Quantifying the Geopark Contribution to the Village Development Index Using Machine Learning—A Deep Learning Approach: A Case Study in Gunung Sewu UNESCO Global Geopark, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the text is well-written, rigorous, and detailed, with a strong scientific and regulatory focus. It effectively motivates the relevance of the study and situates Gunung Sewu within sustainable development goals and geopark management. For clearer communication, it could benefit from a more concise style, less repetition, and a more pronounced concluding statement. The argomentation would be more impactful with deeper reflection on model shortcomings and real-world application of the findings.

The use of acronyms is rather intensive; some are not explained (UGGpGS), while others are repeatedly spelled out (GSUGGp). Some figures are difficult to read, particularly Figure 1, where the choice of symbols and colors creates confusion.

Author Response

Comments 1: The use of acronyms is rather intensive.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised and adjusted the relevant sections accordingly.

Comment 2: Some are not explained (UGGpGS), while others are repeatedly spelled out (GSUGGp).

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised and adjusted the relevant sections accordingly.

Comment 3: Some figures are difficult to read, particularly Figure 1, where the choice of symbols and colors creates confusion.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that the use of symbols and colors in Figure 1 needed improvement; therefore, we have revised them to enhance clarity. however, we are aware that the distance between points remains very close, which is unavoidable in this context.

[page number: 5, line: 232]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper represents a commendable and timely effort to quantify the socio-economic benefits of geoparks using ML/DL methods. Its strength lies in combining spatial and economic data in a robust statistical framework, offering useful insights for regional development policy. The authors used up-to-date and relevant references. This study applies advanced ML/DL techniques to quantify the socio-economic impact of geoparks, which is still rare in the field. The methodological framework is comprehensive, and the whole structure of the paper is clear and balanced.

I have just one recommendation:

I found section 2.Literature Review of Geopark Indicator functional but shallow. This section provides necessary background but lacks critical engagement with broader theoretical, comparative, and methodological literature. It could be significantly strengthened by incorporating global perspectives. 

 

 

 

Author Response

Comments 1: I found section 2.Literature Review of Geopark Indicator functional but shallow. This section provides necessarybackground but lacks critical engagement with broadertheoretical, comparative, and methodological literature. It couldbe significantly strengthened by incorporating global perspectives.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We Agree with this comment, Therefore we have added the following explanation to our manuscript:

Research on the VDI in Indonesia has generally remained limited to biophysivcal studies, such as geological characteristics, land use, and land cover change, and socio-economic aspects. To date, studies that integrate statistical methods based on ML to evaluate the impact of geopark designation on socio-economic conditions—particularly in the contect of CDI assessment indicators—remain scarce. Previous studies have primarily applied non-parametric statistical algorithms, including ML and DL, for land cover mapping and temporal change detection [48–50]. However, assessments of the socio-economic impacts of geoparks continue to rely on descriptive approaches or other non-statistical methods. The ise of non-statistical methods, descriptive approaches, and sofyware-based policy evaluations is considered suboptimal for identifying the actual impact of geopark-related policy implementation on local areas. Therefore, it is essential to conduct studies that apply robust statistical methods to assess the influence of geoparks, particularly in the Indonesian context. Such assessments are strategically important to formulating policy recommendations aimed at strengthening geopark governance and enhancing socio-economic benefits for surrounding communities.

[page number: 4-5,  line: 206-222]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The economic function of geoparks is strongly desired, but only a few studies have addressed this important aspect of geopark-related sustainability. Your manuscript explores this function deeply on a properly selected example from Indonesia, and it utilizes a very advanced and well-explained approach. The manuscript is informative. The objective is reached, and the interpretations are notable theoretically and practically. It is optimally structured and perfectly illustrated and referenced. Indeed, this work is of international importance and well suitable to “Sustainability”. However, I have strong impression that it deserves better communication. I hope my remarks will help to bring it in order.

• 1^st fundamental question: please, tell more about the geopark itself. How it is governed, by whom? Which business activities are allowed there, and what would be there without geopark? How economic benefits are generated and how distributed? More generally, what is the economic model of this geopark and how it is related to the local economic development?
• 2^nd fundamental question: maintaining geopark means establishment restrictions for some economic activities. Does this generate economical losses in your case?
• 3^rd fundamental question: what about business freedom in this geopark? Does the presence of the geopark means that local people need to receive permissions for their businesses, especially not related to geopark’s interests?
• Key words: do not repeat the words from the title.
• Table 1 is difficult to understand. E.g., why hotels are measured in meters?
• Table 2: responden -> respondents
• Lines 616-617: cave tourism cannot be geosite. Geosite is an object (first of all, created for conservation, not for tourism), whereas tourism is an activity.
• Lines 641-642: do locals have enough education for this? Many studies in different parts of the world have shown that active tourism development makes good promises to locals, but true effects are much lower (if any). Moreover, how large are salaries linked to these employment opportunities? If these salaries are low, tourism growth can sustain poverty, not development (such phenomena were registered even in very prosperous countries like Japan). Please, try to develop your idea.
• Discussion: who should optimize the economic effects of this geopark for villages and how? Do local administrations have enough knowledge and funding?
• Lines 701-702: I may be mistaken, but I have not found the related interpretations in the discussion. Note that karst caves are also geosites. And if geological features do not “work” as you state, this may mean that geopark does nothing to villages – is this really so?
• Please, try to polish your writing easier to non-experts. And be accurate with terminology (see my remarks above).

Author Response

Comment 1: 1^st fundamental question: please, tell more about the geopark itself. How it is governed, by whom? Which business activities are allowed there, and what would be there without geopark? How economic benefits are generated and how distributed? More generally, what is the economic model of this geopark and how it is related to the local economic development?

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Our response to this question is as follows:

Although the karst area of the GSUGGp constitutes a single geological unit, its governance is managed separately by three different administrative regions—Gunung Kidul Regency (D.I. Yogyakarta Province), Wonogiri Regency (Central Java Province), and Pacitan Regency (East Java Province). This decentralized management is formalized through joint regulations issued by the regents of the three regions (Regent Regulations No. 27, 25, and 24 of 2017). In practice, each regency's tourism office oversees the supervision and management of the geopark, in coordination with other relevant agencies such as the Regional Development Planning Agency (BAPPEDA), which plans development programs at the regency level.

An inter-regional coordinating body, PAWONSARI (acronym for Pacitan, Wonogiri, and Wonosari—the capital of Gunung Kidul Regency), has been established to integrate efforts across the three regencies, consisting of representatives from various local government agencies. At the village level, tourism development activities are coordinated between the Tourism Office and village heads, who appoint local institutions such as Tourism Awareness Groups (POKDARWIS) and youth organizations (Karang Taruna) to represent the village in implementing community-based tourism.

Currently, the main economic activities at geosite locations are nature-based tourism initiatives developed by local communities, initially rooted in traditional knowledge. Over time, tourism offices have provided training and facilitated knowledge-sharing events, often in collaboration with universities and the private sector, to enhance tourism management capacity. Infrastructure support from both regency and village governments has been extended to several geosites and non-geosite tourist destinations (caves and beaches), though further improvement is still needed.

In terms of tourism-related investment, the development of accommodations, transportation (travel agencies), and food services near geosites is relatively strong—particularly in high-traffic geosites. Homestays, local restaurants, micro and small enterprises (MSMEs), and travel bureaus have emerged around these sites, integrating geosites into broader tourism packages. The resulting economic benefits are evident from the tourist entrance ticket revenues, which contribute to each regency’s local revenue (Pendapatan Asli Daerah/PAD). This revenue is then redistributed to villages within the GSUGGp administrative area.

However, not all geosite villages demonstrate high Village Development Index (VDI) scores or qualify as independent villages. Field data show that although VDI levels vary, the geopark has begun to provide measurable economic contributions through tax revenues, which positively influence VDI outcomes in these areas.

Comment 2:  2^nd fundamental question: maintaining geopark means establishment restrictions for some economic activities. Does this generate economical losses in your case?

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. Our response to this question is as follows:

At geosite locations, economic activities are primarily developed within the tourism sector and its supporting industries, ensuring that such utilization does not result in economic losses for the respective villages. However, it is important to note that the GSUGGp karst landscape has been officially designated as a protected area by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of the Republic of Indonesia. As a result, the use of karst areas for industrial purposes is highly restricted, and in many cases, entirely prohibited. This presents a dilemma for local governments seeking to enhance regional economic growth, as some stakeholders have begun to increasingly recognize the economic potential of karst areas for industrial exploitation.

Comment 3: 3^rd fundamental question: what about business freedom in this geopark? Does the presence of the geopark means that local people need to receive permissions for their businesses, especially not related to geopark’s interests?

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. Our response to this question is as follows:

Entrepreneurial freedom is generally permitted within geopark areas, provided that all business activities comply with the applicable regulations. This is particularly important in the context of the GSUGGp region, which consists predominantly of karst landscapes. Therefore, any type of enterprise that may produce hazardous waste (B3) or liquid waste must fulfill additional requirements to ensure that such waste does not negatively affect the subterranean water resources of the GSUGGp karst system.

All forms of business or investment—whether initiated by local communities or external parties, and whether geopark-related or not—must adhere to the business licensing procedures established by the regional investment offices  of each respective district. Furthermore, the approval of the village head is also required as part of the licensing process.

Comment 4: Key words: do not repeat the words from the title.

Response 4:  We agree with this comment. Accordingly, we have revised the keywords to:Geopark, Rural Development, Geopark Management, Non-linear Models, Integrated Geopark Strategies. Some keywords remain unchanged, as we consider them essential to accurately reflect the focus and contributions of this study.

[line: 35-36)

Comment 5: Table 1 is difficult to understand. E.g., why hotels are measured in meters?

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. The distance to hotels is expressed in meters, as this is the standard unit used in the calculation of Euclidean Distance (ED) during the data pre-processing stage.

Comment 6:  Lines 616-617: cave tourism cannot be geosite. Geosite is an object (first of all, created for conservation, not for tourism), whereas tourism is an activity.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. of course we separate the two parameters. But in our case, the geosite and cave are part of the tourism epicenter. Our revised response to this question is as follows:

These findings imply that geological tourism within the GSUGGp has yet to realize its full potential in enhancing VDI, partly due to the slow recovery of the tourism sector following the COVID-19 pandemic [111,112]. Some caves in the GSUGGP area have been officially recognized as international geosites, while others have not. However, most cave geosites in the GSUGGp region serve dual functions: in addition to being conservation objects, they also part of the tourism epicenter. Even so, cave tourism—both in geosites and non-geosite caves—still contributes less to the VDI than coastal geotourism. Thus, promoting sustainable coastal geotourism with an emphasis on aesthetics, conservation, and geological diversity has a great chance of boosting the socio-economic advantages of the area. By combining cultural heritage, education, and geological distinctiveness, cave tourism (geosites and/or non-geosites) may improve attractions and visitor experiences while making sure management puts visitor safety, security, and health first.

[page number: 19, lines: 656-668]

Comment 7: Lines 641-642: do locals have enough education for this? Many studies in different parts of the world have shown that active tourism development makes good promises to locals, but true effects are much lower (if any). Moreover, how large are salaries linked to these employment opportunities? If these salaries are low, tourism growth can sustain poverty, not development (such phenomena were registered even in very prosperous countries like Japan). Please, try to develop your idea.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. Our response to this question is as follows:

The development of transportation, accommodation, and food service infrastructure has significantly contributed to improving community welfare by creating employment opportunities for local populations. The presence of geosites encourages communities to actively utilize natural and cultural resources as tourism attractions, thereby strengthening local community groups, increasing economic income, and promoting village independence. Nonetheless, the quality of human resources remains a key challenge. Some villages within the GSUGGp area, however, have successfully overcome these limitations. A notable example is the community-driven transformation of the Maron River tourism site (Figure 11.6), located between the Klayar Beach and Watukarung Beach geosites. Initially used as a waste disposal and sanitation area, the Maron River was revitalized into a leading tourist destination through youth and community initiatives focused on reforestation, river cleanup, and environmental maintenance. Today, it attracts over 100,000 visitors annually and stands as a symbol of socio-ecological transformation and the community’s capacity to manage natural resources.

This success underscores the importance of a shared vision, solidarity, community ownership, and synergy between local residents and village governments. However, such achievements are not yet evenly distributed across the entire GSUGGp area. To replicate and scale up these successes, cross-sectoral collaboration and multi-stakeholder policy innovation are required through the following strategies:

1. Strengthen village and regional governments by developing and implementing programs to enhance community capacity and social capital, providing technical assistance, and increasing transparent and well-targeted budget allocations to support tourism governance and local entrepreneurship.
2. Position the GSUGGp Management Body as a strategic coordinator to ensure the integration of local initiatives with overarching geopark management policies. Its composition should reflect a multi-sectoral collaborative model, involving not only government entities but also educational institutions, community or traditional organizations, and private sector stakeholders (e.g., business associations, hospitality, and tourism operators). This structure promotes cross-sector knowledge exchange and enables the formulation of adaptive and sustainable strategies.
3. Encourage provincial and national governments to provide adequate infrastructure, develop knowledge management systems, and implement regulatory frameworks that support inclusive, feasible, and locally applicable economic ecosystems.
4. Empower academic institutions and the private sector to deliver field-oriented research, generate practical and applicable solutions, and offer skill development training and market access for local communities. Effective partnerships between academia and industry can expand economic opportunities and enhance community capacity in managing geotourism sustainably.

In addition to economic benefits, the official designation of geosites and the establishment of geopark museums also deliver significant educational value. These initiatives raise public awareness of geodiversity, geological heritage, geomorphology, geotourism, cultural diversity, and biodiversity, thereby reinforcing the role of geoparks as platforms for public education [117,118].

[page numbers: 20-21, lines: 701-770]

Comment 8: Discussion: who should optimize the economic effects of this geopark for villages and how? Do local administrations have enough knowledge and funding?

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. our response to this comment has been addressed in comment 7, where we explained that for key stakeholders should play an essential role in optimizing the economic impacts of the geopark on local villages.

Comment 9: Lines 701-702: I may be mistaken, but I have not found the related interpretations in the discussion. Note that karst caves are also geosites. And if geological features do not “work” as you state, this may mean that geopark does nothing to villages – is this really so?

Response 9: Thank you for this insightful comment. Your observation is partially correct, and we acknowledge the need for clarification. While it is true that karst caves are recognized as geosites, our intention was not to suggest that geological features have no role or value. Rather, we aimed to emphasize that their measurable contribution to the Village Development Index (VDI) remains limited. This is partly due to data availability constraints, which result in a lower observed contribution compared to coastal tourism. We sincerely appreciate your perspective, which highlights the importance of revising the original statement to avoid misinterpretation. Accordingly, we have revised the sentence as follows:

However, core geological features of the geopark—such as geosites and non-geosite caves—still contributes less to the VDI than coastal geotourism. This emphasizes the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation in creating geopark development policies and programs that give priority to building an inclusive local economic ecosystem, improving supporting infrastructure, boosting social capital, raising community awareness and capacity, and creating strategic branding initiatives to boost tourism.

[page number: 22, lines: 842-848]

Comment 10: Please, try to polish your writing easier to non-experts. And be accurate with terminology

Response 10: Thank you for the feedback and guidance provided. We have certainly made efforts to improve the writing in this journal to ensure it is easier to understand for non-specialist readers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I like your study, I'm fully satisfied with your comments. However, many interesting information, which I see in your response, does not exist in the text. What I propose to do is to re-read your response and to use various information from there to enrich your manuscript.

Author Response

Comments 1: Incorporated the key points from your response into the manuscript to ensure all relevant and important information is included.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. Following your advice, we have integrated several key points from our previous responses—particularly those addressing the fundamental questions—into the main text. The additional information has been carefully revised and incorporated to ensure a coherent and seamless narrative flow with the surrounding paragraphs. The details of the revisions are as follows:

Although the karst region of the GSUGGp forms a single geological unit, its management is divided among three administrative regencies: Gunung Kidul (D.I. Yogyakarta), Wonogiri (Central Java), and Pacitan (East Java). This decentralized arrangement is formalized through joint regulations issued by the respective regents (Regent Regulations No. 27, 25, and 24 of 2017). In practice, tourism offices at the regency level—working alongside other agencies such as the Regional Development Planning Agency—are responsible for supervision and implementation of geopark programs. To coordinate across these administrative boundaries, an inter-regional coordinating body known as PAWONSARI has been established, consisting of representatives from relevant local government agencies. At the village level, the Tourism Office collaborates with village heads, who in turn engage local institutions such as Tourism Awareness Groups (POKDARWIS) and youth organizations (Karang Taruna) to foster community-based tourism initiatives.

Economic activities at geosite locations are predominantly centered on tourism and its supporting sectors. These activities are developed by local communities, often drawing from traditional knowledge, and are increasingly supported by training and knowledge-sharing programs facilitated by tourism offices, universities, and private sector partners. The infrastructure for tourism—including homestays, restaurants, MSMEs, travel agencies, and related services—has expanded, particularly in high-traffic geosites, integrating these destinations into broader tourism packages. The economic benefits generated, such as entrance ticket revenues, directly contribute to local government revenues and are subsequently redistributed to villages within the GSUGGp area. However, despite these gains, not all villages with geosites have achieved high VDI scores or attained the status of independent villages, indicating that the economic impacts of tourism development remain uneven.

[page numbers: 18-19, section: 5.2, lines: 621-645]

And Also:

A critical aspect of the GSUGGp's governance is the legal protection of its karst landscape, which has been officially designated as a protected area by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. This status imposes strict limitations—and, in many cases, outright prohibitions—on the industrial exploitation of karst areas, despite growing interest among stakeholders in their economic potential for industry. This presents a governance dilemma: local governments must balance the need to stimulate regional economic growth with the imperative to conserve the unique geological and hydrological characteristics of the karst system.

Entrepreneurial activities are generally permitted within the geopark, provided that all business operations comply with existing regulations. Enterprises that generate hazardous (B3) or liquid waste are required to implement measures that prevent contamination of the karst system’s sensitive subterranean water resources. All forms of investment—whether initiated by local communities or external parties, and regardless of their direct association with geopark tourism—must adhere to established licensing procedures through the respective district’s investment office. Approval from the village head is also required as part of the business permitting process, ensuring local oversight and alignment with community interests. In summary, the governance and economic utilization of the GSUGGp karst region are characterized by a complex interplay between decentralized administrative management, legal conservation mandates, and efforts to foster sustainable local economic development through tourism. These dynamics necessitate continuous coordination among stakeholders to ensure that economic benefits are realized without compromising the long-term ecological and geological integrity of the geopark.

[page numbers: 19-20, lines: 667-689]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx