GeoRegions as Flexible Identity Frameworks: Stakeholder-Informed Pathways for Geotourism and Geoconservation

Australian regional communities are actively seeking development pathways that generate local economic value while maintaining environmental and cultural integrity. In this context, GeoRegions have emerged in Australia as a community-led approach for recognising and interpreting geoheritage and associated abiotic–biotic–cultural (ABC) values through geotourism and geoeducation. The GeoRegion concept remains intentionally operationally flexible, but for regional communities encountering a myriad of barriers to sustainable geotourism implementation, any uncertainty for proponents about what constitutes an implementable GeoRegion and what resources and governance arrangements are required for credible and sustained delivery requires resolution. This study developed a stakeholder-informed conceptual model to clarify the practical ‘building blocks’ of GeoRegion establishment and the conditions under which GeoRegions can contribute to sustainability-oriented regional development. Using a design thinking framing and semi-structured interviews with thirteen expert participants, we used semantic discourse analysis to identify the factors perceived as essential to GeoRegion viability and legitimacy. We found that participants expected GeoRegions to be geologically centred, but their perceived value and long-term durability depend on (i) genuine community support and locally legitimate narratives (including Indigenous knowledge where appropriate), (ii) capable champions or coordinating groups, (iii) sustained resourcing for interpretation and visitor readiness, and (iv) a facilitative and not prescriptive role for government. Participants emphasised that GeoRegions should never be constrained by land tenure but cautioned that competing land uses, access logistics and uneven capacity across regions were highly influential in the delineation of feasible boundaries and management intensity. Our GeoRegion model differentiates core inputs (community mandate, knowledge co-production, geoheritage significance, human capacity and funding) from expected outputs (interpretive materials, geoeducation, geotourism, economic development, conservation outcomes and strengthened place identity), and we identify feedback that can either reinforce or erode sustainability outcomes over time. We argue that GeoRegions can provide a low-risk, scalable mechanism for geoconservation-informed regional development, particularly where formal protected-area tools or geopark ambitions are politically or economically constrained, provided that supporting governance and resourcing are treated as essential design requirements.