Next Article in Journal
An Overview of Geophysical Techniques and Their Potential Suitability for Archaeological Studies
Next Article in Special Issue
Roman Marble Collections in the Earth Sciences Museum of the University of Bari (Italy): A Valuable Heritage to Support Provenance Studies
Previous Article in Journal
The Medieval Glass Mosaic of S. Agnese fuori le mura in Rome: Multispectral Imaging for Preliminary Identification of Original Tesserae
Previous Article in Special Issue
Global Cultural Conflict and Digital Identity: Transforming Museums
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Heritage
Volume 6
Issue 3
10.3390/heritage6030153
heritage-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Geo-Environmental Assessment of Tourist Development and Its Impact on Sustainability

by
Fernando Morante-Carballo
1,2,3,
Boris Apolo-Masache
1,2,4,*,
Fred Taranto-Moreira
5,
Bethy Merchán-Sanmartín
1,3,6,
Lady Soto-Navarrete
7,8,
Gricelda Herrera-Franco
3,9 and
Paúl Carrión-Mero
1,6,*
1
Centro de Investigaciones y Proyectos Aplicados a las Ciencias de la Tierra (CIPAT), ESPOL Polytechnic University, Campus Gustavo Galindo Km 30.5 Vía Perimetral, Guayaquil P.O. Box 09-01-5863, Ecuador
2
Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Matemáticas (FCNM), ESPOL Polytechnic University, Campus Gustavo Galindo Km 30.5 Vía Perimetral, Guayaquil P.O. Box 09-01-5863, Ecuador
3
Geo-Recursos y Aplicaciones (GIGA), ESPOL Polytechnic University, Campus Gustavo Galindo Km. 30.5 Vía Perimetral, Guayaquil P.O. Box 09-01-5863, Ecuador
4
Centro Del Agua y Desarrollo Sustentable (CADS), ESPOL Polytechnic University, Campus Gustavo Galindo Km 30.5 Vía Perimetral, Guayaquil P.O. Box 09-01-5863, Ecuador
5
Facultad de Ciencias Ambientales, Campus Ing. Manuel Haz Álvarez, Universidad Técnica Estatal de Quevedo, Av. Quito km. 1 1/2 Vía a Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas, Quevedo P.O. Box 120301, Ecuador
6
Facultad de Ingeniería en Ciencias de la Tierra (FICT), ESPOL Polytechnic University, Campus Gustavo Galindo Km 30.5 Vía Perimetral, Guayaquil P.O. Box 09-01-5863, Ecuador
7
Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y Humanísticas (FCSH), ESPOL Polytechnic University, Campus Gustavo Galindo Km. 30.5 Vía Perimetral, Guayaquil P.O. Box 09-01-5863, Ecuador
8
Grupo de Investigación en Turismo Marino y Costero, ESPOL Polytechnic University, Campus Gustavo Galindo Km. 30.5 Vía Perimetral, Guayaquil P.O. Box 09-01-5863, Ecuador
9
Facultad de Ciencias de la Ingeniería, Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena (UPSE), Avda. Principal La Libertad–Santa Elena, La Libertad P.O. Box 240204, Ecuador
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Heritage 2023, 6(3), 2863-2885; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6030153
Submission received: 4 February 2023 / Revised: 6 March 2023 / Accepted: 6 March 2023 / Published: 9 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Museums for Heritage Preservation and Communication)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The evaluation of geosites is an essential part of conserving the geodiversity and biodiversity of an ecosystem, as well as safeguarding the cultural, geological, environmental, and landscape wealth that a highly recognized geographical area possesses. In this context, Guayaquil, the pearl of the Pacific, is a city that registers, in its history and evolution, a binding relationship with the geo-biodiversity of the geosites that characterize it. This work aims to assess places of tourist interest in Guayaquil and its surrounding areas through a geo-environmental evaluation matrix to establish a sustainability proposal that promotes the geotourism development of the city. The methodology consisted of: (i) geographic registration of the chosen sites and present characteristics, (ii) environmental analysis of the sites based on the cause–effect method, and (iii) strategies for the inclusion of these sites into the geo-environmental and geotourism system of Guayaquil as potential geosites. The results demonstrate that Guayaquil has impressive geodiversity in several potential natural sites, obtaining highly representative values that reinforce the city’s natural diversity elements. Sites such as Cerro San Pedro and the Cerro San Eduardo, Pascuales, and Zeolites quarries have the most significant adverse environmental impacts. While places such as Cerro Azul, Estero Salado, Isla Santay, and Hornos de Cal (Bosque Protector Cerro Blanco), obtained positive values that highlight their environmental value, being of great benefit to the city and to nature. Furthermore, some of these places could be integrated into tourism development plans, and as potential geosites, they could complement various services and opportunities for discovering nature. Finally, all this can lead to a sustainable proposal for a Global Geopark project in Guayaquil based on the results obtained in this work.

1. Introduction

The most outstanding scenic and unique places on planet Earth are undoubtedly a sample of geological evolution [1] and the interaction between the environment and living beings [2,3]. The characteristics present in each site and the participation of the local community make these megadiverse places, where geodiversity and biodiversity abound which make for a potentially touristic geological site [4,5,6]. Places such as Toba Caldera Geoheritage (Sumatra island, Indonesia) [7], the bio-geocultural areas of the Mediterranean region of Chile [8], the humid mountains in the northeast of Brazil [9], mining sites [10], and in general, geotrails or places with geological and mining heritage [11,12,13,14,15].
After the Convention on Biological Diversity (in 1992), the term “geodiversity” arose in 1993 among geoscientists, who proposed this term at the end of the 1990s until the International Union for Conservation of Nature finally recognized it [16,17]. Geodiversity is a set of sites with unique natural characteristics, made up of geological, geomorphological, and landscape or soil systems created by biological processes or human activity [18,19]. According to Gray M. [5], this term is the abiotic equivalent of biodiversity, providing goods and services to society, it is essential as a backbone for geoheritage and geoconservation (elements of geodiversity worth conserving). Contrary to this, biodiversity focuses on the relationship between the flora and fauna of a sector and the geological history they present [20,21].
Evaluating the geodiversity of a geological and/or mining site (geosite) can greatly support the designation of future Geoparks [22,23]. These areas highlight the most important aspects of the geographical sector (nationally and internationally), safeguarding geological and landscape wealth through strategies that contribute to the conservation of the environment [24,25,26] and education in earth sciences and promotion of sustainable development of the local economy [27,28]. In this context, geotourism plays an important role in the development of Geoparks [29,30,31,32]. In addition, 177 geoparks exist scattered throughout the 46 countries with official recognition, directly endorsed and monitored by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) [33]. The Geopark concept was conceived of as a tool for the protection and promotion of the geological heritage of the Earth, it was discussed for the first time at the Digne Convention in 1991 and obtained the support of UNESCO in the Global Geoparks Program [34].
The unique aspects or characteristics of the geosites promote the sector’s scientific, educational, and tourist interests [35,36]. Moreover, in this way, considering the social, historical, and cultural value of geoheritage [37,38,39,40], can influence socio-economic development [41] and sociocultural sustainability [42]. In this regard, implementing geotourism in areas with natural and cultural wealth can significantly contribute to the geoconservation of geosites [43,44,45,46]. These present a patrimonial value (cultural, geological, or mining) inside or outside a city that deserves to be recognized [47,48,49,50].
Geoconservation is the set of actions aimed at preserving the geological heritage and existing biodiversity in a geosite [51,52,53] through using natural resources in a socially just and economically viable manner [54,55]. In recent decades, in some places, with the support of local participation, geoconservation and the evaluation of geosites have been promoted [56,57,58], allowing for to registration and management of these places [59,60,61]. One example is Jeju Island in South Korea. Thanks to its geodiversity, biodiversity, and socio-cultural aspects, it has achieved several nominations [62,63] as a natural heritage site of humanity, a biosphere reserve, a Global Geopark, and a RAMSAR wetland. As a result, it has increased scope and objectives [52], whereas environmental geology as a study focused on the interaction of human activities with the environment, hazards, and the natural resources of the Earth [44]. IUCN and several researchers [64] highlight the importance of conserving the integrity and natural diversity of the earth through guidelines and adequate management of the areas for the long-term conservation of nature.
Initially, the environmental impact assessment was conducted using matrices, such as Leopold’s, which considered the actions and environmental factors in an ecosystem [65,66]. This evaluation is a useful procedure or tool to describe the environmental impacts of projects, works, or human activities to be accepted, modified, or rejected by the respective entity that regulates them [67]. The cause–effect matrix is an evaluation method derived from the Leopold matrix [68], an improved and adaptable version that makes it possible to identify and evaluate environmental performance more effectively, analyzing the cost-benefit of social activities and the flow of inputs, products, and waste generated [69].
Among the environmental impacts of this reality, the profound transformation of the land and outdoor activities stand out, such as geological and natural reserves that can be sustainably used in environmental tourism and geotourism [65,70]. In addition, exploring and identifying environmental problems in geosites promote the care and mitigation of risks that can affect society and the environment [71,72]. The conservation of these sites as protected areas is a process that would generate economic income in the region, creating benefits for local communities and encouraging the application of environmentally friendly geotourism [54,73,74].
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations in 2015 contain the most ambitious global agenda approved by the international community [75]. Among its objectives are various key aspects such as climate change, environmental degradation, developing inclusive and sustainable cities, geoheritage, geotourism, and geoeducation [76,77]. The UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGs) and the contributions it provides are focused on the direct assistance of eight SDGs (1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 17) [78,79]. However, directly or indirectly, it has been claimed that they contribute to the 17 established SDGs [80], which could greatly benefit the different key aspects present in geosites or sites of interest.
Guayaquil is one of the most populated and largest cities in Ecuador. It presents a tourism potential linked to commercial and recreational activity in its geosites due to its landscape characteristics and available outdoor activities [81,82]. In addition, given the confinement related to the COVID-19 pandemic, people are seeking spacious, natural, and diverse places, so the development of many places should be increased, aimed at creating a sustainable city and tourist destination [83]. The implementation and promotion of geotourism in Guayaquil meet various SDGs through tourism development in natural areas [84,85]. These focus specifically on geo-biodiversity and the heritage value of the place, allowing it to become an instrument to promote economic development, geoconservation, and geoeducation about its natural heritage [86,87,88].
The study city has several sites of geological and mining interest, in which geodiversity linked to the three geomorphological macro-domains of Guayaquil stands out (see Figure 1): (i) the alluvial plain of the Daule and Babahoyo rivers, (ii) the estuarine-deltaic plain of the Guayas river, and (iii) the Chongón-Colonche mountain range. Furthermore, geologically, Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks, Quaternary sedimentary deposits, and volcanic sites stand out in the city and its surroundings [89,90]. Some sites are formed by natural fluvial/intertidal processes, rock outcrops with landscape features, and quarries due to their geological composition. There is a unique local geodiversity defining the geoheritage of the area linked to natural, ancient, and historical areas framed by the natural environment, urban development, and human activities of yesteryear.
Guayaquil presents sites with a high tourist, scientific, and educational index, influencing the possibility of sustainable development for their environment and the community [90]. Therefore, what strategic elements are considered to establish a sustainability proposal through a geo-environmental evaluation? This work aims to assess eight sites of geological and environmental interest, in the tourist context of Guayaquil and its surrounding areas, through a geo-environmental evaluation matrix that considers the different aspects of impacts using a cause–effect analysis for a proposal of sustainability as an tool for decision-makers that promotes the development geotourism within the city.

2. Materials and Methods

The following study has three phases (Figure 2): (i) geographic record of the chosen geosites and present characteristics, (ii) environmental analysis of the geosites based on the cause–effect method, and (iii) strategies for inclusion of these sites in the Guayaquil geo-environmental and geotourism system, to promote sustainable development in the city.

2.1. Geographical Registration and Characteristics of Sites of Interest

This phase consisted of a bibliographic review of the sites of interest around Guayaquil to determine their main characteristics from a previous study [90], in which they valued 12 places through the Brilha-Medina (2015) methodology [92], focused on the tourist, educational, and research aspects. As a result, these places have more than 50% approval as potential geosites (see Table 1). However, a subsequent study evaluated the geo-environmental impact at three locations from the same article [93].
Table 1 shows the percentage of approval of the geosites according to the relevance value (between 5.2 and 15.7), scientific/educational and tourism (both between 1 and 3), as well as the geoconservation index of each, since the higher the value, the better the conditions of each site. Additionally, because Puná Island is geographically far from the city, this work only considered the eight remaining sites:
These sites, as potential geosites, have a percentage of approval greater than 50%, optimal for the objective of this study since they are suitable for tourist and scientific/educational use of the geodiversity and geoheritage they represent. However, these places present various aspects with positive and negative influences (see the results section in Section 3.2). Therefore, through field visits, they were identified and evaluated from the experts’ criteria.
The group of experts is made up of: Ph.D. Paul Carrión, Ph.D. Fernando Morante, Ph.D. Gricelda Herrera, MSc. Bethy Merchán, MSc. Lady Soto, Ing. Fred Taranto, and Ing. Boris Apolo (Table S1 of the supplementary material provides access to the academic profile of each evaluator). The experts addressed issues related to environmental aspects for their respective evaluation, which depended on the criteria/experience of the evaluator. Therefore, the impact value of the geosite would consider the average value assigned to each parameter.

2.2. Environmental Analysis of the Sites Evaluated Based on the Cause–Effect Method

The cause–effect matrix allows for an environmental impact assessment, observing the interactions and interrelationships between the different components of the natural and anthropogenic environment [94]. As shown in Figure 3, the parameters used are: “character” which indicates whether the identified aspect is positive or negative; “duration” and “reversibility” correspond to the time that the effect will remain, depending on its recovery capacity [93,95]. The parameters “probability”, “intensity”, and “extension” can be qualified in three values depending on the scale required by the evaluator [96]. The parameter “importance” is related to the degree of relevance that varies from 1 to 10, with 10 being a very important interaction and 1 as a relatively unimportant interaction [97].
The identified factors make it possible to detect those aspects with information about the state of the environment. For its evaluation, the matrix has (i) rows with the environmental factors that may be affected and (ii) columns with the actions that may cause impact. This allowed for the detection of the positive and negative environmental consequences in each site of interest [98].

2.3. Analysis of Results and Strategies for Including Sites in a Geo-Environmental and Geotourism System

This phase analyses the results through the participation of expert researchers considering proposals and actions that could mitigate the identified environmental impact [99]. In addition, it focused on positive environmental aspects, contributed to implementing geotourism strategies that promote local development, and focused on the conservation and sustainable development of geosites in Guayaquil [100].
The negative values (−) results represent each evaluated site’s adverse environmental impacts and the degree of magnitude. On the other hand, the positive aspects (+) identified through the cause–effect matrix are those aspects that benefit the sector in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way. Based on these data, it is feasible to make an environmental mitigation proposal, exposing solutions according to the strengths of each place [101,102]. In this context, it is possible to establish strategies linked to geotourism, geoconservation, geoeducation, and the mitigation of environmental impacts [103] in search of sustainability [41,85,104].

3. Results

3.1. Registration of Sites of Interest and Their Main Aspects Identified

The eight identified sites have various characteristics that highlight their tourist, scientific, and cultural interests. Four of these places are in the city’s interior, while the rest are in the vicinity of the city’s outskirts. The geographical map of Figure 4 shows the location of each sector, while Table 2 presents a description of each valued site. In addition, this study established a strategic reference site for the geographical visualization of the evaluated areas. Cerro Santa Ana is the appropriate site due to its historical and tourist importance as well as its position in the Guayaquil environment.

3.2. Environmental Aspects of the Guayaquil Geosites

The identified environmental aspects are present in the current state of each place and identified through on-site visits. Table 3 shows the twenty-four aspects valued and categorized into four sections. For further details, Table S2 of the supplementary material shows each aspect described in 24 items for environmental assessment [115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143].
Figure 5 presents the impact values of the environmental aspect present in each geosite (differentiated by colors). The negative values (−) represent the adverse environmental impacts in the evaluated sites. On the other hand, the positive values (+) symbolize the strengths that provide sustainability at each site of analysis. In addition, the length of each bar is represented by the magnitude of the impact, for example: in the perception of gas emission, the first has a value of approximately 15, the second has a value of 7, the third a value of 12, the fourth a value of 30, the fifth a value of 50, the sixth a value of 7, the seventh a value of 10, the eighth a value of 40, and the ninth a value of 50.
The Hornos de Cal, Isla Santay, Estero Salado, and Cerro Azul geosites present a minimum number of negative environmental aspects, highlighting the elements of geo-biodiversity as a natural bridge to sustainability. Conversely, the quarries and Cerro San Pedro present a greater number of adverse environmental impacts, causing an imbalance in the natural ecosystem of the city.
The valuation of these sites determined that biodiversity (flora and fauna) is present in most of the areas of interest, linked to reforestation and adaptations of these places, except the quarries (including those of Cerro San Eduardo). In addition, geodiversity, due to its landscape load and cultural symbolism, allows for the generation of various services, jobs, and commercial activities. In terms of tourism, which allows for social recreation by tourists (except Cerro San Pedro and the quarries), this shows the key points that could enhance the interest and comfort of people (locals and visitors) because these places allow for geo-environmental conservation and sustainability.
On the other hand, vehicles (transport or heavy machinery) are present with greater force in the quarries than in the rest of the geosites. Therefore, aspects such as the perception of noise, vibrations, bad odors, and electricity consumption are found more frequently in most places, except for protected areas such as the Hornos de Cal in the Bosque Protector Cerro Blanco, which encourages conservation and care by visitors.
In general, this result determined the link between the most relevant environmental aspects with the daily activities of the city, such as industry, loss of vegetation cover (in quarries), waste generation, and emission or perception of gases; this has an impact on the ecosystem and all of the sites of interest that were analyzed.

3.3. Most Significant Favorable Environmental Aspects

Figure 6 shows the magnitudes of positive evaluation (+) greater than 60 (indicated within the colored rectangles). In this context, values of more than 80 represent the strengths of the geosites, indicating those sites with the highest evaluation.
Most of the sites have aspects that highlight environmental interest. However, places like Cerro San Pedro and the quarries have few elements that benefit the sector. Except for the quarries on Cerro San Eduardo, where there is economic influence and employment generation that favor the industry, but not of the same magnitude in terms of environmental care.
Favorable aspects such as flora, fauna, social recreation, tourist security, employment generation, tourist carrying capacity, and the symbolic or cultural figure that the remaining sites have are strengths that benefit most of the evaluated sectors. These aspects promote the sustainability of the areas of interest to address the adverse impacts in each place.
Cerro Azul and the Hornos de Cal are natural reserves with a high degree of environmental benefit, essential for tourism in natural areas located on the city’s outskirts. In this context, Santay Island has fewer aspects; however, it is a symbol or cultural figure of the country, where flora and fauna abound for visitors’ research and social recreation. On the other hand, sectors within the city, such as Estero Salado, better promote commercial activities and the generation of services through various outdoor activities in a semi-natural environment.

3.4. Most Significant Unfavorable Environmental Aspects

Figure 7 shows the unfavorable aspects with extreme magnitudes between −60 and −100. The closer to −100, the greater the degree of affectation the site receives for each identified and valued adverse environmental impact. In addition, geosites such as Cerro Azul and Hornos de Cal are absent in the figure because they do not present significant unfavorable aspects (between −60 and −100).
The quarries are the most affected due to the presence of vehicles and heavy machinery. Industrial activity in the sector increases environmental pollution due to the emission of noise, vibrations, and gases. Additionally, tourist security is not guaranteed, especially in the quarries on Cerro San Eduardo, where there is a high degree of affectation for future applications as visitor sites after the closure phase that all quarries must have. Cerro San Pedro and Canteras de Pascuales present a similar condition, mainly due to low security for visitors.
Sectors in the city’s interior, such as Estero Salado, are mainly affected by high electricity consumption due to lighting in different areas, such as dining rooms, shops, sanitary batteries, and social recreation facilities (arcade games). However, in remote areas such as Santay Island, it is observed that there is a considerable impact due to the mismanagement of residual water and the waste generated in each sector (organic and inorganic).

3.5. Average Impact Value at Sites of Interest

Figure 8 represents the impact value in each place analyzed, based on the average value of all the aspects evaluated in this work. These values range from 0 to 100 in a positive (+) and negative (−) way, displayed at the bottom and where their magnitude refers to their impact or strengths.
Active quarries such as Pascuales and those located on Cerro San Eduardo have a greater negative environmental impact than the Zeolite quarry. However, because it is in a more isolated place and surrounded by dry vegetation (typical of the area), it would not affect the ecosystem’s inhabitants (on a large scale). On the other hand, Cerro San Pedro, being an isolated place with little traffic, presents impacts related to the low level of security and low usage of its resources or characteristics.
Sectors in natural and ecological reserves, such as Hornos de Cal and Cerro Azul, present a better use of their natural resources, promoting a good relationship between nature and daily life in the city. Additionally, in sectors more embedded in the city, such as the Malecón del Estero Salado, there is a balance between anthropogenic activity and the environment. However, one of its main unfavorable aspects is electricity consumption. Unlike Santay Island, where many natural areas highlight the sector’s geotourism value, it is affected by the low control of waste.
All of this information highlights that these four geosites are the most suitable for generating georoutes and increasing tourism and improving the commercial and social activity of the city with important natural sites.

3.6. Strategies for the Sustainability Proposal

The evaluations determined several favorable aspects with multiple benefits for these sites. Therefore, ideas or proposals are proposed that mitigate the negative impacts identified, managing to promote or take advantage of the resources of each place to achieve their sustainability (see Table 4):

4. Discussion

Implementing a matrix of geo-environmental evaluation of geosites in an urban area allows for a technical proposal for sustainable tourism development, contributing to the potential of geosites. In addition, it is a support and reference tool for decision-makers, and the key to the social and economic aspects of the local community.
The results of this study determined 24 impacts (12 were negative and 12 were positive). Similarly, four sites present unfavorable situations, while the other four have strengths (see Figure 8). The most significant negative aspects make it possible to propose corrective measures and preventive elements (Figure 7). Additionally, the strengths or favorable aspects allow for establishing the criteria to empower the geosites. The geosites have a natural diversity that characterizes them. However, there is an important connection with the sector’s cultural aspect, which magnifies tourism, as observed in the characteristics of each geosite in Table 2. These places have a cultural aspect that can be incorporated into the geographic context of the geosites through the existing link with the geology and natural geomorphology of the sector [144,145,146].
The application of a geo-environmental matrix focuses on a certain site’s environmental and anthropogenic impacts (positive or negative). The matrix makes it possible to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each place, as in the work of Datta and Sarkar [147] in West Bengal (India), where they generated strategies to take advantage of or improve the benefits in situ and managing to encourage care and industry progress. Another example is the study by Marrosu and Balvis [65] in the rocky outcrops of Sardinia (Italy), where they determined the environmental value of the place and the magnitude of the impact of anthropic activities in the sector, which served to protect the geosites and manage the use of sports facilities without affecting the sustainability of the place.
The evaluation of geosites in urban areas is one of the environmental education initiatives used to improve the management of urban geoheritage, manifested in the work of Vegas and Díez-Herrero [148] in Segovia (Spain), together with the Geological and Mining Institute of Spain (IGME, acronym in Spanish), who focus on resilience issues within a combined urban and natural ecosystem. Furthermore, this initiative focuses on the promotion of geotourism and geopark proposals, such as the study by Özgeriş and Karahan [149] in Uzundere (the 11th city of Cittaslow, Turkey), where they evaluated the geopark’s resources to promote the conservation of the natural environment (associated with the soil, the earth), which benefits all sectors and creates compliance with the SDGs.
This work focuses on the strengths of the geosites, mitigating the negative impacts and promoting tourism sustainability in the city. In sites far from the city, the following suggestions are proposed: (i) reduction of energy consumption through solar panels, as proposed by Lata-García et al. [150] on Santay Island; (ii) encourage geoconservation through geotourism as a means for geoeducation implemented in heritage sites and geoparks (as in India and Colombia) [151,152]; and (iii) improve the sewage systems and subsequent wastewater treatment in wetland areas surrounding the city, as proposed by Abrahams et al. [153] in a case study at Brookside Farm (UK), through a methodology of low consumption for the reuse of this water. On the other hand, in the interior of the city, it is proposed that sites: (iv) reduce the emission of gases, noise, and effects of heat through the increase of vegetation in wide areas suitable for its growth, verified in the Shimizu study et al. [154] (Japan) and Van Renterghem [155] (Belgium); (v) improve the city’s natural and cultural sites to encourage social recreation, such as in the Chubusangaku National Park (Japan) [156]; and vi) ensure security to promote the resources and well-being of city sites, as suggested by Wang et al. [157] in a global vision of geoheritage sites.
The effects of vehicles are present in all of the geosites in a negative way due to the emission of gases and the generation of noise and vibrations. Tarcaya and Arenas [158], in a case study in Salta (Argentina), confirm that there are environmental impacts due to the emission of CO2. One of the ways to counteract this is to improve the control of regulatory and environmental entities, given that sometimes there is a degree of contamination greater than that allowed, as evidenced in the city of Cuenca (Ecuador) [159]. However, in order to take advantage of the strengths of the sector and promote better comfort in the city, the inclusion of vegetation or green spaces should be chosen, as Selmi et al. [160] in a study in the city of Strasbourg (France), where it was evident that urban trees contributed to the elimination of air pollutants (7% of local emissions), for which they recommend improving the strategies for the planting of forest resources in urban structures.
The loss of vegetation cover is another negative aspect that is reflected to a great extent and is influenced by human intervention [161,162] due to activities related to urban development and mining exploitation, such as to the east of Buenos Aires (Argentina) [163]. In addition, there are cases such as Kalabsha, El-Sebaiya, and Medcom-Aswan (Egypt), where Ruban et al. [164] mention and recommend that quarries must have comprehensive management for the purpose of mining and tourism. Due to this, it is necessary to consider and mitigate the anthropic effects, and even more so, to have revegetation and conservation activities for restoring the natural and cultural geoheritage, as mentioned by Damas et al. [165] in a study of the Gorria Quarry and Red Ereño (Spain). In addition, Prosser [166] highlights the link between the community and its geoheritage through quarries, using England as an example.
The generation of solid waste is present in some of the geosites and harms the environment. However, in the case of quarries, the waste can be used in producing or improving other products. As in the case of the brick industry in northeastern Italy, Coletti et al. [167] report that using trachyte residues from quarries enhances the properties of the new bricks (physical, mechanical, and durability). In addition, in road and building construction, Ramalakshmi and Bala Nagendra Babu [168] show that quarry dust is a good additive to improve soil compaction characteristics.
The generation or presence of wastewater is a negative aspect due to a load of heavy metals and metalloids, as reported by Pereda-Solis et al. [169] in a study in Durango (Mexico), demonstrating that there is zinc, lead, cadmium, and arsenic in the liver tissue of all waterfowl tested. For this case study, the place with the greatest impact is Santay Island, as corroborated by Zapata [170] through surveys of 56 families, who indicate that the systems and wastewater treatment are poor quality, which is also mentioned by Mora [171], due to the discharge of fecal coliforms into the river by the locality of the island and the city. However, this aspect can be controlled or mitigated so that it does not harm the ecosystem, as in arid cities in northern Chile, where they promote green area development through wastewater reuse [172].
The positive aspects make it possible to counteract the negative impacts, mainly those caused by human intervention and anthropogenic activity, as analyzed in the studies by Avelar et al. [173] and Fuertes-Gutiérrez et al. [174] (Região dos Lagos, (Rio de Janeiro—Brazil), and the paleontological sites of La Rioja (Spain), respectively), where sustainability problems are evident in the geosites. In the case of the present study, four geosites ( Santay Island, Horno de Cal, Cerro Azul, and Malecón del Estero Salado) are contemplated for a variety of activities for tourism development and sustainability. Similarly, sectors such as the Pascuales, Cerro San Eduardo, and Zeolites quarries can become historical sites or museums in situ due to the mining activity of yesteryear. As in the “Copper Trail” (Salzburg), where Ibetsberger and Steyrer [175] highlight its importance as a fundamental axis within a geopark (“Ore of the Alps Geopark”). In addition, there is the “Golden Triangle” (Egypt), where Ruban et al. [19] mention that the geosites included within this place can be part of the initiatives of the framework for the development of a Geopark.
This work carried out an overview of the geo-environmental state of the geosite through an environmental impact assessment (EIA), strictly derived from the Leopold matrix and the elements found in the supplementary material (Table S2). There are studies that, unlike this one, focus on addressing the impacts of the works on a specific natural site, such as Zaruma Urcu natural heritage site [176], where an environmental assessment identified that geotourism promotion works would have a significant environmental impact. Even so, the locality accepts and allows these changes to continue to improve the geosite. Another case study is that of Selmi L. et al. [177], in the Maltese islands, where they evaluated the environmental impact and risk of degradation of the geosites, demonstrating that there is negligence and ignorance on the part of the locality that causes mismanagement, which is why they provide information for adequate management and take advantage of their strengths. Tourist activities will always have an impact; therefore, it is important to know the tourist carrying capacity of geosites (especially those analyzed in this work,) since this allows for environmentally friendly management and development strategies for sustainable tourism [178,179]. For this reason, normal methods, such as IELIG or Brilha, consider the value of geosites within their evaluation [180].

5. Conclusions

The cause–effect geoenvironmental evaluation matrix can be replicated in sites of interest with similar characteristics, focusing on the aspects and effects caused by a project to be implemented. The use of this matrix allowed us to recognize the elements that affect the geosites of this study, such as (i) generation of noise and greenhouse gases caused by urban transport, (ii) generation of solid waste and residual water due to population growth, (iii) low levels of local and public security for tourists (in quarries), and (iv) energy consumption in tourist and natural areas. However, there are positive impacts related to the natural and tourist elements, such as (i) flora and fauna, (ii) generation of employment and services for social recreation, (iii) commercial activities, (iv) tourist capacity, (v) symbol or cultural figure and, and (vi) leisure and recreation spaces for tourists in natural areas close to the city. These elements are linked and integrated into the environment and geology, since some of them allow for the development of attractive activities for people linked to nature and the geological processes to encourage care, geoeducation, and sustainability in relation to the natural sites within a city. Currently, there are places that have been readjusted and recognized for tourism by the municipality, but this work seeks to include more places that highlight geology and geodiversity as a means for tourism.
The matrix allowed for the evaluation of eight places of tourist interest in Guayaquil and its surrounding areas. Cerro San Pedro and the quarries (Pascuales, Zeolites, and Cerro San Eduardo) have unfavorable conditions related to safety and industrial activity, in addition to presenting considerable air pollution (gases/noise) due to the presence of vehicles. Operating quarries do not promote tourism due to hazards and their negative effects identified in the study. However, they can be used as historical sites or museums after their closure phase, promoting geological and mining heritage to encourage geotourism, geoeducation, research, and social recreation in harmony with the environment. On the other hand, places like Cerro Azul, Malecón del Estero Salado, Santay Island, and Hornos de Cal present characteristics needed to promote sustainable geotourism since they are within protected areas and inserted in the city. Conservation and education strategies are key to improving the current state of geosites, given their nature and socioeconomic-political environment.
The previous results show that the impacts positively and/or negatively affect the sites. This forms the basis for management and development strategies. One way to benefit the sites and their inhabitants is by using tourism to impart geo-education to visitors, which promotes the evaluated geosites and improves the sector’s economy. Through this, the work demonstrated that there are sites with positive impacts and that the implementation of tourism must consider the sustainability criteria that are focused on in this study, specifically from the environmental section, since it has several elements that strengthen the benefits to the local and economic sectors. Therefore, tourist use must have an adequate geo-education aspect that improves the connection between man and nature, provided that there are investment initiatives such as those proposed in Table 3.
The applied methodology is a tool that helps regulatory and government entities evaluate potential geosites and recognize those that need to improve their management. In this way, the proposal for a Geopark in Guayaquil and the surrounding areas is a challenge to sustainability. The limitations identified in this study are the number of geosites evaluated, since there are more places with characteristics of potential interest in the city, among those that stand out are Cerro Bellavista, Parque Lago, Balneario Puerto Hondo, and Bosque Protector Prosperina. Other limitations are the evaluation process and access to sites of interest. There are several qualitative methods to evaluate geosites; however, in some cases, they are semi-quantitative because they depend on the criteria and experience of the evaluators, as in this study, where they consider the average value assigned by each evaluator during the evaluation. On the other hand, specific permits are needed for access in some places because they are quarries in operation or they are private places.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/heritage6030153/s1, Table S1: Experts involved in the cause-effect geo-environmental assessment matrix.; Table S2: Description of the aspects identified in situ.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.M.-C., B.A.-M., P.C.-M., F.T.-M., B.M.-S., L.S.-N. and G.H.-F.; methodology, F.M.-C., B.A.-M., P.C.-M., F.T.-M., B.M.-S., L.S.-N. and G.H.-F.; software, B.A.-M., F.T.-M. and L.S.-N.; validation, F.M.-C., B.A.-M., P.C.-M., F.T.-M., B.M.-S., L.S.-N. and G.H.-F.; formal analysis, F.M.-C., B.A.-M., P.C.-M., F.T.-M., B.M.-S., L.S.-N. and G.H.-F.; investigation, F.M.-C., B.A.-M., P.C.-M., F.T.-M., B.M.-S., L.S.-N. and G.H.-F.; resources, F.M.-C., B.A.-M., P.C.-M. and F.T.-M.; data curation, B.A.-M. and F.T.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, F.M.-C., B.A.-M., P.C.-M., F.T.-M., B.M.-S., L.S.-N. and G.H.-F.; writing—review and editing, F.M.-C., B.A.-M., P.C.-M., F.T.-M., B.M.-S., L.S.-N. and G.H.-F.; visualization, B.A.-M.; supervision, F.M.-C., P.C.-M., B.M.-S., L.S.-N. and G.H.-F.; project administration, F.M.-C., B.A.-M. and P.C.-M.; funding acquisition, F.M.-C. and P.C.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This research study was possible with the valuable contribution of the “Registry of geological and mining heritage and its impact on the defense and preservation of geodiversity in Ecuador” academic research project at ESPOL University CIPAT-01-2018.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Basilone, L.; Di Maggio, C. Geology of Monte Gallo (Palermo Mts, NW Sicily). J. Maps 2016, 12, 1072–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Filocamo, F.; Rosskopf, C.M.; Amato, V. A Contribution to the Understanding of the Apennine Landscapes: The Potential Role of Molise Geosites. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 1667–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Szepesi, J.; Ésik, Z.; Soós, I.; Németh, B.; Sütő, L.; Novák, T.J.; Harangi, S.; Lukács, R. Identification of Geoheritage Elements in a Cultural Landscape: A Case Study from Tokaj Mts, Hungary. Geoheritage 2020, 12, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Carrión-Mero, P.; Herrera-Narváez, G.; Herrera-Franco, G.; Sánchez-Zambrano, E.; Mata-Perelló, J.; Berrezueta, E. Assessment and Promotion of Geotouristic and Geomining Routes as a Basis for Local Development: A Case Study. Minerals 2021, 11, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gray, M. Geodiversity: The Backbone of Geoheritage and Geoconservation; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; ISBN 9780128095423. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kozłowski, S. Geodiversity. The Concept and Scope of Geodiversity. Prz. Geol. 2004, 52, 833–837. [Google Scholar]
  7. Muzambiq, S.; Walid, H.; Ganie, T.H.; Hermawan, H. The Importance of Public Education and Interpretation in the Conservation of Toba Caldera Geoheritage. Geoheritage 2021, 13, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Manríquez, H.; Mansilla, P.; Figueroa-Sterquel, R.; Moreira-Muñoz, A. Geodiversity Meets Biodiversity: A Landscape Approach for Biogeocultural Conservation and Governance in Mediterranean Central Chile. eco.mont. J. Prot. Mt. Areas Res. 2019, 11, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Betard, F.; Peulvast, J.-P.; de Oliveira Magalhâes, A. Biodiversité, Géodiversité et Enjeux de Leur Conservation Dans Les Montagnes Humides Du Nordeste Brésilien (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Conservation Challenges in the Humid Mountains of Northeast Brazil). Bull. Assoc. Geogr. Fr. 2011, 88, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Mehdipour Ghazi, J.; Hamdollahi, M.; Moazzen, M. Geotourism of Mining Sites in Iran: An Opportunity for Sustainable Rural Development. Int. J. Geoheritage Park. 2021, 9, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bentivenga, M.; Palladino, G.; Prosser, G.; Guglielmi, P.; Geremia, F.; Laviano, A. A Geological Itinerary through the Southern Apennine Thrust Belt (Basilicata—Southern Italy). Geoheritage 2017, 9, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lewis, I. Linking Geoheritage Sites: Geotourism and a Prospective Geotrail in the Flinders Ranges World Heritage Nomination Area, South Australia. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 2020, 67, 1195–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. De Waele, J.; Di Gregorio, F.; Gasmi, N.; Melis, M.T.; Talbi, M. Geomorphosites of Tozeur Region (South-West Tunisia). Alp. Mediterr. Quat. 2005, 18, 223–232. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ruchkys, Ú.A.; Machado, M.M.M. Geological and Mining Heritage of Iron Quadrangle, Minas Gerais-Characterization and Strategies for Education and Geotourism | Patrimônio Geológico e Mineiro Do Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais-Caracterização e Iniciativas de Uso Para Educação e G. Bol. Parana. Geosci. 2013, 70, 120–136. [Google Scholar]
  15. Carrión-Mero, P.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Herrera-Narváez, G.; Morante-Carballo, F. Geodiversity and Mining towards the Development of Geotourism: A Global Perspective. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodynamics 2021, 16, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Reynard, E.; Brilha, J. Geoheritage: A Multidisciplinary and Applied Research Topic; Reynard, E., Brilha, J.B.T.-G., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 3–9. ISBN 978-0-12-809531-7. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gray, M. Geodiversity: Developing the Paradigm. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2008, 119, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pereira, D.I.; Pereira, P.; Brilha, J.; Santos, L. Geodiversity Assessment of Paraná State (Brazil): An Innovative Approach. Environ. Manag. 2013, 52, 541–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Ruban, D.A.; Sallam, E.S.; Khater, T.M.; Ermolaev, V.A. Golden Triangle Geosites: Preliminary Geoheritage Assessment in a Geologically Rich Area of Eastern Egypt. Geoheritage 2021, 13, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Goswami, S.; Singh, K.J. Floral Biodiversity and Geology of the Talcher Basin, Orissa, India during the Permian–Triassic Interval. Geol. J. 2013, 48, 39–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Emerson, B.C. Genes, Geology and Biodiversity: Faunal and Floral Diversity on the Island of Gran Canaria | Genes, Geología y Biodiversidad: Diversidad de La Fauna y Flora de La Isla de Gran Canaria. Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 2003, 26, 9–20. [Google Scholar]
  22. Comănescu, L.; Nedelea, A. The Assessment of Geodiversity–a Premise for Declaring the Geopark Buzăului County (Romania). J. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 121, 1493–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. da Silva, M.L.N.; Do Nascimento, M.A.L.; Mansur, K.L. Geoprocessing Applied to the Quantitative Evaluation of Geodiversity in the Area of SeridÓ Aspiring Geopark–Rn | Geoprocessamento Aplicado à Avaliação Quantitativa Da Geodiversidade Na Área Do Geoparque Aspirante Seridó–Rn. Geociencias 2020, 39, 727–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, Y.; Wu, F.; Li, X.; Chen, L. Geotourism, Geoconservation, and Geodiversity along the Belt and Road: A Case Study of Dunhuang UNESCO Global Geopark in China. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2019, 130, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sinnyovsky, D. Geopark Belogradchik Rocks-Priority of the Bulgarian Geoconservation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference and EXPO-Modern Management of Mine Producing, Geology and Environmental Protection, SGEM 2011, Varna, Bulgaria, 19–25 June 2011; Volume 3, pp. 389–396. [Google Scholar]
  26. Herrera-Franco, G.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Herrera-Narváez, G.; Briones-Bitar, J.; Blanco-Torrens, R. Strategies for the Development of the Value of the Mining-Industrial Heritage of the Zaruma-Portovelo, Ecuador, in the Context of a Geopark Project. Int. J. Energy Prod. Manag. 2020, 5, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Piranha, J.M.; Aparecida Del Lama, E.; de La Corte Bacci, D. Geoparks in Brazil—Strategy of Geoconservation and Development. Geoheritage 2011, 3, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ólafsdóttir, R.; Dowling, R. Geotourism and Geoparks—A Tool for Geoconservation and Rural Development in Vulnerable Environments: A Case Study from Iceland. Geoheritage 2014, 6, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Brown, G. Mapping Landscape Values and Development Preferences: A Method for Tourism and Residential Development Planning. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2006, 8, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sánchez-Cortez, J.L.; Simbaña-Tasiguano, M. Geoparks and Their Implantation in Latin America. Estud. Geogr. 2018, 79, 445–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Farsani, N.T.; Coelho, C.O.A.; Costa, C.M.M. Analysis of Network Activities in Geoparks as Geotourism Destinations. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2014, 16, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dowling, R.K. Geotourism’s Global Growth. Geoheritage 2011, 3, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. UNESCO List of UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGp). Available online: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-designates-8-new-global-geoparks (accessed on 4 January 2023).
  34. Jones, C. History of Geoparks. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2008, 300, 273–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ruban, D.A. Geodiversity as a Precious National Resource: A Note on the Role of Geoparks. Resour. Policy 2017, 53, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Roig-Munar, F.X.; Martín-Prieto, J.Á.; Rodríguez-Perea, A.; Gelabert, B.; Vilaplana, J.M. Proposed Geosites for Tsunamitic Blocks in the Rocky Coasts of Formentera (Balearic Islands) | Propuesta de Lugares de Interés Geológico Asociados a Bloques de Origen Tsunamítico En Las Costas Rocosas de La Isla de Formentera (Islas Baleares). Rev. Soc. Geol. Esp. 2018, 31, 35–48. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lopes, R.F.; Candeiro, C.R.A.; de Valais, S. Geoconservation of the Paleontological Heritage of the Geosite of Dinosaur Footprints (Sauropods) in the Locality of São Domingos, Municipality of Itaguatins, State of Tocantins, Brazil. Environ. Earth Sci. 2019, 78, 707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Brilha, J. Inventories and Evaluation. Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. In Geoheritage; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 69–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Reverte, F.C.; Garcia, M.G.M. Quantitative Evaluation of Geological Heritage: Application to Geosites of São Sebastião Nopthern Coast of São Paulo | Avaliação Quantitativa Do Patrimônio Geológico: Aplicação Aos Geossítios de São Sebastião, Litoral Norte Do Estado de São Paulo. Anu. Inst. Geocienc. 2016, 39, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Carrión-Mero, P.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Herrera-Narváez, G.; Maldonado-Zamora, A.; Paz-Salas, N. The Context of Ecuador’s World Heritage, for Sustainable Development Strategies. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodynamics 2020, 15, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Farsani, N.T.; Coelho, C.; Costa, C. Geotourism and Geoparks as Novel Strategies for Socio-Economic Development in Rural Areas. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2011, 13, 68–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Farsani, N.; Coelho, C.; Costa, C. Geotourism and Geoparks as Gateways to Socio-Cultural Sustainability in Qeshm Rural Areas, Iran. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2012, 17, 30–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cleal, C.J.; Thomas, B.A.; Bevins, R.E.; Wimbledon, W.A.P. Geosites–an International Geoconservation Initiative. Geol. Today 1999, 15, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Francesco, G.; Mario, B.; Giuseppe, P. Environmental Geology Applied to Geoconservation in the Interaction between Geosites and Linear Infrastructures in South-Eastern Italy. Geoheritage 2015, 7, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kubalíková, L.; Kirchner, K. Geosite and Geomorphosite Assessment as a Tool for Geoconservation and Geotourism Purposes: A Case Study from Vizovická Vrchovina Highland (Eastern Part of the Czech Republic). Geoheritage 2016, 8, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Manosso, F.C. Potencial del Geoturismo y la Geodiversidad en la Serra Do Cadeano, Paraná, Brasil. Estud. Perspect. Tur. 2012, 21, 322–338. [Google Scholar]
  47. De Wever, P.; Baudin, F.; Pereira, D.; Cornée, A.; Egoroff, G.; Page, K. The Importance of Geosites and Heritage Stones in Cities—A Review. Geoheritage 2017, 9, 561–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Joyce, E.B. Geological Heritage of Australia: Selecting the Best for Geosites and World Heritage, and Telling the Story for Geotourism and Geoparks. ASEG Ext. Abstr. 2006, 2006, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nazaruddin, D.A. Selected Geosites for Geoheritage, Geotourism, and Geoconservation in Songkhla Province, Southern Thailand. Quaest. Geogr. 2019, 38, 161–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Carrión-Mero, P.; Borja-Bernal, C.; Herrera-Franco, G.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Jaya-Montalvo, M.; Maldonado-Zamora, A.; Paz-Salas, N.; Berrezueta, E. Geosites and Geotourism in the Local Development of Communities of the Andes Mountains. A Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Vasiljević, D.A.; Marković, S.B.; Hose, T.A.; Smalley, I.; Basarin, B.; Lazić, L.; Jović, G. The Introduction to Geoconservation of Loess-Palaeosol Sequences in the Vojvodina Region: Significant Geoheritage of Serbia. Quat. Int. 2011, 240, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Brocx, M.; Semeniuk, V. Geoheritage and Geoconservation-History, Definition, Scope and Scale. J. R. Soc. West. Aust. 2007, 90, 53–87. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kubalíková, L.; Balková, M. Two-Level Assessment of Threats to Geodiversity and Geoheritage: A Case Study from Hády Quarries (Brno, Czech Republic). Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023, 99, 107024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tavares, A.O.; Henriques, M.H.; Domingos, A.; Bala, A. Community Involvement in Geoconservation: A Conceptual Approach Based on the Geoheritage of South Angola. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4893–4918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Pereira, R.F.; Brilha, J.; Martinez, J.E. Proposta de Enquadramento Da Geoconservação Na Legislação Ambiental Brasileira. Memórias Notícias 2008, 3, 491–494. [Google Scholar]
  56. Moura, P.; Garcia, M.G.M.; Brilha, J. Evaluation of Geological Sites for Priority Management: Proposals for Geoconservation in the Ceará Central Domain, North-Eastern Brazil|Identificação de Sítios Geológicos Para Gestão Prioritária: Propostas Para a Geoconservação No Domínio Ceará Central. Anu. Inst. Geocienc. 2018, 41, 252–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lopes, F.C.; Ramos, A.M.; Gomes, C.R.; Ussombo, C.C. The Geoheritage of Lubango-Tundavala Road Traverse in the Serra Da Leba (SW Angola): Outcrops Characterization and Numerical Assessment for Outdoor Educational Activities and Geoconservation Purpose. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2019, 157, 103510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Carrión-Mero, P.; Ayala-Granda, A.; Serrano-Ayala, S.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Aguilar-Aguilar, M.; Gurumendi-Noriega, M.; Paz-Salas, N.; Herrera-Franco, G.; Berrezueta, E. Assessment of Geomorphosites for Geotourism in the Northern Part of the “Ruta Escondida” (Quito, Ecuador). Sustainability 2020, 12, 8468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Martín-Duque, J.F.; Caballero García, J.; Carcavilla Urquí, L. Geoheritage Information for Geoconservation and Geotourism Through the Categorization of Landforms in a Karstic Landscape. A Case Study from Covalagua and Las Tuerces (Palencia, Spain). Geoheritage 2012, 4, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Gordon, J.E.; Brazier, V.; Hansom, J.D.; Werritty, A. Advances in Quaternary Studies and Geomorphology in Scotland: Implications for Geoconservation. Earth Environ. Sci. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 2019, 110, 257–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Herrera-Franco, G.; Erazo, K.; Mora-Frank, C.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Berrezueta, E. Evaluation of a Paleontological Museum as Geosite and Base for Geotourism. A Case Study. Heritage 2021, 4, 1208–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Woo, K.S.; Sohn, Y.K.; Yoon, S.H.; San Ahn, U.; Spate, A. Jeju Island Geopark-a Volcanic Wonder of Korea; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; Volume 1, ISBN 364220564X. [Google Scholar]
  63. Kim, E.-S.; Oh, C.H.; Park, H.C.; Lee, S.-H.; Choi, J.; Lee, S.-H.; Cho, H.-B.; Lim, W.; Kim, H.; Yoon, Y.-K. Disturbed Regeneration of Saplings of Korean Fir (Abies Koreana Wilson), an Endemic Tree Species, in Hallasan National Park, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, Jeju Island, Korea. J. Mar. Isl. Cult. 2016, 5, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Crofts, R.; Gordon, J.E.; Brilha, J.B.; Gray, M.; Gunn, J.; Larwood, J.; Santucci, V.L.; Tormey, D.; Worboys, G.L. Guidelines for Geoconservation in Protected and Conserved Areas; Groves, C., Ed.; IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature: Gland, Switzerland, 2020; ISBN 9782831720791. [Google Scholar]
  65. Marrosu, G.M.; Balvis, T. Environmental Impact Assessment in Climbing Activities: A New Method to Develop a Sustainable Tourism in Geological and Nature Reserves. Geoheritage 2020, 12, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Leopold, L.B. A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact; US Department of the Interior: Washington, DC, USA, 1971; Volume 28. [Google Scholar]
  67. Bruschi, V.M.; Coratza, P. Geoheritage and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). In Geoheritage; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 251–264. [Google Scholar]
  68. Arroyo, S.-P. Valoración de Impactos Ambientales. Sevilla INERCO. Consult. GRN.(sf). Metodol. Evaluación del Impacto Ambient. 2007, pp. 1–21. Available online: http//www.grn.cl/metodologias%20de%20evaluacion%20del%20impacto%20ambiental%20capitulo (accessed on 10 December 2022).
  69. Song, M.-L.; Fisher, R.; Wang, J.-L.; Cui, L.-B. Environmental Performance Evaluation with Big Data: Theories and Methods. Ann. Oper. Res. 2018, 270, 459–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kubalíková, L.; Bajer, A.; Balková, M.; Kirchner, K.; Machar, I. Geodiversity Action Plans as a Tool for Developing Sustainable Tourism and Environmental Education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Henriques, M.H.; dos Reis, R.P.; Brilha, J.; Mota, T. Geoconservation as an Emerging Geoscience. Geoheritage 2011, 3, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Cowburn, B.; Moritz, C.; Birrell, C.; Grimsditch, G.; Abdulla, A. Can Luxury and Environmental Sustainability Co-Exist? Assessing the Environmental Impact of Resort Tourism on Coral Reefs in the Maldives. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 158, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mestanza, C.; Botero, C.M.; Anfuso, G.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A.; Pranzini, E.; Mooser, A. Beach Litter in Ecuador and the Galapagos Islands: A Baseline to Enhance Environmental Conservation and Sustainable Beach Tourism. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 140, 573–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Morante-Carballo, F.; Herrera-Narváez, G.; Jiménez-Orellana, N.; Carrión-Mero, P. Puyango, Ecuador Petrified Forest, a Geological Heritage of the Cretaceous Albian-Middle, and Its Relevance for the Sustainable Development of Geotourism. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gomez, C. Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS). Papeles Relac. Ecosociales Cambio Glob. 2017, 140, 107–118. [Google Scholar]
  76. Franco, L. América Latina y Los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible: Análisis de Su Viabilidad. Rev. Ciencias Soc. 2019, 25, 12–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gill, J.C. Geology and the Sustainable Development Goals. Episodes 2017, 40, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. UNESCO. UNESCO Global Geoparks Contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247741 (accessed on 7 December 2022).
  79. Herrera-Franco, G.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Mora-Frank, C.; Bravo-Montero, L. Scientific Research in Ecuador: A Bibliometric Analysis. Publications 2021, 9, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Rosado-González, E.M.; Sá, A.A.; Palacio-Prieto, J.L. “UNESCO Global Geoparks in Latin America and the Caribbean, and Their Contribution to Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals” (Rosado-González et Al. 2020, Geoheritage 12: 1–15). Geoheritage 2021, 13, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zúñiga, M.E.G.; Valdez, I.d.R.E. Planificación Urbana y Desarrollo Sostenible sobre Infraestructura Verde en América Latina. Un Comparativo entre Curitiba y Guayaquil. DELOS Desarro. Local Sosten. 2017, 10, 29. [Google Scholar]
  82. Carvache-Franco, M.; Contreras-Moscol, D.; Orden-Mejía, M.; Carvache-Franco, W.; Vera-Holguin, H.; Carvache-Franco, O. Motivations and Loyalty of the Demand for Adventure Tourism as Sustainable Travel. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Orden-Mejía, M.; Carvache-Franco, M.; Huertas, A.; Carvache-Franco, W.; Landeta-Bejarano, N.; Carvache-Franco, O. Post-COVID-19 Tourists’ Preferences, Attitudes and Travel Expectations: A Study in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Górska-Zabielska, M.; Zabielski, R. Stone in an Urban Space–Its Potential to Promote Geotourism. Geoj. Tour. Geosites 2019, 26, 1033–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Rosado-González, E.M.; Palacio-Prieto, J.L.; Sá, A.A. Geotourism in Latin America and Caribbean UNESCO Global Geoparks: Contribution for Sustainable Development Goals BT-Technological Progress, Inequality and Entrepreneurship: From Consumer Division to Human Centricity; Ratten, V., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 107–121. ISBN 978-3-030-26245-7. [Google Scholar]
  86. Moreira, J.C.; Meléndez-Hevia, G. Usando o Patrimonio Geológico para Atrair Turistas: O Geoturismo No Brasil (Paraná) e Espanha (Aragón). GEOUSP Espaço Tempo 2012, 124, 124–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Frey, M.-L. Geotourism—Examining Tools for Sustainable Development. Geosciences 2021, 11, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Morante-Carballo, F.; Merchán-Sanmartín, B.; Cárdenas-Cruz, A.; Jaya-Montalvo, M.; Mata-Perelló, J.; Herrera-Franco, G.; Carrión-Mero, P. Sites of Geological Interest Assessment for Geoeducation Strategies, ESPOL University Campus, Guayaquil, Ecuador. Land 2022, 11, 771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Reinoso, J.; Michalon, R.; Aviles, J.C. Recopilacion de Informacion Base para el Mapa Geoambiental del Área Urbana del Gran Guayaquil y Mapas En Formato SIG; Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral: Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  90. Carrión-Mero, P.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Apolo-Masache, B. Evaluation of Geosites as an Alternative for Geotouristic Development in Guayaquil, Ecuador. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2020, 241, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. IGM Capas de Información Geográfica Básica del IGM de Libre Acceso. Cartas Topográficas Escala 1:50.000, Formato Shp. Available online: http://www.geoportaligm.gob.ec/portal/index.php/cartografia-de-libre-acceso-escala-50k/ (accessed on 25 January 2023).
  92. Medina, W. Importancia de La Geodiversidad. Método para el Inventario y Valoración del Patrimonio Geológico. Ser. Correlación Geológica 2015, 31, 57–67. [Google Scholar]
  93. Carrión-Mero, P.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Palomeque-Arévalo, P.; Apolo-Masache, B. Environmental Assessment and Tourist Carrying Capacity for the Development of Geosites in the Framework of Geotourism; WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ.: Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2021; Volume 235, pp. 149–160. [Google Scholar]
  94. Coria, I. El Estudio de Impacto Ambiental: Características y Metodologías. Inven. Rev. Investig. Académica 2008, 11, 125–135. [Google Scholar]
  95. Alofonso, G.; Adela, S.; Cristina, C.; Garmendia, L. Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental; Pearson Educación: Madrid, España, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  96. Recalde, S.; Mindiola, M.; Chang, J. Análisis de Metodologías para la Evaluación Ambiental de la Construcción del Terminal Marítimo en el Sector de Monteverde, Provincia de Santa Elena; Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral: Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  97. Quijije Piguave, M.D. Identificación de Los Impactos Ambientales Mediante La Aplicación de Matriz Causa Efecto En El Mercado de Mariscos de La Ciudad de Jipijapa En El Período de Enero a Julio Del 2010; Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabi: Manabí, Ecuador, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  98. Encinas Malagon, M.D.; Gomez de Balugera, Z. Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental Aspectos Teóricos, 1st ed.; Escuela Universitaria de Ingeniería de Vitoria-Gasteiz: Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, 2011; ISBN 9788461511464. [Google Scholar]
  99. Flórez, M.F.; Linares, J.F.; Carrillo, E.; Mendes, F.M.; de Sousa, B. Proposal for a Framework to Develop Sustainable Tourism on the Santurbán Moor, Colombia, as an Alternative Source of Income between Environmental Sustainability and Mining. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Turner-Carrión, M.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Turner-Salamea, I.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Aguilar-Aguilar, M.; Zambrano-Ruiz, K.; Berrezueta, E. A Mineralogical Museum as a Geotourism Attraction: A Case Study. Minerals 2021, 11, 582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Villacreses, G.; Salinas, S.S.; Ortiz, W.D.; Villacís, S.; Martínez-Gómez, J.; Narváez, C.R.A. Environmental Impact Assessment of Internal Combustion and Electric Engines for Maritime Transport. Environ. Process. 2017, 4, 907–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Wang, Z.-H. Compound Environmental Impact of Urban Mitigation Strategies: Co-Benefits, Trade-Offs, and Unintended Consequence. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 75, 103284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Marlina, E. Geotourism as a Strategy of Geosite Empowerment Towards the Tourism Sustainability in Gunungkidul Regency, Indonesia. Int. J. Smart Home 2016, 10, 131–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. 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]
  105. Bazurto, H.; Intriago, B.; Besenzona, D. Geotechnical Characterization of the Estuarine Deltaic Deposits in the Guayaquil; ESPOL. FICT: Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  106. Reynaud, J.-Y.; Witt, C.; Pazmiño, A.; Gilces, S. Tide-Dominated Deltas in Active Margin Basins: Insights from the Guayas Estuary, Gulf of Guayaquil, Ecuador. Mar. Geol. 2018, 403, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Cruz Cordovez, C.; Herrera, I.; Espinoza, F.; Rizzo, K. New Record of a Feral Population of Lithobates Catesbeianus Shaw, 1802 in a Protected Area (Santay Island) in the Ecuadorian Coast. 2020. Available online: http://repositorio.ikiam.edu.ec/jspui/handle/RD_IKIAM/369 (accessed on 10 December 2022).
  108. Diaz-Christiansen, S.; López-Guzmán, T.; Pérez Gálvez, J.C.; Muñoz Guzmán, F.A. Wetland Tourism in Natural Protected Areas: Santay Island (Ecuador). Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2016, 20, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Diaz-Christiansen, S.; Pérez-Gálvez, J.C.; Figueroa, A.E.; López-Guzmán, T. Análisis Del Perfil y Satisfacción de Los Excursionistas En La Isla Santay (Ecuador). Rev. Espac. 2019, 40, 11. [Google Scholar]
  110. Torres-Domínguez, A.; Salas, J.A.; Hurtado, C.M. Mamíferos Medianos y Grandes del Área Nacional de Recreación Isla Santay en el Occidente de Ecuador. Rev. Peru. Biol. 2022, 29, e21497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Horstman, E. Establishing a Private Protected Area in Ecuador: Lessons Learned in the Management of Cerro Blanco Protected Forest in the City of Guayaquil. Case Stud. Environ. 2017, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Benítez, S.; Vera Grunauer, X.; Álvarez, V. Estudio Geológico de la Ciudad de Guayaquil. Informe final de Investigación y Estudio del Comportamiento Dinámico del Subsuelo y Microzonificación Sísmica de la Ciudad de Guayaquil, 2005.
  113. Machiels, L.; Garcés, D.; Snellings, R.; Vilema, W.; Morante, F.; Paredes, C.; Elsen, J. Zeolite Occurrence and Genesis in the Late-Cretaceous Cayo Arc of Coastal Ecuador: Evidence for Zeolite Formation in Cooling Marine Pyroclastic Flow Deposits. Appl. Clay Sci. 2014, 87, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Machiels, L.; Morante, F.; Snellings, R.; Calvo, B.; Canoira, L.; Paredes, C.; Elsen, J. Zeolite Mineralogy of the Cayo Formation in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Appl. Clay Sci. 2008, 42, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Ayuso Siart, S. ¿Cómo Contabilizar El Impacto Ambiental de las Empresas? El Caso de las Emisiones de Gases de Efecto Invernadero. Rev. Estud. Empres. Segunda Época 2020, 2, 94–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Martin, E.W.; Shaheen, S.A. Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Carsharing in North America. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2011, 12, 1074–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Vrščaj, B.; Poggio, L.; Marsan, F.A. A Method for Soil Environmental Quality Evaluation for Management and Planning in Urban Areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 88, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Takata, M.; Fukushima, K.; Kino-Kimata, N.; Nagao, N.; Niwa, C.; Toda, T. The Effects of Recycling Loops in Food Waste Management in Japan: Based on the Environmental and Economic Evaluation of Food Recycling. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 432, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Jara, N.G.; Reinoso, F.Z.; Isaza-roldán, C.; Espinoza, J.L. Impacts on the Consumption of Electric Power by the Use of Efficient Refrigerators-Ecuador Case Impactos En El Consumo de Energía Eléctrica Por El Uso de Refrigeradores Eficientes-Caso Ecuador. Ingenius 2017, 18, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Unión Europea. Libro Blanco “La Política Europea de Transportes de Cara Al 2010: La Hora de la Verdad”; Unión Europea: Brussels, Belgium, 2002; ISBN 9289403373. [Google Scholar]
  121. Croy, I.; Smith, M.G.; Waye, K.P. Effects of Train Noise and Vibration on Human Heart Rate during Sleep: An Experimental Study. BMJ Open 2013, 3, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Mallin, M.A.; Cahoon, L.B.; Toothman, B.R.; Parsons, D.C.; McIver, M.R.; Ortwine, M.L.; Harrington, R.N. Impacts of a Raw Sewage Spill on Water and Sediment Quality in an Urbanized Estuary. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2007, 54, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Ulloa, J. ¿ Por Qué Debemos Conservar la Fauna Silvestre ? Spei Domus 2012, 8, 66–69. [Google Scholar]
  124. Mittermeier, R.A.; Mittermeier, C.G.; Brooks, T.M.; Pilgrim, J.D.; Konstant, W.R.; Fonseca, G.A.B.; Kormos, C. Wilderness and Biodiversity Conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 10309–10313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Soria, J.U.; Fernández, J.M. Más Allá del Cambio Climático; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Facultad: Mexico City, Mexico, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  126. Palacio Prieto, J.L. Geosites, Geomorphosites and Geoparks: Importance, Actual Situation and Perspectives in Mexico. Investig. Geogr. 2013, 82, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Teo, H.C.; Zeng, Y.; Sarira, T.V.; Fung, T.K.; Zheng, Q.; Song, X.P.; Chong, K.Y.; Koh, L.P. Global Urban Reforestation Can Be an Important Natural Climate Solution. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 034059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Abbate, S.; Di Paolo, L.; Carapellucci, R.; Cipollone, R. Urban Context and Neighbouring Lands: How Reforestation Could Have a Role in the Implementation of Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 312, 10002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Hall, K.D.; Guo, J.; Dore, M.; Chow, C.C. The Progressive Increase of Food Waste in America and Its Environmental Impact. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e7940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Marzouk, M.; Azab, S. Environmental and Economic Impact Assessment of Construction and Demolition Waste Disposal Using System Dynamics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 82, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Yilmaz, O.; Kara, B.Y.; Yetis, U. Hazardous Waste Management System Design under Population and Environmental Impact Considerations. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 203, 720–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Rahaman, Z.A.; Kafy, A.-A.; Saha, M.; Rahim, A.A.; Almulhim, A.I.; Rahaman, S.N.; Fattah, M.A.; Rahman, M.T.; S, K.; Faisal, A.-A.; et al. Assessing the Impacts of Vegetation Cover Loss on Surface Temperature, Urban Heat Island and Carbon Emission in Penang City, Malaysia. Build. Environ. 2022, 222, 109335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Seto, K.C.; Güneralp, B.; Hutyra, L.R. Global Forecasts of Urban Expansion to 2030 and Direct Impacts on Biodiversity and Carbon Pools. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 16083–16088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Shen, W.; Liu, Y.; Yan, B.; Wang, J.; He, P.; Zhou, C.; Huo, X.; Zhang, W.; Xu, G.; Ding, Q. Cement Industry of China: Driving Force, Environment Impact and Sustainable Development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 75, 618–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Santamaría-Freire, E.J.; López Pérez, S.d.l.A. Beneficio Social de La Actividad Turística En Ecuador. Rev. Venez. Gerenc. 2019, 24, 417–428. [Google Scholar]
  136. Benavides, S. El Sector Turismo: Su Aporte a La Economía. Econ. y Soc. 2016, 27, 111–121. [Google Scholar]
  137. Gino, R.; Pavón, S.; Del, R.; Serrano Barquín, C.; Del Carmen Mínguez García, M.; Cruz Jiménez, G.; Isabel, J.; Pérez, J. Estrategias de Control de Impactos Turísticos en las Áreas Naturales Protegidas y Zonas Arqueológicas de Quintana Roo (México Control Strategies of Tourism Impact on Natural Areas and Archaeological Zones of Quintana Roo). Cult. Rev. Cult. Tur. 2013, 3, 6–30. [Google Scholar]
  138. Trivi, N.A. El Paisaje, Del Atractivo Al Fetiche. Un Ensayo Sobre Consumo Visual y Turismo. PASOS. Rev. Tur. Patrim. Cult. 2018, 16, 1131–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Rodríguez Cortés, A.B.; Díaz Velasco, A. La Recreación y el Turismo, una Propuesta de Formación de la Universidad Pedagógica Nacional. Lúdica Pedagógica 2014, 1, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Schlüter Vasconcelos, C.; Drummond Câmara, J.B. Evaluación de la Capacidad de Carga Física del Parque Municipal del Itiquira, Formosa (Go), Brasil. Estud. Perspect. Tur. 2012, 21, 996–1012. [Google Scholar]
  141. Walker, K.; Moscardo, G. Encouraging Sustainability beyond the Tourist Experience: Ecotourism, Interpretation and Values. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 1175–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Navarro, D. Recursos Turísticos y Atractivos Turísticos: Conceptualización, Clasificación y Valoración. Cuad. Tur. 2015, 335, 335–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Yu, A.; Wei, Y.; Chen, W.; Peng, N.; Peng, L. Life Cycle Environmental Impacts and Carbon Emissions: A Case Study of Electric and Gasoline Vehicles in China. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 65, 409–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Tessema, G.A.; van der Borg, J.; Minale, A.S.; Van Rompaey, A.; Adgo, E.; Nyssen, J.; Asrese, K.; Van Passel, S.; Poesen, J. Inventory and Assessment of Geosites for Geotourism Development in the Eastern and Southeastern Lake Tana Region, Ethiopia. Geoheritage 2021, 13, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Tessema, G.A.; van der Borg, J.; Van Rompaey, A.; Van Passel, S.; Adgo, E.; Minale, A.S.; Asrese, K.; Frankl, A.; Poesen, J. Benefit Segmentation of Tourists to Geosites and Its Implications for Sustainable Development of Geotourism in the Southern Lake Tana Region, Ethiopia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Pescatore, E.; Bentivenga, M.; Giano, S.I. Geoheritage Management in Areas with Multicultural Interest Contexts. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Datta, K.; Sarkar, S. Development of Geomatrix and Its Application on Geomorphosite Impact Assessment (GIA): An Innovative Approach Applied to Mama Bhagne Pahar, West Bengal, India. Geoheritage 2022, 14, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Vegas, J.; Díez-Herrero, A. An Assessment Method for Urban Geoheritage as a Model for Environmental Awareness and Geotourism (Segovia, Spain). Geoheritage 2021, 13, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Özgeriş, M.; Karahan, F. Use of Geopark Resource Values for a Sustainable Tourism: A Case Study from Turkey (Cittaslow Uzundere). Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 4270–4284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Lata-Garcia, J.; Reyes-Lopez, C.; Jurado, F.; Fernandez-Ramirez, L.M.; Sanchez, H. Sizing Optimization of a Small Hydro/Photovoltaic Hybrid System for Electricity Generation in Santay Island, Ecuador by Two Methods. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHILEAN Conference on Electrical, Electronics Engineering, Information and Communication Technologies (CHILECON), Pucon, Chile, 18–20 October 2017; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  151. Ríos, C.A.; Amorocho, R.; Villarreal, C.A.; Mantilla, W.; Velandia, F.A.; Castellanos, O.M.; Muñoz, S.I.; Atuesta, D.A.; Jerez, J.H.; Acevedo, O.; et al. Chicamocha Canyon Geopark Project: A Novel Strategy for the Socio-Economic Development of Santander (Colombia) through Geoeducation, Geotourism and Geoconservation. Int. J. Geoheritage Park. 2020, 8, 96–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Halder, S.; Sarda, R. Promoting Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) Tourism: Strategy for Socioeconomic Development of Snake Charmers (India) through Geoeducation, Geotourism and Geoconservation. Int. J. Geoheritage Park. 2021, 9, 212–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Abrahams, J.; Coupe, S.; Sañudo-Fontaneda, L.; Schmutz, U. The Brookside Farm Wetland Ecosystem Treatment (WET) System: A Low-Energy Methodology for Sewage Purification, Biomass Production (Yield), Flood Resilience and Biodiversity Enhancement. Sustainability 2017, 9, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Shimizu, T.; Matsuda, T.; Nishibe, Y.; Tempo, M.; Yoshitani, K.; Azumi, Y. Suppression of Diffracted Sound by Green Walls. Noise Control Eng. J. 2016, 64, 142–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Van Renterghem, T. Exploiting Supporting Poles to Increase Road Traffic Noise Shielding of Tree Belts. Acta Acust. United Acust. 2016, 102, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  156. Oishi, Y. Toward the Improvement of Trail Classification in National Parks Using the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Approach. Environ. Manag. 2013, 51, 1126–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Wang, Z.; Yang, Z.; Du, X. Analysis on the Threats and Spatiotemporal Distribution Pattern of Security in World Natural Heritage Sites. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 4143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Tarcaya, H.R.; Arenas, A.N. Greenhouse Gas Emission in Urban Passenger Transport. Transp. Res. Procedia 2021, 58, 158–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Delgado, O.; Martínez, J. Elaboración del Mapa de Ruido del Área Urbana de la Ciudad de Cuenca–Ecuador, Empleando la Técnica de Interpolación Geoestadística Kriging Ordinario. Cienc. Espac. 2015, 8, 411–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  160. Selmi, W.; Weber, C.; Rivière, E.; Blond, N.; Mehdi, L.; Nowak, D. Air Pollution Removal by Trees in Public Green Spaces in Strasbourg City, France. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 17, 192–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Rêgo, J.C.L.; Soares-Gomes, A.; da Silva, F.S. Loss of Vegetation Cover in a Tropical Island of the Amazon Coastal Zone (Maranhão Island, Brazil). Land Use Policy 2018, 71, 593–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Manhães, A.P.; Mazzochini, G.G.; Marinho, F.; Ganade, G.; Carvalho, A.R. Loss of Plant Cover Mediates the Negative Effect of Anthropogenic Disturbance on the Multifunctionality of a Dryland. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2022, 25, 12636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Plaza Behr, M.C.; Pérez, C.; Goya, J.; Arturi, M. Supervivencia y Crecimiento de Celtis Tala Gillies Ex Planch En La Rehabilitación Ecológica de Canteras de Conchilla Abandonadas. Ecol. Austral 2021, 31, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Ruban, D.A.; Tiess, G.; Sallam, E.S.; Ponedelnik, A.A.; Yashalova, N.N. Combined Mineral and Geoheritage Resources Related to Kaolin, Phosphate, and Cement Production in Egypt: Conceptualization, Assessment, and Policy Implications. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2018, 28, 454–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Damas Mollá, L.; Aranburu, A.; García-Garmilla, F.; Uriarte, J.Á.; Zabaleta, A.; Bodego, A.; Sagarna, M.; Antiguedad, I. Cantera Gorria and Red Ereño: Natural and Cultural Geoheritage (Basque Country, Spain). Geoheritage 2022, 14, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Prosser, C.D. Communities, Quarries and Geoheritage—Making the Connections. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 1277–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Coletti, C.; Maritan, L.; Cultrone, G.; Dalconi, M.C.; Hein, A.; Molina, E.; Mazzoli, C. Recycling Trachyte Waste from the Quarry to the Brick Industry: Effects on Physical and Mechanical Properties, and Durability of New Bricks. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 166, 792–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Ramalakshmi, M.; Bala Nagendra Babu, M. Study on the Compaction Characteristics of Soil Mixed with Quarry Dust for Effective Recycling of Waste from Stone Quarries. ECS Trans. 2022, 107, 14149–14161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Pereda-Solis, M.E.; Martinez-Guerrero, J.H.; Toca-Ramirez, J.A. Estimation of Hepatic Levels of Heavy Metals and Metalloids in Aquatic Birds from a Wetland Irrigated with Residual Water in the City of Durango, Mexico. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2012, 11, 826–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  170. Zapata, D.A. Análisis de Percepción y Opinión Pública en el Ecuador Caso Santay; Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja: Loja, Ecuador, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  171. Mora, J.G.Q. Assessment of the Water Cleaning Service That Circulates through the Mangroves of the Santay-Ecuador Island. J. Tour. Herit. Res. 2020, 3, 51–66. [Google Scholar]
  172. Villanueva, L.C.; Delatorre, J.; De la Riva, F.; Monardes, V. Greening of Arid Cities by Residual Water Reuse: A Multidisciplinary Project in Northern Chile. AMBIO A J. Hum. Environ. 2003, 32, 264–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Avelar, S.; Vasconcelos, C.; Mansur, K.L.; Anjos, S.C.; Vasconcelos, G.F. Targeting Sustainability Issues at Geosites: A Study in Região Dos Lagos, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Geoheritage 2018, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Fuertes-Gutiérrez, I.; García-Ortiz, E.; Fernández-Martínez, E. Anthropic Threats to Geological Heritage: Characterization and Management: A Case Study in the Dinosaur Tracksites of La Rioja (Spain). Geoheritage 2016, 8, 135–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Ibetsberger, H.J.; Steyrer, H. The Ore of the Alps UNESCO Global Geopark (Salzburg) Geosites and Geotourism BT-Landscapes and Landforms of Austria; Embleton-Hamann, C., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 407–420. ISBN 978-3-030-92815-5. [Google Scholar]
  176. Carrión-Mero, P.; Merchán-Sanmartín, B.; Aguilar-Aguilar, M.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Suárez-Zamora, S.; Bárcenes-Campoverde, R.; Berrezueta, E. Strategies to Improve the Tourist Interest of a Geosite Respecting Its Natural Heritage. A Case Study. Geoheritage 2022, 14, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Selmi, L.; Canesin, T.S.; Gauci, R.; Pereira, P.; Coratza, P. Degradation Risk Assessment: Understanding the Impacts of Climate Change on Geoheritage. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Leka, A.; Lagarias, A.; Panagiotopoulou, M.; Stratigea, A. Development of a Tourism Carrying Capacity Index (TCCI) for Sustainable Management of Coastal Areas in Mediterranean Islands–Case Study Naxos, Greece. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2022, 216, 105978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Rizky Maulidatur, R.; Binti Muti’atul, A.; Tillah, M.; Mayang, W.; Radite Wanudya, A.; Wagistina, S.; Komang Astina, I. Analysis of Tourism Carrying Capacity of Purwodadi Botanical Garden for Supporting A Sustainable Environment. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1066, 012019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Navarrete, E.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Dueñas-Tovar, J.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Jaya-Montalvo, M.; Berrezueta, E. Assessment of Geosites within a Natural Protected Area: A Case Study of Cajas National Park. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Heritage 06 00153 g001 550
Figure 1. Geographical and geomorphological map of the study area. Source: adapted from [91].
Figure 1. Geographical and geomorphological map of the study area. Source: adapted from [91].
Heritage 06 00153 g001
Heritage 06 00153 g002 550
Figure 2. Workflow of the present study.
Figure 2. Workflow of the present study.
Heritage 06 00153 g002
Heritage 06 00153 g003 550
Figure 3. Diagram of the process for the assessment of environmental impact.
Figure 3. Diagram of the process for the assessment of environmental impact.
Heritage 06 00153 g003
Heritage 06 00153 g004 550
Figure 4. Geographical map of evaluation interest sites *. Source: adapted from [91]. * The numbers visible on the geographic map represent the name of each geosite in the box located at the bottom left.
Figure 4. Geographical map of evaluation interest sites *. Source: adapted from [91]. * The numbers visible on the geographic map represent the name of each geosite in the box located at the bottom left.
Heritage 06 00153 g004
Heritage 06 00153 g005 550
Figure 5. General schematization of the assessed environmental aspects.
Figure 5. General schematization of the assessed environmental aspects.
Heritage 06 00153 g005
Heritage 06 00153 g006 550
Figure 6. Favorable aspects in the valued sites of interest.
Figure 6. Favorable aspects in the valued sites of interest.
Heritage 06 00153 g006
Heritage 06 00153 g007 550
Figure 7. Unfavorable aspects in the valued sites of interest.
Figure 7. Unfavorable aspects in the valued sites of interest.
Heritage 06 00153 g007
Heritage 06 00153 g008 550
Figure 8. Average impact value of the rated sites.
Figure 8. Average impact value of the rated sites.
Heritage 06 00153 g008
Table
Table 1. Quantitative evaluation of potential geosites. Obtained from: [90].
Table 1. Quantitative evaluation of potential geosites. Obtained from: [90].
NoGeological Places of Interest
(LIGs, Acronym in Spanish)		Approval PercentageGeosite Relevance ValueScientific/Educational Use ValueTourist Use ValueGeoconservation Index
1Cerro Azul (hill)80.30%12.752.612.2682.36%
2Malecón del Estero Salado (estuary)74.24%11.422.362.2274.44%
3Isla Santay (island)69.70%11.082.331.9069.70%
4Horno de Cal (kilns)65.15%10.081.692.1665.15%
5Canteras de Pascuales (quarries)56.06%9.002.031.4259.03%
6Cantera de Zeolitas (Zeolite quarry)53.03%8.501.811.4255.14%
7Cerro San Pedro (hill)51.52%8.251.811.3553.89%
8Canteras del Cerro San Eduardo (quarries)50.00%8.331.891.1354.31%
Table
Table 2. Registration of sites and their main features.
Table 2. Registration of sites and their main features.
Interest SiteCharacteristicsLocation: Santa Ana Hill Reference Point
Cerro Azul (hill)It is an optimal place for recreational activities such as walking or cycling. It has a high relief and a bluish color where flora and fauna abound due to dense vegetation. Outcrops of volcano-sedimentary (Cayo Formation) and sedimentary (Guayaquil and San Eduardo Formations) rocks can be observed [103,104]. In addition, there are various trails where you can walk and see, in a panoramic way, the great expanse of Guayaquil and the road to the coast.West (9–11 km)
Malecón del Estero Salado (estuary)It has deltaic ramifications from the Pacific Ocean, generating a unique geomorphic and stratigraphic architecture in the sector [105,106]. It has a natural wealth represented by its mangroves and its biodiversity (flora and fauna). Much of the city lies on these deltaic-estuarine deposits.West (3–3.5 km)
Isla Santay (island)It is a protected natural area declared as a RAMSAR site and ecotourism wetland for social, cultural, and economic benefit [107,108]; it has clayey and sandy sediments deposited by the Guayas River and is influenced of the transgression and regression of the Pacific Ocean. It has a natural wealth that enhances social recreation, linking the flora and fauna that abound in the sector [109,110].Southeast (4–5 km)
Horno de Cal (kilns)Located in the natural reserve of the Cerro Blanco Protected Forest and built with calcareous rocks from the sector as sources of lighting for night visits. This sector increases the link between the human being and nature through camps and picnics that improve the coexistence and comfort of visitors, managing to promote social and family recreation [111].West (16–18 km)
Canteras de Pascuales (quarries)In this sector, there are several quarries on the Piñón Formation (Jurassic—Cretaceous), made up mainly of basaltic and diabasic rocks [89,112], where they extract rock material for the construction of roads and construction aggregates for the urban development of Guayaquil.Northwest (17–20 km)
Cantera de Zeolitas (Zeolites quarry)It has volcano-sedimentary rocks from the Cayo Formation (Upper Cretaceous) [113,114] and exploits zeolite rocks for different industrial and agricultural uses. In addition, there are characteristics of a tropical dry forest typical of the area.Northwest (39–40 km)
Cerro San Pedro (hill)It has a singular rocky stratification (almost perpendicular) and excellent stability for population settlement at the base of the hill. Furthermore, it is one of the hills belonging to the Cordillera Chongón-Colonche (Paleogene and Cretaceous rocks) and is mainly made up of silicified shales (Guayaquil Cherts) [89]. Therefore, they are ideal for study and research.West (4–5 km)
Canteras del Cerro San Eduardo
(quarries)		The hill has limestone rocks from the San Eduardo Formation (Upper Eocene) and alluvial soils with good mechanical resistance and low porosity [89], used for manufacturing and distributing cement throughout the country. In this sector, there are several companies dedicated to this type of exploitation.West (13–15 km)
Table
Table 3. Categorization of the twenty-four aspects identified in situ for environment assessment.
Table 3. Categorization of the twenty-four aspects identified in situ for environment assessment.
Environmental AspectsCultural AspectsAspects with Political ManagementSocial Aspects
Gas emission perceptionSymbol or figure culturalSoil quality perceptionGeneration or presence of wastewater
Bad odor perception Electricity consumptionIndustrial activity
Noise and vibration perception Construction for geosite adjustmentsCommercial activities
Fauna Organic waste generationEmployment generation
Flora Inorganic waste generationService generation
Reforestation Hazardous waste generationSocial recreation
Loss of vegetation cover Presence of vehicles (transport or machinery)Tourist capacity
Visual or landscape aspect Tourist safety
Table
Table 4. Approach of strategies for sustainability.
Table 4. Approach of strategies for sustainability.
N.-Strategies
#1Use or implement photovoltaic panels to reduce the energy consumption of the place, focused on isolated and natural areas with difficult adaptabilities, such as Santay Island.
#2Increase the shrub or tree vegetation to counteract the emission of gases and noise caused by the vehicular journey, thus improving the quality of life in the city.
#3Improve the wastewater system to minimize its effect due to poor distribution and disposal in sectors far from the city.
#4Take advantage of the natural environment (flora, fauna and the landscape) and promote geotourism as a geoconservation, reducing the impact on the ecosystem due to the various activities.
#5Properly manage the sites to encourage social recreation and the cultural symbol, represented in several of the natural and mixed sites (located in the anthropogenic contour of the city).
#6Improve the security provided to tourists in each sector to guarantee a good reception, increasing commercial activities, job creation, and services.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Morante-Carballo, F.; Apolo-Masache, B.; Taranto-Moreira, F.; Merchán-Sanmartín, B.; Soto-Navarrete, L.; Herrera-Franco, G.; Carrión-Mero, P. Geo-Environmental Assessment of Tourist Development and Its Impact on Sustainability. Heritage 2023, 6, 2863-2885. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6030153

AMA Style

Morante-Carballo F, Apolo-Masache B, Taranto-Moreira F, Merchán-Sanmartín B, Soto-Navarrete L, Herrera-Franco G, Carrión-Mero P. Geo-Environmental Assessment of Tourist Development and Its Impact on Sustainability. Heritage. 2023; 6(3):2863-2885. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6030153

Chicago/Turabian Style

Morante-Carballo, Fernando, Boris Apolo-Masache, Fred Taranto-Moreira, Bethy Merchán-Sanmartín, Lady Soto-Navarrete, Gricelda Herrera-Franco, and Paúl Carrión-Mero. 2023. "Geo-Environmental Assessment of Tourist Development and Its Impact on Sustainability" Heritage 6, no. 3: 2863-2885. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6030153

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop