# The multiple dimensions of geodiversity

Ottone Scammacca, François Bétard

► To cite this version:

Ottone Scammacca, François Bétard. The multiple dimensions of geodiversity. Communications Sustainability, 2026, 1 (1), pp.15. 10.1038/s44458-025-00017-3. hal-05485684

HAL Id: hal-05485684

https://hal.science/hal-05485684v1

Submitted on 2 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# The multiple dimensions of geodiversity

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

Ottone Scammacca*<fnref n="1" />& François Bétard²

For two decades, the concept of geodiversity has gained a prominent interest within a broad scientific community spanning multiple disciplines. The expansion of this concept has led to a multitude of definitions, approaches, renewed conceptualizations and neologisms (e.g. geosites, geoheritage, geoconservation, geotourism, geodiversification, geofunctionality, megageodiversity, exogeodiversity, geodiversity hotspots). Based on the existing literature, this Perspective has the objective to highlight and structure the idea that geodiversity is a multidimensional concept prone to operationalization. Contrary to usual definitions, we argue here that geodiversity should not be considered purely abiotic as it is also shaped by biotic and anthropic factors within the Earth's Critical Zone: it represents a four-dimensional open system characterized by multiple and complex interactions with the biosphere and the anthroposphere, that must be understood to achieve sustainability.

For two decades, the concept of geodiversity has gained prominent interest within a broad scientific community spanning multiple disciplines, such as geology, geomorphology, ecology, conservation biology, hydrology, geophy, and the social and human sciences. The broadening of this concept, initially in academia and only recently within the political agendas of few countries (e.g., Australia, Norway, Scotland, England), stems from the long-lasting disregard and marginalization of nonliving entities. Historically, academic definitions of nature have largely focused on living components only, and particular interest has been given to biological conservation. Initially considered as the geological equivalent of biodiversity, the term “geodiversity” was used for the first time in 1993¹. Today, the most widely accepted definition of geodiversity refers to “the natural range (diversity) of geological (rocks, minerals, and fossils), geomorphological (landforms, topography, and physical processes), soil and hydrological features. It includes their assemblages, structures, systems and contributions to landscapes”<fnref n="1" />. Together with biodiversity, geodiversity constitutes the natural diversity of the planet².

However, although it is the most used, Gray's definition is far from being the only one³. For some authors, geodiversity is predominantly related to geoheritage and its preservation only⁴,⁵. For others, its purposes exceed the simple enumeration of geofeatures of different natures within a given area⁶. During the last two decades, geodiversity has been defined by many authors⁷⁻¹¹ as a concept that transcends its material components and instead represents a holistic approach and paradigm to improve our regard towards nature and its interactions with biodiversity and human societies⁶,¹². Along with such definitions, the scientific community associated multiple concepts with geodiversity (e.g., geosite, geoheritage, geoconservation, geotourism, georichness, geomcomposition, geodiversification, geofunctionality, megageodiversity, exogeodiversity, and geodiversity hotspots), most of them adapted from ecological sciences¹³⁻¹⁵. Geodiversity encompasses all these

dimensions (Fig. 1). Nevertheless, the proliferation of a new terminology and renewed conceptualizations around it make the concept difficult to grasp for policymakers and the general public¹⁶. The objective of this Perspective is to propose an organized discussion of the multi-dimensional nature of geodiversity (Fig. 1) for future research and debate, based on the leading literature on this topic.

## Aggregative dimension

By its very definition<fnref n="1" />, the geodiversity concept is first “aggregative” and descriptive because it is often used—as biodiversity is for the diversity of living organisms—as an umbrella term encompassing geological, pedological, geomorphological, hydrological, paleontological, and, for some authors, climatic components³. Referring to geodiversity means therefore to refer to an ensemble that includes multiple aggregated components (e.g., pedodiversity, geomorphodiversity, hydrodiversity, lithodiversity, superficial diversity, mineral diversity, climate diversity), whose individual features or elements are also called “geofeatures”¹⁷.

## Evaluative dimension

Geodiversity is also defined as a measure of heterogeneity. It can describe the “range”<fnref n="1" />, “diversity”⁵,⁷,¹² or “variety”⁶,⁹,¹⁰ and “number”⁶ of geofeatures within a given area at a given time. In this sense, geodiversity does not only encompass different geofeatures but it also indicates at which degree geofeatures are abundant or diverse and what is the degree of variation of their nature⁸. To be “evaluative” means to be prone to assessment exercises, facilitating comparative studies and mapping applications¹⁰. Geodiversity can be assessed through a wide range of qualitative (e.g., descriptive, expert-based), quantitative (e.g., landscape metrics, dynamic modeling), qualitative-quantitative (e.g., map algebra) and semi-quantitative (e.g., geodiversity indices) methods¹⁸. Nevertheless, we

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹BRGM, Cayenne, French Guiana, France. ²Sorbonne Université, UR Médiations, Paris, France.</footnote>

<footnote>e-mail: o.scammacca@brgm.fr</footnote>
**Fig. 1 | The multiple dimensions of geodiversity.**
The multiple dimensions of geodiversity are illustrated within the Earth's Critical Zone in a conceptual landscape diagram. Figure created by the authors. Open access icons were retrieved from Shutterstock, Freepik, the Noun project (credits to: Jason Dilworth, Nicky Knicky) and Flaticon (Smashicons, Freepik, ultimatearm, vectorsmarket15) databases.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 2 | Geodiversity is scale-dependent.** Alpha (α; the diversity of geofeatures at the site level), beta (β; the variation in geofeatures across space or time) and gamma (γ; the variation in geofeatures across space or time) geodiversity vary according to the objectives of the assessment and the chosen scale of observation. Observer 1 will focus on a lower surface landscape and analyze patch-scale geodiversity levels and their relationships. Observer 2 will focus on the regional level with coarser assessments at the landscape scale. Figure by the authors. Background LiDAR provided by the Direction Générale des territoires et de la mer de Guyane.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

argue that, in order to be properly assessed, geodiversity should be associated to a specific set of typological references, which allow the identification of what is different and based on what criteria. In other words, geodiversity needs a comprehensive taxonomic system for categorizing geofeatures and associated databases<sup>8,17</sup>, which would be hierarchically structured and applicable. At the moment, a unique taxonomic system for geodiversity does not exist. What is even more critical is that multiple components of geodiversity lack referenced systems as well. Table 1 from the Supplementary Information file lists some existing reference systems for geodiversity components (e.g., the World Reference Base for Soil Resources for the pedological component)<sup>19</sup> and suggests some of them, which might be applicable.

The assessment of geodiversity depends on the spatio-temporal scales of the exercise and on the object to assess. In this sense, through the adaptation of existing ecological frameworks to geodiversity, authors often distinguish between alpha (i.e., the diversity of geofeatures at the site level), gamma (i.e., the overall geofeatures diversity at the landscape or regional level) and beta geodiversity (i.e., the variation in geofeatures across space or time)<sup>20</sup>.

## Spatio-temporal dimensions

Geodiversity is a measure of heterogeneity of units at all levels of organization and at given spatio-temporal scales. Ergo, it is considered as a scale-dependent concept, which varies over time and space. The spatial dimension of geodiversity lies in its very definition since it corresponds to the diversity of geofeatures “within a given area”. Hence, geodiversity can be mapped,

although what can be mapped and at which spatial scales and resolutions is still under scientific debate. Mapped geodiversity varies whether it is assessed at the local scale (alpha diversity) or at the landscape scale (gamma diversity) which can, in turn, transforms in the smallest unit (alpha diversity) of a continental and/or global extent (gamma diversity) according to the mapper objectives (Fig. 2). Geofeatures data, proxies and indicators as well as taxonomic systems should then be scalable<sup>17</sup>. Indeed, scale-dependency is inherently linked to geodiversity components (i.e., soils and lithologies do not transform at the same spatio-temporal scales) but it can be also external, for instance when assessing the influence of geodiversity on biodiversity patterns<sup>20-22</sup>.

Geodiversity is a dynamic object that changes, evolves, and continuously transforms or is transformed over both geological and biological timescales. Recently, the concept of « geodiversification »<sup>15</sup> was proposed to encompass the processes “by which geodiversity develops or is increased through time at a local, regional or global scale”. The site-dependence of geodiversity often led to consider geofeatures as objects developing on so long temporal intervals to make them almost static. However, as for biodiversity, where timespans range from immediate (e.g., reproduction, cell division, predation, homeostasis, motility and mobility, respiration) to long-term variations over thousands (extinction, gene transfer), millions (speciation, photosynthesis) or billion years (cell differentiation), we argue that geodiversity can act on very long (plate tectonics, metamorphism, orogenesis, and diagenesis) or short lapses of time (earthquakes, rockfalls, landslides, precipitation, soil erosion, volcanic eruptions, and flash
flooding)²². Finally, since geodiversity can also be shaped by anthropogenic factors, it might change, evolve, be destroyed or generated over human-like timespans.

## Functional dimension

Based on its spatio-temporal changes and its relationships with the biosphere and the anthroposphere, geodiversity describes an open four-dimensional system composed of complex and changing interactions between a wide spectrum of biotic and abiotic features. All these features are interconnected through functional links derived from socio-geo-ecological processes. The term “geofunctionality”²³ (or functional geodiversity) was suggested to define the contributions that geodiversity provides to socio-ecological functioning: this functional dimension relies on the existing links between geodiversity, biodiversity and human societies, which are at the core of Earth's Critical Zone functioning²⁴. Such contributions can be assessed using qualitative or quantitative metrics, proxies and indicators. One of the primary functions that can be attributed to geodiversity is the provision of space (stable platforms, storage capacity)²⁵ on or within which living organisms and human societies develop, evolve, transform, act and interact. As interface entities between the geosphere, the biosphere and the anthroposphere, soils represent the shining example of how inherently geodiversity is linked to biodiversity and human development, in its biological, technical, socio-economic, cultural and political aspects.

More recently, the declination of the “ecosystem services” (ES) concept to geodiversity²⁶, suggested by many authors using terms such as “geosystem services”²⁷, “abiotic services”²⁸ or “geodiversity-related ES”²³, allows to go even further. Applying the ES to geodiversity offers the advantage of adapting an already consolidated conceptual and methodological framework to geodiversity. In this sense, the application of the ES cascade model²⁹ to geodiversity offers a systematic and structured chain which provides a clear-cut distinction between geofeatures properties and processes (i.e., what geodiversity is), functions (i.e., what geodiversity does), services (what geodiversity does for human societies) and benefits (what human societies actually receive from geodiversity)³⁰.

The application of such framework to geodiversity adds to a long-lasting discussion to update the ES reference systems, such as the Common International Classification of ES, and include “abiotic services” which were initially not considered or only accounted for as “supplementary services”. The current Common International Classification of ES 5.2 version³¹ officially distinguishes between biotic/biophysical and abiotic/geophysical services. However, the dichotomy between biotic and abiotic services does not stand and is ontologically biased²². Each system, as each function and process, is the result of complex interactions between biotic and abiotic features of natural diversity. Is a service defined biotic or abiotic based on the nature of the “dominant” underlying process? Who might determine it? How does one quantitatively assess dominancy? Is this dominancy constant or does it change in space and time? And what if processes considered as dominantly biotic today might be discovered to be abiotic tomorrow? The functional dimension of geodiversity should not depend on the richness or abundance of geofeatures and biofeatures but rather on their changing interactions within a broader socio-geo-ecological system. Indeed, it has been shown already that changes in pedodiversity do not induce systematic changes in functions or services³². Thus, we argue that functions and services are not abiotic nor biotic, but they are both biotic and abiotic at the same time. The distinction between biotic and abiotic functions and services gains a prominent interest when it comes to their assessment: a function or a service (e.g., water regulation) is biotic or abiotic because it is decided, in a specific context, to assess it through biotic (e.g., macroalgae species richness) or abiotic (e.g., lithological permeability) metrics.

## Biotic and biogenic dimensions

The spatio-temporal and functional dimensions of geodiversity emphasize the link between geodiversity and Life and help understanding the

origins of geodiversity transformations through time, whether they are natural, anthropogenic, or both. The geodiversity-biodiversity interactions describe a scalable, two-way, nonlinear and multidirectional nexus. Geodiversity supports life¹² and influences biological organisms through spatial arrangements and mineral interactions in driving species richness, spatial isolation, allopatric speciation, modifying habitat conditions, gauging microclimate and hypometric patterns at multiple scales²²,³³,³⁴. For instance, at the micro-scale, calcium carbonates support the development of fulvic acids, enzymatic oxidation, lignine transformation and biodegradation³⁵.

For these reasons, and its higher resilience to climate change, geodiversity is often considered as a predictive variable of biodiversity and since recently, is used as a surrogate for conserving biodiversity through an approach known as conserving nature's stage³⁶⁻³⁸. However, it is one thing to say that geodiversity supports Life, another thing is to say that geodiversity “is” life. Geodiversity—in many of its sub-components (e.g., soils, some specific biogenic lithologies and landforms), if not all—is known to be highly influenced by the living world and partly derives from living organisms. Pedogenesis is the resulting process of complex interactions between mineral and organic phases over time, and soils are often considered living, breathing entities. One of the major geological events of planet Earth history is the Great Oxidation Event, which has been strongly driven by photosynthesis³⁹. Diagenesis and the sedimentary cycle depend on biological detritus and once-living organisms, as for fossilization and petrification processes. Finally, many landforms and geomorphological processes are biologically-driven: this is the case of specific biogenic landforms (coral reefs, peat bogs, calcareous tufas, and insect mounds...) and of a range of associated biogeomorphological processes (bioweathering, bioerosion, and bioconstruction). Because of all these reasons, we argue that geodiversity—at least a part of it—is biomediated and biogenic, and if biotic means “pertaining to life”⁴⁰, geodiversity should be regarded as partly biotic.

## Anthropic and anthropogenic dimensions

Geodiversity is the “link between human beings, landscapes and culture”¹². If we include human societies within a broader view of the concept of biodiversity, the same assumptions of the geodiversity-biodiversity nexus apply to the direct interactions between geodiversity and the anthroposphere. The role of current and past human activities in shaping geofeatures has been documented for centuries⁴¹ and is the object of a wide spectrum of disciplines. Geodiversity primary function of space provision played a key role in spatial planning, land management and settlement location choices, as domestication and harvesting were traditionally the main uses of biodiversity. Human inputs are one of the main pedogenesis factors altering soil properties and functioning. Nowadays, due to global changes (e.g., demographic growth, food security, and climate change), the increasing number of policies aiming at the reuse of previously sealed soils and at the rehabilitation of condemned lands led to the development of anthropogenic soils, such as Anthrosols and Technosols, which have their full-fledged place within geodiversity assessments. Also, recently, the concept of (geomorphodiversity)⁴² and its sometimes anthropic origins have gained important attention in order to focus on the role of human beings in transforming relief and landforms. Whether these anthropogenic landforms and structures should be considered part of geodiversity is still a matter of debate within the scientific community. Countless examples of anthropogenic landforms can be described around the world—from intensely to sparsely populated areas, such as the Amazon rainforest—due to intense and long-lasting human activities, such as agriculture, urbanization, quarrying, mining, or armed conflicts⁴¹.

On the other hand, geodiversity shaped the history and development of human societies since their earliest days⁴³. The flows linking geodiversity to human societies are of multiple natures and can be specifically accounted for within the ES approach, as services or disservices. Geodiversity is the provider of multiple materials that are at the very
foundation of human development and evolution since millennia. Human ages are named after specific commodities, such as stones, bronze, iron, and copper. Geodiversity provides water supply, which has often influenced—and still does—the locations of many human settlements. Geodiversity directly and indirectly influences human health, for instance, through the regulation of contaminants and pollutants or hazardous materials⁴⁴. Geodiversity and its sub-components have always been a lever for the development of human societies. Human beings grew resilience and cultural adaptation to environmental constraints and opportunities⁴⁵. In his scientific divulgation book, Dartnell¹³ explains how the geodiversity—in terms of physical heterogeneity—of East African territories, particularly near the East African Rift, may have improved the resilience of *Homo sapiens* and favored his survival over Neanderthals and Denisovans⁴³.

Geodiversity also has a strong socio-cultural dimension. In a car-
icatural way, André Siegfried implied in his famous 1913 essay⁴⁶ how
different lithologies and soils can be related to different land uses and
potentially to different electoral behaviors. Many abiotic features of Earth
landscapes have spiritual, artistic, religious or sacred meanings to several
cultures¹,⁴⁷. Multiple natural surfaces host human-made markings (e.g.,
parietal art, petroglyphs, sculpted rock reliefs, geoglyphs) as the earliest
acts of communication or rituality. The concept of “geoheritage” itself
shows the anthropic nature of geodiversity and translates a societal value
and interest that goes beyond the aggregative and descriptive dimensions.
Geoheritage is independent from the heterogeneity—inherent to the
concept of geodiversity—but is rather related to the extrinsic importance
that a geofeature might scientifically, historically, culturally display
according to societal sensitivity, values and perceptions. Therefore,
despite geodiversity developed around the concept of geoconservation,
geoheritage is only one—but still fundamental—of the countless func-
tional aspects related to geodiversity.

We argue, therefore, that geodiversity could be considered as anthro-
pogenic, since it is in continuous transformation by all living organisms
(including humans). Depending on the management of their actions,
human beings can act both as co-producers or threatening elements of
geodiversity and geofunctionality: geodiversity reflects and will continue to
reflect the history of civilization in all its forms and activities.

Operational dimension

Since the beginning, geodiversity was intended to be both a heuristic and
operational tool to support decision-making and land-planning⁶. How-
ever, in the last decades, geodiversity was often linked to geoheritage and
geoconservation, limiting the use of the concept to only one of the
multiple operational planning perspectives that it can embrace. As a
matter of fact, decision-making and land planning might preserve but
also—and more often—transform, exploit or even destroy geodiversity.
Thus, the concept of geodiversity and its anthropic dimension go beyond
geoconservation perspectives, in terms of identification and preservation
of geoheritage alone, and encompass all the inputs and actions that
human societies and their perceptions, needs and representations might
associate to geodiversity. In this sense, geoconservation should be
apprehended in its broader and functional sense, as the “endeavor which
has as its basic goal the conservation of geodiversity for its intrinsic,
ecological and (geo)heritage values”⁷.

Thinking geodiversity and acting geofunctionality would allow then a
paradigm shift that goes past the concept of “georesource” from a mere
extractive point of view to account for the heterogeneity of geofeatures and
their functions, the complexity of their interactions with human activities,
their spatio-temporal variability, origins and future evolutions. In this sense,
geodiversity and geoethical thinking, as a new emerging field⁴⁸, are essential
steps to achieve sustainability¹⁶,⁴⁹. Such a holistic and transdisciplinary
perspective would facilitate decision-making. It would improve a better
alignment of land usage with geodiversity functional potentials through: (i)
the prioritization of synergic land planning strategies; (ii) the identification

of the best way to meet human needs; (iii) the reduction of trade-offs and
negative impacts²,³,²⁶,⁴⁴.

Conclusion

The growing attention given to the concept of geodiversity in both academia and political agendas led to a copious vocabulary and neologisms, which sometimes make this concept difficult to apprehend. Geodiversity is a multidimensional concept which describes the variety and diversity of entities, or geofeatures, from the surface to the underground. This ensemble can be measured, often within a given area. Geodiversity is an inclusive, holistic and transdisciplinary term by its very definition. It describes an organized yet complex, multifactorial and multicomponent nature within a given spatial extent. Geodiversity is described as an open system and is tightly linked to life: it finds its synthesis within the landscape¹⁰. Geodiversity originates and is not considered to be innate. It refers to something that is formed and continuously transformed over multiple space and time scales by both natural and anthropic factors: geodiversity is dynamic. Clarifying the multiple aspects of geodiversity is essential and still needs improvement for better operationalization and societal recognition. The recent proclamation in 2021 of the International Geodiversity Day by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is a first step forward to it. Finally, we argue that a future normative dimension of the geodiversity concept is advisable. This would implement a juridical endorsement and regulatory framework at multiple spatial scales and finally establish rules on geodiversity management and conservation.

Received: 29 August 2025; Accepted: 7 November 2025;

Published online: 15 January 2026

References

1. Gray, M. *Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature* (John Wiley & Sons, 2013).

2. Justice, S., Crofts, R., Gordon. J. E. & Gray, M. The Meaning of Nature: Clarification for strengthened protection and management, IUCN WCPA Issues Paper Series No. 5, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/meaning-of-nature pdf-final.pdf (2025).

3. Maliniemi, T. et al. Too much diversity—multiple definitions of geodiversity hinder its potential in biodiversity research. *Divers. Distrib.* 30 https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13843 (2024). **The authors highlight how the existence of multiple definitions of geodiversity might limit its application for biodiversity-related studies.**

4. Alexandrovicz, Z., & Kozlowski, S. From selected geosites to geodiversity conservation. Polish example of modern framework. In *Proc. Towards the Balanced Management and Conservation of the Geological Heritage in the New Millennium* (40-44). Sociedad Geológica de España https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4950.2728 (1999).

5. Ruban, D. A. Quantification of geodiversity and its loss. *Proc. Geol. Assoc.* **121**, 326–333 (2010).

6. Nieto, L. M. Geodiversidad: propuesta de una definición integradora. *Bol. Geol. Min.* **112**, 3–12 (2001). **One of the first geodiversity-related studies to enhance the operational dimension of the concept of geodiversity.**

7. Sharples, C. Geoconservation in forest management. Principles and procedures. *Tasforests* **7**, 37–50 (1995).

8. Bétard, F. *Géodiversité, biodiversité et patrimoines environnementaux. De la connaissance à la conservation et à la valorisation*, Vol. 1, 270 (Mémoire d'Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches Université Paris-Diderot, 2017).

9. Brocx, M. & Semeniuk, V. Geoheritage and geoconservation-history, definition, scope and scale. *J. R. Soc. West. Aust.* **90**, 53–87 (2007).

10. Serrano, E. & Ruiz-Flaño, P. Geodiversity: a theoretical and applied concept. *Geogr. Helv.* **62**, 140–147 (2007).
11. Gray, M. Geodiversity: developing the paradigm. *Proc. Geol. Assoc.* **119**, 287–298 (2008). **The author of the currently most used definition of geodiversity proposes an opening of the concept to multiple dimensions (including functional)**

12. Stanley, M. Geodiversity strategy. *Progeo News* 1, 6–9 (2001).

13. Bétard, F. & Peulvast, J. P. Geodiversity hotspots: concept, method and cartographic application for geoconservation purposes at a regional scale. *Environ. Manag.* **63**, 822–834 (2019).

14. Boothroyd, A. & McHenry, M. Old processes, new movements: the inclusion of geodiversity in biological and ecological discourse. *Diversity* **11**, 216 (2019).

15. Stojilković, B. & Gray, M. Geodiversification: the evolution of geodiversity through time. *Geoheritage* **16**, 91 (2024).

16. Matthews, J., Kubalíková, L., Štrba, L & Tukiainen, H. Geodiversity challenges for a sustainable future. *Nat. Geosci.* **17**, 948–948 (2024). **A recent yet fundamental paper listing the main challenges geodiversity faces in order to perform as an efficient tool to meet Sustainable Development Goals.**

17. Hjort, J. et al. Towards a taxonomy of geodiversity. *Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A* **382**, 20230060 (2024).

18. Zwoliński, Z., Najwer, A. & Giardino, M. Methods for assessing geodiversity. *Geoheritage* 27–52 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00002-2 (2018).

19. IUSS Working Group W. R. B. *World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps* 4th edn, International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS, 2022).

20. Tukiainen, H. et al. Quantifying alpha, beta and gamma geodiversity. *Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ.* **47**, 140–151 (2023).

21. Canet, C. Is Mexico a “megageodiverse” country? *Geoheritage* **15**, 98 (2023).

22. Beierkuhlein, C. et al. Towards a comprehensive geodiversity-biodiversity nexus in terrestrial ecosystems. *Earth Sci. Rev.* **264**, 105075 (2025). **This publication highlights in detail how intrinsically tight is the geodiversity-biodiversity nexus.**

23. Scammacca, O. et al. From geodiversity to geofunctionality: quantifying geodiversity-based ecosystem services for landscape planning in French Guiana. *Geoheritage* **16**, 3 (2024).

24. Brantley S. L. & Lebedeva, M. Learning to Read the Chemistry of Regolith to Understand the Critical Zone. *Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci.* **39**, 387–416 (2011).

25. Frisk, E. L. et al. The geosystem services concept–what is it and can it support subsurface planning? *Ecosyst. Serv.* **58**, 101493 (2022).

26. Fox, N., Graham, L. J., Eigenbrod, F., Bullock, J. M. & Parks, K. E. Incorporating geodiversity in ecosystem service decisions. *Ecosyst. People* **16**, 151–159 (2020).

27. Gray, M. Other nature: geodiversity and geosystem services. *Environ. Conserv.* **38**, 271–274 (2011).

28. Van der Meulen, E. S., Braat, L. C. & Brils, J. M. Abiotic flows should be inherent part of ecosystem services classification. *Ecosyst. Serv.* **19**, 1–5 (2016).

29. Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. *Ecosyst. Ecol. New Synth.* **1**, 110–139 (2010).

30. Cousin I. (coord.) et al. Préserver la qualité des sols : vers un référentiel d’indicateurs. Rapport d’étude, INRAE (France). 780 https://doi.org/10.17180/qnpx-x742 (2025).

31. Haines-Young, R. Common International Classification of ecosystem services (CICES) V5.2 and guidance on the application of the revised structure. [Available from www.cices.eu] (2023).

32. Scammacca, O. et al. Effect of spatial scale of soil data on estimates of soil ecosystem services: case study in 100 km² area in France. *Eur. J. Soil Sci.* **74**, e13359 (2023).

33. De Falco, E. et al. Geodiversity impacts plant community structure in a semi-arid region. *Sci. Rep.* **11**, 15259 (2021).

34. FUß, T. et al. Geodiversity of a European river network controls algal biodiversity and function. *Commun. Earth Environ.* **5**, 315 (2024).

35. Duchaufour, P. Humification et ecologie. *Cah ORSTOM Sér Pédol*, 8, 1–12 https://horizon/documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/cahiers/PTP/18417.PDF (2024).

36. Knudson, C., Kay, K. & Fisher, S. Appraising geodiversity and cultural diversity approaches to building resilience through conservation. *Nat. Clim. Change* **8**, 678–685 (2018).

37. Alahuhta, J., Toivanen, M. & Hjort, J. Geodiversity-biodiversity relationship needs more empirical evidence. *Nat. Ecol. Evol.* **4**, 2–3 (2020).

38. Gakou, M. et al. Unveiling the spatial link between geodiversity and biodiversity: a multi-taxon study in the South of France. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.32942/X2BS8P (2025).

39. Planavsky, N. et al. Evidence for oxygenic photosynthesis half a billion years before the Great Oxidation Event. *Nat. Geosci.* **7**, 283–286 (2014).

40. Swanson, K. S. et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of synbiotics. *Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.* **17**, 687–701 (2020).

41. Szabó, J., Dávid, L., & Lóczy, D. (eds.). *Anthropogenic Geomorphology: A Guide to Man-made Landforms*. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3058-0 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2010).

42. Panizza, M. The geomorphodiversity of the dolomites (Italy): a key of geoheritage assessment. *Geoheritage* **1**, 33–42 (2009).

43. Dartnell, L. *Origins: How the Earth Shaped Human History* (Random House, 2019).

44. Alahuhta, J. et al. Acknowledging geodiversity in safeguarding biodiversity and human health. *Lancet Planet. Health* **6**, e987–e992 (2022).

45. Rostain, S. & McKey, D. Les paysages de champs surélevés de Guyane française: un patrimoine bioculturel menacé. Revue d'ethnoécologie (7) https://doi.org/10.4000/ethnoecologie.2193 (2015).

46. Siegfried, A. *Tableau Politique de la France de l'ouest sous la Troisième République* : 102 cartes et croquis, 1 carte hors texte. (A. Colin, 1913).

47. Portal, C. & Bétard, F. Representing geodiversity: between art, sciences and geographical imagination. An introduction. *Géomorphol. Relief Process Environ.* **25**, 141–149 (2019).

48. Bobrowsky, P., Cronin, V. S., Di Capua, G., Kieffer, S. W., & Peppoloni, S. The emerging field of geoethics. Scientific integrity and ethics in the geosciences, 175–212 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119067825.ch11 (2017).

49. Brilha, J., Gray, M., Pereira, D. I. & Pereira, P. Geodiversity: an integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable management of the whole of nature. *Environ. Sci. Policy* **86**, 19–28 (2018).

## Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to the GOYAVES project ANR-22-EXSS-0013 (France 2030), which focuses on the interactions between geodiversity, stakeholders' perception and land-planning strategies in the Amazonian region of French Guiana.

## Author contributions

These authors contributed equally and jointly supervised this work. Ottone Scammacca: conceptualization; writing—original draft and review; editing; supervision. François Bétard: writing; supervision.

## Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.
**Additional information**

**Supplementary information** The online version contains supplementary material available at
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44458-025-00017-3.

**Correspondence** and requests for materials should be addressed to Ottone Scammacca.

**Peer review information** *Communications Sustainability* thanks Murray Gray and Daniel Souza dos Santos, reviewers, for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary handling editors: Ana Ochoa-Sánchez and Yann Benetreau. A peer review file is available.

**Reprints and permissions information** is available at
http://www.nature.com/reprints

**Publisher's note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

© The Author(s) 2026