Geosite Assessment as a Tool for the Promotion and Conservation of Irpinia Landscape Geoheritage (Southern Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Article: The geosites assessment as a tool for the promotion and conservation of the Irpinia landscape geoheritage is an interesting work presenting the unique natural and cultural values of Irpinia. However, to be published it must be impoved.

First of all, the introduction is too short and does not include an overview of the literature on geodiversity and geotourism, which is very rich nowadays. The description of the research area is very general, first of all the description of the relief of this area and the hydrological conditions should be improved.

The article does not explain why the authors chose only 8 geosites for evaluation and why this ones and not the other ones? Descriptions of the geosites themselves are also very general and should be extended.

In the Materials and Methods chapter, a description of the selected assessment methods must be improved. With a clear explanation of why these and no other methods were chosen (see article Mucivuna e al 2019).

In the results and discussion chapter, there is no discussion of the results, I did not fully understand the authors' assumptions about using and comparing the results from 5 assessment methods and then carrying out further analyzes using two other methods. On the basis of selected methods, I would personally create my own modification of this methods and assess the geosites.

In the introduction, the authors mention the unique culture of the described area, but later in the article this topic does not appear anymore. Maybe it's worth supplementing. Ultimately, in the title, the authors write about assessment as a tool for the promotion and conservation, but neither in the discussion nor in the summary do they refer to how the assessment is this tool…. it must be improved or the title of the article changed.

Summarizing, the article must be thoroughly revised to be published.

Author Response

The authors sincerely thank the referee for his valuable suggestions, which were largely accepted. They remain available for further clarification

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

An interesting paper that applies different methods to assess the quality of 8 geosites. However, I did not have the summary figure or table comparing the results from the different methods.

Add "Italy' to the title of the paper

Line 44 - "longer history" than what?

Line 121 - Caption should explain "SIC areas" and "ZPS areas"

Line 155 - Omit "become" or "are"

Line 172 - Use "its" rather than "his"

Lines 357/358 - "geoetic"? Explain or correct

Line 371 - I don't have Figure 10. The last Figure I have is Figure 7. Should have more discussion comparing the results of the different methods.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2, we thank you for your valuable suggestions as we have been able to verify that these have definitely improved the quality of the text. Everything you have asked of us has been welcomed and transferred to the appropriate parts of the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

In general the manuscript is interesting for publication in Resources international journal, but it requires major revisions. Below I send my comments, suggestions and others aspects:

Title

 Please add the name of the country in the title because Resources is an international journal

Abstract

Is ok

Keywords

Please add the name of the country in the title because Resources is an international journal

1. Introduction

Line 53 which geological factors?

In figure one you show the 8 geosites selected, but I think in figure 1 should be only the location of the study area (please this mapa is the section 2 Study area) and in the other map, in the results, you create the new mapa with the 8 geosite. On the other hand, What is the meaning of the icons in figure 1?

The last paragraph of the introduction is more about results than about introduction.

In general the introduction section is incomplete. Please add more references about the geoheritage, geodiversity, geoethics and geotourism.

2.  The study area

Lines 75 to 84, in general the first step we describe the natural characteristics and then the cultural features.

2.2. Biodiversity

Line 108, please add the reference

Line 111, “hot spot”, please add the reference

Line 117 to 119, please add the references

Figure 2, please add the source

2.2. Geology and Geomorphology

Figure 4, please add the source

In general, I think this section needs restructuration, because the relief is the base of the rest features of the landscapes. For this reason you should put the geology and geomorphology first and then the biodiversity.

3. Materials and Methods

The table 1 are results not material and methods

Lines 207 to 2012, please add some references to the Mefite in Ansanto Valley

Figure 5 are results not meterial and methods

In general this section is not the material and methods. I think that you need to rewrite the section with the methodology employed in the paper.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. The Pereira et al. 2007 method

4.2. The GAM method

4.3. The method of Coratza et al., 2012

This method is based on the Reynard and their collaborations?

4.4. The method of Fassoulas et al., 2012

4.5. The method of Pica, 2014

4.6. The Brilha, 2017 method

In general the different methods that you applied are spectacular, but from my point of view, the first step is to explain the different methods in section 3 and section 4 only put the results when you applied the different methods.

5. Conclusions

This section you could improve

References

In general the references could improve, I think the authors could read several references about the geoheritage, geodiversity, geoethics and geotourism.

Author Response

The response to reviewer 3 is given in the attached word file. We thank the reviewer for his precise and valuable advice, all of which was taken up by the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Well done! I recommend the article for publishing in present form. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have added most of my recommendations, so that the article can be published in the journal.

Best regards

Javier Dóniz Páez