EarthSciencesComparativeMatrix: A Comparative Method for Geoheritage Assessment

Abstract

Geological heritage is insufficiently recognised in Australia; it should be considered in its own right, not as an addendum to other heritage values. The lack of a suitable robust and repeatable methodology has seriously constrained the assessment of geological sites suitable for the National Heritage List (NHL). A desktop assessment of Australian desert landscapes required intrinsic natural values of a diverse group of sites, spread over a vast area, to be assessed against NHL criteria. The Earth Sciences Comparative Matrix (ESCoM) was developed for this study. In the ESCoM, sites are grouped in process themes. Each is assessed against NHL criteria then compared with other similar places, according to degree of unusualness, integrity, and authenticity. A site scoring well across multiple themes has increased heritage significance. The overall values of a site are quantified, leading to a qualitative judgement on whether it achieves the threshold of outstanding heritage value. Examples of assessment using this method are given. In this methodology, significance determination is based on rigorous comparisons of specific values. It is semi‐quantitative, repeatable, and robust. It differs from other geoheritage assessment methods in its combination of process‐based groupings (facilitating the separation of site type from heritage criteria), matrix structure (minimising complexities of scale or diversity), and use of numerical rankings as an aid in decision‐making. While the study for which ESCoM was developed was focused on landforms, it can be used for other types of geoheritage (e.g. fossils, tectonic processes), with modification of matrix theme headings.

Earth Science Frontier at Urban Periphery: Geoheritage from the Vicinity of Kazan City, Russia

“…Several methods have been proposed for geoheritage assessment [1,15,20,[59][60][61][62][63]. They have much in common, but they also differ both formally (by algorithms, criteria, and scoring systems) and in terms of their focus on particular aspects of geoheritage and geosites.…”

Characterization of Geoheritage and Geotourism Potential of the Fluvial-Glacial Landscapes in the Culebrillas Lagoon (Ecuador)

“…In general, the methodology used corresponds to an inventory process, which later receives a standard assessment that uses qualitative-quantitative indicators collected in the study area; subsequently, all this information is complemented with cartographic data. According to Quesada-Valverde and Quesada-Román [16], this set of methods is a standard procedure for the valuation and promotion of geotourism and has a wide range of applications [17,18]. However, beyond the applicable methodological processes, the dissemination and sustainable promotion of the listed sites must always prevail [19].…”

Comparative analysis of Devil's town and Bryce canyon geosites by applying the modified geosite assessment model (M-GAM)

“…The methodology of this study is based upon the 'modified geosite assessment model' (M-GAM), developed by Tomić & Božić (2014). Previous geosite assessment models contain geosite assessment criteria adjusted towards two main segments of market demand -tourists (Pralong, 2005;Serrano & González-Trueba, 2005;Hose, 2007;Pereira et al, 2007;Zouros 2007;Reynard et al, 2007;Reynard, 2008;Tomić, 2011) and experts (Hose, 1997;Bruschi & Cendrero, 2005;Coratza & Giusti, 2005;Hose, 2008;White & Wakelin-King, 2014). The M-GAM model consists of two key indicators: Main Values and Additional Values, which are further divided into 12 and 15 indicators respectively, each individually marked from 0 to 1.…”