Geotourism Product as an Indicator for Sustainable Development in Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents the current situation in the development of geotourism in Poland and suggests areas for future development of this product. At the same time, the author attempts to link geotourism and sustainable tourism development. The article is a synthesis of other bibliographic sources. No primary research has been done and this is a disadvantage of it. The author is invited to revise the anuscript to address the following points:

The article focuses on the supply side. What about the demand for these products? Is there sufficient demand to support sustainable tourism development, create new jobs and all the things described in the article? Are there any statistics available on the number of tourists in Poland visiting these geoparks? What kind of tourists are they? Are they primary geoheritage tourists (those who are primarily motivated by geoheritage) or secondary geoheritage tourists (those who travel with different motivations than geoheritage, but who during their trips are interested in visiting geoparks)?

Please rename the section 5 to “Discussion and Conclusion”.

Please add a paragraph in the conclusions section with the main limitations of the research, as well as directions for future research.

The manuscript would benefit from a professional editing and proofreading. There are some grammatical and syntactical errors in the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the following corrections have been made to the manuscript:

• a paragraph was added about statistics available on the number of tourists visiting geoproducts, however, it was noted that this is a topic for further research,
• section 5 has been renamed to “Discussion and Conclusion” and a paragraph was added about the main limitations of the research, as well as directions for future research,
• the manuscript has been linguistically revised.

The following conclusions have been added:

• Geoproducts can be used as indicators of sustainable development because they are produced following sustainability principles and promote local geoheritage and thus enhance protection, education, regional identity, and local economics.
• This is the first comprehensive study about active geoproducts in Poland, and there are no official nationwide databases of this type of goods and services. It should be taken into account that not all geoproducts have been identified yet, therefore further research is needed.
• The analysis of geoproducts is based on information on websites, literature, and meetings “Forum GEO-PRODUKT”, therefore research is needed in the geoproducts themselves, especially according to objects, events, workshops, etc. that attract visitors, where surveys can be conducted.
• According to data from the Polish Tourist Organization (www.pot.gov.pl/en), domestic tourism has not yet returned to its pre-pandemic state and will take one or two years to normalize the situation. The current statistical data on the number of visits are not reliable, so it was decided that the further study would be to determine the number of participants in the geoeducational offer in Poland. However, examples of statistics sent by the main goecentres in Poland give a positive picture of the interest. In 2023 GEOsphere Jaworzno geocentre (C-II) 4 events per season visited approx. 500 people and approx. 12,000 people attend classes with an educator. Sudetic Educational Farm in Land of Extinct Volcanoes UNESCO Global Geopark (A-I) was visited in 2022 by 2,362 individuals and 6,712 in organized groups. The Geoeducation Center was visited by 34,199 people in 2023 and all Geonatura Kielce facilities by 537,229 visitors. The research on this topic will be continued.
• Comparing previous analyzes of geotourism regions with the research results in this article, it can be concluded that some areas are currently more promising due to the combination of geological and mining potential and good tourist development, e.g. Karkonosze geo-region and their surroundings (A-III), Śnieżnik Kłodzki geo-region (A4), Tatra-Podhale-Pieniny area (B1-B2-B3), Carpathian balneological geo-region (B4a), and Postglacial Land geo-region (G2c). Also important are the Silesian region (C) and Jurassic geo-region (D1) and the areas of eastern Poland, i.e. Roztocze (F-I) and Podlasie (G2d-e). The Vistula River Gorge geopark project (F1) has many studies on geoheritage. The entire Sudeten and Holy Cross Mountains regions are the richest in geoproducts and the most promising. Many post-mining geotourism regions do not have active geoproducts, therefore there is a need to involve local governments in this type of activity. An interesting solution may be the development of urban geotourism in Polish cities and metropolitan areas, i.e. the Wrocław, Katowice, Krakow, Kielce, Poznań, Warsaw, Tri-City region (Gdańsk-Gdynia-Spopot). The Kielce region develops best from this type of activity (Geonatura Kielce initiative).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To talk about a scientific article it should contain research questions and hypotheses posed to these questions in the reviewed article there were no research questions or hypotheses asked which should definitely be improved there is also no summary in the reviewed article in which answers to the research questions verification of the hypothesis should be included in this place of the article proposals for further research should also appear and new research questions should be asked regarding the proposed scope of research it should be specified in this article What are the research questions also insert hypotheses into it and at the end of the article provide answers to these questions and verify the hypotheses and propose further research.

 

The reviewed article lacks the main research question and secondary research studies, there is a need to also pose hypotheses that will be an attempt to answer these research questions, the article also lacks a good summary discussing the entirety of the problem under investigation, there are no answers to the research questions and verification of hypotheses because they were not asked, and at the same time there is a lack of perspective to show new research that should be carried out after the reflection that took place in the article.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, corrections have been made to the manuscript according to your suggestions, and research questions and hypotheses have been added to an introduction:

• the article aims to define geoproducts as an indicator of sustainable development and this is a main hypothesis. To verify the main hypothesis, the following research questions were asked: 1) How do geoproducts contribute to sustainable development?; 2) Do geoproducts promote local geoheritage and thus enhance protection, education, regional identity, and local economic development?; 3) Is it possible to designate sustainable geotourism regions using geoproducts?

The conclusion was changed as follows:

• Geoproducts can be used as indicators of sustainable development because they are produced following sustainability principles and promote local geoheritage and thus enhance protection, education, regional identity, and local economics.
• This is the first comprehensive study about active geoproducts in Poland, and there are no official nationwide databases of this type of goods and services. It should be taken into account that not all geoproducts have been identified yet, therefore further research is needed.
• The analysis of geoproducts is based on information on websites, literature, and meetings “Forum GEO-PRODUKT”, therefore research is needed in the geoproducts themselves, especially according to objects, events, workshops, etc. that attract visitors, where surveys can be conducted.
• According to data from the Polish Tourist Organization (www.pot.gov.pl/en), domestic tourism has not yet returned to its pre-pandemic state and will take one or two years to normalize the situation. The current statistical data on the number of visits are not reliable, so it was decided that the further study would be to determine the number of participants in the geoeducational offer in Poland. However, examples of statistics sent by the main goecentres in Poland give a positive picture of the interest. In 2023 GEOsphere Jaworzno geocentre (C-II) 4 events per season visited approx. 500 people and approx. 12,000 people attend classes with an educator. Sudetic Educational Farm in Land of Extinct Volcanoes UNESCO Global Geopark (A-I) was visited in 2022 by 2,362 individuals and 6,712 in organized groups. The Geoeducation Center was visited by 34,199 people in 2023 and all Geonatura Kielce facilities by 537,229 visitors. The research on this topic will be continued.
• Comparing previous analyzes of geotourism regions with the research results in this article, it can be concluded that some areas are currently more promising due to the combination of geological and mining potential and good tourist development, e.g. Karkonosze geo-region and their surroundings (A-III), Śnieżnik Kłodzki geo-region (A4), Tatra-Podhale-Pieniny area (B1-B2-B3), Carpathian balneological geo-region (B4a), and Postglacial Land geo-region (G2c). Also important are the Silesian region (C) and Jurassic geo-region (D1) and the areas of eastern Poland, i.e. Roztocze (F-I) and Podlasie (G2d-e). The Vistula River Gorge geopark project (F1) has many studies on geoheritage. The entire Sudeten and Holy Cross Mountains regions are the richest in geoproducts and the most promising. Many post-mining geotourism regions do not have active geoproducts, therefore there is a need to involve local governments in this type of activity. An interesting solution may be the development of urban geotourism in Polish cities and metropolitan areas, i.e. the Wrocław, Katowice, Krakow, Kielce, Poznań, Warsaw, Tri-City region (Gdańsk-Gdynia-Spopot). The Kielce region develops best from this type of activity (Geonatura Kielce initiative).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors use relevant, sufficient, and up-to-date sources for their study. They have proposed a  new divison of geotourism regions in Poland based on a comprehensive analysis of Poland's geotourism products,  highlighting their measurable impact on sustainability.  

However, there are a few points that need clarification:

The description under Figure 3 it is unclear regarding the meaning of red and yellow dots. Please, provide an explanation in the figure caption.

The colors of the dots in Figure 4 are difficult to distinguish, particularly dark red and black. I recommend changing the color of at least one of the dots to improve visibility.

The sentence (lines 688-689): „Geoeducational materials are being created in Poland, but compared to other countries, it is still insufficient.“ Needs more specificity. Could the authors provide examples and specify which countries they are comparing Poland to, along with the sources for this comparison?  

The authors have interpreted their results well in the Discussion section. However, I recommend them to add comparison of their results with previous studies on the topic. Please, also specify in this section the limitations of the study and discuss their potential impact on the results.

Overall, the study is well-structured and provides valuable insights, but addressing these points will enhance clarity and comprehensiveness.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the following corrections have been made to the manuscript:

• the explanation of figure 3 has been improved,
• the colors of the dots in Figure 4 were changed, as well as data visualization on a map,
• the sentence (lines 688-689) has been deleted - insufficient data to conduct the analysis

Relevant information has been added to the conclusions:

• Geoproducts can be used as indicators of sustainable development because they are produced following sustainability principles and promote local geoheritage and thus enhance protection, education, regional identity, and local economics.
• This is the first comprehensive study about active geoproducts in Poland, and there are no official nationwide databases of this type of goods and services. It should be taken into account that not all geoproducts have been identified yet, therefore further research is needed.
• The analysis of geoproducts is based on information on websites, literature, and meetings “Forum GEO-PRODUKT”, therefore research is needed in the geoproducts themselves, especially according to objects, events, workshops, etc. that attract visitors, where surveys can be conducted.
• According to data from the Polish Tourist Organization (www.pot.gov.pl/en), domestic tourism has not yet returned to its pre-pandemic state and will take one or two years to normalize the situation. The current statistical data on the number of visits are not reliable, so it was decided that the further study would be to determine the number of participants in the geoeducational offer in Poland. However, examples of statistics sent by the main goecentres in Poland give a positive picture of the interest. In 2023 GEOsphere Jaworzno geocentre (C-II) 4 events per season visited approx. 500 people and approx. 12,000 people attend classes with an educator. Sudetic Educational Farm in Land of Extinct Volcanoes UNESCO Global Geopark (A-I) was visited in 2022 by 2,362 individuals and 6,712 in organized groups. The Geoeducation Center was visited by 34,199 people in 2023 and all Geonatura Kielce facilities by 537,229 visitors. The research on this topic will be continued.
• Comparing previous analyzes of geotourism regions with the research results in this article, it can be concluded that some areas are currently more promising due to the combination of geological and mining potential and good tourist development, e.g. Karkonosze geo-region and their surroundings (A-III), Śnieżnik Kłodzki geo-region (A4), Tatra-Podhale-Pieniny area (B1-B2-B3), Carpathian balneological geo-region (B4a), and Postglacial Land geo-region (G2c). Also important are the Silesian region (C) and Jurassic geo-region (D1) and the areas of eastern Poland, i.e. Roztocze (F-I) and Podlasie (G2d-e). The Vistula River Gorge geopark project (F1) has many studies on geoheritage. The entire Sudeten and Holy Cross Mountains regions are the richest in geoproducts and the most promising. Many post-mining geotourism regions do not have active geoproducts, therefore there is a need to involve local governments in this type of activity. An interesting solution may be the development of urban geotourism in Polish cities and metropolitan areas, i.e. the Wrocław, Katowice, Krakow, Kielce, Poznań, Warsaw, Tri-City region (Gdańsk-Gdynia-Spopot). The Kielce region develops best from this type of activity (Geonatura Kielce initiative).