Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Discussion on the Quantification and Classification of Geodiversity Indices Based on GIS Methodological Tests

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Geoheritage Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quantitative assessment methods are attaining special attention in geodiversity research. Procedures to map geodiversity indices have been proposed by several authors though there is no consensus on how to best apply and replicate them in diverse areas. A contribution to the quantitative mapping of geodiversity using GIS tools of quantification and classification is presented. These procedures were applied in the municipality of Miguel Pereira, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. A quantification stage is supported by the multiparts technique, in which the geodiversity elements are considered without pondering their repetition, and by the singleparts technique, where the repetitions are counted. Geodiversity is then mapped and classified according to the MOV (maximum obtained value) that considers the highest score obtained by the sum of the geodiversity sub-indices and to the MPV (maximum possible value) defined by the sum of the maximum scores in each of the geodiversity sub-indices. The maps produced according to the singleparts tools reflect a higher difference between the minimum and maximum scores of geodiversity, and using the MPV more areas are classified with low geodiversity. Fieldwork surveys support the idea that combining the multiparts technique for geodiversity quantification with the MOV to its classification is more appropriate to characterize the geodiversity of the area. Nevertheless, using different methodological approaches may generate significantly different results, what must be taken into account when considering geodiversity as a support tool in land management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almeida FFM, Hasui Y, Brito Neves BB, Fuck RA (1981) Brazilian structural provinces: an introduction. Earth Sci Rev 17(1–2):1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-8252(81)90003-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araujo A, Pereira DI (2018) A new methodological contribution for the geodiversity assessment: applicability to Ceará state (Brazil). Geoheritage 10(4):591–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0250-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyriou AV, Sarris A, Teeuw RM (2016) Using geoinformatics and geomorphometrics to quantify the geodiversity of Crete, Greece. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 51:47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2016.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandara CMM (1974) Drainage density and effective precipitation. J Hidrol 21(2):187–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(74)90036-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benito-Calvo A, Pérez-González A, Magri O, Meza P (2009) Assessing regional geodiversity: the Iberian Peninsula. Earth Surf Process Landf 34(10):1433–1445. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brilha J (2005) Patrimônio Geológico e Geoconservação: A Conservação da Natureza na sua Vertente Geológica. Palimage Editores, Braga (in Portuguese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Brilha J, Gray M, Pereira DI, Pereira P (2018) Geodiversity: an integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable management of the whole of nature. Environ Sci Policy 86:19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carcavilla L, Durán JJ, López-Martínez J (2008) Geodiversidad: concepto y relación com el patrimonio geológico. Geo-Temas 10:1299–1303 (in Spanish with English abstract)

  • Commonwealth of Australia (2002) Australian natural heritage charter for the conservation of places of natural heritage significance. Australian Heritage Commission, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • CPRM (2006) Mapa de Geodiversidade do Brasil. Escala 1:2.500.000. Legenda Expandida. CPRM/Serviço Geológico do Brasil, Brasília, CD-ROM (in Portuguese)

  • CPRM (2017) Mapa Geomorfológico. Escala: 1:25.000 (in Portuguese). http://www.cprm.gov.br/publique/Gestao-Territorial/Geologia-de-Engenharia-e-Riscos-Geologicos/Cartas-de-Suscetibilidade-a-Movimentos-Gravitacionais-de-Massa-e-Inundacoes%2D%2D-Rio-de-Janeiro-5082.html. Accessed 15 Feb 2017

  • DRM-RJ (1982) Projeto Carta Geológica do Estado do Rio de Janeiro: Folhas Paracambi/ Miguel Pereira/Vassouras/Cava. SF-23-Q-III-2/SF-23-Z-B-I-3/SF-23-Z-A-III-4/SF-23-Z-B-4-1. Escala 1:50.000. Departamento de Recursos Minerais do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (Doc. Interno), Niterói (in Portuguese)

  • EMBRAPA (2003) Mapa Pedológico. Escala: 1:250.000 (in Portuguese). http://www.cprm.gov.br/publique/Gestao-Territorial/Geologia-de-Engenharia-e-Riscos Geologicos/Cartas-de-Suscetibilidade-a-Movimentos-Gravitacionais-de-Massa-e-Inundacoes---Rio-de-Janeiro-5082.html.

  • Forte JP (2014) Avaliação quantitativa da geodiversidade: desenvolvimento de instrumentos metodológicos com aplicação ao ordenamento do território. Tese (Doutoramento em Ciências), Universidade do Minho

  • Forte JP, Brilha J, Pereira D, Nolasco M (2012) Quantitative evaluation of geodiversity: development of methodological procedures with application to territorial management. Geophys Res Abstr 14:EGU2012–EGU8739

    Google Scholar 

  • Forte JP, Brilha J, Pereira DI, Nolasco M (2018) Kernel density applied to the quantitative assessment of geodiversity. Geoheritage 10(2):205–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0282-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gontijo-Pascutti A, Bezerra FHR, Terra EL, Almeida JCH (2010) Brittle reactivation of mylonitic fabric and the origin of the Cenozoic Rio Santana Graben, southeastern Brazil. J S Am Earth Sci 29(2):522–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2009.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon JE, Barron HF (2013) The role of geodiversity in delivering ecosystem services and benefits in Scotland. Scott J Geol 49(1):41–58. https://doi.org/10.1144/sjg2011-465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray M (2004) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray M (2013) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray M (2018a) The confused position of the geosciences within the “natural capital” and “ecosystem services” approaches. Ecosystem Services 34:106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.10.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray M (2018b) Geodiversity: the backbone of geoheritage and geoconservation. In: Reynard E, Brilha J (eds) Geoheritage: assessment, protection, and management. Elsevier, pp 13–25

  • Gray M, Gordon JE, Brown EJ (2013) Geodiversity and ecosystem approach: the contribution of geosciences in delivering integrated environmental management. Proc Geol Assoc 124(4):659–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2013.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazen RM, Grew ES, Origlieri MJ, Downs RT (2017) On the mineralogy of the “Anthropocene epoch”. Am Mineral 102(3):595–611. https://doi.org/10.2138/am-2017-5875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbron M, Pedrosa-Soares AC, Campos Neto MC, Silva LC, Trouw RAJ, Janasi VA (2004) Província Mantiqueira. In: Mantesso-Neto V, Bartorelli A, Carneiro CDR, Neves BBB (eds) Geologia do Continente Sul Americano: Evolução da obra de Fernando Flavio Marques de Almeida. Beca, Brasil, pp 204–234 (in Portuguese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjort J, Luoto M (2010) Geodiversity of high latitude landscapes in northern Finland. Geomorphology 115(1–2):109–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.09.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjort J, Heikkinen K, Luoto M (2012) Inclusion of explicit measures of geodiversity improve biodiversity models in a boreal landscape. Biodivers Conserv 21:3487–3506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton RE (1932) Drainage-basin characteristics. Eos Trans AGU 13(1):350–361. https://doi.org/10.1029/TR013i001p00350

  • Horton RE (1945) Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins; hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geol Soc Am Bull 56(3):275–370. https://doi.org/10.1130/00167606(1945)56[275:EDOSAT]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IBGE (2018) Mapa Hidrográfico. Escala: 1:25.000 (in Portuguese). https://mapas.ibge.gov.br/bases-e-referenciais. Accessed 14 Feb 2018

  • INEA (2011) Mapa Pedológico. Escala 1:100.000. Ajuste do Mapeamento Classes de Solos do Estado do Rio de Janeiro da escala 1:250.000 (Embrapa, 2003) para escala 1:100.000 (in Portuguese). http://www.cprm.gov.br/publique/Gestao-Territorial/Geologia-de-Engenharia-e-Riscos-Geologicos/Cartas-de-Suscetibilidade-a-Movimentos-Gravitacionais-de-Massa-e-Inundacoes%2D%2D-Rio-de-Janeiro-5082.html. Accessed 15 Feb 2017

  • Jačková K, Romportl D (2008) The relationship between geodiversity and habitat richness in Šumava National Park and Křivoklátsko Pla (Czech Republic): a quantitative analysis approach. J Landsc Ecol 1(1):23–38. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10285-012-0003-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson CE, Andersen S, Alapassi M (1999) Geodiversity in the Nordic countries. ProGeo News 1:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski S (2004) Geodiversity: the concept and scope of geodiversity. Prz Geol 52(8/2):833–837

  • Manosso FC, Nóbrega MT (2016) Calculation of geodiversity from landscape units of the Cadeado range region in Paraná, Brazil. Geoheritage 8(3):189–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0152-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez ED, Mondéjar FG, Perelló JMM, Bové CS (2008) La conservación de la naturaleza debe incluir la geodiversidad y el patrimonio geológico como parte del patrimonio natural. Boletín EUROPARC 25:54–60 (in Spanish)

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews TJ (2014) Integrating geodiversity and biodiversity conservation: theoretical foundations and conservation recommendations in a European Union context. Geoheritage 6(1):57–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-013-0092-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najwer A, Zwoliński Z (2014) Semantyka i metodyka oceny georóżnorodności – przegląd i propozycja badawcza. Landf Anal 26:115–127 (in Polish with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.12657/landfana.026.011

  • Nieto LM (2001) Patrimônio geológico, cultura y turismo. Boletín del Instituto de Estudios Ginnenses 182:109–122 (in Spanish with English abstract)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellitero R (2012) Geomorfología, paleoambiente cuaternario y geodiversidad en el macizo de Fuentes Carrionas-Monta ̃na Palentina. Espanha. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Valladolid

  • Pellitero R, González-Amuchastegui MJ, Ruiz-Flaño P, Serrano E (2011) Geodiversity and Geomorphosite assessment applied to a natural protected area: the Ebro and Rudron Gorges Natural Park (Spain). Geoheritage 3(3):163–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-010-0022-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellitero R, Manosso FC, Serrano E (2014) Mid- and large-escale geodiversity calculation in Fuentes-Carrionas (NW Spain) and Serra do Cadeado (Paraná, Brazil): methodology and application for land management. Geogr Ann Ser A Phys Geogr 97(2):19–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoa.12057

  • Pereira DI, Pereira P, Brilha J, Santos L (2013) Geodiversity assessment of Parana state (Brazil): an innovative approach. Environ Manag 52(3):541–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0100-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Räsänen A, Kuitunen M, Hjort J, Vaso A, Kuitunen T, Lensu A (2016) The role of landscape, topography, and geodiversity in explaining vascular plant species richness in a fragmented landscape. Boreal Environ Res 21:53–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Rojas-López J (2005) Los desafios del estudio de la geodiversidade. Revista Geográfica Venezolana 46(1):143–152 (in Spanish with English abstract)

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos DS, Mansur KL, Gonçalves JB, Arruda Junior ER, Manosso FC (2017) Quantitative assessment of geodiversity and urban growth impacts in Armação dos Búzios, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Appl Geogr 85:184–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.03.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt RS, Trouw R, Schmus WRV, Armstrong R, Stanton NSG (2016) The tectonic significance of the Cabo Frio tectonic domain in the SE Brazilian margin: a Paleoproterozoic through cretaceous saga of a reworked continental margin. Braz J Geol 46:37–66. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-4889201620150025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serrano EC, Ruiz-Flaño P (2007a) Geodiversity: a theoretical and applied concept. Geographica Helvetica 62(3):140–147. https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-62-140-2007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serrano EC, Ruiz-Flaño P (2007b). Geodiversidad: Concepto, evaluacion y aplicación territorial. El caso de Tiermes Caracena (Soria). Boletín de la A.G.E 45:79–98 (in Spanish with English abstract)

  • Sharples C (1995) Geoconservation in forest management – principles and procedures. Tasforests 7:37–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva LC, Cunha HCS (2001) Geologia do Estado do Rio de Janeiro: texto explicativo do mapa geológico do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. CPRM, Brasilia (in Portuguese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva JP, Pereira DI, Aguiar AM, Rodrigues C (2013) Geodiversity assessment of the Xingu drainage basin. J Maps 9(2):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2013.775085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva JP, Rodrigues C, Pereira DI (2015) Mapping and analysis of geodiversity indices in the Xingu River basin, Amazonia, Brazil. Geoheritage 7(4):337–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0134-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva MLN, Nascimento MAL, Mansur KL (2019) Quantitative assessments of geodiversity in the area of the Seridó Geopark project, Northeast Brazil: grid and centroid analysis. Geoheritage 11:1177–1186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00368-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stepišnik U, Trenchovska A (2016) A proposal of quantitative geodiversity: evaluation model on the example of upper Pivka Karst, Slovenia. Razprave 46:53–65. https://doi.org/10.4312/dela.46.2.41-65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarboton DG, Bras RL, Rodriguez-Iturbe I (1992) A physical basis for drainage density. Geomorphology 5(1–2):59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-555X(92)90058-V

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tukiainen H, Bailey JJ, Field R, Kangas K, Hjort J (2016) Combining geodiversity with climate and topography to account for threatened species richness. Conserv Biol 31(2):364–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xavier-da-Silva J, Persson VG, Lorini ML, Bergamo RBA, Ribeiro MF, Costa AJST, Iervolino P, Abdo OE (2001) Índices de Geodiversidade: aplicações de SGI em estudos de Biodiversidade. In: Garay I, Dias B (orgs) Conservação da Biodiversidade em ecossistemas tropicais. Vozes, Petrópolis, pp 299–316 (in Portuguese)

  • Zwolinski Z (2009) The routine of landform geodiversity map design for the polish Carpathian Mts. Landf Anal 11:77–85

  • Zwoliñski Z, Najwer A, Giardino M (2018) Methods for assessing geodiversity. In: Reynard E, Brilha J (eds) Geoheritage: assessment, protection, and management. Elsevier, pp 27–47

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors are grateful to CPRM (Serviço Geológico do Brasil) and DRM-RJ (Departamento de Recursos Minerais do Estado do Rio de Janeiro) for providing data of the study area and to the Department of Geology of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) for providing financial support for the fieldwork.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, 274 Athos da Silveira Ramos Av., Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21941-916, Brazil

    Jéssica Gonçalves, Kátia Mansur & Daniel Santos

  2. Institute of Earth Sciences, Pole of the University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal

    Renato Henriques & Paulo Pereira

Authors
  1. Jéssica Gonçalves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kátia Mansur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Renato Henriques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paulo Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jéssica Gonçalves.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gonçalves, J., Mansur, K., Santos, D. et al. A Discussion on the Quantification and Classification of Geodiversity Indices Based on GIS Methodological Tests. Geoheritage 12, 38 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00458-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00458-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation