1. Introduction

Landscape studies, from the standpoint of natural and Earth sciences, are approached in a variety of fields, including geography, geology, and biology, to name a few. According to Bastian (2014), the German school generally defends that the landscape can be divided into two categories: natural and biophysical, in which a section of the Earth's crust is characterized by a uniform structure that follows certain natural laws.

Therefore, the landscape consists of the abiotic complex, which includes the geological and geomorphological structure, soil, water, and climate; the biotic complex, which consists of fauna and flora, and the relationships between the geosphere and biosphere (Haase & Mannsfeld 2002).

Morin (1977) defends that the landscape must be thought of as a system in which the relationship between the configuration of natural elements and the processes that build it, interwoven in a temporal and spatial scale. Santos (2002) explores the spatial scale and states that, as the landscape is a set of shapes (natural physical elements), it should, at a temporal scale, express the constant transformations of the relations between society, environment, and time.

Despite the definition of landscape being studied in different contexts, a single definitive meaning is far from being adopted by the scientific community as whole, as it would involve questions that are still under discussion. In this study, the definition adopted for the assessment of landscape is what proposed Coelho Netto (1992 apud Dantas et al. 2015) and Dantas and Coelho Netto (1995), in which the landscape related to geomorphology can be understood as a spatial result of the interaction between several different variables in relation to the geo-biophysical setting and, therefore, it regards the dynamic of the geomorphological processes at different spatial and temporal scales.

The objective of this research is the analysis of the landscape with a focus on its abiotic component, viewing to insert it in geoheritage studies. For the enhanced development of protocols that include the assessment of landscape beyond the literature review, which is scarce on this subject, methods that aid in the determination of which criteria are important are utilized.

Thus, in this study, the criteria proposed by previous studies are considered, with the goal of identifying which of them fit the assessment of the landscape in relation to geoheritage. Therefore, in addition to the presented literature, we sought to assess what is significant in the concept of landscape as a component of regional geoheritage, by consulting with experts.

2. Landscape and Geoheritage

In studies relating to geoheritage, the landscape has been assessed from a cultural and/or tourist perspective by Lugeri et al. (2012), Niculiţă and Mărgărint (2018), Portal and Kerguillec (2018), and Reynard and Giusti (2018). Furthermore, Pereira et al. (2015) approached landscape assessment using criteria proposed by Pereira and Pereira (2010), such as rarity, representativeness, integrity, diversity, and scientific knowledge.

In this sense, landscapes are recognized as components of the geoheritage defined by Lopes (2017) as a set of places in a determined area, of abiotic origin, with scientific, cultural, didactic, touristic, aesthetic, ecological value, among others, obtained from the assessment and that are recognized by the scientific community and the local community.

Historically, there is a public interest in following trails with unique geological and geomorphological features, using these natural attractive aspects as a tourism activity. Geotourism, according to Moreira (2014), can be defined as “a sustainable touristic segment, taken by people interested in knowing more about the geological and geomorphological aspects of a certain place, this being their main motivation of the trip”.

Geotourism must be linked to geoconservation, as its practices are related to the promotion of geoheritage, encouraging its protection. (Rodrigues & Carvalho 2010). Degrandi (2011) sustain that activities related to geotourism go beyond the contemplation of natural landscape but are directly related to the interpretation of processes of geological and geomorphological origins in the formation of these landscapes, as well as its environmental preservation. Moura-Fé (2015) highlights that both the interpretation of the landscape and the possibility of environmental education promoted by geotourism facilitate the understanding of the marks geological and geomorphological processes leave at different temporal scales.

Landscapes are categorized within geoheritage as part of geomorphological heritage and Oliveira and Rodrigues (2014) point out the importance of their preservation, as well as the assessment of the touristic potential of these areas. Reynard (2008) and Kubalíková (2016) determine strategies and case studies for the promotion of geotourism of geomorphological heritage.

One of the most common tools used in geoconservation research, quantitative and qualitative assessments of geoheritage have been carried out using various methods and in the most diverse locations on the planet, with a variety of goals in mind, including the assessment of environmental impact, inventory of natural heritage, tourism promotion, and management of conservation units (CUs).

