Deindustrialization, Tertiarization and Suburbanization in Central and Eastern Europe. Lessons Learned from Bucharest City, Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research topic of this article is in line with Land journal. The author analyzes the problem by using more substantial cases. The statement is logical, accurate, the data is true and the structure is complete. I hope that the author can add Discuss part to the article. Therefore, I recommend this article for publication in the Land Journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you for your comments.

We have expanded the results and discussions section, which we have argued by introducing a new table that illustrates the growth of the population and the built-up area in the localities bordering the big cities in Romania, as follows:

“From an administrative point of view, however, the phenomenon is reflected at the level of suburban localities, closely but functionally linked to the metropolitan nuclei. The latter have seen spectacular growth, both demographically and as a built-up area. Thus, while from a statistical point of view, between the last two censuses (2011-2021) some large cities recorded considerable population losses (Bucharest: - 8.8%, Cluj-Napoca: - 11.7%, Timișoara: - 21.4%; Iași: - 6.4%, Constanța: - 7.1%), both the population and the number of homes have significantly grown in their neighbouring towns (Table 2)”.

Table 2.

The suburbanization of the big cities in Romania (2011-2021)

Metropolitan Centre	Bordering localities to the metropolitan centre	Population dynamics	The dynamics of the number of homes
București	Chiajna	+ 205.7 %	+ 540.6 %
	Bragadiru	+ 161.5 %	+ 219.9 %
	Popești - Leordeni	+ 144.0 %	+ 225.8 %
	Ștefăneștii de Jos	+ 83.3 %	+ 173.3 %
	Dobroești	+ 81.0 %	+ 164.7 %
	Tunari	+ 80.2 %	+ 149.9 %
	Otopeni	+ 104.3 %	+ 56.9 %
	Corbeanca	+ 61.4 %	+ 90.7 %
	Domnești	+ 48.1 %	+ 70.4 %
Cluj-Napoca	Florești	+ 131.2 %	+ 105.6 %
	Apahida	+ 61.3 %	+ 58.5 %
	Feleacu	+ 45.1 %	+ 21.6 %
	Baciu	+ 34.9 %	+ 58.0 %
	Gilău	+ 8.2 %	+ 13.9 %
Timișoara	Dumbrăvița	+ 166.1 %	+ 243.9 %
	Giroc	+ 307.6 %	+ 165.5 %
	Moșnița Nouă	+ 164.8 %	+ 185.1 %
	Ghiroda	+ 43.0 %	+ 32.3 %
	Sânmihaiu Român	+ 37.5 %	+ 32.3 %
	Săcălaz	+ 28.0 %	+ 20.0 %
Iași	Miroslava	+ 138.6 %	+ 184.9 %
	Rediu	+ 81.2 %	+ 120.6 %
	Ciurea	+ 48.2 %	+ 74.1 %
	Holboca	+ 14.4 %	+ 14.4 %
	Tomești	+ 10.1 %	+ 21.9 %
Constanța	Năvodari	+ 4.3 %	+ 68.8 %
	Valu lui Traian	+ 34.3 %	+ 38.4 %
	Agigea	+ 24.7 %	+ 37.7 %
	Cumpăna	+ 19.7 %	+ 28.7 %

Sources: Romanian Statistical Yearbooks 2011 and 2021, National Institute of Statistics, Bucharest.

We have also expanded the conclusions section by repeating and developing certain discussions from the previous section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The topic carried out of this paper is quite interesting and perhaps gave new insights related to Deindustrialization, tertiarization, and suburbanization in Central and Eastern Europe.

However, after reading the manuscript, I found several shortcomings that must be addressed before this manuscript can be published in your journal. Some of the shortcomings are the novelty of this research is low, the method is not clearly described, the manuscript looks more like a report than a research article, the beginning of the results is like a literature review, and the conclusion does not stand from the results.

For the shortcomings in detail, please see my comments/questions below:

1. In the introduction, the concepts/theories used or critiqued/enriched in this manuscript are not clear; the introduction of this manuscript is more about explaining how Deindustrialization, tertiarization, and suburbanization occurred in Romania than Central and Eastern Europe. Thus, the novelty of this research is low and merely explains how novel the topic is in studying urban development in Romania; contributing little to the global literature, especially in Central and Eastern Europe.

2. The content of sub-section 4.1 (Industrialization and Urbanization in Central and Eastern Europe) does not seem suitable to be included in the results section; it is more suitable to be included in the introduction or literature review. Besides, sub-section 4.1 can more or less answer my first comment point.

3. Why not include Czechia, Slovakia, and Poland as Central Europe?

There is a lot of literature that explains that these three countries are part of Central Europe; they were also Socialist-influenced before 1990. In addition, the study also mentions the Polish city of Krakow.

4. It is necessary to deepen the literature study that reinforces that this research contributes to the global literature, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, which is mentioned in the title.

5. what differentiates this study from other studies needs to be clarified, so that it is clear the scientific gap that this study will fill.

6. explanation of methodology and very scarce data sets, even if you use a simple method, you still need to explain how the analysis process and the data used, including references to why you did the analysis and used the data.

7. for Figure 1, the Legend should be included in the figure so as not to confuse the reader. In addition, the title of the figure does not match the content; deindustralization is a process but Figure 1 does not show the process.

8. the conclusion does not stand from the results.

 

Thank you,

Best regards,

 

Reviewer

 Minor editing of the English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you for your comments and observations. Some errors, such as not including the three countries, while also including others (Germany, Hungary, for example) were caused by making the wrong selection when I changed the article format to that of the “Land” journal.

The detailed correction of the deficiencies reported by you was done as follows:

1. In the introduction I tried to somewhat clarify the concepts used by inserting, right at the beginning of the article, the following text:

            “Deindustrialization, as the reverse of industrialization, implies the reduction of industrial capacities, followed by the reconversion of the laid-off labour force. In large cities, this is done with mainly towards the services sector (tertiarization) or generates divergent, centrifugal migratory flows, often materialized through a decrease in urban population and the increase in the suburban one. The border between urban and rural spaces is increasingly taking on a transitional aspect; suburbanization processes intensify, consisting of the development of peripheral urban areas to the detriment of central ones, as well as the development of human and capital flows from the centre towards the outskirts.

The consequences of these processes on territorial planning are manyfold: from the need to reconfigure communication ways as a result of changes in the intensity of transport flows, to problems related to the demographic pressure on the technical-building infrastructure in peripheral areas as a result of the rapid expansion of the built-up area, or the need for administrative change in accordance with the new demographic and economic-social reality”.

2. Section 4.1. “Industrialization and Urbanization in Central and Eastern Europe” I thought it best to move it as a separate section right after the introduction. Had I coupled it with the introduction (already expanded upon, based on your suggestion – 1) it would have resulted in a much too long introduction, and it does not really relate to the literature review in my opinion, although I supported it by introducing new quotations so as to increase the international visibility of the study. In its new placement, I think it better discusses some of the ideas in the introduction.

 

3. We have added Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary in Central Europe (see subpage 1). It was a selection error when moving the text, for which we apologise.

This subpage has become:

“We include in Central Europe the geopolitical ensemble composed of Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria and Switzerland (Central-Western Europe), and Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, Belarus, Ukraine, Republic of Moldova and Romania (Central-Eastern Europe), and in Eastern Europe, the European sector of Russian Federation (Săgeată, 2019)”.

 

4. We bolstered the study by adding new quotations from international literature so as to increase the international visibility of the work: about the urbanization in Berlin (Neill, Schwedler, 2001 & Thierfelder, Kabisch, 2016), Prague (Sýkora, 1999), Bratislava (Slavík, Grác, Klobučník, 2011), small cities in Poland (Majewska, Malgorzata, Krupowicz, 2020), Budapest (Berényi, 1994 & Farkas, Szigeti Harangozó, 2022), Moscow (Churkina, Zaverskiy, 2017), Munich (Wenner, Dang, Hölzl, Pedrazzoli, Schmidkunz, Wang, Thierstein, 2020) Warsaw (Solon, 2009), Vienna (Eder, Gruber, Görgl, Hemetsberger, 2018), Cluj-Napoca, Brașov, Iași and Timișoara (Draghia, 2021), Bucharest (Guran-Nica, Sofer, 2011), Galați (Săgeată, Buza, 2014), Timișoara (Marian-Potra et al., 2020) etc.

Number of references increased by 23 (from 73 to 96).

 

5. We have tried to clarify what sets apart this study from others by adding the following paragraph in the introductory section:

“The new scientific elements that this study contributes to the global literature are oriented both towards a better understanding of the interdependence between the three phenomena (deindustrialization, tertiarization and suburbanization) in the process of developing the peripheral areas of large urban centres, of the particularities of these connections in the central and eastern European space, which inherits a territorial arrangement subordinated to various political-ideological constraints, as well as to the enrichment of the scientific literature on this subject with a representative case study for the studied phenomena and area, which uses recent data and information.

The directions followed after 1990 by the industrial units from Bucharest have been in the center of urban researchers in the last two decades, a series of articles and books highlighting the mutations in terms of functionality (Chelcea, 2008; Cepoiu, 2009; Săgeată, 2014), urban regeneration of brownfield lands (Paraschiv and Nazarie, 2010), population perception towards the conversion of the industrial spaces (Saghin et al., 2012; Săgeată, 2020), capitalization, risks and development prospects of technical and industrial heritage (Cercleux and Merciu, 2010), structural dynamics of tertiary activities in industrial parks and scenarios in their evolution (Cercleux, 2015) etc. The current study tries to highlight the transformations that the industrial areas from Bucharest have experienced, not strictly from functionality point of view, but also to support new research approaches by the authors in terms of relationships with the surroundings, respectively: characteristics of the areas where these industrial units activated, location opportunities for future activities, land use regulation, territorial disparities etc. All these observations were developed on the one hand in the figure 1 and afterwards overlapped in a synthesis as shown in the figure 4 with the purpose of analyzing possible scenarios in the evolution of areas still in process of transformation in Bucharest. Taking into account the realities identified in statistics and combined with the observations in the field, we can come to the following conclusions: on the place of former industrial plants and platforms have developed commercial, business centers or residential areas within private investments; new transformations that occurred in capitalism times in the former industrial areas were made entirely in the framework of private investments; public investments are missing in these areas, including in public-private partnerships; the functional profile of former industrial areas did not play a decisive role in the choice of activities types; all new investments raised the price of the areas, in general.

Starting from these findings and the different stages noticed in the transformations occurred up to this moment with an impact as well in the surrounding areas, two scenarios can be outlined: a) an harmonious organization of the areas with a balanced functionality of the activities; b) a chaotic development of activities that impact both resident and in transit population: the intensification of traffic in the area, imbalances in terms of organization and architectural harmony, negative perception of these transformations etc. From the graphic representations, we can notice a more pronounced development of different tertiary activities in some areas of Bucharest, indeed more populated, but it would be interesting to analyze in detail each of the two scenarios at micro level and see if there are models to be followed or not in further projects of transformation. However, this type of investigation requires a more complex analysis at the level of each area, application of new research methods including from the qualitative ones, and intended to be study object of future research“.

 

6. We have revised the methodology and explained how the data analysis was performed in the following way:

                                    “The methodological approach is based on the analysis of the historical and political context of industrialization and urbanization (on the one hand), deindustrialization, tertiarization and suburbanization (on the other hand) in Romania and its capital, Bucharest, both based on bibliographic sources and on the analysis and processing of statistical data, of the satellite and photographic images, but also of the field information.

Urbanization in Romania was analysed in a comparative manner, in the broader context of urbanization within the Europe and the former socialist states, based on documents and bibliographic sources, emphasizing both general characteristics and regional differences imposed by the economic and socio-political particularities of each country. Certain aspects were highlighted, such as the features of the Romanian urban system, the urban functional typology, as well as the role of the political factor in industrialization and urbanization, the demographic flows that accompanied these processes and their consequences.

The sources of statistical data took into account the dynamics of the number of active persons employed in industry for the year of maximum industrialization of Romania (1989), but also for the subsequent censuses, of 1992, 2002, 2011 and 2021, the number of people employed in services, urban industrial entrepreneurship, as well as the number and area of industrial units in the years chosen as a benchmark. Thus, deindustrialization, with Romania's capital as a case study, was analysed based on the ratio between the number of employees in industry in 1989 and 2021, the data and information that attest to the conversion of former industrial units into spaces with other uses, but also on satellite images which show the way of reconversion of former industrial spaces towards tertiarization. The value of land, expressed through its price at the urban district level, is also an indicator intended to quantify the trends regarding the change in the use of urban land.

The intensity of suburbanization is documented by the changes in the demographic size of the human settlements adjacent to the large urban centres with a regional polarization function compared to the urban nuclei, as well as by the dynamics and functionality of the built-up area of these metropolitan centres.

At the same time, a corresponding graphic and cartographic representation of the analysed phenomena was taken into account, at regional, national and local level”.

 

7. We have included the legend in Figure 1 (similarly for Figure 4) and we have changed the title of Figure 1 as follows: “Disused industrial units and the price of land in Bucharest City”.

 

8. We have expanded the conclusions by inserting the following paragraphs:

“The article highlights the changes that have taken place at the level of the spaces adjacent to the large urban centres in Romania, and particularly at the level of its capital, Bucharest.

While the neighbouring localities, closely linked functionally to the metropolitan centres, recorded spectacular increases in population and built-up area, in the large urban nuclei the population dropped in numbers. The flows of population and capital from the centre to the outskirts and to suburban areas were thus intensified as did, implicitly, the pressure that traffic exerted on the communication ways, which often turned out to be undersized.

At the same time, there were major changes at the level of urban functionality, stimulated on the one hand by the bankruptcy of large industrial units developed hypertrophically during the centralized economy, and, on the other hand, by the lower price of land in peripheral and suburban areas. These changes came as a result of the migration of residential and service functions towards the outskirts and the suburbs, taking the place of former industrial or agricultural areas.

The communication ways and the large residential areas developed during the centralized economy era against the backdrop of industrialization and migrations from the countryside were also attractive elements for the redirection of large investments in the tertiary sector, and of large commercial centres, in particular.

These phenomena, a result of globalizing processes, are not characteristic of the big cities in Romania and, specifically, Bucharest. However, they have registered a greater intensity in this country due to the more self-sufficient aspect of its economy during the communist era and the sudden, post-1989 open attitude, which generated an avalanche of economic and social consequences.

The results obtained in this study are particularly valuable and represent the basis of future research at micro level of the impact that deindustrialization has brought to the respective areas. The outlining of similarities and contrasting situations in various case studies and other findings can be useful in the differentiation of more targeted types of tertiarization in Bucharest”.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for allowing me to read this interesting article. 

However, you should make some important modifications to your design. To begin with, the point is to state at the outset that it is a descriptive study, and that this is the focus of the spatial conclusions it presents. 

With respect to the bibliography, it is adequate and relevant, although some authors who have dealt with the post-communist reconversion of Berlin or other cities in the orbit of the USSR, such as some Polish cities, are missing. As a suggestion, it would be interesting to incorporate them effectively into the state of the art.

In terms of the results, it would be very useful to improve the graphs of the thematic maps presented, especially figure 4, as it has some misaligned elements, which affect its comprehension.

Regarding the conclusions, they look good, although it would increase their complexity to review other processes, in synthesis to answer the question: is what happened in this city different from others? if it is, why is it? if not, why isn't it?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

I have expanded the quotations and the bibliography by adding new references intended to increase its international visibility: about the urbanization in Berlin (Neill, Schwedler, 2001 & Thierfelder,  Kabisch, 2016), Prague (Sýkora, 1999), Bratislava (Slavík, Grác,  Klobučník, 2011), small cities in Poland (Majewska, Malgorzata, Krupowicz, 2020), Budapest (Berényi, 1994 & Farkas, Szigeti Harangozó, 2022), Moscow (Churkina, Zaverskiy, 2017), Munich (Wenner, Dang, Hölzl, Pedrazzoli, Schmidkunz, Wang, Thierstein, 2020) Warsaw (Solon, 2009), Vienna (Eder, Gruber, Görgl, Hemetsberger, 2018), Cluj-Napoca, Brașov, Iași and Timișoara (Draghia, 2021), Bucharest (Guran-Nica, Sofer, 2011), Galați (Săgeată, Buza, 2014), Timișoara (Marian-Potra et al., 2020) etc. Number of references increased by 23 (from 73 to 96).

We have improved the map legends in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 to make them easier to read.

We have also expanded the conclusions by introducing the following paragraphs:

„The article highlights the changes that have taken place at the level of the spaces adjacent to the large urban centres in Romania, and particularly at the level of its capital, Bucharest.

While the neighbouring localities, closely linked functionally to the metropolitan centres, recorded spectacular increases in population and built-up area, in the large urban nuclei the population dropped in numbers. The flows of population and capital from the centre to the outskirts and to suburban areas were thus intensified as did, implicitly, the pressure that traffic exerted on the communication ways, which often turned out to be undersized.

At the same time, there were major changes at the level of urban functionality, stimulated on the one hand by the bankruptcy of large industrial units developed hypertrophically during the centralized economy, and, on the other hand, by the lower price of land in peripheral and suburban areas. These changes came as a result of the migration of residential and service functions towards the outskirts and the suburbs, taking the place of former industrial or agricultural areas.

The communication ways and the large residential areas developed during the centralized economy era against the backdrop of industrialization and migrations from the countryside were also attractive elements for the redirection of large investments in the tertiary sector, and of large commercial centres, in particular.

These phenomena, a result of globalizing processes, are not characteristic of the big cities in Romania and, specifically, Bucharest. However, they have registered a greater intensity in this country due to the more self-sufficient aspect of its economy during the communist era and the sudden, post-1989 open attitude, which generated an avalanche of economic and social consequences”.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

This manuscript meets the standards of a good scientific article; thus, it can be accepted in its current form.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion the article has improved and the answers to my queries seem reasonable. However, it would be reasonable to improve the maps to make them more understandable, for example, with a larger size inside.