A Nature Tourism Route through GIS to Improve the Visibility of the Natural Resources of the Altar Volcano, Sangay National Park, Ecuador

Reviewer 1

Line

Comment

Action

New Line

Introduction

182

The methodology section can be improved. Section 2.2.1. Isn't available.

Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion, the authors have corrected the error in the sections.

166

242

Could be also interesting a figure with the methodological framework carried out to get the research results.

Thank you for your comment. We included a figure of the structural design of the research in general, which involves the methodological section suggested by you. This allowed us to improve the manuscript.

163-165

Reviewer 2

Line

Comment

Action

New Line

Introduction

---

In my opinion, this working paper deals with a very interesting topic. The methods used and the outcomes seem appropriate to me, as well as the conclusions. However, a couple of improvements could be made: a brief section about this topic (literature review) between the introduction and methods used section

The methodology was updated and the procedure for selecting sites of tourist interest was explained. Dear reviewer, your comment is very important and helped to improve our manuscript. We appreciate this, but we felt it was better to include it in the new section 2.2.1 which corresponds to the Mapping where the literature review was applied.

166

169 - 174

---

Consider putting the study limitations and future research lines in a sub-section

Thanks for the suggestion, the section has been updated and separated by paragraphs in a clear way.

419-426

Reviewer 3

Line

Comment

Action

New Line

Introduction

---

The Abstract is clear and understandable. The Introduction is well written and covers significant works of the international literature.

The Materials and Methods are clear and comprehensive.

The Results are very well presented and visually displayed so as to be better understood by the reader.

The Discussions and Conclusions are significant.

Dear reviewer, thank you for your encouraging comments, it motivates us to continue working.

---

However, there are two questions to be addressed to the authors which are not affecting the overall quality of the paper. It is up to the authors to take them into consideration in this paper or within a future research.

(1) It is not clear if the distance between the touristic attractions that can be seen from viewpoints, but cannot be visited directly from the route, and the corresponding viewpoints is calculated in a 2D space (map) or in a 3D space (terrain). In a very rough terrain the difference between those two distances is quite important. ArcGIS software has the ability to calculate distances in a 3D space using the Digital Terrain Model in the ArcGIS 3D Analyst module.

Thank you for your comment. It was clarified in the results into the section “Design of Tourist Route”

254 – 256

(2) Why were the two routes limited to only two days? Are the objectives 6,7,8,13,15,16,19 so difficult to reach that they cannot be visited or are there certain restrictions imposed by the fact that the routes cross protected areas?

It was clarified and updated in the itinerary of the route.

314 – 316