The Integrated Assessment of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites to Develop Sustainable Tourism: A Case Study of Grădina Zmeilor Geomorphosite, North-West Region, Romania
, Sanda Roșca 1, Ioan-Aurel Irimuș 1, Vescan Iuliu 1, Raularian Rusu 1, Ioan Fodorean 1 and Paul Sestras 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The Integrated Assessment Of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites To Develop Sustainable Tourism. Case Study: Grădina Zmeilor Geomorphosite, North-West Region, Romania
Overall, the structure of this paper is well organized, and the presentation is clear. However, there are still some crucial problems that need to be carefully addressed before a possible publication. More specifically,
1. A deep literature review should be given, particularly regarding remote sensing image processing and analysis techniques. Therefore, the reviewer strongly suggests discussing and analyzing some advanced and latest works by citing the following papers, DOI: 10.3390/su14042422 ; DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-96760-4_28
2. The motivations or remaining challenges are not so clear or what kinds of issues or difficulties is the task that is facing. Please give more details and discussion about the key problems solved in this paper, which is largely different from existing works.
3. The contributions of this paper for the development and inspiration of sustainable tourism are not so clear to the reviewer.
4. Please give the discussion and analysis by the economic significance of potential development of tourism in the region. Visit the paper titled “Assessing the economic impact of tourism and verdict ecotourism potential of the coastal belt of purba medinipur district, West Bengal”and can refer it in the concerned section
5. The suggested sites are very interesting and imperative, but the role of Government/NGOs should be mentioned here to ensure their role, contribution and interest in this regard. Some future directions should also be pointed out.
6. The authors can employ the application of AHP methodologies in the framework of GIS to ensure the proposal very interesting and important in the field of tourism. In particular, I recommend reviewing the AHP applications made in the article DOI: 10.3390/su14042422.
7. The selection of criteria and the score is given on which basis. The proportioal importance is determined using which method or logic? Authors needs to clarify. Do the authors consider any experts’ opinion for that?
8. Authors should mention the nature of GIS data source along with the year.
9. In Figure 4, the point shoud be G, rather than H, as mentioned.
1. The methodology can be mentioned/represented in a figure or tabular format/flow pattern for well-acceptance and for easily understand.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “The Integrated Assessment Of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites To Develop Sustainable Tourism. Case Study: Grădina Zmeilor Geomorphosite, North-West Region, Romania”.
We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in blue in the paper.
Overall, the structure of this paper is well organized, and the presentation is clear. However, there are still some crucial problems that need to be carefully addressed before a possible publication. More specifically,
Q1. A deep literature review should be given, particularly regarding remote sensing image processing and analysis techniques. Therefore, the reviewer strongly suggests discussing and analyzing some advanced and latest works by citing the following papers, DOI: 10.3390/su14042422 ; DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-96760-4_28
I have added the citations recommended by you in the bibliography.
Acharya, A.; Mondal, B.K.; Bhadra, T.; Abdelrahman, K.; Mishra, P.K.; Tiwari, A.; Das, R. Geospatial Analysis of Geo-Ecotourism Site Suitability Using AHP and GIS for Sustainable and Resilient Tourism Planning in West Bengal, India. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2422. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042422
Mondal, B.K; Acharya A.; Nandan, T. Assessing the Geo-Ecotourism Potentiality of West Bengal with Special Reference to its Coastal Region Using Geospatial Technology, in Social Morphology, Human Welfare, and Sustainability, Springer International Publishing
Q2. The motivations or remaining challenges are not so clear or what kinds of issues or difficulties is the task that is facing. Please give more details and discussion about the key problems solved in this paper, which is largely different from existing works.
The problem that this study addresses is the lack of planning and protection measures necessary for the tourist sites of interest or tourist sites in general to attract a large number of tourists, but at the same time not to outline an even greater risk of degradation. For the existence of such measures, it is necessary to carry out an analysis of the form in question. So this analysis consists of the quantitative and qualitative assessment that aims at the scientific and socio-cultural aspects that the geomorphosite outlines. After carrying out this evaluation, through the formula proposed by us, the strong points, but also the weak points of the researched form can be highlighted, based on which ideas or sustainable development plans can be proposed for both the geomorphosite and the local space or regionally.
