Review Reports - Geosite Assessment and Communication: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting review that highlights important issues on geoheritage conservation and valorization. Except for a small number of spelling and linguistic mistakes, the manuscript is well written and organised. The only suggestion that I would make is that it would be better if you could provide a table with the assessment criteria to make it easier for the reader to follow them, thus highlighting them. Please also check corrections in the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REPLY: We thank the Reviewer for the positive comments. We checked and took care of all the correction provided in the attachd PDF file. However, we did not understand the utility of the table and got confused by the part of the sentence that reads: “easier for the reader to follow them, thus highlighting them”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Title. I am a bit confused by this. “Geosites as tools for fostering geoheritage conservation…” But geosites are geoheritage, so how can they be used to foster conservation of themselves? From what I can understand the paper is really about assessing the importance of geosites for geotourism and education, and not for their role in underpinning the scientific foundations of the subject.

2. Introduction, line 5. I do not agree that geoheritage comprises elements of geodiversity. I agree with the authors’ definition of geodiversity – it is the range of rocks, minerals, fossils, etc. But geoheritage is rather different. It is those geosites and museum collections that allow geodiversity to be seen and studied. Muddling these concepts can cause confusion.

3. Introduction, line 10. Geosites are not always natural features, for instance quarries, spoil tips, road cuttings, etc. And if you are also talking about geoheritage in general, it also includes museum collections.

4. Introduction, line 12. Geosites are not “…geological objects or fragments of the geological environment…” They are places where such “objects” can be seen. This maybe just a matter of confused language, but it is misleading.

5. Introduction, line 16. How can a geosite (a physical entity) be an outreach activity?

6. References throughout. The numbering is wrong. I haven’t checked them all, but I note that the Bottjer paper is 82 (not 81, as given in section 2, 2^nd paragraph, line 9). This is why I hate this form of referencing as it is so easy to make mistakes and it throws the referencing out throughout the manuscript.

7. Section 2, paragraph 3, lines 6‒7. I think I understand what the authors means but the concept and wording is somewhat confusing. What is seen at a geosite is, I suppose, the result of a process (e.g., deposition, tectonic movement, mineralisation), but it is the results of that process that is seen, not the process itself. And a process cannot be inactive (by definition it is an action).

8. Section 2. There is a major omission from this analysis of geosite selection and assessment. The discussion talks about a geosite’s importance or value, but nothing is said about how that importance is assessed. Based on the criteria discussed in the paper, it seems mainly just someone’s subjective opinion. But geoconservation requires resources, and it is not enough just for someone to say “I think this is important” – why is it important? This issue was addressed during the development of the Geological Conservation Review in Britain during the 1980s and 90s. A series of geographical and stratigraphical frameworks were established, and the geosites were then assessed within its framework. That assessment could be at a global, regional, national or local, based on the best consensus among the scientific community. A site would be designated for conservation if it was the best / most representative site for showing a particular feature within its framework: for instance, in a British national survey, a site would be designated if it could be shown to be the most representative succession of upper Bashkirian (lower Westphalian) fluvial deposits in the Variscan foredeep. This decision could be justified on purely objective criteria, not simply because it was a particular geologist’s “pet” site. This approach was discussed most importantly by Wimbledon et al. 1995. The development of a methodology for the selection of British geological sites for conservation: part 1. Modern Geology, 20, 159-202.

9. The examples of geosite assessment that are discussed seems to be based purely on geotouristic criteria. Whilst geotourism is important, the purely scientific importance of a site should surely be the main criterion.

Author Response

Title. I am a bit confused by this. “Geosites as tools for fostering geoheritage conservation…” But geosites are geoheritage, so how can they be used to foster conservation of themselves? From what I can understand the paper is really about assessing the importance of geosites for geotourism and education, and not for their role in underpinning the scientific foundations of the subject.

REPLY: We thank the Reviewer for this crucial suggestion; we underscore that we modified and shortened the title.

Introduction, line 5. I do not agree that geoheritage comprises elements of geodiversity. I agree with the authors’ definition of geodiversity – it is the range of rocks, minerals, fossils, etc. But geoheritage is rather different. It is those geosites and museum collections that allow geodiversity to be seen and studied. Muddling these concepts can cause confusion.

REPLY: We recognize that the Reviewer is right in pointing this out, and changed the sentence in the first part of the Introduction accordingly.

Introduction, line 10. Geosites are not always natural features, for instance quarries, spoil tips, road cuttings, etc. And if you are also talking about geoheritage in general, it also includes museum collections.

REPLY: We added this very important detail to the description of geosites.

Introduction, line 12. Geosites are not “…geological objects or fragments of the geological environment…” They are places where such “objects” can be seen. This maybe just a matter of confused language, but it is misleading.

REPLY: Indeed, the Reviewer is right. We changed our sentence to keep this into account.

Introduction, line 16. How can a geosite (a physical entity) be an outreach activity?

REPLY: We modified part of this sentence according to the Reviewer’s comment.

References throughout. The numbering is wrong. I haven’t checked them all, but I note that the Bottjer paper is 82 (not 81, as given in section 2, 2nd paragraph, line 9). This is why I hate this form of referencing as it is so easy to make mistakes and it throws the referencing out throughout the manuscript.

REPLY: We had to check the whole manuscript to be able to figure this major inconvenience out.

Section 2, paragraph 3, lines 6‒7. I think I understand what the authors means but the concept and wording is somewhat confusing. What is seen at a geosite is, I suppose, the result of a process (e.g., deposition, tectonic movement, mineralisation), but it is the results of that process that is seen, not the process itself. And a process cannot be inactive (by definition it is an action).

REPLY: We agree with the Reviewer and we deleted the concept of activity or inactivity of the process the result of which is seen at a geosite.

Section 2. There is a major omission from this analysis of geosite selection and assessment. The discussion talks about a geosite’s importance or value, but nothing is said about how that importance is assessed. Based on the criteria discussed in the paper, it seems mainly just someone’s subjective opinion. But geoconservation requires resources, and it is not enough just for someone to say “I think this is important” – why is it important?

This issue was addressed during the development of the Geological Conservation Review in Britain during the 1980s and 90s. A series of geographical and stratigraphical frameworks were established, and the geosites were then assessed within its framework. That assessment could be at a global, regional, national or local, based on the best consensus among the scientific community. A site would be designated for conservation if it was the best / most representative site for showing a particular feature within its framework: for instance, in a British national survey, a site would be designated if it could be shown to be the most representative succession of upper Bashkirian (lower Westphalian) fluvial deposits in the Variscan foredeep. This decision could be justified on purely objective criteria, not simply because it was a particular geologist’s “pet” site. This approach was discussed most importantly by Wimbledon et al. 1995. The development of a methodology for the selection of British geological sites for conservation: part 1. Modern Geology, 20, 159-202.

REPLY: We acknowledge this crucial suggestion by the Reviewer. We added a sentence dedicated to the pioneering work performed in Britain in the 80s and 90s (described in Wimbledon, 1995), and, moreover, we added two more references in regard to the paramount project GEOSITES.

The examples of geosite assessment that are discussed seems to be based purely on geotouristic criteria. Whilst geotourism is important, the purely scientific importance of a site should surely be the main criterion.

REPLY: As a matter of fact, in more than one point of the original ms. we had made reference to the scientific value as one of the main criteria to be considered. In the revised version, the higher number of examples of assessment efforts provided by us, confirms the Reviewer’s opinion, i.e. that the main goal of such evalutions was the development of geotourism or the establishment of geoparks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors.

After reviewing your manuscript, I am convinced of the importance of your study. The way of assessing a geosite is still a hectic topic and a review would help with this issue. Unfortunately, the three parts mentioned in the abstract (1. Highlight significant studies; 2. Exemplify assessments; and 3. Present tools for communication) are not well-developed. In fact, the first part does not have a section and seems to be part of the Introduction. The second part intends to illustrate qualitative and quantitative assessment of geosites, but is very poor and forgets hundreds of works about this topic. It focuses on studies where the authors have previously worked or have known through time, but not on a strong literature review. Keep in mind that the world is greater than four countries so more studies must be referenced. The third part does not really present a list, although does compile some important and new tools to promote and communicate via geosites.

Overall, the work must be better structured including subsections (not only four main sections), doing easier for the reader to see the development of the three parts that are mentioned in the abstract –considering that this is not “a review”–. The figures must also be improved via edition and more information presented. Finally, be aware of self-citations.

Unfortunately, in its present state, the manuscript is not in shape for publication. I attached here the manuscript with some minor comments. However, the main comment is about the poor structure and local examples to intend being "a review".

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear authors.

REPLY: We have now subdivided the first chapter in two sub-chapters.

The second part intends to illustrate qualitative and quantitative assessment of geosites, but is very poor and forgets hundreds of works about this topic. It focuses on studies where the authors have previously worked or have known through time, but not on a strong literature review. Keep in mind that the world is greater than four countries so more studies must be referenced. The third part does not really present a list, although does compile some important and new tools to promote and communicate via geosites.

REPLY: We have made clear in the revised version that we have selected and illustrated a number of papers based on our choice of the ones that we deem to be the most challenging and relevant.

Anyhow, we have added 15 more papers and increased the length of our paper significantly.

REPLY: We subdivided Chapter 1 and 2 in sub-sections, but not chapter n. 3 (which is more homogeneous).

The figures must also be improved via edition and more information presented. Finally, be aware of self-citations.

REPLY: We changed the figures according to the Reviewer’s suggestion, contained in the annotated PDF. However, we would rather retain the sentence dedicated to Deep‑Seated Gravitational Slope Deformations. In fact, these are defined as complex geosites and already in the first version, we had illustrated them in Chapter 3 (Forno et al. 2022, the Pointe Leysser deep-seated gravitational slope deformation). Anyhow, according to the Reviewer’s suggestion, we deleted almost all the references dedicated to this topic.

REPLY: We are confident to have been able to improve our work, also thanks to the Reviewer’s insightful comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

General Observations

It is important to completely review all references, checking those in the text with those in the references item. Take advantage and review the reference [48], it has an enter in the middle of the article title.

How do authors define a geosite?

What is the best way for a place of geological-geomorphological interest to be considered a geosite or not?

I believe it is important to be mentioned in the introduction of the article.

The main observations follow below.

line observations

Introduction / Page 01 / Line 20 = Take advantage and review the reference [48], it has an enter in the middle of the article title.

Introduction / Page 02 / Line 06 = After reference [54] it is important to mention the article by “Fuertes-Gutiérrez & Fernández-Martínez 2010 - Geosites Inventory in the Leon Province (Northwestern Spain): a Tool to Introduce Geoheritage” which brings the proposal of classifying Geosites in five typological categories: point, section, area, complex area, and viewpoint.

Geosites selection and assessment / Page 06 / last paragraph = What led you to define these places and articles? It is noted that different qualitative and quantitative methodologies were applied in them.

Conclusions / Page 09 = For an article with many citations and with excellent results and comparisons between different geosites, I believe it could have a more detailed conclusion. For example, take the time to answer the questions above.

Thanks

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear authors,

General Observations

REPLY: We checked all references in the text and in the reference list and made all the relevant corrections.

How do authors define a geosite?

REPLY: In our original Introduction, we already defined geosites as follows: …geosites are “natural features which represent the geological heritage of a territory and are marked by a number of distinctive values”. Geosites can also be defined as “geological objects or fragments of the geological environment ex-posed on the land surface, thus, accessible for visits and studies”.

What is the best way for a place of geological-geomorphological interest to be considered a geosite or not? I believe it is important to be mentioned in the introduction of the article.

REPLY: At the beginnning of Chapter 2, we already stated, in our first version: “Before delving into geosite assessment, it is worth mentioning a set of works that have illustrated the methodology that needs to be used to select localities that ought to be recognized as geosites and geomorphosites and thus should be conserved also for geotourism purposes [e.g., 71-76].”

The main observations follow below.

Introduction / Page 01 / Line 20 = Take advantage and review the reference [48], it has an enter in the middle of the article title.

REPLY: Thanks a lot, this suggestion helped us locate the error that caused the mismatch between the reference in the text and in the reference list.

REPLY: Thanks a lot, we included this important reference in our Introductory chapter.

REPLY: In the revised version of the paper, at the end of the Introduction we included a sentence that justified our choice of the papers selected for our review. Those papers, we believe, are the most representative of the complex procedure of geosite selection, assessment and communication. Of course, a complete review that would list all the papers on this topic would be impossible to undertake, so it was necessary to choose the most representative ones, as already written above.