Rewilding and ecosystem restoration approaches have focused strongly on the restoration of wildlife/biodiversity. However, the Convention on Biological Diversity defines an ecosystem as “a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit”. It follows, therefore, that ecosystem restoration must involve the restoration of both the living and the non-living components of the environment, including their dynamic interactions. This paper defines other aspects of the environment, including nature and natural capital. These involve both biotic and abiotic components, so “nature” should not be used as a synonym for wildlife/biodiversity. After describing how geodiversity is important in ecosystem functioning, several examples are presented of how geomorphology is a crucial aspect of rewilding or landscape/ecosystem restoration. By pursuing this integrated approach to biotic and abiotic restoration, stronger, more-resilient ecosystems can be achieved.

The ecosystem services concept is widely accepted and reflected in scientific literature with a notable overreach to nature conservation, management, practice and policies already for several decades. The similar situation is with geosystem services (abiotic ecosystem services), although their conceptualisation is the matter of a shorter period. In contrast, the ecosystem disservices approach is relatively new to the field, and it is accompanied by debates about its meaning, purpose and sense. In recent years, its conceptualisation is being developed and several definitions and classifications have been presented in the scientific literature. Ecosystem disservices are now considered as the results of ecosystem functions, processes and interactions that impact human well-being and are assessed as damaging under a relevant value system. Nevertheless, the majority of the approaches to ecosystem disservices is focused on living nature (biodiversity) and although the adverse, harmful, or unpleasant impacts of geodiversity (especially geomorphological processes and eventually landforms) are well-known (and usually presented as risks or geohazards), a clear conceptual framework for describing these impacts is still missing.,This paper aims to explore the position of geodiversity within ecosystem disservices and to provide conceptualisation, definition and classification framework of so called geosystem disservices. Several classification frameworks used already in ecosystem disservices approach are applied for geosystem disservices, and particular examples of geosystem disservices are presented. Additionally, the related topics such as changing perception of disservices, human influence on disservices, or future directions of research or practical applications are outlined.

Nature and natural capital are generally defined as including both biotic and abiotic features. However, starting in the 1980s most writing on nature and ecosystem services (ESs) came to be dominated by biotic components despite definitions indicating that ecosystems involve both the biotic and abiotic interacting as functioning systems. Because of this biotic approach, geoscientists have developed the idea of geosystem services (GSs) and the benefits they bring to society, all of which are related to the geodiversity of the planet. Some of these services, such as habitat provision, are the foundation of the planet’s biodiversity or related to it, but many, such as gemstones and precious metals, apply independently of life on Earth. The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) was originally intended to exclude abiotic features yet has been including water, a non-living material. Recent iterations of CICES have been struggling with this contradiction and have begun to include an ‘abiotic extension’. In this paper we propose a comprehensive framework that includes both ecosystem and geosystem services (ESs and GSs), categorises both as Environmental Services (EnvSs), and views them as equally important to each other, to society and to the planet’s environmental future.

This paper outlines the 10 major topics related to geodiversity that have emerged since the concept was first introduced in 1993, 30 years ago. After a short introduction, each of the 10 topics is then illustrated by a relevant case study. The 10 topics (italics) and their case studies (bold) are as follows: 1. Celebrating, International Geodiversity Day; 2. Measurement/Assessment, Potential role of remote sensing; 3. Natural Capital and Geosystem Services, Coastal geosystem services; 4. Biodiversity, Mangue de Pedra, Brazil; 5. Geomaterials, The circular economy; 6. Geotourism, World's top geotourism sites?; 7. Geoheritage, Landscape restoration; 8. National Geoconservation, Trump golf course and an SSSI, Scotland; 9. World Heritage Sites and Global Geoparks, Azores Global Geopark, Portugal; 10. Sustainability, Xitle Volcano, Mexico City. It is concluded that, given the way in which geodiversity has developed as a concept, leading to new insights and avenues of research and advancing our understanding of the world since its first use, it clearly now constitutes a significant, geoscientific paradigm. This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue 'Geodiversity for science and society'.

Rapid environmental change, natural resource overconsumption and increasing concerns about ecological sustainability have led to the development of 'Essential Variables' (EVs). EVs are harmonized data products to inform policy and to enable effective management of natural resources by monitoring global changes. Recent years have seen the instigation of new EVs beyond those established for climate, oceans and biodiversity (ECVs, EOVs and EBVs), including Essential Geodiversity Variables (EGVs). EGVs aim to consistently quantify and monitor heterogeneity of Earth-surface and subsurface abiotic features, including geology, geomorphology, hydrology and pedology. Here we assess the status and future development of EGVs to better incorporate geodiversity into policy and sustainable management of natural resources. Getting EGVs operational requires better consensus on defining geodiversity, investments into a governance structure and open platform for curating the development of EGVs, advances in harmonizing in situ measurements and linking heterogeneous databases, and development of open and accessible computational workflows for global digital mapping using machine-learning techniques. Cross-disciplinary collaboration and partnerships with governmental and private organizations are needed to ensure the successful development and uptake of EGVs across science and policy. This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue 'Geodiversity for science and society'.

Geodiversity—the diversity of abiotic features and processes of the Earth's surface and subsurface—is an increasingly used concept in ecological research. A growing body of scientific literature has provided evidence of positive links between geodiversity and biodiversity. These studies highlight the potential of geodiversity to improve our understanding of biodiversity patterns and to complement current biodiversity conservation practices and strategies. However, definitions of geodiversity in ecological research vary widely. This can hinder the progress of geodiversity–biodiversity research and make it difficult to synthesize findings across studies. We therefore call for greater awareness of how geodiversity is currently defined and for more consistent use of the term ‘geodiversity’ in biodiversity research.

Geodiversity is a topical concept in earth and environmental sciences. Geodiversity information is needed to conserve nature, use ecosystem services and achieve sustainable development goals. Despite the increasing demand for geodiversity data, there exists no comprehensive system for categorizing geodiversity. Here, we present a hierarchically structured taxonomy that is potentially applicable in mapping and quantifying geodiversity across different regions, environments and scales. In this taxonomy, the main components of geodiversity are geology, geomorphology, hydrology and pedology. We propose a six-level hierarchical system where the components of geodiversity are classified at progressively lower taxonomic levels based on their genesis, physical-chemical properties and morphology. This comprehensive taxonomy can be used to compile geodiversity information for scientific research and various applications of value to society and nature conservation. Ultimately, this hierarchical system is the first step towards developing a global geodiversity taxonomy.This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue 'Geodiversity for science and society'.

Geodiversity has gained significant attention in the last three decades due to various research endeavouring to bridge the gap between geo- and biodiversity. This paper points at yet another parallel between the two disciplines: just as biodiversity expansion (i.e. biodiversification) can be evaluated through time, geodiversity change can also be observed on a timescale and referred to as ‘geodiversification’. The paper firstly reviews the biodiversification definition and some of its major events including the Cambrian explosion and Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event (GOBE) and suggests that being palaeontological, these can also be regarded as geodiversification events. In relation to that, the paper defines geodiversification and provides examples of important geodiversification events in the Earth’s history and some local-scale examples. The results show that major biodiversification events can occur due to the evolution of geodiversity.

Abstract The paper documents the process of proclaiming International Geodiversity Day as a grassroots initiative of the Earth science community for the benefit of our present civilization and for future generations. The huge support that this initiative has gained among scientists around the world has contributed to the rapid circulation of documents necessary to establish an international day at the UNESCO Forum. The paper presents the timeline of this process of proclaiming International Geodiversity Day, its implications and the course of the first celebrations in 2022.

Chen et al. (2023) have proposed a scheme to define which services should be included as ecosystem services and which should be excluded so as to avoid “an all-encompassing metaphor that captures any benefit”. We discuss the proposals, drawing attention in particular to definitions of ‘natural capital’ and ‘ecosystems’, the complexities of separating biotic from abiotic flows, and the importance of geodiversity and geosystem services in delivering societal benefits. We conclude that rather than trying to separate out bits of nature in order to draw the boundary of ecosystem services, it is perhaps time to avoid using ‘nature’ and ‘biodiversity’ as synonyms and think instead of a more holistic and integrated approach involving ‘environmental’, ‘natural’ or ‘nature's services', in which the role of abiotic nature is fully recognised in both ecosystem services and non-ecosystem domains.

A definição abrange seis categorias de gestão (

The term “biodiversity” has become well known in recent years, but much less so is the non-living or abiotic diversity of the planet, known since the 1990s as its “geodiversity.” In simple terms, geodiversity is the variety of the earth’s rocks, minerals, fossils, topography, landforms, physical processes, soils, and hydrological features. Geodiversity is part of the planet’s natural capital assets. In turn, natural capital provides goods and services to society identified through the “ecosystem services” approach. This paper gives several examples of how geodiversity brings many benefits to society that deserve to be better known by the public.

These Guidelines are intended to help improve the conservation and management of geoheritage and geodiversity in protected and conserved areas and recognition of the interrelationships and interactions with biological features and processes. They are not a textbook on geoconservation management practice, but rather set out the essential background, context and principles. The use of best practice examples from around the world will hopefully give users renewed confidence in looking after geoheritage and in connecting geoconservation with biodiversity conservation.

Abstract Geodiversity first emerged nearly 30 years ago in the wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity, when geoscientists realized that they too study diverse natural phenomena that are also often threatened with loss or degradation resulting from human activities. Since then, geodiversity has emerged as an important geoscientific paradigm with a central position in the relationships between the geoscientific ‘Gs’ (Geoheritage, Geoconservation, Geoparks, etc). It has spawned much discussion on how geodiversity can be classified and measured; it is often used as the basis for selecting geoheritage sites for geoconservation, including the development of the World Heritage List; it is often used by geoparks to publicize their range of geofeatures; and it is the basis for many ‘geosystem services’ essential to our modern societies. But despite its importance, it is poorly understood and poorly integrated into nature conservation policy and practice. The result is that the value of the whole of nature is underestimated, and the policy and practice for the management of nature lack integration.

In 2015, the United Nations adopted a series of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 individual targets with the aim of achieving these within 15 years, i.e., by 2030. These ambitious goals include ending poverty and hunger, facilitating sustainable economic growth and social development, and protecting the environment. Using Gill and Smith (2021) as a major source, this paper outlines the potential role that the geosciences and geoscientists as geopractitioners can play in contributing to the achievement of the SDGs.

Dieser Richtlinie soll dazu beitragen, die Erhaltung und das Management des Geo-Naturerbes und der Geodiversität in Schutz- und Erhaltungsgebieten zu verbessern und die Zusammenhänge und Wechselwirkungen mit biologischen Merkmalen und Prozessen zu erkennen. Sie sind kein Lehrbuch für das Management des Schutzes des Geo-Naturerbes, sondern stellen vielmehr den wesentlichen Hintergrund, den Kontext und die Prinzipien dar. Die Verwendung von Best-Practice-Beispielen aus der ganzen Welt wird den Nutzern hoffentlich neues Vertrauen in die Pflege des Geo-Naturerbes und in die Verbindung zwischen Schutz des Geo-Naturerbes und Biodiversitätsschutz geben.

Les Lignes directrices des meilleures pratiques dans les aires protégées de la CMAP de l'UICN sont une ressource faisant mondialement autorité auprès des gestionnaires d'aires protégées.Bénéficiant de la collaboration de professionnels spécialistes cherchant à encourager une meilleure mise en oeuvre sur le terrain, elles diffusent un savoir et des conseils au-delà de l'UICN.Appliquées sur le terrain, elles renforcent les capacités institutionnelles et individuelles pour gérer les systèmes d'aires protégées efficacement, équitablement et durablement, et pour faire face à la multitude de défis présents dans la pratique.Elles aident également les gouvernements nationaux, les organismes de gestion des aires protégées, les organisations non-gouvernementales, les communautés et les partenaires du secteur privé à respecter leurs engagements et objectifs, et notamment le Programme de travail de la Convention sur la diversité biologique sur les aires protégées.Un ensemble de lignes directrices est disponibles à l'adresse : www.iucn.org/pa_guidelinesDes ressources complémentaires sont disponibles à l'adresse : www.cbd.int/protected/tools/Contribuez au renforcement des capacités pour une planète protégée à l'adresse : www.protectedplanet.net DÉFINITION, CATÉGORIES DE GESTION ET TYPES DE GOUVERNANCE DES AIRES PROTÉGÉES SELON L'UICNL'UICN définit « aire protégée » comme suit : Un espace géographique clairement défini, reconnu, consacré et géré, par tout moyen efficace, juridique ou autre, afin d'assurer à long terme la conservation de la nature ainsi que les services écosystémiques et les valeurs culturelles qui lui sont associés.La définition est complétée par six catégories de gestion (dont une avec une sous-division), présentées ci-dessous.Ia Réserve naturelle intégrale : Strictement protégées pour protéger la biodiversité et aussi, éventuellement, des caractéristiques géologiques/ géomorphologiques, ou les visites, l'utilisation et les impacts humains sont strictement contrôlés et limités pour garantir la protection des valeurs de conservation.Ib Zone de nature sauvage : généralement de vastes aires intactes ou légerement modifiées, qui ont conservé leur caractere et leur influence naturels, sans habitations humaines permanentes ou significatives, qui sont protégées et gérées aux fins de préserver leur état naturel.II Parc national : De vastes aires naturelles ou quasi naturelles mises en réserve pour protéger des processus écologiques de grande échelle, ainsi que les especes et les écosystemes caractéristiques d'une région, qui fournissent aussi des opportunités de visites de nature spirituelle, scientifique, éducative et récréative, dans le respect de l'environnement et de la culture des communautés locales.III Monument ou élément naturel : Aires mises en réserve pour protéger un monument naturel spécifique, qui peut etre un élément topographique, une montagne ou une caverne sous-marine, une caractéristique géologique telle qu'une grotte ou meme un élément vivant comme un îlot boisé ancien.IV Aire de gestion des habitats ou des espèces : Aires visant a protéger des especes ou des habitats particuliers, et leur gestion reflete cette priorité.De nombreuses aires protégées de cette catégorie ont besoin d'interventions régulieres et actives pour répondre aux exigences d'especes particulieres ou pour maintenir des habitats, mais cela n'est pas une exigence de la catégorie.V Paysage terrestre ou marin protégé : Une aire protégée ou l'interaction des humains et de la nature a produit, au fil du temps, une aire qui possede un caractere distinct, avec des valeurs écologiques, biologiques, culturelles et panoramiques considérables, et ou la sauvegarde de l'intégrité de cette interaction est vitale pour protéger et maintenir l'aire, la conservation de la nature associée ainsi que d'autres valeurs.VI Aire protégée avec utilisation durable des ressources naturelles : Aires préservant des écosystemes et des habitats, ainsi que les valeurs culturelles et les systemes de gestion des ressources naturelles traditionnelles qui y sont associés.Elles sont généralement vastes, et la plus grande partie de leur superficie présente des conditions naturelles; une certaine proportion y est soumise a une gestion durable des ressources naturelles; et une utilisation modérée des ressources naturelles, non industrielle et compatible avec la conservation de la nature, y est considérée comme l'un des objectifs principaux de l'aire.La catégorie doit etre fondée sur le(s) objectif(s) premier(s) de la gestion de l'aire protégée, qui doit s'appliquer a au moins trois quarts de l'aire protégée -la « regle des 75 pour cent ».Les catégories de gestion sont appliquées a l'aide d'une typologie des types de gouvernance -a savoir une description des acteurs qui détiennent l'autorité et la responsabilité de la gestion de l'aire protégée.L'UICN établit quatre types de gouvernance.Type A. Gouvernance par le gouvernement : gouvernance par un organisme/ministere fédéral ou national; par un organisme/ministere infranational (par ex. a l'échelon régional, provincial ou municipal); ou déléguée par le gouvernement (p.ex. a une ONG).Type B. Gouvernance partagée : Gouvernance transfrontaliere (ententes officielles et informelles entre deux ou plusieurs pays); gouvernance collaborative (par différents moyens permettant une collaboration entre une variété d'acteurs et d'institutions); gouvernance conjointe (conseil d'administration multipartite ou autre organe directeur multipartite).Type C. Gouvernance privée : Établissement et gestion des aires de conservation assurés par des propriétaires fonciers individuels; des organisations a but non lucratif (par ex.les ONG et les universités); et des organisations a des fins lucratives (par ex.des entreprises propriétaires de terres).Type D. Gouvernance par des populations autochtones et des communautés locales : les aires et les territoires des populations autochtones établis et gérés par des populations autochtones; et les zones de conservation communautaire créées et gérées par les communautés.Pour plus d'informations sur la définition, les catégories et les types de gouvernance selon l' UICN, voir : Dudley (2008).Lignes directrices pour l'application des catégories de gestion aux aires protégées, disponible a l'adresse www.iucn.org/pa_categoriesPour plus d'information sur les types de gouvernance types, voir : Borrini-Feyerabend, et al., (2013).Gouvernance des aires protégées : de la comprehension à l'action, disponible a l'adresse https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/44864

Geoconservation is an integral part of nature conservation. It protects our diverse and valued geoheritage, contributes to the sustainable management of ecosystems, provides a range of economic, cultural and social benefits, and connects people, landscapes and their cultures. Geoconservation has a vital part to play in managing the natural environment and helping society to address global challenges, such as biodiversity loss, adaptations to climate change and sea-level rise, and sustainable development. The IUCN Guidelines for Geoconservation in Protected and Conserved Areas, published in 2020, outline the key principles of geoconservation and demonstrate their application across the full range of IUCN protected area management categories and other conserved areas. Protected and conserved areas, including geoparks, have a vital educational role in promoting better understanding and awareness of geoconservation and the values and benefits of geodiversity and geoheritage for nature and society. Integrating geoconservation into the management of all categories of protected and conserved areas would benefit not only the conservation of geoheritage, but also all of nature and contribute to a sustainable future.