Next Article in Journal
Property-Rights Registration, Transaction Costs, and Realization of Eco-Product Value: Evidence from the Evolutionary Game in Yunhe Terrace National Wetland Park
Previous Article in Journal
Handling and Properties of Methanol as a Marine Fuel
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 10
10.3390/su18104934
sustainability-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing Degradation Risk of Geosites in the Safi Province (Marrakesh–Safi Region, Morocco)

by
Mustapha El Hamidy
1,
Károly Németh
2,3,4,* and
Outaaoui Omar
1
1
Geodynamics and Geomatic Laboratory, Faculty of Sciences, Chouaib Doukkali University, B.P. 20, El Jadida 24000, Morocco
2
Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, 9400 Sopron, Hungary
3
School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
4
Saudi Geological Survey, Jeddah 21514, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(10), 4934; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18104934
Submission received: 21 March 2026 / Revised: 27 April 2026 / Accepted: 11 May 2026 / Published: 14 May 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Hazards and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Geosites in the Safi Province in Morocco are increasingly exposed to a combination of natural and anthropogenic factors (landslides, karstification, pollution, improper visitor behavior, etc.) that threaten their integrity and accelerate their degradation. Assessing geoheritage degradation risks is therefore a fundamental step in any geoconservation strategy, particularly given the growing impacts of climate change on Morocco’s Atlantic coastline. This study proposes a quantitative methodology for evaluating degradation risk by integrating extrinsic factors that can damage geosites. The methodology was applied to the Safi Province, an area characterized by exceptional geological diversity—ranging from coastal cliffs and marine terraces to karst systems, Quaternary deposits, and paleontological and archaeological sites of international significance such as Jbel Irhoud. Three main criteria were used to assess degradation risk: anthropogenic vulnerability, public use, and natural vulnerability, each supported by a set of detailed parameters enabling precise numerical evaluation. The results show that degradation risk in Safi’s geosites is primarily driven by a lack of awareness of and recognition of their geological importance, leading to public misuse, inadequate management, uncontrolled access, and unregulated extraction. Moreover, the region’s strong coastal dynamics amplify natural vulnerability, especially at geosites along exposed cliffs, beaches, and estuarine environments. Overall, the findings provide a comprehensive assessment of the condition of Safi’s geosites and constitute a valuable tool for the planning, prioritization, and implementation of effective protection and management measures, particularly in the face of increasing pressures associated with climate and environmental change.

1. Introduction

The last 25 years have witnessed significant progress in geoconservation studies and a growing international interest in geoheritage [1,2]. To date, most investigations on geosites have focused on their identification, classification, and assessment, with increasing attention recently devoted to geosite mapping [3]. Numerous qualitative and quantitative methodologies have been developed for assessing geosite values—both scientific and additional—as well as their educational and touristic potential [4,5,6,7]. In contrast, the assessment of geosite degradation risk remains underexplored, despite its importance for the effective management and conservation of geoheritage. In fact, geosites are continuously exposed to natural and anthropogenic pressures, and in many countries, they face degradation or even irreversible loss due to the lack of systematic inventories and appropriate management strategies [8].
Several studies have discussed the concept of geosite degradation risk, but the terminology remains ambiguous and inconsistently applied [8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. One of the first comprehensive attempts to standardize the assessment of geoheritage degradation risk was proposed by [15], who conceptualized degradation risk as the combination of three main criteria: fragility, vulnerability, and public use. More recently, ref. [16] proposed a broader approach in which degradation risk is integrated directly into the assessment of geosites, encompassing both anthropogenic and natural factors.
Among the natural factors affecting geosites, climate change plays an increasingly critical role. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [17,18], future climate scenarios indicate increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, resulting in greater environmental losses [19] and accelerated transformations in geodiversity and landscapes [20]. One of the most visible consequences of rising global temperatures is sea-level rise, which intensifies coastal erosion, increases the frequency of flooding events, leads to the salinization of groundwater, and contributes to the degradation of coastal habitats, including wetlands [21].
The importance of geoheritage conservation has been highlighted at national and international levels during the last few decades [5,10,16,22,23,24], as geoheritage represents a crucial component of Earth’s history and supports sustainable development, resilience to natural hazards, and educational value. Geoheritage, as a subset of geodiversity with high scientific significance, must be preserved for present and future generations. Recent contributions also emphasize the importance of geoheritage in supporting sustainable development strategies and mitigating geological hazards [25].
Within this framework, a number of studies [15,26,27,28] have highlighted the role of climate change in increasing the vulnerability and degradation risk of geosites. Research conducted in Mediterranean coastal areas [28,29,30] indicates that the impacts of climate change—both direct and indirect—are especially pronounced in coastal environments, where rising sea levels constitute one of the most well-documented and significant consequences of global warming.
The Safi Province (Figure 1), located along the Atlantic margin of Morocco, presents a distinctive combination of geological, geomorphological, and paleontological features. Its geosites include high coastal cliffs such as Sidi Bouzid, karst formations including the caves of Karaan, Quaternary and Cretaceous fossiliferous deposits, and internationally significant paleoanthropological sites such as Jbel Irhoud. However, despite their high scientific, educational, and cultural value, these geosites remain insufficiently protected [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. They face increasing threats related to urban expansion, uncontrolled tourism, industrial activity, informal mining, agricultural land conversion, and natural processes such as marine erosion and coastal retreat.
The Moroccan Atlantic coast, including Safi, is particularly sensitive to climate-change-induced hazards [42,43,44]. Projections indicate accelerated sea-level rise, more frequent storm surges, coastal flooding episodes, and enhanced erosional dynamics, particularly affecting low-lying coastal areas and cliffed coastlines. These impacts may intensify the degradation of fragile coastal geosites, especially those already under anthropogenic pressure [42,43,44].
Given the current environmental challenges and the growing role of geoconservation within Earth sciences and territorial planning, a rigorous assessment of geosite degradation risk in the Safi Province is urgently needed. In this study, the degradation risk of selected Safi geosites is quantitatively assessed using the methodology proposed by [15], based on three components: natural vulnerability, anthropogenic vulnerability, and public use. This study aims to identify geosites most susceptible to degradation, considering both natural processes—such as marine erosion, coastal instability, and episodic extreme weather—and human-related pressures. The assessment follows the methodology proposed by [15], which evaluates degradation risk through three complementary components: natural vulnerability, anthropogenic vulnerability, and public use.
Sustainability 18 04934 g001
Figure 1. (a) Geographic location of Morocco within Africa; (b) detailed geological map of the Safi Province showing the geosite’s location (modified from [45]).
Figure 1. (a) Geographic location of Morocco within Africa; (b) detailed geological map of the Safi Province showing the geosite’s location (modified from [45]).
Sustainability 18 04934 g001

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Geological and Geographic Settings

Safi Province is situated in the western sector of the Marrakech–Safi region and spans an area of about 3634 km2, accounting for roughly 0.50% of Morocco’s total territory. Based on the 2024 national census, the province records a population of 719,671 inhabitants, corresponding to an average population density of approximately 198 inhabitants per km2.
From a geological perspective, Safi belongs to the Mesetian domain, which is characterized by a Paleozoic basement overlain by well-developed, nearly horizontal Mesozoic tabular formations [46] (Figure 1 and Figure 2). These sedimentary sequences, ranging from the Jurassic to the Quaternary, display significant lithological diversity across the region. The Upper Jurassic units outcrop from Lalla Fatna to the Oued Tensift estuary and from Mouissat to the Atlantic coastline. They consist of marl and gypsum deposits (J2) alternating with yellow dolomitic layers (J3) attributed to the Kimmeridgian–Tithonian interval [47]. The Lower Cretaceous formations of the province are predominantly marine in origin. North of the Oued Tensift, they are composed of neritic limestones (Lower Limestone, C1), followed by grey gypsiferous marls known as Brown Clay (C2) and the Dridrat Limestone (C3), corresponding to the Neocomian. This sedimentary succession ends with red sandy–clay deposits (C4) of the Upper Hauterivian, marking an Atlantic regression phase [47,48,49]. The Pliocene is widely represented across the coastal Meseta, characterized by shell-rich deposits that evolve into lumachelle layers with a pink micritic matrix. These formations reflect the retreat of the post-Pliocene sea and the establishment of a dune system [47]. The Quaternary formations are also well represented, including silty and sandy deposits, crusts and crusted horizons, alluvium, and slope materials, which cover large areas of the Sahel zone [42,48] (Figure 2).
With regard to geoheritage, the Safi Province hosts a diverse set of geosites that have been inventoried and assessed in previous research, representing the most scientifically significant and rare geological features of the region (Figure 3) [32,34,37,38,39,40].
The majority of these geosites are located along the Atlantic coastline, where coastal cliffs, marine terraces, shore platforms, sea caves, arches, and notches illustrate the strong interaction between wave dynamics and litho-structural controls. These coastal landforms, shaped by active marine erosion and episodic slope instabilities, constitute more than 70% of the inventoried sites and reflect the dominance of primary geomorphological interest within the province. Inland, additional geosites display remarkable geological and paleontological features, including the globally significant Jbel Irhoud paleoanthropological site, the karstic systems of El Goraan cave, barite mineralization zones, and several Cretaceous and Jurassic fossiliferous outcrops richly populated with ammonites and other marine fauna (Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9). Approximately 20% of the geosites exhibit structural or tectonic significance, notably the faulted Jurassic–Cretaceous contacts, tilted strata, and collapse structures associated with karst development. The remaining sites are primarily stratigraphic, illustrating key sedimentary sequences that record the region’s Jurassic to Quaternary history and providing excellent exposures for lithostratigraphic interpretation. This ensemble of geosites reflects the exceptional geodiversity of the Safi Province and highlights its value for scientific research, education, and geotourism development.
The Safi Province, like many coastal regions of Morocco, is exposed to a combination of environmental pressures that influence landscape dynamics and the condition of natural sites. These include coastal erosion, slope instability, land-use change, urban expansion, and pressures from industrial and tourism activities. In addition, natural climatic variability in the region contributes to seasonal changes in rainfall and temperature, which may indirectly influence geomorphological processes such as weathering and surface runoff. These combined factors contribute to ongoing environmental stress on the landscape and surrounding geosites and should be considered in regional environmental planning and geoconservation strategies.

2.2. Methods

Considering the different conceptual interpretations of terms associated with degradation risk, it is important to clarify the definitions adopted in the methodological framework used in this study. Accordingly, the concepts of fragility, natural vulnerability, anthropogenic vulnerability, and public use proposed by [15] were applied, and they are summarized in Table 1.
The degradation risk methodology developed in this study builds on earlier method-oriented research contributions [9,13,14,16,54,55,56].
In 2005, ref. [9] introduced the notion of fragility and emphasized the importance of geosite protection, focusing mainly on human-induced pressures. Later studies [10,11,12,13,15] applied different terminologies and addressed only part of the factors influencing degradation risk. For example, ref. [8] used the term vulnerability to refer to both natural processes and human activities that may impact geosites, whereas [12] subsequently restricted vulnerability to damage resulting exclusively from anthropogenic actions. In a later contribution [54], the same authors redefined degradation risk as the combination of vulnerability, associated with human interventions, and fragility, related to natural conditions. Ref. [13] proposed that degradation risk could be assessed by integrating the value of a geosite with its protection needs. The first systematic evaluation of degradation risk was carried out by [14], with the aim of providing a shared framework for geoconservation experts; however, it considered only natural factors, namely fragility and natural vulnerability, and focused on geosites in La Rioja (Spain). More recent work [16] incorporates degradation risk within geosite assessment frameworks, recognizing its relevance alongside scientific value, although without distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic drivers.

Quantitative Assessment of Geosites Degradation Risk

The geosites considered in this study were selected based on previous inventories reported in the literature, particularly in [34,39].
The quantitative framework developed in this study for evaluating geosite degradation risk is founded on the identification and assessment of three groups of criteria: (i) natural vulnerability, (ii) anthropogenic vulnerability, and (iii) public use. Fragility arises from intrinsic natural factors (coastal erosion, slope instability, and the presence of easily erodible or fractured lithologies), and its assessment is essential to understand the current state of the site, its dynamic condition, and overall integrity. However, such natural processes are generally unavoidable and cannot be prevented. In some cases, geosites are significant precisely because they provide evidence of the natural processes that shaped them. Ongoing natural activity may even lead to the development of more complex features, enhancing the site’s value over time by forming new landforms. From an ethical perspective, interfering with these natural processes to halt their evolution is inappropriate. Therefore, natural fragility was not considered a contributor to the total degradation risk score.
The parameters defining each criterion, along with their corresponding indicators, are presented in Table 2. Each parameter was scored on a scale from 0 to 3, where higher values indicate greater risk. The overall degradation risk of a geosite was calculated by aggregating the scores across all criteria. In this context, a lower cumulative score reflects a reduced level of degradation risk.
The evaluation of natural vulnerability in geosites is based on two parameters:
  • Active processes. This parameter considers natural processes that do not directly contribute to the formation of the geosite but may affect its integrity. These processes can have geological, climatic, or biological origins, and identifying them is essential to evaluating potential degradation [14]. Geological processes include gravity-induced movements, water erosion, and weathering. Biological processes involve both fauna, such as trampling and burrowing, and flora, including root growth and expansion of surface vegetation. Climatic processes require long-term data collection and include temperature, humidity, precipitation, wind, flooding, and meteorological and marine factors. It is also important to determine whether these natural extrinsic processes operate continuously or episodically. Accordingly, active sites are classified as active-continuous or active-episodic, depending on whether the processes occur year-round or during short recurrent periods [57]. Scoring is assigned as follows: 0 for sites unaffected by extrinsic processes, 1 for sites affected by episodic processes, 2 for sites affected by constant processes, and 3 for sites affected by two or more extrinsic processes.
  • Proximity. This parameter assesses the geosite’s proximity to areas susceptible to degradation from active natural processes, such as coastal erosion, volcanic activity, or landslides. Scores are assigned as follows: 0 for sites with no potential degradation areas, 1 and 2 for sites near 1 or 2 active processes, respectively, and 3 for sites adjacent to areas with more than 2 potential degradation processes.
The evaluation of anthropogenic vulnerability is founded on two parameters:
  • Economic interest. This parameter reflects the occurrence of geological features with economic value, including those that are currently exploited or have the potential for exploitation through quarrying or mining activities.
  • Private interest. This parameter considers the presence of geological collectibles, such as fossils and minerals, which may be subject to uncontrolled or unregulated collection and misuse. While not always strictly illegal, depending on national legislation and its enforcement, such activities can still lead to geosite degradation [58,59]. In Morocco, the legal framework and its enforcement remain limited, increasing site vulnerability.
Each parameter is scored from 0 to 3, where 0 indicates no economic or private interest and 3 indicates the presence of more than two economically valuable or collectible elements. The two parameters are closely associated with the geological characteristics of the geosite.
The public use criterion represents the pressures associated with urban development, vulnerability to vandalism or illegal collecting, and insufficient protection measures. It is assessed through seven parameters:
  • Legal protection. Evaluates whether the geosite is legally protected due to geological, cultural, historical, or environmental value.
  • Human proximity. Measures the distance from human activities that could potentially damage the site.
  • Accessibility. Assesses ease of access, as more visitors increase the risk of damage.
  • Population density. Higher concentrations of people living near the site raise the likelihood of human-induced degradation.
  • Physical protection. Considering the presence of barriers or structures (e.g., fences, stairs, walkways) that limit direct contact with the public.
  • Degrading use. Evaluates improper public use, such as littering or vandalism.
  • Control of access. Assesses measures such as patrols, surveillance cameras, or other monitoring strategies.
The total degradation risk score ranges from 0 to 33 points (Table 3). Based on the total score, geosites are classified by degradation risk: sites scoring below 7 points are considered low risk, while those exceeding 25 points are considered high risk. Detailed score ranges and corresponding risk levels are presented in Table 3.
To ensure the robustness of the evaluation, fieldwork was carried out across all inventoried geosites. These field surveys aimed to document their geological features, current preservation conditions, and visible indicators of natural and anthropogenic degradation. Observations included geomorphological descriptions, systematic photographic documentation, and qualitative assessments of active natural processes, accessibility, and human pressures. The information collected on-site served as the basis for assigning the scores to each criterion, ensuring that the quantitative assessment directly reflected the actual conditions observed in the field.

3. Results

The 12 geosites identified in the study area were assessed using the methodology described in Section 2.1 (Table 4) to determine their degradation risk. The results are presented in Figure 10.
Nearly all geosites exhibit a medium to high level of degradation risk, with only two sites achieving scores of 25 or above, indicating a very high risk category.
The two geosites that reach a very high degradation risk are Sidi Bouzid Escarpment (27) and Escarpment of Lalla Fatna (26). These two sites stand out due to the combination of intense natural dynamics and significant human pressure. Both escarpments are located along highly visited coastal areas where wave action, cliff retreat, and active mass-movement processes contribute to their natural fragility (Figure 11). At the same time, their recreational popularity exposes them to ongoing anthropogenic stress, including uncontrolled public access, physical disturbance, and the absence of effective site protection or visitor regulation (Figure 12). The interaction between strong natural processes (e.g., rock falls, wave action, meteorological exposure) and concentrated human activities (e.g., large visitor volumes) makes these geosites particularly vulnerable, which explains the exceptionally high scores they obtained in the degradation risk assessment.
In our assessment, seven geosites exhibit degradation risks strongly influenced by natural vulnerability, contributing to more than 20% of their total risk scores (Figure 13). These include Sidi Bouzid Escarpment, Chaâba Valley, Escarpment of Lalla Fatna, El Goraan Cave, Souira Lgdima, Sidi Tiji Gypsum Quarry, and Jorf Lihoudi. Among them, the geosites with the highest levels of natural vulnerability are Jorf Lihoudi, the Sidi Bouzid Escarpment, the Chaâba Valley, and the Escarpment of Lalla Fatna. Their elevated vulnerability is primarily linked to the lithological and structural characteristics of the region, where evaporitic formations (gypsum) and highly erodible marls and clayey deposits dominate the landscape (Figure 13). As highlighted in previous studies on the Safi coastal area, these soft lithologies are particularly prone to rapid erosion, subsidence, and gravitational instabilities, especially where they overlie karstified limestone affected by dissolution, which further increases their susceptibility to slope failures and collapses. This combination of fragile lithological units, active geomorphological processes, and exposure to marine and atmospheric agents creates conditions comparable to other vulnerable sectors of the Safi coast documented in earlier hazard assessments, confirming the intrinsic natural sensitivity of these geosites to degradation.
Anthropogenic vulnerability remains generally limited, as most geosites are not yet exposed to large-scale or continuous human disturbance. Nevertheless, several sites display elevated sensitivity to human pressures due to their paleontological, archaeological, or economic importance. Jbel Irhoud, internationally known for the discovery of the oldest Homo sapiens fossils, associated faunal remains, and lithic tools, is especially vulnerable to unauthorized access and informal excavation, which risks damaging irreplaceable scientific material. Jorf Lihoudi, which contains a rich fossil record including echinoids and distinctive stromatolithic structures, also faces potential degradation linked to unregulated visitation and fossil collection (Figure 14).
Coastal escarpments such as Sidi Bouzid and Lalla Fatna are likewise sensitive, as they host abundant and scientifically valuable marine fossils—ammonites, corals, brachiopods, bryozoans, echinoids, and cnidarians—making them attractive targets for informal collecting activities (Figure 14). In addition, the Sidi Abderrahmane Clay Quarry and Sidi Tiji Gypsum Quarry present specific vulnerabilities due to ongoing or historical extraction of clay and gypsum, respectively (Figure 15 and Figure 16). Quarrying can alter natural outcrops, remove geological structures of interest, and accelerate erosion, particularly where sites lack regulatory frameworks or designated conservation zones.

4. Discussion

Human activities represent one of the drivers of degradation, although they are highly diverse and may induce changes comparable to, or even more intense than, those produced by natural processes across different spatial and temporal scales. Degradation risk related to public use generally develops more rapidly than natural deterioration and may occasionally involve sudden and unpredictable impacts. In the study area, higher public use scores are mainly linked to insufficient awareness and limited understanding of geological heritage, resulting in inappropriate or careless use of geosite areas (Figure 16). Pressures associated with public use also include conflicts with other land uses, such as infrastructure development, as well as potential overlaps with adjacent natural or cultural heritage sites. In addition, they cover impacts generated by inadequate educational or recreational activities, together with cases of vandalism and unauthorized appropriation.
A key issue is the limited awareness among both local populations and tourists regarding the geological significance of the geosites. In fact, most of these sites are located along the coastline, where tourism and infrastructure pressures are particularly concentrated (Figure 17). While tourism may represent a valuable resource, this potential can only be realized under conditions of sustainable and responsible management.
Regarding natural threats, the coastal position of many geosites in the Safi Province increases their exposure to marine and atmospheric processes, making them particularly vulnerable to water and wind erosion. Coastal erosion poses a direct threat not only to the geosites themselves but also to their surrounding environments, contributing to the loss of geomorphological features and a potential decline in local coastal biodiversity. This phenomenon also carries important socio-economic implications, including the loss of economically valuable land and the degradation of infrastructure and tourism facilities—two sectors that play a central role in the regional economy [61]. As in other coastal regions, these areas are complex and dynamic and are especially sensitive to natural hazards and the evolving impacts of climate change. Rising sea levels, shifts in coastal sedimentation and erosion patterns, and the increasing frequency of violent storms or extreme marine events all contribute to accelerating the degradation of coastal geosites. Without appropriate management and continuous monitoring, these factors may lead to significant alterations of the coastal landscape and jeopardize the conservation of geoheritage features [42,43,44].
Several studies [62,63,64] have highlighted the potential threat of sea-level rise to coastal areas and high wave-energy beach systems. Beaches are expected to be particularly vulnerable, as they may be significantly reduced in extent or even disappear in some locations. Projected sea-level rise, together with an increase in extreme weather events, represents a major risk for coastal environments and the populations that depend on them, especially in densely inhabited areas. Observations over the past 46 years indicate a widespread warming of sea surface temperatures along the Moroccan Atlantic coast [65], with an average increase of approximately +0.149 °C per decade. This warming is particularly pronounced during the warm seasons, reflecting intensified regional marine heatwaves. Although the mean annual increase (≈ +0.015 °C/year) is lower than the highest averages recorded in the Mediterranean, it reveals a sustained trend likely to gradually alter local ocean dynamics. This thermal rise directly affects marine ecosystems by influencing both the physical processes associated with upwelling and the biological responses of marine communities, whose distribution, productivity, and resilience are closely linked to climatic variations [65].
The impacts of climate change on coastal regions range from inundation, shoreline retreat, and cliff erosion to damage caused by storm surges, high-energy waves, and strong winds (Figure 18). The progressive loss of beaches, together with the costly and often temporary nature of beach nourishment interventions, poses a growing challenge for coastal management. In the Safi Province, where several geosites lie directly along the Atlantic coast, the effects of sea level rise, intensified wave action, and more frequent extreme weather events are particularly pronounced. Low-lying coastal zones and areas characterized by soft or highly erodible lithologies are especially vulnerable to flooding and rapid geomorphological change, which may directly or indirectly affect local economic activities and coastal communities.
For these reasons, continuous monitoring of natural vulnerability is essential, as the ongoing evolution of the coastline can significantly alter the integrity and scientific value of geosites. Similar to other Mediterranean and Atlantic coastal regions, the Moroccan coastline is exposed to a range of natural hazards, including coastal erosion, marine storms, slope instability, karstic subsidence, flash floods, and sea-current-related processes. These hazards are influenced by three major factors: (i) geological and geomorphological conditions, such as the presence of karstified limestones, weak marls, gypsum, and steep coastal scarps; (ii) meteorological and climatic variability, including heavy rainfall events, storm surges, and seasonal fluctuations in sea conditions; and (iii) oceanographic dynamics, such as changes in wave regime and sediment transport.
While detailed historical catalogues of extreme geomorphological events remain limited for the Moroccan Atlantic coast, several documented cliff collapses and episodes of erosion highlight the need for improved monitoring and preventive measures. As observed in other regions, protective interventions—such as rock bolting, slope stabilization, or coastal defenses—are often implemented only after hazardous events occur, particularly in areas frequented by tourists or located near important infrastructure. Enhancing early detection, risk assessment, and long-term coastal planning is therefore crucial to safeguard both geoheritage sites and the surrounding coastal environment.
Despite the presence of several geosites located in dynamic coastal and continental environments, the overall natural vulnerability remains low for most sites in the Safi Province. Most natural processes observed—such as marine erosion, runoff, karstification, or slope dynamics—are intrinsic to the formation and long-term evolution of these landforms and therefore represent part of their natural fragility rather than an external degradation factor. The extrinsic natural processes considered in the assessment include biological activity, geological activity, and climatic factors, all of which show limited influence on the degradation risk at the present stage. Biological activity has no significant negative impact on the geosites. Animal activity (trampling, burrowing) is minimal, and although some vegetation-related processes (root penetration, plant cover expansion) were recorded, they remain spatially restricted and do not currently have measurable effects on the integrity of the geological features. Climatic factors—such as humidity variations, seasonal precipitation, strong winds, or episodic flooding—may intensify natural vulnerability, especially in soft lithologies, yet no substantial or visible climatic impacts were identified during the field observation and evaluation period. Nevertheless, continuous and systematic monitoring is essential to detect progressive changes associated with climate variability, extreme weather events, and long-term coastal dynamics. Tracking these changes over time and modeling their potential impacts would support better-informed management strategies and reinforce the Safi region’s capacity to protect its geoheritage in the face of increasing environmental pressures.
From a practical and policy perspective, the results of this study highlight the need for an integrated geoconservation strategy in the Safi Province. The implementation of protective and management measures should involve local and regional authorities, including municipal councils, the Regional Directorate of Environment, and the Moroccan Ministry of Energy Transition and Sustainable Development, in coordination with academic institutions and civil society organizations. Priority actions should include the formal legal protection of high-risk geosites, the installation of on-site signage and physical protection where necessary, the regulation of access in highly visited coastal areas, and the development of geoeducation programs targeting local communities and tourists. Monitoring systems using periodic field surveys and, where possible, remote sensing tools should be established to track ongoing geomorphological changes, particularly along coastal escarpments. Funding for these initiatives could be mobilized through national environmental programs, UNESCO Global Geopark initiatives, regional development funds, and international cooperation projects focused on climate adaptation, geoheritage conservation, and sustainable tourism. The integration of geosite conservation into regional spatial planning and tourism development strategies is essential to ensure long-term protection under increasing environmental and anthropogenic pressures.

5. Conclusions

Human activities and natural processes can produce negative impacts that act directly or indirectly on geosites, potentially altering or degrading their geological, geomorphological, and paleontological attributes. To address these pressures, a methodology for assessing the degradation risk of geosites was applied to the Safi Province, based on three fundamental components: natural vulnerability, anthropogenic vulnerability, and public use. This approach provides a structured and systematic framework for understanding the current state of conservation and the pressures affecting the region’s geoheritage.
The analysis was conducted on a representative set of geosites distributed along the Safi coastline and inland sectors, an area known for its geological diversity, tectono-sedimentary evolution, and rich paleontological heritage. The results show that most geosites exhibit a moderate level of degradation risk, while several key sites—particularly those located along active cliffs and in highly frequented areas—reach high and very high levels. The elevated risk is primarily associated with heavy public use, uncontrolled visitation, and the absence of adequate on-site protection and management measures. Many geosites are situated in coastal zones that constitute highly sensitive environments subject to strong marine dynamics, where erosion, weathering, and wave action are intensified by climate variability.
The evaluation highlights the potential importance of climate-related hazards, especially for geosites located on cliffs, terraces, and beaches. However, it should be noted that the direct impacts of climate change were not quantitatively assessed in this study due to the absence of long-term monitoring data or before–after comparisons. Instead, climate-related influences are indirectly considered through natural vulnerability parameters, particularly active processes such as coastal erosion, weathering, and slope instability observed during fieldwork. Expected changes in sea level, storm frequency, and wave energy may exacerbate these processes and accelerate landscape instability in the Safi region, particularly along the Sidi Bouzid Escarpment, Lalla Fatna, Cap Beddouza, and other coastal sites. As climate pressures intensify, continuous monitoring of natural vulnerability and coastal evolution becomes essential to ensure long-term conservation. At the same time, anthropogenic pressures—urban sprawl, quarrying activities, uncontrolled access, recreational misuse, and a lack of geoheritage awareness—remain significant drivers of degradation and require urgent attention.
This assessment represents the first integrated attempt to identify and evaluate both natural and anthropogenic threats affecting the geosites of Safi Province. The results provide critical foundational information for developing effective protection, conservation, and management strategies. However, several limitations persist, notably the need for long-term monitoring, more complete databases on natural hazards, and regular updates of field observations. To refine the degradation risk assessment and support evidence-based decision-making, periodic re-evaluation of the geosites is necessary, accompanied by improved documentation of geomorphological and climatic changes.
The findings are particularly relevant for policymakers, local authorities, land-use planners, and stakeholders involved in nature conservation, tourism, and sustainable development. In the study area, the most pressing issue is the low awareness of geoheritage values among local communities and visitors, leading to inadequate recognition and weak protection frameworks. A comprehensive communication and education strategy is urgently needed to promote the importance of geological heritage, strengthen community engagement, and foster responsible behavior. Raising awareness, improving access controls, and implementing physical protection where necessary will significantly reduce the risks of degradation and contribute to long-term resilience.
Currently, the lack of legal protection status, insufficient management measures, and unrestricted access are accelerating the degradation of several geosites, including those hosting fragile fossils, karst features, or unstable cliffs. This lack of regulation, combined with increasing tourism pressure, threatens not only geological heritage but also associated habitats, biodiversity, and cultural landscapes. To preserve these valuable sites, it is essential to integrate geoheritage considerations into regional planning, tourism strategies, and environmental policies.
Ultimately, the degradation risk analysis presented in this study serves as a strategic tool for prioritizing geosite conservation and guiding the sustainable development of the Safi Province. Strengthening monitoring programs, improving protective legislation, and promoting geoeducation and geotourism initiatives will be crucial steps toward ensuring the long-term preservation of this exceptional geoheritage. While progress has been made toward recognizing the importance of natural heritage in regional development, more coordinated efforts are required to safeguard the geological richness of Safi for future generations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.E.H., K.N. and O.O.; methodology, M.E.H., K.N. and O.O.; validation, K.N.; formal analysis, M.E.H. and O.O.; investigation, M.E.H. and O.O.; resources, M.E.H. and O.O.; data curation, M.E.H. and O.O.; writing—original draft preparation, M.E.H. and O.O.; writing—review and editing, K.N.; visualization, M.E.H. and K.N.; supervision, K.N.; project administration, M.E.H.; funding acquisition, M.E.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data used in this research are included in the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully thank the journal editor and the three reviewers for their thorough consideration of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Prosser, C.D.; Díaz-Martínez, E.; Larwood, J.G. The conservation of geosites: Principles and practice. In Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2026; pp. 341–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gordon, J.E.; Crofts, R.; Díaz-Martínez, E. Geoheritage conservation and environmental policies: Retrospect and prospect. In Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2026; pp. 361–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Coratza, P.; Bollati, I.M.; Panizza, V.; Brandolini, P.; Castaldini, D.; Cucchi, F.; Deiana, G.; Del Monte, M.; Faccini, F.; Finocchiaro, F.; et al. Advances in Geoheritage Mapping: Application to Iconic Geomorphological Examples from the Italian Landscape. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Reynard, E. The Assessment of Geomorphosites. In Geomorphosites; Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G., Eds.; Pfeil: Munchen, Germany, 2009; pp. 63–71. [Google Scholar]
  5. Brilha, J. Geoheritage: Inventories and Evaluation. In Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management, 1st ed.; Reynard, E., Brilha, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 69–86. [Google Scholar]
  6. Coratza, P.; Hobléa, F. The Specificities of Geomorphological Heritage. In Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management, 1st ed.; Reynard, E., Brilha, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 87–106. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mucivuna, V.C.; Garcia, M.G.M.; Reynard, E. Comparing quantitative methods on the evaluation of scientific value in geosites: Analysis from the Itatiaia National Park, Brazil. Geomorphology 2022, 396, 107988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lima, F.F.; Brilha, J.B.; Salamuni, E. Inventorying geological heritage in large territories: A methodological proposal applied to Brazil. Geoheritage 2010, 2, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Brilha, J. Património Geológico e Geoconservação: A Conservação da Natureza na sua Vertente Geológica; Palimage Editores: Viseu, Portugal, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  10. Pereira, P.; Pereira, D.; Caetano, M.I. Geomorphosite assessment in Monteshino Natural Park (Portugal). Geogr. Helv. 2007, 62, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carcavilla, L.; López-Martínez, J.; Durán, J.J. Patrimonio Geológico y Geodiversidad: Investigación, Conservación, Gestión y Relación con los Espacios Naturales Protegidos; Instituto Geológico y Minero de España: Madrid, Spain, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fuertes-Gutiérrez, I.; Fernández-Martínez, E. Geosites inventory in the Leon Province (Northwestern Spain): A tool to introduce geoheritage into regional environmental management. Geoheritage 2010, 2, 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fassoulas, C.; Mouriki, D.; Dimitriou-Nikolakis, P.; Iliopoulus, G. Quantitative assessment of geotopes as an effective tool for geoheritage management. Geoheritage 2012, 4, 177–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bollati, I.M.; Crosa Lenz, B.; Caironi, V. A multidisciplinary approach for physical landscape analysis: Scientific value and risk of degradation of outstanding landforms in the glacial plateau of the Loana Valley (Central-Western Italian Alps). Ital. J. Geosci. 2020, 139, 233–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. García-Ortiz, E.; Fuertes-Gutiérrez, I.; Fernández-Martínez, E. Concepts and terminology for the risk of degradation of geological heritage sites: Fragility and natural vulnerability, a case study. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2014, 125, 463–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Brilha, J. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: A review. Geoheritage 2016, 8, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. IPCC. AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014; Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; 151p. [Google Scholar]
  18. IPCC. Climate Change and Land; An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Buendia, E.C., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pörtner, H.O., Roberts, D.C., Zhai, P., Slade, R., Connors, S., Van Diemen, R., et al., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  19. Main, G.; Schembri, J.; Gauci, R.; Crawford, K.; Chester, D.; Duncan, A. The hazard exposure of the Maltese Islands. Nat. Hazards 2018, 92, 829–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Prosser, C.D.; Burek, C.V.; Evans, D.H.; Gordon, J.E.; Kirkbride, V.B.; Rennie, A.F.; Walmsley, C.A. Conserving geodiversity sites in a changing climate: Management challenges and responses. Geoheritage 2010, 2, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nicholls, R.J.; Cazenave, A. Sea-Level Rise and Its Impact on Coastal Zones. Science 2010, 328, 1517–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gray, M. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2013; 495p. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gray, M. Geodiversity: A significant, multi-faceted and evolving, geoscientific paradigm rather than a redundant term. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2021, 132, 605–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Meira, S.A.; Morais, J.O. Os conceitos de geodiversidade, patrimônio geológico e geoconservação: Abordagens sobre o papel da geografia no estudo da temática [The concepts of geodiversity, geological heritage and geoconservation: Approaches on the role of geography in the study of the theme]. Bol. Geogr. 2017, 11, 129–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kubalíková, L.; Irapta, P.N.; Pál, M.; Zwoliński, Z.; Coratza, P.; Van Wyk de Vries, B. Visages of Geodiversity and Geoheritage: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Valuing, Conserving and Managing Abiotic Nature. In Visages of Geodiversity and Geoheritage; Geological Society, Special Publications: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  26. Prosser, C.D.; Díaz-Martínez, E.; Larwood, J.G.H. Conservação de Geossítios: Princípios e Prática. In Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management, 1st ed.; Reynard, E., Brilha, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Chennai, India, 2018; pp. 193–221. [Google Scholar]
  27. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessement Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pörtner, H.-O.O., Roberts, D.C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2023; 3056p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Selmi, L.; Canesin, T.S.; Gauci, R.; Pereira, P.; Coratza, P. Degradation Risk Assessment: Understanding the Impacts of Climate Change on Geoheritage. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sarkar, N.; Rizzo, A.; Vandelli, V.; Soldati, M. A Literature Review of Climate-Related Coastal Risks in the Mediterranean, a Climate Change Hotspot. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rabelo, T.O.; Diniz, M.T.M.; de Araújo, I.G.D.; de Oliveira Terto, M.L.; Queiroz, L.S.; Araújo, P.V.D.N.; Pereira, P. Risk of degradation and coastal flooding hazard on geoheritage in protected areas of the semi-arid coast of Brazil. Water 2023, 15, 2564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Enniouar, A.; Errami, E.; Lagnaoui, A.; Boualla, O. Le géopatrimoine de la région de Doukkala-Abda (Maroc): Un outil pour un développement socio-économique local durable et homogène. In Abstract 24th Colloquium of African Geology (CAG24); Ethiopian Association of Geoscientists: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  32. Enniouar, A.; Errami, E.; Lagnaoui, A.; Bouaala, O. The geoheritage of the Doukkala-Abda region (Morocco): An opportunity for local socio-economic sustainable development. In From Geoheritage to Geoparks: Case Studies from Africa and Beyond; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 109–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. El Hamidy, M.; Errami, E.; Elkaichi, A. An overview of scientific research on geoheritage in Morocco. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2024, 135, 162–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. El Hamidy, M.; Errami, E.; El Kabouri, J.; Naim, M.; Assouka, A.; Ait Ben Youssef, A.; El Bchari, F. Jbel Irhoud Geosite, the cradle of humanity (Youssoufia Province, Marrakech-Safi region, Morocco): Evaluation and valorization of the geological heritage for geoeducation and geotourism purposes. Geoheritage 2024, 16, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. El Hamidy, M.; Errami, E.; Elkaichi, A. Current Trends and Future Directions for Geoheritage Assessment Methodology in Morocco. Geoconserv. Res. 2024, 7, 89–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. El Hamidy, M.; Errami, E.; Ghani, M. Museal Activity to Promote Geotourism and Geosite Protection: The Case of the National Ceramics Museum, Safi, Morocco. Geoconserv. Res. 2024, 7, 072406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. El Hamidy, M.; Errami, E.; Orion, N. Proposed geo-educational activities at the Sidi Bouzid geosite, Safi Province, Marrakech-Safi region, Morocco. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks 2024, 12, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. El Hamidy, M.; Errami, E.; de Carvalho, C.N.; Rodrigues, J. Traditional ceramic handicraft in Safi (Marrakesh-Safi region, Morocco): A communication tool for geotourism. Geoheritage 2025, 17, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. El Hamidy, M.; Errami, E. The geosites of Safi province (Marrakech-Safi region, Morocco): Inventory and assessment for geoconservation, geotourism, geoeducation, geoparks, and local sustainable development. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks 2025, 13, 68–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. El Hamidy, M.; Errami, E.; Neto de Carvalho, C.; Rodrigues, J. Innovative Geoproduct Development for Sustainable Tourism: The Case of the Safi Geopark Project (Marrakesh–Safi Region, Morocco). Sustainability 2025, 17, 6478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. El Hamidy, M.; Németh, K. Manifestations of the 2023 Al Haouz Earthquake as Geoheritage: Geological Processes, Landscape Impacts, and Implications for Geoconservation in the Moroccan High Atlas. Geosciences 2026, 16, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Boualla, O.; Mehdi, K.; Zourarah, B. Collapse dolines susceptibility mapping in Doukkala Abda (Western Morocco) by using GIS matrix method (GMM). Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2016, 2, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Boualla, O.; Mehdi, K.; Fadili, A.; Makan, A.; Zourarah, B. GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping in the Safi region, West Morocco. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2019, 78, 2009–2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bchari, F.E.; Trindade, J.; Charif, A.; Chaibi, M.; Khouz, A.; Malek, H.A. Geospatial modelling for sinkhole hazard in the coastal area of Safi, Morocco. J. Coast. Conserv. 2025, 29, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Huvelin, P. Etude Géologique et Gitologique du Massif Hercynien des Jebilet (Maroc Occidental) [Geological and Gitological Study of the Hercynian Massif of Jebilet (Western Morocco)]; Notes et Mémoires du Service Géologique; Service Géologique du Maroc: Rabat, Morocco, 1977; Volume 232, p. 308. [Google Scholar]
  46. Michard, A. Eléments de Géologie Marocaine; Service Géologique du Maroc: Rabat, Morocco, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  47. Witam, O. Etude Stratigraphique et Sédimentologique de la Série Mésozoïque du Bassin de Safi. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gigout, M. Etudes Géologiques sur la Méséta Marocaine Occidentale: (Arrière-Pays de Casablanca, Mazagan et Safi); Maroc Matin: Casablanca, Morocco, 1951. [Google Scholar]
  49. Roch, E. Etudes Géologiques Dans la Région Méridionale du Maroc Occidental; Protat Frères, Imprimeurs: Mâcon, France, 1930. [Google Scholar]
  50. Taj-Eddine, K.; Rey, J.; du Dresnay, R. Livret-Guide de l’Eexcursion de la 5ème Conférence Scientifique du P.I.C.G.; No. 183; UNESCO: Marrakech, Morocco, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  51. Canérot, J.; Cugny, P. La plate-forme hauterivienne des Ibérides sud-orientales (Espagne) et ses environnements bio-sédimentaires. Cretac. Res. 1982, 3, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Alaoui-Mdaghri, D.; Bensaid, M.; Dahmani, M. Carte Géologique du Maroc 1:100,000, Bou Izakarn; Notes et Mémoires du Service Géologique; Service Géologique du Maroc: Rabat, Morocco, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  53. Boualla, O.; Mehdi, K. Grotte El Goraan: Des atouts pour un site touristique [El Goraan Cave: Assets for a tourist site]. Presented at the First International Conference on African and Arabian Geoparks—Aspiring Geoparks in Africa and Arab World, El Jadida, Morocco, 20–28 November 2011. [Google Scholar]
  54. Fuertes-Gutiérrez, I.; Fernández-Martínez, E. Mapping geosites for geoheritage management: A methodological proposal for the Regional Park of Picos de Europa (León, Spain). Environ. Manag. 2012, 50, 789–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Santucci, V.L.; Kenworthy, J.P.; Mims, A. Monitoring in situ paleontological resources. In Geological Monitoring; Young, R., Norby, L., Eds.; Geological Society of America: Boulder, CO, USA, 2009; pp. 189–204. [Google Scholar]
  56. Gordon, J.E. Geoheritage, Geotourism and the Cultural Landscape: Enhancing the Visitor Experience and Promoting Geoconservation. Geosciences 2018, 8, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Thomas, M.F. New keywords in the geosciences—Some conceptual and scientific issues. Rev. Inst. Geol. 2016, 37, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. MacFadyen, C.C.J. The vandalizing effects of irresponsible core sampling: A call for a new code of conduct. Geol. Today 2010, 26, 146–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Druguet, E.; Passchier, C.W.; Pennacchioni, G.; Carreras, J. Geoethical education: A critical issue for geoconservation. Episodes 2013, 36, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ben-Ncer, A.; Hublin, J.J. Jbel Irhoud, une avancée paléoanthropologi que décisive. Hespéris-Tamuda 2017, 52, 17–30. [Google Scholar]
  61. Gül, M.; Salihoğlu, R.; Dinçer, F.; Darbaş, G. Coastal geology of Iztuzu Spit (Dalyan, Muğla, SW Turkey). J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2019, 151, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. IPCC. IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX); IPCC–Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  63. Petrakis, S.; Alexandrakis, G.; Poulos, S. Recent and future trends of beach zone evolution in relation to its physical characteristics: The case of the Almiros Bay (Island of Crete, South Aegean Sea). Glob. Nest J. 2014, 16, 104–113. [Google Scholar]
  64. Antonioli, F.; Anzidei, M.; Amorosi, A.; Presti, V.L.; Mastronuzzi, G.; Deiana, G.; Vecchio, A. Sea-level rise and potential drowning of the Italian coastal plains: Flooding risk scenarios for 2100. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2017, 158, 29–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Abdioui, M.E. Effects of Climate Change on Moroccan Coastal Upwelling: Relationships between the NAO, Upwelling Index, and Sea Surface Temperature (1978–2024). arXiv 2025, arXiv:2512.14916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 18 04934 g002
Figure 2. Lithostratigraphic log of the study area with a description of the geological lithostratigraphic units following key stratigraphy documentation [47,48,49,50,51,52].
Figure 2. Lithostratigraphic log of the study area with a description of the geological lithostratigraphic units following key stratigraphy documentation [47,48,49,50,51,52].
Sustainability 18 04934 g002
Sustainability 18 04934 g003
Figure 3. Quantitative evaluation of the 12 geosites assessed in the Safi Province [34,37]: (a) scientific value; (b) additional value; (c) potential use value; (d) educational and tourism value indices. Geosite IDs (1–12) correspond to those shown in Figure 1: (1) Sidi Bouzid Escarpment; (2) Chaâba Valley; (3) Sidi Abderrahmane Clay Quarry; (4) Sidi Abderrahmane Dam; (5) Escarpment of Lalla Fatna; (6) Cap Beddouza; (7) El Goraan Cave; (8) Souira Lagdima; (9) Sidi Tiji Gypsum; (10) Quarry Jorf Lihoudi; (11) Lagoon of Oualidia; (12) Jbel Irhoud.
Figure 3. Quantitative evaluation of the 12 geosites assessed in the Safi Province [34,37]: (a) scientific value; (b) additional value; (c) potential use value; (d) educational and tourism value indices. Geosite IDs (1–12) correspond to those shown in Figure 1: (1) Sidi Bouzid Escarpment; (2) Chaâba Valley; (3) Sidi Abderrahmane Clay Quarry; (4) Sidi Abderrahmane Dam; (5) Escarpment of Lalla Fatna; (6) Cap Beddouza; (7) El Goraan Cave; (8) Souira Lagdima; (9) Sidi Tiji Gypsum; (10) Quarry Jorf Lihoudi; (11) Lagoon of Oualidia; (12) Jbel Irhoud.
Sustainability 18 04934 g003
Sustainability 18 04934 g004
Figure 4. Representative views of selected geosites assessed in the Safi Province: (a) Escarpment of Lalla Fatna (32°18′01″ N, 9°15′04″ W); (b) Cap Beddouza (32°33′03″ N, 9°16′22″ W); (c) the marabout Sidi Chachkal, Cap Beddouza beach; (d) Chaâba Valley (32°18′10″ N, 9°13′51″ W); (e) Oualidia Lagoon (32°44′21″ N, 9°02′13″ W).
Figure 4. Representative views of selected geosites assessed in the Safi Province: (a) Escarpment of Lalla Fatna (32°18′01″ N, 9°15′04″ W); (b) Cap Beddouza (32°33′03″ N, 9°16′22″ W); (c) the marabout Sidi Chachkal, Cap Beddouza beach; (d) Chaâba Valley (32°18′10″ N, 9°13′51″ W); (e) Oualidia Lagoon (32°44′21″ N, 9°02′13″ W).
Sustainability 18 04934 g004
Sustainability 18 04934 g005
Figure 5. Representative views of selected geosites assessed in the Safi Province: (a) Sidi Bouzid Escarpment (32°18′01″ N, 9°15′04″ W); (b) Jorf Lihoudi (32°10′48″ N, 9°15′36″ W); (c) Abderrahmane dam (32°19′26″ N, 9°10′49″ W); (d) Sidi Abderrahmane clay quarry (32°19′57″ N, 9°10′36″ W).
Figure 5. Representative views of selected geosites assessed in the Safi Province: (a) Sidi Bouzid Escarpment (32°18′01″ N, 9°15′04″ W); (b) Jorf Lihoudi (32°10′48″ N, 9°15′36″ W); (c) Abderrahmane dam (32°19′26″ N, 9°10′49″ W); (d) Sidi Abderrahmane clay quarry (32°19′57″ N, 9°10′36″ W).
Sustainability 18 04934 g005
Sustainability 18 04934 g006
Figure 6. Photographs from some points of El Goraan cave (32°33′27″ N, 9°15′15″ W): (a) map and section of the first eastern branch and (b) some speleothems, (c) pillar, (d) fistulae, and (e) white stalagmite [53].
Figure 6. Photographs from some points of El Goraan cave (32°33′27″ N, 9°15′15″ W): (a) map and section of the first eastern branch and (b) some speleothems, (c) pillar, (d) fistulae, and (e) white stalagmite [53].
Sustainability 18 04934 g006
Sustainability 18 04934 g007
Figure 7. Photographs from some points of Souiria Lgdima (32°02′16″ N, 9°20′26″ W): (a) panoramic view showing the northern and southern beaches of Souiria Lgdima, characterized by wide sandy shorelines and active recreational use; (b) simplified geomorphological map highlighting the main coastal units, including beaches, rocky foreshores, vegetated areas, and the built-up zone of Souiria Lgdima; (c) the mouth of the Tensift Oued, where fluvial sediments interact with marine processes, forming a dynamic estuarine environment; (d) the historic Agouz fortress, built by the Portuguese around 1520, was intended to control access to the coast.
Figure 7. Photographs from some points of Souiria Lgdima (32°02′16″ N, 9°20′26″ W): (a) panoramic view showing the northern and southern beaches of Souiria Lgdima, characterized by wide sandy shorelines and active recreational use; (b) simplified geomorphological map highlighting the main coastal units, including beaches, rocky foreshores, vegetated areas, and the built-up zone of Souiria Lgdima; (c) the mouth of the Tensift Oued, where fluvial sediments interact with marine processes, forming a dynamic estuarine environment; (d) the historic Agouz fortress, built by the Portuguese around 1520, was intended to control access to the coast.
Sustainability 18 04934 g007
Sustainability 18 04934 g008
Figure 8. Photographs from some points of the Jbel Irhoud geosite (31°52′30″ N, 8°52′00″ W): (a) view of the western tip of the Cambrian crest; (b) southern view of the site with the location where hominid remains were found.
Figure 8. Photographs from some points of the Jbel Irhoud geosite (31°52′30″ N, 8°52′00″ W): (a) view of the western tip of the Cambrian crest; (b) southern view of the site with the location where hominid remains were found.
Sustainability 18 04934 g008
Sustainability 18 04934 g009
Figure 9. Panoramic view of the evaporite deposit exposed in the Sidi Tijji quarry (32°09′28″ N 08°51′55″ W).
Figure 9. Panoramic view of the evaporite deposit exposed in the Sidi Tijji quarry (32°09′28″ N 08°51′55″ W).
Sustainability 18 04934 g009
Sustainability 18 04934 g010
Figure 10. Total degradation risk of the 12 geosites surveyed in Safi Province. Bar chart representation (X-axis: geosites; Y-axis: degradation risk score). The color code indicates risk levels (Table 3): yellow = low, orange = medium, brown = high, and red = very high.
Figure 10. Total degradation risk of the 12 geosites surveyed in Safi Province. Bar chart representation (X-axis: geosites; Y-axis: degradation risk score). The color code indicates risk levels (Table 3): yellow = low, orange = medium, brown = high, and red = very high.
Sustainability 18 04934 g010
Sustainability 18 04934 g011
Figure 11. Examples of natural vulnerability contributing to high degradation risk scores in Safi Province: (a,e) landslides (delimited with dashed line) caused by runoff during heavy rainfall at Sidi Bouzid and warning signs indicating slope instability (32°18′01″ N, 9°15′04″ W); (b) weathering and karstification affecting limestone formations at Cap Beddouza (32°33′03″ N, 9°16′22″ W); Doline near Jorf Lihoudi (32°10′48″ N, 9°15′36″ W), with (c) an upper view showing its rim (white line) above 65 m and (d) a lower view illustrating the collapse limit (dashed line); (f) coastal infrastructure damage caused by wave action at Souira Lgdima beach (32°02′16″ N, 9°20′26″ W).
Figure 11. Examples of natural vulnerability contributing to high degradation risk scores in Safi Province: (a,e) landslides (delimited with dashed line) caused by runoff during heavy rainfall at Sidi Bouzid and warning signs indicating slope instability (32°18′01″ N, 9°15′04″ W); (b) weathering and karstification affecting limestone formations at Cap Beddouza (32°33′03″ N, 9°16′22″ W); Doline near Jorf Lihoudi (32°10′48″ N, 9°15′36″ W), with (c) an upper view showing its rim (white line) above 65 m and (d) a lower view illustrating the collapse limit (dashed line); (f) coastal infrastructure damage caused by wave action at Souira Lgdima beach (32°02′16″ N, 9°20′26″ W).
Sustainability 18 04934 g011
Sustainability 18 04934 g012
Figure 12. Photographs from different points of the Sidi Abderrahmane Clay Quarry showing several clay horizons: (a) brown clays with discolored levels (dashed lines); (b,c) massive brown clays (yellow lines), level of ferruginous clay, and brown clays are finely bedded; (d) limestone of Dridrat; (e) the greyish clays. F1: massive brown clays; F2: level of ferruginous clay; F3: bioturbated brown clay; F4: brown clay with discolored patches; F5: the greyish clays.
Figure 12. Photographs from different points of the Sidi Abderrahmane Clay Quarry showing several clay horizons: (a) brown clays with discolored levels (dashed lines); (b,c) massive brown clays (yellow lines), level of ferruginous clay, and brown clays are finely bedded; (d) limestone of Dridrat; (e) the greyish clays. F1: massive brown clays; F2: level of ferruginous clay; F3: bioturbated brown clay; F4: brown clay with discolored patches; F5: the greyish clays.
Sustainability 18 04934 g012
Sustainability 18 04934 g013
Figure 13. Results of the quantitative evaluation of degradation risk for the 12 surveyed geosites in Safi Province, showing the relative contributions of natural vulnerability, anthropogenic vulnerability, and public use for each site.
Figure 13. Results of the quantitative evaluation of degradation risk for the 12 surveyed geosites in Safi Province, showing the relative contributions of natural vulnerability, anthropogenic vulnerability, and public use for each site.
Sustainability 18 04934 g013
Sustainability 18 04934 g014
Figure 14. Anthropogenic vulnerability related to illegal fossil collecting in the Safi Province: (a,b) limestone rich in Pliocene echinids, Ostreidae, and Pectinidae; (c) marine fauna (lumachelle) from Sidi Bouzid; Fossils from Lala Fatna, including (d) echinoderms in lower limestones, (e) lamellibranchs and serpulids in brown clays, and (f) ammonites of varying sizes in limestone layers intercalated with brown clays; (g) digital reconstruction of the Jbel Irhoud hominin skull; (h) lithic tools from Jbel Irhoud, scale of white line is 1 cm [60].
Figure 14. Anthropogenic vulnerability related to illegal fossil collecting in the Safi Province: (a,b) limestone rich in Pliocene echinids, Ostreidae, and Pectinidae; (c) marine fauna (lumachelle) from Sidi Bouzid; Fossils from Lala Fatna, including (d) echinoderms in lower limestones, (e) lamellibranchs and serpulids in brown clays, and (f) ammonites of varying sizes in limestone layers intercalated with brown clays; (g) digital reconstruction of the Jbel Irhoud hominin skull; (h) lithic tools from Jbel Irhoud, scale of white line is 1 cm [60].
Sustainability 18 04934 g014
Sustainability 18 04934 g015
Figure 15. Macroscopic views of representative samples from the Sidi Tiji Gypsum Quarry: (a) thin-laminated marls with intercalation of fibrous gypsums; (b) saccharoid gypsum; (c) gypsum with marly matrix of chaotic aspect; (d) fibrous gypsum with a silky sheen; (e) greenish dolomite with gypsum pseudomorphosis; (f) white dolomites; (g) laminar gypsum impregnated with iron oxide.
Figure 15. Macroscopic views of representative samples from the Sidi Tiji Gypsum Quarry: (a) thin-laminated marls with intercalation of fibrous gypsums; (b) saccharoid gypsum; (c) gypsum with marly matrix of chaotic aspect; (d) fibrous gypsum with a silky sheen; (e) greenish dolomite with gypsum pseudomorphosis; (f) white dolomites; (g) laminar gypsum impregnated with iron oxide.
Sustainability 18 04934 g015
Sustainability 18 04934 g016
Figure 16. Examples of degradation risks linked to public use: (a) intense seasonal overcrowding at Sidi Bouzid beach; (b) improper visitor behavior illustrated by climbing on the cliff (red arrow) despite access being provided by two paved roads; (c,d) plastic pollution affecting Souira Lagdima beach and the Oued Tensift feeder; (e) pottery waste dumped near the Sidi Abderrahmane dam.
Figure 16. Examples of degradation risks linked to public use: (a) intense seasonal overcrowding at Sidi Bouzid beach; (b) improper visitor behavior illustrated by climbing on the cliff (red arrow) despite access being provided by two paved roads; (c,d) plastic pollution affecting Souira Lagdima beach and the Oued Tensift feeder; (e) pottery waste dumped near the Sidi Abderrahmane dam.
Sustainability 18 04934 g016
Sustainability 18 04934 g017
Figure 17. Examples of public use and tourism-related infrastructure at various geosites, illustrating potential conflicts with territorial, natural, and cultural heritage: (a–c) show different types of infrastructure at the Sidi Bouzid geosite; (d) highlights intense seasonal overcrowding and tourism-related infrastructure at the Oualidia geosite; (e) shows a paved road and parking area at the Lalla Fatna geosite; (f) depicts a port near the Jorf Lihoudi geosite; (g) presents tourism-related infrastructure at the Cap Beddouza geosite.
Figure 17. Examples of public use and tourism-related infrastructure at various geosites, illustrating potential conflicts with territorial, natural, and cultural heritage: (a–c) show different types of infrastructure at the Sidi Bouzid geosite; (d) highlights intense seasonal overcrowding and tourism-related infrastructure at the Oualidia geosite; (e) shows a paved road and parking area at the Lalla Fatna geosite; (f) depicts a port near the Jorf Lihoudi geosite; (g) presents tourism-related infrastructure at the Cap Beddouza geosite.
Sustainability 18 04934 g017
Sustainability 18 04934 g018
Figure 18. Damage caused by the exceptional torrential rainfall event of 14 December 2025, which produced intense and short-duration precipitation; the Shaaba valley was the primary geographic area impacted, resulting in widespread flooding, destruction of vehicles and infrastructure, and severe disruption to the urban fabric of the old city of Safi.
Figure 18. Damage caused by the exceptional torrential rainfall event of 14 December 2025, which produced intense and short-duration precipitation; the Shaaba valley was the primary geographic area impacted, resulting in widespread flooding, destruction of vehicles and infrastructure, and severe disruption to the urban fabric of the old city of Safi.
Sustainability 18 04934 g018
Table 1. Terms and definitions related to the degradation of geosites, as defined in [14].
Table 1. Terms and definitions related to the degradation of geosites, as defined in [14].
TermDefinition
Natural vulnerabilityThe degree to which a geosite is susceptible to damage or destruction caused by natural processes that did not contribute to its formation.
Anthropogenic vulnerabilityThe degree to which a geosite is prone to damage or destruction resulting from human activities motivated by its economic value, including mining, quarrying, and fossil collecting.
Public useThe degree of a geosite’s exposure to damage resulting from its location and its current or potential use, including pressures such as vandalism, uncontrolled access, and lack of physical protection measures.
FragilityThe degree to which a geosite is susceptible to damage from natural processes related to its formation and inherently associated with its geological characteristics.
Table 2. Criteria, parameters, indicators, and points used for the quantitative assessment of the degradation risk of geosites (the higher the number, the greater the risk).
Table 2. Criteria, parameters, indicators, and points used for the quantitative assessment of the degradation risk of geosites (the higher the number, the greater the risk).
CriteriaParametersIndicatorsPoints
Natural
Vulnerability		Active
processes		No active processes affect the geosite.0
A single active process affects the geosite episodically.1
A single active process affects the geosite continuously or seasonally.2
Two or more active processes affect the geosite.3
ProximityNo potential degradation processes are present.0
One potential active process occurs near the geosite.1
Two potential active processes occur in proximity to the geosite.2
More than two potential active processes occur in proximity to the geosite.3
Anthropogenic
Vulnerability		Economic
interest		No geological elements of economic value0
The geosite contains one geological element of economic value1
The geosite contains two geological elements of economic value2
The geosite contains more than two geological elements of economic value3
Private
interest		No geological elements of private interest0
The geosite has one geological element of private interest1
The geosite has two geological elements of private interest2
The geosite has more than two geological elements of private interest3
Public UseLegal
protection		The geosite is protected for its geological heritage0
The geosite lies within a protected natural area1
The geosite lies within an area protected for other values (historical, cultural, etc.)2
The geosite is not located in a protected area3
Human
proximity		The geosite is located within 100 m of a potential degradation activity3
The geosite is located within 500 m of a potential degradation activity2
The geosite is located within 1 km of a potential degradation activity1
The geosite is located more than 1 km from a potential degradation activity0
AccessibilityThe geosite is within 100 m of a paved road and a bus parking area3
The geosite is within 100 m of a paved road2
The geosite is within 100 m of a gravel road or 100–500 m from a paved road1
The geosite is more than 100 m from a gravel road or more than 500 m from a paved road/has no direct access0
Density of
population		The geosite is in a municipality with fewer than 100 inhabitants/km20
The geosite is in a municipality with 100–250 inhabitants/km21
The geosite is in a municipality with 250–1000 inhabitants/km22
The geosite is in a municipality with more than 1000 inhabitants/km23
Physical
protection		The geosite has no protection3
The geosite has tourist facilities but no physical protection of geoheritage2
The geosite has physical protection but no tourist facilities1
The geosite has both physical protection of geoheritage and tourist facilities0
Degrading useNo degradation from public use0
One element showing degradation1
Two elements showing degradation2
More than two elements showing degradation3
Control of accessNo control at all3
The geosite is monitored using one control method2
The geosite is monitored using two control methods1
The geosite is monitored using more than two control methods0
Table 3. Classification of the degradation risk of geosites: partial and total scores; risk level.
Table 3. Classification of the degradation risk of geosites: partial and total scores; risk level.
CriteriaPartial ScoreTotal ScoreTotal Score on Degradation RiskRisk Level
Natural Vulnerability0–60–330–7low
Anthropogenic Vulnerability0–6>7 ≤ 15medium
>15 ≤ 25high
Public Use0–21>25very high
Table 4. Quantitative assessment of the degradation risk of the 12 geosites inventoried in Safi Province.
Table 4. Quantitative assessment of the degradation risk of the 12 geosites inventoried in Safi Province.
GeositeNatural VulnerabilityAnthropogenic VulnerabilityPublic UseTotal Degradation Risk
Active ProcessesProximityTotal Economic InterestIllegal CollectingTotal Legal ProtectionHuman ProximityAccessibilityPopulation DensityPhysical ProtectionDegradation UseControl of AccessTotal
Sidi Bouzid Escarpment33603333312331827
Chaâba Valley22400023312231620
Sidi Abderrahmane Clay Quarry21311232212231520
Sidi Abderrahmane Dam11200032212211315
Escarpment of Lalla Fatna33603332303331726
Cap Beddouza33200032312331719
El Goraan Cave22402232013231420
Souira Lgdima22410122312331619
Sidi Tiji Gypsum Quarry22411232103211218
Jorf Lihoudi33603332103331524
Lagoon of Oualidia22411213312331622
Jbel Irhoud11213422103211117
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

El Hamidy, M.; Németh, K.; Omar, O. Assessing Degradation Risk of Geosites in the Safi Province (Marrakesh–Safi Region, Morocco). Sustainability 2026, 18, 4934. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18104934

AMA Style

El Hamidy M, Németh K, Omar O. Assessing Degradation Risk of Geosites in the Safi Province (Marrakesh–Safi Region, Morocco). Sustainability. 2026; 18(10):4934. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18104934

Chicago/Turabian Style

El Hamidy, Mustapha, Károly Németh, and Outaaoui Omar. 2026. "Assessing Degradation Risk of Geosites in the Safi Province (Marrakesh–Safi Region, Morocco)" Sustainability 18, no. 10: 4934. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18104934

APA Style

El Hamidy, M., Németh, K., & Omar, O. (2026). Assessing Degradation Risk of Geosites in the Safi Province (Marrakesh–Safi Region, Morocco). Sustainability, 18(10), 4934. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18104934

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