Metodološki koncept valorizacije geobaštine: Park prirode Blidinje – studija slučaja The methodological concept of geoheritage valorization: Blidinje Nature Park – case study

U Bosni i Hercegovini nedostaje istraživanja na području valorizacije georaznolikosti, što je rezultiralo zanemarivanjem njezinih znanstvenih vrijednosti, ali i nedovoljnim razvojem geoturizma. Cilj je ovoga rada valorizirati odabrane geomorfolokalitete Parka prirode Blidinje s obzirom na njihovu geoturističku vrijednost. Primijenjeni metodološki koncept nastao je kao rezultat analize postojećih metodoloških koncepata valorizacije georaznolikosti, pri čemu su objedinjeni kriteriji za procjenu osnovne, dodane, zaštitne i turističke vrijednosti. Jedan od ciljeva rada jest i doprinos boljem razumijevanju i primjeni metodoloških koncepata turističke valorizacije, posebice u okviru zaštićenih prirodnih područja. Tijekom istraživanja izdvojena su 44 lokaliteta, a na osnovi rezultata preliminarne procjene kreirana je lista s ukupno 23 lokaliteta koji su valorizirani, od čega se njih osam izdvaja većom ocjenom od prosječne. Rezultati ovoga istraživanja upućuju na potencijal za razvoj ponude geoturizma PP Blidinje, čiji bi temelj trebali biti najbolje ocijenjeni geomorfolokaliteti.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, there is an evident lack of research in the field of geodiversity valorization, which has resulted in the neglect of its scientific values, as well as insufficient development of geotourism. The aim of this paper is to valorize selected geomorphological sites in Blidinje Nature Park, considering their geotourism value. The applied methodological concept was created as a result of an analysis of existing methodological templates of geodiversity valorization, where the criteria for the assessment of basic, additional, conservation, and tourism value were combined. In this regard, one of the objectives of the paper is to contribute to a better understanding and application of methodological concepts of tourism valorization, especially within protected nature areas. During the research, 44 sites were singled out and, based on the results of the preliminary assessment, a list was created with a total of 23 sites that were valorized of which eight stood out with a higher than average mark. The results of this research indicate the potential for the development of the geotourism supply of Blidinje Nature Park, for which the basis should be the best-rated geomorphological sites.

Introduction
Geodiversity is a broad term that includes three subtypes of diversity in nature: geological, geomorphological, and pedological. Despite the fact that geodiversity is an inseparable part of natural diversity, i.e. individual ecosystems and the ecosphere as a whole (Buzjak, 2011), biodiversity (still) plays a dominant role in nature protection (Panizza, 2001;Reynard, 2005;Misilo, 2016;Žeger Pleše and Zwicker Kompar, 2019).
The concept of geodiversity emerged in the early 1990s in response to the fact that more attention was being paid to the biotic component (Panizza, 2001;Reynard, 2005;Misilo, 2016). Gray (2013) defined geodiversity as the natural diversity of geological (rocks, minerals, and fossils), geomorphological (relief forms and processes), pedological, and hydrological features. The short lifespan of the existence of this concept has led to the emergence of various theoretical and methodological discussions regarding geoheritage (Brilha, 2018).
Geoheritage, the most valuable part of geodiversity, refers to in situ elements of geodiversity of high scientific value -geolocations; and ex situ elements, which, although removed from their natural habitat, retain high scientific value (e.g. minerals and fossils in museum collections). Buzjak (2011) defined geoheritage as the most valuable parts of inanimate nature (geologically, geomorphologically, and pedologically important sites and areas) of exceptional scientific, educational, cultural, civilizational, and aesthetic significance that should be preserved for future generations. Nevertheless, it is clear that there are elements of geodiversity for which there is no relevant scientific data, but represent an essential resource for education, tourism, or the cultural identity of local communities. Hose (2005) defined geoconservation as dynamic preservation and maintenance of geological and geomorphological sites, together with associated collections of specimens and archival material. However, it is important to emphasize that geoconservation does not only mean the mere preservation of geodiversity (Sharples, 2002), but also the promotion of geological and geomorphological features of a given site and their sustainable use (Santos et al., 2020).
In the last few decades, a special place in geomorphological research has been given to the valorization of relief, in order to emphasize its value as part of the world's natural heritage. Geoheritage includes all relief forms worthy of protection and preservation for future generations, which is why research of geoheritage aims to better understand its features and the development of valorization management methods (Misilo, 2016). The subject of research in this paper is geodiversity of Blidinje (hereinafter NP Blidinje), as one of its natural tourism attraction base factors. Valorization itself is a rather demanding research process, preceded by geomorphological analysis and the selection of an acceptable methodological concept. In this regard, this paper aims to select and valorize the elements of geoheritage using the example of Blidinje Nature Park. Brilha (2018) highlighted three ways in which the elements of geodiversity can be used (other than the exploitation of mineral resources): scientific, educational, and tourism. Educational and scientific uses are connected due to the cooperation of educational and scientific institutions and because they imply the preparation of a new generation of (geo)scientists. Also, many elements of geodiversity can be used for the purpose of tourism and recreation development. Cocean (2011) stated that relief has a triple role in the function of tourism development, as a bearer of tourism infrastructure, a landscape element, and that the relief forms themselves represent tourist attractions. Similarly, Reynard (2008) stated that geoheritage should be considered to be the basis for the development of geotourism and contributes to the development of the overall tourism supply of a particular area.
An important research question that precedes valorization is its purpose, i.e. whether elements of geodiversity are valorized for the purpose of tourism development or protection, taking into account other factors: scientific competencies of researchers, time frame required for valorization, legislation, necessary finances, etc. (Reynard, 2009).
U zapadnom dijelu PP Blidinje nalazi se planinski masiv Vrana koji je zbog rasjedne tektonike izdužen u pravcu sjeveroistok-jugozapad, odnosno okomito na pravac pružanja vanjskih Dinarida. Njegovi najviši dijelovi izdvojeni su u hrbat Maloga (1.961 m n.v.) i Velikoga Vrana (2.020 m n.v.). Čvrsnica i Vran razdvojeni su međugorskom zavalom Dugoga polja koja je nastala okomitim rasjednim pokretima tijekom neotektonske etape razvoja. U reljefu Dugoga polja izdvajaju se tri cjeline: sjeverna, koju čini Rudo polje i Risovac, jugozapadna, koju čini Dugo polje s Blidinjim jezerom, i Hrbine, središnje karbonatno uzvišenje s velikim brojem ponikava (Misilo, 2016). and Sljeme, while the northern part consists of the plateaus Muharnica in the west and Plasa in the east. Jelinak ridge 1,805 m (stretching in a westeast direction, is isolated in the southwestern part of Čvrsnica). The southern slopes are steep and covered with a large amount of colluvial material (Misilo, 2016). Velika Čvrsnica consists of two ridges extending in the prevailing Dinaric orientation (NW-SE), and boasts the tallest peak: Pločno. In addition to Pločno (2,228 m) there are also other peaks on the ridge of Velika Čvrsnica: Ivina Kosa (2,119 m), Kapci (2,156 m), and Veliki Jelinak (2,170 m). On the northern slopes there are cirques, which gradually turn into a plateau covered with sinkholes. Mala Čvrsnica is a morphological continuation of the Velika Čvrsnica ridge separated by the Pak Valley (Milićević, 2013), the northeastern slopes of which descend towards the Diva Grabovica Canyon. Vilinac differs from the rest of Čvrsnica in terms of geological structure and relief features. Its rocky gates are particularly attractive to tourists, among which Hajdučka vrata (Hajduk Gate) stands out. Plasa is a karst plateau with an average altitude of between 1,300 and 1,400 meters, which makes it the lowest part of Čvrsnica. In the morphological sense, it is divided into Gvozd and the so-called "real" Plasa. Muharnica is a karst plateau intersected by sinkholes and bays, and its western slopes descend towards Dugo Polje.
