An Overview of Population Dynamics in Romanian Carpathians (1912–2021): Factors, Spatial Patterns and Urban–Rural Disparities

Reviewer 1 - observations and questions

The authors' response

The reasons for population changes are very complex. The author attempts to first conduct cluster analysis of population changes in different regions, and then analyze the reasons for their changes. The train of thought is clear, and the main suggestions are as follows:

1. Population changes usually include changes within the population system and population migration. The main factors within the population system include fertility rate, life expectancy, and population age structure. The author's lack of attention to this part of the content has led to a decrease in the credibility of the results.

2. The particularity of the author's selection of the research area still needs further explanation. Why did they choose such a mountainous area, and where are its typicality and representativeness reflected?

3. In addition to economic factors, population mobility also includes the institutional changes discussed by the author, as well as other pursuits of residents, such as a more comfortable living environment, and whether these aspects have played a role in population changes. Further exploration is needed by the author.

4. The urban-rural and regional changes in population are two aspects of population change. The author needs to analyze whether there are similarities and differences in the causes of these two types of population changes.

1. It is true that the mentioned factors are important, but the study followed the evolution of the population at the elementary scale of the localities that are part of the UAT, a level for which there is no detailed statistical information. Considering the breadth of the time span analyzed (over a century) and the number of temporal sequences, such data, if they existed, is also difficult to analyze/interpret. For this reason, indicators that meet this limitation were taken into account: the aging index or the population density. The use of existing data at the communal level for the suggested indicators could have distorted the analysis, often showing important differences between localities that are part of the same UAT. In the introduction, additional clarifications were made related to the limits of the study, generated by the absence of some information (page 4).

2. In the introduction, additional explanations were inserted regarding the specifics of the Carpathian Mountains and their representativeness for the territory of Romania (lines 4 - 20). Also, this topic is part of the concerns of numerous authors from the Carpathian countries (Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia, etc.) regarding the geographical characteristics of the Carpathians.

3. We agree that quality of life indicators play an essential role in population dynamics. Given the scale of detail at which the analysis was carried out, we do not have information on some elements that illustrate this aspect as eloquently as possible. We believe that indicators such as the degree of urbanization, the share of the population employed in agriculture or the level of income make up for the absence of illustrative indicators for the quality of life. In the description of the indicators used for the multivariate analysis, additional clarifications were introduced regarding the limits generated by the absence or precariousness of information, especially for more distant time intervals.

4. In subsections 3.1. and 3.2 these issues were presented, in the form of concluding paragraphs (page 9, page 11). In addition, other clarifications were introduced on the similarities or differences between the residence environments or between the analyzed regions.

Reviewer 2 - observations and questions

The authors' response

The article is very interesting and the research findings are very important.

However, please consider my suggestions for improving it.

First of all, I suggest reformulating the purpose of the work. It is written that it is an analysis of the depopulation process….(verses 106-108), while analysis is a method of research that leads to a specific goal. So maybe it should be, for example: identification / diagnosis and evaluation of the process..... or otherwise.

Additionally, I propose to add in the discussion section information: Do similar processes take place in parts of the Carpathians located in other Countries? If it's possible - based on literature. Are the given processes typical only for Romania or are they more universal in nature?

In addition, please explain on what basis the qualitative variables were determined in the multivariate analysis (Table 2) in terms of the economic profile. Why not, for example, a profile based only on tourism or only on mining?

And two issues about maps, that is:

-          It is not obvious what the colors from class 1 to class 6 on the map mean (Figure 1). I propose to clarify the description of the legend (regardless of the explanations written in the text of the article).

 -          Is it possible to present in the form of a map/maps or a graph/scheme the spatial differentiation of the relationship between the population growth rate and the explanatory variables? The results are very interesting and it is worth to present them graphically.

The authors really appreciate your positive feedback and tried to fulfill the needed remarks.

The purpose of the paper was reformulated according to the suggestion, insisting on the methodological nature of the analysis that proposes a model for approaching population dynamics in a chrono-spatial profile as a starting point for deepening the depopulation process at different scales (page 3).

Such references were made to the general mode in the introduction. In order to reinforce the presence of similar forms of manifestation of population dynamics in other parts of the Carpathian chain or in other regions (in Europe, first of all), new references were added in the Introduction and Discussion chapters.

For a complete analysis of population dynamics, based on all components (natural and migratory alike) or structure of population, information is limited or even absent for some periods. For this reason, those variables were chosen that can significantly illustrate these components within the limits of the information available for the 2924 localities in the Romanian Carpathians. Regarding the economic profile, there are many cases of a mixed profile, for this reason it was not possible to dissociate an exclusive mining profile, as in the case of tourism activities or those related to wood exploitation. These categories were separated based on the share of the active population employed in these activities. Additional clarifications were introduced in the description of the variables on page 4 (DB2) and in Table 2.

The colors of classes 1 - 6 correspond to the profile of the types of evolution (Figure 1). For more consistency, the indicated graphic material has been redone so that the correlation between the graphic and the map is more obvious. A clarification was also included in the map legend to this effect.

A graphic material was made (Figure 3) that illustrates the correlation between the population growth rate and the explanatory variables by means of the standard residuals (standard residuals) of the five analyzed sub-periods. Regions that conform to the model and outliers are thus highlighted.

Reviewer 3 - observations and questions

The authors' response

The article entitled "Overview of Population Dynamics in the Romanian Carpathians (1912-2021)" aims to analyze the trends of population dynamics in the area of the Romanian Carpathians, as well as the spatial factors and processes that can explain the discrepancies, discontinuities and tensions of demographic evolution.

The research topic is very interesting and may aspire to further research on demographic transition in other countries with similar historical and political conditions (e.g., former republics of the Soviet Union).

After reading the article, I have the following comments and suggestions for improving the article:

The article lacks a literature review section. In my opinion, in order to understand demographic changes and processes in the Carpathians, it is necessary to include historical background information. The political background should also be described. Information about the development of settlements of different nationalities is also important: Romanians, Hungarians, Germans, Hungarians and Poles.

Results

This chapter is very interesting and the results of the work are very well presented. In my opinion, information was still missing, what role in shaping demographic processes played state and cooperative farms?

Discussion

This chapter needs to be supplemented.

- I suggest a detailed analysis of the results of the study with the determinants of demographic development.

- Compare the results of the research with other recent aricle, such as.

Gwiaździńska-Goraj M, Pawlewicz K, Jezierska-Thöle A. Differences in the Quantitative Demographic Potential-A Comparative Study of Polish-German and Polish-Lithuanian Transborder Regions. Sustainability. 2020; 12(22):9414. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229414 Zambon, I., Rontos, K., Serra, P., Colantoni, A., & Salvati, L. (2018). Population dynamics in Southern Europe: a local-scale analysis, 1961–2011. Sustainability, 11(1), 109.

Correct literature according to journal rules

The authors really appreciate your positive feedback and tried to fulfill the needed remarks.

The first chapter was renamed Introduction and literature review. The discussions on the importance of the historical, political or ethnographic context in which the demographic changes and processes took place in the Romanian Carpathians were extended (lines 10 – 21).

In the introduction, it was stated that most of the Romanian Carpathians were not affected by cooperatization. Except for some depressed areas, especially in the Eastern Carpathians, cooperatization was absent or incomplete. Non-cooperative communes were also in areas outside the Carpathians (Subcarpathians, higher hilly areas). Additional clarifications have been introduced in this regard, both in the Introduction and in the Discussion chapter (page 17) to specify the nature of some observed spatial differentiations.

A more detailed analysis of the relationship between the study results and the determinants of demographic development was introduced in the Discussion chapter (page 17).

In the Discussions chapter, a paragraph comparing with other Carpathian mountain units or from other regions of Europe was introduced. Also, additional references to specialized literature, including suggested articles, have been introduced.

The literature was corrected according to journal rules.