Next Article in Journal
Analyzing the Impact of Ungauged Hill Torrents on the Riverine Floods of the River Indus: A Case Study of Koh E Suleiman Mountains in the DG Khan and Rajanpur Districts of Pakistan
Next Article in Special Issue
Collecting Rocks on the Frontier: Investigating the Geodiversity Significance of Historical Building Stones and Rock Collecting at the Maxey Homestead, Northwest Texas, USA
Previous Article in Journal
Benefits and Limitations of Indicators for Monitoring the Transformation towards a Circular Economy in Poland
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Framework for Geoconservation in Mining Landscapes: Opportunities for Geopark and GEOfood Approaches in Minas Gerais, Brazil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Resources
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/resources12020025
resources-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison of Expert Assessment of Geosites with Tourist Preferences, Case Study: Sub-Tatra Region (Southern Poland, Northern Slovakia)

by
Anna Chrobak-Žuffová
Institute of Geography, Pedagogical University of Krakow, Podchorążych St. 2, 30-084 Krakow, Poland
Resources 2023, 12(2), 25; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12020025
Submission received: 30 November 2022 / Revised: 12 January 2023 / Accepted: 16 January 2023 / Published: 2 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Geodiversity Assessment: What, Why and How?)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this research was to compare the geotouristic potential of the Sub-Tatra Region, expressed in the values of expert assessment of geosites, against the preferences of tourists coming to the area. Tourist preferences were evaluated by a survey in which tourists assessed the attractiveness of the types of geosites that can be admired in the area. The expert valorizations showed high and very high indices for most of the analyzed geosites. The highest of these assessment values show particularly high geotourism values for three geosites: the travertine hill with Spiš castle, the limestone hill with Orava castle and the travertine dome in Gánovce. A comparison of these results against average tourist preferences shows a moderate correlation (r = 0.4). Geosites of low and medium value according to expert assessments are rarely selected as the destination for equipment-intensive tourism. The sites with the highest combined valorization coefficients, i.e., hills with castle ruins, are of moderate interest to the surveyed group of respondents. The largest difference is in the assessment of the cave, waterfall and viewpoint geosites, where there is a great interest among tourist respondents, but the expert assessment index is low or moderate.

1. Introduction

Twenty-seven years after the first definition of geotourism appeared in the scientific literature [1], the interest in this form of educational and equipment-intensive tourism is still growing. The literature features many articles describing selected abiotic natural tourist attractions, like caves [2,3], river valleys and waterfalls [4,5,6], glaciers [7,8,9], landslides [10,11,12], rock outcrops and quarries [13,14,15,16,17], and landscapes [18,19,20], and their values. There are also many works devoted to geotourist assessment, e.g., [21,22], geodiversity [23,24,25], geoheritage [26] and geoconservation [27]. Geoparks play a huge role in promoting geotourism, especially those of the highest quality, which are associated in UNESCO’s Global Geopark Network [28,29]. Local populations, local governments and people managing geoparks interact very well with scientists conducting research in geoparks, which is constantly improving their scientific and educational importance.
However, neither geoparks nor any other geotourist attractions could exist without visiting tourists. The professional literature contains many articles on motivation, travel goals and travel effects.
The motivation to travel has been widely researched, and many different theories have emerged [30,31]. Many assume that tourists are guided by basic behavioral patterns that lead them to certain destination types. The analysis of such psychological needs can be associated with the hierarchical theory of Maslow [32], as well as later theories of push and pull motivation [33]. According to this theoretical framework, tourists respond to “push” factors (such as the need to rest and escape the routine of everyday life) as intrinsic motivations to travel, while “pull” factors draw them to specific destinations. Seven push factors have been identified (flight, self-knowledge, relaxation, prestige, regression, kinship enhancement, and social interaction), as well as two cultural or attracting factors (novelty and education) [34], and these have been applied in many studies concerning travel to various places [35]. Nowadays, an important role is also played by the fashion of traveling and uploading personal photos from the most attractive places in the world onto social media [36].
Therefore, the motivations of tourists are influenced not only by personal factors, but also by the characteristics of the destination, which in turn can be promoted in a way that meets the expectations and desires of potential guests. The way information is provided to the tourist and the way the tourist processes it play a key role in building tourist perceptions, which may differ from the “real” attributes of the tourist offer [35,37,38,39]. Satisfying tourist expectations before the trip and maximizing the real satisfaction with the trip should be business goals, and promoting the physical attributes of a destination along with an objective description of its characteristics and attractiveness for tourists is necessary to increase tourist satisfaction and loyalty to the destination [40].
An important element in creating a tourist product is the analysis of tourists’ preferences. The concept of “preferences” comes from the economic sciences, where it was first described in the theory of consumer rights [41]. According to this theory, consumer preferences reflect and define the consumer’s taste, not depending on the price of the product or the consumer’s budget, but on the satisfaction and contentment or utility they provide [41]. They are especially important when creating specialized products intended for specific groups of recipients. The most important goal of preference research is to understand the motivations and expectations of tourists [42,43]. In preference research, the target group is important, and should represent the tourists visiting a given tourist region, as this will make it possible to prepare an offering tailored to the interests of the appropriate group of recipients [44,45]. To date, research on the preferences of tourists who are particularly interested in geotourism has been rare. More detailed research on this subject was carried out by employees of the University of Montana (USA). Using the Geotraveler Tendency Scale, they selected three groups of tourists who are interested to a low, medium and high degree in abiotic nature [46]. Three groups of recipients (geotourists) were also defined by P. Migoń [47] in the academic textbook “Geotourism”, in which a distinction was drawn among professionals, people who are passionate about educational tourism, and people visiting geotourist sites “by the way”. The preferences of Slovak (geo)tourists visiting selected geosites in Slovakia were the subject of a publication by L. Štrba [48]. Some kind of comparison between the SWOT analysis and the results of survey research was created by a research team from Turkey [49], comparing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for selected geosites against the perception of tourists who visited these places. The (geo)tourist preferences for two geosites in South Africa were also presented by E. Du Preez [50].
Therefore, the most important goal of this article is to fill this gap by comparing the results of expert assessments of the geosites against the results of a survey conducted on a group of tourists who had already expressed interest in abiotic nature.
These studies were carried out in Sub-Tatra—a region with very well-developed tourist functions that is visited by millions of tourists each year (and not only from Poland and Slovakia).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Assessment of the Geosites

All assessment methods presented in the scientific literature are based on the point valuation method, according to which different weights are assigned to defined criteria. Many different assessment methods based on various criteria have been developed to date, so there is a need to systematize and group them. This challenge has been taken up by researchers [21,22,51] who grouped individual methods according to their criteria, with various modifications. Of the many assessment methods developed to date for various areas, mainly mountains and foothill reliefs, the methods presented by P. and D. Pereira [52], and Ch. Fassoulass et al. [53] are used in this paper. According to the author, these comprehensively assess geosites in areas of mountain and foothill relief; the first for the Montesinho mountain park in Portugal and the second for the Psiloritis geopark and in the Lasithi Mountains in Crete. The criteria used in those two works were used to present a modified assessment method for Sub-Tatra geosites that also serves as a point valuation method.
The author’s method assesses geosites according to two groups of criteria: scientific and educational; and tourist. The assessment criteria were based on those presented by P. and D. Pereira [52] for educational values, and on those of P. and D. Pereira [52] and Fassoulas et al. [53] for tourist criteria (Table 1).
In order to adjust the point values used in the method described by Fassoulas et al. [53], the point values in the method of P. and D. Pereira [52] were multiplied by ten. The sums of values related to individual criteria were divided by the maximum possible sum for each, so that all values were in the range from 0 to 1. On this basis, four groups of geosites were distinguished (Table 2). The boundaries between them were adopted based on the suggestions presented by J. Warszyńska [54].
The values of individual components were the basis for calculating the final geosite indexation coefficient (VK), which was performed according to the following formula:
VK = 0.7VE + 0.3VT
where VE—scientific and educational value; VT—tourist value
The final indexation factor of the geosites, calculated on the basis of a weighted average of the two component assessments shown in Table 1, aims to emphasize the importance of scientific and educational values over tourist values. The author believes that it is the scientific and educational values that play the main role in the expert valorization of abiotic nature sites, and the elements related to the tourist attractiveness of the geosites constitute an added value that may change.
Of the features describing the geosites’ geotourist value, those that the experts assess most subjectively are the educational aspects. They depend on the knowledge and didactic experience of the person carrying out the assessment. In order to optimize the results of the assessment of the geosites in Sub-Tatra Region, the author used the expert triangulation method [55,56], which involves the same analyses being conducted by several researchers. The valorization was conducted by the author and by 11 experts currently conducting research in the Sub-Tatra Region. Because none of the experts valorized all geosites in Sub-Tatra, they were divided into four subgroups according to their declared regions of preference (Podhale, Orava, Liptov and Spiš).

2.2. Quantitative Research on Tourist Preferences

The author intended to verify the evaluation of the geosites by investigating the preferences of tourist visitors using questionnaire surveys. The questions were designed to collect information on whether tourists were interested in spending their free time among abiotic nature and, if so, what groups of abiotic sites they would like to see and how they thought they should be prepared for sightseeing (see Supplementary File). These survey respondents were tourists belonging to groups created on the social network Facebook called: “Tatromaniacy”, “Klub miłośników turystyki pieszej”, “Góromaniacy”, “Wolontariat TPN” and “Partak na turistiku”. These groups were selected for the survey for their declared interest in nature, as expressed by a desire to engage in tourism in a mountain area. Considering the large size of the respondent groups, the surveys were prepared and conducted online using a survey form available on Google Forms The questionnaires were prepared in Polish and Slovak. The questions were divided into three groups. The first concerned general information on past excursion destinations, trip durations, and the location of visited places. The second group consisted of questions about how important it is to spend free time among abiotic nature and what kind of geosites they would choose to visit. Finally, respondents were asked about the preferences for the type and tourism development of individual sites. Each questionnaire contained a metric related to the respondent’s age, education, and other interests.

3. Study Area

The Sub-Tatra Region is located in the Western Carpathians, around the highest Carpathian massif—the Tatra Mountains. The borders of the region described in this article were determined based on physical geographical units, which are described in more detail later in the article. However, this area is also within four ethnographic regions lying on the Polish–Slovak border: Podhale, Orava, Liptov and Spiš (Figure 1). The unique highlander culture, which is the most important feature of these ethnographic regions and is manifested in, among other things, the architecture, is also visible directly or indirectly at the analyzed geosites.
The Sub-Tatra Region is very diverse in terms of geological structure, relief, and hydrology. Geologically, it is an area that was last shaped during the Alpine orogeny. In terms of individual geological units, various rock types can be distinguished. The Podhale Synclinorium, which is part of the Paleogene of the Central Carpathians, is made of flysch, i.e., alternating layers of sandstones clay shales and mudstones [59,60,61,62]. Mesozoic units of the Inner Carpathians, which build, for example, the massif of the Choč Mountains and Kozie Chrbty Ridge, are built of carbonate rocks: various limestones and dolomites [62,63,64,65]. Various carbonate rocks also build the structures of the Pieniny Klippen Belt [66,67,68,69]. The youngest (Miocene) sedimentary rocks line the Orava–Nowy Targ Basin [70,71,72]. There are also igneous rocks (andesites and basalts) in the Pieniny Klippen Belt margin as a result of igneous intrusions that took place in the Miocene [66,73,74]. Finally, the crystalline core of the Tatra Mountains is made of various crystalline rocks such as gneiss, granite, and crystalline shales [62,63,65,75] (Figure 2).
The current relief of the Sub-Tatra Region was affected by exogenous factors related to mountain glaciers [77,78], the destructive activity of water [79,80,81], mass processes [12,82,83], karst processes [84,85], and now also human activity [86,87]. In the orographic style of the Sub-Tatra Region, parallel morphological units can be distinguished that relate to the geological and tectonic structure of this area. On this basis, the physical and geographical mesoregions were described [57,58,88,89,90,91,92] (Figure 3).
The main European watershed separating the catchment areas of the Baltic and Black Seas runs through the Sub-Tatra Region. The longest rivers draining this area are: the Czarny and Biały Dunajec, the Białka, the Poprad, the Hornad, the Váh, the Belá and the Orava [79,93,94]. Due to the diverse geological structure, the occurrence of deep and shallow fault faults, and the topography, there are a large number of thermal and mineral springs in the Sub-Tatra Region [95].
The most unique springs in this area are those associated with travertines, due to their physical and chemical characteristics [96,97,98,99,100] (Figure 4).
And finally, the Orava–Nowy Targ Basin is the only intra-mountain basin in the Sub-Tatra Region, where in the Holocene there were favorable conditions for the formation of wetlands and peatbogs [107,108,109,110] (Figure 4).

4. Results

4.1. Inventory and Assessment of Geosites

An inventory of geological outcrops, relief forms, hydrological objects and viewpoints performed in the Sub-Tatra Region in the years 2012–2016 identified 225 objects. A further, detailed field inventory consisted of collecting observations on their geological, geomorphological and/or hydrological values and in assessing the conservation status and forms of protection, transport accessibility, tourist infrastructure and additional tourist attractions. This led ultimately to 72 geosites being identified, including objects related to natural and anthropogenic geological outcrops (35), various relief forms (12), and, moreover, natural and anthropogenic hydrological objects (10) and viewpoints (15) (Figure 5). Detailed descriptions of these geosites have already been published [111,112,113].
The characteristics of the physical geographical elements and tourist values presented for the final 72 geosites indicate that Sub-Tatra has high geodiversity and good tourist development, which is reflected in the high values of final assessment coefficients (VK). Fifty-nine of the objects fall into the two highest attractiveness categories, and there is not a single geosite in the fourth, lowest, category (Table 2). However, it should be emphasized here that the author assumed that, in assessing the final attractiveness of the geosites, the weight of the educational criteria (VE) should be much higher than the weight of the criteria of tourism development (VT) (see Material and Methods). For this reason, the values of the VK coefficient strongly correlate with the values of the VE coefficient (r = 0.94).
The highest values of the final assessment coefficient of the geosites in the Sub-Tatra Region (VK; Table 3) shows particularly high geotourism values (Group I) for three geosites: the travertine hill with Spiš castle (No. 40; 53.71 points), the limestone hill with Orava castle (No. 61; 53.69 points) and the travertine dome in Gánovce (No. 34; 48.52 points). The second category of geosites (those of high geotouristic values) contained 56 sites (Table 3). The main features of these are either highly rated or have one very high and one very low rating. Examples of such geosites is the Bór na Czerwonem peatbog and the hydrological–geological–geomorphological object that connects the Białka stream with the Jaworowy stream. Thirteen geosites represent objects of the third category, i.e., sites of moderate geotouristic value (Table 3). The assessment coefficient values for individual features in these groups were either medium and low or they were very diverse with a dominance of low values.
Therefore, taking into account the unequal weightings of the components of the final assessment coefficient (VK), their values should be considered primarily in the context of the distribution of VE coefficient values, which are largely due to the diverse geological structure of this Carpathian region. This is reflected in the descriptions of the geosites, where various elements of the geological structure of the substrate stand out. Such objects prevail heavily in this area (35 geosites). It is worth emphasizing that the largest number of the geosites occurs at the junction of two or three physical geographical units, which in most cases correspond to the boundaries of geological units, i.e., the Podhale Basin with the Pieniny Klippen Belt, the Orava–Nowy Targ Basin with the Fore-Tatra Foothills, the Orava Foothills and Liptov Basin with the Choč Mountains, the Mala and Velka Fatra and the Tatra Mountains (Figure 6 and Figure 7).

4.2. Tourist Preferences

During the study, an attempt was made to assess the expectations of tourists coming to the Sub-Tatra Region and Tatra Mountains region in terms of various aspects of the visited places related to abiotic nature. The group of respondents were mountain lovers voluntarily associated in groups created on the Facebook social network called “Tatromaniacy”, “Klub miłośników turystyki pieszej” [hiking enthusiasts club], “Góromaniacy”, “Wolontariat TPN” and “Partak na hory”.
Preferences were analyzed using questionnaires consisting of three groups of questions. The first concerned the frequency of trips to the Tatras, length of stay, main reasons for travelling into Sub-Tatra Region, main places visited during the stay in the Sub-Tatra Region, trip destinations and the main reasons for trips into Slovakia (for Polish tourists accommodated in Poland) or Poland (for Slovak tourists accommodated in Slovakia). In the Polish version, questions were asked about the motives for tourist trips to Podhale, assuming that tourists in most cases come to Zakopane and the surrounding area, rarely visiting the towns of Spiš and Orava. Slovak respondents defined their preferences for trips to the entire Slovak part of the Sub-Tatra Region (Spiš, Liptov and Orava). In the second part of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to rate on a Likert scale how important it is for them to spend their free time “in the bosom of nature” and to explain which of the listed elements of abiotic nature they would most like to see and how they imagined it should be made accessible. The third part included basic questions about age, gender, education, and relationship to abiotic nature.

4.2.1. Age, Gender and Education Structure of Respondents

Of the total number of 95,129 tourists associated with the groups mentioned above (including 74,575 in Polish groups and 20,554 in the Slovak group), 855 people took part in the study, 735 of whom came from Poland and 120 from Slovakia. Referring to the principles of assessing the representativeness of the surveyed populations proposed by W. Cochran [114], a sample of 854 respondents can be considered representative for a population of over 100,000 with a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error. Thus, these survey results can be considered reliable.
The largest age group, both among Polish and Slovak respondents, were people aged 21–26, followed by people aged 27–35 and 36–50. The smallest group was of young people aged 15–20 among Slovak respondents and of people over 50 among Polish respondents (Table 4). The majority of respondents were women (PL—69%, SK—57%) (Table 4).
In the study group, both among Polish and Slovak respondents, the majority of people had higher education (PL—57%, SK—62%) and secondary education (40%: PL—40%, SK—37%). However, when asked about whether they had an interest in the natural sciences, as many as three quarters of Slovakian respondents answered affirmatively, while only half of Polish respondents declaring an interest (Table 4).
Both Polish and Slovak survey participants declared that they usually go on trips with their families (PL—34%, SK—39%) or with a group of friends (PL—31%, SK—22%), but 11% and 12%, respectively, declared that they traveled alone (Table 4).

4.2.2. Frequency of Arrivals, Length of Stays and Destinations

More than half of the surveyed people declared that they come to Sub-Tatra Region several times a year, during long weekends in summer and winter. A significant proportion of the Slovak respondents come twice a year, or once a year in the summer. On the other hand, among respondents from Poland, it is more common to go to the Sub-Tatra Region once a year in the summer than twice a year. Both surveyed groups of respondents very rarely choose this destination once every year but only in winter, and 14% and 10%, respectively, go there less than once a year (Table 5).
The length of stay in the Sub-Tatra Region for the surveyed group of respondents is also varied. Polish respondents most often choose stays of 3–5 days or a week or longer (63%). A significant proportion of the tourists also come for 1–3 days, and only 9% declare one-day trips. Slovak respondents prefer shorter trips.
Only 9% of the respondents declared that they come to Sub-Tatra for a week or longer (Table 5). This differentiation may be related to Slovak tourists traveling more often due to the shorter distances from their places of residence (Table 5).

4.2.3. Destinations and Places of Stay in Sub-Tatra Region

Most of the surveyed respondents, both from Poland and Slovakia, declared that their purpose of staying in Sub-Tatra Region was mountain trips (Figure 8), although in the case of Polish tourists, this answer was chosen by fewer than 50% of people. A quarter of Polish respondents also declared rest and recreation as the main purpose of their stay. Other destinations were rarely chosen, and tourists the next most frequently chosen was that they come to Sub-Tatra Region to commune with highlander culture and folklore (9%). Slovak respondents, after mountain trips, declared that skiing or snowboarding and visiting friends and family are equally important goals of their trips to the Sub-Tatra Region. They also go there to learn about the local culture and folklore and to practice mountaineering (Figure 8). The surveys show that, for Slovaks, Sub-Tatra is less a holiday and recreation region, and more often a place of active tourism.
For logistical reasons, accommodation differs between Polish and Slovak respondents visiting the study area. Among Polish respondents, the largest number of people declared that they choose accommodation in Zakopane (52%), while 27% stay in the surrounding villages, 18% stay in mountain shelters in the Tatra Mountains, 1% stay in Nowy Targ, and 2% stay with family or do not stay overnight (Figure 9). Slovak respondents declared that most often (30%) they chose towns of the High Tatras (towns along the Road of Freedom from Štrbské Mountain Lake to Tatranská Kotlina, including Starý Smokovec, Stará Lesná or Tatranská Lomnica). A similar number of people (23%) stay overnight in towns and villages in Liptov, 15% choose to stay in towns and villages in Orava, 12% stay in towns and villages in Spiš, 4% (mainly skiers) stay in Demänovská Dolina and in Jasná, and 5% do not use accommodation or choose places outside the Sub-Tatra Region, e.g., Donovaly and Vratna (Figure 9).
The ultimate destination for respondents from Poland is the Tatra Mountains (70%). Twelve percent of the surveyed tourists rest and relax in Zakopane on Krupówki Street (the most famous place in Zakopane). For the remaining group (20%), tourist attractions in Zakopane and thermal aquaparks in various places in the Sub-Tatra Region are the main purpose of their stay. A very small group of people chooses the Pieniny Mts (6%), Gorce Mts (3%) or Babia Góra Peak (1%; Figure 10). Among the surveyed people, 47% additionally visit the Slovak part of the Sub-Tatra during their stay in Podhale (Figure 11). The main purposes of these trips are shopping, mountain trips, thermal aquaparks, skiing, etc.
The diversity of preferences of Slovak respondents in choosing a trip destination in the Sub-Tatra Region was much greater, probably due to the greater geodiversity of the southern part of the region. Almost half of the respondents (46%) choose the Tatras (High Tatras 28%, Western Tatras 14% and Belianske Tatras 4%), and 17% of respondents go to the Low Tatras. Many people travel to Mala Fatra (14%), Veľká Fatra(9%), Slovak Paradise (6%), Oravská Magura(5%), Pieniny (3%) and Spišská Magura and the Choč Mountains (1%) (Figure 10). Only about a quarter of the surveyed respondents (27%) come to the Polish part of the Tatra Mountains, but the main reason for trips is shopping, followed by mountain trips (Figure 11).
The choice of equipment-intensive tourism in the Sub-Tatra Region by Polish and Slovak respondents was confirmed by them in the declaration that the form of recreation in the “womb of nature” is very important (5) and important (4) for them (on a 5-point Likert scale; Figure 12). This is the opinion of 95% of the people surveyed, both from Poland and Slovakia.

4.2.4. Tourist Preferences Regarding Particular Abiotic Natural Attractions

The main purpose of this survey was to analyze the respondents’ preferences relating to the degree of attractiveness of various features of abiotic nature. It was possible to select more than one object. In this ranking, among people declaring trips to the “womb of nature”, the diversity of answers was large, ranging from 15% (landslide) to 85% (viewpoint). Details are summarized in Figure 13. Waterfalls, viewpoints, caves, hills with castle ruins, river gorges and lakes were the most frequently chosen objects visited by the tourists, which were more than 50% more popular than other types of objects. Landslides, quarries, and peatbogs were the least frequently selected. There are differences between the answers of Polish and Slovak respondents for waterfalls, viewpoints, river gorges, and lakes, with Slovak tourists choosing these attractions between 5% and 24% more often than Polish tourists. On the other hand, respondents from Poland prefer interesting sections of river valleys, rock outcrops with fossils, mineral springs, peatbogs, quarries, and landslides. For features such as caves, hills with castle ruins and thermal aqua parks, the preferences of both Polish and Slovak respondents are similar (Figure 13).

4.2.5. Respondent Expectations Regarding the Form of Geosite Development

Tourist expectations regarding the development of various types of geosites were analyzed based on survey questionnaires only for those respondents who travel to the Sub-Tatra Region at least once a year and for whom such a trip related to abiotic nature is important or very important.
The answers of Polish and Slovak respondents were summed up, and this section presents a collective analysis of the expectations of tourists participating in the study in the field of geosite development. The questions posed to the respondents were aimed at evaluating the extent to which additional stimuli that attract people to various types of geosites are important for tourists. As expected, there is a difference in expectations in this regard, but it is not large. Among the various objects, there are those that are in and of themselves a “magnet” for this type of tourism. In the opinion of over 50% of respondents, these include hills with castles, viewpoints, interesting sections of river valleys, and rock outcrops with fossils in quarries (Figure 14). Only a few types of geosites, according to the surveyed respondents, require various forms of development to motivate them to travel to such places. These include caves, mineral springs, and lakes (Figure 14). Comparing the opinions of Polish and Slovak tourists regarding the expectations of additional incentives (appropriate development) for travel in the “womb of nature” there are no major differences. The exceptions are preferences relating to the development of peatbogs, landslides, rock outcrops in quarries and sections of river valleys. In the case of peatbogs, landslides and sections of river valleys, Slovak respondents prefer developed facilities that offer additional attractions, in contrast to Polish tourists, who are satisfied with a description of the path marked out through a peatbog, a description of a landslide or a passive rest by a river. On the other hand, in the case of rock outcrops in quarries, almost a quarter of Slovak respondents did not consider them worth visiting, and most would visit them provided they could participate in additional attractions, e.g., a concert. For Polish respondents, such places were interesting in and of themselves, and they would be happy to visit them just to see interesting rocks and fossils, and preferably to find and collect them on their own.

5. Discussion

5.1. Assessment Results: General Comments

The Sub-Tatra Region is characterized by moderate and high geodiversity and good tourist development, which is reflected in high values of final assessment coefficients (WK). The high geodiversity of this area has also been presented using geodiversity maps in publications by Zwoliński et al. [115,116,117], Chrobak et al. [118], Najwer et al. [119] and Jankowski et al. [120]
Analyzing the assessment methods for geosites in various regions [22,52,53,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129], there is a discrepancy in the weightings of individual components between different authors. An important role is also played by the degree of subjectivity of the assessment of geosites, primarily with respect to educational values, which require the greatest knowledge and experience of the assessing experts. However, the valorization of geosites by experts method can be made more objective using the triangulation method [55,56,130], in which a group of experts simultaneously evaluates the educational values of geosites according to predefined criteria. However, in this case, there is still a certain probability of subjectivity in the assessment of these criteria, because the expert assessment method requires a somewhat subjective selection of experts. Their scientific discipline (sub-discipline) significantly affects the final assessment result [112].
According to the author, the assessments of geosite accessibility can be made more precise and objective by adding criteria commonly used in such analysis procedures [52,53,123,124,125,126,127,128,129], based on measuring the distance of the object from the nearest car park, bus stop, accommodation and other tourist attractions. For geosites in the Sub-Tatra Region, this allowed for a more objective assessment of the degree of tourist development.
The geosites that received the highest values of the final assessment index (Travertine dome with the Spiš castle [No. 40; 53.71 points], the limestone hill with Orava castle [No. 61; 53.69 points] and the travertine dome in Gánovce [No. 34; 48.52 points]) are well-known and described in scientific and tourist literature [121,131,132,133,134,135,136,137].
The publications also take into account the specific values of other geosites that also received high valorization results here, e.g., Dreveník, Sivá brada [121,132] and Kacwin waterfall [138].
The assessment method used here also confirms the statements that some groups of geosites, such as waterfalls or viewpoints, are unique places of special natural values, where the processes that created the forms can be comprehensively explained [138,139,140].
However, it is worth paying attention to the point discrepancies in various assessment methods, which somehow prove the statement made at the beginning of this subchapter that all this kind of methods are subjective and depend on the knowledge and experience of the person who assess the geosite and on how the point scale for each criterion is described in detail.

5.2. Expert and Final Assessment Results vs. Tourist Preferences

Tourists preferences have been the subject of research in many aspects. They have been studied in relation to selected tourist regions [45,141,142] or tourist attractions [143], or in terms of the structure of travelers [144,145,146]. Surveys of geotourist preferences have very rarely been performed to date [46,48]. This study of the preferences of tourists who declared that they come to the Sub-Tatra Region at least once a year was aimed at assessing which types of tourist attractions related to abiotic nature would attract the largest number of tourists and how they should be made accessible. The results of the surveys showed that, according to the respondents, the most often visited types of geosites in the Sub-Tatra Region would be waterfalls (60%), viewpoints (53%), caves (52%), hills with castle ruins (46%), river gorges (40%) and lakes (40%). Comparing the results of tourist preferences against the values of the general valorization coefficient (VK) for the analyzed geosites in the Sub-Tatra Region, it was found that they correlated at a moderate level (r = 0.4) (Figure 15 and Figure 16). Geosites with low and medium values of the general assessment coefficient, such as rock outcrops, springs, fragments of river valleys, peatbogs, lakes and landslides, are rarely chosen by tourists as attractive and worth visiting. On the other hand, geosites with the highest average values of the general assessment, i.e., hills with castle ruins, are of great interest to the surveyed group of tourists.
The greatest difference between the expert assessments and the preferences of tourists as regards the assessments of caves, waterfalls and viewpoints, which are the most attractive for tourists according to the respondents, but had low and average values in the general assessment. It is difficult to find a clear explanation for this situation. The author did not undertake a detailed analysis of this fact in this work, recognizing that the reasons may be many, and their explanation would require much more extensive survey research. For example, the assessment of such sites could look different if more features characterizing individual geosites were presented in the surveys. In one of the geosites, Vyšné Ružbachy SPA (Slovakia), it was possible to conduct such detailed research. Research carried out on a group of 100 people who visited this spa shows that everyone knows the most famous tourist attractions related to abiotic nature (travertine lake crater and the White House), whereas less-accessible places (CO2 crater, quarry) are not of interest to them [147].
On the other hand, analyzing the opinions of (geo)tourists regarding their expectations as to the method of geosites’ development, most stated that they do not need any conveniences in this regard, e.g., the presence of a cable car to get to the viewpoint. This is mainly due to the specificity of the group of respondents, for whom hiking in a mountain area is an attraction in itself (Figure 14).
Similar assessments regarding the access (development) of geosites apply to caves. Over 30% of the surveyed people would like to see caves that are not developed or illuminated, but only made accessible, despite their exploration requiring the use of specialized equipment. This is probably due to the particular interests of the respondents and their desire to learn about something unknown (Figure 14). Regardless of the expert opinions presented and the tourist infrastructure around geosites, the preferences of (geo)tourists may be different. Differences in the selection of abiotic natural objects as tourist destinations may also depend on the additional values of the region in which they are located, e.g., its cultural and historical values. However, this requires further detailed survey research. This is also related to the need to refine the method of counting tourists visiting geosites, especially for places where access is not recorded by the payment of admission fees.
It should also be taken into account that the preference surveys were carried out in the pre-COVID period, so perhaps repeating the survey now that people have even more appreciation of the peace and quiet that contact with nature can bring would be even better.

6. Conclusions

The aim of this article was to compare the assessment of the geosites and with the preferences of tourists who would like to visit such places in the Sub-Tatra Region. The research showed that the most attractive geosites in the Sub-Tatra Region—the places with the highest value of the general indexation coefficient—are travertine domes and other relief forms related to travertines located in Spiš and Liptov, limestone castle hills in Orava and Spiš, and viewpoints around the Tatra Mountains. According to the author, these places could, in themselves, be major destinations for equipment-intensive tourism. The location of these geosites, most of which are grouped at short distances from each other, in regions of high geodiversity, additionally gives the opportunity to connect them along roads or tourist trails, which is an additional advantage in assessing the geotourism potential of the Sub-Tatra Region.
Using surveys among a group of 855 tourists belonging to five social media groups (four Polish and one Slovak) related to mountain tourism, an attempt was made to partially verify the assessment of the geosites by investigating what types of tourist attractions related to abiotic nature attract these people in the Sub-Tatra Region and what they expect with regard to how such places are made more accessible (development). According to the surveyed respondents, the most attractive geosites are waterfalls, caves, and viewpoints.
Comparison of the results of the general expert assessment coefficient against the preferences of tourists showed that these two indices differ only partially, correlating at a moderate level (r = 0.4). Geosites rated low and medium by experts (natural rock exposures, quarries, springs, various parts of valleys, peatbogs, springs, lakes, landslides) are also not attractive to tourists. On the other hand, the geosites that achieved the highest expert assessment scores, i.e., hills with castle ruins, are quite popular among the surveyed group of tourists. The greatest disproportion between the two analyzed indicators occurred in the assessment of caves, waterfalls and viewpoints, which, according to the respondents, are the most attractive for tourists, but according to experts have low and average value.
The comparison of the geosite assessment method against tourist preferences that the author proposed in this article is important for comprehensive assessment of the tourist attractiveness of geosites, from both expert and tourist points of view. However, as the research results showed, this method still has many shortcomings, both in terms of the expert geosite assessment (subjectivity) and the tourists’ preferences (number of respondents, the way of conducting surveys), which will be improved by the author in the future.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/resources12020025/s1, Supplementary Material File S1: Survey of tourist preferences.

Funding

This research was funded by Pedagogical University of Krakow, grant numbers: DNWZ.711.68.PBU.2022 and Dna.302.14.2023.RN.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the coordinators of all tourist groups associated on Facebook who helped to improve the reach of the survey. The author also would like to thank the reviewers for their comments that helped to improve the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Hose, T.A. Selling the story of Britain’s stone. Env. Interpret. 1995, 10, 16–17. [Google Scholar]
  2. De Waele, J.; Di Gregorio, F.; Pala, A. Karst Geomorphosites of Monte Albo (north-east Sardinia). Alp. Mediterr. Quat. 2005, 18, 145–153. [Google Scholar]
  3. Migoń, P. Development of karst phenomena for geotourism in the Moravian Karst (Czech Republic). Geotourism 2011, 36–37, 3–24. [Google Scholar]
  4. De Waele, J.; Di Gregorio, F.; Gasmi, N.; Melis, M.T.; Talbi, M. Geomorphosites of Tozeur region (south-west Tunisia). Alp. Mediterr. Quat. 2005, 18, 221–230. [Google Scholar]
  5. Zgłobicki, W.; Baran-Zgłobicka, B. Geomorphological Heritage as a Tourist Attraction. A Case Study in Lubelskie Province, SE Poland. Geoheritage 2013, 5, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tongkul, F. Waterfalls of Maliau Basin—Geoheritage of Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. Geoheritage 2016, 8, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Garavaglia, V.; Pelfini, M.; Bollati, I. The influence of climate change on glacier geomorphosites: The case of two Italian glaciers (Miage Glacier, Forni Glacier) investigated through dendrochronology. Geomorphol. Reli. Process. Environ. 2010, 16, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bollati, I.; Leonelli, G.; Vezzola, L.; Pelfini, M. The role of Ecological Value in Geomorphosite assessment for the Debris-Covered Miage Glacier (Western Italian Alps) based on a review of 2.5 centuries of scientific study. Geoheritage 2015, 7, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Reynard, E.; Buckingham, T.; Martin, S.; Regolini, G. Geoheritage, Geoconservation and Geotourism in Switzerland. In Landscapes and Landforms of Switzerland. World Geomorphological Landscapes; Reynard, E., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Margielewski, W.; Alexandrowicz, Z. Diversity of landslide morphology as a part of geoconservation pattern in the Polish Carpathians. Polish Geol. Inst. Spec. Pap. 2004, 13, 65–72. [Google Scholar]
  11. Borgatti, L.; Tosatti, G. Slope Instability Processes Affecting the Pietra Di Bismantova Geosite (Northern Apennines, Italy). Geoheritage 2010, 2, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chrobak, A.; Cebulski, J. Landslides in the Polish Carpathians as the Potential Educational Geosites. Curr. Issues Tour. Res. 2014, 4, 38–49. [Google Scholar]
  13. Anifowose, A.Y.B.; Kolawole, F. Appraisal of the Geotourism Potentials of the Idanre Hills, Nigeria. Geoheritage 2014, 6, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Waśkowska, A.; Golonka, J.; Witkowska, E. Klimkówka Lake in Beskid Niski—Geotouristic aspects. Geotourism 2014, 36, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hossain, I.; Nahar, M. Endangered geoheritage in Bangladesh: A case study of eocene sylhet limestone and adjoining areas, Jaflong, Sylhet. In Engineering Geology for Society and Territory-Volume 8; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 219–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Margiotta, S.; Sansò, P. Abandoned Quarries and Geotourism: An Opportunity for the Salento Quarry District (Apulia, Southern Italy). Geoheritage 2017, 9, 463–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mikhailenko, A.V.; Nazarenko, O.V.; Ruban, D.A.; Zayats, P.P. Aesthetics-based classification of geological structures in outcrops for geotourism purposes: A tentative proposal. Geologos 2017, 23, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pérez-Umaña, D.; Quesada-Román, A.; De Jesús Rojas, J.C.; Zamorano-Orozco, J.J.; Dóniz-Páez, J.; Becerra-Ramírez, R. Comparative analysis of geomorphosites in volcanoes of Costa Rica, Mexico, and Spain. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 545–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Butorac, V.; Buzjak, N. Geodiversity and Landscape Services in the Region of Ogulinsko-Plašćanska Zavala, Croatia. Ekol. Bratislava 2020, 39, 130–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ferreira, B.M.; de Lima, C.V.; Candeiro, C.R. dos A. Geodiversity geological and geomorphological of the municipality of Paraúna, central-southern Goiás state, Brazil. Soc. Nat. 2020, 32, 586–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mucivuna, V.C.; Reynard, E.; Garcia, M.D.G.M. Geomorphosites assessment methods: Comparative analysis and typology. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 1799–1815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chrobak, A. Przegląd metod waloryzacji obiektów przyrody nieożywionej wykorzystywanych w geoturystyce. Pr. Kom. Geogr. Przem. Pol. Tow. Geogr. 2021, 35, 116–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gray, M. Geodiversity: The origin and evolution of a paradigm. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2008, 300, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gray, M.; Gordon, J.E.; Brown, E.J. Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: The contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2013, 124, 659–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Coratza, P.; Reynard, E.; Zwoliński, Z. Geodiversity and Geoheritage: Crossing Disciplines and Approaches. Geoheritage 2018, 10, 525–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Reynard, E.; Brilha, J. Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management; Elselvier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; ISBN 9780128095423. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dixon, G. Geoconservation: An intrenational review and strategy for Tasmania. In Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania; Dixon, G., Ed.; Ocasional Paper 1996, No. 35; Department of Envirionment and Land Management: Hobart, Tasmania, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gray, M. GSSPs: The case for a third, internationally recognised, geoconservation network. Geoheritage 2011, 3, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Perotti, L.; Bollati, I.M.; Viani, C.; Zanoletti, E.; Caironi, V.; Pelfini, M.; Giardino, M. Fieldtrips and virtual tours as geotourism resources: Examples from the Sesia Val Grande UNESCO Global Geopark (NW Italy). Resources 2020, 9, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kozak, M.; Decrop, A. Handbook of Tourist Behavior: Theory & Practice; Routledge: Business & Economics: New York, NY, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-0-415-99360-9. [Google Scholar]
  31. Yousaf, A.; Amin, I.; Santos, C.; Antonio, J. Tourist’s Motivations to Travel: A Theoretical Perspective on the Existing Literature. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 24, 197–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Maslow, A.H. A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychol. Rev. 1943, 50, 370–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dann, G.M. Anomie, Ego-Enhancement and Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1977, 4, 184–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Crompton, J.L. Motivations for Pleasure Vacation. Ann. Tour. Res. 1979, 6, 408–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bashar, A.M.; Al-Haj, M.; Ahmad, P.M.S. An Analysis of Push and Pull Travel Motivations of Foreign Tourists to Jordan. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2010, 5, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Delekta, A.; Fidelus-Orzechowska, J.; Chrobak, A. Expert’s perceptions towards management of tourist traffic in protected areas based on the Tatra Mountains. J. Environ. Manag. Tour. 2020, 11, 443–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gartner, W.C. Image Formation Process. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 1993, 2, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dann, G.M. Greenspeak: An Analysis of the Language of Eco-Tourism. Prog. Tour. Hosp. Res. 1996, 2, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Baloglu, S.; Brinberg, D. Affective Images of Tourism Destinations. J. Travel Res. 1997, 35, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yoon, Y.; Uysal, M. An Examination of the Effects of Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A Structural Model. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kreps, D.M. A Course in Microeconomic Theory; Princeton University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  42. Niemczyk, A. Zachowania Konsumentów Na Rynku Turystycznym; Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny: Kraków, Poland, 2010; ISBN 978-83-7252-472-0. [Google Scholar]
  43. Rudnicki, L. Zachowania Konsumentów Na Rynku Turystycznym; Proksenia: Kraków, Poland, 2012; ISBN 978-83-60789-22-3. [Google Scholar]
  44. Dziedzic, E. Regionalne Badania Konsumentów Usług Turystycznych; Polska Organizacja Turystyczna: Warszawa, Poland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rogowski, M. Preferencje Turystów w Polskich Karkonoszach Jako Podstawa Tworzenia Produktu Turystycznego Obszaru. Rozpr. Nauk. Akad. Wych. Fiz. we Wrocławiu 2015, 50, 152–163. [Google Scholar]
  46. Boley, B.B.; Nickerson, N.P.; Bosak, K. Measuring Geotourism Developing and Testing the Geotraveler Tendency Scale (GTS). J. Travel Res. 2011, 50, 567–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Migoń, P. Geoturystyka; Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warszawa, Poland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  48. Štrba, Ľ. Analysis of Criteria Affecting Geosite Visits by General Public: A Case of Slovak (Geo)Tourists. Geoheritage 2018, 11, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cengiz, C.; Şahin, Ş.; Cengiz, B.; Bahar, M.B.; Keçecioğlu Dağlı, P. Evaluation of the Visitor Understanding of Coastal Geotourism and Geoheritage Potential Based on Sustainable Regional Development in Western Black Sea Region, Turkey. Sustainability 2021, 12, 11812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Du Preez, E.A. The contribution of geological features to visitor experiences: Comparison between two geotourism attractions in South Africa. Geoj. Tour. Geosites 2019, 26, 1006–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Štrba, L.; Kršák, B.; Sidor, C. Some comments to geosite assessment, visitors, and geotourism sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pereira, P.; Pereira, D. Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment. Géomorphologie Reli. Process. Environ. 2010, 2, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fassoulas, C.; Mouriki, D.; Dimitriou-Nikolakis, P.; Iliopoulos, G. Quantitative Assessment of Geotopes as an Effective Tool for Geoheritage Management. Geoheritage 2012, 4, 177–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Warszyńska, J. Waloryzacja miejscowości z punktu widzenia atrakcyjności turystycznej (zarys metody). Zesz. Nauk. Uniw. Jagiellońskiego. Pr. Geogr. 1970, 249, 103–114. [Google Scholar]
  55. Denzin, N.K. The Research Act; Aldine: Chicago, IL, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  56. Flick, U. Jakość w Badaniach Jakościowych; Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warszawa, Poland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  57. Solon, J.; Borzyszkowski, J.; Bidłasik, M.; Richling, A.; Badora, K.; Balon, J.; Brzezińska-Wójcik, T.; Chabudziński, Ł.; Dobrowolski, R.; Grzegorczyk, I.; et al. Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries on the basis of contemporary spatial data. Geogr. Pol. 2018, 91, 143–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Urbánek, J.; Beták, J.; Jakál, J.; Lacika, J.; Novotný, J. Regional geomorphological division of Slovakia: Old problem in new perspectives in Slovak Geography at the Beginning of the 21st Century. Geogr. Slovaca 2009, 26, 237–259. [Google Scholar]
  59. Gołąb, J. Flisz Podhala Na Zachód Od Białego Dunajca; Archiwum Państwowego Instytutu Geologicznego; Oddział Karpacki: Kraków, Poland, 1954. [Google Scholar]
  60. Watycha, L. Uwagi o Geologii Fliszu Podhalańskiego We Wschodniej Części Podhala. Przegląd Geol. 1959, 7, 350–356. [Google Scholar]
  61. Janočko, J.; Jacko, S. Marginal and deep sea deposits of Central Carpathian Paleogene Basin, Spisska Magura Region, Slovakia: Implication for basin history. Slovak Gelogical Mag. 1999, 4, 281–292. [Google Scholar]
  62. Biely, A.; Bezák, V.; Elečko, M.; Gross, P.; Kaličiak, M.; Konečný, V.; Lexa, J.; Mello, J.; Nemčok, J.; Potfaj, M.; et al. Geologicka mapa Slovenska, 1:500,000; Vydavateľstvo Dionýza Štúra: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  63. Jurewicz, E. Geodynamic evolution of the Tatra Mts. and the Pieniny Klippen Belt (Western Carpathians): Problems and comments. Acta Geol. Pol. 2005, 55, 295–338. [Google Scholar]
  64. Plašienka, D. Development of basement-involved fold and thrust structures exemplified by the Tatric-Fatric-Veporic nappe system of the Western Carpathians (Slovakia). Geodin. Acta 2003, 16, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Żelaźniewicz, A.; Aleksandrowski, P.; Buła, Z.; Karnkowski, P.H.; Konon, A.; Oszczypko, N.; Ślączka, A.; Żaba, J.; Żytko, K. Regionalizacja Tektoniczna Polski; Komitet Nauk Geologicznych PAN: Wrocław, Poland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  66. Birkenmajer, K. Przewodnik Geologiczny po Pienińskim Pasie Skałkowym; Wydawnictwa Geologiczne: Warszawa, Poland, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  67. Birkenmajer, K. Jurassic and Cretaceous lithostratigraphic units of the Pieniny Klippen Belt, Carpathinas. Stud. Geol. Pol. 1977, 45, 1–159. [Google Scholar]
  68. Plašienka, D.; Mikuš, V. Geologická stavba pieninského a šarišského úseku bradlového pásma medzi Litmanovou a Drienicou na východnom Slovensku. Miner. Slovaca 2010, 42, 155–178. [Google Scholar]
  69. Krobicki, M.; Golonka, J. Geological history of the Pieniny Klippen Belt and Middle Jurassic black shales as one of the oldest deposits of this region—Stratigraphical position and palaeoenvironmental significance. Geoturystyka 2008, 13, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Łoziński, M.; Wysocka, A.; Ludwiniak, M. Neogene terrestrial sedimentary environments of the Orava-Nowy Targ Basin: A case study of the Oravica River section near Čimhová, Slovakia. Geol. Q. 2015, 59, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Watycha, L. Badania czwartorzędu i neogenu w kotlinie orawsko-nowotarskiej. Cz. III-Neogen w kotlinie orawsko-nowotarskiej. Arch. Inst. Geol. Warszawa 1971, 20, 575–588. [Google Scholar]
  72. Watycha, L. Neogen niecki orawsko-nowotarskiej. Geol. Q. 1976, 20, 575–587. [Google Scholar]
  73. Birkenmajer, K. Forma geologiczna andezytów Wżaru. Acta Geol. Pol. 1962, XII, 201–213. [Google Scholar]
  74. Birkenmajer, K.; Pécskay, Z. K-Ar dating of the Miocene andesite intrusions, Pieniny Mts, West Carpathians, Poland: A supplement. Stud. Geol. Pol. 2000, 117, 7–25. [Google Scholar]
  75. Bac-Moszaszwili, M.; Jurewicz, E. Wycieczki Geologiczne W Tatry; TPN: Zakopane, Poland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  76. Lexa, J.; Bezák, M.; Elečko, M.; Mello, J.; Polák, M.; Potfaj, M.; Vozár, J. Geological Map of Western Carpathians and Adjacent Areas, 1:500,000; Geological Survey of Slovak Republic: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  77. Zasadni, J.; Kłapyta, P. The Tatra Mountains during the Last Glacial Maximum. J. Maps 2014, 10, 440–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zasadni, J.; Kłapyta, P.; Świąder, A. Lodowce maksimum ostatniego zlodowacenia i osady starszych zlodowaceń. In Atlas Tatr: Przyroda Nieożywiona; Dąbrowska, K., Guzik, M., Eds.; TPN: Zakopane, Poland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  79. Gorczyca, E.; Krzemień, K.; Łyp, M. Contemprorary trends in the Białka river channel development in the Western Carpathians. Geogr. Pol. 2011, 84, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wyżga, B.; Zawiejska, J. Large wood storage in channelized and unmanaged sections of the Czarny Dunajec River, Polish Carpathians: Implications for the restoration of mountain rivers. Folia Geogr. Ser. Geogr. 2010, 41, 5–34. [Google Scholar]
  81. Kukulak, J. Weathering of gravels in the Czarny Dunajec alluvial cone in Podhale, Polish Carpathians. Quaest. Geogr. 2001, 21, 69–78. [Google Scholar]
  82. Poprawa, D.; Rączkowski, W. Osuwiska Karpat. Przegląd Geol. 2003, 51, 685–692. [Google Scholar]
  83. Kukulak, J.; Augustowski, K. Landslides on river banks in the western part of podhale (Central Carpathians, Poland). Geol. Q. 2016, 60, 561–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hochmuth, Z. Krasové územia a jaskyne Slovenska. Geogr. Cassoviensis 2008, 2, 5–210. [Google Scholar]
  85. Lehotský, M. Kotlinový kras—Geomorfologické pomery a aspekt exhumácie (príklad Hybského Krasu). Geogr. Časopis 2001, 53, 111–126. [Google Scholar]
  86. Krzemień, K. The Czarny Dunajec River, Poland, as an example of human-induced development tendencies in a mountain river channel. Landf. Anal. 2003, 4, 57–64. [Google Scholar]
  87. Malgot, J.; Baliak, F. The influence of human activity on the development of landslides in Slovakia. Geogr. Časopis 2002, 54, 21–38. [Google Scholar]
  88. Balon, J.; Jodłowski, M. Regionalizacja fizycznogeograficzna Karpat Zachodnich—Studium metodologiczne. In Struktura środowiska Przyrodniczego a Fizjonomia Krajobrazu; Ziaja, W., Jodłowski, M., Eds.; Instytut Geografii i Gospodarki Przestrzennej Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego: Kraków, Poland, 2014; pp. 85–106. [Google Scholar]
  89. Balon, J.; Jodłowski, M.; Krąż, P. Regiony fizycznogeograficzne Karpat Zachodnich. In Atlas Tatr—Przyroda Nieożywiona; Dąbrowska, K., Guzik, M., Eds.; TPN: Zakopane, Poland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  90. Kondracki, J. Karpaty; Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe: Warszawa, Poland, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  91. Kondracki, J. Geografia Regionalna Polski; Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warszawa, Poland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  92. Mazúr, E.; Lukniš, M. Geomorfologické jednotky. In Atlas Slovenskej Socjalistickej Republiky; Mazúr, E., Ed.; Slovenská Akademia vied, Slovenský Úrad Geodézie a Kartografie: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  93. Kidová, A.; Lehotský, M. Časovo-priestorová variabilita morfológie divočiaceho a migrujúceho vodného toku Belá. Geogr. Časopis 2012, 64, 311–333. [Google Scholar]
  94. Kidová, A.; Lehotský, M.; Rusnák, M. Morfologické zmeny a manažment divočiacomigrujúceho vodného toku Belá. Geomorphol. Slovaca Bohem. 2016, 16, 7–59. [Google Scholar]
  95. Małecka, D. Hydrogeologia Podhala. Pr. Hydrogeol. Ser. Spec. 1981, 14, 3–187. [Google Scholar]
  96. Alexandrowicz, W.P. Molluscan assemblages of recent calcareous tufas in the Podhale Basin and Pieniny Mts (S. Poland). Folia Malacol. 2010, 18, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ložek, V. Travertines. Pr. Inst. Geol. 1961, 34, 81–86. [Google Scholar]
  98. Gradziński, M.; Wróblewski, W.; Bella, P. Cenozoic freshwater carbonates of the Central Carpathians (Slovakia): Facies, environments, hydrological control and depositional history. In Guide to Field Trip B7, 31st IAS Meeting of Sedimentology; Gradziński, M., Wróblewski, W., Bella, P., Eds.; AGH: Kraków, Poland, 2015; pp. 217–245. ISBN 9788394230401. [Google Scholar]
  99. Gradziński, M. Origin of a unique tree-mould type cave in travertine based on examples from the village of Lúčky (Liptov, Slovakia). Slov. Kras 2008, 46, 69–75. [Google Scholar]
  100. Gradziński, M.; Duliński, M.; Hercman, H.; Stworzewicz, E.; Holubek, P.; Rajnoga, P.; Wróblewski, W.; Kováčová, M. Facies and age of travertines From Spiš and Liptov Regions (Slovakia)—Preliminary results. Slov. Kras 2008, 46, 31–40. [Google Scholar]
  101. Chowaniec, J.; Witek, K. Mapa Hydrogeologiczna Polski w Skali 1:50 000; Czarny Dunajec, Poland, 1997; Arkusz 1048; Państwowy Instytut Geologiczny: Warszawa, Poland.
  102. Chowaniec, J.; Witek, K. Mapa Hydrogeologiczna Polski w Skali 1:50 000; Rabka, Poland, 1997; Arkusz 1032; Państwowy Instytut Geologiczny: Warszawa, Poland.
  103. Skąpski, K.; Garbacz, K. Mapa Hydrogeologiczna Polski w Skali 1:50 000; Zawoja, Poland, 1997; Arkusz 1031; Państwowy Instytut Geologiczny: Warszawa, Poland.
  104. Małecka, D.; Humnicki, W.; Barczyk, G. Mapa Hydrogeologiczna Polski w Skali 1:50 000; Tatry Zachodnie, Slovakia, 2002; Arkusz 1060; Państwowy Instytut Geologiczny: Warszawa, Poland.
  105. Małecka, D.; Humnicki, W.; Małecki, J. Mapa Hydrogeologiczna Polski w Skali 1:50 000; Tatry Wysokie, Slovakia, 2002; Arkusz 1061; Państwowy Instytut Geologiczny: Warszawa, Poland.
  106. Turbek, J. Hydrologicka mapa Slovenska. In Atlas SSR; Mazúr, E., Ed.; Slovenská Akademia Vied, Slovenský Úrad Geodézie a Kartografie: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  107. Łajczak, A. Warunki rozwoju i rozmieszczenie torfowisk w kotlinie orawsko-nowotarskiej. Prz. Geol. 2009, 57, 694–702. [Google Scholar]
  108. Łajczak, A. Torfowiska Kotliny Orawsko-Nowotarskiej. Rozwój, Antropogeniczna Degradacja, Renaturyzacja i Wybrane Problemy Ochrony; Instytut Botaniki im. W. Szafera, Polska Akademia Nauk: Kraków, Poland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  109. Lipka, K. Ocena Aktualnego Stanu Wartości Przyrodniczych Torfowisk oraz Terenów Przyległych z Określeniem Możliwości Ograniczonego, Kontrolowanego Pozyskania Mchów Torfowców na Obszarze Gmin: Lipnica Wielka, Jabłonka, Czarny Dunajec, Nowy Targ-Miasto i Gmina; Firma Specjalistyczna PEAT-POL: Kraków, Poland, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  110. Lipka, K.; Zając, E. Peatbogs in the Orawa-Nowy Targ Basin. Acta Hortic. Regiotect. Mimoriadne Cislo 2003, 6, 119–122. [Google Scholar]
  111. Chrobak, A.; Bąk, K. Poznawczo-Edukacyjne Aspekty Atrakcji Geoturystycznych Podtatrza; Wydawnictwo Naukowe UP: Kraków, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  112. Chrobak, A. Analiza i Ocena Potencjału Geoturystycznego Podtatrza. Ph.D. Thesis, Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny w Krakowie, Instytut Geografii, Kraków, Poland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  113. Chrobak, A. Valorisation and categorisation of the geosites in the Podtatrze area (Southern Poland). Geotourism 2016, 46–47, 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Cochran, W.G. Sampling Techniques; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  115. Zwoliński, Z. The routine of landform geodiversity map design for the Polish Carpathian Mts. Landf. Anal. 2009, 11, 77–85. [Google Scholar]
  116. Zwoliński, Z.; Stachowiak, J. Geodiversity map of the Tatra National Park for geotourism. Quaest. Geogr. 2012, 31, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Mizgajski, A. Odniesienie georóżnorodności do wybranych pojęć w naukach o środowisku. In Funkcjonowanie Geoekosystemów w Zróżnicowanych Warunkach Morfoklimatycznych. Monitoring, Ochrona, Edukacja; Karczewski, A., Zwoliński, Z., Eds.; Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe: Poznań, Poland, 2001; pp. 369–375. [Google Scholar]
  118. Chrobak, A.; Novotný, J.; Struś, P. Geodiversity assessment as a first step in designating areas of geotourism potential. Case study: Western Carpathians. Front. Earth Sci. 2021, 9, 752669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Najwer, A.; Zwoliński, Z. Semantyka i metodyka oceny georóżnorodności—Przegląd i propozycja badawcza. Landf. Anal. 2014, 26, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Jankowski, P.; Najwer, A.; Zwoliński, Z.; Niesterowicz, J. Geodiversity Assessment with Crowdsourced Data and Spatial Multicriteria Analysis. Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Štrba, L.; Rybár, P.; Baláž, B.; Molokáč, M.; Hvizdák, L.; Kršák, B.; Lukáč, M.; Muchová, L.; Tometzová, D.; Ferenčíková, J. Geosite assessments: Comparison of methods and results. Curr. Issues Tour. 2014, 18, 496–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Santos, D.S.; Mansur, K.L.; Seoane, J.C.S.; Mucivuna, V.C.; Reynard, E. Methodological proposal for the inventory and assessment of geomorphosites: An integrated approach focused on territorial management and geoconservation. Environ. Manag. 2020, 66, 476–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Alexandrowicz, Z.; Kućmierz, A.; Urban, J.; Otęska-Budzyn, J. Waloryzacja Przyrody Nieożywionej Obszarów i Obiektów Chronionych w Polsce; Wydawnictwo Państwowego Instytutu Geologicznego: Warszawa, Poland, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  124. Serrano, E.; González-Trueba, J.J. Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: The Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Géomorphologie Reli. Process. Environ. 2005, 11, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Reynard, E.; Fontana, G.; Kozlik, L.; Scapozza, C. A method for assessing “scientific” and “additional values” of geomorphosites. Geogr. Helv. 2007, 62, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Panizza, V.; Mennella, M. Assessing geomorphosites used for rock climbing. The example of Monteleone Rocca Doria (Sardinia, Italy). Geogr. Helv. 2007, 62, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Koźma, J. Opracowanie Zasad Identyfikacji i Waloryzacji Geotopów Dla Potrzeb Sporz Dzania Dokumentacji Projektowych Geoparków w Polsce z Zastosowaniem Systemów GPS i GIS; Archiwum Państwowego Instytutu Geologiczneg: Warszawa, Poland; Wrocław, Poland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  128. Rybár, P. Assessment of attractiveness (value) of geotouristic objects. Acta Geoturistica 2010, 1, 13–21. [Google Scholar]
  129. Dmytrowski, P.; Kicińska, A. Waloryzacja geoturystyczna obiektów przyrody nieożywionej i jej znaczenie w perspektywie rozwoju geoparków. Probl. Ekol. Kraj. 2011, 29, 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  130. Čuka, P. Základy Teórie, Metodológie a Regionalizácie Cestovného Ruchu; Vydavateľstvo Prešovskej Univerzity: Prešov, Slovakia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  131. Chrobak, A.; Ugolini, F.; Pearlmutter, D. Examining the geotourist value of landscape features. Case study: The Vyšné Ružbachy in the Spiš Region, NE Slovakia. In Proceedings of the GEOTOUR 2016, Florence, Italy, 18–20 October 2016; Ugoli, F., Marchi, V., Trampetti, S., Pearlmutter, D., Raschi, A., Eds.; IBIMET-CNR: Firenze, Italy, 2016; pp. 178–187. [Google Scholar]
  132. Štrba, Ľ. Idntification and evaluation of geosites along existing tourist trial as a primary step of geotourism developement: Case study from the Spiš Region (Slovakia). Geoj. Tour. Geosites 2015, 16, 127–141. [Google Scholar]
  133. Lacika, J. Spiš; Dajama: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  134. Menclová, D. Spišský Hrad; Slovenské Vydavateľstvo Krásnej Literatúry: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1957. [Google Scholar]
  135. Chrobak, A. Geodiversity in the Spiš Region (Northern Slovakia/Southern Poland). In Dobrá Praxe v Udržitelnosti Cestovního Ruchu, Recenzovany Sbornik 5. ROCNIKU Conference; Zelenka, J., Ed.; Gaudeamus: Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic, 2015; pp. 6–16. [Google Scholar]
  136. Sabol, M.; Slyšková, D.; Bodoriková, S.; Čejka, T.; Čerňanský, A.; Ivanov, M.; Joniak, P.; Kováčová, M.; Tóth, C. Revised floral and faunal assemblages from late pleistocene deposits of the Gánovce-Hrádok neanderthal site-biostratigraphic and palaeoecological implications. Foss. Impr. 2017, 73, 182–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Kollár, D. Orava; Dajama: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  138. Ptaszek, A. Wodospady w potoku Kacwinianka jako obiekty geoturystyczne. Geoturystyka 2005, 2, 25–31. [Google Scholar]
  139. Alexandrowicz, Z. Ochrona wodospadów w Karpatach Polskich. Chrońmy Przyr. Ojczystą 1997, 53, 39–57. [Google Scholar]
  140. Migoń, P.; Pijet-Migoń, E. Viewpoint geosites—Values, conservation and management issues. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2017, 128, 511–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. von Rohrscheidt, A.M. Raport z Badań Turystów w Obiektach Szlaku Piastowskiego Przeprowadzonych w Okresie od 15 Kwietnia Do 15 Sierpnia 2012 Na Zlecenie Urzędu Marszałkowskiego Województwa Kujawsko-Pomorskiego. 2012. Available online: https://kujawsko-pomorskie.pl/pliki/turystyka/szlak/Audyt_II_czesc.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2022).
  142. Mandziuk, A. Preferencje turystów odwiedzających Leśny Kompleks Promocyjny Lasy Janowskie—Aspekty ekonomiczne. Stud. i Mater. Cent. Edukac. Przyr. 2015, 17, 148–154. [Google Scholar]
  143. Górna, J.; Sala, J. Preferencje turystyów na rynku usług uzdrowiskowych w Polsce. Popyt Tur. Konsumpcja-Segm. Rynk. 2012, 137–153. [Google Scholar]
  144. Pyzik, M.; Rodziewicz-Gruhn, J.; Pilis, K.; Michalski, C. Preferenje turystyczne studentów Akademii im. Jana Długosza w Częstochowie. Zesz. Nauk. Wyższej Szk. Pedagog. Adm. Pozn. 2007, 3, 99–103. [Google Scholar]
  145. Lubowiecki-Vikuk, A.P.; Podgórski, Z. Zachowania i preferencje turystyczne młodzieży akademickiej. In Instytut Geografii i Gospodarki Przestrzennej; Współczesne Uwarunk. i Probl. Rozw. Tur.; Pawlusiński, R., Ed.; Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego: Kraków, Poland, 2013; pp. 149–158. [Google Scholar]
  146. Szpilko, D.; Gierałtowska, M.; Golubiewska, P. Preferencje turystyczne mieszkańców Białegostoku. Ekon. i Zarządzanie 2013, 5, 101–114. [Google Scholar]
  147. Chrobak, A.; Ugolini, F.; Pearlmutter, D.; Raschi, A. Thermal Tourism and Geoheritage: Examining Visitor Motivations and Perceptions. Resources 2020, 9, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Resources 12 00025 g001 550
Figure 1. Location of the study area. Source: Own study based on administrative map of Poland: www.codgig.gov.pl, administrative map of Slovakia and maps of geographical regions of Poland and Slovakia [57,58].
Figure 1. Location of the study area. Source: Own study based on administrative map of Poland: www.codgig.gov.pl, administrative map of Slovakia and maps of geographical regions of Poland and Slovakia [57,58].
Resources 12 00025 g001
Resources 12 00025 g002 550
Figure 2. Geological background of the study area. Source: own study based on geological map of Western Carpathians [76].
Figure 2. Geological background of the study area. Source: own study based on geological map of Western Carpathians [76].
Resources 12 00025 g002
Resources 12 00025 g003 550
Figure 3. Relief of the study area. Source: own study based on physico-geographical maps of Poland and Slovakia [57,58].
Figure 3. Relief of the study area. Source: own study based on physico-geographical maps of Poland and Slovakia [57,58].
Resources 12 00025 g003
Resources 12 00025 g004 550
Figure 4. Hydrological condition of the study area. Source: own study based on hydrological maps of Poland and Slovakia [101,102,103,104,105,106].
Figure 4. Hydrological condition of the study area. Source: own study based on hydrological maps of Poland and Slovakia [101,102,103,104,105,106].
Resources 12 00025 g004
Resources 12 00025 g005 550
Figure 5. Location and types of the geosites. Source: own study.
Figure 5. Location and types of the geosites. Source: own study.
Resources 12 00025 g005
Resources 12 00025 g006 550
Figure 6. Location of geosites on the background of geological units. Source: own study; geological background based on [76].
Figure 6. Location of geosites on the background of geological units. Source: own study; geological background based on [76].
Resources 12 00025 g006
Resources 12 00025 g007 550
Figure 7. Location of geosites on the background of physical geographical units. Source own study; borders of physico-geographical regions based on [57,58].
Figure 7. Location of geosites on the background of physical geographical units. Source own study; borders of physico-geographical regions based on [57,58].
Resources 12 00025 g007
Resources 12 00025 g008 550
Figure 8. Main reasons for respondent trips to the Sub-Tatra Region.
Figure 8. Main reasons for respondent trips to the Sub-Tatra Region.
Resources 12 00025 g008
Resources 12 00025 g009 550
Figure 9. Main places to stay for Polish respondents (left) and Slovak respondents (right).
Figure 9. Main places to stay for Polish respondents (left) and Slovak respondents (right).
Resources 12 00025 g009
Resources 12 00025 g010 550
Figure 10. Preferred places of rest and recreation in the Sub-Tatra Region for surveyed tourists (PL, left; SK, right).
Figure 10. Preferred places of rest and recreation in the Sub-Tatra Region for surveyed tourists (PL, left; SK, right).
Resources 12 00025 g010
Resources 12 00025 g011 550
Figure 11. Trips by Polish respondents to Slovakia and Slovak respondents to Poland during their stay in Sub-Tatra Region.
Figure 11. Trips by Polish respondents to Slovakia and Slovak respondents to Poland during their stay in Sub-Tatra Region.
Resources 12 00025 g011
Resources 12 00025 g012 550
Figure 12. The importance of spending free time “in the bosom of nature” among the respondents.
Figure 12. The importance of spending free time “in the bosom of nature” among the respondents.
Resources 12 00025 g012
Resources 12 00025 g013 550
Figure 13. Tourist preferences for particular abiotic natural attractions.
Figure 13. Tourist preferences for particular abiotic natural attractions.
Resources 12 00025 g013
Resources 12 00025 g014 550
Figure 14. Respondent preferences regarding the development of selected objects of abiotic nature.
Figure 14. Respondent preferences regarding the development of selected objects of abiotic nature.
Resources 12 00025 g014
Resources 12 00025 g015 550
Figure 15. Summary of general assessment value of geosites and tourist preferences.
Figure 15. Summary of general assessment value of geosites and tourist preferences.
Resources 12 00025 g015
Resources 12 00025 g016 550
Figure 16. Correlation between average values of the general assessment of geosites and average percentage share of geosite type selection by geotourists; r—correlation coefficient.
Figure 16. Correlation between average values of the general assessment of geosites and average percentage share of geosite type selection by geotourists; r—correlation coefficient.
Resources 12 00025 g016
Table
Table 1. Assessment criteria for scientific and educational and tourist values of geosites.
Table 1. Assessment criteria for scientific and educational and tourist values of geosites.
EScientific and Educational Values
rRepresentativeness of geological, hydrogeological, hydrological, and relief-forming processes and their educational value
0Low representativeness and no educational value
3.3Average representativeness and low educational value
6.7Site is a good example of natural processes, but difficult to recognize and interpret for non-scientists
10Site is a good example of natural processes and has a high educational value
WgOther features related to abiotic nature in this site or in its immediate vicinity
0No other features
3.3Other features (elements) of abiotic nature but not related to the site
6.7Other features (elements) of abiotic nature related to the site
10Occurrence of other sites within 2 km
wUniqueness of the site in relation to the Sub-Tatra Region
0More than 5 examples of similar sites in the region
2.53–5 examples of similar sites in the region
52–3 examples of similar sites in the region
7.5Site is absolutely unique
10The only site of its type in the region
PL/SKUniqueness of the site compared to other similar sites in Poland and Slovakia
0More than 5 examples of the same type of site
3.33–5 examples of the same type of site
6.72 examples of the same type of site
10No similar sites
lScientific value of site expressed in scientific publications
0Site not described in the scientific literature
5Site described in the national scientific literature
10Site described in the international scientific literature
zkDegree of landscape diversity
0Lack of differentiation (1 type of relief process forming the landscape)
2.5Low diversity (2 types of relief processes forming the landscape)
5Medium diversity (3 types of relief processes forming the landscape)
7.5High diversity (4 types of relief processes forming the landscape)
10Very high diversity (5 or more types of relief processes forming the landscape)
TTOURIST VALUES
wVisibility of site
0Difficult to observe, or not visible at all
2Can only be observed using special equipment
4Visibility restricted by trees or lower vegetation
6Good visibility, but can only be seen fully by moving around
8Good visibility for all elements (object partially covered with grass)
10Perfect visibility for all elements
pwWidth of viewing angle from viewpoint
0No viewpoints
2.5One viewpoint with a radius of 90° in the direction of S, N, E or W
5Viewpoint 180° SE, NE, NW or SW
7.5Viewpoint with a radius of 270°
10360° viewpoint
zDegree of degradation (destruction) of site
0Site destroyed by human activity
2.5Site destroyed by natural processes
5Site damaged, but retains significant geological and geomorphological features
7.5Site slightly damaged, but retains significant geological and geomorphological features
10Site undamaged
dAccessibility of site
0Site difficult to access; only with special equipment
2Site accessible on foot; parking >2000 m away
4Site accessible by car and/or bicycle; parking >1000 m away
6Site accessible by car and/or bicycle; parking 500–1000 m away
8Site accessible by car; parking <500 m away
10Site accessible by car and local transport; bus stop <500 m away, parking <100 m away
gPresent use as a geosite
0Site is not a geosite and is not endorsed
3.3Site described in geotouristic literature; not promoted as a geosite
6.7Site described in geotouristic literature; promoted, but not used, as a geosite
10Site described in geotouristic literature; promoted and used as a geosite
otPresent use as a tourist attraction
0Site not known in tourist literature; not promoted or used as a tourist attraction
3.3Site known in tourist literature; not promoted or used as a tourist attraction
6.7Site known in tourist literature; promoted, but not used, as a tourist attraction
10Site known in tourist literature; promoted and used as a tourist attraction
oLegal status of site protection
0Strict security; no access to site
3.3Partial protection; precise guidelines for access to site
6.7No security; full access to site
10Partial protection; no additional restrictions on access to site
udEquipment and additional services (restaurants, souvenir shops)
0Accommodation and additional services >5 km away
2.5Accommodation and additional services 2–5 km away
5Accommodation and additional services 500–2000 m away
7.5Accommodation and additional services 100–500 m away
10Accommodation and additional services <100 m away
itPresence of other tourist attractions
0Nearest tourist attraction >5 km away
2.5Nearest tourist attraction 2–5 km away
5Nearest tourist attraction 500–2000 m away
7.5Nearest tourist attraction 100–500 m away
10Nearest tourist attraction <100 m away
Table
Table 2. Groups of geosites and their definitions.
Table 2. Groups of geosites and their definitions.
GroupPoint ValueDefinition
I>0.7Site of special scientific and educational/tourist values
II0.4–07Site of high scientific and educational/tourist values
III0.2–0.4Site of moderate scientific and educational/tourist values
IV<0.2Site of low scientific and educational/tourist values
Table
Table 3. Geosite assessment results.
Table 3. Geosite assessment results.
Lp.Geosite NameCathegoryVEVTVKIndexGroup
1Baligówka peatbog peatbog25.8761.5036.560.53II
2The braided channel of Czarny Dunajec riberbed in Wróblówka villageriverbed25.8247.7032.390.47II
3Crinoidal and coquina limestones at Rogoża Klippe quary36.735.8036.430.53II
4“Piaskowcowe kule” sandstones balls outcrop in the Rogoźnik stramrock outcrop19.3742.7026.370.38III
5Puścizna Wielka Peatbogpeatbog27.5342.5032.020.46II
6Rock outcrop with egravelstnes at Domanski hillrock outcrop36.943.5038.880.56II
7Viewpoint (180°) at the Bachledówka hillviewpoint19.5756.5030.650.44II
8Tufa limestone at the Ostrysz hillrock outcrop18.338.0024.210.35III
9“Nad kościołem” landslidelandslide27.852.7035.270.51II
10Chochołów beds at a teracce edge along the Czarny Dunajec riverrock outcrop17.2345.2025.620.37III
11Viewpoint (100°) at the Płazówka hillviewpoint22.3270.2036.690.53II
12Viewpoint (180°) at the Gubałówka hillviewpoint27.7265.7039.120.57II
13Molkówka peatbogpeatbog18.7540.3025.210.37III
14Biały creekriverbed17.1242.5024.740.36III
15Jaszczurówka thermal springspring23.3355.5032.980.48II
16Viewpoint (270°) at the Głodówka hillviewpoint24.7759.2035.100.51II
17Mouth of Jurgów creek into Białka riverriverbed37.0745.2039.510.57II
18Bór na Czerwonem peatbog peatbog39.4764.8047.070.68II
19Białka gorge at the Krempachy villageriverbed39.447.3041.770.61II
20Crinoidal limestones at the Kramnica klipperock outcrop30.236.8032.180.47II
21Lorencowe klippesrock outcrop29.645.0034.220.50II
22Turbidite sediments of Frydman formation along Dunajec riverrock outcrop17.7748.5026.990.39III
23Viewpoint (360°) from the Niedzica dam viewpoint29.7752.0036.440.53II
24“Pod Mynaszką” waterfall in Kacwin village waterfall18.9550.0028.260.41II
25Viewpoint (360°) at the Litwinka hill viewpoint27.2769.7039.990.58II
26Viewpoint (180°) in the Łapszanka village viewpoint25.4554.7034.220.50II
27Osturňa landslide (no. 27)landslide27.530.3028.340.41II
28Viewpoint (360°) in the Ždiar Strednica villageviewpoint33.7564.2042.890.62II
29Rock outcrop of the flysh layers in the Bachledova valleyrock outcrop2548.5032.050.46II
30Jezersko landslide lakelake26.448.0032.880.48II
31Pleistocene travertines with dry craters in the Vyšné Ružbachy villagerock outcrop42.2340.3041.650.60II
32Contemporary forms of relief related to travertines in the Vyšné Ružbachy villagelake4058.8045.640.66II
33The Paleogene Kežmarok Beds in a stratotype outcroprock outcrop3046.0034.800.50II
34Travertine dome in Gánovce villagerock outcrop46.4753.3048.520.70I
35Thermal spring at a travertine dome in Gánovce villagespring33.3535.7034.050.49II
36Permian volcanic rocks outcrop with veins crushed with copper compounds in Popradquary28.7540.2032.180.47II
37Sulfur spring and travertine dome near Hôrka villagespring26,736.8029.730.43II
38Viewpoint (180°) in the Hornad basin viewpoint18.7532.2022.780.33III
39Sivá brada travertine domespring42.2753.8045.730.66II
40Travertine dome with the Spiš castlecastle49.1764.3053.710.78I
41Dreveník travertine domerock outcrop40.6254.8044.880.65II
42Sequential slope landslide in the Biała river valley near Vavrišovo villagelandslide30.6238.2032.900.48II
43Castle hill in Liptovský Hrádok as a “Mesozoic island” in Paleogene rockscastle20.8360.2032.640.47II
44The mouth of the Belá river into the Váh river at the foot of the Low Tatra Mountainsriverbed32.1041.2034.830.50II
45Travertine thermal spring in Liptovský Ján villagespring20.4264.6033.680.49II
46Viewpoint (180°) on the outlier hills in Podtureňviewpoint17.1050.5027.120.39III
47Viewpoint (360°) from the Liptovská Mara damviewpoint21.2255.7031.570.46II
48Travertine cascade, rock formations and mineral springs in Bešeňová villagerock outcrop36.6744.5039.020.57II
49Travertine domes and craters in the Liptovské Sliače villagerock outcrop24.5742.6029.980.43II
50Slope dolomite single rock “Skalná Päsť” in the Lisková villagerock outcrop17.8039.3024.250.35III
51Liskovská jaskyňa cavecave34.4231.5033.550.49II
52Viewpoint (360°) at the Veľký Choč peakviewpoint28.150.3034.760.50II
53Holocene travertines in Lučky villagecave31.4747.7036.340.53II
54Travertine waterfall in the Lučky villagewaterfall37.5365.0045.770.66II
55The estuary section of the Prosiecka Valley in the Choč Mountainsrock outcrop32.0752.8038.290.55II
56Viewpoint (180°) at the Kvačany valley from the Maľy Rohač hillviewpoint28.5549.8034.920.51II
57Eocene shale-sandstone flysch in a stratotypical outcrop in Hutyrock outcrop20.2048.5028.690.42II
58Eocene Pucov conglomerates in the Orava Foothills as a result of undersea debris flowsrock outcrop34.6042.6037.000.54II
59Ostrá and Tupá single rocks in the Vyšný Kubín villagerock outcrop27.0742.5031.700.46II
60Cretaceous carbonate rocks of an undersea landslide in Jasenovárock outcrop6.1044.7017.680.26III
61The limestone rock with the Orava Castle on the Orava River within the Pieniny Klippen Beltcastle45.2073.5053.690.78I
62Biela Skala (White rock) near the village of Podbiel within the Pieniny Klippen Beltrock outcrop26.0551.0033.530.49II
63Jurassic red limestones with fossils near the village of Podbiel in the Pieniny Klippen Beltrock outcrop38.5758.2044.460.64II
64Historic ironworks near Podbiel villageother21.0542.7027.540.40II
65Chochołowskie layers of Podhale flysch in the Oravice villagerock outcrop15.2245.2024.220.35III
66Halečková quary in the Trstená townquary13.9740.7022.000.32III
67Viewpoint (270°) in the Liesek villageviewpoint21.6748.7029.780.43II
68Neogene brown coals in Čimhová villagerock outcrop25.2237.0028.760.42II
69Viewpoint (180°) at the Oravská priehrada damviewpoint39.3552.2043.200.63II
70Przybojec peatbogpeatbog40.3329.6037.110.54II
71Outcrop of Pleistocene/Pliocene sands in the Lipnica Wielka villagerock outcrop16.9039.7023.740.34III
72Petrified wood outcrop in the Lipnica streamrock outcrop21.5044.7028.460.41II
Source: own study.
Table
Table 4. Characteristics of surveyed tourists in Poland (PL) and Slovakia (SK) in percentages (%).
Table 4. Characteristics of surveyed tourists in Poland (PL) and Slovakia (SK) in percentages (%).
[%]Numbers
PLSKPLSK
GenderFemale695750969
Male314322551
Age15–20 102763
21–26383927847
27–35283020336
36–50181613119
>506134615
EducationPrimary31191
Secondary403729344
Higher576242275
Interest in natural sciencesYES517537190
NO492536330
Travellingalone11128819
with family343925864
with best friend242718345
with colleagues312223436
Table
Table 5. Frequency of arrivals and length of stays of surveyed tourists in Poland (PL) and Slovakia (SK) in percentages (%).
Table 5. Frequency of arrivals and length of stays of surveyed tourists in Poland (PL) and Slovakia (SK) in percentages (%).
[%]
PLSK
Frequency of arrivalseveral times a year5259
twice a year1220
once a year (in winter)11
once a year (in summer)2010
less than once a year1410
others10
Length of staymore than a week309
3–5 days3330
1–3 days2837
1 day924
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chrobak-Žuffová, A. Comparison of Expert Assessment of Geosites with Tourist Preferences, Case Study: Sub-Tatra Region (Southern Poland, Northern Slovakia). Resources 2023, 12, 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12020025

AMA Style

Chrobak-Žuffová A. Comparison of Expert Assessment of Geosites with Tourist Preferences, Case Study: Sub-Tatra Region (Southern Poland, Northern Slovakia). Resources. 2023; 12(2):25. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12020025

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chrobak-Žuffová, Anna. 2023. "Comparison of Expert Assessment of Geosites with Tourist Preferences, Case Study: Sub-Tatra Region (Southern Poland, Northern Slovakia)" Resources 12, no. 2: 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12020025

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop