Using geoinformatics and geomorphometrics to quantify the geodiversity of Crete, Greece

Abstract

The geodiversity of Crete is quantified in this study, based on the classification of geomorphometric, geological and climatic factors. A number of geomorphometric variables, extracted from the ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model (ASTER G-DEM) in conjunction with geological and climatic information, are evaluated through various algorithms incorporated into Geographical Information System (GIS) software's. The derived geoinformatic data sets are 2 then analyzed to produce the geodiversity of Crete. The geodiversity map is used to quantify the geodiversity, by calculating landscape diversity and other spatial pattern indices. Those indices are evaluating the richness, evenness, fragmentation and shape of the landscape patch types. The outcome of this study has highlighted that western Crete is characterized by complex geodiversity with more irregular, elongated and fragmented landscape patterns relative to the eastern part of the island. The geodiversity indices provide insights into the processes shaping landscapes, particularly the "battle" between neotectonic landscape deformation and erosion/deposition. The methodology presented can be useful for decision makers when evaluating a regions geological heritage, planning the management of natural resources, or designating areas for conservation.

Current trends and future directions in quantitative geodiversity assessment

“…Eleven publications scored 80% or higher in the ranking tool (Argyriou et al, 2016; da Silva et al, 2019; Kaskela and Kotilainen, 2017; Silva et al, 2013) and only five publications scored 10% (dos Santos et al, 2019; Kärnä et al, 2018; Najwer et al, 2016). Further, only one publication ranked at 90% (Kaskela and Kotilainen, 2017).…”

“…The connection between existing methodological approaches (Benito-Calvo et al, 2009; Hjort and Luoto, 2010; Kozlowski, 2004; Parks and Mulligan, 2010; Pereira et al, 2013; Serrano and Flano, 2007; Zwolinski, 2009) and the geodiversity concept are not yet clear (Santos et al, 2017). In recent years, the output of geodiversity assessment publications proposing new methods (Argyriou et al, 2016; Najwer et al, 2016) and drawing upon existing knowledge (da Silva et al, 2019; Kaskela and Kotilainen, 2017; Manosso and de Nobrega, 2016; Perotti et al, 2019) have increased, but it remains unclear whether recent studies have been working to bridge the gap between methodology and concept.…”

Geodiversity: An integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable management of the whole of nature

“…A quantitative characterisation seems to be more useful to researchers. Several recent studies and methodologies present and discuss geodiversity indices using map algebra with GIS techniques Pereira et al, 2013;Malinowska and Szumacher, 2013;Silva et al, 2013Silva et al, , 2015Melelli, 2014;Pellitero et al, 2014;Kot, 2015;Martinez-Grana et al, 2015;Manosso and Nóbrega, 2016;Argyriou et al, 2016;Araujo and Pereira, 2017;Forte et al, 2018). The objectivity and simplicity of using GIS analysis of geographical data during the data collection allow cartographic representations of geodiversity or partial geodiversity indices and the overlay with other types of spatial data.…”

Kernel Density Applied to the Quantitative Assessment of Geodiversity

“…While the first attempts to quantify geodiversity were mainly limited to topographical/ relief features (Xavier-da- Silva et al 2001;Serrano and Flaño 2007;Benito-Calvo et al 2009;Zwolinski 2009;Hjort and Luoto 2010;Muller 2011;Manosso 2012;Pellitero 2012), other approaches tried to considerer all types of geodiversity elements (Carcavilla et al 2007;Forte 2014;Silva et al 2015). More recently, other authors made new approaches to geodiversity assessment (Argyriou et al 2016;Manosso and Nóbrega 2016;Najwer et al 2016;Kaskela and Kotilainen 2017;Stepisnik and Trenchovska 2017).…”