Kalymnos Island, SE Aegean Sea: From Fishing Sponges and Rock Climbing to Geotourism Perspective

Abstract

The island of Kalymnos, located in the Dodecanese island complex in the SE Aegean, is known for its sponge fishing but also for its world-famous climbing fields. Indeed, the island is considered the “Mecca” of climbers. Nevertheless, Kalymnos is characterized by moderate tourist traffic and lack of tourism infrastructure. The planning and development of geotourism can be a driving force for the economic sustainability of the island. In this study, the possibility of developing the innovative and alternative form of geotourism on the island of Kalymnos is explored. Kalymnos is characterized by numerous caves and steep slopes which can be geotopes attractive to visitors. Six caverns and two climbing fields were analyzed as part of our investigation. For the quantitative assessment of the geosites three factors are considered: the potential educational use (PEU), the potential touristic use (PTU), and the degradation risk (DR). The quantitative evaluation in combination with a SWOT analysis showed that there is indeed a possibility of promotion and development of geotourism in combination with the protection of the island’s geotopes. This will give additional impetus to the economy of Kalymnos. However, the lack of awareness from local authorities and residents is evident. The need for training in matters related to the geological heritage is necessary. In this way, there will be geotourism development, contributing positively to the economic prosperity and sustainability of the island.

1. Introduction

Tourism constitutes a significant social phenomenon with rapid development and societal acceptance all over the world. It greatly contributes to the improvement of local populations’ living standards, the creation of jobs, the availability of funds for new investments, the improvement and expansion of infrastructure, and so on, and is seen as a means of economic and social development [1].

In Greece, the tourism industry is one of the most important industries, with a considerable contribution to the Greek economy since revenues from this activity already account for a significant share of GDP [2]. Indeed, as published by National Statistical Service of Greece, in September 2021 tourism accounted for 18% of Greece’s GDP and employed more than 900,000 people, accounting for one fifth of the workforce. Today, Greek tourism maintains its fourth position in the Mediterranean after Spain, Italy, and Turkey. However, the competitiveness of the Greek tourism industry is already under threat, owing to structural characteristics and inherent limitations, as well as severe international competition. To overcome these limitations and boost the Greek economy, Greek society is looking for new, innovative, and alternative forms of tourism [3].

Geotourism is one of the most innovative features in the tourism discipline. It is focused on the conservation of geological heritage and geodiversity when handled in a sustainable manner [4,5]. For geotourism to be sustainable, the planning and development of tourism infrastructure, its subsequent operation, and marketing must focus on environmental, social, cultural, and economic sustainability criteria so that local communities benefit economically and socially.

In recent years, Greek society’s awareness of the geoenvironment has grown [6]. Concepts such as “geotopes”, “geoparks”, and “geodiversity” are becoming popular, accompanied by new economic activities and occupations such as geotourism and geo-tour guides. As a result, the value of geoheritage, geoconservation, and geomemory have developed. In Greece, geotourism has its potential and is looking for its market share. Cave tourism (only in tourist caves) and hot spring-spa tourism are the most common types of geotourism that have currently emerged [6,7,8]. Greek geotopes, on the other hand, can support a variety of other activities aimed at a diverse spectrum of people.

Kalymnos island is located in the Dodecanese islands Complex in the southeastern Aegean Sea. For ages, the little Aegean Sea island of Kalymnos has been known as the “Sponge-divers’ island” Natural sponges have been the principal income source for Kalymnian families since ancient times, bringing wealth and fame to the island for its brave sponge-divers and its astute traders. The sponge fishing trade has influenced the entire culture of the island, which is evident practically everywhere on the island.

The arid and rocky Kalymnos Island is characterized by a unique geological and geomorphological diversity, which includes a rich and significant geoheritage as well as an impressive landscape. The presence of caves, deep ravines and mountains is intense throughout the island. Kalymnos could be called the “island of limestone” since most of it consists of this sedimentary rock. It should be noticed that the mountainous topography of the island is exactly what has put Kalymnos on the map as a famous rock-climbing destination and has earned the island worldwide recognition. Indeed, Kalymnos is a popular rock climbing and bouldering destination, with approximately 3000 climbing routes built in the island’s limestone rock and a climate that permits climbing all year. Since 1997, when the Italian climber Andrea di Bari established the first routes, the island has seen a surge in climbing-related tourism.

In addition to the climbing trails, the island is one of the richest in limestone caves. There are about 50 caves, many of which are still unexplored due to the roughness of the ground, which are inaccessible (some are even accessed from the sea). Only three of these are open to the public, meaning that these caves meet the appropriate conditions for a safe visit, albeit without the existence of an organized tour by specialized professionals. Some of them were used for habitation and places of worship, and others for storage, concealment, and water collection. Several caves were associated with various professions on the island and so we find caves with pastoral uses as well as quarry caves. Many of them exhibit, apart from geological, archeological interest since they were inhabited in the past or were places of religious worship. The caves of Kalymnos, depending on their morphology, are characterized as “horizontal” (i.e., the most accessible), the “cave precipices” (which are not so easily accessible), and the “underwater” caves. The first systematic speleological research in Kalymnos was carried out in the 1950s by the Hellenic Speleological Society (HSS).

Moreover, Kalymnos Island is a place with a long history and culture, hosting numerous remarkable monuments. The 4th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities and the 22nd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities have been conducting systematic archaeological excavations on Kalymnos for the past few years, bringing to light magnificent artifacts and illuminating important chapters on the island’s ancient history.

Despite these unique peculiarities, tourism in Kalymnos island has showed a steady decline over the past 10–15 years, as from 1500 arrivals per week (1992–1994) it has reached 300 arrivals per week. Moreover, the island cannot draw mass tourism due to a lack of infrastructure. That’s why it is imperative to support and promote alternative forms of tourism as Kalymnos is not an island for mass tourism.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the climbing fields and caves of Kalymnos can serve as a focal point for an alternative kind of geotourism in which the visitor combines his geological interest in the above formations with recreation, sports, and education. As a preliminary phase, two climbing fields and six caves were selected to accomplish this goal. In this context, the present paper is aiming in advancing the geological significance of the island of Kalymnos in the southeastern Aegean by highlighting the values of its geomorphosites. The ultimate goal is to investigate the possibility for Kalymnos to serve as an attraction not just for climbing but also for geoeducation and geotourism.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Study Area

Kalymnos is a 109 km² (42 square mile) Greek island in the Aegean Sea, located by the Dodecanese Islands Complex (Figure 1). The Dodecanese is a group of 27 inhabited and numerous uninhabited islands which occupy an area of 2714 km². From antiquity, these islands belonged to the wider complex of the Southern Sporades. The name “Dodecanese” first appears in Byzantine sources of the 8th century and did not refer to the current Dodecanese, but to the twelve islands of the Cyclades around Delos [9]. However, in recent years the term “Dodecanese” has been used to collectively denote the twelve privileged islands — Kalymnos, Symi, Leros, Ikaria, Patmos, Astypalea, Nisyros, Halki, Tilos, Karpathos, Kasos, and Kastellorizo.

The islet of Telendos (Figure 2) rises across Kalymnos’ northwestern shore, near the village of Myrties. Telendos is isolated from the main island by a 700-m-wide strait. The islet was once part of Kalymnos until a huge earthquake in 535 A.D disconnected it from the rest of the island, resulting in the imposing mounting which dominates the view across this side of Kalymnos. Telendos is a desolate island [10,11,12].

2.2. Geology-Geomorphology

The Dodecanese complex is located in the southeastern branch of the Hellenic arc, at the convergence limits of the two lithospheric plates, the European and the African, and is characterized by a complex geotectonic structure (Figure 3). In the north, metamorphic rocks appear from the Menderes mountain range in Turkey, which partly emerge on the mainland and continue in a southwestern direction, meeting the Paleozoic metamorphic basement of the islands of Patmos, Leros, Kalymnos, and Kos. Above these rocks, there are limestone formations and ophiolites formed during the Alpine orogeny. These rocks came from the breaking of the continental crust and the adjacent seabed. From the Greek side, the specific mixtures of crushed rocks (known as nappes) are considered parts of the Pelagonian and Sub-Pelagonian zones, while based on the Turkish literature they are called “Lycian nappes” [13].

Very few studies were published on the geology of Kalymnos Island. From a geological point of view, the island constitutes part of the external Hellenides. In terms of lithologies and pre-Alpidic metamorphic evolution, pre-Alpidic basement rocks have been suggested to share striking similarities with basement rocks in Eastern Crete. During the Variscan orogeny, the lithotectonic units experienced greenschist to amphibolite facies conditions. Unlike the rocks of Eastern Crete, which show Alpine high-pressure overprint, the Variscan basement units of Kalymnos Island shows no or low-grade Alpine metamorphism [14].

