Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
While geoheritage and geodiversity have been well defined in the literature, the multiplicity of definitions given to these two concepts makes it difficult to establish an unambiguous relationship between them. Basing on semantic-ontological studies, this study aims to reduce this ambiguity within the concepts by investigating the relationship between the geodiversity richness and the presence of geoheritage, and discussing whether the areas with the greatest geodiversity are the ones with the most relevant geoheritage, thus questioning the potential use of the geodiversity index map. Upon a strong theoretical framework, a quantitative geodiversity index map was created for the Alagna Valsesia municipality, within the Sesia Val Grande UNESCO Global Geopark (Italian Western Alps). Then, 25 geosites were identified and mapped in the same area. Notably, the exploration into the correlation between geodiversity and geoheritage on the field shows that in our study area there is no spatial correlation between the geodiversity class and the number of geosites, proving that some geosites may occur in areas of low geodiversity and the greatest geodiversity are not the ones with the most relevant geoheritage. Moreover, all the non-parametric regression models tested are not significant, indicating that there is no predictable relationship between geodiversity and geoheritage in Alagna Valsesia (NW Alps). For that reason, our work highlights that although the quantitative geodiversity map can have an important role for geoconservation and within biodiversity studies, it could not be a strong tool for geosites recognition and tourism promotion, while for this purpose should be better use a qualitative geodiversity map. Finally, the potential use of the geodiversity map depends on the purpose of the study and the approach used to produce it. For a comprehensive geoconservation and geoheritage promotion strategy, the two approaches (qualitative and quantitative) may be complementary.
Guerini et al. (Sun,) studied this question.