Characterization of the Tourist Demand of the Villuercas–Ibores–Jara Geopark: A Destination with the Capacity to Attract Tourists and Visitors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The main themes of the paper are relevant in the national and European context.
The main limitation is that the results have only local relevance; it is true that the Authors have stressed the lack of similar studies, but they have not clearly indicated what could be expected to generalize the results.
Text and conclusions fairly linear, written pretty well (few misprints) and easy to understand.
We can consider that the contribution is of an acceptable level, without particular elements of originality and innovation, but useful for increasing the knowledge of what we could call "normal science". It could be very useful to refer to other case studies also linked to different tourist profiles, even for different "attractions", to pay more attention to the terminology, the role of local populations, to the literature on mining landscapes and placemaking.
Author Response
The paper focuses on a specific geopark, so its results cannot be extrapolated to others. However, we think that the proposed methodology can be applied to other geoparks that have similar problems in order to promote the sustainable tourism development of these spaces. In the new version of the paper, this aspect has been included.
In the discussion section it is argued that the results presented in the study should be used to highlight the lack of links between the geopark and the main destinations of Extremadura. This fact is really relevant when taking into account the existence of tourists who have very varied motivations to travel to Cáceres, Mérida, Trujillo or Plasencia.
We understand that the main profiles that characterize the tourists of Extremadura are analyzed, where many tourist typologies are combined. It should also be noted that the involvement of the local population is still limited in a recent geopark, as is the case
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript presents results of research conducted on tourist motivations for visiting a Geopark in Spain. Overall, the research design seems rigorous and systematic and the data collected is sufficient to address the hypothesis of the project. However, there are some areas where the manuscript could be improved. A clear distinction between tourists and trippers needs to be made. What are trippers and how are they different from tourists. The connection between understanding tourist motivations and enhancing sustainable development needs to be clarified. This connection is mentioned several times, beginning in the introduction but never clearly explained. There is a need to better explain why it is important to understand demand and motivations and motivations. To what end? What will understanding demand achieve? What does this research contribute back to the broader body of knowledge on geotourism? This last question is perhaps the most significant. The paper needs to clearly state how the results of the study contribute to the literature on geotourism more broadly.
Author Response
We have explained the difference that exists between tourists and trippers, as well as their interest for the study. Also, it explains in more detail the reason why it is important to know the tourist demand.
Finally, in the discussion we have explained what this paper contributes to the knowledge of geotourism, after indicating that in an analysis of geotourism it is advisable to study specifically the origin of visitors, because this would serve as a basis to measure their attractiveness
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a very nice and scientifically strong contribution that deserves publication in Geosciences after minor, chiefly technical revision. The authors address a very interesting and important issue that remains poorly discussed in the scientific literature. My recommendations are as follows:
1) Please, make the title shorter and appealing to the broad international research community.
2) Is "trippers" an official term used in the modern tourism science? I'm not sure and encourage the authors to check the relevant terminology in the leading tourism journals.
3) I encourage the authors to find and to cite more sources where geological heritage is considered as a resource.
4) In introduction, please, cite more basic articles about geoparks (e.g., see the papers by M.H. Henriques, D.A. Ruban, N. Farsani, etc. – check the profiles of these articles in Scopus, please).
5) The word "geopark" should not be capitalized.
6) To the subsection 2.1, please, add a paragraph with the geological characteristics of the studied geopark.
7) What does mean "alphanumeric"?
8) Table 3: Characteristic -> Parameter
9) I suggest to discuss (in Discussion) whether the outcomes of the present study are meaningful to the only studied geopark or all geoparks of Europe or even the world.
10) Please, check the style of references: this should be brought in correspondence to the journal's rules, and Spanish expressions (e.g., Y between Dowling and Newsome – source 6) should be abandoned.
11) Please, polish the language and the style. The study itself is ok, but the writing does not facilitate understanding of the storytelling sometimes. Help of any English native-speaking colleague would be very suitable.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments.
The title has been shortened to "The Villuercas-Ibores-Jara Geopark: a destination with the capacity to attract tourists and visitors"
The term "trippers" has been replaced by "visitors".
New bibliographical references have been included.
"Geopark" has been replaced by "geopark"
A paragraph has been included that synthesizes the geological characteristics of the geopark,
It has been explained in the discussion that the methodology can be extrapolated to other geoparks provided they have characteristics common to the one analysed.
The references have been reviewed.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have sufficiently addressed my comments in the revised draft.
