Rural Depopulation in Spain: A Delphi Analysis on the Need for the Reorientation of Public Policies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study focuses on informing policy responses to rural depopulation and obtains several interesting results. The study performs well in terms of contributions to relevant areas, and I think this manuscript would be more attractive if the following shortcomings were improved:
1. Have you considered comparing the results of your study with existing research and policies in other countries facing rural depopulation? This would provide a broader perspective and enhance the significance of your research.
2. Refer to the user manual and correct to the correct reference format, e.g. DOI standardize.
3. It is a good idea to provide your data for genuine journals it is a must actually such that anybody could verify the results in case it is not sensitive.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe font of some of the text is not coherent with the text as a whole (e.g. 457 lines).
Author Response
Dear Referee 1,
Thank you for your review. In the following paragraphs we give answer to all your questions, either referring to the corresponding correction in the text or giving an explanation when asked for.
- Have you considered comparing the results of your study with existing research and policies in other countries facing rural depopulation? This would provide a broader perspective and enhance the significance of your research.
Several sections, especially the last one, have been revised to include explicit references to policies implemented in other European countries in the fight against depopulation. New bibliographic references have been added.
- Refer to the user manual and correct to the correct reference format, e.g. DOI standardize.
A thorough revision of the format of the bibliographic references has been conducted. The mention of the DOI has been corrected, with an indication in [CrossRef].
- It is a good idea to provide your data for genuine journals it is a must actually such that anybody could verify the results in case it is not sensitive.
The confidentiality of the responses in both rounds prevents the disclosure of data related to the consulted experts. However, in order to provide detailed information about the tool used, an image of the questionnaire model employed will be included in the infographic. This image will allow the replication of the study or the adoption of the two-round process. It will display both a question from the first round and how each respondent was presented with their answers, including the mean data obtained in the initial round, which enabled the modification of responses or the inclusion of new items not initially considered.
- Comments on the Quality of English Language: The font of some of the text is not coherent with the text as a whole (e.g. 457 lines).
The text has been revised, correcting parts with different font styles.
Thank you for all your guidance.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attachment.
Also notice that although my recommendation stands as "Major revision", the paper actual lies somewhere between minor and major, given that although the proposed revisions are vital, they are rather easily addressed and the paper doesn't suffer from any major deficits.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Referee 2,
Thank you for your review. In the following paragraphs we give answer to all your questions, either referring to the corresponding correction in the text or giving an explanation when asked for.
As a whole is well written, and very informative. Yet, the most important part of the intro, the aims and objectives (lines 139-147) of the paper are rather confusing. What is the “objective” of the paper? “to gather expert assessments on relevant aspects of depopulation analysis in Spain, providing their critical and collective insights into existing or yet-to-be-developed policies and initiatives aimed at mitigating or reversing the challenge of depopulation, offering their evaluation of the utility of proposed initiatives in previous diagnoses”? Or this is the objective of the consultation? Then the objective is to “verify the relevance and importance of their urgent implementation without further delay”? But then the authors strips the paper from each main scientific value and reduce it to a very normative policy paper. As I read it I see the material and content for a much more useful contribution that indeed advances our understanding, not only on the reasons of depopulation as well as its importance on terms of effects but perhaps most importantly on the reasons WHY policies fail to address the problem. Therefore I would strongly recommend the authors to a) present the main aim of the paper as soon as possible in the body of the text (as it stand now only appears after nearly three pages) and b) re-write the whole paragraph in a more “conventional” if I may say was, where overall aim, objectives and research question of the paper appear in a crystal clear manner.
Following the reviewer's instructions, the wording of the ABSTRACT has been revised to avoid postponing that explanation until Line 139-147. In that paragraph, the wording has also been corrected accordingly.
Research Methodology
2.1: How experts were selected? Were they representative for Spain or a region? Sampling method? Was there a preference concerning their expertise? (“experts on rural areas” is a rather vague criterion). In this frame, what it means “technicians” and what “experts”.
2.2: In lines 187 and 188 it is stated that: “Despite the small number of experts considered, given the qualitative nature of the instrument, it remains valid for the analysis and understanding of complex social realities, with the presented results having no inferential claims”. Well, this really depends on several factors. As a social science, I would expect a very strong bias in case that the “private entities active in the local sphere” work in the field of “rural development” are farmers, or real estate agents. Same with researchers: a hydrologist would identify a totally different problem than a human geographer. And from the little I gather you are talking about people referring to different levels of governance correct? Local, regional, national, European. But are they represented? Table 2 is not really informative in this respect.
I would highly recommend that the authors significantly improve section 2 by adding missing and valuable pieces of information on their source of primary data. It is indispensable to ensure the replicability and reliability of the research. Perhaps even an appendix providing data on the information sources would suffice.
Similarly, and in a more comprehensive manner, the description of Section 2 (METHODOLOGY) has been enhanced based on the reviewer's suggestions to provide a clearer objective for the study. It has been expanded, outlining the questions in the form of study hypotheses. Additionally, the wording has been revised, and more details about the panel and how the initial email list was identified have been included. It was a challenging task. In the infographic, we will include a sample of the questionnaires to illustrate the process of sending the responses given by the respondent in the second round, along with information on the overall process. It should be noted that some questions explicitly asked respondents to indicate their familiarity with the topic, despite their extensive technical experience representing entities in Local Action Groups or relevant government agencies. We hope that these improvements have enhanced the clarity of the description.
Knowing that we would have liked to have a greater response from that profile and group, despite being limited, it added diversity to the perspectives provided by other groups. It was important to have profiles of actors from different autonomous communities, undoubtedly, as well as from actors who might have different sensitivities. We believe that we managed to achieve that diversity.
Section 3
It is generally clear and well written with a single exemption inherited from section 2: why the researchers ask the questions they ask? In other words how and why they formulated their questions as they did? I can assume that this is a combination of findings from previous research, input from participants during the “interactions” and some intuitive input due to the field work. Maybe it is even mentioned somewhere but not at a prominent position. Actually this point is rather a weakness of section 2 than 3 and should be addressed there.
The changes made in Section 2, as indicated, facilitate a better understanding of the results section, where some modifications and references have been included.
Section 4:
Line 457: different fonts used, please correct.
It has been corrected, thank you.
Overall:
Beyond some methodological weaknesses of the paper that can be easily addressed, I see two points that puzzled me and the author should find a way addressing them.
First of all, although the paper is submitted to the journal Agriculture, references to the importance of agricultural activities in such depopulation of rural areas looks underplayed. Specifically it is mentioned only a couple of times, either as part of “traditional activities” in table 1, or indirectly through CAP and other policies. This is an issue of major significance as it could mean either findings indicating a considerable decline of agriculture in a rural setting to the point of being a rather trivial matter, OR a deliberate (or not) choice of the authors to let agriculture aside. But then why to choose Agriculture as the journal to host their valuable work? Of course there could be another reason, yet some further justification on the matter would be important. Secondly, I was rather surprised not to see any references on re-ruralisation trends observed in Spain as well as in other South European countries (and beyond). See for instance Baylina et al 2022 in relation to gender as well as Zikos and Hagedorn 2017:30, in relation to interactions between factors (agriculture, water, economic crisis etc). Even the EU prioritise further investigation through the Rural Renaissance Call (H2020-RUR-2018-2020). Gkartzios discusses phenomena of “Counterurbanisation” and focused on Greece while together with Scott they discuss explicitly reruralisation as a response to the economic crisis in Greece (Gkartzios and Scott 2015). I understand that this is not the core topic of the paper, yet it rather explicitly aims at advancing our knowledge of depopulation in rural areas. This cannot be viewed alone without a single reference on the rather counter-intuitive re-ruralisation phenomena.
Both requests have been addressed, and both were indeed very valid.
1º) Regarding the first point, I want to mention that the questionnaire did include statements about the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
As an agricultural economist, I understand the importance of CAP funds in income maintenance. However, we thought it might be simpler if we only discussed major policies in uppercase letters without delving into any specific ones. Additionally, we believed it would keep the article at a manageable length. It is true that the article is being sent to a specific Rural Development audience where this approach seemed appropriate. Nevertheless,
WE HAVE ADDED A NEW SECTION 3.3. It is correct that, given the nature of the journal being focused on agriculture, and considering your suggestion, we decided to introduce a new section specifically addressing the limited questions about CAP. At the time of creating the questionnaire, there were many uncertainties and the knowledge of many specific aspects was complex, so we kept the questions brief. However, we believe this request, which was entirely possible, was prompted by your question, and we appreciate that. THANK YOU.
2º) Regarding the two references you suggested, we have included a new paragraph that provides information on successful cases of rural repopulation. Indeed, in the case of Spain, these instances correspond to dynamics where areas close to cities have become residential or small municipalities have transformed into residential areas. However, given the perspective you offered, I thought it would be interesting to delve a bit into studies suggesting that in other cases, there are trends of reruralization or deurbanization.
We greatly appreciate your very detailed review, which showed a keen understanding of key issues. We hope that the changes made have successfully addressed and incorporated your valuable insights.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI suggest to authors to introduce a map with the rural depopulated areas in Spain. It could be very useful to improve the comprehension of the phenomenon by a global audience.
Another suggestion to reinforce the quality of this paper is to introduce information about the regional singularities in those depopulated areas; the diversity of the opinions in Delphi are related with specific agricultural vectors? Alternatively, are connected with regional politics? Are there single regional or local features that could help to understand to the reader the different evolution of those areas if it does exist?
Author Response
Dear Referee 3,
Thank you for your review. In the following paragraphs we give answer to all your questions, either referring to the corresponding correction in the text or giving an explanation when asked for.
In the infographic, it seems like a great idea to include a map of depopulation in Europe, which allows for observing the notably low population density in Spain. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:Regional_typologies_overview#Sparsely-populated_regions
In the introduction section, we have reviewed the indications regarding how depopulated areas suffer from problems and peculiarities, which I understand may address the first question you posed.
Regarding the diversity of opinions in the Delphi, we have examined cases where there was disagreement, checking if, in any case, it could be explained by groupings of opinions. I regret to inform you that the questionnaire did not include questions to assess the effects of differing opinions among regions with differentiated agricultural activities that could explain depopulation in less competitive and abandoned activities, or between regions or localities.
An attempt has been made to address this question by including more references to successful repopulation experiences, but primarily from articles that conduct extensive reviews and analyses, highlighting the importance of certain success factors.
I would like to mention that we have made a thorough review of the entire work, incorporating changes suggested by the reviewers, especially those highlighted in red. There has been a significant revision of the methodology section, and a new section has been introduced, expanding the analysis to questions related to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
Additionally, other comments in the discussion section have been expanded, covering experiences in other countries or factors influencing repopulation cases.
Thank you very much for your review and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
