Linking Geoheritage or Geosite Assessment Results with Geotourism Potential and Development: A Literature Review

Abstract

Geotourism is sustainable tourism form which is primarily based on the existence of geoheritage. Many research studies have been devoted to assessing geoheritage in last two decades, from various perspectives. Depending on the assessment methods and results, authors of such studies often refer to potential geotourism development based on specific geoheritage values. This paper, based on a study and analysis of relevant literature retrieved from WoS and Scopus databases, focuses on assessment criteria and their relevance to geotourism development for the general public. The results show that the absolute majority of assessment methods are probably of high importance for experts. However, in terms of effective application of the assessment results to sustainable geotourism development, different criteria should be used, including visual attractiveness, uniqueness, accessibility, safety, and the possibility of gaining knowledge. In this regard, extensive research is required on how geoheritage and its interpretation appeal to visitors, especially among the lay public.

1. Introduction

Geotourism, since its first definition [1], has become a globally accepted and supported form of sustainable tourism. Regardless of how geotourism is characterized or understood [1,2,3,4,5,6,7], it is primarily based on geoheritage, its presence, recognition, accessibility, and proper interpretation by people visiting such places. So, considering any approach to geotourism—including some of classical (and especially in the scientific community, widely accepted) approaches defined by Newsome and Dowling [4], Hose [1,5], or theABC concept of geotourism defined by Dowling [6], or even the geographically based approach (primarily focusing on the geographical and not on the geological character of area) proposed by National Geographic [8]—geosites play a key role in the development of geotourism.

Therefore, in the last three decades, geosite or geoheritage assessments have become a subject of interest of many researchers. Recognizing the importance of the abiotic part of the nature, geoheritage in general, individual sites of geological importance (geosites), and geological diversity (geodiversity) (and their values) have been studied and discussed from various perspectives and for different purposes, including protection or preservation needs, research, education, regional development, recreation, and economic benefits [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25].

In 2000, Wimbledon et al. [9] introduced criteria for qualitative geosite assessment. This approach is descriptive, and thus more subjective; its application and particularly its comparison of results is relatively complicated. In this regard, a qualitative geoheritage assessment is more applicable. As a pioneers in this field, Bruschi and Cendrero [10] introduced a complex assessment approach, combining the intrinsic quality of sites, potential threats and protection needs, and their potential for use. In 2007, Reynard et al. [14] defined a method to assess the scientific and added values of geomorphosites, which in general can be applied to any geoheritage site. In the same year, Zouros [15] defined an assessment method for geomorphosites located in protected areas. Despite originally being proposed for geomorphosites, it is easily applicable to any geoheritage site, including those located outside protected areas. To reduce the number of assessment criteria, Bruschi et al. [16] proposed a statistical approach to geoheritage assessment. Aiming for application to all types of geoheritage, Fassoulas et al. [18] defined an assessment method based on criteria proposed by various authors. Based on an analysis of various assessments, and respecting the geotourism principles outlined by Dowling [26], Kubalíková [19] proposed a set of assessment criteria for geotourism purposes.

Based on geotourism principles [26], knowledge of geoheritage values can significantly contribute to the management, protection, and use of a certain site for the purposes of sustainable development of an individual location, and the region in which said geosite is located [5,6,27,28].

Considering the fact that almost every geosite assessment result refers to some kind of geotourism potential level, it is surprising that these methods do not reflect the potential visitors’ perspective. There is an absolute disparity between research on geosites or geoheritage, their values, and geosite/geoheritage visitors. Geotourism, as one of the major beneficiaries of geosite assessment results, is considered to be a sustainable form of tourism [28,29]. Besides other factors, any tourism form directly depends on visitors’ or tourists’ interest. In this regard, when considering the interpretation or use of geosite/geoheritage assessment results referring to geotourism development not reflecting visitor criteria or expectations, the following questions arise: ‘Are the results of such assessments practically applicable for (sustainable) geotourism development?’, ‘What is the purpose of an assessment: geoscience-related research (potentially to be discussed within the scientific community), or to support the development of geotourism at a specific location?’, ‘Are the assessment results addressed to professionals in the field of geosciences/geoheritage/geotourism research, or are they for the purpose of (geo)tourism development aimed at general public?’ ‘Does the specific assessment score (result) mean that the geosite will attract visitors to visit the site?’.

Some of these issues have been referred and discussed by Štrba et al. [30]. After five years and significant research contributions to the field of geoheritage assessment, according to the number of publications on this topic, minimal progress (if any) has been made in pursuit of the implementation of visitor/tourist preferences, expectations, or criteria into geosite assessments related to geotourism development. Research studies on this topic are still lacking, even in the leading journals in this area, including Geoheritage, the International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, the Geojournal of Tourism and Geosites, Geosciences, and dedicated Special Issues of Sustainability and Land journals. Considering the sustainability of any (geo)tourism product based on the existence of geoheritage, its values and their interpretations applied within the development should reflect aspects important for lay public visitors. This paper, based on a review of relevant literature, discusses geoheritage/geosite assessments and their results with regard to geotourism potential and development, taking into account (especially lay public) visitors’ perspectives.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Geosites and Geoheritage

Geosites, as a part of geoheritage according to Brilha [22], are places with the presence of one or more features characterizing Earth in terms of its evolution and structure. According to Reynard [31], a geosite is a part of the geosphere, providing a particularly important contribution to our understanding of the evolution, history, and structure of the Earth. Such places may include locations that have scientific value (e.g., sedimentological stratotypes, glacial moraines), cultural–historical value (religious or mystical), aesthetic value (e.g., coastal or mountain areas), and/or social–economic value (e.g., regions that are attractive to tourists or have mineral deposits), as a result of human perception and use. Brilha [22] states that each geosite must have scientific value and may also have educational, aesthetic, and cultural values. Regardless of a geosite’s values, geosites can be located in various places, in various forms, and at various scales, depending on their types (Figure 1), including (1) type locations (sites where specific geological features/elements/structures, minerals, rocks, or fossils are present; e.g., Molina de Aragón); (2) historically important sites that have inspired research in geosciences and understanding of geological processes on Earth (e.g., the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon); (3) paleontological sites with significant stages of life evolution on Earth (e.g., the Ediacaran fossil site of Mistaken Point); (4) karst sites (e.g., Postojna cave); (5) landscape elements formed by wind, water, glaciers, weathering, and erosion (e.g., Antelope Canyon); (6) glaciers and their forms (e.g., Perito Moreno glacier); (7) volcanic sites (e.g., Šomoška stone waterfall); (8) groundwater-related sites (natural springs, thermal springs, artesian wells, water collectors, e.g., Grand Prismatic Spring); (9) sites allowing “classical” research and education (e.g., Rocher de la Baume); (10) sites documenting specific events in the Earth’s history (e.g., Siberian traps); (11) geologically or historically important mines and mining regions (e.g., Wieliczka salt mine); (12) geological oddities (e.g., erratic stones, meteorites, craters of non-volcanic origin, etc., e.g., Devil’s Tower); (13) unique rock or mineralogical sites (e.g., Naica Cave); (14) geological elements, formations, or landforms of outstanding natural beauty, with existing or potential recreational use (e.g., Bora Bora); and (15) mineralogical, rock, or paleontological collections that are attractive to visitors or are of educational significance (e.g., Terra Mineralia).

The rapid development of geotourism in various parts of the world is proof of the global growth of the geopark concept, especially in the last decade, which has significantly contributed to constantly growing interest in geoheritage from both researchers and the general public. Since their inception (dating back to 1991), through the first geoparks established in Europe (1995–1999), the beginning of the European Geoparks Network (2000), the launch of the Global Geoparks Network (2004) and the Asian Pacific Geopark Network, to the creation of a new label (UNESCO Global Geopark) in 2015, followed by the launch of the Latin American and Caribbean Geopark Network in 2017, and the announcement of the African UNESCO Global Geopark Network in 2019, as of today, 177 UNESCO Global Geoparks exist, with 60 million visitors per year [32].

2.2. Methodology

This literature review aims to integrate current information and guide future studies by conducting an extensive search of the literature and data, and evaluating and analysing them [33]. This study will serve as a foundation for generating recommendations to advance geoheritage assessments and the interpretation of their results, all in pursuit of effective geotourism development (with special emphasis om lay public geoheritage visitors). Some authors highlight these advantages, and recognize them as an effective way to identify research gaps [34,35].

For the purpose of this study, the methodological process includes three phases: (1) searching, (2) the selection of relevant publications, and (3) the study and analysis of the selected literature.

For the purpose of literature searching, two major scientific literature online databases, Web of Science and Scopus, were used. These two databases were selected to assure the quality of the selected literature. The key words used for the search were “geoheritage assessment” and “geosite assessment”. Search results that include these key words in the title, abstract, or keywords were taken into consideration for the second phase. The search was conducted in February and March 2023.

Within the second phase of the research, relevant publications were selected for further in-depth study. This was achieved by reviewing the title and abstract of the publications searched in the first phase.

Based on this review’s results, two groups of publications were specified in the third phase. The former includes publications primarily devoted to the definition of a specific geoheritage assessment method; the latter consists of publications with assessments applied to a specific site or territory. The first group of publications is the major source of information on the assessment criteria and their explanations, made by the authors of the individual assessment methods. The study and analysis of publications from the second group allow us to identify how various authors apply the selected geoheritage assessment methods and interpret the results. By summarizing and synthesizing the key discoveries, it was possible to identify significant patterns in evaluating geoheritage, and to address the challenges associated with the assessment outcomes in relation to the development of geotourism. Moreover, this process allows us to highlight specific areas that demand further research.

3. Results

Recognition of the importance of geoheritage and its potential on a global scale has logically led to enhanced scientific interest in geoheritage and its values. As a result, an increasing number of publications devoted to the assessment of geoheritage or geosites have appeared. This fact is clearly visible in the search results obtained from the two most relevant scientific databases, Web of Science and Scopus (

Table 1. Search results for “geosite assessment” and “geoheritage assessment” from the databases Web of Science and Scopus.

	Geosite Assessment		Geoheritage Assessment
Year	Web of Science	Scopus	Web of Science	Scopus
2001	1	1	-	-
2002	0	0	-	-
2003	0	1	-	-
2004	0	1	-	-
2005	0	2	-	-
2006	0	0	-	-
2007	0	0	-	-
2008	0	0	1	1
2009	0	0	1	1
2010	1	2	1	3
2011	1	1	8	4
2012	2	3	2	2
2013	1	2	6	10
2014	7	9	9	8
2015	8	10	13	9
2016	15	13	17	16
2017	9	8	20	11
2018	15	21	24	28
2019	11	9	39	28
2020	21	23	58	38
2021	32	36	62	61
2022	37	40	77	68
2023	2	12	6	11

, Figure 2 and Figure 3). Using the key words “geosite assessment” in the Web of Science database, 163 results were returned, with the first publication record dating back to 2001. Searching the key words “Geoheritage assessment” returned 344 results in the database, starting with 1 publication in 2008, and 77 publications indexed in 2022. The search results from the Scopus database were 194 publications for “geosite assessment” and 299 publications for “geoheritage assessment”.

The word cloud generated from the titles and key words of these publications (Figure 4) shows that the five most frequent words used by authors publishing on this topic are geoheritage, assessment, geotourism, geosite, and geodiversity. This indicates that geoheritage/geosite assessment is strongly related to geotourism in the aforementioned publications.

To be more specific, the absolute majority of these papers discuss the specific values of the assessed geosites in terms of geoconservation, geotourism, and sustainable development, adopting some already defined and widely accepted geosite or geoheritage assessment methods [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. A brief overview of the most cited assessment methods is given below.

According to search results of mentioned databases, the most frequently used assessment method, based on the number of citations, was defined by Brilha [22]. This approach includes three major categories of geoheritage aspects: scientific values, potential educational use, and potential touristic use. The scientific values comprise the following criteria: representativeness, key locality, specific knowledge, integrity, geological diversity, rarity, and use limitations. In order to stress the specific importance of an individual criterion, each of them is assigned its own weight. However, as mentioned by the author of this method, weight distribution can be discussed. In this regard, further research is needed to fully address this issue [22]. Additionally, the author of this method suggests an assessment of the site’s degradation risk as a complementary tool. Thus, the results of this assessment produce a complex overview of geoheritage. Knowledge of degradation risk may be a very useful source of information for effective geoheritage management within the sustainable development of (geo)tourism. Moreover, appropriate interpretation of this risk to visitors may contribute to deeper understanding of importance of the site.

Reynard et al. [53] introduced, based on the Reynard et al. [14] method, an integrated approach to inventory and management of geomorphological heritage. Within the process, a four-step assessment method is defined, comprising (1) documentation of the site, (2) assessment of its intrinsic value, (3) the site’s use and management characteristics, and (4) synthesis. Assessment, sensu stricto, is covered by the second and third step. Assessment of the intrinsic values includes central (scientific) values (integrity, representativeness, rareness, palaeogeographic interest), and additional values (ecological, aesthetic, and cultural values). Within the step of use and management characteristics, protection (protection status, damages, and threats) and promotion (visit conditions, including accessibility, security, site context, and tourism infrastructures, and education, including interpretative facilities and educational interest) are assessed. Despite the fact that this method was originally developed for geomorphological heritage, it can be used for an assessment of any geoheritage.

Fassoulas et al. [18], to cover the complex values of geoheritage, defined a method based on quantitative and qualitative assessment from various perspectives. This method includes 21 assessment criteria, grouped within 6 categories: (1) scientific (geologic history, representatives, geodiversity, rarity, integrity); (2) ecological (ecological impact, protection status); (3) cultural (ethics, history, religious, art, and culture); (4) aesthetics (viewpoints, landscape difference); (5) economic (visitors, attraction); (6) potential for use (intensity of use, impacts, fragility, accessibility, acceptable changes). The authors defined three indexes referring to the touristic, educational, and protection need values of a geosite. Although this method may be considered relatively objective, it requires, as mentioned by the authors in the original paper, a multidisciplinary group of specialists. In some cases and is some regions, it can constitute a problem from a personal and a professional perspective [54].

Kubalíková [19], based on a literature and assessment methods review, defined a method for geosite and geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes. The final result was composed of an assessment of scientific and intrinsic values (integrity, rarity, the number of similar sites), diversity (the number of different partial features and processes within the geosite or geomorphosite), scientific knowledge, educational values (representativeness and visibility/clarity of the features/processes, exemplarity and pedagogical use, existing educational products, actual use of the site for educational purposes via excursions and guided tours), economic values (accessibility, the presence of tourist infrastructure, local products), conservation values (actual threats and risks, potential threats and risks, the current status of a site, legislative protection), and added values (cultural value, in the presence of historical/archeological/religious aspects related to the site, ecological values, and aesthetic values in the number of colours, the structure of the space, and viewpoints). In 2016, Kubalíková and Kirchner [23] introduced a method for assessing geosites and geomorphosites for geotourism purposes, based on aforementioned method of Kubalíková [19]. Additionally, they suggest applying SWOT analysis to obtain an overview of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the sites and study area. However, it should be noted that the real SWOT analysis comprises not only specification of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of a site, but the ‘analysis’ part too (see, e.g., [55]).

Tomić and Božić [20] have introduced their ‘Modified Geosite Assessment Model’ (M-GAM), which is derived from the assessment model of Vujičić et al. [17]. They modified the original model by applying weights to individual assessment criteria based on visitor perspectives. In this regard, a significant step towards (geo)tourism was made within the assessment, through the inclusion not only of scientific perceptions of the Geosite, but also of public perceptions. The assessment criteria are grouped within two categories: main values and added values. The main values contain 12 indicators within 3 categories (scientific/educational value: rarity, representativeness, knowledge of geoscientific issues, level of interpretation; scenic/aesthetic value: viewpoints, surface, surrounding landscape and nature, environmental fitting of sites; protection: current condition, protection level, vulnerability, suitable number of visitors). The added values include functional values (accessibility, additional natural values, additional anthropogenic values, the proximity of emissive centers, the proximity of a major road network, additional functional values) and touristic values (promotion, organized visits, proximity of visitors centres, interpretative panels, number of visitors, tourism infrastructure, tour guide service, hostelry service, restaurant service). Taking into account the opinions of both experts and tourists, the results of this assessment should be more universally applicable for the purpose of (geo)tourism development. However, visitor preferences may differ from region to region, or from country to country, based on various factors, including age, gender, level of education, marital status, or socio-economic status. Thus, universal use of this method is limited to the knowledge of the opinions of a local tourist or specific target group.

An interesting approach towards geotourism planning and management has been proposed by Suzuki and Takagi [25]. Within this assessment, the authors do not intend to introduce new assessment criteria or categories; however, the model is designed as an effective tool for geoheritage management within geoparks. This method combines six value categories: (1) educational value (ease of understanding the geosite’s story, representativeness, ease of understanding information panels at the geosite); (2) scientific value (research significance, clarity and non-obsolescence of scientific story on information panels, guidebooks, and web sites, and rarity in the region); (3) tourism value (emotional/aesthetic value, such as beauty or impressiveness, other natural/anthropogenic values, and other tourist attractions in the vicinity); (4) safety and accessibility (the safety conditions of the geosite and footpath, travel time from the base (information) point to the area’s attractions, the walking time from bus/train stops or the parking lot); (5) the conservation and site sustainability value (the current state of conservation, legal protection, and site sustainability); and (6) the value of tourism information (information panels on the approach to the geosite, geosite information on websites, pamphlets, guidebooks, etc., the international usefulness of information panels and web sites (i.e., being multilingual)).

4. Discussion

The individual assessment criteria were considered in terms of the relevance of their assessment results’ use for effective support for the development of geotourism. For this purpose, publications discussing non-professional (geo)tourist or visitor preferences, motivations or factors related to geosite visits [20,21,56,57], and thus the accomplishment of geotourism were analyzed. Our findings are discussed and compared to the assessment method proposed by Brilha [22], due to this method having the highest number of citations (512 citations, according to CrossRef, from its online publication in January 2015 until April 2023) and the related assumption that this method is the most widely accepted approach among geosite/geoheritage assessment methods. Additionally, this method includes assessment of the potential tourist use, which is, in terms of using results for the development of geotourism, substantial. The methods of Kubalíková [19], Kubalíková, and Kirchner [23], and Suzuki and Takagi [25] were also taken into consideration, as these were, according to the authors, originally designed for geotourism purposes.

4.1. Geoheritage Values, Geotourism, and Visitors

Any method of developing geotourism should respect its key principles and features. From the perspective of visitors, geotourism is primarily based on the presence of geoheritage, its attractiveness (potential to be visited), and its interpretation. Thus, knowledge of the existence of geosites and their values, referring to their potential use (for various purposes including research, studying and education, tourism, art, etc.), is absolutely indispensable. However, when assessing a geosite for the purpose of geotourism development, scientific values do not play a principal role [58]. It is necessary to answer the following question: “Who is a geotourist?” Hose [59] distinguishes between two major groups: (1) dedicated geotourists (with an educational, intellectual, or scientific purpose to their geoheritage visit) and (2) casual geotourists (visiting a site of geoheritage primarily for recreational purposes, pleasure, or some limited intellectual stimulation). Comparing these two groups, without a doubt, it can be stated that the second group of geoheritage visitors (casual geotourists) represents the majority of geoheritage visitors in the world. Cauthino et al. [60] argue that the geotourist, in essence, is not the one who has an involvement with the theme, but the one who, in search of pleasure through tourism, acquires knowledge about the geological aspects of the visited place.

In this regard, when referring to method of Brilha [22], geoheritage assessment for the development of geotourism in the general public (casual geotourists, according to Hose [59]) should be primarily focused on the categories of potential educational and touristic use. Here, visitors’ input is crucial. Even experienced professional in geoheritage protection or (geo)tourism development is not able to specify the criteria that are important from the general lay visitor’s perspective. If geotourism intends to be sustainable, as is generally accepted and presented [28], it should not be dependent on interest of a relatively small group of (geo)scientists and geoheritage/geotourism enthusiasts only. In terms of sustainability, such attention is insufficient. A much broader spectrum of potential recipients is required. This assumption is easily applicable to geoparks, which without doubt can be considered the most effective manifestation of the geotourism concept. According to the Global Geoparks Network [61], a UNESCO Global Geopark is a territory presenting a unique geoheritage of international value. Therefore, the value should somehow be recognized, specified, and interpreted. Moreover, a geopark is a place where visitor can meet, experience, and touch Earth’s history. They also present and explain to visitors the site’s natural and cultural heritage, and their interconnections and mutual relationships to geoheritage. Involving local people, these initiatives should lead to the sustainable development of geopark areas [61,62,63]. Geoparks, similarly to any other viable tourist destination, directly depend on visitors. A geopark operator may know the values of geoheritage located within the geopark, may recognize the various interconnections of the geoheritage, living nature, history, and culture of region, and may do their best to preserve this heritage. However, at the end of the day, without the real interest of visitors, no sustainable geotourism development activity is possible.

So, within any geosite/geoheritage assessment for the purpose of geotourism development, visitors data should be included. Omission or ignoring such information is the major weakness of most of the geosite assessment models in the process of interpreting results. In this regard, only the assessment model defined by Tomić and Bozić [20] can be considered suitable. However, there is a limited number of research publications on this topic. It is surprising that among the still-growing number of publications devoted to geotourism’s development, and assessing geoheritage values for geotourism purposes, etc., only marginal attention is paid to the majority of recipients of geoheritage values and geotourism development: general public visitors.

In this context, it can be concluded that the majority of geoheritage assessment methods are primarily scientifically oriented. The results of such assessments clearly refer to the scientific value of geoheritage, which can be used for geoconservation purposes. However, from a real geotourism development perspective (especially when aiming at a wider spectrum of potential geoheritage visitors, not only professionals and students in the field of geosciences), such results are of weak informative value. Ignoring or not taking into account these factors may result in the unsustainability of the geotourism project (including environmental, economic, and tourism sustainability), especially in the medium and long term. Contrariwise, knowledge on specific aspects of visitor motivations or preferences may significantly contribute to the relevance of our interpretations of geoheritage assessments for use in the context of (geo)tourism. Additionally, it may help us to understand why visitors prefer or visit only specific geosites in a geopark, and may contribute to effective geosite/visitor management, preventing mass tourism at specific locations (and thus potential geoheritage damage), and promoting lesser-known sites of similar importance and values.

Welc and Miskiewicz [58] argue that for the non-professional recipient (general public visitor), the scientific value of the site does not matter. They assume that, in this case, the ability to recognize and remember features of geoheritage is of primary importance. Štrba [56] identified the following ‘visitor-based’ geoheritage values affecting visits by general public: visual attractiveness, accessibility, visit safety, uniqueness, information availability, visit/tour safety, time-limited visit, tour/visit length, possibility to gain knowledge, and number of tourists. The findings of Kubalíková et al. [57] also imply that aesthetics and uniqueness play the most important role in the visitor’s decision to visit a specific geosite. The possibility of gaining any knowledge on the site, the site’s safety, and number of visitors to the site can also considered important factors [57]. The values of importance factors in the studies of Tomić and Božić [20,21] show that according to general public visitors, among the M-GAM assessment criteria, the most important are surrounding landscape and nature, rarity, current conditions, environmental fitting of sites, interpretative panels, level of interpretation, and tour guide services. These criteria correspond to the aforementioned, more generally named criteria: aesthetics or visual attractiveness, rarity or uniqueness, and possibility of gaining knowledge. Recently, based on GAM and M-GAM, Antić et al. [64] designed a show cave assessment model, which includes assessment criteria importance factors derived from the results of a survey of cave visitors in Serbia. Their research results show that guide service, accessibility, lighting, number of visually attractive locations, and rules of conduct were identified as being of the highest importance. Taking into account accessibility and attractive locations, and considering the fact that guide services in caves are closely linked to geoheritage interpretation and acquiring knowledge, these criteria are, in principle, consistent with those mentioned above. Similarly, for the purpose of using an assessment in the tourism industry, Doktor et al. [65] proposed the visual (prominence in the landscape, dominating element (size, shape, color), naturalness of landscape, outlook) and functional values (accessibility (availability, transport modes, pedestrian access, trail difficulty rating), location of other objects up to 1 km, trip hazards, tourism infrastructure (parking, accommodation and catering services), blazing, information about object) as the primary values of a geosite when assessed from the perspective of the general public.

4.2. Visitor-Based Geoheritage Assessment Criteria

Summarizing the aforementioned findings, in geoheritage assessments with the aim of geotourism development primarily aimed at visitors from the general public, the following categories should be included: visual attractiveness, uniqueness, accessibility, (geo)educational value, and safety.

The visual attractiveness of a site can be considered to be the most important factor affecting geosite visits [56,57]. Chylińska [66] states that the picturesque is of great importance in geotourism. So, within the assessment, the visual attractiveness criterion should be assigned the most weight. On the other hand, it is important to note that perception of visual attractiveness is very subjective, and depends on the individual preferences of the person. Therefore, it very difficult to express the value of the visual attractiveness of a site of geoheritage; it strongly depends on the type of geosite. It is necessary to consider various aspects and geoheritage features. For example, inside a cave or mine, a visitor has no view on surrounding landscapes or landforms, and no panoramic views. However, this does not automatically mean that caves or mines are less visually attractive than, e.g., the view from the top of a canyon; these are just examples of different kinds of visual attractiveness. Based on this fact, the following aspects should be taken into account when assessing the visual attractiveness of a site of geoheritage: (1) the location of the geoheritage, (2) number of primary geoheritage attractions (key features) located at the site, and (3) naturalness.

The location of geoheritage divides geosites based on their types, as presented above, into two major groups: surface and underground (Figure 5). This categorization allows us to specify the expected visual attractiveness values more precisely. For underground geosites, these may include the size and number of chambers. However, for surface geosites, there is a need to differentiate between locations offering panoramic views (hilltops, canyon edges, viewpoints) and sites primarily not offering surrounding views, e.g., waterfalls, lakes, or fossil sites. The last group of geosites may also be of outstanding beauty. However, at these sites, there often are no panoramic views, and no possibility of seeing the surrounding landscape. From the visitors’ perspective, this last group of geosites may be considered to less attractive based on their location.

The number of primary geoheritage attractions located at the site (e.g., a canyon in limestones formed by water erosion, with exposed and observable fossils and/or the presence of caves, etc.) is a very important criterion referring to the multi-representativeness of the site, which may significantly affect the number of potential visitors.

The naturalness of the geoheritage site refers to its present state and the extent to which human activities negatively affect the visual attractiveness of the site. For example, the presence of an industrial concern near the site affects the overall outlook, and thus lowers the total visual attractiveness. This does not mean that the presence of any kind of man-made construction automatically results in lowering the value of the location. There are also many examples of human activities related to the geosites enhancing the attractiveness as defined within the ABC geotourism concept [6], e.g., building castles on hill-tops. However, when considering site naturalness, no human impact should result into the highest score here.

For the visual attractiveness assessment (VAA), various approaches have been developed, particularly regarding the landscape, such as scenic landscape quality assessment, landscape aesthetics quality assessment, or landscape visual aesthetics quality [67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74]. Although these methods are quite complex, due to the specific features of many geoheritage sites, including size or location, their use for the purpose of geoheritage VAA is impossible, or very limited. However, a similar approach may be adopted for the definition of geoheritage VAA. Additionally, as some of the input data come from respondents whose responses may vary based on various indicators (nationality, education level, social status, etc.), their potential universal or global application is very limited. Thus, when considering comprehensive geoheritage VAA, further research is required. Mikhailenko et al. [75] introduced an aesthetics-based classification of geological structures in outcrops for geotourism purposes. However, this approach cannot be used in terms of VAA.

The uniqueness of geoheritage is relatively easy to determine based on specialist assessment. This geoheritage characteristic is (should be) well known among professionals. However, lay public visitors may not be aware of this geoheritage value. Thus, appropriate communication with visitors should be used for the purpose of sustainable geotourism development. Uniqueness (or rarity) as an assessment criterion is present in every geoheritage or geosite assessment method; thus, it can be considered one of the most important assessment criteria from both expert and lay public perspectives. In general, it can be assumed that the uniqueness of a place (Figure 6) is related to following aspects.

• A sense of awe and wonder: Unique or rare natural places often have breathtaking landscapes or geological formations that can leave people feeling awestruck and inspired;
• Adventure and excitement: Some people enjoy visiting unique places for the challenge and adventure they offer, for example, the challenge of climbing a mountain or exploring a remote wilderness area;
• Cultural significance: Certain unique or rare geoheritage sites may be of cultural significance, such as sacred sites, or places of historical importance;
• Education and learning: Many people visit unique places to learn about the natural world and its processes, including geology, biology, and ecology, etc.;
• Relaxation and rejuvenation: Some people visit unique places for the peace and quiet they offer, as well as the opportunity to disconnect from the stresses of everyday life and reconnect with nature.

Geoheritage accessibility is a key factor directly related to the possibility of visiting the site. Even the world’s most unique site with outstanding visual attractiveness has no potential of geotourism development at all if it is located in a remote and inaccessible area. According to any geotourism definition or concept [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8], respecting its principles [26], geoheritage (or geosites) should be visited by people in situ. Of course, there are some ex situ geosites, e.g., museums or visitor centers, with geoheritage expositions. However, generally, when considering geotourism development, geoheritage should be accessible to visitors. Of course, not all accessible geoheritage sites will be available to general public. For example, fragile geoheritage that requires protection or preservation measures can only be visited by general public visitors under special conditions (e.g., ‘see but do not touch’, or ‘see from a distance’). In this regard, accessibility includes two categories: physical accessibility, and accessibility based on protection status.

If a location is difficult to access or requires a long and/or complicated journey, fewer people may be attracted to visit, which can limit its tourism potential and impact on the local economy. Conversely, if geoheritage is easily accessible, more people may be willing to visit and explore it, which can bring economic benefits to the local community and help raise awareness of the importance of preserving. Accessible sites can also promote inclusion by enabling people of all abilities and backgrounds to enjoy geoheritage, thereby contributing to the geoeducation of diverse groups of visitors.

(Geo)educational value reflects the possibility of gaining knowledge on geoheritage whilst at the site. This includes on site interpretation (e.g., information panels, guided tours, QR codes), its quality, and intelligibility. Geoeducation is a very important aspect of geotourism. Without proper on-site information provision, we cannot discuss any geotourism development. Each widely accepted geotourism definition clearly refers to geoeducation, as, e.g., ‘The provision of interpretative and service facilities for geosites and geomorphosites…’ [1], promoting ‘Tourism to geosites and the conservation of geo-diversity and an understanding of Earth sciences through appreciation and learning.’ [4], and stressing that ‘Geotourism is a knowledge-based tourism, an interdisciplinary integration of the tourism industry with conservation and interpretation of abiotic nature attributes…’ [76].

Geoeducation of the general public can be considered to be important for following reasons.

• Raising awareness of the value of geoheritage, its features and protection: Educating the public about geoheritage can help raise awareness of its value and importance to the environment. This can contribute to improving the protection of these natural formations against negative impacts, such as mining, tourism, urbanization, and other activities that may threaten their integrity.
• Promotion of sustainable tourism: Geoheritage may be an important source of sustainable tourism. Educating the public about these natural features and their historical and cultural significance [6,62] can significantly contribute to the development of (geo)tourism and the economy in territories with the presence of geoheritage.
• Supporting geological science education: Geoheritage can serve as a great in situ tool for geoscience education. Appropriate interpretation of geological processes and formations can help public increase interest in geosciences and motivate young people to study in this field.
• Development of society: Educating the general public about geoheritage can also contribute to the development of society as a whole via improvement of overall education in the field of geoheritage, science, culture, history, and nature conservation, according to the ABC geotourism approach [6].

Safety at geoheritage locations is important, as many potential visitors may be discouraged from visiting a potentially dangerous site. This can be applied both to safety when accessing geosite and the geosite itself. Even very valuable geoheritage sites with unsafe visit conditions may attract fewer general public visitors to visit than geoheritage locations with no or minimal safety issues.

4.3. Linking Geoheritage Assessment Methods to Geotourism Development

When considering geoheritage assessment for geotourism development, the final value(s) should reflect the site’s recent status, and not the site’s potential for geotourism development. Today, with a sufficient amount of financial resources and using modern interpretation tools, a geoheritage visitor centre can be built almost anywhere.

In the context of the aforementioned factors, recent geoheritage assessment models and their results are of no or very limited relevance to geotourism development. From a geotourism development perspective, especially considering the major group of potential visitors (the general public), a different approach is required for the geoheritage assessment. The question here is whether such an assessment is really needed, or if knowledge of visitor preferences regarding geosite visits is sufficient.

Comparing the findings presented in this paper with the Brilha assessment method [22], only the following criteria correspond to geotourism development, as discussed in this paper: rarity/uniqueness, use limitations, accessibility, safety, didactic potential, and interpretative potential. Visual attractiveness, as the most important geoheritage value, is not included in this method. The author uses the criterion “scenery”; however, individual assessment values (indicators) do not reflect the actual visual attractiveness of an area, but the use of the site as a tourism destination at various campaign levels. Promotion of any tourist destination will not automatically refer to its visual attractiveness. Therefore, we assume that this criterion has limited use for the development of geotourism.

As for the aesthetic aspect, Kubalíková and Kirchner [23], based on the method proposed by Kubalíková [19], included aesthetic/landscape/scenic value within their assessment method. However, here, aesthetic value refers to the number of colours only, and landscape value refers to the number of patterns. Scenic value refers to the number of viewpoints. Neither geoheritage naturalness nor the location of the geoheritage site is considered, as discussed above. From a geoeducation perspective, the assessment is quite well designed. However, the authors consider the existence of educational materials without taking into account their quality and intelligibility. Therefore, the existence of on-site information panels does not reflect the geoeducational value of site; it just provides information on the fact that there is some kind of information panel (or other (geo)educative material) located at the assessed geoheritage site. This assessment does not cover safety criteria, which have been identified as important from a geotourism development perspective.

Evaluation of geosites for sustainable planning and management in geotourism, as defined by Suzuki and Takagi [25], covers all criteria identified in this article as being important for geotourism development to some extent. This assessment method includes a well-defined assessment of education value, via the categories of ease of understanding the geosite’s story and the ease of understanding the information panels at the geosite (supplemented by the value of tourism information). On the contrary, assessment of visual attractiveness of geoheritage is limited to one criterion: “emotional/esthetic value such as beauty or impressiveness” only. Moreover, the scoring criteria for this criterion are very general (none, moderate, high, very high). Such an assessment provides minimal information on the visual attractiveness of the site. Accessibility and safety are also considered within this method.

In general, it can be surmised that each geoheritage/geosite assessment method has only limited relevance to geotourism development, when considering visitors from the general public. Knowledge of specific geoheritage values is very useful, especially in terms of further research, geoconservation, and highlighting the level of importance of a specific geoheritage site.

Welc and Miskiewicz [58] state that analysis of the geotourism potential of a site is not the same as an inventory or assessment of a geotourism object. In this regard, it can be assumed that every existing geoheritage/geosite assessment is insufficient to express the potential for the development of geotourism. More detailed research regarding general public visitors to sites of geoheritage is required. For example, Tamang et al. [77], based on the assessment results, using GAM [17], state that “geotourism development in these suitable sites would attract more tourists…”. They make an incorrect link between assessment results and geotourism development, because the assessment method does not include criteria that are important from the visitors’ perspective. Thus, such assessment results do not refer to geoheritage sites that are of interest to visitors. Similar conclusions can be found in many papers devoted to this topic (

Table 2. Examples of linking geoheritage/geosite assessment results to geotourism development.

Interpretation of Assessment Results towards Geotourism
“The results of the analysis revealed that almost all geomorphosites are suitable for geotourism.” [77]
“Geosite characteristics in the Srem loess plateau (for all of ten geosites) have been evaluated using the GAM model, as a result of which half received high-level scores in terms of criteria that can form the basis for the development of geotourism.” [79]
“The quantitative assessments of the geosites as potential sites for educational and geotourism/recreational uses indicate that each of the eight geosites can be used for geo-education and geotourism.” [80]
“The assessment of geoarchaeosites according to the criteria proposed by Kubalikova (2013) raised a good potential in sustaining and increasing the geotourism potential of certain sites viz., Lothal and Vadnagar.” [81]
“The Ruta Escondida, located in a singular volcanic complex, holds unique geomorphological landscapes with geotouristic potential. This potential is reflected in the... assessment of 18 geomorphosites.” [82]
“Application of GAM method helped to identify the level of geotourism development. The highest and lowest values of geosites are identified by GAM that promote or prevent the development of geotourism in the future.” [83]

). How do we know that, e.g., something will attract tourists, when we do not have any input data on what attracts potential geoheritage visitors? Knowledge of such information may significantly contribute to effective geotourism development, increasing interest in geoheritage, and understanding its importance and protection needs. In this field, as of now, little progress has been made in this regard [20,21,56,57,78], and the findings of these studies are of limited application, primarily due to their local scale.

5. Conclusions

The last decade has brought rapid growth in the number of publications related to geoheritage and its values. Various assessment methods have been introduced, and some of them have become widely accepted and adopted by the geoheritage and geotourism research community. Knowledge of specific geoheritage values is a very useful tool, especially when considering future geoheritage management. However, as shown in this paper, from a geotourism development point of view, the results of these assessment methods are of very limited direct use, because the assessment criteria do not reflect the needs of potentially the largest group of geoheritage visitors: the lay (or general) public. This is probably because geoheritage/geosite assessment methods are defined by experts in the field of geoheritage and geosciences. When interpreting geoheritage assessment results for potential geotourism development, a different approach is required, one which takes into account the potentially broad spectrum of visitors from the public, who may have no geo-experiences or education.

The major question in this regard is whether such a special assessment is needed or not. Regardless of the answer, for sustainable geotourism development, it is necessary to know which criteria are important from the perspective of general public visitors to geoheritage sites. We believe that such knowledge positively affects overall awareness of geoheritage among the general public, through more effective geoeducation and geoconservation initiatives. Additionally, it may have a significant positive impact on effective communication and promotion of geoheritage by geoparks, destination marketing organizations, and protected area management to potential visitors. Therefore, further research in the field of geoheritage and its values as perceived by visitors (especially the lay public), as well as its use for various (geo)tourism products, is required, particularly for the purpose of sustainable geotourism development. However, this task should not be taken on primarily by geoheritage experts, but by researchers in tourism and the related fields. Researchers in the field of Earth sciences have made significant contributions to geoheritage’s identification and assessment. However, despite geotourism’s global growth (clearly evidenced by the growing number of UNESCO Global Geoparks and their importance), studies on how and why geoheritage and its presentations attract visitors are lacking. It is therefore necessary for experts in the field of sustainable tourism to focus on these aspects within the study of geotourism, not from the perspective of geosciences and geoheritage, but from the point of view of tourism.

Further research focusing on how geoheritage, its interpretation, and the presentation of its values appeal to visitors in such places—including studies on the primary reasons for visiting geoheritage sites, the effective interpretation methods preferred by tourists, the degree of interest in geoheritage and its values, and their perception—is necessary.