The Vran Massif is located in the western part of NP Blidinje. It stretches in a northeast-southwest direction, i.e. perpendicular to the prevailing Dinaric orientation, due to fault tectonics. Its highest parts are separated into the Mali (1,961 m) and Veliki Vran (2,020 m) ridges. Čvrsnica and Vran are separated by Dugo Polje, which was formed by vertical fault movements during the neotectonic stage of development. In the relief of Dugo Polje, there are three main units: the northern unit consists of Rudo Polje and Risovac, the southwestern unit consists of Dugo Polje and Lake Blidinje, and the central unit consists of the plateau of Hrbina (carbonate elevation with a large number of sinkholes) (Misilo, 2016
garding the meaning of the concepts of geodiversity and geoheritage (Buzjak, 2011), applied research of geotourism potential of Veternica Cave (Buzjak, 2018), mining geoheritage in Međimurje (Mesarić and Buzjak, 2019), geodiversity of the Natura 2000 area, Sava River heritage in the area of Hruščica (Buzjak and Butorac, 2021), and the geodiversity and geoheritage of the City of Zagreb (Buzjak et al., 2021). Bočić (2011) presented the problems of Croatian underground karst geoheritage protection. Geomorphological and speleological features of Grabovača Cave Park and the surrounding area were analyzed by Buzjak et al. (2013), as well as geomorphological heritage of the Risovac/Grabovača landscape in Croatia . Žeger Pleše and Zwicker Kompar (2019) performed a historical overview of the national legislative framework related to geodiversity and geoheritage in Croatia. Miljković (2018) stated that numerous scientific and professional papers have been published in Serbia regarding the protection and development possibilities of geodiversity elements (Ilić, 2006;Novković, 2008;Mijović et al., 2010). Great strides have been made in the field of applied scientific research, through the development of new methodologies for geodiversity and geoheritage valorization. Lazarević (2008)  In geographic scientific literature around the world, there are many methods of valorization of geodiversity and geoheritage values in a given territory, which were initially mainly based on scientific values, and later also on added values, especially tourism (Grandgirard, 1999;Panizza and Piacente, 2003;Bruschi and Cendrero, 2005;Coratza and Giusti, 2005). Based on these methods, in 2005, Pralong created a new model intended to assess the tourism value of geodiversity, which is defined as the average value of a given area's scientific, cultural, aesthetic, and economic values. Po uzoru na ovoj metodološki koncept sličnu metodologiju razvili su Reynard (2005), Pereira i dr. (2007) (2007) i Pereira (2010). Isti autori navode da je već spomenuta metodologija koju je razvio Pralong (2005) najraširenija jer ju je primijenilo nekoliko različitih skupina istraživača, dok metodologiju Brilha (2016; opisuju kao koncept s jasnim kriterijima koji je pogodan za procjenu georaznolikosti i geobaštine. Based on the example of this methodological concept, similar methodologies were developed by Reynard (2005), Pereira et al. (2007), Reynard et al. (2007), Vujičić et al. (2011), and Tomić and Božić (2014. Kubálikova (2013) performed an analysis of valorization methods, taking into account their acceptability in assessing the tourism potential of geodiversity and geoheritage elements, and pointed out the interrelationships of certain methods when it comes to tourism valorization. The methods created by Coratza and Giusti (2005) and Reynard et al. (2007) were assessed as the least suitable for the valorization of tourism potential because they did not take into account all important segments. Insufficient parameters in the evaluation of scientific values were cited as a shortcoming of the method proposed by Zouros (2007), while the methods of Serrano and Gonzalez Trueba (2005) and Bruschi and Cendrero (2005) partially neglected important parameters for estimating added value, although these values were included in the methodologies. The same author stated that Pralong (2005) included all criteria in his methodology, except for scientific value, while the method of Pereira et al. (2007) should be considered the most acceptable for assessing the tourism potential of geodiversity and geoheritage; this was also confirmed by Misilo (2016). Mucivuna et al. (2019) analyzed the development of qualitative and quantitative geodiversity and geoheritage valorization methods and compared the criteria used in different studies, taking into account the large number of existing methods and the fact that it is challenging to develop a universal method of geodiversity valorization. The most commonly used and cited methods were those developed by Grandgirard (1999)

Methodology
The valorization method applied in this research is a modified method of geomorphological site inventory and valorization. A geomorphological site is a relief form to which landscape, socio-economic, cultural, or scientific value can be assigned (Panizza, 2001). It is characterized by certain geological and geomorphological features, recognizable by their shape or inherent phenomena, which arose as a result of various factors (geological, physio-chemical, biological, and anthropogenic) (Buzjak, 2011). The proposed method largely follows that of Santos et al. (2020), with some changes made and parameters of research from other authors added-as indicated in tables 1, 2, 3, and 4. The applied methodological concept used in this paper is divided into preliminary assessment, collection of data regarding geosites and geospatial database creation, and quantitative valorization.
In this stage, the first step is defining the geomorphological context of the area using geomorphological maps, whereby Coratza and Giusti (2005) emphasized the use of GIS and necessary knowledge of the geomorphological features of the study area. This phase should result in a preliminary list of sites that reflect the diversity of genetic types of relief, and are representatives of gemorphological processes and phenomena of a particular area. Preliminary assessment should be made on the basis of scientific significance, and also educational and tourism potential. In this regard, Pereira and Pereira (2010) assessed main parameters (representativeness, integrity, rarity, and degree of scientific knowledge), additional parameters (educational, environmental, cultural, and aesthetic significance), and usage parameters values (accessibility, infrastructure, visibility) on a scale of 0 (no value) to 3 (high value). Their site assessment avoided the inclusion of less important sites in the next steps, using the given parameters in order to optimize the valorization process and save time. In the next phase, only sites Nakon faze preliminarne procjene pristupa se prikupljanju detaljnih podataka o odabranim geomorfolokalitetima i njihovu opisu, odnosno analizira se prikupljena, relevantna literatura, obavljaju terenska istraživanja. Autori poput Serrano i González-Trueba (2005) predlažu kreiranje posebnih obrazaca, dok na primjer Brilha (2016) ovo ne predlaže, ali jasno definira koji podatci o lokalitetima trebaju biti prikupljeni (tip geomorfološkoga lokaliteta, lokacija, reljefni oblik, morfogenetski tip reljefa itd.) (Misilo, 2016;Reynard i dr., 2016). Na osnovi prikupljenih i analiziranih podataka kreira se geoprostorna baza.
Osnovni kriteriji (reprezentativnost i interpretacijski potencijal, očuvanost, rijetkost, stupanj znanstvene spoznaje i mogućnost promatranja) po-with the highest scores were analyzed, with the researcher defining the minimum number of points. Nevertheless, Santos et al. (2020) recommended that rare geolocations not be omitted, regardless of points, and that the presence of geosites belonging to the identified genetic types of relief in the study area should be taken into account.
After the preliminary assessment phase, detailed data on potential geomorphosites were collected. For this research, data were collected through literature analysis and field research. Authors such as Serrano and González-Trueba (2005) created special forms for this phase of research, while Brilha (2016), for example, did not suggest this, rather clearly defined which site data should be collected (type of geomorphological site, location, relief, morphogenetic type of relief, etc.) (Misilo, 2016;Reynard et al., 2016). Based on the collected and analyzed data, a geospatial database was created.
Quantitative valorization enables the identification of different values of geomorphosites. Despite the existence of different methods, a review of relevant literature found that the criteria used depended heavily on the research aim. Pralong (2005), for example, presented a method for valorizing the tourism potential of a site including scientific value as an important parameter. Bollati et al. (2012) presented a method that focused on educational values and scientific value. The same concept was applied by Coratza and Giusti (2005) in their method focused on environmental impact assessment and natural heritage protection. Scientific value has been considered by many authors (Pereira i Pereira, 2010;Brilha, 2016;Reynard i dr., 2016;Santos i dr., 2020) as a basic parameter, while others are regarded it as an additional value; this is justifiable, given that it is the main criterion for the selection and recognition of valuable elements of geodiversity and geoheritage.
Quantitative valorization of geomorphosites in the area of NP Blidinje was performed on the basis of four groups of criteria (basic, additional, conservation, and tourism values), and represents the assessment of their values for the purpose of geotourism development.
Zaštitna vrijednost (procjena rizika od degradacije) skup je kriterija kreiran po uzoru na metodu García-Ortiz i dr. (2014). Dostupnost (pristup an assessment of the geomorphological site's scientific value. Also, Mucivuna et al. (2019) considered representativeness, integrity, and rarity as the three most commonly used criteria. In the case of criteria related to the degree of scientific knowledge, a higher grade was awarded to sites that have been the subject of research papers published in international literature, rather than in national journals; this is related to the availability of literature and language. Namely, the starting point is the assumption that international journals and books are better promoted and accessible, and written in English, while domestic papers are usually written in the official language of the country in which the site is located. In this regard, this criterion has been retained because a large number of scientific papers on NP Blidinje, especially older ones, were written in one of the three official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian).
Some methods (Panizza 2001;Pralong 2005;Bollati et al. 2012) included ecological value as part of scientific value and emphasized its importance for educational and tourism purposes, and for this reason it was also included in this assessment, but as an additional value. This parameter refers to the importance and impact of a given geomorphological site on the development of a particular ecosystem (Misilo, 2016). Cultural value assesses the presence of tangible or intangible cultural elements, their connection with relief forms, and historical significance. Finally, aesthetic value was included as an additional values parameter. Aesthetic value is very subjective and difficult to quantify, but it is important for tourism. It implies the number of viewpoints, assessment of chromatic contrast (e.g. different colors of rocks), and vertical fragmentation of the area, as well as the potential of the site to attract visitors. In this regard, places that are already known to the general public have the greatest values. Criterion viewpoints refer to points less than 1 km away, from which the site can be observed (Vujičić et al., 2011). Sites visible only from close range have a lower rating. The condition of the site (a criterion defined by Santos et al. (2020) as conservation) was also taken into account, because a degraded site has lower aesthetic value and is less attractive for tourism (Tab. 2).
Dakle, prema svim navedenim kriterijima geomorfolokalitetima se dodjeljuju vrijednosti u rasponu od 0,25 do 1. Vrijednost 0 nije uzeta u obzir jer je proveden postupak preliminarne procjene te su isključeni manje važni lokaliteti. García-Ortiz et al. (2014). Availability (access to sites) is included as a criterion in assessing degradation risk, because sites that are easier to access have a higher chance of degradation (Santos et al., 2020) The last group of criteria, tourism values (Tab. 4.), is used to assess the current state of the tourism supply, i.e. services, activities and infrastructure; several authors have proposed certain criteria, but most often within economic or usage value (Pralong, 2005;Pereira et al., 2007;Reynard, 2007;Zouros, 2007). Unlike the aforementioned, Vujičić et al. (2011) defined tourism value as a special group of criteria within the GAM model; these were used for this research, with an adjustment of numerical values.
The tourism material criterion and info panels refers to the availability, number and size of panels, their integration into the ambience of the area, and the interpretive characteristics of text and graphic attachments in printed materials. The difference in the assessment of excellent (0.75) and exceptional (1) is mostly related to the presence of geomorphosites in tourist materials. In this regard, the highest rating was awarded to sites represented independently in printed materials or on info panels, and not as part of the wider area. The tourism infrastructure criterion includes parking, toilets, pedestrian and bicycle paths, rest areas, benches, waste bins, etc., and differences in assessment relate to the availability, seasonal character, and number of individual facilities. Grade 1 (exceptional) was given to sites with tourist infrastructure available to visitors throughout the year, while grade (0.75) was given to sites with a smaller number of seasonal tourist infrastructure facilities. The tourism guides criterion refers to level of relevant knowledge, knowledge of foreign languages, and interpretive skills. The highest grade (1) was awarded for the services of tourist guides specialized in a certain area, who spoke at least two foreign languages.
Thus, according to all the aforementioned criteria, geomorphological sites were assigned values ranging from 0.25 to 1. The value of 0 was not taken into account, because a preliminary assessment procedure was carried out and less important localities were excluded. 0,25 niska reprezentativnost, moguće predstaviti/objasniti studentima geoznanosti / low representativeness, possible to present/explain to students of geosciences postoji nekoliko lokaliteta, ovaj nije jedan od 3 najvažnija / there are several sites, this one is not among the 3 most important 0,5 dobar primjer genetskoga tipa reljefa ili procesa regionalnoga geomorfološkog konteksta, ali je potrebno osnovno poznavanje geomorfologije kako bi se lokalitet interpretirao / good example of a genetic type of relief or a process of regional geomorphological context, but a basic knowledge of geomorphology is required to interpret the site postoji nekoliko lokaliteta, ovaj je jedan od 3 najvažnija / there are several sites, this one is among the 3 most important 0,75 dobar primjer genetskoga tipa reljefa ili procesa regionalnoga geomorfološkog konteksta, moguće predstaviti/objasniti mladima i odraslima / good example of a genetic type of relief or process of regional geomorphological context, which can be presented/ explained to youth and adults postoji nekoliko lokaliteta, ali ovaj je najvažniji / there are several sites, but this one is the most important quantitatively analyzed. The valorization results for the selected geomorphological sites are shown in Table 5 and in Figure 2.

92
The average score of the total value of selected geomorphological sites is 13.94, and a total of eight sites were rated higher than average. A total of four localities had a higher score than 15: Dugo Polje, Blidinje Lake, Diva Grabovica Canyon, and Masna Luka (a terminal valley and moraine).
Dugo Polje represents a geomorphological site with the highest score (18.5), which is the result of high basic, additional, and tourism values. This is the largest field within NP Blidinje, which, apart from its dimensions, stands out as a representative example for presenting the basic characteristics of a karst polje, and the reconstruction of glacial move-živanjima te nakon toga kvantitativno analizirani. Rezultati valorizacije za odabrane geomorfolokalitete prikazani su u tablici 5 i na slici 2.
Blidinje Lake, despite being a hydrological object, was assessed due to the geomorphological predispositions for its formation (Misilo, 2016). It is the most important lake in this protected area, but also the largest mountain lake in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it stands out for its aesthetic value. It represents significant potential for the origin of lake interpretation. In its immediate vicinity is a church and a Stećci necropolis. It is accessible by asphalt road, but the nearest accommodation and food facilities are about 3 km away, making the tourism value lower than that of Dugo Polje (Tab. 5).