Evolution of Geotourism in Australia from Kanawinka Global Geopark and Australian National Landscapes to GeoRegions and Geotrails: A Review and Lessons Learned

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Apart from minor mistakes, I think this is an interesting article that provides insights on how Australia geotourism has overcome the delisting of its Geopark from the UNESCO list of Geoparks.

Some examples of the mistakes/imperfections that I am talking about:

On line 83, in the sentence: “Geotourism is a now a concept becoming better-established globally after several 83 decades”, the first “a” should be suppressed.

The sentence presented on line 473 should follow the same format as the following sentences.

Chapter 3.5 (line 481) is also out of format. Other formatting issues can be found along the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It was a pleasure to review this manuscript.  It is clearly written, free from any significant language or typographical errors or mistakes, and it followed a clear and logical path.  It lived up to its title "Evolution of Geotourism in Australia..."

This is an excellent overall summary of the state of Geoheritage / Geotourism efforts in Australia.  It answers for me many of the key questions I have had on various geoheritage / geopark efforts in Australia, such as "what went wrong with the  Kanawinka Global Geopark listing"?  The author covers this point in detail and has provided (for myself in this case) a viable answer.  That answer comes with many hard-learned lessons to the steps involved in designating an area as a Global Geopark.

One item that confused me on occasion was the use of the term "Geotourism" in a context where I might have used the term "Geoheritage".  I might suggest that the author takes a few sentences and address this usage.  Certainly a goal of the Geopark movement and of efforts to identify "geoheritage sites" or "geosites" is to attract visitors to an area or feature.  Thus Geotourism is a logical outcome of Geoheritage efforts.  Perhaps it is simply a reflection of how these terms are used in Australia.  For example, Geotourism in the U.S.A. is used to designate a geographic area where tourists might visit to see and experience a variety of features; some of these might be geoheritage features for example.   

The current formatting and layout of the review copy looks very much like a "final copy" ready for publication.  This is fine as I personally found very few errors in the formatting and layout.  My Overall Recommendation is:" Accept in present form".  Actually there are just a small number of items that I think need to be clarified and adjusted. In my attached file of comments I highlighted these to be addressed by the author or the Editors.

This report will be quite popular for students of Geoheritage and Geotourism.  It covers such efforts in a comprehensive manner.  Perhaps most valuable are the lessons learned by Australian colleagues as they advance the science of geoheritage and its related Geotourism values.  

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author,

The submitted manuscript titled „Evolution of Geotourism in Australia - from Kanawinka Geopark and Australian National Landscapes to Geotrails and GeoRegions” contains interestig results. The manuscript summarizes the evolution of geotourism in Australia on the basis of numerous literature sources. Nevertheless, I have found some imperfecrions, which-in my opinion- should be corrected or clarified before an eventual publication.

Major issues:

1.       I my opinion the manuscript should be better organized  i.e. in the present form there is lack of traditional parts such as Material and methods, Results etc. Moreover, I think that chapter Introduction should contain justification of undertaking of presented investigations and presentation of main goals of studies.  In turn, the chapter Material and methods should contain information about procedure of selection of presented sites and  literature sources.

2.        I have found  manuscript too long and in some parts a bit difficult to follow.

3.       The Abstract section should reffer to main parts of manuscript (Introduction, Material and methods, Results, Conclusions).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The text needs a major overhaul along the lines indicated below.

 

Lines 12-34. Abstract needs to be modified to account for major revision of the paper.

 

Lines 55-61. I am aware that Hamilton-Smith made the comment that ‘geotourism is too important to be left in the hands of geologists’ but I am left wanting with the claim that he said ‘geoparks are too good to be playgrounds for geologists.’ The intention of this latter statement needs further clarification and as it stands now it is not helpful!

 

Line 59. The conversation about ‘geotourists’ came later.  The idea at the time was to promote geological attractions to the general public.

 

Lines 57-64. National Parks network is to protect and promote the appreciation of geology and landscape. Also, in the early stages many geologists did not want geotourism as they thought that it might damage (collecting, graffiti, trampling, erosion and site modification) unique and special geology.

 

Line 61. An essential aspect of geoparks is local community development.

 

Lines 74-77. Where is the evidence for this? The intention was to capitalise on the global geopark movement more so than university course aspirations.

 

Lines 70-71. Furthermore, Newsome and Ladd (2022) have promoted a four-dimensional approach which acknowledges landscape.

 

Newsome, D. and Ladd, P. (2022) The dimensions of geotourism with a spotlight on geodiversity in a subdued landscape. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2022.06.001.

 

Lines 97-98. Poorly worded

 

Lines 104-107. Too simplistic. Specify universal value and how it relates to geo-heritage and geodiversity. Cite appropriate works, talk about combined properties and geomorphological processes. Add a table summarising key attributes of listed sites.

 

Lines 109-110. Explain how related to the dimensions concept indicated by Newsome and Ladd (2022).

 

Figure 2. Cite the global literature and set the context properly.

 

Lines 124-125. Assertion needs support. Where is this stated?

 

Lines 125-129. I contest this – it depends where you look for the evidence – revise accordingly.

 

Lines 125-132. Claim requires support. Not an alternative but a further possibility!

 

Line 143. Figure is indicated as 14.1 and is of poor quality.

 

Line 151. Colloquial, re-word accordingly.

 

Lines 151-152. An account was published in 2010.

 

Figure 4. Text is too small.

 

Lines 167-216. Mostly Ok with some useful content. However, Line 171 is a personal view. It is more rigorous to cite published work that has explored the reasoning behind the lack of geopark development in Australia more generally. For example, see recent published work on learnings from Australia).

 

Lines 182-183 reflect poor sentence construction.

 

Lines 217-267. Some useful content here. Yes, community consultation is important as emphasized by recently published work on governance. Support your arguments with the peer-reviewed literature where appropriate.

 

Lines 233-235. This is a retrospective thought – re-word!

 

Lines 237-239. Provide evidence.

 

Lines 244-25. Citation?

 

Lines 254-257. Any examples? Sources?

 

Line 259. Start of sentence unclear?

 

Lines 259-267. Useful content but needs further qualification. Add sources to consolidate the argument.

 

Line 268. With reference to China and Europe provide citations for further reading

 

Lines 270-296. Some useful content here

 

Line 297. Modify title to 2.5 and you can’t speak for all Australians!

 

Lines 298-309. Provide sources of information/weblinks

 

Lines 310-318. I don’t ‘buy this view’ and the perspective is not convincing. Many people cared about the state of the GBR. Where is the evidence to support this assertion? The narrative is vague, and you can’t speak for all! In addition, more context is required.

 

Lines 320-328. Explain the socio-political context further. See recent published work in the Australian context.

 

 

Line 331. Subjective statement!

 

Lines 355-368.  Refer to recent published work for support.

 

Lines 362-369. Not sure about utility of italicised text!

 

Lines 369-402. National landscapes content can be cut right back.

 

Lines 401-402. Statement about tourism unclear, nationally?

 

Lines 406-410. Not sure about utility of italicised text!

 

Lines 420-562. Repetitive and going over same ground. Can be cut right back. Simply highlight the main points, similarities and differences with the geopark concept in Australia.

 

Lines 505-556. Too detailed and can be cut right back.

 

Lines 557-58. Could argue that the geopark debate in Australia has already been summarised by Briggs et al. and Robinson.

 

Figure 6. Can’t read the text.

 

Lines 584-621. Too detailed. Trim down to half page max. See recent papers.

Please note that ‘land’ is an international journal and there is too much detail about the local scene in this submission.

 

Lines 627-629. The learnings approach has been stipulated by Briggs et al. 2021. Why not refer to that paper?

 

Lines 630-672. Again, no citation of recent work! Lines 650-651 – no reference made to Newsome and Ladd (2022). Surely of relevance to the argument being presented here!

 

Section 5.2.   Can be deleted.

 

Lines 673-688. The aspects presented here have been covered in many general texts which are concerned with geo-conservation, geotourism and geodiversity.

 

Lines 673-708. Can be deleted.

 

Lines 718-729. No mention of recent literature that highlights the issue in the Australian context. It is surprising that recent work (see above) has not been acknowledged in this manuscript! Also see recent work on regolith in Australia that has been published.

 

Lines 730-779. Again, this content has already been covered by Briggs et al and Robinson. Otherwise delete.

 

Section 6.2 This part might be used (while citing appropriate published work) as a lead into sections 7 and 8.

 

Lines 862-879. Repetition of previous content in this submission.

 

Section 7.2 Useful content here

 

Section 8. This is the interesting part.

 

Figures 10 to 13 are poor and need replacement.

 

Section 9. The conclusion would need modifying according to a major revision of the manuscript. Specify opportunities for post-covid recovery of the tourism industry.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Although a decent summary of the recent history of geotourism in Australia (I learnt a lot about the ANLs, for example), the paper is hamstrung by unnecessarily complex writing. Some strong editing, particularly shortening and simplifying the sentences and streamlining the paragraphs, would make the paper a lot briefer and clearer in its purpose. Note that in the attached document I stopped making grammatical suggestions around page 8 as I was restricted in time; however, nearly all of the sections could be greatly shortened to improve the paper's relevance and readability. 

Reorganising the paper would also help the flow of the document, with many of the sections feeling jumbled or disjointed in their placement. For example, section 5 feels somewhat like a conclusion section as the issues discussed therein are still relevant to the present day; therefore, this section might be better placed after section 7. A couple of sections (e.g. 2.3.1. and 2.3.2.) felt like they should contain bullet point lists, but there were no bullet points, making the lists difficult to read.

I feel the paper places too much emphasis on Geoparks and ANLs, and the other parts of the discussion are more rushed as a result. The history surrounding these methods and their eventual disbandment is interesting and instructive, but they aren't the only potential methods moving forward. In particular, the discussion appears to continually circle back to geoparks instead of addressing all of the issues relevant to these parks and then moving on.

Note that words like 'geotourism', 'geoheritage', 'geopark', 'geotrail', 'abiotic', 'biotic' and 'cultural' should not capitalised except where they form part of a formal name (such as a conference or organisation). Other minor suggestions and comments are included in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author,

I have not any futher suggestions or remarks. In my opinion manuscript was sufficiently corrected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3 - 

Thank you for your attention to this manuscript and your second response. This is much appreciated.

Ian D Lewis 

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks for the opportunity to read the revised manuscript. I see that the author has taken the review very seriously and has made improvements to the paper. On the matter of including reviewer nominated citations I see that the author acknowledges the relevance of the suggested papers. Indeed, by including Briggs et al and the other papers the text now provides further clarity on the state of the situation for international readers. The inclusion of up-to-date publications is a useful way for the author to consolidate his work by acknowledging recent papers that have been published on this topic.

 

I suggest just keeping the title simple - ‘Evolution of geotourism in Australia’.

 

Several figures are still difficult to discern, and I hope that the published version will be of better quality.

 

I still think the paper tries to cover too much ground but having said that improvements have been made.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4 - 

Your undertaking of a re-reading of the somewhat lengthy text is particularly appreciated. I'm glad that you saw your review comments were seriously weighed, as they needed to be, and were.

Placing the newer references in context indeed rounds out the scope of the overall topic. I had been concentrating strongly on the earlier events of the Geopark and ANLs, feeling that from my research that they had not been adequately examined in previous literature.

On that point, I included their names in the overall title as I sense that their history is unlikely to be further examined while Geotourism research continues to move forward. Thus I was keen to have their names - Kanawinka and ANLs - placed clearly before the reader and future researchers; hence I will retain them here while acknowledging your suggestion of shortening for simplicity.

I will continue contact with the editors about the quality of some of the lesser images as you remind me. Thank you for the signing off and the qualifiers beneath it - that gives me a helpful measure of the potential value of the paper.

Best regards, Ian D Lewis