geosciences

Communication Dispersed Geoheritage Points of the Lagonaki Highland, SW : Contribution to Local Geoheritage Resource

Dmitry A. Ruban 1,2,* , Svetlana O. Zorina 3 and Maksim B. Rebezov 1,4,5,6

1 K.G. Razumovsky State University of Technologies and Management (the First Cossack University), Zemlyanoy Val 73, Moscow 109004, Russia 2 Department of Economics and Management, Business School, Cherepovets State University, Sovetskiy Avenue 10, Cherepovets, Region 162600, Russia 3 Kazan ( Region) Federal University, Kremlyovskaya Street 18, Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan 420008, Russia 4 South Ural State University, Lenin Avenue 76, Chelyabinsk 454080, Russia 5 Ural State Agrarian University, Karl Liebknecht Street 42, Yekaterinburg 620075, Russia 6 V.M. Gorbatov Federal Research Center for Food Systems of Russian Academy of Sciences, Talalikhin Street 26, Moscow 109316, Russia * Correspondence: [email protected]

 Received: 7 August 2019; Accepted: 22 August 2019; Published: 23 August 2019 

Abstract: Dispersed geoheritage points, which are small-sized and low-unique localities, manifest local geoheritage and, thus, may be useful for its comprehensive understanding. Field studies in the Lagonaki Highland (Western , southwestern Russia) have permitted to find four geoheritage points that are described with argumentation of their importance to scientists, educators, and/or tourists. These points, none of which can be defined as a ‘traditional’ geosite, provide some precious sedimentary, palaeontological, and mineralogical information that improves perception of the local geoheritage landscape dominated by the Late Jurassic carbonate platform deposits. The studied localities are constituents of the local geoheritage resource because of their utility to three main categories of potential users. Scientists may be interested in these dispersed geoheritage points because of the need to collect massive geological data from big areas. Educators and tourists may appreciate these points because of their location along principal roads, i.e., their good accessibility.

Keywords: calcite vein; fossil invertebrate; geoconservation; geosite; landscape management; limestone; tourism; late jurassic; western caucasus

1. Introduction Geological heritage (geoheritage) is an important resource for geoscience research, education, and (geo)tourism [1–7]. Geoheritage sites (geosites) are the main constituents of this resource, and these are employed taken alone, in groups, or in the form of geopark creation. Principles of their selection and description are well-fixed in the literature [8–10]. However, geoheritage is a vast category, and the full spectrum of its manifestations is yet to be registered. For instance, Migo´nand Pijet-Migo´n[11] have distinguished viewpoint geosites offering panoramic views of large-scale geological features as a new kind of geosites. When geoheritage resource of any territory is evaluated, it seems to be insufficient to restrict it to only ‘traditional’ geosites, i.e., geological sites of evident uniqueness. Other manifestations of geological phenomena can add value (even significant value) to this resource. Geoheritage landscapes are landscapes occupying areas of certain size (big or small) dominated by well-visible, unique geological features [12]. Such landscapes are characterized by multiple,

Geosciences 2019, 9, 367; doi:10.3390/geosciences9090367 www.mdpi.com/journal/geosciences GeosciencesGeosciences 20192019,, 99,, x 367 FOR PEER REVIEW 2 2of of 8 8 potentially-interesting (to scientists, educators, and tourists) phenomena that can be represented potentially-interesting (to scientists, educators, and tourists) phenomena that can be represented either either in geosites or other outcrops. Although the latter cannot be judged full-scale, ‘traditional’ in geosites or other outcrops. Although the latter cannot be judged full-scale, ‘traditional’ geosites geosites because of their ‘trivial’ nature (i.e., very low uniqueness), these should not be missed as because of their ‘trivial’ nature (i.e., very low uniqueness), these should not be missed as manifestations manifestations of the really unique territorial geoheritage. On the one hand, these permit to feel the of the really unique territorial geoheritage. On the one hand, these permit to feel the very geoheritage very geoheritage dominance in a given landscape. On the other hand, such outcrops can contribute dominance in a given landscape. On the other hand, such outcrops can contribute to massive data to massive data extraction from this landscape by Earth scientists, or these are located close to roads extraction from this landscape by Earth scientists, or these are located close to roads and trails offering and trails offering better geological vision to educators and tourists. It is proposed to distinguish better geological vision to educators and tourists. It is proposed to distinguish such objects as dispersed such objects as dispersed geoheritage points. The word ‘dispersed’ is used because it is the spatial geoheritage points. The word ‘dispersed’ is used because it is the spatial distribution of these features distribution of these features that makes them really valuable to geoheritage landscape that makes them really valuable to geoheritage landscape comprehension. The word ‘point’ determines comprehension. The word ‘point’ determines less importance relatively to ‘traditional’ geosites and less importance relatively to ‘traditional’ geosites and often (but necessary) small size. Geosites can often (but necessary) small size. Geosites can be of international (global), national, regional be of international (global), national, regional (provincial), or local importance depending on their (provincial), or local importance depending on their uniqueness. In contrast, the proposed uniqueness. In contrast, the proposed geoheritage points are not unique at all when taken individually. geoheritage points are not unique at all when taken individually. However, they reflect uniqueness However, they reflect uniqueness of a given geoheritage landscape and make this uniqueness sharper of a given geoheritage landscape and make this uniqueness sharper because they enlarge the entity because they enlarge the entity of geoheritage manifestations. In the other words, dispersed geoheritage of geoheritage manifestations. In the other words, dispersed geoheritage points look like splitters of points look like splitters of costly glass. Splitters have some value (even if minimal) only if the value of costly glass. Splitters have some value (even if minimal) only if the value of unbroken glass is unbroken glass is recognized. The need for recognition of dispersed geoheritage points is dictated by recognized. The need for recognition of dispersed geoheritage points is dictated by availability of availability of geoheritage landscapes occupying big areas. geoheritage landscapes occupying big areas. A typical example of geoheritage landscape is the Lagonaki Highland in the Western Caucasus, A typical example of geoheritage landscape is the Lagonaki Highland in the Western Caucasus, on the territory of southwestern Russia (Figure1A). Its geological setting can be deduced from on the territory of southwestern Russia (Figure 1A). Its geological setting can be deduced from Adamia et al. [13], Guo et al. [14], Ruban [15], Saintot et al. [16], and Veress et al. [17]. Generally, this Adamia et al. [13], Guo et al. [14], Ruban [15], Saintot et al. [16], and Veress et al. [17]. Generally, this elevated (~2000 m) territory is a domain of the Cenozoic fold-and-thrust belt of the , elevated (~2000 m) territory is a domain of the Cenozoic fold-and-thrust belt of the Greater and it is dominated by the Late Jurassic carbonate platform deposits accumulated in a back-arc basin, Caucasus, and it is dominated by the Late Jurassic carbonate platform deposits accumulated in a numerous epikarst and endokarst features, and cuesta-type mountain ranges. The high geoheritage back-arc basin, numerous epikarst and endokarst features, and cuesta-type mountain ranges. The value of the Lagonaki Highland is undisputable and already established [12], as well as its resource high geoheritage value of the Lagonaki Highland is undisputable and already established [12], as potential for science, education, and tourism. However, a kind of challenge of this geoheritage well as its resource potential for science, education, and tourism. However, a kind of challenge of resource exploitation is its big size and manifestation of unique features in numerous, small, and often this geoheritage resource exploitation is its big size and manifestation of unique features in difficult-to-access localities. These can be judged dispersed geoheritage points. The objective of the numerous, small, and often difficult-to-access localities. These can be judged dispersed geoheritage present paper is to provide the first characteristics of some of these localities in order to demonstrate points. The objective of the present paper is to provide the first characteristics of some of these their utility as constituents of the local geoheritage resource. localities in order to demonstrate their utility as constituents of the local geoheritage resource.

FigureFigure 1. 1. GeographicalGeographical location location of of the the study study area area ( (AA)) and and the the dispersed dispersed geoheritage geoheritage points points ( (BB).).

Geosciences 2019, 9, 367 3 of 8

Geosciences 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 8 2. Materials and Methods 2. Materials and Methods The Lagonaki Highland is understood differently. Most often, it is treated as an area restricted The Lagonaki Highland is understood differently. Most often, it is treated as an area restricted to the Stonesea Range and the surrounding cuesta-type mountain ranges. In this case, this is one to the Stonesea Range and the surrounding cuesta-type mountain ranges. In this case, this is one single geosite of global value [12]. However, the Lagonaki Highland can be interpreted as a bigger single geosite of global value [12]. However, the Lagonaki Highland can be interpreted as a bigger geographical domain that includes also wide peripheries of the above-mentioned core and some geographical domain that includes also wide peripheries of the above-mentioned core and some other ranges (e.g., the Azish-Tau Range). This second option is preferred in this study. In this case, other ranges (e.g., the Azish-Tau Range). This second option is preferred in this study. In this case, the above-mentioned geosite is the core of the highland, and smaller rock outcrops with very restricted the above-mentioned geosite is the core of the highland, and smaller rock outcrops with very (if any) uniqueness occur on its peripheries. restricted (if any) uniqueness occur on its peripheries. This study is based on the material collected in the course of field investigations conducted during This study is based on the material collected in the course of field investigations conducted the summer campaigns in 2015–2019. The eastern and southern parts of the Lagonaki Highland have during the summer campaigns in 2015–2019. The eastern and southern parts of the Lagonaki been surveyed in order to find manifestations of its geoheritage resource. In this case, the entire Highland have been surveyed in order to find manifestations of its geoheritage resource. In this case, geological environment of the highland is considered as a geoheritage, and, thus, all rock exposures in the entire geological environment of the highland is considered as a geoheritage, and, thus, all rock natural outcrops and roadcuts are considered as this geoheritage manifestations. In the other words, exposures in natural outcrops and roadcuts are considered as this geoheritage manifestations. In the the very existence of a given manifestation on the geologically valuable area is enough to consider other words, the very existence of a given manifestation on the geologically valuable area is enough this manifestation. The only selection criterion is representation of the geological phenomenon (a) to consider this manifestation. The only selection criterion is representation of the geological typical for this area. Particularly, four small localities have been found in the course of field search for phenomenon (a) typical for this area. Particularly, four small localities have been found in the course rock exposures (first of all, along the main roads where the demand for geoheritage manifestations is of field search for rock exposures (first of all, along the main roads where the demand for especially high). These are outcrops representing peculiarities of rocks, minerals, and fossils of the geoheritage manifestations is especially high). These are outcrops representing peculiarities of rocks, study area (Figures1B and2). These localities manifest the local geoheritage and, thus, permit to feel minerals, and fossils of the study area (Figures 1B and 2). These localities manifest the local its uniqueness if even their own uniqueness is restricted. As these are not ‘traditional’ geosites by geoheritage and, thus, permit to feel its uniqueness if even their own uniqueness is restricted. As definition, it seems to be unreasonable to describe them formally as geosites with the application of the these are not ‘traditional’ geosites by definition, it seems to be unreasonable to describe them well-known approaches [8–10]. formally as geosites with the application of the well-known approaches [8–10].

Figure 2. The studied localities: ( A)) Tender Tender Cave, (B) 5000, (C) Partisan Glade, and ((D) Azish Cave.

All fourfour localities localities were were examined examined in the in field,the andfield, the and key the features key relevantfeatures torelevant the local to geoheritage the local weregeoheritage registered. were The registered. utility of The these utility localities of these to scientists,localities to educators, scientists, and educators, tourists and was tourists established, was andestablished, the relevant and argumentsthe relevant are ar presentedguments inare this presented paper. Somein this special paper. analytical Some special procedures analytical were conductedprocedures later. were These conducted included later. analysis These of included thin sections analysis of carbonate of thin rocks, sections analysis of carbonate of their mineral rocks, analysis of their mineral composition using X-ray powder diffraction method, major and trace element geochemistry, and analysis of δ13C (PDB) value using X-ray fluorescence wave-dispersion

