Introduction

Rapid industrialization in both developing and developed countries has placed extreme pressure on geodiversity, on which geoheritage conservation depends (i.e., Belgium, Dusar and Dreesen (2012); China, Wang (2007); Germany, Megerle (2012) UK, Prosser et al. (2018) Italy). Geoheritage conservation is more than a moral responsibility. Evolving technology and preserved geoheritage sites allow scientists to refine our knowledge on geological processes and engage and educate the community through recreation. The principle of geology (Lyell 1833) “that the present is the key to the past and leads to the understanding of Earth`s future” (Rudwick 1998; Scott 1998) was acknowledged at the time against the background of the industrial revolution. Even so, the conservational value of geo(morpho)logy is a relatively new concept yet to be fully recognized.

Conservation practice in New Zealand faces the challenge of bicultural management. To create an indigenous specific geoheritage framework, a clear understanding of what this means in practice is mandatory. New Zealand is recognised as a country of bicultural governance (Te Papa 2004) based on The Treaty of Waitangi, signed between the indigenous Māori inhabitants of New Zealand and the Crown (Orange 1987). Subsequently, conservation and land management policies are required to consider principles of the treaty when undertaking actions. (Conservation Act 1987 ; Resource Management Act 1991). Bicultural decisions require meaningful consultation; power-sharing agreements; and clearly laid out co-management strategies with relevant stakeholders (Rother 2016; Tipa and Welch 2006). Places and resources identified by Māori as having spiritual, ancestral, cultural, customary or historical significance are of high importance in any conservation strategy (NGA MANA WHENUA O TAMAKI MAKAURAU and THE CROWN 2012). Nature conservation can and should be based on indigenous values as presented in The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (2000 ). For example monitoring practices of testing waterways for their cultural health from a Māori world view perspective, interweaves environmental, and socio-cultural aspects (Harmsworth et al. 2016) (Harmsworth et al. 2016). In Māori culture, nature and people create a relationship that flows both ways, reflected in the term tangata whenua, which may be translated as “people of the land” (Stafford 2008). Local indigenous knowledge relating to taonga (this Māori term is often used to refer to objects, but can also include places, cultural landscapes, stories, and intellectual property (Craig et al. 2012) has a crucial role in conservation practices. The Resource Management Act, the main piece of legislation for the management of our environment requires local government and iwi authorities to participate equally in the policy making processes, (Resource Management Act 1991; Saunders 2017). However, application of this requirement is not clearly defined by further legislation; often remains unacknowledged in planning and legal processes; and may be widely open to interpretation by regional governance bodies and planning agencies (McCrossin 2013).

Systematic mapping is a useful tool to address and synthesize knowledge and conceptual diversity of a given domain by categorizing and visualizing existing literature and indicating directions for further review work (Grant and Booth 2009). The process initially uses a wide reaching search string able to extract the largest volume of studies related to the specific topic or research question (Ahmad et al. 2018; Petersen et al. 2008; Sebastián Rivera et al. 2019). This type of knowledge synthesis allows a narrowing towards subsequent policy and practice, and may give rise to further relevant questions without the need for a formal quality assessment (Lockwood et al. 2019). Systematic mapping was created as a method to compile a type of report that improves conceptual clarity and in turn improves the quality of policy outcomes. The procedure in turn leads to systematic reviews that are able to define the level of reliability of the identified implications (Haddaway et al. 2016). Healthcare has a long history in developing synthesis tools for monitoring the quality of research instruments through systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The value of systematic reviews may be weakened by poor conceptualization; however, basing it on prior systematic mapping will rectify this potential shortcoming (Reeves et al. 2010).

The concept of heritage is deeply entwined and rooted in human perceptions, memories, and sensations that allow individuals to feel connected to their past. Systematic mapping with supervised keyword acquisition makes use of semantics to understand concepts, theories, conventions, and research within the scientific literature relating to any given field (de Souza Neto et al. 2018; Petersen et al. 2008). Within the discourse of geoheritage, concepts evoked from deeply embedded semantics and related terminology may differ according to socio-economic background, cultural history, and regional history. Supervised acquisition allows for a higher resolution analysis through algorithmic controls and allows filtering of domain specific semantics. Geoheritage has evolved into a major component of the discussion about recovering human and environmental wellbeing. As such, a report on simplified contexts where geoheritage appears is important.

Conceptual ambiguity can be observed in the variety of formula and terms employed to express geoheritage actions soon after the first mention of the term geoheritage at the First International Symposium on the Conservation of our Geological Heritage in 1991. Among the earliest publications outstanding geomorphology was addressed by the term geomorphosites, acknowledging the importance of relevant culture and aesthetics alongside geological research (Grandgirard 1997; Panizza and Piacente 1993). At the same time, geoheritage conservation was given a narrow definition, but still seen as vital to the progression of geological research, education, and training through the protection of geosites and outstanding geological features (Wimbledon 1999). Concerns were raised about prompt actions to take in order to avoid multilateral development of a range of conflicting geoheritage concepts (Wimbledon 1996).

The entwined relationship between promotion and visitation has added to the conceptual diversity. Publicity driven by geotourism can increase foot traffic to geoheritage sites thereby providing economic benefits to locals. Interpretive and service facilities offered by the geotourism industry have potential to facilitate appreciation, learning and research by and for current and future generations (Hose 2012); provide opportunities for conversation and increasing the scope of geoheritage conservation; and reinforce values of local communities and visitors (Bujdosó et al. 2015; Doorne 2000; Dowling 2011; Hose 1996; Newsome and Dowling 2006; Ruban 2015; Štrba 2018). Incorporating geoconservation into the broader field of nature conservation will achieve equal opportunities for geosites alongside sites preserved and promoted on the basis of other values, i.e., cultural, ecological, or aesthetic. Geoconservation includes geoheritage conservation as well as the protection of geodiversity as a contributing factor to biodiversity conservation. Geodiversity on the one hand defines abiotic factors such as geological, geomorphological, and soil environments, which in turn shape biotic factors such as species distribution patterns, climate and social landscapes (Anderson and Ferree 2010; Gray et al. 2013; Pickering 1994).

If providing resources for Earth Science research and increasing awareness is to be the basis of long-term geoheritage conservation plans, simply increasing visitation alone cannot guarantee that all relevant initiatives worldwide will develop satisfactorily in the long run. While literature reviews are abundant, they all address a specific branch within geoheritage (Brown et al. 2018; Cayla 2014; Comănescu et al. 2012; García-Ortiz et al. 2014; Kubalíková 2013; Miljkovic et al. 2018; Mucivuna et al. 2019; Ólafsdóttir and Tverijonaite 2018; Štrba et al. 2015; White and Wakelin-King 2014). A key problem affecting the field is that it rests on multilateral conceptualizations of geoheritage related activities. Robust conceptual boundaries advance the understanding of the most effective strategies to facilitate noncontroversial outcomes, and lead to development of powerful decision-making tools for key stakeholders.

Moreover, the recent history of geoheritage emphasises its fundamental role in sustainability. For example, geoheritage has become an increasingly important UNESCO “product” for local communities in form of administrative areas that are called geoparks. In many jurisdictions, Geoparks are not subject to the same level of strict “non-use” protection that National Parks may be subject to. Meanwhile, academics are highlighting the scope and scale of geoheritage conservation and whether it is in fact resulting in slow recognition and loss of important geological relics (Brilha 2016; Gordon et al. 2018a; Gordon et al. 2012; Grandgirard 1997; Gray 2004; Hayward 2009; Hose 1995; Németh et al. 2017; Panizza 2001; Prosser et al. 2006; Reynard 2008; Sharples 1998; Wimbledon 1999).

Geoheritage does not necessarily require strong measures from governments, it is more reliant on bottom-up initiatives and local expert`s knowledge (Brilha and Reynard 2018; Prosser et al. 2018). However, it has become crucial in our modern world to strengthen this bottom up approach with an evidence-based framework drawing on globally accepted values under the scope of geoheritage. Authorized bodies face hard decisions between the economic and life-supporting needs of society and environmental conservation based on intrinsic values. Generally speaking, geoheritage values can be seen as more robust and part of human history, in contrast to biodiversity values based on delicately balanced biotic systems. Therefore, we argue that geoheritage values can coexist with industrialisation and rapid urban developments within some common parameters. Industrial and economic developments can be seen as part of our geoheritage in the context of quarrying, mineral extraction, metallurgy, and tool-making evolution through human history. However, these parameters need to be set clearly and aligned with globally accepted criteria. Mindful industrial operation within geologically diverse and interesting landscapes can save small geoheritage objects such as outcrops, well-preserved fossils or even crystals paragenesis at a microscopic scale. This approach proves that geoheritage is more a concept based on traditional touristic values such as aesthetics, and geotourism falls far outside the boundaries of more traditional or mainstream of tourism ventures.

To address the conceptual diversity, the goal of this study is to use systematic mapping to identify the current state of knowledge in the pursuit of geoheritage conservation In particular, this study aims to define the main fields where geoheritage is applied or explained as an emerging concept.

We extend our study to the entire range of geoheritage conservation related literature to map out the existing perceptions regarding the scope and scale of geoheritage conservation. The study shows the same keywords used in all conceptual schemes, but their use in varying proportions significantly change the more refined focus specifically on geoheritage conservation.

Methods

To achieve our goals of mapping the field of geoheritage conservation, identifying shifts in perspectives, and describing research streams, we followed an approach combining systematic mapping with interpretive analysis. Our systematic map procedure followed four steps: data collection and pre-processing; classification by supervised acquisition of geoheritage specific topics and keywords; mapping the result; and conceptual interpretation.

Data Collection

To extract data for mapping the literature, we first defined our primary research questions: (Q1) What are the identified conceptual patterns in geoheritage conservation? To answer that we defined two more sub-questions: (q2) What are the main research fields (topics) concerned with geoheritage conservation? (q3) What are the keywords that best describe the geoheritage discourse?

To build the search query we first used a single word, the central element of our research question. The word “geoheritage” as a single search word was not efficient enough to retrieve the entire range of relevant literature because the literature is characterized by heterogeneity in terminology. To define the most effective search string, we utilized the SciVal web-based analytic platform that enables users to instantly analyse their search results and generates powerful data visualizations (https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scival). We were interested in the most frequent word occurring in the articles retrieved (n= 638) by the single search word: geoheritage. We queried the top word by relevance of these articles, resulting in the word “geodiversity” (Fig. 1) with the maximum value of 1 over the period of 2016–2018 defined by the built-in analytic engine working with automated algorithms. (https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/27763/supporthub/scival/).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Word-cloud extracted from SciVal for search word “geoheritage”

Full size image

The search string for our systematic mapping study therefore was defined as “geoheritage OR geodiversity”: over the period of 2000–2019 due to the very low number of publications in the field from the last century. However, important information from publication of the decade 1990–1999 in geoheritage conservation were extracted during the stage of in depth reading of primary articles. By building a comprehensive query, we were able to identify a large set of papers, 14948 in total: 1245 in Scopus, 13280 in Google Scholar, and 423 in Science Direct (Fig. 2). The findings were retrieved in order of relevance from each database and stored in different spreadsheets.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Systematic mapping process

Full size image

The screening for relevant articles started with the exclusion of duplicates, papers not written in English and papers unlikely to answer the research question. To include a paper, its title had to address any nature conservation issue with respect to geology, geomorphology, or geoeducation. If the title did not clearly relate to our study, the paper was excluded by in person reading. After this stage, we had the title, keywords, and abstracts of 2478 papers, from which we selected the most relevant 200 papers for collecting data and a control pool of random 200 papers.

The mapping procedure followed a Supervised Discriminative Keyword Analysis. The retrieved articles were collected and stored in order of relevance. We took a working pool of the most relevant 200 articles to collect training data. Training data consisted of keywords for two distinct areas of interest: field specific topics and conceptual semantics (Fig. 3). The first step was to record all domain specific words with their counts by the screening of the 200 titles and author keywords. We separated them into two classes, one for words that indicated a topic and another for words that indicated conceptual semantics. This technique resulted in 7 topic keywords and 24 conceptual semantic keywords. Unsupervised techniques might require less time, but they are not suitable for recognition in the sphere of semantics. To map the structure of the scientific discourse on geoheritage we were looking for domain specific connotations, such as “geoethics.” The low frequency of the word would not have allowed automated processes to pick up on it; however, its discriminating power to the field is extremely important. Recognizing connotations of a relatively new domain is ultimately beyond the limit of fully automated search techniques or tools. We tested the accuracy of the collected topic, and conceptual semantic keywords using the control pool, and found them to be uniform with the working pool in terms of training data. For further analysis, we counted the frequency of each topic keyword and each conceptual semantic keyword in the collection. Document frequency is used in topic modelling when the aim is to capture the number of documents containing a particular term, without interest in the importance of that term within one document. We next subdivided the collection by running a search for each topic keyword and stored the findings in topic-subsets. For testing the reliability of the collected training data, we visualized the log scaled frequency of documents containing the conceptual semantic keywords in the whole collection against them in individual topic subsets. Breaking down their presence topic by topic revealed the diversity of the geoheritage discourse.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Results of the frequency analysis

Full size image

The procedure led to overlap statistics and discriminatory analysis based on the training data. Our null hypothesis was that topic keywords co-occurring more often than would be expected by chance, form a concept group within the realm of geoheritage. To explore which topic keywords form these concept groups, we ran overlap statistics employing pairwise comparison (Fig. 4). Overlap values are the number of identical papers in two compared topic-subsets. We merged the topic-subsets accordingly into four concept-groups that served as the basis of mapping the literature into concepts. The observed secondary relation between quantification and geotourism was noted and unfolded during the interpretation stage.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Relationship analysis among topics

Full size image

For the discriminatory analysis, we took the document frequency (df) of each conceptual keyword (C) and the number of documents (d) in each concept group (G). To measure how the proportional makeup of these keywords can change the context, we computed their discriminative weights. These weights were calculated to measure the keywords ability as concept discriminators.

$$ {w}_{ij=}\frac{\max (dfC)}{dfC_i}\times \frac{\max (dG)}{dG_j} $$

where the weight (wij) of a given keyword within a given concept group equals to the multiplication of: the fraction of the highest df counted for conceptual semantic keywords (max(dfC)) to the df of given conceptual semantic keyword (dfCi) and the fraction of the number of documents of the biggest concept group (max(dG)) to the given number of documents in the given concept group (dGj).

$$ {DVx}_{ij}={w}_{ij}\times {x}_{ij} $$

We named the weighted df values of a given conceptual semantic keyword within a given concept group (xij) the discriminative value (DVxij). The DV of x was used for mapping the literature (Fig. 5) into a systematic map.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Visualization of a systematic map with corresponding word-clouds

Full size image

The systematic mapping process allowed us to answer our research sub-questions: (q2) What are the main research fields (topics) concerned with geoheritage conservation? (q3) What are the keywords that best describe the geoheritage discourse?

The systematic map is an x-y scatterplot with bubbles in concept group and keyword intersections. The size of a bubble is proportional to the weight of keywords within a conceptual group.

The interpretation stage resulted in conceptual characterization of the four identified groups (Fig. 6) by analyzing the proportional makeup of keywords. Additionally, a secondary screening was undertaken by searching to identify the most discriminative keywords. With that knowledge, we were able to extract primary studies from each concept group. In total, we identified 70 primary publications contributing the most to our interpretation of the conceptual patterns.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Process of the literature review for the characterization of the identified concept groups

Full size image

Results

The results of the systematic mapping allowed us to answer our main research question. (Q1) What are the identified conceptual patterns in geoheritage conservation? We identified four concept groups. With an inverse approach we started screening the titles falling in the given concept group and selected the titles corresponding to the word cloud and filtered their relevance to our research question by reading the abstract. They were included in the primary articles if the in-depth reading confirmed their contribution to the conceptual discourse. We chose a paper as primary article if it addressed the lack of conceptual agreement and proposed determination of scope and scale of geoheritage. We were particularly interested in articles including critical acknowledgment of a different combination of rationale for the scope of geoheritage. While the main goal of our study was to map out key concepts, we also aimed to identify the weaknesses of each concept, giving rise to the very different angles and in some cases demonstrating they could be delaying the formation of universally accepted principles.

During the in-depth analysis, we gave extra attention to investigating the secondary relationship between geotourism and quantification. Primary publications included review papers that were addressing gaps in geoheritage quantification with the primary purpose of geotourism. Review papers have an inherent role in clarifying the state of knowledge and identifying research able to explain the forming new node in literature between quantification and geotourism.

Earth Science

The most relevant keywords that our study identified from the titles falling in this concept group are geological, geomorphological, geosite, geomorphosite, value, method, and tool.

Geosite, as a term, is commonly used to refer to the subject features of geoheritage conservation in general (Brocx and Semeniuk 2007; Fassoulas et al. 2012) whereas the term geomorphosites is used when the observable processes are from the field of geomorphology (Pelfini and Bollati 2014; Reynard 2009; Reynard et al. 2016).

A debated question within the Earth Science community is the weight of aesthetics versus the weight of scientific contribution in evaluation models. One of the most problematic areas from this aspect, are the mining sites. It can be difficult to measure significance of old mines and quarries relating to Earth Sciences, because they more often focus on their importance to human and cultural history. Cultural relevance is still better understood than the importance of informing visitors about geological processes at geosites that may be less favoured for recreational purposes (Marescotti et al. 2018; Ruban et al. 2018). These geosites are valuable educational assets yet it is difficult to protect their accessibility and longevity. A study from López-García et al. (2011) depicts the problem through a case study on protected mining areas. Abundant mines provided insight to otherwise hidden geological processes in the Mazarrón and Cartagena–La Unión district, Spain. Exposed rock formations provide unprecedented materials for earth scientific research and education. While the mining sites are protected, this is to explicitly promote cultural heritage, little recognition is given to their geological heritage value. Important geoheritage sites remain underutilized and at risk of loss (López-García et al. 2011).

Firmly set geographical boundaries placed on geoheritage features can cause confusion. Brocx and Semeniuk (2007) offer a simple solution, stressing the geological aspect as the only way to facilitate sustainable conservation. For education the scale—crystals, outcrops, cliffs, terraces—should not matter as long as the geosite represents any component of Earth Science (Brocx and Semeniuk 2007; Brocx and Semeniuk 2010; Brocx and Semeniuk 2011).

Sovereignty of Earth Science in geoheritage stems from project GEOSITE, a framework to inspire actions to preserve scientifically outstanding elements of geodiversity. Wimbledon (Wimbledon 1996; Wimbledon et al. 1998) The project was linked to the World Heritage System, and later taken over by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS). The aim and principles of this project were to register significant European geosites. Inclusion criteria was extended to aspects such as relevant view of local communities, and regional scientific importance. A centralized working group was formed to ensure scientific rigour for evaluation. GEOSITE was aiming for a balanced coverage between countries (Joyce 2010).

In the undertaking of geoheritage conservation the IUGS in a joint effort with UNESCO, set up a working group in 1995 (Global Geosites Working Group) to collect not only European but a global list of geoheritage sites. ProGEO was assigned the task, leading to a surge in geoheritage conservation activities in Europe. Erikstad (2008) urged international site status conservation measures to facilitate strong international support for geoconservation. The first unifying project, The Global Geopark Network was formed by UNESCO in 2004, to promote geological, natural and cultural knowledge exclusively through engagement with local communities. Notwithstanding the magnitude of such collaboration, UNESCO labels remain selective and are unlikely to fulfil the need for a systematic international network of geosites at local to regional scales (Erikstad 2008). Following up the aforementioned initiatives, Brilha (2016) proposed a conceptual framework of geodiversity, geoheritage, and geoconservation, reinforcing the principles of the GEOSITES projects (Table 1).

Table 1 The principles of GEOSITES project
Full size table

These principles did not achieve consensus. Conservation experts from the environmental sciences prefer an approach that incorporates geoheritage conservation into biodiversity conservation using an aligned evaluation methodology. According to this approach, the success in geoheritage conservation lies in future cooperation among scientists from the wide spectrum of conservation areas (Anderson and Ferree 2010; Erikstad 2013; Hjort et al. 2012; Schrodt et al. 2019). They propose that geology and geomorphology define the patterns and hot spots in biodiversity, therefore geoconservation should put higher emphasis on their interrelatedness.

Call for Aligned Conservation Methods for Geo- and Biodiversity

The most relevant keywords that our study identified from the titles falling in this concept group are geoconservation, management, plan, method, protected area, tool, action, ecosystem, and geosystem.

Kozlowski (2004) describes geodiversity as the perpetual basis for the increasing biological diversity during geological history. The development and survival of life is highly dependent on geophysical conditions. If we want to maintain the balance necessary for resilience, there is a need to implement the two major global programs: 1) conservation of biological diversity and 2) conservation of geodiversity.

Geodiversity in recent conservation planning constitutes the geophysical conditions of inhabitants and connectivity. The outstanding features of geodiversity are not yet recognised as equally important elements of protection as the species living on it. This is due to the fact that protection of biotic elements has a longer history, and therefore a better understood status in conservation initiatives (Crofts 2014). Despite the huge body of research about the benefits of implementing geoscience in all environmental policies, practitioners argue that inequity between the biotic and abiotic in conservation measures jeopardizes sustainability (Brilha 2002; Comer et al. 2015; Crofts 2014; Crofts 2018; Crofts and Gordon 2015; Gordon et al. 2018b; Gray 2008b; Gray 2018; Prosser et al. 2011). Sustainability is an overarching scientific discipline dependent on an integrated knowledge of geosciences and other environmental and social sciences. Geodiversity, relatively recently recognized as a branch of conservation, should be put in the context of current conservation policy frameworks and established as a fundamental component of conservation (Gray et al. 2013; Zwoliński et al. 2018). Although biodiversity conservation has an impregnable purpose of protecting life, we acknowledge still unresolved conceptual questions (Groves et al. 2002; Rands et al. 2010; Wilshusen et al. 2002). Arguments questioning the place of geodiversity in biodiversity conservation have their fundamental counterpoints that explain the need for exclusive geoconservation principles as visualised in Table 2. The pivot point is the perceived necessity to decide between ecocentric or anthropocentric perspectives (Kopnina et al. 2018). Geodiversity includes resources for provision that may be in conflict with the principles of biodiversity conservation, but it can coexist with geoheritage conservation. For this reason, geoheritage conservation should be considered as a standalone branch of the discipline.

Table 2 Arguments why geodiversity should be assessed along with biodiversity and counterpoints why geodiversity itself deserve undivided attention for conservation through geoheritage
Full size table

The ambiguity in applications of the term geodiversity constrain its present use as a working concept. Discussing geodiversity outside of geoscientific disciplines would result in validating broader applications. For example, geodiversity elements should be quantified according to their relationship with the spatial distribution and abundance of species (Boothroyd and McHenry 2019). Hjort et al. (2015) further elaborated how geodiversity is crucial for sustaining species and ecosystems, thereby encouraging a fully integrated and unified approach to geo- and biodiversity.

In contrast, it is difficult to incorporate small-scale geoheritage objects or processes, such as minor and localised volcanic eruption sequences, because they are perceived to have little relation to biodiversity conservation. Strict linkage of geodiversity to biodiversity risks the loss of geoheritage sites of non-protected domains like active mining areas or urban development areas. (Del Monte et al. 2013; Gravis et al. 2020a; Gravis et al. 2020b; Habibi et al. 2018; Marescotti et al. 2018; Valdez 2018)

Mocior and Kruse (2016) reviewed the educational values of landscapes, mainly through geoheritage evaluation methods, and concluded they are too weighted towards geology specifically and would benefit from addressing ecological values encompassing all elements of nature and their interactions. As an example, “geological age” or “number of interesting geological features” could be transformed by removing the specifying adjective “geological”. On that matter “ecological value” should not be considered as an additional criterion (Kubalíková 2013; Pereira et al. 2007) but one of the fundamentals (Bollati et al. 2015; Bollati et al. 2013). This demonstrates that education is one of the ecosystem services that should be incorporated into the quantification of ecosystem services.

The Concept of Geomorphosites, the Leading Resource for Geoparks

The most relevant keywords that our study identified from the titles falling in this concept group are development, potential, tourist, and UNESCO.

There is a strong relationship between the keyword geomorphosite and the concept as relating to geotourism and geoparks. Geotourism is one of the core activities of geoparks that stimulate sustainability (Farsani et al. 2011). To date, geomorphosites are more attractive for geotourism purposes (Pelfini and Bollati 2014). If the socio-economic benefit is the main goal, geomorphosites have anaesthetic advantage over geological sites.

Pervasiveness of this concept is demonstrated by examination of respective review papers. Results show (Tables 3 and 4) an elevated recognition of geoheritage in the context of geotourism. More than half of the review papers narrow geotourism down to a specific factor, the geomorphology. Promoting geoheritage as aesthetically pleasing landforms serviced by facilities catering to tourist demands and recreational purposes attracts the public (Office of World Geopark 2004). The resultant benefit of preserving geoheritage is its potential positive effect on local economy. Renowned researchers have devoted entire articles and books to clarifying the principles of geotourism (Dowling 2008; Hose 1995; Hose 2000; Hose 2010; Newsome and Dowling 2006).

Table 3 Summary of the review protocols review papers used
Full size table
Table 4 Findings and conclusions of the review papers
Full size table

According to Ollier (2012), geotourism takes place mainly within natural or wilderness areas, which in turn conceptually reduces the vital role of geological exposures in road cuts and quarries that are often considered of no aesthetic value. A conceptual argument is implied in the promotional material of National Geographic, defining geotourism as the tourism that sustains or enhances the distinctive geographical character of the place—its environment, heritage, aesthetics, culture, and well-being of its residents (National Geographic 2020). This approach ignores one of the main objectives of raising scientific awareness. National Geographic magazine is described as the “bellwether” nature publication in the USA, translated to over 40 local-language editions, global circulation of around 6.7 million that has been advertising environmental issues over the past 30 years (Ahern et al. 2012; National Geographic Boilerplates 2015). No doubt the environment, heritage, aesthetic values, culture and well-being of residents are the major winners of any conservation activities. However, by stressing these factors and excluding others, the original quest for protecting extremely informative exposures of past geological processes, or a geosite of spiritual value based on centuries to millennia of community engagement (Gravis et al. 2017), will ultimately lose the battle against human demolition (Del Monte et al. 2013; Gravis et al. 2020b; Ruban 2010).

Kubalíková (2013) found that ethical and social principles of geotourism are often neglected and the motivation is often economic profit . Štrba et al. (2015) highlighted the problem of arbitrary and ad hoc interpretation of geoheritage, resulting in varying assessment methods making it impossible to compare (therefore validate) competing geoheritage nominations. Ólafsdóttir and Tverijonaite (2018) noted that research on the effect of geotourism on geological knowledge and engagement with local communities is scarce and this scarcity makes it difficult to improve educational material and wellbeing of communities. Mucivuna et al. (2019) mainly addressed the technical issues of the evaluation methods, noting they generally lack clarity on objectives, criteria and consistency on weighting and formula applied. Despite differences in problems raised through their findings, proposed solutions always include the reduction of subjectivity, either through elimination of fuzzy criteria such as aesthetics, or the unification of the methods where comparability results in objectivity.

Through this approach, it is widely acknowledged and recognised that UNESCO is a “brand” that strictly protects its integrity for delivering features that are the most unique of their kind, under the designation of World Heritage Sites. As the tentative list increased in parallel with the desire to protect more and more geosites, a system was instigated to bundle the features into one geographic subdivision for enhancing their significance, and for the purposes of education, management and monitoring.

Community Involvement for Sustainability

The most relevant keywords that our study identified from the titles falling in this concept group are development, potential, tourist, communities, and geoethics.

Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits nature provides to people (Danley and Widmark 2016). Geoheritage as a constituent of ecosystem services would be established as important to humanity by its inclusion under the umbrella of ecosystem services through recognition of the term geosystem services (Gray 2008a). Ecosystem services play a major role in 41 of 169 targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (Wood et al. 2018). The study of Van Ree et al. (2017) aimed to debunk the place of geosystem services in ecosystem management. They found that geosystem services are significantly underrepresented in contemporary studies on the topic. Conceptualization of ecosystem services has been driven predominantly by biological and ecological scientists, interpreting biodiversity and ecosystems as underpinning all dimensions of human, societal, cultural, and economic well-being (Folke et al. 2016; Van Ree et al. 2017).

The Sustainable Development Goals prompt all countries to achieve 17 broad development goals by 2030 (United Nations 2015). Gill (2017) presented a matrix to visualise the role of geologists in helping to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. The study identified that Earth Materials, Processes and Management support 12 of 17 goals (71%), Earth Science Skills and Practice support 10 of 17 goals (59%) and the synthesis clearly demonstrates geologists have a role in achieving all 17 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Gill 2017).

An emerging view is that sustainability science needs to be integrated into the Earth Sciences (Stewart and Gill 2017). The exact definition and value of geoheritage might be under debate, but its contribution to sustainability from varying perspectives is undeniable as well as the contribution geologists can make to resilient communities (Stewart and Gill 2017). Gray (2011) published his analysis demonstrating the lack of application of geosciences in the global environmental solution frameworks and introduced the term geosystem services. To highlight the significance of geodiversity he used the classification of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) and presented the place of geodiversity in four classes of ecosystem services; i) regulating Earth system cycles, ii) provisioning physical resources, iii) supporting and forming soil and land, iv) cultural and community engagement through platforms such as geotourism, v) knowledge of the Earth Sciences for understanding, monitoring and forecasting.

Discussion

The significant body of geoheritage conservation literature forms conceptual network with four major theme nodes. The characterization of these four key nodes as concepts revealed (Fig. 7) that geoscientific knowledge governs the course of events in geoheritage conservation.

Fig. 7
figure 7

The circular nature of the four key concepts identified in our systematic mapping

Full size image

Below we discuss our findings from the systematic mapping from four main aspects “purposes and principles,” “role of education,” “decision-making challenges,” and “participatory geoconservation.”

  1. 1.

    The purposes are to promote and to strive for the protection of geoheritage by principles that deliver Earth Science knowledge and generate geotourism. The purposes and principles present an inherent conflict between conservation and tourism. Recognizing the responsibilities embedded in the overarching concept of geoheritage there is an urgent need for uniting them and achieving a balance between protection and promotion. The geodiversity concept based on the biodiversity framework has brought geoheritage closer to the long-practiced guidance of biodiversity conservation.

Within the biodiversity framework, the mere existence of a species is justification for protection, there is no morally acceptable debate over the value of life. This drives the argument back to the conflict between conservation and tourism, in protecting species or sensitive habitats strict measures are applied, for instance severe limitation of visitors. Geoheritage conservation associated with biodiversity conservation gives a false idea about strict regulations and cuts grass root initiatives short. In effect, geoheritage does not require strict protection to be able to offer public access. However, an instrument for organizing geoheritage is necessary. Geoparks are the most effective mediators to promote and protect geoheritage. Geoparks facilitate promotion, access, networking, community engagement, and consequently economic growth and sustainable development. Geoheritage conservation and geoparks are shown to be a significant gap in Sustainable Development Goals agenda (United Nations 2015).

Awareness about geoheritage is growing through geotourism as an emerging global activity channelled by geoparks (Dowling and Newsome 2010; Dowling 2011; Ruban 2015). The geopark system is coordinated by the dominant international organisation UNESCO, under the name of the Global Geopark Network (http://www.globalgeopark.org/). The support of international governing bodies and national governments may give rise to smaller scale geopark networks. For example, China created a hierarchical system of regional, national and international (UNESCO) geopark networks (Xun and Milly 2002). This strategy supports bottom-up initiatives and allows for a graduated growth from a regional practice toward the rigorous UNESCO requirements. Regional geoparks prepare communities for attention and responsibilities the UNESCO label invokes. Geoparks are vastly superior in protecting geological heritage, balancing economic and tourism development, and educating the public. (Bailey and Hill 2010). Declaration of UNESCO (2016) targets the geoparks toward the general public in order to enhance the laypersons awareness of geology. This includes facilitating an understanding of geologic timescales and periods through the global geopark network as they are the best option for informing the public about the entire Earth history. Global geoparks should offer appropriate interpretations about geologic time, but they are often only located in the most accessible locations. Geoparks need to be taken together as well to represent length and significance of each geologic era and eradicate bias towards certain geologic periods (Ruban 2016).

  1. 2.

    This study mapped education as the connection between all environmental disciplines. Education is also the key to knowledge-induced sustainability and resilience to environmental hazards. According to Mata-Perelló et al. (2012), geology is one of the most influential factors in human development, as it determines the evolution of societies and can inform answers to the challenges of urban growth and high quality of life. UNESCO (1998) referred to the birth of socio-geosciences as an unavoidable milestone in human development given the influence of geological resources and geological based risks to society. Socio-geoscience is an emerging discipline addressing sustainable development with respect to the population and environment. Mata-Perelló et al. (2012) proposed a reclassification of geological resources into extractable and non-extractable. Under the non-extractable group, we find the subcategories scientific, cultural, heritage, didactic and recreational. They put scientific knowledge at the top of the hierarchy because it may reduce and mitigate geological risks by increasing policy impact. There is a growth in small volume disasters that could be prevented by more effective local actions that prioritise the principle of mitigation (Puiguriguer 2007).

Societal utilization of resources in an unsustainable manner is causing irreversible changes affecting many fundamental aspects of human life. We do have the knowledge and the potential to make changes to sustain the economy while eradicating global problems through wise management of geological resources, reducing risks, and promoting equitable social development. Geoscientists need to be encouraged to be involved in discussions around sustainable development (Mora 2013; Stewart and Gill 2017). Geoscientists are well equipped to develop more sustainable practices by informing society about the varying manifestations of Earth processes at different spatial and temporal scales (Gosselin et al. 2013).

  1. 3.

    The implementation of geoscientist participation processes into conservation planning and providing space for indigenous co-participation in geoheritage conservation ventures is important for the democratisation of natural values. Geoheritage values are often overlooked in unprotected areas (cities, mines, archaeological sites, infrastructure sites, indigenous sites). With the extent of overlaps in protected area designations, these geoheritage features can be out of sight of policy makers. At a global scale, quarter of the protected terrestrial network, and under a fifth of the global marine network, is protected by two or more designations (Deguignet et al. 2017). The most common overlap is between one or several national designations, with at least one international designation risking conflicting objectives among different governing bodies. Doubled or tripled designations are particular in western China and need more attention to avoid unclear management objectives, imbalance in regional geopark distribution and inefficient use of funding (Wang 2007).

The literature on geoheritage is very vocal about the hierarchical relationship between bio and geodiversity (Ibáñez et al. 2019). In the case of conflicting objectives, this means geoheritage is inevitably placed at a disadvantage. Moreover, geoheritage carrying very high scientific values outside of protected areas does get overlooked (Gravis et al. 2020a)).

The idea of geoparks unites the principles of different conservation goals that gives a fair share of importance to biodiversity. For that reason, very often geoparks share at least part of their territory with areas for conserving nature, wildlife or relics of human history. That can result in a shift of focus from integration of geoscience or the role of geoscience in cultural development and result in unbalanced educational material across disciplines (Megerle and Pietsch 2017).

The operational guidelines of the Global Geopark Network (Office of World Geopark 2004) express the strong statement that no destruction or economic transaction based on the geological value of a global geopark will be tolerated, except for scientific or educational purpose. Geoparks must reflect the principles set by the Sustainable Development Goals. Setting sustainability as an essential practice for economic development and management structure results in a geoheritage evaluation from locals’ perspective, presence, and needs. Thus, investing in geoparks contributes to the development of tourism and related actions through the enhancement and promotion of geoheritage. Encouraging active participation in the geopark operation revalidates and revitalizes the values of the territory’s heritage. Furthermore, a global geopark must work within a network leading to cross cultural collaboration and new by-products linked with geoheritage and cultural heritage (Patrick et al. 2010). These principles often conflict with the management policies of national parks or protected areas that often require strict protection.

In research presented by Wilshusen et al. (2002), biodiversity protectionists argue that i) biodiversity protection is a moral imperative, ii) conservation linked to development does not protect biodiversity, iii) harmonious, ecologically friendly local communities are myths and iv) that emergency situations require extreme measures. These points are sharply at odds with policies of a geopark that address several issues such as i) people in rural areas suffer from economic decline, ii) the need for educational programs that employ inventive communication techniques, iii) and geological landforms may be either ignored, or appreciated only for their aesthetics. The main conflict arising from establishment of geoparks within already protected areas is that the latter exerts restrictions on land use, while the former encourages locals to engage in more traditional industries and to be an integral part of management promoting sustainable geotourism.

  1. 4.

    Participatory process is an emerging approach in the form of bottom-up consultation and involvement of local communities. It is considered to be beneficial to earn UNESCO Global Geopark status (Bailey and Hill 2010). On the one hand, however, it is not always appealing to locals due to the fear of sudden popularity or the possible effects on indigenous sacred elements. And on the other hand, UNESCO geoparks must deliver international significance (Adie 2017) and no deviation from this rigid quality standard is accepted. Remote rural communities often have no capacity to carry that expected quality. To enable geoconservation at areas of all backgrounds national geopark networks should be encouraged through a process whereby communities would receive attention gradually and take advantage of ample time adapt to geopark goals.

While geoparks safeguard our geoheritage, we question whether that should be the only conservation goal? There will always be areas where a geopark may not be culturally or occupationally suitable, or areas simply lacking the required capacity. Due to the strong geoheritage movement within the geoscientific world, these sites are recognized and inventoried. Additionally, a robust framework for a convention would guide landowners for a geoheritage favouring operation, for example a privately owned quarry in a geologically significant area. Re-establishing the GEOSITES program within the International Geoscience Program could be a suitable starting point for a bottom up community-based framework for the protection of single geosites of local, regional, or national importance.

The GEOSITES project set the objective of compiling an international list of each and every region’s representative geological sites. Geoparks or geotrails may not require strict protection status, but they should be subject to a strict process driven by local communities and promoting cultural integrity. This is a would be a significant instrument towards more comprehensive nature conservation in countries where government may already support national geoparks. When the only option is for local initiatives to strive towards the goal of UNESCO Geopark status, they unfortunately need to prove a special local and biotic significance of the area, which may be a significant burden and obstacle to any form of lesser protection. UNESCO was established on principles of culture, flora, fauna, and geodiversity and these are inseparable, as they should be. Communities lacking opportunities or resources (both financial and human resources) for developing and instigating a geopark plan would greatly benefit from the GEOSITES project. As Ryan and Silvanto (2011) noted UNESCO’s list of World Heritage Sites as the “coveted brand and seal of approval,” it is clear that it will not allow all of a region`s representative geological sites to dilute this quality. However, a global list of purely geologically/geomorphologically significant sites can provide the basis for evolution of a geopark plan or simply to facilitate access to individual sites that may be threatened. To operate a geopark, there is a need for people who identify themselves as related to the area. As the geopark idea was born in the era of growing acknowledgement of the importance of sustainability, we agree that it should facilitate the rise of local communities, with concepts such as biodiversity, cultural significance, geodiversity, inextricably connected. When a geopark is managed by locals and their associated businesses, a sense of pride for the culture and nature in the region will be restored. GEOSITES has the potential to be a “brand” for geoheritage as “UNESCO “has come to be widely recognised for cultural heritage. Unfortunately, as earlier discussed the program stopped despite the serious need for it. Protecting individual outstanding geodiversity features depends on countries conservation strategies, which may be well-developed in certain countries such as New Zealand.

The Auckland Volcanic Field provided topography and fertility for a unique culture to grow and develop into an indigenous culture significantly different from the Pacific Island culture from which it originally evolved (Anderson 2009) (Anderson 2009). This culture is recognised in New Zealand’s bicultural governance through the Treaty of Waitangi, though the Western cultural paradigm remains dominant. Māori culture is acknowledged as significant and important, and as a living, dynamic, and evolving culture has adapted many of its elements to remain relevant and important in modern society (Mead and Mead 2016) (Mead, 2016). The Māori worldview reflects the Western concept of sustainability through a holistic approach that sees humankind as part of an inseparable from nature and its ecosystems, rather than existing outside of or above the natural domain (Marsden 2013). Māori values are strongly intertwined with geoscientific values and give significance to outstanding geological/geomorphological features on the basis of self-identity and the unbreakable relationship between people and the land. Geoscientific research in Auckland takes place in a bicultural context and institutions are required to develop a grounding for indigenous knowledge. Māori values also shape the ethics and principles that shape decision making and interactions with the environment at both physical and spiritual levels (Mead and Mead 2016) (Mead, 2016). The Māori world view and its associated ethical principles and values provide a basis for what is valued and define the information required to establish what is significant and how to prioritise values among natural resources (Harmsworth and Awatere 2013). Geoparks were established to promote such holistic, interconnected relationships with nature based on a rich traditional knowledge base developed through centuries of occupation. The Auckland Volcanic Field and its power to shape the social landscape should be understood in more far-reaching terms as it sets an unprecedented example of two radically different cultures not only coexisting but attentive and concerned about one another.

We designed a chart (Fig. 8) to break down geoheritage across primary values and variables of conservation and tourism. The chart prompts understanding of the scope of geoheritage in the broad framework of geosystem services. The x axis is the intrinsic conservational value, ranging from high biodiversity value to high geodiversity value, with a moderate value of both in the middle. The y axis is the geosystem services value, ranging from a high provisional value to a high social geology value. Provisional values are the extractable geological resources and social geological values are the associated educational and historical values of the natural elements providing nonmaterial benefits for society (aesthetics, recreational or cultural quality of the landscape). High intrinsic geodiversity values coincide with high Earth Scientific impact, resulting in high geoheritage occurrences. The high intrinsic value correlated with high geoheritage values stretch widely along the spectrum of geosystem services as they get featured within mines, quarries, and cultural landscapes. With the decrease of geodiversity value, biodiversity values appear and multi designated areas occur. Believing in the inherent right for outstanding natural features to exist, geotourism is separated from tourism but not as a true superset of geoheritage. Geotourism as interpreted today is seen as an activity to engage with geoheritage but is slightly shifted toward classic tourism due to the necessary acknowledgment of tourist demands (high social value, aesthetics, tourist facilities).

Fig. 8
figure 8

Relationships among major factors of conservation that influence the establishment of the scope and scale of geo heritage in geosystem services

Full size image

Protected areas and UNESCO World Heritage Sites focus dominantly on biodiversity and their amenity values. The role of geodiversity is more acknowledged on the side of provisions of habitat and food to wildlife. Endangered species require extreme measures managed under the category of strict nature reserves defined by the World Commission on Protected Areas. Activities within these areas established exclusively for scientific field work. The curve of strict protection drops when human needs for agricultural land or unique experiences of social landscapes overwrite the highest level of conservation status. Other protection statuses such as UNESCO, or category II-IV Protected Area also generate a large share of tourism.

Conclusion

A systematic mapping study of geoheritage conservation across three decades of practice was considered necessary to address key concepts in the literature that were overlapping and at the same time forming a foundation for conflict between competing interests and ideals. The results of this study provide a structured understanding of the state of geoheritage. The identified keywords of the main body of geoheritage literature were shown to be depicting four major strands of conceptual thinking: i) geoscience focus; ii) call for aligned conservation methods for geo- and biodiversity; iii) the concept of geomorphosites, the leading resource for geoparks; iv) emphasis on community involvement for sustainability.

Assigning value to geoheritage, if left to individuals, will be dependent on their perception. Perception on what we value is a private experience. It is ultimately beyond any measurement technique or tool. Without our capacity to objectively measure and compare the values assigned by perception, policy makers cannot build them into conservation planning.

Our responsibility is to facilitate the survival of the relics and landscapes telling the story of the Earth’s history beyond the limits of human perception of value, which remains prone to instability. Additionally, we have a duty to counteract preventable losses while considering potential benefits for local communities. And that is as well ultimately the concept of sustainability. A unified perception can be achieved if geoscientific facts are taken as the basis for the scope and scale of geoheritage. Science is built on evidence that cannot be changed by individual experiences.

It is a great challenge to find agreement on subjective values, but necessary to open up further opportunities for efficient geoheritage conservation. In order to meet the challenge, we need to understand all the conceptual proposals involved with geoheritage conservation. Understanding the reasoning behind different concepts will lead to better cooperation between practitioners of varying scientific background. This will require concerted effort on the part of policy makers to do more to understand and advance geoheritage conservation. Working with local communities, authorities, planners, and decision makers is crucial for sustainability and long-term adaptation strategies. The geoscientific community therefore must shift its attention toward conservation matters and engage in the geoconservation-geoheritage-sustainability discourse, thus confirming principles and guidelines that will lead to successful local initiatives. In the meantime, it is also important to ensure that those initiatives place prime importance on the outstanding geoscientific value, the principal factor of geoheritage. This paper is a stepping-stone to that consensus as it summarized the full spectrum of geoheritage related standpoints and concerns in addition to illuminating the often-underrated complexity of geoheritage conservation.