1. Introduction
In June 2000 in Lesbos (Greece), Réserve Géologique de Haute Provence (France), the Petrified Forest of Lesbos (Greece), the Cultural Park of Maestrazgo-Terruel, and Geo-Park Gerolstein/Vulkaneifel (Germany) founded the European Geopark Network (EGN). The four partners started in regional areas, and then spread to Europe after a 2-year preliminary study [1,2,3]. The “European Geopark” label was then, in 2001, first awarded, with the support of the UNESCO Earth Sciences Division, to European rural areas that accepted the bottom-up process and the criteria of the European Geoparks Charter. According to Frey [4,5], they were first anchored in the EGN Charter [6] as a model for other parts of the world, and then in the established Statutes and Guidelines of UNESCO Global Geoparks. The latter was decided on 17 November 2015 [7] by the UNESCO General Conference as the second pillar of the new International Earth Sciences and Geoparks Program (IGGP), with the “UNESCO Global Geopark” seal of approval. The engine that drives the members of this program keeps an eye on the implementation of goals, and the responsible link to the UNESCO is the “Global Geopark Network” (GGN), an association under French law based in Digne les Bains (France). The legal status of the GGN was realized in 2014. The operational headquarters and secretariat are located in Levos (Greece). The “bottom-up” approach to the future-oriented, sustainable development of rural areas, in particular with the participation of the people living there, is extraordinary compared to the “top-down” programs of the UNESCO, i.e., programs initiated by governments.
The core theme of geoparks is the use of scientific findings for the geological development of regions for education about geotourism; sustainable development; the need to protect geosites; and for cooperation between regions in projects and in education; as well as exchange, i.e., active and constructive cooperation. Through communication between different social target groups, the aim is to re-establish a bridge between people, their existence, their work, and their awareness of the Earth’s landscapes as the basis of life and an environment for humans of all ages to engage with [4,5,8,9]. The regions themselves have decided on this new development as the basis for their future. This means that the regional actors are fully integrated and actively and responsibly involved in development, which is of great importance from a long-term perspective.
Geoparks have now been established on all continents. As certified UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGps), 213 members [10] currently communicate and exchange research results and knowledge at scientific conferences, such as those of the GGN and its continental networks in Europe (EGN), Asia–Pacific (APGN), Latin America and the Caribbean (GeoLAC), in North America, and Africa (AUGGN); with the UNESCO; or at workshops and training symposia. They give an overview on the projects, activities, and achievements of GGN members. At the same time, the UNESCO commissioned an external evaluation of the UGGps in the International Geoscience and Geopark Program (IGGP) conducted in 2009–2020 by the Internal Oversight Service [11] in order to assess the efficiency of the new program. The IGGP has two pillars: International Union for Geoscience (IUGS) and the UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGps) [12]. It will be carried out repeatedly with a certain time interval. In this context, the following points are important in order to avoid making demands based on unfulfillable or inappropriate criteria, or expecting results that the UGGps will not be able or cannot fulfill for various reasons, as well as the GGN. Both will change according to societal and financial changes and also because of changes that arise due to climate change and/or disasters. The UGGP action fields will have to adapt in the short term. As shown, all these actions or focuses are interconnected with sustainability, especially because of the holistic approach of the UNESCO Global Geoparks and their link to the United Nations’ policies. These core topics around certain questions need to be explored and reflected upon in order for us to be prepared for sudden changes. One example is the topic of geo risks. Volcanic or flood catastrophes, which may lead to new political decisions and the short-term redefinition of UNESCO-certified areas for the purpose of damage limitation or the development of new solutions, require research on risks as preparatory work and to learn how to deal with possible situations. The same applies to the development of new, long-term strategies of the UNESCO or the UN and their implementation. Social issues and topics that are to be addressed for political reasons, or topics and needs that arise from current events require a lead time for their implementation for UGGps in the UNESCO Bottom-up Programme by the GGN and its members, as municipal decision makers are involved in the process. As a rule, information about finances and staff capacities are also required here. Finally, they need to safeguard against change.
Due to the rapid and successful growth of members in the GGN, it is not surprising that the emergence of geoparks, their success, their uneven geographical balance, their functioning, and their thematic focus have themselves been the subject of scientific research by universities or individual researchers over time. At the first scientific conference at which the term “Geopark” was used for the first time, with the opening of the Geo-Park Gerolstein/Volcanic Eifel (Germany) in March 1994 [13] and the publication of a scientific paper, the focus was on geotope/geosite protection, public relations work, and geotourism. At the 1998 ProGeo Meeting in Bulgaria, the new UNESCO initiatives on geosites and geoparks were presented by Margarete Patzak (a representative of the Earth Sciences Division of the UNESCO) during the second day of the session [14]. At the 31st International Geoscience Conference in 2004, Beijing (PR China), the Global Geopark Network (GGN) was officially formed [1]. The association of the GGN became a legal entity in 2014. In the meantime, due to the development of the UNESCO Global Geoparks, many fields of research have emerged in the UNESCO Global Geoparks, and thus questions and scientific topics too. Martini et al. [15] have addressed the important, core topics in the GGN in the wake of the SARS-CoV-19 pandemic.
With the support of the GGN, the creation of new geoparks has been steadily increasing, accompanied by a rise in the number of scientific publications. Due to the growth of research on geopark-related topics, especially in recent years, reviews focusing on geoparks have received increased attention, reflecting the expanding volume of research in this field. Consequently, starting in 2020, geopark-related research has been elaborated on through bibliometric analysis or systematic literature reviews, synthesizing the findings made in the field of geoparks. Since then, more reviews focused on geopark themes or only UGGps have been published [16]. In addition, different subtopics of geoparks and time periods have been studied. These criteria allowed us to assess the existing reviews and identify our potential contributions to the field.
Thus, Stoffelen [17] stresses the importance of understanding geoparks as social constructs and institutions, highlighting the need to extend research beyond the geosciences. This approach would deepen our understanding of the role of geoparks in society and their potential for sustainable development. Ignoring the social embeddedness of geoparks undermines their social value.
Furthermore, the reviews were in alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [18,19], oriented toward major environment problems [20,21] such as pollution, ref. [22] stating that it is essential to protect the environment, protect public health, and promote sustainable economic growth and social equality. It provides policy makers and communities with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions and take effective action to address the harmful effects of pollution. Geoparks face challenges in balancing tourism with environmental protection and conservation. Issues like water contamination, trace metal pollution, and the impact of infrastructural development have been highlighted in the literature. Also, sustainable development is present in the literature reviews [17,23] as one of the main objectives of geoparks. Their strategies prioritize geoconservation, education, and community involvement, demonstrating their multi-dimensional role in sustainability [24,25,26].
Moreover, ten-year bibliometric analysis [27] shows that the number of publications on UGGps’ educational initiatives is increasing, highlighting that UGGps are gaining recognition as sustainable educational territories, functioning as “outdoor classrooms”. In this study, a bibliographic review is carried out regarding the relationship between UGGps and education from 2012 to 2022 in line with the development of the UGGp programme. During this ten-year period, significant policy and framework changes have occurred within the UGGp network, directly influencing educational priorities and practices. Given their role in educating people about heritage protection, geosciences, climate change, and disaster risk reduction, UGGps require stronger institutional and organizational support to enhance their didactic impact and contribute to a sustainable future. It is stated that education is a fundamental issue in the UGGp model and is directly related to the Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030 [19,27]. Despite this development, the literature indicates that the potential of geoparks in education is not sufficiently exploited. Strengthening the educational programs within geoparks could further enhance their impact in raising awareness of sustainable practices.
On the technical side, Rosado-González [28] highlights the role of Geographic Information Systems (GISs) in the spatial management and planning of UNESCO Global Geoparks. The systematic literature review underlines the usefulness of GIS in land use analysis, satellite data processing, and geomorphological mapping. In addition, participatory mapping involving local communities is proposed as a method of aligning geopark management with societal needs, thereby enhancing the efforts towards sustainable development [29,30]. Moreover, the modern GIS techniques clearly eliminate the element of subjectivity [31].
In addition, the attractiveness of geoparks was studied using a bibliometric approach [32]. “The attractiveness is a drawing force” [33,34], and since attractions are the foundation of the tourism industry, drawing tourists in is a significant aspect of the success of any destination [35]. The current study provides a practical method and three-dimensional (spatial, temporal, and scale) analysis for new research directions in sustainable tourism, highlighting ecotourism as one of the attractions of geoparks.
These reviews (quantitative or qualitative) and their findings contribute to a more holistic understanding of geoparks. Furthermore, they are giving inside information on trends and research suggestions [22,25,26,27,32,36] and are demonstrating how the diversity of themes increases over time. Most bibliometric analyses have relied mainly on Scopus [17,23,37] and Web of Science (WoS) [16,27] as the main sources of bibliometric data. Given their important role in scientific research (according to previous review studies), these two databases remain the major data sources for scientific research and are widely used as the basis for bibliometric analyses [38] in different disciplines. The WoS subject areas span sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities, while Scopus covers life sciences, physical sciences, health sciences, and social sciences. Thus, multi-database approaches including WoS and Scopus [39,40] have often been used, as their combined coverage increases the completeness and reliability of research assessment, providing broader and more understandable scientific trends and impacts, which has been documented in many previous studies [41,42,43,44]. Wisser stated that the level of overlap of the Scopus database with WoS is “Scopus: 27 M, CWTS WoS: 22.9 M, Overlap: 17.7 M” [45]. However, the extent of content overlap between these two databases was determined to vary greatly across disciplines [46]. Despite these studies, no exhaustive multi-database (ten or more) mapping the study of scientific articles on geopark core themes has been conducted, which means that we do not have a broader overview of the scientific output, which has started to become important in the context of the rapid growth of geoparks. This is considered a gap in some studies [16,37].
Therefore, the main aim of this document is to synthesize the heterogeneous body of knowledge about geoparks in an exhaustive way by leveraging a multi-database bibliometric approach. Bibliometric analysis using bibliometric laws and the conceptual structure of the subject aims to identify the trends in the literature and possible directions for future research. In particular, this study is focused on the following research questions:
Q1: To what extent does integrating ten databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Dimensions, Nature Journals, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis, Wiley Journals, IEEE Xplore, and CABI) offer more scientific papers than WoS or Scopus?
Q2: After a quarter of a century, how broad is the scientific research geographical coverage, and what is the scientific performance of the written studies?
Q3: What is the forecast of using a polynomial regression model for future scientific publications on geoparks?
Q4: What are the core sources and the most impactful papers in the field?
Q5: What are the strategic driving themes and gaps in the research literature?
2. Materials and Methods
The methodology is based on quantitative bibliometric analysis using R [47], including its application for non-coders and the PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) [48]. It was applied to ensure the quality of the data. Using this methodology, the most used software was the R program, version 4.3.3 [49], with its Bibliometrix package [50] for analyzing and synthesizing the results, as well as for graphic representation. In addition, we used Microsoft Excel 365 and its functions and ArcGIS Pro, version 3.4.0, for the spatial distribution of written documents.
2.1. Data Sources and Eligibility Criteria
Regarding data collection, we used a multidisciplinary approach, which combines perspectives from different fields to provide well-rounded knowledge for experts from different fields working together to tackle complex challenges. Thus, ten bibliographic research databases were used for the literature search: Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, PubMed, Dimensions, Nature Journals, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis, Wiley Journals, IEEE Xplore, and CABI. The selected platforms offer compressed subject expertise and high reliability. The selection of databases was guided by their relevance, credibility, and data availability in scholarly research. The selection criteria of databases were based on relevance (does the source align with the research topic?); credibility (is the source peer-reviewed and reputable?); impact (does the source have a high citation count or influence?); interdisciplinarity (does it cover multiple related fields?); recency (is the information up-to-date?); diversity (does it include different perspectives and global research?); and data availability (does it provide access to datasets?). Thus, each database contributes unique strengths to our bibliometric analysis, ensuring a comprehensive and multidisciplinary dataset.
