Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal)

Abstract

Abstract. The Montesinho Natural Park (MNP), with an area of about 750 km2, is one of the largest protected areas in Portugal. Since its inauguration as a natural park in 1979, geological and geomorphological aspects have not been taken into consideration in its nature conservation policies. Over the last few years, this deficit has been compensated with an assessment of its geomorphological heritage. The assessment was made possible due to a research project on the geological heritage of the natural parks of north-eastern Portugal.The assessment method propagated herein proposes a clear definition of three types of geomorphosites: Single places, geomorphological areas or panoramic viewpoints. Further, it proposes as two-staged approach to assessment with inventory compilation followed by quantification of value. Inventory compilation, for example, involves the identification and qualitative assessment of potential geomorphosites and, therefore, the selection and characterization of geomorphosites. The quantification stage includes the numerical assessment of sites and their final ranking. The values are numerically assessed using selected criteria. The implementation of this approach in the MNP led to the identification of 154 potential geomorphosites, of which only 26 were selected after the qualitative assessment or characterisation process. The numerical assessment of the sites and their ranking allowed a final selection of 13 sites for public use.

Existing and Proposed Urban Geosites Values Resulting from Geodiversity of Poznań City

“…They divide the methods into two groups: qualitative and quantitative, but do not indicate the best ones (Pereira et al 2007, Reynard et al 2007, Rybár 2010, Baca and Schuster 2011, Bruschi et al 2011, Fassoulas et al 2012. They do, however, define the criteria, which should be taken into account in the assessment of geosites.…”

“…kubaliková (2013) has identified the following groups of criteria for assessing geosites: 1 -the scientific and intrinsic values (integrity, rarity; scientific knowledge; morphology, genesis), 2 -the exemplarity and pedagogical potential (exemplarity, clarity; educational facilities; use for education), 3 -accessibility and visibility of the site and the presence of tourist infrastructure (tourist services; local products; accessibility), 4 -the existing threats and risks, assessing conservation activities or the existing legislative protection of the site (conservation activities; risks and threats; current status), and 5 -added values (cultural values; ecological value; aesthetic/landscape value). The author made a quantitative assessment of seven methods presented by Bruschi and Cendrero (2005), Coratza and Giusti (2005), Pralong (2005), Serrano and Gonzales-Trueba (2005), Pereira et al (2007), Reynard et al (2007) and Zouros (2007), and concluded that the less relevant methods for assessing geosites and geomorphosites for geotourism purposes are those described by Coratza and Giusti (2005) and Reynard et al (2007), which use less than half the geosite evaluation criteria outlined by this author. In turn, kubaliková (2013) described the methods by Pralong (2005) and Pereira et al (2007) as those best exploiting these assessment criteria.…”

“…The author made a quantitative assessment of seven methods presented by Bruschi and Cendrero (2005), Coratza and Giusti (2005), Pralong (2005), Serrano and Gonzales-Trueba (2005), Pereira et al (2007), Reynard et al (2007) and Zouros (2007), and concluded that the less relevant methods for assessing geosites and geomorphosites for geotourism purposes are those described by Coratza and Giusti (2005) and Reynard et al (2007), which use less than half the geosite evaluation criteria outlined by this author. In turn, kubaliková (2013) described the methods by Pralong (2005) and Pereira et al (2007) as those best exploiting these assessment criteria.…”

“…Probably this approach to choosing the criteria is more appropriate than the right choice from among the various methods used. Migoń and Pijet-Migoń (2017) note that the methods they are discussing Cendrero 2005, 2009;Pereira et al 2007;Reynard 2009;Brilha 2016;kubaliková and kirchner 2016;Reynard et al 2016), concentrate mainly on 1 -the scientific value of a site, 2 -its educational potential, and 3 -accessibility, and refer to geological and geomorphological features. These authors develop the concept of the geosites assessment concerning viewpoints, paying attention to the role of geodiversity in the context of ollier's (2012) opinion.…”

Geotourism Potential of the Drawskie Lake District as a Support for the Planned Geopark named Postglacial Land of the Drawa and Dębnica Rivers

“…A detailed review of quantitative methods evaluating different values of abiotic objects in order to assess their usefulness for the development of geotourism has been recently published by Kubalíkova (2013). She described the methods used in Italy (Panizza 2001, Coratza andGiusti 2005), Spain (Serrano andGonzalez-trueba 2005, Bruschi andCendrero 2005), Portugal (Pereira et al 2007, Pereira andPereira 2010), Greece (Zouros 2005(Zouros , 2007, and Switzerland (Pralong 2005, Reynard et al 2007. Based on the analysis of the criteria and categories used in the mentioned quantitative methods, Kubalikova (2013) proposed her own method of geosite evaluation for geotourism purposes.…”