Latent Rural Depopulation in Latin American Open-Pit Mining Scenarios
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors answered my questions and made suggested corrections in a satisfactory way. Thank you and good luck.
Author Response
We appreciate the valuable comments of reviewer 1. As he indicates we have met all expectations.
Reviewer 2 Report
Article review: Latent rural depopulation in Latin American open-pit mining scenarios
The article addresses the important topic of depopulation in rural areas in the vicinity of open-pit mines.
The formulated purpose of the article :
“The objective of this article consists of an exploratory study of the demographic, social, economic and environmental conditions of rural territories in which open-pit mining projects are being installed in order to determine their propensity to rural depopulation in the near future.”
Based on the literature (90 articles ), the authors identified the main factors that determine the processes of rural depopulation were identified.
The authors conducted a quantitative analysis of territorial indicators of latent rural depopulation. They analyze the variability over time of the adopted indicators, and look for the relationship between the variability of the indicators and the proximity of open-pit mines.
Quantitative analysis was carried out using REDATAM census statistical software and Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
In my opinion, the article is well written. The authors have comprehensively described the research problem , methodologies and conducted research. The stated goal of the research was achieved.
The whole is enriched with drawings and graphs that illustrate the obtained results and relationships.
Also the conclusions are described in a comprehensive way . The authors also described the difficulties they encountered during the analysis such as lack of data, etc.
"Finally, the study was limited by an absence of established indicators or measurement indexes. "
The usefulness of the study conducted and the need to continue the study with other methods are described .
I just don't know in what gis software the presented maps were made.
Author Response
We welcome reviewer 2's comments and contributions to the publication.
Point 1: In which gis software were the maps presented made?
Response 1: The software used is the ARCGIS Geographic Information System. The following specification is added on line 177.
Reviewer 3 Report
The title of the article does not fully reflect the content, it seems incomplete. Please, try to reformulate it. Perhaps it would be useful to add from the title The case of Chile since the paper actually focuses in this case study.
The abstract is generally clear and provides the essential information regarding the content of the article. However, I ask the authors to reformulate the last sentence of the abstract to make it clearer (Lines 22-23).
In the Introduction section, the authors could put the phenomenon related to mining and the decline of mining in a wider, global context. Similar situations occurred in several places, at different sizes and intensities, but they should be mentioned. The authors go directly into the issue of South America, of course, it represents a particularity, but a broader picture would also be useful.
I don't think it is necessary for the authors to use subheadings in the Introduction (1.1 Rural depopulation and natural resource extractivism) since there is only one. Can be only bolded or written in italics. The authors also refer to other social aspects associated with the decline of mining activity, along with depopulation. Perhaps they should be expanded a little, and the subtitle should refer to rural depopulation and the associated consequences. However, this is just a suggestion; the authors are free to address the issue in their own manner.
2. Materials and Methods are clear and comprehensive. The Model of latent rural depopulation due to open-pit mining presented in Figure 1 is very interesting and useful.
The Results are well formulated, clear and explicit. The Discussions and the Conclusions are appropriate and useful for the reader. However, particularly the Discussions should focus more on discussing the current findings in relation to what was fund in other papers addressing similar issues worldwide.
Author Response
Point 1: 1. The title of the article does not fully reflect the content, it seems incomplete. Please, try to reformulate it. Perhaps it would be useful to add from the title The case of Chile since the paper actually focuses in this case study.
Response 1: The authors are grateful for the comment, however, we consider that the title should be kept generic to show the potential that the theoretical and methodological analysis model has at a global level. The case of Chile is only presented as part of the theoretical sample to validate the analysis model.
Point 2. The abstract is generally clear and provides the essential information regarding the content of the article. However, I ask the authors to reformulate the last sentence of the abstract to make it clearer (Lines 22-23).
Response 2: The comment is taken into consideration and the sentence is eliminated.
Point 3: In the Introduction section, the authors could put the phenomenon related to mining and the decline of mining in a wider, global context. Similar situations occurred in several places, at different sizes and intensities, but they should be mentioned. The authors go directly into the issue of South America, of course, it represents a particularity, but a broader picture would also be useful.
Response 3: The commentary is considered and a sentence is placed at the beginning of the document that gives it a global perspective. It is important to note that the authors conducted a comprehensive search of global literature on mining and rural depopulation that has been detailed in the methodology.
Point 4: I don't think it is necessary for the authors to use subheadings in the Introduction (1.1 Rural depopulation and natural resource extractivism) since there is only one. Can be only bolded or written in italics. The authors also refer to other social aspects associated with the decline of mining activity, along with depopulation. Perhaps they should be expanded a little, and the subtitle should refer to rural depopulation and the associated consequences. However, this is just a suggestion; the authors are free to address the issue in their own manner.
Response 4: The comment is considered and the numbering of the subsection is removed. The title is also expanded according to the reviewer's suggestion.
Point 5: The Results are well formulated, clear and explicit. The Discussions and the Conclusions are appropriate and useful for the reader. However, particularly the Discussions should focus more on discussing the current findings in relation to what was fund in other papers addressing similar issues worldwide.
Response 5: The authors are grateful for the comment, however we would like to mention that we conducted a comprehensive search of the global literature on mining and rural depopulation that has been detailed in the methodology. This was used in the discussion and is representative of evidence from diverse regions such as North America, South America, Europe and Oceania.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the Manuscript titled "Latent rural depopulation in Latin American open-pit mining scenarios," the authors analyze how rural depopulation manifests itself in territories essential to open-pit mining in Latin America and its spatial effects.
The document doesn't seem like an "Article" in its present form. It's more seem a review or project report. The article contains several flaws.
This article does not suit the "Land" journal scope in this present form. Authors should revise their work gently and resubmit. After a complete modification, it can be considered to review. But in its current state, it's a poor report and hard to follow and write a review report and make any decision.
- It suggested shortening your article modify it gently. The lengthy article is not only dull but also hard to follow. The scientific novelty of this Manuscript seems so low. Please clarify what this research will contribute to the scientific society, Which scientific problem the authors have solved in this work.
- The scientific language of this Manuscript is so poor and hard to follow.
- Abstract and introduction are pretty poor as well. Revise the introduction gently instead of reporting like a literature report. The methodology is unclear and inappropriate. Results are somewhat vague, and again presentation is just a project report. Not an article.
- Present your results clearly, then support these results in the discussion section.
- The conclusion section shouldn't be mixed with the Discussion section.
Overall the quality of this Manuscript is so low. And hard to follow and provide detailed comments. After a gentle revision and modification, the article can be considered to review and provide detailed comments.
Some minor comments. (but not all)
- Is there any difference between mentioned affiliation, because of which the authors wrote it a 1 and 2?
- At the start of the abstract section, It's better to discuss a few words about the research background instead of direct reporting research objectives.
- Line 21. The keyword "migration" is repetitive—pleased removed 1.
- Consider rewriting the abstract section gently.
- Line 349, 355. It's better to add the coordinates of both study areas' locations.
- Line 368. Frisco company2 ??? same error in line 380.
- Line 379. Press releases can't be considered authentic literature.
- Line 380. "Data from the Population and Housing Census for the last three periods were also analyzed." Where is the source of this data?
- Under the line 399. The authors have mentioned three references as support. But it's better to add these citations correctly. It's not an internet report.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a comparison of two different mining projects, detecting in one depopulation, the other, what is called 'latent depopulation.' The argument for each case is backed up with evidence from fieldwork and a discussion of questions in the literature.
As is, I would suggest major revisions before any kind of publication. There are a few reasons. First, while there are two cases, it is unclear why those two are picked. They are also not really compared, but present more or less parallel. I think it would be better to either provide a more explicit rationale for these two cases, or, pick just one and make the paper an exploratory study.
Second, there are some evidence issues with the second case. Or rather, the claim is that it shows latent depopulation. But, the area in question is actually increasing in population. Those people may be new due to the mine, and if so, that needs to be shown. This is discussed, that perhaps the increase is from new arrivals. But, if so, then they have to be shown to be transitory. Also, there has to be evidence of depeasantization, instead of saying that people may be leaving. To use the literature as evidence is not good enough.
Also, there is an issue with presenting the data. On Salaverna, on p7, it states that 8 people lived there in 2010. But, the municipality has 17000. Then, later, other numbers are presented as to how many people left the area. Basically, I dont know how many were displaced, and from where.
Last, the literature review is a little jarring. Perhaps present the political economic discussion first, then get into details on depopulation and mining. Those sections read very different. Also, the part on depopulation is dense. Think about merging paragraphs and improving the presentation of the main points.
Reviewer 3 Report
Land (ISSN 2073-445X)
Manuscript ID: land-1668852
Type: Article
Number of Pages: 26
Title: Latent rural depopulation in Latin American open-pit mining scenarios.
Dear Authors,
It has been for me a great honour, as well as a pleasantly challenging activity, to review the article entitled “Latent rural depopulation in Latin American open-pit mining scenarios.”
Overall, the article is interesting and easy to read. It has a good chance of attracting the attention of potential readers. However, I suggest that the Authors introduce a few corrections (given below).
In my opinion, the Introduction chapter well introduces potential readers to the topics discussed by the Authors. The aim of the paper is clearly stated (lines 136-143). This chapter is based on well-chosen literature. However, I would suggest adding a few sentences how the distance from urban areas affects the life situation of inhabitants of rural areas. This is discussed e.g. in: MARCYSIAK, T., et al. Life strategies of rural inhabitants of unfixed economic function. In: Agrarian Perspectives XXVI. Competitiveness of European Agriculture and Food Sectors, Proceedings of the 26th International Conference, 13-15 September 2017 Prague, Czech Republic. Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, 2017. p. 212-218.
2. Open pit mining, mining space and sociometabolic fracturing
3. Mining governance, development and conflicts
In my opinion, these two chapters are well written, describe the discussed subject in a satisfactory way and are based on well-chosen literature.
4. Materials and Methods
The description of the methods and research procedure is sufficiently described. However, I would suggest adding more methodological literature in English language that would justify the use of the research methods used.
I would also suggest adding in this chapter (subchapter: 4.1 Focus and Area of Study) a map showing where the research areas (the two case studies) were located.
In my opinion, the Results are presented in an understandable way. This chapter is logically divided into the following three subchapters and is well illustrated. The numbering of subchapters should be corrected (5.2 appears twice).
The Discussion and Conclusions are presented in an interesting way. The obtained research results were discussed/confronted with the results published by other researchers. But it would be worth mentioning the limitations encountered by the Authors while conducting the research, and indicate how they could have influenced the obtained results and, consequently, the conclusions drawn. I leave it for the Authors' consideration, but I will not insist on that suggestion.
I don't feel competent to comment on linguistic correctness as English is not my mother tongue. I can only add that the article is interesting, it reads well and I wish the Authors good luck.
