2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech

Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Volume 99, March 2023, 107024

Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity

and geoheritage: A case study from Hády
quarries (Brno, Czech Republic)
Lucie Kubalíková a , Marie Balková b

Show more

Outline Share Cite

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.107024
Get rights and content

Highlights

• Geodiversity and geoheritage may be threatened even if legally

protected.

• Identification of threats is necessary for developing geoconservation

efforts.

• Site and area-level threat assessment - basis for effective landscape

planning.

• Both proposed approaches provide a complex view on the threats in a

given area.

Abstract
Geoconservation is an action of conserving and enhancing geological, geomorphological,
hydrological and soil features and processes, sites and specimens. Originally and usually, the
geoconservation activities aim at preserving specific sites of Earth Sciences interest, respectively
geoheritage. However, for effective and sustainable management of geodiversity and
geoheritage, it is necessary to take into account the surroundings of those sites and undertake
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 1/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

the geoconservation measures for wider area. Nevertheless, despite established legal protection
and related geoconservation activities, threats to geoheritage and geodiversity can arise and
reaching a compromise can be difficult. In this paper, a two-level threat assessment is applied
and discussed. The first level of threat assessment corresponds to the geoconservation in a strict
sense – the method is based on the already used criteria within geosite/geomorphosite concept.
The second level of threat assessment corresponds to geoconservation in a broader sense and
here, it is represented by Risk Assessment Matrix, which assess the threats within a wider area.
Using both approaches provides a complex view on the threats to geodiversity and geoheritage
in a study area and complement each other. As a case study, we identified and assessed threats,
risks and possible conflicts of interest in an area situated in the outskirts of large city (Hády Hill
in Brno, Czech Republic). Based on the evaluation, we proposed particular measures that could
contribute to the balance of the different demands and more effective geoconservation
management in the study area.

Previous Next

Keywords
Geoconservation; Geodiversity; Geoheritage; Site assessment methodology; Risk analysis; Hády
quarries; Czechia

1. Introduction
Geoconservation is defined as the conservation of geodiversity for its intrinsic, ecological and
(geo)heritage values” (Sharples, 2002; Prosser, 2013). Traditionally, the geoconservation is
considered as conservation of geological heritage (ProGEO, 2011), but according to Crofts and
Gordon (2014) and Gordon et al. (2018), besides the conservation of those elements of
geodiversity that have geoheritage value, geoconservation also includes the protection of
geodiversity features and elements that have supporting educational, cultural, aesthetic,
spiritual and ecological functions.

Thus, geoconservation can be understood both in strict sense as a protection of particular

geoheritage and geodiversity sites (Brilha, 2016), and in broader sense, where the geodiversity is
protected to ensure the functioning of healthy ecosystems and the services they provide
(Gordon and Barron, 2012; Gray, 2013, Gray, 2018, Gray, 2021; Van Ree and Van Beukering, 2016;
Van Ree et al., 2017; Brilha et al., 2018; García, 2019; Volchko et al., 2020; Kubalíková, 2020;
Reverte et al., 2020; Fox et al., 2020). Moreover, there is a specific concept of “geomorphological
landscape” (Reynard, 2005; Reynard and Giusti, 2018; Bussard and Reynard, 2022) that
constitute the category of geomorphosites that have the largest scale. Methods related to the
geomorphological landscapes are also complex and correspond with broader approach (area-
level). Both approaches are already respected and supported by different types of tools, be they
on international level (UNESCO World Heritage Sites, UNESCO Global Geoparks, IUCN Key
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 2/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Geodiversity Areas) or national to local levels where legislative protection is a result of valid
legislation in particular country or county.

However, despite the existing and established legal protection, there is still a range of possible
threats to geodiversity and geoheritage. These are both of natural and anthropogenic origin and
they are discussed by numerous authors (Prosser et al., 2006; Gray, 2013; Brooks, 2013; Bollati
et al., 2013; Pelfini and Bollati, 2014; García-Ortiz et al., 2014; Fuertes-Gutiérrez et al., 2016;
Kubalíková and Kirchner, 2016; Selmi et al., 2022). Crofts et al. (2020) define them as following:
1) Urbanisation, construction, 2) Mining and mineral extraction, 3) Changes in land use and
management, 4) Coastal protection and river management and engineering, 5) Offshore
activities, 6) Recreation and geotourism, 7) Climate change, 8) Sea-level rise, 9) Restoration of
pits and quarries, 10) Stabilisation of rock faces, 11) Irresponsible fossil and mineral collecting
and rock coring. There can occur other types of threats such as lack of state or regional finances
for management, vandalism, vegetation overgrowth, or social pressure regarding the use of the
sites or confusion in protection measures (Górska-Zabielska et al., 2020; Kubalíková et al., 2021;
Selmi et al., 2022).

One of the goals of the geoconservation activities is the identification, assessment and
management of these threats. Fuertes-Gutiérrez et al. (2016) state that it is essential for
geoheritage management to distinguish the genesis of threats that affect a geosite, which can be
either natural or anthropic in origin. The effective evaluation, classification and prioritization of
risks, threats and conflicts of interest can contribute to the balance of all the needs and
demands on the site or area.

In literature, the assessment of vulnerability, risks and threats is included usually in general
assessment methods within the concepts of geosites and geomorphosites that has been
continuously developed during last decades (for an overview and comparison see e.g. Erhartič,
2010, Kubalíková, 2013, Štrba et al., 2015, Zwoliński and Najwer, 2018, or Mucivuna et al., 2019).
Moreover, in the last years, the topics of threats, vulnerability and resilience are discussed in
numerous papers from different points of view – climatic change, urban pressure, or tourist and
recreational use (Wignall et al., 2018; Vereb et al., 2020; Crofts et al., 2020; Németh et al., 2021;
Canesin et al., 2021; Selmi et al., 2022) or developed under different projects (The UNESCO IGCP
Project 692 - Geoheritage for Geohazard Resilience, http://www.geopoderes.com/ ).

The aim of this paper is to provide a two-level method for assessment of threats in an area
important from the Earth Sciences point of view. The first level of assessment is based on the
already used methods for geosite and geomorphosite evaluation where the risks and threats are
assessed just for individual sites within study area and they have been already used in several
studies (e.g. Coratza and Giusti, 2005, Bruschi and Cendrero, 2005, Bruschi and Cendrero, 2009,
Serrano-Cañadas and González-Trueba, 2005, Zouros, 2007, Pereira et al., 2007, Pereira and
Pereria, 2010, Fuertes-Gutiérrez and Fernández-Martínez, 2010, García-Ortiz et al., 2014,
Reynard et al., 2016, Brilha, 2016, Kubalíková and Kirchner, 2016, Canesin et al., 2021, Kubalíková
et al., 2021, Selmi et al., 2022, Ruban et al., 2021, Ruban et al., 2022). This corresponds to the site-

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 3/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

oriented geoconservation or geoconservation in strict sense. Table 1 brings a brief overview of

the selected methods and criteria used for the assessment of degradation risk.

Table 1. An overview of the methods and criteria related to degradation risk.

Method Criteria for assessing degradation risk

Coratza and integrity (both natural and anthropogenic degree of degradation affecting the site);
Giusti (2005) exposure (visibility, presence of human structures which can disturb the sight);
accessibility, risks and threats, current status

Bruschi and integrity, accessibility, socio-economic condition

Cendrero (2005) of the area, inhabitants in the surroundings, present or potential threats, interest for
mineral exploitation, land ownership

Serrano-Cañadas integrity, accessibility, fragility, vulnerability, intensity of use, risk of degradation, limits
and González- of acceptable change
Trueba (2005)

Zouros (2007) integrity, accessibility, legal protection, vulnerability

Pereira et al. integrity, accessibility, vulnerability of use as a geomorphosite, present use of the
(2007) geomorphological interest, legal protection and use limitations

Fuertes-Gutiérrez fragility, vulnerability, resistance to pressure

and Fernández-
Martínez (2010)

Pereira and integrity, accessibility, vulnerability, present use of the geomorphological interest, legal
Pereria (2010) protection and use limitations

García-Ortiz et al. fragility (sensitivity to intrinsic factors), vulnerability (sensitivity to external factors, both
(2014) natural and anthropic), public use (accessibility, proximity to roads, number of
inhabitants, legal protection, present and potential threats, land ownership

Reynard et al. integrity, accessibility, protection status, damages and threats

(2016)

Brilha (2016) integrity, vulnerability, accessibility, density of population, proximity of recreational

areas, economic level

Kubalíková and accessibility, conservation activities (legal protection, proposals for legal protection,
Kirchner (2016) other types of protection), risks and threats to the site (both natural and anthropogenic),
current status of the site, the level of disturbance or degradation, existing management
measures to avoid the damage of the site

Kubalíková et al. integrity and current status of the geodiversity site, accessibility, current threats
(2021) (vulnerability), legislative protection

Canesin et al. intrinsic active processes, deterioration of geological elements, size, extrinsic active
(2021) processes, proximity to active processes, economic potential, collectible elements

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 4/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Method Criteria for assessing degradation risk

potential, protection status, proximity to human activities, accessibility, population

density, visitor facilities, degradation by public use, and visitation control

Ruban et al., accessibility, vulnerability (corresponding to the integrity)

2021, Ruban et
al., 2022

Selmi et al. natural vulnerability, anthropogenic vulnerability, legal protection, human proximity,
(2022) accessibility, degrading use, control of access

The second level is represented by assessment of identified threats for all the study area by
using the Risk Assessment Matrix (a tool which is being commonly used in strategic
development and planning) which corresponds to the geoconservation in a broad sense. Both
approaches are applied in a study area of Hády Hill and its close surroundings (Brno, South
Moravian Region, Czech Republic), a geologically and geomorphologically important area with
high ecological and cultural values, which are being protected by applying different legislative
tools. Based on the two-level assessment, the main threats and conflicts of interest in the study
area are evaluated. Then, specific proposals and possible solutions are designed with an
emphasis on effective geoconservation, development of sustainable forms of tourism and future
rational use of the area. The suitability, limits, advantages and disadvantages of the proposed
methodological approaches are then discussed.

2. Study area
Hády Hill is the southernmost spur of the Moravian Karst, the best developed karstic area in
Moravia (Eastern part of the Czech Republic). The study area (Fig. 1) is situated in the outskirts
of the second biggest city in the Czech Republic – Brno (approximately 380,000 inhabitants) and
it is considered to be a recreational and tourist background both for the Brno citizens and
visitors to the city. The landscape of the study area represents a mosaic of rock outcrops and
abandoned quarries, steppe and bushy formations on steep stony slopes, natural forests, and
natural forest-free areas. On the plain and slopes of the Svitava River Valley, natural oak-beech
forest is preserved.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 5/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Download: Download high-res image (441KB)

Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 1. Position map including the geological scheme of the wider study area (map base: State
Administration of Land Surveying and Cadastre, 2022, Czech Geological Survey, 2022a).

2.1. Geology and geomorphology

The basement is formed by crystalline rocks of Brno Massive (part of Brunovistulicum), which is
the Cadomian magmatic body (570–600 Ma old) composed especially of granodiorites
occasionally outcropping over the surface. The Paleozoic cover is represented by folded
Devonian limestones (Fig. 2a), which developed in several facies (Hanžl et al., 2019). The Jurassic
limestones occur in a limited extent, forming several meters thick layer above the Devonian
limestones (Fig. 2b). They are paleontologically important (Kočí et al., 2019; Mikuláš and Bubík,
2011) and contain numerous fossils (e.g. ammonites, belemnites) including ichnofossils (Fig. 2c).
On the slopes, limited occurrences of Quaternary deluvial sediments can be found (Müller and
Novák, 2000).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 6/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Download: Download high-res image (1MB)

Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 2. Earth Sciences phenomena in the study area: a) Folded limestones and calciturbidites
(limestone with clayey shale inserts) at V Džungli Quarry. These limestones belong to the Líšeň
Formation, they were deposited in sea slopes and deformed during Variscan Orogeny; b) A view
on Hády – Odvaly ILE with a boundary between Devonian and Jurassic limestone. Between these
two rock formations, there is a hiatus of approximately 200 Ma; c) Ichnofossils at Hády – Odvaly
ILE visible in Jurassic limestone; d) A complex view on the upper part of Hády quarries. All the
southern slope has been modified and heavily influenced by human activity (extracting
limestone); e) Růženin lom Quarry: the overthrust of the granodiorites of the Brno massif
(600 Ma old) over the Devonian limestones of the Líšeň Formation (about 350 Ma old); f)
Hydrological features (small ponds) in Růženin lom Quarry. During quarrying, the spring was
uncovered and the bottom of the quarry was subsequently flooded. This resulted in the creation
of several lakes, which are a basis for a specific wetland ecosystem (all photos by authors).

Morphologically, the study area is situated on a southern part of elevated karstic plain with
slopes descending to the south and southwest where they are limited by fault valley of Svitava
River (Demek et al., 2015) and significantly transformed by anthropogenic activity. On the plain
and slopes, small limestone outcrops, karren fields and sinkholes can be found, but it is
sometimes difficult to state clearly if the landform is of natural or anthropogenic origin due to
historical extraction of limestone dating back to the Middle Ages (Mrázek, 1993). The southern
slope of Hády Hill is heavily modified by anthropogenic activity – large abandoned quarry (Fig.
2d) is currently one of the dominant of the Brno City (Müller and Novák, 2000).

In abandoned quarries, induced (or indirect) landforms (landforms which would not exist
without past anthropogenic activity, but currently they develop without direct human
influence) such as debris cones or blocky accumulations can be found. Quarry walls also
undergo the present geomorphological processes such as rock fall, landslides, erosion, or

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 7/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

opening cracks on the upper bench. The part of the area is identified in the national maps of
slope instabilities (Czech Geological Survey, 2021).

Numerous Earth Sciences phenomena, e.g. stratigraphic boundaries, tectonics (Fig. 2e),
hydrogeological (Fig. 2f) and geomorphological phenomena can be observed within the study
area. Overall geological situation including selected geodiversity sites and geosites is displayed
on Fig. 3.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 8/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Download: Download high-res image (517KB)

Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 3. Geological map of the study area including geosites and geodiversity sites selected for the
assessment: S1 – Hádecká planinka, S2 – V Džungli Quarry, S3 – Růženin lom Quarry, S4 – Hády
– Odvaly, S5 – Kavky, S6 – Velká Klajdovka (map base: State Administration of Land Surveying
and Cadastre, 2022, Czech Geological Survey, 2022b).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 9/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

2.2. Ecological, historical and cultural aspects

In the study area, it is evident that geodiversity underpins mesoclimate and biodiversity:
lithology (limestone) influence the occurrence of specific ecosystems with calciphillic species
(some of them are protected or endangered), geomorphology (outcrops, southern orientation of
the slopes) offers suitable conditions for thermophilic species and species that prefer rocky soils
or less developed soils. Hydrogeological settings induce the occurrence of small lakes with
ecosystems with high biodiversity and unique species (halophyts) and it may be considered a
part of hydrological heritage (Simić et al., 2012; Testa et al., 2019). On the plain, there are
remains of original oak-beech forest with rich herbal floor. The steep and sunny slopes are
covered with forest-steppe formation with Quercus pubescens.

The site itself was probably settled already in Neolithic (Buček and Kirchner, 2011). Cultural and
historical aspects are represented by historical mining and pasture which have changed the
appearance of the study area since Middle Ages. Pasture helped to preserve the forest-steppe
formation and there are still some evidences about past forest management preserved (e.g.
coppicing). Extraction of the limestone dates back to Middle Ages, when small quarries both on
slopes and on the plain were opened. Limestone was used for burning the lime and for some
monuments in Brno city – both as building and decoration stone (Mrázek, 1993). Until the
beginning of 20th century, the quarrying did not reach a big extension and intensity. In 1908, a
large quarry was opened for the cement works in Maloměřice and the extraction reached high
volumes. The appearance of the study area completely changed (Kuča, 2000).

In 1990s, because of closing the cement works, the quarrying ceased and the restoration begun.
It was decided that the majority of quarries will be left as it is which proved to be the best
solution in terms of nature conservation (both abiotic and living nature).

2.3. Nature conservation and other types of conservation applied in the

study area
The area includes several scientifically important sites which are already protected by Act No.
114/1992 Coll. on Nature and Landscape Conservation: one National Nature Reserve (NNR) –
Hádecká planinka NNR, two Nature Monuments (NM) – Kavky NM and Velká Klajdovka NM, and
two Important Landscape Elements (ILE) – V Džungli – Růženin lom Quarries ILE and Hády –
Odvaly ILE. Four sites are registered in the Database of Geological Localities (GL) kept by Czech
Geological Survey (Czech Geological Survey, 2021) – Hády – Jurassic Transgression GL (partly
overlapping with Hády – Odvaly ILE), V Džungli Quarry GL (partly overlapping with V Džungli –
Růženin lom Quarries ILE), Růženin lom Quarry GL (suggested to be protected, actually not
included in any ILE due to the incorrect delimitation), and Velká Klajdovka GL. Part of the study
area is declared as Special Area of Conservation under the European Union's Habitats Directive
(92/43/EEC). In another part (which overlaps with other types of legally protected sites), the
protection of limestone deposit according to the Act No. 44/1988 Coll. (Mining Act) applies as
the part of the study area is a former limestone quarry which has not been fully extracted. The
northern part of the study area belongs to the Moravian Karst Protected Landscape Area (PLA).
The overview of protected and other sites and areas is presented in table and figure in
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 10/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Supplementary material. They include information about main phenomena (for illustration see
Fig. 2), type of protection, existence of management plans or information whether the site is
protected or just monitored and relevant responsible authority.

The karst phenomena and palaeontological findings are protected by Act No. 114/1992 Coll.
within general nature conservation. The Act explicitly says that all the karst phenomena are
protected and if found, it is necessary to make a documentation before starting any activity that
could damage or destroy them (e.g. quarrying). The same situation is with palaeontological
findings – if any item is found, it is necessary to do a documentation. The areas protected
according to Act No. 44/1988 Coll. (Protected Deposit Area and Reserved Mineral Deposit)
overlaps with sites and areas protected by Act No. 114/1992 Coll. This may cause some
ambiguities in the management and restrictions applied to the study area.

2.4. Current status, current use and present or potential threats

The study area represents an important recreational and tourist background for people from
Brno and surroundings. The tourist, recreational and educational potential of the area is fully
recognized and used. Concerning environmental education, Pozemkový spolek Hády
(nongovernmental organisation – NGO) provides educational programs or other activities
related to environmental education together with scientists from local universities, museums
and Czech Geological Survey.

Threats were identified and specified during fieldwork and partly based on the care plans (all
available at website of Agency for the Nature Conservation of the Czech Republic, 2021) and
other documentation review. Some of them correspond to the threats to geodiversity and
geoheritage that have been already defined and classified (Crofts and Gordon, 2014; Fuertes-
Gutiérrez et al., 2016; Crofts et al., 2020).

Generally, the pressure on the area is high, the main problems are overcrowding, vandalism,
collecting fossils, littering, biking on the areas where the biking is restricted (Care plan of
Hádecká planinka NNR, Agency for the Nature Conservation of the Czech Republic, 2021).
Regarding natural risks, the main problem is the growth of invasive species and oppressing the
original vegetation (Care plan of Kavky NM and Velká Klajdovka NM, Agency for the Nature
Conservation of the Czech Republic, 2021) and in some cases, natural geomorphological
processes, e.g. erosion of quarry walls. In the site of Růženin lom Quarry (included in the Jižní
svahy Hádů (Southern slopes of Hády) Special Area of Conservation and registered as a
Geological Locality), the visitors in the summer months represent a quite big issue. A large
number of people violate bathing prohibition, leave behind the garbage, the remains of
vegetation are trampled, animals hardly find peace in the reeds, and the water, which is only
slowly replaced, is gradually becoming more and more muddy and polluted. Thus, the
contamination of small ponds and the surrounding ecosystems represents one of the biggest
threats. Moreover, this can cause larger contamination as these ponds are interconnected with
subsurface waters (Pozemkový spolek Hády, 2022).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 11/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

During quarrying (in the 1970s), the waste from cement works and other types of waste were
deposited on the bottom of Růženin lom Quarry. However, no detailed information is known.
Then, thanks to restoration and creation of several new ponds, the area became habitable for
higher number of species its biodiversity increased (Pozemkový spolek Hády, 2022).

Another threat is caused by confusion and high number of legislative protection measures. It is
usual that conservation measures serve as a tool to avoid the damage of particular sites and
geodiversity elements in general, nevertheless, cumulating of numerous different types of legal
protection or absence of precise delineation may cause ambiguities and problems and they may
contradict each other (e.g. management of the sites, finances for the nature conservation,
educational activities). Currently, the Pozemkový spolek Hády NGO, which is one of the major
land owners in study area and closely cooperates with local stakeholders and authorities, tries
to reduce these problems (Jurek et al., 2015, Pozemkový spolek Hády, 2022). Also the Czech
Geological Survey proposes specific measures: refining ILE (especially Růženin lom Quarry GL),
merging of the two NMs (Kavky and Velká Klajdovka) into one, eventually enlarging the area of
this new Nature Monument with ILEs of Hády – Odvaly and V Džungli – Růženin lom Quarries
as it would be desirable to protect the study area in one simple category (because of effective
management). These proposals do not include the Hádecká planinka NNR (the protection
measures seems to be sufficient there and moreover, it belongs to the Moravian Karst Protected
Landscape Area), but they cover all the rest of the study area.

Another issue is the number of different authorities that are responsible for legal protection
(Municipal Office, Regional Office, PLA Administration, Mining Office). Concerning Czech
Geological Survey and its role in geoconservation, this institution possesses important know-
how and knowledge about the geology of the area and consequently proposes specific sites to
be protected or design proposals of merging or extension of already protected sites or areas.
However, it has no competences to declare the protected area or site. In the study area,
geodiversity is a subject of protection within some of the protected areas and sites, but
generally, the degree of protection of the abiotic features is lower (geological ILEs vs. Kavky NM
and Velká Klajdovka NM, where abiotic nature is not protected).

Another identified threat is related to the lack of finances – national and regional – to maintain
the area. The sites of Earth Sciences interest have their care plans with finances to manage that,
but sometimes, they are not implemented and funded. Table 2 presents main identified threats
in the study area, be they based on Crofts et al. (2020), Fuertes-Gutiérrez et al. (2016), eventually
Pelfini and Bollati (2014) or own observations.

Table 2. Existing and potential threats to geodiversity and geoheritage in a study area.

Threat to geodiversity and geoheritage and its description Based on

Urbanisation, construction, urban development – not directly within Crofts et al. (2020), supported by own
the study area, but in close proximity (new housing area, municipal observation
park etc.)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 12/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Threat to geodiversity and geoheritage and its description Based on

Mining, respectively re-opening the quarry (as the limestone deposit Crofts et al. (2020), Fuertes-Gutiérrez
is not completely quarried out, but it is still protected by Mining Act) et al. (2016), supported by own
observation

Changes in land use and management (including agriculture and Crofts et al. (2020), supported by own
forestry) – not directly within the study area, but in close proximity observation
where conservation measures do not apply

Recreation, tourism: visitors' pressure – littering, vandalism, Crofts et al. (2020), Fuertes-Gutiérrez
breaking the rules applicable in protected areas, breaking the safety et al. (2016), supported by own
recommendations, partly including the pollution, thus endangering observation
the ecosystems and Earth Sciences phenomena, impact on integrity,
stability of slopes, water regime

Climate change – change of mesoclimatic conditions Crofts et al. (2020)

Natural geomorphological processes (slope processes, erosion, Pelfini and Bollati (2014), supported
accumulation of debris) by own observation

Restoration of pits and quarries (including landfill or restoration of Crofts et al. (2020), supported by own
agriculture or forest land that have been here before quarrying) observation

Stabilisation of rock faces with netting and concrete Crofts et al. (2020)

Collecting fossils and rock specimens Crofts et al. (2020), Fuertes-Gutiérrez

et al. (2016), supported by own
observation

Lack of finances for maintaining the sites and their Earth Sciences own observation
phenomena

Confusion in legal protection, low coherence of protection measures own observation

(different types of territorial protection, different authorities) which
may result in confusion in management

Emphasizing the protection and management of living nature at the own observation, but partly
expense of geodiversity and Earth Sciences phenomena corresponds to the “possible conflicts
with other types of natural or cultural
heritages” defined by Fuertes-
Gutiérrez et al. (2016)

Note: The inclusion of natural geomorphological processes (erosion, slope processes, accumulation of
sediments) and climatic change is rather disputable, because it is often difficult to resolve them or stop
them. Moreover, these threats are closely interconnected, e.g. climatic change (increased rainfall, extreme
events) may intensify slope processes or erosion (Prosser et al., 2010). Surely, these phenomena may
contribute to the destruction of geoheritage or decreasing the scientific value of specific types of sites
(especially its integrity, as discussed by Prosser et al., 2010, Pelfini and Bollati, 2014), but in other ways,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 13/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

they can be seen as integral part of geodiversity of an area (Smith, 2005; Selmi et al., 2022) and may be
considered an opportunity for tourist and educational activities (Pelfini and Bollati, 2014). However, in
some cases, they may also become a threat to visitors and may damage tourist and educational
infrastructure (Pelfini and Bollati, 2014). Nevertheless, the detailed evaluation of threats to society is out
of the scope of this paper.

3. Methods
The methodological procedure can be divided into several steps that are based on or inspired by
the already used methods for geosite / geomorphosite inventory and mapping (e.g. Panizza,
2001; Reynard, 2005, Reynard, 2009; Giusti, 2010; Brilha, 2016, Brilha, 2018; Fuertes-Gutiérrez
et al., 2016; Reynard et al., 2016; Garcia et al., 2018; Bouzekraoui et al., 2018; Coratza et al.,
2021), geosite or geomorphosite assessment (see the Table 1 in the Introduction),
methodological proposals for risk analysis within Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA, e.g.
Ortolano and Shepherd, 1995, DEAT - Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 2002,
Zeleňáková and Zvijáková, 2017) and other procedures and studies related to the topic (e.g.
Crofts et al., 2020). The particular steps are defined as follows:

1. Identification and description of particular sites of Earth Sciences interest,

geodiversity aspects of the study area and threats to specific sites / area (here in
the “Study area” chapter)

2. Proper assessment of the degradation risk of particular sites by using the criteria
based on the geosite / geomorphosite concept

3. Assessment of the threats to geodiversity on the area-level

4. Proposals for risk treatment, further management and monitoring

3.1. Identification and description

The first step (identification and description) is based on the detailed field research, literature
review and mapping. It serves to identify a) particular sites of Earth Sciences interest,
description of geodiversity of all the area, b) threats to specific sites, c) threats to all the area.
This partly corresponds to the establishment of context of an area and risk identification
(Zeleňáková and Zvijáková, 2017), eventually identification of probable impacts (Ortolano and
Shepherd, 1995). Identification and description of threats are based on the threat classification
of Crofts et al. (2020). Other threats are identified during the detailed fieldwork and literature
review and reflect the specific local conditions of the study area. All this is followed by the
analysis of the legislative documents related to the study area (strategic plans, set of
recommendations, care plans). A list of protected entities is created (including geosites and
geodiversity sites) and for every site, the information about a reason for protection, available
legislative documentation or management plans and authority which is responsible for the care
and management is given. Mutual spatial relationships between the sites are analysed (see
Supplementary material).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 14/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

3.2. Threat assessment on the site-level (degradation risk assessment)

For the purposes of this research, a method for site-level threat assessment adjusted for specific
conditions of the study area is designed. Only criteria relevant to threat assessment are
implemented (Table 3). Every criterion is assessed within the range of 0–1 points, no weights
are attributed. The maximum that a site can reach is 10 points, the limit for considering the site
as threatened is established on 5 points and it is based mostly on expert's estimation. This may
cause the issues of subjectivity within the assessment procedure, however, it may be partly
eliminated by using the quantitative scale. In the future use, the subjectivity may be reduced by
involving more experts into the evaluation process.

Table 3. Set of criteria for risk / threat assessment of the particular geosites and geodiversity sites
within the study area. Particular criteria are explained, their previous or original use is
mentioned and an example (photos) from field is presented.

Criterion Description Scoring Examples (from the

study area and
surroundings)

Integrity Related to the present 0 – excellent conditions; Hády Quarry – Odvaly

conservation status of the geosite 0.25 – good conditions; site: current status
or geodiversity site, its fragility, 0.5 – medium, average (integrity) of the
taking into account active conditions; Earth Science
processes. The better conditions 0.75 – bad conditions, but phenomena is quite
are, the lower risks can occur. Used with a possibility to good.
by numerous methods, e.g. Coratza recover;
and Giusti (2005), Pereira and 1 – bad conditions, site is
Pereria (2010), Brilha (2016), damaged
Reynard et al. (2016), Kubalíková
et al. (2021).

Accessibility Possibility of how to reach the site. 0 – more than 1 km both Petrov geodiversity
The closer the place to the public from a parking place and site protected as ILE –
and private transport is, the higher stop of public transport; metabasalt rocks
risk can occur due to the higher 0.25 – less than 1 km from situated directly in
visitation. The scoring and parking place, but more the city centre and
distances may be adjusted than 1 km from the stop of thus easily accessible
according to local conditions (e.g. public transport; (the tram stop is
proximity of cities, character of 0.5 – the stop of public situated
surrounding landscape). Used in transport and/or parking approximately 150 m
numerous methods, usually with place in the distance 0.5 far away)
relation to assess the geotourist and 1 km;
potential as a good proposition for 0.75 – the stop of public
developing geotourism, e.g. transport and/or parking
Reynard et al. (2016), Kubalíková place less than 0,5 km;

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 15/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Criterion Description Scoring Examples (from the

study area and
surroundings)

et al. (2021). However, here, the 1 – the stop of public

accessibility is rather negative transport and/or parking
aspect, see method García-Ortiz et place parking place no
al. (2014). more than 200 m from the
site

Current threats Correspond to vulnerability and 0 – site is not endangered Overgrowing

and their deterioration. The lower degree by natural processes or vegetation can cause a
management and better management of the human activities; loss of Earth Science
threats, the lower risk can occur. 0.25 – low anthropic risks, phenomena even if
Used in numerous methods, e.g. existing natural threats that the geodiversity site is
Bruschi and Cendrero (2005), are well managed; legally protected
Fuertes-Gutiérrez and Fernández- 0.5 – there are some (example of Žebětín
Martínez (2010), Bollati et al. potential threats that can Quarry)
(2013), Kubalíková and Kirchner endanger site, but they are
(2016). managed or they are
possible to decrease if they
occur;
0.75 – the site is currently
endangered by
anthropogenic activities,
but there are plans how to
decrease this impact;
1 – there are existing and
ongoing processes that lead
to the destruction of the
site with no plans to
recover

Legal protection Legislative tools applied to a site. 0 – Category National Thanks to its Earth
The stronger legislative protection, Natural Science values (a
the lower risk can occur. In this Monument/Reservation (or sequence of paleosoils
method, the criterion is adapted site declared as protected and loess), Červený
on the Czech environmental on national level); kopec was declared as
legislation (Acts No. 114/1992 Coll. 0.25 – Category Natural National Natural
and No. 44/1988 Coll.) and Monument/Reservation (or Monument (an
European Union's Habitats site declared as protected example of a site
Directive 92/43/EEC (shortly on regional level); protected on national
Habitats Directive). Criterion used 0.5 – Category Important
e.g. by Zouros (2007), Pereira and Landscape Element or
Pereria (2010), Reynard et al. Special Area of
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 16/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Criterion Description Scoring Examples (from the

study area and
surroundings)

(2016) – here it corresponds to Conservation (or site level)

“protection status”, Selmi et al. declared as protected on
(2022). municipal level);
0.75 – Included in the
database or list of
geological localities of a
National Geological Survey,
ongoing monitoring of the
site, but no legal
protection;
1 – No legal protection, not
in the database or list of
geological localities

Proximity to Criterion linked to the urban 0 – Site located less than The surroundings of
areas/activities sprawling and land use. The lower 1 km of a potential Hády Quarry (a view
with potential to distance, the higher risk can occur degrading area/activity; from Odvaly site): the
cause degradation (e.g. proximity to roads, cities, 0.5 – Site located less than area is situated in a
recreational areas). Used e.g. by 500 m of a potential relatively low
García-Ortiz et al. (2014), Brilha degrading area/activity; distance from the
(2016) or Selmi et al. (2022) 1 – Site located less than industrial and
200 m of a potential residential objects
degrading area/activity which may lead to the
conflicts of interest

Current use of the Number of different uses (hiking, 0–1 possible activity; Stránská skála
site climbing, fossil collecting etc.). The 0.5–2 different activities; National Nature
higher number of the use of the 1–3 and more different Monument is used for
site, the higher risk can occur. activities hiking, bouldering,
Used e.g. by Serrano-Cañadas and environmental
González-Trueba (2005), Pereira et educative activities,
al. (2007), Pereira and Pereria speleology and fossil
(2010), Kubalíková and Kirchner
(2016).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 17/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Criterion Description Scoring Examples (from the

study area and
surroundings)

collecting

Visitation (public Number of visitors. The higher 0 – low number of visitors; Rudice Nature
influx) number of visitors, the higher risk 0.5 – medium number of Monument is an old
can occur. Based on expert visitors; sand / clay pit, partly
estimation as it is not possible to 1 – high number of visitors, flooded and very
count the visitors exactly (only by causing problems frequently visited by
using the counters, but this is out both local people and
of scope of this paper) – used e.g. tourists
by Fuertes-Gutiérrez and
Fernández-Martínez, 2010 or
Selmi et al. (2022), partially
included in „anthropogenic
threats“or „public use“(e.g. García-
Ortiz et al., 2014)

Number of Both present/existing and 0 – no threat; Diorite quarry in

different potential threats are included. The 0.25–1 threat; Brno: a geodiversity
threats/intensity lower number of different threats, 0.5–2 threats; site influenced by
of threats the lower risk can occur (the 0.75–3 threats; numerous threats, e.g.
susceptibility to risk is lower). 1–4 and more different building activity,
Used e.g. by Bruschi and Cendrero threats slope processes,
(2005), García-Ortiz et al. (2014), stabilisation of rock
or Kubalíková and Kirchner (2016). facets

Use limitations Limits of the use related to the 0 – The use by students and Babí lom Natural
possibility of access and safety. tourists is very hard to be Reserve: a geosite
The easier is the access to the site accomplished due to with limited access –
(no need for permissions), the limitations difficult to narrow path with
higher risk to a site can occur. overcome; dangerous segments
Used e.g. by Pereira et al. (2007), 0.5 – The site can be used and limited
Pereira and Pereria (2010), by students and tourists accessibility by public
sometimes there is a criterion occasionally an after

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 18/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Criterion Description Scoring Examples (from the

study area and
surroundings)

“physical limitations” – e.g. overcoming limitations transport

presence of fences (Selmi et al., (legal, permissions, safety
2022). etc.);
1 – The site has no
limitations to be used by
public, students and
tourists

Density of Refers to the population density of 0 – Site located in a Conglomerate

population municipality where the site is municipality with less than outcrops at Mahenova
situated. The less populated 200 inhabitants/km2 stráň geodiversity site
municipality, the lower risk to a 0.5 – Site located in a is situated in Brno, a
geosite. May be adapted for the municipality with 200– municipality with
2
specifics of the study area. Used 1000 inhabitants/km more than 1000
e.g. by Brilha (2016), possible to 1 – Site located in a inhabitants/km2
relate with proximity of cities or municipality with more (approx. 1600
2
municipalities or recreational than 1000 inhabitants/km inhab./km2)
areas.

The final score and rating reflects the susceptibility to a risk. However, it is always necessary to
take into account individual specifics of every single site when interpreting the total score.
Based on the assessment, the ranking of the sites can be done to prioritize which one needs
more urgent actions and solutions of existing problems. Also, the particular management
measures can be proposed.

3.3. Assessment of the threats to geodiversity on the area-level

Already identified and described threats are valued based on risk assessment matrix; then a
final degree of risk is established. This partly corresponds to the risk analysis and risk evaluation
(Zeleňáková and Zvijáková, 2017), eventually to the evaluation of impacts (Ortolano and
Shepherd, 1995). Risk assessment encompass various approaches and techniques ranging from
indicator-based global or national assessments to qualitative participatory approaches of
vulnerability and risk assessment at the local level (Cardona et al., 2012). Primarily, this
procedure was used for vulnerability of people and human society, but the principles may be
used universally, so the approach may be adapted to geodiversity. The risk analysis is commonly
used in numerous scientific fields, especially related to the climatic change, disaster
management and environmental risk assessment (e.g. Field et al., 2012). Based on Rausand
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 19/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

(2013), risk analysis should consists of three steps: 1) risk identification, 2) frequency analysis,
3) consequence analysis.

For the proper evaluation of importance of the particular risks and threats in the study area
(second level, or area level), Risk Assessment Matrix was implemented – a simple tool for
assessing the risks to determine the likelihood and potential effects of different types of human
activity and natural changes. This type of analysis is usually used in business and project
management where it is an integral part of the risk management plan, studying the probability,
the impact, and the effect of every known risk or threat. It is also used for the evaluation of
possible risks and hazards when planning a project or developing a strategy (Cox, 2008). The
proper assessment takes into account the concepts of sensitivity and vulnerability. ‘Sensitivity’
refers to a feature's susceptibility to damage and the degree to which it is affected or will
respond, whereas ‘vulnerability’ refers to the likelihood of damage because of actual or potential
human intervention. This is reflected in 5 × 5 Risk Assessment Matrix (Fig. 4), where the axis X
represents ‘impact’ and axis Y represents ‘probability’ (Leveson, 2011). The total risk score is
then calculated as product of impact and probability. It has to be noted that some authors (e.g.
Selmi et al., 2022) deal with the slightly different concepts: they use the concept of “fragility” to
address intrinsic characteristics and “vulnerability” in respect to anthropic threats. Risk
assessment has been already incorporated into the EIA process (Gough, 1989; Ortolano and
Shepherd, 1995; DEAT - Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 2002; Zeleňáková
and Zvijáková, 2017) and it was focused mainly on biodiversity, pollution or ecosystems (not
directly on geodiversity) and practically used in project proposals or feasibility studies.

Download: Download high-res image (148KB)

Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 4. Risk Assessment Matrix (based on Cox, 2008, Leveson, 2011).

Application of the risk assessment matrix in geodiversity and geoheritage studies is not very
common, however, several authors used a similar tool to assess threats in specific areas, e.g.
Brooks et al. (2009) count with resilience and resistance in assessing the sensitivity assessment
of marine environments. Based on that, the classification of threats according to the sensitivity
(resilience/resistance) is presented (not sensitive, low, medium, high).

Concerning the proper rating of the degree of impact and probability, the 5-step scale is used.
The rating of levels are as follows: 1 – very low impact, 2 – low impact, 3 – medium impact, 4 –

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 20/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

high impact, 5 – very high impact. Similarly, the ratings of probability are defined as follows by
period of time: 1 – rare (extremely unlikely to occur, less than once a 20 years), 2 – unlikely
(unlikely to occur, but possible; could be incurred in 5–20 year timeframe), 3 – possible (likely to
occur sometime, could be incurred in 5 year timeframe), 4 – probable (could be incurred over a
1–2 year timeframe, will occur several times), 5 – highly probable (more than every 1 year, likely
to occur frequently). Based on this, the final value may be attributed to any identified threat. The
scoring is following: 1 to 3: minor risk (a need to plan and implement the management
measures and prevent the increase of the risk, monitoring the risk), 4 to 9: moderate risk (a
need to implement management measures and prevent the increase of risk, monitoring the
risk), 10 to 16: major risk (a need for action and implementation of management measures), 20
to 25: severe risk (an urgent need for action and implementation of management measures).

3.4. Proposals for risk treatment, further management and monitoring (both
on site-level and area-level)
The total score of the threats on area-level can serve as a basis for prioritization of the actions
needed. Based on the risk assessment, the set of recommendations or guidelines of how to
decrease the risks are designed. They may be implemented in local planning, care plans and
other strategic documents.

4. Results

4.1. First level assessment (site level)

For the first level assessment (site level), six sites of Earth Sciences interest were chosen (Fig. 3
and Supplementary material). The sites correspond with already delineated, declared and
protected sites within the study area. As some sites overlap or are not delineated exactly,
specific adjustments were done. Four of them correspond with sites protected according to Act
No. 114/1992 Coll. (Hádecká planinka NNR, Kavky NM, Velká Klajdovka NM, Hády – Odvaly ILE).
In the case of V Džungli – Růženin lom Quarries ILE, the site “V Džungli Quarry” was assessed
separately from the site Růženin lom Quarry (which is included just in the Database of CGS) as
the incorrect delineation of this ILE does not include this site. Other sites included in the
Database of CGS (Hády – Jurassic Transgression, Velká Klajdovka, V Džungli Quarry) were not
assessed as they overlap with NMs or ILEs. The Moravian Karst PLA and Jižní svahy Hádů
(Southern slopes of Hády) Special Area of Conservation were not included into the site
assessment as they cover larger area, thus criteria applied on site assessment would not be
suitable for them. Table 4 presents the results of site-level threat assessment based on the set of
criteria proposed in the Methods, part 3.2.

Table 4. The first level (site level) assessment (evaluation of threats to the sites of Earth Sciences
interest by using the concept of geosites).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 21/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Site /Criterion S1 - Hádecká S2 - V Džungli S3 - Růženin S4 - Hády – S5 - S6 - Velká

planinka Quarry lom Odvaly Kavky Klajdovka
Quarry

Integrity 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.50 0.50

Accessibility 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.00 1.00

Current threats 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.25

Legal 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25

protection

Problematic 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00

areas

Current use 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50

Visitation 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50

Number of 0.25 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.25 0.25

threats

Use limitations 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00

Population 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

density

Total score 3.25 7.00 7.25 4.50 5.25 6.25

The results show that majority of the sites of Earth Sciences interest in study area are
susceptible to the risks as the scoring reached more than 5 points. The highest score was
obtained by Růženin lom Quarry which is seriously influenced by human activities (high
visitation, number of different threats, intensive use and proximity to problematic activities).
Also, the V Džungli Quarry ILE reached relatively high score, as it is frequently used as
recreational and tourist destination and it is close to problematic activities (use of neighbouring
area for industry). Velká Klajdovka NM is endangered especially by proximity to the problematic
activities and easy access. Kavky NM's threatening is rather average – the site is less accessible,
although there occur some problematic activities in proximity. Hádecká planinka NNR reached
relatively low score, especially thanks to high level of legal protection and distance from
problematic activities. So did Hády – Odvaly ILE which reached the relatively low score because
of integrity and sufficient distance from problematic activities.

4.2. Second level assessment (area level)

The results of second level assessment (area level) are presented in Table 5. In total, 12 threats
were assessed. Probability and impact assessment has been based on the methodological
proposal in subchapter 3.3.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 22/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Table 5. The second level (area level) assessment (evaluation of threats for all the study area by
using the Risk Assessment Matrix).

Threat to geodiversity and geoheritage and its Probability Impact Total score and degree of
description risk

Urbanisation, construction, urban development 4 4 16 (major)

Mining, respectively re-opening the quarry 1 5 5 (moderate)

Changes in land use and management 2 3 6 (moderate)

Recreation, tourism: visitors' pressure 5 3 15 (major)

Climate change – change of mesoclimatic conditions 3 3 9 (moderate)

Natural geomorphological processes 4 4 16 (major)

Restoration of pits and quarries 1 5 5 (moderate)

Stabilisation of rock faces with netting and concrete 1 5 5 (moderate)

Collecting fossils and rock specimens 3 3 9 (moderate)

Lack of finances for maintaining the sites 3 4 12 (major)

Confusion in legal protection 4 4 16 (major)

Emphasizing the protection and management of living 4 4 16 (major)

nature

From the total of 12 identified threats, 6 were assessed as major and 6 as moderate. The most
important threats (16 points – major risk) according to the risk assessment are urban
development, natural geomorphological processes, confusion in legal protection and
emphasizing the living nature at the expenses of geodiversity and Earth Sciences phenomena.
Recreation/tourism use (15 points) and the lack of finances for maintaining the sites and their
Earth Sciences phenomena (12 points) are considered other significant threats. Moderate
threats are represented by climate change (however, for a complex assessment, a more detailed
study should be elaborated) and irresponsible fossil collecting (9 points). The rest of identified
threats (mining, changes in landuse, restoration, stabilisation of the walls) which reached the
score of 5, respectively 6 points are also relevant, however not so urgent. Nevertheless, all the
identified threats have to be taken into account when designing management measures in the
study area.

4.3. Management proposals resulting from site-level assessment

In the study area, the threats to Earth Sciences phenomena at specific sites are in limited extent
described in the care plans or other planning documentation including the proposals for the
management. However, some plans are focused only on the living nature or biodiversity as the
abiotic features are not a subject of protection (Agency for the Nature Conservation of the Czech

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 23/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Republic, 2021). Thus, the implementation of any management proposals is limited by the legal
protection category and the subject of protection. If the legally protected sites have the Earth
Sciences phenomena as a subject of protection, it will be easy to implement specific
management measures to the care plan and eventually gain the finances for it. This is relevant
both for the study area and on general level. Thus, the main proposal regarding the threat
management within legally protected sites is to consider and define / establish the Earth
Sciences phenomena as a subject of protection along with living nature.

The threats to Earth Sciences phenomena on site-level usually repeat (in the study area:
problems with high number of tourists, overgrowing vegetation, lack of finances for managing
and keeping the Earth Sciences phenomena visible and accessible). The detailed discussion of
management proposals that could be applied to every single site goes outside the framework of
this paper. The assessment of threats on site level is necessary, although it has some
disadvantages that, however, may be balanced and complemented with assessment of threats
on area level (for the comparison of advantages and disadvantages of evaluation, see
Discussion). The threat assessment on site level usually serve as a basis for proposing
management measures for every site (Fuertes-Gutiérrez et al., 2016; Selmi et al., 2019, Selmi et
al., 2022), but not for all the area as it considers the surroundings of the sites and their mutual
relationships only in a limited extent.

4.4. Management proposals resulting from area-level assessment

In the study area, for eliminating the threat of urban development (assessed as major with 16
points), it is necessary to follow and respect the categories of nature conservation in strategic
documents on higher level (e.g. urban development plan for all the city). Another possibility
how to contribute to the decreasing of this threat, is the promotion of the Earth Sciences value
of the area together with its links to the ecological, biological and cultural features. These
management measures can be applied generally, not only in the study area.

Natural geomorphological processes (assessed as major with 16 points) represent an issue that,
in some cases does not to be seen as threat, but rather as a full part of geodiversity of an area
(Pelfini and Bollati, 2014, Selmi et al., 2022). However, there is a danger of serious damage and
even loss of specific type of sites due to the erosion that may be related to the changing climatic
conditions (Prosser et al., 2010). In this case study, the threat is not and could not be examined
into deep because of lack of exact data and measurements in a reasonable time span.
Nevertheless, this issue has to be taken into account when revising care plans.

Confusion in legal protection (assessed as a major threat with 16 points) in the study area
represents a threat that can result in contradictions of different management measures applied
in the study area. Related issue to this threat is that some sites of Earth Sciences importance are
not protected in relevant category or the Earth Sciences phenomena is not a subject of
protection in Nature Monuments (see sub-section 4.3). Some sites thus should be proposed to
protection or incorporated to the already existing protected site or at least, delineated and re-
registered as there are some confusions in the borderlines (Geographical Information System of
Brno, 2022). A detailed re-mapping of geoheritage features can also contribute to geomorphic
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 24/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

hazard management (Coratza et al., 2021). This can justify the protection of the Earth Sciences
and enhance its inclusion in strategic documents, because, in some cases, the documents for
specific sites and areas are too brief and focused especially on living nature (e.g. set of
recommendations for Jižní svahy Hádů (Southern slopes of Hády) Special Area of Conservation).
This is also relevant within other threat (emphasizing living nature, see below). Unifying the
degree of protection or enlarging existing Nature Monuments (according to the proposals of
Czech Geological Survey) and creating effective communication network between stakeholders
and authorities, eventually developing a Geodiversity Action Plan (GAP) for an area can
significantly contribute to decreasing of this threat (Burek, 2012; Dunlop et al., 2018; Kubalíková
et al., 2022).

Emphasizing the living nature at the expenses of geodiversity and Earth Sciences phenomena is
another threat (assessed as major with 16 points). Generally, it is still very common within
nature protection and promotion (Fuertes-Gutiérrez et al., 2016). When revising care plans, it is
necessary to balance the conservation needs for both living and non-living nature, so inviting
the Earth scientists to this process would be desirable. Czech legislation allows that within one
single category of territorial protection (e.g. Nature Monument, National Nature Reserve) there
can be various features or reasons of protection – in this case, the living nature would be
conserved and the Earth Sciences phenomena could be added and included as well. Integrated
promotion of Earth Sciences phenomena and biodiversity and eventually cultural heritage is
also desirable and it is useful to emphasize the fact that biodiversity of this special area and
related cultural aspects would not exist without geodiversity (Gray, 2013, Gray, 2021; Crofts and
Gordon, 2014; Goemaere et al., 2016; Coratza et al., 2016; Reynard and Giusti, 2018; Gordon,
2018; Gordon et al., 2018). As previously said, establishing the effective network of stakeholders,
communication with local communities and preparing GAP may be a solution of this issue
(Prosser, 2019; Pijet-Migoń and Migoń, 2019; Kubalíková et al., 2022).

Recreation and tourism represent other important threats (assessed as major with 15 points).
Probably, there are limited possibilities to influence the visitation of the area, but specific
measures as education or visitors' participating in preparing relevant documentation (e.g.
conduct rules, ethic code) for the study area can contribute to the decrease of this threat.
Regarding the breaking the rules (restricted access, safety recommendations, littering, and
vandalism), this can be resolved by regular nature guides or by close cooperation with
municipal police. The information materials, guided tours or educational programs focused on
integrated promotion of Earth Sciences phenomena, biodiversity and cultural aspects of the
study area may also contribute to the decrease of this risk. Also the volunteering activities can
improve the awareness and appreciation of Earth Sciences phenomena (Worton and Gillard,
2013; Prosser, 2019; Pijet-Migoń and Migoń, 2019).

Lack of national (state) finances in the nature protection represents a usual problem and threat
(in the study area assessed as a major threat with 12 points), but assuring the financial
resources already in care plans and other documents can partly contribute to the maintaining
necessary activities for keeping the Earth Sciences phenomena visible and well-conserved. Lack
of finances can cause problems especially for continuous maintenance of outcrops that can be

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 25/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

grown by vegetation if not managed well. Also, the lack of finances for safety issues and
educational activities can cause problems, although indirect – lack of finance on environmental
education can have as a result bad conduction of visitors, their misunderstanding with the
importance of nature conservation and their low readiness to follow and accept the rules of
nature conservation. There is a possibility to ask for finances on regional level or submit a
project proposal that would help to gain finances for specific site or activity, however,
authorities that care about particular protected sites usually have not personal and
organisational resources that could cover this issue. Nevertheless, in this case, volunteering,
local inhabitants' involvement and cooperation with NGOs can help and serve as a solution
(Worton and Gillard, 2013; Tavares et al., 2015; Pijet-Migoń and Migoń, 2019).

Regarding the threat of fossil collecting, it has been assessed as moderate (9 points). In this case,
conduct rules including ethic code (eventually prepared in cooperation with fossil hunters) can
be a suitable solution; this is quite usual practice in geoparks or best-known fossil sites (e.g.
Jurassic coast, 2021). It should be noted that in the Czech Republic, fossils (palaeontological
heritage in-situ) is protected partly by Act No. 114/1992 Coll., but collections (palaeontological
heritage ex-situ) are protected by other legislative instruments, which can cause problems with
responsibility of authorities and can weaken the protection and conservation efforts (Henriques
et al., 2022). This may be seen as similar problem to the confusion caused by multiple measures
applied in a single site.

Concerning climatic change (assessed as a moderate threat with 9 points), as well as in the case
of natural geomorphological processes, the threat is not and could not be examined into deep.
There is a danger of growing vegetation and obscuring the geoheritage features (in the case of
humidization of climate) or higher predisposition to erosion in the case of dryer periods (loss of
the rock facets, accumulation of debris). Similarly, as in the case of natural geomorphological
processes, this has to be taken into account when revising care plans. Also, a more detailed
study about this topics would be relevant as global change is influencing considerably the
geodiversity and geoheritage in general (Prosser et al., 2010; Field et al., 2012; Wignall et al.,
2018; IPCC, 2019).

Although changes of landuse do not directly impact the study area and they represent a
moderate level of risk (assessed with 6 points), they should be taken into account when
preparing the strategic documents for wider area (e.g. urban development plan for all the city).
Creating the buffer zones and respecting them, informing the landowners in the surroundings,
communication about the invasive species that may occur when agriculture activities are
developed – these measures can contribute to the decrease of that risk.

Mining, restoration of pits and quarries and stabilisation of rock faces with netting and concrete
are considered moderate risks (each assessed with 5 points). Their probability is very low. There
are no plans for re-opening the limestone quarry (although specific sites are protected according
to Mining Act and thus possible to extract) and there are no plans to use the concrete or net
fixation (although some slope instabilities occur). However, the impact of these negative
activities would be very high. Although mining, quarrying or road cutting are important for

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 26/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

obtaining new scientific knowledge and thus contribute to the geoheritage studies (Prosser,
1992, Prosser, 2019, Petersen, 2002, Kubalíková et al., 2019), the conflict may arise between
conservation efforts and mining activities (Tiess and Ruban, 2013; Ruban et al., 2018). This has to
be kept in mind when preparing or revising the care plans and other relevant documentation.
The impact on Earth Sciences phenomena caused by inappropriate restoration, landfill or
reverting the area back into the agriculture or forest lands or re-opening the quarry should be
explicitly mentioned. It is also suitable to re-classify the territorial protection and emphasizing
the Earth Sciences phenomena as a relevant subject of conservation in different protected
entities.

All these proposals have to be discussed with relevant subjects, stakeholders and authorities
that are somehow involved in the study area (landowners, Agency for Nature Conservation,
Municipality of Brno, Regional Office of South Moravian Region, Pozemkový spolek Hády NGO,
Czech Geological Survey, eventually Czech Mining Office, other NGOs that use the area for
educational programs or guided tours, visitors). Together with continuous monitoring and
raising awareness of the local population about the importance of geodiversity to education,
culture, and local economy, these measures may reduce the possibility of deterioration both by
anthropic and natural processes (Do Nascimento et al., 2021).

5. Discussion
The assessment of threats has been elaborated on two levels: site level and area level. Both
approaches are suitable for different purposes, but they also complement each other: assessing
the threats on area level may point out on the threats to particular sites (e.g. fossil collection or
quarrying). Likewise, the particular threats identified on area-level can enter to the site-level
assessment (especially criteria “number of different threats/intensity of threats” and “current
threats and their management”). Generally, if the geodiversity in the study area is endangered
as a whole, it can most probably affect the particular sites. The advantages and disadvantages of
both approaches are summarized in Table 6 and briefly discussed below.

Table 6. Advantages and disadvantages of site-level and area-level threat assessment.

Level of Advantages Disadvantages

threat
assessment

Site-level . more detailed regarding the scale . assessment does not take into
. take into account specific conditions of each site account the surroundings
. further management proposals and actions . focusing on a single site does not
related to the site can be more targeted and reflect the needs of all the territory
efficient on this level .it is difficult to catch the threats that
. usually, there is just one authority that care about do not directly affect the site, but are
the site, so the preparation of planning present in the study area (e.g. this
documentation should be easier threat may occur later)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 27/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Level of Advantages Disadvantages

threat
assessment

. if not taking into account the

surroundings, it may result in higher
financial or time costs in the future

Area-level . a more complex view of wider area . not so detailed

. take into account mutual links between particular . numerous entities, authorities,
sites different legislative instruments and
. the assessment of the threats on area-level may interests in the wider area may cause
point out on the threats on site-level conflicts
. for the first approach to the threats and conflicts . designing complex management
of interest, the use of risk assessment matrix can measures requires more organisation
be very helpful to recognize the level of the risks skills and planning
and it may assist management decision making . respecting proposed measures can be
difficult if a part of area is not
protected or if it is protected in
different category

Both assessment approaches have other limitations, e.g. they do not take into account the
detailed assessment of pollution of subsurface as one of the threats (this aspect is included
within “tourism and recreation” threat). However, this criterion would be difficult to include as
it is conditioned by exact monitoring (Mikhailenko et al., 2022) which is often missing. The
proposed assessment methods do not consider the monetary value of geodiversity (e.g. Queiroz
and Garcia, 2022). This is out of scope of proposed approaches, however, it may be developed in
the future in relation to the geosystem (abiotic ecosystem) services classification and
assessment (EEA, 2018; Gray, 2013, Gray, 2018; García, 2019).

In some aspects, the proposed methods may be seen as an alternative to the Bétard and Peulvast
(2019) concept of geodiversity hotspot (defined as a site where geoheritage is endangered by
threats). The authors use similar approach when assessing threats, however, their method is
rather focused on the sites in actual danger (or site in need of urgent action) and do not take
into account the sites with potential threats and thus, avoid the preliminary risk assessment.
Regarding the assessment of the sites, García-Ortiz et al. (2014) and Selmi et al. (2022) proposed
a more detailed method, distinguishing between anthropic and natural threats. Our proposal
takes into account the complexity of threats (does not distinguish between anthropic and
natural) because in some type of areas (e.g. abandoned quarries, urban areas or areas and sites
situated within the disturbed and anthropogenically transformed territories) it is often difficult
to establish the degree of anthropic and natural influence. In these cases, natural processes are
induced or heavily influenced by anthropogenic activities (Reynard et al., 2017; Habibi et al.,
2018; Kubalíková et al., 2019). The method of Selmi et al. (2022) is focused just on sites and
takes into account the complexity of area in a limited extent. Fuertes-Gutiérrez and Fernández-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 28/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Martínez, 2010 consider just site level in their methodological proposal which does not reflect
the mutual relationships in a study area. However, site oriented methods enable a more detailed
focus on the specific conditions of particular sites. The method of Fuertes-Gutiérrez et al. (2016)
takes into account more threats – originally they consider them on site-level, nevertheless, they
may be applied also on area-level (e.g. conflict with different types of heritage conservation).
Crofts et al. (2020) identified a wide range of threats for geoheritage (or to the geodiversity) in
protected areas but in specific cases, other threats can be identified and assessed. Eventually,
the threats defined by Crofts et al. (2020) can be adjusted for specific areas.

The proposed method is possible to be used in different areas, but some criteria has to be
adjusted according to local conditions (e.g. accessibility). If relevant datasets are available, some
criteria into the site-level assessment may be added (e.g. presence of pollutants, exact data
about visitations).

Both approaches are relevant and acceptable as a basis for further land use policy, developing
care plans or strategic documentation related to the nature protection and geoconservation. The
threat assessment both on site and area-level may be integrated into the EIA procedures. Similar
proposal was already discussed by Rivas et al. (1997) who proposed to include
geomorphological variables to EIA process. This step would surely contribute to the
mainstreaming geodiversity and help to accept the abiotic nature as a full-value part of
landscape and thus, offer a better and more efficient legislative protection by interconnecting
geoconservation efforts, risk analysis and EIA procedures. After verification of the proposed
methods in various environments, it may become an integral part of territorial planning and
eventually can be reflected into the legislative instruments (in the Czech legislative it may be
implemented directly in the Act No. 100/2001 Coll. on Environmental Impact Assessment or in
the Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on Conservation of Nature and Landscape).

6. Conclusions
Geoconservation as an activity of protecting and managing geodiversity and geoheritage should
not be oriented just on the site level. To adopt effective tools, it is necessary to take into account
both sites of Earth Sciences interest and wider areas where the sites are situated. Otherwise, the
proposed management and protection measures do not have to be as efficient as supposed. The
identification of threats to Earth Sciences phenomena represent an essential part of
geoconservation activities. The assessment of threats of particular sites possesses relevant
detail, however, it does not catch the links with surroundings. That is why the threat assessment
in the wider area should be also elaborated. Risk assessment matrix proved to be a simple tools
for assessing and prioritizing the threats in a wider area. In the future, it may be applied also on
particular sites of Earth Sciences interest.

Based on the site level and area level assessment, specific protection and management
proposals were designed. These can be implemented both on site level in the care plans of
particular sites of Earth Sciences interest (or sites that are already legally protected) and on the
area level where they can serve as a basis for sustainable use of geodiversity and geoheritage of

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 29/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

a given area. Thank to this, the interaction and interdependency of geodiversity and biodiversity
can be recognized in conservation management and the pressures from urban development can
be regulated.

The limitations of the proposed methodological procedures are represented e.g. in the limited
possibility of assessing specific threats in detail (e.g. pollution, due to the missing datasets) or
possible conflicts of interests when preparing a complex strategic documents for wider area as
there may occur different types of legislative protection (in extreme case they can contradict
each other) and different authorities responsible for specific Earth Sciences phenomena.
Preparing such complex documentation for all the area is probably more difficult than preparing
or updating care plans or other documentation on site level.

Despite the limitations, it can be assumed that in the future, the proposed methodological
approaches (site and area level) may be incorporated in EIA procedures and eventually
territorial planning and thus contribute to the mainstreaming of geodiversity or help to raise
awareness of importance and need of conservation of geodiversity and geoheritage.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Download: Download Word document (2MB)

An overview of the legally protected sites and areas and sites kept in the Database of Geological
Localities by Czech Geological Survey

Recommended articles

Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.

References
Agency for the Nature Conservation of the Czech Republic, 2021 Agency for the Nature Conservation of
the Czech Republic
The List of Protected Areas and Sites
Available at
https://drusop.nature.cz (2021)
Accessed 28th August 2021
Google Scholar

Bétard and Peulvast, 2019 F. Bétard, J.P. Peulvast

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 30/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Geodiversity hotspots: concept, method and cartographic application for

geoconservation purposes at a regional scale
Environ. Manag., 63 (2019), pp. 822-834, 10.1007/s00267-019-01168-5
View in Scopus Google Scholar
Bollati et al., 2013 I. Bollati, C. Smiraglia, M. Pelfini
Assessment and selection of geomorphosites and trails in the Miage glacier area
(Western Italian Alps)
Environ. Manag., 51 (2013), pp. 951-967, 10.1007/s00267-012-9995-2
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Bouzekraoui et al., 2018 H. Bouzekraoui, A. Barakat, M. El Youssi, F. Touhami, A. Mouaddine, A. Hafid, Z.

Zwoliński
Mapping geosites as gateways to the geotourism management in Central High-
Atlas (Morocco)
Quaest. Geogr., 37 (1) (2018), pp. 87-102, 10.2478/quageo-2018-0007
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Brilha, 2016 J. Brilha

Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a
review
Geoheritage, 8 (2) (2016), pp. 119-134, 10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Brilha, 2018 J. Brilha

E. Reynard, J. Brilha (Eds.), Geoheritage: Inventories and Evaluation. In Geoheritage: Assessment,
Protection, and Management, 2018, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2018), pp. 69-86
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Brilha et al., 2018 J. Brilha, M. Gray, D.I. Pereira, P. Pereira

Geodiversity: an integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable
management of the whole of nature
Environ. Sci. Pol., 86 (2018), pp. 19-28, 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.05.001
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Brooks, 2013 A.J. Brooks

Assessing the sensitivity of geodiversity features in Scotland’s seas to pressures
associated with human activities
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 590 (2013)
Google Scholar

Brooks et al., 2009 A.J. Brooks, H. Roberts, N.H. Kenyon, A.J. Houghton
Accessing and developing the required biophysical datasets and datalayers for
Marine Protected Areas network planning and wider marine spatial planning
purposes

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 31/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Report No 8 Task 2A. Mapping of Geological and Geomorphological Features, DEFRA, JNCC, ABP
Marine Environmental Research Ltd, Southampton (2009)
103 pp, available at
sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=mb0102_8594_TRP.pdf
cited 20th September 2021
Google Scholar
Bruschi and Cendrero, 2005 V.M. Bruschi, A. Cendrero
Geosite evaluation; can we measure intangible values?
Il Quaternario, 18 (1) (2005), pp. 293-306
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Bruschi and Cendrero, 2009 V.M. Bruschi, A. Cendrero

Direct and parametric methods for the assessment of geosites and
geomorphosites
E. Reynard, P. Coratza, G. Regolini-Bissig (Eds.), Geomorphosites, Pfeil, Munchen (2009), pp. 73-88
Google Scholar

Buček and Kirchner, 2011 A. Buček, K. Kirchner

Krajina města Brna (the landscape of Brno)
Dějiny Brna 1. díl, Archiv města Brna, Brno (2011), pp. 43-81
Google Scholar

Burek, 2012 C. Burek

The role of LGAPs (local geodiversity action plans) and welsh RIGS as local
drivers for geoconservation within geotourism in Wales
Geoheritage, 4 (2012), pp. 45-63, 10.1007/s12371-012-0054-4
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Bussard and Reynard, 2022 J. Bussard, E. Reynard

Heritage value and stakeholders’ perception of four geomorphological
landscapes in southern Iceland
Geoheritage, 14 (2022), p. 89, 10.1007/s12371-022-00722-8
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Canesin et al., 2021 T.S. Canesin, P. Pereira, J. Vegas, P. Coratza, L. Selmi, V. Santos
Addressing indicators for geoheritage monitoring based on degradation risk
and scientific value quantitative assessment
EGU General Assembly, 2021 (2021), pp. EGU21-15024, 10.5194/egusphere-egu21-15024
Google Scholar

Cardona et al., 2012 O.D. Cardona, M.K. van Aalst, J. Birkmann, M. Fordham, G. McGregor, R. Perez, R.S.
Pulwarty, Schipper ELF, B.T. Sinh
Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability
C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.K.
Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, P.M. Midgley (Eds.), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 32/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, and New York, NY, USA (2012), pp. 65-108
View in Scopus Google Scholar
Coratza et al., 2016 P. Coratza, R. Gauci, J. Schembri, M. Soldati, C. Tonelli
Bridging natural and cultural values of sites with outstanding scenery: evidence
from Gozo, Maltese islands
Geoheritage, 8 (2016), pp. 91-103
Crossref View in Scopus Google Scholar

Coratza et al., 2021 P. Coratza, I.M. Bollati, V. Panizza, P. Brandolini, D. Castaldini, F. Cucchi, G. Deiana, M.
Del Monte, F. Faccini, F. Finocchiaro, D. Gioia, R. Melis, C. Minopoli, O. Nesci, G. Paliaga, M.
Pennetta, L. Perotti, A. Pica, F. Tognetto, A. Trocciola, L. Valentini, M. Giardino, M. Pelfini
Advances in Geoheritage mapping: application to iconic geomorphological
examples from the Italian landscape
Sustainability, 13 (20) (2021), p. 11538, 10.3390/su132011538
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Coratza and Giusti, 2005 P. Coratza, C. Giusti

Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of
geomorphosites
Il Quaternario Ital J Quat Sci, 18 (1) (2005), pp. 305-313
Google Scholar

Cox, 2008 A. Cox

What’s wrong with risk matrices
Risk Anal., 28 (2) (2008), pp. 497-512, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x
Google Scholar

Crofts and Gordon, 2014 R. Crofts, J.E. Gordon

Geoconservation in protected areas
Parks, 20 (2) (2014), 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.PARKS-20-2.RC.en
November 2014
Google Scholar

Crofts et al., 2020 R. Crofts, J.E. Gordon, J. Brilha, M. Gray, J. Gunn, J. Larwood, V.L. Santucci, D. Tormey,
G.L. Worboys
Guidelines for geoconservation in protected and conserved areas
Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 31, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland (2020),
10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.PAG.31.en
ISBN: 978-2-8317-2079-1
Google Scholar

Czech Geological Survey, 2021 Czech Geological Survey

Significant Geological Localities of the Czech Republic

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 33/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

http://lokality.geology.cz (2021)
Accessed 26th July 2021
Google Scholar
Czech Geological Survey, 2022a Czech Geological Survey
Geological Map 1:2500000
Freely available at
https://micka.geology.cz/record/basic/516c0a35-53f8-434b-9ee9-1e400a010817 (2022)
Accessed 14th November 2022
Google Scholar

Czech Geological Survey, 2022b Czech Geological Survey

Geological Map 1:50000
Freely available at
https://micka.geology.cz/record/basic/60acc142-d4bc-43de-b15c-71060a010852 (2022)
Accessed 14th November 2022
Google Scholar

DEAT - Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 2002 DEAT - Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism
Ecological Risk Assessment, Integrated Environmental Management,
Information Series 6, Pretoria
https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/series6_ecological_riskassessment.pdf
(2002)
Google Scholar

Demek et al., 2015 J. Demek, P. Mackovčin, B. Balatka, A. Buček, M. Culek, P. Čermák, D. Dobiáš, M.
Havlíček, M. Hrádek, K. Kirchner, J. Vašátko
Zeměpisný lexikon ČR
Hory a nížiny (Geographical Lexicon of the Czech Republic – Mountains and Lowlands), Mendelova
univerzita v, Brně (2015)
Google Scholar

Do Nascimento et al., 2021 M.A.L. Do Nascimento, M.L.N. Da Silva, M.C. De Almeida, et al.
Evaluation of typologies, use values, degradation risk, and relevance of the
Seridó aspiring UNESCO Geopark Geosites, Northeast Brazil
Geoheritage, 13 (2021), p. 25, 10.1007/s12371-021-00542-2
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Dunlop et al., 2018 L. Dunlop, J.G. Larwood, C.V. Burek

Geodiversity Action Plans – A Method to Facilitate, Structure, Inform and
Record Action for Geodiversity
E. Reynard, J. Brilha (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management (2018), pp. 53-
65, 10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00003-4
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 34/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

EEA, 2018 EEA

Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services V5.1 2018
Available online
https://cices.eu/ (2018)
(accessed on 12 February 2020)
Google Scholar

Erhartič, 2010 B. Erhartič

Geomorphosites assessment
Acta Geogr. Slovenica, 50 (2) (2010), pp. 295-319, 10.3986/AGS50206
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Field et al., 2012 Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate
change adaptation
C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.K.
Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, P.M. Midgley (Eds.), A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, and New York, NY, USA (2012)
Google Scholar

Fox et al., 2020 N. Fox, L.J. Graham, F. Eigenbrod, J.M. Bullock, K.E. Parks
Incorporating geodiversity in ecosystem service decisions
Ecosyst. People, 16 (1) (2020), pp. 151-159, 10.1080/26395916.2020.1758214
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Fuertes-Gutiérrez and Fernández-Martínez, 2010 I. Fuertes-Gutiérrez, E. Fernández-Martínez

Geosites inventory in the León province (northwestern Spain): a tool to
introduce Geoheritage into regional environmental management
Geoheritage, 2 (2010), pp. 57-75, 10.1007/s12371-010-0012-y
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Fuertes-Gutiérrez et al., 2016 I. Fuertes-Gutiérrez, E. García-Ortiz, E. Fernández-Martínez

Anthropic threats to geological heritage: characterization and management: a
case study in the dinosaur Tracksites of La Rioja (Spain)
Geoheritage, 8 (2016), pp. 135-153, 10.1007/s12371-015-0142-3
View in Scopus Google Scholar

García, 2019 M.G.M. García

Ecosystem services provided by geodiversity: preliminary assessment and
perspectives for the sustainable use of natural resources in the coastal region of
the state of São Paulo, Southeastern Brazil
Geoheritage, 11 (2019), pp. 1257-1266
Crossref View in Scopus Google Scholar

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 35/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Garcia et al., 2018 M.G.M. Garcia, J. Brilha, F.F. Lima, J.C. Vargas, A. Pérez-Aguillar, A. Alves, G.A.C.
Campana, W. Duleba, F.M. Faleiros, L.A. Fernandes, M.S.M. Fierz, M.J. Garcia, V.A. Janasi, L.
Martins, M.I.B. Raposo, F. Ricardi-Branco, J.L.S. Ross, W. Sallum Filho, C.R.G. Souza, M.E.C.
Bernardes-de-Oliveira, B.B.B. Neves, M.C. Campos Neto, S.R. Christofoletti, R. Henrique-Pinto,
H.A.S. Lobo, R. Machado, C.R. Passarelli, J.A.J. Perinotto, R.R. Ribeiro, H. Shimada
The inventory of geological heritage of the state of São Paulo, Brazil:
methodological basis, results and perspectives
Geoheritage, 10 (2) (2018), pp. 239-258, 10.1007/s12371-016-0215-y
View in Scopus Google Scholar

García-Ortiz et al., 2014 E. García-Ortiz, I. Fuertes-Gutiérrez, E. Fernández-Martínez

Concepts and terminology for the risk of degradation of geological heritage
sites: fragility and natural vulnerability, a case study
Proc. Geol. Assoc., 125 (2014), pp. 463-479, 10.1016/j.pgeola.2014.06.003
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Geographical Information System of Brno, 2022 Geographical Information System of Brno

Available at
https://gis.brno.cz/ (2022)
Accessed 12th October 2021
Google Scholar

Giusti, 2010 C. Giusti

From geosites to geomorphosites
Géomorphologie, 5 (2) (2010), pp. 123-130
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Goemaere et al., 2016 E. Goemaere, S. Demarque, R. Dreesen, P. Declecq

The geological and cultural heritage of the Caledonian Stavelot-Venn Massif,
Belgium
Geoheritage, 8 (2016), pp. 211-233, 10.1007/s12371-015-0155-y
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Gordon, 2018 J.E. Gordon

Geoheritage, Geotourism and the cultural landscape: enhancing the visitor
experience and promoting geoconservation
Geosciences, 8 (4) (2018), pp. 136-160, 10.3390/geosciences8040136
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Gordon and Barron, 2012 J.E. Gordon, H.F. Barron

Valuing geodiversity and geoconservation: developing a more strategic
ecosystem approach
Scott. Geogr. J., 128 (3–4) (2012), pp. 278-297, 10.1080/14702541.2012.725861
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Gordon et al., 2018 J.E. Gordon, R. Crofts, Woo K.S. Díaz-Martínez

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 36/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Enhancing the role of geoconservation in protected area management and

nature conservation
Geoheritage, 10 (2018), pp. 191-203, 10.1007/s12371-017-0240-5
View in Scopus Google Scholar
Górska-Zabielska et al., 2020 M. Górska-Zabielska, K. Witkowska, M. Pisarska, et al.
The selected erratic boulders in the Świętokrzyskie province (Central Poland)
and their potential to promote geotourism
Geoheritage, 12 (2020), p. 30, 10.1007/s12371-020-00453-8
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Gough, 1989 J.D. Gough

A Strategic Approach to the Use of Environmental Impact Assessment and Risk
Assessment Within the Decision-Making Process
https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/bitstream/10182/1354/1/crm_ip_13.pdf (1989)
Google Scholar

Gray, 2013 M. Gray

Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature
(Second edition), Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester (2013)
Google Scholar

Gray, 2018 M. Gray

The confused position of the geosciences within the “natural capital” and
“ecosystem services” approaches
Ecosyst. Serv., 34 (2018), pp. 106-112, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.10.010
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Gray, 2021 M. Gray

Geodiversity: a significant, multi-faceted and evolving, geoscientific paradigm
rather than a redundant term
Proc. Geol. Assoc., 132 (5) (2021), pp. 605-619, 10.1016/j.pgeola.2021.09.001
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Habibi et al., 2018 T. Habibi, A.A. Ponedelnik, N.N. Yashalova, D.A. Ruban
Urban geoheritage complexity: evidence of a unique natural resource from
shiraz city in Iran
Res. Policy, 59 (2018), pp. 85-94
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Hanžl et al., 2019 P. Hanžl, V. Janoušek, I. Soejono, D. Buriánek, M. Svojtka, K. Hrdličková, C. Pin
The rise of the Brunovistulicum: age, geological, petrological and geochemical
character of the Neoproterozoic magmatic rocks of the Central Basic Belt of the
Brno Massif
Int. J. Earth Sci., 108 (4) (2019), pp. 1165-1199, 10.1007/s00531-019-01700-2

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 37/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

View in Scopus Google Scholar

Henriques et al., 2022 M.H. Henriques, R. Pena dos Reis, G.G. Garcia, P. João, R.M. Marques, S. Custódio
Developing paleogeographic heritage concepts and ideas through the Upper
Jurassic record of the Salgado and Consolação geosites (Lusitanian Basin,
Portugal)
Res. Policy, 76 (2022), p. 102594, 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102594
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

IPCC, 2019 IPCC, P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E.C. Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, P.
Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. Van Diemen, et al. (Eds.), (2019) Climate Change and Land: An IPCC
Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land
Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems, IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland (2019)
Google Scholar

Jurassic coast, 2021 Jurassic coast

A Fossil Code and Recording Scheme for the Undercliffs National Nature Reserve
Available at:
https://jurassiccoast.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Undercliffs-NNR-Fossil-Code-and-
Recording-Scheme-FINAL.pdf (2021)
Accessed 12th October 2021
Google Scholar

Jurek et al., 2015 V. Jurek, et al.

Ochranářský plán - Jižní svahy Hádů
ZO ČSOP Pozemkový spolek HÁDY, 2015 (2015)
63 p
Google Scholar

Kočí et al., 2019 T. Kočí, M. Jäger, J. Šamánek, P. Hykš

Tube dwelling polychaetes from the Oxfordian (Late Jurassic) of Hády Quarry at
Brno (Moravia, Czech Republic)
N. Jb. Geol. Paläont. (Abh.), 294 (3) (2019), pp. 311-332
December 2019. (22). E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung
https://doi.org/10.1127/njgpa/2019/0862
Crossref View in Scopus Google Scholar

Kubalíková, 2013 L. Kubalíková

Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes
Czech J. Tour., 2 (2) (2013), pp. 80-104
Crossref Google Scholar

Kubalíková, 2020 L. Kubalíková

Cultural ecosystem Services of Geodiversity: a case study from Stránská skála
(Brno, Czech Republic)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 38/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Land, 9 (4) (2020), p. 105, 10.3390/land9040105

View in Scopus Google Scholar
Kubalíková and Kirchner, 2016 L. Kubalíková, K. Kirchner
Geosite and geomorphosite assessment as a tool for geoconservation and
geotourism purposes: a case study from Vizovická vrchovina Highland (eastern
part of the Czech Republic)
Geoheritage, 8 (2) (2016), pp. 5-14
Crossref View in Scopus Google Scholar

Kubalíková et al., 2019 L. Kubalíková, K. Kirchner, F. Kuda, I. Machar

The role of anthropogenic landforms in sustainable landscape management
Sustainability, 11 (16) (2019), p. 4331, 10.3390/su11164331
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Kubalíková et al., 2021 L. Kubalíková, E. Drápela, K. Kirchner, A. Bajer, M. Balková, F. Kuda

Urban geotourism development and geoconservation: is it possible to find a
balance?
Environ. Sci. Pol., 121 (2021), pp. 1-10
ISSN 1462-9011
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.03.016
View PDF View article Google Scholar

Kubalíková et al., 2022 L. Kubalíková, A. Bajer, M. Balková, K. Kirchner, I. Machar

Geodiversity action plans as a tool for developing sustainable tourism and
environmental education
Sustainability, 14 (2022), p. 6043, 10.3390/su14106043
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Kuča, 2000 K. Kuča

Brno—vývoj města, předměstí a připojených vesnic
Baset, Brno (2000)
644 p
Google Scholar

Leveson, 2011 N. Leveson

Improving the Standard Risk Matrix (White Paper)
available at:
http://sunnyday.mit.edu/Risk-Matrix.pdf (2011)
Google Scholar

Mikhailenko et al., 2022 A.V. Mikhailenko, N.N. Yashalova, D.A. Ruban

Environmental pollution in Geopark management: a systematic review of the
literary evidence
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19 (8) (2022), p. 4748, 10.3390/ijerph19084748
View in Scopus Google Scholar
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 39/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Mikuláš and Bubík, 2011 R. Mikuláš, M. Bubík

Ichnologický záznam (vrtavé stopy a bioturbace) jurské transgrese v lomu Hády
u Brna
Zprávy o geologických výzkumech, 2010 (2011), pp. 113-116
Google Scholar

Mrázek, 1993 I. Mrázek

Kamenná tvář Brna (Stone Face of Brno)
Moravské zemské muzeum, Brno (1993)
Google Scholar

Mucivuna et al., 2019 V.C. Mucivuna, E. Reynard, M.G.M. Garcia

Geomorphosites assessment methods: comparative analysis and typology
Geoheritage, 11 (4) (2019), pp. 1799-1815, 10.1007/s12371-019-00394-x
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Müller and Novák, 2000 P. Müller, Z. Novák

Geologie Brna a okolí (Geology of Brno and Surroundings)
(2000)
(Český geologický ústav Praha)
Google Scholar

Németh et al., 2021 K. Németh, I. Gravis, B. Németh

Dilemma of geoconservation of monogenetic volcanic sites under fast
urbanization and infrastructure developments with special relevance to the
Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand
Sustainability, 13 (2021), p. 6549, 10.3390/su13126549
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Ortolano and Shepherd, 1995 L. Ortolano, A. Shepherd

Environmental impact assessment: challenges and opportunities
Impact Assess., 13 (1) (1995), pp. 3-30, 10.1080/07349165.1995.9726076
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Panizza, 2001 M. Panizza

Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey
Chin. Sci. Bull., 46 (Suppl) (2001), pp. 4-6, 10.1007/BF03187227
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Pelfini and Bollati, 2014 M. Pelfini, I. Bollati

Landforms and geomorphosites ongoing changes: concepts and implications for
geoheritage promotion
Quaest. Geogr., 33 (1) (2014), pp. 131-143, 10.2478/quageo-2014-0009
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Pereira and Pereria, 2010 P. Pereira, D. Pereria

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 40/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment Geomorphologie:

relief, processes
Environment, 1 (3) (2010), pp. 215-222
Crossref View in Scopus Google Scholar
Pereira et al., 2007 P. Pereira, et al.
Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal)
Geographica Helvetica, 62 (3) (2007), pp. 159-168
Crossref View in Scopus Google Scholar

Petersen, 2002 J. Petersen

The role of roadcuts, quarries, and other artificial exposures in geomorphology
education
Geomorphology, 47 (2002), pp. 289-301
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Pijet-Migoń and Migoń, 2019 E. Pijet-Migoń, P. Migoń

Promoting and interpreting Geoheritage at the local level—bottom-up approach
in the land of extinct volcanoes, Sudetes, SW Poland
Geoheritage, 11 (4) (2019), pp. 1227-1236, 10.1007/s12371-019-00357-2
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Pozemkový spolek Hády, 2022 Pozemkový spolek Hády

Available at
https://www.pshhady.cz/ (2022)
Accessed 12th July 2022
Google Scholar

ProGEO, 2011 ProGEO

Conserving our Shared Geoheritage – A Protocol on geoconservation principles,
sustainable site use, management, fieldwork, fossil and mineral collecting
ProGEO, Uppsala (2011)
Retrieved from
https://www.sigeaweb.it/geoheritage/documents/progeo-protocol-definitions-20110915.pdf
Accessed 4th August 2022
Google Scholar

Prosser, 1992 C.D. Prosser

Active quarrying and conservation
Earth Sci. Conserv., 31 (1992), pp. 22-24
Google Scholar

Prosser, 2013 C.D. Prosser

Our rich and varied geoconservation portfolio: the foundation for the future
Proc. Geol. Assoc., 124 (2013), pp. 568-580, 10.1016/j.pgeola.2012.06.001
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 41/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Prosser, 2019 C.D. Prosser

Communities, quarries and Geoheritage—making the connections
Geoheritage, 11 (4) (2019), pp. 1277-1289, 10.1007/s12371-019-00355-4
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Prosser et al., 2006 C. Prosser, M. Murphy, J. Larwood

Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice. English Nature
United Kingdom, Peterborough (2006)
Google Scholar

Prosser et al., 2010 C.D. Prosser, C.V. Burek, D.H. Evans, J.E. Gordon, V.B. Kirkbride, A.F. Rennie, C.A.
Walmsley
Conserving geodiversity sites in a changing climate: management challenges
and responses
Geoheritage, 2 (2010), pp. 123-136, 10.1007/s12371-010-0016-7
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Queiroz and Garcia, 2022 D.S. Queiroz, M.G.M. Garcia

The “hidden” geodiversity in the traditional approaches in ecosystem services:
a perspective based on monetary valuation
Geoheritage, 14 (2022), p. 44, 10.1007/s12371-022-00676-x
Google Scholar

Rausand, 2013 M. Rausand

Risk Assessment: Theory, Methods, and Applications
vol. 115, Wiley, Hoboken (2013)
Google Scholar

Reverte et al., 2020 F.C. Reverte, M.G.M. García, J. Brilha, A.U. Pellejero
Assessment of impacts on ecosystem services provided by geodiversity in
highly urbanised areas: a case study of the Taubaté Basin, Brazil
Environ. Sci. Pol., 112 (2020), pp. 91-106, 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.015
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Reynard, 2005 E. Reynard

Géomorphosites et paysages
Géomorphologie, 1 (3) (2005), pp. 181-188
Crossref Google Scholar

Reynard, 2009 E. Reynard

The assessment of geomorphosites
E. Reynard, P. Coratza, G. Regolini-Bissig (Eds.), Geomorphosites, 2009, Pfeil, Munchen, Germany
(2009), pp. 63-71
Google Scholar

Reynard and Giusti, 2018 E. Reynard, C. Giusti

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 42/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

The landscape and the cultural value of geoheritage

E. Reynard, J. Brilha (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection and Management, Elsevier (2018),
pp. 147-166
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar
Reynard et al., 2016 E. Reynard, A. Perret, J. Bussard, L. Grangier, S. Martin
Integrated approach for the inventory and management of geomorphological
heritage at the regional scale
Geoheritage, 8 (1) (2016), pp. 43-60, 10.1007/s12371-015-0153-0
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Reynard et al., 2017 E. Reynard, A. Pica, P. Coratza

Urban geomorphological heritage. An overview Quaestiones
Geographicae, 36 (3) (2017), pp. 7-20
Crossref View in Scopus Google Scholar

Rivas et al., 1997 V. Rivas, K. Rix, E. Francés, A. Cendero, D. Brunsden

Geomorphological indicators for environmental impact assessment:
consumable and non-consumable geomorphological resources
Geomorphology, 18 (1997), pp. 169-182
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Ruban et al., 2018 D.A. Ruban, G. Tiess, E.S. Sallam, A.A. Ponedelnik, N.N. Yashalova
Combined mineral and geoheritage resources related to kaolin, phosphate, and
cement production in Egypt: conceptualization, assessment, and policy
implications
Sustain. Environ. Res., 28 (2018), pp. 454-461
View PDF View article Crossref View in Scopus Google Scholar

Ruban et al., 2021 D.A. Ruban, E.S. Sallam, T.M. Khater, et al.
Golden triangle geosites: preliminary Geoheritage assessment in a geologically
rich area of eastern Egypt
Geoheritage, 13 (2021), p. 54, 10.1007/s12371-021-00582-8
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Ruban et al., 2022 D.A. Ruban, A.V. Mikhailenko, N.N. Yashalova

Valuable geoheritage resources: Potential versus exploitation
Res. Policy, 77 (2022), Article 102665, 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102665
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Selmi et al., 2019 L. Selmi, P. Coratza, R. Gauci, M. Soldati

Geoheritage as a tool for environmental management: a case study in northern
Malta (Central Mediterranean Sea)
Resources, 8 (4) (2019), p. 168, 10.3390/resources8040168
View in Scopus Google Scholar

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 43/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Selmi et al., 2022 L. Selmi, T.S. Canesin, R. Gauci, P. Pereira, P. Coratza

Degradation risk assessment: understanding the impacts of climate change on
Geoheritage
Sustainability, 14 (7) (2022), p. 4262, 10.3390/su14074262
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Serrano-Cañadas and González-Trueba, 2005 E. Serrano-Cañadas, J.J. González-Trueba

Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the Picos de Europa
National Park (Spain)
Géomorphologie, 1 (3) (2005), pp. 197-208
Google Scholar

Sharples, 2002 C. Sharples

Concepts and Principles of Geoconservation
Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service, Hobart (2002)
Available at
https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/geoconservation.pdf
Accessed 12th October 2021
Google Scholar

Simić et al., 2012 S. Simić, B. Gavrilović, N. Živković, L. Gavrilović

Protection of hydrological heritage sites of Serbia – problems and perspectives
Geographica Pannonica, 16 (3) (2012), pp. 84-93
Google Scholar

Smith, 2005 B.J. Smith

Management challenges at a complex geosite: the Giant’s causeway world
heritage site, Northern Ireland
Géomorphologie, 11 (3) (2005), pp. 219-226, 10.4000/geomorphologie.386
Google Scholar

State Administration of Land Surveying and Cadastre, 2022 State Administration of Land Surveying and
Cadastre
DMR 5G (Web Map Service)
Freely available at
https://geoportal.cuzk.cz/(S(0ocwek0zwnpv1siyvd4z2pby))/Default.aspx?
menu=3130&mode=TextMeta&side=wms.verejne&metadataID=CZ-CUZK-WMS-
DMR5G&metadataXSL=metadata.sluzba (2022)
Accessed 15th November 2022
Google Scholar

Štrba et al., 2015 L. Štrba, P. Rybár, B. Baláž, M. Molokáč, L. Hvizdák, B. Kršák, M. Lukáč, L. Muchová, D.
Tometzová, D. Ferenčíková
Geosite assessments: comparison of methods and results
Curr. Issue Tour., 18 (2015), pp. 496-510, 10.1080/13683500.2014.882885

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 44/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

View in Scopus Google Scholar

Tavares et al., 2015 A.O. Tavares, M.H. Henriques, A. Domingos, A. Bala
Community involvement in Geoconservation: a conceptual approach based on
the Geoheritage of South Angola
Sustainability., 7 (5) (2015), pp. 4893-4918, 10.3390/su7054893
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Testa et al., 2019 B. Testa, B. Aldighieri, L. D’Alberto, G. Lucianetti, R. Mazza

Hydrogeology and hydromorphology: a proposal for a dual-key approach to
assess the geo-hydrological heritage site of the San Lucano Valley (Belluno
Dolomites, Italy)
Geoheritage, 11 (2) (2019), pp. 309-328
Crossref View in Scopus Google Scholar

Tiess and Ruban, 2013 G. Tiess, D.A. Ruban

Geological heritage and mining legislation: a brief conceptual assessment of
the principal legal acts of selected EU countries
Proc. Geol. Assoc., 124 (3) (2013), pp. 411-416, 10.1016/j.pgeola.2012.11.001
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Van Ree and Van Beukering, 2016 C.C.D.F. Van Ree, P.J.H. Van Beukering
Geosystem services: a concept in support of sustainable development of the
subsurface
Ecosyst. Serv., 20 (2016), pp. 30-36, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.004
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Van Ree et al., 2017 C.C.D.F. Van Ree, P.J.H. Van Beukering, J. Boekestijn
Geosystem services: a hidden link in ecosystem management
Ecosyst. Serv., 26 (2017), pp. 58-69, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Vereb et al., 2020 V. Vereb, B. van Wyk de Vries, M. Hagos, D. Karátson

Geoheritage and resilience of Dallol and the northern Danakil depression in
Ethiopia
Geoheritage, 12 (2020), p. 82, 10.1007/s12371-020-00499-8
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Volchko et al., 2020 Y. Volchko, J. Norrman, L.O. Ericsson, K.L. Nilsson, A. Markstedt, M. Öberg, F.
Mossmark, N. Bobylev, P. Tengborg
Subsurface planning: towards a common understanding of the subsurface as a
multifunctional resource
Land Use Policy, 90 (2020), Article 104316, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104316
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Wignall et al., 2018 R.M.L. Wignall, J.E. Gordon, V. Brazier, C.C.J. MacFadyen, N.S. Everett

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 45/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

A qualitative risk assessment for the impacts of climate change on nationally

and internationally important geoheritage sites in Scotland
Proc. Geol. Assoc., 129 (2) (2018), pp. 120-134, 10.1016/j.pgeola.2017.11.003
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar
Worton and Gillard, 2013 G. Worton, R. Gillard
Local communities and young people – the future of geoconservation
Proc. Geol. Assoc., 124 (2013), pp. 681-690, 10.1016/j.pgeola.2013.01.006
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Zeleňáková and Zvijáková, 2017 M. Zeleňáková, L. Zvijáková

Risk analysis within environmental impact assessment of proposed
construction activity
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 62 (2017), pp. 76-89, 10.1016/j.eiar.2016.10.003
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Zouros, 2007 N. Zouros

Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece. Case
study of the Lesvos Island - coastal geomorphosites
Geographica Helvetica, 62 (3) (2007), pp. 169-180, 10.5194/gh-62-169-2007
View in Scopus Google Scholar

Zwoliński and Najwer, 2018 Z. Zwoliński, A. Najwer

Methods for assessing geodiversity
E. Reynard, J. Brilha (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection and Management, Elsevier (2018),
pp. 27-52
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar

Cited by (25)

Risk assessment on dynamic geomorphosites: A case study of selected abandoned

pits in South-Moravian Region (Czech Republic)
2024, Geomorphology

Citation Excerpt :
…Despite all these efforts and also despite the facts that a site is legally protected, some threats may occur
(Ruban, 2010; Wignall et al., 2018; Bétard and Peulvast, 2019; Crofts et al., 2020; Do Nascimento et al.,
2021). Fuertes-Gutiérrez et al. (2016) and Crofts et al. (2020) defines several groups of threats to
geoheritage, Prosser et al. (2010), Wignall et al. (2018), Selmi et al. (2022) link threats to geosites and
environmental change, Kubalíková and Balková (2023) discuss the threats related to the social aspects.
Regarding the assessment methods, there is a wide range used for different purposes (conservation,
education, tourism, landscape planning) and some of the methods include also a degradation risk
assessment as a part of overall site evaluation (e.g. Brilha, 2016).…

Show abstract

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 46/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

Geological heritage in the Northern Apuseni Mountains (Romania): Degradation risk

assessment of selected geosites
2023, International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks

Citation Excerpt :
…Human activities also contribute to the degradation of geological heritage. Unregulated tourism and
vandalism, urbanization, infrastructure development, and resource extraction can have profound impacts
on fragile geological sites, disrupting their ecosystems, introducing pollution, and causing physical damage
(Datta & Sarkar, 2022; Feng et al., 2020; Fenitra, Laila, Premananto, Abbas, & Sedera, 2023; Fuertes-
Gutiérrez, García-Ortiz, & Fernández-Martínez, 2016; Kubalíková & Balková, 2023; Sánchez-Cortez,
Fuentes-Campuzano, & Rosero-Lozano, 2022). In recent years, climate change has become a significant
additional threat to geosites as it can alter their shape, damage their features, and, in some cases, affect
their associated biodiversity (Burek & Prosser, 2008; Gordon, Wignall, Brazier, Crofts, & Tormey, 2022;
Selmi, Canesin, Gauci, Pereira, & Coratza, 2022; Sharples, 2011).…

Show abstract

Devonian geoheritage of Siberia: A case of the northwestern Kemerovo region of

Russia
2023, Heliyon

Show abstract

Preliminary Assessment of Geohazards’ Impacts on Geodiversity in the Kratovska

Reka Catchment (North Macedonia)
2024, Geosciences (Switzerland)

Geoheritage Threats in South African National Parks

2023, Tourism and Hospitality

Influence of hydrogeology at Unal tailings pond on ecosystem pollution with heavy

metals
2023, Mining Informational and Analytical Bulletin

View all citing articles on Scopus

View Abstract

© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 47/48
2/10/25, 3:30 PM Two-level assessment of threats to geodiversity and geoheritage: A case study from Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) - ScienceDirect

All content on this site: Copyright © 2025 or its licensors and contributors. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar
technologies. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522002906 48/48