MID- AND LARGE-SCALE GEODIVERSITY

CALCULATION IN FUENTES CARRIONAS (NW SPAIN)

AND SERRA DO CADEADO (PARANÁ, BRAZIL):
METHODOLOGY AND APPLICATION FOR
LAND MANAGEMENT
RAMÓN PELLITERO1, FERNANDO C. MANOSSO2 and ENRIQUE SERRANO3
1
Department of Geography and Environment, School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen,
Aberdeen, UK
2
Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Campus Francisco Beltrão, Paraná, Brasil
3
Departamento de Geografía, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Valladolid,
Valladolid, Spain

Pellitero, R., Manosso, F.C. and Serrano, E., 2014. Mid- and
large-scale geodiversity calculation in Fuentes Carrionas
(NW Spain) and Serra do Cadeado (Paraná, Brazil): meth-
odology and application for land management. Geografiska
Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, ••, ••–••.
doi:10.1111/geoa.12057
ABSTRACT. A state-of-the-art geodiversity concept, its use
and scientific development are presented. Methodologies for
geodiversity calculation are assessed, as well as their aim
and problems. Geodiversity calculation methodology based
on biodiversity richness index is explained and applied to
two different areas: Fuentes Carrionas, a high mountain mid-
latitude environment in northern Spain, and Serra do
Cadeado, a tropical mid-mountain environment in southern
Brasil. A geodiversity map of Fuentes Carrionas proves that
glacial cirques over 2000 m a.s.l. keep a high geodiversity
related to a periglacial and glacial environment, whereas a
geodiversity map of Serra do Cadeado shows that high geo-
diversity areas are situated at its main structural scarp. Geo-
diversity calculation needs to take scale and hierarchy issues
into account, which makes comparison only possible if the
same scale is used. Geodiversity calculation is a useful tool
for land management as it defines areas subject to protection
due to the richness of abiotic elements. It is also useful in
terms of environmental impact assessment and geotourism
evaluation at remote areas.
Key words: geodiversity, environmental management, envi-
ronmental impact, geotourism, natural diversity
The concept of geodiversity, objectives and
study areas
The concept of geodiversity has been widely dis-
seminated over the last decade. From its origins as
a generic term linked to conservation biology and
biodiversity, it has branched off independently to
become an informative term used in reference to
landscape and geological values and also as a sci-
entific and legal term, like in the Spanish 47/2007
Law of Natural Heritage, or the Brazilian law
9.985/2000 on Protected Areas.
Several definitions have been made of geodiver-
sity (Nieto 2001; Ibáñez and García-Álvarez 2002;
Kozlowski 2004; Rojas 2005; Serrano and
Ruiz-Flaño 2007a; Pereira 2010; Gray 2013), the
widest and most simple of which is, in our opinion,
the one by Sharples (2002): the variety of bedrock,
landforms, hydrology, soils and processes, the rela-
tionships among them and with human activity.
From a scientific and conservationist point of view,
geodiversity goes hand in hand with biodiversity,
as together they compose the natural diversity
of a territory (Radford et al. 1981; Serrano and
Ruiz-Flaño 2007b; Parks and Mulligan 2010). Geo-
diversity is integrated in natural habitats and land-
scapes and has an important spatial and temporal
dimension.
Perhaps owing to how widely it is employed,
geodiversity has become a somewhat empty
concept, commonly used without any regard for its
strong theoretical basis. Since its formulation in the
mid 1990s (Sharples 1993) there have been few
contributions to the assessment of geodiversity.
Early geodiversity estimates centred on pedodiver-
sity, such as Ibáñez et al. (1994, 1995, 2012). These

© 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography 1

DOI:10.1111/geoa.12057
 RAMÓN PELLITERO ET AL.
works settled the most important theoretical ideas
for the calculation of geodiversity, which were, in
fact, imported from biodiversity (Ibáñez and
García-Álvarez 2002). Holistic analyses were
developed later, with very different scales of appli-
cation, classes of origin and formulae (see methodo-
logical section). Meanwhile, research centred on
pedodiversity and geomorphodiversity has contin-
ued (Zhang et al. 2003; Saldaña and Ibáñez 2004;
Krasilnikov et al. 2009; Panizza 2009; Ibáñez et al.
2012). In Spain interest in geodiversity arose early,
and it was embraced by several regional institutions
(Durán et al. 1998). Scientific studies involving
geodiversity estimates have been applied both on
local (Serrano and Ruiz-Flaño 2007a; Pellitero
et al. 2011) and national scales (Benito-Calvo et al.
2009). In Brazil the term began to appear in the last
decade as a complement to biodiversity by meeting
the need to assess the presence of abiotic elements
within nature. The geodiversity of territories is pre-
sented in a descriptive way as a complement to
geoheritage, the interpretation of nature and geo-
conservation (Piekarz et al. 2009; Nascimento et al.
2008; Lima et al. 2010; Moreira 2011, 2012). Quan-
titative studies are still scarce, Silva et al. (2013)
and Pereira et al. (2013) published some studies
using GIS, and in addition Silva et al. (2001) devel-
oped a methodology for the state of Rio de Janeiro
which was later used elsewhere in Brazil (Grigio
et al. 2011; Rodrigues and Silva 2012).
Our objective is to make the concept of geodi-
versity more precise by making geodiversity
assessment as a useful a tool as biodiversity is for
the conservation of living nature. This remains one
of the challenges facing geodiversity (Reynard
2009) and presents some methodological and theo-
retical issues to the extent that some authors
deny the possibility of geodiversity calculation
(e.g. Lugon, http://geomorphologie.revues.org/
416, 10 Feb., 2014). To do so, first we discuss
geodiversity calculation methodologies used so far,
and later we apply the methodology developed by
Pellitero et al. (2011), based on Serrano and
Ruiz-Flaño (2007a) and modified in Pellitero
(2011), to two different areas from the points of
view of their environment, extent, potentials and
threats. The aim is to recognize geodiversity within
each territory, so abiotic richness is emphasized
and managed as part of environmental, geoconser-
vation and geotourism strategies. Moreover, this
paper assesses the utility, problems and potential
application of the calculation of geodiversity at
different environments and scales.
2 © 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography
Study areas
Fuentes Carrionas Massif is situated in the Canta-
brian Range, north of Spain, and occupies about
175 km2 with altitudes ranging from less than 1000
to 2536 m a.s.l. It hosts a wide variety of rock
outcrops, for example, limestones, conglomerates,
granites, quartzites, sandstones and shales. Its
structure is dominated by overthrusts, faults and
narrow anticlines and synclines to the south, while
the northern area is covered by the broad Curava-
cas syncline. In the centre of this area there is a
small granitic stock. Glaciers shaped most of the
valleys and watersheds during Quaternary, and left
thick till mantles from 1200 to 2300 m a.s.l.
(Pellitero 2013; Serrano et al. 2013). Beyond the
glaciated areas (and progressively higher on the
transition between the Last Glacial Maximum to
the Holocene), periglacial conditions led to the
formation of rock glaciers, blockslopes and
blockfields, patterned soils and solifluction lobes
(Ondicol 2009). During deglaciation slopes under-
went a paraglacial phase, so mass movements,
some of which are still active, began to develop.
Glacial tarns started to fill with water and sedi-
ments, leading to the formation of lakes and peat-
bogs, fluvioglacial and fluvial terraces. Nowadays
periglacial and nival processes such as gelifluction,
gelifraction, the construction of pronival ridges and
the occurrence of avalanches are still active,
making Fuentes Carrionas one of the two ranges in
NW Spain in which a periglacial belt (sensu
Chardon 1984) still remains. Nival karst is also
highly active on limestone outcrops over 2000 m
a.s.l. Rivers and streams continue to erode the
valleys and reactivate landslides on slopes.
All these characteristics make Fuentes Carrionas
an area of potentially high geodiversity, but one in
which such diversity is neither uniformly distrib-
uted nor unthreatened. Some investments have
been planned for this area, such as, a large ski
resort which will cover the highest peaks. Thus it is
necessary to know which areas should be protected
because of their abiotic diversity and how the
developments will affect it.
Serra do Cadeado is a mountain range in the
Paraná state, south of Brazil. It is situated at the
eastern limit of the Paraná sedimentary basin and
its altitudes range from 400 to 1250 m a.s.l. Its
geology is defined by a Triassic scarp with a
NE–SE direction and some diabasic structural
alignments on the NW–SE direction. These diaba-
sic dykes control the landscape evolution, by
directing the drainage system and the erosive
 METHODOLOGY FOR MID AND LARGE SCALE GEODIVERSITY CALCULATION
retreat of the scarp. The differential resistance of
the diabase to erosion has resulted in the creation
of fluvial gorges, elongated crests and stacks where
it outcrops.
Serra do Cadeado’s structure and dynamics are
strongly controlled by the Ponta Grossa Arch struc-
ture (Strugale et al. 2007), so that the highest
points and more rugged areas are located at the
arch’s axis. The lowest and least rugged areas are
located on the reverse of the scarp, in the SE and
NW corners. In the SE area there is a hilly land-
scape on the Serra Geral basalt. The NW is a flat
area on the low tilting silts, sandstones and clays of
Itararé Group, which correspond to the Second
Parana Plateau. Within the front of the scarp there
are detritic pediments and secondary scarps due to
hard Botucaru Formation outcrops. At the foot of
the scarp colluvial deposits are found, which are
currently being re-worked by the drainage system.
Different hypsometric levels on the plateau surface
are remnants of old erosion surfaces (Bigarella
et al. 1965). The palaeoecological record of this
area runs from the Paleozoic to the Cretaceous.
Soils are more varied at the gentle hill areas of the
SE due to a longer evolution and the intrinsic litho-
logical variety.
Methods for geodiversity calculation
There are two variables to be taken into account in
geodiversity assessment, the classes to be used and
the formula to calculate the geodiversity of these
classes. Both variables depend on one critical
aspect, the scale.
Eligible classes: direct and indirect geodiversity
Given our aim to protect and highlight abiotic ele-
ments on the surface, the main issues of interest
are the variety of geological, geomorphological,
edaphic and hydrological features and processes.
Other geodiversity studies are more intended
to relate geodiversity and biodiversity, such
as Parks and Mulligan (2010) or Silva (http://
www.directionsmag.com/articles/geodiversity
-some-simple-geoprocessing-indicators-to-support
-environmental-/123803, 21 Oct., 2013). In these
cases climatic variety, topographic variety or land-
scape diversity are also taken into account.
Direct methods compute existing classes of geo-
diversity, such as types of landforms, soils or rocks.
Their advantage is that calculation is simpler and
results are more accurate, but they require more
© 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography
previous work to distinguish classes. As a result
these methodologies cannot be applied to very
extensive areas. Serrano and Ruiz-Flaño (2007a),
Hjort and Luoto (2010, 2012) and Pellitero et al.
(2011) have studied geodiversity of landforms,
geological structures, lithologies and soils directly.
Soil geodiversity was assessed by Zhang et al.
(2003), Saldaña and Ibáñez (2004) and Krasilnikov
et al. (2009) using direct methodologies, and lastly,
Carcavilla et al.’s (2008) proposal is also direct.
One of the main problems of studying variety in
nature is to distinguish elements that are intrinsi-
cally similar enough to be considered within a
single class (Rosenzweig 1995). Sometimes such
identification would involve a too onerous or time-
consuming fieldwork, so classes are almost impos-
sible to define (Hjort and Luoto 2012). In these
cases indirect methodologies, also called ‘surro-
gate indicators’ (Ibáñez and García-Álvarez 2002),
can be as helpful as they are in biodiversity. These
indicators do not identify features that are intrinsi-
cally different, but environments or situations that
usually generate diversity of abiotic features, for
example, a steep area with a variety of aspects is
more likely to generate different landforms and
deposits than a gentle, uniformly oriented one. The
variety of aspects, altitudinal range, variety of
shapes, roughness or slope are examples of surro-
gate indicators and they have been used by Serrano
and Ruiz-Flaño (2007a) and Benito-Calvo et al.
(2009). Indirect methodologies have the advantage
of needing very little or no previous fieldwork,
such that they can cover very extensive areas of a
country or even a continent. However, their calcu-
lation is more complex and needs greater compu-
tation capacity. As a consequence any bias in the
original data, for example, an improperly refer-
enced digital elevation model (DEM) or a cover
whose scale is not coherent with the rest of the data
or a mistake during calculation can lead to abnor-
mal results.
At the same time we should not fall into the trap
of equating indirect and direct geodiversity. For
example, a variety of aspects should not be consid-
ered as geodiversity itself, since aspect is only a
‘situation’ characteristic, which does not make
abiotic things different (a northern-faced glacial
cirque is not essentially different to an eastern-
faced one).
Sometimes, geodiversity can be directly identi-
fied and calculated for one group of classes (e.g.
types of lithology) but not for another (e.g. soils)
due to the lack of a proper classification or cartog-
3
 RAMÓN PELLITERO ET AL.
raphy. In these cases mixed direct–indirect methods
can be used, as in this paper for Serra do Cadeado.
Finally, some indirect methodologies describe
geodiversity as the variety or quality of geosites.
Bruschi et al. (2011) consider geoheritage and geo-
diversity to be synonyms, so the former can be
assessed directly. For Ruban (2010) geodiversity is
the variety of types of geosite. Both approaches do
not take into account that geoheritage is the human
recognition of outstanding geological or geomor-
phological features, which may or may not con-
template the variety of abiotic features within it.
Such methodologies are not acceptable from the
theoretical point of view.
Formulae
According to Ibáñez and García-Álvarez (2002),
there are three main types of formula for diversity
calculation of natural elements: richness indices,
distribution indices and distribution models.
Richness indices compute how many different
classes are represented in a territory. From an eco-
logical perspective, species richness provides an
instantly comprehensible expression of diversity,
provided that care is taken with sample size (all
sample sizes must be equal) (Saldaña et al. 2011).
Therefore, if we are able to divide the study area
into a regular network and we have been able to
identify all the classes on a certain scale within
every area of that network, richness estimates will
provide us with a useful value for diversity (Ibáñez
and García-Álvarez 2002).
Distribution indices understand diversity as a
mixture of richness and equitability. Given two
areas with the same richness value, the one in
which elements are more homogeneously spread
throughout the area will be the more diverse (see
Fig. 1). The Shannon diversity index (Shannon
1948) and Simpson diversity index (Simpson
1949) are among the most commonly used in the
calculation of biodiversity. Both Simpson and
Shannon offer an estimate of richness and distri-
bution of diversity of a territory, but not within
the territory, as they cannot be calculated pixel by
pixel on a raster surface. Moreover, these indices
are based on the proportion of space occupied by
each class in the territory and therefore classes
are not assumed to overlap, so there can be only
one class at any one point in the territory. This
may be admissible for partial geodiversity studies,
such as pedodiversity or lithological diversity,
but cannot be accepted for estimates of overall
4 © 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography
Fig. 1. Two areas with the same richness but different distribu-
tion, based on Shannon and Simpson indices. The one on the
right is more varied than the one on the left.
geodiversity, as soils overlap landforms and these
overlap lithologies.
Finally, distribution models build graphics in
which the x axis hosts the ranking of classes
ordered from the most to the least common and the
y values are the number of elements within each
class. The result is a curve, which is compared with
the most common models: geometric curves for
areas with very little diversity, such as anthropized
spaces; logarithmic curves for low diversity areas;
lognormal curves for medium to high diversity
areas and ‘broken stick’ curves, typical for biodi-
versity on recently colonized spaces (Ibáñez et al.
2012). Once more such curves will compute the
total diversity of a territory, but not within this
territory.
Most geodiversity studies have so far used either
richness or distribution formulae. Some, by con-
trast, have used a subjective estimate based on the
researchers’ knowledge, such as Panizza (2009) or
Zwolinski and Stachowiak (2012). Nevertheless, it
is quite clear that biodiversity calculation methods
can be transformed and used in geodiversity
assessment (Table 1).
Methodology
The first step in the calculation of geodiversity is
the definition of the working scale and the classes
that will make up the calculation. Abiotic elements
present the advantage of being settled in a place
and having dimension, thus being more correlated
to the concept of scale. However, there are not well
developed hierarchies for classes as there are in
biology. As a result we decided to apply a hierarchy
by scale: all features that can be symbolized on
a certain scale range can be used to calculate
geodiversity.
 Table 1. Methodologies and formulae used for geodiversity calculation to date.

Author Approach Elements Area extension Scale Formula

(km2)

Pereira et al. (2013) Direct Geological, geomorphological, 199 570 1:500 000 to 1:650 000 Richness index (elements per cell)
pedological and archaeological
features
Silva et al. (2013) Direct Geological, geomorphological, 511 000 1:250 000 to 1:2 500 000 Richness index (elements per cell)
pedological and archaeological
features
Hjort and Luoto Direct–indirect Geomorphology, hydrology, lithology, 26–362 0.5–1 km2 grid Richness index (elements per cell)
(2010, 2012) DEM-based variables

© 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography

Remote sensing based variables
(tasselled cap and NDVI)
Zwolinski, and Indirect Lithology, caves, morphometric 1000 Not specified (apparently Subjective classification (from 1 – very
Stachowiak (2012) features, DEM-based variables, 1 ha grid) low, to 5 – very high geodiversity)
hydrographical features, soils and
geoecological belts
Saldaña et al. (2011) Direct Soils (pedodiversity) 0.29–1000 1:100 000 to 1:250 000 Richness index
Shannon index
Evenness = Shannon index/ln richness
index
Ruban (2010) Indirect Number of geosites Not specified Not specified Number of elements per area
Panizza (2009) Direct Geomorphology Not specified Not used Non-mathematical evaluation
(apparently
25 000)
Benito-Calvo et al. Indirect DEM-based variables 500 000 82 km2 grid Shannon Diversity and evenness index
(2009) Lithology Simpson Diversity and evenness index
Precipitation and temperature Richness index
Carcavilla et al. Direct Geological features (comprising Theoretical work Number of elements per area
(2008) geomorphology, lithology, fossils Number of fragments per area
and structures)
Serrano and Ruiz- Direct–indirect Geomorphology, lithology, tectonics, 381 Not specified (apparently Elements * roughness/ln area
Flaño (2007a) soils, hydrology 1:25 000 to
METHODOLOGY FOR MID AND LARGE SCALE GEODIVERSITY CALCULATION

1:50 000 approach)

Silva et al. (2001) Geomorphology (landforms), Theoretical work Number of different classes per area
biological and social aspects

5
 RAMÓN PELLITERO ET AL.

Table 2. Classes and reference scale for the study areas.

Serra do Cadeado, Paraná, Brazil Fuentes Carrionas, Spain

Extent (km2) 4426. 175.

Minimum class extent (km2) 1.1 0.01
Class type Scale Classes Class type Scale Classes

Class types, classes and Lithology 1:250 000 10 Lithology 1:50 000 20
reference scales Structures 1:250 000 2 Structures 1:50 000 7
Geomorphology 1:250 000 4 Geomorphological 1:10 000 61
Features
Hydrology 1:100 000 1 Geomorphological 1:10 000 13
Processes
Fossils 1:250 000 1 Hydrology 1:10 000 5
Soils 1:200 000 6
Slopea 1:250 000 1
a
Only added over 20° slope.

At Fuentes Carrionas the average scale was
1:10 000, so the reference resolution was the
100 × 100 m grid. Anything smaller than 0.01 km2
was not considered. At Serra do Cadeado the scale
varies between 1:100 000 and 1:250 000. Pixel size
was established at 1100 × 1100 m due to the
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) pixel
size for this area, therefore features below 1.1 km2
where not considered. These extents and scales
were respected in the definition of classes and in
geoprocessing.
The local geodiversity formula used by Serrano
and Ruiz-Flaño (2007a) is based on the richness
index. The formula is as follows:
N this area and the more precise mapping for land-
IR =
A forms and morphogenetic processes than for lithol-
where IR is the richness index, N is the number of
different classes present in a territory, A is the area
of the territory.
A raster format has been chosen for calculation
so the formula has been iterated for every pixel (i.e.
for every minimum class extent). By doing so we
avoided the problem presented by insular biogeog-
raphy (MacArthur and Wilson 1967), which has
been confirmed for abiotic features by Ibáñez and
García-Álvarez (2002), Pellitero et al. (2011) and
Dias et al. (2005): the relationship between diver-
sity and extent in natural features does not grow in
a linear way. We have disregarded distribution
indices for two reasons:
1. Distribution cannot be calculated on a pixel
network which has the minimum features size
(100 m2, 1 ha).
2. Such distribution can be seen graphically on the
resulting map of geodiversity.
The classes chosen are shown in Table 2.
All elements were given the same value.
Weighted values were proposed by Carcavilla et al.
(2008) and Panizza (2009). In our opinion geodi-
versity evaluates variety, not quality, which has
already been assessed by calculations of geoherit-
age (González and Serrano 2008; Reynard 2009;
Pellitero et al. 2011).
The number of classes in Fuentes Carrionas is
106. The distribution of classes is biased in favour
of geomorphology for two reasons: the evident pre-
ponderance of geomorphology on the landscape in
ogy or structures. Soils and fossils were not even
considered due to the inadequacy of the available
source data, but they might be added in the future.
The number of classes in Serra do Cadeado is
25. Lithology takes into account different rock out-
crops. The structure is represented by dykes and
rocky fronts, while the geomorphology is basically
composed of caves, scarps and alignments as well
as waterfalls. Rivers, fossils (presence or absence)
and soils (up to six different types) were also
included. In this case we enhanced geodiversity by
including slope as an indirect indicator. Slopes over
20° were considered to be another element, as
these areas should host higher diversities due to
enhanced gravity-related processes. Such pro-
cesses or landforms cannot be mapped on the scale
proposed due to the inaccessibility of the area,
insufficient satellite image resolution and vegeta-
tion cover.

6 © 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography

 METHODOLOGY FOR MID AND LARGE SCALE GEODIVERSITY CALCULATION
Fig. 2. Rasterized surface of rock avalanches at Fuentes Carrio-
nas. The random value is 60, which means that there is a rock
avalanche in these areas.
The calculation of geodiversity is performed on
a raster network whose pixel size is equivalent to
the minimum extent established for features: 1 ha
for Fuentes Carrionas and 11 ha for Serra do
Cadeado. All classes must therefore be transformed
into raster files.
Geoprocessing is done as follows:
• Preparation of feature classes: all features must
be polygonal to properly support rasterization, so
linear classes (such as rivers) were transformed
to polygons using a buffer of half the pixel size.
Each feature was given a random, distinct value.
Each feature was then merged with another rep-
resenting the limit of the study area, which had a
value of 0. The aim was to have as many features
as classes, where a random distinct value means
that the class is ‘present’ and a 0 value means that
the class is ‘absent’.
• Rasterization of features (one raster per each
class): all rasters must have the same extent and
pixel size and two values for present and absent,
as described above. Fig. 2 presents the ‘rock ava-
lanche’ raster in Fuentes Carrionas, where this
class was given the value 60.
Once the universe of raster classes was ready, a
calculation was performed of how many different
values there were at every pixel. This was done
through the ‘Variety’ formula, which is included in
the ‘Cell Statistics’ tool in ArcGIS, as well as in
GRASS and GvSIG. There is a potential error as
© 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography
the value of 0 is always present, so 1 must be
subtracted from the ‘Variety’ result (see Fig. 3).
Results
Fuentes Carrionas
The results varied from 2 to 12 elements per
hectare. The greater part of the Fuentes Carrionas
area displays low to medium geodiversity, whereas
high geodiversity areas are strongly clustered at the
central peaks (see Fig. 4).
Just 4 ha2 yield the highest geodiversity value of
12. All of them are situated at glacial cirques above
2000 m a.s.l. and below peaks above 2400 m a.s.l.
This is due to the multitude of active processes
making up an area that is geomorphologically
‘alive’: active snow patches, avalanches, solifluc-
tion, debris flow and rock fall are all present here. At
Espigüete (SW of the study area) nival karst is also
developing nowadays. Fig. 5 shows one of these
high geodiversity areas, the Hoyo de Vargas glacial
cirque.
Geodiversity is usually high (over 8) at any
cirque above 2000 m a.s.l. due to the combination
of active processes mentioned earlier, inherited
glacial landforms (moraines, till deposits, cirques,
troughs or ice-moulded bedrock), inherited per-
iglacial landforms (screes, protalus lobes, rock gla-
ciers) and gravitational forms and processes (rock
fall, debris flow, landslides). Peaks are also high
geodiversity areas (but not the highest because of
the lack of accumulation landforms and deposits).
Glacial valleys show high geodiversity too
(between 8 and 10). Here, active processes are less
varied (only fluvial erosion at the margin of
streams and landsliding at the slopes) but there is a
variety of fluvial (terraces and alluvial fans, mean-
ders), glacial (moraines, troughs, erratics) and
inherited periglacial (ploughing boulders, solifluc-
tion lobes) landforms. Faults, thrusts and a variety
of outcrops are usually present in these valleys, so
they increase geodiversity locally. This is the case
of the Cardaño valley at the southwest or the
Pineda valley at the east of the map.
Medium geodiversity areas from 5 to 7 are wide-
spread. They correspond to the slopes of glaciated
valleys, where glacial landforms subsist, landslides
are present but periglacial landforms are less varied
(see Fig. 6).
Low geodiversity areas, between 2 and 4 ele-
ments per hectare, are generally located on south-
facing slopes outside glacial influence below
1800 m a.s.l. Here, slopes are regular, either
7
 RAMÓN PELLITERO ET AL.
Fig. 3. Geoprocessing scheme for geodiversity calculation.
covered by soil or by an old block colluvium. Tec-
tonic and lithological variety is also low (Fig. 7).
Serra do Cadeado
The highest geodiversity is found near the scarps
where there are caves and waterfalls, as well as
abrupt transitions between formations, structures
and rocks (see Figs 8 and 9). Variety values rise to
10 elements per pixel. Geodiversity is also high at
diabasic dykes, which present steep slopes and a
variety of outcrops, usually the hardest at the peak
and the softest at the bottom. These areas are nor-
mally between 5 and 8 elements per pixel. On the
map they can be seen to be aligned in a NW–SE
direction.
Most areas score a medium geodiversity value
(4–6). There is a vast low-geodiversity area to the
north and northwest. Here, relief is almost flat and
there are fewer geological formations. In the
centre, the south and the southeast of the map there
are areas with values lower than 5 which corre-
8 © 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography
spond to high outcrop diversity sectors but where
there are hardly any landforms or processes due to
the flat relief.
Fig. 10 shows extent and frequency of elements
in Serra do Cadeado. Neosoils and fossiliferous
areas are the most frequent and extensive, whereas
Rio do Rastro and Teresina formations are exten-
sive but not frequent. However, Botacatu-
Pirambóia and Irati formations, waterfalls and rock
outcrops are very frequent but not extensive fea-
tures. The concentration of not extensive but very
frequent elements in a certain area increases geo-
diversity. Low-frequency and high-extent elements
are related to low geodiversity areas where the
landscape is homogeneous.
Discussion: geodiversity calculation as a tool
for management
As stated by Gray (2013) the main aim of geodi-
versity measurement should be either to identify
geodiversity losses in an area or serve as a tool for
georesource management – he ignores the use of
 METHODOLOGY FOR MID AND LARGE SCALE GEODIVERSITY CALCULATION
Fig. 4. (a) Geodiversity map of Fuentes Carrionas. (b) Frequency of the different geodiversity values. (c) Situation of Fuentes
Carrionas (Spain).
geodiversity assessment as a surrogate factor of
biodiversity – otherwise it will turn into an unfruit-
ful effort.
Natural management and natural reserve design
should fulfil the Complementarity Principle: as
much typological diversity as possible must be pre-
served within as small a territory as possible
(Ibáñez and García-Álvarez 2002). This is espe-
cially crucial in territories subject to increasing
rivalry for occupation and resource use, such as
Fuentes Carrionas, where plans are being made to
open a ski resort in a high mountain environment of
an almost untouched condition. Geodiversity
assessment makes it possible to define some geo-
diversity ‘hotspots’ that should remain untouched
and which can be accepted as such by developers
during negotiation. Developments should be out of
glacial cirques over 2000 m. a.s.l. and river
margins because these areas gather a high geodi-
versity related to a high variety in landforms and
ongoing processes which are shaping future land-
scapes. Nevertheless, these sites should be comple-
mented by ‘geoheritage hotspots’ wherever there
© 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography
are some rare or relevant abiotic elements that
should themselves be conserved for their quality
rather than their variety, or perhaps for their out-
standing contribution to geodiversity on a smaller
scale (national or global) rather than their intrinsic
geodiversity (Thomas 2012).
The geodiversity calculation for Serra do
Cadeado was satisfactory for the scale used
because its geodiversity distribution can be under-
stood in detail. The geographical organization of
most geodiverse areas is strongly related to its
geology and structural geomorphology, which
obviously create special conditions for a more
diverse hydrology (i.e. structural scarps favour the
existence of waterfalls) and soils. Therefore the
highest geodiversity pixels can be considered ‘hot-
spots’ for Serra do Cadeado, all of them located
along the scarp line, and should be taken into
account for natural management. Geotourism
should also be focused on high geodiversity areas,
as they tend to be the most spectacular.
The applied measure of geodiversity will be
highly objective due to the numerical, unbiased
9
 RAMÓN PELLITERO ET AL.

Fig. 5. Hoyos de Vargas glacial cirque. The white rectangle is equivalent to the highest geodiversity pixel (hectare). Here 12 different
abiotic elements are present: 1. Shales; 2. Conglomerates; 3. Lechada syncline; 4. Glacial cirque; 5. Avalanche track; 6. Active
nival morphogenesis; 7. Scree; 8. Active periglacial morphogenesis; 9. Lake; 10. Frontal moraine; 11. Stream; 12. Active fluvial
morphogenesis.

approach inherent in our geodiversity calculation
methodology, which avoids valuing features dis-
tinctively. However, it is necessary to assume that
soil and fossil classes are not represented, so geo-
diversity value is somehow biased in favour of
landforms. This shortcoming would be easily
solved given appropriate source data for the
ignored features. Also, geodiversity should be
regarded not only as the sum of different abiotic
features, but also as the interrelationship between
them (Gray 2013). Some of these interrelationships
have been taken into account in Fuentes Carrionas
by mapping active processes that are currently
shaping the landscape, such as erosion or solifluc-
tion, but we can assume that this approach is still
not enough to fulfil the complexity of the abiotic
system.
Our approach is intended to promote geodiver-
sity protection within an integrated environmental
management system, but should not be used as a
surrogate indicator of biodiversity, as such type of
studies must take into account the variety of
climate and topography as well as geomorphology,
geology or hydrology, all of them giving potential

10 © 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography

 METHODOLOGY FOR MID AND LARGE SCALE GEODIVERSITY CALCULATION

Fig. 6. A medium geodiversity area (6) within the Pineda valley. We can find the following elements in the square marked: 1. Anticline;
2. Sandstones; 3. Glacial valley; 4. Lateral moraine; 5. Debris filled palaeolake; 6. Colluvium.

Fig. 7. Southern face of Lagunillas peak within the los Cintos syncline. The middle of the slope is a low geodiversity area where only
a Richter slope on quartzites can be found.

resources for biodiversity development (Parks and and topography are the essential explanation for
Mulligan 2010). However, scale is again a key creation of different ‘habitats’, but given a larger
factor in this approach; Parks and Mulligan (2010) scale, geomorphological, geological and hydro-
work on a small scale, where variations in climate logical diversity come to the fore as main factors

© 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography 11

12
RAMÓN PELLITERO ET AL.

Fig. 8. (a) Situation of Serra do Cadeado (Paraná, Brazil). (b) Geodiversity map of Serra do Cadeado. (c) Frequency of the different geodiversity values.

© 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography

 METHODOLOGY FOR MID AND LARGE SCALE GEODIVERSITY CALCULATION

Fig. 9. Example of a high geodiversity area in Serra do Cadeado.

Fig. 10. Relationship between feature’s area and frequency in Serra do Cadeado.

(Brazier et al. 2012; Hjort et al. 2012; Bétard
2013). High geomorphological geodiversity areas
of Fuentes Carrionas (e.g. active screes in high-
altitude cirques), host some specific habitats where
several endemic flora have been found (Moreno
and Sánchez, www.ecologistasenaccion.org/IMG/
pdf/EspeciesVegetales.pdf, 10 Feb., 2014). This is
explained because a diverse geomorphological
landscape consisting of various different abiotic
habitats and structural organisms provides a setting
for a wider number of niches available for
species to occupy (Hjort et al. 2012 and references
therein). These authors suggest conservation of
high-geodiversity areas as a means to long-term
biodiversity preservation.
Regarding the application of geodiversity, we
must point out that if it is not appropriately applied,
geodiversity calculation risks becoming a vain
exercise, as Panizza (2009) stated. Some of the
studies published on the calculation of geodiversity
(Benito-Calvo et al. 2009; Zwolinski 2010) are for-
mally correct and even develop very interesting

© 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography 13

 RAMÓN PELLITERO ET AL.
methodologies, but fall rather short on application.
They reach obvious conclusions, for example, that
mountain ranges are more diverse than flat regions.
Conclusions of geodiversity assessment for areas
whose extension is several hundred thousand km2
on scales as high as 1:250 000 or 1:500 000 (Silva
et al. 2013; Pereira et al. 2013) are of difficult
application in real management, because areas
subject to protection turn out to be entire regions or
squares as extensive as several municipalities. This
is obviously also dependent on the scale of the
country, so large countries like Brazil may be able
to afford management on such broad scales,
although frequency studies can be suggested to
compare areas with the same geodiversity index
(Carcavilla et al. 2008). Our mid-scale approach
and approaches for even larger scales, however,
reach useful conclusions on area delimitation for
environmental protection and land management.
The geodiversity map will enable managers to
understand landscape limitations and potentials.
Effective geoconservation needs some tasks to be
developed (Brown et al. 2013), for example, to
improve understanding of the impacts on active
physical processes; to identify vulnerable sites and
monitoring change to allow for early intervention
where deemed necessary; to rescue and record
vulnerable sites and areas affected by change; or
to identify; and conserve new sites for replace-
ment of those that may be lost. Geodiversity cal-
culation can be used as a tool for accomplishing
these tasks, for resulting in an identification and
numerical evaluation of outstanding areas, so
changes and impacts can be assessed by recalcu-
lating or projecting changes in value due to any
potential human activity. Therefore by creating
geodiversity maps we help to fill the gap between
abiotic ecosystems description and integration
with socio-cultural-biophysical systems (Gray
et al. 2013). Finally, the calculation of geodiver-
sity can be complemented with biodiversity calcu-
lations in the same area. Thus, we would obtain
natural diversity assessments, summarizing veg-
etation, fauna, climate, soils, relief, geology and
water within one single value (Serrano and
Ruiz-Flaño 2007b).
Conclusions and perspectives of
geodiversity studies
Geodiversity and geoheritage are not synonyms but
complementary concepts within geoconservation,
first regarding the variety of elements and second
14
protecting outstanding elements. Understanding
the spatial distribution of geodiversity and its rich-
ness, based on the diversity of elements, can offer
support for land management, more sustainable
exploitation of resources and also the definition of
priority areas for nature conservation, considering
both biotic and abiotic structures.
The most appropriate scale for the application of
geodiversity assessment is local, since policies can
be implemented more easily by protecting areas of
high geodiversity. Comparison between different
areas can only be made given the same scale, the
same class types and hierarchical level. Hierarchi-
cal classifications of abiotic features would be
highly desirable, such as those which already exist
for biotic features and soils. In particular hierar-
chies should be developed for geological structure,
geomorphology, hydrology and active processes on
the surface.
For geodiversity calculation in broad areas it is
suggested that indicators of geodiversity should be
estimated indirectly by using surrogate factors
such as topographical or climatic variability. In the
case of Sierra do Cadeado this process was possi-
ble through the identification of steep areas, which
were related to a potentially higher diversity of
rocks and landforms.
Geodiversity change due to environmental
impact or climatic change can be addressed follow-
ing this methodology, and it should be one of its
future lines of research, so landscape limitations
and potentials related to abiotic features are
known. Also, further studies are needed to verify
the biodiversity–geodiversity relationships at dif-
ferent environments. More theoretical and applied
studies must be conducted on all scales for an
appropriate geodiversity definition and assessment
to be possible.
Acknowledgements
Carolina Foundation Program for Lecturers and
Researchers Movility and OAPN 053-2010/CGL-
2010-19729 Spanish research projects provided
financial support for this work. Dr Hjort and one
anonymous reviewer are thanked for providing
comments and further discussion which improved
the paper.
Ramón Pellitero, Department of Geography and Environ-
ment, School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen, St
Mary’s Building, Elphinstone Road, Aberdeen AB24 3UF,
UK
Email: r.pellitero-ondicol@abdn.ac.uk
© 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography
 METHODOLOGY FOR MID AND LARGE SCALE GEODIVERSITY CALCULATION
Fernando C. Manosso, Universidade Tecnológica Federal
do Paraná, Campus Francisco Beltrão, Linha Santa
Bárbara, rural. 85601970 – Francisco Beltrão, PR – Brasil,
Caixa-postal: 135
Email: fmanosso@yahoo.com.br
Enrique Serrano, Departamento de Geografía, Facultad de
Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Valladolid, Pz/ del
Campus s/n 47011, Valladolid, Spain
Email: serranoe@fyl.uva.es
References
Benito-Calvo, A., Pérez-González, A., Magri, O. and Meza,
P., 2009. Assessing regional geodiversity: the Iberian
Peninsula. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 34
(10), 1433–1445.
Bétard, F., 2013. Patch-scale relationships between geodi-
versity and biodiversity in hard rock quarries: case study
from a disused quartzite quarry in NW France. Geoher-
itage 5, 59–71.
Bigarella, J.J., Mousinho, M.R. and Silva, J.X., 1965.
Pediplanos, pedimentos e seus depósitos correlativos no
Brasil [Pediplains, pediments and correlative pseu-
dodeposits]. Boletim Paranaense de Geografia [Para-
naensian Geography Bulletin], 16–17: 117–151. [In
Portuguese]
Brazier, V., Bruneau, P.M.C., Gordon, J.E. and Rennie, A.F.,
2012. Making space for nature in a changing climate: the
role of geodiversity in biodiversity conservation. Scottish
Geographical Journal, 128 (3–4), 211–233.
Brown, E.J., Prosser, C.D. and Stevenson, N.M., 2013. Geo-
diversity, conservation and climate change: key princi-
ples for adaptation. Scottish Geographical Journal, 128
(3–4), 234–239.
Bruschi, V.M., Cendrero, A. and Cuesta, J.A., 2011. A sta-
tistical approach to the validation and optimisation of
geoheritage assessment procedures. Geoheritage, 3,
131–149.
Carcavilla, L., López, J. and Durán, J.J., 2008. Patrimonio
geológico y geodiversidad: investigación, conservación,
gestión y relación con los espacios naturales protegidos
[Geoheritage and geodiversity: research, conservation
and management in relation with the natural protected
areas]. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid.
[In Spanish]
Chardon, M., 1984. Montagne et haute montagne alpine.
Criteres et limites morphologiques remarquables en
haute montagne. Revue de Géographie Alpine, 72 (2–3),
213–224.
Dias, J.E., de Oliveira, O.V., da Silva, J.X. and de Barros,
M.H., 2005. A geodiversidade do município de Volta
Redonda, Rio de Janeiro [The geodiversity of Volta
Redonda municipality, Rio de Janeiro]. Caminhos de
Geografia [Geography Pathways], 14 (14), 151–160. [In
Portuguese]
Durán, J.J., Brusi, D., Pallí, L., López-Martínez, J., Palacio,
J. and Vallejo, E. 1998. Geología Ecológica, Geodiversi-
dad, Geoconservación y Patrimonio Geológico: La
Declaración de Girona [Ecological Geology, Geodiver-
sity, Geoconservation and Geological Heritage: the
Girona Statement]. In: Durán, J.J. and Vallejo, M. (eds),
Comunicaciones de la IV Reunión Nacional de Patrimo-
© 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography
nio Geológico, Sociedad Geológica de España [Pro-
ceedings of the IV National Meeting on Geological
Heritage, Spanish Geological Society]. Miraflores de la
Sierra, 69–72. [In Spanish]
González, J.J. and Serrano, E., 2008. La valoración del pat-
rimonio geomorfológico en espacios naturales protegi-
dos. Su aplicación al Parque Nacional de los Picos de
Europa [The assessment of geomorphological heritage in
natural protected areas. Application to the Picos de
Europa National Park]. Boletín de la Asociación de Geó-
grafos Españoles [The Spanish Geographers Association
Bulletin], 47, 175–194. [In Spanish]
Gray, M., 2013. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving
Abiotic Nature. 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester.
Gray, M., Gordon, J.E. and Brown, E.J., 2013. Geodiversity
and the ecosystem approach: the contribution of geosci-
ence in delivering integrated environmental manage-
ment. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 124
(4), 659–673.
Grigio, A.M., Amaro, V.E., Diodato, M.A. and Castro, A.F.,
2011. Determination of indices of multiple and multiple
weighted geodiversity of landscape of the Piranhas-Assu
River, Rio Grande do Norte – Brazil. Journal of Coastal
Research, 64, 1668–1671.
Hjort, J., Heikkinen, K. and Luoto, M., 2012. Inclusion of
explicit measures of geodiversity improve biodiversity
models in a boreal landscape. Biodiversity Conservation,
21, 3487–3506.
Hjort, J. and Luoto, M., 2010. Geodiversity of high-latitude
landscapes in northern Finland. Geomorphology, 115,
109–116.
Hjort, J. and Luoto, M., 2012. Can geodiversity be predicted
from space? Geomorphology, 153–154, 74–80.
Ibáñez, J.J., De-Alba, S., Bermúdez, F.F. and García-
Álvarez, A., 1995. Pedodiversity concepts and tools.
Catena, 24, 215–232.
Ibáñez, J.J. and García-Álvarez, A., 2002. Diversidad: bio-
diversidad edáfica y geodiversidad [Diversity: pedologic
biodiversity and geodiversity]. Edafología [Edaphol-
ogy], 9 (3), 329–385. [In Spanish]
Ibáñez, J.J., Krasilikov, P.V. and Saldaña, A., 2012. Archive
and refugia of soil organisms: applying a pedodiversity
framework for the conservation of biological and non-
biological heritages. Journal of Applied Ecolology, 49,
1267–1277.
Ibáñez, J.J., Pérez, A., Jiménez-Ballesta, R., Saldaña, A. and
Gallardo, J., 1994. Evolution of fluvial dissection
landscapes in Mediterranean environments. Quantitative
estimates and geomorphological, pedological and phyto-
cenotic repercussions. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie,
38, 105–119.
Kozlowski, S., 2004. Geodiversity. The concept and scope of
Geodiversity. Polish Geological Review, 52 (8–2), 833–
839.
Krasilnikov, P.V., Garcia-Calderon, N.E. and Ibañez, A.,
2009. Pedodiversity in mountainous tropical semidecidu-
ous forests of Sierra Madre Del Sur, Mexico. Eurasian
Soil Science, 42 (13), 1435–1442.
Lima, F.F., Brilha, J. and Salamuni, E., 2010. Inventorying
geological heritage in large territories: a methodological
proposal applied to Brazil. Geoheritage, 2 (3–4), 91–
99.
15
 RAMÓN PELLITERO ET AL.
MacArthur, R.H. and Wilson, E.O., 1967. The Theory
of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press,
Princeton.
Moreira, J.C., 2011. Geoturismo e Interpretação ambiental.
01. Ponta Grossa [Geotourism and environmental inter-
pretation. 01. Ponta Grossa]. Editora da UEPG, Ponta
Grossa. [In Portuguese]
Moreira, J.C., 2012. Interpretative panels about the geologi-
cal heritage – a case study at the Iguassu Falls National
Park (Brazil). Geoheritage, 4, 1–14.
Nascimento, M.A.L., Ruchkys, U.A. and Mantesso-Neto, V.,
2008. Geodiversidade, conservação e geoturismo:
trinômio importante para a proteção do patrimônio
geológico [Geodiversity, conservation and geoturismo:
an important trio for geoheritage protection]. Sociedade
Brasileira de Geologia, Brasilia. [In Portuguese]
Nieto, L.M., 2001. Geodiversidad: propuesta de una
definición integradora [Geodiversity: a conciliatory defi-
nition proposal]. Boletín Geológico y Minero [Mining
and Geology Buletin], 112 (2), 3–12. [In Spanish]
Ondicol, R.P., 2009. Application of an alpine geomorpho-
logical mapping system to an Atlantic mountain environ-
ment: the Curavacas Massif (Cantabrian Range,
Northwest Spain). Journal of Maps, 2009, 194–205.
Panizza, M., 2009. The geomorphodiversity of the Dolo-
mites (Italy): a key of geoheritage assessment. Geoher-
itage, 1, 33–42.
Parks, K.E. and Mulligan, M., 2010. On the relationship
between a resource based measure of geodiversity and
broad scale biodiversity patterns. Biodiversity Conserva-
tion, 19, 2751–2766.
Pellitero, R., 2011. Evaluación de la geodiversidad en el
macizo de Fuentes Carrionas (Cordillera Cantábrica)
[Geodiversity assessment in the Fuentes Carrionas
massif (Cantabrian Range)]. In: Fernández-Martínez, E.
and Castaño de Luis, R. (eds), Avances y retos en la
conservación del Patrimonio Geológico en España [Pro-
gresses and Challenges in Geological Heritage Protec-
tion in Spain]. Actas de la IX Reunión de la Comisión de
Patrimonio Geológico (Sociedad Geológica de España).
Sociedad Geológica de España, Universidad de León.
212–219. [In Spanish]
Pellitero, R., 2013. Evolución finicuaternaria del glaciarismo
en el macizo de Fuentes Carrionas (Cordillera Cantá-
brica), propuesta cronológica y paleoambiental [Lategla-
cial evolution of Fuentes Carrionas massif (Cantabrian
Range), palaeoenvironmental and chronological estima-
tions]. Cuaternario y Geomorfología [Quaternary and
Geomorphology], 27 (1–2), 7190. [In Spanish]
Pellitero, R., González-Amuchastegui, M.J., Ruiz-Flaño, P.
and Serrano, E., 2011. Geodiversity and geomorphosite
assessment applied to a natural protected area: the Ebro
and Rudrón Gorges Natural Park (Spain). Geoheritage,
3, 163–174.
Pereira, R.G., 2010. Geoconservação e desenvolvimento
sustentável na Chapada Diamantina (Bahia – Brasil)
[Geoconservation and sustainable development in the
Chapada Diamantina (Bahia-Brasil)]. Dissertation, Uni-
versidade do Minho, Portugal. [In Portuguese]
Pereira, D., Pereira, P., Brilha, J. and Santos, L., 2013. Geo-
diversity assessment of Paraná State (Brazil): an innova-
tive approach. Environmental Management, 52, 541–
552.
16
Piekarz, G.F., Manosso, F.C. and Liccardo, A., 2009. O
Patrimônio Geológico das Unidades de Conservação:
Geoconservação e Geoturismo [Geoheritage of conser-
vation units: geoconservation and geotourism]. In: Boti-
cario Foundation (ed.), Anais VI Congresso Brasileiro de
Unidades de Conservação, Curitiba [Annals of the VI
Brazilian Congress on Conservation Units]. Ola Edito-
rial, Curitiba, Brazil. 168–175. [In Portuguese]
Radford, A.E., Otte, D.K.S., Otte, L.I., Massey, J.R. and
Whitson, P.D. 1981. Natural heritage: Classification,
inventory and information. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Reynard, E., 2009. The assessment of geomorphosites. In:
Reynard, E., Coratza, P. and Regolini, G. (eds), Geomor-
phosites. Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, München. 63–
72.
Rodrigues, C.S. and Silva, T.I., 2012. Dam construction and
loss of geodiversity in the Araguari river basin, Brazil.
Land Degradation and Development, 23 (4), 419–
426.
Rojas, J., 2005. Los desafíos del estudio de la geodiversidad
[Challenges of geodiversity study]. Revista Geográfica
Venezolana [Venezuelan Geographic Review], 46 (1),
143–152. [In Spanish]
Rosenzweig, M.L., 1995. Species Diversity in space and
Time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ruban, D.A., 2010. Quantification of geodiversity and its
loss. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 121,
326–333.
Saldaña, A. and Ibáñez, J.J., 2004. Pedodiversity analysis at
large scales: an example of three fluvial terraces of the
Henares River (central Spain). Geomorphology, 62, 123–
138.
Saldaña, A., Ibáñez, J.J. and Zinck, J.A., 2011. Soilscape
analysis at different scales using pattern indices in the
Jarama–Henares interfluve and Henares River valley,
Central Spain. Geomorphology, 135 (3–4), 284–294.
Serrano, E. and Ruiz-Flaño, P., 2007a. Geodiversidad: con-
cepto, evaluación y aplicación territorial. El caso de
Tiermes Caracena (Soria) [Geodiversity: concept, assess-
ment and territorial application. The case of Tiermes
Caracena (Soria)]. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógra-
fos Españoles [The Spanish Geographers Association
Bulletin], 47, 79–98. [In Spanish]
Serrano, E. and Ruiz-Flaño, P., 2007b. Geodiversity. A theo-
retical and applied concept. Geographica Helvetica, 62,
1–8.
Serrano, E., González-Trueba, J.J., Pellitero, R., González,
M. and Gómez-Lende, M., 2013. Quaternary glacial evo-
lution in the Central Cantabrian Mountains (Northern
Spain). Geomorphology, 196, 65–82.
Shannon, C.E., 1948. A mathematical theory of communi-
cation. Bell System Technical Journal, 23, 379–423.
Sharples, C., 1993. A methodology for the Identification of
Significant Landforms and Geological Sites for Geocon-
servation Purposes. Technical report. Forestry Commis-
sion Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania.
Sharples, C., 2002. Concepts and Principles of Geoconser-
vation (Version 3). Department of Primary Industries,
Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania.
Silva, J.P., Pereira, D., Aguiar, A. and Rodrigues, C., 2013.
Geodiversity assessment of the Xingu drainage basin.
Journal of Maps, 9 (2), 254–262.
© 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography
 METHODOLOGY FOR MID AND LARGE SCALE GEODIVERSITY CALCULATION
Silva, J., Persson, V.G., Lorini, M.L., Bergamo, R.B.A.,
Ribeiro, M.R., Costa, A.J.S.T., Iervolino, P. and Abdo,
O.E., 2001. Índices de geodiversidade: aplicações de SGI
em estudos de biodiversidade [Geodiversity indexes:
applications of the SGI in biodiversity studies]. In:
Garay, I. and Dias, B.F.S. (eds), Conservação da biodi-
versidade em ecossistemas tropicais: avanços conceit-
uais e revisão novas metodologias de avaliação e
monitoramento [Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical
Ecosystems: Conceptual Advances and New Methodolo-
gies Revision for Assessment and Monitoring]. Vozes,
Rio de Janeiro, 299–316. [In Portuguese]
Simpson, E.H., 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature,
163, 688.
Strugale, M., Rostirolla, S.P., Mancini, F. and Portela-Filho,
C.V. 2007. Structural framework and Mesozoic–
Cenozoic evolution of Ponta Grossa Arch, Paraná Basin,
© 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography
southern Brazil. Journal of South American Earth Sci-
ences, 24 (2–4), 203–227.
Thomas, M.F., 2012. Geodiversity and landscape sensitivity:
a geomorphological perspective. Scottish Geographical
Journal, 128 (3–4), 195–210.
Zhang, X., Chen, J., Zhang, G. and Tan, M., 2003. Pedodi-
versity analysis in Hainan Island. Journal of Geographi-
cal Sciences, 13 (2), 181–186.
Zwolinski, Z., 2010. The routine of landform geodiversity
map design for the Polish Carpathian Mts. Landform
Analysis, 11, 77–85.
Zwolinski, Z. and Stachowiak, J., 2012. Geodiversity map of
the Tatra National Park for geotourism. Quaestiones
Geographicae, 31 (1), 99–107.
Manuscript received 19 Nov., 2013, revised and accepted 24
Jun., 2014
17