Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

GeosciencesGeosciences
PDF
  • Editorial
  • Open Access

7 August 2026

9 Pages

Editorial Board Members’ Collection Series: “Trends and Prospects in Geoheritage, Geoparks, and Geotourism”

,
and
1
School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
2
National Program of Earthquakes and Volcanoes, Saudi Geological Survey, Jeddah 22233, Saudi Arabia
3
Lithosphere Research Group, Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, 9400 Sopron, Hungary
4
The Geoconservation Trust Aoteroa Pacific, Opotiki 3122, New Zealand
Geosciences2026, 16(8), 320;https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences16080320
This article belongs to the Special Issue Editorial Board Members' Collection Series: "Trends and Prospects in Geoheritage, Geoparks, and Geotourism"
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

In recent years, research in Geoheritage, Geoparks, and Geotourism has significantly increased, underlining their vital roles in advancing scientific knowledge, conserving the environment, and safeguarding human culture. By exploring the intrinsic value of geological and geomorphological sites as records of Earth’s history and important scientific resources, we seek to enhance appreciation for these landscapes. This Special Issue provided a platform for interdisciplinary exploration and dialogue, addressing the complexities of geoheritage research and offering insights into the conservation, management, and promotion of geological features and landforms. It includes studies on the conceptual foundations for establishing and managing geoparks, as well as research on the evolving field of geotourism and its contribution to sustainable development. A total of 10 papers have been accepted, covering a diverse range of topics and emphasizing the current prominence of geoheritage research within the geosciences.
Current trends in geoheritage, geoparks, and geotourism show a move toward sustainable, integrated models that balance conservation, educational outreach, and local economic development, often supported by digital innovations and enhanced stakeholder participation. Prospects include improved geoeducation through digital tools, innovative funding mechanisms, and broader community involvement to create resilient, sustainable models. However, challenges remain regarding uneven resource distribution, weak infrastructure, and the need for clearer assessment frameworks. Future directions should focus on bridging the gap between inventory-based research and applied, community-focused strategies to ensure both conservation and the socio-economic benefits of geotourism [1,2].
Geoheritage, geoparks, and geotourism are increasingly recognized as interconnected fields that support sustainable development, conservation, and education. Geoheritage refers to the value of geological features, landscapes, and processes, while geoparks are designated areas that conserve geoheritage and promote education, research, and local development. Geotourism leverages these assets to create meaningful visitor experiences, stimulate rural economies, and foster environmental stewardship. The growing importance of these fields is reflected in their alignment with global sustainability goals, technological innovation, and participatory management models [1]. Geoheritage is best defined as a concept that encompasses geological sites, landscapes, and features of scientific, educational, cultural, or aesthetic value [3,4]. Geoparks are considered platforms for geoheritage conservation, education, and sustainable tourism, often under UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) or national frameworks [5]. While geotourism focuses on tourism that highlights geological and landscape features, integrating education, conservation, and local economic benefits [6]. These fields are increasingly relevant for sustainable development, as they offer pathways to conserve natural assets, educate the public, and support rural communities through innovative tourism and enterprise models [1].
Recent research emphasizes a holistic approach, integrating conservation, education, and local economic development. This model leverages geoeducation, community-based planning, and digital interpretation tools to bridge scientific assessment and applied visitor engagement [1,2]. Effective management requires multi-actor governance, including local communities, government, academia, and the private sector. Participatory models and citizen science enhance stewardship and conservation outcomes [7,8,9,10]. Digital tools (VR—virtual reality, GIS—Geographic Information Systems, gamification) are transforming interpretation, accessibility, and engagement [11,12]. These innovations democratize access, improve learning outcomes, and overcome physical barriers.
Research and assessment trends clearly show a shift toward inventory- and assessment-centered research, with systematic evaluation methods emerging [2,13,14,15]. While this trend provides deep, evidence-based inventories that are easy to use and implement in various conservation, education, and planning policies, it also requires more applied, impact-focused studies linking assessment to visitor interpretation and local economic outcomes. These trends naturally require an increasing reliance on and incorporation of advanced technologies, including Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), and Geographic Information System (GIS)-aided techniques, as well as more extensive social science approac—hes. Integration of digital tools (VR, GIS, Augmented Reality (AR), gamification) in interpretation and geotourism experiences [16,17,18,19] is an emerging trend that aims to explore how digital platforms can broaden access, improve engagement, and support both formal and informal education within or outside geoconservation ventures. Current trends also identify the need for further and deeper involvement of local and indigenous communities, as well as a broad spectrum of stakeholders, to expand collaboration networks and procedures [10]. There is a clear and growing emphasis on community participation, stakeholder networks, and collaborative governance [20], often based on co-development and co-governance of geoheritage projects. Participatory models have been shown to improve conservation outcomes, local ownership, and economic benefits, helping to develop a healthy and sustainable societal evolution within the abiotic nature taken as a pillar of human society’s foundational roles [21]. As a result of the last decade’s expansion in geoheritage research, it is increasingly taken more seriously as a key driver for sustainability and SDG alignment. Geoheritage, geotourism and geopark planning are increasingly being aligned with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), focusing on ecological protection, climate change awareness, and rural development [22,23]. Furthermore, alongside the various geoconservation strategies implemented in geoparks and other protected areas, initiatives such as International Geodiversity Day [24,25] are fundamental to engaging society with the principles of sustainability, as well as to raising awareness of and recognising geoscience knowledge.
Obviously, such a dramatic and perception-changing trend within the rapidly changing geoscience context faces major challenges, which are also actively researched. There are challenges not only in developing such geoheritage ventures but also in managing them. Geoheritage has become one of the cornerstones of modern geoscience, dealing not only with the geological and geomorphological aspects of the abiotic environment but also with seeing, recognizing, and understanding the human–geosphere interface through societal development. Current research also indicates that extreme unevenness in economic development status, income level, social perception, and attitudes toward geological features poses disturbing challenges that define our 21st-century human development level. Besides the uneven distribution of geoheritage both globally and within individual nations, the weak infrastructure, limited funding, and staffing shortages constrain development, heavily affecting and limiting how far the recording, protection, and understanding of geoheritage geosystem service values can go [26,27]. While these are seemingly more subject to social studies, it is still an admittedly important problem how we record geoheritage if inconsistent inventory criteria and recognition hamper sustainable progress. Geoheritage research also faces the problem of modern society, with threats from urbanization and extraction. The rapid human population growth and its direct effect of rapid urbanization expand the built environment dramatically. Rapid human population growth has generated unprecedented demand for critical minerals and energy resources, which has rejuvenated intensive mining, and overdevelopment altogether threatens geoheritage sites directly and indirectly, causing damage, destruction, and loss of value [28,29,30]. Ironically, most of the resource demands are around technologies originally aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution through the electrification of transportation, expanding data access opportunities, and implementing AI-driven developments, commonly referred to as an AI revolution. While this development was somewhat expected, the scale and speed of the need for non-renewable georesources exceeds the sustainability level and causes an irreversible positive feedback loop, a self-inflicting spiral; geoeducation can offer some relief to provide perspective for human society to learn to live with its abiotic heritage and values. Within this newly emerging cross-boundary, transdisciplinary research investigating governance and assessment become an important subject, while also identifying alarming gaps not only within knowledge but also within implementation. Inconsistent inventory criteria, unclear site selection, and lack of systematic management frameworks [13,30] have been common, and despite the often positive initial aims, the end product might not be what was originally planned for. In the same paradoxical perspective, tourism faces major challenges. Finding the balance between conservation and tourism is part of the major debate in current tourism research. The tension between promoting tourism and ensuring long-term conservation, along with the risks of overtourism and environmental degradation [31,32] heavily impacts the original status of abiotic nature. Where challenges exist, certain opportunities that emerge both within the research subjects and in potential alternative ways to find solutions have often not been explored or not obviously considered before. There is a significant branch of research that focuses on innovative interpretation and education techniques, such as effective use of interpretive signage, digital tools, VR, AR, and gamification to enhance visitor engagement, experience, and learning [33,34,35]. While participatory methods of data collection are well established in social studies, in the context of geoheritage it remains largely unexplored; however, promising attempts exist to identify models that integrate community participation in conservation, local enterprise development, and value-chain financing [36,37]. The inventory building to record and valorise geoheritage through various purpose-defined systems is among the oldest and most frequently used methods within geoheritage research; new techniques have also emerged in the last decade. Building a systematic inventory and assessment requires developing clear, replicable site inventories using numerical evaluation, multi-criteria frameworks, and mapping [4]. Such methods, in combination with GIS-aided techniques, have become a common approach in geosite inventory builders [38]. A recently emerged concept to develop an inventory-building technique where abiotic, biotic, and cultural values are observed and valorized together (ABC—Abiotic-Biotic-Cultural Interpretation) has emerged. Integrating abiotic, biotic, and cultural values diversifies tourism and interpretation, especially in geoparks with uneven geoheritage distribution [26]. Such techniques often appear to be co-developed with methods that incorporate those results directly into collaborative governance and stakeholder network-driven planning. Successful models of multi-actor, participatory governance and stakeholder cooperation for sustainable management can be recognized in several key locations [39,40]. Geoheritage research trends also branched toward a socio-economic field where the impact of geoheritage on various aspects of education is considered. Within the economic impacts and rural development associated with geoheritage, the impact of such works on job creation, income generation, livelihood diversification, and poverty reduction in geopark and geotourism regions has been clearly recognized [41,42]. While various levels of education heavily depend on the level of educational outcomes and accessibility to advanced technologies, networks, and other knowledge bases (including AI), newly emerged research explored VR, GIS, and other digital tools’ potential to improve accessibility and learning outcomes for diverse audiences, especially in disadvantaged regions or groups [9,43,44]. Geoheritage research is also taking a significant part within tourism research, and geotourism has finally been discovered as a potential anchor point of a great array of niche tourism. Community participation has been recognized to enhance well-being, belonging, sense of space and social capital, supporting longer-term conservation engagement well outside the traditional conceptual framework of nature conservation, building toward social capital and societal mental and physical health [1,45,46].
Another issue that has given rise to concern and debate is that relating to geoethics and geoheritage [47]. In this context, consideration is given to concerns regarding the most pressing environmental issues affecting geoheritage, as well as the promotion of critical thinking about the use of the Earth’s natural resources, the development of environmentally friendly technologies, and the dissemination of knowledge and information on natural hazards [48]. Concerns regarding the use of artificial intelligence in the context of environmental education within the Global Geoparks Network, which fall within the scope of UNESCO’s recognised flagship initiative in the field of education, have also been raised, with questions being asked about the contribution such technologies might make in the current context, where their nascent development may call into question their fundamental values and pillars [49].
In conclusion, the current development of geoheritage, geotourism and geoconservation research has become a significant conceptual framework to explore, identify and promote geosciences and abiotic nature upon which human society is built. The rapid growth of new approaches, involving advanced technologies and new cooperative research techniques, has generated a new field within geosciences that can serve as a cross-disciplinary bridge and be used not only in education, conservation, or tourism but also to promote geosciences as a key pillar of our very existence on Earth. This progress can offer new avenues to explore the way humanity lives with the abiotic nature as part of it, how it uses its non-renewable resources, and how to deal with the geohazards it poses. As science continuously evolves, further empirical studies connecting inventory/assessment to practical visitor interpretation and local economic impact are necessary, not only to develop a complete library on the geoheritage assets, but also to have a broad database in hand upon which geoheritage values can be explicitly declared, compared, and therefore built into various planning strategies. This requires development and testing of clearer, replicable governance and assessment frameworks. It is also important to note that the integration of geoheritage and cultural heritage in conservation and interpretation is inevitable. To reduce the subjectivity of geoheritage valorization, recent research has clearly shown the power of comparative analysis of digital innovation, which can have a heavy impact on accessibility and learning outcomes. To follow up and incorporate economic models alongside ecosystem or geosystem services concepts requires further longitudinal studies on community-based financing and enterprise development in geopark regions.
