Geoheritage

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00394-x

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Geomorphosites Assessment Methods: Comparative

Analysis and Typology
Vanessa Costa Mucivuna 1,2 & Emmanuel Reynard 2 & Maria da Glória Motta Garcia 1

Received: 6 April 2019 / Accepted: 26 July 2019

# The European Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage 2019

Abstract
Due to the increase in geoconservation studies, several methods of qualitative and quantitative assessment of geosites have been
published since the 1990s. However, the criteria and parameters used in the methods are often unclear and ambiguous. Thus, the
aims of this study were to analyse how methods of qualitative and quantitative evaluation of geomorphological heritage devel-
oped and to compare them. The analysis resulted in a typology of the works published until now. A literature review was
conducted based on three criteria, the papers had to be (i) written in English, (ii) published in peer-reviewed scientific journals
and (iii) include at least one of the following keywords in the title: geomorphological heritage, geomorphological site and
geomorphosite. Based on these criteria, 71 papers were analysed. Five categories are proposed: (i) application of previous
methods, (ii) creation of new methods, (iii) application of previous methods combined with new methods, (iv) comparison of
methods and (v) no description of method. The outcomes show that the qualitative evaluation should be more systematic and
explicit according to the criteria applied and the main purpose of the evaluation. Quantitative methods should focus on reducing
weaknesses associated with the overlapping and lack of clarity of some criteria. The proposed typology allowed us to summarise
the papers published so far and to highlight the need to focus on improving existing methods rather than proposing new ones.

Keywords Geoconservation . Geomorphological heritage . Assessment . Inventory . Typology . Criteria

Introduction promote geoheritage to protect this heritage from being mod-

ified, damaged or destroyed.
Interest in geoconservation has been growing since the Among these actions, one can highlight the initiatives de-
International Conference on the Protection of Geological veloped by the International Union of Geological Sciences
Heritage, in Digne-les-Bains, France, 1991 (Martini 1994) (IUGS) through the creation of the Global Indicative List of
and the Malvern Conference in 1993 (O’Halloran et al. Geological Sites, which aimed to conduct a global inventory
1994). Although many efforts had been made toward geolog- using an ad hoc method (Wimbledon et al. 1999). This initia-
ical conservation, it was only after this event that actions were tive was later replaced by the Geosite Project whose aim was
effectively developed worldwide to assess, to protect and to to select the most important, internationally relevant sites for
Geoscience. The Geosite Project was carried out using a sys-
tematic method and with the collaboration of several interna-
tional research groups (Wimbledon 1996; Wimbledon et al.
* Vanessa Costa Mucivuna 1999). Although the project ended without achieving its main
[email protected] goals, several countries, especially countries in Europe, in-
cluding the United Kingdom (Wimbledon et al. 1995; Ellis
Emmanuel Reynard
[email protected] 2008), Spain (García-Cortés et al. 2001; Carcavilla et al.
2009; García-Cortés and Carcavilla-Úrqui 2009) and
Maria da Glória Motta Garcia
Portugal (Brilha et al. 2010, 2013; Brilha and Pereira
[email protected]
2014)conducted national inventories using the project’s sys-
1
GeoHereditas, Institute of Geosciences, University of São Paulo, Rua tematic methods; the regional inventory of the state of São
do Lago, 562, São Paulo, SP 05508-080, Brazil Paulo, Brazil (Garcia et al. 2018) also used the method devel-
2
Institute of Geography and Sustainability, Géopolis, University of oped by the Geosite Project. In addition to these countries,
Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland Poland (Alexandrowicz and Kozlowski 1999), Switzerland
 Geoheritage

(Grandgirard 1999a; Reynard 2013), France (De Wever et al. distinguished. Geomorphological sites (Hooke 1994) or
2015), Czeck Republic (http://lokality.geology.cz/d.pl?item= geomorphosites (Panizza 2001) can be distinguished from
1&l=e, accessed 28.07.2019) and others have conducted other types of geosites by three main characteristics: the aes-
national inventories based on different methods (see https:// thetic dimension, the dynamic dimension and the imbrication
geoheritage-iugs.mnhn.fr/, accessed 17.12.2018). of scale (Reynard 2009b; Coratza and Hobléa 2018). Due to
The majority of geoconservation studies have been dedi- these distinctions, several methods have been developed to
cated to drawing up the inventory and assessing geoheritage at assess the specificities of geomorphological heritage
various scales (Reynard and Brilha 2018). Several authors (Reynard and Coratza 2013). The methods were developed
agree that an inventory is the first—and one of the most im- using two main approaches, the first related to the restrictive
portant steps—of geoconservation and consequently, that the definition of geomorphosites for their scientific value from the
identification and characterisation of geosites are crucial for geomorphological point of view (Grandgirard 1999b) and the
the success of geoconservation strategies (Brilha 2005, 2016, second based on a broader definition under which the
2018; Henriques et al. 2011). On the other hand, quantitative geomorphosites are evaluated based on human perception or
assessment can be used as a tool both to contribute to geosite exploration (Panizza and Piacente 1993; Panizza 2001). Most
management and to reduce the degree of subjectivity associ- quantitative methods for the evaluation of geomorphosites
ated with the selection of natural objects and features (Brilha were developed based on the broader definition and assess
2016, 2018). three main groups of values: scientific, additional and use
Several research groups have addressed methodological (Coratza and Hobléa 2018).
issues related to qualitative and quantitative assessment Several combinations of values are used in these methods:
(Grandgirard 1999b; Giusti and Calvet 2010; Brilha 2016, scientific and additional values (e.g. Reynard et al. 2007,
2018) and have developed methods for the assessment of 2016; Comănescu and Nedelea 2010; Feuillet and Sourp
geosites and geomorphosites (e.g. Bruschi and Cendrero 2011; Niculiţă and Mărgărint 2018); scientific and use (e.g.
2005, 2009; Coratza and Giusti 2005; Reynard et al. 2007, Bosson and Reynard 2012; Del Monte et al. 2013; Pica et al.
2016; Reynard 2009a; Lima et al. 2010; Pereira and Pereira 2017; Zgłobicki et al. 2018); scientific, additional, use and
2010; Kubalíková 2013; Brilha 2016). management (e.g. Serrano and González-Trueba 2005;
Although several authors (Wimbledon et al. 1999; Zouros 2005, 2007; Comănescu et al. 2012); scientific, use,
Sharples 2002; Pereira et al. 2007; Fuertes-Gutiérrez protection (e.g. Coratza et al. 2011; Warowna et al. 2014);
and Fernández-Martínez 2010; Lima et al. 2010; scientific, additional, use, protection (e.g. Pereira et al. 2007;
Pereira and Pereira 2010; Sellier 2010; Brilha 2016; Pereira and Pereira 2010; Kubalíková and Kirchner 2016).
Reynard et al. 2016; Garcia et al. 2018) discussed var- Based on these groups of values, some authors have com-
ious approaches to select sites of geological interest, pared existing quantitative evaluation methods (Reynard
many of the studies are not very clear on the selection 2009b; Erhartič 2010; Ilinca and Comănescu 2011;
of geosites to be assessed (Pereira and Pereira 2010; Comănescu et al. 2012; Kubalíková 2013; Reynard and
Brilha 2016; Sellier 2016). Most do not explain how Coratza 2013; Maghsoudi and Rahmati 2018; Safarabadi
geosites are selected, which is often based only on the and Shahzeidi 2018). From these outcomes, some proposed
expert’s knowledge, i.e. with no a pre-established meth- new methods which included the best criteria of the previous
od, or sometimes restricted by the number of sites to be ones.
evaluated (Reynard et al. 2016). Some authors have Considering the large number of existing methods and the
emphasised the difficulty in replicating results obtained difficulty of developing a single method to evaluate any geo-
by other researchers due to the lack of transparency morphological context, the aims of this study were to (i) ana-
(Bruschi and Cendrero 2005, 2009; Bruschi et al. lyse how the methods of qualitative and quantitative evalua-
2011). To reduce the subjectivity of the assessment tion of geomorphological heritage have developed and (ii) to
procedures and make them as objective as possible, compare the criteria used in the studies. Based on this analysis,
Lima et al. (2010) proposed four criteria to consider we propose a typology of the methods published until now.
when conducting an inventory: the topic, the value,
the scale and the use. These authors consider that ap-
plying these criteria could lead to all sites being Methodological Procedures
assessed using the same parameters. Despite this pro-
posal, there is still no consensus on a single universal Existing methods for the assessment of geomorphological her-
method of assessment (Reynard 2009a; Brilha 2016, itage were analysed according to the following methods:
2018).
Paleontological, petrological, mineralogical, stratigraphic, 1. A review of the literature was conducted to select the
structural, pedological and geomorphological geosites can be papers to be analysed based on the following criteria:
Geoheritage

the papers had to be (i) written in English; (ii) published in – development of a new method based on previous ones;
peer-reviewed scientific journals; and (iii) use at least one – application of previous methods.
of the following keywords in the title: geomorphological 2.2 Quantitative evaluation:
heritage, geomorphological site or geomorphosite. The
literature review was performed in September 2018 so – description of criteria and values;
works published after this date are not included. The fol- – development of a new method based or inspired by pre-
lowing international online database were used to select vious ones;
the papers: Web of Science, Science Direct and Journal – application of previous methods;
Citation Reports of the Brazilian Federal Agency for – description of weighting and calculation of the final value
Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education— of the geomorphosite.
CAPES. In this step, papers complying with the above-
mentioned criteria were found in the following scientific
journals: Acta Geographica Slovenica; AREA—Royal The analysis of the papers also provided an overview of
Geographical Society; Boletim de la AGE; Chinese how the methods were applied.
Science Bulletin, Czech Journal of Tourism; Eco Mont;
Environmental Geology; Environmental Management; 4. Proposing typologies. This step was based on the types of
Forum Geografic; Geografia Fisica e Dinamica assessment methods applied by the authors of the selected
Quaternaria; Geographia Napocensis; Geographica papers: (i) development of new methods, (ii) application
Helvetica; Geoheritage; GeoJournal of Tourism and of previous methods and (iii) comparison of two or more
Geosites; Géomorphologie: relief, processus, previous methods.
environnement; International Journal of Physical
Sciences; Italian Journal of Quaternary Sciences;
Quaestiones Geographicae; Sustainability; and Vegueta:
Anuario de la Faculdad de Geografia e Historia.
Results
2. Search on the selected journal websites. This step aimed
to select published papers that were not included in the
Two main aspects were analysed in the papers: (i) general
international online databases.
aspects and (ii) methods used for qualitative and quantitative
assessment. Based on this analysis, the papers were classified
A total of 110 papers were initially selected. As the main
in different typologies.
objective of this research was to analyse the methods of as-
sessment of geomorphological heritage, papers discussing
other topics such as geomorphosite mapping, strategies of General Aspects
promotion and popularization or assessment of threats and
impacts were removed from the list. Seventy-one papers were The analysis of the general aspects included the topic, the
selected for the final list (Table 1). value, the scale and the aim (Lima et al. 2010):

3. Detailed analysis of the selected papers based on the fol- & The topic: geomorphological heritage was the central top-
lowing criteria: ic of all the studies;
& The value: 46% of the studies considered tourism as the
1. General aspects: main value to be evaluated, 37% identified the scientific
value, 14% the educational value and 3% did not mention
– topic; this aspect. Some studies defined more than one value to
– value; be evaluated;
– scale; & The scale: 46% of the studies used political boundaries to
– aim. delimit the areas (e.g. region or municipality), 28% used
2. Methods of assessment of geomorphological physical boundaries (e.g. mountain massif, valley, cave),
heritage: 23% conservation areas (e.g. protected area, natural re-
serve) and 3% did not mention the scale;
2.1 Qualitative evaluation: & The aim: evaluating the geomorphosites to be exploited
for different purposes was the main objective for 91% of
– description of the procedures and criteria used for the the papers (Fig. 1), 6% aimed to discuss or compare
selection of sites; methods of quantitative assessment and 3% did not men-
– use of descriptive cards; tion the aim.
 Geoheritage

Table 1 Published papers on the assessment of geomorphological heritage

No Author Title of the paper (keywords are in bold)

01 Panizza (2001) Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and examples of geomorphological survey

02 Avanzini et al. (2005) Geomorphosites in Trentino: a first census
03 Coratza and Giusti (2005) Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites
04 Costamagna (2005) A geomorphosites inventory in Central Piemonte (NW Italy): first results
05 De Waele et al. (2005a) Geomorphosites of Tozeur region (South-West Tunisia)
06 De Waele et al. (2005b) Karst geomorphosites of Monte Albo (North-East Sardinia)
07 Diligenti et al. (2005) Geomorphosites in the landscape of Monti del Furlo (Northern Marche Apennines)
08 Geremia and Massoli-Novelli Coastal geomorphosites of the Isles of Lipari and Stromboli (Aeolian Islands, Italy): new potential for geo-tourism
(2005)
09 Gregori et al. (2005) The main geomorphosites in Umbria
10 Massoli-Novelli (2005) The main geomorphosites of the Egadi Islands (Sicily, Italy)
11 Nesci et al. (2005) Geomorphological sites in the Northern Marche (Italy). Examples from Autochthon Anticline Ridges and from Val
Marecchia Allochthon
12 Orrù et al. (2005) Submerged geomorphosites in the marine protected areas of Sardinia (Italy): assessment and improvement
13 Pellegrini et al. (2005) The geomorphosites in Lombardy
14 Pralong (2005) A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites
15 Serrano and Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain)
González-Trueba (2005)
16 Zouros (2005) Assessment, protection and promotion of geomorphological and geological sites in the Aegean area, Greece
17 Pereira et al. (2007) Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal)
18 Reynard et al. (2007) A method for assessing “scientific” and “additional values” of geomorphosites
19 Zouros (2007) Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece: case study of the Lesvos Island - coastal
geomorphosites
20 González-Trueba and Geomorphological heritage assessment in natural protected areas. Application in the Picos de Europa National
Cañadas (2008) Park
21 Comănescu and Dobre Inventorying, evaluating and tourism valuating the geomorphosites from the central sector of the Ceahlău National
(2009) Park
22 Comănescu et al. (2009) Inventorying and evaluation of geomorphosites in the Bucegi Mountains
23 De Waele and Melis (2009) Geomorphology and geomorphological heritage of the Ifrane–Azrou region (Middle Atlas, Morocco)
24 Comănescu and Nedelea Analysis of some representative geomorphosites in the Bucegi Mountains: between scientific evaluation and tourist
(2010) perception
25 Erhartič (2010) Geomorphosite assessment
26 Nedelea et al. (2010) Petrographical relief on the Southern Slope of the Făgăraş Mountains (The Argeş Basin, Romania) – premiss for
identification of geomorphosites
27 Pereira and Pereira (2010) Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment
28 Pellitero et al. (2011) Geodiversity and geomorphosite assessment applied to a natural protected area: the Ebro and Rudron Gorges
Natural Park (Spain)
29 Coratza et al. (2011) Recognition and assessment of geomorphosites in Malta at the Il-Majjistral nature and history park
30 Costa (2011) Volcanic geomorphosites assessment of the last eruption, on April to May 1995, within the Natural Park of Fogo
Island, Cape Verde
31 Dóniz-Páez et al. (2011) Geomorphosites and geotourism in volcanic landscape: the example of la Corona del Lajial Cinder Cone (El
Hierro, Canary Islands, Spain)
32 Feuillet and Sourp (2011) Geomorphological heritage of the Pyrenees National Park (France): assessment, clustering, and promotion of
geomorphosites
33 Ilinca and Comănescu (2011) Aspects concerning some of the geomorphosites with tourist value from Vâlcea County (Romania)
34 Comănescu et al. (2011) Evaluation of geomorphosites in Vistea Valley (Fagaras Mountains-Carpathians, Romania)
35 Bollati et al. (2012) A geomorphosites selection method for educational purposes: a case study in Trebbia Valley (Emilia Romagna,
Italy)
36 Bosson and Reynard (2012) Geomorphological heritage, conservation and promotion in high-alpine protected areas
37 Cocean (2012) The Arieşului Gorge, a complex geomorphosite in the Apuseni Mountains
38 Comănescu et al. (2012) The evaluation of geomorphosites from the Ponoare Protected Area
39 Bollati et al. (2013) Assessment and selection of geomorphosites and trails in the Miage Glacier Area (Western Italian Alps)
Geoheritage

Table 1 (continued)

No Author Title of the paper (keywords are in bold)

40 Del Monte et al. (2013) Geosites within Rome city center (Italy): a mixture of cultural and geomorphological heritage
41 Gavrilă and Anghel (2013) Geomorphosites inventory in the Măcin Mountains (South-Eastern Romania)
42 Kubalíková (2013) Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes
43 Neches (2013) From geomorphosite evaluation to geotourism interpretation. Case study: The Sphinx of Romania’s Southern
Carpathians
44 Zgłobicki and Geomorphological heritage as a tourist attraction. A case study in Lubelskie Province, SE Poland
Baran-Zglobicka (2013)
45 Warowna et al. (2014) Geomorphosite assessment in the proposed Geopark Vistula River Gap (E Poland)
46 Bollati et al. (2015) The role of ecological value in geomorphosite assessment for the debris-covered Miage Glacier (Western Italian
Alpes) bases on a review of 2.5 century of scientific study
47 Costa-Casais et al. (2015) Assessment and management of the geomorphological heritage of Monte Pindo (NW Spain): a landscape as a
symbol of identity
48 Kerguillec and Sellier (2015) Selection of geomorphosites in the Rondane National Park (central Norway): landforms and popularization
49 Albă (2016) Geomorphosites with touristic value in the central-southern part of the Parâng Mountains
50 Jurj (2016) The geomorphosites of Roşia Montană
51 Kubalíková and Kirchner Geosite and geomorphosite assessment as a tool for geoconservation and geotourism purposes: a case study from
(2016) Vizovická vrchovina highland (Eastern part of the Czech Republic)
52 Pereira and Martins (2016) Interactions between geomorphological heritage and cultural landscape of Serra do Alvão: the perspective of
cultural geomorphology
53 Pica et al. (2016) The Aeterna Urbs geomorphological heritage (Rome, Italy)
54 Reynard et al. (2016) Integrated approach for the inventory and management of geomorphological heritage at the regional scale
55 Rypl et al. (2016) Geomorphological inventory as a tool for proclaiming geomorphosite (a study of Mt. Myslivna in the Novohradské
hory Mts.–Czech Republic)
56 Sellier (2016) A deductive method for the selection of geomorphosites: application to Mont Ventoux (Provence, France)
57 Artugyan (2017) Geomorphosites assessment in karst terrains Anina Karst Region (Banat Mountains, Romania)
58 Cocean and Cocean (2017) An assessment of gorges for purposes of identifying geomorphosites of geotourism value in the Apuseni
Mountains (Romania)
59 Comănescu et al. (2017) Geomorphosites and geotourism in Bucharest city center (Romania)
60 Pereira (2017) Potential geomorphosites as locals of geotouristic interest: case of municipality of João Pessoa, Paraíba State
(Brazilian NE)
61 Pica et al. (2017) Contribution for an urban geomorphoheritage assessment method: proposal from three geomorphosites in Rome
(Italy)
62 Reynard et al. (2017) Urban geomorphological heritage. An overview
63 Bouzekraoui et al. (2018) Inventory and assessment of geomorphosites for geotourism development: A case study of Aït Bou Oulli valley
(Central High-Atlas, Morocco)
64 Clivaz and Reynard (2018) How to integrate invisible geomorphosites in an inventory a case study in the Rhone River Valley (Switzerland)
65 Maghsoudi and Rahmati Geomorphosites assessment of Lorestan Province in Iran by comparing of Zouros and Comanescu’s methods (case
(2018) study: Poldokhtar Area, Iran)
66 Mauerhofer et al. (2018) Contribution of a geomorphosite inventory to the geoheritage knowledge in developing countries: the case of the
Simien Mountains National Park, Ethiopia
67 Niculiţă and Mărgărint Landslides and fortified settlements as valuable cultural geomorphosites and geoheritage sites in the Moldavian
(2018) Plateau, North-Eastern Romania
68 Safarabadi and Shahzeidi Tourism silence in geomorphosites: a case study of Ali-Sadr cave (Hamadan, Iran)
(2018)
69 Zgłobicki et al. (2018) The potential of permanent gullies in Europe as geomorphosites
70 Pérez-Umaña et al. (2019) Comparative analysis of geomorphosites in volcanoes of Costa Rica, Mexico, and Spain
71 Rypl et al. (2019) Contribution to the assessment of geomorphosites in the Czech Republic (a case study of the North-Eastern part of
the Novohradské́ Mountains)
 Geoheritage

Fig. 1 Main objectives of the

assessment of geomorphosites in
the papers analysed

Methods of Assessment of Geomorphological

Heritage Although the procedures for selecting geomorphosites
were always described, the details were generally not clear,
Among the 71 scientific papers analysed, 16 only mentioned making it difficult to fully understand the procedures and
the method used for qualitative assessment; 13 mentioned the to replicate the method. For instance, most authors
method used for quantitative evaluation; 36 identified both underlined the importance of the literature review or of
methods; and 6 did not mention any method. fieldwork, but did not provide any information on how
the procedure was carried out or the criteria to be used in
each step. Nor did the authors describe which criteria were
Qualitative Evaluation used to select the cartographic material for interpretation or
the development of geomorphological mapping. Sellier
Fifty-two studies describing qualitative evaluation were (2016) defined the delineation of the main geomorphic
analysed. Among them, 46 papers described methods that properties, the identification of major geomorphological
were developed exclusively for that specific research, components and the definition of distinct basic geomor-
whereas six studies used previously developed methods. phological units as required procedures for the develop-
As the goal of the present work was to analyse method- ment of a deductible integrated approach based on a mul-
ological issues related to the development and application tilevel analysis of the relief and was the only author to
of assessment methods, our analysis was mainly based on describe procedure in detail.
these 46 papers. Thirty percent of the papers described the criteria used for
Based on the results, two main aspects of the qualitative selecting sites; among them, the most widely used criteria
evaluation were addressed: (i) selection of potential were representativeness (36%), scientific value (21%) and ob-
geomorphosites based on a set of procedures and criteria and servation conditions (14%).
(ii) evaluation and description of the selected geomorphosites.
(ii) Description of the geomorphosites. Although this is a
(i) Selection of potential geomorphosites. This item was de- very important step, only 56% of the studies used de-
scribed in all the methods, the most widely used proce- scriptive cards, while the other did not present any
dures were a review of the literature, fieldwork, the inter- standardised data related to this description.
pretation of topographical, geological and/or geomorpho-
logical maps, the interpretation of aerial photographs, sat- Twelve percent of the papers used previous methods as a
ellite images and/or digital elevation models, geomorpho- basis to create their own set of procedures, whilst 13% directly
logical mapping, exploiting the researchers’ experience, applied previous methods, which implies that 25% of all stud-
historical sources, interviews with experts and a review of ies used similar procedures. Among the studies applying pre-
tourism publications (Fig. 2). vious methods, 25% used the method of Comănescu and
Geoheritage

Fig. 2 Main procedures described

by the authors to select potential
geomorphosites

Nedelea (2010), and the others applied the methods of Serrano ecological interest, other geological features with heritage val-
and González-Trueba (2005), Sellier (2010), Kirchner and ue, conditions of observation and rareness at national level
Kubalíková (2011), Bollati et al. (2012) and Kubalíková (2012). (Fig. 3).

Quantitative Evaluation Additional Values The main criteria cited were ecological im-
pact and protected site for the ecological value; cultural inter-
Forty-nine papers describing methods of quantitative assess- est, historical importance, religious importance, archaeologi-
ment were analysed. Among them, 27 developed a new meth- cal importance, artistic and literary importance, geohistorical
od, 16 applied previous methods and six compared two or importance, iconographic representations, symbolic rele-
more previous methods and, based on this comparison, three vance, artistic and cultural events, association with elements
proposed a new method of assessment. of heritage value for the cultural value; aesthetics, colour con-
Two main steps were generally mentioned in connection trast, viewpoints, average distance of viewpoints, spatial struc-
with quantitative evaluation: (i) attributing values to each cri- ture, and visibility for the aesthetic value; accessibility, annual
terion based on its relevance and (ii) calculating the final value number of visitors, attractiveness, economic potential/prod-
based on the weighting and formula determined by the meth- ucts, natural risks for the economic value (Fig. 4).
od. All the papers evaluated the scientific value of the Use value was mostly assessed based on accessibility, vis-
geomorphosites, while additional values were assessed by ibility, educational use, infrastructure, equipment and support
70%, use and management by 60% and protection values by services, aesthetics, average distance to viewpoints, existing
47% of the papers. educational products, use of cultural value, present use of
other natural and cultural interests, present use of geomorpho-
(i) Values. The most widely used criteria can be clustered in logical interest, representativeness, additional value, legal pro-
two main groups: one based on the intrinsic value, includ- tection and use limitations (Fig. 5).
ing scientific and additional values, and the second based Management and protection values were mainly assessed based
on use and management values. on vulnerability, fragility, level of protection, existing or potential
threats or impacts, integrity, current status of the site (Fig. 6).
Twenty-five methods were based on or inspired by criteria
Scientific Value The most frequently cited criteria were rare- developed for previous methods. The most frequently cited
ness, representativeness, integrity, experts’ knowledge, methods were those developed by Reynard et al. (2007),
geodiversity or diversity, paleogeomorphological or paleogeo- Pralong (2005), Coratza and Giusti (2005), Pereira et al.
graphical importance, exemplarity, educational interest, area, (2007), Serrano and González-Trueba (2005), Grandgirard
 Geoheritage

Fig. 3 Main criteria used to

assess the scientific value

(1999b), Panizza (2001), Zouros (2007), Pereira and Pereira applied and compared two or more previous methods. By
(2010), Bruschi and Cendrero (2005), Pereira (2006) and analysing the criteria, Erhartič (2010), Comănescu et al. (2012)
Kubalíková (2013) (Fig. 7). and Kubalíková (2013) proposed new methods.
Twenty-two papers applied previous methods. The most
widely used methods were those of Pralong (2005), Serrano (ii) Calculation of the final value. To obtain the final value,
and González-Trueba (2005), Pereira et al. (2007) and Reynard some studies used the same weighting for all criteria
et al. (2007) (Table 2). Erhartič (2010), Ilinca and Comănescu while others distinguished between them. In general,
(2011), Comănescu et al. (2012), Kubalíková (2013), Maghsoudi the final value of the geomorphosites was calculated
and Rahmati (2018) and Safarabadi and Shahzeidi (2018) based on the sum (e.g. Zouros 2007; Pereira and

Fig. 4 Main criteria used to

assess additional values
Geoheritage

Fig. 5 Main criteria used to

assess the use value

Pereira 2010; Neches 2013; Kubalíková and Kirchner Grandgirard 1999b; Bruschi and Cendrero 2005; Coratza
2016) or on the arithmetic mean (e.g. Pralong 2005; et al. 2012).
Reynard et al. 2007; Comănescu et al. 2012; Niculiţă The broader definition of geomorphosites (Panizza and
and Mărgărint 2018) of several scores; sometimes, Piacente 1993; Panizza 2001) was used in most of the papers
weighting was applied (e.g. Coratza and Giusti 2005; to evaluate the value of a geomorphosite for tourism.
Coratza et al. 2011). Although some authors rated more than one value, most did
not mention if the geomorphosites would be used for scientif-
ic, or educational purposes, or for tourism; in other words, the
criteria applied to distinguish them were not explicit. It was to
Proposed Typologies be expected that many papers are aimed to evaluate
geomorphosites for tourism purposes because of the aesthetic
A set of typologies was proposed based on the application and value of the geomorphosites. If other types of geosites, e.g.
description of the methods of qualitative and quantitative assess- palaeontological or sedimentological sites, had been the sub-
ment. The data show that 58% of the papers created a new ject of the evaluation, the results could have been quite differ-
method of qualitative and/or quantitative evaluation, 17% ap- ent as such sites have less aesthetic appeal.
plied previous methods combined with new methods, 8% com- One of the specific attributes of geomorphosites is the im-
pared previous methods of quantitative assessment, 8% applied brication of scales, which can be evaluated in relation to the
previous methods of qualitative and/or quantitative evaluation temporal and the spatial features (Reynard 2009b). Despite the
and 8% did not describe the method used, but included a quali- importance of the temporal scale in understanding the genesis
tative description of the geomorphosites (Fig. 8). of geomorphosites, most of the papers did not clearly state
how this aspect was used in their selection and qualitative
assessment. Likewise, the spatial scale was described mainly
Discussion in relation to the study area and not the scale of the
geomorphosite, demonstrating that most of the papers did
General Aspects not discuss the size and/or the complexity of the scale of
geomorphosites. In addition, similar methods were sometimes
The evaluation of the geomorphological heritage was the main applied in sites but at quite different scales, so the outcomes
topic of all the papers, which can be explained by the criteria could have been different if the spatial scale had been used
used to select the papers. Defining these criteria was necessary based on the size and complexity of the geomorphosites.
to make the work as systematic as possible, since the large Considering that scale is important in the evaluation of
number of studies published would otherwise make analysis geomorphosites, we recommend that future studies discuss
impracticable. The criteria were defined to include the largest scale in more detail in the selection and evaluation processes.
number of papers published on the subject. But some assess- Concerning the stated objective of the studies, assessing the
ment methods were nevertheless not included in this analysis geomorphosites was the main objective of 91% of the papers,
because they did not include the necessary keywords in the the majority to promote tourism, and for a smaller percentage
title (e.g. Panizza and Piacente 1993; Rivas et al. 1997; the main objective was valorisation and promotion,
 Geoheritage

Fig. 6 Main criteria used to

assess the management and
protection values

management, scientific use and others. The studies which Qualitative Assessment
assessed the geomorphosites for the purpose of tourism, sci-
entific, educational, territorial planning and EIA, and conser- One of the most important steps in the evaluation of
vation based on ecological attributes stated their objectives geomorphosites is the selection and description of sites be-
quite clearly. On the other hand, studies that evaluated cause they must be evaluated with respect to the objective of
geomorphosites for valorisation and promotion, management, the study. This step is one of the main tasks of the researchers,
protection, use and management and conservation were less and although most did mention the procedures used to select
clear in their aims since they may be applied in various pur- geomorphosites, they did not describe the criteria applied;
poses and contexts. The studies which aimed to evaluate when they did, they did not clearly explain how they measured
geomorphosites in the context of a regional scale inventory the criteria. The use of a systematic and well-structured meth-
described a broad approach, but with well-established criteria. od with transparent criteria is generally presented by the sci-
Although the majority of papers presented the main objective entific community as an important solution to avoid a biased
of the study clearly, some did not choose the method that best selection with high degree of subjectivity. Despite the fact that
matched the stated aims of the research; in other words, some a review of the literature, interviews with researchers, analyses
studies used methods of quantitative assessment which mainly of maps and field work are standard procedures in
focussed on intrinsic values even though their stated aims geoconservation studies, the criteria used to decide whether
were to evaluate the potential for tourism. Analysis of these or not to include geomorphosites in the assessment were gen-
outcomes shows that future studies should analyse the objec- erally not described. These unclear procedures call the evalu-
tives and parameters of the methods they intend to use in more ation into question, as it is not possible to either measure or
detail before actually applying them to avoid evaluating replicate their outcomes. Although most of the papers de-
geomorphosites while ignoring the main purpose of the scribed the procedures used to select geomorphosites, 19 did
evaluation. not. Even though 10 out of the 19 provided a qualitative

Fig. 7 Main methods used as a

basis or inspiration for the
creation of new methods
Geoheritage

Table 2 Application of the

methods in other studies Methods Application Number of Impact of the
applications method

Grandgirard (1995, 1996) Costamagna (2005) 1 1

Bruschi and Cendrero (2005) Kubalíková (2013)b 1 1
Coratza and Giusti (2005) Comănescu et al. (2012)b 2 2
Kubalíková (2013)b
Pralong (2005) Comănescu and Dobre 7 7
(2009)
Comănescu et al. (2009)
Ilinca and Comănescu
(2011)b
Comănescu et al. (2012)b
Kubalíková (2013)b
Albă (2016)
Artugyan (2017)
Serrano and González-Trueba Erhartič (2010)b 6 5
(2005) Dóniz-Páez et al. (2011)
Pellitero et al. (2011)a
Comănescu et al. (2012)b
Kubalíková (2013)b
Pérez-Umaña et al. (2019)
Pereira et al. (2007) Erhartič (2010)b 5 5
Costa (2011)
Comănescu et al. (2012)b
Kubalíková (2013)b
Safarabadi and Shahzeidi
(2018)b
Reynard et al. (2007) Erhartič (2010)b 5 5
Ilinca and Comănescu
(2011)b
Comănescu et al. (2012)b
Kubalíková (2013)b
Safarabadi and Shahzeidi
(2018)b
Zouros (2007) Comănescu et al. (2012)b 3 3
Kubalíková (2013)b
Maghsoudi and Rahmati
(2018)b
Erhartič (2010) Comănescu et al. (2012)b 1 1
Cocean (2011) Jurj (2016) 1 1
Bollati et al. (2012) Bollati et al. (2013)a 2 0
Bollati et al. (2015)a
Comănescu et al. (2012) Maghsoudi and Rahmati 1 1
(2018)b
Kubalíková (2012) Rypl et al. (2019) 1 1
Reynard et al. (2016) Bouzekraoui et al. (2018) 3 1
Clivaz and Reynard (2018)a
Mauerhofer et al. (2018)a

a
The method was applied by the same author or by the research group in which the authors are mentioned
b
The method was tested and compared by other authors
 Geoheritage

Fig. 8 Distribution of the

analysed papers based on the
typology

description of the geomorphosites, the results of our analysis Quantitative Assessment

show that there is a need for greater clarity in the description
and criteria used for qualitative assessments. The lack of clear Grouping the criteria in different sets of values was mainly
procedures questions the reliability and replicability of quali- associated with the objective of the evaluation. However, the
tative evaluations by other researchers. Based on these analy- evaluated criteria sometimes overlapped and were conse-
ses, it was impossible to know exactly how the potential sites quently confusing, e.g. some authors included ‘educational
were selected. This lack of clear criteria makes the evaluation interest’ in scientific value while others considered it to be
quite subjective. an additional or use value; another rather ambiguous criterion
Some papers solved this issue through the use of descrip- was ‘ecological impact’: some authors included it in the sci-
tive cards which allow the systematisation and the possible entific value due to role played by geomorphological sites in
comparison of data in different areas thanks to the use of same ecological systems (Coratza and Hobléa 2018) whereas others
criteria, such as general data (e.g. identification code, name, included it in additional values. The main problem associated
coordination, property), geomorphological context (e.g. type, with this type of overlapping and confusion is the fact that
genesis, description, values), use and management (e.g. acces- some criteria are not clear; this lack of clarity prevents ade-
sibility, current use, legal protection, infrastructure), etc. quate evaluation of the criterion which, in turn, may lead to
Although only 15% of the papers mentioned that the meth- different results depending on the researcher who conducts the
od they developed was based on previous methods, the data evaluation.
showed that 74% of all methods applied similar procedures Regarding the scientific value, rareness and representative-
including a review of the literature, fieldwork, analysis of ness were the most frequently used criteria, i.e. in 70% of the
maps, remote sensing products and geomorphological map- papers. This shows that, although some criteria are only ap-
ping. Studies which applied previous methods actually used plied by a small group of researchers, the criteria used in the
methods they had developed themselves or developed by the evaluation of the scientific value are more consolidated and
research group to which they belonged. similar than the criteria applied in the other types of values.
Given the large number of assessment methods, it would be Concerning additional values, ecological, cultural, aesthetic
important for future research to discuss the application of pre- and economic aspects were the most frequently evaluated. It
vious methods with the aim of increasing the debate is worth mentioning here that economic value includes several
concerning methodological problems, thereby contributing criteria which overlap with use value criteria and it was some-
to their consolidation and improvement and facilitating the times difficult to distinguish between them. Less than half the
integration of data based on similar criteria. Currently, very methods cited included evaluation of management and protec-
few methods used for the qualitative evaluation clearly tion values, a situation which differs from the ideals and prin-
describe the procedures and criteria according to the type of ciples disseminated by geoconservation.
value and are clear enough to be the subject of outside Most of the methods were based on, or inspired by, previ-
evaluation and replication. Brilha (2016, 2018) presented a ous methods (e.g. Pralong 2005; Zouros 2007; Pereira and
clear and systematic method with transparent criteria to eval- Pereira 2010; Coratza et al. 2011; Kubalíková 2013;
uate all types of geosites. With some adaptations, his approach Reynard et al. 2016; Niculiţă and Mărgărint 2018), showing
could also be used for the assessment of geomorphosites. that authors want to analyse previous methods before
Geoheritage

Fig. 9 Classification of the papers

based on the proposed typologies

developing a new method, this reinforces the similarity of did not describe the reasons for this differentiation. The dif-
criteria and weighting in many methods. ferent ways of presenting results can lead to misinterpretation
Several studies directly applied previous methods (e.g. because some methods present the values separately, while
Costamagna 2005; Comănescu et al. 2009; Pellitero et al. others present the global value, including use and potential
2011; Bollati et al. 2013; Jurj 2016; Clivaz and Reynard threats.
et al. 2018). We consider this practice very interesting be-
cause, whenever possible, we recommend applying and Proposed Typologies
discussing the strengths and weaknesses of previous methods
to improve existing methods rather than creating many new Clustering in different categories revealed that although all the
methods. Some authors who applied previous methods did not papers we analysed dealt with evaluation issues, a few did not
explain why they chose them; sometimes, the methods chosen describe the method used. The choice and description of the
did not match the stated research objectives, e.g. some studies method is extremely important in demonstrating the relevance
whose aims were to evaluate scientific and tourism values of the geomorphosite, in reducing the subjectivity associated
applied the methods of Serrano and González-Trueba with the evaluation process and in demonstrating concern with
(2005), Pereira et al. (2007) and Zouros (2007), whose objec- the method, allowing it to be replicated and a discussion of the
tive was the assessment of geomorphosites in the context of results obtained.
management of protected areas. In the same way, some papers The creation of new methods was prioritised over applica-
which aimed to evaluate the value of the geomorphosites for tion of previous ones; however, the authors generally did not
tourism used the method of Reynard et al. (2007), which fo- explain their reasons for creating new methods. The qualita-
cuses on scientific and additional values. Thus, the results tive evaluations used many similar criteria, so applying
would be much more accurate if the studies applied previous existing methods is preferable and would prevent the dissem-
methods that matched their main evaluation objectives. ination of too many methods with no critical discussion of
Although some methods are cited in recent studies, this their weak and strong points.
cannot be a key factor to evaluate the real impact of the meth- Our comparison of previous methods designed for qualita-
od in the scientific community, because some of methods cited tive assessment proved to be an excellent way of analysing
have only been applied by the research group who designed and evaluating the best parameters of the previous methods.
the method. The method with the highest impact was devel- Concerning the use of previous methods, the outcomes show
oped by Pralong (2005) and it has been applied by several that the authors applied more quantitative assessments than
different groups of researchers. qualitative.
Concerning the measurement of the final value of the Grouping the methods used by the authors in typologies: (i)
geomorphosites, there was no consistency in the weighting application of previous methods (6 papers), (ii) creation of
and formula applied. Most papers presented the results based new methods (41), (iii) application of previous methods com-
on the sum or the arithmetic mean of all values; however, bined with new methods (12), (iv) comparison of methods (6)
some presented specific criteria with different weighting, but and (v) no description of method (6), allowed us to summarise
 Geoheritage

the data in papers published until now and also to identify the Acknowledgements We are grateful to National Council for Science and
Technological Development of Brazil (CNPq) for the doctoral scholar-
kinds of methods the authors applied (Fig. 9).
ship (Process n. 141970/2017-0) and the Coordination for the
Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for the mobility
scholarship (PSDE Process 88881.189352/2018-01) granted to the first
author, and the Institute of Geography and Sustainability of University of
Lausanne for their provided support. We thank the two anonymous re-
Conclusion viewers for their useful comments on the manuscript and to Daphne
Goodfellow for the improvement of the English manuscript
Many qualitative and quantitative assessment methods have
been published in recent decades, evidence for the growth of
and progress in research on geomorphosites. However, some References
methods still have unsolved problems due to the lack of pre-
cise and clear criteria used to assess geomorphosites. Albă CD (2016) Geomorphosites with touristic value in the central-
The description of procedures is often not sufficient to southern part of Parâng Mountains. Forum Geografic 15(1):109–
115. https://doi.org/10.5775/fg.2016.054.i
avoid subjectivity in the selection of geomorphosites, because
Alexandrowicz Z, Kozlowski S (1999) From selected geosites to
most authors fail to explain how the selection was made and geodiversity conservation - polish example of modern framework.
which criteria were applied. We recommend descriptive cards In: Barettino D, Vallejo M, Gallego E (eds) Towards the balanced
as a good tool to systematise and compare data. The procedure management and conservation of the geological heritage in the new
millennium. Sociedad Geológica de España, Madrid, pp 40–44
used for qualitative evaluation needs to be more systematic,
Artugyan L (2017) Geomorphosites assessment in karst terrains: Anina
and the criteria used and the purpose of the assessment more karst region (Banat Mountains, Romania). Geoheritage 9(2):153–
explicit, rather than involving a subjective bias based on the 162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0188-x
researcher’s own knowledge. Avanzini M, Carton A, Seppi R, Tomasoni R (2005) Geomorphosites in
Trentino: a first census. Il Quaternario 18(1):63–78
Methods for quantitative evaluation should also focus on
Bollati I, Pelfini M, Pellegrini L (2012) A geomorphosites selection meth-
reducing the weaknesses associated with overlapping criteria od for educational purposes: a case study in Trebbia Valley (Emilia
and with the lack of clarity of some criteria. Both qualitative Romagna, Italy). Geogr Fis Dinam Quat 35:23–35. https://doi.org/
and quantitative methods should be clear about the parameters 10.4461/GFDQ.2012.35.3
and criteria which allow them to be replicated by other Bollati I, Smiraglia C, Pelfini M (2013) Assessment and selection of
geomorphosites and trails in the Miage glacier area (Western
researchers. Italian Alps). Environ Manag 51:951–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/
The application of previous methods was shown to be s00267-012-9995-2
an important tool to compare outcomes in different geo- Bollati I, Leonelli G, Vezzola L, Pelfini M (2015) The role of ecological
graphical areas. On the other hand, the large number of value in geomorphosite assessment for the debris-covered Miage
glacier (Western Italian Alpes) based on a review of 2.5 centuries
methods based on different approaches and aims made it of scientific study. Geoheritage 7(2):119–135. https://doi.org/10.
difficult to compare the parameters used in the different 1007/s12371-014-0111-2
methods. Bosson JB, Reynard E (2012) Geomorphological heritage, conservation
Our analysis of the papers showed that, to obtain satisfac- and promotion in high-alpine protected areas. Eco Mont 4(1):13–22.
https://doi.org/10.1553/eco.mont-4-1s13
tory results, future research needs to account for two parame- Bouzekraoui H, Barakat A, Touhami F, Mouaddine A, El Youssi M
ters when selecting the method: (i) the main objective of the (2018) Inventory and assessment of geomorphosites for geotourism
research and (ii) the aim of the method chosen. development: a case study of Aït Bou Oulli Valley (central high-
Currently, there is no consensus on the best method to be atlas, Morocco). Area 50(3):331–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.
12380
applied, being the most systematically used as the basis for the Brilha J (2005) Património geológico e geoconservação: a conservação
creation of new methods. Furthermore, several methods have da natureza na sua vertente geológica. Palimage Editores, Viseu
been developed which only have a limited impact on the sci- Brilha J (2016) Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and
entific community. geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8(2):119–134. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3
The aim of our typology (application of previous methods, Brilha J (2018) Geoheritage: inventories and evaluation. In: Reynard E,
creation of new methods, application of previous methods Brilha J (eds) Geoheritage: assessment, protection and management.
combined with new methods, comparison of methods and Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 69–86
no description of method) was to summarise the papers pub- Brilha J, Pereira P (2014) Património geológico de Portugal como bases
para ações de conservação da natureza e ordenamento do território.
lished until now and we recommend that future research con- Comunicações geológicas 101(3):1211–1213
sider using the same typology to evaluate how their own work Brilha J, Alcalá L, Almeida A, AraÚjo A, Azeredo A, Azevedo MR,
is structured. Barriga F, Brum da Silveira A, Cabral J, Cachão M, Caetano P,
It is important that researchers critically evaluate their re- Cobus A, Coke C, Couto H, Crispim J, Cunha PP, Dias R, Duarte
LV, Dória A, Falé P, Ferreira N, Ferreira Soares A, Fonseca P,
sults and the criteria they used in order to increase discussions Galopim de Carvalho A, Gonçalves R, Granja H, Henriques MH,
related to the methodological approaches used for the evalua- Kullberg JC, Kullberg MC, Legoinha P, Lima A, Lima E, Lopes L,
tion of the geomorphological heritage. Madeira J, Marques JF, Martins A, Martins R, Matos J, Medina J,
Geoheritage

Miranda R, Monteiro C, Moreira M, Moura D, Neto Carvalho C, Majjistral nature and history park. Geoheritage 3(3):175–185.
Noronha F, Nunes JC, Oliveira JT, Pais J, Pena dos Reis R, Pereira https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-011-0034-0
D, Pereira P, Pereira Z, Piçarra J, Pimentel N, Pinto de Jesus A, Coratza P, Galve JP, Soldati M, Tonelli C (2012) Recognition and assess-
Prada S, Prego A, Ramalho L, Ramalho M, Ramalho R, Relvas J, ment of sinkholes as geosites: lessons from the island of Gozo
Ribeiro A, Ribeiro MA, Rocha R, Sá A, Santos V, Sant’Ovaia H, (Malta). Quaestiones Geographica 31(1):25–35
Sequeira A, Sousa M, Terrinha P, Valle Aguado B, Vaz N (2010) O Costa FL (2011) Volcanic geomorphosites assessment of the last eruption,
inventário nacional do património geológico: abordagem on April to May 1995, within the natural park of Fogo Island,
metodológica e resultados. E-Terra 18(1):1–4 Cape Verde. GeoJ Tour Geosites 8(2):167–177
Brilha J, Pereira P, Pereira D, Henriques R (2013) Geossítios de Costa-Casais M, Alves MIC, Blanco-Chao R (2015) Assessment and
relevância nacional e internacional em Portugal continental. In: management of the geomorphological heritage of Monte Pindo
Magalhães MR (ed) Estrutura ecológica nacional - uma proposta (NW Spain): a landscape as a symbol of identity. Sustainability 7:
de delimitação e regulamentação. ISAPres, Lisboa, pp 169–176 7049–7085. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7067049
Bruschi VM, Cendrero A (2005) Geosite evaluation; can we measure Costamagna A (2005) A geomorphosites inventory in Central Piemonte
intangible values? Il Quaternario 18(1):293–306 (NW Italy): first results. Il Quaternario 18(1):23–37
Bruschi VM, Cendrero A (2009) Direct and parametric methods for the De Waele J, Melis MT (2009) Geomorphology and geomorphological
assessment of geosites and geomorphosites. In: Reynard E, Coratza heritage of the Ifrane-Azrou region (middle atlas, Morocco).
P, Regolini-Bissig G (eds) Geomorphosites. Pfeil, Munchen, pp 73– Environ Geol 58(3):587–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-
88 1533-4
Bruschi VM, Cendrero A, Cuesta Albertos JA (2011) A statistical ap- De Waele J, Di Gregorio F, Gasmi N, Melis MT, Talbi M (2005a)
proach to the validation and optimization of geoheritage assessment Geomorphosites of Tozeur region (south-West Tunisia). Il
procedures. Geoheritage 3(3):131–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Quaternario 18(1):223–232
s12371-011-0038-9 De Waele J, Di Gregorio F, Pala A (2005b) Karst geomorphosites of
Carcavilla L, Durán JJ, Garcia-Cortés A, López-Martinez J (2009) Monte Albo (north-East Sardinia). Il Quaternario 18(1):145–153
Geological heritage and geoconservation in Spain: past, present,
De Wever P, Alterio I, Egoroff G, Cornée A, Bobrowsky P, Collin G,
and future. Geoheritage 1(2–4):75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Duranthon F, Hill W, Lalanne A, Page K (2015) Geoheritage, a
s12371-009-0006-9
national inventory in France. Geoheritage 7(3):205–247. https://
Clivaz M, Reynard E (2018) How to integrate invisible geomorphosites
doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0151-2
in an inventory: a case study in the Rhone River valley
Del Monte M, Fredi P, Pica A, Vergari F (2013) Geosites within Rome
(Switzerland). Geoheritage 10(4):527–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/
city center (Italy): a mixture of cultural and geomorphological her-
s12371-017-0222-7
itage. Geogr Fis Dinam Quat 36:241–257. https://doi.org/10.4461/
Cocean G (2011) Munţii Trascău: relief. Geomorfosituri, Turism. Presa
GFDQ.2013.36.20
Universitară Clujeană, Cluj-Napoca
Cocean G (2012) The Arieşului gorge, a complex geomorphosite in the Diligenti A, Nesci O, Savelli D (2005) Geomorphosites in the landscape
Apuseni Mountains. Geographia Napocensis 4(1):43–48 of Monti del Furlo (northern Marche Apennines). Il Quaternario
Cocean G, Cocean P (2017) An assessment of gorges for purposes of 18(1):203–211
identifying geomorphosites of geotourism value in the Apuseni Dóniz-Páez J, Becerra-Ramírez R, González-Cárdenas E, Guillén-Martín
Mountains (Romania). Geoheritage 9(1):71–81. https://doi.org/10. C, Escobar-Lahoz E (2011) Geomorphosites and geotourism in vol-
1007/s12371-016-0180-5 canic landscape: the example of la Corona Del Lajial cinder cone (El
Comănescu L, Dobre R (2009) Inventorying, evaluating and tourism Hierro, Canary Islands, Spain). GeoJ Tour Geosites 8(2):185–197
valuating the geomorphosites from the central sector of the Ellis N (2008) A history of the geological conservation review. In: Burek
Ceahlău national park. GeoJ Tour Geosites 3(1):86–96 CV, Prosser CD (eds) The history of Geoconservation. Geological
Comănescu L, Nedelea A (2010) Analysis of some representative Society, London, pp 123–135
geomorphosites in the Bucegi Mountains: between scientific evalu- Erhartič B (2010) Geomorphosites assessment. Acta Geographica
ation and tourist perception. Area 42(4):406–416. https://doi.org/10. Slovenica 50(2):295–319. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS50206
1111/j.1475-4762.2010.00937.x Feuillet T, Sourp E (2011) Geomorphological heritage of the Pyrenees
Comănescu L, Nedelea A, Dobre R (2009) Inventorying and evaluation national park (France): assessment, clustering, and promotion of
of geomorphosites in the Bucegi Mountains. Forum Geografic 8(8): geomorphosites. Geoheritage 3(3):151–162. https://doi.org/10.
38–43 1007/s12371-010-0020-y
Comănescu L, Nedelea A, Dobre R (2011) Evaluation of geomorphosites Fuertes-Gutiérrez I, Fernández-Martínez E (2010) Geosites inventory in
in Vistea Valley (Fagaras Mountains-Carpathians, Romania). Int J the Leon province (northwestern Spain): a tool to introduce
Phys Sci 6(5):1161–1168. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJPS10.384 geoheritage into regional environmental management. Geoheritage
Comănescu L, Nedelea A, Dobre R (2012) The evaluation of 2(1–2):57–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-010-0012-y
geomorphosites from the Ponoare protected area. Forum Geografic Garcia MGM, Brilha J, Lima FF, Vargas JC, Pérez-Aguillar A, Alves A,
11(1):54–61. https://doi.org/10.5775/fg.2067-4635.2012.037.i Campana GAC, Duleba W, Faleiros FM, Fernandes LA, Fierz
Comănescu L, Nedelea A, Stănoiu G (2017) Geomorphosites and MSM, Garcia MJ, Janasi VA, Martins L, Raposo MIB, Ricardi-
geotourism in Bucharest city center (Romania). Quaestiones Branco F, Ross JLS, Sallum Filho W, Souza CRG, Bernardes-de-
Geographicae 36(3):51–61. https://doi.org/10.1515/quageo-2017- Oliveira MEC, Neves BBB, Campos Neto MC, Christofoletti SR,
0029 Henrique-Pinto R, Lobo HAS, Machado R, Passarelli CR, Perinotto
Coratza P, Giusti C (2005) Methodological proposal for the assessment of JAJ, Ribeiro RR, Shimada H (2018) The inventory of geological
the scientific quality of geomorphosites. Il Quaternario 18(1):307– heritage of the state of São Paulo, Brazil: methodological basis,
313 results and perspectives. Geoheritage 10(2):239–258. https://doi.
Coratza P, Hobléa F (2018) The specificities of geomorphological heri- org/10.1007/s12371-016-0215-y
tage. In: Reynard E, Brilha J (eds) Geoheritage: assessment, protec- García-Cortés A, Rábano I, Locutura J, Bellido F, Fernández-Gianotti J,
tion and management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 87–106 Martín-Serrano A, Quesada C, Barnolas A, Durán JJ (2001) First
Coratza P, Bruschi VM, Piacentini D, Saliba D, Soldati M (2011) Spanish contribution to the Geosites project: list of the geological
Recognition and assessment of geomorphosites in Malta at the Il- frameworks established by consensus. Episodes 24(2):79–92
 Geoheritage

García-Cortéz A, Carcavilla UL (2009) Documento metodológico para la Maghsoudi M, Rahmati M (2018) Geomorphosites assessment of
elaboración del inventario español de lugares de interés geológico Lorestan province in Iran by comparing of Zouros and
(IELIG), version 12. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Comanescu’s methods (case study: Poldokhtar area, Iran). GeoJ
Madrid Tour Geosites 21(1):226–238. https://doi.org/10.30892/gtg.21118-
Gavrilă I, Anghel T (2013) Geomorphosites inventory in the Măcin 283
Mountains (south-eastern Romania). GeoJ Tour Geosites 11(1): Martini G (ed) (1994) Actes du premier symposium international sur la
42–53 protection du patrimoine géologique, Digne-les-Bains, 11-16 juin
Geremia F, Massoli-Novelli R (2005) Coastal geomorphosites of the isles 1991. Société Géologique de France, Paris
of Lipari and Stromboli (Aeolian Islands, Italy): new potential for Massoli-Novelli R (2005) The main geomorphosites of the Egadi Islands
geo-tourism. Il Quaternario 18(1):233–244 (Sicily, Italy). Il Quaternario 18(1):137–143
Giusti C, Calvet M (2010) L’inventaire des géomorphosites en France et Mauerhofer L, Reynard E, Asrat A, Hurni H (2018) Contribution of a
le problème de la complexité scalaire. Géomorphologie: Relief, geomorphosite inventory to the geoheritage knowledge in develop-
Processus, Environnement 16(2):223–244. https://doi.org/10.4000/ ing countries: the case of the Simien Mountains national park,
geomorphologie.7947 Ethiopia. Geoheritage 10(4):559–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/
González-Trueba JJ, Cañadas ES (2008) Geomorphological heritage as- s12371-017-0234-3
sessment in natural protected areas. Application in the Picos de Neches IM (2013) From geomorphosite evaluation to geotourism inter-
Europe national park. Boletín de la AGE 47:397–399 pretation. Case study: the Sphinx of Romania’s southern
Grandgirard V (1995) Méthode pour la réalisation d’un inventaire de Carpathians. GeoJ Tour Geosites 12(2):145–162
géotopes géomorphologiques. UKPIK Cahiers de l’Institut de Nedelea A, Comănescu L, Marin M (2010) Petrographical relief on the
Géographie de l’Université de Fribourg 10:121–137 southern slope of the Făgăraş Mountains (the Argeş Basin,
Grandgirard V (1996) Gestion du patrimoine naturel, l’inventarie des Romania) – premiss for identification of geomorphosites. GeoJ
géotopes géomorphologiques du Canton de Fribourg. Rapport de Tour Geosites 5(1):33–43
recherche de l’Institut de Géographie de l’Université de Fribourg Nesci O, Savelli D, Diligenti A, Marinangeli D (2005) Geomorphological
8:181–195 sites in the northern Marche (Italy). Examples from autochthon an-
Grandgirard V (1999a) Switzerland - the inventory of geotopes of nation- ticline ridges and from Val Marecchia allochthon. Il Quaternario
al significance. In: Barenttino D, Vallejo M, Gallego E (eds) 18(1):79–91
Towards the balanced management and conservation of the geolog- Niculiţă M, Mărgărint MC (2018) Landslides and fortified settlements as
ical heritage in the new millenium. Sociedade Geológica de España, valuable cultural geomorphosites and geoheritage sites in the
Madrid, pp 234–236 Moldavian plateau, north-eastern Romania. Geoheritage 10(4):
613–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0261-0
Grandgirard V (1999b) L’evaluation des géotopes. Geol Insubr 4(1):59–
66 O’Halloran D, Green C, Harley M, Stanley M, Knill J (1994) (eds)
Geological and landscape conservation. The Geological Society,
Gregori L, Melelli L, Rapicetta S, Taramelli A (2005) The main
London
geomorphosites in Umbria. Il Quaternario 18(1):93–101
Orrù P, Panizza V, Ulzega A (2005) Submerged geomorphosites in the
Henriques MH, Reis RP, Brilha J, Mota T (2011) Geoconservation as an
marine protected areas of Sardinia (Italy): assessment and improve-
emerging geoscience. Geoheritage 3(2):117–128. https://doi.org/10.
ment. Il Quaternario 18(1):167–174
1007/s12371-011-0039-8
Panizza M (2001) Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and examples of
Hooke JM (1994) Strategies for conserving and sustaining dynamic geo-
geomorphological survey. Chin Sci Bull (suppl Bd) 46:4–6
morphological sites. In: O’Halloran D, Green C, Harley M, Knill J
Panizza M, Piacente S (1993) Geomorphological assets evaluation. Z NF
(eds) Geological and landscape conservation. Geological Society,
Geomorph Suppl Bd 87:13–18
London, pp 191–195
Pellegrini L, Boni P, Vercesi P, Carton A, Laureti L, Zucca F, De Vita S
Ilinca V, Comănescu L (2011) Aspects concerning some of the (2005) The geomorphosites in Lombardy. Il Quaternario 18(1):39–
geomorphosites with tourist value from Vâlcea county (Romania). 61
GeoJ Tour Geosites 7(1):22–32 Pellitero R, González-Amuchastegui MJ, Ruiz-Flaño P, Serrano E (2011)
Jurj MA (2016) The geomorphosites of Roşia Montană. Geographia Geodiversity and geomorphosite assessment applied to a natural
Napocensis 10(1):95–101 protect area: the Ebro and Rudron gorges natural park (Spain).
Kerguillec R, Sellier D (2015) Selection of geomorphosites in the Geoheritage 3(3):163–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-010-
Rondane national park (Central Norway): landforms and populari- 0022-9
zation. Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 21(2): Pereira P (2006) Património geomorfológico: conceptualização,
131–144. https://doi.org/10.4000/geomorphologie.11012 avaliação e divulgação. Aplicação ao Parque Natural de
Kirchner K, Kubalíková L (2011) Evaluation of geoheritage in the Montesinho. Ph.D. thesis, University of Minho
Western part of National Park Podyjí, Czech Republic. Rev Pereira LS (2017) Potential geomorphosites as locals of geotouristic in-
Geomorfologie 13:49–56 terest: case of municipality of João Pessoa, Paraíba state (Brazilian
Kubalíková L (2012) Koncepce geomorphosites v kontextu ochrany NE). GeoJ Tour Geosites 19(1):7–21
neživé přírody. Technická univerzita v Liberci. Liberec. 100 p Pereira AC, Martins BMSC (2016) Interactions between geomorpholog-
Kubalíková L (2013) Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism pur- ical heritage and cultural landscape of Serra do Alvão: the perspec-
poses. Czech J Tour 2:80–104 tive of cultural geomorphology. Vegueta: Anuario de la Facultad de
Kubalíková L, Kirchner K (2016) Geosite and geomorphosite assessment Geografía e Historia 16:437–459
as a tool for geoconservation and geotourism purposes: a case study Pereira P, Pereira D (2010) Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite
from Vizovická́ vrchovina Highland (eastern part of the assessment. Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement
Czech Republic). Geoheritage 8(1):5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 16(2):215–222. https://doi.org/10.4000/geomorphologie.7942
s12371-015-0143-2 Pereira P, Pereira D, Alves MIC (2007) Geomorphosite assessment in
Lima FF, Brilha JB, Salamuni E (2010) Inventorying geological heritage Montesinho natural park. Geogr Helv 62(3):159–168
in large territories: a methodological proposal applied to Brazil. Pérez-Umaña D, Quesada-Román A, Rojas JCJ, Zamorano-Orozco JJ,
Geoheritage 2(3–4):91–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-010- Dóniz-Páez J, Becerra-Ramírez R (2019) Comparative analysis of
0014-9 geomorphosites in volcanoes of Costa Rica. Mexico and Spain
Geoheritage

