The Geotourism Product—What It Is and What It Is Not

Abstract

The worldwide expansion of geotourism and its ongoing development have captured the interest of numerous scholars, prompting them to investigate various theoretical dimensions within this emerging field. This paper explores the concept of geotourism products and the importance of comprehensively understanding this topic. A thorough review of the existing literature indicates that different researchers offer diverse definitions and interpretations of geotourism products. However, analysis of relevant publications reveals that these perspectives do not adequately incorporate the fundamental principles of geotourism alongside the well-defined and broadly accepted concept of tourism products in general. To facilitate the accurate analysis of research outcomes and to support the effective advancement of geotourism, this paper advocates for a clear and well-defined understanding of what constitutes a geotourism product.

1. Introduction

Since its initial definition by Hose [1], geotourism has undergone significant development at both the theoretical and practical levels [2,3,4,5,6]. It has become a major topic of study and research among numerous authors in this field, evidenced by the increasing number of publications over the past two decades. Web of Science, one of the most respected scientific databases, contains 1977 records in its Core Collection when searching for ‘geotourism’, demonstrating evident growth in the records from 2 in 2004 to 222 in 2024. A significantly larger number of articles related to geotourism are indexed within the Scopus database, totalling 2147 articles. From a more practical perspective, interest in geotourism and its global relevance is reflected in the rising number of UNESCO Global Geoparks, with a current total of 229 listed in the Global Geoparks Network [7].

Geotourism’s global growth has logically led to various research topics, including geoproducts and geotourism products. However, since geotourism is a form of tourism, a geotourism product should, by its very nature and understanding, align with the conception of tourism and tourism products [8] rather than merely reflecting or referring to any geo-related feature, location, or even object in the destination, frequently termed as ‘geoproducts’, e.g., [9]. Failing to recognise the distinction between geotourism products and geoproducts, as well as the significance of both geo-related features and broader tourism principles, can result in misunderstandings, misleading research, ineffective recommendations, and ultimately, suboptimal geotourism development or even failure in certain areas.

Geotourism represents a form of tourism based on the geology and geological heritage of the destination, with a focus on sustainability, education, the tourist experience, and local communities—all key principles of geotourism [2,4,10]. Considering any of the geotourism definitions [1,3,5,10], it is a distinct form of tourism, rather than a geoscience-related activity or form of recreation. Therefore, a geotourism product should be the primary tourism product, aligning with the principles of geotourism.

As defined by the World Tourism Organization [11], a tourism product is “a combination of tangible and intangible elements, such as natural, cultural and man-made resources, attractions, facilities, services and activities around a specific centre of interest which represents the core of the destination marketing mix and creates an overall visitor experience including emotional aspects for the potential customers. A tourism product is priced and sold through distribution channels and has a life cycle”.

According to Smith [8], a tourism product is a combination of five key elements, including its core (physical plant), services, hospitality, freedom of choice, and involvement (Figure 1). The core of any tourism product is the physical plant (e.g., a site, natural resource, or facility). The physical plant requires the input of services to make it useful for tourists. Hospitality is an expression of welcome by local residents to tourists arriving in their community. Freedom of choice refers to the necessity that the tourist has some acceptable range of options in order for the experience to be satisfactory. Involvement means having access to activities and programmes that capture the potential participant’s imagination, interest, and enthusiasm. Regardless of the specific tourism product, all five elements have to be integrated, even if their relative importance may differ [8].

Xu [12] clarified the definition of a tourism product and employed Smith’s framework [8] to analyse various tourism products across different tourism sectors. However, Xu [12] defined a tourism product from a marketing perspective as “whatever aims to cater to tourism needs and is promoted in the marketplace. For tourists, the product is a complete experience that fulfils multiple tourism needs and provides corresponding benefits.”

In recent publications on geotourism, we often encounter terms such as ‘geotourism product’, ‘geoproduct’, and ‘product of geotourism’. These terms, however, are not exactly and clearly defined, resulting in confusion and their incorrect use, or even a failure to distinguish the difference [13,14,15,16,17].

In this regard, this paper aims to answer the following questions:

• Is there a difference between theoretical approaches and understandings of geoproducts and geotourism products, or can these terms be considered synonyms, referring to the same category?
• Do existing definitions of geotourism products or geoproducts align with the broader and widely accepted theoretical concepts of tourism products [8,12]?
• What are the key elements and features of a geotourism product?

This article seeks to balance geo-related characteristics with broader tourism product principles to improve the understanding of geotourism products. This balanced strategy is vital for making meaningful contributions to the ongoing debate surrounding geotourism theory and practice, which is essential for the development of geotourism.

Understanding the proper definition of a geotourism product is key to conducting thorough research, facilitating effective development, promoting responsible management, and ensuring the sustainable growth of geotourism from local to global levels.

2. Methods

A systematic examination of existing publications was used to synthesise current knowledge on the topic of geotourism products. Authors focus on identifying, assessing, and integrating findings, theories, and approaches from prior research to provide a comprehensive overview, identify key aspects, and potentially highlight gaps or inconsistencies within the existing literature related to the topic of geotourism products.

For the purpose of searching for relevant publications, Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus, as two of the major indexing databases, were used. The keywords used within the search engine of the mentioned databases were ‘geotourism product’ and ‘geoproduct’.

Subsequently, the search results were analysed in two distinct stages. The initial stage focused on examining publication titles and abstracts. Articles that were not pertinent to geotourism were excluded from the analysed dataset based on their titles or abstracts. Duplicated search results of publications indexed in both databases were also removed at this stage. The second stage involved a thorough reading and analysis of the full texts of individual papers associated with the subject matter of this research. Despite the availability of various software solutions for content analysis, the authors chose the ‘classical’ method of personally reviewing each relevant resource. While software solutions are invaluable for handling large datasets and identifying broad patterns, the conceptual, nuanced, and qualitative nature of the questions posed for this study makes the personal review of each article an indispensable choice for achieving the depth, accuracy, and theoretical insight required for this research.

The final dataset of article search outputs from WOS and Scopus underwent comprehensive analysis to identify the key articles that introduce theoretical or methodological concepts related to geotourism products. These publications were subjected to extensive examination, which involved the extraction of essential insights, the consideration of specific perspectives, and the synthesis of information to provide all relevant data concerning geotourism products and/or geoproducts within the context of a universally acknowledged framework of the tourism product.

Furthermore, as UNESCO oversees the Global Geoparks Network, its conceptualisation of geotourism products was also taken into account.

The above-mentioned methodological approach (Figure 2) enabled the questions set for the purpose of this research to be answered, as well as the geotourism product to be characterised according to the aims of this paper.

3. Results: Geotourism, Geotourism Products, and Geoproducts

As per the search results conducted in May 2025, a total of 17 articles are indexed within the WOS Core Collection database when executing an all-fields comprehensive search across the specified keywords. In comparison, the same keyword search performed in the Scopus database on the same date yields 42 results.

The initial examination of the search results showed that, in one case (both WOS and Scopus), there was a correction of the original article by Komoo et al. [18]. Furthermore, regarding the search results obtained from Scopus, one more result, the SGEM 2014 conference review, was removed at this stage. Following a comparison of the article titles and author names, 14 duplicate results were identified, indexed within both databases. Additionally, two further publications were indexed solely in the WOS database. A total of 29 articles that met the defined search criteria were indexed exclusively within Scopus. Moreover, it became evident during this phase that the keyword “geoproduct” also appeared in contexts not associated with tourism, such as geospatial data infrastructure [19], materials science [20], and geotechnical engineering [21]. This observation underscores the semantic ambiguity of the use of the term “geoproduct” within the scientific literature. In total, five off-topic articles were removed. An overview of search results is given in

Table 1. WOS and Scopus search results.

Author(s)	WOS	Scopus	Reference to Geotourism Product/Geoproduct
Allan and Shavanddasht [22]	no	yes	Geotourism is considered a tourism product, and rural tourism a geotourism product.
Amrikazemi and Mehtpooya [23]	no	yes	Authors only refer to an Alisdar Cave visit to be a geotourism product.
Basi Arjana et al. [24]	no	yes	The research is focused on geotourism attractions as specific aspects of tourism products with no broader reference to (geo)tourism product theory.
Basi Arjana et al. [25]	no	yes	Key article to consider.
Brzezińska-Wójcik [26]	yes	yes	The authors characterise various products, referring to the conception of Rodrigues et al. [9]
Cai et al. [27]	yes	yes	The article mentions “geotourism product” in its acknowledgements only.
Csiki-Sava and Andrășanu [28]	yes	yes	The authors mention the development of several unique geoproducts, including, e.g., House of Rocks, the House of Science and Art, or dinostops, without mentioning any specific theoretical framework.
Dóniz-Páez et al. [29]	no	yes	Geotourism products are mentioned, however, without any theoretical background, referring to visiting volcanic areas.
Dryglas and Miśkiewicz [30]	yes	yes	Key article to consider.
Fonseca Filho et al. [31]	no	yes	The authors mention “geotourism product” in terms of geotourism development; the paper focuses on geopark visitor profiles.
Frey et al. [32]	no	yes	The article mentions geotourism products in its abstract but does not discuss them in the main text.
Giroud [21]	no	yes	An article dealing with geotechnical engineering, not related to geotourism.
Górska-Zabielska [33]	yes	yes	Geological resources, either naturally unveiled or anthropogenically altered for visibility, are considered geotourism products (such as erratic boulders and lapidaries with geotourism infrastructure).
Halim et al. [34]	no	yes	With no theoretical basis, the article discusses tourism packages and some (potential) (geo)tourism products in the form of specific locations.
Hernández et al. [35]	yes	yes	The authors refer to geotourism products via proposed urban geo-itineraries without providing a theoretical background in geotourism products or geoproducts.
Hutagalung et al. [36]	no	yes	The authors discuss specific geoproducts in Samosir Island (Toba Caldera Geopark) according to the theory of Basi Arjana [25] and Rodrigues et al. [9]
Chingombe and Taru [37]	no	yes	The authors consider rural geotourism as a geotourism product. In this case, it is more appropriate to use the term “subset” rather than “product”.
Chybiorz and Kowalska [38]	no	yes	Not related to the topic of geotourism products or geoproducts; only in the abstract do the authors state that “the most valuable geosites of the Silesian Voivodeship should be protected and/or open to the public as geotourism products”.
Ibrahim et al. [20]	yes	no	An article dealing with zeolite properties, not related to geotourism.
Iqbal et al. [39]	no	yes	The article mentions geotourism products only in its introduction as a result of a specific approach to understanding geotourism, without specifying them in any detail.
Kneć and Zgłobicki [40]	yes	yes	An article introducing a mobile application as a geotourism product according to Rodrigues et al. [9] and Miśkiewicz [16].
Komoo et al. [18]	yes	yes	The article characterises geoproducts in Langkawi UGGp, adopting the theoretical approach of Rodrigues et al. [9] and Compľová [41].
Kornecká et al. [15]	no	no	Geoparks are defined as geotourism products (or products of geotourism).
Miśkiewicz [16]	no	yes	Key article to consider.
Miśkiewicz [42]	yes	yes	Key article to consider.
Modrej et al. [43]	no	yes	The authors mention the geotourism product in the abstract and conclusion; however, the paper deals with geointerpretation.
Molokáč et al. [17]	no	yes	Geoparks are defined as geotourism products.
Munajat et al. [44]	no	yes	Geotourism products are mentioned in relation to geotourism development.
Nakonechnykh et al. [45]	no	yes	Not related to geotourism or geotourism products.
Norrish et al. [46]	no	yes	The authors consider geotrails to be a geotourism product.
Pásková et al. [47]	yes	yes	The authors state that a geotourism product, according to Dowling (2013) [48], embeds geoconservation, communicates and promotes geological heritage, and helps build sustainable communities through appropriate economic benefits. Geotourism products and geoproducts are considered to be the same.
Pauknerova et al. [19]	yes	yes	An article dealing with GIS, not related to geotourism.
Poros and Sobczyk [49]	yes	yes	The authors name Checiny–Kielce and The Holy Cross Arecho Geological Trail as geotourism products.
Reynard et al. [50]	no	yes	A practical application of the framework proposed by Martin et al. 2010 [51].
Reynard et al. [52]	no	yes	The article mentions geotourist interpretation products only.
Rodrigues et al. [9]	no	yes	Key article to consider.
Stoffelen [53]	no	yes	Discusses the role and position of geoparks and highlights the need to move beyond the realm of the geosciences to create new and meaningful insights into their societal role.
Šambronská et al. [54]	no	yes	The authors discuss/characterise geotourism products as introduced by Basi Arjana et al.
Štrba et al. [55]	no	yes	The authors mention geotourism products in terms of effective geotourism development based on the selected geosite assessment method.
Tessema et al. [56]	yes	yes	The term “geotourism products” is mentioned only in terms of tourist segmentation.
Toutin [57]	no	yes	An article dealing with GIS, not related to geotourism.
Yashalova et al. [58]	yes	yes	Characterisation of a specific geosite linked to various aspects, including mentioning some geoproducts, e.g., geofood.
Yuliawati et al. [59]	no	yes	Key article to consider.
Yuliawati et al. [60]	yes	no	Key article to consider.
Yuliawati et al. [61]	no	yes	The paper presents survey results on how digital marketing can contribute to the innovation of geoproducts.

.

As illustrated in this table (Table 1), following a thorough examination of the title and abstract, a total of 40 articles were selected for comprehensive full-text review. Among these publications, seven key articles [9,16,25,30,42,59,60] were identified that addressed the subject of the geotourism product. Furthermore, two additional articles pertinent to the content were recognised within this part of the research [41,51], which were referenced by some of the articles that underwent full-text analysis initially.

The subsequent text provides a comprehensive overview of the major findings derived from the identified key articles, along with some of their applications by other authors, systematically organised according to their respective publication dates.

The framework presented by Martin et al. [51] is heavily centred on the process and tools of interpretation and mediation within the context of geosciences. The authors explicitly define “geotourism products” as the various forms of Earth science mediation offered at a site. They list examples such as themed trails, panels, brochures, maps, multimedia supports (fixed or mobile), and guided tours. These are all, fundamentally, means of interpretation or mediation. Therefore, the framework proposed by Martin et al. [51] and adopted by Reynard et al. [50] is essentially a framework for designing effective interpretive materials or experiences, rather than a geotourism product.

On the other hand, Compľová [41] considers geoproducts to be geological attractions. This understanding of geoproducts was later used by Komoo et al. [18], presenting geoproducts as geological attractions in the UNESCO Geopark Langkawi. While geological attractions are often freely accessible, their nature as products is questionable due to their lack of selling status. While geoheritage sites have different values, including scientific value, educational value, tourism use, or added value, the direct classification of these sites as (geo)tourism products fails, considering their nature and primary character. In this context, geoheritage sites have significant potential to serve as the basis for a specialised and sustainable tourism product within the framework of geotourism, provided that conservation, accessibility, interpretation, and economic viability are carefully considered.

According to Dryglas and Miśkiewicz [30], geotourism products are geoproducts developed based on their abiotic nature, co-created and experienced in connection with travel, enabling them to accomplish geotourism purposes. They introduced seven categories of geoproducts, including objects (e.g., printed materials, geo-interactive panels, collections of rocks, handicrafts), entities (e.g., geocenters, mining facilities, museums), events (e.g., geological picnics or festivals), services (e.g., geo-guides, balneotherapy), tourism packages (e.g., geo-school camps), trails (e.g., geotourist trails), and places (e.g., geoparks, geological parks, spas). Based on this classification, Chi et al. [62] proposed geoproducts for Ly Son Geopark in Vietnam.

Basi Arjana et al. [25], taking into account the holistic features of tourism products, acknowledge that tourism products are composed of multifaceted components, not only tourist attractions. Although they do not define them explicitly, they focus on specific product elements, including travel services, transportation, accommodation, catering, souvenirs, and product packaging, and it is essential that these elements meet the specific needs of geotourists for sustainable development. The authors conclude that for the successful development of geotourism, it is crucial to identify and adapt products to the needs of visitors, thereby supporting both economic and environmental benefits and ensuring the protection of the territory.

Yuliawati et al. [59] incorrectly identified geoproducts, rather than geodiversity-related products, as being biodiversity-related. They discuss the general theory of geoproducts, asserting that these items constitute the fundamental essence of tourism products. This implies that a geoproduct, in isolation, does not suffice as a complete tourism product. Therefore, it is imperative to systematically integrate access, hospitality, interpretive programmes, and ancillary services in order to ensure a holistic visitor experience.

On the example of the Belitong Geopark, Yuliawati et al. [60] define geoproducts as a necessity for tourism activities and as a part of the geopark produced by SMEs as a local community, including the following: jewellery, bamboo works, seashell accessories, hats and bags, batik tual, fish and seafood chips, banana chips, orange syrup, cintronella oil, herbal drinks, honey, ceramic products, restaurants, coffee shops, and tour and travel services. Such an understanding of a geoproduct means that a connection to geoheritage and geodiversity is lacking in most of the geoproducts that the authors discuss. Under Smith’s [8] framework, a tourism product is the holistic experience, not merely a singular resource, e.g., a geosite, souvenir, or coffee.

A relatively complex and scrutinized definition was provided by Rodrigues et al. [9], defining a geoproduct as “a commercial service or manufactured article inspired in geodiversity”. They further add the intimate relations of such products to the geological features marking the landscape. This vision of geoproducts is more commercial, with geodiversity serving as the instigator for their creation and marketing, often strongly connected to art, culture, and other regional elements. They consider handicrafts, merchandising, food products, meals, cosmetics (e.g., clay masks), and geological products (e.g., rock salt), but also accommodation (e.g., geopark hotels), restaurants (e.g., Trilobite restaurant), and services (e.g., food trails) strongly inspired by the geodiversity of a place as geoproducts. This view on geoproducts was later developed by UNESCO [63] as “innovative, new, or reinvented traditional products (such as handicrafts, decorative items, and souvenirs) that are intimately related to, or inspired by, the geodiversity of a territory”. They further explain that the education and popularisation of geosciences are achieved through “symbolic representation”. UNESCO labels foods, restaurants, trails, etc., that are inspired by geodiversity separately as geofoods, georestaurants, geotrails, etc., rather than as geoproducts, where they mainly include handicrafts, decorative items, and souvenirs. A similar approach to geoproducts was also seen in the Danube GeoTour Project [43,64], which was extended to include both outdoor and indoor activities.

As for geotourism products, UNESCO [63] defines them as a part of tourism product development, where a geotourism product “should aim to highlight, promote and conserve features that are unique to that destinations”. It is clear that UNESCO distinguishes between geoproducts and geotourism products. Only a few more papers have been published on the topic of geotourism products.

Adopting the conception of Dryglas and Miśkiewicz [30], Miśkiewicz [16,42] claims that geoproducts become geotourism products if tourists and geoproduct creators are involved in geoeducational processes. Related to this, he lists several geotourism products such as geo-goods (e.g., printed supplies, maps, panels, handicrafts, etc.), geo-objects (e.g., museums, Jurassic Parks, etc.), geo-services (e.g., guide services, workshops, etc.), geo-events (e.g., festivals, mineral and fossil exchanges, etc.), geo-routes (e.g., trails, educational paths, etc.), and geo-areas (e.g., UNESCO geoparks, national geoparks, etc.). Tours or other tourist packages are not included, as Miśkiewicz [16] states they “cannot be considered a geotourism product because it is a complex tourist product (e.g., can include both transportation and accommodation), a part of which may be a geoproduct but not the entire entity.” From this, it seems as if geotourism product and geoproduct are treated as the same term. In his previous work [65], however, he included tourism packages (such as geotours or geo-school camps) into geoproducts of a complex type.

4. Discussion

Assuming that geotourism is a form of tourism, then a geotourism product should include all the main attributes of a tourism product.

Based on this theoretical framework, any geotourism product should encompass a complex set of offered services and experiences, which are combined with the geoheritage of the area into a coherent and comprehensive geotourism offer that incorporates abiotic, biotic, and cultural aspects [47,48] according to the principles of geotourism [2] to provide a complete experience fulfilling multiple (geo)tourism needs.

Based on the results of this research, it can be articulated that there exists a clear and consistent theoretical distinction between “geoproducts” and “geotourism products,” and they should explicitly not be regarded as synonyms. Geoproducts are frequently perceived as either the fundamental geological attractions themselves [41], the “essence” or core component of a tourism product [59,60], or specific commercial goods and services inspired by geodiversity, such as handicrafts, geofoods, or even accommodations [9,60,63]. Conversely, geotourism products are conceptualised as more comprehensive offerings that are developed based on their abiotic nature, co-created, and experienced in conjunction with travel for geotourism purposes [16,30,42]. UNESCO distinctly differentiates between the two, defining geotourism products as a component of tourism product development, with the intention of highlighting and conserving their unique features, while considering geoproducts more narrowly as items inspired by geodiversity.

The results of the analysis of key articles show that existing definitions of geoproducts or geotourism products do not align with the broader and widely accepted theoretical concepts of tourism products. In this regard, the work of Basi Arjana et al. [25] can be considered the closest attempt to define geotourism products as multifaceted experiences encompassing core attractions, services, and infrastructure, directly reflecting the holistic nature of a complete tourism product.

4.1. What Is Not a Geotourism Product?

As indicated by the findings of this study, numerous specific definitions or applications of “geoproduct” and “geotourism product” explored within this article frequently fail to encompass or represent mere fragments of the generally accepted concept of a complete tourism product [8,12]. In this context, various aspects associated with tourism, or even essential components of a tourism experience, ought to be distinguished as resources, infrastructure, or attractions, rather than being categorised as comprehensive tourism products, as explained in the following text on the examples of information panels, hiking trails, printed materials, mobile application, museums, visitor centres, geoparks, and national parks.

While an information panel is a valuable tourism resource and contributes to the overall tourist experience, its limited scope and lack of service integration prevent it from being considered a complex tourism product. More accurately, it is a component of the tourism infrastructure supporting tourism products.

A hiking trail cannot be considered a (geo)tourism product, as, in the vast majority of cases, it is more accurate to see it as a resource or infrastructure that enables tourism products and experiences to occur. The simpler the trail, the more it leans towards being just infrastructure, a part of the whole product. On the other hand, the more services and experiences are present, the more it leans towards being a tourism product.

A brochure, printed guide, or map are informational resources, not a full tourism product. They can provide some specific information about the product but are not the experience itself. They lack the service and experiential bundle characteristic of tourism products.

A mobile application should not be considered a geoproduct or a geotourism product, as it fundamentally serves as an informational resource or a tool for interpretation and mediation, similar to an information panel or a brochure. Rather than embodying the comprehensive and integrated experience that characterises a complete tourism product, a mobile application enhances the visitor’s understanding and facilitates access to information about a geosite or destination. However, it lacks the direct service integration, such as transportation, accommodation, and physically guided tours, and the holistic experiential bundle that defines a marketable tourism offering. Consequently, it is more accurately classified as a component of the tourism infrastructure that supports geotourism activities, rather than the product itself.

In many cases, museums or visitor centres are strongly connected to tourism. They are not a (geo)tourism product but rather an attraction or a point of interest. The actual museum-related tourism product is the experience of visiting it. Alternatively, a museum visit can be part (of varying importance) of a more broadly defined tourism product.

Geoparks or national parks, with their natural attractions, services, and experiential offerings, can be considered a type of geotourism product at first glance, as they embody the composite nature and experiential focus characteristic of tourism. However, they are primarily a spatial resource or a (geo)tourism destination. In this regard, geoparks or national parks function as areas where products and services are offered and sold. This contributes to their economic viability and enhances the visitor experience. Therefore, a geopark itself is not a geotourism product, but rather a product or result of geoconservation and geotourism development-related activities.

Moreover, some authors [15,17] use the term “product of geotourism”, initiating a result, impact, or outcome of a geotourism development or related activity rather than an actual (geo)tourism product. In this context (and based on the above-mentioned text), the categorisation of geoparks as geotourism products is incorrect. While they undoubtedly contain attractions and services related to (geo)tourism, geoparks are more accurately understood as spatial frameworks or destinations. They function as geographical areas where various geotourism products and experiences are developed, offered, and consumed. Equating the entire geopark to a single product overlooks its role as a fundamental resource and outcome of conservation and development efforts. Therefore, stating that geoparks are sustainable or modern geotourism products misrepresents their essential nature as environments providing such products, rather than as products themselves. A more accurate understanding recognises the diverse offerings within geoparks as true geotourism products.

4.2. What Is a Geotourism Product?

Adopting Smith’s [8] conception of the tourism product for geotourism, the following applies to any geotourism product:

The physical plant (core) of a geotourism product is geoheritage, whether in situ or ex situ, encompassing abiotic (e.g., landforms, rock formations, geological processes) and potentially related biotic elements (e.g., unique ecosystems dependent on geological features) and cultural–historical aspects. So, geoheritage is the centre of interest around which the product is built.

To enhance the visitor experience, geotourism products should incorporate complementary services and facilities. These may encompass not only various forms of geointerpretation and geoeducation-related means, e.g., interactive panels or exhibits, guided tours, educational programmes, or the availability of experts who can explain complex geological processes in an accessible way, but also accommodation, transportation, catering, visitor centres, and other facilities that cater to tourist needs. All of these services should align with the principles of sustainability and responsible tourism.

Geotourism hospitality extends beyond conventional tourist hospitality, prioritising a profound appreciation of geological heritage from diverse perspectives. This requires the creation of an appropriate environment that encourages engagement with geological areas. An integral part is providing informed interpretation and guidance that ensures tourists understand the scientific and historical significance of geological features. It also mandates the recognition and integration of local cultural narratives intricately linked to the region’s geology, promoting sustainable tourism practices that respect both the natural environment and indigenous communities within the context of the ABC concept of geotourism [47,48]. This also includes the provision of accommodation and gastronomic experiences that reflect local resources and are of cultural significance, thereby contributing to the holistic nature of geotourism. This approach is consistent with the principles of sustainable tourism, emphasising the symbiotic relationship between geological heritage, environmental protection, cultural respect, and the provision of various services.

Freedom of choice emphasises the ability for tourists to customise their experiences by selecting from a variety of activities, which can range from passive observation to more active experiences such as hiking or fossil hunting. Moreover, a geotourism product should enhance the ability of tourists to personalise their trips, enabling them to tailor their activities to align with their unique interests and physical capabilities. This personalisation also encompasses the cognitive aspect, allowing tourists to determine the depth and complexity of the scientific information they receive, thus ensuring that their geotourism experience is both educationally accessible and individually tailored.

Geotourism encourages active engagement with geoheritage, fostering a deeper understanding and appreciation of Earth’s history. This can involve hands-on activities, interactive exhibits, and opportunities to connect with local communities that have a strong relationship with the land. The goal is to transition from passive observation to active learning.

Based on the above-mentioned information, a geotourism product can be defined as a holistic and integrated offering that emphasises geoheritage (whether in situ or ex situ features, including abiotic elements such as landforms and rock formations, as well as associated biotic and cultural–historical aspects). This geoheritage serves as the core interest around which the entire product is constructed. To enrich the visitor experience, this central element is supplemented with a comprehensive range of complementary services and facilities. These include diverse forms of geointerpretation and geoeducation, such as interactive panels, exhibits, guided tours, and educational programmes led by experts, as well as essential tourist amenities, including accommodation, transportation, catering, and visitor centres. Importantly, the geotourism product represents a distinctive hospitality model that prioritises a deep appreciation of geological heritage, promotes engagement, provides informed interpretation, and integrates local cultural narratives. It further offers tourists the freedom of choice and customisation, enabling them to tailor their activities and the depth of information accessed according to their interests. Moreover, it actively encourages interaction with geoheritage, aiming to transform visitors from passive observers into active learners. All components of a geotourism product must conform to the principles of sustainability and responsible tourism.

5. Geotourism Product Features

The primary prerequisite for developing any geotourism product is the existence of geoheritage, as well as the knowledge and understanding of geosystem services, their scope, and the nature of geotourism. Geoeducational trails, information panels, or geological objects are not geotourism products but might be an integral component to them. This also applies to geoparks or museums, which are the results (products) of geotourism development activities. A well-defined geotourism product combines the natural value of geoheritage with complementary services, activities, and interpretations, promoting environmental awareness, cultural understanding, and support for local communities. Thus, it balances the protection of geological features with the provision of engaging experiences, ensuring long-term sustainability and positive impacts.

Therefore, a single geological feature or a collection of such features should never be considered a geotourism product. Instead, it is a holistic and integrated offering designed to provide a meaningful and enriching experience [8,12] centred on geoheritage (Figure 3).

A comprehensive set of components for geotourism product development should provide a practical framework for future initiatives, covering the following three key levels that contribute to a comprehensive geotourism or geoheritage-related experience:

5.1. Core Elements of Geotourism and Its Development

A foundational element for any geotourism product, as well as for sustainable geotourism development, is the recognition of geoheritage and its values [3,4,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75]. As an indispensable core, geoheritage must be considered a key component within every product of this kind (sensu Smith [8]). However, this goes beyond mere presence and demands a responsible and engaging presentation of various geoheritage features for effective geoeducation [76,77,78,79]. Relevant, complex, and up-to-date scientific information, translated into accessible and captivating formats for diverse audiences, is crucial [80]. Moreover, the geoethical treatment of geosites [81,82], emphasising minimal impact and appropriate management strategies (including not only their tourism use but also protection and geoconservation), must be of major importance. Integrated services and facilities also have a significant role. Modern geotourism [4,5,6] cannot be realised in isolation. It requires a supportive infrastructure that enhances the visitor experience. This includes accommodation that reflects the local character and prioritises sustainability (where available), the existence of transportation and access to geoheritage sites, culinary offers based on local production and traditions (e.g., geofoods), accessible visitor centres equipped with interactive exhibits, and, where required or needed, the availability of trained guides capable of providing a clear and complex interpretation of present geoheritage phenomena reflecting all three aspects of the ABC geotourism concept [47,48].

5.2. Sustainability- and Community-Oriented Approaches

Effective interpretation and education are fundamental to transforming a passive viewing attendance into an active experience. This can be considered as one of the major challenges in geoeducation [83,84,85,86]. From a broader perspective, storytelling should be applied to connect geological elements with the cultural, historical, and environmental context of the region. Interactive learning experiences, such as interactive (geo)interpretation panels and exhibitions, workshops, and guided tours, should be employed. Community engagement and benefits must be a priority throughout the geotourism product development process. This means creating economic opportunities for local businesses, supporting the preservation of local cultural heritage, and ensuring that the benefits of geotourism are shared within the local community. This should all align with sustainability and responsible tourism, minimising environmental impacts, and promoting responsible visitor behaviour. Moreover, adhering to the ABC concept of geotourism [47,48] is crucial for a holistic approach, leading to a memorable geotourism experience.

5.3. Implementation and Continuous Improvement

The creation of experiential and personalised engagement is crucial to providing complex geotourism experiences. Offering multiple tiers of engagement effectively addresses the diverse interests and capabilities of various visitors. Furthermore, enabling visitors to select the volume of information they receive enhances the personalisation of their experience.

To facilitate the implementation of such practices, a practical framework or set of guidelines for geotourism product developers has been proposed (Figure 4). This framework comprises a checklist of essential components, tools, and resources necessary for evaluating geotourism products and their quality. Consequently, it may serve as a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of geotourism development and implementation initiatives. However, since this is the first attempt in this field, future research in this area requires extensive consultations with geotourism experts from both academia and the practical sector, including tourism professionals and local communities. Workshops and focus groups should be utilised to gather diverse perspectives. Recently, the only geotourism offering that closely aligns with the proposed framework, as discussed in this paper, is a three-day tour package available in UNESCO Global Geoparks, featured in the European UNESCO Geoparks Travel Guide [87].

6. Conclusions

The conclusions of this article, meticulously derived from a thorough interpretation and synthesis of existing academic publications, provide a comprehensive and multifaceted perspective on the concept of a geotourism product within the broader theoretical landscape of tourism. This rigorous analysis establishes a foundation not only for guiding future research efforts and theoretical advancements but also for informing practical applications in the rapidly growing field of geotourism. While geo-related features undeniably form the fundamental base and inherent allure of any geotourism development, it is clear that a truly holistic and integrated approach is essential for the successful introduction and sustainability of geotourism products that genuinely reflect the intricate nature of both geotourism itself and the characteristics of a complete tourism product.

A systematic review and analysis of the existing literature has highlighted several important insights considered essential for enhancing the understanding and implementation of geotourism, particularly concerning the development and introduction of its products, as follows:

• Firstly, there is a significant deficiency in dedicated research articles explicitly addressing the precise definition and components of a geotourism product. The limited number of scholars who have engaged with this complex subject often fail to adequately consider both the unique and inherent characteristics of geotourism—an interplay of geological heritage and tourism—and the essential elements that comprehensively define a holistic tourism product. This notable gap in current academic discourse highlights the urgent need for more focused and interdisciplinary research to strengthen the theoretical foundations of geotourism product development.
• Secondly, it is essential to clearly distinguish between a singular object, service, facility, or event, often inaccurately labelled as “geoproducts.” This term frequently includes items such as handicrafts, decorative products, souvenirs, and even individual interpretive panels. While these items hold significant value and are typically inspired by geodiversity, they do not, on their own, constitute a comprehensive geotourism product. Instead, they serve as vital components or integral elements contributing to a larger, more intricate, and cohesive geotourism experience. Acknowledging this essential distinction is crucial for both theoretical rigour and the effective development and promotion of genuinely holistic geotourism products that provide a complete visitor experience.
• Ultimately, a crucial clarification emerges regarding the interaction between geotourism products and the broader implications of geotourism development activities, including the establishment of geoparks and geotourism visitor centres. These larger entities should not be viewed as geotourism products. More accurately, they should be understood as geographic areas or destinations where a variety of geotourism products and services can be created, offered, and consumed. Failing to properly define this distinction can lead to significant misconceptions. For instance, geoparks function as essential ecosystems that provide the context and resources necessary for geotourism products, rather than representing the products themselves. This intricate and clear understanding is essential for avoiding conceptual confusion and for establishing a strong foundation for future research, strategic planning, and effective development efforts within geotourism.

As previously articulated, the clarification of what is and what is not a geotourism product, as presented in this paper, is intended to mitigate potential misunderstandings and establish a foundational framework for forthcoming research and development initiatives in the domain of geotourism, as well as for the delineation of geotourism products.