Empirical Analysis of the Impact of the Green Economy on the Spatial Diversity of Entrepreneurship at the Poviats Level in Poland: Preliminary Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled “Empirical analysis of the impact of the green economy on the spatial diversity of entrepreneurship at the poviats level in Poland. Preliminary study” addresses a timely and important topic—the impact of the green economy on the spatial diversity of entrepreneurship in a regional context (Poland). The integration of the spatial dimension into an analysis of the interdependencies between sustainable development, the green economy, and entrepreneurship constitutes a relevant and novel contribution to the academic literature.

1. In my opinion, the paper suffers from a relative lack of clarity in the formulation of its conceptual framework. For instance, the term “pre-entrepreneurship,” mentioned as a core focus of the analysis, is introduced without being properly conceptualized or sufficiently justified in relation to existing scholarly literature. I suggest that the authors provide a clear definition of all key concepts.
2. The literature review is extensive but, in places, superficial. It is predominantly narrative in nature and supports the research objectives only in a general manner. In my view, the existing literature gaps are not clearly articulated. The authors should explicitly identify the specific contribution of their study in relation to previous research. Moreover, a more selective and analytical review is required, focusing on works that examine the relationship between the green economy, entrepreneurship, and spatial diversity.
3. Although the authors employ a rigorous multi-criteria method (CRITIC-TOPSIS), the explanations provided regarding its application are at times insufficient. The selection of the analyzed periods (2010, 2013, 2014, and 2021) appears somewhat arbitrary, with no clear justification related to data consistency or political-economic significance. The limitations of the chosen methodology are not discussed in sufficient depth. Greater transparency is needed in the selection of variables, as well as robustness testing of the synthetic measures. Additionally, the authors should explain whether and how they addressed missing data or potential multicollinearity among variables.
4. In my view, the visual presentation of the results is overly descriptive and does not substantially contribute to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.
5. The conclusions could benefit from improved structure and stronger theoretical anchoring. There is no clear distinction between theoretical contributions, practical implications, and the study's limitations. I recommend that the conclusions be reformulated to clearly reflect the study’s findings and avoid unsupported generalizations. It is essential to organize them clearly into: theoretical implications, policy recommendations, methodological limitations, and directions for future research.

In conclusion, the paper addresses a relevant topic and employs a technically valid methodology, but it requires significant improvements in conceptual clarity, methodological justification, critical analysis of the findings, and possibly language quality. I therefore recommend major revision at this stage.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although I am not an expert in English, I noticed some awkward wording. The text should probably be analyzed by someone who is a good English speaker.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, enclosed are the responses to your comments on our article and the revised article. With respect, The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the reviewed article with great interest. The researchers analyze the impact of the green economy on the spatial diversity of entrepreneurship in the poviats in Poland. To this end, they used synthetic indicators created using the CRITIC-TOPSIS method. From the analysis and conclusions drawn by the researchers, it follows that the level of correlation between these phenomena is low. They observed increasing regional diversification, which, according to the authors, creates the need for better integration of economic and environmental policy in Poland or the European Union. A critical analysis of the content allowed me to formulate several comments:

First:
The researchers used the CRITIC-TOPSIS method to create synthetic indicators for two phenomena: the level of entrepreneurship and the development of the green economy. The method combines variable weighting based on variance and correlation with a multi-criteria decision analysis method that allows for linear ranking of objects (poviats). In my opinion, this is a statistically justified and relatively modern method, as it effectively identifies variables with high variability and low redundancy, providing high-quality measures for assessing the studied phenomena. TOPSIS, in turn, allows for the assessment of the distance from the best and worst case, which was useful for the authors when comparing poviats in Poland. However, the scientific value of the article is affected by the fact that the authors did not conduct or refer to the issue of validating the resulting indicator, e.g., by comparing it with actual economic data or expert evaluations of poviats. Moreover, the authors do not explain why they chose this particular method — was it better than, for example, PCA, EWM, AHP?

Second:
The authors explicitly state: “A systematic review of the literature allowed us to identify the research gap.” However, the content of the review suggests otherwise. The shortcomings that exclude the systematic nature of the review, which I noticed in the article, include: lack of review methodology (there is no information about which databases were used, what the selection criteria for literature were, how many sources were rejected, on what basis). There is no review diagram like PRISMA, which often accompanies such declarations in peer-reviewed empirical papers. The literature review is rather descriptive and selective. The authors cite sources that support their theses but do not refer to studies that could contradict or offer alternative approaches. Many citations appear “in the background,” not as the subject of comparative analysis but rather as illustration, which is typical for a narrative review, not a systematic one. Additionally, the research gap was defined by the authors and does not result from a comparative analysis of the literature. I therefore suggest either removing the phrase “systematic review” and replacing it, for example, with the term “exploratory literature review” or “thematic literature review,” or, if the authors indeed conducted a systematic review, supplementing the article with appropriate methodological information (procedure description, result table, selection sources, etc.).

Third:
In the introduction and literature review, general theoretical statements appear about sustainable development, about the importance of entrepreneurship as a “driving force” of regional development, and about the synergy between the green economy and entrepreneurship. Conceptual works are cited. In my view, there is a lack of a coherent theoretical framework that would form the basis of the study or a conceptual or logical model that would link the variables and phenomena being studied (e.g., relationship: green economy → conditions for entrepreneurship → poviat development), and an explanation of why the specific variables were chosen, their selection seems empirical and intuitive but not grounded in a theoretical model.

Fourth:
The authors formulated two research hypotheses. However, they are not linked to any analytical model. It is unclear how the authors plan to test them (correlations? regressions? group comparisons?). They do not appear in the results or discussion. There is no reference to whether they were confirmed. The hypotheses are signaled but lack operational function. The authors do not analyze or verify them empirically.
I also noticed that the authors do not refer to the quality of life of residents in the analysis or in the conclusions, despite it appearing in the hypothesis. This constitutes a logical inconsistency: a hypothesis was formulated that was neither tested nor discussed. There are no variables relating to quality of life (e.g., level of education, health, life expectancy, sense of security, satisfaction with public services, etc.). No qualitative indicators were included in the data set, nor is there any attempt to model the impact on quality of life. Moreover, in the "Discussion" and "Conclusion" sections, the authors do not return to the hypothesis concerning quality of life and do not attempt to interpret the results through this lens. There is a lack of reflection on how entrepreneurship or the green economy translates into residents' well-being — the terms “well-being” or “life satisfaction” do not even appear. I suggest developing a simplified conceptual model (e.g., in the form of a relationship graph or schematic), formulating more precise, empirically testable hypotheses, or removing references to hypotheses and treating the work as exploratory, if that was the authors’ actual intent.

Finally:
I also noticed some linguistic shortcomings. It is worth standardizing terminology. In the text, the authors alternately use the terms “districts” and “poviats.” It is advisable to choose one and use it consistently (preferably “poviats” with a footnote explaining the term). The term “synthetic meter” should be corrected to “synthetic measure” . the current version is a mistranslation from Polish.

In my opinion, the number of cited sources is too low. A respectable minimum is 50 references.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, enclosed are the responses to your comments on our article and the revised article. With respect, The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Authors:

Dear authors, first I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review your article. After a thorough analysis of the manuscript, I would like to provide some constructive suggestions to enhance the clarity and impact of your work:

General comment: The introduction of the manuscript needs a more precise clarification of the research gap identified, as well as a more in-depth reflection on recent studies that could help to better justify the relevance of this study. Although the problem addressed is pertinent, it would be important to include a more robust analysis of the gaps in the literature, contextualizing the results obtained with existing research. In addition, the authors should pay attention to the lack of citations throughout the manuscript. The absence of bibliographical references in some sections compromises the soundness of the claims made, which can weaken the credibility of the study. The inclusion of more sources would be crucial to support the ideas and results presented. About the methodology, the authors need to provide more detail on the procedures adopted in the research. Although the general description of the methodology is mentioned, a more in-depth explanation of the data collection and analysis methods would help ensure the transparency of the study and allow other researchers to replicate the research more accurately. Finally, the discussion of the results and the recommendations need to be better developed. It is important for the authors to broaden the interpretation of the data, connecting it with existing literature and suggesting more concrete directions for future research. In addition, the recommendations should be more aligned with the results obtained, offering more specific and practical insights for managers and policymakers interested in promoting the integration of the green economy and entrepreneurship.

 

1. Introduction

“In the process of responsible (sustainable) development, the regional economy faces, among other things, increasing local needs, changes in the quality of life and climate, depletion of raw materials, and environmental degradation. Local challenges also relate to territorial capital (its quality and structure), demographic aspects, the labour market, the level of entrepreneurship, and infrastructure.”

“Sustainable development, combining economic, social and environmental aspects, forms the foundation of modern regional and economic development policies. Entrepreneurship is a key driver of this transformation, as innovative and sustainable business models can support the achievement of the development goals. A green economy, based on the efficient use of natural resources and the minimisation of negative impact on the environment, becomes an essential element in the pursuit of sustainable development. There is a potential synergy between entrepreneurial development and a green economy, where sustainable business activity contributes to improving the quality of life of local communities and supports the long-term development of regions. The answer to the multidimensionality of social, economic and spatial processes that make up the region’s activities can be a green economy (GE).”

Reviewer: Authors need to include citations in the highlighted paragraphs and review the rest throughout the manuscript to ensure that their claims are substantiated by the existing literature.

Reviewer: Although the authors mention concepts such as “green economy”, “sustainable development” and “entrepreneurship”, the explanation of how these concepts interrelate and are applied in the local context could be more in-depth. The introduction is a little vague in explaining the specific impact of the green economy on local areas or how climate change and environmental degradation directly affect the regional economy. In addition, there is a lack of reflection on recent studies that have sought to contribute to the sustainability of a sector, exploring the applicability of innovative devices that contribute to a greener economy, such as the studies by https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.30.2.10 and http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14524968 that studied more sustainable practices in the tourism sector, in a sector that is very affected by seasonal pressure and environmental degradation. The authors should start from a reflection of previous studies to justify the gap in the literature and justify their study. For example, they could point out that although there are studies exploring more environmentally friendly alternatives to mitigate sustainability issues, there are still no known studies that have applied the CRITIC-TOPSIS method to understand how different local factors influence the development of pre-entrepreneurship in the conditions of green transformation.

 

2. Literature review

“In the context of sustainable development, the green economy and entrepreneurship are key elements that support the regional transformation towards more resilient and sustainable economic systems. A green economy, based on the efficient use of natural resources, waste reduction and the use of pro-ecological technologies, not only promotes environmental protection but also creates new opportunities for local businesses. Supporting entrepreneurship in the context of a green transition can lead to synergies, where the development of innovative, pro-ecological businesses supports both economic growth and the improvement of the quality of life of residents. Such cooperation between the green economy and entrepreneurship is essential to ensure a balance between economic, social and environmental objectives, which is the basis for the sustainable development of the regions. Diversified development involves the progressive spatial diversification of entrepreneurial behaviour in individual regions while also having an environmental impact.”

Reviewer: The authors need to revise point 2 and include the missing citations.

 

3. Methods

Reviewer: The authors need to provide more information on this point, especially on the methodological process adopted and methodological options. For example, the choice of the period of analysis (2010-2021), the authors mention that the choice was determined by the availability of data in Polish statistics, however they need to justify why they did not choose another more comprehensive or current data source. In addition, the use of more current data could provide a more accurate picture of current conditions, especially considering that regional politics and the economy are constantly evolving, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, the authors mention the analysis of statistical data without providing sufficient detail on the statistical method that will be used or why it is suitable for analyzing the effects of EU funds. The lack of explanation of the analytical process may cast doubt on the robustness and validity of the results, so the authors should strengthen their justification.

 

4. Results and discussion

Reviewer: Although the authors mention key factors such as the value of natural capital, legal regulations, economic and environmental costs, and changes in production and consumption patterns, they do not offer a detailed analysis of how these factors directly influence the development of the green economy and entrepreneurship at regional levels. The explanation could include concrete examples of how these factors manifest themselves in different regions or how they vary over time. In addition, the statistical analysis is mentioned briefly, but there is no detailed description of how the data was treated or interpreted. For example, the values of the synthetic measures of entrepreneurship and green economy are presented, but it is not explained what these figures mean in terms of local impact or changes over time. The lack of explanation of the statistical analysis methodology may leave the reader with doubts about the validity and accuracy of the results presented.  In addition, the analysis shows that the averages for entrepreneurship and the green economy show stability, but there is insufficient discussion of the causes of possible discrepancies within this stability. The section could examine in more detail the factors that cause this stability or the exceptions to it, to provide a deeper insight into local dynamics. On the other hand, although the authors describe regional variations and the complexity of adapting to the green economy, they do not offer clear recommendations for public policies or business practices that could help overcome these challenges. The inclusion of more practical directions would help to contextualize the results and suggest applicable solutions for governments and companies.

 

5. Conclusion

Reviewer: Although the authors mention the need for more efforts to integrate entrepreneurship and the green economy, they do not offer specific practical or policy recommendations to solve the problem. The inclusion of clear directions for public policy or entrepreneurial action could strengthen the usefulness of the study by providing a basis for concrete interventions. On the other hand, the authors state that the “scarcity of endogenous factors” is a problem affecting regional development, but do not sufficiently explore what this means in concrete terms or how it can be addressed. The generalization about the lack of endogenous factors could be further developed, with a clearer discussion of which specific factors (such as innovation, human capital, or infrastructure) are limiting and how they could be overcome. In addition, the conclusion mentions that the variables used to analyze regional differences may be insufficient but does not offer specific suggestions as to which variables could be incorporated to improve the analysis. A more detailed approach on how to expand the range of available data could be useful for researchers wishing to delve deeper into this area of study.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, enclosed are the responses to your comments on our article and the revised article. With respect, The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the manuscript entitled "Empirical analysis of the impact of the green economy on the spatial diversity of entrepreneurship at the poviats level in Poland. Pre-liminary study" has been sufficiently improved. As such, I recommend publication in present form. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments on our article. Best regards, Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the authors that their "review of the literature is a solid and insightful element of the preliminary study. It effectively sets the stage for empirical analysis by providing a clear theoretical framework, identifying key research gaps, and establishing the relevance of the study to academic and policy audiences. Its focus on spatial diversity, interdisciplinary approach and alignment with the SDGs make it a valuable contribution to the field of regional research and green entrepreneurship." However, this does not change the fact that it is not a "systematic" review, because it should be carried out in accordance with the applicable methodology. So I ask that the sentence in the corrected version (line 100) of the article be changed and that the adjective "systematic" be replaced with the adjective "exploratory" or "thematic".

I accept the other changes without reservations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments on our article. We have changed the word "systematic" to "exploratory" (line 100). Best regards, Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, after reviewing a new version of the manuscript, I consider that it reinforces the need for study and its scientific contribution, responding clearly and objectively to the concerns raised by the reviewers. Based on this understanding, I believe that the manuscript can now be considered for publication. 
Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments on our article. Best regards, Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.doc