Geodiversity assessment is recent and is passing through a stage of methodological development and consolidation. With rapid environmental change, improving the developmental states of geodiversity assessment is of paramount importance. A scientometric analysis is presented to identify knowledge gaps, current trends and avenues for future research in quantitative geodiversity assessment literature. The study is categorised into three areas of analysis: (a) methodological intentions of geodiversity assessment, (b) current trends in geodiversity assessment methods and (c) current geographic trends. A ranking tool was developed to determine whether the current methodological intentions of geodiversity assessments trend towards combined geodiversity and biodiversity assessments or towards the independent assessment of geodiversity. Results showed that about 50% of publications independently assessed geodiversity with no consideration for biodiversity, 32% discussed or reviewed geodiversity by mentioning potential links to biodiversity and 12% more strongly linked geodiversity assessment to biodiversity assessment. Tools used by scholars to determine geodiversity values varied from statistical through to the more frequently adopted geographic information systems (GIS) and spatial analytical software approaches. Study sites selected for geodiversity assessments were predominantly terrestrial at the state-wide scale. Marine assessments, or seabed geodiversity, were mostly absent from the literature, with only two publications found. Brazil in South America had many geodiversity assessments and European scholars have played crucial roles in the development of quantitative geodiversity assessment in recent years. Subsequent research will benefit from developing a unified geodiversity assessment approach, reaching a consensus on an accepted definition and standardising the geodiversity concept, broadening research site environment types and developing strategies to promote further international and intranational collaboration.

Biodiversity assessment is constitutive in establishing conservation priorities and outcomes, and geodiversity complements species richness as a surrogate in the absence of species data, improves statistical modelling and can facilitate prediction of species distribution and abundance. Yet, geodiversity is frequently excluded, and biodiversity prioritised in conservation endeavours such as ecosystem-based management. Therefore, combined geodiversity and biodiversity assessment approaches present practical benefits to conservation such as improved collaboration between biologists and geoscientists, efficacious indicators of conservation value, and abatement of biodiversity partialities and wider inclusion of geodiversity in conservation literature. This study scientometrically analysed 240 biodiversity assessment publications to investigate geodiversity inclusiveness, methodological trends, geographic trends, environment-type trends and future directions in biodiversity assessment methods. Results showed these species richness articles frequently included geodiversity-relevant terms such as hydrological, soil, geological and geomorphological components, but the all-encompassing ‘geodiversity’ term was absent entirely. Geographic trends showed many potential economic, social, cultural and political factors influencing geodiversity inclusiveness in biodiversity assessment. For example, Australia’s relatively resource exploitative approach to geology and early involvement in the inception of the geodiversity concept could explain the high frequency of geological-related terms in Australian biodiversity assessments. Methodological trends showed dominance by field-based biodiversity assessments such as trapping methods, followed transects, quadrats, net methods and observations. Given the specific sample size of literature analysed, inferences from this study relate only to biodiversity assessment methods and not biodiversity discourse in its entirety. Subsequent research could investigate specific factors, such as social, economic or political, and their influence on geodiversity inclusiveness in biodiversity assessment methods.