Multi-Hazard Assessment in Post-Mining Landscape and Potential for Geotourism Development (On the Example of the Central Spiš Region in Slovakia)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aricle is well structured , summary, introduction, study area, description of selected sites, methodology , discussion and conclusion.

It is desirable to reduce the content of the site description and méthodology. Similarly, I propose to assign each site an appropriate figure. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

It was a pleasure to read your manuscript submitted to Land. Despite the interesting results and the sound methodological approaches, I think that the manuscript can be improved to ensure its suitability for publication as a scientific article. In this regard, I hereby propose the following set of revisions, which I would like to see considered in a revised version of the manuscript.

#1
It is recommended that the English be thoroughly revised, from the abstract to the main text in its entirety. To illustrate this point, consider the abstract text, which contains such inaccuracies as 'mining relief forms' (the correct term is 'mining landforms') or sentences such as 'complex of underground mining forms, which forms ...'. Even the title could be revised to something like: “Multi-hazard and geotourism potential assessment in post-mining landscapes: a study in the Central Spiš region, Slovakia”

#2
The abstract's content also requires revision. It should focus more on the methods, results, discussion and conclusions and less on general considerations.

#3
'In the context of geotourism, objects of tourists' interest are called geosites' (L 68).
In this way, it seems that geosites are geotourism sites, when in fact they are geoheritage sites. It should be clarified that geosites, being geoheritage sites, are the support for geotourism activities.

#4
'...area for geotourism development using the Geosite Assessment Model (GAM)' (L 79-80).
The explanation of what the GAM is only appears in chapter 3, so it is suggested that this expression be removed and something like '...area for geotourism development using a quantitative methodology' be added in this section.

#5
It is recommended that the titles (captions) of figures and tables undergo a comprehensive revision, in order to be as comprehensive and legible as possible (referring to the study context and study area), with a view to eliminating the necessity of consulting the main text.

#6
It is recommended that the fonts types and sizes be standardized. For instance, it would be preferable to use larger fonts in figures 6 and 7, as some of the text is currently rendered almost illegible. In addition, it is recommended that the available space in Table 1 be utilized more efficiently by reducing its size.

#7
It is imperative that the discussion encompasses not only the interpretation of the results, but also references to the main limitations found, the advances in knowledge and comparisons with other works that used similar methodological approaches.

Regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is recommended that the English be thoroughly revised, from the abstract to the main text in its entirety. To illustrate this point, consider the abstract text, which contains such inaccuracies as 'mining relief forms' (the correct term is 'mining landforms') or sentences such as 'complex of underground mining forms, which forms ...". Similar issues in the sentences are found in the main text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors of Land and Authors,

 

I have read manuscript with great interest and it made me happy to see the increasing interest on geotourism in Spis region (in Slovakia), because I know him personally and I assess his potential very highly.

General Comments: The main objective of the article is to evaluate and assess the geo-risk of post-mining areas with a view to their use in geotourism. The main goal is assessment of geosites in terms of the potential value for geotourism, as well as their risk of degradation, and defining the categories of geosites create a space for geoheritage to effectively manage them. The manuscript was created on the basis of a number of observations, including aerial observations, and the sites were valorized by proposed by Vujičič et al. 2011 Geosite Assessment Model.

 

I have provided detailed all my comments that can be grouped into; 1) main comments and 2) mostly minor editorial style comments.

 

Abstract

the abstract should include the most important achievements of the authors. It is to encourage the reader to read the entire manuscript. Meanwhile, the authors have written very theoretical considerations on the subject of post-mining development of post-mining areas. In principle, there is nothing here that an abstract must contain.

 

Introduction

This chapter opens with a meaningless sentence: “Most of the mines in Slovakia are closed now.” What effect does this have on the reader? Yes, currently, Slovak mining is focused on rock raw materials, but there is no shame in it. The example of magnesite production from the Jelsava mine gives it 8th place in the world! To this must be added significant amounts of exploited carbonate rocks and crushed aggregates.

SLOVAK MINERALS YEARBOOK 2022 Štatistické údaje do roku 2021 / Statistical data to 2021

Zostavili / Compiled by Stanislav Šoltés, Peter Španek, Dušan Kúšik, Jozef Mižák

& Alexander Kubač, STATE GEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF DIONYZ STUR Bratislava

I believe that Slovak mining also has great historical traditions: The first higher mining school in Europe.

 

 

in the second paragraph, line 33 it appears “Multi-risk assessment” but in line 34 is “multi-hazard risk assessment”. Authors use them interchangeably but they are not the same.

Line 56 incomprehensible what it means: “other anthropogenic activities”?

 

Study area

 

it is impossible to discuss an area with geotourism potential without a geological basis. There must be information about the geological unit, and a general description of the structure. The authors are not geologists but should know that in addition to the date of termination of exploitation and post-mining forms, tourists may be interested in: lithology, mineralogy, paleontology, structural geology, etc. which always accompanies mining exploration. In my opinion, without supplementing this basis, it is difficult to believe that the research is credible.

Lines 82-256 contain a lot of interesting information but without the citations? I don't believe these are the authors' findings

Figure 1. There is a black arrow on the map, which means that if north, it must be marked correctly

 

the full name “above sea level” appears many times in this chapter: just write: a.s.l.

 

 

Methods

Line 301 with this form of reference to literature it is hard to read “in his work”

Line 348 we quote the figures in order

 

Results

Line 374-385 I don't believe the authors studied contamination, there must be some work cited

Figure 11 and references to this figure must appear earlier in the results chapter. Only then can the location of individual objects be discussed, here (Fig.11) is a white arrow and above it N, this is also not how the north direction is marked

Figure 6 has an error, it's about eXternal Factors

information in line 515-524 must be cited

a lot of data is repeated in each job description, maybe it would be better to add a table with characteristics: accessible, tourist infrastructure, transport, protection, etc. and remove this data from the text, it will be tidy and easier to read

Discussion

the descriptions of figures 12 and 13 are wrong. There should be a type of mine, period of activity etc.

the discussion should include reference to existing, well-accessible post-mining forms or exposed landscapes after mineral exploitation.

 

Rybár, P., Sasvári, T., Hvizdák, L., Hvizdáková, J., & Baláž, B. Geotouristic excursion to selected historical mining sites developed by Slovak and German miners in the Gelnica-Smolník region, Slovakia. Geotourism/Geoturystyka, 20, 23. https://doi.org/10.7494/geotour.2010.20.23

TOST M., AMMERER G., KOT-NIEWIADOMSKA A., GUGERELL K. 2021 – Mining and Europe’sWorld Heritage Cultural Landscapes. Resources, 10 (18): 18; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources10020018

 

the emphasis is now on the geosystem services that our geological heritage provides us;

Urban, J., Radwanek-Bąk, B., & Margielewski, W. (2022). Geoheritage concept in a context of abiotic ecosystem services (geosystem services)—How to argue the geoconservation better? Geoheritage, 14, 54. https://doi. org/10. 1007/s12371- 022- 00688-7

 

Conclusion

The last sentence line 782-788 is too long.

 

References

no use of the geological map of the area,

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I am glad to see the revised version of your manuscript. I consider that the major shortcomings identified in the previous version were revised and that the manuscript have now conditions to be accepted for publication.

Please, consider only another minor revision, which I think can enhance the quality of the text. I suggest to substitute the term "paper" (which is used in several parts of the manuscript - ".. in our paper..."; "objectives of the paper...") by "work".

Regards

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and for your valuable advice and comments, which will help improve our article. We hope that we have implemented the modifications in accordance with your suggestions and ideas.

Our response:

Please, consider only another minor revision, which I think can enhance the quality of the text. I suggest to substitute the term "paper" (which is used in several parts of the manuscript - ".. in our paper..."; "objectives of the paper...") by "work".

Based on your suggestion, we have replaced the term "paper" with "work" throughout the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Figure 2 must be cited, the authors did not discover the geological structure from scratch, they just redrew the map.
Use one, the same north sign on all drawings.
Fig.6 on the purple background is Efternal and should be External

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and for your valuable advice and comments, which will help improve our article. We hope that we have implemented the modifications in accordance with your suggestions and ideas.

Our response:

Figure 2 must be cited, the authors did not discover the geological structure from scratch, they just redrew the map.

The appropriate citation has been added to Figure 2.

Use one, the same north sign on all drawings.

The north orientation has been standardized across all instances.

Fig.6 on the purple background is Efternal and should be External

The given term has been corrected to its proper form.