Geosites Inventory in Liguria Region (Northern Italy): A Tool for Regional Geoconservation and Environmental Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study systematizes the knowledge of geoheritage of the Liguria region of Italy. It is based on in-depth research project and well-written. I think it can be considered for publication after small improvements, as follows.
- Title: this leaves impression of a methodological paper, whereas it is not so in fact.
- You consider point, line, and area geosite. Well, but who proposed this nomenclature? I have seen this in several works, and, apparently, this was proposed about a decade ago by several specialists (independently).
- You consider panoramic geosites. Are these viewpoint geosites? If so, please, cite the basic works, including (not only) this ones: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016787817300810 and https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/6/93
- Aesthetics is not only about colour and naturalness. Moreover, different visitors may prefer different (even opposite) aesthetic parameters. I do not suggest to change your methodology, but I would prefer discussion of this limitation. Citing these works may help: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261517713002185 AND https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/10/2/51 AND https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/geo/10/1/article-p192.xml
- You need to state directly how your research is linked to sustainable development issues.
- Discussion needs more extensive consideration of the practical implications of your study to the regional policy-makers.
- Where are the supplementary data promised in the text? The link to the supplementary data is available, but I see the only cover letter there. Please, control this issue.
Generally, I very like this paper and hope to see it published soon.
Author Response
Reply comments
Rev. 1
Dear Reviewer,
many thanks for the comments and suggestions provided for the improvement of our paper. We have taken them in serious consideration and revised our manuscript accordingly.
With reference to the request for changes made, we would like to specify what follows according to the single points highlighted below.
This study systematizes the knowledge of geoheritage of the Liguria region of Italy. It is based on in-depth research project and well-written. I think it can be considered for publication after small improvements, as follows.
R: thank you for the consideration
Title: this leaves impression of a methodological paper, whereas it is not so in fact.
R: “Geosites Inventory in Liguria region (northern Italy): a tool for regional geoconservation and environmental management”
Thank you for your comment, but we think that our title doesn’t suggest the impression of a methodological paper.
You consider point, line, and area geosite. Well, but who proposed this nomenclature? I have seen this in several works, and, apparently, this was proposed about a decade ago by several specialists (independently).
R: thank you for the suggestion, we have revised as requested.
You consider panoramic geosites. Are these viewpoint geosites? If so, please, cite the basic works, including (not only) this ones: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016787817300810 and https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/6/93
R: Our inventory does not consider viewpoint geosites, because ISPRA, the institute that manages the National Inventory of Geosites, does not accept them.
Aesthetics is not only about colour and naturalness. Moreover, different visitors may prefer different (even opposite) aesthetic parameters. I do not suggest to change your methodology, but I would prefer discussion of this limitation. Citing these works may help: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261517713002185 AND https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/10/2/51 AND https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/geo/10/1/article-p192.xml
R: Thank you for the suggestion, we have revised as requested.
You need to state directly how your research is linked to sustainable development issues.
R: Thank you for your suggestion, we have revised as requested.
Discussion needs more extensive consideration of the practical implications of your study to the regional policy-makers.
R: Thank you for your suggestion, we have revised as requested.
Where are the supplementary data promised in the text? The link to the supplementary data is available, but I see the only cover letter there. Please, control this issue.
R: Actually we have attached the supplementary materials as requested by the system. We will contact the editor accordingly.
Generally, I very like this paper and hope to see it published soon.
R: Thank you for the comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
Rukopis predstavuje zoznam geositov v regióne Ligúria (severné Taliansko). Pre spoločnosť je nevyhnutný ďalší rozvoj v oblasti inventarizácie z hľadiska podrobných znalostí geozitov, pre potreby ďalšieho plánovania v rôznych oblastiach (geoturizmus, ochrana kultúrneho dedičstva, urbanizmus, ochrana životného prostredia).
Článok treba ešte upraviť a vysvetliť podrobnejšie.
Odporúčania pre doplnenie:
- Časť „ Úvod “: je potrebné doplniť a rozšíriť o ďalšie odseky, ktoré charakterizujú vedecké smerovanie štúdie a tiež novosť štúdie.
Line 79: Cited: "The aim of this study is to increase knowledge of the Ligurian geoheritage" has no scientific basis and does not bring novelty in the field of solving problem. In such a context, it is just only a theoretical information. Although the authors presented the Introduction of their study in linked to quite a lot of literature/references, this information is still missing in the article.
- Section “ Materials and Methods“, proposed methodology: Figure.4, presented methodological approach are very general, without specific direction of further use / application, please rework this workflow to a more specific level. The reader needs direction of the content focus of individual parts. Define the individual suggested sections at least through keywords. Please correct a word geographic to geographical.
- The content focus of individual subsection 3.1, 3.2 is without logical sequence and adherence to the proposed methodology.
- Subsection “1 Recognition and Selection of Geosites” should be reworked in more detail, spatial localization is the most important part of the geosite inventory process. Detailed field surveys are time-consuming tasks in such a large area. Was it not possible in the proposal for recognition applied modern technologies for getting spatial location of geosites?
Next, as you state, Line 70: "data are collected in a geodatabase freely consultable" would it be appropriate to compare the data content of these databases and suggest a way to use the existing database for your research area (Ligurian region) or add? it certainly consists of descriptive attributes, in terms of which geosites are further characterized. Please at the line 70, add a link to this geodatabase source.
- Časť „ Diskusia “: Pridajte nový odsek a prediskutujte svoje výsledky s vhodnejšími odkazmi.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reply comments
Rev. 2
Dear Reviewer,
many thanks for the comments and suggestions provided for the improvement of our paper. We have taken them in serious consideration and revised our manuscript accordingly.
With reference to the request for changes made, we would like to specify what follows according to the single points highlighted below.
The manuscript presents Geosites Inventory in Liguria region (northern Italy). Further development in the field of inventory is necessary for the society from the point of view of detailed knowledge of geosites, for the needs of further planning in various areas (geotourism, protection of cultural heritage, urban planning, environmental protection). The article still needs to be modified and explain in a more detailed way.
R: Thank you for the comments.
Recommendations for addition:
Section “Introduction”: it is necessary to supplement and expand with other paragraphs, which characterizes the scientific direction of the study and also the novelty of the study. Line 79: Cited: "The aim of this study is to increase knowledge of the Ligurian geoheritage" has no scientific basis and does not bring novelty in the field of solving problem. In such a context, it is just only a theoretical information. Although the authors presented the Introduction of their study in linked to quite a lot of literature/references, this information is still missing in the article.
R: Thank you for the observations, we have revised as requested.
Section “3. Materials and Methods“, proposed methodology: Figure.4, presented methodological approach are very general, without specific direction of further use / application, please rework this workflow to a more specific level. The reader needs direction of the content focus of individual parts. Define the individual suggested sections at least through keywords. Please correct a word geographic to geographical.
R: Thank you for the comments, we have deeply revised the figure as requested.
The content focus of individual subsection 3.1, 3.2 is without logical sequence and adherence to the proposed methodology.
R: In line with the previous comment, we have completely modified Figure 4 and the related subsections 3.1 and 3.2 to make them uniform.
Subsection “3.1 Recognition and Selection of Geosites” should be reworked in more detail, spatial localization is the most important part of the geosite inventory process. Detailed field surveys are time consuming tasks in such a large area. Was it not possible in the proposal for recognition applied modern technologies for getting spatial location of geosites?
R: We think that, to collect all the information requested by ISPRA guidelines and our assessment procedure, field surveys are indispensable. It was a long work indeed.
Next, as you state, Line 70: "data are collected in a geodatabase freely consultable" would it be appropriate to compare the data content of these databases and suggest a way to use the existing database for your research area (Ligurian region) or add? it certainly consists of descriptive attributes, in terms of which geosites are further characterized. Please at the line 70, add a link to this geodatabase source.
R: Thank you for the observation. In fact, we didn’t explain well the fact that the National database is entirely made by contributions by the Regions. So, our regional inventory is not an alternative inventory: it’s a part of the national project.
Our data will be submitted to ISPRA (the institute that manages the National Inventory) and, once accepted, will be incorporated in the National Inventory.
We have revised the introduction to stress this fact.
Section “5. Discussion”: Please add some new paragraph and discuss your results with more suitable references.
R: Thank you for the comments, we have added new sentences to the discussions and the conclusions to make them more complete.
Reviewer 3 Report
Line 63: No need to insert URL address in text
Line 83: Insert here the bigger benefit of the aimed study in the wider context. Because this is an international journal.
Figure 4: This figure is helpful in presenting the study framework, however, stopping at identifying the value and risk make this study seems to be an incomplete study. What it the ultimate objective of the study? This should be added in this figure as well.
Finally, The Ithenticate result indicated 36% similarity rate. Please reduce it to below 20%. Ithenticate result is attached for the authors' reference.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reply comments
Rev. 3
Dear Reviewer,
many thanks for the comments and suggestions provided for the improvement of our paper. We have taken them in serious consideration and revised our manuscript accordingly.
With reference to the request for changes made, we would like to specify what follows according to the single points highlighted below.
Line 63: No need to insert URL address in text
R: thanks for the suggestion, we have revised as requested
Line 83: Insert here the bigger benefit of the aimed study in the wider context. Because this is an international journal.
R: we have integrated and revised the introduction section as requested
Figure 4: This figure is helpful in presenting the study framework, however, stopping at identifying the value and risk make this study seems to be an incomplete study. What it the ultimate objective of the study? This should be added in this figure as well.
R: we have completely revised Fig. 4 in order to make it fit to the aim of the work and to the methods section.
Finally, The Ithenticate result indicated 36% similarity rate. Please reduce it to below 20%. Ithenticate result is attached for the authors' reference.
R: We believe that the manuscript doesn’t contain any element of plagiarism.
Most of the words highlighted in the pdf document (also includes the references list!) refer to keywords (geoheritage, geosite, geotourism, etc.), or to cardinal points, or geographical names (alps, appennines, liguria, etc.) or to absolutely generic terms (geology, geomorphology, risk, assessment, GIS, etc.).
In the similarity index report, articles from biology, management, medicine, sociology, energy consumption, chemistry, forest ecology and even mechanical engineering are indicated.
Anyhow, the paper has been changed accordingly to the reviewers’ comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for revising and supplementing your study based on my comments.