Q3. The contributions of this paper for the development and inspiration of sustainable tourism are not so clear to the reviewer.
This study brings novelty regarding the calculation method used to obtain the total value of the geomorphosite, using the weighted average. What is more, a tourist circuit is presented that includes as a central point the Grădina Zmeilor geomorphosite, which is arranged according to the proposals that I suggested in this study.
Q4. Please give the discussion and analysis by the economic significance of potential development of tourism in the region. Visit the paper titled “Assessing the economic impact of tourism and verdict ecotourism potential of the coastal belt of purba medinipur district, West Bengal”and can refer it in the concerned section.
The arrangement of the Gradina Zmeilor geomorphosite in a modern manner will attract a large number of tourists. At the moment, the geomorphosite faces an acute lack of facilities, both interior and exterior. The location of a restaurant with a playground for children will attract a large number of families who will want to bring their children for fun and relaxation. Also, the idea of placing a cafe within the objective, in the area of a belvedere point, and also the presence of a place to relax, but also of benches also in the area of the belvedere points will provide a unique and story-like landscape for every tourism. All this represents an actual infrastructure of today, which will constitute the engine of the tourist phenomenon, leading to a favorable local and/or even regional economic development.
Q5. The suggested sites are very interesting and imperative, but the role of Government/NGOs should be mentioned here to ensure their role, contribution and interest in this regard. Some future directions should also be pointed out.
In the case of the analyzed site, development measures are not yet taken at the governmental level. The decision-makers involved at the local level are waiting for the analyzed site to be included in the category of nationally important sites in order to be able to propose and develop tourism development projects.
Q6. The authors can employ the application of AHP methodologies in the framework of GIS to ensure the proposal very interesting and important in the field of tourism. In particular, I recommend reviewing the AHP applications made in the article DOI: 10.3390/su14042422.
AHP analysis can be successfully applied in the territory as long as GIS databases are available for each component analyzed separately. In the case of the present study, the analysis is based on the pinpoint identification of dysfunctionalities from an empirical point of view and the issuing of solutions to increase the potential of the site. For now, only databases with three-dimensional characters have been created for the Garden of Dragons. For future research, consider an AHP analysis as all empirical databases will be able to be spatially transposed in the form of GIS databases.
Q7. The selection of criteria and the score is given on which basis. The proportioal importance is determined using which method or logic? Authors needs to clarify. Do the authors consider any experts’ opinion for that?
The score is given on the basis of expert knowledge, taking into account the fact that a large part of the authors of this study come from the immediate vicinity of the studio area and have formed a clear image of the context in which the site is perceived. At the same time, frequent field trips and direct discussions with tourists who visit the site, locals and the local administration made the overall picture even better argued.
Q8. Authors should mention the nature of GIS data source along with the year.
We have added information about the analysis period to the text.
The database purchased for the creation of the three-dimensional model based on photo-grammetry was purchased based on a single flight made on March 25, 2022.
Q9. In Figure 4, the point shoud be G, rather than H, as mentioned.
We made the correction in Figure 4. Thank you!
Q 10. The methodology can be mentioned/represented in a figure or tabular format/flow pattern for well-acceptance and for easily understand.
We added the Metodological Flowchart.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author
Congratulations on your good work. I have reviewed the manuscript id applsci-1881201 'The Integrated Assessment of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites to Develop Sustainable Tourism. Case Study: Grădina Zmeilor Geomorphosite, North-West Region, Romania’. Paper is well written. On the other hand, there are some essential comments authors should consider. Please refer to the appended remarks and submit the revised version for reconsideration.
1. Theoretical Framework: No explicit theoretical/conceptual framework was observed in the study.
2. Concepts: A central concept of the study is not adequately and clearly defined. No new concepts have been added to the discipline.
3. Argument: Central argument is missing? It must be tightly and well written with examples from the global, regional and local levels.
4. Literature review and use of references are inadequate. A deep literature review should be given, particularly regarding remote sensing image processing and analysis techniques used to identify and map geosites. Most references are older than ten years, and only a few new references are cited. Some recently updated references need to be added. Therefore, the reviewer strongly suggests discussing and analyzing some advanced and latest works by citing the following papers, e.g.,
· Sustainability 14(4):2422 doi.org/10.3390/su14042422 (Line 65)
· Land.; 11(2):179 https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020179
5. The title is vague and too lengthy. Try re-writing the title.
6. One more keyword may be added for, e.g. Romania
7. Study Area: There is a need to mention longitude and latitude in the study area.
8. Methodology: A study timeline and a methodological flow chart may add value to the manuscript. Please provide a methodological flowchart.
9. In general, I favour including a definition of geosites, as in the case of geocomposites (Line 42). If both are the same later, the two can be used interchangeably.
10. I want to ask, based on what criteria the representative participants selected (line: 247-249), Please include this information in your article. The data collection date, or at least the year, has not been provided.
11. Resolution of the figures/map should be enhanced. Needs to improve the quality of figures.
12. No information about field verification is provided in the entire manuscript.
13. The limitations of the study are not outlined in the manuscript.
14. References must be rechecked as they lack similar writing styles. In a few references, the year (ref 68 line 764 ) and page number is written confusingly.
15. The practical implacability of the study in any other field of work is missing. Recommendations for future work may add value to the manuscript.
16. The paper must be thoroughly revised, and proper English writing skills should be applied. e.g. Line 221, "Each criterion received a weight should be each criterion was assigned a weight….."
17. Proofreading at many places is required. The author must check the grammar, consistency and flow of the texts in the manuscript before submitting it to a journal for publication.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “The Integrated Assessment Of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites To Develop Sustainable Tourism. Case Study: Grădina Zmeilor Geomorphosite, North-West Region, Romania”.
We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in blue in the paper.
Congratulations on your good work. I have reviewed the manuscript id applsci-1881201 'The Integrated Assessment of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites to Develop Sustainable Tourism. Case Study: Grădina Zmeilor Geomorphosite, North-West Region, Romania’. Paper is well written. On the other hand, there are some essential comments authors should consider. Please refer to the appended remarks and submit the revised version for reconsideration.
Q1. Theoretical Framework: No explicit theoretical/conceptual framework was observed in the study.
Conceptual data about geomorphosites was added to the article and a Flowchart was added for a better understanding of the methodological steps.
Q2. Concepts: A central concept of the study is not adequately and clearly defined. No new concepts have been added to the discipline.
The interdisciplinarity brought out by the analysis of the current situation of the geomorphosite on defining components, the realization of the non-existent GIS databases for this site by means of modern GIS techniques and the proposal of solutions to increase the visibility and attractiveness of the site highlight the degree of complexity of the analysis. Each stage of the analysis is based on its own concept which, integrated, highlights the central point of the study carried out.
Q3. Argument: Central argument is missing? It must be tightly and well written with examples from the global, regional and local levels.
The central argument is presented at the end of the Introductory section. This is a suggestive argument for the existing situation in Romania.
“The main objective of this study is to perform an analysis on Grădina Zmeilor geo-morphosite, to identify and assess the vulnerabilities and risks associated to both geo-morphological processes and tourism activities, and to propose measures for the pro-tection and planning of the geomorphosite. The paper has in view the implementation of infrastructure management and devel-opment plans to stop the territorial problems, the involvement of the local communities to intensify the tourism activities, to increase the tourism attractiveness of the region and therefore the tourism flows.”
Q4. Literature review and use of references are inadequate. A deep literature review should be given, particularly regarding remote sensing image processing and analysis techniques used to identify and map geosites. Most references are older than ten years, and only a few new references are cited. Some recently updated references need to be added. Therefore, the reviewer strongly suggests discussing and analyzing some advanced and latest works by citing the following papers, e.g.,
- Sustainability 14(4):2422 doi.org/10.3390/su14042422 (Line 65)
- Land.; 11(2):179 https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020179
We have added the two articles suggested in the Bibliography.
Acharya, A.; Mondal, B.K.; Bhadra, T.; Abdelrahman, K.; Mishra, P.K.; Tiwari, A.; Das, R. Geospatial Analysis of Geo-Ecotourism Site Suitability Using AHP and GIS for Sustainable and Resilient Tourism Planning in West Bengal, India. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2422. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042422
Mishra, P.K.; Rai, A.; Abdelrahman, K.; Rai, S.C.; Tiwari, A. Land Degradation, Overland Flow, Soil Erosion, and Nutrient Loss in the Eastern Himalayas, India. Land 2022, 11, 179. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020179
Q5. The title is vague and too lengthy. Try re-writing the title.
We want to keep the title in its current form because we want to develop the analysis on a larger scale based only on UAV and GIS analysis. Thank you for understanding!
Q6. One more keyword may be added for, e.g. Romania
Thanks for the suggestion, we added Romania to the keywords.
Q7. Study Area: There is a need to mention longitude and latitude in the study area.
Thanks for the suggestion, we have added to the study area the longitude and latitude at which the geomorphosite is placed but Figure 1 had coordinates. The central geographic coordinates of the area are 47º 12' 15" lat.N and 23º 17' 50" long. E.
Q8. Methodology: A study timeline and a methodological flow chart may add value to the manuscript. Please provide a methodological flowchart.
Thank you! We added a Flow chard for the Metodologies.
Q9. In general, I favour including a definition of geosites, as in the case of geocomposites (Line 42). If both are the same later, the two can be used interchangeably.
Thank you for your suggestion, we have also added the definition of geosites to the text.
Geosites like geomorphosites, represent those landforms that constitute elements of scientific, cultural, economic, historical, socio-cultural diversity and on which quantitative and qualitative evaluations can be made.
Q 10. Resolution of the figures/map should be enhanced. Needs to improve the quality of figures.
Figures are exported at 300 dpi resolution. If necessary, they will be uploaded as additional files.
Q 11. No information about field verification is provided in the entire manuscript.
Thank you for your observation, but in the results stage, the precarious infrastructure currently existing at the analyzed objective is specified. Likewise, it is also stated that questionnaires were applied to the people met at geomorphosit. From these aspects, it can be deduced that this material was drafted following the confrontation with the reality on the field.
[…The existing infrastructure, both at the entrance to the site, and within the site, is marked by insufficient facilities for the support of tourism activities, visits and leisure. At the limit of the site, there is a parking lot for 20 cars, and a garbage can is at the entrance to the site. There are 5 garbage cans within the site, and an old-style toilet (latrine). There is a gravel road leading to the panoramic viewpoints, and stairs are used to climb to the viewpoints. The stairs are partly cemented, while a number of them (no more than 10) are made of wood. A gazebo stands near the first panoramic viewpoint. Apart from all these, there are signs bearing the name of some of the formations (Cleopatra’s Needle, the Soldier, for example). The value given for this criterion is 0.25. The recorded tourism flows are between 51 and 100 tourists daily, taking in consideration also Saturdays and Sundays. A survey has been performed among the people met at the site, and it came out that most of these people considered that a single visit to this attraction is enough from their point of view….]
Q 13. The limitations of the study are not outlined in the manuscript.
We added in the text:
The present study is based on the point analysis of a geomorphosite of local-regional importance.
The presented analysis method involves some limitations from the point of view of the analysis based on the weighted average of the integration of the elements that define or highlight the quality of the analyzed geomorphosite. The involvement in the analysis of all the elements presented can be supported in other analyzes for similar sites, but the weights of importance used in the integration of the components will undergo changes depending on the local, regional or national impact of the site that will be analyzed. The limitations are highlighted both by the non-existence of numerical and spatial databases that contribute to the realization of the studies, as well as by the subjective perception of tourists related to a certain site.
Regarding the restrictiveness induced for the creation of the three-dimensional data-bases, it should be highlighted that national and international legislation imposes re-strictions on the use of UAV equipment in certain areas. In the present case, the analyzed site is not in the protection zone for drone flight, thus there is no limitation from this point of view and allowing the easy creation of high-resolution 3D spatial databases.
Q 14. References must be rechecked as they lack similar writing styles. In a few references, the year (ref 68 line 764 ) and page number is written confusingly.
I have modified the quote from page 5. Thanks!
[1, 5, 6, 41, 71]
Q 15. The practical implacability of the study in any other field of work is missing. Recommendations for future work may add value to the manuscript.
This is a representative study, as it may be applied in assessing other tourism attractions, no matter the geological bedrock on which they are developed.
Considering the fact that we want the development of this studio, as we mentioned before, we want this studio to become a background for the next studio that will have an applied character both in the field of dynamic geomorphology and in the tourism field. The main results of the study will provide a general framework for the analysis of local public authorities for their integrated development.
Q 16. The paper must be thoroughly revised, and proper English writing skills should be applied. e.g. Line 221, "Each criterion received a weight should be each criterion was assigned a weight….."
Thank you!
We made the correction!
Q 17. Proofreading at many places is required. The author must check the grammar, consistency and flow of the texts in the manuscript before submitting it to a journal for publication.
Thank you!
We made the correction!
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
The authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript "The Integrated Assessment Of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites To Develop Sustainable Tourism. Case Study: Grădina Zmeilor Geomorphosite, North-West Region, Romania". In this context, I recommend that the authors consider a variety of remarks. Appreciably, I invite the authors to assess the mentioned comments.
Abstract:
Major comments: The authors should include information about the studied geomorphosite (the name, location, main features, etc.) and the conclusions of the research.
Page 1, row 14-15: Are you sure this statement applies to all natural geomorphosites?
Page 1: row 17-21: The sentence is quite long and a bit unclear - please, clarify.
Keywords:
To increase access to your manuscript via online search engines, I suggest choosing keywords other than those in the title.
Introduction:
As highlighted by the authors, geomorphosites may have different values and uses. Therefore, I suggest the authors include a further discussion on the benefits and possible threats of the different uses to the integrity of the geomorphosite.
How do the authors think that the management and sustainable use of the researched geomorphosite can contribute to the dissemination and sustainable development of the region?
The title of the paper and its objective are not aligned. If the central part of the paper is "The Integrated Assessment Of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites To Develop Sustainable Tourism ", why is the proposal of the method to evaluate degraded geomorphosites not among the objectives of the research?
Materials and methods:
2.1 Study area: I suggest presenting the location of the geomorphosite and then the main geological and geomorphological aspects that make the geomorphosite important for the region. Why is this geomorphosite significant beyond the tourism potential?
Figure 1: You should mention Figures 1A and 1B separately in the text. Please redraw the maps because they are of low quality and with a lot of information that is not needed or explored. For example, what does "UAT Balan" mean? All acronyms in the text or figures should be explained.
I think it is essential to include some pictures of the geomorphological features of the geomorphosite; otherwise, readers from countries other than Romania will not be able to understand the values assigned in the evaluation process.
2.2 Methodological approach: Please, provide more details on each and separate the explanation according to the two methods applied for this study.
GIS methodology: explain each step, from image acquisition to analysis.
Assessment of geomorphosite: this aspect should be highlighted because other researchers can apply the method proposed in this paper. The methodological procedures should include all the criteria and parameters exposed in the results sections, so that the readers can understand and apply the proposed formulas and weights.
Furthermore, it is essential to highlight that this method can be applied in other geomorphosites and not only to the one studied.
Results:
In this section, there is a mixture of methods and results. For example, page 7 (row 289-294) is really the description of the methods applied. So please revise it and separate well the methods and the results.
Figure 2 and 3: it should be better designed because it is impossible to read the text under the features.
I suggest that the tables should be redrawn, including only the assigned values and the final results, thus making it easier to compare the data (i.e. Sce, Eco, Cult, etc.).
Discussion:
This section mainly presents the proposed tourism route without discussing the data presented in the results section. Therefore, please, include these data and correlate it with the proposed route.
In the authors' opinion, which stakeholders would be responsible for building and managing the proposed infrastructure? By increasing tourism, as proposed by the authors, is there not a risk of further degrading the geomorphosite and consequently decreasing the value obtained in the quantitative assessment?
Conclusion:
The conclusion must be rewritten because, as it currently stands, it is a summary of what was presented throughout the manuscript. It needs to present the importance of the study for the region and the scientific community as a whole.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “The Integrated Assessment Of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites To Develop Sustainable Tourism. Case Study: Grădina Zmeilor Geomorphosite, North-West Region, Romania”.
We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in blue in the paper.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript "The Integrated Assessment Of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites To Develop Sustainable Tourism. Case Study: Grădina Zmeilor Geomorphosite, North-West Region, Romania". In this context, I recommend that the authors consider a variety of remarks. Appreciably, I invite the authors to assess the mentioned comments.
Abstract:
Q.1. Major comments: The authors should include information about the studied geomorphosite (the name, location, main features, etc.) and the conclusions of the research.
We added information about the studied geomorphosite in the abstract.
Q2. Page 1, row 14-15: Are you sure this statement applies to all natural geomorphosites?
We corrected. Thank you!
Q3. Page 1: row 17-21: The sentence is quite long and a bit unclear - please, clarify.
We corrected the sentence.
Keywords:
Q4. To increase access to your manuscript via online search engines, I suggest choosing keywords other than those in the title.
We added
Introduction:
Q5. As highlighted by the authors, geomorphosites may have different values and uses. Therefore, I suggest the authors include a further discussion on the benefits and possible threats of the different uses to the integrity of the geomorphosite.
Regarding to your question that goes to the application of this study to other degraded natural geomorphosites, it is possible, because through this work other aspects of interest can be followed, not only those of a geomorphological nature (example: historical, cultural, economic etc.). Everything depends on the researcher`s perception, what he wants to obtain and what he aims to highlight. The idea in lines 17-21 wants to highlight the fact that following the development and planning proposals we offer, we will obtain a total value greater than the previous one, a value we obtained at the beginning of the research. This aspect underlines the fact that our proposals are fruitful and useful in terms of the sustainable development of the site.
Q6. How do the authors think that the management and sustainable use of the researched geomorphosite can contribute to the dissemination and sustainable development of the region?
The inappropriate use of geomorphosite without taking into account the degree to which it can be exploited, can lead to intense and irreparable degradation of the site, leading to its total or almost total destruction. On the other hand, if the capitalization is carried out consciously, taking into account the limits up to which the site can be exploited, benefits and positive results can be obtained, which will lead to the increase of the importance of the site, raising the level of interest from the point of view of tourism point of view, but also the increase of the economic impact in a positive sense within the development area.
Q7. The title of the paper and its objective are not aligned. If the central part of the paper is "The Integrated Assessment Of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites To Develop Sustainable Tourism ", why is the proposal of the method to evaluate degraded geomorphosites not among the objectives of the research?
The authors are of the opinion that through the proposed management and the sustainable use of the geomorphosite, benefits can be brought in terms of the sustainable development of the region because by making the proposals for the development of the site as modern and attractive as possible, it will be able be included in the objectives of major tourist interest in Salaj county. This fact leads to the increase in the attractiveness of the area or even the region, the increase in the number of tourists and the economic development of the development area.
The evaluation method that we propose and through which we highlight the negative aspects, but also the positive ones (through a subjective perception) of the geomorphosite searched, we do not consider it to be an objective, but a tool that we use to outline and achieves the proposed objective, namely to carry out an analysis of the Garden of Kites geomorphosite that includes the analysis of the vulnerabilities and dysfunctions it presents. Based on the results obtained from the previous analysis, our goal is to propose ideas and measures for protection, but also for the development of the objective, which will lead to a sustainable and sustainable development of both the researched form and the region.
Materials and methods:
Q8. 2.1 Study area: I suggest presenting the location of the geomorphosite and then the main geological and geomorphological aspects that make the geomorphosite important for the region. Why is this geomorphosite significant beyond the tourism potential?
We made the suggestions aimed at adding additional information about the location of the geomorphosite, as well as presenting the geological-geomorphological importance of the site, in addition to the touristic one. The Grădina Zmeilor geomorphosite is a protected natural area (category IV of the IUCN), of geological and landscape type, being located approximately 700 m from the DN 1G road, located in the western part of the village of Gâlgăul Almașului, in Bălan commune, Sălaj county. The central geographic coordinates of the area are 47º 12' 15" lat.N and 23º 17' 50" long. E. This tourist objective is highly important from a geomorphological point of view, thanks to the geological substrate on which it is developed, namely on sandstones and conglomerates. The strata with sedimentary rocks, with a wide extension in the area, are included in the "Almașului Valley Group" which includes the "Sânmihai Strata", "Chechiş Strata", "Hida Strata" and others, all these stratotypes having their description classic in Sălaj, on Almaşului Valley. The strata are slightly inclined to the southeast (8 – 10º) towards the center of the Transylvanian Depression.
As a result of the tectonic movements in the Neocene, fissures and diaclase occurred within the rock packs, having an orientation in two directions, one direction NW - SE, and another NE – SW [27,65,66]. These cracks have played an important role in terms of the evolution of the relief within the researched objective .
Q9. Figure 1: You should mention Figures 1A and 1B separately in the text. Please redraw the maps because they are of low quality and with a lot of information that is not needed or explored. For example, what does "UAT Balan" mean? All acronyms in the text or figures should be explained.
UAT Balan was corrected in TAB _territorial Administrativ Boundary Balan .
Q 10. I think it is essential to include some pictures of the geomorphological features of the geomorphosite; otherwise, readers from countries other than Romania will not be able to understand the values assigned in the evaluation process.
We added some pictures in Figure 2.
Q 11. 2.2 Methodological approach: Please, provide more details on each and separate the explanation according to the two methods applied for this study. GIS methodology: explain each step, from image acquisition to analysis.
We added the metofological flowchart and the necessary informations.
Q12. Assessment of geomorphosite: this aspect should be highlighted because other researchers can apply the method proposed in this paper. The methodological procedures should include all the criteria and parameters exposed in the results sections, so that the readers can understand and apply the proposed formulas and weights. Furthermore, it is essential to highlight that this method can be applied in other geomorphosites and not only to the one studied.
The information that this method can be applied in other geomorphosites and not only to the one studied was added in the Conclusion Section.
Results:
Q 13. In this section, there is a mixture of methods and results. For example, page 7 (row 289-294) is really the description of the methods applied. So please revise it and separate well the methods and the results.
The proposed methodology includes the criteria and parameters based on which the evaluation is carried out, excluding the sub-criteria in which it is classified. We opted for adding sub-criteria only to the results, because we would have repeated the same thing twice, and within the results we carried out the site evaluation work, unlike the methodology, where we only presented in general what we will follow and based on which criteria we will evaluate.
We made the modification aimed at implementing the proposed method for other geomorphosites as well.
The method we propose in this work, we believe can be applied to other objectives that are in the process of degradation, and that can also be analyzed in the same way, in order to establish the major problems they face, and of the adoption of the immediate and necessary measures to prevent the total degradation of the geomorphosite, so that later for a good development of the objective (from a tourist point of view) sustainable development proposals can be suggested.
We reviewed page 7 (row 289-294) and made the suggested changes, so that we separated the methods from the results, in order to better understand the way we will carry out the proposed analysis.
Q 14. Figure 2 and 3: it should be better designed because it is impossible to read the text under the features.
We have added additional information for Figures 2 and 3.
Q 15. I suggest that the tables should be redrawn, including only the assigned values and the final results, thus making it easier to compare the data (i.e. Sce, Eco, Cult, etc.).
Thank you for the suggestion, but we would like to keep the format of the tables because the proposed methodology can be applied to other geomorphosites and from our point of view the score on each analyzed subcomponent is important in the 1 to 1 comparison process.
Discussion:
Q 16. This section mainly presents the proposed tourism route without discussing the data presented in the results section. Therefore, please, include these data and correlate it with the proposed route.
By creating the tourist circuit, we want to highlight how the proposals that we have offered in this work could be used, proposals that outline a sustainable and sustainable development of the objective, but also of the development region. I introduced in this section the results that we analyzed in the results category, outlining a new analysis on the 4th essential criteria for which it was possible to implement the ideas proposed by us. Thus, in the end, from the 0.29 final value that we obtained at the beginning without applying the suggestions for the development of the objective, following their application we achieved an increase in the total value of the geomorphosite, namely 0.33, thus highlighting the usefulness of the highlighted proposals.
From our point of view the parties interested and responsible for the construction and management of the proposed infrastructure are the local authorities (city hall), as well as the county council. They are responsible for the application of necessary management plans, both for the flourishing of the local and even regional economy, but also for stopping the destruction of an important and interesting geographical objective.
Q 17. In the authors' opinion, which stakeholders would be responsible for building and managing the proposed infrastructure? By increasing tourism, as proposed by the authors, is there not a risk of further degrading the geomorphosite and consequently decreasing the value obtained in the quantitative assessment?
By increasing the number of tourists following the development of the geomorphosite through the proposals made, the site will not be degraded over time, because the development proposals were deliberated taking into account all the positive and negative aspects of the geomorphosite. So, the layouts aimed at creating a restaurant with a playground for children, the presence of an electrical charging station for electric cars, a picnic area, a coffee shop, etc., were designed in such a way that the geological substrate is not affected to outline vulnerabilities, The presence of a large number of tourists within the objective will not lead to the degradation of the site because all of them will be located in the safest and most favorable areas for the realization of an arrangement, and the premises that will be the most populated will be located in the outer part of the Grădina Zmeilor.
Conclusion:
Q 18. The conclusion must be rewritten because, as it currently stands, it is a summary of what was presented throughout the manuscript. It needs to present the importance of the study for the region and the scientific community as a whole.
We modified the conclusions following the suggestions you gave us, and we introduced the modification in the text
Due to the way of formation and the geological substratum that was the basis for the appearance of the real garden, it can be placed in the top of the tourist attractions of major interest in Romania. In order for the tourism phenomenon to be sustainable, but at the same time sustainable for the area where the objective is carried out, and even for the objective itself, it is necessary, first of all, to carry out a detailed inventory analysis of the objective through which to highlight the points strengths and weaknesses of geomorphosite. They must be divided in such a way that both aspects of scientific interest and aspects of socio-cultural interest are analyzed.
Following this analysis, and following the results obtained, the second important step consists in the proposal of development plans/ideas with the help of which the researched site will be placed on the map of the tourist attractions as a central point within the tourist circuits, leading to the attraction a large number of tourists. The high tourist flow will lead to both local and regional economic development.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
The authors
Reviewer 4 Report
SUMMARY
This paper is about the assessment of the geomorphosite, using a complex methodology based on the identification of criteria influencing the tourism development and their analysis by means of qualitative points, according to the impact of the 17 criteria that were identified (structured along four levels of analysis and integrated in the form of spatial analysis based on weighted average).
FINDINGS
A total value of 0.29 has been obtained in an interval between 0 and 1, underlining the high degree of degradation of the geomorphosite.
In order to increase the overall value of the geomorphosite, proposals have been made to mitigate the shortcomings for 4 criteria.
The overall value of the geomorphosite was recalculated, resulting an increase up to 0.33, high-lighting the impact of the implementation of these proposals and the increase of its level of tourism attractiveness.
STRENGTHS
The article is structured in a clear and concise way. The introduction gives a correct background, and the figures, tables and mathematical expressions facilitate the reading of the paper.
WEAKNESSES
The paper is well organized and correctly addresses the subject of study. Only one minor change would be necessary for the acceptance of the manuscript. Thus, presentation of the article could be improved:
- Figure 4 is not mentioned in the text of the article.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “The Integrated Assessment Of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites To Develop Sustainable Tourism. Case Study: Grădina Zmeilor Geomorphosite, North-West Region, Romania”.
We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in blue in the paper.
SUMMARY
This paper is about the assessment of the geomorphosite, using a complex methodology based on the identification of criteria influencing the tourism development and their analysis by means of qualitative points, according to the impact of the 17 criteria that were identified (structured along four levels of analysis and integrated in the form of spatial analysis based on weighted average).
FINDINGS
A total value of 0.29 has been obtained in an interval between 0 and 1, underlining the high degree of degradation of the geomorphosite.
In order to increase the overall value of the geomorphosite, proposals have been made to mitigate the shortcomings for 4 criteria.
The overall value of the geomorphosite was recalculated, resulting an increase up to 0.33, high-lighting the impact of the implementation of these proposals and the increase of its level of tourism attractiveness.
STRENGTHS
The article is structured in a clear and concise way. The introduction gives a correct background, and the figures, tables and mathematical expressions facilitate the reading of the paper.
WEAKNESSES
The paper is well organized and correctly addresses the subject of study. Only one minor change would be necessary for the acceptance of the manuscript. Thus, presentation of the article could be improved:
Thank you for appreciating our article! We appreciate it!
Q1. Figure 4 is not mentioned in the text of the article.
We added the citation for article 4 in the text. Thank you!
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
The authors
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author/s
Thanks for your revision and incorporating the suggestion. The manuscript is improved, and its readability is good. I congratulate you on the good work.
