Citizen science in geoheritage: who participates in community geosite assessments?

Citizen science has only recently started to develop in the field of geoheritage . It is a methodology that involves the public in the study, conservation, and evaluation of geoscientific phenomena. The involvement of non-geoscientists in geoheritage tasks and processes enables collaboration between professionals and the public, harnessing the collective power of the community to collect valuable data and observations.  

One of the citizen science opportunities in geoheritage is to include visitor opinions in geosite assessment. Since the introduction of the Modified Geosite Assessment Model (Tomić & Božić, 2014), some publications have included geotourists’ opinions about scientific and infrastructural criteria in the evaluation using online questionnaires (Pál & Albert, 2020; Vereb, 2020). These can be filled in with the help of QR codes placed in the field.  

A few years ago, we designated two areas – the Chaîne des Puys in France and the Balaton Uplands in Hungary – with several geosites to analyse the modifying effect of visitor involvement in geosite assessment. Apart from the assessment results, the demographic and professional composition of questionnaire fillers can also be examined.  

In our questionnaire, we collected data at each site on each participant’s age, gender, education, profession in geosciences or tourism, distance of residence, interest in geosciences and geoheritage, and hiking frequency. These data have been compared regarding the Hungarian (1123) and French (321) completions. 

According to the results, there are more male respondents in both countries. There is a difference between the most populated age groups (France: 46-60, Hungary: 36-45). Most respondents have a university degree, but only a few percent of them are geoscientists or tourism professionals. In France, the majority is interested in geoheritage and geosciences, while in Hungary, the interest is only mediocre. The majority of French respondents live close to the subject area (<25 km), while in Hungary the largest group of respondents live more than 100 km from the sites. There is also a difference in the frequency of hiking: while most French geotourists hike at least once a week, Hungarians only hike just once a month. 

These demographic data show clear differences between geotourists in the two areas. The reasons for these differences are not yet known.  It cannot be ruled out that different geotourism assessment methods may have played a role. 

Pál, M., & Albert, G. (2021). Examining the Spatial Variability of Geosite Assessment and Its Relevance in Geosite Management. Geoheritage, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/S12371-020-00528-6 

Tomić, N., & Božić, S. (2014). A modified Geosite Assessment Model (M-GAM) and its Application on the Lazar Canyon area (Serbia). Int. J. Environ. Res, 8(4), 1041–1052. 

Vereb, V. (2020). Geoheritage and resilience. Selected studies of volcanic geoheritage area from different geographical environments and different levels of protection. https://doi.org/10.15476/ELTE.2020.154