Journal of Mountain Science

GeomorphologicalFor Review mapping for the valorizationOnly of the Alpine environment. A methodological proposal tested in the Loana Valley (Sesia Val Grande Geopark, Western Italian )

Journal: Journal of Mountain Science Manuscript ID 17-4427.R1 Manuscript Type: Original Article Geomorphological mapping, Geomorphological Boxes, Mountain geomorphosites, Geotrails, GIS - Geographical Information Keywords: Systems, Loana Valley (Sesia Val Grande Geopark, Western Italian Alps) Speciality: Geomorphology, GIS analysis, Natural Resources Management

https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 1 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 Geomorphological mapping for the valorization of the Alpine environment. A methodological proposal tested in 4 the Loana Valley (Sesia Val Grande Geopark, Western Italian Alps)

5 6 7 Abstract: 8 Geomorphological mapping plays a key role in landscape representation: it is the starting point for many 9 applications and for the realization of thematic maps, such as hazard and risk maps, geoheritage and geotourism maps. 10 Traditional geomorphological maps are useful for scientific purposes but they need to be simplified for different aims as 11 management and education. In tourism valorization, mapping of geomorphological resources (i.e., geosites, and 12 geomorphosites), and of geomorphic evidences of past hazardous geomorphological events, is important for increasing knowledge about landscape evolution and active processes, potentially involving geomorphosites and hiking trails. 13 Active geomorphosites, as those widespread in mountain regions, testify the high dynamicity of geomorphic processes 14 and their link with climatic conditions. In the present paper, we propose a method to produce and to update cartographic 15 supports (Geomorphological Boxes) realized starting from a traditional geomorphological survey and mapping. The 16 geomorphological boxes are geomorphological representation of single, composed or complex landforms drawn on 17 satellite images, using the official Italian geomorphological legend (ISPRA symbols). Such cartographic representation 18 is also addressed to the analysis (identification, evaluation and selection) of Potential Geomorphosites and Geotrails. 19 The method has been tested For in the upper Review portion of the Loana Valley,Only located within the borders of the Sesia Val 20 Grande Geopark, recognized by UNESCO in 2013 (Western Italian Alps.). The area has a good potential for geotourism 21 and for educational purposes. We identified 15 Potential Geomorphosites located along 2 Geotrails; they were ranked 22 according to specific attributes also in relation with a reference geomorphosite located in the Loana hydrographic basin and inserted in official national and regional databases of geosites (ISPRA; Regione Piemonte). Finally, the ranking of 23 Potential Geomorphosites allowed to select the most valuable ones for valorization or geoconservation purposes. In this 24 framework, examples of Geomorphological Boxes are proposed as supports to geo-risk education practices. 25 26 Keywords: Geomorphological mapping; Geomorphological Boxes; Mountain geomorphosites; Geotrails; GIS - 27 Geographical Information Systems; Loana Valley (Sesia Val Grande Geopark, Western Italian Alps) 28 29 30 31 Introduction

32 European Alps are among the key sites for geoheritage (sensu Osborne, 2000). The high level of geodiversity (Gray, 33 2013), due to the complex of geological processes and to the variety of geomorphological features, including several 34 geosites (Wimbledon, 1996) and geomorphosites (Panizza, 2001), which constitute the local and the national 35 geoheritage, represent meaningful situations to approach concepts as geo-valorization, management and conservation. 36 These latter are fundamental in the framework of sustainable tourism, considering the sensitivity of mountain areas to 37 natural changes and Man-induced impacts (Giardino and Mortara 1999; Beniston, 2003). Several active and evolving 38 passive geomorphosites (sensu Pelfini and Bollati 2014) can be found in the mountain territories. Some of them are 39 characterized by a fast changing rate, in response to climate change (e.g., glacial forelands). In fact time-scale of 40 geomorphic processes is very variable, also according to the substrates affected. Moreover, geosites may be dismantled in short or long times under the action of the same processes responsible for their genesis or by different ones (Giardino 41 and Mortara 1999; Pelfini and Bollati 2014). 42 Geoconservation strategies have recently undergone a growing interest in the framework of the scientific researchers 43 on Earth Sciences and of the UNESCO Commitee for the World Heritage protection (UNESCO 2015). Nevertheless, 44 management policies and funding systems do not seem to follow the same trend (Brihla 2016a). Hence, researches on 45 methodologies useful to individuate geo-resources, such as geosites and geomorphosites, to be conserved, are becoming 46 a real need (e.g., Reynard et al. 2016a), as well as the strategies to promote them in a sustainable way (Giardino and 47 Mortara 1999). Geoheritage promotion and valorization is often perceived through the creation of geotrails (e.g., 48 Burlando et al. 2011; Wrede et al. 2012) and naturalistic and thematic trails (e.g., glaciological trails) (Martin 2010; 49 Bollati et al. 2013). Geotrails are usually addressed to a general public (e.g., tourists, scholars) for exploring geoheritage, raising awareness on the possible threats caused both by human and natural factors, and for unconventional 50 teaching and field activities (e.g., Bollati et al. 2011; Garavaglia and Pelfini 2011; Bollati et al. 2016; Pelfini et al. 51 2016). 52 Changing landforms are considered very significant components of geoheritage (e.g., Pelfini and Bollati 2014; 53 UNESCO 2015) and testify the high dynamicity of geomorphic processes, especially when climate related, as in the 54 mountain environment (Beniston 2003; Reynard and Coratza 2016). Nevertheless, the high dynamicity of the mountain 55 environment and its fast changing rate make necessary a deep knowledge of surface processes and landforms evolution. 56 Active slope processes, as for example debris flows or avalanches, commonly affect the high mountain hiking trails 57 network and can indeed represent geo-hazards. Moreover tourists vulnerability is linked both to the knowledge of 58 environmental characteristics (slope processes, meteorological and geomorphic events), to slope morphology and hiking 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 2 of 42

1 2 3 trails features (Bollati et al. 2013). As a consequence also such components need to be considered to better analyze vulnerability for risk management (Pelfini et al. 2009; Komac et al. 2011; Brandolini et al. 2006; 2012; Smith et al. 4 2009; Raso et al. 2016). 5 High-frequented hiking trails allow investigating the tourist perception of landscape changes, as the ones dominated, 6 by glacial processes (Comanescu and Nedelea 2015; Moreau 2010; Garavaglia et al. 2012) or by dangerous landslides 7 (Luino 2005; Alcántara-Ayala and Moreno 2016). Where geomorphic processes affect areas surrounding touristic trails 8 and where changing landforms (sensu Pelfini and Bollati 2014) are present, geosites are also suitable for risk education, 9 the first step for risk mitigation (Giardino and Mortara 1999; Coratza and De Waele 2012; Bollati et al. 2013; 10 Alcántara-Ayala and Moreno 2016). This is possible when geomorphological evidences of geomorphological hazards 11 (e.g., rockfall and debris flows deposits affecting also human settlements) (e.g., Coratza and De Waele 2012), can be 12 observed in safety conditions. Anyway, the scenic value of many sites offers opportunities for the regional and local tourism as documented by the growing number of proposals (e.g., thematic itineraries, cultural trails). 13 Geomorphological mapping is indispensable, first of all for the representation of the collected scientific data and for 14 the analysis of the physical landscape dynamic, and subsequently for risk management and geo-risk education (Giardino 15 and Mortara, 1999). In a single document (i.e., the geomorphological map) landforms classified according to their 16 genetic processes, are represented (e.g., ISPRA 1994; 2007). As highlighted by Giardino and Mortara (1999), landforms 17 mapping is hence useful for detecting the most interesting landforms of geomorphological interest (i.e., 18 geomorphosites, Panizza, 2001), for promotion and protection (Komac et al. 2011) and, then, to evidence the potential 19 geomorphological hazards affectingFor geotrails. Review Only 20 Nevertheless, for dissemination and education, a simplified version is necessary, as detailed geomorphological maps 21 require specific reading skills. Simplified geomorphological maps aim at easy communicating landforms activity degree 22 to specialists (e.g., Carton et al. 2005) and non-specialists (Castaldini et al. 2005; Coratza and Regolini-Bissig 2010; Regolini-Bissig 2010) and providing elements useful to improve the knowledge of dynamic landscapes (e.g., Pelfini et 23 al. 2007). Coratza & Regolini-Bissig (2010) for example proposed guidelines for geomorphosites mapping (user, 24 purposes, theme, level, scale, dimensionality, design, form and size, costs). Regolini-Bissig (2010) provided also a 25 categorization geotourist maps typologies, depending on the balance between scientific and touristic data. The crucial 26 issue is represented by the detection of proper tools that guarantee the integrity of scientific concepts and favor an easy 27 reading by local operators, public administrations and general public. According to this principle, the ideal type of 28 geotourist map may be considered an interpretive map that "tries to interpret the represented landscape by revealing its 29 particularities" and it may be "used to communicate with a public of non-specialists. It focuses on the communication of 30 geoscientific themes in order to provide the opportunity for the user to understand geomorphological or geological 31 phenomena, formation or evolution. Tourist information are of secondary importance" (Regolini-Bissig 2010). Not only traditional methods but also new technologies, based for example on GIS (Geographic Information 32 Systems), remote sensing and satellite imagery applications (e.g., Google Earth®) allow multi-temporal analysis. 33 Moreover, they are especially important in mountain areas where valorization and promotion must be linked with 34 education and management in relation with the high dynamicity of the environment (Regolini-Bissig, 2010; Martin et 35 al. 2014). 36 Herein we propose a systematic procedure to join geomorphological mapping criteria, geomorphosites analysis and 37 valorization in mountain environment, taking into account the need for an easy-approachable document, also for non- 38 specialists. The study case is located in the upper portion of the Loana Valley (Verbano-Cusio- Province –VCO), 39 in the Western Italian Alps, one of the most important access to the “Val Grande National Park” (VGNP; Figure 1). 40 Loana Valley is included in the Sesia Val Grande Geopark (SVGP; Figure 1), officially recognized in 2013 by the European Geoparks Network and by UNESCO. In the Loana Valley, erosion and depositional landforms, mainly due to 41 glacial processes, mass movements, debris flows, avalanches and stream modeling, are easily observable while walking 42 touristic and excursionist trails. Besides, here, in the recent times, extreme meteorological events have triggered several 43 instability events, some of which damaged infrastructures and left deep scars in the landscape (e.g., Mortara and 44 Turritto 1989; Dresti et al. 2011). The selected area presents hence good features to test the proposed methodology and 45 to find out tools for Earth Science education and dissemination, with particular regards to geo-risk education (e.g., 46 Bollati et al. 2013). 47 The main aims of this paper are: i) the mapping of the geomorphology of a selected area, ii) the creation of an 48 inventory of landforms of geomorphological interest along specific trails; iii) the set of a GIS procedure to create 49 simplified geomorphological sketches (i.e., Geomorphological Boxes) of Potential Geomorphosites; iv) the evaluation and ranking of Potential Geomorphosites and Geotrails; v) proposing a selection of Geomorphosites for 50 geoconservation and valorization according to different purposes. 51 52 1 Study area 53 54 The Loana hydrographic basin occupies an area of about 27 km2 and it is placed within the Ticino hydrographic 55 basin, at the boundary with Toce basin (Figure 1). Loana Valley is a tributary of the Vigezzo Valley, which is 56 characterized by a divergent fluvial pattern: i) the Eastern Melezzo stream flows toward the Maggiore Lake (East) 57 continuing its course in the Swiss portion of the valley, named Centovalli; ii) the Western Melezzo river flows into the 58 Toce River (West). The Loana stream is a tributary of the Eastern Melezzo. 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 3 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 From the geological point of view, in the upper Loana Valley the Insubric Line (locally named Canavese Line; CL) separates the Southern Alps (on the SE) from the axial part of the Alpine chain represented here by the Austroalpine (on 4 the NW) Domains (Ogn-SL; Figure 2a) (Bigioggero et al. 2006). The first domain, Africa-vergent, is characterized by a 5 low dominant Alpine deformation while the second one, Europe-vergent, underwent pervasively to an Alpine tectonic 6 imprint that restructured the whole rocks. More in detail, Southern Alps, a portion of the African passive continental 7 margin, are here represented by the Ivrea Verbano Zone, which is related to the lower continental crust and to the upper 8 mantle: metabasites (Mb-IV; Figure 2a) and metapelites (Mp-IV; Figure 2a) in granulite to amphibolite facies and 9 mantle-peridotite slices (Per-IV; Figure 2). The Fobello-Rimella mylonitic schists (FR-Sch; Figure 2a) locally represent 10 the product of the deformation along the CL. This wide deformation belt occupies the head of the valley conferring 11 weakness to rocks and favoring their weathering and degradation. Significant are the calcareous intercalations (blu 12 stripes in Figure 2b) outcropping within both the Ivrea-Verbano Zone (Mp-IV and Mb-IV in Figure 2a) and the Fobello- Rimella mylonitic schists (FR-Sch; Figure 2a). They underwent different degrees of metamorphism, in some cases 13 being completely transformed in marbles, like those characterizing the Ivrea-Verbano Zone. 14 The Toce hydrographic basin shows clear evidences of glacial modeling. Hantke (1988) reconstructed its evolution 15 since the Miocene individuating several episodes of transfluence into the Ticino Glacier, along the Centovalli. 16 The VCO province is characterized by intense rainfall events that recently and repeatedly affected the area (e.g., 17 1978, 1987, 1993, 2000; Cat Berro et al. 2014). Climatic and meteorological conditions, joined with geological features 18 (lithology and regional deformation systems) and hydrographic basin morphology, locally favor heavy instability 19 phenomena and debris flow eventsFor (Hantke Review 1988; Cavinato et al. 2005Only; Mortara and Turritto 1989; Luino 2005; Dresti 20 et al. 2011). In particular, on 7th August 1978 heavy rains provoked, in the hydrographic basin of the Stagno Stream, a 21 tributary of the Loana River, a big mass movement in proximity to a litho-structural contact. After the 1978 instability 22 event the Regione Piemonte produced a series of detailed maps (geolithological, geotechnical and maps of the hydro- geological instability effects) for the whole Melezzo Basin (e.g., Bigioggero et al. 1981). 23 Except for such applicative studies and for the technical maps produced in the framework of the Municipality 24 urbanistic plan, the Loana Valley is not deeply studied from the geomorphological point of view and scarce is the 25 related literature (Cerrina 2002; Barbolini et al. 2011). Barbolini et al. (2011) proposed a models for detecting areas 26 susceptible to avalanches but no similar models have been yet elaborated for landslides (e.g., Hoang & Tien Bui, 2016) 27 or debris flows, that pervasively affect the area. As mentioned before, the valley is characterized by an important 28 structural and lithological control on landforms shaping. Mass movements (mainly rock-falls) often take place along 29 weakness zones. Avalanches (e.g., 1986, 2014). They are among the most dangerous processes that affect slopes mainly 30 during Spring and reworking the typical avalanches corridors (Barbolini et al. 2011). Composite cones (sensu Baroni et 31 al. 2007) built and reworked by gravity processes, running waters and avalanches are very common in the valley. In specific cases (i.e., in correspondence of the "Nucleo Alpino La Cascina"- see details along the paragraph), defense 32 works are present. Near the water divide, gravity landforms are combined with glacial ones generated during the 33 Pleistocene glacial stages. The Loana River course has been deeply modified by human interventions, mainly addressed 34 to facilitate grazing or to regulate water flow; its more distal part is deeply incised as far as the alluvial fan, at the 35 confluence with the Eastern Melezzo. 36 Geological (structural and petrographical) characteristics are deeply connected with human settlements and geo- 37 resources usage. Two regionally valorized archeological sites are present (see location on Figure 4): the “Nucleo Alpino 38 La Cascina and “Le Fornaci della Calce” whose protection is regulated by the Piano Paesaggistico Regionale. The 39 second site is strictly linked with the geological framework since it is related to the usage of the carbonates outcropping 40 in the area, for producing lime. Finally the Loana Valley, especially in the upper portion, at the border with the VGNP, has been recently analyzed 41 for its physical features as ecological corridor (PNVG, 2001; Bionda et al. 2011). 42 Four sites of geomorphological interest located within the Loana hydrographic basin are included at least in 1 of the 43 3 official catalogues of geosites concerning the area (Table 1): 44 i) the ISPRA geosites database (ISPRA, 2017); 45 ii) the Regione Piemonte list of elements of naturalistic interest (Regione Piemonte, 2017); 46 iii) the SVGP Geosites list (SVGP, 2013). 47 The Pozzo Vecchio Loana waterfall (site n. 1 in Table 1), located at the confluence with the Eastern Melezzo river, and 48 the Lago del Marmo (site n. 2 in Table 1), located at the head of the valley, are present in 2 of the databases even if not 49 for the same interest. The 3 geosites, individuated by the SVGP (site n. 2, 3 and 4 in Table 1), are currently provisional and reported by the SVGP exclusively for their petrographic meaning. 50

51 2 Methods 52 53 The methodology herein illustrated consists of a schematic procedure articulated in different phases of analysis, 54 elaboration and outputs realization, as resumed in Figure 3. 55 56 2.1 Geomorphological mapping, census of landforms of geomorphological interest and geotrails planning 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 4 of 42

1 2 3 The first step concerned literature and cartographic sources analysis, followed by a field survey addressed to geomorphological mapping (step 0, Figure 3). Landforms are represented according to their genetic process, as 4 indicated by the National Geological Survey (ISPRA, 1994; 2007) and recently updated by D'Orefice and Graciotti 5 (2015). The geomorphological map was digitalized using ArcGIS 9.3® (step 1, Figure 3). According to the field data 6 and to the geomorphological map, we successively made an inventory of the landscape geomorphological resources 7 (i.e., landforms of geomorphological interest) (step 1a, Figure 3) (e.g.; Giardino and Mortara 1999). 8 Then we analyzed the official geosites catalogues (step 1b, Figure 3) to obtain more information for the selection of 9 the Potential Geomorphosites (PGmfs) and for the planning of Geotrails (Gtrs) (step 1c, Figure 3). This step concerned 10 the analysis of the already existing hiking paths (e.g., Giardino and Mortara 1999), represented on the official maps 11 (Carta Escursionistica, Interreg, “, ” 1:25000) and/or digitalized within the Regione 12 Piemonte official shapefiles (Regione Piemonte, 2017). The trails were also surveyed in order to check morphological features influencing accessibility, maintenance and potential hazards affecting them. Some Geostops (Gsts) were then 13 individuated along geotrails (step 1c, Figure 3). Their locations were carefully chosen in order to allow the best 14 observation of the PGmfs both on site and from other locations (e.g., opposite side of the valley). Each PGmf was 15 associated to a principal Gst along the Gtrs and to additional ones from which the site could be even better observed. 16 17 2.2 Geomorphological boxes realization 18 19 Geomorphological boxes (ForGmBxs) were Review elaborated for each PGmfsOnly according to specific criteria (e.g., scientific 20 integrity, easy reading by using familiar supports), at first to help the evaluators in assessing their features and, in a 21 second phase, to facilitate users in understanding the geomorphology of the site and its progressive evolution under 22 surface processes action (Regolini-Bissig 2010). The procedure (step 2, Figure 3) consisted in adding specific fields to the shapefiles attributes tables of geomorphological polygons, lines and point in GIS environment. These additional 23 fields contain information about the digitized landforms as PGmfs. Moreover display options and dedicated layer files, 24 based on the same symbols of the geomorphological official legend, were set to plot, each time, elements useful to 25 understand the site dynamics. In this way, if the official geomorphological map is updated in GIS, the deriving output 26 boxes will be automatically updated too. For the export, additional layers were included (e.g., official trails, mountain 27 huts positioning) to provide spatial references for the users. 28 Aerial photographs at disposal (2012 aerial photo, courtesy of Geoportale Nazionale - Ministero dell'Ambiente) 29 were used as background to Gmbxs (step 2a, Figure 3), especially for the dissemination purposes. This graphic support, 30 in the recent times has become more familiar also to general public by using applications like Google Maps® or Google 31 Earth® and hence allows to link scientific data with a real scenery, facilitating the approach and the reading of geomorphological symbols (e.g., Regolini-Bissig 2010; Martin et al. 2014). 32 33 2.3 Potential geomorphosites (PGmfs) and geotrails (Gtrs) evaluation 34 35 The quantitative assessment of PGmfs and Gtrs (step 3, Figure 3) started from specific field data collected through 36 dedicated field forms, regarding geomorphological and geological features, activity degree of surface processes, 37 landforms size, geomorphological hazards and trail characteristics influencing tourist vulnerability (e.g., Bollati et al. 38 2013; Giardino and Mortara 1999 ). GmBxs were complementary tools at this scope (Figure 3). The quantitative 39 evaluation was performed according to the method proposed by Bollati et al. 2016 (with modifications) that had been 40 elaborated considering attributes and values defined in the recent literature (e.g., Panizza 2001; Reynard et al. 2007; Brihla 2016b). Data were organized by means of a relational database realized using a commercial package (Microsoft 41 Office Access®) and final numeric values were calculated. The criteria adopted for the implementation of the database 42 are: i) integrity, that means no duplication of records (PGmfs and Gtrs) are allowed and requires a maximum 43 subdivision of information linked each other by means of the geomorphosite-ID; ii) logic sequence in order to facilitate 44 the users, through the pre-set forms, during the data storage phase. The database is equipped with export functions that, 45 acting through pre-set queries, allow the operator to create tables of PGmfs and Gtrs data to be joined or directly loaded, 46 once transformed into shapefiles, within GIS. The database was set using the evaluation parameters (SV, AV, GV, PU; 47 SIn, EIn) and equations reported in the Tables 2, 3 and 4. From the numeric values attributed to single PGmfs, those 48 referred to Gtrs were derived and normalized to the number of its own sites, taking into account that each Gtr is 49 composed by a different number of sites, a feature that may affect the results. Moreover, we quantitatively assessed the reference site (GR) detected during the step 1b (Figure 3), the Pozzo 50 Vecchio Loana waterfall (i.e., site 1; Table 1) that is present, for its geomorphological meaning, in 2 of the investigated 51 official geosites databases. Since GR is described in detail neither in the official form of ISPRA nor in the one of 52 Regione Piemonte (the only indication regards the primary geomorphological interest), an analysis on the field was 53 hence performed to quantitatively evaluate it. PGmfs, GR and Gtrs were finally ranked (step 3a, Figure 3). 54 In order to spatially represent results coming from the database (step 3a, Figure 3), besides using the classic column 55 charts, the use of the multivariate method proposed by Reynard et al. (2016b) was experimented. In fact the radar 56 graphs allow an easy identification of the evaluation parameters at first sight. The same Authors however indicated the 57 presence of a graphical bias for this kind of representation: the surface representing the evaluation depends on the 58 physical proximity or distance, on the graph, between parameters with similar numeric value and by their meaning. In 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 5 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 order to reduce this bias, the parameters with a similar meaning were put on the same side of the graph and separated from the others by a grey dotted line (see Figure 8, results paragraph). More in detail the parameters more akin to 4 dissemination (PU; EIn; AV) were put side by side respect to those strictly linked with the scientific meaning of the site 5 (SV, Sin, GV). This should allow a graphic view that more emphasizes difference between sites and facilitate 6 discrimination according to different valorization purposes. 7 8 2.4 Geomorphosites (Gmfs) selection 9 10 Results from the PGmfs quantitative evaluation were used to select the most representative Geomorphosites (Gmfs) 11 to be proposed for addressing management resources, valorization or geoconservation practices (step 4 and 4a, Figure 12 3). To select Gmfs among PGmfs, we used Threshold Values (TSVs) for each attributes (SV, AV, GV, PU, Sin, EIN; 13 Table 2, 3, 4) calculated according to the equation: 14 15 16 17 18 The TSVs considered for each attribute are reported in Table 5. 19 The GR values were then usedFor as reference Review to discuss the numeric Only values obtained for the PGmfs and, together with 20 TSVs, to help in discriminating among sites. 21 22 3 Results

23 3.1 Geomorphological boxes (GmBxs) 24 25 After the fieldwork (step 0), the geomorphological map realization (step 1) and the analysis of the official geosites 26 catalogues (step 1b), 15 PGmfs, observable from 19 Gsts (Table 6; Figure 4), were detected. For each one of the 15 27 PGmfs, a GmBx was elaborated (step 2a). GmBxs are thought to be addressed both to scientific and professional users, 28 for different level of knowledge deepening. As mentioned before, the plotted symbols include only the elements 29 concerning strictly the fundamental features useful to identify the genesis and the past or current dynamic of each 30 PGmfs. In Figure 5, the comparison between the traditional geomorphological map and the simplified version for the GmBxs is reported. The proposed PGmfs is G6 - Pizzo Stagno Complex system (Table 6, 7; Figure 6). It has been 31 chosen to exemplify a geomorphological box as i) it obtained a very high EIn value (0,76/ over 1 see result section 4.2), 32 ii) it includes evidences of active, passive and evolving passive landforms providing different hazards issues, and, last 33 but not least, iii) it is one of the most important geomorphic evidence (deep scarp due to mass movement composed by 34 rock fall and sliding) of the hydro-geological instability event occurred in 7th August 1978 in the Melezzo hydrographic 35 basin. The deposit is still not stable and it is affected by debris flows and avalanches too, processes that favor the debris 36 transport and deposition at the confluence between the Stagno and the Loana streams. More in detail, the down-valley 37 portion of the G6 site is characterized by the presence of a wide composite cone in which the northern portion is 38 currently affected by debris flows and avalanches while the southern portion seems to be more stable, even if it shows 39 evidences of similar processes active in the past. In 1982 an additional deep scar in the landscape developed and a 40 supplementary way to the debris transportation to the main valley was naturally activated. The influence of geological structure is also represented in the GmBx simplified version (hypothetic fault and lithological diversity along the 41 fracture zone) to catch users attention on its importance in driving hydro-geological instabilities. 42 43 3.2 Potential Geomorphosites (PGmfs) and Geotrails (Gtrs) evaluation 44 45 PGmfs well represent the 3 geomorphosites categories related to the surface processes activity: active, passive and 46 evolving passive (Figure 6; 7). The analyzed PGmfs can be considered of local/regional importance. They have been 47 shaped by different geomorphic processes, typical for the high mountain environment (Figure 6; 7). The main modeling 48 factors characterizing PGmfs are reported in Figure 8. The most effective geomorphic processes in shaping PGmfs 49 result to be the glacial ice and the snow action and structural and lithological features control landscape shaping (46.67%). Gravity and water-related processes result to be less represented in term of interesting landforms (33,33%) 50 even if, at present, gravity processes are the most active. Debris flows (26.67%), have been considered separately as 51 borderline forms, involving both water-related and gravity processes. Human modified landforms are less abundant 52 (13.33%) even if meaningful. 53 Quantitative evaluation results for PGmfs are reported in Table 7 and in Figure 9 (step 3a). In Figure 10 the 54 multivariate representation of numerical values (step 3a) is illustrated and it refers to all the evaluated PGmfs (white 55 radar graphs) and to the GR (black radar graph on the upper-left corner). The trends highlighted in Table 7 and in 56 Figure 9 are herein spatially represented. The difference between very high valued sites (at least 3 parameters above 57 TSVs: G11, G13, G6, G1, G3 and G15) and very less valued (G4, G5, G8; G2, G7, G9 and G10) is evident at first sight. 58 Among the meaningful sites, some of them allow a comparison between the different activity degree respect to the same 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 6 of 42

1 2 3 process. G1 for example, may be considered quiescent respect to avalanches, as it is affected only by the most powerful events (e.g., 1986), while G6 records a more regular (quite annual) frequency of avalanche events. 4 Considering the correlation between the main evaluation parameters (GV, PU, EIn) of PGmfs, it is possible to obtain 5 interesting results (Figure 11). PU (Table 3; 4) of each PGmfs does not correlate significantly (r2=0.0861) with GV 6 (Table 2; 4), suggesting they should be both considered in phase of decision, according to different selection purposes. 7 PU and EIn (Table 3; 4) provide, on the contrary, a more correlated trend (r2=0.7667). These relations were verified also 8 at level of Gtrs but in Figure 11 this result is not reported since less statistically significant. 9 The 15 PGmfs are distributed along two of the official hiking trails, here named Gtrs, characterized by different 10 difficulty degrees for what concerns their accessibility (Table 6; Figure 4 ). The Gtr AA, suitable for more expert hikers, 11 is an extension of the Gtr AB, an easier and more touristic path. Both the Gtrs are characterized by a ring pattern and by 12 a different number of PGmfs. Some of them belong to both the Gtrs. The Gtrs evaluation results, whose numeric values were normalized to the number of their own sites, are reported in Figure 12. Results show that Gtr AA has higher SV, 13 AV, SIn and also GV respect to Gtr AB while this latter is more valuable in terms of PU and EIn. 14 15 3.3 Geomorphosites (Gmfs) selection 16 17 For the Gmfs selection, a critical analysis was performed on the obtained values using TSVs and the relation between 18 the PGmfs values respect to the GR values. The percentages of parameters exceeding the TSVs for each Pgmfs are 19 reported in Figure 13. It is interestingFor toReview note that GR, the reference Only site, is above TSVs only for the 33% of the 20 calculated parameters. The only site reaching the 100% of parameters over TSVs is G11. Moreover, besides GR, G13 is 21 the only PGmfs included in one of the official databases (i.e., site 3, Table 1). It is indicated in the ISPRA database 22 (ISPRA, 2017) for its geomorphological meaning while within the SVGP list of geosites (SVGP, 2013) it is considered exclusively for its petrographic meaning (i.e., marble intercalations within the Ivrea-Verbano Zone; Mp-IV and Mb-IV 23 in Figure 2a). As a general outcome, it could be possible to consider worthy of attention as Gmfs the 53% of PGmfs that 24 exceed the TSVs for, at least, the 33% of the parameters (G11, G6, G13, G15, G1, G3, G12, G14). 25 26 4 Discussions 27 28 Geoheritage in mountain environment has a great relevance for valorization, tourism promotion and geoconservation 29 (Reynard and Coratza 2016; Reynard et al., 2016a). In particular, geomorphosites are landforms characterized by 30 specific attributes making them ideal key sites for cultural itineraries, addressed to general public and exploitable for 31 outdoor education activities (Bollati et al. 2016). On the other side, geomorphic processes, responsible of geomorphosites genesis and/or currently affecting them, can represent hazard and risk for users, especially under 32 changing climate conditions (Pelfini et al. 2009). Nevertheless, the morphological evidences can represent also an 33 opportunity to approach geo-risk education (Giardino and Mortara 1999; Coratza & De Waele, 2012; Bollati et al. 2013; 34 Alcántara-Ayala and Moreno 2016). Hence, information about landscape features and dynamics are fundamental both 35 for geo-resources management and for tourism (e.g. geotrails), helping in spreading knowledge and awareness in high 36 mountain environment fruition. Geomorphological mapping allows, through a unique document, to synthesize 37 landforms related to erosion and deposition, as well as the activity of the related processes. However it is crucial to 38 translate it for different targets of users. These considerations represented the starting point for this research that deals 39 properly with geomorphological mapping, its usage in identification, evaluation and selection of PGmfs and Gtrs and its 40 final version for dissemination purposes (i.e., GmBxs). The geomorphological map has been hence realized under a double perspective: i) the scientific data collection and representation, considered indispensable for analyzing landforms 41 of different genesis (step 0 and 1, Figure 3); ii) the elaboration of dissemination products (GmBxs) to guide both the 42 evaluator, during the analysis of landforms features as potential components of geoheritage, and the final user in reading 43 the physical landscape in a simplified but corrected way (step 2a and 5, Figure 3). Concerning the (ii) point, in Table 8 a 44 classification of the typologies of geomorphological maps proposed in literature and in the present research, according 45 to the aim of the research, is reported. Some examples of simplified geomorphological maps for tourism have been 46 already proposed in literature (e.g., Coratza & Regolini-Bissig 2010; Castaldini et al. 2005) with different approaches. 47 These maps may cover wide areas without providing details about landforms as the traditional geomorphological maps 48 do. The usefulness of GmBxs is to provide geomorphological sketches for each single PGmfs, extracting data in GIS 49 environment, starting from a traditional total-coverage geomorphological map. The proposed methodology upgrade previous proposals addressed both to not-specialists (e.g. Giardino and Mortara, 1999; Regolini-Bissig, 2010) and to 50 specialists (Carton et al. 2005) thanks to the use of free aerial photos as background. With GmBxs (step 2, Figure 3) the 51 plotting of symbols is limited to those essentials for the user to understand the characteristics and the dynamics of each 52 PGmfs. The GIS shapefiles are the same of the official geomorphological map, with the advantage that the GmBxs data 53 are constantly updated, in real time, whenever the official geomorphological map undergoes to changes (e.g., local 54 landscape transformations due to instability events, quite common in mountain areas). Aerial photographs, chosen as 55 background of GmBxs, enriched with the trails paths and essential placenames, are familiar to the general public (i.e., 56 Google Maps®; Google Earth®) and they could become an excellent tool for facilitating the “reading” of the physical 57 landscape, maintaining the scientific integrity (Regolini-Bissig 2010; Martin et al. 2014 ). GmBxs, comparable hence to 58 the "interpretive maps" by Regolini-Bissig (2010), could be proposed as illustrating material within PGmfs description 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 7 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 forms (step 5, Figure 3). As a whole, Gmbxs may be proposed as a powerful tool for the valorization of high mountain geomorphic environments also under the perspective of geo-risk education (Wearing 2008; Coratza and De Waele 4 2012; Bollati et al. 2013; Alcántara-Ayala and Moreno 2016). 5 Concerning geoheritage analysis (step 1a, 1b, 1c, 3, 4 and 4a; Figure 3), Loana Valley, especially in the investigated 6 southern portion, results to be characterized by very representative landforms (step 1a; Figure 3) differently affected by 7 processes and so useful for the comprehension of quiescent and active status of sites, respect to a single process (e.g., 8 G1 and G6 for avalanches). The number of PGmfs (15; step 1b, 1c; Figure 3) may be considered high in a so narrow 9 area (i.e., high density). Nevertheless, if we consider the official ISPRA catalogue (ISPRA, 2017), it is possible to note 10 that the sites density is variable over the Italian territory, depending on the contributions provided to the database by 11 local administrations. Since not all the landforms can be considered Gmfs, a selection is usually necessary (Komac et al. 12 2011) and several are the methodologies proposed in literature (Brihla 2016b). The new proposal of using TSVs and the comparison with reference sites included in the official databases (i.e., GR), allow to select the most valuable Gmfs 13 among the PGmfs (step 4 and 4a; Figure 3). In the specific case, we propose to consider as Gmfs only the PGmfs 14 exceeding the TSVs with the 33% of the parameters, as for GR. TSVs application together with the multivariate spatial 15 representation of results (i.e., radar graphs; Reynard et al. 2016b) provide also easy accessible information for public 16 administrations useful for geoheritage management. In this framework, as PU and GV do not correlate significantly 17 each other, they should be both considered during selection, according to the aim of the management. A critic analysis 18 of the sites ranking (step 4; Figure 3) is hence indispensable: Which site, among the most valuable ones, has the highest 19 scientific meaning? Which oneFor has the highestReview educational meaning? Only Ideally, resources for geoconservation may be 20 addressed to protect sites characterized by high scientific value and susceptibility to degradation, while resources for 21 dissemination and promotion could be dedicated to sites suitable for educational initiatives. In the studied area one of 22 the most representative site documenting ancient and current changes in the landscape is the G6 - Pizzo Stagno Complex system. Temporal variation in processes typology and intensity, changes in frequency of geomorphic events 23 and links with human history (i.e., the 1978 disastrous event; Mazzi and Pessina 2008) allow to consider G6 site as the 24 most representative also for geo-risk education projects according to criteria suggested, for example, by Coratza and De 25 Waele (2012) and Alcántara-Ayala and Moreno (2016). 26 The two analyzed Gtrs (AA and AB) offer the possibility to observe, in safety conditions, the geomorphological 27 evidences of hazardous processes and related landforms (i.e., PGmfs) from different points of view (i.e., Gsts) allowing 28 to propose different geotouristic approaches. The link with topics related to human settlements and geo-resources usage, 29 (i.e., the official archeosites Nucleo Alpino "Le Cascine" and Fornaci della Calce) observable along both the trails, 30 increases the GV and favors multidisciplinary approaches (e.g., history and anthropology). Moreover the AB Gtr, 31 characterized by higher PU and EIn values, result to be the more suitable for educational purpose and for dissemination to a general public. On the contrary, the AA Gtr, showing higher SV, AV, GV and SIn, could be considered for 32 geoconservation practices or used to promote, from a strictly scientific point of view, the geoheritage characterizing the 33 area inside the SVGP (e.g., Smrekar et al. 2016). 34 Finally it is worth to be considered that the morphological features and values of Gtrs and of Gmfs, has to be 35 periodically reassessed, especially when located in a dynamic environment as the mountain one. 36 37 5 Conclusions 38 39 Geomorphological mapping combined with geoheritage analysis (i.e., identification, evaluation and selection) can 40 be considered part of a unique methodology, useful to find good practices for the management of the (high) mountain environment as the Alpine one herein analyzed. Geomorphological mapping provides a starting point for PGmfs census 41 and evaluation. Dissemination products in the form herein presented (i.e., GmBxs), based on the use of the Italian 42 official geomorphological legend plotted on a background (i.e., aerial photos), familiar to the general public and to 43 young people, represent an useful instrument also for Geosciences education. 44 In conclusion GmBxs will hopefully allow people to: i) better understand the main elements of a specific physical 45 landscape characterized by a spatio-temporal differentiation in dynamic processes; ii) acquire ability in reading and 46 interpreting landforms and processes in a simplified but scientifically correct way and iii) acquire also awareness on 47 possible geomorphic hazards affecting trails, for better enjoying mountain and Alpine environments. 48 49 References

50 Alcántara-Ayala I, Moreno A (2016) Landslide risk perception and communication for disaster risk managemnet in 51 montain areas of developing countires: a Mexican foretaste. Journal of Mountain Science 13(12): 2079-2093. DOI: 52 10.1007/s11629-015-3823-0 53 Barbolini M, Pagliardi M, Ferro F et al. (2011) Avalanche hazard mapping over large undocumented areas. Natural 54 hazards 56(2): 451-464. DOI: 10.1007/s11069-009-9434-8 55 Baroni C, Armiraglio S, Gentili R et al. (2007) Landform–vegetation units for investigating the dynamics and 56 geomorphologic evolution of alpine composite debris cones (Valle dell'Avio, Adamello Group, ). 57 Geomorphology 84(1): 59-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.07.002 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 8 of 42

1 2 3 Beniston, M (2003) Climatic change in mountain regions: a review of possible impacts. Climatic Change 59(1): 5-31. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024458411589 4 Bigioggero B, Boriani A, Colombo A et al. (1981) Carta geologica delle Valli Vigezzo, Fenecchio e basso Isorno. 1: 25 5 000. CNR-Centro di studio per la stratigrafia e petrografia delle Alpi centrali–Milano. SEL CA., Firenze. (in Italian) 6 Bigioggero B, Colombo A, Cavallo A et al. (2006) Schema geologico-strutturale dell’area Val d’Ossola-Sempione in 7 scala 1:50.000, Carta e Note Illustrative. Snam Rete Gas Ed. 31 p. (in Italian and English) 8 Bionda R, Mosini A, Pompilio L et al. (2011) Parchi in rete – Definizione di una rete ecologica nel Verbano Cusio 9 Ossola basata su Parchi, Riserve e siti rete Natura 2000. Società di Scienze Naturali del Verbano Cusio Ossola e 10 LIPU – BirdLIFE Italia, p. 174 (in Italian) 11 Bollati I, Pelfini M, Pellegrini L et al. (2011) Active geomorphosites and educational application: an itinerary along 12 Trebbia River (Northern Apennines, Italy). In: Reynard E, Laigre L, Kramar N (eds) Les géosciences au service de la société. Actes du colloque en l’honneur du Professeur Michel Marthaler, Géovision 37: 219-234 13 Bollati I, Smiraglia C, Pelfini M (2013) Assessment and selection of geomorphosites and itineraries in the Miage glacier 14 area (Western Italian Alps) according to scientific value for tourism and educational purposes. Environmental 15 Management 51 (4): 951-967. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-012-9995-2 16 Bollati I, Fossati M, Zanoletti E et al. (2016) A methodological proposal for the assessment of cliffs equipped for 17 climbing as a component of geoheritage and tools for Earth Science education: the case of the Verbano-Cusio- 18 Ossola (Western Italian Alps). In: Skourtsos E, Lister G (eds) General Contributions, Journal of the Virtual 19 Explorer, Electronic EditionFor 49, pp.1-23. Review Only 20 Brandolini P., Faccini F, Piccazzo M (2006) Geomorphological hazard and tourist vulnerability along Portofino Park 21 trails (Italy). Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 6(4): 563-571. DOI: 10.5194/nhess-6-563-2006, 2006. 22 Brandolini P, Faccini F, Maifredi A et al. (2012) Geomorphological hazard and cultural heritage: a case-study of the Roman bridges in the Finalese karstic area (Western Liguria-Italy). Disaster Advance 5(3): 79-89. 23 Brihla J (2016a) EU conservation overlooks geology. Nature, Correspondence, 529: 156. 24 Brihla J (2016b) Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8(2): 25 119-134. DOI: 10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3 26 Burlando M, Firpo M, Queirolo C et al. (2011) From geoheritage to sustainable development: strategies and 27 perspectives in the Beigua Geopark (Italy). Geoheritage 3(2): 63-72. DOI: 10.1007/s12371-010-0019-4 28 Carton A, Coratza P, Marchetti M (2005) Guidelines for geomorphological sites mapping: examples from Italy. 29 Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement 11(3): 209-218. DOI : 10.4000/geomorphologie.374 30 Castaldini D, Valdati J, Ilies DC (2009) Geomorphological and Geotourist Maps of the Upper Tagliole Valley (Modena 31 Apennines, Northern Italy). In: Coratza P, Panizza M (ed) Geomorphology and Cultural Heritage–Geomorfologia e beni culturali. Memorie descrittive della Carta Geologica d'Italia, LXXXVII (2009), pp. 29-38. 32 Cat Berro D, Mercalli L, Bertolotto PL et al. (2014) Il Clima dell’Ossola superiore. Nimbus 72(XXII-2): 46-129. (in 33 Italian). 34 Cavinato GP, Cravero M, Iabichino G et al. (2005) Geostructural and Geomechanical Characterization of Rock 35 Exposures for an Endangered Alpine Road (Italy). 40th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS), American 36 Rock Mechanics Association, June 25 - 29, Anchorage. 37 Cerrina C (2002) Studio geomorfologico della Valle Loana (Valle Vigezzo, Alpi Lepontine). Master degree Thesis, 38 Università di Pisa, Italy. 106 p. (in Italian) 39 Comănescu, L., & Nedelea, A. (2015). Public perception of the hazards affecting geomorphological heritage—case 40 study: the central area of Bucegi Mts.(Southern Carpathians, Romania). Environmental Earth Sciences, 73(12), 8487-8497. DOI: 10.1007/s12665-014-4007-x 41 Coratza P, De Waele J (2012) Geomorphosites and natural hazards: teaching the importance of geomorphology in 42 society. Geoheritage 4(3): 195-203. DOI: 10.1007/s12371-012-0058-0 43 Coratz, P, Regolini-Bissig G (2009) Methods for mapping geomorphosites. In: Reynard E, Coratza P (ed) 44 Geomorphosites, München, Pfeil Verlag, pp.89-103. 45 D'Orefice M, Graciotti R (2013) Rilevamento geomorfologico e cartografia. Dario Flaccovio Ed., Bologna, p.360. (in 46 Italian) 47 Dresti C, Ciampittiello M, Saidi H (2011) Fenomeni di instabilità geologica connessi a piogge intense negli ultimi anni. 48 Un caso di studio: strada statale 337 della Valle Vigezzo. Geologia dell'Ambiente 2(2011): 29 - 33. (in Italian) 49 Garavaglia V, Pelfini M (2011) Glacial Geomorphosites and Related Landforms: A Proposal for a Dendrogeomorphological Approach and Educational Trails. Geoheritage 3(2011): 15-25. 50 DOI:10.1007/s12371-010-0027-4 51 Garavaglia V, Diolaiuti G, Smiraglia C, et al. (2012) Evaluating Tourist Perception of Environmental Changes as a 52 Contribution to Managing Natural Resources in Glacierized Areas: A Case Study of the Forni Glacier (Stelvio 53 National Park, Italian Alps). Environmental Management 50: 1125-1138. DOI:10.1007/s00267-012-9948-9 54 Giardino M, Mortara G (1999) La valorizzazione dei beni geomorfologici: uno studio di geositi nel Parco Nazionale 55 Gran Paradiso. Revue Valdotaine d’Histoire Naturelle 53: 5-20. (in Italian) 56 Gray M (2013), Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature (2nd Edition). John Wiley and Sons Ed., Oxford, p. 57 508. 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 9 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 Hantke R (1988) La formazione delle valli tra Domodossola e Locarno: la Val d'Ossola, la Val Vigezzo (prov. di Novara) e le Centovalli (Ct. Ticino): Bollettino della Società Ticinese di Scienze Naturali 76: 123-139. (in Italian) 4 Hoang ND, Tien Bui D (2016) A novel relevance vector machine classifier with cuckoo search optimization for spatial 5 prediction of landslides. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 30(5): 04016001. 6 ISPRA (1994) Carta Geomorfologica d’Italia 1:50.000 - Guida al rilevamento. Quaderni Serie III, 4. (Available online 7 at: http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/periodici-tecnici/i-quaderni-serie-iii-del-sgi/carta- 8 geomorfologica-d2019italia-1-50-000-guida-al) . (in Italian) 9 ISPRA (2007) Carta Geomorfologica d'Italia 1:50.000 - Guida alla rappresentazione cartografica, Quaderni Serie III, 10 10 (Available online at: http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/periodici-tecnici/i-quaderni-serie-iii-del- 11 sgi/carta-geomorfologica-ditalia-1-50-000-guida-alla) . (in Italian) 12 ISPRA (2017) National Inventory of Geosites. (Available online at: http://sgi.isprambiente.it/geositiweb/Default.aspx) Komac B, Zorn M, Erhartič B (2011) Loss of natural heritage from the geomorphological perspective. Do geomorphic 13 processes shape or destroy the natural heritage? Acta Geographica Slovenica 51-2: 407–418. DOI: 14 10.3986/AGS51305 15 Martin S (2010) Geoheritage popularisation and cartographic visualisation in the Tsanfleuron-Sanetsch area (Valais, 16 ). In: Regolini-Bissig G, Reynard E (ed) Mapping Geoheritage, Géovisions, Institut de géographie, 17 Lausanne, 35, pp. 15-30. 18 Martin S, Reynard E, Ondicol RP et al. (2014) Multi-scale web mapping for geoheritage visualisation and promotion. 19 Geoheritage 6(2): 141-148.For DOI: 10.1007/s12371-014-0102-3 Review Only 20 Mazzi B, Pessina C (2008) L’alluvione del 1978 in Valle Vigezzo. Il Rosso e il blu Ed., Santa Maria Maggiore, 87 p. 21 (in Italian) 22 Moreau M (2010) Visual perception of changes in a high mountain landscape: the case of the retreat of the Evettes Glacier (Haute-Maurienne, northern French Alps). Geomorphologie 2:165–174. DOI: 23 10.4000/geomorphologie.7901 24 Mortara G, Turitto O (1989) Considerazioni sulla vulnerabilità di alcuni siti adibiti a campeggio in ambiente alpino. In 25 Atti Congresso Internazionale Suolosottosuolo, Torino, pp. 137-144. (in Italian) 26 Osborne RAL (2000) Geodiversity: Green geology in action - Presidential address for 1999-2000: Proceedings of the 27 Linnaean Society of New South Wales, 122: 149-173. 28 Panizza M (2001) Geomorphosites : concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey. Chinese Science 29 Bulletin 46 Suppl. Bd: 4-6. DOI: 10.1007/BF03187227 30 Pelfini M, Bollati I (2014) Landforms and geomorphosites ongoing changes: concepts and implications for geoheritage 31 promotion. Quaestiones Geographicae, 33 (1): 131-143. DOI: 10.2478/quageo-2014-0009, ISSN 0137-477X Pelfini M, Brandolini P, Carton A et al. (2007) Rappresentazione in carta delle caratteristiche dei sentieri ai fini della 32 mitigazione del rischio geomorfologico. Bollettino dell'Associazione Italiana di Cartografia, XLIIII: 141-152. (in 33 Italian) 34 Pelfini M, Brandolini P, Carton A et al. (2009) Geotourist trails: a geomorphological risk-impact analysis. In: Reynard 35 E, Coratza P (ed) Geomorphosites, München, Pfeil Verlag, pp. 131-144. 36 Pelfini M, Bollati I, Pellegrini L, Zucali M (2016) Earth Sciences on the field: educational applications for the 37 comprehension of landscape evolution. Rendiconti Online della Società Geologica Italiana 40/2016: 56-66. DOI: 38 10.3301/ROL.2016.72 39 PNVG (2001) Aree di cresta e zone umide. Risultati delle ricerche, Baveno, PNVG ed. pp. 110 40 Raso E, Faccini F, Brandolini P et al. (2016) The Lovers’ Lane (“Via dell’Amore”) rockfall events: A history of dangerous collapses. In: Ulusay R, Aydan O, Gerçek H et al. (ed) Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering: From the 41 Past to the Future, CRC Press, pp. 607-611. 42 Regione Piemonte (2017) Geocatalogo Regione Piemonte (Available online at: 43 http://www.geoportale.piemonte.it/geocatalogorp/) 44 Regolini-Bissig G (2010) Mapping geoheritage for interpretive purpose: definition and interdisciplinary approach. In: 45 Regolini-Bissig G, Reynard E (ed) Mapping Geoheritage, Géovisions, Institut de géographie, Lausanne, 35, pp. 1- 46 13. 47 Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L et al. (2007) A method for assessing “scientific” and “additional values” of 48 geomorphosites: Geographica Helvetica 62(3): 148-158. DOI: 10.5194/gh-62-148-2007, 2007 49 Reynard E, Coratza P (2016) The importance of mountain geomorphosites for environmental education. Examples from the Italian and the Swiss Alps. Acta Geographica Slovenica 56(2): 246-257. DOI: 50 http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS.1684 51 Reynard E, Coratza P, Hobléa F (2016a) Current Research on Geomorphosites: Geoheritage, 8(1): 1-3. DOI 52 10.1007/s12371-016-0174-3 53 Reynard E, Perret A, Bussard J et al. (2016b) Integrated approach for the inventory and management of 54 geomorphological heritage at the regional scale. Geoheritage, 8(1), 43-60. DOI: 10.1007/s12371-015-0153-0 55 Smith BJ, Orford JD, Nicholas BL (2009) Management challenges of a dynamic geomorphosite: climate change and the 56 Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site. In: Coratza P, Reynard E (ed), Geomorphosites. Assessment, mapping and 57 management. Pfeil Verlag, München, pp. 145-162. 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 10 of 42

