Geotourism Hazards and Carrying Capacity in Geosites of Sangkulirang-Mangkalihat Karst, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my view this paper is original but it is clear from the text that the is too based on the bibliography when it comes to research design and discussion. There are sentences based on references introduced with no clear intention and that hardly make sense when it comes to the original presentation of the research arguments.

The authors failed to show the geological importance of the area although intend to develop a UNESCO Global Geopark and geotourism strategies. As it is presented the caves show a very relevant archeological heritage only.

The authors should introduce how the tourism is developed presently in the area, numbers of visitors in the three case studies, the impact of this tourism activity upon the heritage, etc

The authors should present in a figure (Fig. 1) the location of the Karst area under study in the island of Kalimantan, and this island in a wider context of Indonesia and this region of the world

p. 2 Tourism sites benefit the public through the provision of biological and geological diversity that has scientific, panoramic, and recreational value (this is the typical statement of this paper that is purely based on bibliography and does not have a clear meaning in this research: as you know Tourism sites provide a much broader subjects and experiences than bio- and geodiversity and the values are much more diverse than scientific, panoramic (in a sightseeing place yes, but what about a theater) and recreational;

"Karst is the best source of water supplies, pest control, climate regulator, supports agricultural activities in the surrounding area". In some parts of the world with semiarid or arid environments karst areas represent poor areas especially for the lack of soil proper for agriculture, or because the water circulates deep underground and is not accessible. How can karst be a pest control.

"carbonated rock or limestone in Indonesia". There are different kinds of carbonate rocks, not only limestone, and Indonesia is repeated three times in these two short sentences

"35,692,5000 km2 of karst ecosystems" is a mistake. Please review the entire paper for many typos it shows.

"200 species of insects and arthropods". arthropods including insects is what you may want to say.

"This diversity encourages government and diverse practitioners to propose the area as a UNESCO Global Geopark". In the entire text you don't introduce the geological heritage of international significance that should support the designation as a UGGp. The geosites used as case studies are not proper introduced concerning their geoheritage significance. Maybe you should assess also the geoheritage relevance of these geosites. As you know there are many karst areas in the world and it is important to realize what makes this Karst site special in relation to others existing in the region, in Indonesia and in the world.

p. 3 "no paper has been written on assessment of environmental hazards and carrying capacity". Well certainly there are papers on the subjects that should be compared to the present study to prove its originality such as Carrión-Mero et al. (2021). Environmental assessment and tourist carrying capacity for the development of geosites in the framework of Geotourism, Guayaquil, Ecuador. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 213

"A Geopark aims to protect geological heritage..." Please provide peer-reviewed references because there are many, including from the quoted authors.

p. 4 UNEP needs to be fully written the first time it appears in the text.

p. 7 "The tropical climate of the region covers an area of 1,867,676 ha hectares" This sentence needs to be corrected and explained 

"the cave in this area has a unique character is that in the cave there are hand-printed relics (rock arts) and different types of animal tracks that have historical significance". This sentence needs to be corrected in different ways, from English to the fact that the rock art is composed of human tracks (as it is presented it seems the rock art has nothing to do with animal tracks, or perhaps I did not understood well but in that case you need to clarify, and the significance is archeological not historical. By the way, nowhere in the text it is explained the geological relevance of these geosites. As far as I understand the importance of the caves 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This work deals with a set of themes of great relevance and scientific interest: the geotourism of a karst area, the hazards associated with the visit and the carrying capacity of the main attractions.

I think that, in general terms, the work is well developed, but it requires a better contextualization with regard to the theory of risk, namely with regard to the importance of hazard and vulnerability.

In my opinion, there is a lack of maps and indications on regional demography, which are essential to assess the project's sustainability.

Finally, although my English literacy is not the best, I think better proofreading can improve its quality.

Here are some detailed suggestions for the authors:

The abstract is well developed and very clear.

Line 36 - It is suggested to change the prehistoric keyword to archeology

Line 42 - Sustainability is therefore an increasingly… - The sustainability assessment is therefore an increasingly…

Line 44 – development of destinations - development of tourist destinations and products.

Line 46 - It is suggested to change the panoramic to aesthetic

Lines 56-58 - That's right, but the tourist values of the karst go far beyond the caves. The surface morphology is very important too...

Line 62 – “it is the product of the classification process” or “it is the product of the evolution process”

Line 85 - to maintain or to promote?

After line 85 - A map is clearly lacking for this Geopark proposal (Framing, location and extension).

Line 92 – well defined

Lines 102-103 - It would be very interesting to have here the Geopark map with these locations…

Lines 117-121 - I think that more than 2 types of risk, vulnerability and fragility are two of the components of the risks that can manifest themselves here.

Line 126 - Clarify better, because it is not clear who or what is exposed to danger: if the karst environment, if the tourists who visit it... A few lines ago the authors referred to risks to the environment and the karst heritage, now the risk and danger seem to be for visitors. I think it is better to systematize the type of hazard processes, the type of risks involved and the people and environments (territories) exposed to them.

Lines 153 – 155 - The lack of the map is clearly noted.

Lines 161 - 164 - What is the number of inhabitants of the mentioned villages?

Line 169 - 2.1. Potential Hazard or Risk, if the Risk is the product of the Probability by the Severity of the consequences (please see line 184)

Line 174 – severity

Line 190 - Table 3 does not comply with the indicated formula (formula 1 - line 184), the base values of tables 1 and 2, nor with the values in tables 4 and 5. The lower right cell has “high risk”, when, for the sake of formal consistency, it should have only “high”.

Line 260 – On site?

Lines 265-266 - Is this the extent of the karst area or the area covered by the tropical climate as it is written?

Lines 271/ 274 - There appears to be a discrepancy between the dates indicated on the line 271 and the dates on the line 274. Are these different caves? The text does not make this very clear.

Line 289 - Some pictures of these karst forms and springs would be welcome!

Line 294 – Table 6 – The types of Physical Hazards do not seem to correspond exactly to hazards, but only to situations that can lead to hazards. Ex: in the case of slippery terrain, the hazard will not be people falling? I think the authors should list these cases bearing in mind that hazard corresponds to the temporal and spatial probability of occurrence of a process capable of causing damage.

Line 298 - In this case, won't the dangerous process be silting?

Line 382 – “and one moderate hazard” or “and one low hazard”?

Line 393 – table 2 – “Risk of Potential Hazard” or “Potential Hazard”?

Line 443 – activities

Line 450 – Table 9 - How did the authors arrive at PCC values? Ex: How did the authors calculate the factor B = The area required for a tourist to travel while still getting comfort (m2)?

Line 477 – Table 10 - Shouldn't the Location Scoring Score (Mn) values be 22 and 25, respectively?

Line 603 - It would be nice to include some photos…

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article deals with the current and important topic of geoheritage protection while promoting geotourism in a selected locality in Indonesia. The article uses a reasonable number of sources of literature, literary research could be more extensive, but the article is more of a case study, so I consider the number of items of literature to be sufficient.

The research design is correct. Personally, the construction of some indicators seems a bit artificial and does not capture reality, but I understand the need to work with the data that is available. The results need to be viewed with knowledge of the design of indicators to assess their significance.

The results of the research and their discussion are the most interesting part of the paper when we learn interesting data about selected localities. In this section, it is necessary to enlarge Figures 2 - 4 to the maximum possible width, because at 100% magnification, their legend is practically illegible. The second option is to increase the font in the maps.

Author Response

Pease see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

I found the method and results presented in the manuscript with interest.

My comments are mainly concern with the way work is presented and less with the contents, though I would like to see them considered in the final version of the manuscript. 

#1 - Title
The main title of the manuscript should be revised. Mainly because in its current form it is too long and quite redundant in some parts. Besides, upper case caps should be avoided when possible. I suggest: Geotourism hazards and carrying capacity in geosites of Sangkulirang-Mangkalihat karst, Indonesia 

#2 - Introduction

I consider that the text of the Introduction chapter is too long. Considering the current state of knowledge on the concepts presented (sustainability, geotourism, geoparks), I do not think it is worth dedicating so much introductory text. Perhaps it would be more indicated to reduce this component. 

Also, in the line 139 authors refer that “This paper will identify…” . Sentences regarding the work produced should be presented always in the past mode and not in the future mode.

#3 Location figure
A location figure would be important for the work. The first figure could be the location of Sangkulirang-Mangkalihat karst, in Indonesia; the maps presented in the manuscript (figures 2, 3 and 4) regard only specific caves in that area.

#4 Titles of figures and tables

The titles printed in the maps of figures 2, 3 and 4 should be removed, since they are also provided in the figures captions.

The legends (captions) of all figures and tables should be revised. I suggest a detailed revision of all the captions, these must be the most complete as possible, because figures should be legible without the need to see the main text. For instance, until table 5 (line 210) the captions do not refer the study area where these data were applied.

Acronyms must be avoided. For instance, Table 9 (line 450) caption includes “PCC” without explaining the meaning of it. The same with Table 11 (line 507) with “RCC”. Once again, figures should be legible without the need to see the main text.

#5 Pictures
It would be important to have photographs of the sites discussed in the manuscript.

#6 English language
I suggest a revision of all the manuscript regarding the English language.

Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, I am really satisfied by the significant improvement of your interesting paper. However, I still find the need to explain some details that I highlight in the revised document. Some sentences are still requiring English improvement. 

I would like that you pay special attention to the justification of "Outstanding Universal Value" of the aspiring geopark area. As you know a Geopark is not World Heritage so it does not need to have heritage of Outstanding Universal Value but the International Significance of the geoheritage must be properly and carefully demonstrated. "Geologically the area contains Gondwana fragment" so what makes it important and internationally important?

"Geomorphologically it showcases a chimney-shaped feature that is unique in the area and does not exist anywhere else in the world". Besides not explaining properly what is this chimney-shaped feature, it says is unique in the world and unique in the area which is redundant. The international relevance of the geoheritage must be supported with internationally relevant references.

"One of the oldest signs of cvilization". Civilization has a definition. What you have there is some of the oldest signs of modern human presence.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors responded to all of the suggestions I made as a reviewer. I believe that, particularly, the inclusion of maps and photographs greatly improved the article, making it more explicit and more understandable to a wider audience.
There are, however, two very detailed aspects that can easily be corrected:
Fig. 1 (line 91) - A graphic scale is missing;
Fig. 6 (line 422) - Month names on the horizontal axis need correction;
With these minor corrections made, I think the article is of sufficient quality to be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Point 1. Thank you very much for all your suggestions that has made our article more explicit and more understandable to a wider audience. We greatly appreciate your thorough review in making this possible.

Point 2. Thank you for pointing the missing information. With regard to Figure 1, we have added the graphic scale, orientation as well as coordinates.

Point 3. We have revised the month's names on Figure 6 in English.

Point 4. Thank you again for your reviews

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

I thank you for the careful review of the manuscript, according to the noted comments. 

Regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

We also want to thank you for your thoughts, time and suggestions that you put on our article. They sure help us a great deal in producing higher quality article.

Regards,

Authors

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Please pay attention to the need to rephrase some sentences since they cannot be understood by the readers in the present form. i provide new revision of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1,

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf