The “Gutâi-Maramureș” UNESCO Geopark Project Development and Heritage Values-Based Sustainable Tourism in the Gutâi Volcanic Zone, East Carpathians (Romania)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

The article deals with an interesting theme for the planning, management and development of territories and landscapes. The global system of protection and such tools are a way of growing awareness for natural sites. This effective way of implementing bottom-up processes improves the stakeholders’ participation in what can be considered a “soft power”.

The article seemed to be timely, and the study area has all the characteristics of affording these stakes. Nevertheless, the article is highly descriptive and takes the form of a development plan, not far from a synthesis of the dossier to be presented for applying for the UNESCO recognition as Geopark. As it is mentioned at the beginning of the conclusions, aims are “to inventory and present all significant heritage value.”

What is expected from a scientific article is to present a thesis, frame it in state-of-the-art literature, explain the methodology used (secondary sources, primary sources, ethnographic vs. geographic, geological, natural sciences methods) and, after having presented (hopefully more concisely results), then discuss them to draw conclusions that corroborate or refute a thesis.

In my opinion, in this form the article is not suitable for publication because of its lack of analytical insight which is requested in this international journal.

I suggest Author(s) to consider a deep revision. I understand the need to demonstrate the census of all the assets of interest, but they cannot find all space in a scientific publication as "Land", but eventually in an institutional repository where data could be accessed by readers.

Minor suggestion: 310 words for an abstract is too much. 250 words is the usual length.

Kind regards.

Author Response

1. "The article seemed to be timely, and the study area has all the characteristics of affording these stakes. Nevertheless, the article is highly descriptive and takes the form of a development plan, not far from a synthesis of the dossier to be presented for applying for the UNESCO recognition as Geopark."

Answer: 

We think that addressing such a subject, inventories and descriptive style cannot be avoided. By introducing new text in the Discussion chapter, including Tables, the relative contribution of the descriptive text parts has been, in a way, equilibrated with explanatory parts.

2. "What is expected from a scientific article is to present a thesis, frame it in state-of-the-art literature, explain the methodology used (secondary sources, primary sources, ethnographic vs. geographic, geological, natural sciences methods) and, after having presented (hopefully more concisely results), then discuss them to draw conclusions that corroborate or refute a thesis."

Answer: 

You are right. Now we introduced more references to the state-of-the-art literature. Too, we introduced a full chapter explaining the methodology used in our investigation.

3. "

In my opinion, in this form the article is not suitable for publication because of its lack of analytical insight which is requested in this international journal."

Answer: 

Elements of analytical insight are now added to the text and explained in the Materials and Methods section.

4. "I suggest Author(s) to consider a deep revision. I understand the need to demonstrate the census of all the assets of interest, but they cannot find all space in a scientific publication as "Land", but eventually in an institutional repository where data could be accessed by readers."

Answer: Yes, we think we revised the manuscript substantially by taking into account the observations, criticism and suggestions of all reviewers. 

5. "

Minor suggestion: 310 words for an abstract is too much. 250 words is the usual length."

Answer: Right. We have been shortened the abstract. Now it has close to 250 words

"Kind regards."

Answer: Thank you for your review, criticism and suggestions.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Gutâi-Maramureș” UNESCO Geopark project development and heritage values-based sustainable tourism in the Gutâi Volcanic Zone, East Carpathians (Romania), which was sent to me for review, is a very detailed description of abiotic nature, cultural heritage including mining heritage and natural heritage of the geopark area, which is applying for entry into the GGN.

The article contains an extensive introduction, geological characteristics of the area, description of geosites, as well as mining, cultural and natural heritage, and a discussion, the aim of which was to show the area as attractive in terms of various forms related to sustainable tourism. At the end, there is a correctly formulated summary.
However, the article does not present a methodology, although the authors suggest in the introduction that they will attempt to valorize geosites. This needs to be supplemented.
The reviewer also found several other shortcomings, which are listed below:
1. In the introduction, only one sentence could be considered the purpose of the article. This purpose should be defined in more detail.
2. Figure 1 is incorrectly made - a scale bar and a legend should be added to the map.
3. Similarly, Fig. 3 - there is no legend.
4. In Fig. 3, the boundary of the geopark is marked - according to UNESCO guidelines, an area applying for entry in the GGN must have precisely defined boundaries. So what does this boundary refer to? Does it refer to the administrative division? This should be specified and described.
5. In the analysis of the results, natural values, cultural heritage and monuments were described in detail - OK, but in areas predisposing to the UNESCO geopark designation, the activity of the local population in creating the image of the geopark is also important. Could the authors describe examples of such activity in their area?
6. In the discussion, the authors rarely refer to the literature. Many articles describing the activities of geoparks have been published, so it would be appropriate to refer to them here, showing examples from geopark.

To sum up, I think that the article is a very valuable scientific work, but it must be supplemented with the above-mentioned deficiencies to be published.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

" ... the article does not present a methodology, although the authors suggest in the introduction that they will attempt to valorize geosites. This needs to be supplemented."

Answer: You are right. According also to the comments of the Academic Editor, we restructured the manuscript introducing a chapter Materials and Methods in which this issue is now addressed. The research methodology is also presented In the Discussion chapter.

1. "In the introduction, only one sentence could be considered the purpose of the article. This purpose should be defined in more detail." Answer: The Introduction was completed in accordance with this requirement. 
2. "Figure 1 is incorrectly made - a scale bar and a legend should be added to the map." Answer: We consider that it is not necessary because they are simple physical maps (explicitly mentioned now in the figure caption) of the large regions with many well-known landmarks on them.
3. "Similarly, Fig. 3 - there is no legend." Answer: Right. We now mentioned in the caption of Fig. 3 that the geology in this figure is the same as in Fig. 2b (the same legend)
4. "In Fig. 3, the boundary of the geopark is marked - according to UNESCO guidelines, an area applying for entry in the GGN must have precisely defined boundaries. So what does this boundary refer to? Does it refer to the administrative division? This should be specified and described." Answer: 

   This was also completed in the caption of Fig. 3. Indeed, the boundary refers to administrative divisions (administrative borders of the localities included in the geopark area)

5. "In the analysis of the results, natural values, cultural heritage and monuments were described in detail - OK, but in areas predisposing to the UNESCO geopark designation, the activity of the local population in creating the image of the geopark is also important. Could the authors describe examples of such activity in their area?" Answer: 

   As it was completed in the Introduction chapter, the geopark project officially just started at the end of 2024 so that such activities could not be carried out yet, this will happen in the near future during the project development. However, it must be mentioned that all the local authorities within the area have been contacted, consulted and we have their agreement and support.

6. "In the discussion, the authors rarely refer to the literature. Many articles describing the activities of geoparks have been published, so it would be appropriate to refer to them here, showing examples from geopark." Answer: 

   Thanks for this valuable suggestion. We have completed the Discussion chapter with references regarding the Geoeducation and Geotourism concepts which should be implemented in the geopark to develop a sustainable tourism in the area.

   "To sum up, I think that the article is a very valuable scientific work, but it must be supplemented with the above-mentioned deficiencies to be published." Answer: 

   Thank you for your appreciation. Yes, we addressed all the deficiencies you mentioned.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the first sentence of the abstract, the definition is not fully correct - environmental (biological) component is missing.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 had one single claim related to the Abstract. The word "natural" has been  added to meet this  inquiry.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The objective and significance of the study is not clear. What is the study’s main aim/ what is it trying to achieve and why? The introduction ahs to emphasize this more

Consider providing an explanation/discussion of each figure and table after it is presented – to avoid having figures and tables directly after one another without any explanation/discussion in between. This will make it easier to read and follow.

There are a few grammatical errors

The way the strategy with its phases are presented needs to be improved – so that it stands alone more or is clearer

Table 6 is not very easily understood

The conclusion is the first time to goal of the paper is more clear

The study has merit but needs restructuring and be more clear in its intents and purpose as well as the methods followed and what contribution it aims to make 

Author Response

Reviewer 4 

1. "

The objective and significance of the study is not clear. What is the study’s main aim/ what is it trying to achieve and why? The introduction has to emphasize this more" Answer: We have completed the Introduction in accordance with this requirement.

2. "Consider providing an explanation/discussion of each figure and table after it is presented – to avoid having figures and tables directly after one another without any explanation/discussion in between. This will make it easier to read and follow." Answer: In fact, the tables and figures were purposefully used in order to shorten the text, as requested by other reviewers. The figures have detailed explanations illustrating aspects briefly presented in the tables. We have eliminated one table (previous Tab. 3) and shortened another table (previous Tab. 5). Too, we spaced the tables and figures from each other by inserting text in between.  Thanks for this observation.

3. "There are a few grammatical errors" Answer: We tried to eliminate them

4. "The way the strategy with its phases are presented needs to be improved – so that it stands alone more or is clearer" Answer: In the Discussion chapter we presented more clearly the research objectives used to developed the geopark project as well as a SWOT analysis highlighting the major supporting elements in promoting a UNESCO geopark in the area

5. "Table 6 is not very easily understood" Answer: 

We changed this table with a more accurate one (now Table 5).

6. "The conclusion is the first time to goal of the paper is more clear" Answer: 

The goal of the paper is now clearly stated in the Introduction section.

7. "

The study has merit but needs restructuring and be more clear in its intents and purpose as well as the methods followed and what contribution it aims to make." Answer: 

The revised manuscript is now restructured, its intents and purpose more explicitly expressed, and the methods presented in more detail within a dedicated chapter.

Thank you for your thorough and valuable review helping us to improve the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

the article has been improved and the scientific soundness increased. To my understanding of scientific articles, this is too long for a journal, but it is up to the Editors to decide it. 

I would suggest to transform the SWOT analysis into a graphic image (assessment wheel or simply a graphic with the SWOT square with keywords of results). It would better grab readers' attention. If readers are interested, you can put all these specific results in a supplementary file.  

Kind regards.

 

Author Response

1. ... the article has been improved and the scientific soundness increased. To my understanding of scientific articles, this is too long for a journal, but it is up to the Editors to decide it. 

Reply: Agree, let the Editor decide

2.  I would suggest to transform the SWOT analysis into a graphic image (assessment wheel or simply a graphic with the SWOT square with keywords of results). It would better grab readers' attention. If readers are interested, you can put all these specific results in a supplementary file.  

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. We changed the SWOT analysis table with a much more easily readable one instead of replacing it with a graphic (which would require the re-numbering of figures).  We would avoid Supplementary files.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good job. After corrections, the article is clearer and more understandable. Please add a scale bar to Figure 1a and b. 

Author Response

Good job. After corrections, the article is clearer and more understandable. Please add a scale bar to Figure 1a and b.

Reply: 

We added scale bars to Figs. 1a and b. Too, we changed a bit the figure caption for accuracy.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all comments and have made significant improvements to the article.

It seems ready for publication

Author Response

The authors have addressed all comments and have made significant improvements to the article. It seems ready for publication.

Reply: thank you