication.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your appreciation and for your suggestion, in order to fulfill the achievement of the high standard and raking of the journal we appeal to a native English speaker for a strong revision of the English language.

Point 2: One small comment: the sentence: Shrinking cities’ can be defined as urban areas (cities and towns) or regions (system of towns) that over the past 40– _50 years have experienced population loss, employment decline or/and protracted economic  downturn until very recently, repeats again on page 2 line 59, it is already mentioned exactly the same at the introductory paragraph of the same section.

Response 2: Thank you for your notice, we deleted the sentence from Introduction Section.