Next Article in Journal
Barriers to the Development of Art Tourism in Jingdezhen—The Perspective of the ‘Jingpiao’ Community
Next Article in Special Issue
The Marriage Between Luxury Hospitality, Ecotourism, and Social Initiatives: A New Business Model from Italy
Previous Article in Journal
Bergamot Pomace Flour: From Byproduct to Bioactive Ingredient for Pasta Production
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Sustainable Tourism on Resident and Visitor Satisfaction—The Case of the Special Nature Reserve “Titelski Breg”, Vojvodina
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 17
10.3390/su16177783
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Inventory and Evaluation of Geosites: Case Studies of the Slovak Karst as a Potential Geopark in Slovakia

by
Miroslav Kudla
1,
Miriama Javorská
2,*,
Jana Vašková
3,
Vladimír Čech
3 and
Dana Tometzová
2
1
State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic, Slovak Caves Administration, 031 01 Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia
2
Department of Geo and Mining Tourism, Institute of Earth Resources, Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnologies, Technical University of Košice, 042 00 Košice, Slovakia
3
Department of Geography and Applied Geoinformatics, Faculty of Humanities and Natural Sciences, University of Prešov, 081 16 Prešov, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7783; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177783
Submission received: 8 August 2024 / Revised: 2 September 2024 / Accepted: 3 September 2024 / Published: 6 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Development of Ecotourism)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study analyzes and evaluates natural and anthropogenic geosites within the potential Geopark Slovak Karst using a slightly modified Geosite Assessment Model (GAM). It focuses on three case studies from this area: Jasovská Cave, Gombasecká Cave, and Domica Cave, including their surroundings. The aforementioned caves represent the primary points of interest and draw in high concentrations of visitors. We aim to highlight opportunities for dispersing visitors to other nearby geosites and encouraging their extended stay in the region. Based on the research results, it can be concluded that the highest point values (from 22.5 to 23.5 points) are achieved by three UNESCO caves (Jasovská Cave, Domica Cave, and Baradla Cave). These caves have a high level of both main and additional values. Gombasecká Cave has a total point value of 20.5 points, with a high level of main values and a medium level of additional values. Other geosites reach total point values from 9 to 16 with different levels of main and additional values. The three accessible caves will continue to be the main object of interest for tourists. The networking of other nearby geosites with caves in the form of educational trails and their greater promotion could help visitors stay longer in the region and direct their attention to these geosites. The research methodology used in this study proved to be suitable and we can see its further use in the evaluation of geosites across the entire territory of the potential Geopark Slovak Karst.

1. Introduction

The term “geosite” is an often-reinterpreted term in the literature, dealing with geotourism [1,2,3,4], geodiversity [5,6], geoheritage [7,8], or geoparks [9,10]. Geosites represent the skeleton, the fundamental basis, of a particular region when such places are analyzed and evaluated in terms of the potential or use of the territory for geotourism. According to Goudie [11], geosites are parts of the geosphere that are particularly important for understanding the Earth’s history. They are spatially limited and distinguishable from the surroundings from a scientific point of view. More precisely, geosites are defined as geological or geomorphological objects that have acquired scientific value (e.g., certain sedimentological stratotypes, such as relict moraine, representing the extension of a glacier), cultural–historical value (e.g., places with religious or mystical value), aesthetic value (e.g., some mountainous or coastal landscapes), and/or social/economic value (e.g., aesthetic landscapes as tourist destinations) due to human perception or use.
Groups of geosites are often distinguished and referred to as natural sites (e.g., hydrogeological, pedological, paleontological, and petrological sites) or anthropogenic (geohistorical) sites (e.g., mines and bunkers). Geosites, in terms of dimensions, represent territories from several m2 (e.g., springs) up to several km2 (e.g., glaciers) in size. In addition to the term geosite, the term “geomorphosite” is often used, but it is not easy to distinguish between the two terms. Some authors consider geomorphosites a subgroup of geosites, while others understand geomorphosites as the geomorphological equivalent of geosites. Geosite research often takes place in an area known as a geopark. UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGps) are defined as unified geographical areas where the landscape and sites are of international geological significance and are managed with a holistic concept of protection, education, and sustainable development. A bottom-up approach combines nature conservation with sustainable development while involving local communities. There are currently 213 UNESCO Global Geoparks, spanning 48 countries [12]. A European Geopark is defined as a territory that includes a specific geological heritage with a sustainable territorial development strategy supported by a European development program. It must have clearly defined boundaries and a sufficient area for territorial economic development. A European Geopark must include a certain number of geological sites of exceptional importance in terms of their scientific quality, rarity, aesthetic value, or educational value. Most of the sites present in the territory of the European Geopark must be part of the geological heritage. However, they can also have archaeological, ecological, historical, or cultural significance [13]. The evaluation and inventorying of sites within geoparks, specially protected areas (i.e., national and natural parks) or other regions, is a frequent topic of research [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40].
From the point of view of geotourism potential, the territory of the Slovak Republic can be characterized as relatively diverse, with several territories having a wide variety of suitable geosites. Despite its small area, thanks to the varied geological–geomorphological substrate and the centuries-old use of the land by humankind, the territory of the Slovak Republic is a suitable place for the location and creation of geoparks. To date, four geoparks are registered in the Slovak Republic, which are part of the European Geoparks Network: Banskoštiavnický Geopark, Banskobystrický Geopark, Malé Karpaty Geopark, and Novohrad–Nógrád Geopark. The last of these four is part of the UNESCO Global Geoparks Network.
Analyzing, evaluating, and establishing inventories of geosites are all essential in regions that represent the sites of potential or aspiring geoparks. From the point of view of geotourism, such potential geoparks represent a welcome addition and expansion of the network of existing geoparks at the national or international level [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57].
The “Concept of Geopark Development in Slovakia” from 2008 envisages several other regions in the territory of the Slovak Republic that could become geoparks and thus expand the European Geoparks Network or the UNESCO Global Geoparks Network. Creating a geopark in terms of this concept must be preceded by an analysis of the geodiversity of the given region, the characteristics of its natural and anthropogenic geosites, the setting of adequate management of the area, and the involvement of local governments and organizations. In this paper, we refer to an area that meets the conditions related to this concept as a potential geopark.
Karst territories with surface and underground karst forms represent an ideal space for a potential geopark. In such areas, as a rule, caves represent the main object of interest for tourists and thus represent the dominant geosites of karst areas, which are so often the subject of research and evaluation [58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75].
One of the regions with potential geoparks in the Slovak Republic is the karst territory of the Slovak Karst, which, together with the neighboring Aggtelek Karst in Hungary, is the largest karst area in Central Europe. Favorable geological conditions (i.e., the occurrence of massive light Wetterstein limestones), together with the geological–tectonic development of the territory, created favorable conditions for the emergence and expansion of the karst phenomenon here. On a total area of approx. 800 km2 (together with the Aggtelek Karst), a diverse range of forms of underground (endokarst) and surface (exokarst) karst was created to form this territory. From the view of the types of karst relief, it is plain karst with the occurrence of karst plains, which point to the midmountain leveling system. We can find several natural geosites in this area (caves, chasms, springs, sinkholes, limestone pavements, canyons, and gorges). Settlement and centuries–old use of this territory by humans has also caused the appearance of anthropogenic geosites (quarries, artificial lakes, monasteries, and mining works). Due to the area’s valuable natural resources, there are two national parks in this karst area: in Slovakia, there is the Slovak Karst National Park (Figure 1), established in 2002; in Hungary, there is the Aggtelek National Park (established in 1985).
As a contribution to the literature, this paper aims to inventory and assess natural and anthropogenic geosites on three case studies from the area of the potential Slovak Karst Geopark.

2. Study Area

2.1. The Slovak Karst

The Slovak Karst is located in the southern part of the Western Carpathians in the southeast of the Slovak Republic in the Slovak Ore Mountains. The territory, with an area of 361.65 km2, covers four territorial administrative districts, namely Košice–Okolie, Gelnica, Rožňava, and Revúca. In the south, it stretches along the state border with the Republic of Hungary for a length of 57 km. The territory of the Slovak Karst is divided into nine subdivisions, namely Jelšavský kras, Koniarska planina, Plešivecká planina, Silická planina, Turnianska kotlina, Horný vrch, Dolný vrch, Zádielska planina, and Jasovská planina. The core zones of the territory are represented by the areas Silica–Jasov (27,299 ha), Plešivecká planina (5471 ha), and Koniarska planina (1595 ha). The territory’s highest point is Dvorník Hill (932 m a.s.l.).
At the beginning of the Middle Triassic, limestone and dolomite layers began to form from the calcareous organisms of reefs on the subsided basins of the Late Permian. The sea retreated from the karst region, probably at the beginning of the Cretaceous. The uplift of the Gemer base caused the gravitational slide of limestone blocks in the form of mantels up to several tens of kilometers [76,77]—the first traces of karsting in Gombasek and Včeláre date from the Upper Cretaceous period. The flattening of the territory was caused by meandering surface flows from the Slovak Ore Mountains. The lifting and cutting of the area by the rivers Štítnik and Slaná occurred about 7 million years ago, while vertical caves and chasms such as Zvonivá jama, Malá Žomboj, Obrovská priepasť, and Brázda were created. More minor uplifts in the Pliocene about 3 million years ago were of great importance for the creation of the horizontal levels of several caves, such as Gombasecká, Ardovská and Hrušovská caves, or the Domica–Baradla cave system lP [78,79,80]. The territory of the Slovak Karst (Figure 2) is built mainly of light Triassic Wetterstein and Steinalm limestones with a lesser amount of dark-gray Gutenstein limestones [77,81,82].
The division of the initially uniform limestone territory into separate plateaus was caused by the uplift of the territory of the Slovak Karst and Aggtelek Karst in the late Tertiary, which was accompanied by an intensive deepening of the surface flows dividing this territory into plateaus. They are separated by the Štítnik and Slaná canyons, up to 400 m deep [83]. The plateaus of the Slovak Karst belong to the most fully developed karst plateaus in Europe and represent a typical Central European plateau karst of a temperate climate zone, with the perfect development of almost all surface and subsurface karst phenomena [84]. Limestone pavements are widespread on almost all plain surfaces, while the most representative area in terms of their occurrence is the Kečovské Karrens (Kečovské škrapy) [85]. Various types of sinkholes are abundantly represented; on the edges of the plateaus, there are also blind valleys ending in a limestone wall or dry valleys with sinkholes at the bottom [86,87,88].
The Slovak Karst finds itself in a mildly warm and humid climatic region with a cold winter, experiencing average winter temperatures of −2 to −5 °C and summer temperatures of 16 to 18 °C. The annual number of days with snow cover is around 60–80, and the number of summer days is between 30 and 50. The average annual temperature is around 8.8 °C. The annual average precipitation ranges from 630 to 780 mm. A significant seasonal change of weather is characteristic.
The territory of the Slovak Karst is drained by the rivers Slaná, Štítnik, and Bodva with their side tributaries. The territory is characterized by a general lack of water, which is most pronounced on the surface of the plateaus. Numerous karst lakes (Smradľavé jazero, Jašteričie jazero, and Farárova jama) can be found on the edges of the plateaus near the junction of karst and non-karst rocks [89]. The lack of water on the surface is compensated for by the accumulation of groundwater inside the plateaus, drained by springs and springs of shallow circulation at their foothills with fluctuating yields, such as Čierna, Hučiaca, Brzotínska, or Pstružia vyvieračka. The regimes of springs connected with waters of deeper circulation, such as Veľká studňa, Teplá voda (Včeláre), or Kunová Teplica, are more constant. A particular type is represented by periodic springs based on the principle of an underground reservoir, which is gradually filled with water before compressed air pushes it to the surface at once [90,91].
The soil cover on the karst plateaus of this territory is significantly conditioned by the georelief, as well as the geological bedrock. Karst ridges and mounds are mainly covered by rubified rendzins, representing the most widespread soil type. In dry valleys and plateaus, characteristic cambisols are rubified. The territory is characterized by the frequent occurrence of terra rossa, either in an autochthonous form or, even more so, in a resedimented form [92].
The specific characteristics and peculiar conditions of the territory of the Slovak Karst are also reflected in the diversity of its flora and fauna [93]. Within Slovakia, several flora taxa occur only in the Slovak Karst, e.g., Sadler’s fern (Ferula sadleriana), the pisiform grass-pea (Latyhrus pisiformis), or the short–necked sedge (Carex brevicollis). The peculiarities of the territory also create specific conditions for animals, predominantly of the steppe and forest–steppe zones, such as the predatory bush cricket (Saga pedo), the European ground squirrel (Spermophillus cittelus), the praying mantis (Mantis religiosa), or the mollusk Pupilla triplicata. The occurrence of 217 species of birds has also been confirmed. Bats, which find suitable living conditions in the caves of the Slovak Karst, are the most abundant cave fauna, some of which are endemics and troglobites, such as the shrew Eukoenenia spelaea, the cave shrew Niphargus aggtelekiensis, the beetle Duvalius bokor, the shrew Neobisium slovacum, and the springtail Pseudosinella aggtelekiensis [94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103].
Since 1995, the territory of the Slovak Karst has been included in the UNESCO World Natural Heritage List as part of the “Caves of the Slovak and Aggtelek Karst” project.

2.2. Geosites of the Territory

In the studied territory of the Slovak Karst, we focused on three case studies. At the center of these three areas is an accessible cave, listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Thus, this cave represents the area’s main geosite, with the largest concentration of visitors in the entire Slovak Karst. In its vicinity, we also selected other geosites. We evaluated their potential in order to point out other opportunities for the development of geotourism in the area, given that this would subsequently lead to more extended stays of visitors in the region and their broader dispersion.

2.3. Jasovská Cave and Its Surroundings (Figure 3)

GS1, Jasovská Cave (Figure 4)—The cave itself is located in the easternmost part of the Jasovská Plateau on the edge of the Medzevská pahorkatina upland. In 1846, it was made available by the religious order of Premonstratensians. The entrance to the cave is under the Jasovská Rock near the village of Jasov. Since 1995, Jasovská Cave has been registered among the natural monuments in the UNESCO World Heritage List within the Slovak and Aggtelek Karst caves. The upper and some lower parts, mostly oval–shaped corridors, were created by the action of the formerly submerged waters of the Bodva river. Stagnant waters also formed some parts of the cave spaces. It is an important wintering place for 19 species of bats out of the total 24 species that live in Slovakia. It is known for being the location of paleontological sites of cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) and cave hyena (Crocuta spelaea) bones, as well as for its archaeological sites and fascinating history. Since 1995, speleoclimatic stays have been carried out in the cave [104,105,106,107].
Sustainability 16 07783 g003
Figure 3. Geosites of Jasovská Cave and its surroundings.
Figure 3. Geosites of Jasovská Cave and its surroundings.
Sustainability 16 07783 g003
Sustainability 16 07783 g004
Figure 4. Jasovská Cave (GS1).
Figure 4. Jasovská Cave (GS1).
Sustainability 16 07783 g004
GS2, Jasovská Rock (Jasovská skala)—In addition to Jasovská Cave, the Jasovská Rock also hides smaller caves. The massif is built mainly of Middle Triassic gray Gutenstein dolomites and light Steinalm limestones and dolomites of the siliceous mantle. At the top of the Jasovská Rock are the ruins of the Jasovský Castle from the beginning of the 14th century. An educational trail, Jasovská skala, has been built on the site, which leads from the bottom of Jasovská Cave to its top, then to the ruins of the castle, and from there through the Jasovské Oaks and to Jasovský Lake.
GS3, Premonstratensian Monastery, Jasov (Figure 5)—The first definite mention of this monastery in Jasov dates from 1243. The building of the Premonstratensian Monastery itself underwent several reconstructions, the most significant of which took place in the middle of the 18th century, when the original complex was practically demolished and replaced by the current late-Baroque monastery complex. Even though it is not a geosite, it is closely related to the geosites of the surrounding area and has historically directly conditioned their use and anthropogenic changes [108].
GS4, NNR Jasovské Oaks (Jasovské Dubiny)—In the northern part of Jasovská Rock, in the immediate distance from Jasovský Lake, there is the territory of the national nature reserve Jasovské Oaks (Dubiny), which has an area of 35 ha. This site is the oldest nature reserve in the territory of the Slovak Karst. It was declared a nature reserve in 1950 to protect preserved natural communities in places crossed by xerothermic biotopes [94].
GS5, Jasovský Lake (Figure 6)—This lake is located near the monastery complex north of the Jasovská Rock. It was built in the first half of the 15th century thanks to the Premonstratensians from Jasov. The pond is fed by the Teplica karst spring. Part of the complex of the pond is also an extensive historic cellar [108].
GS6, Hatinská Cave—Freely accessible to the public, Hatinská Cave is located 7.5 km south of Jasov and 1.3 km east of the village of Debraď. Since 2013, the cave has been freely accessible to the public, although there is no marked trail leading to it. This cave, which is 40 m long, is represented by an inactive fluviokarst passage [109].
GS7, Devil’s Rock—Devil’s Rock is a lonely limestone rock massif located southeast of the village of Jasov, only 1.7 km from the entrance of Jasovská Cave. With a height of more than 2 m and a diameter of more than 5 m, the rock stands out from the practically flat terrain [108].

2.4. Gombasecká Cave and Its Surroundings (Figure 7)

GS8, Gombasecká Cave (Figure 8)—The cave itself is located at the western foot of the Silická Plateau in the Slovak Karst National Park. It was officially opened to the public only in 1955. Since 1968, as the first cave in Slovakia, it has been used for speleoclimatic healing stays—i.e., speleotherapy. The cave was included as a natural monument in the UNESCO World Heritage List, as part of the Slovak and Aggtelek Karst caves, in 1995. The spaces, arranged in two levels, were created in the Middle Triassic limestones of the siliceous mantle along tectonic faults due to the corrosion and erosion activity of the Čierny stream and its tributaries. Several parts of the cave have a rich and varied sinter filling. Characteristic are the extremely long straws, which reach up to 3 m. The cave is known for hosting the discovery of the genuine cave animal of the Slovak caves and the largest troglobite, which is a centipede of the genus Typhloiulus sp. with a body length of 26 millimeters [110,111,112].
Sustainability 16 07783 g007
Figure 7. Geosites of Gombasecká Cave and its surroundings.
Figure 7. Geosites of Gombasecká Cave and its surroundings.
Sustainability 16 07783 g007
Sustainability 16 07783 g008
Figure 8. Gombasecká Cave with its unique thin-straw stalactites (GS8).
Figure 8. Gombasecká Cave with its unique thin-straw stalactites (GS8).
Sustainability 16 07783 g008
GS9, Gombasek Quarry (Figure 9)—This site is an active quarry on the southeastern slope of the Plešivecká Plateau on the western edge of the village of Slavec. In addition to limestone mining, it provides an ideal opportunity to learn about the geological values of the Plešivecká Plateau and the Slovak Karst. During mining, several cavities filled with Upper Cretaceous sediments were discovered in the quarry, the oldest evidence of karst processes in the Slovak Karst. The favorable location of the nearby Gombasecká Cave makes this quarry a potential destination for geotourism participants [113,114].
GS10, Ruins of the Pauline Monastery, Gombasek (Figure 9)—The Ruins of the Pauline Monastery, a church built in 1371, are located only 700 m north of Gombasek Cave, from where an educational trail leads to them. Only a few walls, bare masonry, church walls, and fragmentary remains of interior plasters have been preserved. Similar to the case of the Premonstratensian Monastery in Jasov, here, we present the Ruins of the Pauline Monastery as a historical monument that, in the past, was directly related to the use and anthropic changes in the surrounding geosites [115].
GS11, Pauline Quarry—During the activity of the Pauline monastic order in Gombasek, a quarry operated by the Pauline order was used to extract limestone for the construction of the monastery and other buildings in the vicinity, which no longer exist today. It is located between the cave and the Ruins of the Pauline Monastery. All of the aforementioned locations are connected by the educational trail through Gombasek [115].
GS12, Black Resurgence (Čierna vyvieračka)—This karst spring is located near the entrance of Gombasecká Cave. The cave was discovered through a trench made directly in the spring of 1951. During the season of spring, the waters of the extensive underground hydrological system of the Plešivecká Plateau between Silická ľadnica Cave and Gombasecká Cave leave the underground [112].
GS13, White Resurgence (Biela vyvieračka)—The White Resurgence is located at the western foot of the Silická Plateau, only 820 m northeast of Gombasecká Cave. This spring drains part of the Silická Plateau, and its waters flow from the massive accumulation of slope debris. A noteworthy feature of this site is the artificial historical retaining wall, which collects water from the karst spring [116].

2.5. Domica Cave and Its Surroundings (Figure 10)

GS14, Domica Cave (Figure 11)—Domica Cave is located on the southwestern edge of the Silická Plateau. The Club of Czechoslovak Tourists opened this cave in 1932. In addition to making the cave accessible, they introduced electric lighting and dammed the underground river Styx, allowing an underground boat cruise that operates depending on the hydrological conditions. Since 1995, Domica has been included in the UNESCO World Heritage List within the Slovak and Aggtelek Karst caves. Together with the Čertova diera Cave, this cave is part of the Domica–Baradla cave system, which has a length of more than 30 km, with ¼ being located in Slovakia and ¾ in Hungary. The corrosive and erosive activity of the submerged waters of the Styx and the Domický stream created it. This cave’s underground spaces are richly decorated with various forms of sinter decoration, including shields and drums. The cave represents a unique archaeological site, especially concerning Neolithic Bukovohora culture. At the same time, it is an essential chiropterological site. The presence of 160 species of animals has been confirmed here, including troglobiont and endemic fauna, such as the shrew Eukoenenia spelea and the hornbill Niphargus aggtelekiensis [116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125].
Sustainability 16 07783 g010
Figure 10. Geosites of Domica Cave and its surroundings.
Figure 10. Geosites of Domica Cave and its surroundings.
Sustainability 16 07783 g010
Sustainability 16 07783 g011
Figure 11. Majko’s Dome in Domica Cave, one of the most beautiful underground spaces in Slovakia (GS14).
Figure 11. Majko’s Dome in Domica Cave, one of the most beautiful underground spaces in Slovakia (GS14).
Sustainability 16 07783 g011
GS15, Domické Karrens (Domické škrapy)—Near Domica Cave, there is a national nature reserve named Domické škrapy. It is a territory with an area of 24 ha and numerous occurrences of loose karrens. In 1973, it was declared a national nature reserve. At this site, surface karst phenomena are mainly represented by different types of karrens [112]. At the same time, this site is home to rare xerothermic communities of plants and animals typical of the Slovak Karst. An educational trail of the same name passes through this territory, dedicated to the presentation of the protected area [88,94,103].
GS16, Baradla Cave, Aggtelek—Baradla Cave forms a more significant part of the cross-border Domica–Baradla cave system, with a length of more than 30 km, and just like Domica Cave, Baradla Cave, in the village of Aggtelek, is also accessible. It has eleven entrances, four of which are open to the public [126]. The submerged waters of the Styx and the Domický streams create the cave system. The underground spaces of the Baradla Cave are richly decorated, and it is a significant location in terms of the occurrence of sinter shields and drums. The cave system is a vital biosphere site and is included in the list of the Ramsar Convention [91]. It is also home to many species of troglobites and endemic invertebrates, such as the shrew Eukoenenia spelaea and the cave shrew Niphargus aggtelekiensis [88]. Speleotherapy is also implemented and developed in Baradla Cave [127,128].
GS17, Aggtelek Rock (Figure 12)—This site is a protruding limestone massif on the southwestern slope of the Silická Plateau with the entrance to the accessible Baradla Cave; it represents a significant dominant feature of the village of Aggtelek and, at the same time, a location frequently visited by tourists, with good tourist infrastructure and an information center. Visitors to the Aggtelek Karst and Baradla Cave are concentrated here. The surroundings of the Aggtelek Rock represent an ideal educational location regarding the prospect of redistributing visitors to other localities [88].
GS18, Aggtelek Lake—This lake is located east of the Hungarian village of Aggtelek, in the immediate vicinity, just one kilometer from the entrance of Baradla Cave. With an area of up to 1.13 ha, it is one of the most extensive karst lakes. It is formed at the interface of clayey gravels and Triassic limestones while representing the end of a blind valley. This lake is a geological curiosity and a great tourist attraction [84,88].
GS19, Kečovské Karrens (Kečovské škrapy)—Just 3 km northeast of Domica Cave, 300 m northeast of the village of Kečovo on the southwestern slope of the Maliník hill (492 m above sea level), there is the protected site of Kečovské škrapy, declared in 1981. This territory, with an area of 7 ha, represents the largest karren field on a limestone hillside in Slovakia. Numerous occurrences of fissures and various rare types of karrens characterize it. It is also a remarkable example of the consequences of anthropic activity: due to the removal of original forest stands and long–term grazing by herds of goats and sheep, the shallow soil cover has been gradually erased, exposing the limestone bedrock [94].
GS20, Kečovská Resurgence (Kečovská vyvieračka)—Just 700 m north of the village of Kečovo and the site of Kečovská škrapy, there is a karst spring (resurgence) named Kečovská vyvieračka. It drains part of the underground of the Silická Plateau. Its waters serve as a water source for the village of Kečovo and its surroundings. There are several smaller caves near this karst spring.

3. Methods

In our evaluation, we used the existing GAM (Geosite Assessment Model) first used by Vujicic et al. [129] and modified it slightly. When compiling the indicators and their groups, Vujicic et al. used methodological procedures and criteria for evaluating geosites presented in the works of several other authors [130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138]. The GAM is based on the division of indicators into two main groups: main values, with three subgroups (Scientific/Educational value—VSE; Scenic/Aesthetic value—VSA; Protection value—VPr), and additional values, with two subgroups (Functional value—VFn; Touristic value—VTr). Each subgroup contains a certain number of indicators, with five levels of point values, from 0 to 1.
On top of these indicators used by Vujičič et al. [129], we added one indicator for each subgroup within the group of main values. Regarding the Scientific/Educational value, we added the indicator I5, “Research and education “in situ””, as we consider the possibility of conducting scientific research or education directly at the geolocation to be an essential indicator of the overall evaluation. With this indicator, we focused on whether the geosite is physically accessible for research and education, whether there is enough space for a more significant number of people, whether the location is fenced or locked, and whether special entry permits are required. In the Scenic/Aesthetic value subgroup, we added the indicator I10, “Basic physiognomy of the site”, where we assume that concave forms, convex forms, or combined concave–convex forms hold higher Aesthetic/Scenic value and are more attractive to visitors there. We also added the indicator I15, “Protected biota”, to the subgroup of Protection value, as we assume that the occurrence of rare or specially protected plant and animal species (e.g., bats) increases the attractiveness of the given geolocation.
After adding these three indicators, the group of main values contained 15 evaluation indicators; similarly, the group of additional values contains 15 evaluation indicators (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5). Every single geosite was evaluated using 30 indicators, while for each indicator, a given geolocation was assigned a point value in the range of (0–0.25–0.5–0.75–1). The total resulting point value of the geolocation was thus calculated according to a simple formula:
GAM = main values (VSE+VSA+VPr) + additional values (VFn+VTr).
These results allowed us to compile a matrix of main and additional values (Figure 13), similar to Vujicic et al.’s [129] procedure. In Figure 13, on the X-axis are the main values, and on the Y-axis are additional values. The matrix is divided into 9 fields (zones) labelled Z1 to Z9, while the main grid lines that form the fields have a value of 5 units for both the X-axis and the Y-axis. Thus, if a given geolocation has a sum of main values of 9 and a sum of additional values of 4, it is located in field Z2, which means that it has an intermediate level of main values and a low level of additional values.

4. Results

From an analysis of the assessment results according to the GAM (Table 6), it follows that the highest point values are achieved by the accessible caves of the territory registered in the UNESCO World Natural and Cultural Heritage List, which proves our previous assumption. According to the matrix (Figure 13), three geosites (Jasovská Cave (GS1), Baradla Cave (GS16), and Domica Cave (GS14)) belong to field Z9 (high main and high additional values).
A high point value is particularly shown in the Scientific/Educational and Scenic/Aesthetic values. Caves are rare and represent a good level of interpretation of natural processes; scientific research and education projects are often carried out “in situ” within them. Due to the high degree of protection of these sites (domestic and international), however, in the case of the aforementioned scientific research and education, special permits are required from the relevant authorities, and the sites are locked and secured by security elements. The three studied caves are spatially extensive, with rugged relief and diverse sinter decoration, and have high Scenic/Aesthetic value. They are in the highest level of protection according to national legislation (national natural monument—fifth level of protection), which reflects their high natural value. From the point of view of the current state, we classify these three sites as slightly damaged due to accessibility works or other interactions with humans. We also register a high level of additional values here—both Functional and Touristic. The caves’ scores in both of these subcategories mainly represent good transport accessibility due to the vicinity of roads of regional and national importance and developed tourist infrastructure (parking lots, shops selling souvenirs and educational materials, local restaurants and accommodation services, etc.). These caves represent the most visited geosites in the Slovak and Aggtelek Karst territory for individual visitors and organized domestic and foreign bus tours. The annual number of visitors to these monitored caves reaches tens of thousands. They are well advertised in the media and by various tourist guides, and commentary is carried out by their guide services and supplemented by educational panels.
Gombasecká Cave (GS8) achieves a high level of main values and an intermediate level of additional values, thus reaching the Z6 field. In the group of main values, it achieves parameters similar to those of GS1, GS16, and GS14. A relatively short tour route conditions its intermediate level of additional values compared to the three aforementioned geosites, as well as a lower level of accommodation development and catering services and slightly worse transport accessibility.
Within the matrix, most geosites are located in field Z5 (intermediate level of main values and intermediate level of additional values). These include the following eight geosites: the Jasovská Rock, GS2; the Premonstratensian Monastery, Jasov, GS3; Jasovský Lake, GS5; the Black Resurgence (Čierna vyvieračka), GS12; the White Resurgence (Biela vyvieračka), GS13; the Domické Karrens, GS15; the Aggtelek Rock, GS17; and Aggtelek Lake, GS18. Their common feature is their proximity to the four highest-rated geosites (accessible caves). The Jasovská Rock and Jasovský Lake geosites are located close to Jasovská Cave. Both of these locations’ Scientific/Educational value is identical and reaches an intermediate level. The Jasovská Rock has a higher Scenic/Aesthetic value due to its panoramic possibilities. Jasovský Lake has a slightly higher conservation value due to the presence of protected biota. Both locations are sparsely visited, and no significant markings exist for them. At the Jasovská Rock, overcoming an elevation gain is also necessary.
Near Gombasecká Cave are two geosites: the Black Resurgence (Čierna vyvieračka) and the White Resurgence (Biela vyvieračka). Both represent point geosites with dimensions of several m2; at the same time, they are equipped with educational panels, and their perspectives in geotourism are limited by their small dimensions and low point values. Three other geosites are located near Domica Cave: the Domické Karrens and, further east (already in Hungary’s territory), the Aggtelek Rock and Aggtelek Lake. The geosite Domické Karrens is made accessible by an educational trail. However, its attendance is low due to the small promotion of the location, the necessity to overcome a slight elevation, the worse condition of the marked trail, and the overall lower attractiveness for tourists.
The location of the Domické Karrens achieves higher conservation values, as it is a protected area in terms of national legislation (i.e., a national nature reserve) with the occurrence of protected biota. The Aggtelek Rock geosite (with the Aggtelek entrance to Baradla Cave (GS16) at its foot) achieves higher Scenic/Aesthetic values, mainly due to the view parameters. It is accessible via a marked path with a stone staircase, which tempts the visitors of Baradla Cave to climb to the top. The geosite Aggtelek Lake is a peculiarity in this karst area; its bottom is clogged with clay, so rainwater is retained there. There is no marked path leading to it. Moreover, it dries up during the dry summer. It has a higher conservation value due to the presence of protected biota.
A unique site is the Premonstratensian Monastery in Jasov, which represents an anthropogenic (geohistorical) geosite related to the historical use and formation of the surrounding monitored natural geosites. The monastery building is accessible to visitors after prior reservation of entry, while its attendance is significantly lower than the accessible caves of the studied territory. The monastery is still currently used by the Premonstratensian monastic order, which limits its tourist potential.
Two monitored geosites reached the Z4 field: the Ruins of the Pauline Monastery, GS10, and the Pauline Quarry, GS11. A common characteristic of both of these anthropogenic sites in this field is a low level of main values and an intermediate level of additional values. From the point of view of the main values, the current state of geosites is an unfavorable indicator. We see favorable indicators of additional values—especially near the Gombasecká Cave visitor center. At the same time, they lag in other indicators, especially regarding the number of visitors. The reason for this is their small capacity and insufficient promotion.
Within the matrix, there are five geosites in field Z2: the NNR Jasovské Oaks, GS4; Devil’s Rock, GS7; Gombasek Quarry, GS9; the Kečovské Karrens, GS19; and the Kečovská Resurgence (karst spring), GS20. The geosites in this field have a medium level of primary values and a low level of additional values. The geosite of the NNR Jasovské Oaks has favorable Protection values, but its Functional values are less favorable, especially regarding its accessibility and the vicinity of important road networks. Among the additional values, the promotion or implementation of organized visits at this site lags significantly behind. It becomes the destination of a few tourists ascending to the Jasovská Rock, who descend towards Jasovský Lake. The geosite Devil’s Rock attracts a minimum number of visitors from Jasovská Cave, conditioned not only by insufficient promotion but mainly by insufficient transport infrastructure and the absence of a nearby visitor center or information panels. The geosite Gombasek Quarry, with an intermediate level of main values, is mainly conditioned by geological values. At the same time, this site is at high risk and is characterized by insufficient accessibility and the absence of a visitor center with tourism infrastructure. The neighboring geosites of the Kečovské Karrens and Kečovská Resurgence (karst spring) are characterized by unfavorable accessibility from Domica Cave and unfavorable distance from a road network, as well as insufficient tourist infrastructure. In contrast, only a fraction of visitors to Domica Cave visit both geosites.
In field Z1, characterized by low levels of main and additional values, only the geosite Hatinská Cave, GS6, was placed. It is not characterized by attractiveness, conditioned by Educational and Scenic values. There is no hiking trail leading to this small cave that is freely accessible to the public, and there is no tourism infrastructure. Due to the absence of information panels, this geosite is challenging, and visitors are negligible.

5. Discussion

The research findings presented here indicate that within each of the three case studies, a dominant geosite is identified, represented by three caves listed as UNESCO World Natural Heritage Sites. Domica Cave and Jasovská Cave receive the highest ratings for both main and additional values. In contrast, Gombasecká Cave ranks lower in additional values, which we classify as intermediate. These caves serve as the primary attractions and focal points for visitors. They are well promoted in media, tourist guides, and directional signage. While visitor awareness is strong, there is a need for improvements in transportation and tourist infrastructure.
In the immediate vicinity of these three caves (within a 1 to 50 min walk), several additional geosites remain relatively unknown to the general public, apart from the Baradla Cave in Aggtelek, Hungary. Enhanced promotion of these sites could encourage visitors to extend their stay in the region and help reduce the concentration of tourists in the more accessible caves. Ideally, these geosites could be interconnected by an educational trail, forming a thematic route with a broader appeal. A unified ticket could be introduced, both granting access to the caves and offering visitors the opportunity to explore additional geolocations. Revenue from ticket sales could fund the maintenance and development of the educational trail. These geosites can be considered “satellite geosites”, with their attractiveness and potential visitor numbers being dependent on the extent of connectivity through educational trails, local awareness, and effective promotion. We view these initiatives as crucial for developing a sustainable geopark and fostering geotourism in this area. The lower ratings of these “satellite geosites”—most of which fall into the medium category for both main and additional values—can be offset by the more prominent caves, which have the potential to serve as a catalyst for geotourism in the surrounding areas.
Our research results confirm that the chosen methodology is well suited for analyzing the potential of the observed geosites, particularly in evaluating their main and additional values as key elements of the proposed geopark. This is also confirmed by the results of the works of other authors [34,129]. The geosites studied here are not limited to natural or karst sites; many are cultural and historical landmarks that reflect the use of the surrounding landscape and the anthropogenic changes it has undergone. This analysis provides an in-depth insight into the interaction between the region’s natural environment and human activity throughout history. Our approach envisions connecting these geosites through educational trails or organized tourist excursions, designed thematically to highlight the continuity and interconnectedness of the sites. This networking will enhance the public’s understanding of their value and create opportunities to develop services beyond the accessible caves.
Based on the applied methodology, our research team independently conducted individual evaluations and quantified the main and additional values of each studied geosite. To enhance future research, it would be advantageous to broaden the sample of respondents to include the general public, possibly through questionnaires. Visitors to the studied accessible caves would be an ideal target group for evaluating these geosites, which would help minimize the subjectivity inherent in our research team’s assessments. One limitation of this research is its narrow geographical focus, restricted to the areas surrounding Jasovská Cave, Gombasecká Cave, and Domica Cave. Future studies would benefit from expanding the scope to cover the entire Slovak Karst National Park, allowing for a more comprehensive analysis of the potential geosites across the entire region rather than just select sites. Establishing a network of geosites throughout this national park holds significant potential for boosting tourism, a particularly urgent goal given the recent notable decline in visitor numbers, including those to the accessible caves.
A forward–looking analysis of geosite potential, aimed at optimizing their use for tourism, would also require a well–organized record and systematic documentation of relevant knowledge. Therefore, we propose creating a comprehensive database of geosites in Slovakia. This database would systematically catalog and organize the collected data in a readily accessible and searchable format using inventory sheets. It could be modeled on existing resources such as the State List of Specially Protected Parts of Nature and Landscape of the Slovak Republic or the Cave Database of the Slovak Republic. For the Slovak Karst National Park, the database could be managed by the national park administration or, as in the examples above, by the Slovak Museum of Nature Protection and Speleology.
To effectively implement conservation measures and assess the prospects for geotourism and the networking of sites within potential geoparks, we propose categorizing geosites into at least three levels of importance: international, national, and local. This categorization would not only guide conservation efforts but also provide a framework for evaluating and enhancing the geotouristic potential of these sites.

6. Conclusions

This study makes a significant contribution to the literature by identifying and showcasing geosites with potential interest in a region currently underdeveloped for tourism. By increasing public interest in these sites, it will be possible to retain tourists in the region and redistribute them from major attractions, like the caves, to surrounding geosites. This strategy offers the public a more comprehensive understanding of natural geological values within the context of their interaction with human activity and the landscape. Shifting visitors from the caves to nearby locations could also lead to better integration and enhancement of services, acting as a catalyst for the broader development of geotourism and overall tourism in the Slovak Karst region.
Exploring these geosites is crucial in raising awareness of the region’s natural, cultural, and historical significance. These sites have the potential to serve as field study locations not only for students of geography, geology, and related sciences but also as valuable excursion destinations for elementary– and secondary–school students. This approach fosters regional awareness, emphasizing the appreciation and protection of the national park’s natural assets.
Establishing a Slovak Karst Geopark would significantly boost and further develop tourism in the area. This paper serves as an initial study, focusing on the analysis and evaluation of geosites through three case studies. Expanding this analysis to include the entire Slovak Karst area is essential for further discussions about establishing a geopark. If realized, the accessible caves will continue to be the main attractions, while visitors will also have the opportunity to explore thematic routes connecting various geosites near these caves. These geosites offer diverse potential in attractiveness and other factors, providing a viable alternative to the caves and adding significant value to educational and research initiatives.
However, a challenge in developing geotourism within the potential Slovak Karst Geopark is balancing the demands of nature conservation with the current technical and tourism infrastructure limitations. Addressing these challenges will be critical to ensuring the effective and sustainable management of the area.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.Č. and M.K.; methodology, V.Č. and D.T.; software, M.J.; validation, V.Č. and J.V.; formal analysis, M.K.; investigation, V.Č.; resources, M.J.; data curation, M.J. and V.Č.; writing—original draft preparation, J.V., M.K. and V.Č.; writing—review and editing, J.V. and D.T.; visualization, M.J.; supervision, M.K. and D.T.; project administration, V.Č.; funding acquisition, V.Č. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by KEGA; Ministry of Education, Research, Development and Youth of the Slovak Republic, under grant number 045PU-4/2022: “Adrenaline Tourism— A Dynamic Field in Tourism Development”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The data collection procedure was accomplished in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki for the protection of human research subjects.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Sadry, B.N. The Geotourism Industry in the 21st Century—The Origin, Principles, and Futuristic Approach; Apple Academic Press: Point Pleasant, NJ, USA, 2021; p. 596. [Google Scholar]
  2. Chen, A.; Lu, Y.; Ng, Y. The Principles of Geotourism; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; p. 264. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hose, T.A. (Ed.) Appreciating Physical Landscapes—Three Hundred Years of Geotourism; Geological Society: London, UK, 2016; p. 248. [Google Scholar]
  4. Gamkrelidze, I.; Okrostsvaridze, A.; Koiava, K.; Maisadze, F. Geotourism Potential of Georgia, the Caucasus—History, Culture, Geology, Geotourist Routes and Geoparks; Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; p. 81. [Google Scholar]
  5. Carcavilla, L.; Díaz-Martínez, E.; García-Cortés, A.; Vegas, J. Geoheritage and Geodiversity; Instituto Geológico y Minero de España: Madrid, Spain, 2019; p. 22. [Google Scholar]
  6. Gray, J.M. Geodiversity-Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature; Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004; p. 451. [Google Scholar]
  7. Drinia, H.; Voudouris, P.; Antonarakou, A. (Eds.) Geoheritage and Geotourism Resources—Education, Recreation, Sustainability; Special Issue in Geosciences; MDPI-Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: Basel, Switzerland, 2022; p. 346. [Google Scholar]
  8. Reynard, E.; Brilha, J. (Eds.) Geoheritage. Assessment, Protection, and Management; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; p. 455. [Google Scholar]
  9. Konečný, V.; Pachinger, P. Geotopes of the Banská Štiavnica Geopark–Volcanism and Structure of the Territory; SAŽP: Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, 2023; p. 282.
  10. Schüppel, K.; Wrede, V. Nationaler GeoPark Ruhrgebiet; Geoparks; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; p. 215. [Google Scholar]
  11. Goudie, A.S. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Geomorphology 2 Vol Set; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2004; p. 1202. [Google Scholar]
  12. Available online: https://www.unesco.org/en/iggp/geoparks/about (accessed on 1 July 2024).
  13. Available online: https://www.europeangeoparks.org/?page_id=165 (accessed on 1 July 2024).
  14. Ilie, G.C.; Grecu, F. Analysis of the Scientific Importance and Vulnerability of the Sarea lui Buzău Geosite Within the Buzău Land UNESCO Global Geopark, Romania. Geoheritage 2023, 15, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Oppizzi, P.; Pasquaré Mariotto, F.; Stockar, R.; Stella, A.; Corti, N.; Pedicini, M.; Andò, S.; Vezzoli, G.; Bonali, F.L. Geosites in the Gole della Breggia Geopark, Ticino, Southern Switzerland. Resources 2023, 12, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fuad, H.; Intan, H.N. Exploration of the Potential Geosite of Ijen Geopark Bondowoso Region as an Educational Tourism. J. Kepariwisataan-Destin. Hosp. Perjalanan 2023, 7, 196–205. [Google Scholar]
  17. Perotti, L.; Bollati, I.M.; Viani, C.; Zanoletti, E.; Caironi, V.; Pelfini, M.; Giardino, M. Fieldtrips and Virtual Tours as Geotourism Resources—Examples from the Sesia Val Grande UNESCO Global Geopark (NW Italy). Resources 2020, 9, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Testa, B.; Aldighieri, B.; Bertini, A.; Blendinger, W.; Caielli, G.; Franco, R.; Giordano, D.; Kustatscher, E. Geomorphodiversity of the San Lucano Valley (Belluno Dolomites, Italy)—A Well-Preserved Heritage. Geoheritage 2013, 5, 151–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Coratza, P.; Ghinoi, A.; Piacentini, D.; Valdati, J. Management of geomorphosites in high tourist vocation area—An example of Geo-Hiking maps in the Alpe di Fanes (Italian Dolomites). Geoj. Tour. Geosites 2008, 2, 106–117. [Google Scholar]
  20. Reynard, E.; Coratza, P. The importance of mountain geomorphosites for environmental education—Examples from the Italian Dolomites and the Swiss Alps. Acta Geogr. Slov. 2016, 56, 291–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chrobak, A.; Witkowski, K.; Szmańda, J. Assessment of the Educational Values of Geomorphosites Based on the Expert Method, Case Study—The Białka and Skawa Rivers, the Polish Carpathians. Quaest. Geogr. Sciendo 2020, 39, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Neches, I.M. From Geomorphosite Evaluation to Geotourism Interpretation. Case Study—The Sphinx of Romania’s Southern Carpathians. Geoj. Tour. Geosites 2013, 12, 145–162. [Google Scholar]
  23. Tomić, N.; Marković, S.B.; Antić, A.; Tešić, D. Exploring the potential for geotourism development in the Danube region of Serbia. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks 2020, 8, 123–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ilinca, V.; Milu, V.; Peligrad, S.; Gheuca, I. The Albeşti Limestone—A geoheritage and cultural heritage in Romania. J. Maps 2023, 19, 2135465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Božić, S.; Tomić, N. Canyons and gorges as potential geotourism destinations in Serbia. Open Geosci. 2015, 7, 531–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Telbisz, T.; Gruber, P.; Mari, L.; Kőszegi, M.; Bottlik, Z.; Standovár, T. Geological Heritage, Geotourism and Local Development in Aggtelek National Park (NE Hungary). Geoheritage 2020, 12, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Panizza, M. The Geomorphodiversity of the Dolomites (Italy)—A Key of Geoheritage Assessment. Geoheritage 2009, 1, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dolma, M. Canyons of Albania and geotourism development. Acta Geoturistica 2018, 9, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ghosh, A.; Mukhopadhyay, S.; Chatterjee, S. Assessment of geoheritage and prospects of geotourism—An approach to geoconservation of important geological and geomorphological sites of Puruliya district, West Bengal, India. IJoGaP 2021, 9, 264–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ivanović, M.; Lukić, T.; Milentijević, N.; Bojović, V.; Valjarević, A. Assessment of geosites as a basis for geotourism development—A case study of the Toplica District, Serbia. Open Geosci. 2023, 15, 20220589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Navarrete, E.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Dueñas-Tovar, J.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Jaya-Montalvo, M.; Berrezueta, E. Assessment of Geosites within a Natural Protected Area—A Case Study of Cajas National Park. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ruiz-Pedrosa, R.M.; González-Amuchástegui, M.J.; Serrano, E. Geomorphosites as Geotouristic Resources—Assessment of Geomorphological Heritage for Local Development in the Río Lobos Natural Park. Land 2024, 13, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Suryawanshi, R.S.; Ranyewale, S.K. Tourism potential of Geomorphosites—A comparative assessment of selected beach sites in Malvan Tahsil, Sindhudurg coast of Maharashtra (India). Transactions 2018, 40, 285–292. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tamang, L.; Mandal, U.K.; Karmakar, M.; Banerjee, M.; Ghosh, D. Geomorphosite evaluation for geotourism development using geosite assessment model (GAM)—A study from a Proterozoic terrain in eastern India. IJoGaP 2023, 11, 82–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Beraaouz, M.; Macadam, J.; Bouchaou, L.; Ikenne, M.; Ernst, R.; Tagma, T.; Masrour, M. An inventory of geoheritage sites in the Draa Valley (Morocco): A contribution to promotion of Geotourism and sustainable development. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Baadi, K.; Sabaoui, A.; Tekiout, B. Methodological Proposal for Assessment Geosites: Its Application in Bou-Iblane Region (Middle Atlas, Morocco). Geoheritage 2020, 12, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Diniz, M.T.M.; Araújo, I.G.D.; Chagas, M.D. Comparative study of quantitative assessment of the geomorphological heritage of the coastal zone of Icapuí—Ceará, Brazil. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks 2022, 10, 124–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pál, M.; Albert, G. Refinement Proposals for Geodiversity Assessment—A Case Study in the Bakony–Balaton Unesco Global Geopark, Hungary. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. An, L.T.; Markowski, J.; Bartos, M.; Rzenca, A.; Namiecinski, P. An Evaluation of Destination Attractiveness for Nature-Based Tourism: Recommendations for the Management of National Parks in Vietnam. Nat. Conserv. 2019, 32, 51–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bayrak, G.; Teodorovych, L. Assesment of the Attractiveness of Geotouristic Areas of the Ukrainian Charpathians Beskid Mountains. Gpc 2023, 15, 154–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ahmed, E.A. Assessment of the geosites and geodiversity in the prospective geopark in Siwa in the Western Desert of Egypt. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks 2023, 11, 182–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Belij, M.; Đurđić, S.; Stojković, S. The Evaluation of Geoheritage for Geotourism Development—Case Study on the Potential Geopark Djerdap. Collect. Pap.-Fac. Geogr. Univ. Belgrade 2018, 66, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Diniz, M.T.M.; de Oliveira Terto, M.L.; da Silva, F.E.B. Assessment of the Geomorphological Heritage of the Costa Branca Area, a Potential Geopark in Brazil. Resources 2023, 12, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hose, T.A. The English Peak District (as a potential geopark)—Mining geoheritage and historical geotourism. Acta Geoturistica 2017, 8, 32–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hussain, A.I. Geodiversity of Smaquli area as a potential geopark in Kurdistan region, Iraq. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks 2022, 10, 477–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kasiński, J.R.; Koźma, J.; Gawlikowska, E. Geotopes of the proposed Muskau Arc Geopark—Inventory, classification and evaluation. Pol. Geol. Inst. Spec. Pap. 2004, 13, 73–88. [Google Scholar]
  47. Molokáč, M.; Babicová, Z.; Pachinger, P.; Kornecká, E. Evaluation of Geosites from the Perspective of Geopark Management—The Example of Proposed Zemplín Geopark. Geoheritage 2023, 15, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nyulas, J.; Dezsi, Ș.; Haidu, I.; Magyari-Sáska, Z.; Niță, A. Attractiveness Assessment Model for Evaluating an Area for a Potential Geopark—Case Study—Hațeg UNESCO Global Geopark (Romania). Land 2024, 13, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Petrovic, A.S.; Nikolić, D.; Trnavac Bogdanović, D.; Carević, I. Assessment of karst geomorphosites on Kučaj and Beljanica mountains as a resource for the development of karst-based geopark. Acta Carsologica 2020, 49, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pimentel, N.; Pereira, B.; Reis Silva, M. From Geoheritage to Geosites at the Oeste Aspiring Geopark (Portugal). Geoheritage 2024, 16, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sengupta, D.; Dutt, S.; Daly, B.D.K.; Panda, S. Development of Geopark for Protecting Karst Region of Nongkhlieh Area, Meghalaya. Geoheritage 2024, 16, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sachkov, D.; Tsvetkova, I.; Atanasova, N. Geomorphosite Characterization Method for the Purpose of an Aspiring Geopark Application Dossier on the Example of Maritsa Cirque Complex in Geopark Rila, Rila Mountain, SW Bulgaria. Geoheritage 2020, 12, 26. [Google Scholar]
  53. Mehdioui, S.; El Hadi, H.; Tahiri, A.; Brilha, J.; El Haibi, H.; Tahiri, M. Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites in Rabat-Tiflet Region (North Western Morocco): Preliminary Study to Evaluate the Potential of the Area to Become a Geopark. Geoheritage 2020, 12, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hapsari, D.M.; Ardiansyah, B.K. Prospek Geopark Nasional Karangsambung- Karangbolong Terhadap Lima Kawasan Ekowisata Di Kabupaten Kebumen Provinsi Jawa Tengah. J-3P (J. Pembang. Pemberdaya. Pemerintah.) 2020, 5, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Valentini, L.; Guerra, V.; Nesci, O. The Mt. Catria–Mt. Nerone Ridge in the North-Marchean Apennines (Central Italy): A Potential Geopark? Sustainability 2023, 15, 11382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Tropeano, M.; Caldara, M.A.; De Santis, V.; Festa, V.; Parise, M.; Sabato, L.; Spalluto, L.; Francescangeli, R.; Iurilli, V.; Mastronuzzi, G.A.; et al. Geological Uniqueness and Potential Geotouristic Appeal of Murge and Premurge, the First Territory in Puglia (Southern Italy) Aspiring to Become a UNESCO Global Geopark. Geosciences 2023, 13, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Marjanović, M.; Milenković, J.; Lukić, M.; Tomić, N.; Antić, A.; Marković, R.; Atanasijević, J.; Božić, D.; Buhmiler, S.; Radaković, M.; et al. Geomorphological and hydrological heritage of Mt. Stara Planina in SE Serbia: From river protection initiative to potential geotouristic destination. Open Geosci. 2022, 14, 275–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Antić, A.; Dragović, N.; Tomić, N. Show cave websites in Serbia—Evaluation and potential improvements. Hotel. Tour. Manag. 2021, 9, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Antić, A.; Tomić, N. Assessing the speleotourism potential together with archaeological and palaeontological heritage in Risovača cave (central Serbia). Acta Geoturistica 2019, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  60. Antić, A.; Marković, S.B.; Marković, R.S.; Cai, B.; Nešić, D.; Tomić, N.; Mihailović, D.; Plavšić, S.; Radakovic, M.G.; Radivojević, A.; et al. Towards Sustainable Karst-Based Geotourism of the Mount Kalafat in Southeastern Serbia. Geoheritage 2020, 14, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Antić, A.; Tomić, N.; Marković, S. Applying the show cave assessment model (SCAM) on cave tourism destinations in Serbia. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks 2022, 10, 616–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ballesteros, D.; Fernández-Martínez, E.; Carcavilla, L.; Jiménez-Sánchez, M. Karst Cave Geoheritage in Protected Areas—Characterisation and Proposals of Management of Deep Caves in the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Geoheritage 2019, 11, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Čech, V.; Gregorová, B.; Hronček, P.; Fogaš, A. Caves of the Low Tatras National Park and Its Neighbourhood as Objects of Speleotourism. Acta Montan. Slovaca 2021, 26, 375–393. [Google Scholar]
  64. Imrani, Z.T.; Zeynalova, K.Z.; Hidayatli, G.A. A study of caves and their speleotourism potential in Azerbaijan. ANAS Trans. Earth Sci. 2023, 1, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kim, S.S.; Kim, M.; Park, J.; Guo, Y. Cave Tourism—Tourists Characteristics, Motivations to Visit, and the Segmentation of Their Behavior. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2008, 13, 299–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Maksoud, K.M.A.; Baghdadi, M.I.; Ruban, D.A. Caves as geoheritage resource in remote desert areas—A preliminary evaluation of Djara Cave in the Western Desert of Egypt. Geologos 2021, 27, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rindam, M. Cave Tourism—The Potential of Asar Cave as a Natural Tourism Asset at Lenggong Valley, Perak. SHS Web Conf. 2014, 12, 01014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ríos-Reyes, C.A.; Manco-Jaraba, D.C.; Castellanos-Alarcón, O.M. Geotourism in caves of Colombia as a novel strategy for the protection of natural and cultural heritage associated to underground ecosystems. Biodivers. Int. J. 2018, 2, 464–474. [Google Scholar]
  69. Rohani, E.D.; Baiquni, M.; Wijono, D.; Suprihanto, J. Potential Tourism Attraction of Cokro Cave Gunungkidul Regency as a Special Interest Tourism Development. Indones. J. Geogr. 2023, 55, 332–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sanna, L.; Chiarini, V.; De Waele, J. Underground Geodiversity of Italian Show Caves—An Overview. Geoheritage 2023, 15, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Tičar, J.; Tomić, N.; Breg Valjavec, M.; Zorn, M.; Marković, S.B.; Gavrilov, M.B. Speleotourism in Slovenia—Balancing between mass tourism and geoheritage protection. Open Geosci. 2018, 10, 344–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. omić, N.; Antić, A.; Marković, S.B.; Đorđević, T.; Zorn, M.; Valjavec, M.B. Exploring the Potential for Speleotourism Development in Eastern Serbia. Geoheritage 2018, 11, 359–369. [Google Scholar]
  73. Vuković, S.; Antić, A. Speleological Approach for Geotourism Development in Zlatibor County (West Serbia). Turizam 2019, 23, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zieliński, A.; Marek, A.; Zwoliński, Z. Geotourism potential of show caves in Poland. Quaest. Geogr. 2022, 41, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Telbisz, T.; Mari, L. The significance of karst areas in European national parks and geoparks. Open Geosci. 2020, 12, 117–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Andrusov, D. Stratigrafie Triasu Slovenských Karpat; Věstník státního geologického ústavu: Praha, Czech Republic, 1935; p. 11. [Google Scholar]
  77. Jakál, J.; Bella, P. (Eds.) Caves of the World Heritage in Slovakia; Slovak Caves Administration: Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia, 2008; p. 168.
  78. Droppa, A. Príspevok k vývoju jaskyne Domica. Ceskoslov. Kras 1972, 22, 65–72. [Google Scholar]
  79. Erdös, M.; Lalkovič, M. Jaskyne, priepasti a vyvieračky južnej časti Silickej planiny. Slov. Kras 1996, 34, 157–158. [Google Scholar]
  80. Roth, Z. Vývoj jeskyně Domica; Nákladem Učené Společnosti Šafaříkovy: Praha, Czech Republic, 1937; p. 43. [Google Scholar]
  81. Ford, D.C. Caves Branch, Belize, and the Baradla–Domica System, Hungary and Slovakia. In Speleogenesis. Evolution of Karst Aquifers; Klimchuk, A.B., Ford, D.C., Palmer, A.N., Dreybrodt, W., Eds.; National Speleological Society: Huntsville, AL, USA, 2000; pp. 391–396. [Google Scholar]
  82. Bystrický, J. Príspevok ku geológii Slovenského krasu (územie medzi Silicou a Domicou). Geol. Práce Zprávy Bratisl. 1960, 17, 20. [Google Scholar]
  83. Bella, P. Geomorfologické pomery okolia jaskyne Domica. Aragonit 2004, 6, 5–11. [Google Scholar]
  84. Gaál, Ľ. Geodynamika a Vývoj Jaskýň Slovenského Krasu; Slovak Caves Administration: Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia, 2008; p. 166.
  85. Jakál, J. Príspevok k poznaniu vzniku krasových priehlbní v Slovenskom krase. Geogr. Časopis 1971, 4, 27–35. [Google Scholar]
  86. Jakál, J. Kras Silickej Planiny; Osveta: Martin, Slovakia, 1975; p. 152. [Google Scholar]
  87. Bella, P. Geografický výskum krasovej krajiny a jej ochrana. Pamiatky–Príroda 1988, 19, 32–34. [Google Scholar]
  88. Bella, P.; Borzsák, S.; Gaál, Ľ.; Gruber, P.; Haviarová, D.; Kilík, J.; Papáč, V.; Zelinka, J. Svetové Dedičstvo, Jaskyne Slovenského a Aggtelekského Krasu; Slovak Caves Administration: Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia, 2015; p. 124. [Google Scholar]
  89. Orvan, J. Hydrologické pomery krasovej vyvieračky Buzgó v Bohúňove. Slov. Kras 1979, 17, 77–84. [Google Scholar]
  90. Háberová, I.; Karasová, E. Hydroséria vegetácie Jašteričieho jazera na Silickej planine. Ochr. Prírody 1991, 11, 298–307. [Google Scholar]
  91. Haviarová, D.; Gavurník, J. Základné zhodnotenie výsledkov monitoringu hydrologického režimu v jaskyni Domica za obdobie 2016–2021. Aragonit 2021, 26, 51–63. [Google Scholar]
  92. Čech, V. Geografické Aspekty Ochrany Prírody a Krajiny; Prešovská univerzita v Prešove: Prešov, Slovakia, 2015; p. 221. [Google Scholar]
  93. Ambros, M. Hraboš močiarny (Microtus agrestis Linnaeus) v Slovenskom krase. Lynx 1984, 26, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  94. Rozložník, M.; Karasová, E. Slovenský Kras, Chránená Krajinná Oblasť–Biosférická Rezervácia; Osveta: Martin, Slovakia, 1994; p. 479. [Google Scholar]
  95. Baruš, V. Červená Kniha Ohrožených a Vzácných Druhú Rostlin a Zivočichú ČSSR 2; Státní zemědělské nakladatelství: Praha, Czech Republic, 1989; p. 136. [Google Scholar]
  96. Čejchan, A. Orthopteroidní hmyz statní přírodní rezervace Zádiel a nejbližšího kolí. Časopis Slez. Muz. 1959, 8, 97–114. [Google Scholar]
  97. Danko, Š.; Deneš, B. Nálezy niektorých vzácnejších druhov netopierov na východnom Slovensku. Časopis Slez. Muz. 1976, 15, 179–183. [Google Scholar]
  98. Dostál, J. Geobotanický přehled vegetace Slovenského krasu. Věstník Královské České Společnosti 1933, 2, 1–44. [Google Scholar]
  99. Gulička, J. Fauna slovenských jaskýň. Slovenský Kras 1975, 13, 37–85. [Google Scholar]
  100. Gulička, J. K otázke výskytu pravekých troglobiontov v slovenských jaskyniach. Slovenský Kras 1977, 15, 23–77. [Google Scholar]
  101. Gulička, J. K otázke pôvodu troglobiontov a klasifikácie jaskynných spoločenstiev. Slovenský Kras 1978, 16, 69–93. [Google Scholar]
  102. Háberová, I.; Dzubinová, Z.; Fajmonová, E.; Jančová, M.; Karasová, E.; Lisická, E.; Petrík, A.; Uhlířová, J. Flóra a vegetácia Plešiveckej planiny. Výskumné Práce Ochr. Prírody 1988, 6, 5–96. [Google Scholar]
  103. Mucina, L.; Maglocký, Š. A list of vegetation units of Slovakia. Doc. Phytosoc. 1985, 9, 175–220. [Google Scholar]
  104. Kučera, B.; Hromas, J.; Skřivánek, F. Jeskyně a Propasti v Československu; Academia: Praha, Czech Republic, 1981; p. 252. [Google Scholar]
  105. Prikryl, Ľ.V. Dejiny Speleológie na Slovensku; Veda SAV: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1985; p. 158. [Google Scholar]
  106. Ložek, V.; Horáček, I. Slovenský kras ve světle kvartérní geologie. Slovenský Kras 1992, 30, 29–56. [Google Scholar]
  107. Barjadze, S.; Parimuchov, A.; Raschmanov, N.; Maghradze, E.; Kov, U. Two new species of Plutomurus Yosii (Collembola: Tomoceridae) from the Caucasus and central Europe. Zootaxa 2022, 69, 252–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Balega, A. Jasov, Kostol a Kláštor Premonštrátov; Pallas: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1991; p. 22. [Google Scholar]
  109. Bella, P.; Hlaváčová, I.; Holúbek, P. Zoznam Jaskýň Slovenskej Republiky; Slovenské múzeum ochrany prírody a jaskyniarstva: Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia, 2018; p. 528. [Google Scholar]
  110. Bella, P.; Haviarová, D. Typy jaskynných jazier na Slovensku podl’a geologických a geomorfologických podmienok a procesov ich vzniku. Aragonit 2017, 22, 49–56. [Google Scholar]
  111. Suchý, T.; Suchý, Ľ.; Hetesi, J.; Šichula, M. Newly discovered passages in the Gombasecká Cave. Bull. Slovak Speleol. Soc. 2017, 17–19. [Google Scholar]
  112. Bella, P.; Vlček, L. Show Caves of Slovakia. Bull. Slovak Speleol. Soc. 2017, 6–12. [Google Scholar]
  113. Mello, J.; Snopková, P. Vrchnokriedový vek výplní v dutinách triasových vápencov gombaseckého lomu. Geol. Práce 1973, 61, 239–253. [Google Scholar]
  114. Pandula, P.; Kondela, J.; Konček, M.; Farkašovský, R. Optimalizácia vplyvu trhacích prác v lome Gombasek na Gombaseckú jaskyňu. Aragonit 2021, 26, 64–69. [Google Scholar]
  115. Botoš, A.; Mordovin, M.; Bešina, D. Archeologický výskum zaniknutého paulínskeho kláštora v Slavci–Gombaseku. Zborník Gotická Cesta III 2018, 115–126. [Google Scholar]
  116. Bella, P. Kras a jaskyne Slovenského krasu. Krásy Slov. 2012, 59, 16–19. [Google Scholar]
  117. Lalkovič, M. Ján Majko-Životné Osudy Jaskyniara; Slovenské múzeum ochrany prírody a jaskyniarstva: Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia, 2001; p. 183. [Google Scholar]
  118. Lichardus, J. Domica–Jaskyňa pravekých tajov. Svet Vedy 1965, 12, 24–29. [Google Scholar]
  119. Majko, J. Ako bola objavená jaskyňa Domica. Krásy Slov. 1932, 11, 44–48. [Google Scholar]
  120. Čeklovský, T.; Orvošová, M.; Biroň, A.; Tóth, C.; Soják, M.; Šupinský, J. Nálezy fauny mamutej stepi z novoobjavených častí jaskyne Domica–Kľúčová dierka (Slovenský kras): Interdisciplinárny prístup. Slovenský Kras 2022, 60, 19–50. [Google Scholar]
  121. Hochmuth, Z. Kečovská chodba—Objav severného prítoku v Domici. Sprav. SSS 2020, 51, 14–17. [Google Scholar]
  122. Audra, P.; De Waele, J.H.A.; Bentaleb, I.; Chroňáková, A.; Krištůfek, V.; D’Angeli, I.M.; Carbone, C.; Madonia, G.; Vattano, M.; Scopelliti, G.; et al. Guano-related phosphate-rich minerals in European caves. Int. J. Speleol. 2019, 48, 75–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Bella, P.; Bosák, P.; Braucher, R.; Pruner, P.; Hercman, H.; Minár, J.; Veselský, M.; Holec, J.; Léanni, L. Multi-level Domica-Baradla cave system (Slovakia, Hungary): Middle Pliocene-Pleistocene evolution and implications for the denudation chronology of the Western Carpathians. Geomorphology 2019, 327, 62–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Bella, P.; Bosák, P. Ceiling erosion in caves: Early studies and Zdeněk Roth as author of the concept. Acta Carsologica 2015, 44, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Laučík, P. Nové trendy v jaskynnej epigrafii a ikonografii v prvých decéniách 21. storočia. Sinter 2017, 25, 14–25. [Google Scholar]
  126. Danko, M.; Šupinský, J. New discoveries in Domica-Čertova diera, Slovak Karst National Park. Bull. Slovak Speleol. Soc. 2022, 49–51. [Google Scholar]
  127. Gaál, Ľ. Projekt Interreg zameraný na prípravu speleoterapie v jaskynnom systéme Domica-Baradla. Aragonit 2021, 26, 78–92. [Google Scholar]
  128. Gaál, Ľ.; Gruber, P. Liečivé Podzemie Jaskynného Systému Domica-Baradla Naša Spoločná Hodnota; ŠOP SR, SSJ and Aggteleki Nemzeti Park: Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia, 2020; p. 64. [Google Scholar]
  129. Vujičić, M.D.; Vasiljević, D.A.; Marković, S.B.; Hose, T.A.; Lukić, T.; Hadžić, O.; Janićević, S. Preliminary geosite assessment model (gam) and its application on Fruška gora mountain, potential geotourism destination of Serbia. Acta Geogr. Slov. 2011, 51, 361–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Hose, T.A. Geotourism—Selling the earth to Europe. In Engineering Geology and the Environment; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1997; pp. 2949–2960. [Google Scholar]
  131. Pralong, J.P. A method for assessing the tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites. Géomorphologie. Relief Process. Environ. 2005, 11, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Reynard, E.; Fontana, G.; Kozlik, L.; Scapozza, C. A method for assessing “scientific” and “additional values” of geomorphosites. Geogr. Helv. 2007, 62, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Pereira, P.; Pereira, D.; Caetano Alves, M.I. Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geogr. Helv. 2007, 62, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Zouros, N.C. Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece Case study of the Lesvos island—Coastal geomorphosites. Geogr. Helv. 2007, 62, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Serrano, E.; González-Trueba, J.J. Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: The Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Geomorphol. Relief Process. Environ. 2005, 11, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Rivas, V.; Rix, K.; Francés, E.; Cendrero, A.; Brunsden, D. Geomorphological indicators for environmental impact assessment: Consumable and non-consumable geomorphological resources. Geomorphology 1997, 18, 3–4, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Bonachea, J.; Bruschi, V.; Remondo, J.; González-Díez, A.; Salas, L.; Bertens, J.; Cendrero, A.; Otero, C.; Giusti, C.; Fabbri, A.; et al. An approach for quantifying geomorphological impacts for EIA of transportation infrastructures: A case study in northern Spain. Geomorphology 2005, 66, 95–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Coratza, P.; Giusti, C. Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites. Alp. Mediterr. Quat. 2005, 18, 307–313. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 16 07783 g001
Figure 1. Location of the Slovak Karst National Park within the Slovak Republic.
Figure 1. Location of the Slovak Karst National Park within the Slovak Republic.
Sustainability 16 07783 g001
Sustainability 16 07783 g002
Figure 2. The geological structure of the Slovak Karst National Park and its surroundings.
Figure 2. The geological structure of the Slovak Karst National Park and its surroundings.
Sustainability 16 07783 g002
Sustainability 16 07783 g005
Figure 5. Premonstratensian Monastery, Jasov (GS3).
Figure 5. Premonstratensian Monastery, Jasov (GS3).
Sustainability 16 07783 g005
Sustainability 16 07783 g006
Figure 6. Jasovský Lake (GS5).
Figure 6. Jasovský Lake (GS5).
Sustainability 16 07783 g006
Sustainability 16 07783 g009
Figure 9. Ruins of the Pauline Monastery (GS10) and, in the background, Gombasek Quarry (GS9).
Figure 9. Ruins of the Pauline Monastery (GS10) and, in the background, Gombasek Quarry (GS9).
Sustainability 16 07783 g009
Sustainability 16 07783 g012
Figure 12. The Aggtelek Rock (GS17).
Figure 12. The Aggtelek Rock (GS17).
Sustainability 16 07783 g012
Sustainability 16 07783 g013
Figure 13. The matrix of the geosites and their values.
Figure 13. The matrix of the geosites and their values.
Sustainability 16 07783 g013
Table 1. The structure of the Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) used by Vujičič et al. [129], supplemented for this study.
Table 1. The structure of the Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) used by Vujičič et al. [129], supplemented for this study.
Scientific/Educational Value (VSE)
Indicators and DescriptionsGrades (0–1)
IndicatorDescription00.250.50.751
I1
Rarity		Number of closest identical sites CommonRegionalNationalInternationalThe only occurrence
I2
Representativeness		Didactic and exemplary characteristics of the site due to its own quality and general configurationNoneLowModerateHighUtmost
I3
Knowledge on geoscientific issues		Number of written papers in acknowledged journals, theses, presentations, and other publicationsNoneLocal publicationsRegional publicationsNational publicationsInternational publications
I4
Level of interpretation		Level of interpretive possibilities relating to geological and geomorphologic processes, phenomena, and shapes and level of scientific knowledgeNoneModerate level of processes but hard to explain to non-expertsGood example of processes but hard to explain to non-expertsModerate level of processes but easy to explain to common visitorsGood example of processes and easy to explain to common visitors
I5
Research and education “in situ”		Possibility of conducting scientific research or education directly at the geosite—suitability of the space, availability, need for permits, etc.NoneLowModerateHighUtmost
Table 2. The structure of the Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) used by Vujičič et al. [129], supplemented for this study.
Table 2. The structure of the Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) used by Vujičič et al. [129], supplemented for this study.
Scenic/Aesthetic Value (VSA)
Indicators and DescriptionsGrades (0–1)
IndicatorDescription00.250.50.751
I6
Viewpoints		Number of viewpoints accessible by a pedestrian pathway—each must present a particular angle of view and be situated less than 1 km from the siteNone12 to 34 to 6More than 6
I7
Surface		Whole surface of the site—each site is considered in quantitative relation to other sitesSmall-Medium-Large
I8
Surrounding landscape and nature		Panoramic view quality, presence of water and vegetation, absence of human–induced deterioration, vicinity of urban areas, etc.-LowMediumHighUtmost
I9
Environmental fitting of sites		Level of contrast to the surrounding nature, contrast of colors, appearance of shapes, etc.Unfitting-Neutral-Fitting
I10
Basic physiognomy of the site		Predominant geometric shape of the geositeFlat, linearConcaveConvexLinear–convexConcave–convex
Table 3. The structure of the Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) used by Vujičič et al. [129], supplemented for this study.
Table 3. The structure of the Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) used by Vujičič et al. [129], supplemented for this study.
Protection Value (VPr)
Indicators and DescriptionsGrades (0–1)
IndicatorDescription00.250.50.751
I11
Current condition		Current state of the geositeTotally damaged
(as a result of human activities)		Highly damaged (as a result of natural processes)Moderately damaged (with essential
geomorphologic
features preserved)		Slightly damagedNo damage
I12
Protection level		Protection by local or regional groups, national government, international organizations, etc.NoneLocalRegionalNationalInternational
I13
Vulnerability		Vulnerability level of the geositeIrreversible (with possibility of total loss)High
(could be easily damaged)		Medium
(could be damaged by natural processes or human
activities)		Low
(could be damaged only by human activities)		None
I14
Suitable number of visitors		Proposed number of visitors on the site at the same time, according to surface area,
vulnerability, and current state of the geosite		00 to 1010 to 2020 to 50More than 50
I15
Protected biota		Occurrence of specially protected and rare plant and animal species in the geositeNone12 to 34 to 6More than 6
Table 4. The structure of the Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) used by Vujičič et al. [129], supplemented for this study.
Table 4. The structure of the Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) used by Vujičič et al. [129], supplemented for this study.
Functional Value (VFn)
Indicators and DescriptionsGrades (0–1)
IndicatorDescription00.250.50.751
I16
Accessibility		Possibility of approaching the siteNone (inaccessible)Low (accessible on foot with special equipment and expert-guided tours)Medium (accessible by bicycle and other means of man-powered transport)High
(accessible by car)		Utmost
(accessible by bus)
I17
Additional natural values		Number of additional natural values within a radius of 5 km (geosites also included)None12 to 34 to 6More than 6
I18
Additional anthropogenic values		Number of additional anthropogenic values within a radius of 5 kmNone12 to 34 to 6More than 6
I19
Vicinity of emissive centers		Closeness of emissive centersMore than 100 km100 to 50 km50 to 25 km25 to 5 kmLess than 5 km
I20
Vicinity of important road networks		Closeness of important road networks within a radius of 20 kmNoneLocalRegionalNationalInternational
I21
Additional functional values		Presence of parking lots, gas stations, mechanics, etc.NoneLowModerateHighUtmost
Table 5. The structure of the Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) used by Vujičič et al. [129], supplemented for this study.
Table 5. The structure of the Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) used by Vujičič et al. [129], supplemented for this study.
Touristic Value (VTr)
Indicators and DescriptionsGrades (0–1)
IndicatorDescription00.250.50.751
I22
Promotion		Level and number of promotional resourcesNoneLocalRegionalNationalInternational
I23
Organized visits		Annual number of organized visits to the geositeNoneLess than 12 per year12 to 24 per year24 to 48 per yearMore than 48 per year
I24
Vicinity of visitor center		Closeness of visitor center to the geositeMore than 50 km50 to 20 km20 to 5 km5 to 1 kmLess than 1 km
I25
Interpretative panels		Interpretative characteristics of informative panels’ text and graphics, material quality, size, fitting to surroundings, etc.NoneLow qualityMedium qualityHigh qualityUtmost quality
I26
Number of visitors		Annual number of visitorsNoneLow
(less than 5000)		Medium
(5001 to 10.000)		High (10.001 to 100.000)Utmost (more than 100.000)
I27
Tourism infrastructure		Level of additional infrastructure for tourists (pedestrian pathways, resting places, garbage cans,
toilets, wellsprings, etc.)		NoneLowMediumHighUtmost
I28
Tour guide services		Tour guides’ expertise level, knowledge of foreign language(s), interpretative skills, etc., if tour guides existNoneLowMediumHighUtmost
I29
Hostelry services		Hostelry service(s) close to the geositeMore than 50 km25–50 km10–25 km5–10 kmLess than 5 km
I30
Restaurant services		Restaurant service(s) close to the geositeMore than 25 km10–25 km10–5 km1–5 kmLess than
1 km
Table 6. Point values of individual geosites and their inclusion in the different fields.
Table 6. Point values of individual geosites and their inclusion in the different fields.
Geosite
Label		Geosite NameMain Values
(VSE + VSA+ VPr)		Sum of
Main
Values		Additional
Values
(VFn + VTr)		Sum of
Additional
Values		OverallField
GS1Jasovská Cave3.75 + 3.75 + 4.2511.754 + 71122.75Z9
GS2Jasovská Rock2 + 3.25 + 3.258.53.5 + 47.516Z5
GS3Premonstratensian Monastery, Jasov2.75 + 2.5 + 2.57.753.5 + 3.757.2515Z5
GS4NNR Jasovské Oaks2.5 + 1.75 + 37.253 + 1.754.7512Z2
GS5Jasovský Lake2.25 + 2.25 + 2.757.252.75 + 2.55.2512.5Z5
GS6Hatinská Cave1 + 1.5 + 2.254.752.25 + 24.259Z1
GS7Devil’s Rock1.75 + 1.5 + 2.255.52.5 + 24.510Z2
GS8Gombasecká Cave3.5 + 3.75 + 3.510.753.5 + 6.259.7520.5Z6
GS9Gombasek Quarry2.25 + 3.25 + 16.52.5 + 24.511Z2
GS10Ruins of the Pauline Monastery, Gombasek1.75 + 1.5 + 1.54.753 + 3.756.7511.5Z4
GS11Pauline Quarry2 + 1.5 + 1.254.753.25 + 2.55.7510.5Z4
GS12Black Resurgence2 + 1.25 + 3.256.52.75 + 35.7512.25Z5
GS13White Resurgence3 + 1.75 + 2.757.53 + 4714.5Z5
GS14Domica Cave4 + 3.75 + 411.753.75 + 710.7522.5Z9
GS15Domické Karrens2.75 + 3 + 38.752.25 + 3.255.514.25Z5
GS16Baradla Cave, Aggtelek3.75 + 4 + 411.754 + 7.7511.7523.5Z9
GS17Aggtelecká Rock3.25 + 2.75 + 393.25 + 3.75716Z5
GS18Aggtelecké Lake2.5 + 1.75 + 3.257.53.5 + 47.515Z5
GS19Kečovské Karrens2.5 + 2.5 + 3.258.251.75 + 1.753.511.75Z2
GS20Kečovská Resurgence2.5 + 1.75 + 2.7572.25 + 1.75411Z2
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kudla, M.; Javorská, M.; Vašková, J.; Čech, V.; Tometzová, D. Inventory and Evaluation of Geosites: Case Studies of the Slovak Karst as a Potential Geopark in Slovakia. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7783. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177783

AMA Style

Kudla M, Javorská M, Vašková J, Čech V, Tometzová D. Inventory and Evaluation of Geosites: Case Studies of the Slovak Karst as a Potential Geopark in Slovakia. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7783. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177783

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kudla, Miroslav, Miriama Javorská, Jana Vašková, Vladimír Čech, and Dana Tometzová. 2024. "Inventory and Evaluation of Geosites: Case Studies of the Slovak Karst as a Potential Geopark in Slovakia" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7783. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177783

APA Style

Kudla, M., Javorská, M., Vašková, J., Čech, V., & Tometzová, D. (2024). Inventory and Evaluation of Geosites: Case Studies of the Slovak Karst as a Potential Geopark in Slovakia. Sustainability, 16(17), 7783. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177783

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop