A Discussion About the “Geopark” Terminology Use Based on Turkish Researchers’ Conceptual Perceptions of Their Publications

Abstract Differences are conspicuous in the perception of some terms of geopark terminology such as geosite, geoheritage, geoconservation, and geodiversity in the publications of Turkish researchers, as well as in international research and publications on geoparks. This different perception hinders the unity of language in geopark studies and causes confusion in conceptual expression. This study aims to understand and discuss the meaning and conceptual perceptions of the main geopark terms of Turkish researchers by analyzing their geopark-themed studies and national/international publications. In the analysis, a total of 100 publications of Turkish researchers, 71 national and 29 international publications on geopark themes published after the referee process were evaluated. The 100 publications were classified according to the origin of the author’s discipline, whether the publication was national or international, cited publications related to the basic concepts of geoparks, and the conceptual meaning in the most cited publications and the conceptual perception in the articles were discussed. The results of the analysis highlighted the following findings. There is no common perception in the use of the prefix Geo in Geopark terminology on a national scale and the prefix Geo is perceived differently between Turkish geologists and geographer authors. It is understood that Turkish geographers generally use terms such as geoheritage, geosite, geodiversity, geoconservation, etc., in their national and international publications. While Turkish geologist authors mostly use the prefix Geo in their international publications, they prefer the terms geological heritage, geological site, geological diversity, geological protection, etc., for the same basic concepts in their national publications. The use of basic geopark terms in the articles of authors with other backgrounds is mainly similar to the approach of authors with geology background. The conclusion of this discussion is that the difference in conceptual perception of geopark terms is a problem for the geopark integrity strategy, and that it would be better to ensure linguistic unity with terminology such as geosite, geoheritage, geoconservation, and geodiversity.