Digitalisation as a Challenge for Smart Villages: The Case of Poland†
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear author,
I am grateful for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It provides an important summary of the discussion of the spatial differentiation of digitalisation challenges in Poland's rural areas, focusing on access to fast Internet and digital competence across rural and urban-rural municipalities.
The article would be improved if the authors, in addition to what they reported, also presented some more elements:
The abstract should mention how became the operationalization of the aspects.
Line 17: What does the author mean by urban-rural municipalities?
Lines 17-18: What kind of mixed approach does the author mean? I suggest to be more specific regarding the methodological spectrum
2 . Theoretical foundation
The theoretical background is particularly well-developed and presents the entire essence of smart villages.
3 . The methodology should mention which geographic information software was used for thematic cartography. Furthermore, I do not understand the term urban-rural. The author may mean semi-rural and semi-urban?
Furthermore, what criteria are used to separate spatial units into urban-rural?
Line 405: A source is needed for this statement.
It would help if the maps had at least the names of the regions so that those who do not know Poland as a country could understand.
The maps are the main tool for reflecting the analysis's results. I am not entirely sure that I understand the criterion the author uses to define the boundaries in Figures 10 and 11, for example, the difference between the "small" category and the "very small" category, and so on.
It would be useful to have a table below the maps with some basic statistics for each category.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer. Thank you very much for all your comments. They were very helpful in improving the article. Below are my point-by-point responses.
The abstract should mention how became the operationalization of the aspects.
The abstract has been significantly revised both in terms of the results and the methodology used. However, due to the length limit (200 words), it cannot be more elaborate.
Line 17: What does the author mean by urban-rural municipalities?
This was changed in the abstract, but is explained in subsection 3.2. In the Polish system of administrative division at the level of municipalities, there are three types: urban municipalities (consist only of a town), urban-rural municipalities (consist of a town-seat of the municipality and rural settlements), rural municipalities (consist only of rural settlements, and also the seat is a village). The division used is therefore administrative.
Lines 17-18: What kind of mixed approach does the author mean? I suggest to be more specific regarding the methodological spectrum
This has been detailed and is described in the methodology chapter, which has also been modified.
2 . Theoretical foundation
The theoretical background is particularly well-developed and presents the entire essence of smart villages.
Thank you for the appreciation.
3 . The methodology should mention which geographic information software was used for thematic cartography. Furthermore, I do not understand the term urban-rural. The author may mean semi-rural and semi-urban?
The administrative division is explained above. The software is described in the lines 527-530 in revised version. I am using the thematic map and spatial analysis system MapViewer version 8.7 licensed by Golden Software LLC.
Furthermore, what criteria are used to separate spatial units into urban-rural?
There was no need for it. This is the official administrative division of the country and statistics are collected within this framework.
Line 405: A source is needed for this statement.
Of course, added.
It would help if the maps had at least the names of the regions so that those who do not know Poland as a country could understand.
The map in Figure 4 (new numeration) includes the names of the provinces. With full awareness, I do not put the names of the provinces on the other maps, as such attempts resulted in a significant reduction in the readability of them.
The maps are the main tool for reflecting the analysis's results. I am not entirely sure that I understand the criterion the author uses to define the boundaries in Figures 10 and 11, for example, the difference between the "small" category and the "very small" category, and so on.
It would be useful to have a table below the maps with some basic statistics for each category.
This issue has been expanded in lines 509-522. I hope this is clearer now. Basic statistics are incorporated in Table 1.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
I am sending several ideas and comments regarding Your article:
1. The title of the article should be corrected, as it seems that there is a trend of declining smart villages in Poland due to digitization processes.
2. The purpose of the study should be more precisely defined in the abstract emphasizing the practical significance of the study and the connection with the concept of smart villages (because it is mentioned in the title of the study, and for it a lot of attention is paid in the article).
3. It is unclear how Figure 3 relates to the current study, how the conducted research is related to developing countries (their rural areas are certainly not the object of the research).
4. The methodological assumption of the empirical study is questionable, that the older the age group, the less often people in this group use the Internet and have lower digital competences. A separate study is needed to assess the digital competences of the inhabitants of rural areas in Poland. The indicator "Ratio of people of immobile age to people of mobile working age" does not reflect the real digital competences of Poland rural residents.
5. I would recommend separating Discussions and Conclusions.
6. Only one paragraph is devoted to Discussion. The Discussion part needs to be expanded. Obtained research results should be compared with other similar studies. In general, the article pays relatively little attention to the analysis of other related studies, applied methodologies and the results obtained in them.
7. The conclusions could be abbreviated because they repeat the research results, or even Introduction in some places.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer. Thank you very much for all your comments. They were very helpful in improving the article. Below are my point-by-point responses.
The title of the article should be corrected, as it seems that there is a trend of declining smart villages in Poland due to digitization processes.
Actually, the title may have been a bit misleading. It has been corrected.
The purpose of the study should be more precisely defined in the abstract emphasizing the practical significance of the study and the connection with the concept of smart villages (because it is mentioned in the title of the study, and for it a lot of attention is paid in the article).
The abstract has been significantly revised both in terms of the results and the methodology used. However, due to the length limit (200 words), it cannot be more elaborate.
It is unclear how Figure 3 relates to the current study, how the conducted research is related to developing countries (their rural areas are certainly not the object of the research).
I accepted the suggestion and thought it would be better to remove this figure, as well as the paragraphs on comparing the concept of smart villages in the EU vs globally. I hope that now this chapter is more essential.
The methodological assumption of the empirical study is questionable, that the older the age group, the less often people in this group use the Internet and have lower digital competences. A separate study is needed to assess the digital competences of the inhabitants of rural areas in Poland. The indicator "Ratio of people of immobile age to people of mobile working age" does not reflect the real digital competences of Poland rural residents.
I am aware that proxy measures should be treated with caution, but in spatial studies at the lowest adminisitrative division they can be used. I conclude that it is better to study an issue with proxy measures than to give up on a phenomenon due to lack of data. In this case, I found a number of studies that confirm that the higher the percentage of older people, the lower the digital competence (line 445 in revised version). In addition, with this point in mind, I found an additional study. The indicator used tells us about two phenomena: first, it indicates what kind of age structure we have in a given administrative unit, and in addition, it is possible to infer the future structure from it. My study is based on the results of my doctoral thesis, which has been reviewed by three academics, and therefore I am confident that the measure presented reflects reality as much as a proxy indicator can. Of course, I am aware that this should be interpreted very carefully, and I thank you for this comment.
I would recommend separating Discussions and Conclusions.
On the basis of all the reviews, I significantly reformulated the discussion, removing some of the information and adding others. I gave up adding separate conclusions because, firstly, the article is already long, and secondly, the journal allows the text to end on the discussion, which necessarily includes the most important conclusions.
Only one paragraph is devoted to Discussion. The Discussion part needs to be expanded. Obtained research results should be compared with other similar studies. In general, the article pays relatively little attention to the analysis of other related studies, applied methodologies and the results obtained in them.
The discussion has been shortened on the one hand and expanded with new themes on the other. As much as I could, I added references to other results. However, as for Poland, there is a lack of this type of spatial research at the municipal level, which I also see. Nevertheless, I hope that now the discussion is better and more useful for readers.
The conclusions could be abbreviated because they repeat the research results, or even Introduction in some places.
As mentioned above.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The word "Example" in the title of the paper might be better replaced with "the case."
Some aspects need to be clearer regarding their theoretical justification. For instance, is the lower speed of the internet a significant cause of migration from rural to urban areas? Is this justified by other research or reports? The Cork Declaration that is mentioned by the authors, refers to the quality of life in rural areas, but it is unclear whether it highlights the lack of high-speed internet as a reason for migration. The authors should clarify this point.
Furthermore, the distinction between mobile and immobile individuals is not clearly defined. Why are older age groups (40+) considered as immobile? The authors should provide further clarification on this matter too.
A more detailed analysis is needed regarding the methods and variables used in the paper. Section 3.5 should be expanded to provide more details that would be useful for potential readers who may wish to apply a similar methodology to their own datasets. The results are based on this methodology. Thus, it should be expanded and described further.
The authors should also better connect the results with the title of the paper ("Digitalisation as a Challenge for Smart Villages Facing Decline"). The discussion (results and conclusions) should clearly outline how the lack of digitalization affects rural areas and hinders development. The paper primarily focuses on the first part (the lack of digitalization), but it should better connect this with the second part (the effects on rural areas in Poland). The latter is not clearly presented with specific data, such as regional growth, migration rates, etc.
Also, inverse causality might also explain the data. For example, it could be the development of urban areas that attracts digital technology providers, rather than digital technologies creating urban areas through the movement of people, etc. In other words, the authors should also consider the reverse scenario: that digital technologies are directed toward already existing urban areas, rather than causing population concentration and migration from rural to urban areas.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer. Thank you very much for all your comments. They were very helpful in improving the article. Below are my point-by-point responses.
The word "Example" in the title of the paper might be better replaced with "the case."
The word has been changed.
Some aspects need to be clearer regarding their theoretical justification. For instance, is the lower speed of the internet a significant cause of migration from rural to urban areas? Is this justified by other research or reports? The Cork Declaration that is mentioned by the authors, refers to the quality of life in rural areas, but it is unclear whether it highlights the lack of high-speed internet as a reason for migration. The authors should clarify this point.
There is not yet much research that directly answers this question. Nevertheless, as suggested, I have included some other studies that talk about the Internet-migration relationship. In my opinion, however, they should be interpreted with caution, since migration and population processes in general are multifaceted and all contribute to the rural decline phenomenon described in the text (demography + other factors). The Cork Declaration is general and recognizes some general processes and phenomena in rural areas, and among them depopulation.
Furthermore, the distinction between mobile and immobile individuals is not clearly defined. Why are older age groups (40+) considered as immobile? The authors should provide further clarification on this matter too.
The division of working age into mobile and immobile is statistical. An additional explanation based on the definition of the Polish Statistics (GUS) has been added in the methodological chapter (lines 440-460 in revised version).
A more detailed analysis is needed regarding the methods and variables used in the paper. Section 3.5 should be expanded to provide more details that would be useful for potential readers who may wish to apply a similar methodology to their own datasets. The results are based on this methodology. Thus, it should be expanded and described further.
The description in subsection 3.5 was enriched with additional explanations of the indicators, as well as a more detailed description of obtaining synthetic measures. I hope this will allow readers to potentially replicate the methodology for their own research.
The authors should also better connect the results with the title of the paper ("Digitalisation as a Challenge for Smart Villages Facing Decline"). The discussion (results and conclusions) should clearly outline how the lack of digitalization affects rural areas and hinders development. The paper primarily focuses on the first part (the lack of digitalization), but it should better connect this with the second part (the effects on rural areas in Poland). The latter is not clearly presented with specific data, such as regional growth, migration rates, etc.
The discussion has been shortened on the one hand and expanded with new themes on the other. As much as I could, I added references to other results. However, as for Poland, there is a lack of this type of spatial research at the municipal level, which I also see. Nevertheless, I hope that now the discussion is better and more useful for readers.
Also, inverse causality might also explain the data. For example, it could be the development of urban areas that attracts digital technology providers, rather than digital technologies creating urban areas through the movement of people, etc. In other words, the authors should also consider the reverse scenario: that digital technologies are directed toward already existing urban areas, rather than causing population concentration and migration from rural to urban areas.
However, this is happening and is included in the text. This is especially true of the model view of rural digitalisation (Figure 2), where in the initial phases it is difficult for villages to break the effects of the center-periphery divide, and thus “drive a wedge” into the vicious circle of development. The question also arises - whether to support the most depopulating villages in digital infarstructure at all costs? Will there even be a demand for it? These are interesting topics for further research, thank you.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear colleagues,
Thanks for the great effort in improving the article. Nevertheless, the essential remark was not taken into account. I still believe that a separate study is needed to assess the digital competences of the population of rural areas in Poland. The methodological assumption of the empirical study is questionable, that the older the age group, the less often people in this group use the Internet and have lower digital competencies. The indicator "Ratio of people of immobile age to people of mobile working age" does not reflect the real digital competences of Polish rural residents. More deeper justification is needed if it is not possible to change or develop empirical research.
