Introduction

In general, several authors dealt with geotourism, namely, by its definition and elements, e.g., Hose (1995, 2000), Kicińska-Świderska and Słomka (2004), Joyce (2006a), and Dowling and Newsome (2006). Geotourism can be simply defined as a hiking in nature with a particular focus on geology and landscape (Newsome and Dowling 2010). The historical and theoretical foundations of geotourism and approaches to its sustainable management were addressed by Hose and Vasiljević (2012). He dealt with the theory that these approaches to geotourism are supported by three key interrelated aspects (“3G’s”) of modern geotourism: geoconservation, geohistory, and geointerpretation. Within the “3G” aspects, geotourism is defined as “The provision of interpretative and service facilities for geosites and geomorphosites and their encompassing topography together with their associated in situ and ex situ artifacts, to constituency-build for their conservation by generating appreciation, learning, and research by and for current and future generations” (Hose and Vasiljević 2012). The concept of sustainable tourism has been included in the geotourism definition by The National Geographic and it asserted that tourism revenue could contribute to the environmental protection, cultural heritage conservation, and historic preservation, i.e., all the unique elements of a place. The National Geographic Geotourism Charter (National Geographic, n.d.) emphasized the sustainable aspects of tourism such as appropriate planning, destination protection, conservation of resources, interactive interpretation, tourist satisfaction, and community benefit (Dowling and Newsome 2018). However, geotourism not only represents geological sites but also contains the whole packages of services. It includes a comprehensive range of products that protect geological heritage; it helps to build communities, promotes geological heritage, and creates opportunities for collaboration with different people. Geotourism deals with the geological heritage as well as other elements of the environment (Molokáč et al. 2015). A comprehensive range of such services is represented by the geopark. Dowling and Newsome (2018) present two basic approaches to geotourism in their publication called “Handbook of Geotourism.” It explains the geological and geographical approaches in order to understand the definition of geotourism. From the geological perspective, the authors describe geotourism as a form of hiking in nature with the focus on geosites. These range from small-scaled geosites such as rock outcrops or fossil beds to large landforms or landscapes (Dowling and Newsome 2006). Joyce (2006b) defines geotourism as a form of tourism for people who visit places where they can learn about one or more aspects of geology and geomorphology. In a geological context, the term geotourism is explained as a niche type of tourism which consists of a number of key elements including independent or guided tours around geosites, and conservation and interpretation elements (Dowling 2014 and 2015 ). In a geographical context, the above definition by The National Geographic describes geotourism as a tourism that supports nature conservation, culture, history, and characteristic values of the place: its environment, culture, esthetics, heritage, and the well-being of its residents (National Geographic, n.d.).

Geodiversity as such refers to the infinite complexity of geology (with its fluctuating sedimentation, volcanism, landscape change, and the repeated transgressions and regressions of the oceans across the continents), involving the appreciation of the Earth and its environmental, ecological, and biological variety in space and time. (Hagos et al. 2019). It is the abiotic equivalent of biodiversity and describes the variety of geological, geomorphological, pedological, and hydrological features and processes. Geoheritage, on the other hand, refers to those elements of the planet’s geodiversity that are assessed as worthy of conservation (Gray 2018). Geodiversity is the variety of rocks, minerals, fossils, landforms, sediments, and soils, together with the natural processes which form and alter them (Robson 2005).

The fundamental terminology of geotourism includes the terms geosites and geomorphosites. Their definitions were addressed by a number of authors (Wimbledon 1996; Cleal et al. 1999; Alexandrowicz and Kozlowski 1999; Schobbenhaus et al. 2002; Carreras and Druguet 2000; Panizza 2001; Nieto 2001; Odin 2002; Reynard 2004; Panizza and Piacente 2005; Gregori and Melelli 2005; Brilha et al. 2005; Lima 2008; Reynard 2009; Ielenicz 2009; Pereira and Pereira 2011; Reynard et al. 2011, 2016; Gray et al. 2013; Kubalíková 2013; Bruno et al. 2014; Brilha 2016; Štrba et al. 2018; Hagos et al. 2019). In its essence, geotourism uses the term geosite to cover small-scale geological attractions while the term geopark covers large-scale geological attractions, or a group of geosites. Dowling and Newsome (2010) postulate that the recognition and identification of geosites is essential in order to draw up an inventory of geotourism resources. It is important to note that geotourism can take place in a range of settings that include urban environments, peri-urban locations, quarries and mine sites, agricultural land, remote natural areas, and protected areas such as national parks, nature reserves, and national monuments (Dowling and Newsome, 2010).

Geosites are the areas containing locally, nationally, or internationally important geoheritage features, selected through an audit and assessment process (Brilha 2016; Prosser et al. 2017). Geosite features may have purely scientific value, in a “scientific geosite,” or may be of cultural, spiritual, esthetic, recreational, or touristic value (Sharples 2002). Hagos et al. (2019) describe a geosite as a significant geosphere feature for understanding the history of the Earth. The authors also assume that geosites should have a protective, scientific, educational, and touristic function. Geomorphosites are characteristic landforms that are also attractive for tourists, i.e., they have an additional cultural, ecological, and esthetic values (Hagos et al. 2019). Wimbledon (1996) defines a geosite as a place or an area of some degree of geological and geomorphological conservation interest. The geological sites can be represented by outcrops, separate and isolated geological objects with significant features, or a complex of geosites scattered over a large area. Almost all geological objects can therefore be potential geosites. The criteria for determining the value of a geosite include the quality of its exposure, the number and size of similar sites, location, accessibility, and its educational and historical value (Bruno et al. 2014). According to Panizza (2001), a geomorphosite is considered one of the multiple types of the geosites and is defined as a relief that gains its value through its perception by humans. According to Kubalíková (2013), the difference between geosites and geomorphosites is that the geosite definition includes the importance of understanding the history of Earth and scientific values, while the concept of geomorphosites is broader and includes added values such as their cultural, esthetic, and economic importance.

Geopark is an area of significant geological heritage, with a coherent and strong management structure, where the strategy of sustainable economic development is established. The geopark reaches its goals through the conservation of nature and geological sites, and education, and tourism (Newsome and Dowling 2010). The issue of geoparks is well discussed in the works by Brilha (2015, 2016, 2018) and Henriques and Brilha (2017). According to Brilha (2015), geoparks are, generally speaking, the areas with a sustainable development strategy that is based on geological heritage and other natural and cultural assets that offer educational and geotourism activities to attract visitors. A similar definition is also presented by Henriques and Brilha (2017). In their definition, the role of geoparks is to create a strategic plan for the development of an area of significant geological heritage that needs to be preserved together with other natural and cultural values, with the aim of supporting the sustainable economic development of local communities through the support of geotourism and education.

From the perspective of geopark management, it is not appropriate to neglect the “scientific value” of geosites. At the same time, however, it is necessary to consider the weight of other criteria (e.g., criteria from the tourist’s perspective which will be included in the geosite value assessment). The weight (value) of the geosite depends on its final purpose and on the professionals who deliver its assessment. However, in this case, there are significant differences in the evaluation attributes (scientific, cultural, artistic, economic, touristic...) (Ielenicz 2009). Although there are several methods for evaluating geotourism sites (geosites, geomorphosites) using different evaluation criteria (e.g., Coratza and Giusti 2005; Bruschi and Cendrero 2005; Serrano and Gonzales-Trueba 2005; Kubalíková 2013; Pereira and Pereira 2012; Rybár 2010; Brilha 2016; Tavares et al. 2020), it is questionable whether these attributes are sufficient for the selection of the geosites required by geopark management. The purpose of the submitted paper is to discuss this question.

However, it should be emphasized that not all the elements of geological heritage should be used for education and geotourism (Štrba et al. 2016). For example, a geosite may be of a high scientific value, but its potential use could expose tourists to safety threats or risks. Therefore, it is better not to include the site in the geopark educational program (Brilha 2018). An opposite example can be an increased risk of geosite degradation from the perspective of human activities. Another type of evaluation criteria defined by Brilha (2016) is based on the scientific or esthetic (touristic) point of view. As reported by Štrba et al. (2015), geotourism is aimed mainly at tourists—visitors who include both members of an expert community and general public. For the purpose of geopark management, it is therefore reasonable to combine the two evaluation tables. The following five important criteria are preferred by the public when choosing geosites: visual attractiveness, accessibility, safety, uniqueness/rarity, and information availability (Štrba 2019). Potential geotourists are experts and students of earth sciences but also amateurs and ordinary people interested not only in geological features and geology itself but also in the esthetic attractiveness of such geological objects. Regular visitors to geosites or geoparks are the first to notice the beautiful patterns of geological elements, the variety of their colors, object size, etc. For geotourism purposes, esthetics should be the goal when choosing a location. Of course, no esthetic perception should replace professional geological interpretation. Even if this perception could be criticized by geologists, one should not forget that geotourism is part of tourism and hospitality industry, which means that tourists’ needs, interests, and attitudes must also be considered (Mikhailenko et al. 2017). Geotourism sometimes offers a seemingly devastated environment in which geologically attractive features can be found (Čech et al. 2020). In addition to the evaluation, it is very important to consider the impact of geotourism on the environment, which is closely related to geosites (Molokáč et al. 2014). The objective of the entry process related to the evaluation of geosites is to create the list of geosites and to subsequently evaluate such sites in order to select geosites for the geopark in question.

Using the example of the proposed Zemplín geopark and various geosites in the paper, we would like to show whether the current geosite evaluation methods are sufficient and would like to propose a mechanism that will meet the needs of geopark management. Regarding the idea of the Zemplín geopark establishment, there was a need to select suitable geosites that were to form it. The above process was preceded by the preparation of conceptual material by the Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic and their organizations (2016). This material includes a selection (proposal) of territories in Slovakia with interesting geological sites together with the description of their potential suitable for geopark creation and development process that is based on long-term geological mapping performed by the Slovak Geological Society (SGS). The aim of this documentation was to (a) define the basis of geoparks and their purpose, (b) comment on the development of environmental education and tourism and on the need for further infrastructure development and for building educational trails, and information and training facilities, and (c) solve the related issues of environmental and landscape protection. The material contains an overview of operating and potential (new) geoparks and the guidelines for becoming a member of the Network of European Geoparks. Based on this document and map sources provided by the SGS, geosites were selected, their list was prepared, and their evaluation process was initiated. It was assumed that the geosites that received the highest score in the evaluation process were automatically considered to be of the highest quality and were included in the shortlist for the management of the geopark to be established.

Methods

The source used for the selection of geosites for the Zemplín geopark was primarily the publication of Kobulský et al. (2004). In this publication, the authors offered a detailed overview of geological, natural, cultural, and historical attractions in the Zemplín Mts. area. After reconnaissance of the territory and verification of the geosites, we have prepared a table evaluating the geosites in order to assess the suitability of the sites for tourism in the proposed Zemplín geopark.

Our quantitative evaluation methods were selected based on an analysis of numerous geotourism assessment methods reported by Mucivuna et al. (2019). When evaluating the geosites, we created 3 tables containing different assessment methods and criteria. For the management of the proposed Zemplin geopark, the evaluation method according to Rybár (2010) was selected. Rybár (2010) offers a simple evaluation of geosites (natural objects) using 9 categories with the maximum score for each evaluation criterion being 8 (Table 1). The most comprehensive and, compared to Rybár, more detailed assessment is provided by Brilha (2016) who distinguishes criteria for four different aspects, namely: scientific value, educational value, potential tourism-related use, and risk of degradation (Table 2). Each geosite is evaluated using a four-point scale (1–4) rating system containing indicators for each criterion. Their final score is calculated based on their weight (percentage value) with different partial weights corresponding to the relative importance of a criterion given. The third one is the evaluation according to Suzuki and Takagi (2018). There, 18 evaluation criteria were used, and divided into 6 categories. Each group was subsequently rated with a score ranging from 1 to 4 (Table 3).

Table 1 Evaluation of geosites (according to Rybár 2010)
Full size table
Table 2 Evaluation of geosites (according to Brilha 2016)
Full size table
Table 3 Evaluation of geosites (according to Suzuki and Takagi 2018)
Full size table

Criteria Decisive for Geopark Establishment

The evaluation of geosites is very useful for the selection of the most valuable geosites for the geopark. However, experience shows that it does not guarantee the geosite will be managed according to the geopark’s (or geotourism) needs. For this reason, it is necessary to adjust (revise) the geosite evaluation criteria for the geopark’s needs. Based on the analysis of the geopark’s management needs, specific criteria were highlighted, and they are already part of the evaluation tables. Despite the fact that the “geopark criteria” are important from the perspective of geopark management, they cannot be included in the evaluation criteria or given more weight since they could influence the result as desired. Moreover, their combining with other criteria included in the evaluation process might not lead to a positive result. On the contrary, it could negatively affect the final evaluation of geosites. It would be ideal to test the assessment on individual selected geosites and evaluate the results after a certain time.

The evaluation mechanism for geopark management is as follows:

  • Select the locations according to available information—publications, scientific papers, map sources;

  • Based on the documents given, perform field mapping thus verifying the information and evaluating the real state of the geosite (e.g., it may happen that the geosite is already used for other purposes);

  • Together with the local government, verify the owners, and analyze spatial planning and regional development—what plans do the owners (private or state ownership) have for the locations, or tenants;

  • Create a list of the geosites chosen for geopark management and evaluate them so as to give the geosites with the best scores the highest value for the geopark in question;

  • Apply the limiting criteria of geopark management to the abovementioned evaluation of geosites;

  • Prepare final assessment and a new list of geosites that can be used for planning geopark activities, such as establishing geopark products, infrastructure, and installing notice boards.

The following are the limiting criteria for geopark management:

  • K1 legal permissions/legal protection refers to the high level of environmental protection, restrictions due to ongoing mining activities, blasting in the quarry (Brilha 2016);

  • K2 safety/security refers to physical safety, i.e., access or movement in the geopark is life-threatening due to the morphology of the terrain, e.g., cliff erosion, rock falls, landslides (Rybár 2010; Brilha 2016);

  • K3 safety/security refers to the safety from the perspective of social or anthropogenic activities, i.e., the location where visitors could be threatened by any form of human activities (e.g., operation of mining equipment and machinery in the quarry), or areas with higher crime rates;

  • K4 risk of degradation refers to a possible direct threat to the geosite or its elements, e.g., destruction of secondary mineralization on the walls of the mine and straw decoration in the cave;

  • K5 ownership—At first glance, this criterion might appear not so limiting for visitors. An example would be a geosite where there is no obstacle (such as a fence). However, a land owner’s permission is required to enter their property or to perform specific activities on the property given, such as, for instance, installing an outdoor notice board on the property, building a bike trail, cleaning up the geosite, organizing a guided tour of the geosite;

  • K6 regional development/territorial planning—Criterion that describes how the potential geosite will be used in the future (e.g., planned construction, plans for agricultural use, renewed mining activities);

  • K7 current use—Criterion that determines whether the geosite or its immediate surroundings are used for the purpose which is in direct conflict with the geopark management plans (e.g., a hunting area in the immediate vicinity of the geosite is directly at odds with the movement of visitors);

The K1–K7 criteria were determined when the geosites were integrated in the geopark offer. These criteria gradually emerged as very important as, once included in geopark management, they proved to be limiting. The given criteria are based on the experience gained during the integration of geosites in the geopark offer.

Procedure Proposed for Geosite Evaluation

Each geosite evaluated according to the selected, already existing evaluation tables will be subject to subsequent re-evaluation that will be based on all the limiting criteria (K1 to K7) listed above. The resulting value of each geosite (according to the selected, already existing evaluation tables) will be multiplied by the criteria K1 to K7 to determine the resulting value K. The value of the K coefficient is calculated as the product of all the coefficients of the limiting criteria, i.e., K = K1×K2×K3×K4×K5×K6×K7. When analyzing these criteria, two limiting values were set: 0 for an existing restriction on the geosite, and 1 for a non-existing geosite restriction. If there are any of the listed restrictions K1–K7 on the geosite during the evaluation process, the overall result of the evaluation of the given geosite H is multiplied by the coefficient K=0. The resulting value of the geosite H will thus change to 0, which means that the geosite has no value for geopark management as it cannot be managed or used in any way beneficial for the geopark in question. However, if there are no restrictions that would translate into limiting criteria, the geosite is given the coefficient K=1 and the result of its evaluation is multiplied by K=1. Thus, the original value of the geosite remains unchanged which means that the management of the geopark can use such a geosite and give it adequate attention corresponding to the achieved score.

When applying these limiting criteria and consulting them with the management of the Zemplín geopark, it was discovered that some restrictions can be subsequently changed even eliminated (e.g., in case of the K5 limiting criterion, permission from the owner to use the land/site can be obtained). This fact had to be included in the limiting criteria to make it clear to the management of the geopark that a geosite is currently difficult to use but it can potentially be integrated in the park in the future. For such cases, the coefficient K=0.5 was determined based on which the resulting assessment of a geosite is reduced to 50%. This is then clearly reflected in the list of geosites suitable for the geopark offer. Moreover, it also means that there are opportunities for management to use the geosite in question since the resulting value is not zero. If the management overcomes the original limitations, then K=1 and the geosite becomes fully usable for our geopark. If the management does not overcome the limitations, K=0.5 will further be assigned to the site and it will be included in the list of the geosites with potential future use.

Characteristics of Zemplín Geopark

The proposed territory of the Zemplín geopark belongs to the Dolný Zemplín region, Trebišov district, Košice region. This region is mainly formed by a lowland relief (East Slovak Basin) with a whole series of protruding volcanic bodies. The geological structure of the territory is complex. During a long geological period from the Paleozoic to the present day, several important geological processes took place which shaped the landscape into its current form. The most outstanding morphological feature of the area is the Zemplín Mts., which form a mountain range with a moderately broken terrain rising above the East Slovak Basin. The highest point of the Zemplín Mts. is Rozhladňa (469 m a.s.l.).

The geological structure of the Zemplín Mts. (Fig. 1) was described and published by Baňacký (1989). The Zemplín Mts. represent a horst structure elevated along the faults of the NW–SE direction. The proof of the complex geological development is the different types of rocks outcropped to the surface and representing all geological periods.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Geological map of the Western Carpathians (a) and the Zemplín Mts. (b) (apl.geology.sk/pgm)

Full size image

The uniqueness of this relatively small area lies in the variability of the rocks (both lithologically and stratigraphically).

In the elevation structure of the Zemplín Mts., the Zemplinicum Unit containing rocks of the Late Paleozoic to Mesozoic ages comes to the surface. The Late Paleozoic is represented by Carboniferous and Permian sedimentary formations. It is a set of sedimentary rocks consisting of sandstones, conglomerates, clayey shales (the occurrence of coal seams in the vicinity of Veľká Trňa village included), and tuffs. The change from a humid to dry climate during the Permian was manifested in the more colorful sediments that can be found in the vicinity of Kašov, Černochov, and Mala Bara villages. The Mesozoic period is represented by conglomerates, quartzites, sandstones, clayey shales, limestones, and dolomites (e.g., Ladmovce site). Isolated volcanic bodies of rhyodacites and their tuffs, as well as the products of andesite volcanism, rise to the surface mostly along the perimeter of the Zemplín Mts.

Description and Evaluation of Selected Geological Sites

In the territory of the proposed Zemplín geopark, 9 initial localities were selected after terrain reconnaissance with the intention to include them in the list of geological sites of the geopark (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Evaluated localities: 1, Sirník; 2, Brehov; 3, Cejkov; 4, Zemplín; 5, Ladmovce; 6, Viničky; 7, Malá Tŕňa; 8, Veľká Tŕňa; 9, Hrčeľ

Full size image

Sirník–Veľká Moľva: Aeolian Sand and Site of Quartz Forms—Jasper, Chalcedony, Opal Discovery

Veľká Moľva is located in the north-eastern part of the Zemplín Mts., east of the Sirník village on the left bank of the Ondava River. The geosite can be accessed through a country road to which one can get by turning left just after the bridge over the river when coming from the Novosad–Veľké Kapušany direction.

Moľva is formed by the body of a lava flow of pyroxenic andesites of the Lower Sarmatian age. On its north and south sides, it is surrounded by wind-blown sand and dunes (Upper Pleistocene - Holocene) formed by fine-grained, dusty, bedded sands. The term “moľva” is defined as a small elevation in an alluvial flat area (around a river), which rises several meters (max. 10–25 m) above the surrounding terrain. The core of Veľká Moľva is formed by an extrusive body of andesite which is assumed to have extruded into a shallow water environment in the Tertiary period, or into waterlogged sediments (Fig. 3a). Thanks to its heat capacity, the extrusive body influenced the local water circulation, thus causing a transformation of the original andesite rocks. Various forms of quartz—opal and jasper—eventually precipitated from the solutions. The tiny veins inside the body were filled with chalcedony. Jaspers are deep red and light brown and occur in the form of fragments and boulders as residual remains of the disintegration and weathering of the surrounding rocks (Fig. 3b). In the Quaternary period, sand overburdens—dunes—were created on the volcanic body due to wind activity. With the predominance of north-south winds, the sands were deposited on the northern and, more importantly, on the southern (leeward) side of the protruding andesite body (Kobulský et al. 2004).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Kamenná Moľva at the Sirník geosite (a) and jasper samples (b)

Full size image

A considerable disadvantage of the site is a waste dump located right next to Moľva (Fig. 4). That is why it is necessary to look for a more suitable place in the vicinity to install a notice board.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Sirník geosite

Full size image

Brehov—Quarry: Andesite Quarry with Occurrence of Opal, Jasper, Chalcedony

In the Brehov village, there are two operating quarries in the Veľký vrch volcanic body (Fig. 5). The proposed geosite for the geopark is the quarry that is currently mined by RESTA DAKON, Ltd. The quarry can be accessed by taking the first turn to the left before Brehov from Sirník direction. The deposit is formed by an extrusive body of grey pyroxenic andesite, which was formed in the Neogene–Lower Sarmatian period. In the quarry, prismatic and plate-like rock breakdown can be observed. An attraction for tourists is the opportunity to find opal and jasper of various colors as well as chalcedony. In order to avoid the danger associated with the operation of the quarry, one can only access the geosite for the purpose of sample collection outside operating hours, which is one of the restrictions of this site. Considering the classification of quarries, it is a wall quarry. The wall is an almost vertical surface, with two floors.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Andesitic extrusive body “Veľký vrch” and samples of minerals found in the quarry

Full size image

In the fields west of the Brehov–Sirník road, north of the former agricultural cooperative, various forms of SiO2 can be found—bluish chalcedony, agate, quartz crystal, or even barite crystals (Fig. 6). The fragments of black volcanic glass—obsidian—and various stone artifacts can also be found here. In the village, there is also the Monastery and the Minorite Church of St. Francis of Assisi with a garden. This cultural monument is open to visitors. Brehov is a unique geological and archeological site.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Fields with the occurrence of SiO2 forms, barite, obsidian and prepared construction for a notice board for the Brehov geosite

Full size image

Cejkov: Rhyodacite Quarry

A smaller quarry on the periphery of the village (Fig. 7a) is open in Tertiary grey and white and light brown rhyodacite of fluidic texture (Fig. 7b). It was opened in an erosion dissected extrusive body. The fine- to medium-grained rhyodacite tuffs in Cejkov were produced by acid volcanism during Miocene. Their characteristic feature are intense variations—silicification, adularization, and also hematitization, which is a typical sign of submarine acidic volcanism (Baňacký 1989). The rhyodacite of this site is interesting thanks to its distinct fluidal texture where violet-pink stripes formed by quartz and pale yellow, predominantly feldspar stripes alternate. They show platy-like disintegration along the cracks. The rhyodacite contains abundant dark grey fragments of magmatic enclaves, cavities, and limonitic coatings of brown to brown-black color (Marcinčáková and Košuth 2011). Access to the site is restricted by a locked gate. Considering the classification of quarries, it is a wall quarry. The quarry wall is an almost vertical surface, without a floor.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Restriction of access to the site by the owner (a). Fluidal texture of rhyodacite (b)

Full size image

Zemplín: Occurrence of Quartz Forms—Jasper, Agate, Chalcedony

Different varieties of quartz can be found in the fields west of the Zemplín village, in an area of the former agricultural cooperative (Fig. 8). These minerals are found in an environment of a rhyodacite body and silicified volcanic breccias. Volcanic breccias are the product of surface hydrothermal explosions that took place in occasionally flooded areas, or in shallow water conditions (Kobulský et al. 2004). The hydrothermal activity is indicated by jasper which is of intense red to brick red color caused by iron compounds. It is massive, sometimes porous, often interlaced with a network of veins filled with bluish chalcedony or coral jasper. The crystals of clear quartz can also be found in the cavities of rhyodacite volcaniclastic rocks. In brecciated rhyodacites, a purple variety of quartz—amethyst—can also occur.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Occurrence of Zemplín jasper in the fields in the cadastre of the village of Zemplín

Full size image

The associated value of the geosite is the Zemplín village itself. Its territory has been inhabited since the Paleolithic period as evidenced by the obsidian artifacts found, as well as various objects from the Hallstatt, Roman, and other periods. The former eleventh to the twelfth century fortification is also interesting currently replaced by 2 churches (Reformed and Greek Catholic) and a cemetery. Zemplín is an important archeological and mineralogical site.

Ladmovce: Limestone and Dolomite Quarry, Calcite Crystals

The locality is represented by 2 quarries west of the Ladmovce village, in the Šomoš elevation area. The site can be accessed through a stony road. The quarries, which were mined in the past, are set in an environment of limestones and dolomites of the Mesozoic age (Middle Triassic). The limestones there are dark grey and grey, interlaced with white veins of calcite. They were found to contain microfossils—segments of crinoides and fragments of shells (Kobulský et al. 2004). The dolomites of the locality are predominantly calcareous with different color varieties—light pink, light grey, and brownish grey. In the quarry, one can observe an intensive karstification of carbonates along fissures and small tectonic faults, which is manifested by brownish-red coloration. The cracks are filled with calcite crystals (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9
figure 9

Limestone quarry and calcite crystals

Full size image

Viničky: Obsidian Site of Discovery

The Borsuk elevation is a rhyolite volcano, an extrusive body of rhyolite and pyroclastic rocks. The body of rhyolite most likely came into contact with an aqueous environment, which led to perlitization, i.e., the hydration of glassy edges. Moreover, the non-hydrated glass—obsidian—is often preserved in perlite. Obsidian is found mainly on the southern slopes of the extrusive body above the Viničky village, in the cut of the purpose-built road and in the area of the vineyards. Obsidian can be found here primarily in deluvial clay-stone sediments in the form of cores of up to 10 cm even (Kobulský et al. 2004). Another occurrence is concentrated in the private underground cellars of the local wine company.

Malá Tŕňa: Abandoned Rhyodacite Tuff Quarry

The quarry is located near the Malá Tŕňa village under the road leading through the vineyards. Near the geosite, there is the Tokaj Observation Tower, from which there is a view of the Tokaj region not only in the Slovak but also in the Hungarian part of the territory. The quarry is open in the volcaniclastic and sedimentary rocks of the Upper Carboniferous age. The alternating layers of rhyolite-rhyodacite tuffs, tuffites, quartzites, and shales can be observed there (Fig. 10). Above the quarry in the sedimentary rocks in the vineyard area, the remnants of black silicified plant trunks can be found. Although the wider area around the site is visited by tourists, the geosite land, on which the wall of the old quarry is located, is private and its owner does not want to allow to install a notice board or let visitors enter the site. Considering the classification of quarries, it is a wall quarry. The quarry wall is an almost vertical surface, without a floor.

Fig. 10
figure 10

Abandoned quarry of rhyodacite tuffs with visible alternation of layers

Full size image

Veľká Tŕňa: Abandoned Heaps After Anthracite Mining

The anthracite deposit from the time of World War II in the cadastre of the Veľká Tŕňa village is part of the Paleozoic (Upper Carboniferous) sediments. An abandoned heap is located about 200 m NE of the village border. The locality consists of dark grey sandstone, and sandy, clayey, and coal shales. These sediments almost always contain a certain share of dark grey to black organic matter. In the shales, there are fragments of branches and trunks of horsetail-type trees and, on layered surfaces, there are pressure marks of horsetail-type and fern-like plants (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11
figure 11

Fossilized flora in shale from the heap at the Veľká Tŕňa site

Full size image

Hrčeľ: Quarry

The geosite is represented by an inactive quarry of Miocene (Langhian–Serravallian) rhyodacite, emerging in an environment of Paleozoic rocks (Fig. 12a). Extrusion and lava flows of fine-grained rhyodacite lie on Upper Permian rocks. The rhyodacite there is light in color with rusty coatings from limonite and is affected by intensive variations—adularization and silicification. Access to the quarry is via a cart-road from the gypsy settlement south of the village. Access to the geosite is therefore limited by the risk of danger in terms of increased criminality of the local residents (Fig. 12b).

Fig. 12
figure 12

Rhyodacite quarry in Hrčeľ (a) and negative anthropogenic influences in the vicinity of the geosite (b)

Full size image

Results

The results are summarized in three separate tables, in which the values of selected evaluated geosites L1–L9 can be seen. The first method of assessment according to the Rybár (Table 1) was used for geopark management. The values there can reach a maximum score of 8 for each evaluation criterion. Considering scientific criteria such as geological properties or uniqueness, the geosites achieve high scores in evaluation. Conversely, for the criteria that focus on the visitors and services, geosites reach very low or zero scores. As a result, we can say that based on all the criteria given, the geosites attain medium scores. All geosites achieved scores of more than 50% in the overall evaluation.

According to Brilha (2016) (Table 2), it can be seen that geosites also reach high scores from the perspective of their scientific value, even for the “use limitations” criterion, where they only reach a quarter of its maximum score. From the perspective of potential educational and touristic uses, the geosites also achieve high scores, except for the “density of population,” “scenery,” and “economic level” criteria, where the geosites attain only a quarter of its maximum score. In contrast to the previous evaluation (Rybár 2010), the “touristic uses” criterion achieves a higher score. From the perspective of “risk of degradation” criteria, the geosites achieve high scores, except for the “density of population” criterion where geosites reach only a quarter of its maximum score. In the overall evaluation, all the geosites achieved scores of over 50%.

Considering the assessment according to Suzuki and Takagi (Table 3), the geosites were evaluated from the perspective of 6 aspects. From the perspective of their educational value, all the geosites achieved high scores, even for the “notice boards” criterion. The same also applies to their scientific value. From the perspective of their tourism-related information value, the geosites obtained low scores. It is caused by the absence of services for tourists. As regard the “safety and accessibility” evaluation criteria, the geosites reached approximately half of their maximum scores. It is interesting that we used three different methods for the evaluation of the geosites but the results of all three of them are very similar. Even though all the evaluated geosites achieved more than half of their overall rating, not a single one came close to the maximum score.

Based on this document and maps from the Slovak Geological Society (ŠGÚDŠ), the geosites were selected, their overview was prepared, and their evaluation was started. It was assumed that the geosites that received the highest scores in the evaluation were automatically considered to be of the highest quality and were included in the shortlist for the emerging management of the geopark. The summary evaluation of geosites according to individual authors (previous 3 tables) can be seen in Table 4.

Table 4 Summary evaluation of geosites according to individual evaluation methods
Full size table

The geosites highlighted in color proved to be of high value. As such it could be used for further development. The values from the Table 4 were further converted to the percentage success rate of the geosite. Geosites with the values highlighted in yellow achieved a success rate higher than 60% and those highlighted in green achieved more than 70%. The success rates of all other geosites were lower than 60% and they were not included in the shortlist of potential geosites for the geopark given. The optimistic scenario would consider all the geosites with a success rate higher than 60% suitable for the Zemplín geopark. In this way, we would obtain enough geosites for geopark establishment. However, the pessimistic scenario would only consider the geosites with at least 70% success rate. The quality of the geosites would increase but only 1 or 2 of them would meet the criteria for their integration which is absolutely insufficient for geopark management, especially for geotourism product establishment.

Thus, the assessment used so far showed its weaknesses and we concluded that not all the evaluated geosites, even if they received a high score, could be integrated. It is therefore necessary to look at them not only from the perspective of their value, but also from the perspective of their management, i.e., their use in the geopark. Several authors included the issue of using/managing geosites in their assessment (e.g., Brilha 2016; Tavares et al.  2020). The assessment of geosites for the geopark’s needs was elaborated by Suzuki and Takagi (2018). As it can be seen from the example of the evaluated geosites for the proposed Zemplín geopark, not even the above assessments are sufficient for management purposes. For this reason, limiting criteria were introduced (explained in the ‘Methods’ chapter) and applied to individual geosites. The result of applying the limiting criteria can be seen in Table 5.

Table 5 Application of limiting criteria for the assessment of geosites
Full size table

Table 5 shows that the limiting criteria mainly related to the K5 criterion reflecting the ownership of the geosite, where the owner will not allow the geosite to be used for public purposes. Here, the need to include limiting criteria in the overall evaluation of the geopark geosites can be clearly seen, although previous evaluations showed relatively high-quality scores for the given sites. After such a calculation, it is obvious that even a high-quality geosite such as L7-Malá Tŕňa suddenly becomes uninteresting and unusable from the geopark management perspective. The L3-Cejkov and L6-Viničky localities also ended up with a negative result. The L1-Sirník site has a K7 restriction. Its current use is not possible, because there is a waste dump located directly on the border of this site, and access to the geosite is therefore prohibited. The L9-Hrčeľ location received a total evaluation score of 0 due to the limitation of K3 safety from the anthropogenic point of view. In its vicinity, there is a settlement inhabited by residents with antisocial behavior, which resulted in an enormous increase of waste pollution around and on the geosite itself. There is also an increased risk of crime and therefore the geopark management cannot manage this site and include it in the list of geosites under consideration.

Discussion

From the perspective of their natural attractiveness, the geosites received high-level scores in all three evaluation cases. However, from the perspective of tourism and services, the scores dropped to the lowest levels. This assessment seems to be very interesting and serves as an indicator for the geopark management purposes. The geosites have the potential for future geotourism development but they need to become more attractive for visitors. If the quality of services is improved, we will achieve better evaluation results. Thanks to the effective strategy implementation, the geopark management has the possibility to improve the quality of the geosites. All the evaluated geosites have a high potential to become part of the geopark, if the geopark management is prepared to invest more in the services for visitors in individual sites. Unlike some recent studies of geosite management, e.g., those by Suzuki and Takagi (2018) and Garcia et al. (2019), the current proposal is trying to persuade the management of the geopark about geosites being its priority.

Limiting criteria are essential indicators for the geopark management since they determine whether or not to invest to the selected geosites. Thanks to these criteria, the management can decide whether to include a particular geosite to the geopark offer (on the basis of its possible use for tourism) or not. For example, if geopark workers design a notice board (Weis et al. 2019) and they want to install it, the landowner may not give the permission to use their property for this purpose. In this way, financial and human resources are wasted, which is unacceptable for the geopark management.

On one hand, the experience gained during the geopark creation process has shown us that this approach is necessary in order to manage effectively both financial and human resources. On the other hand, it is possible to bypass the restrictions and use geosites in a virtual environment (Škodová et al. 2022). However, this assessment is mainly focused on the selection of geosites that can be included in the geopark directly during its establishment. The main task of the evaluation is to help the geopark management in the decision-making process.

In the paper, three evaluation methods were considered. From the perspective of managing a single geopark, such evaluation is time-consuming, costly, and eventually pointless. For the decision-making process in the selection of geosites, it would be of benefit to create a universal evaluation method (Mucivuna et al. 2022) potentially used to manage more geoparks. It might be appropriate to expand this idea to include all the sites that the geopark is interested in. In this way, the methods for selecting cultural, historical, ecological, and other locations could be established. The application of such methods would be helpful for geopark managers when integrating the park in question into a network of geoparks and for independent evaluators nominated by the EGN and UNESCO (Zouros and Valiakos 2010).

Conclusion

In recent years, the boom of geotourism has become apparent and there has been a need for the evaluation and effective management of geosites. There have been several studies on this issue, and their results are qualitatively sufficient for the evaluation given. A similar phenomenon can be seen in the evaluation of geoparks for their integration in national or global networks. This process is also well-designed and has been functional for several years. When planning a geopark, it is possible to use one or the other evaluation method. However, it was found that both forms of assessment, whether the one used for geosites or for geoparks, have their disadvantages in the process of geopark establishment. As for the methods themselves, the evaluation of the Zemplín geopark cannot be applied yet as it has not been officially recognized. Therefore, the evaluation of geosites and their use in the future geopark is the only assessment under consideration in the case given. In this paper, it has been discovered that the current assessment of geosites is not sufficient for their management and their use in the geopark. From geopark management perspective, it is vital that its geosites are safe and accessible, and that they can be actively managed as part of geotourism. It means that the geosite is accessible to geotourists and guides and that geopark management can increase the attractiveness of the site (e.g., install notice boards, build a bike trail). Therefore, limiting criteria were implemented in the evaluation of geosites. Their need was tested at the Zemplín geopark and the results reflect the experience as confirmed by the geopark management itself. Such an assessment is very advantageous for the process of geopark establishment, and it would be necessary to apply it already in the preparatory phase. Although some geosites achieved high evaluation scores, they had to be eliminated because they would not reflect the actual added value or benefit for the future geopark and the geopark management will not be able to manage such sites accordingly.