Rural Depopulation in Spain from a Gender Perspective: Analysis and Strategies for Sustainability and Territorial Revitalization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found your work interesting and successful. Congratulations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

COMMENT 1:

The first paragraph of the abstract is unnecessary, as readers will understand the study's content upon reading the article. However, the research methodology should be explicitly mentioned in the abstract, ensuring a paragraph that clearly explains it. Simply stating that it is a qualitative study is not sufficient.

Response: Accepted.

Following your recommendations, we have made the following changes:

1. Removal of the first paragraph: The general introduction in the abstract has been omitted, as the study's content is adequately conveyed throughout the article.
2. Inclusion of methodology: It is now explicitly stated that the study employs a qualitative approach based on Grounded Theory and social and participatory cartography. Additionally, data collection methods are specified, indicating that semi-structured interviews were conducted with 88 participants from 48 towns, selected through purposive sampling.
3. Description of data analysis: It has been added that the study follows an iterative coding process (open, axial, and selective), allowing categories to emerge inductively.

 

COMMENT 2:

Including the research questions is sufficient. The section titled "Specific Objectives" can be removed.

Response: Accepted.

Following your recommendations, we have removed the section titled "Specific Objectives" from subsection 1.1 Research Questions and Operationalization of the Object of Study, leaving only the research questions. To maintain textual coherence, we made a minor adjustment to the final part of the subsection to ensure a smooth transition to the table of categories and subcategories.

 

COMMENT 3:

Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7 extend beyond the page margins and should be adjusted.

Response: Accepted.

In response to your suggestions, we have made the following modifications:

1. Updated map: We have incorporated two high-quality maps obtained from the Instituto Nacional de Estadística (National Institute of Statistics). Figure 1 details the number of inhabitants and population density per municipality, while Figure 2 shows the location of the province of Palencia within the Iberian Peninsula. These maps provide a clear and precise visualization of demographic distribution in the region.
2. Disaggregated gender data: We have added information on gender composition in rural areas of Palencia. According to the "Plan Estratégico 2020 de la Provincia de Palencia", there is a significant masculinization in smaller rural nuclei, whereas larger urban centers exhibit feminization. This phenomenon results from various socioeconomic factors influencing gender-based population distribution.

COMMENT 4:

Why did 88 individuals participate in the study? Could the number have been higher or lower? What additional criteria were used to determine the participants' age? Moreover, are there no other individuals in the region who meet the specified criteria? These questions should be addressed in the section describing the participants.

Response: Accepted.

To address the reviewer’s concerns, we have incorporated responses to these questions in section 2.2 Participants of the manuscript. The modifications include:

1. Justification of sample size: We have explained why 88 individuals participated in the study, highlighting that the principle of theoretical saturation in qualitative research determined that this number was sufficient to capture the diversity of experiences without requiring expansion or reduction.
2. Criteria for age selection: We have detailed how the three age groups were established (under 35, between 35 and 59, and over 60 years old), ensuring an intergenerational comparison in perceptions of rural depopulation.
3. Sample representativeness: We have clarified that while other individuals in the region could have met the inclusion criteria, the selection prioritized a diverse sample in terms of gender, age, and locality, ensuring the collection of relevant experiential data.
4. Clarification of inclusion criteria: We have reaffirmed the importance of prolonged residence, community ties, and voluntary participation as key factors in selecting participants.

COMMENT 5:

In the Limitations section, it should be specified that the sample included 88 participants (39 men and 49 women) and that the study was limited to the period between December 2023 and February 2024.

Response: Accepted.

To address this issue, we have incorporated the requested clarifications in section 5.2 Study Limitations. The modifications include:

1. Specification of sample size: It is now explicitly stated that the study included 88 participants (39 men and 49 women), clarifying that while this number was sufficient to achieve theoretical saturation, it does not aim to be statistically representative.

Temporal delimitation of the study: It has been added that the research was limited to the period between December 2023 and February 2024, meaning that potential seasonal variations or long-term trends in perceptions of rural depopulation were not considered.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is suggested to include a specific section on the study's innovative contribution, explicitly highlighting its impact on the knowledge in the field. The study has great potential for impact. To maximize its relevance, a final section on future research directions and practical applications of the findings could be added.

Authors are recommended to explain in detail the process of data coding and validation, justify the choice of the qualitative approach over other methods, and describe how the reliability and validity of the collected data were ensured.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2'S COMMENTS

COMMENT 1 - It is suggested to include a specific section on the study’s innovative contribution, explicitly highlighting its impact on the field’s knowledge.

Response: Accepted.

We have incorporated Section 5.4. Innovative Contribution of the Study, where we detail the study’s contributions to the field of rural depopulation from a gender perspective. Specifically, we emphasize the use of participatory methods such as social cartography, the combination of qualitative and educational analysis, and the integration of results into awareness initiatives, such as the didactic project "Pebbles of Memory." Additionally, we explain how this research provides empirical evidence that can be useful for designing public policies with a gender-sensitive approach to rural development.

 

COMMENT 2 - The study has significant potential for impact. To maximize its relevance, a final section on future research directions and practical applications of the findings could be added.

Response: Accepted.

We have added Section 5.5. Future Research Directions and Practical Applications, where we present possible extensions of the study. These include:

• Longitudinal research to evaluate how perceptions of rural depopulation evolve across generations.
• Comparative studies with other regions affected by similar phenomena.
• Exploration of intervention strategies in educational and community contexts to strengthen territorial attachment and identity.
• Potential applications of the findings in policy formulation and rural revitalization programs.

