The Montesinho Natural Park (MNP), with an area of about 750 km², is one of the largest protected areas in Portugal. Since its inauguration as a natural park in 1979, geological and geomorphological aspects have not been taken into consideration in its nature conservation policies. Over the last few years, this deficit has been compensated with an assessment of its geomorphological heritage. The assessment was made possible due to a research project on the geological heritage of the natural parks of north-eastern Portugal.The assessment method propagated herein proposes a clear definition of three types of geomorphosites: Single places, geomorphological areas or panoramic viewpoints. Further, it proposes as two-staged approach to assessment with inventory compilation followed by quantification of value. Inventory compilation, for example, involves the identification and qualitative assessment of potential geomorphosites and, therefore, the selection and characterization of geomorphosites. The quantification stage includes the numerical assessment of sites and their final ranking. The values are numerically assessed using selected criteria. The implementation of this approach in the MNP led to the identification of 154 potential geomorphosites, of which only 26 were selected after the qualitative assessment or characterisation process. The numerical assessment of the sites and their ranking allowed a final selection of 13 sites for public use.

One of the most important issues in geomorphological heritage research is the development of methodologies that are focused on the evaluation of different types of value present in geomorphosites. A comprehensive methodology with different stages and approaches is presented. The method includes two main stages : inventory and quantification. The inventory stage includes four sub-stages : identification of potential geomorphosites ; qualitative assessment ; geomorphosite selection ; geomorphosite characterisation. The quantification stage includes two sub-stages : numerical assessment ; analysis of results. The interpretation of results for each of the indicators (scientific, additional, use and protection values) allows a comparison between sites and is of particular use in supporting site management decisions.

Several factors and processes, both natural and anthropogenic, can threaten the integrity of any geosite, leading to their degradation. For this reason, geoheritage degradation risks should be considered a fundamental step in any geoconservation strategy, all the more when the aim is to tackle the effects of climate change. The present work proposes a quantitative methodology for the degradation risk assessment of geosites by considering the extrinsic factors that can damage the geoheritage. The methodology has been tested on the Maltese Islands, where considerable previous research has been undertaken in order to highlight the international significance of the Maltese landscapes. Three criteria to assess the degradation risk are proposed: natural vulnerability, anthropogenic vulnerability and public use. For each criterion, several parameters have been identified in order to propose a detailed numerical evaluation. The results show that the degradation risk of geosites is mainly related to negligence and lack of knowledge of its inherent geological heritage, and which leads to public misuse and mismanagement of the geosites. The results give an overview of the condition of the geosites and provide information for the design and management of suitable protection measures, especially in the light of future threats related to climate change.

Geodiversity—the diversity of abiotic features and processes of the Earth's surface and subsurface—is an increasingly used concept in ecological research. A growing body of scientific literature has provided evidence of positive links between geodiversity and biodiversity. These studies highlight the potential of geodiversity to improve our understanding of biodiversity patterns and to complement current biodiversity conservation practices and strategies. However, definitions of geodiversity in ecological research vary widely. This can hinder the progress of geodiversity–biodiversity research and make it difficult to synthesize findings across studies. We therefore call for greater awareness of how geodiversity is currently defined and for more consistent use of the term ‘geodiversity’ in biodiversity research.