Retail Apocalypse as a Differential Urbanisation Symptom? Analysis of Ground Floor Premises’ Evolution in Barcelona between 2016 and 2019

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I've enjoyed reading your text.

Please read my following comments as a way to improve the research. The topic and goal are relevant for the research on the field. It is bearing this in consideration that my bellow comments are to be read.

The authors define 3 main objectives. I do not have anything against any of them. However, the objectives are not fulfiled in the text.

The period of time chosen to analyse the changes in the commercial fabric is very questionable. That is, the 3 year  distance (2016-2019) is very short to aprehend significant and structural changes (in normal times. Of course, if the period chosen was 2019-2022, the case would be different, for obvious reasons). If nothing extraordinary happened between 2016 and 2019, what that authors catch are just continuous changes, without any meaningful conclusions to be obtained from such data.

Legend from figures 3 and 4 are not in english.

The literature review is very short and fails to engage with broader existent literature (this is reflected in the scarce reference list). What is mentioned and discussed by the authors is interesting. However, it falls short. I would advise the authors to enlarge the discussion and provide examples of studies on the first two moments and go deeper in the discussion of the third moment.

When arriving at conclusions, we realize that the second and third objective were not included in text. The way I see it, the authors may follow one of two paths: (1) frame the whole research, having only the first objective to fulfil; (2) maintain the 3 objectives, and, in this case, introduce significant new elements (theory and practice) in the text.

Good luck in the revision of the text.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would first like to thank you for the review and the opportunity to improve the manuscript. 

• The objectives have been further defined and developed in points 2, 3 and 4.
• The methodological choice of the 2016 and 2019 censuses has been justified, and the results of their comparison are presented in section 4.
• All the text has been revised to make it suitable for English.
• The literature has been considerably expanded, both in reference to planetary urbanisation and to the field of commercial geography. 
• The conclusions have been reorganised and expanded for more detailed presentation. 

Thank you again.

Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is very interesting, and the theme fits with the special issue of the journal. The empirical data used are important to support the intended argument about Retail apocalypse process. However, the text presents several problems. First, there are some paragraphs not in English. Second, the title does not correspond to the theoretical problem and empirical evidences founds. I suggest that it can be changed. Third, remove some mentions of a pass oral communication. Fourth, it would be appropriate to relate better the investigation with current researches. Fifth, to relate better the hypothesis with the theory. Sixth and last, it is necessary to adapt the text to the format of citations of the journal. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would first like to thank you for the review and the opportunity to improve the manuscript.

• All the text has been revised to make it suitable for English.
• The title of the article has been modified to better define the analysis presented. 
• The text has been revised and there are no oral mentions.
• The literature has been considerably expanded, both in reference to planetary urbanisation and to the field of commercial geography. Recent research has been included.
•  The conclusions have been reorganised and expanded for more detailed presentation, and for a better match between hypotheses and conclusions. 
• The bibliography has been adapted to the format, and already appears as notes at the end of the document. 

Thank you again.

Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors try to provide a sound theoretical basis for differential urbanization, but they do not make any reference to empirical research in the geography of commerce. The literature cited should be much expanded.

The dynamics of the phenomenon in Barcelona as part of the process of differential urbanization in Catalonia are not explained in the paper (no relation to the city's hinterland). The title does not match the content of the article, as there is no metropolitan and regional context.

I think the authors missed the chance to capture the differential moment of urbanization because they took too short time period into account. Therefore, the observed changes are not significant enough. Moreover, it would be really worth taking into account the situation of the commercial sector after the Covid-2019 pandemic and compare it in the paper. 

The only significant conclusion is a certain scope of spatial penetration of the logistics in the empty premises - but this is also not reflected in the statistics, which causes questions

The authors are aware of sources limitation (there is even a separate chapter devoted to it), but it is indeed a pity that they did not take into account the different sizes of commercial space, which make a big difference. However, this is still less of a problem than all the previous ones. 

I suggest major revisions, since the article should be heavily rebuilt and the source data should be rethought. Authors may also consider resubmitting the article at the later stage of the project.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would first like to thank you for the review and the opportunity to improve the manuscript.

• The literature has been considerably expanded, both in reference to planetary urbanisation and to the field of commercial geography.
• The title has been modified to better fit the focus and analysis presented in the paper. 
• The methodological choice of the 2016 and 2019 censuses has been justified, and the results of their comparison are presented in section 4.
• The conclusions have been reorganised and expanded for more detailed presentation, and for a better match between hypotheses and conclusions. The logistics issue is not central to the paper and is not taken into account in the conclusions. 

Thank you again.

Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

The main hypothesis of the text, relating the evolution (decline) of the retail sector as a symptom of differential urbanization is very interesting. The text is now significantly better than the previous, which must be acknowledged. 

There are some issues remaining that, in my opinion, may support the improvement of the paper. 

 Please confirm the citation procedures, as mentioned in the journal instructions. The way they are now, makes the reading of the text very difficult.

 A citation is missing in line 64, and in line 143 (and put the name of the book in italic to differentiate from the rest of the text). This may be the case in other parts of the text but the aforementioned way to place the reference, may have possibly harness the possibility of checking other cases.

 I truly appreciate the detailed methodological approach, especially the reasons for excluding the 2014 data. I realize and agree that they may not be directly comparable. Nevertheless, even if a matrix such as figures 3,4, 8, and 9 is not possible to do with the 2014 data, a table with the information in absolute numbers and in percentage can support the analysis of the decline/decrease of retail activities (in particular, the vacancy can be shown in percentage, which can be further compared with 2016 and 2019 data). Researching on the urban regularly present us challenges in what concerns the availability of the data. Instead of excluding, we have, maintaining the integrity of data, our analysis has to adapt. I believe this is important, because the reading from 2016-2019 is short. The 2014 and 2019 (on the vacancy level) can introduce higher robustness to your conclusions. 

 Please check the size of the text, after section 3.

 It is expected that a significant part of the readers of your text are not (in part or totally) familiar with the city of Barcelona. Therefore, when presenting a map, it is important to enlighten the reader about the location of some main referential locations of the city. For instance, between line 412 and 420, a number of streets, neighborhoods, and a monument of refereed with mention in the figure 5. Not all of them have be mentioned in the map, but some sort of orientation has to be given. This is also the case in lines 404-409, where the authors mention the dichotomy centre-periphery; just by looking to the map, one reader can’t infer where this dichotomy occurs.

 This comment is mostly something to deliber/ponder. I agree with you (line 494) about the implosions/explosions. Depending on each city dynamics, it is very likely that focusing on the area where the implosion occurred, you may not see evidence of explosion (on an immediate short-term), as it may have occurred in other parts of the city/region. This means that, in a highly integrated city-region, such as Barcelona, an occurrence in the city centre will produce effects in other parts of the city. You have resorted to Santos literature to support your theoretical engagement. Nevertheless, you must be aware that in a wide number of cities (regions), the production of new urban space is in such pace that can hardly be compared with most European cities. Still, the discussion is obviously interesting.

At this point my recommendation is in a mid-point between minor and major recommendation, to provide time for you to perform a needed revision.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would first like to thank you for the review and the opportunity to improve the manuscript again.

• The format of references, and text in general, has been modified according to the journal instructions.
• References in lines 64 and 143 have been specified.
• The count of 2014's census empty premises has been added to figure 2.
• Topoinim references have been added to Figure 1, for a better situation understanding of readers.
• We share the opinion that not every european cities are integrated in a city-region, such as Barcelona, and it's certainly may difficult the application of Santos framework and would be convinient to complete the discussion with other theoretical frameworks and empirical cases.

Thank you very much,

Best regards!

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made many improvements, incorporating most of the suggestions made in the previous evaluation.

The suggestions for the second version are:

1. Improve the summary by adding the main research finding.

2. Indicate in the introduction that the censuses correspond to a pre-pandemic period. It is an important justification for research.

3. Transfer figures 3 and 4 to page 7, where they are cited.

4. Improve the main objective in the introduction, and relate it to the conclusions.

5. In the methodology, make it clear which variables correspond to implosions and which correspond to explosions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would first like to thank you for the review and the opportunity to improve the manuscript again.

• The abstract has been conveniently modified.
• Pre-pandemic nature of the census period has been specified in the Introduction.
• The main objective and conclusions have been specified in the Introduction.
• The relation between variables and implosions-explosions have been specified in the Methodology.

Thank you very much,

Best regards!

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your quick and substantive improvements.

It is justified that you have removed the reference to Barcelona's hinterland because the regional context was in fact not present in the article. I think that stating the presence of a "retail apocalypse" is a lot exaggerated in the case of Barcelona, ​​nevertheless the title now fits better with the content.

It is good that some references to the literature on urban economy and geography of commerce have been added, according to my suggestion.

I think that because of the quick corrections there are at the moment some various small errors in the text and the authors should carefully check for them.

The figures (maps and diagrams) still bring me some questions. 

Fig. 1 A legend of the choropleth map shall be added.

Fig. 2 A better and more clarifying caption should be added.

This figure, in my opinion, unfortunately shows the lack of "retail apocalypse" because the changes are slight, so the initial research hypothesis does not work. Perhaps it will work after Covid-19? If the authors would like to wait for relevant data to emerge.

Fig. 5, 6, 7 - The year corresponding to the situation shown in the figures should be explicitely stated (even if it results from the text that it is 2019).

It should be appreciated that the authors have added the matrices of change (Fig. 3, 4, 8, 9).

To sum up, in the light of empirical data, I am constantly not convinced by the statement in the main hypothesis of the article. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the article can be published after still considerable modifications.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would first like to thank you for the review and the opportunity to improve the manuscript again.

• The whole text has been reviewed according to the journal instructions.
• Figure 1 acts as a situation map for readers, and isn't focus on actual premises denstity. Although the map has been improved for a better understanding for readers that doesn't know Barcelona. Furthermore, Figure 1 caption has been improved in order to give more details for readers.
• Figure 2 caption has been clarified. We also consider that Figure 2 doesn't show a clear retail apocalypse process. Because of this, further analysis was made throught one-to-one relation analysis.
• The period corresponding to Figures 5, 6 and 7, have been introduced.

Thank you very much,

Best regards!

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

This revised version only suffered small adjustments. The validity of this text is clearly on its exploratory nature, raising more questions, than the ones it achieved to answer. I'm not saying this in a negative perspective, as it leaves the authors with some paths to proceed from now.

In my opinion, although of my concerns still remain - especially with the short period of comparison, and also the scarce bibliography in which the text is build upon -  the text has reached a stage in which further changes might require a different/new paper. Having this in consideration, my recommendation is to accept. Nonetheless, two (non structural) changes must be done:

- Figure 3, 4, 8, 9: please place somewhere along the text or in attached, all of the retail typologies, whose name in the figures is shortened.

- I believe you have to confirm in the journal instructions if the way you've referenced along the text is the correct one. According to what is mentioned in respective site (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions), a different reference style is needed.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would first like to thank you for the review and the opportunity to improve the manuscript again.

• A short annex has been inserted at the end of the text with the full names and corresponding abbreviations for each of the categories contained in the graphs 3, 4, 8 & 9.
• The references have been checked and adapted to the journal instructions. 

Thank you very much,

Best regards!

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf