Rural Shrinkage: Depopulation and Land Grabbing in Chilean Patagonia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe main question is to understand the rural depopulation in the Chilean Patagonia and it affects the development of the region.
The topic is original and relevant and important to discuss.
The conclusions are consistent with the arguments presented.
Good work!
Author Response
Thank you very much for sharing a positive review of our article. Best regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, the relationship between land ownership and demographic decline in rural areas of the Magallanes Region is discussed by using the method of Geohistorical analysis, so as to explore the causes of rural shrinkage. There are some problems in the article, such as unclear scientific problems, insufficient research depth, incomplete research content and so on. It is suggested to return the article.
1.The scientific problem of the article is not clear. On the basis of literature review, this paper analyzes the relationship between land ownership and demographic decline in rural areas of the Magallanes Region. Generally speaking, the efficiency of agricultural development in areas with concentrated rural land ownership is improved, and rural development is getting better and better. This paper puts forward the concept of rural shrinkage and what is the relationship between research topics, which needs to be further explained.
2.The depth of research is insufficient. The article is only a simple description of the occurrence and development of the two phenomena of population reduction and land concentration, and does not delve into the internal logic of the relationship between the two. At the same time, the article proposes to provide a methodological framework, but the article is not established.
3.The content of the article is incomplete. The article lacks a discussion section. It is recommended that the author discuss the necessity of conducting this research in depth from the perspectives of the significance of the research and the innovation compared with related research, and propose a methodological framework that can be used for reference by other countries around the world.
4.There are still some format and detail problems in the process of writing the article. The author needs to read the full text to improve the rigor of the article.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we thank you for your valuable comments, which have enriched the quality of our scientific work. We will now respond point by point to your remarks:
Response to the First Point: In response to your comment on the scientific problem, we have rewritten the study problem in the introductory section. By this improvement we make it clear that we are dealing with land concentration in relation to extractive and speculative economic activities, and its socio-demographic effects in rural areas.
Additionally, in the first comment you have made, you point out that agricultural efficiency in areas with high land concentration is higher, however, you do not mention where this evidence is found nor which are the scientific works on which this argument is based. With all due respect, we would like to counter-argue his opinion on efficiency by situating it in the case of Latin America, where it has been shown that the effects of land concentration are rather negative when approached from an economic, social and environmental perspective, which makes the notion of what is understood by efficiency more complex. To support this argument we have provided several updated bibliographical references and technical reports on which the argument of the negative consequences of land concentration is based.
In relation to the first comment, we have also taken into consideration your observation on improving the detailed explanation of the concept of rural contraction and its relation to depopulation dynamics.
Response to the second point: We thank you for your comment, to improve this, we have modified the research objective by changing the verb "to analyze" to "to describe", because as you point out the scope of our research uses descriptive statistical methods to understand the phenomenon. Additionally, in the methodological section we have pointed out that the research design is exploratory in nature since there is no discussion in the scientific literature linking rural shrinking with land ownership. Since there is scarce literature and applied research that connects both topics, the study can only provide preliminary evidence, but cannot be conclusive. This could only be done after systematic observations that are repeated in other case studies and that validate the existence of such a relationship. Therefore, the article is intended to open a topic and to motivate other systematic applications to be developed in other case studies. Additionally, although we have evaluated the possibility of using correlation statistics between variables, this is not possible due to the low amount of data series available, a correlation calculation between variables would not be rigorous.
On the other hand, we have eliminated from the paper the original idea of composing a methodological framework since, as you point out, it exceeds the limits of this work. Although we believe that the Gini index applied to the concentration of land ownership represents a methodological contribution to the understanding of the phenomenon.
Response to the third point: To improve this point, a new section will be incorporated into the article in which the discussion is deepened. Addressing the issues that you have suggested to us in this point, for example, the results are contrasted with the literature; the main findings are analyzed, among other actions.
Response to the four point: The document is proofread by a professional, native-speaking translator. Formatting and wording details are resolved.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is generally valuable and provides a successful, detailed analysis of demographics, including migration. However, there is a need to remove ambiguities and clarify some parts of the study:
1) Summary. A more precise description of the data sources is needed (e.g. census data, from which lart) and a correction of the conclusions ('Summary' is unclear).
2) The hypothesis stated (line 85 et seq.) is unclear, needs refinement, perhaps splitting into several hypotheses. There are several causal links and relationships described here: rural settlement vs. property concentration, development patterns vs. forms of economic activity, differences in the 'resilience' of different social groups. Alternatively, instead of positing several hypotheses, one should abandon them altogether and write that "the aim is to identify complex depopulation processes", "to determine the impact of agrarian structure on depopulation/migration".
3) It is unclear what "geohistorical methods" are (line 89). Are they traditional historical methods? Is it an analysis of maps? Is it the analysis of census statistics? This is also unclear in subsection 3.2.1.
4) The methodology section lacks some kind of map of the location of the study area (for a reader outside Chile, Argentina or outside South America, this is helpful) and an explanation of the basic administrative-territorial units for which the source data were collected.
5) In the literature review there is a reference to a review paper by Stockdale (2004) (line 160 et seq.). Firstly, it is unnecessary to cite typologies so extensively. Secondly, there is a paper from two decades ago and more lacking is some description on more recent trends.
6) Gini index (line 272), concentration index (line 294). Why were the ranges chosen (0-1, 1-5, 5-10 ha, etc.). How do the chosen ranges affect the indicators? Would it not be better to use other concentration/dispersion indices where the influence of compartment size is not so important? For example, the HHI?
7) Subsection 4.1 on historic settlements is mostly redundant, or at least suitable for serious truncation and transfer to the 'study area' description. The only section referring to the subject of the study is more contemporary times, the last 30 years or so (as census data is analysed).
8) The most serious structural weakness is the lack of discussion with other similar works on the economic and agrarian factors of depopulation, demographic depression, disturbances in the biological structure of the population. In this context (point 8), there is also no indication of what new findings have been made, or that the results support any other conclusions from other studies.
9) In general, I also miss the statement of the rather obvious thing of the impact of harsh natural environmental conditions (climate) on depopulation.
10) The graphics need improvement, tidying up of styles, fonts, line thickness. Data in tables are presented with varying precision, and this precision is not always necessary, as the error in measurement (e.g. census, agricultural census) can be much greater than one hundredth of a percent.
11) The English language definitely needs improvement. Sentences are convoluted, grammar in English 'does not like' long sentences, compound sentences (dependent clause), etc.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
11) The English language definitely needs improvement. Sentences are convoluted, grammar in English 'does not like' long sentences, compound sentences (dependent clause), etc.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, along with greetings, we appreciate your valuable comments that allow us to enrich our work. Below we respond to your comments point by point:
Response to the first point: We are correcting the abstract incorporating all the required aspects.
Response to the second point:The comment is appreciated. The hypothesis is eliminated and only the suggested objective is included. The statement of the objective is also modified, due to the fact that the research is able to describe processes, but not to establish conclusive statistical correlations.
Response to the third point:The geohistorical methods have been eliminated from the methodology and the section in which this topic was developed has been moved to the characterization of the study area.
Response to the four point:A map is included in the study area section.
Response to the five point:This suggestion is taken into account, and the section is reworked.
Response to the six point:The methodological section states that these ranges are predetermined by the Agricultural Census. It also states that a test was carried out to verify its feasibility, which turned out to be feasible.
This index is used because it is one of the most widely used in the literature on land concentration, and in the case of Chile, there are few studies that develop it, so it can be a preamble for future research.
Response to the seven point:Section 4.1 has been eliminated, and the geohistorical background has been placed in the characterization of the case study.
Response to the eight point:A discussion section is elaborated in which the main findings are addressed. The results are also discussed and contrasted with the theory.
Response to the nine point: Although the relevance of climatic aspects on the dynamics of settlement in Patagonia is pointed out in some sections of the manuscript, we have not included a specific section on the subject because it is beyond the scope of this research. We place it as an aspect to be developed in future research in the conclusions.
Response to the ten point:The suggestion is appreciated and the graphics are improved based on the comment.
Response to the eleven point:The document is proofread by a professional, native-speaking translator. Formatting and wording details are resolved.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAdding theoretical analysis framework would be better in section 3. And it was better to add a location map in section 3.1 “Study Area”.
In Line 256-257, “Institute of Patagonia” and the “Aike” were vague which needed more words to explain or special notes.
Formulas in this paper should be sorted, and every parameter in it needed more words to clarify its meaning, for example, “CG”, “Pi”,”Yi”, et al.
There were 10 municipalities in Figure 1. While, there are 11 municipalities that make up the territory, in line 403.
The numbering of several sections was incorrect, that were 3.2.2 in Line 261, 3.2 in Line 441 and 4.1.2 in Line 499.
According to results, necessary discussion was lack.
Conclusions and deficiency should be analyzed separately in section 5.
Policy implications derived after discussions were necessary.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere was an extra colon in Line 96, an extra “8” in word “political” in line 134, an extra “.’ after “Methodology” in line 247.
There was a spelling error “1as” in line 505.
Author Response
Response to the first point: The study area map is added and the theoretical section is improved.
Response to the second point: Due to another reviewer's comment we have eliminated the geohistorical section from the methodological section and put it as part of the characterization of the study area. For this reason "Instituto de la Patagonia" and "Aike" are no longer mentioned in the article.
Response to the third point: It is considered that the formula for the calculation of Gini is well known, and it is not necessary to explain it in detail. It is recommended that the reader review the methodological section to verify its functionality.
Response to the four point: This is because the Magallanes region includes the Chilean presence in the Antarctic continent. However, for the purposes of this article the Chilean Antarctic territory is not considered, because first it does not respond to the objectives of the study as it is a totally different reality. And also because it cannot be considered as an exclusively Chilean territory, but rather as an international area shared with many other countries of the world.
Response to the five point: The numbering are resolved.
Response to the six point: A discussion section is elaborated.
Response to the seven point: Conclusions are revised and improved.
Response to the eight point: Political implications are included in the discussion.
Response to the nine point: The spelling error is corrected.
Response to the ten point: The spelling error is resolved.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has never provided strong evidence of the negative impact of land concentration. The current description and references are not enough to explain the internal causes of the occurrence and development of this phenomenon. The author needs to provide relevant proof materials such as video links to persuade readers.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer, besides a greeting and hoping you are well, it seems to me that your comments are superficial and it seems that your concern about the central theme of our article "land concentration" has an ideological character and not a scientific component. In the first round of review you have explicitly pointed out that land concentration is more efficient, however your value judgment is not based on scientific literature, you do not suggest any kind of bibliographic reference that would enrich the work we have done.
Our article has a total of 69 updated citations (as required in the first round of review) on which we support our main argument, and which allow us to explain the problem of land concentration at global and local scales.
Our argument is supported by citations from relevant authors who address the issue of land concentration, such as Borras et. al, 2012 with more than 500 citations to his work demonstrating the problem of land grabbing in Latin America and who has edited a special issue on the subject. Works by Kay one of the authors recognized for his work dedicated to the study of land concentration in Latin America. Or works such as those of Echeñique (2012) who has made extensive reports for FAO on the subject. Also at the beginning of the document there is an account of the problem of land concentration in Latin America with reports from international institutions recognized for their work on the subject such as OXFAM and FAO.
In addition, his commentary on the central argument demonstrates his lack of knowledge about the history of Latin America and the discussion of the problems and challenges facing rural areas. The problem of land concentration is a cross-cutting dynamic that has been sustained for more than 500 years with the development of different phases of capitalism. This is a basic aspect that an expert on the subject should be aware of.
Finally, I find it unrigorous and ridiculous that our arguments have to be supported by video links, we have no reason to convince the reader through youtube. On the contrary, our scientific article has been rigorous in analyzing official national data sources such as the Census, and we have provided a rigorous methodological framework for data analysis.
Best wishes.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the solid improvement!
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we, the authors, are grateful for your valuable contributions to enrich our work. Kind regards
