Morphometric Analysis of Trail Network and Tourist Vulnerability in a Highly Frequented Protected Area

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study aims to identify the factors that have led to accidents along the trail network basing on high detail DTM and on the accidents database, this being the main research question. The topic is original and relevant to the field, but does not address a specific knowledge gap. The authors fail to show the addition made by their findings to the subject area compared with other published materials. The methodology is sound, appropriate, and well presented, requiring no changes. The references, tables and figures are appropriate. The article itself is interesting and could make an important contribution to the field, but unfortunately in its current form the manuscript lacks research depth, visible by a focus on the case study rather than the research issue and the descriptive presentation, lacking an analytical touch, proved by a literature review carried in a non-critical way and poor discussions, and, in general, by focusing more on the case study than on its broader significance and contribution of findings to the theoretical advancement of the field. Thus, the manuscript requires a strong development of these sections. Detailed suggestions are provided for each section of manuscript.
1. Provide a critical analysis of the reviewed literature in the introduction, meant to show the need for research and place current research in the framework of existing shortcomings. So far, the authors only present other studies, without analyzing them, and then state their research goals, without any obvious connection with what was done before. The analysis should target errors, misconceptions, lacks, gaps, controversies and debates, where the current study may make a contribution. Adding a paragraph dealing with all these before stating the research goals is sufficient.
2. Develop the discussions. This section is meant to emphasize the importance of findings, justifying their publication. Normally, this section includes include (A) the significance of results - what do they say, in scientific terms; (B) the inner validation of results, against the study goals or hypotheses; (C) the external validation of results, against those of similar studies from other countries, identified in the literature; (D) the importance of results, meaning their contribution (conceptual or methodological) to the theoretical advancement of the field; (E) a summary of the study limitations and directions for overcoming them in the future research. In this article, discussions deal only with the significance of results; the other points must be addressed too.

Author Response

The study aims to identify the factors that have led to accidents along the trail network basing on high detail DTM and on the accidents database, this being the main research question. The topic is original and relevant to the field, but does not address a specific knowledge gap. The authors fail to show the addition made by their findings to the subject area compared with other published materials. The methodology is sound, appropriate, and well presented, requiring no changes. The references, tables and figures are appropriate. The article itself is interesting and could make an important contribution to the field, but unfortunately in its current form the manuscript lacks research depth, visible by a focus on the case study rather than the research issue and the descriptive presentation, lacking an analytical touch, proved by a literature review carried in a non-critical way and poor discussions, and, in general, by focusing more on the case study than on its broader significance and contribution of findings to the theoretical advancement of the field. Thus, the manuscript requires a strong development of these sections. Detailed suggestions are provided for each section of manuscript.

1. Provide a critical analysis of the reviewed literature in the introduction, meant to show the need for research and place current research in the framework of existing shortcomings. So far, the authors only present other studies, without analyzing them, and then state their research goals, without any obvious connection with what was done before. The analysis should target errors, misconceptions, lacks, gaps, controversies and debates, where the current study may make a contribution. Adding a paragraph dealing with all these before stating the research goals is sufficient.
2. Develop the discussions. This section is meant to emphasize the importance of findings, justifying their publication. Normally, this section includes include (A) the significance of results - what do they say, in scientific terms; (B) the inner validation of results, against the study goals or hypotheses; (C) the external validation of results, against those of similar studies from other countries, identified in the literature; (D) the importance of results, meaning their contribution (conceptual or methodological) to the theoretical advancement of the field; (E) a summary of the study limitations and directions for overcoming them in the future research. In this article, discussions deal only with the significance of results; the other points must be addressed too.

 

We wish to thank the Reviewer for his comments and requests that helped improving the manuscript.

We have modified/implemented the manuscript following the reviewer’s comments, as follows:

1. We have completely restructured the Introduction, expanding the related references and underlining the research aim.
2. The Discussion section has been restructured too, according to the Reviewer’s comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I have only one editorial note. Write 'QGIS' and 'SAGA-GIS' instead of 'QGis' and 'SAGA-Gis'. Both terms are proper names.

Thank you.

Author Response

Dear authors,

I have only one editorial note. Write 'QGIS' and 'SAGA-GIS' instead of 'QGis' and 'SAGA-Gis'. Both terms are proper names.

Thank you.

 

We wish to thank the Reviewer for his comments and requests that helped improving the manuscript; we have changed the terms according to the reviewers’ comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 This study employs morphometric analysis to examine the trail network within a heavily frequented protected hiking area. It investigates the relationship between trail characteristics and tourist vulnerability, shedding light on safety concerns and providing insights for effective land management. The following comments can help authors to improve the quality of the paper.

1-      The paper title can be shortened as below: Morphometrics & Tourist Vulnerability in High-Use Protected Hiking Area

2-      Fig. 1 can be moved to Section 2. Methods and materials.

3-      Please make it clear in the Introduction section: “Why is it important to address the hazardous conditions? Are there any specific incidents that highlight the issue?”

4-      How does this lack of awareness contribute to the hazardous conditions?

5-      Are there any specific examples or implications that can be mentioned?

6-      Section 1. is a mix of introduction and literature review, but the literature work is very short, and is not sufficient to create a conceptual framework. Can you extend this part?

7-      Pages 13-14, Table 3 can be removed because the data are shown on the consequent graphs.

8-      Instead of explicitly stating the use of a "significant dataset," consider mentioning the specific types of data used, such as hiking trail usage statistics and rescue operation records.

9- Fig 9, give more elaborations on the impacts of Covid 19 pandemic as shown for years 2020 and 2021.

10- Discussions. can you explicitly list the possible risk scenarios? page 16.

11- What insights were gained from the data analysis?

12- Conclusions. can you add the limitations of the research in terms of data supply, methodology etc,

 

13- Conclusions. Can you add some directions for future research. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 This study employs morphometric analysis to examine the trail network within a heavily frequented protected hiking area. It investigates the relationship between trail characteristics and tourist vulnerability, shedding light on safety concerns and providing insights for effective land management. The following comments can help authors to improve the quality of the paper.

• The paper title can be shortened as below: Morphometrics & Tourist Vulnerability in High-Use Protected Hiking Area

2-      Fig. 1 can be moved to Section 2. Methods and materials.          

3-      Please make it clear in the Introduction section: “Why is it important to address the hazardous conditions? Are there any specific incidents that highlight the issue?”

4-      How does this lack of awareness contribute to the hazardous conditions?

5-      Are there any specific examples or implications that can be mentioned?

6-      Section 1. is a mix of introduction and literature review, but the literature work is very short, and is not sufficient to create a conceptual framework. Can you extend this part?

7-      Pages 13-14, Table 3 can be removed because the data are shown on the consequent graphs. 

8-      Instead of explicitly stating the use of a "significant dataset," consider mentioning the specific types of data used, such as hiking trail usage statistics and rescue operation records.

9- Fig 9, give more elaborations on the impacts of Covid 19 pandemic as shown for years 2020 and 2021.

10- Discussions. can you explicitly list the possible risk scenarios? page 16.

11- What insights were gained from the data analysis?         

12- Conclusions. can you add the limitations of the research in terms of data supply, methodology etc,              

13- Conclusions. Can you add some directions for future research. 

14 - Comments on the Quality of English Language:  Minor editing of English language required. 

 

We wish to thank the Reviewer for his comments and requests that have been accepted: the modifications have been implemented in the new version of the manuscript.

The Manuscript title has been changed in order to reduce its length and the comments have been accepted and comments have been accordingly added. Considering the Figure 1 position, it has not been moved to the Methods section as the recalled at the end of the Introduction section. The Introduction itself has been completely restructured, answering to the Reviewer’s comments.

Besides, references section has been expanded and table 3 has been removed.

Discussion and Conclusion sections have been implemented underlining limitations and further directions of the research. Bothe Introduction and Discussion sections have been modified accordingly to Reviewers’ #3 and #1.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is very logical approach to characterizing the know problems / issues.

people sometimes confused about common sense from ignorant. so this paper will lead people to understand the issue in the trail network directly.

I have some suggestion on some wordings and figures.

there are typo on Figure 1." Batimetry"

Figure 10 may better to include map elements.

some of maps are hard to read due to feature color scheme. it is very hard to visually distinguish individual features.

autors use the many abbreviation without correct terminology such as GIS, DTM etc. Those abbreviations are only familiar with  some specialized field. Furthermore, those term could represent other terminology in other field of study. It is better to include full name other for the first appearance in the paper.

 

Scale bar of Figure 4. Period is commonly used for 1000 mark like 1.000, 2.000 but it could be cause the confusion on the readers from outside of Europe. 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

there are small typos but overall quality is good.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is very logical approach to characterizing the know problems / issues.

people sometimes confused about common sense from ignorant. so this paper will lead people to understand the issue in the trail network directly.

I have some suggestion on some wordings and figures.

there are typo on Figure 1." Batimetry"      

Figure 10 may better to include map elements.        

some of maps are hard to read due to feature color scheme. it is very hard to visually distinguish individual features.

autors use the many abbreviation without correct terminology such as GIS, DTM etc. Those abbreviations are only familiar with  some specialized field. Furthermore, those term could represent other terminology in other field of study. It is better to include full name other for the first appearance in the paper.       

 Scale bar of Figure 4. Period is commonly used for 1000 mark like 1.000, 2.000 but it could be cause the confusion on the readers from outside of Europe.            

Comments on the Quality of English Language:        there are small typos but overall quality is good.

 

 

We wish to thank the Reviewer for his comments and requests that have been accepted: the modifications have been implemented in the new version of the manuscript.

Figures have been corrected accordingly to the reviewer’s request and in particular the readability of figure 6 has been improved using larger colored symbols.

Corrections have been done in figure 1, 4 and 10.

Finally, acronyms have been described the first time that have been used.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx