“to research and develop” is better if you think of them as a single activity.
“to research and to develop” is better if you think of them as two separate activities.
Both are valid ways of thinking and speaking.
The first two
"Map of the Municipality of Lisbon"
"Map of the Lisbon Municipality"
Are more or less exchangeable
"Lisbon Municipality Map"
sounds more informal. If you actually bought a paper object it might be labelled like that to save space on the cover.
I think the best way to identify which of it needs to be used in a sentence is to omit the third person and see if it still sounds right with just you in reference.
You and I were in a meeting yesterday vs I was in a meeting yesterday
In the above case, it won't be right to use "me" because "Me was in a meeting" wouldn'...
If i read this in an academic article which i was reviewing for a scientific journal I suspect I might raise one or more of the following points.
1- Is it suitable for an international audience since it is more familiar in those places where baseball is played?
2- Why are you presenting an estimate based on a rough estimate rather than calculating a proper ...
There is no single authority to which one would turn to determine whether phrasing is "formal" enough for a situation; sometimes, even in an academic paper or a public address, colloquial phrasing is more communicative of tone, region, familiarity, and so forth. Whether it is acceptable is a judgment your audience makes.
Merriam-Webster does not ...
I consider it somewhat informal. You could replace it with estimated or approximate.
If you need to stress that they are very inaccurate, you could use rough approximation or very rough approximation, but would need to change the structure of the sentence. I personally would equate ballpark with rough approximation.