Scale Influence on Qualitative–Quantitative Geodiversity Assessments for the Geosite Recognition of Western Samoa

Abstract

Spatial scale in modeling is one of the most important aspects of any kind of assessment. This study utilized previously studied assessments of geodiversity through a qualitative–quantitative methodology for geosite recognition. Our methodology was developed based on geodiversity as a complex description of all elements of abiotic nature and processes, influencing it. Based on this definition, geodiversity can be divided into main elements: geology and geomorphology, creating a core of abiotic nature; and additional elements including hydrology, climate, and human influences. We include this description of geodiversity here to emphasize the data which were used in the assessment. The methodology was based on an evaluation system, subject to improvements informed by previous research, and map-based models showing the area of spreading of calculated elements. Except for additional changes in the assessment, this article primarily addresses the problem of scale, by comparing two different methods of scale in the research: grid and non-grid. Grid types of assessment are considered a widely useable method, requiring definitions of areas of research with a potential variety of polygons, and calculating elements inside the cell and applying values to each cell. In contrast, non-grid assessment utilizes the natural borders of all elements (e.g., map view pattern of geological formations), and including them in calculations. The union of layers from different elements creates shapes which highlight regions with the highest values. Hence, the goal of this article is to demonstrate differences between grid and non-grid assessments of geodiversity in Western Samoa. In our results, we compare the methods and emphasize specific tasks most suitable for each method.

Geodiversity and Its Implication for Geoconservation of the Youngest Eruptive Sites of Western Samoa

“…In previous research, when a 2.5 km-sized grid-based geodiversity estimate was performed, the study area scored relatively low values probably as a reflection of the overall monotonous slope (and other derived terrain parameters) as well as the simple geology (basaltic rocks only for instance) of the region [17]. This problem was addressed further in another research where the "grid" approach was changed to "real" distribution of mapped geological features as well as a refinement of the geological model of the region specifically designed to capture volcanic geoheritage elements [18]. Here in this work, a new angle of the scale problem of geodiversity estimates is presented.…”

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].…”

Understanding Geodiversity for Sustainable Development in the Chinchiná River Basin, Caldas, Colombia

“…When studying geodiversity, various factors, such as research objectives, cartographic information quality, study scale, geodiversity classes classification criteria, grid size for territorial segmentation, and data processing equipment influence the chosen methodology, which, in turn, plays a pivotal role in shaping the resulting outcomes [2,14,25]. The more aspects considered for geodiversity estimation, the more enhanced the study's comprehensiveness, but an increasing number of variables require more class definitions and information management, resulting in greater study complexity [2].…”

“…Despite its undeniable importance, geodiversity confronts various methodological challenges, largely due to its multifaceted nature, the multiple ways in which it can be studied, and the various conditioning factors of the results [14]. When comparing various authors, distinctions become evident in terms of the number and types of geodiversity classes and subclasses that they use (i.e., sets of geological elements within a region and the standard criteria used to distinguish between objects), the varying methodologies employed for index calculations, and the disparate scales and sizes of the study areas that they investigate [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. Therefore, it becomes crucial to establish a well-defined methodological and informational framework to guide geodiversity assessment.…”