Remarkable Geosites of Quito That Are Aspiring to Be a UNESCO Global Geopark

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1. On its first occurrence, the abbreviation GAM should be explicitly defined, as it could refer to either the Generalized Additive Model or the Geosites Assessment Model, depending on the context. This clarification ensures that readers correctly interpret the term.

Comment 2. The authors mention three potential evaluation methods, but a detailed comparison, which would justify the choice of GAM, is missing. Please provide more systematic and detailed information on the comparison of the three evaluated methods. A table-based representation could be useful.

Comment 3. The evaluation system is mentioned in the Discussion section, but it should be included in the Methodology section. Additionally, the precise description of the evaluation system, including the measuring of the various criteria and sub-criteria, is missing. Without these details, the results become practically uninterpretable. The authors should list and explain the evaluation for each of the used 25 sub-indicators.

Comment 4. Was the same level of importance assigned to each of the 25 sub-indicators? Is the taken decision supported by the literature?

Comment 5. The authors mention Berrezueta's study, which does not examine the tourism aspect of the evaluation as in-depth. How do the elements present in both studies compare to each other? Does the evaluation in the current study confirm Berrezueta’s findings regarding the shared elements, or does it differ?

Comment 6. The authors should explain the equation used (line 771) to evaluate the geosites or provide references supporting its scientific validity.

Comment 7. There are hyphenation errors all over the text:  real-ized, val-ue, etc. Please correct them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The use of English in most of the article leaves much to be desired, and in some places it is barely understandable. A meticulous language revision is essential.

Author Response

Response Letter to the expert reviewer

 

Dear expert reviewer,

 

As authors of the manuscript entitled “Remarkable geosites of Quito´s aspiring to an UNESCO Global Geopark”, we appreciated a lot your suggestions and comments on the document, as we are certain and convinced, that they have been useful to enrich the fluency and clarity of the entire article. We also confirm that the writing in English has been thoroughly reviewed and accordingly improved. Below, we will detail the changes realized and you will be able to find them all exposed and answered since the responses to each suggestion and comments as well as given marked in the manuscript.

 

 

Comment 1. On its first occurrence, the abbreviation GAM should be explicitly defined, as it could refer to either the Generalized Additive Model or the Geosites Assessment Model, depending on the context. This clarification ensures that readers correctly interpret the term.

Response: Good point, realized, as you will be able to see, right from the start in the abstract

 

Comment 2. The authors mention three potential evaluation methods, but a detailed comparison, which would justify the choice of GAM, is missing. Please provide more systematic and detailed information on the comparison of the three evaluated methods. A table-based representation could be useful.

Response: This has been a great point of discussion between us, the authors. We decided based on your comment to take it as a recommendation, therefore, we added a detailed explanation with the comparison of the methodologies used, besides the inclusion of a comparation table.

 

Comment 3. The evaluation system is mentioned in the Discussion section, but it should be included in the Methodology section. Additionally, the precise description of the evaluation system, including the measuring of the various criteria and sub-criteria, is missing. Without these details, the results become practically uninterpretable. The authors should list and explain the evaluation for each of the used 25 sub-indicators.

Response: Agreed and realized, that part you missed being in the discussion has been moved into the proposed methods section and all sub-comments mentioned and recommended to explain, are, as you can read in the methodology section detailed explained

 

Comment 4. Was the same level of importance assigned to each of the 25 sub-indicators? Is the taken decision supported by the literature?

Response: Yes, once again, its now detailed explained in the Methodology section.

 

Comment 5. The authors mention Berrezueta's study, which does not examine the tourism aspect of the evaluation as in-depth. How do the elements present in both studies compare to each other? Does the evaluation in the current study confirm Berrezueta’s findings regarding the shared elements, or does it differ?

Response: It differs and that´s now also handled in the methodology and partly in the discussion.

 

Comment 6. The authors should explain the equation used (line 771) to evaluate the geosites or provide references supporting its scientific validity.

Response: The equation has been explained and additional elements have been added to force a better explanation as well.

 

Comment 7. There are hyphenation errors all over the text:  real-ized, val-ue, etc. Please correct them.

Response: Our bet, all corrected

 

Once again and with all due respect, we are very thankful for your comments and corrections, which helped to see a few unclear parts and or even faults of our side within our manuscript. With your comments we were able to smooth the text, clarify missing parts or wrong spellings, which resulted to a much better than the initial version of this current study. Thanks a lot on behalf of all authors

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See a file please

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response Letter to the expert reviewer

 

Dear expert reviewer,

 

As authors of the manuscript entitled “Remarkable geosites of Quito´s aspiring to an UNESCO Global Geopark”, we appreciated a lot your suggestions and comments on the document, as we are certain and convinced, that they have been useful to enrich the fluency and clarity of the entire article. We also confirm that the writing in English has been thoroughly reviewed and accordingly improved. Below, we will detail the changes realized and you will be able to find them all exposed and answered since the responses to each suggestion and comments as well as given marked in the manuscript.

 

 

Comment: Line 2 May be “ ….aspiring to UNESCO….”?

Response: Good point, realized and added “to an”

 

Comment: Keywords Delete “UNESCO Global Geopark”, add “Quito’s heritage”

Response: Agreed

 

Comment: I propose to reduce of the chapter 1.1 Proposal for a New UNESCO Global Geopark in Quito of the Introduction. There are common data about history of UNESCO. I suggest leave the important information about criteria of UNESCO Global Geopark and uniqueness of DMO in the Quito.

Response: We thought about your suggestion and found it on the one hand quite encouraging and tempting in order to reduce space of the manuscript, on the other hand, to describe the text and explanations to such an extend was intended in order to capture the reader by explaining all aspects of existing and this aspiring geopark and what criteria are needed to be a candidate in this exclusive club. Therefore, we only added half a sentence about the “uniqueness” of the sites in the last paragraph.

 

Comment: Line 51 add whitespace between characters [1,2]

Line 54 add whitespace between characters [3,4]

Line 71 add whitespace between characters [12,13] and so on for each links with several references

Response: Agreed and done for the entire document

 

Comment: Line 110 “256,370 km2” change on “256,370 km ”

Line 153 “283.561 km2” change on “283.561 km ”

Response: Done

 

Comment: Page 5, Fig. 1 relocate after link on it. I think it would be better if on the Fig. 1 show a general scheme of South America with Ecuador and then insert of your Main frame. Caption for Fig. 1 is not clear. What did you want to say important about Pichincha province? Text about it is on page 6 only and don’t consist of detail information.

Response: The subtitle has been better clarified.

 

Comment: Line 222  real-ized

Line 223 val-ue

Please revised all text of manuscript for correction shelling of words (without of hyphen), for example also line 225 eliminat-ed, line 759 fol-lowing, line 864 hu- man, line 871 be-tween and others

Response: Our mistake, all realized.

 

Comment: Line    246 geoarcheological sites,  but  in  other  places  and  Table  1  geo- archeological site  (GS3,  GS7,  GS8,  GS28-30,  GS32.  GS35).  Please  write identically.

Response: Correct, all unified expressed.

 

Comment: Page 7. The link to Fig. 3 is missing in the text.

Response: Added shortly before Table 1.

 

Comment: The ordinal numbering of the section 3 needs to be corrected. Right is  3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and etc., not 4.1, 4.2, 4.3….

Response: We missed that, all corrected

 

Comment: Line 296 “3 km” change on “to 3.0 km”

Response: Done

 

Comment: What was the principle of ordinal numbering geosites in the table 1 and Fig. 3? It might be better to group the descriptions in order (volcanoes GS 1-10, geological hazards GS 11-14 and etc) or geographical coordinates (from north to south and from west to east)?

Response: Unfortunately, the numbering is not systematic for a reason. The geosites were described or numbered in order of appearance rather below a certain scheme, like first volcanoes and then other groups…That allows also to extend the given list for any new geosite to be involved and not to leave any (unknown) gaps between the different groups.

 

Comment: Line 299 period in BC (1500-500 BC), but line 334 B.C. (at 700 to 300 B.C.). Also, Table 2 – B.C. Write uniformly please

Response: Realized

 

Comment: The link to Fig. 4 is missing in the text. Captions to Fig. 4 must be changed for a better perception.  The letters a, b, c, but not “upper center” and etc. Add the letters the Figure 4 itself. Separate the pictures in the Fig. 4 spacing.

Response: All figures are having space in between them and all are having letters where needed.

 

Comment: Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8. Separate the pictures in spacing. May be the letters a and b versus “left” and “right” (for uniformly)

Response: All figures are having space in between them and all are having letters where needed.

 

 

Comment: Figs. 10, 11. Separate the pictures in spacing

Response: All figures are having space in between them and all are having letters where needed.

 

 

Comment: Caption for Fig. 13 is uncomplete.

Response: Done

 

 

Comment: Line 714  link to reference in [], but not (2021). Delete please

Response: Corrected

 

Comment: Pages 20-21. Text about Gam methodology replaced in chapter 2. Materials and Methods. It is appropriate to leave here information for Table 3 and its explanatory text.

Response: Realized in great and detailed manner.

 

Comment: Table 3. Check if the names of the geosites match in Table 3 and Table 2, text (for example, GS35 El Rancho archeologic site or El Rancho geoarcheological site?) Decrease of the reference list please

Response: Changes have been done to have a unitarian form of the geosites. Sorry for the second part of the recommendation, we are very strict in demonstrating the most important studies realized around the geosites and believe it or not, originally, they have been more than 360 references and what you see now is already a severe reduction of the previous list. To reduce would mean not to honor those who worked hard and published their data in form of papers.

 

Comment: Check the design of the reference list according to the rules of the journal Lines 939, 953, 1056 – not all authors or extra points?

Response: Its now usual after a certain number of authors, not to mention all of them and put only the very last one after some …. These are the new APA rules, and we must follow them, so does MDPI.

 

Once again and with all due respect, we are very thankful for your comments and corrections, which helped to see a few unclear parts and or even faults of our side within our manuscript. With your comments we were able to smooth the text, clarify missing parts or wrong spellings, which resulted to a much better than the initial version of this current study. Thanks a lot on behalf of all authors

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article Remarkable geosites of Quito´s aspiring UNESCO Global Geopark presents a reliable description of the geosites located in the research area, but this is the only thing I have no comments on.

1. The pervasive introduction lacks an indication of the specific purpose of the research and research questions.

2. The Material and Methods chapter, on the other hand, is written in a very general way and does not present an outline of the Brilha methodology, even though the authors write that they use it. In addition, many words in this chapter contain unnecessary dashes, e.g. val-ue, in-terest. This should be corrected.

3. The Results chapter describes the geosites divided into groups, although I believe that geoheritage sites could be included in the geomorphological sites group, because they present landforms.

4. The Results chapter also lacks a valorization of the geosites.

5. In the Discussion chapter, however, an analysis of the valuation is presented, but there is no reference to the valuation of geosites located in other geoparks, which also used the valuation method proposed by Brilha.

6. In the text, the authors refer only to the first two figures. The remaining ones have no references - they need to be corrected. Similarly, there is no reference in the article to Table 3.

7. In the geological description, it would also be worth referring to the geological map of this area and adding an appropriate figure.

After making the corrections, the article will be suitable for publication.

Author Response

Response Letter to the expert reviewer

 

Dear expert reviewer,

 

As authors of the manuscript entitled “Remarkable geosites of Quito´s aspiring to an UNESCO Global Geopark”, we appreciated a lot your suggestions and comments on the document, as we are certain and convinced, that they have been useful to enrich the fluency and clarity of the entire article. We also confirm that the writing in English has been thoroughly reviewed and accordingly improved. Below, we will detail the changes realized and you will be able to find them all exposed and answered since the responses to each suggestion and comments as well as given marked in the manuscript.

 

 

The article Remarkable geosites of Quito´s aspiring UNESCO Global Geopark presents a reliable description of the geosites located in the research area, but this is the only thing I have no comments on.

Comment 1. The pervasive introduction lacks an indication of the specific purpose of the research and research questions.

Response: We most likely will disagree in this point, as it is clearly stated in the very last paragraph of the introduction where the specific purpose has been explained. I may state “Based on the aforementioned context, the current study aims predominantly to propose a new potential Ecuadorian geopark within the Metropolitan District of Quito (DMQ). Hereby, we reviewed, identified and evaluated many known sites with significant geological wealth and high geodiversity of the DMQ and its areas of influence that meet the criteria to be named a UNESCO Global Geopark.” And forthcoming sentences to justify the main purposes of the current research.

 

Comment 2. The Material and Methods chapter, on the other hand, is written in a very general way and does not present an outline of the Brilha methodology, even though the authors write that they use it. In addition, many words in this chapter contain unnecessary dashes, e.g. val-ue, in-terest. This should be corrected.

Response: That has been a very good point. We extended this part vigorously as demonstrated with the added and marked text.

 

Comment 3. The Results chapter describes the geosites divided into groups, although I believe that geoheritage sites could be included in the geomorphological sites group, because they present landforms.

Response: We may disagree slightly in this point and leave it rather untouched. I hope you don´t mind, that we see these as a different, separate group of geosites.

 

Comment 4. The Results chapter also lacks a valorization of the geosites.

Response: This has been added. You will see the added text in this section, which by the way coincides with the more detailed explanation of the set and conditions of values in the methodology section.

 

Comment 5. In the Discussion chapter, however, an analysis of the valuation is presented, but there is no reference to the valuation of geosites located in other geoparks, which also used the valuation method proposed by Brilha.

Response: It is now.

 

Comment 6. In the text, the authors refer only to the first two figures. The remaining ones have no references - they need to be corrected. Similarly, there is no reference in the article to Table 3.

Response: Agreed, done.

 

Comment 7. In the geological description, it would also be worth referring to the geological map of this area and adding an appropriate figure.

Response: Realized, that’s the new Figure 3.

 

After making the corrections, the article will be suitable for publication.

 

 

Once again and with all due respect, we are very thankful for your comments and corrections, which helped to see a few unclear parts and or even faults of our side within our manuscript. With your comments we were able to smooth the text, clarify missing parts or wrong spellings, which resulted to a much better than the initial version of this current study. Thanks a lot on behalf of all authors

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I am pleased to see that you have successfully revised the paper in accordance with the suggestions. I have no further comments. I wish you much success in your future research endeavors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for responding to my comments. The article is suitable for publication in its current form. Good job!