Cjot 2013 0005

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270175354
Geomorphosite assesment for geotourism

purposes
Article in Czech Journal of Tourism · January 2013

DOI: 10.2478/cjot-2013-0005
CITATIONS READS
28 430
1 author:
Lucie Kubalíková
Institute of Geonics AS CR
15 PUBLICATIONS 62 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Secondary geodiversity assessment for geoconservation and geotourism purposes View project
Komplexní podpora geoturismu View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Lucie Kubalíková on 03 March 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism
purposes
Lucie Kubalíková / e-mail: luciekubalikova@seznam.cz

a r t i c l e s
Department of geography, Faculty of Education, Technical University in Liberec, Czech Republic
Kubalíková, L. (2013). Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes. Czech Journal of Tourism, 2(2), 80-104. DOI:
10.2478/cjot-2013-0005.
Abstract
The article briefly examines the relationship between geodiversity, geoheritage (represented by geosites and geo-
morphosites) and geotourism. It is obvious that geosites and geomorphosites represent a fundamental resource
for geotourism. As geosites are defined as sites that present particular importance for the comprehension of the
Earth history and bear mainly scientific values, geomorphosites concept is wider and includes also added values
(e. g. cultural, aesthetic and economic). Therefore, for assessing the importance of the geological and geomorpho-
logical sites for geotourism purposes, the concept of geomorphosites is more appropriate. The article presents
several assessment methods that represent a significant tool for geoconservation and geotourism purposes. The
assessment is carried out from several perspectives with an emphasis on scientific, cultural and economic para-
meters of the sites. The results of the assessment can serve as a basis for appropriate use of geoheritage, its ma-
nagement and generally for identification of geotourism potential of the geological and geomorphological sites. To
find out which method is suitable for geotourism purposes, it is necessary to take into account the definitions and
principles of geotourism. Different assessment methods are analysed and discussed. Based on this, the proposal
for criteria for geosite and geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes is presented.
Keywords
Geodiversity, geotourism, geosites, geomorphosites, assessment methods and criteria
JEL classification: Q100, L83 / Accepted: 12 December 2013
80 | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | (80 —104)
Unauthenticated | 78.102.117.222
CJT_02_2013.indd 80 Download Date | 2/2/14 3:59 PM 8.1.2014 15:21:09
Lucie Kubalíková • Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes
Introduction
Geodiversity plays a key role both in environment and human activities. The complex
relationships between geology, natural processes, landforms, landscape, soils and cli-
mate are fundamental to the distribution of habitats and species. It also provides many
essential natural resources that society and economic growth depend on, including the
soils, aggregates, metals and fuel (Gray, 2004). The cultural and economic influence of
geodiversity on people is also extremely strong; the location of many cities was influ-
a r t i c l e s
enced by the distribution of mineral or soil resources, the location of important fortifica-
tion systems was also affected by the presence of appropriate landforms. The geologic,
geomorphologic and other abiotic features can be also seen as a resource for tourism,
respectively geotourism activities which may affect local development (Panizza, 1996;
Panizza & Piacente, 2008).
According to Dowling (2011), the geotourism is defined as a form of nature tourism
that specifically focuses on landscape and geology – these components are an important
part of geodiversity (Gray, 2004). The geotourism promotes tourism to geosites and the
conservation of geodiversity and an understanding of Earth sciences through apprecia-
tion and learning (Newsome & Dowling, 2010). It is obvious that not only geological but
also geomorphological features and processes are considered as a resource for geotour-
ism.
Reynard, et al. (2003) analyzed the relationship between geomorphology and tour-
ism: geomorphology may be a tourist resource as part of the primary or original offer
(geomorphological site as an attraction or geomorphological site as a support for tourist
activity, e. g. climbing) and secondary or derived offer, when tourist infrastructures (e.g.
didactic trails), instruments (e.g. educational booklets) or services (e.g. guided tours) are
proposed for effective use of the original offer. Gray (2004) also stated that geodiversity,
respectively geoheritage, was of great value for geotouristic and geoeducational activities
– it is one of the functions of geodiversity.
It is evident that geodiversity as a whole cannot be used for geotourism purposes;
tourist use of geodiversity is generally made through the exploitation of geosites and
geomorphosites (Pralong & Reynard, 2005). This is a quite general statement and it does
not respond to the question “which sites exactly are suitable for such exploitation?” For
the detection of such sites, it is necessary to do the inventory and evaluation of potential
sites. The concept of geosites and geomorphosites seems to be suitable for this purpose
because it includes plenty of assessment methods for evaluation of geosites and geomor-
phosites from different points of view.
Theoretical basis: geodiversity, geoconservation, geosites,

geomorphosites
The geodiversity concept first appeared in the early 90’s in Australia, respectively Tas-
mania and it was defined as “the diversity of Earth features and systems” (Sharples,
1993). Later, the definition was extended (Sharples, 1995; Dixon, 1996; Australian Heri-
(80 —104) | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | 81
tage Commission, 2002; Sharples, 2002) and it included ‘‘the range or diversity of geo-
logical (bedrock), geomorphological (landform) and soil features, assemblages, systems
and processes” (Australian Heritage Commission, 1996, 2002). Gray (2004) introduced
a broader definition which was based on the analysis and discussion of different ap-
proaches: geodiversity is the natural range (diversity) of geological (rocks, minerals,
fossils), geomorphological (land form, processes) and soil features, including their as-
semblages, relationships, properties, interpretations and systems. Panizza (2009) pre-
a r t i c l e s
sented the term “geomorphodiversity” which refers to the diversity of the landforms and
processes and can be seen as a subset of geodiversity.
The importance of geodiversity can be represented by multiple values that are impor-
tant for human activities (Gray, 2004):
• intrinsic value is independent on the human’s evaluation, also called scientific value
(Panizza, 2001, 2009);
• cultural value is connected to geomythology – an explanation of the geological and
geomorphological features using the supernatural forces and beings (Vitaliano, 2007),
historical and archaeological aspects of geodiversity (an importance of geodiversity
for ancient settlements or fortress systems, e. g. Mesa Verde, USA), spiritual and reli-
gious aspects (Gray, 2004);
• aesthetic value refers to visual (and non-visual) appeal provided by geodiversity inclu-
ding a psychological impact on human beings (Gray, 2004; Pereira, 2006). The aesthe-
tic value of geodiversity is also a very important issue for geotouristic activities;
• economic and functional value is represented by the use of mineral resources, e. g. fuels,
construction materials; utilisation of landforms, e. g. platforms as a suitable place for
airports (Gray, 2004) and utilisation of geodiversity, respectively geoheritage, for ge-
otouristic and geoeducational activities (Reynard, et al., 2003; Pralong, 2003; Panizza
& Piacente, 2008).
• research and educational value that is related to the understanding of the origin of life
and landforms, evolution of the landscape and climate and palaeogeographic recon-
structions (Gray, 2004; Panizza, 2001).
It is obvious that geodiversity, thanks to its values, has to be conserved and preserved.
Maintaining an inventory of geodiversity and its evaluation can serve geoconservation
purposes and these can serve as a basis for particular geotourism activities. Geoconser-
vation can be described as an activity of humans which is oriented to the conservation
of geoheritage and which aims to preserve the natural diversity of significant geological
(bedrock), geomorphological (landform) and soil features and processes, and to main-
tain natural rates and magnitudes of change in those features and processes (Sharp-
les, 2002). Burek and Prosser (2008) distinguish between the terms “conservation” and
“preservation”: while preservation can be taken as keeping something in the same state,
stopping it from changing; the conservation is an activity or an intent of conserving and
enhancing geological and geomorphological features, processes, sites and specimens
which also involves working with the natural change to retain the feature of interest.
The geoconservation activities have a long history which is widely described and sum-
marized by Burek and Prosser (2008). Its principles are defined and summarized by
Sharples (1995), Sharples (2002), Australian Heritage Commission (1996), Australian

Heritage Commission (2002), Dingwall et al. (2005), and ProGEO (2011). An overview
of the geoconservation principles and practice is given by Brilha (2005) or Prosser,
Murphy, and Larwood (2011) who also present the aims of geoconservation and give the
guidelines for good practice.
With regard to the needs of present day society, it is not possible to conserve all
the geodiversity. Moreover, this concept is very wide and incomprehensible for public
a r t i c l e s
(Andrasanu, 2009). Cleal (2007) says that one of the ways how to protect and conserve
geodiversity effectively is to protect and conserve its valuable part – geoheritage (geo-
logic and geomorphologic heritage) that can be represented by significant geologic and
geomorphologic sites. Therefore, geoconservation should return to a clearer site-based
focus, justifying the protection of individual sites at different levels of significance ac-
cording to their relative scientific importance (Cleal, 2007).
The concept of geoheritage is based on the definition of natural heritage which
was presented already in 1972 (UNESCO, 1972). The term geoheritage was defined
as those components of natural geodiversity of significant value to humans, including
scientific research, education, aesthetics and inspiration, cultural development, and
a sense of place experienced by communities (Dixon, 1996, p. 14). A similar defini-
tion is presented by Eberhard (1997); he emphasises that geoheritage belongs to the
“things we would wish to retain for present and future generations”. Sharples (2002)
says that geoheritage is represented by those elements of natural geodiversity which
are of significant value to humans for non-depleting purposes which do not decrease
their intrinsic or ecological values. In addition, it is represented by specific examples
of features and processes which are worth of protection and conservation. He also
strictly distinguishes between the term “geodiversity” as a value-free quality, and “geo-
heritage” as those elements of geodiversity that are seen as significant according to
particular subjective values (Sharples, 2002).
The concept of geoheritage is linked to the concept of geosites and geomorphosites.
The geosites are defined as portions of the geosphere that present a particular impor-
tance for the comprehension of Earth history, geological or geomorphological objects
that have acquired a scientific, cultural/historical, aesthetic and/or social/econom-
ic value due to human perception or exploitation (Reynard, 2004, p. 440); geomor-
phosites are the landforms to which a value can be attributed and they can be used by
society as a geomorphological resource (Panizza, 2001). If these definitions are accepted,
then some of the geosites and geomorphosites can be considered as specific examples
of geoheritage.
As stated above, the geosites may be considered as a part of the geosphere that
presents particular importance for the comprehension of the Earth history and they
can be divided into groups according to the prevailing feature, for example sedimento-
logical, stratigraphical, volcanic, geomorphological, petrographical or mining (Reynard,
2004, p. 440). In some German and some French speaking countries, the term “geotop”
is used (Grube & Wiedenbein, 1992; Grandgirard, 1997). Concerning the evaluation of
geosites, Reynard, Coratza, and Regolini-Bissig (2009) indicate that it should be based
essentially on scientific criteria (rarity, exemplarity, or importance for Earth history un-
derstanding etc.).
Geomorphosites can be considered as one of the multiple types of the geosites and
they are defined as landforms that have acquired a value thanks to human perception
(Panizza, 2001). These values were divided into two groups which are described as fol-
lows (Reynard, Coratza, & Regolini-Bissig, 2009):
1) Scientific values that present an importance for understanding of a form, process
a r t i c l e s
or evolution. Within the geomorphologic sites, the representativeness of the form and
process, uniqueness and palaeogeographical significance of the site are considered one
of the most important scientific values. Panizza (2001), Coratza and Giusti (2005), and
Reynard, et al. (2007) discuss these values in detail and they also offer how to assess the
scientific value of the sites.
2) Additional values include cultural, aesthetic, ecological and economic/social val-
ues. The cultural value is represented by the archaeological or historic significance of
the site which is somehow related to the geological and geomorphological features and
processes of the site – the importance of cultural value for geomorphosite assessment
and the relations between geomorphosites and their cultural aspects are analysed by
Piacente (2005), and Panizza and Piacente (2005). The aesthetic value is based on the
colour contrast, the structure of the space or heterogeneity of the site. For these facts it
is the most problematic value to describe. The economic or social value is related to the
potential for the use of the site especially for geotourism; the exploitation of geosites
and geomorphosites, especially for tourism activities, is discussed by Reynard, et al.
(2003), Pralong and Reynard (2005), Panizza and Piacente (2008). The ecological value
of the site expresses the relation between geomorphologic elements of the site and biota
and the influence of geomorphosite on the development of an ecosystem; it can also
include the presence of specific or rare species or biodiversity value (Reynard, et al.,
2007). Added values are also analysed by Pereira, et al. (2007). Bruschi and Cendrero
(2005) discuss these values and they propose a method how to “measure” intangible
values. Pralong (2005) focuses on economic, respectively tourist values of the sites and
he presents particular criteria for the assessment of economic value and tourist potential
(see below).
As the geomorphosites acquire both scientific and an added value, the evaluation of
them is not restricted only to the scientific criteria, but also to the criteria that are related
to cultural, scenic, social or economic features (e. g. visibility, accessibility, presence of
cultural assets), in order to better meet the requirements of geotourism.
The research on geomorphosites is relatively young. In 2001, the working group Geo-
morphosites by the International Association of Geomorphologists was established and
it started to deal with definition, methodology and assessment methods. The working
group emphasises interdisciplinary research and cooperation with other geoconserva-
tion and geotourism initiatives, especially geoparks (Giusti, 2010).
Theoretical aspects of geomorphosites were discussed by Panizza (2001), Reynard
(2005), Panizza and Piacente (2005). The relationship between geomorphosites and
education was analyzed by Pralong (2003). Assessment methods were presented (e. g.
Coratza & Giusti, 2005; Bruschi & Cendrero, 2005; Pralong, 2005; Serrano & Gonzalez-
Trueba, 2005; Pereira, et al., 2007; Reynard, et al., 2007; Zouros, 2007). These methods
were applied in different regions and conditions – different case studies especially from
Italy, Portugal, Switzerland or Greece were presented at the monothematic issues of Il
Quaternario - Italian Journal of Quaternary Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 1 (2005), Géomor-
phologie: relief, processus, environment, Vol. 1, No. 3 (2005), Geographica Helvetica,
Vol. 62, No. 3 (2007), Geoheritage, Vol. 3, No. 3 (2010). In the Eastern Europe, the
a r t i c l e s
geomorphosite assessment was done e. g. in Romania (Ilies & Josan, 2007; Ilies, et al.,
2009; Comanescu & Dobre, 2009; Comanescu, et al., 2009), Serbia (Vujicic, et al., 2011),
Slovenia (Erhartič, 2010) or Czech Republic (Kubalíková, 2011).
Theoretical issues, methodological approaches and case studies are summarized in
Reynard, Coratza, and Regolini-Bissig (2009).
Assessment methods
There are two main approaches to assessment of geosites and geomorphosites: the first
one is based on the expertise and qualitative procedures and the second one is related
to the need to rank the sites, to assess the site numerically and to detect the potential of
the site (Pereira and Pereira, 2010). Since 1990’s various assessment methods for geosites
were introduced, e. g. Panizza and Piacente (1993), Barba, et al. (1997), Grandgirard
(1999), or Reynolds (2001). These methods were focused mainly on the scientific value
of the geosites and some of them did not include the added values that are important
for geotourism activities although the criteria served as a base or inspiration for more
complex assessment methods.
Later, within the concept of geomorphosites, other assessment methods were pre-
sented. These methods generally include both scientific and added values, so they can
serve better for geotourism purposes or for assessment of the tourist potential of the
sites. Coratza and Giusti (2005) presented a method for determining the natural or sci-
entific values of geomorphological sites, but they also included added values. Bruschi
and Cendrero (2005) presented a method how to assess or measure intangible values of
geomorphosites. Pralong (2005) presented a methodology that can be used in assessing
a tourist potential of the geomorphological sites. Serrano and González-Trueba (2005),
Zouros (2005), and Zouros (2007) introduced an assessment methodology that can be
used for evaluation of the geomorphosites in protected areas. Reynard, et al. (2007), and
Pereira, et al. (2007) also presented the assessment methodologies for assessing scientific
and added values. Later, Pereira and Pereira (2010) introduced an assessment methodol-
ogy for potential geomorphosites.
All the methods mentioned above are numerical; the numerical assessment has an
advantage of relative objectivity, but even there are certain parameters that can be meas-
ured with difficulties and could be the source of disagreements. Another problem of the
assessment process is subjectivity, especially in the evaluation of aesthetic and cultural
aspects of the site, but also in the evaluation of the scientific significance of the site.
Generally, the assessment is divided into several steps: assessment of scientific values,
assessment of added values (sometimes it includes an assessment of the tourist potential
or assessment of economic values, sometimes these are assessed independently) and as-
sessment of vulnerability, threats and risk on the site. It is necessary to underline that
assessment has to be done on the basis of knowledge and existing detailed inventory of
the potential geosites and geomorphosites.
The assessment of scientific values is based on criteria which are connected to the
a r t i c l e s
intrinsic value of the site (Gray, 2004; Panizza, 2009) and the assessing criteria are repre-
sented e. g. by integrity or rarity. Some authors include also exemplarity or pedagogical
value (Pereira, et al., 2007) or scientific knowledge of the site (Coratza & Giusti, 2005;
Bruschi & Cendrero, 2005).
The assessment of the added values is based on the cultural/historical/religious/
aesthetic aspects that are connected to the site. These values are generally less precise
and depend on the sensitivity of the assessor but they are also essential for the complete
assessment (Pereira & Pereira, 2010). While the cultural/historical/religious criteria usu-
ally consist only of the information about the level of importance of these assets (e. g.
Coratza & Giusti, 2005), the assessment of aesthetic or scenic aspect is more complicated
and can be influenced by subjectivity. The assessment criteria for the aesthetic value are
generally based on the visibility and number of viewpoints and colour contrast with sur-
rounding (Pralong, 2005; Reynard, et al., 2007), vertical structure or number of colours
(Pereira, et al., 2007).
The assessment of the economic value or potential for the use is generally based on
the criteria like accessibility, limitations of use and existence of infrastructure (Serrano
& Gonzalez-Trueba, 2005) or existence of economic and supporting products related to
the site or promotion of the site (Pralong, 2005; Reynard, et al., 2007).
Some methods include the assessment of vulnerability and both natural and anthro-
pogenic threats to the site (e. g. Pereira, et al., 2007). The assessment criteria are repre-
sented by the existing legislative protection of the site or present and potential threats
(Zouros, 2007).
The following section presents the selected assessment methods.
University of Modena, Italy

Panizza (2001) introduced an assessment methodology which was originally used for the
purposes of Environmental Impact Assessment. The methodology was later developed
by Coratza and Giusti (2005). Although the authors emphasize that the “geomorphosite”
has both scientific and added values (cultural, historical etc.), the assessment methodo-
logy is oriented on scientific parameters of the site and added values form only a small
part of the assessment. The assessment is based on seven characteristics:
• value for the scientific research (based on number of the scientific papers, importance
of geomorphosite for paleogeographical reconstructions, includes also number and
importance of publication);
• educational value (representativeness of a particular form or process, quotation in

educative textbooks);
• area (the greater the geomorphosite is, the higher is its value);
• rareness (quantity of similar sites within the territory under investigation);
• integrity (both natural and anthropogenic degree of degradation affecting the site);
• exposure (visibility, presence of human structures which can disturb the sight);
• added values (including tourism-economic, historical-cultural or ecological character-
a r t i c l e s
istics).
The overall value of the site is represented by weighted mean where weights range
from 0 to 1. This method was applied to the inventory of the geomorphosites in the
Modena region in Italy originally for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and
territorial planning (Coratza & Giusti, 2005).
University of Cantabria, Spain

Bruschi and Cendrero (2005) introduced a method based on three groups of criteria:
intrinsic (scientific) quality of sites, the potential for use (economic value) and potential
threats and protection needs. Every group consists of several criteria (Table 1).
Table 1 Assessment criteria according to Bruschi and Cendrero (2005)
Intrinsic quality Potential for use (social Potential threats

usefulness) and protection needs
Abundance/rarity Activities that can be Inhabitants in the surroundings
carried out
Degree of scientific knowledge Observation conditions Present or potential threats
Usefulness as a process model/ Accessibility Possibility to collect objects
example
Diversity of elements Extent Relationship to the existing
of interest planning
Age Proximity to service centres Interest for mineral exploitation
Type locality Socio-economic condition Land ownership
of the area
Integrity
Association with historical,
archaeological, artistic heritage
Association with other natural
heritage
Source: adapted from Reynard, Coratza, and Regolini-Bissig (2009), Bruschi and Cendrero (2005)
The method was used for EIA and regional inventory in the Province of Cantabria in
Spain (Bruschi, 2007). Although some parameters are disputatious, e. g. age and extent
of the site (the older/greater a site is, the higher is its value) or the importance of socio-
economic condition of the area and relatively a little emphasis is put on the cultural and
historical values (they are included in scientific quality of the site), other criteria can be
used for assessing the sites from the geotourist point of view.
a r t i c l e s
University of Valladolid, Spain

Serrano and Gonzalez-Trueba (2005) proposed a methodology based on three categories
of assessment criteria (Table 2).
Table 2 Assessment criteria according to Serrano and Gonzalez-Trueba (2005)
Scientific value Added values Use/management value

genesis landscape and aesthetic accessibility
morphology cultural fragility
dynamics educational value vulnerability
chronology representativeness intensity of use
lithology tourist attraction risk of degradation
geologic structures integrity
sedimentary structures impacts
conditions for observation
limits of acceptable change
Source: adapted from Serrano and Gonzalez-Trueba (2005)
The methodology was used for the assessment of geomorphosites in Picos de Europa
National Park (Serrano & Gonzalez-Trueba, 2005). The method is good for assessing the
scientific values and management values. Some of the added values (especially landscape
aesthetic) are very subjective and the cultural/historic value is not very appreciated in
this method.
University of the Aegean

Zouros (2005, 2007) proposed an evaluation process based on the following criteria
(Table 3).
Table 3 Assessment criteria according to Zouros (2007)
Value Criteria
a r t i c l e s
scientific and educational value integrity
representativeness
rarity
exemplarity
geodiversity value number of phenomena within area
ecological and aesthetic value presence of the natural heritage sites or nature reserves
cultural value presence of the cultural heritage sites
potential threats and protection legal protection
needs
vulnerability
potential for use recognizability
geographical distribution
accessibility
economical potential
Source: adapted from Zouros (2007)
This method was used for assessing the geomorphosites in the Aegean Area and
within the geopark Lesvos Petrified Forest (now Lesvos geopark) (Zouros, 2005, 2007).
It allows a quick overview of the values that are held by geomorphosites and includes
all the necessary criteria, but there is not big emphasis on the economic value of the
geomorphosites.
Pralong (2005)
Pralong (2005) proposed a complex method that was primarily oriented to assess the
tourist potential of the geomorphosites. The method is detailed and aimed especially at
the economic values of the sites, but scientific, cultural and scenic parameters are not
oppressed.
The tourist value assessment includes four main values: scenic, scientific, cultural and
economic and is considered as the mean of these four different values. The criteria for
the assessment are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Assessment criteria according to Pralong (2005)
Scenic value Scientific value Cultural value Economic value

number of paleogeographic cultural and historical accessibility
viewpoints interest customs
average distance representativeness iconographic presentation natural risks
to the viewpoints
a r t i c l e s
surface area historical and archaeological annual number of

relevance visitors
elevation rarity religious and metaphysical official level of
relevance protection
color contrasts integrity art and cultural events attraction
ecological interest
Source: adapted from Pralong, 2005
Another step in this method is the “exploitation value” assessment that includes two
components: a degree of exploitation and modality of exploitation. The degree of explo-
itation considers the spatial and temporal use of a geomorphological site (based on the
criteria such as used surface, infrastructure, seasonal occupancy), whereas the modality
takes into account the use of the four constituent values (use of scenic, scientific, cultural
and economic values) of the tourist value of the geomorphological site. This method is
probably the best and most complex from the point of view of geotourism needs. Howe-
ver, some parameters are not easy to achieve (total number of visitors or iconographic
presentations of the site).
University of Minho, Portugal

Pereira, et al. (2007) proposed a very detailed assessment procedure based on the scien-
tific, additional, use and protection values. The methodology was then developed by
Pereira and Pereira (2010). Table 5 shows the parameters.
Table 5 Assessment criteria according to Pereira, et al. (2007)
Scientific value Additional values Use value Protection value

Rareness in relation to the area Cultural value Accessibility Integrity/Intactness
Integrity/Intactness Aesthetic value Visibility Vulnerability of use
as a geomorphosite
Representativeness of Ecological value Present use of the
geomorphological processes geomorphological
and pedagogical interest interest
Scientific value Additional values Use value Protection value

Number of interesting Present use of
geomorphological features other natural and
cultural interests
Other geological features Legal protection
with the heritage value and use limitations
Scientific knowledge of Equipment and
a r t i c l e s
geomorphological issues support services
Rareness at national level
Source: Pereira, et al. (2007)
The method was used in the Minho National Park for assessing the geosites and geo-
morphosites (Pereira, 2006; Pereira, et al., 2007). This method is probably one of the most
complex with regards to assessing the geotourism values and potential for geotourism.
University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Reynard et al. (2007) emphasizes that every assessment should be based on the detailed
inventory and field work that include general data and description data (morphology,
genesis). The assessment criteria are presented in Table 6.
Table 6 Assessment criteria according to Reynard, et al. (2007)
Value Criteria
scientific value integrity
representativeness
paleogeographical value
rareness
ecological value ecological impact
protected species
aesthetic values number of viewpoints
contrasts, vertical development
cultural value religious importance
historical importance
artistic importance
economic value economic products
Source: Reynard, et al. (2007)
This method can be used for scientific and added values assessment. However, the
economic value is represented only by one criterion, therefore for geotourism purposes
it is not very suitable.
Results
To find out which method is suitable for the geotourism purposes, it is necessary to take
a r t i c l e s
into account the definitions and principles of geotourism (see Table 7). Geotourism can be
understood at a broader sense as geographical tourism or tourism that sustains or enhances
the geographical character of a place – its environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage, and the well-
being of its residents (Stueve, et al., 2002; National Geographic Society, 2005). This concept is
similar to the geomorphosite concept – it does not include only the abiotic features, but it
takes into account cultural and aesthetic values (Panizza & Piacente, 2008; Reynard, 2008).
In a more restricted sense, the geotourism is defined as a form of nature tourism that spe-
cifically focuses on landscape and geology (Dowling & Newsome, 2006) and that includes
the provision of interpretative and service facilities for geosites and geomorphosites and
their encompassing topography, together with their associated in-situ and ex-situ artefacts,
to constituency-build for their conservation by generating appreciation, learning and re-
search by and for current and future generations (Hose, 2012).
Table 7 The overview of the definitions of geotourism
Hose (1995) The provision of interpretive and service facilities to

enable tourists to acquire knowledge and understanding
of the geology and geomorphology of a site (including its
contribution to the development of the Earth sciences)
beyond the level of mere aesthetic appreciation.
Hose (2000) The provision of interpretative facilities and services to

promote the values and social benefit of geologic(al) and
geomorphologic(al) sites and their materials, and to ensure
their conservation for the use of students, tourists and casual
recreationalists.
Slomka and Kicinska- An offshoot of cognitive tourism and/or adventure tourism

Swiderska (2004) based upon visits to geological objects (geosites) and
recognition of geological processes integrated with aesthetic
experiences gained by the contact with a geosite.
National Geographic (2005) Tourism that sustains or enhances the geographical character
of a place – its environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage, and
the well-being of its residents.
Joyce (2006) People going to a place to look at and learn about one or
more aspects of geology and geomorphology.
Dowling and Newsome (2006) Tourism relating specifically to geology and geomorphology
and the natural resources of landscape, landforms, fossil
beds, rocks and minerals, with an emphasis on appreciating
the processes that are creating and created such features.
Hose (2008) The provision of interpretive and service facilities to enable

tourists to acquire knowledge and the understanding of
the geology and geomorphology of the site (including its
a r t i c l e s
contribution to the development of the Earth sciences)
beyond the level of mere aesthetic appreciation.
Newsome and Dowling (2010) A form of nature tourism that specifically focuses on
landscape and geology. It promotes tourism to the geosites
and the conservation of geodiversity and an understanding
of Earth sciences through appreciation and learning. This is
achieved through independent visits to geological features,
use of geo-trails and view points, guided tours, geo-activities
and patronage of geosite visitor centres.
Hose (2012) The provision of interpretative and service facilities for the
geosites and geomorphosites and their encompassing
topography, together with their associated in-situ and ex-
situ artifacts, to constituency-build for their conservation by
generating appreciation, learning and research by and for
current and future generations.
Source: adapted from Newsome and Dowling (2010), Hose (2008, 2012)
Both broader and more restricted definitions include some key features of geotour-
ism. According to the National Geographic Society (2005), they are represented by integ-
rity of place, international codes, market selectivity and diversity, tourist satisfaction, community
involvement and benefit, protection and enhancement of destination appeal, land use and plan-
ning, conservation of resources, interactive interpretation and evaluation; according to (New-
some & Dowling, 2010): geologically based, environmentally educative, tourist satisfaction,
sustainable, locally beneficial.
Based on these definitions and principles, the criteria for the selection of the suitable
assessment method can be proposed.
A suitable method for assessing the geotourism potential should consider these groups
of criteria:
1. Criteria which consider an assessment of the scientific and intrinsic values (diversity
and importance of geological and geomorphological features and processes, the scien-
tific knowledge of the site) – based on the principles “geologically based” and “integrity
of place” and geology and geomorphology – oriented definitions of geotourism (New-
some & Dowling, 2010).
2. Criteria which consider an assessment of the exemplarity and pedagogical potential

of the site (clarity and visibility of geological and geomorphological features and proc-
esses, the availability of the products that support education: leaflets, guided tours,
maps, trails, information panels, information centres) – based on the principles “en-
vironmentally educative”, “protection and enhancement of destination appeal “, “interactive
interpretation and evaluation”. This is probably the most important group of criteria as
the education or cognitive aspects appear in most of the definitions of geotourism.
a r t i c l e s
3. Criteria which consider an assessment of accessibility and visibility of the site and the
presence of tourist infrastructure (accommodation, restaurants, shops, local products
etc.) – based on the principles “tourist satisfaction”, “tourist satisfaction”, “locally ben-
eficial”, “market selectivity and diversity”, “community involvement and benefit”. It is also
a very important group of criteria as the new definitions and new approaches (News-
ome & Dowling, 2010; Hose, 2012) emphasize the involvement of local people. This
approach is also a basis for geoparks (Zouros, 2013, oral presentation).
4. Criteria which consider an assessment of the existing threats and risks, assessing con-
servation activities or existing legislative protection of the site – according to the prin-
ciple “sustainable”, “land use and planning” and “ conservation of resources”.
5. Criteria which consider an assessment of the added values (ecological, cultural, his-
toric, archaeological, artistic, religious value of a site, aesthetic, landscape and scenic
value) – according to the definition of the National Geographic Society (2005) the
geotourism does not consider only the natural aspects, but also cultural and aesthetic
aspects of the site.
The proposed criteria for determining the suitability of the method for assessing the
geosites and geomorphosites for geotourism purposes are presented in Table 8.
Table 8 Individual criteria within the above mentioned groups of criteria
1. assessment of the scientific 1.a a

ssessing integrity, rarity and Earth-science importance of
and intrinsic values the site
1.b assessing scientific knowledge of the site
1.c assessing morphology, genesis, age, diversity of the site
2. assessment of the 2.a a
ssessing the exemplarity and representativeness of the
exemplarity and site, clarity and visibility of the features and processes
pedagogical potential 2.b a
ssessing presence of educational facilities (leaflets, web
pages, information panels, guided tours)
2.c assessing the degree of the use of the site for educational
purposes
3. assessment of accessibility 3.a assessment of number, distance and quality of tourist

and visibility of the site services
and the presence of tourist 3.b assessment of the presence of local products that
infrastructure support and/or promote the site
3.c assessment of accessibility
4. assessment of the existing 4.a assessment of the conservation activities (legal
threats and risks, assessing protection, other types of protection)
a r t i c l e s
conservation activities or the
existing legislative protection
of the site
4.b assessment of the risks and threats to the site
4.c assessment of current status of the site, the level of
disturbance or degradation
5. assessment of added values
5.a assessment of cultural (historical/religious/archaeological)
values
5.b assessment of ecological value (relationships to living
nature)
5.c assessment of aesthetic/landscape/scenic value
Source: author (2013)
The following section (Table 9) tries to evaluate the above mentioned geomorphosite
assessment methods in terms of suitability for assessing the geosites and geomorphosites
for geotourism purposes. For every criterion, a value is added (1 – the method considers
the criterion, 0.5 – the method partly considers the criterion, 0 – the method does not
consider the criterion).
Table 9 The numerical assessment of the selected methods
Coratza, Bruschi, Serrano, Reynard

Particular criterion / Zouros Pralong Pereira et
Giusti Cendrero Gonzalez et al.
method (2007) (2005) al. (2007)
(2005) (2005) (2005) (2007)
1.a integrity, rarity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1.b scientific knowledge 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
1.c morphology, genesis 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
2.a exemplarity, clarity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2.b educational facilities 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
2.c use for education 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
3.a tourist services 0 1 0.5 1 1 1 0
3.b local products 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 1
Coratza, Bruschi, Serrano, Reynard

Particular criterion / Zouros Pralong Pereira et
Giusti Cendrero Gonzalez et al.
method (2007) (2005) al. (2007)
(2005) (2005) (2005) (2007)
3.c accessibility 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
4.a c
onservation activities 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
4.b risks and threats 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
4.c current status 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
a r t i c l e s
5.a cultural values 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1

5.b ecological value 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 1
5.c a
esthetic/landscape
0.5 0 1 1 1 1 1
value
Total score 7.5 12 11 9.5 13 14.5 7
The less relevant methods for assessing the geosites and geomorphosites for geotour-
ism purposes are the method of the University of Modena (Coratza & Giusti, 2005) and
the University of Lausanne (Reynard, et al., 2007). The Italian method covers partly the
first group of criteria (assessment of the scientific and intrinsic values), the fourth group
of criteria (assessment of the existing threats and risks, assessing conservation activities
or the existing legislative protection of the site) and the fifth group of criteria (assess-
ment of added values), but it does not include the criteria for assessing the educational
potential (only the criterion “representativeness” appears) and criteria for the assess-
ment of accessibility and visibility of the site and the presence of tourist infrastructure
(it only includes “tourist-economic value” which is very unclear to assess). The method
of the University of Lausanne covers the fifth group of criteria (added values), but other
groups are covered only partly.
The method which was introduced by Zouros (2007) can serve well for the assessment
of the added values and economic values (assessment of accessibility and visibility of the
site and the presence of tourist infrastructure) and partly for the conservation values
(fourth group), but for assessing the scientific and educational value it is not suitable.
The methods of Serrano and Gonzalez-Trueba (2005), and Bruschi and Cendrero
(2005) are more suitable for the geotourism purposes and they are good for assessing
the scientific and conservation values (both methods fully include the criteria) and also
for the economic values. The added values are somewhat neglected, but still are in-
cluded in both methods. Serrano and Gonazez-Trueba’s method does not cover ideally
the educational values.
The method of Pralong (2005) covers almost all the criteria with an exception of the
first group of criteria (scientific and intrinsic values) and the method of Pereira (2007)
includes all the necessary criteria.
According to this simple numerical evaluation of various assessment methods, it can
be stated that the less suitable methods for assessing the geosites and geomorphosites
for geotourism purposes are those of Coratza and Giusti (2005), and Reynard, et al.
(2007) and the methods of Pralong (2005), and Pereira (2007) are the most suitable for
the geotourism purposes.
Based on the analysis of the principles and definitions of geotourism and numerical
evaluation of the methods, the method for assessing the geosites and geomorphosites
for the geotourism purposes can be proposed. It is clear that integrity, diversity and
rarity of abiotic features should be represented as one of the criteria to consider the
a r t i c l e s
scientific and the intrinsic value of the site. The scientific knowledge should be also com-
prised because it creates the background for educational activities and it helps to raise
awareness of the geosites and geomorphosites. The information about morphology,
genesis and age should be included in the scientific knowledge.
As most of the definitions of geotourism include the education and promotion of
the geosites and geomorphosites to the public as one of the most important aspect of
geotourism, the “educational” criteria should be also present. The criteria, such as ex-
emplarity, clarity of the features and processes should be considered. Furthermore, the
existence of the supporting products of geoeducation should be included (leaflets, in-
formation panels, trails, visitor centres etc.). It should include both the existing products
and proposals for these products or possibility to introduce these products (it is depend-
ent especially on the exemplarity or the representativeness of the site).
A group of economic values can be assessed with the criteria which include accessibil-
ity to the site (on foot, by car, by public transport, possibility of parking etc.), presence of
tourist facilities (accommodation, restaurants, shops) and the existence of local products
that are related to the site. It fulfils both “tourist satisfaction” principle of geotourism
and “community involvement and benefit” which are both included in the definitions of
Newsome and Dowling (2010) and the National Geographic Society (2005).
The conservation is also considered as one of the principles of modern geotourism.
Therefore, the analysis of threats (both actual and potential, both natural and anthropo-
genic) should be included. Also, the analysis of the current status of the site should be
assessed (damage of the site, its possible degradation).
The added values are important to the holistic approach to geotourism. Thus, the
cultural, ecological and aesthetic values should be also considered, because they can
raise the overall value of the site and they can create other opportunities how to relate
the abiotic features and processes to biotic or cultural issues. The aesthetic value is also
important for the tourist satisfaction, although it is quite difficult to assess this value.
Table 10 presents the proposed method for the geosites and geomorphosites assess-
ment for the geotourism purposes. It is based on the geomorphosite concept, analysis
of the selected geomorphosite assessment methods (Coratza & Giusti, 2005; Bruschi &
Cendrero, 2005; Serrano & Gonzalez-Trueba, 2005; Pralong, 2005; Reynard, et al., 2007;
Pereira, et al, 2007; Zouros, 2007) and on the definitions and principles of geotourism.
Some of the criteria are based on Kubalíková (2011).
Table 10 A method for the geosite and geomorphosite assessment for the geotourism purposes
Scientific and intrinsic values

integrity 0 - totally destroyed site,
0.5 - disturbed site, but with visible abiotic features,
1 - site without any destruction
a r t i c l e s
rarity (number of similar sites) 0 - more than 5 sites,

0.5 - 2-5 similar sites,
1 - the only site within the area of interest
diversity (number of different 0 - only one visible feature/processes,
partial features and processes
0.5 - 2-4 visible features/processes,
within the geosite or
geomorphosite) 1 - more than 5 visible features/processes
scientific knowledge 0 - unknown site,
0.5 - scientific papers on national level,
1 - high knowledge of the site, monographic studies about
the site
Educational values
representativeness and 0 - low representativeness/clarity of the form and process,
visibility/clarity of the features/
0.5 - medium representativeness, especially for scientists,
processes
1 - high representativeness of the form and process, also for
the laic public
exemplarity, pedagogical use 0 - v ery low exemplarity and pedagogical use of the form
and process, 0.5 - existing exemplarity, but with limited
pedagogical use,
1-h
igh exemplarity and high potential for pedagogical use,
goedidactics and geotourism
existing educational products 0 - no products,
0.5 - leaflets, maps, web pages,
1 - info panel, information at the site
actual use of a site for 0 - no educative use of the site,
educational purposes
0.5 - site as a part of specialized excursions (students),
(excursions, guided tours)
1 - guided tours for public
Ecomonical values
accessibility 0 - more than 1000 m from the parking place,
0.5 - less than 1000 m from the parking place,
1 - more than 1000 m from the stop of public transport
presence of tourist 0 - more than 10 km from the site existing tourist facilities,
infrastructure
0.5 - 5 – 10 km tourist facilities,
1 - less than 5 km tourist facilities
local products 0 - no local products related to a site,
0.5 - some products,
1 - emblematic site for some local products
a r t i c l e s
Conservation values
actual threats and risks 0 - high both natural and atrophic risks,
0.5 - existing risks that can disturb the site,
1 - low risks and almost no threats
potential threats and risks 0 - high both natural and athrophic risks,
0.5 - existing risks that can disturb the site,
1 - low risks and almost no threats
current status of a site 0 - continuing destruction of the site,
0.5 - the site destroyed, but now with management measures
for avoid the destruction,
1 - no destruction
legislative protection 0 - no legislative protection,
0.5 - existing proposal for legislative protection,
1-e
xisting legislative protection (Natural monument, Natural
reservation…)
Added values
cultural values: presence of 0 - no cultural features,
historical/archaeological/
0.5 - existing cultural features but without strong relation to
religious aspects related to
abiotic features,
the site
1-e
xisting cultural features with the strong relations to
abiotic features
ecological values 0 - not important,
0.5 - existing influence but not so important,
1 - important influence of the geomorphologic feature on the
ecologic feature
aesthetic values: number 0 - one color,

of colours; structure of the
0.25 - 2-3 colors,
space, viewpoints
0.5 - more than 3 colors;
0 - only one pattern,
0.25 - two or three patterns clearly distinguishable,
0.5 - more than 3 patterns;
a r t i c l e s
0 - none,
0.25 - 1-2,
0.5 - 3 and more
Conclusions
Geodiversity is probably the most important resource for the geotourism activities. It is
evident that all the geodiversity cannot be used for geotourism; tourist use of geodiver-
sity is generally made through the exploitation of geoheritage (represented here by the
geosites and geomorphosites). For the detection of such sites, it is necessary to do the
inventory and evaluation of potential sites – this can be achieved by using the concept
of “geomorphosites”. This concept includes inventorying and identification of suitable
sites and plenty of assessment methods for the evaluation of the geosites and geomor-
phosites from different points of view. It is evident that all the methods cannot be used
for the geotourism purposes – some of them are not equilibrated and they are focused
unilaterally, so they do not meet the principles and key features of geotourism. These
methods were assessed by using the proposed criteria based on the definitions and
principles of geotourism. It was found that the most suitable method for assessing the
geosites and geomorphosites for the geotourism purposes were the methods introduced
by Pralong (2005), and Pereira, et al. (2007).
Based on this analysis, the modified method for the geosite and geomorphosite as-
sessment for the geotourism purposes was proposed. The assessment criteria came out
from the principles and key features of geotourism and from the method used by Pral-
ong (2005), and Pereira, et al. (2007). The criteria are divided into five groups and they
are intended to cover all the key features of geotourism. The first group (scientific and
intrinsic values) is based on the principles “geologically based” and “integrity of place” and
geology and geomorphology – oriented definitions of geotourism. The second group
of criteria (educational values) comes out from the fact that most of the definitions
of geotourism emphasize the educational issues; this group is based on the principles
““environmentally educative”, “protection and enhancement of destination appeal “, “interactive
interpretation and evaluation”. The third group of criteria (economic values) considers
the principles “tourist satisfaction”, “tourist satisfaction”, “locally beneficial”, “market selectiv-
ity and diversity”, “community involvement and benefit”. The fourth group (conservation
value) is based on the principles “sustainable”, “land use and planning” and “conservation
of resources” and partly on the geoconservation principles. The last group of the criteria
(added values) comes out of the fact that geotourism does not consider only the natural
aspects, but also cultural and aesthetic aspects of the site.
Although the proposed method is numerical which should reduce the subjectivity,
a r t i c l e s
there is always a degree of subjectivity due to the fact that the real value of some criteria
cannot be measured and it depends, for example, on assessor’s experience, knowledge
and preferences.
To validate this method and its criteria, it is necessary to test it in various areas - it
can be applied both in protected areas and other types of areas, independent of their
size. Another possibility how to validate the method is to apply the method by a group
of independent experts.
Nevertheless, the procedure needs to be improved, refined and more thoroughly vali-
dated as the list of assessment criteria is not complete and it is a subject to further dis-
cussions.
Acknowledgements
This article was supported by the project Copernic, reg. No. CZ.1.07/2.4.00/31.0059, which is co-financed by the
European Social Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic.
References
Andrasanu, A. (2009). Geoeducation - a key part of Geoconservation. Abstract. Studia Universitatis
Babeş-Bolyai. Geologia, Special Issue, MAEGS – 16, pp. 5. Retrieved from http://bioge.ubbcluj.
ro/maegs16/volume/1%20secondary%20school%20nou.pdf.
Australian Heritage Commission. (1996). Australian Natural Heritage Charter: Standards and prin-
ciples for the conservation of the places of natural heritage significance. Sydney: Australian Heritage
Commission and Australian Committee for the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN). Retrieved from http://www.defence.gov.au/environment/heritagechart.pdf
Australian Heritage Commission. (2002). Australian Natural Heritage Charter: Standards and princi-
ples for the conservation of the places of natural heritage significance. 2nd edition. Canberra: Austra-
lian Heritage Commission and Australian Committee for the International Union for the Con-
servation of Nature (IUCN). Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/re-
sources/56de3d0a-7301-47e2-8c7c-9e064627a1ae/files/australian-natural-heritage-charter.pdf.
Barba, F. J., Remondo, J., & Rivas, V. (1997). Propuesta para un procedimiento para armonizar
la valoración de elementos del patrimonio geológico. Zubía, 15, 11-20. Retrieved from http://
dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=110356.
Brilha, J. (2005). Patrimonio Geologico e Geoconservacao: a Conservacao da Natureza na sua Vertente
Geológica. Braga: Palimage Editores.
Bruschi, V. M. (2007). Desarrollo de una metodología para la caracterización, evaluación y gestión de los
recursos de la geodiversidad (Doctoral dissertation). Santander: Universidad de Cantabria.
Bruschi, V. M., & Cendrero, A. (2005). Geosite Evaluation; Can we measure intangible values? Il
Quaternario, 18(1), 293-306.
Burek, C. V., & Prosser, C. D. (Eds.). (2008). The History of Geoconservation: an introduction. London:
Geological Society, 1-5. DOI: 10.1144/SP300.1.
Cleal, C. J. (2007). Geoconservation – what on Earth are we doing? In Hlad, B., & Herlec, U.
(Eds.), Regional Conference on Geoconservation: Geological heritage in the South-European Europe.
a r t i c l e s
Book of abstracts (p. 25). Ljubljana: Environmnetal Agency of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrie-
ved from http://arsis.net/circular/ProGEO-Abstract.pdf.
Comanescu, L., & Dobre, R. (2009). Inventorying evaluating and tourism valuating the geomor-
phosites from the central sector of the Cealhau National park. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites,
1(3), 86-96.
Comanescu, L., et al. (2009). Inventorying and evaluation of geomorphosites in the Bu-
cegi Mountains. Forum Geografic. Studii şi cercetări de geografie şi protecţia mediului,
8(8), 38-43.
Coratza, P., & Giusti, C. (2005). Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific qua-
lity of geomorphosites. Il Quaternario, 18(1), 305-313.
Dingwall, P., Weighell, T., & Badman, T. (2005). Geological world heritage: a global framework. A Con-
tribution to the Global Theme Study of World Heritage Natural Sites. IUCN, WCPA, UNESCO.
Dixon, G. (1996). Geoconservation: An International Review and Strategy for Tasmania. Occasional
Paper 35. Hobart, Tasmania: Parks & Wildlife Service.
Dowling, R. K. (2011). Geotourism’s Global Growth. Geoheritage, 3(1), 1-13. DOI: 10.1007/s12371-
010-0024-7.
Dowling, R. K., & Newsome, D. (Eds.). (2006). Geotourism. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
Eberhard, R. (Ed.). (1997). Pattern and Process: Towards a Regional Approach to National Estate Asse-
ssment of Geodiversity. Technical Series No. 2. Canberra: Australian Heritage Commission and
Environment Forest Taskforce, Environment Australia.
Erhartič, B. (2010). Geomorphosite assessment. Acta geographica Slovenica, 50(2), 295-319. DOI:
10.3986/AGS50206.
Giusti, C. (2010). From geosites to geomorphosites. Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement,
5(2), 123-130.
Grandgirard, V. (1997). Geomorphologie et gestion du patrimoine naturel. La memoire de la Ter-
re est notre memoire. Geographica Helvetica, 52(2), 47-56. DOI: 10.5194/gh-52-47-1997.
Grandgirard, V. (1999). L’évaluation des géotopes. Geologia Insubrica, 4, 59-66.
Gray, M. (2004). Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. Chichester: John Wiley.
Grube, A., & Wiedenbein, F.W. (1992). Geotopschutz, eine wichtige Aufgabe der Geowissenschaf-
ten. Die Geowissenschaften, 8, 215-219.
Hose, T. A. (1995). Selling the Story of Britain’s Stone. Environmental Interpretation, 10(2), 16-17.
Hose, T. A. (2000). European Geotourism – Geological Interpretation and Geoconservation Pro-
motion for Tourists. In Barretino, D., Wimbledon, W. A. P., & Gallego, E. (Eds.), Geological
heritage: its conservation and management (pp. 127-146). Madrid: Sociedad Geologica deEspana/
Instituto Technologico GeoMinero de Espana/ProGEO.
Hose, T. A. (2008). Towards a history of geotourism: definitions, antecedents and the future. In
Burek, C. V., & Prosser, C. D. (Eds.), The History of Geoconservation: an introduction. London:
Geological Society.
Hose, T. A. (2012). 3G’s for Modern Geotourism. Geoheritage, 4 (1-2), 7-24.

Ilies, D. C., & Josan, N. (2007). Preliminary contribution to the investigation of the geosites from
Apuseni Mountains (Romania). Revista de geomorfologie, 9, 53-59.
Ilies, D. C., et al. (2009). Estimation of the geomorphostructures with geomorphosite valence in
the northern part of the Hunedoara County (Western Romania). Analele Universitătii din Ora-
dea, Seria Geografie, XIX, 41-46.
Joyce, E. B. (2006). Geomorphological sites and the new Geotourism in Australia. Retrieved from
http://earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/Joyce/heritage/geotourisminaustralia.html.
a r t i c l e s
Kubalíková, L. (2011). Hodnocení geomorfologických lokalit v kontextu ochrany neživé přírody: případová
studie ze západní části národního parku Podyjí a z okolí Maršovského žlebu (Doctoral dissertation).
Brno: Masaryk University.
National Geographic Society. (2005). Geotourism Charter. Retrieved from http://travel.national-
geographic.com/travel/sustainable/pdf/geotourism_charter_template.pdf.
Newsome, D., & Dowling, R. K. (Eds.). (2010). Geotourism: The tourism of Geology and Landscape.
Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers Ltd.
Panizza, M. (1996). Environmental Geomorphology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd.
Panizza, M. (2001). Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey.
Chinese Science Bulletin, 46 – Suppl., 4-6. DOI: 10.1007/BF03187227.
Panizza, M. (2009). The Geomorphodiversity of the Dolomites (Italy): A Key of Geoheritage Asse-
ssment. Geoheritage, 1(1), 33-42.
Panizza, M., & Piacente, S. (1993). Geomorphological assets evaluation. Zeitschrift fur geomorfologie,
Supp. Band 87, 13-18.
Panizza, M., & Piacente, S. (2005). Geomorphosites: a bridge betwenn scientific research, cultural
integration and artistic suggestion. Il Quaternario, 18 (1), 3-10.
Panizza, M., & Piacente, S. (2008). Geomorphosites and geotourism. Revista Geográfica Acadêmica,
2(1), 5-9.
Pereira, P. (2006). Património geomorfológico: conceptualização, avaliação e divulgação. Aplicação ao
Parque Natural de Montesinho (Doctoral dissertation). Braga: Universidade do Minho.
Pereira, P., & Pereira, D. (2010). Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment. Géomor-
phologie: relief, processus, environnement, 1(3), 215-222.
Pereira, P., et al. (2007). Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geo-
graphica Helvetica, 62(3), 159-168.
Piacente, S. (2005). Geosites and geodiversity for a cultural approach to geology. Il Quaternario,
18 (1), 11-14.
Pralong, J. P. (2003). Valorisation et vulgarisation des sciences de la Terre : les concepts de temps
et d’espace. In Reynard, E., Holzmann, C., Guex, D., & Summermatter, N. (Eds.), Géomorphologie
et tourisme, Actes de la Réunion annuelle de la Société Suisse de Géomorphologie (SSGm), Finhaut, 21-23
septembre 2001, Travaux et Recherches n° 24 (pp. 115-127). Lausanne: Institut de Géographie.
Pralong, J. P. (2005). A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites.
Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement, 1(3), 189-196.
Pralong, J. P., & Reynard, E. (2005). A proposal for a classification of geomorphological sites
depending on their tourist value. Il Quaternario, 18(1), 315-321.
ProGEO. (2011). Conserving our shared geoheritage – a protocol on geoconservation principles, sustaina-
ble site use, management, fieldwork, fossil and mineral collecting. Uppsala: ProGEO. Retrieved from
http://www.progeo.se/progeo-protocol-definitions-20110915.pdf.
Prosser, C., Murphy, M., & Larwood, J. (2011). Geological Conservation: a guide to good practice. Ri-
verside Exchange, UK: English Nature.
Reynard, E. (2004). Geosite. In Goudie, A. S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of geomorphology. London: Rout-
ledge.
Reynard, E. (2005). Géomorphosites et paysages. Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement,
1(3), 181-188.
Reynard, E. (2008). Scientific research and tourist promotion of geomorphological heritage. Geogr.
Fis. Dinam. Quat., 31, 225-230.
a r t i c l e s
Reynard, E., Coratza, P., & Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.). (2009). Geomorphosites. Mnichov: Verlag.
Reynard, E., et al. (2003). Géomorphologie et tourisme: quelles relations? In Reynard, E., Holz-
mann, C., Guex, D., & Summermatter, N. (Eds.), Géomorphologie et tourisme, Actes de la Réunion
annuelle de la Société Suisse de Géomorphologie (SSGm), Travaux et Recherches n° 24, Finhaut, 21-23
septembre 2001 (pp. 1-10). Lausanne: Institut de Géographie.
Reynard, E., et al. (2007). A method for assessing the scientific and additional values of geomor-
phosites. Geographica Helvetica, 62(3), 148-158. DOI: 10.5194/gh-62-148-2007.
Reynolds, J. (2001). Notes to accompany RIGS recording, assessment and designation and notifi-
cation sheets. In Notes on the UKRIGS Conference 2001. Penirth: UKRIGS Conference. Retrieved
from http://wiki.geoconservationuk.org.uk/images/8/8d/Assessinfo.pdf.
Serrano Cañadas, E., & Gonzáles-Trueba, J. J. (2005). Assessment of geomorphosites in natural
protected areas: the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Géomorphologie: relief, processus, en-
vironnement, 1(3), 197-208 .
Sharples, C. (1993). A Methodology for the Identification of Significant Landforms and Geological Sites for
Geoconservation Purposes. Hobart, Tasmania: Forestry Commission Tasmania.
Sharples, C. (1995). Geoconservation in forest management – principles and procedures. Tasfo-
rests, 7(12), 37-50.
Sharples, C. (2002). Concepts and principles of geoconservation. Hobart, Tasmania: Parks & Wildlife
Service. Retrieved from http://xbiblio.ecologia.edu.mx/biblioteca/Cursos/Manejo/Geocon-
servation.pdf.
Slomka, T., & Kicinska-Swiderska, A. (2004). Geotourism – the basic concepts. Geoturystyka, 1,
2-5.
Stueve, A. M., et al. (2002). The Geotourism Study: Phase 1 Executive Summary. National Geogra-
phic Traveller, Travel Industry Association of America. Retrieved from http://destinationcen-
ter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/geotourism1-survey.pdf
UNESCO. (1972). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Re-
trieved from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf
Vitaliano, C. J. (2007). Geomythology. In Piccardi, L., & Masse, W. B. (Eds.), Myth and Geolo-
gy. London: Geological Society.
Vujicic, D., et al. (2011). Preliminary geosite assessment. Acta geographica Slovenica, 51(2), 361–
377.
Zouros, N. (2005). Assessment, protection, and promotion of geomorphological and geological
sites in the Aegean area, Greece. Géomorphologie: felief, processus, enivronnement, 1(3), 227-234.
DOI: 10.4000/geomorphologie.398.
Zouros, N. (2007). Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece.
Case study of the Lesvos Island - coastal geomorphosites. Geographica Helvetica, 62(3), 169-180.
DOI: 10.5194/gh-62-169-2007.
View publication stats

Cjot 2013 0005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cjot 2013 0005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cjot 2013 0005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

Geomorphosite assesment for geotourism

Article in Czech Journal of Tourism · January 2013

Komplexní podpora geoturismu View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Lucie Kubalíková / e-mail: luciekubalikova@seznam.cz

Department of geography, Faculty of Education, Technical University in Liberec, Czech Republic

JEL classification: Q100, L83 / Accepted: 12 December 2013

80 | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | (80 —104)

Theoretical basis: geodiversity, geoconservation, geosites,

(80 —104) | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | 81

82 | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | (80 —104)

Sharples (1995), Sharples (2002), Australian Heritage Commission (1996), Australian

(80 —104) | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | 83

84 | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | (80 —104)

(80 —104) | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | 85

University of Modena, Italy

86 | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | (80 —104)

• educational value (representativeness of a particular form or process, quotation in

University of Cantabria, Spain

Table 1 Assessment criteria according to Bruschi and Cendrero (2005)

Intrinsic quality Potential for use (social Potential threats

(80 —104) | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | 87

University of Valladolid, Spain

Table 2 Assessment criteria according to Serrano and Gonzalez-Trueba (2005)

Scientific value Added values Use/management value

Source: adapted from Serrano and Gonzalez-Trueba (2005)

88 | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | (80 —104)

University of the Aegean

Table 3 Assessment criteria according to Zouros (2007)

Source: adapted from Zouros (2007)

(80 —104) | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | 89

Table 4 Assessment criteria according to Pralong (2005)

Scenic value Scientific value Cultural value Economic value

surface area historical and archaeological annual number of

Source: adapted from Pralong, 2005

University of Minho, Portugal

Table 5 Assessment criteria according to Pereira, et al. (2007)

Scientific value Additional values Use value Protection value

90 | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | (80 —104)

Scientific value Additional values Use value Protection value

Source: Pereira, et al. (2007)

University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Table 6 Assessment criteria according to Reynard, et al. (2007)

Source: Reynard, et al. (2007)

(80 —104) | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | 91

Table 7 The overview of the definitions of geotourism

Hose (1995) The provision of interpretive and service facilities to

Hose (2000) The provision of interpretative facilities and services to

Slomka and Kicinska- An offshoot of cognitive tourism and/or adventure tourism

92 | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | (80 —104)

Hose (2008) The provision of interpretive and service facilities to enable

(80 —104) | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | 93

2. Criteria which consider an assessment of the exemplarity and pedagogical potential

Table 8 Individual criteria within the above mentioned groups of criteria

1. assessment of the scientific 1.a a

94 | Czech Journal of Tourism 02 / 2013 | (80 —104)

3. assessment of accessibility 3.a assessment of number, distance and quality of tourist

1. assessment of the scientific 1.a a

3. assessment of accessibility 3.a assessment of number, distance and quality of tourist