Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Beyond Geodiversity Sites: Exploring the Educational Potential
of Widespread Geological Features (Rocks, Minerals and Fossils)
PawełWolniewicz
1
Received: 27 November 2020 /Accepted: 24 March 2021
#The Author(s) 2021
Abstract
Geosite and geodiversity site inventories are among the most important means of geological diversity conservation and promo-
tion. However, there are other in situ geological features that have significant educational potential and are not included in many
inventories, namely, localities of widespread rock types, common minerals and fossil-bearing strata. In this paper, a broad
utilisation of these petrographic, mineralogical and palaeontological geodiversity elements for geoscience communication pur-
poses is postulated, with a case study that focuses on the geological heritage of Poland. A simple quantitative framework for the
evaluation of the educational potential of rock types is used for the assessment of preselected geological units on the geological
map of Poland. The preferences of potential geotourists are estimated using the interactive web-based map. The promotional
materials are written for the most distinctive rock types and geological units that scored the highest in the assessment procedure
and/or were most frequently selected by users. This procedure stimulates geodiversity promotion in areas where few geosites and
geodiversity sites are documented and no educational activities or interpretative facilities are available, potentially increasing the
number of geotourism destinations. The rocks and minerals utilised here are exposed over large areas and can be sampled and
studied by untrained collectors without any loss of geodiversity. Shifting the involvement of individuals interested in geosciences
from extraordinary to more common rocky outcrops helps to protect the geological heritage and enhances conservation of the
most spectacular features for future generations. Field activities such as individual searching and studying outcrops, in turn, play
an important role in learning in geosciences, facilitating the acquisition of knowledge and encouraging interdisciplinary thinking.
Future improvements could include expanding the applicability of the evaluation method, employment of a location-based
learning approach #and more detailed studies of the preferences of potential geotourists.
Keywords Geodiversity elements .Geodiversity evaluation .Scientific communication .Geo-education
Introduction
Geosites and geodiversity sites are in situ occurrences of
geodiversity elements which provide scientific and education-
al value, respectively (for definitions, see Brilha 2016), and
are considered as deserving geoconservation measures (Brocx
and Semeniuk 2007;deLimaetal.2010;Gordon2019).
Although the term geosite (geodiversity site) can be applied
to vast areas of geological interest, such as whole outcrops and
reserves (ProGEO 2011), in most cases, it is attributed to
individual geological objects and particular localities that
can be easily managed, with the exception of larger landforms
and/or geomorphosites. This facilitates geodiversity protec-
tion but concentrates geotouristic interest on specific, often
unique geological structures, which can lead to their degrada-
tion. Moreover, this usually excludes vast areas of the geolog-
ical heritage pool that are less interesting for potential
geotourists, being located outside geoparks and other
protected areas or having not yet been assessed. Another im-
plication is that geosites and geodiversity sites can be per-
ceived as tourist attractions that are not spatially related to
one another, hampering the possibility of understanding the
broader context of geological structure and impoverishing
geological field education by limiting it to a “standard”set
of geosites (van Loon 2008). On the other hand, judging from
the author’s experience in maintaining a geo-educational
website (zywaplaneta.pl, in Polish, available online since
2011), most visitors’inquiries are not related to particular
*PawełWolniewicz
pawelw@amu.edu.pl
1
Institute of Geology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Bogumiła
Krygowskiego 12, PL-61-680 Poznań,Poland
Geoheritage (2021) 13:34
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00557-9
geosites and geodiversity sites but to widespread rock types,
minerals and fossils that are accidentally or purposefully
found by amateur collectors in their vicinity or during holi-
days. This genuine interest in petrographic, mineralogical and
palaeontological in situ geodiversity elements is largely unex-
ploited within the framework of standard, preselected geosites
and tourist attractions. Thus, there is an urgent need for com-
prehensive educational efforts to promote geological features
beyond well-documented sites.
In this conceptual work, a broader utilisation of the educa-
tional potential of geodiversity elements such as outcrops of
widespread rock types that are not protected or included in
geosite inventories and can be studied by individual
geotourists is postulated, with a case study that focuses on
the geological diversity of Poland. A set of distinct rock types
that have significant educational potential (mostly easily dis-
tinguishable rocks with many accessible outcrops across the
country) is identified. These geodiversity elements can be col-
lected by any individual if good sampling practices are follow-
ed, thereby enhancing the possibility of performing fieldwork
and other informal educational activities; they are utilised to
disseminate knowledge of geological history and the basic
features of minerals and rocks.
On a limited scale, widespread rock types and other
geodiversity elements are already being utilised in outdoor
exhibits such as rock gardens to educate the community about
the importance of local geology (Elmi et al. 2020) and to
summarise the geological heritage of urban areas (Moliner
and Mampel 2019). They frequently serve as an extension to
an indoor museum or are used to offer workshops and guided
tours to involve the general public. For lists of selected rock
gardens, see Waldron et al. (2016) and Moliner and Mampel
(2019).
Geological Setting
The territory of Poland is located at the junction of distinct
geological and geomorphological units (Fig. 1a). The struc-
tural heterogeneity results in a significant variety of exposed
rock types. Northern and central regions of the country belong
to the East European Platform (north-eastern part) and
Palaeozoic Platform of Western Europe (south-western part)
and were covered by Pleistocene ice sheets that shaped the
landscape of this area (Słomka 2008). Numerous rock types
derived from the Scandinavian Peninsula, the bottom of the
Baltic Sea and Finland and Estonia were transported within
the ice sheets and deposited in tills and fluvioglacial gravels
and sands.
Pre-Quaternary rocks are mainly exposed in southern
Poland (Fig. 1b). Its south-western part (the Sudety
Mountains and the Sudetic Foreland) is a Variscan orogen
which mostly comprises folded and metamorphosed
Palaeozoic rocks that have been uplifted along the Sudetic
Marginal Fault (Badura et al. 2004). These rocks are intruded
by the Carboniferous granitoids and unconformably overlain
by the Carboniferous to Permian sedimentary-volcanic se-
quences and the Triassic to Cretaceous sedimentary cover.
In the Polish Uplands, Caledonian and Variscan fold belts
are only partially exposed, being otherwise covered by
Permian to Neogene sediments that were uplifted during the
Alpine orogeny (Słomka 2008). Sedimentary rocks
(Cambrian to Neogene in age) predominate, with subordinate
Carboniferous and Permian volcanic units. The southern
fringes of Poland are occupied by the Carpathians that repre-
sent the part of the Alpine orogenic belt and are composed
predominantly of flysch and other sedimentary rocks, folded
and thrustedover the Fore-Carpathian Depression. The names
of geological units used in the present work follow Warowna
et al. (2013), while the division of geographical regions of
Poland is based on Solon et al. (2018).
Methods
Although the criteria for evaluating geosites and geodiversity
sites are well defined (Reynard et al. 2007;Kubalíková2013;
Tomićand Božić2014;Brilha2016; Reynard et al. 2016), and
the methodology for qualitative evaluation of interpretative
resources has been developed (Sanz et al. 2020), no frame-
work for quantitative assessment of the educational potential
of rock types has been proposed before. A simple approach to
the evaluation of common rock types for the purpose of pro-
moting geodiversity is, therefore, introduced in this study. The
selection, assessment and promotion of rocks are performed in
the following steps:
1. Preselection of rock types
2. Preselection of glacial erratics
3. Numerical evaluation of educational value
4. Estimation of the public’sdemand
5. Scientific communication
Preselection of Rock Types
The initial list of rocks that are exposed in Poland were re-
trieved from the 1:500,000 scale geological map of Poland,
published by the Polish Geological Institute (Marks et al.
2006) and available via the open government data platform
(https://dane.gov.pl/pl/dataset/772,mapa-geologiczna-polski-
w-skali-1500-000), to ensure the transparency of the
preliminary selection procedure. For discussion on the
objectivity of the preselection process in the geodiversity
assessment, see Reynard et al. (2016). The map allowed us
to define the geological framework of the study area prior to
34 Page 2 of 17 Geoheritage (2021) 13:34
a
b
Fig. 1 Geological framework of
the study area. aMain geological
units of Poland. bPre-Quaternary
rocks exposed in Poland and the
extent of the Pleistocene glacia-
tions. 1, Sudety Mountains and
Sudetic Foreland; 2, Fore-Sudetic
Monocline; 3, Silesia Upland; 4,
Kraków-Częstochowa Upland; 5,
Małopolska Upland; 6, Holy
Cross Mountains; 7, Lublin
Upland; 8, Tatra and Pieniny
Mountains
Geoheritage (2021) 13:34 Page 3 of 17 34
the evaluation process which, according to de Lima et al.
(2010), is important when large areas are involved, particular-
ly on a state-wide scale. The procedure guaranteed that the
initial list of rock types was representative of the study area.
Geological units that refer to glacial landscape features
(e.g. kame, esker, sandur, moraine plateau) and Pleistocene
to Holocene fluvial and lake deposits were excluded from
the database at this initial stage. Sedimentary rocks that out-
crop in the same area and were deposited during the same
epoch (for Cenozoic) and the same period (for older rocks)
were included under a single unit in the database. Similar
types of magmatic and metamorphic rocks (i.e. different types
of gneisses), which occur in the same area and would be dif-
ficult to distinguish by non-geologists, were merged into one
type. For a complete list of rock types, including deleted and
combined types, see Online resource 1.
Preselection of Basic Types of Glacial Erratics
The glacial landforms comprising gravel- to megagravel-rich
sediments (Blair and McPherson 1999), namely, moraine pla-
teaus, end moraines and eskers, that are included in the geo-
logical map of Poland but were omitted from the preselection
stage were added to the database as a separate entity (tills,
fluvioglacial gravels). These boulder- and block-sized clasts
that are commonin tills and gravels were mostly derived from
the Scandinavian Peninsula and adjacent areas and then
transported by the Pleistocene ice sheets. Glacial erratics
represent a heterogeneous group of rocks. For educational
purposes, they are one of the most distinct rock types and
are widespread in Pleistocene glacial deposits across Poland;
the easiest rock types to recognise by an untrained collector
were selected from the lists assembled by Czubla et al. (2006)
and Górska-Zabielska (2008). The selection process was sub-
jective and based on earlier conversations between the author
and amateur collectors visiting the Museum of the Earth
Sciences in Poznań, Poland. Selected rock types are included
in Table 1and in Fig. 2.
Numerical Evaluation of Educational Value
A parametric method for the evaluation of the educational
potential of petrographic geodiversity elements is developed
in this paper. The criteria used here partly follow those pro-
posed for geomorphosite assessment by Bruschi et al. (2011)
and are listed in Table 2with the justification for their use.
Ts,Np,Lp, and Ap values (Table 2) were calculated in
QGIS software using the open data sets regarding national
parks, nature reserves and landscape parks in Poland from
the Geoserwis repository (https://www.gdos.gov.pl/access-
to-geospatial-data). Scores of the binary parameters Bs and
Ds were obtained by the author through queries in existing
publications. Gc was estimated using the list of geological
concepts from the Earth Science Literacy Principles
(Wysession et al. 2012); for each rock type, a list of geological
phenomena and processes that can be interpreted from these
rocks was compiled by the author (Table 3).
The variable Np is log-normally distributed (Shapiro-Wilk
normality test for Np returns W=0.18467,pvalue = 1.372e-
15; for ln(Np) W =0.96983,pvalue = 0.1986). The natural
logarithms of Np values were thus used and scaled to the range
between 0 and 100:
Npnorm ¼lnNp−minlnNp
maxlnNp−minlnNp
*100 ð1Þ
Gc is an ordinal variable and is normalised between 0 and
100:
Gcnorm ¼Gc−minGc
maxGc−minGc
*100 ð2Þ
The parameters listed in Table 2and derived from Eqs. (1)
and (2) are integrated in the rock type educational value index
(Rt), introduced here and expressed as:
Rt ¼Npnorm*0:5ðÞþAp*0:15ðÞ
þBs þDs þGcnorm
ðÞ*0:3½þLp*0:05ðÞ ð3Þ
Rt is obtained by a weighted average of its criteria and takes
values between 0 and 100 per cent; higher values indicate a
greater geo-educational potential. The weights in Eq. (3)are
based on the relative importance of each factor (estimated by
the author’s judgement), with Np regarded as being the most
significant (because rock types exposed over wider areas are
easier to be found by an untrained collector) and Bs+Ds+Gc
as the second most important (if a higher number of geological
processes are interpretable from the rock, this increases its
educational potential; the use of rock as a building or decora-
tive stone facilitates its utilisation in geotourism). Ap is con-
sidered as less important, because outcrops of anthropogenic
origin located in densely populated areas can potentially be
utilised for geo-educational purposes. Lp is the least important
parameter and receives the lowest weight: it is related to the
nature conservation categories of Poland (Badora 2014), and
its usage in other countries will require the expressions to be
revised.
Estimation of the Public’s Demand
A study of preferences from the general public should accom-
pany the expert evaluation and numerical assessment of
geosites (Božićand Tomić2015;Różycka and Migoń2018;
Štrba 2019). To measure the level of interest among
geotourists in geological units and rock types selected during
the earlier stages of the research, an interactive geological map
of Poland was used. The map, based on OpenStreetMap.org
34 Page 4 of 17 Geoheritage (2021) 13:34
Table 1 List of geological units and rock types preselected from the 1:500,000 scale geological map of Poland
Number Age General rock types and geological units derived from the geological map of Poland
Sedimentary rocks
1 Pleistocene Tills, fluvioglacial gravels (moraine plateaus, end moraines, eskers, kames)
Glacial erratics:
–Basalts from Skåne (southern Sweden)
–Granites from Dalarna (central Sweden) and Småland (southeastern Sweden)
–“Porphyries”from Baltic Sea bottom, Dalarna, and Småland
–Dalarna/Jotnian/Kalmar sandstones
–Silurian carbonates from Gotland, Sweden (with brachiopods, corals, crinoids, nautiloids and trilobites)
–Jurassic and Cretaceous flints from Baltic Sea bottom and northern Poland
2Quaternary Loess
3 Neogene Clays, silts and sands
4 Neogene Sands and silts with lignite
5 Miocene Limestones and gypsum of the Fore-Carpathian Depression
6 Eocene-Oligocene Sands with amber, silts, clays
7 Eocene-Oligocene Podhale flysch (shales, mudstones, sandstones)
8 Eocene Nummulitic limestones of the Tatra Mts.
9 Palaeogene Gaizes, limestones and glauconitic sands of the Lublin Upland
10 Cretaceous-Oligocene Carpathian flysch
11 Cretaceous Sandstones and marls of the Sudety Mts.
12 Cretaceous Limestones and sandstones with cherts, marls, phosphorites, gaizes
13 Jurassic-Cretaceous Cieszyn limestones and shales
14 Jurassic-Cretaceous Sedimentary rocks of the Pieniny Mts. (limestones, cherty limestones, radiolarites, sandstones)
15 Upper Jurassic Limestones with ammonites and sponge bioherms
16 Middle Jurassic Limestones, marls, claystones with siderites
17 Lower Jurassic Continental and coastal sandstones and mudstones with dinosaur traces
18 Upper Triassic Fluvial sandstones, gypsum-rich mudstones and claystones, with vertebrate remains
19 Middle Triassic Organodetritic limestones and dolomites
20 Lower Triassic Red sandstones, conglomerates and claystones
21 Triassic-Cretaceous Mesozoic sedimentary rocks of the Tatra Mts. (sandstones, shales, limestones, dolomite, radiolarites and marls)
22 Permian Red conglomerates, sandstones and mudstones of the Holy Cross Mts., with gypsum and halite
23 Permian Red sandstones, mudstones, limestones and dolomite, with gypsum and halite
24 Carboniferous-Permian Continental deposits of the Kraków area (conglomerates, arkose sandstones)
25 Carboniferous Hard coal, sandstones and mudstones
26 Carboniferous Greywackes, conglomerates and limestones of the Holy Cross Mts.
27 Devonian Devonian limestones and sandstones of the Holy Cross Mts. and Kraków area
28 Silurian Graptolithic claystones and siliceous shales
29 Ordovician Graptolithic shales and sandstones of the Sudety Mts.
30 Ordovician Sandstones and limestones of the Holy Cross Mountains
31 Cambrian Dolomites, limestones and shales of the Sudety Mts.
32 Cambrian Quartz sandstones and mudstones of the Holy Cross Mts.
33 Ediacaran Lusatian greywackes
Sedimentary rocks with subordinate volcanics and greenstones
34 Carboniferous Conglomerates, sandstones, mudstones and rhyolites
35 Devonian-Carboniferous Conglomerates, greywackes, limestones, with subordinate rhyolites and greenstones
36 Devonian-Carboniferous Fanglomerates, olistostrome deposits, conglomerates, mudstones and greenstones
Igneous rocks
37 Neogene Andesites of the Pieniny Mts.
38 Oligocene-Pliocene Lower Silesian Cenozoic basaltoids
39 Cretaceous Teschenites
Geoheritage (2021) 13:34 Page 5 of 17 34
data and JavaScript library Leaflet.js, records the coordinates
of the mouse clicks made by anonymous users, with the
number of clicks per rock type and per square kilometre of
rock exposure being calculated. Clicks on the exposures of
geological units preselected in the first stage open a new
window in which the photographs and descriptions of the
corresponding rock types are shown (Fig. 3).
The interactive map has been available from January
2020 at https://zywaplaneta.pl/mapa-geologiczna-polski/,on
the geo-educational website zywaplaneta.pl, created and
maintained by the author. The geographical coordinates of
mouse clicks were counted between January and July 2020.
The website currently attracts approximately 22,000 unique
visitors per month (measured from January 2020 to
June 2020); the readers that communicated with the author
described themselves as teachers, students, parents of children
interested in geosciences and amateur collectors. Pages that
contain the lists of geological museums, caves opened for
tourists, underground routes and dinosaur parks are among
the most popular pages on the website, which confirms its
usefulness for investigating the preferences of amateurs inter-
ested in geosciences. According to Štrba (2019), most
geotourists search for the information on geosites on the
Internet; thus online communication channels are perceived
to be the most appropriate for studying their demands.
Promotion and Scientific Communication
The information on the geological units and rock types that
scored highest and are included in the final list, considered
here as having the best potential for educative activities, has
been communicated to the public using both online and face-
to-face channels. Detailed index cards on each rock type have
been included in the interactive geological map of Poland. A
short, 78-page e-book that aims at teaching the features of
minerals and principles for the recognition of rocks, with ref-
erences to the corresponding rock types from the database, is
also published (in Polish), together with short explanations on
how the rocks involved in the project were formed and how
their history is related to the geological history of Europe and
the Earth as a whole. Educational workshops for children,
covering the topics related to the most common rock types
found in glacial and fluvioglacial deposits and Polish rocks
and fossils, were organised by the Museum of Earth Sciences
in Poznań.
Digital content relating to the project under study has been
published at the zywaplaneta.pl website between March 2015
and May 2020. Twelve web pages were viewed 3650 times
per month (data for the period from January to June 2020). A
PDF file that contains e-book and supplemental material has
been downloaded 242 times during the same period.
Educational workshops held at the Museum of the Earth
Sciences in Poznań, between 2015 and 2019, were attended
by over 300 participants.
Results
One hundred thirty-five geological and landscape units of the
geological map of Poland were reduced to 53 basic items
during the preselection stage. Twenty-six sediment types and
landforms associated with Pleistocene and Holocene sedi-
ments (except for the megagravel-rich and loess deposits in-
cluded on the list as separate units) were removed from the
Table 1 (continued)
Number Age General rock types and geological units derived from the geological map of Poland
40 Carboniferous-Permian Rhyolites, rhyodacite, trachybasalts and trachites
41 Carboniferous Variscan granitoids (granites, monzogranites and granodiorites)
42 Silurian-Devonian Gabbros
43 Cambrian-Ordovician Cadomian granites (with orthogneisses)
44 Ediacaran-Cambrian Lusatian granodiorites
Metamorphic rocks
45 Carboniferous Cataclasites and tectonic breccias
46 Devonian Quartzites and quartzite shales
47 Silurian-Devonian Serpentinites and peridotites
48 Ordovician-Carboniferous Phyllites, shales and siliceous shales
49 Ordovician-Devonian Greenstones and greenstone schists
50 Cambrian-Ordovician Gneisses, migmatites and amphibolites of the Owl Mts. and Śnieżnik Mts.
51 Cambrian-Ordovician Granulites and eclogites
52 Cambrian-Devonian Gneisses, migmatites, amphibolites of the Tatra Mts.
53 Ediacaran-Ordovician Mica schists, marbles and leptinites
34 Page 6 of 17 Geoheritage (2021) 13:34
database, while the other 109 rock types and geological units
were aggregated into 52 units (Online resource 1). Within tills
and fluvioglacial gravels of moraine plateaus, end moraines
and eskers, six basic groups of erratic rocks of Scandinavian
origin were selected by the author. The rock types included in
the database have abundant and accessible outcrops scattered
over an area of 164,469 km
2
, covering 52.61% of the total area
of Poland.
In the subsequent step of the study, Rt was obtained for
preselected rock types, and 15 rock types that scored the
highest Rt values (higher than 60 per cent) were chosen for
further educational efforts (Table 4and Fig. 4; for details on
the calculation of Rt, see Online resource 2). Outcrops of
selected rocks and geological units cover 50.01% of the terri-
tory of Poland (156,367 km
2
).
The estimations of general public preferences obtained
from the digital geological map of Poland are summarised in
Table 4. The interactive map has been actively used by 1504
unique visitors, generating 8917 clicks. Hard coal, sandstones
and mudstones (geological unit no. 25); Cadomian granites/
orthogneisses (43); and phyllites (48) received Rt scores less
than 60% but were clicked on more than one hundred times.
They were, therefore, added to the list of selected rock types.
This expanded the area of exposures of the 18 selected rock
types to 158,181 km
2
and 50.59% of the country’sarea(Figs.
5and 6).
The largest number of clicks per unit area were recorded on
rocks exposed over small areas, mostly within national parks
and reserves(e.g. in the Tatra and Pieniny Mountains), but the
total number of clicks on their outcrops did not exceed 40.
ab
cd
ed
Fig. 2 Most distinct glacial
erratics that are widespread in
Pleistocene glacial deposits of
Poland, selected for the study.
Scale bars equal 5 cm. aSkåne
basalt. bSmåland granite. c
“Porphyry”.dDalarna/Jotnian
sandstone. eSilurian limestone
with brachiopods. fMesozoic
flint with belemnite
Geoheritage (2021) 13:34 Page 7 of 17 34
Therefore, these rocks were not included in the list of selected
rock types.
Within the petrographic geodiversity elements that scored
highest or were clicked >100 times, sedimentary rocks are
represented most widely (12 rock types), followed by meta-
morphic (4) and then igneous (3); both igneous and sedimen-
tary rocks appear in tills and fluvioglacial gravels.
Sedimentary rocks include clastic rocks (9) and biochemical/
chemical rocks (7), with Devonian and Cretaceous deposits of
the Polish Uplands, Carboniferous coal-bearing rocks and er-
ratic boulders belonging to both categories. The age of the
rocks ranged from the Mesoproterozoic (1), Palaeozoic (9)
and Mesozoic (7) to the Cenozoic (4). Erratic boulders are
most common in northern and central Poland, while other rock
types can be found in the Sudety Mountains and the Sudety
Foreland (8 rock types); the Małopolska Upland, including the
Holy Cross Mountains (7); the Kraków-Częstochowa Upland
(5); the Lublin Upland (2); the Silesia Upland (2); and the
Carpathians (1); some rock types appear in more than one
geographical region.
Discussion
The procedure described here accelerates the promotion of
geodiversity in areas where few geosites/geodiversity sites
Table 2 Criteria for evaluating
the geo-educational potential of
rock types outcropping in Poland
Criterion Rationale
Ts Total surface area of geological units and/or ex-
posures (in km
2
)
The highest geo-educational potential is exhibited
by rocks that crop out over a significant area.
This increases the number of natural exposures
and enables sampling without significant loss of
geodiversity
Np Percentage of rock type surface area located
outside existing reserves and national parks
(0–100%)
Outcrops within national parks and reserves, which
cover ca. 3.5% of the country area (Badora
2014), are not suitable for geo-educational
purposes,because the sampling and collecting of
rocks, even for educational and private use, is
prohibited in most cases
Lp Percentage of exposure area located within
landscape parks and protected landscape areas
(0–100%)
Landscape parks and protected landscape areas
account for ca. 30% of the total country area (for
a discussion on these nature conservation
categories in Poland, see Badora 2014). The ac-
cess to outcrops is not limited there, rock sam-
pling for private use is allowed, and high land-
scape value improves the geo-educational po-
tential of natural exposures
Ap Percentage of exposure area located outside
densely populated areas, i.e. outside the
boundaries of towns
Natural rock exposures are rare and poor within
urban areas in most cases, offering a limited
availability of field work activities. Outcrops
located in densely populated areas are excluded
in the evaluation
Gc Number of geological and/or geomorphological
processes and concepts that are clearly visible or
interpretable (ordinal variable)
A list of geological concepts and processes is
extracted from the Earth Science Literacy
Principles (Wysession et al. 2012) and outlined
in Table 3. Rock types that allow studying many
geological concepts and processes exhibit higher
educational potential
Bs Active exploitation for building and/or decorative
purposes (binary parameter)
Rock can be seen outside its natural exposure, in
urban areas, as building and/or decorative stone.
Polished rock surfaces provide an important re-
source for education (Brocx and Semeniuk
2019) and supplement natural occurrences of
rock with ex situ geodiversity elements. For rock
types not used for building and/or decorative
purposes, the value of this parameter is zero
Ds Use as a decorative stone in historical times (binary
parameter)
Rock type can be seen in historical monuments,
contributing to the promotion of geological
diversity among tourists who are interested
primarily in historical and cultural heritage
34 Page 8 of 17 Geoheritage (2021) 13:34
are documented and educational activities or interpretative
facilities are not available. It invites the participants of the
project to perform individual fieldwork and to explore
geodiversity elements in their direct surroundings. However,
Newsome and Dowling (2006) established a hierarchical or-
der of geological and geomorphological features of
geotouristic interest, with rocks and sediments described as
less attractive. This confirms the importance of spectacular
Table 3 Geological phenomena
explained byrock type/geological
unit
Geological phenomena explained by rock type/
geological unit (after ESLP)
Rock types (number refers to rock type/geological
unit number from Table 1)
Big Idea 2. Earth is 4.6 billion years old
2.1 Sequence of rocks and sediments 10, 21, 25, 26, 32, 34
2.1 Structure and properties of rocks and sediments 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 31, 36
2.1 Numerical ages of rocks 38, 41, 43, 50
2.1 Events in Earth’s history 1, 4, 5, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 40, 41, 43, 51
2.4 Oceanic and continental crust 41, 42, 47, 50, 51
2.6 Fossils 1, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30
2.7 Supercontinents 34, 40, 41
2.7 Ice sheets 1
Big Idea 3. Earth is a complex system of interacting rock, water, air and life
3.8 Changes to global and regional patterns of
temperature and precipitation
3, 4, 5, 12, 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 31
Big Idea 4. Earth is continuously changing
4.3 Plate tectonics 22, 27, 33, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 50, 51
4.3 Tectonic events 22, 24, 25, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 45, 48, 50,
51, 52, 53
4.5 Plate boundaries 41, 42, 43, 51
4.5 Locations of earthquakes and volcanoes 37, 38, 40
4.5 Mountain formation and erosion, location of
mountain ranges
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 34, 40, 41, 44, 45, 51
4.6 Magmatic processes, igneous rocks 1, 24, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 50
4.6 Alteration of older rocks, metamorphic rocks 21, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53
4.7 Weathering and erosion 2, 7, 20, 22, 24
4.8 Sediment transport 1, 20, 33, 36
4.9 Sea level and shoreline changes 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29
Big Idea 5. Earth is the water planet
5.5 Global ocean circulation 12, 14, 15, 23
5.6 Water-, wind- and ice-shaped landscapes 1, 2, 20
5.6 Water as transport agent 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25, 32
5.7 Ice Ages 1, 2
5.7 Frost weathering 1, 32
Big Idea 6. Life evolves on a dynamic Earth and continuously modifies Earth
6.2 Evolution and extinctions 12, 15, 18, 27
6.6 Mass extinctions 12, 22, 24
6.8 Fossil record as a means for understanding the
history of Earth’s geosphere
4, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 27, 28
Big Idea 7. Humans depend on Earth for resources
7.3 Non-renewable natural resources 16, 19, 23, 25
7.4 Unevenly distributed resources 4, 23, 25
7.9 Fossil fuels 4, 25
Big Idea 8. Natural hazards pose risks to humans
8.1 Volcanic eruptions 24, 37, 38, 40
8.1 Floods, landslides, coastal erosion, subsidence 10
Number of geological concepts refers to the list of Earth Science Literacy Principles (ESLP, Wysession et al.
2012)
Geoheritage (2021) 13:34 Page 9 of 17 34
geosites and geosite inventories as a means of geoheritage
promotion. According to Ruban and Kuo (2010), a special
impulse is needed to appreciate natural features such as min-
erals, rocks and fossils, and finding such items in the vicinity
or during recreational activities may be such a stimulus.
Memorable experiences related to geodiversity have the po-
tential of connecting people to geoheritage and increasing
support for geoconservation (Ruban and Kuo 2010). The ed-
ucational activities not related to geosites disperse the
geotouristic traffic, supporting protection of spectacular
geosites and preserving geological features for future research.
Most geological resources are non-renewable; this also applies
to geological features which, once altered or destroyed, are
unlikely to recover. Standard geodiversity sites can be dam-
aged by untrained collectors hunting for fossils and minerals.
The method introduced here has the potential of reducing the
number of visitors to geosites, directing the interest of the
public to local outcrops and geodiversity sites, reducing the
environmental impact of geotourist activity and fostering the
sustainable use of natural resources. The petrographic
geodiversity elements used in this study are common and
widespread and can, therefore, tolerate higher levels of educa-
tional use. Obtaining a fresh surface of rock or studying a
fossil in three dimensions is important for educational pur-
poses and helps people to grasp many geological concepts that
foster greater understanding of geological processes. To en-
able people to target outcrops where such actions are
acceptable and have no negative impact on site’s scientific
and aesthetic value helps amateurs in the understanding of
geological processes. This is particularly evident in the case
of rocks and fossils from glacial sediments. These are thrown
out from their stratigraphic context and are sufficiently abun-
dant to allow non-scientific collecting. Scientific provenance
analysis of glacial erratics requires the study of a significant
number of specimens from a single site; therefore sampling
for personal use will not prejudice future research. The same
applies to fossils from glacial deposits, which can be assigned
to category 4 in the classification scheme described by Page
(2003), i.e. the least necessary to protect.
The Pre-Quaternary rocks selected from central and south-
ern Poland are more problematic. They are widely distributed
and easily accessible and can be economically exploited with-
out any significant loss of geodiversity. However, some of the
exposures contain unique sedimentary structuresor fossils that
require in situ protection. The Lower Jurassic sandstone, in
which dinosaur tracks are preserved (Gerliński et al. 2004), is
a good example. Other geological sites with trace fossils can
potentially be discovered by amateur collectors using the dig-
ital assets provided in this project, and the future of such
exposures will depend on their awareness and good sampling
practices. The resources available via the Internet that promote
access to geosites can have a negative effect on their protec-
tion (Druguet et al. 2013). The issue is of great importance
because geological resources available via the Internet are the
Fig. 3 Screenshot showing a part of the interactive geological map of Poland, which is used for the estimation of general public preferences
34 Page 10 of 17 Geoheritage (2021) 13:34
Table 4 Results of the evaluation process and estimation of general public preferences
No. General rock types and geological units derived from the geological map of Poland (for
complete descriptions, see Table 1)
Rt Number of
clicks
Number of clicks per 400 km
2
of
the exposure
1 Tills, fluvioglacial gravels 94.21 2470 8.64
2Loess 64.32 673 17.37
3 Neogene clays 51.84 11 5.99
4 Neogene sands with lignite 59.16 94 26.3
5 Limestones and gypsum of the Fore-Carpathian Depression 72.29 69 23.22
6 Sands with amber 38.79 10 63.73
7 Podhale flysch 53.18 26 28.36
8 Nummulitic limestones 23.46 1 46.1
9 Gaizes, limestones and glauconitic sands 48.84 26 25.99
10 Carpathian flysch 80.78 607 18.26
11 Sandstones and marls of the Sudety Mts. 68.01 77 45.77
12 Cretaceous limestones with cherts and sandstones 82.87 166 10.86
13 Cieszyn limestones and shales 41.44 12 36.21
14 Sedimentary rocks of the Pieniny Mts. 50.25 14 60.7
15 Jurassic limestones with ammonites and sponges 75.32 216 69.68
16 Jurassic limestones and claystones with siderites 51.55 31 33
17 Jurassic sandstones with dinosaur traces 71.94 43 16.06
18 Triassic sandstones and claystones with vertebrate remains 53.05 41 36.35
19 Triassic organodetritic limestones and dolomites 69.67 116 56.42
20 Triassic sandstones, conglomerates and claystones 74.01 88 57.95
21 Mesozoic sedimentary rocks of the Tatra Mts. 20.00 41 214.92
22 Permian conglomerates of the Holy Cross Mts. 57.63 5 99.68
23 Permian sandstones, mudstones, limestones and dolomites 55.29 70 53.42
24 Continental deposits of the Kraków area 54.79 17 272.77
25 Hard coal, Carboniferous sandstones and mudstones 58.64 100 90.17
26 Carboniferous conglomerates and limestones of the Holy Cross Mts. 39.07 5 199.37
27 Devonian limestones and sandstones of the Holy Cross Mts. and Kraków area 72.46 127 120.34
28 Graptolithic shales 50.38 22 59.51
29 Graptolithic shales and sandstones of the Sudety Mts. 28.45 0 0
30 Ordovician sandstones and limestones 36.60 4 208.01
31 Cambrian limestones and shales of the Sudety Mts. 29.26 0 0
32 Cambrian sandstones and mudstones of the Holy Cross Mts. 52.35 62 91.96
33 Lusatian greywackes 34.56 3 91.92
34 Carboniferous conglomerates, sandstones, mudstones and rhyolites 51.86 16 17.02
35 Conglomerates with subordinate rhyolites and greenstones 43.85 4 20.31
36 Fanglomerates, olistostrome deposits and greenstones 45.42 10 76.37
37 Andesites of the Pieniny Mts. 46.36 7 992.81
38 Lower Silesian Cenozoic basaltoids 45.73 25 121
39 Teschenites 33.52 1 34.61
40 Rhyolites, rhyodacite, trachybasalts and trachites 63.62 30 66.87
41 Variscan granitoids 68.41 139 86.42
42 Gabbros 50.14 13 216.59
43 Cadomian granites (with orthogneisses) 59.94 109 57.09
44 Lusatian granodiorites 37.66 3 34.24
45 Cataclasites and tectonic breccias 38.41 1 80.27
46 Quartzites and quartzite shales 37.39 4 54.37
47 Serpentinites and peridotites 60.21 16 104.11
48 Phyllites, shales and siliceous shales 49.88 101 66.58
Geoheritage (2021) 13:34 Page 11 of 17 34
most effective media for promoting geotourism (Štrba 2019).
Examples of severe land degradation caused by collectors of
minerals and fossils are known from Poland, with well-
documented excavation holes in agate-bearing rhyolites and
trachybasalts (geological unit no. 40 in Table 1;Migońand
Pijet-Migoń2020). The initiatives that aim to provide infor-
mation about geological sites through the indication of the
precise outcrop positions, such as geosite inventories, or less
precise general exposure location (as in the current project)
could, therefore, lead to the loss of geodiversity. Earlier au-
thors recommended that databases and promotional activities
should be supplemented by advice and warning messages
referring to good sampling practices (Druguet et al. 2013),
limiting the risk of damage to outcrops. In the project under
Table 4 (continued)
No. General rock types and geological units derived from the geological map of Poland (for
complete descriptions, see Table 1)
Rt Number of
clicks
Number of clicks per 400 km
2
of
the exposure
49 Greenstones and greenstone schists 44.90 27 57.19
50 Gneisses, migmatites and amphibolites of the Owl Mts. and Śnieżnik Mts. 64.50 89 63.09
51 Granulites and eclogites 41.97 7 862.85
52 Gneisses, migmatites, amphibolites of the Tatra Mts. 24.13 9 159.42
53 Mica schists, marbles and leptinites 54.94 41 65.06
Rock types that scored the highest Rt values (higher than 60 per cent) and/or were clicked on the interactive map more thanone hundred timesand were
chosen for further educational efforts are marked in bold
bacd
fe gh
jikl
Fig. 4 Examples of rock types that scored highest during the evaluation
and were chosen for further educational efforts. Scale bars equal 5 cm. a
Sandstone with flute marks seen as moulds (Carpathian flysch; geological
unit no. 10). bCoarse sandstone from the Cretaceous of the Sudety
Mountains, with cavities formed by dissolution of bivalve shells (11). c
Cretaceous carbonate from the Małopolska Upland with a cast of
gastropod shell (12). dJurassic limestone with ammonite (15). eMiddle
Triassic limestone with terebratulid brachiopods (19). fRed, cross-
bedded, aeolian sandstone from the Lower Triassic of the Holy Cross
Mountains (20). gHard coal from the Silesia Upland (25). hDevonian
limestones of the Holy Cross Mountains with stromatoporoid sponges
(27). iRhyolite with agate, Sudety Mountains (40). jVariscan
granitoid, Sudety Mountains and Sudetic Foreland (41). kSerpentinite
(47). lGneiss from the Orlica-Śnieżnik Dome, Sudety Mountains (50)
34 Page 12 of 17 Geoheritage (2021) 13:34
study, proper sampling practices are crucial, because
geotourists search for geodiversity sites on their own.
Therefore, they should be trained in legal and geoethical is-
sues relating to fieldwork. To address that issue, the digital
assets include an additional page on good sampling practices.
Shifting the emphasis from standard geosites, located with-
in protected areas, to local exposures that are not included in
geosite inventories could also stimulate landowner interest in
geoconservation. In the traditional model of geotourism pro-
motion, landowners do not intend to support geosite designa-
tion and geoconservation, being afraid that the protection will
limit their rights on their land (Ruban and Kuo 2010). On the
other hand, rocks and fossils are generally not protected in
Poland except where they occur in national parks or natural
reserves. Spectacular landforms and glacial erratics are
protected by law as natural monuments, although the legal
criteria are not clear, which causes the disappearance of erratic
boulders from the landscape (Górska-Zabielska et al. 2020). In
the project under study, rock exposures are not the subject of
future protection initiatives, which is a common procedure in
standard geoconservation.
Individual exploration of the geological setting of a
neighbourhood is a form of learning through experience (ex-
periential learning) which constitutes an effective approach to
studying various geological phenomena, in particular when
the general public is concerned (Moutinho and Almeida
2016). Orion (1993) believed that direct experience with ma-
terial (e.g. rock types) and processes (e.g. related to the
formation of glacial landforms) fosters memorisation and en-
hances the learning of abstract concepts. Field activities can,
therefore, play an important role in learning in geosciences
(Gomes et al. 2016). This applies to both formal and informal
geo-education, underlining the importance of field education
in geosciences and in communicating geodiversity. Earlier
research stressed the role of outdoor learning and environmen-
tal interaction in facilitating the acquisition of knowledge and
in fostering interdisciplinary thinking (Tan and So 2019). For
example, boulder gardens and simulated field environments
have proved useful in transferring classroom knowledge to
fieldwork (Waldron et al. 2016). However, Gomes et al.
(2016) noted the lack of support materials necessary for indi-
viduals and teachers that plan to engage with the outdoor
environment. These problems were identified by trained
teachers; thus they are even more compelling in informal ed-
ucation, where the role of an untrained parent or tutor is cru-
cial. Most educational resources are prepared for protected
areas and the most spectacular and most frequently visited
geosites, whereas ordinary exposures are barely documented
for educational purposes or for educators who aim to teach
geosciences in their local environment. This project fills this
gap by providing material for the whole of Poland.
Assessment Procedure
The evaluation method used to assess the geo-educational
potential of common rock types is relatively objective and
Fig. 5 Exposures of the most
widespread rock types and
geological units selected in the
evaluation process
Geoheritage (2021) 13:34 Page 13 of 17 34
transparent at the preliminary selection stage; the initial data-
base is acquired from the geological map of Poland. However,
the list of the most common erratic boulders was assembled
based on the author’s judgement (i.e. in the direct or “expert”
mode), which is subjective. The need for clear preselection
criteria was stressed by Reynard et al. (2016); thus the process
of selection of rock types from glacial deposits should be
clarified in the future.
The number of rock types chosen for the project was ten-
tatively set at 18. This limit is subjective and depends on the
number of the rock types available and the capacity of the
project. The method of numerical evaluation of rock types
was developed solely for this project and can only be applied
in Poland or in countries with comparable forms of nature
protection. The use of the method for the evaluation of the
geo-education potential of rocks from other areas will require
the expressions and weights to be revised.
The parameters considered here do not take into account
the perception of rock types by potential geotourists and the
amount of advanced professional interpretation necessary to
gain insight into geological processes, although the tradition
of exploitation for decorative purposes (Bs,Ds) can serve as
a
b
c
Fig. 6 Exposure of geological units selected in the evaluation process (other than shown in Fig. 5.aMap of the Polish Uplands; the Lublin Upland is
excluded. bSudety Mountains and the Sudetic Foreland. cLublin Upland
34 Page 14 of 17 Geoheritage (2021) 13:34
an approximation of the beauty of the rock. Detailed research
on the aesthetic values of the rock types involved in the study
is necessary to exclude lithological varieties that are not at-
tractive and/or difficult to recognise by an untrained collector,
diminishing the overall satisfaction which depends on the
amount of knowledge that the user can acquire autonomously
and their ability to grasp the geoscientific concepts related to
the rock or geosite (Mikhailenko and Ruban 2019).
Geodiversity elements that do not require advanced interpre-
tation facilities should be preferred in the project, as the earlier
works point out that it is mostly easy-to-understand or pictur-
esque geomorphological geosites that should be promoted in
global geoparks (Chylińska 2019). The visual appearance of
the geosite is regarded as an important criterion in the evalu-
ation process (Brilha 2016); the same would apply to in situ
geodiversity elements.
Rare rock types that are poorly exposed and/or occur in
protected areas (sedimentary and metamorphic rocks of the
Tatra Mountains, in particular) and are not suitable for field-
work received the lowest scores in the evaluation, which rep-
resents an advantage of the assessment method employed
here. The relatively high number of sedimentary rocks that
scored the highest and was used for promotional activities
reflects their overall abundance in Poland. The presence of
igneous and metamorphic rocks is limited to glacial/
fluvioglacial deposits and the Sudety and Tatra Mountains.
Exposures of these rocks in other parts of the country are small
and not included on the 1:500,000 scale geological map. The
list of rock types selected for the promotional efforts is, there-
fore, representative of the main geological units in the context
of Poland.
Preferences of Potential Geotourists
The largest number of clicks onthe interactive geological map
of Poland was recorded for the rock types that outcrop in the
areas most interesting for geotourists (the Holy Cross
Mountains, Kraków-Częstochowa Upland, the Sudety
Mountains, the Carpathians), and their exposures cover sig-
nificant areas. The same pattern is noted for the number of
clicks per unit area: among the most intensively clicked rock
types are those outcropping in the tourist regions of Poland.
These results confirm that tourist destinations that are tradi-
tionally perceived as interesting from a geological point of
view attract the most attention. These locations cannot be
omitted in educational projects, such as those discussed here-
in. On the other hand, visitors to the zywaplaneta.pl website
are most interested in geosciences, so their fascination in geo-
logically appealing areas could be higher than in the general
population.
A significant number of clicks on the interactive map occur
outside the most attractive tourist regions of Poland, concen-
trating in highly urbanised areas (Fig. 7). Three hundred three
clicks (3.4% of the total click number) were made in the cen-
tres of the ten largest cities of Poland. This emphasises the
importance of urban geology initiatives, which give a wide
Fig. 7 Number of clicks per unit
area (100 km
2
) counted from the
interactive geological map of
Poland, with locations of ten
largest cities of Poland. HCM,
Holy Cross Mountains; KCU,
Kraków-Częstochowa Upland;
SM, Sudety Mountains; TM,
Tatra Mountains
Geoheritage (2021) 13:34 Page 15 of 17 34
opportunity to study geological features in metropolitan areas
(de Wever et al. 2017). However, they should not be limited to
communicating scientific information on building and deco-
rative stones, covering instead a broader scope of topics relat-
ed to rock types that can be found in rare outcrops located in
the vicinities of densely populated areas.
Future of the Project
Future strategies for promoting petrographic geodiversity to
the wider public in the area under study may include elements
of place-based education (PBE; Semken et al. 2017). The
methodology applied here allows the user to study geological
features of a small area of interest or place of residence, mak-
ing use of human connections to places, which can be further
expanded into a full PBE curriculum. This would foster a
better comprehension and appreciation of the geological value
of one’s surroundings and have a significant impact on
geoconservation and geodiversity education.
More detailed studies of the preferences of potential
geotourists are also required. A limited data set is discussed
here, but, nevertheless, it misses out the demographic charac-
teristics of the respondents and includes no information on the
impact of the project on their further decisions and its potential
to stimulate individual fieldwork and interest in geosciences.
Other future improvements include the development of the
mobile version of the interactive geological map. The publi-
cation of successive digital documents related to the rock
types selected in the assessment procedure is also planned,
together with workshops held in the Museum of Earth
Sciences in Poznań. Download counts for the digital content
published online from March 2015 to May 2020 and the num-
ber of participants of educational activities reveal the potential
for future expansion of the project.
Conclusions
The ideas discussed in this contribution could encourage am-
ateur geoscientists to independently explore the geological
phenomena in their vicinity, fostering the use of sites of geo-
logical interest that are not included in geodiversity invento-
ries. The usage of purposely preserved geological sites is re-
placed by the individual searching and studying outcrops and
geodiversity sites, improving field practices and learning
through experience, which facilitates the acquisition of knowl-
edge and enhances the understanding of abstract concepts.
Cartographic output produced by the project, including an
interactive map that combines data from geological and geo-
morphological maps and places all data on rocks and land-
forms on a single map, stimulates an independent search and
exploration of exposures.
In most cases, local exposures and popular rock types used
in the present study do not require any form of protection and
can be studied and sampled by amateur collectors without any
loss of geodiversity. In the digital assets published in the pro-
ject, however, the importance of good sampling practices and
the significance of possible scientific findings are underlined.
The indexes used here for the measurement of the geo-
educational potential of common rock types can be used in
countries with different models of nature protection after the
expressions and weights are adjusted to local circumstances.
Rock types that have the largest outcrops are located outside
national parks and reserves and scored the highest during the
evaluation. Many of the petrographic geodiversity elements
also received a significant number of clicks during the public
evaluation, confirmingthat they are of geoscientific interest to
the general public. Most clicks were recorded in areas known
for their geological heritage and in densely populated areas,
confirming the usefulness of urban geology projects.
Availability of data and material Submitted as Online re-
sources 1and 2
Code availability Not applicable
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary
material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00557-9.
Declarations
Competing interests The author declares no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro-
vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were
made. The images or other third party material in this article are included
in the article's CreativeCommons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a
credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's
Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Badora K (2014) Spatial system of landscape protection in Poland.
Dissertations of Cultural Landspace Commission 23:73–88
Badura J, Przybylski B, Zuchiewicz W (2004) Cainozoic evolution of
Lower Silesia, SW Poland: a new interpretation in the light of sub-
Cainozoic and sub-Quaternary topography. Acta Geodyn Geomater
1:7–29
Blair TC, McPherson JG (1999) Grain-size and textural classification of
coarse sedimentary particles. J Sediment Res 69:6–19
34 Page 16 of 17 Geoheritage (2021) 13:34
BožićS, TomićN (2015) Canyons and gorges as potential geotourism
destinations in Serbia: comparative analysis from two perspectives –
general geotourists’and pure geotourists’.OpenGeosci7:531–546
Brilha J (2016) Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and
geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8:119–134
Brocx M, Semeniuk V (2007) Geoheritage and geoconservation—histo-
ry, definition, scope and scale. J R Soc W Aust 90:53–87
Brocx M, Semeniuk V (2019) Building stones can be of geoheritage
significance. Geoheritage 11:133–149
Bruschi VM, Cendrero A, Albertos JAC (2011) A statistical approach to
the validation and optimisation of geoheritage assessment proce-
dures. Geoheritage 3:131–149
Chylińska D (2019) The role of the picturesque in geotourism and iconic
geotourist landscapes. Geoheritage 11:531–543
Czubla P, Gałązka D, Górska M (2006) Eratyki przewodnie w glinach
morenowych Polski. Prz Geol 54:245–255
De Lima FF, Brilha JB, Salamuni E (2010) Inventorying geological her-
itage in large territories: a methodological proposal applied to Brazil.
Geoheritage 2:91–99
De Wever P, Baudin F, Pereira D, Cornée A, Egoroff G, Page K (2017)
The importance of geosites and heritage stones in cities –areview.
Geoheritage 9:561–575
Druguet E, Passchier CW, Pennacchioni G, Carreras J (2013) Geoethical
education: a critical issue for geoconservation. Episodes 36:11–18
Elmi C, Simal AG, Winchester GP (2020) Developing a rock garden at
Edith J. Carrier Arboretum, Harrisonburg VA (U.S.A.) as a resource
for promoting geotourism. Geosci 10:415
Gerliński G, Pieńkowski G, Niedźwiedzki G (2004) Tetrapod track as-
semblage in the Hettangian of Sołtyków, Poland, and its
paleoenvironmental background. Ichnos 11:195–213
Gomes CR, Rocha AF, Ferreira JA, Rola A (2016) Field classes for
geosciences education: teachers’concepts and practices. In:
Vasconcelos C (ed) Geoscience Education. Springer International
Publishing Switzerland, Indoor and Outdoor, pp 73–84
Gordon JE (2019) Geoconservation principles and protected area man-
agement. Int J Geoheritage Parks 7:199–210
Górska-Zabielska M (2008) Obszary macierzyste skandynawskich
eratyków przewodnich osadów ostatniego zlodowacenia północno-
zachodniej Polski i północno-wschodnich Niemiec. Geologos 14:
177–194
Górska-Zabielska M, Witkowska K, Pisarska M (2020) The selected
erratic boulders in the Świętokrzyskie Province (central Poland)
and their potential to promote geotourism. Geoheritage 12:30
Kubalíková L (2013) Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism pur-
poses. Czech J Tour 2:80–104
Marks L, Ber A, Gogołek W, Piotrowska K (2006) Geological map of
Poland 1:500 000, with explanatory text. PolishGeological Institute,
Warszawa
MigońP, Pijet-MigońE (2020) Late Palaeozoic volcanism in central
Europe—geoheritage significance and use in geotourism.
Geoheritage 12:43
Mikhailenko AV, Ruban DA(2019) Geo-heritage specific visibility as an
important parameter in geo-tourism resource evaluation. Geosci 9:
146
Moliner L, Mampel L (2019) The rock garden “Geologist Juan Paricio”
(Alcorisa, Maestrazgo Geopark, Spain): an effective example of
geosciences popularization. Geoheritage 11:1869–1878
Moutinho A, Almeida  (2016) The importance of geology as a contri-
bution to the awareness of the cultural heritage as an educational
resource. In: Vasconcelos C (ed) Geoscience Education. Springer
International Publishing Switzerland, Indoor and Outdoor, pp 85–
101
Newsome D, Dowling R (2006) The scope and nature of geotourism. In:
Dowling RE, Newsome D (eds) Geotourism. Elsevier Butterworth
Heinemann, Oxford, pp 3–25
Orion N (1993) A model for the development and implementation of field
trips as an integral part of the science curriculum. Sch Sci Math 93:
325–331
Page K (2003) The protection of Jurassic sites and fossils: challenges for
global Jurassic science (including a proposed statement on the con-
servation of palaeontological heritage and stratotypes). Riv Ital
Paleontol Stratigr 110:373–379
ProGEO (2011) Conserving our shared geoheritage - a protocol on
geoconservation principles, sustainable site use, management,field-
work, fossil and mineral collecting. ProGEO, Uppsala, 10 pp
Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L, Scapozza C (2007) A method for
assessing scientific and additional values of geomorphosites.
Geogr Helv 62:148–158
Reynard E, Perret A, Bussard J, Grangier L, Martin S (2016) Integrated
approach for the inventory and management of geomorphological
heritage at the regional scale. Geoheritage 8:43–60
Różycka M, MigońP (2018) Customer-oriented evaluation of
geoheritage—on the example of volcanic geosites in the West
Sudetes, SW Poland. Geoheritage 10:23–37
Ruban DA, Kuo I-L (2010) Essentials of geological heritage site (geosite)
management: a conceptual assessment of interests and conflicts.
Natura Nascosta 41:16–31
Sanz J, Zamalloa T, Maguregi G, Fernandez L, Echevarria I (2020)
Educational potential assessment of geodiversity sites: a proposal
and a case study in the Basque Country (Spain). Geoheritage 12:23
Semken S, Ward EG, Moosavi S, Chinn PWU (2017) Place-based edu-
cation in geoscience: theory, research, practice and assessment. J
Geosci Educ 65:542–562
Słomka T (2008) Geodiversity of Poland. Prz Geol 56:584–587
Solon J, Borzyszkowski J, Bidłasik M, Richling A, Badora K, Balon J,
Brzezińska-Wójcik T, Chabudziński Ł, Dobrowolski R,
Grzegorczyk I, JodłowskiM,KistowskiM,KotR,Krąż P,
Lechnio J, Macias A, Majchrowska A, Malinowska E, MigońP,
Myga-Piątek U, Nita J, Papińska E, Rodzik J, StrzyżM,
Terpiłowski S, Ziaja W (2018) Physico-geographical mesoregions
of Poland: verification and adjustment of boundaries on the basis of
contemporary spatial data. Geogr Pol 91:143–170
Štrba Ľ(2019) Analysis of criteria affecting geosite visits by general
public: a case of Slovak (geo)tourists. Geoheritage 11:291–300
Tan E, So H-J (2019) Role of environmental interaction in interdisciplin-
ary thinking: from knowledge resources perspectives. J Environ
Educ 50:113–130
TomićN, BožićS (2014) A modified geosite assessment model (M-
GAM) and its application on the Lazar Canyon area (Serbia). Int J
Environ Res 8:1041–1052
Van Loon AJ (2008) Geological education of the future. Earth Sci Rev
86:247–254
Waldron JWF, Locock AJ, Pujadas-Botey A (2016) Building an outdoor
classroom for field geology: the Geoscience Garden. J Geosci Educ
64:215–230
Warowna J, MigońP, Kołodyńska-Gawrysiak R, KiebałaA,Zgłobicki
W (2013) Geomorphosites of Poland –theroleplayedbythe
Central Register of Geosites. Landform Anal 22:117–124
Wysession ME, LaDue N, BuddDA, Campbell K, Conklin M, Kappel E,
LewisG,RaynoldsR,RidkyRW,RossRM,TaberJ,TewksburyB,
Tuddenham P (2012) Developing and applying a set of Earth sci-
ence literacy principles. J Geosci Educ 60:95–99
Geoheritage (2021) 13:34 Page 17 of 17 34
