A Method to Select and Optimize Slow Tourism Routes Using a Quality Index Procedure Based on Image Segmentation and DTM Modelling Based on NURBS: The Case Study of Multimodal Access to Inner Places from the Nodes of the Adriatic Coastline’s Infrastructure Bundle
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The problem statement and objective were not clearly stated. What were the actual research questions? How difficult was it to identify the route or node? Supportive reviews were essentially needed. What were the limitations of the current technique?
A major drawback of the manuscript is that the literature review of the past studies and techniques are lacking. Only a few references to the methodology were mentioned. It is, therefore, difficult to judge the validity and appropriateness of the methods and recommend them for other similar applications.
Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 were not informative and less meaningful. They did not provide enough information to illustrate what was being discussed in the text. The characters were too small to be read.
Having found such solutions presented in Figure 4 and 5, what can we claim about the achievement of the study? For example, it was done more accurately than before, or in less time or effort, etc.
The conclusion and recommendation were also superficial.
Author Response
Problem statement and objected were rewritten. Limitations have been described in discussion section. The methodology about retrieving paths and nodes (and its relative) issues has been added to methodology section.
Further studies and techniques were added to literature review. Figures 2 – 3 – 4 have been completely redone. Captions explain the applied methodology in detail. Achievement of the study has been added to discussion section. Conclusions and recommendations were rewritten.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper aims to analyze different methodologies for identifying and optimizing slow mobility routes to connect the long/fast networks with the slow ones passing by intermodal nodes. Several digital and analogic methods have been tested for the specific case study. The manuscript is not written concisely. It is too wordy. The problem statement does not clarify the research issues as well as the author's novel contribution is not clear. The outcome is not evaluated properly. A good metric and proof of concept need to be established to evaluate the efficiency of proposed system.
Author Response
The manuscript has been condensed by inserting part of the methodologies into captions. Although, other reviewers suggested that some sections should be expanded, so the reduction was limited. Research issues and author contribution have been explained better. The outcome has been described more accurately through the new figures included in the text. The efficiency and limitations have been described in outcome and discussion section.
Reviewer 3 Report
The title appropriate to the content.
The introduction should be developed to add theoretical background and empirical research. The authors should clearly articulate: the purpose, research questions and contribution of this study.
The Case study and Methodology are clearly and comprehensively described.
The Outcomes section needs to be completed. The authors describe the layout of the paths (Small and Large rings) but do not provide information on what type of connections these are (dirt roads, hardened roads, no roads at this moment, etc.), making it impossible to establish what the real contribution of the work to the assumed future project activities really is as "a basis for future project activities that stakeholders will request" (line 293-294).
The paper lacks: a 'discussion' section and the embedding of the background and results in a broader context (Italy, Europe, other continents), so that the contribution of this work cannot be fully assessed in relation to previous and current theoretical background and empirical research on tracking and optimising slow mobility routes.
How the new routes mapped by the authors relate to the course of the former railway line and whether the decommissioning of the line really gave a boost to the development of slow mobility routes?
In summary, the work is eminently methodological and tool-based. Without reference to the results of other empirical studies and based on only one case study, the final conclusion that "The Costa dei Trabucchi case study is ultimately applicable in all contexts where there are orographically relevant territories connected to disused railway tracks in the various stages of transformation into slow mobility routes." is, in the opinion of the Reviewer, 'not defensible'.
Author Response
The introduction has been expanded both in background and literature review. Outcomes has been expanded and new figures has been processed to explain better the results. Discussion section has been added. The issues concerning the development produced by decommissioning have been described in the discussion section.The conclusion has been rewritten in response to the request.
Reviewer 4 Report
the paper discusses research results for the application of an innovative methodology for analysing nodes and route networks. The methodology is clear and original and the conclusions, although one would have preferred more detail, sufficiently suitable.
The suggested improvement is to improve the detail of the analyses performed, so as to connect the methodology more seamlessly with the discussion and conclusions.
Author Response
Dear scholar,
thank you for your kind suggestions. I have improved the work in many parts, trying to follow the instructions provided as best as possible. The discussion and conclusions have been updated. Details have been added through references to previous works in the methodology section. Several parts have been added to improve the connection between sections of the text.
Reviewer 5 Report
An interesting topic, dealing with the testing of different complementary methodologies to generate and optimize a slow mobility route network. This is a valuable research with a clear practical interest.
The main weakness of the manuscript is the lack of a logical structure and clarity. I feel that the text will be significantly improved if some parts are repositioned and complemented to gain a clear understanding of the main concept behind the explanations.
0. Introduction
Starting with the presentation of the territorial consequences of the decommissioning of railways and the opportunity it opens for the development of a slow mobility network. What are the objectives and benefits of the optimization of this type of networks?
Then, a review of the existing methodologies and research experience. In this respect, the literature review is very reduced, even if a scarcity of scientific literature is argued. Also, the perspective of the identified methodologies should be more explained, as the justification of the research gap and the innovation of the porposed methodology appears disconnected and not easy to understand (Paragraph "The component that differentiates this work...".)
It may be more logical to position the first two paragraph at the end of the section, finishing with the research question.
Research question: I do not see a clear connection with the rest of the manuscript. I recommend to reconsider it and reformulate it.
1. Case study
Should the three last three sentences be relocated as Methodology?
2. Methodology
A diagram that shows graphically the flux of the methodological steps would be very guiding. The structure of paragraphs should follow the hierarchy established trough the diagram to gain clarity.
Third paragraph (line 114-145): what the analogical methods are?
In general, the methods presented are difficult to understand, more details are needed, not just citing previous papers exposing the methods. Also, there is a mixture of different kind of information that complicates the reading of the text and its coherence.
The criteria in defining the network should be more clearly presented.
I feel this is the key section. With a thorough work of restructuration and reformulation of the description of methods, the following sections would be more sound.
3. Outcomes
Is the outcome of the research the creation of a "digital ecosystem" (¿?) that contains all the networks, or is it the results of the testing of the methods described?
The network is described and analyzed and the reader do not see it (relocate and complement Figure 5)
4. Discussion
A more relevant discussion should be presented, relating the considerations with the findings of previous studies.
5, 6 Future developments and Conclusions
These are valuable sections.
Some sentences are incomplete or incoherent (e.g. line 55-57). There are some inconsistencies in the terms used (e.g. optimised --> optimize?; line 217 "the slow paths that insist (??) on tht territory"). An English editing of the text would be recommendable, but I am not a native English speaker.
I recommend to reconsider the suitability of the manuscript after this major changes in structure and clarity. Then, in case of, some minor adjustment will probably be needed. I feel the topic and the work carried out to this moment merits the extra work requested.
Author Response
Dear scholar,
thanks for your precious suggestions. I have improved the work in many parts, trying to follow the instructions provided as best as possible. I will attempt to respond in an orderly manner to the many suggestions made. The logical structure of the paper has been revised, especially in the methodological section, adding clarity to the strategy used through more precise schematisation. Other works related to the topic of the article have been added. However, it was not possible to widely expand the number of papers analysed because the topic is very specific and the study material very scarce. Nevertheless, it is a relevant topic especially in areas such as inland Italy, where there is a strong push to balance depopulation through land redevelopment practices. Analyses using tools such as the one presented in this paper are needed to guide these practices. The paragraphs have been relocated within the introduction section, as requested. The research question was reconsidered and framed within the UNESCO Sustainable Development Goals.
The last three sentences of the case study section were moved into the methodology as requested. The analogue and digital methods were reformulated into three methodologies explained in detail in three subsections. Previously published works of the authors explaining the methodologies used in more detail have also been added. The outcomes were reformulated and a figure was added to better explain how the networks are structured. The discussion was expanded considering the increase in work considered in the literature review.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Some improvements of the manuscript could be found, for example, some figures were improved but some figures and many parts are still not very informative. The main issue of lacking research essence still remains. The problem statement added could be ok. However, the literature review presented in Section 0 still needs to be elaborated.
Author Response
Dear scholar,
thank you for your kind suggestions. I have improved the work in many parts, trying to follow what I was told.
I have improved the figures and added new ones. The research question has been framed more effectively.
The literature review has been revised and greatly expanded
Reviewer 3 Report
The introduction should be still developed to add theoretical background and empirical research. Although the authors chose three papers, but they are random, biased and only superficially relate to this study, as they based on traditional methods such as interviews.
The authors still should clearly articulate the aim of the study and the research questions. "The research question that this work answers is the optimisation of an existing network of slow mobility routes to improve the connection between territories" is not the question, but rather the aim of the study.
While the authors have added a discussion section, it still lacks an embedding of the background and results in relation to previous and current theoretical foundations and empirical research on tracking and optimizing slow mobility routes.
In conclusion, the paper still needs improvement.
Author Response
Dear scholar,
thank you for your kind suggestions. I have improved the work in many parts, trying to follow the instructions provided as best as possible. The introduction has been improved, expanding the theoretical background and literature review on which the work is based. Numerous other works related to the topic of the paper have been added. However, it was impossible to further expand the number of papers analysed because the topic is very specific and the study material very little. However, it is a relevant topic especially in areas such as inland Italy where there is a strong push to balance depopulation through land-qualification practices. Analyses using tools such as the one presented in this paper are needed to guide these practices. The purpose of this work and the research question have been framed within the UNESCO Sustainable Development Goals. The discussion session has been expanded and co-ordinated with the slow pathway optimisation work in the bibliography.
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear authors,
the manuscript is now significantly better.
The general structure, illustration and methodological details has been improved and now it is easier to read and understand the research. The Discussion and Conclusions sections are now more significant and comprehensible. There are some paragraphs that are still unclear or lack information to be fully understandable and sound, but these issues can be easily polished.
The main issue to be improved is the explanation of the aim of the study and the connection between the sections.
I do not see the connection between the research question and the following content. The authors do not construct a "sustainable tourism strategy". They test a combination of methods and techniques that allow to optimize a network trough the connection of slow to fast mobility routes.
The reference to the UNESCO SDGs is valuable, but not connected to the research question, but to the need of a sustainable land planning, rural development and organization of the infrastructure and touristic use, which are the benefits of the analysis such as the one described in the manuscript.
It would be maybe better not to concentrate in the formulation of a formal research question but simply indicate that the aim of the study is to fill a gap in the methods in this area of inquiry. This is a manuscript focused in the methodological improvement and innovation.
It would be interesting also to strongly highlight that the methodology avoids a practical limitation: the context of scarcity of data, the convenience of the use of open data and the potential of the multi-scalar analysis. It is an efficient methodology.
If well reformulated, this perspective could act as a guiding line for the argumentation in the rest of sections, which has been significantly improved but still lack coherence between them. It would be specially helpful in arguing the innovation of the proposal compared to other cited methods (Discussions) and its usefulness.
I see that the combination of methods and perspectives in the proposed methodology is a major asset of the research. I recommend also tohighlight this point and discuss it at length.
I would recommend "Reconsider after major revision" because I think that some of my observations would take time to be integrated. However I feel that the authors are near of a valuable manuscript.
Author Response
Dear scholar,
the text highlighted in blue has been revised in the light of the suggestions made. Thanks for your acknowledgement of the improvement of the paper and for your valuable suggestions regarding the focus of the methodology. The attached file explains in detail how the text has been improved with your suggestion.
Kind regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Intro
2nd version "This work explores the different methodologies developed for tracing and optimizing slow mobility routes. The research question that this work answers is the optimisation of an existing network of slow mobility routes to improve the connection between territories. This network will have to mend the relationship between the infrastructure networks, the places of interest in the landscape while respecting morphological adaptability. The outcome is the customized creation of digital tools for analysing nodes and networks."
3rd version "The research question answered in this paper is how to build a sustainable tourism strategy in a context where new infrastructures have changed the spatial configuration. This request falls within the UNESCO Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Specifically, it deals with SDG 3 (Good Health) 9 (Industry, innovation and Infrastructure) and 11 (Sustainable City and Communities)."
Comparing the subject of the paper and the research questions from versions 2 and 3 with the content of the article, which has basically not changed (it has only been made more detailed and structured), I wonder why the authors added information about building a sustainable tourism strategy and SDGs, if they do not refer to these issues in the later parts of the paper.
The authors have developed a strategy for optimizing slow mobility flows, in the sense of proposing research program and tools derived from the methodology adopted, not a sustainable tourism strategy!
I suggest aligning the aim of the paper and the research questions with the content of the article, rather than adding new unrelated information over and over again.
Other changes and additions have improved the scientific value of the paper.
Author Response
Dear scholar,
the text highlighted in blue has been revised in the light of the suggestions made. The scope of the research has been aligned according to the suggestions provided, without adding new information. The information already present in the paper was schematised and the structure of the paper was improved.
Reviewer 5 Report
The structure, content and interest of the research are now compelling and clearly stated.
There are simply some spell or unclear sentences like
In fact, the method proposed aims (¿?) to complete a detailed analysis of the territory from both the morphological and network perspectives from the data available from open geo-databases.
[...] Once the efficiency of the methodology has been tested on such a complex context, it becomes easier to apply it on a more data-rich territory. (xxxCreate here an independent parargraph since the topic has changes form testing another contexts to the use of objective informationxxx) The actual methodology, unlike the others described in the literature review, is based on objective data instead of interviews. The[...]
Thanks to the authors
Author Response
Dear Scholar,
all of the suggested updates have been applied to the paper.
Thanks for your help.
Best