Geosciences 2019, 9, 367 4 of 8 Geosciences 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 8 composition using X-ray powder di raction method, major and trace element geochemistry,and analysis spectrometry and inductively coupledff plasma mass spectrometry at the laboratories of the Institute δ13 of GeologyC (PDB) and value Petroleum using X-ray Technologies fluorescence at wave-dispersion Kazan Federal spectrometry University and(Kazan, inductively Russia). coupled These lithologicalplasma mass and spectrometry geochemical at studies the laboratories are necessary of the to Institute stress some of Geology peculiarities and Petroleum of the exposed Technologies rocks, i.e.,at Kazan their uniqueness Federal University and utility, (Kazan, say Russia).to geoscientists. These lithological and geochemical studies are necessary to stress some peculiarities of the exposed rocks, i.e., their uniqueness and utility, say to geoscientists. 3. Results 3. Results The first geoheritage point is the Tender Cave locality where ammonites (Figures 2A and 3A) The first geoheritage point is the Tender Cave locality where ammonites (Figures2A and3A) and and some other marine macroinvertebrates have been found in the Late Jurassic limestones. The some other marine macroinvertebrates have been found in the Late Jurassic limestones. The importance importance of this geoheritage point to scientists is linked to significant potential of the noted fossils of this geoheritage point to scientists is linked to significant potential of the noted fossils to solution to solution of many still existing problems of regional and local stratigraphy [15]. For instance, of many still existing problems of regional and local stratigraphy [15]. For instance, stratigraphical stratigraphical relationship of limestone layers represented in the lengthy (up to 40 km), but too relationship of limestone layers represented in the lengthy (up to 40 km), but too fragmented section fragmented section along the Lagonaki–Dakhovskaya road remains very unclear; as the Tender along the Lagonaki–Dakhovskaya road remains very unclear; as the Tender Cave locality is a constituent Cave locality is a constituent of this section, palaeontological data from there can be very useful. To of this section, palaeontological data from there can be very useful. To educators, this point with educators, this point with highly fossiliferous limestones is valuable to demonstrate existence of rich highly fossiliferous limestones is valuable to demonstrate existence of rich ecosystems in an ancient ecosystems in an ancient tropical sea. As for tourists, fossil amateurs may be really interested in tropical sea. As for tourists, fossil amateurs may be really interested in collecting at this locality, which collecting at this locality, which is possible without risks for impoverishment of the local is possible without risks for impoverishment of the local palaeontological record: Fossils are attractive, palaeontological record: Fossils are attractive, but very obvious and occurring widely on the study but very obvious and occurring widely on the study area. area.

Figure 3.3. SomeSome notable notable minor minor geological geological features features of the of Lagonaki the Lagonaki Highland: Highland: (A) unidentified (A) unidentified ammonite ammonitein the highly-fossiliferous in the highly-fossiliferous Upper Jurassic Upper limestones Jurassic (Tenderlimestones Cave (Tender locality), Cave (B) calcitelocality), aggregate (B) calcite on aggregatethe exposure on ofthe the exposure Upper Jurassicof the Uppe limestonesr Jurassic (5000 limestones locality), ((5000C) calcite locality), veins ( inC) thecalcite megaclast veins in of the the megaclastUpper Jurassic of the limestones Upper Jurassic (Partisan limestones Glade locality), (Partisan and Glade (D–F )locality), the Upper and Jurassic (D–F) redthe dolostonesUpper Jurassic with redcalcite dolostones veins (Big with Azish calcite Cave veins locality). (Big Azish Cave locality).

The second geoheritage point is the 5000 locality stretching along the Lagonaki–Dakhovskaya road,road, ~5 km km far far from from the the Belaya Belaya River River bridge bridge (Figur (Figuree 22B).B). ThisThis pointpoint representsrepresents thethe lowerlower partpart ofof thethe Late JurassicJurassic carbonatecarbonate complex. complex. Its Its significance significance is marked is marked by an by occasional an occasi discoveryonal discovery of very unusualof very unusualfossil that fossil is interpreted that is preliminaryinterpreted aspreliminary a pharetronid as sponge? a pharetronidMuellerithalamia spongesp.? Muellerithalamia (Calcarea; see taxon sp. (Calcarea;description see in [taxon18]). Thedescription specific featuresin [18]). andThe thespecific rarity features of this fossil and the determine rarity of the this locality fossil importancedetermine the locality importance to scientists. Educators and tourists may find this point less attractive, although its potential to offer interesting fossil findings (e.g., echinoderms) would attract the both

Geosciences 2019, 9, 367 5 of 8 to scientists. Educators and tourists may find this point less attractive, although its potential to offer interesting fossil findings (e.g., echinoderms) would attract the both university students in geology and amateur collectors. The existence of a spectacular ‘spot’ (up to 30 cm in diameter) formed by big calcite crystals on the outcrop wall (Figure3B) partly recompenses the restricted utility of this point to tourists.Geosciences 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 8 The third geoheritage point is the Partisan Glade locality, which is situated on the southern peripheryuniversity of the students Lagonaki in geology Highland and (Figure amateur2C). collectors Although. The the existence local geological of a spectacular landscape ‘spot’ is(up dominated to 30 cm in diameter) formed by big calcite crystals on the outcrop wall (Figure 3B) partly recompenses by the Lower-Middle Jurassic black shales, big megaclasts occur here and there along the Yavorova the restricted utility of this point to tourists. Glade–GuzeriplThe third road. geoheritage These megaclastspoint is the representPartisan Glad thee Latelocality, Jurassic which limestones is situated detachedon the southern from cliffs of theperiphery nearby cuesta-typeof the Lagonaki mountain Highland ranges. (Figure Some 2C). of themAlthough bear the representative local geological veins landscape with big is calcite crystalsdominated of post-depositional by the Lower-Middle origin Jurassic (Figure black3C). shal Toes, scientists big megaclasts and educators, occur here and this there locality along is the of low importance,Yavorova but Glade–Guzeripl occasional tourists road. These may bemegaclasts interested represent in looking the Late at these Jurassic calcite limestones veins that detached seem to be reallyfrom spectacular. cliffs of the nearby cuesta-type mountain ranges. Some of them bear representative veins with bigThe calcite fourth crystals geoheritage of post-depositional point is the origin Azish (Figure Cave 3C). locality To scientists where and the educators, Late Jurassic this locality red-colored is dolostonesof low importance, crop out (Figuresbut occasional2D and tourists3D). Thismay be point interested has significantin looking at importance these calcite toveins scientists. that Theseem lithological to be really and spectacular. geochemical properties of the noted rocks are yet to be fully understood. The fourth geoheritage point is the Azish Cave locality where the Late Jurassic red-colored The results of the preliminary investigations carried out for the purpose of this study imply that these dolostones crop out (Figures 2D and 3D). This point has significant importance to scientists. The dolostoneslithological are dominatedand geochemical by dolomite properties (96–97%) of the noted (Figure rocks4) are with yet subordinate to be fully understood. amounts of The calcite results (~2%), detritalof the grains preliminary of quartz investigations (0.4–0.9%), andcarried albite out (upfor tothe 3%). purpose Dolostones of this alsostudy include imply organicthat these matter (up todolostones 1%) that occursare dominated between by dolomite dolomite grains.(96–97%) The (Figure rocks 4) are with diagenetic subordinate by theiramounts origin; of apparently,calcite many(~2%), dolomite detrital grains grains were of quartz formed (0.4–0.9%), in pore and spaces albite of (up the to former3%). Dolostones limestones. also Theinclude dolomites organic also bearmatter numerous (up to calcite 1%) that veins, occurs some between of which dolomite boast gr byains. well-shaped, The rocks are big diagenetic calcite crystals by their (Figure origin;3 E,F). The elementalapparently, contentmany dolomite of the dolostonesgrains were is formed summarized in pore in spaces Table 1of. the Carbon former isotope limestones. studies The show the δdolomites13C (PDB) also value bear ranging numerous between calcite veins, -27 and some -29. of which Taken boast together, by well-shaped, these preliminary big calcite results crystals imply specific(Figure characteristics 3E,F). The elemental of the dolostones content of andthe dolost their depositionalones is summarized environment, in Table which1. Carbon require isotope further studies show the δ13C (PDB) value ranging between -27 and -29. Taken together, these preliminary examination. If so, this geoheritage point is of special interest to geoscientists. To educators, this results imply specific characteristics of the dolostones and their depositional environment, which locality is important to demonstrate typical dolostones as a specific rock type and to speculate about require further examination. If so, this geoheritage point is of special interest to geoscientists. To the rededucators, color of this carbonate locality is rocks import (inant this to demonstrate case, the color typical results, dolostones probably, as a specific from iron rock enrichmenttype and to (the contentspeculate of Fe2 aboutO3 is 0.7–1.1%)the red color from of carbonate the overlying, rocks (in thick, this Fe-richcase, the clays). color results, Potential probably, geotourists from iron include also academicenrichment geotourists(the content (i.e.,of Fe geoscientists)2O3 is 0.7–1.1%) with from enough the overlying, knowledge thick, toFe-rich judge clays). lithologically- Potential and geochemically-interestinggeotourists include also features.academic Finally,geotourists the (i.e., outstanding geoscientists) aesthetic with enough properties knowledge of the entireto judge locality (Figurelithologically-3D) and calcite and geochemically-interesting crystals (Figure3E,F) make featur ites. very Finally, attractive the outstanding to tourists. aesthetic properties of the entire locality (Figure 3D) and calcite crystals (Figure 3E,F) make it very attractive to tourists.

Figure 4. FigurePetrological 4. Petrological peculiarities peculiarities of the Upperof the Upper Jurassic Jurassic dolostones; dolostones; dolomite dolomite grains grains dominate dominate the the rock (XPL). rock (XPL).

Geosciences 2019, 9, 367 6 of 8

Table 1. Elemental Content of the Studied Dolostones.

Element Content (ppm) Li 1.64–2.54 Be 0.14–0.15 Ti 88.07–93.23 V 4.29–7.64 Cr 5.60–8.52 Mn 77.05–204.64 Co 1.21–2.13 Ni 7.59–12.31 Cu 3.62–8.50 Zn 27.00–63.23 Ga 1.06–1.51 Se 1–83 Rb 2.92–2.99 Sr 141.65–207.90 Y 8.38–17.00 Zr 2.64–3.12 Nb 0.26–0.30 Mo 0.33 Cd 0.32–0.86 Ba 11.43–12.73 W 0.06–0.08 Pb 1.90–2.13

4. Discussion and Conclusion The characteristics presented above permit recognition of several geoheritage points dispersed within the territory of the Lagonaki Highland (most probably, the number of such points is much bigger, but the noted points are best-accessible and typical). None of these points deserves recognition as a geosite (with the probable exception of the second point) because of limited uniqueness. However, these points contribute to representation of the geoheritage of the entire Lagonaki Highland and illustrate typical rocks, their fossil content, and some mineralogical peculiarities. These also permit to realize the diversity and the integrity of the local geoheritage landscape. The problem of difference of geoheritage manifestations is significant for detailed geoheritage resource assessment (e.g., [19,20]), and the idea of dispersed geoheritage points permits to solve it partly making a clear distinction between primary, ‘traditional’ geosites and secondary, auxiliary dispersed geoheritage points. This idea seems to be worth consideration for further refinement of the available quantitative approaches of general geoheritage analysis and description [8,10,21–29]. Dispersed geoheritage points seem to be important to scientists, educators, and tourists. If so, these points can be judged auxiliary, but nonetheless important constituents of the local geoheritage resource. Their special importance is determined by two reasons. First, in order to make general judgments of the local geology, scientists need significant massif of data representing the entire study area, not just its fragments available in geosites and big outcrops (see review of the problem in [15]). In this case, numerous ‘secondary-order’ outcrops are very important as data from them (if even elementary and small-amount) permit to provide comprehensive characteristics of such a big domain as the Lagonaki Highland. Second, the studied localities are well-accessible being situated along the principal roads sustaining tourist flows to the Stonesea Range, which is the main (geo)tourist destination of the Lagonaki Highland (Figure5). This is very important to educators and tourists who need demonstration of the local geoheritage in the course of normal-condition excursions. In this case, the low uniqueness of the localities is recompensed by their accessibility and possibility to deliver geological knowledge in a logical way. GeosciencesGeosciences 2019, 9, x2019 FOR, 9, 367PEER REVIEW 7 of 8 7 of 8

Figure 5. Relations of the analyzed dispersed geoheritage points to tourism activities in the study area. Figure 5. Relations of the analyzed dispersed geoheritage points to tourism activities in the study area. Conclusively, dispersed geoheritage points constitute a particular class of geoheritage objects. Their principal function is linked to full representation of local geoheritage that permits efficient Conclusively,exploitation ofdispersed the geoheritage geoheritage resource. points The Lagonaki constitu Highlandte a particular in southwestern class of Russia geoheritage provides objects. Their principala typical examplefunction of is dispersed linked geoheritageto full representation points. An important of local question geoheritage for further that discussion permits is efficient whether big-sized geosites occupying territories measured by square kilometers can be understood as exploitation of the geoheritage resource. The Lagonaki Highland in southwestern Russia provides a assemblies of geoheritage points. typical example of dispersed geoheritage points. An important question for further discussion is whetherAuthor big-sized Contributions: geositesConceptualization, occupying territories D.A.R.; methodology, measured D.A.R. by square and S.O.Z.; kilometers formal analysis, can be D.A.R.; understood writing, D.A.R. and M.B.R.; project administration, M.B.R. as assemblies of geoheritage points. Funding: The work is performed according to the Russian Government Program of Competitive Growth of Kazan Federal University (contribution of S.O.Z.). The work was supported by the Ministry of Science and High Author Contributions:Education of the Russian Conceptualization, Federation contract D.A.R.; No. 14.Y me 26.31.0029thodology, in the D.A.R. framework and ofS.O.Z the Resolution.; formal No.220analysis, of D.A.R.; writing, D.A.R.the Government and M.B.R.; of the pr Russianoject Federationadministration, (contribution M.B.R. of S.O.Z.). The contribution of D.A.R. was not funded. Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully thank the journal editors and the three reviewers for their helpful Funding:suggestions, The work Nataliais performed V. Ruban according (Russia), Olesya to the V. NazarenkoRussian Government (Russia), and Pavel Program P. Zayats of (Russia)Competitive for field Growth of Kazan Federalassistance, University Oksana S. (contribution Dzyuba (Russia) of and S.O.Z.). Joachim The Reitner work (Germany) was supported for discussion by the of Ministry some palaeontological of Science and High Educationmaterial, of the andRussian Alexei Federation A. Eskin (Russia) contract and Bulat No. I.14.Y Gareev 26.31.0029 (Russia) for in their the helpframework with analytical of the data. Resolution No.220 of the GovernmentConflicts of Interest:the RussianTheauthors Federation declare (contribution no conflict of interest.of S.O.Z.). The The funders contribution had no role of in D.A.R. the design was of thenot funded. study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to Acknowledgments:publish the results. The authors gratefully thank the journal editors and the three reviewers for their helpful suggestions, Natalia V. Ruban (Russia), Olesya V. Nazarenko (Russia), and Pavel P. Zayats (Russia) for field References assistance, Oksana S. Dzyuba (Russia) and Joachim Reitner (Germany) for discussion of some palaeontological material, 1.and BAlexeiétard, F.; A. Hobl Eskinéa, F.;(Russi Portal,a) C. and Geoheritage Bulat I. asGareev new territorial (Russia) resource for their for localhelpdevelopment. with analyticalAnn. data. Geogr. 2017, 717, 523–543. [CrossRef] Conflicts2. of Interest:Brilha, J.; Gray,The M.;authors Pereira, declare D.I.; Pereira, no conflict P. Geodiversity: of interest. An integrativeThe funders review had as no a contribution role in the to design the of the study; in the collection,sustainable developmentanalyses, or of interpretation the whole of nature. of dataEnviron.; in the Sci. writing Policy 2018 of, 86the, 19–28. manuscript, [CrossRef or] in the decision to publish the3. results.Gray, M. Geodiversity. Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2013; pp. 1–495. 4. Mikhailenko, A.V.; Ruban, D.A. Geo-Heritage specific visibility as an important parameter in geo-tourism resource evaluation. Geosci. 2019, 9, 146. [CrossRef] References 5. Muda, J.; Tongkul, F. Geoheritage resources of the Baliajong River: Potential for geotourism development. 1. Bétard, F.;Bull. Hobléa, Geol. Soc. F.; Malays. Portal,2008 C. ,Geoheritage54, 139–145. [CrossRef as new] territorial resource for local development. Ann. Geogr. 6. Ruban, D.A. Geodiversity as a precious national resource: A note on the role of geoparks. Resour. Policy 2017, 717, 523–543. 2017, 53, 103–108. [CrossRef] 2. Brilha, J.; Gray, M.; Pereira, D.I.; Pereira, P. Geodiversity: An integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable development of the whole of nature. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 86, 19–28. 3. Gray, M. Geodiversity. Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2013; 2013; pp. 1–495; https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Geodiversity%3A+Valuing+and+Conserving+Abiotic+Nature%2C+2nd+Ed ition-p-9780470742150. 4. Mikhailenko, A.V.; Ruban, D.A. Geo-Heritage specific visibility as an important parameter in geo-tourism resource evaluation. Geosci. 2019, 9, 146. 5. Muda, J.; Tongkul, F. Geoheritage resources of the Baliajong River: Potential for geotourism development. Bull. Geol. Soc. Malays. 2008, 54, 139–145.

Geosciences 2019, 9, 367 8 of 8

7. Wang, H.; Li, J.; Wu, T. Characteristics and Genesis of Geoheritage Resources of Taihang Mountain. Beijing Daxue Xuebao (Ziran Kexue Ban)/Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Pekin. 2018, 54, 546–554. 8. Brilha, J. Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: A Review. Geoheritage 2016, 8, 119–134. [CrossRef] 9. Bruschi, V.M.; Cendrero, A. Geosite evaluation; can we measure intangible values? Il Quat. 2005, 18, 293–306. 10. Reynard, E.; Brilha, J. (Eds.) Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 1–482. 11. Migo´n,P.; Pijet-Migo´n,E. Viewpoint geosites – values, conservation and management issues. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2017, 128, 511–522. [CrossRef] 12. Ruban, D.A. Aesthetic properties of geological heritage landscapes: Evidence from the Lagonaki Highland (Western Caucasus, Russia). J. Geogr. Inst. “Jovan Cviji´c”SASA 2018, 68, 289–296. [CrossRef] 13. Adamia, S.; Alania, V.; Chabukiani, A.; Kutelia, Z.; Sadradze, N. Great Caucasus (Cavcasioni): A Long-lived North-Tethyan Back-Arc Basin. Turk. J. Earth Sci. 2011, 20, 611–628. 14. Guo, L.; Vincent, S.J.; Lavrishchev, V. Upper Jurassic Reefs from the Russian Western Caucasus: Implications for the Eastern . Turk. J. Earth Sci. 2011, 20, 629–653. 15. Ruban, D.A. The siliciclastics/carbonates shift in the Jurassic of the Western Caucasus (central northern Neo-Tethys): Reconsidering research over the last 50 years. Geol. 2019, 25, 153–162. 16. Saintot, A.; Brunet, M.-F.; Yakovlev, F.; Sébrier, M.; Stephenson, R.; Ershov, A.; Chalot-Prat, F.; McCann, T. The Mesozoic-Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the Greater Caucasus. Geol. Soc. Lond. Mem. 2006, 32, 277–289. [CrossRef] 17. Veress, M.; Telbisz, T.; Tóth, G.; Lóczy,D.; Ruban, D.A.; Gutak, Ja.M. Glaciokarsts; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 1–516. 18. Reitner, J. Phylogenie und Konvergenzen bei rezenten und fossilen Calcarea (Porifera) mit einem kalkigen Basalskelett (“Inozoa”, “Pharetronida”). Berl. Geowiss. Abh. (A) 1987, 86, 87–125. 19. Nazaruddin, D.A.; Mansor, H.E.; Wali, S.S.A.S. Geoheritage of Labuan island. Bull. Geol. Soc. Malays. 2016, 62, 117–129. [CrossRef] 20. Phuong, T.H.; Cu, N.H.; Thanh, T.D.; Van Dong, B. Geoheritage values in the Cat Ba islands, Vietnam. Environ. Earth Sci. 2013, 70, 543–548. [CrossRef] 21. Bruschi, V.M.; Cendrero, A.; Albertos, J.A.C. A statistical approach to the validation and optimisation of geoheritage assessment procedures. Geoheritage 2011, 3, 131–149. [CrossRef] 22. Fassoulas, C.; Mouriki, D.; Dimitriou-Nikolakis, P.; Iliopoulos, G. Quantitative assessment of geotopes as an effective tool for geoheritage management. Geoheritage 2012, 4, 177–193. [CrossRef] 23. Forte, J.P.; Brilha, J.; Pereira, D.I.; Nolasco, M. Kernel Density Applied to the Quantitative Assessment of Geodiversity. Geoheritage 2018, 10, 205–217. [CrossRef] 24. Gordon, J.E. Geoheritage, geotourism and the cultural landscape: Enhancing the visitor experience and promoting geoconservation. Geosciences 2018, 8, 136. [CrossRef] 25. Melelli, L.; Vergari, F.; Liucci, L.; Del Monte, M. Geomorphodiversity index: Quantifying the diversity of landforms and physical landscape. Sci. Total. Environ. 2017, 584–585, 701–714. [CrossRef][PubMed] 26. Nazaruddin, D.A. Selected geosites for geoheritage, geotourism, and geoconservation in Songkhla Province, Southern Thailand. Quaest. Geogr. 2019, 38, 161–177. [CrossRef] 27. Pereira, P.; Pereira, D.I. Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment. Geomorphol Relief Process. Env. 2010, 2, 215–222. [CrossRef] 28. Reynard, E.; Perret, A.; Bussard, J.; Grangier, L.; Martin, S. Integrated approach for the inventory and management of geomorphological heritage at the regional scale. Geoheritage 2016, 8, 43–60. [CrossRef] 29. Serrano, E.; Ruiz-Flano, P. Geodiversity. A theoretical and applied concept. Geogr. Helv. 2007, 62, 140–147. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).