Relationship between the Geotourism Potential and Function in the Polish Part of the Roztocze Transboundary Biosphere Reserve

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please read Word file attached

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, which have helped me to improve my manuscript. Based on these, I have made a number of changes which I hope have made the text more accessible.

"1. The term Opoka, used to describe a distinctive, highly fossiliferous marine spiculitic limestone will not be familiar to many readers, and although briefly defined needs to be elaborated in context of some residual rock forms with photos."

Author response: Yes, indeed, the term ' opoka ' itself is not widely known. Therefore, as suggested, the term has been supplemented with a description. This rock is also shown in photographs, together with some fossils (Fig. 3).

"2. The word ‘gapes’ is new to me, and I suspect not widely used. Maybe this refers to ‘broad floodplains’ or valley flats, but a clearer definition is needed."

Author response: Indeed a term little known and used perhaps unfortunate. In the first version of the manuscript the term was used to describe segments of narrow, deeply incised valleys, referring to fault zones. But after re-examining the text, I came to the conclusion that the term is not needed, as geotourists focus more on waterfalls than on valley shape.

"3. Table 1 has been compressed with the resulting columns too narrow for the text. This is mainly due to the list of communes. Perhaps this could be resolved by having a numbered list (or 2 letter codes), allowing the Communes column to be reduced in lateral spread, thus allowing other columns more adequate space."

Author response: I hope that most tables have been better organised.

"It also appears that there are cultural features that create important landscape patterns, mainly strip field systems, which could be illustrated from Google Earth(eg). These would otherwise go unnoticed from this paper yet form a major part of the geodiversity, if cultural patterns are included. "

and

"The methodology is clearly stated but some reference to the new paper by Ewa Welc and Krzysztof Miśkiewicz 2020, would be helpful now this is available."

Author response: I am aware of the importance, especially in the western part of the analysed area, of landscape view values associated with narrow ribbons of fields. I hope to prepare soon a separate article with a proposal of evaluation criteria and an assessment of geocultural landscape values in the Roztocze region. In this context, the study by Welc E. and Miskiewicz is extremely important. and will certainly be referred to as a still rare study referring to the geocultural context, especially its part "4.1.3. Human and Abiotic Nature Interactions".

Reviewer 2 Report

Relationship between the geotourism potential and function in the Polish part of the Roztocze Transboundary Biosphere Reserve

 

Teresa Brzezińska-Wójcik

 

 

Manuscript ID: geosciences-1105306

 

 

General considerations

The work deals with a very important issue concerning the Roztocze Transboundary Biosphere Reserve which falls partly in Poland, where geotourism could assume a much more important role in the future than it does today.

The aim of the work is to evaluate the spatial variability of the potential and function of geotourism and to determine its interrelationships in view of a further development of geotourism in the Roztocze TBR.

The study was carried out using the taxonomic method of multidimensional comparative analysis consisting in the calculation and the analysis of general, total and partial indices of the potential and function of geotourism in 22 municipalities. The whole procedure has been described in the best way and this facilitates reading and comprehension.

The work is well set up and I think it can be easily improved and published.

Some suggestions as follow:

In the introduction it is recommended to better highlight the objectives of the work and to add other bibliographical references (Listed below).

In "Geoturism resources of the Roztocze TBR" (2.1) the geology of the area should be emphasized and photos regarding the different outcropping lithologies and some images of geomorphological evidence reported in the text should be emphasized.

I recommend to careful read and improve the English throughout the manuscript.

 

Figure 2– this figure must be improved:

• part b: the section must be revised and enriched by reporting, in addition to the tectonic structures, also the lithologies involved;
• part c: the map is difficult to read and the North indicator is lacking. Abbreviations of each formation should be added both on the map and in the legend.

 

Tables– Tables need to be better organized.

 

Accept after minor revision

 

Recommended bibliography

Bentivenga M., Cavalcante F., Mastronuzzi G., Palladino G., Prosser G. (2019) Geoheritage: The Foundation for Sustainable Geotourism. Geoheritage J., DOI:10.1007/s12371-019-00422-w

 

Geremia F., Bentivenga M., Palladino G. (2015) Environmental Geology Applied to Geoconservation in the Interaction Between geosites and linear infrastructures in South-Eastern Italy. Geoheritage, Doi: 10.1007/s12371-015-0145-0.

 

Pilogallo A. Nolè G., Amato F., Saganeiti L., Bentivenga M., Palladino G., Scorza F., Murgante B. Las Casas G. (2019) Geotourism as a Specialization in the Territorial Contextof the Basilicata Region (Southern Italy). Geoheritage J., https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00396-9.

 

Palladino G., Prosser G., Bentivenga M. (2013) The geological itinerary of Sasso di Castalda: a journey into the geological history of the Southern Apennine thrust-belt (Basilicata-Southern Italy). Geoheritage. DOI 10.1007/s12371-012-0073-1.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, which have helped me to improve my manuscript. Based on these, I have made a number of changes which I hope have made the text more accessible.

Author response: Thank you for the bibliographic suggestions, I have included them in the Introduction and Methods sections. They helped to better highlight the aims of the paper.

"In "Geoturism resources of the Roztocze TBR" (2.1) the geology of the area should be emphasized and photos regarding the different outcropping lithologies and some images of geomorphological evidence reported in the text should be emphasized."

Author response: Photographs illustrating the lithological and tectonic features of the area under study, photographs illustrating the features of relief forms, as well as photographs of some objects illustrating one of the geotourism products were added to the text.

"I recommend to careful read and improve the English throughout the manuscript."

Author response: The text has been read and revised for better expression of thoughts in English.

"Figure 2– this figure must be improved:

• part b: the section must be revised and enriched by reporting, in addition to the tectonic structures, also the lithologies involved;

part c: the map is difficult to read and the North indicator is lacking. Abbreviations of each formation should be added both on the map and in the legend."

Author response: part b: This section was supplemented by the introduction of lithology, in addition to tectonic structures.

Author response: part c: The hill shade was removed from the map base, making the content of the geological map much clearer, so no additional numerical explanations were added.

As for the North indicator: with reference to cartographic rules, it is not used if the map is oriented N-S, which is the case here.

"Tables – Tables need to be better organized."

Author response: The tables, I hope, are better organised than in the previous version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The relationship between geotourism potential and function is a very interesting topic, in the perspective of improving geotouristic fruition and managing tourists flows: in this perspective, the paper is very interesting and deserves publication. Yet, in my opinion, it could benefit from some improvements. In particular, in the "Methods" paragraph more details should be given about the measure of the geotourism potential and function, and it should be explained  why the Golembski model is superior to others, in the particular conditions of the examined area. The same applies for the measure of tourism function as proposed by Derek. The Author should in fact consider that some of the quoted papers, in Polish language, can be difficult to read for an international public. The same observation applies to the "weight of variable" in Table 1: the author should explain how was it defined. 

In conclusion, all the Methods paragraph should be made more explicit and clear.

On the contrary, the Results section is extremely detailed and its lenght could be reduced by summarising some of the results in tables, that could make the comparison of different communes easier.

In Fig.3, in addition to symbols referring to the analyzed Communes, there are others, without any indication of names: this may suggest that the original figure was produced for another study, referring to a higher number of Communes. The figure should be corrected. 

The paper refers to a previous study by Teresa Brzezińska-Wójcik, Ewa Skowronek, Andrzej Świeca, DIVERSITY OF THE TOURISM POTENTIAL
AND FUNCTIONS IN THE ROZTOCZE REGION, published in 2017. A more detailed comparison between the two works is suggested.

Finally, I think that the performed work could benefit from the comparison with an analysis of consumers feelings and opinions,  that could enlighten the reasons of tourists choices (but this is, obviously, outside the scope of the present paper)

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, which have helped me to improve my manuscript. Based on these, I have made a number of changes which I hope have made the text more accessible.

Rev. 3: "In particular, in the "Methods" paragraph more details should be given about the measure of the geotourism potential and function, and it should be explained  why the Golembski model is superior to others, in the particular conditions of the examined area. The same applies for the measure of tourism function as proposed by Derek. The Author should in fact consider that some of the quoted papers, in Polish language, can be difficult to read for an international public. The same observation applies to the "weight of variable" in Table 1: the author should explain how was it defined. 

In conclusion, all the Methods paragraph should be made more explicit and clear."

Author response: Thank you for this valuable comment. It prompted me to review again the many English-language papers that deal with the problem of assessing tourist values by multidimensional comparative analysis. Different research procedures are applied in this field. However, they are most widely adopted within the boundaries of administrative units of Poland, therefore I have adopted the principles applied earlier by Polish authors. In addition, the description of the research procedure was enriched with a diagram (fig. 8), and the notations of formulas, which I hope better organize the stages of calculation and help to better understand them. Of course, the most sensitive and subjective issue in this method is assigning weights. Authors of some works abandon this step and then stop at the benchmark calculated for each of the features in each administrative unit, and then each obtained value of the other features is compared to this benchmark. However, according to other Authors, if many features (variables) are taken into account, it is worth giving them weights, as some of the features are complementary to the leading ones. Thus, in the present study, I have adopted the latter option with a view to comparing the results to those obtained in an earlier study [28], which I missed in the first version of the manuscript – thank you for pointing this out.

Rev. 3: "…the Results section is extremely detailed and its lenght could be reduced by summarising some of the results in tables, that could make the comparison of different communes easier."

Author response: Indeed, in the Results section the description was extremely detailed, so according to the suggestions it was changed and placed in tables with short comments. Such a summary makes it easier to compare resources and products in the analysed communes.

Rev. 3: "In Fig.3, in addition to symbols referring to the analyzed Communes, there are others, without any indication of names: this may suggest that the original figure was produced for another study, referring to a higher number of Communes. The figure should be corrected."

Author response: Yes, the descriptions of the municipality names in Fig.3 have been missed; this has been corrected.

Rev. 3: "The paper refers to a previous study by Teresa Brzezińska-Wójcik, Ewa Skowronek, Andrzej Świeca, DIVERSITY OF THE TOURISM POTENTIAL
AND FUNCTIONS IN THE ROZTOCZE REGION, published in 2017. A more detailed comparison between the two works is suggested. "

Author response: Thank you also for this valuable suggestion. A brief comparison of the results has been added to the text of the manuscript, as illustrated in Figs. 10 and 11.

In the future, I hope to prepare a paper presenting the results of a study of tourists' perceptions and choices related to geotourism resources and product in the study area.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has been substantially improved. I suspect that also line 494 should be deleted. Please control.