Fig. 1
The Skawa (1) and Białka (2) rivers’ catchments with the location of the geomorphosites. Based on the Hydrographical Map of Poland, available online: GUGiK 2019.
1 – Białka Gorge through the Pieniny Klippen Belt, 2 – Białka Valley at the Spisz Region, 3 – rocky and braided channel in maków Podhalański, 4 – fragment of the river channel in Jaroszowice).
Fig. 2
Geology of the Skawa (1) and Białka (2) riverbeds with the location of geomorphosites. Based on Lexa et al. 2000.
1 – Białka river Gorge through the Pieniny Klippen Belt, 2 – Białka Valley at the Spisz Region, 3 – rocky and braided channel in maków Podhalański, 4 – fragment of the river channel in Jaroszowice); PKB – Pieniny Klippen Belt.
Fig. 3
The Białka Gorge. View from the Obłazowa Rock. Photo: A. Chrobak.
Fig. 4
The Białka river channel at the Spisz Region. Photo: A. Chrobak.
Fig. 5
The braided channel of the Białka river near Nowa Biała village. Photo: A. Chrobak.
Fig. 6
The fragment of the rocky channel in the Skawa river. Photo: K. Witkowski.
Fig. 7
The section of the Skawa river near Jaroszowice village. Photo: K. Witkowski.
Fig. 8
Satellite images of the Skawa river near Jaroszewice in 2012 and 2018 (Google Earth, downloaded on August 16, 2018).
Table 1
The criteria of a scientific-educational assessment. Based on Pereira, Pereira (2010) and Brilha (2016).
| SEV | SCIENTIFIC-EDUCATIONAL VALUE |
|---|---|
| Ra | Rareness in relation to the study area |
| 0 | It is not one of the most important 5 |
| 2,5 | One of the most 5 important examples in the study area to illustrate elements or processes |
| 5 | One of the most 3 important examples in the study area to illustrate elements or processes |
| 7,5 | Good example in the study area to illustrate elements or processes |
| 10 | The best example in the study area to illustrate elements or processes |
| In | Integrity/Intactness |
| 0 | Highly damaged as a result of human activities |
| 2,5 | Damaged as a result of natural processes |
| 5 | Damaged, but preserving essential geomorphological features |
| 7,5 | Slightly damaged, but still maintaining the essential geomorphological features/other geomorphological features were created as a result of human activity and/or natural processes |
| 10 | All geological and geomorphological features are very well preserve |
| Rp | Representativeness of geomorphological processes and pedagogical interest |
| 0 | Low representativeness and without pedagogical interest |
| 3,3 | With some representativeness, but with a low pedagogical interest |
| 6,7 | The good example of processes, but hard to explain to non-experts |
| 10 | The good example of processes and/or good pedagogical resource |
| Dv | Number of interesting geomorphological features (diversity) |
| 0 | 1 |
| 3,3 | 2 |
| 6,7 | 3 |
| 10 | More than 3 |
| Ge | Other geological features with heritage value |
| 0 | The absence of other geological features |
| 3,3 | Other geological features, but without relation to geosite |
| 6,7 | Other geological features with relation to geosite |
| 10 | The occurrence of other geological features with a degree higher than geomorphological features |
| Kn | Scientific knowledge on geomorphological issues |
| 0 | None |
| 5 | Medium: presentations, national papers |
| 10 | High: international papers, thesis |
| Av | Additional values (historical, cultural, archeological) |
| 0 | No other scientific or educational values |
| 3,3 | One scientific or educational value which could be related to the geomorphosite |
| 6,7 | 2–5 scientific or educational values which could be related to the geomorphosite |
| 10 | Existence more than 5 scientific or educational values which could be related to the geomorphosite |
Table 2
Definitions of division into valorization groups. Based on Warszyńska (1970).
| Group | Point value | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| I | 0.7–1.0 | An object with very high scientific-educational values |
| II | 0.4–0.7 | An object with high scientific-educational values |
| III | 0.2–0.4 | An object with medium scientific-educational values |
| IV | 0.0–0.2 | An object with low scientific-educational values |
Table 3
Results of the assessment of selected geomorphosites.
| Criteria | GEOSITE NO. 1 | GEOSITE NO. 2 | GEOSITE NO. 3 | GEOSITE NO. 4 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | E2 | E3 | Av | E1 | E2 | E3 | Av | E1 | E2 | E3 | Av | E1 | E2 | E3 | Av | |
| Ra | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 10.0 | 8.3 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 10.0 | 8.3 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
| In | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 7.5 | 9.2 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 7.5 | 10.0 | 7.5 | 8.3 |
| Rp | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 6.7 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 8.9 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.7 |
| Dv | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 6.7 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 8.9 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
| Ge | 10.0 | 6.7 | 10.0 | 8.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 4.5 |
| Kn | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Av | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 10.0 | 5.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
| SUM | 70.0 | 66.7 | 70.0 | 68.9 | 47.6 | 54.2 | 57.5 | 53.1 | 39.2 | 39.2 | 41.7 | 40.0 | 49.2 | 58.4 | 55.9 | 54.5 |
| P.value | 1.00 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.68 | 0.77 | 0.82 | 0.75 | 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.60 | 0.57 | 0.70 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.78 |
| GROUP | I | I | I | I | II | I | I | I | II | II | II | II | I | I | I | I |
[i] P.value – point value; the quotient of the sum of points obtained from the valorization of the geosite by the maximum sum of points possible to reach by the geosite; GROUP – based on Warszyńska (1970).