Newcomers in Remote Rural Areas and Their Impact on the Local Community—The Case of Poland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is socially relevant and contributes to rural revitalization under counter-urbanization. However, the paper lacks novelty and theoretical depth, and its empirical analysis requires improvement. I suggest a major revision before further consideration.
(1)Although the paper emphasizes the spatial impact of newcomers (their impact on village space), the analysis lacks any systematic spatial indicators or visual representations. I strongly recommend integrating spatial metrics or GIS-based tools to support this dimension.
(2)The manuscript does not establish a clear theoretical framework. As a result, the analysis is largely descriptive and relies heavily on survey outcomes.
(3)The use of overlapping concepts such as newcomers, urban incomers, neopeasants, new agrarians, new pioneers,etc. are confusing. Are these terms synonymous or contextually different? The authors should clarify these definitions and justify the conceptual boundaries.
(4)The details of the questionnaire design, item structure, and data validity are insufficient. I suggest attaching the full questionnaire as supplementary material.
(5)Many of the references are too old, and the style should be corrected.
(6) I suggest the conclusion could be strengthened with recommendations for spatial governance and rural planning.
Author Response
I am attaching the article file in the control changes mode
(1)Although the paper emphasizes the spatial impact of newcomers (their impact on village space), the analysis lacks any systematic spatial indicators or visual representations. I strongly recommend integrating spatial metrics or GIS-based tools to support this dimension.
The article doesn't emphasize the spatial aspect, but I agree with the Reviewer that there are spatial issues that haven't been adequately addressed. Therefore, I have made a correction, weakening the spatial emphasis (in the title, abstract, and main text). In this case, it's more about the appearance and aesthetics of the village, which I have tried to clarify in the revised text. The article has a distinctly social character and is based on social methods (interviews and surveys), so the use of spatial indicators or GIS-based tools is unjustified and impossible. The reviewer has in mind a completely different form of article, based on numerical data and quantitative analyses. My proposal is different.
(2)The manuscript does not establish a clear theoretical framework. As a result, the analysis is largely descriptive and relies heavily on survey outcomes.
It's difficult to argue with a Reviewer who expects an article of a different nature. In this case, the basis for this article is precisely surveys and interviews—that is, "soft methods." These are not quantitative studies, which would allow for the use of synthetic quantitative indicators.
(3)The use of overlapping concepts such as newcomers, urban incomers, neopeasants, new agrarians, new pioneers,etc. are confusing. Are these terms synonymous or contextually different? The authors should clarify these definitions and justify the conceptual boundaries.
These concepts were only referenced in the literature review to demonstrate how diverse groups of newcomers can be. I see no need to define these concepts, as the groups under study are defined in the text (Chapter 2).
(4)The details of the questionnaire design, item structure, and data validity are insufficient. I suggest attaching the full questionnaire as supplementary material.
In the case of a questionnaire survey, I always provide the topic of the question and the results in the context of the issue being analyzed. Therefore, I consider it inappropriate to present the entire questionnaire. However, if the editors can add a four-page questionnaire as an appendix, I am willing to do so.
(5)Many of the references are too old, and the style should be corrected.
The literature is relatively extensive. Taking the Reviewer's comments into account, I have removed several less important older items, but retained those that are important for the context of this study.
(6) I suggest the conclusion could be strengthened with recommendations for spatial governance and rural planning.
Recommendations regarding planning and management are not entirely within the scope and purpose of this study. However, I consider the Reviewer's comment important and have added a few sentences in the conclusions that are more in the nature of proposals/observations than recommendations regarding the relationship between newcomers and permanent residents.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The introduction is extensive and situates the study well within the international literature; however, the research gap could be highlighted more clearly, and the study’s aim should be defined more precisely. References to the latest publications addressing counterurbanization in the post-COVID-19 context could also be strengthened.
- The description of the methods is reliable; however, it lacks a more detailed characterization of the surveyed villages (e.g., population size, main functions) and a clearer definition of the “last few years” criterion for identifying new residents.
- The criteria for village selection are only partly explained. While the exclusion of suburban zones is justified, more detail is needed on how regional diversity was ensured and whether any socio-economic indicators were used.
- The definition of “newcomer” could be further refined. Currently, “new residents” and “second-home owners” are distinguished, but the threshold for “last few years” is vague—specifying the exact time range would help reproducibility.
- It would be useful to provide a short table summarizing the characteristics of the surveyed villages (population size, main economic functions, tourism intensity) for better context.
- Some key findings from interviews are embedded in long narrative passages. A concise summary table of main themes from qualitative analysis could help the reader grasp the most important points quickly.
- The paper would benefit from a figure or conceptual diagram showing the main channels and directions of knowledge transfer.
- While the paper cites extensive international literature, the discussion could more explicitly compare the Polish findings with those from other countries, particularly regarding seasonal residents' engagement in local life.
- The tension between newcomers’ preservationist attitudes and locals’ modernization needs is important; this could be linked to broader debates in rural planning and governance.
- The tables are clear, but they could be supplemented with sample sizes (n) and some descriptions in the text could be shortened. There are no figures presenting the scheme of knowledge transfer or the locations of the study sites—adding them would enhance the visual appeal.
- The manuscript is generally well-written, but some sentences are overly long and could be broken down for clarity. Minor typographical and grammatical errors should be corrected.
Author Response
I am attaching the article file in the control changes mode
The introduction is extensive and situates the study well within the international literature; however, the research gap could be highlighted more clearly, and the study’s aim should be defined more precisely. References to the latest publications addressing counterurbanization in the post-COVID-19 context could also be strengthened.
The comment was taken into account and a correction was made.
The description of the methods is reliable; however, it lacks a more detailed characterization of the surveyed villages (e.g., population size, main functions) and a clearer definition of the “last few years” criterion for identifying new residents.
The selection of villages was not based on population size or economic function, but rather on their location in different regions of the country, which ensured socio-cultural diversity. For clarity, an illustration presenting the village's location has been added.
The criteria for new residents have been clarified.
The criteria for village selection are only partly explained. While the exclusion of suburban zones is justified, more detail is needed on how regional diversity was ensured and whether any socio-economic indicators were used.
A clarification was added. It was determined that the criterion of regional diversity is more important than the diversity of socioeconomic indicators. Regional diversity is multi-criteria in nature.
The definition of “newcomer” could be further refined. Currently, “new residents” and “second-home owners” are distinguished, but the threshold for “last few years” is vague—specifying the exact time range would help reproducibility.
The criteria for new residents have been clarified.
It would be useful to provide a short table summarizing the characteristics of the surveyed villages (population size, main economic functions, tourism intensity) for better context.
As previously explained, the criterion of location in various historical and cultural regions was applied. The reviewer's suggestion is to include a table with the basic characteristics of the villages studied. In my opinion, such an addition would be too extensive (18 villages) and of little relevance to the reader.
Some key findings from interviews are embedded in long narrative passages. A concise summary table of main themes from qualitative analysis could help the reader grasp the most important points quickly. The paper would benefit from a figure or conceptual diagram showing the main channels and directions of knowledge transfer.
The channels of information and knowledge flow were not generally examined (a channel cannot be defined as a transfer location). However, the directions of transfer were assessed by both groups. A graphic was introduced to illustrate this.
While the paper cites extensive international literature, the discussion could more explicitly compare the Polish findings with those from other countries, particularly regarding seasonal residents' engagement in local life.
Polish literature on urban-rural knowledge transfer is very poor, which is why it is difficult to relate research results in this area to international literature. In the case of seasonal residents, the example of Czarnecki's 2018 research was cited.
The tension between newcomers’ preservationist attitudes and locals’ modernization needs is important; this could be linked to broader debates in rural planning and governance.
In my opinion, this Reviewer's proposal is too distant from the subject of the article, especially since I decided not to include the issue of rural spatial development.
The tables are clear, but they could be supplemented with sample sizes (n) and some descriptions in the text could be shortened. There are no figures presenting the scheme of knowledge transfer or the locations of the study sites—adding them would enhance the visual appeal.
As suggested by the Reviewer, I have added two figures presenting the location of the surveyed villages and the structure of the responses to the question about the acquisition of knowledge by the surveyed groups. The knowledge transfer model itself could be included in the theoretical discussion, but this is a broad topic and goes beyond the scope of this study. However, I referred to my earlier study, which included a basic model of knowledge transfer between sender and receiver (Bański 2024).
The manuscript is generally well-written, but some sentences are overly long and could be broken down for clarity. Minor typographical and grammatical errors should be corrected.
A few minor corrections have been made. If the text is accepted for publication, I am willing to have it proofread by a professional translator.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy earlier comments may have caused some discomfort. With the author’s excellent response and revisions, I have no further comments. Good luck.
Author Response
I would like to thank the Reviewer for his work and valuable comments. I discussed some of the comments, but all of them contributed to improving the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMost of the comments contained in the review have been taken into account. The scope of the changes made is not very extensive, but sufficient to improve the quality of the article. The only major concern is the limited scope of changes in the Results section.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageBefore publishing an article, it is recommended that it be proofread by a native speaker.
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewer for his numerous and valuable comments.
There were few comments regarding the results section. I did not include the proposed knowledge transfer model and its directions, as I had discussed this in another study, which I cited. However, I did include, among other things, Figure 2, which enriches the results section.
The text in the first version was translated by a native speaker. However, I made some modifications, so if the editors deem it necessary, linguistic corrections will be made.
