Geomorphological Model Comparison for Geosites, Utilizing Qualitative–Quantitative Assessment of Geodiversity, Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand

Abstract

In qualitative–quantitative assessment of geodiversity, geomorphology describes landscape forms suggesting specific locations as geosites. However, all digital elevation models (DEM) contain information only about altitude and coordinate systems, which are not enough data for inclusion assessments. To overcome this, researchers may transform altitude parameters into a range of different models such as slope, aspect, plan, and profile curvature. More complex models such as Geomorphon or Topographic Position Index (TPI) may be used to build visualizations of landscapes. All these models are rarely used together, but rather separately for specific purposes—for example, aspect may be used in soil science and agriculture, while slope is considered useful for geology and topography. Therefore, a qualitative–quantitative assessment of geodiversity has been developed to recognize possible geosite locations and simplify their search through field observation and further description. The Coromandel Peninsula have been chosen as an area of study due to landscape diversity formed by Miocene–Pleistocene volcanism which evolved on a basement of Jurassic Greywacke and has become surrounded and partially covered by Quaternary sediments. Hence, this research provides a comparison of six different models for geomorphological assessment. Models are based on DEM with surface irregularities in locations with distinct elevation differences, which can be considered geosites. These models have been separated according to their parameters of representations: numerical value and types of landscape. Numerical value (starting at 0, applied to the area of study) models are based on slope, ruggedness, roughness, and total curvature. Meanwhile, Geomorphon and TPI are landscape parameters, which define different types of relief ranging from stream valleys and hills to mountain ranges. However, using landscape parameters requires additional evaluation, unlike numerical value models. In conclusion, we describe six models used to calculate a range of values which can be used for geodiversity assessment, and to highlight potential geodiversity hotspots. Subsequently, all models are compared with each other to identify differences between them. Finally, we outline the advantages and shortcomings of the models for performing qualitative–quantitative assessments.

The Mt. Catria–Mt. Nerone Ridge in the North-Marchean Apennines (Central Italy): A Potential Geopark?

“…Various methodological procedures for inventorying and evaluating geosites are available in the scientific literature on geoheritage [4,[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92] and the bibliography cited therein.…”

“…Quantitative methods, however, also have their limitations: scoring, in fact, is subjective, conditioning the entire calculation. Finally, some authors propose hybrid qualitative-quantitative methods offering more reliable results [52][53][54][55][56][57].…”

Geodiversity and Geoheritage to Promote Geotourism Using Augmented Reality and 3D Virtual Flights in the Arosa Estuary (NW Spain)

“…The objective of this work is to carry out an inventory of geosites of geological and geomorphological interest on the southern margin of the Arosa estuary (Figure 1): the Isla de Arosa-Villanueva-Cambados (zone 1) and the Sierra de Grove-Castrove-Sangenjo (zone 2). For this, the main geosites were identified, proceeding to their description and assessment [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Finally, a virtual 3D itinerary was carried out, implementing the data of each geosite on the free Google Earth platform, available on smartphones in order to publicize the geological interest of this tourist area.…”

Influences of Geohazard Susceptibility on the Geodiversity of the Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand

“…Geoeducation is a facet of the broader subject of geodiversity, which aims to describe the abiotic nature of the location being studied and make it accessible for tourism and students (Farsani et al, 2011;Brocx and Semeniuk, 2019;Zafeiropoulos et al, 2021). Geodiversity itself describes the importance of the abiotic environment by understanding the interconnectedness of elements such as geology, geomorphology, hydrology, soils, climate, and human and biological influences (Zakharovskyi and Németh, 2022a;Zakharovskyi and Németh, 2022b;Zakharovskyi et al, 2022c). Geosites and their associated geoheritage are subject to more specific descriptions, which reinforce the recognition of valuable locations for different purposes.…”

“…Therefore, a lack of data can be problematic for the assessment of areas like the Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand (Zwoliński et al, 2018). Other researchers use a purely qualitative methodology (Gordon and Barron, 2013;Gray, 2013) or a combined qualitative-quantitative methodology (Perotti et al, 2019;Zakharovskyi and Németh, 2021a;Ahmadi et al, 2022;Zakharovskyi and Németh, 2022a;Zakharovskyi and Németh, 2022b) for their geodiversity assessment and to define locations of scientific, cultural, economic, aesthetic, spiritual, and/ or other importance (Gray, 2004). The former is strictly based on an expert's knowledge of the territory, where a researcher identifies and justifies specific areas for their importance based on their field of study (Zwoliński et al, 2018).…”