Geographic Information System in the Optimization of Tourist Routes in the City of Faro (Algarve, Portugal)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Report for the paper entitled "Geographic Information System in the Optimization of Tourist 2 Routes in the City of Faro (Algarve, Portugal)".

Abstract: The objective of this paper is to design the best routes, both in terms of time and distance, to visit 54 historical heritage sites in Faro while walking and riding e-scooters. By reducing CO2 emissions and promoting healthier, greener travel, the implementation of these routes supports environmental sustainability. Using vector data from OpenStreetMap and the Network Analyst plugin, the route was optimized in ArcGIS. The results showed that some routes could be completed in one or more days, depending on visitors' availability, physical abilities, and transportation.

Opinion: The paper is simple in the sense of easy to read and clear. It is well written. The contribution is strong and opens the doors for similar studies in other places. The plan to include the planning of personalized routes for each visitor by creating an intelligent system implemented in a mobile application is interesting.

o The sizes of figures 2-16 can be reduced, they are not central in the paper. However, Figures 17-22 need to be larger as they are central and a bit small.

o Define 𝑑(𝑣,𝑢) with mathematics. It is a big vague presently.

o Provide more details and references on the Network Analyst extension in ArcMap 10.8,

o Provide more details and references on the Dijkstra algorithm. Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is fine.

Author Response

We appreciate the valuable comments. The responses to the comments are in the attached PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author, thank you for submitting your manuscript. I have reviewed it and believe it aligns well with the scope of our journal. To further enhance the quality of your paper, I would like to suggest the following revisions:

 

a. Currently, Table 1 is quite extensive and may not be necessary in its full length within the main text. To improve readability and conserve space, you might consider relocating this table to the supplementary materials. Alternatively, if the table must remain in the main text, reformatting it into a double-column layout could make it more concise and less disruptive to the flow of the manuscript.

 

b. The current use of numerous images to depict the structures in the methods section seems excessive. Reducing the number of images and combining them into a single figure would streamline the section and enhance its clarity. Label each part of the combined image with (a), (b), (c), etc., to maintain clarity while reducing visual clutter.

 

c. I recommend separating the results and discussion into distinct sections. This separation typically helps clarify the findings by presenting them independently from their interpretation. In the results section, focus solely on presenting the data and findings. Then, in the discussion section, interpret these findings, compare them with existing literature, and explore their implications.

 

d. The analysis provided in the results section is currently too brief and lacks depth. Expanding this section would provide a more thorough understanding of the data and its significance.

 

I hope these suggestions help in enhancing the manuscript and look forward to your revised submission.

Author Response

We appreciate the valuable comments. The responses to the comments are in the attached PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper concentrates on the application of GIS to create and optimize routes in Faro in the Algarve that should help tourists to visit all the 54 important historical heritage monuments of the city [31 of them in the city center and 24 outside the center (31 +24=55!!)] in an efficient, quick, and at the same time environment-friendly  way, as pedestrians or with e-scooters. Many of the heritage monuments are described in the article and represented pictorially (in about two thirds of the paper which leaves only  about one third for the actual analysis!).

GIS tools are used to select the optimal routes for accessing the places of heritage interest in Faro.The offered results are based on a theoretical approximate  stay of five minutes at each site (Can one generalize in such way?) and a distance of 17.35 km km to be covered which leads to  5 hours and 40 minutes needed for tourists using an escooter with an average speed of 15km/h to see each of the 54 monuments. For pedestrians with an average speed of 3 km/h more than 10 hours will be needed. When divided into two routes, one with the 31 monuments in the old city and another with the 24 monuments in the area outside the urban center, the optimal routes measure 6.16 km and 11.31 kilometres, respectively. If tourists choose to visit the 31 and 24 monuments separately using an electric vehicle, it will take them 3 hours and 2 hours 45 minutes respectively. Walking tourists will be able to visit these monuments in 4 hours 45 minutes and 5 hours 45 minutes respectively. 

Altogether, the paper offers interesting, general possibilities to support tourists in their aim to visit heritage sites in urban communities in an efficient, quick and ecological way. The authors are aware of the fact that any topographical differences and possible difficulties for tourists with mobility problems are not considered in their study and will have to be taken into account in further research. It can also be seen as problematic that the article concentrates in its first part so much on offering descriptions and images of Faro's heritage sites which certainly is not the actual aim of the paper. It is suggested to reduce them and stay with, perhaps still more detailed, demonstration of the methods and performance of the used ArcGIS applications. It is also suggested to enlarge a number of maps, as it is not possible to recognize the texts on some of the.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language seems to be o.k. Only on page 23, in the conclusion, one finds a sentence that is completely in Portuguese:  "A rota ideal para visitar os 54 locais históricos constitui um circuito fechado com uma distância de 17,35 kilometres."

Author Response

We appreciate the valuable comments. The responses to the comments are in the attached PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I regret to say that the authors have rejected my suggestions regarding the separation of the results and discussion sections, as well as enhancing the results section, in their response letter.

Furthermore, I found that the modifications made in the revised manuscript are minimal; the authors have merely merged some figures, and the content remains superficial.

In my previous review, I emphasized the importance of separating the results from the discussion. The results section should focus solely on the findings of the study, and it is clear that the current manuscript falls significantly short in this regard. The sparse discussion does not adequately highlight the differences and distinctions from previous research.

In summary, due to the authors' lack of consideration for the reviewers' comments and their failure to make substantial revisions, I believe that the quality of the current manuscript does not meet the standards of this journal.

Author Response

We appreciate the valuable comments. The responses to the comments are in the attached PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no other comments, just I suggest that the authors consider submitting the manuscript to polish the language, as many sentences are fragmentary, for informational purposes only.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest that the authors consider submitting the manuscript to polish the language, as many sentences are fragmentary, for informational purposes only.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The authors thank the reviewer for the time devoted to reviewing the manuscript and for their comments and valuable suggestions, which have contributed to improving our work. The authors have carefully to polish the English and defragmented the sentences

Sincerely,

The authors