The Role of Geomorphosites in the Local Economy Development of the Carpathian and Sub-Carpathian Area of Vrancea County, Romania

The criteria proposed for the evaluation of the geomorphosites (acc. to Comănescu et al. 2011, with modifications and additions by Tufănoiu et al. 2020).

Scientific value		Economic value		Aesthetic value		Cultural value		Management and use value
	25 points		20 points		20 points		20 points		15 points
1.5	Rareness at national level	4	Infrastructure	4	Visibility	4	Symbolic value	3	Preservation degree
1.5	Rareness in relation to the area	4	Accessibility	4	Colour contrast	4	Cultural characteristics	3	Intensity of use
3	Degree of scientific knowledge on geomorphological issues	4	Number of types and forms of use (inclusively touristic)	4	Level difference	2	Iconographic/literary representations	3	Use of aesthetic, cultural and economic value
3	Palaeogeographic interest	4	Yearly number of visitors	4	Landscape framing	4	Religious characteristics	2	Vulnerability / natural risks
3	Integrity / intactness	4	Economic potential (incomes)	4	Space structuring	4	Historical characteristics	2	Relationship with planning policies
3	Use in educational purposes					2	Cultural manifestations	2	Equipment and support services
2	Diversity
5	Ecologic value
2	Representativeness
1	Other geological features
	Vs points		Ve points		Va points		Vc points		Vmu points
					Total points
0	Minimum				Total value			1	Maximum

An example of the assessment (applied on the geomorphosite no. 2 Cascada Putnei).

Scientific value		Economic value		Aesthetic value		Cultural value		Management and use value
25 points		20 points		20 points		20 points		15 points
1.5	Rareness at national level	3	Infrastructure	4	Visibility	3	Symbolic value	2.5	Preservation degree
1.5	Rareness in relation to the area	4	Accessibility	4	Colour contrast	4	Cultural characteristics	2.5	Intensity of use
3	Degree of scientific knowledge on geomorphological issues	2	Number of types and forms of use (inclusively touristic)	4	Level difference	0.5	Icono graphic / literary representations	2.5	Use of aesthetic, cultural and economic value
3	Palaeogeographic interest	3	Yearly number of visitors	2	Landscape framing	2	Religious characteristics	1	Vulnera bility / natural risks
2.5	Integrity / intactness	3	Economic potential (incomes)	2	Space structuring	2	Historical characteristics	1	Relationship with planning policies
3	Use in educational purposes					0.5	Cultural manifestations	1.5	Equipment and support services
1.5	Diversity
4	Ecologic value
2	Representativeness
1	Other geological features
	23		15		16		12		11
					77 points
0	Minimum				0.77			1	Maximum

The ranking of geomorphosites.

No.	Name	Scientific value	Economic value	Aesthetic value	Cultural value	Management and use	Total points	Evaluation score	Rank
1.	Cheile Tișiței	23	11	17	11	10	72	0.72	2
2.	Cascada Putnei	23	15	16	12	11	77	0.77	1
3.	Groapa cu Pini	21	6	15	13	7	62	0.62	7
4.	Strâmtura Coza	19	6	15	11	7	58	0.58	10
5.	Cascada din Horn	12	4	16	12	6	50	0.50	14
6.	Cascada Văsui	10	5	11	11	4	41	0.41	18
7.	Cascada Mișina	21	6	18	11	8	64	0.64	5
8.	Cheile Nărujei	22	8	17	11	7	65	0.65	4
9.	Căldările Zăbalei	23	7	16	11	8	65	0.65	4
10.	Râpa Roșie	21	10	14	11	7	63	0.63	6
11.	Lacul Negru	20	7	15	11	6	59	0.59	9
12.	Valea Algheanului	18	9	11	12	6	56	0.56	12
13.	Grumaz	8	5	15	13	5	46	0.46	16
14.	Măgura Odobești	16	9	17	15	10	67	0.67	3
15.	Vârful Zburătura	12	3	19	8	7	49	0.49	15
16.	Vârful Tisaru Mare	12	6	20	8	9	55	0.55	13
17.	Vârful Zboina Neagră	14	7	20	9	11	61	0.61	8
18.	Vârful Lăcăuți	12	6	19	9	10	56	0.56	12
19.	Vârful Goru	16	3	20	10	8	57	0.57	11
20.	Vârful Pietrosu	8	3	18	6	6	41	0.41	18
21.	Vârful Coza	9	4	18	8	6	45	0.45	17
22.	Vârful Zboina Frumoasă	12	3	20	8	7	50	0.50	14