Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park ( Portugal )

The term «geomorphosite» has recently been intro¬ duced as an acronym for «geomorphological site» (Panizza 2001). It is understood to be a landform that has acquired a special value due to human perception or exploitation (Panizza & Piacente 1993).This value may vary, depending on the focus: scientific, ecological, cultural, aesthetic and/or economic (Reynaed 2005). According to the narrow definition of the term, a geo¬ morphosite can be any part ofthe Earth's surface that is important for the knowledge of Earth, climate and life history (Geandgieaed 1997; Reynaed 2005).


Introduction
The term «geomorphosite» has recently been intro¬ duced as an acronym for «geomorphological site» (Panizza 2001).It is understood to be a landform that has acquired a special value due to human perception or exploitation (Panizza & Piacente 1993).This value may vary, depending on the focus: scientific, ecological, cultural, aesthetic and/or economic (Reynaed 2005).According to the narrow definition of the term, a geo¬ morphosite can be any part ofthe Earth's surface that is important for the knowledge of Earth, climate and life history (Geandgieaed 1997;Reynaed 2005).
This new field of research developed from discussions within geoconservation circles which see geodiversity as an essential issue in nature conservation and envi¬ ronmental management.The first references appeared in the 1960's in the United Kingdom (Watson & Slaymakee 1966), but it was only in the 1980's that research was undertaken to improve the knowledge of geomor¬ phosites (or geomorphological heritage).The majority of results published stem from the United Kingdom, Italy, Switzerland and Germany A central focus of the field is geomorphosite assess¬ ment and management.Geandgieaed (1999) recommends that assessment be informed by three critical questions: What?Why? How?The «what» of assess¬ ment refers to scope in terms of area size and geomor¬ phological environment.«Why» refers to the motiva¬ tion and can be described in more detail by definition of one or more main objectives, such as protection and/or promotion of a site or compilation of an inven¬ tory.«How» refers to the choice of assessment method.
This choice should take scope and objectives into con¬ sideration.Further, a holistic approach to geomor¬ phosite assessment is argued to take geomorphosite management into aecount (Beilha 2005).Thus, assess¬ ment should not only involve Classification of sites, but offer suggestions for their protection, promotion and monitoring.
This article describes the approach to geomorphosite assessment developed and applied at the Monte¬ sinho Natural Park (MNP) in north-eastern Portugal (Peeeiea 2006).The park is, with 745 km2, one of the largest protected areas in Portugal.It is situated on the Portuguese-Spanish border.The geomorphological heritage of the MNP was assessed as part of a research project on the geological heritage of the natural parks of north-eastern Portugal. 2

Assessment methodology
Use was made of geomorphological knowledge of the area for information on regional setting, main land¬ forms and processes, structural framework, climatic features, human activities, geomorphological mapping, as well as other relevant natural and cultural aspects.
From this information, scientific, ecological, cultural and aesthetic characteristics of landforms were identified.
An important issue was geomorphosite scale due to its relevance for assessment aecuraey As sites can ränge from Single places to areas or panoramic viewpoints, a Single place is understood here to be a land¬ form that can be closely observed from a Single point or a restricted area.Single places are usually isolated landforms or a small group of landforms.Areas are constituted by one or more groups of landforms that can only be seen when the observer is inside the area.Panoramic viewpoints are sites from where large land¬ forms can be pereeived.They include the local point, the landforms observed and can also include Single points and areas.
The assessment procedure includes two main stages (inventory and quantification) and six sub-stages (Tab. 1).During the inventory, geomorphosites are selected and characterized.During quantification, importance of sites is determined by attribution of values to pre- determined criteria.This evaluative process also allows comparison of sites.
2.1 Inventory Identification ofpotentialgeomorphosites. One ofthe essential aims of the inventory stage is the selection of landforms that can be defined as geomorphosites.The identification process concentrates on a pre- defined ränge of criteria: (i) «scientific value», based on a geomorphological characterization of the area or on former scientific research; (ii) value of landform aesthetics and characteristics, in relation to sites in the same or other areas; (iii) links between landforms and cultural elements, such as archaeologjcal fea¬ tures, human Settlements, Castles, agriculture; (iv) links between landforms and ecological issues, such as fauna and flora populations.The data collected needs to be supplemented by further data such as location, Haupt-und Nebenphasen der Bewertung von geomor¬ phologischen Geotopen Etapes et sous-etapes de l'evaluation des geomorpho¬ sites and morphology/geology and stored in the form of a database (Peeeiea et al. 2006).
Qualitative assessment of potential geomorphosites.After identification of sites, use is made of a qualitative evaluation process to determine intrinsic value, poten¬ tial use and required protection.The intrinsic value is defined by comparison of sites against their scientific, ecological, cultural and aesthetic Performance, with scores being given from nil (0) to very high (5) for each of the criteria.Potential use is defined on the basis of three main criteria: accessibility, visibility and evidence of importance in other areas (e.g.biological, archaeological).The latter aspect thus also takes current pro¬ motion and use of a site in other fields into aecount.
Required protection includes assessment of level of deterioration and vulnerability, with scores ranging from high (3) to low (1).This aspect allows inclusion of past (deterioration) or future (vulnerability) threats in the assessment.Although the qualitative assessment may be brief, subjeetive and strongly infiuenced by the assessor's understanding of geomorphology and geo¬ conservation, it is a fundamental step in the overall assessment.The results thereof serve as a basis for the further pre-stages in the inventory phase (Tab. 1).
Geomorphosite selection.Selection of geomorphosites is based on their rank Performance during the qualita¬ tive assessment, with those sites that scored overall highest being selected for further characterisation.Potential geomorphosites with very high «scientific value» may also be selected, independent of Perform¬ ance in other criteria.Further, sites with high intrinsic value and high potential use (accessibility, visibility, and use of other «natural» or «cultural values») or low deterioration and vulnerability, may also be selected independently Geomorphosite characterization.The process involved in the compilation of the inventory is considered com¬ plete once a detailed description of each of the selected geomorphosites exists.These descriptions are expected to include cartographie data as well as information on geomorphology, «heritage value», and use and manage¬ ment, where applicable.The latter category would thus deal with accessibility, visibility, present uses, conser¬ vation, vulnerability, legal Status and supporting infrastruetures.The information collected here is expected to support the next assessment stage and is likely to be of benefit to future management initiatives.

Quantification
The quantification stage involves two sub-stages: numerical assessment and geomorphosite ranking.It sueeeeds geomorphosite characterization and builds on the data compiled during that sub-stage.The results allow comparison of the inventoried geomorphosites.
Numerical assessment.The framework for numerical assessment uses the criteria introduced in the previous stage, but divides them up into different classes in order to create two levels: prineipal and secondary indicators.The division of criteria took into aecount the pos¬ sible objectives of the assessment, i.e. the protection or promotion of geomorphosites.For this reason, the prineipal indicator «geomorphological value» includes the secondary indicators «scientific value» (Tab.2) and «additional values» (Tab.3).«Management value», as second prineipal indicator, integrates the secondary indicators «use value» (Tab. 4)and «protection value» (Tab.5).With regards weighting of results, «geo¬ morphological value» and «management value» are treated the same with a maximum of 10 points each.
The sum of all indicators determines the total value of the geomorphosite.
Geomorphosite ranking.The results of the numerical assessment are recorded in a quantification table.All criteria are assessed for each of the geomorphosites.
As all data are recorded on the same table, a direct comparison of site ranks is possible (see example in Tab. 6).Whereas the sum of all prineipal and second¬ ary indicators is expressed as total value, the sum of rank positions according to indicator (primary and secondary) are taken into aecount under final ranking.
Consequently, the sites with lowest final ranking scores may be considered to be of greatest value in the area being assessed.
The advantage of emphasising rank averages in geo¬ morphosite assessment is the greater attention given to overall relative value or homogeneity of criteria F. Scientific value (ScV) (maximum 5.5)

Ra
Rareness in relation to the area 0 It is not one of the most important 5 0.25 It is not one of the most important 3 0.50 One of the most important 3 0.75 The most important Tab.2: Numerical assessment of the geomorphosite indicator «scientific value» Quantitative Bewertung des Wissenschaftlichen Werts der geomorphologischen Geotope Evaluation numerique de la valeur scientifique des geomorphosites results.Thus, geomorphosites that score well over the füll spectrum of indicators will also be amongst the best placed in final ranking.Final ranking is conse- quently feit to be particular useful for supporting site management decisions with regards prioritisation of measures for the protection, education (e.g.setting up trails, installation of descriptive panels) and promo¬ tion of geomorphosites. 3

Results
Of 154 potential sites, 26 were selected for further assessment.These sites formed the basis of the inven¬ tory of geomorphological heritage of the Montesinho Natural Park (Fig. 1).They included 17 «panoramic viewpoints», 7 «areas» and 2 «Single places» (definition gjven above).Whereas the areas are predominantly Quantitative Bewertung der Zusatzwerte der geomorphologischen Geotope Evaluation numerique des valeurs additionnelles des geomorphosites characterised by granite landforms (Fig. 2), the Single places are all landforms with high «cultural value» (Fig. 3).The large number of panoramic viewpoints reflects a touch of pragmatism, as from these points a great variety of landforms may be observed.It appears that the main landforms in this particular park are mostly tectonic or residual in character (Peeeiea et al. 2003).
The results of the numerical assessment and ranking of geomorphosites are presented in Tab. 6. L08 (Santa Ana) appears to be the most valuable geomorphosite in MNP, scoring highest in total value and final ranking, despite Coming fifth in «geomorphological value» and second in «management value».L05, L08, L21 and LH are strongest in terms of «management value», and also scored highest in total value and final ranking.Of these sites, total value and final ranking are only slightly dif¬ ferent between L21 and L05.Whereas L05 has a higher total value (14,84/second highest) due to its high score in «management value» (8,76/highest) and despite a medium score in «geomorphological value» (6,08/ eleventh position), L21 has a better final ranking (36/ second) because of a higher ranking over all indicators.L17 has a high «geomorphological value» (7,12/fourth position) because of its significant «cultural value» but it also has the lowest score in «management value» (4,28) due to its extreme vulnerability.
The quantification stage supported the selection of 13 geomorphosites for promotion, in particular for their inclusion in a guidebook on the geological heritage of the park.The selection was infiuenced predominantly by the results of the final ranking, but it did take into aecount the results of individual indicators.

Discussion
The focus of this paper is on the process involved in the selection and description of geomorphosites.The proposed methodological framework involves two main stages and a total of six sub-stages.The approach aims to take both qualitative and quantitative aspects into aecount to allow for a holistic and detailed assess¬ ment of geomorphosites (Panizza 2001).
During the last decade and, in particular, since the Ästhetischen Wert Geomorphosite Cheira da Noiva (L13), un exemple de site granitique ayant une valeur esthetique signiflcative Fig. 3: Boca da Caborca geomorphosite (L07), a land¬ form with «cultural value» as a result of the Roman gold mining Geomorphologisches Geotop Boca da Caborca (L07), eine Landschaftsform mit hohem Kulturellen Wert auf¬ grund des Goldabbaus zur Zeit der Römer Geomorphosite Boca da Caborca (L07), une forme du reliefä haute valeur culturelle en raison de la presence de Vexploitation d'une mine d'or ä l'epoque romaine With protection but without use restriction or with very low use restriction Eq Equipment and support Services 0 Hostelry and support Services are more than 25 km away 0.25 Hostelry and support Services are between 10 and 25 km away 0.50 Hostelry and support Services are between 5 and 10 km away 0.75 Hostelry or support Services are less than 5 km away 1.00 Hostelry and support Services are less than 5 km away UsV Use value (Ac+Vi+Gu+Ou+Lp+Eq)  2005).However, although emphasis has been given in these publications to numerical assessment in view of increasing objectivity of results, the more subjective and often unsystematic process of selection of land¬ forms to be assessed does not seem to have received its due attention.
It is argued herein that an element of subjectivity is present at all stages of an assessment and, in particular, is included in «scientific value» and «protection value» because of its relevance for both.
during the selection phase of inventory compilation.
Even during the quantification stage it would seem impossible to avoid subjectivity, as the allocation of values for most criteria again depends on the opinion of the assessor.This is all the more relevant if note is taken that numerical assessment is propagated as a means of reducing subjectivity in order to increase objectivity of geomorphosite comparison and general assessment.
The presented approach, further, would seem to put greater demands on the expertise of the assessor by including scientific and non-scientific criteria (such as «additional values», potential use and management) for judgement.
tures of geomorphology.For «additional values» (Tab. 3), cultural, aesthetic and ecological aspects were taken into consideration.Accessibility and visibility were feit to be the most relevant criteria for «use value» of geo¬ morphosites (Tab. 4)as they clearly reflect economic/ tourism needs.For the final indicator, present levels of deterioration and expected damage due to geomor¬ phosite use were taken into aecount (Tab.5).
The results of the Montesinho Natural Park geo¬ morphosite assessment show that sites with highest «scientific value» are not automatically overall best- ranked, revealing the importance of careful weighting of factors.In this approach, management and scientific aspects were gjven equal weighting.
Most of the criteria proposed for the numerical assess¬ ment were taken from existing literature on the field.Criteria considered most relevant for an assessment method focussing speeifieally on geomorphosites were chosen and divided amongst the four main types of indicators: «scientific value», «additional values», «use value» and «protection value».Thus, for «scien¬ tific value» (Tab.2), rareness, integrity/intaetness, rep¬ resentativeness and diversity were selected.Criteria, like size and age, although often included in other approaches to assessment, were not considered here on the grounds that they are not seen to be significant fea-

Conclusion
Traditionally, the distinetion between the selection of geomorphosites and their quantitative assessment is not well defined.The geomorphosite assessment designed for the Montesinho Natural Park takes this into aecount, proposing a clear distinetion between both stages, that is between the compilation of an inventory and its evaluation, yet still ensuring incorporation of results from both stages into the final results.
Although it is emphasised that a complete assessment should include both stages, to ensure fiexibihty in use, the methodology does make allowance for use of only part ofthe proposed method, where appropriate.Thus, numerical assessment of geomorphosites that were inventoried at an earlier period in time is possible.
Equally, potential geomorphosites can be assessed directly using the quantitative stage.
Use of this assessment approach allows all data collected from the initial qualitative assessment to the final quantification to flow into the final results.It allows reduction of subjectivity, particularly in the quantita¬ tive stage.It can be applied to other protected areas and other types of areas as well, independent of their size.
It is argued here, in particular, not only for the combination of quantitative and qualitative evaluation procedures, but for equal weighting of management and scientific aspects and factors.The approach implemented for the assessment of the Montesinho Natural Park, for example, would have been equally effective for definition of sites with either greatest «geomor¬ phological value» or with best tourist potential Summary: Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal) The Montesinho Natural Park (MNP), with an area of about 750 km2, is one of the largest protected areas in Portugal.Since its inauguration as a natural park in 1979, geological and geomorphological aspects have not been taken into consideration in its nature conser¬ vation policies.Over the last few years, this deficit has been compensated with an assessment of its geomor¬ phological heritage.The assessment was made possible due to a research project on the geological heritage of the natural parks of north-eastern Portugal.The assess¬ ment method propagated herein proposes a clear defi¬ nition of three types of geomorphosites: Single places, geomorphological areas or panoramic viewpoints.Fur¬ ther, it proposes as two-staged approach to assessment with inventory compilation followed by quantification of value.Inventory compilation, for example, involves the identification and qualitative assessment of poten¬ tial geomorphosites and, therefore, the selection and characterization of geomorphosites.The quantifica¬ tion stage includes the numerical assessment of sites and their final ranking.The values are numerically assessed using selected criteria.The implementation of this approach in the MNP led to the identification of 154 potential geomorphosites, of which only 26 were selected after the qualitative assessment or characterisation process.The numerical assessment of the sites and their ranking allowed a final selection of 13 sites for public use.