GM4.5

Studies on geodiversity have been gaining prominent interest among the geoscientific community over the last decades. As operational concept, geodiversity implies a measurement and its application narrowed to a given spatial area. However, such concept is often integrated to support planning perspectives that focus mostly on geoconservation, neglecting other activities that might transform, destroy or exploit georesources. Furthermore, diversity alone might not account for the actual pivotal role that abiotic and interfacial components play in socio-ecological systems and their functioning.

In a first part, the present research reviews the geodiversity concept, integrated within a framework towards its operationalization for territorial management. Geodiversity is defined as the range of abiotic and interfacial resources – lithodiversity, superficial diversity, hydrodiversity, pedodiversity, geomorphodiversity, mineral diversity, paleodiversity and climate diversity – of a given area, including their constitution, assemblages, structures, properties and contributions to socio-geo-ecological systems. Geodiversity is therefore considered both in its typological and functional diversity, the latter one being related to the geo-ecosystem services (GES) that geodiversity provides to society. The characterization of geodiversity is completed with the identification of the anthropogenic drivers linked to land-planning strategies (e.g. urban projects, mining activities, agricultural practices) and that might affect, positively or negatively, GES supply.

The second part, aims at confirming the necessity of an operational framework through the assessment of geodiversity and its spatial patterns on the French Guiana case-study, an Oversea French territory located in South America, within the Guiana Shield. Almost entirely covered by the Amazon rainforest ecosystem of exceptional biodiversity, French Guiana is considered as an international conservation and land-planning challenge which faces multiple issues (e.g. urban, agricultural and industrial growth, forest management and gold mining planning). However, French Guiana geodiversity and its management are not properly acknowledged by land-planning strategies.

The assessment of geodiversity of French Guiana was performed through the creation of a 10x10 km grid in a GIS environment. Lithodiversity and superficial diversity, hydrodiversity, geomorphodiversity and mineral diversity sub-indices were assessed based on the number of entities within each grid-cell. The four sub-indices were summed to obtain a geodiversity index. Local Moran’s I was then used to identify geodiversity hotspots and coldspots.

Geodiversity hotspots were found mainly along the gold-bearing greenstone belts crossing French Guiana. However – despite the fact that further data must be integrated for soil and paleontological resources that are still little known at the scale of the whole territory – some areas showing low geodiversity are known to display important points of geological interest (from a geoheritage perspective). Therefore, this research allows to review a more comprehensive definition of geodiversity and to highlight the necessity of standardized datasets and classification methods to assess all geodiversity components. The assessment of diversity alone is not enough for geoconservation nor broader land-planning perspectives. It is pivotal to account for the contribution of geodiversity to the functioning of a given area and its interaction with anthropic activities. Geofunctionality can be assessed through proper datasets identifying and quantifying GES flows (i.e. supply-demand), for instance, through Essential Geodiversity Variables.

How to cite: Scammacca, O., Bétard, F., Heuret, A., Aertgeerts, G., and Montagne, D.: Geodiversity assessment of French Guiana: the need to integrate geodiversity within land-planning, EGU General Assembly 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23–27 May 2022, EGU22-12641, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-12641, 2022.

The term geodiversity was proposed in the 1990s, however there is still a noticeable lack of established conceptual and methodological framework for geodiversity assessment. In its absence, various geodiversity assessment methods have been proposed. They can be categorized, based on data sources, into direct and indirect, and based on the assessment procedure into qualitative, quantitative, and mixed (qualitative-quantitative). Each of these categories introduces an ambiguity by relying on expert judgment or interpreted geodata rather than on direct measurement. Despite the impressive number of different terrain-specific studies, there has been a conspicuous absence of comparative studies testing the efficacy of geodiversity assessment methods across different types of terrain characterized by differences in morphology, morphogenesis, and relief energy.

Therefore, we have selected three different national parks represent different landscape types: mountains (Karkonosze National Park), uplands (Roztocze National Park), and lowlands (Wolin National Park). Input datasets included 1 m DEM and thematic map layers: lithological, geomorphological, hydrographical and soils features as well as CORINE Land Cover. The presentation reports on geodiversity assessments performed independently by experts and volunteers as crowdsourcing analytical data. A potential strength of the crowdsourcing approach over the expert-based approach is that the former minimizes subjectivism, which is a common critique of expert-based environmental valuation, including the subject of our research - geodiversity assessment. Using the DEM data and r.watershed tool, the 1-order catchments were delineated for the national parks (KNP 212, RNP 403, WNP 289) and used as spatial units for geodiversity assessment. The use of catchments instead of squares, grid cells or arbitrary polygons is a new approach in geodiversity assessments. The expert and volunteer assessment data sets were separately processed with two spatial multicriteria methods: Weighted Linear Combination (WLC) - also referred to as the global version of WLC, and Local Weighted Linear Combination (L-WLC) resulting in two geodiversity maps for each of the parks. More over we used two scenarios. Under the first scenario, called the expert-based scenario, an expert familiar with the study area or a group of experts classifies the individual abiotic components of geodiversity and assigns them weights instrumental for computing a geodiversity score. In the second scenario, called the crowdsource-based scenario, multiple individual ratings concerning the abiotic components of geodiversity and their weights are collected and aggregated to yield a corresponding geodiversity score. The maps were qualitatively evaluated for their efficacy of capturing spatial heterogeneity and differentiating between high and low geodiversity of specific areas within the national parks. The expert-based maps were compared with the volunteer-based maps using statistical measures of association and similarity: Spearman’s correlation coefficient, the Jaccard similarity index, also known as Tanimoto index, and the relative Manhattan similarity.

The results show that L-WLC is more suitable for geodiversity mapping of mountainous areas characterized by high morphogenetic and morphometric diversity whereas WLC yields better results in less diverse areas such as uplands and lowlands. The use of data originating from volunteer-based assessment requires meeting internal and external data quality standards and should be treated with caution.

How to cite: Zwoliński, Z., Najwer, A., and Jankowski, P.: Geodiversity assessment with global and local S-MCA in different landscapes based on expert and crowdsourcing data, EGU General Assembly 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23–27 May 2022, EGU22-9007, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-9007, 2022.

The current state of geodiversity estimates still lack of complete strategy of assessments in comparison with its analogue, biodiversity. This issue connects with the number of differences between these terminologies and existing form of their elements. However, the basic understanding of geodiversity, which common among most researchers, is the numeric representation of the variety of abiotic elements includes geology, geomorphology, hydrology, climate, soils and other features and processes influencing non-living nature. In this research, two main elements of geodiversity (geology and geomorphology) have been assessed with two different scale systems defined as “grid” and “non-grid”. “Grid” system based on cells with side size of 2.5 km, where each cell contains an arithmetic average value of geodiversity for each region throughout the area of research (Figure). Meanwhile, “non-grid” system assesses the areas bordered by different values of geodiversity, which shows number of shapes with sizes and forms delineated by geodiversity values on the model (Figure). Both scales were calculated by qualitative-quantitative methodology of assessment of geodiversity. The methodology based on 5-point evaluation system for geological and geomorphological elements calculated by arithmetic average equation, where places with high values can be considered as potential geosites, which should be studied in detail for future research. The two islands (Upolu and Savai’i) of Western Samoa have been selected for the research due to their relatively simple geological history based on an early growth of a basaltic shield volcano(s) covered by small scoria and spatter cones formed during the post-shield rejuvenated volcanism. Even though the region is in the tropical climate zone with high rainfall, its geology provides an even relief throughout the islands, with only few short immature fluvial networks. The multiple extensive lava sheets also acted as erosion-resistant substrate further forming fluvial networks of deep but narrow canyon-like stream valleys with numerous high waterfalls. These regions are recognizable by qualitative-quantitative methodology, but differently represented on the models with mentioned scale systems (“grid” and “non-grid”). For Samoa Islands, fluvial networks are important as they expose volcanic stratigraphy and forming rugged morphological elements on the surface. Their limited geometry commonly prevents them to be clearly visible on the “grid-based” system of geodiversity assessment. Meanwhile, “non-grid” system accurately outlines these regions as locations with high values (especially Upolu Island) (Figure). In result, “grid” and “non-grid” scale systems utilized by one qualitative-quantitative methodology demonstrate different pictures: “Grid” scale system of geodiversity estimates is more suitable for a quick first order assessment of geodiversity with big databases, while “non-grid” method fits better to outline exact location with high geodiversity in a large map scale, hence more useful to highlight valuable regions for geoconservation.

How to cite: Zakharovskyi, V., Németh, K., and Li, B.: Comparison of grid and non-grid types of scaling for geodiversity assessment, EGU General Assembly 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23–27 May 2022, EGU22-3204, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-3204, 2022.

Geodiversity assessment is a key element of geoconservational activities. It reveals the variety of earth scientific features of the examined areas highlighting the zones that may be further analysed for scientific and tourism purposes. Many countries and researchers have already developed assessment methods, which were usually common in using specific geological, pedological, geomorphological, mineral, and palaeontological data sources to calculate a geodiversity index of an area unit (usually a grid cell). In preceding studies [e.g., 1, 2] evaluators used country specific and globally applicable data that can be used in many areas of the world. Although high-detailed assessments require country specific datasets, the use of global sources ensure that the different assessments are comparable to each-other.

In this study an open-source method is proposed to carry out geodiversity assessments automatically with proper base data all over the world. We have developed a QGIS plugin called ‘Geodiversity Calculator’ – an ‘extension’ script in Python for the software. The workflow follows the method developed by Pereira et al. (2013) and consists of 4 steps:

• creates a grid network over the evaluated area with appropriate size in which all thematic data are examined (required: polygon boundary layer);
• evaluates the vector-type geological and pedological data (required: geological and pedological polygon layers in shp format with attributes);
• calculates the geomorphological diversity from a DEM (Digital Elevation Model) applying the geomorphon-method and the Strahler order calculation of the modelled stream network (required: a DEM with adequate resolution);
• evaluates the mineralogical and palaeontological elements (required: point features).

With the evaluation of these thematic layers, a grid of the summed subindex values can be produced. The resulting geodiversity index is similar to the manually produced one: it is available in a spatial database (in gpkg format by default) altogether with all subindices to all grid cells. The process is much faster applying the plugin, but its speed depends on the extent of the area and the base data scale. All partial results are saved to separate files - these can be also visualised and analysed. For validation purposes, the method was also applied on a previously manually evaluated sample area – the Bakony–Balaton UNESCO Global Geopark, Hungary – and successfully reproduced the same index results. Although the tool still needs to be tested on more sample areas and scales, the method could contribute to a better comparability of international assessment results and facilitate geoconservational and geotourism management work.

MP was supported by the ÚNKP-21-3 New National Excellence Program of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology from the source of the National Research, Development and Innovation (NRDI) Fund. GA was supported from the NRDI Fund of Hungary, financed under the Thematic Excellence Programme TKP2020-NKA-06 funding scheme.

[1] Pereira, D.I., et al. (2013): Geodiversity assessment of Paraná State (Brazil): An innovative approach. Environmental Management, vol. 52, pp. 541–552. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-013-0100-2

[2] Pál, M.; Albert, G (2021): Refinement Proposals for Geodiversity Assessment—A Case Study in the Bakony–Balaton UNESCO Global Geopark, Hungary. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. vol. 10, 566. DOI: 10.3390/ijgi10080566

How to cite: Pál, M. and Albert, G.: An open-source tool for automated geodiversity assessment, EGU General Assembly 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23–27 May 2022, EGU22-4193, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-4193, 2022.

During last 20 years there has been an increasing interest on environmental issues related to sustainable use of natural resources, and solutions adopted are often linked to performing ecosystem services analysis and finding indicators for biodiversity assessment. However, while the biotic aspect of nature has been deeply explored and discussed among the scientific community, the abiotic side didn’t get the same attention.

Only recently, Geodiversity assessments have acquired scientific attention and specific ecosystem services have been discussed in connection with abiotic nature. Anyhow, at present, the general knowledge about abiotic indicators and their role for the society hasn’t been assessed, especially in the contest of UNESCO Global Geoparks.

Through their management strategies UNESCO Global Geoparks are playing an important role in understanding and valorizing the geological heritage; however the tools presently available for the managers are insufficient both for an appropriate geosite´s selection and a standardized description taking into consideration the whole aspects involved in the diversity of nature.

A PhD research at the H2020 Marie Curie Tech4Culture doctoral school focused on detection of common systematization of data and on developing provisional indicators for analyses of geodiversity and geosites in two UNESCO Global Geoparks, Magma Geopark in Norway and Sesia Val Grande in Italy. A database for geosite registration was created as a tool for geopark´s manager, supporting them in choosing, monitoring, and developing the geosite, before and after obtaining the designation within the UNESCO Global Geoparks initiative.

The central part of the research analysed the scientific baseline regarding biotic and abiotic ecosystem services and their assessmemt. The methodology for the development of abiotic ecosystem indicators followed and adapted the Biodiversity Indicators Development Framework. Four geosites have been selected for this research phase. The analysis of the geological processes influencing different abiotic ecosystem services (during the Anthropocene time interval) and their connection within the spatial dimension of the geosite and its buffer zone, supported the development of variables and provisional indicators for abiotic nature. Through the attribution of specific values and a common scale the four geosite have been assessed for all the 25 abiotic ecosystem services proposed by Gray (2013).

Outcomes of this PhD research thesis offers contributions to the effective recognition of the value of geodiversity within nature protection and sustainability issues and shows the need for abiotic ecosystem service assessment methodology for developing accurate management strategies in UNESCO Global Geoparks.

How to cite: Giardino, M., Gentilini, S., and Thjømøe, P.: Geodiversity, geosites and the assessment of abiotic ecosystem services: preliminary results from Magma and Sesia Val Grande UNESCO Global Geoparks, EGU General Assembly 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23–27 May 2022, EGU22-12850, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-12850, 2022.

Vrancea region is one of the most impressive and diverse areas within Romania, located in the most active tectonic setting of the country, being defined by an uplift in the upland and subsidence in the lowland. The administrative and historic region spreads from the Carpathians Mountains to the Subcarphatians and to the Romanian Plain.

The Putna catchment is the primary hydrographic basin that drains the area. It has a density and variety of geosites and geomorphosites that are comparably high, taking into account that the Carpathians in this area are under 1800 m. Moreover, the lithology and the geological settings are characterized only by sedimentary rocks. However, the sedimentary rocks under the long-term action of erosion and the morphoclimatic processes led to the growth of such impressive landscapes, respectively geosites and geomorphosites.

Hence we compiled an inventory of more than 20 geosites and geomorphosites, which cover more than 1000 hectares and show the potential of the basin resources. One of the unique features of the catchment is its biodiversity, as the Vrancea region is home to several protected areas for carnivores, including the large ones. These sites are essential areas for biodiversity conservation. They are also ideal areas for practicing forms of eco-tourism, vital resources whose potential should appropriately be assessed for future sustainable development within the Putna catchment.

How to cite: Necula, N., Niculiță, M., and Vasiliniuc, I.: Geosites, geomorphosites and geodiversity in Putna Catchment, Vrancea, Romania, EGU General Assembly 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23–27 May 2022, EGU22-11182, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-11182, 2022.