 

COMMENT 3 - The authors are encouraged to provide a detailed explanation of the coding and data validation process, justify the choice of the qualitative approach over other methods, and describe how the reliability and validity of the collected data were ensured.

Response: Accepted.

To address this recommendation, we have made the following modifications in the Methodology section:

1. Detailed explanation of the coding process:

• It is now specified that data analysis followed an approach based on Grounded Theory, using an iterative three-phase coding process: open, axial, and selective coding.
• The structure of emerging categories is explained in Table 3 (Section 2.4. Procedure).
• The modifications are detailed in the following sections:
• 2.3.2. Social and Participatory Cartography
• 2.3.3. Cartography Process and Data Collection
• 2.3.4. Interview Context and Ethical Considerations
• 2.3.5. Key Interview Themes

2. Justification of the qualitative approach:

• It is argued that the choice of a qualitative methodology was driven by the need to capture subjective experiences, identity perceptions, and personal narratives, aspects that cannot be effectively analyzed through quantitative approaches.
• Additionally, it is explained that this methodology provides a deeper understanding of gender dynamics in rural contexts.
• This justification is addressed in the following sections:
• 2.1. Study Design
• 2.3. Instruments
• 2.4. Procedure

3. Reliability and validity:

• We have detailed the strategies employed to ensure data reliability and validity, which are addressed in:
• Section 2.5. Strategies for Reliability and Validity
• Section 2.5.2. Participant Validation
• The following strategies were implemented:
• Source triangulation: Interviews, social cartography, and document analysis were combined to corroborate information.
• Participatory validation: Some participants were consulted in a later phase to verify the accuracy of interpretations.
• Researcher reflexivity: Measures were taken to minimize biases through collaborative review of the analysis and the adoption of a transparent interpretative approach.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper has the potential to be a great contribution to debates in rural development, gender, and migration. I appreciate the qualitative approach and the use of direct quotes, which give a lot of texture to the research. However, the flow of the paper can be greatly improved. The lines between what is literature review and what comes from results is not always clear. Similarly, while the study asserts that is applied an inductive approach, from the introduction there seem to be hypothesis permeating the study (table 1). In general, the methods need clarification (e.g. making the main questions that were asked explicit). The discussion would also benefit from more reflection on the implications of the research, as it stands, it mostly repeats the results.

The information collected is great, and clearly the authors put a lot of thought into research design. It just does not transpire in a cohesive manner from beginning to end for the reader.

Figures need some work too.

----------------------

More detailed comments:

Quotes needed to sustain assertions:

L24-26; L35-37; L41-44; L49-51

L72: Specify what SDG 11 is.

Figures 1-6. Only one map is necessary that includes location, number of inhabitants, and density (improve quality as well). It would be interesting to see some gender disaggregated data and some description of gender composition in rural areas. In my experience in the villages of Palencia, I seem to remember there being more men than women.

The research question should come before the materials and methods.

In the introduction, there are already assertions that seem to answer the question (and that are echoed in the abstract). When the reader gets to the research question it is not clear whether all the statements between L24-53 come from a literature review (if so, what is the purpose of the study? To verify if this applies in the case of Palencia?), or from results of the study (if so, they don’t belong in the introduction).

RQ 2 seems too broad (relationships with the environment can mean many different things)

The artistic education with children portion of the introduction does not seem to be linked to the research questions (especially because all respondents for this study are adults). Maybe the link becomes clearer later in the paper, but it is not clear in the front end.

Table 1 seems to suggest that the study has a deductive approach since it departs with hypotheses about gendered differences in the categories analyzed. Section 2.2. indicates otherwise. Please clarify the approach. If it is inductive, what is the role of the pre-identified categories in Table 1? Are those hypotheses to be confirmed? Were emergent themes compared to these pre-identified differences? Please clarify methods and the data analysis process. In the same line, it would be useful to elaborate on the main questions that were asked to participants (section 2.4).

Please elaborate on the use of social cartography in section 2.4 (how does that work? What does the data collected looks like? How is it analyzed?).

Section 2.5.1. Who conducted interviews? In what setting? Given tat gender is such a key part of the question, how was gender addressed in the research setting (e.g. interviewer-interviewee?).

2.5.2 Here again it is not clear whether the categories analyzed emerged from the data or corresponded to an initial structure (which would be fine but needs to be specified). Here too, an idea of which questions were asked and how would be helpful to understand how respondents provided information. Were some terms introduced by the researchers? Were definitions provided? Etc.

Table 3. Rootedness as heading in the last column seems to be out of place.

Is table 3 necessary for the methods or does it provide results? I assume ‘P1’ etc. correspond to interview numbers? Is that correct? It requires specification. Does the frequency correspond to how often it was mentioned? Please explain the table and give the reader the tools to interpret it.

The relationship between the research, the course “Artistic Expression Resources” at the Faculty of Education of the University of Valladolid, the didactic tool "Pebbles of Memory: Voices of Forgotten Castile", and the exhibition are not clear. Please make those link explicit (what materials were used to make the course and didactic tool? Results from the research?). What was included in the exhibition? I think placing all of this in the introduction is confusing. It would be better to have those processes described after the presentation of research questions and in a more explicit way (e.g. “results from this research project were used to….). The phrasing “a didactic project has been launched” does not allow the reader to understand if it has anything to do with this research or not.

2.6.2. Why was validation only carried out with some participants? How were they selected?

3. Results. Please explain how frequencies ought to be interpreted here. I imagine these are frequencies of mention, but without having the questions that were asked and how explicitly some themes were addressed by interviewers, these are hard to interpret.

