Geodiversity Mapping and Relationship with Vegetation: A Regional-Scale Application in SE Brazil

Santos, Daniel Souza dos; Mansur, Kátia Leite; Arruda, Elias Ribeiro de; Dantas, Marcelo Eduardo; Shinzato, Edgar

doi:10.1007/s12371-018-0295-y

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Discussion of the relationship between geodiversity and biodiversity stems back to 1999 (Erikstad, 1999). However, some developments in the field still seem segregated, with some scholars continually treating geodiversity and biodiversity as separate entities (dos Santos et al, 2020; Matthews, 2014), whilst others are working to understand the relationship between both geodiversity and biodiversity (Bailey et al, 2018; dos Santos et al, 2019; Fischer et al, 2019; Jackova and Romportl, 2008; Toivanen et al, 2019). The geological elements within geodiversity provide the substrates to which species bind, the physical characteristics and processes upon which species and habitats depend, and the landform mosaics to facilitate habitat distributions (Hjort et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The geological elements within geodiversity provide the substrates to which species bind, the physical characteristics and processes upon which species and habitats depend, and the landform mosaics to facilitate habitat distributions (Hjort et al, 2015). The separation of terms in the literature is probably attributed to the fact that geodiversity is a relatively new subject (Silva et al, 2015), and research focusing on the link or relationship with biodiversity remains uncommon (dos Santos et al, 2019). However, some researchers perceive geodiversity as complementary to biodiversity and not as separate entities (Crofts, 2014; Santos et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Current trends and future directions in quantitative geodiversity assessment

Crisp

Ellison

Fischer

2020

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current trends and future directions in quantitative geodiversity assessment

Crisp

Ellison

Fischer

2020

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the inventory process, the observed features of the object are compared and described in detail [58]. During assessment, these features are assessed either against features of other objects or against a developed pattern and given criteria (e.g., [71,103]). These criteria may include geodiversity, geoheritage, or geomorphological heritage assessments [19,39], listings for geoconservation and geotourism [59], object attractiveness rankings for different types of recipients [12,22], and evaluations of a narrow range of geosite values [46,49].…”

Section: Discussion and Concluding Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These are elements of the "sense of place" [31,65], "value of geodiversity" [13], "geocultural heritage" [66], and "ethnogeology" [67]. It is equally important to highlight the relationship between geodiversity and biodiversity [68][69][70][71].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Concept of the Geotourism Potential and Its Practical Application: A Case Study of the Prządki (the Spinners) Nature Reserve in the Carpathians, Poland

Welc

Miśkiewicz

2020

Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the recent use of the term “geotourism potential” in the scientific literature and proposes a new approach to the concept of geotourism potential. The concept assumes that every geotourism object has the well-developed features that allow one to learn and understand the object’s structure, genesis and properties. A method for the application of this concept to any geotourism object is proposed. The procedure and guidelines for the compilation of geotourism potential are applied on the example—the Prządki Nature Reserve in the Flysch Carpathians, Poland. Based on the field research, the research results of other scientists, and the internationally accepted definitions of terms connected with geotourism, a definition of geotourism potential is presented for the first time in academic literature. The main results emphasize that only clearly exposed features within the geotourism object relate to geotourism potential, while educational potential and tourist infrastructure are not to be identified with this potential. The inclusion of a new procedure for use in geotourism research provides a comprehensive approach to the inventory of geotourism objects and the educational use of abiotic elements of nature, as well as biotic and cultural aspects related to geoheritage. The presented model has practical application in the design of geoeducational materials.

show abstract

“…Most probable, all these hypotheses are plausible in different cases. However, the strengthened emphasis on geodiversity and geological heritage landscape integrity [22][23][24] and, particularly, links between water and geology in landscape systems [25][26][27] stimulate geopark practitioners to focus on water bodies. If so, the third hypothesis may provide a kind of universal explanation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water in Descriptions of Global Geoparks: Not Less Important than Geology?

Ruban

2019

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water is an important landscape element of protected areas, but its significance to geoparks (parks representing geological heritage) is still unclear. The content of the official, standardized descriptions of the UNESCO global geoparks (144 in total) was analyzed in order to understand the consideration of water by geopark creators/managers. It was found that water objects (seas/oceans, rivers, and lakes are most common) are mentioned in 55% of these descriptions, and 47% of the latter bear photos of water objects. Moreover, water is generally strongly related to geological heritage (in 80% of cases). These findings imply a significant attention to hydrodiversity in geoparks (apparently, official descriptions reflect global geopark practice and intentions). This attention does not differ between Europe, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. It has increased in the 2010s relatively to the 2000s. The registered consideration of water in geoparks can be explained differently, and one plausible hypothesis links it to an increasing willingness of geopark creators/managers to demonstrate the natural integrity of geological heritage landscapes. Such attention to water is suitable to deliver the knowledge of this integrity to tourists, but it increases the risks of visitor distraction from geological heritage, shifting to easy-to-understand and beautiful water objects.

show abstract

Geodiversity Mapping and Relationship with Vegetation: A Regional-Scale Application in SE Brazil

Cited by 19 publications

References 40 publications

Current trends and future directions in quantitative geodiversity assessment

Current trends and future directions in quantitative geodiversity assessment

The Concept of the Geotourism Potential and Its Practical Application: A Case Study of the Prządki (the Spinners) Nature Reserve in the Carpathians, Poland

Water in Descriptions of Global Geoparks: Not Less Important than Geology?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About