Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear,

We are very grateful to your thorough revision, which helped us to clarify and to improve our previous manuscript. We have considered carefully all the remarks and certainly appreciate the significant efforts to make our results more understandable to the readers.

In the Study Area chapter, we have added a section on the lithological characteristics of the territory, accompanied by a geological map scaled down to 1:300,000.

In the Discussion chapter, we introduced a section exploring the possibility of Golija Nature Park being included in the UNESCO Global Geoparks network.

Additionally, we have incorporated the term geopark into the Keywords section.

This study is the result of three years of research into the geomorphological and hydrological features of geodiversity. Our intention was to emphasize them. Geological geosites were extensively analyzed in the PhD dissertation of a colleague from the Faculty of Geology, to which we now specifically refer in the introduction of our paper.

Considering the extensive scope that a detailed description of each geosite would require, we aimed to provide only the most essential details for each. Additionally, the specificity of the GAM method highlights the potential for improving geosite assessments by enhancing certain parameters. In the Discussion section, we emphasized which parameters are most relevant—primarily scientific research, site presentation, and tourism infrastructure. A significant improvement in these aspects would elevate the ranking of most geosites.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is well written and well structured. It deals with an interesting topic and addresses to aims and scope of this journal. The approach is in line with the research aim and the methodology is appropriate. The results are clear and meet the proposed study aims. Finally, the conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. Nevertheless, the conclusion part should be improved mainly in identified the study limitations, and directions for future research.

 

This manuscript deals with an interesting topic and addresses to aims and scope of the Land Journal.

The main goal of this work is to identify geoactivities related to geoheritage sites that will enhance the geotourism offer within the aim of sustainable development of Nature Park Golija. Particularly, the authors intents to identify the most important geosites and define suitable geoactivities associated with them in order to enhance the geotourism experience in Golija Nature Park.

The methodological process used comprised an inventory phase and a quantification stage, using the Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) method based on main values (MV) and additional values (AV)of geosites. In this context, this review consider that the approach is in line with the research purpose and the methodology is also valid and suitable. 

The results of the analysis presented are very linear and clear and are in line with the initial premises. The conclusion part should be more developed with the contributions to science, study limitations and directions for future research.

The overall level of the work is good. It is well structured and written and some important considerations are highlighted particularly to Golija Nature Park management (which could also be useful for others Unesco Natural Parks). So, this reviewer recommends that this paper be accepted after minor revisions.

Author Response

Dear,

We are very grateful to your thorough revision, which helped us to clarify and to improve our previous manuscript. We have considered carefully all the remarks and added to the Conclusions a section on the goals of further research. Also, we highlighted the potential threats that could threaten the sustainable development of the park and its geodiversity facilities.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting and well-argued. Tracing the flow of the article well illustrates its context and objective.
I would point out the need for a few changes to enable it to be fully understood and made more effective.
Fig1: should be enriched with maps representing
1- the ecosystems or at least land use also to understand the percentage distribution in the park area;
2- the 3 climate zones
3- a geological schematisation.
The request is dictated by the fact that this information is mentioned following the methodology flow and, in addition, forms the basis of the GIS, a fundamental step for your classification.
In Figure 1, a legend for correspondence between acronyms (Gs1, Gs2, etc.) and sites would be helpful (so we do not have to look for them in the text each time).

A table should explain the modified questionnaire (line 119). It would be worthwhile to understand what was modified, as it is based on the cited publications.

Line 219. "marbled limestones". Is it a metamorphic rock? It is sufficient to call them marbles. 

Line 220. Remove "particularly".

Line 243. Can the previous concept be explicit with a sentence? To better follow the article in all its points, I have prepared a flowchart, inserting the area's steps, variables, and characteristics. I advise the authors to include it in the methodology chapter to make the article simpler and more effective, especially in explaining the conclusions later and entering into the discussion—just a suggestion.

Author Response

Dear,

We are very grateful to your thorough revision, which helped us to clarify and to improve our previous manuscript. We have considered carefully all the remarks and certainly appreciate the significant efforts to make our results more understandable to the readers.

In Figure 1 we have inserted a legend for acronyms.

In the Study Area chapter, we have added a section on the lithological characteristics of the territory, accompanied by a geological map scaled down to 1:300,000. Also, we have added maps showing climate zones and land use.

In the Methodology section, we added an explanation of which segments were added to the modified survey.

We have changed the term "marbled limestones" to "metamorphosed carbonates" because it is more appropriate. These are metamorphosed limestones that have not completely reached marble.

We have modified and clarified the VSE value.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear,

We are very grateful to your thorough revision, which helped us to clarify and to improve our previous manuscript. We have considered carefully all the remarks and certainly appreciate the significant efforts to make our results more understandable to the readers.

Within the stated hypothesis of the work, we included the need to connect geosites with the UNESCO World Heritage site (Studenica Monastery), and we set references to the corresponding UNESCO list page.

In the Methodology section, we added an explanation of which segments were added to the modified survey. Survey was done by geodiversity experts.

This study is the result of three years of research into the geomorphological and hydrological features of geodiversity. Research started from the most known and representative localities. Speleological geodiversity is mostly explored for the first time. However, further work in this field is ongoing and we expect more results. For this reason, we would not give the object list because it is not yet final. We hope for a unified inventory of all the geodiversity objects of Golija Nature Park in the coming years.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comprehensive and well-structured study of the geoheritage of the Golija Nature Park and its potential for the development of sustainable geotourism. The authors effectively integrate field research, GIS-based spatial analysis, and evaluation methodologies to identify geosites with high tourism valorization potential. Particularly noteworthy is the application of the GAM methodology, as well as the clear connection established between scientific insights and practical development recommendations, which gives the study both academic and applied relevance.

However, the abstract currently emphasizes the geographic characteristics of the area more than it does the research findings, objectives, or scientific contribution. It is therefore recommended that the abstract be revised to better reflect the purpose, key results, and broader importance of the research. While the introduction is structurally coherent, it is somewhat merged with the literature review, which diminishes the critical engagement with previous studies. The authors are encouraged to expand this section by incorporating related research, highlighting their findings, and clearly identifying the knowledge gaps that this study aims to address. Special attention should also be paid to the consistent use of verb tenses throughout the manuscript to ensure linguistic accuracy and clarity.

The methodology is generally well described, but the section would benefit from a clearer explanation of how the questionnaire was modified for the purposes of the study. Including the modified version as an appendix or supplementary material would increase transparency and aid reader understanding. The results are presented clearly, supported by precise and visually well-designed figures. Table 1 could be further enhanced by adding brief interpretative comments on the importance of each geosite for the development of specific geotourism activities, rather than focusing solely on ranking. Figure 8 appears to have limited relevance to the core analysis and is recommended for removal.

The discussion is well-organized and effectively interprets the findings in light of the study’s objectives, requiring no changes. The conclusion successfully summarizes the main insights and methodological contributions. However, it could be further strengthened by including a clear recommendation for integrating the study’s findings into official spatial planning and tourism development strategies at both the local and national levels. It is recommended that the authors expand the literature review by including more recent international studies (preferably published within the last ten years), in order to strengthen the theoretical foundation.

The manuscript presents an interesting research on the geoheritage of the Golija Nature Park and its applications in the development of sustainable geotourism. The authors successfully combine fieldwork, GIS analysis and evaluation methods. However, I would like to make suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript, which does not in the least diminish the quality so far. The title is fully adequate and reflects the essence of the research. The abstract is well structured, but is based more on the description of the research area, not on the research findings. I suggest that this part be supplemented and changed a little. The introductory part also represents a review of the literature, I believe that they should add more similar research on this topic, and to highlight the gaps that these findings will address. The methodology that was applied is clearly explained and adequate for the research, but I would suggest that the authors only explain the modification of the questionnaire more. The results are shown in the figures at an angle, and very clearly presented. I do not suggest any changes. They very clearly and adequately present the findings obtained by the applied methodology. However, I believe that Figure 8 is superfluous in the manuscript. I suggest that the authors add a text on the importance of geolocations on specific tourist activities that are practiced, or could potentially be practiced. Elaborate that part of the text. The discussion is written in accordance with the research, the goal and the obtained research findings. No changes are needed. I ask the authors to adapt the conclusion to a structure that would include a little more explanation about the application of the findings in planning and strategic documents. Strengthen the references, not only domestic authors, but also add authors who used the same methodology, or obtained similar findings for similar areas and compare them with the findings they obtained. They rely too much on domestic authors, which is understandable because this is an area of ​​Serbia, where there is not much foreign literature, but foreign literature can be linked to other examples of similar findings, etc. After minor changes, I propose publishing.

Author Response

Dear,

We are very grateful to your thorough revision, which helped us to clarify and to improve our previous manuscript. We have considered carefully all the remarks and have included the changes in Abstract. Also, we refined the Conclusions by inserting recommendations for future spatial and tourist plans. We have added a few more references to the paper.

Attachment 8 is not of crucial importance for the work, but we would keep it because it includes, among other things, a person who helped us significantly in the field and in looking at alternative tourist offers in Golija. If you think it should be removed anyway, that won't be a problem for the authors.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Since the authors have carried out the changes requested in each part of the article, l am announcingthat it can be published in your newspaper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for considering my suggestions. They have made excellent changes to the text, which now seems really well articulated.
The only thing I would emphasise in the figures is that it would have been more interesting to have the sites indicated on all the thematic maps, but this is a negligible detail.