Educational values and services of ecosystems and landscapes – An overview

Ecological Indicators 60(2016)137–151

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological

Indicators

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e :w w w.e l s e v i e r.c o m /l o c a t e /e c o l i n

Review

Educational values and services of ecosystems and landscapes –An overview

Ewelina Mocior a ,?,Marion Kruse b

a Institute of Geography and Spatial Management,Jagiellonian University,Gronostajowa 7,30-387Krakow,Poland b

Institute for Natural Resource Conservation,Kiel University,Olshausenstr.40,24098Kiel,Germany

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 28October 2014

Received in revised form 11June 2015Accepted 14June 2015

Available online 14July 2015

Keywords:

Cultural ecosystem services

Landscape educational potential Knowledge systems

Outdoor environmental education Landscape assessment criteria Ecosystem services indicators.

a b s t r a c t

Education is one of the multiple services that ecosystems and landscapes provide to societies.Despite its importance to formal and informal learning and nature-based,cognitive tourism,it is hardly taken into account in the various quanti?cation approaches of ecosystem services.The article provides an overview of landscape educational values and the educational ecosystem service.Here,the forms of the use of landscape educational values have been summarised and the indicators for the quanti?cation of the educational ecosystem service proposed in the literature reviewed.The criteria for the evalua-tion of the educational values of landscape were acquired from the literature and discussed.In order to obtain more practical viewpoints on those criteria,an exploratory survey with young experts (n =37)from two universities of environmental sciences was conducted.Within this step,the expert method for the evaluation of the educational values of landscapes was applied.However,the results show an extremely high level of subjectivity and dependence on personal experience regarding outdoor environ-mental education.Nonetheless,the article can contribute to acquiring knowledge in cultural ecosystem service assessment and the application of this concept,especially in terms of the criteria and indicators which can be potentially used for the assessments.

Contents 1.Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................1382.

Reviewing landscape educational values and services ...............................................................................................1392.1.Criteria for the evaluation of landscape educational values https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,cation as a landscape/ecosystem service ..................................................................................................1422.3.Indicators for quanti?cation educational ecosystem service .................................................................................1423.

Expert opinions ........................................................................................................................................1423.1.Materials and methods ........................................................................................................................1423.2.Survey results ..................................................................................................................................1444.

Discussion .............................................................................................................................................1444.1.Criteria for the assessment of the educational values of landscapes..........................................................................1444.2.Indicators for the evaluation of educational ecosystem service ..............................................................................1464.3.Challenges and uncertainties relating to the evaluation of the landscape educational values ...............................................1465.

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................147Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................147Appendix.Questions and photographs used in the survey questionnaire ........................................................................148References (150)

?Corresponding author.Tel.:+48512514474.

E-mail address:ewelina.mocior@https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,.pl (E.Mocior).

138 E.Mocior,M.Kruse/Ecological Indicators60(2016)137–151

1.Introduction

The educational values of landscapes or ecosystems are impor-tant,but usually not fully appreciated assets of the natural environment.Here,educational values are understood as both biotic and abiotic features of the natural environment(ecosystems or landscapes)which can be potentially used to acquire knowledge about the structure and functioning of the current and past natural environment.Those features include,e.g.,rock and soil outcrops, landforms,water bodies and plant communities as well as other effects of environmental processes,occurring in different combi-nations.The usage of the educational values of landscapes and ecosystems for the purpose of learning is here called“educational ecosystem service”.The delineation between an ecosystem and a landscape is dif?cult and depends on the context.Both provide potentials and services(Bastian et al.,2012),so these terms are used here as synonyms.

In contemporary societies,the need for environmental edu-cation,both formal(e.g.,during school classes)and informal (e.g.,during private travels),is obvious for several reasons.It is required to shorten the distance between the scienti?c and popular knowledge.It can contribute to a better understanding of the envi-ronmental risks(Bangay and Blum,2010;Bird et al.,2010;Hiwasaki et al.,2014)and to increasing public awareness and acceptance for nature conservation(Caro et al.,2003;Coratza and Waele,2012) as well as to the popularisation of public participation in decision making(Le Lay et al.,2013).Furthermore,it can lead to a better comprehension of the interactions between societies and ecosys-tems(Ploaie and Turnock,2001),including many services provided by ecosystems to societies(=ecosystem services),i.e.,the bene?ts people obtain from ecosystems(MA,2005).Therefore,education within the scope of Earth and Life Sciences is an indirect way to support the conservation of the Earth’s natural heritage(Newsome and Dowling,2010),which at the same time leads to the preserva-tion of its educational values.From this perspective,environmental education constitutes an important ecosystem service which can contribute to the sustainable development of a region as well as to the human well-being of societies(MA,2005;Smith et al.,2013).

Formal and informal education about nature can be carried out in buildings(e.g.,at school classrooms,museums,educational cen-tres)or in the outdoor environment in the form of?eld classes, workshops and educational trips(inter alia,within the scope of ecotourism and geotourism)as ecosystems provide many learn-ing opportunities at many levels of education(Smith et al.,2013). Learning directly from ecosystems,although it is more dif?cult from the organisational side,is more bene?cial for the learner of any age.According to social sciences studies(Davis,2002;Hassan et al.,2009;Mirrahimi et al.,2011;Spalie et al.,2011),outdoor environmental education improves the process of learning and remembering due to the usage of all the senses(learning by doing), enhances observation capabilities and critical thinking,gives inspi-ration towards learning and contributes to an expansion of interests in nature(e.g.,by engaging students through their hobbies).The two last advantages can be supported by the fact that the oppor-tunity to participate in?eld classes is one of the incentives to start geography studies for30%of the students in the study by Hibszer et al.(2012).Hence,outdoor environmental education creates a basis for shaping the attitude of the future experts of environmental topics.

For those reasons,education was included in the framework of the ecosystem services concept as it is one of the bene?ts peo-ple obtain from ecosystems(MA,2005).It was listed in several classi?cations as one of the cultural services(Haines-Young and Potschin,2013;Kandziora et al.,2013;MA,2005;TEEB,2010).In the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(MA,2005,p.40),the authors refer to this service as“educational values”,which is explained as follows:“Ecosystems and their components and their processes provide the basis for formal and informal education in many soci-eties”.Plieninger et al.(2013,p.120)relate educational values only to“sites that widen knowledge about plant and animal species”. Another ecosystem service listed in the MA classi?cation that strongly relates to environmental education is called“knowledge systems”which is de?ned as:“Ecosystems in?uence the type of knowledge systems developed by different countries”(MA,2005, p.40).Martín-López et al.(2011)use the term“environmental edu-cation”for this service;however,they do not provide a de?nition. Kandziora et al.(2013,p.61)de?ne in their classi?cation of ecosys-tem services“knowledge systems”as“Environmental education based on ecosystem/landscape,i.e.out of a formal school context, and knowledge in terms of traditional knowledge and specialist expertise arising from living in this particular environment.”In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Study(TEEB,2010), the authors refer to nature-based education as“information for cognitive development”.B?hnke-Henrichs et al.(2013)describe this service as the contribution that an ecosystem makes to edu-cation,research,etc.In the Common International Classi?cation of Ecosystem Services(CICES)(Haines-Young and Potschin,2013),the educational service is included within the ecosystem service called “information and knowledge”.Loomis and Paterson(2014)de?ned the“education”in the context of the ecosystem services concept as formal and informal educational opportunities created by access to particular ecosystems.As this short overview has shown,some authors refer to educational values as the opportunities for envi-ronmental education,which describe the potentials to provide this ecosystem service(e.g.,Loomis and Paterson,2014),whereas the others de?ne it as the actual use of ecosystem services,referred also as“?ow”of those services(see Burkhard et al.,2014).In summary, a common de?nition and delineation of educational ecosystem ser-vices and values has yet to be provided in the literature.

In this article,we suggest to specify“landscape educational values”as the potentials of landscapes and ecosystems which they provide to the educational service(i.e.,opportunities for formal and informal environmental education).On the contrary,the“edu-cational ecosystem service”re?ects the real usage of landscape values for educational purposes,which,therefore,can be consid-ered as ecosystem service?ows.

The bene?ts of outdoor environmental education explain entirely the need for the evaluation of the educational values of landscape features and their use.Thus,it is important to review the criteria for the assessment of the landscape educational values and the criteria and indicators of the educational ecosystem service, which constitutes an indicandum here.In this respect,the main objectives of this article are to show the state-of-the-art within the speci?c cultural ecosystem service of education and the educational values of landscapes,and to apply the concept in a case study by an expert survey.

Speci?cally,the following key questions will be analysed and answered:

(1)How can the educational values of landscapes be assessed and

what criteria have been de?ned so far within the existing liter-ature?

(2)Which criteria are the most appropriate for such assessments

according to university students and graduates within a survey of exemplary landscapes?

(3)In which ways do humans use the educational ecosystem

service and what are the indicators to quantify it?

This article consists of two parts:the?rst part comprises a short review conducted by a research of the relevant literature using the key words of“landscape educational values”,“landscape educational potential”,“education ecosystem service”,“outdoor

E.Mocior,M.Kruse/Ecological Indicators60(2016)137–151139 Table1

Criteria used for the evaluation of the scienti?c value and didactic values of a site based on the literature review(criteria grouped after the number of references). Evaluation criteria References Number of references Rarity of landscape/ecosystem features at different levels Panizza(2001),Bruschi and Cendrero(2005),Pralong(2005),Pereira

et al.(2007),Reynard et al.(2007),Zouros(2007),Seijmonsbergen

et al.(2009),Pereira and Pereira(2010),Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011),Bollati

et al.(2012,2013),Fassoulas et al.(2012),Kubalíková(2013),Rocha

et al.(2014)

Integrity/degree of disturbance/preservation level Panizza(2001),Bruschi and Cendrero(2005),Pralong(2005),Serrano

and González-Trueba(2005),Pereira et al.(2007),Reynard et al.

(2007),Zouros(2007),Seijmonsbergen et al.(2009),Pereira and

Pereira(2010),Fassoulas et al.(2012),Bollati et al.(2012,2013),

Kubalíková(2013)

Representativeness for the process/phenomenon(typicality)Serrano and González-Trueba(2005),Pralong(2005),Pereira et al.

(2007),Reynard et al.(2007),Zouros(2007),Pereira and Pereira

(2010),Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011),Bollati et al.(2012,2013),Fassoulas et al.

(2012),Kubalíková(2013),Rocha et al.(2014)

Diversity/the number of interesting(geological)features Bruschi and Cendrero(2005),Serrano and González-Trueba(2005),

Pereira et al.(2007),Zouros(2007),Pereira and Pereira(2010),K?edro′n

(2011),Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011),Bollati et al.(2012,2013),Kubalíková

(2013)

Degree of scienti?c knowledge/scienti?c relevance Bruschi and Cendrero(2005),Pereira et al.(2007),Seijmonsbergen

et al.(2009),Pereira and Pereira(2010),Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011),Bollati

et al.(2012,2013),Kubalíková(2013)

Usefulness as a process example(exemplarity)Panizza(2001),Bruschi and Cendrero(2005),Zouros(2007),Bollati

et al.(2012,2013),Kubalíková(2013),Rocha et al.(2014)

Paleogeographic value Panizza(2001),Reynard et al.(2007),Pralong(2005),Bollati et al.

(2012,2013)

(Geological)age Bruschi and Cendrero(2005),Kubalíková(2013)2

Educational level Serrano and González-Trueba(2005),Rocha et al.(2014)2

Ecological value Bollati et al.(2012,2013)2

Genesis Kubalíková(2013)1

Clarity of the features/processes Kubalíková(2013)1

environmental education”,“geotourism”,“ecotourism”,“educa-tional recreation”,“geosites assessment”and“geomorphosite assessment”within online databases(Science Direct,Scopus, Google Scholar)and contains only that selection of publications which?t into the context of landscape educational values.How-ever,most of the publications found were focusing on geotourism globally,whereas holistic and wildlife-focusing assessments were unique.The second part of the study contains a survey conducted at two universities(one in Germany and one in Poland)amongst MSc and PhD students.

2.Reviewing landscape educational values and services

2.1.Criteria for the evaluation of landscape educational values

Undoubtedly,every landscape has educational values,irrespec-tive of whether they are currently used or not.However,some sites have a higher educational potential than others.In this regard,an inventory of sites useful for educational purposes is desirable as well as their assessment(Kubalíková,2013;Warowna et al.,2013). So far,most of the assessments of landscape educational values have focused only on geological and geomorphological features. Speci?cally,there are several publications in the literature which present or use methods for geosites and geomorphosites evaluation (e.g.,Costa,2011;Pralong,2005;Zouros,2007),some of which were reviewed by Brilha(2015).The criteria used by these authors can be grouped into a few sets(as suggested,e.g.in Kubalíková,2013; Reynard,2008):criteria considering(1)the scienti?c and educa-tional value,(2)additional values,(3)the use value and(4)the protection value of a site(see Tables1–4).The?rst group consid-ers actual landscape educational values supported by its scienti?c potential,while the remaining groups do not constitute the edu-cational values solely.Nevertheless,they stimulate their use and facilitate it(Brilha,2015).

In most of the assessments for geotourism purposes,the crite-ria relating to scienti?c and educational values(1)are combined due to the dif?culty in their separation(see Table1).The criterion of integrity(preservation level)is supposed to re?ect the presence or absence of damages resulting from human activity and/or nat-ural processes(e.g.,Pereira et al.,2007).Representativeness for a phenomena or process is assessed according to the typical charac-teristics of the site due to its own quality and general con?guration (e.g.,Pralong,2005).Rarity depends on the number of similar sites at different scales–from local to global with respect to a refer-ence space,e.g.,commune,region,country(e.g.,Reynard et al., 2007).Some authors take into consideration the degree of scien-ti?c knowledge associated to the place as well as the scienti?c relevance,which is usually indicated by the number of scienti?c publications taking this site into consideration(e.g.,Vujˇc i′c et al., 2011).The criterion“paleogeographic value”is related to the previ-ous one.It is de?ned as the importance of the site for Earth history (e.g.,Reynard et al.,2007).Many authors indicate the ecological value de?ned as the occurrence of interesting or rare?ora and/or fauna(e.g.,Pereira et al.,2007;Pralong,2005),as well as the pos-sibility of dendrochronological analysis(Bollati et al.,2014a).In the assessments restricted to abiotic landscape features,the eco-logical value is often included in the group of additional values for a site(e.g.,Kubalíková,2013).However,Bollati et al.(2014a) argue that ecological components represent a discriminating factor even for geosites/geomorphosite evaluation.Further,some authors have included the age(usually in terms of geology)of natural objects,and their genesis in the scienti?c value of sites(e.g.,Bruschi and Cendrero,2005;Kubalíková,2013).Furthermore,diversity was listed,which is understood as the number of interesting features that occur on a site(Kubalíková,2013)and,at the same time,the number of processes and phenomena which can be explained to learners(e.g.,K?edro′n,2011).Another signi?cant criterion from that group is the potential usefulness of a site as a process example. This is de?ned as the capability to exemplify educational contents to students and the general public(Rocha et al.,2014).Similarly, the clarity of the features and processes as well as the easiness to recognise them contribute to a better understanding on the part of

140 E.Mocior,M.Kruse/Ecological Indicators60(2016)137–151

Table2

Criteria used for the evaluation of the“additional values”of a site based on the literature review(criteria grouped after the number of references).

Evaluation criteria References Number of references

Cultural value(archaeological,historical,artistic,etc.)Panizza(2001),Bruschi and Cendrero(2005),Pralong(2005),Pereira

et al.(2007),Reynard et al.(2007),Zouros(2007),Pereira and Pereira

(2010),Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011),Bollati et al.(2012,2013),Fassoulas et al.

(2012),Kubalíková(2013)

Aesthetics of a site and the surroundings Panizza(2001),Serrano and González-Trueba(2005),Pereira et al.

(2007),Reynard et al.(2007),Zouros(2007),Seijmonsbergen et al.

(2009),Pereira and Pereira(2010),Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011),Bollati et al.

(2012,2013),Fassoulas et al.(2012),Kubalíková(2013)

Ecological value Panizza(2001),Bruschi and Cendrero(2005),Pereira et al.(2007),

Reynard et al.(2007),Zouros(2007),Pereira and Pereira(2010),

Fassoulas et al.(2012),Kubalíková(2013)

Economic value Reynard et al.(2007),Zouros(2007),Bollati et al.(2012,2013),

Fassoulas et al.(2012)

Land use type Seijmonsbergen et al.(2009),Fassoulas et al.(2012)2

Spectacular features Rocha et al.(2014)1

Table3

Criteria used for the evaluation of the“use value”of a site based on the literature review(criteria grouped after the number of references).

Evaluation criteria References Number of references Accessibility Bruschi and Cendrero(2005),Pralong(2005),Serrano and

González-Trueba(2005),Pereira et al.(2007),Zouros(2007),Pereira

and Pereira(2010),Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011),Bollati et al.(2012,2013),

Fassoulas et al.(2012),Kubalíková(2013),Rocha et al.(2014)

Visibility of interesting features/viewpoints Serrano and González-Trueba(2005),Bruschi and Cendrero(2005),

Pereira et al.(2007),Pereira and Pereira(2010),Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011),

Bollati et al.(2012,2013),Kubalíková(2013),Fassoulas et al.(2012),

Rocha et al.(2014)

Actual use of a site for tourist purposes Panizza(2001),Serrano and González-Trueba(2005),Pereira et al.

(2007),Zouros(2007),Pereira and Pereira(2010),Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011),

Bollati et al.(2012,2013),Fassoulas et al.(2012)

Legislative protection Pralong(2005),Pereira et al.(2007),Seijmonsbergen et al.(2009),

Pereira and Pereira(2010),Fassoulas et al.(2012),Bollati et al.(2012,

2013)

Actual use of a site for educational purposes Pereira et al.(2007),Pereira and Pereira(2010),Bollati et al.(2012,

2013),Kubalíková(2013)

Tourist infrastructure at a site Pereira and Pereira(2010),Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011),Bollati et al.(2012,

2013),Kubalíková(2013)

Area/size of a site Pralong(2005),Bruschi and Cendrero(2005),Zouros(2007),Bollati

et al.(2012,2013)

Association with other resources/natural attractions in the vicinity Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011),Bollati et al.(2012,2013),Rocha et al.(2014)4

Distance to hostelry and support services Bruschi and Cendrero(2005),Pereira et al.(2007),Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011)3

Limitations of use Pereira et al.(2007),Pereira and Pereira(2010),Bollati et al.(2012)3

Potential activities(educational,touristic,recreational)Bruschi and Cendrero(2005),Bollati et al.(2012,2013)3

Organised visits/guided tours Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011),Kubalíková(2013)2

Recognisability at different scales/promotion of a site Zouros(2007),Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011)2

Potential use in tourism(number of visitors to the region)Pralong(2005)1

Educational infrastructure(information boards,educational centres)Kubalíková(2013)1

Existing educational products(maps,lea?ets,websites)Kubalíková(2013)1

Socio-economic conditions of the region Bruschi and Cendrero(2005)1

Local products Kubalíková(2013)1

Vicinity of emissive centres Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011)1

Table4

Criteria used for the evaluation of a site’s“protection value”based on the literature review(criteria grouped after the number of references).

Evaluation criteria References Number of references

Vulnerability Serrano and González-Trueba(2005),Pereira et al.(2007),

Seijmonsbergen et al.(2009),Pereira and Pereira(2010),Vujˇc i′c et al.

(2011),Fassoulas et al.(2012),Rocha et al.(2014)

Current condition of a site(intactness)Panizza(2001),Pereira et al.(2007),Seijmonsbergen et al.(2009),

Pereira and Pereira(2010),Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011),Kubalíková(2013)

Actual and potential risks and threats Pralong(2005),Bruschi and Cendrero(2005),Serrano and

González-Trueba(2005),Fassoulas et al.(2012),Kubalíková(2013)

Legislative protection Zouros(2007),Seijmonsbergen et al.(2009),Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011),

Fassoulas et al.(2012),Kubalíková(2013)

Limits of acceptable change Serrano and González-Trueba(2005),Fassoulas et al.(2012)2

Use intensity Serrano and González-Trueba(2005)1

Suitable number of visitors Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011)1

Inhabitants in the vicinity Bruschi and Cendrero(2005)1

Relationship to existing planning Bruschi and Cendrero(2005)1

Interests for mineral extraction/other activities Bruschi and Cendrero(2005)1

Land ownership Bruschi and Cendrero(2005)1

Possibility to collect objects Bruschi and Cendrero(2005)1

E.Mocior,M.Kruse/Ecological Indicators60(2016)137–151141

learners.The criterion of“educational level”speci?es whether the site is useful for education at any teaching level or to more advanced ones,e.g.,post-graduate studies(Rocha et al.,2014;Serrano and González-Trueba,2005);however,the authors do not agree with each other which case should be more appreciated.

Some authors also mention that changeability of particular land-scape elements can be environmentally educative,although they do not include it into any speci?c assessment methods.For instance, Wang and Tian(2014)proposed to protect earthquake relics in a form of geopark,whereas Diolaiuti and Smiraglia(2010)suggested to put into consideration melting glaciers as landscape resources supporting climate change education.

Many authors have taken into account the group of additional values in the evaluations of landscapes for educational(or geo-touristic)purposes(see Table2).Although they do not represent actual educational value,they can enrich learning experience. According to some authors(e.g.,Pralong,2005;Reynard et al., 2007),they include cultural values,e.g.,archaeological,historical, religious,literary and artistic aspects relating to a site.Likewise, landscape aesthetics is assessed,considering such aspects as visual singularity,panoramic quality,objects and colour diversity and combination,etc.(e.g.,Pereira et al.,2007).Moreover,according to Rocha et al.(2014),spectacular features are more suitable for tourism and education than unimpressive ones.For some spe-ci?c assessments(e.g.,the educational values of landforms or plant communities)land use type might be an essential criterion (Seijmonsbergen et al.,2009).In addition,some of the authors high-light the importance of potential income for the local society from nature-based tourism(e.g.,Reynard et al.,2007;Zouros,2007).

In the methods presented in the reviewed literature,many authors refer to criteria which re?ect the use and management values of a site(see Table3),which consider facilities and dif?cul-ties for potential use of educational sites.Accessibility,according to Pereira and Pereira(2010),depends on the access type(roads,trails, footpaths)as well as the existence and distance to parking areas. Bollati et al.(2012)take into consideration the following indicators in the calculation of spatial accessibility for sites in mountain-ous areas:vegetation on the slopes,water/snow along the path, slope material,slope inclination,degree of conservation of the path, human interventions,typology,steepness,sloping,width,ground material and tourist information.

In this group of criteria,the visibility of interesting features and/or the presence of viewpoints are proposed as an important issue.It was summarised by Rocha et al.(2014)as viewing condi-tions which express the quality of site visualisation.Some authors (e.g.,Pereira et al.,2007;Vujˇc i′c et al.,2011)consider the actual use of a site for educational and,more generally,for tourist pur-poses as an important factor of possible future use.It is assumed that current educational and touristic use enhance further usage for learning purposes.Furthermore,a number of other criteria are related to this issue:organised visits and guided tours,the pres-ence of educational infrastructure(e.g.,information boards and educational centres)and tourist infrastructure at a site,existing educational products like maps,lea?ets and websites,association with other attractions in the vicinity as well as the distance to hostelry and support services.Additionally,Pralong(2005)sug-gests taking into account the number of visitors in the whole region,which can be an indicator of the potential tourist use of a site in the future,whereas Bruschi and Cendrero(2005)pro-pose considering the socio-economic conditions of the region.The consideration of potential activities(educational,touristic,recre-ational)at a site is also proposed(Bollati et al.,2012).Further,the recognisability and promotion of a site along with the existence of local products contributing to regional marketing have to be taken into account according to some authors(Kubalíková,2013;Zouros, 2007).

In a number of publications legal protection is listed as a cri-terion for the evaluation of use value due to the threats that potential touristic and educational use can cause.Thus,the eco-nomic exploitation of a site is seen as inversely proportional to the limiting characteristics of the level of protection(e.g.,Pralong, 2005).In some assessments,other restrictions for use are consid-ered as well(e.g.,Pereira and Pereira,2010).However,the authors do not provide examples.The area or size of a site or natural objects is also recommended for inclusion in such assessments(e.g.,Zouros, 2007).Finally,Vujˇc i′c et al.(2011)propose considering the vicinity of emissive centres:though,the authors did not explain the reason for this.

The last group of criteria focus on the conservational aspects of a site(see Table4).Many authors agree that the assessment for edu-cational and geotouristic/ecotouristic purposes should comprise the current condition of landscape features,which can be described by the level of disturbance or degradation(e.g.,Kubalíková,2013). In turn,vulnerability represents the future possibility of damage to a site(e.g.,Pereira et al.,2007),which also depends on the actual and potential risks and threats(e.g.,Kubalíková,2013).Again,the leg-islative protection is stated here.However,in this group of criteria it reveals the level of conservation activities which leads to a main-taining of the existing values of a place(e.g.,Zouros,2007).Serrano and González-Trueba(2005)propose taking into consideration the intensity of the use and limit of acceptable change,which is de?ned as the potential for changes that a site can undergo without losing its values.It is related to suitable number of visitors(Vujˇc i′c et al., 2011).

Even though there are numerous criteria for the evaluation of sites for educational and ecotouristic/geotouristic purposes, it is evident that not all of them are equally signi?cant.Some authors have constructed indices where weighting factors were applied.Fassoulas et al.(2012)provided three indices:(1)the educational value index consists of four factors:scienti?c,cul-tural,aesthetic and ecological.The scienti?c factor has two times greater the weight than each of the remaining factors.(2)The touristic value index is again a combination of four factors–aes-thetic,cultural,potential of use and economic,from which the aesthetic is the most important one(2times greater the weight than other factors).The(3)index–ecological risk factor–depends on three criteria:scienti?c value,ecological value and integrity (Fassoulas et al.,2012).Rocha et al.(2014)constructed an index of potential educational use,which is the weighted mean from the following criteria:representativeness(weight:20),educa-tional content/exemplarity(weight:20),accessibility(weight:20), viewing conditions(weight15),fragility(weight:15)and asso-ciation with other resources(weight:10).The educational index created by Bollati et al.(2012,2013)is the mean of three fac-tors:educational exemplarity,aesthetics and accessibility,whereas scienti?c index(strictly devoted to geomorphosites)comprises model of geomorphological evolution(representativeness),model of paleogeomorphological evolution(paleogeographic value),geo-historical importance and other geological interests.

In many of the proposed methods,the authors did not construct any indices(e.g.,Zouros,2007;Kubalíková,2013).The?nal value created was based on the sum of the values of every criterion.How-ever,some of them differentiated the importance of the criteria by using different scales or different numbers of subcriteria.In terms of the maximum values for criteria,the most important group of criteria in the method proposed by Pereira et al.(2007)was the use value of a site(relative scale0–7),whereas the protection value was the least important one(relative scale:0–3).In the method for geomorphosites assessments,Serrano and González-Trueba(2005) suggested the value of the diversity of geological structures more, as well as the aesthetic and cultural values,whereas educational resources,tourist attraction potential and accessibility were less

142 E.Mocior,M.Kruse/Ecological Indicators60(2016)137–151

important.In the method proposed by Zouros(2007),the scale for the scienti?c value is two times higher than it is for the potential use,and four times higher than for the potential threats and protec-tion needs.For the assessments,both quantitative and qualitative approaches were applied.However,only few criteria were mea-sured using precise quantitative indicators,e.g.,the distance to the main roads or the number of visitors to the site.

The number of presented approaches shows the variety of the potential criteria which can be used for the assessment of landscape educational values.However,these methods chie?y consider the educational potential from the teacher’s/researcher’s point of view. As a result,the students’perspective is not taken into account.To do so,we decided to ask MSc and PhD students as well as graduates (being at the same time young experts already themselves)for their opinions on the educational values of a set of landscapes,and the criteria which,according to their opinions,are relevant for such an evaluation.Student opinions can additionally support the selection of criteria made by academics and,to some extent,con?rm the applicability of those criteria.

https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,cation as a landscape/ecosystem service

A number of advantages emerge from outdoor environmen-tal education,which indicates its usefulness for formal education within a school https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,ndscape features are used for teaching environmental issues during the school lessons of e.g.,geography and biology or during classes at university level in the scope of Earth and Life Sciences.The complexity of the information on the natural environment and the number of details can be adjusted according to the educational level of the students.Within the scope of formal education,both short trips during school lessons and long-term nature-based training periods(e.g.,“?eld courses”,“?eld work-shops”,“summer schools”,“summer camps”or“green schools”, including?eldworks)are possible activities(Boyle et al.,2007; Hassan et al.,2009;Mirrahimi et al.,2011;Spalie et al.,2011).More-over,according to Adara(1996),it should be noted that teachers also effectively develop their competences while taking part in?eld workshops.

Another way of landscape educational values usage to be consid-ered is its contribution to informal learning,mainly through various forms of nature-based educational tourism and recreation(eco-tourism,geotourism).In recent years,there has been a dynamic growth in various forms of nature-based tourism which involve an understanding of nature and an appreciation of learning(Newsome et al.,2002;Newsome and Dowling,2010).This takes place in the form of both an individual experiencing of nature and environ-mental education during excursions,training sessions,workshops or events organised for the public by local travel agencies,non-governmental organisations,local authorities,universities,etc.

Geotourism is one of the forms of tourism which is based on the natural environment and involves learning.In most de?nitions authors agree that it is a form of tourism that speci?cally focuses on geology and landscapes(e.g.,Gray,2008;Hose and Vasiljevi′c,2012; Newsome et al.,2012).However,the National Geographic Soci-ety provides a broader de?nition,arguing that geotourism refers to“...a destination’s geographic character–the entire combina-tion of natural and human attributes that make one place distinct from another”(Stueve et al.,2002,p.1).Nevertheless,both broader and more restricted de?nitions include obtaining knowledge and understanding the natural environment as key factors.The main geotourist attractions consist of geosites(geotops)and,among them,geomorphosites,which are de?ned as geological and geo-morphological sites(respectively)of particular interests in terms of the heritage of a speci?c territory(Panizza and Piacente,2003; Reynard et al.,2007).Panizza and Piacente(2003,p.221)de?ne a geomorphosite as“a landform with particular and signi?cant geomorphological attributions,which qualify it as a component of a territory’s cultural heritage(in a broad sense)”.

Correspondingly to geotourism,ecotourism is also a nature-based,environmentally educative form of tourism.However,most of the de?nitions of ecotourism do not restrict it to the biotic or abiotic environment and state the contribution to sustainable development as the key factor of ecotourism(Boo,1991;Fennell and Weaver,2005;Richardson,1993;TIES,2014).Yet,there are some authors who relate ecotourism to wildlife observation rather than to the exploration of other landscape elements(Goodwin, 1996;Tickell,1994).

Not only during travels do people learn,but also nature-oriented recreation can be environmentally educative,e.g.,hiking,kayak-ing,wildlife watching,viewing scenery,?shing(Remacha et al., 2011;Riper et al.,2012;Bollati et al.,2014b;Kil et al.,2014).More-over,learning about nature is one of the motivations for outdoor recreation(Aran,2014;Kil et al.,2014)and recreationists attach a ‘learning value’to an outdoor environment,as they can learn about the nature through observation and experimentation(Riper et al., 2012).In order to enable stronger visitor experience of biodiversity conservation through educational–recreational activities Stenseke and Hansen(2014)postulate that management of protected areas should offer and promote educational-recreational activities.In turn,Bollati et al.(2014b)suggest to incorporate geological educa-tion into sport climbing in Alps in order to stimulate public interest in the Earth Sciences.

Both formal and informal nature-based education requires direct contact with the natural environment.However,in many cases an infrastructure prepared for such purposes can be used.It is especially bene?cial for individual tourists who search for opportu-nities to learn about nature,and this can be used during guided trips as well.It includes,inter alia,educational trails with information boards.

2.3.Indicators for quanti?cation educational ecosystem service

Although it is already con?rmed that the landscape educational values can be used in many ways and contexts,the question is how this use can be quanti?ed.In other words,indicators for the?ow of educational ecosystem service are required.So far,a very limited number of examples of assessments of the use of landscape edu-cational values can be found in the literature.Martín-López et al. (2011)use the environmental education budget to quantify this service,whereas Moore and Hunt(2012)consider the following criteria:the location(the distance to a school or other educational centre),the history of educational use and the presence and the quality of the educational infrastructure.In turn,Rova et al.(2015) took into consideration the frequency of excursions with environ-mental education purposes.Nevertheless,although many authors do not quantify the education ecosystem service?ows,they give examples of criteria and indicators to measure them(see Table5).

3.Expert opinions

3.1.Materials and methods

A group of37young experts from two universities(19persons from Kiel University,Schleswig-Holstein,Germany and18persons from the Jagiellonian University in Krakow,the province of Lesser Poland(Ma?opolska),Poland)were requested to?ll in a question-naire(see Appendix).Their selection was based on their educational background,which was supposed to be associated with the natural environment.

The whole group included18PhD students,15MSc stu-dents and4graduates.They had already obtained a degree in

E.Mocior,M.Kruse/Ecological Indicators60(2016)137–151143 Table5

Criteria and indicators for the assessment of educational ecosystem services.

Education-related ecosystem service Criteria/indicator(s)References

“Environmental education service”Annual budget of environmental education Martín-López et al.(2011)

“Education”Location(the distance to a school or other educational centre)

History of educational use and the presence

Quality of educational infrastructure

Moore and Hunt(2012)

“Research and education”Number of excursions and number of visiting researchers Van Oudenhoven et al.(2012)

“Information and cognitive development”Amount of time(of person days)spent in education or

individual learning about an ecosystem per area per year

B?hnke-Henrichs et al.(2013)

“Knowledge systems”Number of environmental education-related facilities/events

Number of their users

Kandziora et al.(2013)

“Educational values”Is the site used in part for formal education purposes(e.g.

school visits)?(yes/no);

Is the site used for informal education?(yes/no);

Number of educational/research visitors per year(number per

site on a log10scale)

Dick et al.(2014)

“Education”Matrix framework with the following criteria:educational

programmes,interpretive centres,family programmes,?eld

trips,research activities,museums and marine parks,informal

education,self-guided tours,citizen involvement,

non-governmental organisations,offender education,user

satisfaction rating,level of existence value,level of bequest

value,level of option value,species richness,existence of

megafauna,opportunities to see megafauna,perceptions of

ecosystem health,wildlife interactions,wild species

interactions

Loomis and Paterson(2014)

“Forest education and research”Number of regular forest education initiatives Teitelbaum(2014)

“Education”Frequency of excursions with environmental education

purposes

Rova et al.(2015)

either Geography(n=19),Biology(n=6),Environmental Manage-ment/Environmental Science(n=7)or Geology(n=3).Five of them had degrees in other?elds(e.g.,the Social Sciences,Landscape Architecture),but they had had environmental courses as part of their studies.The respondents were selected on the basis of their current or recent experiences with?eld classes and,at the same time,their already acquired knowledge about the natural environ-ment.Most of them were female(64.9%)as they predominate on environmental studies courses at both universities.The average age of the respondents was28years.Most of them came from a rural/small town background(less than5000inhabitants)(27.0%) and or urban areas ranging in size from100,000to500,000inhabi-tants(21.6%).Within the group from Kiel University,only2persons had spent most of their lives in the region where the university is located.As regards the Jagiellonian University,this was nearly50% of the participants.The?rst part of the survey was comprised of 15photographs(presented by a PowerPoint presentation)showing landscapes,which were selected by the authors for survey purposes (see Appendix).Chosen photographs were intended to depict dis-tinctive types of landscapes(predominated by different elements and processes).The landscapes were characterised by a different level of anthropogenic in?uence;however,landscapes with build-ings or other totally arti?cial structures were not included as those elements do not constitute parts of natural environments.The photographs were accompanied by brief geographical information, which implied the level of accessibility.According to our assump-tion,these landscapes had different educational values and were selected from personal archives of places to which?eld trips and studies had been conducted.

In order to ascertain whether an expert’s home area can in?uence the answers given,the photographs were selected from three categories:(1)the photographs depicting the land-scape of Schleswig-Holstein in Germany,(2)the landscape of the Ma?opolska Province in Poland and(2)the landscapes of differ-ent places around the world(5photographs from each category). The respondents were requested to evaluate the educational value of the landscape depicted in each picture,using the relative scale from0(‘no educational value’)to5(‘very high educational value’).Additionally,they were encouraged to indicate an environmen-tal issue(or issues)which could be exempli?ed by the particular landscape shown in the respective photograph,as this could help them to make a decision.The distribution of answers for each photograph was analysed by the Statistica software using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test,which revealed that the results were not normally distributed at the level of signi?cance5%(?=0.05). Therefore,a non-parametric,Kruskal–Wallis test was used in order to check the signi?cance of differences between answers of respon-dents from both universities.The Friedman test was used to determine whether the assessments of particular photographs dif-fer signi?cantly.Kendall’s coef?cient of concordance was used to analyse agreement between participants.

In the second part of the survey,the respondents were asked to choose which criteria were the most relevant for the evaluation of the educational value in general.This question was formulated as a semi-open one in which the experts were provided with a list of potential criteria,but they were also welcome to specify other factors affecting educational values and to underline the most important criterion in their opinion.The list consisted of the follow-ing criteria:

(1)spatial heterogeneity/diversity,

(2)number of environmental/geographical issues you can exem-

plify,

(3)rarity of the landscape features or ecosystems(on a global or

regional scale),

(4)visibility of interesting(educative)features,

(5)easiness to recognise,

(6)size of a feature,

(7)geological age,

(8)spectacular/outstanding/impressive features,

(9)beauty,

(10)typicality(representativeness)for a process/phenomenon,

(11)naturalness,

(12)preservation level(absence of damage/changes due to anthro-

pogenic or natural processes),

(13)land use type,

144 E.Mocior,M.Kruse/Ecological Indicators60(2016)

137–151

Fig.1.The mean expert assessment of the educational value of the landscapes(for the pictures A–O see Appendix)with standard error and expert standard deviation.

(14)additional cultural values,

(15)conservation status,and

(16)accessibility.

In the third part of the survey,the respondents were requested to answer whether they had taken part in any?eld class during their secondary school education(age approximately13–19years) and during their undergraduate studies,as well as to specify the number of such classes(according to the ranges provided).They were also expected to list the places visited and issues explained during this?eld classes.This part was followed by questions about the opinions of the respondents as to whether?eld classes helped them to understand the issues which they were meant to learn, and if the?eld classes they had exerted positive in?uences on their choice of?eld of studies.They were also asked to give their opinions about which places in Northern Germany or Southern Poland(according to their university’s location)are of a high edu-cational value(s),and what environmental issues can be explained there.

The survey was preceded by a pretest with six researchers, which allowed to rework the questionnaire.The selection of pic-tures was minimised(to keep the duration of the survey justi?able) and some of the questions and possible answers were adjusted.The number of evaluation criteria proposed in the second part of the survey was lowered in comparison to the list derived from the lit-erature,as some of the criteria were overlapping and the list was too long for the purpose of https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,s of some of the criteria were changed in order to be more understandable and some additional ones were added.

3.2.Survey results

The survey showed rather limited differences in the mean edu-cational values of the presented landscape examples according to the respondents;however,particular answers differed consider-ably,which is depicted by high standard deviation and standard error(Fig.1).Ten of the photographs(out of15)received aver-age assessment values ranging between3and4.The highest mean value was4.6for the landscape presented in picture K(the Tatra Mountains)and the lowest mean value was2.8for landscape J –a harvested corn?eld in Schleswig-Holstein.At the same time,the picture J received also the most extreme assessments(Fig.1). Friedman test revealed that some of the landscapes gained signif-icantly different assessments from the others,the highest mean statistical rank had the picture K(11.0),and the lowest pictures J(4.9),O(5.1)and L(5.6).Kendall’s coef?cient of concordance (0.21)showed that there is low trend of agreement between respondents.

According to the Kruskal–Wallis test,the results did not sig-ni?cantly differ(?=0.05)at both universities for most of the photographs,except G,J and L(Fig.2).Those three pictures depicted less spectacular landscapes typical for the regions where the stud-ied universities were located(G–Jagiellonian University;J and L–Kiel University).In all three cases the students or graduates tended to value more the landscape they already possessed more insightful knowledge about.

The prevalent criteria listed by the surveyed experts were:“spatial heterogeneity/diversity”,“visibility of interesting (educative)features”,“typicality(representativeness for a pro-cess/phenomenon)”,“number of environmental issues you can exemplify”,“land use type”and“rarity of the features or ecosys-tems(on a global or regional scale)”.The following criteria were the most frequently selected as the most important ones:“spatial heterogeneity/diversity”,“number of environmental issues you can exemplify”and“visibility of educative features”.The full results for the assessment criteria are presented in Table6.

Most of the participants(59.5%)had taken part in?eld classes during their secondary education(age approx.13–19years).8.1% of the whole group had had such classes more than10times,16.2%–5–10times,whereas35.1%–up to5times during their studies so far.Regarding higher education,86.5%of the surveyed students and graduates took part in?eld classes.Most of them(40.5%)had had from5to10?eld trips during their undergraduate studies, 29.7%–more than10trips,and16.2%–up to5.Four respondents had never taken part in any?eld classes during their secondary education whatsoever,nor during their degree course.

The vast majority of the surveyed experts(94.6%)agreed that outdoor classes help to understand the issues which should be learned.Many of them(15persons)answered that the issues learned during a?eld trip can be better remembered as one can see the presented issues for oneself.For some of them(5),it was impor-tant to have direct contact with nature and to experience it using all the senses.According to the opinions of several experts,?eld classes also enable one to practically apply theoretical knowledge as well as helping to perceive relations within an environment:to see a landscape/ecosystem as a whole.Additionally,in the case of 67.6%of the surveyed environmentalists,the?eld classes they had in earlier stages of education had had a positive in?uence on their choice of degree.

Three quarters of those surveyed(75.7%)recommended several regions or sites for education.The students and graduates of Kiel University most often recommended the North Sea coast,the Baltic Sea coast,the Harz Mountains and forests close to the university in Schleswig-Holstein.Jagiellonian University students and gradua-tes recommended the Tatra Mountains,the Kraków-Cz?estochowa Upland(especially the Ojców National Park),the Beskidy Moun-tains(Outer Western Carpathians),the Pieniny Mountains and the Vistula valley(all situated in the region of Lesser Poland).

4.Discussion

4.1.Criteria for the assessment of the educational values of landscapes

Within the context of the existing literature,several criteria could be considered for the assessment of landscape educational

E.Mocior,M.Kruse/Ecological Indicators60(2016)137–151

145

Fig.2.The mean expert assessment of the landscape educational values according to the survey,comparing the mean answers given at both universities(for the pictures A–O see Appendix).

values.Although most of the authors of the proposed methods(including the sets of criteria)have focused on a geosite/geomorphosite evaluation for the purposes of geotourism (which,by de?nition,involves environmental education in a broad sense),the criteria can be used also for more general assessments. However,some of them should be transformed to some extend to be more universal,e.g.,“geological age”or“number of interesting geological features”by removing the specifying adjective“geo-logical”.The criterion of“paleogeographic value”is also the one mostly applicable to geological and geomorphologic issues.Simi-larly,“ecological value”should not be considered as an additional criterion as some authors suggest(Kubalíková,2013;Pereira et al., 2007),but one of the main ones(see Bollati et al.,2012,2013, 2014a).In this regard,special emphasis should be placed on the interactions amongst different landscape/ecosystem elements, which are especially important in environmental education,for instance,in explaining the sequences of cause and effects in human–environmental systems.

Table6

The criteria selected by the experts during the survey.

No.Criteria Selected as criterion to consider in

assessment[no.of answers](multiple

answers were possible)Selected as the most important criterion[no.of answers]

1Spatial heterogeneity/diversity2810 2Visibility of interesting(educative)features265 3Typicality(representativeness for a

process/phenomenon)

255

4Number of environmental issues you can

exemplify

249 5Land use type214 6Rarity of the features or ecosystems(on a

global or regional scale)

203

7Easiness to recognise181 8Preservation level(absence of damage/change

due to anthropogenic or natural processes)

161 9Spectacular/outstanding/impressive features151 10Beauty122 11Naturalness124 12Additional cultural values101 13Geological age90 14Conservation status72 15Accessibility51 16Size of a feature20 17Other22

146 E.Mocior,M.Kruse/Ecological Indicators60(2016)137–151

The most prevalent criteria proposed in the literature were:rar-ity of landscape/ecosystem features at different levels,integrity (degree of disturbance/preservation level),typicality(represen-tativeness for a process/phenomenon),accessibility,additional cultural values as well as aesthetics of a site and the surroundings, which are relatively universal,applicable to both abiotic and biotic nature(or whole ecosystems).A different hierarchy of proposed criteria can be derived from the exploratory survey with experts on environmental studies presented here.Taking into account the number of answers,the criterion of spatial heterogeneity/diversity should be considered as the most important one,followed by vis-ibility of educative features,typicality,number of environmental issues which can be exempli?ed,land use type as well as rarity of the features or ecosystems.The?ve criteria most often highlighted by the experts during our survey as being the most important ones were the same as the most prevalent ones in general.In the group of the six most popular criteria from the survey and from the literature only typicality and rarity are common to both sets.

Possibly,this may be explained by the different backgrounds of the authors of the analysed publications and the interviewees as well as the slightly different reasons for potential landscape evaluation,which the criteria can be used for,e.g.,targeting dif-ferent groups or focusing on different landscape elements.Most of the authors were geologists preparing methods for the assess-ments of geological/geomorphological features for the purpose of geotourism,whereas the respondents were asked to give a gen-eral opinion about landscape educational value,which could be used both in the scope of touristic activities and purely educational trips organised during school/university classes.Still,the latter can be considered to be one of the touristic segments as well(Ohe, 2012).Another difference is that the group of surveyed students and graduates had recent experiences of taking part in?eld classes as students and,at the same time,they had already a high level of environmental education.

Certainly,the most often appreciated criteria and indicators in the literature and expert survey should be taken into consider-ation during the construction of any method for the evaluation of the educational values of landscapes.However,another issue is their hierarchy and possible importance.On the one hand,an assumption could be made that all the criteria have the same sig-ni?cance in the assessment of educational values.On the other hand,it is worth differentiating the signi?cance of the criteria, using weights based on the frequency of their use in the litera-ture and the expert survey results.This approach is more likely to re?ect the real educational value and to lower the subjectivity of the assessments.

Moreover,the list of the criteria should be revised as some of them overlap.For instance,“beauty”is highly connected with “spectacular/outstanding/impressive features”.However,a land-scape which is not spectacular can still be beautiful.Also,visibility can depend on the size of a feature,though other factors as well.Fur-ther,“conservation status”is usually correlated with“naturalness”due to the limited number of ecosystems at a near-to-natural stage. Similarly,“naturalness”and“preservation level”can duplicate to some extent.However,“preservation level”can be also applied to anthropogenic elements in a landscape like quarries,arti?cial lakes,etc.,as they can be changed by both natural and anthro-pogenic processes.Speed of natural change can be also considered as another criterion,since the observation of natural pro-cesses can enhance learning about whole human–environmental systems(see Diolaiuti and Smiraglia,2010;Garavaglia et al., 2012).

As several authors have suggested(e.g.,Kubalíková,2013; Reynard,2008),assessments of the usefulness of sites for edu-cational and touristic purposes should consider several groups of criteria referring to educational and scienti?c,additional,use and the protection value of sites.Even though the additional val-ues do not comprise unequivocal landscape educational values, they de?nitely help to capture students’and tourists’attention (especially“aesthetic values”,“spectacular features”).They also create a bridge between the natural and anthropogenic factors by the consideration of cultural and economic values,which may help to explain how people are connected to landscapes and what services landscapes/ecosystems provide.Furthermore, use and protection values re?ect features that are necessary for planning purposes.However,in our opinion,it is important to assess these separately,because use value(e.g.,accessibility,edu-cational infrastructure)and protection value can be particularly easily changed as a result of human activity.It is also crucial to keep adequate proportions between pure educational values, which are the most important ones in such assessments,and the other values of landscapes,which only support educational usefulness.

4.2.Indicators for the evaluation of educational ecosystem service

The list of indicators to evaluate educational(or similar)ecosys-tem services,presented here,is rather short.In addition,only three articles were found during the review process in which the proposed indicators had already been tested and used(see Martín-López et al.,2011;Moore and Hunt,2012,Rova et al.,2015).That shows that in spite of the real?ow of this ecosystem service in different scopes and contexts–something con?rmed by the litera-ture review and the survey herein conducted–there are substantial dif?culties in its measurement.

The indicator proposed by B?hnke-Henrichs et al.(2013)(the amount of time(of person days)spent in education or individual learning about an ecosystem per area per year)seems to be the most accurate one.However,it requires a lot of detailed data,which are dif?cult to collect for several reasons.Firstly,a large-scale sur-vey on the incentives for groups or individuals visiting particular places is needed,something that is costly and time-consuming.Sec-ondly,the real time spent on learning about a particular landscape or ecosystem may be sometimes uncountable,as people can learn while observing a landscape during typical touristic and recre-ational activities,e.g.,hiking.For practical reasons,it would be more convenient to generalise the educational service?ow to those organised groups with a guide or teacher which visit particular ecosystems for learning purposes.

Some data could be obtained from the inventories of pro-tected areas and forestry administrative centres as well as from environmental education centres,as these institutions commonly participate in the environmental education of society(Arevalo et al.,2012;Jia-nan,2012;Soykan,2009).In parallel,surveys or interviews with school teachers and students as well as pri-vate companies,non-governmental institutions and guides who organise educational trips might be conducted to acquire detailed information on the places visited and the issues covered during educational trips.

4.3.Challenges and uncertainties relating to the evaluation of the landscape educational values

According to the results of our survey,there is no big difference in the mean educational values of diverse landscapes(with some exceptions),on the basis of the answers of the surveyed experts from various environmental backgrounds.Though,the answers among particular respondents were considerably different(Fig.1). Hence,in spite of the exploratory character of the survey,it can be concluded that every area has an educational value,but this value is highly subjective if assessed only by looking at selected

E.Mocior,M.Kruse/Ecological Indicators60(2016)137–151147

photographs,even though the participants of the survey were con-sidered to be environmental experts.Furthermore,the perception of landscape educational values depends on one’s personal experi-ences of outdoor environmental/geographical education,as well as interests and own observations regarding different elements of landscapes(Garavaglia et al.,2012).As the number of respon-dents in our survey was low,the results should not be treated as those which re?ect a mean landscape educational value,but rather as a test for an experimental method for criteria selec-tion and expert assessment of landscape educational values.For example a similar method,including both literature review and survey with experts was proposed by Koschke et al.(2014)for the assessment of the stakeholder participation process in ecosys-tem services studies.However,as Plieninger et al.(2013)suggest, the use of survey or interviews is useful in the process of cultural ecosystem services assessment,especially at community level,as this group of ecosystem services strongly depends on personal perception.

Therefore,detailed criteria and indicators and?eld-based eval-uation should be used.The set of criteria should be precise,easily measured(or widely available from external datasets)and clearly representing the indicandum(Pereira and Pereira,2010;Wiggering and Müller,2004),which is not always true for the criteria derived from the literature(e.g.,aesthetics).The criteria should be adjusted to the audience,since some amongst them could have a different importance to different groups like,for instance,school children, university students,the general public,etc.That said,an assump-tion can be made that the secondary school education level is most suitable for the general public(see Rocha et al.,2014).In the context of the use of landscape educational values,it is a challenge to clearly explain complex natural phenomena to a general public with no environmental background whatsoever,something already men-tioned by Reynard(2008).It is particularly dif?cult to present the dynamic character and ephemerality of some environmental pro-cesses as they occur sporadically and unpredictably(e.g.,volcanic processes)and most of the time it is only their effects that can be observed.This implies the role of a teacher(guide)and/or infor-mation boards which help one to recognise educational values of landscapes and,therefore,see and understand environmental issues.

5.Conclusions

Education is one of the ecosystem/landscape services which plays an important role in formal and informal learning.It is also substantial in many types of tourism.As a consequent,it should be incorporated into the quanti?cation of ecosystem services.

Throughout the paper,the three research questions stated in Section1were answered in detail.For the purpose of a better use of the educational ecosystem service,landscape educational val-ues should be inventoried and evaluated.In this article,we gave an overview of those criteria which can be used for such a pur-pose,as stated in the second research question.Taking into account the number of authors proposing particular criteria in the liter-ature,the most appropriate set of criteria for the assessment of landscape educational value may be the following:rarity of land-scape/ecosystem features at different levels(depending on scale of an assessment),integrity(degree of disturbance/preservation level),accessibility,typicality(representativeness for the pro-cess/phenomenon),additional cultural values as well as aesthetics of a site and the surroundings.

In order to strengthen the literature?ndings,a survey with young experts on nature sciences(graduates,MSc and PhD stu-dents)was conducted.However,the results of the survey show how subjective the assessment of educational values of landscapes can be if no criteria is used.

According to the expert opinions acquired(the second research question),the criteria of spatial heterogeneity/diversity,visibility of interesting features,typicality,number of environmental issues which can be exempli?ed and land use should be considered the most important ones.However,the criteria preferred by the major-ity of the respondents were not convergent with those that were most often proposed by the authors of the reviewed publications. This implies that the selection of criteria is a highly subjective pro-cess based on the background and past experience of the person concerned.We suggest taking into account both literature and stu-dents/young graduates expert opinions in order to depict also a practical side of educational values.

Finally,the ways humans use the educational ecosystem service and the indicators for quanti?cation were described.The assem-blage of indicators for the quanti?cation of education as an ecosystem service was proposed in the literature,e.g.the amount of time(of person days)spent in education or individual learn-ing about an ecosystem per area per year(B?hnke-Henrichs et al., 2013).However,the full quanti?cation of this ecosystem service is relatively complex as the available data on group or individual learning directly from a landscape is limited.

Taking into consideration those results and conclusions,we rec-ommend environmental education experts to prepare assessments of landscape educational values,especially in those areas where the demand for educational ecosystem service is high(protected areas,city areas).This can disseminate both organised and indi-vidual environmental education.Besides,such assessments can be useful in landscape planning,especially in location of educational infrastructure.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the survey participants from Kiel Uni-versity and the Jagiellonian University for their answers and time in discussing the educational values of landscapes.Furthermore,we thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

148 E.Mocior,M.Kruse/Ecological Indicators60(2016)137–151 Appendix.Questions and photographs used in the survey questionnaire

E.Mocior,M.Kruse/Ecological Indicators60(2016)137–151149

150 E.Mocior,M.Kruse/Ecological Indicators60(2016)137–151

References

Adara,O.A.,1996.Impact of an outdoor educational strategy on teacher pro?le in environmental https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,c.Dev.16(3),309–317,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/

10.1016/0738-0593(96)00007-7

Aran,S.,2014.A case study on de?ning leisure time motivation of recreation students.Procedia Soc.Behav.Sci.152,734–739,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.

sbspro.2014.09.312

Arevalo,J.,Blas Mola-Yudego,B.,Pelkonen,P.,Qu,M.,2012.Students’views on forestry education:a cross-national comparison across three universities in Brazil,China and Finland.For.Policy Econ.25,121–131,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.

1016/j.forpol.2012.08.015

Bangay,C.,Blum,N.,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,cation responses to climate change and quality:two parts of the same agenda?https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,c.Dev.30,359–368,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.

1016/j.ijedudev.2009.11.011

Bastian,O.,Haase,D.,Grunewald,K.,2012.Ecosystem properties,potentials and services–the EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example.

Ecol.Indic.21(7–16),https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.014

Bird,D.K.,Gisladottir,G.,Dominey-Howes,D.,2010.Volcanic risk and tourism in southern Iceland:implications for hazard,risk and emergency response educa-tion and training.J.Volcanol.Geotherm.Res.189,33–48,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.

1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.09.020

B?hnke-Henrichs,A.,Baulcomb,C.,Koss,R.,Hussain,S.S.,de Groot,R.S.,2013.

Typology and indicators of ecosystem services for marine spatial planning and management.J.Environ.Manage.130,13–145,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.

jenvman.2013.08.027

Bollati,I.,Leonelli,G.,Vezzola,L.,Pel?ni,M.,2014a.The role of ecological value in geomorphosite assessment.Geoheritage2014,1–17,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1007/ s12371-014-0111-2

Bollati,I.,Pel?ni,M.,Pellegrini,L.,2012.A geomorphosites selection method for educational purposes:a case study in Trebbia Valley(Emilia Romagna,Italy).

Geogr.Fis.Din.Quat.35(1),23–35,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.4461/GFDQ.2012.35.3 Bollati,I.,Smiraglia,C.,Pel?ni,M.,2013.Assessment and selection of geomorphosites and trails in the Miage Glacier Area(Western Italian Alps).Environ.Manage.51, 951–967,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1007/s00267-012-9995-2

Bollati,I.,Zucali,M.,Giovenco,C.,Pel?ni,M.,2014b.Geoheritage and sport climbing activities:using the Montestrutto cliff(Austroalpine domain,Western Alps)as an example of scienti?c and educational representativeness.Ital.J.Geosci.133

(2),187–199,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.3301/IJG.2013.24

Boo,E.,1991.Planning for ecotourism.Parks2(3),4–8.

Boyle,A.,Maguire,S.,Martin,A.,Milsom,C.,Nash,R.,Rawlinson,S.,Turner,A., Wurthmann,S.,Conchie,S.,2007.Fieldwork is good:the student perception and the affective https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,c.31(2),299–317,http://dx.doi.

org/10.1080/03098260601063628

Brilha,J.,2015.Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites:a review.Geoheritage,1–16,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3

Bruschi,V.M.,Cendrero,A.,2005.Geosite evaluation:can we measure intangible val-ues?Il Quat.18(1),293–306,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.4000/geomorphologie.7942 Burkhard,B.,Kandziora,M.,Hou,Y.,Müller,F.,2014.Ecosystem service potentials,?ows and demands–concepts for spatial localisation,indication and quanti?https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,ndsc.Online34,1–32,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.3097/LO.201434

Caro,T.,Mulder,M.B.,Moore,M.,2003.Effects on conservation education on reasons to conserve biological diversity.Biol.Conserv.114,143–152,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/

10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00423-8

Coratza,P.,Waele,J.D.,2012.Geomorphosites and natural hazards:teaching the importance of geomorphology in society.Geoheritage4,195–203,http://dx.

https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1007/s12371-012-0058-0

Costa,F.L.,2011.Volcanic geomorphosites assessment on the last eruption,on April to May1995,within the natural park of Fogo Island,Cape Verde.GeoJournal Tour.Geosites8(2),167–177.

Davis,L.R.,2002.The value of teaching about geomorphology in non-traditional settings.Geomorphology47,251–260,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/ S0169-555X(02)00096-X

Dick,J.,Maes,J.,Smith,R.I.,Paracchini,M.L.,Zulian,G.,2014.Cross-scale analysis of ecosystem services identi?ed and assessed at local and European level.Ecol.

Indic.38,20–30,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.10.023

Diolaiuti,G.,Smiraglia,C.,2010.Changing glaciers in a changing climate:how van-ishing geomorphosites have been driving deep changes in mountain landscapes and environments.Géomorphologie2(2010),131–152,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.

4000/geomorphologie.7882

Fassoulas,C.,Mouriki,D.,Dimitriou-Nikolakis,P.,Iliopoulos,G.,2012.Quantita-tive assessment of geotopes as an effective tool for geoheritage management.

Geoheritage4,177–193,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1007/s12371-011-0046-9 Fennell,D.A.,Weaver,D.,2005.The ecotourium concept and tourism-conservation symbiosis.J.Sustain.Tour.13(4),373–390,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1080/ 09669580508668563

Garavaglia,V.,Dioliuti,G.,Smiraglia,C.,Pasquale,V.,Pel?ni,M.,2012.Evaluating tourist perception of environmental changes as a contribution to managing nat-ural resources in glacierized areas:a case study of the Forni Glacier(Stelvio National Park,Italian Alps).Environ.Manage.50(6),1125–1138,http://dx.doi.

org/10.1007/s00267-012-9948-9

Goodwin,H.,1996.Inpursuit of ecotourism.Biodivers.Conserv.5(3),277–291, https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1007/BF00051774

Gray,M.,2008.Geodiversity:developing the paradigm.Proc.Geol.Assoc.119, 287–298,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/S0016-7878(08)80307-0Haines-Young,R.,Potschin,M.,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,mon International Classi?cation of Ecosys-tem Services(CICES):Consultation on Version4,August–December2012,EEA Framework Contract No.EEA/IEA/09/003.

Hassan,A.,Osman,K.,Pudin,S.,2009.The adults non-formal environmental educa-tion(EE):a scenario in Sabah,Malaysia.Procedia Soc.Behav.Sci.1,2306–2311, https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.405

Hibszer,A.,Tracz,M.,Hibszer,B.,2012.Diagnoza motywów podj?ecia studiów geogra?cznych w Polsce–uj?ecie regionalne(A diagnosis of the motives for start-ing geographical studies in Poland–regional analysis).Prace https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,k.Geogr.

2,75–97(in Polish).

Hiwasaki,L.,Luna, E.,Syamsidik,Shaw,R.,2014.Process for integrating local and indigenous knowledge with science for hydro-meteorological disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in coastal and small island commu-nities.Int.J.Disaster Risk Reduct.10,15–27,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.ijdrr.

2014.07.007

Hose,T.A.,Vasiljevi′c,D.A.,2012.De?ning the nature and purpose of modern geo-tourism with particular reference to the United Kingdom and South-East Europe.

Geoheritage4(1–2),25–43,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1007/s12371-011-0050-0

Jia-nan,C.,2012.Contributions of environmental NGO to environmental education in China.IERI Procedia2,901–906.

Kandziora,M.,Burkhard,B.,Müller,F.,2013.Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators–a theoretical matrix exercise.Ecol.Indic.28,54–78,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.006 K?edro′n,K.,2011.Changeability of the value in educational potential for the southern part of the Kraków–Cz?estochowa https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,ndsc.Ecol.30, 419–422.

Kil,N.,Holland,S.,Stein,M.T.V.,2014.Structural relationships between envi-ronmental attitudes,recreation motivations,and environmentally responsible behaviors.J.Outdoor Recreat.Tour.7/8,16–25,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.jort.

2014.09.010

Koschke,L.,Van der Meulen,S.,Frank,S.,Schneidergruber,A.,Kruse,M.,Fürst,C., Neubert,E.,Ohnesorge,B.,Schr?der,C.,Müller,F.,Bastian,O.,2014.Do you have5minutes to spare?The challenges of stakeholder processes in ecosystem services https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,ndsc.Online37,1–25,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.3097/LO.201437 Kubalíková,L.,2013.Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes.Czech J.

Tour.2(2),80–104,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.2478/cjot-2013-0005

Le Lay,Y.-F.,Piégay,H.,Rivière-Honegger,A.,2013.Perception of braided river land-scapes:implications for public participation and sustainable management.J.

Environ.Manage.119,1–12,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.006 Loomis,D.K.,Paterson,S.K.,2014.Human dimensions indicators of coastal ecosys-tem services:a hierarchical perspective.Ecol.Indic.44,63–68,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/

10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.12.022

MA(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment),2005.Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis.World Resources Institute,Washington,DC.

Martín-López,B.,García-Llorente,M.,Palomo,I.,Montes,C.,2011.The conservation against development paradigm in protected areas:valuation of ecosystem ser-vices in the Do?nana social–ecological system(southwestern Spain).Ecol.Econ.

70,1481–1491,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.009

Mirrahimi,S.,Tawil,N.M.,Abdullah,N.A.G.,Surat,M.,Usman,I.M.S.,2011.Develop-ing conducive sustainable outdoor learning:the impact of natural environment on learning,social and emotional intelligence.Procedia Eng.20,389–396,http:// https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.181

Moore,T.L.C.,Hunt,W.F.,2012.Ecosystem service provision by storm water wet-lands and ponds–a means for evaluation?Water Res.46,6811–6823,http:// https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.watres.2011.11.026

Newsome,D.,Moore,S.,Dowling,R.,2002.Natural Area Tourism:Ecology,Impacts, and Management.Channel View Publications.

Newsome,D.,Dowling,R.,2010.Geotourism:The Tourism of Geology and Land-scape.Goodfellow Publishers Limited,Oxford.

Newsome,D.,Dowling,R.,Leung,Y.-F.,2012.The nature and management of geo-tourism:a case study of two established iconic geotourism destinations.Tour.

Manage.Perspect.2–3,19–27,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.tmp.2011.12.009 Ohe,Y.,2012.Operators’attitudes on educational tourism in agriculture.WIT Trans.

Ecol.Environ.161,273–286,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.2495/ST120221

Panizza,M.,2001.Geomorphosites:concepts,methods and examples of geo-morphological survey.Chin.Sci.Bull.46,4–6,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1007/ BF03187227

Panizza,M.,Piacente,S.,2003.Geomorfologia Culturale.Pitagora Editrice,Bologna, pp.350(in Italian).

Pereira,P.,Pereira,D.,2010.Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assess-ment.Géomorphologie2,215–222,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.4000/geomorphologie.

7942

Pereira,P.,Pereira,D.,Alves,M.,2007.Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park(Portugal).Geogr.Helv.3,159–168,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.5194/gh-62-159-2007

Plieninger,T.,Dijks,S.,Oteros-Rozas,E.,Bieling,C.,2013.Assessing,mapping,and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,nd Use Policy33, 118–129,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,ndusepol.2012.12.013

Ploaie,G.,Turnock, D.,2001.Public perception of environment in the moun-tains of Valcea County.GeoJournal54,683–701,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1023/ A:1021761516756

Pralong,J.P.,2005.A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomor-phological sites.Geomorphologie1(3),189–196,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.4000/ geomorphologie.350

Remacha,C.,Pérez-Tris,J.,Delgado,J.A.,2011.Reducing visitors’group size increases the number of birds during educational activities:implications for management

E.Mocior,M.Kruse/Ecological Indicators60(2016)137–151151

of nature-based recreation.J.Environ.Manage.92,1564–1568,http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.01.006

Reynard,E.,2008.Scienti?c research and tourist promotion of geomorphological research.Geogr.Fis.Din.Quat.31(2),225–230.

Reynard,E.,Fontana,G.,Kozlik,L.,Scapozza,C.,2007.A method for assessing“scien-ti?c”and“additional values”of geomorphosites.Geogr.Helv.63(3),148–158, https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.5194/gh-62-148-2007

Richardson,J.,1993.Ecotourism and Nature-based Holidays.Simon and Schuster, Sydney.

Riper,C.J.,Kyle,G.T.,Sutton,S.G.,Barnes,M.,Sherrouse,B.C.,2012.Mapping outdoor recreationists’perceived social values for ecosystem services at Hinchinbrook Island National Park,Australia.Appl.Geogr.35,164–173,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.

1016/j.apgeog.2012.06.008

Rocha,J.,Brilha,J.,Henriques,M.H.,2014.Assessment of the geological heritage of Cape Mondego Natural Monument(Central Portugal).Proc.Geol.Assoc.125, 107–113,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.pgeola.2013.04.005

Rova,S.,Pranovi,F.,Müller,F.,2015.Provision of ecosystem services in the lagoon of Venice(Italy):an initial spatial assessment.Ecohydrol.Hydrobiol.15,13–15, https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2014.12.001

Seijmonsbergen,A.C.,Dejongmat,G.G.,Graaff,L.W.de,2009.A method for the identi?cation and assessment of signi?cance of geomorphosites in Vorarlberg (Austria),supported by Geographical Information Systems.Memorie Descrittive della Carta Geologica d’Italia87,163–172.

Serrano,E.,González-Trueba,J.J.,2005.Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas:the Picos de Europa National Park(Spain).Geomorphologie1

(3),197–208,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.4000/geomorphologie.364

Smith,L.M.,Case,J.L.,Smith,H.M.,Harwell,L.C.,Summers,J.K.,2013.Relating ecosys-tem services to domains of human well-being:foundation for a U.S.index.Ecol.

Indic.28,79–90,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.032

Soykan, A.,2009.Ecology-based environmental education in years between 1999–2008in protected areas of Turkey:aims and objectives,problems and sug-gestions.Procedia Soc.Behav.Sci.1,16704–21708,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.

sbspro.2009.01.302

Spalie,N.,Utaberta,N.,Abdullah,N.A.G.,Tahir,M.,Ani,C.,2011.Reconstructing sus-tainable outdoor learning environment in Malaysia from the understanding of natural school design and approaches in Indonesia.Procedia Soc.Behav.Sci.15, 3310–3315,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.291Stenseke,M.,Hansen,A.S.,2014.From rhetoric to knowledge based actions–chal-lenges for outdoor recreation management in Sweden.J.Outdoor Recreat.Tour.

7–8,26–34,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.jort.2014.09.004

Stueve, A.M.,Cook,S.D.,Drew, D.,2002.The Geotourism Study:Phase1 Executive Summary.National Geographic.Travel Industry Association of Amer-ica,Washington,Retrieved from:https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/wp-content/ uploads/2012/01/geotourism1-survey.pdf(29.04.14).

TEEB,2010.The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity:Ecological and Economic Foundation.Earthscan,Cambridge.

Teitelbaum,S.,2014.Criteria and indicators for the assessment of community forestry outcomes:a comparative analysis from Canada.J.Environ.Manage.132, 257–267,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.013

Tickell,C.,1994.Foreword.In:Cater,E.,Lowman,G.(Eds.),Ecotourism:A Sustainable Option?John Wiley Sons,Chichester,pp.ix–x.

TIES(The International Ecotourism Society),2014.What is Ecotourism?http://www.

https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/what-is-ecotourism(29.04.14).

Van Oudenhoven,A.P.E.,Petza,K.,Alkemadeb,R.,Heina,L.,de Groot,R.S.,2012.

Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land manage-ment on ecosystem services.Ecol Indic21,110–122,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/ j.ecolind.2012.01.012

Vujˇc i′c,M.D.,Vasilievi′c,D.A.,Markovi′c,S.B.,Hose,Th.,Luki′c,A.,Hadˇz i′c,T.,Jani′cevi′c, O.J.,2011.Preliminary geosite assessment model(GAM)and its application on Fruˇs ka Gora Mountain,potential geotourism destination of Serbia.Acta Geogr.

Slov.51(2),361–377,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.3986/AGS51303

Wang,L.,Tian,M.,2014.A discussion on the development model of earthquake relic geopark–a case study of the Qingchuan Earthquake Relic Geopark in Sichuan Province,China.J.Cult.Herit.15,459–469,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.1016/j.culher.

2013.11.007

Warowna,J.,Migo′n,P.,Ko?ody′nska-Gawrysiak,R.,Kieba?a,E.,Zg?obicki,W.,2013.

Geomorphosites of Poland–the role played by the central Register of Geosites.

Landf.Anal.22,117–124,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.12.657/landfana.012.010 Wiggering,H.,Müller, F.(Eds.),2004.Umweltziele und Indikatoren.Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York(in German).

Zouros,N.C.,2007.Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece.Geogr.Helv.62(3),169–180,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec8038889.html,/10.5194/gh-62-169-2007.