Next Article in Journal
An Approach for Future Droughts in Northwest Türkiye: SPI and LSTM Methods
Previous Article in Journal
Fusion of Hierarchical Optimization Models for Accurate Power Load Prediction
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Pandemic and Counterurbanization: A Comparison of Sweden and Slovenia

Sustainability 2024, 16(16), 6904; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166904
by Hans Westlund 1,2,*, Maruša Gorišek 2, Darka Podmenik 2 and Maša Rebernik 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2024, 16(16), 6904; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166904
Submission received: 9 July 2024 / Revised: 2 August 2024 / Accepted: 8 August 2024 / Published: 12 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Urban and Rural Development)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 The article analyses the possible influence of the industry structure and work-place culture – considered as teleworkability indicators – in influencing the counterurbanization during the Covid-19 pandemic in Sweden and Slovenia. The study is well-structured, the indicators are clearly defined, and the data sources used are rich and well-documented. However, in some parts of the proposed reasoning, certain weaknesses are noticeable. Particularly, although the Author(s) provides very briefly some general characteristics of the two selected countries (p. 4) enabling “to test the model “in different contexts”, they do not clarify why Slovenia and Sweden were specifically chosen for the comparative analysis. An explanation in this regard would be valuable and would allow the reader to better appreciate the reasons for the interest in the proposed study.

Additionally, on this point, there seems to be a logical inconsistency in the article, as at the end it states (p. 16): “Based on this analysis, a tentative conclusion is that we are dealing with two extreme case studies in Europe regarding the process of counterurbanization and the impact of teleworking during the pandemic.” It is therefore unclear whether the contrast between the two countries is a premise or a result of the research.

Another critical point concerns the data on house prices in the big cities and in other areas (surroundings, rural areas) in the two countries examined. The indicator, in fact, sometimes appears to be considered as an outcome indicator of a counterurbanization process, while in other cases, it is viewed as a factor that may produce effects (even if ambivalent) of counterurbanization. Of course, the phenomenon of rising or falling house prices can be viewed in both directions, and it is very plausible that it is both a cause and a consequence of counterurbanization processes. However, it is important to clarify this point to avoid ambiguity and logical inconsistencies in the reasoning.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

38 The long story of reurbanization etc. was totally omitted here.

52 What justifies the selection of the two cases? Especially figure 1 would suggest selecting different contrasting cases. And I doubt that one can consider Sweden a reference example for an urban society and Slovenia one for a de-urbanized country. And why is Sweden a good example given that lockdown measures were much weaker than in other countries? The lack of data that prevails in different sections of the paper also speaks against looking at Slovenia or at least indicates that a comparison is methodologically more challenging than the authors admit.

55 This statement seems relatively mundane. And it would have to be shown that the trend is stable.

68 Much too superficial a statement – references missing.

71 The trend towards a renaissance of living in the countryside is much older than the pandemic.

84f I am not sure that management and consultancy tasks are completely teleworkable.

136 It remains unclear why single family homes should predominantly lie in urban areas.

293 The references to the tables seem inaccurate. By the way, the tables seem not to show very great differences between the countries.

322 I find the term industrial underdevelopment unnecessarily pejorative or even inappropriate

324 References for the statement are missing.

465 Yes, there seems to be no clear indication of a long-term counter-urbanization trend in Slovenia. However, I do not see strong evidence for Sweden either.

520 I find the interpretations in this section a bit too ambitious and only weakly founded.

553 The evidence taken from the figures seems not so convincing to me.

578 The differences are not so impressive and the link to different workplace culture etc. seems plausible yet not so strong that it justifies insisting on the differences between the countries so strongly.

604 Those structural differences should have been introduced much earlier, and they also speak against the fruitfulness of the comparison.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. The article is interesting; the researched problem has scientific potential and may be of interest to potential readers. It connects well to the international academic discourse of counterurbanisation. The study aims to explore the connection between the COVID-19 pandemic and counterurbanization, comparing Sweden and Slovenia.

The abstract is consistent and well-designed. The introduction and literature review are relevant and theory-based. They provide a comprehensive overview of existing research in the field. The methods are appropriate. The results are clearly presented.

Although I evaluate the article positively, I suggest a few more additions:

The conclusion should list the study's practical implications and clearly highlight the paper's theoretical and practical contribution.

The display of tables does not comply with the journal's instructions.

Pay attention to typos and citations (Lines 230, 299, 528, 537, 589, Table 7 – Lower Sava?).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript will benefit from professional language editing.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop