Geoproducts, GEOfood and Regenerative Tourism in the Strategies of Portuguese Geoparks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This manuscript attempts to analyze the contribution of GEOfood initiatives to sustainable ecocultural development and regenerative land management in five Portuguese UNESCO Global Geoparks. To this end, the paper examines the GEOfood concept and its role in geopark management, attempts to systematize the strategic approaches adopted by the analyzed geoparks, and assesses the ecological, sociocultural, and economic impact of GEOfood on the regeneration of geopark areas. Qualitative research was primarily used, including document analysis and interviews with geopark coordinators. However, the description of the methodological workshop requires a more detailed description of the research sample selection (e.g., number of interviews, selection criteria) and data analysis. Because the issue addressed in the manuscript is relatively new (combining the GEOfood concept with the regenerative tourism paradigm) and current, I recommend it for publication after minor corrections/additions. 

Other comments:

(1) The aim of this study is well-defined. This article presents the results of a study on how GEOfood and geoproducts contribute to sustainable eco-cultural development, territorial regeneration, and management strategies in five Portuguese geoparks—Naturtejo, Arouca, Azores, Terras de Cavaleiros, and Estrela. Specifically, how these initiatives integrate geology, gastronomy, and local communities to support sustainable development and regenerative tourism in the areas studied.

(2) This manuscript is significant for exploring the interconnections between geotourism, sustainable development, and food systems. Its originality lies in presenting GEOfood not only as a brand but also as a territorial management tool. It also demonstrates the connection between geodiversity, food systems, and regenerative tourism. The article also fills a research gap regarding the practical, rather comprehensive, implementation of GEOfood in geopark policies. To date, the literature has focused on individual case studies.

(3) Compared to other published materials, this manuscript represents an empirical case study covering all Portuguese UNESCO Geoparks. The authors identify four key strategic axes—certification, short supply chains, interpretive tourism, and regeneration—critical to the management of the analyzed areas. Compared to previous studies, the manuscript expands the perspective from the product level to the systemic level (governance). However, much of its content is conceptual and descriptive, requiring in-depth quantitative analyses or quantification.

(4) The methodology employed is rather modest. It is limited to generally described methods – document analysis and interviews with geopark coordinators. A more detailed description of the research sample selection process is required, in terms of the number of interviews and the selection criteria. Information on the interview procedure and subsequent data analysis is lacking. It would be crucial for this research to incorporate the perspectives of producers and tourists. It is also necessary to explain/describe the criteria for assessing the "regenerative impact."

(5) The conclusions are generally consistent with the arguments presented – the authors demonstrate the positive impact of GEOfood on the environment, culture, and local economy. However, the strength of the conclusions is weakened by the small number of hard quantitative data, for example, overly descriptive case comparisons. The cause-and-effect relationships are insufficiently empirically substantiated. Some conclusions are normative in nature (e.g., about "regeneration"), without clear indicators.

(6) References are generally relevant and appropriate. The weakness lies in the numerous conference papers. However, I understand that this stems from a relatively new research problem.

(7) The proposed figures and tables are generally substantively and technically accurate. Figure 1 clearly illustrates the spatial context of the analyzed geoparks. Table 1 presents the content in an overly descriptive manner – a more synthetic approach is necessary. Table 2 presents a synthesis of ecological, social, and economic impacts – it is very valuable. Table 3 shows the main impacts of GEOfood products on the analyzed areas.

Conclusion

The manuscript is well-written and conceptually coherent, but improvements could be made, e.g. in terms of: a more synthetic explanation of the concept and benefits of GEOfood, strengthening the analytical part in relation to the theoretical part, more precisely operationalizing the concept of "regenerative tourism". Do the authors see any limitations and/or challenges arising from the research conducted?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your analysis and comments on this research and the results presented. We sought to analyse and establish the interconnections through which GEOfood and geoproducts contribute to sustainable eco-cultural development in the five Portuguese geoparks — Naturtejo, Arouca, the Azores, Terras de Cavaleiros and Estrela. Specifically, we examined how these initiatives integrate geology, gastronomy and local communities to support sustainable development and regenerative tourism in the areas studied.

We seek to extract and understand the importance of geoproducts as a tool for territorial management, linking geodiversity, food systems and regenerative tourism, within a comprehensive analysis of the realities of the Portuguese geoparks

Rev1 - Coomment: "The methodology employed is rather modest. It is limited to generally described methods – document analysis and interviews with geopark coordinators. A more detailed description of the research sample selection process is required, in terms of the number of interviews and the selection criteria"

The methodology followed was exploratory, seeking to analyse the available documentation and the strategies and projects currently underway, as well as the results produced. In practice, we developed a qualitative approach, seeking on the ground and in conjunction with all the Geoparks’ coordinators to understand the classification of these products, their links with local producers, and their effects on management and collective governance strategies. There will certainly be scope in future for research with other objectives to explore the perceptions of the community, tourists and even producers, a situation which was not included within the objectives of this research. We therefore provide a more detailed account of the methodology, the identification of the sample composition (covering all geoparks) and the process and timeframe of its application. The methodology employed was substantiated with reference to leading authors, thereby enabling an understanding of the rationale behind the construction of results and the analyses produced.

Rev1 Comment: However, the strength of the conclusions is weakened by the small number of hard quantitative data, for example, overly descriptive case comparisons.

The conclusions sought to systematise the approaches developed and the results achieved; in practice, a conclusive summary is provided, given that the interconnections and implications are described and indicated in the tables and results.

Rev1 Comment: It would be crucial for this research to incorporate the perspectives of producers and tourists. It is also necessary to explain/describe the criteria for assessing the "regenerative impact."

The research was conducted in accordance with the proposed objectives and defined research themes. The insights gained from interviews with all coordinators and staff of Portuguese Geoparks enabled us to extract information that is presented in the tables and the accompanying interpretations. These clearly highlight the implications for local residents, business owners and tourists. However, we consider it important for future research to include a more specific and direct contribution from these stakeholders, and this will therefore be taken into account as a guideline for future research.

Rev1 - Coomment : The proposed figures and tables are generally substantively and technically accurate

We have included tables and graphs that provide a summary of the results and have drawn on current literature, which has enabled us to highlight the dynamics and implications for the enhancement of territories and their regenerative effect, particularly in low-density areas.

Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions that have enriched the article.

Kind Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

There are corrections and recommendations inserted in the manuscript. Some are typographical, while others concern the meanings of terms.

I consider it necessary to cite and refer in the text, within the introduction section, to the IGCP-726 project, which specifically focuses on GEOfood in Geoparks: https://www.unesco.org/en/iggp/igcp-projects/726?hub=67817

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your analysis and comments on this research and the results presented. We sought to analyse and establish the interconnections through which GEOfood and geoproducts contribute to sustainable eco-cultural development in the five Portuguese geoparks — Naturtejo, Arouca, the Azores, Terras de Cavaleiros and Estrela. Specifically, how these initiatives integrate geology, gastronomy and local communities to support sustainable development and regenerative tourism in the areas studied.

 

Rev 2 Comment: There are corrections and recommendations inserted in the manuscript. Some are typographical, while others concern the meanings of terms.

We have incorporated all the suggestions, proposals and recommendations identified, which have contributed to improving the article and its drafting.

We have made changes to the tables to facilitate a summary understanding of the results and have utilised the suggested bibliography, which has added quality and substance to the development of the article.

Rev 2 Comment: I consider it necessary to cite and refer in the text, within the introduction section, to the IGCP-726 project, which specifically focuses on GEOfood in Geoparks: https://www.unesco.org/en/iggp/igcp-projects/726?hub=67817

The project in question and the associated documentation were analysed and taken into account in the research. Consequently, it was cited in the text, thereby reinforcing the theoretical framework and highlighting its contributions to the enhancement of UNESCO sites. The project was included in the references

Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions that have enriched the article.

Kind Regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript examines the role of GEOfood certifications and geoproducts implemented in Portugal’s UNESCO Global Geoparks (Naturtejo, Arouca, Azores, Terras de Cavaleiros, and Estrela) in promoting eco-cultural sustainability and territorial regeneration.

This topic fits perfectly with the profile of the journal Land, particularly in light of the journal’s recent special issues examining geoparks as a form of tourism-based spatial management and focusing on the impacts of geotourism on land use. The integration of agricultural systems, geological heritage, and community resilience through the GEOfood initiative is a highly topical area of great scientific interest within the disciplines of spatial planning and sustainable development.

 

Content of the study

The manuscript presents an exploratory analysis aimed at examining the contribution of GEOfood initiatives to ecocultural sustainability and regenerative territorial governance in five UNESCO Global Geoparks in Portugal. The study sets out three main objectives: (i) to analyze the conceptual foundations of GEOfood within geopark management, (ii) to systematize the strategic approaches adopted by Portuguese geoparks, and (iii) to assess their ecological, sociocultural, and economic regenerative impacts.

The main strength of the work lies in the excellent knowledge of the studied region (Portugal’s five UNESCO geoparks) and the macro-level, comprehensive mapping of regional strategies. The authors’ attempt to present geodiversity as the foundation of agricultural production systems and local culinary identity—for example, in the context of granite massifs, volcanic bedrock, and glacial formations—holds significant scientific potential. Nevertheless, in its current form, the study functions more as a descriptive report promoting geopark management than as a critical scientific analysis grounded in rigorous empirical evidence.

 

The submitted manuscript shows nearly identical structural and textual overlap with a book chapter published in 2025 by IGI Global, titled “GEOfood Products, Tourism, and Ecocultural Sustainability for Vulnerable Territories: Projects and Strategies in Portuguese Geoparks,” authored by Gonçalo Poeta Fernandes, the first author of the present manuscript.

The similarities go beyond thematic overlap and also appear in the form of direct text duplication. For example, the methodological rationale in Chapter 3 (Materials and Methods) of the submitted manuscript reads verbatim as follows: “It starts from the concept of geofood and explores the strategies and actions developed in UNESCO World Geoparks in Portugal, seeking to systematize the logic of action, the processes of product involvement, and their commercial valorization. It takes a descriptive approach, based on the 5 UNESCO World Geoparks existing in 2023...”. This exact wording is also included verbatim in the abstract and introductory section of the aforementioned 2025 IGI Global publication.

 

The manuscript correctly identifies GEOfood as an initiative that originated in the Magma Geopark in Norway, aimed at linking geological heritage and local food systems. However, the analysis largely treats GEOfood as a localized marketing or certification tool, rather than contextualizing it within the current global scientific framework.

The authors overlook the fact that in 2021, UNESCO’s International Geosciences Programme (IGCP) approved the project titled “GEOfood for Sustainable Development in UNESCO Global Geoparks (IGCP 726),” which runs from 2021 to 2026. The explicit aim of this project is to develop scientific methodologies for assessing the relationships between geological heritage, geodiversity, ecosystem services, and food production. The manuscript ignores the IGCP 726 baseline indicators. By evaluating Portuguese geoparks without integrating the globally recognized criteria developed by IGCP 726, the manuscript misses the opportunity to measure the performance of these areas against international standards. The authors must integrate this broader, globally networked theoretical framework in order for the manuscript to evolve from a regional descriptive report into a scientifically relevant work at the international level.

It is essential for the authors to fundamentally revise the literature review to meaningfully integrate these 2025 sources. They must construct a theoretical framework that allows for the objective measurement of regenerative tourism within the case studies, rather than using the concept merely as a buzzword.

 

Chapter 3 of the manuscript (“Materials and Methods”) is exceptionally brief, consisting of only two paragraphs, and definitely needs to be expanded. In its current form, this methodology limits the acceptance of the validity of the conclusions drawn.

The authors state that “they use an exploratory methodology to achieve two main objectives: first, to describe the origin and significance of geofood products... [and] second, the study evaluates the actions and strategies implemented by the five UNESCO Global Geoparks in Portugal.” This formulation is overly simplistic.

The authors should explicitly define their qualitative framework—for example, by employing a multiple case study design (based on Robert K. Yin’s methodology), which is particularly well-suited for comparing the implementation of a single framework (GEOfood) across different geographical and governance contexts (the five geoparks). By adopting a formal multiple case study approach, the authors would be compelled to clearly define their unit of analysis (e.g., the governance structures of the geoparks) and to delimit their cases temporally and contextually. This structural discipline is currently lacking, with the result that the findings resemble geopark promotional materials more than objective academic analysis.

The most obvious empirical weakness is the sampling strategy. The authors write: “Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with the executive coordinators of these geoparks, which provided valuable information on the strategies supported and the guidelines to be implemented in the future.”

Interviewing only five executive coordinators (N=5) seems insufficient for a study that claims to “assess their ecological, sociocultural, and economic regenerative impacts.” The authors could expand their data collection to include GEOfood producers (e.g., cheese makers in the Serra da Estrela region, winemakers in the Azores), local restaurant owners, and possibly tourists as well.

The manuscript provides absolutely no information on the mechanics of data collection or analysis; this needs to be addressed.

• What specific questions were asked?
• When were the interviews conducted?
• How were the interview transcripts and documentary evidence analyzed?

 

The Discussion section currently fails to fulfill its primary function: it does not situate the study’s findings within the broader, ongoing scholarly discourse. The section merely summarizes what has already been stated in the results, reiterating that education, branding, and sustainable practices are important.

An effective discussion should compare these findings with international implementations of GEOfood. For example, how do Portuguese strategies compare to the Burren & Cliffs of Moher Geopark in Ireland, which successfully applied GEOfood at retail expos to stimulate the local economy? Do Portuguese geoparks face similar challenges in engaging retail buyers? Furthermore, the discussion should also address the obstacles and limitations of GEOfood implementation. The manuscript currently presents an overwhelmingly positive, one-sided narrative. Are there no challenges regarding producer compliance? Do local farmers not resist the strict sustainability requirements of the GEOfood charter? A critical assessment of these points of friction is essential for a balanced academic publication.

 

The conclusion is generally well-written and succinctly captures the essence of the manuscript. The acknowledgment that “challenges remain, including the need for greater integration between geoparks and distribution networks” is a very good direction for the manuscript, as it introduces a critical, balanced perspective. This critical lens should be expanded and woven into the Results and Discussion sections, rather than being relegated to a single sentence in the conclusion.

 

Concluding Remarks

This manuscript addresses an extremely relevant and fascinating intersection of geological heritage conservation (geoheritage), agricultural sustainability, and rural economic resilience. The conceptual synthesis of the five Portuguese UNESCO Global Geoparks offers a valuable macro-perspective on how the GEOfood brand can be operationalized across a wide variety of geographical terroirs—from the volcanic soils of the Azores to the glacial landscapes of the Estrela. The qualitative mapping of strategic orientations is commendable and provides a strong foundation for future, more extensive research.

At the same time, the study currently requires significant revision. The primary and most critical obstacle is the unacceptable textual and structural overlap that the manuscript exhibits with the lead author’s 2025 IGI Global book chapter.

Furthermore, the manuscript requires fundamental methodological and theoretical reinforcement. There needs to be a shift from a descriptive, promotional tone toward a critical, empirically grounded analysis. By expanding the qualitative methodology to include the voices of a broader range of stakeholders, presenting the analysis in relation to the globally recognized IGCP 726 GEOfood criteria, and by deeply integrating the theoretical paradigm shifts of regenerative tourism from 2025 into the study, they may be able to transform this manuscript into a seminal, reference-worthy scientific work in the fields of geoconservation and sustainable land management.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your comments and critical analysis, which have helped to improve the article and led to revisions that enhance its robustness and scientific quality. We would also like to thank you for recognising the work produced, which addresses a “relevant and fascinating intersection between the conservation of geological heritage (geopatrimony), agricultural sustainability and rural economic resilience”.

We seek to develop integrated research linked to the existing Portuguese Geoparks, promoting a macro perspective on how the GEOfood brand can be operationalised in diverse geographical and socio-economic contexts, with the corresponding qualitative mapping of the strategic guidelines promoted.

Rev3 Comment: The submitted manuscript shows nearly identical structural and textual overlap with a book chapter published in 2025 by IGI Global, titled “GEOfood Products, Tourism, and Ecocultural Sustainability for Vulnerable Territories: Projects and Strategies in Portuguese Geoparks,”

It should be clarified that the manuscript published as a chapter in the 2025 IGI Global book has clearly distinct aims and objectives, seeking to survey the various geoproducts and understand their importance within the geographical contexts under study. In practice, it does not promote the link between geoproducts, geopatrimony, communities and governance. This chapter is a survey and reflection on the sustainability and eco-cultural importance of these geoproducts, serving merely as a reference to existing geoproducts. This article is innovative and has distinct objectives, involving demanding, close-up fieldwork to monitor the activities of the various geoparks, with a view to producing concise analyses of the existing interconnections. It constitutes an original piece of work, and any doubts are dispelled upon analysing the similarities. It involves a rigorous process of site visits, contact with geopark teams for data collection, and project monitoring.

Rev3 Comment: The authors overlook the fact that in 2021, UNESCO’s International Geosciences Programme (IGCP) approved the project titled “GEOfood for Sustainable Development in UNESCO Global Geoparks (IGCP 726),” which runs from 2021 to 2026.

We appreciate the feedback and the need for consideration of IGCP 726 GEOfood, recognising the importance of the publication and its reflective contributions to be incorporated into this article, thereby enhancing its quality and scientific rigour. Thus, we have made improvements to the content and literature review by incorporating the contributions of the aforementioned publication.

Rev 3 Comment:Chapter 3 of the manuscript (“Materials and Methods”) is exceptionally brief, consisting of only two paragraphs, and definitely needs to be expanded. In its current form, this methodology limits the acceptance of the validity of the conclusions drawn.

The manuscript presents an exploratory analysis methodology; in response to the recommendations and with the aim of making it more detailed and robust, we have revised it. We have provided greater detail regarding the research methods, the literature review and the fieldwork (data collection and analysis procedures), thereby addressing the recommendations and weaknesses identified.

In future and in new lines of research, we will seek to expand data collection to include GEOfood producers, retailers and tourists.

Rev3 Comment:The Discussion section currently fails to fulfill its primary function: it does not situate the study’s findings within the broader, ongoing scholarly discourse. The section merely summarizes what has already been stated in the results, reiterating that education, branding, and sustainable practices are important.

The discussion was conducted in line with the objectives of the article and the research, seeking to understand the interconnections between geoproducts, geology, food, community and the governance of geoparks, extrapolating analyses and reflections on the models followed and the rationales for action.

We sought to organise the information using tables and interpretative analyses, enabling us to gain a structured understanding of the dynamics at play and to identify the interconnections that have developed. Given that the research project is exploratory in scope (as we have elaborated and substantiated in the new version of the text) and has a set of objectives covering multiple levels, we considered it appropriate to carry out systematic analyses and produce graphical structures (tables) that facilitate an understanding of the dynamics studied in the five Portuguese geoparks.

The conclusion seeks to succinctly capture the results of the three research strands, supporting critical assessments of the governance of geoparks and the importance of geoproducts in their valorisation and in their contributions to territorial equity, in areas of low population density and structural fragility.

We believe this work constitutes a milestone, addressing a national reality by incorporating the global nature of geoparks, with distinct geographical, geological and socio-economic features, providing analyses and results that contribute to a better understanding of these territories and the interconnections between geofood, geology, food and governance. We also believe that it may support other studies in terms of international comparisons.

We would like to thank you for ther contributions and assistance in improving this manuscript.

Kind Regards

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the answers to the questions I raised. The revisions made have significantly enhanced the value of the study.