Between Meteorite, Glacier and Rivers—Towards Geotourism Development in Diverse Landscape
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction may use specialized terminology and concepts that could be difficult for a broader audience to understand, limiting its accessibility.
While the introduction mentions the significance of geodiversity and geotourism, it could be argued that it does not adequately justify why this particular study area (Poznań region) is of global or regional importance.
The methodology involves subjective assessments of geosites based on qualitative evidence. This could be seen as a weakness because subjective evaluations may lead to bias, affecting the reliability of the findings.
The data collection appears to be limited to certain geosites identified by the Polish Geological Society and other studies. There might be other potential geosites that were overlooked, leading to incomplete analysis.
The focus on geomorphological factors might overshadow other significant aspects, such as the cultural or ecological value of the sites, which could have been integrated more comprehensively.
The description of the study area may be too generalized, lacking in-depth analysis of the unique characteristics of specific geosites, which could weaken the paper’s contribution to geotourism literature.
The results may highlight the scientific and aesthetic values of geosites but fall short in discussing the practical steps needed to make these sites more accessible and appealing to tourists.
The emphasis on the highest-rated geosites could lead to the neglect of other sites that, while lower-rated, could still offer significant potential if developed properly.
While the SWOT analysis identifies opportunities and threats, it might lack specific details on how to capitalize on opportunities or mitigate threats effectively.
The analysis might underemphasize the impact of external factors, such as economic or political changes, on the potential for developing geotourism in the region.
The conclusion may present an overly optimistic view of the potential for geotourism development without fully addressing the significant challenges, such as the lack of infrastructure and promotion.
The conclusion might fail to provide clear, actionable recommendations for local authorities or other stakeholders on how to advance geotourism in the region.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript and preparing your comments. Their introduction will contribute to enhancing and improving the quality of the manuscript. We have read the comments and made additions and corrections to the manuscript, including other reviewers. We have addressed the comments below in the order presented in the review.
Reviewer. The introduction may use specialized terminology and concepts that could be difficult for a broader audience to understand, limiting its accessibility.
We confirm. To better understand the meaning of geodiversity, we have contrasted this concept with the concept of biodiversity – they complement each other. (page 1).
Reviewer. While the introduction mentions the significance of geodiversity and geotourism, it could be argued that it does not adequately justify why this particular study area (Poznań region) is of global or regional importance.
We agree. A comment has been added that the Morasko meteorite impact is a rare example of such an event in this part of Europe. (page 2)
Reviewer. The methodology involves subjective assessments of geosites based on qualitative evidence. This could be seen as a weakness because subjective evaluations may lead to bias, affecting the reliability of the findings.
We agree. However, we have adopted the methodology used in the work of leading researchers working on the subject of geosites and their assessment (ex. Kubalíková 2013, 2019).
Reviewer. The data collection appears to be limited to certain geosites identified by the Polish Geological Society and other studies. There might be other potential geosites that were overlooked, leading to incomplete analysis.
In our research, we have proposed new geotourism sites that, as a result of the field inventory and in our opinion, have geotourism potential. These are, for example, numbers: 3, 9, 10, 11 and others (Table 1, page 5-7).
Reviewer. The focus on geomorphological factors might overshadow other significant aspects, such as the cultural or ecological value of the sites, which could have been integrated more comprehensively.
Geotourism as a result of the geodiversity identified is primarily based on relief-related sites, but we have included anthropogenic factors in our research – these include a Genius Loci Archaeological Reserve with a strongly cultural character. At the same time, the assessment took cultural values into account.
Reviewer. The description of the study area may be too generalized, lacking in-depth analysis of the unique characteristics of specific geosites, which could weaken the paper’s contribution to geotourism literature.
We agree. This has been the subject of our discussions. However, due to the number of geostations analysed and assessed, which have been characterised in general terms (Table 1), we felt that a more detailed description would make the paper too long and the table itself unreadable.
Reviewer. The results may highlight the scientific and aesthetic values of geosites but fall short in discussing the practical steps needed to make these sites more accessible and appealing to tourists.
We agree that geotourism creates many opportunities for practical solutions. In our text, we propose the creation of a centre for landscape geo-interpretation (SWOT analysis – Tab. 4). Similar activities would open up opportunities to apply for the creation of a geopark. In the text, we draw attention to the context of cooperation between local municipalities for the development of geotourism.
Reviewer. The emphasis on the highest-rated geosites could lead to the neglect of other sites that, while lower-rated, could still offer significant potential if developed properly.
We are aware of the fact that there are lower rated geosites, however, perhaps research similar to ours will motivate local authorities to develop tourist infrastructure, including in the vicinity of sites rated lower by us.
Reviewer. While the SWOT analysis identifies opportunities and threats, it might lack specific details on how to capitalize on opportunities or mitigate threats effectively.
The detailed information proposed would be very useful for the development of getourism in a given area, however, in our opinion, such information would be more appropriate for publication in local studies/local monographs. Such an analysis and formulation of specific tasks in the field of building local strategies would also require the involvement of local authorities. We thank you very much for this suggestion.
Reviewer. The analysis might underemphasize the impact of external factors, such as economic or political changes, on the potential for developing geotourism in the region.
We confirm – we have added an appropriate comment in the paper. (page 16)
Reviewer. The conclusion may present an overly optimistic view of the potential for geotourism development without fully addressing the significant challenges, such as the lack of infrastructure and promotion.
Thank you for this suggestion – the reviewer's opinion is an encouragement to undertake in-depth research on the involvement of local authorities in the specific tasks related to the development of geotourism. Perhaps this research could formulate a detailed policy for promoting the region. In our opinion, an exceptionally effective form of promoting development would be the creation of the landscape geointerpretation center mentioned above.
Reviewer. The conclusion might fail to provide clear, actionable recommendations for local authorities or other stakeholders on how to advance geotourism in the region.
In the article we propose some practical solutions for local authorities, e.g. creating a landscape geointerpretation centre, creating a geotourism trail, creating geoeducational trails, taking steps to create a geopark, developing a geotourism promotion strategy, deepening local cooperation. We are aware of the generality of the formulated proposals/actions, however, in our opinion, their specification could take the form of separate, local studies.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
We appreciate your article, below are a number of suggestions for improvement
1. The way of creating the bibliography and the references does not respect the standards of the journal. Also, there is a poor editing in the bibliography that caused errors (DOI of articles in other numbers, missing line 52, etc.)
2. In summary- more clearly expressed results.
3. In abstract-Why is river activity destructive?
4. No keywords.
5. Introduction- The theoretical background in methodology is very weak and outdated.
6. Introduction- The study objectives are limited and not clearly formulated.
7. Point 2.1.- Please be completed. How were the geosites selected?
8. Point 2.1. -There are many other geosite inventory and evaluation methodologies that could have been used.
9. In the chapter related to the area of study - more elements related to geology and relief. If you use landscape designation you should and a number of important and significant human eography elements introduced.
10. Table 1 - How can a hill be related to a meteorite impact?
11. Rural Botanical Gar-den Elżbietówka in Brzeźno what type of geosite?
12. Figure 1- legend incomplete. What do the colors represent?
13. How were the rates obtained from the results? Not clearly specified in the methodology? What are the criteria?
14. The results table cannot be read well enough to see the criteria.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript and preparing your comments. Their introduction will contribute to enhancing and improving the quality of the manuscript. We have read the comments and made additions and corrections to the manuscript, including other reviewers. We have addressed the comments below in the order presented in the review.
Reviewer. The way of creating the bibliography and the references does not respect the standards of the journal. Also, there is a poor editing in the bibliography that caused errors (DOI of articles in other numbers, missing line 52, etc.)
The format has been improved.
Reviewer. In summary – more clearly expressed results.
The summary has been updated.
Reviewer. In abstract – Why is river activity destructive?
We have added the annotation about destructive activity of river.
Reviewer. No keywords.
The keywords has been updated.
Reviewer. Introduction- The theoretical background in methodology is very weak and outdated.
In the theoretical part of the methodological chapter we cited 9 papers, the oldest of which comes from 2013 (Kubalíková 2013), while the newest one comes from 2023 (Dóniz-Páez, Pérez 2023).
Reviewer. Introduction- The study objectives are limited and not clearly formulated.
The first research question was modified.
Reviewer. Point 2.1. Please be completed. How were the geosites selected?
In Chapter 2.1 we mentioned three ways of selecting geosites:
- geosites formally included in the list of the Polish Geological Society,
- geostites proposed in scientific studies on the geodiversity of the region.
- new geosites, not yet included in formal lists selected in the way of the field inventory and analysis of literature and cartographic studies.
Reviewer. Point 2.1. -There are many other geosite inventory and evaluation methodologies that could have been used.
Thank you for this comment. We have added it in the text.
Reviewer. In the chapter related to the area of study - more elements related to geology and relief. If you use landscape designation you should and a number of important and significant human eography elements introduced.
In relation to socio-economic geography, we refer to administrative and population data and characterize the most important elements of spatial development in Poznań. These are elements strongly related to cultural values. In the text, we also include the thread of historical settlement in the region.
Reviewer. Table 1 - How can a hill be related to a meteorite impact?
In the text we point out that this is a moraine hill. A meteorite impact occurred in this area.
Reviewer. Rural Botanical Gar-den Elżbietówka in Brzeźno what type of geosite?
As we explained in Table 1, it is an accumulation of rocks, including those from the Precambrian era. These rocks are erratic rocks deposited during glaciations.
Reviewer. Figure 1 - legend incomplete. What do the colors represent?
The hypsometric scale has been supplemented.
Reviewer. How were the rates obtained from the results? Not clearly specified in the methodology? What are the criteria?
Thank you. We have added it in the paper. (page 2).
Reviewer. The results table cannot be read well enough to see the criteria.
We asked the Publisher to correct the readability of the attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article "Between Meteorite, Glacier and Rivers - Towards Geotourism Development in a Diverse Landscape" concerns an interesting issue of geotourism - tourism combined with the possibility of expanding one's knowledge of geology.
The work is interesting, and the sources largely come from recent years.
However, a few issues, mainly technical ones, caught my eye, which are worth paying attention to when introducing changes to the final version of the work. Due to the lack of line numbers in most of the article, it is unfortunately difficult to directly indicate the places I am trying to refer to.
1) there are no keywords indicated,
2) sources listed in parentheses are usually separated by a comma, but there are also situations with a semicolon,
3) in the Abstract some words are divided, with a dash placed between the syllables,
4) the research questions are formatted differently than the rest of the article,
5) after "Hernández et al. 2022" in chapter 2.1 there is a short dash, while in the earlier part of this thread a long dash is used,
6) please make sure all tables and figures have the source (even if it is the own study),
7) there are 2 dots after "in Annowo (2)",
8) table 2 - headers are illegible,
9) in the References section some sources have been divided into 2 lines,
10) it would be worth describing more clearly how the ratings are awarded (table 2) - whether they are awarded subjectively by the authors or based on specific indicators. Without this information, the results can be questioned as based on unclear and easy to manually control premises.
I encourage you to take the above comments into account when submitting the final version of the article.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript and preparing your comments. Their introduction will contribute to enhancing and improving the quality of the manuscript. We have read the comments and made additions and corrections to the manuscript, including other reviewers. We have addressed the comments below in the order presented in the review.
Reviewer. There are no keywords indicated
The keywords has been updated.
Reviewer. Sources listed in parentheses are usually separated by a comma, but there are also situations with a semicolon
The sources has been updated.
Reviewer. In the Abstract some words are divided, with a dash placed between the syllables,
The abstract has been corrected.
Reviewer. The research questions are formatted differently than the rest of the article.
The research questions has been edited.
Reviewer. after "Hernández et al. 2022" in chapter 2.1 there is a short dash, while in the earlier part of this thread a long dash is used,
The dash has been edited.
Reviewer. please make sure all tables and figures have the source (even if it is the own study),
The source authorship has been added.
Reviewer. there are 2 dots after "in Annowo (2)",
Dots has been removed.
Reviewer. table 2 - headers are illegible,
We asked the Publisher to correct the readability of the attachments.
Reviewer. table in the References section some sources have been divided into 2 lines,
The references section has been corrected.
Reviewer. it would be worth describing more clearly how the ratings are awarded (table 2) - whether they are awarded subjectively by the authors or based on specific indicators. Without this information, the results can be questioned as based on unclear and easy to manually control premises.
We added the information in 2.1 section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the author's efforts to address my comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.
Author Response
Thank You.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper can be accepted in this form.
Author Response
Thank You.
