ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Karst areas, as areas with attractive geological and geomorphological features are an important and integral part of geoheritage. They possess huge tourism potential and can be used for the development of geotourism. The Pek River basin is a highly dominant karst terrain with numerous geological and ge-omorphological features, especially caves. However, their geotourism potential still remains fully unre-vealed. In this paper, we analyzed several geosites that represent significant karst geoheritage formations and as such they can be the backbone of future geotourism development in this area. The aim of this paper is to emphasize the geotourism potential of the Pek River lower basin and to determine the current state and geotourism potential of these geosites by applying the modified geosite assessment model (M-GAM).
Content may be subject to copyright.
 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 23, Issue 1, 32–46 (March 2019)
Aleksandar AntićA, Nemanja TomićA*, Slobodan MarkovićA
Received: February ,  | Revised: March ,  | Accepted: March , 
DOI: 10.5937/gp23-20463
Karst Geoheritage and Geotourism Potential
in the Pek River Lower Basin (Eastern Serbia)
A University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Trg Dositeja
Obradovića ,   Novi Sad, Serbia; a.antic@gmail.com; airtomic@gmail.com; slobodan.markovic@dgt.uns.ac.rs
* Corresponding author: Nemanja Tomić; e-mail: airtomic@gmail.com; +
ISSN 0354-8724 (hard copy) | ISSN 1820-7138 (online)
Abstract
Karst areas, as areas with attractive geological and geomorphological features are an important and in-
tegral part of geoheritage. They possess huge tourism potential and can be used for the development
of geotourism. The Pek River basin is a highly dominant karst terrain with numerous geological and ge-
omorphological features, especially caves. However, their geotourism potential still remains fully unre-
vealed. In this paper, we analyzed several geosites that represent significant karst geoheritage forma-
tions and as such they can be the backbone of future geotourism development in this area. The aim of
this paper is to emphasize the geotourism potential of the Pek River lower basin and to determine the
current state and geotourism potential of these geosites by applying the modified geosite assessment
model (M-GAM).
Keywords: geotourism; M-GAM; karst geoheritage; Eastern Serbia; Pek River
Introduction
Karst geosites, as areas with attractive karst process
features, represent a very important part of geoheritage
and possess outstanding qualities and potentials that
can be used for the development and improvement of
geotourism. ese type of terrains fall within the cate-
gory of special environments and they are a signicant
component of what is referred to as the ‘earth’s geodi-
versity’ (Gray, ). eir unique features, fossil and
archaeological remains make them an interesting tour-
ism resource with a high economic value.
When it comes to karst tourism in Eastern Ser-
bia, the potentials for its development are numerous
and of great importance, both for the region and for
the local population. Tourism development and an
increase in visitor numbers could be the initial trig-
ger for the restoration and improvement of social and
business activities in this region. e highly dominant
karst terrain in this area has led to the development of
numerous surface and underground geomorphologi-
cal features. is part of Serbia possesses a large num-
ber of caves (over  caves) and other karst geosites
on a relatively small territory (  km) making
it one of the areas with the highest concentration of
karst geosites (especially caves) in Serbia (Tomić, ).
e Pek River lower basin is an excellent example of
this because it has numerous karst geosites that pos-
sess signicant geotourism values and potentials. All
of the geosites analyzed in this paper are located on
the territory of Kučevo municipality in the Braničevo
district (eastern Serbia). ey represent the most sig-
nicant karst formation sites for geotourism develop-
ment in this area. For the purposes of this paper, the
area of the Pek River lower basin is dened as the area
of the territory of Kučevo municipality.
During the past two decades, geotourism has be-
come an increasingly popular form of tourism
throughout the world (Ruban, ). It primarily de-
pends on geosites (geological heritage) which identi-
Aleksandar Antić, Nemanja Tomić,
Slobodan Markov
Geographica Pannonica • Volume 23, Issue 1, 32–46 (March 2019)
cation and subsequent assessment are important steps
in the process of geotourism development and protec-
tion of geosites (Štrba, ). Quantifying and assess-
ing the value of geosites to potential visitors and re-
searchers is widely recognized as a useful tool for the
eective development and management and for the
protection of geological heritage of a certain area. As
response to this, numerous authors have focused their
research on geosite assessment and geoheritage evalu-
ation (Brilha, ; Fassoulas et al., ; Kubalíková
& Kirchner, ; Różycka & Migoń, ; Różycka &
Migoń, ; Rybár, ; Štrba, ; Štrba et al., ;
Tičar et al., ; Tomić & Božić, ; Tomić et al.,
) in order to better assess the current state and geo-
tourism potential of geosites which would further lead
to an improvement of geosite management and enable
sustainable geotourism development. Based on the in-
ternationally accepted concept of geotourism, an im-
portance of geosite identications and assessments is
undisputable, with special emphasis on presentation
of geosites to the general public which interest is es-
sential for geotourism progress. e main objectives
of geotourism include promotion and protection of
geoheritage throughout tourism activities along with
educational and interpretive elements in order to in-
crease the awareness of the wider public for conserva-
tion needs as well as sustainable development of the
tourism industry (Suzuki & Takagi, ). ese core
elements of geotourism have been conrmed multi-
ple times by various authors in the past (Dowling &
Newsome, ; Farsani et al., ; Hose, ; Hose
& Vasiljević, ; Pralong, ;) and have proven as
key concepts of geotourism.
e main goal of this paper is to present the karst
geoheritage of the Pek River lower basin as well as to
determine and compare the current state and karst
tourism potential of geosites located in this area. Our
research included nine geosites (Ceremošnja Cave,
Ravništarka Cave, Dubočka Cave, Ševička Cave,
Zviška Intermittent Spring, Siga Waterfall, Burev
Waterfall, Little Spring Waterfall and Šumeća Karst
Spring) which were analyzed by using the M-GAM
(Modied Geosite Assessment Model) model (Tomić
& Božić, ) for geosite assessment. e results of
the analysis should provide information about the
major elds of improvement and identify which areas
require more attention and better management in the
future in order for this area to become a well-known
karst tourism destination which would attract a larger
number of tourists in the future.
Study area
e Pek River lower basin (Figure ) is located in east-
ern Serbia at the southeastern part of the Pannonian
basin. e Pek River is the right tributary of the Dan-
ube River and its valley stretches in the SE-NW di-
rection. It is composite and slightly tilted in the NW
direction towards the Pannonian basin (Vujadinović,
). Our explored area includes four speleolog-
ical objects (Ceremošnja Cave, Ravništarka Cave,
Dubočka Cave, Ševička Cave), one intermittent spring
(Zviška), three waterfalls (Siga Waterfall, Burev Wa-
terfall, Little Spring Waterfall) and one karst spring
(Šumeća Karst Spring). All of these geosites are locat-
ed in the Pek River lower basin, in the municipality of
Kučevo and are connected by the Pek River.
Ceremošnja Cave is located on the Northwestern
slopes of Homolje Mountains, at an altitude of  m,
at the foot of their highest peak, Veliki Štubej ( m)
in the Ceremošnja village. e cave was arranged for
tourist visits in  and it has been protected on a na-
tional level as a natural monument level since . It
is located  km from the town of Kučevo and togeth-
er with the Ravništarka Cave it is the only one open
for visits even though there are  other caves in the
vicinity. e total length of the explored cave passag-
es so far is . m, while the length of the tourist trail
is  m. With its numerous and picturesque cave or-
naments (Figure  and Figure ) it is considered as one
of the most beautiful caves in Serbia (Lazarević, ).
Its management has been entrusted to the tourist or-
ganization of Kučevo.
Ravništarka Cave is located in the immediate
vicinity of the Ceremošnja Cave, in the village of
Ravnište which belongs to the basin of Kučajna riv-
er, the le tributary of the Pek river. e length of its
main passageway is . m, and the total length of
all passageways is  m. e total surface of the cav-
ity system is . m and the volume is about .
m. is cave was adapted for tourist visits in 
when it was also declared as a natural monument.
e total length of the tourist trail is  m. Unlike
Ceremošnja Cave, which is essentially a set of sever-
al large halls,Ravništarka Cave (Figures  and ) has
only one hall called “Black Castle”. e cave entrance
is . m wide and is located at an altitude of . m.
On the plateau above the cave there is an info centre
with a restaurant and souvenir shop (Lazarević, ).
Ševička Cave or “Vrteč” cave is located in the
Ševica village, about  km from the local asphalt road.
e cave is about  m long and is mainly visited by
speleology enthusiasts and adventurers which is also
the case with the much more famous Dubočka Cave
located nearby (Lazarević, ). e rst part of the
Karst Geoheritage and Geotourism Potential
in the Pek River Lower Basin (Eastern Serbia)
 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 23, Issue 1, 32–46 (March 2019)
Figure 1. Location of the analyzed geosites in the Pek River lower basin
Source: Authors
Figure 2. The main hall of Ceremošnja Cave
Photo: Nemanja Tomić
Aleksandar Antić, Nemanja Tomić,
Slobodan Markov
Geographica Pannonica • Volume 23, Issue 1, 32–46 (March 2019)
Figure 3. Cave ornaments in Ceremošnja Cave
Photo: Nemanja Tomić
Figure 4. Cave ornaments in Ravništarka Cave
Photo: Nemanja Tomić
Karst Geoheritage and Geotourism Potential
in the Pek River Lower Basin (Eastern Serbia)
 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 23, Issue 1, 32–46 (March 2019)
cave is easily accessible to all visitors while the deeper
parts of the cave are reserved for trained speleologists.
Dubočka Cave is the largest speleological object
in the Pek River basin with good conditions for par-
tial tourist arrangement. is geosite is located  km
from Kučevo, near Duboka village, at the foot of a
high limestone cli.
is large cave has a one kilometer long main
passageway. e entrance is  m wide and  m
high (Lazarević, ). e cave system consists of
three main parts: Main passageway, Glinoviti and
Rusaljkin passageway and a river ows through the
cave system.
Zviška Intermittent Spring is located on the right
side of the Pek River, at the beginning of Kaona gorge.
It is less than  meters away from the main road
Belgrade-Kučevo giving it the most favorable position
of all analyzed geosites. Its main source is located at
the foot of a steep limestone slope on the right valley
side of the Pek River. It has a funnel shaped opening
of . x . m and a depth of . m (Lazarević, ).
Siga Waterfall is located  km away from the
Ceremošnja Cave. It is a  m high cascade waterfall
located right below the source of the Siga stream. e
waterfall can be reached by car but not by bus, since
the road is not asphalted. In the past few years, the wa-
terfall has been drying out in early summer (Rajković,
). is geosite represents one of the most famous
waterfalls in eastern Serbia and certainly the most vis-
ited in the Kučevo municipality.
Malo Vrelo (Little Spring Waterfall) is located 
km from Kučevo, in the village of Rakova Bara. is
waterfall represents a wide area that includes a strong
karst spring, which immediately forms a stream with
a sloping curve in the length of  m, and then crash-
es down in a vertical cascade waterfall about  m
high. e stream also created a short  m gorge
along with a few smaller waterfalls ranging from two
to eight meters in height. e Little Spring Waterfall
can be reached by the regional road Kučevo - Golu-
bac (Krešić, ). Its source together with its stream
and waterfalls represents a unique geomorphological
complex of unusual beauty.
Burev Waterfall is located near the village of
Ševica, at a place called Burev, close to Ševica river
and Ševička Cave, the right tributary of the river Pek.
A stream originates from a strong karst spring and af-
ter  m it forms several smaller streams which fall
over a  m wide terrace creating a large number of
miniature cascade waterfalls (Krešić, ). e Burev
Waterfall is located  km away from Kučevo and one
klometer away from the local asphalt road.
Figure 5. Part of the tourist trail in Ravništarka Cave
Photo: Nemanja Tomić
Aleksandar Antić, Nemanja Tomić,
Slobodan Markov
Geographica Pannonica • Volume 23, Issue 1, 32–46 (March 2019)
Šumeća Karst Spring is located in the vicinity of
Turija village,  km from the center of Kučevo. is
karst spring is the strongest spring in the municipal-
ity of Kučevo. From the small cave opening at the
foot of the northern slopes of the mountain massif
‘Đula’, clean water bursts out and immediately forms
a strong stream. Several hundred meters downstream
from the spring it powers a few rural watermills. Dur-
ing the drought period, spring water discharge is re-
duced to barely  l/s (Krešić, ).
Methodology
e methodology of this study is based upon the
‘modied geosite assessment model’ (M-GAM), de-
veloped by Tomić & Božić (). e M-GAM repre-
sents a modication of GAM model created by Vujičić
et al. (). is method is based on previous geosite
assessment methods developed by dierent authors
(Bruschi & Cendrero, ; Coratza & Giusti, ;
Erhartič, ; Hose, ; Pereira et al., ; Pralong,
; Reynard, ; Reynard et al., ; Serrano &
González-Trueba, ; Tomić, ; Zouros, ). It
combines the opinion of both sides, tourists and ex-
perts, in such a way that neither side is favoured in
the assessment process. It has been successfully test-
ed and applied numerous times for the assessment of
various geosites (Antić & Tomić, ; Boškov et al.,
; Božić et al., ; Božić & Tomić, ; Tičar et
al., ; Tomić et al., ; Tomić et al., ; Vukoičić
et al., ).
e M-GAM model consists of two key indica-
tors: Main Values and Additional Values, which are
Figure 6. Siga (1), Burev (2) and Malo Vrelo (3) Waterfalls
Source: http://www.tokucevo.org/vodopad i-i-vrela/
Karst Geoheritage and Geotourism Potential
in the Pek River Lower Basin (Eastern Serbia)
 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 23, Issue 1, 32–46 (March 2019)
Table 1. The structure of Modified Geosite Assessment Model (M-GAM)
Indicators/Subindicators Description
Main values (MV)
Scientific/Educational value (VSE)
1. Rarity Number of closest identical sites
2. Representativeness Didactic and exemplary characteristics of the site due to its own quality and general configuration
3. Knowledge on geoscientific
issues Number of written papers in acknowledged journals, thesis, presentations and other publications
4. Level of interpretation Level of interpretive possibilities on geological and geomorphologic processes, phenomena and shapes
and level of scientific knowledge
Scenic/Aesthetic (VSA)
5. Viewpoints Number of viewpoints accessible by a pedestrian pathway. Each must present a particular angle of view
and be situated less than 1 km from the site.
6. Surface Whole surface of the site. Each site is considered in quantitative relation to other sites
7. Surrounding landscape and
nature
Panoramic view quality, presence of water and vegetation, absence of human-induced deterioration,
vicinity of urban area, etc.
8. Environmental fitting
of sites Level of contrast to the nature, contrast of colors, appearance of shapes, etc.
Protection (VPr)
9. Current condition Current state of geosite
10. Protection level Protection by local or regional groups, national government, international organizations, etc.
11. Vulnerability Vulnerability level of geosite
12. Suitable number of visitors Proposed number of visitors on the site at the same time, according to surface area, vulnerability and
current state of geosite
Additional values (AV)
Functional values (VFn)
13. Accessibility Possibilities of approaching to the site
14. Additional natural values Number of additional natural values in the radius of 5 km (geosites also included)
15. Additional anthropogenic
values Number of additional anthropogenic values in the radius of 5 km
16. Vicinity of emissive centers Closeness of emissive centers
17. Vicinity of important road
network Closeness of impor tant road networks in the in radius of 20 km
18. Additional functional values Parking lots, gas stations, mechanics, etc.
Touristic values (VTr)
19. Promotion Level and number of promotional resources
20. Organized visits Annual number of organized visits to the geosite
21. Vicinity of visitors centers Closeness of visitor center to the geosite
22. Interpretative panels Interpretative characteristics of text and graphics, material quality, size, fitting to surroundings, etc.
23. Number of visitors Annual number of visitors
24. Tourism infrastructure Level of additional infrastructure for tourist (pedestrian pathways, resting places, garbage cans, toilets
etc.)
25. Tour guide ser vice If exists, expertise level, knowledge of foreign language(s), interpretative skills, etc.
26. Hostelry service Hostelry ser vice close to geosite
27. Restaurant service Restaurant service close to geosite
Grades (0.00-1.00)
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
1. Common Regional National International The only occurence
2. None Low Moderate High Utmost
3. None Local publications Regional publications National publications International
publications
Aleksandar Antić, Nemanja Tomić,
Slobodan Markov
Geographica Pannonica • Volume 23, Issue 1, 32–46 (March 2019)
further divided into  and  indicators respectively,
each individually marked from  to . is division is
made due to two general kinds of values: main - that
are mostly generated by geosite’s natural characteris-
tics; and additional - that are mostly human-induced
and generated by modications for its use by visitors.
e Ma in Values comprise three groups of indicators:
scientic/educational (VSE), scenic/aesthetical values
(VSA) and protection (VPr) while the Additional Val-
ues are divided into two groups of indicators, func-
tional (VFn) and touristic values (VTr). e Main and
Additional Values are more detailed presented in table
. In total sum, there are  subindicators of Main Val-
ues, and  subindicators of Additional Values which
are graded from  to  that dene M-GAM as a sim-
ple equation:
M-GAM = MV + AV ()
where MV and AV represent symbols for Main and
Additional Values. Since Main and Additional Values
consist of three or two groups of subindicators, we can
derive these two equations:
MV = VSE + VSA + VPr, ()
AV = VFn + VTr, ()
Now that we know that each group of indicators
consists of several subindicators, equations () and ()
can be written as follows:
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
4. None
Moderate level of
processes but hard to
explain to non experts
Good example of
processes but hard to
explain to non experts
Moderate level of
processes but easy to
explain to common
visitor
Good example of
processes and easy to
explain to common
visitor
5. None 1 2 to 3 4 to 6 More than 6
6. Small -Medium -Large
7. -Low Medium High Utmost
8. Unfitting -Neutral -Fitting
9.
Totally damaged (as
a result of human
activities)
Highly damaged (as
a result of natural
processes)
Medium damaged
(with essential
geomorphologic
features preserved)
Slightly damaged No damage
10. None Local Regional National International
11. Irreversible (with
possibilit y of total loss)
High (could be easily
damaged)
Medium (could be
damaged by natural
processes or human
activities)
Low (could be damaged
only by human
activities)
None
12. 0 0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 50 More than 50
13. Inaccessible
Low (on foot with
special equipment and
expert guide tours)
Medium (by bicycle and
other means of man-
powered transport)
High (by car) Utmost (by bus)
14. None 1 2 to 3 4 to 6 More than 6
15. None 1 2 to 3 4 to 6 More than 6
16. More than 100 km 100 to 50 km 50 to 25 km 25 to 5 km Less than 5 km
17. None Local Regional National International
18. None Low Medium High Utmost
19. None Local Regional National International
20. None Less than 12 per year 12 to 24 per year 24 to 48 per year More than 48 per year
21. More than 50 km 50 to 20 km 20 to 5 km 5 to 1 km Less than 1 km
22. None Low quality Medium quality High quality Utmost quality
23. None Low (less than 5000) Medium (5001 to 10
000)
High (10 001 to 100
000)
Utmost (more than 100
000)
24. None Low Medium High Utmost
25. None Low Medium High Utmost
26. More than 50 km 25 –50 km 10–25 km 5–10 km Less than 5km
27. More than 25 km 10 –25 km 10–5 km 1 –5 km Less than 1 km
Karst Geoheritage and Geotourism Potential
in the Pek River Lower Basin (Eastern Serbia)
 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 23, Issue 1, 32–46 (March 2019)
=++=
=1
12
MV VSEVSA
VS
IMVPr i
i
where,  ≤ SIMVi ≤  ()
=+=
=1
15
AV VFnVTr SIAVi
j
where,  ≤ S I AVj ≤ . ()
Here, SIMVi and S I AV j represent  subindicators
of Main Values(i = ,...,) and  subindicators (j =
,...,) of Additional Values.
While in GAM all grades for each subindicator are
given by experts M-GAM, focuses not only on the ex-
pert’s opinion but also on the opinion of visitors and
tourists regarding the importance of each indicator in
the assessment process. Visitor inclusion in the assess-
ment process is done through a survey where each re-
spondent is asked to rate the importance (Im) of all
 subindicators (from . to .) in the M-GAM
model (Table ). e importance factor (Im) gives vis-
itors the opportunity to express their opinion about
each subindicator in the model and how important
it is for them when choosing and deciding between
several geosites that they wish to visit. Aer each re-
spondent rates the importance of every subindicator,
the average value of each subindicator is calculated
and the nal value of that subindicator is the impor-
tance factor. Aerwards, the value of the importance
factor (Im) is multiplied with the value that was given
by experts (also from . to .) who evaluate the
current state and value of subindicators (Table ).
is is done for each subindicator in the model aer
which the values are added up according to M-GAM
equation but this time with more objective and accu-
rate nal results due to the addition of the importance
factor (Im). is parameter is determined by visitors
who rate it in the same way as experts rate the subindi-
cators for Main and Additional Values by giving them
one of the following numerical values: ., ., .,
. and ., marked as points. e importance factor
(Im) is dened, as:
==
Im 1
Iv
K
k
k
K
()
Where Ivk is the assessment/score of one visitor for
each subindicator and K is the total number of visitors.
Note that the Im parameter can have any value in the
range from . to ..
Finally, the modied GAM equation is dened and
presented in the following form:
M – GAM = MV + AV ()
=⋅
=
MV Im
1
MVi
i
i
n
()
=⋅
=
AV
1
AVIm
jj
i
n
()
As it can be seen from the M-GAM equation, the
value of the importance factor (Im), which is rated
by visitors (for each subindicator separately) is mul-
tiplied with the value given by experts (also separate-
ly for each subindicator). is is done for each subin-
dicator in the model. erefore, the values of M-GAM
sub-indicators are always equal or less than GAM val-
ues.
In their research about dierent geotouristic seg-
ments, Božić & Tomić () conducted a survey and
calculated the importance factor for each subindicator
in the M-GAM model. erefore, the values of the im-
portance factor in this paper have been adopted from
the mentioned paper.
Based on the assessment results, a matrix of Main
(X axes) and Additional Values (Y axes) is created
(Figure ). e matrix is divided into nine elds rep-
resented with Z(i,j), (i,j=,,). Depending on the nal
score, each geosite will t into a certain eld. For ex-
ample, if a geosite’s Main Values are  and additional
are , the geosite will t into the Z eld.
Aleksandar Antić, Nemanja Tomić,
Slobodan Markov
Geographica Pannonica • Volume 23, Issue 1, 32–46 (March 2019)
Table 2. Subindicator values given by experts for each analyzed geosite
Main indicators / subindicators Values given by experts (0-1) Im Total value
GS1GS2GS3GS4GS5GS6GS7GS8GS9GS1GS2GS3GS4GS5GS6GS7GS8GS9
I Scientific/Educational values (VSE)
Rarity (SIMV1) 0 0 0 0 1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.89 00000.89 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22
Representativeness (SIMV2)0.75 0.5 0.25 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.79 0.59 0.39 0.1 9 0.59 0.39 0.59 0.39 0.39 0.39
Knowledge on geo-scientific issues (SIMV3)0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.25 0.25 00.45 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.34 0.11 0.11 0
Level of interpretation (SIMV4) 111110.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64
II Scenic/Aesthetic values (VSA)
Viewpoints (SIMV5)0.25 0.25 0 0 0.25 00000.79 0.19 0.19 0 0 0.19 0000
Surface (SIMV6)0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 000000.54 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 00000
Surrounding landscape and nature (SIMV7) 1 1 0.5 10.25 10.5 0.5 0.5 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.47 0.95 0.24 0.95 0.47 0.47 0.47
Environmental fitting of sites (SIMV8) 1 1 0.5 1010.5 0.5 0.5 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.34 0.68 00.68 0.34 0.34 0.34
III Protection (VPr)
Current condition (SIMV9) 1 1 1 1 0 0.5 1110.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 00.41 0.83 0.83 0.83
Protection level (SIMV10)0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25 000000.76 0.57 0.57 0 .19 0 .19 00000
Vulnerability (SIMV11)0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.58 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
Suitable number of visitors (SIMV12) 1 1 0.5 1111110.42 0.42 0.42 0. 21 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42
I Functional values (VFn)
Accessibility (SI AV1) 1 1 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0 .19 0.19 0.56 0. 37 0.37 0.37 0.37
Additional natural values (SIAV 2)0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 00.5 00.5 00.71 0.53 0.35 0.35 0.35 00.35 00.35 0
Additional anthropogenic values (SIAV3)0.25 0.25 0 0 0.25 0.25 0000.70 0.17 0.1 7 0 0 0.17 0 .17 000
Vicinity of emissive centres (S IAV4) 0000000000.48 000000000
Vicinity of important road network (S IAV 5)0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.62 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Additional functional values (SIAV6)0.25 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.59 0.14 0.29 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
II Tourist values (VTr)
Promotion (SIAV 7)0.25 0.25 0000.25 0000.85 0.21 0.21 0000.21 000
Annual number of organised visits (SI AV8) 0 0.25 0000.25 0000.56 00.14 0000.14 000
Vicinity of visitors centres (S IAV9)0.5 10.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0. 25 0.25 0.87 0.43 0.87 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.43 0.22 0.22 0.22
Interpretive panels (SIAV10)0.25 0.25 00.25 000000.81 0.20 0.20 00.20 00000
Annual number of visitors (SIAV 11)0.25 0.25 0000.25 0000.43 0 .10 0 .10 0000 .10 000
Tourism infras tructure (S IAV 12)0.25 0.5 00000000.73 0.18 0.36 0000000
Tour guide service (SI AV13 )0.25 0.25 00000000.87 0.22 0.22 0000000
Hostelry service (SI AV14)0.75 10.5 0.25 10.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.73 0.55 0.73 0.36 0.18 0.73 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.36
Restaurant service (SI AV15) 1 1 0.5 0.25 10.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.39 0 .19 0.78 0.19 0.39 0.39 0.39
GS1 – Ceremošnja Cave , GS2 – Ravništarka Cave, GS3 – Ševička Cave, GS4 – Dubo čka Cave, GS5 – Zviška Intermittent Spr ing, GS6 – Siga Waterfall, GS7 – Malo Vrelo Waterf all, GS8 – Burev Waterfall, GS9 – Šumeća Kar st Spring
Karst Geoheritage and Geotourism Potential
in the Pek River Lower Basin (Eastern Serbia)
 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 23, Issue 1, 32–46 (March 2019)
Results and discussion
Based on the assessment results we can see a nota-
ble dierence in the assessment values between spe-
leological and hydrological karst geosites. Speleologi-
cal geosites are quite common in this region, therefore
they received the lowest grade for rarity (). As far as
hydrological karst geosites are concerned, the results
are slightly dierent. Waterfalls Siga, Burev and Lit-
tle Spring represent a regional phenomenon, and they
were given a score of .. e karst hot spring Šumeća
was also given a score of . eventhough karst springs
usually represent a frequent occurrence in karst areas.
However, in the Pek River Basin they represent region-
al geosites. e Zviška Intermittent Spring was given
the highest score because it represents a very rare nat-
ural phenomenon on an international level. e sub-
indicator related to knowledge on geoscientic issues
is rated dierently for each geosite. Ceremošnja and
Ravništarka caves have generally higher scores than
the other two caves. is is partly because these two
caves were explored and protected on a national level
and scientic papers about these caves were published
in national publications. Dubočka and Ševička caves
have a score of ., which means they have only been
explored at a local level. e karst geosite Zviška was
rated with a medium value of . which is very unfor-
tunate because this geosite represents a very rare nat-
ural occurance and more attention should have been
focused towards it in the past. e Siga Waterfall was
the highest rated waterfall mainly due to the fact that
it is the most well known in the Kučevo municipali-
ty. e interpretation level for the analyzed geosites
was rated the highest of all subindicators within the
group of scientic values. All speleological objects
have the maximum score due to the fact that they rep-
resent good examples of geological and geomorpho-
logical phenomena related to their origin and current
state can be easily explained to the common visi-
tor. Springs and waterfalls are also highly rated, just
slightly less than caves which means that they possess
a moderate level of geomorphological processess that
are easy to explain to common visitors.
When it comes to Scenic/Aesthetic values, we can
notice that the highest rated subindicator in this
group is related to environmental tting of geo-
sites. All speleological sites, apart from Ševička Cave
have the maximum score for this subindicator. Lit-
tle Spring and Burev waterfalls are evaluated with a
score of ., the same as the karst spring of Šumeća.
e Siga waterfall with its almost hidden forest lo-
cation was rated the highest. e lowest rated sub-
indicator in this group is related to viewpoints be-
cause there are only a few. One of the best is located
in the vicinity of the Ceremošnja Cave, at the  m
high top of Veliki Štubej. e other is located near
the center of Kučevo.
In case of protection values, the subindicators for
current state and carrying capacity received the high-
est score, while level of protection is rated lowest. e
vulnerability level of the analyzed geosites was rated
medium, which means that they can be damaged by
natural processes or human activities. Most of the ge-
osites are currently not damaged apart from Zviška
Spring and Siga Waterfall. e waterfall got a score of
. for its current condition due to an increasing lack of
water for longer periods than in previous years which
signicantly aects its tourist potential. Zviška Spring
received the lowest grade due to damage through hu-
man activities originating from the abandoned indus-
trial zone that was once here.
In terms of Additional values we can notice that
Ravništarka and Ceremošnja caves have the highest
additonal values while Dubočka Cave has the lowest,
followed closely by Malo Vrelo Waterfall and Šumeća
Karst Spring (Table ).
Table 3. Overall ranking of the analyzed geosites by M-GAM
Geosite Label Main values Additional values Field
VSE + VSA + VPr Σ VFn + VTr Σ
Ceremošnja Cave - GS11.78 + 2.29 + 2.11 6.18 1.74 + 2.67 4.41 Z21
Ravništarka Cave - GS21.58 + 2.09 + 2.11 5.78 1.71 + 3.61 5.32 Z22
Ševička Cave - GS31.15 + 1.08 + 1.52 3.75 0.83 + 0.97 1.8 Z11
Dubočka Cave - GS41.55 + 1.90 + 1.73 5.18 0.83 + 0.79 1.62 Z21
Zviška Intermittent Spring - GS52.35 + 0.43 + 0.71 3.49 1.18 + 1.73 2.91 Z11
Siga Waterfall - GS61.79 + 1.63 + 1.12 4.54 1.18 + 1.25 2.43 Z21
Little Spring Waterfall - GS71.36 + 0.81 + 1.54 3.71 0.66 + 0.97 1.63 Z11
Burev Waterfall - GS81.36 + 0.81 + 1.54 3.71 1.01 + 0.97 1.98 Z11
Šumeća Karst Spring - GS91.25 + 0.81 + 1.54 3.6 0.66 + 0.97 1.63 Z11
Aleksandar Antić, Nemanja Tomić,
Slobodan Markov
Geographica Pannonica • Volume 23, Issue 1, 32–46 (March 2019)
Within Functional values, accessibility is rat-
ed highest, while the vicinity of emissive centers is
rated lowest. e accessibility of Ceremošnja and
Ravništarka caves is highest as they are both accessi-
ble by asphalt roads and reachable by bus. All of the
waterfalls have a lower level of accesibility as they are
only approachable by bike or on foot. Dubočka and
Ševička caves have the lowest level of accessibility as
they require the help of an experienced guide and are
located a few kilometers away from the nearest road.
Additional functional values are very low for each ge-
osite because there are no parking lots (besides the
ones near Ceremošnja and Ravništarka caves), gas sta-
tions and other similar facilitites nearby.
e nal group of subindicators is related to tour-
ist value. Hostelry and restaurant service were rated
highest while promotion, organized visits, interpre-
tive panels, number of visitors, tourist infrastructure
and tour guide service were rated poorly.
Current promotional activities are done by the
Tourist Organization of Kučevo mainly at the local lev-
el. However, it is only for Ceremošnja and Ravništarka
caves as well as for the Siga Waterfall. Other geosites
are currently neglected. Another problem is that there
are very few, if any, organized visits to the majority
of the analyzed geosites. e tourist organization and
geosite management do not precisely keep track of
visitor numbers. According to their estimations there
are less than  visitors per year at Ravništarka
and Ceremošnja caves, while other geosites are much
less visited. Tourist infrastructure and guide service
only exist at the Ravništarka and Ceremošnja geosites,
with Ravništarka oering a better quality service and
overall experience.
By comparing the nal results for all analyzed ge-
osites we can clearly detect their position in the M-
GAM matrix (Figure ) based on their Main and Ad-
ditional Values. From the displayed matrix we can
see that ve geosites (Ševička Cave, Zviška Spring,
Šumeća Karst Spring, Little Spring and Burev Water-
falls) are located within the Z eld, three geosites
(Siga Waterfall, Ceremošnja and Dubočka caves) are
located in the Z eld while the only geosite in the Z
eld is Ravništarka Cave.
Looking at the nal results in the matrix we can
clearly notice that speleological geosites are better po-
sitioned compared to other geosites. From the hydro-
logical karst geosites, only Siga Waterfall is in the Z
eld, while the others are in Z. Other waterfalls are
located in the Z eld, near the border with the Z
eld meaning they have similar values to Siga wa-
terfall but slightly lower than Siga. As for the caves,
Ceremošnja and Ravništarka are located near the bor-
der between elds Z and Z. Ravništarka Cave is
in a better position due to its higher Additional val-
ues. However, Ceremošnja Cave has slightly higher
Figure 7. Position of analyzed geosites in the M-GAM matrix
Z11 Z21
Z22
Z23 Z33
Z23
Z13
Z12
Z13
00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Additional Values
Main Values
Ceremošnja Cave
Ravništarka Cave
Ševička Cave
Dubočka Cave
Zviška Spring
Siga Waterfall
Malo Vrelo Waterfall
Burev Waterfall
Šumeća Karst Spring
Karst Geoheritage and Geotourism Potential
in the Pek River Lower Basin (Eastern Serbia)
 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 23, Issue 1, 32–46 (March 2019)
Main Values. Dubočka Cave also has good Main Val-
ues, however it cannot compete with Ravništarka and
Ceremošnja when it comes to Additional Values.
Based on our results we can see that future activi-
ties should be focused towards improving such ele-
ments as tour guide service, interpretive panels, tour-
ist infrastructure and visitor center contents. Also, the
majority of analyzed geosites (apart from Ceremošnja
and Ravništarka cave) still remain without protection
from the Nature Conservation Institute of Serbia, even-
though some of them deserve at least the lowest level of
protection status. Future tourism development of this
region should be primarily focused towards cave tour-
ism. Ravništarka and Ceremošnja caves already possess
some of the tourist infrastructure and other elements
neccessary for tourism development which should be
fully utilized in their current condition and improved
in the coming years. Dubočka and Ševička caves lack
the necessary infrastructure and they are not for aver-
age cave tourists. ese two caves can be used for ad-
venture speleotourism through smaller investments in
spelunking equipment and expert tour guide service
which could transform these two geosites into a speleo
adventure destination. Other analyzed geosites includ-
ed waterfalls and springs. None of these sites possess
any kind of infrastructure, oen not even a proper road
sign indicating their location. Rectifying this would be
a signicant initial step towards the inclusion of these
sites into the tourism oer of Kučevo.
In their paper about speleotourism in Eastern Ser-
bia, Tomić et al. () analyzed six speleological geo-
sites by applying M-GAM. According to their results,
the highest rated cave was Resavska Cave, one of the
most popular caves in Serbia, with Ravništarka Cave
getting a lower nal score. If we compare our results
with this we can notice that Ravništarka Cave now
has slightly higher Main and Additional Values than
Resavska Cave. e main reason behind this improve-
ment is related to several infrastructural improve-
ments that have been done recently. anks to these
recent activities Ravništarka and Ceremošnja Cave
can now easily match Resavska and Rajkova Cave on
the national tourism market. In order to do this suc-
cessfully and attract a larger number of tourists in the
future, it is necessary to improve the tour guide ser-
vice and promotional activities of these caves as well
as to establish a long lasting and stable management
organization that would take care of tourism activi-
ties at these sites. For the moment, this job is entrust-
ed to the tourism organization of Kučevo whose ac-
tivities and human eort play a key role in the future
tourism development of this area.
Furthermore, if we compare our results to those of
Tičar et al. () who analyzed caves and speleotour-
ism in Slovenia, we can notice that tourist caves in Slo-
venia do not possess much higher Main Values than the
ones analyzed in this paper. However, when it comes
to Additional Values there is a clear dierence. Slove-
nian caves are much higher rated than Serbian ones.
e main reason behind this is connected with human
interventions and the level of tourism infrastructure
which is much higher than in Serbian caves. One of the
reasons is also a longer cave tourism tradition in Slove-
nia and the vicinity of bigger tourist destinations and
especially the direct connection to main tourist ows
from Western and Central Europe towards the Medi-
terranean (Adriatic Sea). e implementation of a sim-
ilar cave management model in Serbia would for sure
benet further speleotourism development.
If we compare our assessment results to those of
other karst geosites in Serbia such as canyons and
gorges, we can notice that caves have higher values
than some of them. According to research done by
Božić et al. (), Ravništarka and Ceremošnja Cave
have a better position in the M-GAM matrix than La-
zar and Uvac Canyon. Once again, the main reason
behind this is related to the level of Additional Values
and the human factor, the same as in the case of Slo-
venian caves. However, if we look at the results from
Božić and Tomić () and their analysis of can-
yons and gorges in Serbia, we can see that the Đerdap
Gorge has much higher results and a better position in
the M-GAM matrix than any of the geosites analyzed
in this paper. By analyzing and comparing research
done on this topic in Serbia, it would seem that at the
moment caves and speleotourism have a slight advan-
tage over canyons and gorges when it comes to tour-
ism development. More attention is focused towards
caves in general as well as towards their infrastruc-
ture and tourism development. However, further re-
search on this topic is necessary in order to denitely
conrm or disprove this fact in the future.
Conclusion
e speleological and hydrologica l karst geoheritage in
the Pek River lower basin includes a diverse and wide
range of natural values. Speleological objects have the
highest tourist value and potential which is why they
should be the base for tourism development in this
area. On the other hand, karst waterfalls and springs
lack the basic tourist infrastructure which is the main
problem of these geosites. Improvement of transport,
communal and tourist infrastructure is not only nec-
cessary for further tourism development but also as a
Aleksandar Antić, Nemanja Tomić,
Slobodan Markov
Geographica Pannonica • Volume 23, Issue 1, 32–46 (March 2019)
basis for further development of the local and region-
al economy. e analyzed geosites possess all of the
necessary elements for geotourism development apart
from the human factor and eort focused towards im-
proving the Additional Values of these geosites in the
future. One of the necessary activities is also to con-
tinually monitor speleotourism trends throughout the
world so that the analyzed caves can be competitive
on this market.e value of these caves certainly pro-
vides a possibility for their recognition on the glob-
al speleotourism market. However, this has not been
the case so far. Based on our results we can notice that
there is still plenty of work to be done especially in the
area of infrastructure and other elements related to
Additional Values. One of the future goals should be
better promotional activities on a national and inter-
national level as well as better road signalization and
tour guide service. Signicant improvement of these
elements would bring a much larger number of tour-
ists to these sites which would also benet the local
economy through higher revenue and additional jobs
for the local community.
References
Antić, A., & Tomić, N. (). Geoheritage and geo-
tourism potential of the Homolje area (e a st e rn
Serbia). Acta Geoturistica, (), -.
Boškov, J., Kotrla, S., Jovanović, M., Tomić, N., Lukić,
T., & Rvović, I. (). Application of the prelimi-
nary geosite assessment model (GAM): the case
of the Bela Crkva municipality (Vojvodina, North
Serbia). Geographica Pannonica, (), -.
Božić, S., Tomić, N., & Pavić, D. (). Canyons as
potential geotourism attractions of Serbia – com-
parative analysis of Lazar and Uvac canyons by us-
ing M-GAM model. Acta Geoturistica, (), -.
Božić, S., & Tomić, N. (). Canyons and gorges as
potential geotourism destinations in S e r b i a :
Comparative analysis from two perspectives - Gen-
eral tourists’ and pure geotourists’. Open Geo-
sciences, , -.
Brilha, J. (). Inventory and quantitative assess-
ment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review.
Geoheritage, (), –.
Bruschi, V. M., & Cendrero, A. (). Geosite evalua-
tion. Can we measure intangible values? Il Quater-
nario,(), -.
Coratza, P., & Giusti, C. (). Methodological pro-
posal for the assessment of the scientic quality of
geomorphosites. Il Quaternario, (), -.
Dowling, R., & Newsome, D. (). Geotourism:
A global activity. In R. Dowling, & D. Newsome
(Eds.), Global geotourism perspectives (pp. –).
Woodeaton: Goodfellow Publishers.
Erhartič, B. (). Geomorphosite assessment. Acta
Geographica Slovenica, (), -.
Farsani, N. T., Coelho, C. O. A., & Costa, C. M. M.
(). Analysis of network activities in geoparks as
geotourism destinations. International Journal of
Tourism Research,, –.
Fassoulas, C., Mouriki, D., Dimitriou-Nikolakis, P., &
Iliopoulos, G. (). Quantitative as-sessment of
geotopes as an eective tool for geoheritage man-
agement. Geoheritage, , –.
Gray, M. (). Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving
Abiotic Nature. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Hose, T. A. (). Geotourism - selling the earth to
Europe. In P. G., Marinos, G. Koukis, C. Tsiamba-
os, & G. C. Stournaras (Eds.), Engineering geology
and the environment (pp. -). Rotterdam:
A.A Balkema.
Hose, T. A. (). European‘geotourism’ — Geolog-
ical interpretation and conservation promotion for
tourists. In D. Barettino, W. A. P. Wimbledon, &
E. Gallego (Eds.), Geo-logical heritage: Its conserva-
tion and management (pp. –). Madrid: ITGE.
Hose, T. A., & Vasiljević, Dj. A. (). Dening the
nature and purpose of modern geotourism with
particular reference to the United Kingdom and
south-east Europe. Geoheritage, , –
Krešić, N. (). Karst i pećine Jugoslavije [Karst and
caves of Yugoslavia]. Belgrade: Naučna knjiga (in
Serbian).
Kubalíková, L., & Kirchner, K. (). Geosite and ge-
omorphosite assessment as a tool for geoconserva-
tion and geotourism purposes: a case study from
Vizovická vrchovina Highland (eastern part of the
Czech Republic). Geoheritage, (), –.
Lazarević, R. (). Pećina Ceremošnja [Ceremošnja
Cave]. Kučevo: Partizan (in Serbian).
Lazarević, R. (). Kraški izvor Kučevo [Kučevo Karst
Spring]. Kučevo: Partizan (in Serbian).
Lazarević, R. (). Pećina Ravništarka [Ravništarka
Cave]. Kučevo: Partizan (in Serbian).
Lazarević, R. (). Dubočka Pećina [Dubočka Cave].
Belgrade: Serbian Geographical Society (in Serbi-
an).
Pereira, P., Pereira, D., & Caetano Alves, M. I. ().
Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural
Park (Portugal). Geographica Helvetica, , -.
Pralong, J.-P. (). A method for assessing the tour-
ist potential and use of geomorphological sites.
Géomorphologie. Relief, processes, environnement,
, -.
Karst Geoheritage and Geotourism Potential
in the Pek River Lower Basin (Eastern Serbia)
 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 23, Issue 1, 32–46 (March 2019)
Pralong, J.P. (). Geotourism: A new Form of Tour-
ism utilising natural Landscapes and based on Im-
agination and Emotion. Tourism Review, (), -.
Rajković, I. (). Turistički potencijal opštine Kučevo
[Tourist potential of Kučevo Municipality]. Novi
Sad: Faculty of Science (in Serbian).
Reynard, E. (). Scientic research and tourist pro-
motion of geomorphological heritage. G eograf i a
sica e dinamica quaternaria, (), -.
Reynard, E., Fontana, G., Kozlik, L., & Scapozza, C.
(). A method for assessing „scientic“ „addi-
tional values“ of geomorphosites. Geographica Hel-
vetica, (), -.
Różycka, M., & Migoń, P. (). Visitors’ background
as a factor in geosite evaluation. e case of Ceno-
zoic volcanic sites in the Pogórze Kaczawskie re-
gion, SW Poland. Geotourism/Geoturystyka, (),
-.
Różycka, M., Migoń, P. (). Customer-Orient-
ed Evaluation of Geoheritage—on the Example of
Volcanic Geosites in the West Sudetes, SW Poland.
Geoheritage, (), -.
Ruban, D. A. (). Geotourism – A geographical re-
view of the literature. Tourism Management Per-
spectives, , -.
Rybár, P. (). Assessment of attractiveness (value)
of geotouristic objects. Acta Geoturistica, (), –.
Serrano, E., & González-Trueba, J. J. (). Assess-
ment of geomorphosites in natural protected ar-
eas: the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain).
Géomorphologie. Formes, processus, environne-
ment, , -.
Suzuki, D. A., Takagi, H. (). Evaluation of Geosite
for Sustainable Planning and Management in Geo-
tourism. Geoheritage, (), -.
Štrba, Ľ. (). Identication and evaluation of geo-
sites along existing tourist trail as a primary step of
geotourism development: case study from the Spiš
region (Slovakia). GeoJournal of Tourism and Geo-
sites, , –.
Štrba, Ľ. (). Analysis of Criteria Aecting Geo-
site Visits by General Public: a Case of Slovak (Geo)
Touri s ts . Geoheritage, -, https://doi.org/./
s---
Štrba, Ľ., Rybár, P., Baláž, B., Molokáč, M., Hvizdák,
L., Kršák, B., Lukáč, M., Muchová, L., Tometzová,
D., & Ferenčíková, J. (). Geosite assessments:
comparison of methods and results. Current Issues
in Tourism, (), –.
Tičar, J., Tomić, N., Breg Valjavec, M., Zorn, M.,
Marković, S.B., & Gavrilov, M.B. ().
Speleotourism in Slovenia: balancing between
mass tourism and geoheritage protection. Open
Geosciences, , -.
Tomić, N. (). e potential of Lazar Canyon (Ser-
bia) as a geotourism destination: inventory and
evaluation. Geographica Pannonica, (), -.
Tomić, N., Marković, S.B., Korać, M., Mrđić, N., Hose,
T.A., Vasiljević, Dj.A., Jovičić, M., & Gavrilov, M.B.
(). Exposing mammoths: from loess research
discovery to public palaeontological park. Quater-
nary International, , -.
Tomić, N., & Božić, S. (). A modied geosite as-
sessment model (M-GAM) and its a p p l i c a-
tion on the Lazar Canyon area (Serbia). Interna-
tional Journal of Environmental Research, (),
-.
Tomić, N., Antić, A., Marković, S.B., Đorđević, T.,
Zorn, M., & Breg Valjavec, M. (). Exploring
the potential for speleotourism development in
eastern Serbia. Geoheritage, -. https://doi.
org/./s---x
Vujadinović, S. (). Privredno geografske i
saobraćajne odlike sliva Peka [Economic, geographic
and transport system characteristics of the Pek Riv-
er basin]. Belgrade: Jovan Cvijić Geographical In-
stitute (in Serbian).
Vujičić, M. D., Vasiljević, Dj. A., Marković, S. B., Hose,
T. A., Lukić, T., Hadžić, O., & Janićević, S. ().
Preliminary geosite assessment model (GAM) and
its application on Fruška Gora Mountain, potential
geotourism destination of Serbia. Acta Geographi-
ca Slovenica, , -
Vukoičić, D., Milosavljević, S., Valjarević, A., Nikolić,
M., & Srećković-Batoćanin, D. (). e evalu-
ation of geosites in the territory of National park
„Kopaonik“ (Serbia). Open Geosciences, , -.
https://doi.org/./geo--
Zouros, N. C. (). Geomorphosite assessment and
management in protected areas of Greece. e case
of the Lesvos island coastal geomorphosites. Geo-
graphica Helvetica, , -.
... On the other hand, there are assessment methods that employ mathematical approaches and models to provide a more quantitative and multidisciplinary perspective of areas of high geoscientific interest. Some models consider not only the scientific value that may arise but also the geo-educational perspective (Németh et al. 2021a(Németh et al. , 2021b on and potential of these areas (Reynard et al. 2018;Fassoulas et al. 2012;Gray 2004;Brilha et al. 2018;Tomić and Božić 2014;Antic et al. 2019;Gray 2013;Megía et al. 2004;Kozlowski 2004). ...
... The main goal of this paper is an evaluation of the Kratovo-Zletovo palaeovolcanic region (32-29 million years ago in the Oligocene (Boev and Yanev 2001)), using a quantitative assessment methodology that approaches the geo-educational value of a geosite in different ways. There are several methods for evaluation of geodiversity and geoheritage, including the method of Brilha (Brilha 2016), and Geosite Assessment Model-GAM (Vujičić et al. 2011;Boskov et al. 2015;Arruda et al. 2017;Miljkovic et al. 2018;Vujičić et al. 2018;Antic et al. 2019;Bratic et al. 2020;Carrion-Mero et al. 2020;Vukoicic et al. 2020;Pál and Albert 2021a;Banda et al. 2021;Ahmed 2023). ...
Article
This research emphasizes the vital role of geoeducation in fostering a deeper appreciation of palaeovolcanic geoheritage in the Kratovo-Zletovo palaeovolcanic area, which is in the northeastern part of North Macedonia. In this paper a sophisticated and objective evaluation of the palaeovolcanic geoheritage for future proclamation as a protected area is provided. Various programs can be implemented to promote geoeducation at different educational levels, making the concepts of palaeovolcanic geoheritage, geoeducation, and geoconservation more accessible and understandable to the local community and visitors. The study applies the Brilha’s method as a means to evaluate the geoeducational potential of specific geosites within the Kratovo-Zletovo palaeovolcanic area. This method, designed to assess a wide spectrum of criteria, provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating the scientific, educational, and touristic potential of the identified geosites. This research contributes to our understanding of the multifaceted significance of palaeovolcanic geosites from scientific, educational, and touristic perspectives. It serves as a valuable reference for decision-makers, educators, and conservationists working to preserve and promote the geoheritage of the Kratovo-Zletovo palaeovolcanic area. The study underscores the need for a method for the inventory of geosites, considering their scientific value. Four key criteria—representativeness, integrity, rarity, and scientific knowledge—are proposed for selecting geosites. Although the method used is based on numerical data, it was supported by a heuristic approach and field research.
... The M-GAM method is a successful and widespread tool in academia for evaluating the sustainable management and conservation of geoheritage [37]. The advantage of this assessment method is that it incorporates the perspectives of both experts and visitors [36,38]. ...
... In this regard, GEOAM, an innovative assessment tool, provides a targeted method to evaluate the geoeducational potential of geosites and geomorphosites while involving essential geoconservation and geoethics concepts. This approach facilitates a thorough investigation of the educational characteristics of geosites, ensuring their effective utilization for geoeducational objectives and sustainable development [1,[38][39][40]. Moreover, it enables consistent evaluation and comparison across diverse geotopes and geomorphosites, thereby supporting decision-making, planning, and fostering international collaboration. ...
Article
Full-text available
A new assessment method named GEOAM (geoeducational assessment method), that will be a useful tool for highlighting the geoeducational and geoethical value of a geosite, is proposed. This method takes into account, initially, 11 criteria, which are grouped into 8 categories. Each criterion addresses a different aspect of the geosite’s potential for promoting sustainable development, environmental management, and education. A simplified scoring system using a scale of 1–5 is used, where each criterion is scored based on the degree to which it is presented or implemented. The method was piloted in eight geotopes of the Kalymnos Island and five geotopes of the Nisyros Island, in the SE Aegean Sea, Greece. The implementation of this assessment method highlighted the geoeducational value of these geosites. Based on the criteria and subcriteria incorporated in GEOAM, this paper discusses GEOAM’s potential to promote sustainable development and rational environmental management by directing educators and stakeholders toward actions that conserve and protect geoheritage for future generations, while also contributing to the economic, social, and cultural development of the surrounding communities. By quantifying the geoeducational potential of geosites and integrating essential concepts such as geoconservation and geoethics, the implementation of this new assessment method can benefit the educational community, tourism industry, and environmental conservation efforts.
... Artificially illuminated show caves, with prepared infrastructural facilities, are usually made available within the framework of organised access under the supervision of a guide (guided tours; Cigna, Burri 2000, Garofano, Govoni 2012, Crane, Fletcher 2016, Antić et al. 2022a, Chiarini et al. 2022, Zieliński et al. 2022. Cave tourism, depending on what qualities of the caves are the basis for tourist use and interpretation, can carry out the tasks of sightseeing (general knowledge of the region), geotourism (cave structure, processes, and flowstone formations; kubalíková 2013, Antić et al. 2019, Antić et al. 2022a, Tomić, marianović 2022, Zieliński et al. 2022, Tesfa, Zewdie 2023, ecotourism (flora and fauna of the caves), (paleo)archeotourism (cultural heritage of the protohumans, paleontology; Duval et al. [2017]). In the caves, to make them more attractive to a mass audience with different interests and needs in terms of leisure and entertainment, various other activities are carried out: cultural (concerts in the Drach Cave, Mallorca) or team-building events are organised, unconventional weddings or other special events are held (Jenolan Caves, Australia). ...
Article
Full-text available
Cave tourism is a phenomenon most frequently studied in the context of the potential for other forms of tourism (including geotourism, archeotourism, ecotourism) and the impact of tourism on the cave environment. Motivational research among tourists is market-oriented and usually conducted in so-called ‘show caves’ (adapted for tourism and regularly opened to the public). In the context of social research in caves, the author of the paper notices a research gap: cave tourism also happens in caves that are inaccessible to everyone due to the degree of difficulty of exploration and the lack of necessary skills. The research on a group of 57 members of Polish caving clubs was aimed at studying this community in terms of motivation, perception of the activity practiced (benefits, costs, risks, overall tourist phenomena), and self-definition, the identity of the group. Taking into account the limitations of inference due to the size of the sample, the prospective directions of research on the community of tourists and explorers eluding previous studies of cave tourism were established.
... This methodology has been utilized successfully in various research that assessed different geosites in Serbia [11,[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67], the USA [68,69], Slovenia [70], Iran [71], Hungary [72], Indonesia [73], and India [74,75]. This research is the first to apply the presented method on the territory of Montenegro. ...
Article
Full-text available
The objective of the study is to investigate the current state of the canyons in the northern part of Montenegro, their potential for sustainable development, which could be achieved through canyoning as an attractive tourist attraction, and to assess the area’s geotourism potential. The canyons encompassed in this research are the Nevidio Canyon, the Tara Canyon, the Grlja Canyon, and the canyon of the river Ibar. The research was carried out using the modified Geosite Assessment Model, which includes tourists’ opinions on the significance of indicators in the assessment process. The obtained results show that all four canyons possess significant scientific, educational, and aesthetic values for the development of canyoning tourism. Since surveyed tourists pointed out not only the advantages but disadvantages of these geosites, these findings should be further used for the valorization and geoconservation of the geosite and provide a more favorable deal for the arrival of as many tourists as possible. In the future, investigated geosites should be improved with tourist content and activities, such as interpretive boards for tourists, expert guides, organized visits, tourist infrastructure, and promotion. Successful activities in these critical areas could contribute to sustainable geotourism being one of the key economically beneficial activities of the local population that will develop local communities through the arrival of a larger number of domestic and foreign tourists.
... According to the 2013 Law on Nature Protection [47] and Te Spatial Plan of the Special Purpose NP Kozara, the protected area of Mount Kozara is located within the municipalities and towns of Prijedor, Gradiška, and Kozarska Dubica [48,49] (Figure 1). Te majority of the karstic Kozara [50] falls under IUCN Category II, classifying it as a National Park [42]. In 1967, Kozara Mountain's center region was designated a national park in order to preserve its historical, cultural, and ecological qualities. ...
Article
Full-text available
This research focuses on the use of electric vehicles (EVs) to transport visitors and cargo within Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Kozara National Park. Reduced air pollution and the preservation of natural resources are required to help protect this aerial spa. Together with the expert employees of this NP, the EV that would best suit their needs was chosen. The process of decision-making combines subjective and objective methods. Employees first chose the criteria and alternatives and then weighed their importance. On that occasion, Z-numbers were used to include uncertainty in the decision, because it is not always possible to make decisions with complete certainty. Furthermore, the weight of these criteria was determined using the fuzzy PIPRECIA (PIvot Pairwise Relative Criteria Importance Assessment) method. Range (C1) became the most important criterion, followed by vehicle cost (C2), and the technical specifications of these EVs were used to compare them. Because these specifications vary, a rough set was used in which the minimum and maximum EV characteristics were taken based on specific criteria. To rank the alternatives, the R-CRADIS (Rough Compromise Ranking of Alternatives with Distance to Ideal Solution) method was used. According to the research results, the Mercedes eVito Tourer 90 kWh is the highest ranked EV and the validation of the results confirmed these findings. According to the research results, the Mercedes eVito Tourer 90 kWh is the highest ranked EV and the validation of the results confirmed these findings. The sensitivity analysis revealed that if criterion C1 is not as important, the other EVs are ranked higher. This research`s methodology has demonstrated flexibility, therefore it is recommended for use in similar research.
Article
The Permian-Triassic sections of Kashmir Himalaya holds well-preserved sedimentary succession with fossil assemblages indicating a specific period. Fossil parks are among the primary geotourism attractions that support fossil preservation in-situ. Fossils are gems of paleontology, appearing as the remnants of species from past geological eras, and are prized sources of paleo-environmental history. These non-renewable Earth heritage serves as a conduit for scientific knowledge on historical climate, sedimentary environments, geographic circumstances, relative age determinations, and ecological practices. The extinction catastrophe known as the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event occurred about 251.5 million years ago and marks the transition between the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Periods. It was the most devastating known extinction event on Earth and the greatest of the “Big Five” mass extinctions of the Earth’s history. The fossils and various geological features present at Permian-Triassic sections at Guryul and Mandakpal of Kashmir shed light on the Permian-Triassic (P-T) mass extinction event and preserve crucial knowledge about the effects of previous climate change on the Earth system. Besides, providing information on mass extinction, Guryul and Mandakpal of Kashmir provides a good opportunity for tourists to witness various geological features including fossils, minerals, rocks, caves, seismites, etc. Therefore it is very essential to protect such an area before it gets damaged by local intruders. A crucial step in this regard is the designation of the Permian-Triassic sections of Kashmir Himalaya as a worldwide geoheritage site. The promotion of geotourism is recognized as a global strategy for geoconservation. These prime geoheritage sites must be preserved and promoted for geotourism in order to boost the local economy, as they are significant from scientific, climatic, educational, and geological standpoint.
Book
Full-text available
Predmet istraživanja monografije jesu nacionalni parkovi u Bosni i Hecegovini sa fokusom na probleme održivog razvoja istih. Svrha istraživanja jeste da se pobliže prikažu prirodnogeografske karakteristike i vrijednosti nacionalnih parkova te historijsko-geografski razvoj istih, ali i da se spoznaju faktori, oblik i intenzitet ugroženosti zaštićenih prirodnih područja što se direktno odražava na mogućnosti njihovog održivog razvoja. Na području Bosne i Hercegovine zaštićena su 43 područja ukupne površine 1.555,4827 km2, što predstavlja 3,04% površine države. Do sada su izdvojena četiri nacionalna parka (NP Sutjeska, NP Kozara, NP Una i NP Drina) koji zauzimaju 39,25% od ukupne površine zaštićenih prirodnih područja Bosne i Hercegovine. Zaštićena područja često se ocjenjuju samo s aspekta svoje naučne vrijednosti. Prirodni procesi u interakciji s antropogenim pritiscima značajan su pokretač promjena u njihovim prirodnim sistemima i predstavlja značajan izazov za očuvanje biološke raznolikosti i georaznolikosti, ali i za upravljanje ekosistemom (Gray i dr., 2013). Takvi rizici prepoznati su od šire znanstvene zajednice koja se zalaže za očuvanje ekosistema, georaznolikosti i geobaštine, te njihovo pravednije i održivo korištenje. Pritom se značaj georaznolikosti posmatra s aspekta usluga koje određeno zaštićeno prirodno područje pruža, odnosno potreba koje se u njemu mogu zadovoljiti (tzv. Geosistemske usluge). Povezano s tim, usluge ekosistema se klasificiraju u tri kategorije: usluge opskrbe (prehrana, građa i energija), usluge regulacije i podržavanja (ublažavanje štetnog djelovanja otpada, toksičnih i drugih štetnih tvari, ublažavanje pojave i efekata odrona, poplava i zračnih strujanja i održavanje fizikalnih, hemijskih i bioloških uvjeta) i kulturološke usluge (fizičke i intelektualne interakcije s ekosistemima i krajobrazima te duhovne, simboličke i ostale interakcije s ekosistemima i krajobrazima) (AZO, 2015). Zbog takvog svoga značenja, zaštićena prirodna područja najvredniji su dijelovi prirode sa aspekta njihove suštinske ili egzistencijalne vrijednosti, zatim kulturne, estetske, ekonomske, funkcionalne te naučne i obrazovne vrijednosti (Gray, 2004). Zaštićena prirodna područja svih kategorija u recentnom su razdoblju izložena sve većem antropogenom pritisku svuda u svijetu (turizam, eksploatacija resursa, urbanizacija, neodgovarajuće upravljanje i sl.). Dosadašnje spoznaje ukazuju na to da je takvo stanje na primjeru Bosne i Hercegovine rezultat kumulativnog utjecaja više faktora: neposrednih učinaka rata tokom prve polovine 1990-ih godina, stihijskog poslijeratnog razvoja, postojeće upravno-teritorijalne organizacije države, neodgovarajuće zakonske regulative, nepostojanja adekvatne prostorno-planske i okolišne dokumentacije, te nepostojanja adekvatnih službi upravljanja (i/ili finansijski problemi njihovog adekvatnog funkcioniranja). Tako je i nadležnost nad nacionalnim parkovima i upravljanje istim u Bosni i Hercegovini regulirana na entitetskom nivou (Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine i Republika Srpska). Dio nadležnosti u oblasti zaštite prirode uređen je na državnom nivou i odnosi se na sprovođenje međunarodnih obaveza Bosne i Hercegovine (praćenje i koordinacija pripreme za zaključivanje i implementaciju međunarodnih sporazuma, koordinacija za projekte u saradnji s međunarodnim organizacijama, programima i fondovima, koordinacija saradnje sa institucionalnim strukturama u Bosni i Hercegovini, entitetima i Distriktu Brčko). Nadležnosti državnog nivoa pripadaju uglavnom Ministarstvu spoljnje trgovine i ekonomskih odnosa Bosne i Hercegovine, a manjim dijelom Ministarstvu civilnih poslova (npr. konvencija UNESCO-a). U takvim uvjetima, planski dokumenti za upravljanje prirodnim područjima dosta su uopćeni, bez strategije na državnom nivou nemaju dugoročne razvojne ciljeve, kao ni definirane mjere za postizanje održivog razvoja. Planski dokumenti koji uključuju područja nacionalnih parkova nisu u potpunosti usklađeni ni po vertikalnoj (država – entiteti - kantoni - općine), niti po horizontalnoj liniji (između različitih kantona i općina, pa i prekogranična područja). Takvo stanje nalaže potrebu pobližeg razmatranja opterećenosti prostora i stepena ugroženosti okoliša u nacionalnim parkovima Bosne i Hercegovine. U realizaciji istraživanja primjenjene su brojne, opće i posebne, naučne metode. Od općih naučnih metoda korištene su: metoda prostorne analize, metoda analize upravljačkih planova, geostatistička metoda, kvantitativna metoda, metoda usporedne analize (komparativna metoda), metoda intervjua, te sinteza svih prikupljenih i analiziranih podataka. Pored njih, korištene su i specifične istraživačke metode, kao što su: metoda terenskih opservacija, metoda geoekološkog vrednovanja prostora i GIS-metoda.
Article
The concept of “geoheritage” that has emerged as a new discipline over the last few years has advocated for the preservation of geological features, such as landforms, towards a cultural perspective. It aims for the conservation of geological entities referred to as “geosites”, that are significant from geoscience education point of view, as well as for the development of local “geotourism”. In this paper, five potential geosites located across India have been identified. The “geosites” identified are located in the states of Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. These five geosites are located in five different geological terrains, and the idea of proposing these geosites is that they are uniquely significant from geological, geomorphological as well as cultural perspective. These geosites are significant for geoscience education, and have scope for the development of “geotourism”. Hence, these geological entities need to be conserved for the forthcoming generations of geoscientists, researchers, students and science enthusiasts, in addition to growth and development of the local tourism.
Article
Full-text available
Karst is a peculiar natural landscape arising from high rock solubility and well-developed underground solutional channel porosity. It is unique for its surface relief (exokarst) and subsurface drainage, including cave systems (endokarst). In Portugal, karst areas mainly consist of marginal or low-density territories with great fragility and vulnerability and great geo-environmental rich-ness that merits better policies and practices regarding their geo-conservation. Endokarst potential assessments can provide decision-makers and local authorities insight into present and future terri-torial management and planning. In this context, the main objective of this study was to produce a cartographic model to identify areas with a greater probability of containing karstic caves—i.e., a greater endokarst potential—in the northern sector of the Santo António Plateau (Estremadura Limestone Massif, Central Portugal). Geological, topographic, hydrogeological, and land cover data were collected, processed, and integrated into a spatial database using a Geographic Information System. The locations of known cave entrances in the study area were also identified from local public institutions and speleological team records. Subsequently, four conditioning factors were ex-tracted from the data: lithostratigraphic units, fracture density, relief energy, and land cover. Using a multi-criteria decision-making analysis, each previously chosen conditioning factor and its respective classes were weighted using an analytic hierarchy process. The locations of known cave entrances served to evaluate the cartographic model built, with results showing an agreement of 81.9%. This prototype of the endokarst potential map for the study area may be used for strategic and operational environmental planning (at least on a local scale) to assist decision-makers, competent authorities, and local speleological teams. Its application may promote a more accurate and thoughtful definition of areas to be investigated, substantially reducing the time and costs associated with field prospecting.
Article
Full-text available
In the relatively small area of the National Park (NP) „Kopaonik“ a lot of exogenous and endogenous processes took part and continue to act until present day. In this paper are presented the geotouristic resources evaluation results for six geosites in the NP „Kopaonik“. The experts on this field gave their assessment in three versions. The first one is concerned with the evaluation of the educative contents, the second one is concerned with the evaluation of geotouristic values, while the third version, which is based on the Modified Geosite Assessment Model (M-GAM) offers the assessment regarding education, aesthetic significance, protection, functional and touristic values. The M-GAM method takes in consideration the opinion of visitors along with the estimation of subindicators given by experts, on whom relies the previous two versions. The include of visitors in the evaluation process leads to more objective estimations. Results obtained by this study can be useful for the improvement and planning of touristic activities on geosites because, bearing in mind their significance for the tourists, they indicate on the lower values that require more attention in the future.
Article
Full-text available
Slovenia is considered as the cradle of karst geotourism as cave tourism started there as early as the Middle Ages. To date more than 12,000 caves were discovered from which 22 have the status of tourist caves. From these, 10 were assessed using the M-GAM model (Modified Geosite Assessment Model) to gain information for better future management strategies. The results show that visitors of Slovenian tourist caves mostly appreciate their natural values, as they prefer caves without major tourism infrastructure and they pay attention to their protection status. The model also confirmed that the two most important tourist caves (Postojna Cave and Škocjan Caves) have the leading geotourism role and that the management of tourist caves via a regional park as is the case of Škocjan Caves is an example of good practice.
Article
Full-text available
The region of Eastern Serbia is a highly dominant karst terrain with numerous geological and geomorphological features, especially caves. The speleotourism potential of these caves and other geosites still remains fully unrevealed. In this paper, we analyzed several caves with immense geotourism potential. These caves include Ceremošnja Cave, Ravništarka Cave, Resavska Cave, Rajkova Cave, Lazareva Cave and Vernjikica Cave. The aim of this paper is to emphasize the speleotourism potential of Eastern Serbia and to determine the current state and speleotourism potential of caves located in this area by applying the modified geosite assessment model (M-GAM). The results indicate that further speleotourism development should primarily be focused towards Rajkova Cave which has the highest main values. The results also emphasize the importance of additional (tourist) values which are currently at a low level among all analyzed geosites. This especially refers to tour guide service, interpretive panels and promotional activities which proved to be key elements at these types of destinations. Major improvement of these elements is necessary in the future in order to attract a larger number of visitors to these sites.
Article
Full-text available
The region of Homolje in Eastern Serbia represents an area rich with numerous geological and geomorphological features, especially karst formations which are excellent representatives of this area's geodiversity. However, the geotourism potential of these geosites still remains fully unrevealed. In this paper we analyzed the most representative ones based mainly on their aesthetic value as well as their geotourism potential. The aim of this paper is to emphasize the geotourism potential of Homolje and to determine its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as well as interactions between them when it comes to tourism development. The results of the SWOT and TOWS analysis indicate that Homolje as a tourist destination possesses immense geotourism potential but is still in the exploration phase according to the Butler tourist cycle of destination evolution. Research results also identify four different strategies which can be applied as solutions for current problems and for further tourism development.
Article
Full-text available
Geosites are sites of scientific interest based on geology or geomorphology that can serve various purposes such as research, conservation, education, tourism, and sustainable development. Quantifying their value to potential visitors and researchers is widely recognized as a useful tool for the effective development and management and for the protection of geological heritage of a certain area. Although many quantitative evaluation schemes have been proposed for various types of sites in Europe, over the past two decades, the schemes can give widely variable results for the same sites due to differences in needs and expectations, which can present difficulties for inter-site comparison for management purposes. It therefore remains necessary to develop a uniform evaluation scheme with low overall complexity to assist with prioritization and management. This study presents a new evaluation scheme based on the most commonly used attributes for quantifying geosites as applied to geomorphological landscapes and geological processes with natural and/or cultural heritage. The utility of the evaluation scheme is demonstrated through application to selected geosites in Japan, Germany, and Poland. The results clearly show the present condition of geosites, identify their promotional advantages and disadvantages, and provide a widely applicable reference for planning and development of such sites for geotourism.
Chapter
An outstanding collection of international case studies that provide insight into and suggest best practice for issues such as conservation, risk management, education, marketing, interpretation and technology of actual and developing geotourism sites.
Article
Geotourism as a relatively new form of tourism becomes more and more popular in the world in last years. It primarily depends on geosites (geological heritage) which identification and subsequent assessment are important steps in the process of geotourism development and protection of geosites. Based on the internationally accepted concept of geotourism, an importance of geosite identifications and assessments is undisputable, with special emphasis on presentation of geosites to the general (laic) public which interest is essential for geotourism progress. The work presents research results of criteria affecting the visit of geosites by the general public, on the example of Slovak (geo)tourists. These results represent an important source of information for planning actions related towards general public visitors. Moreover, as indicated by findings of the research, professionals and general public prefer different criteria defining geosite importance and utilization of its geotourism potential. Therefore, both approaches should be implemented in further geotourism development activities. FULL TEXT AVAILABLE AT: http://rdcu.be/Ez3K
Article
Thirty geosites representing ancient volcanism in the West Sudetes are subject to quantitative, multi-variant evaluation that takes into account the geoscientific background and likely preferences of visitors. To account for the diversity of visitors, different weightings of criteria included in the evaluation procedures are applied. Four rankings were prepared: a ‘non-weighted’ one and three ‘customer-oriented’. Differences between rankings are relatively small, although notable individual exceptions are noted. Top positions in different rankings are invariably occupied by the same group of geosites which are highlights of the region, although apparently for different purposes. However, scientific, educational, additional and scenic values may be causally related. Some geosites are of outstanding significance for the geoscientific community but appear less appealing to others, particularly unaware visitors. The results of the exercise may assist in resource allocation for developing interpretative facilities and diversifying the level of interpretation between geosites.
Article
As the geotourism as relatively new part of natural and environmental sciences rapidly grows in last decades, many researchers have tried to define a method or model to set specific value of "geo-objects" in different ways. The aim of this paper is to review existing geosite assessment method proposed by Rybár (2010) and, based on this existing method, to define more applicable and easier to understand model of object evaluations which are attractive from geotourism point of view. Resulting evaluation score of this modified assessment method is more informative on the object features and gives more precise picture of the value of the geosites or geotourism attractive objects.