Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: a Review

Abstract

The inventory and quantitative assessment of the most valuable occurrences of geodiversity are essential steps in any geoconservation strategy and in the establishment of priorities in site management. Despite the existence of many site inventories applied to different scales (countries, municipalities, parks, etc.), the criteria used for their selection are often unclear and poorly defined. This paper proposes a new approach to the concepts of geosite and geodiversity site and reviews the procedures used in the development of a systematic site inventory applied to different scales and values. Procedures to achieve a numerical evaluation of the value and degradation risk of sites are reviewed and new criteria are proposed. Finally, guidelines are presented, bearing in mind the preparation of effective geodiversity inventories, to support geoparks’ strategies. This paper aims to contribute to a better understanding and use of the above-mentioned concepts, which are essential for the implementation of geoconservation actions worldwide.

Full text

REVIEW ARTICLE
Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites
and Geodiversity Sites: a Review
José Brilha
Received: 19 February 2014 /Accepted: 11 December 2014 /Published online: 15 January 2015
#The European Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage 2015
Abstract The inventory and quantitative assessment of the
most valuable occurrences of geodiversity are essential steps
in any geoconservation strategy and in the establishment of
priorities in site management. Despite the existence of many
site inventories applied to different scales (countries, munici-
palities, parks, etc.), the criteria used for their selection are
often unclear and poorly defined. This paper proposes a
new approach to the concepts of geosite and geodiversity site
and reviews the procedures used in the development of a
systematic site inventory applied to different scales and
values. Procedures to achieve a numerical evaluation of
the value and degradation risk of sites are reviewed and
new criteria are proposed. Finally, guidelines are pre-
sented, bearing in mind the preparation of effective
geodiversity inventories, to support geoparks’strategies.
This paper aims to contribute to a better understanding
and use of the above-mentioned concepts, which are
essential for the implementation of geoconservation actions
worldwide.
Keywords Geosite .Geoheritage .Geodiversity site .
Geopark .Inventory .Geodiversity
The Concepts of Geosite and Geodiversity Site
All geoscientists recognise the importance of accessing repre-
sentative geodiversity elements (minerals, rocks, fossils, soils,
landforms, etc.) in order to obtain all the necessary data for
research. In many areas of the geosciences, data are obtained
in the field in places with specific geodiversity features.
In other domains of geosciences, geodiversity occur-
rences are sampled and laboratory studies are performed
aiming to understand the geological and geomorpholog-
ical evolution of a certain region of the planet. In both
cases, those places must be protected in order to allow
their scientific use by present and future geoscientists.
The scientific value of geodiversity elements is directly
related to their importance in supporting present and
future knowledge of how the geosphere works and
interacts with other Earth systems, namely the bio-
sphere, the hydrosphere, and the atmosphere.
Places that are key locations for unveiling and understand-
ing the Earth’s geological history—usually considered geo-
logical heritage—are under increasing risk of total or partial
deterioration, mainly due to anthropic activities. The inexis-
tence of a systematic and comprehensive inventory means that
geological evidence that has supported decades of studies and
research, and the spending of vast amounts of public and
private money, may disappear forever because most geologi-
cal materials are non-renewable when the human timescale is
taken into consideration. Hence, actual geoscientists must
assume the social responsibility of ensuring the conservation
of this natural heritage as of paramount importance for the
advancement of geosciences and for the knowledge of planet
Earth.
The scientific literature reveals a multitude of concepts and
definitions concerning geodiversity, geological heritage,
geosites, and geoconservation (for instance, Black and
Gonggrijp 1990; Elízaga et al. 1994;Gray2008,2013; Pena
dos Reis and Henriques 2009; Wimbledon 2011). However,
these concepts have often been misused and even today it is
common to see them applied in quite unconventional ways,
particularly by an increasing number of persons that are be-
ginning to work in this domain. This paper does not have the
J. Brilha (*)
Institute of Earth Sciences, Pole of the University of Minho, Campus
de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal
e-mail: jbrilha@dct.uminho.pt
Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134
DOI 10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3

intention to discuss these concepts in detail. However, it is
necessary to propose a systematic approach given that
geoconservation aims at the identification, protection, and
management of valuable elements of geodiversity.
Natural diversity includes biotic elements—biodiversity—
and abiotic elements—geodiversity (Fig. 1). Geological heri-
tage, or geoheritage, refers to (i) in situ occurrences of
geodiversity elements with high scientific value—geosites and
(ii) ex situ geodiversity elements that, in spite of being displaced
from their natural location of occurrence, maintain a high scien-
tific value (for instance, minerals, fossils, and rocks available for
research in museum collections)—geoheritage elements. In ad-
dition to scientific value, both in situ and ex situ geoheritage
may also have educational, aesthetic, and cultural value, which
also justify their necessary use by society (teaching/learning,
tourism, leisure, etc.). Geoheritage is a general term that encom-
passes more specific designations when considering particular
types of geodiversity elements with exceptional scientific value.
Hence, it is common to refer to geomorphological (landforms),
petrological (rocks), mineralogical (minerals), palaeontological
(fossils), stratigraphic (sedimentary sequences), structural (folds,
faults, and others), hydrogeological (water), or pedological
(soils) heritage as sub-types of geoheritage. Considering that
geoheritage is only justified by the scientific value, the relevance
of geoheritage can only be international or national because
there is no ‘local science’.
Given the immense geological diversity which occurs on
our planet, choosing which elements should be selected and
protected is not at all an easy task. Based on the most objective
criteria and on the scientific knowledge, the identification of
the best geosites to be protected should be done by the
geoscientific community. Even considering the subjectivity
inherent to science, the scientific data are the less subjective
and for this reason, they should be primarily used to select the
most relevant sites that are representative of the history of the
Earth and its evolution.
It should be highlighted that an inventory is always dy-
namic and needs to be regularly updated. With the advance of
scientific knowledge, a certain geosite may lose its scientific
value in the future or a new occurrence might gain the geosite
status. However, a particular occurrence might still be consid-
ered a geosite even if it no longer has a high scientific
relevance if, for instance, it is a significant record for the
history of geological knowledge. In the UK, some geosites
no longer have a high scientific relevance but even so, they are
preserved because they are key locations for the understanding
of the history of geology.
Obviously, there are many geodiversity elements that do
not have a particular scientific value but which are still im-
portant resources for education, tourism, or cultural identity of
communities (Fig. 1). As with geoheritage, these geodiversity
elements can also be found in situ—geodiversity sites—and
ex situ. However, they should not be considered geoheritage
because this term should only be used when their scientific
value is accurately recognised by the national and/or interna-
tional scientific community. Examples of geodiversity sites
might be folded limestone layers with excellent exposition to
allow educational activities or landforms with cultural or
religious significance for local communities. Ornamental
stones with educational and touristic values in monuments
andbuildingscanbeconsideredanexampleofexsitu
geodiversity elements. Sites with high tourism value can also
be known as geomonuments; this term is already used to
promote geosites to the general public in some countries.
Geodiversity sites may have local, national, and international
relevance. The term ‘geodiversity site’is already being used in
the UK, mainly as a replacement for the previous designation
of ‘Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological
Sites’—RIGS (Prosser et al. 2010;Browne2012).
Geoconservation strategies (Henriques et al. 2011)shouldbe
applied to the characterisation and management of all features
of geodiversity that show some type of value (Fig. 1). It should
Fig. 1 Conceptual framework of
geodiversity, geoheritage, and
geoconservation taking into
account the scope of
geoconservation. Only a small
fraction of geodiversity has a
relevant value that justifies the
implementation of
geoconservation strategies,
regardless of whether this fraction
is considered geoheritage or sites
and elements of geodiversity
120 Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134

be emphasised that the economic value associated with the
exploitation of geological resources is not considered under
the scope of geoconservation.
In a certain way, mining heritage is also related to
geoheritage and geodiversity. Usually, the term ‘mining heri-
tage’applies to whatever is involved in active and inactive
mining exploration, such as minerals and rocks that are
being (or were) extracted, industrial facilities, historical
documentation of old mines, exploitation processes and
techniques, and even mining communities’stories and
traditions. If mineral and rock occurrences are still
available and have scientific value, they should be con-
sidered geoheritage (mineralogical or petrological heri-
tage). Sometimes, these occurrences only have educa-
tional and/or touristic value and, if this is the case, they
should be called geodiversity sites. All the other men-
tioned assets are considered mining heritage, which is
not a specific type of geological heritage. When consid-
ering just the industrial and mechanical facilities used
during mining activity, the term ‘industrial heritage’
should be used instead. Experts on industrial archaeolo-
gy study this type of heritage as a contribution to the
history of technology.
The identification and characterisation of sites are decisive
steps in any geoconservation strategy (Brilha 2005;Henriques
et al. 2011). During the last decades, several countries have
been developing national inventories of geosites, namely in
Europe (Wimbledon and Smith-Meyer 2012), such as in Po-
land (Alexandrowicz and Kozlowski 1999), Portugal (Brilha
et al. 2005,2010), Spain (Garcia-Cortés et al. 2001;Carcavilla
et al. 2009), Switzerland (Grandgirard 1999), Russia (Lapo
et al. 1993), and the UK (Wimbledon et al. 1995). The
experience in those and other countries is being used to
develop inventory methods that can be adapted to regions
with different size areas and diversified geological settings.
These methods must take into account a good geological
knowledge of the territory, a clear definition of the inventory
aims, and the engagement of the earth science community.
The development of a national inventory without a solid
methodological background may lead to disastrous results
because irrelevant sites may be included in the inventory or,
even worse, the most relevant geosites of the country may be
left out of the inventory. The main aim of this paper is to
conduct a review and present a systematic approach to inven-
tory and quantification methods applied to geological heritage
and geodiversity sites, under the scope of geoconservation
strategies. The procedures for the assessment of geodiversity
as a whole, independently of the value of the different ele-
ments, is another research domain that has recently been under
development by several researchers (for instance, Serrano
et al. 2009; Pellitero et al. 2011,2014; Hjort and Luoto
2012; Pereira et al. 2013; Silva et al. 2014) but it is out of
scope of this paper.
Methods for the Inventory of Geological and Geodiversity
Sites
The inventory of geological and geodiversity sites is the first
and crucial step in any geoconservation strategy, regardless of
the size of the area under analysis. A geoconservation strategy
is based on several successive steps: inventory, quantitative
assessment, conservation, interpretation and promotion, and,
finally, monitoring of sites (Brilha 2005). This paper only
discusses the two first stages: inventory and quantitative as-
sessment of sites.
Before initiating an inventory, its aims must be clearly
defined by taking four issues into account (Lima et al.
2010): the topic, the value, the scale, and the use. The topic
is the subject or theme to be inventoried, for instance, the
geological heritage (as a whole), the palaeontological heritage,
the geomorphological heritage, a geological framework, etc.
The value is closely related to the potential use of the sites and
might be scientific, educational, and/or touristic. The scale
refers to the size of the area where the inventorying will take
place (a natural park, a geopark, a municipality, a state, a
country, a continent, etc.). Finally, the use is related to the
purpose of the inventoried sites, for instance, to support a
national geoconservation strategy, to develop a geotouristic
project, to promote the local geodiversity or an educational
programme, etc.
The clear definition of the inventory aim is essential for the
selection of the correct method to identify sites. The accurate
definition of the value of the sites to be inventoried is partic-
ularly important in choosing the criteria that should be used
for site selection. These criteria are mentioned in almost all
literature concerning geoheritage, such as JNCC (1977); Lapo
et al. (1993); Wimbledon et al. (1995); Grandgirard (1999);
Alexandrowicz and Kozlowski (1999); Parkes and Morris
(1999); Gray (2013); Brilha (2005); White and Mitchell
(2006); García-Cortés and Carcavilla Urquí (2009); Fuertes-
Gutiérrez and Fernández-Martínez (2010); Díaz-Martínez and
Díez-Herrero (2011); Wimbledon (2011); Reynard and
Coratza (2013). However, many inventory works apply the
same criteria regardless of the value of the sites that are being
inventoried and this may lead to erroneous results. For in-
stance, the justification of beautiful scenery for the selection of
a potential geosite is completely irrelevant because the scien-
tific value is independent of the visual beauty of the site. On
the contrary, it is a pertinent criterion to identify a site for
tourism use.
If the purpose is to identify sites with scientific value, then
it is necessary to develop an inventory of geosites using a set
of four criteria (see “Inventory of Geosites”). However, if the
aim is to identify sites with educational, touristic and/or cul-
tural values, then an inventory of geodiversity sites is advis-
able, based on another set of criteria (see “Inventory of
Geodiversity Sites”).
Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134 121

Inventory of Geosites
The present proposal for obtaining a systematic and solid inven-
tory of geosites is based on several positive aspects published in
different scientific studies (references above) and on the author’s
own experience. As explained before, it should be emphasised
that, concerning geosites, only the scientific value (SV) is con-
sidered for the inventory. Taking into account the size of the
working area (a variable that must be defined in the inventory
aims) the inventory method will be different (Table 1).
Limited areas are here considered as territories with an area
smaller than 3000–4000 km
2
, which generally corresponds to
a typical protected area or a municipality. Limited areas should
have a suitable size to allow the inventory team to do system-
atic fieldwork in the whole area in a time- and cost-effective
way. On the contrary, large areas are territories with dozens or
hundreds of thousands of square kilometres, typically the size
of a country or a state (in federated countries).
The first step of a geosite’s inventory is similar for both
types of areas. It consists of a literature review of all geological
data published about the area under study (geological maps,
reports, theses, peer-reviewed papers, etc.). The literature
review is important for knowing the geological setting of the
area and for setting up a list of potential geosites refereed in
the literature, such as sites where relevant data were obtained,
stratotypes, stops of scientific fieldtrips, key outcrops for
certain formations, etc. This list of potential geosites can also
be enriched with the advice of experts that have developed
research in the area. For inventories in large areas, this infor-
mation will be used to help define geological frameworks.
The inventory of geosites based on geological frameworks
started in Europe during the 1980s through the action of
Table 1 Sequential tasks for geosite inventory in limited and large areas, taking only into consideration scientific value (SV). However, after geosites
are selected, their potential educational and touristic uses can also be assessed
GEOSITES
Inventorying limited areas Inventorying large areas
Geological literature review
Consulting with experts that have worked in the area
Definition of geological frameworks and
assignment of the respective scientific
coordinators
Scientific characterisation of each geological
framework
Identification of geosites representative of each
geological framework
List of potential geosites List of potential geosites by geological
framework
Fieldwork for the identification of new geosites and for the qualitative assessment of each geosite
in the list of potential geosites, based on the following four criteria:
- representativeness
- integrity
- rarity
- scientific knowledge
Final list of geosites with complete
characterization
Final list of geosites by geological framework
with complete characterization
Quantitative assessment of SV
Quantitative assessment of the degradation risk
Final geosites list of the area sorted by the SV
and degradation risk
Final geosites list of the area by geological
framework, sorted by the SV and degradation
risk
Eventual quantitative assessment of educational and touristic potential uses
122 Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134

ProGEO—The European Association for the Conservation of
the Geological Heritage (Erikstad 2008;Wimbledon2011 and
references therein). The geological frameworks of a territory are
the main themes related to geoscience materials and/or process-
es that allow a better understanding of the geological history of
that same territory. Geological frameworks should represent the
main chapters of the Earth’s history that left evidence in the
territory under study. The definition of geological frameworks
must be made with the consensus of the geoscientific commu-
nity. Geological frameworks may not have geographical conti-
nuity within the area and they can also exist in contiguous
territories, i.e. they may not be exclusive to the area under
analysis. Each category must have a scientific coordinator and
the collaboration of other experts on the theme. Each scientific
coordinator is responsible for the compilation of a list of poten-
tial geosites that may represent the framework.
The next step consists of fieldwork with two main aims: to
identify and characterise all the sites included in the list of
potential geosites and to recognise new potential geosites.
Fieldwork in large areas should assess if potential geosites
have the necessary characteristics to be considered geosites
for the corresponding framework. During fieldwork, each
potential geosite must be qualitatively evaluated using the
following criteria:
(i) Representativeness: concerning the appropriateness of
the geosite to illustrate a geological process or feature
that brings a meaningful contribution to the understand-
ing of the geological topic, process, feature, or geological
framework
(ii) Integrity: related to the present conservation status of the
geosite, taking into account both natural processes and
human actions
(iii) Rarity: number of geosites in the study area presenting
similar geological features
(iv) Scientific knowledge: based on the existence of scien-
tific data already published about the geosite.
The application of these criteria can imply the removal of
potential geosites from the list because they do not comply
with the criteria. A selection of geosites with scientific value
should highlight occurrences in the study area that better
represent a certain geological material or process, that are in
the best possible conservation status, that show rare features,
and where significant scientific data have been obtained and
published. If the three first criteria present no controversy, the
same cannot be said when considering the fourth one. The
inexistence of scientific literature about a certain geological
occurrence does not necessarily imply that it has no scientific
value. It may just mean that the occurrence is new to the
scientific community and that no significant scientific work
has been done so far. In spite of the validity, or not, of this
argument, we should not forget that geological occurrences
which have originated scientific publications always have a
particular relevance. In geosite inventorying and assessment,
there are no infallible criteria or methods. There is always a
certain subjectivity that should be minimised by the good
scientific background of the geoscientists involved in these
tasks and by the use of a solid methodology.
After fieldwork, the list of potential geosites is converted
into a definitive list of geosites for the area under study. Each
final geosite must be characterised using a form containing the
following data:
(i) Name of the geosite (in order tofacilitate a quick and easy
identification of all geosites, the name of a geosite should
include the main geological feature and a geographical
reference, for instance ‘Denver dinosaurs’or ‘Iguaçu
waterfalls’)
(ii) Geographical location (including GPS coordinates)
(iii) Owner (public or private)
(iv) Legal protection (if any)
(v) Accessibility
(vi) Fragility and vulnerability (see “Quantitative Assess-
ment of Degradation Risk”)
(vii) Geological description
(viii) Most remarkable geological features which justify the
need to considerer the occurrence as a geosite
(ix) Geological framework (when applicable)
(x) Eventual limitations to its scientific use (need for per-
mission for sampling, seasonal access restrictions due to
snow, tides, etc.).
While most of these data fields can be filled in during the
fieldwork stage, others can only be completed in the office.
Once the inventory of geosites is concluded, it is necessary
to obtain information that will allow the establishment of
priorities in geosite management and to do a quantitative
assessment of the geosites’scientific value and degradation
risk (DR) following the methods described in “Methods for
the Quantitative Assessment of Geological and Geodiversity
Sites”. The combination of high scientific value with a high
DR justifies an urgent priority in a geoheritage management
action plan.
As previously stated, SV is the solve factor that can validate
a geosite. However, in order to increase the impact of a geosite
in society, each geosite in the inventory can be assessed for its
potential use for education and/or tourism. Nevertheless, the
conservation of geodiversity elements that were considered
exceptional in each geosite is absolutely vital. There is no
geosite if the geological relevance is irremediably affected.
This means that if there is a high risk of deterioration of the
geodiversity elements, no educational and/or touristic uses
should be implemented in a geosite. Therefore, geoheritage
managers should decide wisely about the need to develop a
geosites’assessment of the educational and/or potential uses.
Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134 123

Inventory of Geodiversity Sites
As explained before, geodiversity sites correspond to
geodiversity occurrences that have no significant scientific
value. However, due to their relevant educational and/or tour-
istic values, geodiversity sites should be conserved to allow a
sustainable use of geodiversity by society. These geodiversity
sites may also have a meaningful cultural significance for the
identity of local communities. The inventory of geodiversity
sites is usually done in limited areas and the proposed inven-
tory method will not make any difference in what concerns the
size of the study area. The proposed sequence of steps for the
inventory of geodiversity sites is presented in Table 2.
As with an inventory of geosites, the inventory of
geodiversity sites begins with the review of the geological
literature and the consultation of experts with work experience
in the study area. If an inventory ofgeosites exists for the area,
these geosites may also be included as potential geodiversity
sites. For the inventory of sites with educational value, it is
important to research which sites are already being used in
educational activities. In the case of the inventory of sites with
touristic value, it is also important to review touristic docu-
mentation on the area (leaflets, websites, etc.) in order to add
some more locations to the potential list of geodiversity sites.
It is usual to see certain locations being used by tourism
managers and advertised as touristic attractions when, in fact,
they are notable evidence of geodiversity elements, usually
with geomorphological significance.
After a list of potential geodiversity sites has been made,
fieldwork is necessary to identify and characterise all the sites
and to recognise new potential sites. Each site with potential
educational value (EV) must be qualitatively evaluated using
the following four criteria:
(i) Didactic potential: related to the capacity of a geological
feature to be easily understood by students of different
educational levels (primary and secondary schools,
universities).
(ii) Geological diversity: number of different types of
geodiversity elements present in the same site
(iii) Accessibility: conditions of access to the site in terms of
difficulty and time spent on foot for ordinary students
(iv) Safety: related to the visiting conditions, taking into
consideration minimum risk for students.
For the selection of geodiversity sites with high EV, occur-
rences should have different geological features which can be
easily understood by students of different levels of education,
with comfortable and quick access and where students may
observe the site under good safety conditions. These criteria
must take into account the average age of the majority of
students that will use the site. For instance, the accessibility
Table 2 Sequential tasks for the inventory of geodiversity sites with educational and/or touristic values
GEODIVERSITY SITES
Educational Value (EV) Tourism Value (TV)
Geological literature review (including eventual geosites inventory)
Consulting with experts that worked in the area before
Review of sites used in educational activities Review of touristic advertisement materials
List of potential geodiversity sites
Fieldwork aiming at the identification of new sites and the qualitative assessment of each site in the
list of potential geodiversity sites, based on the following criteria:
- didactic potential
- geological diversity
- accessibility
- safety
- scenery
- interpretative potential
- accessibility
- safety
Final list of geodiversity sites with complete sites’ characterisation
Quantitative assessment of potential educational
use (PEU)
Quantitative assessment of potential touristic
use (PTU)
Quantitative assessment of degradation risk
Final geodiversity sites list of the area sorted by
PEU and degradation risk
Final geodiversity sites list of the area sorted by
PTU and degradation risk
124 Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134

conditions can be distinctly different if a site is to be used by
young children or by university students.
Similarly, geodiversity sites with potential tourism value
(TV) should be qualitatively evaluated using the following
four criteria:
(i) Scenery: associated with the visual beauty of the geolog-
ical occurrence (landscape or outcrop)
(ii) Interpretative potential: related to the capacity of a geo-
logical feature to be easily understood by lay people
(iii) Accessibility: conditions of access to the site in terms of
difficulty and time of the walk for the general public
(iv) Safety: related to the visiting conditions, taking into
consideration minimum risk for visitors.
Geodiversity sites with high TV should present visual
beauty enjoyable by the majority of the public, with geolog-
ical features that can be easily observed and understood by
non-specialists under good safety conditions, and with com-
fortable and quick access.
The list of potential geodiversity sites is converted into a
definitive list after fieldwork. Each geodiversity site must be
characterised using a form containing the following data:
(i) Name of the geodiversity site (as with the name of
geosites, it is recommended that the name of a
geodiversity site should include the type of geological
element and a geographical identification)
(ii) Geographical location (including GPS coordinates)
(iii) Owner (public or private)
(iv) Legal protection (if any)
(v) Accessibility
(vi) Fragility and vulnerability (see “Quantitative Assess-
ment of Degradation Risk”)
(vii) Geological description
(viii) Geodiversity features with potential educational and/or
touristic uses
(ix) Eventual links with ecological and cultural assets
(x) Eventual use limitations (need to pay entrance fee, car-
rying capacity restrictions, seasonal limitations, etc.)
(xi) Safety conditions (present conditions for students and
tourists taking into account their safety)
(xii) Observation conditions (of the main geodiversity
elements).
Once the inventory of the geodiversity sites is concluded, a
quantitative assessment should be made in order to obtain
important data for proper site management, just as in the
geosite inventory. The assessment of the potential educational
and/or touristic uses and of sites’degradation risk is essential
for defining a correct strategy. Obviously, managers should
consider sites with low degradation risk and high potential for
education and tourism as the top priority.
Methods for the Quantitative Assessment of Geological
and Geodiversity Sites
The research about numerical assessment of sites has been
under development for the last decade, but the geoscientific
community has not yet reached a general accepted method.
Usually, quantitative methods are based on several criteria and
respective indicators to which different scores or parameters
may be assigned (Cendrero 1996a,b; Coratza and Giusti
2005; Pralong and Reynard 2005; Pereira et al. 2007;Reynard
et al. 2007; Bruschi and Cendrero 2009;Reynard2009;
Pereira and Pereira 2010;Bruschietal.2011; Fassoulas
et al. 2012; Pereira and Pereira 2012; Bollati et al. 2013).
The aim of a quantitative assessment is to decrease the sub-
jectivity associated with any evaluation procedure. The result
of this numerical assessment is a sorted list of sites, which is a
powerful tool for the establishment of management priorities.
Sites with higher value and higher degradation risk should be
given top priority. The quantitative assessment of sites works
better when dozens of them are being evaluated. For small
areas with just a few sites, these procedures have no practical
results and may be discarded.
The number of criteria in quantitative assessments should
be limited, as shown by Bruschi et al. (2011). These authors
have shown that a high number of criteria do not necessarily
imply a more accurate assessment. Due to the fact that there
are distinct criteria for different sites’values (scientific, edu-
cational, tourism), their quantitative assessment must be done
separately. In fact, there are different perspectives in the as-
sessment of the three types of values. Concerning the scien-
tific value, it is expected that the scientific significance of the
occurrence, regardless of its immediate potential use, be eval-
uated. A geosite with scientific value should be conserved for
what it represents, regardless of the potential scientific use that
it may provide in the short term. In what concerns educational
and touristic value, what is really at stake is the potential
educational and touristic use of the sites. These types of value
are intrinsically related to the site’s use; it only makes sense to
conserve a site with educational value if it will be effectively
used as an educational resource. A similar justification can be
made for sites with touristic value: their conservation is deeply
related to their use as tourist attractions.
Several criteria can be adapted to the real conditions that
exist in the area of study. It is an advantage if quantitative
assessments are done by the same geoscientists that have par-
ticipated in the selection of geosites and geodiversity sites
because they are more familiar with certain specificities of the
sites under evaluation. As a consequence, the results of the
quantitative assessment can only be used for comparative rea-
sons in a set of sites that occur in the area of study. Obviously,
sites assessed with different methods cannot be compared.
Another remark is that, for very small areas, some of the
criteria are useless because the respective score is the same for
Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134 125

all sites, which does not contribute to the required site dis-
crimination. For instance, population density (a criterion, used
to assess the PEU) has the same value for all sites if a small
area is being studied. Hence, for very small areas with very
few sites, there is no need to do a quantitative assessment of
the value/use of sites.
Even if a number comes out as the final result of a quan-
titative assessment, this does not mean that it is not necessary
to proceed with a critical and detailed analysis of the results.
Sometimes, the final result may place a certain site at the
bottom of the list but the inventory coordinator intuitively
knows that the same site is significant in the area. These kinds
of contradictions need to be explained and interpreted. The
scientific coordinator of the whole process should have the
final and definitive word about the sorted list of sites for the
area under consideration.
As stated before, the present methodological proposal for
the quantitative assessment of geosites is the result of a survey
and compilation of the best published practices (see previous
references in this section) and the author’s own experience.
Quantitative Assessment of Scientific Value
For the quantitative assessment of the SV of geosites, seven
criteria can be used:
A. Representativeness: capacity of a geosite to illustrate
geological elements or processes (related to the geologi-
cal framework under consideration when applicable)
B. Key locality: importance of a geosite as a reference or
model for stratigraphy, palaeontology, mineralogy, etc.
C. Scientific knowledge: the existence of published scientif-
ic studies about the geosite (related to the geological
framework under consideration when applicable) reflects
the SV given by the geoscientific community
D. Integrity: related to the conservation status of the main
geological elements (related to the geological framework
under consideration when applicable); the better the in-
tegrity, the higher the SV
E. Geological diversity: a high number of different geolog-
ical elements with scientific interest (related to the geo-
logical framework under consideration when applicable)
in a geosite implies a higher SV
F. Rarity: a small number of similar geosites in the area of
study (representing the geological framework under con-
sideration when applicable) increases the SV
G. Use limitations: the existence of obstacles that may be
problematic for the regular scientific use of the geosite
has impacts on the geosite’sSV.
All criteria from A to F are intrinsically related to the
geological characteristics of the geosite, which makes sense
once what is being evaluated is the scientific value of the
geosite. However, criterion G is not related to value but to
potential use. The inclusion of this criterion is justified due to
the fact that part of the scientific value of a geosite is related to
the possibility of using the site for present and future research.
Therefore, criterion G intends to assess if there are limitations
to scientific research.
Each geosite is ranked 1, 2, or 4 points in accordance with
the indicators for each criterion (Table 3). An indicator can also
be ranked zero if appropriate. There is no indicator with 3 points
in order to better distinguish geositesrankedwith4points.The
final SV is a weighted sum of the seven criteria, as expressed in
Tab le 4. Usually, weight distribution is a source of discussion.
Further research is needed to fully address this issue.
Different weights correspond to the relative importance of
the diverse criteria. For the SV evaluation, representativeness
is considered the most important criterion (30 %), immediate-
ly followed by the key locality (20 %). The geological diver-
sity and scientific knowledge criteria are the least important
(5 % each). In fact, the inexistence of scientific publications
about a certain geosite does not necessarily represent a low
SV, as stated before. It may just mean that it is a recent
discovery and no studies have yet been published. It may also
represent a geosite located in one area with no tradition in
geological studies or with few research teams operating in it.
As mentioned before, it is important and even mandatory to
make a final reflection about the results of any quantitative
assessment.
A geosite has a maximum SV when it is the best represen-
tative occurrence for a certain geological feature or geological
framework, and a rare well-known international reference
with publications about it, and when it presents several well-
conserved geological features with scientificrelevance that are
easily available for future research.
Quantitative Assessment of Potential Educational Use
The quantitative assessment of potential educational use
(PEU) is based on 12 criteria:
A. Vulnerability—the existence of geological elements that
can be destroyed by students decreases the EVof the site
B. Accessibility—the easier and shorter the walk between the
means of transportation and the site is, the higher the EV
C. Use limitations—the existence of obstacles that may be
problematic for the development of educative activities
has an impact on the site’sE
V
D. Safety—when the field activity can be carried out under
low risk conditions for students, the EV of the site
increases
E. Logistics—the existence of facilities to receive students,
such as accommodation, food, and toilets, increases the
site’sEV
126 Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134

F. Density of population—the existence of a population
near the site, potentially providing students who will
use the site, increases its EV
G. Association with other values—the existence of other
natural or cultural elements associated with the site may
justify interdisciplinary fieldtrips and increase the EVof
the site
H. Scenery—represents the beauty of the geological ele-
ments that could stimulate students’interest for the site
and thus increases its EV
I. Uniqueness—concerns the distinctiveness and the rarity
of the geodiversity element that could promote students’
interest for the site and raise its EV
J. Observation conditions—the better the conditions for
observation of all the geodiversity elements on the site,
the higher its EV
K. Didactic potential—the use of the site by students of
different education levels increases the EV of the site
L. Geological diversity—a high number of different geological
elements with didactic potential increases the EV of the site.
Table 3 Criteria, indicators, and parameters used for the quantitative assessment of the scientific value of geosites
Scientific value (SV)
Criteria/indicators Parameters
A. Representativeness
The geosite is the best example in the study area to illustrate elements or processes, related with the geological framework under
consideration (when applicable)
4 points
The geosite is a good example in the study area to illustrate elements or processes, related with the geological framework under
consideration (when applicable)
2 points
The geosite reasonably illustrates elements or processes in the study area, related with the geological framework under consideration
(when applicable)
1point
B. Key locality
The geosite is recognised as a GSSP or ASSP by the IUGS or is an IMA reference site 4 points
The geosite is used by international science, directly related with the geological framework under consideration (when applicable) 2 points
The geosite is used by national science, directly related with the geological framework under consideration (when applicable) 1 point
C. Scientific knowledge
There are papers in international scientific journals about this geosite, directly related with the geological framework under consideration
(when applicable)
4 points
There are papers in national scientific publications about this geosite, directly related with the geological framework under consideration
(when applicable)
2 points
There are abstracts presented in international scientific events about this geosite, directly related with the geological framework under
consideration (when applicable)
1point
D. Integrity
The main geological elements (related with the geological framework under consideration, when applicable) are very well preserved 4 points
Geosite not so well preserved, but the main geological elements (related with the geological framework under consideration, when
applicable) are still preserved
2 points
Geosite with preservation problems and with the main geological elements (related with the geological framework under consideration,
when applicable) quite altered or modified
1point
E. Geological diversity
Geosite with more than three types of distinct geological features with scientific relevance 4 points
Geosite with three types of distinct geological features with scientific relevance 2 points
Geosite with two types of distinct geological features with scientific relevance 1 point
F. Rarity
The geosite is the only occurrence of this type in the study area (representing the geological framework under consideration, when
applicable)
4 points
In the study area, there are two to three examples of similar geosites (representing the geological framework under consideration, when
applicable)
2 points
In the study area, there are four to five examples of similar geosites (representing the geological framework under consideration, when
applicable)
1point
G. Use limitations
The geosite has no limitations (legal permissions, physical barriers,…) for sampling or fieldwork 4 points
It is possible to collect samples and do fieldwork after overcoming the limitations 2 points
Sampling and fieldwork are very hard to be accomplished due to limitations difficult to overcome (legal permissions, physical
barriers,…)
1point
Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134 127

Each criterion is scored from 1 to 4 according to the
indicators explained in Table 5; zero can be given to any
criterion. The final educational potential use is the weighted
sum of all 12 criteria (Table 6).
A site has a higher PEU when the geodiversity elements are
resistant to eventual destruction caused by students (low vul-
nerability) and when they can be easily observed by students
of all school levels (from primary to university students). This
type of site can also be easily reached by means of transpor-
tation and provides safe conditions for particular types of user
that might have imprudent behaviour, particularly those in
certain age groups.
Quantitative Assessment of Potential Touristic Use
The quantitative assessment of the potential touristic use
(PTU) considers 13 criteria (Table 5):
A. Vulnerability: the existence of geodiversity elements
that can be destroyed by visitors decreases the TV of
the site
B. Accessibility: the easier and shorter the walk between
the visitors’transportation (bus, car, etc.) and the site is,
the higher the TV
C. Use limitations: the existence of obstacles that may be
problematic for the development of touristic activities
has an impact on the site’sTV
D. Safety: if the visit can be made under low risk condi-
tions for visitors, the site’sTVincreases
E. Logistics: the inexistence of facilities for receiving tour-
ists, such as information centres, accommodation, food,
and toilets, decreases the site’sTV
F. Density of population: the existence of towns/cities near
the geosite as a potential source of visitors to the site
increases its TV
G. Association with other values: the occurrence of other
natural or cultural elements associated with the site may
increase the number of potential visitors and conse-
quently the TVof the site
H. Scenery: represents the beauty of the geodiversity ele-
ment that might attract visitors, increasing the site’sTV
I. Uniqueness: concerns the distinctiveness and the rarity of
the geodiversity elements that could stimulate a sense of
satisfaction for the visitors
J. Observation conditions: the better the observation of all
the geodiversity elements of the geosite, the higher its TV
K. Interpretative potential: related to the capacity of a
geodiversity feature to be easily understood by people
with no geological background, i.e. typical members of
the general public
L. Economic level: the high level of income of people
living near the site suggests a higher probability of it
being visited
M. Proximity of recreational areas: a touristic visit to a site
may benefit from the existence of well-known tourist
attractions in the surrounding area.
Again, each criterion is scored from 1 to 4 points (zero is
also possible) and the final evaluation of the touristic value is
the result of the weighted sum of the scores (Table 6).
A site has a high PTU when the geological elements have a
remarkable aesthetic relevance (usually geomorphological el-
ements are the ones with a higher potential to be aesthetically
appreciated by the general public) and can be easily under-
stood by persons with no geoscientific background, as well as
being associated with a low risk of degradation by anthropic
activity (low vulnerability). Obviously, the existence of good
facilities and visiting conditions are essential assets for tour-
istic use of a site. However, it should be noted that this
assessment is done to evaluate the potential touristic use of a
site and, if this potential is high, there is a justification for
building new or better facilities to improve visiting conditions.
Quantitative Assessment of Degradation Risk
As discussed before, the numerical evaluation of site DR as a
complement to the assessment of a site’s value is of crucial
importance for the preparation and implementation of a man-
agement plan. The conjugation of the value of a certain site
and its DR is essential for establishing priorities in any sites’
action plan. Fuertes-Gutiérrez and Fernández-Martínez (2012)
present the DR as a combination of vulnerability, fragility, and
other factors, such as accessibility, dimensions, proximity to
human settlements, public influx, and present or potential
threats. The same authors in a previous work (Fuertes-Gutiér-
rez and Fernández-Martínez 2010) clarify the concept of
vulnerability as being ‘the risk of destruction due to human
activity. Sites are vulnerable when intensive human activity
affects them or when their dimensions are so small that any
human activity (even some which are not so aggressive) can
cause damage’. These authors clearly distinguish the vulner-
ability concept from the fragility one: ‘The fragility of a site
Table 4 Weights for the
different criteria used for
the assessment of the
scientific value of
geosites
Scientific value (sv)
Criteria Weight (%)
A. Representativeness 30
B. Key locality 20
C. Scientific knowledge 5
D. Integrity 15
E. Geological diversity 5
F. Rarity 15
G. Use limitations 10
Tot al 100
128 Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134

measures its degradation risk under present natural conditions,
i.e., without the intervention of Man. A site is fragile when a
process of either a rapid (human scale) damage or destruction
occurs’. Both concepts are used with the same meaning in the
present work.
The proposal for the quantitative assessment of site DR was
developed taking into consideration the author’s experience
and the best practices published in recent years, including
Cendrero (1996a;b), Brilha (2005), Carcavilla et al. (2007),
Reynard et al. (2007), García-Cortés and Carcavilla Urquí
Table 5 Criteria, indicators, and parameters used for the quantitative assessment of the potential educational and touristic uses. Ten criteria (A–J) are
shared between these two types of uses. Two more criteria (K–L) are used to assess PEU and three (K–M) for PTU
POTENTIAL EDUCATIONAL AND TOURISTIC USES
Criteria/indicators Parameters
A. Vulnerability
The geological elements of the geosite present no possible deterioration by anthropic activity 4 points
There is the possibility of deterioration of secondary geological elements by anthropic activity 3 points
There is the possibility of deterioration of main geological elements by anthropic activity 2 points
There is the possibility of deterioration of all geological elements by anthropic activity 1 point
B. Accessibility
Site located less than 100 m from a paved road and with bus parking 4 points
Site located less than 500 m from a paved road 3 points
Site accessible by bus but through a gravel road 2 points
Site with no direct access by road but located less than 1 km from a road accessible by bus 1 point
C. Use limitations
The site has no limitations to be used by students and tourists 4 points
The site can be used by students and tourists but only occasionally 3 points
The site can be used by students and tourists but only after overcoming limitations (legal, permissions, physical, tides, floods, …) 2 points
The use by students and tourists is very hard to be accomplished due to limitations difficult to overcome (legal, permissions, physical, tides,
floods, …) 1 point
D. Safety
Site with safety facilities (fences, stairs, handrails, etc.), mobile phone coverage and located less than 5 km from emergency services 4 points
Site with safety facilities (fences, stairs, handrails, etc.), mobile phone coverage and located less than 25 km from emergency services 3 points
Site with no safety facilities but with mobile phone coverage and located less than 50 km from emergency services 2 points
Site with no safety facilities, no mobile phone coverage and located more than 50 km from emergency services 1 point
E. Logistics
Lodging and restaurants for groups of 50 persons less than 15 km away from the site 4 points
Lodging and restaurants for groups of 50 persons less than 50 km away from the site 3 points
Lodging and restaurants for groups of 50 persons less than 100 km away from the site 2 points
Lodging and restaurants for groups less than 25 persons and less than 50 km away from the site 1 point
F. Density of population
Site located in a municipality with more than 1000 inhabitants/km24 points
Site located in a municipality with 250-1000 inhabitants/km23 points
Site located in a municipality with 100-250 inhabitants/km22 points
Site located in a municipality with less than 100 inhabitants/km21 point
G. Association with other values
Occurrence of several ecological and cultural values less than 5 km away from the site 4 points
Occurrence of several ecological and cultural values less than 10 km away from the site 3 points
Occurrence of one ecological value and one cultural value less than 10 km away from the site 2 points
Occurrence of one ecological or cultural value less than 10 km away from the site 1 point
H. Scenery
Site currently used as a tourism destination in national campaigns 4 points
Site occasionally used as a tourism destination in national campaigns 3 points
Site currently used as a tourism destination in local campaigns 2 points
Site occasionally used as a tourism destination in local campaigns 1 point
I. Uniqueness
The site shows unique and uncommon features considering this and neighbouring countries 4 points
The site shows unique and uncommon features in the country 3 points
The site shows common features in this region but they are uncommon in other regions of the country 2 points
The site shows features rather common in the whole country 1 point
J. Observation conditions
All geological elements are observed in good conditions 4 points
There are some obstacles that make difficult the observation of some geological elements 3 points
There are some obstacles that make difficult the observation of the main geological elements 2 points
There are some obstacles that almost obstruct the observation of the main geological elements 1
p
oint
Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134 129

(2009), Lima et al. (2010), Pereira and Pereira (2010), and
Fassoulas et al. (2012).
The DR assessment is based on five criteria:
A. Deterioration of geological elements: reflects the possi-
bility of loss of geological elements in the site as a
consequence of (i) its fragility, namely its intrinsic char-
acteristics (size of the geological element, ease of
obtaining samples, resistance of the rock, etc.) and natural
actions (susceptibility to erosion, intensity of erosional
agents, etc.) and (ii) its vulnerability to anthropic actions
(tourism, agriculture, urban development, vandalism,
etc.)
B. Proximity to areas/activities with potential to cause deg-
radation: mining, industrial facilities, recreational areas,
roads, urban areas, etc.
C. Legal protection: related to the location of the site in an
area with any type of legal protection (direct or indirect).
Access control refers to the existence of obstacles, such as
restrictions by the owner, fences, need to pay entrance
fees, mining activities
D. Accessibility: reflects the conditions of access to the site
for the general public (not considering disabled people).
Asitewitheasyaccessismorelikelytobedamagedby
visitors’misuse than one with difficult access
E. Density of population: reveals the number of persons
that live near the site and that can cause potential
deterioration to the site due to inappropriate use (van-
dalism, theft, etc.).
Table 6 Weights for the different criteria used for the assessment of the
potential educational and touristic uses
Potential use
Educational Touristic
Criteria Weight Criteria Weight
A. Vulnerability 10 A. Vulnerability 10
B. Accessibility 10 B. Accessibility 10
C. Use limitations 5 C. Use limitations 5
D. Safety 10 D. Safety 10
E. Logistics 5 E. Logistics 5
F. Density of population 5 F. Density of population 5
G. Association with other
values
5 G. Association with other
values
5
H. Scenery 5 H. Scenery 15
I. Uniqueness 5 I. Uniqueness 10
J. Observation conditions 10 J. Observation conditions 5
K. Didactic potential 20 K. Interpretative potential 10
L. Geological diversity 10 L. Economic level 5
M. Proximity of
recreational areas
5
Tot al 1 00 Total 10 0
Table 5 (continued)
POTENTIAL EDUCATIONAL USE POTENTIAL TOURISTIC USE
K. Didactic potential K. Interpretative potential
The site presents geological elements that are taught in all teaching
levels 4 points The site presents geological elements in a very clear and
expressive way to all types of public 4 points
The site presents geological elements that are taught in elementary
schools 3 points The public needs to have some geological background to
understand the geological elements of the site 3 points
The site presents geological elements that are taught in secondary
schools 2 points The public needs to have solid geological background to
understand the geological elements of the site 2 points
The site presents geological elements that are taught in the
university 1 point The site presents geological elements only understandable to
geological experts 1 point
L. Geological diversity L. Economic level
More than 3 types of geodiversity elements occur in the site
(mineralogical, palaeontological, geomorphological, etc.) 4 points The site is located in a municipality with a household income at
least the double of the national average 4 points
There are 3 types of geodiversity elements in the site 3 points The site is located in a municipality with a household income
higher than the national average 3 points
There are 2 types of geodiversity elements in the site 2 points The site is located in a municipality with a household income
similar to the national average 2 points
There is only 1 type of geodiversity element in the site 1 point The site is located in a municipality with a household income
lower than the national average 1 point
M. Proximity of recreational areas
Site located less than 5 km from a recreational area or tourist
attraction 4 points
Site located less than 10 km from a recreational area or tourist
attraction 3 points
Site located less than 15 km from a recreational area or tourist
attraction 2 points
Site located less than 20 km from a recreational area or tourist
attraction 1 point
130 Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134

As before, each criterion is scored between 1 and 4 points
(zero is also possible) (Table 7). The final DR value results
from the weighted sum of the scores given to each criterion
(Table 8). For management purposes, it might be useful to
have the DR classified as low, moderate, and high (Table 9).
It is worth mentioning that criteria D (accessibility) and E
(density of population) are used both in the evaluation of the
educational and touristic value of sites and the DR. However,
these criteria are considered in a different manner. To assess
the value of a site, good accessibility is considered an advan-
tage because it allows a higher number of visitors. A high
number of persons living near a site are also considered an
advantage for potential educational and touristic use. Howev-
er, good accessibility to a site is also a risk in terms of
vulnerability because the more people that visit the site, the
higher the risk that the site will be damaged. The same idea
applies to population density: more people living near a site
increase the probability of human-induced deterioration.
A site has maximum DR when its main characteristic
geological elements have a high probability of being damaged
either by natural or anthropic factors, when the site is not
under legal protection, and when it is located near a potentially
harmful area or activity.
Table 8 Weights for the different criteria used for the assessment of
degradation risk (DR) of sites
Degradation risk
Criteria Weight
A. Deterioration of geological elements 35
B. Proximity to areas/activities with potential to cause degradation 20
C. Legal protection 20
D. Accessibility 15
E. Density of population 10
Tot al 100
Table 9 Considering the
final value, degradation
risk (DR) can be classi-
fied in three classes: low,
moderate, and high
Total weighted Degradation risk
<200 Low
201–300 Moderate
301–400 High
Table 7 Criteria, indicators, and
parameters used for the
quantitative assessment of
degradation risk (DR) of sites
Degradation risk
Criteria/indicators Parameters
A. Deterioration of geological elements
Possibility of deterioration of all geological elements 4 points
Possibility of deterioration of the main geological elements 3 points
Possibility of deterioration of secondary geological elements 2 points
Minor possibility of deterioration of secondary geological elements 1 point
B. Proximity to areas/activities with potential to cause degradation
Site located less than 50 m of a potential degrading area/activity 4 points
Site located less than 200 m of a potential degrading area/activity 3 points
Site located less than 500 m of a potential degrading area/activity 2 points
Site located less than 1 km of a potential degrading area/activity 1 point
C. Legal protection
Site located in an area with no legal protection and no control of access 4 points
Site located in an area with no legal protection but with control of access 3 points
Site located in an area with legal protection but no control of access 2 points
Site located in an area with legal protection and control of access 1 point
D. Accessibility
Site located less than 100 m from a paved road and with bus parking 4 points
Site located less than 500 m from a paved road 3 points
Site accessible by bus through a gravel road 2 points
Site with no direct access by road but located less than 1 km from a road accessible by bus 1 point
E. Density of population
Site located in a municipality with more than 1000 inhabitants/km
2
4points
Site located in a municipality with 250–1000 inhabitants/km
2
3points
Site located in a municipality with 100–250 inhabitants/km
2
2points
Site located in a municipality with less than 100 inhabitants/km
2
1point
Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134 131

Geodiversity Inventory in Geoparks
Geoparks are becoming quite popular in certain regions of the
world. Geoparks are well-defined territories with a develop-
ment plan that aims to integrate the conservation of geological
heritage (and other natural assets) with the preservation of the
cultural identity of local communities. Based on the conser-
vation of natural and cultural assets and on the promotion of
education and geotourism, geoparks are tools designed to
promote the sustainable development of local populations
(Patzak and Eder 1998;Eder1999;EderandPatzak2004;
Zouros 2004;McKeeveretal.2010). A Global Network of
National Geoparks (GGN), set up under the auspices of
UNESCO in 2004, today integrates 111 geoparks distributed
in 32 countries, mostly in Europe and Asia. In order to be
accepted in this network, candidate territories must apply and
show that they fulfil a rather complete set of requirements.
One of these requirements is the inventory of geological
heritage, a key asset of any geopark.
Any GGN geopark must prove that the geodiversity of its
territory is represented by geosites of international relevance.
In order to achieve this requirement, a solid inventory of
geosites must be made in the territory, highlighting the signif-
icant scientific value of the geodiversity elements. The inven-
tory and management of geodiversity sites is also of highest
importance for all geoparks. Therefore, in order to prepare a
territory to become a geopark, several steps are proposed to
make a sound geodiversity characterisation:
1. General description of geodiversity with an explanation of
the geological and geomorphological setting of the
territory
2. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites’scien-
tific value and degradation risk
3. Quantitative assessment of educational and touristic po-
tential uses of geosites
4. Inventory of geodiversity sites
5. Quantitative assessment of educational and touristic po-
tential uses of geodiversity sites, together with the degra-
dation risk evaluation.
Based on the results of the inventory of geoheritage and
geodiversity sites and respective numerical assessment,
geopark managers are capable of preparing an adequate
geoconservation action plan that constitutes a solid back-
ground tool for any geopark. This geoconservation action plan
should define priorities for the management of geosites and
geodiversity sites, which ones will be used as educational and
touristic resources, what kind of infrastructures are needed,
etc.
Managers of protected areas can also apply this same
proposal of geodiversity characterisation to guarantee the
correct management of their parks.
Conclusion
To select which geodiversity elements are exceptional in a
certain area is not an easy task. If the area corresponds to
a whole country with high geological and geomorpholog-
ical diversity, the scenario is even more challenging. This
is one of the reasons that justifies the need for a solid
method for the inventory of geosites and geodiversity
sites. Nowadays, it is increasingly recognised that the
selection of the most valued sites for protection and man-
agement is of paramount importance both for science and
other societal uses.
Starting from the best examples published in the literature
and based on the author’s experience, the present work pro-
poses an inventory method for geological heritage and
geodiversity sites. Geological heritage should be recognised
for its scientific value, and, based on this fact, four criteria
should be used to select geosites: representativeness, integrity,
rarity, and scientific knowledge. In order to select geodiversity
sites with educational and touristic value, two other sets of
four criteria should be used: didactic potential, geological
diversity, accessibility, and safety (for sites with educational
value) and scenery, interpretative potential, accessibility, and
safety (for sites with touristic value). It should be highlighted
that the use of specific criteria for a certain type of value is
particularly important due to the fact that it will allow the
much more accurate selection of sites.
In areas with a large number of inventoried sites, a quan-
titative assessment of their SV, PEU, and PTU, together with
DR, constitutes an important asset for management purposes.
In fact, this assessment has two perspectives: it tries to eval-
uate the scientific value of sites and the potential educational
and touristic use of sites, not their value. This difference is due
to the fact that a geosite should be preserved for its scientific
value independently of its effective immediate use, which is
not the case for sites with educative and touristic values where
their protection is only justified if they are to be used for those
purposes. Seven criteria are proposed for the numerical as-
sessment of scientific value: representativeness, key locality,
scientificknowledge, integrity, geological diversity, rarity, and
use limitations. The evaluation of the educational and tourism
potential uses shares ten criteria: vulnerability, accessibility,
use limitations, safety, logistics, density of population, asso-
ciation with other values, scenery, uniqueness, and observa-
tion conditions. For PEU, two more criteria can be used:
didactic potential and geological diversity. In the evaluation
of PTU, three other criteria are considered: interpretative
potential, economic level, and proximity of recreational areas.
Each criterion is described by several indicators and each
indicator is quantified by a numerical parameter.
Whatever the type of value, different criteria have different
weights which reflect distinctions in the relative importance of
those same criteria. The same criterion can be used to assess
132 Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134

different values but it is given diverse weights in the final
evaluation.
Finally, the assessment of the degradation risk uses five
criteria: deterioration of geological elements, proximity to
areas/activities with the potential to cause degradation, legal
protection, accessibility, and population density.
One of the main differences of the assessment proposal
presented here in comparison to the majority of published
proposals is that there is no determination of a final ranking
or relevance score taking into account the results of the sites’
values and DR. In fact, these two sets of data should not be
computed together in a single formula to obtain a final score
because they are independent of each other. The value of a site
is not directly related to its vulnerability. Clearly, both aspects
must be considered together in a management strategy, but
there is no need to compute them simultaneously to obtain a
final number.
The present methodological proposal for the inventory and
numerical assessment of geological heritage and geodiversity
sites can be applied in different geological and geomorpho-
logical settings, in different size areas, and under diverse legal
contexts (parks, geoparks, areas with no protection, etc.).
Obviously, some indicators have to be adapted for particular
conditions. For instance, the distance values in some criteria or
the density of population range can change for different
countries.
In spite of the numerical assessment method used for
geoheritage and geodiversity sites, it should be emphasised
that a final reflection about the obtained results is essential.
The scientific coordinator of the inventory should confirm the
quality of the numerical results and search for eventual invalid
ranking positions. The subjectivity inherent to an inventory
and assessment of sites can never be totally eliminated. How-
ever, the method proposed in this paper can surely decrease
some of this subjectivity.
Acknowledgments The author thanks Diamantino Pereira, Flavia Li-
ma, and Paulo Pereira for fruitful discussions and insights; Teresa Mota
for the English revision; and the reviewers for significant improvements
of the first submitted version. This paper results of the research done at the
University of Minho and at the Geology Centre of the University of Porto,
partially founded by the Foundation for Science and Technology (Portu-
gal), strategic project with reference PEst-OE/CTE/UI0039/2014.
References
Alexandrowicz Z, Kozlowski S (1999) From selected geosites to
geodiversity conservation—Polish example of modern framework.
In: Barettino D, Vallejo M, Gallego E (eds) Towards the balanced
management and conservation of the geological heritage in the new
millenium. Sociedad Geológica de España, Madrid, Spain, pp 40–44
Black GP, Gonggrijp GP (1990) Fundamental thoughts on Earth-science
conservation. Jb. Geol. B.-A. Band 133, Heft 4:655–657
Bollati I, Smiraglia C, Pelfini M (2013) Assessment and selection of
geomorphosites and trails in the Miage Glacier Area (Western Italian
Alps). Environ Manag 51(4):951–967
Brilha J (2005) Património Geológico e Geoconservação: a Conservação
da Natureza na sua Vertente Geológica. Palimage Editores, Viseu
Brilha J, Andrade C, Azerêdo A, Barriga FJAS, Cachão M, Couto H,
Cunha PP, Crispim JA, Dantas P, Duarte LV, Freitas MC, Granja
MH, Henriques MH, Henriques P, Lopes L, Madeira J, Matos JMX,
Noronha F, Pais J, Piçarra J, Ramalho MM, Relvas JMRS, Ribeiro
A, Santos A, Santos V, Terrinha P (2005) Definition of the
Portuguese frameworks with international relevance as an input for
the European geological heritage characterisation. Episodes 28(3):
177–186
Brilha J, Alcala L, Almeida A, Araújo A, Azerêdo A, Azevedo MR,
Barriga F, Brum da Silveira A, Cabral J, Cachão M, Caetano P,
Cobos A, Coke C, Couto H, Crispim J, Cunha PP, Dias R, Duarte
LV, Dória A, Falé P, Ferreira N, Ferreira Soares A, Fonseca P,
Galopim de Carvalho A, Gonçalves R, Granja H, Henriques MH,
Kullberg JC, Kullberg MC, Legoinha P, Lima A, Lima E, Lopes L,
Madeira J, Marques JF, Martins A, Martins R, Matos J, Medina J,
Miranda R, Monteiro C, Moreira M, Moura D, Neto de Carvalho C,
Noronha F, Nunes JC, Oliveira JT, Pais J, Pena dos Reis R, Pereira
D, Pereira P, Pereira Z, Piçarra J, Pimentel N, Pinto de Jesus A,
Prada S, Prego A, Ramalho L, Ramalho M, Ramalho R, Relvas J,
Ribeiro A, Ribeiro MA, Rocha R, Sá A, Santos V, Sant’ovaia H,
Sequeira A, Sousa M, Terrinha P, Valle Aguado B, Vaz N (2010) O
inventário nacional do património geológico: abordagem
metodológica e resultados. e-Terra, 18(1)
Browne MAE (2012) Geodiversity and the role of the planning system in
Scotland. Scott Geogr J 128(3–4):266–277
Bruschi VM, Cendrero A (2009) Direct and parametric methods for the
assessment of geosites and geomorphosites. In: Reynard E, Coratza
P, Regolini-Bissig G (eds) Geomorphosites. Verlag Dr. Friedrich
Pfeil, München. Section II, pp 73–88
Bruschi VM, Cendrero A, Albertos JAC (2011) A statistical approach to
the validation and optimisation of geoheritage assessment proce-
dures. Geoheritage 3(3):131–149
Carcavilla L, López Martínez J, Durán Valsero JJ (2007) Patrimonio
geológico y geodiversidad: investigación, conservación, gestión y
relación con los espacios naturales protegidos. Cuadernos del
Museo Geominero, No. 7, IGME, Madrid
Carcavilla L, Durán JJ, Garcia-Cortés A, López-Martinez J (2009)
Geological heritage and geoconservation in Spain: past, present,
and future. Geoheritage 1(2–4):75–91
Cendrero A (1996a) El patrimonio geológico. Ideas para su protección,
conservación y utilización. In: El patrimonio geológico. Bases para
su valoración, protección, conservación y utilización. Serie
Monografías del Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transportes y
Medio Ambiente. Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transportes y
Medio Ambiente, Madrid, pp 17–27
Cendrero A. (1996b) Propuestas sobre criterios para la clasificación y
catalogación del patrimonio geológico. In: El patrimonio geológico.
Bases para su valoración, protección, conservación y utilización.
Serie Monografías del Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transportes y
Medio Ambiente. Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transportes y
Medio Ambiente, Madrid, pp 29–38
Coratza P, GiustiC (2005) Methodological proposal for the assessment of
scientific quality of geomorphosites. II Quaternario, Italien. J Quat
Sci 18(1):307–313
Díaz-Martínez E, Díez-Herrero A (2011) Los elementos biológicos y
culturales de interés geológico: un patrimonio a conservar. In
Fernández-Martínez E, Castaño de Luis R (eds) Avances y retos
en la conservación del Patrimonio Geológico en España. Actas dela
IX Reunión Nacional de la Comisión de Patrimonio Geológico
(Sociedad Geológica de España), Universidad de León, pp 85–90
Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134 133

Eder W (1999) "UNESCO GEOPARKS"—a new initiative for protection
and sustainable development of the Earth’s heritage. N Jb Geol
Paläont (Abh) 214(1/2):353–358
Eder W, Patzak M (2004) Geoparks—geological attractions: a tool for
public education, recreation and sustainable economic development.
Episodes 27(3):162–164
Elízaga E, Gallego E, García-Cortés A (1994) Inventaire nacional des
sites d’intérêt géologique en Espagne: méthodologie et déroulement.
Mém Soc Geol France 165:103–109
Erikstad L (2008) History of geoconservation in Europe. In: Burek CV,
Prosser CD (eds) The history of geoconservation, vol 300.
Geological Society, Special Publications, London, pp 249–256
Fassoulas C, Mouriki D, Dimitriou-Nikolakis P, Iliopoulos G (2012)
Quantitative assessment of geotopes as an effective tool for
geoheritage management. Geoheritage 4(3):177–193
Fuertes-Gutiérrez I, Fernández-Martínez E (2010) Geosites inventory in
the Leon Province (Northwestern Spain): a tool to introduce
geoheritage into regional environmental management. Geoheritage
2(1–2):57–75
Fuertes-Gutiérrez I, Fernández-Martínez E (2012) Mapping geosites for
geoheritage management: a methodological proposal for the
Regional Park of Picos de Europa (León, Spain). Environ Manag
50:789–806
Garcia-Cortés A, Rábano I, Locutura J, Bellido F, Fernández-Gianotti J,
Martín-Serrano A, Quesada C, Barnolas A, Durán JJ (2001) First
Spanish contribution to the Geosites Project list of the geological
frameworks established by consensus. Episodes 24(2):79–92
García-Cortés A, Carcavilla Urquí L (2009) Documento metodológico
para la elaboración del inventario español de lugares de interés
geológico (IELIG), version 12. Instituto Geológico y Minero de,
España, Madrid
Grandgirard V (1999) Switzerland—the inventory of geotopes of national
significance. In: Barettino D, Vallejo M, Gallego E (eds) Towards
the balanced management and conservation of the geological heri-
tage in the new millenium. Spain, Sociedad Geológica de España,
Madrid, pp 234–236
Gray JM (2008) Geodiversity: developing the paradigma. Proc Geol
Assoc 119:287–298
Gray JM (2013) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature, 2nd
edn. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester
Henriques MH, Pena dos Reis R, Brilha J, Mota TS (2011) Geoconservation
as an emerging geoscience. Geoheritage 3(2):117–128
Hjort J, Luoto M (2012) Can geodiversity be predicted from space?
Geomorphology 153–154:74–80
JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee) (1977) Guidelines for
selection of Earth Science SSSIs. URL: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/
page-2317. Accessed in January 2014
Lapo AV, Davydov VI, Pashkevich NG, Petrov VV, Vdovets MS
(1993) Methodic principles of study of geological monuments
of nature in Russia. Stratigraphy and Geological Correlations
I(6):636–644
Lima FF, Brilha JB, Salamuni E (2010) Inventorying geological heritage
in large territories: a methodological proposal applied to Brazil.
Geoheritage 2(3–4):91–99
McKeever P, Zouros N, Patzak M, Weber J (2010) The UNESCO global
network of national geoparks. In: Newsome D, Dowling R (eds)
Geotourism: the tourism of geology and landscape. Goodfellow
Publishers Ltd, Oxford, pp 221–230
Parkes MA, Morris JH (1999) The Irish Geological Heritage Programme.
In: Barettino D, Vallejo M, Gallego E (eds) Towards the balanced
management and conservation of the geological heritage in the new
millenium. Spain, Sociedad Geológica de España, Madrid, pp 60–
64
Patzak M, Eder E (1998) "UNESCO GEOPARK". A new programme—a
new UNESCO label. Geol Balc 28(3–4):33–35
Pellitero R, González-Amuchastegui MJ, Ruiz-Flaño P, Serrano E (2011)
Geodiversity and geomorphosite assessment applied to a natural
protected area: the Ebro and Rudron gorges Natural Park (Spain).
Geoheritage 3:163–174
Pellitero R, Manosso F, Serrano E (2014) Mid- and large-scale
geodiversity calculation in Fuentes Carrionas (NW Spain) and
Serra do Cadeado (Paraná, Brazil): methodology and application
for land management. Geogr Ann Ser A Phys Geogr. doi:10.1111/
geoa.12057
Pena dos Reis R, Henriques MH (2009) Approaching an integrated
qualification and evaluation system for geological heritage.
Geoheritage 1:1–10
Pereira P, Pereira DI (2010) Methodological guidelines for
geomorphosite assessment. Géomorphol Relief, Processus, Environ
2:215–222
Pereira P, Pereira DI (2012) Assessment of geosites tourism value in
geoparks: the example of Arouca Geopark (Portugal). Proceedings
of the 11th European Geoparks Conference, Arouca: 231–232
Pereira P, Pereira DI, Alves MIC (2007) Geomorphosite assessment in
Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geogr Helv 62:159–168
Pereira DI, Pereira P, Brilha J, Santos L (2013) Geodiversity assessment
of Paraná State (Brazil): an innovative approach. Environ Manag
52(3):541–552
Pralong JP, Reynard E (2005) A proposal for the classification of geo-
morphological sites depending on their tourist value. Quaternario
18(1):315–321
Prosser CD, Burek CV, Evans DH, Gordon JE, Kirkbride VB, Rennie AF,
Walmsley CA (2010) Conserving geodiversity sites in a changing
climate: management challenges and responses. Geoheritage 2:123–136
Reynard E (2009) The assessment of geomorphosites. In: Reynard E,
Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (eds) Geomorphosites. Verlag Dr.
Friedrich Pfeil, Munchen, pp 63–71
Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L, Scapozza C (2007) A method for
assessing "scientific" and "additional values" of geomorphosites.
Geographica Helvetica Jg. 62. Heft 3:148–158
Reynard E, Coratza P (2013) Scientific research on geomorphosites. A
review of the activities of the IAG working group on geomorphosites
over the last twelve years. Geogr Fis Dinam Quat 3:1–10
Serrano E, Ruiz-Flaño P, Arroyo P (2009) Geodiversity assessment in a
rural landscape: Tiermes-Caracena area (Soria, Spain). Memorie
Descrittive Della Carta Geoligica d’Italia 87:173–180
Silva JP, Rodrigues C, Pereira DI (2014) Mapping and analysis of
geodiversity indices in the Xingu River Basin, Amazonia, Brazil.
Geoheritage. doi:10.1007/s12371-014-0134-8
White S, Mitchell M (2006) Geological heritage sites: a procedure and
protocol for documentation and assessment. AESC2006,
Melbourne, Australia, pp 2
Wimbledon WA (2011) Geosites—a mechanism for protection, integrat-
ing national and international valuation of heritage sites. Geologia
dell’Ambiente, supplemento n. 2/2011:13–25
Wimbledon WA, Smith-Meyer S (eds) (2012) Geoheritage in Europe and
its conservation. ProGEO, Oslo
Wimbledon WA, Benton MJ, Bevins RE, Black GP, Bridgland DR, Cleal
CJ, Cooper RG, May VJ (1995) Thedevelopment of a methodology
for the selection of British Geological sites for geoconservation: part
1. Mod Geol 20:159–202
Zouros N (2004) The European Geoparks Network. Geological her-
itage protection and local development. Episodes 27(3):165–
171
134 Geoheritage (2016) 8:119–134