Geoconservation Subjectivity Evaluation: A Case Study of a Management Toolkit

Introduction

Overview

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 (landforms, topography, physical processes), geological (rocks, minerals, fossils), pedological (soil) and hydrological features (Gray 2013). Measuring the significance (Barančoková et al. 2023), distribution (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 geodiversity data, such as geological maps (Zakharovskyi and Németh 2021; Elkaichi et al. 2021; Scammacca et al. 2022), remote sensing information (Stepišnik and Trenchovska 2018; Zakharovskyi and Németh 2021; Rong et al. 2023), or field surveys (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 values 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 geodiversity 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 biodiversity 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 geodiversity for its intrinsic, ecological, and geoheritage value (Sharples 2002; Prosser 2013). A geoconservation strategy is the process used to achieve geoconservation outcomes, such as inventorying, evaluation, conservation, interpretation, and promotion (Brilha 2016). There are conceptual and methodological challenges constraining geoconservation outcomes, such as the prevalent state of methodological development in the relatively recent geodiversity concept (Serrano and Ruiz-Flaño 2007; Soms 2017; Crisp et al. 2021; Nemeth et al. 2021), the exclusivity of geodiversity assessment from geoconservation strategies (Brilha 2016; Crisp et al. 2022b), funding constraints, and the lack of substantive information and conflicting priorities (Chakraborty and Mokudai 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 conservation are supported by centuries of methodological 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 irrelevant sites and the exclusion of important geosites (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 consistent terminologies and processes in geoconservation. 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 assessment of geosites.

Subjectivity in Geoconservation Strategies and Geodiversity Assessment

Subjectivity in methods can present challenges to geoconservation outcomes (White and Wakelin-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 indicate weak methodological approaches, inferences or conservation outcomes. For example, in the case of geodiversity assessments which are quantitative and objective (Crisp et al. 2021), some still exhibit intrinsic subjectivities (Ahmadi et al. 2022), such as the need for judgment of geological, geomorphological, or soil maps often require, with different levels of expertise and experience probably resulting in different interpretation outcomes. In other conservation efforts, the subjective 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 conservation efforts potentially shaping positive behaviors and stewardship in individuals and communities (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 – satisfaction, 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, ambiguous criteria, varying personal values, and poorly defined criteria and methods can lead to the exclusion of important geosites in geoconservation planning and management (Brilha 2016; Mucivuna 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 experience (Andrade et al. 2014; Elliott et al. 2018), transparency of criteria and methods (Mucivuna et al. 2019), objectivity of methods used with indirect spatial or statistical techniques commonly used to remove subjective evaluator input (Crisp et al. 2021), or limited human resources and training (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 interpretations of criteria and methods (Pereira et al. 2007; Brilha 2016; Dede and Zorlu 2023). For example, an expert evaluator who values the aesthetic 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 (Reynard and Giusti 2018). For example, more direct types of cultural significance, such as caves preserving paintings and inscriptions, could be prioritized 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 prospective geosite over its geoconservation values.  

Therefore, there is an opportunity to evaluate and report on the degree of subjectivity in future geoconservation. For example, qualitative methods depend mainly on the evaluators who use subjective decisions to select a score for each criterion in a geosite assessment (Ahmadi et al. 2022). Assessing geomorphological sites using subjective 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 subjectivity.

Techniques have been developed to alleviate subjectivity in geodiversity and geoconservation studies (Bruschi et al. 2011; White and Wakelin-King 2014; Ferrando et al. 2021). For example, 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 identification shortfalls in methods and opportunities for improvement, and therefore help shape geoconservation 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 cultural assessments assess the core scientific values, such as geodiversity, underpinning geoconservation sites. Therefore, evaluating and reporting on varying factors contributing to subjectivities in geoconservation could lead to more informed decision-making and enhanced protection of critical geosites.  

Objectives
Here, we develop and explore a novel technique for determining the degree of subjectivity in conservation efforts, with a focus on geoconservation, through development of a subjectivity evaluation tool and a subjectivity management framework. The ‘subjectivity evaluation tool’ was supplemented 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 conservation management priorities and outcomes.

Materials and Methods

 Study Sites

Mountain environments are usually high in geodiversity and species richness (Antonelli et al. 2018; Gordon 2018; Flantua et al. 2020; Wang and Dai 2020; Chakraborty 2021). Therefore, many researchers have endeavored to study and conserve mountain environments through assessment of their geoheritage and geodiversity value (Williams 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 scientific, 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 comprises several mountain peaks, with Mt Duncan (680 m, 419140E, 5439189N), Mt Dial (480 m, 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 geological elements (Fig. 1B; Table S3). Given the importance of mountain environments and the need for their conservation, the DRRR site with its potential high scientific, aesthetic, and conservation value (Sharples 2006), diverse geological features (Fig. 1B; Table S3), and lack of recent assessments (Sharples 1996; NRE 2021), provides an ideal location to explore and implement the novel subjectivity evaluation tool developed in this study.

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).

Figure 2. Subjectivity evaluation tool process using evaluation criteria (C1 to C7) for determining degrees of subjectivity in geoconservation strategies or geodiversity assessments.

Subjectivity Evaluation Tool

The null hypothesis posits that subjectivity cannot be effectively evaluated in geoconservation efforts. To test the null hypothesis, a novel subjectivity evaluation tool was developed (Figs. 2, 3, 4) with seven criteria (C1 to C7) to evaluate the subjectivity 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 considered. 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 completed 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, publication 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 scrutinized for overall subjectivities, with high subjectivity applied when personal judgement or interpretation was required to determine a ranking assessment.

·         C6: Evaluated by considering whether components of the methodological approach alleviated some subjectivity, such as the replacement of personal judgment with GIS, statistical, or other approaches.

·         C7: In this study, the nature of inferences was explanatory and mostly qualitative; hence, higher overall subjectivity was attributed to this criterion.

Subjectivity Evaluation Amalgamation with Geoconservation Toolkit Approach

The tool was amalgamated as an additional step in the Crisp et al. (2022a) geoconservation toolkit approach (Fig 3; Fig S1), which used three ArcGIS mobile applications – QuickCapture, Survey123, 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 assessment of geodiversity and geoconservation values. In the geoconservation toolkit approach, ArcGIS Survey123 was used to facilitate both the geoheritage and geodiversity assessments. QuickCapture provided a streamlined interface to capture geodiversity 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 FieldMaps. FieldMaps allowed both viewing and validation of existing geoconservation site boundaries and the acquisition of location data for individual geodiversity components (Fig 4). Like the geoconservation toolkit, in this study Survey123 was also used for the geodiversity assessment, geoconservation strategy, and now the subjectivity evaluation step (Fig 3; Fig S1).

Figure 3. The subjectivity evaluation tool as it appeared using the ArcGIS Survey123 digital application.

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.

Implementation of the Amended Geoconservation Toolkit Approach

Available sources of information, such as the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database (https://nre.tas.gov.au/conservation/geoconservation/tasmanian-geoconservation-database#AccessingtheDatabase), were explored for relevant information before implementation of the tool (Brilha 2016). A Samsung Galaxy A12 device was used to implement 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 operate the ArcGIS mobile applications. Future research could benefit from using tablets, such as the Samsung Galaxy Tab series, given their larger screen size for data entry, improved camera quality, and advanced CPU/GPU performance to power applications more efficiently. Details on steps preceding subjectivity evaluation in the tool (Figs 2, 3) are provided by Crisp et al. (2022a). The criteria for subjectivity analysis were evaluated at the geoconservation site (Fig. 2); the required detail to rank the criteria effectively (Table S1) was provided in-field by the Survey123 application (Fig. 3).

The digital version of the Mineral Resources Tasmania (2014) geological map was imported into FieldMaps to help inform attribute population during the in-field spatial acquisition of geodiversity 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 established transects or quadrats. Any incorrect or unverified attributes captured in the field were subsequently 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.

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).

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 Management Framework

A subjectivity management framework was developed to provide informed and specific subjectivity mitigation actions for subsequent research (Fig. 5). The grades in the subjectivity framework were developed from the overarching themes observed in the subjectivity evaluation criteria (Fig. 2; Table S1), including subjective methodological processes (C5 and C6 ≥ 3), limited interdisciplinary engagement (C3 and C4 ≥ 3), limited resources 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 subjectivity based on all parameters (C1 to C7 in Table S1), with no further management actions suggested. Conversely, Grade E indicates management actions for scenarios with several high-ranking subjectivity parameters (C1 to C7 ≥ 3), including enhanced interdisciplinary engagement or adoption of more objective approaches such as spatial analytical techniques (Crisp et al. 2021) or the analytical hierarchy process (Ferrando et al. 2021).

Results

Subjectivity Evaluation Tool Outcomes
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 varying degrees of subjectivity for each criterion, but there was no very low subjectivity or very high 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 Toolkit Outcomes
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, scientific 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 degradation criterion as there was little evidence of human impact, erosion, or weathering, and any degradation would unlikely affect the geoconservation value of the area. Conversely, Mt Duncan exhibited relatively significant degradation attributed to human impacts.

Table 1. Geoconservation assessment criteria ranking outcomes for scientific, tourism, and conservation values for the DRRR.

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 directing 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 accessibility, 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 relatively unaffected by any human influence.

Geodiversity Assessment Outcomes Mount Gnomon showed the highest geodiversity (Gd) compared to other sites, with a value of 124, followed by Mount Dial with a value of 102 (Table 1). Mount Duncan recorded extensive geological features (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 Duncan had all Egf types, with 1 hydrological (H) 2 soil and stratigraphy (SS), 4 geomorphological (Gm), and 7 geological (Gl). The two H features counted were the Duncan River (Fig. S2A) and an upstream rock pool (Fig. S2B). Several Gl features were noted around DRRR, including 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 content (Fig. S6A).

Figure 7.  Distribution of geodiversity points at DRRR captured using ArcGIS Field Maps3.3 Subjectivity management framework.

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 sensing or GIS statistical validation (Fig. 5).

Discussion

We have developed a novel subjectivity evaluation tool and a subjectivity management framework with a focus on geoconservation using the Crisp et al. (2022a) geoconservation toolkit approach. 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.

Exploring Geodiversity and Geoconservation at DRRR

The results of this study indicate that the assessment of geoconservation and geodiversity values at DRRR is highly influenced by subjective factors (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 altitude 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 significance of Mounts Gnomon and Dial, evidenced also by the growing inclusion of geodiversity in conservation endeavors (Comer et al. 2015; Pellitero et al. 2015; Ren et al. 2021). The geodiversity (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 vulnerable to human influence and degradation warrant priority conservation over regions with high geodiversity but minimal human impact (Crisp et al. 2022a).

Table 2. Geodiversity parameters and values for Mounts Dial, Gnomon, and Duncan.

Subjectivity Assessment and Reporting

The scarcity of recent and relevant literature regarding 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 judgments, which may have introduced bias or impeded the ability to compare and validate the results (Pereira et al. 2007; Brilha 2016; Dede and Zorlu 2023). The evaluation of geoconservation and geodiversity involves interdisciplinary input from fields such as soil science, geomorphology, geology, hydrology, and physical and human geography. However, the limited involvement of experts from multiple disciplines in the implementation of the tool (refer C4 in Fig. 6) further compounded 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 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 experts' criteria rankings in geoheritage assessments, or the Ferrando et al. (2021) method, which employs the analytical hierarchy process to incorporate 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 subjectivity (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).

Enhanced Geoconservation Management and Future Research Directions

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. Furthermore, subsequent research recommends the adoption 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 provided a clear pathway for transition from Category E subjective management measures to Category A in subsequent research. Therefore, achieving 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 conservation priorities and planning (Brilha 2016; Mucivuna 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 explore the impacts of stakeholder engagement on reducing subjectivity in assessments. Secondly, additional studies could examine the impacts of temporal and spatial scales on subjectivity, particularly about the assessment of geodiversity and geoconservation. Thirdly, research could investigate the role of uncertainty in subjectivity in conservation decision-making, particularly in situations where there is limited data or incomplete knowledge of the site. Lastly, future studies could apply the subjectivity evaluation tool and management framework to other fields beyond conservation, such as urban planning or environmental management. In addition, further expert input, in the form of a technical working group or conference, 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 expertise 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 determine subjectivity, such as the expertise of evaluators.

Conclusion

This study developed a novel subjectivity evaluation 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 geoconservation site. The results of this study demonstrate that the subjectivity evaluation tool was successful in identifying factors hindering geoconservation management outcomes. The geoconservation toolkit showed high geodiversity values for Mounts Gnomon (124) and Dial (102), while 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 conservation (2.9 2.7) values. However, the subjectivity evaluation tool showed that the assessment of geodiversity and geoconservation was highly influenced by subjective factors, including the absence of recent and relevant scholarly literature, limited interdisciplinary engagement, and subjective personal judgment. Therefore, the framework showed that Category E management measures of interdisciplinary engagement of expert stakeholders using objective hierarchical methods, combined with remote sensing or GIS statistical validation were required to mitigate the high degree of subjectivity 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 developed has global implications, for improvement in subjectivity management in geoconservation assessment, to allow better alignment of comparisons between practitioners and sites.

Authors’ contribution:

Jake Crisp (70%) - Conception of idea, research planning including fieldwork, figure production, and writing, and preparation of manuscript for submission in Geoconservation Research.

Joanna Ellison (30%) - Review the manuscript, addition of some references, and re-write some areas of the manuscript ready for publication.

The supplementary file of the article was uploaded as a separate file

References

 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. Geoheritage. 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 incorporate geodiversity. Conservation Biology. 29: 680–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12503

Andrade K, Corbin C, Diver S, et al. (2014) Finding your way in the interdisciplinary forest: notes on educating future conservation practitioners. 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) Modelling native and alien vascular plant species richness: At which scales is geodiversity most relevant? Global Ecology and Biogeography. 26: 763–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12574

Bajala V, Rishi MS, Kaur L, et al. (2022) Assessment of geodiversity of Parbati River Basin in North-Western Himalayan region, India. Geocarto 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 implications for geosystem services: A review. Geomorphology. 421: 108517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2022.108517

Brilha J (2016). Inventory and quantitative assessment of geodiversity sites: A review. Geoheritage. 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 procedures. Geoheritage. 3: 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-011-0038-9

Bryce R, Irvine KN, Church A, et al. (2016). Subjective 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 assessments of ecological risks and means for correcting them. Australian Journal of Environmental 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. Biological 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 mountain systems in the Anthropocene. GeoJournal. 86: 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10079-1

Chakraborty A, Mokudai K (2018). Challenges for Geoconservation in Contemporary Japan. In: Natural Heritage of Japan. Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism. Springer, pp. 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61896-8_13

Chmara-Huff F (2014). Marine protected areas: 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 conservation decisions. Conservation Biology. 29: 692–701. https://doi.org/10.4000/echogeo.14040

Cook CN, Hockings M (2011). Opportunities for improving the rigor of management effectiveness 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). Conservation 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 expert judgment data base. Reliability Engineering & 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 geoconservation outcomes: A case study using ArcGIS mobile applications at Tasmanian coastal geoconservation sites. Geoconservation Research. 5: 1–28.  https://doi.org/10.30486/gcr.2021.1920096.1079  

Crisp J, Ellison JC, Fischer A (2022b). Omnidiversity consolidation of conservation assessment: A Case study of Tasmanian Coastal Geoconservation Sites. Geoconservation Research. 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 geodiversity assessment. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment. 45: 514–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133320967219

Crofts R, Gordon J (2015). Chapter 18: Geoconservation in protected areas. In: Protected Area Governance and Management. Canberra: ANU Press.

Datta K (2020). Application of SWOT-TOWS matrix 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 resolution Google Earth satellite image: a study in Mama Bhagne Pahar, Dubrajpur CD block, Birbhum district, West Bengal. Spatial Information Research. 27: 521–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41324-019-00249-1

Dede V, Zorlu K (2023). Geoheritage assessment 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 Ecology & 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 UNESCO Geopark, Central High Atlas (Morocco). 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 development. 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 methods. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association. 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. Sustainability. 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 provided by geodiversity: Preliminary assessment and perspectives for the sustainable use of natural resources in the coastal region of the State of São Paulo, Southeastern Brazil. Geoheritage. 11: 1257–1266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00383-0

Gordon JE (2018). Mountain geodiversity: Characteristics, values and climate change. In Mountains, Climate and Biodiversity. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Gray M (2008). Geodiversity: the origin and evolution of a paradigm. Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 300: 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP300.

Gray M (2013). Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. Chichester: Wiley-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). Inclusion of explicit measures of geodiversity improve biodiversity models in a boreal landscape. 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 management. Journal of Applied Ecolog. 59: 1756–1768. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14183

Ibáñez J-J, Brevik EC, Cerdà A (2019). Geodiversity and geoheritage: Detecting scientific and geographic biases and gaps through a bibliometric study. Science of The Total Environment .659: 1032–1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.443

Lawler JJ, Ackerly DD, Albano CM, et al. (2015). The theory behind, and the challenges of, conserving 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 assessment in the Marrecas River drainage basin, Paraná, Brazil. Ecological Indicators. 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 impact of conservation projects. New Directions 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 science. 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. Available at: https://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/products/digital_data (accessed 12 November 2022).

Mucivuna V, Reynard E, Garcia M (2019). Geomorphosites assessment methods: Comparative 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 mapping study for conceptual synthesis. Geoheritage. 13: 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00561-z

NRE (2021). Tasmanian Geoconservation Database (Natural Values Atlas: Geodiversity). Available at: https://www.thelist.tas.gov.au/app/content/data/geo-meta-data-record?detailRecordUID=84153191-3d32-4dad-9b85-7ec1118b64d6 (accessed 12 November 2022).

Orsi A (2014). Geodiversity and land degradation in Hungary. In: EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, Vienna, Austria 2014.

Özşahin E (2017). Geodiversity assessment in the Ganos (Isıklar) Mount (NW Turkey). Environmental 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 geodiversity and broad scale biodiversity patterns. Biodiversity 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. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography. 97: 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoa.12057

Pereira DI, Pereira P, Brilha J, et al. (2013). Geodiversity assessment of Paraná State (Brazil): An innovative approach. Environmental Management. 52: 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0100-2

Pereira P, Pereira D, Caetano Alves MI (2007). Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho natural park (Portugal). Geographica Helvetica. 62: 159–168. https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-62-159-2007

Pralong J-P (2005). A method for assessing tourist 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 geoconservation portfolio: the foundation for the future. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association. 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 geodiversity to dimensions of biodiversity. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 29: 696–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13061

Ren Y, Lü Y, Hu J, et al. (2021). Geodiversity underpins 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: Geoheritage. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00008-3

Reynard E, Perret A, Bussard J, et al. (2016). Integrated approach for the inventory and management 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 sustainable land planning. Geoheritage 14(3): 83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00716-6

Serrano E, Ruiz-Flaño P (2007) Geodiversity: a theoretical and applied concept. Geographica 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 significance in the Murchison Forest District. Forestry Tasmania.

Sharples C (2002). Concepts and principles of geoconservation. Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife 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 (Italy). Education Sciences. 12: 580. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12090580

Soms J (2017). Assessment of geodiversity as tool for environmental management of protected 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 geodiversity evaluation: the Škocjan Caves Regional 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 geodiversity index. Resources 11(2). 2. Multidisciplinary 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 Society 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 relationship in mountain regions: A case study of Hengduan Mountain region in Southwest China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 264: 121573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121573

White S, Wakelin-King G (2014) Earth sciences comparative matrix: A comparative method for geoheritage assessment. Geographical 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.ijgeop.2021.05.001

Williams MA, McHenry MT, Boothroyd A (2020). Geoconservation and geotourism: Challenges and unifying themes. Geoheritage. 12: 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00492-1

Zakharovskyi V, Németh K (2021). Quantitative-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, Special Publications. 530: 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP530-2022-90

Zwoliński Z, Najwer A, Giardino M (2018). Methods for assessing geodiversity. In Geoheritage. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00002-2