WoS is known as one of the most reliable [27] and selective [46] independent, global publisher databases in the world. This database, the Web of Science Core Collection, comprises multiple sub-databases, including the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), te Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI), the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), and others. In addition, it has different years of coverage. the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE): 1970–present; the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI): 1956–present; the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI): 1975–present; the Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Science (CPCI–S): 2009–present; the Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH): 2009-present; and the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI): 2005–present [51,52]. WoS and Scopus are widely recognized for their extensive coverage of high-impact journals and rigorous indexing criteria, making them essential for bibliometric studies [53]. PubMed is a key source for biomedical and life sciences literature, ensuring that relevant environmental and geoscientific health-related aspects are considered [54]. Dimensions is the most comprehensive; it provides a broader and more dynamic dataset, integrating citations, grants, patents, and policy documents, offering valuable insights beyond the traditional citation databases [55]. However, the Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed literature databases differ in their coverage, each offering well-ranked resources [56]. However, Dimensions is a database that covers many smaller journals and includes a large number of articles [57]. Further, Nature Journals, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis, IEEE Xplore, and CABI are all major academic publishing platforms that host research articles, journals, and other scholarly content across a wide range of disciplines. Nature Journals is one of the most prestigious scientific publishing platforms, best known for its flagship journal Nature, which publishes cutting-edge research in a variety of scientific disciplines [58]. By integrating these databases, we ensure a robust and interdisciplinary dataset, capturing both the core geopark literature and its broader scientific context. This approach strengthens the validity and comprehensiveness of our bibliometric analysis and provides exhaustive results.
Although each covers literature that is not available in the other ones, there is a consistent overlap between these platforms [45,59,60,61]. The selected platforms allow for users to obtain, analyze, and disseminate information in a comprehensive manner. Once the data sources had been established, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Dimensions, Nature Journals, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis, Willey Journals, IEEE Xplore, and CABI, the next step was to define eligibility criteria C1–6. At this point, we adopted a comprehensive approach to capture every study to ensure that valuable work was not overlooked, regardless of whether it had been published in a small journal or in a language other than English. Criteria C1–6 are described in Table 1.
2.2. Search Strategy and Data Retrieval
As the search strategy is important in academic research, we followed a structured and methodical systematic literature review [36,62,63,64,65,66,67,68] approach to ensure thoroughness, to minimize bias, and to help uncover the most relevant and high-quality sources. Boolean operators and database-specific syntax were employed to refine the results, enhancing the relevance of the dataset. Additionally, this process needed another filter for adjustments in search parameters to have the same level for all the databases.
The data were queried from the ten databases between 18 July and 6 August 2024. Table 2 outlines the strategies used to navigate the scientific databases and query the scientific articles related to geoparks and the numerical results obtained in each database, as well as the form of data file.
Finally, the search using advanced techniques and related articles helped us to find both foundational studies and recent developments, providing a solid and well-rounded database. A total of 10,427 documents obtained were divided among the databases as follows: 1427—WoS; 2059—Scopus; 49—PubMed; 5187—Dimensions; 3—Nature Journals; 1168—SpringerLink; 51—Wiley Journal; 51—Taylor & Francis; 20—IEEE Xplore; and 380—CABI.
2.3. Screening Process
Once the data from the ten databases had been retrieved, the selection process was performed. This dataset, with a total of 10,427 documents, was combined, and duplicated documents were eliminated in one step following the method described in “Using an Automated Merging Method of Multiple Databases in R” [32]. An extra check for duplicated documents in the resulting file was also necessary. The other 13 records were indicated as ineligible documents by the Zotero open source reference management tool, and thus retracted.
The screening phase started with a preselecting process, in which corrections, erratum, book reviews, and editorial materials were eliminated. Further, screening was carried out using a hybrid method, where automation tools were integrated within the overall study selection process, and by a human, where each report retrieved was screened. Thus, the resulting documents were screened by title and abstract in two ways. First, in an Excel file, this method was applied to the title (TI) and abstract (AB) columns for each expression of “geopark” (geopark; geoparks; geo-park; and geo-parks) using the functions provided by Microsoft Excel.
fx = IF(IFERROR(SEARCH(“ geo-park ”, “ ” & SUBSTITUTE(SUBSTITUTE
The function above was set for the title and the abstract; if either of them satisfied the condition or not, then fx = IF(OR(OR(W2 = 1, X2 = 1, Y2 = 1, Z2 = 1), 1, 0)) was assigned with 1 or 0. The final result was given by a logical decision matrix too by applying the function fx = IF(OR(AA2 = 1, AG2 = 1), 1, 0), where the scale was the Boolean logic scale 0, 1 (1 = yes; 0 = no). The value 1 indicates that the document was selected as a suitable document for further investigation, while 0 indicates a non-compliant document. (If the “Conditional Formatting” function was applied to the DOI column in the Excel file, the value 0 was not assigned a color, and the value 1 was assigned a color. Visual detection makes it easier to clarify further discrepancies.)
Then, this selection method, using the functions for decision-making process, was coupled with human verification, which showed that the accuracy of the functions applied was 99.2%.
Finally, in the whole screening process, 3057 documents were eliminated for the following reasons: R1—correction or erratum (7); R2—book review or editorial material (46); R3—document without an author or abstract (568); and R4—not appropriate to the topic (2436). The segment R4, showing the highest value, contained typical paper rejected by the Dictionary of Geotourism chapters, like the chapter “Brecia” [69] or “Geopark, specific reports” [70]. Further on, authors missing data presented an issue. (Missing metadata is quite common for Dimensions; even for established databases such as the Web of Science, this issue may appear [71]). Our team made significant effort to manually resolve the missing author information. Each document without an attributed author was carefully checked, and where we were able to identify the author, the missing data were manually filled. However, some sources—such as chapters in the Dictionary of Geology [70]—were originally published without attributed authors. Adding “Anonymous” or leaving the expression “N.A.” for the authors would distort the bibliometric results, particularly in identifying the most impactful authors. Since it is well known that multiple different authors are often grouped under anonymous names, this could lead to misleading conclusions [71].
Thus, we found a total of 3523 scientific articles, included in further analysis (Supplementary Material S1), evidencing the value of data retrieval and synthesis using PRISMA 2020 [48,72] (Figure 1).
The evidence flowchart allows you to quickly identify the essential steps and to check for the obsolescence and irrelevance of records during the data preparing process for analysis. In the PRISMA diagram, the full report allows readers to assess the appropriateness of the methods, and so the reliability of the findings. Thus, we list 3523 documents eligible for analysis focused on the geopark subject.
3. Results
The metadata were synthesized and statistically analyzed using R Program and its application Biblioshiny. To assess robustness, only 100% complete metadata and those focused on the topic were used. The data include the document type, the title, the author, affiliation, the abstract, the journal, the publication year, and the total citations. Their status was given by Biblioshiny, as well as information on what kind of analysis can or cannot be conducted.
In bibliometric analysis, the first important step was to ensure the completeness and quality of the metadata. Some studies were found to have metadata inconsistencies in the databases. Even between Scopus and the Web of Science Core Collection, we recognized some problems in the bibliometric studies. As discussed in previous research, inaccurate or missing author names existed in the metadata. We examined systematic errors in author name representation across the major bibliographic databases, including WoS, Scopus, and PubMed, which were particularly highlighted in the Springer Nature Journals [73]. Furthermore, we analyzed the completeness of the author affiliation metadata and found systematic inconsistencies, like missing or incomplete affiliation data [74,75]. Additionally, we conducted the systematic comparison of citation coverage and metadata gaps in the bibliographic databases, where it was found that WoS and Scopus under-represent the metadata from non-English sources and interdisciplinary research [76]. Moreover, the proportion of publication abstracts on the Dimensions database show 69.62% compliance [77].
These inconsistencies impact comparative bibliometric analyses. For this reason, we conducted a missing data check across the key metadata fields and completed the data until all the metadata fields necessary for analysis had 0 missing values given by Bibliometrix (Missing Counts = 0; missing % = 0.00%). This suggests that our dataset was already complete and the statuses of all the fields were rated as “Excellent” (green zone), confirming that no additional imputation or correction was necessary. Since there were no missing values, we were able to proceed directly with analysis. This high level of data integrity enhances the accuracy of subsequent analyses. Not having missing data significantly strengthens the validity of our bibliometric analysis. Moreover, with a fully complete dataset, we can ensure that our findings are robust, reliable, and highly representative among the scientific data within the core geopark research domain. In this way, we avoided the biases (systematic errors or distortions) that can affect the accuracy and reliability of results.
Synthesis subjected 3523 documents to statistical analysis in order to identify the actual scientific performance and the future of further research, the authors’ productivity, the core sources, and the conceptual structure of the studies.
3.1. Global Scientific Performance
In terms of scientific performance, the production of documents was analyzed, as well as their performance and spatial distribution worldwide.
We identified 3523 eligible documents published between 1999 and 2024, with an annual growth rate of 21% and an average age of only 5.2 years old since their publication, indicating intense concentration in the last decade. Regarding the number of articles per year, they started from 2 [78,79] in 1999 (0 in 2000) and went up to 487 in 2023. Growth was slow in the first decade, with up to 24 publications in 2009, but given the constant interest in evaluating potential geoparks, there were 136 documents in 2014 [80,81]. After 2014, the number of publications grew rapidly and intensely [82] to 180 in 2016, 315 in 2019, 439 in 2021, and 487 in 2023 (Figure 2).
Total scientific production is concentrated in 102 states, representing the affiliation countries of all the authors of the documents, and it is dominated by China; Chinese authors appear on 1866 documents. This is due to the fact that China has the most geoparks, 47 in total [83], plus its rapid growth in scientific research is widely documented [84]. It is followed by another Asian country, Indonesia (Indonesia has several national and regional open access journals, leading to higher research visibility), with 1109 documents, while the rest of the countries remain far behind, with under 502 publications in Spain. In fact, these are also some of the first countries in the world to have geoparks: China, 47; Spain, 17; Italy, 11; and Indonesia and Japan, 10 each [83]. China maintained the first place through all analyses, while countries like Indonesia, Spain, and Portugal improved intensely in the last 12 years (Figure 3). Other countries with important production are Malaysia, with 491 documents; Portugal, with 364; Brazil, with 307; South Korea, with 268; the USA, with 263; and Italy, with 257. Authors from Russia, Poland, Mexico, Japan, France, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Oman, Ecuador, Morocco, and India appear on from 101 to 250 documents. Contributors from nine countries wrote from 51 to 100 documents (Greece, Thailand, Romania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Canada, Turkey, and Vietnam), and those from twenty-six countries wrote from 11 to 50 papers (Iran, Colombia, Egypt, New Zealand, Austria, Switzerland, Ukraine, Serbia, Belgium, Ireland, Chile, Jordan, Slovenia, Argentina, Cameroon, Iceland, Bulgaria, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, Sweden, Cuba, Mongolia, Peru, Tunisia, Finland, and Norway). Most of the countries are represented by authors writing from 1 to 10 papers (45 countries).
The average citations per document per year measures the impact of the documents, and also assesses the influence of the work. Throughout the interval, the index remained around the value of 1, with a minimum of 0.2 in 2001 and a maximum of 1.8 in 2012, which considering the upward trend in the number of documents, indicates constant scientific interest in geoparks (Figure 4).
Alongside the number of documents, the number of citations of the authors’ publications shows how influential the authors were over time. The most cited authors per year were Ruban D. A., in 2018, with 16.67 total citations per year, with six scientific papers, followed by Migoń P. and Li J., in 2021, both with 12.5 citations per year, but with five and three documents, respectively. Of the 3523 eligible documents, the most impactful papers are presented in Table 3.
The most impactful paper emphasizes the importance of assessing geodiversity for effective geoconservation and site management. The main output is the proposed new evaluation methods and inventory criteria and suggested guidelines to enhance geodiversity inventories to support geoparks’ strategies [85]. Furthermore, geotourism combines geology and tourism, focusing on geological features and processes, while attracting visitors to learn about and appreciate geosites, which is vital for the UNESCO’s geoparks and complements ecotourism [24]. Moreover, geoparks enhance the protection of natural and geological heritage, while fostering geotourism and creating jobs and economic opportunities, especially in rural areas [86]. This paper examines 25 geopark strategies across various regions.
Overall, the analyzed articles approach topics related to geodiversity, geoconservation, and geotourism, highlighting the need to protect geological heritage and its importance for educational and tourism purposes. The studies emphasize the need to assess and inventory geosites in order to support effective conservation strategies. Moreover, they explore the role of geoparks as tools for sustainable economic development, especially in rural regions, by creating jobs and promoting local products. Geotourism is presented as an emerging form of tourism, combining the exploration of geological landscapes with education and recreation and an essential factor for sustainable development too. Also, the articles accentuate the importance of involving local communities in the management of geoparks and geological tourism resources and the need for innovative approaches to promoting them. In addition, the focus on the value of geoscience education in raising public awareness of environmental issues and the importance of preserving natural resources. These themes are integrated into wider contexts, such as sustainable development, educational tourism, and natural heritage protection.
3.2. Three-Year Growth Projections by Polynomial Regression Model
Regression analysis plays a critical role in understanding and modelling the relationships between variables. While linear regression is often sufficient for simple trends, many real-world problems involve non-linear patterns that cannot be adequately captured by straight-line models. Unlike linear regression, polynomial regression can fit curves, making it indispensable for non-linear trends [87]. Polynomial regression offers a powerful solution by fitting data to a polynomial equation, making it a widely adopted method in various fields due to its adaptability and interpretability. Hastie [88] noted that it bridges the gap between simple linear models and non-linear machine learning methods, offering a practical balance for many applications. According to Draper and Smith [89], polynomial regression provides a balance between model complexity and interpretability, making it suitable for datasets with curvature.
Polynomial regression models the dependent variable (y) as a function of the independent variable (x) raised to various powers. The general equation is as follows:
The notations are as follows:
β0, β1, … βn are coefficients;
n is the degree of the polynomial.
The coefficients of the polynomial are estimated using the least squares method, which minimizes the sum of squared differences between the observed and predicted values.
The degree (n) of polynomial regression is a critical factor influencing model performance. A higher degree allows for greater flexibility, but risks overfitting, where the model captures noise instead of the underlying trend. Cross-validation is often employed to select the optimal degree by splitting the dataset into training and testing subsets. According to Aiken [90], the degree should be chosen considering data complexity, and people use higher degrees just in case of complex relationships.
In the case of this study, the number of scientific papers was considered the dependent variable, while the years were the predictor variable, starting from 1999. As at the current time not all the publications for 2024 are available, we excluded the partial data for this specific year.
Analysis was carried out using R statistical system testing models with different degrees. Based on the evolution of R2 and the RMSE (Figure 5) of the tested models, a third-degree polynomial model was chosen having the highest R2 and a stable RMSE before the models started overfitting, starting from the fifth-degree polynomial.
Figure 6 illustrates the obtained results and the estimated number of publications for the upcoming three years.
The model fits well to the existing dataset, with an R2 of 0.97 and an RMSE of 23.8. The estimated number of scientific papers is 572 for the year 2024, 647 for the year 2025, and 728 for the year 2026. As a consequence of the good fit, the confidence interval calculated at the 95% level has a relatively narrow rise over time. The result shows that the scientific output could reach 5226 studies by the end of 2026.
3.3. Author Productivity According to Lotka’s Law
One of the main areas in bibliometric research is the application of bibliometric laws. “The three most commonly used laws in bibliometrics are Bradford’s Law of scattering, Lotka’s law of Scientific productivity, and Zipf’s law of word occurrences” [91]. Lotka’s law is a bibliometric principle that describes the frequency of publication by authors in a given field. Studies applying Lotka’s framework often reveal how productivity and collaborative networks influence knowledge dissemination in scientific fields such as geosciences [16,32].
Therefore, author productivity is expressed by the bibliometric Lotka’s law [92,93], where the Lotka function estimates the scientific productivity of the authors. Lotka’s law is also used in predictive bibliometric models by estimating future author productivity distributions. In this study, the law describes the frequency of publications of authors on the topic of geoparks. Using this, the number of authors who have published a certain number of articles is a fixed ratio to the number of authors publishing a single article. This assumption implies that the theoretical beta coefficient of Lotka’s law is equal to two. Using the Lotka function, it is possible to estimate the coefficient of the bibliographic collection through the similarity analysis of this empirical distribution with the theoretical one [94].
This methodology implemented Lotka’s law using a bibliometric tool available in R [47,50]. The graph below (Figure 7) is showing the results of the analysis on the geopark-based metadata extracted from the Bibliometrix app. In the figure, the y-axis shows the proportion of authors contributing to a given number of papers, while the x-axis measures productivity.
In the databases studied, a total of 7743 authors published 3523 articles. Looking at the results, it can be stated that most of the papers were produced by a small minority of authors, and so as the number of authors per paper increases, the number of papers decreases. The steep decline at the beginning of the curve reflects the highly productive authors, whereas the long tail represents the majority of authors with minimal publication output. In conclusion, the curve indicates that a minority of the authors contributed to a larger number of papers, while most of the authors contributed to a smaller number of papers. Five thousand, eight hundred, and thirty-two authors (75.3%) contributed one paper with scientific creativity. Regarding the number of documents, the most relevant author is Wu Fadong, with 37 articles published (1.1% of the total number of articles). He is followed by Ruban Dmitry A. (30 documents published, 0.9%) and nine other authors who have published between 20 and 30 documents: Migoń Piotr (26 documents); Sá Artur A. and Tian Mingzhong (25 documents each); Németh, Károly, and Zouros Nickolas (22 documents each). In total, they published 120 papers. The first two authors (0.03% of the number of authors) contributed 1.9% of the papers. The following five authors, 0.06%, supplied 3.4% of the papers.
Forty-four other authors published from 10 to 20 documents (19—Komoo Ibrahim and Megerle Heidi Elisabeth; 18—Giardino Marco; 17—Do Nascimento Marcos Antônio Leite and Halim Sharina Abdul; 16—Mansur Kátia Leite, Sinnyovsky Dimitar, Štrba Ľubomír, and Yuliawati Ayu Krishna; 15—Pál Márton; 14—De Carvalho Carlos Neto, De Castro Emanuel, and Moreira Jasmine Cardozo; 13—Brilha José, Carrión-Mero Paúl, Guida Domenico, Koźma Jacek, Woo Kyung Sik, and Zhang Xujiao; 12—Albert Gáspár, Brocx Margaret, Dowling Ross K., Guo Fusheng, Marzuki Azizan, Pijet-Migoń Edyta, Semeniuk Vic, Valdati Jairo, and Wrede Volker; 11—Ansori Chusni, Chauhan Gaurav, Cho Hyeongseong, Gutiérrez-Marco Juan Carlos, Herrera-Franco Gricelda, Li Jiangfeng, Pásková Martina, Rosado-González Emmaline Montserrat, Wang Lulin, Yashalova Natalia N., and Zhang Jianping; and 10—Da Silva Matheus Lisboa Nobre, Errami Ezzoura, Henriques Maria Helena, Kršák Branislav, and Wang Yanjie). In this case, 0.6% of the authors contributed to 568 papers, representing 16.1% of the total.
Also, 164 authors published from five to nine papers. They represent 2.1% of the number of authors and supplied 30.9% of the documents (1090 papers).
To summarize, 2.8% of the authors are highly productive, contributing to five to thirty-seven papers each, representing 50.5% of the documents.
3.4. Core Sources According to Bradford’s Law
The most relevant sources of the documents were analyzed through Bradford’s Law, describing the distribution of scientific productivity through the scientific journal literature. The distribution model was described by Samuel C. Bradford in 1934, observing that an important contribution to a scientific field tends to concentrate in a small core of journals, followed by a broader range of less-significant scientific journals on the specific field [95]. The less-significant contributions would be divided using a geometric progression pattern (1:n:n2) into other two zones, so that the number of journals in each zone would be proportional [96,97]. Through Bradford’s Law, the contributions are organized according to their significance into three zones or groups of journals representing importance in the scientific field, with the core collection as the first zone.
According to Bradford’s Law, from the 1531 sources identified, 39 were included in Zone 1. Among these, regarding the number of documents, the most relevant ten sources were Geoheritage (235 documents), Schriftenreihe Der Deutschen Gesellschaft Für Geowissenschaften (84), Geoconservation Research (81), International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks (67), Iop Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (63), Geosciences (42), Journal of the Geological Society of Korea (37), Land (34), Przeglad Geologiczny (30), and Sustainability (29 documents). Zone 2 includes 361 sources, and the rest, 1131, are framed in the third zone (Figure 8).
3.5. Conceptual Structure
This strategic map shows the conceptual structure of the author’s written studies. Strategic maps are also called thematic maps [98]. The map contains four quadrants, and each one includes a theme and uses two axes. Development density, the X-axis, indicates the significance or the centrality of the topic of this study. Relevance degree, the Y-axis, represents density, which measures the progression of the theme [99]. Analysis was conducted based on the abstracts by using the Louvain clustering algorithm [100]. Using the clustering algorithm, the themes were split into four categories (quadrants): motor themes; basic themes; niche themes; and emerging or retreating themes (Figure 9).
The motor themes, positioned in the upper-right quadrant, characterized by high-level centrality and high density, are those themes that are highly relevant and also well developed, indicating broader relevance. These are the driving themes related to the geopark topic. In the A cluster, the leading themes refer to the global network of geoparks, the UNESCO Global Geopark. Their significance is reflected in the geodiversity of geoparks; elements with outstanding scientific value; Geoheritage and its elements; and geological features and their assessment, conservation, and promotion [101,102]. Among others, sustainable development is one of the main roles of geoparks [103,104]. Recently, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have been emphasized [105,106]. The treasures of geoparks are heritage sites, which appear on the graph as heritage sites, natural heritage, cultural heritage, and world heritage [107,108]. The use of geoparks in the geopark network (the GGN), which facilitates collaboration between geoparks, is often expressed [109,110] as having an important role in the multilateral development of geoparks.
The second group is illustrated by the B cluster, where the themes have a stronger link, represented by high density, but are smaller in size and relevance than those in the first group (A cluster). The leading theme of the group is the local communities of the geopark [111,112], which is strong linked to the other cluster components. They are tourism [113], tourists [114], and destination-oriented themes encompassing tourism development, promoting communication through various tools and events, which can increase visibility and awareness [115] and promoting sustainable tourism concentrated primarily in geotourism, which support conservation [116,117] and ecotourism development [118], as well as tourism destinations with their tourist attractions, tourism activities [119,120], and cultural diversity. Using data analysis, one can find that all those themes are strong linked to community collaboration related to geopark development, which leads to regional development [121,122]. These two motors’ groups, A and B, are driving research forward.
The basic themes are basic and transversal themes with high-level centrality and low density. In this group are fundamental themes. They are indispensable in the field of geoparks, as these themes are the most widely used sub-themes of geopark. Moreover, cluster C spans all the quadrants, which means that it is fundamental and leading and indicates the importance of the topic in several research contexts. By overlapping the niche themes and emerging and retreating themes too, it demonstrates that the themes can be still further explored. The studies in this cluster indicate their relevance to the field national geopark [123,124], focusing on geopark as areas for conserving Geoheritage. Further on, it indicates the exploration of geological resources, geological relics, and geological structures [125,126] and their spatial distribution analysis for understanding resource location and planning geotourism activities. These geological features are analyzed for scientific, educational, and tourism purposes, and as resources, they are a valuable tourist resource since in geoparks, tourism activities are centered around geological features [127]. Scientific research suggests that the topics include studies aimed at a obtaining better understanding of geological resources and phenomena, as well as the scientific value presented primarily through scientific research. The other key theme of geoparks is geotourism, which models regions for sustainable development and promotes scientific education, highlighting the role of geoparks in providing educational opportunities [128,129]. All these sub-themes are supporting the development of motor themes.
In the lower-left quadrant are the emerging or retreating themes, characterized by low-level centrality and low density, where there are either underdeveloped topics, or areas losing relevance over time. The E cluster, with lower-level centrality, is situated more in the emerging areas, and it has a smaller size. It contains a group of case studies based on geographical information systems, including information system, geographic information, remote sensing, satellite images, system GIS, and digital elevation [130,131], showing a different branch/orientation from those of the other themes. Moreover, there is the D cluster, concentrated on the economic development of the area, with the local community or local residents as actors, with valuable experiences on the promotion of sustainable local economic development [132,133]. It also expresses fundamental themes in the wider contexts of natural resources and the natural environment. The geopark concept [134,135] is a subject that has long been discussed, with a particular focus in the first decade, but also re-occurring interest in later studies, as well as the geopark status sub-theme [136]. This cluster presents a lower level of centrality, but it also expresses a relevant theme that is worth exploring further.
In the niche themes quadrant, with low-level centrality and high density, are those themes that are specialized, but not central to the broader field. Cluster F contains natural disasters, e.g., earthquakes, related to enhanced erosional processes [137,138]. They represent mature, niche areas that are not connected widely with the other themes, relatively isolated in the research domain. They express potential themes for the geopark field that can be explored widely (on a larger scale, several geoparks can be involved in these topics) and deeply (a higher number of studies).
In the niche themes quadrant, the strategic map presents possible future research subjects, focusing on the global issue “natural disasters” and linked to the SDGs. Still, it presents potential interest for scholars concerning emerging or retreating themes in the sector, primarily GIS-based subtopics with the lowest level of centrality using advanced technologies for analyzing, mapping, and promoting geological resources and analyzing and assessing typologies and spatial information of the studied area.
4. Discussion
4.1. Implications of Research Findings
The data retrieved from Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, PubMed, Dimensions, Nature Journals, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis, Wiley Journals, IEEE Xplore, and CABI covered a broad range of academic papers. Since there is a huge amount of overlap between them, we reduced the total from 10,405 documents to 3523 eligible papers for this study. The mechanism for the combination and elimination of documents is based on the concept used in R, where the relation is with the previous group, i.e., the described sequence between the databases. The detailed analysis of scientific production showed that WoS accounted for 37% of the eligible articles, while Scopus accounted for 24%. Moreover, analysis showed that the first four databases, namely WoS, Scopus, PubMed, and Dimensions, summed 95% of the relevant papers.
Unlike this study, the previous ones used mainly the WoS or Scopus scientific databases. Despite research on specific topics, the combined use of the WoS, Scopus, PubMed, and Dimensions databases yielded 349 studies on the attractiveness of geoparks [32], while the geopark GIS applications analyzed [28] were found in 101 relevant studies in Dimensions, RCAAP, Redalyc, SciELO, ScienceDirect, Springer, and Web of Science.
The studies have documented that the platforms used have broadened their coverage by incorporating new journals and disciplines, which has contributed to a higher volume of research output in bibliometric analyses. These databases continuously expanded their coverage by indexing new journals over time, subject areas, and non-traditional research outputs, which contributes to the increasing volume of publications. While Web of Science and Scopus are well-documented examples of this trend (growth of both the databases) [38,46], we acknowledge that the same applies to the other databases included in our study, such as PubMed, Dimensions, and SpringerLink, among others. Consequently, the growth of publications can be partly attributed to the expansion of the bibliographic databases.
The scientific performance consists of 3523 documents published between 1999 and 2024. The evolution of the number of publications per year was slow in the first decade of the analyzed interval, but it grew with the interest in evaluating potential geoparks, and especially after the establishment of the Global Geopark Network (GGN). The yearly growth was influenced by multiple factors like the implementation of geoparks, statistically demonstrated by a reasonably positive correlation (0.6) between the documents and the created UNESCO Global Geoparks [32], and the strong collaboration of geoparks with universities in countries like China, Spain, Brazil, Italy, and Romania, facilitating the research studies. By country, scientific production is dominated by China (Chinese authors appear on 1866 documents), as shown in the analysis of scientific publications of UNESCO Global Geoparks [16]. Moreover, Indonesia (with authors of 1109 documents) and Spain (with authors of 502 documents), partially because these are some of the first countries in the world with several geoparks (China, 47; Spain, 17; Italy, 11; and Indonesia and Japan, 10 each) [83]. The average citations per document, measuring the impact of the published documents, underwent constant evolution, indicating a constant scientific interest in geoparks. The most cited authors per year were Ruban D. A. in 2018 [139,140,141] and Migoń P. [142,143] and Li J. [144,145] in 2021. Over time, the most relevant documents are the methods elaborated on for geosite and geodiversity quantitative assessment to support geoparks’ strategies [85], followed by geotourism global growth [24] and geotourism as a strategy for socio-economic development [86].
Furthermore, scientific productivity according to Lotka’s law reveals that a quarter of the authors are highly productive contributing significantly to the academic output on geoparks. They are demonstrating a deep and sustained commitment to advancing geoparks studies. This dedicated group of authors plays a critical role in advancing research and ensuring the continued development and exploration of such a specialized field. Compared to other research domains [146,147] or to a sub-theme of geopark [32], the findings indicate a relatively higher level of involvement of the authors in the geopark domain.
In addition, analyses through Bradford’s Law indicated that the most relevant sources of the documents are the 39 journals included in the core zone, representing 2,5% of the 1531 identified sources, among which the twn most relevant are Geoheritage (235 documents), Schriftenreihe Der Deutschen Gesellschaft Für Geowissenschaften (84), Geoconservation Research (81), the International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks (67), Iop Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (63), Geosciences (42), the Journal of the Geological Society of Korea (37), Land (34), Przeglad Geologiczny (30), and Sustainability (29 documents).
The strategic map developed in this study highlights the thematic structure of research on geoparks. The main drivers that move research forward are the A, B, and C clusters (Figure 9); this is in line with the geopark concept of sustainable development in a single area, with Geoheritage used for conservation, education, and the sustainable economic development of local communities [148].
4.2. Limitations of This Study and Future Research
Potential biases may arise due to limitations in the search algorithms of the selected databases. Specifically, we recognize the following sources of potential bias: search algorithm variability—the way search queries are processed varies across the databases (some use Boolean operators, while others apply natural language processing, which may affect retrieval consistency) [56]; language and publication bias (most databases prioritize English language publications, potentially overlooking important studies in other languages) [149,150]; regional bias (Web of Science and Scopus primarily; this can affect the completeness of bibliometric analyses focused on global research trends) [151]; non-English publication bias (linguistic bias can influence the visibility and citation impact of non-English research) [152]; database-specific citations (citation counts can be influenced by database coverage, as different databases track citations differently, which may affect bibliometric performance indicators) [153]; ambiguity in the author’s name (particularly affecting the authors from Asia) [154]. To mitigate these biases, we employed a multi-database approach and cross-validated the retrieved data to ensure comprehensive coverage, and also an identical level of retrieved metadata. Furthermore, to mitigate the non-English language bias, we have ensured that all the abstracts were translated into English using DeepL before processing them for analysis. However, we acknowledge that certain biases remain inevitable in bibliometric studies.
One challenge of using a multi-database approach is that different databases often have incompatible formats and standards, which makes integration difficult, both in the retrieving process and in preparing for analysis with Bibliometrix. In addition, manual work is needed because many of the databases do not automatically provide all metadata, e.g., WoS or Scopus.
Although this study involves a higher number of retrieved studies (3523) than the previous bibliometric analysis (848 is the highest number) [28], there may still be studies omitted, like studies that were presented at conferences that are not included in the ten studied scientific databases. This includes publications from conferences such as those organized by the GGN (Global Geopark Network), the EGN (European Geopark Network), and the APGN (Asia–Pacific Geopark Network), which are often not indexed in major scientific databases. The UNESCO Global Geoparks present their activities directly in local and regional magazines and social media channels, at internal conferences, and through GGN communication platforms, which are available via the GGN website as a complete volume [155] or as individual DOIs. Consequently, conference abstracts offer a valuable opportunity to establish the foundation, making them an essential component of academic progress.
The results of this study provide significant insights into the evolution of geopark research over the last 25 years, underlining the steady increase in thematic diversity. The strategic map clearly shows which elements are present (in terms of frequency and interconnection); some are drivers, while others are yet to be exploited (Figure 9). Furthermore, bibliometric analysis identifies gaps in the existing knowledge and provides strategies for future research. The bibliometric data showed an isolated theme related to natural disasters as issue or natural hazard risks reduction, which presents the lowest size in relevance (Figure 9) in the geopark literature, representing an area with a significant potential for future exploration. Moreover, the bibliometric data suggest emerging opportunities in interdisciplinary research, such as the integration of advanced technologies (e.g., GIS applications for mapping, promoting, and educating people about geological resources). In addition, under-represented themes, such as community-led governance and the socio-economic impact of geoparks, should be explored. These projections not only confirm the increasing centrality of geoparks in addressing global sustainability challenges, but also highlight the need for focused research strategies to bridge the existing gaps, including the regional disparities in scientific output. These themes highlight the interdisciplinary nature of geopark studies (geoparks are not limited to geological aspects, but encompass a wide range of disciplines) and their relevance to broader context. Aligning future studies with these research opportunities can enhance the field’s relevance and its contribution to the sustainable use of the Earth.
Regarding future research (Figure 6), this study’s findings underscore the utility of advanced statistical methods such as polynomial regression in bibliometric studies, modelling the growth of geopark-related scientific publications over time. By employing a third-degree polynomial regression model, chosen for its optimal R2 value (0.97) and stable RMSE (23.8), analysis provides a reliable forecast of publication trends until 2026. The results indicate a steady increase in publications, with the projections of 572 papers in 2024, 647 in 2025, and 728 in 2026, showcasing the growing academic interest in geoparks. This analysis thus provides a solid foundation for understanding the dynamics of academic growth in geopark studies and highlights the need for the further exploration of these patterns. Future research could build upon this by examining the broader implications of these trends, particularly how they influence policy and practice in geopark development.
In addition, we believe that incorporating content-based thematic analysis would move this study’s scope beyond the bibliometric objectives of the topic.
5. Conclusions
This study aimed to conduct a compressive literature review of geopark-related research by leveraging a multi-database bibliometric approach, integrating ten academic databases. Bibliometric analysis was carried out on the 3523 amounts of research developed over a quarter century between 1999 and 2024. Multidisciplinary methods, primarily the R-based method, were used, and to ensure reliability, the PRISMA 2000 framework was integrated.
The main key findings of bibliometric analysis are as follows:
Data integration impact—The data integration process captured over 10,000 records from various academic sources, resulting in 3523 unique documents after deduplication, enhancing analysis comprehensiveness and reducing the biases from individual databases.
Global trends—Geopark-related publications have grown exponentially, with a 21% annual growth rate, since the number of geoparks increased. According to spatial distribution, China, Indonesia, and Spain lead in research, highlighting their prominence in geopark initiatives.
Future forecast—A three-year forecast using polynomial regression predicts with high accuracy (95%) that based on trends between 1999 and 2023, scholars will produce (in the studied databases) 572 scientific publications in 2024, 647 in 2025, and 728 in 2026.
Scientific performance according to bibliometric laws—Scientific productivity according to Lotka’s law suggests that a quarter of the authors are highly productive. Furthermore, according to Bradford’s Law, the most relevant three core sources were Geoheritage, Schriftenreihe Der Deutschen Gesellschaft Für Geowissenschaften, and Geoconservation Research.
Conceptual contribution—This paper presents a strategic map of geopark research, highlighting the key themes under the umbrella of UNESCO Global Geoparks, such as geopark heritage and sustainable development, underpinning the geopark network. It identifies areas for expanding research on natural disasters, as well as GIS applications and local economic development as emerging research areas.
This study represents a methodological and conceptual milestone in global geoparks research, providing a holistic view of the field through an innovative, multiple-database approach. The findings have far-reaching implications for academia, consisting of policies and practices for new and older geoparks using the 3 W Concept (where, when, and what has been studied) and providing a practical application (tool) for the screening process (IF function). This know-how gives a valuable insight for scholars, for horizontal or vertical expansion. This study contributes useful insights for advancing geopark studies (perspectives that enhance the academic study of geoparks) and developing geoparks. Furthermore, it has been found out that the conference abstracts (e.g., GGN and EGN) which are not included in major databases offer a valuable opportunity to establish a foundation in collaboration with the geopark networks directly, making them an essential component of academic progress.
Conceptualization, J.N. and Ș.D.; methodology, J.N.; software, J.N., A.-F.N. and Z.M.-S.; validation, Ș.D., M.-L.F. and A.-F.N.; formal analysis, J.N., Ș.D., M.-L.F. and A.-F.N.; investigation, J.N.; resources, J.N., Ș.D., A.-F.N., Z.M.-S. and A.H.; data curation, A.-F.N.; writing—original draft preparation, J.N.; writing—review and editing, J.N., Ș.D., A.-F.N., Z.M.-S., M.-L.F. and A.H.; visualization, J.N., A.-F.N. and Z.M.-S.; supervision, Ș.D.; project administration, Ș.D.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
![View Image - Figure 1. Prisma 2020 flow diagram adapted for bibliometric analysis. Source: Page MJ, et al. BMJ 2021 [48].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/2/rlrrb?_a=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&_s=t%2FaOc6S0UACxZca%2F5L08%2FjFhf88%3D "View Image - Figure 1. Prisma 2020 flow diagram adapted for bibliometric analysis. Source: Page MJ, et al. BMJ 2021 [48].")
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Prisma 2020 flow diagram adapted for bibliometric analysis. Source: Page MJ, et al. BMJ 2021 [48].
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Annual scientific production and its worldwide distribution (by authors’ country of affiliation).
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Geographic distribution analysis into two time periods: (left). 1999–2011 (early research contributions) and (right). 2012–2024 (by authors’ country of affiliation).
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. Best-fitting third-degree polynomial regression curve and estimated values for 2024–2026 (3-year forecast growth).
Enlarge this image.Figure 7. Author productivity as shown through Lotka’s law. The X-axis measures productivity; the Y-axis shows the proportion of authors contributing to a given number of papers. The graphical output was generated using the Bibliometrix package in R.
Enlarge this image.Figure 9. A strategic map of geopark research. The size of the bubbles indicates the number of documents with related terms clustered in groups A, B, C, D, E, and F.
Eligibility criteria.
| Criteria | Name | Feature |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | Documents type | All types |
| C2 | Search field | title; abstract; keywords |
| C3 | Document accessibility | All (open access and non-open access) |
| C4 | Publisher data range | All years |
| C5 | Query expression main key words | geopark, geo-park |
| C6 | Language * | Any |
* Still, these databases are dominated by the English language. Therefore, we likely missed locally and regionally important papers in this research.
Platform queries. Expression of searching stream built with Advanced Search Query Builder.
| # | Database | Query Expression | File | Records |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WoS | (TI = (geopark* OR “geo-park*”)) OR (AB = (geopark* OR “geo-park*”)) OR (AK = (geopark* OR “geo-park*”)) | Plaintext | 1427 |
| 2 | Scopus | TITLE-ABS-KEY (“geopark*” OR “geo-park*”) | csv | 2059 |
| 3 | PubMed | “geopark*” [Title/Abstract] OR “geo-park*” [Title/Abstract] | Pubmed txt | 49 |
| 4 | Dimensions | “geopark” OR “geoparks” OR “geo-park” OR “geo-parks” NOT “geo” NOT “park” | Excel | 5187 |
| 5 | Nature Journals 1 | “geopark*” OR “geo-park*” that contain these terms | RIS Formatted file | 3 |
| 6 | SpringerLink 2 | “geopark*” OR “geo-park*” everywhere | csv | 1168 |
| 7 | Taylor & Francis 3 | Title: geopark* OR “geo-park*” | csv | 51 |
| 8 | Wiley Journals 4 | geopark* OR “geo-park*” in Title | Plaintext | 51 |
| 9 | IEEE Xplore | (“Document Title”:geopark* OR “Document Title”:”geo-park*”) OR (“Abstract”:geopark* OR “Abstract”:”geo-park*”) OR (“Author Keywords”:geopark* OR “Author Keywords”:”geo-park*”) | csv | 20 |
| 10 | CABI | (Title:(geopark* OR “geo-park*”) OR ab:(geopark* OR “geo-park*”) OR Keyword:(geopark* OR “geo-park*”) | csv | 380 |
| Total documents retrieved: | 10,405 | |||
1 We retrieved 54 documents containing geopark and geo-park-related terms; 3 documents presented search expression in title, abstract, or keywords. 2 We retrieved 3068 documents including all text; 1168 documents presented search expression in title, abstract, or keywords. 3 We retrieved 93 documents. We identified 23, 46, and 24 documents with search expression in title, abstract, and keywords, respectively. After excluding duplicated documents, there were 51 papers. 4 We retrieved 96 documents, with 36, 37, and 23 documents with search expression in title, abstract, and keywords, respectively. After excluding duplicated documents, there were 52 papers.
The 25 most impactful research papers.
| # | Title | Author | TC * | Journal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: a Review | Brilha J | 768 | Geoheritage |
| 2 | Geotourism’s Global Growth | Dowling R | 379 | Geoheritage |
| 3 | Geotourism and geoparks as novel strategies for socio-economic development in rural areas | Farsani N T; Coelho C; Costa C | 272 | International Journal of Tourism Research |
| 4 | Geoconservation as an Emerging Geoscience | Henriques M; Dos R R; Brilha J; Mota T | 270 | Geoheritage |
| 5 | 3G’s for Modern Geotourism | Hose T | 256 | Geoheritage |
| 6 | The nature and management of geotourism: A case study of two established iconic geotourism destinations | Newsome D; Dowling R; Leung Y | 192 | Tourism Management Perspectives |
| 7 | Geodiversity: developing the paradigm | Gray M | 191 | Proceedings of the Geologists Association |
| 8 | Quantitative Assessment of Geotopes as an Effective Tool for Geoheritage Management | Fassoulas C; Mouriki D; Dimitriou-Nikolakis P; Iliopoulos G | 190 | Geoheritage |
| 9 | The European Geoparks Network | Zouros N | 183 | Episodes |
| 10 | Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of greece case study of the lesvos island coastal geomorphosites | Zouros N | 180 | Geographica Helvetica |
| 11 | Handbook of geotourism | Dowling R; Newsome D | 164 | Edward Elgar Publishing |
| 12 | UNESCO Global Geoparks: A strategy towards global understanding and sustainability | Henriques M; Brilha J | 150 | Episodes |
| 13 | Geoparks-geological attractions: A tool for public education, recreation and sustainable economic development | Eder Fw; Patzak M | 140 | Episodes |
| 14 | Geoparks: Celebrating earth heritage, sustaining local communities | Keever P; Zouros N | 137 | Episodes |
| 15 | Research Trends in Geotourism: A Bibliometric Analysis Using the Scopus Database | Herrera-Franco G; Montalván-Burbano N; Carrión-Mero P; Apolo-Masache B; Jaya-Montalvo M | 126 | Geosciences |
| 16 | Caves: the most important geotouristic feature in the world | Cigna A A; Forti P | 124 | Tourism And Karst Areas |
| 17 | Geosite and Geomorphosite Assessment as a Tool for Geoconservation and Geotourism Purposes: a Case Study from Vizovická vrchovina Highland (Eastern Part of the Czech Republic) | Kubalíková L; Kirchner K | 118 | Geoheritage |
| 18 | Defining the Nature and Purpose of Modern Geotourism with Particular Reference to the United Kingdom and South-East Europe | Hose T; Vasiljevic D | 113 | Geoheritage |
| 19 | Our rich and varied geoconservation portfolio: The foundation for the future | Prosser C D | 107 | Proceedings of the Geologists Association e |
| 20 | Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management | Reynard E; Brilha J | 106 | Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management |
| 21 | Effective environmental interpretation at Chinese natural attractions: the need for an aesthetic approach | Xu H; Cui Q; Ballantyne R; Packer J | 105 | Journal of Sustainable Tourism |
| 22 | Rediscovering a Sense of Wonder: Geoheritage, Geotourism and Cultural Landscape Experiences | Gordon J | 102 | Geoheritage |
| 23 | Geodiversity, Geoheritage and geoconservation for society | Gray M | 98 | International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks |
| 24 | Geoheritage and geoparks | Brilha J | 92 | Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management |
| 25 | Geo-knowledge management and geoconservation via geoparks and geotourism | Farsani N; Coelho C; Costa C; Amrikazemi A | 88 | Geoheritage |
* TC = Total citation.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
References
1. Zouros, N. The European Geoparks Network—Geological Heritage Protection and Local Development. Episodes; 2004; 27, pp. 165-171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2004/v27i3/002]
2. Zouros, N.; Martini, G. Introduction to the European Geoparks Network. Proceedings of the 2nd European Geoparks Network Meeting; Lesvos, Thessaloniki, Greece, 3–7 October 2001; pp. 17-21.
3. Eder, W. The Global UNESCO Network of Geoparks. Proceedings of the First International Conference of Geoparks; Beijing, China, 27–29 June 2004; Geological Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2004; pp. 1-3.
4. Frey, M.-L. Geopark Vulkaneifel: Geopotential, Touristic Valorization and Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the 2nd European Geoparks Network Meeting; Lesvos, Thessaloniki, Greece, 3–7 October 2001; pp. 29-44.
5. Frey, M.-L. European Geoparks Network—Das Geo-Naturerbe Als Grundlage Nachhaltiger Entwicklungsansötze in Europa—Natur+Mensch; Rheinaubund: Schaffhausen, Switzerland, 2002; pp. 2-5.
6. Frey, M.-L.; Martini, G.; Zouros, N. European Geopark Charter. European Geoparks Magazine; Frey, M.-L. Cube Werbung: Daleiden, Germany, 2001; 28.
7. Statutes of the International Geoscience and Geoparks Programme—UNESCO Digital Library. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000260675 (accessed on 26 December 2024).
8. Kasig, W.; Frey, M.-L. Geological Public Relations Work in Geotope Protection—Aachener Geowiss. Beiträge, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference of the Working Group for Geotope Protection in German-Speaking Countries, Gerolstein/Vulkaneifel, Germany, 16–19 March 1994; 1st ed. Geologische Öffentlichkeitsarbeit Im Geotopschutz. Verlag Der Augustinus Buchhandlung: Aachen, Germany, 1997; Volume 21, 163p.
9. Martini, G.; Zouros, N. Geoparks. A Vision for the Future. Geosciences; 2008; 7–8, pp. 182-189. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9087.v5i0p85-90]
10. UNESCO Global Geoparks|UNESCO. Available online: https://www.unesco.org/en/iggp/geoparks/about (accessed on 27 December 2024).
11. Evaluation of the International Geoscience and Geoparks Programme—UNESCO Digital Library. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373234 (accessed on 4 February 2025).
12. Division of Internal Oversight Services|UNESCO. Available online: https://www.unesco.org/en/ios (accessed on 4 February 2025).
13. Kasig, W. Verbandsgemeinde Gerolstein. Geologische Öffentlichkeitsarbeit im Geotopschutz: 1. Rathaus-Seminar im Rahmen der 2. Jahrestagung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Geotopschutz in deutschsprachigen Ländern, Gerolstein, Vulkaneifel, Germany, 16–19. März 1994; Aachener geowissenschaftliche Beiträge; 1. Auffl.; Verl. der Augustinus-Buchh: Aachen, Germany, 1997; ISBN 978-3-86073-600-5
14. Martini, G.; Zouros, N.; Zhang, J.; Jin, X.; Komoo, I.; Border, M.; Watanabe, M.; Frey, M.-L.; Rangnes, R.; Todorov, F. PROGEO’98 Bulgaria. ProGeo News; Final Report from the Meeting; ProGeo: Oslo, Norway, 1998; 8.Available online: https://www.progeo.ngo/_files/ugd/f165b1_16d61f00fd554b53b84a4522c972537b.pdf (accessed on 26 December 2024).
15. Martini, B.G.; Zouros, N.; Zhang, J.; Jin, X.; Komoo, I.; Border, M.; Watanabe, M.; Frey, M.L.; Rangnes, K.; Van, T.T. et al. UNESCO Global Geoparks in the “World after”: A Multiplegoals Roadmap Proposal for Future Discussion. Episodes; 2022; 45, pp. 29-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2021/021002]
16. Pérez-Romero, M.E.; Álvarez-García, J.; Flores-Romero, M.B.; Jiménez-Islas, D. UNESCO Global Geoparks 22 Years after Their Creation: Analysis of Scientific Production. Land; 2023; 12, 671. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land12030671]
17. Stoffelen, A. Where Is the Community in Geoparks? A Systematic Literature Review and Call for Attention to the Societal Embedding of Geoparks. Area; 2020; 52, pp. 97-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/area.12549]
18. Dpicampaigns. Take Action for the Sustainable Development Goals; United Nations Sustainable Development. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 22 November 2024).
19. da Silva, E.M.R. The Contribution of the European UNESCO Global Geoparks for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development—A Study Based on Several Data Sources. 2020; Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/395729215.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2024).
20. Nations, U. In Proceedings of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, Sweden, 5–16 June 1972. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/stockholm1972 (accessed on 16 September 2024).
21. Nations, U. In Proceedings of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–14 June 1992. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/rio1992 (accessed on 15 September 2024).
22. Mikhailenko, A.V.; Yashalova, N.N.; Ruban, D.A. Environmental Pollution in Geopark Management: A Systematic Review of the Literary Evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health; 2022; 19, 4748. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084748]
23. Ferreira, D.R.; Valdati, J. Geoparks and Sustainable Development: Systematic Review. Geoheritage; 2023; 15, 6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00775-9]
24. Dowling, R.K. Geotourism’s Global Growth. Geoheritage; 2011; 3, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-010-0024-7]
25. Sun, Z.; Yu, Z.; Wu, X. Zhang, H.; Cheng, C. A Review of the Main Values of Geoparks and Recommendations for Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the Academic Conference of Geology Resource Management and Sustainable Development; Beijing, China, 17–18 December 2022; Aussino Academic Publishing House: Sydney, Australia, 2022; pp. 1572-1577.
26. Xu, K.; Wu, W. Geoparks and Geotourism in China: A Sustainable Approach to Geoheritage Conservation and Local Development—A Review. Land; 2022; 11, 1493. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land11091493]
27. Martínez-Martín, J.E.; Mariñoso, P.E.; Rosado-González, E.M.; Sá, A.A. UNESCO Global Geoparks vs. Education: A 10-Year Bibliometric Analysis. Geoheritage; 2023; 15, 34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-023-00802-3]
28. Rosado-González, E.M.; Lourenço, J.M.M.; Vaz, N.M.; Silva, E.; Sá, A.A. A Literature Review of Geographical Information Systems Applications in UNESCO Global Geoparks. Geoheritage; 2023; 15, 58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-023-00829-6]
29. Rosado-González, E.M.; Sá, A.A.; Palacio-Prieto, J.L. UNESCO Global Geoparks in Latin America and the Caribbean, and Their Contribution to Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Geoheritage; 2021; 13, 21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00547-x]
30. Rosado-González, E.M.; Lourenço, J.M.M.; Palacio-Prieto, J.L.; Sá, A.A. Collaborative Mapping on Sustainable Development Goals in Latin America UNESCO Global Geopark: A Methodological Discussion. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks; 2023; 11, pp. 203-220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2023.02.002]
31. Németh, B.; Németh, K.; Procter, J.N. Visitation Rate Analysis of Geoheritage Features from Earth Science Education Perspective Using Automated Landform Classification and Crowdsourcing: A Geoeducation Capacity Map of the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand. Geosciences; 2021; 11, 480. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11110480]
32. Nyulas, J.; Dezsi, Ș.; Niță, A.; Toma, R.-A.; Lazăr, A.-M. Trends and Future Directions in Analysing Attractiveness of Geoparks Using an Automated Merging Method of Multiple Databases—R-Based Bibliometric Analysis. Land; 2024; 13, 1627. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land13101627]
33. Formica, S.; Uysal, M. Destination Attractiveness Based on Supply and Demand Evaluations: An Analytical Framework. J. Travel Res.; 2006; 44, pp. 418-430. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287506286714]
34. Nyulas, J.; Dezsi, Ș.; Haidu, I.; Magyari-Sáska, Z.; Niță, A. Attractiveness Assessment Model for Evaluating an Area for a Potential Geopark—Case Study: Hațeg UNESCO Global Geopark (Romania). Land; 2024; 13, 148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land13020148]
35. Lew, A.A. A Framework of Tourist Attraction Research. Ann. Tour. Res.; 1987; 14, pp. 553-575. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(87)90071-5]
36. Koupatsiaris, A.A.; Drinia, H. Exploring Greek UNESCO Global Geoparks: A Systematic Review of Grey Literature on Greek Universities and Future Research Avenues for Sustainable Development. Geosciences; 2023; 13, 296. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13100296]
37. Herrera-Franco, G.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Jaya-Montalvo, M.; Gurumendi-Noriega, M. Worldwide Research on Geoparks through Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 1175. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13031175]
38. Zhu, J.; Liu, W. A Tale of Two Databases: The Use of Web of Science and Scopus in Academic Papers. Scientometrics; 2020; 123, pp. 321-335. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8]
39. Herrera-Franco, G.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Caicedo-Potosí, J.; Berrezueta, E. Geoheritage and Geosites: A Bibliometric Analysis and Literature Review. Geosciences; 2022; 12, 169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences12040169]
40. Németh, B.; Németh, K.; Procter, J.N. Informed Geoheritage Conservation: Determinant Analysis Based on Bibliometric and Sustainability Indicators Using Ordination Techniques. Land; 2021; 10, 539. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land10050539]
41. Herrera-Franco, G.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Mora-Frank, C.; Berrezueta, E. Bibliometric Analysis of Groundwater’s Life Cycle Assessment Research. Water; 2022; 14, 1082. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w14071082]
42. Lobo-Moreira, A.B.; Silva, A.G.D.; Carvalho, R.A.D.; Caramori, S.S. Four Decades of Natural Resources Research in Brazil: A Scientometric Analysis. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Ambient.; 2023; 58, pp. 427-436. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-94781694]
43. Janik, A.; Ryszko, A.; Szafraniec, M. Scientific Landscape of Smart and Sustainable Cities Literature: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 779. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12030779]
44. Urhan, B.; Hoştut, S.; Güdekli, İ.A.; Aydoğan, H. Climate Change and Marketing: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research from 1992 to 2022. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2023; 30, pp. 81550-81572. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26071-9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36847944]
45. Visser, M.; Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quant. Sci. Stud.; 2021; 2, pp. 20-41. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112]
46. Pranckutė, R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications; 2021; 9, 12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012]
47. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. J. Informetr.; 2017; 11, pp. 959-975. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007]
48. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E. et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ; 2021; 372, n71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33782057]
49. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2024.
50. Biblioshiny: Shiny UI for Bibliometrix Package in Bibliometrix: Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. Available online: https://rdrr.io/cran/bibliometrix/man/biblioshiny.html (accessed on 8 May 2024).
51. Yeung, A.W.K. A Revisit to the Specification of Sub-Datasets and Corresponding Coverage Timespans When Using Web of Science Core Collection. Heliyon; 2023; 9, e21527. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21527]
52. Liu, W. The Data Source of This Study Is Web of Science Core Collection? Not Enough. Scientometrics; 2019; 121, pp. 1815-1824. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03238-1]
53. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis. Scientometrics; 2016; 106, pp. 213-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5]
54. Falagas, M.E.; Pitsouni, E.I.; Malietzis, G.A.; Pappas, G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J.; 2008; 22, pp. 338-342. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF]
55. Hook, D.W.; Porter, S.J.; Herzog, C. Dimensions: Building Context for Search and Evaluation. Front. Res. Metr. Anal.; 2018; 3, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00023]
56. AlRyalat, S.A.S.; Malkawi, L.W.; Momani, S.M. Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases. JoVE J. Vis. Exp.; 2019; 152, e58494. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3791/58494]
57. Herzog, C.; Hook, D.; Konkiel, S. Dimensions: Bringing down Barriers between Scientometricians and Data. Quant. Sci. Stud.; 2020; 1, pp. 387-395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00020]
58. Tenopir, C.; King, D.W. Trends in Scientific Scholarly Journal Publishing in the United States. J. Sch. Publ.; 1997; 28, pp. 135-170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3138/JSP-028-03-135]
59. Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The Journal Coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A Comparative Analysis. Scientometrics; 2021; 126, pp. 5113-5142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5]
60. Suárez, D.; Peralta, M.J.; Piedra, Y.; Navarro, M.A. Thematic Coverage of CRIS in WoS, Scopus and Dimensions (2000–2020). Procedia Comput. Sci.; 2022; 211, pp. 170-186. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.10.189]
61. Wagner, A.B. A Practical Comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. Available online: https://surface.syr.edu/nyscilib/70/ (accessed on 4 April 2024).
62. Maharjan, A.; Maraseni, T.; Allen, B.L.; Apan, A. A Systematic Literature Review: Trends and Current State of Research on Bengal Tiger (Panthera Tigris Tigris), 2010–2022. Biodivers. Conserv.; 2024; 33, pp. 1871-1894. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-024-02856-3]
63. Quesada-Valverde, M.E.; Quesada-Román, A. Worldwide Trends in Methods and Resources Promoting Geoconservation, Geotourism, and Geoheritage. Geosciences; 2023; 13, 39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13020039]
64. Németh, B.; Németh, K. Spatial Decision-Making Support for Geoheritage Conservation in the Urban and Indigenous Environment of the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand. SP; 2023; 530, pp. 235-256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP530-2022-140]
65. Lazaro, S.A.M.; Baba, V.F. A Systematic Literature Review to Explore Sustainable Energy Development Practices in Mozambique. Clean Energy; 2023; 7, pp. 1330-1343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ce/zkad063]
66. Herrera-Franco, G.; Mata-Perelló, J.; Caicedo-Potosí, J.; Carrión-Mero, P. Vulnerability in Geosites: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability in Practice; Leal Filho, W.; Frankenberger, F.; Tortato, U. World Sustainability Series; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 395-407. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34436-7_23]
67. Duarte, A.; Braga, V.; Marques, C.; Sá, A.A. Geotourism and Territorial Development: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Geoheritage; 2020; 12, 65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00478-z]
68. Ólafsdóttir, R.; Tverijonaite, E. Geotourism: A Systematic Literature Review. Geosciences; 2018; 8, 234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8070234]
69. Chen, A.; Ng, Y.; Zhang, E.; Tian, M. Breccia. Dictionary of Geotourism; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 50-51. ISBN 978-981-13-2538-0
70. Chen, A.; Ng, Y.; Zhang, E.; Tian, M. Geopark, Specific Reports. Dictionary of Geotourism; Springer: Singapore, 2019; 204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2538-0_879]
71. Li, H.; Zhang, X. Dr. Anonymous Is Still There: A Revisit of Legal Scholarly Publishing. Scientometrics; 2024; 129, pp. 681-692. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04912-1]
72. Beller, E.M.; Glasziou, P.P.; Altman, D.G.; Hopewell, S.; Bastian, H.; Chalmers, I.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Lasserson, T.; Tovey, D. for the PRISMA for Abstracts Group. PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts. PLoS Med.; 2013; 10, e1001419. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419]
73. Teixeira Da Silva, J.A. The Inaccurate Representation of an Author’s Publishing Name, and Impact on Reference Accuracy. Scientometrics; 2024; 129, pp. 2923-2932. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05029-9]
74. Maddi, A.; Baudoin, L. The Quality of the Web of Science Data: A Longitudinal Study on the Completeness of Authors-Addresses Links. Scientometrics; 2022; 127, pp. 6279-6292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04525-0]
75. Savchenko, I.; Kosyakov, D. Lost in Affiliation: Apatride Publications in International Databases. Scientometrics; 2022; 127, pp. 3471-3487. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04392-9]
76. Martín-Martín, A.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A Systematic Comparison of Citations in 252 Subject Categories. J. Informetr.; 2018; 12, pp. 1160-1177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002]
77. Delgado-Quirós, L.; Ortega, J.L. Completeness Degree of Publication Metadata in Eight Free-Access Scholarly Databases. Quant. Sci. Stud.; 2024; 5, pp. 31-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00286]
78. Eder, W. “UNESCO GEOPARKS”—A New Initiative for Protection and Sustainable Development of the Earth’s Heritage. NEUES Jahrb. Geol. Palaontologie-Abh.; 1999; 214, pp. 353-358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1127/njgpa/214/1999/353]
79. Prosser, C.D.; King, A.H. The Conservation of Historically Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites in England. Geol. Curator; 1999; 7, pp. 27-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.55468/GC418]
80. Farsani, N.T.; Coelho, C.O.A.; Costa, C.M.M. Analysis of Network Activities in Geoparks as Geotourism Destinations. Int. J. Tour. Res.; 2014; 16, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1879]
81. Keever, P.J.M.; Zouros, N.; Patzak, M.; Weber, J. The UNESCO Global Network of National Geoparks. Geotourism: The Tourism of Geology and Landscape; Newsome, D.; Dowling, R.K. Goodfellow Publishers: Oxford, UK, 2010; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.23912/978-1-906884-09-3-1071]
82. Du, Y.; Girault, Y. A Genealogy of UNESCO Global Geopark: Emergence and Evolution. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks; 2018; 6, pp. 1-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17149/ijgp.j.issn.2577.4441.2018.02.001]
83. List of UNESCO Global Geoparks and Regional Networks|UNESCO. Available online: https://www.unesco.org/en/iggp/geoparks (accessed on 5 February 2025).
84. Zhu, J.; Liu, W. Comparing like with like: China Ranks First in SCI-Indexed Research Articles since 2018. Scientometrics; 2020; 124, pp. 1691-1700. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03525-2]
85. Brilha, J. Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: A Review. Geoheritage; 2016; 8, pp. 119-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3]
86. Farsani, N.T.; Coelho, C.; Costa, C. Geotourism and Geoparks as Novel Strategies for Socio-Economic Development in Rural Areas. Int. J. Tour. Res.; 2011; 13, pp. 68-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.800]
87. Montgomery, D.C.; Peck, E.A.; Vining, G.G. Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; ISBN 978-1-119-57875-8
88. Hastie, T.; Friedman, J.; Tibshirani, R. The Elements of Statistical Learning; Springer Series in Statistics; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2001; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21606-5]
89. Draper, N.R.; Smith, H. Applied Regression Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998; ISBN 978-0-471-17082-2
90. Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G.; Reno, R.R. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1991; ISBN 978-0-7619-0712-1
91. Chaturbhuj, S.B.; Sadik Batcha, M. Application of Lotka’s Law to the Research Productivity in the Field of Thermodynamics During 2015–2019. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4523/ (accessed on 19 June 2024).
92. Lotka, A.J. The Frequency Distribution of Scientific Productivity. J. Wash. Acad. Sci.; 1926; 16, pp. 317-324.
93. Amsaveni, N.; Batcha, M.S. Applicability of Lotka’s Law in the Journal of Advances in Geosciences Publications: A Scientometrics Study. Int. J. Inf. Dissem. Technol.; 2019; 9, 70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5958/2249-5576.2019.00014.1]
94. Friedman, A. The Power of Lotka’s Law Through the Eyes of R. 2015; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280156919_The_Power_of_Lotka%27s_Law_Through_the_Eyes_of_R (accessed on 19 June 2024).
95. Bradford, S.C. Sources of Information on Scientific Subjects. Eng. Illus. Wkly. J.; 1934; 137, pp. 85-86.
96. Brookes, B.C. Theory of the Bradford Law. J. Doc.; 1977; 33, pp. 180-209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb026641]
97. Gayan, M.A.; Singh, S. Application of Bradford’s Law of Scattering and Obsolescence in the Literature of Chemistry: A Study Based on Doctoral Theses. Libr. Philos. Pract. E-J.; 2019; 3712, Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/3712 (accessed on 28 November 2024).
98. Soesanto, H.; Maarif, M.S.; Anwar, S.; Yurianto, Y. Current Trend, Future Direction, and Enablersof e-Waste Management: Bibliometric Analysisand Literature Review. Pol. J. Environ. Stud.; 2023; 32, pp. 3455-3465. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/163607]
99. Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. Science Mapping Software Tools: Review, Analysis, and Cooperative Study among Tools. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol.; 2011; 62, pp. 1382-1402. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525]
100. Zhang, J.; Fei, J.; Song, X.; Feng, J. An Improved Louvain Algorithm for Community Detection. Math. Probl. Eng.; 2021; 2021, 1485592. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/1485592]
101. Frey, M.-L.; Schmitz, P.; Weber, J. Messel Pit UNESCO World Heritage Fossil Site in the UGGp Bergstraße-Odenwald, Germany– Challenges of Geoscience Popularization in a Complex Geoheritage Context. Geoconserv. Res.; 2021; 4, pp. 524-546. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30486/GCR.2022.1947342.1100]
102. Sheibani, V.Y.; Zamanian, E. Geodiversity and Geological Treasure of Tabas UNESCO Global Geopark for Geotourism Development, New UGGp from Iran. Geoheritage; 2023; 15, 106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-023-00873-2]
103. Frey, M.-L. Geotourism—Examining Tools for Sustainable Development. Geosciences; 2021; 11, 30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11010030]
104. Jia, Z.; Wu, F.; Hou, D. Geodiversity, Geotourism, Geoconservation, and Sustainable Development in Longyan Aspiring Geopark (China). Geoheritage; 2022; 15, 11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00784-8]
105. Khasanah, U.; Martono, D.N.; Supriatna, S. Role and Effectiveness of the Ciletuh-Palabuhanratu Geopark in Acceleration Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals Pillars of Economic Development. J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA; 2023; 9, pp. 8034-8039. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i10.5403]
106. Bollati, I.M.; Masseroli, A.; Al Kindi, M.; Cezar, L.; Chrobak-Žuffová, A.; Dongre, A.; Fassoulas, C.; Fazio, E.; Garcia-Rodríguez, M.; Knight, J. et al. The IGCP 714 Project “3GEO—Geoclimbing & Geotrekking in Geoparks”—Selection of Geodiversity Sites Equipped for Climbing for Combining Outdoor and Multimedia Activities. Geoheritage; 2024; 16, 79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-024-00976-4]
107. Guerini, M.; Khoso, R.B.; Negri, A.; Mantovani, A.; Storta, E. Integrating Cultural Sites into the Sesia Val Grande UNESCO Global Geopark (North-West Italy): Methodologies for Monitoring and Enhancing Cultural Heritage. Heritage; 2023; 6, pp. 6132-6152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/heritage6090322]
108. Gray, M. Some Observations and Reflections on Geodiversity, the Oft-Forgotten Half of Nature. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ.; 2023; 530, pp. 13-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP530-2022-100]
109. Custódio, S.C.; Henriques, M.H.; Rosado-González, E.M.; Vaz, N.M.; Sá, A.A. Selected Geoheritage Resources of “Atlantic Geopark” Project (Central Portugal). Geosciences; 2024; 14, 81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences14030081]
110. Tavares, G.N.D.; Boggiani, P.C.; de Moraes Leme, J.; Trindade, R.I. The Inventory of the Geological and Paleontological Sites in the Area of the Aspirant Geopark Bodoquena-Pantanal in Brazil. Geoheritage; 2020; 12, 28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00437-8]
111. Wang, J.; Zouros, N. Educational Activities in Fangshan UNESCO Global Geopark and Lesvos Island UNESCO Global Geopark. Geoheritage; 2021; 13, 51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00570-y]
112. Permanadewi, S.; Samodra, H.; Irzon, R.; Prabowo, A.; Ansori, C. Quantitative Assessment for Geosites of the Ijen Geopark in Banyuwangi Regency, East Java, Indonesia. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks; 2024; 12, pp. 63-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2024.01.003]
113. Gałaś, A.; Haghighat-Khah, R.E.; Cuber, P.; Benavente, M.; Gorfinkiel, D.; Gałaś, S. The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Halting Sustainable Development in the Colca y Volcanes de Andagua UNESCO Global Geopark in Peru—Prospects and Future. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 4043. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14074043]
114. Luan, F.; Wang, F. Tourists’ Perceptions of Popular Science Education in Tianshan Tianchi National Geopark in Xinjiang. Geoheritage; 2023; 15, 120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-023-00886-x]
115. Muhtar, N.; Akbar, M.; Sultan, M.I.; Gunawan, D. Peran Komunikasi Dalam Promosi Geopark Maros-Pangkep Sebagai Warisan Dunia UNESCO. J. Penelit. Inov.; 2024; 4, pp. 881-888. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.54082/jupin.438]
116. Lewis, I.D. Evolution of Geotourism in Australia from Kanawinka Global Geopark and Australian National Landscapes to GeoRegions and Geotrails: A Review and Lessons Learned. Land; 2023; 12, 1190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land12061190]
117. Wang, M.; Tan, K.; Li, Y.; Xie, Y.; Xiao, W.; Xu, Y.; Tian, Y. Study on the Sustainable Development of Popular Science Tourism Based on the SWOT Analysis for the Xiangxi UNESCO Global Geopark. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15010122]
118. Abdul Shakur, E.S.; Sa’at, N.H.; Alwi, I.; Omar, K. Eco-Tourism and Sustainable Development: Are Community Ready?. Community Dev.; 2023; 54, pp. 701-728. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2023.2202410]
119. Hutagalung, P.M.; Nasution, Z.; Ginting, N. The Role of Geological Relationship and Brand of Geoproduct on Regional Development in Samosir Island of Geopark Caldera Toba with Mediating Method. Geoj. Tour. Geosites; 2024; 52, pp. 212-220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30892/gtg.52120-1197]
120. Tang, Y.; Liang, Y. Staged Authenticity and Nostalgia of Mining Tourists in the Jiayang Mining Geo-Park of China. J. Tour. Cult. Chang.; 2023; 21, pp. 169-187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2022.2090259]
121. Nuh, M.; Mawardi, M.K.; Parmawati, R.; Abdillah, Y. Collaborative Governance Model In Sustainable Village Tourism Development (Case Study: Kemiren Village Tourism In Ijen Crater Geopark Cultural Site). Qual. Access Success; 2024; 25, pp. 310-318. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47750/QAS/25.199.34]
122. Gutak, J.M.; Ruban, D.A.; Ermolaev, V.A. Devonian Geoheritage of Siberia: A Case of the Northwestern Kemerovo Region of Russia. Heliyon; 2023; 9, e13288. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13288]
123. Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Han, Z.; Han, J.; Pang, X.; Song, W.; Wang, Q. From Geoparks to Regional Sustainable Development: Geoheritage Protection and Geotourism Promotion of Geoparks in Hebei Province, China. Geoheritage; 2023; 15, 102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-023-00870-5]
124. Cunningham, D. The Case for a Globally Recognized Geopark in the NE Gobi Altai Region of Mongolia. Geoheritage; 2021; 13, 105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00641-0]
125. Lü, Y.; Zhang, M.; Sun, P.; Leng, Y.; Dong, Y.; Liu, X.; Ji, Z.; Liang, C. Geological Relics Characteristics and Preliminary Idea for Constructing World Geo-Park in Yan’an. Northwest Geol.; 2019; 52, pp. 27-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.19751/j.cnki.61-1149/p.2019.02.003]
126. Zhen, S.; Gao, W. Geological Tourist Route Planning of Henan Province Based on Geological Relics Zoning. Geol. Ecol. Landsc.; 2017; 1, pp. 66-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2017.1301063]
127. González Barahona, P.; Barrena González, J.; Lagar Timón, D.; Lozano Parra, J.; Pulido Fernández, M. Identification of Tourist Resources for the Design of Thematic Routes in the Natural Corridor of the Armorican Arch of Cáceres (Extremadura, SW Spain). Int. J. Geoheritage Parks; 2021; 9, pp. 69-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2020.12.001]
128. Megerle, H.E. Geotourismus—Inwertsetzung des Geo-Erbes. Geotourismus; RaumFragen: Stadt—Region—Landschaft Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2024; pp. 61-115. ISBN 978-3-658-42199-1
129. Mastika, I.K.; Harsono, S.S.; Khristianto, W.; Oktawirani, P.; Hutama, P.S. Creative Strategies of Local Resources in Managing Geotourism in the Ijen Geopark Bondowoso, East Java, Indonesia. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks; 2023; 11, pp. 149-168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2023.01.002]
130. Wang, J.; Liu, S.; Li, X.; Xiao, Y.; Scheuer, B.; Zhao, P. Analysis on Temporal and Spatial Evolution of UNESCO Global Geoparks and Impact Factors. Geoheritage; 2022; 14, 105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00740-6]
131. Pham, T.T.; Dang, K.B.; Giang, T.L.; Hoang, T.H.N.; Le, V.H.; Ha, H.N. Deep Learning Models for Monitoring Landscape Changes in a UNESCO Global Geopark. J. Environ. Manag.; 2024; 354, 120497. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120497]
132. Deng, L.; Zou, F. Orogenic Belt Landforms of Huanggang Dabieshan UNESCO Global Geopark (China) from Geoheritage, Geoconservation, Geotourism, and Sustainable Development Perspectives. Environ. Earth Sci.; 2021; 80, 662. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-09942-7]
133. Carvalho, I.S.; Raminelli, R.; Henriques, M.H.P.; Soares, R.C.; de Andrade, J.A.F.G.; de Freitas, F.I. The Araripe Geopark (NE Brazil): Discovering the Earth’s Past as a Driver of Economic and Social Transformation. Geoheritage; 2021; 13, 60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00586-4]
134. Briggs, A.; Dowling, R.; Newsome, D. Geoparks—Learnings from Australia. J. Tour. Futur.; 2023; 9, pp. 351-365. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JTF-11-2020-0204]
135. Fepuleai, A.; Németh, K.; Muliaina, T. Geopark Impact for the Resilience of Communities in Samoa, SW Pacific. Geoheritage; 2021; 13, 50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00578-4]
136. Muslim, D.; Zakaria, Z.; Rachmat, H.; Iqbal, P.; Muslim, G.O.; Sadewo, M.S.; Muslim, F.N. Identification of Geodiversity and Geosite Assessment around Geohazard Area of Suoh Aspiring Geopark in West Lampung, Sumatra, Indonesia. Resources; 2022; 11, 104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/resources11110104]
137. Ar-rouf, F.B.; Masitoh, F. Earthquake Hazard Analysis in Ciletuh Pelabuhan Ratu Geopark Area, West Java. Jambura Geosci. Rev.; 2023; 5, pp. 42-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34312/jgeosrev.v5i1.14698]
138. Al-Halbouni, D.; Alrabayah, O.; Rüpke, L. A Vision on a UNESCO Global Geopark at the Southeastern Dead Sea in Jordan—Geosites and Conceptual Approach. Land; 2022; 11, 549. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land11040549]
139. Ruban, D. Karst as Important Resource for Geopark-Based Tourism: Current State and Biases. Resources; 2018; 7, 82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/resources7040082]
140. Sallam, E.S.; Ponedelnik, A.A.; Tiess, G.; Yashalova, N.N.; Ruban, D.A. The Geological Heritage of the Kurkur–Dungul Area in Southern Egypt. J. Afr. Earth Sci.; 2018; 137, pp. 103-115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2017.10.012]
141. Sallam, E.S.; Fathy, E.E.; Ruban, D.A.; Ponedelnik, A.A.; Yashalova, N.N. Geological Heritage Diversity in the Faiyum Oasis (Egypt): A Comprehensive Assessment. J. Afr. Earth Sci.; 2018; 140, pp. 212-224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2018.01.010]
142. Migoń, P. Granite Landscapes, Geodiversity and Geoheritage-Global Context. Heritage; 2021; 4, pp. 198-219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/heritage4010012]
143. Pijet-Migoń, E.; Migoń, P. Linking Wine Culture and Geoheritage—Missing Opportunities at European UNESCO World Heritage Sites and in UNESCO Global Geoparks? A Survey of Web-Based Resources. Geoheritage; 2021; 13, 71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00594-4]
144. Zhou, T.; Chen, W.; Li, J.; Liang, J. Spatial relationship between human activities and habitat quality in Shennongjia Forest Region from 1995 to 2015. Shengtai Xuebao; 2021; 41, pp. 6134-6145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5846/stxb202006131538]
145. Zheng, L.; Wang, Y.; Li, J. How to Achieve the Ecological Sustainability Goal of UNESCO Global Geoparks? A Multi-Scenario Simulation and Ecological Assessment Approach Using Dabieshan UGGp, China as a Case Study. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 329, 129779. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129779]
146. Bonilla-Chaves, E.F.; Palos-Sánchez, P.R. Exploring the Evolution of Human Resource Analytics: A Bibliometric Study. Behav. Sci.; 2023; 13, 244. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bs13030244] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36975268]
147. Ghorbani, B.D. Bibliometrix: Science Mapping Analysis with R Biblioshiny Based on Web of Science in Applied Linguistics. A Scientometrics Research Perspective in Applied Linguistics; Meihami, H.; Esfandiari, R. Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 197-234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51726-6_8]
148. Kaur, G. Geodiversity, Geoheritage and Geoconservation: A Global Perspective. J. Geol. Soc. INDIA; 2022; 98, pp. 1221-1228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12594-022-2156-1]
149. Vera-Baceta, M.-A.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K. Web of Science and Scopus language coverage. Scientometrics; 2019; 121, pp. 1803-1813. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03264-z]
150. Tennant, J. Web of Science and Scopus Are Not Global Databases of Knowledge. Eur. Sci. Ed.; 2020; 46, e51987. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51987]
151. Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z.; Miguel, S.; de Moya-Anegón, F. What Factors Affect the Visibility of Argentinean Publications in Humanities and Social Sciences in Scopus? Some Evidence beyond the Geographic Realm of Research. Scientometrics; 2015; 102, pp. 789-810. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1414-4]
152. Liu, F.; Hu, G.; Tang, L.; Liu, W. The Penalty of Containing More Non-English Articles. Scientometrics; 2018; 114, pp. 359-366. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2577-6]
153. Sangwal, K. Some Citation-Related Characteristics of Scientific Journals Published in Individual Countries. Scientometrics; 2013; 97, pp. 719-741. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1053-1]
154. Xu, S.B.; Hu, G. Rethinking the Author Name Ambiguity Problem and beyond: The Case of the Chinese Context. Account. Res.; 2024; pp. 1-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2349115] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38704656]
155. Conference Proceedings|Global Geoparks Network. Available online: https://www.globalgeoparksnetwork.org/publications/conference-proceedings (accessed on 29 December 2024).
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Dezsi, Ștefan 2
; Adrian-Florin Niță 3
; Magyari-Sáska, Zsolt 3
; Frey, Marie-Luise 4
; Horváth, Alpár 3
1 Faculty of Geography, Doctoral School of Geography, Babeș-Bolyai University, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania;
2 Department of Human Geography and Tourism, Faculty of Geography, Babeș-Bolyai University, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; Center for Research on Settlements and Urbanism, Babeș-Bolyai University, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
3 Faculty of Geography, Gheorgheni University Extension, Babeș-Bolyai University, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania;
4 Global Geoparks Network Executive Board and Terra Outreach, Ooserstr. 21, Gerolstein/Vulkaneifel, 54568 Daun, Germany;