Regional Centres and Intra-Regional Peripheral Zones in Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper analyzes the settlement system of Poland from the perspective of regional cohesion based on the Huff model. The parameter chosen was the price of transport. Another parameter could have been chosen, for example, transport time, which would have eliminated the coefficients that were obviously determined intuitively. However, the results would probably not have been much different. The result was the discovery of internally peripheral zones that are not fully integrated with their regional centers which was depicted on instructive maps.

The results depend on the administrative centers, their mass (expressed in population) and the transport location of non-central municipalities seats. The solution could therefore lie in strengthening the voivodeship cities, which is a long-term process with uncertain results, improving the transport infrastructure, in which Poland has made significant progress in recent years, and modifying the administrative organization.

The use of the Huff model provided a non-used opportunity for modeling, i.e., creating alternative maps with the addition of some significant cities that are not voivodeship centers or, conversely, removing the weakest voivodeship centers. This could contribute to the possible future modification of the voivodeships, although other factors, especially administrative-political ones, also determine it. This is perhaps a topic for future research.

The discussion could also highlight some specific features of the Polish settlement system. The gravitation towards centres may also be a function of other (soft) factors, such as historical tradition. Did the historical division of Poland into Prussian, Russian and Austrian occupations have any impact? The Upper Silesian industrial district formed a polycentric territory in the industrial era. Is this still the case, or has Katowice clearly taken over the function of the leading centre? A similar polycentric place was the Tricity.

The comments given are more likely to be topics for discussion or suggestions for future research. In my opinion, the article can be published in its original form.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have slightly adjusted the wording of the discussion to better highlight the specificity of the Polish settlement system and the development conditions arising from it.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented article is in fact a relatively short report from research in which the authors analyze (using relatively simple but adequate methods) the spatial scope of functional regions by determining the communication accessibility of regional capitals in Poland.

The very limited scope of the research (in terms of territory and time) means that the results of these analyses have moderate scientific significance (although they can be a good basis for formulating regional policy) and may arouse little interest for readers from outside Poland.

In addition to the above reservations, two issues should be mentioned among the most important drawbacks of the presented analyses. Firstly, they are static in nature. They do not present the issues studied in a longer time perspective. Given the large investments in the development of transport infrastructure in Poland in the last dozen or so years, a dynamic analysis of changes in transport accessibility would be valuable in itself.

Secondly, the authors analyze the transport accessibility of regional capitals in isolation from other socio-economic variables, assuming in advance that in the case of areas without good communication, their peripherality is the cause of economic stagnation and unfavorable demographic trends (depopulation). Meanwhile, both the processes of economic growth and demographic changes are taking place in Poland with varying intensity, also in relation to the areas defined in the article as peripheral. This is clearly visible when comparing the development dynamics of the northern regions of Poland with its central part (Łódź Province) or southern part (Małopolska Province, Lower Silesia Province).

The authors also assume from the outset that the presence of a large city is a factor stimulating regional development. Meanwhile, analyses conducted also in Poland (e.g. at the EUROREG Institute in Warsaw) show that a large city can be a barrier to the development of areas located around it, for example through the phenomenon of sucking out human and capital resources.

Finally, it should be emphasized that communication accessibility only partially depends on road infrastructure. There are also other means of transport.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to read the text and for your detailed comments. We hope that the introduced corrections have brought the article to an acceptable standard of quality.

Comments 1: In addition to the above reservations, two issues should be mentioned among the most important drawbacks of the presented analyses. Firstly, they are static in nature. They do not present the issues studied in a longer time perspective. Given the large investments in the development of transport infrastructure in Poland in the last dozen or so years, a dynamic analysis of changes in transport accessibility would be valuable in itself.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing out the static nature of this research. However, a dynamic approach, in the context of the study's objective, does not lead to significantly different results regarding the scope of influence of regional centres and their alignment with administrative-type relationships. This was verified in relation to previous research published in 2016, and the conclusions from this reference are described in the new paragraph (from line 319).

Comments 2: Secondly, the authors analyze the transport accessibility of regional capitals in isolation from other socio-economic variables, assuming in advance that in the case of areas without good communication, their peripherality is the cause of economic stagnation and unfavorable demographic trends (depopulation). Meanwhile, both the processes of economic growth and demographic changes are taking place in Poland with varying intensity, also in relation to the areas defined in the article as peripheral. This is clearly visible when comparing the development dynamics of the northern regions of Poland with its central part (Łódź Province) or southern part (Małopolska Province, Lower Silesia Province).
Response 2: Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. The issue of transport accessibility in relation to other processes occurring at the subregional and local levels is addressed in the paragraph starting at line 326. 

Comments 3: The authors also assume from the outset that the presence of a large city is a factor stimulating regional development. Meanwhile, analyses conducted also in Poland (e.g. at the EUROREG Institute in Warsaw) show that a large city can be a barrier to the development of areas located around it, for example through the phenomenon of sucking out human and capital resources.
Response 3: Thank you for this comment. We have cited works addressing this issue (in line 280).

Comments 4: Finally, it should be emphasized that communication accessibility only partially depends on road infrastructure. There are also other means of transport.
Response 4: This is an important issue. We have included an appropriate note at the abstract stage (line 20).

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study hypothesizes that, in consideration of the EU cohesion policy objectives, regional centers (in Poland, these are centers of administrative territorial units named Voivodeships) should exert significant economic and social influence over their administrative regions. This selection is pertinent to the necessity of sustainable regional development and offers insights into the spatial dimensions of economic growth. The introduction is well-written, but the methods and results section is inadequate in terms of supporting the comprehensiveness and scientific rigor of the study. Furthermore, the discussion section requires improvement. The following detailed suggestions are provided for this purpose.

1. The Huff Model Gravity model is merely one approach that is biased towards showing the intensity of interaction of Regional Centres. Conversely, the authors also propose that this approach is merely a hypothesis and that it should be supplemented with other approaches in order to support this hypothesis.
2. Please ascertain the basis for arriving at the local cost of radial friction coefficients. The methodology is centred upon the scientific selection of local cost coefficients. Indeed, the adjustment of arbitrary coefficients will result in divergent outcomes, thereby demonstrating the significance of zoning.
3. It is suggesting that the sizes of Figures 1 and 2 remain consistent. In order to facilitate immediate comprehension, it is strongly advised that the nomenclature of the geographical locations be assigned to Figure 1. This will enable the reader to discern the various regions with immediate visual clarity. Additionally, Figure 3 is referenced in the text, but it is not included. The possibility of a clerical error cannot be discounted.
4. The objective of this study is to establish a comprehensive understanding of the function of Regional Centres and Intra-Regional Peripheral Zones. A more in-depth investigation is necessary to achieve this. The current study is inadequate in its exploration of the zones, as it merely focuses on the interior and exterior of the zones.
5. Ultimately, it is anticipated that the authors will enhance the study to a greater extent, particularly by incorporating additional quantitative studies. The following step is to consider the quantitative findings in Abstract and to draw conclusions based on these findings. 

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to read the text and for your detailed comments, which we address in the following sections. We hope that the introduced corrections to the methodology, discussion, and conclusion sections have brought the article to an acceptable standard of quality.

Comments 1: The Huff Model Gravity model is merely one approach that is biased towards showing the intensity of interaction of Regional Centres. Conversely, the authors also propose that this approach is merely a hypothesis and that it should be supplemented with other approaches in order to support this hypothesis.
Response 1: Yes, the Huff gravity model is one of the possible research approaches—other methods (e.g., taxonomic ones) have been described in sources 26 to 34 (cited in footnote no. 3). Additionally, in their research practice, the authors have used various methods in this regard, such as McQuitty's method or shift-share analysis. On the one hand, we wanted to avoid overusing self-citations, while on the other hand, we selected works that address the relevant issues using diverse methods (citations 21, 56, 57).

Comments 2: Please ascertain the basis for arriving at the local cost of radial friction coefficients. The methodology is centred upon the scientific selection of local cost coefficients. Indeed, the adjustment of arbitrary coefficients will result in divergent outcomes, thereby demonstrating the significance of zoning.
Response 2: Fully agreed. Local friction was determined on a scale from 0 (lowest friction) to 1 (highest friction), with faster travel speeds on roads resulting in lower friction. The fuzzification curve applied to real numbers has an s-shaped character. An appropriate note has been included in the text (from line 164).

Comments 3: It is suggesting that the sizes of Figures 1 and 2 remain consistent. In order to facilitate immediate comprehension, it is strongly advised that the nomenclature of the geographical locations be assigned to Figure 1. This will enable the reader to discern the various regions with immediate visual clarity. Additionally, Figure 3 is referenced in the text, but it is not included. The possibility of a clerical error cannot be discounted.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing out these issues. The figures and the reference have been corrected.

Comments 4: The objective of this study is to establish a comprehensive understanding of the function of Regional Centres and Intra-Regional Peripheral Zones. A more in-depth investigation is necessary to achieve this. The current study is inadequate in its exploration of the zones, as it merely focuses on the interior and exterior of the zones.
Response 4: The analysis was designed to evaluate the strength of the functional links (economy, labour market, education, public sector, trade and services, investment) between regional centres and their regions, as well as the impact of regional cities on the overall regional structure in formal (administrative) terms, particularly on local units located within the zone of direct functional links. These zones were treated as areas of focus for cohesion policy activities aimed at accelerating regional integration processes and increasing development opportunities. Additionally, it should be noted that the close connections within the functional zones of regional cities create mutual relationships and integrate them. In contrast, areas outside these functional zones gradually accumulate the negative effects of weaker connections. A relevant paragraph addressing these issues has been added to the study, referencing two works that discuss these matters [56,57].

Comments 5: Ultimately, it is anticipated that the authors will enhance the study to a greater extent, particularly by incorporating additional quantitative studies. The following step is to consider the quantitative findings in Abstract and to draw conclusions based on these findings. 
Response 5: In the abstract, three sentences directly referring to the obtained results were added [lines 21 to 26], while in the conclusion, the sentence starting at line 352 was reformulated.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The changes applied to the manuscript allow to publish it in a present form

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have meticulously revised the basis of Friction Coefficients, the details of the diagrams, and added a discussion section. However, the depth of the content has yet to be improved and verified by different methods. It is recommended that the full text be checked thoroughly.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review and provide comments on the text. 
Comment 1:  However, the depth of the content has yet to be improved and verified by different methods. It is recommended that the full text be checked thoroughly. 
Response 1: In order to verify the results of the study, they were compared to the authors' research published in 2015 (text from line 331). The method and cost calculation approach remain analogous; however, changes have occurred in the road network layout, the number of people residing in municipalities, and, in rare cases, the administrative boundaries of municipalities. Additionally, the results were compared using a 1-hectare analytical grid (100m x 100m). Of course, gravity-based approaches are just one of the possible research methodologies, and their results are similar to at least some other studies based, among other factors, on multidimensional analyses, to name just a few [68, 76, 77, 78]. The study results were verified in the context of, among others, item 68, which includes various research approaches applied in the Polish practice of delimiting functional areas, as well as a methodological summary of this research field up to 2023.