Proposal of a Method for Identifying Socio-Economic Spatial Concentrations for the Development of Rural Areas: An Application to the Apulia Region (Southern Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article provides in a clear and well exposed way the results of a territorial analysis of socio-economic elements in rural areas, developed through a method which represents a good practice for further territorial analysis.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for evaluating my manuscript.
I would like to thank you for the valuable suggestions that I have taken into consideration. I've improved the arguments and discussion of findings by trying to better structure the different sections of the manuscript. I've improved the conclusions by linking them better to the research results.  I also carried out a linguistic and grammatical check of the text.

Hoping that the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Best Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Innovations of the paper

The study is of high quality and well-executed, with a thorough literature review and very good justification for the methodologies and indicators chosen. To highlight areas of socioeconomic concentration in the region, indicator mapping in a GIS environment was used. The study demonstrated that identifying the geography of regional socioeconomic spatial concentrations can be a useful policy tool for informing interventions and actions aimed at achieving sustainability and territorial cohesion in accordance with international agendas. The results are also clear and relate to some of the current policies and strategies in Italy and the European Union. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the study.

 

My recommendation is to accept the paper once the authors have addressed my minor comments below.

 

My Comments

 

Abstract

·         Line 15 – mixing future and current as well as past tenses, can yo please make sure you are consistent across the documents. 

 

·         Line 16 – probably replace cartographic one with either “cartographic analysis or mapping”.

 

·         Line 19 to 21 - Rather than generalizing, can you provide specific examples of policies that can be drawn from your study.

 

Section 2

·         Line 137 to 139 – Please include a reference to the study where you directly quoted the sentence in the text.

 

·         Line 157 – Review the sentence “…there is the research conducted by Zasada et Al. [15], 157 innovative for several aspects”. It appears to be an incomplete sentence.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for evaluating my manuscript.
I would like to thank you for the valuable suggestions that I have taken into consideration.

I've improved the parts you suggested that I report by line below and also carried out a linguistic and grammatical check of the text.

Hoping that the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Best Regards

Points for review:

 

 Line 15 – mixing future and current as well as past tenses, can yo please make sure you are consistent across the documents. I checked and proceeded to do a language check

 

• Line 16 – probably replace cartographic one with either “cartographic analysis or mapping”.- I’ve changed the term.

 

• Line 19 to 21 - Rather than generalizing, can you provide specific examples of policies that can be drawn from your study - I gave an example, particularly the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Green Deal.

 

 

Section 2

• Line 137 to 139 – Please include a reference to the study where you directly quoted the sentence in the text. – I checked the sentence and added the missing reference

 

• Line 157 – Review the sentence “…there is the research conducted by Zasada et Al. [15], 157 innovative for several aspects”. It appears to be an incomplete sentence. - I checked the sentence and improved it

 

Reviewer 3 Report

1. By what methods is spatial concentration shown on the maps? It appears that the figures show cartograms indicating the distribution of indicator values and not, for example, spatial autocorrelation or similarity values (e.g. k-means method)

2. The article does not have clearly defined research hypotheses, but this is understandable in the topic of this study

3. It would be worthwhile considering the development of a universal/general method that could be used to compare rural areas from different areas/countries (mainly a set of data availability, development of synthetic indicators, research procedure, etc.).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for evaluating my manuscript.
I would like to thank you for the valuable suggestions that I have taken into consideration and I hope they have improved my manuscript.

I've improved the arguments and discussion of findings by trying to better structure the different sections of the manuscript. I've improved the method and different sections of the manuscript, including conclusions by linking them better to the research results.

I have developed new cartograms to improve the research and improved the parts you suggested that I report by line below. 

I also carried out a linguistic and grammatical check of the text.

I sincerely want to thank you for the important suggestions you have given me.

Best Regards

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. By what methods is spatial concentration shown on the maps? It appears that the figures show cartograms indicating the distribution of indicator values and not, for example, spatial autocorrelation or similarity values (e.g. k-means method)

I’ve improved the analysis thanks to your valuable suggestions. The cartographic analysis for single indicators and variable for each municipality was important and preliminary to define and validate the choice of the subsequent number of cluster analysis that you suggested to me and for that I thank you again. In fact I followed your precious suggestion and I used the k-means method. I have elaborated some new maps following this method. This work has also led to an enrichment of the bibliographic references and of the results, as well as in the method developed. From the results obtained, in my opinion, I believe this is an important enrichment in my manuscript. Your comments have made it possible to significantly improve the study and for this I would like to thank you.

2. The article does not have clearly defined research hypotheses, but this is understandable in the topic of this study

• I have tried to improve significantly the different sections of the manuscript by explaining the steps better, even by moving parts of the text or explaining them better. I have better re-structured the different sections of the manuscript

3. It would be worthwhile considering the development of a universal/general method that could be used to compare rural areas from different areas/countries (mainly a set of data availability, development of synthetic indicators, research procedure, etc.).

• Following your precious comments and indications, I have redefined the sections of the manuscript, better clarifying research hypotheses, objectives, method and results of the analysis. In the conclusions, that I have improved making more consistent with the results obtained, I have also provided some indications for the future development of the proposed method.