Geoheritage 11(2):545–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018- Safarabadi A, Shahzeidi SS (2018) Tourism silence in geomorphosites: a

0313-0 case study of Ali-Sadr cave (Hamadan, Iran). GeoJ Tour Geosites
Pica A, Vergari F, Fredi P, Del Monte M (2016) The Aeterna Urbs geo- 21(1):49–60
morphological heritage (Rome, Italy). Geoheritage 8(1):31–42. Sellier D (2010) L’analyse intégrée du relief et la sélection déductive des
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0150-3 géomorphosites: application à la Charente-Maritime (France).
Pica A, Luberti GM, Vergari F, Fredi P, Del Monte M (2017) Contribution Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 16(2):199–
for an urban geomorphoheritage assessment method: proposal from 214. https://doi.org/10.4000/geomorphologie.7931
three geomorphosites in Rome (Italy). Quaestiones Geographicae Sellier D (2016) A deductive method for the selection of geomorphosites:
36(3):21–36. https://doi.org/10.1515/quageo-2017-0030 application to Mont Ventoux (Provence, France). Geoheritage 8(1):
Pralong JP (2005) A method for assessing tourist potential and use of 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0144-1
geomorphological sites. Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Serrano E, González-Trueba JJ (2005) Assessment of geomorphosites in
Environnement 11(3):189–196. https://doi.org/10.4000/ natural protected areas: the Picos de Europa national park (Spain).
geomorphologie.350 Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 11(3):197–
Reynard E (2009a) Geomorphosites: definition and characteristics. In: 208. https://doi.org/10.4000/geomorphologie.364
Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (eds) Geomorphosites. Sharples C (2002) Concepts and principles of geoconservation.
Pfeil, Munchen, pp 9–20 Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Services website, http://dpipwe.tas.
Reynard E (2009b) The assessment of geomorphosites. In: Reynard E, gov.au/Documents/geoconservation.pdf
Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (eds) Geomorphosites. Pfeil,
Warowna J, Zgłobicki W, Gajek G, Telecka M, Kołodyńska-Gawrysiak
Munchen, pp 63–71
R, Zieliński P (2014) Geomorphosite assessment in the proposed
Reynard E (2013) The revision of the Swiss inventory of Geosites (2006-
geopark Vistula River gap (E Poland). Quaestiones Geographicae
2012). Geophys Res Abstr 15:3568
33(3):173–180
Reynard E, Brilha J (2018) Geoheritage: a multidisciplinary and applied
research topic. In: Reynard E, Brilha J (eds) Geoheritage: assess- Wimbledon WAP (1996) Geosites-a new conservation initiative.
ment, protection and management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 3–9 Episodes 19(3):87–88
Reynard E, Coratza P (2013) Scientific research on geomorphosites: a Wimbledon WAP, Benton MJ, Bevins RE, Black GP, Bridgland DR,
review of the activities of the IAG working group on Cleal CJ, Cooper RG, May VJ (1995) The development of a meth-
geomorphosites over the last twelve years. Geogr Fis Dinam Quat odology for the selection of British geological sites for
36(1):159–168. https://doi.org/10.4461/GFDQ.2013.36.13 geoconservation: part 1. Mod Geol 20:159–202
Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L, Scapozza C (2007) A method for Wimbledon WAP, Andersen S, Cleal CJ, Cowie JW, Erikstad L,
assessing scientific and additional values of geomorphosites. Gonggrijp GP, Johansson CE, Karis LO, Suominen V (1999)
Geogr Helv 62(3):148–158 Geological world heritage: GEOSITES- a global comparative site
Reynard E, Perret A, Bussard J, Grangier L, Marin S (2016) Integrated inventory to enable prioritisation for conservation. Memorie
approach for the inventory and management of geomorphological Descritive della Carta Geologica d'Italia 54:45–60
heritage at the regional scale. Geoheritage 8(1):43–60. https://doi. Zgłobicki W, Baran-Zgłobicka B (2013) Geomorphological heritage as a
org/10.1007/s12371-015-0153-0 tourist attraction. A case study in Lubelskie province, SE Poland.
Reynard E, Pica A, Coratza C (2017) Urban geomorphological heritage. Geoheritage 5(2):137–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-013-
An overview. Quaestiones Geographicae 36(3):7–20. https://doi. 0076-6
org/10.1515/quageo-2017-0022 Zgłobicki W, Poesen J, Coher M, Del Monte M, García-Ruiz JM, Ionita I,
Rivas V, Rix K, Francés E, Cendero A, Brunsden D (1997) Niascu L, Machová Z, Martín-Duque JF, Nadal-Romero E, Pica A,
Geomorphological indicators for environmental impact assessment: Rey F, Solé-Benet A, Stankoviansky M, Stolz C, Torri D, Soms J,
consumable and non-consumable geomorphological resources. Vergari F (2018) The potential of permanent gullies in Europe as
Geomorphology 18:169–182 geomorphosites. Geoheritage 11(2):217–239. https://doi.org/10.
Rypl J, Kirchner K, Dvořáčková S (2016) Geomorphological inventory 1007/s12371-017-0252-1
as a toll for proclaiming geomorphosite (a case study of Mt. Zouros N (2005) Assessment, protection, and promotion of geomorpho-
Myslivna in the Novohradské hory Mts.-Czech Republic). logical sites in the Aegean area, Greece. Géomorphologie: Relief,
Geoheritage 8(4):393–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015- Processus, Environnement 11(3):227–234. https://doi.org/10.4000/
0169-5 geomorphologie.398
Rypl J, Kirchner K, Ryplová R (2019) Contribution to the assessment of Zouros N (2007) Geomorphosite assessment and management in
geomorphosites in the Czech Republic (a case study of the north- protected areas of Greece. Case study of the Lesvos Island - coastal
eastern part of the Novohradské Mountains). Geoheritage 11(2): geomorphosites. Geogr Helv 62(3):169–180
427–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0293-0