Geocultural Heritage as a Basis for Themed GeoTown—The “Józefów StoneTown” Model in the Roztocze Region (SE Poland)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language is required

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments/suggestions.

Regarding the comments on:

p. 1. in the Abstract: Please add a translation to the name of the park in English, place it in brackets for better understanding and to link it to the title – The name of the Geopark in English has been added.

p. 5. in Fig. 3: Please add the location of the town, geopark, for easier tracking on the map. On the smaller map, marked as a), the measurement scale is not clearly visible, please correct it. – boundaries of the "Kamienny Las na Roztoczu" Geopark have been added, the boundary of the Józefów town has been bolded, and the measurement scale on the smaller map, labelled a), has been corrected.

p. 9. in Fig. 4: Please add a scale for measurement to this image so the area can be representative – A scale has been added to this figure.

p. 10. in Fig. 5: Please add a scale to the pictures so the readers can get an insight to the size of the represented samples and the size of the quarry – photographs have been swapped adding those with a scale so that readers can gain an insight into the size of the samples shown compared to the size of the quarry.

To the question/remark: Is this questionnaire necessary for the publication of the manuscript? If so please explain its importance to the paper and not just to the future statistic works in the town and add it to the corresponding part of the text where appendix A is linked. – The survey questionnaires are not necessary for publication as they are supplementary material documenting only the research tools. As the results obtained are described in detail in the text, including the wording of the questions, appendices A and B have therefore been removed, as also suggested by another reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity. The paper explores an interesting phenomenon. The topic is also good, with some theoretical and practical value. It is well-written. However, after going through the entire manuscript, some issues need to be addressed to make the paper more suitable for publication. I have the following suggestions for the authors:

1. The survey data collection did not state the sampling approach/technique employed.

2. There are a lot of geo-parks across the globe; the authors should compare and contrast to put the study into a proper perspective.

3. The theoretical contribution needs to be strengthened.

4. The conclusion of the study is not well written.

5. The authors should create a space for limitations and future directions.

I hope the comments help the authors improve the paper.

Good Luck!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments/suggestions.

Regarding the comments/suggestions:

1. The survey data collection did not state the sampling approach/technique employed. – added.
2. There are a lot of geo-parks across the globe; the authors should compare and contrast to put the study into a proper perspective. – added.
3. The theoretical contribution needs to be strengthened. – added.
4. The conclusion of the study is not well written. – corrected.
5. The authors should create a space for limitations and future directions. – Limitations and future directions were indicated.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the article, the author presented an interesting case study of the geological heritage and the related cultural heritage (masonry) in the Józefów area, in terms of building the GeoTown offer as the central point of the planned geopark "Kamienny Las na Roztocze". The description of natural resources is extensive and documented with cartographic and photographic illustrations. The current tourist use of this place is also shown in the light of available statistical data and estimates. Research conducted among tourists indicates a positive reception of this place as a tourist attraction. The operating program of the geopark with various educational and recreational activities was also presented.

The conducted research on the attitudes of both tourists and residents of Józefów is correct in terms of the structure of the questionnaire, but the relatively small number of responses obtained from respondents is surprising. But perhaps, in relation to a single object, it is methodologically justified. The presented views are related to the compiled literature on the topic. The article is extensive, it suggests resigning from  Appendix A and B, which take up 4 pages, and in the presentation of research results, individual questions are listed and analyzed.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments/suggestions.

Regarding the comments/suggestions:

The conducted research on the attitudes of both tourists and residents of Józefów is correct in terms of the structure of the questionnaire, but the relatively small number of responses obtained from respondents is surprising. But perhaps, in relation to a single object, it is methodologically justified. …. Yes, indeed, there were few responses, especially as far as residents were concerned, which was also a surprise to me. However, given the small size of the community in the town, which rarely participates in surveys, I am glad that responses were obtained at all. It should also be noted that generally in such small communities people are reluctant to speak out in public spaces, this is the case in Poland. So I treated this sample only as a preliminary survey. I hope that a more representative sample can be obtained in the future.

The article is extensive, it suggests resigning from  Appendix A and B, which take up 4 pages, and in the presentation of research results, individual questions are listed and analyzed. Thank you for this suggestion, indeed I have analysed the answers to each question in detail in the text. So I have removed Annexes A and B, which take up several pages of the text and do not add any new value to the text, being only material to illustrate the tool.