## 2 Materials and Methods
### Methodological Approach
The spatial analysis meant to integrate the criteria defining each level was performed according to the weighted average method, to stress the influence of each criterion in the process of defining the specificity of each analysed level. The weight of criteria within the levels, and of the levels within the final analysis, was established according to expert knowledge analysis and as a result of the statistical analysis of the answers received from questionnaires provided to tourists, to the population living in close proximity to the geomorphosite, and to specialists who performed investigations on similar geomorphosites in Romania. To emphasize the impact of each criterion in the process of defining the specificity of each investigated level, the spatial analysis intended to integrate the criteria defining each level was carried out using the weighted average approach. The importance of each criterion within each level and each level within the final analysis was determined using expert knowledge analysis and statistical analysis of the responses to questionnaires given to tourists, residents living nearby the geomorphosite, and experts who had conducted research on Romanian geomorphosites with a similar geology. The geomorphological value (Geo) was defined according to scientific (Sce), ecological (Eco), cultural (Cult), aesthetic and landscape (Est) criteria. These criteria were divided further into several subcriteria and have been ranked. They were assigned values between 0 and 1, where 0 is the lowest value and 1 is the highest. The scientific value was calculated according to integrity, representativity, genesis and rarity. The ecological value (importance) is divided into protection, fauna/ flora, and endemic plants. The cultural value considered the aspects of religious importance and geohistorical and bibliographical importance. The aesthetic and landscape value was assessed according to the presence of panoramic viewpoints, chromatic contrasts, artistic importance and rarity. Each criterion was assigned a weight according to its importance for the Gradina Zmeilor geomorphosite within this study. The scientific value had an importance of 10%, the ecological criterion received an importance of 30%, and the cultural impact had an importance of 15%, while the most important aspect was the aesthetic criterion, which was awarded a weight of 45%. The formula based on which the geomorphological value has been calculated is:  
\[\mathrm{V_{GEO}}=(\mathrm{Sce}\times 0.10)+(\mathrm{Eco}\times 0.30)+( \mathrm{Cult}\times 0.15)+(\mathrm{Est}\times 0.45)/4, \tag{1}\]  
The degree of use of the analysed geomorphosite is regarded according to the following aspects: visibility (Vis), accessibility (Acc), risk areas for tourism (Rsc), infrastructure (Inf), tourism flows (Tur), visiting intervals (H), and specific products (Prod). Visibility refers to the impact the geomorphosite has on neighbouring areas (settlements, main roads, other tourist attractions), accessibility concerns information on the existence of access routes (the typology of access routes) to the geomorphosite, as well as accessibility within the geomorphosite, including the evaluation of the types of vulnerabilities and risks for tourism (geomorphological, geological, climatic risks, and others). Infrastructure concerns both the degree of development and the implementation of the landform (geomorphosite) in the tourism flows. It provides information regarding the approximate number of tourists located within the geomorphosite during visiting hours. The calculation method is based on the proposed formula, in which, apart from the values of the mentioned subcriteria, percentual values have been given according to the weight of the infrastructure element within the degree of use of the geomorphosite. For visibility, the given percentual value is 5%. Accessibility received 25%, while the typology of risks, as an essential element in this study, was awarded a percentage of 30%.