If women were not talking about these categories, what were they talking about? With an inductive approach, we would probably see some themes emerge (even if they don’t match your categories).

Figures 6 and 7 present the same data. Choose one. They are redundant.

When we get to the quotes, it gets a lot more interesting! It would be useful to add the age (or age category) of the respondents next to the quote. While the quotes are rich and very illustrative, we do not get a sense of how representative they are for the views of men and women within the sample, for each specific subcategory. In my view, that is were frequencies would be most useful (e.g. X% of men referred to the city as negative vs Y% of women). Were these distinct answers given for the same question?

3.2.1 The relationship with the quotes with “valuation of the environment” is not very clear. What do we mean by environment? What question was asked of participants?

Section 3.3.3 repeats previous quotes and analysis.

The results are very interesting. I wonder if there is not space for nuance? It would seem that experiences are VERY different but without some idea of the representativeness sof the answers it is unclear how to situate the quotes provided. Are there outliers? Did some men/women respond “against the current”?

Age tends to also be very important in relation to risk perception, aversion/openness to change, etc. Did you account for age in your analysis? How? In other words, how do we know that gender is THE determining factor here?

I would eliminate the sentence in L456-457. It does not add new insight and can open a can of worms of debate.

The discussion is repetitive with the results and the introduction. It does add some finer nuances, but the role of the discussion should be to put the results in dialogue with the literature and the theoretical framework. What are the implications of these results? It would be important to go from the divide (the differences in perceptions and lived experiences) to the common challenges and how both men and women’s perspectives can contribute to facing depopulation.

It is not clear whether this study brings some new insight to light or it mostly confirms what the literature had already stated (which I do not see as a problem, it is always useful to put what is out there to test in new contexts). But, as currently written, the contributions of the study are not clear.

 

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 3'S COMMENTS

COMMENT 1:

Citations are necessary to support specific statements:

• L24-26
• L35-37
• L41-44
• L49-51

Response: Accepted.

To substantiate these claims, we have incorporated the following references:

• L24-26:
  Angeles, L., & Hill, K. (2009). The gender dimension of the agrarian transition: Women, men, and livelihood diversification. Gender, Place & Culture, 16(6), 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/09663690903148465
  This article examines how agrarian transition and changes in livelihoods differentially affect men and women, highlighting how the decline of community support networks impacts women's daily lives in rural settings.
• L35-37:
  Pretty, G., Chipuer, H., & Bramston, P. (2003). Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community, and place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00079-8
  This reference explores the connection between community identity and belonging, emphasizing the significance of interaction spaces in constructing relational identities.
• L41-44:
  Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2007.11.001
  This study examines the relationship between identity, emotional attachment, and environmental connection, highlighting how women tend to develop stronger affective bonds with the landscape.
• L49-51:
  Kissinger, J., et al. (2009). The role of gender in belonging and sense of community. 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 1–6. https://doi.org/10/FIE.2009.5350787
  This study explores how gender dynamics influence the sense of community and belonging, noting that men tend to reinforce their identity through collective events and public roles, whereas women find rootedness in affective relationships and family ties.

COMMENT 2 - L119: Specify what SDG 11 refers to.

Response: Accepted.

To address this issue, we have incorporated a specification on SDG 11, indicating that it refers to the Sustainable Development Goal that aims to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

 

COMMENT 3 - Figures 1-6:

Only one map is necessary, including the location, number of inhabitants, and population density (also improving quality). It would be interesting to see some gender-disaggregated data and a description of gender composition in rural areas. Based on my experience in Palencia’s villages, I recall that there were more men than women.

Response: Accepted.

To address this suggestion, we have made the following adjustments:

1. Reduction and improvement of figures:

• We have reduced the number of figures from six to two, retaining only those maps essential to the study.
• Figure 1: Includes the location, number of inhabitants, and population density by municipality in the province of Palencia, with improved quality for better readability.
• Figure 2: Shows the geographical location of the province of Palencia within the Iberian Peninsula.

2. Gender-disaggregated data:

• In response to this suggestion, we have incorporated information based on the 2020 Strategic Plan of the Province of Palencia, which states that although the masculinity ratio in the province is generally balanced (98 men per 100 women), there is a clear differentiation between urban and rural areas.
• Larger urban centers show a higher female presence, whereas rural municipalities exhibit evident masculinization. This phenomenon is mainly attributed to the migration of young women to urban areas in search of educational and employment opportunities. Additionally, population aging and low birth rates contribute to rural depopulation, posing demographic sustainability challenges for these territories.
• To complement this information, we have added a graph illustrating the gender composition in 20 rural municipalities in Palencia with a population density of 500 inhabitants or more, providing a clear visualization of gender distribution in these environments.

 

COMMENT 3 - The research question should precede the materials and methods section.

Response: Accepted.

To enhance the study’s coherence, we have added the research question at the end of Section 1: Theoretical Framework, ensuring a better connection with the development of the work.

 

COMMENT 4 - The introduction already includes statements that seem to answer the research question (and are repeated in the abstract). When the reader reaches the research question, it is unclear whether the statements between L24 and L53 are based on a literature review (if so, what is the study's purpose—verifying whether this applies to Palencia?) or on the study results (if so, they do not belong in the introduction).

Response: Accepted.

To improve clarity in the introduction and prevent premature disclosure of results, we have implemented the following changes:

1. Clarification of the study’s purpose:

• We have specified that the statements included in the introduction stem from a literature review rather than the study’s findings.
• To reinforce this distinction, we have emphasized that the purpose of the research is to explore whether these theoretical approaches are reflected in the specific case of Palencia.

2. Revision of the introduction’s structure:

• We have adjusted the wording to ensure that literature-derived claims are explicitly presented and do not create confusion with potential study findings.
• The transition between the literature review and the research question has been reformulated to clarify the study’s justification for the reader.

 

COMMENT 5 - Research Question 2 seems too broad (relationships with the environment can mean many different things).

Response: Accepted.

To refine Research Question 2 and avoid ambiguity, we have reworded it as follows:

"How does gender influence the perception, use, and stewardship of the natural environment in rural communities?"

This revised formulation better delineates the aspects analyzed in the study, distinguishing between environmental perception, practical use, and management/conservation.

 

COMMENT 6 - The section in the introduction discussing artistic education with children does not appear to be linked to the research questions (especially since all survey respondents in this study are adults). The connection may become clearer later in the article, but it is unclear in the introduction.

Response: Accepted.

To clarify the connection with the study, we have adjusted the introduction to:

1. Explicitly state that the study focuses on adults but that the educational context provides a complementary perspective on the transmission of identity and belonging in rural communities.
2. Justify the inclusion of the educational project by highlighting its role in understanding how gender and identity dynamics are transmitted across generations, reinforcing the study’s relevance in an intergenerational framework.

COMMENT 7 - Table 1 suggests that the study follows a deductive approach, as it starts from hypotheses about gender differences in the analyzed categories. Section 2.2 suggests otherwise. Please clarify the approach. If it is inductive, what role do the pre-identified categories in Table 1 play?

Response: Accepted.

To clarify this aspect, we have added an explanation in the methodology section specifying that:

1. The study follows an inductive approach, based on the principles of Grounded Theory and qualitative analysis. It does not start with predefined hypotheses; rather, categories emerge throughout the analytical process.
2. The categories in Table 1 do not function as predefined variables but as heuristic tools derived from prior literature, used to structure the coding and comparative analysis process.
3. The analysis was conducted iteratively, allowing categories to be adjusted, refined, and expanded based on the data collected from interviews.

COMMENT 8 - Should those hypotheses be confirmed? Were emerging themes compared to these pre-identified differences? Please clarify the methods and data analysis process.

Response: Accepted.

To clarify this aspect, we have revised the text (see just before Section 2: Materials and Methods) to specify that:

1. The study does not aim to confirm predefined hypotheses but to identify and analyze emerging themes based on participants’ narratives.
2. The categories in Table 1 were not used as fixed variables but as heuristic tools to organize and compare the collected information.
3. The data analysis followed an iterative coding strategy (open, axial, and selective), allowing for the identification of emerging patterns and their comparison with prior references.

COMMENT 8 - Similarly, it would be useful to explain in more detail the main questions posed to participants (Section 2.4).

Response: Accepted.

First, it is important to note that, in response to Reviewer 2's Comment 3, Section 2.4 is now Section 2.3, since the former Section 2.1. "Research Questions and Operationalization of the Object of Study" is now Section 1.1; and Section 2. "Materials and Methods" now begins with Subsection 2.1. "Study Design", resulting in one fewer subsection.

Second, to provide a more detailed explanation of the main questions posed to participants, we have incorporated a paragraph in Section 2.3. Instruments, outlining the key dimensions explored in the interviews:

1. Personal background and perception of the rural environment (life experiences, landscape descriptions, and personal narratives).
2. Identity and sense of belonging (community attachment, identity transformations, and gender differences).
3. Perception of the natural environment (relationship with the land, emotional vs. utilitarian perspective, and environmental conservation).
4. Depopulation and migration (reasons for migration, expectations of urban life, and conditions for returning).
5. Challenges and rural revitalization (perceptions of risks, proposed solutions, and gender-differentiated responses).

Additionally, we have noted that open-ended and follow-up questions were used to deepen participants’ experiences and generate an inductive analysis of emerging themes.

COMMENT 9 - Explain in more detail the use of social cartography in Section 2.4 (how does it work? How are the collected data presented? How are they analyzed?).

Response: Accepted.

To address this issue, we have added a paragraph in Section 2.3, explaining:

1. How social cartography works: It is described as a methodological tool used to visualize and analyze participants’ spatial perceptions and relationships.
2. How data are represented: The types of generated maps are explained, including collective memory spaces, environmental transformation, and gender role distribution.
3. How results are analyzed: It is specified that the maps were compared with qualitative interview data, allowing for a deeper understanding of the interaction between identity, gender, and territory.

COMMENT 10 - Section 2.4.1. Who conducted the interviews? In what context? Given that gender is a key part of the research question, how was gender addressed within the research context (e.g., interviewer-interviewee dynamic)?

Response: Accepted.

First, it is important to note that, in response to Reviewer 2’s Comment 3, Section 2.4 is now Section 2.3, since the former Section 2.1. "Research Questions and Operationalization of the Object of Study" is now Section 1.1; and Section 2. "Materials and Methods" now begins with Subsection 2.1. "Study Design", resulting in one fewer subsection.

Second, to address this issue, we have incorporated a paragraph in Section 2.3.1, specifying:

1. Who conducted the interviews: A team of researchers with experience in qualitative methodologies, composed of both male and female interviewers.
2. Context of the interviews:
• Interviews were conducted in familiar and comfortable environments for participants (e.g., community centers, local cafés, homes), ensuring trust and comfort.
• Local mayors facilitated participant contact and supported interview organization, while always respecting the voluntary and confidential nature of the research.
3. Handling gender dynamics in interviewer-interviewee interactions:
• Whenever possible, interviewers of the same gender as the participant were assigned to foster openness and minimize biases.
• A participatory and non-hierarchical approach was employed, allowing participants to guide the conversation.
• Researchers adopted a reflexive stance regarding their own positionality, ensuring that participants’ experiences remained central to the analysis.

COMMENT 11 - Section 2.4.2. It is also unclear whether the analyzed categories emerged from the data or were predefined (either approach is valid, but it needs to be specified). Additionally, it would be useful to understand what questions were asked and how they were formulated to see how respondents provided information. Were specific terms introduced by the researchers? Were definitions provided? Etc.

Response: Accepted.

First, as noted in Reviewer 2's Comment 3, Section 2.4 is now Section 2.3, due to structural changes in the manuscript.

Second, to address this comment, we have made the following modifications in Section 2.3.2:

1. Clarification of category origins:
• It is specified that categories emerged inductively through an iterative process based on Grounded Theory.
• Some categories were initially informed by prior literature, but they were refined and expanded as data were collected and analyzed.
2. Additional details on interview questions:
• Examples of key questions that guided the interviews have been included, helping participants reflect on their relationship with territory, identity, and depopulation.
• It is explained that specific terms were introduced when necessary, ensuring participants understood certain concepts without imposing predefined definitions.
• Definitions were provided only upon participants’ request, ensuring that the research captured their own perceptions and meanings rather than imposed concepts.

COMMENT 12 - Table 3: The heading "Rootedness" in the last column seems out of place.

Response:

Regarding the concern about Table 3 and the apparent misplacement of the heading "Rootedness" in the last column, we believe this term should be maintained for the following reasons:

1. Consistency with the theoretical framework and analytical categories:
• "Rootedness" is a central concept in the research, directly related to how participants construct their sense of belonging to the territory and community.
• Including it as a heading differentiates this dimension from other aspects such as identity or environmental interactions.
2. Alignment with emerging data:
• During data coding and analysis, rootedness emerged as a distinct and key category, manifesting differently between men and women in terms of collective memory, tradition transmission, and territorial attachment.
• Grouping these data under a different heading or redistributing them into other columns would reduce precision and clarity in interpreting the results.
3. Conceptual and analytical differentiation:
• While other categories in the table describe identity and belonging in more abstract or relational terms, rootedness emphasizes specific practices and dynamics that reinforce the connection to rural space.
• Removing this category could create confusion when integrating these aspects into broader, less precise categories.

COMMENT 13 - Is Table 3 necessary in the methodology, or does it present results? I assume "P1," etc., correspond to interview numbers—is that correct? This needs to be specified. Does frequency refer to how often something was mentioned? Please explain the table and provide readers with the necessary tools to interpret it.

Response:

We appreciate the suggestion to clarify the purpose and content of Table 3. Below, we provide the necessary specifications to facilitate its interpretation:

1. Purpose of Table 3 within the methodology:
• Table 3 does not present final results but rather illustrates the structure of emerging analytical categories following the coding process (open, axial, and selective).
• Its purpose is to demonstrate how data were organized during analysis, ensuring transparency in the construction of the theoretical framework and category structure.
• Since the study follows an inductive approach based on Grounded Theory, this table serves as evidence of how patterns were identified and structured within participant narratives.
2. Meaning of the codes ("P1," "P2," etc.):
• Each code (e.g., "P9," "P15") corresponds to a specific interviewee in the study.
• Participant identities have been anonymized using these numeric identifiers to ensure confidentiality and ethical compliance in the research.
3. Frequency of mentions in the table:
• The frequency column (e.g., 25/14) represents the number of times each category was mentioned by male and female participants, respectively.
• These frequencies do not imply a quantitative evaluation but rather indicate the recurrence of themes within the qualitative analysis.
4. Clarification on how questions were formulated:
• Questions were designed to be open-ended and exploratory, allowing participants to describe their experiences without constraints.
• In some cases, interviewers introduced key concepts, but participants were always given space to define them in their own terms.
• Definitions were only provided if requested by participants, ensuring that the study captured authentic participant perspectives rather than externally imposed categories.

COMMENT 14 - The relationship between the research, the "Artistic Expression Resources" course at the Faculty of Education of the University of Valladolid, the didactic tool "Stones of Memory: Voices from Forgotten Castile," and the exhibition is unclear. Please clarify these connections (what materials were used to develop the course and the didactic tool? Research results? What was included in the exhibition?). I believe placing all of this in the introduction is confusing. It would be better to describe these processes after presenting the research questions and in a more explicit manner (for example, "the results of this research project were used to..."). The phrase "a didactic project has been launched" does not allow the reader to understand whether this project is related to the research.

Response: Accepted.

To clarify the connections between the research, the "Artistic Expression Resources" course, the didactic tool "Stones of Memory: Voices from Forgotten Castile," and the exhibition, we have made the following modifications to the text:

1. Relocation of the description of the course and the didactic tool:

• This information has been moved to a specific section after the research questions are formulated (1.2. Educational Applications of the Research).
• It is now explicitly stated that the research findings served as the foundation for developing both the course and the didactic tool, ensuring a clear link between the study and these initiatives.

2. Clarification of materials used:

• It is now specified that the "Stones of Memory" didactic tool is based on the research findings, incorporating identity and belonging perceptions in the context of rural depopulation.
• The tool allows students to reflect on the same phenomena that affect the adult participants of the study.

3. Explanation of the exhibition:

• We have added specific details regarding the content of the exhibition at the Díaz Caneja Foundation – Museum of Contemporary Art (February – June 2024).
• The exhibition included:
• Social cartography works developed in the research.
• Educational materials from the "Stones of Memory" didactic tool.
• Artistic expressions related to rural memory and sustainability.

4. Incorporation of demographic data:

• Two figures have been added to the introductory section:
• Figure 1: Location of the province of Palencia within the Iberian Peninsula.
• Figure 2: Population density in the province of Palencia.
• Additionally, an informative paragraph has been included, based on official sources (2020 Strategic Plan of the Province of Palencia), explaining the masculinization of smaller rural areas and the feminization of urban centers due to female migration to cities.

COMMENT 15 - Section 2.6.2: Why was validation conducted only with some participants? How were they selected?

Response: Accepted.

To address this comment, we have added a detailed explanation in the text, specifying why validation was conducted only with certain participants and how they were selected.

The selection criteria were as follows:

1. Diversity of perspectives: Participants were chosen to represent different age groups, genders, and geographical locations within rural communities in Palencia, ensuring a broader validation process.
2. Level of engagement in the study: Priority was given to participants who demonstrated deeper reflection and insight in their interview responses, as they could provide more detailed feedback on the analysis interpretations.
3. Availability and willingness: Validation was voluntary and conducted with individuals who were available and willing to participate in this phase of the study.

Additionally, it has been clarified that this process included the presentation of photographs and videos at the Díaz Caneja Foundation – Museum of Contemporary Art, where invited participants could view their testimonies and provide additional feedback. This participatory approach allowed for adjustments to the interpretations and reinforced the validity of the findings.

COMMENT 16 - Section 3: Results. Explain how the frequencies should be interpreted in this case. I assume these are mention frequencies, but without knowing the questions asked and how interviewers explicitly addressed certain topics, it is difficult to interpret them.

Response: Accepted.

To address this comment, we have added a detailed explanation within the text to ensure that readers understand the meaning and context of the reported frequencies.

Key clarifications include:

1. Frequencies reflect mentions, not quantitative importance:

• These figures indicate how many times a category appeared in participants' responses, but this does not imply a hierarchy of relevance.

2. Influence of interview design:

• Since a semi-structured methodology was used, the appearance of certain topics depended on both the participants' input and the natural development of the conversation.

3. Differences in frequencies between men and women:

• These variations do not indicate differences in importance but rather how topics were spontaneously expressed by each group.

4. Topics introduced by interviewers vs. emergent themes:

• Some aspects were explicitly introduced by interviewers to explore gendered experiences, while others emerged organically.

5. Importance of qualitative context:

• Frequencies should be interpreted in conjunction with the narrative content of the interviews, avoiding an exclusively quantitative reading.

COMMENT 17 - Figures 6 and 7 present the same data. Choose one. They are redundant.

Response:

We appreciate your careful review and observation regarding the potential redundancy between Figures 6 and 7. However, we believe that both figures serve complementary functions and are necessary for a clearer understanding of the results.

1. Difference in data representation:

• Figure 6 provides a structured view of category distribution and frequencies, allowing for a comparative analysis of how different themes were mentioned by men and women.
• Figure 7, on the other hand, presents a relational visualization, facilitating the interpretation of connections and patterns between categories and showing how certain themes are interrelated in the analyzed narratives.

2. Added value of complementary visuals:

• The frequency representation in Figure 6 is useful for readers looking for a detailed breakdown of category distribution.
• Figure 7 provides a synthetic and relational view, helping to identify emerging trends and patterns in the narrative structure of the study.

3. Facilitation of findings interpretation:

• In qualitative studies, visualizations play a key role in data comprehension.
• Keeping both figures ensures that different types of readers—those who prefer detailed statistical analysis and those who favor conceptual and visual representation—can interpret the findings more effectively.

For these reasons, we consider that including both figures is not redundant but rather adds clarity and depth to the presentation of the results. We appreciate your review and remain open to any further observations.

COMMENT 23 - I would remove the sentence in L456-457. It does not add anything new and could open a Pandora’s box of debates.

Response: Accepted.

The sentence in L456-457 has been removed.

 

COMMENT 24 - The discussion is repetitive with the results and the introduction. Add some nuance, but the role of the discussion should be to place the results in dialogue with the literature and theoretical framework. What are the implications of these findings? It would be important to move from division (differences in perceptions and lived experiences) to common challenges and how the perspectives of both men and women can contribute to addressing depopulation.

Response: Accepted.

In response to your suggestion, we have added a new subsection titled 4.1. Implications for Addressing Rural Depopulation, where we analyze how the perspectives of men and women can contribute to tackling depopulation.

In this section, we compare our findings with key references (Alamá-Sabater et al., 2019; Esparcia, 2024; Camarero & Oliva, 2016) to contextualize the results within previous debates on economic sustainability, social cohesion, and rural revitalization strategies. Furthermore, we emphasize the importance of adopting integrative approaches that combine economic development with investment in social infrastructure, considering the relevance of participatory governance and gender equity in repopulation policies.

 

COMMENT 25 - It is unclear whether this study provides a new perspective or primarily confirms what has already been established in the literature (which is not necessarily a problem, as it is always useful to test existing knowledge in new contexts). However, as written, the study’s contributions are not clearly articulated.

Response: Accepted.

In response to your comment, we have revised Section 5.1 Implications for Research and Practice in Rural Contexts to make the study’s contributions explicitly clear.

In this section, we emphasize that while our findings confirm some trends previously identified in the literature, the study also introduces new perspectives by integrating a participatory qualitative approach. This highlights the influence of affective bonds, environmental perceptions, and rural experience narratives in the construction of identity among men and women.

Additionally, we highlight how our results provide relevant empirical evidence for designing sustainable rural development strategies, demonstrating that the combination of economic perspectives (prioritized by men) and social cohesion perspectives (emphasized by women) can contribute to a more effective rural revitalization process.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the time and effort the authors have put into revising the paper and responding to my comments. Some things have been clarified and improved. However, some of my comments have only been addressed superficially and require more revisions to make the argument of the paper more compelling. The integration of the education component is spotty and not central to the paper. Yet, it is prominent in the title and abstract. The authors should decide how prominent that element should be in the paper and revise accordingly for coherence. There are still repetitions both in text and figures. The contributions of the paper could be articulated much more in depth in the discussion. Some errors that I missed in the first round of revisions have become apparent as well. Please read more detailed comments in what fallows.

------------------

Detailed comments

The title of the article is misleading. While you describe briefly how the results were used for educational purposes, that aspect of the project is not central to the article (not central to the question, not central to the methods, not brought up in the discussion). We don’t really know much about the education or artistic components. Please change the title to reflect the focus of your paper and your research question. Or, alternatively, integrate the education perspective throughout the paper:

Similarly, for the abstract.

Introduction needs broader problem statement about rural depopulation – for the world and for Spain. You go straight into the details of gendered approaches to depopulation without introducing the depopulation problem.

L54-57: Please add a sentence to explain what we gain from that and why it might be important.

L72-78: I still do not understand how the study claims to be inductive but then you proceed to present a table (table 1) with assumptions about women and men’s perceptions for each subcategory. I am willing to agree to disagree on that one tough.

Map in figure 1 does not show the outline of provinces (including Palencia). Please merge both figures in 1. Figure 1 by itself does not provide much information. The legend in Figure 1 is not explained (I suppose it’s population). Figure 2 does not have a unit for the legend either (I imagine it’s inhabitants per km2, but it needs to be specified!)

Figure 3. Fix typo in title. Needs unit as well

L325. I think you mean table 3.

Table 3.

• Given your explanation, I think Rootedness (the term you had before), is more adequate than “Rooting”.
• I still think table 3 belongs in the results (and you present the same data 3 times, in table 3, and figures 6 & 7… granted, the figures are a bit different but I don’t see a justification for showing the same data at different places). I disagree with the statement in L342-343 “Thus, Table 3 is a methodological tool that provides a structured view of the analytical process and demonstrates the inductive approach of the study”. You should present it in the results. I understand that (inductive) research is iterative, and categories emerge as you identify codes in the data, but the reader does not need to accompany you on those iterations. Explaining the process is enough and then you present the categories that emerged. It is confusing to see results of frequencies in the methods section. If you want to keep it, I would only keep the columns that explain Level I and Level II codes.
• The category affective connection with the Earth is missing from the table.
• The frequencies for the last 4 subcategories seem to be off. How can you have the same interview codes for men and women? Please correct.

Results.

I insist that you do not need all the figures that you have in this paper. They show the exact same data (frequencies) in different formats. Figure 8 shows the same data as well, only just some of the subcategories. It’s not necessary. I am adding a combined figure as an example of what you can do to show the data synthetically (it’s not great, just an example).

You say in your response to my previous observation on this that Figure 7 shows connections between categories but that is not explained or presented in the text.

Furthermore, there is confusion/contradiction between your interpretations of one figure and the other:

L416-417: “in "Sense of belonging" and "Memory" the differences are less pronounced”

Vs

L421-422: The largest differences are found in categories […] such as "Rootedness" and "Memory"

In the results, you do not need to reiterate what you explained in the methods (open guide, etc.)

I think it would be best to make longer paragraphs and not so many very thin subsections for the results. Maybe you can have subheading by category only and not by all ~10 subcategories. The narrative does not flow very well.

L664: What category “Transformations of the territory?”

The discussion should be structured with subheadings. There is 4.1. section almost at the end but no 4.2…. Please revise. If you are going to use subheadings, you should have at least two and the whole discussion should be structured as such.

Before the 4.1. section, the discussion is still very much repetitive of the results. That part of my comment was not addressed. The discussion should highlight the contributions of the study to the debates in the field, not reiterate the results. You can center on theoretical, methodological, practical contributions.  Section 4.1. is very interesting, I would suggest that you complement that with consideration on the theoretical and methodological contributions of the study (for example, highlighting the innovative integration of results with education tools and public exhibitions).

You should add some nuance to the conclusion, that is what you found for Palencia. You should state that your study supports the literature in suggesting that …..; but it feels to categorical to state that [all] women and [all] men feel the same way about this processes.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Rebuttal letter with addressed issues

Manuscript ID sustainability-3466455

 

Rural Depopulation in Spain from a Gender Perspective: An Educational Proposal for Sustainability and Territorial Revitalization

 

Dr. Antonio Montero-Seoane
University of A Coruña
antonio.montero.seoane@udc.es
February 7, 2025

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your insightful suggestions and comments on our manuscript titled Rural Depopulation in Spain from a Gender Perspective: Analysis and Strategies for Sustainability and Territorial Revitalization.

Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments:

 

COMMENT 1 – The TITLE of the article is misleading. While it briefly describes how the findings were used for educational purposes, this aspect of the project is not central to the article (not central to the research question, methods, or discussion). We actually learn very little about the educational or artistic components. Please modify the title to reflect the core focus of your article and research question. Alternatively, integrate the educational perspective throughout the manuscript.

RESPONSE 1 – We have carefully considered your suggestion regarding the title and agree that it should be adjusted to better reflect the core focus of our study. Consequently, we have modified the title to:

"Rural Depopulation in Spain from a Gender Perspective: Analysis and Strategies for Sustainability and Territorial Revitalization."

This new formulation removes the direct reference to the educational dimension, centering the title on the research question. As a result, the title now accurately reflects the article’s content and its primary focus on rural depopulation, gender perspectives, and strategies for territorial revitalization.

 

COMMENT 2 – Similarly, please revise the ABSTRACT.

RESPONSE 2 – In response to your comments, we have revised the abstract to ensure that it accurately reflects the article’s focus. In the revised version, we have removed references emphasizing the educational and artistic components. The abstract now clearly presents the study’s objectives, methodology, and key findings, highlighting the analysis of gender identity and perceptions of rural depopulation. Furthermore, we have reformulated the conclusion to emphasize the importance of incorporating a gender-sensitive approach in territorial revitalization strategies, aligning with the discussion presented in the article.

 

COMMENT 3 – The INTRODUCTION needs a broader discussion of the issue of rural depopulation, both globally and in Spain. The article jumps directly into gender approaches without first introducing the depopulation problem.

RESPONSE 3 – To address this concern, we have added a dedicated section within the theoretical framework to contextualize rural depopulation at both global and national levels. This section highlights its impact on social, economic, and environmental dynamics, incorporating key references to support our analysis of the phenomenon, including studies on rural-urban migration, cultural identity loss, and territorial transformations (Alamá-Sabater et al., 2019; Del Barrio, 2013; Del Molino, 2016; Camarero & Oliva, 2016; Lasanta et al., 2017; Rodríguez-Soler et al., 2020). Additionally, we discuss how depopulation affects social cohesion and rural community sustainability, providing a broader framework for the subsequent discussion on gender perspectives.

 

COMMENT 4 – Lines 54-57: Add a sentence explaining what we gain from this and why it might be important.

RESPONSE 4 – We appreciate your suggestion to clarify the significance of analyzing gender dynamics in rural communities in Palencia. In response, we have added a sentence in lines 54-57 explicitly stating the value and relevance of the study:

"Based on these theoretical reflections, this study aims to examine whether these gender dynamics are reflected in the specific case of rural communities in Palencia, exploring how men and women construct their identities and sense of belonging in the context of depopulation. Understanding these processes allows us to identify the specific challenges faced by men and women in rural areas, providing insights that can inform policies aimed at fostering social cohesion, gender equity, and the sustainable revitalization of these communities."

 

COMMENT 5 – Lines 72-78: I still do not understand how the study claims to be inductive while presenting a table (Table 1) with assumptions about men's and women’s perceptions in each subcategory. However, I am willing to accept this difference of opinion.

RESPONSE 5 – We appreciate your comment regarding the coherence between the study’s inductive approach and the inclusion of Table 1, which contained assumptions about men’s and women’s perceptions. To maintain methodological clarity and consistency with Grounded Theory, we have decided to remove Table 1 from the manuscript.

 

COMMENT 6 – Figure 1 does not show the outline of the provinces (including Palencia). Please merge both figures into one. Figure 1 alone does not provide much information. Also, the legend of Figure 1 is not explained (I assume it represents population data).

RESPONSE 6 – In response to your suggestion, we have merged both figures into a single one, ensuring that the new map displays the outline of the province of Palencia for better geographical context. Additionally, we have revised and expanded the figure legend to clearly explain the meaning of the data represented, ensuring that information on population and territorial distribution is clearly presented.

 

COMMENT 7 – Figure 2 lacks a unit in the legend (I assume it is inhabitants per km², but it must be specified!).

RESPONSE 7 – We have revised Figure 2 to explicitly indicate the unit used in the legend (inhabitants per km²) to ensure clarity and accuracy.

 

COMMENT 8 – Figure 3: Correct the typographical error in the title. Also, include a unit.

RESPONSE 8 – We have corrected the typographical error in the title. Additionally, the figure title has been updated to:

"Population by Gender in the Twenty Rural Municipalities with a Population Density Equal to or Greater than 500 Inhabitants in the Province of Palencia."

 

COMMENT 19 – You should refine the conclusion, as it presents findings based on Palencia. Instead of making categorical statements about all men and women, indicate that your study supports the existing literature suggesting these trends.

RESPONSE 19 – Thank you for this observation. In response, we have revised the conclusion to clarify that our findings in Palencia support existing literature on gender differences in rural depopulation experiences, without assuming that all men and women perceive these processes in the same way.

Additionally, in the revised version, we have included statements emphasizing the diversity of individual experiences within each gender group. We highlight that the results suggest general trends in how men and women in Palencia construct their rural identity and perceive territorial transformations, while acknowledging that perceptions are not absolute. Furthermore, we emphasize the importance of considering contextual and personal particularities in understanding how participants experience depopulation and migration.

 

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort invested in reviewing our manuscript. We believe that the suggested revisions have strengthened our study and enhanced its contribution to the academic discussion on rural depopulation, gender dynamics, and sustainability.

Please do not hesitate to let us know if any further modifications are required.

Sincerely,
Dr. Antonio Montero-Seoane
University of A Coruña

Author Response File: Author Response.docx