1 2 3 Smrekar A, Zorn M, Komac B (2016) Heritage protection through a geomorphologist’s eyes: From recording to awareness raising. Acta Geographica Slovenica, 56(1): 123-127. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS.3348 4 SVGP (2013) List of Geosites (Available online at: http://www.parcovalgrande.it/pdf/Dossier.SesiaValGrande.pdf) 5 UNESCO (2015) Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Intergovernmental 6 Committee for the Protection of the World cultural and natural heritage. (Available at 7 http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide12-en.pdf). 8 Wearing S, Edinborough P, Hodgson L et al. (2008) Enhancing visitor experience through interpretation. (Available at: 9 http://www.crctourism.com.au/wms/upload/resources/80035_Wearing_EnhancingVisExp_WEB.pdf; 12. 1. 2014). 10 Wimbledon WAP (1996) Geosites - A new conservation initiative: Episodes, 19: 87-88. 11 Wrede V, Mügge-Bartolović V (2012) GeoRoute Ruhr—a Network of Geotrails in the Ruhr Area National GeoPark, 12 Germany. Geoheritage 4(1): 109-114. DOI:10.1007/s12371-012-0057-1. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 11 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 Figure 1 Geographical setting of the study area in the framework of the Northern Italy and the 24 Verbania-Cusio-Ossola Province, with the location of the main hydrographic basins (Toce in 25 dark grey, Ticino in light grey) and sub-basins (Western and Eastern Melezzo). The Eastern 26 Melezzo includes the Loana minor hydrographic basin (in black). The area of the Sesia Val 27 Grande Geopark (SVGP) is indicated in orange on the left figure and the green perimeter within 28 it is related to the territory occupied by the Val Grande National Park (VGNP). 29 30 31 31x19mm (300 x 300 DPI) 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 12 of 42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Figure 2 Geological setting of the study area in the framework of the VCO Province. a) 34 simplified structural model of the VCO Province obtained combining the information from the 35 Structural Model of Italy (1:500000; CNR) and the Geological Map of Switzerland (1:500000; 36 Service géologique national) (modified from Bollati et al. 2016); b) excerpt of the geolithological 37 38 map of Bigioggero et al. (1981) reporting the main lithologies outcropping in the studied portion 39 of the Loana hydrographic basin. The codes reported in the Figure and corresponding to those 40 cited along the text, mean as follows: M-Chk, Mesozoic basinal and pelagic deposits; P-Gr, Late 41 and Post Hercynian Granitoides; Phy-SA and Ogn-SA, Southern Alpine crystallin basement; 42 Mb-IV, Mp-IV and Um-IV, Ivrea Verbano zone; II-DK, FR-Sch and Ogn-SL, Sesia Lanzo zone; 43 MGr-MR, nappe; Mb-Ant, Antrona ophiolitic units; Pgn-GSB, Gran San Bernardo 44 45 nappe; Cls-Val, Valais Calceschists; Per-CG, Cervandone Geisspfad units; Ogn-LP, Monte 46 Leone - Pioda di Crana - Antigorio nappes; Sch-LP, Lebendun nappe; MSch-BV, Baceno and 47 Varzo units; Ogn-Ver, Verampio unit. 48 49 40x33mm (300 x 300 DPI) 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 13 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Figure 3 Flux diagram of the schematic procedure followed in the framework of the present 39 research. The acronyms are explained along the text. 40 41 88x84mm (300 x 300 DPI) 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 14 of 42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Figure 4 PGmfs (white dot), Gtrs and Gsts (black square). The white Gtr corresponds to the AB 46 47 and the black one to Gtr AA in Table 4. The Gtr AA implies, at first, the passage along the Gtr 48 AB. AS1 and AS2 (grey stars) represent the two official archeosites of Regione Piemonte, 49 respectively "Nucleo Alpino La Cascina" and "Le Fornaci della Calce" (2012 aerial photo; 50 courtesy of Geoportale Nazionale - Ministero dell'Ambiente). 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 15 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Figure 5 Comparison between the traditional geomorphological map (in the upper part) and the 46 47 simplified version for the GmBxs (in the lower part). The GmBx was plotted on the 2012 aerial 48 photo (courtesy of Geoportale Nazionale - Ministero dell'Ambiente). 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 16 of 42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Figure 6 PGmfs characterizing mainly the AB Gtr. All the codes are reported in Table 4. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 17 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Figure 7 PGmfs characterizing mainly the AA Gtr. All the codes are reported in Table 4. 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 18 of 42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 Figure 8 Percentage of PGmfs in relation with factors contributing to their modeling. Usually a 21 combination of them is observed implying that 1 PGmf was frequently counted for more than 1 22 factors. GR was not included in this analysis. The braces mean the combined action of water and 23 gravity in debris flow genesis. 24 25 61x23mm (300 x 300 DPI) 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 19 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Figure 9 PGmfs assessment results. In both the graphs, lines represent the numeric values 46 obtained by GR. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 20 of 42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Figure 10 Multivariate representation of the macrovalues of PGmfs located along the AA and 46 47 AB Gtrs. Radar graphs are reported for each PGmfs (white radar graphs) and for the reference 48 site (black radar graph on the upper-left corner). The grey dotted line divides the parameters in 49 function of their main meaning. The representation was reported on the 2012 aerial photo 50 (courtesy of Geoportale Nazionale - Ministero dell'Ambiente). 51 52 88x125mm (300 x 300 DPI) 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 21 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Figure 11 Correlation degree between PU-GV (on the left) and PU-EIn (on the right) of PGmfs. 19 For Review Only 20 21 54x18mm (300 x 300 DPI) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 22 of 42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Figure 12 Gtrs numeric values. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 23 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 24 25 Figure 13 PGmfs ordered according the percentage of parameters exceeding the TSVs. The grey 26 area includes the PGmfs with a percentage of parameters greater respect to GR. 27 28 89x48mm (300 x 300 DPI) 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 24 of 42

1 2 Level of 3 Name Type of interest ID Database 4 interest Pozzo Vecchio 5 Not specified Geomorphological 1442 ISPRA, 2017 Cascata della Loana 1 6 Regione Piemonte, Cascata della Loana Not specified Aesthetic 501 7 2017 8 Alpe Scaredi Not specified Geomorphological 1519 ISPRA, 2017 9 (Lago del Marmo, La Balma) 2 10 Val Loana Not SVGP, 2013 Regional Petrographic 11 (Lago del Marmo) provided Val Loana Not SVGP, 2013 12 3 Local Petrographic 13 Limestones of the Canavese Zone provided Val Loana (near “Le cascine”) SVGP, 2013 14 Not 4 Talc-bearing serpentinites “pietra Local Petrographic 15 provided ollare” 16

17

18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 25 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 SCIENTIFIC VALUE (SV) 4 RGmP 0 Poor/None representativeness of a morphogenetic system Representativeness of 0,33 Discrete representativeness of a morphogenetic system 5 (paleo)Geomorphological 0,67 Good representativeness of a morphogenetic system 6 Process 1 Exemplar representativeness of a morphogenetic system 7 0 Poor/None representativeness of a geological process RGP 8 0,33 Discrete representativeness of a geological process Representativeness of 9 0,67 Good representativeness of a geological process Geological process 10 1 Exemplar representativeness of a geological process 11 0 Representativeness without any educational value 12 EE 0,33 Representativeness with poor educational value 13 Educational Exemplarity 0,67 Representativeness difficult for non experts 14 1 Representativeness with excellent educational value 0 1 lithology, 1 main landform 15 Gd 0,50 1 lithology, n-landforms Site Intrinsic Geodiversity 16 1 n- lithologies, n-landforms 17 0 Without production or scientific divulgation 18 GI 0,33 Low frequent topic for scientific research 19 Geo-historical importance For0,67 ReviewRelevant Only topic for scientific research 20 1 Fundamental for the development of Earth Sciences in general 21 0 Without any connection with the biologic element 22 ESR 0,33 Presence of interesting flora and fauna 23 Ecologic support role 0,67 The geo(morpho)logical features condition the ecosystems 24 1 The geo(morpho)logical features determine the ecosystems 0 Essential geo(morphological elements are not preserved 25 In 0,50 Essential geo(morpho)logical elements are just preserved Integrity 26 1 Essential geo(morpho)logical elements are intact 27 0 Frequent also at level of the study area Ra 28 0,50 Rare at level of the study area, abundant at national level Rareness 29 1 Rare at national level 30 ADDITIONAL VALUES (AV) 31 0 Any cultural feature in the surroundings Cu 0,50 Presence of cultural features not correlated with geo(morpho)logical features 32 Cultural value s.s. 33 1 Presence of cultural features correlated with geo(morpho)logical features 0 Not relevant 34 Ae 0,50 Strong contrasts in landforms, lithologies and colours, spatial limited 35 Aesthetic value 1 Strong contrasts in landforms, lithologies and colours 36 0 Element without exploitation or insertion in an economic area (Not touristic) 37 SEc 0,33 Element with exploitation or insertion in an economic area (Not touristic) 38 Socio-Economic value 0,67 Element inserted in an economic-touristic area 39 1 Element inserted in an economic-touristic circuit 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 26 of 42

1 2 0,25 Only in summer 3 TA 0,5 Except in winter 4 Temporal Accessibility 0,75 Except in rainy days 5 1 All over the year 0,2 On foot, Expert Excursionists* 6 0,4 On foot, Touristic/Excursionist* SAc 0,6 On foot for numerous group, because difficult access for bus 7 Spatial Accessibility 8 0,8 Allowed to means of transportation 1 Allowed to means of transportation, access also to disables 9 0 Not observable or great difficulties in observing it 10 0,2 Just visible or with special tools (artificial lights, ropes..) Vi 0,4 Reasonable visibility but limited by vegetation 11 Visibility 0,6 Good visibility but with need of moving to improve it 12 0,8 Good visibility for all geo(morpho)logical elements 13 1 Excellent visibility for all geo(morpho)logical elements 0 Hotels and services far from 25 Km 14 Se 0,33 Hotels and services far from 10 - 25 Km 15 Services 0,67 Hotels and services far from 5 - 10 Km 16 1 Hotels and services far from 5 Km 0 Few NT 17 0,50 Medium Number of Tourists 18 1 Abundant 0 None 19 SA For Review0,50 OnlyYes, not correlated with geo(morpho)logical features Sport Activities 20 USE (PU) FOR POTENTIAL 1 Yes, correlated with geo(morpho)logical features 21 0 Total protection, prevented use LC 0,33 Protection, limited use 22 Legal Constraints 0,67 Under protection but with few or any prevention for use 23 1 No protection or limitation in use 0 No divulgation or use 24 UGI 0,50 Use in academic ambit Use of Geo(morpho)logical Interest 25 1 With divulgation and use as geo(morpho)site 0 Any divulgation or use 26 UAI 0,50 Use of additional interests 27 Use of the Additional Interests 1 Naturalistic or cultural paths already started 28 0 Any sites in the study area SGs 0,50 Sites in the neighbourhood but not genetically correlated 29 Geo(morpho)sites in the Surroundings 30 1 Sites in the neighbourhood and genetically correlated

0 Any traces 0 Ice 31 0,2 Traces 0,2 Snow 32 Ti 0,4 Path GM 0,4 Coarse debris coverage Tipology 0,6 Mule tracks Ground Material 0,6 Medium debris coverage 33 0,8 Dirt road 0,8 Fine or soil debris coverage 34 1 Paved road 1 Bed rock or dirt/paved road 35 Sl 0 Yes SM 0 Fractured rock, soils, snow and ice Sloping 1 No Slope Material 1 Rocks and coherent deposits 36 0 > 61° 0,25 51°-60° St 0 High 37 SI 0,5 41°-50° Steepness 0,5 Medium Slope Inclination 38 0,75 31°-40° 1 Low-null 39 1 <30° 40 TI 0 No WSP 0 Yes 41 Tourist Information 1 Yes Water/Snow on path 1 No 0 <30 cm 0 Very bad 42 0,25 30-50 cm DC Wi 0,33 Fairly good 0,5 50-100 cm Degree Of Path 43 Width 0,67 Good 0,75 100 cm Conservation 44 1 Excellent 1 >100 cm 45 0 Present and increasing vulnerability 46 HI 0,33 Absent 47 Human Interventions 0,67 Present not influencing 48 itineraries) onfor foot (CA) (only ACCESSIBILITY *CALCULATED 1 Present and reducing vulnerability 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 27 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 EQUATIONS SV 4 -SCIENTIFIC VALUE SV = (GM+PgM+EE+Gd+GI+EI+OI+In+Ra) 0-8 AV 5 -ADDITIONAL VALUES AV = (Cu+Ae+SEc) 0-3 GV-GLOBAL VALUE GV = (SV+AV) 0-11 6 IU-Index of Use IU = EE+ Ae 0-2 7 Potential for Use s.s. PUss = (TA+Vi+Se+NT+SA+LC+UGI+UAI+SGs) 0,25-9 8 PPU-Partial potential for Use PPU = (PUss+IU) 0,25-11 9 CA-Calculated Accessibility* CA = (Ti+St+Sl+Wi+GM+WSP+SI+SM+DC+HI+TI) 0-11 10 AFc-Accessibility Factor (on foot) if SAc≤0.4; AFc = (CA/11)*0,5 0-0,5 11 AFs-Accessibility Factor (other) if SAc≥0.6; AFs = SAc 0,6-1 12 PU-POTENTIAL FOR USE (on foot) PUc = PPU +AFc 0,25-12 13 PU-POTENTIAL FOR USE (other) PUs = PPU+AFs 0,25-12 SIn 14 -Scientific Index SIn= (GM+PgM+GI)/3 0-1 EIn 15 -Educational Index EIn= [EE+Ae+(A_Fc/s)]/3 0-1 TS-TOTAL SCORE TS = GV+PUc/s 0,25-23 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 28 of 42

1 2 3 SV AV GV PU SIn EIn 4 TSVs 5 2.5 6.5 7 0.6 0.6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 29 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 Code Gtr DIFFICULTY 4 AB Ring path along the valley floor Touristic 5 AA Ring path along the valley floor as far as to Alpe Scaredi, Alpe Touristic and locally for 6 Cortechiuso, La Forcola and back to the valley floor Expert hikers 7 Code PGmfs Gtr 8 G1 Composite cone (debris flows, avalanches) - La Cascina AB 9 G2 Inactive slope debris - Fondo li Gabbi AB 10 G3 Composite cone (debris flows, avalanches) AB 11 G4 Avalanche track AB 12 G5 13 Loana Paleochannels AB 14 G6 Pizzo Stagno Complex system AB 15 G7 Loana Valley Glacial step and waterfall AA, AB 16 G8 Waterfall on marble and phyllades AA 17 Structural and lithological control on glacial exharation G9 AA 18 (i.e., striae and scours) 19 Composite cone (debris flows, avalanches) and structural control G10 For Review Only AA 20 on the hydrographic network Structural and lithological control on glacial exharation 21 G11 AA 22 (i.e., roche moutonnéeWhalebacks)(Alpe Cortenuovo) Glacial saddle and lithological control on glacial exharation 23 G12 AA 24 (i.e., striae and scours) (Alpe Scaredi) G13 25 Glacial sovraexcavation basin (Lago del Marmo)* AA 26 G14 Glacial cirque (Cima Laurasca and Cimone Cortechiuso) AA 27 G15 Loana Glacial Valley ad its hydrographic basin AA, AB 28 GR* Pozzo Vecchio Loana waterfall / 29 Gst Code PGmfs observed from the Gst Gtr 30 GS1 G1, G2 31 GS2 G3 32 GS3 G4 33 AB 34 GS4 G6 35 GS5 G6, G7 36 GS6 G6, G7 37 GS7 G6 38 GS8 G4, G5 39 GS9 G3 40 GS10 41 G1, G2, G7, G15 42 GS11-a G8 43 GS11-b G8 44 GS12 G3, G4, G9, G15 AA 45 GS13 G10 46 GS14 G11 47 GS15 48 G11

49 GS16 G11, G13, G15 50 GS17 G12, G15 51 GS18 G13, G14 52 GS19 G13, G14 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 30 of 42

1 2 3 COD SV AV GV PU SIn EIn 4 G11 6.5 3 9.5 7.05 0.77 0.73 5 G13 6.83 2 8.83 7.72 0.77 0.73 6 G6 6.17 2 8.17 7.88 0.66 0.76 7 G1 4.67 2 6.67 7.6 0.33 0.66 8 G3 4.67 2 6.67 8.44 0.33 0.81 9 10 G15 4 2.5 6.5 11 0.33 1 11 G8 4.67 1.5 6.17 7.57 0.55 0.57 12 G12 4.17 2 6.17 8.45 0.55 0.73 13 G14 4 2 6 8.4 0.33 0.71 14 GR* 3.67 2 5.67 10.5 0.55 1 15 G7 4 1 5 6.75 0.33 0.4 16 G10 4 1 5 5.38 0.55 0.17 17 18 G4 3.67 1 4.67 7.44 0.33 0.48 19 G5 For2.33 Review2 4.33 Only8.09 0.22 0.36 20 G2 2.66 1.5 4.16 6.37 0.22 0.25 21 G9 1.82 1 2.82 5.58 0.33 0.17 22 TSV 5 2.5 6.5 7 0.6 0.6 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 31 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 4 AIM DISSEMINATION AIM

5 SCIENTIFIC AIM

6 Target Product MAPPING METHOD Reference 7 User definition 8 9 Geoscientific maps for 10 TOTAL-COVERAGE Geomorphological Non (e.g., Castaldini et al. amateurs of Earth 11 MAPS Maps specialists 2005) 12 sciences 13 14 (e.g., Carton et al. 15 Specialists 16 2005) 17 18 (e.g., Giardino and 19 For Review OnlyMortara 1999; PARTIAL- Geomorphological Interpretive maps 20 COVERAGE MAPS Sketches Regolini-Bissig 21 Non 2010; 22 specialists 23 24 (present research) GEOBOXES 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 32 of 42

1 2 3 Geomorphological mapping for the valorization of the Alpine environment. A methodological proposal tested in 4 the Loana Valley (Sesia Val Grande Geopark, Western Italian Alps)

5 6 7 Abstract: 8 Geomorphological mapping playshas a key role in landscape representation: and it isrepresents the starting point for 9 many applications and for the realization of thematic maps, such as hazard and risk maps, geoheritage andmaps, 10 geotourism maps. Traditional geomorphological maps are useful for scientific purposes but they need to be simplified 11 for different aimspurposes as for example management and education. InFor tourism valorization, mapping of 12 geomorphological georesources (i.e., geosites, and or in particular geomorphosites), and of geomorphicas well as evidences of past hazardous geomorphological events, is important for increasing knowledge about both landscape 13 genesis and evolution and active processes, potentially involving hiking trails nearby geomorphosites and hiking trails. 14 Activelocations. Moreover, active geomorphosites, as those widespread within mountain regions, testify the high 15 dynamicity of geomorphic processes and their link with climatic conditions.climate features and changes in sensitive 16 environments. Geomorphological mapping may be considered the starting tool to detect georesources and to produce 17 outputs with geotouristic aims, obtained from the traditional geomorphological map. In the present paper, we propose a 18 method to produce and to update cartographic supports ((i.e., Geomorphological Boxes) realized starting from a 19 traditional geomorphological surveyFor and mapping.Review The geomorphological Only boxes are geomorphological representation of 20 single, composed or complexmultiple landforms drawn on satellite images, using the official Italian geomorphological 21 legend (ISPRA symbols). Such cartographic representation is also addressed to the analysis (identification, evaluation 22 and selection) of Potential Geomorphosites and Geotrails. The Geomorphological Boxes of each Potential Geomorphosite includes only landforms essential to comprehend its spatiotemporal dynamicity. The method has been 23 tested in the upper portion of the Loana Valley, located within the borders of the Sesia Val Grande Geopark, recognized 24 by UNESCO in 2013 (Western Italian Alps.). The area has a good potential for geotourism and for educational 25 purposes. We identified 15 Potential Geomorphosites located along 2 Geotrails; they were ranked according to specific 26 attributes also in relation with a reference geomorphosite located in the Loana hydrographic basin and inserted in 27 official national and regional databases of geosites (ISPRA; Regione Piemonte). Finally, the ranking of Potential 28 Geomorphosites allowed to select the most valuable ones for valorization or geoconservation purposes. In this 29 framework, examples of Geomorphological Boxes are proposed as supports to georisk education practices. 30 31 Keywords: Geomorphological mapping; Geomorphological Boxes; Mountain geomorphosites; Geotrails; GIS Geographical Information Systems; Loana Valley (Sesia Val Grande Geopark, Western Italian Alps) 32 33 34 35 Introduction 36 37 The European Alps are among the key sites for geoheritage (sensu Osborne, 2000). The high level of geodiversity 38 (Gray, 2013), due to the complex of geological processes and to the variety of geomorphological features, 39 includingelements, and the several geosites (Wimbledon, 1996) and geomorphosites (Panizza, 2001), which constitute 40 the local and the national geoheritage, represent meaningful situations to approach concepts as geovalorization, management and conservation. These latter are fundamental in the framework of sustainable tourism, considering the 41 sensitivity of mountain areas to natural changes and Maninduced impacts (Giardino and Mortara 1999; Beniston, 42 2003). Several. In fact, several active and evolving passive geomorphosites (sensu Pelfini and Bollati 2014)2004) can 43 be found in the mountain territories. Someareas, some of themwhich are characterized by a fast changing rate, for 44 example in response to climate change (e.g., glacial forelands). In fact timescale of geomorphic processes is very 45 variable, also according to the substrates affected. Moreover, geosites may be dismantled in short or long times under 46 the action of the same processes responsible for their genesis or by different ones (Giardino and Mortara 1999; Pelfini 47 and Bollati 2014). 48 Geoconservation strategies have recently undergone a growing interest in the framework of the scientific researchers 49 on Earth Sciences and of the UNESCO Commitee for the World Heritage protection (UNESCO 2015). Nevertheless, management policies and funding systems do not seem to follow the same trend (Brihla 2016a). Hence, researches on 50 methodologies useful to individuate the georesources, in mountain regions, such as geosites and geomorphosites,, to be 51 conserved, are becoming a real need (e.g., Reynard et al.and Coratza 2016a), as well as the strategies to promote them 52 in a sustainable way (Giardino and Mortara 1999).. Geoheritage promotion and valorization is often perceived through 53 the creation of geotrails (e.g., Burlando et al. 2011; Wrede et al. 2012) andas well as of naturalistic and thematic trails 54 (e.g., glaciological trails) ( as Martin 2010; Bollati et al. 2013). Geotrails are usually addressed to a general public (e.g., 55 tourists, scholars) for exploring geoheritage, raising awareness on the possible threats caused both by human and natural 56 factors, and for unconventional teaching and field activities (e.g., Bollati et al. 2011; Garavaglia and Pelfini 2011; 57 Bollati et al. 2016; Pelfini et al. 2016). 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 33 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 Changing landforms are considered very significant components of geoheritage (e.g., Pelfini and Bollati 2014; UNESCO 2015) and testify the high dynamicity of geomorphic processes, especially when climate related, as in the 4 mountain environment (Beniston 2003; (Reynard and Coratza 2016).2016b). Nevertheless, the high dynamicity of the 5 mountain environment and its fast changing rate make necessary a deep knowledge of surface processes and landforms 6 evolution. Active slope processes, as for example debris flows or avalanches, commonly affect the high mountain 7 hiking trails network and can indeed represent geohazards. Moreover tourists vulnerability is linked both to the 8 knowledge of environmental characteristicsprocesses (slope processes, meteorological events and triggered geomorphic 9 events), to slope morphology and hiking trails features (Bollati et al. 2013). As a consequence also such components 10 need to be considered to better analyzedefine vulnerability forand to manage risk managementscenarios (Pelfini et al. 11 2009; Komac et al. 2011; Brandolini et al. 2006; 2012; Smith et al. 2009; Raso et al. 2016). 12 Highfrequented hiking trails allow investigating the tourist perception of landscape changes, as the ones dominated, by glacial processes (Comanescu and Nedelea 2015; (Moreau 2010; Garavaglia et al. 2012) or by dangerous landslides 13 (Luino 2005; AlcántaraAyala and Moreno 2016). Where geomorphic processes affect areas surroundings touristic trails 14 and where changingactive and evolving passive landforms (sensu Pelfini and Bollati 2014) are present, geothe sites are 15 also suitable for risk education, the first step for risk mitigation (Giardino and Mortara 1999; (Coratza and De Waele 16 2012; Bollati et al. 2013; AlcántaraAyala and Moreno 2016). This is possible when geomorphologicalphysical 17 evidences of geomorphological hazards (e.g., rockfall and debris flows(gravity generated deposits affecting, historical 18 documentation or disruptive processes involving also human settlements) (e.g., Coratza and De Waele 2012), can be 19 observed in safety conditions.For Anyway,Moreover, Review the scenic value Only of many sites offers opportunities for the regional 20 and local tourism as documented by the growing number of proposals (e.g., thematic itineraries, cultural trails). 21 Geomorphological mapping is indispensable, first of all for the representation of the collected scientific data 22 collection and for the analysisrepresentation of the physical landscape dynamic,dynamics, and subsequently for risk management and georisk education (Giardino and Mortara, 1999).. In a single document (i.e., the geomorphological 23 map) landforms and related processes, classified according to their the genetic processes, are represented (e.g., ISPRA 24 1994; 2007). As highlighted by Giardino and Mortara (1999), landforms Landforms mapping is hence useful both for 25 detecting the most interesting landforms of geomorphological interest (i.e., geomorphosites, Panizza, 2001), for 26 promotion and protection (Komac et al. 2011) and, then, to evidencehighlight the users potential geomorphological 27 hazards and risks affecting geotrails. 28 Nevertheless, for dissemination andpurposes of georisk education, a simplified version of geomorphological maps 29 is necessary, as detailed geomorphological maps require specific reading skills. Simplified geomorphological maps 30 aims at easy communicating landforms activity degree to specialists (e.g., Carton et al. 2005) and nonspecialists ( 31 Castaldini et al. 2005; Coratza and RegoliniBissig 2010; RegoliniBissig 2010) 2005) and providing elements useful to improve the knowledge of dynamic landscapes (e.g., Pelfini et al. 2007). Coratza & RegoliniBissig (2010) for example 32 proposed guidelines for geomorphosites mapping (user, purposes, theme, level, scale, dimensionality, design, form and 33 size, costs). RegoliniBissig (2010) provided also a categorization geotourist maps typologies, depending on the balance 34 between scientific and touristic data. The crucial issue is represented byThese kinds of outputs represent a crucial issue 35 considering the detection of proper tools that guarantee the integrity of scientific concepts and favor an easy reading by 36 local operators, public administrations and general public. According to this principle, the ideal type of geotourist map 37 may be considered an interpretive map that "tries to interpret the represented landscape by revealing its particularities" 38 and it may be "used to communicate with a public of nonspecialists. It focuses on the communication of geoscientific 39 themes in order to provide the opportunity for the user to understand geomorphological or geological phenomena, 40 formation or evolution. Tourist information are of secondary importance" (RegoliniBissig 2010). Not only traditional methods but also new technologies, based for example on GIS (Geographic Information 41 Systems), remote sensing and satellite imagery applications (e.g., Google Earth®) allow multitemporal analysis. 42 Moreover, they and are really important especially important in mountain areas where valorization and promotion must 43 be linked with education and management in relation with the high dynamicity of the environment (RegoliniBissig, 44 2010; Martin et al. 2014).. 45 Herein we propose a systematic procedure to join geomorphological mapping criteria, geomorphosites analysis and 46 valorization proposals in mountain environment, taking into account the need for an easyapproachableeasyreading 47 document, also for nonspecialists. The study case is located in the upper portion of the Loana Valley (VerbanoCusio 48 Ossola Province –VCO), in the Western Italian Alps, one of the most important access to the “Val Grande National 49 Park” (VGNP; FigureFig. 1). The Loana Valley is included in the Sesia Val Grande Geopark (SVGP; FigureFig. 1), officially recognized in the year 2013 by the European Geoparks Network and by UNESCO. In the Loana Valley, 50 erosion and depositional landforms, and deposits, mainly due to glacial processes, debris flows, mass movements, 51 debris flows, avalanches and stream modeling, are easily observable while walking touristic and excursionist trails. 52 Besides,Moreover here, in the recent times, extreme meteorological events have triggered, in the recent past, several 53 instability events, some of which damaged sometimes damaging infrastructures and left deep scars in the landscape 54 (e.g., Mortara and Turritto 1989; Dresti et al. 2011). and leaving deep scars in the landscape. The selected area presents 55 hence good features to test the proposed methodology and to find out tools for Earth Science education and 56 dissemination, with particular regards to georisk educationmitigation strategies (e.g., Bollati et al. 2013). 57 The main aims of this paper are: i) the mapping of the geomorphology of a selected area, ii) the creation of 58 anmaking a inventory of landforms of geomorphological interest along specific trails; iii) the set ofsetting a GIS 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 34 of 42

1 2 3 procedure to create simplified geomorphological sketches (i.e., Geomorphological Boxes) of Potential Geomorphosites; iv) the evaluationevaluating and ranking of Potential Geomorphosites and Geotrails; v) proposing a selection of 4 Geomorphositesgeomorphosites for valorization and geoconservation and valorization according to different purposes. 5 6 1 Study sitearea 7 8 The Loana hydrographic basin occupies an area of about 27 km2 and it is placed within the Ticino hydrographic 9 basin, at the boundary with Toce basin (Figure(Fig. 1). Loana Valley is a tributary of the Vigezzo Valley, which is 10 characterized by a divergent fluvial pattern: i) the Eastern Melezzo stream flows toward the Maggiore Lake (East) 11 continuing its course in the Swiss portion of the valley, named Centovalli; ii) the Western Melezzo river flows into the 12 Toce River (West). The Loana stream is a tributary of the Eastern Melezzo. From the geological point of view, in the upper Loana Valley the Insubric Line (locally named Canavese Line; CL) 13 separates the Southern Alps (on the SE) from the axial part of the Alpine chain represented here by the Austroalpine (on 14 the NW) Domains (OgnSL; Figure 2a) (Bigioggero et al. 2006). The first domain, Africavergent, is characterized by a 15 low dominant Alpine deformation while the second one, Europevergent, underwent pervasively to an Alpine tectonic 16 imprint that restructured the whole rocks. More in detail, Southern Alps, a portion of the African passive continental 17 margin, are here represented by the Ivrea Verbano Zone, which is related to the lower continental crust and to the upper 18 mantle: metabasites (MbIV; FigureFig. 2a) and metapelites (MpIV; FigureFig. 2a) in granulite to amphibolite facies 19 and mantleperidotite slices (PerIV;For FigureFig. Review 2). The CL separates Only the Southern Alps from the axial part of the 20 Alpine chain and specifically from the Austroalpine system of the SesiaLanzo Zone (OgnSL; Fig. 2a), still belonging 21 to the African continental margin. The FobelloRimella mylonitic schists (FRSch; FigureFig. 2a) locally represent 22 locally the product of the deformation along the CL. This wide deformation belt occupies the head of the valley conferring weakness to rocks and favoring their weathering and degradation. Significant are the calcareous 23 intercalations (blu stripes in Figure 2b) outcropping within both the IvreaVerbano Zone (MpIV and MbIV in Figure 24 2a) and the FobelloRimella mylonitic schists (FRSch; Figure 2a). They underwent different degrees of metamorphism, 25 in some cases being completely transformed in marbles, like those characterizing the IvreaVerbano Zone. 26 The Toce hydrographic basin shows clear evidences of glacial modeling. Hantke (1988) reconstructed its evolution 27 since the Miocene individuating several episodes of transfluence into the Ticino Glacier, along the Centovalli. 28 The VCO province is characterized by intense rainfall events that recently and repeatedly affected the area (e.g., 29 1978, 1987, 1993, 2000; Cat Berro et al. 2014). Climatic and meteorological conditions, joined with geological features 30 (lithology and regional deformation systems) and hydrographic basin morphology,, locally favor heavy instability 31 phenomena and debris flow events (Hantke 1988; Cavinato et al. 2005; Mortara and Turritto 1989; Luino 2005; Dresti et al. 2011). In particular, on 7th August 1978 heavy rains provoked, a big mass movement in the hydrographic basin of 32 the Stagno Stream, a tributary of the Loana River, a big mass movement in proximity to a lithostructural contact. After 33 the 1978 instability event, with effects at regional scale, the Regione Piemonte produced a series of detailed maps 34 (geolithological, geotechnical and maps of the hydrogeological instability effects) for the whole Melezzo Basin (e.g., 35 Bigioggero et al. 1981). 36 Except for suchthis detailed and applicative studies and for the technical maps produced in the framework of the 37 Municipality urbanistic plan, the Loana Valley is not deeply studied from the geomorphological point of view and 38 scarce is the related literature (Cerrina 2002; Barbolini et al. 2011). Barbolini et al. (2011) proposed a models for 39 detecting areas susceptible to avalanches but no similar models have been yet elaborated for landslides (e.g., Hoang & 40 Tien Bui, 2016) or debris flows, that pervasively affect the area. As mentioned before, the valleyAs mentioned before, the area is characterized by an important structural and lithological control on landforms shaping. Mass movements 41 (mainly rockfalls) oftengenerally take place together with debris flows especially along weakness zones. Avalanches 42 (e.g., 1986, 2014). They are among the most dangerous processes that affectaffecting slopes mainly during Spring and 43 reworking, shaping the typical avalanches corridors (Barbolini et al. 2011). Composite cones (sensu Baroni et al. 2007) 44 built and reworked bydue to gravity processes, running waters and avalanches are very commonwidespread in the 45 valley. In specific cases (i.e., in correspondence of the "Nucleo Alpino La Cascina" see details along the paragraph), 46 defense works from mass wasting events are present. Near the water divide, gravity landforms are combined with 47 glacial ones generatedthat intensely interested the area during the Pleistocene glacial stages.. The Loana River course 48 has been deeply modified by human interventions, mainly addressed to facilitate grazing or to regulate water flow; and 49 its more distal part is deeply incised as far as the alluvial fan, at the confluence with the Eastern Melezzo. From other points of view, the Loana Valley, especially in the upper portion, at the border with the VGNP, has been 50 recently analyzed for its physical features as ecological corridor (PNVG, 2001; Bionda et al. 2011). Geological 51 (features, very meaningful for what concerns structural and petrographical) characteristics topics, are deeply connected 52 with human settlements and georesources usage.. Two regionally valorized archeological sites are also present (see 53 location on Figure 4): the “Nucleo Alpino La Cascina and “Le Fornaci della Calce” whose protection is regulated by the 54 Piano Paesaggistico Regionale. The second site is strictly linked with the geological framework since it is related to the 55 usage of the carbonates outcropping in the area, for producing lime.The second site is strictly linked with the geological 56 framework since it is related to the usage of the carbonates, more or less metamorphosed and outcropping as 57 intercalations in the area, for producing lime. 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 35 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 Finally the Loana Valley, especially in the upper portion, at the border with the VGNP, has been recently analyzed for its physical features as ecological corridor (PNVG, 2001; Bionda et al. 2011). 4 Four sites of geomorphological interest locatedlocations within the Loana hydrographic basin are included at least 5 in 1 of thein 3 official catalogues of geosites concerning the area (Table 1): 6 i) the ISPRA geosites database (ISPRA, 2017);(http://sgi.isprambiente.it/geositiweb/Default.aspx); 7 ii) the Regione Piemonte list of elements of naturalistic interest (Regione Piemonte, 8 2017);(http://www.geoportale.piemonte.it/geocatalogorp/); 9 iii) the SVGP Geosites list (SVGP, 2013).(http://www.parcovalgrande.it/pdf/Dossier.SesiaValGrande.pdf). 10 The Pozzo Vecchio Loana waterfall (site n. 1 in TableTab. 1), located at the confluence with the Eastern Melezzo river, 11 and the Lago del Marmo (site n. 2 in TableTab. 1), located at the head of the valley, are present in at least 2 of the 12 databases even if not for the same interest. The 3 geosites, individuated by the SVGP (site n. 2, 3 and 4 in TableTab. 1), are currently provisional and reported by the SVGP exclusively for their petrographic meaning. 13

14 2 Methods 15 16 The methodology herein illustrated consists of a schematic procedure articulated in different phases of analysis, 17 elaboration and outputs realization, as resumed in Figure 3. 18 19 2.1 Geomorphological mapping,For censusidentification Review of landforms Only of geomorphological interest and geotrails 20 planning 21 22 The first step concerned literature and cartographic sources analysis, followed by a field survey addressed to geomorphological mapping field survey (step 0, FigureFig. 3). in order to proceed with the geomorphological map 23 elaboration. Landforms are represented according to their genetic process, as indicated by the National Geological 24 Survey (ISPRA, 1994; 2007)(ISPRA) and recently updated by D'Orefice and Graciotti (2015). The geomorphological 25 map was digitalized using ArcGIS 9.3® (step 1, FigureFig. 3). According to the field data and to the geomorphological 26 map, we successively made an inventory of the landscape geomorphological georesources (i.e., landforms of 27 geomorphological interest) (step 1a, FigureFig. 3) (e.g.; Giardino and Mortara 1999).. 28 ThenMoreover we analyzed the official geosites catalogues (step 1b, FigureFig. 3) to obtain more informationdata 29 for the selectiondetection, among all the mapped landforms of geomorphological interest, of the Potential 30 Geomorphosites (PGmfs) and for the planning of Geotrails (Gtrs) (step 1c, FigureFig. 3). This stepphase concerned the 31 analysis of the already existing hiking paths (e.g., Giardino and Mortara 1999), representedreported on the official maps (Carta Escursionistica, Interreg, “Valle Vigezzo, Valle Cannobina” 1:25000) and/or digitalized within the Regione 32 Piemonte official shapefiles (Regione Piemonte, 2017). The trails(http://www.geoportale.piemonte.it/geocatalogorp/). 33 These latter were also surveyed in order to checkverify morphological features influencing accessibility, maintenance 34 and potential hazards affecting them. Some Geostops (Gsts) were then individuated along geotrailsthem (step 1c, 35 FigureFig. 3). Their locations were carefully chosendefined in order to allow the best observation ofbe able to observe 36 the PGmfs both on site and from other locations (e.g., opposite side of the valley). Each PGmfs was associated to a 37 principal Gst along the Gtrss and to additional ones from which the site could be even better observed. 38 39 2.2 Geomorphological boxes realization 40 Geomorphological boxes (GmBxs) were elaborated, for each PGmfs, according to specific criteria (e.g., scientific 41 integrity, easy reading by using familiar supports), at first to help the evaluators in assessing their features and, in a 42 second phase,moment, to facilitate the users in understanding the geomorphology of the site and its progressive 43 evolution under surface processes action (RegoliniBissig 2010).own dynamicity in space and time. The procedure (step 44 2, FigureFig. 3) consisted inof adding specific fields to the shapefiles attributes tables of shapefiles of the 45 geomorphological polygons, lines and point in GIS environment. These additional fields contain information abouton 46 the digitized landforms as PGmfs. Moreover display options and dedicated layer files, based onusing the same symbols 47 of the geomorphological official legend, were set to plot, each time, elements useful to understand the site dynamics.. In 48 this way, if the official geomorphological map is updated in GIS, the deriving output boxes will be automatically 49 updated too. For the export, additional layers were included (e.g., official trails, mountain huts positioning) to provide spatial references for the users. 50 Aerial photographs at disposal (2012 aerial photo, courtesy of Geoportale Nazionale Ministero dell'Ambiente) 51 were usedadopted as background to Gmbxs (step 2a, FigureFig. 3), especially for the dissemination purposes.purpose. 52 This graphic support, in fact, in the recent times has become more familiar also to general public by using applications 53 like Google Maps® or Google Earth® and hence allows to link scientific data with a real scenery, facilitating the 54 approach and the reading of geomorphological symbols (e.g., RegoliniBissig 2010; Martin et al. 2014). 55 56 2.3 Potential geomorphosites (PGmfs) and geotrails (Gtrs) evaluation 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 36 of 42

1 2 3 The quantitative assessment of PGmfs and of Gtrs (step 3, FigureFig. 3) started from specific field data collected through dedicated field forms, regarding geomorphological and geological features, activity degree of surface 4 processes, landforms size, geomorphological hazards and trail characteristics influencing tourist vulnerability (e.g., 5 Bollati et al. 2013; Giardino and Mortara 1999).features. GmBxs were complementary tools at this scope (Figure(Fig. 6 3). The quantitative evaluation was performed according to the method proposed by Bollati et al. (2016 (with 7 modifications) that had been elaborated considering attributes and values defined in the recent literature (e.g., Panizza 8 2001; Reynard et al. 2007; Brihla, 2016b). Data were organized by means of a relational database realizedbuilt using a 9 commercial package (Microsoft Office Access®) and final numeric values were calculated. The criteria here adopted 10 for the implementation of the database are: i) integrity, that means no duplication of records (PGmfs and Gtrs) are 11 allowed and requires a the maximum subdivision of information linkedrelated each other, by means of the 12 geomorphositeID;geomorphositeID, is required; ii) logic sequence in order to facilitate the users, through the preuse of set forms, during the data storage phase. The database is equipped with export functions that, acting through preset 13 queries, allow the operator to create tables of PGmfs and Gtrs data to be joined or directly loaded, once transformed into 14 shapefiles, within GIS. The database was set using the evaluation parameters (SV, AV, GV, PU; SIn, EIn) and 15 equationsformulas reported in the Tablestables 2, 3 and 4. From the numeric values attributed to single PGmfs, those 16 referred toof Gtrs were derived and normalized to the number of its own sites, taking into account that each Gtr is 17 composed by a different number of sites, a feature that may affect the final results. 18 Moreover, we quantitatively assessedassesses the reference site (GR) detected during the step 1b (Figure(Fig. 3), the 19 Pozzo Vecchio Loana waterfallFor (i.e., site 1;Review TableTab. 1) that is present, Only for its geomorphological meaning, in 2 of the 20 investigated official geosites databases. Since GR is described in detail neither in the official form of ISPRA nor in the 21 onethat of Regione Piemonte (the only indication regards the primary geomorphological interest), an analysis on the 22 field was hence performednecessary to quantitatively evaluate it. PGmfs, GR and Gtrs were finally ranked (step 3a, FigureFig. 3). 23 In order to spatially represent results coming from the database (step 3a, FigureFig. 3), besides using the classic 24 column charts, the use of the multivariate method proposed by Reynard et al. (2016b)(2016c) was experimented. In fact 25 the radar graphs allow an easy identification of the evaluation parameters site distinction at first sight. The same 26 Authors however indicated the presence of a graphical bias for this kind of representation: the surface representing the 27 evaluation depends on the physical proximity or distance, on the graph, between parameters with similar numeric value 28 and by their meaning. In order to reduce this bias, the parameters with a similar meaning were put on the same side of 29 the graph and separated from the others by a grey dotted line (see FigureFig. 8, results paragraph). More in detail the 30 parameters more akin to dissemination (PU; EIn; AV) were put side by side respect to those strictly linked with the 31 scientific meaning of the site (SV, Sin, GV). This should allow a graphic view that more emphasizes difference between sites and facilitate discrimination according to different valorization purposes.. 32 33 2.4 Geomorphosites (Gmfs) selection 34 35 Results from the PGmfs quantitative evaluation were used to select the most representativeeffectively valuable 36 Geomorphosites (Gmfs) to be proposedpropose for addressing management resources, valorization or geoconservation 37 practices (step 4 and 4a, FigureFig. 3). 38 To select Gmfsdiscriminate among PGmfs, we used Threshold Values (TSVs) for each attributes (SV, AV, GV, PU, 39 Sin, EIN; Tabletable 2, 3, 4) calculated according to the equation:formula: 40 41 = [ + ] 42 2 10 43 The TSVs considered for each attribute are reported in Tabletable 5. 44 The GR values were then used as reference to discuss the numeric values obtained for the PGmfs and, together with 45 TSVs, to help in discriminating among sites. 46 47 4 3 Results 48 49 34.1 Geomorphological boxes (GmBxs)

50 After the fieldwork (step 0), the geomorphological map realization (step 1) and the analysis of the official geosites 51 catalogues (step 1b), 15 PGmfs, observable from 19 Gsts (Table(Tab. 6; FigureFig. 4), were detected.detected,. For each 52 one of the 15 PGmfs, a GmBx was elaborated (step 2a). GmBxs are thought to be addressed both to scientific and 53 professional users, for different level of knowledge deepening. As mentioned before, the plotted symbols include only 54 the elements strictly concerning strictly the fundamental features useful to identify the genesis and the past or current 55 dynamicor past dynamics of each PGmfs. to facilitate and lighten the reading of the map. In Figure 5, the comparison 56 between the traditional geomorphological map and the simplified version for the GmBxs is reported. The proposed 57 PGmfs is G6 Pizzo Stagno Complex system (Table(Tab. 6, 7; FigureFig. 6). It has been chosen to exemplify a 58 geomorphological box assince i) it obtained a very high EIn value (0,76/ over 1 see result section 43.2), ii) it includes 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 37 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 evidences of active, passive and evolving passive landforms providing different hazards issues, and, last but not least, iii) it is one of the most important geomorphic evidence (deep scarp due to mass movement composed by rock fall and 4 sliding) of the hydrogeological instability event occurred in 7th August 1978 in the Melezzo hydrographic basin. The 5 deposit is still not stable and it is affectedinterested by debris flows and avalanches too, processes that favorfavoring the 6 debris transport and deposition at the confluence between the Stagno and the Loana streams. More in detail, the down 7 valley portionsection of the G6 site is characterizedinterested by the presence of a wide composite cone in whichwhere 8 the northern portion is currently affected by debris flows and avalanches while the southern portion seems to be more 9 stable, even if it shows evidences of similar processes active in the past. In 1982 an additional deep scar in the 10 landscape developed and a supplementary way to the debris transportation to the main valley was naturally activated. 11 The influence of geological structure is also represented in the GmBx simplified version (hypothetic fault and 12 lithological diversity along the fracture zone)fracturation belt) to catch users attention on its importance in driving hydrogeological instabilities. 13

14 43.2 Potential Geomorphosites (PGmfs) and Geotrails (Gtrs) evaluation 15 16 PGmfs well represent the 3 geomorphosites categories related to the surface processes activity: active, passive and 17 evolving passive (Fig. 6; 7). Such PGmfs are distributed along two of the official hiking trail, here selected as Gtrs, 18 characterized by different difficulty degrees for what concerns their accessibility (Tab. 6; Fig. 4). The Gtr AA, suitable 19 for more expert hikers, is an extensionFor of Reviewthe Gtr AB, an easier andOnly more touristic path. (Figure 6; 7). Both the Gtrs 20 have a ring pattern and they are characterized by a different number of PGmfs and some of them belong to both the 21 Gtrs. 22 The analyzed PGmfs can be considered of local/regional importance. They have been shaped by different geomorphic processes, typical for the high mountain environment (Figure(Fig. 6; 7). The main modeling factors 23 characterizing PGmfs are reported in Figure 8. The most effectiveinfluent geomorphic processes in shaping PGmfs 24 results to be the glacial ice and the snow action and , followed by structural and lithological features control landscape 25 shapingcontrols (46.67%). and then by periglacial processes (40%). Gravity and waterrelated processes result to be less 26 represented in term of interesting landforms (33,33%) even if, at present, gravity processes are the most active. Debris 27 flows (26.67%), have been considered separately as borderline forms, involving both waterrelated and gravity 28 processes. Human modified landforms are less abundant (13.33%) even if meaningful. 29 Quantitative evaluation results for PGmfs are reported in Tabletable 7 and in Figure 9 (step 3a). In Figure 10 the 30 multivariate representation of numerical values (step 3a) is illustrated and it refers to all the evaluated PGmfs (white 31 radar graphs) and to the GR (black radar graph on the upperleft corner). The trends highlighted in Tabletable 7 and in Figure 9 are herein spatially represented. The difference betweens among very high valued sites (at least 3 parameters 32 above TSVs: (G11, G13, G6, G1, G3G13 and G15) and the very less valued (G4, G5, G8; G2, G7, G9 and G10) is 33 evident at first sight. Among the meaningful sites, some of them allow a comparison between the different activity 34 degree respect to the same process. G1 for example, may be considered quiescent respect to avalanches, as it is affected 35 only by the most powerful events (e.g., 1986), while G6 records a more regular (quite annual) frequency of avalanche 36 events. 37 Considering the correlation between the main evaluation parameters (GV, PU, EIn) of indexes at level of PGmfs , it is possible to obtain interesting results (Figure(Fig. 11). PU (Table(Tab. 3; 4) of each PGmfs does not correlate 38 2 39 significantly (r =0.0861) with GV (Table(Tab. 2; 4), suggesting they should be both considered in phase of decision, 40 according to different selection purposes. PU and EIn (Table(Tab. 3; 4) provide, on the contrary, a more correlatedsimilar trend (r2=0.7667). These relations were verified also at level of Gtrs but in Figure 11 this resultherein 41 is not reported since less statistically significant. 42 The 15 PGmfs are distributed alongsignificant, having only two of the official hiking trails, here named Gtrs, 43 characterized by different difficulty degreespoints for what concerns their accessibility (Table 6; Figure 4).calculating 44 r2. 45 The Gtr AA, suitable for more expert hikers, is an extension of the Gtr AB, an easier and more touristic path. Both 46 the Gtrs are characterized by a ring pattern and by a different number of PGmfs. Some of them belong to both the Gtrs. 47 The Gtrs evaluation results, whose numeric values were normalized to the number of their own sites, are reported in 48 Figurefigure 12. Results show that AA Gtr AA has higher SV, and AV, SIn and also GV respect to AB Gtr AB while 49 this latter, that is, instead, more valuable in terms of PU and EIn.

50 43.3 Geomorphosites (Gmfs) selection 51 52 For the Gmfs selection, aA critical analysis was finally performed on the obtained valuesresults using TSVs and the 53 relation between the PGmfs values respect to the GR values. The percentages of parameters exceeding the TSVs for 54 each Pgmfs are reported in Figurefigure 13. It is interesting to note that GR, the reference site, is above TSVs only for 55 the 33% of the calculated parameters. The only site reaching the 100% of parameters over TSVs is G11. Moreover, 56 besidesBesides GR, G13 is the only PGmfs included in one of the official databases (i.e., site 3, Tabletable 1). It is 57 indicated in the ISPRA database (ISPRA, 2017) for its geomorphological meaning while within the SVGP list of 58 geosites (SVGP, 2013) it is considered exclusively for its petrographic meaning (i.e., marble intercalations within the 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 38 of 42

1 2 3 IvreaVerbano Zone; MpIV and MbIV in Figure 2). As a general outcome, it could be possible to consider worthy of attention as Gmfs the 53% of PGmfs that exceed the TSVs for, at least, the 33% of the parameters (G11, G6, G13, G15, 4 G1, G3, G12, G14). 5 6 5 4 Discussions 7 8 Geoheritage in mountain environment has a great relevance for valorization, tourism promotion and geoconservation 9 (Reynard and Coratza 2016; Reynard et al., 2016a).2016b). In particular, geomorphosites are landforms characterized 10 by specific attributes making them ideal key sites ideal for cultural itineraries, addressed to general public and 11 exploitable for outdoor education activities (Bollati et al. 2016).. On the other side, geomorphic processes, responsible 12 of for and affecting geomorphosites genesis and/or currently affecting them,features, can represent hazard and risk for users,in fruition contexts, especially under changing climate conditions (Pelfini et al., 2009). Nevertheless, their 13 morphological evidences can represent also an opportunity to approach georisk education (Giardino and Mortara 1999; 14 (Coratza & De Waele, 2012; Bollati et al., 2013; AlcántaraAyala and Moreno 2016). Hence, information about 15 landscape features and dynamics areis fundamental both for georesources management and forsuitable forms of 16 tourism (e.g. geotrails), helping in spreading knowledge and awareness in high mountain environment fruition. 17 Geomorphological mapping allows, through a unique document, to synthesize landforms related to erosion and 18 deposition, depositional landforms as well as the activitydynamics of the related processes. However itWhat is 19 crucialfundamental is understandingFor how toReview translate it for different Only targets of users. These considerations represented 20 the starting point for this research that deals properly with geomorphological mapping, its usage in identification, 21 evaluation and selection of PGmfs and Gtrs and its final versionrendering for dissemination purposes (i.e., GmBxs). The 22 geomorphological map Geomorphological mapping has been hence realizedconsidered under a double perspective: i) the scientific data collection and representation, considered indispensable for analyzing landforms of different genesis 23 (step 0 and 1, FigureFig. 3); ii) the elaboration of dissemination products (GmBxs) to guide both the evaluator, during 24 the analysis of landforms features as potential componentselements of geoheritage, and the final user in reading the 25 physical landscape in a simplified but corrected way (step 2a and 5, FigureFig. 3). Concerning the (ii) point, in Table 8 26 a classification of the typologies of geomorphological maps proposed in literature and in the present research, according 27 to the aim of the research, is reported. Someseveral examples of simplified geomorphological maps for tourismwith 28 geotouristic aims, that cover the entire territory with less detail than the traditional geomorphological maps, have been 29 already proposed in literature (e.g., Coratza & RegoliniBissig 2010; Castaldini et al. 2005) with different approaches. 30 These maps may cover wide areas without providing details about landforms as the traditional geomorphological maps 31 do. The usefulness of GmBxs is to provide geomorphological sketches for each . Nevertheless, the choice herein presented is focused on creating maps for single PGmfs, extracting data in GIS environment, starting from a traditional 32 totalcoverage geomorphological map. The proposed methodology upgrade previous proposals addressed both to not 33 specialists (e.g. Giardino and Mortara, 1999; RegoliniBissig, 2010) and to specialists (Carton et al. 2005) thanks to the 34 use of free aerial photos as background. With GmBxs that covers the study area. The elaboration (step 2, FigureFig. 3) 35 aimed at limiting the plotting of symbols is limited to those essentials for the user to understand the characteristics and 36 the dynamics of each PGmfs. dynamic. The GIS shapefiles are the same of the official geomorphological map,does not 37 change with the advantage that the GmBxs data areremain constantly updated, in real time, whenever the official 38 geomorphological map undergoes to changes through times (e.g., local landscape transformations due to instability 39 events, quite common in mountain areas). Aerial photographs, chosen as background of GmBxs, enriched with the trails 40 paths path and essential placenames,palcenames, are familiar to the general public (i.e., Google Maps®; Google Earth®) and they could become an excellent tool for facilitating the “approach and the reading” of the physical 41 landscape, maintaining the scientific integrity (RegoliniBissig 2010; (Martin et al. 2014). GmBxs, comparable hence to 42 the "interpretive maps" by RegoliniBissig (2010), could be proposed as illustrating material within PGmfs description 43 forms (step 5, FigureFig. 3). as the one used in the framework of this research or those inserted in official databases. As 44 a whole, Gmbxs geomorphological mapping may be proposed as considered a powerful tool forfrom the scientific data 45 collection and plotting for risk management as far as the valorization of high mountain geomorphic environments also 46 under the perspectivefor example by means of georisk education (Wearing 2008; Coratza and De Waele 2012; Bollati 47 et al. 2013; AlcántaraAyala and Moreno 2016). 48 Concerning geoheritage analysis (step 1a, 1b, 1c, 3, 4 and 4a; FigureFig. 3), Loana Valley, especially in the investigated 49 southern portion, results to beis characterized by very representative landforms (step 1a; FigureFig. 3) differently affected by processes and so useful for the comprehension of quiescent and active status of sites, respect to a single 50 process (e.g., G1 and G6 for avalanches). Theindividuated number of PGmfs (15; step 1b, 1c; FigureFig. 3) may be 51 considered high in a so narrow area (i.e., high density). Nevertheless, Anyway, if we consider the official ISPRA 52 catalogue (ISPRA, 2017), it is possible to note that, the sites density of sites is variable over the Italian territory, 53 depending on the contributions provided to the database by local administrations. Since not all the landforms canmay be 54 considered Gmfs, a selection is usually necessary (Komac et al. 2011) and several are the methodologies proposed in 55 literature (Brihla 2016b). The newIn detail, the proposal of using TSVs and the comparison with reference sites included 56 in the official databases (i.e., GR), allowed to select the most valuable Gmfs among discriminate between the PGmfs 57 (step 4 and 4a; FigureFig. 3). In the specific case, we propose to consider as Gmfs only the PGmfs exceeding the TSVs 58 with the 33% of the parameters, as for GR. TSVs applicationThese tools together with the multivariate spatial 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 39 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 representation of results (i.e., radar graphs; (Reynard et al. 2016b)2016c) may provide also easy accessible information for public administrations useful for geoheritagea better sites’ management. In this framework, as the specific case, PU 4 and GV do not correlate significantly each other, and so they should be both considered during selection, according toin 5 relation with the aim of the management. A critic analysis of the sites ranking (step 4; FigureFig. 3) is hence 6 indispensable: Which site, among the most valuablevalued ones, has the highest scientific meaning? Which one has the 7 highest educational meaning? Ideally,Probably resources for geoconservation may be addressed to protect sites 8 characterized by high scientific value and susceptibility to degradation,, as in the first case, while resources for 9 dissemination and promotion could be dedicated to reserved for sites suitable for educational initiatives. In the studied 10 area one of the most representative site documenting ancient and current changes in the Finally, we propose to consider 11 as Gmfs only the PGmfs exceeding the TSVs with the 33% of the parameters as for GR. If we consider the GV of PGmfs 12 reporting significant modifications of the physical landscape is(see Coratza and De Waele 2012) and currently undergoing to further geomorphic modifications, among the cases exceeding 33% (Fig. 13), the G6 Pizzo Stagno 13 Complex system. Temporal variation is one of the most representative and valuable PGmfs of the whole area (third in 14 the rank according to GV; Tab. 7). The temporal differentiation of processes typology and intensity, changes in 15 frequency of geomorphic events and linksthe link with human history (i.e., the 1978 disastrous event; Mazzi and 16 Pessina 2008) allow to consider G6promote particularly this site as ideal to be valorized especially in the most 17 representative also forperspective of georisk education projects according to criteria suggested, for example, by 18 Coratza and De Waele (2012) and addressed to risk mitigation (AlcántaraAyala and Moreno (2016). 19 TheDealing with the analysis Forof Gtrs, the Review two analyzed Gtrs (AA Onlyand AB) offer the possibility to observe, in safety 20 conditions, the geomorphological evidences of hazardous processes and related landforms (i.e., PGmfs) from different 21 points of view (i.e., Gsts) allowing to proposeconferring different geotouristic approaches.possibilities. Morphological 22 and vulnerability features of Gtrs, as well as those of Gmfs, should be periodically reevaluated. The link with topics related to human settlements and georesources usage, (i.e., the official archeosites Nucleo Alpino "Le Cascine" and 23 Fornaci della Calce) observable alonghistory, characterizing both the trails, increases the GV and favorsconfers high 24 values since favoring multidisciplinary approaches (e.g., history and anthropology). MoreoverSimilarly to the analysis 25 carried out on PGmfs values, the AB Gtr, characterized byshowing higher values in term of PU and EIn values, result, 26 seems to be the more suitable for educational purpose and for disseminationaddressed to a general public.public, also 27 thanks to the presence of official archeosites (i.e., Nucleo Alpino "Le Cascine" and Fornaci della Calce) linked with 28 PGmfs. On the contrary, the AA Gtr, showing higher SV, AV, GV and SIn, could be considered for geoconservation 29 practices or used to promote, from a strictly scientific point of view, the geogeo(morpho)logical heritage characterizing 30 the area inside the SVGP (e.g., Smrekar et al. 2016). 31 Finally it is worth to be considered that the morphological features and values of Gtrs and of Gmfs, has to be periodically reassessed, especially when located in a dynamic environment as the mountain one. 32

33 6 5 Conclusions 34 35 Geomorphological mapping combined with geoheritagegeoresources analysis (i.e., identification, evaluation and 36 selection) can be considered part of a unique methodology, useful to find good practices for the management of the 37 (high) mountain environment as the Alpine one herein analyzed. Geomorphological mapping provides a starting point 38 forbase in the framework of which it is possible to identify the PGmfs census andundergoing a quantitative evaluation. 39 in a following phase. Dissemination products in the form herein presentedmay have different output forms. The one 40 chosen in this research (i.e., GmBxs), is based on the use of the Italian official geomorphological legend plotted on a background (i.e., aerial photos), familiar to the general public and to young people, represent an useful instrument also, 41 for Geosciences education.representing PGmfs: only the essential elements necessary to understand the dynamics of the 42 site. 43 In conclusion GmBxs will hopefully allow people to: i) better understand the main elements of a specific physical 44 landscape characterized by a spatiotemporal differentiation in dynamic processes; ii) acquire ability in reading and 45 interpreting landforms and processes in a simplified but scientifically correct way and iii) acquire also awareness on 46 possible geomorphic hazards affecting trails, for better enjoying mountain and Alpine environments. 47 48 References 49 AlcántaraAyala I, Moreno A. (2016) Landslide risk perception and communication for disaster risk managemnet in 50 montain areas of developing countires: a Mexican foretaste. Journal of Mountain Science 13(12): 20792093. DOI: 51 10.1007/s1162901538230 52 Barbolini M, Pagliardi M, Ferro F et al. (2011) Avalanche hazard mapping over large undocumented areas. Natural 53 hazards 56(2): 451464. DOI: 10.1007/s1106900994348 54 Baroni C, Armiraglio S, Gentili R et al. (2007) Landform–vegetation units for investigating the dynamics and 55 geomorphologic evolution of alpine composite debris cones (Valle dell'Avio, Adamello Group, Italy). 56 Geomorphology 84(1): 5979. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.07.002 57 Beniston, M (2003) Climatic change in mountain regions: a review of possible impacts. Climatic Change 59(1): 531. 58 DOI: 10.1023/A:1024458411589 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 40 of 42

1 2 3 Bigioggero B, Boriani A, Colombo A et al. (1981) Carta geologica delle Valli Vigezzo, Fenecchio e basso Isorno. 1: 25 000. CNRCentro di studio per la stratigrafia e petrografia delle Alpi centrali–Milano. SEL CA., Firenze. (in Italian) 4 Bigioggero B, Colombo A, Cavallo A et al. (2006) Schema geologicostrutturale dell’area Val d’OssolaSempione in 5 scala 1:50.000, Carta e Note Illustrative. Snam Rete Gas Ed. 31 p. (in Italian and English) 6 Bigioggero B, Boriani A, Colombo A, et al. (1981) Carta geologica delle Valli Vigezzo, Fenecchio e basso Isorno. 1: 25 7 000. CNRCentro di studio per la stratigrafia e petrografia delle Alpi centrali–Milano. SEL CA., Firenze. 8 Bionda R, Mosini A, Pompilio L, et al. (2011) Parchi in rete – Definizione di una rete ecologica nel Verbano Cusio 9 Ossola basata su Parchi, Riserve e siti rete Natura 2000. Società di Scienze Naturali del Verbano Cusio Ossola e 10 LIPU – BirdLIFE Italia, p. 174 (in Italian) 11 Bollati I, Pelfini M, Pellegrini L et al. (2011) Active geomorphosites and educational application: an itinerary along 12 Trebbia River (Northern Apennines, Italy). In: Reynard E, Laigre L, Kramar N (eds) Les géosciences au service de la société. Actes du colloque en l’honneur du Professeur Michel Marthaler, Géovision 37: 219234 13 Bollati I, Smiraglia C, Pelfini M (2013) Assessment and selection of geomorphosites and itineraries in the Miage glacier 14 area (Western Italian Alps) according to scientific value for tourism and educational purposes. Environmental 15 Management 51 (4): 951967. DOI: 10.1007/s0026701299952 16 Bollati I, Fossati M, Zanoletti E et al. (2016) A methodological proposal for the assessment of cliffs equipped for 17 climbing as a component of geoheritage and tools for Earth Science education: the case of the VerbanoCusio 18 Ossola (Western Italian Alps). In: Skourtsos E, Lister G (eds) General Contributions, Journal of the Virtual 19 Explorer, Electronic EditionFor 49, pp.123. Review Only 20 Brandolini P., Faccini F, Piccazzo M (2006) Geomorphological hazard and tourist vulnerability along Portofino Park 21 trails (Italy). Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 6(4): 563571. DOI: 10.5194/nhess65632006, 2006. 22 Brandolini P, Faccini F, Maifredi A, et al. (2012) Geomorphological hazard and cultural heritage: a casestudy of the Roman bridges in the Finalese karstic area (Western LiguriaItaly). Disaster Advance 5(3): 7989. 23 Brihla J (2016a) EU conservation overlooks geology. Nature, Correspondence, 529: 156. 24 Brihla J (2016b) Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8(2): 25 119134. DOI: 10.1007/s1237101401393 26 Burlando M, Firpo M, Queirolo C, et al. (2011) From geoheritage to sustainable development: strategies and 27 perspectives in the Beigua Geopark (Italy). Geoheritage 3(2): 6372. DOI: 10.1007/s1237101000194 28 Carton A, Coratza P, Marchetti M (2005) Guidelines for geomorphological sites mapping: examples from Italy. 29 Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement 11(3): 209218. DOI : 10.4000/geomorphologie.374 30 Castaldini D, Valdati J, Ilies DC (2009) Geomorphological and Geotourist Maps of the Upper Tagliole Valley (Modena 31 Apennines, Northern Italy). In: Coratza P, Panizza M (ed) Geomorphology and Cultural Heritage–Geomorfologia e beni culturali. Memorie descrittive della Carta Geologica d'Italia, LXXXVII (2009), pp. 2938. 32 Cat Berro D, Mercalli L, Bertolotto PL, et al. (2014) Il Clima dell’Ossola superiore. Nimbus 72(XXII2): 46129. (in 33 Italian). 34 Cavinato GP, Cravero M, Iabichino G, et al. (2005). Geostructural and Geomechanical Characterization of Rock 35 Exposures for an Endangered Alpine Road (Italy). 40th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS), American 36 Rock Mechanics Association, June 25 29, Anchorage. 37 Cerrina C (2002) Studio geomorfologico della Valle Loana (Valle Vigezzo, Alpi Lepontine). Master degree Thesis, 38 Università di Pisa, Italy. 106 p. (in Italian) 39 Comănescu, L., & Nedelea, A. (2015). Public perception of the hazards affecting geomorphological heritage—case 40 study: the central area of Bucegi Mts.(Southern Carpathians, Romania). Environmental Earth Sciences, 73(12), 84878497. DOI: 10.1007/s126650144007x 41 Coratza P, De Waele J (2012) Geomorphosites and natural hazards: teaching the importance of geomorphology in 42 society. Geoheritage 4(3): 195203. DOI: 10.1007/s1237101200580 43 Coratz, P, RegoliniBissig G (2009) Methods for mapping geomorphosites. In: Reynard E, Coratza P (ed) 44 Geomorphosites, München, Pfeil Verlag, pp.89103. 45 D'Orefice M, Graciotti R (2013) Rilevamento geomorfologico e cartografia. Dario Flaccovio Ed., Bologna, p.360. (in 46 Italian) 47 Dresti C, Ciampittiello M, Saidi H (2011) Fenomeni di instabilità geologica connessi a piogge intense negli ultimi anni. 48 Un caso di studio: strada statale 337 della Valle Vigezzo. Geologia dell'Ambiente 2(2011): 29 33. (in Italian) 49 Garavaglia V, Pelfini M (2011) Glacial Geomorphosites and Related Landforms: A Proposal for a Dendrogeomorphological Approach and Educational Trails. Geoheritage 3(2011): 1525. 50 DOI:10.1007/s1237101000274 51 Garavaglia V, Diolaiuti G, Smiraglia C, et al. (2012) Evaluating Tourist Perception of Environmental Changes as a 52 Contribution to Managing Natural Resources in Glacierized Areas: A Case Study of the Forni Glacier (Stelvio 53 National Park, Italian Alps). Environmental Management 50: 11251138. DOI:10.1007/s0026701299489 54 Giardino M, Mortara G (1999) La valorizzazione dei beni geomorfologici: uno studio di geositi nel Parco Nazionale 55 Gran Paradiso. Revue Valdotaine d’Histoire Naturelle 53: 520. (in Italian) 56 Gray M (2013), Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature (2nd Edition). John Wiley and Sons Ed., Oxford, p. 57 508. 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Page 41 of 42 Journal of Mountain Science

1 2 3 Hantke R (1988) La formazione delle valli tra Domodossola e Locarno: la Val d'Ossola, la Val Vigezzo (prov. di Novara) e le Centovalli (Ct. Ticino): Bollettino della Società Ticinese di Scienze Naturali 76: 123139. (in Italian) 4 Hoang ND, Tien Bui D (2016) A novel relevance vector machine classifier with cuckoo search optimization for spatial 5 prediction of landslides. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 30(5): 04016001. 6 ISPRA (1994) Carta Geomorfologica d’Italia 1:50.000 Guida al rilevamento. Quaderni Serie III, 4. (Available online 7 at: http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/periodicitecnici/iquaderniserieiiidelsgi/carta 8 geomorfologicad2019italia150000guidaal) . (in Italian). 9 ISPRA (2007) Carta Geomorfologica d'Italia 1:50.000 Guida alla rappresentazione cartografica, Quaderni Serie III, 10 10 (Available online at: http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/periodicitecnici/iquaderniserieiiidel 11 sgi/cartageomorfologicaditalia150000guidaalla) . (in Italian). 12 ISPRA (2017) National Inventory of Geosites. (Available online at: http://sgi.isprambiente.it/geositiweb/Default.aspx) Komac B, Zorn M, Erhartič B (2011) Loss of natural heritage from the geomorphological perspective. Do geomorphic 13 processes shape or destroy the natural heritage? Acta Geographica Slovenica 512: 407–418. DOI: 14 10.3986/AGS51305 15 Martin S (2010) Geoheritage popularisation and cartographic visualisation in the TsanfleuronSanetsch area (Valais, 16 Switzerland). In: RegoliniBissig G, Reynard E (ed) Mapping Geoheritage,Geoheritage. Géovisions, Institut de 17 géographie, Lausanne, 35, pp.35: 1530. 18 Martin S, Reynard E, Ondicol RP, et al. (2014) Multiscale web mapping for geoheritage visualisation and promotion. 19 Geoheritage 6(2): 141148.For DOI: 10.1007/s1237101401023 Review Only 20 Mazzi B, Pessina C (2008) L’alluvione del 1978 in Valle Vigezzo. Il Rosso e il blu Ed., Santa Maria Maggiore, 87 p. 21 (in Italian) 22 Moreau M (2010) Visual perception of changes in a high mountain landscape: the case of the retreat of the Evettes Glacier (HauteMaurienne, northern French Alps). Geomorphologie 2:165–174. DOI: 23 10.4000/geomorphologie.7901 24 Mortara G, Turitto O (1989) Considerazioni sulla vulnerabilità di alcuni siti adibiti a campeggio in ambiente alpino. In 25 Atti Congresso Internazionale Suolosottosuolo, Torino, pp. 137144. (in Italian) 26 Osborne RAL (2000) Geodiversity: Green geology in action Presidential address for 19992000: Proceedings of the 27 Linnaean Society of New South Wales, 122: 149173. 28 Panizza M (2001) Geomorphosites : concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey. Chinese Science 29 Bulletin 46 Suppl. Bd: 46. DOI: 10.1007/BF03187227 30 Pelfini M, Bollati I (2014) Landforms and geomorphosites ongoing changes: concepts and implications for geoheritage 31 promotion. Quaestiones Geographicae, 33 (1): 131143. DOI: 10.2478/quageo20140009, ISSN 0137477X Pelfini M, Brandolini P, Carton A. et al. (2007) Rappresentazione in carta delle caratteristiche dei sentieri ai fini della 32 mitigazione del rischio geomorfologico. Bollettino dell'Associazione Italiana di Cartografia, XLIIII: 141152. (in 33 Italian) 34 Pelfini M, Brandolini P, Carton A, et al. (2009) Geotourist trails: a geomorphological riskimpact analysis. In: Reynard 35 E, Coratza P (ed) Geomorphosites, München, Pfeil Verlag, pp. 131144. 36 Pelfini M, Bollati I, Pellegrini L, Zucali M (2016) Earth Sciences on the field: educational applications for the 37 comprehension of landscape evolution. Rendiconti Online della Società Geologica Italiana 40/2016: 5666. DOI: 38 10.3301/ROL.2016.72 39 PNVG (2001) Aree di cresta e zone umide. Risultati delle ricerche, Baveno, PNVG ed. pp. 110 40 Raso E, Faccini F, Brandolini P, et al. (2016) The Lovers’ Lane (“Via dell’Amore”) rockfall events: A history of dangerous collapses. In: Ulusay R, Aydan O, Gerçek H et al. (ed) Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering: From the 41 Past to the Future, CRC Press, pp. 607611. 42 Regione Piemonte (2017) Geocatalogo Regione Piemonte (Available online at: 43 http://www.geoportale.piemonte.it/geocatalogorp/) 44 RegoliniBissig G (2010) Mapping geoheritage for interpretive purpose: definition and interdisciplinary approach. In: 45 RegoliniBissig G, Reynard E (ed) Mapping Geoheritage, Géovisions, Institut de géographie, Lausanne, 35, pp. 1 46 13. 47 Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L et al. (2007) A method for assessing “scientific” and “additional values” of 48 geomorphosites: Geographica Helvetica 62(3): 148158. DOI: 10.5194/gh621482007, 2007 49 Reynard E, Coratza P (2016)Reynard E, Coratza P, Hobléa F (2016a) Current Research on Geomorphosites: Geoheritage, 8(1): 13. DOI 10.1007/s1237101601743. 50 Reynard E, Coratza P (2016b) The importance of mountain geomorphosites for environmental education. Examples 51 from the Italian Dolomites and the Swiss Alps. Acta Geographica Slovenica 56(2): 246257. DOI: 52 http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS.1684 53 Reynard E, Coratza P, Hobléa F (2016a) Current Research on Geomorphosites: Geoheritage, 8(1): 13. DOI 54 10.1007/s1237101601743 55 Reynard E, Perret A, Bussard J et al. (2016b)(2016c) Integrated approach for the inventory and management of 56 geomorphological heritage at the regional scale. Geoheritage, 8(1), 4360. DOI: 10.1007/s1237101501530 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal Journal of Mountain Science Page 42 of 42

1 2 3 Smith BJ, Orford JD, Nicholas BL (2009) Management challenges of a dynamic geomorphosite: climate change and the Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site. In: Coratza P, Reynard E (ed), Geomorphosites. Assessment, mapping and 4 management. Pfeil Verlag, München, pp. 145162. 5 Smrekar, A,A., Zorn, M,M., and Komac, B. (2016). Heritage protection through a geomorphologist’s eyes: From 6 recording to awareness raising. Acta Geographica Slovenica, 56(1): 123127. DOI: 7 http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS.3348 56(1). 8 SVGP (2013) List of Geosites (Available online at: http://www.parcovalgrande.it/pdf/Dossier.SesiaValGrande.pdf) 9 UNESCO (2015) Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Intergovernmental 10 Committee for the Protection of the World cultural and natural heritage. (Available at 11 http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide12en.pdf). 12 Wearing S, Edinborough P, Hodgson L et al. (2008) Enhancing visitor experience through interpretation. (Available at: http://www.crctourism.com.au/wms/upload/resources/80035_Wearing_EnhancingVisExp_WEB.pdf; 12. 1. 2014). 13 Wimbledon W A P (1996) Geosites A new conservation initiative: Episodes, 19: 8788. 14 Wrede V, MüggeBartolović V (2012) GeoRoute Ruhr—a Network of Geotrails in the Ruhr Area National GeoPark, 15 Germany. Geoheritage 4(1): 109114. DOI:10.1007/s1237101200571. 16 17 18 19 For Review Only 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jmsjournal