 |
2588-7343
2645-4661
Volume 7 , Issue 1 (1-21)
Geoconservation Research (GCR)
https://dx.doi.org/1057647/j.gcr.2024.0701.01
Jake RA Crisp1*
, Joanna C Ellison1
1School of Geography, Planning and Spatial Science, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania, 7250, Australia
Received:
2023-08-20
Revised:
2023-10-08
Accepted:
2023-12-30
Published: 2024-04-07
© The Author(s) 2024
Conservation efforts, such as geoconservation, involve some degree of subjectivity, compro- mising the objective data and verifiable evidence required for effective decision-making. Geo- diversity, which comprises the non-living components that underpin life, is increasingly at risk from human activities and is frequently overlooked in conservation initiatives. Here, we develop a novel subjectivity evaluation tool and management framework, implemented as a case study at a Tasmanian mountain site using a geoconservation toolkit approach. Our assessments show that Mounts Dial (102) and Gnomon (124) are highly geodiverse, while Mount Duncan (31) is moderately geodiverse. Further, scientific, tourism, and conservation values are determined to be most representative of geoconservation significance, with Mounts Duncan and Gnomon ranking highest. However, the novel subjectivity evaluation tool reveals highly subjective data and outcomes for geodiversity and geoconservation assessment (25) attributed to a lack of schol- arly literature, limited interdisciplinary engagement, and evaluator input into criteria ranking. Therefore, the subjectivity framework recommends measures to mitigate this subjectivity, by enhanced interdisciplinary engagement of expert stakeholders using objective hierarchical meth- ods, combined with remote sensing or GIS statistical validation. Overall, the study demonstrates the usefulness of the subjectivity evaluation approach to identify parameters hindering geocon- servation outcomes. The novel subjectivity approach has global implications, in improving sub- jectivity management in geoconservation assessment and allowing better alignment of compari- sons between practitioners and sites.
Keywords:Geodiversity, Conservation, Geoconservation, Subjectivity, Assessment
The non-living framework that supports life on Earth – geodiversity – is under increasing threat from degrading human influence (Orsi 2014; Hjort et al. 2015; Bétard and Peulvast 2019; Garcia 2019; Crisp et al. 2022a). Geodiversity
is defined as including geomorphological (land- forms, topography, physical processes), geolog- ical (rocks, minerals, fossils), pedological (soil) and hydrological features (Gray 3). Measuring the significance (Barančoková et al. 2023), distribu- tion (Özşahin 2017; Manosso et al. 2021), or more commonly the richness of geodiversity (Hjort et al. 2022; Crisp et al. 2022a; Crisp et al. 2022b)
through its evaluation or assessment can benefit conservation decisions and outcomes (Anderson et al. 2015; Comer et al. 2015; Lawler et al. 2015). In the first stages of a geodiversity assessment, a number of methods are used to source geodiver- sity data, such as geological maps (Zakharovskyi and Németh 2021; Elkaichi et al. 2021; Scam- macca et al. 2022), remote sensing information (Stepišnik and Trenchovska 2018; Zakharovskyi and Németh 2021; Rong et al. 2023), or field sur- veys (Stepišnik and Trenchovska 2018; Bajala et al. 2022; Crisp et al. 2022a; Crisp et al. 2022b), and in subsequent stages, qualitative, quantitative, or qualitative-quantitative methods are used to evaluate the data sourced (Forte et al. 2018).
Qualitative methods include grading scales of val- ues and benefits (Gray 2008; Ellis 2011; Ahmadi et al. 2022). Quantitative methods use algorithms and parameters to determine a georichness value, which refers to the quantity or sum of geodiver- sity elements in a study area (Stojilković 2022; Tukiainen et al. 2022) or can be referred to as the abiotic equivalent of species richness used in bio- diversity assessments (Bétard and Peulvast 2019). For example, Zakharovskyi et al. (2023) adopted a qualitative-quantitative geodiversity assessment approach based on an arithmetic average equation attributed to abiotic values to facilitate enhanced geosite determination, while Pereira et al. (2013) adopted a GIS grid-based approach to quantify geodiversity on a set of geological maps.
Geoconservation is the action of conserving geo- diversity for its intrinsic, ecological, and geo- heritage value (Sharples 2002; Prosser 2013). A geoconservation strategy is the process used to achieve geoconservation outcomes, such as inven- torying, evaluation, conservation, interpretation, and promotion (Brilha 2016). There are concep- tual and methodological challenges constraining geoconservation outcomes, such as the prevalent state of methodological development in the rela-
tively recent geodiversity concept (Serrano and Ruiz-Flaño 2007; Soms 2017; Crisp et al. 2021; Nemeth et al. 2021), the exclusivity of geodiver- sity assessment from geoconservation strategies (Brilha 2016; Crisp et al. 2022b), funding con- straints, and the lack of substantive information and conflicting priorities (Chakraborty and Moku- dai 2018).
Geoconservation is still a recent concept, with the term ‘geoheritage’ initially mentioned at the First International Symposium on the Conservation of our Geological Heritage in 1991 (Németh et al. 2021), and geodiveristy studies emerged earlier in the late 1970s and 1980s (Ibáñez et al. 2019). However, studies in biodiversity have a longer history spanning from as early as the 1700s and 1800s; hence, biodiversity and biological con- servation are supported by centuries of method- ological development by comparison (Ibáñez et al. 2019). Therefore, progress is still needed in geoconservation and geodiversity to improve standardization in terminologies and processes to avoid misuse and unconventional application of defining concepts, such as the inclusion of ir- relevant sites and the exclusion of important geo- sites (Brilha 2016). However, standardization of concepts and processes in geoconservation is not progressing ideally, especially as geoheritage still tends to favor Western values (Brilha 2016). This warrants further consideration to establish consis- tent terminologies and processes in geoconserva- tion. For example, a novel subjectivity evaluation and management approach could help mitigate this Western bias in geoheritage by encouraging more diverse cultural perspectives in the assess- ment of geosites.
Subjectivity in methods can present challenges to geoconservation outcomes (White and Wake- lin-King 2014; Brilha 2016; Micić Ponjiger et
al. 2021; Crisp et al. 2022a). Some criteria and methods are inherently subjective (Brilha 2016), requiring allocation of values to criteria based on evaluator input (Pereira et al. 2007; Dede and Zorlu 2023). This study refers to the ‘degree’ of subjectivity as intrinsic subjectivity need not indi- cate weak methodological approaches, inferences or conservation outcomes. For example, in the case of geodiversity assessments which are quan- titative and objective (Crisp et al. 2021), some still exhibit intrinsic subjectivities (Ahmadi et al. 2022), such as the need for judgment of geologi- cal, geomorphological, or soil maps often require, with different levels of expertise and experience probably resulting in different interpretation out- comes. In other conservation efforts, the subjec- tive experiences, well-being, and perspectives of individuals and communities are evaluated to assess the social or cultural impact of protected areas such as marine reserves (Bryce et al. 2016) or are used to shape the success of conservation outcomes, with subjective involvement in conser- vation efforts potentially shaping positive behav- iors and stewardship in individuals and commu- nities (Chmara-Huff 2014; Bennett 2016; Swaim et al. 2016). However, it is generally accepted that methods involving subjectivity, such as those based primarily on personal opinions – satisfac- tion, feelings, and individual preferences – can hinder conservation outcomes (Burgman 2001; Margoluis et al. 2009; Cook et al. 2010; Cook and Hockings 2011; Carranza et al. 2014; Datta and Sarkar 2019; Datta 2020). For example, ambigu- ous criteria, varying personal values, and poorly defined criteria and methods can lead to the ex- clusion of important geosites in geoconservation planning and management (Brilha 2016; Mucivu- na et al. 2019).
Subjectivity in geoconservation assessment can depend on the experience and knowledge of the evaluator (Reynard et al. 2016; Zwoliński et al. 2018), the relevance of their training and expe-
rience (Andrade et al. 2014; Elliott et al. 2018), transparency of criteria and methods (Mucivuna et al. 2019), objectivity of methods used with in- direct spatial or statistical techniques commonly used to remove subjective evaluator input (Crisp et al. 2021), or limited human resources and train- ing (Williams et al. 2020), such as the absence of scholarly literature to support objective decision making in conservation decisions. Other intrinsic factors also influence subjectivity (Brilha 2016), such as:
Values and beliefs shape perceptions and inter- pretations of criteria and methods (Pereira et al. 2007; Brilha 2016; Dede and Zorlu 2023). For ex- ample, an expert evaluator who values the aesthet- ic potential of an area may prioritize preserving geodiversity for its scenic beauty, while another who values its scientific value may promote its preservation for exploration by other scientists.
Cultural values can also influence attitudes and opinions around geoconservation protection (Rey- nard and Giusti 2018). For example, more direct types of cultural significance, such as caves pre- serving paintings and inscriptions, could be priori- tized for conservation over less tangible aspects of cultural history, such as the spiritual significance of an area (Crofts and Gordon 2015; Gray 2019).
Economic and political considerations can also influence geoconservation outcomes (Crisp et al. 2021). For example, the priorities of a government could promote the economic value of a prospec- tive geosite over its geoconservation values.
Therefore, there is an opportunity to evaluate and report on the degree of subjectivity in future geo- conservation. For example, qualitative methods depend mainly on the evaluators who use subjec- tive decisions to select a score for each criterion in a geosite assessment (Ahmadi et al. 2022). Assessing geomorphological sites using subjec- tive geoheritage criteria (Pralong 2005; White
and Wakelin-King 2014) depends largely on the evaluator and their expertise and resources. Some scholars acknowledge the degree of subjectivity in their assessments, such as Ahmadi et al. (2022), who state that the qualitative-quantitative method of questionnaires and analysis of geomorphologic and tectonic structures data had overall low sub- jectivity.
Techniques have been developed to alleviate subjectivity in geodiversity and geoconservation studies (Bruschi et al. 2011; White and Wake- lin-King 2014; Ferrando et al. 2021). For exam- ple, Ferrando et al. (2021) included the analytical hierarchy process and input from 12 experts to assign weightings to parameters used to calculate a geodiversity index, which eliminated subjective personal opinions (Datta and Sarkar 2019; Datta 2020). Stepišnik and Trenchovska (2018) used morphographic mapping and a variety of spatial analyses to evaluate geodiversity, which were combined using an automated modeling approach to reduce subjectivity.
Therefore, evaluating and reporting on the degree of subjectivity could help facilitate the identifica- tion shortfalls in methods and opportunities for improvement, and therefore help shape geoconser- vation management priorities and outcomes. For example, the experience and level of knowledge of authors can be linked to the misuse of concepts and methods (Brilha 2016), and indicating this in a subjectivity evaluation and reporting process could help to identify the need to further validate the application of criteria or value assessments by other experts (Reynard et al. 2016; Zwoliński et al. 2018). For example, expert geomorphologists assessing the cultural or geotourism value of a geoconservation site might overlook key insights informing relevant criteria determinations, and in a worst-case scenario result in the misuse of criteria and exclusion of important geosites from global databases (Brilha 2016), and conversely, the same
would be true if experts in geotourism or cultur- al assessments assess the core scientific values, such as geodiversity, underpinning geoconserva- tion sites. Therefore, evaluating and reporting on varying factors contributing to subjectivities in geoconservation could lead to more informed de- cision-making and enhanced protection of critical geosites.
Here, we develop and explore a novel technique for determining the degree of subjectivity in con- servation efforts, with a focus on geoconservation, through development of a subjectivity evaluation tool and a subjectivity management framework. The ‘subjectivity evaluation tool’ was supplement- ed with a previously developed ‘geoconservation toolkit’ (Crisp et al. 2022a; henceforth referred to as ‘the tool’) to demonstrate the tool's potential to supplement current strategies and enhance conser- vation management priorities and outcomes.
Mountain environments are usually high in geodi- versity and species richness (Antonelli et al. 2018; Gordon 2018; Flantua et al. 2020; Wang and Dai 2020; Chakraborty 2021). Therefore, many re- searchers have endeavored to study and conserve mountain environments through assessment of their geoheritage and geodiversity value (Wil- liams and McHenry 2021; Ahmadi et al. 2022; Somma 2022; Bollati et al. 2023). The Dial Range Residual Ridges geoconservation site (DRRR) near Penguin, Tasmania (Fig. 1) has high scien- tific, aesthetic and conservation value. In 1996, the DRRR was granted geoconservation status by Tasmanian geologist Chris Sharples (Sharples 1996), but no further studies have been conducted since to assess its status (NRE 2021). DRRR com- prises several mountain peaks, with Mt Duncan (680 m, 419140E, 5439189N), Mt Dial (480 m,
Figure 1. A) Current Dial Range Residual Ridges
geoconservation boundary (Data source: (NRE 2021).
B) Distribution of geological units across the Dial Range Residual Ridges geoconservation site (Data source: Mineral
Resources Tasmania 2014).
419663E, 5442252N), and Mount Gnomon (490 m, 418926E, 5441386N) the focus of this study (Fig. 1A). Geological data from Mineral Resource Tasmania (2014) shows a range of diverse geolog- ical elements (Fig. 1B; Table S3). Given the im- portance of mountain environments and the need for their conservation, the DRRR site with its po- tential high scientific, aesthetic, and conservation value (Sharples 2002), diverse geological features (Fig. 1B; Table S3), and lack of recent assessments (Sharples 1996; NRE 2021), provides an ideal lo- cation to explore and implement the novel subjec- tivity evaluation tool developed in this study.
The null hypothesis posits that subjectivity can- not be effectively evaluated in geoconservation efforts. To test the null hypothesis, a novel subjec- tivity evaluation tool was developed (Figs. 2, 3, 4) with seven criteria (C1 to C7) to evaluate the sub- jectivity of the geoconservation toolkit approach (Fig. 2; Table S1):
C1: Evaluated using study site relevant keyword searches in Google Scholar, such as Dial Range, Mount Dial, Mount Gnomon, and Mount Duncan.
C2: The type and context of citations were con- sidered. For example, statements in articles or writing with minimal evidence from the literature were assigned a higher overall subjectivity.
C3: An ORCID search was undertaken, and if unavailable, a background search was complet- ed using the affiliated institutional profiles of scholars. ORCID provides a unique identifier for researchers, ensuring that published works are consistently attributed to the right individual. Therefore, ORCID was used for its standardized approach to verify researcher credentials, publica- tion histories, and experience.
C4: Information captured from the evaluation of C3, and a count of contributing authors, was used to inform C4.
C5: The methodological approach was scruti- nized for overall subjectivities, with high sub- jectivity applied when personal judgement or in- terpretation was required to determine a ranking assessment.
C6: Evaluated by considering whether compo- nents of the methodological approach alleviat- ed some subjectivity, such as the replacement of personal judgment with GIS, statistical, or other approaches.
C7: In this study, the nature of inferences was
Figure 2. Subjectivity evaluation tool process using evaluation criteria (C1 to C7) for determining degrees of subjectivity in geoconservation strategies or geodiversity assessments.
explanatory and mostly qualitative; hence, higher overall subjectivity was attributed to this criterion.
The tool was amalgamated as an additional step in the Crisp et al. (2022a) geoconservation toolkit approach (Fig 3; Fig S1), which used three Arc- GIS mobile applications – QuickCapture, Sur- vey123, and Explorer – to consolidate the Serrano and Ruiz-Flaño (2007) geodiversity assessment index and the Brilha (2016) interpretation of a geoconservation strategy to streamline the assess- ment of geodiversity and geoconservation values. In the geoconservation toolkit approach, ArcGIS Survey123 was used to facilitate both the geoher- itage and geodiversity assessments. QuickCapture provided a streamlined interface to capture geodi- versity information and locations, while Explorer
facilitated field access to pre-established maps and other spatial data.
In this study, the tool replaced the functions of QuickCapture and Explorer with ArcGIS Field- Maps. FieldMaps allowed both viewing and vali- dation of existing geoconservation site boundaries and the acquisition of location data for individual geodiversity components (Fig 4). Like the geo- conservation toolkit, in this study Survey123 was also used for the geodiversity assessment, geocon- servation strategy, and now the subjectivity evalu- ation step (Fig 3; Fig S1).
Available sources of information, such as the Tas- manian Geoconservation Database (https://nre. tas.gov.au/conservation/geoconservation/tasma- nian-geoconservation-database#AccessingtheDa-
tabase), were explored for relevant information before implementation of the tool (Brilha 2016). A Samsung Galaxy A12 device was used to im- plement the tool (Fig. 3) given its affordable $150
– $250AUD price range, extended 5000mAh battery life, acceptable camera quality of 48MP, Octa-core CPU and 4GB RAM to sufficiently op- erate the ArcGIS mobile applications. Future re-
Figure 3. The subjectivity evaluation tool as it appeared using the ArcGIS Survey123 digital application.
search could benefit from using tablets, such as the Samsung Galaxy Tab series, given their larger screen size for data entry, improved camera quali- ty, and advanced CPU/GPU performance to pow- er applications more efficiently. Details on steps preceding subjectivity evaluation in the tool (Figs 2, 3) are provided by Crisp et al. (2022a). The cri- teria for subjectivity analysis were evaluated at the geoconservation site (Fig. 2); the required detail to rank the criteria effectively (Table S1) was provid- ed in-field by the Survey123 application (Fig. 3).
The digital version of the Mineral Resources Tas- mania (2014) geological map was imported into FieldMaps to help inform attribute population during the in-field spatial acquisition of geodi- versity data (Fig. S1). Geodiversity data were
captured opportunistically using a randomized observation-based approach previously adopted by Crisp et al. (2022a,b), where the sites were explored on foot while simultaneously gathering geological information in the absence of estab- lished transects or quadrats. Any incorrect or un- verified attributes captured in the field were sub- sequently amended during analysis (Fig. 4B, C). To assess geoconservation values at DRRR, the geoheritage assessment criteria were ranked from 1 to 5 using the conditions outlined in Table S4.
A subjectivity management framework was de- veloped to provide informed and specific subjec- tivity mitigation actions for subsequent research
Figure 4. Field Maps used for viewing and validation of existing geoconservation site boundaries and the acquisition of location data for individual geodiversity components A) Geoconservation site boundary as it appeared in the field using ArcGIS FieldMaps B) Screen for capturing geodiversity location and attributes. C) Screen for viewing and editing existing points and attributes.
Figure 5. Categorization of management priorities and outcomes for varying degrees of subjectivity based on elevated subjectivity evaluation criteria. Grade E results from three or more subjectivity evaluation criteria exceeding or equal to a ranking value of 3; Grade D results from instances in conservation endeavors with limited relevant resourcing and literature; Grade C results from conservation endeavors with meager interdisciplinary engagement or expertise; Grade B results from conservation endeavors supported by only subjective methodological processes; Grade A results from circumstances were all subjectivity evaluation criteria are below or equal to 2 (Flow chart structure inspired by ©Template Lab design).
(Fig. 5). The grades in the subjectivity framework were developed from the overarching themes ob- served in the subjectivity evaluation criteria (Fig. 2; Table S1), including subjective methodological processes (C5 and C6 ≥ 3), limited interdisciplin- ary engagement (C3 and C4 ≥ 3), limited resourc- es or literature (C1 and C2 ≥ 3), or multiple higher subjective factors with three or more high-ranking criteria (C1 to C7 ≥ 3). Mitigation actions for each grade were then proposed. For example, Grade A indicates scenarios with low to very low subjec- tivity based on all parameters (C1 to C7 in Table S1), with no further management actions suggest- ed. Conversely, Grade E indicates management actions for scenarios with several high-ranking
subjectivity parameters (C1 to C7 ≥ 3), including enhanced interdisciplinary engagement or adop- tion of more objective approaches such as spatial analytical techniques (Crisp et al. 2021) or the an- alytical hierarchy process (Ferrando et al. 2021).
The subjectivity evaluation tool implemented at the DRRR sites resulted in highly subjective outcomes for geodiversity and geoconservation assessments (Fig. 6; Table S2). There were vary- ing degrees of subjectivity for each criterion, but there was no very low subjectivity or very high
Figure 6. Subjectivity evaluation tool outcome for the implementation of the Crisp et al. (2022a) geoconservation toolkit at the Dial Range Residual Ridges geoconservation site.
subjectivity assigned. C1 and C3 were the least subjective of all other criteria, with relevance of literature (C2), interdisciplinary engagement (C4), and methodological approach (C5–C7) criteria as the most subjective.
Geoconservation Value Outcomes The average scientific value was highest for Mt. Gnomon and Mt. Duncan (3.4), and lowest for Mt. Dial (2.1) (Table 1). The scientific value criterion, scien- tific knowledge, was the lowest ranking for all three sites with a consistent ranking value of 1. Conversely, key locality, was the highest-ranking scientific criterion for Mt. Gnomon, degradation for Mt. Dial, and representativeness and visibility for Mt. Duncan, as its geodiversity features were clear, prominent, and distinctive. Mounts Dial and Gnomon received the highest ranking for the deg- radation criterion as there was little evidence of human impact, erosion, or weathering, and any degradation would unlikely affect the geoconser- vation value of the area. Conversely, Mt Duncan exhibited relatively significant degradation at- tributed to human impacts.
Tourism value was the highest for Mt. Gnomon and Mt. Duncan (3.9) and lowest for Mt. Dial (3.2), related to proximity to tourist facilities, such as other recreational areas, road networks, restaurants or hotels, and urban areas, due to the close proximity of the Penguin township (Table 1). The tourism criteria, safety and availability of information, were the lowest ranking for all three mountains, due to the lack of adequate signage di- recting tourists to specific paths and information boards about the DRRR site.
The average conservation value was highest for Mt. Gnomon (2.9) followed by Mt. Duncan (2.7) and lowest for Mt. Dial (2.6). The conservation value criteria, settlement proximity and accessibil- ity, were the lowest ranking criteria overall across
all sites. Conversely, the level of deterioration and integrity or intactness was the highest ranking. The high value for integrity and intactness at Mt Gnomon reflects the high quality and uniqueness of the features on the mountain that appear rela- tively unaffected by any human influence.
Geodiversity Assessment Outcomes Mount Gno- mon showed the highest geodiversity (Gd) com- pared to other sites, with a value of 124, followed by Mount Dial with a value of 102 (Table 1). Mount Duncan recorded extensive geological fea- tures (Egf) like Mount Gnomon, however, its vast surface area (SA) of 3.92km2 compared to the other sites significantly reduced its geodiversity.
The geographic distribution of Egf across DRRR is illustrated in Fig. 7, with greatest concentration around Mount Gnomon and Mt Dial attributed to their higher overall Gd and low SA. Mount Dun- can had all Egf types, with 1 hydrological (H)
Figure 7. Distribution of geodiversity points at DRRR captured using ArcGIS Field Maps3.3 Subjectivity management framework.
Table 1. Geoconservation assessment criteria ranking outcomes for scientific, tourism, and conservation values for the DRRR.
Value | Criteria | Ranking value | ||
Scientific criteria | Mt. Gnomon | Mt. Dial | Mt. Duncan | |
Representativeness | 4 | 2 | 5 | |
Key locality | 5 | 2 | 3 | |
Scientific knowledge | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Use limitations | 3 | 2 | 3 | |
Visibility | 3 | 1 | 5 | |
Ecological interest | 4 | 2 | 3 | |
Extensiveness | 3 | 2 | 4 | |
Interpretation | 4 | 3 | 3 | |
Degradation | 4 | 4 | 2 | |
Quality | 4 | 2 | 4 | |
Scientific worth | 3 | 2 | 4 | |
Average scientific value: | 3.4 | 2.1 | 3.4 | |
Tourism criteria | Mt. Gnomon | Mt. Dial | Mt. Duncan | |
Vulnerability | 3 | 2 | 3 | |
Accessibility | 4 | 2 | 2 | |
Safety | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
Logistics | 4 | 3 | 3 | |
Proximity to rec. areas | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
Infrastructure and facilities | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
Aesthetics | 4 | 2 | 5 | |
Viewpoint | 4 | 1 | 5 | |
Degradation | 5 | 4 | 4 | |
Proximity to restaurant/hotel | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
Proximity to urban area | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
Proximity to road networks | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
Availability of information | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
Average tourism value: | 3.9 | 3.2 | 3.9 | |
Conservation criteria | Mt. Gnomon | Mt. Dial | Mt. Duncan | |
Legislative protection | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
Ecological influence | 3 | 3 | 2 | |
Settlement proximity | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Level of deterioration | 4 | 3 | 4 | |
Integrity or intactness | 4 | 3 | 4 | |
Accessibility | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
Conservation status | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
Present use | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
Average conservation value: | 2.9 | 2.6 | 2.7 |
2 soil and stratigraphy (SS), 4 geomorphologi- cal (Gm), and 7 geological (Gl). The two H fea- tures counted were the Duncan River (Fig. S2A) and an upstream rock pool (Fig. S2B). Several
Gl features were noted around DRRR, includ- ing bedrocks of coarse-grained sandstone (Fig. S3B), pebble-cobble siliciclastic conglomerates (Fig. S3A), planar fracturing joints in sandstone
and chert clasts (Fig. S4), and others (Table S3). Various geomorphic features were also observed, including prominent cliffs, mass wasting talus and scree features, fluvial erosion, and evidence of tectonic uplifting events, such as the prominent peaks observed around Mt Duncan (Fig. S5). SS appeared homogenous around DRRR, apparently shallow and rocky in most areas (Fig. S6B) and pale brown with possible low organic matter con- tent (Fig. S6A).
Owing to the high subjectivity of the tool at DRRR based on several high-ranking parameters (Fig. 6; Table S1), the subjectivity framework indicated that Category E management measures were required to mitigate subjectivity for future conservation efforts in subject research. These include interdisciplinary engagement of expert stakeholders using objective hierarchical methods, combined with remote sens- ing or GIS statistical validation (Fig. 5).
We have developed a novel subjectivity evalua- tion tool and a subjectivity management frame- work with a focus on geoconservation using the Crisp et al. (2022a) geoconservation toolkit ap- proach. As a case study, the novel subjectivity evaluation tool was implemented at a northwest Tasmanian mountain range geoconservation site, the Dial Range Residual Ridges, a previously little studied site.
The results of this study indicate that the assess- ment of geoconservation and geodiversity values at DRRR is highly influenced by subjective fac- tors (Fig. 6), and further research is needed for data validation and substantiation (Fig. 6).
While there is evidence suggesting a connection between geodiversity and biodiversity (Parks and Mulligan 2010; Hjort et al. 2012; Bailey et al.
2017), and the role geodiversity can play in the functioning of ecosystems and the services they provide (Edwards et al. 2014), this relationship remains complex and not uniformly linear across all regions, with other factors like climate and al- titude also influencing biodiversity (Read et al. 2020; Ren et al. 2021). Therefore, the results of the geoconservation assessment (Table 1) could offer reasonable insights into the ecological sig- nificance of Mounts Gnomon and Dial, evidenced also by the growing inclusion of geodiversity in conservation endeavors (Comer et al. 2015; Pel- litero et al. 2015; Ren et al. 2021). The geodiversi- ty (Table 2) and geoconservation values (Table 1) of an area could also assist stakeholders in making informed management decisions. For example, areas with high geodiversity that are also vulner- able to human influence and degradation warrant priority conservation over regions with high geo- diversity but minimal human impact (Crisp et al. 2022a).
The scarcity of recent and relevant literature re- garding the DRRR site (refer to C1 and C2 in Fig. 6) heightened the subjectivity of the study (Fig. 6). The lack of reference materials resulted in a strong reliance on individual interpretations and judg- ments, which may have introduced bias or imped- ed the ability to compare and validate the results (Pereira et al. 2007; Brilha 2016; Dede and Zor- lu 2023). The evaluation of geoconservation and geodiversity involves interdisciplinary input from fields such as soil science, geomorphology, geol- ogy, hydrology, and physical and human geogra- phy. However, the limited involvement of experts from multiple disciplines in the implementation of the tool (refer C4 in Fig. 6) further compound- ed overall subjectivity. Therefore, further study could benefit from a more diverse range of expert perspectives (Bruschi et al. 2011; Ferrando et al. 2021). The Crisp et al. (2022a) method required
Table 2. Geodiversity parameters and values for Mounts Dial, Gnomon, and Duncan.
Value | Parameter sub-type | Geodiversity parameter |
Mount Gnomon | ||
15 | Number of geological features (Egf) | |
10 | Geological | |
4 | Geomorphological (erosional or accumulation landform) | |
0 | Hydrological | |
1 | Soil and stratigraphy | |
4 | Roughness (R) | |
1.62 | Surface area km2 (SA) | |
124 | Total geodiversity: | Geodiversity (Gd) |
(Very high) | ||
Mount Dial | ||
10 | Number of geological features (Egf) | |
7 | Geological | |
2 | Geomorphological (erosional or accumulation landform) | |
0 | Hydrological | |
1 | Soil and stratigraphy | |
4 | Roughness (R) | |
1.48 | Surface area km2 (SA) | |
102 | Total geodiversity: | Geodiversity (Gd) |
(Very high) | ||
Mount Duncan | ||
14 | Number of geological features (Egf) | |
6 | Geological | |
4 | Geomorphological (erosional or accumulation landform) | |
2 | Hydrological | |
Soil and stratigraphy | ||
3 | 2 | Roughness (R) |
3.93 | Surface area km2 (SA) | |
31 | Total geodiversity: | Geodiversity (Gd) |
(Medium) |
significant personal judgment to rank and evaluate geoconservation criteria (refer to C5 in Fig. 6). To reduce this subjectivity, alternative more objective methods, such as the Bruschi et al. (2011) method, which uses statistical techniques to validate ex- perts' criteria rankings in geoheritage assessments, or the Ferrando et al. (2021) method, which em- ploys the analytical hierarchy process to incorpo-
rate expert insights into geodiversity assessments, could be adopted (refer to C6 in Fig. 6). Therefore, the evaluation tool indicated high subjectivity for all parameters except criterion 2 (refer C1–C7 in Fig. 6), thus reducing confidence in the inferences (refer C7 in Fig. 6) regarding geodiversity and geoconservation values at DRRR. Future research is therefore required to validate data acquired,
otherwise there is possibility that high subjectiv- ity (Fig. 6) could result in important areas within DRRR, geoconservation values, or geodiversity elements being overlooked due to ambiguity in criteria, personal biases, and lack of transparency in methods (Brilha 2016; Mucivuna et al. 2019).
The highly subjective tool implemented at DRRR attributed to several high-ranking parameters (Fig. 6; Table S1), necessitates the use of Category E management measures to address the significant subjectivity concerns (Fig. 5). The framework suggests adoption of extensive interdisciplinary collaboration involving experts in Tasmanian geology, geoheritage, and related fields. Further- more, subsequent research recommends the adop- tion of more objective methodological approaches. Hence, a comprehensive approach that integrates spatial analytical tools, remote sensing, and field mapping techniques could serve as a reliable and objective means of future research (Stepišnik and Trenchovska 2018). Overall, the evaluation tool (Fig. 2) and framework (Fig. 5) have provid- ed a clear pathway for transition from Category E subjective management measures to Catego- ry A in subsequent research. Therefore, achiev- ing Category A in subsequent research at DRRR could mean reduction in the degree of individual judgement and therefore bias in decision-making (Pereira et al. 2007; Brilha 2016; Dede and Zorlu 2023), increased clarity in decisions for conser- vation priorities and planning (Brilha 2016; Mu- civuna et al. 2019), and increased confidence in data used to substantiate conservation decisions (Burgman 2001; Margoluis et al. 2009; Cook et al. 2010; Cook and Hockings 2011; Carranza et al. 2014; Datta and Sarkar 2019; Datta 2020).
There are several avenues for research related to the subjectivity evaluation tool and management framework. Firstly, further research could ex-
plore the impacts of stakeholder engagement on reducing subjectivity in assessments. Secondly, additional studies could examine the impacts of temporal and spatial scales on subjectivity, par- ticularly about the assessment of geodiversity and geoconservation. Thirdly, research could in- vestigate the role of uncertainty in subjectivity in conservation decision-making, particularly in sit- uations where there is limited data or incomplete knowledge of the site. Lastly, future studies could apply the subjectivity evaluation tool and manage- ment framework to other fields beyond conser- vation, such as urban planning or environmental management. In addition, further expert input, in the form of a technical working group or confer- ence, could investigate the intricacies within each parameter and then amend accordingly based on overall consensus. For instance, qualifications and experience are commonly used to evaluate exper- tise and knowledge, as was also the case in C3 of the evaluation tool (Fig. 2; Table S1). However, such criteria may not always reflect the reliability and consistency of individual judgements (Cooke and Goossens 2008; Martin et al. 2012). Thus, seeking consensus and input from experts through further review of the tool could help address any underlying complexities in the criteria used to de- termine subjectivity, such as the expertise of eval- uators.
This study developed a novel subjectivity evalua- tion tool and management framework with a focus on geoconservation using the Crisp et al. (2022a) geoconservation toolkit approach, at the northwest Tasmanian Dial Range Residual Ridges geocon- servation site. The results of this study demon- strate that the subjectivity evaluation tool was successful in identifying factors hindering geo- conservation management outcomes. The geocon- servation toolkit showed high geodiversity values for Mounts Gnomon (124) and Dial (102), while
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest associated with this study.
Mount Duncan had moderate values (31). Mounts Gnomon and Duncan ranked highest overall for scientific (3.4, 3.4), tourism (3.9, 3.9), and conser- vation (2.9 2.7) values. However, the subjectivity evaluation tool showed that the assessment of geo- diversity and geoconservation was highly influ- enced by subjective factors, including the absence of recent and relevant scholarly literature, limited interdisciplinary engagement, and subjective per- sonal judgment. Therefore, the framework showed that Category E management measures of interdis- ciplinary engagement of expert stakeholders using objective hierarchical methods, combined with remote sensing or GIS statistical validation were required to mitigate the high degree of subjectivi- ty of the tool at DRRR. To achieve Category A in subsequent research, the framework recommended several steps such as engagement of experts from multiple interdisciplinary backgrounds for future assessments, as well as the adoption of methods which reduce the degree of individual judgment, such as remote sensing and GIS. The subjectivity evaluation tool and management framework de- veloped has global implications, for improvement in subjectivity management in geoconservation assessment, to allow better alignment of compari- sons between practitioners and sites.
Jake Crisp (70%) - Conception of idea, re- search planning including fieldwork, figure production, and writing, and preparation of manuscript for submission in Geoconserva- tion Research.
Joanna Ellison (30%) - Review the manu- script, addition of some references, and re- write some areas of the manuscript ready for publication.
Ahmadi M, Derafshi K, Mokhtari D, et al. (2022) Geodiversity assessments and geoconservation in the Northwest of Zagros Mountain Range, Iran: Grid and fuzzy method analysis. Geoher- itage. 14: 132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-
022-00769-7
Anderson MG, Comer PJ, Beier P, et al. (2015) Case studies of conservation plans that incor- porate geodiversity. Conservation Biology. 29:
680–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12503
Andrade K, Corbin C, Diver S, et al. (2014) Find- ing your way in the interdisciplinary forest: notes on educating future conservation prac- titioners. Biodiversity and Conservation. 23: 3405–3423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-
014-0818-z
Antonelli A, Kissling WD, Flantua SG, et al. (2018) Geological and climatic influences on mountain biodiversity. Nature Geoscience. 11: 718–725. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-
0236-z
Bailey JJ, Boyd DS, Hjort J, et al. (2017) Mod- elling native and alien vascular plant species richness: At which scales is geodiversity most relevant? Global Ecology and Biogeogra- phy. 26: 763–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/ geb.12574
Bajala V, Rishi MS, Kaur L, et al. (2022) Assess- ment of geodiversity of Parbati River Basin in North-Western Himalayan region, India. Geo- carto International. 37: 13797–13811. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2022.2082557
Barančoková M, Hutárová D, Nikolaj M (2023). Quantitative assessment of geodiversity for conservation purposes in Slovenské rudohorie Mountains (Slovakia). Land. 12: 1650. https:// doi.org/10.3390/land12091650
Bennett NJ (2016). Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology. 30: 582–
592. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12681
Bétard F and Peulvast J-P (2019) Geodiversity hotspots: Concept, method and cartographic application for geoconservation purposes at a regional scale. Environmental Management 63: 822–834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-
019-01168-5
Bollati IM, Viani C, Masseroli A, et al. (2023). Geodiversity of proglacial areas and impli-
cations for geosystem services: A review. Geomorphology. 421: 108517. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2022.108517
Brilha J (2016). Inventory and quantitative as- sessment of geodiversity sites: A review. Geo- heritage. 8: 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-014-0139-3
Bruschi VM, Cendrero A, Albertos JAC (2011). A statistical approach to the validation and optimisation of geoheritage assessment pro- cedures. Geoheritage. 3: 131–149. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12371-011-0038-9
Bryce R, Irvine KN, Church A, et al. (2016). Sub- jective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. 2: 258–269. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.015
Burgman MA (2001). Flaws in subjective assess- ments of ecological risks and means for cor- recting them. Australian Journal of Environ- mental Management. 8: 219–226. https://doi. org/10.1080/14486563.2001.10648532
Carranza T, Manica A, Kapos V, et al. (2014). Mismatches between conservation outcomes and management evaluation in protected areas: A case study in the Brazilian Cerrado. Bio- logical Conservation. 173: 10–16. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.03.004
Chakraborty A (2021). Mountains as vulnerable places: a global synthesis of changing moun- tain systems in the Anthropocene. GeoJournal. 86: 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-
019-10079-1
Chakraborty A, Mokudai K (2018). Challeng- es for Geoconservation in Contemporary Ja- pan. In: Natural Heritage of Japan. Geoheri- tage, Geoparks and Geotourism. Springer, pp. 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
61896-8_13
Chmara-Huff F (2014). Marine protected ar-
eas: territorializing objects and subjectivities. EchoGéo. 29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/ echogeo.14040.
Comer PJ, Pressey RL, Hunter JR. ML, et al. (2015). Incorporating geodiversity into con- servation decisions. Conservation Biology. 29: 692–701. https://doi.org/10.4000/echo- geo.14040
Cook CN, Hockings M (2011). Opportunities for improving the rigor of management ef- fectiveness evaluations in protected areas. Conservation Letters. 4: 372–382. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00189.x
Cook CN, Hockings M, Carter R (2010). Con- servation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 8: 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1890/090020
Cooke RM., Goossens LL (2008). TU Delft ex- pert judgment data base. Reliability Engineer- ing & System Safety. 93: 657–674. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ress.2007.03.005
Crisp J, Ellison J, Fischer A (2022a). Digital coalescence and consolidated geoconserva- tion outcomes: A case study using ArcGIS mobile applications at Tasmanian coastal geoconservation sites. Geoconservation Re- search. 5: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.30486/ gcr.2021.1920096.1079
Crisp J, Ellison JC, Fischer A (2022b). Omnidi- versity consolidation of conservation assess- ment: A Case study of Tasmanian Coastal Geoconservation Sites. Geoconservation Re- search. 5: 108–134. https://doi.org/10.30486/ gcr.2022.1947195.1099
Crisp JR, Ellison JC, Fischer A (2021). Current trends and future directions in quantitative geo- diversity assessment. Progress in Physical Ge- ography: Earth and Environment. 45: 514–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133320967219
Crofts R, Gordon J (2015). Chapter 18: Geocon- servation in protected areas. In: Protected Area Governance and Management. Canberra: ANU Press.
Datta K (2020). Application of SWOT-TOWS ma- trix and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in the formulation of geoconservation and geotourism development strategies for mama bhagne pahar: An important geomorphosite in West Bengal, India. Geoheritage. 12: 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00467-2
Datta K, Sarkar S (2019). Calculation of area, mapping and vulnerability assessment of a geomorphosite from GPS survey and high res- olution Google Earth satellite image: a study in Mama Bhagne Pahar, Dubrajpur CD block, Birbhum district, West Bengal. Spatial Infor- mation Research. 27: 521–528. https://doi. org/10.1007/s41324-019-00249-1
Dede V, Zorlu K (2023). Geoheritage assess- ment with entropy-based WASPAS approach: an analysis on Karçal Mountains (Turkey). Geoheritage. 15: 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-022-00777-7
Edwards DP, Tobias JA, Sheil D, et al. (2014). Maintaining ecosystem function and services in logged tropical forests. Trends in Ecol- ogy & Evolution. 29: 511–520. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.07.003
Elkaichi A, Errami E, Patel N (2021). Quantitative assessment of the geodiversity of M’Goun UN- ESCO Geopark, Central High Atlas (Moroc- co). Arabian Journal of Geosciences. 14: 2829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-09235-0
Elliott L, Ryan M, Wyborn C (2018). Global patterns in conservation capacity develop- ment. Biological Conservation. 221: 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.03.018
Ellis N (2011). The geological conservation review (GCR) in Great Britain—rationale and meth- ods. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Associa-
tion. 122: 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pgeola.2011.03.008
Ferrando A, Faccini F, Paliaga G, et al. (2021). A quantitative GIS and AHP based analysis for geodiversity assessment and mapping. Sus- tainability. 13: 10376. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su131810376
Flantua SG, Payne D, Borregaard MK, et al. (2020). Snapshot isolation and isolation history challenge the analogy between mountains and islands used to understand endemism. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 29: 1651–1673. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13155
Forte JP, Brilha J, Pereira DI, et al. (2018). Kernel density applied to the quantitative assessment of geodiversity. Geoheritage. 10: 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0282-3
Garcia M da GM (2019). Ecosystem services pro- vided by geodiversity: Preliminary assessment and perspectives for the sustainable use of nat- ural resources in the coastal region of the State of São Paulo, Southeastern Brazil. Geoheri- tage. 11: 1257–1266. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-019-00383-0
Gordon JE (2018). Mountain geodiversity: Char- acteristics, values and climate change. In Mountains, Climate and Biodiversity. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Gray M (2008). Geodiversity: the origin and evo- lution of a paradigm. Geological Society, Lon- don, Special Publications. 300: 31–36. https:// doi.org/10.1144/SP300.
Gray M (2013). Geodiversity: Valuing and Con- serving Abiotic Nature. Chichester: Wi- ley-Blackwell.
Gray M (2019). Geodiversity, geoheritage and geoconservation for society. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks. 7: 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2019.11.001
Hjort J, Heikkinen RK and Luoto M (2012). In-
clusion of explicit measures of geodiversity improve biodiversity models in a boreal land- scape. Biodiversity and Conservation. 21: 3487–3506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-
012-0376-1
Hjort J, Gordon JE, Gray M, et al. (2015). Why geodiversity matters in valuing nature’s stage. Conservation Biology. 29: 630–639. https:// doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12510
Hjort J, Tukiainen H, Salminen H, et al. (2022). A methodological guide to observe local-scale geodiversity for biodiversity research and man- agement. Journal of Applied Ecolog. 59: 1756– 1768.https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14183
Ibáñez J-J, Brevik EC, Cerdà A (2019). Geodiver- sity and geoheritage: Detecting scientific and geographic biases and gaps through a biblio- metric study. Science of The Total Environment
.659: 1032–1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sci- totenv.2018.12.443
Lawler JJ, Ackerly DD, Albano CM, et al. (2015). The theory behind, and the challenges of, con- serving nature’s stage in a time of rapid change. Conservation Biology. 29: 618–629. https:// doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12505
Manosso FC, Zwoliński Zb, Najwer A, et al. (2021). Spatial pattern of geodiversity as- sessment in the Marrecas River drainage basin, Paraná, Brazil. Ecological Indica- tors. 126: 107703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2021.107703
Margoluis R, Stem C, Salafsky N, et al. (2009). Design alternatives for evaluating the im- pact of conservation projects. New Direc- tions for Evaluation. 2009: 85–96. https://doi. org/10.1002/ev.298
Martin TG, Burgman MA, Fidler F, et al. (2012). Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation sci- ence. Conservation Biology. 26: 29–38. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01806.x
Micić Ponjiger T, Lukić T, Vasiljević ÐA, et al. (2021). Quantitative geodiversity assessment of the Fruška Gora Mt.(North Serbia) by using the geodiversity index. Geoheritage. 13: 61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00572-w
Mineral Resources Tasmania (2014) Structure of Datasets - Mineral Resources Tasmania. Avail- able at: https://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/products/ digital_data (accessed 12 November 2022).
Mucivuna V, Reynard E, Garcia M (2019). Geo- morphosites assessment methods: Compar- ative analysis and typology. Geoheritage. 11: 1799–1815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-
019-00394-x
Németh B, Németh K, Procter JN, et al. (2021). Geoheritage conservation: Systematic map- ping study for conceptual synthesis. Geoher- itage. 13: 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371- 021-00561-z
NRE (2021). Tasmanian Geoconservation Da- tabase (Natural Values Atlas: Geodiversity). Available at: https://www.thelist.tas.gov.au/ app/content/data/geo-meta-data-record?detail- RecordUID=84153191-3d32-4dad-9b85-7ec1 118b64d6 (accessed 12 November 2022).
Orsi A (2014). Geodiversity and land degradation in Hungary. In: EGU General Assembly Con- ference Abstracts, Vienna, Austria 2014.
Özşahin E (2017). Geodiversity assessment in the Ganos (Isıklar) Mount (NW Turkey). Envi- ronmental Earth Sciences. 76: 271. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12665-017-6591-z
Parks K, Mulligan M (2010). On the relationship between a resource based measure of geodiver- sity and broad scale biodiversity patterns. Bio- diversity and Conservation. 19: 2751–2766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9876-z
Pellitero R, Manosso FC, Serrano E (2015). Mid‐ and large-scale geodiversity calculation in Fuentes Carrionas (NW Spain) and Serra do
Cadeado (Paraná, Brazil): methodology and application for land management. Geografis- ka Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography. 97: 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoa.12057
Pereira DI, Pereira P, Brilha J, et al. (2013). Geo- diversity assessment of Paraná State (Brazil): An innovative approach. Environmental Man- agement. 52: 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00267-013-0100-2
Pereira P, Pereira D, Caetano Alves MI (2007). Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho nat- ural park (Portugal). Geographica Helvetica. 62: 159–168. https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-62-
159-2007
Pralong J-P (2005). A method for assessing tour- ist potential and use of geomorphological sites. Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement. 11: 189–196. https://doi. org/10.4000/geomorphologie.350
Prosser CD (2013). Our rich and varied geocon- servation portfolio: the foundation for the fu- ture. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Associa- tion. 124: 568–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pgeola.2012.06.001
Read QD, Zarnetske PL, Record S, et al. (2020). Beyond counts and averages: Relating geodi- versity to dimensions of biodiversity. Glob- al Ecology and Biogeography. 29: 696–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13061
Ren Y, Lü Y, Hu J, et al. (2021). Geodiversity un- derpins biodiversity but the relations can be complex: Implications from two biodiversity proxies. Global Ecology and Conservation .31: e01830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021. e01830
Reynard E, Giusti C (2018). The landscape and the cultural value of geoheritage. In: Geoheri- tage. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0- 12-809531-7.00008-3
Reynard E, Perret A, Bussard J, et al. (2016). In-
tegrated approach for the inventory and man- agement of geomorphological heritage at the regional scale. Geoheritage. 8: 43–60. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0153-0
Rong T, Xu S, Lu Y, et al. (2023). Quantitative Assessment of Spatial Pattern of Geodiversity in the Tibetan Plateau. Sustainability 15(1). 1. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute:
299. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010299
Scammacca O, Bétard F, Aertgeerts G, et al. (2022). Geodiversity assessment of French Guiana: challenges and implications for sus- tainable land planning. Geoheritage 14(3): 83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00716-6
Serrano E, Ruiz-Flaño P (2007) Geodiversi- ty: a theoretical and applied concept. Geo- graphica Helvetica. 62: 140–147. https://doi. org/10.5194/gh-62-140-2007
Sharples C (1996). A reconnaissance of landforms and geological sites of geoconservation signif- icance in the Murchison Forest District. Forest- ry Tasmania.
Sharples C (2002). Concepts and principles of geoconservation. Tasmanian Parks and Wild- life Service.
Somma R (2022). The inventory and quantitative assessment of geodiversity as strategic tools for promoting sustainable geoconservation and geo-education in the Peloritani Mountains (It- aly). Education Sciences. 12: 580. https://doi. org/10.3390/educsci12090580
Soms J (2017). Assessment of geodiversity as tool for environmental management of pro- tected nature areas in south-eastern Latvia. In Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference. 2017. https://doi. org/10.17770/etr2017vol1.2581
Stepišnik U and Trenchovska A (2018) A new quantitative model for comprehensive geo- diversity evaluation: the Škocjan Caves Re-
gional Park, Slovenia. Geoheritage. 10: 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0216-5
Stojilković B (2022). Towards transferable use of terrain ruggedness component in the geodi- versity index. Resources 11(2). 2. Multidisci- plinary Digital Publishing Institute: 22. https:// doi.org/10.3390/resources11020022
Swaim AJ, Maloni MJ, Henley A, et al. (2016). Motivational influences on supply manager environmental sustainability behavior. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 21: 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-07-
2015-0283
Template Lab (2023) Work flow chart. Available at: https://templatelab.com/ (accessed 2 July 2022).
Tukiainen H, Toivanen M and Maliniemi T (2022). Geodiversity and biodiversity. Geological So- ciety of London, Special Publications. https:// doi.org/10.1144/SP530-2022-107
Wang Y, Dai E (2020). Spatial-temporal changes in ecosystem services and the trade-off rela- tionship in mountain regions: A case study of Hengduan Mountain region in Southwest Chi- na. Journal of Cleaner Production. 264: 121573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121573
White S, Wakelin-King G (2014) Earth sci- ences comparative matrix: A comparative method for geoheritage assessment. Geo- graphical Research. 52: 168–181. https://doi. org/10.1111/1745-5871.12062
Williams MA, McHenry MT (2021). Tasmanian reserve geoconservation inventory assessment using Geographic Information Technology (GIT). International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks. 9: 294–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ij- geop.2021.05.001
Williams MA, McHenry MT, Boothroyd A (2020). Geoconservation and geotourism: Challeng- es and unifying themes. Geoheritage. 12: 63.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00492-1 Zakharovskyi V, Németh K (2021). Quantita-
tive-qualitative method for quick assessment of geodiversity. Land. 10: 946. https://doi. org/10.3390/land10090946
Zakharovskyi V, Kósik S, Li B, et al. (2023). Geosite determination based on geodiversity assessment utilizing the volcanic history of a near-sea-level explosive eruption-dominated volcanic island: Tūhua/Mayor Island, New Zealand. Geological Society, London, Spe- cial Publications. 530: 127–140. https://doi. org/10.1144/SP530-2022-90
Zwoliński Z, Najwer A, Giardino M (2018). Meth- ods for assessing geodiversity. In Geoheritage. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12- 809531-7.00002-2