Criteria of geotourism valorization specified for various recipients

The following paper presents methodology of valorization of geotourism objects adapted to meet the expectations and needs of various groups of potential recipients: tourists (casual, witting, hobbyist), educators (school teachers, academic staff, guides, organizers) and investors (owners, managers). Any geotourism object can be valorized using four principal categories of criteria: visual, cognitive, functional and investing. Each category is evaluated separately and selection of particular criteria depends on the needs of given recipient.


Introduction
Valorization of biotic and abiotic nature is a common procedure in studies on relationships between humans and environment (Kostrowicki, 1992).Important part of this environment is an abiotic nature, which components are assessed for the purposes of land planning and management, nature protection, environment protection, mapping, mining operations, building industry and others.In the field of Earth sciences, the valorization of abiotic nature is important for e.g., development of mineral deposits, geotechnical and geological-engineering examinations of construction grounds environmental impact reports and, in last decades, also geoconservation and geotourism.
The tourism and/or recreational attractiveness of abiotic nature is assessed rather for areas than for particular sites for the purposes of physical geography, tourism geography or landscape ecology.Usually, evaluated are: land morphology and its parameters, surface waters and/or climate (see e.g.: Warszyńska, 1974;Nowacka, 1984;Sołowiej, 1992;Bródka red., 2010;Chmielewski, 2012).Some authors distinguish so-called "geological peculiarities" (e.g., Krzymowska-Kostrowicka, 1999), the others sometimes even notice the value of landforms, rock exposures and minerals as tourism attractions (Kożuchowski, 2005) but detailed assessments of such objects are rather rare.The new approach is the comprehensive valorization of the abundance of abiotic nature objects within the "geodiversity" (Gray, 2004), where assessed are, among others, geological structure and geomorphology of particular areas (Kot, 2006).Sometimes, such valorization is supported by advanced mathematical methods (Benito-Calvo et al., 2009).
The valorization for geotourism purposes is an extension of standard valorization of geosites when more attention is paid to their development and management, and visual values (e.g.: Rybar, 2010;Dmytrowski, Kicińska, 2011;Kubalíková, 2013).The important shortcomings of currently applied assessment methods are: (i) summing up the all scores attributed to particular features, (ii) little attention paid to social and economic aspects, and (iii) negligence of recipients of valorization.
The authors aim to present the new attempt to valorization of geosites in which the valorization criteria are selected in such a manner that allows to reduce the shortcomings and to facilitate the characterization of geosites, and evaluation of their usefulness for tourism industry.

Methodology
The valorization is a defined procedure in which we attribute values to particular site, area, feature or process in order to determine its usefulness for given purpose.In the case of geotourism, this purpose is the usefulness for human's needs.The valorization of natural objects (e.g., geosites) indicates the opportunities to develop and manage the environment (Chmielewski, 2012).Valorization can be quantitative and qualitative, dependent on defined criteria to which the features of the environment are referred (Bartkowski, 1986).
The valorization is a common procedure in various fields of science.Unfortunately, this method is strongly influenced by subjective views and feelings of the researcher.It is wellknown that the valorization procedure run by two persons with the same methods and under the same conditions may provide different results.Many authors regard valorization as an approximation of rather provisional significance.In the tourism industry, valorization is a tool suitable for evaluation of mutual relationships between the tourist flow and the natural environment (Kożuchowski, 2005).Conclusions can improve the quality of tourism services.The branch of science devoted to quality measurements is named "qualitology" (Kolman, 2009).
The recent literature provides numerous assessment methods of natural environment (see e.g., Kowalski 1996;Kistowski, Korwel-Lejkowska, 2007).The most common procedure is the scoring, in which the researcher attributes defined numbers to defined features of the environment.Then, the numbers are summed and confronted with the predefined scale of values, which provides final evaluation of the quality of environment (Sołowiej, 1992).The areal assessment includes methodology of basic field's determination (Kot, 2006).
The objections to the scoring system arise when numbers attributed to various features of the nature are summarized.Another shortcoming is the estimation of tourists' perception of the nature based upon public opinion polls -a method commonly used for adaptation of tourist offer to the changing demands of the visitors.Another method is the descriptive evaluation, as proposed by e.g., Słomka (ed., 2013)  In common practice of geoconservation and geotourism, valorized are rather the geosites than the geotourism objects.The authors define the "geotourism object" as any natural or cultural object which contains the elements of Earth's science knowledge and which can generate the tourist flow after relevant development and promotion.Such object becomes the geotourism attraction and can be supplemented with geoproducts: geo-information panels, geological or geourist guides, geotourist trail, geotourist events, etc. (Dryglas, Miśkiewicz, 2014).
Our methodology of geotourism valorization presented below does not provide a single, final score.Instead, we propose the set of four scores representing the four principal categories of values: visual, cognitive, functional and investment (Tab.1).The score values are summated only within the categories because various recipients have different preferences (Tab.2).
The set of valorization criteria of geotourism objects is directed to three groups of recipients: tourists, educators and investors, among which we identified several subgroups (Tab.2), each of them having different preferences.
Within the tourist group, the casual tourists pay attention first of all to visual attractiveness of an object, which generates emotions but they are usually unaware of its scientific value and uniqueness, and resulting protection measures.The normal motivation of casual tourist is leisure, relaxation, sometimes recreation but not education and cognition.He arrives to the object by chance, having no Earth's science knowledge.However, if the visual values turn his attention and if the object development, and infrastructure are adequate the casual tourists will very likely decide to visit it.It is obvious that for this subgroup of visitors the functional value of an object plays important or even decisive role.
The witting tourists carefully plan their trips because their motivation includes also the extension of knowledge.They are open-minded, hence, they regard geotourism objects as the sources of new, interesting experience and information.They usually have some basic Earth's science knowledge and, when visiting the object, they expect and even demand an advanced guidance with detailed explanations and interpretations of observed landforms, rocks, structures and/or geological processes.The visual attractiveness and the adequate infrastructure of an object are not crucial but may facilitate their decisions.
The hobbyists thoroughly plan their visits to selected objects where they can observe particular features, collect samples and/or take photographs.They have sometimes surprisingly advanced geological knowledge (at least in some fields, e.g., mineralogy or paleontology) so they expect not only the relevant explanations but also some professional discussion.Commonly, they prefer the self-guidance.On the contrary to other subgroups, the visual attractiveness and the comfort infrastructure are unimportant for their planning and decisions.Specific representatives of this category are professionals: geologists, geomorphologists, geographers, etc., who visit the objects as attendants of conference trips.
The second group of recipients contains educators.This group includes school teachers, academic staff, professional guides and trip organizers, i.e., those who run high-school "open air" nature lessons, geological/geographical field trips or practical field sessions for university students, or guide various categories of visitors, or prepare the new tourist products and organize the new, interesting forms of relax and recreation.Hence, the members of this group must know the cognitive and educational values of the object, particularly its representativeness, readability and diversity of features.

Investment values (conditions and needs) Warunki i potrzeby inwestycyjne
4.1 Tourist flow (low/medium/high), e.g., Defert indicator (after Szromek, 2012;Warszyńska, 1985) Wielkość ruchu turystycznego (niska/średnia/wysoka), np.wskaźnik Deferta (wg Szromek, 2012;Warszyńska, 1985) 4 For school teachers and academic staff, decisive is the education process, which is controlled by teaching standards and detailed curricula.Hence, essential will be both the cognitive and educational values, which must clearly illustrate the theoretical knowledge and enable the students to run their own observations, and making conclusions within the optimal time span.However, important is also the functional value of the object, particularly the safety measures.
For trip guides, crucial is the attractiveness of trip programme, particularly if enriched in "peculiarities" which may rise the interest of visitors, generate emotions and result in positive opinions about the trip (and about the organizers!).
However, these recipients pay attention also to development of the objects because they are responsible for safety and comfort of their customers.
The organizers must think how to generate profit because tourism is a business.They will focus on drawing attention of potential customers and stimulate them to choose their tourism product.Hence, they will prefer the visual and functional values of an object.The cognitive value may also play some role but rather in terms of impressive features and/or curiosities, which may help in better promotion of a geotourism object.However, the organizers will rather favour the known objects, which have already generated the tourist flow.
The investors subgroup includes the owners (both private and public, as e.g., national parks, landscape parks, national forests, and local state administration and local authorities) and managers.Usually, they know very little about geotouristic objects located in their land even if such objects represent high cognitive value and may contribute to attractiveness of tourism in the region.
The owners will be interested mostly in expected benefits coming from the development of an object and relevant services.Hence, important for them will be the widely accepted visual values as well as indication of development details, which would raise the attractiveness of an object and satisfaction of visitors.
The managers will appreciate the financial profit, as well, but their main target will be the promotion of an object in order to increase the tourist flow and, thus, stimulate the local economy.This can be achieved with the help of visual and cognitive values of a geotourism object but equally important will be the indication of necessary development issues, which would ensure the control of tourist flow (in sustainable manner, in order to secure long-lasting exploitation of the object), the safety measures and the comfort of visitors.
The role of investors is to develop a geotourism object and to create the tourism product based on its values.Hence, we included also the social and economic elements into our valorization system, as e.g., accessibility and infrastructure necessary for proper perception of and object.

Visual values
The visual value is a very subjective matter as its perception and evaluation depend strongly on individual sensitivity to emotional feelings and to the knowledge of the visitor.However, some characteristic features can be selected, which determine visual attractiveness of any geotourism object In our system, the general view of an object is evaluated according to the four aspects, which define the contrast between an object and its surrounding.Hence, scored is the prominence in the landscape because it is obvious that any object jutting out from the surroundings automatically turns attention of the observer.Furthermore, we realize that the prominence in the landscape strongly depends on several factors, as e.g.position of an outlook, land development (e.g., surrounding buildings), season and density of vegetation.However, taking into account the main goal of visual valorization, which is the usefulness of an object for tourism controlled by its perception by recipients, we recommend basing the assessment on observation made during the Summer season.The prominence in the landscape can be evaluated with various methods applied to the landscape valorization (Senetra, Cieślak, 2004, Kil, Kowalczyk, 2011).Determination of dominating element for particular geotourism object (size, shape, color) enables us to indicate its distinctness in the surrounding landscape, which makes it better visible and more intriguing for visitors.Attention must be paid also to different perception of an object in variously developed (= transformed) landscape because the open landscape (crop fields, meadows, forests) generates more pleasant aesthetic emotions than high-rise blocks or industrial zones.Hence, we included to the scoring system the naturalness of landscape with highest scores attributed to undeveloped areas, unaffected by anthropogenic changes.Lower scores were indicated for scattered (rural) settlements of relatively low anthropogenic impact and the lowest values were assigned to urban high-density housing or industrial zones.Obviously, the presence of outlooks in the close vicinity of an object rises its value, particularly if panoramic view is available (as e.g., from the top of a tor).
The visual values are important criterion for all recipients but not at the same level (Tab.2).In our opinion, these are decisive for casual tourists because it turns attention and, thus, motivates to the visit.These are important for educators, too, because they can use the characteristic features of the object to capture visitors' attention, to illustrate the talk or lecture and to emphasize the cognitive values.For the managers, the high visual values mean rising interest of visitors resulting in rising tourist flow, which generates better return on investment, (i.e., rises the economic efficiency) and improves the profit.

Cognitive values
This criterion enables us to indicate whether an object can avail of geoeducation.In the published valorization systems of geosites, this criterion is determined as "scientific" (Migoń, Sobczyk, 2009;Ihnatowicz et al., 2011), "scientific-educational" (Alexandrowicz, 1989), "substantive" (Dmytrowski, Kicińska, 2011) or "educational" (Cedro et al., 2009), etc.Despite the terminology, this criterion aims to assess the uniqueness, representativeness and educational quality of geological/geomorphological features and processes, which can be recognized in given object.The sub-criteria determine the diversity of geological/geomorphological features and processes together with a wide spectrum of their interrelations with culture and society as well as some additional values, which raise the prestige of that site (and region) and influence its popularity among tourists.
The assessment of geodiversity includes the number of readable, geological / geomorphological features and/or processes which can be observed in the object and which can illustrate particular problems of Earth sciences.The main indicator is the clear presentation of specific features and processes, which can explain structure, geological history and origin of given object.Well-readable features facilitate the successful education whereas the large number of such features makes the object more universal, hence, more useful for teaching process and attracting more recipients.Assessed is also the preservation of the object as whole, in which all static and dynamic elements are specified, disturbing the observations and blurring the contours, and details.Another value is the uniqueness of the object determined on worldwide, regional (country) and local scale.It determines the rare and exceptional features of the object, which may raise the interest of visitors and, thus, increase the tourist flow.The representativeness is the presence of most typical features and processes which can be used as geological standards, e.g., stratotypes, fossil assemblages or model landforms.Finally, the appearance in the literature, both the scientific and popular, means the number of publications and the rank of periodicals in which the specific papers have appeared because the descriptions of more valuable objects are usually published in renowned journals and books.
The cultural links sub-criterion provides an opportunity to evaluate the importance of the object for local culture.Some geological objects, particularly the caves, tors or springs were common cult sites used by ancient communities or were alleged the sceneries of legends explored by geomythology.The historical/archeological importance includes a variety of relationships between the object, the local community and its economic activity including the mining, industrial and technical heritage, crucial for civilizations.An example can be the application of industrial minerals in the architecture, which documents the extraction of various types of rocks as aggregates, construction or siding stones, etc., from the object or its vicinity and their distribution on local, regional or even international scale.Finally, all other relevant links of the object to local culture and economy should be specified and evaluated.These can be e.g., thematic events (as gold panning shows or "Dymarki" -a metallurgical festival held in the Holy-Cross Mts., in a pre-historic center of iron metallurgy), cultural events (space for concerts, art exhibitions and workshops, vernissages), folk fests (harvest festivals, picnics, fairs), sport competitions (races, rallies) and artistic performances.Other elements under consideration can be e.g., the cultural landscape (here understood as geological and geomorphological controls of human settling and economy) or the history of science (in terms of historical geosites, important for principal discoveries and evolution of Earth sciences).
Finally, suitable can be the valorization of additional values which enhance the rank of given object, i.e., some specific features which make it so important for science or so valuable for Earth heritage that domestic and/or international institutions are ready to extend high-rank protection rules in order to preserve the object for future generations.Such highly valuable elements can be the unique biocenoses, which occur within the object and in its vicinity due to specific geological structures, rock assemblages or geomorphology.Moreover, various forms of domestic and international nature and culture protection (biotic and abiotic nature reserves, national parks, and national historic or cultural heritage sites, UNESCO World Heritage List, European and Global Geopark Networks, UNESCO Biosphere Reserves) may raise the interest of at least some groups of tourists.Hence, the international appreciation (prestige) of an object may have both the natural and cultural aspects.
The cognitive values are particularly important for witting tourists, hobbyists and educators (Tab.2).For them high score will be crucial as such tourists are interested in gaining the knowledge, including the discovery of new fields, observation and interpretation of natural features and processes.High values will be appreciated by educators because they ensure diversity of problems to be demonstrated, interpreted and discussed during the teaching process.However, for the remaining categories of recipients, the cognitive values are only a supplement to other values.In our opinion, a significant part of them neither appreciate nor take advantage of cognitive value of geotourism objects.

Functional values
The assessment of object's functional values enables us to recognize its development, which controls both the aesthetic perception and the comfort of visitors.These values include the accessibility of the object, the quantity and quality of infrastructure, the blazing of connection roads and trails, the information available "on site" and accessible at information offices, and in the Internet.In our opinion, the distance to the object plays an important role in the valorization procedure.This element is rather difficult to quantify because it depends strongly on individual health and fitness of particular visitor but it facilitates the evaluation and is easy to score (at least theoretically).
The availability considers the possible restrictions resulted e.g., from seasonal factor and limitation of a number of visitors due to safety measures, nature protection requirements and/or climatic constrains, or even the temporary closure of an object or its parts for visits due to various reasons (e.g.biotic nature protection).The transport access evaluates how close we can get to the object by a car or public transport.Highest-scored is the distance less than 100 meters and access with at least two transport modes.The pedestrian access scores the distance to the object to be covered by walk.We suggest the boundary value of 500 meters, as suggested by average fitness of an average tourist.Despite possible relief constrains, such distance can be easily walked even by seniors and children if trail is properly maintained.A supplementary sub-criterion is the trail difficulty which reflects the difference between walking the flat, hilly and mountainous lands.We propose the three values representing the easy, moderate and difficult terrain including the necessary additional equipment (hiking boots and sticks, crash helmet, food, additional water and/or drinks) and trail quality (soil stability, slope).
The functional values of the object can be increased by the presence of other attractions, however, within a 1 kilometer radius.Hence, we consider yet another subcriterion: location of other objects: natural and cultural, and settlements with basic infrastructure (grocery, ATM, post office).
The potential hazards criterion evaluates the safety measures within the object and in its close vicinity.The visitors can be endangered due to steep, unstable or slippery slopes, unsuitable for pedestrians, steep or vertical, unstable and unprotected walls of rock exposures, slippery trail surfaces, etc.
The number and condition of tourism infrastructure directly influences comfort of visitors to the object.Scored is the presence of parking lots in close vicinity, large enough to accommodate several cars and at least one bus.Other scored elements are: picnic sites, litter bins, toilets (technical-sanitary infrastructure), food services and blazed trails.Additional amenity is availability of accommodation close to the object, i.e., within 1 kilometer radius, easy to walk even with the baggage.
For any tourist, important functional element is the blazed trail leading to the object and information available on site.Higher-scored are carefully designed, built and marked access roads or trails.Attention should be paid to indication of the main attraction, particularly if the object comprises several, more or less similar elements, e.g., a group of tors.It is valuable information especially for casual tourists who are unfamiliar with a diversity of nature and are unaware that, commonly, the appearance of an object does not correspond to its real cognitive value.
The information about the object includes access to all types of paper and electronic materials: from outdoor and indoor information panels through leaflets, folders, brochures and guides to various maps.Due to specific character of geotourism objects, scored are geoeducational materials, which describe and interpret the geological structure of an object, its age, geological history, formative processes and geological peculiarities.Appreciated is also the free collection of rocks, minerals and fossils (if allowed by regulations).Separately scored is the access to information "on site" and in the neighbourhood of the object as well as possibilities to acquire at least basic data via mobile phones or to download suitable files directly from the webpages.
The functional value of geotourism object is important for both the casual and witting tourists (Tab.2) who pay attention to comfort during the trip.The information (public or private, as the word of mouth) about the level of tourism infrastructure and services may be crucial in decision making by potential visitor.
Similarly important is the functional value for educators (Tab.2), particularly for guides who are responsible for safety of their groups.High functional values facilitate the guides and organizers to plan the visit, including the timing and the safety measures, and improves the preparation of educational materials depending on available, written or electronic information.
The functional values is helpful also for managers and owners (Tab.2) as it indicates deficiencies in development of objects otherwise attractive from visual and/or cognitive points of view.On the contrary to other recipients, these two categories take advantage of low functional scores because such opinion clearly shows what investments are necessary in particular sectors of local tourism industry.

Investing values
This criterion is addressed to owners, managers and potential investors.Two aims are assigned: (i) analysis of economic environment of the object and its vicinity in order to recognize how much is it friendly for the new investments (Tab. 1, p. 4.1-4.3)and (ii) analysis of existing tourism infrastructure (Tab. 1,) in order to indicate most urgent investments.In this criterion, we do not valuate the natural resources sensu e.g., Tisdell (2003) and do not specify the investment costs but rather point out deficiencies in tourism infrastructure, which influence attractiveness of the object and, thus, reduce the tourist flow.
The tourist flow is a measure of the number of potential visitors.It is rather difficult to estimate and is commonly determined with the Defert indicator -one of the tools indicating the progress of tourism functions (Szromek, 2012).
Another important subcriterion is the form of ownership.In our opinion, the state ownership is more favourable for investments at least because it avoids sometimes long and usually costly legal battles concerning the rights to land.Similarly important is the protection regime as it controls the scale and the types of allowed investments.
The development level of geotourism object represents the density and quality of communication routes revealing e.g., the need for construction or repair of a trail, boardwalk or paved road leading to the object.Scored is the type and range of maintenance works necessary for proper state of the object.In the case of geotourism objects, the most important maintenance works are: mowing down the meadows, cutting the shrub, pruning the branches, removal of rubble, installing protection barriers in dangerous sites, repairing the trails, etc.All these works aim to ensure the attractiveness of the object, to secure the visitors and to control their flow by construction of blazed trails or boardwalks, which prevent land devastation within or around the object.The range of maintenance works depends on many factors, e.g., vegetation type and density, weather conditions, intensity of tourist flow) and is determined annually.Separately scored is the blazing of connection roads and trails leading to the object and the current state of tourism infrastructure (i.e., parking lots, picnic sites, rain shelters, waste baskets, toilets, food services and accommodation).
The geotourism information materials criterion evaluates the availability, number and quality of information panels and written materials distributed "on site" or in close vicinity of the object: leaflets, folders, brochures, guides, books, papers, sets of slides or photographs, films, etc. addressed to a wide spectrum of visitors -from children to professionals.Another category are souvenirs related to the object, particularly rock samples, minerals specimens and fossils.Important subcriterion is the presence and quality of virtual information -first of all the webpages of objects but also the web portals of state administration, local authorities, geological, geographical and tourist organizations, etc. Scored is also availability of mobile applications.

Discussion
The proposed valorization methodology of geotourism objects is a new attempt.It emphasizes the needs of three groups of recipients: tourists, educators and investors.The selection of criteria was based upon the general level of knowledge, fields of interest and profession.Although many selected criteria appear also in other systems known from the literature, we focused on diversified demands of recipients, not only on aesthetic and cognitive values, which are usually the most important arguments when legal protection of an object is planned.
Our criteria were clustered into four categories but the final score is not a single value.Instead, we propose four values corresponding to four valorization categories: visual, cognitive, functional and investment.When assessment is completed, the recipient decides which category (or categories) is most important for his purposes.Hence, the tourist will rather prefer visual and cognitive values whereas the educator will focus on cognitive and functional values, and organizer will pay attention to investment values.
In comparison with other valorization systems, our proposal contains an extended part related to investment conditions and needs of the object and its vicinity.It is a response to some suggestions expressed in the literature (see e.g., Kowalczyk et al., 2010, p. 99-100) that the valorizations of geological and geotourism objects do not represent adequately the points of view of social and economic sciences, and that both the social and economic criteria can be applied to defined areas, e.g., communes (see valorization models after e.g., Gołembski, ed., 2002) but not to single objects.
In our opinion, two aspects play the crucial role: the investment attractiveness of the area surrounding the object and the investment needs of the object.We intentionally simplified the problem of investment attractiveness due its complicated nature (Gołembski, ed., 2002;Lizińska et.al., 2011;).Furthermore, we recognized the existing or anticipated tourist flow in the vicinity of the object (e.g., in the commune) as the main control of the usefulness of an investment.Here, the question arises what scale should be considered for tourist flow measurements: the area within an arbitrary determined radius (in kilometers) around the object or the area of commune (or county) in which the object is located?The commonly applied Defert indicator is not perfect tool as it considers only the overnight visitors staying within given area.We can calculate the indicator for e.g., particular commune but datasets collected by the Central Statistical Office of Poland do not comprise private accommodations and farm stays as well as do not count one-day visitors.Hence, the resulting figure of tourist flow is underestimated, and the indicator becomes inaccurate.Apparently, methodology of tourist flow determination around the geotourism object must be improved in order to avoid highly intuitive assessment of this important value.Another data source might have been the annual number of tickets sold in the surrounding objects (not always available) as well as data from visitor centers and tourism departments in communes, and in counties administrations (rather rarely collected).
In order to make the investment values criterion more consistent, we added only two other sub-criteria: ownership and protection regime as these issues may either downgrade the range of an investment or even cancel the whole project.
In the literature, one can find other valorization methods of investment attractiveness (e.g., Gołembski, ed., 2002;p. 25) but their applicability to geotourism objects depends on the scale and the type of particular investment.For instance, in the case of basic works within the object area (e.g., blazing and securing the connection trails, arranging the picnic sites, designing and producing the information panels), the detailed information about e.g., the length of sewage network or number of industrial employees seem to be quite irrelevant.
The second aspect, i.e., the investment needs of the object defines the fields of interest in which modernizations or entirely new projects must be undertaken, e.g., roads, trail blazers, food services, accommodation, objects safety measures or geoeducation materials.Such information is crucial for both the managers and the potential investors.Moreover, we aimed to specify rather the needs for particular investment than to compose the lists of deficiencies.For instance, the lack of paved road leading directly to the object does not mean that it must be constructed.Similarly, not all objects must have restaurants or other food services.The surplus of infrastructure around the geotourism object can be even a defect, not an advantage as it may kill the naturalness and the harmony of the landscape.
Therefore, the investment values supported by other values discussed above should help the potential investor to decide whether it is worthy to spend here money at all and, if so, to spend money for what?For the manager, the investment values provide additional information: (i) how much the object located in his region is attractive, (ii) how efficiently is it developed, (iii) what are the expectations of visitors and (iv) how to improve the attractiveness of the object in order to accelerate the tourism in the region and, consequently, to improve local economy and quality of life of the residents.

Summary
In this new proposal of assessment criteria for geotourism objects, we defined three main groups of recipients: tourists (casual, witting and hobbyists), educators (school and academic teachers, guides and organizers) and investors (owners and managers) and focused on their needs as users of the objects.These needs differ significantly due to contrasting perception of particular objects by particular recipients.
Basing on recipients groups, we defined four categories of valorization criteria: visual, cognitive, functional and investment, decisive for attractiveness of given geotourism object.The scoring procedure is run within each category and the quantitative results are presented separately for each of them.Any recipient can choose the criteria most important for his purposes.In our opinion, such separation of criteria will supply better practical information, more valuable for particular recipient.
The presented criteria reflect the set of features of given object and this is recipient who decides individually which criterion is suitable for him.Such flexible attempt simplifies the interpretation of valorization results and selection of objects worthy to visit, on the contrary to single, usually high number, which informs only generally that particular object is probably attractive , and, maybe, also properly developed.
Our criteria were selected for the needs of geotourism objects (which should generate interest of potential visitors) not for geological objects (which should rather provide high scientific/educational value).We intended to assess all the features of given object, not only its cognitive value, usually the only one considered when protection regulations are discussed and issued.
Finally, our assessment methodology concerns the needs of owners, managers and potential investors in order to better indicate the economic environment, precisely the investment conditions and needs of given geotourism object.