Geosites in the Gole della Breggia Geopark, Ticino, Southern Switzerland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

your article discusses the 5 geostations of the geopark, giving the geological background of the study area, the characteristics of the geostops and relevant photographs.

The topic is not original. The geopark was described:
Stockar, R. Geological guide to the Breggia Gorge Park. The Breggia Gorge Park, 6834 Morbio Inferiore, Switzerland, 2003.

The novelty are: QR codes and presenting the results of a valorisation analysis. Although already increasingly common, the QR codes, undoubtedly enhance the perception of the presented geodiversity sites of the region.  However, we do not know the basis for the identification of these 5 geosites, as we do not have the results of the complete analysis of all geosites.

The work shows exemplarily developed geostations, which can serve as an example for other organisers of the dissemination of knowledge in the field.
The article will certainly be of interest to geotourists and managers of geoeducational activities.

I would love to see a full analytical table with the point totals allocated to each geostop. I would have an idea that the proposed 5 geostations are indeed unique in the study area. And that, on this basis, the authors chose to describe only these five.

I found some minor concerns in the text. I have recorded them in a table (file Errata), which I attach to the review sheet.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Authors,

your article discusses the 5 geostations of the geopark, giving the geological background of the study area, the characteristics of the geostops and relevant photographs.

The topic is not original. The geopark was described:
Stockar, R. Geological guide to the Breggia Gorge Park. The Breggia Gorge Park, 6834 Morbio Inferiore, Switzerland, 2003.

REPLY: Thanks for the comment. We are aware of that, but our contribution goes beyond the scopes of the work by Stockar 2003 (who, by the way, is one of the authors of the present manuscript).

The novelty are: QR codes and presenting the results of a valorisation analysis. Although already increasingly common, the QR codes, undoubtedly enhance the perception of the presented geodiversity sites of the region.  However, we do not know the basis for the identification of these 5 geosites, as we do not have the results of the complete analysis of all geosites.

REPLY: In the revised version, we made it clear that we performed the selection of our 5 geosites based on their high degree of representativeness.

The work shows exemplarily developed geostations, which can serve as an example for other organisers of the dissemination of knowledge in the field.
The article will certainly be of interest to geotourists and managers of geoeducational activities.

REPLY: Thanks a lot for this encouraging comment.

I would love to see a full analytical table with the point totals allocated to each geostop. I would have an idea that the proposed 5 geostations are indeed unique in the study area. And that, on this basis, the authors chose to describe only these five.

REPLY: In the revised version, we included a table where we rated the 5 geostops based on the values (representativeness, rarity, integrity...) that can be applied to each of them.

I found some minor concerns in the text. I have recorded them in a table (file Errata), which I attach to the review sheet.

REPLY: Thanks a lot for that. We have integrated all your suggestions and addressed all your concerns in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a good report on outstanding geosites from the Gole della Bregga Geopark. I have some concerns about the Introduction section, and some other minor comments and corrections to the rest of the paper. See annotated pdf copy of the manuscript to see my comments and corrections.

I would also like to suggest the authors to highlight the fact that this geopark and the whole set go Geosites contained in it have the peculiarity of being located in a periurban area of touristic interest. Although this may seem rather evident, I think it should be explicitly mentioned in the introduction, because it has important implications on geosites management, conservation and divulgation.

Suggested references on Geosite assessment:

Brilha J (2016) Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage

Bruschi VM, Cendrero A, Albertos JAC (2011) A statistical approach to the validation and optimisation of geoheritage assessment procedures. Geoheritage 3:131–149

Fassoulas C, Mouriki D, Dimitriou-Nikolakis P, Iliopoulos G (2012) Quantitative assessment of geotopes as an effective tool for geoheritage management. Geoheritage 4(3):177–193

Reynard E, Perret A, Bussard J, Grangier L, Martin S (2015) Integrated approach for the inventory and management of geomorphological heritage at the regional scale. Geoheritage 8:43–60

Suzuki DA, Takagi H (2018) Evaluation of geosite for sustainable planning and management in geotourism. Geoheritage 10:123–135

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

See annotated pdf copy of the manuscript to revise a few suggestions/corrections.

Author Response

This is a good report on outstanding geosites from the Gole della Bregga Geopark. I have some concerns about the Introduction section, and some other minor comments and corrections to the rest of the paper. See annotated pdf copy of the manuscript to see my comments and corrections.

REPLY: Thanks a lot for the very positive statement. Thanks also for th annotated pdf copy of the manuscript, which we have followed and addressed point by point.

I would also like to suggest the authors to highlight the fact that this geopark and the whole set go Geosites contained in it have the peculiarity of being located in a periurban area of touristic interest. Although this may seem rather evident, I think it should be explicitly mentioned in the introduction, because it has important implications on geosites management, conservation and divulgation.

REPLY: We have included a sentence at the end of Chapter 2 ("Overview of the Valle della breggia Geopark"), which abides by the Reviewer's key suggestion.

Suggested references on Geosite assessment:

Brilha J (2016) Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage

Bruschi VM, Cendrero A, Albertos JAC (2011) A statistical approach to the validation and optimisation of geoheritage assessment procedures. Geoheritage 3:131–149

Fassoulas C, Mouriki D, Dimitriou-Nikolakis P, Iliopoulos G (2012) Quantitative assessment of geotopes as an effective tool for geoheritage management. Geoheritage 4(3):177–193

Reynard E, Perret A, Bussard J, Grangier L, Martin S (2015) Integrated approach for the inventory and management of geomorphological heritage at the regional scale. Geoheritage 8:43–60

Suzuki DA, Takagi H (2018) Evaluation of geosite for sustainable planning and management in geotourism. Geoheritage 10:123–135

REPLY: Two of the above references were already included in the original ms. We have added the other three ones to the revised version of our paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

The Gole della Breggia Geopark has a wealth of geologic resources and excellent exposures of key features for both exemplar geology and the tectonics of the southern Alps. The park already has virtual geosites with videos linked to QR codes that are included in the manuscript. The 5 geosites chosen for the study appear appropriate, containing excellent examples of a range of rock units and geologic features. Reporting on this geopark is therefore important and would make a contribution to the field.

Line 49 claims that there was a qualitative and quantitative assessment conducted on the geosites (the wording would be better this way). I was expecting a survey of park visitors or classes that visited. However, I found no quantitative assessment. Further, the qualitative assessment was just the opinion of the authors rather than a true assessment. Further, the analysis mostly repeats the information in the geosite descriptions. This weakens the effectiveness of the study. Without it, the paper is just a description of a few geosites at a geopark. Considering the guide and wealth of information on the website accessible by the provided QR codes, the point of the paper is diminished if no other analysis is conducted. Even if a description of the types and numbers of visitors, accessibility of the sites in general and seasonal restrictions, etc. would improve the presentation.

There are many other issues that should be addressed. Some are listed below but there are many others:

Line 13: “This work is aimed at showcasing” should be removed.

Line 16: Replace “valorized”

Line 24-26: Recast.

Line 66: “series” should be “sections”

Line 72: replace “testifies”

Line 75: “Limestones and Marls with Pelagic Bivalves” does not have a formation name?

Line 77: In all geologic literature, “Million years ago” is abbreviated as “Ma”

Line 107: Remove “The fruition of”

Line 113: Remove “that is beautifully represented here.”

Line 131-135: Recast in simpler terms.

Line 136-138: Faults are brittle responses to stress (or force). Recast in those terms and simple language.

Line 145: “peculiar gravitative event” should be replaced with the feature

Line 148-151: This should be more direct than hinting. Rock made of >90% calcareous shells is a fossiliferous grainstone.

Line 153-154: Again, directly to the term rather than preamble. This is called convolute bedding.

Line 179-184: A lot of background but doesn’t really apply to the topic.

Line 212-222: This section is wordy and unclear. Can tectonic inversion be seen in one geosite? Folds are caused by stress, not pressure. The discussion of why the other folds are different should be removed.

Line 228-229: This makes no sense. Contrast promotes folding.

Line 251: This sounds like a debris flow deposit.

Section 4: This section includes a lot of repetition from the geosite descriptions rather than just discussing them. The terms “which can also be observed by…” should all be removed. This section should be rewritten.

Figures: There are 2 figures of each site. Most really don’t show much and can be removed. Those remaining should be annotated to point out the feature that the reader is supposed to be observing.

The writing is wordy and often uses inappropriate terms and awkward sentence construction. The text could be reduced by about 15-20% by tightening the writing. Some of the writing has passive construction but would be better active.

Author Response

The Gole della Breggia Geopark has a wealth of geologic resources and excellent exposures of key features for both exemplar geology and the tectonics of the southern Alps. The park already has virtual geosites with videos linked to QR codes that are included in the manuscript. The 5 geosites chosen for the study appear appropriate, containing excellent examples of a range of rock units and geologic features. Reporting on this geopark is therefore important and would make a contribution to the field.

REPLY: We thank the Reviewer for these positive remarks.

Line 49 claims that there was a qualitative and quantitative assessment conducted on the geosites (the wording would be better this way). I was expecting a survey of park visitors or classes that visited. However, I found no quantitative assessment. Further, the qualitative assessment was just the opinion of the authors rather than a true assessment. Further, the analysis mostly repeats the information in the geosite descriptions. This weakens the effectiveness of the study. Without it, the paper is just a description of a few geosites at a geopark. Considering the guide and wealth of information on the website accessible by the provided QR codes, the point of the paper is diminished if no other analysis is conducted. Even if a description of the types and numbers of visitors, accessibility of the sites in general and seasonal restrictions, etc. would improve the presentation.

REPLY: We believe there is a substantial misunderstanding here: at line 49 in the original ms., we have stated that “Over the last couple of decades, a great number of authors have attempted to assess the quality of geosites, both in a qualitative and a quantitative way”. Indeed, we were not referring to our assessment effort, but to the several assessment efforts made in the last 30 years or so, by a wealth of authors worldwide. In the revised version, we have improved Chapter 4 “Assessment of the five geosites”, first by pointing out the criterion by which we have selected the five geosites in the Geopark. Secondly, we have beefed up our assessment by adding a Table to the chapter, which shows the values that could be associated to each geosite.

There are many other issues that should be addressed. Some are listed below but there are many others:

Line 13: “This work is aimed at showcasing” should be removed.

REPLY: done

Line 16: Replace “valorized”

REPLY: done

Line 24-26: Recast.

REPLY: done

Line 66: “series” should be “sections”

REPLY: done

Line 72: replace “testifies”

REPLY: done

Line 75: “Limestones and Marls with Pelagic Bivalves” does not have a formation name?

REPLY: The real formation name is: “Limestone wth Pelagic Bivalves”. We included this in the revised version.

Line 77: In all geologic literature, “Million years ago” is abbreviated as “Ma”

REPLY: Thanks, corrected.

Line 107: Remove “The fruition of”

REPLY: done

Line 113: Remove “that is beautifully represented here.”

REPLY: done

Line 131-135: Recast in simpler terms.

REPLY: done

Line 136-138: Faults are brittle responses to stress (or force). Recast in those terms and simple language.

REPLY: done

Line 145: “peculiar gravitative event” should be replaced with the feature

REPLY: done

Line 148-151: This should be more direct than hinting. Rock made of >90% calcareous shells is a fossiliferous grainstone.

REPLY: Thanks, corrected

Line 153-154: Again, directly to the term rather than preamble. This is called convolute bedding.

REPLY: Thanks, corrected

Line 179-184: A lot of background but doesn’t really apply to the topic.

REPLY: we cropped the test here, to make it less redundant

Line 212-222: This section is wordy and unclear. Can tectonic inversion be seen in one geosite? Folds are caused by stress, not pressure. The discussion of why the other folds are different should be removed.

REPLY: We have rephrased and deleted the discussion on different types of folds

Line 228-229: This makes no sense. Contrast promotes folding.

REPLY: we did not understand this comment

Line 251: This sounds like a debris flow deposit.

REPLY: done

Section 4: This section includes a lot of repetition from the geosite descriptions rather than just discussing them. The terms “which can also be observed by…” should all be removed. This section should be rewritten.

REPLY: We corrected and integrated this section, also by including the above mentioned Table

Figures: There are 2 figures of each site. Most really don’t show much and can be removed. Those remaining should be annotated to point out the feature that the reader is supposed to be observing.

REPLY: As a matter of fact, each Figure has a picture, on the left hand side, that presents an overall view of the site. The image on the right hand side in each Figure, instead, provides useful details. That’s why we would rather keep the Figures as they are.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing is wordy and often uses inappropriate terms and awkward sentence construction. The text could be reduced by about 15-20% by tightening the writing. Some of the writing has passive construction but would be better active.

REPLY: We tried to do our best to improve the quality of our manuscript, also in terms of the English Language. We were greatly helped, in this, by the very constructive comments and suggestions by the three Reviewers.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

This is much improved over the first version. The English is now good and the presentation is logical. The terminology is proper. The paper makes a contribution to the field. I have two more important comments and some minor ones.

The assessment system does not appear objective. It seems to be an opinion based system that would be specific to the author. That means the numbers from one Geopark can't really be compared to those from another park. I would like to see some discussion on the benefits and limitations of the system. Similarly, my second comment is that I would like to see a paragraph summarizing the assessment and relating it to what makes a better or worse Geopark. I like the table and numbers. Something seems to be lacking after it.

Other Comments

Is there any chance to get photos that were not taken when there was vegetation covering parts of them?

Lines 62-64: Not really needed unless they are compared with this assessment.

Line 72: Is the entire Alpine Arc shown in figure 1? Doesn't seem to be.

Line 110: Remove "It is worth pointing out"

Line 137-138 Last sentence not needed. It is by definition.

Line 176-177 Awkward sentence, recast.

Line 222: Remove "...which is now hardened"

Line 245: "like" a debris flow or "as" a debris flow?

Author Response

This is much improved over the first version. The English is now good and the presentation is logical. The terminology is proper. The paper makes a contribution to the field. I have two more important comments and some minor ones.

REPLY: We thank the Reviewer for these positive remarks. They mean a lot to us.

The assessment system does not appear objective. It seems to be an opinion based system that would be specific to the author. That means the numbers from one Geopark can't really be compared to those from another park. I would like to see some discussion on the benefits and limitations of the system.

REPLY: Actually, we would like to highlight that we used a classic approach for assessing the quality of geosites; such an approach makes use of standardized criteria that, in our opinion, do help evaluate geosites in terms of their contribution of the overall geoheritage of a region. The Reviewer is absolutely right in stating that there is a strong degree of subjectivity, but we woud like to underscore that another step of the process is marked by subjectivity: the selection of the geosites to be assessed. Indeed, the criterion we used to select 5 geosites out of more than 20 geosites is representativeness, and the process of judging how much a geosite is more or less reprenentative than another is, indeed, subjective, although it is based on a thorough knowledge of the study area. In this work, the contribution of the Director of the Geopark ad the geologist who compiled the first geoguide to the Geopark, was crucial to ensure that our choice of the 5 most representative geosites was as objective as possible, also given the above limitations. In the revised version, we specified that the selection of the geosites in terms of their representativeness is somehow a subjective one, but we tried to keep subjectivity to a minimum, on the basis of a thorough knowledge of all  geosites that make part of the itinerary.

Similarly, my second comment is that I would like to see a paragraph summarizing the assessment and relating it to what makes a better or worse Geopark. I like the table and numbers. Something seems to be lacking after it.

REPLY: the Reviewer is absolutely right. After the table we added text that is aimed at summarizing the numerical results provided.

Is there any chance to get photos that were not taken when there was vegetation covering parts of them?

REPLY: Unfortunately, we went to the Park in the summertime and we do not have pictures without vegetation. We would have to wait at least one and a half month to have better (and clearer) photographs.

Lines 62-64: Not really needed unless they are compared with this assessment.

REPLY: These references were required by one of the other Reviewers of the present paper.

Line 72: Is the entire Alpine Arc shown in figure 1? Doesn't seem to be.

REPLY: The Reviewer is right. We deleted the reference to the Alpine Arc

Line 110: Remove "It is worth pointing out"

REPLY: done

Line 137-138 Last sentence not needed. It is by definition.

REPLY: we deleted it.

Line 176-177 Awkward sentence, recast.

REPLY: done

Line 222: Remove "...which is now hardened"

REPLY: done

Line 245: "like" a debris flow or "as" a debris flow?

REPLY: "as a debris flow". Thank you for pointing this out.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf