Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.

org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023

Reflections of geodiversity–culture relationships within the

concept of abiotic ecosystem services
Lucie Kubalíková1* and Paola Coratza2
1
Institute of Geonics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Drobného 28, 602 00 Brno, Czech
Republic
2
Department of Chemical and Geological Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio
Emilia, Via Campi 103, 41125 Modena, Italy
LK, 0000-0002-0508-048X
*Correspondence: Lucie.Kubalikova@ugn.cas.cz

Abstract: Relationships between geodiversity and culture are very close and frequent, and they are reflected in
numerous and different areas, situations or levels. The purpose of this chapter is not to give an exhaustive over-
view of how geodiversity influences culture and vice versa (as this topic has already been thoroughly explored in
numerous works), but it aims to analyse the relationship geodiversity–culture within the concept of abiotic eco-
system services (or geosystem services). This relationship is best visible and recognizable within the cultural
and, eventually, knowledge services; however, other types of services (provisioning, supporting) are relevant
too. Moreover, the relationship geodiversity–culture is reflected in everyday life, for example, in language;
thus, a quick insight into these topics is also presented. Anchoring the geodiversity–culture relationships within
the concept of abiotic ecosystem services may provide a framework for future interdisciplinary studies and may
contribute to the better understanding of protection, conservation and sustainable use not only of geoheritage but
of geodiversity as a whole.

The concept of geodiversity originated in the early
1990s and has developed into a significant, multi-
faceted and evolving geoscientific paradigm (Gray
2021). Although it has been discussed and some-
times questioned (Ollier 2012; Brocx and Semeniuk
2019b), it is currently widely accepted in the scien-
tific community (Brilha et al. 2018), and during the
last decades, the issues of its assessment and map-
ping have been addressed by the scientific commu-
nity (Zwoliński et al. 2018 and reference therein).
Geodiversity (or abiotic nature) has multiple func-
tions and provides numerous services and benefits
to human society (Gordon and Barron 2012; Gray
2013). Additionally, it has an intrinsic value that
exists independent of these functions (Gray 2013,
2021). These functions and benefits can be identi-
fied, described and analysed within the concept of
ecosystem services. Although there exist numerous
quantitative approaches to geodiversity, mainly
implemented for regional scale studies in different
contexts (e.g. Serrano and Ruiz Flaño 2007; Hjort
and Luoto 2010; Ruban 2010; Pereira et al. 2013;
Pellitero et al. 2014; Tukiainen et al. 2016; Zwo-
liński et al. 2018; Ferrando et al. 2021), in this chap-
ter, the authors consider geodiversity as a value-
neutral entity, as defined by Gray (2013).
To better understand the geodiversity–culture
relationship, a discussion of the construct of culture
is needed. Culture (from the Latin cultura stemming
from colere, meaning ‘to cultivate’, ‘to tend’, ‘to
till’) is an extremely popular and complex multi-
level concept that has been studied and used in a
wide range of social sciences (e.g. anthropology,
sociology, psychology, management) (cf. Taras
et al. 2009 and references therein). Despite the con-
cept of culture being centuries old, and although sev-
eral attempts to define it and quantify its various
aspects can be traced back in time, a common agree-
ment on its definition has not yet been reached in the
literature. In 1952, Kroeber and Kluckhohn com-
piled a list of about 200 distinct definitions of culture,
and other reviews have revealed that the number of
definitions is increasing (Soudijn et al. 1990; Hof-
stede 2001). Tylor ([1871] 1958, p. 1) argues that
culture is ‘that complex whole which includes
knowledge, belief, arts, morals, laws, customs, and
any other capabilities and habits acquired by man
as a member of society’. Hofstede (1980, p. 21)
defines culture as ‘the collective programming of
the mind which distinguishes the members of one
group from another’. Matsumoto (1996, p. 16)
makes the important point that culture is ‘shared by
a group of people, but different for each individual,
communicated from one generation to the next’.
UNESCO defines culture as ‘the set of distinctive
spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional fea-
tures of society or a social group, and that it encom-
passes, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles,
ways of living together, value systems, traditions
and beliefs’ (UNESCO 2001). These definitions

From: Kubalíková, L., Coratza, P., Pál, M., Zwoliński, Z., Irapta, P. N. and van Wyk de Vries, B. (eds) Visages of
Geodiversity and Geoheritage. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 530,
https://doi.org/10.1144/SP530-2022-155
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved.
For permissions: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/permissions. Publishing disclaimer: www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023
L. Kubalíková and P. Coratza
highlight how culture, in a broad sense, can be con-
sidered as all the material and spiritual values created
by human society throughout the history. Culture is a
product of society, dynamic and adaptive, varies
from society to society, is shared by people and is
susceptible of being transmitted from one generation
to the next.
The relationships between geodiversity/geoher-
itage and culture/cultural heritage have been widely
analysed and discussed in numerous works and
from different points of view. Panizza and Piacente
(2003) present the concept of cultural geomorpho-
logy related, for example, to the historical use of
landscape and geodiversity. Larwood et al. (2017)
explore the relationships between natural and cul-
tural features of the landscape and their relevance
to conservation and integrated management. Gordon
(2012a, 2012b, 2018) examines relations between
geodiversity, landscape and culture, and aesthetic
issues of geodiversity and landscape. Reynard and
Giusti (2018) reflect on the process of heritage-
making and the relationship between cultural land-
scape and geoheritage. Coratza and Hobléa (2018)
discuss particularities of geomorphological heritage,
which often include specific cultural features.
Numerous works, projects and papers that study
the relationship geoheritage–cultural heritage can
be found in the more recent work of Pijet-Migoń
and Migoń (2022). Urban et al. (2022) also present
some examples of cultural relevance of geoheritage
(or geosites), and they use the concept of abiotic
ecosystem services to justify the need for geoconser-
vation. Although being controversial, it is worth
mentioning that, in some cases, the monetary value
of abiotic ecosystem services may also point to the
importance of geodiversity and its relevance for cul-
ture and human society (Brouwer et al. 2013;
Queiroz and Garcia 2022).
Many authors have reflected on the relationship
geodiversity/geoheritage–culture/cultural heritage
within the geosite and geomorphosite research field
in different environments (Soldati et al. 2008) such
as coastal areas (Lollino and Pagliarulo 2008;
Coratza et al. 2016; Selmi et al. 2019), urban areas
(Del Monte et al. 2013; Palacio-Prieto 2015; Chan
and Godsey 2016; Pica et al. 2016; De Wever
et al. 2017; Habibi et al. 2018; Portal and Kerguillec
2018; Kubalíková et al. 2020, 2021), mountain areas
(Bollati et al. 2015; Giordano et al. 2016;
Mauerhofer et al. 2018; Ésik et al. 2019; Chlachula
2020), karst areas (Asrat 2015; Sendjaja et al. 2020;
Antić et al. 2022), volcanic areas (Zangmo Tefo-
goum et al. 2014, 2017; Moufti et al. 2015; Szepesi
et al. 2017) and desert areas (Boukhchim et al. 2018;
Finzi et al. 2019; Younes Arrad et al. 2020). Evalu-
ating cultural values (or characteristics) is a standard
part of geosite and geomorphosite assessment meth-
ods (Brilha 2016; Reynard et al. 2016). Different
criteria are used: either a simple statement indicating
that cultural value/characteristics is present/absent
or a more detailed assessment of inner diversity of
cultural features related to the Earth-science aspects
of a site, especially when assessing geo-cultural
sites (Boukhchim et al. 2018; Reynard and Giusti
2018; Selmi et al. 2019; Kubalíková et al. 2020) or
anthropogenically transformed and geo-mining
sites (Margiotta and Sanso 2016; Baczyńska et al.
2018; Carrión Mero et al. 2018; Kubalíková et al.
2019).
It is worth mentioning that several of the above-
mentioned works have reflected especially on the
links between geoheritage and cultural heritage.
However, according to Gray’s approach (geodiver-
sity as a value-neutral term describing the variety
of abiotic phenomena on Earth), geoheritage repre-
sents just one part of geodiversity (the specific por-
tion of geodiversity with a value attributed by
human society). Gray (2013) also points that geodi-
versity is the backbone of geoheritage, and that geo-
heritage consists of those parts of the ‘identified
geodiversity’ of Earth that are deemed worthy of
conservation because of their importance/value.
The aim of this chapter is to explore geodiversity
and culture relationships within the concept of
ecosystem services. Undoubtedly, the relationships
between geodiversity and culture are best visible
within cultural ecosystem services (and knowledge
services); however, within other groups of ecosys-
tem services, this relationship is relevant too. In addi-
tion, we want to touch on some of the lesser known
issues of geodiversity and culture relationships, such
as links between geodiversity and language, geodi-
versity and toponyms or geodiversity and medicine,
and anchor these features in the scheme of abiotic
ecosystem (or geosystem) services.
A reflection on geodiversity–culture
relationships within the concept of abiotic
ecosystem services
Abiotic ecosystem services or geosystem services
have been previously addressed and classified in sev-
eral works (Gray 2013, 2018, 2021; van Ree and van
Beukering 2016; van Ree et al. 2017; Haines-Young
and Potschin 2018; Fox et al. 2020). The classifica-
tion of abiotic ecosystem services usually follows the
traditional scheme of ecosystem services (ES) as pro-
vided in the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (Reid
et al. 2005): supporting, regulating, provisioning and
cultural services. Gray (2013) proposes a special
group of so-called knowledge services, which are
closely linked to cultural ES. In this chapter, we fol-
low this scheme (Reid et al. 2005; Gray 2013), being
aware that, for example, Haines-Young and Potschin
(2018) use other classification.
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023
Geodiversity–culture relationships
Concerning the positioning of geodiversity–cul-
ture relationships within the concept of ES, not
only cultural and knowledge geodiversity ecosystem
services refer to culture. While the regulating ser-
vices of geodiversity are defined as the ways in
which natural processes regulate the environment
(Gray 2018), the supporting and provisioning
services seem to be more closely associated with
human society and culture. Based on Gray’s classifi-
cation of geosystem services, the supporting ES
related to culture are represented by ‘Land and
water as a platform for human activity’ and ‘Burial
and storage’ (Gray 2013, p. 126). The provisioning
ES also reflect the links geodiversity–culture (geodi-
versity as a resource: food and drink, nutrients and
minerals, fuel, construction materials, industrial
materials, ornamental products, fossils). Cultural
services include mental and physical benefits and
are related to well-being, environmental quality,
tourism and leisure, cultural and spiritual meanings,
artistic inspiration or societal development. Knowl-
edge services include the possibility of reconstruct-
ing Earth’s history, including past environments
and climates, environmental monitoring and fore-
casting or geoeducation (Gray 2013; Gordon 2018).
Reconsidering the terms geodiversity and geo-
heritage and taking into account their definitions,
the question arises: what is the position of geoherit-
age (as that part of geodiversity that has a heritage
value from a scientific or aesthetic point of view)
within the concept of abiotic ecosystem services?
Firstly, it has to be mentioned that the term ‘value’
as used in this chapter does not always reflect mon-
etary value, especially in the case of cultural geosys-
tem services (Fish et al. 2016; Hirons et al. 2016).
The scientific literature reveals that the terms geodi-
versity and geoheritage are clearly linked, but it
would be incorrect to equate valuable geoheritage
to high geodiversity (Migoń 2021). It is evident
that geodiversity is a much wider entity than geoher-
itage. Carcavilla et al. (2008) argue that areas with
high geodiversity do not necessarily have more rele-
vant geological heritage than areas with lower geodi-
versity. In some cases, a very geodiverse region may
have more sites of interest, but this relationship is not
always direct. According to Gordon (2018), geoher-
itage and cultural heritage value are relevant to geo-
diversity cultural ecosystem services (together with
spiritual value, tourist value or aesthetic value, for
example).
It is obvious that there are some links that can be
observed only on the level geodiversity–culture, for
example, in relation to toponyms or heraldry; here,
geodiversity (as a value-neutral entity) is considered
a ‘resource’ and inspiration. The relationship geoher-
itage–culture is not relevant in this case, as geoherit-
age represents just a small part of geodiversity and it
is much narrowly defined. Other examples are the
use of geodiversity elements such as construction
stones, or the use of different Earth materials in med-
icine or spiritual activities; these materials are geodi-
versity elements, not geoheritage, e.g. the use of
limestone or marble cobbles for pavement. This is
an example of the relationship geodiversity–culture,
eventually geodiversity–cultural heritage. The
marble or limestone are not in this case elements
of geoheritage but rather part of cultural heritage;
however, they can be of geoheritage importance
too (De Wever et al. 2017; Brocx and Semeniuk
2019a; Pereira and van den Eynde 2019).
Regulating services
As mentioned above, the regulating services of geo-
diversity are defined as the ways in which natural
processes regulate the environment (Gray 2018).
Haines-Young and Potschin (2018) include regulat-
ing services into ‘regulation and maintenance’
(divided into transformation of biochemical or phys-
ical inputs to the ecosystem; regulation of physical,
chemical and biological conditions; and other type
of regulation and maintenance services by abiotic
processes), which reflect more precisely the charac-
ter of this type of ecosystem service. Thus, the rele-
vance of regulating services to culture and human
society is very limited.
Provisioning services
Provisioning services can be defined simply as mate-
rials and goods valued by human society. Fuels, food
and drink resources, and industrial or construction
materials may be considered geodiversity resources
relevant within provisioning ES (Gray 2013). Proba-
bly, the relationship geodiversity–culture is best vis-
ible in the use of construction materials, especially
building stones. In both rural and urban architecture
we can find numerous examples, rocks are used for
building and as decorative stones. For example,
ophiolites – whose economic exploitation in the
Emilia Apennines (Italy) goes back to the mid-
Paleolithic due to their chromatic nuances such as
the red of basalts, the green of serpentines and the
multicoloured breccias – have been used as orna-
mental elements and artefacts in churches and funer-
ary architecture, or as decorations on the outer walls
of mountain buildings (Bertacchini et al. 2004).
Building stones contribute to the typical appear-
ance of cities, villages or historical monuments,
and may acquire geoheritage (Bennett et al. 1996;
De Wever et al. 2017; Brocx and Semeniuk 2019a;
Pereira and van den Eynde 2019) or cultural heritage
relevance (Přikryl and Török 2010; Pereira et al.
2015). Numerous examples of the use of igneous,
sedimentary and metamorphic rocks in Europe
(e.g. Corbí et al. 2019; Baucon et al. 2020;
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023
L. Kubalíková and P. Coratza
Kubalíková and Zapletalová 2021), North and South
America (e.g. Cravero et al. 2015; Key et al. 2020;
Moura et al. 2021), Africa (e.g. Klemm and
Klemm 2001; Cole 2020) and Australia (e.g. Cooper
2019) can be cited. In some cases, the link between
building material and city appearance is so close
that it is reflected in the nickname of the city, as is
the case of Jaisalmer in Rajastan (India), which is
called ‘Golden City’ due to the bright yellow colour
of the Jaisalmer Golden Limestone (Kaur et al.
2020).
A notable example is given by the Lower Globi-
gerina Limestone of the Maltese Islands, which has
been intensively used for building and sculpture
over millennia. The World Heritage City of Valletta,
the UNESCO-listed prehistoric Megalithic Temples
of the Maltese Islands as well as many other archae-
ological and architectural legacy examples from the
Maltese Islands have been built of this stone,
which continues to be used both for new construc-
tions and for restoration of buildings on the island
(Cassar et al. 2017). For its cultural, historical and
economic significance, the Lower Globigerina Lime-
stone of the Maltese Islands has been recognized as
‘Global Heritage Stone Resource’ in 2019 by the
International Union of Geological Sciences. There
are similar cases involving other materials, such as
Pedra Lioz, a type of limestone extracted around Lis-
bon, Portugal (Silva 2019), or Jacobsville Sandstone,
a red bed sandstone from Upper Michigan, USA
(Rose et al. 2017). Other examples are given in
Pereira et al. (2015) and Hannibal et al. (2020).
Another example is represented by Jurassic Crinoi-
dea limestone, extracted since the end of the twelfth
century from several sites within Brno City (Czech
Republic). Soon after the beginning of its extraction,
it became an iconic material for Brno’s medieval
architecture and it contributes to the characteristic
look of important sacred and civil constructions
and monuments in the city (Kubalíková and Zapleta-
lová 2021). The above-mentioned examples of geo-
diversity–culture relationships reflected within the
provisioning ecosystem services are displayed on
Figure 1.
The extraction of building stones and other geo-
materials is closely linked to the industrial history
of regions (Coratza et al. 2018; Evans et al. 2018;
Price and Ronck 2019; Sallam et al. 2018; Prosser
2019; Yu and Yang 2022) and may illustrate the
development and changes in material supply policies
of cities or wider areas. The case of the restoration of
Modena’s Ghirlandina Tower (Emilia–Romagna,
Italy), symbol of the city and UNESCO Word Heri-
tage Site since 1997, represents such aspect. The
multidisciplinary studies carried out on the external
stonework mosaic of the tower during its 2-year-long
restoration, revealed that the tower is covered with
16 different varieties of lithotypes with a non-
homogeneous arrangement. The comparison
between the rocks imported to Modena by the
Romans and the materials obtained through despoli-
ations occurred in late antiquity and the medieval era
reveals the fascinating story of the tower’s construc-
tion and the stone supply policy of the town (Lugli
et al. 2009).
Building stones are very often used as a geo-
educative and geotourist resources; there are numer-
ous projects related to building and decorative stones
in urban areas (e.g. geopaths reflecting the use of
local materials, educative trails; e.g. Rose et al.
2017; Pelfini et al. 2018; Del Lama 2019; Gambino
et al. 2019; Santi et al. 2021). Extracted material can
be considered a part of geo-mining heritage and thus
be an important resource for mining tourism (Carrión
Mero et al. 2018; Mata-Perelló 2018; Kazancı et al.
2019). Sallam et al. (2018) discuss the possibility of
linking geodiversity, geoheritage, mining activities
and industrial heritage in the Kurkur–Dungul area
in Egypt, with possible implications for the develop-
ment of geotourism activities. Here, an overlap of
provisioning and cultural ES is evident.
Generally, research on building stones is highly
multidisciplinary (Pereira et al. 2013; De Wever
et al. 2017; Kubalíková and Zapletalová 2021) and
enables to cover both material aspects (extracted
material as a resource and eventually part of cultural
heritage) and site of extraction (abandoned and
active quarries; links to the geology, archaeology,
history, landscape aesthetics).
Abandoned quarries also represent an important
limit to (or occasion for) urban development. In
Brno (Czech Republic), during the 1920s, as one
of the consequences of the Great Depression, poor
people were in need of places to live. Abandoned
quarries represented cheap plots of land because
they were not suitable for agriculture nor for indus-
trial activities, so people started to build their simple
houses or shelters there. This situation occurred e.g.
on the bottom of the Č ervený kopec sandstone
quarry or in the Písečník sand pit (Kuča 2000). In
those times, they were not considered nice places
to live; however, today, thanks to its extraordinary
history and specific urban arrangement, they repre-
sent a part of the city’s cultural heritage (Kubalíková
and Zapletalová 2021). This aspect of the geodiver-
sity–culture relationship may also be reflected in
supporting services, where an anthropogenically
transformed landform becomes a platform for differ-
ent human activities.
Within the context of provisioning services, the
relationship between geodiversity elements and
medicine can be observed. In the past, numerous abi-
otic components were used for treating illnesses;
Duffin et al. (2013) present numerous examples,
such as the pharmaceutical use of pumice (Duffin
2013) or gold (Console 2013). The healing
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023

Geodiversity–culture relationships

Fig. 1. Geodiversity–culture relationships reflected in the provisioning ecosystem services: geodiversity as a source
of building stone and its strong links to architecture. (a) Jaisalmer, Rajastan, India; thanks to the bright yellow colour
of Jaisalmer limestone, which has been used for numerous buildings, the city bears the nickname of ‘Golden City’.
(b) Torre Belén (Belén Tower), Lisbon, Portugal; it was built of the recognized Global Heritage Stone ‘Pedra Lioz’, a
type of limestone extracted around Lisbon. (c) Honeycomb weathering of Lower Globigerina limestone, listed as
Global Heritage Stone (Valletta, Malta). (d) and (e) Use of Jurassic Crinoidea limestone as decorative stone, Brno,
Czech Republic (an iconic material for the medieval architecture of the city). Source: authors.

properties of water resources are also relevant
(Robins and Smedley 2013). There are numerous
examples of the use of mineral or thermal waters in
medicine, e.g. Priessnitz Spa in the Jeseníky Moun-
tains, Carlsbad and Luhačovice Spa (all examples
from the Czech Republic). The use of healing
muds or healing salts may be mentioned as well.
This is the case of the clayey materials ejected by
the mud volcanoes in the area between Nirano and
Sassuolo (Nirano Natural Reserve, Modena Apen-
nines, Italy) that were used in many ways in the
past: for cosmetic purposes as mud masks and mud
baths at the ancient Salvarola Spa, near Sassuolo.
Currently, this material is used in veterinary practice
to cure horses’ articulations (Castaldini and Coratza
2017). Another example of the use of geodiversity
for medical purposes is given by Rocha and Ferreira
da Silva (2014); they examine the overlap between
medical geology and geotourism on the Cape
Verde Archipelago, and they present the medical
benefits of clay and carbonated sand from the depos-
its on Boavista, Maio, Sal and Santo Antão islands
(Rocha and Ferreira da Silva 2014).
Regarding these resources and related aspects
(e.g. history of the use of mineral and thermal waters,
spa equipment, infrastructure and architecture), geo-
diversity (or its hydrological elements) can become a
part of spa heritage, with strong links to spa tourism
(Draghici et al. 2015; Vystoupil et al. 2017).
It is worth mentioning that, in the past, there was
a belief that some stones (precious, semiprecious) or
other abiotic materials could serve as a defence
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023

L. Kubalíková and P. Coratza

against evil powers (Kukal et al. 1989; Duffin et al.
2013) or against the hazard of lightning strikes and
snakes (Bertacchini et al. 2004). This may also be
considered relevant for cultural ecosystem services,
as the spiritual value of geodiversity represents an
important aspect in that context (Gray 2013). How-
ever, the relationship geodiversity–medicine (or
health issues) may be much simpler: the landscape,
including its geodiversity elements, has healing
and well-being effects itself (Gordon 2018), which
has also been identified as one of the cultural ES
(Gray 2013).
Supporting services
Supporting services are those necessary for the pro-
duction or maintenance of all other ecosystem ser-
vices. Geodiversity supporting services may be
defined not only as those that provide living spaces
for plants or animals (soil processes, habitat provi-
sion), but also as those that offer an environment
and base for different human activities. Gray
(2013) identifies two main groups: geodiversity as
a platform and geodiversity as an environment for
burial and storage.
The aspect ‘geodiversity as a platform’ is mainly
reflected in the use of landforms. Already in prehis-
toric times, landforms were used by humans for
numerous purposes, e.g. caves or rock overhangs
were used as shelters (e.g. Cueva de las Manos in
Argentina; Atapuerca in Spain; Mesa Verde in the
USA), sinkholes connected to subterranean freshwa-
ter aquifers were used as natural springs to provide
potable water (e.g. cenotes in the Yucatan Peninsula,
Mexico) and valleys or elongated depressions were
used as communication routes (e.g. the structural
depression Moravská brána/Moravian Gate in
Czech Republic, where Amber road led). Further-
more, the geomorphological conditions of an area
could favour the presence of human settlements
(Kubalíková et al. 2020; Urban et al. 2022). Signifi-
cant elevation, difficult accessibility and stability of
outcrops have influenced the edification of important
buildings, strongholds, castles, forts, defensive out-
posts with strategic control over surrounding areas
or monasteries – e.g. Mehrangarh Fort in Jodhpur
in Rajasthan, India; Vranov Castle in the Czech
Republic; Aït Benhaddou, fortified village (ksar) in
Morocco; Bardi Castle in Italy; Meteora Monasteries
in Greece (Fig. 2).
Today, landforms also influence urban develop-
ments and the positioning of important buildings.
A flat terrain is suitable for industrial plants and for
the construction of airports (Gray 2013; Pijet-Migoń
and Migoń 2018). Geomorphological settings are
also important for leisure and sport activities; e.g.
slopes are suitable for skiing or for agriculture and
viticulture (southern-oriented dry slopes). Land-
forms have also played a crucial role in the selection
of suitable places for some types of large

Fig. 2. Landforms and their supporting functions. (a) Meteora Monasteries, Greece; situated on a steep conglomerate
rock tower. (b) Aït Benhaddou, Morocco; a fort situated on an elevation which enables a wide overview of the
surrounding landscape. (c) Quebrada de las Flechas, Argentina; a pass used by Ruta 40. (d) Bardi Castle, Parma
Apennines, Italy; strategically placed on a rise made up of basalts and red jaspers, it is still a lofty stronghold at the
junction of roads linking the Ligurian western coast to the Via Emilia. (e) Vranov nad Dyjí Castle, Czechia; situated
on a rock outcrop above the Dyje River. Source: authors.
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023
Geodiversity–culture relationships
constructions. The typical example is the use of nar-
row, deeply incised valleys and gorges for dam con-
structions (e.g. Brno Dam in the Czech Republic,
Hoover Dam in the USA). Passes and gaps in moun-
tain areas are used as suitable sites for railways and
roads; e.g. Vlárský pass in the Czech–Slovak border,
Quebrada de las Flechas pass in Argentina (Fig. 2).
There are numerous examples where mountain
ridges or rivers represent borders between two differ-
ent regions (e.g. Šumava/Böhmerwald/Bohemian
Forest as a historical border between Czech lands
and German territories).
The subsoil has long been used for human burial
(Gray 2013); an interesting relation of culture and
geodiversity related to human burial is reflected in
the study of gravestones and cemeteries (Del Lama
2019; Pereira et al. 2019). This has strong links to
cultural heritage and represents an issue worthy of
further study as cemeteries have close relations to
history and may even become a part of the local iden-
tity – e.g. as celebrated local people’s locus of burial,
thus contributing to a sense of place. This may be
considered an element within cultural ecosystem ser-
vices (Gray 2013; Gordon 2018).
An important supporting service of geodiversity
is represented by storage. There are numerous
types of underground storage, such as those of gas,
liquids, radioactive waste or other types of waste
(Szabó et al. 2010). In this case, both anthropogenic
and natural underground landforms are used.
Cultural and knowledge ecosystem services
By cultural services, we refer to the value placed by
society on some aspects of geodiversity due to their
social or community significance (Gray 2013). In
this case, the term ‘value’ does not necessarily
refer to monetary or economic value, as geodiversity
has physical and mental benefits/values in a non-
economic sense (Hirons et al. 2016; Fox et al.
2021, 2022). More broadly, cultural ecosystem ser-
vices are defined as the nonmaterial benefits people
obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrich-
ment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation
and aesthetic experiences (Reid et al. 2005; Milcu
et al. 2013; Fish et al. 2016). Gray (2013) developed
a scheme of cultural ecosystem services provided by
geodiversity by defining five groups of values: envi-
ronmental quality; geotourism and leisure; cultural,
spiritual and historic meanings (including myths
and sense of place); artistic inspiration; and societal
development. Gordon (2012a, 2018) proposed a
more detailed classification by adding, for example,
cultural diversity influenced by geodiversity, cultural
heritage and geoheritage value and aesthetic value.
This scheme has been used for the assessment of cul-
tural ecosystem services in different environments
(García 2019; Kubalíková 2020).
The tourist and recreational value of geodiver-
sity, including the spillover to physical and mental
benefits and well-being, local development and the
economy has been widely discussed in numerous
works (Dowling and Newsome 2010, 2018; Pijet-
Migoń and Migoń 2019; Fox et al. 2021, 2022). In
this book, Migoń and Pijet-Migoń (2022) reflect on
these issues providing numerous examples.
The artistic value of geodiversity has been under-
estimated, but it is evident that geodiversity
has always served as an inspiration for artistic and lit-
erary works. Geodiversity and landscapes were espe-
cially appreciated by Romantic artists; as examples,
we can mention K. Postl and A. Mánes, who are
considered the founders of Czech landscape painting,
or the Barbizon school of painters who took the land-
scape and its geodiversity elements as an important
source of inspiration (e.g. sandstone outcrops near
Fontainebleau, France). Paul Cézanne was passion-
ately inspired by landforms and the landscape of his
native land and was fascinated by geology; the painter
stated: ‘To paint a landscape well, I first need to dis-
cover its geological foundations’ (Tuma 2002).
Many other examples can be cited: Leonardo da
Vinci (‘The Virgin of the Rocks’), Monet (‘The Cliffs
of Belle Ile’), J. M. W. Turner (‘Staffa, Fingal’s
Cave’), T. Moran (paintings of Yellowstone),
K. Hokusai (‘The Great Wave off Kanagawa’). Geo-
diversity has been used by artists in creating massive
stone sculptures carved in situ such as ‘Decebalus’ at
the Danube pass in Romania (Ilies and Josan 2009),
the heads of four United States presidents at Mount
Rushmore (USA) or the Leshan Giant Buddha
(China). The diversity of geological and geomorpho-
logical elements has strongly influenced garden art –
particularly the Japanese and Chinese cases – as well
as contemporary art design. Numerous examples are
extensively discussed in Al Basha et al. (2020), such
as the Federal Courthouse Plaza in Minneapolis
(Minnesota, USA), which features a series of ellipti-
cal mounds with diagonal alignment symbolizing a
sea of glacial drumlins on the plaza’s paving.
Regarding literature, geodiversity and the land-
scape inspired numerous Romantic poets (e.g.
G. G. Byron, J. Keats, P. B. Shelley), some of
them also wrote about the landscape and geodiver-
sity features in their travel diaries, e.g. K. H.
Mácha, a Czech Romantic poet, wrote about his
trips from Prague to northern Bohemia (now
known as Mácha’s region) in 1832–35, and he
made some drawings of the extinct volcanic cones
in the Central Bohemian Uplands (Kubalíková
2018). In the Italian Journey, Johann Wolfgang
von Goethe, the famous German poet and scientist,
described with the eye of a geologist and landscape
painter, as he himself stated, the complex Italian
landscape considering its geological, biological and
cultural components (Coratza and Panizza 2017).
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023
L. Kubalíková and P. Coratza
Natural geological events, notably the dissolution of
gypsum and the resulting numerous sinkholes around
the city of Ripon in North Yorkshire (UK), may have
been Lewis Carroll’s inspiration for Alice in Wonder-
land (Cooper 1999). Physical landscape and geolog-
ical processes inspired Dante as well; in the Divina
Commedia, there are references to earthquakes, land-
slide bodies, waterfalls and, in the ‘Inferno’ (Inf.
12.32), a discussion of the causes of a ‘ruina’ –
Dante’s word for landslide – near Trento (Northern
Italy) is reported (Dante 1321; Romano 2016). The
variety of breathtaking landscapes in the territories
of the former Duchy of Urbino (Central Italy) kindled
the sensitivity of several great Italian Renaissance
painters, e.g. Piero della Francesca, Raphael and Leo-
nardo da Vinci, that reproduced them in their most
celebrated works of art (Nesci and Borchia 2017).
Recently, artistic works – i.e. poetry, concerts,
video presentations – have been used to promote a
deeper understanding of the fascinating geological
landscapes of the Marche region (Italy) by integrating
their origin and physical aesthetics with their cultural
and artistic heritage (Nesci and Valentini 2020). The
relationship between geodiversity and literature
(especially poetry) is reflected in the activities of
the International Institute of Geopoetics (https://
www.institut-geopoetique.org/en/) and the Scottish
Centre for Geopoetics (https://www.geopoetics.org.
uk/).
Aesthetically valuable geodiversity elements and
geomorphological settings are also used in the film
industry: numerous sceneries have served as attrac-
tive backgrounds for movies (Lugeri et al. 2015).
Many examples can be cited: Dweira Bay (Malta)
was featured in Clash of the Titans (1981), Among
Wolves (1985), Christopher Columbus – the Discov-
ery (1992), The Odyssey (1997), The Count of Monte
Cristo (2002) and HBO’s TV series Game of
Thrones (2011); New Zealand’s Alps volcanoes are
the background for The Lord of The Rings trilogy,
and Ngauruhoe, an active volcano, is featured as
‘Mount Doom’ in the movie; the Taranaki region
(New Zealand) was the backdrop for many scenes
in The Last Samurai due to the fact that Mount Tara-
naki resembles Mount Fuji; the SE of the Burgos
province (Spain) provided a natural filming location
for the well-known Sergio Leone’s movie The Good,
the Bad and the Ugly (1966) (González-Delgado
et al. 2020).
The links between geodiversity and culture are
often reflected in myths. This aspect corresponds to
the ‘cultural, spiritual and historic meanings’ defined
by Gray (2013, p. 126) within cultural ES. Geomy-
thology was first introduced by Vitaliano (1968) as
a study of the geological elements of myths – related
to the origin of specific sites, landforms or to the
explication of processes or even historical events,
mainly catastrophic ones. Piccardi and Masse
(2007) present numerous examples of geomytholog-
ical topics, including the geomyths described in the
Bible (and their scientific explication), myths of
ancient peoples around the world and also local leg-
ends related to e.g. erratic boulders in northern Italy
that may be relevant from the geoconservation point
of view (Motta and Motta 2007). Numerous sites
characterized by peculiar and impressive geological
phenomena have arisen the interest and curiosity of
people since ancient times, giving rise to myths
and legends (e.g. the Uluru sandstone formation in
Australia, Reynard 2009; the Mefite site in the
Ansanto Valley, Southern Italy, Sisto et al. 2020).
Ophiolitic outcrops in the Emilia Apennines (Italy)
represent good examples to illustrate the link
between geodiversity and mythology. Their dark
colour, rugged and disquieting outline, massive
bulk, higher resistance compared with surrounding
rocks, scanty or lacking vegetational cover and the
fact that they cannot be exploited as farming soil
have contributed to transform ophiolites into objects
of fantasy and superstition. That’s why they are
called ‘the Devil’s stones’ in many legends and anec-
dotes and have long been used as amulets against the
hazard of lightning strikes and snakes or for protect-
ing newborn babies. The ‘Savignano Venus’ – a
famous archaic female statuette ascribed to the last
Paleolithic phase made of a serpentine rock common
in the Modena district – seems to be connected to
ancient magical–religious functions (Bertacchini
et al. 2004). Amongst the numerous myths that can
be cited, that of the Cyclops Polyphemus in Sicily
(Italy) is certainly one of the most fascinating and
ancient. The discovery of elephant skulls with a
great frontal hollow gave rise to the belief that
one-eyed giants had existed and inhabited the island
(Agnesi et al. 2007). Freshwater sinkholes (cenotes)
for the Maya of the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico
were gateways to the Xibalba, a mythological under-
world where deities dwelt (Melo Zurita 2019).
In the Czech Republic, examples of places of
Earth-science interest related to myths can be found
as well, e.g. Ř íp Hill, a basaltic knob raising above
the flat surroundings that is usually linked to a
legend about the arrival of the old Bohemians to the
Czech lands; Blaník Hill that is related to the myth
of the dormant soldiers hidden inside the rock mas-
sive that will protect Czech lands and people in
bad times (Kubalíková 2018); and Rozštípená skála
(‘Splited Rock’), a gneiss rock formation that,
according to the legend, was split by the Devil (Kirch-
ner and Kubalíková 2015). Geomythology has been
used in geoeducation and geotourism as an effective
tool to educate people about geodiversity being more
than just boulders and having many scientific and cul-
tural connotations (Kirchner and Kubalíková 2015;
Khoshraftar and Torabi Farsani 2019; Goemaere
et al. 2021; Rassios et al. 2022).
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023

Geodiversity–culture relationships

The genesis of specific rock formations was often
explained as the work of the Devil, which is reflected
in toponyms such as Č ertovy skály (Devil’s Rocks)
in Vizovice highland, eastern Czechia; Devil’s
Tower in the USA; Garganta del Diablo (Devil’s
Throat) within the Iguazú Falls in Argentina; another
Garganta del Diablo near Cafayate, Argentina; and
Puerta del Diablo (Devil’s Gate) near Tupiza,
Bolivia (Fig. 3).
As illustrated above, another reflection of the link
geodiversity–culture within cultural ES is repre-
sented by toponyms. The process of naming specific
sites and areas means (to a certain extent) that
people are ‘adopting’ a landscape or its elements
and familiarizing with it (Daniel 2013). From the
example of Brno City (Czech Republic), we can
trace several groups of geodiversity resources by
local names that reflect: (1) lithology, e.g. Č ervený
kopec (Red Hill), named for its typical reddish con-
glomerate and sandstone; Žlutý kopec (Yellow Hill)
named for its yellow to beige loess; Bílá Hora (White
Mountain) named for its white to light grey lime-
stone; (2) morphology, e.g. Skalky (Rocks), denot-
ing the occurrence of outcropping rocks; Svážná
Street (Steep Street), reflecting a slope inclination;
(3) hydrology, e.g. Vodní Street (Water Street);
Náplavka (Embankment), both mentioned places
are currently situated far from any water course but
their names are still a testimony of the past arrange-
ment or organization of the city and the position
of water resources; (4) mining, quarrying and pro-
cessing natural resources, e.g. Cihlářská Street
(Brickyard Street); Vápenka (Lime Kiln Street).
Toponyms reflecting geodiversity elements (includ-
ing water elements) often help to identify the
changes in hydrological networks or the lost/extinct
hydrological or geomorphological components of
the landscape, or enable to reconstruct the history
of use of natural resources, including industrial
aspects (Kuča 2000).
Geodiversity is also reflected in coats of arms (da
Silva 2019), which underlines the fact that abiotic
features are of great importance in forming the iden-
tity of a region or community. The most frequent ele-
ments are probably those related to historic mining
and quarrying but some coats of arms reflect other
geodiversity features, e.g. landforms (mountains),
hydrological elements (rivers or springs) or palaeon-
tological elements (fossils). Examples of such com-
munal symbols are displayed in Figure 4.

Fig. 3. Devil-related toponyms reflecting the relationship geodiversity–culture. (a) Devil’s Tower, Wyoming, USA.
(b) Puerta del Diablo (Devil’s Gate), Tupiza, Bolivia. (c) Garganta del Diablo (Devil’s Throat), Cafayate, Argentina.
Source: authors.
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023

L. Kubalíková and P. Coratza

Fig. 4. Examples of communal symbols of some Czech municipalities reflecting geodiversity and natural resources.
(a) Skryje; palaeontological element. (b) Zlaté Hory; gold as a resource. (c) Jáchymov; landforms and symbols related
to mining activity. (d) Havířov; hydrological elements and symbols related to mining activity. Source: Registr
komunálních symbolů Č R/Register of Communal Symbols of the Czech Republic, https://rekos.psp.cz/(2022).

The reflection of geodiversity–culture relation-
ships in toponyms and coats of arms may be consid-
ered part of cultural, spiritual and historic meanings
as defined by Gray (2013), as they contribute to the
local or regional identity and participate in people’s
sense of place (Gordon 2018).
Societal development is often related to
geoconservation efforts and geoeducational activi-
ties supported by local geological societies. The
involvement of local communities, e.g. through vol-
unteering, is relevant for this subtype of cultural eco-
system services as it significantly contributes to
fostering the links between geodiversity, society
and culture (Burek 2012; Worton and Gillard
2013; Prosser 2019; Kubalíková et al. 2022). This
involvement is relevant especially in the case of Geo-
parks, both at the global and national levels (Global
Geoparks Network 2022, http://www.globalgeo
park.org/), and in developing Earth-science projects
using the concept of citizen science (Powell et al.
2013; Lee et al. 2020). Lee et al. (2020) present a
wide variety of projects and platforms where societal
development (via voluntary contribution to Earth-
science research) is evident, and they explore the
future perspective through a series of case studies
centred on geohazards, observation and classifica-
tion, multi-topic and education/outreach. This
aspect partly overlaps with knowledge ecosystem
services, which include issues such as Earth history,
history of research, environmental monitoring, geo-
forensics and education and employment (Gray
2013), which also represent a part of the geodiver-
sity–culture relations.
According to Gray (2013), the study of geodiver-
sity has enabled the reconstruction of the history of
Earth over the past 4600 Ma, including the recon-
struction of past climate and the evolution of life.
Thanks to the advances in geological knowledge,
some theories and hypotheses were refined or,
contrarily, rebutted. The scientific or knowledge val-
ues of geodiversity are necessary for predicting envi-
ronmental changes and thus adapting to these
changes (Brown et al. 2012; Comer et al. 2015; Gor-
don et al. 2018; Knudson et al. 2018; Wignall et al.
2018; Selmi et al. 2022).
Geodiversity has a vital role in environmental
education (or geoeducation), both formal and
informal, which represents one of the pillars of geo-
tourism and also plays an important role in geocon-
servation. This educational aspect is integrated or
reflected in numerous definitions and approaches to
geotourism and geoconservation, from early ones
such as Hose’s (1995, p. 16), which posits that geo-
tourism is ‘the provision of interpretive and service
facilities to enable tourists to acquire knowledge
and understanding of the geology and geomorphol-
ogy of a site beyond the level of mere aesthetic
appreciation’, to more recent approaches such as
that of Dowling and Newsome (2018, p. 9), which
states that ‘geotourism 'promotes geoconservation,
fosters geo-education through geo-interpretation,
and contributes to an area or region’s sustainable
development’. Geoeducation is an important tool
for increasing public geoliteracy (Clary 2018). The
importance of education and interpretation is also
emphasized in international organizations’ docu-
ments and declarations such as the Digne-les-Bains
Declaration (ProGEO 1991), the UNESCO Frame-
work for Geological Conservation (Dingwall 2005)
and the Arouca Declaration (Associação Geoparque
Arouca 2011).
Geodiversity–culture relations are also an insepa-
rable part of everyday life by being reflected in lan-
guage. Thus, the linguistic or semiotic importance of
geodiversity should be mentioned as well. This
aspect may be considered a specific issue within cul-
tural ES, most probably as the subtype ‘cultural
meanings’; however, maybe a special subtype of
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023

Geodiversity–culture relationships

‘geodiversity in everyday life’ or ‘linguistic and
semiotic meanings’ could be defined within the cul-
tural ES of geodiversity. According to Holub and
Kopečný (1952) and Kukal et al. (1989), the words
describing abiotic features are often of very old ori-
gin and common to several languages, e.g. kámen
(stone) – pan-Slavic word that appears in some
form in the majority of Slavic languages; the same
is the case for země (land) or hlína (soil). Idioms
with geodiversity elements appear in numerous lan-
guages. For example, a stone or a rock is perceived as
something durable or hard; here are some examples
from the Cambridge Dictionary (https://diction
ary.cambridge.org/):
(1) Cornerstone – something of great importance
that everything else depends on.
(2) Have a heart of stone – to be unkind or cruel.
(3) Leave no stone unturned – to do everything
you can to achieve a good result, especially
when looking for something.
(4) Carved in stone – something that cannot be
changed.
(5) On the rocks – likely to fail soon.
(6) Rolling stone (gathers no moss) – a person who
is always travelling and changing jobs has the
advantage of having no responsibilities, but
also has disadvantages such as having no per-
manent place to live.
(7) Rock bottom – the lowest possible level.
Stone is also a unit of weight equal to 14 pounds or
6.35 kg, used especially when talking about a
person’s weight, e.g. ‘he has put on/lost a stone’
(he is a stone heavier/lighter).
There are many other examples of geodiversity
elements in language both as idioms and metaphors;
for example, water elements (river, lake, brook, e.g.
cry a river – to weep profusely or excessively; rivers
of something – big amount of something liquid);
landforms (mountains, hills, abyss, e.g. mountain
of something – high quantity of something; make a
mountain out of a molehill – to make a slight diffi-
culty seem like a serious problem; be over the hill
– no longer able to do something well because of
age; abyss as a metaphor for a difficult situation
that brings trouble or destruction); or metals (rule
something with an iron hand/fist – to control a
group of people very firmly) (https://dictionary.cam
bridge.org/).
We have discussed numerous aspects reflecting
the relationship geodiversity–culture in the context
of abiotic ecosystem (or geosystem) services. The
simplified scheme of these links is presented in
Figure 5 and it enables to see the intensity and rele-
vance of the geodiversity–culture links to the partic-
ular types of abiotic ecosystem services.
Conclusions
Currently, there is much greater awareness in society
regarding culture and nature, including geology. The
relatively recently introduced concept of geodiver-
sity can provide new opportunities and incentives
both to improve our knowledge and to safeguard

Fig. 5. Reflections and relevance of geodiversity–culture links within the concept of abiotic ecosystem (or
geosystem) services. The thickness of a line connecting particular nodes represents the intensity of the relation (thin
line: low intensity; medium-sized line: moderate intensity; thick line: high intensity). Dashed lines represent a very
limited relevance of geodiversity–culture links to the particular types and subtypes of ecosystem services (ES).
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023
L. Kubalíková and P. Coratza
and manage territorial resources. This concept is
becoming the new key for presenting geology with
a more attractive face, made up of impressive diver-
sity, history and emotional and visual enjoyment. In
fact, geodiversity is at the core of the variety of land-
scapes and life on Earth, and it is closely linked to
biological communities and integrated with the
social and cultural structures that live and operate
in a territory.
This chapter was not intended as an exhaustive
review of the geodiversity–culture relations, but it
aimed to analyse these links and anchor them in
the context of abiotic ecosystem services. From def-
initions of culture and the analysis of Gray’s scheme
for geosystem services, it was possible to capture
some reflections of geodiversity–culture relation-
ships not only within cultural and knowledge ecosys-
tem services but also within supporting and
provisioning services. This approach may serve as
another way to conduct research on these topics.
Pijet-Migoń and Migoń (2022) discuss several possi-
bilities for systematizing the relationship between
geoheritage and cultural heritage, and present
various approaches with their underlying factors
important for the classification of themes at the geo-
heritage–cultural heritage interface. Thus, the
approach presented in this chapter may become an
alternative or extension to their proposal, as it takes
into account the geodiversity–culture relationship
and not only the geoheritage–cultural heritage links.
While some aspects of the relationship geodiver-
sity–culture have been given more attention and
been investigated more thoroughly (e.g. building
stones and architecture, geotourism, geoeducation),
other aspects remain unexplored and offer a possibil-
ity to enrich our knowledge about this topic. This is
the case of less discussed issues such as geo-
toponyms or the reflection of geodiversity–culture
relationships in heraldry or language that may be
explored within cultural ES (cultural and spiritual
meanings, including sense of place and local iden-
tity). Further research attention is also needed
in the case of societal development (on the border
of cultural and knowledge ecosystem services),
especially related to citizen science projects and par-
ticipative research. It can be said that when studying
geodiversity–culture links, multidisciplinary or
interdisciplinary approaches are necessary.
More detailed research with a multidisciplinary
approach, the implementation of specific methods
‘borrowed’ from other scientific fields and in-depth
exploration of some topics can significantly contrib-
ute to understanding the importance of geodiversity.
An abiotic ecosystem approach can represent a step
towards integrated management, conservation and
promotion, which is always more effective than con-
serving, managing or promoting particular landscape
(both natural and cultural) elements in an isolated
way. Anchoring the geodiversity–culture relation-
ships within the concept of abiotic ecosystem ser-
vices may provide a framework for future studies
and may contribute to better understand the protec-
tion and sustainable use not only of geoheritage
but of geodiversity as a whole, and to justify conser-
vation and management measures applied not only at
the site level (at particular geosites, geomorphosites
or geo-cultural sites) but to geodiversity in general.
Author contributions LK: conceptualization (lead),
methodology (lead), resources (equal), supervision (lead),
writing – original draft (equal), writing – review & editing
(equal); PC: conceptualization (supporting), methodology
(supporting), resources (equal), writing – original draft
(equal), writing – review & editing (equal).
Competing interest The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the
work reported in this paper.
Funding This research received no specific grant from
any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability Data sharing is not applicable to this
article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the
current study.
References
Agnesi, V., Di Patti, C. and Truden, B. 2007. Giants and
elephants of Sicily. Geological Society, London, Spe-
cial Publications, 273, 263–270, https://doi.org/10.
1144/GSL.SP.2007.273.01.20
Al Basha, N., Eplényi, A. and Sándor, G. 2020. Inspirative
geology – the influence of natural geological formations
and patterns on contemporary landscape design. Land-
scape Architecture and Art, 17, 39–48, https://doi.org/
10.22616/j.landarchart.2020.17.05
Antić, A., Marković, S.B. et al. 2022. Towards sustainable
karst-based geotourism of the Mount Kalafat in South-
eastern Serbia. Geoheritage, 14, 16, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12371-022-00651-6
Asrat, A. 2015. Geology, geomorphology, geodiversity and
geoconservation of the Sof Omar Cave System, South-
eastern Ethiopia. Journal of African Earth Sciences,
108, 47–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.201
5.04.015
Associação Geoparque Arouca 2011. Arouca Declaration
on Geotourism. November 12, 2011. European Geo-
parks, http://www.europeangeoparks.org/?p=223
[last accessed 30 November 2018].
Baczyńska, E., Lorenc, M.W. and Kaźmierczak, U. 2018.
The landscape attractiveness of abandoned quarries.
Geoheritage, 10, 271–285, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12371-017-0231-6
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023
Geodiversity–culture relationships
Baucon, A., Piazza, M., Cabella, R., Bonci, M.C., Capponi,
L., de Carvalho, C.N. and Briguglio, A. 2020. Build-
ings that ‘speak’: ichnological geoheritage in 1930s
buildings in Piazza della Vittoria (Genova, Italy). Geo-
heritage, 12, article 70, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12371-020-00496-x
Bennett, M.R., Doyle, P., Larwood, J.G. and Prosser, C.D.
(eds) 1996. Geology on Your Doorstep: the Role of
Urban Geology in Earth Heritage Conservation. The
Geological Society, London.
Bertacchini, M., Coratza, P., Panizza, M. and Piacente, S.
2004. Geology in an integrated cultural landscape:
examples of promoting sustainable and economic
development in Emilia–Romagna region (Italy).
In: Parkes, M.A. (ed.) Conference on Natural and
Cultural Landscapes: the Geological Foundation. 9–
11 September 2002. Royal Irish Academy, Dublin,
309–312.
Bollati, I., Coratza, P. et al. 2015. Directions in geoheritage
studies: suggestions from the Italian Geomorphological
Community. Engineering Geology for Society and Ter-
ritory, 8, 213–217, http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
09408-3_34
Boukhchim, N., Fraj, T.B. and Reynard, E. 2018. Lateral
and ‘vertico-lateral’ cave dwellings in Haddej and
Guermessa: characteristic geocultural heritage of
Southeast Tunisia. Geoheritage, 10, 575–590, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0251-2
Brilha, J. 2016. Inventory and quantitative assessment
of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoherit-
age, 8, 119–134, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-
014-0139-3
Brilha, J., Gray, M., Pereira, D.I. and Pereira, P. 2018. Geo-
diversity: an integrative review as a contribution to the
sustainable management of the whole of nature. Envi-
ronmental Science & Policy, 86, 19–28, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.05.001
Brocx, M. and Semeniuk, V. 2019a. Building stones can be
of geoheritage significance. Geoheritage, 11, 133–149,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0274-8
Brocx, M. and Semeniuk, V. 2019b. The ‘8Gs’ – a blueprint
for geoheritage, geoconservation, geo-education and
geotourism. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences,
66, 803–821, https://doi.org/10.1080/08120099.2019.
1576767
Brouwer, R., Brander, L.M., Kuik, O., Papyrakis, E. and
Bateman, I. 2013. A Synthesis of Approaches to Assess
and Value Ecosystem Services in the EU in the Context
of TEEB. Final Report. Institute for Environmental
Studies, VU University Amsterdam, https://ec.europ
a.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/
EU%20Valuation.pdf [last accessed 27 July 2022].
Brown, E.J., Prosser, C.D. and Stevenson, N.M. 2012. Geo-
diversity, conservation and climate change: key princi-
ples for adaptation. Scottish Geographical Journal,
128, 234–239, https://doi.org/10.1080/14702541.20
12.725859
Burek, C. 2012. The role of LGAPs (Local Geodiversity
Action Plans) and Welsh RIGS as local drivers for
geoconservation within geotourism in Wales. Geoherit-
age, 4, 45–63, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-012-
0054-4
Carcavilla, L., Durán, J.J. and López-Martínez, J. 2008.
Geodiversidad: concepto y relación con el patrimonio
geológico. Geo-Temas, 10, 1299–1303, https://www.
igme.es/patrimonio/descargas/concepto_geodiversi
dad.pdf
Carrión Mero, P., Herrera Franco, G. and Briones, J. 2018.
Geotourism and local development based on geological
and mining sites utilization, Zaruma–Portovelo, Ecua-
dor. Geosciences, 8, 205, https://doi.org/10.3390/
geosciences8060205
Cassar, J., Torpiano, A., Zammit, T. and Micallef, A. 2017.
Proposal for the nomination of Lower Globigerina
Limestone of the Maltese Islands as a ‘Global Heritage
Stone Resource’. Episodes, 40, 221–231, http://doi.
org/10.18814/epiiugs/2017/v40i3/017025
Castaldini, D. and Coratza, P. 2017. Mud volcanoes in the
Emilia–Romagna Apennines: small landforms of out-
standing scenic and scientific value. In: Soldati, M.
and Marchetti, M. (eds) Landscapes and Landforms
of Italy. Springer International, 225–234.
Chan, M.A. and Godsey, H.S. 2016. Lake Bonneville
geosites in the urban landscape: potential loss of
geological heritage. Developments in Earth Surface
Processes, 20, 617–633, https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-444-63590-7.00023-8
Chlachula, J. 2020. Geoheritage of East Kazakhstan. Geo-
heritage, 12, 91, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-
00514-y
Clary, R.M. 2018. Geoheritage and public geoliteracy:
opportunities for effective geoscience education within
US parks. In: Dowling, R.K. and Newsome, D. (eds)
Handbook of Geotourism. Edward Elgar, 244–253.
Cole, D. 2020. Heritage stone in Cape Town, South Africa.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 486,
305–323, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP486.3
Comer, P., Pressey, R.L. et al. 2015. Incorporating geodi-
versity into conservation decisions. Conservation
Biology, 29, 692–701, https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.
12508
Console, R. 2013. Pharmaceutical use of gold from antiq-
uity to the seventeenth century. Geological Society,
London, Special Publications, 375, 171–191, https://
doi.org/10.1144/SP375.12
Cooper, B.J. 2019. Heritage stone in South Australia. Aus-
tralian Journal of Earth Sciences, 66, 947–953, https://
doi.org/10.1080/08120099.2018.1547323
Cooper, T. 1999. Ripon subsidence problems and Alice in
Wonderland. Talk presented at British Association for
the Advancement of Science Meeting, 14 September,
Sheffield, UK, https://sgi.isprambiente.it/sinkhole
web/pubblicazioni/internazionali/Alice%20in%20W
onderland%20and%20gypsum.pdf [last accessed 15
August 2022].
Coratza, P. and Hobléa, F. 2018. The specificities of geo-
morphological heritage. In: Reynard, E. and Brilha, J.
(eds) Geoheritage. Elsevier, 87–106, https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00005-8
Coratza, P. and Panizza, M. 2017. Goethe’s Italian Journey
and the geological landscape. In: Soldati, M. and Mar-
chetti, M. (eds) Landscapes and Landforms of Italy.
Springer International, 511–521.
Coratza, P., Gauci, R., Schembri, J., Soldati, M. and
Tonelli, C. 2016. Bridging natural and cultural values
of sites with outstanding scenery: evidence from
Gozo, Maltese Islands. Geoheritage, 8, 91–103,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0167-7
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023
L. Kubalíková and P. Coratza
Coratza, P., Vandelli, V. and Soldati, M. 2018. Environ-
mental rehabilitation linking natural and industrial her-
itage: a master plan for dismissed quarry areas in the
Emilia Apennines (Italy). Environmental Earth Sci-
ences, 77, article 455, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12665-018-7642-9
Corbí, H., Martínez-Martínez, J. and Martin-Rojas, I.
2019. Linking geological and architectural heritage in
a singular geosite: Nueva Tabarca Island (SE Spain).
Geoheritage, 11, 703–716, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12371-018-0327-7
Cravero, F., Ponce, M.B., Gozalvez, M.R. and Marfil, S.A.
2015. ‘Piedra Mar del Plata’: an Argentine orthoquart-
zite worthy of being considered as a ‘Global Heritage
Stone Resource’. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, 407, 263–268, https://doi.org/10.1144/
SP407.9
Daniel, J. (ed.) 2013. Environmentální historie Č eské
republiky [Environmental history of the Czech Repub-
lic]. Masarykova univerzita, Brno.
da Silva, C.M. 2019. Geodiversity and sense of place: local
identity geological elements in Portuguese municipal
heraldry. Geoheritage, 11, 949–960, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12371-018-00344-z
Dante Alighieri, 1321. La Divina Commedia.
Del Lama, E.A. 2019. Potential for urban geotourism:
churches and cemeteries. Geoheritage, 11, 717–728,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0325-9
Del Monte, M., Fredi, P., Pica, A. and Vergari, F. 2013.
Geosites within Rome city center (Italy): a mixture of
cultural and geomorphological heritage. Geografia
Fisica e Dinamica Quaternaria, 36, 241–257, http://
doi.org/10.4461/GFDQ.2013.36.20
De Wever, P., Baudin, F., Pereira, D., Cornée, A., Egoroff, G.
and Page, K. 2017. The importance of geosites and
heritage stones in cities – a review. Geoheritage, 9,
561–575, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12 371-016-0210-3
Dingwall, P. 2005. Geological World Heritage: a Global
Framework. A Contribution to the Global Theme
Study of World Heritage Natural Sites. IUCN,
WCPA, UNESCO, https://portals.iucn.org/library/
sites/library/files/documents/Rep-2005-009.pdf [last
accessed 23rd November 2022].
Dowling, R.K. and Newsome, D. (eds) 2010. Geotourism.
The Tourism of Geology and Landscape. Goodfellow.
Dowling, R.K. and Newsome, D. (eds) 2018. Handbook of
Geotourism. Edward Elgar.
Draghici, C.C., Pintilii, R.D., Peptenatu, D., Comanescu,
L.G. and Sirodoev, I. 2015. The role of SPA tourism
in the development of local economies from Romania.
Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 1573–1577,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00400-1
Duffin, C.J. 2013. History of the pharmaceutical use of
pumice. Geological Society, London, Special Publica-
tions, 375, 157–169, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP375.8
Duffin, C.J., Moody, R.T.J. and Gardner-Thorpe, C. (eds)
2013. A history of geology and medicine. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, 375, https://
doi.org/10.1144/SP375.0
Ésik, Z., Rózsa, P. and Szepesi, J. 2019. Geoheritage ele-
ments of millstone manufactory, Tokaj Mountains,
Hungary. European Geoliogist, 48, 38–42.
Evans, B.G., Cleal, C.J. and Thomas, B.A. 2018. Geotour-
ism in an industrial setting: the South Wales Coalfield
Geoheritage Network. Geoheritage, 10, 93–107,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0226-3
Ferrando, A., Faccini, F., Paliaga, G. and Coratza, P. 2021.
A quantitative GIS and AHP based analysis for geodi-
versity assessment and mapping. Sustainability, 13,
10376, https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810376
Finzi, Y., Avni, S., Maroz, A., Avriel-Avni, N., Ashcke-
nazi-Polivoda, S. and Ryvkin, I. 2019. Extraordinary
geodiversity and geoheritage value of erosional craters
of the Negev Craterland. Geoheritage, 11, 875–896,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0335-7
Fish, R., Church, A. and Winter, M. 2016. Conceptualising
cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for
research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services,
21B, 208–217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.201
6.09.002
Fox, N., Graham, L.J., Eigenbrod, F., Bullock, J.M. and
Parks, K.E. 2020. Incorporating geodiversity in ecosys-
tem service decisions. Ecosystems and People, 16,
151–159, https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.
1758214
Fox, N., Graham, L.J., Eigenbrod, F., Bullock, J.M. and
Parks, K.E. 2021. Enriching social media data allows
a more robust representation of cultural ecosystem ser-
vices. Ecosystem Services, 50, article 101328, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101328
Fox, N., Graham, L.J., Eigenbrod, F., Bullock, J.M. and
Parks, K.E. 2022. Geodiversity supports cultural eco-
system services: an assessment using social media.
Geoheritage, 14, article 27, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12371-022-00665-0
Gambino, F., Borghi, A. et al. 2019. TOURinSTONES: a
free mobile application for promoting geological heri-
tage in the city of Torino (NW Italy). Geoheritage, 11,
3–17, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-02 77-5
García, M.G.M. 2019. Ecosystem services provided by
geodiversity: preliminary assessment and perspectives
for the sustainable use of natural resources in the coastal
region of the state of São Paulo, southeastern Brazil.
Geoheritage, 11, 1257–1266, https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12371-019-00383-0
Giordano, E., Giardino, M. et al. 2016. Following the tracks
of Charlemagne in the Cottian Alps. The cultural and
geological heritage of the Franks trail (Susa Valley, Pie-
monte, NW Italy). Geoheritage, 8, 293–300, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0158-8
Goemaere, E., Millier, C. et al. 2021. Legends of the
Ardennes Massif, a cross-border intangible geo-cultural
heritage (Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Germany).
Geoheritage, 13, article 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12371-021-00549-9
González-Delgado, J.Á., Martínez-Graña, A. et al. 2020.
Augmented reality as a tool for promoting the tourist
value of the geological heritage around natural filming
locations: a case study in ‘Sad Hill’ (The Good, the
Bad and the Ugly movie, Burgos, Spain). Geoheritage,
12, article 34, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-
00457-4
Gordon, J.E. 2012a. Engaging with geodiversity: ‘stone
voices’, creativity and ecosystem cultural services in
Scotland. Scottish Geographical Journal, 128, 240–
265, https://doi.org/10.1080/14702541.2012.725860
Gordon, J.E. 2012b. Rediscovering a sense of wonder: geo-
heritage, geotourism and cultural landscape
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023
Geodiversity–culture relationships
experiences. Geoheritage, 4, 65–77, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12371-011-0051-z
Gordon, J.E. 2018. Geoheritage, geotourism and the cul-
tural landscape: enhancing the visitor experience and
promoting geoconservation. Geosciences, 8, 136,
https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8040136
Gordon, J.E. and Barron, H.F. 2012. Valuing geodiversity and
geoconservation: developing a more strategic ecosystem
approach. Scottish Geographical Journal, 128, 278–297,
https://doi.org/10.1080/14702541.2012.72 5861
Gordon, J.E., Crofts, R. et al. 2018. Enhancing the role of
geoconservation in protected area management and
nature conservation. Geoheritag, 10, 191–203,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0240-5
Gray, M. 2013. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abi-
otic Nature. 2nd edn. Wiley Blackwell.
Gray, M. 2018. The confused position of the geosciences
within the ‘natural capital’ and ‘ecosystem services’
approaches. Ecosystem Services, 34, 106–112,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.10.010
Gray, M. 2021. Geodiversity: a significant, multi-faceted
and evolving, geoscientific paradigm rather than a
redundant term. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Associ-
ation, 132, 605–619, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pge
ola.2021.09.001
Habibi, T., Ponedelnik, A.A., Yashalova, N.N. and Ruban,
D.A. 2018. Urban geoheritage complexity: evidence of
a unique natural resource from Shiraz city in Iran.
Resources Policy, 59, 85–94, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.002
Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M.B. 2018. Towards a
Common International Classification of Ecosystem Ser-
vices (CICES) for Integrated Environmental and Eco-
nomic Accounting V5.1. European Environmental
Agency, https://cices.eu/resources/
Hannibal, J.T., Kramar, S. and Cooper, B.J. (eds) 2020.
Worldwide examples of heritage stones: an introduc-
tion. Geological Society, London, Special Publications,
486, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP486-2020-84
Hirons, M., Comberti, C. and Dunford, R. 2016. Valuing
cultural ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environ-
ment and Resources, 41, 545–574, https://doi.org/10.
1146/annurev-environ-110615-085831
Hjort, J. and Luoto, M. 2010. Geodiversity of high-latitude
landscapes in northern Finland. Geomorphology, 115,
109–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.
09.039
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work-related Values. Sage, London.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s recent consequences: using
dimension scores in theory and research. International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1, 11–17,
https://doi.org/10.1177/147059580111002
Holub, J. and Kopečný, F. 1952. Etymologický slovník
jazyka českého [Etymological dictionary of the Czech
language]. Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, Praha.
Hose, T.A. 1995. Selling the story of Britain’s stone. Envi-
ronment Interpretation, 10, 16–17.
Ilies, D.C. and Josan, N. 2009. Geosites–geomorphosites
and relief. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites II, 3,
78–85, http://gtg.webhost.uoradea.ro/PDF/GTG-1-
2009/10_OK_Ilies+Josan.pdf
Kaur, G., Kaur, P. et al. 2020. Jaisalmer golden limestone: a
heritage stone resource from the desert of western India.
Geoheritage, 12, article 53, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12371-020-00475-2
Kazancı, N., Suludere, Y. et al. 2019. Mining heritage and
relevant geosites as possible instruments for sustainable
development of miner towns in Turkey. Geoheritage,
11, 1267–1276, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-
00391-0
Key, M.M., Lieber, S.B. and Teagle, R.J. 2020. An histor-
ical geoarchaeological approach to sourcing an
eighteenth-century building stone: use of Aquia Creek
sandstone in Christ Church, Lancaster County, VA,
USA. Geoheritage, 12, article 4, https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12371-020-00426-x
Khoshraftar, R. and Torabi Farsani, N. 2019. Geomythol-
ogy: an approach for attracting geotourists (case
study: Takht-e Soleymān – Takab World Heritage
Sites). Geoheritage, 11, 1879–1888, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12371-019-00399-6
Kirchner, K. and Kubalíková, L. 2015. Geomythology: a
useful tool for geoconservation and geotourism pur-
poses. In: Fialová, J. and Pernicová, D. (eds) Public
Recreation and Landscape Protection – with Man
Hand in Hand! Czech Society of Landscape Engineers;
Department of Landscape Management Faculty of For-
estry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in
Brno, Brno, 68–74.
Klemm, D. and Klemm, R. 2001. The building stones of
ancient Egypt – a gift of its geology. Journal of African
Earth Sciences, 33, 631–642, https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0899-5362(01)00085-9
Knudson, C., Kay, K. and Fisher, S. 2018. Appraising geo-
diversity and cultural diversity approaches to building
resilience through conservation. Nature Climate
Change, 8, 678–685, https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41558-018-0188-8
Kroeber, A.L. and Kluckhohn, C. 1952. Culture: a critical
review of concepts and definitions. Papers Peabody
Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology, Harvard Uni-
versity, 47, viii, 223.
Kubalíková, L. 2018. Czech Republic: the planning and
management of geotourism’s hidden resources. In: Dow-
ling, R.K. and Newsome, D. (eds) Handbook of Geotour-
ism. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 417–432, https://
doi.org/10.4337/9781785368868.00046
Kubalíková, L. 2020. Cultural ecosystem services of geo-
diversity: a case study from Stránská skála (Brno,
Czech Republic). Land, 9, 105, https://doi.org/10.
3390/land9040105
Kubalíková, L. and Zapletalová, D. 2021. Geo-cultural
aspects of building stone extracted within Brno City
(Czech Republic): a bridge between natural and cultural
heritage. Geoheritage, 13, article 78, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12371-021-00585-5
Kubalíková, L., Kirchner, K., Kuda, F. and Machar, I.
2019. The role of anthropogenic landforms in sustain-
able landscape management. Sustainability, 11, 4331,
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164331
Kubalíková, L., Kirchner, K., Kuda, F. and Bajer, A. 2020.
Assessment of urban geotourism resources: an example
of two geocultural sites in Brno, Czech Republic. Geo-
heritage, 12, article 7, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12371-020-00434-x
Kubalíková, L., Drápela, E., Kirchner, K., Bajer, A.,
Balková, M. and Kuda, F. 2021. Urban geotourism
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023
L. Kubalíková and P. Coratza
development and geoconservation: is it possible to find
a balance? Environmental Science & Policy, 121, 1–10,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.03.016
Kubalíková, L., Bajer, A., Balková, M., Kirchner, K. and
Machar, I. 2022. Geodiversity action plans as a tool
for developing sustainable tourism and environmental
education. Sustainability, 14, 6043, https://doi.org/
10.3390/su14106043
Kuča, K. 2000. Brno – vývoj města, předměstí a připoje-
ných vesnic. Baset, Brno.
Kukal, Z., Malina, J., Malinová, R. and Tesařová, H. 1989.
Č lověk a kámen [Man and Stone]. Academia Praha.
Larwood, J., France, S. and Mahon, C. (eds) 2017. Cultur-
ally Natural or Naturally Cultural? Exploring the Rela-
tionship between Nature and Culture through World
Heritage. IUCN National Committee UK, https://iuc
nuk.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/naturally-cultural-
web.pdf [last accessed 9 February 2021].
Lee, K.A., Lee, J.R. and Bell, P. 2020. A review of citizen
science within the Earth sciences: potential benefits and
obstacles. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association,
131, 605–617, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.202
0.07.010
Lollino, P. and Pagliarulo, R. 2008. The interplay of erosion,
instability processes and cultural heritage at San Nicola
Island (Tremiti Archipelago, Southern Italy). Geografia
Fisica e Dinamica Quaternaria, 31, 161–169, http://
www.glaciologia.it/wp-content/uploads/FullText/full_
text_31_2/10_Lollino_161_169.pdf
Lugeri, F.R., Farabollini, P., Greco, R. and Amadio, V.
2015. The geological characterization of landscape in
major TV series: a suggested approach to involve the
public in the geological heritage promotion. Sustain-
ability, 7, 4100–4119, https://doi.org/10.3390/su704
4100
Lugli, S., Papazzoni, C.A., Gavioli, S., Melloni, C., Ros-
setti, G., Tintori, S. and Zanfrognini, R. 2009. The
stones of the Ghirlandina Tower. In: Cadignani, R.
(ed.) The Ghirlandina Tower. Conservation Project.
Luca Sossella Editore, 97–117.
Margiotta, S. and Sanso, P. 2016. Abandoned quarries and
geotourism: an opportunity for the Salento Quarry Dis-
trict (Apulia, Southern Italy). Geoheritage, 9, 1–15,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0201-4
Mata-Perelló, J. 2018. Geomining heritage as a tool to pro-
mote the social development of rural communities. In:
Reynard, E. and Brilha, J. (eds) Geoheritage: Assess-
ment, Protection and Management. Elsevier, 167–177.
Matsumoto, D. 1996. Culture and Psychology. Brooks
Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.
Mauerhofer, L., Reynard, E. et al. 2018. Contribution of a
geomorphosite inventory to the geoheritage knowledge
in developing countries: the case of the Simien Moun-
tains National Park, Ethiopia. Geoheritage, 10,
559–574, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0 234-3
Melo Zurita, M. de L. 2019. Holes, subterranean explora-
tion and affect in the Yucatan Peninsula. Emotion,
Space and Society, 32, article 100584, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.emospa.2019.100584
Migoń, P. 2021. Granite landscapes, geodiversity and geo-
heritage – global context. Heritage, 4, 198–219,
https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4010012
Migoń, P. and Pijet-Migoń, E. 2022. The role of geodiver-
sity and geoheritage in tourism and local development.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 530,
https://doi.org/10.1144/SP530-2022-115
Milcu, A.I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D. and Fischer, J. 2013.
Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and
prospects for future research. Ecology and Society,
18, 44, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05790-180344
Motta, L. and Motta, M. 2007. Erratic blocks: from protec-
tor beings to geosites to be protected. Geological Soci-
ety, London, Special Publications, 273, 315–327,
https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2007.273.01.24
Moufti, M.R., Németh, K. et al. 2015. Volcanic geotopes
and their geosites preserved in an arid climate related
to landscape and climate changes since the Neogene
in northern Saudi Arabia: Harrat Hutaymah (Hai’il
region). Geoheritage, 7, 103–118, https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12371-014-0110-3
Moura, P., Garcia, M.G.M. and Brilha, J. 2021. Guidelines
for management of geoheritage: an approach in the Ser-
tão Central, Brazilian northeastern semiarid. Geoherit-
age, 13, article 42, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-
021-00566-8
Nesci, O. and Borchia, R. 2017. Landscapes and landforms
of the Duchy of Urbino in Italian Renaissance paintings.
In: Soldati, M. and Marchetti, M. (eds) Landscapes and
Landforms of Italy. Springer International, 257–269.
Nesci, O. and Valentini, L. 2020. Science, poetry, and
music for landscapes of the Marche region, Italy: com-
municating the conservation of natural heritage. Geo-
science Communication, 3, 393–406, https://doi.org/
10.5194/gc-3-393-2020
Ollier, C. 2012. Problems of geotourism and geodiversity.
Quaestiones Geographicae, 31, 57–61, https://doi.
org/10.2478/v10117-012-0025-5
Palacio-Prieto, J.L. 2015. Geoheritage within cities: urban
geosites in Mexico City. Geoheritage, 7, 365–373,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0136-6
Panizza, M. and Piacente, S. 2003. Geomorfologia Cultur-
ale. Pitagora.
Pelfini, M., Bollati, I., Giudici, M., Pedrazzini, T., Sturani,
M. and Zucali, M. 2018. Urban geoheritage as a
resource for Earth sciences education: examples from
Milan metropolitan area. Rendiconti Online Societa
Geologica Italiana, 45, https://doi.org/10.3301/
ROL.2018.33
Pellitero, R., Manosso, F.C. and Serrano, E. 2014. Mid- and
large-scale geodiversity calculation in Fuentes
Carrionas (NW Spain) and Serra do Cadeado (Paranà,
Brazil): methodology and application for land manage-
ment. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geogra-
phy, 97, 219–235, https://doi.org/10.1111/geoa.12057
Pereira, D. and van den Eynde, V.C. 2019. Heritage stones
and geoheritage. Geoheritage, 11, 1–2, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12371-019-00350-9
Pereira, D., Marker, B.R., Kramar, S., Cooper, B.J. and
Schouenborg, B.E. (eds) 2015. Global Heritage Stone:
towards international recognition of building and orna-
mental stones. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, 407, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP407
Pereira, D.I., Pereira, P., Brilha, J. and Santos, L. 2013.
Geodiversity assessment of Paraná State (Brazil): an
innovative approach. Environmental Management, 52,
541–552, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0100-2
Pereira, L.S., do Nascimento, M.A.L. and Mantesso-Neto,
V. 2019. Geotouristic trail in the Senhor da Boa
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023
Geodiversity–culture relationships
Sentença Cemetery, João Pessoa, State of Paraíba (PB),
Northeastern Brazil. Geoheritage, 11, 1133– 1149,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00359-0
Pica, A., Vergari, F., Fredi, P. and Del Monte, M. 2016. The
Aeterna Urbs geomorphological heritage (Rome, Italy).
Geoheritage, 8, 31–42, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12371-015-0150-3
Piccardi, L. and Masse, W.B. 2007. Myth and geology.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 273,
https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2007.273.01.26
Pijet-Migoń, E. and Migoń, P. 2018. Landform change due
to airport building. In: Thornbush, M.J. and Allen, C.D.
(eds) Urban Geomorphology: Landforms and Pro-
cesses in Cities. Elsevier, 101–114.
Pijet-Migoń, E. and Migoń, P. 2019. Promoting and inter-
preting geoheritage at the local level – bottom-up
approach in the land of extinct volcanoes, Sudetes,
SW Poland. Geoheritage, 11, 1227–1236, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12371-019-00357-2
Pijet-Migoń, E. and Migoń, P. 2022. Geoheritage and cul-
tural heritage – a review of recurrent and interlinked
themes. Geosciences, 12, 98, https://doi.org/10.
3390/geosciences12020098
Portal, C. and Kerguillec, R. 2018. The shape of a city: geo-
morphological landscapes, abiotic urban environment,
and geoheritage in the western world: the example of
parks and gardens. Geoheritage, 10, 67–78, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0220-9
Powell, J., Nash, G. and Bell, P. 2013. GeoExposures: doc-
umenting temporary geological exposures in Great Brit-
ain through a citizen-science web site. Proceedings of
the Geologists’ Association, 124, 638–647, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2012.04.004
Price, W.R. and Ronck, C.L. 2019. Quarrying for World
Heritage designation: slate tourism in North Wales.
Geoheritage, 11, 1839–1854, https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12371-019-00402-0
Přikryl, R. and Török, A. (eds) 2010. Natural stone
resources for historical monuments. Geological Soci-
ety, London, Special Publications, 333, https://doi.
org/10.1144/SP333.0
ProGEO 1991. Digne-les-Bains Declaration – Declaration
of the Rights of the Memory of the Earth. ProGEO,
http://www.progeo.ngo/downloads/DIGNE_DECLA
RATION.pdf [last accessed 30 April 2022].
Prosser, C.D. 2019. Communities, quarries and geoheritage –
making the connections. Geoheritage, 11, 1277–1289,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00355-4
Queiroz, D.S. and Garcia, M.G.M. 2022. The ‘hidden’ geo-
diversity in the traditional approaches in ecosystem ser-
vices: a perspective based on monetary valuation.
Geoheritage, 14, article 44, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12371-022-00676-x
Rassios, A.E., Krikeli, A. et al. 2022. The geoheritage of
Mount Olympus: ancient mythology and modern geol-
ogy. Geoheritage, 14, article 15, https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12371-022-00649-0
Reid, W., Mooney, H., Cropper, A., Capistrano, D., Car-
penter, S. and Chopra, K. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Syn-
thesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Reynard, E. 2009. Geomorphosites: definitions and charac-
teristics. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P. and Regolini-Bissig,
G. (eds) Geomorphosites. Pfeil, Munich, 89–103.
Reynard, E. and Giusti, C. 2018. The landscape and the cul-
tural value of geoheritage. In: Reynard, E. and Brilha, J.
(eds) Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection and Man-
agement. Elsevier, 147–166.
Reynard, E., Perret, A., Bussard, J., Grangier, L. and
Martin, S. 2016. Integrated approach for the inventory
and management of geomorphological heritage at the
regional scale. Geoheritage, 8, 43–60, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12371-015-0153-0
Robins, N.S. and Smedley, P.L. 2013 Groundwater –
Medicine by the Glassful? Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 375, 261–267. http://doi.org/10.
1144/SP375.17
Rocha, F. and Ferreira da Silva, E. 2014. Geotourism, medical
geology and local development: Cape Verde case study.
Journal of African Earth Sciences, 99, 735–742,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2014.04.015
Romano, M. 2016. “Per tremoto o per sostegno manco”:
The Geology of Dante Alighieri’s Inferno. Italian Jour-
nal of Geosciences, 135 (1), 95–108, https://doi.org/
10.3301/IJG.2015.01
Rose, W.I., Vye, E.C., Stein, C.A., Malone, D.H.,
Craddock, J.P. and Stein, S.A. 2017. Jacobsville Sand-
stone: a candidate for nomination for ‘Global Heritage
Stone Resource’ from Michigan, USA. Episodes,
40, 213–219, https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/201
7/v40i3/017024
Ruban, D.A. 2010. Quantification of geodiversity and its
loss. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 121,
326–333, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2010.07.002
Sallam, E.S., Ponedelnik, A.A., Tiess, G., Yashalova, N.N.
and Ruban, D.A. 2018. The geological heritage of the
Kurkur–Dungul area in southern Egypt. Journal of Afri-
can Earth Sciences, 137, 103–115, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jafrearsci.2017.10.012
Santi, P., Tramontana, M. et al. 2021. The historic centre of
Urbino, UNESCO World Heritage (Marche region,
Italy): an urban–geological itinerary across the building
and ornamental stones. Geoheritage, 13, article 86,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00606-3
Selmi, L., Coratza, P., Gauci, R. and Soldati, M. 2019.
Geoheritage as a tool for environmental management:
a case study in northern Malta (central Mediterranean
Sea). Resources, 8, 168, https://doi.org/10.3390/
resources8040168
Selmi, L., Canesin, T.S., Gauci, R., Pereira, P. and Coratza,
P. 2022. Degradation risk assessment: understanding the
impacts of climate change on geoheritage. Sustainabil-
ity, 14, 4262, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074 262
Sendjaja, P., Suparka, E. and Botjing, M.U. 2020. Geodi-
versity of the Togean Islands National Park, Central
Sulawesi Province for Geopark assessment. IOP Con-
ference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
589, article 012023, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/589/1/012023
Serrano, E. and Ruiz Flaño, P. 2007. Geodiversity: a theo-
retical and applied concept. Geografica Helvetica, 62,
140–147, https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-62-140-2007
Silva, Z.C.G. 2019. Lioz – a royal stone in Portugal and a
monumental stone in colonial Brazil. Geoheritage, 11,
165–175, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0267-7
Sisto, M., Di Lisio, A. and Russo, F. 2020. The Mefite in the
Ansanto Valley (Southern Italy): a Geoarchaeosite to
Promote the Geotourism and Geoconservation of the
Downloaded from https://www.lyellcollection.org by Lucie Kubalikova on Feb 13, 2023
L. Kubalíková and P. Coratza
Irpinian Cultural Landscape. Geoheritage, 12, 29,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00450-x
Soldati, M., Buhagiar, S., Coratza, P., Magri, O., Pasuto, A.
and Schembri, J.A. 2008. Integration of geomorphol-
ogy and cultural heritage: a key issue for present and
future times. Geografia Fisica e Dinamica Quaterna-
ria, 31, 95–96.
Soudijn, K.A., Hutschemaekers, G.J.M. and van de Vijver,
F.R.J. 1990. Culture conceptualizations. In: van de
Vijver, F.R.J. and Hutschemaekers, G.J.M. (eds) The
Conceptualisation of Culture. Tilburg University
Press, Tilburg, 19–39.
Szabó, J., Dávid, L. and Loszy, D. (eds) 2010. Anthropogenic
Geomorphology. A Guide to Man-made Landforms.
Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3058-0
Szepesi, J., Harangi, S. et al. 2017. Volcanic geoheritage and
geotourism perspectives in Hungary: a case of an
UNESCO World Heritage Site, Tokaj wine region his-
toric cultural landscape, Hungary. Geoheritage, 9,
329–349, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0205-0
Taras, V., Rowney, J. and Steel, P. 2009. Half a century of
measuring culture: review of approaches, challenges,
and limitations based on the analysis of 121 instruments
for quantifying culture. Journal of International Man-
agement, 15, 357–373, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.int
man.2008.08.005
Tukiainen, H., Bailey, J.J., Field, R., Kangas, K. and Hjort,
J. 2016. Combining geodiversity with climate and
topography to account for threatened species richness.
Conservation Biology, 31, 364–375, https://doi.org/
10.1111/cobi.12799
Tuma, K.A. 2002. Cézanne and Lucretius at the Red Rock.
Representations, 78, 56–85. https://www.jstor.org/sta
ble/10.1525/rep.2002.78.1.56
Tylor, E.B. [1871] 1958. Primitive Culture. Harper, New York.
UNESCO 2001. UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cul-
tural Diversity. UNESCO, https://www.un.org/en/
events/culturaldiversityday/pdf/127160m.pdf [last
accessed 28 November 2022].
Urban, J., Radwanek-Bąk, B. and Margielewski, W. 2022.
Geoheritage concept in a context of abiotic ecosystem
services (geosystem services) – how to argue the geo-
conservation better? Geoheritage, 14, article 54,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00688-7
Van Ree, C.C.D.F. and van Beukering, P.J.H. 2016. Geo-
system services: a concept in support of sustainable
development of the subsurface. Ecosystem Services, 20,
30–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.004
Van Ree, C.C.D.F., van Beukering, P.J.H. and Boekestijn,
J. 2017. Geosystem services: a hidden link in ecosystem
management. Ecosystem Services, 26, 58–69, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013
Vitaliano, D.B. 1968. Geomythology: the impact of geo-
logic events on history and legend with special refer-
ence to Atlantis. Journal of the Folklore Institute, 5,
5–30, https://doi.org/10.2307/3813842
Vystoupil, J., Šauer, M. and Bobková, M. 2017. Spa, spa
tourism and wellness tourism in the Czech Republic.
Czech Journal of Tourism, 6, 5–26, http://doi.org/
10.1515/cjot-2017-0001
Wignall, R.M.L., Gordon, J.E., Brazier, V., MacFadyen,
C.C.J. and Everett, N.S. 2018. A qualitative risk assess-
ment for the impacts of climate change on nationally
and internationally important geoheritage sites in Scot-
land. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 129,
120–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2017.11.
003
Worton, G.J. and Gillard, R. 2013. Local communities
and young people – the future of geoconservation.
Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 124,
681–690, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2013.01.
006
Younes Arrad, T., Errami, E., Ennih, N., Ouajhain, B.,
Ettachfini, E.M. and Said Bouaouda, M. 2020. From
geoheritage inventory to geoeducation and geotourism
implications: insight from Jbel Amsittene (Essaouira
province, Morocco). Journal of African Earth Sciences,
161, article 103656, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrear
sci.2019.103656
Yu, Y. and Yang, J. 2022. The role and practice of geodi-
versity in serving ecosystems in China. Sustainability,
14, 4547, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084547
Zangmo Tefogoum, G., Kagou Dongmo, A. et al. 2014.
Geomorphological features of the Manengouba Vol-
cano (Cameroon Line): assets for potential Geopark
development. Geoheritage, 6, 225–239, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12371-014-0109-9
Zangmo Tefogoum, G., Kagou Dongmo, A. et al. 2017.
The volcanic geoheritage of the Mount Bamenda
Calderas (Cameroon Line): assessment for geotouristic
and geoeducational purposes. Geoheritage, 9, 255–278,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0177-0
Zwoliński, Z., Najwer, A. and Giardino, M. 2018. Methods
for assessing geodiversity. In: Reynard, E. and Brilha, J.
(eds) Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection and Man-
agement. Elsevier, 27–52.