International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 323–334

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks

journal homepage: http://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/
international-journal-of-geoheritage-and-parks/

Including geoconservation in the management of protected

and conserved areas matters for all of nature and people
John E. Gordon a,⁎, Roger Crofts b, Murray Gray c, Dan Tormey d
a
School of Geography and Sustainable Development, University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 9AL, Scotland, UK
b
IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, Geoheritage Specialist Group, Musselburgh, Scotland, UK
c
School of Geography, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, England, UK
d
Catalyst Environmental Solutions, Santa Monica, California, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Geoconservation is an integral part of nature conservation. It protects our diverse and valued
Received 23 March 2021 geoheritage, contributes to the sustainable management of ecosystems, provides a range of
Received in revised form 6 May 2021 economic, cultural and social benefits, and connects people, landscapes and their cultures.
Accepted 22 May 2021
Geoconservation has a vital part to play in managing the natural environment and helping so-
Available online 29 May 2021
ciety to address global challenges, such as biodiversity loss, adaptations to climate change and
sea-level rise, and sustainable development. The IUCN Guidelines for Geoconservation in
Keywords: Protected and Conserved Areas, published in 2020, outline the key principles of geoconservation
Geoheritage
and demonstrate their application across the full range of IUCN protected area management
Geodiversity
categories and other conserved areas. Protected and conserved areas, including geoparks,
Geoconservation
Protected and conserved areas have a vital educational role in promoting better understanding and awareness of
Geoparks geoconservation and the values and benefits of geodiversity and geoheritage for nature and so-
Education ciety. Integrating geoconservation into the management of all categories of protected and con-
served areas would benefit not only the conservation of geoheritage, but also all of nature and
contribute to a sustainable future.
© 2021 Beijing Normal University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi
Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

In discussions about nature conservation and sustainability, biodiversity tends to be the primary focus. Frequently, the non-
living components of nature, encapsulated in the term ‘geodiversity’, are neglected in nature conservation policies, strategies
and protected area management. In particular, they have low priority in determining protected and conserved area status, in eval-
uating natural capital and ecosystem services, and in contributing to sustainable solutions to global issues (Brilha, Gray, Pereira, &
Pereira, 2018; Chakraborty & Gray, 2020; Crofts, 2014, 2018; Gray, 2018). This is unfortunate as understanding of the role of abi-
otic components and their integration into nature conservation and sustainable stewardship are fundamental to these conserva-
tion objectives (Knudson, Kay, & Fisher, 2018; Lubchenco, Barner, Cerny-Chipman, & Reimer, 2015; Schrodt, Bailey, Kissling, et al.,
2019).
The aim of this perspective paper is to outline the values of geodiversity and geoheritage, arguing that geoconservation is an
essential part of nature conservation across all categories of protected and conserved areas, both in its own right and for its po-
tential contributions to the wider global agenda on nature conservation and sustainability (Gordon, Crofts, Díaz-Martínez, & Woo,
2018). The paper is based on a synopsis of key literature supported by selected examples. It emphasises the importance of

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected]. (J.E. Gordon).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2021.05.003
2577-4441/© 2021 Beijing Normal University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
J.E. Gordon, R. Crofts, M. Gray et al. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 323–334

education and the role of protected and conserved areas, and particularly geoparks, in raising awareness of the value of
geoconservation in the public sphere.
The paper is aimed primarily at managers and staff of protected and conserved areas and their advisors, but also includes
geoheritage specialists, and follows the key principles and recommendations set out in the IUCN Guidelines for Geoconservation
in Protected and Conserved Areas (Crofts, Gordon, Brilha, et al., 2020). As a starting point, the paper outlines the definitions of
geodiversity, geoheritage and geoconservation. It then summarises their values and why these are important for people and na-
ture. Finally, it examines the role of education, identifying key messages in raising public awareness of the value of
geoconservation and the need for integration of geoconservation into the management of all categories of protected and con-
served areas.

2. Geodiversity, geoheritage and geoconservation

Geodiversity has been formally defined as: “the natural range (diversity) of geological (rocks, minerals, fossils), geomorpholog-
ical (landforms, topography, physical processes), soil and hydrological features. It includes their assemblages, structures, systems
and contributions to landscapes” (Gray, 2013, p. 12). In layman's terms, it is the variety of rocks, minerals, fossils, landforms, sed-
iments and soils, together with the natural processes that form and alter them (Crofts et al., 2020). Essentially, geodiversity com-
prises the abiotic, non-living parts of the landscape, and the term has been used since the 1990s as an equivalent to biodiversity
(Gray, 2013). Geodiversity occurs at all scales from global to regional and local (Gray, 2013). For example at a global scale, it com-
prises multi-layered components including major tectonic features (e.g. where continental plates are colliding or separating), geo-
logical provinces (e.g. shields, sedimentary/structural basins and large volcanic provinces), major terrain units (e.g. mountains,
plateaux and plains), distributions of rock types (e.g. sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic rocks), geomorphological systems
(e.g. glaciers, volcanoes, deserts and coasts), hydrological features (e.g. river systems, lakes and estuaries) and major soil groups.
At a regional or local scale, geodiversity reflects the rocks, minerals, topography, landforms, soils and geomorphological processes
present.
Geoheritage refers more specifically to those features of Earth's geodiversity that are considered to have special geological,
geomorphological or pedological value, primarily for scientific and educational reasons (Brilha, 2016, 2018; Reynard, Perret,
Bussard, Grangier, & Martin, 2016). Features of geoheritage value principally include:
• rock exposures that are unique or representative of particular geological processes or stages in the evolution of the Earth, either
globally or in particular regions;
• unique, classic or representative landforms and soils; and
• outstanding examples of active geological or geomorphological process systems (Crofts et al., 2020).

These features may range in scale from minerals or fossil beds in individual rock outcrops to extensive landscapes comprising
assemblages of glacial or volcanic landforms, for example. In the same way that an area may be important for a single plant or
animal species in biodiversity conservation, a site or area of geoheritage significance can comprise a single feature of value and
does not require the presence of a diversity of features to be of geoheritage value. Geoheritage features may also have intrinsic,
cultural, aesthetic, spiritual and ecological values that support or enhance the primary geoscientific value (Crofts et al., 2020;
Reynard et al., 2016). For example, a landform such as a rock monolith in a desert can be of intrinsic value simply because it ex-
ists; a spectacular cave may contain indigenous rock art, and have wide aesthetic appeal and spiritual connections for local peo-
ple; and a coastal system may support a mosaic of sand-dune and saltmarsh habitats and species of biodiversity value. Often these
values are inter-connected (Fig. 1).
Geoconservation is primarily the process of conserving geoheritage, including its management, protection and promotion
through interpretation and education, usually in protected or conserved areas. It includes the recognition of formal or informal
geosites that have a single or a variety of geological or geomorphological features and processes worthy of protection on account
of their scientific value (Brilha, 2016, 2018). Some authorities prefer to restrict geoconservation to the protection and manage-
ment of geoheritage; others accept a broader interpretation that may include conservation of geodiversity or the application of
geoconservation principles where there is demonstrated value (e.g. to support biodiversity conservation or ensure the functioning
of healthy ecosystems and the services they provide). There is no justification for the conservation of all geodiversity everywhere
regardless of its value. Not only would such an approach undermine the status of the areas of highest value, but would also de-
value the whole concept of geoheritage conservation, and practically it would not be possible to find the resources to secure ef-
fective management (Brilha, 2018; Crofts et al., 2020).
Many countries now have national and regional geosite inventories based on systematic site assessments (e.g. Brilha, 2018;
Garcia, Brilha, de Lima, et al., 2018). However, progress in the international recognition of geodiversity, geoheritage and
geoconservation has been slow in comparison with biodiversity (Crofts, 2014). There are no international conventions or system-
atic site designations for geoheritage, although there have been several other steps (Larwood, Badman, & McKeever, 2013). The
UNESCO World Heritage List has made a significant contribution for a number of decades. Geoheritage is recognised in World
Heritage natural site listing under criteria (vii) and (viii), and quite correctly, sites must be of ‘outstanding universal value’.
This is not sufficiently clearly defined and is necessarily restrictive. Work is therefore underway, led by IUCN, to provide improved
definition of the criteria. Also, despite expert reviews (e.g. Dingwall, Weighell, & Badman, 2005; Goudie & Seely, 2011), the site
coverage of the range of geological and geomorphological features is not comprehensive or systematic. Recent reviews have
underlined this lack of adequate coverage for volcanic features (Casadevall, Tormey, & Roberts, 2019) and granite landscapes

324
J.E. Gordon, R. Crofts, M. Gray et al. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 323–334

Fig. 1. Examples of the values and benefits of geodiversity and geoheritage. a. The islands of the Outer Hebrides, Scotland, comprise some of the oldest rocks in
Europe, Archaean gneisses dating from ~3000 Ma. These rocks were heavily scoured by glaciers during the Pleistocene. They form a landscape mosaic of low,
rocky hills and hollows, bordered by dynamic coastal systems, including tidal sandflats and sand dunes. This geodiversity supports a corresponding range of hab-
itats, from acid peatlands and species-poor wet heath to calcareous coastal grassland and intertidal marine habitats. b. Glacially deepened valleys in the Highlands
of Scotland provide locations for reservoirs for public water supply and hydro-electric power generation, but associated dams interrupt natural river flow regimes.
c. Beaches, sand dunes and saltmarshes act as natural buffers and help to mitigate coastal erosion where there is space inland to allow natural coastal realignment.
d. The inselberg massif of Kata Tjuṯa forms part of the Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park, Australia, a World Heritage site listed for natural and cultural reasons. The
site is important for geoheritage, cultural heritage, wildlife habitats, recreation and geotourism. e. Geoheritage is a feature of many urban environments. The rem-
nants of Carboniferous volcanoes provide a dramatic backdrop to the city of Edinburgh, Scotland, while many of the buildings of the Old Town, a cultural World
Heritage Site, are built of local Carboniferous sandstones. (Photos © John Gordon).

(Migoń, 2018, 2021). One of the reasons is that the international expert community has not been perhaps sufficiently influential
with host governments in persuading them to develop the detailed cases for submission to the World Heritage Committee, and
another is that the latter may see greater value in the recognition of cultural heritage sites, which substantially outnumber the
natural sites. The approval of the Global Geoparks Programme by UNESCO in 2015 has resulted in it playing an increasingly im-
portant role in geoconservation nationally and globally. However, UNESCO Global Geoparks serve a broader purpose, including to
develop sustainable tourism based on geoheritage, and are primarily community driven (UNESCO, 2016).
Over the last decade, progress in recognising geoconservation has been made within IUCN. This follows acknowledgement,
both in the revised definition of a protected area and in the Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories, that na-
ture “often also refers to geodiversity, landform and broader natural values” and that “all protected areas should also aim where
appropriate to conserve significant landscape features, geomorphology and geology” (Dudley, 2008, pp. 9 and 12). Several IUCN
Resolutions now address geoconservation issues. Resolutions WCC-2008-Res-040 (https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/44190)
and WCC-2012-Res-048 (https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/44015) recognise that geodiversity is an integral part of natural di-
versity, that geoheritage is an integral part of natural heritage, that geodiversity is “an important natural factor underpinning

325
J.E. Gordon, R. Crofts, M. Gray et al. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 323–334

biological, cultural and landscape diversity” and that “it possesses cultural, aesthetic, landscape, economic and intrinsic values that
must be preserved and transmitted to future generations.” Resolution WCC-2020-Res-074 (https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/
49213) is significant in gaining members' agreement to mainstreaming geoconservation within the IUCN national and regional
programmes and the work of the secretariat. It also supports the development of preparatory work for a future IUCN initiative
on Key Geoheritage Areas, complementary to the Key Biodiversity Areas Programme, provision of information and interpretation
to increase visitor awareness and geoheritage assessments, the integration of nature conservation principles and methods into the
management of protected areas to ensure the effective protection of this component of natural heritage and the implementation
of effective geoconservation measures through national legislation. More specifically, Resolutions WCC-2016-Res-083 (https://
portals.iucn.org/library/node/46500) and WCC-2020-Res-088 (https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49227) address movable
geoheritage and enhanced protection and conservation of mining environments for their natural heritage values, respectively.
Two key messages emerge from these developments. First, there is a need for an agreed, systematic, international framework
of assessment for key geoheritage sites or areas within which geoheritage features of global conservation significance are identi-
fied, and can be protected and managed effectively. This is recognised in IUCN Resolution WCC-2020-Res-074 and outlined by
Woo, Ju, and Brilha (2018). To date, this has been lacking despite a number of attempts (Díaz-Martínez, Brilha, Brocx, et al.,
2016). This needs to be a joint initiative including the Geoheritage Specialist Group of the IUCN World Commission on Protected
Areas (WCPA) and the International Union of Geological Sciences International Commission on Geoheritage.
Second, there is a need for a more integrated approach to nature conservation at all scales, so that geoconservation is included
comprehensively. This means not only conservation of geoheritage in dedicated geosites, but also embedding geoconservation
principles and methods into the management of other protected areas to ensure the effective protection of geoheritage and valued
aspects of geodiversity. This is discussed in more detail in the next section.
Features of geoheritage interest may occur within other conserved areas, including community conservation areas and private
conservation areas. Consequently, measures for privately protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures
(OECMs), now recognised to have a role in biodiversity conservation (IUCN-WCPA Task Force on OECMs, 2019; Mitchell,
Stolton, Bezaury-Creel, et al., 2018), should also apply to geoconservation. Hence as advocated in IUCN Resolution WCC-2020-
Res-074 and by others (Brilha et al., 2018; Crofts et al., 2020; Gordon, 2019; Gordon et al., 2018), geoconservation principles
and methods should be integrated into the management of all protected and conserved areas, including not only terrestrial
areas, but also those in the marine environment where there are geoheritage features and important functional connections be-
tween geodiversity and biodiversity (e.g. Coratza, Vandelli, Fiorentini, Paliaga, & Faccini, 2019; Gordon, Brooks, Chaniotis, et al.,
2016; Kaskela, Rousi, Ronkainen, et al., 2017). Such integrated approaches should also help to enhance conservation of biodiver-
sity (Crofts, 2019; Gordon, 2019). The IUCN Resolutions provide a springboard. The challenge now for the geoconservation com-
munity is to work with IUCN member organisations and Commission members to ensure that geodiversity and geoheritage are
incorporated across the range of IUCN's work, including in its quinquennial programmes, globally and regionally, and in its poli-
cies and strategies.
One specific way of ensuring incorporation of geoheritage in nature conservation is by using the full range IUCN protected area
management categories (Dudley, 2008). Sites or areas of geoheritage significance may exist within any of the six IUCN protected
area management categories, either as primary interests in their own right or as components within a wider assemblage of nat-
ural features. Although Category III, ‘Natural monument or feature’, is likely to be the principal category for geoheritage conserva-
tion, all 6 categories of protected area may be appropriate to deliver geoconservation according to the circumstances; Crofts et al.
(2020) provide examples of geoheritage interests for each category. On the other hand, some protected areas designated primarily
for biodiversity or other non-geoconservation reasons may include geoheritage features or processes of value in their own right,
or that exist as part of a wider assemblage of natural features in which they play a critical supporting or functional role (e.g. in
terms of providing a platform or essential physical processes to maintain priority habitats or species).
The Ngorongoro Conservation Area in northern Tanzania is an example. Bounded in the east by the Western Escarpment of the
Gregory Rift system, the landform suite contains several shield volcanoes and volcanic craters, including the spectacular
Ngorongoro Crater, the world's largest caldera, and Olduvai Gorge. The area, which forms part of the Ngorongoro Lengai
UNESCO Global Geopark, is globally significant for species and ecosystem protection primarily for the large number and variety
of animals within the Serengeti ecosystem. Migratory wildebeest, zebras, gazelles and elands are present in significant numbers
in the rainy season, attracted by the feeding provided by the abundant grasslands growing on mineral-rich soils derived from vol-
canic ash. These animals are preyed on by lions, cheetahs and leopards, and the remains picked over by scavengers – hyenas,
jackal, black kites and vultures. In addition, the area also has a stable black rhino population. To the north, the soda-rich waters
of Lake Natron Ramsar site support a spectacular lesser flamingo population about 2.5 million strong. The water is intensely alka-
line, pH 10.5, and derives from weathering of the trachyte, sodium-rich lavas. The flamingos breed on the islands in the lake and
wash in its waters around the shore. To complete the picture, the Olduvai Gorge is a globally significant site recording the evo-
lution of hominoids.

3. Wider values of geodiversity and geoscientific knowledge

While geoheritage features and processes, and individual sites (geosites), must primarily have special geological, geomorpho-
logical or pedological value, geodiversity has a wider range of values in terms of contributing to natural capital and delivering a
range of services and benefits for nature and society (Fig. 1). Many of these services overlap with the supporting, provisioning,
regulating and cultural categories of ecosystem services set out in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Others may

326
J.E. Gordon, R. Crofts, M. Gray et al. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 323–334

be more exclusively categorised as ‘geosystem services’ (e.g. provision of minerals) (Gray, 2011, 2019; Van Ree & van Beukering,
2016). These services are now well documented in qualitative terms (Chakraborty & Gray, 2020; Gordon & Barron, 2013; Gray,
2012, 2018, 2019; Gray & Gordon, 2020; Gray, Gordon, & Brown, 2013), including in regional and thematic reviews covering,
for example, mountains (Gordon, 2018a), coasts (Garcia, 2019) and urban areas (Reverte, Garcia, Brilha, & Pellejero, 2020), and
specific categories of service such as cultural services (Gordon, 2018b; Kubaliková, 2020). Hence only a summary is included
below.
Supporting services include the platform that geodiversity provides for biodiversity in both terrestrial and marine environ-
ments (Fig. 1a). The links between abiotic factors and biodiversity are well-known, apply to both common and rare biota (e.g.
Crofts, 2019; Hjort, Gordon, Gray, & Hunter, 2015) and are embodied in the concept of ‘nature's stage’ (Beier, Hunter, &
Anderson, 2015). Metaphorically, the physical environment is a ‘stage’ that supports biodiversity. Geodiversity factors are impor-
tant drivers of biodiversity, for example in mountain (Antonelli, Kissling, Flantua, et al., 2018; Hu, Wang, Sun, et al., 2020) and
freshwater (Toivanen, Hjort, Heino, et al., 2019) environments where geology, soils, landforms and geomorphological processes
interact with climate to produce environmental mosaics that support a diversity of habitats and species. Species may change,
but conserving areas of high geodiversity (Gray, 2008) and specific niches (e.g. hot springs and limestone pavements), and main-
taining the natural processes that enhance landscape heterogeneity more generally, can help to sustain robust protected area net-
works. In turn, these will provide suitable environmental mosaics and corridors to assist the adaptive capacity and hence
resilience of biodiversity in the face of climate change (Anderson, Clark, & Sheldon, 2014); for example, the diversity of hydrolog-
ical and geomorphological process zones in river systems drives habitat complexity at a basin scale (Thorp, Flotemersch, Delong,
et al., 2010). The concept also applies to conservation planning for endangered species, where conservation of the abiotic habitat
is central to recovery plans that envision recovery of the endangered species or migration to more suitable adjacent habitat as the
climate changes. ‘Conserving nature's stage’ can therefore support biodiversity conservation and delivery of targets where there
are strong abiotic drivers of species distributions (Lawler, Ackerly, Albano, et al., 2015).
Provisioning services include both renewable and non-renewable resources essential for human existence and economic devel-
opment (Brilha et al., 2018; Gray, 2019). Soils support agricultural production, and rocks provide minerals and building materials.
Fossil fuels have underpinned economic development since the Industrial Revolution, while new renewable energy and low-
carbon technologies depend heavily on critical minerals (Smelror, 2020). Paradoxically, these latter technologies are significantly
more mineral intensive than the former, and the clean energy transition will place a high demand on particular non-renewable
mineral resources, particularly graphite, lithium, cobalt and rare earth elements. For example, it is estimated that over 3 billion
tons of minerals and metals will be required to deliver the scale of wind, solar and geothermal energy and its storage to achieve
a 2 °C limit to global warming (World Bank Group, 2020). Geodiversity also provides many other resources, including fresh water
and the locations for reservoirs for public water supply and hydro-electric power (Fig. 1b), and is an influencing factor in the lo-
cation of onshore and offshore wind farms.
Regulating services include the role of natural systems in mediating biogeochemical cycles essential for maintaining healthy
ecosystems and life on Earth. In helping to mitigate natural hazards, geomorphological features such as beaches and saltmarshes
act as natural forms of coastal defence, providing that sediment supply to them is maintained, for example through managed re-
alignment or beach replenishment (Fig. 1c). Maintaining or re-instating the connections between rivers and their floodplains en-
courages healthy wetlands and mitigates flooding downstream. Working with natural processes and allowing space for them to
operate therefore helps to deliver multiple benefits for biodiversity, flood management and erosion mitigation through natural
means of coast and flood protection. This is now termed ‘Nature-based Solutions’ (see: https://www.iucn.org/theme/nature-
based-solutions/about and https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/ensuring-effective-nature-based-solutions).
Cultural services are many and varied. Geological features and landforms are fundamental to perceptions of scenic quality and
natural beauty and as sources of inspiration, spirituality, and human health and wellbeing (Fig. 1d). In Western cultures, the char-
acteristics of the physical landscape and its natural features, as interpreted through literature, poetry and art, underpinned the
aesthetics of the sublime and Romantic-era tourism in the 18th and 19th centuries and provide strong visitor appeal today
(Gordon, 2018b; Hose, 2016). In Eastern cultures, the close connections between people and nature have been celebrated in
art, poetry, literature and mythology for over two millennia (Chen, Lu, & Ng, 2015) and are reflected today, for example, in
many geoparks in China (Fig. 2). The cultural value of geoheritage is also demonstrated through the links of rocks, landforms
and use of building stones with architecture and the built environment, historical and literary associations, archaeology, mining
heritage, land use and mythology (Fig. 1e) (Gordon, 2018b; Reynard & Giusti, 2018).
An additional category is knowledge services (Gray, 2013). For example, geoscience understanding and geological knowledge
are fundamental to environmental management, natural hazard assessment and urban planning (Culshaw & Price, 2011; Gill,
Taylor, Duncan, et al., 2021; Gray et al., 2013; Smelror, 2020), while information from ice cores, palaeoenvironmental records
and landforms enables a better understanding of past climate change, ecological processes and landscape dynamics (e.g.
Fordham, Jackson, Brown, et al., 2020; Harrison, Mighall, Stainforth, et al., 2019; Lear, Anand, Blenkinsop, et al., 2021). This knowl-
edge has been described as “humankind's insurance policy for the future” (de Mulder, Derbyshire, & Nield, 2008).
Many of these wider values map directly across to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Geoscience has a role in
delivering all 17 of the SDG targets (Gill, 2017). For example, soil conservation is central to sustainable development and food se-
curity (SDG2); natural features provide spaces for recreation opportunities to support healthy lives (SDG3); groundwater re-
sources deliver clean water (SDG6); geotourism supports sustainable economic growth (SDG8); and conserving nature's stage
contributes to conservation and wise use of oceans (SDG14) and terrestrial ecosystems (SDG15), and hence to the delivery of
the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi Targets 11, 14 and 15. Geoparks can be potential role models for delivering the

327
J.E. Gordon, R. Crofts, M. Gray et al. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 323–334

Fig. 2. a. Huangshan UNESCO Global Geopark, Anhui Province, China, is also a natural and cultural UNESCO World Heritage Site and a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.
It is one of the most popular scenic areas in China, exceptional for its granite peaks and spectacular rock formations, and widely celebrated in art and literature and
for its spiritual connections, rich flora and important habitats. Rock pillars, formed by weathering and erosion exploiting near-vertical jointing in the granite, are
imaginatively interpreted as ‘Eighteen arhats worshipping the South Sea’. b. Sanqingshan UNESCO Global Geopark and natural World Heritage site, Jiangxi Prov-
ince, China, is noted for its granite pillars and peaks, forested slopes and aesthetic and atmospheric qualities that attract high visitor numbers. It supports a rich
biodiversity and contains notable Taoist associations and cultural relics. Visitor access is facilitated by extensive ‘skywalk’ routeways with interpretation of distinc-
tive rock features. Both geoparks are supported by geological museums which recognise the links between geoheritage, biodiversity and cultural heritage. (Photos
© John Gordon).

SDGs and in particular sustainable benefits for local communities (Catana & Brilha, 2020; Henriques & Brilha, 2017; UNESCO,
2017). Geoscience knowledge is also fundamental to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in terms of understanding
risk from natural hazards and informing resilience, recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction (Gill et al., 2021). Similarly, many of
these ecosystem values are embedded in China's strategy for Ecological Conservation Redlines (Gao, Wang, Zou, et al., 2020).
Recognition of the range of intrinsic, scientific, cultural and ecological values of geoheritage and geodiversity aligns with the
wider nature conservation agenda and the management of natural systems for the benefit of people and nature. This includes
dealing with biodiversity loss, climate change adaptation, sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services, marine conservation,
soil conservation and connecting people, place and nature (Gordon et al., 2018). This accords with the IUCN vision for the role of
protected areas, as set out at the World Parks Congress in Sydney in 2014 and the World Conservation Congress in Hawai'i in
2016, which focuses on: i) valuing and conserving nature; ii) natural solutions to global problems; and iii) reconnecting people
with nature (MacKinnon & Londoño, 2016). In this wider framework, there are long-term benefits of more integrated nature con-
servation planning and protected and conserved area management that combine conservation of both geoheritage and the effec-
tive application of the wider values and principles of geoconservation in the management of natural systems. Moreover, a
sustainable society is fundamentally predicated on understanding the values of geodiversity and the sustainable management
of geo-resources (Brilha et al., 2018; Chakraborty & Gray, 2020; Zoback, 2001). This is reflected in a growing number of publica-
tions linking geology, geoconservation, society and sustainable development in their titles (e.g. Gill, 2017; Gray, 2019; Prosser,
Bridgland, Brown, & Larwood, 2011; Prosser, Brown, Larwood, & Bridgland, 2013; Stephens, 2020; Stewart & Gill, 2017). Hence,
as noted by Brilha (2018), geology and geodiversity are seen to have much wider value than the narrow and commonly perceived
economic gain from exploitable mineral resources. If people understand these wider values and benefits of geodiversity and have
a deeper connection with geoheritage, they are more likely to view them as assets and help to manage them sustainably.

328
J.E. Gordon, R. Crofts, M. Gray et al. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 323–334

4. Protected and conserved areas: Enhancing education and awareness about geodiversity, geoheritage and the need for
geoconservation

Protected and conserved areas have a vital part to play in enhancing education and awareness about geodiversity and
geoheritage and in doing so to promote geoconservation. Geoheritage experienced in protected and conserved areas can serve
as a gateway to developing a broader conservation ethic by first capturing the interest and understanding of visitors through cre-
ative storytelling. These visitors, particularly young visitors, may then move on to gain a deeper understanding and appreciation of
the values of geodiversity and geoheritage through educational programs, in school, college or university, online, or through
place-based learning in protected and conserved areas (Semken, Ward, Moosavi, & Chinn, 2017). Ultimately these inspiring and
educational experiences should lead to a deeply felt conservation ethic and a willingness to engage in geoconservation activities,
or contribute to broader conservation efforts.
However, the values of geodiversity and geoheritage are still poorly recognised at strategic, policy and citizen levels, and also
within the wider nature conservation community (Crofts, 2014). Consequently, geoconservation is not well integrated into
protected area interpretation and education programmes and in the wider nature conservation and sustainable development
agendas in spite of its relevance. There are several reasons for this. First, biodiversity is more advanced as a conservation disci-
pline, with a strong biological and ecological science underpinning. Second, there is the small size and political voice of the
geoconservation community and limited involvement from the geoscience academic community in developing the theoretical
basis and communicating its applications as part of integrated approaches to conservation issues. Third, although the links be-
tween geodiversity and biodiversity may be acknowledged in passing by the biodiversity community, the implications have not
been sufficiently explicit or widely understood in terms of what this means for conservation management, at both strategic
and practical levels, and in helping to deliver nature conservation targets. Fourth, most people are unfamiliar with geology and
its concepts (Stewart & Gill, 2017), and all too often the language used by specialists is too technical and jargon-riddled and there-
fore has not been easily understood by others involved in conservation or by the general public (Crofts, 2014). Fifth, geology has
been regarded traditionally as an exploitative profession, with geologists trained for employment in mineral extractive industries
and receiving little training in geoconservation, contrasting with a greater conservation focus in the biological sciences
(Pemberton, 2001).
A challenge for geoscience is to raise wider awareness of the values and relevance of geodiversity and geoheritage and the
many benefits they provide for nature and people, including the merit of more integrated nature conservation planning and man-
agement linking geodiversity and biodiversity. The challenge is both in developing compelling information content, and in deliv-
ering that content effectively for different audiences (e.g. through interpretive programmes, education, or public outreach and
geoconservation planning) in ways that raise questions as well as entertain (Ham, 2013).
With respect to content, there are several key messages. First, geoheritage is important in its own right and merits conserva-
tion as a record of Earth's history. Second, geodiversity forms an integral part of natural diversity and the foundation upon which
plants, animals and humans live and interact. Third, understanding geodiversity is fundamental to the ecosystem approach and
development of a more sustainable future. This requires better integration of geodiversity, biodiversity and landscape manage-
ment and conservation. Opportunities to achieve this may arise in response to calls to strengthen and diversify area-based con-
servation for biodiversity (Maxwell, Cazalis, Dudley, et al., 2020), through incorporating geodiversity and recognising the role of
‘conserving nature's stage’ to maintain and enhance the resilience and adaptive capacity of the biosphere. Fourth, geodiversity
knowledge is vital to help society adapt to climate change and sea-level rise; in particular, awareness and understanding of nat-
ural processes and hazards and working with natural processes are fundamental to living with change and managing adaptations.
Fifth, geodiversity provides economic and social benefits, including public health and wellbeing through opportunities for outdoor
recreation and being in the natural world. Sixth, through their links to cultural heritage, geodiversity and geoheritage help connect
people, landscapes and their cultures. Delivering these messages of the real tangible and intangible benefits for nature and society
requires engaging with audiences outside the geoscience and geoconservation community in order that the concepts and values of
geodiversity and geoheritage become more familiar and validated (Boothroyd & McHenry, 2019). None of these messages will be
received by the target audiences unless there is clear communication and a recognition that it is essential to understand the po-
sitions and perspectives of the target audiences and to make the communication meaningful to those audiences.
With respect to content delivery, presenting informative interpretation through panels and leaflets in protected and conserved
areas may be adequate to meet the basic expectations of many visitors. However, Earth's geological history is engaging, and when
told in a compelling narrative that places the visitor within the ancient scene, can lead to a sense of time travel. Park rangers and
interpretative staff therefore have a vital role in creating more meaningful and memorable visitor experiences (Stern & Powell,
2013; Stern, Powell, McLean, et al., 2013). They are typically trained in conservation biology and so require additional training
and tools to be effective storytellers of Earth's history as recorded in its rocks. These areas may also provide opportunities, partic-
ularly in terms of engaging younger visitors, as well as older ones, both through on-site and wider outreach initiatives that follow
best practice principles that identify the growing number of visualization tools available to support interpretation and education,
as well as innovative and traditional platforms for knowledge flow (Crofts et al., 2020; Gordon, 2018b; Tormey, 2019). Different
approaches, both on-site and virtually, that offer new opportunities to experience and enjoy the landscape in diverse and mem-
orable ways can help people not only to rediscover a sense of wonder about the stories in the rocks and the landscape but also to
reveal the wider values of geoheritage and geodiversity as part of everyday life. Making connections with the cultural landscape,
exploring links with people's cultural roots and sense of place and enhancing the deep connections between people and the nat-
ural world can help to foster a holistic appreciation of nature, recognising that geoheritage and geodiversity are also part of the

329
J.E. Gordon, R. Crofts, M. Gray et al. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 323–334

cultural and spiritual value people attach to ‘nature’ (Brown & Verschuuren, 2018; Verschuuren, Mallarach, Bernbaum, et al.,
2021). These connections help to place the physical or virtual visitor within the scene formed by the geoheritage interests, and
thereby to experience them in a direct way that fosters deeper understanding.
As argued by Bernbaum (2017), in order to gain both public and community support, “protected areas need to ground their
programs of interpretation, management, and conservation in not only solid scientific research and practice, but also deeply
held spiritual, cultural, and aesthetic values and ideas that will engage and inspire people to care for nature over the long term
and, when necessary, make sacrifices to protect the environment” (p. 168). Such engagement applies not only to visitors, but
should include local communities and provide opportunities to tell and preserve their local stories and enhance their sense of
place. From a geoethical perspective, this may require balancing economic imperatives for geotourism development against pri-
mary requirements for geoconservation. In practice, this means making a balanced assessment of the risks of physical and aes-
thetic deterioration from recreational impacts, overuse and commodification, while at the same time respecting the value
systems of local communities (Antić, Peppoloni, & Di Capua, 2020; Gordon, 2018b; Poiraud & Dandurand, 2017; Stoffelen,
2020). These issues require engaging in dialogue and working with local stakeholders (Stewart & Lewis, 2017), and can in them-
selves form part of educational activities, involving local communities, visitors, schools and colleges. Moreover, the deployment of
local guides can greatly enhance the process of communication and public engagement, as well as add value to people's
experiences.
Several examples serve to make the point. First, the US National Park Service developed the Junior Ranger program, an
activity-based experience conducted in almost all USA national parks. Interested participants complete a series of activities guided
by a workbook during a park visit. The activities appeal to the senses, place the young visitor in the scene and pose thought-
provoking questions. Once complete, the results are reviewed by a park ranger, and if successful, participants receive an official
Junior Ranger patch and Junior Ranger certificate. They also take the Junior Ranger Oath, which includes the motto ‘Explore,
Learn, and Protect!’ Junior Rangers frequently continue their interest in conservation and learning well after the visit (NPS, 2021).
Second, the National Conservation Foundation (NCF)-Envirothon is an independent, classroom- and place-based environmental
and natural resources educational program for high school students (grades 9–12 or ages 14–19) (Fig. 3). It culminates in the an-
nual NCF-Envirothon Competition in which winning teams from participating high schools in the United States, Canada and now
China compete for recognition and scholarships by demonstrating their knowledge of environmental science and natural resource
management. The program has a strong outdoor component and is sponsored by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Ser-
vice, the US Forest Service and others. Much of the field education and field competitions are held in areas protected for their
geoheritage and biodiversity values, and this use of geoheritage as a gateway to the broader educational goals is central to the
program (Tormey et al., submitted). Students work in teams in the field to answer questions related to soil and land use, forestry,
aquatic ecology, wildlife and current environmental issues. Additionally, because the ability to communicate clearly and effectively
is a crucial skill when addressing environmental issues, they are challenged to prepare and give an oral presentation on a scenario
featuring the current environmental theme (e.g. groundwater, watersheds, biodiversity, renewable energy, invasive species, cli-
mate change, or other topic). Working collaboratively as a team, students learn through project-based learning, and the focus
on field applications in areas of geoheritage significance incorporates place-based learning (NCF-Envirothon, 2019). The mission
of the program is to develop knowledgeable, skilled and dedicated adults who have an understanding of natural resources and
are willing and prepared to work towards achieving and maintaining a balance between the quality of life and the environment,
accomplished by developing in young people an understanding of the principles and practices of natural resource management
and ecology and through practice in dealing with complex resource management decisions (NCF-Envirothon, 2019).
Third, further development of China's national park system under China's pilot national park initiative could potentially pro-
vide opportunities to develop many of these aspects. China has stated the goal for a complete national park system by 2030
(Peng, 2018; Tang, 2020). This program has the potential to instil national pride in the geodiversity and biodiversity of the coun-
try and areas of outstanding geoheritage values (Fig. 4). The first park of the system is in Qinghai province, a region in western
China close to Tibet, and is named the Sanjiangyuan National Nature Reserve. The region is home to native and endangered spe-
cies like the snow leopard and Chinese mountain cat and encompasses the headwaters of three of Asia's great waterways, namely
the Yangtze, Yellow and Lancang/Mekong rivers. Concurrent with the development of the park has been the development of a
range of interpretive materials including for the outstanding geoheritage of the area (Wei, 2019). This example from China dem-
onstrates the conscious use of designation of protected areas of high geoheritage value to support meaningful interpretive pro-
grams, place-based education and the development of a conservation ethic in society.
Fourth, as well as delivering geoconservation and promoting sustainable economic and social development linked to
geotourism and wise use of geoheritage resources, UNESCO Global Geoparks have a requirement to “develop and operate educa-
tional activities for all ages to spread awareness of our geological heritage and its links to other aspects of our natural, cultural and
intangible heritages” (UNESCO, 2016, p. 9). This is partly delivered through educational activities for schools and others and partly
through geotourism activities. Most geoparks have their own schools' educational programmes and publications and they provide
valuable educational resources for fieldwork and learning about geology through a wide range of activities (e.g. Henriques, Tomaz,
& Sá, 2012; Han, Wu, Tian, & Li, 2018; Silva & Sá, 2018; Fernández Álvarez, 2020; Catana & Brilha, 2020; Gomes, Castro,
Ferenandes, & Loureiro, 2020). Geoparks are particularly well-suited to developing experiential, enquiry-led and place-based
learning approaches in geoscience and personally meaningful appreciation of geoheritage through links to cultural heritage and
landscape aesthetics (Gordon, 2018b).The educational role of geoparks also includes raising awareness of the wider values of
geodiversity and geoheritage, including the interdependencies of geodiversity, geoheritage, biodiversity and cultural heritage

330
J.E. Gordon, R. Crofts, M. Gray et al. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 323–334

Fig. 3. Logo of the National Conservation Foundation (NCF)-Envirothon programme, which involves an annual competition on an environmental theme for high
schools. Field education in areas protected for their geoheritage introduces students to a range of environmental issues including geoconservation. (Photo © the
National Conservation Foundation).

Fig. 4. Noticeboard at Huanjiang Karst, part of the South China Karst World Heritage Site, Guangxi Province. The message encourages local people and visitors to
take pride in protecting the karst landscape and the pristine, subtropical, mixed-forest ecosystem with its numerous endemic plant and animal species. (Photo ©
Murray Gray).

and the links to sustainability, and hence the need for geoconservation not only within the geoparks but more widely. In this re-
gard, geotourism also has an important educational component (Newsome & Dowling, 2018; Ólafsdóttir & Tverijonaite, 2018).
Formal education in schools and universities clearly also has a critical role to provide better understanding of how the Earth
works, the connections between geodiversity, biodiversity and people, and the ways in which geodiversity and geoconservation
deliver multiple benefits and services and support sustainable development. This requires an interdisciplinary approach linking
natural and human systems – geodiversity, biodiversity, cultural heritage and socio-economics (Knudson et al., 2018). It also re-
quires the integration of geoconservation and sustainability into geoscience education, training and continued professional

331
J.E. Gordon, R. Crofts, M. Gray et al. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 323–334

development (Geology for Global Development, 2020; Gosselin, Burian, Lutz, & Maxson, 2016; Stewart & Gill, 2017). In turn, this
should ultimately help to improve the recognition and demonstrate the relevance of geoconservation at public, policy and
decision-making levels.

5. Conclusions

Geoconservation is primarily concerned with protecting the ‘memory of the Earth’, but has an equally important and wider
value in helping to sustain nature and people. Geoconservation should be an essential consideration for nature conservation at
all scales from global to local. It should be integrated across the full range IUCN protected area management categories and
other conserved areas to ensure the effective protection of geoheritage and valued aspects of geodiversity where these provide
vital ecosystem functions or services. Such integration should also help to enhance the conservation of biodiversity and promote
environmentally sustainable stewardship of all of nature. To make progress at a strategic level, geoconservation bodies and ex-
perts should engage actively with IUCN and the WCPA Geoheritage Specialist Group to support the implementation of Resolutions
on geoheritage and protected areas and the integration of geoconservation across the range of IUCN's work globally. They should
also engage more effectively in the development of national and regional policies and strategies for nature conservation to ensure
that the values of geodiversity and geoheritage are fully incorporated. At a practical level, managers and staff of all protected and
conserved areas should consult and adopt the IUCN Guidelines for Geoconservation in Protected and Conserved Areas (Crofts et al.,
2020) and consider how their areas can be managed to achieve conservation of both biodiversity and geoheritage, and also
recognising the functional links between geodiversity, habitats and species.
Protected and conserved areas, including geoparks, also have a key educational and demonstration role in promoting better
understanding and awareness of geoheritage and the values and benefits of geoconservation for nature and society, recognising
that the application of geoscience knowledge is fundamental to managing the natural environment and helping society to address
global challenges in a sustainable way. Nevertheless, although such understanding and awareness should arguably be a key part of
science literacy at all levels, the challenge still remains to communicate beyond the geoscience and geoconservation communities
and to encourage greater public participation in geoconservation. The promotion of these values and the benefits of geodiversity
and geoheritage more widely in protected and conserved areas and through geopark activities are part of the solution when com-
bined with other educational and public engagement initiatives. This requires the adoption of best-practice approaches and
methods in interpretation, education and public outreach, making connections with people, their cultural landscapes and sense
of place while conveying a sense of wonder about the geological stories in a scientifically correct way but fostering a more holistic
appreciation of nature, people and landscape through place-based aesthetic and emotional experiences. It also requires developing
geoconservation interpretation and education programs, educating conservation biologists and other biodiversity specialists in
geoconservation, and bringing geoconservation into university training.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This paper is a contribution to the work of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Geoheritage Specialist Group. We
thank members of the Group for discussions on geoconservation in protected and conserved areas and the reviewers for their
helpful comments.

References

Anderson, M. G., Clark, M., & Sheldon, A. O. (2014). Estimating climate resilience for conservation across geophysical settings. Conservation Biology, 28, 959–970.
Antić, A., Peppoloni, S., & Di Capua, G. (2020). Applying the values of geoethics for sustainable speleotourism development. Geoheritage, 12, 73.
Antonelli, A., Kissling, W. D., Flantua, S. G. A., ... Hoorn, C. (2018). Geological and climatic influences on mountain biodiversity. Nature Geoscience, 11, 718–725.
Beier, P., Hunter, M. L., & Anderson, M. (2015). Conserving nature’s stage. Conservation Biology, 29, 613–617.
Bernbaum, E. (2017). The cultural and spiritual significance of nature in the management and governance of protected areas. The George Wright Forum, 34, 168–179.
Boothroyd, A., & McHenry, M. (2019). Old processes, new movements: The inclusion of geodiversity in biological and ecological discourse. Diversity, 11, 216.
Brilha, J. (2016). Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: A review. Geoheritage, 8, 119–134.
Brilha, J. (2018). Geoheritage: Inventories and evaluation. In E. Reynard, & J. Brilha (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, protection, and management (pp. 69–85).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Brilha, J., Gray, M., Pereira, D. I., & Pereira, P. (2018). Geodiversity: An integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable management of the whole of nature.
Environmental Science and Policy, 86, 19–28.
Brown, S., & Verschuuren, B. (2018). Cultural and spiritual significance of nature in protected and conserved areas: The “deeply seated bond”. In B. Verschuuren, & S.
Brown (Eds.), Cultural and spiritual significance of nature in protected areas. Governance, management and policy (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge.
Casadevall, T. J., Tormey, D., & Roberts, J. (2019). World heritage volcanoes: Classification, gap analysis, and recommendations for future listings. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/48448.
Catana, M. M., & Brilha, J. B. (2020). The role of UNESCO Global Geoparks in promoting geosciences education for sustainability. Geoheritage, 12, 1.
Chakraborty, A., & Gray, M. (2020). A call for mainstreaming geodiversity in nature conservation research and praxis. Journal for Nature Conservation, 56, 125862.
Chen, A., Lu, Y., & Ng, Y. C. Y. (2015). The principles of geotourism. Beijing: Science Press; Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

332
J.E. Gordon, R. Crofts, M. Gray et al. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 323–334

Coratza, P., Vandelli, V., Fiorentini, L., Paliaga, G., & Faccini, F. (2019). Bridging terrestrial and marine geoheritage: Assessing geosites in Portofino Natural Park (Italy).
Water, 11, 2112.
Crofts, R. (2014). Promoting geodiversity: learning lessons from biodiversity. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, 125, 263–266.
Crofts, R. (2018). Putting geoheritage conservation on all agendas. Geoheritage, 10, 231–238.
Crofts, R. (2019). Linking geoconservation with biodiversity conservation in protected areas. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 7, 211–217.
Crofts, R., Gordon, J. E., Brilha, J., ... Worboys, G. L. (2020). Guidelines for geoconservation in protected and conserved areas. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series
No. 31. Gland: IUCN.
Culshaw, M. G., & Price, S. J. (2011). The contribution of urban geology to the development, regeneration and conservation of cities. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and
the Environment, 70, 333–376.
Díaz-Martínez, E., Brilha, J., Brocx, M., ... Wimbledon, W. A. P. (2016). Global Geosites: An active and partially achieved geoheritage inventory initiative, waiting to re-
gain official recognition. In A. Cornée, G. Egoroff, P. de Wever, A. Lalanne, & F. Duranthon (Eds.), Actes du congrès international «les inventaires du géopatrimoine», 22-
26 septembre 2015, Toulouse. Mémoire hors-série de la Société géologique de France. 16. (pp. 103–108).
Dingwall, P., Weighell, T., & Badman, T. (2005). Geological world heritage: A global framework. Gland: IUCN.
Dudley, N. (2008). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Gland: IUCN. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2008.PAPS.2.en.
Fernández Álvarez, F. R. (2020). Geoparks and education: UNESCO Global Geopark Villuercas-Ibores-Jara as a case study in Spain. Geosciences, 10, 27.
Fordham, D. A., Jackson, S. T., Brown, S. C., ... Nogues-Bravo, D. (2020). Using paleo-archives to safeguard biodiversity under climate change. Science, 369, eabc5654.
Gao, J., Wang, Y., Zou, C., ... Zhang, K. (2020). China’s ecological conservation redline: A solution for future nature conservation. Ambio, 49, 1519–1529.
Garcia, M. G. M., Brilha, J., de Lima, F. F., ... Shimada, H. (2018). The inventory of geological heritage of the state of São Paulo, Brazil: Methodological basis, results and
perspectives. Geoheritage, 10, 239–258.
Garcia, M. M. (2019). Ecosystem services provided by geodiversity: Preliminary assessment and perspectives for the sustainable use of natural resources in the coastal
region of the State of São Paulo, southeastern Brazil. Geoheritage, 11, 1257–1266.
Geology for Global Development (2020). Geoscience and sustainable development. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/
GfGD_GeosciencesSustainableDevelopment_LearningResources.pdf.
Gill, J. C. (2017). Geology and the Sustainable Development Goals. Episodes, 40, 70–76.
Gill, J. C., Taylor, F. E., Duncan, M. J., ... Bukachi, V. (2021). Invited perspectives: Building sustainable and resilient communities -recommended actions for natural haz-
ard scientists. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 21, 187–202.
Gomes, H., Castro, E., Ferenandes, M., & Loureiro, F. (2020). The science and education network for sustainability in Estrela UNESCO Global Geopark. European Geologist,
50, 45–48.
Gordon, J. E. (2018a). Mountain geodiversity: Characteristics, values and climate change. In C. Hoorn, A. Perrigo, & A. Antonelli (Eds.), Mountains, climate and biodiver-
sity (pp. 137–154). Chichester: Wiley.
Gordon, J. E. (2018b). Geoheritage, geotourism and the cultural landscape: Enhancing the visitor experience and promoting geoconservation. Geosciences, 8, 136.
Gordon, J. E. (2019). Geoconservation principles and protected area management. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 7, 199–210.
Gordon, J. E., & Barron, H. F. (2013). Geodiversity and ecosystem services in Scotland. Scottish Journal of Geology, 49, 41–58.
Gordon, J. E., Brooks, A. J., Chaniotis, P. D., ... Rennie, A. F. (2016). Progress in marine geoconservation in Scotland’s seas: Assessment of key interests and their contri-
bution to marine protected area network planning. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 127, 716–737.
Gordon, J. E., Crofts, R., Díaz-Martínez, E., & Woo, K. S. (2018). Enhancing the role of geoconservation in protected area management and nature conservation.
Geoheritage, 10, 191–203.
Gosselin, D., Burian, S., Lutz, T., & Maxson, J. (2016). Integrating geoscience into undergraduate education about environment, society, and sustainability using place-
based learning: Three examples. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6, 531–540.
Goudie, A., & Seely, M. (2011). World heritage desert landscapes: Potential priorities for the recognition of desert landscapes and geomorphological sites on the world heritage
list. Gland: IUCN.
Gray, M. (2008). Geodiversity: Developing the paradigm. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 119, 287–298.
Gray, M. (2011). Other nature: Geodiversity and geosystem services. Environmental Conservation, 38, 271–274.
Gray, M. (2012). Valuing geodiversity in an ‘ecosystem services’ context. Scottish Geographical Journal, 128, 177–194.
Gray, M. (2013). Geodiversity: Valuing and conserving abiotic nature (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gray, M. (2018). The confused position of the geosciences within the “natural capital” and “ecosystem services” approaches. Ecosystem Services, 34A, 106–112.
Gray, M. (2019). Geodiversity, geoheritage and geoconservation for society. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 7, 226–236.
Gray, M., & Gordon, J. E. (2020). Geodiversity and the “8Gs”: A response to Brocx & Semeniuk (2019). Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 67, 437–444.
Gray, M., Gordon, J. E., & Brown, E. J. (2013). Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: the contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental man-
agement. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 124, 659–673.
Ham, S. H. (2013). Interpretation: Making a difference on purpose. Golden, CO, USA: Fulcrum.
Han, J., Wu, F., Tian, M., & Li, W. (2018). From geopark to sustainable development: Heritage conservation and geotourism promotion in the Huangshan UNESCO Global
Geopark (China). Geoheritage, 10, 79–91.
Harrison, S., Mighall, T., Stainforth, D. A., ... Shannon, S. (2019). Uncertainty in geomorphological responses to climate change. Climatic Change, 156, 69–86.
Henriques, M. A., & Brilha, J. (2017). UNESCO Global Geoparks: A strategy towards global understanding and sustainability. Episodes, 40, 349–355.
Henriques, M. H., Tomaz, C., & Sá, A. A. (2012). The Arouca Geopark (Portugal) as an educational resource: A case study. Episodes, 35, 481–488.
Hjort, J., Gordon, J. E., Gray, J. M., & Hunter, M. L. (2015). Why geodiversity matters in valuing nature’s stage. Conservation Biology, 29, 630–639.
Hose, T. A. (2016). Geotourism in Britain and Europe: Historical and modern perspectives. In T. A. Hose (Ed.), Geoheritage and geotourism: A European perspective
(pp. 153–171). Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press.
Hu, A., Wang, J., Sun, H., ... Zhang, G. (2020). Mountain biodiversity and ecosystem functions: Interplay between geology and contemporary environments. The ISME
Journal, 14, 931–944.
IUCN-WCPA Task Force on OECMs (2019). Recognising and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures. Gland: IUCN.
Kaskela, A. A., Rousi, H., Ronkainen, M., ... Zhaimoda, V. (2017). Linkages between benthic assemblages and physical environmental factors: The role of geodiversity in
Eastern Gulf of Finland ecosystems. Continental Shelf Research, 142, 1–13.
Knudson, C., Kay, K., & Fisher, S. (2018). Appraising geodiversity and cultural diversity approaches to building resilience through conservation. Nature Climate Change,
8, 678–685.
Kubaliková, L. (2020). Cultural ecosystem services of geodiversity: A case study from Stránská skála (Brno, Czech Republic). Land, 9, 105.
Larwood, J. G., Badman, T., & McKeever, P. J. (2013). The progress and future of geoconservation at a global level. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 124, 720–730.
Lawler, J. J., Ackerly, D. D., Albano, C. M., ... Weiss, S. B. (2015). The theory behind, and the challenges of, conserving nature’s stage in a time of rapid change.
Conservation Biology, 29, 618–629.
Lear, C. H., Anand, P., Blenkinsop, T., ... Zalasiewicz, J. (2021). Geological Society of London Scientific Statement: what the geological record tells us about our present
and future climate. Journal of the Geological Society, 178 jgs2020–239.
Lubchenco, J., Barner, A. K., Cerny-Chipman, E. B., & Reimer, J. N. (2015). Sustainability rooted in science. Nature Geoscience, 8, 741–745.
MacKinnon, K., & Londoño, J. M. (2016). Editorial: Delivering the promise of Sydney: From Sydney to Hawai’i. PARKS, 22(2), 7–10.
Maxwell, S. L., Cazalis, V., Dudley, N., ... Watson, J. E. M. (2020). Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature, 586, 217–227.
Migoń, P. (2018). Geoheritage and world heritage sites. In E. Reynard, & J. Brilha (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, protection, and management (pp. 237–249).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Migoń, P. (2021). Granite landscapes, geodiversity and geoheritage—Global context. Heritage, 4, 198–219.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press.
Mitchell, B. A., Stolton, S., Bezaury-Creel, J., ... Solano, P. (2018). Guidelines for privately protected areas. Best practice protected area guidelines series no. 29. Gland: IUCN.

333
J.E. Gordon, R. Crofts, M. Gray et al. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 323–334

de Mulder, E., Derbyshire, E., & Nield, T. (2008). Global launch event of the International Year of Planet Earth. Episodes, 31, 268–269.
NCF-Envirothon (2019). Knowledge and skills to change the world. Washington DC: Nature Conservation Foundation-Envirothon.
Newsome, D., & Dowling, R. K. (2018). Geoheritage and geotourism. In E. Reynard, & J. Brilha (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, protection, and management
(pp. 305–321). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
NPS (2021). US National Park Service junior ranger program description. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/kids/become-a-junior-ranger.htm.
Ólafsdóttir, R., & Tverijonaite, E. (2018). Geotourism: A systematic literature review. Geosciences, 8, 234.
Pemberton, M. (2001). Conserving geodiversity, the importance of valuing our geological heritage. Paper presented to the Geological Society of Australia National Con-
ference, 2001. Retrieved from https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/geocon_abstract.pdf.
Peng, F. (2018). The practice and exploration on the establishment of national park system in China. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 6, 1–16.
Poiraud, A., & Dandurand, G. (2017). De la géoconservation au géotourisme : un glissement de paradigme. Annales de Géographie, 717, 625–653.
Prosser, C. D., Bridgland, D. R., Brown, E. J., & Larwood, J. G. (2011). Geoconservation for science and society: challenges and opportunities. Proceedings of the Geologists’
Association. 122. (pp. 337–342).
Prosser, C. D., Brown, E. J., Larwood, J. G., & Bridgland, D. R. (2013). Geoconservation for science and society – an agenda for the future. Proceedings of the Geologists’
Association, 124, 561–567.
Reverte, F. C., Garcia, M. G. M., Brilha, J., & Pellejero, A. O. (2020). Assessment of impacts on ecosystem services provided by geodiversity in highly urbanised areas: A
case study of the Taubaté Basin, Brazil. Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 91–106.
Reynard, E., & Giusti, C. (2018). The landscape and the cultural value of geoheritage. In E. Reynard, & J. Brilha (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, protection, and manage-
ment (pp. 147–165). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
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.
Schrodt, F., Bailey, J. J., Kissling, W. D., ... Field, R. (2019). To advance sustainable stewardship, we must document not only biodiversity but geodiversity. PNAS, 116,
16155–16158.
Semken, S., Ward, E. G., Moosavi, S., & Chinn, P. W. U. (2017). Place-based education in geoscience: Theory, research, practice, and assessment. Journal of Geoscience
Education, 65, 542–562.
Silva, E., & Sá, A. A. (2018). Educational challenges in the Portuguese UNESCO Global Geoparks: Contributing for the implementation of the SDG 4. International Journal
of Geoheritage and Parks, 6, 95–106.
Smelror, M. (2020). Geology for society in 2058: Some down-to-earth perspectives. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 499, 17–47.
Stephens, M. (2020). Geoconservation for sustainable development. In F. L. Filho, A. Azul, L. Brandli, A. L. Salvia, & T. Wall (Eds.), Life on land. Encyclopedia of the UN
Sustainable Development Goals. Cham: Springer.
Stern, M. J., & Powell, R. B. (2013). What leads to better visitor outcomes in live interpretation? Journal of Interpretation Research, 18(2), 9–43.
Stern, M. J., Powell, R. B., McLean, K. D., ... Mutchler, B. A. (2013). The difference between good enough and great: Bringing interpretive best practices to life. Journal of
Interpretation Research, 18(2), 79–100.
Stewart, I. S., & Gill, J. C. (2017). Social geology—integrating sustainability concepts into Earth sciences. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 128, 165–172.
Stewart, I. S., & Lewis, D. (2017). Communicating contested geoscience to the public: Moving from “matters of fact” to “matters of concern”. Earth-Science Reviews, 174,
122–133.
Stoffelen, A. (2020). Where is the community in geoparks? A systematic literature review and call for attention to the societal embedding of geoparks. Area, 52,
97–104.
Tang, X. (2020). The establishment of national park system: A new milestone for the field of nature conservation in China. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks,
8, 195–202.
Thorp, J. H., Flotemersch, J. E., Delong, M. D., ... Haase, S. H. (2010). Linking ecosystem services, rehabilitation, and river hydrogeomorphology. BioScience, 60, 67–74.
Toivanen, M., Hjort, J., Heino, J., ... Alahuhta, J. (2019). Is catchment geodiversity a useful surrogate of aquatic plant species richness? Journal of Biogeography, 46,
1711–1722.
Tormey, D. (2019). New approaches to communication and education through geoheritage. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 7, 192–198.
Tormey, D., Wei, D., & Feng, A. (submitted). Geoheritage as a gateway to developing a conservation ethic in high school students from China and the United States.
Geoheritage.
UNESCO (2016). UNESCO Global Geoparks: Celebrating earth heritage, sustaining local communities. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2017). UNESCO Global Geoparks contributing to the sustainable development goals: Celebrating earth heritage, sustaining local communities. Paris: UNESCO.
Van Ree, C. C. D. F., & van Beukering, P. J. H. (2016). Geosystem services: A concept in support of sustainable development. Ecosystem Services, 20, 30–36.
Verschuuren, B., Mallarach, J. -M., Bernbaum, E., ... Lee, E. (2021). Cultural and spiritual significance of nature. Guidance for protected and conserved area governance
and management. Best practice protected area guidelines series no. 32. Gland: IUCN.
Wei, D. (2019). Interpretive guide to Sanjiangyuan (Source of Three Rivers) National Park. Beijing, China: China Science and Technology Press. (In Chinese).
Woo, K. S., Ju, S. O., & Brilha, J. (2018). Key Geoheritage Area: A potential new programme in IUCN for geoheritage conservation. In E. Głowniak, A. Wasiłowska, &
P. Leonowicz (Eds.), Geoheritage and conservation: Modern approaches and applications towards the 2030 Agenda. 9th ProGEO Symposium, Chęciny, Poland,
25-28th June 2018. Programme and Abstract Book (pp. 20). Warsaw: Faculty of Geology, University of Warsaw.
World Bank Group (2020). Minerals for climate action: The mineral intensity of the clean energy transition. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Zoback, M. L. (2001). Grand challenges in earth and environmental sciences: Science, stewardship, and service for the twenty-first century. GSA Today, 11, 41–47.

334