The Scenic Beauty of Geosites and Its Relation to Their Scientific Value and Geoscience Knowledge of Tourists: A Case Study from Southeastern Spain

Abstract

Scenic beauty is one of the most-commonly used indicators in the inventory and assessment of geosites for geoconservation, geoheritage management and geotourism development. It is an important driver of tourists to visit natural areas and it also provides support for the protection of natural heritage. Previous studies on scenic beauty mainly focused on landscape preference and physical characteristics of geosites that affect scenic beauty appreciation. The relationships between the scenic beauty of geosites, their scientific value and the geoscience knowledge of tourists has not been empirically investigated in detail. Hence, this study investigates this relationship using 34 geosites from southeastern Spain. For this purpose, 29 respondents with a geoscience background and who all visited the 34 geosites, 43 respondents with a geoscience background but who did not visit the geosites, and 104 respondents with no geoscience background and who did not visit the geosites, participated in a survey. The first group rated the scenic beauty and the scientific value of the geosites based on a direct field visit during which the scientific background of these geosites was given. On the other hand, the latter two groups rated scenic beauty using representative photos of the geosites. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate the scenic beauty and the scientific value of the geosites. We found a significant relationship between the scenic beauty of geosites and their scientific value, and this relationship becomes more significant if the geoscientific knowledge of the respondents increases. One-way ANOVA results indicated that a geoscience background contributed to higher perceived scenic beauty, especially for those geosites that in general were considered as more scenic by all the respondent groups. It was also found that geosites with viewpoints received in general higher scenic beauty and scientific value ratings.

On the Duality of Marine Geoheritage: Evidence from the Abrau Area of the Russian Black Sea Coast

“…The idea of such points has been introduced, particularly, by Ruban et al [48]. Landscape panoramas are essential for the comprehension of geoheritage, and thus, viewpoints (sensu [49][50][51][52][53]) are distinguished within the above-mentioned key points.…”

Crowdsourced Geospatial Infrastructure for Coastal Management and Planning for Emerging Post COVID-19 Tourism Demand

“…The first step of this methodology requires an extended and thorough definition of the type of geospatial data that are important and are needed for the project. These data may vary according to the purpose in terms of the various fields of coastal management, such as risk and disaster management [61], human mobility management, real estate management, geoconservation, historical development [62], geoheritage management, and geotourism development [63], as well as planning for emerging tourism activities in new undeveloped areas, such as land use types, hotels, restaurants, bars, sports facilities, housing, schools, demographic data, etc. These datasets may include the following: (a) free and unused public spaces, (b) parking spaces (organized or not), boat storage spots, (c) constructions on the coastal zone (e.g., hotels, bars, restaurants, sport facilities, cinemas/theaters, supermarkets, malls, medical centers/pharmacies, gasoline stations), (d) green areas, rocky areas, (e) municipal lightning and street furniture, (f) pedestrian crossing points, underground crossing points, (g) beaches (organized or not) and facilities for people with special needs, (h) beach umbrellas, (i) access points, road networks, dead ends and path routes, (J) transportation, bus stops, ports, taxi stations (k) municipal authority building, police station, citizen service center, places of religion, (l) port authority, (m) rocky seafront, (n) residential areas, and (o) cultural heritage points of interest (Table 1).…”

Bridges as Geoheritage Viewpoints in the Western Caucasus

“…The idea of viewpoint geosites was proposed by Fuertes-Gutiérrez and Fernández-Martínez [8] and Palacio [9] and then developed and conceptualized by Migoń and Pijet-Migoń [10], with some subsequent additions by Mikhailenko and Ruban [11]. There were also several other works, which considered viewpoints in relation to geoheritage management in different parts of the world [12][13][14][15][16][17].…”

“…One can imagine many objects, standing on which offers views of unique geological and geomorphological features and panoramas of geoheritage landscapes. Evidently, the practical importance of such objects is outstanding because they facilitate inventory and monitoring of geosites for the purposes of geoconservation, as well as enhancing comprehension of geoheritage by visitors and provide emotional satisfaction [7,17]. Therefore, establishing a diversity of viewpoint geosites and paying attention to their particular types are crucial research tasks.…”