Romão and Garcia (2017) present a history of inventories at national and international scales in the last decades, and the several methods of local and regional assessments that have been developed according to the specificities of the regions studied and the objectives of each assessment. Among them, we can cite: Rivas et al. (1997), Uceda (2000), Brilha (2005, 2016), Pereira (2006), Pereira (2010), García-Cortés and Carcavilla-Urquí (2009), Lima, Brilha and Salamuni (2010), Santos et al. (2020), among others.

Regarding geomorphological heritage, Figueiró, Vieira and Cunha (2014) point out that places of geomorphological interests must be assessed according to the scientific/educational value associated with ecological value, following the recommendation of Coratza and Giusti (2005). The assessment, according to Figueiró, Vieira and Cunha (2014), must be composed by the inventory (identification, classification, description, and representation) and valuation (singularity, rarity, representativity, grandiose, vulnerability, and ecological support). The definition of the criteria to be considered depends on the study’s context, but as indicated by Reynard et al. (2007), the most recurring are: rarity, representativity, and integrity. However, Lima, Brilha and Salamuni (2010) propose that, when taking inventory, four criteria must be observed: subject, value, scale, and usage. The unification of these criteria poses a difficulty to researchers working on this subject.

Mucivuna, Reynard and Garcia (2019) go further in the research of methodological questions that provide the creation of inventories and the qualitative and quantitative assessment of places of geomorphological interest. The authors reach the conclusion that the methods should be more systematic, to enable its reproduction in different contexts, and that the criteria, oftentimes, are used incorrectly, resulting in the overlapping of interests according to the objectives of the research.

The works that approach the geomorphological heritage in Brazil often use classical methods of geoheritage assessment (e.g., Brilha, 2005, 2016). Nevertheless, some research propose a more specific assessment to this heritage, like Pereira (2010), at Chapada Diamantina; Lopes (2017) in a study on the coastal region of the state of Piauí, and Santos et al. (2020), in a southeastern coast of the state of Rio de Janeiro.

3. Methodology and Data

The material used in this research include scientific publications with subjects involving the concepts of geoconservation, inventory, regional and local geology, landscape, geomorphology, geodiversity, and geoheritage. Additionally, the Delphi method was used for the assessment of criteria for the classification of landscapes, of which the techniques and applications are well-founded in Linstone and Turoff (1975).

The Delphi method consists of anonymous consulting with experts in two or more steps. To choose the experts, we checked national and international scientific journals for available works related to the subject-matter, with keywords like “geoheritage”, “geoconservation”, “geodiversity”, “geotourism”, “natural heritage”, “geological heritage”, and “geomorphological heritage”. From these works, we checked the Lattes Platform of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) to identify researchers who have worked with the subject of geoheritage in Brazil.

In this sense, 116 experts were selected and the central subject of research during Masters or Doctorates programs had the aforementioned keywords. We also chose 14 researchers who possess some kind of guidance on the subject-matter within the context of geoheritage in their curriculum.

Considering the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, contact with the experts was carried out remotely via e-mail from July-October of 2020, in which a form was presented on the online platform Google Forms, proposing parameters to be considered in the assessment of landscapes according to concepts involving geoheritage. The use of the tool enabled the anonymous participation (without identifying the surveyee) of experts across Brazil.

Then, two rounds of consults with experts were carried out. For the first step, between July and August 2020, we proposed to the participants that they define the categories they believe to be important for analyzing landscapes and places of geomorphological interests, and how much weight each category should be given, as well as category suggestions.

The second step, which took place between September and October 2020, was based on the projection of the collected answers from the first round, which were composed by the assessment form and included the best reviewed categories as well as the participants' suggestions from the first step.

After completing both steps, the data was analyzed as a whole, while keeping the surveyees' initial formation in mind. To reduce the possibility of trends in parameter assessment due to surveyee diversity, the experts were divided into two knowledge groups: Applied Social Sciences and Exact and Earth Sciences. As a result, the parameters were analyzed based on the weight assigned to them in these two groups, with the final weight to be analyzed during the assessment of places of geomorphological interest being averaged.

4. Results

4.1 Application of the Delphi Method

The Delphi method was applied to the sample universe of 130 potential surveyees, with the participation sample of 76 (58.5%) surveyees. The fields of the surveyees of the first step were very diverse: Geography (50%), Geology or Engineering Geology (27%), Tourism (7%), and other fields which made up 13% of the sample. Surveyees from 22 different national organizations, especially universities and research centers, participated in this first step.

From the literature regarding the subject, 23 parameters - which appear relatively frequently in works about geoheritage and geotourism - were determined, such as: Grandgirad (1995, 1996), Rivas et al. (1997), Restrepo (2004), Coratza and Giusti (2005), Pralong (2005), Serrano and González-Trueba (2005), Pereira (2006), Brilha (2005, 2016), Pereira (2010), Paula and Castro (2016) and Lopes (2017).

The parameters were presented to the experts and assessed according to importance in relation to the scientific objective of the research. Each surveyee chose to include, exclude or give no opinion about each parameter. If the expert chose to include the parameter, we also asked that they include its weight (importance) (Likert, 1932), which varied from least to most important for each criterion, as well as criticisms and suggestions.

Figure 1 shows the obtained results about the inclusion and exclusion of the parameters to be analyzed in both rounds of expert consultations. Figure 2 represents the weight choices obtained in three moments of the research: the first round of the Delphi method, the second round, and after weighing between the groups of each field (final weight).

Figure 1
Assessment of inclusion and exclusion of parameters by the experts in the two rounds of the Delphi method.

The results of expert consultation during the first round indicates that, despite the lack of unanimity in either analyzed parameter, there is convergence in attributing higher weights to parameters related to geology and geomorphology in comparison to those related to landscape and tourism.

Figure 2
Weight attributed by experts during the two rounds of the Delphi method and the final weight.

The parameter “representativity” was the one that obtained the inclusion percentage of 90.67%, while “scientific knowledge” obtained 98.67%. The parameters “presence of bodies of water” and “panoramic set of natural features” obtained the inclusion indicators of 86.67% and 89.33%, respectively. We call attention to the inclusion percentage of the “scenic beauty and landscape harmony” (93.33%) and “local or regional importance” (92%) parameters. The “services” parameter showed an inclusion rate of 88%.

We must also highlight that parameters linked to tourism show high levels of inclusion, but, in proportion, they become average when compared to lower importance parameters.

This configuration can indicate that, when analyzing the landscape, the set of experts consider the natural characteristics of the landscape more important than access and service features to these places of geomorphological interest.

Among the suggestions - accepted for the second round -, it was pointed out that the parameters “scenic beauty”, “landscape harmony”, and “recognized natural scenic beauty” must be analyzed together, and not as separate parameters, decreasing the subjectivity of the analysis. Additionally, it was also suggested the inclusion of the parameter “visibility”, regarding how many landscapes are visible for the viewer from different positions.

The adhesion index of the second round was of 50 researchers (65.78%) in relation to the first round. In this step, the form was constructed individually, so that every expert would be able to access their answers from the previous step as well as the values generated by the group who participated in the first step.

In the second round, Figure 1, the parameter “singularity” was unanimously chosen by the experts to be included in the inventory, and “didactic potential” obtained a relative increase in importance. We also highlight the importance of the parameter “geodiversity” (average of 4.30 and inclusion rate of 96%).

The parameter “services” kept the last position on the question of importance (3.30), but it once again shows great adherence regarding the importance of its assessment (90%). For Coutinho et al. (2019), one of the aspects of geotourism of this parameter is “a segment of touristic activity that seeks a sustainable way of using geological heritage as its main touristic resource, promoting the acquisition of knowledge and conservation”. Ratifying, therefore, the first definition of the term “geotourism”, by Hose (1995): “the provision of services and interpretive facilities that offer tourists the comprehension and acquisition of knowledge of a geological and geomorphological site, instead of a mere aesthetic appreciation”. The inclusion of the parameter “visibility”, to be allocated to landscape criteria, was approved by 72% of the experts and obtained an average importance assessment of 3.42.

In turn, the “visitation index”, is of little relevance for the experts in the assessment of the landscape, with an importance average of 3.59 and inclusion rate of 76%, which creates a paradigm: visitation makes the preservation of places of geological interest more difficult, but if visitation isn’t possible, there is no increase in the sharing of geosciences. The solution would be to create a harmony between the interests of researchers of geoconservation and researchers of geotourism, indicated by Williams, McHenry and Boothroyd (2020).

The combining of the parameters or “scenic beauty and landscape harmony” (inclusion rate of 90% and average of 4.11), and “recognized natural scenic beauty” (inclusion rate of 80% and average of 4.11), obtained a 72% approval rate and average of 4.18. However, there is indication that the parameters should not be assessed together, because, despite having a gain on the importance average, the inclusion rate is higher when assessed separately.

The parameters were ranked according to the averages obtained by the assessment of the surveyed experts during the second round. To avoid distortions regarding the fields of these experts, it was necessary to split them into groups based on their degrees: Exact and Earth Sciences and Applied Social Sciences. Afterwards, the weights were calculated for each group to ascertain the averages between them. The result appears in Figure 3, which shows the values obtained for each parameter, ranked from highest to lowest.

Figure 3
Parameters ranked according to their evaluated importance by experts.

The results shown in Figure 3 represent the experts’ answers within a general context of assessment of the landscape regarding geoheritage. However, the versatility of the Delphi method allows for the needed adaptations and modifications to produce an easily applied inventory, and avoiding the overlap and overestimation of assessment criteria, or producing subjective assessments by the observer, for instance; all that without compromising the results and opinions of the experts (Oliveira, Salgado & Lopes 2017).

After the analysis of the answers obtained from the set of experts for creating the protocol, we considered some of the adaptations to the parameters to be assessed during the process of taking inventory.

The parameters “didactic potential” and “interpretative potential”, for instance, were substituted for “didactic-scientific potential”, as both potentials presented similar importance and meaning during the assessment.

The parameters “different relief shapes”, “panoramic set of natural features”, and “notable dimensions in area, volume and extension of the relief shapes” were unified under “geomorphological diversity”. The parameter “recognized natural scenic beauty” was excluded from the assessment, as it would overlap with “local or regional importance” and “scenic beauty and landscape harmony”. We added the parameter “conditions for observation”, as utilized by Lopes (2017).

The parameters were then split into 3 values, as shown in Figure 4. To each criterion, a weight was attributed to be applied in the composition of Value of Geomorphological Landscape (VP_Geo).

Figure 4
Values attributed to the set of parameters utilized in the assessment of landscapes as geoheritage.

The weight of each was determined through suggestions of the experts, as seen in Figure 3. It was observed that, for instance, the parameters linked to geology, geomorphology, and landscape obtained higher weight in the researchers’ opinions than the parameters linked to geotourism. This happens because the determination of characteristics from the scientific perspective of the landscape does not depend on questions related to observation points, which is to say that access and visitation conditions are important for the assessment of the landscape - as seen in the high percentage of inclusion suggested by the experts - but are not markers of the scientific importance of the landscape.

4.2 Inventory of the Assessment of the Landscape as Geoheritage

The assessment protocol of landscape (Table 1) considered for each parameter a score between 1 and 3, in a decreasing scale from most to least important - as proposed by Oliveira, Salgado and Lopes (2017).

Table 1

Inventory protocol of landscape as geoheritage.

We opted to include the value of zero, because, according to the Multi-attribute Utility Theory (Von Winterfeldt & Fischer 1975), the use of this value would accentuate the extremes of the assessment. Therefore, we utilized equations 1, 2 e 3 for the calculation of intrinsic values of the landscape component (VIP), geomorfology and landscape (VGP) and geotourism (VGT).

Where, VIP is the intrinsic value of the landscape component; n is the number of parameters; p_i is the score of importance of each parameter. VGP is the geomorfology and landscape value; n is the number of parameters; p_g is the score of importance of each parameter. VGT is geoturismo value; n is the number of parameters; p_t is the score of importance of each parameter.

For the calculation of the value that corresponds to the analysis of landscape as geoheritage, we utilized the weighted average of the values, as observed in equation 4.

Where, PGeo is the weighted average of the values analyzed in the landscape; VIP is the intrinsic value of the landscape components; VGP is geomorfology and landscape value; VGT is the geoturismo value.

To simplify the scores of each place of geomorphological interest, we suggest the normalization of data in a decimal number interval that varies between 0 and 1. To do so, we used the minimal value (32) and maximum value (64) obtained in the assessment of landscape via inventory (PGeo); the value of geomorphological landscape (VP_Geo) can vary between 0 and 1 and is shown in equation 5.

Where, VPGeo is the Value of Geomorphological Landscape; PGeo is the score of the landscape of each place of geomorphological interest (LIGe);

The development of the methodology results in the final score of the assessment of landscape for places of geomorphological interest (VP_Geo), which must be applied to the site to observe the results.

According to the work of Pereira and Nogueira (2015), it is suggested that, in order to assess the geotouristic potential of the study site, a ranking chart be created in which the values are inserted in descending order and then the universe average is calculated. This data must be, therefore, split into categories that divide the geoheritage of the landscape as high potential, low potential, and no potential.

5. Conclusion

The natural landscape, while a collection of geophysical elements and processes at various space-temporal scales, has a high value in geoheritage. Nevertheless, landscapes have received little scientific attention in terms of geoheritage.

The protocol for taking inventory of the landscape as geoheritage was created through literature review and expert consultation and allows for the inventory of places of geomorphological interest which, as a group, can represent the local and/or regional geoheritage from a scientific standpoint.

There is difficulty in reaching consensus among experts about which method and parameters are to be utilized in the assessment of a region 's geoheritage. Therefore, some works have in common the adaptation of methods for specific constructions according to the subject-matter, studied region, and even work scale.

The contribution of the experts accomplished through the Delphi method was fundamental for the construction of this inventory. Additionally, the proposal uses parameters that were already commonly applied in studies whose objectives are linked to geoconservation.

Therefore, we suggest the use of this inventory to places of geomophological interest to promote geotourism, especially that of scientific character.

References

Bastian, O., Grunewald, K., Syrbe, R.U., Walz, U. & Wende, W. 2014, ‘Landscape services: the concept and its practical relevance’, Landscape Ecology, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 1463-79, DOI:10.1007/s10980-014-0064-5.

Brilha, J. 2005, Patrimônio geológico e geoconservação: a conservação da natureza na sua vertente geológica, Palimage Editora, São Paulo.

Brilha, J. 2016, ‘Inventory and quantitative assessment of Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: a review’, Geoheritage. vol. 8, no. 8, pp.119-34, DOI:10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3.

Coratza, P. & Giusti, C. 2005, ‘Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites’, Il Quaternario, Italian Journal of Quaternary Sciences, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 307-13.

Coutinho, A.C.A., Urbano, D.G., Mate, A.J. & Nascimento, M.A.L. 2019, ‘Turismo e Geoturismo: Uma problemática conceitual’, Rosa dos Ventos, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 754-67, DOI:10.18226/21789061.v11i4p754.

Dantas, M.E., Armesto, R.C.G., Silva, C.R. & Shinzato, E. 2015, ‘Geodiversidade e análise da paisagem: uma abordagem teórico-metodológica’, Terræ Didatica, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 4-13, DOI:10.20396/td.v11i1.8637304.

Dantas, M.E. & Coelho Netto, A.L. 1995, ‘O impacto do ciclo cafeeiro na evolução da paisagem geomorfológica do Médio Vale do Rio Paraíba do Sul’, IBGE, Cadernos de Geociências, vol. 15, pp. 65-72.

Degrandi, S.M. 2011, ‘Ecoturismo e interpretação da paisagem no Alto Camaquã/RS: uma alternativa para o (des)envolvimento local?’, Dissertação de mestrado, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria.

Figueiró, A.S., Vieira, A. & Cunha, L. 2014, ‘Proposta de classificação de património geomorfológico com vistas a construção de um banco de dados luso-brasileiro’, Encontro Luso-Brasileiro de Patrimônio Geomorfológico e Geoconservação, Coimbra, pp. 43-8.

García-Cortéz, A. & Carcavilla-Urquí, L. 2009, Documento metodológico para elaboración del inventário español de lugares de interés geológico (IELIG), Instituto Geologico y Minero de España, Madrid.

Grandgirard, V. 1995, ‘Méthode pour la réalisation d'un inventaire de géotopes géomorphologiques’, Ukpik, Cahiers de l’Institut de Géographie, vol. 10, pp. 21 -137.

Grandgirard, V. 1996, ‘Gestion du patrimoine naturel, l'inventaire des géotopes géomorphologiques du canton de Fribourg’ Ukpik, Rapports de Recherches de l’Institut de Géographie, vol. 8, pp.181-95.

Haase, G. & Mannsfeld, K. 2002, Naturraumeinheiten, Landschaftsfunktionen und Leitbilder am Beispiel von Sachsen, Deutsche Akademie für Landeskunde, Flensburg.

Hose, T.A. 1995. ‘Selling the Story of Britain’s Stone’, Environmental Interpretation, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 16-7.

Kubalíková, L. 2016, ‘Promoting Geomorphological Heritage: Bringing Geomorphology to People’, in T. Pánek & J. Hradecký (eds), Landscapes and Landforms of the Czech Republic. Springer, Cham, pp. 399-410.

Likert, R. 1932, ‘A technique for the measurement of attitudes’, Archives of psychology, vol. 140, pp. 5-55.

Lima, F.F., Brilha, J. & Salamuni, E. 2010, ‘Inventory of geological heritage in large territories: a methodological proposal applied to Brazil’, Geoheritage, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 91-9, DOI:10.1007/s12371-010-0014-9.

Linstone, H.A. & Turoff, M. 1975, The Delphi method: Techniques and applications, Addison Wesley Newark, New Jersey.

Lopes, L.S.O. 2017, ‘Estudo metodológico de avaliação do patrimônio geomorfológico: aplicação no litoral do estado do Piauí’, PhD thesis, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco.

Lugeri, F.R., Farabollini, P., Graziano, G. & Amadio, V. 2012, ‘Nature and culture in a landscape approach’, European Geologist, vol. 34, pp. 23-8.

Moreira, J.C. 2014, ‘Turismo em áreas naturais e o geoturismo’, in J.C. Moreira (ed.), Geoturismo e interpretação ambiental, Editora UEPG, Ponta Grossa, pp. 19-36.

Morin, E. 1977, O Método 1: a natureza da natureza, Publicações Europa-América.

Moura-Fé, M.M. 2015, ‘Geoturismo: uma proposta de turismo sustentável e conservacionista para a Região Nordeste do Brasil’, Sociedade & Natureza, v. 27, no. 1, DOI:10.1590/1982-451320150104.

Mucivuna, V.C., Reynard, E. & Garcia, M.G.M. 2019, ‘Geomorphosites assessment methods: comparative analysis and typology’, Geoheritage, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1799-815, DOI:10.1007/s12371-019-00394-x.

Niculiţă, M. & Mărgărint, M.C. 2018, ‘Landslides and Fortified Settlements as Valuable Cultural Geomorphosites and Geoheritage Sites in the Moldavian Plateau, North-Eastern Romania’, Geoheritage, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 613-34, DOI:10.1007/s12371-017-0261-0.

Oliveira, P. & Rodrigues, S. 2014, ‘Patrimônio Geomorfológico: Conceitos e Aplicações’, Espaço Aberto, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 73-86, DOI:10.36403/espacoaberto.2014.2434.

Oliveira, C.K.R., Salgado, A.A.R. & Lopes, F.W. de A. 2017, ‘Proposta de Classificação de Relevância de Quedas D’Água como Subsídio à Conservação do Patrimônio Natural’, Revista Brasileira de Geomorfologia, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 465-81, DOI:10.20502/rbg.v18i3.1183.

Paula, S.F. & Castro, P.T.A. 2016, ‘Bases metodológicas e teóricas para inventariação, qualificação e quantificação de valores da geodiversidade relevantes ao desenvolvimento do geoturismo no Caminho dos Diamantes (Estrada Real, MG)’, Revista Brasileira de Ecoturismo, v. 9, no. 1, pp. 48-60. DOI:10.34024/rbecotur.2016.v9.6464.

Pereira, D.I., Pereira, P., Brilha, J. & Cunha, P.P. 2015, ‘The Iberian Massif Landscape and Fluvial Network in Portugal: A geoheritage inventory based on the scientific value’, Proceedings of the Geologists Association, vol. 126 no. 2, pp. 252-65, DOI:10.1016/j.pgeola.2015.01.003.

Pereira, L.S. & Nogueira, H.M. 2015, ‘Avaliação quantitativa do valor geoturístico do geopatrimônio, caso do litoral sul paraibano, Brasil’, Cadernos de Geografia, no. 34, pp. 53-63, DOI:10.14195/0871-1623_34_6.

Pereira, P. 2006, ‘Património geomorfológico: conceptualização, avaliação e divulgação. Aplicação ao Parque Natural de Montesinho’. PhD thesis, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal.

Pereira, P. & Pereira, D. 2010, ‘Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment’, Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 215-22, DOI:10.4000/geomorphologie.7942.

Pereira, R.G. 2010. ‘Geoconservação e desenvolvimento sustentável na Chapada Diamantina (Bahia-Brasil)’, PhD thesis, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal.

Portal, C. & Kerguillec, R. 2018, ‘The Shape of a City: Geomorphological Landscapes, Abiotic Urban Environment, and Geoheritage in the Western World: the Example of Parks and Gardens’, Geoheritage, vol. 10, no. 40, pp. 67-78, DOI:10.1007/s12371-017-0220-9.

Pralong, J.P. 2005, ‘A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites.’ Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environment, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 189-96, DOI:10.4000/geomorphologie.350.

Restrepo, C. 2004, ‘Patrimonio geomorfológico de la región central antioqueña (Colombia)’, in J. Mataperelló (ed.), Actas del Congreso Internacional sobre Patrimonio Geológico y Minero, Sociedad Española para la Defensa del Patrimonio Geológico y Minero, Madrid, pp. 211-9.

Reynard, E. 2008, ‘Scientific research and tourist promotion of geomorphological heritage’, Geografia Fisíca e Dinamica Quaternaria, vol. 31, pp. 225-30.

Reynard, E., Fontana, G., Kozlik, L. & Scapozza, C. 2007, ‘A method for assessing scientific and additional values of geomorphosites’, Geographica Helvetica, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 148-58, DOI:10.5194/gh-62-148-2007.

Reynard, E. & Giusti, C. 2018, ‘The landscape and the cultural value of geoheritage’, in José Brilha & E. Reynard (eds), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection and Management, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 147-66.

Rivas, V., Rix, K., Francés, E., Cendrero, A. & Brunsden, D. 1997, ‘Geomorphological indicators for environmental assessment: consumable and non-consumable geomorphological resources’, Geomorphology, vol. 18, no. 3-4, pp. 169-82, DOI:10.1016/S0169-555X(96)00024-4.

Rodrigues, J.C. & Carvalho, C.N. de. 2010, ‘Património geológico no Geopark Naturtejo: base para uma estratégia de geoturismo’, Revista Eletrónica de Ciências da Terra - VIII Congresso Nacional de Geologia, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 1-4.

Romão, R.M.M. & Garcia, M.G.M. 2017, ‘Iniciativas de inventário e quantificação do patrimônio geológico no Brasil: panorama atual’, Anuário do Instituto de Geociências, UFRJ, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 250-65, DOI:10.11137/2017_2_250_265.

Santos, D.S, Mansur, K.L., Seoane, J.C.S., Mucivuna, V.C. & Reynard, E. 2020, ‘Methodological Proposal for the Inventory and Assessment of Geomorphosites: An Integrated Approach focused on Territorial Management and Geoconservation’, Environmental Management, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 476-97, DOI:10.1007/s00267-020-01324-2.

Santos, M. 2002, A natureza do espaço: técnica e tempo - razão e emoção, Edusp, São Paulo.

Serrano, E. & Gonzalez-Trueba, J. 2005, ‘Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the Picos de Europa National Parks (Spain)’, Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement, vol. 3, pp. 197-208, DOI:10.4000/geomorphologie.364.

Uceda, A.C. 2000, ‘Patrimonio geológico; diagnóstico, clasificación y valoración’, in J.P. Suárez-Valgrande (coord.), Jornadas sobre Património Geológico y Desarrollo Sostenible, Ministério de Medio Ambiente, España, pp. 23-37.

Von Winterfeldt, D. & Fischer, G.W. 1975, ‘Multi-Attribute Utility Theory: Models and Assessment Procedures’, in D. Wendt & C. Vlek (eds), Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making,, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_3

Williams, M.A., McHenry, M.T. & Boothroyd, A. 2020, ‘Geoconservation and Geotourism: Challenges and Unifying Themes’, Geoheritage, vol. 12, no. 63, pp. 1-14, DOI:10.1007/s12371-020-00492-1.

Notes

Author notes

E-mail:steniotoledo@gmail.comE-mail:ptacastro@gmail.com

Conflict of interest declaration