Assessment of the Recreational Potential of Flooded Quarries in Slovakia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study of the recreational potential tourism value of abandoned quarries is meaningful. However, regarding the content of this manuscript, there are some questions that need to be addressed or explained.
1. The subject of the study seems more focused on flooded quarries; perhaps the title and keywords should be more specific.
2. In sections 1 and 2, the value of physical and mental well-being is mentioned but does not materialize in subsequent evaluations.
3. The potential assessment mentioned in the literature review includes three parts, the attractiveness, accessibility, and suitability (LINE 127). The physical, social, and environmental contributions of the WSM method for tourism potential assessment (LINE155-156), as well as indicators for evaluating landscape attractiveness such as vertical differentiation, natural succession, conservation status, boundary contrasts, water presence, and accessibility (LINE182-183) were not utilized in the manuscript's evaluation. An explanation is needed as to why the indicators were chosen in section 3.
4. Section 2.2 Opportunities for Land Use Following Mining Activities, what is the relationship of this section with the study? For example, environmental restoration (217-223), cultural and educational values (LINE224-231), etc., mentioned within.
5. Materials and Methods: Firstly, the experimental methods and processes need to be clearly described. What kind of experimental steps were taken?
6. Why is the evaluation system for flooded mining areas separate in 3.1 Method 1? This needs an explanation.
7. Accessibility measurement in research typically involves either panel data or surveys. From the known experimental procedures so far, the Option and Point Value in Table 1 seem too subjective. Methods can refer to: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.035, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01808-x, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127498, and combine the important indicators mentioned in the literature review for clear categorization.
8. In section 3.2 Method 2, how does it relate to the WSM method mentioned earlier for calculating tourism and potential recreation?
9. In the discussion and conclusion sections, how can other studies benefit from these results? A deeper discussion is needed, especially regarding how countries with low utilization rates of abandoned quarries can gain valuable references and insights.
10. Currently, the research outcome is considered too ambitious in "improving local tourism infrastructure and promoting sustainable development."
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Comments 1: The subject of the study seems more focused on flooded quarries; perhaps the title and keywords should be more specific.
Response 1: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Comments 2: In sections 1 and 2, the value of physical and mental well-being is mentioned but does not materialize in subsequent evaluations.
Response 2: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Comments 3: The potential assessment mentioned in the literature review includes three parts, the attractiveness, accessibility, and suitability (LINE 127). The physical, social, and environmental contributions of the WSM method for tourism potential assessment (LINE155-156), as well as indicators for evaluating landscape attractiveness such as vertical differentiation, natural succession, conservation status, boundary contrasts, water presence, and accessibility (LINE182-183) were not utilized in the manuscript's evaluation. An explanation is needed as to why the indicators were chosen in section 3.
Response 3: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Comments 4: Section 2.2 Opportunities for Land Use Following Mining Activities, what is the relationship of this section with the study? For example, environmental restoration (217-223), cultural and educational values (LINE224-231), etc., mentioned within.
Response 4: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Comments 5: Materials and Methods: Firstly, the experimental methods and processes need to be clearly described. What kind of experimental steps were taken?
Response 5: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Comments 6: Why is the evaluation system for flooded mining areas separate in 3.1 Method 1? This needs an explanation.
Response 6: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Comments 7: Accessibility measurement in research typically involves either panel data or surveys. From the known experimental procedures so far, the Option and Point Value in Table 1 seem too subjective. Methods can refer to: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.035, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01808-x, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127498, and combine the important indicators mentioned in the literature review for clear categorization.
Response 7: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Comments 8: In section 3.2 Method 2, how does it relate to the WSM method mentioned earlier for calculating tourism and potential recreation?
Response 8: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Comments 9: In the discussion and conclusion sections, how can other studies benefit from these results? A deeper discussion is needed, especially regarding how countries with low utilization rates of abandoned quarries can gain valuable references and insights.
Response 9: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Comments 10: Currently, the research outcome is considered too ambitious in "improving local tourism infrastructure and promoting sustainable development."
Response 10: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study aims to thoroughly assess the recreational potential of selected abandoned quarries in Slovakia, with a focus on the Skrabské, Beňatina, and Kraľovany quarries. The methodology assigns specific point values to each quarry based on factors like natural beauty, accessibility, existing infrastructure, and ecological conditions. However, the paper has several areas that could be improved:
1. While the abstract mentions the exploration of quarries for recreational use, it fails to address the underlying research challenges or the motivations behind the study.
2. In Method 2, the authors introduce a formula to express "tourism potential," but they should offer a clearer explanation of how the formula works and whether the inclusion of weights is necessary.
3. The Results section lacks a comparative analysis with similar evaluation approaches, presenting only a basic "comprehensive evaluation of recreational potential."
4. The "Comprehensive Assessment of Recreational Potential" section does not specify the data sources or the preprocessing techniques used.
5. The study seeks to assess the recreational potential of abandoned quarries in Slovakia and their ability to attract and serve both locals and visitors, but the conclusions drawn should be backed by numerical analysis.
6. The quality and clarity of the figures throughout the paper need improvement.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Comments 1: While the abstract mentions the exploration of quarries for recreational use, it fails to address the underlying research challenges or the motivations behind the study.
Response 1: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Comments 2: In Method 2, the authors introduce a formula to express "tourism potential," but they should offer a clearer explanation of how the formula works and whether the inclusion of weights is necessary.
Response 2: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Comments 3: The Results section lacks a comparative analysis with similar evaluation approaches, presenting only a basic "comprehensive evaluation of recreational potential."
Response 3: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Commets 4: The "Comprehensive Assessment of Recreational Potential" section does not specify the data sources or the preprocessing techniques used.
Response 4: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Comments 5: The study seeks to assess the recreational potential of abandoned quarries in Slovakia and their ability to attract and serve both locals and visitors, but the conclusions drawn should be backed by numerical analysis.
Response 5: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Comments 6: The quality and clarity of the figures throughout the paper need improvement.
Response 6: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form.