Author Response
Thanks for the great effort in improving the article. Nevertheless, the essential remark was not taken into account. I still believe that a separate study is needed to assess the digital competences of the population of rural areas in Poland. The methodological assumption of the empirical study is questionable, that the older the age group, the less often people in this group use the Internet and have lower digital competencies. The indicator "Ratio of people of immobile age to people of mobile working age" does not reflect the real digital competences of Polish rural residents. More deeper justification is needed if it is not possible to change or develop empirical research.
Response below:
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your comments to date. In the second round of revision I have tried to justify the choice of a proxy of digital competence as comprehensively as possible. I have done this at three levels, which are included in lines 450-490 in the revised text (408-450 in pdf without changes) (marked yellow). I have also included the added paragraphs in this response.
The first level is theoretical justification. According to the methodology of social studies represented by Stefan Nowak, the researcher must sometimes infer the occurrence of certain phenomena from a so-called latent characteristic, directly unobservable. In such a situation, the existence of an indicatum cannot be ascertained by direct observation, but this existence must be justified indirectly, on the basis of measured correlations as well as theoretical assumptions. This is also the case with the measurement of digital competence at the municipal level. The chosen indicator is based both on certain theoretical assumptions as well as on the results of other studies presented below, which make it possible to demonstrate its relationship to the is-sue under study. Indeed, as Michael R. Wickens proved, “it is better to use even a poor proxy than to use none at all and omit the unobservable variable”.
The next level is to cite in more detail other studies that demonstrate that the substitution indicator I have used (although not a complementary indicator) does serve its purpose and explains the indicatum. According to ‘Social Diagnosis’ (http://www.diagnoza.com/data/report/report_2015.pdf) data for 2015, an average of 92% of 16-44 year olds used the internet (16-24 year olds: 97.5%, 25-34 year olds 92.9%, 35-44 year olds: 85.6%), while in older groups, the percentage was already significantly lower at 60% for 45-59 year olds, 40.8% for 60-64 year olds and 17.9% for older ones [52] (p. 383). Data from the Centre for Public Opinion Research 2022 present a similar distribution of use of this medium: 18-34 years: 100%, 35-44 years: 96%, 45-54 years: 86%, 55-64 years: 65%, 65-74 years: 41%, older ones: 22%. The Polish Ministry of Digital Affairs calculates that as many as 78% of those not using the internet in the 16-74 age group are over 60. Half of the non-users cite lack of skills as the main reason. Moreover, according to Woźniak-Jęchorek [55], from the per-spective of data on the use of the Internet, the groups with the highest digital exclusion are the oldest people, to a lesser extent people with a low level of education and people with a poor material situation. This regularity is also confirmed by the results of the Information Society Survey conducted by the Statistics Poland. Overall, numerous studies confirm that the older the age group, the less frequently people in this group use the Internet, have lower digital skills and generally perform basic activities using the Internet, such as browsing news or sending e-mails. In addition to research evidence, this relationship is also intuitive.
The third level is the additional statistical measurements I made. As it turns out this measure shows a relatively high correlation with demographic indicators: 1) the proportion of the population in the post-working age group (r=0.629), and 2) the ra-tio of people in the post-working age group to people in the pre-working age group (the so-called child-elderly ratio) (r=-0.701). Its explanatory value can be assessed as high, as it applies to the entire population (it is not based on a sample).
I hope that the rationale I have presented will find your acceptance. So far, in spite of a diligent search, I have unfortunately not been able (nor has anyone else at the municipal/local level surveyed) to find measures that directly measure digital competences in a systematic way, i.e. in a reproducible manner according to the same methodology for each territorial unit in the country. I hope that in the future, advances in techniques for measuring different phenomena will produce more satisfactory results based on a complementary measures.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
accepted in the present form
Author Response
accepted in the present form
Yhank you. I would add that, at the request of another reviewer's comments, the methodology has again been expanded.