The crystalline rocks of suspected Variscan age ([15,16,17]) are exposed in slices of considerable extent (Figure 4). Katagas and Sapountzis [15] distinguished four tectono-metamorphic units, which Franz et al. ([18]) then grouped in only two, the upper Marina unit and the lower Temenia unit, covered with a sedimentary unit attributed to the Miocene. Marina unit is composed of amphibolites and garnet-micaschists (pre-Alpidic basement) and a poorly metamorphosed sedimentary cover composed of Permo-Triassic metapelites metasandstones and Jurassic marbles. They are tectonically underlain by the Temenia Unit ([19]) which consists of late Palaeozoic to Mesozoic sediments affected by Alpidic high-pressure metamorphism ([19]). According to Dürr ([17]) and Dürr et al. ([20]) the crystalline rocks form the basal element of the Marina Unit and are transgressively overlain by siliciclastic “Verrucano” sediments (?Permo-Triassic), which in turn grade upwards into dolomite and limestone (Upper Triassic to Liassic), followed by well bedded limestone with replacement chert (?Upper Jurassic to? Lower Cretaceous). Both the Temenia Unit and the sedimentary formations of the Marina Unit lithologically correspond to units of the Lycian Taurus in SW Turkey [20].

According to Mimides et al. [21], stratigraphically, Kalymnos is structured from the following units (Figure 5):

• Paleozoic unit: it is the oldest unit, and its deepest members are mostly thick-bedded white and dolomite limestones. The intermediate parts are made up of dark thickly bedded and thinly bedded limestones, while the higher members are made up of shale, phyllite, and clay schists with layers of limestone intercalations.
• Tectonic unit of amphibolites, schists, and gneisses: amphibolites can be found in narrow alternations between schists and gneisses. They are fine-grained, middle-grained, and gross-grained rocks with an Upper Carboniferous age.
• Tectonic unit of the Ionian Zone: This unit is made up of sub-units, which are listed below:

  ○

  Clastic base formations of upper Permian: they form the base of the Ionian zone and are composed of fine-grained to coarse-grained sandstones, conglomerates, metashales, clay schists, and micritic and breccial limestones.

  ○

  Triassic dolomites and dolomite limestones. They generated a typical transition on the clastic base formation.

  ○

  Middle limestones are the typical upper development of Triassic dolomites and dolomite limestones. The bottom components are bituminous.

  ○

  Malmian-Cretaceous upper and middle cherty limestones.

• Tectonic unit of Gavrovos zone of upper Jurassic-Cretaceous age, represented by a limestone of considerable thickness.
• Neogene formations: they occur in a variety of locations throughout the island, covering just small areas. They are made up of white marls, yellow-red clays, clay-marls with a gray to gray-yellow tint, white marl limestones, brown-gray and gray thin-middle and thick layered conglomerates, and conglomerates with argillaceous-marly matrix. The Neogene formations are of limnic origin and may be Pliocene in age.
• Quaternary formations which contain the following formations:

  ○

  Pleistocene formations made up by consolidated slide rocks and fan conglomerate, volcanic tuffs, and a volcanic pyroclastic formation with rhyolite as the main component.

  ○

  Holocene formations which comprise talus slope screes and detrital cones, terra-rossa alluvial valley deposits, and coastal sands.

Concerning geomorphology, Kalymnos has a rather irregular shape and a rather mountainous surface. It is a semi-mountainous-mountainous island which has a strong horizontal and vertical partition due to tectonic activity. It is composed of three roughly parallel mountain ranges rising from the sea, oriented approximately west-northwest to east-southeast. The middle one of these three ranges is the tallest and bounded by valleys on both the northern and southern side, while the northernmost range is a long peninsula, which projects to the northwest, with steep slopes all along its length. The presence of numerous deep ravines and mountains is intense throughout its surface. The largest peak of the island is Profitis Ilias (678 m) in the central part of the island. The island can be divided into the northern part where a NNW-SSE orographic axis develops and the southern part where three parallel NNW-SSE orographic axes develop. The only lowland areas of less than 10% of the total area are located at the mouth of the main watercourses in the areas of Panormos and Vathys, (Figure 2).

2.3. Geomorphosites

Our investigated geomorphosites comprise six speleological items (Daskalio, Kefala, Choiromantres, Skalia, Stimenia and Sikati caves) and two climbing fields (Arginonta and Grande Grotta) (Figure 2, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8). It should be noted at this point that not all geomorphosites have been studied, described, and recorded. Therefore, the descriptions of some geosites are quite concise.

Daskalio cave (Figure 2 and Figure 6a,b) is located near the port of Vathys, on the north side of the small fjord-like bay of Rina, at an altitude of up 12 m above sea level. It is only accessible from the sea and by badly preserved stairs, dated back to the Byzantine period. Its narrow entrance leads directly into the main chamber, which is 25 m long and 12 m wide at its widest point. The ceiling reaches a height of 10 meters. The floor slowly dips down to a type of second chamber on the east side, where gigantic stalagmites stand [22]. The floor descends extremely sharply from the bottom chamber to a large hollow where water has accumulated. The pond is now contaminated by sea water, but it once had drinkable water that dripped from the ceiling. Upon excavations, rich artifacts revealed that human activity in the cave began in the late Neolithic Age and lasted throughout the Bronze Age (Early, Middle, and Late) and during the Geometric Times. Daskalio has the most comprehensive collection of finds from this era. Numerous Minoan and Mycenaean vases were recovered in this cave. The location of the cave was used as a site of adoration, as evidenced by the discovery of ritual vessels and a bronze figurine of a praying figure.

Kefala Cave or Cave of Zeus (Figure 2 and Figure 6c) is located in the western side of mount Karina, in southwestern edge of the island, near cape Kefalas, at a distance of 2 km southwest of Vothynoi. It is considered the most impressive and beautiful cave of the entire island. Its extent is 1000 square metres and contains six inner chambers. The cave is characterized by the imposing, 103 m long, corridor with huge stalactites and stalagmites. The entrance of the cave is located at an altitude of 105 m from the sea. The cavern is made up of a hall with maximum dimensions of 40 by 25 m, which has been divided into smaller rooms by groups of stalagmite and stalactite columns. The first hall of the cavern, located beyond the entrance, is small and has a low roof. A tunnel with a steep incline opens on the left side of the hall, leading to the main booth, which has maximum measurements of 9 by 20 by 6 m roughly and downhill flooring. Three smaller halls can be accessed through small apertures in the main hall’s walls. Characteristics are the traces of worship of Olympian Zeus, a fact that gave the cave the alternative name ‘Cave of Zeus’. The cave of Kefala or Zeus was officially discovered in 1960 and was first explored in 1961. In 1977 the cave was mapped by a mission of the Hellenic Speleological Society. In 2004 the cave of Kefala was one of the first caves in Greece in which a topographic plan was made with a laser scanner [23]. Access to the cave can be made either via a path from the Abbey of Saint Aikaterini in Vothynoi or via sea from the harbor of Pothia by small boats that make daily marine excursions to the cave.

Choiromantres Cave (Figure 2) is located on Pothia’s south slope, beneath the monastery of Agioi Pantes (All Saints). Unfortunately, the shape of the cave was altered after the dome collapsed. The current dimensions of the pit are 12 m wide and 3–5.5 m deep. The Italian A. Maiuri, in 1921, carried out an excavation in part of the entrance of the cave. The excavation reached a depth of 4–4.5 m. Within and around the cave, Neolithic artifacts and shells dating back to the early Christian era were uncovered. Their presence attests to the site’s continued occupation and ritual use. Finally, it should be noted that it is not yet known when the canopy collapsed and what the causes were.

Skalia cave or otherwise the cave of Agios Ioannis-is located in Massouri, about one kilometer from Skalia (Figure 2 and Figure 6d–g). The cave was opened in Jurassic dolomitized limestones by erosion. The cave extends from WNW to ESE in a straight line of 60 m. Its greatest depth is 32 m. The area it covers is 1500 m². The length of tourist route crossings reaches 250 m. The inside temperature of the cave in May is about 25 °C. Its humidity reaches 98%. The cave is known for its impressive decoration that includes natural stalactites in strange formations. It is characterized as remarkable from a tourist point of view with international interest since it is very rich in decoration of very tall columns and stalagmite complexes. There are stalagmites such as masts and candles 0.05–0.10 m thick in all their height, which reaches up to 6 m [24].

Stimenia cave (Figure 2 and Figure 7a–c) is located northeast of the valley of Vathys, in the area of Ai Nikolas. Not far from there, in the northwest of the valley, there are two more caves, the findings of which testify their use as dwellings in the distant past. The cave of Stimenia has holes in its top that serve as both a light source for the cave and a way for people to enter. Its interior decoration is extremely impressive. Around the cave there are scattered early Christian and Byzantine ceramics, ancient stone accessories and ruins of buildings.

Sikati Doline (Figure 2 and Figure 7d–g) is located on the northeast coast of Kalymnos, and although climbers refer to it as Sikati, the people refer to it as Alatsia. It is like a giant hole on the ground, a cave with no ceiling, 50–60 m in diameter and partly up to 70 m deep.

Arginonta climbing field (Figure 2 and Figure 8a–c) is located on the northwest side of Kalymnos and is 16.5 km from Pothia. It is a set of three cliffs just a few minutes’ walk from the parking in Arginonta village.

Grande Grotta climbing field (Figure 2 and Figure 8d–e) is one of the most beautiful landscapes of the island of Kalymnos and the most must-see destination for the self-respecting rock climber! The Grande Grotta cave of Kalymnos forms a huge limestone amphitheater. It is 70 m high and 200 m wide, with huge stalactites and stunning views. It is an attraction for thousands of climbers from all over the world, as it offers unforgettable experiences.

2.4. Methodology

To meet the objectives and requirements of effective conservation and management strategies for a region’s geoheritage, systematic collection and processing of information about geosites is regarded as an important step [25].

For the identification and documentation of the geotouristic potential of the island of Kalymnos, we follow the methodological scheme proposed by Drinia et al. [26] which includes five successive stages (Figure 9).

Based on this, the first stage focuses on several publications on the geology and geomorphology of the region, as well as prior scientific and technical reports. The most important and intriguing findings from these studies are picked, and further field observations are conducted to be presented to the public.

The review of geological and archaeological literature in the research region is leading to a number of possible geosites, which are recorded in order to document geotourism potential of the study area. Further research will enable the establishment of an inventory covering all the geologically significant locations (Stage 2).

The quantitative assessment of geotopes (Stage 3) serves as the foundation in the decision-making framework for geotourism development. Although research on the numerical evaluation of geotopes has increased over the last decade, a widely accepted approach has yet to be established in the geoscientific community. The main issue is that the emphasis on evaluation criteria varies depending on the interests and perspectives of the researchers, resulting in a lack of objectivity. Quantitative approaches are typically focused on a variety of standards and relevant metrics to which various scores or parameters can be assigned [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. In this study, the adopted evaluation method is the one of Brilha’s [25] which provides a quantification proposal consisting of four factors: scientific value (SV), potential educational use (PEU), potential touristic use (PTU), and degradation risk (DR).

Ιn the quantitative assessment of the scientific value (SV), the following seven criteria are applied: representativeness, key locality, scientific knowledge, integrity, geological diversity, rarity, use limitations. The first term illustrates the potential of a geotope to highlight a geological process or various features. The term “key locality” is referred to the importance of the geotope as a reference point for various geological features. The “scientific knowledge” plays a key role if there are publications nationally or internationally. “Integrity” indicates the conservation status of the geotope. “Geological diversity” explores the number of different geological elements found in the geotope. With the term “rarity” is studied if there are geotopes with similar characteristics in the same area. Finally, the term “use limitations” addresses the obstacles and limitations that exist and may make it difficult to research and study the geotope.

For the quantitative assessment of the educational potential (PEU), 12 criteria are applied. First, the vulnerability focuses on the existence of geological elements that can be damaged by the visitors. Moreover, this method examines the accessibility of the geotope and the use limitations if there are some obstacles. Further, the status of safety and the potential facilities which could be offered are explored. Also, the density of population and the association of the geotope with other values such cultural, aesthetic, etc. are determined. Afterwards, the method based on the scenery of the area and its uniqueness. Moreover, the observation conditions and the didactic potential are explored.

For the quantitative assessment of the geotouristic potential (PTU), 13 criteria are applied, the first 10 of which are similar to those for the educational use and the rest three ones consider the interpretative potential, the economic level of the people who live in the area and the proximity of recreational areas.

Each of the criteria was assigned one to four points, where for SV, PEU, and PTU, a score of one corresponds to low possibility of use and a score of four corresponds to high possibility of use.

The degradation risk (DR) refers to the possibility of a geosite being damaged or destroyed, i.e., losing any of the characteristics that make it valuable as a geosite [35,36,40,41]. For the evaluation and quantification of degradation risk (DR), Brilha [25] proposes five criteria: deterioration of geological elements, proximity to areas/activities with potential to cause degradation, legal protection, accessibility, and density of population.

It is worth mentioning that the criteria applied in this study are subjective, in the sense that they were adjusted to the peculiarities of the studied location.

The second part of the geosite quantification process comprises of weighing criteria. Weights were applied to each of the quantification criteria based on their importance in order to examine the potential for scientific, educational and tourist use. Weights are also assigned to each of the criteria based on their importance in assessing the degradation risk of geosites. The weights used in this study are according to Brilha [25]. Based on this, the scientific value (SV) of a geosite is equal to the algebraic sum of: representativeness*30 + key locality*20 + scientific knowledge*5 + integrity*15 + geological diversity*5 + rarity*15 + use limitations*10. The PEU equals to vulnerability*10 + accessibility*10 + use limitations*5 + safety*10 + logistics*5 + density of population*5 + association with other values*5 + scenery*5 + uniqueness*5 + observation conditions*10 + didactic potential*20 + geological diversity*10. Finally, the PTU is equal with vulnerability*10 + accessibility*10 + use limitations*5 + safety*10 + logistics*5 + density of population*5 + association with other values*5 + scenery*15 + uniqueness*10 + observation conditions*5 + interpretative potential*10 + economic level*5 + proximity of recreational areas*5. As far as calculation of the degradation risk (DR) is concerned, this is estimated by the algebraic sum of deterioration of geological features*35 + proximity to areas/activities with potential to cause degradation*20 + legal protection*20 + accessibility*15 + density of population*10.

Based on the criteria, it is possible to classify the geosites as having a low, medium, or high degradation risk, according to the categorization developed by Brilha [25].

Although evaluation is sufficient for identifying key geosites, further re ias required to make available access decisions. A SWOT analysis (Stage 4) based on evaluation data should be prepared for this reason, which clearly defines the strengths and weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. A basic SWOT (Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, Threats) analysis was used in our research (e.g., [42,43,44,45]), with the participation of a small number (50) of representatives from the public and private sectors, as well as the public, with the goal of gathering some preliminary opinions in order to consider and further evaluate the geotourism potential of the area (Stage 5).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Quantitative Evaluation of Geotourism Potential

To complete the quantification of the evaluation for the potential utilization at scientific, educational and tourist level, certain criteria with the respective weighting factors are taken into account first.

Examining both the scientific and educational criteria at first glance, it is discovered that the geological areas of the island that are of great interest fulfil the entire range of criteria. In fact, they adhere to strict specifications so that potential geotopes can be used in the future and in a more systematic manner for educational and scientific purposes. Observing the results of the evaluation, initially for the scientific value (SV), (

Table 1. Quantitative evaluation of geosites for scientific value (SV).

		Caves						Climbing Field
Scientific Criteria	Weight	Daskalio	Kefala	Choiromantres	Skalia	Stimenia	Sikati	Arginonta	Grande Grotta
Representativeness	30	2	4	2	4	4	4	4	4
Key locality	20	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Scientific knowledge	5	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Integrity	15	4	4	1	4	4	4	4	4
Geological diversity	5	2	2	1	2	2	4	4	4
Rarity	15	1	1	1	1	1	4	4	4
Use limitations	10	4	4	4	4	1	4	4	4
Total Score		210 Moderate	270 Moderate	160 Low	270 Moderate	240 Moderate	325 High	325 High	325 High

<200 Low, 201–300 Moderate, >301 High [46].

) a high score is distinguished in three study areas (>301 [46]). In particular, it is found that the climbing fields and the cave of Sikati show a final score of 325. This is mainly due to the rarity of the specific sites as well as the representativeness of the geological features that exist in them. On the contrary, the lowest score (<200) is shown in the Choiromantres cave. All other locations show a moderate score (201–300) ranging from 210 to 270.

As far as the potential educational use (PEU—

Table 2. Quantitative evaluation of geosites for educational potential use (PEU).

		Caves						Climbing Field
Educational Criteria	Weight	Daskalio	Kefala	Choiromantres	Skalia	Stimenia	Sikati	Arginonta	Grande Grotta
Vulnerability	10	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Accessibility	10	3	4	4	4	3	3	4	4
Use limitations	5	3	4	4	4	1	2	4	4
Safety	10	3	4	1	3	2	2	4	4
Logistics	5	4	4	2	4	4	4	4	4
Density of population	5	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Association with other values	5	4	4	4	2	4	2	2	2
Scenery	5	2	2	2	2	2	2	4	4
Uniqueness	5	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Observation conditions	10	4	4	2	4	4	4	4	4
Didactic potential	20	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
Geological diversity	10	2	2	1	2	2	4	4	4
Total score		320 High	340 High	270 Moderate	320 High	295 Moderate	310 High	360 High	360 High

<200 Low, 201–300 Moderate, >301 High [46].

) is concerned, it is found that four caves have a high score, while moderate scores were obtained by two other caves. More specifically, the Choiromantres cave does not present a strong geological variety. Furthermore, the public can not so easily reach the interior and the main part of the Stimenia cave. On the other hand, the other sites show high scores, and they are suitable for educational use. It is noteworthy that both climbing fields engage a fairly satisfactory score. In fact, almost all sites are interconnected with other values such as historical, cultural, etc.

Tourism values are essential for the promotion and development of geotourism. Studying the potential touristic use (PTU—

Table 3. Quantitative evaluation of geosites for tourism potential use (PTU).

		Caves						Climbing Field
Touristic Criteria	Weight	Daskalio	Kefala	Choiromantres	Skalia	Stimenia	Sikati	Arginonta	Grande Grotta
Vulnerability	10	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Accessibility	10	3	4	4	4	3	3	4	4
Use limitations	5	3	4	4	4	1	2	4	4
Safety	10	3	4	1	3	2	2	4	4
Logistics	5	4	4	2	4	4	4	4	4
Density of population	5	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Association with other values	5	4	4	4	2	4	2	2	2
Scenery	15	2	2	2	2	2	2	4	4
Uniqueness	10	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Observation conditions	5	4	4	2	4	4	4	4	4
Interpretative potential	10	4	4	3	4	4	4	4	4
Economic level	5	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Proximity of recreational areas	5	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Total Score		320 High	335 High	275 Moderate	315 High	290 Moderate	285 Moderate	355 High	355 High

<200 Low, 201–300 Moderate, >301 High [46].

) of the studied areas, all locations have a high score. In fact, the climbing fields show quite high scores due to their uniqueness regarding their scenery. However, the caves also show high scores in almost all factors. The only negative element in this table is the economic level of the citizens in the area

3.2. Degradation Risk

Ιt is equally important to study and analyze the degree of degradation risk, according to Brilha’s [25] degradation criteria. For this purpose, the following table was created (

Table 4. Degradation risk evaluation of geosites.

		Caves						Climbing Fields
Degradation Risk Criteria	Weight	Daskalio	Kefala	Choiromantres	Skalia	Stimenia	Sikati	Arginonta	Grande Grotta
Deterioration of geological features	35	1	1	3	1	1	1	1	1
Proximity to areas/activities with potential to cause degradation	20	2	2	3	2	2	1	2	2
Legal protection	20	2	1	2	1	2	3	4	4
Accessibility	15	1	3	3	4	4	3	3	3
Density of population	10	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Total score		170 Low	180 Low	290 Moderate	195 Low	215 Moderate	200 Low/Moderate	240 Moderate	240 Moderate

<200 Low, 201–300 Moderate, >301 High [25,46].

). Studying the results of the table it is observed that the climbing fields which are relatively close to the main road axis of the island are more vulnerable showing a relatively high score, while the lowest score is shown by the Daskalio cave that is accessible by sea. It is also worth mentioning that not all sites show high scores, which is a significant positive factor for their more systematic and rational use.

3.3. SWOT Analysis

In order to explore the possibilities for the development of geotourism, it was considered appropriate to carry out a preparatory study. This survey was performed applying the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis, which is a strategic planning tool implemented to better analyze a broader plan. More specifically, this method of analysis focuses on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of endeavor by comparing and outlining them, (e.g., [47,48]), (

Table 5. SWOT analysis of geotouristic perspective.

Strengths	Opportunities
World destination for climbers Sport tourism Recreational activities Climbing fest each year Attractive landscape Numerous caves World wide known climbing fields A field of special scientific interest and of natural beauty	Exploration, recording and promotion of the island’s speleological treasure Increase of the number of tourists Geoeducation activities Creation of geotourism trails Economic tourism opportunities New offers for jobs Creation of geo-museum Development of tourism infrastructure Expansion of tourism offerings New cultural events
Weaknesses	Threats
Local people have limited knowledge of geoheritage Local people have limited environmental awareness Lack of geotouristic management Limited financial aid from government agencies Low cognition and knowledge about geoconservation Kalymnos is not a popular tourist destination Lack of tourism infrastructure	Exposure of geosites to natural phenomena Exhibition in anthropogenic activities Ιnsufficient funding Involving of different bodies Economic and political instability in the country Lack of interest of the local authorities

).

The SWOT analysis results show that geotourism and associated services or products, such as leisure and geoeducation activities, may have a potential in Kalymnos Island. This is initially justified by the public’s worldwide interest in discovering all of the island’s climbing fields and caves. In addition, an annual festival is held with the participation of the best climbers from around the world. This is a fantastic advertisement for the island, increasing tourist utilization and development, particularly in terms of infrastructure. Aside from the climbing fields on the steep slopes, more than 50 caves have been located, although only a limited number have been researched and recorded by the Hellenic Speleological Society. There is an urgent need for the island’s speleological treasure to be explored, recorded, and promoted to local agencies and the public. The highlighting and exploitation of the caverns will undoubtedly be a topic of attraction not only for athletes and climbers, but also for other people interested in distinctive geosites. As a result, the island’s visitor traffic will expand, necessitating the development of sufficient infrastructure to support it. To increase the number of tourists, tourist organizations must collaborate with travel agencies and active hiking and mountaineering associations.

Furthermore, SWOT analysis reveals a lack of a consistent and coordinated framework established by a competent or regional authority. The local community lacks basic knowledge on geological issues, and this lack of awareness is a serious impediment to the marketing of geotourism services. Indeed, field research and contact with locals and agents revealed that they were unaware of the island’s dominant and most basic rock, the limestone. Furthermore, they were unaware that this rock is linked to the presence of caves, and that the climbing fields that exist to such an extent and intensity are, once again, due to the presence of limestone. This is due to the fact that in the Greek educational system, the education of students is characterized as very limited or non-existent and is considered incomplete to negligible in the field of geosciences and geoenvironmental sciences [49], although knowledge of geosciences is important for everyday life [50]. As a result, education in geological heritage is regarded as necessary.

In addition to the individual initiative, the promotion of Kalymnos’ geological heritage necessitates regional financial support and the launch of a serious marketing campaign. The absence of a management framework for identifying, determining, and reporting any relationship to the geotourism product and its principles might be a hindrance to geotourism development. To achieve the intended goals, a collaborative effort at the local level is required. There is currently no coherent and coordinated plan of action by a competent or regional authority. Furthermore, the local community lacks fundamental geoscience knowledge and hence is unable to contribute to the promotion of the area’s geological heritage. A fundamental barrier to the promotion of geotourism services is a lack of knowledge and awareness. To overcome this, a strategic educational planning of geo-education in school practice with the integration of geo-heritage in the subject of environmental education (geo-environmental education) is imperative [51]. There is still no strategic or financial support for the protection, promotion, and preservation of these sites, and yet climbers from all over the world are traveling to this island to experience its uniqueness. Consequently, it is necessary to create a regulatory framework which will offer the full range of possibilities appropriate in the context of geotourism and sustainable development, under the positive impact of strategic management.

Geotourism will provide excellent public access prospects. The number of tourists already visiting Kalymnos Island may undoubtedly expand. This new tourism perspective may support the extension of tourism offerings as well as the increase of economic challenges and the upgrading of existing tourism infrastructure. This can also lead to the creation of new job offers as local tourist guides for geological–archaeological tourism.

Geotourism, if integrated into the island’s mass tourism activities, can have a positive impact on the social economy. As an example, we mention the possibility of geo-tours by special and trained staff. In this way, the provided tourist services are expanded. This will lead to the creation of new employment opportunities for human resources in the tourism sector. Thus, rational management can make a positive contribution to stimulating the financial situation of the place.

The establishment of a natural history museum will have a significant impact on the growth of geotourism. So far there is no corresponding museum on this island, emphasizing the crucial need to promote geological heritage. The museum will host exhibitions and educational events for both tourists and academic personnel. As a result, the island will enjoy economic benefits, while raising the living standards of its inhabitants. However, in order for all the aforementioned factors to be implemented, the constructive input of the local political leadership is essential. Geotourism development could be promoted in this manner under the umbrella of the local authorities.

However, the recognition and assessment of the island of Kalymnos’ geological heritage, as well as the development of adequate infrastructure for the growth of geotourism, are the responsibility of the local municipality and are largely supported by regional funds. Depending on the variable financial opportunities and varied local-regional political circumstances, this may result in management issues (multiple bodies engaged) and inconsistent funding.

Finally, the exposure of the geotopes to extreme phenomena, as well as the unpredictable invasion of tourists without proper guidance, pose a significant threat to the safeguarding of Kalymnos’ geological heritage.

4. Conclusions

The small island of Kalymnos, once famed for its sponge fishery, is today known as the Mecca for climbers. The enormous limestone blocks that characterize the island’s geomorphology attract a great number of climbers from all over the world each year. However, this is inadequate to sustain and grow the island’s economy. Furthermore, since the island is not a popular tourist destination, it lacks the necessary infrastructure to support it.

The goal of this study is to assess the geodiversity of the island of Kalymnos in order to identify geosites with greater potential for tourism use, which would then be the recipients of educational and interpretative geotourism activities. Our SWOT analysis presents the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of this tourist destination.

As a consequence of the data given, it was confirmed that Kalymnos has a promising geological and geomorphological wealth that is not always promoted to visitors.

The island of Kalymnos has a rich geodiversity, and it is hoped that the development of geotourism activities will contribute to the knowledge, valuation, and conservation of the island’s geodiversity and biodiversity through interpretive processes promoted by environmental education. In order for such activities to be successful, strategies must be developed collaboratively, with the participation of local authorities, tourism managers, visitors, and academics.