Introduction

Human lives and the cultural activities they create have been shaped by events occurring on Earth, especially in eras where human dominance over nature was less prevalent. Primarily, the geological evolution of the Earth's crust and the atmospheric events that continuously influence it have created natural beauties of varying richness up to the present day (Bruno et al. 2014). These natural structures, which affect humans and form a branch of tangible cultural values, play a key role in deciphering the geological and geomorphological processes between the past and the present (Yeşil et al. 2008; Güney 2022).

Significant climate changes during the transition from the last glacial period to the interglacial period are one of the most important factors that have shaped the Earth's current geomorphological appearance (Panizza 2001). In addition, ongoing internal and external processes are another factor affecting natural resources. The impact of these processes on surface shapes has led to the emergence of unique appearances. These natural appearances are managed by various institutions and organizations to benefit humans. Especially in the world, these areas are very important for understanding geological and geomorphological development and are called "geological heritage" using concepts such as geosite, geomorphosite, and cultural geosite (Kazancı et al. 2017).

Geosites, in the broadest sense, are “rock groups, fossils, formations, landforms, minerals, or pieces of land that express geological processes that have occurred in the past or present” (JEMİRKO 2003). Geosites, encompassing a diverse array of geological features, have garnered increasing attention worldwide for their scientific, educational, and touristic value. (Strba et al. 2018; Santos et al. 2020; Štrba et al. 2023). Recently, popular concepts like “geotourism” and “geopark” have led to the rapid increase of these cultural and geological heritage areas, and as a result, geosite areas have been protected by both managers and institutions and shaped according to human needs (Muslim et al. 2022; Drinia et al. 2023). Especially since 1990, geosites have started to be promoted for the benefit of geosites within the scope of environmental programs. At the forefront of these studies is the Digne Declaration presented as a result of the Geological Conservation Symposium in 1991 (Ereli 2021). The declaration emphasizes that areas with heritage value should be supported in terms of sustainability because they also have tourism attractiveness or educational purposes despite the negative effects of human impact (McNeely 1994, Suzuki and Takagi 2018).

In addition to the efforts to protect geological heritage sites around the world, these areas are not only scientifically important but also significant in terms of aesthetics. In this respect, they can provide economic benefits to countries. Therefore, some initiatives have been taken to promote these areas (Davey 1977; Alexandrowicz 1998; Alexandrowicz 1999; Barettino et al. 2000; Wimbledon 1999; Brocx and Semeniuk 2007; Carcavilla et al. 2009; Bruschi and Coratza 2018). With the increasing global popularity of geological heritage sites, efforts have been made in Türkiye, which is geologically and geomorphologically rich, to promote and protect these geological heritage areas. Interest in geological heritage areas in Türkiye began to increase after Ketin's (1970) study. These studies have been popularized by relevant institutions with the idea that they can contribute economically as well as scientifically, mainly in the identification of geological heritage areas (Ciftci and Güngör 2021a). By the 2000s, the Geological Heritage Conservation Association (JEMİRKO), which is still actively working today, has made efforts to make these areas sustainable in terms of research and examination of geological heritage areas by experts in the field. Therefore, during this period, studies that gained momentum with various projects have been carried out primarily to develop the phenomenon of geotourism in Türkiye. In this context, various trips and scientific-technical reports have been presented, and the potentials of the identified areas have been determined within the scope of geological heritage (Özcan and Tarakcio 2021).

In addition to the studies conducted by institutions and organizations on geological heritage areas, studies have been conducted and entered into the literature by experts from related scientific branches, such as geologists and geographers, to determine the potential of places that could be geological heritage areas or to introduce areas that are accepted as geological heritage. Er (2021) has compiled the seminar content on "Cultural Geology and Cultural Heritage" into a book, in which the study conducted by Ciftci and Güngör (2021b) is included. The study covers scientific publications and activities related to geological heritage conducted worldwide and in Turkey between 2010 and 2021. It has been determined that during these years 144 studies were conducted, including 31 articles, 82 papers, and 31 posters. Among these studies, Koçan (2011) introduced the geological heritage values of the Kızılcahamam-Çamlıdere Region and made suggestions for their protection with the approach of geopark and geotourism. Koçan (2012) made suggestions for the development of the region together with the protection of geosite areas found in and around the Kızılcahamam-Çamlıdere Geopark. Kazancı et al. (2015) created a roof list about Türkiye's geosites. Kazancı et al. (2017) discussed geological heritage concepts within the scope of their own interpretations. Erturaç et al. (2017) introduced formations with geological heritage characteristics developed by volcanism and erosion processes in Göllüdağ and its vicinity and their relationship with cultural heritage elements. Çiftçi and Güngör (2021b) made suggestions for the Nemrut-Süphan proposal geopark area to become an international geopark area. Güney (2022) stated that the steppes in Türkiye, which are not suitable for activities such as agriculture and livestock farming due to their structure, should be evaluated within the scope of geotourism.

Geotourism, a sustainable tourism model that has gained popularity due to its focus on the natural allure of geology, fauna, and flora, initially catered to educational and scientific research purposes, particularly for students. This form of tourism aligns with a growing desire among people to connect with nature, contributing positively to local and regional development by promoting the appreciation and conservation of geographical heritage (Galka 2019; Štrba et al. 2020). Recognizing the potential for geotourism to elevate areas of geological significance on a national or international scale, organizations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) have established evaluation criteria to identify and preserve these unique landscapes (Barettino et al. 2000; Pellegrino, 2021; Karadeniz et al. 2022; Dowling and Newsome 2018). Moreover, advancements in transportation, enhancing speed, comfort, and affordability, have facilitated the growth of geotourism, allowing for the exploration of more destinations at lower costs. This evolution in tourism underscores the integral role of transportation in accessing natural landscapes, thereby influencing the sustainability and appeal of geotourism destinations (Farsani et al. 2012; Özbay and Çeki̇n 2020; Pál and Albert 2021).

Building on this foundation, a comprehensive assessment of 183 geosites in Türkiye was undertaken, with these sites identified by experts and substantiated through extensive literature review. Leveraging the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method integrated with Geographic Information Systems (GIS), a novel model was devised. This model evaluates geosites based on criteria such as accessibility, proximity to service facilities, scientific value, and the inherent natural characteristics of the land. The objective is to enhance awareness and facilitate the selection of geosites that best cater to the interests and needs of geotourists and researchers. By adopting this approach, the aim is to promote geotourism in Türkiye, highlighting its geosites not only as destinations for visitors but also as crucial areas for ongoing scientific study and sustainable development.

Materials and Methods

Identification and Digitization of Geosite Areas

Initially, a literature review was conducted to collectively address the distribution of geosite areas across Türkiye (Ulusoy et al. 2008; Kazancı et al. 2015; Uzun 2015; Çi̇ftçi̇ and Güngör 2016; Dölek and Şaroğlu 2017; Altınay Özdemir 2019; Öztürk and Horasan 2020). In this context, geosite areas determined by experts in the field by JEMİRKO were considered. In addition to these, 183 geosite areas were identified by also considering other areas that have been the subject of literature. The geosites were converted into point/spatial data to create a data inventory. Google Earth Pro software was utilized to convert this list into coordinate point data. The identified areas were transferred to ArcGIS, a GIS software, for use in analyses. Subsequently, a physical map of Türkiye showing the location, physical structure, and distribution of geosites was created using this software (Fig. 1). To produce the Physical Map of Türkiye, Digital Elevation Models (DEM) with resolutions of 12.5 m, 25-30 m were obtained through NASA ASF and Earth Data, respectively. Additionally, bathymetry data from GEBCO was also used in the location map. Vector data in “shape file” format from HGM were used to display administrative elements on the map.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Physical Map of Türkiye

Full size image

Creating a New Geosite Accessibility Model

In the second phase of the method, the process of creating a new priority model was initiated in line with the aim of the study. In this context, a comprehensive literature review was first conducted to determine which parameters are effective for examining geosite areas (Maran-Stevanović, 2015; Nascimento et al. 2022; Molokáč et al. 2023; Pasquaré Mariotto et al. 2023; Neto and Henriques 2023; Ivanović et al. 2023; Lakatos et al. 2023). The importance levels of the effective parameters were determined, taking into account the literature review and the geosites. Subsequently, a suitable method from the literature was researched to evaluate the determined criteria as a whole and combine them into a single output. As a result of this research, the model to be created was shaped according to the GIS-based Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method, which is used to select the most suitable areas among different parameters. In determining the importance levels of the criteria, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) operations were used to adopt a more logical decision-making approach. MCDM analysis is an analysis method used to select the most suitable alternative among a set of alternatives. The parameters determined as a result of the literature review consist of accessibility (access to the highway), infrastructure and service access (including food and drink, entertainment, accommodation, culture, and sports), the scientific importance of the geosites in attracting the attention of tourists or researchers (rarity, conservation status, presence in literature), and surface features of the land (land use, slope, roughness, and elevation) (Table 1).

Table 1 - Geosite Accessibility Model
Full size table

Density Analysis and Hexagon Model

In the third stage of the method, ArcGIS software was used to perform analyses for the criteria. First, all the determined criteria were reclassified based on expert opinions and literature (Kubalíková 2013; Fernández et al. 2014; Fedorov et al. 2022; Reinhart et al. 2023; Najwer et al. 2023). In this reclassification, 5 classes were determined, ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) (Table 2). To produce the first parameter—accessibility criteria—detailed road data for Türkiye were obtained from the Open Street Map platform. Road data was divided into three different data groups: highway, dirt road, and stabilized road. Due to the data being too dense and not meaningful when stacked, "Density Analysis" was applied to measure the density of a phenomenon in a geographical area. Separate density analyses were applied to road data categorized by type, and mapping was carried out. To create the terrain parameter, a DEM data with a resolution of 30 m was used to generate slope, elevation, and roughness maps using GIS software. The generated maps were reclassified according to the suitability of the terrain. To create Türkiye's land use map, CORINE land classification data for the year 2018 was obtained through Copernicus and divided into four classes: anthropogenic areas, agricultural areas, natural areas, and water bodies. These classes were reclassified based on land use suitability. Another criterion—the accessibility of service facilities for geosites—was determined using Open Street Map-based Overpass Turbo to obtain various infrastructure and service data (e.g., hotel, activity areas, toilet needs, food and drink, and cultural areas) suitable for sub-criteria and combined for use. These data are a dense data source, so the same tools were also used to produce maps of activity distribution density around geosites. Subsequently, to evaluate according to the scientificity criterion, geosites were assessed based on rarity, the feature of the geosite, and any protection status. They were then transferred to ArcGIS. The generated maps aim to show the preferred geosite's levels of transportation, service, land surface, and scientificity. For this purpose, Türkiye was divided into hexagonal cells with a certain area using a method similar to Fishnet. Hexagons, nature's favorite shape (e.g., honeycombs and basalt columns), were used as a preferred spatial and thematic method in the created model. Each hexagonal cell corresponds to an area of 200 km2, considering Türkiye's area and the spatial relationships between geosites. The values of previously generated density maps for parameters have been transferred to hexagonal cells using the "Spatial Join" tool in ArcGIS. Hexagonal cells are preferred to make the maps more meaningful and better represent density. Compared to other polygon shapes, like squares and triangles, hexagonal cells have been found to be more suitable in many studies for arranging data more evenly, without gaps and overlaps (Birch et al. 2007; Burdziej 2019).

Table 2 Classified Evaluation Scores
Full size table

Analytic Hierarchy Process

The criteria transferred to the hexagon surfaces then proceeded to weighted overlay analysis with MCDM (Multi-Criteria Decision Making). The importance levels of the criteria were produced with AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), which was progressively developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s. AHP is a method used to support multi-criteria analyses, particularly in complex decision-making processes and in comparing criteria (Saaty 1994; Uludağ 2016). In the AHP method, the criteria to be used in decision-making processes are organized in a hierarchical structure, and the weights under this structure are determined (Saaty 1994).

Later, according to the newly created model, the most suitable geosite areas were determined in a single evaluation output by comparing the criteria and determining their importance levels with the GIS-based AHP method. In pairwise comparisons, considering that one criterion is more effective than another in solving the problem and taking into account the scale that classifies the importance levels from 1 to 9, a comparison matrix was created (Table 3). For example, if one criterion is equally important to another, it takes the value of 1.

Table 3 AHP Importance Levels (Saaty 2008)
Full size table

After completing the pairwise comparisons, the weights of the criteria were determined by automatically dividing the number of criteria by the sum of the rows. After the normalization process, a consistency index, known to measure the reliability of the criteria whose importance has been determined, was used. If the result is below 0.1, it indicates that the decisions made are consistent to that extent.

For the evaluation of Türkiye's geosites in a single output, result maps for each parameter were produced. Hexagon maps obtained from density maps were used for accessibility, service, and scientific parameters. For the land parameter, an evaluation map was obtained by making pairwise comparisons of sub-criteria with GIS-based AHP according to expert opinion and information obtained from the literature. Finally, a collective evaluation output for the geosites was created by performing a weighted overlay operation again with the AHP method based on the evaluation maps of the parameters.

Results and Discussion

Accessibility Parameter

In this study, which aims to raise awareness about geosites, the accessibility parameter was added to the new model. This model evaluates Türkiye's geosites in a different approach, considering that the naturalness of the geosites and the transportation criteria directly or indirectly affect the preference of the geosite areas by the visitors. For the most critical parameter of the model— accessibility—various restrictions have been applied in the general literature reviews. For example, Brilha (2016) and Mikhailenko et al. (2021) restricted the accessibility of geoheritage areas based on road quality. Warowna et al. (2016) considered seasonal weather conditions for this factor. The proposed new model, however, divided roads into sub-criteria to evaluate them based on distance. Additionally, the accessibility factor was not included in the AHP process, and all sub-criteria were equally evaluated based on road density. This is because geosites are natural areas, and access is generally thought to be possible even via lower-quality roads. Another reason is to prevent overlooking geosites due to such restrictions. Technological improvements like GIS and GPS services allow users to easily access these areas even via lower-quality roads with some preparation or through other alternatives like hiking, camping, and climbing.

To determine the accessibility to geosite areas, highways, dirt roads, and stabilized roads were considered. In the density map created by combining these criteria, areas shown with 1 (very low) have very low traffic density, while areas shown with 5 (very high) have high traffic density (Fig. 2). This study evaluated these criteria by taking into account the suitability of the determined distances for transportation to the geosites with the determined sub-parameters.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Accessibility Parameter; (A) Road Density Map (B) Highway, (C) Dirt Road, (D) Stabilized Road

Full size image

In this study, which aims to raise awareness about geosites, the accessibility parameter was added to the new model. This model evaluates Türkiye's geosites in a different approach, considering that the naturalness of the geosites and the transportation criteria directly or indirectly affect the preference of the geosite areas by the visitors. For the most critical parameter of the model— accessibility—various restrictions have been applied in the general literature reviews. For example, Brilha (2016) and Mikhailenko et al. (2021) restricted the accessibility of geoheritage areas based on road quality. Warowna et al. (2016) considered seasonal weather conditions for this factor. The proposed new model, however, divided roads into sub-criteria to evaluate them based on distance. Additionally, the accessibility factor was not included in the AHP process, and all sub-criteria were equally evaluated based on road density. This is because geosites are natural areas, and access is generally thought to be possible even via lower-quality roads. Another reason is to prevent overlooking geosites due to such restrictions. Technological improvements like GIS and GPS services allow users to easily access these areas even via lower-quality roads with some preparation or through other alternatives like hiking, camping, and climbing.

To determine the accessibility to geosite areas, highways, dirt roads, and stabilized roads were considered. In the density map created by combining these criteria, areas shown with 1 (very low) have very low traffic density, while areas shown with 5 (very high) have high traffic density (Fig. 2). This study evaluated these criteria by taking into account the suitability of the determined distances for transportation to the geosites with the determined sub-parameters.

In Türkiye, accessibility has concentrated according to topographic features, population, and commercial functions. In areas where the harsh conditions of topographic features are observed, especially in Eastern and Northern Anatolia, accessibility is low as road density decreases. Especially in Northeast Anatolia, due to adverse topographic conditions, it is noteworthy that the density of dirt roads is high, and access to mountainous (plateau) areas is through footpaths. On the other hand, it is seen in areas where topographic features are better compared to these areas, but accessibility is at a low level. A population feature that does not need road density, and these areas coincide with areas rich in water bodies used in agriculture. For example, Red Happiness Valley, Gokpinar Lake, and Guzelcehisar Basalt Columns correspond to areas where accessibility is the lowest. The proportionality between population and trade functions directly results in the highest areas of accessibility to geosites where these functions are seen. Especially in the coastal areas of the Marmara, Aegean, and Mediterranean regions, there are important highways due to developed port activities, and it is seen that high road density meets the needs of the high population. These areas—Istanbul Strait, Kaz Mountains, and Yesemek Basalt Quarry—are areas where accessibility is high. In addition, it is seen that the geosite.

Service and Attraction Parameter

As an alternative for determining the accessibility to geosite areas, the service and attraction parameter has been mainly used in the literature to identify the most suitable tourism destinations (Huang et al. 2013; Park and Song 2021). This study utilizes the service and attraction parameter to propose an approach aligned with the objective of visiting numerous destinations within a limited timeframe. In this context, sub-criteria such as activities (e.g., sports, hiking, and adventure), accommodation (e.g., hotels, guesthouses, and rest facilities), and attractions (e.g., historical sites, cultural areas, dining, and national parks) have been evaluated together. As a result, in areas expressed with 1 (very low), services can be utilized at low density, while in areas expressed with 5 (very high), services can be utilized at high density (Fig. 3). In the new model created, the service and attraction parameter aim the purpose of visitors who prefer to see and visit many geosites. Therefore, the density of infrastructure services was considered for the social demands and basic needs of visitors in an activity to be carried out within the scope of geosites. An output showing the density of various activities and areas separated according to sub-criteria was created for the service and attraction parameter, which is not included in the MCDM process for visitors who prefer Türkiye's geosites. In the study, the reason for taking the density of sub-criteria together is that people can benefit from social and infrastructure services in a single area in developed service areas. For example, hotels, which are fundamentally for accommodation purposes, also provide access to entertainment and dining facilities.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Service/Attraction Areas Density Map

Full size image

As a result, it is observed that service-attraction areas are distributed at a density depending on population and tourism functions. Especially in Türkiye, due to the development of coastal tourism, it is observed that infrastructure services are concentrated more in the coastal areas of the Marmara, Aegean, and Mediterranean regions. The development of the entertainment sector outside of infrastructure services is one of the reasons for the high activity density in these areas. In addition to tourism, population characteristics have shown a density depending on the need for services according to the status of the population. For example, in the Marmara region, the suitability of access to service/attraction areas is seen to be directly proportional to the population. Also, in inland areas where the population is higher compared to its surroundings and education, health, and administrative functions have developed, access to service/attraction areas is high.

Scientificity Parameter

The scientific parameter that shows a geosite is worth seeing has been compared in studies that either include scientific importance in a general evaluation, like our study, or focus specifically on scientific importance based on a methodological study by Mucivuna et al. (2022). As a result of this comparison, it has been revealed that scientific importance is evaluated based on criteria such as rarity, conservation, representativeness, and scientific knowledge. Additionally, there are studies where scientific importance is used for educational evaluations (Drápela 2022). In our study, geosites were evaluated in terms of their rarity and conservation features to serve a scientific purpose in line with the literature.

To measure the scientific values of geosite areas, scoring was conducted by considering their conservation status and rarity. As a result, geosites with the highest scientific importance have been given 10 points, and areas with the lowest scientific importance have been given 3 points to determine the scientific importance of geosites (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Scientific Importance Parameter Score Map

Full size image

Geosites, which attract attention with their unique appearances in nature, also serve as field laboratories for visitors from relevant fields. In our study, while forming the new model, it was thought that a geosite should be worth seeing and, in addition, should serve a scientific purpose. Therefore, the scientific importance parameter was added to the model being created. When determining whether a geosite is scientifically worth seeing, a scoring based on expert opinion was conducted by paying attention to the rarity of the geosite and whether it is protected under any status in accordance with the literature. The scientific importance of geosites in Türkiye is generally seen to be in the 5, 6, and 7 value ranges. Especially, geosites that have formed through the same processes have received the same values, with rarity being the determining factor. For example, Acıgöl Maar and Çora Maar, two geosite areas formed through the same processes, received a value of 5, indicating that they have the same scientific importance. Areas with high scientific importance are generally those that are rare, corresponding to areas where the formation processes are different and are rarely seen in one area. For example, unique landforms in Cappadocia and Pamukkale Travertines in Türkiye and around the world received a value of 10, indicating that they are rare. On the other hand, the geosite with the lowest value received a value of 3 due to the widespread similar features of its formation around the world.

Terrain Parameter

A comprehensive literature review classified the sub-criteria that form the surface features of the terrain according to the suitability of the terrain, determining the suitability of geosites to surface features (Ferrando et al. 2021; Macedo et al. 2021; Zakharovskyi and Németh 2022). As a result of determining the importance weights of the terrain parameter with AHP (Table 4), the most important factor was determined to be land use at a rate of 55%, followed by roughness at 25% and slope and elevation at 10% each, resulting in equal importance (Fig. 5). Additionally, the consistency ratio was calculated as 0.003, and since this ratio is below the value of 0.1, it shows that the pairwise decisions are consistent. The fact that geosite areas are natural and, to some extent, form the terrain themselves was the most important factor in evaluating geosites according to their terrain features in our study. The most impactful sub-criterion for the land parameter, determined through the AHP method, was land use, which aligns with the literature (Elkaichi et al. 2023). This is because geosites are essentially areas that make up the land and are directly affected by land characteristics. Slope, elevation, and roughness criteria can affect the accessibility of visitors who prefer geosites. Therefore, a classification has been made to be suitable for people's access when evaluating the suitability of geosites according to sub-criteria. However, it is quite normal for such geological heritage areas to be affected by the features of the terrain. When determining the importance levels of sub-criteria to each other in the AHP process, it has been seen as more important to utilize literature and expert opinion to determine what purpose the terrain is used for in the evaluation of geosites.

Table 4 Importance Levels of Criteria
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

(A) Terrain Parameter; (B) Land Use, (C) Slope, (D) Roughness, (E) Elevation

Full size image

According to the terrain parameter, areas with low levels for the accessibility of geosites are generally seen as areas where the effect of roughness, slope, and elevation criteria increases. Additionally, these areas are classified as “agricultural areas” in land use classification and represent private property areas. This has resulted in low accessibility to geosites in these areas. These areas generally correspond to the Eastern Anatolia and Northern Anatolia regions. On the contrary, areas where terrain features are at a high level for accessibility to geosites are compatible with roughness, slope, and elevation criteria for areas classified as “natural areas” in land classification. Lastly, areas classified as “anthropogenic areas” in land use have emerged as areas with very high accessibility due to the lesser impact of roughness, slope, and elevation criteria.

Result of the Weighting Process of Parameters

In order to obtain the result map representing the most suitable geosite areas, a total weighting process was performed for the four parameters whose densities and importance weights were determined by the AHP method. As a result, it was determined that the parameter that could be considered most important in evaluating geosites as the most suitable area is the accessibility parameter at 50%. This is followed by the terrain parameter at 25% and scientific importance at 15%. The least important factor is the service parameter at 10% (Table 5). The consistency ratio calculated as a result of the total weighting process is 0.029. Since the consistency ratio is below 0.1, pairwise decisions are used appropriately in decision-making. In the evaluation map, areas with high accessibility to geosites are expressed as “very high,” and areas with the least accessibility to geosites are expressed as “very low” (Fig. 6). The result that came out in accordance with the model is consistent with the results obtained by pairwise comparison.

Table 5 Importance Levels of Parameters
Full size table
Fig. 6
figure 6

Result Map of Accessibility to Geosites

Full size image

Areas with very high accessibility to geosites emerged according to the road density in line with the accessibility parameter. In addition, terrain features also gave a parallel result with road density, emerging as a secondary factor in determining suitable areas. Especially, the very high suitability of coastal areas indicates that factors such as population, trade, and tourism play a significant role in the parameters. The greater development of these factors in coastal areas compared to other areas has directly and indirectly affected the most important parameter of the model—accessibility—making these areas suitable for high accessibility. Areas with high suitability are nationally or internationally recognized areas. For example, Cappadocia Landforms, Nevşehir-Ürgüp Ignimbrite, Thrace Fish Fossils, and Düden Waterfall are areas with high suitability. In addition, according to the model, areas that come out at a very low level have emerged mainly due to the interaction of topography, population, and trade factors. For example, in Eastern Anatolia, adverse topographic conditions lead to low traffic density, while low population density in inland areas has resulted in low traffic density, and the prevalence of private property areas (agriculture) in these regions has revealed that they are at low levels in terms of access to geosites. In short, these areas stand out as areas that show the lowest performance in terms of access to geosites (Fig. 6).

Conclusion

The identification and characterization of unique surface formations across the globe underscore their profound significance in understanding Earth’s geological and geomorphological evolution. These formations not only serve as crucial archives for "geoheritage" studies but also highlight the essential role of geological heritage in educational and scientific endeavors. The increasing popularity of these areas for geotourism reflects a growing societal trend towards seeking solace in nature, driven by a desire to escape the rigors of daily life and engage in cost-effective, experiential activities. This trend has implications for local economies, suggesting that geosites can act as catalysts for tourism-based development, particularly in regions where economic activities are otherwise limited.

This study posits that the expansion of geotourism in Türkiye has the potential to yield substantial benefits, both from a scientific perspective and in terms of local economic development. By facilitating greater international recognition of Türkiye’s geosites, the study aims to attract researchers and tourists alike, thereby contributing to the country's geotourism sector. The example of the Pamukkale Travertines—a UNESCO-recognized site attracting significant visitor numbers annually—illustrates the potential for geosites to generate employment and stimulate local economies.

Observations suggest that even areas impacted by human activity, if not currently protected, hold potential for local development through geotourism. This underscores the importance of integrated conservation and development strategies involving public and local authorities to protect and leverage geological heritage for sustainable tourism.

The proposed model was applied to Türkiye's geosites for the first time, and as a result, the suitability of the model was determined. The fact that Pamukkale Travertines, Cappadocia Landforms, and Kula Volcanic Terrain, which are on the UNESCO Natural Heritage List, have emerged as areas with the highest suitability confirms the accuracy of the model. Additionally, it is seen in the resulting map that the three main factors that have a significant impact on geosites are in harmony with each other. The accuracy of the model can also be determined by applying it to different areas in an open-to-discussion manner. Therefore, the model is a suitable and convenient method that can be used during the geographical heritage evaluation of specific regions (narrow or wide). Furthermore, the model can be adapted and used in future studies by introducing different accessibility concepts.