Next Article in Journal
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Two Different Oyster (Crassostrea gigas) Farming Strategies in the Sacca di Goro, Northern Adriatic Sea, Italy
Next Article in Special Issue
The Geo-Cultural Heritage of Kos Revisited: Web-GIS Applications and Storytelling Promoting the Well-Known Island of Dodecanese, Greece
Previous Article in Journal
Integration of Water Quantity/Quality Needs with Socio-Economical Issues: A Focus on Monitoring and Modelling
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Resources
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/resources12050061
resources-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Promoting Geosites on Web-Pages: An Assessment of the Quality and Quantity of Information in Real Cases

by
Anna V. Mikhailenko
1,
Svetlana O. Zorina
2,
Natalia N. Yashalova
3 and
Dmitry A. Ruban
4,*
1
Department of Physical Geography, Ecology, and Nature Protection, Institute of Earth Sciences, Southern Federal University, Zorge Street 40, Rostov-on-Don 344090, Russia
2
Institute of Geology and Petroleum Technologies, Kazan Federal University, Kremlyovskaya Street 18, Kazan 420008, Russia
3
Department of Economics and Management, Business School, Cherepovets State University, Sovetskiy Avenue 10, Cherepovets 162600, Russia
4
Department of Organization and Technologies of Service Activities, ITSCI, Southern Federal University, 23-ja Linija Street 43, Rostov-on-Don 344019, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Resources 2023, 12(5), 61; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12050061
Submission received: 26 April 2023 / Revised: 16 May 2023 / Accepted: 19 May 2023 / Published: 22 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Geosites as Tools for the Promotion and Conservation of Geoheritage)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Geological information present on web-pages determines the efficacy of the online marketing of geosites. In this paper, a new approach aimed at an easy and quick assessment of geosite-focused web-pages is proposed. It is based on scoring by several criteria reflecting the quality and the quantity of geological information. Attention is paid to the simplicity and correctness of information, mention of technical properties (accessibility, location, and safety), relative and absolute amounts of information, and adaptation to persons with disabilities. Textual and graphical elements are considered differently. The approach is tested in three cases, namely, the Granite Gorge in the Western Caucasus, Pechischi in the Volga Region, and the Red Stones in the Southern Ciscaucasus. These are well-known geosites already used as important (geo)tourist attractions. It is established that the web-pages devoted to them chiefly allow minimally perfect promotion. Some examples of misinterpretations of geological information and errors are specially considered. The approach seems to be promising, and its application allows finding the deficiencies of web-pages, an improvement of which will enhance geosite promotion. Cooperation between representatives of the tourism industry and geological faculty members of local universities or administrations of protected areas is reasonable to create more informative geosite-focused web-pages.

1. Introduction

Geological heritage (geoheritage) requires proper conservation as a constituent of the Earth’s identity and as outstanding information sources for contemporary society [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. The concept of geoheritage is rather broad and it intersects to a certain degree with the idea of geodiversity. Detailed conceptualization and terminological definitions were offered, particularly, by Brilha [9], Habibi et al. [10], and Reynard and Brilha [6]. However, it would be too early to say about any universal treatment, especially because new kinds of geoheritage are reported regularly [2]. In this work, geoheritage is understood as the entity of more or less unique geological features known from any territory, country, or the world as a whole. In fact, they may be either very typical or very peculiar. Geoheritage sites (geosites) are localities representing unique geological features in situ (uniqueness is a relational characteristic, and it can be global, national, regional, and local), and they are common but not the only geoheritage objects. It should be noted that “geosite” is a rather broad, scientific term, whereas these localities can have different names in different countries depending on their language and traditions of geoconservation. For example, many geosites are established as natural monuments in Russia, where “natural monument” is the official category of specially protected areas with the smallest size.
Geoheritage is a highly valuable natural resource, which can be exploited for the purposes of science, education, and tourism [11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. The interest in these resources is conjugated with technological advances and innovations [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Geosites are able to contribute to sustainable development when the above-mentioned conservation and exploitation are balanced and effective. The related ideas were developed by Bentivenga et al. [26], Lazzari and Aloia [27], Oyelami et al. [28], Roberts [29], Somma [30], Štrba et al. [31], Suzuki and Takagi [32], and Xu and Wu [33]. Principally, these specialists argued that geoheritage-driven sustainability is a new and important idea with big potential for practical applications.
Awareness of geoheritage is essential to its conservation and exploitation. As such, special efforts should be paid to the promotion of geosites with the use of different communication tools and channels, as well as marketing techniques [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. Web-pages devoted to either geoheritage or geotourism are among the most evident instruments for geosite promotion. The related experience has been considered in many works, and the related discussions started together with the global-scale acceleration of the interest in geoconservation and geotourism activities in the 2000s [48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55]. These studies proved that, on the one hand, web-pages can be very informative and, thus, influential on the broad public, and, on the other hand, they are highly demanded by geotourists and other geosite visitors. It is very common for such web-pages to be developed by representatives of the tourism industry or enthusiasts without the proper geological knowledge and skills or by professional geologists who are not always aware of how to communicate their professional knowledge to the broad public in the most optimal form. Moreover, geoheritage is a too specific and even too difficult theme to many tourists who may interpret it differently from experts in geology [56,57,58], and, thus, its promotion on web-pages tends to employ its landscape context [59,60,61] and cultural frames [62,63]. Taking the above into account, it is not surprising that online geosite promotion faces various challenges, and the related web-pages are often not as informative as desired.
The objective of the present study is to propose a new approach for the assessment of information presented on geosite-focused web-pages. Indeed, such an approach should not require too specific knowledge and skills to be applied broadly and quickly for general judgments of existing web-pages, as well as for planning new web-pages. In other words, it should help to find deficiencies in the online promotion of geosites and to recommend related improvements. The present study offers application of this approach to three real cases, i.e., well-established geosites located in Russia. Their selection was determined by the research experience of the authors (accurate initial tests of the methodological proposal require precise knowledge of these geosites). All of the chosen sites already function as tourist attractions, and they are more or less actively promoted on various web-pages.

2. Materials and Methods

The approach proposed in this study is tested for three geosites located in different regions of Russia, namely, the Granite Gorge in the Republic of Adygeya, Pechischi in the Republic of Tatarstan, and the Red Stones in the Stavropol Region (Figure 1). These geosites have been previously studied comprehensively [64,65,66] and, thus, they do not need re-description (nonetheless, their very brief characteristics are provided below, together with each case example). Importantly, the present study focuses on how these geosites are promoted on web-pages, i.e., web-pages, not geosites, are the subject of the analysis. Although the selected geosites are popular tourist attractions, it would be difficult to expect their promotion on multiple web-pages. Tentatively, it is established that the selected geosites are noted on a very limited number of web-pages. Therefore, three popular web-pages are examined in each case, and they serve as the material for this study. This seems to be enough to illustrate the application of the proposed approach, which can be used for the assessment of single web-pages. The web-pages are anonymized to avoid any occasional challenge of the interests (also commercial) of their owners.
The proposed approach is aimed at collecting only information from geosite-focused web-pages. Technical aspects of the latter, such as design, functional advance, and language, are not considered. On the one hand, these differ too much depending on the skills of the web-page creators. On the other hand, judgments of these aspects depend on aesthetic preferences and digital skills of tourists, which may differ substantially, reflecting personal attitudes and experience [67,68,69,70,71]. Information from geosite-focused web-pages can be analyzed in regard to their quality and quantity. Evidently, text and images (drawings, photographs, and maps) should be considered separately. Audio and video materials can also be found on some web-pages, and the former can be analyzed similarly to text and the latter can be analyzed similarly to images (indeed, these may be considered separately if present in large amounts, but this is not so in the cases addressed below). The proposed approach is novel, and it differs from that offered previously by Molokac et al. [51]. The former deals with geological information and geosites, but not with geoparks, which are essentially different establishments. It does not pretend to be better than the latter, but only offers the other frame of vision of geoheritage-related web-pages.
The quality of the information presented on web-pages can be assessed with three criteria, namely, simplicity, correctness, and the technical properties of geosites (Table 1). Simplicity is important because many geosite visitors are not experts in geology and have minimal geological knowledge (or do not have it at all); they often seek new experiences (latent geotourist sense [72]) or natural beauty [73]. Overly professional explanations or too complex schemes on web-pages make the information difficult to understand and, thus, disinteresting to them. Indeed, judgments of simplicity may be only subjective, depending on the background of the web-page users. However, it appears possible to tentatively establish some objective criteria based on the presence of more or less complicated information (Table 1). For instance, the use of unexplained professional terms such as “pegmatites” or the demonstration of the local stratigraphical column make the web-page difficult for visitors without geological knowledge. Secondly, correctness is important because the attempts to deliver information to the broad public or the insufficient geological knowledge of web-page creators may cause misinterpretations and errors. As for the technical properties of geosites, they appear to be essential to inform potential visitors about location, access limitations (entrance fees, lengthy trails, or car parking possibilities), and safety aspects (for instance, recommended behavior in bad weather conditions) [74,75,76]. Indeed, the presence of this information enhances geosite promotion because it allows tourists to make definite plans. One would also recommend taking into account the completeness of geosite descriptions, but this seems to be a challenging solution: this property may be evident only to professionals and it depends on the breadth of their education and research experience; moreover, not all facts may be useful and clear to “ordinary” visitors.
The quantity of information can be assessed with two criteria, namely, relative quantity and absolute quality (Table 1). The former reflects the ratio between geological and non-geological information. In fact, geosite-focused web-pages are often overwhelmed by text notions and images of landscapes, wildlife, and local culture/history [51]. Their importance to effective site promotion is undisputable (and it appears to be a norm if such notions and images take half or an even larger portion of the given web-page), but it is also evident that non-geological information masks facts about geosites themselves. Absolute quantity reflects the true amount of geological information. Indeed, more extensive descriptions and a bigger number of photographs promote geosites better (if they are too professional or “boring”, they affect the quality of information assessed by the above-mentioned criteria, and, thus, the situation is avoided where web-pages that are overwhelmed by unnecessary or complex texts and images receive higher scores). Importantly, both criteria employed for the assessment of the quantity of informative are objective because they depend on the easy-to-establish properties of web-pages (Table 1). For instance, one can easily measure the abundance of the geological information in the entire text of the given web-page, as well as count the number of geological illustrations. Notably, such an assessment is performed by professionals who easily understand what is geological and what is not. Finally, it appears reasonable to check whether web-pages offer special opportunities for persons with disabilities who should always be considered among potential geotourists [77,78]. On the one hand, this makes geosite promotion more inclusive and, thus, ethical. On the other hand, this enlarges the target audience.
Taking into account the above-mentioned criteria, a scoring system for the semi-quantitative assessment of information on geosite-focused web-pages is proposed (Table 1). Several grades can be proposed for these criteria (these grades are established provisionally, but on the basis of the previous authors’ experience with such web-pages), each with its specific scores. Calculating the total scores for a given object allows assigning it to one of five categories (see the bottom of Table 1). The entire approach requires the assessment of the studied web-page(s) by all these criteria with the calculation of the total scores. This procedure seems to be rather objective; indeed, it requires from the evaluator a good geological background in order to understand what are too professional explanations (criterion “Simplicity”) and find possible misinterpretations and errors (criterion “Correctness”).

3. Results

3.1. Case 1: Granite Gorge (Western Caucasus)

The Granite Gorge is an important geosite in the Republic of Adygeya (southwestern Russia); it belongs to the mountain-dominated domain of the western part of the Greater Caucasus (Figure 1). This geosite has the official status of natural monument approved by the regional administration. It has been described in detail by Mikhailenko et al. [64]. This is a linear geosite, which corresponds to the long (up to 5 km), deep (several hundreds of meters), and narrow (less than one hundred of meters somewhere) gorge cut by the Belaya River in the Late Paleozoic granitoids, i.e., granites and granodiorites (Figure 2). These rocks form the Dakh Crystalline Massif, which is crossed by the noted gorge. This igneous body was emplaced together with the Hercynian tectonic movements. The gorge has appeared thanks to the river incision in the hard rocks uplifted due to the Cenozoic (Alpine) orogeny. A paved road stretches along the gorge and allows observation of its morphology as well as of numerous rock outcrops (special observation points are constructed there). This is one of the best known (geo)tourist attractions of Mountainous Adygeya, which itself is a major tourist destination of the Russian South. This is why the Granite Gorge geosite is promoted on several web-pages (Table 2).
The semi-quantitative assessment of the web-pages considering the Granite Gorge geosites demonstrates that the promotion by them can be judged minimally perfect (Table 2). The most striking deficiencies are the absence of adaptation for persons with disabilities and the insufficiency of attention to the technical properties of this geosite. The correctness and the quantity of geological information are also questioned in some cases. Notably, the images seem to be generally better than the text. These web-pages boast a high simplicity of storytelling.
The misinterpretations and the errors in the information about the Granite Gorge on the selected web-pages are different. For instance, minor waterfalls formed by the principal stream (the Belaya River) are considered, whereas these are absent in fact. The authors of the web-page’s text referred either to several “hanging” mouths of the small tributaries formed by the less intense cutting of the hard parent rocks than that of the Belaya River or to the small cataracts of the latter, although these are also considered in the text. Another example is where the web-page mentions “big deposits” of hydrothermal minerals, although these are absent in the Granite Gorge. In another web-page, the Tethys Ocean is mentioned. It is considered in a very questionable, folklore context, but even more important is that it is linked to granitoids and one peculiar landform, although the former are not marine rocks and the latter formed dozens of millions of years after the closure of this ocean. It appears that all web-pages were created by non-experts in geology who only heard some basic geological facts about this geosite but did not have deep understanding about it.

3.2. Case 2: Pechischi (Volga Region)

Pechischi is an important geosite in the Republic of Tatarstan (central Russia); it belongs to the plain domain of the Volga Region (Figure 1). This geosite has the official status of natural monument approved by the regional administration. It has been described in detail by Zorina et al. [66]. This is a linear geosite, which corresponds to the lengthy (several kilometers) section of Guadalupian (Middle Permian) dolostones with abundant fossils stretching along the right bank of the Volga River near Pechischi village (close to large Kazan city); there are also karst features and historical mining sites (Figure 3). The locality is a stratotype of the Upper Kazanian regional stratigraphical unit of the Russian Platform (the regional series, stages, and substages of the Permian System are used in this territory). Carbonates accumulated in the Late Kazanian (mid-Permian) sea that existed in the eastern part of this platform, close to the Hercynian Urals. Dolostones were mined for centuries for the purposes of the local building industry. The geosite is accessible by car and river ships, and there are many well-established trails allowing its examination in detail. This is a notable (geo)tourist attraction in the vicinities of Kazan, which itself is one of the most important tourist destinations of Russia. As expected, the Pechischi geosite is promoted on several web-pages (Table 3).
The semi-quantitative assessment of the web-pages considering the Pechischi geosites reveals their striking difference (Table 3). There are examples of perfect, minimally perfect, and imperfect promotion. The common problems of web-pages are the absence of information for persons with disabilities and too superficial consideration of the technical properties. One web-page is distinguished by simplicity of the text, correctness of images, and relative abundance of geological information. Another web-page received low scores because it lacks illustrations.
The misinterpretations found on one web-page are about the palaeogeographical patterns. The authors of the text suggest that the dolomite layers were formed in the ancient sea, although dolostones are diagenetic in this case [66]. Indeed, this is a minor misinterpretation, which could be avoided by obtaining professional knowledge. In another web-page, it is written that this sea existed more than 200 million years ago. Although this is principally correct, the notion of 200 Ma may leave impression about this age, which corresponds to the Triassic [79]. In fact, the sea existed before 250 Ma, i.e., in the mid-Permian. Moreover, expressions such as “Permian geological layer” seem to be quasi-scientific. Nonetheless, the selected web-pages seem to be created by persons with some basic geological knowledge or, at least, who have access to such knowledge (for instance, in the form of geoconsultancy).

3.3. Case 3: Red Stones (Southern Ciscaucasus)

The Red Stones is an important geosite in the Stavropol Region (southwestern Russia); it belongs to the domain dominated by hills and low mountains in the southern part of the Ciscaucasus (Figure 1). This geosite has the official status of natural monument approved by the regional administration, and it is situated in the territory of a larger protected area, namely, Kislovodsk National Park. It has been described in detail by Ruban and Yashalova [65]. This is a rather small geosite, which is an outcrop of weathered, red-colored Barremian (Lower Cretaceous) sandstones on a gentle slope (Figure 4). These accumulated in a shallow basin with significant iron fluxes from the nearby land. Although the rocks are rather hard, their weathering has led to disintegration and, thus, large clasts occur at the toe of the steep “walls” of the outcrop with a height of several meters. The locality is accessible through park trails, and it is also allowed to climb on the top of the rocks. This is one of the most popular and symbolic attractions of Kislovodsk National Park, which is a constituent of the large Caucasian Mineral Waters resort area—one of the most known and demanded tourist destinations of Russia. The Red Stones geosite is promoted on several web-pages (Table 4).
The semi-quantitative assessment of the web-pages considering the Red Stones geosite implies they are minimally perfect in its promotion (Table 4). Like the two previous cases, these web-pages do not serve persons with disabilities and provide minimal information about the technical properties of this geosite. They boast a high quality and quantity of illustrations, but the textual parts are questionable in regard to the correctness of the geological information (errors are found in two samples) and somewhat its simplicity; the relative and absolute amounts of this information are often restricted.
Various errors are found on two web-pages. For instance, one of them informs that the Jurassic sea existed there 100 million years ago. In fact, the rocks are of the Barremian (Early Cretaceous) age [80,81,82], and the Jurassic Period ended much earlier [Gradstein et al., 2020]. A user of this web-page will be fully disoriented about the age of the rocks. The suggested tectonic pushing of the rocks from the sea bottom is more than a simplification of their origin. Moreover, it is explained that the rocks are colored by “hydroxide of nitrogen”, which is scientifically unreasonable (surprisingly, iron oxides are also mentioned in this text). The same statement is found on the other web-page. It is notable that such pseudo-geological information is mixed with the true facts: one can learn about the correct interpretation of the sedimentary material delivery by rivers to the palaeosea from the nearby land. Generally, it appears that two web-pages were created by non-experts who were not able to make a distinction between correct and incorrect ideas. In contrast, the other selected web-page communicates the geological information briefly but professionally, which is expected as this is the official description offered by the above-mentioned national park.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Three cases employed for the purposes of the present study point out the differences between geosite-focused web-pages by the established criteria, which prove the utility of the latter for such an assessment. It appears that the consideration of the special tools/solutions for persons with disabilities and the technical properties of geosites allows more critical assessment of information from such web-pages. The majority of the analyzed web-pages were created by representatives of the tourism industry (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4). Although their geological knowledge cannot be checked directly, it appears that it is chiefly minimal or absent, as evidenced by the above-mentioned misinterpretations and mistakes. Finally, the separate analysis of texts and images is very reasonable due to the evident differences in the quality and the quantity of the related geological information. Taken together, these observations corroborate the usefulness of the proposed approach, which can be applied easily and quickly. Its two main limitations are (1) partial dependence on the professional understanding of a given geosite by the evaluator (judgments of the information correctness may require some specific knowledge about the given geological features) and (2) lacking attention to the relative importance of the criteria (for instance, the information about the technical properties of geosites may be even more demanded than the simplicity of their descriptions, and the simplicity and the correctness of images may be more important than those of the text). However, the first of these limitations cannot be avoided totally because many geosites represent too specific and unique features. The second limitation strongly depends on particular situations and knowledge/experience of web-page users and, thus, establishing any universal system for additional criteria “weighting” seems to be unreasonable.
The findings of the three case studies provide interesting matters for further discussion. First, one would expect that the web-pages created by tourism industry representatives or associates would be more concerned about technical issues (modes of access, exact location, and safety rules) and adaptation to persons with disabilities, because these two aspects are highly important in contemporary tourism [83,84,85,86,87]. However, this is not registered in fact (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4), and the established deficiencies of the information reflect a certain unprofessionalism, which is not related to the specifics of geotourism. It should be stressed that the infrastructural frameworks of all considered geosites allow their use for persons with disabilities; however, two of these geosites (the Granite Canyon and Pechischi) cannot be recommended even for trained persons in the winter season and during heavy rains. Second, it appears that many creators of the selected web-pages are aware of some geological facts about “their” geosites, but do not understand them properly or cannot communicate them correctly. As such, many web-pages fail to offer proper interpretation, which is essential to (1) the correct comprehension of geosites and (2) putting them into the broad context of present environmental problems [88,89,90,91,92]. Third, it appears that the graphical information on the analyzed web-pages is generally better than the textual information (see examples in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4). Most probably, this has happened unintentionally because the web-page creators were concerned with finding picturesque photographs, which are rarely difficult to understand or incorrect. Importantly, some specific images (such as geological maps, stratigraphical columns, or explanatory drawings) are absent.
The majority of the analyzed web-pages promote geosites with minimal perfectness (see scores in Table 2 and Table 4). This can affect the promotion because such web-pages would be less demanded by many potential geotourists, including geology professionals, students, and amateurs. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that these web-pages may not only disappoint some users, but also distract from visits and/or disorient potential visitors. According to the previous research [93,94,95], geotourists have various motivations and their satisfaction also depends on different conditions. Indeed, the quality and the quantity of the promoted information can affect them, especially because web-pages can be highly demanded by geotourists always needing interpretation support. Notably, the web-pages with somewhat higher quality are either created by administrations of the protected area (the case of the Red Stones geosite in the Kislovodsk National Park) or appear for those geosites which are actively exploited for research and field teaching by large universities from nearby cities (the case of the Pechischi geosite near Kazan city where the Kazan Federal University, with its strong geosciences program, is based). These inferences stress the importance of the involvement of administrations of protected areas and faculty members of universities in geosite marketing.
Three basic solutions can be recommended to avoid the possible pitfalls in the promotion of geosites. First, special management initiatives/programs can be developed to include geosites with the largest geotourist potential to strengthen cooperation between professional geologists and the tourism promotion “community”. Second, short and free online/offline courses can be organized by universities for representatives of the local tourism industry in the geology-rich areas to improve their geological knowledge and awareness. Third, well-accessible networks for geological consultancy can be maintained with the Earth science departments of universities. In addition to these solutions, which seem to be proactive, it is also necessary to monitor the quality of the already existing web-pages promoting geosites to improve them when necessary. This task can be performed by the authorities responsible for or interested in tourism development, enthusiastic groups, and professionals involved in local geoconservation activities.
In conclusion, the present study proposes an approach for the semi-quantitative assessment of information presented on web-pages promoting geosites. It appears to be reasonable to pay attention to both the quality and quantity of this information. The application in three real cases demonstrates the efficacy of this approach, which permits easy and quick finding of deficiencies of web-pages. As such, it is of practical importance because it indicates where improvements are necessary. This study also offers examples of geological misinterpretations and errors. The perspectives for further research are linked to more extensive testing and possible justification of the proposed approach. Moreover, it would be reasonable to take into account the opinions of users and creators of geosite-focused web-pages to understand their preferences and the sources of the established deficiencies. Experiments measuring the level of understanding of the geological information from web-pages are also necessary, although their outcomes can reflect only certain social contexts. More generally, this work contributes to the better understanding of the complexity of online geoheritage marketing, which depends on the efficacy of all its tools and channels, including web-pages.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.V.M. and D.A.R.; methodology, D.A.R.; investigation, A.V.M., S.O.Z., N.N.Y. and D.A.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.V.M., S.O.Z., N.N.Y. and D.A.R.; project administration, A.V.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

A part of this work (contribution of S.O.Z.) was supported by the Kazan Federal University Strategic Academic Leadership Program (PRIORITY-2030). The research by A.V.M., N.N.Y., and D.A.R. was not funded and was not conducted within the frame of the above-indicated project.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank gratefully all five anonymous reviewers for their constructive recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funder had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Gray, M. Geodiversity, geoheritage and geoconservation for society. Int. J. Geoheritage Park. 2019, 7, 226–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Henriques, M.H. Broadening Frontiers in Geoconservation: The Concept of Intangible Geoheritage Represented by the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake. Geoheritage 2023, 15, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Neto, K.; Henriques, M.H. Geoconservation in Africa: State of the art and future challenges. Gondwana Res. 2022, 110, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Prosser, C.; Murphy, M.; Larwood, J. Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice; English Nature: Peterborough, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  5. Prosser, C.D.; Brown, E.J.; Larwood, J.G.; Bridgland, D.R. Geoconservation for science and society—An agenda for the future. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2013, 124, 561–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Reynard, E.; Brilha, J. (Eds.) Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  7. Rodrigues, J.; Costa e Silva, E.; Pereira, D.I. How Can Geoscience Communication Foster Public Engagement with Geoconservation? Geoheritage 2023, 15, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wimbledon, W.A.P.; Smith-Meyer, S. (Eds.) Geoheritage in Europe and Its Conservation; ProGEO: Oslo, Norway, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  9. Brilha, J. Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: A Review. Geoheritage 2016, 8, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Habibi, T.; Ponedelnik, A.A.; Yashalova, N.N.; Ruban, D.A. Urban geoheritage complexity: Evidence of a unique natural resource from Shiraz city in Iran. Resour. Policy 2018, 59, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dos Reis, R.P.; Henriques, M.H. Geoheritage and advanced training for the oil industry: The Lusitanian Basin case study (Portugal). AAPG Bull. 2018, 102, 1413–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dowling, R.; Newsome, D. (Eds.) Handbook of Geotourism; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kubalíková, L.; Bajer, A.; Balková, M.; Kirchner, K.; Machar, I. Geodiversity Action Plans as a Tool for Developing Sustainable Tourism and Environmental Education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Quesada-Valverde, M.E.; Quesada-Román, A. Worldwide Trends in Methods and Resources Promoting Geoconservation, Geotourism, and Geoheritage. Geosciences 2023, 13, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ruban, D.A.; Mikhailenko, A.V.; Yashalova, N.N. Valuable geoheritage resources: Potential versus exploitation. Resour. Policy 2022, 77, 102665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tamang, L.; Mandal, U.K.; Karmakar, M.; Banerjee, M.; Ghosh, D. Geomorphosite evaluation for geotourism development using geosite assessment model (GAM): A study from a Proterozoic terrain in eastern India. Int. J. Geoheritage Park. 2023, 11, 82–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zafeiropoulos, G.; Drinia, H. Comparative Analysis of Two Assessment Methods for the Geoeducational Values of Geosites. A Case Study from the Volcanic Island of Nisyros, SE Aegean Sea, Greece. Geosciences 2022, 12, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Balestro, G.; Cassulo, R.; Fioraso, G.; Nicolo, G.; Rolfo, F.; Bonansea, E.; Cadoppi, P.; Castelli, D.; Ferrando, S.; Festa, A.; et al. IT applications for sharing geoheritage information: The example of the geological and geomorphological trail in the Monviso massif (NW Italy). Rend. Online Soc. Geol. Ital. 2015, 34, 85–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cayla, N. An Overview of New Technologies Applied to the Management of Geoheritage. Geoheritage 2014, 6, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cifuentes-Correa, L.M.; Montoya-Hincapié, E.M.; Valencia-Arias, A.; Quiroz-Fabra, J.; Londoño-Celis, W. Research trends in geoheritage, geotourism and its relationship with new technologies. J. Tour. Dev. 2023, 40, 155–163. [Google Scholar]
  21. Filocamo, F.; Di Paola, G.; Mastrobuono, L.; Rosskopf, C.M. MoGeo, a mobile application to promote geotourism in Molise region (Southern Italy). Resources 2020, 9, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hincapie, M.; Cifuentes, L.M.; Valencia-Arias, A.; Quiroz-Fabra, J. Geoheritage and immersive technologies: Bibliometric analysis and literature review. Episodes 2023, 46, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pasquaré Mariotto, F.; Bonali, F.L. Virtual geosites as innovative tools for geoheritage popularization: A case study from Eastern Iceland. Geosciences 2021, 11, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pica, A.; Reynard, E.; Grangier, L.; Kaiser, C.; Ghiraldi, L.; Perotti, L.; Del Monte, M. GeoGuides, Urban Geotourism Offer Powered by Mobile Application Technology. Geoheritage 2018, 10, 311–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Santos, I.; Henriques, R.; Mariano, G.; Pereira, D.I. Methodologies to Represent and Promote the Geoheritage Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Multimedia Technologies, and Augmented Reality. Geoheritage 2018, 10, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bentivenga, M.; Cavalcante, F.; Mastronuzzi, G.; Palladino, G.; Prosser, G. Geoheritage: The Foundation for Sustainable Geotourism. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 1367–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lazzari, M.; Aloia, A. Geoparks, geoheritage and geotourism: Opportunities and tools in sustainable development of the territory. Geoj. Tour. Geosites 2014, 13, 8–9. [Google Scholar]
  28. Oyelami, C.A.; Kolawole, T.O.; Kolawole, M.S.; Olaonipekun, Z.; Ogundana, A.K. Evaluation of Three Geosites Within Ilesha Schist Belt Southwest Nigeria as a Potential Geoheritage Site for Sustainable Regional Development. Geoheritage 2023, 15, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Roberts, R. Brymbo Fossil Forest: A Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (SMNR) Approach to Geoconservation and Geotourism. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 1325–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Somma, R. The Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geodiversity as Strategic Tools for Promoting Sustainable Geoconservation and Geo-Education in the Peloritani Mountains (Italy). Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Štrba, L.; Kršák, B.; Sidor, C. Some comments to geosite assessment, visitors, and geotourism sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Suzuki, D.A.; Takagi, H. Evaluation of Geosite for Sustainable Planning and Management in Geotourism. Geoheritage 2018, 10, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xu, K.; Wu, W. Geoparks and Geotourism in China: A Sustainable Approach to Geoheritage Conservation and Local Development—A Review. Land 2022, 11, 1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alexandrowicz, W.P.; Alexandrowicz, Z. Geosites in Tourist Areas: The Best Method for the Promotion of Geotourism and Geoheritage (an Example from the Polish Flysch Carpathians). Geoheritage 2022, 14, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Coratza, P.; Vandelli, V.; Ghinoi, A. Increasing Geoheritage Awareness through Non-Formal Learning. Sustainability 2023, 15, 868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Crofts, R.; Tormey, D.; Gordon, J.E. Introducing New Guidelines on Geoheritage Conservation in Protected and Conserved Areas. Geoheritage 2021, 13, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dincă, I.; Keshavarz, S.R.; Almodaresi, S.A. Landscapes of the Yazd-Ardakan Plain (Iran) and the Assessment of Geotourism—Contribution to the Promotion and Practice of Geotourism and Ecotourism. Land 2023, 12, 858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Henriques, M.H.; dos Reis, R.P. Storytelling the Geoheritage of Viana do Castelo (NW Portugal). Geoheritage 2021, 13, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jarzyna, A.; Bąbel, M.; Ługowski, D.; Vladi, F. Anhydrite Weathering Zone with Hydration Caves at Dingwall (Nova Scotia, SE Canada) as a Potential Geosite and Geodiversity Site. Geoheritage 2023, 15, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nunes, A.R.F.; Henriques, M.H.; Dias, J.M.; Janeiro, R.D. Raising Awareness About Geoheritage at Risk in Portugal: The GeoXplora as a Case Study. Geoheritage 2022, 14, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pasquaré Mariotto, F.; Antoniou, V.; Drymoni, K.; Bonalli, F.L.; Nomikou, P.; Fallati, L.; Karatzaferis, O.; Vlasopoulos, O. Virtual geosite communication through a webgis platform: A case study from Santorini island (Greece). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pasquaré Mariotto, F.; Drymoni, K.; Bonali, F.L.; Tibaldi, A.; Corti, N.; Oppizzi, P. Geosite Assessment and Communication: A Review. Resources 2023, 12, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pijet-Migoń, E.; Migoń, P. Promoting and Interpreting Geoheritage at the Local Level—Bottom-up Approach in the Land of Extinct Volcanoes, Sudetes, SW Poland. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 1227–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ruban, D.A.; Yashalova, N.N. Real and promoted aesthetic properties of geosites: New empirical evidence from SW Russia. Heritage 2021, 4, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tormey, D. New approaches to communication and education through geoheritage. Int. J. Geoheritage Park. 2019, 7, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Valentini, L.; Guerra, V.; Lazzari, M. Enhancement of Geoheritage and Development of Geotourism: Comparison and Inferences from Different Experiences of Communication through Art. Geosciences 2022, 12, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Venturini, C.; Pasquaré Mariotto, F. Geoheritage Promotion Through an Interactive Exhibition: A Case Study from the Carnic Alps, NE Italy. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 459–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Allan, M. Geotourism: Why do children visit geological tourism sites? Dirasat Hum. Soc. Sci. 2014, 41, 653–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. D’Andrea, M. Servizio Geologico Nazionale: Progetto “Conservazione del patrimonio geologico italiano”. Nota informative. G. Geol. 2000, 62, 121–124. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lagally, U.; Loth, G. Experiencing Bavarias Geological Heritage—The Project “Hundred Masterpieces”. Geoheritage 2017, 9, 519–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Molokac, M.; Kornecka, E.; Pavolova, H.; Bakalar, T.; Jesensky, M. Online Marketing of European Geoparks as a Landscape Promotion Tool. Land 2023, 12, 803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rozenkiewicz, A.; Widawski, K.; Jary, Z. Geotourism and the 21st century-NTOs’ website information availability on geotourism resources in selected central European countries: International perspective. Resources 2020, 9, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tiago, F.; Correia, P.; Briciu, V.-A.; Borges-Tiago, T. Geotourism destinations online branding co-creation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Timčák, G.M.; Schleusener, H.; Jablonská, J. Wetis—A Web based tourist information system for East Slovakia. Acta Montan. Slovaca 2009, 14, 205–212. [Google Scholar]
  55. Widawski, K.; Rozenkiewicz, A.; Łach, J.; Krzemińska, A.; Oleśniewicz, P. Geotourism starts with accessible information: The Internet as a promotional tool for the georesources of Lower Silesia. Open Geosci. 2018, 10, 275–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kubalíková, L.; Bajer, A.; Balková, M. Brief notes on geodiversity and geoheritage perception by the lay public. Geosciences 2021, 11, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Štrba, Ľ. Analysis of Criteria Affecting Geosite Visits by General Public: A Case of Slovak (Geo)Tourists. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Unjah, T.; Leman, M.S.; Komoo, I. Geological landscape and public perception: A case for Dataran Lang viewpoint, Langkawi. Bull. Geol. Soc. Malays. 2013, 59, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chylińska, D. The Role of the Picturesque in Geotourism and Iconic Geotourist Landscapes. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 531–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jungerius, P.; van den Ancker, H.; Wevers, N. The contribution of Dutch landscape painters to the conservation of geoheritage. Geol. Today 2012, 28, 95–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sisto, M.; Di Lisio, A.; Russo, F. Geosite Assessment as a Tool for the Promotion and Conservation of Irpinia Landscape Geoheritage (Southern Italy). Resources 2022, 11, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gordon, J.E. Geoheritage, geotourism and the cultural landscape: Enhancing the visitor experience and promoting geoconservation. Geosciences 2018, 8, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pijet-Migoń, E.; Migoń, P. Geoheritage and Cultural Heritage—A Review of Recurrent and Interlinked Themes. Geosciences 2022, 12, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mikhailenko, A.V.; Ruban, D.A.; Rebezov, M.B.; Yashalova, N.N. The Unique Granite Gorge in Mountainous Adygeya, Russia: Evidence of Big and Complex Geosite Disproportions. Geosciences 2019, 9, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ruban, D.A.; Yashalova, N.N. New Evidence of Megaclasts from the Russian South: The First Report of Three Localities. Geosciences 2021, 11, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zorina, S.O.; Ermolaev, V.A.; Ruban, D.A. Earth Science Frontier at Urban Periphery: Geoheritage from the Vicinity of Kazan City, Russia. Heritage 2023, 6, 1103–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hatlevik, O.E.; Christophersen, K.-A. Digital competence at the beginning of upper secondary school: Identifying factors explaining digital inclusion. Comput. Educ. 2013, 63, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kirillova, K.; Fu, X.; Lehto, X.; Cai, L. What makes a destination beautiful? Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42, 282–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kuo, L.; Chang, T.; Lai, C.-C. Multimedia webpage visual design and color emotion test. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2022, 81, 2621–2636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tawil, N.; Ascone, L.; Kühn, S. The contour effect: Differences in the aesthetic preference and stress response to photo-realistic living environments. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 933344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zylka, J.; Christoph, G.; Kroehne, U.; Hartig, J.; Goldhammer, F. Moving beyond cognitive elements of ICT literacy: First evidence on the structure of ICT engagement. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 53, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Prendivoj, S.M. Tailoring signs to engage two distinct types of geotourists to geological sites. Geosciences 2018, 8, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tessema, G.A.; Poesen, J.; Verstraeten, G.; Van Rompaey, A.; Van Der Borg, J. The scenic beauty of geosites and its relation to their scientific value and geoscience knowledge of tourists: A case study from southeastern Spain. Land 2021, 10, 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kim, C.; Ma, J.; Kang, N.; Jong, H.; Paek, C.; Kim, P. Ranking Mountainous Geoheritages with the 3A Approach (Attraction, Accessibility, and Amenity). Geoheritage 2023, 15, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Singtuen, V.; Vivitkul, N.; Junjuer, T. Geoeducational assessments in Khon Kaen National Geopark, Thailand: Implication for geoconservation and geotourism development. Heliyon 2022, 8, e12464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Vegas, J.; Díez-Herrero, A. An Assessment Method for Urban Geoheritage as a Model for Environmental Awareness and Geotourism (Segovia, Spain). Geoheritage 2021, 13, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bert, D.; Bousquet, V.; Guiomar, M.; Bariani, F.; Hippolyte, J.-C.; Bromblet, P.; Garciaz, J.-L.; Fleury, J.; Mathieu, P.; Pages, J.-S.; et al. The Geotouristic Project “the Geological Adventure” to the Rescue of an Iconic World Heritage Geosite, the Ammonites Slab of Digne-les-Bains (National Geological Nature Reserve of Haute-Provence and Unesco Global Geopark, France). Geoheritage 2022, 14, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Henriques, M.H.; Canales, M.L.; García-Frank, A.; Gomez-Heras, M. Accessible Geoparks in Iberia: A Challenge to Promote Geotourism and Education for Sustainable Development. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 471–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G.; Schmitz, M.D.; Ogg, G.M. (Eds.) Geologic Time Scale 2020; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  80. Baraboshkin, E.Y. On subdivision of the Berremian Stage in the vicinities of Kislovodsk. In Proceedings of the Tesizy Dokladov VII Kraevoj Konferentsii po Geologii i Poelznym Iskopaemym Severnogo Kavkaza, Essentuki, Russia; 1991; pp. 42–43. (In Russian). [Google Scholar]
  81. Drushits, V.V.; Mikhailova, I.A. Biostratigraphy of the Lower Cretaceous of the Northern Caucasus; MGU: Moscow, Russia, 1966. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  82. Snezhko, V.A.; Bogdanova, T.N.; Snezhko, V.V. Lower Cretaceous sediments in the central and eastern parts of the Greater Caucasus northern slope (paleontological and lithological comparison). Reg. Geol. I Metallog. 2018, 74, 59–70. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  83. Aguilar-Carrasco, M.J.; Gielen, E.; Vallés-Planells, M.; Galiana, F.; Riutort-Mayol, G. Assessment of barriers for people with disability to enjoy national parks. Front. Psychol. 2023, 13, 1058647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Che, Y.; Cao, Y.; Wu, R.; Liu, J.; Chen, L.; Wu, J. Spatio-Temporal Pattern of World Heritage and Its Accessibility Assessment in China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Darcy, S. Inherent complexity: Disability, accessible tourism and accommodation information preferences. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 816–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Moura, A.; Eusébio, C.; Devile, E. The ‘why’ and ‘what for’ of participation in tourism activities: Travel motivations of people with disabilities. Curr. Issues Tour. 2023, 26, 941–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Teitler Regev, S.; Palatnik, R.R. Implications of Climate Change on Outdoor Recreation: The Case of National Parks in Israel. Earth 2022, 3, 345–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hose, T.A. 3G’s for Modern Geotourism. Geoheritage 2012, 4, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Migoń, P.; Pijet-Migoń, E. Exploring Causal Relationships for Geoheritage Interpretation—Variable Effects of Cenozoic Volcanism in Central European Sedimentary Tablelands. Geoheritage 2022, 14, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Pacheco, J.; Brilha, J. The importance of interpretation for the diffusion of geoheritage: A review. Comun. Geol. 2014, 101, 101–107. [Google Scholar]
  91. Rutherford, J.; Newsome, D.; Kobryn, H. Interpretation as a vital ingredient of geotourism in coastal environments: The geology of sea level change, Rottnest Island, Western Australia. Tour. Mar. Environ. 2015, 11, 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Van Geert, F. In situ interpretation and ex situ museum display of geology. New opportunities for a geoheritage based dialogue? Int. J. Geoheritage Park. 2019, 7, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Chaves, N.; Amaro, S.; Barroco, C. Visitor’s motivations to the Arouca Geopark. J. Tour. Dev. 2023, 40, 127–136. [Google Scholar]
  94. Farsani, N.T.; Esfahani, M.A.G.; Shokrizadeh, M. Understanding Tourists’ Satisfaction and Motivation Regarding Mining Geotours (Case Study: Isfahan, Iran). Geoheritage 2019, 11, 681–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Tomić, N.; Marjanović, M. Towards a Better Understanding of Motivation and Constraints for Domestic Geotourists: The Case of the Middle and Lower Danube Region in Serbia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Resources 12 00061 g001 550
Figure 1. Location of the geosites considered in the present work.
Figure 1. Location of the geosites considered in the present work.
Resources 12 00061 g001
Resources 12 00061 g002 550
Figure 2. View of the Granite Gorge geosite. One can note a typical V-shaped profile of the gorge and outcrops of pinkish Late Paleozoic granitoids along the Belaya River.
Figure 2. View of the Granite Gorge geosite. One can note a typical V-shaped profile of the gorge and outcrops of pinkish Late Paleozoic granitoids along the Belaya River.
Resources 12 00061 g002
Resources 12 00061 g003 550
Figure 3. View of the Pechischi geosite. One can note an impressive outcrop of Gaudalupian dolostones and an abandoned, historical oven on the bank of the Volga River.
Figure 3. View of the Pechischi geosite. One can note an impressive outcrop of Gaudalupian dolostones and an abandoned, historical oven on the bank of the Volga River.
Resources 12 00061 g003
Resources 12 00061 g004 550
Figure 4. View of the Red Stones geosite. One can note Barremian Fe-rich sandstones forming a peculiar landform in Kislovodsk National Park; trails leading to this geosite are also visible. An unknown figure on the top (near the sculpture of eagle) serves as scale.
Figure 4. View of the Red Stones geosite. One can note Barremian Fe-rich sandstones forming a peculiar landform in Kislovodsk National Park; trails leading to this geosite are also visible. An unknown figure on the top (near the sculpture of eagle) serves as scale.
Resources 12 00061 g004
Table
Table 1. Criteria and scoring system proposed for the quick, semi-quantitative assessment of the quality and quantity of information about geosites on web-pages.
Table 1. Criteria and scoring system proposed for the quick, semi-quantitative assessment of the quality and quantity of information about geosites on web-pages.
PropertyCriteriaObjectGradesScores
QualitySimplicity (S)Geological textSimple
(clear to non-professionals: geological concepts not presented, specific geological terms (e.g., time units) are very few and well-explained)		10
Complicated
(require basic geological knowledge: elementary geological concepts (e.g., magmatism) are considered, specific terms are few and chiefly not explained)		5
Professional
(require in-depth geological knowledge: advanced geological concepts (e.g., diagenesis) and scientific discussions (e.g., about palaeobiogeographical interpretations) are considered, specific terms are numerous)		3
Absent0
Geological imagesSimple
(photographs of geological features)		10
Complicated
(photographs of geological features and/or easy explanatory drawings; also photographs illustrating complex geological phenomena)		5
Professional
(photographs of geological features and/or maps, stratigraphical columns, diagrams, etc.)		3
Absent0
Correctness (C)Geological textGenerally correct10
Some misinterpretations5
Errors1
Absent0
Geological imagesGenerally correct10
Some misinterpretations5
Errors1
Absent0
Technical properties such as accessibility, location, and safety (T)Text and/or imagesGenerally complete10
Incomplete or incorrect (only some properties are addressed)5
Insufficient (too limited information)1
Absent0
QuantityRelative quantity (R)Geological text>50% of the entire text10
10–50% of the entire text7
<10% of the entire text3
Absent0
Geological images>50% of all illustrations10
10–50% of all illustrations7
<10% of all illustrations3
Absent0
Absolute quantity (A)Geological textExtensive descriptions10
1–2 paragraphs7
1–2 sentences3
Absent0
Geological images>3 items10
2–3 items7
1 item3
Absent0
Special tools/solutions for persons with disabilities (D)Present10
Absent0
Total scores0–100
Categories of web-pages depending on total scoresVery perfect>90
Perfect71–90
Minimally perfect51–70
Imperfect30–51
Very imperfect<30
Table
Table 2. Semi-quantitative assessment of the quality and quantity of information about the Granite Gorge geosite on selected web-pages.
Table 2. Semi-quantitative assessment of the quality and quantity of information about the Granite Gorge geosite on selected web-pages.
Web-Pages
(Anonymized with Indication of the General Affinity of Creators) and Their Brief Characteristics		Criteria (See Table 1 for Scoring System and Abbreviations, t—Text, i—Images)Total Scores
SCTRAD
titititi
GG1 (tourism):
richly illustrated description of the Granite Gorge as a natural attraction of Adygeya; emphasis is made on natural (chiefly geological) features		10105101710710070
GG2 (tourism):
brief characteristics of the Granite Gorge with several spectacular photographs; significant attention is paid to tourist activities and accommodation opportunities		10105101710710070
GG3 (tourism and public media):
very popular description of the Granite Gorge arguing its attraction to tourists as a natural (not only geological) attraction		1010110131037055
Table
Table 3. Semi-quantitative assessment of the quality and quantity of information about the Pechischi geosite on selected web-pages.
Table 3. Semi-quantitative assessment of the quality and quantity of information about the Pechischi geosite on selected web-pages.
Web-Pages
(Anonymized with Indication of the General Affinity of Creators) and Their Brief Characteristics		Criteria (See Table 1 for Scoring System and Abbreviations, t—Text, i—Images)Total Scores
SCTRAD
titititi
P1 (tourism):
brief but rather informative description of the Pechischi section as the object of special tourist excursion; there are good illustrations (also of fossils) and simplified geological explanations		101051011010710073
P2 (unclear):
rather “dry”, not illustrated description of the Pechischi section; the status of natural monument is emphasized		5010017070030
P3 (enthusiasts):
richly illustrated characteristics of the Pechischi section; various geological facts are communicated, and photographs represent different views of the section and its geological features		55101011010710068
Table
Table 4. Semi-quantitative assessment of the quality and quantity of information about the Red Stones geosite on selected web-pages.
Table 4. Semi-quantitative assessment of the quality and quantity of information about the Red Stones geosite on selected web-pages.
Web-Pages
(Anonymized with Indication of the General Affinity) and Their Brief Characteristics		Criteria (See Table 1 for Scoring System and Abbreviations, t—Text, i—Images)Total Scores
SCTRAD
titititi
RS1 (protected area):
very brief characteristics of the Red Stones, with emphasis on its cultural importance within the national park; this web-page can be used for planning individual excursions		1010101013737061
RS2 (tourism and public media):
rather detailed description of the Red Stones; geological information is rather extensive, but it is overwhelmed by the local folklore context		51011017737051
RS3 (tourism):
well-illustrated description of the Red Stones; geological and cultural knowledge co-occur, and the local folklore context is discussed		101011013737052
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mikhailenko, A.V.; Zorina, S.O.; Yashalova, N.N.; Ruban, D.A. Promoting Geosites on Web-Pages: An Assessment of the Quality and Quantity of Information in Real Cases. Resources 2023, 12, 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12050061

AMA Style

Mikhailenko AV, Zorina SO, Yashalova NN, Ruban DA. Promoting Geosites on Web-Pages: An Assessment of the Quality and Quantity of Information in Real Cases. Resources. 2023; 12(5):61. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12050061

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mikhailenko, Anna V., Svetlana O. Zorina, Natalia N. Yashalova, and Dmitry A. Ruban. 2023. "Promoting Geosites on Web-Pages: An Assessment of the Quality and Quantity of Information in Real Cases" Resources 12, no. 5: 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12050061

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop