, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 177–193 | Cite as

Quantitative Assessment of Geotopes as an Effective Tool for Geoheritage Management

  • Charalampos Fassoulas
  • Dimitra Mouriki
  • Panagiotis Dimitriou-Nikolakis
  • George Iliopoulos
Original Article


A quantitative methodology for the assessment of geotopes that can be used for the sustainable management and conservation of the geological heritage of an area is here presented. As sustainable development, education and conservation are core issues for the successful management of any protected area, this study focuses on the development of specific indexes necessary for determining values concerning the tourism, educational and protection requirements of geotopes. The proposed methodology is based on a series of criteria that cover not only the geological and geographical importance of a geotope but also its scientific, ecological, cultural, aesthetic and economic significance. Based on these criteria, the resulting scientific, ecological, cultural, aesthetic, economic and potential for use scores of each geotope are used to estimate, respectively, the touristic, educational and protection-need value indexes for each geotope on a scale ranging from 1 to 10. This methodology was implemented and tested in two areas in the island of Crete, namely the Psiloritis Natural Park, a European and Global geopark, and the Lassithi Mountains, producing reliable results, which are in agreement with the geopark’s activities and values. The proposed quantitative assessment method is, therefore, a useful tool. It serves the requirements for the adequate management and protection of geoheritage within a territory as it can reveal priorities for sustainable tourism development, including geotourism and educational tourism activities and the conservation of geotopes.


Geotopes Geoparks Geoheritage Assessment Geoconservation 



The authors would like to thank Dr Tony Ramsay, Cardiff University, for reading the text and for making useful suggestions, the GIS lab of Natural History Museum of Crete (M. Nikolakakis) for preparing the maps, as well as the Hellenic Institute for Speleological Research for providing speleological information. M. Pitikakis, G. Afordakos and M. Kritsotakis kindly offered useful information regarding Lassithi geotopes. Finally, two anonymous reviewers are also thanked for their critical comments and suggestions that improved this article, as well as the English editor for his suggestions.


  1. Barthlott W, Lauer W, Placke A (1996) Global distribution of species diversity in vascular plants: towards a world map of phytodiversity. Erdkunde 50(4):317–327Google Scholar
  2. Bishop J, Kapila S, Hicks F, Mitchell P, Vorhies F (2008) Building biodiversity business. Shell International Ltd and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, London and GlandGoogle Scholar
  3. Brilha J (2002) Geoconservation and protected areas. Environ Conservation 29:273–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruschi VM, Cendrero A (2005) Geosite evaluation: can we measure intangible values? Il Quaternario 18(1):293–306Google Scholar
  5. Bruschi VM, Cendrero A (2009) Direct and parametric methods for assessment of geosites and geomorphosites. In: Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (eds) Geomorphosites. Verlag, München, pp 73–88Google Scholar
  6. Coratza P, Giusti C (2005) Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites. Il Quaternario 18(1):307–313Google Scholar
  7. Dimitriou-Nikolakis P, Fassoulas C (2010) Quantitative assessment of geotopes in a potential geopark territory: Lassithi mountains (Crete, Greece). In: Zouros N (ed) Proceedings of the 9th European Geoparks conference. European Geoparks Network, LesvosGoogle Scholar
  8. Dingwall P, Weighell T, Badman T (2005) Geological world heritage: a global framework. A contribution to the global theme study of world heritage natural sites. Protected Area Programme, IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Eder W, Patzak M (2004) Geoparks—geological attractions: a tool for public education, recreation and sustainable development. Episodes 27(3):162–164Google Scholar
  10. Ellis NV (2008) A history of the geological conservation review. In: Burek CV, Prosser CD (eds) The history of geoconservation. Geological Society, London, Spec Pub 300, pp 123–135Google Scholar
  11. Erikstad L (2008) History of geoconservation in Europe. In: Burek CV, Prosser CD (eds) The History of geoconservation. Geological Society, London, Spec Pub 300, pp 249–256Google Scholar
  12. Fassoulas C (1999) The structural evolution of central Crete: insight into the tectonic evolution of the south Aegean. J Geodynamics 27:23–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fassoulas C (2001) Field guide to the geology of Crete. Natural History Museum of Crete, HeraklionGoogle Scholar
  14. Fassoulas C (2008) The Geological heritage of Psiloritis (field guide). Psiloritis Natural Park. AKOMM—Psiloritis Development S.A. OTA, AnogiaGoogle Scholar
  15. Fassoulas C, Skoula Z (2006) Assessing the economic value of the Psiloritis area through the European Geoparks Network initiative. In: VIII Inter conf for the protection and restoration of environment, Chania, Crete. Proc Vol, Τ11:259Google Scholar
  16. Fassoulas C, Paragamian K, Iliopoulos G (2007) Identification and assessment of Cretan geotopes. Bull Geol Soc Greece XXXVII:1780–1795Google Scholar
  17. Grandgirard V (1995) Méthode pour la réalisation d’un inventaire de geotopes géomorphologiques. UKPIK Cahiers de l’Institut de Géographie de l’Université de Fribourg 10:121–137Google Scholar
  18. Grandgirard V (1999) L’évaluation des geotopes. Geologia Insubrica 4:59–66Google Scholar
  19. Gray M (2004) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  20. Gray M (2008) Geodiversity: the origin and evolution of a paradigm. In: Burek CV, Prosser CD (eds) The history of geoconservation. Geological Society, London. Spec Pub 300:31–36Google Scholar
  21. Grube A (1994) The national park system in Germany. In: O’Halloran D, Green C, Harley M, Sanley M, Knill J (eds) Geological and landscape conservation. Geological Society, London, pp 175–180Google Scholar
  22. Honey M (1999) Ecotourism and sustainable development: who owns paradise? Island, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. Johansson CE (2000) Geodiversitet I nordisk naturvard. Nordisk Ministerrad, Nord 2000:8, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  24. Komoo I (2010) Geopark development in the Asia Pacific region. In: Zouros N (ed) Proceedings of the 9th European Geoparks conference. European Geoparks Network, Lesvos, p 2010Google Scholar
  25. Le Pichon X, Angelier J (1979) The Hellenic arc and Trench system: a key to the neotectonic evolution of the eastern Mediterranean area. Tectonophysics 60:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martini G, Pagès JS (1994) Actes du premier symposium international sur la protection du patrimoine géologique. Mémoires de la Société géologique de France, FranceGoogle Scholar
  27. Marty D, Ayer J, Becker D, Berger JP, Billon-Bruyat JP, Braillard L, Hug WA, Meyer CA (2007) Late Jurassic dinosaur tracksites of the Transjurane highway (Canton Jura, NW Switzerland): overview and measures for their protection and valorization. Bull Angew Geol 12(1):75–89Google Scholar
  28. Mouriki D, Fassoulas C (2009) Quantitative assessment of Psiloritis’ geotopes with emphasis on protection and geotourism (Crete, Greece). In: Neto de Carvalho C, Rodrigues J (eds) New challenges with geotourism. 8th European Geoparks Congress, Idanha Nova. Abst Vol:199–200Google Scholar
  29. Patzak M, Eder W (1998) UNESCO Geopark. A new programme—a new UNESCO label. Geologica Balkanica 28(34):33–37Google Scholar
  30. Pereira P, Pereira D, Caetano Alves MI (2007) Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geographica Helvetica 62(3):159–168Google Scholar
  31. Platakis E (1975) Caves and other karstic forms of Crete. Vol B’, Irakleion, CreteGoogle Scholar
  32. Pralong JP (2005) A method for assessing the touristic potential and use of geomorphological sites. Geomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environment 3:189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rackham O, Moody J (1997) The making of Cretan landscape. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  34. Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L, Scapozza C (2007) A method for assessing “scientific” and “additional values” of geomorphosites. Geographica Helvetica 62(3):148–158Google Scholar
  35. Rivas V, Rix K, Frances E, Cendrero A, Brunsden D (1997) Geomorphological indicators for environmental impact assessment: consumable and non-consumable geomorphological resources. Geomorphology 18:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roehling HG, Schmidt-Thome M (2004) Geoscience for the public: geotopes and national geoparks in Germany. Episodes 27(4):279–283Google Scholar
  37. Rovere A, Vacchi M, Parravicini V, Bianchi CN, Zouros N, Firpo M (2010) Bringing geoheritage underwater: definitions, methods and application in two Mediterranean marine areas. Environ Earth Sci 61, 10.1007/s12665-010-0824-8Google Scholar
  38. Serrano E, Gonzalez-Trueba JJ (2005) Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Geomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environment 3:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sturm B (1994) The geotope concept: geological nature conservation by town and country planning. In: O’Halloran D, Green C, Harley M, Sanley M, Knill J (eds) Geological and landscape conservation. Geological Society, London, pp 27–31Google Scholar
  40. Theodosiou-Drandaki I, Nakov R, Wimblendon WAP et al (2004) IUGS geosites project progress: a first attempt at common framework list for south-eastern European countries. In: Parkes MA (ed) Natural and cultural landscape—the geological foundation. Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, pp 81–89Google Scholar
  41. Wimbledon WAP, Benton MJ, Bevins RE et al (1995) The development of a methodology for the selection of British geological sites for conservation: Part 1. Modern geology 20:159–202Google Scholar
  42. Zouros N (2005) Assessment, protection and promotion of geomorphological and geological sites in the Aegean area, Greece. Geomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environment 3:227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zouros N (2007) Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece. Case study of the Lesvos Island-coastal geomorphosites. Geographica Helvetica 62(3):69–180Google Scholar
  44. Zouros N, Martini G (2003) Introduction to the European Geoparks Network. In: Zouros N, Martini G & Frey ML (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd European Geoparks Network Meeting, Mytilene, 2003. 17–21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charalampos Fassoulas
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dimitra Mouriki
    • 3
  • Panagiotis Dimitriou-Nikolakis
    • 3
  • George Iliopoulos
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.RethimnoGreece
  2. 2.Natural History Museum of CreteUniversity of CreteHeraklionGreece
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of CreteHeraklionGreece
  4. 4.Department of GeologyUniversity of PatrasRio PatraGreece

Personalised recommendations