This volume reflects the diversity and dynamic nature of geoheritage research science. As in any blue-sky open call collection, it is highly unpredictable what type and subject of research reports will be submitted and pass the review and editorial processes. In this volume, chapters provide a very diverse subject area reflecting the same diversity outlined earlier.
A research report confirms that the late 16th-century Plinian eruption of Raung Volcano in Indonesia generated five eruptive units, dispersing extensive tephra and pyroclastic flows, and causing approximately 10,000 casualties. Data from geological, archaeological, and historical sources identify Raung as the source, underscoring its role as a potential disaster geosite for education and tourism within Ijen Geopark to enhance awareness and promote risk mitigation [50].
A research study has also evaluated two Sicilian (Italy) coastal lagoon geosites, Lake Faro and Lake Ganzirri, focusing on their geological, structural, and tectonic origins related to post-Würmian sea-level rise and active extensional tectonics. Their high scientific, educational, and touristic value scores justify their classification as global geodiversity sites, underscoring the importance of protection, sustainable management, and future measures to mitigate environmental risks [51].
Another submission highlighted the significant benefit of employing ground-penetrating radar to non-invasively analysis of the archaeological site GO-Ja-02 in Serranópolis, Brazil. It revealed subsurface features such as rock blocks, roots, and layers. The data helped prioritize excavation efforts, supporting preservation and deeper understanding of the ancient occupation. Additionally, it showcased a methodological framework that effectively integrates geophysical technology for archaeological research and site management [52].
The Napo Sumaco Aspiring UNESCO Global Geopark (NSAUGG) in Ecuador emphasizes geological diversity, as detailed in a research paper in this volume, which includes recent geosite additions like Wawa Sumaco Quarry, Puka Urku, and Pucuno River, showcasing features such as alkaline rocks that indicate volcanic activity. The mobile app, SumAppGeo, combines geological data to enhance geotourism, education, and community involvement, fostering sustainable development and gaining recognition within the UNESCO Global Geoparks Network [53].
One research paper highlights the importance of science communication in UNESCO Global Geoparks, pointing out gaps between current practices and emerging trends. It underscores the significance of public engagement, interpretation tools, community involvement, and quality metrics. The findings indicate a need for more interactive and inclusive strategies, better visibility, and evidence-based methods to boost awareness, sustainability, and effective management across various regions [54].
A submission in this volume states that geotourism products should conform to wider tourism principles, not solely focus on geo-features. It underscores their importance in sustainable, educational, and experiential tourism. The review covers existing literature, points out terminological ambiguities between geoproducts and geotourism products, and calls for clear definitions to facilitate research, development, and management of geotourism [55].
Another study connects water resources, geology, and cultural heritage in Laterza, Italy. It highlights the Mascheroni Fountain, which is supplied by a shallow aquifer through a qanat, illustrating ancient water management practices. The region’s karst and gravine formations influenced the development of rupestrian towns, with geological features playing a crucial role in supporting local water supply. This underscores the significance of geoheritage for sustainable tourism and the integration of regional parks [56].
Príncipe Island’s geodiversity comprises ten geological heritage sites and five viewpoints that showcase its 31-million-year volcanic history and significant events along the Cameroon Volcanic Line, as detailed in a volcanic geoheritage research article in this volume. The study evaluated these sites for their scientific, educational, and tourism potential, aiming to support geoconservation and boost regional geotourism. This has the potential to increase local awareness, promote sustainable development, and integrate the region into wider African geoheritage initiatives [57].
A comprehensive study presented here details the Shunku Rumi igneous geosite within Ecuador’s Napo Sumaco Geopark, emphasizing petrography, geochemistry, and structural analysis of Jurassic Abitagua Batholith rocks. It shows calc-alkaline affinity, mineral assemblages, and NE-SW dyke emplacement influenced by faults. The findings bolster geoeducation, geotourism, and conservation efforts by connecting scientific knowledge with community involvement [58].
Since 1990, global imports of dimension stone to Poznań (Poland) have risen significantly, with nearly three times more types and source distances increasing from 322 km to 3885 km, mainly originating from Europe and other regions. This diversification, detailed in a cross-disciplinary study in this volume, influences local heritage and boosts geotourism. However, it also poses challenges for local producers and conservation efforts, raising geoethical questions regarding the cultural significance and sustainability of imported stones [59].
This volume beautifully showcases the diversity of current geoheritage research. It also highlights the importance of geosciences, which are deeply integrated into human society, and underscores that abiotic nature forms the foundation of our existence. Humanity must learn to coexist with and protect this diversity.

Acknowledgments

The editors of this special issue greatly appreciate the large number of submissions and the persistent work and cooperation of the contributors in achieving this valuable collection within Geosciences. The Editorial Management Team of Geosciences is also greatly acknowledged for handling each of the papers within the volume.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Xu, K.; Wu, W. Geoparks and Geotourism in China: A Sustainable Approach to Geoheritage Conservation and Local Development—A Review. Land 2022, 11, 1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Gupta, V.; Anand, S.; Wei, D.; Wang, G.; Tripathi, S.C. Exploring applied sustainable strategies through geoheritage and geotourism: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Geoherit. Parks 2024, 12, 660–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Reynard, E.; Brilha, J. (Eds.) Geoheritage: A Multidisciplinary and Applied Research Topic. In Geoheritage; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 3–9. [Google Scholar]
  4. Brilha, J. Chapter 4—Geoheritage: Inventories and Evaluation. In Geoheritage; Reynard, E., Brilha, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 69–85. [Google Scholar]
  5. Brilha, J. Chapter 18—Geoheritage and Geoparks. In Geoheritage; Reynard, E., Brilha, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 323–335. [Google Scholar]
  6. Newsome, D.; Dowling, R. Chapter 17—Geoheritage and Geotourism. In Geoheritage; Reynard, E., Brilha, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 305–321. [Google Scholar]
  7. DeFelipe, I.; Cruz, A.; Pereira, D. UNESCO Global Geoparks as useful sceneries to disseminate science and raise awareness of geological risks: The case of Las Loras Geopark (Spain). Episodes 2025, 48, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  8. Martin, F.F.; Peppoloni, S. Geoethics in communication of science: The relationship between media and geoscientists. Ann. Geophys. 2017, 60, Fast Track 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Esengulova, N.; Lopolito, A.; Pazienza, P.; Lucia, C.D. The UNESCO Global Geopark model for sustainable development in marginalised areas: Investigating perceptions and social acceptance in a local context. Land Use Policy 2026, 168, 108090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Sartori Peruzzo, R.; McHenry, M.; Valdati, J.; Mampuche, E.L.; da Silva Terena, C.A.; Muzuiwane, A.R. Indigenous-led geocultural valorisation in the Parecis Basin: Integrating cultural values into geoheritage assessment and land management. Int. J. Geoherit. Parks 2026, 14, 100281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Omosanya, K.O.L.; Oludipe, V.; Lawal, R.O.; Lawal, T.K.; Mosuro, G.O.; Saka, H.O. Smart Geoheritage: Using Digital Technologies for Geoheritage Conservation and Sustainable Geotourism in Nigeria. Geoheritage 2026, 18, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Hermawan, J.; Wijaya, L.I.; Rianawati, A. Leveraging digitalization in geoheritage and geoparks: Analysis of advancements and trends through bibliometric analysis and the antecedents, decisions, outcomes-theories, contexts, methods (ADO-TCM) framework. Int. J. Geoherit. Parks 2025, 13, 453–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Brilha, J. Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: A Review. Geoheritage 2016, 8, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Fassoulas, C.; Mouriki, D.; Dimitriou-Nikolakis, P.; Iliopoulos, G. Quantitative Assessment of Geotopes as an Effective Tool for Geoheritage Management. Geoheritage 2012, 4, 177–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Herrera-Franco, G.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Apolo-Masache, B.; Jaya-Montalvo, M. Research Trends in Geotourism: A Bibliometric Analysis Using the Scopus Database. Geosciences 2020, 10, 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Henriques, R.; Cayla, N.; Santos, I.; Martin, S.; Mariano, G. Chapter 21—Digital technologies for geovisualisation and AI-powered geointerpretation applied to geoheritage management. In Geoheritage, 2nd ed.; Reynard, E., Brilha, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2025; pp. 457–478. [Google Scholar]
  17. Karadayı, Z.; Yaşar, C.; Çalık, A.; Ulugergerli, E.U. Metaverse Technologies for Accessing Isolated Geosites: A Digital Bridge for Immersive Geotourism. Geoheritage 2026, 18, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Hincapie, M.; Cifuentes, L.M.; Valencia-Arias, A.; Quiroz-Fabra, J. Geoheritage and immersive technologies: Bibliometric analysis and literature review. Episodes 2023, 46, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Hruby, F.; Ressl, R.; de la Borbolla del Valle, G. Linking Real Geographies and Virtual Realties with Immersive Geospatial Technologies. In Geospatial Challenges in the 21st Century; Koutsopoulos, K., de Miguel González, R., Donert, K., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 63–79. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bueloth, M.R.; Pantaleón, A.J.S.; Visalot, J.P.; Esparza–Huamanchumo, R.M. Community participation, governance, and environmental education as drivers of local sustainable development: Tutumberos community, Peruvian Amazon. World Dev. Sustain. 2026, 8, 100283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Wijaya, F.; Miftahuddin, A.; Jamiat, N.; Yusup, I. Participatory Digital Branding in Youth-Driven Geotourism: Community Engagement and Sustainable Geosite Development. Geoj. Tour. Geosites 2026, 65, 925–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Wadhawan, S.K. Geoheritage and Potential Geotourism in Geoparks—Indian Perspective. In Global Geographical Heritage, Geoparks and Geotourism: Geoconservation and Development; Singh, R.B., Wei, D., Anand, S., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 257–281. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ferreira, D.R.; Valdati, J. Geoparks and Sustainable Development: Systematic Review. Geoheritage 2022, 15, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Brilha, J.; Gray, M.; Matthews, J.; Zwolinski, Z. International Geodiversity Day: Developing a global outreach initiative. In Proceedings of the X International Online ProGEO Symposium, online, 7–10 June 2021. [Google Scholar]
  25. Zwolinski, Z.; Brilha, J.; Gray, M.; Matthews, J. International geodiversity day: From grassroots geoscience campaign to UNESCO recognition. In Visages of Geodiversity and Geoheritage; Kubalíková, L., Coratza, P., Pál, M., Zwoliński, Z., Irapta, P.N., van Wyk de Vries, B., Eds.; Special Publications: London, UK; Geological Society: London, UK, 2023; Volume 530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Migoń, P.; Pijet-Migoń, E. Non-Uniform Distribution of Geoheritage Resources in Geoparks—Problems, Challenges and Opportunities. Resources 2024, 13, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Skibiński, J.; Kultys, K.; Baran-Zgłobicka, B.; Zgłobicki, W. Geoparks in SE Poland as Areas of Tourism Development: Current State and Future Prospects. Resources 2021, 10, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Ruchkys, Ú.D.A.; Travassos, L.E.P.; Auler, A.; dos Santos, D.J.; Gomes, M. Evolutionary governance and the patrimonialization of karst geodiversity in a territory under active mining and in a non-extractive reference case: Contrasting institutional trajectories in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2026, 27, 101906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Kong, W.; Li, Y.; Li, K.; Chen, M.; Peng, Y.; Wang, D.; Chen, L. Urban Geoheritage Sites Under Strong Anthropogenic Pressure: Example from the Chaohu Lake Region, Hefei, China. Geoheritage 2020, 12, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Brocx, M.; Semeniuk, V. Geoheritage and geoconservation—History, definition, scope and scale. J. R. Soc. West. Aust. 2007, 90, 53–87. [Google Scholar]
  31. Fernandes, G.P. Geotourism and Sustainability. In Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management; Idowu, S.O., Schmidpeter, R., Capaldi, N., Zu, L., Del Baldo, M., Abreu, R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 1675–1680. [Google Scholar]
  32. Dowling, R. Geotourism. In Encyclopedia of Tourism; Jafari, J., Xiao, H., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 436–438. [Google Scholar]
  33. Cifuentes-Correa, L.M.; Montoya-Hincapié, E.M.; Valencia-Arias, A.; Quiroz-Fabra, J.; Londoño-Celis, W. Research trends in geoheritage, geotourism and its relationship with new technologies. J. Tour. Dev. 2023, 40, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sesliokuyucu, O.S.; Cobanoglu, C. The Implications of Gamification in Tourism. In Leveraging Digital Marketing for Tourism: Exploring Strategies and Applications in Contemporary Tourism Markets; Santos, J.D., Barbosa Sousa, B., Botelho Pires, P., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2025; pp. 243–264. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pasca, M.G.; Renzi, M.F.; Di Pietro, L.; Guglielmetti Mugion, R. Gamification in tourism and hospitality research in the era of digital platforms: A systematic literature review. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 2021, 31, 691–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Obradović Strålman, S. Geotourism, sustainable development, and conservation: Community perspectives from Resava Cave, Serbia. GeoJournal 2026, 91, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Rocha, F.; Ferreira da Silva, E. Geotourism, Medical Geology and local development: Cape Verde case study. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2014, 99, 735–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Williams, M.A.; McHenry, M.T. The Increasing Need for Geographical Information Technology (GIT) Tools in Geoconservation and Geotourism. Geoconserv. Res. 2020, 3, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Della Spina, L.; Giorno, C. Cultural Landscapes as a Driver of Local Development. Collaborative Decision-Making Processes for the Promotion of Resilient Landscapes. In Science of Valuations: Natural Structures, Technological Infrastructures, Cultural Superstructures; Giuffrida, S., Trovato, M.R., Rosato, P., Fattinnanzi, E., Oppio, A., Chiodo, S., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 329–346. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hermawati, R.; Irawati, I.; Munajat, E.; Saefullah, K.; Ismail, H.N. Contested collaborations and the reconfiguration of local power in tourism governance: Evidence from a UNESCO Global Geopark. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2026, 13, 102935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Louis, A.A.; Talib, H.; Chan, J.K.L.; Kamlun, K.U. Benefits of geoparks from the perspective of local communities: A case study of Kinabalu UNESCO Global Geopark, Malaysia. Int. J. Geoherit. Parks 2025, 13, 534–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Medina Cruz, J.R.; Enrique, Q.H.J.; Ángel, C.C.M.; Damián, M.C.A.; Francisco, L.P. The sustainable development of rural economies within the territorial scope of the Geopark located betwen the Colca Valley and volcanoes in the Arequipa region, Peru. Sustain. Futures 2025, 9, 100716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Cayla, N.; Martin, S. Chapter 16—Digital Geovisualisation Technologies Applied to Geoheritage Management. In Geoheritage; Reynard, E., Brilha, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 289–303. [Google Scholar]
  44. de Castro, D.B.; Ducart, D.F.; de Sena, Í.S.; de Lima Picanço, J.; da Silva, C.H.; da Mota, G.S. Virtual Reality in Geoscience: An Overview. In Extended Reality; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2026; pp. 20–38. [Google Scholar]
  45. Murage, P.; Hicks, C.; Kapos, V.; Naidoo, S.; Hassan, S.; Whitmee, S. Safeguarding natural ecosystems can protect population health: Advancing approaches to bridge the health–ecology divide. Lancet Planet. Health 2025, 9, 101377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  46. Dousin, O.; Aralas, S.; Denis, J.I. Geopark development and community well-being: The case of Kinabalu UNESCO Global Geopark, Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. Int. J. Geoherit. Parks 2024, 12, 384–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Zafeiropoulos, G.; Drinia, H.; Antonarakou, A.; Zouros, N. From Geoheritage to Geoeducation, Geoethics and Geotourism: A Critical Evaluation of the Greek Region. Geosciences 2021, 11, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Peppoloni, S.; Di Capua, G. The meaning of Geoethics. In Geo-Ethics: Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Science; Peppoloni, S., Wyss, M., Eds.; Elsevier: Waltham, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Martínez-Martín, J.E.; Rosado-González, E.M.; Martínez-Martín, B.; Sá, A.A. UNESCO Global Geoparks vs. Generative AI: Challenges for Best Practices in Sustainability and Education. Geosciences 2024, 14, 275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Sabila, F.S.; Abdurrachman, M.; Saepuloh, A.; Kurniawan, I.A.; Baraas, A.; Yudiantoro, D.F.; Kusdaryanto, H. Geology, Archaeology, and Historical Studies of the Late 16th Century Plinian Eruption of Raung Volcano: A Potential Case for Disaster Geotourism in Ijen UNESCO Global Geopark, East Java, Indonesia. Geosciences 2024, 14, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Somma, R.; Spoto, S.E.; Giacobbe, S. Geological and Structural Framework, Inventory, and Quantitative Assessment of Geodiversity: The Case Study of the Lake Faro and Lake Ganzirri Global Geosites (Italy). Geosciences 2024, 14, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Almeida, I.R.; Borges, W.R.; de Rubin, J.C.; Canata, R.E.; da Silva, R.T.; Barbosa, J.B. Application of a Ground-Penetrating Radar in the Characterization of the Archaeological Environment of Site GO-JA-02, Serranópolis-GO: A Non-Invasive Approach for Archaeological Excavation Planning. Geosciences 2025, 15, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Salazar-Del-Pozo, S.-S.; Carlosama-Morejón, F.; Freire-Quintanilla, K.; Grefa-Shiguango, H.; Simbaña-Tasiguano, M. Innovative Approaches to Geoscientific Outreach in the Napo Sumaco Aspiring UNESCO Global Geopark, Ecuadorian Amazon Region. Geosciences 2025, 15, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Rodrigues, J.; Costa e Silva, E.; Pereira, D.Í. Science Communication Practices in UNESCO Global Geoparks: A Benchmark Analysis. Geosciences 2025, 15, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Štrba, Ľ.; Palgutová, S.B.; Derco, J.; Kršák, B.; Sidor, C. The Geotourism Product—What It Is and What It Is Not. Geosciences 2025, 15, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Bellini, F.; Bellini, D.; Clemente, F.; Sabato, L.; Tropeano, M. Cultural Heritage and Geology: The Example of the Mascheroni Fountain and Its Qanat in the Rupestrian Town of Laterza (MurGEopark UGGp and “Terra delle Gravine” Regional Park, Puglia, Southern Italy). Geosciences 2025, 15, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Neto, K.; Henriques, M.H. The Geological Heritage of Príncipe Island (West Africa). Geosciences 2025, 15, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Huatatoca-Mamallacta, S.; Simbaña-Tasiguano, M.; Granja-Guato, D.; Espín, R.; De Lima, L.; Cisneros, P.; Salgado-Revelo, A.; Almeida, E.; Tana, A. Unveiling the Igneous Geodiversity of the Shunku Rumi Geosite for Geoeducation and Geotourism Actions in the Napo Sumaco UNESCO Global Geopark (Ecuador). Geosciences 2025, 15, 419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Wolniewicz, P. Rapid Growth of Dimension Stone Imports: Implications for the Urban Geocultural Heritage of the City of Poznań (Poland). Geosciences 2026, 16, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
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.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Diagnostics of the Hydrothermal Desynchronization of Snowmelt and Cryogenic Sealing of Soils During the Formation of Extreme Floods in Kazakhstan
Previous
Mapping Approaches for Assessing Regional Soil Liquefaction Potential: A Comparative Assessment
Next