Geoheritage Is Everywhere: Research Tasks and Perspectives

1. Introduction

Since the beginning of the 2000s, geoheritage studies have changed from chiefly being applied, tentative, and ephemeral research projects to becoming a full-scale, mainstream direction of geoscience investigations. Less than fifteen years ago, this field of research was judged as emerging [1], whereas nowadays, it aims to occupy a central place in international geoscience [2]. Moreover, geoheritage studies have gradually shifted away from their initial European focus [3] to the other countries of the world, particularly those of Africa [4] and Central America [5].

However, how much is known about global geoheritage and its multiple aspects? Three lines of evidence should be taken into account. First, new portions of geoheritage are reported each year. For instance, notable unique features have recently been described from highly different places, from southwestern Sardinia in Italy [6] to West Bengal in India [7] and the islands of the southwestern Pacific [8]. Second, it has been realized that geoheritage can be strongly tied to the cultural environment [9,10]. Third, geoheritage exploitation is a significantly more complex issue than can be resolved by installing interpretive panels near geosites and creating geoparks. Particularly, geoheritage shows complex relationships with eco-/geoservices [11] and urban environments [12]. Generally, the spectrum of opportunities for studying geoheritage is wider than commonly imagined, and scientists have made the only first steps towards its comprehension.

Clearly, the advancement of the geoheritage studies requires more research efforts to be made. The purpose of the present Special Issue is to bring together the outcomes of different research words in order contribute to the better understanding of geoheritage and its diverse aspects. The underlying goal is even more ambitious: it is not only to provide solutions to the particular problems brought to the fore, but also to pose new tasks for future investigations.

2. New Evidence—New Tasks

The present Special Issue, titled “Geoheritage and Geodiversity: Conceptual Developments, Extended Geographical Focus, and Practical Implications” includes eleven contributions from specialists representing ten countries and, more importantly, different research directions and even schools of thought. Several important aspects of geoheritage and geodiversity are characterized in regard to their interpretation and exploitation. Indeed, these contributions also highlight three major research tasks, and they can be categorized accordingly.

The first task is mapping the global and regional geoheritage landscapes as particular, highly unique phenomena. Migoń [13] reviews the granite landscapes of the world, i.e., the natural landscapes dominated and determined by granitoid massifs. They are rather diverse and numerous. In two articles, Huber and Iakovleva [14] and Huber et al. [15] address the very peculiar geological landscapes of the Kola Peninsula in northwestern Russia, which have been known for their spectacular petrological and mineralogical phenomena for about a century. These specialists also demonstrate the resource value of these landscapes. Zafeiropoulos and Drinia [16] pay attention to the Kalymnos Island of Greece, with its notable geoheritage integrity. Taken together, these works indicate that there is an opportunity to document geoheritage landscapes in very different areas, including those where the local geology has been studied for a long time, but full-scale geoheritage studies have remained insufficient or absent.

The second task is integrating geoheritage and socio-cultural systems. Mikhailenko et al. [17] demonstrate how artificial objects themselves can boast a certain geoheritage value resembling natural features or even being equivalents of the latter (for instance, huge, man-sculptured stone balls are equivalents of erosion-produced megaclasts). Varriale et al. [18] introduce the idea of “diffused” geoparks, which serve for establishing better links between the needs of territorial development and geoheritage management. These two works stress the importance of exploring the societal meanings of geoheritage, which are not restricted to the only natural limits of the geological environment.

The third task is the development of innovative approaches for the exploitation of geoheritage as a valuable resource, and it includes the highest number of the contributions to this Special Issue. Mikhailenko et al. [19] propose a new, highly accurate approach for the semi-quantitative evaluation of geosite accessibility. Herrera-Franco et al. [20] pay attention to paleontological museums and outline their different functions in geoheritage management. Ruban and Yashalova [21] use a representative example from southwestern Russia to characterize the opportunities of geosite marketing with regard to aesthetic properties and their online representation. Georgousis et al. [22] and Giardino et al. [23] explore new horizons for geoheritage-related and geopark-based education; particularly, these specialists reveal the importance of putting this education into new frames, which are far broader than the common educational initiatives. All these works highlight the outstanding diversity of options available in geoheritage management, with socio-economical benefits that require creativity.

3. Perspectives

The contributions to the present Special Issue do not and should not intend to provide universal solutions regarding the above-mentioned tasks. Nonetheless, they demonstrate the importance and efficacy of the related research. Many of experts should be involved in order to solve these tasks, and, thus, encouraging them is on the agenda. This is a kind of super-task for Special Issues such as the present one. It also appears that hearing a diversity of opinions is more desirable than reaching any consensus for dealing with such a multi-aspect phenomenon as geoheritage.

The research experience represented in this Special Issue allows the outlining of three important perspectives, as follows: First, more field works (not only in remote places, but also in urban areas and even virtual reality) should be organized in all parts of the world (including in all oceans) to find new geoheritage and to re-examine the previously established geosites. Second, new meanings of geoheritage and the related natural and artificial objects must be proposed and explored. Third, researchers’ creativity and cross-field collaboration can be strengthened for the deeper understanding of the geological wonders of nature and their importance to contemporary society. Indeed, the extension of academic publishing initiatives should stimulate progress in the geoheritage studies.