Measuring and Addressing Territorial Cohesion: A Framework for Regional Development in Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors , thank you for enhancing the manuscript. As I said before it is becoming an interesting and relevant paper.

I still have the follolowing comments and suggestions.

1. Remove  the word holistic. it has various meanings in varies dicaiplines, and it can be misleading. Although you described what you mean somewhere, it is used several times, and the text is completely fine and understandable - and even better - without the word. Do not forget that we are an inderdiciplinary journal.

2. In common language and most disciplines  'cohesion' is not a process, while dunamics is a process. See for instance Cambridge dictionary. I checked  your references, and yes, they see cohesion as a process. But although some authors use the words this way, I  think it is better not to do it here. And again, there is no need to do it, and it is confusing because you use the words in two different meanings and some readers will not understand. 

3. I suggest to put your findings  - more - in international perspective, they are worth it.

4. It is said that " The polarisation between the coastal region, particularly metropolitan areas and large urban hubs, and the interior regions is a striking feature of this study". In general this phenomen is well known, for decades, see Castells, so it is not striking. For many European studies it is well known, and developments programms started in the 1980 already. May be it is striking for Portugal , although I doubt. But I think it is easy to rephrase, use for instance words such as " the multiple polarisation" or something like that, which was the focus of your study. 

5. Please add literature references to the sentences on line 876, 898, 928 , 943.

6. The trend of digitalisation is very interesting. Do you have data or insight of how this contribute to further assymatries?

7. Maybe it is a matter of style but I do not like terms such as significant,  comprehensive  innovative to label your own study (lines  982, 986, 1028, 1044).

8. line 1036, please give examples, such as mentioned under point 8. for instance.

9. line 1048, 'globalc'?

10. I noticed a strong overlap between the sections conclusion and discussion; please modify. 

Good luck.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments, except

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I liked the article very much, it has methodological quality and is relevant for Portuguese territorial development in that, based on the indicators analysed, public policy proposals are made.

Having said the above, I think it is necessary to make some clarifications, extensions to improve the proposed text

Of a general nature:

The bibliographic references do not follow all the same standards and, in addition, do not meet the requirements of the journal. Revise them at: https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references

Of a specific nature:

Lines 134-144 where territorial cohesion is discussed and some aspects that influence it are included, I miss some reference to the role of the social economy and, more specifically, to cooperativism, recognized by the European Union, the UN and even the OECD as enterprises that help this cohesion.

Lines 203-223 where data are collected on, among others, birth rates or life expectancy levels. The source of these data is not cited, but it is suggested to do so.

Revise the formula in line 272: x=(x-xmin)/(xmax-xmin). The variable on the left of the equality cannot be called the same as the variable on the right.

Indicate if the normalization was performed for all the indexes collected in the work.

Specify the criterion used to establish the groups collected in lines 278-280.

On the calculated indexes. Specify which of them refer to municipalities and which to the country. For example: EX, VN, etc...

Clarify, improve, the definition of some indexes:

E =Aging index (No.)

PC = Per capita purchasing power (PT = 100)

Why are A and D added in the IDS indicator?

In the H indicator, change the term “couple” to “person”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors - 189 - In Azores and Madeira, it is important to mention their territorial fragmentation
(several islands) and the double "interiority" of most of the municipalities located there. - The municipalities of the Azores and Madeira must always be identified in the text.
- Poor reading of the legends on maps 5, 7 and 11 (try a small enlargement)
- Line 473 - Braga and 474 Odemira - justify the attraction capability
- Line 775 - figure 13 (not 12)
- In the analysis of some indicators, there are omissions that should be corrected.
For example: line 606 - Palmela? ; line 612 - Odivelas? 653 - Bragança? - The conclusions suggest a brief note on the autonomous regional level in the Azores
and Madeira, which does not exist on the mainland.
Does this difference have any impact on the indicators analyzed?
 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The keywords do not adequately describe the content of the article.

The claim This study develops a new methodological framework to assess territorial cohesion is too bold. This study follows a routine methodological approach.

The statement that "the framework identifies six critical dimensions - demography, equity, competitiveness, governance, sustainability, and connectivity-because they collectively address the core factors influencing territorial cohesion" is an exaggeration. The analysis includes only some of the possible key dimensions. In the literature by renowned authors it is possible to find e.g. Economic competitiveness and innovation, Balanced regional development and settlement - infrastructure alignment, Social cohesion and quality of life, Sustainable development and environmental quality. Territorial co-operation and governance. A more a more comprehensive view.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for enhancing the manuscript. It has been  a long trip, but now it is time to congratulate.

Author Response

Thanks for all the valuable comments.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the article “Measuring and addressing territorial cohesion: a framework for  regional development in Portugal

 The author wrote that the research involves “The proposed research introduces a novel methodology to evaluate territorial cohesion by identifying six critical dimensions of territorial development: demography, equity, competitiveness, governance, sustainability, and connectivity.”

The need to develop a method for territorial cohesion is essential and significant. The author cited 27 bibliographic references in the article, including 3 of their own. The introduction and rationale for the research are the best parts of the work; the author comprehensively justifies the occurrence of territorial cohesion. I like this part of the article.

 The author also points to the innovativeness of the research, although I cannot fully agree with all the arguments. The author wrote: “Most methodologies addressing quality of life focus on socio-economic indicators without integrating dimensions such as governance, sustainability, or connectivity. The inclusion of these dimensions enhances the scope of analysis and provides insights into how spatial structures influence development outcomes.” I believe that there are many studies that link quality of life with the indicated dimensions, such as sustainable development, etc.

 The next part of the article describes the research methodology and indicators for the author's methodology of assessing territorial cohesion. This part of the work, in my opinion, needs improvement. The author introduces many indicators described in 6 dimensions. The dimensions are aptly named, and the author has tried to describe these dimensions as best as possible using the indicators. I have a few recommendations.

Demography Indicator: For example, the VP = Population growth indicator accounts for the overall change in population, considering both natural increase (births - deaths) and migration. However, this group lacks information about gender, e.g., it may be worth adding the share of women of reproductive age in the population.

 Competitiveness: The indicators depicting this function are comprehensive; however, I suggest also considering indicators related to entrepreneurship among residents, such as the number of new businesses per 1,000 inhabitants or a similar indicator.

I am also wondering if the author can find a better indicator to assess the CI = Investment capacity limitation indicator, measured by [Personnel expenses as a proportion of total expenses (%)], or municipal debt.

 It is worth adding a research scheme.

 The next section is the research area, please add these elements.

 The next part of the article is the description of the research results. This part requires refinement and better clarity.

 Please remove the fragment: “This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.”

 There is definitely too much text; the illustrations should be merged (one illustration with 3-4 maps). It is also worth adding charts and tables that can illustrate comprehensively the results of indicators for several parameters. The description should only cover the most important aspects. The rest is visible on the maps. Please phrase the sentences in a simple and understandable way for everyone, avoiding obvious knowledge.

Example Sentence: "Portugal exhibits a deeply asymmetrical demographic profile, characterized by significant differences between a small number of municipalities with positive dynamics (79) and a vast majority of councils (229) immersed in a demographic decline, often termed by government structures as a 'demographic winter' (figure 1). These spatial inequalities translate into a territorial mosaic where the strong population dynamism of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area stands out, and to a more moderate extent, some Algarve municipalities, coastal cities, or municipalities with a strong attraction capability, such as Braga or Odemira."

 "Portugal struggles with demographic inequalities. On one hand, we have a small group of municipalities (79) where the population is growing. On the other hand, there is a majority of municipalities (229) where the population is declining. This state of affairs is often referred to as a 'demographic winter.' The highest natural growth occurs in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, as well as in some coastal regions like the Algarve, and in highly attractive cities such as Braga and Odemira."

 Or: "Economically, the study on municipal purchasing power per capita reflects an extremely unequal country, with different speeds and opportunities depending on the location each one chooses to live or work. Considering that the average value of Portugal is indexed at 100 in this analysis, we find that only 31 of the 308 Portuguese municipalities (10.1%) show a performance above the national average. This includes several municipalities from the two metropolitan areas (especially around the cities of Lisbon and Porto) and the Algarve, along with some of the main urban centers. Lisbon (186.34), Oeiras (165.5), Porto (147.63), Cascais (121.83), Sines (120.33), Coimbra (119.76), Aveiro (119.68), Alcochete (118.86), Matosinhos (118.06), and São João da Madeira (116.73) top this list. At the opposite extreme, 64 municipalities (20.8%) have a purchasing power value below 70, with Ponta do Sol, Porto Moniz, Penamacor, Vinhais, and Baião standing out as the councils with the poorest performance."

 "ortugal is a country with very large economic differences between individual regions. …..

Please correct the discussion and research results.

Discussion and Results: The first sentence is very similar in both parts, which suggests that there is a need for a clear distinction and more precise formulation.

„ The results of this study provide a significant contribution to understanding and ad- dressing territorial cohesion through an innovative multi-dimensional framework. By analyzing six core dimensions—demography, equity, competitiveness, governance, sustainability, and connectivity—this research offers a comprehensive evaluation of territorial development in Portugal.”

“This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of territorial cohesion by integrating six core dimensions—demography, equity, competitiveness, governance, sustainability, and connectivity.”

Add to the discussion what you have learned from the research that nobody knew before.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors thank you for this relevant paper. I think, however, serious improvements are required to make it ready for publication. I think the underlying problem you try to address is clear and the presentation of data is fine. The problem, however, is that the results are not put in perspective and the methodology is not clear. This makes it difficult to see the added value of the study. Ironically, you mention several times the novelty, innovative character, the value and the vital contribution of the study. If this is true  I invite the authors to explain this better and in a  more convincing way. 

Below I will give my comments and suggestions page by page.

On page 1,.

Please explain the relationship between  territorial cohesion and regional imbalance.

On page 2.

Please explain what is meant by holistic and why this is important and to what extent it differs form integral.

Why is EU relevant for territorialization? I think regional imbalance existed before Portugal became a EU member.

On page 3.

Please explain why innovative approaches are needed, why should they include qualitative and quantitative approaches? What approaches existed or exist, in terms of policy, practice and research, and what was wrong or missing?

Why 6 critical dimensions? Why are they critical?

You seem to use the words processes and situations interchangeable, which is not correct. 

In general I advice to shorten the introduction to about 1 page because of the overlap

Page 4- 8

Please explain the choice of the 6 dimensions , and the indicators better. For sustainability I miss  many indictors such as share of renewables, mobility and more. Also for other dimensions  I miss important indicators. Government if s more than finances and participation 

In addition  the word dynamics is used often but the  indicators do not always indicate dynamics, which is confusing.

 Page 8- 28

This section is lengthy.  To make it more interesting , please put the findings in perspective , what is new and surprising? In addition, I am surprised to see that although the dimensions are key, the indicators are discussed one by one without clear relationship, what makes it difficult to se if the indicators are a solid and integrating basis for he dimensions.

Page 29

Please remove overlap between introduction and discussion

Please pay more attention to the added value of this study compared to earlier studies.  Why are these 6 dimensions  relevant and innovative. Why not 5 or 8?  What about the indicators? Should other indicators be added, why, why not?

It is stated that you because of  your method  found spatial assymetries. But I do not think that is new. In addition it is said that a critical contribution of the study is that it can be replicated. I think this should always be the case.

Please discuss the added value for policy makers in more detail. What do they know more or beter now?

Page 30.

You discuss some limitations of the study  but please discuss their relevance. What can be the consequence of simplifications/ For instance, why should qualitative  approaches be added?

Please check for overlap with previous text.

Please make last paragraph of this  discussion section more specific and meaningful.

Page 31 (and 32 )

Please explain why your study is vital and comprehensive an significant and why and how it contributes to theory and practice (this can also be done in the discussion section, especially the contribution to theory) .

Please check for overlap with  previous section.

I hope that my  comments and suggestions may help to improve the manuscript. Good luck.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has significantly improved the article—the results are now described more clearly, and both the discussion and conclusions have been refined. Although the suggested improvements to the indicators were not incorporated, this was only a recommendation, which the author plans to address in the future.

 

However, I must emphasize that the author has still not included a dedicated section on the research area. While the study is stated to focus on Portugal, the specific locations of the analyzed municipalities remain unspecified, despite being frequently mentioned by name. Adding a separate section on this topic would be crucial, as readers may not be familiar with the exact locations of the administrative units referenced (e.g., Barreiro, Amadora, Seixal, Almada, Moita, Odivelas, Lisbon).

 

Specific comments:

Figure 2 – This figure illustrates the Indicator of Demographic Dynamics (IDD) rather than general demographic trends.

 

Please avoid starting a sentence with "When examining various indicators."

 

Original sentence:

"When examining various indicators, we see that between 2011 and 2021 (census period), 83.8% of the councils lost residents, with almost a third of the municipalities registering population losses exceeding ten percentage points (102)."

 

Revised version:

"Between 2011 and 2021 (census period), 83.8% of the councils experienced population decline, with almost a third of the municipalities registering losses exceeding ten percentage points."

 

In the sentence:

 

"As a result, the aging that characterizes the country (and Europe in general) is felt much more intensely in these territories, with 42.5% of the councils having 250 or more elderly per young person in 2023."

Please add an appropriate citation for the phrase “and Europe in general.”

 

In the sentence:

 

"Only forty municipalities perform above the national average, notably Lisbon, Oeiras, Coimbra, Porto, Cascais, Alcochete, Braga, and Aveiro."

Please indicate in brackets what percentage this represents.

 

Figure 3 – Please label it as "Equity Indicator."

 

Figure 7 – Please caption it as "Management Indicator," and Figure 9.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors thank you for enhancing the manuscript. You clarified the choice  of the six dimensions and of the indicators. And I understand better the relationship between territorial cohesion and regional imbalance. I welcome the reduction in text here and there.

Regarding my other comments I am less satisfied, however, although the paper has potential to become an interesting paper.

1. You keep saying that the paper, approach or findings are novel, innovative, comprehensive, nuanced, significant etcetera. I think it is up to the reader to draw conclusions about novelty and orginality. Please prove that your are innovative etc. instead of saying it  all the time - in particular in the abstract.  I wonder if your study provides practical tools. Also the contribution to theory is not significant. Maybe I am wrong, but please explain why and how. But I think if it comes to methodology, you have someting new to say.
2. Concerning holistic, I was not clear. Sorry for that. Of course I know the term. But I also know that is has several meanings; in other words it is a meaningless buzz word. In many cases "holistic" means "more than one did before". At the end of the paper you use the phrase 'more holistic'; what  does that mean? So explain what you did more than others, in concrete terms; what do you include or integrate compared to others?
3. Concerning EU, I was not clear enough. Sorry again. I know that EU has a regional policy. And I guess it was and is important for Portugal. What I tried to ask is , what changed after EU-policy? Long before EU- supported interventions, regional imbalances could be found in Portugal, true? So what happened after Portugals EU-membership,  what kinds of policies have been introduced and were they succesful? This is important because you suggest that your study is relevant for policy. But why and how? What went wrong and what was succesful after 1986?
4. I do not think you explained enough the importance of new quantitative AND qualitative approaches and  how you succeeded in applying them. I am sorry to say, but page 3 is not very clear or convincing in that. It is full of statements but it it is hardly explained why new approaches, and what types,  are required.  
5. Cohesion cannot be a process, but is a situation  (p 3, line103). In other places, you also mix up situations and processes. 
6. Please leave out - or rephrase and put it into the discussion section - paragraph on page 4 (line 146-150).
7. On page 5, lines 203- 204, it is said that trends can be identified. please explain.
8. The use of the word dynamics is still confusing. In my opinion, dynamics refers to change in time. But then you need indicators that are related to changes in the course of time, for instance economic growth, population shrink, increase of renewables, decrease of number of companies. But in this study (as I mentioned earlier) for instance  social dynamics is based on static aspects, such as qualifications and income, while business dynamics is based on among others business vitality and presence of large companies.  
9. Please explain the added value of this study for policy makers in more detail. Of course they know the problems of territorial cohesion and regional imbalance very well. What did they do so far,  what was wrong in terms of your study , and what concrete suggestions can be given, based on your study? 
10. Please explain in much more detail the added value of your study. In academia the problems of regional inequalities are well known. See for instance the work of Castells and  German regional economists and sociologists, alredy in  in the 1970s and 198)s and many after them. They have theories on regional inequalitiesm explinations and suggetions how th rspond to them. 
11. In the discussion section, please add more relevant literature and name them in stead of general phrases such as 'existing litrature'. What do existing literature say, which literature, what did you add? Be much more specific.  Please discuss the relevance of limitations and lack of indicators. Please compare to other regions and countries. Please discuss internal inequakitiesm for instance in the Lisbon region.  Please root your discussion more in your own findings and comparison to other literature.  In discussion section, summarize most of it add, add other letature, discuss it and emphazize what is really new: what results of new methodology may  add to new insights ans policy.  I was surpirsed to see renewable energy in the discussion section.  Please explain "development islands" and tell more. Why municipalities, please explain, did you mentioned it before?  Avoid terms such as innovative, new etcetra, please show.
12. For conclusions the same as for discussion, please explain what is new instead of repeating trems such as holistic, profound, innovative etcera. Please remove limitations section to discussion. Please explain better what should be done in new resear.
13. Hopefully, by suggetsion will help you to engance the manuscript. good luck. .   

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, this time you did not take my comments seriously, unfortunately. Sometimes you gave the same answers as before. I am very surprised. I reviewed hunderds of papers for all kinds of journals, and I never received a response like this. Especially the last part of the paper, in which you do not refer adequately to academic papers but just say that "other literature says the same as we" and phrases like that, is below academic level. I would not accept this type of referencing from my Masters' students. I am sorry to say. So I do not see any reasons to change my judgement and to  explain it again. It is up to the editor to take a decision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf