Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management 0128095318, 9780128095317

Citation preview

Geoheritage Assessment, Protection, and Management

Edited by

Emmanuel Reynard

University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

Jose´ Brilha

University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

Elsevier Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom 50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States Copyright r 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN: 978-0-12-809531-7

For Information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Candice Janco Acquisition Editor: Amy Shapiro Editorial Project Manager: Tasha Frank Production Project Manager: Vijayaraj Purushothaman Cover Designer: Christian Bilbow Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India

Cover images Main photograph: Part of a coastal flysch succession (turbidites) in a geosite of high international scientific value. The whole stratigraphic succession shows a complete and continuous record of more than 5,000 m and 50 Ma including the Cretaceous/Paleogene (K-Pg) and the Palaeocene/Eocene boundaries. The geosite also includes the official GSSP for two Palaeocene stages boundaries (Danian-Selandian and Selandian-Thanetian). Zumaia, Basque Coast UNESCO Global Geopark Autonomous Community of the Basque Country in northern Spain Photograph by J. Brilha Lower left: The weathering and erosional features of the middle to upper Miocene calcareous sandstones and marls explain why Chahkuh gorge is a scenic destination. This gorge is one of the most popular geosites of Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark, located in the largest island of the Persian Gulf. Qeshm Island, Islamic Republic of Iran Photograph by J. Brilha Lower central: The first fossils on Dinosaur Ridge were found in 1877. Here, some Cretaceous fossil sites are managed in order to conserve dinosaur footprints and to allow educational and recreational activities. It has been designated by the National Park Service as a National Natural Landmark (1973), by the state of Colorado as a State Natural Area (2001) and by the Colorado Geological Survey as a Point of Geological Interest (2006). Jefferson County, Morrison, Colorado, USA Photograph by J. Brilha Lower right: Cuesta landscape of Guermessa, Southeast Tunisis is typical of geoheritage closely interacting with cultural heritage. Cave dwellings were dug laterally in alternations of limestone, clay, marl and dolomite strata that appear on witness buttes (here) and outliers slopes of a cuesta system. Photograph by E. Reynard

List of Contributors Asfawossen Asrat Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Jose´ Brilha University of Minho, Braga, Portugal Viola M. Bruschi University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain Cynthia V. Burek University of Chester, Chester, United Kingdom Luis Carcavilla Geological Survey of Spain, Madrid, Spain Paul Carrio´n Technical University of Litoral, Guayaquil, Ecuador Nathalie Cayla University Savoie Mont Blanc, Le Bourget-du-Lac, France Michael Comfort Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart, TAS, Australia Paola Coratza University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy Roger Crofts IUCN-WCPA Emeritus, Edinburgh, United Kingdom Patrick De Wever National Museum of Natural History, Paris, France Enrique D´ıaz-Mart´ınez Geological Survey of Spain, Madrid, Spain ´ D´ıez-Herrero Andres Geological Survey of Spain, Madrid, Spain Ross Dowling Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, Australia Lesley Dunlop Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom Stanley C. Finney California State University at Long Beach, Long Beach, CA, United States ´ A´ngel Garc´ıa-Cortes Geological Survey of Spain, Madrid, Spain

xix

xx

List of Contributors

Marco Giardino University of Turin, Turin, Italy Christian Giusti University of Paris-Sorbonne, Paris, France Miguel Go´mez-Heras Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain John E. Gordon University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom Murray Gray Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom Gilson B. Guimara˜es ´ Brazil State University of Ponta Grossa, Parana, Michel Guiraud National Museum of Natural History, Paris, France Asier Hilario Basque Coast UNESCO Global Geopark, Deba, Spain ´ Fabien Hoblea University Savoie Mont Blanc, Le Bourget-du-Lac, France Lyoun Kim Cave Research Institute of Korea, Chuncheon, South Korea Jonathan G. Larwood Natural England, Peterborough, United Kingdom Flavia F. de Lima Geodiversity Geological Solutions Ltd, Curitiba, Brazil John Macadam Earthwords, Bodmin, United Kingdom Simon Martin ´ Bureau d’etude Relief, Aigle, Switzerland Josep Mata-Perello´ Technical University of Catalonia, Manresa, Spain Peter McIntosh Forest Practices Authority, Hobart, TAS, Australia Herbert W. Meyer Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, Florissant, CO, United States Piotr Migon´ University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland Jorge Molina ´ Colombia National University of Colombia, Bogota,

List of Contributors

Alicja Najwer ´ Poznan, ´ Poland Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, David Newsome Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia Kevin N. Page Plymouth University, Plymouth, United Kingdom Colin D. Prosser Natural England, Peterborough, United Kingdom Emmanuel Reynard University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Antonio C. Rocha-Campos University of Sa˜o Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil Chris Sharples University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia Juana Vegas Geological Survey of Spain, Madrid, Spain Roberto Villas-Boas Centre for Mineral Technology, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Kyung S. Woo Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, South Korea ´ Zbigniew Zwolinski ´ Poznan, ´ Poland Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan,

xxi

Biographies Asfawossen Asrat is a geologist and Professor of Geology at the Addis Ababa University (Ethiopia). He has served as the Vice President of the Geological Society of Africa (2008 16), and is currently serving as a member of the UNESCO Global Geoparks Council, as an Associate Editor of the journal Quaternary International, and as an Editorial Board member of the journals Geoheritage and Annals of Geomorphology. He develops research on the geoheritage and geotourism potential of Ethiopia and applied research on geodiversity and geoconservation. Jos´e Brilha is a geologist and Professor at the University of Minho (Portugal). He is President of ProGEO (The European Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage), member of the UNESCO Global Geopark Evaluation Team and the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas and its Geoheritage Specialist Group. He was founder and Editor-in-Chief of the journal Geoheritage, member of the Geoheritage Task Group of IUGS, of the Portuguese Committee for IGCP and of the Portuguese Geoparks Forum. Currently, he develops applied research on geodiversity, geoconservation, and geoparks. Viola Maria Bruschi is a geologist and Lecturer in Geology and Geomorphology at the University of Cantabria (Spain). She has been a member of the Geological Heritage Commission of Spain since 2015. In 2007, she concluded her PhD thesis on the characterisation, assessment and management of geodiversity. She develops research on geological heritage (inventories, assessment and protection), geomorphological processes, geological risks, archaeological heritage and geomorphological mapping. Cynthia V. Burek is a geologist and science communicator conservationist, as well as Professor at the University of Chester (United Kingdom) and Deputy Director of the Centre for Science Communication. She is Director of GeoMoˆn UNESCO Global Geopark in Wales, as well as a committee member of the English Geodiversity Forum, Deputy Chair of Cheshire RIGS, and Past Chair of NEWRIGS (North East Wales Regionally Important Geodiversity Sites). Her main research topics are history of geoconservation, geoconservation in geoparks, teaching geoconservation on land and in the marine area, raising public awareness of geoconservation and geotourism through town trails, and geoconservation of limestone pavement habitats. She is an active communicator on geodiversity, geotourism and geoconservation, Quaternary geoconservation, the role of women in history of geoconservation, and geoconservation of saltscape areas. Paul Carrio´n is a geologist engineer and Professor at the Technical University of Litoral (Ecuador). He is Director of the Centre for Applied Research in Earth Sciences (CIPAT-ESPOL). Currently, he develops applied research and projects on geodiversity, geoconservation, water management, hydrogeology and environment.

xxiii

xxiv

Biographies

Nathalie Cayla is a geologist at the University Savoie Mont Blanc (France). She is a member of the Scientific committees of the Bauges and the Chablais UNESCO Global Geoparks and of the Geomorphosite Heritage Commission of the French National Committee for Geography (CNFG). She develops research on geotourism and new technologies applied to geoheritage management. Luis Carcavilla is a geologist and full researcher of the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME). He is the Secretary of the National Committee of Spanish Geoparks and a member of the scientific committee of three geoparks. He is the author of 11 books of geology and geoconservation and develops projects about geoconservation, geological heritage and popular science. Michael Comfort is a geomorphologist and Section Leader of the Geoconservation Section at the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries Parks Water and Environment in Australia. The Section’s main area of focus is in providing geoconservation advice and conducting research within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area and other reserved lands in Tasmania including the Macquarie Island World Heritage Area. He is also responsible for the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database. Paola Coratza is a geologist and Researcher in Physical Geography and Geomorphology at the Department of Chemical and Geological Sciences of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (Italy). Since 2013 she has been chairman of the Working Group on Geomorphosites of the International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG). Her research activity is mainly focused on assessment, mapping and enhancement of geomorphological heritage. Roger Crofts is a geographer, working as a coastal and applied geomorphologist, before joining the UK Civil Service as an advisor, and later, a policy administrator. He was founder CEO Scottish Natural Heritage from 1992 to 2002, IUCN/WCPA Europe Chair from 2000 to 2008. He is IUCN/ WCPA Geoheritage Specialist Group Deputy Chair and Honorary Professor of Geography at Dundee and Edinburgh Universities. He is writing and advising on environmental policy, land stewardship and geoheritage conservation in Scotland, Iceland and around Europe. Patrick De Wever is a geologist and Professor at the National Museum of Natural History, Paris (France). He is Chairman of the Heritage Sites and Collections Subcommission of IUGS, a member of the Geoheritage Specialist Group of WCPA/IUCN, a member of the French IUCN commission for World Heritage, IUGS evaluator of UNESCO Global Geoparks, member of ProGEO, coordinator of the National inventory of geoheritage for France, and editor of book collections presenting stratotypes. Currently, he is involved in outreaching geology through conferences and books. Enrique D´ıaz-Mart´ınez is a senior geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME). He is the Spanish representative and Vice President of ProGEO (The European Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage), an expert member of WCPA/IUCN and Deputy Chair of its Geoheritage Specialist Group since its inception, and an evaluator of UNESCO Global Geoparks and World Heritage sites. He has been President of the Geoheritage

Biographies

xxv

Commission of the Geological Society of Spain since 2008, and was a member of the Geoheritage Task Group of IUGS. Currently, he develops applied research on geoheritage and geoconservation for the Spanish government, and particularly for international cooperation with Africa and Latin America. Andr´es D´ıez-Herrero is a geologist and a Researcher at the Geological Survey of Spain, working on geoheritage since the 1980s, when he published one of the earliest geosite inventories in Spain (Segovia’s province). He is author of several publications on geoheritage inventory, assessment, legal protection, and uses proposal (geotourism, dissemination using ICT). Currently, he is a member of the Advisory Committee of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve of San Ildefonso-El Espinar (Spain) and participates in several projects on geosite monitoring and management, and social participation in geoconservation (‘Save a Geosite’, www.apadrinaunaroca.es). Ross Dowling is a geomorphologist and Foundation Professor of Tourism at the Edith Cowan University (Australia). He is a UNESCO Geotourism Advisor, was a Foundation Advisory Committee member of the Asia Pacific Geoparks Network, and is a member of the Geotourism Standing Committee of the Geological Society of Australia. He is the Convenor of the Global Geotourism Conferences. His research focuses on the global development of geotourism and geoparks. Lesley Dunlop is a geologist based at Northumbria University (United Kingdom). She is Chair of the English Geodiversity Forum and GeoConservationUK, serves the Geoconservation Committee of the Geological Society of London and is a member of ProGEO (The European Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage). She is a fellow of the Geological Society. Current research interests include use of geophysical techniques to examine processes relating to periglacial geomorphology and evaluating and enhancing Local Geological Sites in the United Kingdom. Stanley C. Finney is Professor of Geological Sciences at California State University at Long Beach (United States). He is Secretary General of the International Union of Geological Sciences and previously served as Chair of the International Commission on Stratigraphy and its Subcommission on Ordovician Stratigraphy. He is a stratigraphic palaeontologist with research on Ordovician graptolites, the Late Ordovician mass extinction, the palaeogeographic and geotectonic history of the Argentina Precordillera, and the stratigraphy and structure of the Roberts Mountains allochthon of north-central Nevada. ´ ngel Garc´ıa-Cort´es has a PhD in mining engineering from the Universidad Polit´ecnica de A Madrid (Spain). Since 1981 he has worked at the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME), where he has been Director of Geology and Geophysics, Director of Mineral Resources and Environment and Head of the Division of Geological and Mining Heritage. For 15 years, he has been coordinating the development of methodologies for geoheritage inventorying, the Spanish Geoheritage Inventory and the Global Geosites Project in Spain. Since 2015, he has been President of the Spanish National Geoparks Committee. Marco Giardino is Associate Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology at the University of Turin (Italy). He is Co-Chair of the International Association of Geomorphologists

xxvi

Biographies

(IAG) Working Group on Landform Assessment for Geodiversity. He is also a member of the Italian Glaciological Committee, the Italian AIGEO association and coordinator of the Scientific Committee of the Sesia Val Grande UNESCO Global Geopark. He studies mountain geomorphology and particularly landforms geodiversity and geoheritage of the Alps, by applying innovative technologies for the collection and dissemination of scientific data. Christian Giusti is a geomorphologist and Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Paris-Sorbonne (France), a member of the CNRS Research Team 8185 ‘Espace, Nature & Culture’ since 2012, of the IUCN French Committee in charge of the World Heritage aesthetic criterion (vii) since 2014, and a regular reviewer for the journal Geoheritage. He develops research on structural and long-term geomorphology, on history and epistemology of geomorphology, on geomorphosites and geodiversity, and more recently on landscape studies and urban geomorphology. Miguel Gomez-Heras is a geologist and a Lecturer at the Autonomous University of Madrid (Spain). He has over 15 years of research experience in rock weathering processes, in cultural and geological heritage with particular focus on thermal weathering and non-destructive testing for monitoring weathering. Over the years he has carried out field-based research in numerous listed buildings and protected natural landscapes in Egypt, Hungary, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Spain and the United Kingdom, which led to over 80 publications in the area of rock weathering and stone decay. John Gordon is a geomorphologist and an Honorary Professor in the School of Geography and Sustainable Development at the University of St Andrews (Scotland). He has worked in geoconservation for many years and is Deputy Chair of the Geoheritage Specialist Group of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN/WCPA), a member of the European Federation of Geologists’ Panel of Experts on Geoheritage and a member of ProGEO. He has research interests in geodiversity, geoconservation, geotourism and mountain geomorphology. Murray Gray is a Emeritus Reader at Queen Mary University of London (United Kingdom) and visiting professor at the University of Minho (Portugal). Born and educated in Edinburgh, Scotland, he originally trained as a glacial geomorphologist but since the 1990s has concentrated on research and writing on geodiversity and geoconservation, including his book Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature (2nd ed., Wiley Blackwell, 2013). He is a member of the ProGEO, the Geoheritage Specialist Group of WCPA/IUCN, and the English Geodiversity Forum (EGF). He has lectured in the United States, Canada, Japan, China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, South Africa, Brazil and numerous European countries. Gilson Burigo Guimara˜es is a geologist and an Associate Professor at the Department of Geosciences, State University of Ponta Grossa (Paran´a, Brazil). His research areas include characterisation, valuing and promotion of geodiversity through geoconservation actions, non-carbonate rocks speleology, petrology and regional geology.

Biographies

xxvii

Michel Guiraud is a mineralogist and Professor at the National Museum of Natural History, Paris (France). He is Director General for collections at the Museum. He is the representative of the Museum in several French, European and International committees on museums and on natural history collections. He is currently active in research infrastructures. Asier Hilario is a geologist and Scientific Director of the Basque Coast UNESCO Global Geopark. He is a coordinator of the Spanish Geoparks Forum and integrates the group of evaluators for UNESCO Global Geoparks, and is a member of the Geoheritage Specialist Group of WCPA/IUCN. He has broad experience in the management, evaluation and dissemination of geological heritage with special emphasis on TV documentaries that have been awarded internationally. Fabien Hobl´ea is a geomorphologist and Associate Professor of Environmental Geography at the University Savoie Mont Blanc (France). He is President of the Geomorphological Heritage Commission of the French National Committee of Geography. Since 2013 he has been Co-Chair of the Working Group on Geomorphosites of the International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG). His research focuses on geomorphological heritage and water management in mountain and karst areas, including participatory approaches. Lyoun Kim is a cave geologist and the Vice-Director of the Cave Research Institute of Korea. He has been working on cave management and monitoring of showcaves as well as on geoheritage evaluation of natural caves in Korea. He has explored and investigated numerous natural caves in Korea and published more than 30 scientific reports and 20 international papers about limestone caves. Jonathan G. Larwood is a geologist and a Senior Specialist in geology and palaeontology at Natural England. His main activities include provision of geoconservation advice with a particular expertise in geosite and fossil collecting management for World Heritage, Global Geoparks, and the voluntary geoconservation sector. His main research interests include geoconservation. Flavia Fernanda de Lima is a geologist with a master’s degree in geological heritage and geoconservation. She is a manager of Geodiversity Geological Solutions Ltd. She has technical expertise in management plans for protected areas, speleological studies, geopark projects and geoconservation studies. John Macadam is a geologist, science communicator and consultant. He has worked as a petroleum geologist, taught geology, science and the environment to all ages from primary to postgraduate, and his consultancy clients include geoparks, government bodies, the BBC and industry. He was trained in interpretation by the US National Park Service (on a Royal Society/British Association award) and has produced much innovative interpretation for the public under his ‘Earthwords’ banner, as well as giving keynotes and workshops in many countries on communicating geoheritage. He was awarded the Halstead Medal by the UK’s Geologists’ Association and is an Honorary Associate at the University of Exeter (United Kingdom).

xxviii

Biographies

Simon Martin is a geographer, specialised in methods of geoheritage studies, geo-interpretation and new technologies. He is a member of the Working Group on Geosites of the Swiss Academy of Sciences. As co-founder of the private company Relief, his field of activity stretches from the development of geotourism and geo-interpretation products to the consulting for geoheritage management and promotion at regional scale. Josep Mata-Perello´ is a geologist and Magister Honoris Causa Professor at the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (Spain). He is Honorary President of SEDPGYM (Spain), Chairman of the Scientific Committee of the Central Catalunya UNESCO Global Geopark, consultant for mining issues of the Sobrarbe and the Molina and Alto Tajo UNESCO Global Geoparks (Spain). He is President of SIGMADOT (Spain). Peter McIntosh is a geologist working as a researcher and advisor with the Forest Practices Authority in Hobart, Tasmania (Australia), where he has the position of Manager, Earth Sciences and Cultural Heritage. He works with foresters to identify, manage and protect geological sites of significance in production forests. He developed a strong interest in geomorphology, Quaternary geology and geoconservation during his research and forestry work in Tasmania and New Zealand. He is currently a member of the committee overseeing the publically accessible Tasmanian Geoconservation Database, which lists all sites of geoconservation interest in Tasmania. Herbert W. Meyer is the palaeontologist for the US National Park Service at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument in Colorado (United States). He holds adjunct appointments at University of Colorado and the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. He is the author of The Fossils of Florissant and coauthor of Saved in Time: The Fight to Establish Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, Colorado. He is active in efforts to establish an American geopark along the Gold Belt National Scenic Byway and has collaborated in support of geoheritage efforts at petrified forest sites in Peru and Thailand. Piotr Migon´ is a geomorphologist with a geographical background and is Professor of Geography at the University of Wrocław (Poland). He was Vice President of the International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG) (2009 13), is currently its Executive Member, and is Series Editor of the World Geomophological Landscapes book series published by Springer. He is involved in geoheritage and geotourism promotion in Poland and elsewhere, co-authored many peer-review papers on this subject and serves as evaluator of World Heritage nominations. His research is mainly focused on granite and sandstone areas. Jorge Molina is a mining engineer and Full Professor at the National University of Colombia. He is very active in research on geoheritage, geodiversity, geoconservation, mining environment and mining safety. Alicja Najwer is a geographer and geoinformation specialist. She is an academic lecturer at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Pozna´n (Poland) and conducts research concerning Geographic Information Systems, geodiversity and thematic maps. She is also a secretary of the International

Biographies

xxix

Association of Geomorphologists (IAG) Working Group on Landform Assessment for Geodiversity. Her research concerns geodiversity assessment methods using GIS. David Newsome is a recreation ecologist and Associate Professor at Murdoch University, Perth (Australia). He is a member of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas and has experience of ecotourism development in south-east Asia. Particular interests include undertaking projects that will aid in the development of sustainable tourism, encourage local communities to maintain environmental quality and enhance the economic value of natural landscapes and geoheritage. Kevin N. Page is a geologist and specialist in geoheritage, having worked for many years for the state conservation agency English Nature and subsequently chairing the Devon Regionally Important Geological Sites Group in SW England, as well as carrying out geodiversity and landscape surveys for a range of regional and national governmental organisations in the United Kingdom. He is currently Secretary General of the International Commission on Geoheritage of the IUGS and Secretary of its Heritage Sites and Collections Subcommission, as well as Editor-inChief of the journal Geoheritage, which is published in collaboration with ProGEO. He is also a specialist in ammonoidea and stratigraphy and Lecturer in Earth Sciences at Plymouth University (England). Colin D. Prosser is a geologist and the Principal Specialist in Geoconservation at Natural England, the government agency responsible for nature conservation in England. He has almost 30 years’ experience of applying legislation, shaping policy and developing practical approaches to geoconservation in real situations on the ground. He is President of the Geologists’ Association, a member of the UK Committee on UNESCO Global Geoparks and served on the Geological Society of London’s Geoconservation Committee for 20 years. Since 2013, he has been an editor for the journal Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, specialising in papers on geodiversity and geoconservation. Emmanuel Reynard is a geographer and Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Lausanne (Switzerland). He chaired the Working Group on Geomorphosites of the International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG) from 2001 to 2013, and has been president of the Working Group on Geosites of the Swiss Academy of Sciences since 2006. He is a member of the Executive Committee of IAG and Honorary Professor of the University of Bucharest (Romania). He develops research on geomorphological heritage and geotourism, water management in mountain areas and geohistorical studies of landscape changes. Anto´nio Carlos Rocha-Campos is a geologist with a PhD in sciences and several postdoctoral researches. He is Full Professor in the Department of Sedimentary and Environmental Geology, Geosciences Institute of the University of Sa˜o Paulo (Brazil). Consultant of the Brazilian Antarctic Programme, he works mainly with Invertebrate Palaeontology (Mollusca) and Gondwana studies during the Late Paleozoic, especially its glacial record.

xxx

Biographies

Chris Sharples is a geologist who has mainly worked as an independent contractor on studies and management of geomorphic systems over several decades, including several periods working with Tasmanian government land management agencies on the development of approaches to managing geoheritage values in Tasmania. Since 2007 he has also been a Research Associate with the University of Tasmania (Australia). His research interests now focus on the effects of Climate Change on geoheritage, and he is currently investigating the attribution of sea-level rise effects on coastal landforms as a PhD project. Juana Vegas has a PhD in geology from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain). Since 2006 she has worked at the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME), where she has a full position in the Geological and Mining Heritage Area. For 20 years, she has been working on geoheritage inventories at different scales and nowadays focuses on the Spanish Inventory of Geosites. One of the main innovations of her research is the development of a methodology for implementation of indicators for geoconservation by monitoring active geological processes within natural protected areas in Spain. Roberto Villas-Boas (†) was a mining engineer and founder of the Centre of Mineral Technology (CETEM-Brazil). An expert advisor on mining and geodiversity projects around the world, he was a member of the Management Committee of the CYTED Programme for 25 years in the area of Industrial Promotion. Kyung Sik Woo is a geologist and Professor at the Kangwon National University (South Korea). He is the President of the International Union of Speleology (IUS) and Chair of IUCN/WCPA Geoheritage Specialist Group, and member of the UNESCO Global Geoparks Evaluation Team. He has been working as World Heritage Field Evaluator for IUCN since 2009. He has published over 100 articles in international journals including Nature (2014). Currently, he develops research on geoheritage evaluation in protected areas and palaeoclimate studies using speleothems and fossils. ´ Zbigniew Zwolinski is a geographer, geomorphologist, expert in geoinformation and Professor at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Pozna´n (Poland). He is Chair of the International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG) Working Group on Landform Assessment for Geodiversity. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the journal Landform Analysis and a member of the Committee of Geographical Sciences at the Polish Academy of Sciences. Currently he develops research on geodiversity in different morphoclimatic zones in terms of geoinformation.

Acknowledgements The book Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection and Management has benefited from the contributions and support of many persons: •

•

•

Forty-six authors from 14 countries (Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States) have provided the texts of the 26 chapters; Twenty-four experts have reviewed the chapters: Alexandru Andrasanu, Jos´e Branda˜o, Chris Cleal, Paola Coratza, Ismar de Souza Carvalho, Rolan Eberhard, Lars Erikstad, Esperanza Fernandez, John Gordon, Andrew Goudie, Murray Gray, Maria Helena Henriques, Renato Henriques, Fabien Hobl´ea, Hans Hurni, Jonathan Larwood, Sven Lundqvist, Heidi Megerle, Luis Nieto, Manuela Pelfini, Paulo Pereira, Carlos Schobbenhaus, Enrique Serrano, Zbigniew Zwoli´nski. Tasha Frank (Elsevier) has coordinated the submission process with great enthusiasm. All these persons are thanked for their highly valuable contribution. Emmanuel Reynard and Jos´e Brilha Editors

xxxi

Geoheritage

GEOHERITAGE: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY AND APPLIED RESEARCH TOPIC Emmanuel Reynard1 and Jose´ Brilha2 1

University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland 2University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT For the last 25 years, since the International Conference on the Protection of Geological Heritage organised in Digne-les-Bains, France, in 1991 (Martini, 1994), there has been a growing scientific interest in topics related to geoheritage (geoconservation, geotourism, geoparks) and a large set of territorial initiatives have emerged all around the world. The development of geoconservation i.e., the policies, methods and actions aiming at conserving geoheritage, both in situ (geosites, geodiversity sites; Brilha, 2016) and ex situ (e.g., collections in museums) is very differentiated, both temporally and spatially. Some countries or regions (e.g., the United Kingdom, Tasmania) have developed articulated policies and taken concrete measures to protect their geoheritage for more than 20 years, whereas in the vast majority of countries it is only very recently that the interest of political authorities for geoheritage has emerged, and the geoheritage is not or only very partially protected. However, the situation has evolved considerably and even if much remains to be done in order to better protect geoheritage throughout the world, there are indicators that actions carried out up to now are beginning to give results. In 1992, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, geoheritage was not one of the central issues that were debated. Throughout the 350 pages and the 40 chapters of the Agenda 21 (United Nations, 1992), the terms ‘geoheritage’, ‘geodiversity’ or ‘geoconservation’ are never used and a reference to geology only appears in three pages: in chapter 9, in objective 9.7, which requires an improvement in the understanding of the relationship between land and atmospheric processes; in chapter 10, which states that land resources, including geological resources, should be managed in an integrated manner; and finally, in chapter 22, where a measure requires investigations to be carried out to improve the deposition of radioactive material. Section 2 (Conservation and management of resources for development) contains the 14 chapters dealing with terrestrial resources; it focuses mainly on biological resources (five chapters) and on pollution and waste (five chapters). Some special environments (mountains, oceans) are also discussed. As for the three conventions arising from the Earth Summit (biological diversity, climate change, desertification control), none explicitly refer to the geological heritage. The Millennium Declaration (United Nations, 2000), the aim of which is to enhance human dignity, equality and equity, does not put any emphasis on geoheritage. Nevertheless, georesources are Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00030-7 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

3

4

GEOHERITAGE: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY AND APPLIED RESEARCH TOPIC

placed on the same level as living species ‘prudence must be shown in the management of all living species and natural resources’ even if in the section dedicated to the protection of the environment, the four articles do not mention the protection of geological resources. In 2015, United Nations member countries adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals ‘to transform our world’ at the 2030 horizon (United Nations, 2015). Geoheritage and the protection of geological resources are still not mentioned among the goals and the related indicators, but georesources are put at the same level with other natural resources of the planet (articles 3, 9, 33). Unfortunately, none of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals treats specifically of georesources, but Goal 12.2 aims ‘to achieve the sustainable management use of natural resources’; indirectly geological features are considered. In the area of tourism, the World Tourism Organisation the specialised organisation of United Nations for tourism issues has promoted ecotourism and sustainable tourism since the 1990s. In 2012, a resolution on the ‘Promotion of ecotourism for poverty eradication and environment protection’ was adopted by the Second Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, and 2 years later the General Assembly adopted the resolution ‘Promotion of sustainable tourism, including ecotourism, for poverty eradication and environment protection’ (resolution A/RES/69/ 233) (United Nations, 2014). These documents promote the development of sustainable forms of tourism respecting the environment and local societies. These resolutions do not concern specifically geotourism but may include the development of geotourism within the context of sustainable tourism, as was the case of the 2017 International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development (www.tourism4development2017.org, accessed 12.08.17). Geoheritage issues are not at the core of the political agenda of the United Nations as are biodiversity conservation or climate change issues. Nevertheless, both at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and UNESCO levels, there have been recently several improvements that have put geoheritage and geodiversity issues on the agenda of these two important international institutions. After decades of focus on the protection of biological heritage, IUCN has recognised recently the importance of geological features as integral parts of nature at the same level as biological elements (Crofts et al., 2015; Larwood et al., 2013), and in 2014 it established a Geoheritage Specialist Group within the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) (Woo, 2017). This group follows four main objectives: (1) to establish Best Practice Guidelines for geoheritage management in protected areas; (2) to revise the IUCN study on volcanic sites of outstanding values (Wood, 2009); (3) to revise criterion (viii) for World Heritage recognition; and (4) to initiate a ‘Key Geoheritage Site’ concept. Initiated in 2000 by four geoparks in four European countries (France, Germany, Greece and Spain), the idea that sustainable territorial development could emerge from the protection and enhancement of the geological heritage was recognised in November 2015 by UNESCO with the creation of the International Geoscience and Geoparks Programme. Now 127 territories in various parts of the world mainly in Europe and China are designated by UNESCO and are part of the Global Geoparks Network. Initiatives for the development of new geoparks abound, in particular in developing countries. It is clearly that the main improvements on geoheritage and geoconservation have been made within scientific circles. Created in 1993, ProGEO The European Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage is one of the key organisations that has organised tens of seminars, conferences and symposia aimed at improving knowledge and experience exchanges

OBJECTIVES OF THE BOOK

5

concerning geoconservation. One main achievement was the launch of the journal Geoheritage in 2009, where now most of the innovative research on geoheritage, geoconservation and geotourism is published. ProGEO has also published a synthesis on geoheritage and geoconservation in Europe (Wimbledon and Smith-Meyer, 2012). Specialised associations have also developed activities towards a better comprehension of geoheritage. Examples are the International Association of Geomorphologists, which created in 2001 a specific working group focussing on geomorphological heritage (Reynard and Coratza, 2013); the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), which defines Global Stratotype Sections and Points (GSSPs) at the global level (see Finney and Hilario, 2018); or the International Palaeontological Association (IPA), which has established the PaleoParks Initiative to ‘protect endangered sites and to catalog and make public information concerning established parks of any nature that protect fossils in the ground’ (Lipps, 2009). Also the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) has recently reactivated its activities on geoheritage initiated in the late 1980s, namely with the establishment in 2016 of the International Commission on Geoheritage. This intense scientific activity has given rise to numerous publications in the journal Geoheritage and in thematic volumes of geoscience journals. Several books have been published. Murray Gray published Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature in 2004, with a second edition in 2013 (Gray, 2004, 2013). Geotourism issues were addressed, e.g., by Dowling and Newsome (2006), Newsome and Dowling (2010), and Hose (2016a). Megerle (2006) published a synthesis book for the German-speaking community. Disciplinary books dealing with geoheritage were also published. This is the case of Geomorphosites, which addresses specific issues concerning geomorphological heritage (Reynard et al., 2009). Geomorphological heritage is also addressed in the series World Geomorphological Landscapes of the World (Migo´n, 2010; www.springer.com/series/10852, accessed 12.08.17). Syntheses on the state of geoheritage and geoconservation at the national level have been published in several countries; at the continental scale, it is worth citing Geoheritage in Europe and its Conservation (Wimbledon and Smith-Meyer, 2012). The history of the geoconservation movement was addressed in a special issue of the Geological Society of London (Burek and Prosser, 2008), and in 2016, the Geological Society published a synthesis on the history of geotourism (Hose, 2016b). Nevertheless, a specific comprehensive book on geoheritage, addressing various methodological and management issues concerning geoheritage was missing. It is the aim of this book to fill that gap.

OBJECTIVES OF THE BOOK The book wants to show the state of the art concerning geoheritage in three domains, corresponding to the three keywords in the title: assessment, protection and management.

ASSESSMENT A large part of the research carried out during the last 25 years has been dedicated to the selection, inventory, assessment and characterisation of geoheritage sites. Studies have been made on various scales (from regional to international initiatives), with various extents (whole geoheritage but also specific development in some Earth science disciplines, e.g., geomorphology, palaeontology, mines, etc.) and within various frameworks (research institutes, national parks, geoparks, etc.). The aim of

6

GEOHERITAGE: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY AND APPLIED RESEARCH TOPIC

the book is to address conceptual and definition issues concerning geoheritage and geodiversity, and methodological issues concerning selection, inventory, assessment, and cartography of geosites.

PROTECTION Protection of geoheritage is not a new trend but a renewed evolution of several initiatives going back almost to the 19th century, but not coordinated at the international level. In the 1990s, several proposals emerged both at regional (e.g., Tasmania, see Sharples, 1995), national (e.g., the Regionally Important Geological/geomorphological Sites (RIGS) in the United Kingdom), and international (Martini, 1994) levels. In the 2000s, the geopark initiative has been the catalyser of geoconservation, which became a territorial issue. The 2010s are the years of the recognition of geoheritage by the conservationist movement (IUCN, UNESCO), even if much work remains to be carried out to fully recognise geoheritage at the same level as other types of heritage (biological, cultural). The book aims to document the recent history of geoconservation and to address specific issues on the protection of geosites.

MANAGEMENT Geoheritage is not only a scientific question. Selected and inventoried sites have to be managed, enhanced and monitored. Geosite and geopark managers face several challenges: protection versus exploitation of geosites; differences in management of in situ and ex situ geoheritage; integration with side fields of geoheritage, such as interpretation or geotourism. Moreover, with the development of the interest for geoheritage, there has been a widening of interested actors. Currently almost seven main groups of actors are dealing with geoheritage issues: (1) scientists, Earth science specialists; (2) policymakers; (3) planners; (4) conservationists (cultural heritage and nature conservationists); (5) specialists in tourism (and geotourism); (6) teachers; and (7) the public and society in general. All these actors have different objectives, strategies and perceptions of geoheritage, and there is a need for coordination. One aim of the book is to present experiences (action plans, monitoring experiences, interpretation, etc.) carried out on various scales and in different contexts both geographical and disciplinary that tend towards the sustainable management of geoheritage.

ORGANISATION OF THE BOOK The book is organised into five sections. Section 1 concerns geodiversity. The first chapter, by Murray Gray, shows that geodiversity is the backbone of geoheritage and geoconservation. In Chapter 2, Zbigniew Zwoli´nski and coauthors propose a typology of various approaches and methods developed during the last decade to assess and map geodiversity at various scales. The third chapter is oriented towards management. Lesley Dunlop and her colleagues present an instrument the Geodiversity Action Plans developed in the United Kingdom to manage geodiversity at various levels (local to national) and in various contexts (territories, but also companies), a tool that could be easily transferred to other contexts.

ORGANISATION OF THE BOOK

7

Section 2 deals with geoheritage. It is organised into seven chapters. First, Jos´e Brilha presents an overview of inventorying and assessment issues, and proposes an integrative approach that could guide any work of evaluation and inventory of geoheritage. In Chapters 5 and 6, Paola Coratza and Fabien Hobl´ea on one hand and Kevin N. Page on the other hand focus on the specificities of two categories of geosites: geomorphological and palaeontological sites, respectively. Geomorphological heritage has to deal with aesthetic, scale and process dynamic issues, whereas the management of palaeontological heritage is facing the question of the economic value of geosites (fossil selling). In Chapter 7, Patrick De Wever and Michel Guiraud address the management issues of a specific type of geoheritage: collections stored in museums. Chapter 8 is written by Emmanuel Reynard and Christian Giusti and discusses the landscape and the cultural value of geoheritage. They stress the fact that considering a geological element (structure, fossil, mineral, landform) as geoheritage is clearly the result of a social process. Chapter 9 concerns mining heritage: Josep Mata Perello´ and his coauthors show that mining heritage is at the interface between geoheritage (georesource) and cultural heritage (mining infrastructure); they also stress that reconversion of former mining areas as tourist attraction can be a way to support the economic transition in regions where most of the economy was depending on the exploitation of the mines. In Chapter 10, Stannley C. Finney and Asier Hilario analyse the relationships between geoheritage and geological time. They develop management issues concerning the Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) initiative. Section 3 addresses the challenges of the conservation of geoheritage. It is divided into four chapters. Chapter 11, by Colin D. Prosser and colleagues discusses principles of geoconservation and proposes a ‘Generic Geosite Conservation Framework’ to guide conservation activities. In Chapter 12, John E. Gordon and his coauthors discuss the integration of geoconservation in environmental policies, with both a historical perspective and a prospective view that proposes four main axes of development. Chapter 13 is dedicated to the links between geoheritage and the World Heritage List; Piotr Migo´n discusses in particular the question of the ‘outstanding universal value’ in the field of geoheritage. Finally, in Chapter 14, Viola Maria Bruschi and Paola Coratza propose a synthesis of the challenges concerning the assessment of impacts of human activities and infrastructures on geoheritage, and the question of the integration of geoheritage with other components of the environment within Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures. Section 4 deals with the question of the uses of geoheritage. In Chapter 15, John Macadam proposes a reflection on the issues geoscientists face when they want to disseminate Earth science knowledge towards nonspecialist publics. In the next chapter, Nathalie Cayla and Simon Martin discuss the value of digital technologies and visualisation tools for the management and dissemination of knowledge about geoheritage. Chapter 17 analyses the relationships between geoheritage management and geotourism. David Newsome and Ross Dowling show that geotourism may have either positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse) impacts on geoheritage. The section is concluded by a synthesis chapter on geoparks written by Jos´e Brilha, who stress that geoheritage is the core resource for geoparks and that it should be properly identified, assessed, conserved and managed. Section 5 is dedicated to six short case studies. They cover several geographical realities in five continents as well as various management issues. In Chapter 19, based on the example of Ethiopia, Asfawossen Asrat addresses the challenges faced by developing countries in the management of their geoheritage. Chris Sharples and his coauthors propose, in Chapter 20, a synthesis of the actions developed by Tasmanian authorities (Australia) for managing geosites and geodiversity in coordination with the exploitation of the territory, in particular forest management. In Chapter 21,

8

GEOHERITAGE: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY AND APPLIED RESEARCH TOPIC

Kyung Sik Woo and Lyoun Kim analyse the policy and the inventory tools developed to manage and protect caves in South Korea. Chapter 22, by Herbert W. Meyer, presents the case of Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument (USA); it demonstrates a multifaceted approach developed to ensure effective geoheritage management. Another example of management at the local scale is presented by Gilson Burigo Guimara˜es and coauthors in Chapter 23: the Varvite Park, a Geological Monument in Sa˜o Paulo State (Brazil). Finally, in Chapter 24, Andr´es D´ıez-Herrero and his colleagues present a monitoring programme that was developed in two geosites in Spain to help their management. In the concluding chapter, Jos´e Brilha and Emmanuel Reynard propose a personal perspective about the main challenges that should be addressed by international agencies and the scientific community, national administrations and local actors to manage geoheritage on various scales (international, national and local) in the future decades. It is certainly by combining these multiple approaches and by strengthening political lobbying by the members of the geoconservationist ‘community’ that geoheritage will be fully recognised as a resource worthy of being conserved and transmitted to future generations.

REFERENCES Brilha, J., 2016. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8 (2), 119 134. Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), 2008. The history of geoconservation. The Geological Society, London, Special Publication 300. Crofts, R., Gordon, J.E., Santucci, V.L., 2015. Geoconservation in protected areas. In: Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., Pulsford, I. (Eds.), Protected Area Governance and Management. ANU Press, Canberra, pp. 531 568. Dowling, R.K., Newsome, D. (Eds.), 2006. Geotourism. Elsevier/Heineman Publishers, Oxford. Finney, S.C., Hilario, A., 2018. GSSPs as international geostandards and as global geoheritage. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 169 180. Gray, M., 2004. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. first ed. Wiley, Chichester. Gray, M., 2013. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. second ed. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester. Hose, T.A. (Ed.), 2016a. Geoheritage and Geotourism: A European Perspective. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge. Hose, T.A. (Ed.), 2016b. Appreciating Physical Landscapes: Three Hundred Years of Geotourism. The Geological Society, London, Special Publication 417. Larwood, J.G., Badman, T., McKeever, P.J., 2013. The progress and future of geoconservation at a global level. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 720 730. Lipps, J.H., 2009. PaleoParks: Our paleontological heritage protected and conserved in the field worldwide. In: Lipps, J.H., Granier, B.R.C. (Eds.), PaleoParks The Protection and Conservation of Fossil Sites Worldwide. Carnets de G´eologie / Notebooks on Geology, Brest, Book 2009/03, Chapter 1. Available from: ,http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2009_BOOK_03/index.html. (accessed 12.08.17). Martini, G. (Ed.), 1994. Actes du premier symposium international sur la protection du patrimoine g´eologique, Digne-les-Bains, 11-16 juin 1991. Soci´et´e G´eologique de France, Paris.

REFERENCES

9

Megerle, H. (Ed.), 2006. Geotourismus. Innovative Ansa¨tze zur touristischen Inwertsetzung und nachhaltigen Regionalentwicklung. Kersting, Rottenburg am Neckar, (in German). Migo´n, P., 2010. Geomorphological Landscapes of the World. Springer, Dordrecht. Newsome, D., Dowling, R.K. (Eds.), 2010. Geotourism: The Tourism of Geology and Landscape. Goodfellow Publishers, Oxford. Reynard, E., Coratza, P., 2013. Scientific research on geomorphosites. A review of the activities of the IAG working group on geomorphosites over the last twelve years. Geogr. Fis. Dinam. Quat 36, 159 168. Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), 2009. Geomorphosites. Pfeil, Mu¨nchen. Sharples, C., 1995. Geoconservation in forest management principles and procedures. Tasforests 7, 37 50. United Nations, 1992. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. Agenda 21. Available from: ,https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ Agenda21.pdf. (accessed 12.08.17). United Nations, 2000. Resolution 55/2 United Nations Millennium Declaration, adopted by the General Assembly, 8 September 2000. Available from: ,http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm. (accessed 12.08.17). United Nations, 2014. Resolution 69/233 Promotion of Sustainable Tourism, Including Ecotourism, for Poverty Eradication and Environment Protection, adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2014 (A/RES/69/233). Available from: ,http://dag.un.org/handle/11176/158542. (accessed 12.08.17). United Nations, 2015. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1). Available from: ,https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org. (accessed 12.08.17). Wimbledon, W.A.P., Smith-Meyer, S. (Eds.), 2012. Geoheritage in Europe and Its Conservation. ProGEO, Oslo. Woo, K.S., 2017. Role of IUCN WCPA Geoheritage Specialist Group for geoheritage conservation and recognition of World Heritage sites, Global Geoparks and other protected areas. Geophysical Research Abstracts 19, EGU2017-1137. Wood, C., 2009. World Heritage Volcanoes: A Thematic Study. A Global Review of Volcanic World Heritage Properties: Present Situation, Future Prospects and Management Requirements. IUCN World Heritage Studies, Gland, Switzerland. Available from: ,https://www.iucn.org/lo/content/world-heritage-volcanoesthematic-study-global-review-volcanic-world-heritage-properties. (accessed 12.08.17).

CHAPTER

GEODIVERSITY: THE BACKBONE OF GEOHERITAGE AND GEOCONSERVATION

1 Murray Gray

Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom

1.1 INTRODUCTION The word and concept of ‘geodiversity’ were first introduced in 1993 shortly after the Convention on Biological diversity was agreed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. In other words, the publicity given to the concept of biodiversity at this conference drew geoscientists’ attention to the fact that they also study very diverse phenomena on our planet. And so, shortly afterwards, the word ‘geodiversity’ was coined independently by a number of geoscientists (e.g., Sharples, 1993; Wiedenbein, 1993) as its introduction became almost unavoidable. Subsequently, the term has been used around the world and is now internationally recognised, even within the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which is strongly focused on bioconservation, but whose Geoheritage Specialist Group ‘provides specialist advice on all aspects of geodiversity in relation to protected areas and their management’. The early history of the use of the word ‘geodiversity’ was reviewed in Gray (2008) who referred to the geodiversity concept as a ‘geological paradigm’, in the sense that it met various dictionary definitions of a ‘paradigm’ including ‘a theoretical framework of ideas’, ‘a generally accepted model of how ideas relate to one another’ and ‘a set of assumptions, concepts, values and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality’. The theory of geodiversity, its values and its application to geoconservation are more fully explored in Gray (2013), who also discusses criticism of the use of the word and concept. Having said all this, it must also be admitted that the term ‘geodiversity’ has frequently been used rather loosely, sometimes being used as a synonym for ‘geoheritage’, ‘earth heritage’, ‘geoconservation’ or even ‘geology’. Thus, one of the aims of this chapter is to attempt to clarify the relationship between these terms and promote their correct usage. It is also worth commenting on the word ‘geoheritage’. The usual definition of ‘heritage’ refers to items inherited from forerunners or the past. But we know that geoconservation, as practiced at present, applies to current geomorphological or geological processes, to recently formed topography and sediments, and to soils as well as to much older rocks, landforms, etc. So is ‘geoheritage’ an appropriate term to apply to these modern features as well as much older ones surviving to the present-day? Current usage would suggest that the answer to this question is ‘yes’ even if not strictly in line with the traditional use of the heritage concept. Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00001-0 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

13

14

CHAPTER 1 THE BACKBONE OF GEOHERITAGE

1.2 GEODIVERSITY AS THE BACKBONE OF GEOHERITAGE The relationship between geodiversity and geoheritage is illustrated diagrammatically in Fig. 1.1, which is a variation on a traditional McKelvey Box. Vincent McKelvey was a geologist at the US Geological Survey for over 40 years, and invented a way of visually representing the availability of particular mineral resources based on the economic value of their production and the geological probability of their presence. In the traditional McKelvey Box, the full diagram represents the total presence of a mineral resource on the planet, whether identified or not. In Fig. 1.1, the total resource is the geodiversity of the Earth, where geodiversity is defined as ‘the natural range (diversity) of geological (rocks, minerals, fossils), geomorphological (landforms, topography, physical processes), soil and hydrological features. It includes their assemblages, structures, systems and contributions to landscapes’ (Gray, 2013, p. 12). The details of this geodiversity of Earth are described in many geology textbooks, and readers are referred particularly to Marshak (2012) for a very full description, while Gordon (in press) focuses specifically on the geodiversity of mountains. It should be noted that the base of Fig. 1.1 is left open as it is suggested that the geodiversity of the Earth is constantly increasing as new materials, topographies, species, etc., evolve by natural processes. In fact, it is suggested that the geodiversity

FIGURE 1.1 A modified McKelvey Box showing the relationship between geodiversity and geoheritage. For explanation see text.

1.3 GEODIVERSITY AS THE BACKBONE OF VALUING ABIOTIC NATURE

15

of the Earth has been increasing since the Earth was formed, albeit at different rates over time (Gray, 2013). Not all the world’s geodiversity has yet been discovered or described, particularly in the developing world, so that the diagram shows a ‘Hypothetical Geodiversity’ sub-box which is the planet’s geodiversity yet to be discovered. In fact, research and exploration regularly result in discoveries of new fossils, minerals, landform types, etc. On the other hand, human activities are certainly destroying, damaging or polluting geodiversity before it can be studied and described. These activities or threats include mineral extraction, urban expansion/land development, coastal and river engineering/management, forestry activities/vegetation growth, agriculture, recreation/tourist pressures, geological collecting or military activity (Gray, 2013). ‘Geoheritage’ are those parts of the ‘Identified Geodiversity’ of the Earth that are deemed to be worthy of conservation because of their importance/value. ‘Geodiversity’ is a value-neutral term describing the variety of abiotic phenomena on Earth, the abiotic equivalent of biodiversity. ‘Geoheritage’, on the other hand, is a value-laden term used to identify those specific elements of geodiversity that are selected for geoconservation (Brilha, 2018a). Thus, the diagram shows that geoheritage can be increased by decisions to include more sites/areas, or occasionally decreased by dedesignation of damaged sites. Another way in which geoheritage can be increased is by restoration of forms and processes, e.g., by remeandering of rivers, removal of coastal protection or integrating old quarries back into the landscape (Gray, 2013; Prosser et al., 2006). Thus, as well as ‘Geoheritage’, ‘Identified Geodiversity’ also includes a ‘Conditional Geoheritage’ sub-box (Fig. 1.1) since sites/areas in this box can be included as geoheritage, conditional on geoconservation decisions or the implementation of restoration schemes. But geoheritage can also be lost, damaged or polluted by the above human activities. Thus ‘Geoheritage’ takes the place of ‘Reserves’ in the traditional McKelvey Box, but rather than economic value dictating the viability of reserves, in the case of ‘Geoheritage’ it is the conservation threats, values and decisions that dictate the size of the ‘Geoheritage’ sub-box.

1.3 GEODIVERSITY AS THE BACKBONE OF VALUING ABIOTIC NATURE The currently favoured way of assessing the value of the natural environment is termed the ‘ecosystem services’ approach. This is an unfortunate terminology since it puts the emphasis on the value of biotic nature while accepting that ecosystems also include abiotic elements of wildlife habitats (Tansley, 1935). The Convention on Biological diversity (1992) and the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UKNEA, 2011) both define an ecosystem as ‘a dynamic complex of plant, animal and microorganism communities and their nonliving environment interacting as a functional unit’. The implication is that an ecosystem approach is only concerned with the value of nonliving nature when it is functioning in association with living nature. This is unsatisfactory because, as will be shown below, abiotic or nonliving nature has many values independent of any biological relationships. Hence, better, alternative names would be ‘environmental services’, ‘biophysical services’, ‘natural services’ or ‘nature’s services’, the last being the title of Gretchen Daily’s seminal edited book on the subject (Daily, 1997), but for the time being we have to deal with the existing terminology. ‘Ecosystem services’ are the benefits (goods and services) that society obtains from nature and which need to be sustainably managed in order that they continue to be available to future

16

CHAPTER 1 THE BACKBONE OF GEOHERITAGE

generations. In the case of nonliving nature, we can refer to these benefits as either ‘abiotic ecosystem services’ (Gray et al., 2013) or ‘geosystem services’ (Gray, 2011; Van Ree and Van Beukering, 2016). These benefits can be either tangible (e.g., coal) or intangible (e.g., the mental health benefits from experiencing an unspoilt natural environment). The ecosystem approach is now the key international policy driver whereby decision-makers make quantitative and qualitative judgements about the value of nature. Three classification systems for ecosystem services have emerged in recent years: 1. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005); 2. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB, 2010); 3. The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013). The system used here is the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which was also used by the UKNEA (2011). This classifies ecosystem services into four groups: • • • •

regulating services the ways in which natural processes regulate the environment; supporting services those processes or features that support other natural environments or society; provisioning services the natural materials that are used by society; cultural services the nontangible elements of the natural environment that benefit society in a spiritual or cultural sense.

Descriptions of abiotic ecosystem services are outlined by Gordon and Barron (2013) while Gray (2012, 2013) added a fifth category of ‘knowledge services’ given the value that knowledge of the Earth, its history and its science bring to society. Fig. 1.2 is a summary diagram that has ‘geodiversity’ as its starting point since a fundamental point is that all these benefits are due to the fact that we live on a highly diverse planet that brings us all a huge range of materials, processes and experiences. Regulating services include a number of terrestrial cycles including the carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur cycles as well as the rock cycle and hydrological cycle. Also included here are geomorphological processes that help us to understand and mitigate the natural hazards facing society and which act to regulate environmental systems and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Supporting services include soil-forming processes, habitat provision, the land as a platform for human activities, for human burial and disposal of waste, for storage of resources including water, oil and gas and potentially for carbon capture and storage. Provisioning services mainly involve freshwater, mineral and renewable energy sources, a wide range of construction materials, as well as industrial and metallic minerals including gold and silver. It is no exaggeration to say that modern society could not exist without these geological resources. Cultural services include the mental and physical benefits of being in natural environments, geotourism and leisure pursuits, historical and spiritual associations related to geological environments and artistic inspiration. Knowledge services include the ability to reconstruct past environments and the evolution of life using geological evidence, environmental monitoring, education and geoforensics based on the potential to use the diverse characteristics of soils and sediments to link suspects to crime scenes.

1.3 GEODIVERSITY AS THE BACKBONE OF VALUING ABIOTIC NATURE

Regulating 1. Atmospheric and oceanic processes (e.g., dynamic circulations; atmospheric chemistry; hydrological cycle). 2. Terrestrial processes (e.g., rock cycle; carbon and other biogeochemical cycles; geomorphological processes). 3. Flood control (e.g., infiltration; barrier islands, river levees, sand dunes). 4. Water quantity and quality (e.g., soil and rock as natural filters).

Supporting 5. Soil processes (e.g., weathering; soil profile development) and soil as a growing medium. 6. Habitat provision (e.g., dynamic habitats, limestone pavements, caves, cliffs, saltmarshes). 7. Land as a platform for human activity (e.g., building land). 8. Burial and storage (e.g., human and animal burial; municipal landfill; radioactive waste storage; oil & gas reservoirs; carbon capture & storage, water storage in aquifers, lakes, glaciers, reservoirs).

17

Provisioning 14. Food and drink (e.g., freshwater & mineral water; salt; geophagy). 15. Nutrients and minerals for healthy growth. 16. Fuel (e.g., coal, oil, gas, uranium; geothermal and hydroelectric energy; tidal, wave and wind power). 17. Construction materials (e.g., stone, brick, sand, gravel, steel, cement, bitumen, slates, glass). 18. Industrial minerals (e.g., fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, metals, alloys). 19. Ornamental products (e.g., gemstones, precious and semiprecious metals). 20. Fossils.

GEODIVERSITY

GOODS & SERVICES

Cultural 9. Environmental quality (e.g., local landscape character; therapeutic landscapes for health & wellbeing). 10. Geotourism & leisure (e.g., spectacular mountain views; rock climbing; fossil collecting). 11. Cultural, spiritual and historic meanings (e.g., folklore; sacred sites; sense of place). 12. Artistic inspiration (e.g., geology in sculpture, literature, music, poetry, painting). 13. Social development (e.g., local geological societies; field trips).

Knowledge 21. Earth history (e.g., evolution of life; extinction; origin of landforms; palaeoenvironments). 22. History of research (e.g., early identification of unconformities, fossils, igneous rocks). 23. Environmental monitoring and forecasting (e.g., baseline studies for climate and pollution research; ice cores; sea-level change). 24. Geoforensics. 25. Education & employment (e.g., sites for field trips and professional training; employment in geoparks).

FIGURE 1.2 Diagram outlining the abiotic goods and services resulting from the planet’s geodiversity. For an explanation, see the text.

18

CHAPTER 1 THE BACKBONE OF GEOHERITAGE

1.4 GEODIVERSITY AS A BACKBONE OF GEOCONSERVATION One of the main activities of geoconservation is the selection of sites to be given legislative protection or to create a nondesignated network of important sites (Brilha, 2018a). In doing this, many countries and organisations have based their selection partly or mainly on the principle of ‘representativeness’. But the sites are intended to be representative of what? I believe the answer to this question must be: representative of the area’s geodiversity. This section will outline some examples of this approach.

1.4.1 INTERNATIONAL GEOCONSERVATION SITE NETWORKS Geoconservation at the international level is currently represented by two UNESCO site networks World Heritage sites and Global Geoparks. In the case of World Heritage sites, in 1994 UNESCO launched a global strategy to ensure that the World Heritage List of sites is ‘representative, balanced and credible’. The motivation for this was a clear existing bias on the List towards sites in the developed world, particularly towards Europe, but also by the fact that there were (and still are) around five times more cultural than natural sites. One of the aims was to encourage more countries to ratify the World Heritage Convention and develop Tentative Lists of Sites that they would bring forward with formal applications in subsequent years. On the other hand, countries whose heritage is already well represented on the List would be requested to limit their applications or only nominate sites in under-represented thematic categories. Overall, then, the aim was to try to fill major spatial and thematic gaps to make the World Heritage List more representative of global natural and cultural heritage, and this includes geoheritage (Migo´n, 2018). In this connection, a major study was carried out for the IUCN by Dingwall et al. (2005) to determine whether the World Heritage List adequately represented global geology and geomorphology. A previous study of fossil sites by Wells (1996) had concluded (p. 39) that the few fossil sites then on the List ‘are not representative of the history of life on earth’. By the time of Dingwall et al.’s 2005 analysis several more fossil sites had been added but they were able to show that there were still major gaps, with parts of the geological column, including the Silurian, with no sites at all. In terms of thematic coverage, Dingwall et al. demonstrated that some topics appear to be well represented on the List while others are represented by very few sites. Further detail has been added in three subsequent thematic studies of caves and karst sites (Williams, 2008), volcanoes (Wood, 2009) and desert landscapes (Goudie and Seely, 2011). All these studies have concluded that while all these themes are already well represented on the World Heritage List, there remain significant gaps in the chronological, geographical and/or thematic coverage, which could be filled by further nominations. The conclusion is that UNESCO and the IUCN are working towards a World Heritage List that is more representative of geodiversity in chronostratigraphic, spatial and thematic terms, i.e., geodiversity is the backbone of this part of this major global heritage conservation site network. UNESCO Global Geoparks are required to contain geoheritage of international significance (Brilha, 2018b). In some cases, this is related to a limited geological and geomorphological theme where most geosites in the geopark are related to this single theme. An example is the

1.4 GEODIVERSITY AS A BACKBONE OF GEOCONSERVATION

19

Lesvos Island Global Geopark in Greece, famous for its petrified trees, but even here a diversity of petrified trees is found. However, most geoparks, particularly in Europe, aim to attract visitors by promoting their geodiversity. The clearest example is the Gea Norvegica Global Geopark south-west of Oslo in Norway, which describes itself as having ‘unique’ and ‘extreme’ geodiversity. ‘Textbook examples can be found in almost any field of geology’ (Dahlgren, 2006). At Sobrarbe-Pirineos Global Geopark on the southern slopes of the Pyrenees in Spain, ‘the diversity of rocks and fossils show a large variety of sedimentary environments from the past: seas, rivers, glaciers, deltas, reefs, etc.’ In Japan, Itoigawa Global Geopark has ‘an extraordinary variety of geosites’ while Jeju Global Geopark in South Korea has ‘diverse volcanic landforms’. Geodiversity is, therefore, a major way in which many geoparks promote themselves to the public.

1.4.2 NATIONAL GEOHERITAGE SITE SELECTION The same principle applies to several national geoconservation efforts. This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated in Ireland where, in 1998, the Geological Survey of Ireland initiated and allocated financial resources to the Irish Geological Heritage Programme (IGHP). This was aimed at identifying and designating the ‘very best’ geological and geomorphological sites as Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) ‘to represent the country’s geology’ (Gatley and Parkes, 2012, p. 183). To do this, 16 geological themes were agreed, e.g., Karst, Mineralogy, Igneous intrusions, and ‘Each theme is intended to provide a national network of NHA sites and will include all components of the theme’s scientific interest’ (Parkes and Morris, 2001, p. 82). The IGHP is therefore specifically designed to designate sites that represent the geodiversity of Ireland. Similarly, in Spain, a new Law (42/2007) on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity was passed in 2007 which establishes that the Ministry of Environment will ‘maintain an updated Inventory of Sites of Geological Interest representative of . . . the 20 Geological Frameworks identified in the Spanish Global Geosites project, as well as seven additional geological units representative of Spanish geodiversity’ (Garcia-Cort´es et al., 2012, p. 336). In the United Kingdom, a major site selection project the Geological Conservation Review (GCR) was carried out between 1977 and 1990. The aim was to establish a network of designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest to ‘reflect the range and diversity of Great Britain’s Earth heritage’ (Ellis et al., 1996, p. 45). Three complementary types of site were selected: 1. sites important to the international community of Earth scientists; 2. sites with scientifically exceptional features; 3. nationally important sites that are representative of an Earth science feature, event or process that is fundamental to Britain’s Earth history. So representativeness was an important element in selecting these GCR sites. This is also true of Italy where ‘representativity’ and ‘diversity’ are two of the criteria in geosite selection (Brancucci et al., 2012). Similarly, the Polish Database of Representative Geosites (www. iop.krakow.pl/geosites, accessed 01.08.17) is a part of the IUGS Global Geosites Project. The main objective of this project is to set up a network of selected sites that represents and documents the diversity of world geology.

20

CHAPTER 1 THE BACKBONE OF GEOHERITAGE

In the United States new National Parks can be added to the existing network of park units but: to be suitable for inclusion in the System an area must represent a natural or cultural theme or type of recreational resource that is not already adequately represented in the National Park System or is not comparably represented and protected for public enjoyment by another landmanaging entity. Adequacy of representation is determined on a case-by-case basis by comparing the proposed area to other units in the National Park System for differences or similarities in the character, quality, quantity, or combination of resources, and opportunities for public enjoyment. (parkplanning.nps.gov, accessed 28.04.17)

Note the frequent use of ‘represented’ and ‘representation’ in this quote, which illustrates the fact that the US National Park Service is anxious that the units of the National Park System should represent the natural landscape of the country. This is also true of National Natural Landmarks, the other main protected area network in the United States where new units must be ‘one of the best examples of a type of biotic community or geologic feature’. Thus, the United States is attempting to conserve examples of different types of geologic features, or in other words, it is attempting to have sites representative of the country’s geodiversity. Parks Canada/Parcs Canada has divided the country into 39 major Natural Regions based on their physical and ecological characteristics. The long-term aim of Parks Canada is to have at least one National Park in each of these Natural Regions so that the park network as a whole is representative of Canada’s landscapes. In New Zealand, Kenny and Hayward (1993) believed that ‘the overriding objective of earth science conservation in New Zealand should be to ensure the survival of the best representative examples of the broad diversity of geological features, landforms, soil sites and active physical processes’. In effect this is a call to have a network of geosites that represents the geodiversity of New Zealand, and is confirmed as remaining the aim of the country’s Geopreservation Inventory (www. geomarine.org.nz, accessed 01.08.17). All these national examples, and others not outlined here, illustrate the concept of selecting geoheritage sites that are representative of the countries’ geodiversity, i.e., geodiversity is an important backbone of geoconservation site selection.

1.5 EXAMPLES 1.5.1 ARARIPE GLOBAL GEOPARK, BRAZIL Araripe UNESCO Global Geopark lies in north-east Brazil and became the first Geopark in the Americas in 2006. Its major feature is the diversity of its Lower Cretaceous palaeontological record indicating an environment at the time that was conducive to life and conditions that were favourable to preservation of the fossil record. The lower, lacustrine, Crato Member includes plants, arthropods, molluscs, fish, amphibians, pterosaurs and bird feathers, while the upper, estuarine, Romualdo Member also has plant, arthropod, fish, mollusc and pteropod fossils as well as echinoids and theropod dinosaurs. The main problems in terms of geoconservation are related to quarrying

1.5 EXAMPLES

21

activities that destroy many fossils, illegal collecting including by quarry workers, inadequate legislation and ineffective implementation by the local authorities (Vilas-Boas et al., 2012).

1.5.2 THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT, WASHINGTON, DC, USA This monument to George Washington, the first President of the United States, is the tallest stone obelisk in the world at just over 169 m high. It contains an internal staircase and lift. Construction began in 1848 using Texas Marble from Maryland, but was stopped in 1854 due to lack of funds and other problems. When construction resumed in 1877 the original stone was no longer available and instead Lee Marble from Massachusetts was used for a few courses still visible about a third of the way up the monument. However, there were problems with stone quality and colour and so a third quarry supplying Cockeysville Marble from Maryland was used for the rest of the structure (USGS, 1999). It was finally completed in 1885 and following the official opening, a range of States, cities and other organisations contributed a total of 194 stone panels that now line the interior walls of the monument. These panels illustrate the geodiversity of the 50 States of the United States. Individual examples include petrified wood contributed by Arizona (Fig. 1.3), pipestone from Minnesota, jade from Alaska and native copper from Michigan. There is also a stone given by the Welsh citizens of New York. The best way to view these panels is to go on a guided tour that takes the lift to the top and walks down the internal staircase.

FIGURE 1.3 Arizona’s stone plaque on the internal wall of the Washington Monument in Washington DC, showing sections of petrified tree trunks from the State.

22

CHAPTER 1 THE BACKBONE OF GEOHERITAGE

1.5.3 MARINE GEODIVERSITY AND GEOHERITAGE, SCOTLAND Gordon et al. (2016) have carried out a detailed study of the known geodiversity of the seabed around Scotland and assessed the features worthy of protection as geoheritage. In consultation with recognised experts in the field and using a methodology similar that that used in the UK’s GCR to select terrestrial sites (Ellis, 2011), the authors identified eight categories of ‘nationally and internationally important geodiversity interests that have influenced the evolution and present-day morphology of the Scottish seabed’ (p. 732): • • • • • • • •

Quaternary of Scotland; Submarine mass movement; Marine geomorphology of the Scottish deep ocean seabed; Seabed fluid and gas seeps; Cenozoic structures of the Atlantic margin; Marine geomorphology of the Scottish shelf seabed; Coastal geomorphology of Scotland; Biogenic structures of the Scottish seabed.

Across these eight categories, 35 key geodiversity sites/areas were selected for their scientific value ranging from large-scale landforms (e.g., submarine landslides) to small-scale features (e.g., sand waves). The sites and features identified are only partially represented in the existing Scottish Marine Protected Areas and other protected sites. This study illustrates the growing international trend to extend geoconservation into the submarine realm.

1.5.4 GEOCONSERVATION IN ANTARCTICA Hughes et al. (2016) have highlighted the issue of geoconservation in Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty, signed by over 50 countries, prohibits military activity and nuclear testing but itself says little about detailed environmental conservation. However, there is a Protocol on Environmental Protection related to the Treaty that prohibits ‘any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research’ (Article 7). There is also an Antarctic Protected Area system that currently includes 72 Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs). Some of these have examples of ‘outstanding geological, glaciological or geomorphological features’ (Article 3, para 2(f)). ASPAs must have a management plan that describes the scientific interest of the site, the reason for designation and the practical management methods by which the interests are to be protected. Examples of geological ASPAs include rare boron and phosphate minerals at Stornes, Larsemann Hills, Princess Elizabeth Land and delicate patterned ground at Arrival Heights, Hut Point Peninsula, Ross Island. However there are many important unprotected sites that may be damaged by the increasing number of tourists visiting the continent, particularly in coastal sites accessible to tourist ships. One example occurs on James Ross Island where there is an extensive, fossiliferous Cretaceous early Cenozoic succession where visitors are taken on guided walks.

1.5 EXAMPLES

23

1.5.5 GEODIVERSITY OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS One of the abiotic provisioning services mentioned above is the use of construction materials. Our modern towns and cities primarily rely on the diversity of building materials in their construction steel, concrete (cement, gravel/crushed rock), glass, bitumen, plaster, etc. Fig. 1.4A shows the example of Hong Kong and Fig. 1.4B is a deconstruction of a small visitor centre in the Terras de Cavaleiros UNESCO Global Geopark in northern Portugal. This example could be repeated on any building constructed from geomaterials and could be used in educational activities to illustrate the geodiversity of building materials and the way in which our modern society relies of the physical resources of the Earth.

FIGURE 1.4 (A) Hong Kong from the air, illustrating a city constructed of geomaterials. (B) The deconstruction of a building in Terras de Cavaleiros UNESCO Global Geopark, Portugal illustrating the diversity of geomaterials used.

24

CHAPTER 1 THE BACKBONE OF GEOHERITAGE

1.6 CONCLUSIONS In this chapter I have attempted to demonstrate; • • •

the relationship and differences between geodiversity and geoheritage, the latter being those elements of geodiversity judged to be worthy of geoconservation; the way in which the planet’s geodiversity has brought untold benefits to human generations over the centuries and how our modern society could not live without geodiversity; that both international and national geoconservation programmes and site networks are often based partly or entirely on the concept of representing thematic, spatial or temporal elements of geodiversity.

We can therefore conclude that geodiversity is indeed the backbone of geoheritage, geoconservation and of modern society itself.

REFERENCES Brancucci, G., D’Andrea, M., Gisotti, G., Pali´aga, G., Poli, G., Zarlenga, F., et al., 2012. Italy. In: Wimbledon, W.A.P., Smith-Meyer, S. (Eds.), Geoheritage in Europe and Its Conservation. ProGEO, Oslo, pp. 188 199. Brilha, J., 2018a. Geoheritage: inventories and evaluation. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 69 86. Brilha, J., 2018b. Geoheritage and geoparks. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 323 336. Dahlgren, S., 2006. Gea Norvegica Geopark: Application Dossier for Nomination as a European Geopark. Gea Norvegica Geopark, Norway. Daily, G.C. (Ed.), 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC. Dingwall, P., Weighell, T., Badman, T., 2005. Geological World Heritage: A Global Framework. IUCN, Gland. Ellis, N.V., Bowen, D.Q., Campbell, S., Knill, J.L., McKirdy, A.P., Prosser, C.D., et al., 1996. An Introduction to the Geological Conservation Review. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Ellis, N., 2011. The Geological Conservation Review (GCR) in Great Britain: rationale and methods. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 122, 353 362. Garcia-Cort´es, A., Gallego, E., Carcavilla, L., 2012. Spain. In: Wimbledon, W.A.P., Smith-Meyer, S. (Eds.), Geoheritage in Europe and Its Conservation. ProGEO, Oslo, pp. 334 343. Gatley, S., Parkes, M., 2012. Republic of Ireland. In: Wimbledon, W.A.P., Smith-Meyer, S. (Eds.), Geoheritage in Europe and Its Conservation. ProGEO, Oslo, pp. 180 187. Gordon, J.E., in press. Mountain geodiversity: characteristics, values and climate change. In: Hoorn, C., Perrigo, A., Antonelli, A. (Eds.), Mountains, Climate and Biodiversity. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester. Gordon, J.E., Barron, H.F., 2013. The role of geodiversity in delivering ecosystem services and benefits in Scotland. Scottish J. Geol. 49, 41 58. Gordon, J.E., Brooks, A.J., Chaniotis, P.D., James, B.D., Kenyon, N.H., Leslie, A.B., et al., 2016. Progress in marine geoconservation in Scotland’s seas: assessment of key interests and their contribution to Marine Protected Area network planning. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 127, 716 737.

REFERENCES

25

Goudie, A., Seely, M., 2011. World Heritage Desert Landscapes. IUCN, Gland. Gray, M., 2008. Geodiversity: the origin and evolution of a paradigm. In: Burek, C.D., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), The History of Geoconservation. Special Publication 300. The Geological Society, London, pp. 31 36. Gray, M., 2011. Other nature: geodiversity and geosystem services. Environ. Conserv. 38, 271 274. Gray, M., 2012. Valuing geodiversity in an “ecosystem services” context. Scottish Geogr. J. 128, 177 194. Gray, M., 2013. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature, second ed. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester. Gray, M., Gordon, J.E., Brown, E.J., 2013. Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: the contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 659 673. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No. EEA/IEA/09/003. Hughes, K.A., Lo´pez-Mart´ınez, Francis, J.E., Crame, J.A., Carcavilla, L., Shiraishi, K., et al., 2016. Antarctic geoconservation: a review of current systems and practices. Environ. Conserv. 43, 97 108. Kenny, J.A., Hayward, B.W. (Eds.), 1993. Inventory of Important Geological Sites and Landforms in the Northland Region. Geological Society of New Zealand, Miscellaneous Publication, 67. Marshak, S., 2012. Earth: Portrait of a Planet, fourth ed. Norton, New York. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC. Migo´n, P., 2018. Geoheritage and World Heritage sites. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 237 250. Parkes, M.A., Morris, J.H., 2001. Earth science conservation in Ireland: the Irish Geological Heritage Programme. Irish J. Earth Sci. 19, 79 90. Prosser, C.D., Murphy, M., Larwood, J., 2006. Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice. English Nature, Peterborough. Sharples, C., 1993. A Methodology for the Identification of Significant Landforms and Geological Sites for Geoconservation Purposes. Forestry Commission, Tasmania. Tansley, A.G., 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational terms and concepts. Ecology 16, 284 307. TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity), 2010. Mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Available from: , http://www.teebweb.org . (accessed 01.08.17). UKNEA (UK National Ecosystem Assessment), 2011. National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of Key Findings. Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs, London. USGS (United States Geological Survey), 1999. Building Stones of Our Nation’s Capital. USGS, Reston, VA. Van Ree, C.C.D.F., Beukering, P.J.H., 2016. Geosystem services: a concept in support of sustainable development. Ecosyst. Serv. 20, 30 36. Vilas-Boas, M., Lima, F., Brilha, J., 2012. Conservation of the palaeontological heritage of Araripe Geopark (Cear´a, Brazil): threats and possible solutions. Geologia dell’Ambiente Suppl. 3, 87 88. Wells, R.T., 1996. Earth’s Geological History: A Conceptual Framework for Assessment of World Heritage Fossil Site Nominations. IUCN, Gland. Wiedenbein, F.W., 1993. Ein Geotopschutzkonzept fu¨r Deutschland. In: Quasten, H. (Ed.), Geotopschutz: Probleme der Methodik und der praktischen Umsetzung. 1. Jahrestagung der AG Geotopschutz, Otzenhausen/Saarland, 17. University de Saarlandes, Saarbrucken. Williams, P., 2008. World Heritage Caves and Karst: A Thematic Study. IUCN, Gland. Wood, C., 2009. World Heritage Volcanoes: A Thematic Study. IUCN, Gland.

CHAPTER

METHODS FOR ASSESSING GEODIVERSITY

2

´ 1, Alicja Najwer1 and Marco Giardino2 Zbigniew Zwolinski 1

´ Poznan, ´ Poland 2University of Turin, Turin, Italy Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan,

2.1 INTRODUCTION The concept of geodiversity was proposed in the 1990s and has been rapidly accepted by geoscientists around the world (Dixon, 1996; Eberhard, 1997; Gordon, 2012; Gordon et al., 2012; Gray, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2013, 2018; Kiernan, 1995, 1996; Kostrzewski, 1998, 2011; Kozłowski, 1997, 2004; Najwer and Zwoli´nski, 2014; Serrano and Ruiz-Flan˜o, 2007a; Sharples, 1993; Wiedenbein, 1993; Zwoli´nski, 2004). However, its recognition by a larger scientific audience and within society is still at an early stage, probably because of the lack of an established conceptual and methodological framework. This includes a formal characterisation of the terminology and a systematisation of techniques and tools to promote geodiversity knowledge (Najwer and Zwoli´nski, 2014). Nevertheless, despite a widespread use of the geodiversity concept in literature, little progress has been made in its mapping and assessment. Many scientists have generically acknowledged the importance of an evaluation process for geodiversity (e.g., Gray, 2004; Hjort et al., 2015; Kozłowski, 2004; Najwer et al., 2016) but in recent years only a few authors have addressed the methodological issues concerning geodiversity assessment and its geovisualisation (e.g., Najwer and Zwoli´nski, 2014; Pereira et al., 2013). The aim of this chapter is to provide a state-of-the-art on geodiversity assessment and to discuss the gaps on the related methodological knowledge, which we consider to be limitations on the full recognition of the geodiversity concept. By reviewing geodiversity assessment methods, we also want to draw attention to the role of geodiversity for developing targeted action plans for the enhancement of geoheritage (see Dunlop et al., 2018; Ferrero et al., 2012). The establishment of a comprehensive classification of methods for assessing geodiversity can be particularly relevant to raise awareness on the importance of geodiversity for ecological, territorial and landscape studies, and to understand its relevance for human development (Lucchesi and Giardino, 2012). In this perspective, geodiversity indexing and mapping techniques can play an important role in fostering a holistic and integrated ecosystem and geosystem services approach, to support the sustainable management of natural systems (Gordon and Barron, 2013; Gordon et al., 2012; Gray, 2008, 2011; Gray et al., 2013). Moreover, geodiversity indexing and mapping is important for tourism (e.g., El Hadi et al., 2015; Gordon, 2012; Koh et al., 2014; Nita and Myga-Pia˛tek, 2010; Thomas, 2012; Zwoli´nski, 2010; Zwoli´nski and Stachowiak, 2012), management of protected areas (e.g., Asrat et al., 2012; Brocx and Semeniuk, 2007; Melelli, 2014; Pellitero et al., 2010, 2014; Sharples, 2002) Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00002-2 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

27

28

CHAPTER 2 METHODS FOR ASSESSING GEODIVERSITY

and geoheritage (e.g., Asrat et al., 2012; Bollati et al., 2015; Ferrero et al., 2012; Gray, 2008; Pereira et al., 2013; Rocha et al., 2014). Geodiversity studies include key methodological issues similar to those relevant for scientific observation in geomorphology: sampling, measurement, scales, scaling, classification and errors (Church, 2011). Geodiversity assessment procedures are relatively subjective and dependent upon the knowledge and experience of the observer, and at the same time they are selected and adapted to the object or phenomenon being analysed. One of the most difficult challenges is the selection of suitable methods and techniques for observing the real world on appropriate spatial and temporal scales. Indeed, geodiversity generally reflects the great landscape complexity of a certain area. As a consequence, the research process should take into account the variety of research methods on geodiversity, as well as its mapping and documentation. These may be complemented by other methods and disciplinary studies in order to get full recognition of the characteristics of the geographical and geological environment, such as dating methods, sedimentology, soil science, or geophysics. One of the most important requirements in geographical and geological research is the availability of maps (Gregory, 2010), not only for locating features or phenomena, but also, and perhaps most importantly, for obtaining information about the Earth’s surface and the complexity of the landscape. In the current era of rapid development of information technology, geographical information systems (GIS) are of increasing importance, since they provide maps with completely new informational, analytical and visual dimensions. The map, which is a modern database and a graphical model for the representation of data, is an indispensable canon of present-day research on geological, geomorphological, soil, hydrological diversity, i.e., geodiversity (see Gray, 2018). Geoinformation systems not only allow one to collect geospatial data, but also to store, retrieve, transform and display complex data in any form, scale and format. The functions of geoinformation systems are well summarised in the Operator State model proposed by Chi and Riedl (1998): • • • • • • •

Data Stage Operators (DSOs): value-filtering, subsetting, difference, addition, flip, rotate, crop, transform, collection; Data Transformation Operators (DTOs): computing, extraction, triangulation; Analytical Abstraction Stage Operators (AASOs): select, divide; Visualisation Transformation Operators (VTOs): multidimensional scaling, multimodal clustering, spreading activation; Visualisation Abstraction Stage Operators (VASOs): simplify by reducing or consolidating, cut off; Visual Mapping Transformation Operators (VMTOs): scatter plot, multidimensional surfaces, cone or hyperbolic or disk trees, tree maps; View Stage Operators (VSO): rotation, translation, scale, zoom, position, orientation, viewfilter.

The above model of operators can be adapted to the assessment of geodiversity, its purpose and the available source geodata, both in terms of selection of operators and of their order. For example, it is used in the general research workflow of geodiversity assessment by means of geoinformation systems.

2.2 GEODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT AND MAPPING

29

Developments in computer science and information technologies allowed significant improvements in the definition of a conceptual framework for geodiversity assessment. This implied the systematisation of Earth science terminology and the use of an ontology, i.e., an analytical tool to describe individuals (instances), classes (concepts), attributes, and relations of entities (Gruber, 2009). Recent review papers (Lombardo et al., 2016; Piana et al., 2017) emphasised the necessity of encoding geodiversity knowledge in formal languages for solving problems related to the ambiguity of specialised terms, the lack of a standardised terminology, and the need to increase the interoperability of geological data. Initiatives such as GeoScience Markup Language (CGI, 2015) and INSPIRE data specification on geology (INSPIRE TWG-GE, 2013; an operative simplification of GeoSciML (CGI, 2015)) and INSPIRE data specification on elevation (INSPIRE TWG-EL, 2013) have been promoting information exchange of geological data. Some ontological applications to Earth sciences have been developed recently (Piana et al., 2016, 2017) based on the abovementioned standard vocabularies, schemes and data models. A number of interconnected computational ontologies of geological concepts were modelled at a regional scale. These applied studies analysed geodiversity knowledge stored in the synthetic digital geological map of the Piedmont region (NW Italy), named ‘GEOPiemonteMap’, developed by the CNR Institute of Geosciences and Earth Resources, Torino, Italy (CNR IGG TO) and hosted as a dynamic and interactive map on the geoportal of ARPA Environmental Agency of the Piedmont Region. These studies demonstrated: • •

the expressive power of ontological systems to merge several geological concepts; the reasoning capabilities of the ontological systems to check the consistency of the currently existing geodiversity knowledge.

Beyond these results, the application of a proper ontological approach could lead to a model for describing types, properties and relationships of geodiversity assessment methods. In this chapter a review of different types of methods used for the assessment of geodiversity is proposed.

2.2 GEODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT AND MAPPING 2.2.1 GEODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT In Earth sciences, the assessment of geodiversity is often identified with the valuation and assignment of the advantages of abiotic components of the natural environment, as well as the appraisal of the relationships determining their dynamics and even the satisfaction of human needs (Bartkowski, 1977). Therefore, the assessment of geodiversity usually takes the form of a classification. As Johnston (1976) noticed, by performing classification there are certain groups of entities or phenomena that can be treated as individual units, and, based on their specific patterns and behaviours, it is possible to make significant generalisations. However, it should be borne in mind that classification alone does not necessarily contains any assessment and vice versa, not every assessment must include a classification.

30

CHAPTER 2 METHODS FOR ASSESSING GEODIVERSITY

The choice of a specific method to assess geodiversity and a proper selection of criteria for the assessment of geodiversity is dependent on many factors. The most important are: (1) the purpose of the assessment; (2) the type of landscape in the study area and its spatial dimension; (3) and above all, the availability of spatial data in an appropriate scale, including in its digital form.

2.2.2 CRITERIA USED FOR THE ASSESSMENT The selection of criteria to be used for the geodiversity assessment is a critical issue. Suggested criteria are listed in Table 2.1. When choosing a method, these criteria have to be taken into account in whole or in part. Particularly important to be considered are the following four criteria: (1) subject of the assessment; (2) scope of the assessment; (3) spatial range of the assessment; (4) assessment techniques. The last of the above criteria relates to the methods/techniques described in this chapter, i.e., qualitative, quantitative and qualitative quantitative methods. The second of the mentioned criteria might be a function of the availability of source materials/information as well as of the access to digital data. Other criteria arise from the specific nature of the geodiversity in the studied area and can be largely affected by various degrees of subjectivity related to the knowledge, experience, etc., of the person who chooses the method. A significant assessment attribute is the presentation form of the results, which can be displayed both in descriptive or graphical ways (Table 2.1). Geodiversity maps are a type of graphical representation.

2.2.3 GEODIVERSITY MAPPING As a result of the assessment, a geodiversity map can be produced, particularly in the case of quantitative and qualitative quantitative methods. When preparing a map, it is important to: (1) establish its general purpose; (2) consider general and detailed aspects of specific map features; (3) include user-friendly instructions addressed to the map users; (4) present solutions for a better readability of the map (Otto et al., 2011). Such a map should at least include: (1) a title defining the type of geodiversity; (2) an inset for geolocation of the area; (3) coordinates of the main map; (4) a numerical and/or linear scale; (5) a comprehensive legend. The legend should include a qualitative geodiversity scale, typically a five-grade scale (very low, low, medium, high, and very high geodiversity). More complex legends can also be used but geodiversity interpretation may become difficult for nonexperts. The threshold values for the geodiversity scale may vary and are dependent on the purpose of the geodiversity assessment, the methods for classifying values, and above all, the character of the research area. Therefore, classification strongly depends on the specific elements included in the analysis. In the past, because of the limited capacity of available tools for data mining, equal intervals were used. With the development of grouping methods, threshold values for geodiversity categories could be selected, depending on the quality of the data set. For data relating to the natural environment, therefore characterised by irregular distribution of values, the most appropriate method is the division with natural breaks (Jenks, 1967). This classification is based on combining values for the evaluated features in classes of natural groups, while maximising the differences between classes. The boundaries of division are set in places where there are relatively large differences between the data values. The method of allocating natural breaks is verified by visualisation of the cartographic data, as they tend to accumulate in groups, as in the case of the occurrence of geodiversity hotspots.

2.2 GEODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT AND MAPPING

31

Table 2.1 A Set of Criteria to Improve the Decision to Choose a Research Method to Evaluate the Geodiversity Attribute

First Order Criterion

Purpose of the assessment

Cognitive Practical

Subject of the assessment

Natural environment (holistic approach) Set of components of the natural environment (selective approach) Single component of the natural environment (arbitrary approach)

Scope of the assessment

Structural properties Functional properties System properties

Spatial range of the assessment

Local Regional National Continental Global

Time scale of the assessment

Past Present Future

Assessment criteria

Absolute Relative

Assessment techniques

Qualitative assessment

Intuitive a priori Affective Expert (Verbal, Point, Code)

Quantitative assessment

Continuous data valuations Discrete data valuations Numerical valuations

Quantitative Qualitative assessment

Map algebra Multicriteria evaluation (including e.g., Boolean analysis, WLC, OWA, AHP)

Descriptive

Specification Tabular

Graphic

Cartographic visualisation WebGIS, interactive and animated maps Multimedia

Presentation of assessments

Second Order Criterion

AHP, analytic hierarchy process; OWA, ordered weighted averaging; WLC, weighted linear combination. Adapted from Kostrowicki (1992).

32

CHAPTER 2 METHODS FOR ASSESSING GEODIVERSITY

2.3 TYPOLOGIES OF METHODS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF GEODIVERSITY In Earth sciences literature there are numerous methods for assessing geodiversity of both large and complex areas and its individual abiotic components (geomorphodiversity, pedodiversity, etc.). Assessment methods may be classified based on two criteria: • •

the source of data: direct and indirect methods; the procedure: qualitative, quantitative and qualitative quantitative methods.

2.3.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT METHODS Considering the source of data used for the assessment of geodiversity, Pellitero et al. (2014) recognised direct and indirect methods. Direct methods imply field work to calculate the value of geodiversity for specific components of the natural environment, such as soils, rocks, types of landforms, etc. Their application allows one to obtain more accurate results and to use simpler calculations than with indirect methods, though their usage is much more labour intensive, and often considerably more expensive. The use of direct indicators for the geodiversity assessment of large areas is rather haphazard; due to this fact, their universality is limited. Indirect methods perform calculations on raster or vector data within a GIS environment. The advantage of using indirect methods is time and money savings resulting from the reduction of field work to the minimum. Usually, acquisition of source data (satellite imagery, digital elevation models (DEMs), or point clouds) is cheap, but their correct preprocessing and analysis is not as simple as in the case of direct methods. Indirect methods offer the possibility to assess and map the geodiversity of large surfaces and areas with difficult accessibility. Referring to the assessment procedure, three groups of methods may be distinguished: (1) qualitative, (2) quantitative and (3) qualitative quantitative methods (Fig. 2.1, Table 2.2). This nomenclature may create problems because of frequent overlapping of techniques within the different methods. Due to the complicated nature of the proposed systematics, different methods and techniques will be separately discussed in the next sections.

2.3.2 QUALITATIVE METHODS Qualitative assessment of geodiversity is based on the knowledge and experience of an expert or group of experts. Qualitative methods are usually descriptive and suitable for both nominal and ordinal data. In the case of nominal data, variables affecting geodiversity are labelled by names; ordinal data measure nonnumeric concepts and offer an order of geodiversity values. Geodiversity assessment based on the use of qualitative methods can be differentiated based on the focus and scale. They range from very general (e.g., Kale, 2015), through specific (e.g., Panizza, 2009), to very detailed studies (e.g., Seijmonsbergen et al., 2014). Qualitative methods can be divided into three groups (Fig. 2.1): (1) descriptive-documentary, (2) expert system and (3) methods based on values and benefits.

2.3 TYPOLOGIES OF METHODS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF GEODIVERSITY

33

FIGURE 2.1 Systematics of geodiversity assessment methods.

Descriptive-documentary methods are considered the simplest qualitative methods, even if they require a massive amount of input data (see Seijmonsbergen et al., 2014). Geodiversity is assessed on the basis of verbal or written descriptions and documentary materials (photographs, sketches, maps, diagrams, etc.), which allow one to identify the specificities of the study area (Holt-Wilson, 2010; Panizza, 2009; Seijmonsbergen et al., 2014). These methods do not include classification in the strict sense. In evaluations performed using expert system methods, an individual or group of individuals recognised as experts, offer their own rating scale (in terms of classification), based on their experience and on examples identified in the literature (Bradbury, 2014; Ellis, 2011; Gray, 2008; JNCC, 2004; Kozłowski, 2004; Sharples, 1995). These methods are characterised by a relatively small degree of objectivity. Expert methods may also include geo-coding systems, in which each class is assigned a single-digit code, as proposed by Kale (2015).

34

CHAPTER 2 METHODS FOR ASSESSING GEODIVERSITY

Table 2.2 Systematics of Geodiversity Evaluation Methods in the Light of the Literature General Methods Qualitative methods

Quantitative methods

Detail Methods

Examples in Literature

Descriptive documentary

Panizza (2009), Holt-Wilson (2010), Seijmonsbergen et al. (2014)

Expert classification

Sharples (1995), JNCC (2004), Kozłowski (2004), Gray (2008), Ellis (2011), Bradbury (2014), Kale (2015)

Values and benefits

Sharples (1995, 2002), Kiernan (1997), Gray (2005, 2011, 2013), Gray et al. (2013), Gordon et al. (2012), Gordon and Barron (2013), Holt-Wilson (2012), Hjort et al. (2015), Neches (2016)

Indices

Serrano and RuizFlan˜o (2007a,b, 2009), Hjort and Luoto (2010), Pellitero et al. (2010), Comanescu and Nedelea (2012), Pereira et al. (2013), Silva et al. (2013, 2015), Melelli (2014), Martinez-Grana et al. (2015), Stepiˇsnik and Repe (2015), Balestro et al. (2016), B´etard (2016), Manosso and No´brega (2016), Kot and Le´sniak (2017)

Geodiversity index

Variant Methods

Examples in Literature

Geo-coding system

Kale (2015)

Threedimensional visualisation

Martinez-Grana et al. (2015), Balestro et al. (2016)

Spatial aggregation

Pellitero et al. (2010), Silva et al. (2013, 2015), Stepiˇsnik and Repe (2015), B´etard (2016), Manosso and No´brega (2016)

2.3 TYPOLOGIES OF METHODS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF GEODIVERSITY

35

Table 2.2 Systematics of Geodiversity Evaluation Methods in the Light of the Literature Continued General Methods

Qualitative quantitative methods

Detail Methods

Examples in Literature

Variant Methods

Examples in Literature

Landscape metrics

Ib´an˜ez et al. (1995), Kot and Le´sniak (2006), Yabuki et al. (2009), Malinowska and Szumacher (2013)

Other

Burnett et al. (1998), Carcavilla et al. (2008), Ruban (2010), Neches (2016)

Statistical modelling

Burnett et al. (1998)

Map algebra

Kot (2006, 2015), Jaˇckov´a and Romportl (2008), Zwoli´nski (2008), Hjort and Luoto (2010, 2012), Hjort et al. (2012), Pereira et al. (2013), Pellitero et al. (2014), Silva et al. (2013, 2015), Ra¨sa¨nen et al. (2016), Tukiainen et al. (2016)

Statistical modelling

Jaˇckov´a and Romportl (2008), Hjort and Luoto (2010, 2012), Hjort et al. (2012), Ra¨sa¨nen et al. (2016), Tukiainen et al. (2016)

Map algebra

Benito-Calvo et al. (2009), Zwoli´nski (2009, 2010), Forte (2014), Argyriou et al. (2016)

Landscape metrics

Benito-Calvo et al. (2009), Argyriou et al. (2016)

Spatial agregation

(kernel density) Forte (2014)

Analytic hierarchy process

Zwoli´nski and Stachowiak (2012), Najwer and Zwoli´nski (2014), Najwer et al. (2016)

36

CHAPTER 2 METHODS FOR ASSESSING GEODIVERSITY

In the third group, geodiversity values are attributed based on goods and services that people obtain from the abiotic components of nature. Values are generally classified into three basic groups: intrinsic values, ecological values and human-centred values (Kiernan, 1997; Sharples 1995, 2002). Subsequently, Gray (2004, 2005, 2013) distinguished as many as 31 geodiversity values organised in six main groups: intrinsic, cultural, aesthetic, economic, functional and scientific. In recent years, much attention has been paid to the evaluation of geodiversity as being a key policy driver for nature conservation ecosystem services, i.e., supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural services (Gordon, 2012; Gordon and Barron, 2013; Gray, 2011; Gray et al., 2013; Hjort et al., 2015; Holt-Wilson, 2012). Gray (2012, 2013) added a fifth category of ‘knowledge services’ (see also Gray, 2018). It should be noted, however, that for several years only three types of services have stood out (CICES v. 4.3), namely provisioning, regulating and maintaining, as well as cultural services (Haines-Young, 2016). This could bring challenges for the future. Qualitative methods present several weaknesses. Firstly, they maintain a certain degree of subjectivity, even in cases where the assessment is done by a group of experts. Secondly, results of qualitative assessment are often not comparable with others from a different study area, especially if areas show large differences in relief energy because relief energy has a high influence on values relevant for the assessment of geodiversity (Zwoli´nski, 2010). Thirdly, it is difficult to verify the geodiversity assessment as a result of qualitative methods. In fact, the outcomes of these kinds of methods cannot be unambiguously converted into a set of input data for verification purposes.

2.3.3 QUANTITATIVE METHODS The use of a quantitative framework is by far the most common approach used to assess geodiversity. This can be related to the fact that quantitative applications are based on relatively simple algorithms. The assessment derives from field instrumental measurements, numerical calculations or geoinformation analyses of raw data. The first stage of the procedure, the collection and integration of data, is extremely time consuming and often requires additional specialist knowledge. In particular, in the case of acquisition of original data in the field, it can generate high costs, and in some areas it may prove to be impossible to be performed, due to logistical or financial constraints. Quantitative methods use different sets of parameters and indicators to determine the characteristics and variety of geodiversity elements in the area. These may be both discrete and continuous data. Most parameters directly derive from field measurements, monitoring, and/or map/image interpretation (e.g., Serrano and Ruiz-Flan˜o, 2007a,b). Others are obtained by mathematics and/or statistics (e.g., Hjort et al., 2012; Ra¨sa¨nen et al., 2016; Tukiainen et al., 2016). They are often used to measure the frequency of a given feature, object or phenomenon (e.g., Melelli, 2014; Pellitero et al., 2010; Pereira et al., 2013; Serrano and Ruiz-Flan˜o, 2007a,b, 2009; Silva et al., 2013, 2015). Many parameters and indicators may also be subject to statistical modelling (Ib´an˜ez et al., 1995) and three-dimensional visualisation (Balestro et al., 2016; Martinez-Grana et al., 2015). The assessment procedure is based on the use of indices and map algebra (Fig. 2.1).

2.3.3.1 Indices Indices are considered a measure of the intensity of a given feature (component) or of a set of characteristics of the natural environment. The main purpose of the use of indices is to reduce the amount of data and to increase the comparability of results for similar typological research areas

2.3 TYPOLOGIES OF METHODS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF GEODIVERSITY

37

(Macias and Bro´dka, 2014). There are three main types of indices: geodiversity indices, landscape metrics and other indicators. The most popular method is the use of geodiversity indices. Most studies that use this method are based on a concept originally published by Serrano and Ruiz-Flan˜o (2007a,b, 2009), later developed by others (Balestro et al., 2016; B´etard, 2016; Comanescu and Nedelea, 2012; Hjort and Luoto, 2010; Manosso and No´brega, 2016; Martinez-Grana et al., 2015; Melelli, 2014; Pellitero et al., 2010; Pereira et al., 2013; Silva et al., 2013, 2015; Stepiˇsnik and Repe, 2015). The geodiversity index was initially proposed according to the following formula (Serrano and Ruiz-Flan˜o, 2007a,b, 2009): Gd 5 Eg R=ln S

where Gd is the geodiversity index, Eg is the number of different physical elements in the unit, R is the coefficient of roughness of the unit, S is the surface of the unit (km2), and ln is the neperian logarithm. Serrano and Ruiz-Flan˜o (2007a,b, 2009) developed the method for the Tiermes-Caracena (central Spain), a mountainous area characterised by high relief energy. The divisions proposed by the authors for slope classes represent a parametrization of the variable roughness of the terrain. Intervals are not of universal use for any study area, due to differences in relief energy. Therefore, many problems arise with the use of the roughness coefficient, particularly in lowland areas. As a result, it is often modified (Hjort and Luoto, 2010; Kot and Le´sniak, 2017; Pellitero et al., 2010), or even eliminated (Comanescu and Nedelea, 2012). Serrano himself eliminated this parameter in his later works due to the failure of generalisation that influences geodiversity assessment (Serrano, personal communication). Three-dimensional modelling solutions are used to better visualise geodiversity indices (Balestro et al., 2016; Martinez-Grana et al., 2015). For the purpose of generalisation, other methods of representing a geodiversity index rely on spatial aggregation units, such as habitats or geomorphological units (Pellitero et al., 2010). These methods are performed on a continuous surface by interpolating the points of values, using inverse distance weighting (Silva et al., 2013, 2015), hotspots (B´etard, 2016; Stepiˇsnik and Repe, 2015) or landscape units (Manosso and No´brega, 2016). The assessment of geodiversity may also use landscape metrics (Ib´an˜ez et al., 1995; Kot and Le´sniak, 2006; Malinowska and Szumacher, 2013; Yabuki et al., 2009). Landscape metrics are one of the oldest methods for assessing the landscape diversity, based on different perspectives. Ib´an˜ez et al. (1995) and Yabuki et al. (2009) used selected landscape metrics for testing pedodiversity. The use of metrics is relatively common in the study of biodiversity, the structural analysis of the landscape, as well as in the classification of land cover and land use. However, for some authors its application in geodiversity studies tends to be problematic (Kot and Le´sniak, 2006; Malinowska and Szumacher, 2013). The third group (other indicators) brings together examples of geodiversity assessment methods that are not included in the geodiversity index class and whose procedure does not refer to landscape metrics (Burnett et al., 1998; Ruban, 2010). In their evaluation of geomorphological diversity, Burnett et al. (1998) suggested an index that summarises the overall variation in terrain and soil properties and presented results subjected to statistical modelling. Ruban (2010) proposed geodiversity assessment as a simple sum of geosite types in the study area. However, such an

38

CHAPTER 2 METHODS FOR ASSESSING GEODIVERSITY

assessment does not concern the geodiversity in the strict sense, but is more associated with geoheritage.

2.3.3.2 Map Algebra The second most commonly used quantitative approach is map algebra (Hjort and Luoto, 2010; Hjort et al., 2012; Jaˇckov´a and Romportl, 2008; Kot, 2006, 2015; Pellitero et al., 2014; Pereira et al., 2013; Ra¨sa¨nen et al., 2016; Silva et al., 2013, 2015; Tukiainen et al., 2016; Zwoli´nski, 2008). The procedure can be defined as a set-based algebra for manipulating geographic data. Map algebra uses maths-like expressions containing operators (relational, Boolean, logical, combinatorial, and bitwise) and functions with raster data. It involves the assessment of the characteristics of the natural environment which are considered essential from the point of view of geodiversity, creating specific factor maps. Each factor map comprises the results of partial assessment and can function independently as a map of individual geodiversity components. Layers based on the known or determined relationships between them undergo simple algebraic operations (e.g., addition, subtraction, multiplication, division), as well as more complex functions (exponential, logarithmic, trigonometric, etc.), and logic operations (e.g., alternatives, conjunctions). As a result, the new content obtained by map algebra operation is a cartographic expression of geodiversity. In the nomenclature associated with assessment of the natural environment, the score evaluation (‘point bonitation’) method has been used for a long time (Bartkowski, 1977; Kot, 2015; Leszczycki, 1937; Sołowiej 1992). This method is used to develop values and ratings for each factor map. Then the maps are combined using a Boolean operator for adding: this equates to that which is described in the map algebra. The number of factor maps undergoing the process of combining is not arbitrarily fixed and depends on the type of landscape and purpose of the evaluation, as well as on data availability. Map algebra is generally made using raster data, although it can also be applied to vector data. Final results may be subject to further simple calculations based on: (1) commonly used landscape metrics (Argyriou et al., 2016; Benito-Calvo et al., 2009); (2) spatial aggregation of values relevant for geodiversity hotspots (B´etard, 2016), using the analysis of kernel density (Forte, 2014); and (3) statistical modelling. The latter can also be used to investigate the spatial relationships between geodiversity and biodiversity (Hjort and Luoto, 2010, 2012; Hjort et al., 2012; Jaˇckov´a and Romportl, 2008; Ra¨sa¨nen et al., 2016; Tukiainen et al., 2016). This last quantitative method represents a very promising research line on geodiversity assessment due to its holistic approach, which represents an added value for the development of applied studies on geodiversity. A strong limitation of quantitative assessment is the quality of the source data or its partial absence. Classifications are usually relative and may only be used in comparative studies for areas with similar landscapes. It is often impossible to apply grading scales with the same threshold values in different areas (e.g., lowlands and high mountains). Sometimes the establishment of such a scale requires an adjustment to the boundary conditions of the study area. Despite some limitations, quantitative methods generally provide accurate results (as an effect of numerical processing) that are verifiable and that can be converted back to input parameters. The most important advantage of using quantitative methods is the repeatability of the results in suitable multiscale analysis and the relatively high objectivity of the assessment, aside from issues related to the selection of evaluation criteria.

2.3 TYPOLOGIES OF METHODS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF GEODIVERSITY

39

2.3.4 QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE METHODS Since the third group of geodiversity assessment methods is a hybrid of qualitative and quantitative methods, it combines the most valuable solutions from each of them. Qualitative quantitative methods are based on a solid combination of quantitative data (i.e., digital) and cause-effect data (i.e., relational and explanatory). At the current stage of the development of geodiversity research methods, qualitative quantitative methods are probably the most advanced and the best technical solution for assessing geodiversity. The comparative evaluation of the simple character of the most discussed quantitative methods with the distinctive complex features of qualitative quantitative assessment methods allows one to move away from the belief that the value of geodiversity increases with the degree of differentiation among its individual components, in each of the basic units of evaluation. The accuracy of source data is fundamental here, especially in case of the raster representation. Perhaps in the coming years, qualitative quantitative methods will have a larger application in geodiversity assessment. Similarly to quantitative methods, the accuracy of source data in qualitative quantitative methods is fundamental. The main issue is the selection of adequate criteria to calculate the assessment, in order to characterise the geological variability of the study area by identifying and quantifying its environmental differences (e.g., morphometric and morphological). Criteria undergo qualitative classification using the expert approach and their quantitative classification is based on measured or calculated parameters. The geological structure and lithology may be subject to qualitative assessment based on: type of rocks (e.g., volcanic, sedimentary, metamorphic, etc.); age of rocks (e.g., Precambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, etc.; e.g., Argyriou et al., 2016; Benito-Calvo et al., 2009); potential of a given rock unit or group to be affected by particular geomorphic processes and landforms. The aesthetic and scientific values, either cognitive or educational, are also assessed qualitatively (Najwer and Zwoli´nski, 2014; Najwer et al., 2016; Zwoli´nski, 2009, 2010; Zwoli´nski and Stachowiak, 2012). Other elements are evaluated quantitatively. This is the case of geomorphometric parameters derived from the DEM. Having a large amount of objectivity, geomorphometric analysis can reveal the topographic diversity of the study area (i.e., relief energy, slopes, curvatures) or even climatic conditions (TWI, Topographical Wetness Index and/or the variability of solar radiation parameters). The classification of quantitative parameters is performed using automatic methods such as natural breaks (Jenks, 1967), avoiding the subjectivity of the evaluation and allowing the verification of its results. A general conceptual framework of the geodiversity evaluation process with qualitative quantitative methods is presented in Fig. 2.2. This framework can be used as an ideal workflow both to assess the comprehensive geodiversity (final geodiversity map) of an area and individual components (factor maps). The qualitative quantitative methods are subdivided depending on how factor maps can be combined in the final map of geodiversity (Fig. 2.2). The most used method is digital-summation technique of algebra map (e.g., Argyriou et al., 2016; Benito-Calvo et al., 2009; Forte, 2014; N˘astase et al., 2012; Zwoli´nski, 2008, 2009, 2010 see Section 2.3.3 for details). The second method for combining geodiversity evaluation criteria is the analytic hierarchy process (AHP, Saaty, 1977, 1980, 1994). AHP is widely used in many scientific disciplines as a hierarchical method for making complex decisions on the basis of criteria recognised with an expert

40

CHAPTER 2 METHODS FOR ASSESSING GEODIVERSITY

FIGURE 2.2 Workflow of general research on geodiversity assessment by mean of geoinformation systems (Najwer and Zwoli´nski, 2014), with reference to the Operator State Model by Chi and Riedl (1998). AASO, analytical abstraction stage operators; DSO, data stage operators; DTO, data transformation operators; VASO, visualisation abstraction stage operators; VMTO, visualisation mapping transformation operators; VSO, view stage operators; VTO, visualisation transformation operators.

system. The criteria for assessing geodiversity are primarily individual components of the geographical environment, but they can also be geomorphometric parameters (e.g., Topographic Position Index (TPI), TWI, solar radiation, etc.). An important advantage of the AHP is the possibility of combining qualitative criteria with quantitative ones.

2.3 TYPOLOGIES OF METHODS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF GEODIVERSITY

41

The particular advantage of qualitative quantitative methods is the integration of data from different sources and with different substantive content (e.g., Zwoli´nski and Stachowiak, 2012). Another advantage is the possibility of applying evaluations based on numerical processing of geodiversity, and expert system knowledge as well (e.g., Najwer et al., 2016). The weaknesses of qualitative quantitative methods are the result of the combination of those associated with qualitative methods (replicability) with the ones that are typical of quantitative approaches (data availability and accuracy).

2.3.5 CASE STUDY: DE˛BNICA CATCHMENT The geodiversity of De˛bnica catchment (Western Pomerania, Poland) is characterised by a varied postglacial landscape and was assessed with two methods: (1) geodiversity index (Serrano and Ruiz-Flan˜o, 2007a,b, 2009) and (2) AHP (Najwer et al., 2016). Table 2.3 presents the set of criteria used for this evaluation. Geodiversity was evaluated on the basis of five general criteria: lithology based on the characteristics of rock and sediment units; relative heights; relief fragmentation based on TPI values; hydrographic elements on the basis of rivers and streams, lakes and springs; mesoclimatic conditions. An important assumption in this research procedure is the hypothesis that components of the geographical environment or geomorphometric parameters are currently affecting at various extents the geodiversity of the study area (Najwer and Zwoli´nski, 2014). Hence, the importance of individual criteria in the assessment process varies according to their significance for the general purpose of the study. The key step is therefore to carefully establish selected weights for the individual evaluation criteria. The AHP compares all possible pairs and evaluates which of the criteria is the most important of the pair and to what extent. The relationship between the different criteria is determined based on a ine-score scale: 1 equal significance; 3 a small advantage; 5 a strong advantage; 7 a very strong advantage; 9 an absolute advantage; 2, 4, 6, 8 are intermediate values. This step completes the formation of a matrix with the dimension n 3 n criteria, which is made up of n(n 1)/2 of those comparisons, where n is the number of criteria taken for analysis. Fig. 2.3 presents several factor maps and a final geodiversity map produced according to the geodiversity index of Serrano and Ruiz-Flan˜o (2007a,b, 2009) (see Section 2.3.3 for details). The grid resolution is 1 3 1 km. Fig. 2.4 presents factor maps and the final geodiversity map using the analytical hierarchy process (Najwer et al., 2016). The grid size is 30 3 30 m. The calculations for both methods were made on the basis of the same geodata sources. The comparison of results allows at least three important insights: •

• •

Geodiversity maps produced according to the geodiversity indexes method and with the AHP are diametrically opposed. This is most probably due to the fact that, in the first method, geodiversity is evaluated on the basis of discrete data in large testing plots (1 3 1 km), while in the second method both the predominant continuous and the sporadic discrete data are used in much smaller testing plots (30 3 30 m). In the geodiversity map using the geodiversity index method, the coefficient of roughness of the unit R has a major imprint on the content of the map (Fig. 2.3, R). In the geodiversity map using the AHP, the main content comes from geomorphology factor maps calculated on the basis of the relative altitude and TPI (landform fragmentation) (Fig. 2.4, A and G).

Table 2.3 The Criteria for the Assessment of Geodiversity Values for Particular Factor Maps of Geodiversity in an Example of Postglacial Catchment: The De˛bnica River, Poland

Lithological characteristics

Detailed geological map of Poland 1:50, 000

Landform fragmentation

Relative heights

30-m Digital Elevation Model (DTED 2: Digital Terrain Elevation Data, level 2)

Classification Method Qualitative assessment method Expert classification

Parameters and Criteria Peats; loams; humus sands; gyttjas and lacustrine chalk; calcareous tufa Lake sands, silts and clays; ice-dammed clays, silts and sands

Geodiversity Value (1) Very low (2) Low

Glacial sands and gravels; outwash sands and gravels; fluvioglacial sands and gravels; kame sands and silts; sands and gravels of crevasse accumulation and eskers; alluvial sands of valley floors and floodplains; alluvial sands of river terraces; aeolian sands

(3) Medium

End-moraine gravels, sands, boulders and tills; colluvial sands and clays

(4) High

Glacial tills

(5) Very high

Quantitative assessment method Automatic classification with a natural breaks method (Jenks, 1967)

Relative height: 0 29.7 m

(1) Very low (2) Low (3) Medium (4) High (5) Very high

Quantitative qualitative assessment method Semiautomatic classification and expert classification

Valleys, lower slopes Flat slopes Middle slopes

10 classes of TPI: Topographic Position Index (Jenness, 2006; Weiss 2001)

Source Data

6 classes of TPI: Topographic Position Index (Jenness, 2006; Weiss, 2001)

Factor Maps

Plains

Open slopes Midslope drainages, shallow valleys, upland drainages, headwaters, midslope ridges, small hills in plains

(1) Very low

(2) Low (3) Medium

Hydrographical elements

Map of Hydrological Division of Poland in the scale 1:50, 000; field mapping

Quantitative qualitative assessment method Automatic classification with a natural breaks method (Jenks, 1967) and expert classification

Upper slopes

U-Shaped valleys, local ridges/hills in valleys, upper slopes, mesas

(4) High

Ridges

Mountain tops, high ridges, canyons, deeply incised streams

(5) Very high

Lakes: • A: surface area 0 56.1 ha • K: shoreline development index 77 2245 m ha21

Combination of A, K, S, Br, Qz, type and Bz

(1) Very low (2) Low (3) Medium (4) High (5) Very high

Combination of TWI and Kk

(1) Very low (2) Low (3) Medium (4) High (5) Very high

Streams: • S: parts with the average slope 0 16.1m • Br: buffer along the stream parts with a distance of 25 50 100 150 250 m Groundwaters: • Qz: groundwater discharge 0 100 l s21 • Type: linear seep, bogspring, seepage spring, spring and linear outflows, seepage spring area • Bz: buffer around the groundwater outflows with a radius of 30 60 90 120 150 m Mesoclimatic conditions

30-m Digital Elevation Model (DTED 2)

Quantitative assessment method Automatic classification with a natural breaks method (Jenks, 1967)

• TWI: Topographic Wetness Index • Kk: Total Insolation

FIGURE 2.3 Mapping geodiversity of the De˛bnica catchment (Poland) by means of indexes and classes from the method by Serrano and Ruiz-Flan˜o (2007a,b, 2009). G, geomorphology Index; H, hydrography index (rivers and streams); Gd, geodiversity index; L, geological setting index; R, coefficient of roughness; S, pedology index. Geodiversity classes: (1) very low; (2) low; (3) medium; (4) high; (5) very high.

FIGURE 2.4 Mapping geodiversity of the De˛bnica catchment (Poland) by means of the method by Najwer et al. (2016). A, factor map of the relative altitude diversity; C, factor map of the mesoclimatic diversity; G, factor map of the landform fragmentation diversity; Gd, final geodiversity map; H, factor map of the hydrographical elements diversity; L, factor map of the lithological diversity. Geodiversity classes: (1) very low; (2) low; (3) medium; (4) high; (5) very high.

46

CHAPTER 2 METHODS FOR ASSESSING GEODIVERSITY

The complete sample of geodiversity maps of the De˛bnica catchment created using the two approaches showed that these maps differ quite substantially. This means that the two methods are equipotential, i.e., they provide noncomparable assessment of geodiversity, despite their use of the same data sources. Undoubtedly, referring only to calculations, it is difficult to decide which of the final maps reflects better the complex landscape, i.e., the geodiversity of the De˛bnica catchment. However, field investigations show that AHP with a high-resolution matrix of 30 3 30 m is more compatible with the characteristics of the natural environment. The detail of this assessment of geodiversity satisfies both cognitive and practical requirements, to which Kostrowicki (1992) drew attention.

2.4 FINAL REMARKS Qualitative methods remain in the mainstream of classical geographical and landscape studies, although they may use modern tools such as GIS. Among the advantages of quantitative and qualitative quantitative methods are their wide use within GIS, both at the stage of data collection and data integration, as well as numerical processing and presentation of results. The unresolved constraint of these methods, however, is the difficulty of their validation, which, currently, is mainly done by direct field verification which is probably a difficult task in very large areas. Another issue is the assessment of dynamic geodiversity (Zwoli´nski, 2009, 2010): temporal variability causes lack of comparable data, especially over long time scales. Looking ahead to the next few years, the development of qualitative quantitative methods associated with cognitive matters should be expected, oriented towards ontology and Semantic Web (Fig. 2.1). The prioritisation of geodiversity elements seems to be a good subject for ontological research and Semantic Web development. As shown by recent research, Ontology Web Languages are suitable for the classification task that is relevant in mapping geodiversity. They can provide (Lombardo et al., 2016): consistency and interoperability of data; a semantic approach to their representation; and, through the machine-readable encoding, an immediate support to their applications. This should ensure the standardisation of the assessment of geodiversity, regardless of spatial and temporal scales of analysis of a given area.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank Joa˜o Paulo Forte, John Gordon, Marina Ilic, Rafał Kot, Fernando C´esar Manosso, Mario Panizza, Dmitry A. Ruban, Ljupko Rundic, Arie C. (Harry) Seijmonsbergen, Miroslav Vujiˇci´c and Andrey Zhirov for substantial support in the early stages of preparation of this chapter. The authors thank the Editors, Jos´e Brilha and Emmanuel Reynard for their editorial work during the preparation of this chapter.

REFERENCES

47

REFERENCES Argyriou, A.V., Sarris, A., Teeuw, R.M., 2016. Using geoinformatics and geomorphometrics to quantify the geodiversity of Crete, Greece. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. 51, 47 59. Asrat, A., Demissie, M., Mogessie, A., 2012. Geoheritage conservation in Ethiopia: the case of the Simien Mountains. Quaest. Geogr. 31 (1), 7 23. Balestro, G., Cassulo, R., Festa, A., Fioraso, G., Giardino, M., Nicolo, G., et al., 2016. 3D geological visualizations of geoheritage information in the Monviso Massif (Western Alps). Rendiconti della Societa` Geologica Italiana 39, 81 84. Bartkowski, T., 1977. Metody bada´n geografii fizycznej. PWN, Warszawa-Pozna´n (in Polish). Benito-Calvo, A., P´erez-Gonz´alez, A., Magri, O., Meza, P., 2009. Assessing regional geodiversity: the Iberian Peninsula. Earth Surf. Process Landf. 34 (10), 1433 1445. B´etard, F., 2016. Geodiversity hotspots. A proposed conceptual and methodological framework for defining geoconservation priorities. Geophys. Res. Abst. 18, EGU2016-1825-1. Bollati, I., Coratza, P., Giardino, M., Laureti, L., Leonelli, G., Panizza, M., et al., 2015. Directions in geoheritage studies: suggestions from the Italian Geomorphological Community. Eng. Geol. Soc. Territ. 8, 213 217. Bradbury, J., 2014. A keyed classification of natural geodiversity for land management and nature conservation purposes. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 125, 329 349. Brocx, M., Semeniuk, V., 2007. Geoheritage and geoconservation history, definition, scope and scale. J. Royal Soc. Western Aust. 90, 53 87. Burnett, M.R., August, P.V., Brown, J.H., Killingbeck, K.T., 1998. The influence of geomorphological heterogeneity on biodiversity. I. A patch-scale perspective. Conserv. Biol. 12 (2), 363 370. Carcavilla, L., Dur´an, J.J., Garcia-Cort´es, A., Lo´pez-Marinez, J., 2008. Different approaches for the study of geodiversity. 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo. CGI [IUGS Commission for the Management and Application of Geoscience Information], 2015. GeoSciML current version 4.0. Available from: ,http://www.geosciml.org/. (accessed 10.08.17). Chi, E.H., Riedl, J.T., 1998. An operator interaction framework for visualization systems. In: INFOVIS ’98 Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, pp. 63 70. Church, M., 2011. Observations and experiments. In: Gregory, K.J., Goudie, A.S. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Geomorphology. SAGE, London, pp. 121 141. Comanescu, L., Nedelea, A., 2012. The assessment of geodiversity a premise for declaring the geopark Buzaului County (Romania). J. Earth Syst. Sci. 121 (6), 1493 1500. Dixon, G., 1996. Geoconservation: An International Review and Strategy for Tasmania. Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania, Occasional Paper 35. Dunlop, L., Larwood, J.G., Burek, C.V., 2018. Geodiversity action plans—a method to facilitate, structure, inform and record action for geodiversity. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 53 66. Eberhard, R., 1997. Pattern & Process: Towards a Regional Approach to National Estate Assessment of Geodiversity. Australian Heritage Commission, Technical Series No. 2. Australian Heritage Commission and Environment Forest Taskforce, Environment Australia, Canberra. El Hadi, H., Tahiri, A., Brilha, J., El Maidani, A., Baghdad, B., Zaidi, A., 2015. Geodiversity examples of Morocco: from inventory to regional geotourism development. Open J. Ecol. 5, 409 419. Ellis, N., 2011. The Geological Conservation Review (GCR) in Great Britain—rationale and methods. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 122, 353 362. Ferrero, E., Giardino, M., Lozar, F., Giordano, E., Belluso, E., Perotti, L., 2012. Geodiversity action plans for the enhancement of geoheritage in the Piemonte region (North-Western Italy). Ann. Geophys. 55 (3), 487 495.

48

CHAPTER 2 METHODS FOR ASSESSING GEODIVERSITY

Forte, J.P., 2014. Avaliac¸ao quantitativa da geodiversidade: Desenvolvimento de instrumentos metodolo´gicos com aplicac¸ao ao ordenamento do territo´rio (Quantitative assessment of geodiversity: development of methodological tools applied to territorial management). Dissertac¸ao de Doutoramento. Universidade do Minho (in Portuguese). Gordon, J.E., 2012. Engaging with geodiversity: ‘Stone Voices’, creativity and ecosystem cultural services in Scotland. Scottish Geogr. J. 128 (3 4), 240 265. Gordon, J.E., Barron, H.F., 2013. The role of geodiversity in delivering ecosystem services and benefits in Scotland. Scottish J. Geol. 49 (1), 41 58. Gordon, J.E., Barron, H.F., Hansom, J.D., Thomas, M.F., 2012. Engaging with geodiversity why it matters. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 123 (1), 1 6. Gray, M., 2004. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Gray, M., 2005. Geodiversity and geoconservation: what, why and how? George Wright Forum 22 (3), 4 12. Gray, M., 2008. Geodiversity: the origin and evolution of a paradigm. In: Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), The History of Geoconservation. Special Publication 300. The Geological Society, London, pp. 31 36. Gray, M., 2011. Other nature: geodiversity and geosystem services. Environ. Conserv. 38, 271 274. Gray, M., 2012. Valuing geodiversity in an “ecosystem services” context. Scottish Geogr. J. 128, 177 194. Gray, M., 2013. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. second ed. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester. Gray, M., Gordon, J.E., Brown, E.J., 2013. Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: the contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124 (4), 659 673. Gray, M., 2018. Geodiversity: the backbone of geoheritage and geoconservation. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 13 26. Gregory, K.J., 2010. The Earth’s Land Surface. SAGE, London. ¨ zsu, M.T. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Springer, Gruber, T., 2009. Ontology. In: Liu, L., O New York, pp. 1963 1965. Haines-Young, R., 2016. Report of Results of a Survey to Assess the Use of CICES, 2016. Support to EEA tasks under the EU MAES Process. Negotiated procedure No EEA/NSS/16/002. Available from: ,http:// cices.eu/. (accessed 10.08.17). Hjort, J., Luoto, M., 2010. Geodiversity of high-latitude landscapes in northern Finland. Geomorphology 115 (1 2), 109 116. Hjort, J., Luoto, M., 2012. Can geodiversity be predicted from space? Geomorphology 153 154, 74 80. Hjort, J., Heikkinen, K., Luoto, M., 2012. Inclusion of explicit measures of geodiversity improve biodiversity models in a boreal landscape. Biodiv. Conserv. 21, 3487 3506. Hjort, J., Gordon, J.E., Gray, M., Malcolm Jr., L.H., 2015. Why geodiversity matters in valuing nature’s stage. Conserv. Biol. 29 (3), 630 639. Holt-Wilson, T., 2010. Norfolk’s Earth Heritage: Valuing Our Geodiversity. Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership, Norfolk. Holt-Wilson, T., 2012. Sensitivity Assessment Methodology for use in Environmental Impact Assessment for Geodiversity Features in Norfolk, UK. Available from: ,https://sites.google.com/site/norfolkgeodiversity/ action-ngap/2-embedding/. (accessed 10.08.17). ´ lvarez, A., 1995. Pedodiversity: concepts and measures. Ib´an˜ez, J.J., De-Alba, S., Bermu´dez, F.F., Garc´ıa-A Catena 24, 215 232. INSPIRE TWG-EL [INSPIRE Thematic Working Group Elevation], 2013. D2.8.II.1 Data Specification on Elevation Technical Guidelines. Available from: ,http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/id/document/tg/el. (accessed 10.08.17). INSPIRE TWG-GE [INSPIRE Thematic Working Group Geology], 2013. D2.8.II.4 Data Specification on Geology Technical Guidelines. Available from: ,http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/id/document/tg/ge. (accessed 10.08.17).

REFERENCES

49

ˇ Jaˇckov´a, K., Romportl, D., 2008. The relationship between geodiversity and habitat richness in Sumava. National Park and Kˇrivokl´atsko Pla (Czech Republic): a quantitative analysis approach. J. Lands. Ecol. 1, 23 38. Jenks, G.F., 1967. The Data Model Concept in statistical mapping. Int. Yearbook Cartogr. 7, 186 190. Jenness, J., 2006. Topographic Position Index (tpi_jen.avx) extension for ArcView 3.x, v. 1.2. Jenness Enterprises. Available from: , http://www.jennessent.com/arcview/tpi.htm . (accessed 10.08.17). JNCC, 2004. Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Earth Science Sites. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Available from: ,http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/CSM_earth_science.pdf. (accessed 10.08.17). Johnston, R.J., 1976. Classification in Geography. Concepts and Techniques in Modern Geography 6, University of East Anglia, Norwich. Kale, V.S., 2015. A 10-digit geo-coding system for classification of geomorphosites in India. Geophys. Res. Abst. 17 EGU2015-1861-4. Kiernan, K., 1995. An Atlas of Tasmanian Karst: Vols. 1 2. Research Report 10, Tasmanian Forest Research Council Inc., Hobart, Research Report 10. Kiernan, K., 1996. Conserving Geodiversity and Geoheritage: The Conservation of Glacial Landforms. Forest Practices Unit, Hobart, Tasmania. Kiernan, K., 1997. Landform classification for geoconservation. In: Eberhard, R. (Ed.), Pattern & Process: Towards a Regional Approach to National Estate Assessment of Geodiversity, Technical Series No. 2. Australian Heritage Commission and Environment Forest Taskforce, Environment Australia, Canberra, pp. 21 34. Koh, Y.K., Oh, K.H., Youn, S.T., Kim, H.G., 2014. Geodiversity and geotourism utilization of islands: Gwanmae Island of South Korea. J. Marine Island Cult. 3, 106 112. Kostrowicki, A.S., 1992. System “człowiek s´rodowisko” w s´wietle teorii ocen (The “Men-Environment” System in the light of the theory of evaluation). Polska Akademia Nauk, Institut Geografii I Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania, Prace Geograficzne 156 (in Polish). Kostrzewski, A., 1998. Georo´z˙ norodno´sc´ rze´zby jako przedmiot bada´n geomorfologii (Landform geodiversity as an object of geomorphology studies). In: Pe˛kala, K. (Ed.), Gło´wne kierunki bada´n geomorfologicznych w Polsce, IV Zjazd Geomorfologo´w Polskich. UMCS, Lublin, pp. 11 16 (in Polish). Kostrzewski, A., 2011. The role of relief geodiversity in geomorphology. Geogr. Polonica 84 Special Issue Pt 2, 69 74. problem jej oceny i zastosowania w ochronie i kształtowaniu s´rodowiska Kot, R., 2006. Georo´z˙ norodno´sc´ na przykładzie fordo´nskiego odcinka Doliny Dolnej Wisły i jej otoczenia (Geodiversity the issue of its evaluation and application in conservation and forming of the environment on the example of the Fordon’s part of the lower Vistula valley and its surroundings). Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu, UMK, Toru´n (in Polish). Kot, R., 2015. The point bonitation method for evaluating geodiversity: a guide with examples (Polish Lowland). Geografiska Annaler: Series A Phys. Geogr. 97 (2), 375 393. Kot, R., Le´sniak, K., 2006. Ocena georo´z˙ norodno´sci za pomoca˛ miar krajobrazowych podstawowe trudno´sci metodyczne (Geodiversity valuation with the aid of landscape indices basic methodological obstructions). Przegla˛d Geograficzny 78 (1), 25 45 (in Polish). Kot, R., Le´sniak, K., 2017. Impact of different roughness coefficients applied to relief diversity evaluation: Chełmno Lakeland (Polish Lowland). Geografiska Annaler: Series A Phys. Geogr. 99 (2), 102 114. Kozłowski, S., 1997. Prognoza ochrony georo´z˙ norodno´sci w Polsce (Prognosis of the geodiversity conservation in Poland). Przegla˛d Geologiczny 45 (5), 489 496 (in Polish) Kozłowski, S., 2004. Geodiversity. The concept and scope of geodiversity. Przegla˛d Geologiczny 52 (8/2), 833 837.

50

CHAPTER 2 METHODS FOR ASSESSING GEODIVERSITY

Leszczycki, S., 1937. Podhale jako region uzdrowiskowy. Uniwersytet Jagiello´nski, Krako´w, Prace Studium Turyzmu (in Polish). Lombardo, V., Piana, F., Fioraso, G., Irace, A., Mimmo, D., Mosca, P., et al., 2016. The classification scheme of the Piemonte geological map and the OntoGeonous initiative. Rendiconti Online Societa` Geologica Italiana 39, 117 120. Lucchesi, S., Giardino, M., 2012. The role of geoscientists in human progress. Ann. Geophys. 55 (3), 355 359. Macias, A., Bro´dka, S., 2014. Przyrodnicze podstawy gospodarowania przestrzenia˛ (Practical Basics of the Environmental Management). PWN, Warszawa (in Polish). Malinowska, E., Szumacher, I., 2013. Application of landscape metrics in the evaluation of geodiversity. Miscellanea Geographica Reg. Stud. Dev. 17 (4), 28 33. Manosso, F.C., No´brega, M.T., 2016. Calculation of geodiversity from landscape units of the Cadeado Range Region in Paran´a, Brazil. Geoheritage 8 (3), 189 199. Martinez-Grana, A.M., Goy, J.L., Cimarra, C., 2015. 2D to 3D geologic mapping transformation using virtual globes and flight simulators and their applications in the analysis of geodiversity in natural areas. Environmental Earth Sciences 73 (12), 8023 8034. Melelli, L., 2014. Geodiversity: a new quantitative index for natural protected areas enhancement. GeoJ. Tourism Geosites 13 (1), 27 37. przegla˛d i propozycja Najwer, A., Zwoli´nski, Z., 2014. Semantyka i metodyka oceny georo´z˙ norodno´sci badawcza (Semantics and geodiversity assessment methods review and research proposal). Landf. Anal. 26, 115 127 (in Polish). Najwer, A., Borysiak, J., Gudowicz, J., Mazurek, M., Zwoli´nski, Z., 2016. Geodiversity and biodiversity of the postglacial landscape (De˛bnica river catchment, Poland). Quaest. Geogr. 35 (1), 5 28. N˘astase, M., Cuculici, R., Mur˘atoreanu, G., Grigorescu, I., Dragot˘a, C.-S., 2012. A GIS-based assessment of geodiversity in the Maramures Mountains Natural Park. A preliminary approach. In: Proceedings of the First European SCGIS Conference “Best Practices: Application of GIS Technologies for Conservation of Natural and Cultural Heritage Sites”, Sofia, May 21 23, 2012, pp. 17 22. Nita, J., Myga-Pia˛tek, U., 2010. Georo´z˙ norodno´sc´ i geoturystyka w terenach poeksploatacyjnych na przykładzie regionu che˛ci´nsko-kieleckiego (Geodiversity and geotourism in post-exploitation areas for the example of the Che˛ciny Kielce region). Geoturystyka 3 4 (22 23), 51 58 (in Polish). Neches, 2016. Geodiversity beyond material evidence: a geosite type based interpretation of geological heritage. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 127 (1), 78 79. Otto, J.C., Gustavsson, M., Geilhausen, M., 2011. Cartography: design, symbolisation and visualisation of geomorphological maps. In: Smith, M.J., Paron, P., Griffiths, J.S. (Eds.), Geomorphological Mapping. Methods and Applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 253 295. Panizza, 2009. The geomorphodiversity of the Dolomites (Italy): a key of geoheritage assessment. Geoheritage 1, 33 42. Pellitero, R., Gonz´alez-Amuchastegui, M.J., Ruiz-Flan˜o, P., Serrano, E., 2010. Geodiversity and geomorphosite assessment applied to a Natural Protected Area: the Ebro and Rudron Gorges Natural Park (Spain). Geoheritage 3, 163 174. Pellitero, R., Manosso, F.C., Serrano, E., 2014. Mid- and large-scale geodiversity calculation in Fuentes Carrionas (NW Spain) and Serra do Cadeado (Paran´a, Brazil): methodology and application for land management. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Phys. Geogr. 97, 219 235. Pereira, D., Pereira, P., Brilha, J., Santos, L., 2013. Geodiversity assessment of Paran´a State (Brazil): an innovative approach. Environ. Manag. 52, 541 552. Piana, F., Lombardo, V., Mimmo, D., Giardino, M., Fubelli, G., 2016. Semantics-informed cartography: the case of Piemonte Geological Map. Geophys. Res. Abst. 18 EGU2016-12074.

REFERENCES

51

Piana F., Lombardo V., Mimmo D., Mulazzano E., Barale L., d’Atri A., Irace A., Morelli M., Mosca P. and Tallone S., The Geodatabase of the Piemonte Geological Map: conceptual design for knowledge encoding. Rendiconti Online Societa Geologica Italiana 42, 2017, 85 89. Ra¨sa¨nen, A., Kuitunen, M., Hjort, J., Vaso, A., Kuitunen, T., Lensu, A., 2016. The role of landscape, topography, and geodiversity in explaining vascular plant species richness in a fragmented landscape. Boreal Environ. Res. 21, 53 70. Rocha, J., Brilha, J., Henriques, M.H., 2014. Assessment of the geological heritage of Cape Mondego Natural Monument (Central Portugal). Proc. Geol. Assoc. 125 (1), 107 113. Ruban, D.A., 2010. Quantification of geodiversity and its loss. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 121, 326 333. Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 15, 234 281. Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York. Saaty, T.L., 1994. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory. RSW Publication, Pittsburgh. Seijmonsbergen, A.C., De Jong, M.G.G., de Graff, L.W.S., Anders, N.S., 2014. Geodiversita¨t von Vorarlberg und Liechtenstein - Geodiversity of Vorarlberg and Liechtenstein. Haupt Verlag, Bern. Serrano, E., Ruiz-Flan˜o, P., 2007a. Geodiversity. A theoretical and applied concept. Geogr. Helv. 62, 140 147. Serrano, E., Ruiz-Flan˜o, P., 2007b. Geodiversity: concept, assessment and territorial application. The case of Tiermes-Caracena (Soria). Bolet´ın de la Asociacio´n de Geo´grafos Espan˜oles 45 (45), 389 393. Serrano, E., Ruiz-Flan˜o, P., 2009. Geomorphosites and geodiversity. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., RegoliniBissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil, Mu¨nchen, pp. 49 61. Sharples, C., 1993. A Methodology for the Identification, of Significant Landforms and Geological Sites for Geoconservation Purposes. Technical Report. Forestry Commission Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania. Sharples, C., 1995. Geoconservation in forest management principles and procedures. Tasforests 7, 37 50. Sharples, C., 2002. Concepts and Principles of Geoconservation (Version 3). Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service, Hobart, Tasmania. Silva, J.P., Pereira, D., Aguiar, A.M., Rodrigues, C., 2013. Geodiversity assessment of the Xingu drainage basin. J. Maps 9 (2), 254 262. Silva, J., Rodrigues, C., Pereira, D., 2015. Mapping and analysis of geodiversity indices in the Xingu River basin, Amazonia, Brazil. Geoheritage 7, 337 350. Sołowiej, D., 1992. Podstawy metodyki oceny s´rodowiska przyrodniczego człowieka (Basics of Methodology to Evaluate the Natural Environment of Man). Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Pozna´n (in Polish). Stepiˇsnik, U., Repe, B., 2015. Identifikacija vroˇcih toˇck geodiverzitete na primeru krajinskega parka Rakov ˇ Skocjan. Dela 44, 45 62 (in Slovenian). Thomas, M.F., 2012. A geomorphological approach to geodiversity its applications to geoconservation and geotourism. Quaest. Geogr. 31 (1), 81 89. Tukiainen, H., Bailey, J.J., Field, R., Kangas, K., Hjort, J., 2016. Combining geodiversity with climate and topography to account for threatened species richness. Conserv. Biol. 31 (2), 364 375. Weiss, A., 2001. Topographic Position and Landforms Analysis. Poster presentation. ESRI User Conference, San Diego, CA. Wiedenbein, F.W., 1993. Ein Geotopschutzkonzept fu¨r Deutschland. In: Quasten, H. (Ed.), Geotopschutz: Probleme der Methodik und der Praktischen Umsetzung. 1. Jahrestagung der AG Geotopschutz, Otzenhausen/Saarland. University de Saarlandes, Saarbrucke (in German). Yabuki, T., Matsumura, Y., Nakatani, Y., 2009. Evaluation of pedodiversity and land use diversity in terms of the Shannon Entropy. Available from: ,https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2821. (accessed 10.08.17). Zwoli´nski, Z., 2004. Geodiversity. In: Goudie., A.S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Geomorphology, vol. 1. Routledge, London, pp. 417 418.

52

CHAPTER 2 METHODS FOR ASSESSING GEODIVERSITY

Zwoli´nski, Z., 2008. Designing a map of the geodiversity of landforms in Poland. In: IAG and AIGEO International Meeting “Environmental Analysis and Geomorphological Mapping for a Sustainable Development”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, February 26, 2008. Abstract Book, pp. 18 22. Zwoli´nski, Z., 2009. The routine of landform geodiversity map design for the Polish Carpathian Mts. In: Rojan, E., Łajczak, A. (Eds.), Geoecology of the Euroasiatic Alpids. Landf. Anal. 11, 79 87. Zwoli´nski, Z., 2010. Aspekty turystyczne georo´z˙ norodno´sci rze´zby Karpat (Touristic aspects of landform geodiversity in Carpathians). Prace Komisji Krajobrazu Kulturowego PTG 14, 316 327 (in Polish). Zwoli´nski, Z., Stachowiak, J., 2012. Geodiversity map of the Tatra National Park for geotourism. Quaest. Geogr. 31 (1), 99 107.

CHAPTER

GEODIVERSITY ACTION PLANS A METHOD TO FACILITATE, STRUCTURE, INFORM AND RECORD ACTION FOR GEODIVERSITY

3

Lesley Dunlop1, Jonathan G. Larwood2 and Cynthia V. Burek3 1

Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom Natural England, Peterborough, United Kingdom 3University of Chester, Chester, United Kingdom

2

3.1 INTRODUCTION During the 19th century the United Kingdom had a great influence on the development of the science of geology (Hose, 2016) and consequently has many sites of local, national and international importance. Equally, and in part as a consequence, there has been a long history of development of geoconservation policy and practice particularly with a site-based focus (Burek and Prosser, 2008; Larwood, 2016). More recently, the development of the action-planning process has provided a context and framework for the delivery of geoconservation, the wider valuing and promotion of geodiversity, and a mechanism for linking to and connecting across a range of interests. Reflecting this UK experience, this chapter examines the rationale for action plans and their importance, how to develop a Geodiversity Action Plan (GAP) with practical examples and a discussion of the benefits they bring. In the UK geoconservation is often carried out by local, county-based groups, many of these having evolved from groups set up to identify and document Local Geological Sites (LGS). These sites are also known as RIGS (Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites) (Burek, 2008; Whiteley and Browne, 2013). GAPs are used particularly at this local level to focus and highlight the work needed to be carried out by these groups and as a key mechanism to facilitate and support the delivery of the overarching UK Geodiversity Action Plan (UKGAP). Importantly, GAPs cut across interests. For example, within geoconservation they establish clear targets for geodiversity audit, monitoring, management, funding, and policy influencing, when often these activities have been considered separately. They also encourage geologists to connect outside of their immediate field of interest establishing links with other interests and bringing new partners to help deliver a GAP, accessing different resources, and leading to innovative solutions.

Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00003-4 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

53

54

CHAPTER 3 GEODIVERSITY ACTION PLANS

3.2 GEODIVERSITY ACTIONS PLANS GAPs provide a mechanism for establishing agreed actions for geodiversity and associated geoconservation. Importantly, they encompass both site-based audit and conservation with a wider perspective on geodiversity resources available in an agreed area (such as geological sites, museum collections and building stones) with ambitions to present and communicate, influence policy and practice, and to secure resources in relation to geodiversity (Larwood, 2005). The GAP concept was developed in the United Kingdom from the established experience of the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) process, in particular, learning from what worked through BAPs and could be applied to geodiversity (Burek and Potter, 2004a). There was an early emphasis on a more ‘local’ geographical scale and establishing a model approach for Local Geodiversity Action Plans (LGAPs) (Burek and Potter, 2004b). Through this work a standard approach to geodiversity action planning was established and the first LGAP was launched in 2003 for the Cheshire region (Potter and Burek, 2006; also see Case Study 1). This standard approach to geodiversity action planning can be developed at different geographical scales and is most widely applied at a UK county level. GAPs have also been developed to coincide with National Park and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) boundaries (e.g., Northumberland National Park (www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/ 06/geodiversity_audit_hi.pdf, accessed 10.08.17) and the North Pennines AONB (www.northpennines.org.uk/about-us/european-and-global-geopark/geodiversity-action-plan/, accessed 10.08.17), to encompass urban areas such as the Black Country in the West Midlands and London (see Case Study 2), and more widely adapted for use as a company GAP (cGAP) (see Case Study 3). An overarching national GAP has also been established for the United Kingdom the UKGAP (see www. ukgap.org.uk, accessed 10.08.17, and Case Study 4).

3.3 WHAT MAKES A SUCCESSFUL GAP? Most importantly, a GAP, at whatever scale, is a way to agree a shared goal for geodiversity and geoconservation and establishing agreed (and manageable) actions to achieve this goal delivered across a number of supportive individuals, groups and organisations. Experience has shown that the most successful LGAPs have a number of simple stages (English Nature, 2004): 1. Boundary early definition of an LGAP boundary is important. LGAPs typically follow administrative boundaries including county, AONB and National Park boundaries. A cGAP differs in that it encompasses the geodiversity resources of an organisation, e.g., for a quarry operator it can incorporate the range of quarries and land within its ownership (see Case Study 3). 2. Partnership involving a range of organisations, groups and individuals who have an interest (or potential interest) in the area of the LGAP should enable its successful delivery. The partnership will help to define the LGAP and be involved (in different ways) in its delivery, with often a smaller number of partners taking a lead role. 3. Aims and objectives these are the core of the LGAP. They should have clear targets and actions that can be measured allowing progress to be tracked. This is where large objectives are broken down into more manageable tasks. Typical objectives can include: a. Geodiversity audit this is an important early objective to understand the breadth of the local considered geodiversity resource which is diverse from geodiversity sites, museum

3.4 WHY PRODUCE A GAP?

55

collections and resources such as building stones. Requiring technical knowledge, audits are most often undertaken by geologists or experienced/trained volunteers. b. Communication and education this centres around promoting a wider understanding and valuing of geodiversity through interpretation (in all forms) and learning (for all ages and both formal and informal). Here it is important to have experience in education and good communicators. c. Influencing planning establishing supportive planning policy and guidance for geoconservation can deliver significant gains through the planning system. The involvement of the relevant planning authority within the LGAP partnership will help facilitate this objective. d. Conservation and management this objective is often focused on individual sites and establishing shared goals for the conservation of geodiversity. Volunteers and a range of landowners and managers will be involved in delivery. e. Resources by establishing a clear and realistic understanding of resource needs (both money and people) a more sustained approach to delivering the action plan can be achieved. 4. Consultation wide consultation that takes into account a range of views, local priorities and aspirations for geodiversity in the LGAP area will help shape the LGAP and make its ambition more relevant to more people. It may also identify new participants to help guide and deliver the LGAP. 5. Funding resourcing the delivery of geodiversity and geoconservation objectives is often challenging. An LGAP will help to prioritise activities and identify which actions require funding and which can be delivered through people and the work of partners (without the need for additional funding). 6. Measuring achievement monitoring progress is extremely important and there should be clarity over how often this is done and what will be measured. As the LGAP progresses it should be reviewed and revised as actions are achieved and priorities change and a revised version should be published.

3.4 WHY PRODUCE A GAP? It is considered that GAPs can be a very useful tool to inform and direct geoconservation. In this section, the benefits of GAPs are considered as well as potential mistakes to avoid. Action Plans tend to be more wide reaching and encompass audit, developing conservation priorities, influencing planning and policy, developing education and research programmes and securing resources thus raising public awareness. They often have a wide partnership and are for wide areas and connect across a range of related disciplines and interests. In contrast, management plans tend to be site/location focused, they may have some of the broader elements of an action plan, but are often delivered in a much smaller area. The Quarry GAPs that have come out of cGAPs are much closer to management plans. Benefits of GAPs are: •

•

GAPs provide a useful way of breaking large (daunting) tasks into smaller chunks that are easier to progress and therefore a mechanism of apportioning resources (money and time), and dividing up tasks. They operate at different scales to the same principles: from a UK-wide to a local level, and are equally relevant to an organisation, e.g., cGAPs.

56

•

• •

CHAPTER 3 GEODIVERSITY ACTION PLANS

Action plans can really bring in new and unexpected partners and bring groups together under a common goal. They also enable different skills and resources to be utilised which may not be available to a geology group working in isolation. This also helps link across different natural and cultural heritage interests. The simple, nontechnical, wording of LGAPs ensures understanding by all of the actions needed for successful geoconservation. A GAP has strength through agreement and partnership and as such can influence and guide priorities in a given area and provide context and support for funding bids. There are also some pitfalls:

•

•

•

Often a hold up is the perceived need to undertake an extensive audit before an action plan can be considered (and such audits can be costly in terms of time and money). This should not be necessary and audit can be identified as one of the objectives of the action plan, delivered in stages, and then used to update the action plan as new ideas emerge. For example, the recent actions to support the Cheshire region LGAP (see below, Case Study 1) has included an audit undertaken as part of the Saltscape Heritage Lottery Fund project in mid-Cheshire. Measuring and monitoring progress must not be forgotten. This has been very important in Cheshire and London (see below, Case Study 2) it keeps the action plan alive and provides an opportunity to celebrate progress and review priorities. Remember, these are not static documents, they are meant to evolve and change as actions are delivered and new priorities emerge. Local distinctiveness is important for LGAPs. Generic statements undermine the local characteristics, e.g., in the Cheshire region LGAP the importance of fossil reptile footprints or the redness of the local Triassic sandstone give the area its distinctiveness and are built into the plan. Thinking what makes this area geologically distinct, valued and relevant to the people who live there is important. Avoid complexity, GAPs are not meant to be geologically technical documents and detailed geological descriptions. In London the detail is in London’s Foundations, the London GAP is much simpler.

3.5 CASE STUDIES 3.5.1 CASE STUDY 1 REFLECTION

LOCAL GEODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN PRODUCTION AND

The Cheshire region Local Geodiversity Action Plan (CrLGAP) was the first LGAP to be developed in the United Kingdom. It originated directly from the research undertaken by Burek and Potter (2002, 2006) on the feasibility of adopting the Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) approach to local geodiversity and conservation. In Cheshire, the identification and nomination of LGS is undertaken by the Cheshire RIGS group a voluntary county-based geoconservation group. This group initiated the development of the CrLGAP. The partnership approach to a successful LGAP was fundamental to the development of the LGAP. With the lead partners being Cheshire RIGS, Cheshire County Council and the University of Chester, 21 people representing 15 organisations including Statutory bodies, Local Authorities and local conservation organisations were involved in the development process over a 10-month

3.5 CASE STUDIES

57

Table 3.1 Objectives of the Cheshire Region Local Geodiversity Action Plan (2003) 1. To audit the local Geodiversity resource by December 2004 a. Site audit b. Existing geodiversity information 2. To audit the skills and resources available from existing and potential partners and other targeted organisations by February 2003 3. To have Geodiversity included in policy of all Cheshire region local authorities and targeted organisations by December 2004 4. To raise awareness of the following identified audiences by 20% by December 2004 a. Professional bodies b. Conservation practitioners/site managers/landowners c. Education sector 5. To increase community and business participation in the conservation of identified Geodiversity sites by December 2004 6. To produce at least 2 information dissemination tools throughout 2003 and 2004 to share best practice, e.g., newsletter, web site 7. To create effective feedback, reporting and monitoring mechanisms by December 2004 for a. LGAP partners b. Other identified audiences 8. Create the infrastructure and mechanisms to enable the Cheshire LGAP process to continue after the initial year of operation by December 2004

period. Participants worked together to define and audit geodiversity resources of the region, identify current activities and consider priorities and identify overlaps in ways of working. Thus, from the emerging themes and gaps in knowledge the first CrLGAP was produced and endorsed as a collaborative document. The aim was identified and accepted by consensus as: To contribute to the maintenance and improvement of the well-being of the Cheshire region by producing a Cheshire LGAP (Local Geodiversity Action Plan) to safeguard the geology, geomorphology, soils and landscape of the area.

The LGAP boundary (the old county of Cheshire including Wirral, Halton and Warrington) was selected to coincide with established initiatives. Eight objectives were identified (Table 3.1) but also a mechanism for creating the infrastructure to maintain collaboration between the partners was established so that the CrLGAP became sustainable. This has been identified as a vital inclusion in any LGAP (Burek, 2008). The final published action plan (Fig. 3.1), launched in September 2003, detailed how to deliver the objectives through a series of interlinked targets and actions to be accomplished within the 2 years. Both within and outside the partnership it was perceived as ambitious (Gray, 2013) and therefore it was agreed to evaluate the plan after the 2 years (Table 3.1). By July 2005, 73 people representing 34 organisations showed enthusiasm for the partnership. It is significant that during this time the partners had evolved to include not just local organisations but national organisations such as the National Trust and Tarmac. During the evaluation of the first LGAP, the eight objectives were still deemed valid but the targets and actions needed updating as so many had been completed. It was suggested by the partnership that the actions were less specific and detailed to allow partners to interpret the plan in their own way by ‘leaving space’ for evolution. The number of objectives was reduced to five (Table 3.2) and each

58

CHAPTER 3 GEODIVERSITY ACTION PLANS

FIGURE 3.1 Original Cheshire region Local Geodiversity Action Plan cover.

Table 3.2 The Reduced and More Flexible Objectives and Actions of the Cheshire Region Local Geodiversity Action Plan (2008) Objective Title Objective 1 Increasing awareness and appreciation of geodiversity Objective 2 To increase community participation Objective 3 To make the LGAP a sustainable process Objective 4 To audit local geodiversity resources Objective 5 To set up a local skill network

Routine Ongoing Examples Include geodiversity in the policies of all the Cheshire region Local Authorities and targeted organisations Ensure greater community awareness of the need to have geodiversity included in local authority policies Increase community and business participation in the conservation of identified geodiversity sites Audit local geodiversity resources Training in the use of site audit proforma

3.5 CASE STUDIES

59

partner was encouraged to produce a one-page insert for the CrLGAP detailing who they were and how they contributed to the CrLGAP (Fig. 3.2). This second edition was launched in March 2009 (Fig. 3.3). In 2009, the splitting of administrative areas, redundancy and retirement of officials all resulted in the loss of corporate knowledge. The CrLGAP, however, provided a basis for maintaining geodiversity action and retraining new staff through a series of talks and workshops. The CrLGAP is still used and the sustainability built in at the beginning of the process paid off. This is especially true in the use and understanding of geodiversity at local authority level. Geodiversity can be found in

FIGURE 3.2 Partner sheet for inclusion in the Cheshire region Local Geodiversity Action Plan (post 2008).

60

CHAPTER 3 GEODIVERSITY ACTION PLANS

FIGURE 3.3 Cover of new Cheshire region Local Geodiversity Action Plan (2009).

most local government policies. Cheshire East Local Council guidance for ‘Nature Conservation’ (Cheshire East, 2017a) contains the following statement, e.g.: In addition to habitats and species sites can also be designated for their geological interest; these sites are known as Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS). RIGS in Cheshire are identified by a Cheshire RIGS Group.

The legacy of the CrLGAP is also shown by Cheshire East in their Local Plan strategy document (Box 3.1) being updated during 2017 (Cheshire East, 2017b) (valid until 2030). The continuing audit of geological sites is being accomplished through the Saltscape Heritage Lottery Fund Landscape Partnership (www.saltscape.co.uk/, accessed 10.08.17) of which Cheshire RIGS is a key member delivering lectures, conferences and publicity material as well as nominating for designation LGSs. By October 2017 the geological audit will be compete for the Saltscape area. Again, key objectives in the CrLGAP will have been successfully completed. To summarise, the CrLGAP has evolved through times of austerity to continue delivering its aims through partnership and collaboration over nearly 15 years. There have been two editions of the CrLGAP produced with the last one achieving sustainability through flexibility of delivery. This will safeguard Cheshire’s geodiversity for the future an example of successful geoconservation.

3.5 CASE STUDIES

61

BOX 3.1 EXTRACT OF THE CHESHIRE EAST LOCAL PLAN. Policy SE 3 Biodiversity and Geodiversity 1. Areas of high biodiversity and geodiversity value will be protected and enhanced. 2. Under statutory designations: development proposals which are likely to have a significant adverse impact on a site with one or more of the following national or international designations will not be permitted: NNRs SSSIs SACs, etc. 3. Development proposals which are likely to have a significant adverse impact on a site with one or more of the following local or regional designations, habitats or species will not be permitted except in exceptional circumstances.

3.5.2 CASE STUDY 2

LONDON GEODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN: AN URBAN GAP

In 2009 a city-wide review of London’s geodiversity was completed (London’s Foundations) (Barron et al., 2009), which was subsequently published and adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance in the London Plan 2011. It served a dual function providing guidance for the Greater London Authority and London Boroughs on geodiversity and priorities for geoconservation, and formed the basis for the London GAP 2009 13, which is coordinated by the London Geodiversity partnership (www.londongeopartnership.org.uk/index.html, accessed 10.08.17). The London GAP aims ‘to provide a framework for understanding, conserving and using the unique wealth of geodiversity resources found within our capital, so that social, economic and environmental benefits are provided to London’s urban communities and visitors’. This aim is delivered through six objectives which are subdivided into actions and targets. For example, under objective 2, ‘Manage and conserve the geodiversity of London’, Target 2.2 seeks to establish accessible geological localities across London and has led to notable improvements including enhancement of Ribblesdown Chalk Quarries and Gilbert’s Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest, both in south London (Baker, 2016; Clements, 2016). Under Objective 3, ‘Deliver sustainable social, economic and environmental benefits for London’, there is a target to promote geotourism and here successful actions have included the development of a geological trail linked to the established southeast London Green Chain Walk (Baker et al., 2016) and wide promotion of the ‘Building London’ (Green, 2014) and associated resources in the development of building stone trails. The London GAP has been revised and is now in its second iteration (for 2014 18). Most notable is the vibrancy of the partnership that supports its successful delivery: in January 2016, 26 separate partners were involved spanning museums, a number of London Boroughs, a range of societies, and academic institutions from across the city.

3.5.3 CASE STUDY 3

COMPANY GEODIVERSITY ACTION PLANS (CGAPS)

The principles of Geodiversity Action Planning have been adapted for quarry operators with a particular focus on aggregate companies (Thompson et al., 2006). The cGAP provides a systematic method for quarry companies to assess their overall geodiversity holdings and identify priorities for individual sites. The recommended approach is to have a core/overarching plan that sets out the overall ambition for geodiversity and geoconservation and then to have site-specific action plans that are tailored to the priorities and needs of different quarries.

62

CHAPTER 3 GEODIVERSITY ACTION PLANS

Examples include the ‘Biodiversity and geodiversity strategy and action plan’ that was produced by Hanson UK (2012), which sets out targets for producing GAPs across the organisation. In 2012 over 100 BAPs and GAPs had been produced (over 80% of relevant sites). Aggregate Industries have produced individual site GAPs, e.g., Croft Quarry (Aggregate Industries, 2010) and Bardon Hill Quarry (Aggregate Industries, 2007) in Leicestershire. These describe key geodiversity features and then set out actions and associated benefits. At Bardon, where features are difficult to access due to active quarrying, a viewing platform has been installed to provide a wide vista of the Triassic palaeochannels, and there is an intention to collect samples for educational use and for part of a planned ‘Rock Park’. At Croft Quarry, which is noted for its Ordovician mineralisation, the GAP identifies the value of on-going recording of sampling of mineralisation in the active quarry to provide on-site interpretive material as well as specimens for relevant academic institutions and research. cGAPs provide a wider view of geodiversity within an organisation and are closely linked to actions for the environment as seen with the Hanson UK strategy. At a quarry level, GAPs provide a useful review of what is important for geodiversity beyond the economic asset and a clear direction for beneficial actions for conserving and utilising this resource, particularly for education and research.

3.5.4 CASE STUDY 4

UK GEODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN (UKGAP)

In 2006 it was recognised (Burek, 2006) that it would be beneficial to have an action plan which would cover the whole of the United Kingdom and work was begun to develop the UKGAP (UK Geodiversity Action Plan, 2011) coordinated by UK statutory conservation agencies in collaboration with the representative bodies of the local geoconservation groups. The UKGAP sets out a framework for geodiversity action across the United Kingdom and aims to be ‘A framework for enhancing the importance and role of geodiversity’. It has been developed and agreed through wide consultation and dialogue across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland between organisations, groups and individuals currently involved in geodiversity. Also, within the United Kingdom through wide discussion and agreement across the geological community, England and Scotland have both produced a ‘Geodiversity Charter’ (Geodiversity Charter for England, 2014; Scotland’s Geodiversity Charter, 2012) with an aim to widen understanding of the importance of geodiversity, the influence it has in our daily lives, and in shaping the natural and built environment around us (a Welsh Charter is in development). The production of the ‘Geodiversity Charters’ has given an opportunity for many professional, amateur and commercial organisations to work together, with over 40 being committed to the aims of these. Similar to the UKGAP (though less prescriptive) the Charter encourages everyone to work together to promote and look after the rich geodiversity setting out, with examples, what different sectors of society can do to achieve this. It provides a focus for action and a mechanism to support the UKGAP at a country level. Though it is nonstatutory, the UKGAP provides a shared context and direction for geodiversity through a common aim, themes, objectives and targets which link national, regional and local activities. The individual Charters (and supporting forums) as well as individual LGAPs feed into the UKGAP. Equally, the UKGAP can be used to inform and provide context for the activities of individual organisations and GAPs.

3.5 CASE STUDIES

63

The UKGAP is a mechanism for encouraging partnership, influencing decision and policy makers, funders and promoting good practice. It establishes a shared understanding of what is happening and what needs to happen to promote and conserve geodiversity, a process for measuring and reporting on progress and, importantly, celebrating success. It is divided into six broad themes in a summary document (www.ukgap.org.uk/media/8544/ ukgap.pdf, accessed 10.08.17): • • • • • •

furthering our understanding of geodiversity; influencing planning policy, legislation and development design; gathering and maintaining information on our geodiversity; conserving and managing our geodiversity; inspiring people to value and care for our geodiversity; sustaining resources for our geodiversity.

From these themes 14 Objectives, over 50 Targets and 17 Indicators of success are developed and this allows many organisations, groups, etc., to contribute. The UKGAP has an important role in providing a centralised method to record geodiversity action within the United Kingdom and the benefits that brings. Organisations, groups and individuals are encouraged to share their actions (the activities they are doing or are going to do) that contribute to these objectives and targets. These actions are captured and published on the UKGAP website. By using this interactive website (www.ukgap.org.uk, accessed 10.08.17), which can be interrogated by UKGAP theme or objective, the activities taking place across the United Kingdom can be viewed. The website also gives background information on geodiversity and the history and context of the UKGAP. An example of the structure of Theme 1 and objectives is given in Table 3.3. Table 3.3 Theme 1 and Objectives of UK Geodiversity Action Plan (UKGAP) Theme 1 Conserving and managing our geodiversity Objective

Target

Objective 1. To foster UK-based pure and applied geoscience research in order to better understand our geodiversity and its role in understanding and managing our natural environment

Continue to undertake research that enhances our understanding of UK geodiversity Continue to undertake research that interprets UK geodiversity to support and better understand the Ecosystem Service Approach Continue to undertake research to better understand landform and surface processes to contribute to our understanding of landscape-scale management and change Use geodiversity evidence to help us better understand past climate and environmental changes and to forecast future change

Indicator 1. Recognition within research The number of refereed research papers relating to UK geodiversity over time there has been a significant increase in the number of geoconservation papers published. This is reflected in other countries

64

CHAPTER 3 GEODIVERSITY ACTION PLANS

3.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS The passing of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949) included geology and geomorphology within the government conservation agency brief with a requirement ‘to preserve the best examples of the important geological and geomorphological phenomena, so that they can continue to be used by earth scientists for research, education and reference’ (HMSO, 1949). Geoconservation has a lower profile than wildlife or even archaeological conservation and this is one of the challenges faced when safeguarding and managing sites and heritage is considered. The GAP has proved to be a valuable approach to addressing this concern, raising the profile of geodiversity and geoconservation, and connecting across a wide range of interests. The production of a GAP has many benefits. It allows for information on geodiversity assets to be catalogued in a simple easy to access document. Individuals, groups and organisations have a clear document to follow to show how they can contribute and a recording mechanism for that process. For instance, the quantitative information gathered can be used to mobilise funding and action both locally and nationally. An important lesson that has been learned is that it is necessary to review and document actions otherwise information is lost and not current. Over the last few years the recognition of the importance of working in collaboration to protect and enhance geodiversity has led to the production of Geodiversity Charters which directly support the delivery of the UKGAP. To date both Scotland (Scotlands Geodiversity Charter, 2012) and England (Geodiversity Charter for England, 2014) have produced a Geodiversity Charter, the aims of both are to encourage people to work together and promote geodiversity. For countries where no direct legislation exists for this then a charter is an important document and in the case of the UK works alongside and contributes to the UKGAP. The GAP process to some extent emerged in response to BAPs in the United Kingdom. GAPs have been widely adopted by the geoconservation community, in particular, the voluntary sector which is strong in the United Kingdom (Burek, 2008; Whiteley and Browne, 2013) and contributes significantly to the LGAP process in many ways. This may be a British phenomenon but the principles and approach are easily transferred and could be duplicated in other countries.

REFERENCES Aggregate Industries, 2007. Quarry Geodiversity Action Plan, Bardon Hill. Aggregate Industries, 2010. Quarry Geodiversity Action Plan, Croft Quarry. Baker, L., 2016. Opening access to pit’s geological past. Earth Heritage 47, 36 37. Baker, L., Clements, D., Marks, V., Rainey, P., 2016. Green Chain Walk Geotrail. London Geodiversity Partnership, London. Barron, H.F., Brayson, J., Aldiss, D.T., Woods, M.A., Harrison, A.M., 2009. London’s Foundations Protecting the Geodiversity of the Capital. Greater London Authority, London. Burek, C.V., Potter, J.A., 2002. Minding the LGAPs. A different approach to the conservation of Local Geological Sites in England? Geoscientist 12 (9), 16 17. Burek, C.V., Potter, J.A., 2004a. Local Geodiversity Action Plans. Setting the Context for Geological Conservation. English Nature Research Reports 560, Peterborough.

REFERENCES

65

Burek, C.V., Potter, J.A., 2004b. Local Geodiversity Action Plans Sharing Good Practice Workshop, Peterborough 3 December 2003. English Nature Research Report 601, Peterborough. Burek, C.V., 2006. Do we now need a national GAP? Earth Heritage 25, 10. Burek, C.V., Potter, J., 2006. Local Geodiversity Action Plans Setting the Context for Geological Conservation. English Nature Research Report 560, Peterborough. Burek, C.V., 2008. The role of the voluntary sector in the evolving geoconservation movement. In: Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), The History of Geoconservation. Special Publications 300. The Geological Society of London, pp. 61 89. Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), 2008. The History of Geoconservation. Special Publications 300. The Geological Society of London. Cheshire East, 2017a. Nature Conservation. Available from: ,http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/environment/ heritage_natural_environment/nature_conservation/. (accessed 10.08.17). Cheshire East, 2017b. Cheshire East Local Plan. Available from: ,http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/planning/ spatial_planning/cheshire_east_local_plan/cheshire_east_local_plan.aspx. (accessed 10.08.17). Clements, D., 2016. Throwing new light on London’s rare Chalk exposure. Earth Heritage 47, 33 34. English Nature, 2004. Local Geodiversity Action Plans Sharing Good Practice. English Nature, Peterborough. Geodiversity Charter for England, 2014. English Geodiversity Forum. Available from: ,http://www.englishgeodiversityforum.org/Downloads/Geodiversity%20Charter%20for%20England.pdf. (accessed 10.08.17). Gray, M., 2013. Geodiversity Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. second ed. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester. Green, M.J., 2014. Building London A Summary of Building Stone Resources in London. London Geodiversity Partnership, London. Hanson UK, 2012. Biodiversity and Geodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Available from: ,http://www. hanson.co.uk/sites/default/files/assets/document/01/29/hanson-biodiversity-and-geodiversity-strategyand-action-plan.pdf. (accessed 10.08.17). HMSO, 1949. National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. Available from: ,http://www.legislation. gov.uk/ukpga/1949/97/pdfs/ukpga_19490097_en.pdf. (accessed 10.08.17). Hose, T., 2016. Geological inquiry in Britain. In: Hose, T. (Ed.), Geoheritage and Geotourism: A European Perspective. Boydel Press, Suffolk, pp. 31 55. Heritage Matters Series 19. Larwood, J.G., 2005. Local Geodiversity Action Plans. Teaching Earth Sci. 30 (4), 18 20. Larwood, J.G., 2016. Geoconservation: an introduction to European principles and practices. In: Hose, T. (Ed.), Geoheritage and Geotourism: A European Perspective. Heritage Matters Series 19, Boydel Press, Suffolk, pp. 129 152. Potter, J., Burek, C.V., 2006. The first Local Geodiversity Action Plan (LGAP): evaluating the Cheshire region LGAP. Teaching Earth Sci. 31 (1), 19 21. Scotland’s Geodiversity Charter, 2012. Scottish Geodiversity Forum. Available from: ,https://scottishgeodiversityforum.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/scotlandsgeodiversitycharter2013.pdf. (accessed 10.08.17). Thompson, A., Poole, J., Carroll, L., Foweraker, M., Harris, K., Cox, P., 2006. Geodiversity Action Plans for Aggregate Companies: a guide to good practice. Report to the Mineral Industry Research Organisation, Capita Symonds Ltd, East Grinstead. UK Geodiversity Action Plan, 2011. A framework for enhancing the importance and role of geodiversity. Available from: ,http://www.ukgap.org.uk/media/8544/ukgap.pdf. (accessed 10.08.17). Whiteley, M.J., Browne, M.A.E., 2013. Local geoconservation groups past achievements and future challenges. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 674 680.

CHAPTER

GEOHERITAGE: INVENTORIES AND EVALUATION

4 Jose´ Brilha

University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

The conservation of geological sites using a systematic and scientific background seems to have started in the United Kingdom in 1977, after the establishment of the Geological Conservation Review by the Nature Conservancy (Allen et al., 1987; Wimbledon, 1988). However, isolated efforts to protect geological localities were already happening in different countries from the 17th century (for a compilation of examples, see Gray, 2013; Larwood, 2016). A detailed description of more recent protection initiatives in most of the European countries was presented by Wimbledon and Smith-Meyer (2012). A similar analysis for Latin America countries was recently done by Palacio Prieto et al. (2016). The protection of geological occurrences has always faced a big challenge: with so many rocks occurring all over the Earth’s surface, which ones should be managed in order to be conserved for the benefit of present and future generations? How should outcrops be selected? Which criteria should be used in order to ensure that the chosen localities are really the ones that must be protected? This chapter aims to give clear answers to these questions. It presents a general perspective about geoheritage, mainly focusing on concepts, terminology, and methods for its inventorying and assessment. It should be stated from the beginning that geoheritage, or geological heritage in its extended form, is materialised by exceptional elements of geodiversity, namely minerals, fossils, rocks, landforms and their landscapes, soils, and active geological and geomorphological processes. Thus, in this chapter, the word ‘geology’ and its derivatives include all Earth sciences domains (mineralogy, petrology, geomorphology, palaeontology, etc.). This chapter is organised into three sections, each one addressing a particular issue that is especially relevant to an increasing number of newcomers that are becoming interested in geoheritage: 1. What makes an element of geodiversity exceptional? 2. How should the high value of geodiversity elements be identified and characterised? 3. How and why should geoheritage be assessed?

4.1 WHAT MAKES AN ELEMENT OF GEODIVERSITY EXCEPTIONAL? When something is considered exceptional, typically what is really being appreciated is its high value. Geodiversity elements may have different types of values, starting from those more concrete like the economic, functional, scientific and educational, to the more intangible ones, such as the Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00004-6 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

69

70

CHAPTER 4 GEOHERITAGE: INVENTORIES AND EVALUATION

intrinsic or existence, cultural, and the aesthetic values (Gray, 2013). With the exclusion of the intrinsic or existence value, all other types of value are strongly associated with an anthropogenic vision of nature, particularly in what concerns the use we make of nature. This is what Gray (2013) and Gray et al. (2013) refer to as ‘geosystem services’, i.e., the benefits that society gains from geodiversity elements, including regulating, supporting, provisioning, cultural and knowledge services. Hence, for a geodiversity element to be considered exceptional, a high value must be assigned to it (Table 4.1). When a geodiversity element is considered important for several types of values, it means that its overall exceptionality is higher. For instance, all types of values can be assigned to the typical landforms of the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park in Central Australia, apart from just the cultural one referred to in Table 4.1. It is generally assumed by society that the main benefit obtained from geodiversity elements is limited to quarrying and mining of geological resources. This is the traditional understanding of what is the goal of geology, always associated with the exploitation of gold, coal, oil, etc. It is

Table 4.1 Examples of Locations Where Geodiversity Elements Have an Exceptional Value. Ex Situ Exemplars of Minerals, Fossils, and Rocks May Also Have All Types of Values, Except the Functional One Value

Site/Location

Justification

Economic

Escondida Mine (Chile)

Chile is the top copper-producing country in the world. In 2015 this mine alone produced 1148 million metric tons comprising mostly copper concentrate, which generates important revenues for this country

Functional

Go¨reme National Park (Turkey)

The volcanic rocks of Cappadocia sculpted by erosion were used as dwellings, troglodyte villages and underground towns, which constitute the remains of a traditional human habitat dating back to the 4th century

Scientific

Basque Coast UNESCO Global Geopark (Spain)

The definition of two Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points (GSSPs, lower boundaries of the Selandian Stage and of the Thanetian Stage, both belonging to the Paleocene Series) turns the coastal cliffs of Zumaia into a place with global importance for geosciences

Educational

Terras de Cavaleiros UNESCO Global Geopark (Portugal)

The occurrence of a complete ophiolite sequence resulting from the obduction of Palaeothetys oceanic lithosphere over the Allochthonous Basal Complex attracts students from universities of different countries

Intrinsic

Volcanoes of Kamchatka (Russia)

Independently of human appreciation, this is one of the areas of higher density and diversity of active volcanoes on Earth

Cultural

Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park (Australia)

The inselbergs of this park form an integral part of the traditional belief system of one of the oldest human societies in the world and it is considered a sacred place for the Anangu Aboriginal people

Aesthetic

Iguac¸u National Park (Argentina/Brazil)

One of the world’s largest and most impressive waterfalls extending over some 2700 m, attracting about 1.5 million visitors each year to enjoy the natural beauty of the site

4.1 WHAT MAKES AN ELEMENT OF GEODIVERSITY EXCEPTIONAL?

71

unquestionable that our complete dependence on geological resources to maintain the growing consumption of all sorts of products justifies the economic value of rocks and minerals. However, many geoscientists around the world are trying to demonstrate that there is another way for geodiversity elements to be exploited by society, without the need to open a quarry, a mine or a borehole. In fact, based on their values, geodiversity elements may be used in a nonextractable sustainable way by different users/beneficiaries (Table 4.2). What kind of activities can be supported? Firstly, a scientific use carried out by geoscientists to produce meaningful scientific knowledge of how the geosphere works and interacts with other Earth systems (biosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere). This knowledge ensures the continuous advancement of geosciences with clear benefits for a growing human population that wishes to live safely and healthily. It is considered that a site has scientific value when the research done directly at that location or using samples collected from it has produced significant scientific understanding to allow the advancement of geosciences nationally and internationally (Brilha, 2016). In addition, sites that were relevant for the history of geosciences at the national and international levels may also be considered to have scientific value. Secondly, an educational use can be applied by geoscience teachers in order to give students a solid knowledge about how planet Earth changes through time. This type of use is also related to the training of new generations of geoscientists. Finally, certain geodiversity elements may justify a distinct form of economic use based on geotourism and leisure, which is a type of sustainable tourism aimed at the environmental and cultural interpretation of a region, with clear benefits and profits for local communities.

Table 4.2 Examples of Uses of Geodiversity Elements, Besides the Traditional Exploitation of Geological Resources. Each Type of Use Carried Out by Direct Users/Beneficiaries Is Based on Geodiversity Values Uses of Geodiversity Elements

Users/Beneficiaries

Values

Scientific

• Geoscientists • Social scientists (archaeologists, ethnographers. . .)

Scientific Cultural

Educational (formal and informal)

• Students and teachers of different domains are direct users of formal educational activities. • Informal educational actions are addressed to the general public. In both cases, tourism companies, guides, restaurant and hotel industries, handicraft companies, local cooperatives, rental bus and rent-a-car companies may obtain economic benefits.

Educational (geosciences, social and cultural sciences, etc.)

• Nature tourism companies, guides, restaurant and hotel industries, handicraft companies, local cooperatives, rental bus and rent-a-car companies, etc.

Economic Aesthetic Cultural

Geotourism and recreation

Cultural Economic (indirectly)

The scientific and educational use is not restricted to geosciences as it may be also applied to other disciplines.

72

CHAPTER 4 GEOHERITAGE: INVENTORIES AND EVALUATION

The in situ occurrence of geodiversity elements with high scientific, educational, aesthetic, and cultural value is usually known as ‘geosite’ or ‘geomorphosite’ if the valued element has a geomorphological nature (Reynard, 2005). Used as a synonym, the term ‘geotope’ (Grandgirard, 1999a) is more common in German-speaking countries. However, ‘geotope’ in Nordic countries has a different meaning being applied to sites that have not been designed with a value, parallel to the neutral biological term ‘biotope’ (Erikstad et al., 2017). In the literature, other terms with similar meanings to geosite can be found, such as geological (or geo) monument, site (or point) of geological interest, or geological site. Considering that: 1. most of these values are subjective and consequently difficult to evaluate with precision; 2. in most countries, there are very few sites properly protected and managed but instead there are inventories being done with hundreds or thousands of sites with different levels of relevance, making them very difficult to be effectively conserved and managed; 3. National and international scientific sites are crucial for geosciences but still lack international agreements or conventions. Brilha (2016) has proposed to restrict the use of the term ‘geosite’ only to the occurrences with scientific value, in order not to trivialize the use of this term (Figs. 4.1 and 4.2). In fact, as there are site inventories being made at different scales international (between countries), national (inside one country), regional (in particular areas of a country like a state, a county or a

FIGURE 4.1 Conceptual relations between nature’s diversity, biodiversity, geodiversity, geoheritage, and geoconservation. Valued geodiversity elements should be managed by the implementation of geoconservation strategies. Modified from Brilha (2016).

4.1 WHAT MAKES AN ELEMENT OF GEODIVERSITY EXCEPTIONAL?

73

FIGURE 4.2 Examples of a ‘geosite’, a ‘geodiversity site’ and ‘ex situ geodiversity elements’ (see. Fig. 4.1). Photographs by J. Brilha. (A) The K¯ılauea’s summit caldera and Halemaumau crater (Hawaii island, USA) is a geosite with international scientific value. In addition, it has also high educational, cultural, and aesthetic values, justified by the almost 2 million visitors in 2015. (B) Outcrop of Neoproterozoic stromatolites near the town of Morro do Chap´eu (Bahia, Brazil), a geosite with no other relevant value, besides the scientific one. (C) Geodiversity site in Southern Jordan visited by tourists due to the aesthetic value of this landform, just one among hundreds of others not very different, occurring in the same area. (D) Ex situ geodiversity elements with cultural and educational values in the Merrion Square gardens (Dublin, Ireland), where a curious selection of rocks was used to erect a sculpture representing Oscar Wilde. The jacket is carved from nephrite jade, the pink collar and cuffs are of thulite, the trousers are of larvikite and the shoes and socks are of Black Indian Granite (Stillman, 1999).

municipality), and local (in a protected area or in a geopark) the number of sites may easily reach several thousands for just one country. This exaggerated number of sites may give the authorities the impression that a geosite is not rare or special and therefore there is no need to implement special management actions. However, some geoscientists disagree with this perspective and claim that the use of the term ‘geosite’ even applied to a site of local relevance is the only way to attract people’s attention. Brilha (2016) has also proposed to restrict the term ‘geological heritage’ or ‘geoheritage’ to in situ and ex situ elements with scientific value (Fig. 4.1). For sites with no scientific value, this author has proposed the term ‘geodiversity site’ (Fig. 4.2). ‘Geodiversity site’ means a location where one or more geodiversity elements have a particular value(s) (except the scientific one) but not

74

CHAPTER 4 GEOHERITAGE: INVENTORIES AND EVALUATION

necessarily a location characterised by a variety of elements, as the term might suggest in the first place. However, it must be underlined that Brilha’s proposals for a more restrictive use of terms is under discussion in the geoconservationist community and is not presently widely accepted. To conclude the discussion related to the first question, independently of the terminology, the main scope of geoconservation is the management of sites and ex situ valued geodiversity elements by means of specific inventory, evaluation, conservation, valuing, and monitoring procedures (Brilha, 2015; Henriques et al., 2011). This is what all geoconservationists work for and aspire to have implemented in all nature conservation and land-use planning policies.

4.2 HOW SHOULD THE HIGH VALUE OF GEODIVERSITY ELEMENTS BE IDENTIFIED AND CHARACTERISED? Now that we have understood that among the whole geodiversity of the Earth’s surface, there are a limited number of elements with one or more high value(s), we must define how these special geodiversity elements may be identified and selected for protection, as many of them are rare and at risk of deterioration or destruction. The key answer to this challenge is to implement a well-structured systematic inventory to cover all the area under study, supported by clear criteria well-adapted to each type of value, in order to allow an unbiased selection of sites with the lowest degree of subjectivity possible. Therefore, we present a kind of ‘road map’ to help the development of site inventories (Table 4.3). Table 4.3 Sequential Tasks to Produce a Systematic Site Inventory Taking Into Account the Scientific, Educational, and Geotourism/Recreational Uses Scientific Use

Educational Use

Geotourism/Recreational Use

Define the topic, the value, the scale, and the aim of the inventory Geological literature review Consulting with experts that have worked in the area before Eventual definition of geological frameworks

Review of sites used in educational activities

Review of touristic advertisement materials

List of potential sites Fieldwork aiming at the identification of new sites and the qualitative assessment of each site in the list of potential sites, based on the following selection criteria: • • • •

Representativeness Integrity Rarity Scientific knowledge

• • • •

Didactic potential Variety of geological elements Accessibility Safety

• • • •

Scenery Interpretative potential Accessibility Safety

Final list of sites with complete characterisationa a

If the inventory of sites for scientific use is made using the geological frameworks method (Wimbledon et al., 1999), these final lists of sites should be prepared for each framework. Modified from Brilha (2016).

4.2 HOW SHOULD THE HIGH VALUE OF GEODIVERSITY ELEMENTS

75

There are many published works about inventorying methods (e.g., Alexandrowicz and Kozlowski, 1999; D´ıaz-Mart´ınez and D´ıez-Herrero, 2011; Fuertes-Guti´errez and Fern´andez-Mart´ınez, 2010; Garc´ıa-Cort´es and Carcavilla Urqu´ı, 2009; Grandgirard, 1999b; JNCC, 1977; Lapo et al., 1993; Parkes and Morris, 1999; Pereira and Pereira, 2010; Pereira et al., 2007; Reynard and Coratza, 2013; Reynard et al., 2007, 2016; Sellier, 2016; White and Mitchell, 2006; Wimbledon, 2011; Wimbledon et al., 1995, 1999). In general, all methods are based on a set of criteria that intend to reduce the subjectivity, always associated with the selection procedure of natural objects. For instance, between two outcrops with similar rocks and fossils, which one should be included in the inventory, as it is pointless to add to the inventory multiple sites with repetition of the main geological element? The method presented here is basically the one published by Brilha (2016), which was produced taking into account the best practices of other methods and the author’s experience (Table 4.3). It should be underlined that the procedure exposed here is adapted to identify and characterise the high value of in situ geodiversity elements. There are four main pillars that support a good inventory (Lima et al., 2010): the topic, the value, the scale and the aim. The topic is the subject or theme to be inventoried, for instance the whole geological heritage, just a partial component of it, like the palaeontological or the geomorphological heritage, a specific geological framework, etc. Each inventory should be built taking into consideration which main value must be assigned to the geodiversity elements that are going to be selected. As mentioned above (Table 4.2), the value is closely related to the potential use of sites, essentially the scientific, educational, and/or geotouristic/recreational use. The scale concerns the size of the area where the inventorying will take place (a protected area, a geopark, a municipality, a state, a country, a continent, etc.). Finally, the aim of the inventory is related to its final purpose, which may consist of a national geoconservation strategy, a geotouristic project, an educational programme, etc. It should be emphasised that while the inventories of sites for scientific use are usually done in large areas (a country or state, in case of federal countries), the inventories regarding sites with other types of uses are typically made in small areas (a protected area, geopark, a municipality, etc.). The next step of a systematic site inventory is the preparation of a list of potential sites (Table 4.3). This list is based on published data and on the opinion of experts that have worked in the area of the inventory. The review of scientific papers, Master’s and PhD theses, and guidebooks of scientific fieldtrips is highly recommended in order to build a list of potential sites. If the aim is to select sites for scientific use, this review should be focused on specific locations that are described in the literature for their geological relevance (particularly good exposures, sites where samples were collected that allowed the numerical dating of rocks, outcrops with remarkable fossil content, etc.). In addition, it might be useful to adopt the method based on the definition of geological frameworks. This method was developed in Europe during the 1980s, mainly through the action of ProGEO The European Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage (Erikstad, 2008; Wimbledon, 2011; Wimbledon et al., 1999, and references therein). Geological frameworks are main themes related to geoscience materials and/or processes that allow a better understanding of the geological history of the area where the site inventory is being performed (e.g., ‘Geology and metallogenesis of the Iberian Pyrite Belt’ or ‘Neogene ultrapotassic volcanism’). Geological frameworks should represent the main chapters of the Earth’s history that left evidence in the area under study. These frameworks may not have geographical continuity within the area and they can

76

CHAPTER 4 GEOHERITAGE: INVENTORIES AND EVALUATION

also exist in contiguous territories, i.e., they may not be exclusive to the area under analysis. The larger the area of the inventory, the more appropriate is the use of this method for the inventory of sites with scientific value. Hence, this method has been used for national inventories in many European countries (Wimbledon and Smith-Meyer, 2012) and was applied for the first time in Latin America in the inventory of the Sa˜o Paulo State in Brazil (Garcia et al., 2017). Representative geosites of each geological framework should be included in the respective list of potential geosites (a list for each framework should be prepared separately). To produce a list of sites with potential educational use it is recommended to get the opinion of teachers that organise field classes with students in the area of the inventory, together with the reading of literature related to geoscience education with a focus on the same geographical area. For the list of sites with potential geotourism/recreational use it is advisable to review touristic advertisement materials of the area. Quite often, these touristic leaflets, webpages, brochures, and guides use certain nature landmarks that are in fact geodiversity elements with high aesthetic value, even if tourism managers are not fully aware of this. When the list of potential sites is concluded, it is necessary to convert it into the definitive list of sites. In order to establish the final list, it is necessary to carry out fieldwork with two main goals: to confirm each potential site of the list and to eventually identify new sites. In order for a site to be listed as definitive, it is necessary that its value is well justified taking into account four qualitative criteria per type of use (Table 4.3). Hence, for sites with potential scientific use, the following four criteria should be applied: 1. Representativeness: concerning the appropriateness of the site to illustrate a geological process or feature that brings a meaningful contribution to the understanding of the geological topic, process, feature or geological framework. 2. Integrity: related to the present conservation status of the site, taking into account both natural processes and human actions. 3. Rarity: number of sites in the study area presenting similar geological features. 4. Scientific knowledge: based on the existence of scientific data already published about the site. Therefore, sites suitable for scientific use should be the best ones in the area concerning their capacity to illustrate geological processes or features, which are important to allow the advancement of geosciences. They should also be in the best possible conservation status and have some characteristics that differentiate them from other sites with similar geological features. The scientific relevance of a site is also attested if there are national and international publications directly related to its geological value. The selection of sites suitable for educational use should be supported using the following four criteria: 1. Didactic potential: related to the capacity of a geological feature to be easily understood by students of different educational levels (primary and secondary schools, universities). 2. Variety of geological elements: number of different types of geodiversity elements present in the same site. 3. Accessibility: conditions of access to the site in terms of difficulty and time spent on foot for ordinary students. 4. Safety: related to the visiting conditions, taking into consideration minimum risk for students.

4.3 WHY AND HOW SHOULD GEOHERITAGE BE ASSESSED?

77

These four criteria contribute to the sound selection of safe sites with good accessibility and with geological features that will be easily understood by students and, in preference, with several types of geodiversity elements occurring together in the same site. Finally, the selection of sites suitable for geotouristic/recreational use should be based on the next four criteria: 1. Scenery: associated with the visual beauty of the geological occurrence (landscape or outcrop). 2. Interpretative potential: related to the capacity of a geological feature to be easily understood by lay people. 3. Accessibility: conditions of access to the site in terms of difficulty and time of the walk for the general public. 4. Safety: related to the visiting conditions, taking into consideration minimum risk for visitors. These criteria allow the selection of safe sites with good accessibility, high aesthetic value and geological features that can be easily interpreted by lay people with no geological background. All necessary information in order to have a full characterisation of each site should be collected during the fieldwork stage, including photographic coverage from different perspectives and at different scales, and the geographical delimitation using a high-precision GPS receiver (particularly necessary for sites with metric scale).

4.3 WHY AND HOW SHOULD GEOHERITAGE BE ASSESSED? For inventories in large areas and with dozens of sites, the numerical assessment of sites is an important step to support subsequent stages of a geoconservation strategy. It should be noted that this assessment is not needed for inventories in small areas with a low number of sites. The results of the numerical assessment are an important tool to support a proper site management that is a crucial step of any geoconservation action plan (Prosser et al., 2018) or geotourism development (Newsome and Dowling, 2018). The numerical evaluation of the sites’ capacity to support scientific, educational, and geotourism/recreational uses, together with the sites’ degradation risk, is vital to allow managers to define priorities. Obviously, sites with high potentiality for a certain type of use and with a high degradation risk should have a higher priority in the management planning. The aim of a quantitative assessment is to decrease the subjectivity associated with any evaluation procedure, particularly when among dozens or hundreds of sites, managers need to decide in which sites their (usually limited) resources should be applied. In spite of many published methods about the numerical assessment of sites, so far there is no general accepted method. Usually, quantitative methods are based on several criteria and respective indicators to which different scores or parameters may be assigned (e.g., Bollati et al., 2013; Bruschi and Cendrero, 2005, 2009; Bruschi et al., 2011; Cendrero, 1996a,b; Coratza and Giusti, 2005; Erhartic, 2010; Fassoulas et al., 2012; Pereira and Pereira, 2010, 2012; Pereira et al., 2007; Pralong and Reynard, 2005; Reynard, 2009; Reynard et al., 2007; Vujičić et al., 2011; Zouros, 2007). The method presented next is essentially the one proposed by Brilha (2016), which should

78

CHAPTER 4 GEOHERITAGE: INVENTORIES AND EVALUATION

Table 4.4 The Final Lists of Sorted Sites Are Based on Criteria Applied for the Quantitative Assessment of Sites’ Capacities to Support Scientific, Educational, and Geotourism/ Recreational Uses, as Well as of the Sites’ Degradation Risks Scientific Use

Educational Use

Geotourism/Recreational Use

Quantitative assessment of the sites’ capacities to support scientific use based on the following criteria: • Representativeness • Key locality • Scientific knowledge • Integrity • Variety of geological elements • Rarity • Use limitations

Quantitative assessment of the sites’ capacities to support educational use based on the following criteria: • Vulnerability • Accessibility • Use limitations • Safety • Logistics • Density of population • Association with other values • Scenery • Uniqueness • Observation conditions • Didactic potential • Variety of geological elements

Quantitative assessment of the sites’ capacities to support geotourism/ recreational use based on the following criteria: • Vulnerability • Accessibility • Use limitations • Safety • Logistics • Density of population • Association with other values • Scenery • Uniqueness • Observation conditions • Outreach potential • Economic level • Proximity of recreational areas

Quantitative assessment of the sites’ degradation risks based on the following criteria: • Deterioration of geological elements • Proximity to areas/activities with potential to cause degradation • Legal protection • Accessibility • Density of population Final list of sites sorted by the capacity to support scientific use and degradation riska

Final list of sites sorted by the capacity to support educational use and degradation risk

Final list of sites sorted by the capacity to support geotourism/ recreational use and degradation risk

a If the inventory was made using the geological frameworks method, final lists should be prepared for each framework. Modified from Brilha (2016).

be considered as an example that has resulted from a survey and compilation of the best practices and of the author’s own experience. Similar to the sites selection procedure (Table 4.3), the numerical assessment is also based on some criteria (Table 4.4). Each criterion is characterised by several indicators and each indicator is scored with a numerical parameter. The final score of the potential use and degradation risk for each site is a weighted sum of the several criteria. More details about the evaluation process are available in Brilha (2016). It is important to remark that it is mandatory to make a final reflection about the results of the sites’ quantitative assessments. As there are no infallible criteria and totally objective indicators, the coordinator of the site inventory must undertake a discussion about the coherence of the final scores. The key question is: knowing all the sites of the inventory, do the final scores make total sense?

4.3 WHY AND HOW SHOULD GEOHERITAGE BE ASSESSED?

79

Table 4.5 Criteria Used for the Quantitative Assessment of the Geosites’ Capacity to Support Scientific Use and Respective Weight for the Calculation of the Final Score Representativeness capacity of a geosite to illustrate geological elements or processes (related to the geological framework under consideration when applicable)

30%

Key locality importance of a geosite as a reference or model for stratigraphy, palaeontology, mineralogy, etc.

20%

Scientific knowledge the existence of published scientific studies about the geosite (related to the geological framework under consideration when applicable) reflects the scientific value given by the geoscientific community

5%

Integrity related to the conservation status of the main geological elements (related to the geological framework under consideration when applicable); the better the integrity, the higher the scientific value

15%

Variety of geological elements a high number of different geological elements with scientific interest (related to the geological framework under consideration when applicable) in a geosite implies a higher value

5%

Rarity a small number of similar geosites in the study area (representing the geological framework under consideration when applicable) increases the scientific value

15%

Use limitations the existence of obstacles that may be problematic for the regular scientific use of the geosite has impacts on its scientific value

10%

See Brilha (2016) for details about indicators and parameters.

The criteria for the quantitative assessment of the geosites’ capacities to support scientific use are presented in Table 4.5. A geosite has a maximum potential to be used for scientific purposes when it is the best representative occurrence of a certain geological feature or geological framework (if applicable), a rare well-known international reference with publications about it, and when it presents several well-conserved geological features with scientific relevance that are easily available for future research. The assessment of the geosites’ capacities to support educational and geotourism/recreational uses (Table 4.6) is based on the same procedure applied to evaluating the scientific use (Table 4.5). Twelve criteria are proposed to assess the sites’ potentials to support educational activities and 13 for geotourism/recreational activities (Table 4.6). The first 10 criteria are the same for both types of uses, the only difference being the weight of some of the criteria used to calculate the final score. For instance, the criterion ‘scenery’ has a weight of 5% in the final score of the educational use and 15% in the score regarding the geotourism/recreational use. This difference is justified by the higher relevance of the aesthetic value for tourism activities than for educational ones. The calculation of a geosite’s degradation risk is of paramount importance for the preparation and implementation of a site management plan. The degradation risk is a combination of two components known as fragility (risk provoked by natural causes) and vulnerability (risk provoked by anthropic causes), according to the definitions of Fuertes-Guti´errez and Fern´andez-Mart´ınez (2010, 2012). The procedure for the numerical assessment of the degradation risk (Table 4.7) is similar to the above-mentioned procedure, and was proposed by Brilha (2016), based on the best practices published in recent years, including Carcavilla et al. (2007), Cendrero (1996a,b),

80

CHAPTER 4 GEOHERITAGE: INVENTORIES AND EVALUATION

Table 4.6 Criteria Used for the Quantitative Assessment of Geosites’ Capacities to Support Educational and Geotourism/Recreational Uses and Respective Weight for the Determination of the Final Score A

B

10%

10%

Accessibility the easier and shorter the walk between the means of transportation and the site is, the higher the site’s potential use

10%

10%

Use limitations existence of obstacles that may be problematic for the development of educative or touristic activities

5%

5%

Safety when the field activity can be carried out under low risk conditions for students and visitors, the site’s potential use increases

10%

10%

Logistics existence of facilities to receive students and visitors, such as accommodation, food and toilets

5%

5%

Density of population existence of a population near the site potentially provides students and visitors who will use the site

5%

5%

Association with other values the existence of other natural or cultural elements associated with the site may justify interdisciplinary fieldtrips and attract visitors

5%

5%

Scenery represents the beauty of the geological elements that could stimulate students’ and visitors’ interest for the site

5%

15%

Uniqueness concerns the distinctiveness and the rarity of the geodiversity element that could promote students’ interest for the site and attract visitors

5%

10%

Observation conditions the better the conditions for observation of all the geodiversity elements on the site, the higher its potential use

10%

5%

Vulnerability

existence of geological elements that can be destroyed by students or visitors

Didactic potential potential use

the use of the site by students of different education levels increases its

Variety of geological elements a high number of different geological elements with didactic potential increases its potential use

20% 10%

Outreach potential related to the capacity of a geodiversity feature to be easily understood by people with no geological background

10%

Economic level the high level of income of people living near the site suggests a higher probability of it being visited

5%

Proximity of recreational areas a touristic visit to a site may benefit from the existence of well-known tourist attractions in the surrounding area

5%

A, educational use; B, geotourism/recreational use. See Brilha (2016) for details about indicators and parameters.

Fassoulas et al. (2012), Garc´ıa-Cort´es and Carcavilla Urqu´ı (2009), Lima et al. (2010), Pereira and Pereira (2010) and Reynard et al. (2007). A site has a maximum degradation risk when its main geological elements have a high probability of being damaged either by natural or anthropic factors, when the site is not under legal

4.4 FINAL REMARKS

81

Table 4.7 Criteria Used for the Quantitative Assessment of Sites’ Degradation Risk and Respective Weight for the Calculation of the Final Score Deterioration of geological elements reflects the possibility of loss of geological elements in the site as a consequence of: (1) its fragility, namely its intrinsic characteristics (size of the geological element, ease of obtaining samples, resistance of the rock, etc.) and natural actions (sensitivity to erosion, intensity of erosional agents, etc.) and (2) its vulnerability to anthropic actions (tourism, agriculture, urban development, vandalism, etc.) Proximity to areas/activities with potential to cause degradation recreational areas, roads, urban areas, etc.

mining, industrial facilities,

35%

20%

Legal protection related to the location of the site in an area with any type of legal protection (direct or indirect). Access control refers to the existence of obstacles, such as: restrictions by the owner, fences, need to pay entrance fees, mining activities

20%

Accessibility reflects the conditions of access to the site for the general public (not considering disabled people). A site with easy access is more likely to be damaged by visitors’ misuse than one with difficult access

15%

Density of population reveals the number of persons that live near the site and that can cause potential deterioration due to inappropriate use (vandalism, theft, etc.)

10%

See Brilha (2016) for details about indicators and parameters.

protection, and when it is located near a potentially harmful activity or area with a high density of population. When the inventory and final assessment of all sites is concluded, the scientific team that has coordinated all these tasks can deliver the results to the authorities that have the legal competence to implement geoconservation strategies in the area. With this information and data, managers and administrators can define priorities and take the wisest decisions. The assessment of ex situ geodiversity elements with heritage value is not considered in this chapter. Due to specific characteristics of ex situ geoheritage De Wever and Guiraud, 2018, other approaches can be implemented, such as those presented by Henriques and Pena dos Reis (2015).

4.4 FINAL REMARKS Among the abiotic diversity of the Earth’s crust, to choose which rocks should be protected from natural and anthropic threats is always a delicate mission for geoscientists. Associated with this difficult task is another that requires an extra effort from geoscientists: to explain to society why scarce public resources should be invested in the protection of rocks. This chapter tries to help geoscientists to fulfil the first task. As only the very special geodiversity elements should be protected and managed, particular attention should be paid in order to apply the most objective and accurate methods to select these occurrences. A site inventory should not be the result of an individual choice, very often controlled by personal emotions, but rather the outcome of a systematic method using proper criteria and with the participation of the geoscientific community.

82

CHAPTER 4 GEOHERITAGE: INVENTORIES AND EVALUATION

It is true that site inventories can be made at different scales, from the continental scale to a small protected area of just a few hectares. However, independently of scale, the coordinator of a site inventory should always have in mind the four pillars that sustain a solid inventory: the topic, the value, the scale, and the aim. A preliminary reflection on these four pillars is essential in deciding which are the appropriate criteria that guarantee the correct selection of sites. No inventory should leave behind important sites nor include irrelevant ones. The quantitative assessment of the sites’ capacities to support certain types of use and of the sites’ degradation risks, particularly necessary for small-scale inventories (large areas) with dozens or hundreds of sites, is a very good tool to help manage decisions. To have a clear idea, for each site, of what is the most appropriate use for it and what is the risk of degradation, is an excellent contribution geoscientists can deliver to nature conservation managers. When educational and geotouristic/recreational uses are planned, carrying capacity data should also be provided to site managers, which is another type of information not covered in this chapter. The numerical assessment method presented here is of course a proposal, and some of the criteria/indicators/parameters can be adapted to particular local circumstances. Furthermore, it is always necessary that the inventory coordinator makes a detailed reflection about the results of the quantitative assessment. The method is not fully infallible and for this reason people should not be deceived by a numerical final score, i.e., just apparently, objective and unquestionable. This chapter covers the first steps of a geoconservation strategy: the inventory and assessment of sites. Considerations about site delimitation and mapping, and the cartographic representation of geoheritage are also relevant and directly associated with these steps, for which the following references are recommended: Carton et al. (2005), Coratza and Regolini-Bissig (2009), FuertesGuti´errez and Fern´andez-Mart´ınez (2012), Lozano et al. (2011), Martin et al. (2014), Reynard et al. (2016) and Rocha and Brilha (2016). The proper management of geosites and geodiversity sites implies not only a correct characterisation of sites, but also their geographic delimitation because this aspect is fundamental to establishing property regimes and the type of legal setting that may be applicable in each case.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was cofunded by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund, based on COMPETE 2020 (Programa Operacional da Competitividade e Internacionalizac¸a˜o), project ICT (UID/GEO/ 04683/2013) with reference POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007690 and national funds provided by Fundac¸a˜o para a Cieˆncia e Tecnologia (Portugal).

REFERENCES Alexandrowicz, Z., Kozlowski, S., 1999. From selected geosites to geodiversity conservation Polish example of modern framework. In: Barettino, D., Vallejo, M., Gallego, E. (Eds.), Towards the Balanced Management and Conservation of the Geological Heritage in the New Millenium. Sociedad Geolo´gica de Espan˜a, Madrid, pp. 40 44.

REFERENCES

83

Allen, P., Benton, M.J., Black, G.P., Cleal, C.J., Evans, K.M., Jusypiw, S.I., et al., 1987. The future of Earth sciences site conservation in Great Britain. Geol. Curator 5 (3), 101 109. Bollati, I., Smiraglia, C., Pelfini, M., 2013. Assessment and selection of geomorphosites and trails in the Miage Glacier Area (Western Italian Alps). Environ. Manage. 51 (4), 951 967. Brilha, J., 2015. Concept of geoconservation. In: Tiess, G., Majumder, T., Cameron, P. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Mineral and Energy Policy. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p. 2. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40871-7_2-1. Brilha, J., 2016. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8 (2), 119 134. Bruschi, V.M., Cendrero, A., 2005. Geosite evaluation. Can we measure intangible values? Il Quaternario 18 (1), 293 306. Bruschi, V.M., Cendrero, A., 2009. Direct and parametric methods for the assessment of geosites and geomorphosites. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 73 88. Bruschi, V.M., Cendrero, A., Albertos, J.A.C., 2011. A statistical approach to the validation and optimisation of geoheritage assessment procedures. Geoheritage 3 (3), 131 149. Carcavilla, L., Lo´pez Mart´ınez, J., Dur´an Valsero, J.J., 2007. Patrimonio geolo´gico y geodiversidad: investigacio´n, conservacio´n, gestio´n y relacio´n con los espacios naturales protegidos. Cuadernos del Museo Geominero, No. 7, IGME, Madrid (in Spanish). Carton, A., Coratza, P., Marchetti, M., 2005. Guidelines for geomorphological sites mapping: examples from Italy. G´eomorphol. Relief Proces. Environ. 3, 209 218. Cendrero, A., 1996a. El patrimonio geolo´gico. Ideas para su proteccio´n, conservacio´n y utilizacio´n. El patrimonio geolo´gico. Bases para su valoracio´n, proteccio´n, conservacio´n y utilizacio´n. Serie Monograf´ıas del Ministerio de Obras Pu´blicas, Transportes y Medio Ambiente. Ministerio de Obras Pu´blicas. Transportes y Medio Ambiente, Madrid, pp. 17 27 (in Spanish). Cendrero, A., 1996b. Propuestas sobre criterios para la clasificacio´n y catalogacio´n del patrimonio geolo´gico. El patrimonio geolo´gico. Bases para su valoracio´n, proteccio´n, conservacio´n y utilizacio´n. Serie Monograf´ıas del Ministerio de Obras Pu´blicas, Transportes y Medio Ambiente. Ministerio de Obras Pu´blicas. Transportes y Medio Ambiente, Madrid, pp. 29 38 (in Spanish). Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G., 2009. Methods for mapping geomorphosites. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 89 104. Coratza, P., Giusti, C., 2005. Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites. Il Quaternario 18 (1), 303 313. D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., D´ıez-Herrero, A., 2011. Los elementos biolo´gicos y culturales de inter´es geolo´gico: un patrimonio a conservar. In: Fern´andez-Mart´ınez, E., Castan˜o de Luis, R. (Eds.), Avances y retos en la conservacio´n del Patrimonio Geolo´gico en Espan˜a. Actas de la IX Reunio´n Nacional de la Comisio´n de Patrimonio Geolo´gico (Sociedad Geolo´gica de Espan˜a). Universidad de Leo´n, León, pp. 85 90 (in Spanish). De Wever, P., Guiraud, M., 2018. Geoheritage and museums. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 129 146. Erhartic, B., 2010. Geomorphosite assessment. Acta geogr. Slov. 50 (2), 295 319. Erikstad, L., 2008. History of geoconservation in Europe. In: Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), The History of Geoconservation. Special Publications 300. Geological Society, London, pp. 249 256. Erikstad, L., Nakrem, H.A., Markussen, J.A., 2017. Protected geosites in an urban area of Norway. Inventories, values, and management. Geoheritage. doi: 10.1007/s12371-017-0223-6. Fassoulas, C., Mouriki, D., Dimitriou-Nikolakis, P., Iliopoulos, G., 2012. Quantitative assessment of geotopes as an effective tool for geoheritage management. Geoheritage 4 (3), 177 193.

84

CHAPTER 4 GEOHERITAGE: INVENTORIES AND EVALUATION

Fuertes-Guti´errez, I., Fern´andez-Mart´ınez, E., 2010. Geosites inventory in the Leon Province (Northwestern Spain): a tool to introduce geoheritage into regional environmental management. Geoheritage 2 (1 2), 57 75. Fuertes-Guti´errez, I., Fern´andez-Mart´ınez, E., 2012. Mapping geosites for geoheritage management: a methodological proposal for the Regional Park of Picos de Europa (Leo´n, Spain). Environ. Manage. 50, 789 806. Garc´ıa-Cort´es, A., Carcavilla Urqu´ı, L., 2009. Documento metodolo´gico para la elaboracio´n del inventario espan˜ol de lugares de inter´es geolo´gico (IELIG), version 12, Instituto Geolo´gico y Minero de Espan˜a, Madrid (in Spanish). Garcia, M.G., Brilha, J., Lima, F.L., Vargas, J.C., Aguilar, A.P., Alves, A., et al., 2017. The inventory of geological heritage of the State of Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil: Methodological basis, results and perspectives. Geoheritage. doi: 10.1007/s12371-016-0215-y. Grandgirard, V., 1999a. L’´evaluation des g´eotopes. Geologia Insubrica 4, 59 66 (in French). Grandgirard, V., 1999b. Switzerland the inventory of geotopes of national significance. In: Barettino, D., Vallejo, M., Gallego, E. (Eds.), Towards the Balanced Management and Conservation of the Geological Heritage in the New Millennium. Sociedad Geolo´gica de Espan˜a, Madrid, pp. 234 236. Gray, M., 2013. Geodiversity Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. second ed. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester. Gray, M., Gordon, J., Brown, E., 2013. Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: the contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 659 673. Henriques, M.H., Pena dos Reis, R., Brilha, J., Mota, T.S., 2011. Geoconservation as an emerging geoscience. Geoheritage 3 (2), 117 128. Henriques, M.H., Pena dos Reis, R., 2015. Framing the palaeontological heritage within the geological heritage: an integrative vision. Geoheritage 7, 249 259. JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 1977. Guidelines for selection of Earth Science SSSIs. Available from: ,http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2317. (accessed 12.08.17). Lapo, A.V., Davydov, V.I., Pashkevich, N.G., Petrov, V.V., Vdovets, M.S., 1993. Methodic principles of study of geological monuments of nature in Russia. Stratigr. Geol. Correlat. 1 (6), 636 644. Larwood, J.G., 2016. Geoconservation: an introduction to European principles and practices. In: Hose, T. (Ed.), Geoheritage and Geotourism: A European Perspective. The Boydell Press, Suffolk, pp. 129 152. Lima, F.F., Brilha, J.B., Salamuni, E., 2010. Inventorying geological heritage in large territories: a methodological proposal applied to Brazil. Geoheritage 2 (3-4), 91 99. Lozano, G., Vegas, J., Garc´ıa-Cort´es, A., 2011. Representacio´n cartogr´afica de los lugares de inter´es geolo´gico: consideraciones de cara a la gestio´n, Engu´ıdanos (Cuenca). In: Fern´andez-Mart´ınez, E., Castan˜o de Luis, R. (Eds.), Avances y retos en la conservacio´n del Patrimonio Geolo´gico en España, Actas de la IX Reunión Nacional de la Comisión de Patrimonio Geológico de la Sociedad Geológica de España. Universidad de Leo´n, Leo´n, pp. 152 155 (in Spanish). Martin, S., Reynard, E., Pellitero Ondicol, R., Ghiraldi, L., 2014. Multi-scale web mapping for geoheritage visualisation and promotion. Geoheritage 6 (2), 141 148. Newsome, D., Dowling, R., 2018. Geoheritage and geotourism. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 305 322. Palacio Prieto, J.L., S´anchez Cortez, J.L., Schilling, M.E. (Eds.), 2016. Patrimonio geolo´gico y su conservacio´n en Am´erica Latina. Situacio´n y perspectivas nacionales, Instituto de Geografia, Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de M´exico (in Spanish). Parkes, M.A., Morris, J.H., 1999. The Irish Geological Heritage Programme. In: Barettino, D., Vallejo, M., Gallego, E. (Eds.), Towards the Balanced Management and Conservation of the Geological Heritage in the New Millenium. Sociedad Geolo´gica de Espan˜a, Madrid, pp. 60 64. Pereira, P., Pereira, D.I., 2010. Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment. G´eomorphol. Relief Proces. Environ. 2, 215 222.

REFERENCES

85

Pereira, P., Pereira, D.I., 2012. Assessment of geosites tourism value in geoparks: the example of Arouca Geopark (Portugal). In: Proceedings of the 11th European Geoparks Conference, Arouca, pp. 231 232. Pereira, P., Pereira, D., Caetano Alves, M.I., 2007. Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geogr. Helv. 62 (3), 159 168. Pralong, J.P., Reynard, E., 2005. A proposal for the classification of geomorphological sites depending on their tourist value. Il Quaternario 18 (1), 315 321. Prosser, C., D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., Larwood, J.G., 2018. The conservation of geosites: principles and practice. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 193 212. Reynard, E., 2005. G´eomorphosites et paysages. G´eomorphol. Relief Proces. Environ. 3, 181 188 (in French). Reynard, E., 2009. The assessment of geomorphosites. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 63 71. Reynard, E., Coratza, P., 2013. Scientific research on geomorphosites. A review of the activities of the IAG working group on geomorphosites over the last twelve years. Geogr. Fis. Dinam. Quat 36, 159 168. Reynard, E., Fontana, G., Kozlik, L., Scapozza, C., 2007. A method for assessing “scientific” and “additional values” of geomorphosites. Geogr. Helv. 62 (3), 148 158. Reynard, E., Perret, A., Bussard, J., Grangier, L., Martin, S., 2016. Integrated approach for the inventory and management of geomorphological heritage at the regional scale. Geoheritage 8, 43 60. Rocha, J., Brilha, J., 2016. Geosites and geoheritage representations a cartographic approach. Geophysical Research Abstracts. Vol. 18, EGU2016-1127-1, EGU General Assembly, Vienna. Sellier, D., 2016. A deductive method for the selection of geomorphosites: application to Mont Ventoux (Provence, France). Geoheritage 8, 15 29. Stillman, C., 1999. The Oscar Wilde sculpture. Geology Today 15 (2), 72 75. Vujičic´ , M.D., Vasiljevi´c, D.A., Markovi´c, S.B., Hose, T.A., Luki´c, T., Hadˇzi´c, O., et al., 2011. Preliminary geosite assessment model (GAM) and its application on Fruˇska gora mountain, potential geotourism destination of Serbia. Acta geogr. Slov. 51 (2), 361 377. White, S., Mitchell, M., 2006. Geological Heritage Sites: A Procedure and Protocol for Documentation and Assessment, AESC2006, Melbourne. Wimbledon, W.A.P., 2011. Geosites a mechanism for protection, integrating national and international valuation of heritage sites. Geologia dell’Ambiente Supplemento No 2, 13 25. Wimbledon, W.A.P., 1988. Palaeontological site conservation in Britain: facts, form, function, and efficacy. In: Crowther, P.R., Wimbledon, W.A.P. (Eds.), The use and conservation of palaeontological sites, Special Papers in Palaeontology, 40, 41 55. Wimbledon, W.A.P., Benton, M.J., Bevins, R.E., Black, G.P., Bridgland, D.R., Cleal, C.J., et al., 1995. The development of a methodology for the selection of British Geological sites for geoconservation: Part 1. Modern Geol. 20, 159 202. Wimbledon, W.A.P., Andersen, S., Cleal, C.J., Cowie, J.W., Erikstad, L., Gonggrijp, G.P., et al., 1999. Geological world heritage: GEOSITES a global comparative site inventory to enable prioritisation for conservation. Mem. Descrit. Carta Geol. Ital. 54, 45 60. Wimbledon, W.A.P., Smith-Meyer, S. (Eds.), 2012. Geoheritage in Europe and Its Conservation. ProGEO, Oslo. Zouros, N., 2007. Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece. Case study of the Lesvos Island-coastal geomorphosites. Geogr. Helv. 62 (3), 69 180.

CHAPTER

THE SPECIFICITIES OF GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HERITAGE

5

´ 2 Paola Coratza1 and Fabien Hoblea 1

2

University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy University Savoie Mont Blanc, Le Bourget-du-Lac, France

5.1 INTRODUCTION Among the geoscientists involved in geoheritage studies, a considerable impulse to investigations on this topic, both in conservation and tourism sectors, was given at first by the Physical Geography and Geomorphology scientific community. This is because Geomorphology, also named ‘the Science of Scenery’ (Higgitt, 2007; Nature, 1928), studies geological objects e.g., landforms, their origin and development, and how those landforms combine to form landscapes in which aesthetics and visibility are essential characters that have always attracted people’s attention. The new interest for the heritage value of geomorphology is testified by the creation in 2001 of the Working Group (WG) on Geomorphosites within the International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG) during the 5th IAG International Conference. Since then, the WG has acted as the principal arena for the development of a specific field of research on geomorphological heritage within the scientific community (Reynard and Coratza, 2013). The WG has been active during these years; experiences have been shared during several workshops and international conferences, and results have been collected in several special publications (see Reynard and Coratza, 2013, and references therein). Since 2006 the WG has organised several intensive courses for Masters and PhD students and numerous PhD theses have been presented in various universities, especially on methodological issues. In 2009 the WG even edited a handbook on Geomorphosites in which the perspectives of further studies on the topic were pointed out (Reynard et al., 2009). Since the publication of this text, much work has been carried out about theoretical and methodological approaches as well as what concerns applied aspects. Under the auspices of the WG, an overview of the status and orientations of the research on geomorphosites has been published (Reynard et al., 2016). This special issue has outlined the increasing importance of digital tools (Cayla et al., 2014) and three-dimensional (3D) modelling techniques (Ravanel et al., 2014, 2015), the focus on specific geomorphological contexts, as underground (Hobl´ea, 2009; Hobl´ea et al., 2014), submerged (Orru` and Panizza, 2009), urban (Palacio-Prieto, 2014; Pica et al., 2016) or mountain (Reynard and Coratza, 2016) environments. The present chapter aims to define clearly what geomorphological heritage is, its specificities and the main methodological issues related to its identification, assessment and management.

Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00005-8 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

87

88

CHAPTER 5 THE SPECIFICITIES OF GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HERITAGE

5.2 GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HERITAGE AND GEOMORPHOSITES: DEFINITIONS According to Reynard et al. (2009), ‘the geomorphological heritage may be considered as the set of landforms worthy of being protected and transmitted to the future generations’. The geomorphological heritage is so presented as part of the geoheritage, itself a ‘component of the natural heritage’ (Reynard et al., 2009). However, this definition now appears to be completed and nuanced, incorporating all the dimensions of the heritage concept. Heritage is a complex concept, both contested and culturally constructed, depending on personal and collective backgrounds and experiences. The perception and the definition of what constitutes heritage, its significance and the way it should be preserved and used may vary deeply from person to person or at least from groups of people or communities to others, depending on education background, belief, religion, ethnic, socioeconomic context, etc. (Aplin, 2002). Heritage is a multitemporal concept as it is inherited from the past, enhanced in the present and passed on to future generations. In this perspective, heritage is a transversal concept through time that represents our History, both Man’s and Earth’s history. Frequently, heritage is artificially divided into natural and cultural components (e.g., World Heritage), even if this kind of distinction is often meaningless and usually blurred. A qualitative illustration using a triangular plot shows a trichotomous (geology/biology/man-made) division of heritage (Carreras and Druguet, 2000) (Fig. 5.1).

FIGURE 5.1 Relationship between geological, biological and historical cultural components of heritage. Modified after Carreras et al. (2000).

5.2 GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HERITAGE AND GEOMORPHOSITES

89

The artificiality of such division is particularly evident in the concept of geomorphological heritage, which embraces landforms and processes that play a key role in the understanding of the history of Earth, but that also have a relationship with the biological and the cultural heritage (Reynard and Coratza, 2016). In fact, it is widely recognised that geomorphological processes and landforms have a fundamental role in supporting habitats, species and in providing ecosystem/ environmental services (Gordon and Barron, 2011; Gordon et al., 2017; Gray et al., 2013). At the same time the geomorphological heritage includes not only geomorphological objects sensu stricto but also cultural components with heritage value that is partly determined by the geomorphological context in which they are inserted (Gordon, 2012; Gray, 2013; Panizza and Piacente, 2009; Reynard and Giusti, 2018). Illustrative examples of sites that embrace outstanding geomorphological value and unique historic and cultural features are Petra (Jordan), Cappadocia (Turkey), Sassi di Matera (Italy) and Lavaux terraced vineyard (Switzerland). Since 2001, the term geomorphosites proposed by Panizza (2001) is the most widely used in literature for qualifying landforms that make up geomorphological heritage. Other terms have, however, been used in the last two decades and can be considered as synonymous: geomorphological assets (Panizza and Piacente, 1993; Quaranta, 1993), geomorphological goods (Carton et al., 1994), geomorphological sites (Hooke, 1994), geomorphological geotopes (Grandgirard, 1995), sites of geomorphological interest (Rivas et al., 1997). The definition of geomorphosites and the inseparable issue of their value have been much debated within the scientific community (Reynard et al., 2009, and references therein). In the current state of the art in geomorphosites studies, two main approaches can be distinguished for defining what geomorphosites are (Reynard, 2004a): a restrictive one and a broader one. •

•

According to the restrictive definition, initially proposed by Grandgirard (1997, 1999), geomorphological sites are ‘landforms, active or inherited, having particular importance for the comprehension of the history of the Earth and of its present or future evolution’. Therefore, the evaluation of geomorphological objects is based essentially on the scientific value of the studied sites, from the geomorphological point of view (integrity, representativeness, rarity, palaeogeographical value). Their ecological, scenic, cultural, socioeconomic, etc., values are not considered in the evaluation process. This approach, leading to select geomorphological sites of great scientific value, is suitable in a context of protection or inventory. Other scholars proposed a broader definition, emphasising not only their intrinsic significance but also the ‘symbolic’ value they assume or have assumed. Italian authors (Panizza, 2001; Panizza and Piacente, 1993) define geomorphosites ‘as landforms with particular and significant geomorphological attributions, which qualify them as a component of a territory’s cultural heritage (in a broad sense)’. According to these authors, the attributes that may confer value to a geomorphosite are: scenic, scientific, socioeconomic, cultural. This larger definition, which considers all values as interrelated and interdependent within a holistic conception, is suitable in a popularization context (geotourism, education, promotion, geoparks).

Important contributions for the better definition and assessment of geomorphosites’ values, especially in the context of the geomorphosites’ quantitative assessment, have been produced by several researchers especially from European countries (see Bollati et al., 2013; Brilha, 2016, 2018; Bruschi et al., 2011; Coratza and Giusti, 2005; Erhartic, 2010; Feuillet and Sourp, 2011;

90

CHAPTER 5 THE SPECIFICITIES OF GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HERITAGE

Giusti and Calvet, 2010; Pereira et al., 2007; Reynard, 2005; Reynard et al., 2007, 2016; Sellier, 2016; Serrano and Gonz´alez-Trueba, 2005; Zouros, 2007). Regardless of the different studies, in general, the priority criteria for the assessment and the selection of geomorphosites have to take various factors into account, both the intrinsic value, but also, in a more anthropocentric approach, the broader societal and utilitarian values of the sites. In particular, the intrinsic (or existence) value refers to the value of the site simply for its proper features rather than what it can be used for by humans. On the other hand, the societal value refers to the social or community significance of the site and its economic value (Fig. 5.2). The Matterhorn (also known as Monte Cervino), the world-famous horn at the border between Switzerland and Italy, constitutes a paradigm for showing the so-called societal values of a geological object through time (Fig. 5.3A). This pyramidal mountain peak carved away by glacial erosion was studied in the late 18th century by Horace-B´en´edict de Saussure and has attracted more and more people and fascinated generations of explorers and climbers. This peak and the story of the first ascent have inspired various artists and the mountain has been portrayed in several films (e.g., Struggle for the Matterhorn, 1928; The Mountain Calls, 1938; The Challenge, 1938). During the 20th century the Matterhorn has been used extensively for advertising. It is the emblem of

FIGURE 5.2 Relationship between Man and Nature in the definition of the geomorphological heritage. Modified after Reynard (2009a).

5.2 GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HERITAGE AND GEOMORPHOSITES

91

FIGURE 5.3 The Matterhorn (Switzerland): an example of tourist use of a geological object through time. (A) Panoramic view of the Matterhorn (Photograph by E. Reynard); (B) the Matterhorn represented in the Toblerone chocolate logo; (C) Zermatt poster by Emil Cardinaux (1908).

the world-famous Toblerone chocolate: both the shape of the triangular chocolate peaks and the peak that appears on the package (Fig. 5.3B). It was also the subject of a poster for the Zermatt tourist office designed in 1908 by Emil Cardinaux, often considered as the first modern poster (Fig. 5.3C). This mountain is so popular that large-scale replicas have been reproduced and can be found at Disneyland. The scientific literature reveals that there is still a great debate concerning values and criteria to be used in the geomorphosites’ selection and assessment processes (see Reynard and Coratza, 2013, and reference therein). Nevertheless, in general, three groups of values can be distinguished: (1) scientific (or central) values: directly related to scientific aspects of the site, based on the restrictive definition; (2) additional values: aesthetic, ecological, cultural lato sensu, socioeconomic; these values show variations according to individual, societal or historical aspects; (3) use values: accessibility,

92

CHAPTER 5 THE SPECIFICITIES OF GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HERITAGE

visibility, educational value, etc. It is important to underline how all these values should be considered as interrelated and interdependent elements. This is particularly true for the ecological value (included in the scientific value by some authors) because it allows the outlining of the role that physical environment plays in maintaining and supporting ecological systems and thus biodiversity (Bollati et al., 2015; Mocior and Kruse, 2016). The integration of factors related to the social role attributed by communities outside the field of Earth sciences with those usually recognised by geoscientists can contribute towards the qualification of geomorphological objects as having heritage value in a sociocultural perspective (Pena dos Reis and Henriques, 2009). The Dolomites, proclaimed UNESCO World Heritage site in 2009, are a good example to illustrate geomorphosites’ values (Fig. 5.4A). This region, universally known for suggestiveness and scientific interest, is characterised by natural landscapes, unique in the world. From a scientific point of view, the Dolomites contain an internationally important combination of Earth sciences values, being of international significance for geomorphology, geology and stratigraphy. The scientific values of this site are also supported by the evidence of a long history of study and recognition at the international level. Taken together, the combination of geomorphological and geological values creates a site of global significance. Concerning the additional values, the Dolomites encompass aesthetic, cultural lato sensu and, socioeconomic outstanding values. The articulated structure of the Dolomites is scenic in itself, on a large scale. For this reason, the region has always had an enormous impact on the imagination of anyone who has visited it and has inspired any sort of artistic capabilities. In art, both in painting and photography, the shape of these mountains has inspired many visions. The Croda da Lago, which was depicted by Titian in his painting Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple (Fig. 5.4B), can be quoted as an example. The region has been described by many scholars, authors and travellers (e.g., Albrecht Du¨rer (1471 1528) and Johan Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 1832)) arriving in Italy from Central Europe. This articulated landscape has an exceptional aesthetic value mainly linked with verticality, variety of forms, monumentality and colour contrasts (Fig. 5.4A). The aesthetic value is responsible for the economic interest of the landforms: an important tourist development has occurred during the last decades (Panizza, 2009; Soldati, 2010; UNESCO, 2009) (Fig. 5.4). Similarly, Uluru (Australia), the Grand Canyon (USA), the dunes of the Namib desert, and the laguna of Venice are just few of many other examples located worldwide that can be quoted to illustrate the geomorphosites’ values. As for other kinds of geosites, the assessment of a geomorphosite generally reveals several heritage values associated to the site. Nevertheless, geomorphosites can be considered as the category of geosites which presents the broader set of values, whatever their size, e.g., the ‘Rocher du Chaˆteau’ (‘Castle Rock’) in the Maurienne valley (French Alps) is a small rocky hill about 80 m high, pointing at 1800 m a.s.l. in the middle of a glacial valley surrounded by high peaks over 3000 m. This modest landform is recognised as a geomorphosite, presenting a large panel of heritage values: (1) scientific value as glacial rock bar of serpentinite (Fig. 5.5A); (2) archaeological value as prehistoric painting (Fig. 5.5B) and quarrying site; (3) use values (recent quarrying, hiking, climbing, celebration, (geo)tourism and education); and (4) scenic and aesthetic values based both on the aspect of the rock walls of the hill, and the majesty of the surrounding geomorphological landscape (Andr´e et al., 2013).

5.2 GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HERITAGE AND GEOMORPHOSITES

93

FIGURE 5.4 (A) Panoramic view of Sasso Lungo Group (Val Gardena, Dolomites) (Photograph by M. Marchetti). (B) Detail of the painting Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple by Titian (1490 1576).

FIGURE 5.5 The Rocher du Chaˆteau (Maurienne Valley, French Alps): a multivalues geomorphosite. (A) Geomorphological (glacial bar) and scenic values; (B) archaeological and educational values: an interpretive site revealing prehistoric rock painting (Photographs by F. Hobl´ea).

94

CHAPTER 5 THE SPECIFICITIES OF GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HERITAGE

5.3 GEOMORPHOSITES: PECULIAR CHARACTERISTICS Geomorphosites have three main characteristics that make them unique and distinctive types of geoheritage: the aesthetic dimension, the dynamic dimension and the imbrication of scales (Reynard, 2009a). These specificities are important and can influence and condition choices in different contexts: educational and training activities, conservation and management, hazard and risk assessment. Among the different types of geosites, geomorphosites are often the most spectacular and very popular: a waterfall, a canyon, a mountain peak, an erratic boulder constitute visually appealing landscapes that have always aroused great interest and attracted people’s attention (Goudie, 2002). The beauty of the natural scenery, which is essentially a combination of geomorphosites, or more in general of landforms of different sizes, shapes, origins and ages (Migo´n, 2014), can facilitate knowledge and awareness of environmental issues in the general public, playing an important role in landscape promotion and geotourism. In terms of activity, geomorphosites, more than other categories of geosites, can be both highly dynamic, allowing the best observations of ongoing Earth’s processes, or more ‘static’ sites showing the evidence of past processes and events (Pelfini and Bollati, 2014; Reynard, 2004a; Reynard and Coratza, 2016). Although the geological heritage is frequently perceived by the public with a static approach and the museological view, landforms and landscapes are not static and unchanging, but are dynamic and developing through time. At the same time, landscapes host landforms that bear the signatures of past processes operating under significantly different climatic conditions. To stress the dynamic dimension of geomorphosites, several terms have been used in literature: dynamic geomorphological sites (Hooke, 1994), active geotopes (Strasser et al., 1995), active or dynamic geosites (Koster, 2009; Reynard, 2004a, 2005). According to Reynard (2004b), active geomorphosites can be defined as those that ‘allow the visualization of geological and geomorphological processes in action’, e.g., active volcanoes, glacial areas, fluvial systems. There are many examples of these kinds of landforms in different geomorphological contexts: badlands are typical erosional, constantly changing forms with a high scenic value related to the presence of soft-rock terrain on steep slopes and to rainfall intensity exceeding infiltration capacity (Fig. 5.6A). Glacial geomorphosites (Diolaiuti and Smiraglia, 2010) are the most representative examples of active geomorphosites: the glacial melting in response to climate change may lead to the formation of new geomorphosites and, at the same time, the transformation, and even the vanishing of others (Fig. 5.6B). Other important examples are Aeolian moving sand-dunes (Koster, 2009), which can modify their shape and position very quickly in response to climate change, sometimes even threatening human activities (Fig. 5.6C). Landforms affected or shaped by active gravitational movements (landslides, rockslides, debris flows, etc.) are also very representative of dynamic geomorphosites. According to the broad definition of geomorphosites, the processes responsible for the dynamics are themselves a component of the geomorphological heritage, as are also the consequences of human settlements and activities, and the protection infrastructures. Inactive geomorphosites can be defined as inherited landforms which testify past processes (Reynard, 2004a). These types of geomorphosites, bringing us to the past, have a particular heritage value since they are symbols of Earth’s history and evolution. Several examples in different geomorphological contexts can help in clarifying this definition. Erratic boulders are inherited

5.3 GEOMORPHOSITES: PECULIAR CHARACTERISTICS

95

FIGURE 5.6 Examples of active geomorphosites in different geomorphological contexts. (A) Stunning panorama of badland morphology from Zabrinsky Point (Death Valley, USA) (Photograph by C. Giusti). (B) Lateral moraine of Cerro Torre (Patagonia, Argentina) (Photograph by M. Soldati). (C) The active dunes of Bahia Magdalena (Mexico) (Photograph by P. Coratza).

landforms that testify the existence of a former glacier and can be used to reconstruct the pattern and history of ice flow (Fig. 5.7A). Most of them have a high scientific value and a high value for the history of geosciences (Reynard, 2004b). Fluvial ridges (Fig. 5.7B), important remnants of

96

CHAPTER 5 THE SPECIFICITIES OF GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HERITAGE

FIGURE 5.7 Examples of inactive geomorphosites in different geomorphological contexts. (A) Erratic boulder near Chamonix (hamlet of Les Bois, France) deposited by the Mer de Glace glacier during the Little Ice Age (Photograph by F. Hobl´ea). (B) The Ramo della Lunga fluvial ridge (Modena plain, Italy) highlighted with the red line. This ridge, 5 6 m high, belongs to an old Panaro channel active until the end of the 19th century (Photograph by D. Castaldini). (C) The dry valley (wied) of il-Kbir (Gozo, Maltese Islands) (Photograph by M. Prampolini).

ancient hanging rivers, and dry canyon-shaped valleys (Fig. 5.7C), developed by stream erosion during previous much wetter climatic conditions, represent excellent examples of inactive geomorphosites and a clear evidence of climate change. Recently Pelfini and Bollati (2014) proposed the term ‘evolving passive geomorphosites’ for defining inherited landforms that are reactivated or

5.3 GEOMORPHOSITES: PECULIAR CHARACTERISTICS

97

modified by current active processes, different from the genetic ones. For example, a glacial moraine in an active paraglacial environment, no longer linked to the morphoclimatic context in which it was generated (belonging to past morphoclimatic system) and at present affected by gravity processes that deeply modify its original and distinctive features, may be considered as an example of an evolving passive geomorphosite. It is worth noting that in all these definitions, the time scale is crucial in defining and distinguishing the geomorphosites’ origin and the activity of the prevailing processes, which in turn are dependent on climate regime and geological context. Scale is an extremely important and complex point in the study of geomorphosites. Landforms may vary widely in a spatial scale in terms of size and in a temporal scale being archives of past and present processes occurring across a wide range of temporal scales. Geomorphosites can occur as single, isolated landforms (e.g., a waterfall, an erratic boulder, etc.) (Fig. 5.8A) or in groups of landforms forming a large geomorphological landscape (Fig. 5.8B) (Grandgirard, 1997; Reynard, 2009a,b) and their outlines can take various forms and trends. Large geomorphological landscapes (Reynard, 2005) or ‘serial’ or ‘composite’ geomorphosites (Giusti and Calvet, 2010; Reynard, 2012) are made up of a composition of evidences and landforms strictly interlinked by a network of genetic and functional relationships. They constitute an organic whole even if they have a complex structure from a geological and geomorphological point of view and they are relevant for the comprehension of the geomorphological evolution of the area. The temporal scale dimension is much more complex: in the same geomorphosite can be found elements and sediments testifying to processes that have operated in past climatic conditions. As an example, the Segonzano Pyramids (Italy) represent an exemplary case of imbrication of temporal scales, being a paraglacial deposit of the Last Glacial Maximum currently reworked by running water (Fig. 5.9). Also important to note are the interconnections between these three kinds of characteristics onto which are based the specificities of the geomorphological heritage. Let us take, e.g., Mount Granier (1933 m a.s.l.), an iconic mountain located at the northern extremity of the French subalpine massif of Chartreuse, near Chamb´ery (Savoy). Mount Granier is an archetypal ‘multivalues’

FIGURE 5.8 Examples of geomorphosites in different spatial scales. (A) Panoramic view of Iguac¸u Falls (Argentina-Brasil) (Photograph by M. Soldati). (B) Aerial view of the Bungle Bungle Range, one of the most amazing landscapes of the Purnululu National Park (Kimberley region, Australia) (Photograph by P. Coratza).

98

CHAPTER 5 THE SPECIFICITIES OF GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HERITAGE

FIGURE 5.9 Selective erosional landforms on paraglacial deposits: the outstanding Pyramids of Segonzano (Italy) (Photograph by M. Marchetti).

geomorphosite (Hobl´ea, 2014). It combines many scientific and cultural interests related to its geomorphological nature (karst) and dynamics (past and currently active landslides): • •

•

Its spectacular character lies particularly in its northern face, which is one of the highest and impressive limestone walls in the Alps (Fig. 5.10A). In terms of activity, Mount Granier is well known for the 500 million m3 landslide that occurred in November 1248, destroying several villages and causing more than 1000 deaths (Fig. 5.10B). After another important rockfall occurred on the north face in 1953, a series of rockfalls (Fig. 5.10C), followed by debris flows (Fig. 5.10C), alarmed again the local population and experts in 2016 (Ravanel et al., 2016). This activity participates also in the spectacular character of this geomorphosite. In terms of scale, Mount Granier could be considered as a ‘Russian dolls’ geomorphosite. Indeed, behind the impressive and unstable cliffs of this truncated perched syncline, Mount Granier is also a limestone high-plateau shaped by karst processes. It hosts one of the largest and oldest cave networks dated in the Alps, with endokarstic deposits dated from the Pliocene by the Be/Al

5.3 GEOMORPHOSITES: PECULIAR CHARACTERISTICS

99

FIGURE 5.10 Mount Granier (French Prealps of Chartreuse): an iconic active geomorphosite linked to the history of Savoy. (A) The impressive north face of Mount Granier seen from the Granier Pass (1135 m a.s.l.) (on the right, the traces of the rockfall of the north-west pillar that occurred on 9 January 2016) (Photograph by F. Hobl´ea). (B) Reproduction of the Liber Chronicarum of Nu¨remberg representing the Mount Granier disaster of November 1248 (coll. F. Hobl´ea). (C) Collapse of 50,000 m3 of Urgonian limestone from the north-east angle of the Mount Granier, 7 May 2016 (Photograph by A. Lassagne). (D) Progression of a debris flow (13 May 2016) due to abundant rainfall on the debris cone resulting in the 7 May collapse. The road below was cut off a few minutes later (Photograph by F. Hobl´ea).

cosmogenic nuclides method (Hobl´ea et al., 2011). Thus, the multiple and interlinked interests and values of Mount Granier are declined and nested at different spatial and temporal scales, from millions of years to the present, from the lapiaz rill, the karstic caves or the landslide deposits to the whole truncated perched syncline of the Granier Plateau. Mount Granier is thus representative of the interconnections between the main specificities of the geomorphosites. These interconnections can also be considered as a specificity of the geomorphosites regarding the other categories of geosites for which such interconnections are generally less developed.

100

CHAPTER 5 THE SPECIFICITIES OF GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HERITAGE

5.4 HERITAGE GEOMORPHOLOGY: A NEW BRANCH OF THE GEOMORPHOLOGICAL SCIENCES? Considering geomorphological objects under the geoheritage perspective leads to a new and/or another geomorphology practice. At the time when geomorphology becomes highly specialised, the geomorphologist dealing with geomorphosites must be polyvalent. Aiming to characterise the scientific values of any kind of geomorphosite, he must be able to mobilise the whole spectrum of geomorphological knowledge. Because geomorphosites present also additional values related to aesthetics, human history and culture, he must also be open to numerous other issues related to human and cultural geography. This opening is for instance at the basis of the concept of ‘cultural geomorphology’ (Panizza and Piacente, 2003/2014, 2009; Reynard and Giusti, 2018). Moreover, the geomorphologist can also be involved in the management of the geomorphological heritage, according to the territorial context. This issue is related to territorial geography. Also often involved in the interpretation of the geomorphosites, the geomorphologist working on geoheritage should master the knowledge transfer protocols and the mediation know-how. All these issues build the basement, maybe not of a new discipline, but of a new branch of geomorphology returning into the fold of geography after being increasingly closer to geology that we could call ‘heritage geomorphology’ (including cultural geomorphology). Balancing between fundamental and applied research, the key-issues of ‘heritage geomorphology’ are: 1. The characterisation and documentation of geomorphological heritage. Regarding documentation of geomorphosites, geomorphologists have to mobilise the usual methods, the fundamental knowledge and know-how on geomorphology. But they also have to face the challenge of the geomorphodiversity (Panizza, 2009): working on geomorphosites implies being able to apprehend all the geomorphotypes in all the geomorphological contexts, e.g., volcanic, karstic, fluvial, glacial, periglacial, coastal, mass movements, etc. This means a need for geomorphologists with a profile equivalent to the general practitioners in medicine, polyvalent and connected with a network of specialists ready to conduct advanced investigations related to their specialty (coastal or fluvial geomorphology, geoarchaeology, karstology, etc.) and specific analyses (dating, 3D modelling, geochemistry, etc.). Some heritage geomorphologists also cross their initial expertise with the geoheritage topic, working for instance on erosive processes that affect active (Bollati et al., 2016a), volcanic (Joyce, 2009) or karst (Hobl´ea, 2009) geomorphosites. The characterization of geomorphosites is primarily based on existent bibliography related to the site; some gaps or specific needs can also lead to the production of new knowledge and data about geomorphosites (Bollati et al., 2016a; Ravanel et al., 2015). 2. The study of relationships with other issues and topics. The main issues to which geomorphological heritage can be related and used as an indicator and educative support are: climate change (Ravanel et al., 2015), landscape evolution and management (Reynard, 2005, 2009b), natural hazards and risks (Alc´antara-Ayala, 2009; Smith et al., 2011), human/nature and nature culture diachronic relationships (Delannoy et al., 2013; Reynard, 2015), geodiversity (Serrano and Ruiz-Flan˜o, 2009) and its relation with biodiversity, heritage making,

5.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

101

i.e., the process that makes a geological object a territory’s element of heritage (Cayla et al., 2016; Portal, 2013; Reynard et al., 2011). This kind of study reveals the necessary link between heritage geomorphology and specialised geomorphological branches like geoarchaeology, geomorphological hazards, process geomorphology, climatic geomorphology, or the new ‘social geomorphology’ promoted by Delannoy et al. (2013). In parallel, the movement towards a multidisciplinary and integrated approach of geomorphological heritage has to be improved with the involvement and contribution of researchers in humanities and social/political sciences, as well as economists and experts in communication sciences. The objective is to examine geomorphological heritage and geomorphosites as a territorial and heritage resource support for sustainable development (e.g., within geoparks), especially through geotourism and education or citizen empowerment to face the socioenvironmental challenges in a changing world. 3. The methods for the inventory, selection, assessment and mapping of geomorphosites. The inventory of geomorphological heritage aims to establish a list of remarkable geomorphological sites (forms and processes) with a certain value. The inventory implies the assessment of the value, leading to a ranking and a selection of sites. Numerous geomorphologists tried to conceive rigorous and efficient methods for the inventory, assessment and selection of geomorphosites (e.g., Pereira et al., 2007; Pereira and Pereira, 2010; Sellier, 2016; Reynard et al., 2016). However, there is presently no consensus on a unified, unique and universal method (Brilha, 2016, 2018; Reynard, 2009c). Mapping geomorphosites is also a major concern in heritage geomorphology, with the production of a new type of maps, often derived but rather different from the classical geomorphological maps (Carton et al., 2005; Coratza and Regolini-Bissig, 2009). 4. The management of geomorphological heritage. This concerns, on the one hand, a cluster of topics about protection, conservation and vulnerability (Prosser et al., 2010; Ravanel et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2011) and on the other hand, a cluster concerning the promotion and interpretation of geomorphological heritage, especially related to geotourism (Pica et al., 2013) and geoeducation (Bollati et al., 2012, 2016b; Martin, 2010; Reynard and Coratza, 2016). Heritage geomorphology is also related to the research and development of tools applied to a better understanding of this specific kind of heritage (Martin, 2014), paradoxically spectacular but often ‘nonvisible’ to the public (Cayla et al., 2012; Giusti, 2012; Hobl´ea et al., 2014; Tooth, 2009). Heritage geomorphology is also concerned with the relationships between geomorphological knowledge and territorial management and with the use of geomorphosites, especially in protected areas (Hobl´ea et al., 2013) and in contexts dedicated to the conservation and promotion of the geomorphological heritage, such as World Heritage sites (Migo´n, 2009) or geoparks (Zouros, 2009).

5.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS Geomorphological heritage and associated geomorphosites are a singular and important part of geoheritage. As the reliefs are omnipresent on the Earth’s surface, their selection as heritage is

102

CHAPTER 5 THE SPECIFICITIES OF GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HERITAGE

particularly complex and difficult, especially since we are dealing with multiscale objects covering a broad spectrum of assets. They are distinguished from other types of geoheritage by their usually high scenic value. They are also showcases of active or inherited erosion processes and they maintain privileged relationships with human activities, from Prehistory to the Present. For these reasons, geomorphological heritage includes not only landforms and landscapes but also their genetic processes as well as their cultural perceptions and representations. Studying geomorphological heritage seems to be a matter for geomorphologists, but leads to the rise of a new specialisation ‘heritage geomorphology’ balanced between geosciences, environmental and social sciences, open to multidisciplinary, transversal and collaborative approaches. Geomorphological heritage is more than ever in a position to become a significant sustainable territorial resource, enhanced through geotourism and environmental education.

REFERENCES Alc´antara-Ayala, I., 2009. Geomorphosite management in areas sensitive to natural hazards. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 163 173. Andr´e, M.-F., Ambert, M., Delannoy, J.J., Hobl´ea, F., Reynard, E., 2013. G´eomorphologie et patrimoine. In: Mercier, D. (Ed.), G´eomorphologie de la France. Dunod, Paris, pp. 201 214. (in French). Aplin, G.J., 2002. Heritage Identification, Conservation, and Management. Oxford University Press, Victoria. Bollati, I., Pelfini, M., Pellegrini, L., 2012. A geomorphosites selection method for educational purposes: a case study in Trebbia Valley (Emilia Romagna, Italy). Geogr. Fis. Din. Quat. 35, 23 35. Bollati, I., Smiraglia, C., Pelfini, M., 2013. Assessment and selection of geomorphosites and trails in the Miage Glacier Area (Western Italian Alps). Environ. Manage. 51 (4), 951 967. Bollati, I., Vezzola, L., Leonelli, G., Pelfini, M., 2015. The role of the ecological value in geomorphosites assessment at the debris-covered miage glacier (Western Italian Alps) based on a review of 2.5 centuries of scientific study. Geoheritage 7 (2), 119 135. Bollati, I., Reynard, E., Palmieri, E.L., Pelfini, M., 2016a. Runoff impact on active geomorphosites in unconsolidated substrates. A comparison between landforms in glacial and marine clay sediments: two case studies from the Swiss Alps and the Italian Apennines. Geoheritage 8 (1), 61 75. Bollati, I., Fossati, M., Zanoletti, E., Zucali, M., Magagna, A., Pelfini, M., 2016b. A methodological proposal for the assessment of cliffs equipped for climbing as a component of geoheritage and tools for Earth Science education: the case of the Verbano-Cusio-Ossola (Western Italian Alps). In: Skourtsos, E., Lister, G. (Eds.), General Contributions, Journal of the Virtual Explorer, Electronic Edition, 49, Paper 1. Brilha, J., 2016. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8 (2), 119 134. Brilha, J., 2018. Geoheritage: inventories and evaluation. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.) Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 69 86. Bruschi, V.M., Cendrero, A., Albertos, J.A.C., 2011. A statistical approach to the validation and optimisation of geoheritage assessment procedures. Geoheritage 3 (3), 131 149. Carreras, J., Druguet, E., 2000. Geological heritage, an essential part of the integral management of World heritage in protected sites. In: Barettino, D., Wimbledon, W.A.P., Gallego, E. (Eds.), Geological Heritage: Its Conservation and Management. Third International Symposium ProGEO on the Conservation of the Geological Heritage, 1999. Madrid, pp. 95 110.

REFERENCES

103

Carton, A., Cavallin, A., Francavilla, F., Mantovani, F., Panizza, M., Pellegrini, G.G., et al., 1994. Ricerche ambientali per l’individuazione e la valutazione dei beni geomorfologici metodi ed esempi. Il Quaternario 7 (1), 365 372 (in Italian). Carton, A., Coratza, P., Marchetti, M., 2005. Guidelines for geomorphological sites mapping: examples from Italy. G´eomorphol. Relief Proces. Environ. 3, 209 218. Coratza, P., Giusti, C., 2005. Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites. Il Quaternario 18 (1), 303 313. Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G., 2009. Methods for mapping geomorphosites. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 89 103. Cayla, N., Hobl´ea, F., Biot, V., Delamette, M., Guyomard, A., 2012. De l’invisibilit´e des g´eomorphosites a` la r´ev´elation g´eopatrimoniale. Geocarrefour 87 (3 4), 171 186 (in French). Cayla, N., Hobl´ea, F., Reynard, E. (Eds.), 2014. New digital technologies applied to the management of geoheritage. Geoheritage 6 (2), 170. Cayla, N., Gauchon, C., Hobl´ea, F., 2016. From tourism to geotourism: a few historical cases from the French Alpine foreland. In: Hose, T. (Ed.), Appreciating Physical Landscapes: Three Hundred Years of Geotourism. Special Publications 417. The Geological Society, London, pp. 199 213. Delannoy, J.J., David, B., Geneste, J.M., Katherine, M., Barker, B., Whear, R.L., et al., 2013. The social construction of caves and rock shelters: Chauvet cave (France) and Nawarla Gabarnmang (Australia). Antiquity 87 (335), 12 29. Diolaiuti, G., Smiraglia, C., 2010. Changing glaciers in a changing climate: how vanishing geomorphosites have been driving deep changes in mountain landscapes and environments. G´eomorphol. Relief Proces. Environ. 16 (2), 131 152. Erhartic, B., 2010. Geomorphosite assessment. Acta geogr. Slov. 50 (2), 295 319. Feuillet, T., Sourp, E., 2011. Geomorphological heritage of the Pyrenees National Park (France): Assessment, clustering, and promotion of geomorphosites. Geoheritage 3, 151 162. Giusti, C., 2012. Sites with a geomorphological interest an invisible heritage? Geocarrefour 87 (3 4), 151 156 (in French). Giusti, C., Calvet, M., 2010. L’inventaire des g´eomorphosites en France et le proble`me de la complexit´e scalaire. G´eomorphol. Relief Proces. Environ. 2, 223 244. Gordon, J.E., 2012. Rediscovering a sense of wonder: geoheritage, geotourism and cultural landscape experiences. Geoheritage 4 (1), 65 77. Gordon, J.E., Barron, H.F., 2011. Scotland’s geodiversity: development of the basis for a national framework. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 417 (ROAME No. 4066). Gordon, J.E., Crofts, R., Diaz-Martinez, E. and Woo, K.S., 2017. Enhancing the role of geoconservation in protected area management and nature conservation. Geoheritage. doi:10.107/s123710-17-0240-5. Goudie, A.S., 2002. Aesthetics and relevance in geomorphological outreach. Geomorphology 47 (2), 245 249. Grandigirard, V., 1995. M´ethode pour la r´ealisation d’un inventairre de g´eotopes g´eomorphologiques. UKPIK, Cahiers de l’Institut de G´eographie de l’Universit´e de Fribourg 10, 121 137 (in French). Grandgirard, V., 1997. G´eomorphologie, protection de la nature et gestion du paysage. The`se de doctorat, Universit´e de Fribourg, Facult´e des sciences (in French). Grandgirard, V., 1999. L’´evaluation des g´eotopes. Geol. Insubr 4 (1), 66 69 (in French). Gray, M., 2013. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature, second ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester. Gray, M., Gordon, J.E., Brown, E.J., 2013. Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: the contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124 (4), 659 673.

104

CHAPTER 5 THE SPECIFICITIES OF GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HERITAGE

Higgitt, D., 2007. The Science of Scenery. How geomorphology can help Asia cope with its environmental challenges. AsianGEOgraphic 7, 33 34. Hobl´ea, F., 2009. Karstic geomorphosites: managing subterranean natural-cultural heritage sites. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 189 200. Hobl´ea, F., 2014. In the folds of the earth: French Prealpine Geomorphological landscapes. In: Fort, M., Andr´e, M.-F. (Eds.), Landscapes and Landforms of France. World Geomorphological Landscapes. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 183 194. Hobl´ea, F., Hau¨selmann, Ph, Kubik, P., 2011. Cosmogenic nuclide dating of cave deposits of Mount Granier (Hauts de Chartreuse Nature Reserve, France): morphogenic and palaeogeographical implications. G´eomorphol. Relief Proces. Environ. 4, 57 68. Hobl´ea, F., Cayla, N., Reynard, E. (Eds.), 2013. Managing geosites in protected areas. Collection Edytem, 15. Hobl´ea, F., Delannoy, J.J., Jaillet, S., Ployon, E., Sadier, B., 2014. Digital tools for managing and promoting karst geosites in Southeast France. Geoheritage 6 (2), 113 127. Hooke, J.M., 1994. Strategies for conserving and sustaining dynamic geomorphological sites. In: O’Halloran, D., Green, C., Harley, M., Knill, J. (Eds.), Geological and Landscape Conservation. The Geological Society, London, pp. 191 195. Joyce, B., 2009. Geomorphosites and volcanism. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 175 188. Koster, E.A., 2009. The “European aeolian sand belt": geoconservation of drift sand landscapes. Geoheritage 1, 93 110. Martin, S., 2010. Geoheritage popularisation and cartographic visualisation in the Tsanfleuron-Sanetsch area (Valais, Switzerland). In: Regolini-Bissig, G., Reynard, E. (Eds.), Mapping Geoheritage. Institut de g´eographie, Lausanne, pp. 15 30. Martin, S., 2014. Interactive visual media for geomorphological heritage interpretation. Theoretical approach and examples. Geoheritage 6 (2), 149 157. Migo´n, P., 2009. Geomorphosites and the World Heritage List of UNESCO. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 119 130. Migo´n, P., 2014. The significance of landforms the contribution of geomorphology to the World Heritage Programme of UNESCO. Earth Surf. Proces. Landf. 39 (6), 836 843. Mocior, E., Kruse, M., 2016. Educational values and services of ecosystems and landscapes an overview. Ecol. Indicat. 60, 137 151. Nature, 1928. The science of scenery. Nature 121 (3044), 309 311. Orru`, P., Panizza, V., 2009. Assessment and management of submerged geomorphosites. A case study in Sardinia. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 201 212. Palacio-Prieto, J., 2014. Geoheritage within cities: urban geosites in Mexico City. Geoheritage 7 (4), 365 373. Panizza, M., 2001. Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey. Chin. Sci. Bull. 46 (Suppl. Bd), 4 6. Panizza, M., 2009. The geomorphodiversity of the Dolomites (Italy): a key of geoheritage assessment. Geoheritage 1, 33 42. Panizza, M., Piacente, S., 1993. Geomorphological assets evaluation. Zeitschr. fu¨r Geomorphologie, N.F 87 (Suppl. Bd), 13 18. Panizza, M., Piacente, S., 2009. Cultural geomorphology and geodiversity. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 35 48. Panizza, M., Piacente, S., 2003. Geomorfologia culturale. Prima edizione. Pitagora Editrice, Bologna. Panizza, M., Piacente, S., 2014. Geomorfologia culturale. Seconda edizione. Pitagora Editrice, Bologna.

REFERENCES

105

Pelfini, M., Bollati, I., 2014. Landforms and geomorphosites ongoing changes: Concepts and implications for geoheritage promotion. Quaest. Geogr. 33 (1), 131 143. Pena dos Reis, R., Henriques, M.H., 2009. Approaching an integrated qualification and evaluation system for geological heritage. Geoheritage 1, 1 10. Pereira, P., Pereira, D., 2010. Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment. G´eomorphol. Relief Proces. Environ. 16 (2), 215 222. Pereira, P., Pereira, D., Caetano Alves, M.I., 2007. Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geogr. Helv. 62, 159 168. Pica, A., Del Monte, F., Fredi, P., 2013. Geotouristic itineraries in the Lazio region, Italy. Geomorphosites in the millenarian urban environment of Rome and in the natural environment of the Ernici mountains. In: Hobl´ea, F., Cayla, N., Reynard, E. (Eds.), Managing Geosites in Protected Areas. Collection Edytem 15, pp. 155 162. Pica, A., Vergari, F., Fredi, P., Del Monte, M., 2016. The Aeterna Urbs geomorphological heritage (Rome, Italy). Geoheritage 8 (1), 31 42. Portal, C., 2013. When unremarkable landscapes receive heritage status: considerations based on case studies in the Pays de la Loire (France). L’Espace G´eogr. 3/2013 (42), 213 226. Prosser, C.D., Burek, C.V., Evans, D.H., Gordon, J.E., Kirkbride, V.B., Rennie, A.F., et al., 2010. Conserving geodiversity sites in a changing climate: management challenges and responses. Geoheritage 2, 123 136. Quaranta, G., 1993. Geomorphological assets: conceptual aspect and application in the area of Croda da lago (Cortina d’Ampezzo, Dolomites). In: Panizza, M., Soldati, M., Barani, D. (Eds.), European Intensive Course on Applied Geomorphology Proceedings. Istituto di Geologia. Universita` degli Studi di Modena, pp. 49 60. Ravanel, L., Bodin, X., Deline, P., 2014. Using terrestrial laser scanning for the recognition and promotion of high-alpine geomorphosites. Geoheritage 6 (2), 129 140. Ravanel, L., Deline, P., Bodin, X., 2015. LIDAR-helped recognition and promotion of high-alpine geomorphosites. In: Lollino, G., Giordan, D., Marunteanu, C., Christaras, B., Yoshinori, I., Margottini, C. (Eds.), Engineering Geology for Society and Territory Vol. 8: Preservation of Cultural Heritage. Springer, pp. 249 252. Ravanel, L., Amitrano, D., Deline, P., Gallach, X., Helmstetter, A., Hobl´ea, F., et al., 2106. The small rock avalanche of January 9, 2016 from the calcareous NW pillar of the iconic Mont Granier (1933 m a.s.l., French Alps). Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 18, EGU2016-13535. Reynard, E., 2004a. Geosites. In: Goudie, A.S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Geomorphology. Routledge, London, p. 440. Reynard, E., 2004b. Protecting Stones: conservation of erratic blocks in Switzerland. In: Prykril, R. (Ed.), Dimension Stone 2004. New Perspectives for a Traditional Building Material, Balkema, Leiden, pp. 3 7. Reynard, E., 2005. G´eomorphosites et paysages. G´eomorphol. Relief Proces. Environ. 3, 181 188. Reynard, E., 2009a. Geomorphosites: definition and characteristics. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., RegoliniBissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 9 20. Reynard, E., 2009b. Geomorphosites and landscapes. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 21 34. Reynard, E., 2009c. The assessment of geomorphosites. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 63 71. Reynard, E., 2012. The problem of scale in geomorphosite studies. In: Giusti, C. (Ed.), Geomorphosites 2009: Raising the Profile of Geomorphological Heritage Through Iconography, Inventory and Promotion. Proceedings Volume. Paris-Sorbonne University, Paris, p. 281. Reynard, E., 2015. Erratic boulders in Switzerland, a geological and cultural heritage. Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 17, EGU2015-4415.

106

CHAPTER 5 THE SPECIFICITIES OF GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HERITAGE

Reynard, E., Coratza, P., 2013. Scientific research on geomorphosites. A review of the activities of the IAG working group on geomorphosites over the last twelve years. Geogr. Fis. Din. Quat. 36, 159 168. Reynard, E., Coratza, P., 2016. The importance of mountain geomorphosites for environmental education. Examples from the Italian Dolomites and the Swiss Alps. Acta geogr. Slov. 56 (2), 291 303. Reynard, E., Giusti C., 2018. The landscape and the cultural value of geoheritage. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 147 166. Reynard, E., Fontana, G., Kozlik, L., Scapozza, C., 2007. A method for assessing the scientific and additional values of geomorphosites. Geogr. Helv. 62, 148 158. Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G., 2009. Scientific research on geomorphosites over the last eight years: improvements and aims of the book. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 5 8. Reynard, E., Hobl´ea, F., Cayla, N., Gauchon, C., 2011. Iconic sites for alpine geology and geomorphology. Rediscovering heritage? J. Alpine Res. 99 (2), Available from: , http://rga.revues.org/1435 . (accessed 10.08.17). Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Hobl´ea, F., 2016. Current research on geomorphosites. Geoheritage 8 (1), 1 3. Rivas, V., Rix, K., Frances, A., Cendrero, A., Brunsden, D., 1997. Geomorphological indicators for environmental impact assessment: consumable and non-consumable geomorphological resources. Geomorphology 18, 169 182. Sellier, D., 2016. A deductive method for the selection of geomorphosites. Application to Mont Ventoux, Provence, France. Geoheritage 8 (1), 15 29. Serrano, E., Gonz´alez-Trueba, J.J., 2005. Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). G´eomorphol. Relief Proces. Environ. 3, 197 208. Serrano, E., Ruiz-Flan˜o, P., 2009. Geomorphosites and geodiversity. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., RegoliniBissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 49 61. Smith, B.J., Pellitero Ondicol, R., Alexander, G., 2011. Mapping slope instability at the Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage site: implications for site management. Geoheritage 3 (3), 253 266. Soldati, M., 2010. Dolomites: the spectacular landscape of the “Pale Mountains”. In: Migo´n, P. (Ed.), Geomorphological Landscapes of the World. Springer, Berlin, pp. 191 199. Strasser, A., Heitzmann, P., Jordan, P., Stapfer, A., Stu¨rm, B., Vogel, A., et al., 1995. Geotope und der Schutz erdwissenschaftlicher. Schweiz: ein Strategiebericht, Fribourg (in German). Tooth, S., 2009. Invisible geomorphology? Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 34, 752 754. UNESCO, 2009. Nomination of the Dolomites for inscription on the World Natural Heritage List UNESCO. Nomination Document. Provincia di Belluno, Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano Bozen, Provincia di Pordenone, Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Provincia di Udine. Available from: , http://whc.unesco.org/ uploads/nominations/1237rev.pdf . (accessed 10.08.10). Zouros, N., 2007. Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece. Case study of the Lesvos Island-coastal geomorphosites. Geogr. Helv. 62 (3), 69 180. Zouros, N., 2009. Geomorphosites within geoparks. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 105 118.

CHAPTER

FOSSILS, HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION: MANAGING DEMANDS ON A PRECIOUS RESOURCE

6 Kevin N. Page

Plymouth University, Plymouth, United Kingdom

6.1 INTRODUCTION If there is one subject in geoconservation that is guaranteed to cause controversy and generate misunderstanding, it is the issue of geological specimen collecting, especially of fossils. To understand why, one has to examine the cultural traditions associated with such materials, their potential economic value, their scientific significance and the developing awareness of the significance of geological heritage amongst site managers and governments. Each group implicated has its own philosophies and prejudices and all too commonly conflict can arise.

6.1.1 FOSSILS IN FOLKLORE AND CULTURE From the earliest millennia of a developing ‘human’ awareness of the natural world, people have had a fascination for fossils and minerals. Beyond the simple utilitarian use of flint and other hard stones to make tools, there are records of collections of fossil shells in caves up to around 80,000 years ago (e.g., Burgundy, France), decorating burials from at least 35,000 years ago (e.g., Grimaldi, Italy) and from the early Bronze age (Dunstable Downs, southern England; GayrardValy, 1994; Smith, 1894). This association implies a belief that fossils possess magical powers or a religious significance, and this mystical association with human cultures continues to the present day. For instance in the Himalayas, the coiled shells of Upper Jurassic ammonites are sold to passing pilgrims as good luck charms, known as ‘shaligramma’ (Page, 2008). A contrasting interpretation from northern Europe, however, is that such fossils represent some ancient evil, now turned to stone for instance by the Christian missionary St Hilda (614 680) at Whitby, North Yorkshire, England. Nevertheless, in a parallel display of human enterprise, a similar trade developed, with local entrepreneurs, ‘re’-carving snake heads onto ammonites found on the area’s beaches, to sell to pilgrims and tourists (Fig. 6.1). This misunderstanding of the origins of fossils is not always so explicitly religiously linked, however, with other folkloric explanations being common for instance bullet-like belemnite Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00006-X Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

107

108

CHAPTER 6 FOSSILS, HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION

FIGURE 6.1 Toarcian (Lower Jurassic) ammonites on the beach near Whitby, North Yorkshire, England a carved souvenir for visiting pilgrims.

and a ‘snake-stone’,

r 2018 Kevin Neil Page. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

fossils being considered to be thunderbolts, sharks teeth petrified tongues and the bones of giant extinct animals giving rise to stories of giants and dragons. The use of geological materials for decoration is also very old and certainly blurs with their mystical associations. Fossil shell necklaces are known from 35,000 years ago (Cro-Magnon, France) and fossils set in metals are known from Dynastic Egypt (c.3200 343 BC) and Etruscan civilisations (c.800 400 BC (Gayrard-Valy, 1994; Shackley, 1977) and the latter style of use continues today. Minerals, however, have long been considered attractive as ornaments and the concept of ‘precious’ stones is still as culturally relevant as it has been for thousands of years. Although strictly speaking fossil resin, amber seems to be one of the first ‘minerals’ to have been widely used for jewellery and is a common ‘luxury item’ in Bronze age burials across Europe (Shackley, 1977). Today, ‘symbolic fossils’ (sensu Henriques and Pena dos Reis, 2015) are still culturally very relevant, although their origins perhaps now owe more to scientific discoveries than legend. Most notable amongst such fossils are those stars of screen and literature, the dinosaurs, whose public fame is not matched by an appropriate understanding of the science of palaeontology (Stewart and Nield, 2013).

6.1.2 FOSSILS AND SCIENCE Ancient Greek natural philosophers of the 6th century BC were some of the first to appreciate that fossils were the remains of creatures that once lived in the sea, even if found far from the coast (Gayrard-Valy, 1994). Folkloric interpretations dominated, however, and religious dogma suppressed scientific study until the European ‘Renaissance’ of the 16th and 17th centuries, when ‘natural sciences’ began to generate a more fashionable interest amongst certain nobility. By the late 18th century and into the early 19th century, as members of this elite themselves, early

6.1 INTRODUCTION

109

palaeontologists such as George Cuvier in France and William Buckland in England, relied on others to supply the fossils they were studying, and a trade with quarry workers and other collectors developed to supply new specimens. Inevitably, commercial trading of fossil and mineral specimens emerged, with some traders acting as intermediaries between impoverished workers and the fashionable intelligentsia and nobility (for instance during the 19th century mining boom in SW England; Embrey and Symes, 1987). Some such collectors and traders became closely intertwined with the early history of geology, in England famously including the much misrepresented Mary Anning of Lyme Regis, Dorset (now part of the ‘Jurassic Coast’ World Heritage site). From her correspondence with her customers, however, it is clear that she had a great understanding of the materials she traded but as a woman from a poor background she was blocked from making any direct scientific contribution herself. As geological sciences matured, however, the need to collect and record more systematically than the traders was realised and gradually it became the norm for scientists to collect their own research materials (Fig. 6.2), including with the aid of junior ‘field assistants’. This process was aided by funding from newly established museums and national geological surveys as well as from philanthropists and ultimately through the provision of governmental or private research grants. Crucially, for scientific studies, the accurate documentation of all significant finds is necessary and any ‘competition’ from commercial or recreational specimen collectors can become a serious issue. Not surprisingly, therefore, many modern palaeontologists see geological conservation as a process through which the sites and specimens which they study can remain available for research (although some, regrettably, still see conservation as an ‘inconvenience’). In some cases, however, especially at very rapidly changing sites such as active quarries and eroding coastlines, there is a real risk that key specimens of scientific importance could be ‘lost’, for instance into an aggregate crusher or simply eroded away by the sea. Under such circumstances,

FIGURE 6.2 Scientific collecting in action members of the Oxfordian Working Group of the International Subcommission for Jurassic Startigraphy sampling the Callovian Oxfordian boundary level at Osgodby Nab, near Scarborough, North Yorkshire, England. r 2018 Kevin Neil Page. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

110

CHAPTER 6 FOSSILS, HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION

a more ‘reactionary’ approach to collecting important specimens for research may be necessary and as few geoscientists have time to regularly inspect such sites, some have promoted the role of amateur or commercial collectors as ‘salvagers’ of specimens. Where appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure that any recovered specimens find their way into national institutions for study and safeguarding for future generations, this approach can be very successful. Elsewhere, however, as discussed below, the only consequence is that the majority of specimens are still ‘lost’, but now to a global market place, rather than to the sea or the crusher. . .

6.1.3 THE RISE OF THE ‘ROCK HOUND’

AND FOSSILS BECOME A COMMODITY

There is no doubt about it, fossils can be very attractive and many people become sufficiently fascinated that they start to build up their own private collections. Some will purchase specimens from commercial dealers, whilst others collect the specimens themselves, independently or as part of the activities of clubs and societies. Some will ultimately develop an interest in the geological sciences and make a ‘transition’ from ‘collector’ to amateur, or even professional, scientist indeed this is how many of the latter first became interested in the subject. Others, however, retain a more acquisitive approach, where the expansion and ‘improvement’ of the collection takes precedent over the scientific significance of the materials being accumulated the trans-Atlantic expression ‘Rock Hound’ perhaps best summing up this type of collector. Such an approach can inevitably have conservation consequences, as obtaining new and ‘better’ specimens becomes the priority and the resultant and cumulative effects on the source geological sites becomes irrelevant. Commonly, such collectors also become ‘dealers’, selling ‘surplus’ specimens to others, and as a result remove even more of the natural geological resource than they might ‘need’ for their own purposes. Fossil and mineral collectors are also supplied by networks of full time commercial traders, some with shop-front facilities, although many now supply specimens mainly through international internet trading. This trade is worth millions of dollars annually and not only supplies fossil and mineral collectors, but provides tourist souvenirs and ‘Objets d’art’ to decorate designer living spaces. Most of the materials traded, however, are not only of intrinsic heritage importance in themselves, they may also have been obtained from scientifically important geological sites, often with conservation designations or with applicable national conservation laws (very few legally approved commercial quarries and mines for fossil specimens exist). The effects of this trade, especially as it is virtually unregulated in many countries, are a major issue for the global conservation of palaeontological heritage. Unfortunately, some scientists and institutions have continued to support this activity, by purchasing specimens for research and display, without ascertaining whether the material has been legally obtained. Examples include the purchase of illegally collected early vertebrate material from a protected site in Scotland by the Humboldt Museum in Berlin (Macfadyen, 2006), crystalline palladium-gold from Torquay, SW England by the Natural History Museum (NHM) in London in the 1980s (as illustrated by Embrey and Symes, 1987) and the majority, if not all, of the articulated ichthyosaur and plesiosaur skeletons from the Lower Jurassic of the West Somerset coast, England (Fig. 6.3) now held by institutions in the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, United States and elsewhere. Some institutions, however, such as the NHM, now have safeguards in place to ensure that such issues do not arise again.

6.1 INTRODUCTION

111

FIGURE 6.3 Illegal strip-mining of Hettangian (Lower Jurassic) mudrocks on the West Somerset coast, SW England by commercial fossil collectors in the search for vertebrates and ammonites (see Webber et al., 2001). r 2018 Kevin Neil Page. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

6.1.4 THE RISE OF THE ‘CONSERVATION MANAGER’ Through much of the early history of geology and palaeontology, the conservation of geological sites and materials was rarely an issue for the developing science, as new localities with ‘new’ fossil assemblages were continually being discovered. By the later 19th century, however, urbanisation and industrialisation was beginning to damage well-known localities and by the mid-20th century, a general awareness of the need for some form of site protection had developed (Page and Wimbledon, 2009). Nevertheless, in most countries it took until the late 20th century for this awareness to evolve into conservation systems and networks of protected sites (Page et al., 1999). Initially, geological sites had been the territory of the scientist and amateur enthusiasts, with commercial specimen collectors only locally being significantly active. As geology and palaeontology have developed in popularity, however not least due to the success of major motion pictures such as Jurassic Park the latter have become more and more active and locally have a highly damaging effect on the scientific integrity of fossiliferous sites. To address such problems, a whole new profession of heritage managers has developed, to implement new conservation laws and ‘police’ the protected sites. Unfortunately, however, there is a common misunderstanding of the nature of geological heritage amongst this group, especially confusion with the more restrictive requirements of archaeological and rare species protection. As a result, there are many cases where geoscientists have been marginalised in the site management process, even virtually prevented from resampling the localities that they themselves first brought to the attention of society (Page et al., 1999). As commented by Wimbledon (1988): ‘Who should judge what is best for a site? Those who understand the site the specialist, the more generalized researcher, and the knowledgeable user must have the most to contribute’. In such cases, the geoscience community and especially palaeontologists clearly need to reassert their requirements and reeducate both national and local administrators about the true

112

CHAPTER 6 FOSSILS, HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION

nature of geological heritage, as a resource to be used by both scientists and educators and not something to ‘freeze’ in time.

6.2 WHY CONSERVE FOSSILS? Within the communities of geoscientists and conservation managers, the answers to this question should be obvious however, as administrative decision-makers do not always have such an awareness, it is useful to review the question (based on Page, 1998): •

•

•

•

Science: As discussed by the majority of authors (including most recently Endere and Prado, 2015; Henriques and Pena dos Reis, 2015; Thomas, 2012), first and foremost amongst justifications for conserving palaeontological sites and materials is their significance for scientific studies. This includes as evidence of past Earth processes and ecosystems, as well as the origins of the natural biodiversity we see today. Indeed, some recorded processes, for instance, ‘mass extinctions’, are highly relevant to our own future. In addition, fossils are crucial to the relative dating of rocks, and hence understanding Earth history, and their use underpins the standard geological framework for most of the Phanerozoic (see www. stratigraphy.org, accessed 07.08.17; see also Page and Mel´endez, 1995). Maintaining access to such materials, in both institutions and in their original rock-outcrop context should, therefore, be a priority for geological conservation and is essential for ongoing scientific studies. Natural heritage: Fossils are by definition part of a natural heritage and should, therefore, be an integral part of any philosophy or practice that promotes the management of other aspects of the natural environment, such as wildlife and landscapes. Crucially, at least 99% of all living species that have lived on our planet are extinct (Benton and Harper, 1993) and hence only now exist as part of the natural heritage of the fossil record. The concept of ‘natural heritage’ also forms a key part of the concept of World Heritage and hence justifies the inclusion of some of the most important palaeontological heritage sites in UNESCO’s World Heritage List. Education: Geological materials such as fossils and minerals are the raw materials through which geological, as well as chemical, biological and ecological principles, are taught at all levels from primary school to university, and beyond. Access to such materials in both their original context (i.e., within a geological site) and as a classroom resource is, therefore, essential and conservation practice should permit, where appropriate, the collection of specimens for teaching purposes or, indeed, as an educational exercise in its own right as in ‘Fossil Parks’ in the United States (Clary and Wandersee, 2014). Recreation: Many people enjoy either looking at or collecting geological materials and will devote recreational time to visiting geological sites and attractions. The more passive observers are the easiest to accommodate within the context of a conserved geological site, although appropriate presentation and interpretation will still be essential. Recreational collectors, even including ‘rockhounds’, can also be accommodated where the palaeontological resource is sufficiently abundant or robust that some level of removal will not prejudice its long-term conservation. Indeed, providing managed sites for amateur enthusiasts to collect at can help the process of raising awareness of scientific and heritage values, and hence help create a respect for sites where conservation prescriptions are necessarily more restrictive. In addition, the

6.2 WHY CONSERVE FOSSILS?

•

•

•

113

chance discovery of a new or rare species by such amateurs can benefit the scientific and heritage documentation process and the potential for developing positive collaborations should not be underestimated. Economic: Access to fossils, and especially minerals in situ is crucial for guiding or refining exploration techniques for new mineral deposits of economic value. In addition, recreational or educational groups attracted to fossils have the potential to bring money into an area, either as passive observers or as active users of the geological resource (Fig. 6.4). Some touristic providers offer ‘collecting holidays’ for recreational collectors (although the sites being visited are not necessarily those most suitable for such activities). Much more rarely, however, the commercial value of the specimens themselves has been promoted as a justification for certain approaches to site management as in the ‘Jurassic Coast’ World Heritage site in Dorset, SW England (Page and Wimbledon, 2009). As with other cases of economically justified fossil collecting, however, such practices can raise serious ethical questions when considered in the context of the philosophy and practice of geological heritage conservation elsewhere. Ecological: The study of fossils can bring important insights into the nature and origin of modern ecosystems and their evolution through time to the present day including the effects of climate change and ‘mass extinctions’. Crucially, as modern biodiversity is a reflection of past biodiversity, linking studies should be fundamental as they can help inform decisions about the management of contemporary biodiversity (see Henriques and Pena dos Reis, 2015; Matthews, 2014), including in the context of international agreements such as the ‘Rio Convention’ on Biological Diversity of 1992. Cultural: As museum collections are a cultural resource and science is a cultural activity, key historical associations for both including links with famous pioneers such as Charles Darwin are strong arguments for conservation (beyond any intrinsic scientific or natural heritage value that the same materials may be considered to possess). Some sites are also important to archaeological studies, especially those yielding traces of early hominids,

FIGURE 6.4 A geotouristic attraction in La Rioja, Spain, based on a palaeontological heritage of Lower Cretaceous dinosaur footprint trackways. r 2018 Kevin Neil Page. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

114

CHAPTER 6 FOSSILS, HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION

including both bones and tools. In some assessments of palaeontological heritage, ‘sociocultural’ and ‘socioeconomic’ criteria are explicitly used (e.g., Endere and Prado, 2015).

6.3 MANAGING SITES OF PALAEONTOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE 6.3.1 THE NATURE OF THE GEOLOGICAL RESOURCE Every palaeontological site is different, but in order to make informed management decisions, it is useful to be able to classify both the nature of the natural resource and the significance of any specimens collected. The former UK-wide Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) established one of the most useful and crucially ‘tried-and-tested’ schemes for classifying sites in 1990 in its ground-breaking national strategy (NCC, 1990). The NCC’s classification of geological and geomorphological sites as a guide to their conservation requirements recognised two basic categories of site-type, exposure and integrity. Exposure sites facilitate access to extensive deposits of scientific and educational value, for instance by providing a window through a cover of soil and vegetation into the geology below. Conservation of such sites, therefore, focuses on the maintenance of representative natural or artificial exposures, rather than the potential of other areas to reveal similar features (should future excavation take place). In the case of fossils, it will be the size of the accessible exposure and related erosion rates combined with the relative abundance of the key fauna and flora, which will determine what management measures may be appropriate. For instance, extensive and actively eroding (e.g., ‘refreshing’) natural exposures with abundant fossils may require less restriction than smaller (including most artificial) exposures, yielding rare and scientifically important taxa, which may require ‘stronger’ conservation measures. In contrast, integrity sites have deposits, features or processes, which are very limited in extent and hence irreplaceable, if removed or damaged. Conservation management consequently becomes a more exacting process, as the aim is typically to maintain the deposit or features intact and prevent any significant and potentially damaging intervention. Nevertheless, with very few exceptions, it is essential that scientific study can continue, hence, conservation ‘off-site’ of sampled materials, for instance within an institutional collection, becomes essential. A key omission from the original scheme, however, was the concept of ‘Moveable geological heritage’ (sometimes known as ‘Movable Natural Values’ or ‘Ex situ’ palaeontological heritage), which is crucial to the effective conservation of fossils (Fig. 6.5). Indeed, as Henriques and Pena dos Reis (2015) strongly argue, the conservation of palaeontological heritage requires the expansion of the concept of geological heritage to formally include such ex situ geological objects. With few exceptions primarily dinosaur footprints fossils must first be removed from their original bedrock context, before they can be studied. They will, therefore, always be potential or actual items of ‘Moveable geological heritage’ and any geological conservation system that fails to recognise this factor, and omits consideration of the fate of removed materials, will inevitably fail in its ambitions to safeguard a national and international heritage. In most institutions, ‘Moveable geological heritage’ is protected by the curatorial systems in place and the codes of conduct and guidelines established by national museum associations and national laws. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, however, such collections usually

6.3 MANAGING SITES OF PALAEONTOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE

115

FIGURE 6.5 A collected fossil now corrected considered to be ‘moveable’, despite still resting on the rocks within which it was only a short time previously, embedded; Middle Jurassic, Arago´n, Spain. r 2018 Kevin Neil Page. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

have no specific legal protection and the same applies to all other specimens once they have been removed from their original site context. Inevitably, such collections will also have an explicit cultural heritage value, for instance linked to famous scientists or even, exceptionally, may have other associations, such as the famous Upper Cretaceous mosasaur skull from Maastricht in the Netherlands, plundered by Napoleon’s troops in 1794 and still residing in the Mus´eum national d’Histoire naturelle in Paris (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosasaurus, accessed 07.08.17). The latter specimen also raises some important philosophical issues, as although it is fully safeguarded in a national institution, it is no longer in its source country. This is a very common scenario for palaeontological heritage, and not just where export has been technically ‘illegal’. Percival (2014) discusses this problem in the context of Australian palaeontological heritage, but there are countless other examples (and archaeological parallels are obvious, including the marble friezes notoriously removed from the Parthenon in Athens, Greece, and now held in foreign museums). As with the Parthenon marbles, however, claims for repatriation are rarely successful (cf. Macfadyen, 2006), although in one notable example, a US museum has agreed to return a key collection of Devonian fossils to Brazil (Lima and Ponciano, 2017). This link between site and institutional conservation, for instance deposition in a university or public museum where it can be safeguarded for future generations to enjoy and learn from is fundamental (i.e., conserved in a museological sense, as discussed by Schemm-Gregory and Henriques, 2013). Indeed, the only ‘safe’ place for the specimen to reside may be an institution, as on site, it will be vulnerable to both natural and human threats. But do all fossils really need this level of protection, as some may be so abundant as to be rock forming? Clearly some selection process which assesses relative scientific and cultural value is required, and this is discussed further below.

116

CHAPTER 6 FOSSILS, HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION

6.3.2 THE NATURE OF THE SCIENTIFIC RESOURCE Although a range of factors, including social and economic, can be used to categorise palaeontological heritage resources (e.g., Alcala and Morales 1994; Endere and Prado, 2015; Henriques and Pena dos Reis, 2015), it can be argued that only scientific criteria provide an objective and internationally applicable assessment framework. In 2002, a series of such guidelines were produced as part of the activities of a Geoconservation Working Group of the International Subcommission on Jurassic Stratigraphy, part of an International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) project. The Guidelines were developed to help establish some common principles to guide both conservation administrations and site owners and managers, as to the needs of geological science and, hopefully, create a more balanced and informed approach to site and specimen management (Page, 2004). The Guidelines recognised four categories of palaeontological heritage as summarised below with Categories 1 3 requiring different levels of protection but including a Category 4 for common fossil types, which do not need any special protection. Category 1: Type (a), figured (b) and cited (c) specimens: The first (Category 1a) are fundamental to the definition of fossil species as regulated by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (a UNESCO project); the latter two categories (1b and 1c, respectively) underpin all palaeontological studies as supporting material or evidence of scientific observations or conclusions. Every type specimen is a global reference for the species it defines and hence is irreplaceable scientific method, therefore, dictates that all Category 1 fossils must be deposited and protected in nationally recognised institutions, and legal systems should help achieve such ends. Similarly, figured and cited specimens provide the evidence base for palaeontological science, and their security within recognised institutions should also be of paramount concern as part of a general approach to palaeontological heritage conservation which supports scientific methodology. Specimens only become types, or are figured or cited, however, after scientific study, which can only be facilitated by free and open access to palaeontological localities for bona fide geological study. Legal systems should on the one hand ensure that such access can take place and on the other hand seek to guarantee that institutional deposition and full protection of the relevant described specimens is achieved once study is completed. Category 2: Unique, rare or exceptionally complete or well-preserved taxa or specimens or assemblages of specimens of fundamental importance to actual or future scientific studies. Category 2 specimens are crucial to the science of palaeontology, as the raw material for ongoing or future studies. Conservation and legal systems or practice should, therefore, ensure (including through the use of expert advisors or assessors) that such specimens are deposited and protected within nationally recognised institutions, where they will remain accessible for future study and appreciation. Category 3: Key specimens of stratigraphical or palaeobiological significance, material complementary to ongoing scientific studies, specimens of especial suitability for museum display or educational use, by virtue of completeness or other features of instructive value. Category 3 specimens are not only important for ongoing scientific research, they are also important for scientific education. They include rare records of important taxa better known at other localities and assemblages of ecological or stratigraphical importance in place in natural outcrops. Conservation and legal systems or practice should aim, therefore, to promote the wise management

6.3 MANAGING SITES OF PALAEONTOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE

117

of Category 3 fossils by preventing over-exploitation and ensuring that the needs of education and research are not prejudiced by activities such as commercial or unregulated, recreational collecting. Wherever possible, these procedures should encourage the deposition of Category 3 fossils in national or regional institutions, to maximise availability for future scientific study or educational use. Category 4: Common and representative species and specimens, well represented in national museums and other institutions, or sufficiently abundant that any non-scientific collecting or removal will not prejudice future scientific work; also includes specimens collected loose, for instance from scree, rubble or beach material, where the lack of stratigraphical information significantly reduces scientific use. Such specimens can be very abundant, even rock-forming and some may form part of a commercial resource, such as ornamental limestone. The use of such specimens for teaching, public education and personal enjoyment provides opportunities to promote a respect and understanding for geological heritage, without prejudicing its long-term conservation. Category 4 fossils do not normally require legal protection, especially if they occur outside of protected areas, and legal systems can, therefore, adopt a degree of flexibility to allow more public interaction and use (whilst at the same time providing guarantees, guidelines and statutes to ensure that any new finds assignable to Categories 2 and 3, or potentially 1, can be fully protected). In the context of this guidance, Categories 1 3 can be considered to be of ‘significant scientific importance’, whereas Category 4 specimens would be considered to be ‘not of significant scientific importance’.

6.3.3 THREATS TO THE RESOURCE AND MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS As with most other classes of geological and geomorphological heritage, threats can be classified according to a ‘standard scheme’, such as that established by the United Kingdom, NCC in its 1990 strategy. The original scheme recognised eight basic categories of threat, but reclassification into five main themes provides a more useful way of looking at the various threats posed to sites of palaeontological heritage importance: 1. Natural degradation and vegetation growth including chemical and physical weathering and erosion. 2. Agricultural, forestry and other land management practices including physical damage, infill or contamination of sites and concealment by tree cover. 3. Engineering works, including infrastructure, industrial and domestic building works and coastal protection/flood defence works including physical damage, infill and contamination, removal, concealment and burial. 4. Mineral/aggregate extraction and restoration of working sites (including waste disposal) including physical damage, infill, concealment and burial or removal of deposits. 5. Overuse or misuse including physical damage, depletion/removal of deposits and/or loss of key specimens to a global market place and private collections. The exposure of palaeontological materials to natural surface processes can have a serious degradation effect (Threat 1). Depending on local climatic controls, these processes will include oxidation, hydration, desiccation and dissolution, leading to the physical break-up, as well as removal by

118

CHAPTER 6 FOSSILS, HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION

erosion (e.g., coastal, fluvial, rain, etc.). Typically, however, the effects of weathering are limited to a surface zone, perhaps no more than a few decimetres thick, and a mantle of weathered material can protect unweathered deposits below provided that the damaging effects of plant roots can be prevented by controlling vegetation growth. Nevertheless, the removal of vulnerable material to an institution where appropriate curatorial conservation work can be carried out, for instance using consolidants, may be the only pragmatic conservation solution. In areas where physical erosion, for instance coastal or fluvial, is very active, recovery to a safe location, such as a museum, may also be the only practical solution. Nevertheless, as erosion may continue to reveal new specimens, some form of control, for instance using engineering works, might not be a sensible site conservation measure, as there are opportunities for new materials to appear in the future. In reality, some level of loss is inevitable, but is balanced by this potential for future discoveries. Although threats such as 2, 3 and 4 can potentially be managed through national spatial planning systems, the commercial or economic value or strategic importance of the operation can often override such conservation systems (and not just for geological heritage features. . .). However, some mitigation may be possible, and the establishment of regular site inspections or ‘rescue digs’ may be the only solution, with the deposition of collected materials in an appropriate institute. Examples of such schemes include the recovery of rich Lower Jurassic faunas from road construction works near Charmouth, Dorset, England (Page and Wimbledon, 2009; Fig. 6.6), Middle and Upper Jurassic faunas from high-speed rail works near Ricla, Arago´n, Spain (Mel´endez and Soria, 1994) and an important Lower Permian faunas from a working quarry at Cabarz, Thuringia, Germany (Fohlert and Brauner, 2010). Crucially, such works can also create exposures where previously there were none, with very positive results for the geosciences. A notable example is the creation of fossil-rich cuttings during forestry works in Mortimer’s Forest near Ludlow (W central England) which became fundamental to international definitions of the Silurian, Ludlow Series (Holland et al., 1959). Planning and

FIGURE 6.6 ‘Rescue collecting’ of Lower Jurassic insects on the Charmouth bypass road construction works, Dorset, England. r 2018 Kevin Neil Page. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

6.3 MANAGING SITES OF PALAEONTOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE

119

heritage management process should embrace such opportunities, but also facilitate the protection and conservation of such exposures for ongoing study and educational use. When all the spatial planning, developmental and natural process issues for conservation are resolved or accommodated, there remains one category of threat which affects important palaeontological sites more than almost any other type of geological and geomorphological site that of overuse or misuse especially by specimen collectors. Effects vary from a simple cumulative attrition, where ‘collectable’ specimens become rare or when the rock outcrop gradually disappears under a scree of broken rock fragments, or, in extreme cases, where targeted collecting activity, often commercially driven, can virtually remove entire deposits for sale (e.g., Late Triassic dinosaur footprints from Bendrick Rocks, South Wales; Page and Wimbledon, 2009). This type of activity is unfortunately becoming more and more common as the internet provides not only a global market place for fossils and minerals, it also often provides comprehensive information about where to find them. Worryingly, as noted previously, some institutions and researchers, have promoted such activities by purchasing specimens for research or display without adequately enquiring as to the circumstances of their removal from their source locality. Where collecting is clearly illegal, only enforcement action against the perpetrators is adequate however, only the resultant damage is often observed, once the collectors are long gone. The use of the internet by traders, however, can allow stolen materials to be traced and recovered, as in the case of the Late Triassic dinosaur footprints noted above, seized by Welsh police after a raid on a fossil shop in west Dorset (England). The recovered material, is now housed in the National Museum of Wales in Cardiff (Page and Wimbledon, 2009). Where damage is due more to a lack of awareness of conservation issues by site users, rather than simply illegal, the establishment of ‘Codes of Conduct’ can be very useful. Such ‘Codes’ define what types of activity can be considered acceptable, and those that can be damaging, including in the context of the sustainable management of the resource. One of the earliest and most widely distributed of these fieldwork codes in the United Kingdom was established by the national Geologist’s Association in 1977, and still forms the basis for most other codes of geological conduct used in Britain today (Geologist’s Association, 1977). A later statement by the then state conservation agency, English Nature, subsequently defined what can constitute ‘responsible’ or ‘irresponsible’ fossil collecting (English Nature, 1996), but the most comprehensive guidance is that in Scottish Natural Heritage’s fossil collecting policy statement, which has the added benefit of being backed by the Scottish legal system (Scottish Natural Heritage, 1996; Fig. 6.7). A benefit of ‘raising awareness’ or increasing Earth Science literacy sensu Henriques and Pena dos Reis (2015) through these nonstatutory approaches is that fossil and mineral collectors can be encouraged to inform scientists and museums of their finds and hence contribute to the advancement of science itself. Some may even be encouraged to make the transition from ‘Rock Hound’ to amateur geoscientist. An effective approach to providing such opportunities is through the provision of specific resources for recreational and educational fossil collecting, in particular sites managed for this purpose. The idea is not a new one and early examples include the UK nature Conservancy Council’s ‘New sites for old’ programme in the 1980s (Duff et al.,1985) and the extremely successful supervised collecting days for school children at Writhlington Geological Reserve near Bath, UK (Fig. 6.8). At the latter site, community activity has led to the recovery of one of the richest Late Carboniferous arthropod faunas known in Europe (Selden, 2010), whilst providing opportunities for

120

CHAPTER 6 FOSSILS, HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION

FIGURE 6.7 The ‘Scottish Fossil Code’, an exemplary guide to responsible and scientifically informed fossil collecting backed by national legislation. r 2018 Kevin Neil Page. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

visitors to collect and study a rich ‘Coal measures’ Flora (Fig. 6.8). In the United States, an informal ‘network’ of ‘Fossil Parks’, managed for sustainable, educational fossil collecting is now developing and provides a marvellous opportunity for communities and visitors alike to learn about their palaeontological heritage (Clary and Wandersee, 2014). In some countries such as Spain and Croatia, however, many of these considerations become meaningless, as all palaeontological heritage is protected and all collecting of fossil specimens is illegal without official permits. This all-encompassing approach becomes problematic, however, when one considers that fossils may still be legally destroyed by quarrying activities, but as no recovery as fossil specimens is permitted without research permits, the inevitable result is a massive

6.4 LEGAL APPROACHES

121

FIGURE 6.8 Educational fossil-collecting at the Writhlington Geological Reserve, Avon, SW England (Upper Carboniferous). r 2018 Kevin Neil Page. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

and avoidable loss of important specimens from active sites and coastlines. In addition, a potentially important group of amateur supporters of science and conservation is alienated. As discussed by many authors (e.g., Henriques and Pena dos Reis, 2015; Percival, 2014; Wimbledon, 1988), such restrictions are, therefore, likely to be counterproductive, and simply curtailing all independent collecting activity, or driving it ‘underground’, prevents it from significantly contributing to science and heritage studies.

6.4 LEGAL APPROACHES TO CONSERVING PALAEONTOLOGICAL HERITAGE, I.E., PROTECTED SITES VERSUS PROTECTED HERITAGE 6.4.1 LEGAL MEASURES Legal measures for the protection and management of palaeontological heritage vary widely from country to country, with some systems emphasising protected sites, rather than heritage, and others protected heritage rather than sites. The former approach is exemplified by legislation and policies in England, where site selection, designation and protection systems are well developed, but palaeontological heritage has no specific legal status. Such legislation has been most successful in defending site boundaries against development, but has often failed to prevent the removal of geological specimens from within those boundaries, even where a legal restriction on collecting has been applied through the designating legislation (Page and Wimbledon, 2009). In an attempt to redress this problem, a reliance on voluntary ‘codes of conduct’ as mentioned above has developed, in part as an attempt not to alienate a strong tradition of amateur geologists and palaeontologists, who have been a major contributor to geosciences (see Burek, 2008; Robinson,

122

CHAPTER 6 FOSSILS, HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION

1988). Very little or typically no legislative framework supports these codes, however, and the most destructive site users remain undeterred from their activities. This problem is most extreme within the protected sites that comprise the fossil-rich Dorset and East Devon ‘Jurassic Coast’ World Heritage site in southern England, where such a code has been used as a substitute for direct intervention by national conservation authorities. In addition, as the implemented Code emphasises fossil collecting rather than conservation, it has created a mechanism through which historical commercial activity can continue to flourish in the area (Page and Wimbledon, 2009; Page, 2011). Analysis of a published register of recorded finds provides confirmation of the failure of this Code as a conservation mechanism, with only 265 specimens being reported in the first 12 years of its operation (to 2011) an average of only around 20 specimens a year from, in theory, one of the richest fossiliferous sites in the world (Page, 2011). The remaining thousands of specimens, which will have been collected over the same period of, by definition, World Heritage value, are now effectively ‘lost’ many into a global market place (Page, 2011; Page and Wimbledon, 2009; Fig. 6.9). Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the effects of this inability to adequately control the fate of palaeontological heritage is equally concerning, although conservation agencies in Wales and Scotland have made more concerted attempts to recover stolen material and guard vulnerable protected sites than in England (Page and Wimbledon, 2009). There are, however, more positive stories from across the United Kingdom, where amateur enthusiasts have contributed to the advancement of palaeontological science through both new discoveries and actual collaboration with geoscientists (Page, 2010; Fig. 6.10). The other extreme in the approach to protecting sites and palaeontological heritage is demonstrated by the Autonomous Community of Arago´n in Spain, where the emphasis has been on protecting specimens, rather than sites, as they are considered to be cultural heritage (Andr´esMoreno, 2006; Soria et al., 1996). In Arago´n, the regional government controls palaeontological

FIGURE 6.9 Mixed messages on the Jurassic Coast ‘World Heritage’ site at Charmouth below.

Heritage centre above, fossil shop

r 2018 Kevin Neil Page. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

6.4 LEGAL APPROACHES

123

FIGURE 6.10 The contribution of the amateur to the geosciences in Somerset, England: Site survey and documentation by the late H.C. Prudden (illustrated) and Mr. M. Harvey. Key stratigraphical results have been published in Page (2010). r 2018 Kevin Neil Page. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

studies and there is a legal requirement for official permission from its General Directorate of Heritage, before any palaeontological field sampling can take place. The same laws also effectively prohibit the establishment of independent collections of fossils from Arago´n within Arago´n (but ironically not from any other region or country. . .) by dictating that all collected materials are deposited either in the Palaeontological Museum of the University of Zaragoza, or the Dinopolis dinosaur-focused attraction in Teruel city. In practice, however, obtaining permission to carry out palaeontological research can be difficult, even for researchers in the community’s only university in Zaragoza. Elsewhere, however, palaeontological heritage is destroyed on a daily basis due to quarrying, infrastructure works (including the development of ski stations) and palaeontological materials are commonly seen in building and decorative stones.

124

CHAPTER 6 FOSSILS, HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION

The irony of the Aragonese scenario is that aspects of the community’s palaeontological heritage are being destroyed or abused every day, but it is technically illegal for anyone, including most geoscientists, to attempt to save it, unless, of course, they have a specific permit. If the English and Spanish examples demonstrate extremes in approaches to the conservation of palaeontological heritage, then most other national examples lie somewhere between, often with a mixture of site protection and moveable heritage protection (although not necessarily specific to fossils). In Germany, as in the United Kingdom, there is a strong tradition of amateur fossil collecting, not uncommonly linked to commercial activity (Germany is an important market for UK fossils) which has its consequences for site protection however, with increased federalisation and the establishment of state conservation laws and protected site networks, increasing restrictions are being put on this activity. Nevertheless, the contribution of committed amateurs can continue as fossil-collecting is not prohibited at many sites. A notable and innovative ‘catch-all’ legal framework to safeguard the most important parts of this heritage, which quite obviously cannot be expected to locate itself only within the boundaries of a protected site, has been developed in Wu¨rttemberg. Invoking an ancient, feudal law of ‘treasure trove’ it requires that all fossil specimens of particular geological importance are deposited in a state museum, specifically the Staatliche Museum fu¨r Naturkunde, Stuttgart, Germany (Bloos, 2004). In return, compensation is paid to cover the time commitment in collecting the specimen. Crucially this is NOT the international market place price accepted in the United Kingdom and hence the system can work well within available publically available financial resources. The analogous Museum Act law of 1989 in Denmark with subsequent emendations however, applied market values and hence its implementation had the potential to become problematic (www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710. aspx?id512017, accessed 07.08.17). In France, a very strong and well-established network of ‘National Reserves’ which provides many important palaeontological sites with a high level of protection, is being augmented by Department-selected inventories of key geological sites, which will attain a level of legal protection (De Wever et al., 2015). Although palaeontological heritage itself is not explicitly protected, as in the United Kingdom, this network provides a framework within which key sites, and the palaeontological heritage that they contain, can be safeguarded. Crucially, unlike in Spain, the contribution of bona fide amateur groups and individuals to this process is often recognised. Many other countries have mixed systems of site protection and moveable heritage protection (for instance, see Wimbledon and Smith-Meyer, 2012), although the latter are often not sensitive to the ‘needs’ of geological science and the former are rarely systematically developed (although this is changing with the introduction of various inventory approaches).

6.4.2 INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVES Surprisingly, until recently, few attempts have been made to establish binding international agreements in an attempt to control or manage what is, after all, a global heritage. The only significant exception is the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970), although it is rarely implemented by any country in the context of palaeontological heritage. The need to protect moveable geological heritage is, however, recognised by the Recommendation on the Conservation of the Geological Heritage and Areas of Special Geological Interest (Council of Europe, 2004) and the commercial

6.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

125

exploitation of geological heritage is strictly prohibited by the principles under which UNESCO Global Geoparks Network was established (www.globalgeopark.org/uploadfiles/2012_9_6/ggn2010. pdf, accessed 07.08.17). In 2008, however, such issues began to be developed on a more comprehensive global scale through Resolution 4.040 of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which confirmed that geological heritage, including both sites and ‘moveable items’ (i.e., fossils), were part of natural heritage and geoconservation is, therefore, part of nature conservation (www.portals. iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/WCC-4th-003.pdf, accessed 07.08.17). Crucially, unlike UNESCO, IUCN can establish global standards and guidelines for nature conservation without any implicit political context or conditions hence they are more likely to be adopted where national recognition or support for UNESCO may be limited, even absent. A further level of international agreement over the safeguarding of geological specimens, most notably fossils and minerals, came with the adoption by the IUCN of a second motion, specifically on the Conservation of moveable geological heritage (www.portals.iucn.org/congress/motion/091, accessed 07.08.17) at its World Conservation Congress, held in Hawaii (USA) in September 2016. The Motion crucially included a call to: ‘Promote and support, in collaboration with UNESCO and the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), the discussion towards a convention on the conservation and management of moveable geoheritage, in compliance with national and international regulations of its commerce. . .’

6.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS The conservation of palaeontological sites and specimens is one of the most complex and emotive aspects of geological heritage protection, invoking as it does many aspects of cultural and scientific philosophy and prejudice. Many different solutions have been applied internationally and the above are no more than a few representative examples. In practice, every site is different and the fossils that each may yield will dictate its own unique management regime, if its qualities are to be adequately safeguarded for future generations. Nevertheless, scientifically derived guidelines are crucial to this process and will help define the aims of any management regime, for instance is this a unique research site requiring a high level of protection and enforcement or, as in many other cases, a representative locality demonstrating some facet of geological heritage which can provide a valuable opportunity for education and inspiration? And the latter should include permitting responsible specimen collecting. . . When it comes to making such decisions about the management of the resource, however, separating subjective cultural associations from more objective scientific justifications can be difficult, but is essential for the development of a coherent and credible justification for conservation. Crucially, as not every geological sample or specimen will meet any credible justification for protection and there is simply not enough institutional space to store everything it has to be accepted (including in the context of established human rights) that some level of private ownership is not fundamentally wrong, providing that the national and international safeguard of those sites and specimens which really do have a significant scientific and heritage value is not prejudiced.

126

CHAPTER 6 FOSSILS, HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION

Issues concerning the commercial exploitation of such a resource as ‘collectable’ geological specimens are much more problematic, however, especially as a global trade in fossils, in particular, often pays scant attention to national conservation laws and can promote damage to the most sensitive of sites. Nevertheless, what ‘right’ has an affluent ‘developed’ country to dictate to one in the process of developing that it cannot exploit its geological wealth, including fossils, for the economic and hence social benefit of its people? Indeed, it could even be argued that some exploitation of fossils, on a sustainable basis from nonprotected sites (and with appropriate safeguards in place), is analogous to the sustainable exploitation of any other natural resource, such as wild game, fruit and wood. Difficult decisions may need to be made, but it is crucial that these are informed and guided by scientifically informed and internationally established principles and agreements, for instance developed through the IUCN or IUGS (including through the Heritage Sites and Collections Subcommission of the latter’s new International Commission on Geoheritage: www.geoheritage-iugs. mnhn.fr, accessed 07.08.17). This is global heritage and it requires a globally informed framework for its sustainable management for the benefit of all peoples.

REFERENCES Alcala, L., Morales, I., 1994. Towards a definition of the Spanish palaeontological heritage. In: O’Halloran, D., Green, C., Harley, M., Stanley, M., Knill, J. (Eds.), Geological and Landscape Conservation. The Geological Society, London, pp. 51 61. Andr´es-Moreno, J.A., 2006. Paleontolog´ıa en Arago´n legislacio´n y aplicacio´n. In: Simposio Internacional “Huellas que perduran. Icnitas de dinosaurios: patrimonio y recurso”. Fundacion del Patrimonio historico de Castilla y Leon, pp. 111 139 (in Spanish). Benton, M., Harper, D., 1993. Introduction to Palaeobiology and the Fossil Record. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester. Bloos, G., 2004. The protection of fossils in Baden-Wu¨rttemberg (Federal Republic of Germany), Riv. Ital. Paleontol. S., 110. pp. 399 406. Burek, C.V., 2008. The role of the voluntary sector in the evolving geoconservation movement. In: Burek, C. V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), The History of Geoconservation. Special Publication 300. The Geological Society, London, pp. 61 89. Clary, R.M., Wandersee, J.H., 2014. Lessons from US Fossil parks for effective informal science education. Geoheritage 6, 241 256. Council of Europe, 2004. Recommendation on the Conservation of the Geological Heritage and Areas of Special Geological Interest. Available from: ,https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx? ObjectID 509000016805dd15a. (accessed 07.08.17). De Wever, P., Alterio, I., Egoroff, G., Corn´ee, A., Bobrowsky, P., Collin, G., et al., 2015. Geoheritage, a National Inventory in France. Geoheritage 7, 205 247. Duff, K.L., Mckirdy, A.P., Harley, M.J. (Eds.), 1985. New Sites or Old: A Student’s Guide to the Geology o the East Mendips. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough. Embrey, P.G., Symes, R.F., 1987. Minerals of Cornwal and Devon. British Museum Natural History. London and The Mineralogical Record Inc., Tucson. Endere, M.L., Prado, J.L., 2015. Characterization and valuation of paleontological heritage: a perspective from Argentina. Geoheritage 7, 137 146.

REFERENCES

127

English Nature, 1996. Position Statement on Fossil Collecting. English Nature, Peterborough. Fohlert, K., Brauner, S., 2010. The Cabarz locality an active quarry, a natural monument and an outstanding Lower Permian fossil site in the National Geopark Thuringia Inselsberg Drei Gleichen. Schriftenreihe der Deutschen Gesellschaft fu¨r Geowissenschaften 66, 38 39. Gayrard-Valy, Y., 1994. The Story of Fossils: In Search of Vanished Worlds. Thames and Hudson, London. Geologist’s Association, 1977. Geological Fieldwork Code. Available from: ,http://www.geologistsassociation.org.uk/downloads/Code%20of%20conduct/Code%20for%20fieldwork%20combined.pdf. (accessed 07.08.17). Henriques, H., Pena dos Reis, R., 2015. Framing the palaeontological heritage with the geological heritage. Geoheritage 7, 249 260. Holland, C.H., Lawson, J.D., Walmsley, V.G., 1959. A revised classification of the Ludlovian succession at Ludlow. Nature 184, 1037 1039. Lima, J.D., Ponciano, L.C., 2017. Kenneth Edward Caster (1908 1992) visits Brazil: the correspondence of a paleontologist as a contribution to the protection of geoheritage. Geoheritage. doi: 10.1007/s12371-0170241-4. Macfadyen, C., 2006. Missing Birk Knowles fossils: SNH calls it a day. Earth Heritage 27, 8 9. Matthews, T., 2014. Integrating geoconservation and biodiversity conservation: theoretical foundations and conservation recommendations in a European Union context. Geoheritage 6, 57 70. Mel´endez, G., Soria, M., 1994. The legal framework and scientific procedure for the protection of palaeontological sites in Spain: recovery of some special sites affected by human activity in Arago´n (Eastern Spain). In: O’Halloran, D., Green, C., Harley, M., Stanley, M., Knill, J. (Eds.), Geological and Landscape Conservation. The Geological Society, London, pp. 329 334. Nature Conservancy Council (NCC), 1990. Earth Science Conservation A Strategy. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough. Page, K.N., 1998. Englands Earth Heritage Resource, an asset for everyone. In: Hooke, J. (Ed.), Coastal Defence and Earth Science Conservation. The Geological Society, London, pp. 196 209. Page, K.N., 2004. The protection of Jurassic sites and fossils: challenges for global Jurassic science. Riv. Ital. Paleontol. S. 110, 373 379. Page, K.N., 2008. The evolution and geography of Jurassic ammonites. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 119, 35 57. Page, K.N., 2010. High resolution ammonite stratigraphy of the Charmouth Mudstone Formation (Lower Jurassic: Sinemurian-Lower Pliensbachian) in south-west England (UK). Volumina Jurassica 7, 19 29. Page, K.N., 2011. Consultation on Fossil Collecting Within the ‘Jurassic Coast’ World Heritage site. Response by ProGEO and the International Subcommission on Jurassic Stratigraphy, Dorset and East Devon, UK, ProGEO News 4/2011, 1 7. Page, K.N., Mel´endez, G., 1995. Protecting the Jurassic: global boundary stratotypes and conservation. Geol. Today 11, 226 228. Page, K.N., Wimbledon, W.A., 2009. The conservation of Jurassic heritage in the UK a critical review of current practice and effectiveness. Volumina Jurassica 6, 163 173. Page, K.N., Mel´endez, G., Gonera, M., 1999. Protected sites or protected heritage? Systems and opinions for palaeontological conservation from a trans-european perspective. In: Barettino, D., Vallejo, M., Gallego, E. (Eds.), Towards the Balanced Management and Conservation of the Geological Heritage in the New Millenium. Sociedad Geologica de Espan˜a, Madrid, pp. 45 51. Percival, I.G., 2014. Protection and preservation of Australia’s palaeontological Heritage. Geoheritage 6, 205 216. Robinson, J.E., 1988. The interface between “professional palaeontologists” and amateur fossil collector. Spec. Papers Palaeontol. 40, 113 121.

128

CHAPTER 6 FOSSILS, HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION

Schemm-Gregory, M., Henriques, M.H., 2013. The Devonian brachiopod collections of Portugal. Geoheritage 5, 107 122. Scottish Natural Heritage, 1996. The Scottish Fossil Code. Available from: ,http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/safeguarding-geodiversity/protecting/fossil-code/. (accessed 07.08.17). Selden, P.A., 2010. Post-Devonian fossil arthropods. In: Jarzembowski, E.A., Siveter, D.J., Palmer, D., Selden, P.A. (Eds.), Fossil Arthropods of Great Britain. Geological Conservation Review Series 35, pp. 111 147. Shackley, M., 1977. Rocks and Man. George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London. Smith, W.G., 1894. Man, the Primeval Savage. Edward, Stanford, London. Soria, M., Mel´endez, G., Page, K.N., 1996. An´alisis comparativo del marco legal sobre la declaracio´n de espacios geolo´gicos protegidos en Gran Bretan˜a y Espan˜a. Geogaceta 19, 207 210 (in Spanish). Stewart, I.S., Nield, T., 2013. Earth stories: context and narrative in the communication of popular geoscience. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 699 712. Thomas, M.F., 2012. Geodiversity and landscape sensitivity: a geomorphological perspective. Scottish Geogr. J. 128, 195 210. Webber, M., 2001. The sustainability of a threatened fossil resource: lower Jurassic Caloceras Beds of Doniford Bay, Somerset. In: Bassett, M.G., et al., (Eds.), A Future for Fossils. National Museums and Galleries of Wales, Geological Series 19, pp. 108 113. Wimbledon, W.A.P., 1988. Palaeontological conservation in Britain: facts, form, function, and efficacy. In: Crowther, P.R., Wimbledon, W.A. (Eds.), The Use and Conservation of Palaeontological Sites. Special Papers in Palaeontology 40, pp. 41 56. Wimbledon, W.A.P., Smith-Meyer, S. (Eds.), 2012. Geoheritage in Europe and Its Conservation. ProGEO, Oslo.

CHAPTER

GEOHERITAGE AND MUSEUMS

7

Patrick De Wever and Michel Guiraud National Museum of Natural History, Paris, France

´ ‘Dans notre vie de geologue, chaque fois que nous rencontrons un rocher, nous lui demandons son ´ et pour ne pas oublier ses reponses, ´ nom, son aˆge, pourquoi il est la`, comment il s’est forme, nous en rapportons un fragment dans nos collections’, Jules Gosselet (1832 1916), founder of the Geological Museum in Lille, France (Fig. 7.1). In our geologist’s life, each time we meet a rock, we ask it for its name, its age, why it is here, how it was made, and so to not forget its answers, we bring back a fragment in our collections.

7.1 INTRODUCTION Scientific collections result from research but constitute also the basis for further research. As support for research, they share with art collections the study of history, history of science or history of art. Collections of scientific instruments epitomise this historical aspect of use and usefulness of scientific collections. Scientific collections and art collections also share the support for disseminating knowledge, both for students and the general public. That is the reason why scientific specimens are as much objects of museums as artifacts, and therefore there is a common ground for managing them. In his handbook on museology, Weidacher (1996) defines that specimens selected for museum collections have to ‘represent such a cultural value that their preservation and commemoration is significant for society’. In natural sciences, scientific collections are the support for biological and Earth science research and are routinely used for observations and analyses, which are regularly destructive. This use as physical material is very specific and brings natural history museums close to universities and research institutions. Because natural sciences are sciences of comparison, they are built up as references and series: type specimens are the references for fixing taxonomic names of species, and series or populations aim at accounting for intraspecific diversity. For that reason, natural history collections are characterised by numbers of specimens unmatched in other disciplines apart from archaeology. The National Museum of Natural History of France, e.g., hosts more specimens and objects than the total of all other French museums. There are other reasons for building up large collections. One is that they constitute archives for witnessing past work and they can be used by other current and future researchers to cross-examine the validity of their conclusions. Popper (1999) points out that ‘Science. . . is a Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00007-1 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

129

130

CHAPTER 7 GEOHERITAGE AND MUSEUMS

FIGURE 7.1 Jules Gosselet, as Dean of the Faculty of Sciences, at Lille, France.

phenomenon to be understood as perpetually growing, it is essentially dynamic, never something finished’. Science makes progress by the method of trial and error. Another reason for building large collections is that natural history collections record the state of nature at a given moment; not only they are series, but they are also time series and they are often the only way to access past environments. There are several uses of collections in museums, which all revolve around research and expertise, higher education and public outreach. Being in contact with the ‘real thing’ is an experience that links the specialist to the visitor in an exhibition, and that can be tracked back to the time of the cabinets of curiosities. Those cabinets led the way into a scholarship based on reality rather than on speculation or theory. The world of museums reached the apex of this approach at the turn of the 20th century, when natural history museums had to show the diversity of nature as much as possible, and the public was asking to be shown this diversity. As science and education developed during the 20th century, describing the diversity became less important than modelling and understanding the major processes behind this diversity. Many natural history museums have then had a rather hard time as specimen acquisition and curation did not always marry comfortably with their research activities. The worldwide scientific community appeared to consider research as a more important priority than maintaining or developing collections. Thus, museums favoured research outputs (publications, etc.) both for the individual researcher and the institution as a whole instead of caring for the specimens, at least as an everyday practice if not as a declared policy. The collections did sometimes suffer as a result of this choice. In parallel, the idea of exhibitions

7.2 GEOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS: WHAT IS SPECIFIC ABOUT THEM?

131

without collections had its way, thanks to the technological breakthrough in digital technologies (see Cayla and Martin, 2018) and ‘modern’ museological principles. In light of this evolution, the vast amount of collections accumulated by previous scientists was regarded more as a liability than an asset. This time is fortunately passing. Perhaps it is a side effect of the global change. People realise that things are not as simple as the models can predict and the fast disappearance of species has drawn a renowned interest. Geological collections do certainly present all those characteristics, but as the geological time is somewhat different from the life span of living organisms, there is a specific dimension attached to them.

7.2 GEOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS: WHAT IS SPECIFIC ABOUT THEM? Earth sciences collections cover all the aspects mentioned above; they are reference materials, as the concept of type specimens applies to palaeontology and mineralogy, but also to geology with the definition of stratotypes. Regarding mineralogy, type specimens for minerals and rocks are more of historical value as types are defined upon the chemistry and the crystal structure of minerals, and rocks are defined by the mineral composition. However, there is still the need for reference material, which is necessary to compare chemical and physical analyses. Geological collections record past discoveries in every meaning: as a record of the history of science to track back the scientific paradigm that underlies it and as material for future ‘cross-examination’. Samples in collection are recording the environment, such as reefal rocks collected before the nuclear tests in the Pacific. Moreover, some collections bear information, which sometimes was not identified as important at the time of collection (see examples below). The use of geological collections is helped by a long relationship with research: destructive sampling is routinely practiced and preventive conservation or collection care have not been an issue in geological laboratories for many years. However, with the spreading of the notion of heritage, such practices tend today to be more thoughtful, and very few institutions allow destructive sampling of type specimens, or even loaning them. The range of users of geoheritage collections matches those of natural history collections. Different users request Earth sciences specimens for: (1) reference against type specimens (especially fossils) and as sample material for comparative studies; (2) education and training, including postgraduate research; here the specimens can be a very cost-effective resource as a complement to field trips or even as a substitute for difficult or costly field trips; they also provide a relatively easy way to test new ideas or to raise awareness of geological processes; (3) exhibition and educational outreach to provide new or deeper understanding of the Earth sciences and the links to other sciences or for exhibitions that are primarily concerned with aesthetics and culture; (4) research and survey, sometimes including an economic relevance. For example, mining companies are increasingly using well-documented collections of economic deposits to help reduce costs (e.g., to study ore samples from areas with geographical or political access constraints, such as Congo).

132

CHAPTER 7 GEOHERITAGE AND MUSEUMS

7.3 COLLECTIONS, RESEARCH AND EXPERTISE 7.3.1 IMPORTANCE OF COLLECTIONS FOR RESEARCH Geological collections reflect the range of scientific issues in Earth sciences, stemming from the history of the Universe and the Earth and the physical and biological mechanisms that underlie them. Therefore, geological collections range from meteorites to fossils, and from Archaean to recent times. Items in geological collections are widely used for many research issues as the specimens are used not only for their intrinsic interest but also sometimes as a source of specific chemical or physical materials or as indicators of extrinsic processes and parameters. Popper (1999) states that scientists have to find the reality hidden behind appearances. This is especially true for Earth sciences. We are used to investigating many occurrences of events, which have taken place long time ago. These have to be evaluated by scientific disciplines such as structural geology, sedimentology, all disciplines of stratigraphy, geochemistry, stable isotopes and palaeontology. Although palaeontology introduces the biological aspect in this integrated view by applying modern biology to the interpretation of fossil assemblages, it is first of all a discipline of Earth sciences. Jablonski (1999) formulated ‘Palaeontology sits squarely at the interface between the Earth and Life sciences’. In all these matters it is important to stress that scientific research, whether pure or applied, is increasingly multidisciplinary. Therefore, Earth science collections are of relevance to many issues including those surrounding biodiversity and sustainable development, which are of interest to natural history museums. Examples of research based on collections are the nature and origin of the solar system (meteorites) (Fig. 7.2), the age of the Earth, the evolution of animals and plants (fossils), and past climate change (rocks or sediments). Studies may be entirely dependent on existing collections if collecting

FIGURE 7.2 Rochechouart impactite. The fluidal structure proves that rocks have been melt at the time of the meteorite impact. r Corn´ee and Blanc-Valleron.

7.3 COLLECTIONS, RESEARCH AND EXPERTISE

133

new material is either impossible or too costly (or too difficult to access). Research of rocks from the Moon or from deep oceanic crust are two obvious examples. Others include those that are fortuitous (the ‘discovery’ of a Neanderthal baby, or the ‘conodont animal’ in drawers (De Wever, 2005, 2012). The complex chemical and physical nature of the Earth leads to a diversity of materials produced under a wide range of conditions. Therefore, it is not surprising that many minerals, rocks, and fluids are of interest to chemists, physicists, material scientists and others. In many respects the Earth acts as a laboratory providing the parameters of time, pressure and temperature that cannot be produced (yet) in the real laboratory.

7.3.2 INFORMATION AND COLLECTIONS Theoretically, the information that can be drawn from specimens is unlimited. In reality, it is limited by the necessarily limited information, which is attached to ex situ, stored specimens. Only the locality, more or less accurate, is in this limited data set. The name and the age are deduced from scientific methods. Their accuracy depends on the expertise of the researcher. Collection catalogues may provide additional information on localities, collectors or donators, but do not substantially influence the scientific standard of information. It is peculiar that in modern catalogues, terminologies are certainly different from those of the 19th century, but the kind of data set has remained unchanged. One big issue is that the information given by a collector reflects the geographical and environmental precision of the time he/she collected the specimens. Therefore, there is often a gap between the actual state of documentation of collections and the information required by modern Earth sciences. This gap even questions the scientific relevance of the collections to the point of becoming definitely meaningless. According to Erwin and Ziegler (1997), the collections do not remain healthy when the museums retreat from research. The paradox is that many Earth scientists working in institutions keeping collections contribute to the trend that tends to forget collections. The basic requirement is not only collecting the material, but also archiving and documenting material-related data. This has in fact been successfully undertaken for decades by oil companies. Cuttings and cores, isolated microfaunas (Fig. 7.3), geological maps, and logs have formed well-organised sets of data. They are supplemented by samples, guidebooks and observations collected during field trips. A change in the collecting policy also requires a change in practices. We all have experienced an enormous intellectual freedom concerning the acquisition and storage of data, and there is a strong feeling that these materials are privately owned. It certainly requires some consideration to draw the boundaries between personal and public ownership, but the often-quoted man-in-the-street will definitely not understand that materials collected with public funds remain in drawers or even crates. There are enormous scientific resources hidden in field books or still worse in pectore of the researchers, and these resources should be saved.

7.3.3 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND OLD OBJECTS New technologies allow new insights in the existing material and have opened up opportunities for exciting new work using previously collected material. The greatly enhanced sensitivity and precision of newer equipment allow investigation of hitherto somewhat impenetrable problems including

134

CHAPTER 7 GEOHERITAGE AND MUSEUMS

FIGURE 7.3 Microfossils used for dating cuttings. Radiolarians are part of the siliceous plankton useful for dating and reconstructing palaeoenvironmental conditions. (A) indicates Cretaceous time (c. 75 Ma), (B) is from Eocene (45 Ma), (C) is recent. Their size approximates 0.2 mm r P. Dumitrica.

those of environmental change in recent geological time, mantle heterogeneity, mineral sources, and inner anatomy and structure, etc. (Fig. 7.4). Museums act as repositories with a purpose even though the future purpose might not be known. Mankind’s contamination of the environment with radioisotopes (e.g., from the Chernobyl or Fukushima disasters) and other pollutants means that specimens collected prior to these events could offer important chemical benchmarks. As an example previously mentioned: the experimental nuclear explosions in the Western Pacific during the 1960s modified the environment but the original composition of the environment is found in coral samples collected prior to these experiments.

7.4 WHICH VALUE FOR COLLECTIONS?

135

FIGURE 7.4 Reconstruction of anatomy of Voulterion parvulus, a small lobster from middle Jurassic time (La Voulte/Rhoˆne) as analysed with X-ray microtomography (XTM), Scale bar 5 5 mm. r S. Charbonnier.

7.4 WHICH VALUE FOR COLLECTIONS? Some general assessments have been made on the costs of establishing collections and their current value (e.g., Blackmore et al., 1997) but their conclusions have been limited because of the lack of meaningful data. The broad conclusion can be drawn, however, that the costs have been very important. The question then asked is: does society get a reasonable return (benefits) from this substantial investment? The short answer has to be that it does not, in the form of cash. The value (as distinct from the cost) of a collection is strongly linked to its use. Value will have only an indirect relationship to cost. It will be determined not only by the intrinsic nature of the specimens themselves but also by several factors such as the quality of the associated information, their accessibility and their state of preservation. Potential users will in the first instance have to know that the specimens even exist which, in itself, is not always an easy thing to do. The value of the collections will only be accepted in the minds of some people (including government officials) if they are judged according to their use and the value that the users themselves put on them. Collections of natural objects are supposed to be underevaluated by the society compared to collections of human artifacts. And this seems to be supported by the absence of long queues to visit an exhibition on a geological topic as compared with an exhibition on impressionism, apart from some popular themes such as dinosaurs, diamonds or themes which imply science and art or science and oneirism. This is also reflected in the insurance value for natural objects in general although some objects are worth up to 10 times the value of gold (such as some meteorites, e.g., the Orgueil meteorite that fell in southwestern France in 1864). The question is then: is the financial assessment the only way to assess the value of a scientific object? Therefore, how can we convince authorities to regard objects devoid of economic value? Indeed the market value is the easiest

136

CHAPTER 7 GEOHERITAGE AND MUSEUMS

way to assess the value of a collection, as numbers seem to reflect the truth or at least an ‘objective reality’. One could by-pass this difficulty in estimating the replacement value for an object, even if one has to be conscious that this is absolutely not a ‘good’ reference, but it is at least the ‘less bad’. However, the value of a scientific collection lies elsewhere. What was the value of an old undescribed prehistoric skeleton in a drawer lying there since 1914? Probably close to zero. But its value exploded in 2002 when it was ‘rediscovered’ and identified as the first Neanderthal baby (De Wever, 2005).

7.5 COLLECTIONS AND MUSEUMS In defining or reviewing its collection strategy, a museum needs to ensure that it has a sound grasp of today’s current and potential users. Despite the fact that the users will represent different sectors such as education, entertainment and industry, the acquisition policy should be primarily, but not entirely, predicated on research needs. The collections should be developed to meet the needs of both the museum and visiting scientists. The components of an Earth science collection strategy are generally: (1) to recognise that collections are a dynamic resource; (2) to align with user needs, possibly across a wide range, including possible industrial aspects; (3) to define the institutional collection priorities, in the context of the available resources; (4) to define standards of acquisition, curation and conservation, including those for associated data; (5) to ensure an appropriate balance between collection development and the capacity to curate the material properly over time; and finally (6) to provide good systems for access to the collections by all users (for research, education, etc.). According to the International Council of Museums (ICOM) Code of Ethics (ICOM, 2013), the public exhibition justifies the existence of the institution museum. It presents authentic material in an interpretive way to a heterogeneous public (Weidacher, 1996). Exhibitions are symbolic of a natural situation (Kollmann, 2002; Weidacher, 1996). It is therefore the educational value of the specimen which is important or, in other words, its potential to prove a scientific hypothesis. The period of encyclopaedic inventory of nature was reflected in museums by systematic expositions (Fig. 7.5). Even if the public is aware of the existence of collections, their functions remain largely unknown to it. The mutation of public areas in museums into places of adventure in the final decades of the 20th century has improved the reputation of museums enormously. One should mention the various attempts to show ‘the research at work’ in museums, with the design of exhibition circuits to allow the public to look at reserves or laboratories showing ‘real’ stuff. Drawing from the experience in the Natural History Museum of London, there is a clear interest in the public to learn about collection management activities. It is striking that the political pressure on museums for further improvement of their public activities has increased with this long-overdue measure while their acceptance as research institutes has actually decreased. Museums have clearly failed to establish an adequate information policy on research parallel to that on their public activities. This is especially valid for the Earth sciences. To explain this, we must consider the significance for society.

7.6 LEGAL FRAMEWORK

137

FIGURE 7.5 ´ Palaeontology gallery at the Museum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. Most specimens are presented accordingly to their systematic position, at the time of installation, some decades ago. r Pannini CC BY 3.0

While biological sciences have grasped the opportunity raised by the increasing environmental consciousness, there has been no comparable move in Earth sciences.

7.6 LEGAL FRAMEWORK 7.6.1 ACQUISITION Museums are based on collections and therefore acquisition policy and procedures have been at the heart of their activities. The aim is always to identify items that are important for the society, whatever they relate to science, art, history, etc., and to pass them on to future generations. Acquisition policy is therefore guided by the preservation of a current state of nature, culture or mankind. This is particularly true with geological museums. Erosion is the main natural factor, which makes fossils, minerals and rocks available for collecting but also the main cause of their disappearance. Therefore, more urgently than for other natural science disciplines, it is necessary to collect specimens of scientific interest. ‘Collect it before it vanishes’ seems to be the motto for geology. Indeed, the knowledge of the environment in which the specimen has been collected is necessary, because it holds as much information as the specimen itself. Therefore, collecting requires a scientific approach. However, this science-driven collecting is dependent on the current scientific paradigms, and, therefore, one can question the usefulness of present collections for the future. Yet, collections remain the only window to the past even if partial and oriented. A new issue has arisen in recent years. With the protection of natural heritage, researchers are responsible for using lawfully collected specimens in their publications (see also Page, 2018). In the past, the scientific relevance was above any other consideration. Today, science is confronted

138

CHAPTER 7 GEOHERITAGE AND MUSEUMS

by other themes based on land rights and rightful ownership. There are two aspects related to this issue: the commercial value of geological samples and the political interest. Regarding commercial issue, minerals and rocks have always been considered as commodities; gemstones were traded from the Antiquity and stones were used to build palaces for wealthy people and sovereigns. Later, when private collections became fashionable, a market for minerals, meteorites and fossils appeared, and today this market is well established at the international level: 0.5 g of the Orgueil meteorite was sold for h2500, a dinosaur skeleton was offered for h1.2 million, and crinoids for more than h100,000. Although the values of minerals and fossils do not reach the level of impressionist’s paintings, they are high enough to cause some disputes. The first case in recent history is certainly the story of the Tyrannosaurus rex ‘Sue’. The first ever complete fossil of Tyrannosaurus was excavated in 1990, but it was subjected to a fierce judicial battle that lasted a few years between the team that had unearthed it and the land owner. In the end the court awarded the fossil to the land owner who sold it, after six and a half minutes of bidding, for a total price of US$8.36 million at Sotheby’s in 1997 (www.sothebys.com/en/news-video/blogs/all-blogs/sotheby-sat-large/2014/08/a-dinosaur-named-sue.html, accessed 07.08.17). Given the commercial value of minerals, meteorites and fossils, assessing the rightful owner and consequently ensuring the traceability of the trading process has been essential for this market. Unfortunately, moneymaking has hampered the establishment of a fair trade and has led to some forms of trafficking. A recent example that appeared in court in 2014 is the case of a Mongolian dinosaur that was imported to the US using false documents. As the Mongolian government prohibits exporting fossils (See text of the law at www.geoheritage-iugs.mnhn.fr/ index.php?catid 5 6&blogid 5 1, accessed 07.08.17), the dinosaur was forfeited and sent back to Mongolia. Yet, although this case has been exposed, it is unknown how much fossil trading lacks the adequate traceability. Geological specimens cannot yet pretend to have the same level of regulation as genetic resources or protected species. Since 1992 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (known as the Rio Convention) countries are the owners of the genetic resources found on their land and are entitled to some benefit sharing. The Rio convention has been enforced with the Nagoya protocol (The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity is an international agreement which aims at sharing the benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources in a fair and equitable way. It entered into force on 12 October 2014, 90 days after the date of deposit of the fiftieth instrument of ratification.); it establishes the procedures that ensure traceability of the use of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. Obtaining a permit to collect requires prior informed consent of the resource provider and the conditions of use are negotiated through formal mutual agreed terms. Regarding the protection of endangered species, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), also known as the Washington Convention, entered into force on 1 July 1975. CITES authorities list a series of species that need to be protected and for which trading is forbidden or strictly controlled. Customs in each country enforce this regulation. Trafficking of endangered species ranks third in international trafficking, after arms and drugs; therefore, the level of protection is very high. Indeed there is nothing comparable with trading geological specimens; although the natural heritage community is becoming more and more aware of the necessity for setting up international rules

7.6 LEGAL FRAMEWORK

139

(www.portals.iucn.org/library/node/46500, accessed 07.08.17), there are some ethical issues, which come close to what the Washington convention is aiming to achieve with the ‘Conflict diamonds’ that fed civil wars in Africa since the 1990s, that epitomise the ethical issues in trade. However, to some extent, many areas, which are well known for providing remarkable and highly priced mineralogical or palaeontological specimens, are also known for being politically unstable, disputed or simply bordered by war regions. Although legally bought from merchants or in auctions, any museum should wonder whether the money it gives supports an armed conflict. Thus, museums have to be extremely cautious when acquiring new specimens for their collection. The time has now gone where almost any specimen could enter a collection providing a scientist decreed it was for the sake of science! Similarly, unearthing minerals or fossils can be an activity in poor countries that conflict with the western world ethics, especially when it comes to child labour or sheer exploitation of people. Fair trade in minerals and fossils should be implemented in the museums’ acquisition policies. Commercial issues are not the only ones to be considered in a museum’s policy. Enriching collections for museums even purely for the sake of science can be embroiled in political issues. As history shows, some acquisitions are related to military conquests and items were seized as trophies. In some other cases, a local weak or complicit government allowed the heritage of the country to be taken away. There are many examples, in the domain of cultural heritage, of rows between countries and questions about repatriation, such as the Elgin marbles from the Parthenon (Fig. 7.6) or the Nefertiti bust from Egypt. Although more rarely, natural history specimens have also been the subject of similar stories, such as the Mosasaurus of Maastricht (see Box 7.1). The political dimension of geological specimens is thus to be considered. The ICOM Code of Ethics (ICOM, 2013) that applies to all museums in the world summarizes the issues discussed above regarding the acquisition policy of specimens from nature: Article 2.3. Provenance and due diligence Every effort must be made before acquisition to ensure that any object or specimen offered for purchase, gift, loan, bequest, or exchange has not been illegally obtained in, or exported from its country of origin or any intermediate country in which it might have been owned legally (including the museum’s own country). Due diligence

FIGURE 7.6 The left hand group of surviving figures from the East Pediment of the Parthenon, exhibited as part of the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum. r Andrew Dunn, CC-BY-SA 2.0.

140

CHAPTER 7 GEOHERITAGE AND MUSEUMS

BOX 7.1 AN ARMY FOR A FOSSIL Near the end of the 18th century, workers at an underground chalk quarry near Saint-Pierre Maastricht (Maastrichtian) discovered a fossil. They mentioned it to Dr Hoffman, the local physician, a collector of fossils. But the quarry belonged to regular canon Godin. The case went before the chapter, which decided to allocate the skull to Godin. Very proud of this piece with very big teeth he transformed the discovery into a success story. This head became very famous. By 1794, the French revolution army besieged Maastricht and requested the famous fossil. By that time, the famous piece was hidden in some secure place, and was impossible to find for days until G´en´eral Pichegru promised to his soldiers 600 bottles of wine to whom would bring back the specimen. Obviously the general knew how to address his ´ soldiers and the same day the fossil was found! The fossil was sent in 1795 to the Museum national d’Histoire naturelle, in Paris, where it was studied by Georges Cuvier (Fig. 7.7). It is still there. This story was told by Faujas de Saint-Fond in 1799 (see Bardet and Jagt, 1996).

FIGURE 7.7 ´ Skull of the ‘big Maastricht animal’ studied by Cuvier as it can be seen at the Museum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. It has been named Mosasaurus (the Meuse lizard). r MWAK, domaine public.

in this regard should establish the full history of the item since discovery or production. Article 2.4. Objects and specimens from unauthorized or unscientific fieldwork Museums should not acquire objects where there is reasonable cause to believe their recovery involved unauthorized or unscientific fieldwork, or intentional destruction or damage of monuments, archaeological or geological sites, or of species and natural habitats. In the same way, acquisition should not occur if there has been a failure to disclose the finds to the owner or occupier of the land, or to the proper legal or governmental authorities. [. . .]

7.6 LEGAL FRAMEWORK

141

Article 2.6. Protected biological or geological specimens Museums should not acquire biological or geological specimens that have been collected, sold, or otherwise transferred in contravention of local, national, regional or international law or treaty relating to wildlife protection or natural history conservation.

7.6.2 PROTECTION OF EX SITU GEOHERITAGE Good protection measures for geoheritage should begin with an inventory of geosites (see Brilha, 2018; Prosser et al., 2018). The conservation of geoheritage focuses on preserving those most valued and significant elements and sites, as there are numerous threats that need to be considered such as unsustainable specimen collecting, coastal erosion, quarrying or infill of disused quarries, vegetation overgrowth, urban development and so on. We refer to heritage for items that belong to humankind in a global sense beyond selected individual inalienable items in museums. Some objects of ‘geoheritage’, because of their exemplarity ´ or scarcity, have to be taken as a whole, such as the famous ‘Ammonites slab’ in the Reserve ´ geologique de Haute Provence, in France, or some outcrops from South Morocco rich in Devonian orthocone nautiloids (Fig. 7.8). Specimens from the latter region, however, are often assembled as composite slabs, which include areas simply carved from the matrix (Fig. 7.8). Geological objects such as these are sold in shops as artworks or ornamental materials (and not as a geoheritage objects) and are intended to display beautiful fossils for private or public use (e.g., in museums). Most geologists will recognise these pieces as being artificial and some artwork fossil ‘designers’ do clearly indicate in their shops

FIGURE 7.8 Limestone slabs rich in Palaeozoic orthocone nautiloids (Siluro-Devonian); South Morocco, Erfoud area. (Photograph by P. De Wever).

142

CHAPTER 7 GEOHERITAGE AND MUSEUMS

that they design and make ‘artificial’ fossils (Fig. 7.8). . . but not all of them. When sold, such examples do provide incomes for the local community, but the sustainability of the activity and potential danger to the area’s geoheritage is rarely considered. However, this position should be balanced by the fact that trade in minerals and fossils is not negligible in some countries. Forbidding trade for the sake of protection is playing in the interest of science and against local economies. It would require accompanying measures to fulfill social needs. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Once they have been acquired by a museum, geological specimens are registered; registration marks the ownership and, therefore, guarantees some legal protection. This level of protection depends on the national laws and the status, private or public, of the museum or the collection itself, which can be privately owned or owned by the state. The laws that control collecting are used to control the export and movements of geoheritage specimens. Assuming geological specimens lawfully entered a collection, there are other laws that control their movements. Geological collections are not only protected because of their scientific value but also because they are museum objects. The UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage defines natural heritage as sites of scientific or conservation interest. The protection offered in the framework of this convention is addressed elsewhere (Migo´n, 2018). The following section is devoted to the protection originating from the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970). Its article 1 defines the term ‘cultural property’ as a list of items among which are ‘rare collections and specimens of fauna, flora, minerals and anatomy, and objects of palaeontological interest’. This convention has been translated into laws in many countries, and, therefore, allows ex situ geoheritage protection. This convention represented a jump in the perception of natural heritage as cultural heritage. Protection of archaeological items has been used to protect geological specimens by extending protection of other goods (Fig. 7.9). Protection of archaeological objects began at an early stage (19th century) because of the trade that had existed for centuries. From protecting archeological objects, awareness of the need to protect geological specimens grew step by step: from human remains and objects to fossils and vertebrates more easily than to invertebrates, and from fossils more easily than to rocks and sediments. This gradation is also due probably to the perception that vertebrate fossils, especially big ones, are individual animals, whereas invertebrates are found in large series and therefore their loss is less perceived as an issue, not to mention rocks and minerals which are seen as renewable and not identified to unique specimens (with the notable exception of meteorites).

7.6.3 THREE EXAMPLES: FRANCE, SOUTH AFRICA AND TURKEY France is a country where cultural heritage is extremely well protected. Public collections are defined by law and registering a specimen in a public collection means that it cannot ever be given away (inalienable and imprescriptible). Export is indeed forbidden, and authorisation must be granted by the Ministry of Culture even for temporarily exporting an object for an exhibition. Moreover, French heritage protection applies outside the world of public collections. A decree defines what is considered as a cultural good and gives a list of 14 categories and the criteria for

7.6 LEGAL FRAMEWORK

143

FIGURE 7.9 These fossil urchins Micraster disposed in circle in a Neolithic grave have no special value by their own, but since they are disposed in a grave they bear an archaeological value. Do they have only one value? Some may bear several types of interests; therefore, their status is not easy to establish. Dunstable Downs, England (Smith, 1894).

each of them. One category concerns collections and specimens from collections of zoology, botany, mineralogy and anatomy, and collections of historical, palaeontological, ethnographical, numismatic, philatelic interest which is worth more than h50,000 (latest threshold value defined in 2001). Any item in this category requires an authorisation from the Ministry of Culture prior to export. This protection goes even further as France can forbid the export of cultural goods for sale, providing that a French institution acquires those cultural goods for its collections at the price that has been declared. However, control at the border is not totally efficient: customs officers are well aware of the value of art objects, or endangered species and CITES convention, but much less of geoheritage. Estimating the commercial value of a geological specimen can be difficult; attention can be drawn to a large and complete fossil or a beautifully crystallised mineral, but a fancy specimen of high scientific value may not be noted. This goes beyond the case of cultural goods and specimens collected in protected areas could be exported unnoticed. In comparison, South Africa does not set a threshold for geoheritage objects, which are defined as ‘objects recovered from the soil or waters of South Africa, including archaeological and palaeontological objects, meteorites and rare geological specimens’ (National Heritage Resources Act No. 25, 1999). Deciding whether a specimen is rare or not is difficult and requires a very good knowledge of the South African geology. This is necessary as heritage objects are highly protected in situ, as much as ex situ, in South Africa. As a last example, Turkey issued a law protecting cultural and natural heritage in 1983 (Act 28963). Article 4 lists the items, which are considered as cultural heritage. Among them, geoheritage is defined as ‘all types of articles of cultural and natural heritage that belong to geological,

144

CHAPTER 7 GEOHERITAGE AND MUSEUMS

prehistorical and historical period and which have documentary value with regards to geology, anthropology, prehistory, archaeology’. Export of these is forbidden, and the wide definition of natural heritage means that, practically, exporting geoheritage is illegal or is at least under the scrutiny of Turkish authorities.

7.7 FINAL REMARKS The current discussion on the meaningfulness of collections results from the fact that Earth sciences have inadequately proved their benefits for society. A stronger involvement of geoscientists in the global discussion and a professional mediation should improve the situation. This has to be coupled with an adequate staff structure including genuine management structures. Collections will always be needed in a scientific discipline based on natural science. It is, however, unrealistic to believe that collections can grow indefinitely. Collecting policy has to be defined more narrowly and material which is useless from a scientific standpoint has to be eliminated.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the following for their photographs: Marie-Madeleine Blanc-Valleron, Sylvain Charbonnier, Annie ´ Corn´ee and Paulian Dumitrica. This work was supported by the Museum national d’Histoire naturelle in Paris (ASM Patrimoine g´eologique) and by the International Commission on Geoheritage of IUGS.

REFERENCES Bardet, N., Jagt, J., 1996. Mosasaurus hoffmanni, le “Grand Animal fossile des Carrie`res de Maestricht”: deux sie`cles d’histoire. Bulletin du Mus´eum national d’Histoire naturelle, 4e s´erie, Section C18 (4), 569 593 (in French). Blackmore, S., Donlon, N., Watson, E., 1997. Calculating the financial value of systematic collections. In: Nudds, J.R., Pettit, C.W. (Eds.), The Value and Valuation of Natural Science Collections. The Geological Society, London, pp. 17 21. Brilha, J., 2018. Geoheritage: Inventories and evaluation. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 69 86. Cayla, N., Martin, S., 2018. Digital geovisualisation technologies applied to geoheritage management. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 289 304. De Wever, P., 2005. Introduction. In: De Wever, P., Guiraud, M., Corn´ee, A. (Eds.), Des collections en sciences de la Terre pour quoi faire? Actes de la table ronde des 15 16 octobre 2002. NNHN/OCIM, Paris, pp. 9 18 (in French). De Wever, P., 2012. Carnet de curiosit´e d’une g´eologue. Ellipses, Paris (in French). Erwin, D.H., Ziegler, W., 1997. Paleontology on museums and institutes in the 21st century. In: Lane, H.R., Lipps, J., Steininger, F.F., Ziegler, W. (Eds.), Paleontology in the 21st Century. Senckenberg, Frankfurt, pp. 69 75. Faujas de Saint-Fond, B., 1799. Histoire naturelle de la Montagne St-Pierre a` Maestricht. Paris (in French).

REFERENCES

145

ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums, 2013. Available from: ,icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Codes/ code_ethics2013_eng.pdf. (accessed 07.08.17). Jablonski, D., 1999. The future of the fossil record. Science 284, 2114 2116. Kollmann, H.A., 2002. In-situ and ex-situ geological conservation. Warisan Geol. Malaysia 5, 3 18. Migo´n, P., 2018. Geoheritage and World Heritage sites. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 237 250. Page, K.N., 2018. Fossils, heritage and conservation: managing demands on a precious resource. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 107 128. Popper, K.R., 1999. All Life Is Problem Solving. Routledge, London-New York. Prosser, C.D., D´ıaz-Martinez, E., Larwood, J.G., 2018. The conservation of geosites: principles and practice. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 193 212. Smith, W.G., 1894. Man, the Primeval Savage. Stanford, London. Weidacher, F., 1996. Handbuch der Allgemeinen Museologie, second ed, Bo¨hlau, Wien (in German).

CHAPTER

THE LANDSCAPE AND THE CULTURAL VALUE OF GEOHERITAGE

8

Emmanuel Reynard1 and Christian Giusti2 1

University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland 2University of Paris-Sorbonne, Paris, France

8.1 INTRODUCTION Both the landscape and the cultural values of geoheritage are the result of a perception process (i.e., a social process that involves the characteristics of the landforms or geological objects (form, size, colour, etc.) as well as the perception by observers or users; Reynard, 2009). Heritage-making (‘patrimonialisation’; Di M´eo, 2008) is the process that makes a territorial element (cultural asset, natural area, tradition and all the parts of the so-called ‘immaterial heritage’, etc.) be recognised by society as being important to conserve and to be transmitted to future generations. Geoheritage making follows at least three stages (Martin, 2013; Portal, 2010): the awareness of the need for conservation by specific social groups (mostly scientific circles or conservationists), the translation in specific measures in particular legal ones, and the recognition by society in general. This process is anchored both spatially and temporally. This explains why geoheritage protection is currently discussed and enhanced in some parts of the World (e.g., in Europe, Corn´ee et al., 2016; Wimbledon and Smith-Meyer, 2012) and not in others (e.g., Africa; Errami et al., 2015), and why there have been several waves of heritage-making through time (e.g., Burek and Prosser, 2008; Reynard et al., 2011), and why in some parts of the world geoheritage is a conservation issue whereas in others it is more related to promotion or education topics (e.g., cultural geology, geotourism). For all these reasons, the landscape and cultural values of geoheritage are more or less emphasised in geoheritage research and management. It is the aim of this chapter to discuss first the landscape value and then the cultural value of geoheritage.

8.2 THE LANDSCAPE VALUE OF GEOHERITAGE After a brief discussion of what the word ‘landscape’ usually stands for, relations between landscape and geoheritage are examined, with a specific focus on the aesthetic dimension of geological features throughout scenery.

Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00008-3 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

147

148

CHAPTER 8 THE LANDSCAPE AND THE CULTURAL VALUE

8.2.1 LANDSCAPE As noted in a former publication (Reynard, 2009), the term ‘landscape’ corresponds to a wide polysemous concept largely used in various fields of research, from ecology and geography to the fine arts and architecture. However, the word is missing from most of the geology dictionaries we consulted, except for Penguin’s (Kearey, 2001) where the expression ‘landscape marble’ can be found for ‘a limestone showing a pattern on a cut and polished surface similar to a landscape scene’. Not surprisingly, ‘landscape’ is present in the Dictionary of Physical Geography (Whittow, 1984) with the following definition: ‘a term derived from the Dutch (landschap) which referred simply to rural scenery. Its modern usage relates to the total surface form of any area, rural or urban, and includes both natural and man-made features, i.e., both the natural and the cultural landscape’. This definition has been supplemented with the inclusion of the perception by Humans in the European Landscape Convention (2000), according to which ‘landscape means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors’. The words for ‘landscape’ appear from the 15th century in the languages of Western Europe, rather early for the Anglo-Saxon languages except English (Dutch, 1462, ‘lantscap’, ‘landschap’; German, 1480, ‘Landschaft’; English, 1598, ‘landscape’ or ‘landskipe’), later for Latin languages (Portuguese, 1548, ‘paisagem’; French, 1549, ‘paysage’; Italian, 1552, ‘paesaggio’; Spanish, 1552? 1708, ‘paisaje’), but this linguistic signal should be interpreted with caution (Luginbu¨hl, 2012). First, the late arrival of ‘paesaggio’ in Italian and ‘landscape’ in English is explained by the com´ in petition of ‘veduta’ for the former and ‘country’ for the latter (with the same sense of ‘contree’ French). Second, the absence of the word ‘landscape’ in the languages of the Middle Ages and the Greco-Roman world of Ancient History, or in other languages and other cultures outside Europe and the Old World, does not necessarily mean that the people concerned were not aware of what later was conceptually formalised under the term ‘landscape’: in German, the word equivalent to ‘landscape’ was present since the 8th century in Latin glosses referring to ‘patria’, ‘provincia’ or ‘regio’ (Franceschi, 1997). For Olwig (2002), ‘Landschaft’ expresses a set formed by both a tract of land and the people that live there: therefore, the word has a geographical as well as a social and political significance, which is also found in the Danish ‘landskab’. Luginbu¨hl (2012), acting as a past drafter of the European Landscape Convention, considers that the cultural theory of civilisations that have the sense of landscape and civilisations that do not have this sense (Berque, 1994), based on the aesthetic criteria and the invention of perspective, must be relativised: ‘donner pour ´ ´ origine au mot paysage la representation picturale d’un pays est reducteur et incomplet, en ce sens ´ ´ que l’apparition de ces sujets de peinture est la manifestation emergente de profondes evolutions sociales et politiques, dont l’analyse linguistique porte la trace’. In Italy (Tuscany, Republic of Venice), ‘landscape’ arises in a context marked by a tension between economic dimension (land use) and aesthetic dimension (painting), between tangible and intangible, and between political action and social sensitivities (Luginbu¨hl, 2012). The four poles (nature, culture, individual, social) and six dimensions (sensorial, aesthetic, identification, political, economic, ecologic) of any landscape (Backhaus et al., 2007) are confirmed by the idea that the landscape is a social construction, a mix of tangible (geodiversity, biodiversity, humankind, i.e., landscape as a given complex object, both physical and anthropogenic) and intangible features (emotion, aesthetics, senses, symbols, phenomena, individual feelings, social representations,

8.2 THE LANDSCAPE VALUE OF GEOHERITAGE

149

i.e., the perceived landscape, or landscape as a subject through the observer’s experience) (Luginbu¨hl, 2012; Reynard, 2009). The separation between natural and cultural landscapes is the result of a difference of representations between experts of two continents, Europe and North America, whose geography and history are very different. The American wilderness is the model shared by the followers of the natural landscape as an expression of a land colonised for a relatively short time, among which it is conventional to oppose the two iconic figures of Gifford Pinchot for the conservationist approach and John Muir for the preservationist approach (Moseley et al., 2014). On the other hand, the European countryside is the model of those who think that the landscape results from the conversion of the land over centuries, or even millennia, from the struggles that the peasantry were driving against nature to transform it into productive land and suitable habitats (Bertrand, 1975; Luginbu¨hl, 2012). However, at the rate to which the areas of wilderness are actually retreating (Watson et al., 2016), the concept of natural landscape, which appeared in the early 19th century with the writings on ‘Landschaftskunde’ by Alexander von Humboldt, could become obsolete before the end of the 21st century. Luginbu¨hl (2012) notices that the wilderness areas of the American West are in fact already cultural landscapes, not only as part of the identity and culture of the United States citizens, but also because they entered the collective representations worldwide. It could be added that the risk exists for these landscapes to survive only as open air nature museum islets, drowned in a fully artificialised world.

8.2.2 LANDSCAPE AND GEOHERITAGE The American geographer Carl Sauer, in reaction against the selective and oriented reading of landscapes favoured by the proponents of the Davisian approach in geomorphology (Davis, 1899), recalled in The Morphology of Landscape (Sauer, 1925) that biophysical elements of a landscape cannot be reduced solely to landforms and geological structures, but that vegetation, climate, weather and hydrology are also tangible components of any landscape, and that the biophysical landscape itself loads throughout history a series of interwoven human traces, which help to define the cultural landscape. Such integrated approaches are still in use today (e.g., Erikstad et al., 2015; Mu¨cher et al., 2010). In short, landscape is by no means synonymous with landforms or geological structure. It is therefore essential to distinguish the treatment of the landscape as a whole and the intellectual operations consisting in the extraction from any given landscape of features specific to specialties such as geology and geomorphology (Reynard, 2009). In particular, to characterise the landforms of a scenery, one must be able to locate them according to two complement frames, which coexist in the visible geographical space but do not share the same properties and significance: on the one hand, the current topographic and geomorphological space with its ‘hollows’ or low points (basins, valleys, lowlands) and ‘bumps’ or high points (knobs, ridges of mountain chains, highlands), on the other hand the space of geological features (stratigraphy, lithology, tectonic, etc.) inherited from the past or actually functional. Textbooks of geology and Earth sciences often put a photograph of a stunning landscape on the cover page. Among the most photographed are the remarkable sceneries of the Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, the Henry Mountains, Arches National Park (all in the United States), and Banff National Park (Canada). More recently, out of North America, the monoliths of Uluru and Kata Tjuta in Australia, the fjords of Norway, the lochs of Scotland, the flysch cliffs of Zumaia on the

150

CHAPTER 8 THE LANDSCAPE AND THE CULTURAL VALUE

FIGURE 8.1 Examples illustrating the landscape value of geoheritage. (A) Zumaia section, Basque Country, Spain is an example of impressive geological landscape; geological features are the core of the quality of this landscape, which has other important geoheritage values. In particular, it is a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (see Finney and Hilario, 2018) (Photograph by C. Giusti). (B) Coastal landscape, Belle-Ile, Morbihan, France. Active Quaternary coastal landforms are shaped in old rocks and structures (Paleozoic), showing the long history of most geomorphological landscapes (Photograph by C. Giusti). (C) Babele weathering landform, Bucegi Mountains, Romania. The site is recognised as a natural monument of geomorphological origin; note the intense gully erosion around the site, due to trampling by visitors (Photograph by C. Giusti). (D) Lavaux World Heritage site. The vineyard was recognised as World Heritage cultural site by UNESCO in 2007 (criteria (iii), (iv) and (v)). It is also recognised as a cultural landscape, and there are strong links between the geomorphological features and the terraced vineyard, some of the ‘walls’ being conglomerate outcrops eroded by Quaternary glaciers (Photograph by E. Reynard).

Basque Coast, Spain (Fig. 8.1A), or the chalk arches of Etretat in Normandy, France, have succeeded with modest breakthroughs. Much remains to be done to improve the visibility of geological landscapes and seascapes of Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania, as well as those of some Arctic or Antarctic mountains and coasts partially free of ice such as Spitsbergen, Greenland, the Transantarctic Mountains, the Ellsworth Mountains, the Antarctic Peninsula. Because of darkness, the oceanic geological sceneries of the deep are notably absent from the popular iconography (but not the scientific literature; see Karson et al., 2015): features like oceanic ridges, fracture zones,

8.2 THE LANDSCAPE VALUE OF GEOHERITAGE

151

abyssal plains, seamounts and oceanic trenches are digitally mapped or artistically designed but far less represented than the illuminated surface of solid planetary bodies of the solar system. The landscape drawings are as old as geology: the Principles of Geology by Charles Lyell (1830 33) includes 135 drawings, a quarter of them being views of the dynamic Earth: seismic or volcanic landscapes of the Italian peninsula (Apennines, Vesuvius, Campi Flegrei, Ischia, Procida, Etna), volcanoes of Olot (Catalonia), granitic islands of Scotland (Shetland) or coral islands in the Pacific (Henderson of Pitcairn Islands), or a series of views of the Weald (England) with valleys carved into the chalk. Colours, photographs and digital geological mapping allow us to go much further today in the study of relationships between landscape and geological structures, which is the central subject of many books and guides dealing with regional geology. For example, Bichet and Campy (2008) illustrated their monography on landscape and geology of the Jura Mountains with nearly 200 pictures of landscapes seen either from the ground or from the air, some with the geological section inserted in the photograph of the landscape. Section three of the book is specifically devoted to ‘the Jura landscapes explained by geology’. Regarding more specifically the geomorphological perception of landscapes, it is really important to differentiate between the age of the rock formations, the age of the tectonic structures and the age of the landforms. The rocks with their characteristic fossils or minerals, and the tectonic structures with their folds, fractures or cleavage have a much longer lifetime than the landforms. As an example, while the Hercynian mountains disappeared at the end of the Paleozoic Era, lowered to a large continental plain of erosion, many witnesses of the Variscan chain are still observable in several regions of Europe (Harz, Black Forest, Vosges, Massif Central, Armorican Massif) and North America (Appalachian Mountains). However, in all these areas, if rocks and structures are old (mostly of Paleozoic age), the development of landforms is mainly of Neogene and Quaternary age (Fig. 8.1B).

8.2.3 THE QUESTION OF THE AESTHETICS In the Epoques de la Nature, Buffon (1780) widely used in a metaphorical mode the vocabulary of ‘epochs’, ‘archives’, ‘documens’, or ‘monumens’ of Nature throughout the history of Earth (Roger, 1962). In 1814 Humboldt formalised the concept of ‘natural monument’, ‘Naturdenkmal’ (Guichard-Anguis and H´eritier, 2008). And from Hooke’s Discourses to the Royal Society in 1687 88 until the mid-19th century, for nearly two centuries fossils were considered among geologists to be the ‘currencies’ (‘monnaie’ in French) and ‘medals’ of stratigraphy (Ellenberger, 1994). All these borrowed words had a meaning as historical markers (‘monument’ derives from the Latin ‘moneo’, which means ‘to remind’; Ellenberger, 1994). At the end of the 19th century they also entered into the laws of European countries that institutionalised the concept of ‘natural monument’ (e.g., the creation of the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty in England, Wales and Ireland in 1895; the adoption of the Act on Protection of Natural Sites and Monuments of Artistic Character in France (1906); the creation of the Lega Nazionale per la protezione dei monumenti naturali in Italy (1913); Guichard-Anguis and H´eritier, 2008; Fig. 8.1C). However, dissemination of heritage practices is a more recent phenomenon (Choay, 2009), symbolised by the adoption of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO, 1972; see also The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO, 2016). Criterion (vii), often abbreviated as ‘aesthetic

152

CHAPTER 8 THE LANDSCAPE AND THE CULTURAL VALUE

criterion’, means a site to be able ‘to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance’. This definition raises the question of what ‘beauty’ can be in the Earth sciences, including geomorphology (Giusti, 2014), at the interface of geology (i.e., the substratum) and geography (i.e., the landscape), because landforms are quite often the expression of certain geological structures which become apparent in the landscape (see Migo´n, 2018). Moreover, some inscribed properties in the category of ‘cultural landscapes’ (Droste et al., 1995; UNESCO, 2003) give an important place to geological and geomorphological features, as exemplified by the Lavaux, Vineyard Terraces (Fig. 8.1D) or The Climats, terroirs of Burgundy. The polychrome strata in a group of sedimentary layers, the succession of cylindrical folds along the flanks of a mountain valley, the vigorous and intriguing contrasts formed by all the abnormal contacts such as the base of thrust nappes or any angular unconformity, the reddish glow ´ of lavas at night, the orange blaze of volcanic projections, the cascades of grey-blue seracs along glaciers, the patterned soils of the high latitudes, the emerald lakes, the turquoise sea, the white sand in desert areas, the wave breaking at the foot of the cliff, the gush of the waterfall at the top of slopes and the translucent veil of cascading torrents, the muffled collapse of the roaring cataracts, the changing palette of colours, the sudden break of a slope, the enigmatic singular reliefs at sunset or sunrise, the clean lines of a volcano either above a lowland plain or the seemingly according summits of mountains, the infinite horizon of continental palaeoplains are stunning and spectacular features for which beauty is invariably summoned (Migo´n, 2010). Perhaps the beauty resides therefore less in the outburst of emotions than in the elements of understanding. When flying from the Pacific ocean over the Andes or the Cascades, it is a great cause for intellectual satisfaction to mentally associate the mechanisms of plate tectonics to the plastic beauty of glaciated landforms and to the dynamic beauty of volcanic plumes. The geysers of the Iceland rift or of the Kamchatka peninsula are examples of natural phenomena showing that beauty is not only static, but also lies in the power of the manifestations of internal and external geodynamics. An important point, rarely considered, is that of transforming an a priori nonmarket good, herein the landscape, into a market-good subject to the law of supply and demand. The issue was raised by the American geomorphologist Luna Leopold (1969a,b), a specialist in rivers and streams. He tried to quantitatively assess the aesthetic value of a river valley by calculating how the landscape was unique in its entirety (total uniqueness ratio), to oppose the representatives of hydropower plants and land use planning managers with some figures comparable to theirs (Giusti, 2014). As emphasised by Luginbu¨hl (2012), the price of a landscape comes down mostly to property prices and proximity of views considered as ‘pleasant’. Politicians are often pleased to this reductive approach that treats the landscape as an object of contemplation and not as a product of the action of a society.

8.3 THE CULTURAL VALUE OF GEOHERITAGE The links between geoheritage and culture are multiple. In this chapter, after discussing the notion of cultural geology, these relationships are addressed in three ways (Fig. 8.2): first, how geoheritage and geological processes influence culture; second, how culture may influence geoheritage perception and management; third, how cultural and geological heritage are integrated.

8.3 THE CULTURAL VALUE OF GEOHERITAGE

153

FIGURE 8.2 The study of the relationships between culture and geology is the aim of cultural geology and cultural geomorphology. Culture influences Earth system management, mainly through the perception of Earth, itself depending on immaterial cultural elements such as values, symbols, traditions, etc. Earth systems influence cultural systems in various ways (hazards, resource, threats, etc.). In places where geoheritage interacts with cultural assets, one can speak of a specific category of sites, called geocultural sites.

One point may be clarified. The various examples presented below illustrate the relationships between geological elements (structures, outcrops, landforms) and cultural elements, both material (monuments, vestiges) or immaterial (religious practices, traditions). In some cases, the concerned geological objects have a high value for the knowledge of the Earth history; they are geosites in the sense of Brilha (2016, 2018). In other cases, the concerned geological features have no particular scientific value but present several interests in terms of education, geotourism, etc.; they are geodiversity sites in the sense of Brilha (2016, 2018). In both cases, if the geological features interact with cultural elements (historical or archaeological vestiges, cultural or religious monuments, etc.) the geoheritage value joins the cultural value and one can speak of a geocultural site (Fig. 8.2).

8.3.1 CULTURAL GEOLOGY The cultural value of geoheritage may be studied from three main points of view (Fig. 8.2). Firstly, geoheritage, as other types of natural heritage, can be considered as part of the cultural heritage in a broad sense of a society, a nation or humankind (Panizza and Piacente, 2003),

154

CHAPTER 8 THE LANDSCAPE AND THE CULTURAL VALUE

considering that landforms or geological features as heritage elements is clearly the result of a perceptual process. Secondly, strong links between cultural heritage and geological elements may exist; e.g., most historical monuments and archaeological vestiges are built by dimension stones. Finally, geological processes may affect and sometimes destroy cultural heritage. In Europe, the protection of cultural heritage especially the vestiges of Antiquity and the protection of nature have followed a more or less parallel history (Lowenthal, 2005). It is the Italian Renaissance which marks, with the entry into modernity, the beginning of the interest in nature and ancient ruins. Petrarch marvelled as much for the Alps as for the Roman vestiges. However, the protection of antique goods emerged at the turn of the 19th century, whereas it was not until the mid-19th century that the first extensive measures to protect nature were taken. Some protectors of the arts and monuments are equally fervent defenders of nature (Ruskin in Britain, Victor Hugo or Chateaubriand in France). The poet Johann Wolfgang Goethe also celebrated landscapes, the arts and geology (Geyer et al., 2007; Migo n´ , 2016; Panizza and Coratza, 2012). This symbiosis between natural and cultural heritage certainly finds its apogee in the definition of cultural landscapes by UNESCO as the expression of a balance between nature and its exploitation by man (Droste et al., 1995; UNESCO, 2003). Nevertheless, differences exist between protection of nature and protection of cultural heritage (Lowenthal, 2005). Firstly, local populations are more open to protecting their cultural heritage than the nature for which protection is rather carried by external actors. This can have a significant impact on the implementation of protection policies at the local level. Secondly, most natural heritage cannot be exported, while cultural heritage (especially art objects) is easily moveable; again, this will impact on management policies. Thirdly, nature protection focuses on the long-term preservation of species or ecosystems, while the protection of cultural property has a more objectoriented approach. The protection of some geoheritage elements (e.g., fossils, minerals) is also object-oriented (see Chapter 7: Geoheritage and Museums). Concerning more specifically geoheritage, the close links between landforms and geological structures and cultural elements gave rise to specific areas of research in the Earth sciences: cultural geology (Andersen et al., 2015) and cultural geomorphology (Panizza and Piacente, 2003, 2009) (Fig. 8.2). Cultural geology considers that the culture of a society can be influenced by geology. Rock outcrops or cave walls are supports for rock art, landforms are landmarks for migrations, mineral resources have influenced human settlements (mining towns, spas), while in some traditions, myths are born in the anthropomorphic figures of landforms. Cultural geomorphology is viewed as ‘the discipline that studies the geomorphological components of a territory which embodies both a cultural feature of the landscape and its interactions with cultural heritage of the archaeological, historical, architectonic etc. type’ (Panizza and Piacente, 2009). These interactions may be studied through five operative phases (Panizza and Piacente, 2003, 2009): (1) the analysis of the physical setting of the territory where the studied cultural asset is situated; (2) the analysis of the geomorphological factors, which conditioned the location of the given cultural asset; (3) the assessment of geomorphic hazards that are threatening the cultural asset; (4) the analysis of potential environmental impacts related to the use (e.g., tourist use) of the cultural asset; (5) the proposal of management measures.

8.3 THE CULTURAL VALUE OF GEOHERITAGE

155

8.3.2 GEOHERITAGE AND CULTURE 8.3.2.1 Influence of geology on cultural assets Kiernan (2015) recently proposed an extensive discussion on the relationships between religions and geoheritage. He first demonstrated that religions often participate in the protection of geosites e.g., taboo sites, sacred places de facto protected against human impacts but that some practices may also destroy geosites (e.g., collection of speleothems from karst caves for ceremonial practices in Mexico (Brady et al., 1997). The cohabitation between the religious value of certain sites and their use for other activities may generate conflicts. This is the case of the Uluru and Kata Tjuta inselbergs in the central Australian desert (Twidale, 2010), which are sacred sites for indigenous culture (Kiernan, 2015): although Uluru became the property of the Anangu aboriginal community in 1985 and despite warnings not to climb the inselberg out of respect for aboriginal culture, about 20% of tourists more than 50,000 people who visit the site each year, climb to the summit (Fig. 8.3A). Famous pilgrimage sites may be highly impacted by visitors, as it is the case in Lourdes karstic caves, in France (Gauchon, 1997), visited by more than 6 million pilgrims per year. Second, numerous landforms and geological structures have been attributed sacred status by various religions; they include islands (e.g., Easter Island), rivers (e.g., Ganges sources, Kali Gandaki gorge in Nepal), rock outcrops (e.g., taffonis on the Uluru inselberg, bowl stones (‘cupules’) in Atlantic Europe and European Alps); boulders and standing stones (e.g., Stonehenge in England (Green, 1997), Carnac in France (Sellier, 1995)); mountains (e.g., Mount Sinai as a sacred site for Judaism and Christianism; Mount Ararat as the resting place for Noah’s Ark after the Deluge; Adam’s Peak (Sri Pada) in Sri Lanka revered as a holy site by Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Christians), caves (e.g., the monastic tradition in Christianity, the springs associated with holy water). Also glaciers have a religious significance in various parts of the world (Gagn´e et al., 2014). Oral traditions may refer to geological or geomorphological events, as is the case for meteorite impacts in Australia (Hamacher and Goldsmith, 2013) or historical tsunamis in New Zealand (King and Goff, 2010). Glacier fluctuations are also well recorded by oral tradition (e.g., Cruikshank, 2001; Gagn´e et al., 2014). The impact of geology on culture also involves the assignment of specific place names, as documented by Sellier (2013) in the case of the quartzite mountains of the European Atlantic coast. Thus, people of Norway, Scotland and Ireland share a common place-naming tradition referring to geomorphology (the pointed and pyramidal shapes of the quartzite peaks, the predominance of rock outcrops, or the white colour of the quartzite outcrops). Toponymy may also be used to reconstruct climate change and former environments (Sousa et al., 2010). An important link between geology/geomorphology and culture is the use of natural stones as building material (Pˇrikryl and To¨ro¨k, 2010). Several cases have been studied in various parts of the world. One may be interested to know the geographical, and also the geological, origin of the stones used to build emblematic cultural monuments and historical cities (Cooper et al., 2013). Del Lama et al. (2015) studied the origin of rocks used for building the historical centre of São Paulo City, in Brazil. From this, they proposed a geotouristic trail. Palacio-Prieto (2015) did the same in Mexico City. Another example is Ancient Egypt, which was considered as the ‘state out of stone’ by Evers (1929) because of the importance of the use of natural stones throughout the three millennia of the Egyptian civilisation. Klemm and Klemm (2001) considering the building stones as a

156

CHAPTER 8 THE LANDSCAPE AND THE CULTURAL VALUE

FIGURE 8.3 Examples illustrating the cultural value of geoheritage. (A) Uluru, Central Australia. The inselberg is considered a religious site by Aborigenes; the religious value of the site is in opposition to its economic importance through tourist exploitation (Photograph by E. Reynard). (B) Cave dwellings in Haddej, Matmata area, Southeast Tunisia are an example of strong influence of the geological context (here, aeolian deposits in a cuesta landscape) on human practices (here, cave dwellings) (Photograph by E. Reynard). Margin of the Zinal glacier, Swiss Alps in 1835, painted by J.R. Bu¨hlmann (C) (courtesy of Graphische Sammlung ETH Zu¨rich, Switzerland), and in 2002 (D), (Photograph by E. Reynard). The comparison allows understanding the huge glacier retreat since the mid-19th century. Very accurate representations of mountain landscapes by some realistic painters allow reconstruction of palaeolandscapes and comparisons with current morphology.

‘gift of Egyptian geology’ studied about 200 quarries and proposed a map of the main quarry districts. Limestone, sandstone and crystalline rocks have been intensively quarried, and transported, sometimes over long distances, along the Nile River. Some of them have also been exported overseas, in particular to Rome. Pyramids were mainly built with sandstone and limestone, whereas crystalline and volcanic rocks were reserved for sarcophagi, statues or columns. Limestone is the most mined rock of the order of some 20 million m3 bearing in mind that the Cheops pyramid alone contains 2.7 million m3 (Klemm and Klemm, 2001). Also clay, deposited annually by the Nile River floods, was intensively quarried along the valley, and used for stone masonry. A specific case of cultural use of a geological context is the practice of cave dwellings (Fig. 8.3B), which were developed worldwide mainly for defence purposes. Cave dwellings were

8.3 THE CULTURAL VALUE OF GEOHERITAGE

157

dug in various geological contexts such as cliffs carved in sedimentary rocks (e.g., the canyons of Southwest United States, the Bandiagara cliff (Dogon civilisation) in Mali; the Bamiyan cliffs in Afghanistan (Margottini, 2007); the Sassi di Matera cliffs in Italy), loess deposits (e.g., Northern China or Matmata, Southeastern Tunisia; Boukhchim et al., 2017) or volcanic formations (e.g., the World Heritage sites of Cappadocia, Turkey; the Kandovan cone-shaped rocky houses, Iran; Asghari Kaljahi et al., 2015). A famous troglodyte settlement is the Sassi di Matera (Italy), inscribed in the World Heritage List. Most of these sites are prone to weathering and erosional processes, which have been investigated. This is the case for the Kandovan rocky houses particularly affected by weathering processes (Asghari Kaljahi et al., 2015) or the Sassi di Matera site, sensitive to landslides (Pascale et al., 2013). Weathering processes affecting historical monuments have also been actively investigated (Siegesmund et al., 2002). As an example, we report the results obtained by Andr´e et al. (2012) at Angkor temples, Cambodia. Climate is monsoonal and the vegetation cover is made of tropical forest, which is considered to be very destructive for the heritage site. Based on a multimethod approach (climate monitoring, field geomorphological investigations, and laboratory analyses) on four temples built with similar grey sandstones, particularly sensitive to stone decay (mechanical weathering), the authors demonstrate that the weathering rate is 100 times faster on temples located in cleared forests than on those in forested environment. This is due to intense wetting drying cycles in cleared areas, which is the main factor explaining rapid mechanical decay at Angkor. This study addresses the question of management practices in this case forest clearing versus maintaining the vegetation cover of cultural heritage sites. Finally, geological hazards affecting cultural heritage were also intensively investigated. In the Cinque Terre World Heritage site (northwestern Italy), what makes the outstanding value of the area (i.e., the impressive terraced fields, cultivated with lemons and vineyards) is intensively eroded by landslides due to agriculture abandonment (Brandolini et al., 2017), a situation that is affecting the quality of the cultural landscape. Machu Picchu (Peru) is a good example of this type of study. This famous archaeological site is an Inca citadel built on a steep ridge above the incised meanders of the Urubamba River (Vilı ́mek et al., 2007). It was discovered by modern archaeologists in 1911 and inscribed in the World Heritage List in 1983. The number of visitors has increased exponentially since the early 1990s to reach 1.2 million visitors in 2013. The site is affected by various types of slope instabilities including rockfalls, rockslides, landslides and debris flows, due tectonic influence and fluvial erosion (Vilı ́mek et al., 2007), as well as ancient (pre-Inca) deep-seated slope deformation (Sassa et al., 2001). Various catastrophic events occurred in the mid-1990s, which raised the issue of the protection of visitors and several monitoring surveys are now carried out by various research groups (Canuti et al., 2009). There are numerous examples of cultural assets exposed to geohazards, and recently, a survey of 981 sites inscribed on the World Heritage List of UNESCO (Pavlova et al., 2017) showed that nearly 60% of the investigated sites were exposed to geohazards, mainly landslides and earthquakes. Recent earthquakes in Nepal (2015) and Italy (2016) have demonstrated how cultural heritage may be highly affected by active geological phenomena.

8.3.2.2 Influence of culture on the perception of geoheritage We can also consider that culture influences geoheritage perception and, therefore, its management (Fig. 8.2). We have already noticed that religion, particularly taboos, can participate in the

158

CHAPTER 8 THE LANDSCAPE AND THE CULTURAL VALUE

protection of some geosites (Kiernan, 2015). On other hand, certainly that Christianism in particular the famous exhortation (Gn 1.28) ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground’ may have influenced overexploitation of nature, including geological resources. As for living nature where mammals are much more positively perceived than invertebrates, microbia or bacteria also in abiotic nature, some geological elements are considered more positively than others by society. For example, fossils or minerals generally attract much more public interest than Quaternary sediments. Similarly, to take only the example of geomorphological sites, the aesthetic forms e.g., pyramids, cockpit karst or cliffs (see above, discussion on the landscape value of geosites) are perceived much more positively than dark and rough landforms, as are rock glaciers, talus screes or debris flow deposits, whose appearance is not very engaging. The willingness to protect will be much lower for geosites little known by the public (e.g., sediments, stratotypes) and unattractive, than for highly publicised discoveries (e.g., dinosaur tracks or skeletons) or aesthetic geosites. The question of the general lack of geosciences knowledge by lay persons is particularly acute regarding geoheritage protection. One reason explaining the willingness to protect is the perception by the conservationists and the public of the importance of geosites for the reconstruction of Earth history. Several authors have stressed that the principles and methods of geosciences are often unknown by the public. Tooth (2009) refereed ‘invisible geomorphology’ to highlight the fact that this discipline is relatively unknown to the general public but also to other disciplines and to major international programmes such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s work. More specifically, concerning geoheritage, Cayla et al. (2012) observed that the scientific importance of geomorphological sites is often hidden by the ‘mask of the picturesque’. This has two consequences: low aesthetic sites tend to become ‘invisible’ and thus to escape conservation efforts (they will not be retained in geoheritage inventories) and for emblematic and highly visual sites, only the landscape interest is taken into account, to the expense of their scientific value. The scientific community can remedy this through the ‘heritage revelation’, namely the identification by geologists of the heritage value of geosites for audiences outside specialists of geoheritage. Two examples in the Swiss Alps illustrate this issue. In comparison with glaciers, rock glaciers are poorly known by the public and by land planners. Thus, in many parts of the Alps, major land development works have been carried out and have seriously damaged rock glaciers to create ski runs, as evidenced in the Verbier resort (Lambiel and Reynard, 2003). The same is true of the moraines of the Little Ice Age, uncovered with vegetation, which have often been used as gravel pits, as it was shown in the glaciokarstic site of Tsanfleuron (Reynard, 2008), even if the site is part of the inventory of Swiss geosites. These mineral sites, poor in vegetation and animal species, receive less attention from environmental associations than biological habitats, such as forests or marshes. Ecological lobbies are therefore less opposed to land development works in high-mountain rocky environments than in biotopes. This difference of cultural appreciation can also be observed in the case of destructive processes (landslides, rockslides, debris flows). If the deposits are not too large, they are removed very quickly after the event, because of the will to return to the initial situation, even though maintaining a trace in the landscape could be a good way to conserve a certain memory of risk. This problem of cultural perception is thus particularly important for active geosites: from the geoconservation

8.3 THE CULTURAL VALUE OF GEOHERITAGE

159

point of view, it would be interesting to allow processes to take place naturally, because geosites are witnesses to the processes active on Earth; from the point of view of protection against hazards, measures must be taken to mitigate the processes to protect populations and infrastructures. There is, therefore, a divergence of objectives between geoconservation and protection against geological hazards. Such a divergence also appears in gravel pits and quarries. At the end of the operation, for landscape reasons, the practice is to fill the exploited area and to cover it with vegetation. From the geoconservation point of view, it would be better to leave the outcrops visible, or even to maintain them, to allow the observation of the structures and the stratigraphy. Differences in perception are, therefore, central to explaining the choice of management measures and rehabilitation of extraction sites.

8.3.2.3 Geocultural heritage Within the framework of cultural geomorphology, several works were carried out to study and promote the cultural value of geoheritage and the strong links that exist between geoheritage and cultural assets. The University of Modena and Reggio Emilia has been a pioneer in these kinds of studies and results have been published in several books and conference proceedings (Coratza and Panizza, 2009; Panizza and Coratza, 2012; Panizza and Piacente, 2003; Piacente and Coratza, 2005; Soldati et al., 2008). Several researchers, in Italy and abroad, have then continued and expanded geocultural studies. The aim of these researches is to show the links that exist between geoheritage and various forms of culture. They concern mainly urbanism and architecture, literature, and arts. We present here several examples of such studies. Concerning the links between geoheritage and built heritage, Piacente et al. (2003) studied the importance of ophiolitic outcrops in Emilia Romagna (Italy) to the development of hamlets, castles, and economic exploitation in the Emilian Apennines. A cultural itinerary was proposed to discover this geocultural heritage. Also urban areas were investigated with a geocultural focus. Del Monte et al. (2013) and Pica et al. (2016) carried out an extensive geocultural survey of the millenarian city of Rome. From this survey, a geotourist itinerary was proposed, and a digital application for smartphones was produced (www.igd.unil.ch/geoguide, accessed 10.08.17; Pica et al., 2017). In Umbria (Italy), Gregori et al. (2005) carried out an interesting survey of the insertion of historical towns in specific geomorphological contexts: Perugia is built on a hill resulting from the fluvial incision of palaeodeltaic sediments (see also Melelli et al., 2016, who proposed the term archaeogeosites to refer sites of both archaeological and geological interest); Orvieto is located on a mesa derived from morpho-selection processes; Bagnoreggio is inserted in a landscape of active badland landforms. These are just a few of the numerous studies that explore the close relationships between geoheritage and urban cultural heritage. Geocultural studies were also conducted in rural contexts. It is not only urban architecture that depends on geology, but also agricultural infrastructure e.g., culture terraces, hydraulic infrastructure and countryside landscapes are closely related with the geological and geomorphological context. This is the case in the Maltese Islands, where cultural assets, in particular archaeological sites, highly interact with geomorphological processes. Until now, cultural heritage has been promoted independently of the natural heritage; nevertheless, Malta is a place where it would be very interesting to bridge natural and cultural values of outstanding sites, to develop geocultural promotion of the islands (Coratza et al., 2016).

160

CHAPTER 8 THE LANDSCAPE AND THE CULTURAL VALUE

Geocultural analyses of the links between literature and geological landscapes concern both historical and contemporary writers. The studies on the travels by Goethe in the Alps and in Italy (Geyer et al., 2007; Panizza and Coratza, 2012; Reynard et al., 2009) allowed both the comparison of historical geological landscapes with contemporary landscapes and the evolution of scientific theories through time. Some authors also studied the differences in perception of geological landscapes between writers and geologists (Piacente et al., 2003): a book presenting several geosites of the Reggio Emilia region (Italy) was published (Bertacchini et al., 2002) with parallel presentations of scientific discourse and cultural perception by contemporary poets. Moreover, the relations between geological features and artistic representations are particularly interesting to investigate from a geocultural point of view. As noted by Dixon et al. (2012), geomorphology is a discipline deeply rooted with aesthetic issues (see above the discussion on the aesthetics), and the ‘sense of place’ and the ‘sublime’ are often part of geomorphological descriptions. The authors relate this sense of wonder to the early works of Humboldt and Gilbert. From this perspective, it is not surprising that research combining artistic representations and geoheritage has been developed. For example, mountains and water are at the centre of Chinese landscape paintings; this is related both to the importance of river and mountain landforms in China and the importance of rivers and mountains in two great indigenous philosophies in China, Confucianism and Daoism (Albert, not dated). In Europe and North America, mountain glaciers have attracted numerous painters for the last three centuries; the use of artistic representations for the reconstruction of glacier fluctuations is a useful practice, in particular in the European Alps, where the long history of tourism has left an incredible number of representations (Fig. 8.3C, D). Some touristic regions (Grindelwald and Rhone glacier area in Switzerland or Chamonix valley in France) have, therefore, been intensively investigated (e.g., Nussbaumer et al., 2007; Zumbu¨hl et al., 2008). The research carried out by Rosetta Borchia and Olivia Nesci on the landscapes represented in the background of famous paintings of the Italian Renaissance (Piero della Francesca, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.) should be remarked. By comparing the painted landscapes and contemporary landscapes they could retrace the true landscapes used by the painters as background for their paintings (Borchia and Nesci, 2008, 2012; www.cacciatricidipaesaggi.com, accessed 10.08.17), showing the close relationship between the geomorphological sceneries of Central Italy and the outstanding artistic production of the Renaissance. Goudie and Viles (2010) and Dixon et al. (2012) report several experiences by contemporary artists aiming at combining geomorphological features and artistic production, including land art.

8.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS The recognition of the geoheritage value of a place is the result of a social process, including the views and perceptions of several groups of actors: Earth science specialists (geologists, geomorphologists, palaeontologists, etc.), specialists in nature and cultural conservation, which are often not aware of Earth science concepts, policymakers and, finally, what is known as the ‘broad public’. This implies that geoheritage sites are not only physical sites embodied in natural systems, but that they are linked with strong and complex cultural features. One of these cultural characteristics relates to the landscape issue. Of course, landscape approaches are central for geology and

REFERENCES

161

geomorphology, and it is essential that Earth scientists analyse e.g., through mapping the landscape importance of geological structures and landforms. However, considering that a landscape is not only an objective arrangement of natural and anthropic elements, but also a social construction resulting from the perception of Earth by human societies, geoscientists should better collaborate with social scientists when considering and assessing geoheritage (Giusti, 2012). The last decade has been prolific with explorative works investigating several aspects of the geocultural heritage. Much work remains to be undertaken to understand and illustrate the complex relationships between societies and their geoheritage. The importance of geoheritage sites in the communication (cinema, advertisement, trade) and information (Internet, virtual representations of the world) fields are examples that can be investigated in the future.

REFERENCES Albert, K., not dated. Mountains and water in Chinese art. Available from: ,http://www.internationalforum. com/Articles/Mountains%20and%20Water%20in%20Chinese%20Art.htm. (accessed 31.08.17). Andersen, C.L., Luhr, S.C., Loveland, A.M., 2015. The Origin of Landscape: Wyoming’s Cultural Geology Guide. Wyoming State Geological Survey, Laramie. Andr´e, M.F., Voldoire, O., Roussel, E., Vautier, F., Phalip, B., Peou, P., 2012. Contrasting weathering and climate regimes in forested and cleared sandstone temples of the Angkor region. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 37, 519 532. Asghari Kaljahi, E., Birami, F.A., Hajialilue, M., 2015. Influence of geological structures and weathering in formation and destruction of cone-shaped rocky houses of the Kandovan Village, Iran. In: Lollino, G., Giordan, D., Marunteanu, C., Christaras, B., Yoshinori, I., Margottini, C. (Eds.), Engineering Geology for Society and Territory, vol. 8. Springer, Cham, pp. 231 234. Backhaus, N., Reichler, C., Stremlow, M., 2007. Conceptualizing landscape: an evidence-based model with political implications. Mt. Res. Dev. 28 (2), 132 139. Berque, A., 1994. Paysage, milieu, histoire. In: Berque, A. (Ed.), Cinq propositions pour une th´eorie du paysage. Champ Vallon, Seyssel, pp. 11 29 (in French). Bertacchini, M., Piacente, S., Coratza, P., 2002. Paesaggi culturali. Geologia e letteratura nel Novecento in Emilia Romagna. L’inchiostroblu`, Bologna (in Italian). Bertrand, G., 1975. Pour une histoire e´ cologique de la France rurale. In: Duby, G., Wallon, A. (Eds.), Histoire de la France rurale. La formation des campagnes franc¸aises des origines a` 1340, vol. 1. Seuil, Paris, pp. 35 116 (in French). Bichet, V., Campy, M., 2008. Montagnes du Jura. G´eologie et paysages. N´eo Editions, Besanc¸on (in French). Borchia, R., Nesci, O., 2008. Il paesaggio invisibile. La scoperta dei veri paesaggi di Piero della Francesca. Il lavoro editoriale, Ancona (in Italian). Borchia, R., Nesci, O., 2012. CODICE P. Atlante illustrato del reale paesaggio della Gioconda. Mondadori Electa, Milano (in Italian). Boukhchim, N., Ben Fraj, T., Reynard, E., 2017. Lateral and “vertico-lateral” cave dwellings in Haddej and Guermessa: Characteristic geocultural heritage of Southeast Tunisia. Geoheritage. doi:10.1007/s12371-0170251-2. Brady, J.E., Scott, A., Neff, H., Glascock, M.D., 1997. Speleothem breakage, movement, removal and caching: an aspect of ancient Maya cave modification. Geoarchaeology 12 (6), 725 750.

162

CHAPTER 8 THE LANDSCAPE AND THE CULTURAL VALUE

Brandolini, P., Cevasco, A., Capolongo, D., Pepe, G., Lovergine, F., Del Monte, M., 2017. Response of terraced slopes to a very intense rainfall event and relationships with land abandonment: a case study from Cinque Terre (Italy). Land Degrad. Dev. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ ldr.2672/abstract. Brilha, J., 2016. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8 (2), 119 134. Brilha, J., 2018. Geoheritage: inventories and evaluation. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 69 86. Buffon, G.L.L., 1780. Les Epoques de la Nature. Imprimerie royale, Paris (in French). Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), 2008. The History of Geoconservation. The Geological Society, London. Canuti, P., Margottini, C., Casagli, N., Delmonaco, G., Falconi, L., Fanti, R., et al., 2009. Monitoring geomorphological evolution and slope stability of Inca citadel of Machu Picchu: results from Italian INTERFRASI project. In: Sassa, K., Canuti, P. (Eds.), Landslides Disaster Risk Reduction. Springer, Berlin, pp. 249 257. Cayla, N., Hoblea, F., Biot, V., Delamette, M., Guyomard, A., 2012. De l’invisibilit´e des g´eomorphosites a` la r´ev´elation patrimoniale. G´eocarrefour 87, 171 186 (in French). Choay, F., 2009. Le patrimoine en questions. Anthologie pour un combat. Seuil, Paris (in French). Cooper, B., Marker, B., Pereira, D., Schouenborg, B., 2013. Establishment of the “Heritage Stone Task Group” (HSTG). Episodes 36 (1), 8 10. Coratza, P., Gauci, R., Schembri, J., Soldati, M., Tonelli, C., 2016. Bridging natural and cultural values of sites with outstanding scenery: evidence from Gozo, Maltese Islands. Geoheritage 8, 91 103. Coratza, P., Panizza, M., (Eds.), 2009. Geomorphology and Cultural Heritage. Memorie Descrittive della Carta geologica d’Italia 87, 1 189. Corn´ee, A., Egoroff, G., De Wever, P., Lalanne, A., Duranthon, F., (Eds.), 2016. Actes du congre`s international “Les inventaires du g´eopatrimoine”, 22 26 septembre 2015, Toulouse. M´emoire hors-s´erie de la Soci´et´e g´eologique de France 16, 1 368. Cruikshank, J., 2001. Glaciers and climate change: perspectives from oral tradition. Arctic 54 (4), 377 393. Davis, W.M., 1899. The geographical cycle. Geogr. J. 14 (5), 481 504. Del Lama, E.A., de La Corte Bacci, D., Martins, L., da Glo´ria Motta Garcia, M., Kazumi Dehira, L., 2015. Urban geotourism and the old centre of Sa˜o Paulo City, Brazil. Geoheritage 7, 147 164. Del Monte, M., Fredi, P., Pica, A., Vergari, F., 2013. Geosites within Rome City center (Italy): a mixture of cultural and geomorphological heritage. Geogr. Fis. Dinam. Quat. 36, 241 257. Di M´eo, G., 2008. Processus de patrimonialisation et construction des territoires. In: Colloque “Patrimoine et industrie en Poitou-Charentes: connaıˆtre pour valoriser”. Geste Editions, Poitiers, pp. 87 109. Available from: ,https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00281934. (accessed 31.08.17) (in French). Dixon, D.P., Hawkins, H., Straughan, E.R., 2012. Wonder-full geomorphology: sublime aesthetics and the place of art. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 37 (2), 227 247. Droste, B., Plachter, H., Rossler, M. (Eds.), 1995. Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value. Components of a Global Strategy. Fischer Verlag, Jena. Ellenberger, F., 1994. Histoire de la g´eologie, 2. La grande e´ closion et ses pr´emices (1660-1810). Lavoisier, Paris (in French). Erikstad, L., Uttakleiv, L.A., Halvorsen R., 2015. Characterisation and mapping of landscape types, a case study from Norway. Belgeo [on-line] 3. Available from: , http://belgeo.revues.org/17412 . (accessed 31.08.17). Errami, E., Brocx, M., Semeniuk, V. (Eds.), 2015. From Geoheritage to Geoparks. Case Studies From Africa and Beyond. Springer, Cham.

REFERENCES

163

European Landscape Convention, 2000. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series, no.176. Available from: ,http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/176. (accessed 31.08.17). Evers, H.G., 1929. Staat aus dem Stein Bruckmann. Bruckmann, Mu¨nchen. Franceschi, C., 1997. Du mot paysage et de ses e´ quivalents dans cinq langues europ´eennes. In: Collot, M. (Ed.), Les enjeux du paysage. Editions Ousia, Bruxelles, pp. 75 111 (in French). Finney, S.C., Hilario, A., 2018. GSSPs as international geostandards and as global geoheritage. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 169 180. Gagn´e, K., Rasmussen, M.B., Orlove, B., 2014. Glaciers and society: attributions, perceptions, and valutions. WIREs Climate Change 5, 793 808. Gauchon, C., 1997. Des cavernes et des hommes: g´eographie souterraine des montagnes franc¸aises. Karstologia M´emoires 7 (in French). Geyer, M., Bissig, G., Maul, G., Meissner, M., Peterek, A., Pustal, I., Ro¨hling, H.G., 2007. Goethe und die Geologie Ein geotouristiches Nutzungskonzept zu den geologischen Betrachtungen den Schriften Johann Wolfgang von Geothes. Schriftenreihe der deutschen Gesellschaft fu¨r Geowissenchaften 51, 61 66 (in German). Giusti, C., 2012. Sciences du relief ou g´eomorphologie ? Essai de d´efinition d’un domaine interdisciplinaire entre g´eosciences et sciences sociales. Cybergeo [on-line] 584. Available from: , http://cybergeo.revues.org/24935 . (accessed 31.08.17) (in French). Giusti, C., 2014. Deux dimensions du beau en g´eomorphologie. Essai sur le crite`re esth´etique dans les sciences du relief. L’Inf. G´eogr. 78, 80 102 (in French). Goudie, A., Viles, H., 2010. Landscapes and Geomorphology. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Green, C.P., 1997. Stonehenge: geology and prehistory. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 108 (1), 1 10. Gregori, L., Melelli, L., Rapicetta, S., Taramelli, A., 2005. The main geomorphosites in Umbria. Il Quaternario 18 (1), 93 101. Guichard-Anguis, S., H´eritier, S. (Eds.), 2008. Le patrimoine naturel entre culture et ressource. G´eographie et cultures 66, 1 138 (in French). Hamacher, D.W., Goldsmith, J., 2013. Aboriginal oral traditions of Australian impact craters. J. Astr. History Heritage 16 (3), 295 311. Karson, J.A., Kelley, D.S., Fornari, D.J., Perfit, M.R., Shank, T.M., 2015. Discovering the Deep: A Photographic Atlas of the Sea Floor and Ocean Crust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kearey, P., 2001. Dictionary of Geology. second ed. Penguin Books, London. Kiernan, K., 2015. Landforms as sacred places: implications for geodiversity and geoheritage. Geoheritage 7, 177 193. King, D.N., Goff, J.R., 2010. Benefitting from differences in knowledge, practice and belief: Maori oral traditions and natural hazards science. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 10, 1927 1940. Klemm, D.D., Klemm, R., 2001. The building stones of ancient Egypt a gift of its geology. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 33, 631 642. Lambiel, C., Reynard, E., 2003. Impacts du d´eveloppement d’un domaine skiable sur la morphologie glaciaire et p´eriglaciaire: le cas de Verbier (Valais, Suisse). In: Reynard, E., Holzmann, C., Guex, D., Summermatter, N. (Eds.), G´eomorphologie et tourisme. Institut de G´eographie, Lausanne, Travaux et Recherches 24, pp. 19 33 (in French) Leopold, L.B., 1969a. Landscape esthetics. How to quantify the scenics of a river valley. Nat. History 78 (4), 37 44. Leopold, L.B., 1969b. Quantitative Comparison of Some Aesthetic Factors Among Rivers. USGS, Washington (Geological Survey Circular 620).

164

CHAPTER 8 THE LANDSCAPE AND THE CULTURAL VALUE

Lowenthal, D., 2005. Natural and cultural heritage. Int. J. Heritage Stud. 11 (1), 81 92. Luginbu¨hl, Y., 2012. La mise en sce`ne du monde. Construction du paysage europ´een. CNRS Editions, Paris (in French) Lyell, C., 1830. Principles of Geology. John Murray, London. Margottini, C., 2007. Engineering geology and cultural heritage: the conservation of remaining Bamiyan Buddhas (Central Afghanistan). In: Sassa, K., Fukuoka, H., Wang, F., Wang, G. (Eds.), Progress in Landslide Science. Springer, Berlin, pp. 319 346. Martin, S., 2013. Valoriser le g´eopatrimoine par la m´ediation indirecte et la visualisation des objets g´eomorphologiques. Institut de g´eographie et durabilit´e, Lausanne (G´eovisions, vol. 41). Available from: ,http://unil.ch/igd/home/menuinst/les-publications/geovisions/geovisions-41.html . (accessed 31.08.17) (in French). Melelli, L., Bizzarri, R., Baldanza, A., Gregori, L., 2016. The Etruscan “Volumni Hypogeum” archeo-geosite: new sedimentological and geomorphological insights on the tombal complex. Geoheritage 8, 301 314. Migo´n, P., 2010. Geomorphological Landscapes of the World. Springer, Dordrecht. Migo´n, P., 2016. Rediscovering geoheritage, reinventing geotourism: 200 years of experience from the Sudetes, Central Europe. In: Hose, T.A. (Ed.), Appreciating Physical Landscapes: Three Hundred Years of Geotourism. Special Publication 417. The Geological Society, London, pp. 215 228. Migo´n, P., 2018. Geoheritage and World Heritage sites. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 237 250. Moseley, W.G., Perramond, E., Hapke, H.M., Laris, P., 2014. An Introduction to Human-Environment Geography. Local Dynamics and Global Processes. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester. Mu¨cher, C.A., Klijn, J.A., Wascher, D.M., Joop, H.J., Schamin´ee, J.H.J., 2010. A new European Landscape Classification (LANMAP): a transparent, flexible and user-oriented methodology to distinguish landscapes. Ecol. Ind. 10, 87 103. Nussbaumer, S.U., Zumbu¨hl, H.J., Steiner, D., 2007. Fluctuations of the Mer de Glace (Mont Blanc area, France) AD 1500 2050. Part I: the history of the Mer de Glace AD 1570 2003 according to pictorial and written documents. Z. Gletsch.kd. Glazialgeol. 40, 5 140. Olwig, K.R., 2002. Landscape, Nature and the Body Politic, From Britain’s Renaissance to America’s New World. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Palacio-Prieto, J.L., 2015. Geoheritage within cities: urban geosites in Mexico City. Geoheritage 7, 365 373. Panizza, M., Coratza, P. (Eds.), 2012. Il “Viaggio in Italia” di J.W. Goethe e il paesaggio della geologia. ISPRA, Roma, in Italian. Panizza, M., Piacente, S., 2003. Geomorfologia culturale. Pitagora, Bologna (in Italian). Panizza, M., Piacente, S., 2009. Cultural geomorphology and geodiversity. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil, Mu¨nchen, pp. 35 48. Pascale, S., Pastore, V., Sdao, F., Sole, A., 2013. Landslide susceptibility in archaeological and natural Historic Park of Rupestrian Churches. In: Margottini, C., Canuti, P., Sassa, K. (Eds.), Landslide Science and Practice, vol. 6. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 715 722. Pavlova, I., Makarigakis, A., Depret, T., Jomelli, V., 2017. Global overview of the geological hazard exposure and disaster risk awareness at World Heritage sites. J. Cult. Heritage 28, 151 157. Piacente, S., Bertacchini, M., Coratza, P., 2003. Geomorphological tourism amidst nature and culture: examples from Emilia-Romagna (Italy). G´eomorphologie et tourisme. Institut de g´eographie, Lausanne, pp. 145 156. Travaux et Recherches 24. Piacente, S., Coratza, P., (Eds.), 2005. Geomorphological sites and geodiversity. Il Quaternario 18 (1), 1 332. Pica, A., Vergari, F., Fredi, P., Del Monte, M., 2016. The Aeterna Urbs geomorphological heritage (Rome, Italy). Geoheritage 8, 31 42.

REFERENCES

165

Pica, A., Reynard, E., Grangier, L., Kaiser, C., Ghiraldi, L., Perotti, L., et al., 2017. GeoGuides, urban geotourism offer powered by mobile application technology. Geoheritage. doi:10.1007/s12371-0170237-0. Portal, C., 2010. Reliefs et patrimoine g´eomorphologique. Applications aux parcs naturels de la fac¸ade atlantique europ´eenne. Ph.D Thesis, University of Nantes. Available from: ,https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel00537350/file/THESE_C_PORTAL_2010.pdf. (accessed 31.08.17) (in French). ´ . (Eds.), 2010. Natural Stone Resources for Historical Monuments. The Geological Pˇrikryl, R., To¨ro¨k, A Society, London. Reynard, E., 2008. Le lapiaz de Tsanfleuron. Un paysage glacio-karstique a` prot´eger et a` valoriser. Collection Edytem, Cahiers de G´eographie 7, 157 168 (in French). Reynard, E., 2009. Geomorphosites and landscapes. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil, Mu¨nchen, pp. 21 34. Reynard, E., Regolini-Bissig, G., Kozlik, L., Benedetti, S., 2009. Assessment and promotion of cultural geomorphosites in the Trient Valley (Switzerland). Mem. Descr. Carta Geol. d’It. 87, 181 189. Reynard, E., Hobl´ea, F., Cayla, N., Gauchon, C., 2011. Iconic sites for Alpine geology and geomorphology. Rediscovering heritage? J. Alpine Res. [on-line] 99 (2). Available from: ,http://rga.revues.org/1435. (accessed 31.08.17). Roger, J., 1962. Buffon, les e´ poques de la nature: e´ dition critique. Mus´eum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (in French). Sassa, K., Fukuoka, H., Kamai, T., Shusui, H., 2001. Landslide risk at Inca’s World Heritage in Machu Picchu, Peru. In: Proceedings UNESCO/IGCP Symposium on Landslide Risk Mitigation and Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage, Tokyo, pp. 1 14. Sauer, C.O., 1925. The morphology of landscape. University of California Publications in Geography 2, 19 54. Sellier, D., 1995. El´ements de reconstitution du paysage pr´em´egalithique sur le site des alignements de Kerlescan (Carnac, Morbihan) a` partir de crite`res g´eomorphologiques. Revue arch´eologique de l’ouest 12, 21 41 (in French). Sellier, D., 2013. Patrimoine g´eomorphologique et toponymie: perception et d´esignation des montagnes quartzitiques de la fac¸ade atlantique nord-europ´eenne (Norve`ge, Ecosse, Irlande). Norois 229, 53 75 (in French). Siegesmund, S., Weiss, T., Vollbrecht, A., (Eds.) 2002. Natural Stone, Weathering Phenomena, Conservation Strategies and Case Studies. Special Publications 205. The Geological Society, London. Soldati, M., Buhagiar, S., Coratza, P., Pasuto, A., Schembri, J.A., (Eds.), 2008. Integration of the geomorphological environment and cultural heritage for tourism promotion and hazard prevention. Geogr. Fis. Dinam. Quat. 31 (2), 93 249. Sousa, A., Garc´ıa-Murillo, P., Sahin, S., Morales, J., Garc´ıa-Barro´n, L., 2010. Wetland place names as indicators of manifestations of recent climate change in SW Spain (Doñana Natural Park). Climatic Change 100, 525 557. Tooth, S., 2009. Invisible geomorphology? Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 34 (5), 752 754. Twidale, C.R., 2010. Uluru (Ayers Rock) and Kata Tjuta (The Olgas): inselbergs of Central Australia. In: Migo´n, P. (Ed.), Geomorphological Landscapes of the World. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 321 332. UNESCO, 1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Available from: ,http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf. (accessed 31.08.17). UNESCO, 2003. Cultural Landscapes: The Challenges of Conservation. World Heritage Centre, Paris. Available from: ,http://whc.unesco.org/en/series/7. (accessed 31.08.17). UNESCO, 2016. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Available from: ,http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines. (accessed 31.08.17).

166

CHAPTER 8 THE LANDSCAPE AND THE CULTURAL VALUE

Vil´ımek, V., Zvelebil, j, Klimeˇs, J., Patzelt, Z., Astete, F., Kachl´ık, V., Hartvich, F., 2007. Geomorphological research of large-scale slope instability at Machu Picchu, Peru. Geomorphology 89, 241 257. Watson, J.E.M., Shanahan, D.F., Di Marco, M., Allan, J., Laurance, W.F., Sanderson, E.W., Mackey, B., Venter, O., 2016. Catastrophic declines in wilderness areas undermine global environment targets. Current Biology 26 (21), 2929 2934. Whittow, J., 1984. Dictionary of Physical Geography. Penguin Books, London. Wimbledon, W.A.P., Smith-Meyer, S. (Eds.), 2012. Geoheritage in Europe and its Conservation. ProGEO, Oslo. Zumbu¨hl, H.J., Steiner, D., Nussbaumer, S.U., 2008. 19th century glacier representations and fluctuations in the central and western European Alps: an interdisciplinary approach. Global Planet. Change 60, 42 57.

CHAPTER

GEOMINING HERITAGE AS A TOOL TO PROMOTE THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL COMMUNITIES

9

Josep Mata-Perello´1, Paul Carrio´n2, Jorge Molina3 and Roberto Villas-Boas4 1

Technical University of Catalonia, Manresa, Spain 2Technical University of Litoral, Guayaquil, Ecuador 3National ´ Colombia 4Centre for Mineral Technology, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil University of Colombia, Bogota,

9.1 INTRODUCTION Mine closure is the final stage of the production activities of a mine. The mining activity ceases when mineral reserves are depleted or when it is not profitable to continue the operation. When this happens, entire communities are left unemployed and mining revenues for local authorities are drastically cut, creating a shortage of resources for the whole society (Carvajal and Gonzalez, 2003). In addition to finding new uses for these former mining territories, the mine closure needs to comply with the regulations of each country to prevent, minimize and control environmental and public health risks (Herrera et al., 2014). In some cases, mines are abandoned due to rooted slopes prone to loss of topsoil, water pollution, atmospheric emissions of dust, among other factors. This can affect populations, usually rural communities, by the reduction of employment and local revenues with the consequent increase in poverty (Eisenhammer, 2015; Montes de Oca-Risco and UlloaCarcass´es, 2013). There have been occasions when, by ignorance or omission, natural resources have been wasted or completely exhausted and other cases where natural disasters have not been prevented or handled effectively (Molina, 2008). Taking into consideration socioeconomic and environmental aspects, the planning of the future sustainable use of land creates opportunities for the mainte´ lvarez-Campana Gallo and nance of communities where mining activities are or will be closed (A Mart´ınez, 2008). The future of a closed mine should foster a sustainable use of the territory, considering the social, environmental and economic perspectives. In order to reach the understanding of the mining culture that supports the heritage, it is essential to have a permanent dialogue with residents, local institutions and other stakeholders interested in contributing to the success of the postmining stage. The environmental strategy should be focused on recovering and protecting the ‘sense of place’ and the ecological and mining identity of the landscape. The economic sustainability is achieved, with local economic benefit, through mining tourism projects that enhance the attractiveness of the territory (Herrera et al., 2014; Lo´pez and P´erez, 2014). Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00009-5 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

167

168

CHAPTER 9 GEOMINING HERITAGE AS A TOOL

There are several alternatives for the rehabilitation of mining areas, which can range from leaving the geological exposures untouched (naturalistic perspective), planting vegetation (forestry use and landscape perspective), creating museums (cultural use) and recreational parks (touristic use), among others. Additionally, several factors for the rehabilitation of a mining area should be considered, such as the environmental and socioeconomic setting, the type of exploitation, the soil characteristics, and the perspectives/choices of the community (Fern´andez Rubio, 2006; Mining Press, 2010). All mining works with historical, cultural and social values are considered a mining heritage, which includes immovable and movable structures, buildings, objects and intangible assets related to mining activities. The term ‘geomining heritage’ combines these tangible and intangible elements of mining heritage with mineral and rock elements that were exploited in the past, combining the history of the Earth with the history of mankind (Carcavilla et al., 2013; D´ıaz-Mart´ınez and Fern´andez-Mart´ınez, 2015; IGME, 2011). This geomining heritage can be applied to different geological and mining parks, which are emerging in different countries, such as Spain. These are territories where the intention is to protect the geological and mining heritage, ensuring a sustainable mining development. Currently, a conservation and protection network has been articulated with those that already exist in diverse places of the Spanish territory. Geomining parks can be accessed by all for scientific, educational and recreational purposes and can become globally recognised as tourist sites, creating opportunities for the development of rural communities (Orche, 2003). Geomining heritage is a nonrenewable resource useful for the scientific, cultural and tourist development of the area (Carrio´n et al., 2003) and is a cultural inheritance that transcends any local or regional border (Cornejo et al., 2003). This chapter is focused on the use of geomining heritage as an engine for the social development of rural communities, to be applied after the closure of mines and even during active mining.

9.2 REHABILITATED MINES AS A NEW RESOURCE: SUSTAINABILITY, EDUCATION AND GEOTOURISM Mine closure is an integrative and multidisciplinary process (Caro, 2014; Hern´andez and Diez, 2014). Fig. 9.1 shows the ‘mine closure’ as an opportunity for sustainable development. This encompasses and links geodiversity and biodiversity associated with the geological and mining heritage with the search for local and sustainable development through tourism. Tourism is considered through the identification of touristic routes and points of geological interest (POGIs), and the potential of museums, gastronomy and local productive capacities. Mines may represent an important heritage due to exceptional geological and mining values. There are several territories in different countries with a long mining history declared by UNESCO as World Heritage sites or Global Geoparks. Examples of mines declared as World Heritage sites after their closure are presented in Table 9.1. Active mining and preservation of geological and mineral heritage is not completely incompatible as it is possible to establish a sustainable balance between both activities, with the agreement of the mining companies. This is the case of the mines of Cerro Rico (Potos´ı) in Bolivia. These mines have a long history of 500 years of exploitation of silver, tin and zinc. They have been exploited

9.2 REHABILITATED MINES AS A NEW RESOURCE

POGIs

Museums

Biodiversity associated with Geology and Mining

169

Gastronomy

Tourism

Biodiversity

Local productive capacities

Touristic routes

Geologic Heritage Unique Geodiversity

Sustainable Development Mining Heritage

Mining

Sustainability Mine closure

FIGURE 9.1 Mine closure as an opportunity for sustainable development. POGIs, points of geological interest.

Table 9.1 Examples of UNESCO’s World Cultural Heritage Sites with Geomining Heritage Country

Mine

Year of Mine Closure

Name of Property

Date of Inscription

Bolivia

1987

Historic Town of Ouro Preto

1980

Chile

Sewell

The mine continues to be exploited. Part of the mine continues to be exploited 1970s

City of Potos´ı

Brazil

Cerro Rico, Potos´ı Ouro Preto

Sewell Mining Town

2006

Spain Slovenia

Almad´en Idrija

18th century 1995

Heritage of Mercury, Almad´en and Idrija

2012

Japan

1923

Mexico

Iwami Ginzan Guanajuato

Poland

Wieliczka

Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine and its Cultural Landscape Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines Wieliczka and Bochnia Royal Salt Mines

1970’s Part of the mine continues to be exploited

Based on Alexandrowicz et al. (2009).

2007 1988 1978

170

CHAPTER 9 GEOMINING HERITAGE AS A TOOL

by several mining companies, most of them using no sustainable practices which have caused the development of fractures in the geological structure of the hill (Sarzuri Ayala, 2012). In 1987, the city of Potos´ı was declared a World Heritage site by UNESCO for the exceptional value of the industrial installations of Cerro Rico, the Coin House, the church of San Lorenzo, noble mansions and the ‘barrios mitayos’, the areas where the workers lived. It is considered a Bolivian tourist attraction for its heritage value, culture and landscape and a mining symbol of Latin America and of the world (UNESCO, 1992a). Cerro Rico continues to be exploited, except between levels 4400 and 4700 where the mineral extraction is prohibited by Supreme Decree No. 27787 (Morales, 2011). However, it was found that prohibitions were ignored after the inspection missions of UNESCO in 2007 and 2011, resulting in a very negative report issued by the evaluators. Moreover, visiting the mines of Potos´ı is specifically prohibited because of the danger that it represents to visitors and miners. This problem, already studied by Mata-Perello´ et al. (1999), is the justification for the inclusion of this property in the UNESCO list of World Heritage in Danger in 2014. Minas Gerais, Mariana, Tiradentes, Sabara and Diamantina are some of the mining references in Brazil that reached their peak during the colonial times for their deposits of gold and precious stones. The region of Ouro Preto (Black Gold) in Minas Gerais state is well known for the abundance of gold. The Vila Rica d’Albuquerque mining camp was founded in 1698 when settlers began mining activities. In 1897, after Brazilian Independence, the name was changed to Ouro Preto (Dorr, 1969; Oliveira, 2008). In 1980, the city of Ouro Preto was declared a UNESCO World Heritage site, after being designated Historical and Artistic Heritage of Brazil in 1938. Ouro Preto has museums such as the Museum of Science and Technology of the School of Mines and the Inconfideˆncia Museum, where the mining history of the region is presented. It is regarded as a renowned tourist attraction in Brazil for its mining, cultural and natural historical value. There are still active mines in Ouro Preto, where the imperial topaz is one of the most recognised minerals, which is only found in this region (Brusadin and Silva, 2012; Santos and Costa, 2005). The town of Sewell in Chile was built in the early 20th century by the company Braden Koper to house workers of El Teniente mine, reaching 15,000 people at its peak. This mining town was abandoned in the 1970s but in 1998 it was declared a National Monument of Chile as a ‘Typical and picturesque area of the Sixth Region’ (Garc´es, 2003; UNESCO, 2006). In 2006, Sewell was inscribed in the World Heritage List due to the exceptional historical, aesthetic, ethnological and anthropological value. The city is a tourist attraction for its cultural, historical and geomining value (Eugenio de Solminihac, 2003). Exploited during the 16th and 17th centuries, the Almad´en mines in Spain are considered the oldest and largest mercury mines in the world. In 2004, the Spanish Historical Heritage Institute rehabilitated the mines and converted them into a mining park in 2008. The Almad´en Mining Park keeps intact the history of the mines since the 18th century, which is an engine of social, economic and cultural development and fostering cultural tourism. In 2012, the Mining Park was declared a World Heritage site by UNESCO (Can˜izares Ruiz, 2011; Hern´andez Sobrino, 2004). The exploitation of the Idrija Mine in Slovenia started in 1490 and it is considered the secondlargest mercury mine in the world, after Almad´en. In the 1970s, a mercury crisis began and the mine faced a first stop. In 1983, it was decided to restart the operation, even if the world market was still unfavourable. In the early 1990s, a gradual closure was decided and in 1995 the operation ended. Part of the mine was converted into a museum with touristic and educational purposes. Due to its mining history and exceptional value, the Idrija mine was declared a World Heritage site by UNESCO in 2012, along with the mines of Almad´en (Jord´a Bordehore, 2002).

9.2 REHABILITATED MINES AS A NEW RESOURCE

171

The silver exploitation in Iwami Ginzan mine, Japan, started in 1526 and it became one of the sources for the economic development of Japan and Southeast Asia. Currently, the mining area is covered by dense forests where one can still find archaeological remains of mines, foundries, refining and mining settlements, which were in operation until 1923. It was declared a World Heritage site by UNESCO in 2007 for its outstanding cultural value (Japan National Tourism Organization, 2016; UNESCO, 2007). The silver deposits of Guanajuato in Mexico were found by the Spaniards in 1548. This mine became the world leader in the production of silver, after the decay of the Potos´ı mines in Bolivia. The population reached 78,000 people by the end of the 16th century and the architecture of the city was developed as a result of the mine’s prosperity. In the 1970s the operations ceased. Today, Guanajuato is an important tourist attraction, especially the mineshaft ‘Boca del Infierno’, which was a remarkable piece of technology at that time. In 1988 it was declared by UNESCO as a World Heritage site, along with Cata and Mellado mines (UNESCO, 1992b). Finally, the Wieliczka Salt Mine in Poland has been exploited without interruption since the 13th century. It is considered to be one of the oldest salt mines in the world, and a masterpiece of nature and man. It was declared a World Heritage site by UNESCO in 1978 for its exceptional cultural and natural value. It is a tourist attraction with more than 800,000 visitors a year (Alexandrowicz et al., 2009). Besides these examples of geomining heritage recognised as World Heritage, there are also other occurrences under another UNESCO label. Table 9.2 presents some examples of UNESCO Global Geoparks where geomining heritage is one of the assets for these geoparks’ strategy as is the case for the Geomining Park of Sardinia. Mining in Sardinia started in the sixth millennium B.C. With a mining history of more than 8000 years, in the early 1970s the coal mines were closed and later the Historical and Environmental Geomining Park of Sardinia was created (European Geoparks Network, 2016). Table 9.2 Examples of UNESCO Global Geoparks With Geomining Heritage Country

Mine/Ore

Year of Mine Closure

Italy

Carbonia Iglesias/coal Zigong/salt

1970s

China Portugal Spain Spain

Murc¸o´s/tungsten Costanaza/ phosphorite Sallent/halite, sylvinite

Mine continues to be exploited 1980s 1944 Mine continues to be exploited

GGN, Global Geoparks Network. Based on European Geoparks Network (2016).

UNESCO Global Geopark

Year of Entrance in GGN

Parco Geominerario della Sardegna Zigong

2007 2008

Terras de Cavaleiros Villuercas Ibores Jara

2014 2011

Central Catalonia

2012

172

CHAPTER 9 GEOMINING HERITAGE AS A TOOL

The Zigong mines in China have a history of about 2000 years in the production of salt. The establishment of a geopark has increased local tourism. Museums have agreements with local educational institutions to promote the involvement of students in activities about the geological and mining history of the site (Zhizhong et al., 2015). The tungsten mining activity until the 1980s in the Murc¸o´s mines (Portugal) was related to the production of weapons during World War II. Today, one of the main routes of Terras de Cavaleiros Global Geopark integrates a visit to these mines, where visitors can learn about the living and working conditions of local communities at that time (Geopark Terras de Cavaleiros, 2015). The Costanaza Logros´an mine is one of the geosites of Villuercas Ibores Jara Global Geopark (Spain). The mining activity started in the late 19th century and was active until 1944. During the visit to this geosite, details of the mining process are explained to visitors, with special emphasis on an extraction method called ‘bottom up’ (Geoparque Villuercas Ibores Jara, 2015; Pulido Fern´andez et al., 2014). The main mineral occurrences of the Geological and Mining Park of Central Catalonia (Spain) are located around the towns of Sallent, Su´ria, Cardona and Balsareny. Sylvinite was exploited for obtaining potassium and there have been several exploitations of clay, limestone and gypsum (Mata-Perello´ and Climent Costa, 2007; Mata-Perello´ et al., 2013). Halite mines from Cardona were exploited in the Neolithic age, followed by the discovery of sylvinite in the same area. The establishment of mineral routes can be an opportunity for communities where old mining has occurred, allowing the creation of new business related to the heritage and tourism of the territory. Table 9.3 shows 15 mining routes included in the project Mineral Routes and Sustainability (RUMYS, acronym in Spanish).

Table 9.3 Mining Routes Included in the RUMYS Project in Latin America Country

Mining Route

Brazil Chile Colombia

Estrada Real Coal Route Antioquen˜o Northeast Route of the Gold of the Southwest of Colombia East Cuba Mining Route Gold Route, Zaruma Portovelo Routes of the Piritas in Huelva Mercury Route Route of the Salt Route of the Mineral Las Animas El Rosario Silver Route Mercury Route of Huancavelica Route of Pyrite in the Iberian Range Stone Route Marble Route

Cuba Ecuador Spain

Honduras Mexico Peru Portugal

Based on Carrio´n, P., Herrera, G., (2009).

9.4 CONCLUSION

173

The RUMYS project integrates researchers from 10 Latin American countries in a network of 15 routes with mineralogical, geological and mining values. The acronym comes from the word ‘Rumi’, which means ‘stone’ in the Quechua language. Stone, silver, gold, mercury, salt and other minerals have been determinant for the history of the communities that are part of these routes, improving the quality of life and the social development in harmony with the environment (Carrio´n and Herrera, 2009).

9.3 IMPACTS OF THE USE OF GEOMINING HERITAGE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DEVELOPMENT Heritage may provide social, environmental and economic benefits to communities. These benefits include, in particular, the improvement of the quality of life of inhabitants and the strengthening of the sense of belonging to the territory. Other relevant impacts can be the creation of a pleasant environment, mitigation of excessive urbanisation and adaptation to climate change (Du¨mcke and Gnedovsky, 2013; Guzm´an et al., 2017). Additionally, heritage may increase local incomes, create employment opportunities due to the enhancement of tourism activities, and fulfil the role of educating present and future generations about the past and the legacy of a nation (Bujdoso´ et al., 2015; Park, 2010). In rural communities, geological and mining heritage promotes social inclusion and intercultural dialogue; thus it is the central feature of the local community. Communities are considered the guardians of heritage, which is considered an important territorial capital heritage part of the history and traditional culture. In addition, the active participation of various actors (local community, government, managers, partners, consultants) through a cooperative work strengthens the social, ˇ ecological, cultural and economic aspects of a specific place (Smid Hribar et al., 2015). Ecuador has a great geomining potential and if it is exploited adequately, it will provide opportunities for local and regional economy (Carrio´n and Herrera, 2008). The Manglaralto Coastal Aquifer, which provides water to over 23,000 people in Ecuadorian rural communities, is an example of this potential. The aquifer’s management was appointed as a global example by the United Nations Scientific Water Forum ‘Water Matters’ in 2011 (Herrera Franco, 2015). Another example is Ancon-Santa Elena with its archaeological, historical, cultural, aesthetic, geological and mining international exceptionality. This territory has peculiar properties due to its geodiversity and exuberant biodiversity, and consequently it is being considered for a geopark (Herrera et al., 2015).

9.4 CONCLUSION The closure of mines, which happens usually in rural areas, can generate a process of involution. This negative impact can be reduced with the setup of touristic strategies based on the management of geomining heritage. The main goal is to promote rural development and avoid the depopulation of mining communities after mine closure. Before the closure of mines, it is recommended that a comprehensive inventory of the potential facilities that could promote geotourism be conducted when the activity ceases, or even during the last stages of operation. The methods of preparing inventories of geomining heritage are not

174

CHAPTER 9 GEOMINING HERITAGE AS A TOOL

as well developed as those that apply to geoheritage. In Spain, several initiatives that are being launched in several geoparks (Sobrarbe, Comarca de Molina-Alto Tajo, Catalunya Central, Projecte de Geoparc de la Conca de Tremp del Montsec) intend to develop these inventorying methods and to define a standard that can be applied in other countries. Geomining heritage provides a special inclusive vision in mine closure strategies, linking concepts of geology and mining to tourism, within the framework of local development and sustainability. It is necessary to develop uniform and universal methods that respect the uniqueness of places, combining the natural diversity and heritage value, with sustainability as a common denominator.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Particular thanks go to Niurka Alvarado and Carlos Campoverde, researchers at the Research Center for Projects applied to Earth Sciences of Escuela Superior Polit´ecnica del Litoral (CIPAT-ESPOL, acronyms in Spanish), for their support in the preparation of this document. The authors J. Mata-Perello´, P. Carron, and J. Molina express their sorrow at the loss of their colleague and friend Roberto Villas-Boas, co-author of this chapter.

REFERENCES Alexandrowicz, Z., Urban, J., Mi´skiewicz, K., 2009. Geological values of selected Polish properties of the UNESCO World Heritage list. Geoheritage 1 (1), 43 52. ´ lvarez-Campana Gallo, J.M., Mart´ınez, A.R., 2008. De Robert Morris a Eden Project: otras formas de rehabilitaA cio´n minera para uso pu´blico. Congreso Nacional de Medio Ambiente Cumbre del Desarrollo Sostenible. Available from: ,http://www.geama.org/sanitaria/index.php?o5downloads&i5201. (accessed 31.08.17) (in Spanish). Brusadin, L.B., Silva, R.H., 2012. O uso tur´ıstico do patrimoˆnio cultural em Ouro Preto. Cultur: Rev. Cult. Turis. 6 (1), 69 89 (in Portuguese). Bujdoso´, Z., D´avid, L., W´eber, Z., Tenk, A., 2015. Utilization of geoheritage in tourism development. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 188, 316 324. Can˜izares Ruiz, M.D., 2011. Proteccio´n y defensa del patrimonio minero en Espan˜a. Rev. Electr. Geogr. Cien. Soc. 15 (361), 348 386 (in Spanish). ´ ., 2013. Valoracio´n del patrimonio geolo´gico Carcavilla, L., D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., Erikstad, L., Garc´ıa-Cort´es, A ˆ en Europa. Bol. Paran. Geocienc. 70, 28 40 (in Spanish). Caro, N., 2014. Experiencias internacionales de re-utilizacio´n del patrimonio minero/industrial para turismo cultural. Provincia de Barcelona, Catalun˜a, Espan˜a. In: Lo´pez, M., P´erez, L. (Eds.), Patrimonio minero y sustentabilidad: propuestas y experiencias de reutilizacio´n. Ediciones Universidad del B´ıo-B´ıo-CYTED, Concepcio´n, pp. 274 297 (in Spanish). Carrio´n, P., Herrera, G., 2008. Ruta del Oro en Ecuador: Un polo de desarrollo. In: Carrio´n, P. (Ed.), Rutas Minerales en Iberoam´erica. Escuela Superior Polit´ecnica del Litoral, Guayaquil, pp. 40 49 (in Spanish). Carrio´n, P., Herrera, G., 2009. Proyecto RUMYS: Rutas Minerales y Sostenibilidad. In: Carrio´n, P. (Ed.), Rutas Minerales en el Proyecto RUMYS. Un factor integral para el desarrollo sostenible de la sociedad. Escuela Superior Polit´ecnica del Litoral, Guayaquil, pp. 7 17 (in Spanish).

REFERENCES

175

Carrio´n, P., Ramos, V., Ladines, L., Loayza, G., Dom´ınguez, M.J., Berrezueta, E., 2003. La Ruta del Oro y el patrimonio geolo´gico-minero en Zaruma-Portovelo (Ecuador). In: Mata-Perello´, J. (Ed.), Actas del IV Congreso Internacional sobre Patrimonio Geolo´gico y Minero. Defensa del patrimonio y desarrollo regional, Utrillas, pp. 297 307 (in Spanish). Carvajal, D.J., Gonz´alez, A., 2003. La contribucio´n del patrimonio geolo´gico y minero al desarrollo sostenible. ́ In: Villas-Bôas, R.C., Martinez, A.G., Albuquerque, G.A. (Eds.), Patrimonio geolo´gico y minero en el contexto del cierre de minas. CNPq/CYTED, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 27 49 (in Spanish). Cornejo, M., Carrio´n, P., Becerra, A., Ladines, L., 2003. Preliminar del patrimonio geolo´gico y minero en el ́ Ecuador. In: Villas-Bôas, R.C., Martinez, A.G., Albuquerque, G.A. (Eds.), Patrimonio geolo´gico y minero en el contexto del cierre de minas. CNPq/CYTED, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 215 232 (in Spanish). D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., Fern´andez-Mart´ınez, E., 2015. El valor del patrimonio geolo´gico: 1. Fundamentos y significados. In: Hilario, A., Mendia, M., Monge-Ganuzas, M., Fern´andez, E., Vegas, J., Belmonte, A. (Eds.), Patrimonio geolo´gico y geoparques, avances de un camino para todos. Cuadernos del Museo Geominero 18, Madrid, pp. 13 18 (in Spanish). Dorr, J.V.N., 1969. Physiographic, stratigraphic and structural development of the Quadril´atero Ferr´ıfero, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Professional Paper 641-A, USGS, Washington. Du¨mcke, C., Gnedovsky, M., 2013. The social and economic value of cultural heritage: literature review. European Expert Network on Culture (EENC). Available from: ,http://www.interarts.net/descargas/interarts2557.pdf. (accessed 31.08.17). Eisenhammer, S., 2015. Cierre de minas y p´erdidas de puestos afectan al sector de mineral de hierro de Brasil. Reuters, Am´erica Latina. Available from: ,http://lta.reuters.com/article/topNews/ idLTAKBN0OH2XZ20150601?sp 5 true. (accessed 31.08.17) (in Spanish). Eugenio de Solminihac, E., 2003. Sewell, historia y cultura en un asentamiento humano organizacional. Revista de Urbanismo 8, 85 123 (in Spanish). European Geoparks Network, 2016. Thousand years of history in a place unique in the world. Available from: ,http://www.europeangeoparks.org/?page_id 5 514. (accessed 31.08.17). Fern´andez Rubio, R., 2006. Rehabilitacio´n de espacios mineros experiencia espan˜ola. Universidad Polit´ecnica de Madrid, Madrid (in Spanish). Garc´es, E., 2003. Las ciudades del cobre. Del campamento de montan˜a al hotel minero como variaciones de la company town. EURE Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Urbano Regionales 29 (88), 131 148 (in Spanish). Geopark Terras de Cavaleiros, 2015. Minas de Murc¸o´s. Available from: ,http://geoparkterrasdecavaleiros.net/ pt-pt/content/g05-minas-de-murcos. (accessed 31.08.17) (in Portuguese). Geoparque Villuercas Ibores Jara, 2015. Mina de fosforita la Costanaza. Available from: ,http://www.geoparquevilluercas.es/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/03-Mina-Costanaza.pdf. (accessed 31.08.17) (in Spanish). Gonc¸alves, B.D., 2013. Avaliac¸a˜o do valor tur´ıstico dos geoss´ıtios do Geoparque Terras de Cavaleiros. Tese de mestrado, Universidade do Minho, Braga (in Portuguese). Guzm´an, P., Pereira Roders, A., Colenbrander, B., 2017. Measuring links between cultural heritage management and sustainable urban development: an overview of global monitoring tools. Cities 60(part A) 192 201. Hern´andez Sobrino, A., 2004. El Parque Minero de Almad´en. De Re Metallica Revista de la Sociedad Espan˜ola para la Defensa del Patrimonio Geolo´gico y Minero 2, 55 59 (in Spanish). Hern´andez, A., Diez, A., 2014. Recuperacio´n del espacio post-minero: hacia una planificacio´n territorial integral. In: Lo´pez, M., P´erez, L. (Eds.), Patrimonio minero y sustentabilidad: propuestas y experiencias de reutilizacio´n. Ediciones Universidad del B´ıo-B´ıo-CYTED, Concepcio´n, pp. 120 131 (in Spanish). Herrera Franco, G., 2015. Estudio para un modelo de gestio´n de un acu´ıfero costero, mediante metodolog´ıas participativas y an´alisis geoestad´ıstico en el marco del desarrollo local. Manglaralto, Ecuador. Tesis doctoral, Universidad Polit´ecnica de Madrid (in Spanish). Herrera, G., Carrio´n, P., Jimenez, S., Mina, A., 2014. Oportunidades para el turismo de patrimonio geolo´gico y minero a partir de modificaciones recientes al marco legal en el Ecuador, el caso de la mina El Sexmo.

176

CHAPTER 9 GEOMINING HERITAGE AS A TOOL

In: Lo´pez, M., P´erez, L. (Eds.), Patrimonio Minero y Sustentabilidad. Propuestas y Experiencias de Reutilizacio´n. Ediciones Universidad del B´ıo-B´ıo, Concepcio´n, pp. 166 177 (in Spanish). ´ lvarez, A., 2015. Potencial de la geodiversidad y patrimonio minero petHerrera, G., Erazo, K., Carrio´n, A., A rolero en Anco´n, Santa Elena-Ecuador. In: Lo´pez, M.I., P´erez, L. (Eds.), Parques Mineros, Ecomuseos y Geoparques. Estrategias de puesta en valor. STOQ Editorial, Concepcio´n, pp. 132 145 (in Spanish). IGME (Instituto Geolo´gico y Minero de Espan˜a), 2011. Patrimonio Minero. Available from: ,http://www. igme.es/patrimonio/patrimonioMin.htm. (accessed 31.08.17) (in Spanish). Japan National Tourism Organization, 2016. Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine. Available from: ,http://www.jnto.go. jp/eng/indepth/scenic/worldheritage/c_13_iwamiginzan.html. (accessed 31.08.17). Jord´a Bordehore, L., 2002. El proceso de clausura y el patrimonio industrial de la mina de mercurio de Idrija. Eslovenia. In: 1er Simposio Latino sobre Miner´ıa, Metalurgia y Patrimonio Minero en el Mediterr´aneo Occidental. Bellmunt del Priorat, pp. 131 144. Available from: ,http://www.sedpgym.es/index.php/ 18-publicaciones/actas-congresos/64-libro-de-actas-del-primer-simposio-latino-sobre-mineria-metalurgia-y-patrimonio-minero-en-el-area-mediterranea-bellmunt-del-priorat-2002. (accessed 31.08.17) (in Spanish). Lo´pez, M., P´erez, L., 2014. Vinculaciones entre patrimonio y sustentabilidad / El espacio minero despu´es del cierre en Iberoam´erica; Casos en Brasil, Espan˜a y Chile. In: Lo´pez, M., P´erez, L. (Eds.), Patrimonio Minero y Sustentabilidad. Propuestas y Experiencias de Reutilizacio´n. Ediciones Universidad del B´ıo-B´ıo, Concepcio´n, pp. 10 29 (in Spanish). Mata-Perello´, J., Pucci, H., Serrano, C., Verraes, G., 1999. Conservacio´n de lugares naturales afectados por la miner´ıa en el Distrito de Potos´ı (Bolivia). Simposio sobre Patrimonio Geolo´gico y Minero - IV Sesio´n Cient´ıfica de la Sociedad Espan˜ola para la Defensa del Patrimonio Geolo´gico y Minero. B´elmez, Co´rdova, pp. 192 204 (in Spanish). Mata-Perello´, J., Climent Costa, F., 2007. El Geoparc de la Catalunya Central (Depresio´n Geolo´gica del Ebro). Patrimonio Geominero. Geolog´ıa y Miner´ıa Ambiental de Bolivia, Potos´ı, pp. 235 244 (in Spanish). Mata-Perello´, J., Climent Costa, F., Sanz Balagu´e, J., 2013. El Geoparc de la Catalunya Central (Parc Geolo`gic i Miner de la Catalunya Central). In: Libro de Actas del, I.I.I. (Ed.), Congreso Internacional de Geolog´ıa y Miner´ıa Ambiental para el ordenamiento territorial y el desarrollo. Sociedad Espan˜ola para la defensa del Patrimonio Geolo´gico y Minero, Cardona, pp. 47 58 (in Spanish). Mining Press, 2010. Hoteles, parques, museos: segunda vida para minas abandonadas La u´til segunda vida de las minas abandonadas. Available from: ,http://www.miningpress.com/nota/102787/hoteles-parquesmuseos-segunda-vida-para-minas-abandonadas. (accessed 31.08.17) (in Spanish). Molina, J., 2008. Consideracio´n del subsuelo en el ordenamiento territorial. Universitat Polite`cnica de Catalunya, Barcelona (in Spanish). Montes de Oca-Risco, A., Ulloa-Carcass´es, M., 2013. Recuperacio´n de a´ reas dan˜adas por la miner´ıa en la Cantera Los Guaos. Santiago de Cuba, Cuba. Revista Luna Azul 37, 74 88 (in Spanish). Morales, F., 2011. Es imposible paralizar la explotacio´n del Cerro Rico de Potos´ı. Available from: ,http:// www.opinion.com.bo/opinion/articulos/2011/0220/noticias.php?id 5 2783. (accessed 31.08.17) (in Spanish). Oliveira, B., 2008. The Morro da Queimada Archaeological Park, Ouro Preto, MG - Brazil. In: D’Ayala, D., Frode, E. (Eds.), Structural Analysis of Historic Construction: Preserving Safety and Significance. Proceedings of the VI International Conference on Structural Analysis of Historic Construction, SAHC08, 2 4 July 2008, vol. 1. CRC Press, Bath, pp. 283 288. Orche, E., 2003. Puesta en valor del patrimonio geolo´gico y minero: El proceso de adaptacio´n de explotaciones ́ mineras a parques tem´aticos. In: Villas-Bôas, R.C., Martinez, A.G., Albuquerque, G.A. (Eds.), Patrimonio geolo´gico y minero en el contexto del cierre de minas. CNPq/CYTED, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 51 65 (in Spanish).

REFERENCES

177

Park, H., 2010. Heritage tourism: emotional journeys into nationhood. Ann. Tour. Res. 37 (1), 116 135. Pulido Fern´andez, M., Lagar Timo´n, D., Garc´ıa Mar´ın, R., 2014. Geosites inventory in the Geopark VilluercasIbores-Jara (Extremadura, Spain): a proposal for a new classification. Geoheritage 6 (1), 17 27. Santos, P.C., Costa, A.R., 2005. A Escola de Minas de Ouro Preto, a “Sociedade de Geographia Economica de Minas Geraes” e as Exposic¸o˜es Universais do final do s´eculo XIX e in´ıcio do s´eculo XX. REM Int. Eng. J. 58 (3), 279 285 (in Spanish). Sarzuri Ayala, J.N., 2012. Geoparque en Potos´ı-Bolivia. Sus potencialidades y avance. In: Hern´andez Aja, A., Lo´pez Meza, M.I. (Eds.), Reutilizacio´n Sostenible del Espacio Minero, I Simposio Red REUSE y Semin´ario Internacional de Reconversio´n de Territo´rios. Belo Horizonte, Brazil, pp. 81 89 (in Spanish). ˇ Smid Hribar, M., Bole, D., Pipan, P., 2015. Sustainable heritage management: social, economic and other potentials of culture in local development. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 188, 103 110. UNESCO, 1992a. City of Potos´ı. Available from: ,http://whc.UNESCO.org/en/list/420. (accessed 31.08.17). UNESCO, 1992b. Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines. Available from: ,http://whc.UNESCO. org/en/list/482. (accessed 31.08.17). UNESCO, 2006. Sewell Mining Town. Available from: ,http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1214. (accessed 31.08.17). UNESCO, 2007. Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine and its Cultural Landscape. Available from: ,http://whc.unesco. org/en/list/1246. (accessed 31.08.17). Zhizhong, Z., Xun, Z., Changxing, L., Xiaohong, Y., Xiaoning, C., 2015. Geoparks in China. In: Errami, E., Brocx, M., Semeniuk, V. (Eds.), From Geoheritage to Geoparks:Case Studies From Africa and Beyond. Springer, Cham, pp. 215 232.

CHAPTER

GSSPs AS INTERNATIONAL GEOSTANDARDS AND AS GLOBAL GEOHERITAGE

10

Stanley C. Finney1 and Asier Hilario2 1

California State University at Long Beach, Long Beach, CA, United States 2 Basque Coast UNESCO Global Geopark, Deba, Spain

10.1 INTRODUCTION A Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) is an international geostandard that defines the base of a global chronostratigraphic unit, which is a body of stratified rock. The global chronostratigraphic units (Eonthem, Erathem, System, Series, and Stage) formally recognised by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) comprise the International Chronostratigraphic Chart (available for download from www.stratigraphy.org, acessed 09.08.17) and, in turn, serve as the material basis for the units (Eon, Era, Period, Epoch, and Age) of the Geologic Time Scale. The succession of traditional chronostratigraphic units was assembled in the 19th century as intervals of stratified rock that were named and placed in temporal order on the basis of superposition and fossil succession. They were based on type areas primarily in Europe, and recognised elsewhere on the basis of palaeontological content. However, rarely were boundaries between successive units defined. Most successive units were separated by unconformities, and most successive units were not located in the same stratigraphic section, but instead were widely separated geographically. In the mid-20th century, the lack of boundary definitions and the complexity of regional chronostratigraphic correlations greatly hindered stratigraphic communication. The ICS was established in 1968 to resolve these problems using the GSSP concept. The lower boundary of a unit is defined by a specific level (point) in a specific stratigraphic section (stratotype section), and it serves not only as the lower boundary of the overlying unit but also as the upper boundary of the underlying unit. The process is well advanced with GSSPs ratified for boundaries of 66 of the 102 Stages that comprise the Series, Systems, and Erathems of the Phanerozoic Eonthem. These international geostandards are an essential part of the geological heritage of the world and therefore they should be included whenever possible in national or regional geosite or natural monument inventories to ensure their protection. They also represent a great educational and even touristic resource for local communities, as exemplified by the Basque Coast UNESCO Global Geopark.

Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00010-1 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

179

180

CHAPTER 10 GSSPs AS INTERNATIONAL GEOSTANDARDS

10.2 ICS AND THE INTERNATIONAL CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC CHART The ICS is the largest and oldest constituent scientific entity within the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS). It is led by a three-person executive (Chair, Vice-Chair, SecretaryGeneral) and includes 16 subcommissions subcommissions for the Cambrian to Quaternary systems of the Phanerozoic, the Ediacaran and Cryogenian systems of the upper Proterozoic, the Precambrian Subcommission for the lower part of the Proterozoic and Archean and the Subcommission on Stratigraphic Correlation. The primary objective of the ICS is to establish a hierarchy of global, standard chronostratigraphic units with boundaries between units defined by GSSPs. The individual subcommissions and their boundary working groups carry out this work. Members of boundary working groups are chosen for their experience with and knowledge of the stratigraphic intervals of concern, and they include experts in a variety of stratigraphic disciplines. They evaluate stratigraphic levels that offer the most reliable and widespread correlation potential, based on available stratigraphic signals in the boundary interval of interest. The signals considered are typically biostratigraphic (lowest and highest occurrences of individual species), but stableisotope excursions, palaeomagnetic polarity reversals, and vertical facies changes representing eustacy are also important. The traditional chronostratigraphic units were defined in type sections or type areas based on their palaeontological content, and boundaries between successive units were rarely defined. The outcrops where the strata are exposed and a unit was originally studied and characterised is referred to as the unit stratotype, and many traditional unit stratotype sections are bounded above or below by unconformities or covered intervals. Furthermore, stratotype sections or type areas of successive units are often at different locations. With further study of unit stratotypes and of correlative stratigraphic sections elsewhere, it was realised that often the stratotypes of successive units overlapped stratigraphically or were separated by gaps. To resolve this problem, ICS has used the concept of boundary stratotype (Hedberg, 1976) to define specific boundaries between successive units. A specific stratigraphic level is selected within a specific stratigraphic section to serve as the lower boundary of the overlying unit and thus also as the upper boundary of the underlying unit. The level chosen is determined to offer the greatest potential for reliable, widespread correlation across the greatest range of palaeoenvironmental settings possible. The level is placed at a horizon with a specific stratigraphic signal (e.g., lowest or highest occurrence of a species, the inflection point in a stable-isotope excursion, a palaeomagnetic polarity reversal). However, the correlation of this signal and the boundary it defines requires that this stratigraphic position is well established relative all other stratigraphic signals within the boundary interval in the stratotype section. Boundary intervals may range in thickness from many centimetres to tens of metres. Once selected, the boundary level and interval are referred to as the GSSP. Proposals for GSSPs are developed within ICS subcommissions, often by a boundary working group in a subcommission. Doing so requires restudy of the traditional stratotype and investigations of other stratigraphic successions to select the best stratigraphic marker and section on which to define the boundary under consideration. A GSSP proposal is evaluated based on many criteria (Remane et al., 1996; Salvador, 1994) with the most important being that it offers the greatest potential for reliable, widespread correlation. Approval of a GSSP proposal begins in a subcommission or in its relevant boundary working group. Approval requires a 60% or greater vote among the

10.2 ICS AND THE INTERNATIONAL CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC CHART

181

voting members of the working group and then the subcommission. If approved, it is forwarded to ICS, where the ICS executive officers and the chairs of the 16 subcommissions, i.e., the ICS voting members, evaluate the proposal. It may be returned to the subcommission for revisions. Eventually it will be subject to a vote by ICS, where it will be approved if it receives a 60% or greater ‘yes’ vote. The proposal is then forwarded to the IUGS executive committee. If it again receives a 60% or greater vote, it is considered ratified. Following ratification, the GSSP proposal must be published, preferably in the journal Episodes, and a marker must be placed on the GSSP. Marking typically involves the placing of a plaque that states the chronostratigraphic unit defined by the GSSP (i.e., the unit for which it serves as the lower boundary), its location (longitude and latitude), its stratigraphic level, and the stratigraphic signal on which the boundary is placed (Fig. 10.1). Oftentimes a ‘golden spike’ is placed in the bed that marks the boundary (Fig. 10.2). Once these steps are completed, the ratified and marked GSSP is an international geostandard. It is the definition for the base of a global chronostratigraphic unit. Unlike global standards that can be placed in an archive (e.g., type specimen of a species, standard meter), a GSSP can serve as a standard only within the context of the stratotype section in which it is located. It cannot be removed and placed in a physical archive, such as a natural history museum. The first GSSP to be established was ratified in 1972. It defines the base of the Devonian System (and top of Silurian System), and serves as the base of the Lower Devonian Series and the

FIGURE 10.1 Marker plaque for GSSP for the base of the Selandian Stage, at the Zumaia section, Spain.

182

CHAPTER 10 GSSPs AS INTERNATIONAL GEOSTANDARDS

FIGURE 10.2 Top of the ‘golden spike’ placed at GSSP (boundary level) for the base of the Toarcian Stage, at the Peniche section, Portugal.

Lochkovian Stage. Of the 102 recognised global stages that comprise the series, systems and erathems of the Phanerozoic Eonthem of the ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart, GSSPs have been ratified for 67 of them and for the base of the Ediacaran System at the top of the Proterozoic Eonthem. Once ratified, a GSSP cannot be changed until 10 years has passed, and it has been documented to be seriously deficient. On average two to four GSSPs are approved by ICS and ratified by IUGS each year. The ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart and the Table of GSSPs are archived on the ICS website (www.stratigraphy.org, accessed 09.08.17) and are regularly updated. The ICS Chart and translations of it can be downloaded. Published ratified GSSP proposals can also be downloaded from the links on the Table of GSSPs.

10.3 PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF GSSPs Guaranteed access for future scientific study is a requirement for approval of a GSSP. Initially GSSPs and their boundary intervals were defined on and correlated with biostratigraphy often of a single fossil group. Resampling stratotype sections for biostratigraphic studies of other fossil groups has improved correlation of some GSSPs. With advances in stratigraphic techniques, some GSSPs are now defined on stable-isotope excursions, palaeomagnetic polarity reversals, and eustatic changes. Here again, resampling of stratotype sections for chemostratigraphic, palaeomagnetic, and sequence stratigraphic analyses, where such work was not part of the original GSSP proposal, can further improve correlation of GSSPs defined biostratigraphically. Furthermore, integration of

10.3 PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF GSSPs

183

different correlation methods derived from the same stratotype section allows for more reliable correlation across a wider range of palaeoenvironmental and palaeogeographical settings. Some boundary intervals include evidence of significant changes in the Earth system (e.g., mass extinctions, bolide impacts, rapid climate change). They are best investigated and correlated with integrated stratigraphic methods. Furthermore, where possible, appropriate strata are sampled for numerical dating. These varied studies are carried out by different specialists and often over many years, and it is for these reasons that future access to stratotype sections must be guaranteed. If a stratotype section is to remain available for future examination and study, it is essential that it be preserved. Yet there are preservation problems with all stratigraphic sections, which are surface outcrops. Certain lithologies weather rapidly. Slope failure and coastal erosion can remove or cover the boundary interval. Vegetation can overgrow and hide a stratotype section. Human development is a more serious threat, especially when it blocks access for further study. It is fortunate that most stratotype sections are located in preserves and parks managed by local, regional, and national governmental agencies. This prevents their being threatened by human development, and administrators of the preserves and parks can periodically clean surface outcrops as they weather and take other action to prevent erosion and cover by growth of vegetation. Such protection is an important criterion on which GSSP proposals are evaluated. Of all ratified GSSPs, two are on private property. For now, the landowners have willingly granted access for scientific study. Several GSSPs in nature preserves and parks are located in sites of touristic interest, which provides the opportunity to educate the public about the stratigraphic record, Earth history and the concept of Deep Time. This is accomplished through educational panels that describe the significance of the site, direct visitors to the marker of the GSSP, and explain the geologic history that is recorded in the stratigraphic section (Fig. 10.3). Whenever possible, the ratified GSSP is dedicated in a ceremony to which are invited members of the scientific team who studied the stratotype section and developed the successful GSSP

FIGURE 10.3 Chronostratigraphic and geochronologic boundaries in the Zumaia section.

184

CHAPTER 10 GSSPs AS INTERNATIONAL GEOSTANDARDS

proposal, members and officers of the relevant subcommission, and executive officers of ICS and IUGS. Local governmental officials and employees are invited and play a special role in the dedication ceremony. Many have provided funding for the production of the ‘golden spike’, formal marker, and educational panels and even for road grading, fencing and extensive exhibits. In China, the local government built and maintains a museum and extensive park at the stratotype section for the GSSP that defines the boundary between the Permian and Triassic (Paleozoic and Mesozoic) and records the greatest mass extinction in Earth’s history. Governmental officials take part in hammering in the ‘golden spike’ and unveiling the marker plaque and educational panels. They are often accompanied by journalists who publish articles on the ceremony and the significance of the GSSP in regional and national newspapers. Attendance by the public is encouraged. During the ceremony, the officers of the subcommission and ICS describe the significance of the GSSP as an international geostandard, recognise the many years of hard work by those who developed the successful GSSP proposal, and inform the governmental officials and the public on their roles in maintaining and protecting the stratotype section. Maintenance and protection are best ensured when the local governmental officials and the local public take pride in their international geostandard. Unfortunately, many GSSPs are not well maintained. At least 10 of the 67 ratified GSSPs have not been dedicated nor formally marked. Until recently, dedication and marking was managed by ICS subcommissions and boundary working groups with no input from the ICS Executive. Some were not marked out of ignorance or lack of attention; others because of fears that commercial fossil collectors would destroy them if they could be easily located. However, it is the goal now of the ICS executive to ensure that all GSSPs are dedicated and marked soon after ratification. The ceremonies with ICS executive officers in attendance ensure that GSSPs are properly marked and, as mentioned above, convey to the local community and government the importance of the GSSPs as global geostandards and their responsibility to protect and maintain them. Gray (2011) suggested that UNESCO establish a geoconservation network that protects ratified GSSPs. However, the best protection is provided by local communities, governments, and nature preserves and parks that watch over and protect the GSSPs. The seven ratified GSSPs in Spain and Portugal are examples of GSSPs that are well marked, well maintained, and provide educational value to the public. All have been dedicated. The two located at Zumaia on the Basque Coast UNESCO Global Geopark of Spain are exemplary.

10.4 GSSPs AT ZUMAIA, BASQUE COAST UNESCO GLOBAL GEOPARK 10.4.1 GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION The Zumaia section is located in the Basque basin, western Pyrenees, and it is known worldwide as one of the most complete deep marine stratigraphic records of the world. The 50-million-year, Cretaceous (Albian) to Eocene (Ypresian) stratigraphic succession exposed between Deba and Zumaia is impressive and has attracted many scientists in the last decades. The Zumaia section, located at Algorri and Itzurun beaches, is unique because of its continuity, its excellent and complete exposure, its stratigraphic records of the Cretaceous Paleogene boundary (K/Pg) and Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) events and its two GSSPs, those of the Selandian and Thanetian stages (Fig. 10.3). Their biostratigraphic, magnetostratigraphic and cyclostratigraphic

10.4 GSSPs AT ZUMAIA, BASQUE COAST UNESCO GLOBAL GEOPARK

185

records are astronomically tuned, and all is presented to the geologist in just 1 km of accessible cliff-face exposure. The GSSP for the base of the Selandian Stage is placed at the base of the Itzurun Formation at the Itzurun beach in Zumaia, 49 m above the K/Pg boundary following the log of Dinare`s-Turell et al. (2003). It can be easily recognised by an abrupt lithological change from the reddish limestone marl couplets located below the San Telmo church, the upper part of the Aitzgorri Formation and Danian Stage, to the soft grey marls of the base of the Selandian stage. The limit is clearly marked by the biostratigraphy of calcareous nannofossils and planktonic and benthic foraminifera, by magneto- and cyclostratigraphy, and by carbon-isotope values, all of which serve for international correlation (Schmitz et al., 2011). The GSSP for the base of the Thanetian Stage is located in the same Itzurun Formation, 29 m above the base of the Selandian and 78 m above the K/Pg boundary. It corresponds to the base of the magnetostratigraphic polarity zone C26n, but it also can be widely correlated by biostratigraphic, cyclostratigraphic and carbon-isotope signals related to the Mid Paleocene Biotic Event (MPBE) located just 2.8 m below the boundary. Levels in the Zumaia section were also proposed as GSSPs for the Cretaceous Paleogene and Paleocene Eocene boundaries in 1990 and 2004, respectively.

10.4.2 PROTECTED GSSPs IN THE BASQUE COAST UNESCO GLOBAL GEOPARK: SUPPORTING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND PROMOTING GEOCONSERVATION, EDUCATION AND GEOTOURISM The Zumaia section is located in the ‘Protected Deba Zumaia Coastal Biotope’, the first natural area protected in 2009 in the Basque Country due to its geological value. This section is also the most important attraction of the Basque Coast UNESCO Global Geopark (www.geoparkea.com, accessed 09.08.17), probably the best and most internationally recognised platform to promote education and geotourism. Therefore, the existence of these GSSPs provides a great value that has been recognised by local authorities. From the beginning, local authorities have been involved together with the scientific community in the process of ratification of the GSSPs. A meeting of the Paleocene Working Group was held in Bilbao on June 15 in connection with the meeting ‘Climate and Biota of the Early Paleogene 2006’. The main field trip of this congress took more than 100 geologists to the Zumaia section where the candidature for the GSSPs was presented (Fig. 10.4A). One year later, in June 2007, the international workshop of the Paleocene Working Group was organised at Zumaia, and the GSSPs were voted on and approved by the Paleogene Subcommission (Fig. 10.4B) soon thereafter. Many regional and national journalists publicised this news, and the Zumaia section was the cover story in most of the newspapers and media of the Basque Country. After final ratification of the GSSPs by the IUGS in September 2008, the final dedication ceremony was celebrated in May 2010. Two golden spikes with the letters ‘GSSP’ printed on the head, two plaques and a big interpretative panel were created (Fig. 10.4C, D). Local scientists, representatives of the Paleogene Subcommission and the chair of the ICS were invited together with local politicians and journalists, who had the chance to talk at length with scientists during an informal lunch offered after the dedication ceremony (Fig. 10.4E). The impact of this event was great, both from the promotional point of view and from the involvement of the local communities and authorities to support the Basque Coast Geopark project.

186

CHAPTER 10 GSSPs AS INTERNATIONAL GEOSTANDARDS

FIGURE 10.4 (A) Participants of the Climate and Biota of Early Paleogene Congress in 2006. (B) Chairs of the Paleocene Working Group and Paleogene Subcommission together with the representatives of the local scientists after the vote of the Paleocene Working Group in Zumaia in 2007. (C) Inauguration by the local deputy of the big interpretative panel located at the entrance of the beach. More than 150,000 people read this panel every year. (D) Golden spike created for the dedication ceremony. (E) Provincial deputy together with the local mayor, chair of the ICS and chair of the Paleogene Subcommission and a representative of local scientists placing the golden spike. (F) Family picture with representatives of the local government, local scientists and ICS.

Recognition of the scientists who studied the Zumaia section and produced the GSSP proposals was one of the great achievements of this ceremony (Fig. 10.4F). It was a fitting culmination and wellearned recognition of their many years of hard work in the field and the laboratory. The protection and conservation of the outcrop is guaranteed by the rules of the protected biotope. It means that any human activity is forbidden without the permission of the local government, thus preventing any urban encroachment on the site and controlling the activity of fossil collectors. Although the outcrops with the GSSPs suffer coastal erosion, each GSSP is placed in a single

10.4 GSSPs AT ZUMAIA, BASQUE COAST UNESCO GLOBAL GEOPARK

187

stratum (bed) that is steeply dipping and exposed in a 20-m-high cliff face. The marker plaques and golden spikes are placed high in each stratum high on the cliff face where the strata experience little erosion. And even if the cliff face erodes, each stratum with a GSSP is still exposed and thus preserved. The geologist of the geopark is in charge of the daily vigilance of the outcrop. There are no fences anywhere as there is not any accessible geosite with a clear risk of being despoiled. The proper maintenance of the accessibility is also a duty that must be carried out by the local authority. This commitment was detailed in an agreement signed between the ICS and the local government in 2011 (Fig. 10.5A).

FIGURE 10.5 (A) Maintenance work after a small landslide that covered the outcrop of the GSSP. (B) Executive board of the IUGS and local authorities in Zumaia in 2012. (C) Members of the Coordination Committee of the European Geoparks Network in Zumaia. (D) Stanley Finney, chair of the ICS, being interviewed by Asier Hilario, scientific director of the geopark, for an internationally renowned documentary. (E) Secondary-school students taking part in an educational excursion about the GSSPs. (F) Boat trip organised by the Geopark. The view of the entire section from the sea is spectacular.

188

CHAPTER 10 GSSPs AS INTERNATIONAL GEOSTANDARDS

Encouraging and coordinating future scientific research is a clear goal in the protected area, which means that renowned scientists and new investigators receive required permission as well as logistic support and scientific advice to work in the section. More than 100 geologists from all over the world visit the Zumaia section every year for professional research and as part of scientific excursions from universities or congresses (Fig. 10.5B, C). All this activity is controlled and promoted by the local authorities and contributes not only to a better understanding of the section but also to a higher credibility of the geopark project among the local population. These two GSSPs, together with the rest of the geological wonders of the section, represent the most important educational and touristic attractions of the geopark. Photographic books like Flysch Algorri-Mendata and field guides like El biotopo del flysch, maps, leaflets, interpretative panels and a big internationally awarded TV documentary titled Flysch, the whisper of the Rocks have been produced (Fig. 10.5D). More than 8000 school children (Fig. 10.5E) and about 50,000 people participate every year in guided excursions offered by the geopark and private enterprises, and more than 100,000 people visit the geopark every year. The division of geological time related to events in Earth’s history, the meaning of a GSSP, the K/Pg big mass extinction, and the PETM together with the work of the ICS are some of the most important concepts explained in the guided tours offered by boat and on foot (Fig. 10.5F).

10.5 CONCLUSION GSSPs are international geostandards designated by the IUGS. Surprisingly, many of them are not promoted and are even ignored. They should be included in the Geosite programme of UNESCO IUGS and in national and regional geological or natural heritage inventories. GSSPs located in the Zumaia section are an excellent example of an integral management and sustainable use of this internationally recognised geological heritage. Being placed in a protected area is without any doubt a great advantage that should be evaluated at the time GSSPs are defined. Besides the educational value, the local development of this area related to this geological phenomenon must be considered a great achievement that can be exported to other locations with a similar geological heritage.

REFERENCES Dinare`s-Turell, J., Baceta, J.I., Pujalte, V., Orue-Etxebarria, X., Bernaola, G., Lorito, S., 2003. Untangling the Palaeocene climatic rhythm: an astronomically calibrated Early Paleocene magnetostratigraphy and biostratigraphy at Zumaia (Basque basin, northern Spain). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 216, 483 500. Gray, M., 2011. GSSPs: the case for a third, internationally recognised, geoconservation network. Geoheritage 3, 83 88. Hedberg, H.D., 1976. International Stratigraphic Guide A Guide to Stratigraphic Classification, Terminology, and Procedure. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Remane, J., Bassett, M.G., Cowie, J.W., Gohrbandt, K.H., Lane, H.R., Michelsen, O., et al., 1996. Revised guidelines for the establishment of global chronostratigraphic standards by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS). Episodes 19, 77 81.

REFERENCES

189

Salvador, A., 1994. International Stratigraphic Guide, second ed. Geological Society of America and International Union of Geological Sciences, Boulder, CO. Schmitz, B., Pujalte, V., Molina, E., Monechi, S., Orue-Etxebarria, X., Speijer, R.P., et al., 2011. The global stratotype sections and points for the bases of the Selandian (Middle Paleocene) and Thanetian (Upper Paleocene) stages at Zumaia, Spain. Episodes 34, 220 243.

CHAPTER

THE CONSERVATION OF GEOSITES: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE

11

Colin D. Prosser1, Enrique D´ıaz-Mart´ınez2 and Jonathan G. Larwood1 1

Natural England, Peterborough, United Kingdom 2Geological Survey of Spain, Madrid, Spain

11.1 INTRODUCTION An effective approach to the conservation of geosites, used here to include both geological and geomorphological sites with a recognised value, is an essential part of most strategies to conserve geoheritage (Brilha, 2016). In order to establish a geosite inventory, it is necessary to undertake an audit, assessment and selection exercise to identify those geosites with sufficient value, however this may be defined, to merit inclusion within the inventory. Once this is achieved, the conservation needs of these geosites can be considered based upon: (1) analysis of the intended or potential use of the geosites; (2) their character in terms of physical nature, setting and the extent of the resource available within the geosites; and (3) the nature of potential threats, both anthropogenic and natural, and the sensitivity of the geosites to these threats (i.e., risk of degradation). It is then possible to develop a threat response plan to counter potential threats to the geosites, and a management plan that can be used to deliver the actions required to maintain and enhance them in the future. Relating this process to the simple conservation equation, ‘Value 1 Threat 5 Conservation need’ (Gray, 2013), the ‘value’ element of the geosites is established through the audit and selection processes, with the ‘conservation need’ emerging through analysis of the planned use of the sites, their character and their sensitivity to potential threats as indicated above. The focus of this chapter is on the principles and practice of geosite conservation (namely the process of assessing the use, character and threats faced by a geosite) in order to identify, plan and deliver the action required to conserve a geosite’s value and to ensure that it remains accessible and usable. Approaches to undertaking audits and selecting geosites for inclusion within a conservation inventory are dealt with elsewhere in this book (see Brilha, 2018). So, too, are approaches to raising awareness of geoheritage and geosites amongst developers, decision makers and local communities to increase the support for geosite conservation and reduce the likelihood of threat. Although included in many geosite management plans, effective awareness raising and interpretation is a substantial topic in itself and is also addressed elsewhere in this book (see Macadam, 2018).

Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00011-3 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

193

194

CHAPTER 11 THE CONSERVATION OF GEOSITES: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE

11.2 WHY CONSERVE GEOSITES? The importance of geoheritage to science and society, e.g., in recording the most important events in the history of Earth, including the evolution of climates and life, is described throughout this book so need not be repeated. It is, however, worth emphasising that geoscience is essentially field-based. Hence, the existence of accessible geosites featuring well-exposed, relatively intact or naturally functioning features and processes is essential to scientific study, educational use, training, geotourism and provision of a range of other ecosystem services. Furthermore, many geosites coincide geographically with other natural or cultural heritage, and this will also need to be taken into account, alongside the geoheritage, in planning how such multielement and multivalue sites are sustainably managed. Although most geosites are relatively robust, there are many anthropogenic activities that can damage or destroy them, as well as some natural processes that can, over time, lead to their degradation. In the case of geosites important for their exposures, proposals or activities that may result in the burial or obscuring of these exposures pose a major threat. These might include coastal protection schemes, the infilling of quarries, reprofiling or stabilisation of road and rail cuttings or coastal cliffs, river engineering schemes, or the construction of buildings on top of, or against, geological exposures. Natural processes such as vegetation encroachment and weathering may also result in loss of exposure, whilst in some geosites quarrying or irresponsible specimen collecting can result in the removal and loss of irreplaceable (nonrenewable) elements. Geosites important for their geomorphology, sometimes referred to as geomorphosites (Reynard, 2009), are also vulnerable to damage as they usually need to be conserved in their entirety (see Coratza and Hobl´ea, 2018). Geomorphological features were either created in the geological past (e.g., by the action of ice during glaciations) or are still being shaped by ongoing processes (e.g., rivers and coastlines). A geomorphological feature created by past processes, over long periods of time, is clearly vulnerable to damage, e.g., from mineral extraction or road building, as it cannot be recreated or replaced if damaged or destroyed. A geosite comprising a currently active feature, such as a coastal spit, which is still being created by ongoing processes, is also very sensitive to interference and can easily be damaged or destroyed if those processes on which it depends are modified or stopped. Some features, such as sea-arches or hoodoos, may be both created and destroyed by the same process, in these examples, coastal and intense weathering, respectively. In summary, whilst many geosites are relatively robust when compared to some sites protected for their habitats or species, they are subject to a range of both anthropogenic and natural threats (see Crofts and Gordon, 2015; Fuertes-Guti´errez et al., 2016; Gray, 2013; Prosser et al., 2006). These include: • • • •

loss of geological exposure through burial under coastal protection schemes, river engineering schemes, infill of quarries or other developments, such as infrastructure and housing; loss of geological exposure or sensitive features (such as delicate fossils) as a consequence of vegetation encroachment and degradation; removal of irreplaceable features such as caves, landforms or finite deposits of fossils or minerals through quarrying or mining; removal and loss to science of fossil or mineral specimens through irresponsible collecting;

11.3 PRINCIPLES OF GEOSITE CONSERVATION

• • •

195

damage to geomorphological features or processes, e.g., as a result of mineral extraction, coastal protection, marine dredging, river management schemes or forestry; damage to static geomorphological features or delicate features such as fossil footprints arising from natural erosion; accidental loss or damage arising from ignorance of the importance of geoheritage and the need to conserve it.

Given the importance of our geoheritage and the potential threats set out above, action is clearly required to conserve geosites for both current and future generations. As threats such as development proposals can emerge relatively quickly, and as different stakeholders may have different views about whether and how a geosite should be managed for its conservation, it is important to consider the conservation requirements of a geosite at an early stage. This may involve producing a threat response plan to anticipate threats to the geosite, and a management plan to deliver longterm conservation and enhancement.

11.3 PRINCIPLES OF GEOSITE CONSERVATION Whilst it is possible to react to threats or site enhancement opportunities as and when they arise, a preemptive planned approach will result in more considered, consistent and effective geosite conservation, ensuring that threats and opportunities have been anticipated before they emerge, and solutions are identified. Such an approach can be particularly effective and robust if made within the context of a conservation framework based on clear principles. Whilst principles informing the conservation of geosites may vary depending on local priorities and circumstances, the following principles are particularly relevant to provide a basis for planning geosite conservation in most circumstances: • •

•

•

• •

the proposed use of a geosite should play a major role in defining the type of conservation management required; the character of the geoheritage resource within a geosite, in terms of its extent and renewability, will determine the type and levels of use and conservation management that the geosite can accommodate; the character of a geosite, in terms of the anthropogenic or natural processes that physically created it, will play a major role in determining the threats likely to arise and the site conservation needs; the character of a geosite in terms of its setting within the landscape, including its proximity to population centres, will play a major role in determining the threats likely to arise and the site conservation needs; the anthropogenic and natural threats to a geosite, and site sensitivity to them, will strongly influence the geosite’s conservation needs; a clear understanding of the conservation needs of a geosite, including the threats it faces, provides the basis for planning both threat response and management;

196

•

•

CHAPTER 11 THE CONSERVATION OF GEOSITES: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE

threat response plans and management plans should identify the objectives, actions, partners and resources required to deliver the conservation needs of a geosite and address the risks to achieving it; delivery of management plans should be monitored, and the plans reviewed and adjusted, as a consequence of the findings.

11.4 CONSERVATION FRAMEWORKS 11.4.1 GENERIC GEOSITE CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK Based upon the principles set out above, it is possible to establish a conservation framework within which to analyse the conservation need of geosites and then to plan and deliver the actions required to meet this need (Fig. 11.1). This Generic Geosite Conservation Framework differentiates between (1) geosite audit and selection, where a value, however this is defined, is assigned, and a geosite inventory is established, and (2) the geosite conservation phase, the primary topic of this chapter, in which conservation needs are identified and conservation planning and action take place. The Generic Geosite Conservation Framework (Fig. 11.1) is best considered in three parts.

11.4.1.1 Geosite audit and selection An audit, assessment and site selection exercise is an important first step in assigning value to geodiversity features and establishing a geosite inventory. Whilst many audits and selection exercises take a qualitative approach, quantitative approaches are increasingly being used and help to decrease subjectivity in selecting sites and assessing potential uses (Brilha, 2016, 2018). The criteria and approach used to assess value will vary depending on a number of factors including the objectives and scope of the site selection exercise and the size of the area under study. The value of a geosite may be based upon it illustrating a particular aspect (e.g., petrology, stratigraphy, palaeontology, geomorphology, mineralogy, structural geology), on its relative significance (e.g., local, national, or international), on its size, or on its suitability for delivering particular uses (e.g., scientific research, education, geotourism), but many more criteria may also be applied (Brilha, 2016).

11.4.1.2 Conservation needs analysis Once the value of a geosite has been established, it is possible to undertake a conservation needs analysis (Fig. 11.1). This involves assessment of use, character and threat/sensitivity. This assessment can be carried out in whichever order suits local priorities and circumstances. For example, if the use of a geosite has been determined through selection in order to provide a resource for scientific research, it is logical to specify this use before assessing the character of the site, the resource present and the site’s sensitivity to threat. Alternatively, in cases where the use of the site is not already determined, assessment of the character and threat/sensitivity can be used to inform options for site use and to identify the conservation needs to deliver different use options. Use: Fig. 11.1 shows scientific research, education, training, geotourism, recreation or cultural visit as the most common uses for geosites. A geosite will often be suitable for a combination of uses and may also have biodiversity, wider cultural, or community values which need to be

· · · · · ·

Character

Science and research Education and training Geotourism Recreation Cultural, e.g., sacred site Other (non-geological)

· · · ·

Setting of site Extent of resource Renewability of resource Physical nature of site

Threat/sensitivity

Threat response plan · · · ·

Management plan

Objectives Unsustainable impacts Areas for compromise Opportunities for enhancement

· · · · · ·

Delivery · Monitor · Review

Objectives Actions Resources Risks to delivery Legislative tools Partnerships

Conservation planning and delivery

· Anthropogenic · Natural

GEOSITE CONSERVATION

· Audit · Site selection

Conservation needs analysis

Geosite value

Use

197

Audit Selection

11.4 CONSERVATION FRAMEWORKS

FIGURE 11.1 A Generic Geosite Conservation Framework that provides a structured approach to geosite conservation and which can be adapted at a national, regional or local level to reflect locally relevant priorities and circumstances.

198

CHAPTER 11 THE CONSERVATION OF GEOSITES: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE

accommodated. Determination of use is important as different uses present different threats and must be sustainable to maintain a geosite’s value and potential use. For example, a small geosite, with a restricted, finite and sensitive geological resource is unlikely to be able to accommodate significant levels of educational or geotourism use. In contrast, a large geosite including an extensive exposure of igneous rock, which is likely to be relatively robust, may be ideal for educational and geotourism use. Rigorous assessment is important, however, as such a robust extensive exposure of igneous rock may be geologically complex and for this reason unsuitable for use for education or tourism. In short, the potential use of a geosite is controlled to a large extent by its character and sensitivity to threat. Character: The character of a geosite relates to its physical nature or form, its setting in the landscape, the extent of the geological/geomorphological resource within it, and how easily the resource can be renewed if it is collected or removed. These factors play a significant role in understanding threats and the sensitivity of the geosite to them. The physical nature of a geosite reflects how the site was created; whether it is an anthropogenically created geosite such as a quarry or road cutting, or a naturally formed feature such as a coastal cliff, cave passage, or shingle spit or bar. An understanding of physical nature is important, as geosites of a similar physical nature are likely to be subject to similar threats and require similar conservation management. For example, all disused quarries are likely to be susceptible to infilling and degradation of exposure through weathering, whereas coastal cliff exposures are susceptible to different threats such as coastal protection schemes. The setting of a site in the landscape and in relation to population centres and associated threats is also an important consideration. For example, a geosite in an unpopulated, high-altitude environment subject to extreme temperature variation and freeze thaw processes will be subjected to very different threats than a similar site occurring in a lowland area with a moderate temperature range and close proximity to a large urban population. The extent of a geological resource is also important in determining conservation needs, as it will influence conservation options and susceptibility to different threats. Laterally extensive geological features exposed in coastal cliffs, e.g., will have quite different conservation needs to more finite features such as river channel-fill sediments, a mineral vein, or a mine spoil tip. Renewability of a geological resource is related to its extent and to the physical nature of the geosite in which it occurs. It reflects the likelihood of a process of renewal taking place, and the capacity of the resource to accommodate natural processes and activities, such as specimen collecting, that may result in the removal or loss of material (Townley and Larwood, 2012a). For example, naturally eroding coastal and river cliffs, as well as working quarries, will maintain fresh exposures and renewed collecting material, whilst exposures and material collected in a disused quarry are not readily renewed, and an inactive (fossil) landform is nonrenewable. As such, fossil collecting on an eroding coastline is often a different conservation prospect to fossil collecting in a disused quarry. Threat/sensitivity: The most common threats to the conservation of geosites are set out earlier in this chapter, and arise from both anthropogenic activity and natural processes. The sensitivity of a geosite to these threats will largely depend on the use of the site and its character, with sites of similar character likely to be sensitive to similar threats. Approaches to the analysis of threat and sensitivity and the definitions of terminology associated with this are varied and complex (see e.g., Garc´ıa-Ortiz et al., 2014; Reynard, 2009). A review of 12 papers by Garc´ıa-Ortiz et al. (2014) demonstrated a lack of standard terminology and methodology across them, leading these authors to propose an approach based on three terms: sensitivity, vulnerability and fragility. Sensitivity being

11.4 CONSERVATION FRAMEWORKS

199

a geosite’s susceptibility to damage or destruction, vulnerability being a geosite’s sensitivity to extrinsic factors (whether anthropogenic or natural in origin), and fragility being a geosite’s sensitivity to intrinsic factors (i.e., to damage or destruction by the same processes that formed the features in the first place). This approach and terminology is reflected in this chapter when describing the conservation framework applied in northern Spain and a case study from this area.

11.4.1.3 Conservation planning and delivery Having undertaken a conservation needs analysis, it is possible to identify, plan and deliver the actions required to meet these needs (Fig. 11.1). It is important to consider and plan how to respond to threats that may emerge in terms of a development proposal or a change of land use. This may involve identifying conservation objectives, sustainable/acceptable levels of change, and importantly, potential areas for improvement or enhancement of the geosite that could be included in any development proposal. These can be captured and articulated in a threat response plan. Equally, as part of a site-management plan, it is important to plan for enhancement of a geosite by identifying conservation objectives, actions and resources required to deliver them, partnerships and levers such as legislation that can be used to help, and the risks that may prevent delivery of the plan. Such plans may include: • • • • • • • • •

the key features to be conserved, ideally identified on maps, photographs, etc.; the conservation objectives for the site; sustainable/acceptable impacts and unsustainable/unacceptable impacts; opportunities for enhancement; actions and resources required to deliver the objectives; levers, legislation and partnerships to assist in delivery; risks to delivery of the plan; the information required to support conservation and management; a programme of monitoring to assess and review delivery of the plan.

Although needs analysis and conservation planning are extremely important, it is the action taken to implement the plan that delivers geosite conservation. It is therefore important to ensure that planning soon moves to implementation and that the delivery of plans is monitored in order to review progress and modify the plans where necessary (i.e., adaptive management planning). Geosites vary locally in character, with proposed use, the extent of the resource available, the nature and setting of the sites, threats faced, and legislative and policy options available, all determined by local circumstances and priorities. It is, therefore, inevitable and appropriate that national, regional or local geosite conservation frameworks should be developed. These are likely to reflect the generic framework (Fig. 11.1), but will place different degrees of emphasis and greater levels of detail on different stages within the framework in order to reflect local circumstances. Such frameworks, where established, should lead to a well-considered, robust and consistent approach to geosite conservation.

11.4.2 APPLICATION OF CONSERVATION FRAMEWORKS Despite the fact that many geosite inventories have been identified, and many different methods of achieving this have been applied, the next step, that of developing frameworks within which to

200

CHAPTER 11 THE CONSERVATION OF GEOSITES: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE

analyse, plan and deliver geosite conservation, is still in its early stages. Two geosite conservation frameworks, a national framework from Great Britain and a regional framework from Spain, are described below. Each was developed to reflect local priorities, circumstances and ways of working, and although they sit within the Generic Geosite Conservation Framework (Fig. 11.1), they emphasise different stages within it. They do, however, clearly illustrate how geosite conservation principles can be applied in practice.

11.4.2.1 The Site Type conservation framework applied in Great Britain With large numbers of geosites benefitting from some legal protection in Great Britain, the Site Type approach (Table 11.1) is the geosite conservation framework widely used at a national and local level in making decisions regarding development proposals impacting on geosites, and in meeting targets for their long-term conservation (Prosser et al., 2006). One of its primary aims is to identify groupings of geosites with similar conservation needs and, in doing so, to adopt a robust, consistent and streamlined approach to geosite conservation that leads to the identification of planned responses to threats and to the production of management plans. The Site Type approach was developed primarily to support the conservation of geosites designated on account of their scientific value. This means that the primary use (Fig. 11.1) of these geosites is science and research. As such, the priorities, e.g., include: (1) retaining sufficient geological exposure, or the ability to easily create it; (2) maintenance of geomorphological features or processes; and (3) protection of sites that are unable to sustain removal or collection of geological material to a level that allows for research on these geosites to continue. Whilst use for education, training and geotourism are often also possible on a geosite conserved primarily for scientific and research use, there is no necessity to provide educational access, interpretation, paths or parking at these geosites as part of maintaining scientific use. A key feature of the Site Type approach is the development of a Geosite Conservation Classification based on site character, in particular on the extent of the resource present and the physical nature of the site (Prosser et al., 2006). Each Site Type grouping within this classification is characterised by its management needs and the threats to which it is susceptible, allowing for generic approaches to conservation planning and delivery to be applied to all geosites within each Site Type class. The first step in developing this classification is to determine the extent of the resource that is being conserved. Three broad categories of geoheritage resource site types, reflecting different conservation needs and vulnerability to different threats, have been identified: Extensive Sites, Integrity Sites and Finite Sites (refer to Prosser et al., 2006, for further details and examples): 1. Exposure or extensive geosites contain geological features that are relatively extensive beneath the surface. The basic principle is that removal of material does not significantly deplete the resource, as new material of the same type is freshly exposed as material is removed. The main conservation aim is to achieve and maintain an acceptable level of exposure of the interest features. The main threats are activities which result in long-term or permanent concealment of the geological interest features. These include landfill, building development, coastal protection and river bank engineering. Vegetation management and removal of scree are important issues on many inland sites where erosion rates are too low to maintain fresh exposures.

11.4 CONSERVATION FRAMEWORKS

201

Table 11.1 The Site Type Conservation Framework Applied in Great Britain Site Code

Typical Threats

Active quarries and pits

EA

Backfill against quarry faces

Disused quarries and pits

ED

Coastal cliffs and foreshore

EC

Restoration through in-filling Degradation of faces through weathering and vegetation encroachment Coastal protection schemes Cliff reprofiling

River and stream sections

EW

Type of Site Exposure or extensive

Integrity

Inland outcrops

EO

Marinas or foreshore development River management and bank stabilisation River damming Vegetation encroachment Vegetation encroachment

Exposure underground mines and tunnels

EU

Inappropriate recreational activity Features inaccessible

Extensive buried interest

EB

Road, rail and canal cuttings

ER

Flooding and collapse Development on top of the buried features Agricultural practice that damages the buried features, e.g., deep ploughing Exposures obscured through stabilisation work using concrete or rock-fall mesh Degradation of exposures through weathering and vegetation encroachment

Static (fossil) geomorphological

IS

Mineral extraction Vegetation encroachment or tree planting Coastal protection schemes River management schemes Quarrying and dredging

Active process geomorphological

IA

Caves

IC

Quarrying and mining Pollution

Karst

IK

Irresponsible specimen collecting Quarrying Vegetation encroachment

Typical Conservation and Management Objectives Secure access for recording and collecting Secure conservation-friendly restoration with retention of exposed quarry faces Maintain exposed quarry faces Control vegetation encroachment

Maintain natural processes Discourage development in front of or on top of geological exposures in cliffs Maintain natural processes Control vegetation encroachment Discourage development against exposures Control vegetation encroachment Secure access for recording and collecting Seek long-term solutions to flooding and mine collapse Ensure that there are no physical obstacles to restrict excavation of features when required

Ensure exposures are retained if the road is widened Control vegetation encroachment

Maintain integrity of the feature Discourage quarrying or tree planting Maintain natural processes Discourage development in areas likely to be affected in future as processes migrate Maintain hydrological systems Promote good practice with caving groups Maintain integrity of features Control vegetation encroachment

(Continued)

202

CHAPTER 11 THE CONSERVATION OF GEOSITES: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE

Table 11.1 The Site Type Conservation Framework Applied in Great Britain Continued Type of Site Finite

Finite mineral, fossil or other geological Mine dumps

Finite underground mines and tunnels

Site Code

Typical Threats

Typical Conservation and Management Objectives

FM

Quarrying and mining Irresponsible specimen collecting

Manage collecting to ensure maximum scientific gain

FD

Reprofiling or levelling

FU

Irresponsible specimen collecting Vegetation encroachment Flooding and collapse

Manage collecting to ensure maximum scientific gain Control vegetation encroachment

Irresponsible specimen collecting Finite buried interest

FB

Quarrying or mining Development on top of the buried features Agricultural practice that damages the buried features, e.g., deep ploughing

Secure access for recording and collecting Seek long-term solutions to flooding and mine collapse Ensure that there are no physical obstacles to restrict access to features when required Manage collecting to ensure maximum scientific gain

This is based on an assessment of the extent of the geoheritage resource and the physical nature of a geosite and leads to the identification of generic threats and conservation and management objectives for each Site Type.

2. Integrity sites are all geomorphological sites in this framework and are often more sensitive to threat than exposure sites. Holistic management is the key to conservation of integrity sites. The recognition that damage to one part of a site may adversely affect the whole site is important, as too is the need to allow space in which natural processes can operate. For some integrity sites, such as active coastal and river systems or caves, it is essential to recognise the potential impacts that activities outside of a geosite, such as hydrological change, may have on the interest features within it. Building development, damming, coastal protection and quarrying are among the most serious threats. 3. Finite geosites, such as restricted mineralisation or a fossil bed of limited extent, contain geological features that are limited in extent, so that removal of material may damage or destroy the resource. In some cases, the features may be unique and irreplaceable. The basic conservation principle is to permit responsible scientific and educational usage of the resource while conserving it in the long term. Irresponsible collecting can be a threat where the resource is finite, and careful management of removal of material may be necessary. Other threats include building development, coastal protection, and quarrying. Having assessed the extent and renewability of the geoheritage resource within the geosite and allocated the site to one of the three categories set out above, the second step in developing the Site Type classification is to identify the physical nature and means of creation of the geosite itself. This then allows subdivision of the exposure, integrity and finite categories, creating a total of 16 Site Types (Table 11.1) each characterised by its own conservation needs and susceptibility to threat. For example, disused quarries (ED) (Table 11.1) will be subject to a common range of

11.4 CONSERVATION FRAMEWORKS

203

threats such as in-filling or vegetation encroachment, whereas coastal exposures will be subject to quite different threats such as coastal protection schemes or marina construction. Geosites may fall into more than one Site Type category. For example, a disused quarry with an exposure of stratigraphic interest would be classified as ED, but localised mineral veins within the same geosite would have an FM classification. In this case, the conservation need would be determined by the combined needs of both of these site types.

11.4.2.2 Risk of Degradation conservation framework applied in La Rioja, northern Spain As with the Site Type approach, the Risk of Degradation conservation framework developed in La Rioja (Spain) is based on assessment of geosite character and threat/sensitivity in order to determine conservation needs and inform threat response and management planning. It differs, however, in placing a strong emphasis on assessment of the sensitivity of geosites to both natural and anthropogenic threats (Fuertes-Guti´errez et al., 2016; Garc´ıa-Ortiz et al., 2014) (Fig. 11.2). It is primarily RISK OF DEGRADATION Emerging from Geological characteristics Size

Sensitivity Affected by To intrinsic factors

To extrinsic factors

Vulnerability

• Accessibility, proximity to roads, inhabitants in the surroundings, land ownership....

Fragility Anthropogenic

Geological characteristics

Natural Active processes involved in the creation of the geosite

Public use

Active processes that are not involved in the creation of the geosite but affect it (geological, climatic, and biological)

• Interests energing from its use as a geoheritage site (scientific, recreational, educational, etc.) • Special case: sites with collectable features

• Legal and physical protection • Threats: mining, quarrying, construction of public infrastructure, conflicts with other territorial activities or with other natural interests

FIGURE 11.2 The Risk of Degradation conservation framework applied in La Rioja, Spain (after Fuertes-Guti´errez et al., 2016).

204

CHAPTER 11 THE CONSERVATION OF GEOSITES: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE

concerned with undertaking a detailed assessment of the sensitivity of geoheritage features within a geosite in order to establish levels of: (1) intrinsic degradation (fragility) derived from the active processes that have formed the feature as part of its natural evolution; and (2) extrinsic degradation (vulnerability) arising from anthropogenic activity and natural processes affecting the geosite but not involved in its creation. In particular, the analysis undertaken by Garc´ıa-Ortiz et al. (2014) and Fuertes-Guti´errez et al. (2016), relating to dinosaur footprints in areas susceptible to processes such as submersion in stagnant surface water, stream erosion, freeze-thaw cycles, and biological activity, illustrates the conservation needs that can arise from the effects of natural processes. In contrast, the Site Type approach used in Great Britain tends to be a better reflection of the conservation challenges and opportunities arising from anthropogenic impacts. The Risk of Degradation conservation framework also explicitly recognises public use and specifically allows for consideration of proximity to people, legal protection and land ownership.

11.5 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE Whether informed by the Generic Geosite Conservation Framework, a nationally or locally developed geosite conservation framework, or through geosite conservation activity undertaken without reference to any contextual framework, practical action to put principles into practice is essential if geosites are to be conserved. Whilst there are many examples of geosite audit and selection, there are few published examples of practical delivery of conservation on geosites. Four examples to illustrate how geosite conservation is implemented on the ground are described below.

11.5.1 CONSERVATION OF A GEOSITE ON THE COAST: LYME REGIS TO CHARMOUTH COASTLINE, JURASSIC COAST WORLD HERITAGE SITE, DORSET, UK The Lyme Regis to Charmouth coastline (Site code EC, see Table 11.1) has long been considered important for its geology and as a prolific source of Lower Jurassic invertebrate and vertebrate fossils. Most famously collected from by Mary Anning in the 19th century, this stretch of west Dorset coastline is now part of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage site (www.jurassiccoast.org, accessed 09.08.17). The conservation needs of this geosite emerge through analysis of its character, its use and the threats it faces. In terms of character, it is an actively and rapidly eroding, openly accessible coastline with an extensive and naturally renewed geological resource set between the small coastal towns of Lyme Regis and Charmouth. The geosite is of global significance for its stratigraphy, geomorphology and palaeontology, and is used extensively for scientific research, education and geotourism, which includes the opportunity to collect fossils. Threats to this geosite are largely anthropogenic and include the potential development of coastal protection and engineering schemes to protect infrastructure. Collecting pressure has the potential to diminish the available collecting resource. Maintaining natural costal erosion is critical to retaining the geological interest, though landslips and cliff-falls may temporarily reduce access to specific parts of the sequence. Health and safety is also a concern in relation to the unstable cliffs.

11.5 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE

205

Conservation planning and delivery have involved threat responses based on modification of coastal protection schemes in order to take account of the geosite interests. This has included a geological ‘watching brief’ to record new fossil material as part of engineering works within Lyme Regis, and redesign of coastal protection proposals to the east of Lyme Regis. This has significantly reduced the overall construction ‘footprint’ on the foreshore geology (Fig. 11.3) and has additionally provided enhanced access to the foreshore from Lyme Regis. Planned management of the geosite has included maintaining access to coastal sections for research, educational and recreational purposes, and seeking to maximise the scientific gain from fossil collecting. To facilitate this, the West Dorset Collecting Code of Conduct and voluntary recording scheme was established, setting out good collecting practice and requiring collectors to record fossil material considered of key scientific importance (Townley and Larwood, 2012b). Monitoring of the site is an important part of management and has included recording and collecting from temporary excavations as part of the phased coastal protection in Lyme Regis. The collecting code and fossil recording scheme are regularly reviewed and provide a mechanism for managing collecting, recording important specimens, and identifying collecting issues if they arise. This approach is part of the wider management plan for the Jurassic Coast World Heritage site.

FIGURE 11.3 Lyme Regis, Dorset, UK, looking eastwards to where the footprint of a coastal protection scheme was modified in order to retain important exposures of foreshore geology on its seaward side (Photograph courtesy of Richard Edmunds).

206

CHAPTER 11 THE CONSERVATION OF GEOSITES: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE

11.5.2 CONSERVATION OF A GEOSITE IN OPERATING AND DISUSED QUARRIES: WHITTLESEY BRICK PITS AND KINGS DYKE NATURE RESERVE, PETERBOROUGH, UK The value of this geosite (Site codes ED and EA, see Table 11.1) arises from the exposures of Middle Jurassic Oxford Clay and the rich fauna of marine molluscs, reptiles and fish it yields. It consists of both operating and disused quarries worked for brick-clay since the early 19th century and is located at the eastern side of the city of Peterborough. The operating quarries ensure that there is a continually renewed exposure in what is an extensive resource of Oxford Clay. Most disused quarries have been restored, but one area has been set aside as the Kings Dyke Nature Reserve. The primary use of this geosite has been for scientific study, including the collection of marine vertebrates, and for education. It also includes areas of Bronze Age archaeology of international significance, and biodiversity which has developed in the now restored and disused pits. The biggest threats to the geosite are potential infill and lack of access for study in the operating quarries, and degradation of quarry faces and restoration for housing and industry in the disused quarries. The potential for scientific collecting is restricted, except in areas where clay is still being extracted. In terms of conservation planning and delivery, a positive relationship with the quarry operator has led to the primary threats (the degrading of faces and flooding of the quarries once operations cease) being addressed through establishment of a nature reserve area with a conserved geological and wildlife resource and managed water levels. Furthermore, cooperation with the quarry operator and local planning authority allows supervised access to fresh sections within the operating pits for both research and educational purposes, and continues to yield significant finds (e.g., Leedsichthys, www.bigjurassicfish.com, accessed 09.08.17). Where feasible, all new (and temporary) sections in the Oxford Clay to the east of Peterborough are now recorded and sampled. The established Kings Dyke Nature Reserve includes ponds, various habitats and a geological reserve with a retained section through part of the Oxford Clay, a collecting area and interpretation panels (Townley and Larwood, 2012c) (Fig. 11.4). The collecting area within the reserve is regularly refreshed with fresh Oxford Clay transported from the most fossiliferous part of the working quarry, ensuring that it remains productive for visiting groups. Geological research groups, local geology groups and the local museum maintain regular contact with the quarry operator and the local planning authority to ensure that opportunities are afforded to examine, record and sample operating areas of the quarries.

11.5.3 CONSERVATION OF INLAND GEOSITES CONTAINING SENSITIVE AND FRAGILE FOSSILS: LA RIOJA, NORTHERN SPAIN The south-eastern part of La Rioja hosts numerous dinosaur trackways ranging from the Upper Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous. These trackway sites (Site codes FM and EO, see Table 11.1) are of great scientific importance and have been the subject of protection plans and declaration as sites of cultural interest proposed for World Heritage candidacy (Fuertes-Guti´errez et al., 2016). The primary use of these geosites has been scientific research and education, with some being increasingly used for geotourism. In terms of the character of the geosites, the trackways occur as natural, finite exposures set in a mountainous area remote from large population centres. Threats to these geosites

11.5 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE

207

FIGURE 11.4 Whittlesey Brick Pits and Kings Dyke Nature Reserve, Cambridgeshire, UK, showing a disused area of the quarry that has been made into a nature reserve with a geological exposure retained and where a regularly replenished fossil collecting area is available for scientific and educational use (Photograph courtesy of Naomi Stevenson).

are largely a result of natural processes such as gravitational erosion, submergence in stagnant surface water, stream erosion, freeze thaw cycles and biological activity, but anthropogenic activity such as collecting, cast-making, erosion through trampling, erection of interpretation infrastructure and river damming, also pose challenges and are potentially damaging. Conservation planning and delivery have, therefore, resulted in recording and rescue of some trackways where damage was otherwise inevitable, the making of casts and placing them in areas accessible to visitors, and the careful planning and creation of interpretive infrastructure that allows visual appreciation of the trackways, whilst at the same time protecting them from natural processes and trampling as a result of recreational or tourism use (Fig. 11.5).

11.5.4 CONSERVATION OF AN INLAND INTEGRITY GEOSITE: LA RISCA GORGE, SEGOVIA, CENTRAL SPAIN The small canyon of La Risca (Site codes IA and EO, see Table 11.1), excavated by the Moros river near Valdeprados, in the southern province of Segovia, is characterised by a very narrow and vertical gorge, exceeding 40 m deep, 400 m long and reaching less than 3 m wide (Fig. 11.6). This type of river gorge morphology, known in Spain as ‘desfiladero’ (a course demanding single file

FIGURE 11.5 The Pen˜aportillo trackway, La Rioja, Spain, where sensitive trackways have been protected from natural and anthropogenic threats through construction of a roof and fence and have been made available for scientific study and geotourism (Photograph courtesy of Esperanza Garc´ıa-Ortiz.).

FIGURE 11.6 La Risca Gorge, Segovia, Spain, which was threatened by a reservoir dam project until a report by the Geological Survey of Spain, highlighting its national value, resulted in the proposal being rejected (Photograph courtesy of Gonzalo Lozano).

11.6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE CHALLENGES

209

procession), is only very rarely developed on gneiss, this case being the only one identified in Spain, and thus of national significance (D´ıaz-Mart´ınez and Lozano, 2011). As a consequence of the geomorphological singularity of this geosite, together with the high geodiversity of the immediate surrounding area, including other valuable geologic features of stratigraphic, geomorphological, tectonic, petrological and mineralogical interest, it was catalogued as geoheritage in 2003, and proposed to be declared a Natural Monument. However, despite the intensive use of the geosite, particularly for science, education and geotourism, and the need for its appropriate sustainable management, the regional government of Castille and Leo´n has not yet considered the demand for its conservation as a geosite, and so far it is managed as part of the European Natura 2000 Network (as a Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation). In 2004, a building development project was finally rejected after public consultation and consideration of the area’s biological significance, but not its geoheritage. Media attention arising from the rejection encouraged increased interest in the geosite, with development of local geotourism (guided tours) during the following years, as well as sustainable recreational activities, particularly trekking, climbing and abseiling. However, in 2008, and with the stated purpose of supplying drinking water to the allegedly growing population of nearby areas of the province, an old (1966) reservoir dam project was resubmitted for public consultation. The project would mean almost complete loss of the exposure and integrity of the site’s main geological features, but this time the biological significance was going to be sacrificed for the wider societal interest, a legal argument often put forward in the case of such large public projects. However, after almost 3000 representations in relation to the project, it was the report from the Geological Survey of Spain on the unique character and national value of the geosite that was duly considered and resulted in rejection of the project, in compliance with the recently passed Act on Natural Heritage 42/2007. The case emphasises the need to incorporate geoheritage into environmental impact assessment studies for infrastructure projects (see Bruschi and Coratza, 2018) and led to the proposal of specific guidelines to ensure proper consideration of geoheritage inventories, value assessment and geoheritage loss in this type of situation (Vegas et al., 2012, 2015). It also highlights the importance of proper consideration of geoheritage in nature conservation plans and legislation in order to facilitate geosite conservation.

11.6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE CHALLENGES Whilst it is widely understood that effective geosite conservation can only take place once an audit, assessment and selection phase has identified the geosites to be conserved, it is interesting to note that published examples of audit and geosite selection are far more prevalent and widespread than examples of geosite conservation in practice. This is due in part to the fact that audit and selection are usually required before geosite conservation can take place. It is also, perhaps, a reflection of the expertise and skills of those involved in geoconservation. Whilst most academic geoscientists involved in geoconservation who publish papers have a far greater interest in audit, selection and the value of the geosites themselves, than of their conservation needs, those involved in national or local administrations involved in practical conservation action tend to publish fewer papers. This disparity is also undoubtedly a reflection of the lack of legislation and policy drivers relating to geoheritage in

210

CHAPTER 11 THE CONSERVATION OF GEOSITES: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE

most countries, as a requirement to conserve geosites means that plans and approaches as to how to achieve this are then needed. In Great Britain, e.g., a legal duty to conserve geosites dating back to 1949 has been the driving force in developing approaches (Table 11.1) through which to achieve it. For geosite conservation to develop and grow, it is important that there is advancement from effort on audit and selection to practical geosite conservation. For this to happen, greater effort to raise awareness of the importance of geodiversity and the need for geosite conservation is required. This may then lead to the development of legislation or policy, or at least to a requirement for government, developers, land managers and local communities to engage geoscientists in decision making regarding development that impacts on geosites; e.g., through involvement in Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (Scottish Natural Heritage, undated) and Environmental Impact Assessment (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2013). At a more practical level there is a need to share experience of geosite conservation as exemplified by Prosser et al. (2006), through publishing further examples of good practice based on case studies. Until there is progress in these areas, practical experience of conserving geosites will continue to exist only in isolated ‘pockets’ where a collaborative relationship between geoscientists and key decision makers has been established. Based on known examples of geosite conservation, a planned approach, set within a nationally, regionally or locally developed framework, provides a sound mechanism through which to work. It leads to consistent and effective planning and delivery of geosite conservation, as well as providing a generic basis for decision making that aids efficiency. It is also pertinent to note that whilst geosite audit and selection are usually based on different disciplines within geoscience (e.g., stratigraphy, tectonics, geomorphology, palaeontology), the frameworks used to analyse, plan and deliver geosite conservation are based on use, character and threat/sensitivity, which are more relevant when determining conservation need and delivery. Frameworks, conservation needs and actions required will need to continually develop and evolve to respond to a changing world to take account of new threats and opportunities. A growing population, changing attitudes to the natural environment, increasing development pressure, changes in tourism and the effects of climate change (Prosser et al., 2010) are all going to provide challenges and opportunities that will need to be accommodated in the way that geosites are conserved. The potential to extend geosite conservation into the marine environment may also be realised, and would require new analysis and the introduction of geosites of a quite different physical nature and with susceptibility to quite different threats to those familiar in the terrestrial environment (Gordon et al., 2016). Most important, however, is the need to secure greater public and political understanding and support for geosite conservation, as this provides the surest route to reducing anthropogenic threats and to establishing the engagement, commitment and supportive context required to operate effectively. A joined-up approach to conservation and promotion of the natural environment, working alongside others interested in wildlife and cultural heritage is one way of achieving these goals.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Richard Edmunds, Esperanza Fern´andez-Mart´ınez, Esperanza Garc´ıa-Ortiz, Gonzalo Lozano and Naomi Stevenson for providing images, David Evans for drafting Figs. 11.1 and 11.2, and the editors of this book and chapter reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

REFERENCES

211

REFERENCES Brilha, J., 2016. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8, 119 134. Brilha, J., 2018. Geoheritage: inventories and evaluation. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 69 86. Bruschi, V.M., Coratza, P., 2018. Geoheritage and environmental impact assessment (EIA). In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 251 264. Coratza, P., Hobl´ea, F., 2018. The specificities of geomorphological heritage. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 87 106. Crofts, R., Gordon, J.E., 2015. Geoconservation in protected areas. In: Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., Pulsford, I. (Eds.), Protected Area Governance and Management. ANU Press, Canberra, pp. 531 568. D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., Lozano, G., 2011. Conservacio´n del patrimonio geolo´gico en la Garganta de la Risca (Valdeprados, Segovia). In: Fern´andez-Mart´ınez, E., Castan˜o de Luis, R. (Eds.), Avances y retos en la conservacio´n del Patrimonio Geolo´gico en Espan˜a. Universidad de Leo´n, Leo´n. pp. 91 96 (in Spanish). Fuertes-Guti´errez, I., Garc´ıa-Ortiz, E., Fern´andez-Mart´ınez, E., 2016. Anthropic threats to geological heritage: characterization and management: a case study in the dinosaur tracksites of La Rioja (Spain). Geoheritage 8, 135 153. Garc´ıa-Ortiz, E., Fuertes-Guti´errez, I., Fern´andez-Mart´ınez, E., 2014. Concepts and terminology for the risk of degradation of geological heritage sites: fragility and natural vulnerability, a case study. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 125, 463 479. Gordon, J.E., Brooks, A.J., Chaniotis, P.D., James, B.D., Kenyon, N.H., Leslie, A.B., et al., 2016. Progress in marine geoconservation in Scotland’s seas: assessment of key interests and their contribution to Marine Protected Area network planning. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 127, 716 737. Gray, M., 2013. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. Second ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester. Macadam, J., 2018. Geoheritage: getting the message across. What message and to whom? In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 267 288. Prosser, C., Murphy, M., Larwood, J., 2006. Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice. English Nature, Peterborough. Prosser, C.D., Burek, C.V., Evans, D.H., Gordon, J.E., Kirkbride, V.B., Rennie, A.F., et al., 2010. Conserving geodiversity sites in a changing climate: management challenges and responses. Geoheritage 2, 123 136. Reynard, E., 2009. Geomorphosites: definitions and characteristics. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., RegoliniBissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil, Mu¨nchen, pp. 9 20. Scottish Natural Heritage, 2013. A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment. Fourth ed. Available from: ,http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1198363.pdf. (accessed 09.08.17). Scottish Natural Heritage, Undated. Biodiversity and Geodiversity Considerations in Strategic Environmental Assessment. Available from: ,http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1015717.pdf. (accessed 09.08.17). Townley, H., Larwood, J., 2012a. Managing geological specimen collecting: guidance. Natural England Technical Information Note TIN 111, Natural England, Peterborough. Available from: ,http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/1648636?category 5 1768835. (accessed 09.08.17). Townley, H., Larwood, J., 2012b. Managing geological specimen collecting: Charmouth case study. Natural England Technical Information Note TIN 114, Natural England, Peterborough. Available from: ,http:// publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/1675141?category 5 1768835. (accessed 09.08.17). Townley, H., Larwood, J., 2012c. Managing geological specimen collecting: Whittlesey Brick Pits and Kings Dyke Nature Reserve case study. Natural England Technical Information Note TIN 117, Natural

212

CHAPTER 11 THE CONSERVATION OF GEOSITES: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE

England, Peterborough. Available from: ,http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/1675695? category 5 1768835. (accessed 09.08.17). Vegas, J., Alberruche, E., Carcavilla, L., D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., Garc´ıa-Cort´es, A., Garc´ıa de Domingo, A., et al., 2012. Gu´ıa metodolo´gica para la integracio´n del patrimonio geolo´gico en la evaluacio´n de impacto ambiental. Geological Survey of Spain (IGME) and Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (MAGRAMA), Madrid (in Spanish). ´ ., D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., Ponce de Leo´n, D., 2015. Vegas, J., Alberruche, E., Carcavilla, L., Garc´ıa-Cort´es, A Integrating geoheritage into environmental impact assessment. In: VIII International ProGEO Symposium, Reykjavik (Iceland), Programme and Abstracts, pp. 37 38.

CHAPTER

GEOHERITAGE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

12

John E. Gordon1, Roger Crofts2 and Enrique D´ıaz-Mart´ınez3 1

University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom IUCN-WCPA Emeritus, Edinburgh, United Kingdom 3Geological Survey of Spain, Madrid, Spain

2

12.1 INTRODUCTION Geoheritage conservation (or geoconservation) is the practice of conserving, enhancing and promoting awareness of those features and underlying processes of geodiversity that have significant scientific, educational, cultural, aesthetic or ecological value (Crofts and Gordon, 2015; Prosser, 2013a). It is an integral part of nature conservation, and the evolution of its philosophy and practice has broadly followed similar trends (Gray, 2013). However, geoconservation has generally not been well integrated within nature conservation initiatives and policies, which have been dominated by biodiversity, nor has it been as effective as biodiversity in influencing the policies and practices of environmental management and sustaining Earth’s resources (Brilha, 2002; Crofts, 2014). This has been detrimental to geoconservation, the wider nature conservation effort and the integration of nature-based solutions into environmental policies and practices. In this chapter, we first examine the progress of geoconservation in the context of wider global trends in nature conservation. We then assess the achievements, gaps and failings, including lessons from the past and from biodiversity. Finally, we set out proposals for future directions for geoconservation that align with current approaches and philosophy in nature conservation and seek to achieve the integration of geoconservation into broader environmental policies. We believe that such integration is essential to progress the aims of geoconservation in the management of protected areas and the wider landscape, and in developing a more inclusive approach to nature conservation that recognises the links between people, nature and landscape (D´ıaz-Mart´ınez and Fern´andez-Mart´ınez, 2015; Gordon et al., 2012; Henriques et al., 2011; Prosser et al., 2013; Gordon et al., 2017).

12.2 TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GEOCONSERVATION Until very recently, geoconservation and biodiversity conservation have formed separate strands of nature conservation, despite being intricately interrelated. This partition arose because the leaders in the field came from separate disciplines that did not interact, and in the popular mind, wildlife Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00012-5 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

213

214

CHAPTER 12 GEOHERITAGE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

conservation is traditionally considered a more important issue than geoconservation, most probably resulting from human evolution (Wilson, 1984).

12.2.1 GEOCONSERVATION ORIGINS AND EARLY STEPS In Europe, the roots of geoconservation lie in the coincidence of the Romantic movement of the 18th and 19th centuries, and especially in the aesthetics of sublime and picturesque landscapes, with the development of modern geoscience (Gordon and Baker, 2016; Hose, 2016). The perception of ‘wild’ landscapes, particularly mountains, and spectacular natural phenomena, such as caves, volcanoes and waterfalls, changed from locations to be feared and avoided to places to be appreciated through a ‘romantic gaze’ (Urry, 1990), promoted by writers, poets and artists and popularised in travel journals and guidebooks (Hose, 2016; Migo´n, 2016; Reynard et al., 2011; Vasiljevi´c et al., 2016). Conversely, in Eastern cultures, mountains, rivers, waterfalls, cliffs and coastlines have been revered for much longer as sacred, spiritual places and celebrated in painting and poetry (Bernbaum and Price, 2013; Kiernan, 2015). Eastern traditions also recognise the holistic character of nature and the connectedness of humans and nature (Feary et al., 2015). Interestingly, these approaches have only become prominent in the later 20th century in Western urbanised cultures (Wild and McLeod, 2008). From the 17th century onwards, the first steps in geoconservation in Europe occurred through the ad hoc protection of individual geosites in the face of specific threats (Erikstad, 2008; Larwood, 2016). The first known example of geoconservation is the protection of a cave in Germany in 1668 (Grube, 1994). In Scotland, there were initiatives to protect Salisbury Crags (1820s) (Fig. 12.1A) and Agassiz Rock (1908) in Edinburgh and Fossil Grove in Glasgow (1887) (Thomas and Warren, 2008). Notable geomorphological features, such as erratic blocks and rock outcrops, were protected as ‘natural monuments’ (see Reynard and Giusti, 2018) during the 19th century in several countries including Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland (Wimbledon and Smith-Meyer, 2012). In Switzerland, the geological commission of the Helvetic Society for Natural Sciences (now the Swiss Academy of Sciences) published in 1867 an appeal to conserve erratic blocks on account of their scientific, aesthetic and historical value (Studer and Favre, 1867). The resulting extensive survey, involving the geological community and public subscription, led to the protection of many threatened examples (Fig. 12.1B) (Reynard, 2004). In Scotland, a Boulder Committee, established by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, undertook a similar survey of vulnerable erratic boulders (Milne Home, 1872), but there is no record of any consequent conservation action. In the United Kingdom, progress in geoconservation was limited by private land ownership and a lack of conservation legislation (Thomas and Warren, 2008). Consequently, concern for places of geological and landscape value was largely expressed by geological societies (Burek, 2008). Geology and landscape also fitted well within the widely framed principles of the National Trust (established in 1895 for England, Northern Ireland and Wales), which unusually encompassed natural and cultural values. In Spain, geology played a prominent role in the early development of conservation in the period from the end of the 19th century to the start of the Spanish Civil War in 1936. The focus was on connecting the scientific interest and the scenic and cultural value of the geological elements, and through the explicit consideration of geological criteria when proposing and implementing early protected areas (Casado, 2014; D´ıaz-Mart´ınez et al., 2014).

12.2 TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GEOCONSERVATION

215

FIGURE 12.1 Early examples of the conservation of historically important geosites. (A) Salisbury Crags, Edinburgh, where James Hutton (1726 97) recognised the intrusion of molten magma into sedimentary rocks at the base of a dolerite sill and refuted the Wernerian hypothesis that all rocks had crystallised from a primordial ocean. The Crags were protected in 1831 after a 12-year campaign to prevent the extension of quarrying for paving stones. Earlier, Hutton is reputed to have asked the quarrymen to save an outcrop of teschenite (known today as ‘Hutton’s Rock’) that showed a fine example of a hematite vein (Photograph by J. Gordon); (B) The Pierre a` Dzo, Monthey, Switzerland, a granite erratic block with significant historical interest. An inscription dedicated as a national gift to Jean de Charpentier (1786 1855) in 1853 recognises his contribution to the development of the glacial theory. The boulder was transferred to the protection of the Vaud Society of Natural Sciences in 1875. The inscription also recognises Jean-Pierre Perraudin, a farmer in the Bagnes valley, who as early as 1818 identified the formerly greater extent of glaciers. Perraudin discussed his ideas with Ignaz Venetz who persuaded Charpentier, who in turn influenced Louis Agassiz. Agassiz then promoted the glacial theory internationally (Photograph by E. Reynard).

12.2.2 ESTABLISHING STATUTORY PROTECTION: LANDSCAPES From the mid-19th century onwards, many of the first statutory protected areas were established in mountain regions. In North America and continental Europe, the National Park movement offered opportunities to protect geological features (Erikstad, 2008). Ferdinand Vandeveer Hayden (1829 87), a geologist, and John Muir (1838 1914), a conservationist with a keen interest in geology, were fundamental in achieving the designation of America’s first two National Parks, Yellowstone (1872) and Yosemite (1890), respectively. Early debates in North America involved conflicting philosophies about conservation and wise use of resources for human needs versus the preservation of wilderness and natural areas for their spiritual and aesthetic values for humanity. At the same time, the presence of remarkable geological and geomorphological features in the American West was being revealed by exploratory geological surveys (Rabbitt, 1989) and brought to wider public attention through the photography of Carleton Watkins (1829 1916) and William Henry Jackson (1843 1942), and the landscape paintings of the Hudson River School (Bedell, 2001; Wilton and Barringer, 2002). These featured geological highlights including the Grand

216

CHAPTER 12 GEOHERITAGE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

Canyon, Yellowstone and Yosemite, while the landscape sketches in the publications of G.K. Gilbert (1843 1918) combined geological and geomorphological detail with an aesthetic appreciation of the landscape (Dixon et al., 2012). Although geoheritage was a substantive part of the interest of Yellowstone and Yosemite, they were not designated for their geological features or their active geomorphological processes, but for their scenic and landscape qualities or their iconic role in the cultural history of the nation. The first National Parks in Europe were established in Sweden in 1909 and included Abisko, Sarek and Stora Sjo¨fallet, each with extensive glacial and periglacial landforms. The first national park in the Alps, the Swiss National Park established in 1914, included similar features. In these early developments, geoheritage was protected both directly as an integral part of the interest or indirectly as part of the valued physical landscapes. In Eastern traditions, appreciation of the cultural values of natural features has a much longer history reflected in a reverence for sacred and spiritual places, although the first National Parks in Japan and China were not designated until 1934 and 1982, respectively.

12.2.3 ESTABLISHING STATUTORY PROTECTION: SITES From the middle of the 20th century, conservation was based on smaller areas to protect flora and fauna arising from the increasing concern for the declines of many species and threats of extinction of others. It was epitomised by the establishment in 1948 of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) (Holdgate, 1999) and the development of national systems of site protection for biodiversity and geoheritage in a number of European countries (Crofts, 2008). The biotic and abiotic elements were treated separately, as exemplified by the development of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales). These have different rationales and sets of assessment criteria for the two components (Ellis, 2011; Ratcliffe, 1977), although spatially overlapping interests are designated and managed in mixed-interest SSSIs. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949) was a milestone for nature conservation, establishing a statutory basis for the protection of biotic and abiotic sites for their scientific value; this marked the beginning of geoconservation in Great Britain (Burek and Prosser, 2008; Prosser, 2013b). The process of geosite assessment was subsequently formalised through the Geological Conservation Review (GCR), begun in the 1970s as a complementary process to the Nature Conservation Review published in 1977 (Ratcliffe, 1977). Over 3000 geosites were identified throughout Great Britain (Ellis, 2011). Similar audits have been conducted, or are in progress, in most other countries in Europe in recognition of the growing value of, and widespread threats to, geoheritage (Wimbledon and Smith-Meyer, 2012). Site protection remains at the core of geoconservation due to threats from urbanisation, infrastructure development, mineral extraction, land use changes, coastal protection and loss of moveable geoheritage (Crofts and Gordon, 2015; Prosser et al., 2018). However, a more outreaching discipline is now beginning to recognise the links with landscape and biodiversity conservation, sustainable development, use and management of natural resources, climate change adaptation, historical and cultural heritage, people’s health and well-being, geotourism and the delivery of socioeconomic benefits for local communities (Gray, 2013; Henriques et al., 2011; Stace and Larwood, 2006). In turn, this is opening new opportunities for better integration of geoconservation in environmental and other policies.

12.2 TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GEOCONSERVATION

217

12.2.4 MOVING TOWARDS INTEGRATION: LINKING NATURE AND PEOPLE During the latter half of the 20th century, important shifts occurred in nature conservation philosophy and emphasis (Mace, 2014), from protecting natural landscapes for aesthetic values to biodiversity conservation driven especially by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992) and Natura 2000 in the European Union (EU) (see below). During the 1950s and 1960s, there was an exclusive emphasis on ‘nature for itself’ and protected areas without people, essentially conservation in the ‘service of science’. This shifted slightly during the 1970s and 1980s to a focus on ‘nature despite people’, addressing threats and how to reduce them. In the 1990s, linked to the sustainability agenda, the ecosystem approach adopted under the CBD focused on the integrated management of land, water and living resources and the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources in an equitable way. The emphasis was on ‘nature for people’ and the protection of ecosystem services that delivered benefits for society. In the 2000s, there has been greater focus on ensuring sustainable interactions between ‘people and nature’. The ecosystem approach is now a key conservation policy driver mainstreamed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005). It is taken forward at an international level, e.g., in the EU Biodiversity Strategy (European Commission, 2011), and in national policy, e.g., in Spain (Evaluacio´n de los Ecosistemas del Milenio de Espan˜a, 2011; Montes et al., 2014), the United Kingdom (Adams et al., 2014) and the United States (Schaefer et al., 2015). The concept that the world’s natural assets, or natural capital, provide direct and indirect contributions to human wellbeing that can be valued in economic terms is a persuasive argument, but there are risks in the economic valuation of ecosystem services and the commodification of nature (Adams, 2014; Lele et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the concept offers a rationale for policy makers to protect and use ecosystems sustainably and address ecosystem degradation, and provides a framework for communicating the many values and benefits of nature (D´ıaz et al., 2015). So far, there has been only a qualitative exploration of the concept in relation to geodiversity (Gordon and Barron, 2013; Gray, 2013). Failure of the geoscience community to engage in the MEA, associated EU activities and national ecosystem assessments, and in their follow-ups has resulted in a loss of valuable opportunities to promote the wider values of geodiversity, its role in supporting a range of nature conservation and wider environmental policies and its benefits for society (Gordon and Barron, 2012; Gray et al., 2013). Recent emphasis on ecosystem services has generated debate in the biological conservation literature, particularly in North America, on whether nature should primarily be protected for its own sake (Soul´e, 2013) or whether a ‘new conservation science’ should focus on a more anthropocentric approach of protecting nature for its benefits to humanity (Kareiva and Marvier, 2013). Many remain concerned about the risks of the latter approach, with calls for a broader consensus to conservation that generates outcomes benefitting both people and nature rather than positioning ‘nature for itself’ against ‘nature for people’ (Hunter et al., 2014; Pearson, 2016). Similarly, pleas for a shift from a top-down approach to protected areas to one embracing greater engagement, inclusive governance and effectiveness of management have been heeded (Mace, 2014; Phillips, 2003). This parallels the direction of travel advocated below for geoconservation, as geoheritage fits well into the ‘modern paradigm’ for protected areas. Encouragingly, some countries in Europe have progressed integrative legislation. In Norway, the Nature Diversity Act (2009) aims to protect biological, geological and landscape diversity and ecological processes, recognising that the environment provides a basis for human activity, culture,

218

CHAPTER 12 GEOHERITAGE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

health and well-being. It has led to the development of a new classification system of habitats (‘nature types’) that includes components of geodiversity (Erikstad, 2013). In Spain, the Law on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity (2007) also includes the conservation of geoheritage as one of its foundations (Carcavilla et al., 2009). However, the fragmented nature of environmental directives has not facilitated integration of landscape, nature (including geodiversity) and culture in the EU (Erikstad, 2013). Internationally, a number of initiatives have also progressed a more integrative approach to geoconservation (Larwood et al., 2013). Following the International Declaration of the Rights of the Memory of the Earth (Digne Declaration, 1991), the European Manifesto on Earth Heritage and Geodiversity (2004) advocated that unique Earth heritage sites and landscapes should be protected, and that sustainable development and restoration should respect and reflect geology, geomorphology and soils. The Council of Europe recognised the wider value of geodiversity: ‘geological heritage constitutes a natural heritage of scientific, cultural, aesthetic, landscape, economic and intrinsic values, which needs to be preserved and handed down to future generations’ (Council of Europe, 2004). Noting ‘the important role of geological and geomorphological conservation in maintaining the character of many European landscapes’, the Council recommended that geological and geomorphological features need to be considered when implementing the European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, 2002). The Nordic Council of Ministers has supported collaborative geodiversity activities, including a report highlighting the wider values of geodiversity (Johansson, 2000). More recently, the Declaration of Reykjav´ık, approved at the 8th International ProGEO Symposium in 2015, emphasised the need for geodiversity management to address the many challenges faced by society (www.progeo.ngo, accessed 16.08.17). Both the UNESCO World Heritage List and the UNESCO Global Geoparks provide important platforms for international geoconservation (Brilha, 2018; Larwood et al., 2013; Migo´n, 2018). The emergence of geotourism in the 1990s (Dowling, 2011; Hose, 2012; Newsome and Dowling, 2018) and the remarkable growth of geoparks (Larwood et al., 2013) has helped to promote wider awareness of geoheritage and its scientific and cultural values beyond the immediate geoscience community (Brilha, 2018). As a broader discipline, geoconservation has suffered from the dominantly Western tradition of nature conservation, with its separation of natural and cultural landscapes and the disassociation of geoheritage. However, geoparks and geotourism offer a means of integrating the natural and cultural components of the landscape and enabling people to reconnect through memorable aesthetic and emotional experiences (Brilha, 2018). In a significant development for the international recognition of geoheritage, IUCN Resolutions 4.040 (IUCN, 2008) and 5.048 (IUCN, 2012) both clearly state that geodiversity is part of natural diversity and geoheritage is part of natural heritage. Resolution 5.048 calls on IUCN Members ‘to ensure that, when reference is made in the IUCN Programme 2013 2016 to nature in general, preference be given to inclusive terms such as “nature”, “natural diversity” or “natural heritage”, so that geodiversity and geoheritage are not excluded’. Resolution 5.048 also calls on the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) to promote and support proper management of geoheritage in protected areas, reflecting IUCN’s Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories which state clearly that all protected areas should aim where appropriate to ‘conserve significant landscape features, geomorphology and geology’ (Dudley, 2008). In addition, both resolutions represent a benchmark in recognising the integrative role and relevance of geoheritage and geodiversity which must be considered in the assessment and management of natural areas. IUCN

12.3 GEOCONSERVATION: ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS

219

members, whether governments or NGOs, should abide by the IUCN’s resolutions. Despite this progress, there are still major challenges ahead in achieving adoption of geoheritage values among IUCN members. In the marine environment, international nature conservation initiatives to protect biodiversity include the EU Birds Directive (1979), the Habitats Directive (1992), the OSPAR Convention (1992) and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008). However, with a few exceptions, as in the United Kingdom (Burek et al., 2013; Gordon et al., 2016), the specific conservation of geoheritage in the marine environment has been largely overlooked. More generally, the use of biophysical indicators of benthic habitats and ecosystems as abiotic surrogates for biological communities and species diversity has supported the designation of marine protected areas in many parts of the world (Buhl-Mortensen et al., 2015; Harris and Baker, 2012; Howe et al., 2015).

12.3 GEOCONSERVATION: ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS A great deal of progress has been made in the last half-century at national and local levels, especially in geoheritage site inventories, management, education and outreach. Particularly notable, too, has been the growth of UNESCO Global Geoparks, the protection of geoheritage interests under the World Heritage Convention and increased recognition for the integration of geoheritage and geoconservation through IUCN initiatives. Nevertheless, little substantive progress was made in recognising and integrating geoheritage conservation in the development of international policies and strategies compared with the rapid progress made by biodiversity conservation. In effect, the latter stole a march on geoheritage conservation as it was primarily based on data concerning actual and threatened extinction of many species and declines in many others, developed through the Red Data Book scientific assessment approach (Fisher et al., 1969). Leadership lay with IUCN and its key member organisations and led to the publication of the World Conservation Strategy in 1980 (IUCN-UNEP-WWF, 1980). The focus was on species and habitats, rather than the whole of nature, and linked conservation with sustainable development. This continued through the 1980s, with recognition of the importance of biodiversity conservation to human survival. Hence, the next strategic document, Caring for the Earth (IUCN-UNEP-WWF, 1991), was the precursor to the formal international recognition of biodiversity in the CBD approved by the majority of the United Nations (UN) member states at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. However, there was no recognition of the importance of geoheritage and Earth features and processes, either in their own right or for the future of humankind. Rear-guard actions that followed were unsuccessful as ideas for a global geoheritage convention (Malvern Conference, 1994), or for regional and national efforts, never had sufficient political support or the recognition of their importance by the biodiversity community. For example, IUCN increasingly became the biodiversity conservation body, despite its name embracing all of nature and natural resources, and its leading members were largely focused on species and habitat protection through the work of the expert volunteer networks under the aegis of the Species Survival Commission. There were some glimmers of change either side of the Millennium with, for example, the approval of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (United Nations, 2000), and the

220

CHAPTER 12 GEOHERITAGE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

agreement on an informal basis of the Earth Charter, with its recognition of the importance of the nonbiotic elements of nature (Earth Charter, 2000). There was also increasing international acceptance of soil conservation as a major global issue, as manifested, for example, in the multipartner conferences held in Iceland in 2005 and 2007 (Agricultural University of Iceland, 2005; Bigas et al., 2009), and the drafting of an EU Soils Directive (although this was never approved for a range of geopolitical reasons) (European Commission, 2015). Two further developments in conservation science, however, have begun to offer opportunities for geoconservation. First, there has been increasing recognition of the dynamism of natural systems and the role of physical processes. This is particularly important in the light of the pace and direction of changes in global climate and sea-level which, in turn, challenge the traditional, largely static approach to biodiversity conservation in concept and practice (Brazier et al., 2012; Pressey et al., 2007). At the same time, the natural dynamics of the environment at a very large scale and beyond the ability of society to control them, or even to cope with their consequences, was another driver for change in thinking. Obvious examples are the effects of volcanic eruptions on world weather and air transport, of tsunamis on coastal areas and their host communities, and of water shortages combined with the increasing demands for water causing ‘water wars’ along international river systems. These, in turn, forced the need for greater understanding of natural physical processes and challenged the hegemony of human technological approaches to control nature, and led to the growth in thinking and practice of seeking to work with nature rather than implementing hard engineering solutions. Second, new thinking was emerging which challenged the old approaches to biodiversity conservation, such as the concept of ‘conserving nature’s stage’ the abiotic platform on which biological activity takes place and thereby promoting the close interconnections between biodiversity and geodiversity (Anderson and Ferree, 2010; Beier et al., 2015). The gradual evolution of biodiversity conservation from site-based to larger-scale approaches, embracing whole landscapes and connecting sites through networks and corridors, has opened up an opportunity for geoconservation to become part of an integrated solution to nature conservation in a way not previously recognised. It should be obvious from the foregoing that geoconservation has progressed at a much slower pace and with much less international and national political support than biodiversity conservation, and much less public support than cultural and natural landscape conservation. What were the reasons for this? Public perception of the importance of geoheritage was low for a long time compared with that of landscape and its links to human societies over many generations through folklore, poetry, prose, music, painting and spiritual factors. Public recognition of the value of plants and animals to their lives had also been handed down through the generations. These cultural and food supply connections were founded on the philosophy that humans were part of nature. As a result, it was relatively easy for public bodies and private and charitable groups to gain public support for conservation action and money to finance it. By contrast, the complexity of geology and geomorphology is more difficult for the public to understand as the timescales are vast, the terminology is uncommon and the language used by experts to communicate the topic to the public was, until relatively recently, a turn-off. All of this gave the impression that geodiversity was irrelevant for daily lives and addressing societal problems. This contrasts with biodiversity where impacts, such as threats to the survival of iconic species, are more immediate and make an emotional connection. This was possibly

12.4 FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN GEOCONSERVATION

221

why the active engagement of civil society through the formation of international NGOs, such as Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), Conservation International (CI), The Nature Conservancy and Birdlife International for biodiversity conservation, and NGOs such as the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club for landscape and wild land protection, were so successful. By contrast, there were relatively few equivalents for geoconservation and those that existed did not carry the same influence. Another reason may be the dominance of Western thinking in the development of the modern conservation agenda, in contrast with Eastern traditions that recognise not only the integrity of the natural world but also its cultural dimensions (Feary et al., 2015). Further, the relatively small size of the active geoconservation community has not been joined to the same extent by the geoscience community in the way that the biological science community has sustained biodiversity conservation, nor is it supported by a large voluntary sector. And, finally, maybe the issues of conflict between human activity and geoconservation, such as mining, did not fire the angst of the public to anything like the same extent as the effects of overfishing on marine life or bush meat trading on large mammal survival in Africa.

12.4 FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN GEOCONSERVATION The above is intended to be a dispassionate review of the evolution of geoheritage conservation in the wider context of nature conservation. But the reader should not think that there is little hope for advancement, as there clearly is (Crofts, 2017; Gray et al., 2013; Henriques et al., 2011; Larwood et al., 2013; Prosser et al., 2013). The new paradigm based on ‘conserving nature’s stage’ provides a perfect opportunity for linking biodiversity conservation and geoheritage conservation at all scales. The increasing focus on the effective functioning of ecosystems developed under the CBD requires more integrated approaches to conservation and recognition of the interconnections between the biotic and abiotic elements. There is now recognition not only of human society being part of nature, but also of the indivisibility of nature itself. This is perhaps best reflected in the definition of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals approved by the UN in 2015. And, more prosaically perhaps, there is a recognition of geoheritage features around the world that are worthy of visiting and appreciating, akin to wildlife safaris, with benefits to local communities. On this note of optimism, we identify four priority areas for action on geoconservation and environmental policies. As well as the geoconservation community, these areas for action are addressed to the wider geoscience community which has not been wholly engaged. As a first step, therefore, the value of geoheritage and the consequences of not integrating it into nature conservation must be convincingly argued and demonstrated and this is as much for a geoscience, as well as a nontechnical, audience.

12.4.1 MAINSTREAMING GEOCONSERVATION INTO CIVIL SOCIETY To progress from geoconservation being an exclusive interest of those with professional training and knowledge to one of broader public interest, a number of changes are required. First, the language of communication must be readily understandable by nonspecialists (Bruschi and Coratza, 2018; Macadam, 2018). Too often language, and especially technical terms, are impenetrable to

222

CHAPTER 12 GEOHERITAGE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

nonspecialists and result in rapid disinterest. Speaking in plain everyday language does not degrade the importance of the subject, but makes it accessible to everyone. Not every specialist is a gifted communicator to nonspecialist audiences, so focusing on those individuals who have these skills naturally or can be taught them and making communication an integral element of undergraduate training in geosciences would be important steps forward. Second, is the need to critically examine geoconservation from the perspective of changing societal values and demands: how society thinks and what are the main drivers. Invariably, these will be related to cultural heritage, education and, probably most importantly, to economic and social life chances. An inclusive approach should recognise that geoheritage cannot be separated from human dynamics and social, political and economic systems. We therefore propose a broad geoconservation ethic, embracing intrinsic (independent of human valuation), instrumental and relational values (see D´ıaz et al., 2015) (Table 12.1), that are likely to be understood by, and subscribed to, by the public. These values are represented both in geosites and in the wider landscape (Fig. 12.2). It may be helpful to promote these values differently for different audiences. For example, in some spheres, it may be most effective to focus on existing relationships that people have with nature (Chan et al., 2016; D´ıaz-Mart´ınez and Fern´andez-Mart´ınez, 2015). Put simply, the geoconservation community needs to excite the public about their geoheritage through appropriate narratives that foster rediscovery of a sense of wonder (Gordon and Baker, 2016; Stewart and Nield, 2013). In other spheres, it may be more effective to demonstrate the value of ecosystem services and concern for humanity, focusing on a partnership between people and nature (Potschin et al., 2016) and highlighting the wider public policy connections to leverage support and action from governments and the public. As McEuen (2014) pointed out for biodiversity, there will be many situations where human well-being is the primary goal, but conservation objectives can be incorporated in addressing environmental challenges (e.g., in nature-based solutions to flood protection). Third, and related to the second point, geoconservation needs to take bolder steps in engaging with other experts in conservation and most especially with civil society. This will mean involvement in debates about the future of environmental management and the conservation of nature locally, nationally and globally. One particular way to do this is to stimulate the development of

Table 12.1 Values of Geoconservation Intrinsic value • Conservation of geoheritage and geodiversity for their own sakes Instrumental values • Scientific and educational values of geoheritage • Cultural and aesthetic values of geoheritage • Ecological value of geodiversity underpinning ‘nature’s stage’ • Ensuring the protection of natural capital and the provision of environmental goods and ecosystem services delivered by geodiversity and geoheritage Relational values • Including those arising from living in harmony with and enjoying nature, human well-being and stewardship of nature Adapted from Crofts and Gordon, 2015.

12.4 FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN GEOCONSERVATION

223

FIGURE 12.2 Examples of geosites with multiple geoheritage values and designations. (A) The Ordesa and Monte Perdido National Park, Spain, was declared in 1918. The view from the Zierracils lookout point, along the Cutas Route, includes the second highest peak in the Pyrenees (Monte Perdido, 3355 m) at the head of the Ordesa Valley. The Park is noted for its glacial and periglacial landforms, canyons and limestone karst features, and supports important wildlife and recreation opportunities. It is a European Natura 2000 site, a World Heritage site, and part of the Ordesa-Vin˜amala UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and of the Sobrarbe UNESCO Global Geopark, also known as the Pyrenees Geological Park (Photograph by L. Carcavilla); (B) Shilin Stone Forest, Yunnan Province, China, is a Global Geopark and forms part of the South China Karst World Heritage site. As well as its geoheritage interest for a range of pinnacle karst and related landforms, it has important aesthetic and cultural values celebrated in poetry, painting, folklore and local customs, supports biodiversity, is important for water catchment management and has high value for geotourism (Photograph by J. Gordon).

what might loosely be called ‘geoheritage appreciation societies’, similar to those that have been developed in the biodiversity conservation sector as described earlier. These can be led by geoconservation experts, but must have an objective to engage with nonspecialists. In the United Kingdom, for example, the effective involvement of the voluntary sector came much later in geoconservation than for biodiversity through the establishment of the Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Site (RIGS) movement in 1990 (Burek, 2008; Whiteley and Browne, 2013) and which now gives opportunities for the involvement of the general public. It still has not reached anything like the scale of public involvement in biodiversity conservation, but progress is being made. Fourth, is to ensure that knowledge of Earth’s systems and processes is an integral part of the educational curriculum. This is essential at primary and secondary school levels where the curriculum allows for connections to be made before knowledge becomes compartmentalised in later formal education. It is fundamental for children to understand how the natural world is interconnected and the dependency that human society has on it, as well as the threats to its proper functioning. At tertiary level, courses in biological sciences or in engineering, for example, should not be taught without students gaining some appreciation of the functions and processes of the abiotic world and of the resources that are derived from these processes that humans seek to use.

224

CHAPTER 12 GEOHERITAGE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

Fifth, there is increasing opportunity to promote geoheritage appreciation through geotourism. Geotourism can help to enhance the visitor experience through appreciating the scenery, becoming aware of natural wonders, participating in outdoor recreation or simply enjoying the outdoors (Newsome and Dowling, 2018). The connections of geoheritage to the cultural, aesthetic and historical components of the landscape should enable a more holistic appreciation of nature, people and landscape among a much wider audience while gaining knowledge about its value. This will require better integration of geoheritage within regional and national tourism strategies and policies (Martini, 2000; Martini et al., 2012), but the UNESCO Global Geopark accolade should help to provide significant leverage. It will also require better understanding of the different cultural expectations of visitors and the kinds of memorable experiences that will enhance support for geoconservation through best-practice interpretation and help to change visitors’ behaviour and values. To be sustainable, geotourism needs geoconservation outcomes (Erikstad, 2013) and must supplement and strengthen geoconservation, not conflict with it for commercial gain.

12.4.2 IMPROVING THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR GEOHERITAGE CONSERVATION A stronger analytical science base and theoretical framework are fundamental to improving the placing of geoconservation into wider public realms (Henriques et al., 2011). This means going beyond the largely descriptive scope of many existing studies and developing a broader interdisciplinary field with a holistic approach linking natural and cultural elements with wider geoheritage values. It requires the inclusion of geoconservation science in academic teaching, training and research for specialists as well as in the education of other relevant disciplines, particularly biological sciences, engineering and geography (Stewart, 2016; Stewart and Gill, 2017). There are a number of priorities to be addressed in the short- to medium-term. First, there should be agreement on the key definitions and use of the terms: geodiversity, geoheritage and geoconservation (see Crofts and Gordon, 2015). We consider this to be relatively simple if there is recognition that agreement will better enable geoconservation to be accessible and understandable to others. Second, a major step will be to move away from disparate approaches around the world of selecting sites to a more uniform approach. Ensuring consistent global, regional and national approaches to geosite/area selection is one of the key stages in the development of a geoconservation strategy for an area, involving inventory, assessment of values and potential uses, conservation, interpretation, promotion and monitoring (Brilha, 2016). Science and education are generally the primary criteria for selecting geosites for conservation, but ecological, cultural, aesthetic and other values now have a significant supporting role (Brilha, 2016; Reynard et al., 2016). The various international geological and geomorphological systems need to be in agreement and start from an analysis of representation of key features in existing protected areas at a global scale (see Crofts and Gordon, 2015, Table 18.2). Although Dingwall et al. (2005) recommended that the Global Geoparks Network (GGN) should be seen as a complementary approach to World Heritage listing, the GGN is not primarily a listing of important sites. While UNESCO Global Geoparks must have geoheritage of international significance judged independently, their purpose is ‘to explore, develop and celebrate the links between that geological heritage and all other aspects of the area’s natural, cultural and intangible

12.4 FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN GEOCONSERVATION

225

heritages’, and they ‘promote sustainable local economic development mainly through geotourism’ (UNESCO, 2016). Consequently, there remains a need for a systematic international listing of important geoheritage sites alongside World Heritage sites and Global Geoparks since each has a different role to play in international geoconservation. The Global Geosites project, as originally described (Wimbledon, 1996; Wimbledon et al., 2000), constitutes a valid approach to developing a systematic international listing of important geoheritage sites. D´ıaz-Mart´ınez et al. (2016) emphasise the need to maintain and further develop the original principles to produce a proper inventory and management of globally significant geosites. The huge human and economic resources contributed by those countries that have already completed their inventory of Global Geosites, and the experience acquired and results so far published (see, e.g., Wimbledon and Smith-Meyer, 2012), should not be wasted and can be progressively enhanced. Furthermore, several countries are currently developing their Global Geosites inventory or revising it. In 2012, the General Assembly of IUCN called on its Commissions ‘to promote and support, in collaboration with UNESCO and the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), the elaboration and extension of the inventory for the Global Geosites Programme, as well as other regional and international inventories of sites of geological interest’ (IUCN, 2012). D´ıaz-Mart´ınez et al. (2016) also encourage national governments, institutions and NGOs to maintain their interest and contribute to the objectives of the Global Geosites project, so it can progress global geoconservation together with World Heritage sites and Global Geoparks. An important complementary process would be a global assessment of Key Geodiversity areas similar to Key Biodiversity Areas (Bertzky et al., 2015) and an analysis of the coverage of geoheritage interests in existing protected areas. This would assist in the identification of significant gaps and guide the establishment of future protected areas. A priority will be to agree criteria and what constitutes significance (Migo´n, 2014), but one major gap already identified in the international network of protected sites for geoheritage is the network of more than 100 Global Stratotype Sections and Points (GSSPs) established by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (Finney and Hilario, 2018; Gray, 2011). Third, the argument that geoconservation is unnecessary because the features and forms are inherently robust must be countered. In developing methodology, lessons can be learned from other disciplines, such as biodiversity conservation and recreational management in the outdoors, to develop the geoconservation equivalents of sensitivity, vulnerability and the limits of acceptable change. This can be done, for example, from concepts such as the IUCN Red Data Lists for vulnerability of species and the emerging protocols for the development of the IUCN Green List of Protected Areas, to look at both the likelihood of losses and the exemplars of best practice, respectively. Developing targets against which changes for better or worse can be measured is the next step. This is best done by reference to different natural environments and processes and to different types of threats (Crofts and Gordon, 2015). Fourth, addressing geoconservation in the marine environment is an emerging priority. This includes assessment of key geoheritage interests and contributing to seabed characterisation to inform marine spatial planning and the selection of marine protected areas using abiotic surrogates for biological communities and species diversity (see above).

226

CHAPTER 12 GEOHERITAGE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

12.4.3 MAINSTREAMING GEOHERITAGE CONSERVATION INTO NATURE CONSERVATION, THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT As an overriding consideration, geoconservation should be an essential component in environmental strategies, policies and practices at all scales from the local to the global. There is no international protocol for geoconservation akin to the CBD for biodiversity conservation. Whilst arguments can be developed for a protocol, or a convention (Brocx and Semeniuk, 2017), they are most unlikely to succeed in international political arenas (Crofts, 2014). A more pragmatic approach is to seek to embed geoconservation into the protocols, practices and work programmes of existing conventions as they are revised and updated (Crofts, 2017). Integrating geodiversity into strategies for nature, land and the environment requires more effort. For example, as noted by Erikstad (2008, 2013), geoconservation is not embedded in existing nature initiatives in EU policies and management systems on an equal footing with biodiversity and cultural heritage. A key challenge for the geoscience community is to develop the science of geoconservation and its application to support the conservation policy framework particularly in relation to the ecosystem approach, building on the existing body of research and case studies (Gray et al., 2013). Most species, not only rare or specialised ones, depend on the abiotic ‘stage’ on which they exist, both in terrestrial and marine environments (Harris and Baker, 2012; Hjort et al., 2015; Thorp et al., 2010; Tukiainen et al., 2017). The concept of ‘conserving nature’s stage’ therefore offers a promising coarse filter approach for conserving biodiversity as well as geodiversity. The conservation of geodiverse, heterogeneous landscapes with mosaics of habitats and interconnected physical processes should underpin the development of robust protected area networks that help to maintain the resilience and adaptive capacity of biodiversity in the face of climate change (Anderson et al., 2014; Theobald et al., 2015). Delivering long-term biodiversity targets where communities are likely to change may be enhanced by protecting geodiversity and making space for natural processes that enhance landscape heterogeneity. This requires greater engagement with the bioscience community and intellectual input to developing an interdisciplinary approach to crystallise what an ecosystem approach means in practice and how it can be integrated with conservation planning and protected area management. Policy makers and bioscientists writing policy documents and strategies must be persuaded that understanding the functional links between geodiversity and biodiversity is crucial for conservation management and ecosystem health in dynamic environments, where abiotic processes (e.g., erosion and deposition) maintain habitat diversity and ecological functions. From an ecosystem services perspective, mapping and quantification of abiotic services should enable a more holistic assessment of priority areas to be managed and protected, delivering better synergies between nature conservation and ecosystem services (Cimon-Morin et al., 2013). Another area to progress is the effective application of geoconservation principles to sustainable management of natural systems (Table 12.2). Application of these principles in the wider landscape would help to address the conservation of geoheritage at a landscape scale, complementing the Global Geoparks approach. The incorporation of geoheritage into guidelines for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is also a pressing requirement (Bruschi and Coratza, 2018). One way of making geoconservation count globally is through its inclusion in the delivery of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015). Of the 17 Goals, six are particularly connected to proper functioning of Earth’s natural systems and their protection, conservation

12.4 FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN GEOCONSERVATION

227

Table 12.2 Key Guiding Principles for Geoconservation The multiple natural and cultural values of geodiversity and geoheritage should be recognised. Effective geoconservation requires a systematic approach to all aspects of site identification, management and monitoring. Management of natural systems should ‘work with nature’. Natural systems and processes should be managed in a spatially integrated manner. The inevitability of natural change should be recognised. The effects of global climate change should be carefully considered. The sensitivity of natural systems should be recognised and they should be managed within the limits of their capacity to absorb change. Conservation management of active systems should be based on a sound understanding of the underlying abiotic processes. Provision should be made for managing visitors at sensitive sites. The interaction and interdependency of geodiversity and biodiversity should be recognised in conservation management. Adapted from Crofts and Gordon, 2014.

and sustainable use (Anon, 2015; Lubchenco et al., 2015; Stewart and Gill, 2017): ‘ending poverty; ending hunger and achieving food security; ensure healthy lives; promote education and lifelong learning opportunities; combating climate change; conserve the oceans; and protecting, restoring and promoting sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems including halting and reversing land degradation and halting biodiversity loss’. For each of these it should be relatively easy to develop a geoscience-based input to the action plans emerging internationally and nationally. Take, for example, Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture (www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/, accessed 16.08.17): among the targets to achieve this goal are improvements in soil management to increase productivity as well as to reduce soil loss and soil degradation and to deal with the perennial problems of drought and flooding. These issues can be most effectively addressed through understanding the role of geodiversity as an essential element in ecosystem protection and management.

12.4.4 INTEGRATING GEOHERITAGE CONSERVATION IN PROTECTED AREA PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT Geoconservation in protected areas has largely been addressed separately from other aspects of protected area planning and management. There are two important issues to be addressed. First, the benefits for geoconservation across the full range of existing protected areas should be maximised. This applies both to the management of protected areas that include clearly identified geoheritage interests, as well as more generally to the effective management of geodiversity in all protected areas for its value and role in supporting biodiversity, culture and society. There has been a working assumption that only Category III ‘Natural Monument or Feature’ in the list of IUCN Protected Area Management Categories (PAMCs) is relevant to geoconservation. This is not the case, and all six of the Categories potentially provide opportunities to protect geoheritage and

228

CHAPTER 12 GEOHERITAGE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

integrate conservation of geosites and the wider landscape values of geodiversity much more closely in protected area networks (Crofts and Gordon, 2015). This requires both the promotion of geoheritage values among protected area managers so that geoheritage can be incorporated in protected area rationales and management plans, and the provision of practical, evidence-based management guidance for practitioners on the ground. The former is still some way off, but the latter is currently in progress through the WCPA Geoheritage Specialist Group of IUCN (www.iucn.org/ theme/protected-areas/wcpa/what-we-do/geoheritage, accessed 16.08.17). A more integrated approach to conservation across the full range of PAMCs would benefit both biodiversity and geodiversity, through application of the concept of ‘conserving nature’s stage’ and adopting an ecosystem approach. Ad hoc opportunities should be taken to input into existing management plans as they are updated. Recognising that many existing protected areas might have geoconservation interests that are not recognised formally, systematic auditing of existing networks and cross-matching to identify gaps and overlaps with existing geosite inventories in different countries is needed. Second, geoconservation also needs to consider geoethical, cultural and ecological factors when developing management approaches. This may mean prioritising the values of particular sites and assessing their most appropriate uses (e.g., for scientific research or geotourism) (Brilha, 2016; Reynard et al., 2016). It should also be remembered that nature conservation values are essentially cultural and may change over time (Prober and Dunlop, 2011; Reynard and Giusti, 2018). In many cases, it will require building partnerships with landowners and local communities and a sensitivity to local cultural norms where indigenous people may have their own values and perceptions of geoheritage. It will certainly require dealing with potential conflicts, sometimes over the respective management of biotic and cultural interests, as well as developers (Crofts and Gordon, 2015; Reynard, 2005; Ruban and Kuo, 2010). Equally challenging may be the links with business interests as reflected in the debate about the ‘new conservation’ (Doak et al., 2014; Kareiva and Marvier, 2013). There can be positive benefits for geoconservation in the development of company geodiversity action plans, particularly in the aggregate and mining industries (Thompson et al., 2008). Although conflicts may still arise, many of the larger mining companies are members of the International Council for Mining and Metals which has a mandatory set of sustainable development principles. The Council has also signed a memorandum of understanding with IUCN in recognition of common interests, and individual companies have improved their ethical stance in response to the challenges of Corporate Social Responsibility.

12.5 CONCLUSIONS It is crucial to have a clear conception of the aims and philosophy of geoconservation and a clear vision and principles to guide future activities and directions in the science, policy and practice of the discipline. Although protection of the scientific and educational values of geoheritage in special sites remains a core activity, geoconservation is evolving to embrace a more integrative approach linking geodiversity, biodiversity, landscape and people. We contend that developing this broader discipline is fundamental to positioning geoconservation firmly within the more holistic view of nature and culture evident in the outcomes of the IUCN World Parks Congress in Sydney in 2014

REFERENCES

229

(IUCN, 2014) and the World Conservation Congress (WCC) in Hawaiʻi in 2016 (IUCN, 2016) (Gordon et al., 2017). It must address the wider intrinsic, cultural, aesthetic and ecological values of geodiversity and geoheritage and their contributions to a range of benefits for nature and humanity if geoconservation is to be recognised and valued as an essential component in environmental strategies, policies and practices at all scales from the local to the global. These values are now incorporated in the wording of IUCN Resolutions, but translating words into action at a policy level and on the ground, both in protected area management and in the wider application of geoconservation principles, still remains a huge challenge, as does reconnecting with people. Much has been achieved and opportunities for further progress exist in key areas, including the ecosystem approach, ‘conserving nature’s stage’ and protected area management, all of which are embracing a more integrative approach linking nature and society and the natural and cultural environments. Geoconservation is fundamental to all of these areas, but continued progress in integrating geoconservation in environmental policies and strategies requires more positive approaches and outreach from the whole geocommunity, involving better communication and education, an improved science base and a clearer willingness to engage with the wider nature conservation agenda and protected area planning and management.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to colleagues in the IUCN WCPA Geoheritage Specialist Group and ProGEO for discussion of topics covered in this chapter. We also thank Jos´e Brilha, Jonathan Larwood and Emmanuel Reynard for constructive reviews that improved the manuscript.

REFERENCES Adams, W.M., 2014. The value of valuing nature. Science 346, 549 551. Adams, W.M., Hodge, I.D., Sandbrook, L., 2014. New spaces for nature: the re-territorialisation of biodiversity conservation under neoliberalism in the UK. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 39, 574 588. Agricultural University of Iceland, 2005. Strategies, Science and Law for the Conservation of the World Soil Resources. Agricultural University of Iceland Publications, 4. Anderson, M.G., Ferree, C.E., 2010. Conserving the stage: climate change and the geophysical underpinnings of species diversity. PLoS One 5 (7), e11554. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011554. Anderson, M.G., Clark, M., Sheldon, A.O., 2014. Estimating climate resilience for conservation across geophysical settings. Conserv. Biol. 28, 959 970. Anon, 2015. Editorial. Finite Earth. Nat. Geosci. 8, 735. Bedell, R., 2001. The Anatomy of Nature: Geology and American Landscape Painting. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 1825 1875. Beier, P., Hunter, M.L., Anderson, M.G., 2015. Special section: conserving nature’s stage. Conserv. Biol. 29, 613 617. Bernbaum, E., Price, L.W., 2013. Attitudes toward mountains. In: Price, M.F., Byers, A.C., Friend, D.A., Kohler, T., Price, L.W. (Eds.), Mountain Geography. Physical and Human Dimensions. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 252 266.

230

CHAPTER 12 GEOHERITAGE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

Bertzky, B., Bertzky, M., Worboys, G.L., Hamilton, L.S., 2015. Earth’s natural heritage. In: Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., Pulsford, I. (Eds.), Protected Area Governance and Management. ANU Press, Canberra, pp. 43 80. Bigas, H., Gudbrandsson, G.I., Montanarella, L., Arnalds, A. (Eds.), 2009. Soils, Society and Global Change. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Brazier, V., Bruneau, P.M.C., Gordon, J.E., Rennie, A.F., 2012. Making space for nature in a changing climate: the role of geodiversity in biodiversity conservation. Scottish Geogr. J. 128, 211 233. Brilha, J., 2002. Geoconservation and protected areas. Environ. Conserv. 29, 273 276. Brilha, J., 2016. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8, 119 134. Brilha, J., 2018. Geoheritage and geoparks. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 323 336. Brocx, M., Semeniuk, V., 2017. Towards a Convention on Geological Heritage (CGH) for the protection of geological heritage. Geophysical Research Abstracts 19, EGU2017-11284. Bruschi, V.M., Coratza, P., 2018. Geoheritage and environmental impact assessment (EIA). In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 251 264. Buhl-Mortensen, L., Buhl-Mortensen, P., Dolan, M.F.J., Holte, B., 2015. The MAREANO programme a full coverage mapping of the Norwegian off-shore benthic environment and fauna. Marine Biol. Res. 11, 4 17. Burek, C.V., 2008. The role of the voluntary sector in the evolving geoconservation movement. In: Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), The History of Geoconservation. Special Publications 300. The Geological Society, London, pp. 61 89. Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D., 2008. The history of geoconservation: an introduction. In: Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), The History of Geoconservation. Special Publications 300. The Geological Society, London, pp. 1 5. Burek, C.V., Ellis, N.V., Evans, D.H., Hart, M.B., Larwood, J.G., 2013. Marine geoconservation in the United Kingdom. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 581 592. ´ ., Lo´pez-Mart´ınez, J., 2009. Geological heritage and geoconservaCarcavilla, L., Dur´an, J.J., Garc´ıa-Cort´es, A tion in Spain: past, present and future. Geoheritage 1, 75 91. Casado, S., 2014. La geolog´ıa en los or´ıgenes histo´ricas del conservacionismo espan˜ol. Ensen˜anza de las Ciencias de la Tierra 22, 19 24 (in Spanish). Chan, K.M.A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., et al., 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. PNAS 113, 1462 1465. Cimon-Morin, J., Darveau, M., Poulin, M., 2013. Fostering synergies between ecosystem services and biodiversity in conservation planning: a review. Biol. Conserv. 166, 144 154. Council of Europe, 2002. European Landscape Convention. CETS No. 176. Available from: ,http://www.coe. int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/176. (accessed 16.08.17). Council of Europe, 2004. Recommendation Rec(2004)3 on conservation of the geological heritage and areas of special geological interest. Available from: ,https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx? ObjectID=09000016805dd15a. (accessed 16.08.17). Crofts, R., 2008. Europe. In: Chape, S., Spalding, M., Jenkins, M.D. (Eds.), The World’s Protected Areas. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 227 237. Crofts, R., 2014. Promoting geodiversity: learning lessons from biodiversity. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 125, 263 266. Crofts, R., 2017. Putting geoheritage conservation on all agendas. Geoheritage. doi:10.1007/s12371-017-0239-y. Crofts, R., Gordon, J.E., 2014. Geoconservation in protected areas. Parks 20 (2), 61 76. Crofts, R., Gordon, J.E., 2015. Geoconservation in protected areas. In: Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., Pulsford, I. (Eds.), Protected Area Governance and Management. ANU Press, Canberra, pp. 531 568. D´ıaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., et al., 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 16.

REFERENCES

231

D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., Fern´andez-Mart´ınez, E., 2015. Geoheritage value: 1, fundamentals and significance. Cuadernos del Museo Geominero 18, 13 18 (in Spanish). D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., Salazar, A., Garc´ıa-Cort´es, A., 2014. El patrimonio geolo´gico Espan˜a. Ensen˜anza de las Ciencias de la Tierra 22, 25 37 (in Spanish). D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., Brilha, J., Brocx, M., Erikstad, L., Garc´ıa-Cort´es, A., Wimbledon, W.A.P., 2016. Global Geosites: an active and partially achieved geoheritage inventory initiative, waiting to regain official recognition. In: Corn´ee, A., Egoroff, G., de Wever, P., Lalanne, A., Duranthon, F. (Eds.), Actes du Congre`s International «Les Inventaires du G´eopatrimoine», 22 26 September 2015, 16. M´emoire hors-s´erie de la Soci´et´e g´eologique de France, Toulouse, pp. 103 108. Digne Declaration, 1991. International Declaration of the Rights of the Memory of the Earth. Available from: ,http://www.igc.usp.br/index.php?id 5 778. (accessed 16.08.17). Dingwall, P., Weighell, T., Badman, T. 2005. Geological World Heritage: A Global Framework. A Contribution to the Global Theme Study of World Heritage Natural sites. IUCN, Gland. Available from: ,http://whc.unesco.org/document/9777. (accessed 16.08.17). Dixon, D.P., Hawkins, H., Straughan, E.R., 2012. Wonder-full geomorphology: sublime aesthetics and the place of art. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 37, 227 247. Doak, D.F., Bakker, V.J., Goldstein, B.E., Hale, B., 2014. What is the future of conservation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 77 81. Dowling, R.K., 2011. Geotourism’s global growth. Geoheritage 3, 1 13. Dudley, N. (Ed.), 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland. Available from: ,http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/guidelines_for_applying_protected_area_management_categories.pdf. (accessed 16.08.17). Earth Charter, 2000. The Earth Charter. Available from: ,http://earthcharter.org/discover/the-earth-charter/. (accessed 16.08.17). Ellis, N., 2011. The Geological Conservation Review (GCR) in Great Britain rationale and methods. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 122, 353 362. Erikstad, L., 2008. History of geoconservation in Europe. In: Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), The History of Geoconservation. Special Publications 300. The Geological Society, London, pp. 249 256. Erikstad, L., 2013. Geoheritage and geodiversity management the questions for tomorrow. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 713 719. European Commission, 2006. Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection. COM(2006) 231 final. Available from: , http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri 5 CELEX:52006DC0231&from 5 EN . (accessed 16.08.17). European Commission, 2011. Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. COM(2011) 244 final [online]. Available from: ,http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/ comm2006/2020.htm. (accessed 16.08.17). European Manifesto on Earth Heritage and Geodiversity, 2004. Available from: ,http://www.progeo.pt/pdfs/ Manifesto_EH.pdf. (accessed 16.08.17). Evaluacio´n de los Ecosistemas del Milenio de Espan˜a, 2011. La Evaluacio´n de los Ecosistemas del Milenio de Espan˜a. S´ıntesis de resultados. Fundacio´n Biodiversidad. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino. Available from: ,http://www.ecomilenio.es/. (accessed 16.08.17) (in Spanish). Feary, S., Brown, S., Marshall, D., Lilley, I., McKinnon, R., Verschuuren, B., Wild, R., 2015. Earth’s cultural heritage. In: Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., Pulsford, I. (Eds.), Protected Area Governance and Management. ANU Press, Canberra, pp. 81 116. Finney, S.C., Hilario, A., 2018. GSSPs as international geostandards and as global geoheritage. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 169 180. Fisher, J., Simon, N., Vincent, J., Coolidge, H.J., Scott, P., 1969. The Red Book: Wildlife in Danger. Collins, London and Viking, New York.

232

CHAPTER 12 GEOHERITAGE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

Gordon, J.E., Baker, M., 2016. Appreciating geology and the physical landscape in Scotland: from tourism of awe to experiential re-engagement. In: Hose, T.A. (Ed.), Appreciating Physical Landscapes: Three Hundred Years of Geotourism. Special Publications 417. The Geological Society, London, pp. 25 40. Gordon, J.E., Barron, H.F., 2012. Valuing geodiversity and geoconservation: developing a more strategic ecosystem approach. Scottish Geogr. J. 128, 278 297. Gordon, J.E., Barron, H.F., 2013. The role of geodiversity in delivering ecosystem services and benefits in Scotland. Scottish J. Geol. 49, 41 58. Gordon, J.E., Barron, H.F., Hansom, J.D., Thomas, M.F., 2012. Engaging with geodiversity why it matters. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 123, 1 6. Gordon, J.E., Brooks, A.J., Chaniotis, P.D., James, B.D., Kenyon, N.H., Leslie, A.B., et al., 2016. Assessment of key features and areas for marine geodiversity and the progress of marine geoconservation in Scotland’s seas. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 127, 716 737. Gordon, J.E., Crofts, R., D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., Woo, K.S., 2017. Enhancing the role of geoconservation in protected area management and nature conservation. Geoheritage. doi:10.1007/s12371-017-0240-5. Gray, M., 2011. GSSPs: the case for a third, internationally recognised, geoconservation network. Geoheritage 3, 83 88. Gray, M., 2013. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature, second ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester. Gray, M., Gordon, J.E., Brown, E.J., 2013. Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: the contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 659 673. Grube, A., 1994. The national park system in Germany. In: O’Halloran, D., Green, C., Harley, M., Stanley, M., Knill, J. (Eds.), Geological and Landscape Conservation. The Geological Society, London, pp. 175 180. Harris, P.T., Baker, E.K. (Eds.), 2012. Seafloor Geomorphology as Benthic Habitat. GeoHAB Atlas of Seafloor Geomorphic Features and Benthic Habitats. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 936 p. Henriques, M.H., Pena dos Reis, R., Brilha, J., Mota, T., 2011. Geoconservation as an emerging geoscience. Geoheritage 3, 117 128. Hjort, J., Gordon, J.E., Gray, J.M., Hunter, M.L., 2015. Why geodiversity matters in valuing nature’s stage. Conserv. Biol. 29, 630 639. Holdgate, M., 1999. The Green Web: A Union for World Conservation. Earthscan, London. Hose, T.A., 2012. 3 G’s for modern geotourism. Geoheritage 4, 7 24. Hose, T.A., 2016. Three centuries (1670 1970) of appreciating physical landscapes. In: Hose, T.A. (Ed.), Appreciating Physical Landscapes: Three Hundred Years of Geotourism. Special Publications 417. The Geological Society, London, pp. 1 22. Howe, J.A., Stevenson, A., Gatliff, R., 2015. Seabed mapping for the 21st century the Marine Environmental Mapping Programme (MAREMAP): preface. Earth Environ. Sci. Trans. Royal Soc. Edinburgh 105, 239 240. Hunter, M.L., Redford, K.H., Lindenmayer, D.B., 2014. The complementary niches of anthropocentric and biocentric conservationists. Conserv. Biol. 28, 641 645. IUCN, 2008. Resolutions and Recommendations adopted at the 4th IUCN World Conservation Congress. Resolution 4 040: Conservation of geodiversity and geological heritage. IUCN, Gland. Available from: ,https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/44190. (accessed 16.08.17). IUCN, 2012. Resolutions and Recommendations, World Conservation Congress, Jeju, Republic of Korea, 6 15 September 2012, WCC-2012-Res-048-EN Valuing and conserving geoheritage within the IUCN Programme 2013 2016. IUCN, Gland. Available from: ,https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/44015. (accessed 16.08.17). IUCN, 2014. IUCN World Parks Congress. The Promise of Sydney. Available from: ,http://worldparkscongress.org/about/promise_of_sydney.html. (accessed 16.08.17). IUCN, 2016. IUCN World Conservation Congress. The Hawaiʻi Commitments. Available from: ,https://portals.iucn.org/congress/hawaii-commitments. (accessed 16.08.17).

REFERENCES

233

IUCN-UNEP-WWF, 1980. World Conservation Strategy. Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. IUCN, UNEP and WWF, Gland, Switzerland. IUCN-UNEP-WWF, 1991. Caring for the Earth. A Strategy for Sustainable Living. IUCN, UNEP and WWF, Gland, Switzerland. Johansson, C.E. (Ed.), 2000. Geodiversitet i Nordisk Naturva˚rd. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen (in Swedish). Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., 2013. What is conservation science? Bioscience 62, 962 969. Kiernan, K., 2015. Landforms as sacred places: implications for geodiversity and geoheritage. Geoheritage 7, 177 193. Larwood, J.G., 2016. Geoconservation: an introduction to European principles and practices. In: Hose, T.A. (Ed.), Geoheritage and Geotourism. A European Perspective. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, pp. 129 153. Larwood, J.G., Badman, T., McKeever, P.J., 2013. The progress and future of geoconservation at a global level. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 720 730. Lele, S., Springate-Baginski, O., Lakerveld, R., Deb, D., Dash, P., 2013. Ecosystem services: origins, contributions, pitfalls and alternatives. Conserv. Soc. 11, 343 358. Lubchenco, J., Barner, A.K., Cerny-Chipman, E.B., Reimer, J.N., 2015. Sustainability rooted in science. Nat. Geosci. 8, 741 745. Macadam, J., 2018. Geoheritage: getting the message across. What message and to whom? In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 267 288. Mace, G.M., 2014. Whose conservation? Science 345, 1558 1560. Malvern Conference, 1994. Malvern Conference on Geological and Landscape Conservation 1993: resolution endorsed by closing session of conference. In: O’Halloran, D., Green, C., Harley, M., Stanley, M., Knill, J. (Eds.), Geological and Landscape Conservation. The Geological Society, London, p. 523. Martini, G., 2000. Geological heritage and geo-tourism. In: Barettino, D., Wimbledon, W.A.P., Gallego, E. (Eds.), Geological Heritage: Its Conservation and Management. Instituto Technolo´gico Geominero de Espan˜a, Madrid, pp. 147 156. Martini, G., Alcal´a, L., Brilha, J., Iantria, L., S´a, A., Tourtellot, J., 2012. Reflections about the geotourism concept. In: S´a, A.A., Rocha, D., Paz, A., Correia, V. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th European Geoparks Conference. AGA Associac¸a˜o Geoparque Arouca, Arouca, Portugal, pp. 187 188. McEuen, A.B., 2014. Embrace new conservation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 322 323. Migo´n, P., 2014. The significance of landforms the contribution of geomorphology to the World Heritage Programme of UNESCO. Earth Surf. Proc. Landf. 39, 836 843. Migo´n, P., 2016. Rediscovering geoheritage, reinventing geotourism: 200 years of experience from the Sudetes, Central Europe. In: Hose, T.A. (Ed.), Appreciating Physical Landscapes: Three Hundred Years of Geotourism. Special Publications 417. The Geological Society, London, pp. 215 228. Migo´n, P., 2018. Geoheritage and World Heritage sites. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 237 250. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Milne Home, D., 1872. Scheme for the conservation of remarkable boulders in Scotland, and for the indication of their position on maps. Proc. Royal Soc. Edinburgh 7, 475 488. Montes, C., Santos-Mart´ın, F., Benayas, J., Go´mez Sal, A., D´ıaz Pineda, F., 2014. Spanish National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of key findings. MAGRAMA, Madrid. Available from: ,http://www.ecomilenio.es/ . (accessed 16.08.17). Newsome, D., Dowling, R., 2018. Geoheritage and geotourism. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 305 322. Pearson, R.G., 2016. Reasons to conserve nature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 366 371.

234

CHAPTER 12 GEOHERITAGE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

Phillips, A., 2003. Turning ideas on their head the new paradigm for protected areas. George. Wright. Forum 20 (2), 8 32. Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Turner, K., 2016. Ecosystem services in the twenty-first century. In: Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Turner, R.K. (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 1 9. Pressey, R.L., Cabeza, M., Watts, M.E., Cowling, R.M., Wilson, K.A., 2007. Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 583 592. Prober, S.M., Dunlop, M., 2011. Climate change: a cause for new biodiversity conservation objectives but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Ecol. Restor. Manage. 12, 2 3. Prosser, C.D., 2013a. Our rich and varied geoconservation portfolio: the foundation for the future. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 568 580. Prosser, C.D., 2013b. Planning for geoconservation in the 1940s: an exploration of the aspirations that shaped the first national geoconservation legislation. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 536 546. Prosser, C.D., Brown, E.J., Larwood, J.G., Bridgland, D.R., 2013. Geoconservation for science and society an agenda for the future. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 561 567. Prosser, C.D., D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., Larwood, J.G., 2018. The conservation of geosites: principles and practice. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 193 212. Rabbitt, M.C., 1989. The United States Geological Survey: 1879-1989. US Geological Survey Circular 1050. Ratcliffe, D.A. (Ed.), 1977. A Nature Conservation Review. 2 vols. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Reynard, E., 2004. Protecting stones: conservation of erratic blocks in Switzerland. In: Prikryl, R. (Ed.), Dimension Stone 2004. New Perspectives for a Traditional Building Material. Balkema, Leiden, pp. 3 7. Reynard, E., 2005. G´eomorphosites et paysages. G´eomorphol. Relief Proc. Environ. 11, 181 188 (in French). Reynard, E., Giusti, C., 2018. The landscape and the cultural value of geoheritage. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 147 166. Reynard, E., Hobl´ea, F., Cayla, N., Gauchon, C., 2011. Iconic sites for Alpine geology and geomorphology. Rediscovering heritage? Rev. G´eogr. Alpine 99 (2), [Online]. Available from: ,http://rga.revues.org/ index1435.html. (accessed 16.08.17). Reynard, E., Perret, A., Bussard, J., Grangier, L., Martin, S., 2016. Integrated approach for the inventory and management of geomorphological heritage at the regional scale. Geoheritage 8, 43 60. Ruban, D., Kuo, I.-L., 2010. Essentials of geological heritage site (geosite) management: a conceptual assessment of interests and conflicts. Nat. Nascota 41, 16 31. Schaefer, M., Goldman, E., Bartuska, A.M., Sutton-Grier, A., Lubchenco, J., 2015. Nature as capital: advancing and incorporating ecosystem services in United States federal policies and programs. PNAS 112, 7383 7389. Soul´e, M., 2013. The “new conservation”. Conserv. Biol. 27, 895 897. Stace, H., Larwood, J.G., 2006. Natural Foundations: Geodiversity for People, Places and Nature. English Nature, Peterborough. Stewart, I.S., 2016. Sustainable geoscience. Nat. Geosci. 9, 262. Stewart, I.S., Gill, J.C., 2017. Social geology integrating sustainability concepts into Earth sciences. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 128, 165 172. Stewart, I.S., Nield, T., 2013. Earth stories: context and narrative in the communication of popular geosciences. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 699 712. Studer, B., Favre, A., 1867. Appel aux Suisses pour les engager a` conserver les blocs erratiques. Actes de la Soci´et´e Helv´etique des Sciences Naturelles 51, 153 160. Theobald, D.M., Harrison-Atlas, D., Monahan, W.B., Albano, C.M., 2015. Ecologically-relevant maps of landforms and physiographic diversity for climate adaptation planning. PLoS One 10 (12), e0143619. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143619 (accessed 16.08.17).

REFERENCES

235

Thomas, B.A., Warren, L.M., 2008. Geological conservation in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In: Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), The History of Geoconservation. Special Publications 300. The Geological Society, London, pp. 17 30. Thompson, A., Poole, J., Carroll, L., 2008. Geodiversity action plans for aggregate companies. In: Walton, G. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th Extractive Industry Geology Conference, EIG Conferences, pp. 78 82. Thorp, J.H., Flotemersch, J.E., Delong, M.D., Casper, A.F., Thoms, M.C., Ballantyne, F., et al., 2010. Linking ecosystem services, rehabilitation, and river hydrogeomorphology. Bioscience 60, 67 74. Tukiainen, H., Bailey, J.J., Field, R., Kangas, K., Hjort, J., 2017. Combining geodiversity with climate and topography to account for threatened species richness. Conserv. Biol. 31, 364 375. United Nations, 2000. Millennium Development Goals. Available from: ,http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/. (accessed 16.08.17). United Nations, 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution 70/ 1adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Available from: ,https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld. (accessed 16.08.17). UNESCO, 2016. UNESCO global geoparks. Celebrating Earth Heritage, Sustaining Local Communities. UNESCO, Paris. Urry, J., 1990. The Tourist Gaze; Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. Sage Publications, London. Vasiljevi´c, D.A., Markovi´c, S.B., Vujiˇci´c, M.D., 2016. Appreciating loess landscapes through history: the basis of modern loess geotourism in the Vojvodina region of North Serbia. In: Hose, T.A. (Ed.), Appreciating Physical Landscapes: Three Hundred Years of Geotourism. Special Publications 417. The Geological Society, London, pp. 229 239. Whiteley, M.J., Browne, M.A., 2013. Local geoconservation groups past achievements and future challenges. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 674 680. Wild, R., McLeod, C., 2008. Sacred Natural Sites: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. IUCN, Gland. Available from: ,https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pa_guidelines_016_sacred_natural_sites.pdf. (accessed 16.08.17). Wilson, E.O., 1984. Biophilia: The Human Bond with Other Species. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Wilton, A., Barringer, T., 2002. American Sublime Landscape Painting in the United States. Tate Publishing, London, pp. 1820 1880. Wimbledon, W.A.P., 1996. Geosites a new conservation initiative. Episodes 19 (3), 87 88. Wimbledon, W.A.P., Smith-Meyer, S. (Eds.), 2012. Geoheritage in Europe and Its Conservation. ProGEO, Oslo. Wimbledon, W.A.P., Andersen, S., Cleal, C.J., Cowie, J.W., Erikstad, L., Gonggrijp, G.P., et al., 2000. Geological World Heritage: GEOSITES a global comparative site inventory to enable prioritisation for conservation. Memorie Descrittive della Carta Geologica d’Italia 54, 45 60.

CHAPTER

GEOHERITAGE AND WORLD HERITAGE SITES

13 Piotr Migon´

University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland

13.1 INTRODUCTION World Heritage is an official Convention of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), adopted in 1972 and aimed at the protection of most valuable objects, sites and landscapes across the globe. At the heart of the programme is the notion of ‘outstanding universal value’ (OUV) which has to be demonstrated for each property applying for recognition as World Heritage. Although not defined explicitly in the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, OUV is understood as a value of global relevance, extending beyond political boundaries of particular countries or narrow spheres of interest of various academic disciplines. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 2015) specify that OUV means significance ‘which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity’ (paragraph 49). It also says that the Convention is not intended to ensure protection of all properties of great interest, importance or value, but only for a select list of the most outstanding of these from an international perspective (paragraph 52). In the context of geoheritage it means that World Heritage status can only be granted to sites which represent the best possible examples of certain natural phenomena, are widely recognised as important at the global scale, and are of interest not only to geoscientists. In this chapter the following issues will be addressed. Firstly, the main framework governing the World Heritage programme will be shown, including the presentation of criteria to be met by properties nominated for World Heritage status. Secondly, the representation of geoheritage sites on the World Heritage List will be reviewed, according to the above-mentioned criteria. Thirdly, an analysis of geoheritage themes present within World Heritage properties will be carried out. A few case studies will follow, to show the thematic diversity of World Heritage properties focused on geoheritage.

13.2 WORLD HERITAGE

CONCEPT AND IMPLEMENTATION

Although the ‘Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage’ was adopted in 1972, the first round of inscriptions on the World Heritage List took place in 1978, Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00013-7 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

237

238

CHAPTER 13 GEOHERITAGE AND WORLD HERITAGE SITES

when 12 properties were granted this status. Since the beginning of the programme, inscriptions can be effected in three categories: cultural, natural and mixed. The last one applies to sites and areas whose both natural and cultural values have been independently assessed as globally outstanding. In addition, the term ‘cultural landscape’ is used to emphasise significant interactions between people and the natural environment, although this has not been developed into a separate criterion. It is also important to note that the natural environment, although it may underpin human activities in a decisive way, is not necessarily of outstanding value itself, which is reflected in the majority of cultural landscapes being inscribed on the basis of cultural criteria alone. For each category, there are some criteria that need to be fulfilled by World Heritage properties. The precise wording of criteria has undergone changes throughout the years and is currently as follows (Table 13.1). However, it is also emphasised that the OUV recognition may not be sufficient to inscribe a nominated property, if no realistic statutory protection system and management plan exist that would Table 13.1 Criteria of Inscription on the World Heritage List Criterion

Description

Cultural heritage (i) (ii)

(iii) (iv) (v)

(vi)

to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilisation which is living or which has disappeared to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria)

Natural heritage (vii) (viii)

(ix)

(x)

to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth’s history, including the record of life, significant ongoing geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features to be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of OUV from the point of view of science or conservation

www.whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/ (accessed 07.08.17).

13.3 GEOHERITAGE ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

239

provide adequate long-lasting safeguarding of these values. This is explicitly stated in the paragraph 78 of Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention which also refers to the condition of integrity as a requirement that the property includes all elements necessary to show OUV and is of adequate size to be fully representative. Implications of this statement are that a site of outstanding but poorly protected or partly damaged geoheritage is unlikely to receive World Heritage status until necessary protection measures are implemented and adverse effects of development are reversed. For properties already inscribed but currently under threat to lose their OUV, mainly because of improper management, the list of World Heritage in Danger has been created and is being constantly updated. The procedure towards World Heritage inscription is multiphase and, most importantly, has to be carried out as an official governmental action since the final submission of a nomination has to be made by the State Party that has signed the Convention. Thus, referring to geoheritage specifically, whilst the local geoscience community is typically involved at early stages of preparatory work and is responsible for drafting the nomination document, a political decision of the government has to be eventually made whether an application is submitted to the World Heritage Committee. Also, implementation of adequate protection plans for a natural site may be in conflict with local development plans and may require high-level governmental intervention. It is also to be noted that World Heritage is an official UNESCO and hence, United Nations programme. Therefore, countries which are not UNESCO member states cannot submit applications even if specific geoheritage is widely considered as truly outstanding at the global scale. An example is the case of Taiwan and impressive locations such as Taroko Gorge. An important part of the procedure, at both the preparatory and the evaluation stage, is comparative analysis, required to ensure that values deemed universally outstanding are truly such and a nominated property does not duplicate any existing World Heritage property in terms of its key characteristics. Moreover, the aim of comparative analysis is not limited to comparison with other World Heritage properties but has to include other sites and localities from outside the World Heritage List. Sites which are hard to distinguish as superlative from a number of other similar properties, given current scientific understanding, are rather unlikely to be approved. To evaluate nominations, the World Heritage Committee seeks advice from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). This, in turn, consults the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) and the International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG) on geoheritage nominations, relies on independent desk reviews, conducts on-site investigations and provides recommendations which may or may not be taken by the Committee. The IUCN has also commissioned and published a range of thematic studies aimed at clarification of World Heritage criteria in specific contexts, including such geoheritage themes as fossils (Wells, 1993), volcanoes (Wood, 2009), karst (Williams, 2008) or deserts (Goudie and Seely, 2011).

13.3 GEOHERITAGE ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST 13.3.1 CRITERIA OF INSCRIPTION

SCOPE FOR PROTECTION OF GEOHERITAGE

Among the four OUV criteria established for natural World Heritage properties, criterion (viii) directly addresses geoheritage, emphasising the subject of geology (major stages in the history of Earth, ongoing geological processes), palaeontology (record of life) and geomorphology

240

CHAPTER 13 GEOHERITAGE AND WORLD HERITAGE SITES

(development of landforms, significant geomorphic features). Criterion (vii) is less explicit but in a study recently commissioned by IUCN to clarify its applicability Mitchell et al. (2013) made a point that ‘superlative natural phenomena’ include the subject matter of Earth science (e.g., geysers, volcanic eruptions) and that ‘exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance’ is often directly related to landform size and diversity. Furthermore, rocks and geomorphological landscapes may be vital components of cultural landscapes recognised by the World Heritage Committee or crucially underpin biodiversity and ecosystems of OUV. In these cases, even if geoheritage itself is not regarded as globally outstanding (i.e., neither criterion (vii) nor (viii) is used in the inscription), it receives a high level of protection once it is an element that contributes for the site’s integrity.

13.3.2 REPRESENTATION As for August 2017, 1073 World Heritage properties in total are on the World Heritage List, located in 167 countries (whc.unesco.org, accessed 07.08.17). Among them, 832 are cultural properties, whereas only 206 are natural properties and 35 have the status of a mixed property, meaning that 241 properties have been inscribed in recognition of their outstanding natural value. Table 13.2 shows the number of sites inscribed on the basis of different criteria for natural properties or their combinations. Thus, geoheritage (criterion (viii)) is recognised as having OUV in 90 properties in total, whereas scenic beauty and superlative natural phenomena, often, although not necessarily related to geoheritage too, are emphasised in 145 properties. In 61 of these cases, both the scientific qualities of geoheritage and the visual aspect of the landscape are given recognition and both criteria are used, including 25 cases in which only the conjunction of criteria (vii) and (viii) occurs. The list of World Heritage in Danger currently (as of March, 2017) includes 55 properties; among them three are inscribed for their geoheritage values (Virunga National Park in Congo, which includes a part Table 13.2 The Number of Natural World Heritage Properties Inscribed Using Different Criteria Criterion/Criteria

Number of World Heritage Properties

(vii) (only) (viii) (only) (vii) 1 (viii) (only) (vii) 1 other natural criteria ((ix) and/or (x)) (viii) 1 other natural criteria ((ix) and/or (x)) (vii) 1 (viii) 1 other natural criteria ((ix) and/or (x)) (vii) within mixed property (ix) or (x) or (ix) 1 (x) (viii) within mixed property (vii) 1 (viii) within mixed property

8 18 25 58 9 28 17 60 1 9

www.whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/ (accessed 07.08.17).

13.3 GEOHERITAGE ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

241

of the Great Rift Valley, Rio Platano in Honduras, and Everglades, USA). In addition, six properties inscribed for their outstanding scenery feature on this list. However, among properties inscribed in the basis of criteria (ix) and/or (x), as well as among exclusively cultural ones, there are examples of high-quality geoheritage which has not received recognition as having OUV and yet, are highly respected by the geoscientific community for their spectacular geomorphological landscapes or rock formations. It is not feasible to provide even brief characteristics of each such property, but Table 13.3 lists selected examples. Repetitive themes within this list are rock-controlled landforms, mainly in granite and sandstone (Fig. 13.1), and mountainous topography, whereas this list hosts also a globally significant example of a tidal flat in Mont-Saint-Michel Bay and an actively developing rift valley at the divergent plate boundary in Iceland (Fig. 13.2). The listing does not imply that these properties are of OUV in terms of geomorphological heritage, but emphasises its significance and contribution to the overall quality of the site.

Table 13.3 World Heritage Properties With Highly Valuable Geomorphological Heritage, but Not Recognised as Having Outstanding Universal Value Name of Property

Country

Criteria of Inscription

Blue Mountains Western Ghats Mount Kinabalu

Australia India Malaysia

(ix) 1 (x) (ix) 1 (x) (ix) 1 (x)

Surtsey

Iceland

(ix)

Great Himalayan National Park Wachau Cultural Landscape Serra da Capivara

India

(x)

Austria Brazil

Cultural Cultural

Rio de Janeiro: Carioca Landscapes Vin˜ales Valley Mount-Saint-Michel and its Bay Pingvellir

Brazil

Cultural

Cuba France

Cultural Cultural

Iceland

Cultural

Hampi Petra

India Jordan

Cultural Cultural

Frontiers of Roman Empire Hadrian’s Wall Matobo Hills

United Kingdom Zimbabwe

Cultural Cultural

Geomorphological Heritage Dissected sandstone tableland Great escarpment Granite mountain morphology, rock control, mass movements Young volcanism and dynamic volcanic morphology High-mountain topography, glacial morphology Antecedent gorge of Danube Ruiniform morphology in sandstone, dissected tableland Classic examples of granite and gneiss domes Karst topography with mogotes Classic example of tidal flat, one of the widest globally Tectonic geomorphology at a plate divergent boundary Granite residual hills and boulders Arid zone sandstone geomorphology, slot canyons, weathering features Dolerite dyke exposed as a rock-controlled ridge Granite domes and tors

FIGURE 13.1 The Blue Mountains in Australia are an example of a World Heritage property whose spectacular tableland and canyon geomorphology is considered not to have Outstanding Universal Value as defined by the World Heritage Convention (Photograph by P. Migo´n).

FIGURE 13.2 Pingvellir in south-west Iceland has been inscribed in recognition of its cultural value as a site of an open-air parliamentary assembly since 930 AD. However, it is also an excellent and easily accessible example of continental rifting (Photograph by P. Migo´n).

13.3 GEOHERITAGE ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

243

13.3.3 EARTH SCIENCE THEMES In 2005, a broad classification scheme for existing and potential World Heritage properties related to Earth Science was published by the IUCN to assist state parties in selecting localities for possible inscription on the World Heritage List (Dingwall et al., 2005). Thirteen major themes (or thematic areas) were identified (Table 13.4). Badman (2010) made a series of highly relevant comments about the themes. First, he observed that they do not have identical presence on the World Heritage List, with some themes represented extensively, such as volcanoes or karst and caves, whereas others have only a few, or even a singular example. Second, and in close relation to the former, a balance between themes is not a goal and it is inevitable that differences will persist. For instance, since Vredefort Dome is the best example of a meteorite impact structure on land, it is unlikely that any other inscription of this kind will be supported. Third, it was noted that a large number of sites, especially mountains, coastal systems and reefs and islands, have been inscribed simultaneously for their biodiversity and geoheritage values, with the implications the latter considered separately might not be sufficient to ensure the World Heritage recognition. Finally, Badman suggested that some geoheritage values may be considered by IUCN as too specific and of geological rather than broader interest to support their inscription and that other means of global recognition and protection may be more effective.

Table 13.4 Thirteen Earth Science Themes for World Heritage (After Dingwall et al., 2005) and Relevant Examples No.

Theme

Examples From World Heritage List

1

Swiss Tectonic Arena of Sardona (Switzerland), Macquarie Island (Australia)

3

Tectonic and structural features Volcanoes/volcanic systems Mountain systems

4 5

Stratigraphic sites Fossil sites

6

Fluvial, lacustrine and deltaic systems Caves and karst systems

2

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Coastal systems Reefs, atolls and oceanic islands Glaciers and ice caps Ice Ages Arid and semiarid desert systems Meteorite impact

Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park (USA), Teide (Spain), Tongariro (New Zealand), Ngorongoro (Tanzania) Pirin (Bulgaria), Durmitor (Montenegro), Yosemite (USA), Huangshan (China) Dorset and East Devon Coast (UK) Joggins Fossil Cliffs (Canada), Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh and Naracoorte) (Australia), Messel Pit (Germany) Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan (China), Lake Baikal (Russia), Don˜ana National Park (Spain) ˇ Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst (Hungary, Slovakia), Skocjan Caves (Slovenia), Ha Long Bay (Vietnam), Carlsbad Caverns (USA) West Norwegian Fjords (Norway), Wadden Sea (The Netherlands) Great Barrier Reef (Australia), Aldabra Atoll (Seychelles) Los Glaciares (Argentina), Swiss Alps Jungfrau-Aletsch (Switzerland) High Coast/Kvarken (Sweden, Finland) Namib Sand Sea (Namibia), El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve (Mexico) Vredefort Dome (South Africa)

244

CHAPTER 13 GEOHERITAGE AND WORLD HERITAGE SITES

Considering the ‘thirteen Earth science themes’ study (Table 13.4) as an unofficial guideline for future attempts to increase geoheritage representation on the World Heritage List, it would be useful to reflect on certain shortcomings of this scheme. Firstly, it is not clear what kind of classification system is adopted. The themes listed by Dingwall et al. (2005) seem to belong to three categories, emphasising origin (nos 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13), or scenery (nos 3, 9, 12), including strong association with climatic background (no. 12), or age (no. 11). Secondly, as a consequence, there are overlaps between themes, particularly evident for mountain systems (no. 3) which may also contain significant karst features, volcanoes, glaciers, the geomorphic legacy of Pleistocene glaciations, or be located in desert environments. Thirdly, some themes are missing. From a genetic perspective, the scheme lacks periglacial/ground ice related features, aeolian landforms and processes (although some are subsumed under ‘Desert systems’), and the whole family of distinct rock-controlled landforms other than karst. These rock-controlled landscapes include sandstone and granite terrains which may combine truly outstanding scientific and scenic values (Fig. 13.3). Table 13.5 provides a selection of relevant examples from the current World Heritage List.

FIGURE 13.3 Sanqingshan in south-east China, inscribed as a natural property for its magnificent scenery, represents one of the most striking mountainous granite landscapes (Photograph by P. Migo´n).

13.4 EXAMPLES

245

Table 13.5 Sandstone and Granite Landscapes on the World Heritage List Rock Type Sandstone

Granite

World Heritage Property

Landscape Type

Wulingyuan (China) Danxia (China)

Highly dissected plateau Evolutionary sequence from plateau to residual hills Ruiniform relief Tableland with canyons Residual hilly topography Inselbergs Erosional mountainous morphology Glacial mountainous morphology Solitary mountain Inselbergs Hills, tors and boulders Domes

Serra da Capivara (Brazil)a Blue Mountains (Australia)a Purnululu (Australia) Uluru-Kata Tjuta (Australia) Sanqingshan (China) Yosemite (USA) Kinabalu (Malaysia)a Matobo Hills (Zimbabwe)a Hampi (India)a Rio de Janeiro: Carioca Landscapes between the Mountain and the Sea (Brazil)a

a

Not inscribed for their geological or geomorphological value.

13.4 EXAMPLES Below, five specific examples are briefly presented to account for the variety of geoheritage features present at World Heritage sites. The focus is on the subject of various subdisciplines or fields within Geosciences: palaeontology, structural geology, contemporary Earth dynamics, geomorphology and past environmental and climate change.

13.4.1 PALAEONTOLOGICAL SITE

MESSEL PIT

The current World Heritage List includes around 10 sites where the palaeontological record is considered to have OUV due to both completeness for a given interval of geological time and the highest level of scientific documentation (Badman, 2010). They span from the Proterozoic/Cambrian boundary to the Pleistocene. Messel Pit Fossil Site in central Germany, inscribed in 1995, contains a unique record of life of middle Eocene (c. 47 48 Ma), preserved in oil shales deposited in a lacustrine environment of a maar crater (Schaal and Ziegler, 1992). This setting allowed for an exceptional preservation of not only skeletons, but also soft parts such as skin and stomach contents. Altogether, more than 1000 species of mammals, birds and insects are documented. The site covers an area of just 42 ha and is a former quarry which was saved from being converted into a landfill site. It is not freely accessible (only guided tours are possible), but the exhibition centre provides visitors with a rich display of specimens from the excavation. Therefore, an adequate level of protection is ensured whilst maximising visitors’ experience and educational effect.

246

CHAPTER 13 GEOHERITAGE AND WORLD HERITAGE SITES

13.4.2 STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY SITE

TECTONIC ARENA OF SARDONA

The Swiss Tectonic Arena of Sardona is one of the very few examples of natural World Heritage properties inscribed for its geological features related to tectonic processes (Badman, 2010). It has been on the List since 2008 and includes 328 km2 in the north-eastern part of the Swiss Alps, with the peak of Piz Sardona (3056 m a.s.l.) in the centre. Whilst thrust faults large-scale structures formed during mountain building processes are common in the mountain ranges around the world, an outstanding value of Sardona resides in the excellent visibility of the Glarus thrust and its availability for viewing from different sides, hence allowing a truly three-dimensional view. The occurrence of the thrust is enhanced by lithological contacts which can be seen from a distance as the thrust trace is visible as a near-level straight line across steep mountain slopes. In addition, the site has considerable significance for the history of geosciences, as academic research on Alpine tectonics in this type of locality started more than 200 years ago, and hosts a classic example of high-mountain topography resultant from fluvial and glacial erosion, weathering and mass movements (Buckingham and Pfiffner, 2017).

13.4.3 DYNAMIC EARTH SITE

YELLOWSTONE

Yellowstone National Park (USA), one of the very first natural World Heritage sites, inscribed in 1978, is an emblematic location showing ‘living Earth’, where geological processes are not only recorded in rocks and structures but may be appreciated today, taking the form of vigorous geothermal phenomena (Fournier et al., 1994; Keefer, 1972). The centre of the park corresponds to a vast caldera, itself a witness of a cataclysmic explosive eruption some 600,000 years ago. Ongoing activity includes geyser eruptions, hot springs, fumaroles, bubbling mud pools, deposition of travertine and related growth of cascades, terraces and flats. Among Yellowstone geysers, Old Faithful is most publicised, erupting to the height of 32 56 m at 30- to 120-min intervals, whereas other important geysers are Steamboat (currently the tallest on Earth), Castle Geyser and Great Fountain. Altogether, about 10,000 singular geothermal features are recorded in Yellowstone, including more than 300 geysers. An inevitable consequence of geothermal dynamics is extinction of certain features and at least two geysers, Porkchop and Excelsior, seemed to terminate their activities in the 1980s. Geothermal phenomena are not the only ones contributing to the outstanding value of Yellowstone’s geoheritage, although they are surely the most important. Caldera remnants, river canyons and high waterfalls are also listed as features of considerable significance.

13.4.4 GEOMORPHOLOGICAL SITE

SOUTH CHINA KARST

South China Karst is a serial World Heritage property, which means that it consists of several disconnected areas which, however, jointly present features of global significance and OUV. In this particular case, seven areas spread across four Chinese provinces (Shilin in Yunnan, Libo and Shibing in Guizhou, Huanjiang and Guilin in Guangxi, Wulong and Jinfoshan in Chongqing), occupying 971 km2 in total, illustrate diversity of subtropical karst morphology and include archetypal examples of classic limestone landscapes and landforms such as cone karst (fengcong), tower karst (fenglin), karst plateau, mega-lapiez (‘stone forest’), cockpits, deep gorges, giant dolines (tiankeng), rock bridges and large caves (Sweeting, 1995; Waltham, 2010; Zhu and Waltham, 2005).

13.4 EXAMPLES

247

FIGURE 13.4 The famous gorge of Li river in southern China that cuts through limestone towers and cones forms a part of the serial property South China Karst that combines classic examples of subtropical karst (Photograph by P. Migo´n).

In addition, spectacular examples of dolomite karst, much rarer than those developed in limestone, are offered by Shibing Karst. The association of tower and cone karst near Guilin, particularly well exposed along the Li river (Fig. 13.4), occupies an important place in the history of karst research and serves as a model of long-term evolution of karst landscape.

13.4.5 EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

KVARKEN AND HIGH COAST

Rock successions and landforms assemblages are often interpreted in terms of environmental change, including climate. For example, many World Heritage mountain areas include the visible legacy of glacial erosion and deposition in the form of cirques, glacial troughs and moraines, but they add to the OUV rather than play a decisive role. However, the transboundary World Heritage property of High Coast/Kvarken in Sweden and Finland, respectively, is an example of a site inscribed due to overwhelming consequences of climate change that led to ice sheet disappearance in the early Holocene. Moreover, the process of glacioisostatic adjustment to ice sheet decay is ongoing and its evidence can be documented at an annual time scale (Poutanen and Steffe, 2014).

248

CHAPTER 13 GEOHERITAGE AND WORLD HERITAGE SITES

The two parts of the property are complementary to each other. The High Coast part, located along the coast of Bothnia Gulf in Sweden, is an example of a former coastal landscape in hard rock, elevated to the height of up to 285 m, one of the highest rebound uplift values known globally. It is typified by high relief, with hilly islands, plunging granite cliffs, deep inlets and steep hinterland. By contrast, Kvarken archipelago is a low-altitude coast, with numerous skerries, bays, boulder fields and examples of De Geer moraines, originally deposited in subaqueous conditions and isostatically raised thereafter (Breilin et al., 2004). Ongoing uplift allows one to see how islands emerge from the sea and join together, as well as evolutionary successions from bays through cutoff lakes to marshes and fens. Thus, although the site lacks the grandeur of many other World Heritage natural properties, it illustrates one of the aims of the convention, to ensure protection of landscapes significant for understanding the Earth history.

13.5 CONCLUSIONS The World Heritage programme of UNESCO is a powerful, globally recognised mechanism to protect areas, sites and objects of outstanding value, from both a cultural and natural point of view. Although biodiversity and endangered species seem to be more in focus and of concern within natural World Heritage (see Table 13.2), there is scope to include geoheritage too. So far, 90 World Heritage properties were inscribed for their geoheritage values (i.e., considering criterion (viii), whereas many more include significant geoheritage even if this is not officially recognised by the World Heritage Committee. However, it is in the interest of the geoscientific community to raise the status of geoheritage undertaking activities to promote it at any World Heritage site where applicable. Inscription is considered as a highly prestigious distinction and hence, a long-term goal for various stakeholders and state parties. Thus, it is tempting to increase efforts to put more geoheritage sites on the World Heritage List. However, one needs to be aware of limitations of the concept of OUV, and guidelines adopted by the IUCN which is an advisory body to the World Heritage Committee. The key emerging points are: •

• •

World Heritage status is to be given to the best site of its kind and duplication of values is normally best avoided. Hence, all new applications should present a comprehensive comparative analysis. ‘OUV’ is understood to be of broader relevance and claims for uniqueness and distinctiveness should not be too narrowly focused. Exceptional geoheritage alone may not be sufficient to ensure a successful nomination. Site integrity, legal protection and viable management strategy are equally important and nominations may be deferred if these conditions are not met.

REFERENCES Badman, T., 2010. World Heritage and geomorphology. In: Migo´n, P. (Ed.), Geomorphological Landscapes of the World. Springer, Dordrecht; Heidelberg; London; New York, pp. 357 368.

REFERENCES

249

Breilin, O., Kotilainen, A., Nenonen, K., Virransalo, P., Ojalainen, J., St´en, C.-G., 2004. Geology of the Kvarken Archipelago. Available from: ,http://tupa.gtk.fi/julkaisu/erikoisjulkaisu/ej_044.pdf . (accessed 07.08.17). Buckingham, T., Pfiffner, O.A., 2017. Mountain building and valley formation in the UNESCO World Heritage Tectonic Arena Sardona region. In: Reynard, E. (Ed.), Landscapes and Landforms of Switzerland. Springer, Dordrecht; Heidelberg, in press. Dingwall, P., Weighell, T., Badman, T., 2005. Geological World Heritage: A Global Framework. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Fournier, R.O., Christiansen, R.L., Hutchinson, R.A., Pierce, K.L., 1994. A field-trip guide to Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. Volcanic, hydrothermal, and glacial activity in the region. U.S. Geological Survey, Bulletin 2099. Goudie, A., Seely, M., 2011. World Heritage Desert Landscapes. Potential Priorities for the Recognition of Desert Landscapes and Geomorphological Sites on the World Heritage List. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Keefer, W.R., 1972. The Geologic Story of the Yellowstone National Park. U.S. Geological Survey, Bulletin 1347. Mitchell, N., with contributions from Leita˜o, L., Migo´n, P. and Denyer, S., 2013. Study on the Application of Criterion (vii): Considering superlative natural phenomena and exceptional natural beauty within the World Heritage Convention. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Poutanen, M., Steffen, H., 2014. Land uplift at Kvarken Archipelago/High Coast UNESCO World Heritage area. Geophysica 50 (2), 49 64. Schaal, S., Ziegler, W. (Eds.), 1992. Messel: An Insight Into the History of Life and of the Earth. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Sweeting, M., 1995. Karst in China. Its Geology and Environment. Springer, Heidelberg. UNESCO, 2015. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO, Paris. Waltham, T., 2010. Guangxi Karst: the fenglin and fengcong karst of Guilin and Yangshuo. In: Migo´n, P. (Ed.), Geomorphological Landscapes of the World. Springer, Dordrecht; Heidelberg; London; New York, pp. 293 302. Wells, R.T., 1993. Earth’s Geological History: A Contextual Framework for Assessment of World Heritage Fossil Site Nominations. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Williams, P., 2008. World Heritage Caves and Karst. A Thematic Study. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Wood, C., 2009. World Heritage Volcanoes: Thematic Study. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Zhu, X., Waltham, T., 2005. Tiankengs: definition and description. Cave Karst Sci. 32, 75 79.

CHAPTER

GEOHERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)

14

Viola M. Bruschi1 and Paola Coratza2 1

2

University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy

14.1 GEOHERITAGE AS A RESOURCE AND SUPPORT OF SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES Before discussing in detail the subject of this chapter, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of the term ‘resources’ and how this concept can be applied to geoheritage. Resources, reserves, raw materials are concepts common to a number of different disciplines: geology, geography, ecology, agriculture, economy and environmental studies. Indeed several definitions (see Edwards and McCarthy, 2004; USGS, 1976) exist and their precise meaning can change from one discipline to another, from one author to another, or even from one language to another. Moreover, often these terms are used as synonyms in the common language. The concept of resource has a temporal and spatial dimension, being affected by economic, political or strategic fluctuations. According to Zimmerman (1951) an element in nature is a ‘neutral stuff’ until a value has been found for it, along with the technical skills to extract it from nature. In this sense, the concept of natural resources is human-centred, dynamic, relative and functional to satisfy human needs. The value of nature in general and of Earth’s physical resources in particular has long been debated, and several authors have tried to outline the value of nature not only in a functional or utilitarian sense but in a much more broad sense (e.g., Gray, 2004, 2013; Wilson, 1994). In this context, resources are defined as the abiotic, biotic and cultural attributes on, in or above the Earth (Mitchell, 1989). From a geological viewpoint, a resource is often defined as a concentration or occurrence of a geological material of economic interest in such form, grade or quality and amount that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction (Brobst and Pratt, 1973; CIM, 2010). This is, however, a narrow perspective on geological resources which does not recognise all the different values e.g., intrinsic value, cultural and aesthetic value, research and educational value, functional value that can be attributed to a physical resource of Earth. For further discussion of the issue of the value of a resource and of its diversity, see Gray (2004, 2013) and reference therein. In recent decades, the term ‘geological resource’ has assumed a broader dimension in different contexts, taking into consideration also cultural and not just economic needs (Mata-Perello´ et al., 2011). According to this broader definition, a geoheritage element can also be considered as a resource, due to its cultural value in a broad sense, i.e., its social or community significance. Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00014-9 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

251

252

CHAPTER 14 GEOHERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

According to Mata-Perello´ et al. (2011) geological resources are classified, due to their characteristics, properties and utilities, into two main groups: extractable and nonextractable resources. The first group includes all the valuable materials of geological origin that can be extracted from Earth and used as basic elements for the subsistence of society (e.g., mining material, aggregate material, water, fossil fuel, etc.). The nonextractable resources are defined as those geological objects that present cultural, scientific, educational or recreational values and that do not offer a direct economic benefit but increase human quality of life in a broad sense. A geological resource may present multiple benefits to society. For example, a debris cone can be considered a geosite, i.e., a nonextractable resource, for its intrinsic, scientific and educational value (e.g., as a feature of palaeogeomorphological evidence). It may also be considered an extractable resource for its economic value, if the debris that it is made up of can be used as aggregates to be quarried (Fig. 14.1). Most of the geological resources are nonrenewable if compared to human time scales, and even if there is a general tendency to consider them as static and stable, nevertheless their equilibrium can be fragile and sensitive to human and natural disturbances. There are many different and significant threats, both related to natural processes and to human impacts, that could degrade and

FIGURE 14.1 Example of a georesource used as an aggregate to be quarried (Val Badia, Italy) (Photograph by M. Marchetti).

14.2 AN ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN IMPACTS ON GEOHERITAGE

253

impact on the georesources, compromising their value. The effects of natural processes or humaninduced changes on geosites vary according to their sensitivity (Brunsden and Thornes, 1979; Thomas, 2012), intended as the response of landscape systems to perturbation on different time and spatial scales (Thomas, 2001), which depends on the type, nature and magnitude of the perturbation, as well as the characteristics of the landscape. Natural processes may threaten geoheritage: very often dynamic sites are highly sensitive features, susceptible to modifications due to processes’ changes in time, frequency and intensity. Many mountain environments, especially the glacial ones, are very sensitive areas, particularly vulnerable to disturbance and prone to change, where climate change impacts are very acute (Pelfini and Bollati, 2014; Reynard and Coratza, 2016). Changes are visible at very short time scales and may generate active processes, evident to observe, such as landslides, thermokarstic landforms or rockfalls due to permafrost melting. The present chapter concentrates especially on the pervasive and profound geomorphic impact of human activities on geoheritage. Anthropogenic threats result from several human activities, including development and land use changes in general, which include urbanisation, the building of infrastructures, farming, forestry and vandalism (Figs. 14.2 and 14.3). Finally, in many contexts, the damage to an element of geoheritage may occur under the pressure of combined natural and anthropogenic factors. In fact, even the so-called ‘natural’ hazards are often the result of underlying factors resulting from human activities, such as building in floodprone areas, excavation in the streambed or building flood protection infrastructure.

14.2 AN ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN IMPACTS ON GEOHERITAGE A human activity or project can produce impacts on geoheritage, which can be negative or positive. Negative impact corresponds to a total or partial loss of the geoheritage site quality. The negative impact constitutes a reduction or total loss of the scientific, cultural, educational and/or recreational interest of the site and services provided to society and related to those values (Bonachea et al., 2005; Bruschi, 2007; Cendrero, 1996; Garc´ıa Cort´ez et al., 2014; Vegas et al., 2013). It is important to take into account that, because of its nature, in some cases, it is impossible to remove or extract geosites from the original location and move them to another place for conservation. This implies that in many cases the destruction of elements of interest is an irreversible action, because humans are not able to replicate a geological process and it is not possible to ‘clone’ a geological feature or ‘reintroduce’ a new one. When a project or activity in the field is carried out, frequently new geological features are discovered, such as a new cross-section, or an outcrop with stratigraphic interest. In that case, impact is positive and it should be possible to describe and to assess new sites by including them in an existing inventory or in a new one. There are numerous examples of discoveries of new geosites of exceptional interest during mining activities like Naica cave in Mexico or Altamira cave in Spain, or the palaeontological discoveries of Courtedoux (Jura, Switzerland) during a motorway construction; this site is now part of the Inventory of Swiss Geosites and an educational project is developed in order to promote it (www.jurassica.ch, accessed 10.08.17).

254

CHAPTER 14 GEOHERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

FIGURE 14.2 The ‘Fungo’ of Secchia River. This geosite is an earth pyramid, owing its singular shape to morpho-selection processes between the trunk (made of sandstone) and cap (made of cemented conglomerates) related to river bed lowering processes. By multidecade comparison of the height reached by the fungus, it is very likely that this form is going to disappear. The natural evolution of the riverbed, increased by human activities developed over the last few decades (excavating in the streambed and construction of levees, bridges and culverts) has increased the magnitude and intensity of the fungus’ dismantling process (Photographs 1986, 1996, in Bonazzi (1996); photograph 2006 by G. Bertolini).

14.2 AN ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN IMPACTS ON GEOHERITAGE

255

FIGURE 14.3 Examples of human elements and activities that damage geomorphosites and landscapes. (A) Rio della Rocca Valley (Reggio Emilia, Italy): the presence of a motocross field and its facilities represents a big threat to the high scenic and environmental values of this area (Photograph by M. Soldati). (B) Cape Bear (Capo d’Orso, Sardinia): climbing is deteriorating this huge bear shaped rock, one of the most famous geomorphosites in Sardinia (Photograph by M. Slusarczyk, published in Wikimedia under Creative Commons Attribution license). (C) Alta Badia Valley (Dolomites, Italy): man-made modifications related to tourist activities, especially skyrelated ones, have caused profound modifications to the natural landscape of this UNESCO World Heritage site (Photograph by M. Marchetti).

256

CHAPTER 14 GEOHERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Impacts on geosites depend on their interest and dimension and on the type of human activity. The most important impacts are related to the construction of large infrastructures (railways, motorways, etc.) or specific works that could partially or totally destroy the site (clearing and landfill). In the case of stratigraphic or sedimentological sites, impacts are represented by the destruction of outcrops, with a consequent loss of the stratigraphic record or of a stratotype. In this case, another important impact is represented by dust emissions worsening the visibility conditions, although to a minor extent. However, same construction activities could make visible new sedimentary structures or new stratigraphic sequences with very similar characteristics, which could be used as compensation measures. In these cases, a detailed study of the area before construction allows the establishment of a strategy for conservation and/or compensation (Vegas Salamanca et al., 2012). When geological sites are considered, in addition to the total loss of geosites or loss of their characteristics, it is important to take into account the visual quality and characteristics of landscape. Large sites with geological interest are in some cases the expression of a region or an area; the previous study of the impacts of new infrastructures could help to minimise landscape changes. Bonachea et al. (2005) considered impacts on visual landscape produced by the construction of a new motorway. In that case, a large infrastructure such as a motorway represents an intrusion that affects the visual quality (defined as the intrinsic merit of a landform unit from a perceptual point of view), depending mainly on the degree of visibility of the new structure and on the contrast between the structure and the preexisting landscape. A similar procedure was proposed by Bruschi and Cendrero (2012) to assess impacts on visual landscapes produced by mining activities. In that case, the analysis was carried out by simulating new aggregate quarries through geographic information system (GIS) tools and modifying digital elevation models. The methodology proposed was based on visual quality of landscape, the visibility area affected by the new activities and the number of inhabitants affected by the reduction of the landscape quality (Daniel, 2001). Mo¨ller (2006) presented a similar study focused on impacts produced by wind power. Apart from the visibility areas and the population affected by impacts, the author puts forward a set of important considerations about public acceptance influenced by the landscape value.

14.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Over the past years, there has been a growing concern over environmental issues in sustainability and the better management of human activities in harmony with environment, as demonstrated by numerous legislative initiatives developed worldwide. This has coincided with the growth of awareness among the general public of the risks associated with human activities and the need to preserve the geological and more in general environmental heritage. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a key integrative element in environmental management and protection policy. It refers to the assessment of the possible positive or negative effects of a planned activity on the natural and man-made environment, representing an effective aid to decision making.

14.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

257

This procedure has its origins in the US National Environmental Policy Act in 1969, which introduced a series of norms for the preventive evaluation of impact, the ‘Environmental Impact Statements’. Following the US initiative, several countries began to develop EIA systems; for instance Canada (1973), Australia (1974), Thailand (1975), France (1976), Philippines (1978), Israel (1981), Switzerland (1982) and Pakistan (1983) adopted legislation on EIA. Spurred on by several recommendations by international organisations, EIA spread, in various forms, throughout the world in the 1980s and is now practised in 191 countries (Morgan, 2012). In particular, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 was a landmark gathering concerning the international acknowledgement of EIA as a universal approach to inform and influence decision making on crucial socioenvironmental matters. The Conference has resulted in several documents that are very important for the consolidation of EIA. Agenda 21 refers to EIA in several different chapters, emphasising and promoting the importance of the use of this instrument. Moreover, the role of EIA as a tool for development decision making was formally recognised in Principle 17 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which states: ‘Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority’ (www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm, accessed 10.08.17). At the European level, the European Union Directive related to EIA was adopted in 1985 and required EIA to be incorporated into national legislation by 1988. This directive, applied to a wide range of defined public and private projects, has been amended three times (1997, 2003 and 2009) and has been codified by the Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment of 13 December 2011, amended in 2014 (ec.europa.eu/ environment/eia/pdf/EIA_Directive_informal.pdf, accessed 10.08.17). The definition of EIA adopted by the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA, 2009) is ‘the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made’. The process includes a number of steps (Fig. 14.4), similar across many applications, and is traditionally applied to major projects, such as dams, motorways, airports or factories, even if this can vary from country to country. Most national legislations list projects for which EIA is a mandatory requirement. When a project is undertaken, several impacts on the environment in which it is inserted can occur. Environment is a dynamic system made up of physical, biological and cultural components, which are interlinked both individually and collectively, and are changing in time and space even without human influence. The characteristics of environmental impacts intended as changes both in space and time in environmental parameters vary and may be described in a number of ways. The EIA procedure requires a multidisciplinary approach, since it will identify, describe and assess the potential direct or indirect impacts of an intended project on the natural, social, economic and human environment. Typical parameters to be taken into account in impact prediction include: nature (positive, negative, direct, indirect, cumulative); magnitude (severe, moderate, low); extent/location (area/volume covered, distribution); timing (during construction, operation, decommissioning, immediate, delayed, rate of change); duration (short term, long term, intermittent, continuous); reversibility/ irreversibility; likelihood (probability, uncertainty or confidence in the prediction); significance (local, regional, global).

258

CHAPTER 14 GEOHERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

FIGURE 14.4 Flow-chart of the main operation and steps to be implemented in an Environmental Impact Assessment process.

In order to assess the impact of a project on the environment it is, first of all, necessary to identify the baseline situation, i.e., the existing environmental conditions in the absence of the activity. In characterising the baseline situation, the environmental components that are both significant to the environment itself and sensitive to the project have to be taken into consideration. These parameters are called environmental indicators and provide information about phenomena that are regarded typical for and/or critical to the environmental quality. Over time, many of the methodologies and tools for environmental impact identification and prediction have been elaborated. The most common methods can be divided into five types: ad hoc, checklists, matrices, networks analysis, overlays and GIS (Canter, 1998; Warner and Preston, 1973). There is no single best methodology or tool, presenting all advantages and disadvantages; therefore the successful utilisation of a tool depends mainly on the nature of the project and on the scale and scope of expected impacts.

14.4 THE INTEGRATION OF GEOHERITAGE IN THE EIA PROCEDURES

259

14.4 THE INTEGRATION OF GEOHERITAGE IN THE EIA PROCEDURES The aim of this section is to show some procedures elaborated to assess impacts on geoheritage. Rivas et al. (1997) declared: ‘Geoheritage usually receives very limited attention at all in the processes of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)’; 20 years later, the situation is unchanged. The development of methodologies for the inclusion of geoheritage in EIA procedures is still very limited. The reasons for this are essentially three: (1) the identification, assessment and protection of geoheritage are items still very new, and only in the 21st century they have developed a clear interest; (2) inventories and assessment procedures of geosites are still very different from each other, so it is very difficult to establish common action plans; and finally (3) the lack of laws and regulations in the field of geoheritage protection does not help the development and application of geoheritage impact assessment procedures (Vegas Salamanca et al., 2012). According to the analysis of Carcavilla (2012), to achieve the protection and use of geoheritage, four main closely connected actions are needed: inventories, legislation, geoconservation and dissemination. For EIA, inventories and legislation are the most important items. For the assessment of impacts on geosites produced by human activities, a good knowledge of geosites present in the area affected by the new project is necessary. Ways to achieve it are clearly two: (1) identification of geosites presented in an existing inventory, or (2) development of a new inventory to acquire a detailed knowledge of the geoheritage in the area. In the first case, the study would be relatively simple and quick. However, if an inventory exists, it should include a very exhaustive database that allows the assessment of possible modifications produced by the human activity on geosites and the estimation of the loss of quality. The inventory must include criteria and parameters to assess the quality of the geosite before the new project and after, assessing changes produced by the new activity and finally, obtaining the impact, or the possible loss of quality. In the second case, a new inventory requires in general a very expensive and long process. The development of a new catalogue needs a group of experts with a detailed knowledge of the geology of the area and that is well acquainted with the geosites’ analysis procedures. In cases where inventories do not exist, in addition to the identification of sites, a quality assessment of those sites is needed. Obviously, in that case, in order to evaluate possible impacts of the human activity on geosites, the inventory and assessment procedures are applied only to the area threatened by human activity, and the analysis could be probably focused on only a few and more important parameters and criteria, making the process much easier (Vegas et al., 2013). The use of geosites for a sustainable economic development is becoming more frequent in recent years, increasing the number of conflict situations. From this three important questions are derived. The first refers to the assessment of quality in order to determine the impact (i.e., changes on such quality, positive or negative), the second corresponds to the translation of such impacts into significant terms (understandable for public society), and finally the third question refers to the search for a satisfactory way to integrate impacts on geosites with other types of impacts. For what concerns the quality of geoheritage, some authors have proposed methodologies on the basis of sets of criteria and indicators designed to express and assess the value of a geosite. For most authors, such value depends on three types of parameters: intrinsic quality, potential for use

260

CHAPTER 14 GEOHERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

and potential threat or protection needs (Bonachea et al., 2005; Bruschi, 2007; Cendrero, 1996; Garc´ıa Cort´ez et al., 2014; Vegas et al., 2013). In this sense, the detailed analysis carried out by Erikstad et al. (2008) about the value assessment in an EIA is very interesting. The paper focuses on the value concept, taking into account different disciplines and management systems, as well as the fact that the meaning of value is not constant over time. In addition, authors discuss the question of the subjectivity contained in the value assessment procedures that causes errors and difficulties for the numeric value expression, as other authors already discussed and tried to solve (Bruschi and Cendrero, 2005, 2009; Carcavilla et al., 2007). In general, it is accepted that a certain degree of subjectivity exists and that it has to be accepted and dealt with (Bruschi and Cendrero, 2009; Erikstad et al., 2008). For Erikstad (1994) it is important to separate subjective criteria from objective ones, to achieve a more transparent value assessment. Furthermore, the work contains a complete list of criteria used in natural and cultural heritage evaluation, from which criteria overlapping is evident. In this sense, Bruschi (2007) proposed a statistical approach to reduce the number of criteria and to identify the most important ones, solving the problem of the data redundancy. However, in recent decades, specific procedures proposed for the assessment of impacts on geosites have been only few (Alkema et al., 2000; Bonachea et al., 2005; Bruschi, 2007; Cavallin et al., 1994; Cendrero and Panizza, 1999; Coratza and Giusti, 2005; Geremia et al., 2015; Kværner et al., 2006; Rivas et al., 1997; Shiliang et al., 2014; Vegas et al., 2013). One of these proposals is the procedure elaborated by Rivas et al. (1997) in which the authors present a methodology for the EIA on consumable and nonconsumable geomorphological resources. They define impact on geosites as any action which decreases the quality, the scientific and the cultural interest of a site, as well as its usefulness. The assessment is made using the difference between values of a site before and after the new project. In the methodology, total or/and irreversible impact corresponds to the destruction of the site and consequently its value would be near zero, mainly expressed by the state of conservation. The proposal is based on three groups of criteria that describe the three main characteristics of a site, laying the groundwork for the development of subsequent procedures presented by other authors (Bonachea et al., 2005; Bruschi, 2007; Vegas et al., 2013): the intrinsic quality of the site, its state of conservation and the potential for use. To determine the value of each criterion, a set of indicators was proposed (Rivas et al., 1997). In the methodology, a positive impact was also taken into account considering that a new project could significantly improve the potential for use of a site, by changing the accessibility or the conditions of observation. In what concerns the criteria used in geoheritage impact assessment, the proposal of Erikstad et al. (2008) differs from other ones in the consideration of the criterion ‘vulnerability’ as a strategic indicator instead of a quality indicator. These authors insist that the two terms are closely linked and not easy to separate, but that the former has to be seen as a key for the analysis of the protection need. On the other hand, Vegas et al. (2013) proposed a methodology based only on two types of criteria: the intrinsic quality and the potential for use, without considering the potential threat or protection needs proposed by Bonachea et al. (2005). When an EIA is carried out, the integration of all types of impacts is an important step to resolve. Therefore, it is necessary to translate impacts produced on geological features into

14.4 THE INTEGRATION OF GEOHERITAGE IN THE EIA PROCEDURES

261

significant terms to allow evaluation and comparison with other impacts (impacts expressed in geomorphic terms are not universally accessible) and to integrate all types of impacts. In what concerns the expression of impacts, the major part of proposals use a qualitative scale with terms such as ‘not significant’, ‘suitable’, ‘moderate’ and ‘critic’ (Vegas et al., 2013), or varying from ‘negligible’ to ‘high’ (Erikstad, 1997). In both cases, a methodology for the integration of impact on geosites with other types of impact has not been considered. In the proposal of Bonachea et al. (2005), a procedure for the expression of impacts on significant terms (monetary terms in that case) was presented, as well as a proposal for the integration of different types of impacts. In this work, impacts on geosites and on visual landscape are translated into monetary terms. In order to carry out the translation for the visual landscape, the difference between prices of two similar houses, one affected by a loss of landscape quality and another without impact (such difference can be over 25% in a region) was used. Cavailhe`s et al. (2009) analysed landscape in terms of viewshed and of the type of objects seen and unseen. The geographical model proposed by the authors allows the assessment of the price of landscape loss due to construction of new buildings. Furthermore, results obtained in the study clearly show that the presence of new roads represents an important negative impact corresponding to a decrease in the price of houses. In the impact assessment procedures, the establishment of the magnitude of impacts and the significance of impacts (determination of what is the loss of environmental elements due to projects) are the two first general phases. After that, another important and more political phase is to evaluate the social and economic importance of the projects and the comparison with the environmental loss. It is quite clear that the construction of a new motorway, the opening of a new stone quarry or the construction of a new wind farm could represent an important economic strategy for the development of a region. On the other hand, these types of activities have in general a strategic location that could be very complex and expensive to change. So, this last step is the one in which mitigation and compensation measures have to be established. Mitigation measures adopted to reduce impacts can be applied from two different points of view. In some cases, it is possible to change the trajectory of a motorway to avoid the total or partial destruction of important geosites (Bonachea et al., 2005), or using visual barriers (Bruschi and Cendrero, 2012) to reduce the visual area or the number of inhabitants affected by the new infrastructure. When and where there is not any possibility to modify the project, mitigation and compensation measures have to be designed to reduce and compensate the impact produced on geosites, such as improving accessibility or observation conditions of geosites or, e.g., creating a new outcrop to better observe a palaeontological feature. It means improving the characteristics of some geosites to compensate for the loss of others. These strategies, including mitigation and compensation measures, are very useful if a clear legislation exists. In Spain, the actual legislation on Conservation of Natural Heritage and Biodiversity (Ley 42/2007) explicitly mentions, for the first time, the protection of geological heritage and the imposition of the development of geosite inventories to protect them. As a consequence, the Spanish Geological Survey has elaborated a new guide for the integration of geological heritage in the EIA (Vegas Salamanca et al., 2012). This guide proposes a methodology to describe the most important impacts according to different types of activities. In addition, it should be a useful tool for the administrations and society to assess impacts, to design mitigation and compensation measures, and to define monitoring plans.

262

CHAPTER 14 GEOHERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Another example of this type of document is the one elaborated by the Scottish Nature Heritage on the consideration of geodiversity in the Strategic Environmental Assessment procedures (www. snh.gov.uk/docs/A1015717.pdf, accessed 10.08.17). This guide focuses on, among other aspects, how to assess impacts on geodiversity depending on different types of projects and on the different mitigation measures.

14.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS The wide range of initiatives that have been developed in the past 20 years and are still being developed have demonstrated a worldwide increasing commitment at policy level for the protection and management of geoheritage. The use of EIA procedures can undoubtedly be considered a powerful anticipatory environmental management tool. However, as highlighted in this chapter, the consideration of geoheritage within EIAs is far from being good quality and consistent at present. Moreover only a few countries have effective planning systems and complete national inventories of geosites. A range of specific measures could be recommended to strengthen EIA systems and to include geoheritage in EIA procedures. First of all, it is important to have good quality and complete geoheritage inventories in which it should be possible to obtain all information about geoheritage in a region and data needed to analyse quantitatively how an activity could modify the qualities of a site. On the other hand, specific protocols and rules are needed, at least at national level, to protect geoheritage or to compensate losses. Within the framework of EIA, the most important questions to answer are how to express impacts on geosites in significant terms and how to integrate them with the impacts on other elements of the environment (water, fauna, flora, etc.). The most important effort should probably be focused on the integration of different types of impacts and on the way to express impacts in significant terms (monetary or not); for this, further sustained efforts are needed to design an efficient methodology.

REFERENCES Alkema, D., Geneletti, D., Cavallin, A., Van Asch, T., Fabbri, A., De Amicis, M., et al., 2000. Integrated datasets, GIS and 3-D system analysis for environmental impact assessment in a large alpine valley north of Trento (Italy). Int. Arch. Photogram. Remote Sensing 33 (B7), 54 62. Bonachea, J., Bruschi, V.M., Remondo, J., Gonz´alez-Dı´az, A., Salas, L., Bertens, J., et al., 2005. An approach for quantifying geomorphological impacts for EIA of transportation infrastructures: a case study in northern Spain. Geomorphology 66, 95 117. Bonazzi, U., 1996. Modificazioni d’alveo del fiume Secchia avvenute negli ultimi cento anni nei dintorni di Sassuolo (Modena). Atti della Societa` dei Naturalisti e Matematici di Modena 127, 67 99 (in Italian). Brobst, D.A., Pratt, W.P. (Eds.), 1973. United States Mineral Resources. U.S. Geological Survey Prof., Paper 820. Bruschi, V.M., 2007. Desarrollo de una metodolog´ıa para la caracterizacio´n, evaluacio´n y gestio´n de los recursos de la geodiversidad. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Cantabria (in Spanish).

REFERENCES

263

Bruschi, V., Cendrero, A., 2005. Geosites evaluation; can we measure intangible values? Il Quaternario 18 (1), 293 306. Bruschi, V., Cendrero, A., 2009. Direct and parametric methods for the assessment of geosites and geomorphosites. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil, Mu¨nchen, pp. 73 88. Bruschi, V., Cendrero, A., 2012. Conceptos, m´etodos y t´ecnicas para la medicio´n, evaluacio´n, simulacio´n y mitigacio´n de los impactos visuales de las explotacio´n mineras. In: Del R´ıo, J.L., De Marco, G. (Eds.), Miner´ıa en a´ reas periurbanas. Una aproximacio´n multidimensional. Universidad Tecnolo´gica Nacional, Buenos Aires, pp. 195 215 (in Spanish). Brunsden, D., Thornes, J.B., 1979. Landscape sensitivity and change. Trans. Inst. Bri. Geogr. 4 (4), 463 484. Canter, L.W., 1998. Methods for effective Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) practice. In: Porter, A., Fittipaldi, J. (Eds.), Environmental Methods Review: Retooling Impact Assessment for the New Century. The Press Club, Fargo, pp. 58 68. Cavailhe`s, J., Brossard, T., Folteˆte, J.C., Hilal, M., Joly, D., Tourneux, F.-P., et al., 2009. GIS-based hedonic pricing of landscape. Environ. Resour. Econ. 44 (4), 571 590. Carcavilla, L., 2012. Geoconservacio´n. Instituto Geolo´gico y Minero de Espan˜a, Madrid (in Spanish). Carcavilla, L., Lo´pez-Mart´ınez, J., Dur´an Valsero, J.J., 2007. Patrimonio geolo´gico y geodiversidad investigacio´n, conservacio´n, gestio´n y relacio´n con los espacios naturales protegidos. Instituto Geolo´gico y Minero de Espan˜a, Madrid (in Spanish). Cavallin, A., Marchetti, M., Panizza, M., Soldati, M., 1994. The role of geomorphology in environmental impact assessment. Geomorphology 9, 143 153. Cendrero, A., 1996. El patrimonio geolo´gico. Ideas para su proteccio´n, conservacio´n y utilizacio´n. MOPTMA. El Patrimonio Geolo´gico. Bases para su valoracio´n, proteccio´n, conservacio´n y utilizacio´n. Ministerio de Obras Pu´blicas, Transportes y Medio Ambiente, Madrid, pp. 17 38 (in Spanish). Cendrero, A., Panizza, M., 1999. Geomorphology and environmental impact assessment: an introduction. Suppl. Geogr. Fis. Din. Quat. 3 (3), 167 172. CIM Canadian Institute of Mining, 2010. CIM Definition Standards For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions. Available from: ,http://web.cim.org/userfiles/file/cim_definiton_standards_nov_2010.pdf. (accessed 12.08.17). Coratza, P., Giusti, C., 2005. Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites. II Quaternario 18 (1), 307 313. Daniel, T.C., 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Lands. Urban Plan. 54, 267 281. Edwards, B., McCarthy, J.D., 2004. Resources and social movement mobilization. In: Snow, D.A., Soule, S.A., Kriesi, H. (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 116 150. Erikstad, L., 1994. The legal framework of earth science conservation in Norway. M´em. Soc. G´eol. France 165, 21 25. Erikstad, L., 1997. Geological heritage and environmental impact assessment: can quality and quantity be merged? In: Marinos, P.G., Koukis, G.C., Tsiambaos, G.C., Stournaras, G.C. (Eds.), Engineering Geology and the Environment. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 2927 2931. Erikstad, L., Lindblom, I., Jerpa˚sen, G., Hanssen, M.A., Bekkby, T., Stabbetorp, O., et al., 2008. Environmental value assessment in a multidisciplinary EIA setting. Environ. Impact Asses. 28, 131 143. Garc´ıa Cort´es, A., Carcavilla, L., Di´az-Mart´ınez, E., Vegas, J., 2014. Documento metodolo´gico para la elaboracio´n del Inventario Espan˜ol de Lugares de Inter´es Geolo´gico (IELIG) (in Spanish). Available from: ,http://www.igme.es/patrimonio/novedades/METODOLOGIA%20IELIG%20V16%20Web.pdf. (accessed 12.08.17). Geremia, F., Bentivenga, M., Palladino, G., 2015. Environmental geology applied to geoconservation in the interaction between geosites and linear infrastructures in South-Eastern Italy. Geoheritage 7, 33 46.

264

CHAPTER 14 GEOHERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Gray, M., 2004. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. Wiley, Peterborough. Gray, M., 2013. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. second ed. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester. IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment, 2009. What Is Impact Assessment? Available from: ,https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/What_is_IA_web.pdf. (accessed 12.08.17). Kværner, J.M., Swensen, G., Erikstad, L., 2006. Assessing environmental vulnerability in EIA The content and context of the vulnerability concept in an alternative approach to standard EIA procedure. Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 26, 511 527. Mata-Perello´, J., Mata-Lleonart, R., Vintro´-S´anchez, C., Restrepo-Mart´ınez, C., 2011. Social Geology: a new perspective on geology. Dyna 79 (158), 158 166. Mitchell, B., 1989. Geography and Resource Analysis. Longman, New York. Mo¨ller, B., 2006. Changing wind-power landscapes: regional assessment of visual impact on land use population in Northern Jutland, Denmark. Appl. Energy 83, 477 494. Morgan, R.K., 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Asses. Project Appraisal 30 (1), 5 14. Pelfini, M., Bollati, I., 2014. Landforms and geomorphosites ongoing changes: concepts and implications for geoheritage promotion. Quaest. Geogr. 33 (1), 131 143. Reynard, E., Coratza, P., 2016. The importance of mountain geomorphosites for environmental education: examples from the Italian Dolomites and the Swiss Alps. Acta geogr. Slov. 56 (2), 291 303. Rivas, V., Rix, K., Frances, E., Cendrero, A., Brunsden, D., 1997. Geomorphological indicators for environmental impact assessment: consumable and non-consumable geomorphological resources. Geomorphology 18, 169 182. Shiliang, S., Rui, X., Delong, L., 2014. Impacts of transportation routes on landscape diversity: a comparison of different route types and their combined effects. Environ. Manage. 53, 636 647. Thomas, M.F., 2001. Landscape sensitivity in time and space an introduction. Catena 42, 83 98. Thomas, M.F., 2012. A geomorphological approach to geodiversity its applications to geoconservation and geotourism. Quaest. Geogr. 31 (1), 81 89. USGS, 1976. Principles of the Mineral Resource Classification System of the U.S. Bureau of Mines and U.S. Geological Survey. Geol. Survey Bull. 1450. Vegas Salamanca, J., Alberruche del Campo, E., Carcavilla Urqu´ı, L., D´ıaz Mart´ınez, E., Garc´ıa Cort´es, A., Ponce de Leo´n Gil, D., 2012. Gu´ıa metodolo´gica para la integracio´n del Patrimonio Geolo´gico en la Evaluacio´n de Impacto Ambiental. Instituto Geolo´gico e Minero de Espan˜a, Madrid (in Spanish). Vegas, J.A., Salazar, A., D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., March´an, C. (Eds.), 2013. Patrimonio Geolo´gico, un recurso para el desarrollo. Instituto Geolo´gico y Minero de Espan˜a, Madrid (in Spanish). Warner, M.L., Preston, E.H., 1973. A Review of Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington. Wilson, E.O. (Ed.), 1994. Earth Heritage Conservation. Geological Society of London & Open University, Milton Keynes. Zimmerman, E.W., 1951. World Resources and Industries. Harper and Brothers, New York.

CHAPTER

GEOHERITAGE: GETTING THE MESSAGE ACROSS. WHAT MESSAGE AND TO WHOM?

15 John Macadam

Earthwords, Bodmin, United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION Medical doctors have their own special language, their ‘jargon’. Most of us would not want our doctor to inform us we had a neoplasm, or had had a myocardial infarction or cerebro-vascular event; if we had to be told, we would prefer that they use lay terms and told us we had cancer, had had a heart attack or a stroke. So why do many geologists, when allegedly writing material for nongeologists, persist in using geological jargon? Words and phrases such as: arenaceous, emplaced, and synsedimentary. Nongeologists, whom I will call ‘normal’ people, do not use such words. And we, geologists, would not be using them when we have a drink with our ‘normal’ friends in a pub. A further problem is that some words geologists use, like ‘matrix’, ‘dating’ and ‘conglomerate’, will have a different meaning, or meanings, for the ‘man in the street’. UNESCO is very clear on this point: ‘A UNESCO Global Geopark must take great care not to alienate the public from science and absolutely must avoid the use of technical scientific language on information boards, signs, leaflets, maps and books which are aimed at the general public’ (UNESCO, 2016).

WHO ARE WE TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WITH? We need to be very clear who we are trying to communicate geoheritage with. Are they geologists? Probably not, but a few may be. Did they study science at university? Probably not. Maybe they left school as soon as they could! Maybe they are children and have not even left school. Maybe their first language is different to yours. Maybe their culture and religion is also different to yours. Maybe their physical abilities are different to yours, e.g. it is often forgotten that around 8% of males of Northern European ancestry have colour-blindness (NEI, 2015). To communicate with people, we need to have a common language and since we often do not see the people we are trying to communicate with we must find out some information about our target audience, and then see if we can widen this audience. And if we do not communicate with the visitors who come to our precious geoheritage sites they may damage, or even destroy them totally innocently: this is not vandalism as it is our fault. Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00015-0 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

267

268

CHAPTER 15 GEOHERITAGE

WHAT DO ‘NORMAL’ PEOPLE KNOW? WHAT DO THEY WANT TO KNOW? WHAT DO WE WANT TO TELL THEM? Very often geologists start by deciding what knowledge they want to impart. But the first thing to find out is what do ‘normal’ people already know. Many researchers have questioned people about their geological knowledge, sometimes focussing only on the Earth sciences, sometimes as part of a wider survey into scientific knowledge. The questions broadly fall into two groups: those on geological facts (e.g. the names of dinosaurs, or geological periods) and those on geological literacy (e.g. how the Earth works and how geologists work). For brevity, and the purposes of this article (but not for attempting to communicate beyond it!) we might use the terms ‘geofacts’ and ‘geoliteracy’: these are not quite neologisms having been used by Stewart and Nield (2013). Most research projects into understanding of science are one-offs with no follow-up but in the United States the National Science Foundation (NSF) used to undertake a biennial survey of public attitudes and understanding of science and technology (www.nsf.gov, accessed 28.08.17); this work has been continued by the University of Chicago’s General Social Survey. Comparisons are provided with a range of other countries (including Japan, China, Russia, India and the EU). A few of the questions test Earth science knowledge, e.g. ‘Does the Earth go round the Sun, or the Sun go round the Earth?’ In 2010, 73% of the US citizens sampled got the correct answer. On the other hand, only 47% of the US sample agreed that ‘Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals’, a figure close to Russia’s 44% and far below the highest result, of 78%, from Japan (Tables 7 9 in NSF, 2012). In SW England Gibson et al. (2016) found that 28.6% (of a sample size of 220) agreed that ‘water cannot flow through solid rock’, 49.5% disagreed while 21.8% did not know. As well as being aware of the published research, it is revealing to get an informal, personal experience of people’s knowledge and what they want to know. One way to start is to lead a guided walk, or to do some hands-on activities. In the latter category, a useful activity could be called ‘Is it a rock or not?’ Very simple: a small collection of carefully chosen rocks and nonrocks (e.g. a metal ore, a coin, a piece of clay, a brick, a piece of wood, a fossil plant, etc.) and three trays labelled ‘rocks’, ‘not rocks’ and ‘not sure’. Participants aim to finish with no specimens in the ‘not sure’ category, and only rocks in the ‘rocks’ tray and only materials which are not rocks in the ‘not rocks’ tray, but from personal experience this is rarely the case. The next activity might concern fossils and nonfossils. So far, so simple, but by carefully choosing specimens this exercise can be extended from testing participants’ knowledge of geofacts to their understanding of processes. For example, a rock with obviously folded layers will enable you to discuss how apparently solid rocks can be folded, and then move on to discussing plate tectonics. So far no displays have been produced, no leaflets printed, no videos or apps produced. Understanding the audience is critical but the organisation which is funding your efforts may be getting impatient to see results! But the result you can show them is a preliminary evaluation of what people know and, from the questions they ask you, what they want to know. And you will be able to divide this amorphous group, ‘people’, into different target audiences and start working out how you can satisfy two or more audiences at the same time. For example, can you produce material which parents can use with their children, can you produce material which will appeal to politicians, professional

WHAT IS INTERPRETATION?

269

geologists and also to ‘normal’ people? At which point your funders may realise that by this cautious, investigative approach they will be getting ‘more bang for their bucks’.

STARTING TALKING ABOUT GEOHERITAGE WHERE PEOPLE ARE. . . A few examples may be useful here. Firstly, it will be useful to start spreading the geoheritage message where there are lots of people, so in towns (in shopping malls? And in cemeteries where people are commemorated in many cultures with stone slabs) and beaches. There were urban guided geological walks as early as 1871 in the United Kingdom (Eric Robinson, personal communication) and there are currently low-cost, printed self-guided trail leaflets for nonspecialists for the building stones of several areas in central London including Trafalgar Square (Robinson and Litherland, 1996), while geologist Ruth Siddall, of University College London, with others, is producing walks downloadable as pdf. A useful source of building stone trail booklets for southern England is the charity Thematic Trails (www.thematic-trails.org, accessed 28.08.17) while there are 34 ‘Balades g´eologiques’ for France (www.biotope-editions.com/index.php?categorie10/collection-balades-geologiques, accessed 28.08.17). Other cities, including Washington DC, Saskatoon and Belfast, have printed building stone trails. Meanwhile there is an app for building stones in central Turin (Synesthesia, 2014) and there are apps available for Lausanne and Rome (Pica et al., 2017), with guides for other cities and for the geomorphology of much-visited landscapes either already available (e.g. see www.igd.unil.ch/geoguide/fr/, accessed 28.08.17) or in preparation.

WHAT IS INTERPRETATION? Providing information is not the same as interpretation though many bodies refer to their ‘interpretation boards’, when the boards are merely providing information and so should properly be called ‘information boards’. So, to repeat the question: what is interpretation? There are many definitions but it is most easily thought of as involving head (information), heart (emotional connection) and hand (action), and interpreters often follow the principles produced by Freeman Tilden (Tilden, 1957) who developed interpretive programmes for the US National Park Service. His principles are often summarised as ‘provoke, relate, reveal’: the interpretation aims to provoke a reaction, then relate this to people’s experience and finally reveal new connections. In the opinion of Sam Ham, a well-respected interpreter, although Tilden reached his methods of communication through intuition, subsequent research by psychologists and sociologists has provided the intellectual backing for them (Ham, 2013). Though many media used by interpreters today postdate Tilden, most interpreters believe his ideas still hold. Many books and innumerable papers have been written about interpretation since Tilden’s day but the books by Sam Ham, by Mike Gross and coworkers, and by John Veverka have proved particularly valuable to the present author (Gross and Zimmerman, 2002; Gross et al., 2006; Ham, 2013; Howard, 2003; Regnier et al., 1992; Veverka, 2014, 2015a,b; Wallace, 2014; Zehr et al., 1991). The website of Scottish Natural Heritage (www.snh.gov.uk, accessed 28.08.17) has had guidance since the 1990s: type ‘interpretation’ into the search box. The author’s website has updated guidance and links at www.earthwords.co.uk/interpretation (accessed 28.08.17) (Fig. 15.1).

FIGURE 15.1 ‘Fancy a swim? In a warm tropical sea?’ The aim of this provocative flyer (DL size i.e. one third A4) for tourist information centres is to encourage visits to Brown End Quarry, a geoheritage site with grey Carboniferous limestone, where the interpretation reveals more of the story. Artwork by Brin Edwards, design by Aawen Design Studio, concept and words by author/Earthwords.

‘WORDS, WORDS, WORDS. . .’

271

PRODUCING AN INTERPRETATION STRATEGY Before producing any interpretation, an interpretation strategy needs to be produced: the first question an interpretation strategy asks, and answers, is ‘Why do we want to interpret this landscape/ geopark/reserve. . .?’ The answers are likely to include providing information for visitors (the ‘head’ part), making visitors value the landscape/geopark/reserve. . . (the ‘heart’ part) and then by their actions leave the landscape/geopark/reserve. . . in at least as good a shape as they found it (i.e. doing no damage) and ideally in a better shape (by providing funds or volunteering) and then after they have left they will also live more sustainably (the ‘hand’ part). These are a lot of jobs for a single interpretation board to do! And this is why an interpretation strategy needs to be worked on, discussed and agreed on by all parties. An interpretation strategy will audit the sites, agree the management and messages for each, consider physical access, audit the resources available for interpretation, agree the ‘themes’ and the media and finally include a plan with costs and a time scale for implementing the strategy. The time scale could, e.g., be 5 years but with the flexibility that if funds are available the work could be done quicker, or if funding is achieved more slowly than planned (maybe potential funders need to see some results to be convinced to contribute?) the time scale will have to be extended. The interpretation strategy report should give potential funders a clear idea of what you intend to do and why and should be illustrated with examples indicating possible results (possibly of work done elsewhere by the same team): a good strategy report should make funders want to be associated with the project and have their logos on the final results! The strategy should be endorsed by the tourism operators and tourist centres: you want them to direct people to your sites. In fact you need the tourism professionals’ advice on what works with different segments of the tourism market. You need the press and radio and TV on board early: a few seconds of TV reaches far more people for free! than most of your own efforts probably will. And maybe you can think of engaging activity holiday operators and the geocaching community, with EarthCaches, a programme from the Geological Society of America, being particularly appropriate. Finally, the strategy should also say what you will do if the interpretation becomes out of date, or damaged (by ultraviolet radiation (UV), vandalism, malware, etc.): no funding body wants their name to be associated with an out of date or damaged product.

‘THEMES’

DO YOU HUM THEM?

In interpretation, a ‘theme’ is a short sentence which encapsulates what you want to say, so you can look on it as the ‘take-home message’. Very often, interpretation of an area will have an over-arching theme then subthemes for different sites within that area. The theme for the panel in Fig. 15.2 is ‘Roche Rock is a special place, special for geology, wildlife, and history, and special for local people too’.

‘WORDS, WORDS, WORDS. . .’ Hamlet may have said it three times but for interpreters maybe “words, words” will be better? Many interpretation manuals say 200 words per panel is the maximum. The words need to be short, with

272

CHAPTER 15 GEOHERITAGE

FIGURE 15.2 Layered text on a panel mounted in a granite block which is also part of the interpretation, at Roche Rock, Cornwall, UK. Originated by the author/Earthwords, designed by Aawen Design Studio. rNeil Lindsay.

action words (e.g. ‘find’, ‘explore’ and hundreds more in Appendix 2 of Ham, 2013), and short sentences and no passive sentences (i.e. ‘we manage this site . . ..’ rather than ‘this site is managed by. . .’). The same ‘rules’ short words, no jargon, active not passive, action words go for all verbal communications whether it is on a traditional board or leaflet or an app or social media. You can find out the ‘reading age’ in various ways, e.g., Microsoft Word has a tool. Different tools have different methods but basically a reading age of an average 12-year-old is good. That is the reading age for the average tabloid newspaper. If you think that means you will have to ‘dumb down’ your precious geoheritage then read a science story in a tabloid and you will see that the science journalist manages to convey complex ideas with just simple words and short sentences. But why “Words, words. . .”? With the use of different font sizes just as in that tabloid you will be able to get a simple take-home message across, and, hopefully, encourage the reader to read more. So with a board you can have several layers, and increasingly detailed information but the crucial point is that everyone who looks at your board and reads only the largest text will

GETTING THE GEOCONSERVATION MESSAGE

273

have got at least one simple take-home message (we would probably call that the ‘theme’ of the board). By using layering and careful and lively writing you may put 700 words on a board, especially if the site is a destination itself with a captive audience. If you are trying to attract passers-by you would be very wary of having a board which looks very wordy. The headline text should be at least 48 point and the usual recommendation is not to use anything less than 18 point text on a board, or less than 12 point in a leaflet or other printed media. If you are tempted to put 700 words on a panel you have so much fascinating (to you) information to tell visitors about the geoheritage! consider whether some of it could be put in an image with a simple caption, or in a simple graphic?

‘DUMBING DOWN’, BUT MAINTAINING SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY ‘Dumbing down’ and ‘Mickey Mouse’ are used by scientists to describe explanations they do not like and think are inaccurate. The opposing description would be ‘accessible’: intellectually accessible. Interpreters owe it to their readers to ensure that the science is accurate i.e. it has scientific integrity even if it is explained in simple words. But to maintain scientific integrity when more than one explanation of the observable geology has been proposed takes very careful wording wording that is short and simple but geologists will accept as covering the different explanations. This is a very good reason why geologists who can communicate should do the interpretation rather than an interpreter who is not a geologist.

‘DID YOU KNOW?’

IS THAT INTERACTIVE?

No. The answer to ‘Did you know?’ is either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Interactivity requires you to think or do some physical activity, or both, so the presence of a text box with ‘Did you know?’ in a leaflet or app or on a board usually indicates a poor attempt at interpretation. The problem with many interactive exhibits in visitor centres and museums is that they are broken. If you do not have the resources to do a daily check and repair/replace at once then do not even think of using a digital or mechanical interactive exhibit: reports of broken exhibits migrate to TripAdvisor and that means reputational damage. Who wants to take their kids to a place where stuff does not work? Interpreters and designers will ensure that the temporary loss of one exhibit is not critical, and the message (the ‘theme’) is conveyed in another way as well.

GETTING THE GEOCONSERVATION MESSAGE ACROSS GEOHERITAGE SAFE

KEEPING THE

Firstly, some sites are so fragile or so geographically restricted that access by visitors should not be encouraged, especially if there is likely to be removal of material for sale and/or for people’s collection.

274

CHAPTER 15 GEOHERITAGE

There are widely different laws on specimen collecting and export. A useful summary for Europe has been published by ProGEO the European Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage (Wimbledon and Smith-Meyer, 2012). Some countries have fossil collecting codes e.g. Scotland with an 82-page document available on line (www.snh.gov.uk/docs/ B572665.pdf, accessed 28.08.17) with a shorter leaflet also available. Damaging protected geoheritage incurs fines and even imprisonment in some countries. Burying this information in the small print on a board is unlikely to deter thieves but a clear icon banning certain actions (e.g. Fig. 15.2, bottom left hand corner of panel) will alert other visitors and, hopefully, encourage them to act as volunteer guardians. This comes back to effective interpretation informing the brain, affecting the heart and encouraging the hand (action which in this case might be alerting the authorities while the destructive activities are being carried out). At various sites an interpretative facility has been built over the geoheritage, just as the Terracotta Army is protected during on-going excavations near Xian in China. Arouca UNESCO Global Geopark in Portugal includes a site, Pedras Parideiras (‘rocks giving birth to stones’), with a strong cultural significance, where micaceous nodules pop out of a granite exposure: visitors are told both about the geology and the local belief that placing a nodule under a woman’s pillow would ensure a successful pregnancy building the interpretive centre over the exposure ensures it is protected from individuals wishing to take home their own nodule.

KEEPING NORMAL PEOPLE SAFE Geology students, probably, undergo some H&S (health and safety) training before doing any fieldwork, and certainly fieldtrip leaders should do a risk assessment for all sites and the totality of any fieldwork. But we invite people in general, usually without specifying any required physical abilities, to visit sites. And with no H&S training required. The hazards at geoheritage sites can include toxic volcanic gases, volcanic eruptions, landslips, rockfalls, sheer drops, avalanches, tide, rip currents, lack of oxygen, exposure (e.g. dehydration and hypothermia): the list is long. Geotechnical engineers minimise risk by removing loose blocks, making catch trenches below rock faces, lowering face angles where possible and practical, stabilising faces with rock-bolts, meshing and shotcreting, and often allowing revegetation and then keeping visitors away from sites where hazards have been identified. On the other hand, geologists involved in promoting geoheritage want good exposures and safe access, with risk as low as possible, but rock-bolting, meshing and shotcreting only where absolutely necessary (probably where visitors are accessing a site). These geotechnical works can be part of the geoheritage message increasing geoliteracy by showing the Earth is dynamic. Warning signs, safety barriers, boardwalks and viewing platforms all have their place but managers need to ask themselves whether visitors come to see all this infrastructure to keep them safe, or do they come to experience the view, or whatever geoheritage is at the site, and accept some responsibility for their own safety? We should not urbanise the wilderness, but direct people to ‘honey-pots’.

KEEPING THE INTERPRETATION SAFE

275

If we keep our visitors safe and also get them to eat local produce and buy local crafts, putting money into the local economy, then local people will want to protect our their geoheritage.

KEEPING THE INTERPRETATION SAFE On-site interpretation can suffer from natural degradation (damage by ultraviolet, natural decay, etc.), vandalism, theft, and use for other purposes. Wooden panels rot, environmentally friendly sand-blasted images become unintelligible, and panel supports and benches rot. UV degrades inks leading to an unpleasant selective blueish cast and finally an almost colourless faded image. Sharp materials on-site, plus hammers and blades, and cigarette lighters (and camping gas cookers) can be used to vandalise most panels. Wooden materials can be used for camp-fires, and metal panels can be stolen and sold to scrap-yards. Damaged interpretation left on site gives the impression that whoever manages the site does not care. And damaged material attracts more damage. Sites must be monitored, not only to ensure that on-site interpretation and safety messages are in good shape but also that infrastructure for visitors’ safety such as barriers and viewing platforms are in good condition. If your sites are EarthCaches, visitors who post comments and images will effectively monitor your site. For an example, see the EarthCache page for Brown End Quarry, interpretive material for which is shown in Figs. 15.1 and 15.3. UV damage can be reduced by facing panels away from the sun (but does the visitors’ view then differ from the view presented on the panel?) or by having shading (e.g. lift-up shades) or even by putting the panels within roofed structures (in the Lesvos Island UNESCO Global Geopark in Greece some of these structures also include a bench for visitors to shelter from the mid-day sun). Designers can also use a slightly mottled background which disguises small-scale damage. Onsite chippings and loose rocks are also an invitation to some to vandalise panels (though, unsurprisingly, on-site rocks are often an essential feature of geoheritage sites). The apparently ‘greenest’ construction method may not be so green when a life cycle analysis is made. More durable panels and mounts may be greener than apparently greener products which need replacing sooner. But then do you want your interpretation to stay unchanged for many years, long after the scientific interpretation has changed and the style of design has become retro? Panels can be made of glass-reinforced plastic (which cannot be recycled), wood (often sandblasted and is it local or from endangered rainforest?), various metals (which can be a target for thieves), ceramics, etc. Mounts can be metal, wood, recycled plastic, stone (local?) maybe the stone is part of the interpretation (see Fig. 15.2 where the geological feature interpreted, Roche Rock, is composed of quartz-tourmaline in contrast to the nearby quartz-feldspar-mica granite, a quarried block of which has been brought on site and the panel inset. Interactive text and illustrations guide the visitor to realise the geological differences). Site management must include inspection of on-site interpretation, management of vegetation and loose material (e.g. scree and soil), and maintenance of safety features. Off-site interpretation can also be damaged (e.g. by hacking or malware) and also can suffer from not being updated all those forgotten web pages listing long-gone events!

FIGURE 15.3 Bones were found in fissures in the rock at Brown End Quarry and spread on fields: later the bones were identified as belonging to mammoths. Reverse of flyer in Fig. 15.1. The on-site interpretation includes Cuvier’s drawing of a mammoth skeleton plus a scientifically accurate reconstruction of mammoths. Originated by the author/Earthwords, cartoon by Debbie Ryder, design by Aawen Design Studio.

JUST ADD HUMANS. . .

277

‘DON’T GO WITH STRANGLERS’ Or visit ‘one of the most notorious restaurants in the world’. And a Portuguese geopark’s ‘Aventure se’ does not mean ‘Adventure yourself’ which is on the English edition of a leaflet but is not even English. ‘Explore yourself’ would be a literal English translation but is probably not what the geopark authorities wish their English-speaking visitors to do: just ‘Explore’ is probably what they meant. It is vital to employ a native language speaker to translate, and for geoheritage they will need to have specialist knowledge to understand nuances even if you are not using jargon (which you will not be, of course). As the French say, the translator must ‘traduire de monde a` monde, pas mot a` mot’, or, in English, translate from world to world, not word for word, i.e. translate idiomatically. Information and interpretation available digitally can easily be accessed at a click in different languages but where the material is printed on a board or in a leaflet there is often a problem. For leaflets, most geoparks are producing editions in different languages identified by little flags but with interpretation boards the need for different languages on one board makes the board very quickly look text-heavy. In Morocco, keen to attract international visitors, texts could well be in Arabic, French, Amazigh and English. Langkawi UNESCO Global Geopark, in Malaysia, has the main text in Malay but a r´esum´e in English at the bottom of each board. The local tourist information centre, or tourism department, should be the first point of call for information about the visitors they are getting, and about the visitors they hope to attract (so this information should go into your plans in the interpretation strategy for reaching different target audiences). Tourist boards have funds for promoting their areas but quite possibly have not thought about promoting its geoheritage, and they may have funds for translators. If you do put material on your website in different languages it is a good idea to have a separate counter for each language, and each download, and in this way you may achieve a virtuous circle: surprising the funders by the number of foreign visitors and foreign-language downloads, so you end up with more money to do more to attract more foreign visitors. The advice about avoiding stranglers was on a bedside table in Yunnan, China: possibly the last thing you would see before you went to sleep!

JUST ADD HUMANS. . . Humans are interested in humans. They gossip all the time. Well, not all the time but as well as geological stories for our interpretation we can have human stories. Of geologists who worked in the area and made the maps (e.g. Peach and Horne at Knockan Crag Visitor Centre, in North West Highlands Global Geopark in Scotland) . . .or maybe people like Charles Darwin or James Hutton. Darwin ended the first edition of On the Origin of Species: ‘from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved’ (Darwin, 1859). James Hutton, 1726 97, the father of stratigraphy and the inventor of ‘deep time’ (though he did not invent that phrase, nor even ‘the present is the key to the past’), wrote in 1788 that he saw ‘no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end’. Hutton also hoped that his ideas might ‘afford the human mind both information and entertainment’. Information and entertainment might nowadays be described by an ugly portmanteau word, ‘edutainment’, but in reality most visitors to geoheritage sites are coming in their free time. Many have unhappy memories of formal education. It is

278

CHAPTER 15 GEOHERITAGE

the job of the interpreter to provide ‘information and entertainment’, maybe even using cartoons, too, if it helps to get your message across (Macadam and Lackovi´c, 2010; Fig. 15.3). Cartoons are often associated with dinosaurs but Lackovi´c has used them to explain how the features of limestone (i.e. karst) geoheritage develop (Lackovi´c, 2008). Lackovi´c also explains very clearly many of the technical terms (the jargon) associated with karst: this book is definitely not a trivial cartoon book but a serious educational resource! In Japan comics are often used for adult audiences, though Oki Island UNESCO Global Geopark has produced a manga comic, Look! Learn! Protect! Oki Islands Global Geopark, which seems to work for both children and adults, with the character of ‘Professor Bird’ conveying a wealth of scientific information (Oki Island Global Geopark Promotion Committee, 2014). Adding humans can be as simple as an image on the front of a leaflet, or on a panel, of people normal people, no hard hats! looking at some geoheritage. And using humans or just fingers or hands as scales, rather than geological hammers, coins, lens caps and black and white centimetre scales (though geologists will need these scales for scientific, not geotouristic, purposes).

HAVE YOU BEEN WASTING YOUR TIME? EXTERMINATE, EXTERMINATE, EXTERMINATE Really? But EVALUATE, EVALUATE, EVALUATE should be a major part of communicating geoheritage. Right from the start when we need to evaluate what intended audiences know and want to know, through to evaluating draft material and then evaluation when everything is in place. But by the time everything is in place our ability to modify material is much reduced (and is likely to be expensive) and this evaluation will mostly be used for informing future work. There are many forms of evaluation but you could start by asking people what words they associate with geology. Is it only dinosaurs and volcanoes? Are the words ‘boring’ and ‘grey’ associated with rocks in the public mind? More formally you might want to evaluate visitors’, and potential visitors’, knowledge, perceptions and misconceptions. And their attitudes. And just maybe you want to find people who do not intend to visit your site and find out why. When you have agreed what you want visitors to know, to feel and to do, and the media you are going to use, you can start producing draft material, and testing it. Does it meet your objectives? Maybe you realise that some of the objectives might need to be changed. Draft materials should add little to the cost of a project but it is worth the time to produce and evaluate them. Make laminated paper prints of panels and put them on-site and get reactions. If you ask questions, or use other forms of interactivity, does it work? Give draft copies of trails to people to test: can they follow the route, let alone get the value from the descriptions of the route? Do visitors flow well through your visitor centre or do they stop to read a massive amount of welcome and background information just inside the entrance, blocking other people from entering (it has been done! at a multimillion pound visitor attraction which presumably did not test the layout before opening). All specialisms have jargon so interpreters usually call evaluation done at the beginning ‘frontend evaluation’, for drafts it is ‘formative evaluation’, then to find and fix problems it is ‘remedial evaluation’ and finally after the material has been in use it is ‘summative evaluation’ (which will help you for the next material you produce). But even ‘normal’ people can see stuff that does not work, see the same stuff (e.g. fibreglass statues and some interactives) repeated endlessly at one

HAVE YOU BEEN WASTING YOUR TIME?

279

visitor centre after another. Are their opinions asked for? Possibly via a visitors’ book. Is it read and followed up? Probably not (and, anyway, most people are too polite to write critical comments in visitor books, though they will write them on TripAdvisor and social media). There are a host of techniques for evaluation. You can quietly watch people. If they come with kids do the kids press all the buttons they can find then get bored and noisy so the parents, who may be really enjoying the displays, have to leave? There is a problem there with how you planned to meet the expectations of different audiences. You can compare how long people spend reading a panel compared to the time it takes to read it all the way through. At the Sabrina Island Viewpoint in San Miguel in the Azores UNESCO Global Geopark is an information panel which takes 4 min to read (Lima et al., 2017): of 206 persons observed, 52.4% viewed it for less than 1 minute, 44.2% for 1 4 minutes and only 3.4% for at least 4 minutes. The evaluation of the panel was not the main focus of the paper which was on visitor behaviour, carrying capacity and visitor management. A particular (and common!) problem with this panel is that the text is not layered (Lima, personal communication) so viewers cannot get a simple take-home message from just reading the large-size text (for an example of layered text see Fig. 15.2). The percentage of repeat visitors to the site could have been assessed as part of a questionnaire. Other questions might include people’s knowledge of geological terms, and of geological literacy both before and after reading the panel. Questionnaires can also investigate the emotional effect of panels, and people’s intended actions (so questionnaires can investigate the ‘head, heart and hand’ aspects of interpretation). Questionnaires can be filled in as part of an interview or by the visitor alone. Questions can be closed and the results treated statistically e.g. ‘rate the centre’ on a scale of 1 5, with 5 being the highest (but using a scale of 1 4 stops people sitting on the fence with a rating of 3 on a 1 5 scale). People can be given opposites e.g. interesting/boring, clean/dirty, etc. and asked to place the centre, display, shop, toilets on a scale in this way. Some questionnaires use emoticons rather than numbers. Free text, which cannot be treated statistically, may throw up unexpected insights. Evaluation questionnaires can look decidedly unfriendly and visitors may well decide they have better uses of their time, with the result that participants are strongly self-selecting. A way around this problem can be to ask visitors as they leave to give you just 10 seconds of their time to select any three words from a list to best describe their experience. If a staff member is present, some visitors may be happy to spend far more than 10 seconds to talk about what they have seen, learnt, felt and how their behaviour may change in the future (e.g. will they go to other geoheritage sites?). Visitors can be ‘tracked’, i.e. their movements and actions recorded on a plan of the visitor centre/ gallery or site. This can be done manually or by automated video-tracking. Similarly short-range bluetooth probes, reacting to peoples’ mobile phones, can record how long visitors stay looking at one panel or display. Focus groups can also be useful. The results are usually recorded and analysed later: the interviewer‘s role is to prompt and guide discussion. Finally, you can ask an external expert to appraise your operation (for an example of an evaluation report, see Strathspey Surveys, 2006). Evaluation is too often considered as an extra, possibly even a waste of time (‘we know what we are doing’) but it is important to know what visitors know and want to know before they visit, to test how well draft materials work with different audiences, and then, finally, to know how

280

CHAPTER 15 GEOHERITAGE

successful you are in getting the geoheritage message across, and which media worked best, and for which audiences. It is probably fair to suggest that whatever the other merits of the projects that the panels for the Foz do Douro Metamorphic Complex trail (on a popular beach at Porto, Portugal), the ‘Hundred Masterpieces’ (Bavaria, Germany) (Lagally and Loth, 2017) and the BarbertonMakhonjwa Trail (South Africa) were not tested (i.e. through formative evaluation) on the general public ‘normal’ people as the latter do not use geologists’ special jargon present in these panels. It is also probably fair to suggest that Brazilians are very patient people as many panels in that country appear to have a booklet’s, or a scientific paper’s, worth of information on each enormous panel. An example is online for Ilha do Mel (Anon, n.d.) and another for the Dunas do P´ero is illustrated in Mansur and Carvalho (2011).

LOOK AT ME! That is what your panel should shout at passers-by: LOOK AT ME! And once you have them ‘hooked’ you can layer your text so they read further (Fig. 15.2). But to get them to stop and look, rather than just walk by, you need either a provocative sentence (see Tilden, 1957) or a great image. Yes, of course some people read ALL the material on site but evaluation will show these people are the exception. Far commoner are ‘streakers’ (Ham, 2013) who spend less than 6 seconds looking at a panel. Labelling visitors as ‘streakers’ betrays the mindset of the labeller: maybe many of the ‘streakers’ do not want any panels cluttering a site and it is up to the interpreter to be sensitive to this viewpoint by using local materials and a panel’s overall colour (as in Fig. 15.2) which matches the environment (so the panel is not shouting LOOK AT ME! in glaring red in a meadow or lime-green in a desert). To avoid the problem of interpretive clutter the Forestry Commission in Scotland produced small panels hinged inside posts (tree-stumps) so that after being read and released the panel naturally swung back down inside the post. There is no requirement that panels have to be boring. But they often are. Great slabs of text. Often rectangular. Images, often rectangular. Design-free zones. In contrast to over-wordy panels a panel at a lookout above the Grand Canyon has no image and just six lines of mid-tone text on a dark background: ONE MINUTE / DON’T READ / DON’T TALK / NO PHOTOS / JUST LOOK / . . . AND SEE.

PICK ME UP! PICK ME UP! Most leaflets are DL format i.e., A4 size landscape folded in three. They sit in great ranks in the dispensers in visitor centres, tourist information centres, hotels, B&Bs, museums, etc. and most just sit and sit so what has your leaflet got that will encourage casual visitors to pick it up? Remember that only the top part of the front cover is usually visible. Maybe it has a distinctive and attractive logo effectively the branding of the geopark or other source and people will have already enjoyed another leaflet so there is recognition. But usually visitors just scan the rows of leaflets and pick up ones that attract them, either because they want to visit that place or because

GUIDED WALKS? THEY ARE SO EXPENSIVE!

281

the leaflet the top 1/3 of it attracts them. So a few carefully chosen, provocative (back to Tilden!) words are needed. And, usually a good image. If they pick up your leaflet, you are winning! So long as they do not instantly put the leaflet back you have lost! they next turn the leaflet over to look at the back. Is it attractive too? A few interesting (provocative?) words? A simple, clear map so they can find the site or the start of the trail. Maybe your leaflet has a cut-out top in an interesting shape a Stegosaurus back (if that is relevant) but all cut-outs increase the cost appreciably. Trail leaflets are often A3, folded in half then in three to get to DL. Most dispensers in visitor centres and tourist information centres either take DL or A5 so it is best just to use these sizes. Both sides of a provocative flyer (DL size) are shown as Figs. 15.1 and 15.3. A front cover image of people maybe a family enjoying the geoheritage will help your leaflet to get picked up. And possibly include action words i.e.‘Come and Explore life in an ancient forest!’ rather than ‘XYZ Fossil Forest’ (or even worse ‘The geodiversity of XYZ’). Leaflets should also have links to other media so people can find out more, if they wish to.

RECONSTRUCTIONS OR ONE PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS Reconstructions can be in 2D or 3D and except in very exceptional circumstances are based on fragmental evidence. Probably the oldest 2D reconstruction is ‘Duria Antiquior’, or ‘A more ancient Dorset’, a watercolour painted by Henry De la Beche in 1830, showing all the vertebrates known at that time from the Lower Jurassic of Dorset, England, an area which is now part of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage site. Some years after De la Beche, and a few years before Charles Darwin finally published On the Origin of Species, the first true-scale dinosaur reconstructions went on display in 1854 at Crystal Palace in London. Both ‘Duria Antiquior’ and the Crystal Palace reconstructions (more than just dinosaurs) showed the best scientific interpretations of their time, i.e. they were done with scientific integrity. Modern reconstructions, done with scientific integrity, will take ‘normal’ people to places and times their bodies will never be able to visit. But they will also let your knowledgeable visitors gain information that it might take more than a thousand words, and some of that jargon, to convey. There are many artists working with geologists to produce lively, accurate illustrations including John Sibbick, Bob Nicholls (as Paleocreations), Petr Modlitba, Maggie Newman (in the 35th IGC souvenir volume, Anhaeusser et al., 2016), Anderson Yang and others (Hou, 2000), and Esther van Hulsen (Horum et al., 2012, 2015). See also Fig. 15.1 for part of a reconstruction of a Lower Carboniferous shallow sea in the United Kingdom, created by Brin Edwards after being briefed by the current author (the draft was checked by 15 palaeontologists, each an expert in their field).

GUIDED WALKS? THEY ARE SO EXPENSIVE! Expensive? Not for the visitors, usually. But on staff time. You need a (good) leader, someone to bring up the rear, someone needs to have first aid capability, and if you try to charge too much very

282

CHAPTER 15 GEOHERITAGE

few people will come. So they are not a money-spinner. But what they are is a wonderful chance to find out from an admittedly self-selected group what they like, or do not like, about what you offer. Do they find the language off-putting? The toilets? The lack of a caf´e or parking? Too many or too few panels? And you can find out what they want to know, what they know already and what other things they would like you to do. Of course it is harder to question all the other people the vast majority who did not come on the walk. But maybe you can find that out by other ways. Possibly even by asking the nearest tourist information centre staff to mention the forthcoming walk and see the reaction. Or by having a stall in the nearest town centre on a Saturday. A good guided walk leader keeps it simple, recruits any children as assistants, makes frequent short stops, does not start talking to the group until everyone is present and then talks facing the group. And speaks loud enough because not everyone’s hearing is good and the wind will carry words away. Leading guided walks well is a skill that needs to be learnt, and possibly watching acknowledged experts such as Angus Miller (of ‘Geowalks’, based in Scotland) and Asier Hilario (in the Basque Coast UNESCO Global Geopark) is more fruitful than attending a day-school. And if your organisation asks human guides to read from a script maybe you should be using robots, an audio-guide or panels.

VISITOR CENTRES AND MUSEUMS Politicians love visitor centres: they will help you get the money to build and set them up, and enjoy the photo-opportunity on opening day. Then be rather scarce when revenue is low, running costs are high, things need repairing and finally the whole place needs an expensive make-over and there is no money. So another visitor centre shuts. So how do you get over this oftenrepeated tale? One way is not to have a physical visitor centre at all even if you get a yellow card from an organisation to which you belong. Better to have a few Local Information Points (LIPs) instead, in cafes, shops, museums, libraries, even outdoors. . . but you need to check the information point looks attractive and up-to-date (no advertisements for the previous year’s guided walks). North West Highlands UNESCO Global Geopark calls its LIPs Geopods places out in the country with a good mobile signal and a view, where people will stop to pick up messages on their phones and be able to get a message about the local geology too! And a trail to follow. As well as the LIPs, it is good to have a lot of material on-line, including information about the location of the LIPs! But there is still a dilemma for geotouristic areas in poor regions because both visitors, and locals, expect a physical presence: the solution used by the North West Highlands Global Geopark is to have a small visitor centre plus office plus shop plus caf´e in a leased building, the ‘Rock Stop’. Visitor centres should have a clear route through them for visitors, starting at the main entrance. And alternating busy and quiet areas, with plenty of interactivity for children (and adults). You can invite them to come on a journey of discovery through time and space, with ‘sacrificial’ specimens to touch and pick up: ‘You are touching the real shell of an animal which swam in a warm tropical sea 200 million years ago. That’s the closest you will ever come to the live animal’. And further down the gallery: ‘You are touching a genuine dinosaur egg. Dinosaurs made nests and at least

TIME LINES, GEOLOGICAL GARDENS, ROCKY MAPS

283

some were very protective of their eggs and babies. You wouldn’t want to get any closer to the owner of this egg!’ Surveys have shown (e.g. by the Beamish Museum, UK: personal communication) that visitors want a warm welcome but they also want authentic materials, not computer screens. They want to see real fossils, real rocks, and real machines: not just plaster or resin casts, and material on screens. Geologists can show people very old rocks or very young rocks, maybe from a volcanic eruption the previous week. Very light rocks (pumice) to lift or very heavy rocks (ores). Real fossils, mummified dinosaur skin. Object-rich. Microscopes to use. But, of course, also backed up by video, images, etc. The Air and Space Museum, part of the Smithsonian in Washington DC, used to have a queue of visitors near its entrance wanting to touch Mars, a slice of Martian meteorite. Nowadays (2017) you can only touch the Moon. . . but many, many people write on TripAdvisor that they touched the Moon! An authentic experience. A thought-provoking book on visitor centres (Interpretive Centers) was published in 2002 (Gross and Zimmerman, 2002) which may seem a long time ago because of the rate of technological change but even if the latest technology does not make an appearance everyone planning a centre should not only read it but use it to plan the ‘why?’, the ‘who?’ and the ‘what?’ Why are we planning this centre, who is it for (and what do they want) and what is significant about this site. There are an enormous number of illustrations, including some showing the evolution of centres.

TIME LINES, GEOLOGICAL GARDENS, ROCKY MAPS AND WALLS AND STRATIGRAPHIC SECTIONS Time lines and geological ‘gardens’ where rocks often take the place of plants are very common, and range from ones giving messages about geodiversity and geoheritage appropriate to ‘normal’ people to those which ‘normal’ people might regard as just weird: why would you want to ‘plant’ grey rocks instead of colourful plants, and then match these grey rocks with information boards of impenetrable jargon-rich text? Sometimes industry has generously provided large samples of geodiverse rocks but the communication of these has been in the hands of noncommunicators. An example of where industry, communicators and a government agency came together successfully was the G´eodrome, a 1-ha site with 800 tonnes of rock donated by industry at a motorway services (Aire de Gidry) beside the A10 motorway in France. The G´eodrome closed in 2000 because of lack of funding to pay for running costs and that is a lesson in itself. You can still visit the G´eodrome, virtually, on Google Earth. Smaller geological maps made of relevant specimens can be found in museums, parks, anywhere e.g. in the courtyard of the Croatian Museum of Natural History in Zagreb. The Museum of Scotland organised a particularly good scheme involving school pupils to help produce a 4 3 2.5 m map by collecting their local rock (Miller, 2004). A total of 2800 pupils took part and the map even visited the Scottish Parliament so adding politicians to the audience. Geological walls, and indeed pavements, constructed from local rocks are another way to illustrate geoheritage. At Witch Crag near Edinburgh different local erratics have been used to construct a sheepfold in the local style (with the addition of a seat for visitors!). In 2000 both the geoheritage and cultural heritage of the United Kingdom was displayed in the Millennium Wall at the National

284

CHAPTER 15 GEOHERITAGE

Stone Centre (www.nationalstonecentre.org.uk, accessed 28.08.17): this meandering wall has different sections of dry stone walling (i.e. without mortar or cement) built in the local style of 19 different areas of the United Kingdom, with the local stone of the area. Stratigraphic columns, constructed of the local rocks, are a useful way to explain the local geology. Finally, there are geological time lines. At the headquarters of the British Geological Survey, there is a Geological Walk, with large samples and paving in the correct stratigraphic order, though not to scale (British Geological Survey, 2015). Interactive information is also available by smartphone. A much longer timeline, to scale, is the Trail of Time, opened in 2010 at the south rim of the Grand Canyon in Arizona, USA. The trail (www.trailoftime.org, accessed 28.08.17) is 4560 metres long, so one metre (‘one long step’) for each million years, though the focus is on the mere 2 billion years of the history of the Grand Canyon. At several ‘stops’ on the trail there are viewing tubes so not only can you see the rock sample beside you but also the outcrop in the canyon wall.

LAND ART

AND ECOVANDALISM?

Interpretation can be nonverbal: music or painting or sculpture, for example. Maybe you would prefer to call this awareness-raising rather than interpretation? Music such as Ferde Grof´e’s Grand Canyon Suite and the Fossils from Saint-Sae¨ns’s Carnival of Animals evoke very contrasting images. As for sculpture, Andy Goldsworthy is well-known for using natural materials for structures in the landscape: there are several in the Haute-Provence UNESCO Global Geopark. Along the banks of the River Eden in northern England are a series of ‘Eden Benchmarks’, seats by different sculptors carved out of different stones, each sculpture being carved out of the stone quarried nearest its riverbank location. A roundabout in Arouca UNESCO Global Geopark in Portugal has giant metal trilobites: the real trilobites are rather large too! In many places in the world natural gongs are present: ‘ringing rocks’, stones that ring when struck (not all are composed of phonolite, whose name indicates its most significant property). Rocks have also been quarried and shaped to make lithophones, e.g. in Vietnam and the Lake District, England. But where does stone-balancing fit in? Maybe it does not? Some people regard it as art and would claim the right to balance rocks wherever they have legal access to, with a result that some beaches, river sides, hillsides, etc. are littered with balanced piles of stones. Historically stone cairns have been used as waymarks in remote areas: these are often particularly useful in poor conditions. But these are not piles of carefully balanced stones. Many would say to leave no evidence of your passing i.e ‘leave nothing but footprints’. In places stone balancing involves disturbing natural habitat, in others disturbing archaeology. In the latter category is the Neolithic Stowe’s Pound, a large enclosure of loose stones on a hilltop in Cornwall, UK, which has survived for 5000 years but now sprouts piles of balanced stones along its formerly even crest. Displacing stones to balance them disturbs the habitats of slow-growing lower plants and also creatures that live on, below or between the stones. The National Park Service in the United States regards stone-balancing in the parks as ecovandalism, nothing less: ‘leave nothing but footprints’.

NEW, AND NOT SO NEW, MEDIA

285

NEW, AND NOT SO NEW, MEDIA Putting up an interpretation board at a site is relatively cheap, producing a leaflet is relatively cheap, owning a domain is very cheap and putting up information on the website can cost nothing but time (especially if you use open source software such as WordPress) but make sure your web design is ‘responsive’ (i.e. it will display well on laptops, tablets, monitors and mobile phone screens of whatever size). You need to use appropriate keywords, based on what is there, of course, but also on the search terms people put into Google and other search engines. So long as you keep the site fresh, browsers’ algorithms will find it, though many people do not look beyond the first page of results. Keeping it fresh will involve frequently adding events, images, educational materials, podcasts, blog posts and, of course, pdf versions of the board and leaflet. There has to be a note of warning here in that it is easy to extract images from a pdf so, firstly, you need to ask all copyright holders the image creators for their consent for their work to go on-line. So long as the pdf is ‘lo res’ low resolution there will probably be no problem and no request for an enhanced fee for any images you bought (and what you will have probably paid is a ‘one-off user fee’). Under no circumstances trust to luck and post other people’s words and images without permission. In the United Kingdom the wronged creator can only legally ask for lost fees but photolibraries will demand, with menaces, much, much more. Beyond a website, with lots of links in both directions, there are many other types of social media you can use. But what is your target audience? Age? Sex? Nearly-up-to-date data for the changing use for different media is available on line (e.g. through Global Web Index). Twitter? YouTube? Vimeo? Pinterest? Instagram? Viber? Tumblr? Snapchat? Facebook? Etc.! Do you need several twitter accounts for different audiences (e.g. the Natural History Museum in London has @NHM as well as @NHM_FossilFish, @NHM_Meteorites, etc.). What is your message? And have you time to keep lots of social media going: there are many abandoned twitter accounts and out-of-date websites and other dross. Whatever you do, use the analytics to see what is working, and what is not. Facebook, e.g., offers ‘Insights’. For websites tracking software helps and you can see which countries your hits are coming from and develop the website appropriately. So far there has been little cost apart from time but making apps, augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) (see Cayla, 2014) involves information technology skills which may not be available in house. Yes, you can make GPS-based trails using free apps but for more sophisticated material for Android or iOS which will be available globally for download you will probably need to buy in skills, but make sure you own the resulting software and can use it for other sites. And make sure whatever you produce is ‘cross-platform’, i.e. it will work on both Android and iOS. Much of the work on apps, AR and VR is being done by groups of geoparks at the present time (2017), using large grants. An example is the ‘Drifting Apart’ project (www.driftingapart.ccght.org, accessed 28.08.17) the name comes from the fact that the participants are drifting slowly apart on either side of the Atlantic: Magma UNESCO Global Geopark in Norway has been developing geoVR which is now being spread wider. For AR, Odsherred UNESCO Global Geopark (www.geoparkodsherred.dk, accessed 28.08.17) already has a free downloadable programme where you can point your smartphone at different sites and see reconstructions of them at four different times, with further development in progress.

286

CHAPTER 15 GEOHERITAGE

Digital tools allow modern day visitors to go where their bodies can never go in time and space: one present-day space they may not be able to visit physically, for reasons of conservation or physical inaccessibility, is underground cave systems so visiting digitally is the only option (Hoblea et al., 2014). These developments by geoparks match the Arouca Declaration on geotourism, presented in Arouca UNESCO Global Geopark (Arouca Declaration, 2011), which includes ‘Appreciation of geological heritage should try to break new ground and prioritise the use of new technology over the use of traditional information posters.’ As more work is done the price will fall, allowing smaller groups to profit. But for all media for the public the rule is the same as for the traditional boards and leaflets: keep the message short, keep it simple and avoid jargon.

FINAL REMARKS This chapter has been written as a nonlinear piece of information/interpretation. Some of the section headings are provocative, inviting a reaction so they provoke, to use Tilden’s mantra. Other headings are factual. If you have quickly scanned this paper did the provocative headings make you want to stop and read that section? Maybe not! Which ‘provocative’ ones could you improve? Maybe you would never use some of the provocative headings? Part of one heading will have confused, rather than provoked, most readers: ‘EXTERMINATE. . .’ is a quotation from Dr Who, a British TV sci-fi series. Using a quotation known to such a restricted audience will have a similar effect to using geological jargon i.e. restrict the number of people we can communicate with. Did the section heading ‘Reconstructions’ get your pulse racing? Would a panel labelled ‘Reconstructions’ make a passer-by stop passing by? The passer-by might indeed stop to look at an excellent reconstruction, but we should be maximising effective use of both words and images. So for a reconstruction of a clear Lower Carboniferous sea (Fig. 15.1) we might write: ‘Can you see any corals?’ The sections have been written to be, broadly, free-standing just like an interpretation panel, an exhibition label, a video, a tweet and a poster will normally be: usually we cannot control the order a user sees these. Indeed, if you watch visitors to an exhibition they dive in and out (this is the basis of evaluation by ‘tracking’, as has been mentioned earlier). Some of the information in the chapter is repeated: how much repetition reinforcement do we need to give in interpretation of geoheritage? Can we just throw an alien, mind-blowing, geological concept at a normal person and expect them to grasp it just from meeting it once to understand it, and build on it to understand other material in our visitor centre/trail/booklet/. . .? University lecturers do not expect all students to grasp topics the first time! There are few illustrations in this chapter: they were squeezed out because the author wrote too many words just as we often do with panels, leaflets, booklets, audio-guides, etc. Interpretation should be visually appealing, even if publications such as this chapter often are not. But images of many of the works mentioned will be found on-line, and many are on the author’s website (at www.earthwords.co.uk/, accessed 28.08.17). Books by Mike Gross and coworkers are usually lavishly illustrated with examples of good interpretation so are a useful resource for ideas.

REFERENCES

287

Geoheritage: getting the message across. What message and to whom? The quick answers are (1) make sure you are providing the answers to people’s questions, keep it simple, but provide ways for people who want to know more, and (2) try to make the information suitable for several target audiences, using a range of media . . . and try to engage them so they are on your side in enjoying and wanting to protect the geoheritage you value so much. And if you don’t value it with passion maybe you should be in a different job?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank first the Royal Society and the British Association which funded me to attend a National Park Service interpreters’ school in 1999, and to visit many national parks, monuments and reserves in the United States and across Europe. Next I must thank the people who have inspired me and those who have invited me to give workshops, keynotes and other happenings where I am one step away from falling off the stage, or the mountain, and all the participants and others who have ‘provoked’ me (in the nicest possible way!). Finally, thanks to the editors for the invitation to contribute, and for accepting an unusual contribution to a scientific publication (to reinforce the message that visitors often access information in a random order the sections in this chapter are not numbered), and to colleagues and reviewers for improving this chapter. Thank you.

REFERENCES Anhaeusser, C.R., Viljoen, M.J., Viljoen, R.P. (Eds.), 2016. Africa’s Top Geological Sites. Struik Nature, Cape Town. Anon, n.d. Ilha do Mel. Available from: ,http://www.mineropar.pr.gov.br/arquivos/File/Paineis_geologicos/ IlhadoMel_ingles.pdf. (accessed 28.08.17). Arouca Declaration, 2011. International Congress of Geotourism Arouca 2011. Available from: ,http://europeangeoparks.org/?p5223. (accessed 28.08.17). British Geological Survey, 2015. The BGS Geological Walk. Available from: ,http://www.bgs.ac.uk/contacts/ sites/keyworth/geologicalWalk/home.html. (accessed 28.08.17). Cayla, N., 2014. An overview of new technologies applied to the management of geoheritage. Geoheritage 6 (2), 91 102. Darwin, C., 1859. On the Origin of Species. Murray, London. Gibson, H., Stewart, I.S., Pahl, S., Stokes, A., 2016. A “mental models” approach to the communication of subsurface hydrology & hazards. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 1737 1749. Gross, M., Zimmerman, R., 2002. Interpretive Centers. The History, Design, and Development of Nature and Visitor Centers. UW-SP Foundation Press Inc., Stevens Point, WI. Gross, M., Zimmerman, R., Bucholz, J., 2006. Signs, Trails, and Wayside Exhibits. UW-SP Foundation Press Inc., Stevens Point, WI. Ham, S.H., 2013. Interpretation: Making a Difference on Purpose. Fulcrum Press, Golden, CO. Hoblea, F., Delannoy, J.J., Jaillet, S., Ployon, E., Sadier, B., 2014. Digital tools for managing and promoting karst geosites in Southeast France. Geoheritage 6, 113 127. Horum, J., Helleve, T., van Hulsen, E., 2012. Monsterøglene pa˚ Svalbard. Cappelen Damm, Norway (in Norwegian). Horum, J., Helleve, T., van Hulsen, E., 2015. Sjøskorpionen pa˚ Ringerike. Cappelen Damm, Norway (in Norwegian).

288

CHAPTER 15 GEOHERITAGE

Hou, L., 2000. Picture Book of Chinese Fossil Birds. Yunnan Science and Technology Press, Kunming. Howard, P., 2003. Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity. Continuum, London. Lackovi´c, D., 2008. Droplets and the Stone. Croatian Natural History Museum, Zagreb. Available from: ,http://speleologija.eu/kapljicaikamen/en-index.html. (accessed 28.08.17). Lagally, U., Loth, G., 2017. Experiencing Bavaria‘s Geological Heritage the Project “Hundred Masterpieces”. Geoheritage 9, 519 531. Lima, A., Nunes, J.C., Brilha, J., 2017. Monitoring of the Visitors Impact at “Ponta Ferraria e Pico das Camarinhas” Geosite (Sa˜o Miguel Island, Azores UNESCO Global Geopark, Portugal). Geoheritage 9, 495 503. Macadam, J., Lackovi´c, D., 2010. Communicating Earth heritage to all: using cartoons in leaflets, books and panels to attract and inform people of all ages. In: Mu¨gge-Bartolovic, V., Ro¨hling, H.G., Wrede, V. (Eds.), GeoTop 2010. Geosites for the Public. Paleontology and Conservation of Geosites. Schriftenreihe der Deutschen Gesellschaft fu¨r Geowissenschaften 66, p. 70. Mansur, K.L., Carvalho, I.S., 2011. Characterization and valuation of the geological heritage identified in the Pero Dune Field, State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Geoheritage 3, 97 115. Miller, S., 2004. A geological giant. Earth Heritage 19, 21 22. NEI, 2015. Facts About Color Blindness. Available from: ,https://nei.nih.gov/health/color_blindness/ facts_about. (accessed 28.08.17). NSF (National Science Foundation), 2012. Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Available from: ,https:// www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/. (accessed 28.08.17). Oki Islands Global Geopark Promotion Committee, 2014. Available from: ,http://www.oki-geopark.jp/ pamphlets/uploads/manga_OIGP_en.pdf. (accessed 25.05.17). Pica, A., Reynard, E., Grangier, L., Kaiser, C., Ghiraldi, L., Perotti, L., et al., 2017. GeoGuides, urban geotourism offer powered by mobile application technology. Geoheritage. doi:10.1007/s12371-017-0237-0. Regnier, K., Gross, M., Zimmerman, R., 1992. The Interpreter’s Handbook. UW-SP Foundation Press Inc., Stevens Point, WI. Robinson, E., Litherland, M., 1996. Holiday Geology Guide: Trafalgar Square. British Geology Survey, Keyworth. Strathspey Surveys, 2006. Evaluation of effectiveness of interpretation at six visitor centres Knockan Crag. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 186 (Part 2 of 7). Available from: ,http://www.snh. org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/ReportNo186_PART2.pdf. (accessed 28.08.17). Stewart, I.S., Nield, T., 2013. Earth stories: context and narrative in the communication of popular geoscience. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124 (4), 699 712. Synesthesia, 2014. TOURinSTONE. IoS and Android app (accessed 28.08.17). Tilden, F., 1957. Interpreting our Heritage. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. UNESCO, 2016. UNESCO Global Geoparks. UNESCO, Paris. Available from: ,http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0024/002436/243650e.pdf. (accessed 28.08.17). Veverka, J.A., 2014. Advanced Interpretive Planning. MuseumsEtc, Edinburgh, UK and Cambridge, USA. Veverka, J.A., 2015a. The Interpretive Trails Book. MuseumsEtc, Edinburgh, UK and Cambridge, USA. Veverka, J.A., 2015b. Interpretive Master Planning. MuseumsEtc, Edinburgh, UK and Cambridge, USA. Wallace, M., 2014. Writing for Museums. Rowman & Littlefield, London. Wimbledon, W.A.P., Smith-Meyer, S. (Eds.), 2012. Geoheritage in Europe and Its Conservation. ProGEO, Oslo. Zehr, J., Gross, M., Zimmerman, R., 1991. Creating Environmental Publications. UW-SP Foundation Press Inc. Stevens Point, WI.

CHAPTER

DIGITAL GEOVISUALISATION TECHNOLOGIES APPLIED TO GEOHERITAGE MANAGEMENT

16

Nathalie Cayla1 and Simon Martin2 1

2

´ University Savoie Mont Blanc, Le Bourget-du-Lac, France Bureau d’etude Relief, Aigle, Switzerland

16.1 INTRODUCTION A considerable amount of literature reflects the increasing development of digital tools applied to the management of cultural heritage (Mac Donald, 2006; Stanco et al., 2011). A new discipline called ‘virtual heritage’, which aims to digitise and produce virtual models of heritage, is born gathering a great community of stakeholders together, including scientists and professionals of museography (Cameron and Kenderdine, 2007; Champion, 2011; Tan and Rahaman, 2009). The efficiency of high-resolution digitisers coupled with the emergence of new softwares has allowed the development of innovative practices at each stage of the heritage management process. During recent years, numerous projects using new technologies have been developed in the field of geoheritage (Brilha et al., 1999; Cayla, 2014; Leonov, 2012; Martin, 2014). They respond to some of the features of geoheritage: inaccessibility of particularly deep caves, seasonal disappearance of geosites under snow or water, remoteness of isolated islands, vulnerability of palaeontological sites, hazards related to some volcanoes, meteorological variability of sightseeing (e.g., when the fog invades the Grand Canyon). Beyond the importance of digital tools for geosite management, the development of geovisualisation also offers new opportunities in geointerpretation (Giardino et al., 2014; Lansigu et al., 2014). This chapter aims to present how digital technologies can be used for geoconservation and geointerpretation. Several examples are presented and various issues are discussed: data acquisition, interactivity and the ‘sense of place’ given by virtual environments.

16.2 THE VISUALISATION OF GEOHERITAGE: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES While a large amount of digital data (visual, dimensional, locational or environmental) can be recorded to monitor heritage (Santana-Quintero and Addison, 2007), the emergence of virtual visualisation has

Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00016-2 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

289

290

CHAPTER 16 DIGITAL GEOVISUALISATION TECHNOLOGIES

FIGURE 16.1 From geoheritage to virtual models: uses of geovisualisation in geoheritage management.

experienced the greatest development in recent years. The effectiveness of the visual representation of information is based on the discriminative abilities of the human eye as well as the performance of the human brain in the analysis and interpretation of visual data (Martin, 2013). Geovisualisation is useful at different stages of geoheritage management: scientific research, assessment, conservation and monitoring, visitor flow management and geointerpretation. The analysis of geovisualisation displays used in sites inscribed on the UNESCO’s World Heritage List under criteria (vii) and/or (viii) (see Migo´n, 2018) or included in the UNESCO Global Geoparks (Brilha, 2018) reveals numerous practices for geoheritage interpretation. At each step of the process (digitising, interfacing with digital data, use scenarios), various tools can be used depending on the financial and technical resources available (Fig. 16.1). In parallel to the growth of digital data concerning geoheritage and their worldwide access, new problems emerge. The production costs and their uses exclude a large number of people, while allowing new users, such as disabled people, to expand their horizons and experiences. Data reliability and longevity as well as the quick technology obsolescence must be considered at the beginning of each project to ensure a good durability of all this information. Sharing rights, meta-data, online or offline accessibility guarantee the best uses of these products (Addison, 2007).

16.3 VISUALISATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT AND SITE MONITORING

291

16.3 VISUALISATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT AND SITE MONITORING Cutting-edge geovisualisation using high-resolution images or 3D representation techniques allow the acquisition of accurate digital models appropriate for geosite monitoring. These virtual models can be used to prevent vulnerability of both geotourists and geosites as shown in the following examples.

16.3.1 HIGH-RESOLUTION IMAGING IN YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK Rockfalls are a serious natural hazard in Yosemite National Park (USA). Between 1857 and 2011, they have been responsible for the death of 15 people and the event of 2008 severely damaged Curry village, at the foot of Glacier Point (Stock et al., 2013; Wieczorek and Snyder, 2004; Wieczorek et al., 2008). In order to prevent any damage to the four million people visiting the park each year, a project of rockfall monitoring was initiated in 2006. The diachronic acquisition of high-resolution data is used to spot natural events, quantify their importance and above all predict new phenomena (Lato et al., 2012; Rabatel et al., 2008). Airborne and terrestrial laserscan campaigns produce accurate 3D models, allowing the quantification of rock’s detachment volume. In 2007, an original imaging project began with the help of the X-Rez studio, a creative imaging and visual effects production company (Stock et al., 2011). Its purpose was the acquisition of high-resolution panorama images of the Yosemite Valley wall faces. To unify the lighting of the final gigapans, 20 teams took simultaneously, from different locations in the valley, 10,000 high-resolution digital photographs with a motion-controlled camera tripod. The resulting shots were then stitched together using PTGuit software. Twenty overlapping gigapixel panoramas were produced ranging from 65,000 to 120,000 pixels in horizontal. The global panorama, sourced from a 150,000 pixel render from Maya 3D animation software and Mental Ray (Nvidia), resulted in a view of the north wall of Yosemite’s Valley displaying cliff details from the Rockslides (left) to Snow Creek (right), for a total distance of approximately eight terrestrial miles (12.9 km), which represents printed at full resolution a panorama of more than 50 ft in length (15.4 m). The use of the plug-in Silverlight (Microsoft), unfortunately recently abandoned by Microsoft, offers fast and smooth zooming in the high-resolution panorama (www.xrez.com/yose_proj/Yose_index.html, accessed 10.08.17) (Fig. 16.2). The gigapixel Silverlight page of project results gives the opportunity for numerous unexpected developments. Firstly, as the main purpose of the initial project the high-resolution basemap image of the valley was to monitor rockfall activity by comparing diachronic data, many other uses were developed: the park’s wildlife biologists tried to identify potential peregrine falcon habitat while search-and-rescue personnel assessed detailed inspections of an area before beginning rescue operations; moreover, as the images are accessible via the internet, recreational climbers use them to identify potential climbing routes. Gigapixel panoramic photographs are an emerging cheap solution with widespread potentials for applications in geoheritage management. The difficulty of spatial scale perception can be partly solved by the combination of high-resolution panoramas with interactive displays. Distant views offer a comprehensive appreciation of the landscape whereas detailed zooms are necessary to understand geological and geomorphological features. Zooming in the landscape model reproduces both the trip of a backpacker and that of a geoscientist, but the complexity of landscape

292

CHAPTER 16 DIGITAL GEOVISUALISATION TECHNOLOGIES

FIGURE 16.2 Gigapan of Yosemite Valley wall faces for rockfall monitoring. Adapted from www.xrez.com/yose_proj/Yose_index.html, accessed 10.08.17.

interpretation needs interpretive interfaces to identify what and where the information is important to understand the geological background of the landscape. The GlacierWorks project, which aims to raise awareness about the impacts of climate change in the Himalayas, has produced such interpretive solutions using Rich Interactive Narrative creating experiences (Datha et al., 2012).

16.3.2 3D MODELS OF THE VALLEY OF GEYSERS IN KAMCHATKA The Valley of Geysers, located in the Volcanoes of Kamchatka World Heritage site (Russia), is one of the largest geyser fields in the world. Because of the remote location and the limited helicopter access, only 2000 3000 tourists per year visit this area included in the Kronotskiy reserve (ErfurtCooper, 2010; Gaudru, 2010). In 2007 half of all the geysers were buried by a landslide or flooded because of the lake formed by the landslide dam. To analyse the landslide hazard and forecast new events a virtual model was created. Educational goals were also associated with the scientific purpose of the project (Leonov et al., 2010). A realistic virtual model of the valley, covering more than 200 km2, was realised based on highresolution satellite imagery (CartoSat-1 with 2.5 m GSD and GeoEye-1 with 0.5 m GSD). Then, the model was accurately referenced in WGS-84 system with field GPS-measurements. A large database was constituted for each georeferenced object (geysers, springs, mudpots, waterfalls, etc.) with actual and archive photos, panoramas, 2D and 3D videos and vector models. More than 7 hours of stereo videos were filmed and used for presenting the main geosites of the valley. The virtual environment allows the visualisation of scientific data, as local seismic activity, or thermic data; they can be used for geodynamic process modelling or scientific analysis and monitoring. Thus, the landslide of 2007 was reconstructed based on digital elevation model, landslide modelling and expert estimates. In parallel, two educational representations were developed: one for the museum of the Kronotskiy reserve and the other for a worldwide web access (Fig. 16.3). In order to provide a good immersive effect, the virtual environment presented at the museum of the Kronotskiy reserve uses high-resolution terrain data, which requires a dedicated web server to provide a high-quality

16.3 VISUALISATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT AND SITE MONITORING

293

FIGURE 16.3 Virtual model of the valley of Geysers. Adapted from www.valleyofgeysers.com, accessed 10.08.17.

3D-mouse-enabled navigation experience. A website of the virtual Valley of Geysers was developed using Google Earth client software. Several data layers were created to access the geosites, georeferenced photos or satellite images with web dynamic controls developed in JavaScript. A part of the data, photos or video files, were stored in open access servers such as YouTube or Picasa. The landslide animation file uses 2D polygons representing landslide position every 1.5 second, allowing interactivity using the TimeSpace pan (www.valleyofgeysers.com, accessed 10.08.17). Human activities and natural processes can put geoheritage at risk. Numerous geosites have already been destroyed by erosion (e.g., London arch, Australia), modified due to climate change (e.g., Chacaltaya glacier, Bolivia) or flooded by dam construction (e.g., loss of the upper Rhone River, France) (Cayla et al., 2015). The creation of virtual models is a way of keeping a digital archive of vulnerable sites, which raises a new difficulty, that of the conservation of these digital data.

294

CHAPTER 16 DIGITAL GEOVISUALISATION TECHNOLOGIES

16.4 VISUALISATION FOR GEOTOURISM AND GEOINTERPRETATION The development of geotourism needs innovative tools to enhance geosite’s interpretation (see Macadam, 2018). In this context, the use of new technologies has become essential with great heterogeneity according to the touristic importance of the geosite.

16.4.1 3D MODEL FOR PREHISTORIC CAVE REPLICAS Shortly after the discovery of the Chauvet-Pont d’Arc cave, France, in December 1994, the creation of a replica was decided to allow the general public to contemplate the outstanding cave heritage, that shelters parietal paintings from the Upper Palaeolithic (36,000 years BP) (Sadier et al., 2012). The great size of the cave (more than 8400 m2) did not allow performing an in extenso model. For this reason, an original solution was developed using 3D modelling. The need for protection of the cave and its important touristic interest explain why nearly h50 million were invested in the accurate restoration of underground geomorphological landscapes, essential to understanding the distribution of the Palaeolithic paintings (Malgat et al., 2012). It was challenging to reproduce the 8400 m2 cave in a space restricted to just 3000 m2 and, at the same time, maintain the perception of the original volumes of the cave. The anamorphosis a mathematical method reproducing an image or a relief by deforming them to play on the viewer’s perception was chosen. Using it, the researchers were able to ‘fold’ the real cavity into a space half the size (Hoblea et al., 2014). In spring 2010, topographic surveys were carried out with a high-precision laserscanner to develop a cloud of about 16 billion points with an average density of one point per mm2. Data acquisition was performed from 243 stations, all along the bridge built into the cave, in order to protect the floor. Similarly, over 6000 digital photographs were taken for a photogrammetric restitution. The most important representative panels were selected and folded to form the fundamental elements of the facsimile, revealing many of ‘empty’ spaces connections. The adjustment of these different parts aimed to create a cavity that had the appearance of the real cave while respecting the geography of parietal representations (Delannoy et al., 2014). In the replica, the light control and the fluctuation of temperature and humidity try to restitute an immersive experience of cave discovery for the visitor (Fig. 16.4). The Pont d’Arc Cavern, replica of the original cave, was inaugurated on 10th April 2015 and welcomed 400,000 tourists during the first 5 months after the opening. In this case, the cultural heritage of Chauvet Cave, acknowledged by the inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List on 22th June 2014, based on criteria (i) and (iii), cannot be separated from the geomorphological characteristics of the geosite. Indeed, long before the discovery of the painted cave, the Pont d’Arc a 30 m natural arch over the River Arde`che was already famous and protected since 1982. This spectacular rockbridge at the entrance of the Arde`che gorges is certainly a key point which explains why the prehistoric painters chose this emplacement.

16.4.2 THE COLLECTION OF MOBILE APPLICATIONS GEOGUIDE Regarding their growing number, mobile apps seem to be an interesting tool to support guided tours and tourism information (Kenteris et al., 2011). In 2013, the University of Lausanne launched a collection of mobile apps called GeoGuide (www.igd.unil.ch/geoguide/fr/, accessed 10.08.17; Pica et al., 2017; Reynard et al., 2015). GeoGuides are multiplatform web applications that can be

16.4 VISUALISATION FOR GEOTOURISM AND GEOINTERPRETATION

295

FIGURE 16.4 Anamorphosis model for the replica of the Chauvet Cave (G. Tosselo, B. Sadier).

used on a great variety of screens, from home computers to smartphones, independently of the operating system. The app includes an interactive map with several points connected to specific content. The GeoGuide app is an adaptive tool suitable for developing interpretive paths in every area, as no internet connection is needed, even for the navigation on the map. Along with interactive maps, different other media have been used, from static photographs to animated views, interactive schemes, quizzes and movies. The first edition was rather static, with a limited use of interactivity. More recently, new versions have been launched, including gamification and interactive visualisation (Fanguin, 2014). Further explorations of the many capabilities of such tools should be lead, not only to increase the interactivity between the user and the tool, but also between the tool and the environment, like augmented reality. The GeoGuide collection now covers five different places, in three countries: Val d’H´erens, Lausanne and Nant in Switzerland, Rome in Italy, and Thonon-les-Bains in France. Several of these apps enhance urban geotourism, offering the opportunity to discover the anthropogenic transformations of cultural landscapes, the origin of building stones or the constraints of physical environment on urban development (Ferrero et al., 2012; Pica et al., 2017). The content of each app varies from a general presentation of the local geography and geology (for nonspecialists and even children) to most advanced interpretive content (for geoamateurs). GeoGuides, thus, exemplify the powerful flexibility of digital tools as a support of interpretive content: they are easy to adapt to various contents or audiences and easy to update, compared to printed supports. Hybrid or augmented reality allows the viewing and interaction in real time with virtual data (sounds, pictures, videos, 3D models, etc.) communicated via mobile or fixed terminals (Aldighieri

296

CHAPTER 16 DIGITAL GEOVISUALISATION TECHNOLOGIES

et al., 2016; Ghiraldi et al., 2014; Guttentag, 2010; Suma and de Cosmo, 2011). Reality remains paramount but is enriched, to a greater or lesser extent, by virtual digital data. The main difficulties encountered when developing such apps is the diversity of mobile devices with their specific graphic performance and the continuing evolution of mobile telephony standards and possibilities.

16.5 DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES IN DIGITAL GEOHERITAGE VISUALISATION Several criteria must be considered when choosing a technical solution for a digital project. The main ones are data acquisition, data treatment and interaction, enduser engagement and feeling with geovisualisation interfaces.

16.5.1 OPEN DATA AND CROWDSOURCING In recent years, heritage institutions such as galleries, libraries, archives or museums have driven a massive digitisation of books, manuscripts and audiovisual materials. Under creative commons license, these open data and open contents can be reused, modified or distributed by anyone thanks to crowdsourcing and web 2.0 (Estermann, 2014). This innovative diffusion model allows the emergence of original ways of data treatment by computational imaging that are useful in the enhancement of geoheritage knowledge or popularisation. Thus, the historical library of the School of Mines, founded in Paris in 1783, started the digitisation of all its archives (www.patrimoine.mines-paristech.fr/, accessed 10.08.17) and offers amateurs the opportunity to enrich the metadata associated with the documents to facilitate their access by internet and the web data mining. Many French geologists have travelled all over the world from the 18th century in search of new mineral resources, collecting a rich iconography, e.g., of disappeared landscapes or sites of geological interest. This worldwide access is an opportunity to document the history of sites that can now be recognised as geoheritage. Numerous official institutions are already involved in such projects (e.g., www2.unil.ch/viatimages/, www.ba.e-pics.ethz.ch, www.rijksmuseum.nl, accessed 10.08.17). In order to deal with the growing importance of digital data and to facilitate web data mining, some of them have come closer to the major actors of social networks. Taking collections to where people are already engaged offers a wider distribution encouraging innovative uses of digital sources (Oomen and Aroyo, 2011). For instance, in 2007, the Library of Congress collaborated with Flickr, a photosharing web 2.0 social network (Colquhoun and Galani, 2013), in the project The Commons, a designated area of Flickr where more than 100 heritage institutions share photographs. The free access to high-resolution historical photographs allows accurate reconstitution of geological phenomena like glacier retreat by monophotogrammetry (or monoplotting) (Scapozza et al., 2014), time-lapse evolution of a geosite (Martin-Brualla et al., 2015a,b) or 3D reconstitution and virtual tour creation by camera mapping of one 2D photograph. Thus, computational photographs can produce high-quality historical geovisualisation displays of geosites.

16.5 DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES

297

Table 16.1 Various Levels and Types of Interactivity Plan View (2D)

Model View (2.5D)

World View (3D)

Navigation

Pan/zoom; specify position

Selection Manipulation

Pointing; query; distance Create; remove; translate; rotate Buffer; overlay; network; proximity

View-point; zoom; centre of interest; flyto Pointing; query; relation Translate; rotate; scale; define relations

Walk-through; virtual guide Pointing Scenarios

Line-of-sight; volumes; proximity (3D)

Sound; sight; shadow

Analysis

16.5.2 THE QUESTION OF INTERACTIVITY Interactivity, which is at the basis of the so-called ‘new technologies’, can be defined as ‘a measure of a media’s potential ability to let the user exert an influence on the content and/or the form of a mediated communication’ (Jensen, 1998). A medium can, therefore, be more or less interactive, and interactivity can extend the capabilities of the classical media such as maps, schemes or photographs. More interactivity allows the user to take control of the media and the communication process: he can, for instance, put the media on or off, like a television. At a higher level, interactivity can be a way to organise complex information, to answer explicitly or implicitly the user’s requests or to offer a virtual experience of a part of the world. Those technological improvements of classical media can upgrade some of their limits, such as information overload, by providing efficient information at each scale of exploration (Martin, 2013). The use of the interactive tools also raises some cognitive problems for the user (Slocum et al., 2001), and designers should carefully fix the limits of the interactivity and lead use tests. The different examples presented above show various levels and types of interactivity (Table 16.1). Most of them only use two types of interactivity (Crampton, 2002): on representation (zoom, pan, scale) and on time dimension (navigation, fly-by, on/off). The user can control the view, but has limited access to the data. With such interactivity, only factual and one-way communication can occur, which can be suitable in some contexts: general overview, massive data transmission (encyclopedia, academic courses), free exploration without defined goal. For more specific purposes, such as site interpretation or environmental education, other types of interactivity should be used. For example, an interactive interface can bring playfulness and guidance (Borsook and Higginbotham-Wheat, 1991; Ghose and Dou, 1998; Ha and James, 1998; Seaborn and Fels, 2015) to nonspecialist users to motivate them to explore the data and to learn from the given information. In every kind of geointerpretation, interactive or not, the user should be given a central place (see Macadam, 2018). The user is himself part of the interactivity (Giardina, 1999). Therefore, well-designed interfaces need to be added to the basic digital data to produce a virtual experience that benefits the user, e.g., in a geopark visitor centre, on a geoeducational website or on a mobile guide.

16.5.3 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND GEOVISUALISATION Geoconservationists widely use maps to represent the geological context, geosite inventories, geodiversity, visitor flows, etc. Mapping has always evolved by adapting to available technology

298

CHAPTER 16 DIGITAL GEOVISUALISATION TECHNOLOGIES

(Cartwright, 1999; Coratza and Regolini-Bissig, 2009). Today, printed maps can be considered as a part of geovisualisation (DiBiase, 1990; MacEachren, 1994), which also includes interactive technologies, multimedia, 3D and virtual environments. The examples of Yosemite and Kamchatka show that geovisualisation tools can be used simultaneously for scientific analysis and for public communication. There is no real opposition but a continuum between both uses (Peterson, 1996). The purpose of geovisualisation is to provide cognitive support through visual presentation, whoever the users are. For example, putting together georeferenced data from different sources, spatially linked, produces a hypermap (Kraak and Van Driel, 1997). The hypermap can itself be thematically linked to other graphics or textual information. Simultaneous and synthetic display of large amounts of data helps the human brain to observe structures and patterns. Well-designed interfaces preserve usability despite a great complexity. The resulting tools can be, at the same time, easy to explore (like the four examples presented above) and give access to innumerable data useful for site management and understanding. Using geovisualisation tools in geoheritage management can bring many benefits, but is also challenging, as different users, contexts and objectives must be reconciled. Even the printed maps should be rethought when applied to new purposes, like geotourism or geoeducation (Bissig, 2008; Regolini-Bissig, 2012). New graphics and cartographic solutions are needed. It is the same when increasing the functionalities of maps, e.g., through interactive mapping based on geographic information system or 3D maps. New technologies have widely extended the former abilities of the visual tools, but they do not bring systematic improvement. Sometimes, a very simple diagram is more effective than a complex interactive interface.

16.5.4 THE ‘SENSE OF PLACE’ OF VIRTUAL GEOHERITAGE Beyond conservation and monitoring of geoheritage, digital tools are often used to create a virtual environment that helps to explore geosites with a contemplative approach or an educational purpose. The user’s experience is very different depending on the type of access (in situ or ex situ), the display (personal digital assistant, handheld, smartphone, virtual reality headset, etc.) and the use of augmented reality or virtual reality. As virtual geoheritage projects are developing, the question of the difference between place and cyberplace may arise. The ‘sense of place’ given by the reconstruction of a real place has already been explored in the field of cultural heritage (Turner and Turner, 2006) or in the simulation experience realised by Champion (2006). This author considers that ‘the general failure of virtual environment technology to create engaging and educational experiences may be attributable not just to deficiencies in technology or in visual fidelity, but also to a lack of contextual and performativebased interaction, such as that found in games’. The use of storytelling or gaming techniques improves the ‘sense of place’ and the engagement in a cultural learning experience. The GEOvisual project initiated by the Magma UNESCO Global Geopark (Gentilini et al., 2015), with financial support of the Norwegian UNESCO Commission, is based on cutting-edge virtual reality technology. Through virtual reality the geological and cultural heritage of NORA Region will be shared without borders; even disabled people will be able to experience the territories, just wearing a helmet and with simple movements of the head.

REFERENCES

299

16.6 CONCLUSION: NEW FRONTIERS FOR GEOVISUALISATION In the ever-evolving field of heritage digitisation (Thwaites, 2013), there is no definitive solution and many experimental tools are failures. To reduce this risk, fundamental questions must be asked: Does the tool achieve its purpose? Is the ratio usability/complexity well balanced? Do the functionalities exceed the user’s needs? Are these digital devices, very expensive, accessible to the greatest number? How should we take into account the rapid outdating of these technologies? How should we ensure data longevity, curation and preservation of the virtual models be obtained? As for every interactive interface, geovisualisation products should be carefully designed and tested (e.g., Galitz, 2007; Lauesen, 2005); their functions as exploration or communication tools have also to be clearly defined (Dransch, 2000; Dreher and Mack, 1996; Weidenmann, 1997). Systematic sharing of test results could contribute to learning from experience and to the spread of effective geovisualisation tools for geoheritage management. Beyond the quality of virtual models produced, the question of user’s engagement is a priority to ensure the efficiency of the projects (Roussou, 2008). It seems that half a century after the publication of Tilden’s book on interpretation (Tilden, 1957), digital technologies offer a new challenge to interpret geosites. The gamification of virtual heritage interpretive projects could be a solution (Champion, 2015). The geoheritage virtual environment could support a game-based geoscience learning using a combination of storytelling, ‘sense of place’ and rich interactivity providing a real immersive experience.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Andrey Leonov, Johan Berthet, Eric Hanson, Pa˚l Thjømøe and Magnus Va˚gen Birkenes for their constructive comments.

REFERENCES Addison, C.A., 2007. The vanishing virtual safeguarding heritage’s endangered digital record. In: Kalay, Y., Kvan, T., Affleck, J. (Eds.), New Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage. Routledge, London, pp. 27 39. Aldighieri, B., Testa, B., Bertini, A., 2016. 3D exploration of the San Lucano Valley: virtual geo-routes for everyone who would like to understand the landscape of the Dolomites. Geoheritage 8 (1), 77 90. Bissig, G., 2008. Mapping geomorphosites: an analysis of geotourist maps. Geoturystyka 3, 3 12. Borsook, T.K., Higginbotham-Wheat, N., 1991. Interactivity. What is it and what can it do for computer-based instruction?. Educat. Technol. 31 (5), 11 17. Brilha, J., 2018. Geoheritage and geoparks. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 323 336. Brilha, J.B.R., Dias, G.T., Mendes, A.C., Henriques, R., Azevedo, I.C., Pereira, R., 1999. The geological heritage of the Peneda-Gereˆs National Park (NW Portugal) and its electronic divulgation. In: Barettino, D., Vallejo, M., Gallego, E. (Eds.), Towards the Balanced Management and Conservation of the Geological Heritage in the New Millenium. Sociedad Geolo´gica de Espan˜a, Madrid, pp. 315 318.

300

CHAPTER 16 DIGITAL GEOVISUALISATION TECHNOLOGIES

Cameron, F., Kenderdine, S. (Eds.), 2007. Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Cartwright, W.E., 1999. Extending the map metaphor using web delivered multimedia. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 13 (4), 335 353. Cayla, N., 2014. An overview of new technologies applied to the management of geoheritage. Geoheritage 6 (2), 91 102. Cayla, N., Gauchon, C., Hobl´ea, F., 2015. From tourism to geotourism: a few historical cases from the French Alpine foreland. In: Hose, T. (Ed.), Appreciating Physical Landscapes: Three Hundred Years of Geotourism. Special Publications 417. The Geological Society, London, pp. 199 214. Champion, E., 2006. Evaluating Cultural Learning in Virtual Environments. Doctoral Thesis in Philosophy. University of Melbourne. Champion, E., 2011. Playing With the Past. Springer, London. Champion, E., 2015. Critical Gaming: Interactive History and Virtual Heritage. Routledge, London. Colquhoun, B., Galani, A., 2013. Flickr The Commons: historic photographic collections through the eyes of an online community of interest. In: Moschovi, A., McKay, C. (Eds.), The Versatile Image: Photography, Digital Technologies and the Internet. University Press, Leuven, pp. 169 192. Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G., 2009. Methods for mapping geomorphosites. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. Pfeil, Mu¨nchen, pp. 89 103. Crampton, J.W., 2002. Interactivity types in geographic visualization. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 29 (2), 85 98. Datha, N., Joy, J., Stollnitz, E., 2012. RIN: A Declarative Specification for Interactive Narratives Over Rich Media. Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR-TR-2012-78. Delannoy, J.J., Sadier, B., Valcke, S., Peral, J., Perazio, G., Jaillet, S., et al., 2014. La mod´elisation 3D, outil de transfert des connaissances. Exemple de la r´eplique de la grotte Chauvet Pont d’Arc : la caverne du Pont d’Arc (Arde`che, France). Karstologia 64, 41 57 (in French). DiBiase, D., 1990. Visualization in the earth sciences. Earth Min. Sci. 59 (2), 13 18. Dransch, D., 2000. The use of different media in visualizing spatial data. Comp. Geosci. 26, 5 9. Dreher, A., Mack, J., 1996. Medienpsychologische Grundlagen (Skript zur Vorlesung Mediendidaktik MI2). Hochschule Furtwangen, Furtwangen (in German). Erfurt-Cooper, P., 2010. The importance of natural geothermal resources in tourism. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010 Bali, Indonesia, 25 29 April 2010, p. 10. Estermann, B., 2014. Diffusion of open data and crowdsourcing among heritage institutions: results of a pilot survey in Switzerland. J. Theoret. Appl. Elect. Comm. Res. 9, 15 31. Fanguin, P., 2014. Valorisation du g´eopatrimoine de la r´egion de Thonon-les-Bains par l’´elaboration d’un produit g´eotouristique. G´eoDecouverte Thonon, une application mobile. Master Thesis. University of Lausanne (in French). Ferrero, E., Giardino, M., Lozar, F., Giordano, E., Belluso, E., Perotti, L., 2012. Geodiversity action plans for the enhancement of geoheritage in the Piemonte region (north-western Italy). Ann. Geophys. 55 (3), 487 495. Galitz, W.O., 2007. The Essential Guide to User Interface Design: An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques. Wiley, London, New York. Gaudru, H., 2010. Challenging destination. The World Heritage listed volcanoes of Kamchatka. In: ErfurtCooper, P., Cooper, M. (Eds.), Volcano and Geothermal Tourism: Sustainable Geo-Resources for Leisure and Recreation. Routledge, London, pp. 196 199. Gentilini, S., Thjømøe, P., Birkenes, M., 2015. Geovisual: MAGMA GEOPARK virtual exhibition. In: Book of Abstracts, European Geoparks Conference, p. 131. Ghiraldi, L., Giordano, E., Perotti, L., Giardino, M., 2014. Digital tools for collection, promotion and visualisation of geoscientific data: case study of Seguret Valley. Geoheritage 6 (2), 103 112. Ghose, S., Dou, W., 1998. Interactive functions and their impacts on the appeal of Internet presence sites. J. Adv. Res. 38, 29 44.

REFERENCES

301

Giardina, M., 1999. L’interactivit´e, le multim´edia et l’apprentissage. Une dynamique complexe. L’Harmattan, Paris (in French). Giardino, M., Lombardo, V., Lozar, F., Magagna, A., Perotti, L., 2014. GeoMedia-web: multimedia and networks for dissemination of knowledge on geoheritage and natural risk. In: Lollino, G., Arattano, M., Giardino, M., Oliveira, R., Peppoloni, S. (Eds.), Engineering Geology for Society and Territory 7. Springer, Cham, pp. 147 150. Guttentag, D.A., 2010. Virtual reality: applications and implications for tourism. Tour. Manag. 31, 637 651. Ha, L., James, E.L., 1998. Interactivity reexamined. A baseline analysis of early business web sites. J. Broadcast. Elect. Media 42 (4), 457 474. Hoblea, F., Delannoy, J.J., Jaillet, S., Ployon, E., Sadier, B., 2014. Digital tools for managing and promoting karst geosites in Southeast France. Geoheritage 6, 113 127. Jensen, J.F., 1998. Interactivity. Tracking a new concept in media and communication studies. Nordic Res. Media Commun. Rev. 19 (2), 185 204. Kenteris, M., Gavalas, D., Economous, D., 2011. Electronic mobile guides: a survey. Personal Ubiquit. Comp. 15 (1), 97 111. Kraak, M.-J., Van Driel, R., 1997. Principles of hypermaps. Comp. Geosci. 23 (4), 457 464. Lansigu, C., Bosse-Lansigu, V., Le Hebel, F., 2014. Tools and methods used to represent geological processes and geosites : graphic and animated media as a means to popularize the scientific content and value of geoheritage. Geoheritage 6 (2), 159 168. Lato, M.J., Bevan, G., Fergusson, M., 2012. Gigapixel imaging and photogrammetry: development of a new long range remote imaging technique. Remote Sensing 4, 3006 3021. Lauesen, S., 2005. User Interface Design: A Software Engineering Perspective. Pearson Education, Harlow. Leonov, A., 2012. Application of ERS data for virtual heritage. Earth From Space 15, 55 61. Leonov, A., Serebrov, A., Anikushkin, M., Belosokhov, D., Bobkov, A., Eremchenko, E., et al., 2010. Virtual story in cyberspace: Valley of Geysers, Kamchatka. In: 2010 International Conference on Cyberworlds, pp. 247 253. Macadam, J., 2018. Geoheritage: getting the message across. What message and to whom? In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 267 288. Mac Donald, L.W., 2006. Digital Heritage: Applying Digital Imaging to Cultural Heritage. Routledge, London. MacEachren, A.M., 1994. Visualization in modern cartography. Setting the agenda. In: MacEachren, A.M., Taylor, D.R.F. (Eds.), Visualization in Modern Cartography. Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 1 12. Malgat, C., Duval, M., Gauchon, C., 2012. Donner a` voir un patrimoine invisible : de l’original a` la copie. Le cas de l’Espace de restitution de la grotte Chauvet Pont-d’Arc. In: Karsts, paysages et pr´ehistoire. Collection EDYTEM 13, Le Bourget-du-Lac, pp. 99 114 (in French). Martin, S., 2013. Valoriser le g´eopatrimoine par la m´ediation indirecte et la visualisation des objets g´eomorphologiques. Institute of Geography and Sustainability, 41. University of Lausanne, G´eovisions (in French). Available from: , http://igd.unil.ch/www/geovisions/41/Geovisions_41.pdf . (accessed 10.08.17). Martin, S., 2014. Interactive visual media for geomorphological heritage interpretation. Theoretical approach and examples. Geoheritage 6 (2), 149 157. Martin-Brualla, R., Gallup, D., Seitz, S.M., 2015a. Time-lapse mining from internet photos. ACM Trans. Graph. 34 (4), article no. 62. Martin-Brualla, R., Gallup, D., Seitz, S.M., 2015b. 3D Time-lapse reconstruction from internet photos. In: Proceedings 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2015. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, pp. 1332 1340. Migo´n, P., 2018. Geoheritage and World Heritage sites. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 237 250.

302

CHAPTER 16 DIGITAL GEOVISUALISATION TECHNOLOGIES

Oomen, J., Aroyo, L., 2011. Crowdsourcing in the cultural heritage domain: opportunities and challenges. In: C&T ’11 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, Brisbane, pp. 138 149. Available from: , http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id 5 2103373 . (accessed 10.08.17). Peterson, M.P., 1996. Between reality and abstraction. Non-temporal applications of cartographic animation. Available from: ,http://maps.unomaha.edu/AnimArt/article.html. (accessed 10.08.17). Pica, A., Reynard, E., Grangier, L., Kaiser, C., Ghiraldi, L., Perotti, L., et al., 2017. GeoGuides, urban geotourism offer powered by mobile application technology. Geoheritage. doi:10.1007/s12371-017-0237-0. Rabatel, A., Deline, P., Jaillet, S., Ravanel, L., 2008. Rockfalls in high-alpine rock walls quantified by terrestrial lidar measurements: a case study in the Mont Blanc area. Geophys. Res. Lett. Am. Geophys. Union 35 (L10502), 1 5. Regolini-Bissig, G., 2012. Cartographier les g´eomorphosites. Objectifs, publics et propositions m´ethodologiques. Institute of Geography and Sustainability, University of Lausanne, G´eovisions 38. Available from: ,http://igd.unil.ch/www/geovisions/38/Geovisions_38_light.pdf . (accessed 10.08.17). Reynard, E., Kaiser, C., Martin, S., Regolini, G., 2015. An application for geosciences communication by smartphones and tablets. In: Lollino, G., Giordan, D., Marunteanu, C., Christaras, B., Yoshinori, I., Margottini, C. (Eds.), Engineering Geology for Society and Territory 7. Springer, Cham, pp. 265 268. Roussou, M., 2008. The components of engagements in virtual heritage. In: Kalay Y., Kvan T., Affleck J., (Eds.), New Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage. Routledge, London, pp. 221 241. Sadier, B., Delannoy, J.J., Benedetti, L., Bourle`s, D.L., Jaillet, S., Geneste, J.M., et al., 2012. Further constraints on the Chauvet cave artwork elaboration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (21), 8002 8006. Santana-Quintero, M., Addison, A.C., 2007. Digital tools for heritage information management and protection: the need of training. In: Wyeld, T.G., Kenderdine, S., Docherty, M. (Eds.), Virtual Systems and Multimedia. VSMM 2007. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 35 46. Scapozza, C., Lambiel, C., Bozzini, C., Mari, S., Conedera, M., 2014. Assessing the rock glacier kinematics on three different timescales: a case study from the southern Swiss Alps. Earth Surf. Proc. Landf. 39, 2056 2069. Seaborn, K., Fels, D.I., 2015. Gamification in theory and action: a survey. Int. J. Human-Comp. Stud. 74, 14 31. Slocum, T.A., Blok, C., Jiang, B., Koussoulakou, A., Montello, D.R., Fuhrmann, S., et al., 2001. Cognitive and usability issues in geovisualization. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 28, 61 75. Stanco, F., Battiato, S., Gallo, G., 2011. Digital Imaging for Cultural Heritage Preservation: Analysis, Restoration, and Reconstruction of Ancient Artworks. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Stock, G.M., Bawden, G.W., Green, J.K., Hanson, E., Downing, G., Collins, B.D., et al., 2011. High-resolution three-dimensional imaging and analysis of rockfalls in Yosemite Valley, California. Geosphere 7, 573 581. Stock, G.M., Collins, B.D., Santaniello, D.J., Zimmer, V.L., Wieczorek, G.F., Snyder, J.B., 2013. Historical rockfalls in Yosemite National Park, California (1857 2011). U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 746, 17 p. and data files. Available from: ,http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/746/. (accessed 10.08.17). Suma, A., de Cosmo, P.D., 2011. Geodiv interface: an open source tool for management and promotion of the geodiversity of Sierra de Grazalema Natural Park (Andalusia, Spain). GeoJ. Tour. Geos. 8 (2), 309 318. Tan, B.K., Rahaman, H., 2009. Virtual heritage and criticism. In: Tidafi, T., Dorta, T. (Eds.), Joining Languages, Cultures and Visions: CAAD Futures. Presses de l’Universit´e de Montr´eal, Montr´eal, pp. 143 156. Thwaites, H., 2013. Digital Heritage: what happens when we digitize everything? In: Ch’ng, E., Gaffney, V.L., Chapman, H. (Eds.), Visual Heritage in the Digital Age. Springer Cultural Computing Series. pp. 327 348. Tilden, F., 1957. Interpreting Our Heritage: Principles and Practices for Visitor Services in Parks, Museums, and Historic Places. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

REFERENCES

303

Turner, P., Turner, S., 2006. Place, sense of place, and presence. Presence: Teleop. Virt. Environ. 15 (2), 204 217. Weidenmann, B., 1997. Abbilder in multimedia-anwendungen. In: Issing, L.J., Klimsa, P. (Eds.), Information und Lernen mit Multimedia und Internet: Lehrbuch fu¨r Studium und Praxis. Beltz, Weinheim, pp. 107 122 (in German). Wieczorek, G.F., Snyder J.B., 2004. Historical Rock-Falls in Yosemite National Park, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-491. Available from: ,https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-491/. (accessed 10.08.17). Wieczorek, G.F., Stock, G.M., Reichenbach, P., Snyder, J.B., Borchers, J.W., 2008. Investigation and hazard assessment of the 2003 and 2007 Staircase Falls rockfalls, Yosemite National Park, California, USA. Nat. Hazards Earth Sys. Sci. 8 (3), 421 432.

CHAPTER

GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

17

David Newsome1 and Ross Dowling2 1

2

Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, Australia

17.1 INTRODUCTION Both geoheritage (e.g., Brocx and Semeniuk, 2011; Gray, 2004; Wimbledon and Smith-Meyer, 2012) and geotourism (e.g., Dowling and Newsome, 2010; Hose, 2016; Hose and Vasiljevi´c, 2012; Newsome and Dowling, 2010; Reynard, 2008) have been variously defined. For the purposes of this chapter we consider geoheritage as pertaining to the occurrence of landforms (e.g., Grand Canyon, USA), rocks (e.g., Wave Rock, Australia), soils (e.g., Chamarel SevenColoured Earths, Mauritius), minerals (e.g., Cueva de los Cristales, Mexico) and fossils (e.g., Korean Cretaceous Dinosaur Coast, South Korea), and it may include active geological processes such as glacial (e.g., Franz Josef Glacier, New Zealand) and volcanic activity (e.g., Krakatau, Indonesia). Of particular importance today is that many government programmes aim to conserve the most valuable sites (geoconservation) and raise societal awareness about the importance of geodiversity. This variability of Earth’s surface materials, forms, and physical processes, is an integral part of nature and is crucial for sustaining ecosystems and their services (Gray, 2004). Accordingly, the geological framework of the natural world provides the substrates, landform mosaics, and dynamic physical processes for habitat development and maintenance (Hjort et al., 2015). In terms of the appreciation of geology and landscape, travel to areas of outstanding natural beauty or to unique landforms is not new. However, the concept of geotourism has only occurred in relatively recent times as being ‘geological’ rather than ‘geographical’ tourism. The former has been characterised by geologists and the latter by the National Geographic Society. Stoffelen and Vanneste (2015) view geological tourism as a niche form of tourism having a focus on geoheritage with the goal of attaining geoconservation by education. On the other hand, they view geographical tourism as a form of sustainable tourism having a focus on the identity of rural locations with the goal of sustaining the geographical character of a destination. Geotourism viewed as being geographical tourism was first expounded by the National Geographic Society (Stueve et al., 2002). They suggested that geotourism is defined as tourism that sustains or enhances the distinctive geographical character of a place, i.e., its environment, heritage, aesthetics, culture, and the well-being of its residents. In 2011 at an International Congress on Geotourism, a declaration was made at its conclusion that geotourism should be defined as tourism which sustains and enhances the identity of a territory, taking into consideration its geology, environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage and the well-being of its residents. Additionally, geological Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00017-4 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

305

306

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

tourism can be viewed as one of the multiple components of geotourism when considered in its broadest terms (Arouca Declaration, 2011). Geotourism as a geology-based form of tourism was first defined as the provision of interpretive and service facilities to enable tourists to acquire knowledge and understanding of the geology and geomorphology of a site beyond the level of mere aesthetic appreciation (Hose, 1995). Inherent in this approach is that geotourism is a vehicle to foster geoconservation and an understanding of geological heritage. Newsome and Dowling (2010) later defined geotourism as a form of tourism that specifically focuses on geology and landscape. Unlike ecotourism, which by definition can only take place in natural areas, they argued that geotourism can occur in either natural or human modified environments. Geotourism is viewed as promoting tourism to geosites, the conservation of geodiversity, and an understanding of Earth sciences through appreciation and learning (Dowling, 2013). This is achieved through independent visits to geological features, use of geological trails and view-points, guided tours, geo-activities and patronage of visitor centres. Geotourism can thus be viewed as an approach to tourism, through its geographical orientation, underpinned by its geological nature, thus giving an area its ‘sense of place’ (Dowling, 2015). Thus, applying these factors to a unified definition, geotourism may be defined as ‘tourism which focuses on an area’s geology and landscape as the basis of fostering sustainable tourism development’. Such tourism development generates benefits for conservation, communities, and the economy. The concept of geotourism thus fosters the idea that to fully understand and appreciate the environment, one must know about the abiotic elements of geology and climate first, as these determine the biotic elements which occur there. By extension, these two components of the environment influence the cultural landscape of how people have lived in the area in the past, as well as how they live there today. Such an approach constitutes the basis of a holistic understanding of the environment and its component parts and thus provides the resident and tourist population with a greater connection to the environment in which they live or are visiting. An example of geotourism with a geographical focus is Sheringham Park in north Norfolk, UK, with its broader focus on the natural and cultural landscape (Daniels and Veale, 2015). An example of geotourism development with a geological focus is Rottnest Island, which lies off the coast of Western Australia, near the state’s capital city of Perth (Rutherford et al., 2015). The island is a tourist destination with over 400,000 visitors per annum. In support of tourism development has been the recent production of a tourist brochure on the geological features of the island (GSWA, n.d.). It describes the island’s geological history from its limestone base to physical records of the changes in sea level over recent geological times. Features visible on the island include both old and new coral reefs, fossil stromatolites (some of the earliest life forms on Earth), as well as a range of shoreline features including rocky shoreline platforms, notches, benches and cliffs. Rutherford et al. (2014) additionally described a simple geographic information system approach that identified various geosites, assessed against risk (injury to person and/or damage to geological features), access and management criteria. Rutherford et al. (2015) went on to provide an account of how such identified geosites could then be used to build an interpretive programme around the geology of sea-level change. However, the two aspects of geology and geography have been integrated well through the concept of ‘geo-landscapes’. The term is a relatively new concept that has emerged during the last few years in the literature and is considered to be a ‘geomorphological landscape’ (Reynard, 2005) or ‘a portion of land or territory where landforms are predominant or exclusive’ (Ilie¸s and Josan,

17.2 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

307

2009, p. 158). This approach has been put into practice in the Bucegi Mountains, Romania’s Southern Carpathians. Here both geo-landscapes and geotourism are viewed from a geographical perspective and promote a unifying view of geodiversity, biodiversity and cultural values as major components of geo-landscapes (Neche¸s and Erdeli, 2015). Within this context this approach addresses the issue of protected areas at risk, especially in relation to mass tourism. The Bucegi Mountains are rich in geodiversity and biodiversity. They are made up of a suspended syncline with eastern and western flanks inclined towards a central axis and inclining towards the Ialomi¸ta valley (Neche¸s and Erdeli, 2015). The combination of lithology, structure and tectonics results in a variety of landforms and landscapes with considerable potential for tourism and recreation. The region is currently a mass tourism destination and is already considered to be overcrowded. Moreover, the site is not well managed and there are inconsistencies between international standards for conservation and local management practices leading to biodiversity loss and degradation, and the geo-landscapes are considered to have reached an endangered status. Thus geotourism is now being considered as a sustainable alternative with manageable forms of tourism taking place alongside educational activities (Neche¸s and Erdeli, 2015). Moreover, geotourism is viewed as providing ‘an opportunity to alleviate part of the human pressure on the environment by engaging tourists in outdoor activities (such as thematic itineraries) with a managed recreational and educational purpose’ (Neche¸s and Erdeli, 2015, p. 506). A similar approach has been undertaken in the Karnataka region of India where a geotourism strategy is being developed around geological monuments (Naik, 2014). Geotourism is now being practised all around the world. It has been promulgated for a whole range of places from specific sites and landscapes (e.g., Grand Canyon, USA; Martin, 2010); urban areas (e.g., Hong Kong; Ng et al., 2010; Jeli District, Kelantan, Malaysia; Adriansyah et al., 2015); to regions (e.g., Bojnoord County, Iran; Kharazian, 2015; Karnataka region, India; Naik, 2014); and countries (e.g., Greece; Zouros, 2010). In the 3 years between 2012 and 2014, there were 165 journal articles covering geoheritage and geotourism published by 417 specialists from 45 countries on all continents (Ruban, 2015). The research is concentrated in Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, Australia and South America. This indicative research effort demonstrates the global scale of geotourism research and the spread of geotourism is evidenced by the growth of national and international networks of specialists. The intersection between geoheritage and geotourism is explored in this chapter through four themes that focus on contrasting geoheritage resources that are, and can be, the focus of tourism, namely soils and regolith, fossils (including tracks), solid geology in the form of volcanic rocks and landforms, and finally in relation to entire landscapes such as loess deposits and glacial landforms. Accordingly, after an analysis of the relationships between geoheritage and geotourism, the following sections illustrate four examples of geotourism in different geological contexts.

17.2 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM Key localities of particular geological interest are termed geosites (Brilha, 2018a). Typically, such features comprise geological, geomorphological and palaeontological sites. Geomorphological sites have been classified according to the use of their scientific, scenic, cultural and economic values

308

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

(see Coratza and Hobl´ea, 2018; Pralong and Reynard, 2005). In addition, such geosites need to be regarded as deserving to be preserved and protected, either from rapid natural degradation or from destructive human activities, both for the community and future generations (Schumann et al., 2015). A sound knowledge of geoheritage is an important factor in the holistic approach for sustainable tourism development, especially when the Earth’s geodiversity is a focal point. Often, these sites bear a multifaceted ‘story’, which may date back from recent times to millions of years ago. As such, geosites are of great educational and scientific value (Schumann et al., 2015). The value of geoheritage is related to the ‘heritage-making process’. Indeed, it is society, including geoscientists, resource management agency managers and political decision-makers, who decides whether a certain site is important, and therefore, has a certain value (Reynard and Giusti, 2018). The value of a geosite is often realised through carefully managed tourism where visitors learn about geological features and processes. However, before a geosite can be developed for tourism, it first has to be assessed in relation to its geoheritage (geological value for human society) and geoconservation needs (need for protection). In order to assess the value of a site and balance its conservation versus use (geotourism), an assessment is made as part of inventorying and/or cataloguing these objects within the process of planning and management for geotourism (Brilha, ˇ 2018a; Strba et al., 2015). The specific values of a geological feature can significantly confer importance to its management, protection, and educational aspects and can help in successful sustainable development of the area where such objects are situated. While geosites and their assessment are the focus of Chapter 4 (Brilha, 2018a), it is useful to provide an example of where this has been undertaken in popular tourist localities, namely the ˇ Roˇznˇ ava District of southern Slovakia (Strba et al., 2015). The relevant sites are Herl’any Geyser (hydrogeological), Dreven´ık (geomorphic zone) and Domica Cave (karst). Assessment of each site was undertaken using a number of different methods that span a range of values including scientific, ecological, aesthetic, cultural and economic (use), and site protection. Results show that different methods applied to selected sites give different results. These results also indicate that it is necessary to focus the research on the most suitable and universally applicable assessment criteria for different locality types, or to find the best method as to how to compare results from different types of geosite assessment. Unified or universal results can thus be used in the related areas of planning and development of tourism in general, e.g., geotourism, ecotourism and other specific aspects of tourism. A similar approach has been undertaken in Australia where it has been argued that the lack of a suitable robust and repeatable methodology has seriously constrained the assessment of geological sites suitable for the National Heritage list (White and Wakelin-King, 2014). The Geological Society of Australia classifies geoheritage in several categories: international, national, regional or local ‘significance’, unknown, or destroyed. Within a single geological type (particular rock type, formation or stratigraphic unit), some places may be representative of the type, and others are expressive of the diversity within the type, so significance assessment may require deciding between an excellent representative from a group of very similar places and an unusual place. Unusual or distinctive features display atypical qualities in comparison with features of the same type: a formative process in which one aspect is developed to an unusual degree, or when a geological outcome (a rock or a landform) is placed in an unusual spatial or temporal context (White and Wakelin-King, 2014). An important consideration is that not all landscapes are assessed for their geoheritage value. Some are assessed for the sole role of being suitable for tourism and recreation. For example,

17.3 EXAMPLES OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GEOTOURISM

309

natural and cultural resources in the Yahyalı district, Kayseri Province, Turkey, were quantified and analysed for potential tourism and recreation (Aklıba¸sında and Bulut, 2014). This area is the southernmost district of the province and it is defined by the steep lines of the Taurus Mountains, named Alada˘glar in their section through this region, and crossed by the River Zamantı. The study determined that 64% of the area was suitable for tourism and recreation activities and these were evaluated and landscape types were classified in relation to potential tourism activities. It was determined that water resources and valley landscapes were the basic resources for tourism and recreation activities in Yahyalı. Results indicate that the natural values of the district are very high and the deep valley landscape, forests, mountains, waterfalls and rivers, all have importance in the future development of tourism.

17.3 EXAMPLES OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GEOTOURISM AND GEOHERITAGE 17.3.1 GEOTOURISM AND GEOPARKS AS ILLUSTRATED VIA HONG KONG GEOHERITAGE One of the key areas where geotourism is being developed is in geoparks (Dowling, 2011). A geopark is a clearly defined area with geological heritage of significance that fosters environmentally appropriate, socioeconomic sustainable development (Brilha, 2018b). Geoparks promote awareness of geological features (through conservation, information and education) and geological resources (through geotourism and sustainable development). One well-developed example of geotourism based on identifying geoheritage and geoconservation is in the Hong Kong UNESCO Global Geopark, China (Ng et al., 2010). Hong Kong has a large diversity of geosites, in particular, a representative and comprehensive coastal landscape, which presents a wide range of geological and geomorphological features. Geodiversity, together with an appealing ecological environment, creates an attractive tourist product. For this reason, with the rapid development of Hong Kong UNESCO Global Geopark, China, geotourism has evolved to become a rapidly emerging new industry, which can help promote geoconservation and an understanding of Earth science through appreciation and learning in the region. A recent study of geotourism activity in the Hong Kong Geopark found that it contributed to geoconservation and geodiversity through efficient conservation management, an optimised tourism infrastructure, a strong scientific interpretation system, promotion via educational materials, active exchange with other geoparks, continuous training, and effective collaboration with local communities (Wang et al., 2015). The Hong Kong Geopark’s geological values are protected by ‘Country’ and ‘Marine’ parks ordinances that forbid all activities that may destroy the biological, geological or cultural environment in the geopark. An additional form of protection is a three tier zoning system that includes: 1. Core Protection Areas are sensitive to human impact and preserved in their natural state. These places are designated mainly for conservation. No infrastructure is permitted, such as a pier or trails, as Core Protection Areas are deemed to have low carrying capacity and are often dangerous for casual visitors.

310

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

2. Special Protection Areas have some visitor facilities (e.g., trails), with a medium carrying capacity and sensitivity where educational and scientific activities are allowed. 3. Integrated Protection Areas have a high carrying capacity and include visitor facilities, such as kiosks, barbeque sites, and camping sites. In addition to conservation and education, these places are the focus of recreational activities. Geotourism in the geopark illustrates that even in highly populated urban areas it is possible to combine the conservation of geoheritage with sustainable development. The key to this symbiotic relationship, where tourism is benefitting geoheritage, is through ‘interpreting the geoheritage information in a way that makes it easily accessible and understandable to the public’ (Wang et al., 2015, p. 432). The geopark interpreters deliver geological information in five levels from ‘Easy’ (Level 1) to ‘Expert’ (Level 5). This information is found in two visitor centres and four local geoheritage centres. Combining pictures, text and modern technology (interactive panels, presentations and audio-visual effects), the exhibits provide an overview of the UNESCO Global Geopark including information about the coasts, landscapes, landforms, which includes their scientific value, marine life and cultural heritage. In addition the geopark has two levels of tour guides: Recommended Geopark Guides (R2G) and Accredited Geopark Guides (A2G). The guides undergo routine training on the basic knowledge of the geosites as well as gaining an understanding of geoconservation and geotourism. A Geopark Tour Guide Handbook has been published, with a voice-over facility in Cantonese, English, Putonghua, Japanese and Korean. This has greatly facilitated interaction between the guides and foreign visitors. Thus, the establishment of the geopark has led to greater awareness of geoheritage, increased protection of sensitive geological sites through geoconservation, and provided scope for economic contributions to the local community and regional economy.

17.3.2 TOURISM WHERE SOILS AND REGOLITH ARE GEOHERITAGE The relationship between geoheritage and tourism from a soils and regolith perspective is a lesserknown aspect of the geoheritage-tourism nexus and is referred to as pedodiversity. Tennesen (2014) reports on a survey conducted in China that set out to map soil diversity and that identified 88 endangered soil types. Given that 24 soil types have ‘become extinct’ in China and that work conducted in the US concluded that there were 4500 rare soils (508 endangered with 31 more or less extinct) we highlight that soil geoheritage is an area where much work needs to be done. This is reflected in the relatively undeveloped area of tourism focussed on soils and regolith. Regolith is the unconsolidated material above bedrock and comprises in situ and transported materials which have usually undergone some degree of weathering (Eggleton, 2001). In situ regolith includes weathered rock residua such as saprolites, ferralitic clays, laterites and sandplain profiles (Newsome, 2000; Newsome and Johnson, 2013). Transported regolith includes glacial deposits, accumulations of colluvial material, fluvial and aeolian deposits including sand dune landscapes. Volcanic deposits are a particularly spectacular example of material that has been ejected in the atmosphere and accumulated on land (Eggleton, 2001). Having noted this deficiency, there are a few geotourism products based on the appreciation of soils. Conway (2010) highlights the importance of soils via the development of a soils trail along a coastal footpath on the island of Anglesey in North Wales, UK. This was achieved by identifying

17.3 EXAMPLES OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GEOTOURISM

311

suitable sections of exposed soil of cliff edges and then developing content suitable for a leaflet that can be carried by tourists. Educational content for tourists also included how the diversity of soils is closely linked to changes in the landscape and how contrasting land use can be linked to different soils. Newsome and Johnson (2013) while focusing on an established tourism site in Mauritius, which is centred on weathered regolith, also highlighted how attention can be focussed on the importance of soils. Given that the Seven-Coloured Earths of Chamarel is one of the most visited geological attractions in Mauritius (Fig. 17.1) there is a real opportunity to include a soils focus. Newsome and Johnson (2013) concluded that soil loss and land degradation have been, and are an on-going problem in Mauritius. Capturing the tourism market to emphasise Mauritian soil geoheritage would certainly provide relevant and insightful tour guiding content for both domestic and international tourists in this holiday ‘hotspot’. Field and Newsome (2014) describe a situation where the context of regolith can be highlighted as a tourism product. Krakatau, the site of one of the most famous volcanic eruptions in the world (1883), is the setting for the appreciation of volcanic regolith that is connected with the science of biogeography and the recovery of tropical rain forest. In addition to this the Krakatau complex of islands is the scene of contemporary volcanic activity and displays the remnants of a once massive volcanic caldera. The focus here, however, is on the volcanic ash regolith of known age and its significant role with regard to recolonisation of the fragmented caldera by vegetation (see Field and Newsome, 2014 for details). It is noteworthy that the volcanic geoheritage of the island complex is underutilised as a geotourism resource. Besides framing geoheritage in a geoecological context, there is a well-documented eruption history, current volcanism and on-going ashfalls. While current

FIGURE 17.1 Exposed regolith and associated erosional activity at the Seven-Coloured Earths of Chamarel, Mauritius (Photograph by D. Newsome).

312

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

FIGURE 17.2 Deep sand regolith on the Swan Coastal Palin, Western Australia. Such regoliths are underutilised as geotourism resources and are often neglected geoheritage (Photograph by D. Newsome).

visitors may see Krakatau as more of an adventure tourism destination, there is great potential for interpretation focusing on the unconsolidated volcanic ash beds. Given that interpretation and related educational activities are a central theme in geotourism (e.g., Newsome and Dowling, 2010) there is real opportunity to profile regolith (in this case unconsolidated volcanic ash) as an essential component of geoheritage. Given that there are thousands of soils types (13,000 soil series in the United States alone) and many types of regolith (glacial tills, sand terranes, fluvial sections, unconsolidated volcanic ash beds) occurring in virtually all terrestrial environments (Fig. 17.2) this aspect of Earth heritage is a rich avenue of future research with regard to the nexus between geoheritage and geotourism.

17.3.3 TOURISM WHERE FOSSILS ARE GEOHERITAGE Fossils form a rich and important geoheritage (Page, 2018) and there are many cases of highly significant sites and potential/actual tourism resources around the world (e.g., see Endere and Prado, 2015; Paik et al., 2010; Percival, 2014; Schemm-Gregory and Henriques, 2013; Stefanoviæ and Mijovic, 2004). The dinosaur fossil sites in South Korea are a notable example of the close relationship between geoheritage and tourism (Paik et al., 2010). The Cretaceaous fossil sites of South Korea comprise a world-class geotourism resource that spans eight major geosites comprising dinosaur tracks, footprints, bones and fossil dinosaur eggs. Of particular significance here is the extent to which this

17.3 EXAMPLES OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GEOTOURISM

313

rich fossil geoheritage has been conserved, managed and presented as geotourism products. Many dinosaur track sites are outdoor museums and are subject to weathering, erosion and visitor impacts. However, much work and investment has been applied in South Korea, not only to afford the protection of important geoheritage but also to enhance tourist experience and learning. For example, the Gajin-ri Fossil footprint (sauropods, theropods and birds) exposures are enclosed in a visitor centre not only to present the geoheritage for tourism but also to protect the highly valuable Lower Cretaceous floodplain deposits that are susceptible to natural degradation. The visitor centre thus contains in situ natural exposures and extensive educational material explaining geological processes, rock types, palaeo-environments and all the species of fossil that have been identified at the site. The Goseong dinosaur site has been extensively developed for tourism and exhibits life size models of dinosaurs, a protected natural coastal dinosaur track site, which is accessed via a boardwalk, and a museum. Rock outcrops on the coast have been exposed as a result of marine erosion and it is possible to see dinosaur tracks and evidence of dinoturbation. The footprints show evidence of ornithopods, sauropods and theropods all living in the same place at the same time. The site is a natural monument strictly protected from inappropriate activities and carries heavy fines if visitors or anyone else disturbs any aspect of the geosite. The examples briefly considered here emphasise some important points about the relationship between geotourism and geoheritage in South Korea. Firstly the Koreans have embraced exciting ways to present fossils to the general public and tourists alike. Secondly, a variety of settings and viewing opportunities have been optimised. Interpretation is widely employed to attract attention, engage, educate and inspire visitors. Thirdly, the issue of site protection, which is vital, has been taken very seriously and a range of strategies have been put in place such as barriers, boardwalks, enclosures, visitor centres and visitor surveillance systems. Lastly, there has been substantial funding to ensure quality facilities and experiences that are central to sustainable geotourism.

17.3.4 TOURISM WHERE VOLCANIC ROCKS AND LANDFORMS ARE GEOHERITAGE In recent times there have been two major accounts of tourism in volcanic environments (ErfurtCooper and Cooper, 2010; Erfurt-Cooper, 2014). Erfurt-Cooper (2010, 2014) and many colleagues highlight that volcanoes and their associated rocks and landforms comprise significant geoheritage and form the centrepiece of many iconic tourism destinations (e.g., Gao et al., 2013). Such places include the Mount Teide Caldera in Tenerife, the Hawaiian volcano complex and the lava landscapes at Wudalianchi Global Geopark and the Arxan-Chaihe Volcano Area in China. As in the fossil sites of South Korea, infrastructure and educational facilities are in place to enhance the tourism experience and manage visitor access at volcano tourism destinations. In China, many geotourism destinations have been ‘developed’ to provide tourist accommodation, access for large numbers of people and to promote visitation and extend tourist activities. Wudalianchi UNESCO Global Geopark, e.g., receives about 1 million visitors a year, mostly during the warm summer (May September) season and such heavy visitation has created a need for extensive infrastructure in order to accommodate people and manage access. However, there is always a danger of overdoing the tourism aspect and degrading the site. Problems include excessive infrastructure development, extensive road and trail footprints, extractive practices such as the selling of rocks and minerals for the purposes of tourism, developed bathing areas, mineral water collection

314

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

points and various retail outlets. In addition to this, such places may be the site of organised festivals and events. A common problem is noncompliance by visitors and tourists frequently step off designated pathways to optimise photo opportunities and/or to handle the geology. Such occurrences that may take place on a regular basis pose problems for the effective conservation of geoheritage if valued geosites are being damaged by such activities. Graffiti is another common problem where visitation is high and can degrade the quality of a geosite. Perhaps even more problematical is when management attempt to modify the site in the hope that it will generate additional tourist interest. This has been the case at Wudalianchi Geopark where a permafrost lava tube has been modified with lights, lighting infrastructure and also adorned with ice carvings (Fig. 17.3). Such management-condoned modifications are not desirable as they degrade the natural condition of the feature. Additionally, such actions also trivialise the geoheritage value of the site and impoverish its interpretation value. Such a condition may also give the visitor the wrong impression as to how one should consider and treat geoheritage and is not helpful in raising awareness about the importance of geoconservation. This is a very important consideration as brought out by Newsome (2010) who described how recreation and tourism can degrade the natural qualities of a volcano via graffiti, unauthorised access, erosion and the relocation of stones and rocks in a volcanic crater in Indonesia. The use of coloured lighting is a common practice in caves throughout the southeast Asian region where management authorities seek to ‘enhance’ the tourism potential of caves (Newsome et al., 2013, p. 175). It is worth noting that such modification was an aspect of the first phases of tourism exploitation in the 19th century and highly impacted some sites in Europe (e.g., Baker and Genty, 1998; Pulido-Bosch et al., 1997).

FIGURE 17.3 Permafrost lava tube in Wudalianchi UNESCO Global Geopark, NE China. Natural conditions and authenticity have been compromised via modification with lights, lighting infrastructure and the addition of ice carvings (Photograph by D. Newsome).

17.3 EXAMPLES OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GEOTOURISM

315

In China’s east Inner-Mongolia region, the Arxan-Chaihe Volcano Area is an important component part of a Cenozoic volcanic area, with great scientific and aesthetic value (Wang et al., 2014). The Arxan National Geopark and the Zalantun Autonomous Geopark were established in 2004 and 2010, respectively. The development of both geoparks is connected with the identification of geoheritage, the establishment of volcanic geoconservation, and geotourism development. The volcanic geoheritage includes a diversity of features including volcanic landscapes and cones; lava landscapes, tubes, flows and domes; columnar jointing; as well as both hot and cold springs. Since 2010 the parks have focused on geoconservation, interpretation and community participation. Museums are being constructed around the themes of definitions and characteristics of volcanoes, their benefits and dangers, and the parks’ volcanic landscapes. Geotourism based on the volcanic attractions provides a significant contribution to the local economies. The area is not far from Wudalianchi and Jingbohu UNESCO Global Geoparks in Heilongjiang Province in the volcanic tourism district in Northeast China. As a result, the region offers tourists a large diversity of volcanic attractions and when viewed all together, it has the potential to become a major tourist attraction.

17.3.5 TOURISM IN LARGE AREAS OR LANDSCAPES THAT ARE CONSIDERED AS GEOHERITAGE There are entire landscapes that can be viewed as geoheritage (Reynard, 2005). These may, e.g., include sand, karst, volcanic, fluvial and glacial landscapes. All of these landscapes attract general tourists, ostensibly mostly interested in sightseeing, but adverse impacts on geoheritage sites may occur in the absence of awareness and management. For example, awareness about geoconservation in China dates to the 1950s (Chen et al., 2015). In 1956, the Chinese Government included the country’s important geosites in a National Nature Reserve System. However, it is only since the beginning in the 1980s that China has begun to seriously recognise and conserve its geoheritage (Dong et al., 2014). In 1985, the First National Geological Natural Reserve (NGNR), named for its middle-upper Proterozoic rocks, was established. Since 2000, the provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities of China have recommended a large number of geosites and applied for their designation as National Geoparks. The establishment of the Geoparks Network in China has helped to increase the preservation of geoheritage as a basis for the development and promotion of geosites as new tourist attractions (Chen et al., 2015). Today there are over 30 UNESCO Global Geoparks in China and hundreds of National Geoparks. In the Luochuan Loess National Geopark on the Chinese Loess Plateau, geoheritage is being used as a basis to set aside areas for geoconservation while other areas are developed for geotourism (Dong et al., 2014). The geopark has five functional areas with its ‘geolandscape tour area’ being the core area of the geopark. Major attractions include a classic loess-palaeosol section, microlandforms, a small lake as well as loess landslide sites. In addition, the Loess Geological Museum opened in 2004 with exhibits centred around a number of themes related to loess including definition of loess, its scientific value, the nature of loess landscapes, as well as loess and Chinese civilisation. However, a number of challenges have arisen in preserving the geoheritage of the park whilst developing geotourism at the same time. Problems include damage to the loess deposits, inadequate conservation management, a conflict between ecological restoration and the need for

316

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

scientific observation, ineffective interpretation of the geological resources and insufficient funding (Dong et al., 2014). In many parts of the world glaciated landscapes have long attracted tourists seeking adventure, nature based and/or educational activities (e.g., Hepburn, 2001). Typical activities include glacier hiking, ice-climbing, glacier traverses, snowmobiling and glacier lake kayaking. These activities can be carried out on many parts of the glacier including the ice walls and glacier tongue. Recent work by Welling et al. (2015) provides examples of popular glacial environment tourist destinations. Such examples include the Columbia Ice Fields and Athabasca Glacier of Banff National Park in Canada. Here glacier coach tours, glacier hiking and exhibitions attract an estimated 600,000 visitors per year. Such large visitor numbers, undoubtedly of varied environmental interest, should always raise the question as to the sustainability of such tourism growth in terms of visitor management and the containment of negative impacts. This is an aspect that has been discussed by Newsome et al. (2012) in the context of increasing tourism focused on coastal landforms in Taiwan and Australia. Other significant glacial tourism destinations include the Perito Moreno Glacier and Lake Argentino in Los Glacier National Park in Argentina (167,000 visitors per year v/y); Pastoruri Glacier in Huascaran National Park, Peru (109,000 v/y); Brikdals Glacier in Jostedalen Glacier National Park, Norway (40,000 v/y) and Sermeq Kujalleq Glacier in Ilulissat Icefjord, Greenland (12,000 v/y). Additional examples of glacier-based tourism include the Franz Josef and Fox Glaciers of Westland Tai Poutini National Park, in the South Island of New Zealand. These sites offer glacier walking, ice-climbing and heli-hiking and attract an estimated 346,000 v/y. The Vatnajo¨kull Glacier in Vatnajo¨kull National Park, Iceland (attracting 343,000 v/y), offers a range of tourist activities including glacier hiking, ice-climbing, ice cave tours, glacier boat tours, snowmobiling, and super-jeep tours. The latter types of tourist activity fall under the category of adventure tourism and this again raises the question of appropriate use. Dowling and Newsome (2006) and Newsome et al. (2013) caution that, in such cases of recreation and tourism, the landscape forms the backdrop where a particular activity can take place and could not be considered to be geotourism as has been discussed earlier in this chapter. Some tourists, however, when visiting glacier sites do so solely to observe glacier attributes and adjacent landforms, often without setting foot on the glaciers themselves (Wilson, 2012). Many glacier sites are sought after for their educational value, as examples of spectacular landscapes, geodiversity and in regard to their status as representatives of the environmental response to global climate change (Bollati et al., 2013; Feuillet and Sourp, 2011). However, with all geotourism activities, besides the risk of site damage, there are also associated risks to tourists, and these have been examined in relation to rockfalls on the changing surface of Fox Glacier, South Island, New Zealand (Purdie, 2013; Purdie et al., 2015). Probably the most visited region of New Zealand is the holiday destination of Queenstown in the southern part of the South Island. This is the central site for visiting the Southern Lakes district and its many geological attractions (Pforr and Dowling, 2017). These include the Southern Alps glaciers, various glacial lakes and Milford Sound. Glacier tourism is a multimillion-dollar industry in New Zealand but it is potentially under threat by ongoing glacial retreat and rockfalls (Purdie et al., 2015). A decade ago, when the Franz Josef Glacier was advancing, visitor numbers reached 346,000. Currently, the glacier is visited by around 300,000 people annually, perhaps reflecting public concerns about safety and/or undesirable changes to the attractiveness of the glacier (Purdie, 2013).

17.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

317

17.4 THE CRITICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM The relationship between geoheritage and geotourism is one of interdependency. Geoheritage needs to be valued by the wider community, therefore engagement with a broader cross-section of society, through tourism, can be an effective way of extending the importance of geoheritage as a valued component of the natural world. Once geoheritage is recognised and valued then it needs to be protected. Such protective measures fall under the gambit of geoconservation. The approach to geoconservation will vary according to the specific site conditions and the environmental setting. Such measures may include not promoting the presence of valuable geoheritage to the public, restrictions on site access, maintenance of exposures and controls on site degradation (e.g., Crofts and Gordon, 2015; Sharples, 2002). Geotourism, on the other hand, is increasing in importance as a tourism activity, especially in the context of geoparks. It requires visitor management and the greater the number of visitors the more ‘intensive’ such management might have to be (Newsome et al., 2012). Visitor management problems identified in the context of geotourism include tourist induced site modification and degradation (Newsome, 2010), accelerated weathering and erosion (Newsome et al., 2012), graffiti (Dowling and Newsome, 2006) and managing authority approval of activities, such as abseiling, hang-gliding and rock climbing, that would not be considered as geotourism (Newsome et al., 2013; Newsome, 2014). Despite potential risks, geotourism as defined by its essential educative content in particular, if managed, is likely to be a valuable mechanism for public appreciation of geoheritage.

17.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS Today there is an increased recognition of the importance of the Earth sciences to society, through education, tourism, and as a recreational and inspirational resource (White and Wakelin-King, 2014). Geoheritage, essentially those attributes of the Earth that we value, must be identified and those of high value should be protected. Where geological features have been identified for development as geosites, they first need to be the focus of geoconservation, the wise use of such sites. Once the necessary and appropriate conservation measures have been put in place, then, and only then, should these sites be developed for geotourism. Optimal and sustainable geotourism needs considerable planning and appropriate site access management to ensure that the sites (geological features) are utilised in such a manner that the benefits (environmental, community and economic), outweigh any adverse impacts. Geoheritage assessment is only one step in the process of recognition and preservation, as recognition of the tourism value of geology does not constitute any formal nomination for heritage status. As White and Wakelin-King (2014) note, nomination relies on interest from individuals or groups who are willing to engage in the administrative process of putting a site forward for appreciation, promoting its value and in the recognition of geoheritage. Geotourism thus has a role to play in raising public awareness about geoheritage providing that we do not lose sight of what we are attempting to appreciate and that we do not fail to confer adequate protection.

318

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

REFERENCES Adriansyah, D., Busu, I., Eva, H., Muqtada, M., 2015. Geoheritage as the basis for geotourism development: a case study in Jeli District, Kelantan, Malaysia. GeoJ. Tour. Geos. 15 (1), 25 43. Aklıba¸sında, M., Bulut, Y., 2014. Analysis of terrains suitable for tourism and recreation by using geographic information system (GIS). Environ. Monit. Assess. 186, 5711 5719. Arouca Declaration, 2011. Declaration made at the International Congress of Geotourism at Arouca Geopark, Portugal, 9-13 November, 2011. Available from: ,http://www.europeangeoparks.org/?p 5 223. (accessed 09.08.17). Baker, A., Genty, D., 1998. Environmental pressures on conserving cave speleothems: effects of changing surface land use and increased cave tourism. J. Environ. Manag. 53, 165 175. Bollati, I., Smiraglia, C., Pelfini, M., 2013. Assessment and selection of geomorphosites and trails in the Miage Glacier Area. Environ. Manag. 51, 951 967. Brilha, J., 2018a. Geoheritage: inventories and evaluation. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 69 86. Brilha, J., 2018b. Geoheritage and geoparks. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 323 336. Brocx, M., Semeniuk, V., 2011. The global geoheritage significance of the Kimberley Coast, Western Australia. J. Royal Soc. WA 94 (2), 57 88. Chen, A., Lu, Y., Ng, Y.C.Y., 2015. The Principles of Geotourism. Springer, Berlin. Conway, J.S., 2010. A soil trail. A case study from Anglesey, Wales, UK. Geoheritage 2 (1-2), 15 24. Coratza, P., Hobl´ea, F., 2018. The specificities of geomorphological heritage. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 87 106. Crofts, R., Gordon, J.E., 2015. Geoconservation in protected areas. In: Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., Pulsford, I. (Eds.), Protected Area Governance and Management. ANU Press, Canberra, pp. 531 568. Daniels, S., Veale, L., 2015. Revealing repton: bringing landscape to life at Sheringham Park. Lands. Res. 40 (1), 5 22. Dong, H., Song, Y., Chen, T., Zhao, J., Yu, L., 2014. Geoconservation and geotourism in Luochuan Loess National Geopark, China. Quat. Int. 334/335, 40 51. Dowling, R.K., 2011. Geotourism’s global growth. Geoheritage 3, 1 13. Dowling, R.K., 2013. Global Geotourism an emerging form of sustainable tourism. Czech J. Tour. 2 (2), 59 79. Dowling, R.K., 2015. Geotourism. In: Cater, C., Garrod, B., Low, T. (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Sustainable Tourism. CABI, Oxford, pp. 231 232. Dowling, R.K., Newsome, D. (Eds.), 2006. Geotourism. Elsevier/Heineman Publishers, Oxford. Endere, M.L., Prado, J.L., 2015. Characterization and valuation of paleontological heritage: a perspective from Argentina. Geoheritage 7 (2), 137 145. Erfurt-Cooper, P., 2010. Active geothermal and volcanic environments as tourist destinations. In: Dowling, R., Newsome, D. (Eds.), Global Geotourism Perspectives. Goodfellow Publishers, Oxford, pp. 33 48. Erfurt-Cooper, P. (Ed.), 2014. Volcanic Tourist Destinations. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Erfurt-Cooper, P., Cooper, M. (Eds.), 2010. Volcano & Geothermal Tourism: Sustainable Geo-Resources for Leisure and Recreation. Earthscan, London. Eggleton, R.A., 2001. The Regolith Glossary. Cooperative Centre for Landscape Evolution and Mineral Exploration. National Capital Printing, Canberra.

REFERENCES

319

Feuillet, T., Sourp, E., 2011. Geomorphological heritage of the Pyrenees National Park (France): assessment, clustering, and promotion of geomorphosites. Geoheritage 3, 151 162. Field, R., Newsome, D., 2014. Krakatau: tourism and the recovery of a volcanic rainforest. In: Erfurt-Cooper, P. (Ed.), Volcanic Tourist Destinations Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 217 229. Gao, W., Li, J., Mao, X., Li, H., 2013. Geological and geomorphological value of the monogenetic volcanoes in Wudalianchi National Park, NE China. Geoheritage 5 (2), 73 85. Gray, M., 2004. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. Wiley, Chichester. GSWA, n.d. Rottnest Island: a Geology Guide. Government of Western Australia, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Perth. Hepburn, A., 2001. “Enough of a wonder”: landscape and tourism in Thomas Wharton’s Icefields. Essays on Canadian Writing, Spring 2001, 70 92. Hjort, J., Gordon, J.E., Gray, M., Hunter Jr., M.L., 2015. Why geodiversity matters in valuing nature’s stage. Conserv. Biol. 29 (3), 630 639. Hose, T.A., 1995. Selling the story of Britain’s stone. Environ. Interpret. 10 (2), 16 17. Hose, T.A. (Ed.), 2016. Geoheritage and Geotourism: A European perspective. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge. Hose, T.A., Vasiljevi´c, D.A., 2012. Defining the nature and purpose of modern geotourism with particular reference to the United Kingdom and South-East Europe. Geoheritage 4 (1-2), 25 43. Ilie¸s, D.C., Josan, N., 2009. Geosituri s¸i geopeisaje [Geosites and Geolandscapes]. Oradea University Publishing House, Oradea (in Romanian). Kharazian, P., 2015. Assessment of geo-tourism structure in Bojnoord City Sustainable Tourism Development. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 4 (2), 175 184. Martin, S., 2010. The Grand Canyon. In: Dowling, R., Newsome, D. (Eds.), Global Geotourism Perspectives. Goodfellow Publishers, Oxford, pp. 167 178. Naik, S., 2014. Geotourism: a perspective of geological monuments of Karnataka. Int. J. Appl. Ser. Market. Persp. 3 (3), 1180 1184. Neche¸s, I.-M., Erdeli, G., 2015. Geolandscapes and geotourism: integrating nature and culture in the Bucegi Mountains of Romania. Lands. Res. 40 (4), 486 509. Newsome, D., 2000. Origin of sandplains in Western Australia: a review of the debate and some recent findings. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 47 (4), 695 706. Newsome, D., 2010. The need for a planning framework to preserve the wildness of Sibayak Volcano, north Sumatra. In: Erfurt-Cooper, P., Cooper, M. (Eds.), Volcano & Geothermal Tourism: Sustainable Georesources for Leisure and Recreation. Earthscan, London, pp. 131 141. Newsome, D., 2014. Appropriate policy development and research needs in response to adventure racing in protected areas. Biol. Conserv. 171, 259 269. Newsome, D., Dowling, R.K. (Eds.), 2010. Geotourism: The Tourism of Geology and Landscape. Goodfellow Publishers, Oxford. Newsome, D., Johnson, C.P., 2013. Potential geotourism and the prospect of raising awareness about geoheritage and environment on Mauritius. Geoheritage 5, 1 9. Newsome, D., Dowling, R., Leung, Y.-F., 2012. The nature and management of geotourism: a case study of two established iconic geotourism destinations. Tour. Manag. Persp. 2/3, 19 27. Newsome, D., Moore, S., Dowling, R., 2013. Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, Impacts and Management, second ed. Channel View Publications, Clevedon. Ng, C.Y., Fung, L.W., Newsome, D., 2010. Hong Kong Geopark. In: Dowling, R., Newsome, D. (Eds.), Global Geotourism Perspectives. Goodfellow. Publishers, Oxford, pp. 179 191. Page, K.N., 2018. Fossils, heritage and conservation: managing demands on a precious resource. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 107 128.

320

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

Paik, I.S., Huh, M., Kim, H.J., Kim, S.J., Newsome, D., 2010. The Cretaceous fossil sites of South Korea: identifying geosites, science and geotourism. In: Dowling, R., Newsome, D. (Eds.), Global Geotourism Perspectives. Goodfellow Publishers, Oxford, pp. 126 141. Percival, I.G., 2014. Protection and preservation of Australia’s palaeontological heritage. Geoheritage 6 (3), 205 216. Pforr, C., Dowling, R.K., in press. Geotourism in Australia and New Zealand. In: Pforr, C., Reiser, D. (Eds.), Tourismus in Australien und Neuseeland, 2017, De Gruyter Oldenbourg, Berlin. Pralong, J.P., Reynard, E., 2005. A proposal for a classification of geomorphological sites depending on their tourist value. Il Quaternario 18 (1), 315 321. Pulido-Bosch, A., Mart´ın-Rosales, W., Lo´pez-Chicano, M., Rodr´ıguez-Navarro, C.M., Vallejos, A., 1997. Human impact in a tourist karstic cave (Aracena, Spain). Environ. Geol. 31 (3), 142 149. Purdie, H., 2013. Glacier retreat and tourism: insights from New Zealand. Mount. Res. Dev. 33 (4), 463 472. Purdie, H., Gomez, C., Espiner, S., 2015. Glacier recession and the changing rockfall hazard: implications for glacier tourism. NZ Geogra. 71 (3), 189 202. Reynard, E., 2005. G´eomorphosites et paysages. G´eomorphol. Relief Proc. Environ. 11 (3), 181 188 (in French). Reynard, E., 2008. Scientific research and tourist promotion of geomorphological heritage. Geogr. Fis. Din. Quat. 31, 225 230. Reynard, E., Giusti, C., 2018. The landscape and the cultural value of geoheritage. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 147 166. Ruban, D.A., 2015. Geotourism a geographical review of the literature. Tour. Manag. Persp. 15, 1 15. Rutherford, J., Kobryn, H., Newsome, D., 2014. A case study in the evaluation of geotourism potential through geographic information systems: application in a geology-rich island tourism hotspot. Curr. Issues Tour. 18 (2), 267 285. Rutherford, J., Newsome, D., Kobryn, H., 2015. Interpretation as a vital ingredient of geotourism in coastal environments: the geology of sea level change, Rottnest Island, Western Australia. Tour. Marine Environ. 11, 55 72. Sharples, C., 2002. Concepts and Principles of Geoconservation. Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart. Available from: ,dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/geoconservation.pdf . (accessed 09.08.17). Schemm-Gregory, M., Henriques, M.H., 2013. The Devonian brachiopod collections of Portugal. A palaeontological heritage. Geoheritage 5 (2), 107 122. Schumann, A., Muwanga, A., Lehto, T., Staudt, M., Schlu¨ter, T., Kato, V., et al., 2015. Ugandan geosites. Geol. Today 31 (2), 59 67. Stefanovic, I., Mijovic, D., 2004. The Middle Miocene fossil site Prebreza in Southern Serbia. Polish Geological Institute Special Papers 13, 209 212. Stoffelen, A., Vanneste, D., 2015. An integrative geotourism approach: bridging conflicts in tourism landscape research. Tour. Geogr. 17 (4), 544 560. ˇ Strba, L., Ryb´ar, P., Bal´azˇ , B., Molok´acˇ , M., Hvizd´ak, L., Krˇsa´ k, B., et al., 2015. Geosite assessments: comparison of methods and results. Curr. Issues Tour. 18 (5), 496 510. Stueve, A.M., Cook, S.D., Drew, D., 2002. The Geotourism Study: Phase 1 Executive Summary. National Geographic Traveller, Travel Industry Association of America. Tennesen, M., 2014. Rare earth. Science 346 (6210), 692 695. Wang, L., Tian, M., Wang, L., 2015. Geodiversity, geoconservation and geotourism in Hong Kong Global Geopark of China. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 126, 426 437. Wang, L., Tian, M., Wen, C., Zhao, L., Song, J., Sun, M., et al., 2014. Geoconservation and geotourism in Arxan-Chaihe Volcano Area, Inner Mongolia, China. Quat. Int. 349, 384 391.

REFERENCES

321

´ rnason, P., O ´ lafsdott´ır, R., 2015. Glacier tourism: a scoping review. Tour. Geogr. 17 (5), Welling, J.T., A 635 662. White, S., Wakelin-King, G.A., 2014. Earth Sciences comparative matrix: a comparative method for geoheritage assessment. Geogr. Res. 52 (2), 168 181. Wilson, J., 2012. The Impact of Climate Variability on Tourism Businesses and Tourism Infrastructure Providers in Glacier Country. Lincoln University, Canterbury (Research Paper No. 4). Wimbledon, W.A., Smith-Meyer, S. (Eds.), 2012. Geoheritage in Europe and Its Conservation. ProGEO, Oslo. Zouros, N., 2010. Geotourism in Greece. In: Dowling, R., Newsome, D. (Eds.), Global Geotourism Perspectives. Goodfellow Publishers, Oxford, pp. 215 229.

CHAPTER

GEOHERITAGE AND GEOPARKS

18 Jose´ Brilha

University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

18.1 GEOPARKS: THE DAWN OF AN INNOVATIVE CONCEPT For all geoconservationists, the geopark is the striking concept that in less than 20 years has gained a worldwide recognition and has taken geoheritage outside the limited and small world of geoscientists. The original concept of geopark was developed in Europe in the late 1980s. It refers to a territory with a particular geological heritage and a sustainable territorial development strategy (EGN, 2000). In order to understand the context in which the geopark concept was developed, it is necessary to travel back to the early 1970s, when the world began to be concerned about the protection of natural and cultural assets. The Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB) was approved by UNESCO in 1971 as an intergovernmental scientific programme aimed at establishing a scientific basis for the improvement of relationships between people and their environments (Fig. 18.1). One year later, UNESCO adopted the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage aimed at permanently protecting properties with cultural and/or natural assets with ‘outstanding universal value’ (OUV). After the first two decades of the implementation of both UNESCO initiatives, the geoscientific community began to realise that geoheritage was under-represented in them (Jones, 2008; UNESCO, 1999). On the one hand, the MAB programme was, and still is, fundamentally based on biodiversity (Bridgewater, 2016), as shown in the current 672 sites dispersed in 120 countries. On the other hand, the World Heritage Convention was, and still is, too restrictive in what concerns the OUV recognition of geological sites. Of the present 1073 properties in 167 countries, 90 properties (8%) were selected on the basis of geoheritage together with other assets, but only 18 (, 2%) are in the list exclusively due to the occurrence of geoheritage with OUV (Migo´n, 2018). In order to overcome this unbalanced international recognition, the geoscientific community proposed in the 1990s two new global actions: the Global Indicative List of Geological Sites (GILGES), later renamed Global Geosites Project (Cowie, 1993; Cowie and Wimbledon, 1994) and the UNESCO Geoparks Programme (Patzak and Eder, 1998; UNESCO, 1999). The latter intended to ‘promote a global network of geoparks safeguarding and developing selected areas having significant geological features’ (Patzak and Eder, 1998; UNESCO, 1999) and also to support national initiatives for the preservation of important geological sites in line with sustainable development (Erdelen, 2006).

Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00018-6 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

323

324

CHAPTER 18 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOPARKS

FIGURE 18.1 Timeline with some of the major events concerning the global stage for the development of the geoparks concept and its evolution and dispersion around the world. The establishment in 1988 of the European Working Group on Earth-Science Conservation (later converted into ProGEO The European Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage), was the first international initiative to gather the geoconservation community, which met together in the First International Symposium on the Conservation of the Geological Heritage, held in Digneles-Bains, France, in 1991.

This first attempt to establish a formal UNESCO Geoparks Programme ended without success in 2001, by decision of the 161st Session of the Executive Board of UNESCO. Despite that drawback, the geopark concept was already being used in several territories. After the establishment of the German Gerolstein District Geopark in 1989 (Bitschene, 2015; Frey, 2012), later renamed Vulkaneifel Geopark, the European Geoparks Network (EGN) was founded in 2000 with three other territories (R´eserve G´eologique de Haute-Provence, France; the Petrified Forest of Lesvos, Greece; and the Maestrazgo Cultural Park, Spain). According with EGN, geoparks were initially defined as territories with clear boundaries, with sufficient surface area for real territorial economic development and with a certain number of geosites of particular importance in terms of their scientific quality, rarity, aesthetic appeal and educational value. A geopark could also include sites with archaeological, ecological, historical, or cultural interest (McKeever and Zouros, 2005). The EGN has established two agreements with the UNESCO’s Division of Earth Sciences (Fig. 18.1): one in 2001 whereby UNESCO gave the network its endorsement and another in 2004 (known as Madonie Declaration) which states that EGN acts as the integration organisation of European geoparks into the Global Geoparks Network (GGN) (Zouros and Valiakos, 2010). After the establishment of the EGN, new European geoparks progressively integrated this network and together with eight Chinese geoparks, the GGN was constituted in 2004, under the auspices of UNESCO. The increasing number of geoparks accepted in the GGN led to the remarkable number of 127 geoparks in 35 countries in 2017, only 13 years after the foundation of the GGN (for a permanently updated list of all GGN geoparks, check www.unesco.org/new/en/naturalsciences/environment/earth-sciences/). Finally, the newest development was the definitive approval by UNESCO’s General Conference on 17 November 2015 of the International Geoscience and Geoparks Programme and the

18.2 GEOHERITAGE IN UNESCO GLOBAL GEOPARKS

325

foundation of the label ‘UNESCO Global Geoparks’ (UGGs). The new guidelines clearly state that ‘a holistic concept of protection, education and sustainable development’ must manage areas with ‘geological heritage of international value’ represented by ‘sites and landscapes of international geological significance’ (UNESCO, 2015). This new international setting has set, for the very first time, a new level of recognition for the geoheritage. This is undoubtedly a new and challenging opportunity to promote geoheritage not only at the international level but also at the national and local levels.

18.2 GEOHERITAGE IN UNESCO GLOBAL GEOPARKS There is a general lack of studies/statistics about the type of geodiversity/geoheritage occurring in UGGs. To know, for instance, what is the geoheritage with international relevance in UGGs demands a time-consuming search of each of the 127 geoparks’ websites and even then the results are absolutely not guaranteed. Ruban (2016) also stresses this lack of compiled information, particularly in what concerns the representativeness of the different geological time units in geoparks. Nevertheless, he concludes that the major time units from the Proterozoic to the Neogene are represented in UGGs more or less equally. This conclusion is in accordance with the fact that, in general, the geodiversity of UGGs is very high. Many geoparks present a diversified set of rocks, tectonic structures and landforms, representing a long geological and geomorphological history. After the analysis of the main characteristics of all UGGs, there is a general impression that the majority of these geoparks are located in mountain areas. This geomorphological context is somehow consistent with the fact that mountain areas usually allow better exposure of rocks and tectonic structures, together with the presence of landforms and associated landscapes with high aesthetic value. All these geological/geomorphological attributes are certainly very good assets for geoparks. While not exhaustive, it is possible to get a general picture of what the main types of geoheritage are via UGGs (Table 18.1). Table 18.1 Noncomprehensive Listing of the Main Types of Geoheritage in UGGs, Based on the Information Available at the UNESCO Website (www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/ environment/earth-sciences/) Type of Geoheritage

Examples of UNESCO Global Geoparks

Alpine geology/geomorphology

Styrian Eisenwurzen; Carnic Alps; Ore of the Alps (Austria) Karawanken/Karavanke (Austria/Slovenia) Massif des Bauges; Chablais (France) Swabian Alb (Germany) Beigua; Adamello-Brenta; Alpi Apuani (Italy)

Glacial and Ice Age

Tumbler Ridge (Canada) Odsherred (Denmark) Rokua (Finland) Muskauer Faltenbogen/Łuk Mu˙zakowa (Germany/Poland) De Hondsrug (The Netherlands) (Continued)

326

CHAPTER 18 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOPARKS

Table 18.1 Noncomprehensive Listing of the Main Types of Geoheritage in UGGs, Based on the Information Available at the UNESCO Website (www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/ environment/earth-sciences/) Continued Type of Geoheritage

Examples of UNESCO Global Geoparks

Karst

Zhangjiajie; Xingwen; Shilin; Leye Fengshan (China) Psiloritis (Greece) Gunung Sewu (Indonesia) Madonie (Italy)

Landforms

Dong Van Karst Plateau (Vietnam) Huangshan; Lushan; Ningde; Sanqingshan (China) Mixteca Alta (Mexico) Jeju (Republic of Korea) Grutas del Palacio (Uruguay)

Mining

Parco Geominerario della Sardegna; Tuscan Mining Park (Italy) Comarca Minera (Mexico) Idrija (Slovenia) Central Catalonia (Spain)

Palaeontological

Araripe (Brazil) Stonehamer (Canada) Funiushan; Zigong; Tianzhushan; Yanqing (China) Luberon (France) Lesvos Island; Sitia (Greece) Arouca; Naturtejo da Meseta Meridional (Portugal) Hateg (Romania) Sierras Subb´eticas (Spain)

Stratigraphical

Haute-Provence (France) Basque Coast (Spain)

Tectonics

Molina & Alto Tajo (Spain) Songshan (China) Vikos (Greece) M’Goun (Morocco) Terras de Cavaleiros (Portugal) North-West Highlands (United Kingdom)

Volcanological

Wudalianchi; Yandangshan; Jinghohu; Leiqiong (China) Vulkaneifel (Germany) Katla; Reykjanes (Iceland) Batur (Indonesia) Unzen Volcanic Area; Toya Usu; Oki Islands (Japan) Azores (Portugal) El Hierro; Lanzarote and Chinijo Islands (Spain) Kula Volcanic (Turkey)

18.3 MANAGEMENT OF GEOHERITAGE IN GEOPARKS

327

This brief and noncomprehensive analysis suggests that fossils and volcanoes are the most represented geoheritage elements inside the GGN. Again, this is not surprising as these two types of elements are among the most popular and widely appreciated by the general public, one of the main targets of any geopark. At the European level, there is a concentration of geoparks in the Alpine setting, not only because geology and geomorphology are very well exposed in these mountain areas, but also due to the high aesthetic value of Alpine landscapes, widely recognised worldwide.

18.3 MANAGEMENT OF GEOHERITAGE IN GEOPARKS Basically, geoparks are territories with a sustainable development strategy based on geological heritage and other natural and cultural assets, through the offer of educational and geotourism actions in order to attract visitors. This means that geoparks play a very important role in the characterisation, conservation and interpretation of geoheritage, which are basic steps for any geoconservation strategy (Brilha, 2015).

18.3.1 CHARACTERISATION OF GEOHERITAGE IN GEOPARKS Concerning the most fundamental strength of any geopark its geoheritage several stages should be implemented in order to prepare a territory to become a geopark (Brilha, 2016): 1. general description of geodiversity with an explanation of the geological and geomorphological setting of the territory; 2. inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites’ scientific value and degradation risk; 3. quantitative assessment of educational and touristic potential uses of geosites; 4. inventory of geodiversity sites; 5. quantitative assessment of educational and touristic potential uses of geodiversity sites, together with the degradation risk evaluation. With the results of these tasks, it is possible to prepare a proper geoconservation action plan that should define priorities for the management of these sites: which ones will be used as educational and/or touristic resources, what kind of infrastructures are needed, which trails can be implemented, etc. (Fig. 18.2). It should be emphasised that for any UGG, not only geosites with international relevance are the ones to be properly managed. In fact, all other sites are also equally important because they support the majority of the educational and touristic actions of geoparks. The results of the above-mentioned tasks will also give all the necessary data required by UNESCO for new UGG applications (UNESCO, 2017), namely: (1) general geological description; (2) listing and description of geological sites; (3) details about their international, national, regional or local value; (4) current status in terms of site protection; (5) data on the management and maintenance of all sites.

328

CHAPTER 18 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOPARKS

FIGURE 18.2 Example of a management measure: due to the fragility and vulnerability of some geosites, in some areas of the Lanzarote and Chinijo Islands UGG (Spain), visitors are not allowed to move freely and to climb cinder cones; in these areas, visitors can only move in local buses with stops at predefined locations (Photograph by J. Brilha).

18.3.2 CONSERVATION OF GEOHERITAGE IN GEOPARKS The conservation of geoheritage in geoparks is a vital assignment for any manager, simply because without geoheritage there are no geoparks. The maintenance of the integrity of all geosites and geodiversity sites is a guarantee that the values that were identified and have justified the creation of the geopark in the first place are still present in the geopark, attracting visitors and supporting the sustainable development of the territory. As geoparks are not a category of protected area, they cannot ensure the legal protection of geoheritage. This means that geoparks must use the national legal setting in order to guarantee a formal protection of, at least, the most important geosites (Fig. 18.3). The results of the quantitative assessment refereed in Section 18.3.1 may help geopark managers to define which geosites must have a statutory protection. Aspiring geoparks must prove that their geosites are legally protected prior to submitting the UGG application (UNESCO, 2015). Sometimes, UGGs include in their boundaries statutory protected areas (many of them already existing before the establishment of the geopark), which ensures the legal protection of geosites.

18.3 MANAGEMENT OF GEOHERITAGE IN GEOPARKS

329

FIGURE 18.3 On-site notice board clearly stating the statutory protection of a geosite given by the national legislation in the English Riviera UGG (UK) (Photograph by J. Brilha).

330

CHAPTER 18 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOPARKS

FIGURE 18.4 Fossils of giant trilobites are available to experts, schools and general public in an interpretative centre managed by one partner of the Arouca UGG (Portugal). This is an example of ex situ conservation and, at the same time, it is also an educational and tourist infrastructure for the geopark (Photograph by J. Brilha).

The conservation of sites in geoparks should follow the same procedures that are recommended for protected areas (Crofts et al., 2015). These authors have compiled threats and pressures that may affect geoheritage, most of them potentially relevant in geoparks, such as: (1) urban development and construction of infrastructures; (2) mining and mineral extraction; (3) changes in land use and management; (4) coastal protection and river management and engineering; (5) recreation and geotourism; (6) climate change; (7) restoration of pits and quarries including landfill; (8) stabilisation of rock faces (e.g., road cuttings) with netting and concrete; (9) irresponsible fossil and mineral collecting and rock coring. Once the threats affecting each site are clearly identified, it is necessary to study and implement the best solutions to decrease or eliminate the site’s risk of degradation. Wimbledon et al. (2004) present guidelines to apply practical conservation actions to geosites. As recreation and geotourism are important strategies in all geoparks, it is very important to implement studies to calculate the site’s carrying capacity (Cifuentes, 1992; Lima et al., 2017; Lobo, 2015; Marion and Leung, 2011) and to establish monitoring routines (D´ıez-Herrero et al., 2018; Garc´ıa-Cort´es et al., 2012; Meyer, 2018). These studies help managers to define the correct

18.3 MANAGEMENT OF GEOHERITAGE IN GEOPARKS

331

number of visitors that each site can receive, without causing meaningful impacts on the site’s integrity. In addition, monitoring actions will help to understand how the site’s integrity evolves throughout time. It is also worth underlining the relevance of ex situ geoheritage conservation in geoparks. When it is impossible to conserve geoheritage in situ, the removal of fossils, minerals and rocks from the original location, their proper treatment and exhibition in museums and interpretative centres is a very good conservation method (De Wever and Guiraud, 2018) that should be done under the supervision of geopark managers (Fig. 18.4). Although having been removed from the original site, these moveable exemplars still maintain their scientific and educational values, which are major assets for any geopark.

18.3.3 EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION OF GEOHERITAGE IN GEOPARKS Education and geotourism, together with geoconservation, form the tripod of any geopark action plan. Although education and geotourism are not exclusively focused on the geopark’s geoheritage since these activities must also relate with the other natural and cultural heritage of the territory (Fig. 18.5), it is unquestionable that geosites and geodiversity sites play a central role in supporting formal/informal educational and geotourism activities. It should be emphasised that not all geoheritage should be used for education and geotourism. Brilha (2016, 2018) details methods to assess the potential for a certain site to be used for educational and tourism uses. For instance, a geosite may have a very high scientific value but its eventual use by young students might raise concerns about their safety, which is a reasonable justification to not include this geosite in the educative programmes of a geopark, at least until the safety issues have been eliminated. When the result of the quantitative assessment of the potential educational and touristic uses of a certain site is high, geopark managers have a sound justification to build new or better facilities to improve the visiting conditions to the respective site, as well as to deliver good educative and interpretation resources. A site has a high potential for educational use when: (1) its geoheritage is resistant to the eventual destruction caused by students; (2) it can be easily understood by students of different school levels; (3) it can be easily reached by bus or short and easy trails; (4) it provides safe conditions for students, in particular considering the younger ones. Similarly, one can consider some factors to assess when a site has a high potential for tourist/ recreational use: (1) the geoheritage has a remarkable aesthetic relevance; (2) the geological/geomorphological significance can be easily understood by visitors with no geoscientific background; (3) there is a low risk of degradation as a result of human activities; (4) there are good facilities and infrastructures to receive visitors, including those with disabilities. The educational and tourist/recreation uses of geoheritage require a strong investment by the geopark management structure. The geopark staff should include experts on geosciences education and interpretation, in order to produce solid contents that support the educational and interpretative programmes of the geopark (Brilha, 2009; Buhay and Best, 2015; Cayla and Martin, 2018; Henriques et al., 2012; Macadam, 2018; Newsome and Dowling, 2018; Zouros et al., 2011). It is commonly accepted that, in many countries, the formal education on geosciences in schools is very deficient, resulting in societies with very low awareness for geoscientific topics (Stewart and Nield, 2013; Van Loon, 2008; Vasconcelos, 2016). This general context must be taken into account by

332

CHAPTER 18 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOPARKS

FIGURE 18.5 In the Sobetsu Volcano Memorial Park, visiting the ruins of a hospital that collapsed during the 1977 earthquake is promoted by the Toya Usu UGG (Japan). Keeping the effects of a natural phenomenon that is inexorably connected to all Japanese people is a way to keep society on alert for the need to be always prepared to face new seismic/ volcanic events, a remarkable example of informal education on the Earth’s dynamics (Photograph by J. Brilha).

geopark managers because this implies the need for geoparks to have very good educational and interpretation materials and to have trained staff to assist students/teachers and the general public.

18.4 FINAL REMARKS The geopark and its international recognition by UNESCO as a tool to promote geoheritage in society has been a remarkable move by the geoscientific community in recent years. Being the essence of a geopark, geosites and geodiversity sites need to be well maintained with great responsibility by geopark managers. It is unquestionable that geoheritage inside a geopark must be properly explained to students, visitors and to the local community, so it is understandable that geoparks’ action plans dedicate a lot of attention to interpretation and geotourism infrastructures. However, geopark managers must not forget that geoheritage might be fragile and vulnerable, either as a result of visitors’ impact or as a consequence of rock weathering and erosion and natural decay in

REFERENCES

333

general. Therefore, aspiring geoparks must prepare a solid application dossier to become a UGG with a strong focus on the characterisation, assessment, and protection of geoheritage, as it is requested by UNESCO. Also, UGG managers must ensure that geoheritage is being properly conserved and with an effective monitoring programme to understand the evolution of sites’ integrity throughout time. The maintenance of geoheritage in the best possible state is the best guarantee to promote geoparks nationally and abroad, attract new visitors and stimulate the sustainable development of the whole territory, the ultimate aim of any geopark.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work is cofunded by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund, based on COMPETE 2020 (Programa Operacional da Competitividade e Internacionalizac¸a˜o), project ICT (UID/GEO/ 04683/2013) with reference POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007690 and national funds provided by Fundac¸a˜o para a Cieˆncia e Tecnologia.

REFERENCES Bitschene, P.R., 2015. Edutainment with basalt and volcanoes the Rockeskyller Kopf example in the Westeifel Volcanic Field/Vulkaneifel European Geopark, Germany. Z. Dt. Ges. Geowiss 166 (2), 187 193. Bridgewater, P., 2016. The Man and Biosphere programme of UNESCO: rambunctious child of the sixties, but was the promise fulfilled? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19, 1 6. Brilha, J., 2009. A importaˆncia dos geoparques no ensino e divulgac¸a˜o das geocieˆncias. Geologia-USP. Publ. Esp. 5, 27 33 (in Portuguese). Brilha, J., 2015. Concept of geoconservation. In: Tiess, G., Majumder, T., Cameron, P. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Mineral and Energy Policy. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p. 2. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40871-7_2-1. Brilha, J., 2016. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8 (2), 119 134. Brilha, J., 2018. Geoheritage: inventories and evaluation. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 69 86. Buhay, D.N., Best, L.A., 2015. Informal learning at Stonehammer and English Riviera Geoparks. Geoheritage 7 (2), 165 175. Cayla, N., Martin, S., 2018. Digital geovisualisation technologies applied to geoheritage management. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 289 304. ´ reas protegidas. CATIE, Turrialba Cifuentes, M., 1992. Determinacion de capacidade de carga tur´ıstica en A (in Spanish). Cowie, J.W., 1993. Report Working Group on Geological and Palaeobiological Sites, a cooperative project of UNESCO, IUGS, IGCP and IUCN. World Heritage (UNESCO) 32. Cowie, J.W., Wimbledon, W.A.P., 1994. The World Heritage list and its relevance to geology. In: O’Halloran, D., Green, C., Harley, M., Stanley, M., Knill, J. (Eds.), Geological and Landscape Conservation. The Geological Society, London, pp. 71 73.

334

CHAPTER 18 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOPARKS

Crofts, R., Gordon, J.E., Santucci, V.L., 2015. Geoconservation in protected areas. In: Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., Pulsford, I. (Eds.), Protected Area Governance and Management. ANU Press, Canberra, pp. 531 568. De Wever, P., Guiraud, M., 2018. Geoheritage and museums. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 129 146. D´ıez-Herrero, A., Urqu´ı, L.C., Vegas, J., Go´mez-Heras, M., Garc´ıa-Cort´es, A., 2018. Techniques for the monitoring of geosites in Caban˜eros National Park, Spain. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 417 430. EGN, 2000. European Geopark Charter. European Geoparks Network. Available from: ,http://www.europeangeoparks.org/?page_id 5 357. (accessed 31.08.17). Erdelen, W., 2006. Thoughts on the natural sciences on UNESCO beyond 2005. In: Petitjean, P., Zharov, V., Glaser, G., Richardson, J., de Padirac, B., Archibald, G. (Eds.), Sixty Years of Science at UNESCO 1945 2005. UNESCO, Paris, pp. 593 638. Frey, M.L., 2012. Vulkaneifel, a role model for the European & Global Geoparks Network. In: Proceedings of the Contact Forum “Geoheritage, Geoconservation & Geotourism”, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts, pp. 31 44. Garc´ıa-Cort´es, A., Vegas, J., Carcavilla, L., D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., 2012. Un sistema de indicadores para la evaluacio´n y seguimiento del estado de conservacio´n del patrimonio geolo´gico. Geo-Temas 13, 1272 1275 (in Spanish). Henriques, M.H., Tomaz, C., S´a, A., 2012. The Arouca Geopark (Portugal) as an educational resource: a case study. Episodes 35 (4), 481 488. Jones, C., 2008. History of geoparks. In: Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), The History of Geoconservation. Special Publications 300. The Geological Society, London, pp. 273 277. Lima, A., Nunes, J.C., Brilha, J., 2017. Monitoring of the Visitors Impact at “Ponta Ferraria e Pico das Camarinhas” Geosite (Sa˜o Miguel Island, Azores UNESCO Global Geopark, Portugal). Geoheritage 9, 495 503. Lobo, H., 2015. Tourist carrying capacity of Santana cave (PETAR-SP, Brazil): a new method based on a critical atmospheric parameter. Tour. Manag. Persp. 16, 67 75. Macadam, J., 2018. Geoheritage: getting the message across. What message and to whom? In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 267 288. Marion, J., Leung, Y., 2011. Indicators and protocols for monitoring impacts of formal and informal trails in protected areas. J. Tour. Leisure Stud. 17 (2), 215 236. McKeever, P., Zouros, N., 2005. Geoparks: celebrating Earth heritage, sustaining local communities. Episodes 28 (4), 274 278. Meyer, H.W., 2018. Managing conservation, research, and interpretation of geoheritage assets at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, Colorado, USA. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 387 404. Migo´n, P., 2018. World Heritage sites. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 237 250. Newsome, D., Dowling, R., 2018. Geoheritage and geotourism. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 305 322. Patzak, M., Eder, W., 1998. “UNESCO GEOPARK”. A new programme a new UNESCO label. Geol. Balcan. 28 (3 4), 33 35. Ruban, D., 2016. Representation of geologic time in the global geopark network: a web-page study. Tour. Manag. Persp. 20, 204 208. Stewart, I.S., Nield, T., 2013. Earth stories: context and narrative in the communication of popular geoscience. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 699 712.

REFERENCES

335

UNESCO, 1999. UNESCO Geoparks Programme A New Initiative to Promote a Global Network of Geoparks Safeguarding and Developing Selected Areas Having Significant Geological Features. Document 156 EX/11 Rev., Executive Board, 156th session. UNESCO, Paris, p. 4. UNESCO, 2015. Statutes of the International Geoscience and Geoparks Programme and Operational Guidelines for UNESCO Global Geoparks. UNESCO, Paris, p. 16. UNESCO, 2017. Application Dossier for UNESCO Global Geoparks. UNESCO, Paris, p. 3. Wimbledon, W.A.P., Barnard, A.F., Peterken, A.G., 2004. Geosite management a widely applicable, practical approach. In: Parkes, M.A. (Ed.), Natural and Cultural Landscapes The Geological Foundation. Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, pp. 187 192. Van Loon, A.J., 2008. Geological education of the future. Earth Sci. Rev. 86, 247 254. Vasconcelos, C. (Ed.), 2016. Geoscience Education, Indoor and Outdoor. Springer International Publishing, Cham. Zouros, N., Valiakos, I., 2010. Geoparks management and assessment. Bull. Geol. Soc. Greece 43 (2), 965 976. Zouros, N., Pavlides, S., Soulakellis, N., Chatzipetros, A., Vasileiadou, K., Valiakos, I., Mpentana, K., 2011. Using active fault studies for raising public awareness and sensitisation on seismic hazard: a case study from Lesvos Petrified Forest Geopark, NE Aegean Sea, Greece. Geoheritage 3, 317 327.

CHAPTER

POTENTIAL GEOHERITAGE SITES IN ETHIOPIA: CHALLENGES OF THEIR PROMOTION AND CONSERVATION

19 Asfawossen Asrat

Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

19.1 INTRODUCTION Ethiopia has some of the unique and significant geological, environmental and cultural assets on Earth. The history, culture, climate, fauna and flora, and economy of Ethiopia are strongly tied to its unique geological and geomorphological setting. Ethiopia underlies an immense succession of rocks ranging from the Precambrian basement to actively erupting volcanic centres (Fig. 19.1A). The active Afar rift, currently about 120 m below sea level, with its active volcanic centres and extensive saline flats, is one of the few places in the world where active ocean formation can be observed. The Main Ethiopian Rift, where most of the important hominid fossils have been found is where our origins lie. The volcanic highland massifs, with fertile soils, have modulated the tropical climate to temperate conditions leading to diverse faunal and floral resources including coffee (Coffea arabica) and teff (Eragrostis tef), which are unique in the African continent. The highland massifs are significant watersheds where numerous river basins including the Blue Nile River originate and carve the highlands on their way down to the surrounding lowland countries, forming immense gorges, ravines and canyons of significant scale. The rift and the highlands are dotted with chains of volcanic centres, calderas, craters, and lakes. The sedimentary successions form the most vast karst landscape and the longest known cave system in the continent. The cultural history, religious manifestations, ancient civilization and the modern history of Ethiopia are strongly related to geological and geomorphological phenomena. The rich hominid and human fossil sites, the prehistoric archaeological sites (oldest artefact sites in the world and important prehistoric rock art), in situ carved stelae and rock-hewn churches, and ancient terraces attest to this fact. Furthermore, the protection of the political centres of the country on the northwestern highlands from the external world by the harsh Afar depression close to the sea, and its natural garrisons, contributed to the modern history of the country. Numerous geological features in Ethiopia have the potential to be defined as ‘geoheritage sites’ on proper assessment. Moreover, many of the UNESCO World Heritage sites and tourist attractions in the country, which significantly contribute to the Ethiopian economy, have strong links with geological phenomena, though they have not been properly assessed in view of their geoheritage Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00019-8 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

339

FIGURE 19.1 (A) Simplified geomorphological setting of Ethiopia: location map with the major geomorphic regions and the World Heritage sites in Ethiopia marked, the inset showing the Great East African Rift System. (B) Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of Ethiopia indicating the plateaus dissected by the Rift System. The elevations range from about 120 m below sea level to more than 4500 m a.s.l. The deep-blue colour represents elevations below 500 m a.s.l.; blue: 500 750 m; light blue: 750 1000 m; light green: 1000 1500 m; deep green: 1500 2500 m; yellowish colour: 2500 3500 m; and red: above 3000 m elevation.

19.3 GEOHERITAGE SITES IN ETHIOPIA

341

potential (Asrat et al., 2009, 2012). This chapter gives a brief summary of potential geoheritage sites in Ethiopia and discusses some important issues of their promotion and conservation.

19.2 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOMORPHOLOGICAL SETTING The oldest rocks in Ethiopia are late Proterozoic to Paleozoic metamorphic rocks formed by PanAfrican orogenic processes resulting in low-grade metavolcano-sediments and medium- to high-grade schists and gneisses, and associated granitic and mafic/ultramafic intrusions (Asrat et al., 2001). The basement complex is exposed in the peripheral parts of the country representing nearly a quarter of the surface area. Extensive peneplanation followed by limited continental fluviatile deposition of calcareous sandstones, glaciations and deposition of glacial tillites characterise the Paleozoic Era, while the Mesozoic Era is represented by a succession of transgressive, fluviatile, mature sandstone; near shore, subcontinental and marine limestone and shale; and regressive, immature, clastic sandstone (Asrat, 2002; Bosellini et al., 1997). The Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks, exposed as cliffs forming ridges, gorges, buttes and mesas in northern, central and eastern Ethiopia, comprise a quarter of the surface area of the country. Most of the present landforms of Ethiopia took shape during the Cenozoic Era. Uplifting of the Ethio-Arabian landmass followed by deep-seated crustal fracturing and subsequent outpouring of huge quantity of basaltic and associated lava along with massive shield volcanism during the Oligocene and Miocene formed the Northwestern and Southeastern Plateaus (the Trap Series). Subsequent break-up of the uplifted dome formed the rift system during the Miocene, and the rifting process continues to date in the form of active tectonics and volcanism, as well as sedimentation in the chain of lakes and rift basins. Basalts, trachytes, rhyolites, ignimbrites, tuff and associated pyroclastic deposits constitute the Oligo-Miocene and Quaternary volcanic rocks, and cover nearly half of the surface area of the country. Late Miocene to Quaternary sedimentation in fluvial and lacustrine environments formed the fossil hominid and artefact bearing successions, currently exposed in the Afar depression, the Main Ethiopian Rift, and the Omo Valley. Three major geomorphic regions characterize Ethiopia: the Northwestern Plateau and lowlands, the Southeastern Plateau and lowlands, and the Ethiopian Rift System, which includes the Afar depression (Fig. 19.1B). The continuous geological processes led to diverse geomorphological features, ranging from 4540 m high mountain ranges formed by the massive shield volcanoes, flattopped plateaus of the Trap volcanic rocks at an average elevation of 2000 m a.s.l., deep river gorges, rolling plains, extensive subvertical to vertical tectonic escarpments, structural grabens and horsts, to salt plains 120 m below sea level. Ethiopia is the ‘Roof of Africa’ where nearly twothirds of the elevation above 2000 m in Africa is located, while at the same time it is home to the lowest depression in the continent.

19.3 GEOHERITAGE SITES IN ETHIOPIA Sites with geoheritage potential can be broadly categorized into two major classes: (1) natural geological and geomorphological sites and processes with significant geoheritage value geosites, and (2) cultural sites (archaeological, historical and religious) with potential geoheritage significance. Descriptions of selected examples of these resources are given in Tables 19.1 and 19.2 and Figs. 19.2 and 19.3. The first category (Table 19.1; Fig. 19.2) includes some of the most distinctive

Table 19.1 Selected Examples of Geosites in Ethiopia Large Scale Geological/ Geomorphological Setting

Age/Stratigraphical Setting

Crystalline basement massifs (the Mozambique Belt)

Late Proterozoic Early Paleozoic gneisses

Greenstone Belts (the Arabian-Nubian Shield)

Pan-African (Late Proterozoic) metamorphic belts, granitic massifs and ultramafic belts

Sedimentary deposits

Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary deposits

Flood basalts and shield volcanoes

Oligocene Miocene Trap volcanoes and associated shield volcanoes

Volcanic domes, plugs, dikes

Oligocene

Pliocene

Prominent Locations and Examples The Baro and Geba massifs, the Hammar range, the Konso upland; the Gariborro granite massif; granite intrusions and massifs (e.g., Asimba, Chila, Negash, Guba, Abu Ramla) Exposed in northern, western and southern Ethiopia

The Paleozoic Enticho sandstone and Edaga Arbi glacial tillites; the Mesozoic deposits in the Mekele Outlier; the deeply incised Blue Nile Basin, the Ogaden and the Wabe Shebele Basins: Triassic Adigrat sandstone, Jurassic-Cretaceous Antalo limestone, and Cretaceous Amba Aradam sandstone The Ethiopian highlands; the Simien, Guna, Abune Yosef, Guguftu, and Choke shields

The Adwa phonolite plugs (Northern Ethiopia); the volcanic plugs of Koso Ber, Addis Zemen and Debre Tabor in Central Ethiopia; the Dadimos mount in southern Ethiopia; the Gambela and Assosa plugs in western Ethiopia and the Marda belt in Eastern Ethiopia

Brief Geological/Geomorphological Description High-grade gneisses, metagranites and migmatites forming low-lying to prominent massifs

Regionally elongated low-grade metamorphic belts (schists, phylites, slates, metacarbonates) intruded by numerous syn-, late- and posttectonic granitoids, bordered by ophiolitic sutures and other ultramafic blocks Generally rich in metallic mineral deposits including gold and platinum group elements Form prominent beds and massifs of fluviatile sandstones, glacial tillites; transgressive sandstones, siltstones, and shale; variegated shales, dolostones, gypsum; shallow marine limestones, marls and shales; and regressive sandstones, conglomerates and shales Trap sequences of flood basalts, some subordinate felsic sequences forming extensive flat plateau, dotted with massive shield volcanoes dominating the landscape with elevations rising to more than 4000 m a.s.l. in some localities Phonolitic plugs and domes, basaltic dikes and elongated volcanic ridges

Tectonic and geomorphic escarpments, extensive mesas and buttes

Mesozoic sedimentary massifs forming isolated or chain-forming mesas and buttes Oligocene flood basalts forming plateau escarpments Miocene Plateau-Rift valley escarpments

Rift volcanic massifs and structures

Miocene marginal grabens and horsts

The Gheralta, Enticho, Senkata, Atsbi, Temben (Hagere Selam and Abyi Adi) mountain chains and mesas (e.g., the fully isolated Debre Damo mesa) in Northern Ethiopia The Lima Limo escarpment of the Simien massif; the Harena escarpment of the Bale massif Numerous rift bounding fault scarps on either side of the Afar and Main Ethiopian Rifts including from north to south the Bada Berahile, Shaigubi Sheket, MaychewChercher Mehoni, Korem Alamata, Kobo Zobil, Ambasel, Ataye Debre Sina, Ankober Shenkora, Gurage, Chencha, Gofa escarpments of the western margin; and the Dengego, Hurso, Afdem, Mieso, Asebe Teferi, Awash, Arba Gugu, Assela, Kersa, Wendo Guenet, and Aleta Wondo escarpments of the Eastern margin Elongated and wide grabens and horsts within the rift: the Sheket, Erebti, Raya, Kobo, Borkena, Ataye, Shewa Robit, Butajira grabens; the Zobil, Bati, Kela, Amaro horsts

Miocene Quaternary rift shoulder central volcanoes

Mt Wochecha, Mt Menagesha, Mt Yerer, Mt Furi, Mt Entoto and Yeka, Mt Chilalo

Miocene Quaternary axial rift stratovolcanoes and calderas

Dabahu, Alayta, Tat-Ale, Ayelu, Asebot, Dofen, Kone, Fantale, Boseti, Boku, Gedamsa, Bora, Bericha, Moye, Aluto, Corbetti, Wagebeta, Damot, within the Afar and Main Ethiopian Rifts

Very scenic mountain chains exposing a succession of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic formations, in places capped by Oligocene basalts forming sheer cliffs and precipices with generally flat tops Flood basalts extruded over sedimentary basins or crystalline basements, forming more than 1 km high sheer cliffs and complex canyons Large scale structural features exposing thick succession of mostly volcanic rocks but in many places older sedimentary and basement rocks; hardly affected by denudation

Marginal grabens and horsts which are formed by rift bounding and within rift normal faults, grabens filled by thick sedimentary sequences and rich in groundwater, in most cases forming wetlands; and prominent horsts acting as barriers creating locally different climate system Felsic composite volcanoes forming prominent domes at the rift shoulders emphasizing the geomorphic difference between the rift floor and the plateau Massive composite volcanoes with or without wide and generally circular depressions rimmed by pumice, rhyolite, volcanic ash and ignimbrite associations (Continued)

Table 19.1 Selected Examples of Geosites in Ethiopia Continued Large Scale Geological/ Geomorphological Setting

Age/Stratigraphical Setting Miocene Quaternary active or historical volcanoes Active hot springs

Lakes and palaeolakes

Rift valley and adjacent escarpment lakes

Maars

Plateau extensive shallow lakes and glacial lakes Lakes and wetlands in riverine and internal deltaic systems Waterfalls and river gorges

Extensive and deeply incised erosional or structural gorges

Prominent Locations and Examples Erta’Ale and Dallol; Daure (Afar depression) Hot springs in the Afar (Dallol, Afdera, Dobi, Allalobad, Meteka) and Main Ethiopian Rift (Awash, Filwuha, Sodere, Gergedi, Boku, Langano, Shalla, Wondo Guenet, Corbetti, Abaya) Lakes Asale, Afdera, Hashenge, Haiq, Ardibo, Beseka, Wonchi, Dendi, Ziway, Langano, Abyata, Hawassa, Abaya, Chamo, Chew Bahir Bishoftu lakes (Lakes Hora, Bishoftu, Babogaya, Arenguade), Butajira Silte Lakes (Lakes Haresheytan, Tilo), Shalla Lake Lake Tana, Central Ethiopia; Lake Garba Guracha, Southern Ethiopia Lakes Yardi, the Omo Delta, the Chefa, Ali Dege, and Shinile wetlands within the rift system; and numerous small wetlands on the Ethiopian highlands Northwestern and Southwestern Ethiopia: the Tekeze River gorge; the Geech Abyss waterfall at the Simien Mts.; the Blue Nile gorge; the Tis-Isat falls at the Blue Nile River; the Jema River gorge and the Zega Wodem falls; the Bore Gambella escarpment at the Baro River; the Chorchora falls in Konta; the Omo River gorge; the Ajora falls. Southeastern Ethiopia: the Wabe Shebelle gorge (Shenen and the Wabe River

Brief Geological/Geomorphological Description Historically or currently active volcanic shields with summit craters or active explosive volcanism Widespread geothermal and hydrothermal systems with active hot springs and pools serving as therapeutic attractions

Lakes within the rift or adjacent escarpments confined by scarps of lava flows and/or ancient lacustrine terraces Volcanic crater and caldera lakes formed mostly by phreatomagmatic eruptions, usually deep lakes bounded by scenic vertical to subvertical rims Blocked by recent lava flows along the Blue Nile River close to the source of the river; a glacial moraine lake Generally seasonal wetlands which serve as important habitats for migratory birds

Prominent vertical cliffs and deep gorges and canyons exposing succession of rock formations covering an extended geological time, in places from Precambrian basement rocks to Quaternary deposits, serving as important windows into the geologic history. Some faulted ridges serve as major rapids (falls) to descending rivers from the highlands to the Rift Valley or down faulted ridges in the Rift Valley

River and lake terraces

Pliocene to Quaternary river and lake terraces

Karst landforms and cave systems

Miocene Quaternary karst features and caves

Single unique geological/ geomorphological features

Various ages and processes

gorges near Gassera); the Genale River gorge; the Rift System: the Awash river gorges near Melka Kunture; and the Awash fall at the Awash National Park The Omo delta sedimentary succession (Shungura, Kibish) and the Weyto Chew Bahir basin in Southern Ethiopia; the Middle and Lower Awash (e.g., Hadar, Weranso Mille, Gona) fluvio-lacustrine sedimentary successions; the Ziway Shala Lake terraces (e.g., the Bulbula section) The Mechara cave system and karst, the Dire Dawa Hararghe cave systems (e.g., Dire Dawa, Kombolcha, Jarso, Deder); the Sof Omar cave system and subterranean river, the Tigrai cave system; the Blue Nile gorge caves Some examples include Dallol volcano and the colourful brine lakes; Erta’ale volcano: the only perpetually active lava lake in the continent; the Metehara blisters and blister caves field; the Gemasa Gedel (Afar Window) extensive fault scarp which gives an extensive vista to the Afar from the Northwestern Ethiopian Plateau; the Babile granite tors; Late Pleistocene moraines and periglacial deposits, found on mountain tops that extend beyond about 4000 m a.s.l., prominently in the Simien Mountains and Bale Mountains

Low-lying and rolling hills and extended ridges exposing a succession of fossils and artefacts bearing layers interspersed with volcanic layers (basalts and/or tephra)

Extensive karst systems developed on massive, Jurassic limestone beds (Mechara, Sof Omar) or isolated cave systems

Peculiar geological sites which are unique in terms of their beauty or particularity of the process that formed them.

346

CHAPTER 19 POTENTIAL GEOHERITAGE SITES IN ETHIOPIA

Table 19.2 Examples of Cultural Sites (Archaeological, Cultural, Historical and Religious) With Potential Geoheritage Significance Site Name and Location

Brief Summary

Middle and Lower Awash Valleys, Central Ethiopia

UNESCO World Heritage site (registered in 1980) within the Main Ethiopian and Afar rifts, hosting most of the famous palaeontological sites in the world including the Hadar (where the famous ‘Lucy’: an adult female of the species Australopithecus afarensis, was discovered), Dikika, Gona, Middle Awash and Weranso Mille sites UNESCO World Heritage site (registered in 1980) at the southern Ethiopian Rift, hosting rich paleoanthropological records including the oldest remains of Homo sapiens; it is also home to the pristine cultural landscape of the diverse Lower Omo People Located in the upper Awash valley, Melka Kuntre contains a sequence of Palaeolithic sites with lithic industries, faunal and hominid remains, distributed over in situ living floors, with structures that can still be recognised, together with economic and social activity areas Numerous caves and rock shelters formed into the Jurassic limestone in the Dire Dawa Harrar area (particularly the Lega Oda cave) are painted with prehistoric rock art possibly dating back to the last 5000 years UNESCO World Heritage site (registered in 1980), served as the centre of the ancient Ethiopian civilization of the 1st 7th century AD, marked by artistically carved stelae and obelisks, tombs, mausoleums, palaces and stone artifacts made of massive phonolitic syenite rocks sourced from the vicinity and mostly carved in situ A cluster of more than 120 rock-hewn churches dating from the 4th to 15th century AD, decorated with ancient religious paintings and carvings on the natural rock, carved into sandstone cliffs, precipices, mesas, buttes and ridges; still actively used for services; the tradition of carving into these sandstones continues to modern times UNESCO World Heritage site (registered in 1978), a medieval settlement known mostly for its 11 beautifully carved rock-hewn churches, interconnected by a network of tunnels, excavations and trenches; carved out of a massive scoriaceous basalt hill; most are beautifully carved externally and internally and in some cases covered by religious paintings; still actively used for services UNESCO World Heritage site (registered in 2011), a semiarid basaltic upland, conserved by an elaborate terracing technique during the last 500 years by the industrious Konso people The scene of the Mekdela war in the 1860s where the British army waged war against King Theodore II of Ethiopia to rescue European hostages by the latter; a natural fortress of isolated trap volcanic massif surrounded by deeply incised gorges The scene of the 1896 Ethio-Italian war where the Italian army was decisively defeated a significant historical event for Africa, these chains of phonolite plugs of prominent altitude (some rising to 3000 m a.s.l.) form a natural defence and are believed to have played a strong role in the proceedings of the war

Lower Omo Valley, Southern Ethiopia

Melka Kunture Archaeological Site, Central Ethiopia

Lega Oda and Dire Dawa prehistoric rock art, Southeastern Ethiopia

Aksum Obelisks and Monuments, Northern Ethiopia

Rock-Hewn churches of Tigrai, Northern Ethiopia

Lalibela Rock-Hewn Churches, Central Ethiopia

Konso Cultural Landscape, Southern Ethiopia Mekdela Fortress, Central Ethiopia

Adwa Mountains, Northern Ethiopia

FIGURE 19.2 Selected examples of geosites. (A) Dallol volcano and acidic brines (Photograph by A. Asrat). (B) The glacial Lake Garba Guracha at the Bale summit (Photograph by A. Asrat). (C) The speleothem-decorated Goda Mea cave in the Mechara karst system (Photograph by J. Gunn). (D) The Daure explosive volcano which erupted in 2005, Afar (Photograph by A. Asrat). (E) The Fentale caldera with historical lava eruptions (Photograph by A. Asrat). (F) Blister cave at the foot of the Fentale volcano (Photograph by A. Asrat). (G) The Addis Zemen volcanic plug over the Trap sequence (Photograph by A. Asrat). (H) the Babile granite tors formed by a persistent wind erosion of the granitic massifs (Photograph by A. Asrat). Refer to Table 19.1 for details on the location of these sites.

348

CHAPTER 19 POTENTIAL GEOHERITAGE SITES IN ETHIOPIA

FIGURE 19.2 (Continued)

19.3 GEOHERITAGE SITES IN ETHIOPIA

FIGURE 19.2 (Continued)

349

350

CHAPTER 19 POTENTIAL GEOHERITAGE SITES IN ETHIOPIA

FIGURE 19.2 (Continued)

natural geological landscapes in the country, including the active Main Ethiopian Rift with its chain of lakes; the unique Afar rift with active volcanoes like Ert’ale and Dallol, as well as its expanding extension centre leading to the formation of new oceanic crust; the Simien and Bale massifs with unique endemic fauna and flora, as well as distinct geomorphic features of the Pleistocene glaciation found on the summits of these mountains (e.g., Hurni, 2015; Mauerhofer, 2016); the Tis-Isat fall and the deep gorge of the Blue Nile River, and the Sof Omar cave system. The second category (Table 19.2; Fig. 19.3) includes the world-famous archaeological and anthropological sites of the Middle and Lower valley of Awash, and Omo; the prehistoric rock art sites of Dire Dawa; the vestiges of civilizations imprinted on geological sites including the stelae of Axum; the rock hewn and cave churches of Tigrai and Lalibela; and the terraced cultural landscape of Konso. Many of the palaeoanthropological, archaeological, cultural and historical sites listed in Table 19.2 are integral part of the natural geological and geomorphological landscape. These natural rock successions either contain fossils, artefacts and rock painting (in the case of the palaeoanthropological and archaeological sites), or form natural rock exposures modified by human activities (in the case of the stelae, rock-hewn churches and terraces). For instance, the Lalibela rock-hewn churches are carved into a natural rock exposure currently forming a human-modified natural landscape, while many of the rock-hewn churches of Tigrai are carved into the cliffs and faces of naturally exposed sandstones, currently maintaining a nearly homogenous landscape.

FIGURE 19.3 Selected examples of cultural sites (archaeological, cultural, historical and religious) with potential geoheritage interest. (A) Prehistoric rock art at Goda Desa, in Dire Dawa (Photograph by A. Asrat). (B) Unfinished carved stelae of Axum located at the foot of the quarry of obelisks (Photograph by A. Asrat). (C) Built face of a rockhewn and cave church in Tigrai (Photograph by A. Asrat). (D) The Bete Ghiorgis rock-hewn church at Lalibela (Photograph by A. Asrat). (E) The Adwa phonolite plug chain mountains (Photograph by A. Asrat). Refer to Table 19.2 for details on the location of these sites.

352

CHAPTER 19 POTENTIAL GEOHERITAGE SITES IN ETHIOPIA

19.4 GEOHERITAGE PROMOTION AND CONSERVATION CHALLENGES Though Ethiopia hosts a plethora of potential geoheritage sites, systematic studies with this perspective are generally scarce. To date, systematic geoheritage evaluation and conservation strategies are lacking in the country, although tourism has been identified as a major sustainable development sector, and currently contributes a major share to the economy. However, there have been some efforts mostly on promoting the scientific significance of geological sites, which include (1) a project on ‘geotourism and sustainable development’ (Asrat et al., 2009, 2012), which tried to give a scientific basis for policy makers to define the necessary legislation, policy and regulations for selecting and prioritising the most significant potential geoheritage for geoconservation programmes and for the establishment of geoparks; (2) systematic and fairly comprehensive assessment of landscapes and landforms of Ethiopia (Billi, 2015); (3) description of the geological sceneries of Ethiopia in view of their touristic potential (Williams, 2016); and (4) promotion of two prominent geological landscapes of Ethiopia: the Danakil Depression and the Highland Massifs as some of the top geological sites of Africa (Asrat, 2016a,b). One major notable effort by Mauerhofer (2016) and Mauerhofer et al. (2017) stands out as the only proper case study on geoheritage assessment in Ethiopia so far. This study conducted in the Simien Mountains shows how a geomorphosite inventory could help understand and manage geomorphological and geological heritage. It further emphasizes the need to contextualize the assessment strategy to ‘the local economic and developmental situations in order to contribute to local sustainable development’ (Mauerhofer et al., 2017). Irrespective of the wealth of unique and rich geoheritage sites in Ethiopia, and the limited efforts to promote the potential geoheritage sites as geotouristic destinations, the country has to recognize the need for geoconservation of the sites and has yet to establish its first geopark. The major challenges facing this sector include the following: (1) the current economic model of the country mostly promotes ‘direct resource extraction’ leading to unprecedented destruction of unique geoheritage sites, rather than the more sustainable model of ‘resource utilization by conservation’; for instance, the unique Danakil depression, particularly the Dallol volcano and the surrounding salt flats, which have been traditionally mined by local residents at a small sustainable scale are now threatened by large, industrial-scale potash mining exploration activities ongoing in the area; (2) the concepts ‘geoheritage’, ‘geoconservation’ and ‘geopark’ are not fully understood at all concerned levels; though some unique geological sites are promoted as tourist attractions, they are not necessarily protected; (3) no policy and legal framework exists in the country to recognize a site as geoheritage and eventually to establish a geopark; unique geological exposures have been damaged by infrastructure development projects such as roads and railways due to lack of legal basis to protect them; furthermore, unprecedented population growth puts increasing pressure on natural landscapes leading to over exploitation of geological materials on one hand and uncontrolled encroachment of settlements and agricultural activities to pristine natural settings on the other; (4) there is no institution (government or nongovernment) in the country officially mandated to deal with geoheritage, geoconservation and geoparks; (5) the sector ministries which might have an interest and influence in the subject do not have the necessary guidelines and manpower to deal with the issues; (6) most geoheritage sites which could be prioritised for conservation are under the jurisdiction of the Regional States, where Federal Ministries (e.g., Ministry of Culture and

REFERENCES

353

Tourism) might not have an influence; and (7) efforts to establish geoparks in the country are individually driven (by a group of researchers in the country; e.g., Asrat et al., 2009) with no support from state institutions. In conclusion, Ethiopia can be rightly considered as a major geoheritage hotspot in the world. However, there is a need for a concerted effort by all concerned institutions to conserve the geoheritage sites and promote their values, e.g., in the form of UNESCO Global Geoparks. To this effect, the Ethiopian government shall formulate a policy and legal framework for the recognition of geoheritage sites and conservation thereof, while geopark development shall be handled by a ministry or institution designated by the government (e.g., the Ministry of Culture and Tourism). Universities and researchers shall advise the government and the concerned ministry in identifying, assessing and prioritising geoheritage sites for conservation and geopark development.

REFERENCES Asrat, A., 2002. The Rock-hewn churches of Tigrai, Northern Ethiopia: a geological perspective. Geoarchaeology 17, 649 663. Asrat, A., 2016a. The Danakil depression of Ethiopia. In: Anhaeusser, C.R., Viljoen, M.J., Viljoen, R.P. (Eds.), Africa’s Top Geological Sites. Struik Nature, Cape Town, pp. 189 196. Asrat A., 2016b. The Ethiopian Highlands. In: Anhaeusser, C.R., Viljoen, M.J., Viljoen, R.P. (Eds.), Africa’s Top Geological Sites. Struik Nature, Cape Town, pp. 197 205. Asrat, A., Barbey, P., Gleizes, G., 2001. The Precambrian geology of Ethiopia: A review. Afr. Geosc. Rev. 8, 271 288. Asrat, A., Demissie, M., Mogessie, A., 2009. Geotourism in Ethiopia. Shama Books, Addis Ababa. Asrat, A., Demissie, M., Mogessie, A., 2012. Geoheritage conservation in Ethiopia: the case of the Simien Mountains. Quaest. Geograph. 31, 7 23. Billi, P. (Ed.), 2015. Landscapes and Landforms of Ethiopia. Springer, Dordrecht. Bosellini, A., Russo, A., Fantozzi, P.L., Assefa, G., Tadesse, S., 1997. The Mesozoic succession of the Mekele Outlier (Tigrai Province, Ethiopia). Mem. Sci. Geol. 49, 95 116. Hurni, H., 2015. Palaeoglaciated landscapes in Simen and other high-mountain areas of Ethiopia. In: Billi, P. (Ed.), Landscapes and Landforms of Ethiopia. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 139 146. Mauerhofer, L., 2016. The Geomorphological Heritage of the Simen Mountains National Park. Inventory, Evaluation and Management Strategies. Master Thesis in Geography. University of Lausanne, p. 139. Mauerhofer, L., Reynard, E., Asrat, A., Hurni, H., 2017. Contribution of a geomorphosite inventory to the geoheritage knowledge in developing countries: the case of the Simien Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. Geoheritage. doi:10.1007/s12371-017-0234-3. Williams, F.M., 2016. Understanding Ethiopia: Geology and Scenery. Springer International Publishing, Cham.

CHAPTER

GEODIVERSITY AND GEOCONSERVATION IN LAND MANAGEMENT IN TASMANIA A TOP-DOWN APPROACH

20

Chris Sharples1, Peter McIntosh2 and Michael Comfort3 1

University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia 2Forest Practices Authority, Hobart, TAS, Australia 3 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart, TAS, Australia

20.1 INTRODUCTION Australia’s island state of Tasmania (Fig. 20.1) has been recognised as having developed early geoconservation ideas (Gray, 2004, 2008), and a Tasmanian document (Sharples, 1993) is widely cited as the first published use of the term ‘geodiversity’ in the English language. Although members of the Geological Society of Australia actively promoted the idea of ‘geological monuments’ in Australia (Joyce, 1994), the development of geoconservation ideas in Tasmania followed a somewhat different pathway, which Houshold and Sharples (2008) argued was driven by a history of wilderness conservation that has earned Tasmania a reputation as the birthplace of the modern Australian environmental movement. This resulted in an early focus on Tasmanian landforms (geomorphology) and the conservation of ongoing natural geomorphic processes rather than on bedrock geological sites, although the latter are now also strongly represented as geoconservation sites in Tasmania.

20.2 BACKGROUND The first important step in recognising geoconservation values in Tasmania was a report by Eastoe (1979) for the Geological Society of Australia on ‘Geological Monuments in Tasmania’, funded by the Australian Heritage Commission. However the subsequent development of geoconservation ideas in Tasmania mainly occurred within two state government organisations charged with managing large tracts of public land: the Forestry Commission and the Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS). Kevin Kiernan, a geomorphologist employed by the then-named Forest Practices Unit associated with the Tasmanian Forestry Commission, a government agency managing the forestry industry in

Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00020-4 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

355

356

CHAPTER 20 GEODIVERSITY AND GEOCONSERVATION IN LAND

FIGURE 20.1 Map indicating the location of Tasmania and Macquarie Island (inset), the distribution of secure conservation reserves and the State forestry estate within Tasmania, and the extent of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA). Other areas include private freehold and several categories of multipurpose public reserves including the Conservation Area forming the north-east portion of the TWWHA. The location of three case studies described in the text are indicated, as is the state capital of Hobart.

20.2 BACKGROUND

357

Tasmania, had a strong influence on geoconservation on forested lands. Since significant tracts of land used for commercial forestry occupied karstic terrain at Mole Creek and in the JuneeFlorentine valleys which include some of Australia’s most extensive, deepest and spectacular cave systems, it was obvious to Kiernan that there was a need to develop forest management approaches that not only protected the physical caves, but also the hydrological processes critical to the integrity of their ongoing karst processes (Kiernan, 1989, 1993). From this beginning the focus of attention quickly widened to other important aspects of Tasmania’s geomorphological heritage, such as the extensive Pleistocene glacial landforms which dominate large parts of western Tasmania’s landscape (Kiernan, 1990a). Geomorphic and soil specialists with the present-day Forest Practices Authority have maintained this early in-house focus on geoconservation. In 1982, the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) was proclaimed following a lengthy environmental battle. Although biodiversity and significant Aboriginal cultural heritage values figured prominently in the rationale for the listed TWWHA, glacial, karst and other geomorphic values underpinned the area’s listing (Sharples, 2003). In 1988, arguably Australia’s first dedicated geoconservation position was created with Michael Pemberton being employed by the PWS to initially work on significant erosion issues on the lower Gordon River, where cruise boat wakes were eroding important levee banks within the TWWHA. Soon after, additional specialist staff were employed to address karst impacts from a limestone quarry adjacent to Exit Cave in the TWWHA and the scientists within the Earth Science Section became a critical component of the PWS work of valuing and conserving geomorphic heritage values within the PWS estate (the TWWHA and other reserves). Although no longer located within the PWS, this group of geoconservation-focussed Earth scientists has continued to have a role in advising the PWS, and today comprises the Geoconservation Section within the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment (DPIPWE). Geoconservation efforts in Tasmania have continued to be largely ‘top-down’, driven by concerned Earth scientists within public land management agencies, with relatively little influence from ‘grass-roots’ community groups. This is perhaps surprising given that tourism is an important component of the Tasmanian economy, and that our natural landscapes underpinned by the geology, landforms and ongoing natural geomorphic processes are one of the main attractions for visitors. Although Tasmania has community groups focussed on conservation more broadly, none focus on geoheritage per se, probably partly because, with a population of only half a million in Tasmania, there is less likelihood of reaching the critical mass needed to sustain active community groups focussed on geoconservation than in similar-sized regions of Europe with populations of the order of millions. Geoconservation workers within the government agencies also have limited resources to encourage grass-roots activities, although they have played important roles in interpreting aspects of Tasmania’s geodiversity in National Parks and other reserves. More recently there have been publications by individuals promoting geoheritage features within the state (Collins, 1990; Leaman, 2001, 2002; Manchester, 2010) and an initial geotrail has been developed on the west coast following recommendations by Campbell and Jones (2013). When geoconservation workers in Tasmania’s land management agencies were beginning to work out how to protect geoheritage in the 1980s and early 1990s, the existing literature on the topic was limited and had yet to coalesce into a coherent body of ideas (and indeed the words ‘geodiversity’, ‘geoheritage’ and ‘geoconservation’ were not in use). With only limited and partially relevant previous approaches to draw on, Tasmanian workers were compelled to develop their own ideas and methods, particularly given that previous work had focussed heavily on bedrock

358

CHAPTER 20 GEODIVERSITY AND GEOCONSERVATION IN LAND

geoheritage (Eastoe, 1979) and a need was seen to direct more attention to landforms, geomorphic processes and soils as key issues in practical land management. This led to a phase of brainstorming and conceptual development through the 1990s as Tasmanian workers grappled with the issues and developed theoretical concepts to guide geoconservation efforts (Eberhard, 1997; Sharples, 1993, 1995, 2002). In particular the development of inventories of significant geoheritage sites was seen as a key requirement for effective geoheritage management (see further details below). The relatively unsystematic and ad hoc nature of the early inventory work resulted in a perceived need for a more systematic and defensible approach to identifying, classifying and managing geodiversity and geoheritage. Kiernan’s (1995) Atlas of Tasmanian Karst was the first comprehensive inventory of a geodiversity theme in Tasmania. This activity culminated in a concerted effort to develop a systematic regional approach to classifying geodiversity, so as to generate a defensible and systematic classification of the most important (i.e., well-expressed, in good condition) examples of each key element of geodiversity within a region (Houshold et al., 1997). A major project funded by the Commonwealth Government through the Natural Heritage Trust explored the development of a regional framework for fluvial landforms in Tasmania on the basis that these are arguably the most pervasive ongoing geomorphic processes in the Tasmanian landscape and influence other important themes such as karst, slope processes and soils (Jerie et al., 2003). Later developments have been more incremental: development and consolidation of mapping, inventory and management approaches, rather than further attempts to implement new frameworks. The following sections of this paper provide overviews of the development of practical management approaches to geoconservation in Tasmania’s forestry estate and in national parks and other public lands. The protection of geoheritage on private land remains a challenging area, although local government bodies have made use of the online availability of the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database (TGD; see below) as an advisory tool to be consulted in the reviewing and approving of development applications. Whereas academic research into geoconservation has burgeoned internationally over the last decade, exemplified by the establishment of journals such as Geoheritage, teaching and academic research in the field has been limited in Tasmania, with the major contribution being that of Kevin Kiernan, who worked for about a decade as a geomorphology lecturer at the University of Tasmania. During this period Kiernan’s contribution to investigating the impacts of warfare on geodiversity in south-east Asia has been particularly notable (e.g., Kiernan, 2009, 2010). However, with Kiernan’s retirement from his academic post in 2015 the future of academic research and teaching of geoconservation in Tasmania is unclear, emphasising again the dominating role of public land management agencies in promoting Tasmanian geoconservation.

20.3 GEOCONSERVATION ON RESERVED LAND The need for geoconservation expertise in the PWS was initially made clear when geoheritage values were threatened by river bank erosion on the lower Gordon River in the TWWHA. This issue initiated the formation of a dedicated Earth science section in the PWS which later became the geoconservation section of the DPIPWE. Since then a large part of this group’s work has continued to address a range of threats to geoheritage (erosion, karst impacts, climate change, impacts of fire, etc.). In the 1990s a number of projects managed by the group required the compilation of inventories of geoheritage sites on reserved or public land across the state (see further below).

20.3 GEOCONSERVATION ON RESERVED LAND

359

One of the offshoots of this early work by the geoconservation section was that the importance of geoheritage became integrated alongside biodiversity conservation as an integral component of nature conservation and reserve management within the PWS. This was recognised in the first TWWHA Management Plan (DPWH, 1992) which required an Earth science conservation strategy to be implemented. Since the early 1990s Management Plans for reserves managed by PWS have included sections and prescriptions on geodiversity and geoconservation. Macquarie Island, a subantarctic island, is politically part of Tasmania and is managed by the PWS. In 1997 the island was listed as a World Heritage property primarily for its geological values (Fig. 20.2). The management plan for the island reflects this and there were some changes to the way that geological research was managed on the island subsequent to its World Heritage listing. Insensitive geological sampling was considered incompatible with geoconservation values and the management of the island as a World Heritage area. These changes required education of geological researchers who until then were not necessarily aware of the concept of geoconservation. More recently a specific Geoconservation Strategy for the island has been produced (Comfort, 2014), outlining specific management recommendations to further protect and promote the island’s unique geoheritage values. In all DPIPWE-managed reserves, a collecting permit is required for researchers who wish to sample abiotic material. Permit applications are assessed by DPIPWE and are an important geoconservation management tool. The assessment process has two main objectives: firstly to minimise damage to geoheritage (and other natural features) by ensuring destructive research is limited by applying strict conditions to permits; and secondly to capture important geoscientific information to aid in the understanding of the state’s geodiversity. Work completed under permit may result in new nominations and subsequent listings to the TGD (Text Box 20.1)

FIGURE 20.2 Macquarie Island, a subantarctic island halfway between Australia and Antarctica, is politically and administratively part of the state of Tasmania. The island was listed as a World Heritage property primarily for its excellent exposure of oceanic crust geology above sea-level, however the island also exhibits many welldeveloped geomorphic features, including uplifted shorelines and cold-climate landforms such as extensive development of sorted stone terraces as visible here (Photograph by K. Storey).

360

CHAPTER 20 GEODIVERSITY AND GEOCONSERVATION IN LAND

TEXT BOX 20.1 LOWER GORDON RIVER EROSION The lower Gordon River in south-west Tasmania is of World Heritage significance (PWS, 1999) with a collection of landforms that show the progressive sedimentary infilling of the steep sided river valley after it was drowned by rising sea level following the last ice age. It has been a tourist attraction for over a century. In the early 1980s visitation dramatically increased and larger, high speed tourist vessels were introduced. These had a visible and direct impact on sensitive river banks with significant erosion and bank collapse occurring (Fig. 20.3). PWS commissioned detailed geoscientific investigations and a monitoring program in 1986 that continues to the present. Initial findings (published later by Nanson et al., 1994) led to speed limits being placed on vessels longer than 8 m. Ongoing monitoring of the banks and further investigations led by Jason Bradbury, from DPIPWE’s Geoconservation Section, showed that although this speed restriction had reduced erosion rates significant bank retreat was still occurring and greater controls over river traffic have been progressively introduced to manage the geoconservation values of the river. Management actions to reduce erosion rates (Fig. 20.4) have included closing sections of the river to commercial craft, further reduction in speed limits, the introduction of a speed limit for private vessels and of a wash rule that considers wave height and its associated period (Bradbury, 2005), with speed limits set for individual cruise vessels based on their wake characteristics. This example clearly demonstrates the need for detailed geomorphic and other studies in understanding impacts to highly significant geoconservation features and determining appropriate management actions to protect such features.

FIGURE 20.3 Monitoring of an eroding levee bank on the Gordon River (background) in 1990. This type of erosion was evident along kilometres of the river bank. In many areas, undermining of the banks by high-speed-boat wakes resulting in toppling of riverside trees (toppled rootball visible on the left) which obscured views of the erosion from the river (Photograph by G. Dixon).

20.4 GEOCONSERVATION IN TASMANIAN FORESTRY

361

FIGURE 20.4 Change in the measured rate of muddy estuarine bank erosion in response to management controls introduced to limit erosion. Modified after Bradbury (2013).

In 2003 a Tasmanian Reserve Management Code of Practice was developed (PWS et al., 2003); it contained a section on geodiversity in addition to sections dealing with soil conservation and land rehabilitation. The code outlined general principles for the conservation of geodiversity aimed at protecting and maintaining geological (rock), geomorphological (landform) and pedological (soil) features, systems and natural ecosystem processes. The objectives of geodiversity conservation were listed as to: • • • • • •

conserve and maintain geodiversity; maintain natural rates and magnitudes of change in geoprocesses; protect and maintain sites of geoconservation significance; minimise harmful impacts on sites of geoconservation significance; interpret geodiversity for reserve visitors; contribute to maintaining biodiversity and ecological processes that depend upon geodiversity;

20.4 GEOCONSERVATION IN TASMANIAN FORESTRY 20.4.1 DEVELOPMENT OF AWARENESS OF GEOCONSERVATION The risks to geomorphological and geological features in commercial forests arise from direct effects such as use of heavy machinery and indirect effects such as changes of stream flow in

362

CHAPTER 20 GEODIVERSITY AND GEOCONSERVATION IN LAND

caves. Although forests have been utilised and modified by humans in Tasmania for 40,000 years, it was only with the establishment of penal settlements and European colonists in the early 18th century that commercial exploitation of the forests began. Large-scale forest harvest was facilitated by the introduction of chainsaws and bulldozers in the 1950s, but it took some time for the public and scientific community to recognise that the forests were not simply a valuable wood resource but contained other values which needed protection or management. During the 1950s and 1960s forestry operations generally proceeded without regard for environmental values. Attention to geoconservation in the forestry estate began during the mid-1980s when for the first time protection of natural values in both state-owned and private forests was regulated by the Forest Practices Act 1985. This act required a legally enforceable Forest Practices Code to be prepared and defined the regulatory structure in which a newly formed statutory body, the Forest Practices Unit (FPU) would operate. The FPU was established in 1987, and the first Forest Practices Code (the Code) was published in the same year. The FPU (later the Forest Practices Authority or FPA) administered the fledgling forest practices system, which depended on FPUtrained and accredited Forest Practices Officers (FPOs), usually forest industry employees, identifying natural values requiring protection or management in areas being planned for harvest. FPOs then wrote prescriptions for operations according to the rules and guidelines documented in the Code, in consultation with a geomorphologist at the FPU for more complex sites. However in 1987 information about geological natural values was rudimentary and largely restricted to that shown on published maps. It was largely due to the energy and single-mindedness of the geomorphologist appointed to the FPU, Dr Kevin Kiernan, that geoconservation issues received serious consideration as a topic in their own right. Also a keen caver, Kiernan had previously been employed by the Forestry Commission to investigate the effects of harvest on the extensive karst systems at Mole Creek in north-west Tasmania. It was natural that karst issues were foremost in his mind when he wrote the first geomorphological sections of the 1987 edition of the Code. At the time, management of karst landscapes was seen to be a significant issue (and a potential obstacle) for forestry operations in places like the Florentine Valley and Mole Creek because of major cave systems in the Ordovician limestone underlying these areas. Some of these caves not only contained outstanding speleothem displays and important mega-fauna fossils (Goede and Murray, 1977; see also discussion in Turney et al., 2008) but had subsurface drainage systems that could potentially be impacted by heavy machinery or runoff from disturbed ground. The 1987 Code imposed streamside (riparian) reserves on larger streams and rules on machinery use to protect karst. These were radical innovations at the time. The 1987 Code did not mention geoconservation or even geomorphology, but one and a half pages were dedicated to management of Kiernan’s passionate interest: caves and karst areas. The ‘general principles’ to be followed during logging operations on karst were: • • •

Sites known to have high karst values should be surveyed to adequately record karst information prior to Timber Harvesting Plan preparation; The catchment of a karst area should be considered in planning; The highest standard of roading and harvesting procedures should be applied to all karst areas to minimise the alteration of karst water movement patterns.

20.4 GEOCONSERVATION IN TASMANIAN FORESTRY

363

Getting these principles into the Forest Practices Code was a landmark achievement. For the first time a formal assessment (a survey) was required before forestry operations; effects on whole catchments had to be considered (raising the important question of how to define a catchment in a karst area); and road management was identified as a key issue for protecting subsurface flow. These general principles were underpinned by more detailed prescriptions. The importance of sinkholes and caves was recognised. The requirement that karst features should appear on planning maps was some guarantee that preharvest surveys would be undertaken. However the protection given to caves and sinkholes was vaguely worded: they had to be ‘avoided’ but the widths of machinery exclusion zones or reserves required was not specified and the protection required for a specific feature was largely worked out ad hoc on site between the operational planner and the FPA geomorphologist. Kiernan realised that protection should be extended to geomorphological values other than karst. His Geomorphology Manual (Kiernan, 1990b) listed 30 landforms and geological features to look out for in forests, among them terrace landforms, water-rounded gravels, buried soils and charcoal in sediments. It also defined a new approach: instead of depending on experts to find landforms of interest, the manual instructed foresters in ways to use their own detection skills. This change of approach not only reflected the limited capacity of specialist FPU staff to conduct preharvest surveys, but also reflected the principle (which still applies in the FPA) that foresters (FPOs) should be trained to take responsibility for natural values assessment and management, with the regulator (the FPA) taking a background role, concentrating on education and research and provision of advice in complex situations requiring extra scientific input. After a relatively short period of use and testing in the field, the rudimentary 1987 Forest Practices Code was revised to improve prescriptions and guidance on many soil and water issues. Significantly, following Kiernan’s broadened view of his role in the FPU and the publication of the Geomorphology Manual, the 1993 Code had a section entitled ‘Geomorphology’ rather than ‘Caves and Sinkholes’. The revised ‘General Principles’ mentioning ‘significant landforms’ reflected the change of emphasis.

20.4.2 CARE OF GEODIVERSITY IN FORESTS TODAY The Forest Practices Code 2000 and the 2015 edition which is largely based on it has only two pages on Geomorphology. However, these two pages contain many important prescriptions for managing features, including a requirement for planners to consult the TGD, consult specialists where necessary, record features in forest practices plans, and apply protection or management zones around vulnerable features. Additional ‘satellite’ documents such as the Sinkhole Guidelines (McIntosh, 2014) and the TGD are referenced in the Code and provide detailed descriptions on how particular geoconservation features should be managed. In cases where the Code is not prescriptive the final decision on site management rests with the FPO who certifies (and generally writes) the Forest Practices Plan. Because significant geomorphological or geological features are so varied their appropriate management often cannot

364

CHAPTER 20 GEODIVERSITY AND GEOCONSERVATION IN LAND

be predicted and must usually be tailored to the field situation. The FPA has designed a system which FPOs must use if they encounter geomorphological or other geological features in proposed harvest areas. The first step is for FPOs to consult a ‘triggers’ document. A positive reply to any of the trigger questions means the FPO must consult with the Earth Sciences Manager at the FPA. For small issues an informal enquiry by phone or email is sufficient to define appropriate management. For bigger issues a formal notification including maps, photographs and supporting documents is required. The manager then advises how the features need to be managed, generally after discussion with the FPO, who has a detailed knowledge of the field situation. If necessary the Earth Sciences Manager will recommend further scientific work (e.g., by a consulting geomorphologist) or meet with the FPO in the field to decide on the best protection or management to apply. Agreed recommendations are incorporated as prescriptions in a Forest Practices Plan which is a legally enforceable document subject to compliance checks. Contractors are briefed on the prescriptions before operations begin. The plan has to be available on site during all operations (Text Box 20.2 20.3).

TEXT BOX 20.2 CAVE AND SINKHOLE MANAGEMENT In 2009 a paper-mill company started planning the harvest of a 93-ha pine forest established in the 1970s in the Florentine Valley near Maydena in southern Tasmania. A preliminary survey established that there were undocumented caves and sinkholes in the plantation area. Further surveys by company staff and contractors established that the plantation area contains over 40 caves and 40 sinkholes (Fig. 20.5). Within the harvest area were four ‘islands’ of native vegetation and failed plantation growing on rocky soils and .50% exposed limestone as well as two adjacent areas containing cave clusters. The site is highly productive, producing over 500 t/ha of harvestable wood, and is an important fibre resource. The issue for planners was how to harvest and replant pines while preserving the geomorphological features of the site, particularly the caves and sinkholes, and without affecting subsurface watercourses. Dye tracing experiments in 2015 established that at least three subsurface channels flow beneath or near the coupe. The FPA’s Sinkhole Guidelines (McIntosh, 2014) were developed while this coupe was being planned. They allow for harvest of plantations trees around sinkholes and caves, and from within sinkholes, but apply restrictions on machine use. On land which has merchantable timber, but on which long-term plantation harvest is not considered to be viable (such as the cave cluster areas), the salvage provisions of the Forest Practices Code can be used. These allow some Code provisions to be waived on a ‘one-off’ basis so that plantation trees can be harvested but replaced in the long term by native vegetation. A viable harvest plan was produced containing 26 prescriptions governing forest harvest practices. With landings positioned along existing roads, the use of directional felling machinery, a highly skilled contractor who was well briefed and familiar with the area, and forwarder tracks planned so that they avoided sinkholes and cave entrances (which were all marked in the field with flagging tape) a similar area was harvested in 2012 13 with no apparent damage to karst features. A planning map (Fig. 20.5) was produced to show the proposed reforestation. The Sinkhole Guidelines require that no new plantation is established within 5 10 m of the edges of sinkholes (the distance depending on whether the sinkholes are classified as passive or active as defined by McIntosh (2014)) and the sinkholes were classified and marked accordingly. Small unenterable caves were given 10-m reserves around them. Enterable caves were given 40-m reserves around their entrances, and where passages were mapped close to the ground surface reserves were larger (see pale yellow zone around the cave in the centre of the coupe (Fig. 20.5). Although pine wildings will be problem, these reserves will be the first step towards creating a more natural environment around the cave entrances. Such an environment may be important for the survival of cave fauna.

FIGURE 20.5 Planning map for plantation reestablishment in a karst area, Florentine Valley, Tasmania. This map is based on an actual operational map, but changes have been made to ensure that cave locations cannot be identified, to prevent uncontrolled exploration. All sinkholes are marked and active sinkholes (generally steep sided: see definition of McIntosh (2014)) have a 10-m no-planting zone or reserve (purple circles with pink centres) around them at the next rotation, and passive sinkholes have a 5-m reserve (yellow circles). Linear sinkholes (dry gullies) are also excluded from further planting. All unenterable caves have a minimum of a 10-m reserve around their entrances (stars in blue circles). The one enterable cave on the coupe has a minimum 40-m reserve around its entrance (stippled pale area in centre of coupe), but this has been extended following mapping of the cave passages. Steep or rocky areas (cross-hatched) which could be damaged by machines had a machinery exclusion zone around them and require a decision on their future use; some land in these zones is likely to be taken out of the plantation area. Areas not planted in the first rotation (green ‘islands’) on account of their very rocky soils will also be left as native vegetation in the second rotation.

366

CHAPTER 20 GEODIVERSITY AND GEOCONSERVATION IN LAND

TEXT BOX 20.3 HENTY ROAD EAST WEST DUNES The Henty Road east west dunes are situated inland from Ocean Beach on the west coast of Tasmania. West of the Henty Road are the active coastal Henty Dunes (also a TGD site) clearly formed under the influence of the prevailing westerly to north-westerly winds. Inland of these are stable dunes with slip faces orientated east west (Fig. 20.6) and up to 5 m high. These are interpreted to be coalesced parabolic dunes that accumulated in a partly vegetated landscape. Their morphology indicates a source from the Henty River floodplain (to the north) rather than from the coast (to the west), and formation under northerly winds rather than the westerly winds that prevail at present. One thermoluminescence (TL) age of 10.1 6 1.2 ka has been obtained (McIntosh, 2012) from a sample taken 1.5 m deep on the fourth crest counting from the north (Fig. 20.6). It appears that the dunes accumulated in the early Holocene, over an unknown time, which could be a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand years. More work needs to be done on the age of the dunes and conditions under which they accumulated, but the site is clearly important for what it could tell us about early Holocene climate. The landforms were noted by the FPO involved with planning harvest of the plantations growing on the dunes and the FPA was informed. After a field inspection it was decided that harvest could go ahead provided the unusual landforms were preserved. Discussions between the FPA, the forest planner (FPO) and the contractor established that it would be possible to harvest the pines without constructing new tracks down the faces of dunes. Matting would be placed on all forwarder tracks so that surface soils were not unduly disturbed. All timber would be forwarded to landings at the perimeter of the coupe and loaded onto trucks there, rather than building road access into the middle of the coupe itself.

FIGURE 20.6 Middle of photograph: the inactive Henty Road east west dunes, deduced to be coalesced parabolic dunes derived from the north (white arrow). West of these inactive dunes are the active Henty Dunes, accumulating at present under the influence of north to northwest winds (black arrow). Small white triangle indicates location of the TL sample referred to in text.

20.5 THE TASMANIAN GEOCONSERVATION DATABASE

367

20.5 THE TASMANIAN GEOCONSERVATION DATABASE The 1993 edition of the Forest Practices Code contained a statement of the need for a register or database of forested environments containing known landforms of significance. This early recognition of the fundamental importance of geoheritage inventories drove an information-gathering explosion during the years 1993 97. During this time the Forestry Commission and its successor, Forestry Tasmania, funded extensive geomorphological surveys of the State Forests it managed. Following the publication of a preliminary report on methods for identifying significant landforms and geological sites for conservation (Sharples, 1993), a program to identify landforms and geological sites of significance in each Forestry Tasmania district was undertaken producing a series of inventory reports (e.g., Sharples, 1994, 1997). In parallel, Eberhard (1994, 1996) surveyed karst in the Florentine and Junee valleys in southern Tasmania in detail and made management recommendations. At the same time, PWS funded its own program of compiling geoconservation inventories for reserved or other public lands (e.g., Bradbury, 1993, 1995; Dixon, 1996a). The Tasmanian Forest Research Council funded work enabling Kiernan (1995) to publish his two-volume Atlas of Tasmanian Karst, which was the first comprehensive inventory of a geoheritage theme (karst) and systematically mapped and described all significant karst areas in six regions of Tasmania across all land tenures. By 1996 geoconservation inventories compiled by the Forestry Commission and the PWS were being routinely used for identifying natural values, and Dixon (1996b) recommended their amalgamation. The opportunity to follow this recommendation arose with the funding of a database project under the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement process. As a result, the TGD was established as an electronic database in late 1996 through the cooperation of the PWS and the Forestry Commission (Dixon and Duhig, 1996). The ongoing development of the TGD over the last 15 years or so has been central to the implementation of geoconservation in Tasmanian land management approaches. Although this tool still lacks a fully systematic classification scheme, progress has been made in this area with Bradbury (2014) having developed an over-arching system for ordering and analysing the database, and a string of projects has been funded to thematically review and upgrade the dataset (e.g., Grove et al., 2015). The TGD is now the major management tool used for geoconservation across Tasmania (Comfort and Eberhard, 2011). It is a core corporate dataset within DPIPWE and is managed as a public access database which is housed on DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas website (www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas.gov.au/, accessed 12.08.17). It contains over 1100 sites ranging from large landscapes to individual fossil sites. The database is actively managed by the Geoconservation Section of DPIPWE and its ongoing development is overseen by an independent reference group of Earth scientists working in government agencies, academia and as private consultants. The reference group reviews both old and new entries to the database. Deletions, changes or additions must be approved by the reference group before being accepted. The TGD structure has changed over the years and the current database enables large amounts of site-specific information to be readily accessed. The database also can be spatially searched and this function is regularly used, particularly during the preparation of development plans or plans for forestry operations. For each site, there is a field that lists whether that site is potentially vulnerable to some 21 potential threats ranging from industrial-scale ground disturbance to illegal specimen collection. This field is useful for

368

CHAPTER 20 GEODIVERSITY AND GEOCONSERVATION IN LAND

both land managers and developers alike, and allows rapid preliminary assessment as to whether a proposed action is likely to impact on the listed geoheritage value. The TGD is routinely used by reserve managers, foresters, local councils, state government planning and assessment agencies, developers and private consultants. Though at present geoheritage is only given formal legal protection on reserved land, through the Nature Conservation Act 2002, the concept of geoconservation and a recognition that its protection is desirable is well understood. The concept of best environmental practice acknowledges the importance of protecting geoheritage or at least minimising damage to it, and in most development proposals geoconservation issues are considered and where practical, actions are taken to reduce the impact on such values. The TGD is routinely referred to in such proposals and proponents accessing the Natural Values Atlas for a natural values report on the area in question receive information on geodiversity values alongside biodiversity values, and these are addressed in proponent’s Development Applications. Local and state governments, in assessing developments, take into consideration the geoconservation values and often will impose conditions to aid in their protection. Geoconservation is now a firmly established component in the management approaches to Tasmanian nature conservation. For example the 2013 Natural Heritage Strategy for Tasmania (DPIPWE, 2013) recognises the importance of geodiversity alongside biodiversity. In contrast many other Australia state approaches still tend to have a dominant focus on biodiversity.

20.6 CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK Following an early phase of activity with a strong focus on developing concepts and a theoretical framework for geoconservation during the 1980s and 1990s, over the last 15 years the focus of most geoconservation work in Tasmania has been on identifying new sites and refining the methods for managing and protecting geoheritage values, particularly on public lands. However, an important development during the last decade and a half has been the continual development and refinement of the TGD as a core dataset by DPIPWE, and making it publically accessible online. Although most geoheritage management activity in Tasmania continues to be ‘top-down’ (government agency driven) rather than bottom-up (public or grass-roots driven), the dissemination of the TGD has provided an entry-point for public involvement which is being widely accessed by local government bodies, consultants, other government agencies, foresters and other individuals. One of the key ideas underpinning geoconservation practices in Tasmania has been the notion that we should endeavour to allow at least representative geomorphic and soil process systems to continue to evolve at natural rates and magnitudes of change (PWS et al., 2003; Sharples, 1995, 2003). The realisation that human activities are now beginning to affect the type, rate and magnitude of changes in these systems virtually everywhere has created a philosophical question whose implications are still to be fully resolved, namely that if all natural systems are beginning to be inevitably affected to some greater or lesser extent by human activities even in areas regarded as ‘wilderness’ then what should the purpose of geoconservation be (Prosser et al., 2010)? As a first step in working through this and related issues, DPIPWE commissioned a systematic ‘first pass’ assessment of what the impacts of climate change on geodiversity in the TWWHA might be, and what approaches might be available for land managers to respond to these changes (Sharples, 2011,

REFERENCES

369

2012). Responding to this emerging issue is likely to be fundamental to the future direction of geoconservation in Tasmania and elsewhere.

REFERENCES Bradbury, J., 1993. A Preliminary Geoheritage Inventory of the Eastern Tasmania Terrane. Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart. Bradbury, J., 1995. Continuation of Preliminary Inventory of Sites of Geoconservation Significance in Tasmania. Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart. Bradbury, J., 2005. Revised Wave Wake Criteria for Vessel Operation on the Lower Gordon River. Land Conservation Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart. Bradbury, J., 2013. Lower Gordon River erosion monitoring, Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area: Report for the period February 2004 to March 2013. Resource Management and Conservation Division, Nature Conservation Report Series 13/08, Department of Primary Industries Parks Water and Environment, Hobart. Available from: ,http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/LGR%20Monitoring-201314.pdf. (accessed 12.08.17). Bradbury, J., 2014. A keyed classification of natural geodiversity for land management and conservation purposes. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 125 (3), 329 349. Campbell, B., Jones, L., 2013. The Living Earth. A Feasibility Study on a Proposed Geotrail for the Cradle Coast Region. Cradle Coast Regional Council, Tasmania. Collins, K., 1990. South West Tasmania: A Natural History and Visitors Guide. Heritage Books, Hobart. Comfort, M., 2014. Macquarie Island World Heritage Area Geoconservation Strategy. Nature Conservation Report 2014/2. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart. Comfort, M., Eberhard, R., 2011. The Tasmanian Geoconservation Database: a tool for promoting the conservation and sustainable management of geodiversity. Proc. Linnean Soc. NSW 132, 27 36. Dixon, G., 1996a. A Reconnaissance Inventory of Sites of Geoconservation Significance on Tasmanian Islands. Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart. Dixon, G., 1996b. Geoconservation: An International Review and Strategy for Tasmania. Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania, and Australian Heritage Commission. Dixon, G., Duhig, N., 1996. Compilation and assessment of some places of geoconservation significance. Report to the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement Environment and Heritage Technical Committee by Forestry Tasmania. DPIPWE, 2013. Natural Heritage Strategy for Tasmania (2013 2030): Securing our Natural Advantage. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart. DPWH, 1992. Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan. Department of Parks Wildlife and Heritage, Hobart. Eastoe, C.J., 1979. Geological Monuments in Tasmania. A report to the Australian Heritage Commission by the Geological Society of Australia Inc., Tasmanian Division. Eberhard, R., 1994. Inventory and Management of the Junee River Karst System, Tasmania. Forestry Tasmania, Hobart. Eberhard, R., 1996. Inventory and Management of Karst in the Florentine Valley, Tasmania. Forestry Tasmania, Hobart. Eberhard, R., (Ed.), 1997. Pattern and Process Towards a Regional Approach to National Estate Assessment of Geodiversity. 1997 Technical Series No. 2, Environment Australia, Canberra. Goede, A., Murray, P., 1977. Pleistocene man in south central Tasmania: evidence from a cave site in the Florentine Valley. Mankind 11, 2 10.

370

CHAPTER 20 GEODIVERSITY AND GEOCONSERVATION IN LAND

Gray, M., 2004. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Gray, M., 2008. Geodiversity: the origin and evolution of a paradigm. In: Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), The History of Geoconservation. Special Publication 300. The Geological Society, London, pp. 31 36. Grove, J., Stout, J., Rutherford, I., Storey, K., 2015. Identifying and classifying sites and processes of fluvial geomorphic significance in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area: a scoping study. Nature Conservation Report 15/05. Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart. Houshold, I., Sharples, C., 2008. Geodiversity in the wilderness: a brief history of geoconservation in Tasmania. In: Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), The History of Geoconservation. Special Publication 300. The Geological Society, London, pp. 257 272. Houshold, I., Sharples, C., Dixon, G., Duhig, N., 1997. Georegionalisation A more systematic approach for the identification of places of geoconservation significance. In: Eberhard, R., (Ed.), Pattern and Process Towards a Regional Approach to National Estate Assessment of Geodiversity. Technical Series No. 2. Environment Australia, Canberra, 1997 pp. 65 89. Jerie, K., Houshold, I., Peters, D., 2003. Tasmania’s River Geomorphology: Stream Character and Regional Analysis. Nature Conservation Report 03/5. Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, Hobart. Joyce, E.B., 1994. Identifying geological features of international significance: the Pacific Way. In: O’Halloran, D., Green, C., Harley, M., Stanley, M., Knill, J. (Eds.), Geological and Landscape Conservation. The Geological Society, London, pp. 507 513. Kiernan, K., 1989. Karst, Caves and Management at Mole Creek, Tasmania. Department of Parks Wildlife and Heritage, and Forestry Commission, Tasmania. Kiernan, K., 1990a. The extent of Late Cenozoic glaciation in the Central Highlands of Tasmania, Australia. Arctic Alpine Res. 22, 341 354. Kiernan, K., 1990b. Forest Practices Geomorphology Manual. Forestry Commission, Tasmania. Kiernan, K., 1993. Karst Research and Management in the State Forests of Tasmania. In: Proceedings of the 10th Australasian Conference on Cave and Karst Management, May 1993 Australian Cave and Karst Management Association, pp. 34 40. Kiernan, K., 1995. An Atlas of Tasmanian Karst. Research Report No. 10. Tasmanian Forest Research Council, Hobart. Kiernan, K., 2009. Distribution and character of karst in the Lao PDR. Acta Carsol. 38 (1), 65 81. Kiernan, K., 2010. Environmental degradation in karst areas of Cambodia: a legacy of war? Land Degrad. Dev. 21 (6), 503 519. Leaman, D., 2001. Step Into History in Tasmanian Reserves. Leaman Geophysics, Hobart. Leaman, D., 2002. The Rock Which Makes Tasmania. Leaman Geophysics, Hobart. Manchester, P., 2010. Created From Chaos. Privately published: P.S. Manchester, Launceston. McIntosh, P.D., 2012. Dated geoconservation sites in the forest estate in Tasmania, 2004-2012. Forest Practices Authority Technical Report 2. Forest Practices Authority, Hobart. McIntosh, P.D., 2014. Forest operations around sinkholes. Forest Practices Authority, Hobart. Available from: ,http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/113357/Sinkhole_guidelines_FPA_January_2014.pdf. (accessed 12.08.17). Nanson, G.C., von Krusenstierna, A., Bryant, E.A., Renilson, M.R., 1994. Experimental measurements of river bank erosion caused by boat generated waves on the Gordon River, Tasmania. Regul. Riv. Res. Manag. 9, 1 14. Prosser, C.D., Burek, C.V., Evans, D.H., Gordon, J.E., Kirkbride, V.B., Rennie, A.F., et al., 2010. Conserving geodiversity sites in a changing climate: management challenges and responses. Geoheritage 2, 123 136.

REFERENCES

371

PWS, 1999. Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan. Parks & Wildlife Service, Tasmania. PWS, Forestry Tasmania & Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, 2003. Tasmanian Reserve Management Code of Practice. Department of Tourism, Parks, Heritage & the Arts, Hobart. Sharples, C., 1993. A Methodology for the Identification of Significant Landforms and Geological Sites for Geoconservation Purposes. Forestry Commission, Tasmania. Available from: ,http://eprints.utas.edu.au/ 11747. (accessed 12.08.17). Sharples, C., 1994. Landforms and Geological sites of Geoconservation Significance in the Huon Forest District. Forestry Tasmania, Hobart, 2 volumes. Sharples, C., 1995. Geoconservation in forest management principles and procedures. Tasforests 7, 37 50. Sharples, C., 1997. Landforms and Geological Sites of Geoconservation Significance in the West Derwent Forest District. Report to Forestry Tasmania, Hobart. Sharples, C., 2002. Concepts and Principles of Geoconservation (v.3). Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service, Hobart. September 2002. Available from: ,http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/geoconservation.pdf. (accessed 12.08.17). Sharples, C., 2003. A Review of the Geoconservation Values of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Nature Conservation Report 03/06. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Sharples/contributions (accessed 12.08.17). Sharples, C., 2011. Potential Climate Change Impacts on Geodiversity in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area: A Management Response Position Paper. Nature Conservation Report 11/04, Department of Primary Industries, Parks Water and Environment, Hobart. Available from: http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/ Documents/Potential-Climate-Change-Impacts-in-the-TWWHA.pdf (accessed 12.08.17). Sharples, C., 2012. Geodiversity and climate change. Earth Heritage 37, 26 29. Turney, C., Flannery, T.F., Roberts, R., Reid, C., Fifield, K., Higham, T., et al., 2008. Late-surviving megafauna in Tasmania, Australia, implicate human involvement in their extinction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S. A. 105 (34), 12150 12153.

CHAPTER

GEOHERITAGE EVALUATION OF CAVES IN KOREA: A CASE STUDY OF LIMESTONE CAVES

21

Kyung S. Woo1 and Lyoun Kim2 1

Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, South Korea Cave Research Institute of Korea, Chuncheon, South Korea

2

21.1 INTRODUCTION A cave is defined as a naturally formed underground cavity, large enough to allow entry by humans. According to the types of rock in which caves are formed and the formative processes, caves are usually divided into limestone caves, volcanic caves (mostly lava tube caves), sandstone caves, gypsum caves, halite caves, ice caves, sea caves and others (Woo, 2005). Limestone caves were important dwelling places for humans during ice ages and many limestone caves can significantly influence human society due to their water resources. Caves have served as important sites for tourism and numerous tourists visit many showcaves in the world every year. Caves can be quite vulnerable natural environments due to groundwater pollution. They can also become threats by polluting water resources and cave fauna can also be highly susceptible to it. Because there is no light in caves, special ecosystems develop and cave-adapted fauna have specially evolved in these completely dark environments. Recently microorganisms in caves have attracted scientists in the search for new genes to cure diseases, and significant palaeoclimatic information has been obtained from speleothems. Thus, some caves can be regarded as significant geoheritage sites to be protected for future generations. Due to the increase in the human population and industrial development, numerous caves have been vandalised or destroyed and some have even disappeared. The geoheritage values of caves are difficult for the general public to recognise because they are ‘hidden’ in the subsurface and some are difficult to access. Also, like other geoheritage sites, they cannot be restored once they are destroyed. Caves that are located far from heavy human occupation can be relatively better conserved. However, in countries of small geographic area with large populations, such as South Korea, urban development has been caused a significant threat to caves. When there are no compiled surveyed and scientific data of caves (i.e., location, dimension and geoheritage value), it is not possible to conserve caves and protect them against potential development pressure. Fortunately, there are some legislations to protect caves in South Korea. Thus, in order to protect caves with high geoheritage value, the Korean government has supported a project to explore, investigate and evaluate caves to establish a geoheritage inventory of caves aiming to establish a proper degree of protection based on field evaluation. This project was initiated in 2003 and carried Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00021-6 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

373

374

CHAPTER 21 GEOHERITAGE EVALUATION OF CAVES IN KOREA

out by the Cave Research Institute of Korea for Jeju-do Island (2003), for Chungcheongbuk-do (2004, 2006 and 2008) and for Gangwon-do (2009 16). There are only lava tube caves in Jeju-do Island. Limestone caves are distributed in other provinces in Korea, mostly concentrated in Chungcheongbuk-do and Gangwon-do. In total, 531 caves were evaluated based on location, approximate dimension, type of caves and other general characteristics (Cultural Heritage Administration, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016). This evaluation process will continue until the geoheritage value of all caves in Korea is completed in order to conclude the inventory. This information will be used to support the decision regarding the best type of protection and conservation of caves, avoiding potential development pressure. The objective of this chapter is to introduce the methods and the results of the geoheritage inventory of limestone caves carried out so far in South Korea.

21.2 NATURAL CAVES IN SOUTH KOREA More than 1000 caves are estimated to exist in South Korea, but most of them are concentrated in Gangwon-do and Chungcheongbuk-do provinces in the peninsula and in Jeju Island (Fig. 21.1A,B). Paleozoic sedimentary sequences in the east-central part of the Korean Peninsula consist of the Joseon (Cambrian to Ordovician) and the Pyeongan (Carboniferous to Triassic) supergroups. The Joseon Supergroup is composed of five groups (Taebaeg, Yeongwol, Yongtan, Pyeongchang and Mungyeong groups) because they are represented by different sequences of sedimentary rocks despite being the same age (Choi, 1998). The Joseon Supergroup consists mostly of carbonate rocks

FIGURE 21.1 (A and B) Location map of the Korean Peninsula with provinces in South and North Korea. The Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) boundary is located across almost the central part of the Gyeonggi-do and Gangwon-do (‘-do’ means ‘province’ in Korean). (C) Distribution of karst areas (grey colour) in South Korea.

21.3 LEGAL PROTECTION OF NATURAL CAVES IN KOREA

375

(limestone and dolomite) with minor occurrence of siliciclastic rocks (sandstone and shale), however mixed carbonate-siliciclastic rocks can also be found in some formations (Woo, 1999; Woo and Park, 1989). Karst landforms and caves are well developed on the surface of some formations of the Joseon Supergoup (Fig. 21.1C), especially in the formations with high calcium carbonate contents (Woo, 2005). Lower Paleozoic carbonate rocks are widely distributed in Gangneung-si, Samcheok-si, and Taeagek-sicities, and Jeongseon-gun, Pyeongchang-gun, and Yeongwol-gun of the Gangwon-do Province, and in Danyang-gun County of Chungcheongbuk-do Province. Limestone caves are less frequent in Moongyung-si and Andong-sicities, Uljin-gun and Pyeonghaegun of the Gyungsangbuk-do Province and Hwasun-gun of the Jeonranam-do Province, and Iksan-si City and Moojoo-gun of Jeonrabuk-do Province (Fig. 21.1). Jeju Island (Fig. 21.1) is a volcanic island which formed from eruptions during the Quaternary (Sohn, 1996). Thus, most of the caves found here are basaltic lava tube caves. The large size and high number of the lava tube caves on Jeju Island are famous worldwide. The Geomunoreum Lava Tube System, which is composed of five lava tube caves, was inscribed as a UNESCO World Natural Heritage site for its outstanding geoheritage value in 2007. In addition, based on international geological values, the whole of Jeju Island was endorsed as a UNESCO Global Geopark in 2010. Moreover, the Korean Peninsula is surrounded by sea and numerous small islands are distributed along the western and southern coasts where small and large sea caves also have been developed along the coastline of the peninsula and in many islands.

21.3 LEGAL PROTECTION OF NATURAL CAVES IN KOREA All natural caves as well as animals, plants and significant geological elements (fossils, minerals, rocks and other geological features) are protected by the Cultural Heritage Protection Act since 1983 (www.law.go.kr/main.html, accessed 07.08.17) and by the Act on Protection and Inspection of Buried Cultural Heritage (elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/main.do, accessed 07.08.17) since 2011. The Cultural Heritage Protection Act is the strongest protection measure among all the other laws for nature protection. Once an area is designated by the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, it can be very well protected because permission is required for any development activities, even in buffer zones of the designated properties. Caves with high scientific value are designated as natural (national) monuments, provincial monuments or cultural property materials in order. Caves that are not designated as above are protected by the Act on Protection and Inspection of Buried Cultural Heritage. Also, for adequate and effective conservation and management of natural caves (including tourist caves), the Cultural Heritage Administration published the Guideline for Conservation and Management of Natural Caves in Korea in 2000. This includes how to investigate and manage legally protected natural caves. The main points of a few acts and presidential decree for protection of natural caves are presented in Tables 21.1 and 21.2. It is estimated that there are over 1000 caves in Korea. At present, only 39 caves are protected as natural and provincial monuments (Table 21.3). No cave has been designated as cultural property material yet. All other caves which are not designated are protected under the Act on Protection and Inspection of Burial Cultural Heritage (Table 21.2).

376

CHAPTER 21 GEOHERITAGE EVALUATION OF CAVES IN KOREA

Table 21.1 Extracts of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act and Its Enforcement Decree for the Republic of Korea Cultural Heritage Protection Act Article 1 (Purposes) The purpose of this Act is to promote the cultural edification of Korean nationals and to contribute to the development of human culture by inheriting national culture and enabling it to be utilised through the preservation of cultural heritage. Article 2 (Definitions) (1) The term ‘cultural heritage’ in this Act means artificially or naturally formed national, racial or world heritage of outstanding historic, artistic, academic or scenic value, which is classified into the following categories: (1)-3. Monuments: Those classified into the following categories: (b) Scenic sites of outstanding artistic value with excellent scenic view; (c) Animals (including their habitats, breeding grounds and migratory places), plants (including their habitats), topography, geology, minerals, caves, biological produce and extraordinary natural phenomena of outstanding historic, scenic or academic value; Article 19 (Registration and Protection of World Heritage site, etc.) (3) The State and a local government shall maintain, manage and support a World Heritage site, etc. to the level equivalent to the State-designated cultural heritage from the date on which they are registered, and the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration may order any person who engages in any activity that could affect a World Heritage site, etc. or its historic and cultural environment to take necessary measures for the protection of a World Heritage site, etc. and its historic and cultural environment, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 25 (Designation of Historic Sites, Scenic Spots and Natural Monuments) (1) The Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration may designate an important site, spot or monument as a historic site, scenic area or natural monument, following deliberation by the Cultural Heritage Committee. (2) Necessary matters concerning standards, procedures, etc. for the designation of historic sites, scenic areas and natural monuments shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 70 (Designation, etc. of City/Do-Designated Cultural Heritage) (‘Do’ means province in Korean) (1) A Mayor/Do Governor may designate, as City/Do-designated cultural heritage, cultural heritage deemed worthy of preservation, among those under his/her jurisdiction which are not designated as State-designated cultural heritage. (3) The Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration may recommend a Mayor/Do Governor to designate cultural heritage deemed necessary following deliberation by the Cultural Heritage Committee as City/Dodesignated cultural heritage or cultural heritage resources (including its protective facilities and protection zone; hereinafter the same shall apply), and preserve so-designated cultural heritage. (5) Necessary matters concerning procedures for designating City/Do-designated cultural heritage or cultural heritage resources and revoking such designation, their management, protection and development and disclosure thereof shall be prescribed by ordinance of the relevant local government. Enforcement Decree of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act Article 33-2 (Acts Subject to Report of Alteration of Current State of Registered Cultural Heritage) ‘Acts prescribed by Presidential Decree’ means any of the following acts that alter the exterior of registered cultural heritage: Provided that temporary measures required to prevent damage of registered cultural heritage or expansion of damage shall be excluded: 1. Any act that alters the design, colour, quality, raw material, etc. of at least 1/4 of the area of the exterior (including the roof) of cultural heritage where the cultural heritage concerned is a building;

21.3 LEGAL PROTECTION OF NATURAL CAVES IN KOREA

377

Table 21.1 Extracts of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act and Its Enforcement Decree for the Republic of Korea Continued 2. Any act that alters the design, colour, quality, raw material, etc. of at least 1/4 of the exterior of cultural heritage where the cultural heritage concerned is a facility other than a building. 2b. Internal surface area for caves The terms related to caves are highlighted in italics.

Table 21.2 Extracts of the Act on Protection and Inspection of Burial Cultural Heritage and Its Enforcement Decree for the Republic of Korea The Act on Protection and Inspection of Burial Cultural Heritage Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of this Act is to maintain and accede to the original form of national culture by preserving buried cultural heritage and to efficiently protect, inspect and manage buried cultural heritage. Article 2 (Definitions) The term ‘buried cultural heritage’ in this Act means the following: 1. Tangible cultural heritage buried or distributed underground or underwater; 2. Tangible cultural heritage contained in the structures, etc.; 3. Natural caves and fossils formed and deposited on the ground surface, underground or underwater (including seas, lakes and rivers), etc. and other objects deemed to have outstanding geological values under Presidential Decree. Enforcement Decree of the Act on Protection and Inspection of Buried Cultural Heritage Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of this Decree is to provide for the matters delegated by the Act on Protection and Inspection of Buried Cultural Heritage and matters necessary for the enforcement thereof. Article 5 (Procedure, etc. for Ground Surface Inspection) 1. The implementer of construction works shall submit a report on the ground surface inspection conducted to the head of a local government having jurisdiction over the relevant project site and the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration simultaneously within 20 days from the date the ground surface inspection is completed. In such cases, the ground surface inspection report shall be accompanied by the following documents; (a) A location map of the prearranged project site on a scale of at least 1:10,000, and (b) A plan for construction works (including a plan for underground excavation, a plan for architectural works, a landscaping plan, and other data with which it is possible to ascertain the changes in the form and quality of land in detail). 2. A ground surface inspection report shall include the following matters; (1) Results of literature research on history, archaeology, folklore, geology and the natural environment of the relevant project site, (2) Results of the on-site survey on the areas where relics and remains are distributed within the relevant project site, and on folklore, old buildings (including modern buildings), geology, the natural environment, etc. in such areas, and (3) Opinions of the institution that conducted the ground surface inspection in the relevant project site for buried cultural heritage under Article 24 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘inspection institution’). The terms related to caves are highlighted in italics.

378

CHAPTER 21 GEOHERITAGE EVALUATION OF CAVES IN KOREA

Table 21.3 List of 19 Caves Protected as Natural Monuments Under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act in South Korea Natural Monuments

Reference Number (Year of Designation)

Location

Gimnyeonggul and Manjanggul Lava Tube, Jeju Seongnyugul Cave, Uljin Cheonhodonggul Cave, Iksan Cave Area in Daei-ri Gossigul Cave, Yeongwol Chodanggul Cave, Samcheok Lava Tube Area in Hallim, Jeju Gosudonggul Cave, Danyang Baengnyongdonggul Cave, Pyeongchang Ondaldonggul Cave, Danyang Nodongdonggul Cave, Danyang Billemotdonggul Lava Tube in Eoeum-ri, Jeju Dangcheomuldonggul Lava Tube, Jeju Yongcheondonggul Lava Tube, Jeju Susandonggul Lava Tube, Jeju Bengdwigul Lava Tube in Seonheul-ri, Jeju Sanhodonggul Cave, Jeongseon Seopdonggul Cave, Pyeongchang Upper Geomunoreum Lava Tube System, Jeju

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Jeju-si, Jeju-do Uljin-gun, Gyeongsangbuk-do Iksan-si, Jeollabuk-do Samcheok-si, Gangwon-do Yeongwol-gun, Gangwon-do Samcheok-si, Gangwon-do Jeju-si, Jeju-do Danyang-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do Pyeongchang-gun, Gangwon-do Danyang-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do Danyang-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do Jeju-si, Jeju-do Jeju-si, Jeju-do Jeju-si, Jeju-do Seogwipo-si, Jeju-do Jeju-si, Jeju-do Jeongseon-gun, Gangwon-do Pyeongchang-gun, Gangwon-do Jeju-si, Jeju-do

98 (1962) 155 (1963) 177 (1966) 178 (1966) 219 (1969) 226 (1970) 236 (1971) 256 (1976) 260 (1979) 261 (1979) 262 (1979) 342 (1984) 384 (1996) 466 (2006) 467 (2006) 490 (2008) 509 (2009) 510 (2009) 552 (2017)

In addition, there are 20 caves protected as provincial monuments (-do 5 province, -si 5 city and -gun 5 county). The caves located in Jeju-do are lava tube caves and the rest of caves are limestone caves.

21.4 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EVALUATION CRITERIA Based on geological (and additional biological) criteria, caves can be evaluated and classified as five classes of geoheritage sites for protection, which are as follows: A natural (national) monument, B provincial monument, C cultural property material, D buried monument and E cave not to be protected. As mentioned above, natural monument (Class A), provincial monument (Class B) and cultural property material (Class C) are protected under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, whereas buried monument (Class D) is protected under the Act on Protection and Inspection of Buried Cultural Heritage and also by the ordinance of local governments. Natural monument has the highest scientific (geoheritage and biodiversity) significance and is managed directly by the Cultural Heritage Administration. Provincial monument has high scientific value for protection and is managed by provincial (-do’s) governments. Cultural property material and buried monuments have relatively low scientific value and are not directly managed by any organisation; however permission for the entry to these caves or their utilisation for private or public use should be obtained by provincial government via local county government.

21.4 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EVALUATION CRITERIA

379

The evaluation of caves is based on geological and biological criteria. Geological criteria consist of: (1) dimension (length, passage size, etc.); (2) diversity and distribution of speleothems; (3) internal micromorphologic features; (4) characteristics of cave sediments; and (5) other elements. Specific criteria for geoheritage evaluation are reported in Table 21.4. Biological criteria are: (1) diversity and population of cave organisms; (2) habitat suitability for cave organisms; (3) and the degree of adaptation of organisms in caves. Separate evaluation of the same cave is carried out by cave geologists and biologists, and a compromise is reached for the overall evaluation of a cave based on the two separate investigations (see below). Because most of the evaluation results can be subjective, the objectivity can be achieved by thorough discussion among investigators. Only geological criteria are discussed below in this chapter. The first criterion is the dimension of caves, which is the total length of caves as well as the size of transverse and longitudinal sections. Because there are not many long caves in Korea, a limestone cave longer than 2 km is usually considered to be geologically significant. However, even though a limestone cave is longer than 2 km, it needs to be reconsidered before a score is given if it contains very little internal features (speleothems and/or internal micromorphologic features). Table 21.4 Geological Criteria for Evaluation of Limestone Caves in Korea Geological Criteria

Items to be Evaluated

Dimension

• Total length • Transverse and longitudinal sections; presence of significant cross sections showing the cave formation processes • Distribution of speleothems • Density of speleothems • Presence of rare type of speleothems • Presence of rare size of speleothems • Conservation status of speleothems • Presence and distribution frequency of microtopographic features such as scallop, terrace, niche and notch, paleo-stream lines, canopy, false floor, corroded surface, etc. • Presence of cave sediments showing cave formation processes • Good exposure of fluvial and lacustrine sequences • Presence of cave sediments for scientific research such paleoclimate, palaeomagnetism, etc. • Presence of minerals other than calcite and aragonite such as gypsum, halite, etc. • Presence of thick guano sites for potential new discovery of minerals • Presence of speleothems with unusual mineralogy such as aragonite flowstone, aragonite stalagmite, etc. • Speleothems showing diagenetic process of mineral transformation • Presence of large lakes (with cave organisms) • Good exposure of fossils on cave wall • Presence of submerged cave passages • Others

Speleothems

Microtopographic features Cave sediments

Cave minerals

Other special geological features

Each item for each one of the geological criteria is evaluated and scored from A (the highest) to E (the lowest).

380

CHAPTER 21 GEOHERITAGE EVALUATION OF CAVES IN KOREA

The second criterion concerns speleothems. This criterion may be the most important standard for evaluators because it can be very objectively analysed. Overall density and distribution of speleothems are very important, and diversity of speleothems is also considered to be a significant characteristic. Preservation status of speleothems is considered separately and evaluated because speleothems in many limestone caves have been vandalised. If special speleothems of erratic shapes or of rare origin are present, they can be specially considered. If the size of some speleothems is abnormally large or small (e.g., soda straws of several meters in length), it is considered to be very special. Most limestone caves include microtopographic features on the ceiling, wall and/or floor in caves (the third criterion) which may imply significant processes of cave formation. Scallop, terrace and niche (and notch) may imply previous water flow processes during cave development. Palaeostream and false floor also indicate previous water flows and preexistence of cave sediments which were present before being eroded away. Canopies and corroded surfaces may be related to the condensation-corrosion process which is influenced by acidic atmospheric water vapour. The presence and density of these microtopographic features can provide valuable information on cave formation processes. Even though they are not as distinctive as speleothems, they should be treated almost the same as speleothems. Cave sediments are the basis of the fourth criterion. They may be less attractive than speleothems and microtopographic features, however sometimes they can provide significant scientific information on cave formation and history. From sedimentary sequence, palaeo-stream flow velocity can be inferred. Cave sediments can also be dated by palaeomagnetism and various other dating methods (e.g., Optimal Stimulated Luminescence using quartz grains or radiocarbon dating using organic matter preserved in sediments), thus providing information on the formation age of caves. Sometimes various fossil skeletons (e.g., Naracoorte Caves in Australia) and archaeological remains (e.g., Zhoukoudian in China) are preserved in sediments. Microfossils (pollen, diatom, etc.) as well as geochemical data from cave sediments may provide significant palaeoclimatic information. Thus, it is very important to recognise the potential scientific significance of cave sediments. Finally, the characteristics of cave minerals are the fifth criterion. In most limestone caves, carbonate minerals such as calcite and aragonite are the main speleothem-forming minerals in Korea. However, gypsum, halite, hydromagnesite, dolomite and huntite have been reported in moonmilk deposits (and cave powders) in some caves. Even though not common, gypsum flowers were also reported in a few limestone caves in Korea (Woo, 2005). It has been noted that phosphate deposits originating from bat guano may contain authigenic phosphate minerals (Hill and Forti, 1976). Some speleothems may display mineral transformation processes from aragonite to calcite during diagenesis (Woo and Choi, 2006), and this can be observed in some broken sections of speleothems. Some speleothems composed of uncommon minerals in Korean caves should also be considered. For example, most flowstone in limestone caves in Korea is composed of calcite, however it was reported that most flowstone in one limestone cave is entirely composed of aragonite (Woo and Choi, 2006). In some lava tube caves in Jeju Island, gypsum, halite and carbonate minerals in addition to opaline silica were reported in secondary speleothems such as cave corals (Woo et al., 2008a,b). There are other special geological features which should be considered as the sixth criterion. If there is a large lake in limestone caves, there is a chance that cave water-dwelling fauna (troglophites and troglophiles) can be found. Also, depending upon fluctuating water levels, various

21.5 EVALUATION PROCEDURE AND RESULTS

381

speleothems may grow in cave water. Some limestone caves include significant fossil skeletons and other carbonate constituents (i.e., ooids) on cave walls even though they may not be visible on outcrops due to heavy vegetation outside. The presence of a submerged passage may also provide a special freshwater ecosystem. There are other additional geological features which could be considered, such as the sinuosity or multilevels of passages, boxworks, submerged stalagmites, etc. Each above-mentioned geological criterion is evaluated separately from A (the highest value) to E (the lowest value) in each investigated cave (Table 21.4). The highest value of any criterion is adopted for final geological evaluation. Because the objective of this cave evaluation is mainly to assess the geoheritage significance, the result is mainly based on the geological characteristics investigated in situ. If the evaluation result from geological and biological criteria is different but both above Class C, geological evaluation can overrule the biological one. However, if geoheritage evaluation is below C but the biological class is either A or B, caves are classified overall as Class C with a special note regarding biological significance. This note will be the basis for upgrading the class after an evaluation of the ecosystem is made. Although there are no published data of archaeological remains or cave sediments, the caves with the potential of having archaeological remains and palaeoclimatic interest are classified as Class C. In this case, the potential presence of archaeological remains and cave sediments are noted for future reevaluation of the criteria. As the main objective of the project is to evaluate the geoheritage value, the classification of caves can be changed after further detailed research in other scientific aspects such as ecosystem, microbiology and archaeology. It is clearly stated in the published reports that the research is very preliminary because complete exploration of all the potential passages in some caves is sometimes not possible. For example, narrow passages with sediments on the floor cannot be excavated and explored without prior permission from the Cultural Heritage Administration. Thus, complete exploration during this research was not possible due to limited budget and time for investigation. Also, cave diving for exploration of submerged passages was not possible to accomplish. In these cases, a special reference is made in the inventory report emphasising the need for more detailed exploration and investigation.

21.5 EVALUATION PROCEDURE AND RESULTS Before field evaluation, preexisting information on cave location and other data were collected from previous research and investigation reports made by scientists, as well as the six caving clubs that exist in South Korea. The precise location of each cave entrance is mapped using GPS and also marked on the topographic map (1:5000) (Fig. 21.2). Photographs of the cave entrance are taken and the entrance size is measured (Fig. 21.3). The location of caves is given to cave biologists for later investigation. Geological investigation and evaluation (dimension, speleothems, microtopographic features, etc.) and the investigation of cave organisms are carried out in situ, and the proper form is completed (Fig. 21.4). Also, the protection status of caves such as the presence of a cave gate is checked at the entrance. The degree of conservation due to vandalism and the existence of graffiti are evaluated separately. The potential presence of archaeological remains is also checked and significant geological, biological and other features are registered in photographs.

382

CHAPTER 21 GEOHERITAGE EVALUATION OF CAVES IN KOREA

FIGURE 21.2 An example of a cave location map. The limestone caves investigated and evaluated are marked on the map with identification numbers in Jeongseon-eup, Jeongseon-gun, Gangwon-do, South Korea. ‘-eup’, ‘-gun’ and ‘-do’ mean ‘district’, ‘county’ and ‘province’, respectively, in Korean.

Based on all the data, several meetings are held among cave scientists for final determination of the class to be nominated. The report is prepared based on all the information given from collected and evaluated data in the field, together with geographic locations of the caves on the maps (Fig. 21.2).

21.6 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

383

FIGURE 21.3 Example of a cave description (Ssaraemidonggul Cave). Brief description of the cave followed by the cave entrance photo and its inside view.

Limestone and volcanic caves comprise the majority of the speleological heritage in Korea. Limestone caves are distributed in the eastern central part of the Korean Peninsula (Gangwon-do Province mostly and Chungcheongbuk-do and Gyeongsangbuk-do provinces partly) whereas lava tube caves are only distributed in Jeju-do Province. The total number of evaluated caves is 1022 (Class A 20, Class B 45, Class C 215, Class D 211 and Class E 531) (Table 21.5). In 2003, the first study was carried out in Jeju Island and 158 caves were explored and evaluated. Among these 158 caves, 127 are lava tube caves and 31 are sea caves. Between 2004 and 2016 the inventory and caves assessment was extended to many provinces (Table 21.5). From 2017, limestone caves in Samcheok-si City in Gangwon-do Province will be explored and evaluated. This evaluation process will continue until all the natural caves including sea caves and other caves of different origins (joint caves, erosion caves, etc.) in South Korea have been explored and evaluated.

21.6 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS Caves in South Korea have been protected under the Cultural Heritage Production Act since 1983. In 2003, the Korean government decided to protect caves and to ensure their effective

384

CHAPTER 21 GEOHERITAGE EVALUATION OF CAVES IN KOREA

FIGURE 21.4 An example of the evaluation form that was filled for one cave. Serial no. 7 indicates the 7th serial district (‘-eup’ or ‘-meon’) number in Jeongseon-gun (‘county’) and 21 means the 21st cave within the district; 171 indicates the 171st cave within the county. ‘-do (and metropolitan city)’, ‘-gun (and city)’ and ‘-eup (and myeon)’ and ‘-ri’ in Korean mean a province, county, district and a small village, respectively.

conservation. Cave evaluation criteria were developed by cave scientists. All caves were explored, investigated and evaluated based on geological criteria. Cave evaluation reports include cave entrance photos and a brief description of the caves, together with the evaluation forms. Geographic locations of caves are indicated on the map. The Korean Government began funding cave evaluation in 2003 and 10 reports were published in that year. Presently, the total number of evaluated caves is 1022 (Class A 20, Class B 45, Class C 215, Class D 211 and Class E 531). This evaluation process will be continuously supported until all of the unevaluated caves are studied. After the evaluation results were reported to the Cultural Heritage Administration in Korea, caves with significant geoheritage value were statutorily designated as natural monuments,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

385

Table 21.5 Evaluation Result of All the Caves in Korea From 2003 to 2016 Location

Evaluated Grade

No.

Year

Province (-do)

County (-gun or -si, city)

1

2003

Jeju-do

Whole island

2

2004

Chuncheonbuk-do

All counties except for Dangyang-gun

3

2006

Dangyang-gun

62

0

4

22

9

27

4

2008

Dangyang-gun

140

3

3

31

20

83

5

2009

Yeongwol-gun

61

0

2

15

14

30

6

2010

Taebaek-si City Yeongwol-gun

86

2

7

13

17

47

7

2011

Yeongwol-gun

106

1

4

31

21

49

8

2014

Yeongwol-gun

117

0

5

29

11

72

9

2015

Jeongseon-gun

112

3

2

26

16

65

10

2016

Jeongseon-gun

91

1

2

15

15

58

1022

20

45

215

211

531

Gangwon-do

Totals

No. of Evaluated Caves

A

B

C

D

E

158

10

12

24

64

48

89

0

4

9

24

52

The caves in Jeju-do Island which were evaluated in 2003 are mostly lava tube caves with several sea caves. All caves that have been evaluated since 2004 are limestone caves.

provincial monuments and cultural materials. Entrances to all the caves which were evaluated above Class C were gated. The inventory has provided useful information for potential development sites. However, no show-cave was developed based on the inventory because no cave was evaluated to be qualified for touristic development. This evaluation project will continue until the cave inventory as geoheritage sites in Korea is finished, hopefully during the next 5 years. This evaluation process will enable the protection of caves in South Korea from development pressure in the future and will provide valuable information for future scientific research. It is hoped that this chapter will be a good guide for conservation of caves around the world.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This investigation has been supported by Cultural Heritage Administration in Korea since 2003. Special gratitude should be given to the staff of the Cave Research Institute of Korea (Y.G. Choi, B.H. Kim, J.H. Choi, J.H. Lee and M.Y. Lee) and numerous other assistant cavers of the Cave Investigation Club in Kangwon National University who were involved in all the previous projects. This study was supported by a 2016 Research Grant from Kangwon National University (no. 520160096).

386

CHAPTER 21 GEOHERITAGE EVALUATION OF CAVES IN KOREA

REFERENCES Choi, D.K., 1998. The Yongwol Group (Cambrian-Ordovician) redefined: a proposal for the stratigraphic nomenclature of the ChosonSupergroup. Geosci. J. 2, 220 234. Cultural Heritage Administration, 2003. Investigation of natural caves in Jeju-do. Daejeon 263 (in Korean). Cultural Heritage Administration, 2004. Investigation of natural caves in Chungcheongbuk-do, No. 1. Daejeon, 232 (in Korean). Cultural Heritage Administration, 2006. Investigation of natural caves in Chungcheongbuk-do, No. 2. Daejeon, 160 (in Korean). Cultural Heritage Administration, 2008. Investigation of natural caves in Chungcheongbuk-do, No. 3. Daejeon, 188 (in Korean). Cultural Heritage Administration, 2009. Investigation of natural caves in Gangwon-do, No. 1. Daejeon, 168 (in Korean). Cultural Heritage Administration, 2010. Investigation of natural caves in Gangwon-do, No. 2. Daejeon, 248 (in Korean). Cultural Heritage Administration, 2011. Investigation of natural caves in Gangwon-do, No. 3. Daejeon, 238 (in Korean). Cultural Heritage Administration, 2014. Investigation of natural caves in Gangwon-do, No. 4. Daejeon, 249 (in Korean). Cultural Heritage Administration, 2015. Investigation of natural caves in Gangwon-do, No. 5. Daejeon, 272 (in Korean). Cultural Heritage Administration, 2016. Investigation of natural caves in Gangwon-do, No. 6. Daejeon, 238 (in Korean). Hill, C., Forti, P., 1976. Cave Minerals of the World. National Speleological Society, Huntsville. Sohn, Y.K., 1996. Hydrovolcanic processes forming basaltic tuff rings and cones on Cheju Island, Korea. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 108, 1199 1211. Woo, K.S., 1999. Cyclic tidal successions of the Middle Ordovician Maggol Formation in the Taebaeg area, Kangwondo, Korea. Geosci. J. 3, 123 140. Woo, K.S., 2005. Caves. Hollym, Seoul. Woo, K.S., Choi, D.W., 2006. Calcitization of aragonite speleothems in limestone caves in Korea: diagenetic process in a semi-closed system. In: Harmon, R.S., Wicks, C. (Eds.), Perspective on karst geomorphology, hydrology, and geochemistry A tribute to Derek C. Ford and William B. White. Special Paper 404. Geological Society of America, pp. 297 306. Woo, K.S., Park, B.K., 1989. Depositional environments and diagenesis of the carbonate rocks, Choseon Supergroup: past, present, and future; the state of art. J. Geol. Soc. Korea 25, 347 363. Woo, K.S., Choi, D.W., Lee, K.C., 2008a. Silicification of cave corals from some lava tube caves in the Jeju Island, Korea: implications for speleogenesis and a proxy for paleoenvironmental change during the Late Quaternary. Quat. Int. 176-177, 82 95. Woo, K.S., Kim, J.C., Choi, D.W., Kim, J.K., Kim, R., Nehza, O., 2008b. The origin of erratic calcite speleothems in the Dangcheomul Cave (lava tube cave), Jeju Island, Korea. Quat. Int. 176-177, 70 81.

CHAPTER

MANAGING CONSERVATION, RESEARCH, AND INTERPRETATION OF GEOHERITAGE ASSETS AT FLORISSANT FOSSIL BEDS NATIONAL MONUMENT, COLORADO, USA

22 Herbert W. Meyer

Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, Florissant, CO, United States

22.1 INTRODUCTION Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument is renowned for its high diversity of fossil plants and insects, including large petrified stumps. The site is managed by the US National Park Service (NPS) and encompasses an area of 2425 ha (5992 US acres). It is situated in a mountain valley near the town of Florissant in the centre of Colorado about 100 km south-west of Denver (Fig. 22.1) at an elevation of 2500 m (8200 ft). Climate extremes range from warm summers to severely cold winters and pose challenges for outdoor in situ fossil conservation. The history of interest in the fossil beds spans more than 140 years, attesting to the richness and diversity of the site’s geoheritage (Leopold and Meyer, 2012; Meyer, 2003; Veatch and Meyer, 2008). The area first came to the attention of scientists during a government-sponsored scientific survey of the American West in the 1870s. During that time, local homesteader Charlotte Hill contributed significantly by making some of the earliest collections of fossils. Several pioneering palaeontologists began a long legacy of scientific research, including palaeobotanist Leo Lesquereux, palaeoentomologist Samuel Scudder, and vertebrate palaeontologist E.D. Cope. More than 150 scientists continued this work in the century that followed. Private landowners developed two commercial petrified forest attractions that drew thousands of tourists to the area between the early 1920s and the early 1970s, before an intensive legal battle saved the site from impending real estate development and the US Congress designated the land as a national monument in 1969. This legal action was an innovative precedent at the inception of American environmental law and demonstrated that fossils are part of the nation’s geoheritage (Leopold and Meyer, 2012). Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00022-8 2018 Published by Elsevier Inc.

387

388

CHAPTER 22 GEOHERITAGE ASSETS AT FLORISSANT FOSSIL BEDS

FIGURE 22.1 Map showing location of Florissant, Colorado.

With over 1,800 fossil species and two petrified tree stumps measuring 4 m in diameter at breast height, Florissant ranks among the world’s most speciose fossil localities and has some of the largest petrified tree trunks (Meyer, 2003). The fossils occur in the upper Eocene Florissant Formation (34.07 Ma), which was deposited in an ancient valley in close proximity to the Guffey volcanic centre in the Thirtynine Mile volcanic area (Meyer et al., 2004). A volcanic lahar flowed into this stream valley, preserving a forest of redwood (Sequoia) stumps (Fig. 22.2), and a subsequent lahar later blocked local drainages to form ancient Lake Florissant. Volcanic ash weathering to clay settled in this lake along with diatoms to form very thinly laminated sediments that entombed leaves, fruits, flowers, insects, fish, and birds (Fig. 22.3). These sediments lithified to form ‘paper shale’, which consists of individual layers of clay-rich shale, often only 0.1 mm thick, that hold the fossil remains as impressions and compressions (O’Brien et al., 2008). The Florissant Formation also includes tuffaceous mudstones in which fossil mammals are preserved. Other geologic resources at Florissant include outcrops of Pikes Peak Granite (1.08 Ga) and Wall Mountain Tuff (37 Ma). The congressionally defined mandate for Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument is to ‘provide for the protection, controlled collection, and scientific interpretation of the unique insect and leaf fossils and related objects of scientific value’. In 2009, the US Congress passed the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act regulating fossils on federal lands. The law seeks to increase public awareness about the significance of palaeontological resources, define illegal collecting of fossils, and impose penalties for violators. It mandates federal agencies, such as the NPS, to manage and protect palaeontological resources on federal land using scientific principles and expertise, and to develop appropriate plans for inventory, monitoring, and scientific and educational use of palaeontological resources.

FIGURE 22.2 Interpretive trails lead past petrified redwood stumps that underlie the modern Florissant valley. This was the location of an Eocene stream valley that flooded to form a lake (Photograph by L. Walker).

FIGURE 22.3 Fossil plants, insects, and fish are common in layers of shale of the Florissant Formation and are featured in the exhibits at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. (A) Fagopis leaf, an extinct beech relative (FLFO 3409b). (B) Florissantia flower (FLFO 7578b). (C) Asilus, a robber fly (FLFO 1020a). (D) Trichophanes, an extinct pirate perch relative (FLFO 5873) on top of a leaf. Scale bars 5 1 cm (Photographs by C. O’Connor, K. Hattori and A. Ferguson).

390

CHAPTER 22 GEOHERITAGE ASSETS AT FLORISSANT FOSSIL BEDS

Since the establishment of a palaeontology programme in 1994, the monument has been actively involved in developing innovative projects for conservation and resource management, facilitating and conducting scientific research, and providing new venues for education and interpretation. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the broad spectrum of activities undertaken by the NPS in the management of a geological site, with specific examples from Florissant.

22.2 ASSESSMENT OF PALAEONTOLOGICAL ASSETS Understanding the scope and condition of Florissant’s fossil assets is critical to monitoring changes that occur over time, as well as to promoting advances in the scientific study of the fossils. Thus, the field condition of specific palaeontological sites (localities) is monitored annually, and Florissant fossil collections have been intensively surveyed at museums worldwide.

22.2.1 INVENTORY AND MONITORING OF PALAEONTOLOGICAL SITES A programme to inventory and monitor palaeontological sites within the monument began in 1992 and continues annually to precisely document natural and human-induced change over time. Changes result from many causes, including: geologic factors such as weathering, erosion, topography, and lithology; climatic factors such as temperature, precipitation, relative humidity (RH), wind, flooding, freeze-thaw cycles, and ultraviolet radiation; biological factors such as trampling, burrowing, or excretion by animals, and root development or surface growth by plants; and human impacts such as scientific excavation, construction projects, hiking off designated trails, and illegal collecting (Santucci et al., 2009). Particular problems that have disturbed or degraded fossil sites at Florissant include snowfall and freeze-thaw cycles that affect cracks in petrified trees, heavy summer rainfall that accelerates erosion in ravines and causes water to pool around petrified stumps, construction activity by the NPS in close proximity to fossil sites, and infrequent illegal digging. The impacts of weathering and erosion vary with site lithology. Most outcrops of shale weather rapidly to form a loose ground cover of fine sediment, and any enclosed fossils disintegrate without evidence of their presence. Such outcrops are generally protected by the blanket of weathered sediment on the surface and require active excavation to expose fossils. They often remain stable from year to year unless collecting or erosion from heavy summer rainfall has occurred. Research excavations are documented for each site, and other evidence of digging disturbance is recorded as illegal activity. Erosion of mudstone units can expose the more durable fossils of petrified wood or micromammal teeth, and such sites may require cyclic surface prospecting during monitoring to recover fossils that would otherwise be lost. Initial inventory of a site defines and maps its spatial perimeter, marks waypoints of significant palaeontological features, establishes photographic waypoints, determines fossil content and significance, identifies lithology, assesses natural and human threats and sensitivity to disturbance, and records baseline conditions using photographs and observations. There are more than 70 defined palaeontological sites at the monument with in situ fossils of petrified tree trunks or from which previous collections of plants and insects in shale have been made.

22.2 ASSESSMENT OF PALAEONTOLOGICAL ASSETS

391

Subsequent monitoring involves regular photographic documentation of the site and observational assessment of conditions over cycles of 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, or 8 years depending on each site’s location and sensitivity. Most sites are routinely monitored annually or biennially. Photographs are taken at precisely the same location and orientation during each monitoring cycle. Photo points are located using a handheld GPS device or established physical ground markers and are designated numerically (e.g., P-01-P1-20NW) to indicate the site number, photographic waypoint within that site, and compass bearing. The photo points for any particular site represent a sampling of potential views. Additional photographs from views not established as photo points are taken if a particular disturbance would not be recorded otherwise. A label board is placed in each photograph to show the date and photo point. Comparison with photographs from previous years is the primary indication to determine changes. When available, historic photographs are useful in assessing longer-term changes to site condition. Site condition is quantified during each monitoring cycle utilising a scoring matrix that evaluates the following criteria: disturbance (observed erosion, animal activity, or illegal removal); disturbance mitigation (actions such as fencing or drainage); fragility (rate of fossil exposure or destruction due to lithology, climate, and erosion); fragility mitigation (actions such as burial, stabilisation, or covering by shelter); fossil abundance (size of the area and concentration of fossils present); actual loss (number of fossils lost to erosion or theft); loss mitigation (actions such as frequency of monitoring or fossil collecting); site access (distance from a road or trail); and access mitigation (actions such as patrols, monitoring, camera surveillance, or emplacement of physical barriers). Scores range from 0 to 20 for each criterion based on defined observations, and the sum of these scores indicates categories of good condition (.90), fair condition (50 90), and poor condition (,50). These criteria must be specifically defined and standardised for consistency, particularly if the observer varies from year to year. Observations and condition scores are recorded in a database customised for the inventory and monitoring project. The database also links to a photograph archive. These data enable quantifiable long-term assessment of changes related to climate variation, animal disturbance, scientific excavations, and illegal collecting (Miranda and Meyer, 2016). A new programme is being implemented to utilise high-resolution photogrammetry, particularly for the petrified stumps, as a means for monitoring changes three-dimensionally (Fig. 22.4). This will enable more detailed and complete documentation of entire petrified stumps, improving visualisation of ongoing deterioration and measuring the success of stabilisation efforts.

22.2.2 SURVEY OF COLLECTIONS AND PUBLICATIONS An inventory of the collections and scientific publications of Florissant’s fossils is critical for assessing the ancient ecosystem’s total taxonomic composition and the scope of past research. Fossil collections made between the 1870s and 1969 were distributed widely to various institutions depending largely on the affiliations of the scientists who collected. Consequently, at least 17 museums now hold collections of the published material and many more are known to hold smaller collections. In order to document these collections, the NPS surveyed all existing museum collections and bibliographic references in which Florissant specimens occur. These data were integrated into a relational database documenting museum catalogue records, publications, and updated taxonomic information (Meyer et al., 2008).

392

CHAPTER 22 GEOHERITAGE ASSETS AT FLORISSANT FOSSIL BEDS

FIGURE 22.4 Photogrammetry of the petrified ‘Big Stump’ involves taking numerous photographs from many angles to produce three-dimensional imagery that enables monitoring of changes in condition over time (Photograph by J. Wood).

This database provides the first comprehensive assessment of the total published taxonomic composition of the fossil flora and fauna, as well as all publications in which the fossils are referenced. The museums holding the published collections have more than 40,000 specimens from Florissant, of which 5848 are cited in 330 scientific publications describing Florissant’s taxonomic diversity. More than 1,800 species are recognised, most of which are insects, demonstrating that Florissant ranks among the most diverse fossil sites in the world. The database serves several functions as a virtual ‘museum’ of published specimens. Website versions are served by the NPS (www.planning.nps.gov/flfo/, accessed 09.08.17) and the University of Colorado (flfo-search.colorado.edu, accessed 09.08.17). The database aids researchers in locating repositories for specimens and their relevant publications, and documents changes in taxonomic names over time. It provides images of specimens for preliminary morphological examination that may or may not have been illustrated in the original publications. It enables specialists to verify or refute previous taxonomic identifications, dynamically supporting ongoing research. It also provides an important management tool, robust data for scientific researchers, and an aid for educational interpretation. These data and associated images provided the foundation for a book on Florissant’s fossils that makes the information available in a more popularised format for the general public and scientific community (Meyer, 2003).

22.3 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

393

22.3 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT Specialised needs for conservation at Florissant include maintaining an organised and documented museum collection, developing new methods to preserve extremely small and fragile fossil impressions in shale, and stabilising the in situ petrified stumps. Minimising or preventing deterioration of the fossils is critical to ensuring long-term protection and preservation in accordance with the mission of the NPS.

22.3.1 CONSERVATION OF MUSEUM COLLECTIONS The national monument maintains a large on-site collection of more than 12,000 fossil specimens in a dedicated collections storage area in the palaeontology lab (Fig. 22.5). The collection

FIGURE 22.5 The palaeontology collection at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument houses 12,000 specimens of fossil plants and insects in delicate paper shale. Microflaking of the shale causes layers as thin as 0.1 mm to lift from the surface, risking loss of important fossils such as the abdomen in the counterpart (lower left) of this iconographic specimen of a wasp (Palaeovespa), which serves as the monument’s logo. Specimens FLFO 50 and FLFO 51; length 2 cm (Photograph by C. O’Connor).

394

CHAPTER 22 GEOHERITAGE ASSETS AT FLORISSANT FOSSIL BEDS

originated from scientific excavations within the monument, donations of specimens from nearby private property, or salvage mitigation from construction projects or erosion prevention. All research collections made within the monument since its establishment in 1969 are the property of the NPS, although repository loans to other institutions enable other museums and universities to house these specimens; however, this is the case for only 2% of the NPS collection from Florissant. The specimens that went to other museums prior to the establishment of the monument are not considered NPS property. Accession data documenting the source of collections (collector, locality, and geologic context) along with catalogue numbers assigned to individual specimens are documented in a database standardised by the NPS. The majority of the specimens have been digitally photographed. To ensure accountability in accordance with NPS standards, a random sample inventory is conducted and reported annually. The majority of the fossils are preserved as impressions and compressions in thin paper shale matrix. As the shale dries following initial collection, it tends to break or deform due to curling, mud cracking, and delamination, thus threatening to destroy important fossils (Fig. 22.5). Without proper conservation, specimen deterioration persists during storage in the museum collection, and environmental storage parameters should be maintained to ensure specimen longevity. Maintaining sufficiently high RH is a particular concern because the low ambient RH and seasonal fluctuations in RH accelerate deterioration of the clay-rich shale. Unknown compounds (possibly balsam) were applied to the surfaces of many historic type specimens from the early 20th century; over time, these materials have darkened and crystallised such that the fossil organisms are no longer visible. The impracticality of reversing these treatments in fragile paper shale emphasises the need for caution when chemicals are applied to fossils, and hence conservation techniques should emphasise physical stabilisation when possible. New stabilisation methods have been developed by scientists at the monument in collaboration with fossil conservators. These studies evaluate various adhesives and consolidants that might be used in stabilisation. Consideration is given to future reversibility of chemical applications, and preference is given to physical stabilisation techniques, such as cradling specimens within custom cavities of Ethafoams or Tyveks, or applying supportive backings to shale slabs. Another important component of fossil conservation involves the preparation of specimens. Treatments are sometimes necessary to fully expose fossils, as well as to prevent or repair damage. Such work is typically done using a microscope and specialised tools. Each preparation and stabilisation scenario is unique and subject to the surrounding rock matrix, the type of fossil, and its preservation condition.

22.3.2 CONSERVATION OF IN SITU PETRIFIED TREE STUMPS One of the monument’s most urgent needs is to develop a conservation strategy to stabilise the huge petrified redwood stumps. Originally buried underground and protected by natural insulation, several stumps were excavated by private owners in the 1920s, exposing them within large pits where they remained for 80 years unsheltered from weathering and harsh winter conditions. These stumps have many deep multidimensional cracks apparently resulting from the use of dynamite during their excavation, causing them to fracture into loose pieces. Thin steel banding now precariously holds these crumbling stumps together (Fig. 22.6).

22.3 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

395

FIGURE 22.6 Three of the huge petrified stumps such as the ‘Redwood Trio’ are covered under open-sided shelters and are among the primary attractions for visitors. Loose pieces of petrified wood are precariously held in place by metal bands as new conservation methods are investigated. Snowfall and rainfall accumulation within the excavated pit exacerbates disintegration of the stumps (Photograph by A. Miller).

396

CHAPTER 22 GEOHERITAGE ASSETS AT FLORISSANT FOSSIL BEDS

Of more than 30 known stumps at Florissant, at least six are unstable and deteriorating due to spalling. Risks to the stumps are accelerated by the combination of 120 yearly freeze-thaw cycles (loosening of fragments), water and snowfall accumulation (weathering), gravity (falling of fragments), and theft (loose fragments within reach of visitors). Two large open-sided shelters were constructed in 2001 to protect three of the most visible stumps and provide an interpretive amphitheatre for visitors, but these structures have failed to provide adequate protection for the stumps and only minimally control environmental fluctuations and accumulation of rainfall and snowfall (Fig. 22.6). The long-term effectiveness of consolidants and adhesives applied to Florissant’s petrified wood remains inconclusive (Young et al., 2008) and there are few published articles on the topic of petrified wood conservation. A new project is testing the feasibility of stabilising the stumps using established stone conservation methods to fill and stabilise deep cracks and mechanically pin spalling fragments to prevent ongoing deterioration. The objectives are to seal cracks to minimise future weathering, adhere large fragments into their original positions, and eliminate loose pieces that incentivise theft. Testing analysis includes artificial weathering, freeze-thaw testing, colorimetry, gloss measurement, strength measurements, contact goniometry, absorption testing, microscopy, and thin-section analysis. Results will determine the nature of the deterioration and the specific requirements for consolidants, pinning, and field applications. Although this work focuses on remedial treatments for stabilisation, the larger goal is to provide a more stable environment for longterm stump conservation.

22.4 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT Ongoing scientific exploration is one of the foremost purposes of the monument. Despite the huge collections amassed over the past 140 years, new scientific techniques and questions require continued excavations of fossil sites to investigate more focused scientific inquiries and hypotheses. For example, most of the early Florissant collections lack locality data besides ‘Florissant, Colorado’. Collections with more precise data are needed to address one of the monument’s long-term research goals: to reconstruct the late Eocene ecosystem temporally and spatially around the ancient lake basin. To accomplish this, scientists now collect samples from precise localities at detailed stratigraphic intervals (Fig. 22.7). New excavations are undertaken with a scientific research purpose (question and hypothesis), but are subject to an environmental compliance review and consideration for a site’s vulnerability and future preservation. The monument supports internal research as well as independent or collaborative research by scientists from various universities. Research permits can be obtained by qualified scientists who submit a research proposal along with an application for an NPS scientific research and collecting permit. Investigators are required to submit reports of results and provide materials for the monument’s archive. Examples of recent research include studies that have expanded the known diversity of fossil mammals, utilised various remote sensing techniques in search of ‘buried stumps’, examined fossil leaves to determine palaeoclimate, applied magnetic susceptibility as a tool for stratigraphic correlation, and analysed geochemistry to determine both the volcanic source areas of ash in the Florissant Formation and the history of the lake from molluscs. Many of these studies are funded by the monument through agreements with participating universities. The monument

22.5 INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION

397

FIGURE 22.7 New excavations in the shale units of the Florissant Formation involve palaeontology interns and seek to answer specific scientific questions. Precise data are recorded to document the context from which the fossils are removed (Photograph by D. Smith).

supports research that creates and advances new knowledge, which in turn contributes directly to its mission to provide credible scientific interpretation to the public. To understand Florissant in the broader palaeontological context, it is necessary to cross the monument’s boundaries, as well as geological time boundaries, and make comparisons with other sites. One project, for example, compares Florissant’s fossil flora with the younger early Oligocene flora from the nearby Antero Formation to demonstrate the significant effect of climate change during the Eocene Oligocene transition in Colorado. Other studies compare Florissant to the fossils from the older middle Eocene Green River Formation, also from Colorado, to understand the evolution of ecosystems over time.

22.5 INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION Interpretation is provided in various venues, including indoor and outdoor exhibits, virtual technology, and ranger talks (see Macadam, 2018). The goal of NPS interpretive and educational programmes is to provide memorable and meaningful learning and recreational experiences, foster development of a personal stewardship ethic, and broaden public support for preserving park resources. Interpretation at Florissant is specifically intended to connect people with the nation’s rich geological heritage and engage them in understanding science, climate change, and conservation.

398

CHAPTER 22 GEOHERITAGE ASSETS AT FLORISSANT FOSSIL BEDS

FIGURE 22.8 The palaeontology research and visitor centre at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument includes a palaeontology lab, storage for fossil collections, and public exhibits.

A new building housing a palaeontology lab, collections facility, and visitor centre was completed in 2013 after more than 40 years of planning (Fig. 22.8). New exhibits were designed by the monument’s palaeontology staff working in collaboration with interpreters and exhibit designers (Fig. 22.9). The topical progression in the visitor centre begins with murals and dioramas recreating the local ecosystems and dynamic volcanic processes of the late Eocene, culminating in a fabricated ‘rock wall’ and geological map portraying the modern geological landscape and stratigraphic record. This section is followed by an exhibit hall featuring past and present scientists who have researched Florissant’s palaeontology, highlighting the scientific process and emphasising the connection between the fossils and climate change. The exhibit concludes by showcasing a selection of fossil plants and insects. Challenges encountered during exhibit design involved developing content appealing to multiple levels of visitor understanding and interest, as well as fostering communication between scientists, interpreters, designers, and artists to effectively develop meaningful content and reconstruct ancient landscape scenes based on geological and fossil evidence. A kiosk exhibit utilises the latest technology through touchscreen interaction that enables visitors to explore a variety of topics in palaeontology. These include brief videos featuring excavations, inventory and monitoring of fossil sites, interviews with the monument’s palaeontologist, preparation of fossil specimens, and a prerecorded tour of the palaeontology lab and collections. An innovative new application of technology is providing virtual live tours of the palaeontology lab wherein visitors convene in the theatre and meet with a member of the staff who then uses a video camera to walk into the palaeontology lab and highlight ongoing research and conservation projects.

22.6 PRACTICAL FUNCTIONALITY OF A PALAEONTOLOGY PROGRAMME

399

FIGURE 22.9 Diorama exhibits provide interactive three-dimensional reconstructions to help visitors visualise Florissant’s Eocene ecosystems.

Additional educational materials are provided by pamphlets that describe topics in more depth, such as fossil plants, fossil insects, microfossils, geology, and the history of palaeontology at Florissant. Many of these materials are available on the monument’s website (www.nps.gov/ flfo, accessed 09.08.17). More specialised books provide in-depth information about Florissant’s geology and palaeontology (Henry et al., 2004; Leopold and Meyer, 2012; Meyer, 2003; Meyer and Smith, 2008). Informative exhibits and a geological guide highlight specific features along a newly developed geological trail.

22.6 PRACTICAL FUNCTIONALITY OF A PALAEONTOLOGY PROGRAMME Many of Florissant’s contributions in support of geoheritage are accomplished because the monument supports and staffs an active Division of Palaeontology. The staff consists of a permanent palaeontologist, a part-time museum technician, and as many as nine palaeontology interns each year. The palaeontology intern programme at Florissant is one of the most robust of any within the NPS, and the monument has sponsored more than 60 interns since 1997. These individuals are typically nearing completion of their undergraduate degrees or are graduate or post-graduate students. They take leading roles in completing palaeontology projects, including the annual inventory and monitoring of fossil sites, fossil excavations, collection management, digitisation of fossil specimens, fossil preparation, development of new conservation strategies, design of new exhibits,

400

CHAPTER 22 GEOHERITAGE ASSETS AT FLORISSANT FOSSIL BEDS

creation of website content, design of new databases, and independent research, among other responsibilities. Some interns begin research projects at Florissant which they later develop into graduate thesis topics, creating mutually beneficial follow-through for both the intern and the monument. The programme benefits the monument by enabling projects that core staffing alone could not achieve, and it supports the career development of internship participants. Acquisition of funding is one of the main challenges in maintaining an active palaeontology programme. Although the establishing congressional legislation directed that a palaeontology position be filled at the outset in 1969, it was not actually funded until 1994, resulting in misdirection from the monument’s primary purpose for many years (Leopold and Meyer, 2012). Ongoing funding is currently provided from the monument’s core budget, and additional funding for palaeontology projects is obtained by applying through specific funding sources within the NPS, essentially comparable to grants. These sources have supported projects such as conservation research for the fossil shale and petrified trees, development of new databases about the fossils, field studies to compare modern plant communities in north-eastern Mexico with the Eocene forest at Florissant, isotopic and taxonomic analysis of the fossil molluscs, and the development of new virtual exhibits. Additional funding comes from a supporting nonprofit group, The Friends of the Florissant Fossil Beds. Active international engagement is a key focal point for the monument’s Division of Paleontology. One of the NPS’s missions is to extend the benefits of conservation worldwide. Florissant helps accomplish this goal by collaborating with similar fossil sites in other countries and sharing concepts of geoheritage management. A ‘sister park’ relationship exists with an Eocene petrified forest site near the village of Sexi in northern Peru, El Bosque Petrificado Piedra Chamana, allowing for practical exchange in research on global Eocene climate change and the evolution of neotropical forests as well as conservation management of petrified trees (www.peru. fossilbeds.org, accessed 09.08.17). Interaction with the Petrified Forest Park in Bantak, Thailand has enabled collaboration with conservators who are leading new efforts in the conservation of in situ petrified trees. Shared geoheritage goals for all of these sites are to develop new methods to protect and conserve fossil trees, help local communities sustainably utilise and conserve their fossil resources, create exhibits to encourage scientific understanding by the public, promote geotourism that increases employment opportunities for people in local communities, exchange ideas within a broader consortium of petrified forest sites worldwide, and achieve the UNESCO Global Geopark designation (Meyer, 2015).

22.7 HUMAN IMPACTS The Florissant fossil beds have impacted people at many levels beginning with Native Americans such as the Ute tribes. Early homesteaders such as Adam and Charlotte Hill were followed by decades of private landowners, many of whom realised the economic benefits of collecting fossils for scientists or providing an attraction for tourism. The richness of the fossil beds provided a broad scope of scientific projects that became careerbuilding opportunities for scientists who focused their efforts at Florissant, among them Samuel Scudder in the late 19th century, T.D.A. Cockerell in the early 20th century, Harry D. MacGinitie in the mid-20th century, and more recently the author (Veatch and Meyer, 2008). The work of the

22.8 ASPIRATIONS AND CHALLENGES IN ACHIEVING GEOPARK

401

scientists became the body of knowledge that promotes the curiosity and education of tourists and students alike. The monument’s palaeontology intern programme provides career-building inspiration for undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate students who will become the scientists of the future. Younger students become enthused about Earth sciences as visitors with classroom groups from nearby communities, and some earn badges as ‘Junior Rangers’ and ‘Junior Paleontologists’ by completing activity booklets. Almost all who come to visit the fossil beds are struck with a sense of awe by the giant redwoods of the past, standing in stark contrast to the modern landscape and preserved for future generations to share. The significance of the geological site and its utilisation in the ongoing synergism between people of many backgrounds and varied interests has created and sustains the concept of geoheritage at Florissant. Geotourism at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument serves more than 73,000 visitors annually, less than 5% of which are foreign. These include tourists interested in recreation or geotourism, as well as school groups of all levels in pursuit of educational goals. Official NPS estimates indicate that these visitors spent US $4.3 million at local businesses during 2016, and supported 65 jobs that contributed US $2.4 million in labour income, thus benefiting local people, businesses, and communities as a result of Florissant’s geoheritage (Thomas and Koontz, 2017).

22.8 ASPIRATIONS AND CHALLENGES IN ACHIEVING GEOPARK DESIGNATION As early as 2008, the NPS had suggested that the monument prepare a potential nomination to become a UNESCO World Heritage site (see Migo´n, 2018). The estimated cost of doing so was US $100,000, which was prohibitive for the monument’s budget to achieve. When the initiative to nominate sites in the United States for designation within the Global Geoparks Network was first brought forth in 2009 (see Brilha, 2018), Florissant and the surrounding region became the first American site to prepare a potential nomination. The proposal encompassed an area currently designated as the Gold Belt Tour National Scenic Byway. This area includes the monument and extends southward to include other geological points of interest, such as the Royal Gorge, dinosaur bone quarries (Garden Park National Natural Landmark) and trackways (Skyline Drive), an invertebrate trace fossil site (Indian Springs National Natural Landmark), and the historic Cripple Creek Mining District (Henry et al., 2004; Meyer et al., 2015). The US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which manages many of the sites along the Gold Belt Byway, joined the effort to examine individual sites for potential inclusion in the programme. An extensive draft nomination was prepared by monument and BLM staff and palaeontology interns in 2010. In conjunction, meetings were held with local groups, including the Gold Belt Tour Byway Association and the Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company, but support and enthusiasm for the initiative was mixed. The proposal was halted in 2011 due to complications with US involvement in UNESCO. In 2013, a meeting to establish America’s Geologic Heritage was held in Denver. This meeting proposed the idea of creating a national geoheritage model and establishing a US Geoheritage and Geoparks Advisory Group, which is a programme development activity of the National Academy of Sciences.

402

CHAPTER 22 GEOHERITAGE ASSETS AT FLORISSANT FOSSIL BEDS

The Gold Belt proposal provides a model for establishing the first US Global Geopark. Such a designation would be beneficial by creating better international exposure and thus attracting a broader range of foreign visitors who would contribute to the local economy. The lessons learned from our efforts to date indicate that better grassroots involvement and local community participation will be vital to embrace the concept and envision the economic benefits. Local leaders and organisations within this conservative rural community are strongly divided in their support for the initiative. The monument continues to be an active proponent of the proposal as these discussions proceed.

22.9 CONCLUSIONS Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument exemplifies the success of multifaceted geoheritage management in the United States. This is accomplished by protecting and conserving the fossils, acquiring data about their condition and location, maintaining an adequate museum management programme, promoting scientific research to create new knowledge, and disseminating research results to facilitate public education. Designations such as ‘national monument’ call attention to the significance of sites such as Florissant and provide the agency oversight to ensure that these goals are pursued and met while also prompting geotourism that benefits local economies. Achieving new international designations such as ‘UNESCO Global Geopark’ continues to be elusive in the United States. Challenges in attaining these designations centre largely from funding constraints, and moreover from garnering support of government at the highest level and of local communities at the lowest level. Many of the most compelling geoheritage assets in the United States, including Florissant, are located in politically conservative areas where people resist such new designations. It is vital to demonstrate to local communities that they are the ones who stand to gain the most economically and educationally from effective management and promotion of local geoheritage assets.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The manuscript was improved following reviews by Jos´e Brilha, Ismar de Souza Carvalho, Tom Casadevall, Katie McComas, Conni O’Connor, Lindsay Walker, and Michelle Wheatley. Photography or composition for the figures was contributed by Conni O’Connor (Figs. 22.1, 22.3 and 22.5), Lindsay Walker (Fig. 22.2), Kelly Hattori and Ashley Ferguson (Fig. 22.3), Jack Wood (Fig. 22.4), Amanda Miller (Fig. 22.6), and Dena Smith (Fig. 22.7).

REFERENCES Brilha, J., 2018. Geoheritage and geoparks. In: Reynard E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 323 336.

REFERENCES

403

Henry, T.W., Evanoff, E., Grenard, D.A., Meyer, H.W., Vardiman, D.M., 2004. Geologic Guidebook to the Gold Belt Byway, Colorado. Gold Belt Tour Scenic and Historic Byway Association. Leopold, E.B., Meyer, H.W., 2012. Saved in Time: The Fight to Establish Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, Colorado. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Macadam, J., 2018. Geoheritage: getting the message across. What message and to whom? In: Reynard E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 267 288. Meyer, H.W., 2003. The Fossils of Florissant. Smithsonian Books, Washington and London. Meyer, H.W., 2015. Connecting geoheritage sites having common assets: links between petrified forests in Colorado, Peru, and Thailand. Geol. Soc. Am. Abst. Prog. 47 (7), 309. Available from: ,https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2015AM/webprogram/Paper264034.html. (accessed 09.08.17). Meyer, H.W., Smith, D.M. (Eds.), 2008. Paleontology of the Upper Eocene Florissant Formation. Special Paper 435. Geological Society of America, Colorado. Meyer, H.W., Veatch, S.W., Cook, A., 2004. Field guide to the paleontology and volcanic setting of the Florissant fossil beds, Colorado. In: Nelson, E.P., Erslev, E.A. (Eds.), Field Trips in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Geological Society of America, USA, pp. 151 166. Field Guide 5. Meyer, H.W., Wasson, M.S., Frakes, B.J., 2008. Development of an integrated paleontological database and Web site of Florissant collections, taxonomy, and publications. In: Meyer, H.W., Smith, D.M. (Eds.), Paleontology of the Upper Eocene Florissant Formation. Special Paper 435. Geological Society of America, Colorado, pp. 159 177. Meyer, H.W., Smeins, M., Casadevall, T., 2015. Developing geoheritage along the Gold Belt Byway, Colorado. Geol. Soc. Am. Abst. Prog. 47 (7), 309. Available from: ,https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2015AM/ webprogram/Paper264051.html. (accessed 09.08.17). Migo´n, P., 2018. Geoheritage and World Heritage sites. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 237 250. Miranda, A., Meyer, H.W., 2016. Monitoring long term trends of paleontological site condition assessment at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, Colorado. Geol. Soc. Am. Abst. Prog. 48 (7). Available from: ,https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2016AM/webprogram/Paper286663.html. (accessed 09.08.17). O’Brien, N.R., Meyer, H.W., Harding, I.C., 2008. The role of biofilms in fossil preservation, Florissant Formation, Colorado. In: Meyer, H.W., Smith, D.M. (Eds.), Paleontology of the Upper Eocene Florissant Formation. Special Paper 435. Geological Society of America, Colorado, pp. 19 31. Santucci, V.L., Kenworthy, J.P., Mims, A., 2009. Monitoring in situ paleontological resources. In: Young, R., Norby, L. (Eds.), Geological Monitoring. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 189 204. Thomas, C.C., Koontz, L., 2017. 2016 National Park visitor spending effects: economic contributions to local communities, states, and the nation. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR 2017/1421. Available from: ,https://www.nps.gov/subjects/socialscience/vse.htm. (accessed 09.08.17). Veatch, S.W., Meyer, H.W., 2008. History of paleontology at the Florissant Fossil Beds, Colorado. In: Meyer, H.W., Smith, D.M. (Eds.), Paleontology of the Upper Eocene Florissant Formation. Special Paper 435. Geological Society of America, Colorado, pp. 1 18. Young, J.L., Meyer, H.W., Mustoe, G.E., 2008. Conservation of an Eocene petrified forest at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument: investigation of strategies and techniques for stabilizing in situ fossil stumps. In: Meyer, H.W., Smith, D.M. (Eds.), Paleontology of the Upper Eocene Florissant Formation. Special Paper 435. Geological Society of America, Colorado, pp. 141 157.

CHAPTER

VARVITE PARK, A BRAZILIAN INITIATIVE FOR THE CONSERVATION AND INTERPRETATION OF GEOHERITAGE

23

Gilson B. Guimara˜es1, Flavia F. de Lima2 and Antonio C. Rocha-Campos3 1

´ Brazil 2Geodiversity Geological Solutions Ltd, Curitiba, Brazil State University of Ponta Grossa, Parana, 3 University of Sa˜o Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil

23.1 INTRODUCTION 23.1.1 BRAZILIAN GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT The Brazilian continental dimension with about 8.5 million km2, more than 10% larger than Australia or almost 24-times larger than Germany, is big enough to give an idea of the diversity of its geological record and associated landscapes. Located entirely in the South American Tectonic Plate, the Brazilian territory is home to interesting chapters of Earth’s history, with remarkable examples spread over almost the entire geological time scale. It is a challenge proportional to its size to try to synthesise in a few lines the Brazilian geology. In a very simplified approach, the continental portion of Brazil is almost a fifty fifty division between Phanerozoic covers (sedimentary basins, eventually with associated magmatism) and older terrains, which are the substrate and/or source of sediments during the evolution of these basins. The last major cycle of convergent tectonic regime, the so-called Brasiliano Cycle, reached its climax by the end of the Neoproterozoic, with ultimate effects extending to the beginning of the Ordovician (Brito Neves and Fuck, 2013). This geotectonic cycle included a complex and diachronic series of events associated with accretionary orogenies, culminating in the building of West Gondwana (South America and West Africa). The oldest pages of the Brazilian geology are imprinted on fold belts, with magmatism, transcurrent tectonics and associated basins, all established during the Brasiliano Cycle, which surround stable domains constituting cratonic terrains of Mesoproterozoic to Archean ages, which still retain evidences of older geotectonic cycles. After the great continent Gondwana was created, the formation of the present Brazilian territory followed the evolution of Pangea (pre-, syn- and postphases). Thus, during the Paleozoic and partially along the Mesozoic, the history was shared with Africa, until the opening of the Atlantic Ocean especially since the end of the Jurassic. This Paleozoic record has a high potential to provide geoheritage examples of global relevance. In palaeogeographic and palaeoclimatic terms, besides Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00023-X Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

405

406

CHAPTER 23 VARVITE PARK, A BRAZILIAN INITIATIVE

the evolution of life, most of the Brazilian Paleozoic record happened next (or almost) to the South Pole, offering a counterpart to equatorial chapters preserved in Europe, Asia and North America.

23.1.2 GEOCONSERVATION IN BRAZIL Actions related to the characterisation, protection and dissemination of geoheritage, within an integrated geoconservation strategy, are still taking their foremost steps in Brazil, with the first initiatives going back to the 1990s (Lima et al., 2016). In 1997, the Brazilian Commission of Geological and Palaeobiological Sites (known as SIGEP in Portuguese) was established. The objective was to set up a database of geosites representative of the Brazilian geodiversity, covering the Earth history unveiled in Brazil. This effort, which brought together representatives of various scientific institutions, selected 116 geosites of different categories (stratigraphic, geomorphological, metamorphic, palaeoenvironmental, palaeontological, etc.), gathered in three volumes (Schobbenhaus et al., 2002; Winge et al., 2009, 2013). Several projects focused on the geoheritage dissemination have been developed in Brazil in recent years (Mansur et al., 2013). Probably the most significant ones were implemented in Rio de Janeiro (started in 2001) and Paran´a (2003) states by the respective state geological surveys. These projects produced interpretation material about geosites, such as panels, flyers and guides, as well as workshops and training courses for the community, tourist guides and staff of protected areas. Following a worldwide trend, there is also great interest in the implementation and dissemination of the geopark concept. In addition to the pioneer Araripe UNESCO Global Geopark established in 2006, and some other ongoing projects, the Geological Survey of Brazil (CPRM) has a project to identify and describe areas where the geodiversity and relevant geosites may support new geopark projects (Schobbenhaus and Silva, 2012). In recent years, the involvement of the geoscientific community has grown, namely with the development of research and extension projects, publication of books, articles and scientific papers, organisation of thematic events (the biennial Brazilian Symposium on Geological Heritage has been organised since 2011), and the offer of courses dedicated to geodiversity, geotourism and geoconservation addressed to undergraduate and graduate university students. However, isolated initiatives to conserve exceptional sites of Brazilian geology started some decades ago. The case study presented here reports the establishment of a geosite as a formal protected area, linked directly to its geoheritage. This initiative had the merit to inspire generations of geosciences professionals, local community, and geosite visitors and to attract attention to the importance of conserving and disseminating a significant chapter of the history of planet Earth.

23.2 THE VARVITE PARK 23.2.1 GEOLOGICAL SETTING By the Late Carboniferous to Early Permian, nearly 300 million years ago, the present southcentral portion of the Brazilian territory, as well as other parts of South America, Africa, India, Australia and Antarctica, were gathered in a large landmass known as Gondwana, under the socalled Late Paleozoic Ice Age. The knowledge regarding the actual extent of the areas under glacial influence, the presence and length of glacial and interglacial phases, besides the causes and implications for global climate

23.2 THE VARVITE PARK

407

is under continuous research (e.g., Frakes and Crowell, 1969; Montan˜ez and Poulsen, 2013). It is worth remembering that the recognition of this palaeoclimatic record during the first decades of the last century played a central role in the development of the Wegener’s continental drift theory. Evidences of Late Paleozoic glacial conditions include both erosional features and typical depositional sequences. In Brazil, very good examples are found in rocks of the Paran´a Basin (a Huge intracratonic basin, with a geological record from the Ordovician to the Cretaceous times; Milani et al., 2007) and its basement. Lithological associations of the Itarar´e Subgroup (e.g., Rocha-Campos et al., 2008) or Group (e.g., Holz et al., 2010; Milani et al., 2007), on the eastern/southeastern margin of the Paran´a Basin, include significant diamictite layers and striated pavements/surfaces, the latter both on sedimentary rocks of the proper basin (Itarar´e unit or Devonian rocks; e.g., Bigarella et al., 1967) and on the Proterozoic substrate (e.g., Rocha-Campos, 2002a). In addition to diamictites, the Late Paleozoic Ice Age sedimentary record of the Itarar´e unit is distinguished by rhythmites (varvites), with the most outstanding occurrence in the Varvite Park, located in the urban area of Itu town, 90 km northeast of the city of Sa˜o Paulo (Figs. 23.1 and 23.2).

FIGURE 23.1 Location of Itu town and of city of Sa˜o Paulo (star). The outcropping area of the Itarar´e unit in the state of Sa˜o Paulo is also represented in dark blue (includes a correlative unit, Aquidauana Formation, near the border with the state of Minas Gerais). Geological information from CPRM - Geological Survey of Brazil (GEOSGB, 2017).

408

CHAPTER 23 VARVITE PARK, A BRAZILIAN INITIATIVE

FIGURE 23.2 Bird’s-eye view of Varvite Park (Itu, Brazil), with the former mining benches and faces of the ‘Itu slabs’ quarry (Late Paleozoic Ice Age rhythmites), as well as the current infrastructure, including paved trails, protective fences, panels, stands and distinct buildings (Photograph by A. Neme).

The Itu Varvite (Carneiro, 2016; Rocha-Campos, 2002b) is a rhythmite consisting of a regular succession of paired lamination or beds, alternating thicker and light layers of fine-grained sand to silt, with thinner and dark silt or clay laminae. The contact is discordant between different couplets, abrupt among light and dark layers of each pair. The thickness of the light strata varies towards the top of the sequence, generally decreasing (from 50 to 1 cm), with the dark layers remaining almost constant (B5 mm). Similar to the Pleistocene rhythmic sedimentation processes in the Northern Hemisphere (archetypical varves), sedimentological, palynological and palaeomagnetic analysis (e.g., Rocha-Campos et al., 1981) indicate a likely seasonal control (annual) deposition of lithological pairs, estimated as nearly 300 pairs in the quarry area, supporting the interpretation of this rhythmites as true varvites. However, some authors (e.g., Caetano-Chang and Ferreira, 2006) argue that seasonality should not be inferred for the entire sedimentary sequence, but should be restricted only to the younger levels. A remarkable set of sedimentary structures is exceptionally well-exposed in the quarry, especially in the remaining vertical mining walls. The sedimentary bedding is evidenced mainly by the alternation of contrasting lithological pairs, separated by horizontal plane-parallel surfaces. Asymmetric or symmetric ripple marks occur locally, sometimes accompanied by flow indicators (e.g., climbing cross-lamination), indicating the action of currents (Fig. 23.3). Although not so common, but very striking, are the centimetric to decimetric dropstones. Mainly granite and quartzite in composition, they are responsible for the deformation of sedimentary layers, and were probably released from ice floating bodies (icebergs) (Fig. 23.4). During the

23.2 THE VARVITE PARK

409

FIGURE 23.3 The former mining faces of Varvite Park reveal a magnificent assemblage of rhythmite sedimentary structures (see the details in the text) (Photograph by G.B. Guimara˜es).

FIGURE 23.4 A dropstone is a very reliable evidence of past glacial conditions. This example in Varvite Park is quartzite in composition and near 20 cm in diameter. Clearly deforming the adjacent rhythmite layers, it is interpreted as a released rock fragment from a melting iceberg (Photograph by F.F. de Lima).

410

CHAPTER 23 VARVITE PARK, A BRAZILIAN INITIATIVE

works for the establishment of the park, several metric boulders of the above-mentioned rocks were found, detached from rhytmites by differential weathering. There are also abundant trace fossils such as Isopodichnus and Diplichnites, Umfolozia, Gordia and Scolicia, representing the activity of benthic aquatic invertebrates, the first two possibly produced by crustaceans (Fernandes et al., 1987; Fernandes and Carvalho, 2005). The depositional environment would have corresponded to a body of water (a proglacial lake?) in partial or temporary contact with the marginal glacier zone. Light layers/laminae would have resulted from the action of high-density turbidity currents during the summer, followed by decantation of silt/clay lamina set during the winter, when the lake surface was frozen (Rocha-Campos, 2002b).

23.2.2 SCIENTIFIC VALUE The geological and palaeontological elements of the Itu varvite are a natural and nonrenewable asset, which has significant value to society with relevant scientific and educational uses (Carneiro, 2016). The scientific value of this geoheritage is related to the recognition of some essential criteria such as representativeness, integrity, scientific knowledge, and rarity (Brilha, 2016). Accordingly, the Itu Varvite is one of the most notorious sedimentary records of the Late Paleozoic Ice Age in Brazil with relevant sedimentological and palaeoclimatic features. Such geological content allows this geosite to be used for correlations, comparisons and interpretations with other geosites of Late Paleozoic glaciation in Brazil, and even in the world, keeping great potential for future studies and new interpretations. The scientific knowledge of Itu Varvite is grounded in an extensive scientific literature on its geological features (Carneiro, 2016; Rocha-Campos, 2002b). Several years of researches, in addition to national and international publications, led to the recognition of its scientific representativeness and to the need for new studies and interpretations. Varvites or regular rhythmite exposures similar to the occurrence of Itu, in terms of covered area, access and observation conditions, integrity, and exceptional nature of the geological features, are relatively rare in the Paran´a Basin (Rocha-Campos, 2002b). Thus, the Itu Varvite is one of the best places in Brazil for the study and understanding of the Late Paleozoic Ice Age, and it is also a key location for studies of the geological evolution of the Paran´a Basin.

23.2.3 HISTORY AND DESIGNATION OF THE GEOSITE The earliest record of mining activities in the Itu varvite dates back to the year 1720, although some historians believe that it should have started with the settlement of Itu town in 1610 (Pelisam and Parra, 2015). Throughout the 19th century, when many naturalists made expeditions to expand the knowledge of the Brazilian territory, there were references to the rocks from Itu. However, it was only with Leonardos (1938) that the rocks from the ‘classic quarry’ were characterised as varvites. Since then, the number of scientific investigations on the geological elements of the varvite quarry have increased and this site has gained notoriety within the geological community, assuming a prominent

23.2 THE VARVITE PARK

411

role in teaching and scientific expeditions (e.g., Rocha-Campos, 1972; Rocha-Campos et al., 1988), as well as in the training of generations of Earth science professionals. The varvite quarry of Itu, known as a source of emblematic and highly appreciated ‘Itu slabs’ or ‘Itu slates’ for ornamental purposes, hosted regular mining activities in parallel with the scientific and educational vocation for decades. National recognition given to the geological elements of the quarry and governmental actions led to its protection, according to the Brazilian legal framework. Aiming at its preservation for society, 7240 m2 of the varvite quarry were designated as a state asset by the Council of Defense of Historical, Archaeological, Artistic and Touristic Heritage of the State of Sa˜o Paulo (CONDEPHAAT). With the designation of the traditional quarry by CONDEPHAAT, a new adjacent mining zone was established, which remained active until the end of the 1990s (DNPM, 2016). In 1995, the varvite quarry, including buildings and mining infrastructure, was renamed by the Itu municipality as Varvite Park (Municipal Law 3759/1995). In the same year, an area of 44,346 m2 was developed by the municipal administration in order to promote its public use for recreation and tourism (Fig. 23.2). Despite the common use of the word ‘park’, Varvite Park does not have the formal status of a protected area according to the Brazilian legal framework. In other words, it does not fit into the ‘park’ category of the National System of Protected Areas (SNUC; Brazil, 2000). Nevertheless, Varvite Park has a protected urban status or green area, providing educational and recreational uses for local community and other visitors. The management of the Varvite Park is carried out by the Secretary of Environment of the Itu municipality. In 2002, the Itu Varvite, representing the best glacial rhythmite exposure known in the Paran´a Basin, was integrated in the first publication of SIGEP (Rocha-Campos, 2002b), which described remarkable sites of the Brazilian geoheritage (Schobbenhaus et al., 2002). In the same year, a huge fragment of Itu Varvite was donated to the Cosmo Caixa Museum in Barcelona (Spain), in order to be integrated in an exhibition illustrating fundamental geological processes of the planet, hence recognising a world-level educational value of this geological record (Itu, 2015). In 2015, the Varvite Park was recognised as a Geological Monument of the Sa˜o Paulo State (a label given by the state administration) due to its high scientific, cultural and scenic values, with exceptional features and rarity. Recently, the Itu varvite was also included in the state inventory of geosites, the first systematic initiative made by the geoscientific community in Brazil in order to select the sites of the Sa˜o Paulo state with high scientific value (Garcia et al., 2017).

23.2.4 MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC USE The promotion of Varvite Park as a site of recreation and tourism began on 23 July 1995. Three months after the opening, there was a 40% growth of tourists in the Itu town (Itu, 2015). Currently, Varvite Park is a consolidated regional attraction, recognised for its potential for scientific, educational and recreational uses. In 20 years of existence, it has received more than 600,000 visitors, including tourists, students and researchers. According to information given by the park administration, in the last 3 years the average site visitation was 64,453 visitors/year. Basic education students represent roughly 15% of visitors (municipal and state schools), the most frequent being from private schools. Visitors from universities make up only 3% of the total, coming largely from Sa˜o

412

CHAPTER 23 VARVITE PARK, A BRAZILIAN INITIATIVE

Paulo and Minas Gerais universities. More than 80% of total visits are general public mostly from cities other than Itu. The park has as its main objectives the geoheritage preservation, teaching and dissemination of geological knowledge, offering a recreation area and hosting cultural events for the community. Open from Tuesday to Sunday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and with no entry charge, it has outdoor spaces and areas for educational activities, exhibitions, playground and snack bar (Itu, 2015). In order to help with interpretation of the park, six bilingual interpretive panels (Portuguese and English) are available on site (Fig. 23.5). These panels present a range of themes, from broader issues related to geoheritage (glaciation, varvite age, etc.) to more specific themes in connection with local geological features (varvite thickness, dropstones, trace fossils, etc.). Park managers clearly invested in promoting the use and dissemination of this site. However, only little progress has been made concerning conservation actions and monitoring of exposures, in order to maintain their integrity. This situation can be partly justified since the geological exposures in the Varvite Park are quite robust and old mining faces could be maintained with simple conservation techniques. However, over the years, the geological exposures have begun to show instability in some walls and slopes, as well as visibility obstruction of geological elements, which sometimes were damaged or covered by soil and vegetation. In 2015, an academic cooperation agreement between the Sa˜o Paulo State University (UNESP; Institute of Geosciences and Exact Sciences, Rio Claro Campus)

FIGURE 23.5 Interpretive panels are used as valuing tools to bring assisted geological information (Photograph by F.F. de Lima).

REFERENCES

413

and Itu Municipality was established aimed at the development of educational tours in the Varvite Park, general training, geoscientific publications dedicated to more specific audiences, and basic guidelines covering geological and geotechnical maintenance works.

23.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS In the early 1970s, before the geoconservation concept was well known in Brazil, Itu Varvite was designated by a state administrative act, seeking a legal protection against destruction and degradation. The legal instrument used for this geoheritage preservation, although uncommon for this purpose, has considered this heritage part of the Brazilian cultural heritage, which comprises the material and intangible assets of historical, scenic, artistic, archaeological, palaeontological, ecological and scientific values relevant to the culture of Brazil. In the 1990s, with the first discussions promoted by SIGEP on the identification and preservation of geoheritage in Brazil, Varvite Park had already been open for public use for almost 20 years, promoting education and dissemination of geological themes to society. For this reason, the Varvite Park represents a milestone in the establishment of geoconservation principles in Brazil and even in Latin America countries. Since its opening in 1995, the Varvite Park has received more than 600,000 visitors, including tourists, students and scientists. In Brazilian academia, the site is a national geoheritage reference for scientific research and the training of young geoscientists. Assuming that the conservation of any natural resource demands its rational use in order to ensure its sustainability for the next generations, the challenges for the management of Varvite Park are related to the need to define priorities of geoconservation actions. These actions should include several technical procedures and practical field interventions to assure the integrity of the main geoheritage features. The management plan of Varvite Park, highlighting the conservation and periodic monitoring of the geological elements, needs to establish protocols, use restrictions and conservation actions to be developed, following the technical and methodological improvements in the geoconservation and projecting future scenarios related with the use of this nonrenewable natural resource.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Patr´ıcia Bastos Godoy Otero (Itu Secretary of the Environment/State of Sa˜o Paulo) and the Varvite Park management crew for providing information and supporting local visits, Jos´e Brilha and Jean Carlos Vargas for suggestions and helpful discussions, and Alessandro Neme for the aerial photo.

REFERENCES Bigarella, J.J., Salamuni, R., Fuck, R.A., 1967. Striated surfaces and related features developed by Gondwana ice sheets (State of Paran´a, Brazil). Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 3, 265 276.

414

CHAPTER 23 VARVITE PARK, A BRAZILIAN INITIATIVE

Brasil, 2000. Lei n. 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. A federal law that regulates art. 225, y 1, items I, II, III and VII of the Federal Constitution of Brazil, establishing the National System of Protected Areas (SNUC) ( in Portuguese). Brilha, J., 2016. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8 (2), 119 134. Brito Neves, B.B., Fuck, R.A., 2013. Neoproterozoic evolution of the basement of the South-American platform. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 47, 72 89. Caetano-Chang, M.R., Ferreira, S.M., 2006. Ritmitos de Itu: petrografia e considerac¸o˜es paleodeposicionais. Geocieˆncias-UNESP 25 (3), 345 358 (in Portuguese). Carneiro, C.D.R., 2016. Glaciac¸a˜o antiga no Brasil: parques geolo´gicos do Varvito e da Rocha Moutonn´ee nos munic´ıpios de Itu e Salto, SP. Terrae Didatica 12 (3), 209 219 (in Portuguese). DNPM (National Department of Mineral Production), 2016. Processo de concessa˜o de lavra (807.852/1975) Varvito. Pedreira Ituana. Available from: ,https://sistemas.dnpm.gov.br/SCM/Extra/site/admin/ dadosProcesso.aspx. (accessed 09.08.17) (in Portuguese). Fernandes, A.C.S., Carvalho, I.S., 2005. The ichnofossils from the Brazilian Permian varvites. Abstracts of the Twelfth Gondwana - Geological and Biological Heritage of Gondwana, G12. Academia Nacional de Ciencias, Mendoza, Argentina, p. 150 (Mendoza, Argentina). Fernandes, A.C.S., Carvalho, I.S., Netto, R.G., 1987. Coment´arios sobre os trac¸os fo´sseis do paleolago de Itu, Sa˜o Paulo. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Regional Symposium on Geology, RSG-6, Rio Claro, Sa˜o Paulo. Brazilian Society of Geology, Rio Claro, pp. 297 311 (in Portuguese). Frakes, L.A., Crowell, J.C., 1969. Late Paleozoic glaciation: I, South America. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 80, 1007 1042. Garcia, G.M., Brilha, J., Lima, F.F., Vargas, J.C., Pe´rez-Aguilar, A., Alves, A., et al., 2017. The inventory of geological heritage of the State of Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil: methodological basis, results and perspectives. Geoheritage. doi:10.1007/s12371-016-0215-y. GEOSGB, 2017. Data, Information and Products of the Geological Survey of Brazil. CPRM - Geological Survey of Brazil. Available from: , http://geosgb.cprm.gov.br . (accessed 09.08.17). Holz, M., Franc¸a, A.B., Souza, P.A., Ianuzzi, R., Rohn, R., 2010. A stratigraphic chart of the Late Carboniferous/Permian succession of the eastern border of the Paran´a Basin, Brazil, South America. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 29, 381 399. Itu, 2015. Parque Geolo´gico do Varvito - edic¸a˜o comemorativa pelos 20 anos de fundac¸a˜o do parque. Prefeitura da Estaˆncia Tur´ıstica de Itu, Itu. Available from: , https://www.itu.sp.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/secretaria_meio_ambiente/2015_07_24_revista_para_jornal.pdf . (accessed 09.08.17) (in Portuguese). Leonardos, O.H., 1938. Varvitos de Itu. Miner. Metal. 12, 221 233 (in Portuguese). Lima, F.F., Schobbenhaus, C., Nascimento, M.A., 2016. Brasil. In: Prieto, J.L.P., Cortez, J.L.S., Schilling, M. E. (Eds.), Patrimonio geolo´gico y su conservacio´n en Am´erica Latina. Situacio´n y perspectivas nacionales. Instituto de Geograf´ıa, Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de M´exico, pp. 55 79 (in Portuguese). Mansur, K.L., Rocha, A.J.D., Pereira, A., Schobbenhaus, C., Salamuni, E., Erthal, F.C., et al., 2013. Iniciativas institucionais de valorizac¸a˜o do patrimoˆnio geolo´gico do Brasil. Boletim Paranaense de Geocieˆncias 70, 2 27 (in Portuguese). Milani, E.J., Melo, J.H.G., Souza, P.A., Fernandes, L.A., Franc¸a, A.B., 2007. Bacia do Paran´a. Boletim de Geocieˆncias da Petrobr´as 15 (2), 265 287 (in Portuguese). Montan˜ez, I.P., Poulsen, C.J., 2013. The Late Paleozoic Ice Age: an evolving paradigm. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 41, 629 656. Pelisam, L.G.T., Parra, R., 2015. Histo´ria do Parque. In: Itu. 2015. Parque Geolo´gico do Varvito - edic¸a˜o comemorativa pelos 20 anos de fundac¸a˜o do parque. Prefeitura da Estaˆncia Tur´ıstica de Itu, Itu, pp. 8 11 (in Portuguese).

REFERENCES

415

Rocha-Campos, A.C., 1972. Late Paleozoic geology of northern Paran´a Basin. Excursion Guide-Book of the International Symposium on the Carboniferous and Permian Systems in South America. Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Sa˜o Paulo City, Sa˜o Paulo, p. 68. Rocha-Campos, A.C., 2002a. Rocha moutonn´ee de Salto, SP t´ıpico registro de abrasa˜o glacial do Neopaleozo´ico. In: Schobbenhaus, C., Campos, D.A., Queiroz, E.T., Winge, M., Berbert-Born, M. (Eds.), S´ıtios geolo´gicos e paleontolo´gicos do Brasil, primeira ed. DNPM/CPRM - Comissa˜o Brasileira de S´ıtios Geolo´gicos e Paleobiolo´gicos, Bras´ılia, pp. 155 159 (in Portuguese). Available from: ,http://sigep.cprm.gov.br/sitio021/ sitio021.pdf. (accessed 09.08.17). Rocha-Campos, A.C., 2002b. Varvito de Itu, SP registro cl´assico da glaciac¸a˜o neopaleozo´ica. In: Schobbenhaus, C., Campos, D.A., Queiroz, E.T., Winge, M., Berbert-Born, M. (Eds.), S´ıtios geolo´gicos e paleontolo´gicos do Brasil, primeira ed. DNPM/CPRM - Comissa˜o Brasileira de S´ıtios Geolo´gicos e Paleobiolo´gicos, Bras´ılia, pp. 147 154. Available from: , http://sigep.cprm.gov.br/sitio062/sitio062.pdf . (accessed 09.08.17). Rocha-Campos, A.C., Ernesto, M., Sundaram, D., 1981. Geological, palynological and paleomagnetic investigations on Late Paleozoic varvites from the Paran´a Basin, Brazil. In: Proceedings of the Third Regional Symposium on Geology, RSG-3, Curitiba, Paran´a. Geological Society of Brazil Curitiba, pp. 162 175. Rocha-Campos, A.C., Santos, P.R., Canuto, J.R., 1988. Sedimentology and stratigraphy of the Gondwana sequence in Sa˜o Paulo State. In: Excursion Guide-Book of the Seventh Gondwana Symposium, G-7, Sa˜o Paulo City, Geosciences Institute of the University of Sa˜o Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo, p. 40. Rocha-Campos, A.C., Santos, P.R., Canuto, J.R., 2008. Late Paleozoic glacial deposits of Brazil: Parana Basin. In: Fielding, C.R., Frank, T.D., Isbell, J.L. (Eds.), Resolving the Late Paleozoic Ice Age in Time and Space. Special Paper, 441. Geological Society of America, Boulder, pp. 97 114. Schobbenhaus, C., Campos, D.A., Queiroz, E.T., Winge, M., Berbert-Born, M.L. (Eds.), 2002. S´ıtios geolo´gicos e paleontolo´gicos do Brasil, primeira ed. DNPM/CPRM - Comissa˜o Brasileira de S´ıtios Geolo´gicos e Paleobiolo´gicos, Bras´ılia (in Portuguese). Schobbenhaus, C., Silva, C.R. , 2012. Geoparques do Brasil - Propostas. Servic¸o Geolo´gico do Brasil-CPRM, Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese). Winge, M., Schobbenhaus, C., Souza, C.R.G., Fernandes, A.C.S., Berbert-Born, M.L., Queiroz, E.T. (Eds.), 2009. S´ıtios geolo´gicos e paleontolo´gicos do Brasil. segunda ed. CPRM - Comissa˜o Brasileira de S´ıtios Geolo´gicos e Paleobiolo´gicos, Bras´ılia (in Portuguese). Winge, M., Schobbenhaus, C., Souza, C.R.G., Fernandes, A.C.S., Berbert-Born, M.L., Sallun Filho, W. (Eds.), 2013. S´ıtios geolo´gicos e paleontolo´gicos do Brasil, terceira ed. CPRM - Comissa˜o Brasileira de S´ıtios Geolo´gicos e Paleobiolo´gicos, Bras´ılia (in Portuguese).

CHAPTER

TECHNIQUES FOR THE MONITORING OF GEOSITES IN CABAN˜EROS NATIONAL PARK, SPAIN

24

´ D´ıez-Herrero1, Juana Vegas1, Luis Carcavilla1, Miguel Go´mez-Heras2 and Andres ´ 1 A´ngel Garc´ıa-Cortes 1

Geological Survey of Spain, Madrid, Spain 2Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

24.1 INTRODUCTION Recent decades have witnessed the increasing use of the term ‘geoconservation’, understood as a series of actions, techniques and measures aimed at ensuring the conservation (including restoration) and monitoring of geoheritage based on an analysis of its intrinsic value, vulnerability and risk of degradation (Brilha, 2002; Brockx and Semeniuk, 2007; Carcavilla et al., 2007; FuertesGuti´errez et al., 2016; Garc´ıa-Ortiz et al., 2014; Henriques et al., 2011; Stevens, 1994; White et al., 2003). In Spain, the Royal Decree 556/2011 regarding the development of the Spanish Inventory of Natural Heritage and Biodiversity (the Strategic Plan for Natural Heritage and Biodiversity), specifies that this inventory should include a series of indicators to enable assessment of the status and progression of each of its components, including geoheritage. Moreover, this Royal Decree expressed that monitoring conservation status and changes in the natural environment is considered one of the most effective tools for natural heritage management. However, the wide application of geoconservation indicators to all categories of Protected Areas according to their management objectives is still pending in Spain and in the rest of the world. Conservation of geosites and surrounding areas often consists of erecting fences and covers, and restricting access, without evaluating the effectiveness of these actions or monitoring deterioration of the geosites (Bollati et al., 2015; D´ıez-Herrero et al., 2015; Fuertes-Guti´errez et al., 2016). In contrast, cultural heritage and even biotic heritage have successful experience of using tools for conservation monitoring (monitoring of environmental parameters in museums and monuments, networks for monitoring endangered species or global change, etc.). In the field of geoconservation, there is an urgent need to define a series of indicators that make it possible to identify, quantify and mitigate changes caused by natural processes and above all by human activity (Garc´ıa-Cort´es et al., 2012). Thus, the objective of the present study was to design and implement an instrumental system to monitor and evaluate the impact of active geological processes and public use on geosites in the Caban˜eros National Park. Data obtained from monitoring Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00024-1 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

417

418

CHAPTER 24 TECHNIQUES FOR THE MONITORING OF GEOSITES

have been used to establish geoindicators that enable a quantitative assessment of the conservation status and of the impact of active geological processes on the public use of geoheritage.

24.2 GEOHERITAGE IN THE CABAN˜EROS NATIONAL PARK Caban˜eros National Park is located in the Montes de Toledo and straddles the provinces of Toledo and Ciudad Real, Central-SW Spain (Fig. 24.1). Twenty-five geosites were identified in this National Park and two of them were selected for this study (Guti´errez-Marco et al., 2011a,b), both

FIGURE 24.1 Simplified geological map of the Caban˜eros National Park indicating the location of the two sites selected for this study (white polygons).

24.2 GEOHERITAGE IN THE CABAN˜EROS NATIONAL PARK

419

located on the most frequently visited routes of this national park (104,249 visitors in 2016, according to the Spanish National Parks Authority).

24.2.1 BOQUERO´N DEL ESTENA TRACE FOSSIL GEOSITE This palaeontological geosite (Fig. 24.2) integrates a wider geosite with international relevance, the ‘Cambrian and Ordovician of Caban˜eros National Park’ (code PZ004 from the Spanish Inventory of Global Geosites), which is one of the representative geosites of the geological framework ‘Stratigraphic series from the Lower and Middle Paleozoic of the Iberian massif’. A complete reference is given in Garc´ıa-Cort´es (2008) and Guti´errez-Marco et al. (2015), and references therein. The main palaeontological feature of the monitored site corresponds to an icnofossil of a giant worm burrow preserved in a Lower Ordovician quartzite bed. Not surprisingly, it is one of the main attractions on the Boquero´n del Estena route. This geosite was selected for this study because it was completely exposed in 2007 after a large cast was made and a reversible surface patina was spread on its surface (Baeza et al., 2013). The aim of fossil monitoring is to obtain an indicator of its degradation over time. Knowing the exact location and type of access to this site is essential to understanding the conditions that are affecting its public use. Since it is located on the side of a narrow river gorge, the only access is through a path that runs above an old road that was abandoned due to frequent torrential flooding, rockfalls and slope instability of the Estena gorge. Therefore, the access to the site for scientific, educational or touristic purposes implies a walk for about 2 km from the car park near Navas de Estena village, passing through the footbridges over Chorrillo Stream and Estena River (Fig. 24.3).

FIGURE 24.2 Outcrop of Ordovician quartzite with the largest giant worm trace fossil on the Boquero´n del Estena route.

420

CHAPTER 24 TECHNIQUES FOR THE MONITORING OF GEOSITES

FIGURE 24.3 Flash flooding along the Estena river, 14 February 2016, covering the footbridge and flooding the access path to the Boquero´n del Estena site, including the trace fossil.

24.2.2 EL CHORRO DE LOS NAVALUCILLOS WATERFALL GEOSITE This waterfall cascades from a height of 18 m above the quartzite hinge of the Rocigalgo syncline (Fig. 24.4) (Guti´errez-Marco et al., 2015). With a high potential touristic use confirmed by quantitative assessment procedures, it is the main natural attraction along the El Chorro de los Navalucillos route. The quantitative assessment also shows that the scientific and didactic potential uses of this geosite are lower than the touristic one. Frequently, one of the parameters used for quantitative assessment of the touristic value is the scenery criterion (e.g., Cendrero, 1996; Bruschi et al., 2011; Brilha, 2016, 2018). The numerical assessment method used for this criterion in the Spanish Inventory of Geosites (Garc´ıa-Cort´es et al., 2014) included the following characteristics: (1) high relief; (2) presence of large rivers/ lakes/waterfalls; (3) remarkable chromatic variety on rocks; (4) presence of fossils and/or minerals. This geosite was selected for this study because the scenic value is affected by an irregular Mediterranean discharge regime of the El Chorro stream and consequently it was decided to monitor the river flow in order to identify the optimal time of year to guarantee safe public visits.

24.3 MONITORING METHODS In an initial field study, the active geological processes that cause the most direct influence on the conservation status of the two sites and their surroundings were identified. These are the three types of processes and the equipment mounted to monitor each one of them: 1. Physical weathering affecting the rock where the trace fossil occur, caused by exposure to freeze thaw cycles. To estimate the annual number of these cycles and the extent of weathering (due to water frost in pores and fissures) that might affect the rock and fossil’s

24.3 MONITORING METHODS

421

FIGURE 24.4 Waterfall at El Chorro de los Navalucillos, above the hinge of the Rocigalgo syncline.

integrity, a complete automatic weather station (Vantage Vue Com; Davis), a rain gauge (HOBO Rain Collector; Davis) and two thermometers (HOBO with optical reader) with continuous recording were installed on the rock (Fig. 24.5). In addition, a thermal infrared camera (FLIR B-52) was mounted to take serial images every 30 min over a complete daily cycle, in order to monitor thermal stress weathering. To determine the action of the physical weathering on the rock, ultrasound (Pundit CNS) and Schmidt hammer (Leeb hardness tester, Proceq, Equotip) measurements were also taken. 2. River flooding along the Estena river, which requires continuous monitoring of the water level and water flow in order to calibrate a hydrometeorological model of precipitation- and thus estimate the frequency and magnitude of flood events. It is also necessary to calculate the so called ‘characteristic times’ (travel time, time of concentration, hydrograph time base, flood time; D´ıez-Herrero et al., 2009; Woodward, 2010) in order to coordinate a civil protection response. For example, the travel time (Tt) is the time water takes to travel from one location (e.g., El Chorro waterfall) to another (e.g., the Boquero´n footbridge); and the time of concentration (Tc) is the time required for runoff to travel from the hydraulically most distant point in the watershed (Rocigalgo peak) to the outlet (Boquero´n del Estena site). Extreme flash flood events affect public use, restricting or preventing visitor access along the Boquero´n del Estena route due to flooding of the path and footbridge (Fig. 24.3) or destruction/deterioration of infrastructures (tracks and footbridges); and could also present a risk to visitors because they could find themselves cut off at the opposite margin of the Estena river. Consequently, a piezoresistive hydrostatic pressure data logger (Water Level WL 15) was installed on a stable base (bedrock) in a cross-section of the river, located immediately upstream of the footbridge, to facilitate the conversion of water column height into water flow (Fig. 24.6). 3. Torrential flooding along the El Chorro stream in the area of El Chorro de los Navalucillos waterfall. To correlate stream flow with the scenic criterion of the waterfall and thus estimate the optimal times of the year for observation, a piezoresistive hydrostatic pressure data logger

FIGURE 24.5 Instrumentation mounted on the trace fossil outcrop: complete automatic weather station (left), tipping bucket rain gauge (top right) and rock surface thermometers (bottom right).

24.4 FIRST MONITORING RESULTS

423

FIGURE 24.6 Instrumentation installed in the immediate vicinity of the footbridge: piezoresistive data logger with a 30-m cable from the sensor to the data logger.

(Water Level WL 16) was installed upstream in a bedrock section of fairly regular geometry. A complete automatic weather station (Vantage Vue Com) was also mounted at the top of the Rocigalgo peak to correlate rainfall with the flow regime of the El Chorro stream waterfall, and a tripod screw and fixed markers to take photographs (Fig. 24.7). This will help to provide visitors with information about the trail conditions before starting the 10-km return route from the visitor information hut. In every 3 months, data were downloaded and batteries replaced. The data from the weather stations could be accessed online via a public website (WeatherLink).

24.4 FIRST MONITORING RESULTS The setup of the instrumentation system started in December 2013 and it remained in place until the end of the project in 2016. The first monitoring results are presented.

FIGURE 24.7 Instrumentation installed in the vicinity of El Chorro de los Navalucillos waterfall: complete weather station (top left), fixed position for photography (bottom left) and piezoresistive data logger (right).

24.4 FIRST MONITORING RESULTS

425

24.4.1 GEOINDICATOR 1: PHYSICAL WEATHERING This geoindicator estimated the conservation status of the trace fossils and the physical weathering progression over time. There was no freeze thaw cycle during this period as temperatures did not fall below 0.05 C (Fig. 24.8), nor were there any effective frost cycles, despite the occurrence of precipitation. Consequently, the value obtained during this period for the deterioration of the trace fossil due to frost weathering was null (zero). However, an analysis of the data revealed that deterioration of the trace fossil could be associated with thermal stress weathering, since the daily temperature range was sometimes more than 15 C, with variation rates higher than 0.2 C per minute. Due to microclimatic conditions and the exposure of the outcrop, thermal variations are attenuated with respect to the surroundings, as there is evidence of frost cycles in Navas de Estena during the monitored period.

24.4.2 GEOINDICATOR 2: RIVER FLOODS This geoindicator records the frequency and magnitude of river floods, and the extent to which they prevent or hamper access to the route, to the geosite and to other natural sites located along the route. The geoindicator computes the number of events over a threshold water level (corresponding to the footbridge level), as well as the capacity of these events to destroy infrastructures such as the footbridge, the handrail and the track, which would entail economic costs and present a danger to visitors. For example, during the first year of monitoring, the water level values of Estena River ranged between 0.02 and 3.33 m in depth, relative to the position of the sensor. Taking the threshold height as the height of the footbridge with respect to the reference level for relative depth (approx. 77 cm), over 15 significant flood events were identified during the first year. All the events and minor subevents recorded were characterised to be flash flooding; the rising curve recorded on the data logger was almost vertical and of short duration (,6 h), whereas the falling curve was gradual, lasting various days until stabilisation (Fig. 24.9).

24.4.3 GEOINDICATOR 3: WATERFALL DISCHARGE As expected, a good correlation was found between the water level measured upstream and the flow over the waterfall, and also between this flow and the precipitation intensity data recorded by the weather station located on Rocigalgo peak at the head of the river basin (Fig. 24.10). Nevertheless, the recorded variation in the water level have had a relatively minor effect despite the occurrence of flash flood events associated with intense precipitation, and prolonged periods of drought in summer and autumn. However, monitoring has only been conducted for a short time, and it will be necessary to obtain more discharge data and images before reaching a significant correlation between the flow and the scenic criterion for this site.

426

CHAPTER 24 TECHNIQUES FOR THE MONITORING OF GEOSITES

FIGURE 24.8 Temperature variation detected by sensors on the rock surface with the trace fossil, from December 2013 to June 2015. The temperature recorded by both sensors (differences in values are so small that they look like a single curve) never fell below 0 C (x axis); similarly evident is the pronounced daily temperature variation during the hottest months (Summer 2014 and May 2015).

24.5 GUIDELINES FOR GEOSITE MANAGEMENT

24.5.1 BOQUERO´N DEL ESTENA TRACE FOSSIL GEOSITE Based on the obtained data, quarterly reports were produced throughout the monitoring period and delivered to park managers. Before the monitoring data were available, it was proposed to place a cover at the top of the outcrop to divert rain and check potential frost weathering processes. However, once the data were obtained, recommendations with respect to the first geoindicator were to continue the monitoring of these processes, as well as thermal stress weathering, using a thermal infrared camera. Furthermore, conservation measures should be aimed at attenuating the effect of temperature differences in the outcrop, which can be achieved by cutting the surrounding vegetation and through structural actions such as the setup of a sunshade to minimise direct sun radiation. With respect to the second geoindicator, it was estimated that flood events had prevented access to the geosite for more than 3.4% of the monitored total time. This value increased to over 14.5% of the time, if the calculation included flooding of the path in the stretch immediately upstream of the footbridge, which does not prevent access but does hamper it (Fig. 24.9). This is evidenced by the fact that the handrail that had been installed on the footbridge was washed away in 2014, damaging the infrastructure, and was submerged during several events in 2016 (Fig. 24.3). Given the sudden nature of the floods recorded, visitors on the route could find themselves isolated downstream from the footbridge. Therefore, this indicator is extremely useful for public use management, because high values not only indicate poor conditions for observation and use of the geosite (it estimates the number of times per year that the route should be closed), but also reveals periods of the year when visitors may be put at risk, requiring the intervention of rescue teams. This kind of instrumentation could be integrated in the already existing Automatic Hydrologic Information System (SAIH, managed by the Water Authority; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and Environment). This flooding alarm system could be interesting to expand to singular cases of geoheritage management.

24.5 GUIDELINES FOR GEOSITE MANAGEMENT

427

FIGURE 24.9 Water level in the Estena River (meters over the sensor) recorded by the data logger (installed in the vicinity of the footbridge) between 12 December 2013 and 5 March 2014. The rising curves in the flood hydrographs are almost vertical and indicate flash flood events. Also shown is the length of time flood water has submerged the pedestrian path (green line) and footbridge (red line).

FIGURE 24.10 Water level in the El Chorro stream (meters over the sensor) recorded by the data logger installed upstream of the waterfall, and photographs of the waterfall in two extreme moments during the same period, illustrating the correlation between scenic criterion and flow.

428

CHAPTER 24 TECHNIQUES FOR THE MONITORING OF GEOSITES

24.5.2 EL CHORRO DE LOS NAVALUCILLOS WATERFALL GEOSITE The slight variation in the waterfall’s flow suggests that water from fissured aquifers in slate and quartzite rocks and from detrital surface aquifers, associated with scree and joints, plays an important role in maintaining an almost permanent base flow at the El Chorro de los Navalucillos waterfall, ensuring its scenic properties without significant seasonal fluctuations. Consequently, this geosite does not appear to require specific management action, beyond continuing the instrumental monitoring.

24.6 CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS The definition of geoindicators to monitor the conservation status of sites is crucial for geoheritage management in protected natural areas, such as the Caban˜eros National Park. Monitoring and evaluation of the impact of active geological processes for the conservation and public use of geoheritage has proved to be an effective tool to prevent site deterioration and risk to visitors at the studied geosites. The analysis and interpretation of the data recorded by instrumentation have made the following possible: (1) formulation of practical recommendations to park managers, such as the setup of a sunshade over the trace fossil geosite to minimise weathering processes; (2) determination of the best height at which footbridges should be built along the paths; and (3) identification of the best time of the year to visit the sites in order to achieve good observation of geological features. The aim is to maintain the network of instruments and to update and refine the geoindicators because they make a significant contribution to helping decision makers to develop an effective management of the natural heritage in the national park.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was carried out within the research project INDICAGEOPAR OAPN 727/2012. Organismo Auto´nomo de Parques Nacionales: ‘Sistema de indicadores para el seguimiento del estado de conservacio´n del patrimonio geolo´gico en la Red de Parques Nacionales’. We thank the staff of the Caban˜eros National Park (Spain), especially Lola and Julio (Casa Rural Boqueron Estena), for their collaboration on this research. The suggestions of the external reviewers and editors improved the earlier version of the manuscript.

REFERENCES Brilha, J., 2002. Geoconservation and protected areas. Environ. Conserv. 29, 273 276. Brilha, J., 2016. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8 (2), 119 134. Brilha, J., 2018. Geoheritage: inventories and evaluation. In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 69 86. Bruschi, V.M., Cendrero, A., Albertos, J.A.C., 2011. A statistical approach to the validation and optimisation of geoheritage assessment procedures. Geoheritage 3 (3), 131 149.

REFERENCES

429

Baeza, E., Guti´errez-Marco, J.C., R´abano, I., 2013. Obtencio´n de grandes r´eplicas de elementos singulares del Patrimonio Geolo´gico del Parque Nacional de Caban˜eros (Castilla-La Mancha). Cuadernos del Museo Geominero 15, 573 582 (in Spanish). Bollati, I., Reynard, E., Lupia Palmieri, E., Pelfini, M., 2015. Runoff impact on active geomorphosites in unconsolidated substrat. A comparison between landforms in glacial and marine clay sediments: two case studies from the Swiss Alps and the Italian Apennines. Geoheritage 8 (1), 61 75. Brockx, M., Semeniuk, V., 2007. Geoheritage and geoconservation history, definition, scope and scale. J. Royal Soc. West. Aust. 90, 53 87. Carcavilla, L., Lo´pez Mart´ınez, J., Dur´an Valsero, J.J., 2007. Patrimonio geolo´gico y geodiversidad: investigacio´n, conservacio´n, gestio´n y relacio´n con los espacios naturales protegidos. Publicaciones del Instituto Geolo´gico y Minero de Espan˜a, Serie Cuadernos del Museo Geominero 7, Madrid (in Spanish). Cendrero, A., 1996. Propuestas sobre criterios para la clasificacio´n y catalogacio´n del patrimonio geolo´gico. In: El patrimonio geolo´gico. Bases para su valoracio´n, proteccio´n, conservacio´n y utilizacio´n. Serie Monograf´ıas del Ministerio de Obras Pu´blicas, Transportes y Medio Ambiente. Ministerio de Obras Pu´blicas. Transportes y Medio Ambiente, Madrid, pp. 29 38 (in Spanish). D´ıez-Herrero, A., La´ın-Huerta, L., Llorente-Isidro, M., 2009. A Handbook on Flood Hazard Mapping Methodologies. Publications of the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME), Series Geological Hazards /Geotechnics No. 2, Madrid. D´ıez-Herrero, A., Vegas, J., Carcavilla Urqui, L. Garc´ıa Cort´es, A., Mart´ın Serrano, A. Guti´errez-Marco, J.C., et al., 2015. Geoindicadores para la evaluacio´n de los procesos geolo´gicos que afectan al estado de conservacio´n y uso pu´blico del patrimonio geolo´gico. LIG Boquero´n del Estena (P. N. de Caban˜eros, Ciudad Real). Cuadernos del Museo Geominero 18, 227 232 (in Spanish). Fuertes-Guti´errez, I., Garc´ıa-Ortiz, E., Fernandez-Mart´ınez, E., 2016. Anthropic threats to geological heritage: characterization and management: a case study in the dinosaur tracksites of La Rioja (Spain). Geoheritage 8, 135 153. ´ . (Ed.), 2008. Contextos geolo´gicos espan˜oles. Una aproximacio´n al patrimonio geolo´gico Garc´ıa-Cort´es, A nacional de relevancia internacional. Instituto Geolo´gico y Minero de Espan˜a, Madrid (in Spanish). ´ ., Vegas, J., Carcavilla, L., D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., 2012. Un sistema de indicadores para la evaluaGarc´ıa-Cort´es, A cio´n y seguimiento del estado de conservacio´n del patrimonio geolo´gico. Geo-Temas 13, 1272 1275 (in Spanish). ´ ., Carcavilla Urqui, L., D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., Vegas Salamanca, J., 2014. Documento metodolo´Garc´ıa-Cort´es, A gico para la elaboracio´n del Inventario Espan˜ol de Lugares de Inter´es Geolo´gico (IELIG). Version 05-122014. 64 pp. Available from: , http://www.igme.es/patrimonio/descargas.htm . (accessed 07.08.17). Garc´ıa-Ortiz, E., Fuertes-Guti´errez, I., Fern´andez-Mart´ınez, E., 2014. Concepts and terminology for the risk of degradation of geological heritage sites: fragility and natural vulnerability, a case study. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 125, 463 479. Guti´errez-Marco, J.C., Mansilla Plaza, L., R´abano, I., Garc´ıa-Bellido, D.C., 2011a. Ordovician stratigraphy and paleontology of the province of Ciudad Real. ISOS Field Trip Guide, May 12th 13th, 2011. 11th International Symposium on the Ordovician System, Madrid. Guti´errez-Marco, J.C., R´abano, I., Barro´n, E., 2011b. Geodiversidad y Biodiversidad en el Parque Nacional de Caban˜eros (Ciudad Real-Toledo): la Ruta del Boquero´n del Estena. Gu´ıa de la Excursio´n. Septiembre de 2011, XIX Bienal RSEHN-UCLM, Real Sociedad Espan˜ola de Historia Natural, Madrid (in Spanish). Guti´errez-Marco, J.C., R´abano, I., S´a, A.A., Baeza Chico, E., Sarmiento, G.N., Herranz Arau´jo, P., et al., 2015. Geodiversidad e itinerarios geolo´gicos en el Parque Nacional de Caban˜eros. In: Amengual, P., Asensio, B. (Eds.), Proyectos de investigacio´n en parques nacionales: 2010-2013, vol. 10. Organismo Auto´nomo Parques Nacionales, Serie investigacio´n en la red, Madrid, pp. 105 142 (in Spanish). Henriques, M.H., 2011. Pena dos Reis R., Brilha J., Mota T.S., Geoconservation as an emerging geoscience. Geoheritage 3, 117 128.

430

CHAPTER 24 TECHNIQUES FOR THE MONITORING OF GEOSITES

Stevens, C., 1994. Defining geological conservation. In: O’Halloran, D., Green, C., Harley, M., Stanley, M., Knill, J. (Eds.), Geological and Landscape Conservation. Proceedings of the Malvern International Conference 1993. The Geological Society, London, pp. 499 501. White, S., King, R.L., Mitchell, M.M., Joyce, E.B., Cochrane, R.M., Rosengren, N.J., et al., 2003. Conservation and heritage, registering sites of significance. In: Birch, W.D. (Ed.), Geology of Victoria. Special Publications 23. Geological Society of Australia, pp. 703 711. Woodward, D.E., 2010. Time of Concentration. In: USDA (Ed.), Part 630. Hydrology National Engineering Handbook. United States Department of Agriculture, 210-VI-NEH.

GEOHERITAGE AND GEOCONSERVATION: THE CHALLENGES Jose´ Brilha1 and Emmanuel Reynard2 1

2

University of Minho, Braga, Portugal University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

The set of chapters that constitutes this book covers all the major topics related to geoheritage and geoconservation that have been intensively developed over the last three decades (see Larwood et al., 2013). It would simply not have been possible to write this book 20 years ago, involving so many experts dispersed on all continents and with such different work experiences. This closing chapter intends to give some hints about the future of geoheritage and geoconservation in three stages of intervention: international, national and local. The starting point is the establishment of a baseline concerning the present status of these topics, in these same three stages, based on the personal perspective of the authors and taking into account not only the previous chapters but also many other published works.

THE PRESENT SITUATION INTERNATIONAL STAGE The establishment of the International Geoscience and Geoparks Programme by UNESCO in November 2015 sets a global recognition of geoheritage by a prestigious international institution, well-respected by the vast majority of countries. This move forward strengthens the position of UNESCO regarding its support of the Global Geoparks Network, ongoing since 2004. The Global Geoparks Network with its 127 members (as of August 2017) gives a worldwide visibility to the importance of geoheritage, its conservation and sustainable management. Geoheritage is also vital in another UNESCO initiative: the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, established in 1972. Presently, 90 properties in 50 countries are included in the World Heritage List due to the outstanding universal value of geoheritage, taking into account criterion (viii) of this convention. In spite of recent advancements in the International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) policy, there is still a lack of recognition of geoheritage in the international nature conservation

Geoheritage. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00025-3 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

433

434

GEOHERITAGE AND GEOCONSERVATION: THE CHALLENGES

community. The three IUCN resolutions approved in the last three editions of the IUCN World Conservation Congress (Barcelona, 2008; Jeju, 2012; Honolulu, 2016) due to the lobbying work of IUCN members dedicated to geoheritage were an important step forwards (Brilha et al., 2016; Herrero et al., 2013). Other major initiatives were implemented by the IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), namely with the establishment of a Geoheritage Specialist Group in 2014, which has produced a relevant chapter about geoheritage and geoconservation in protected areas, published in a manual for park managers (Crofts et al., 2015). Through its World Heritage Programme, IUCN is the advisory body on nature to the UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee and is responsible for the assessment of new World Heritage applications that involve natural criteria, including the geoheritage-related criterion (viii) already mentioned. The International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) has been taking a meandering path concerning geoheritage. After the initial Global Indicative List of Geological Sites initiative (GILGES), established in 1989/90 and later converted into the Global Geosites Project in 1996 (Wimbledon, 1996), the IUGS activity on geoheritage almost ceased in 2003. A new Geoheritage Task Group was created in November 2010 and in September 2016 it was merged with the Stone Heritage Task Group originating a new International Commission on Geoheritage with two subcommissions: ‘Heritage Stones’ and ‘Heritage Sites and Collections’. The International Geographical Union (IGU) also has a Commission on Geoheritage since 2007. At the European Union (EU) level, geoheritage and geoconservation is still in the ‘dark ages’. The whole EU nature conservation policy is based in just two directives Birds and Habitats which are sealed to anything else that is not directly related with biodiversity conservation. This narrowed and limited perspective of what should be a modern vision of nature conservation constitutes a major drawback to the development of geoconservation in European countries. With no EU policy on geoheritage and geoconservation, no funding is available to protect sites or to develop research. Academia has probably been the most reactive body in recent years concerning these topics. The number of papers indexed by Scopus with the keywords ‘geoconservation’, ‘geoheritage’, ‘geosite’, ‘geopark’, or ‘geotourism’ has increased seven times in the last 10 years. In spite of the difficulty in calculating a precise figure, the number of Masters and PhD theses around the world focusing on these topics is certainly increasing, as is the number of scientific events. All major international and national geological and geographical scientific events have today thematic sessions on geoheritage. The creation of the scientific journal Geoheritage in 2009 was a major achievement and today it is the main international journal on the topic. Finally, concerning international NGOs and scientific associations with experience on geoheritage and geoconservation, the European Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage (ProGEO) and the International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG) deserve a special mention. ProGEO has been promoting all topics related to geoheritage since 1993, namely promoting national inventories at the European level (Wimbledon and Smith-Meyer, 2012), pushing the topic inside IUCN and in other organisations, and also promoting the dissemination of scientific research based on its above-mentioned scientific journal Geoheritage. IAG has a working group on geomorphosites since 2001 with a vast amount of work done concerning the conceptualisation, evaluation, cartography, management and dissemination of geomorphosites (Reynard et al., 2009; Reynard and Coratza, 2013; Reynard et al., 2016).

GEOHERITAGE AND GEOCONSERVATION: THE CHALLENGES

435

NATIONAL STAGE The status of geoconservation at the national level is very variable. There are countries with a good legal framework to protect geoheritage, with site inventories at the national scale and with public administrations responsible for the management of the most important sites. This rather positive perspective contrasts with countries where none of this exists and, of course, there are countries in an intermediate situation. Even in countries where solid work has been carried out over several years, geoconservation is never a priority. This means that during periods of economic crisis, like the one that many countries are facing nowadays, geoconservation is one of the first national strategies to suffer cuts and disinvestment. The staff of national agencies dealing with geoheritage is reduced, some agencies are restructured or even closed and the number of projects for infrastructures or conservation actions is severely affected. In general, nature conservation agencies that are responsible for the implementation of national policies and also for the management of protected areas are mainly focused on the conservation of fauna and flora (Brilha, 2002). This is due to the lack of awareness concerning the importance of geoconservation and also to the absence of international policies that could influence, from top to bottom, the conservation programmes in each country. The dimensions of the geoconservationist community in each country are usually small. In general, these communities are constituted by a few geoscientists from universities and natural science museums, geological surveys and other national agencies, and also some postgraduate students. Due to the low critical mass, these small communities are very vulnerable to fluctuations in the work capacity of the leaders and therefore the outcomes of the geoconservation work is uneven. In some countries with active geoparks, the activities carried out in these territories geoconservation, education and geotourism are sometimes the only ones that keep geoconservation alive in the respective country.

LOCAL STAGE Depending on how the public administration is organised, in some countries there are good examples of geoconservation implemented by local administrations (the designations vary in each country, such as municipalities, counties, city councils) (Brilha, 2008). Quite often, local politicians are keen to conserve a certain geosite aimed at some publicity and visitors. However, local initiatives are totally dependent on personal efforts and sometimes they are not very consistent through time (for instance, the democratic change of representatives after local elections may block ongoing or planned initiatives).

BUILDING THE FUTURE After setting up the general picture of geoconservation at the international, national, and local levels, which of course is always a generalisation that does not include particular cases, some challenges are presented below, following the same three levels of intervention. Answers to these challenges should not be expected, the aim is rather to point out possible trends for the future evolution of geoheritage and geoconservation.

436

GEOHERITAGE AND GEOCONSERVATION: THE CHALLENGES

INTERNATIONAL STAGE The biggest challenge is to raise awareness of geoconservation in all relevant international institutions, hoping that this movement may then infiltrate, from top to bottom, to national and local public administrations. Being a new UNESCO programme, there are quite a few open questions concerning geoparks: (1) How will geoparks adapt to ‘live in this new ecosystem’, now that they are formally under a UN organisation governed by the political interests of so many countries? (2) How can geoparks be sustainably expanded into new countries, maintaining the same principles and high-quality standards? (3) How can a unified application of the evaluation criteria be guaranteed, taking into account so many differences at the natural, cultural, social, political and economic levels, among different continents and countries? (4) How can a global network of an increasing number of members from countries with so many socioeconomic differences be maintained? It is necessary that, definitively, the IUCN accepts geodiversity and geoheritage as fundamental parts of nature, recognising that both play a decisive role in the natural capital and in ecosystem services. IUCN members dedicated to geoheritage must persuade other members to be sympathetic to these principles, in order to obtain specific results and targets addressed to these topics in the next quadrennial IUCN Programme. The IUCN’s WCPA needs to create clear guidelines regarding how to manage geodiversity and geoheritage in protected areas and give definitive instructions for these principles to be applied in all protected areas’ systems around the world. In addition, there is a need for the IUCN to define precise methods/criteria to support an unbiased assessment of new World Heritage applications, in what concerns criterion (viii). The recent establishment of the IUGS’s International Commission on Geoheritage offers a new opportunity to set strategies, working groups and projects that envision the development of the scientific knowledge of geoheritage, the increase in its visibility worldwide, the launch of international networks, among others. It is also very important that this commission can produce guidelines and criteria to support the assessment of new UNESCO Global Geoparks applications made by geological experts on behalf of IUGS, concerning the international relevance of geoheritage of each territory. For European countries, the challenge is to have an EU nature conservation policy that includes geoheritage, together with fauna and flora. Either adapting the two existent directives mentioned before, or creating a new directive or strategic programme, a change is absolutely vital for geoconservation in Europe. This change would also allow the possibility of funding for geoconservation projects, at the European and national levels. In addition, it would also be very important to include geoheritage as a fundamental element in Environmental Impact Assessment guidelines.

NATIONAL STAGE The challenges for geoconservation in each country are different depending, in the first place, on the present level of development of this topic. Also, the existence of asymmetries between countries regarding socioeconomic development should be mentioned. It is not expected that countries with serious problems with guaranteeing the basic needs to the population like food, water, sanitation, health, safety and education will spend their scarce public resources on protecting geoheritage. Therefore, the challenges described below are addressed to an average country.

GEOHERITAGE AND GEOCONSERVATION: THE CHALLENGES

437

It is important to reinforce the work capacity of nature conservation agencies, mainly in what concerns the possibility of hiring experts on geoconservation and to include geoconservation strategies in the management of protected areas. Obviously, it is also of paramount importance to have a national geoheritage inventory concluded (this does not mean closed, as such inventories must be always available to integrate new geosites) and certified by the national geoscientific community. Accordingly, the importance of statutory protection for the most relevant geoheritage and of an appropriate legal framework should be pointed out. The funding for geoconservation projects should be based not only on public resources but also private companies should be involved and invited to contribute to these projects, as already happens for some biodiversity conservation initiatives. In general, it is also a challenge to increase the critical mass of geoconservationists in each country and, more importantly, to promote jobs for young geoconservationists, some of whom are carrying out postgraduation studies on these topics. Finally, concerning geoparks, some questions must be discussed in each country, such as: (1) How many geoparks should exist in the country? (2) How should new UNESCO Global Geopark applications be selected and promoted? (3) Should geoparks be a ‘showroom’ of the national geodiversity or, on the contrary, should several geoparks exist in the same country with similar types of geoheritage? (4) How should tourists be attracted to geoparks when there is already a powerful tourism offer in the same country for much more popular destinations such as ‘beach and sun’ or ‘snow’? The answers to these questions are of course related to several factors, such as the area of the country and the relation to the total area of existent geoparks, the country’s geodiversity index, accessibilities, population, etc. However, it is important to underline the need for each country to establish a strategy regarding geoparks because the number of tourists that feed geoparks is limited and therefore the more geoparks that exist in the country, the less visitors they receive individually.

LOCAL STAGE Geoconservation at the local level should be much more developed in the future. Local communities need to be engaged in geoconservation, involving local administrations, community representatives, schools, local businesses, and NGOs. In order to build these local networks, geoconservationists need to do much more regarding geoheritage interpretation. As the majority of society has low geoscientific literacy, education and interpretation are fundamental tools in order to raise awareness of the importance of conserving and managing geoheritage.

CHALLENGES FOR THE RESEARCH Finally, we present some brief comments about possible paths to be traced by researchers in geoheritage and geoconservation. During the last couple of decades, most of the research was focused on methods for the inventory, assessment and mapping of geosites, together with procedures to better use geoheritage for education and geotourism. In general, all these studies have been performed on already known sites and in protected areas. However, there is a lack of works carried out in some areas of the world with few studies and on specific thematic contexts. For instance, soil sites and sites with active geological and geomorphological processes are very poorly studied so far.

438

GEOHERITAGE AND GEOCONSERVATION: THE CHALLENGES

As urban areas are getting larger all around the globe, sites in the urban context also need to be better understood and managed. Regarding site management, it is also very important to reinforce our knowledge about how certain sites evolve under increasing pressures, either due to visitors or to natural processes, including the effects of climate change. Monitoring techniques must be improved using all of the technological development available today, which will allow better site conservation in the future. To conclude, we still need to increase our knowledge about the extraordinary history of our planet, registered in particular sites and elements around the globe. This is the main justification for why we need to conserve this legacy in a sustainable way, for the benefit of humankind.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was cofunded by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund, based on COMPETE 2020 (Programa Operacional da Competitividade e Internacionalizac¸a˜o), project ICT (UID/GEO/ 04683/2013) with reference POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007690 and national funds provided by Fundac¸a˜o para a Cieˆncia e Tecnologia (Portugal), and by the University of Lausanne (scientific leave of E. Reynard).

REFERENCES Brilha, J., 2002. Geoconservation and protected areas. Environ. Conserv. 29 (3), 273 276. Brilha, J., 2008. Geoconservation Awards: a way to promote geological heritage in Portugal. Proc. 5th International Symposium ProGEO on the Conservation of the Geological Heritage, Rab, Croatia, 13 14. Brilha, J., Di´az-Marti´nez, E., Guille´n, F., Monge-Ganuzas, M., 2016. Catorce nuevas resoluciones de la Unio´n Internacional para la Conservacio´n de la Naturaleza (UICN) ayudar´an a conservar la geodiversidad y el patrimonio geolo´gico del planeta. De Re Metallica 27, 102 103 (in Spanish). Crofts, R., Gordon, J.E., Santucci, V.L., 2015. Geoconservation in protected areas. In: Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., Pulsford, I. (Eds.), Protected Area Governance and Management. ANU Press, Canberra, pp. 531 568. Herrero, N., Di´az-Marti´nez, E., Monge-Ganuzas, M., Guille´n, F., Santisteban, C., Mele´ndez, G., Salazar, A., Mata, J.M., 2013. La geoconservacio´n en las actividades de la Unio´n Internacional para la Conservacio´n de la Naturaleza. In: Vegas,, J., Salazar, A., D´ıaz-Mart´ınez, E., March´an, C. (Eds.), Patrimonio geolo´gico, un recurso para el desarrollo. Cuadernos del Museo Geominero, No 15. Instituto Geolo´gico y Minero de Espan˜a, Madrid, pp. 251 258 (in Spanish). Larwood, J.G., Badman, T., McKeever, P.J., 2013. The progress and future of geoconservation at a global level. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 720 730. Reynard, E., Coratza, P., 2013. Scientific research on geomorphosites. A review of the activities of the IAG working group on geomorphosites over the last twelve years. Geogr. Fis. Dinam. Quat. 36, 159 168. Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), 2009. Geomorphosites. Pfeil, Mu¨nchen. Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Hobl´ea, F., 2016. Current research on geomorphosites. Geoheritage 8, 1 3. Wimbledon, W.A.P., 1996. Geosites a new conservation initiative. Episodes 19 (3), 87 88. Wimbledon, W.A.P., Smith-Meyer, S. (Eds.), 2012. Geoheritage in Europe and Its Conservation. ProGEO, Oslo.

Index Note: Page numbers followed by “f ” and “t” refer to figures and tables, respectively.

A A2G. See Accredited Geopark Guides (A2G) AASOs. See Analytical Abstraction Stage Operators (AASOs) Abiotic elements, 15, 216, 306 Abseiling, 209, 317 Access mitigation, 391 Accessibility, 76 77 Accredited Geopark Guides (A2G), 310 Acquisition, 137 141 of funding, 400 policy, 137 Action-planning process, 53 Actual loss, 391 Additional values, 91 92, 100 Aeolian moving sand-dunes, 94 Aesthetic(s) criterion, 151 152 question, 151 152 Aggregate Industries, 62 AHP. See Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) Air and Space Museum, 283 Almaden Mining Park, 170 American environmental law, 387 American wilderness, 149 Ammonites slab, 141 Analytic hierarchy process (AHP), 39 41, 46 Analytical Abstraction Stage Operators (AASOs), 28 Ancient Egypt, 155 156 Ancon-Santa Elena, 173 Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs), 22 Anthropogenic activity, 198 199, 206 207 threats, 253 AONB. See Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) AR. See Augmented reality (AR) Araripe Global Geopark, Brazil, 20 21 Araripe UNESCO Global Geopark, 406 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), 54 Arizona’s stone plaque, 21, 21f Arouca UNESCO Global Geopark, 284, 286 Arxan-Chaihe Volcano Area, 315 ASPAs. See Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) Assessment procedure, 32 geodiversity, 28 of geosites, 259 quantitative, 420 Atlas of Tasmanian Karst, 358, 367 Augmented reality (AR), 285, 295 296, 298

Automatic Hydrologic Information System (SAIH), 426 Azores UNESCO Global Geopark, 279

B Badlands, 94 BAP. See Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), 54 Biodiversity conservation, 213, 219 220 Biological activity, 203 204, 206 207 Biotic elements, 216, 306 Biotope, 72 BLM. See US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Blue Nile River, 339 Boca del Infierno, 171 Boolean operator, 38 Boquero´n del Estena trace fossil geosite, 426 427 Bottom up extraction method, 172 Boundary intervals, 182 183 Brasiliano Cycle, 405 Brazilian Commission of Geological and Palaeobiological Sites, 406 Brazilian geological context, Varvite Park, 405 406 Bronze Age archaeology, 206

C Caban˜eros National Park. See also Varvite Park first monitoring results, 423 425 physical weathering, 425 river floods, 425 water level in El Chorro stream, 427f water level in Estena River, 427f waterfall discharge, 425 geoheritage, 418 420 El Chorro de los Navalucillos waterfall national park geosite, 420 Ordovician trace fossils of giant worms national park geosite, 419 geological map, 418f guidelines for geosite management, 426 428 monitoring methods, 420 423 Cambrian and Ordovician of Caban˜eros National Park, 419 Carbonate minerals, 380 Cave(s), 214, 373 dwellings, 156 157 minerals, 380 sediments, 380 and sinkhole management, 364b, 365f

439

440

Index

Caves geoheritage evaluation in South Korea, 373 374 Cultural Heritage Production Act, 383 384 establishment of evaluation criteria, 378 381, 379t evaluation procedure and results, 381 383 cave description, 383f cave location map, 382f evaluation form, 384f geoheritage value, 384 385 legal protection of natural caves in Korea, 375 377 natural caves in South Korea, 374 375 CBD. See Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Central values, 91 92 Cerro Rico, 168 170 cGAP. See Company GAP (cGAP) Character, 198 ‘Characteristic times’, 421 Cheshire East local plan, extract of, 61b Cheshire region LGAP (CrLGAP), 56, 57t cover of new, 60f original, 58f partner sheet for inclusion in, 59f reduced and flexible objectives and actions, 58t Cheshire RIGS group, 56 CI. See Conservation International (CI) CICES. See Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) Cinque Terre World Heritage site, 157 CITES. See Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Civil society, mainstreaming geoconservation into, 221 224, 222t Climate change, 216 glacial melting, 94 Kvarken and High Coast, 247 248 Climbing, 209 ‘Coal measures’ Flora, 119 120 Coast, conservation of geosite on, 204 205 Coastal protection schemes, 202 203 Codes of Conduct, 119 Coffea arabica. See Coffee (Coffea arabica) Coffee (Coffea arabica), 339 Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), 16 Company GAP (cGAP), 54, 61 62 Composite slabs, 141 142 Condensation-corrosion process, 380 CONDEPHAAT. See Council of Defense of Historical, Archaeological, Artistic and Touristic Heritage of the State of Sa˜o Paulo (CONDEPHAAT) Conflict diamonds, 138 139

Conservation frameworks application, 199 204 risk of degradation conservation framework, 203 204 Site Type conservation framework applied in Great Britain, 200 203 Generic Geosite Conservation Framework, 196 199 Conservation International (CI), 220 221 Conservation management, 393 396. See also Geoconservation of geosite in operating and disused quarries, 206 of geosite on coast, 204 205 huge petrified stumps, 395f in situ petrified tree stumps, 394 396 of inland geosites containing sensitive and fragile fossils, 206 207 of inland integrity geosite, 207 209 manager, 111 112 of museum collections, 393 394 in practice, 204 209 Conserve geosites, 194 195 Convention Concerning Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 237 238 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 217 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 138 139 Core Protection Areas, 309 Costanaza Logros´an mine, 172 Council of Defense of Historical, Archaeological, Artistic and Touristic Heritage of the State of Sa˜o Paulo (CONDEPHAAT), 411 Crato Member, 20 21 CrLGAP. See Cheshire region LGAP (CrLGAP) Croda da Lago, 92 Croft Quarry, 62 Crowdsourcing, 296 Crystalline rocks, 155 156 Cultural landscape, 237 238 geoheritage and culture, 155 160 geocultural heritage, 159 160 influence of culture on perception of geoheritage, 157 159 influence of geology on cultural assets, 155 157 geology, 153 154 influence on cultural assets, 155 157 geomorphology, 154 heritage, 222 itinerary, 159 landscape, 237 238 services, 16 sites, 341 350, 346t, 351f study of relationships between culture and geology, 153f value of geoheritage, 152 160, 156f

Index

Cultural Heritage Production Act, 383 384 Cultural Heritage Protection Act, 375, 376t, 378t Cutting-edge geovisualisation, 291

D Data reliability and longevity, 290 Data Stage Operators (DSOs), 28 Data Transformation Operators (DTOs), 28 De˛BNICA catchment, 41 46, 44f, 45f Degradation conservation framework applied risk in La Rioja, northern Spain, 203 204, 203f Degradation risk, 79 81 DEMs. See Digital elevation models (DEMs) Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment (DPIPWE), 357, 359, 367 368 Descriptive-documentary methods, 33 Devonian System, 181 182 Didactic potential, 76, 420 Digital data, 30, 289 290, 296 Digital elevation models (DEMs), 32 Digital geoheritage visualization. See also Geoheritage ‘sense of place’ of virtual geoheritage, 298 development perspectives, 296 298 digital technologies and geovisualisation, 297 298 interactivity, 297, 297t open data and crowdsourcing, 296 Digital geovisualisation technologies geoheritage, 289 290 to virtual models, 290f for geotourism and geointerpretation, 294 296 for risk assessment and site monitoring, 291 293 Digital tools, 87, 285, 289 Digital-summation technique of algebra map, 39 Dimension of caves, 379 Direct methods, 32 ‘Direct resource extraction’, 352 353 Disturbance mitigation, 391 Dolomites, 92 DPIPWE. See Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment (DPIPWE) DSOs. See Data Stage Operators (DSOs) DTOs. See Data Transformation Operators (DTOs) ‘Duria Antiquior’, 281

E Earth science(s), 132, 136, 149 151 collections, 131 feature, 19 ontological applications to, 29 themes, 243 244, 243t Earth’s surface, 28, 69, 74 Economic sustainability, 167

441

Ecosystem approach, 217, 226 227 services, 15 16, 217, 226 Ecuador, 173 Ecuadorian rural communities, 173 Education, 112, 168 173, 204, 222 Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, 397 399 and interpretation of geoheritage in geoparks, 331 332 EGN. See European Geoparks Network (EGN) EIA. See Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) El biotopo del flysch, 188 El Chorro de los Navalucillos waterfall at, 421f waterfall national park geosite, 420, 428 El Chorro stream waterfall, 421 423, 427f Elgin marbles from Parthenon, 139, 139f Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), 209, 226, 256 259 flow-chart, 258f integration of geoheritage, 259 262 Environmental indicators, 258 Eocene, 398, 400 ecosystem, 396 Florissant Formation, 388 Eragrostis tef. See Teff (Eragrostis tef) Erosion, 137, 390 Erratic blocks, 214 boulders, 94 97 Estena River, 419, 421 423 Ethiopia, 339, 341 geoheritage promotion and conservation challenges, 352 353 geoheritage sites in, 341 351, 342t, 346t selected examples of cultural sites, 351f selected examples of geosites, 350f simplified geological and geomorphological setting, 340f, 341 Ethiopian Rift System, 341 EU Birds Directive (1979), 219 European Association for Conservation of Geological Heritage (ProGEO), 436 European countryside, 149 European Geoparks Network (EGN), 323 324 European Union (EU), 217 level, 436 nature conservation policy, 436, 438 Evaluation criteria, establishment of, 378 381, 379t ‘Evolving passive geomorphosites’, 94 97 Ex situ geodiversity elements, 73 74, 73f Ex situ geoheritage protection, 141 142 Ex situ palaeontological heritage. See Moveable geological heritage Exhibitions, 131, 136 Expert system methods, 33 Exposure sites, 114

442

Index

Extensive geosites, 200 201 Extensive sites, 200 202 Extractable resources, 251 252 Extrinsic degradation, 203 204

F Factor maps, 38, 41, 42t Finite geosites, 202 Finite sites, 200 202 Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, 387, 388f aspirations and challenges in achieving geopark designation, 401 402 assessment of palaeontological assets, 390 392 ‘Big Stump’, 392f inventory and monitoring of palaeontological sites, 390 391 survey of collections and publications, 391 392 conservation management, 393 396 Eocene Florissant Formation, 388 fossil plants, insects, and fish, 389f human impacts, 400 401 interpretation and education, 397 399 interpretive trails, 389f palaeontology collection, 393f practical functionality, 399 400 research and visitor centre, 398f for protection, 388 scientific research and management, 396 397 Flowstone, 380 Fluvial ridges, 94 97 Flysch, the whisper of the Rocks, 188 Flysch Algorri-Mendata, 188 Forest Practices Act (1985), 362 Forest Practices Authority (FPA), 362 Forest Practices Code, 362 363, 367 Forest Practices Officers (FPOs), 362 Forest Practices Plan, 364 Forest Practices Unit (FPU), 362 Forests, care of geodiversity in, 363 366 Fossil(s), 312 313 abundance, 391 army for, 140b commodity, 110 conservation, 112 114, 394 conservation manager, 111 112 in folklore and culture, 107 108 fossil-rich cuttings, 118 119 geotouristic attraction in La Rioja, Spain, 113f Parks, 119 120 Rock Hound, 110 and science, 108 110

scientific collecting in action members of Oxfordian Working Group, 109f FPA. See Forest Practices Authority (FPA) FPOs. See Forest Practices Officers (FPOs) FPU. See Forest Practices Unit (FPU) Fragility, 79 80, 198 199 mitigation, 391 and vulnerability of geosites, 328f France, 124, 142 144 Freeze-thaw cycles, 203 204, 206 207 processes, 198 French Natural History National Museum, 129

G GAP. See Geodiversity Action Plan (GAP) GCR. See Geological Conservation Review (GCR) Gea Norvegica Global Geopark, 18 19 Generic Geosite Conservation Framework, 196 199, 204 conservation needs analysis, 196 199 conservation planning and delivery, 199 geosite audit and selection, 196 Geo-coding systems, 33 Geoconservation, 352 353, 417 418. See also Conservation management in Antarctica, 22 in Brazil, 406 building future, 437 440 challenges for research, 439 440 international stage, 438 local stage, 439 national stage, 438 439 geodiversity as backbone of, 18 20 International Geoconservation Site Networks, 18 19 National geoheritage site selection, 19 20 geoheritage and, 435 message across keeping geoheritage safe, 273 274 present situation international stage, 435 436 local stage, 437 national stage, 437 on reserved land, 358 361 in Tasmanian forestry care of geodiversity in forests, 363 366 development of geoconservation awareness, 361 363 Geocultural heritage, 159 160 Geocultural site, 153 Geodiversity, 13, 224, 309, 355, 358 abiotic goods and services, 17f Arizona’s stone plaque, 21, 21f assessment methods, 27, 29 30 criteria used for, 30, 31t systematics, 33f, 34t

Index

workflow of general research on, 40f as backbone geoconservation, 18 20 geoheritage, 14 15 valuing abiotic nature, 15 17 care in forests, 363 366 of construction materials, 23 elements, 69 74, 70t, 71t high value of, 74 77 variety of, 76 examples, 20 23 indexing, 27 28, 37, 41 mapping, 30 31 maps, 41 modified McKelvey Box, 14f site, 73 74, 73f typologies of methods, 32 46 criteria for assessment of geodiversity values, 42t De˛BNICA catchment, 41 46, 44f, 45f direct and indirect methods, 32 qualitative methods, 32 36 qualitative-quantitative methods, 39 41 quantitative methods, 36 38 Geodiversity Action Plan (GAP), 53 55 case studies, 56 63 cGAPs, 61 62 LGAP production and reflection, 56 60 UKGAP, 62 63, 63t Urban GAP, 61 producing, 55 56 Geographical focus, 306 Geographical information systems (GISs), 28, 256 Geographical tourism, 305 306 GeoGuide, collection of mobile applications, 294 296 Geoheritage, 13, 15, 69, 194, 213, 269, 305, 352 353, 358. See also Digital geoheritage visualization; Geomining heritage analysis of impacts on, 253 256 appreciation societies, 222 223 Arouca UNESCO Global Geopark, 286 assessment, 77 81, 219 221 building future, 437 440 challenges for research, 439 440 international stage, 438 local stage, 439 national stage, 438 439 in Caban˜eros National Park, 418 420 El Chorro de los Navalucillos waterfall national park geosite, 420 Ordovician trace fossils of giant worms national park geosite, 419 communication, 267 conceptual relations, 72f critical relationship with geotourism and, 317

443

development, 213 219 landscapes, 215 216 linking nature and people, 217 219 origins and early steps, 214, 215f sites, 216 dumbing down, 273 dynamic earth site Yellowstone, 246 environmental policies, 213 evaluation, 278 280 of caves in South Korea, 373 374 Cultural Heritage Production Act, 383 384 establishment of evaluation criteria, 378 381, 379t evaluation procedure and results, 381 383 geoheritage value, 384 385 legal protection of natural caves in Korea, 375 377 natural caves in South Korea, 374 375 evidence of climate change Kvarken and High Coast, 247 248 features of, 289 future directions in, 221 228 integrating in protected area planning and management, 227 228 mainstreaming into civil society, 221 224 mainstreaming into nature conservation, 226 227 scientific basis for, 224 225 and geoconservation, 435 geoconservation message across keeping geoheritage safe, 273 274 geodiversity as backbone, 14 15 elements, 69 74, 70t, 71t geoheritage on World Heritage list, 239 244 geomorphological site South China Karst, 246 247 guided walks, 281 282 high value of geodiversity elements, 74 77 humans, 277 278 integration of geoheritage in EIA procedures, 259 262 interaction, 273 interpretation, 269 270 intersection with geotourism and, 307 keeping interpretation safe, 275 276 keeping normal people safe, 274 275 land art and ecovandalism, 284 landscape and, 148 Langkawi UNESCO Global Geopark, 277 leaflets, 280 281 management in geoparks, 327 332 characterisation of geoheritage, 327 conservation of geoheritage, 328 331 education and interpretation of geoheritage, 331 332 normal people knowledge, 268 269 Odsherred UNESCO Global Geopark, 285 palaeontological site Messel pit, 245 present situation

444

Index

Geoheritage (Continued) international stage, 435 436 local stage, 437 national stage, 437 producing interpretation strategy, 271 reconstructions, 281 relationships with geotourism and, 307 309 examples, 309 316 fossils, 312 313 geotourism and geoparks, 309 310 relationship between geoheritage and tourism from soils and regolith perspective, 310 312, 312f tourism in large areas or landscapes, 315 316 volcanic rocks and landforms, 313 315 as resource, 251 253 ‘Fungo’ of Secchia River, 254f georesource using as aggregate, 252f human elements and activities, 255f sequential tasks, 74t sites, 339 351 stages of geoheritage management, 290 streakers, 280 structural geology site Tectonic Arena of Sardona, 246 themes, 271 time lines, geological gardens, rocky maps and walls and stratigraphic sections, 283 284 in UNESCO global geoparks, 325 327, 325t visitor centres and museums, 282 283 words, 271 273 World Heritage, 237 239 Geoindicators physical weathering, 425 river floods, 425 waterfall discharge, 425 Geointerpretation collection of mobile applications GeoGuide, 294 296 3D model for prehistoric cave replicas, 294, 295f visualisation for, 294 296 Geo-landscapes, 306 307 Geologic time scale, 179 Geological collections, 131 134 importance of collections for research, 132 133 information and collections, 133 microfossils used for dating cuttings, 134f new technologies and old objects, 133 134 value for, 135 136 conservation, 218 elements, 76 focus, 306 frameworks, 75 76 gardens section, 283 284 hazards, 157 monuments, 355

resource nature, 114 115, 251 253 sites, 256 walls, 283 284 Geological Conservation Review (GCR), 19, 216 Geological Society of Australia, 308 Geologists, 268, 274, 283 Geology-based form of tourism, 306 Geomining heritage, 168. See also Geoheritage impacts of use, 173 mining routes, 172t rehabilitated mines as new resource, 168 173 UNESCO Global Geoparks with, 171t UNESCO’s World Cultural Heritage Sites, 169t Geomorphic legacy of Pleistocene glaciations, 244 Geomorphological/geomorphology, 239 240 conservation, 218 features, 194 heritage, 88 93, 100 101 relationship between man and nature in, 90f specificities of, 87 landscape, 306 307 manual, 363 processes, 215 216 Geomorphosites, 72, 87 93, 194 active, 94, 95f in different spatial scales, 97f inactive, 96f peculiar characteristics, 94 99 selective erosional landforms on paraglacial deposits, 98f South China Karst, 246 247 Geomunoreum Lava Tube System, 375 Geopark(s), 186 188, 277, 285 286, 352 353 dawn of innovative concept, 323 325 via Hong Kong Geoheritage, 309 310 management of geoheritage, 327 332 characterisation, 327 conservation, 328 331 education and interpretation, 331 332 GEOPiemonteMap, 29 Geoscientific community, 323 Geosite(s), 72 73, 73f, 222, 223f, 259, 308 character, 203 204 conservation, 193 conservation and management in practice, 204 209 conservation frameworks, 196 204 conserve geosites, 194 195 principles of, 195 196 impact, 256, 259 260 inventory, 193 management guidelines for, 426 428 plans, 193 quality, 259 selected examples of, 350f

Index

Geosystem services, 69 70 Geotectonic cycle, 405 Geotope, 72 Geotourism, 71, 168 173, 204, 224, 286, 305 307, 330 331 critical relationship with geoheritage and, 317 education and, 331 intersection with geoheritage and, 307 relationships with geoheritage and, 307 309 examples, 309 316 fossils, 312 313 geotourism and geoparks, 309 310 relationship between geoheritage and tourism from soils and regolith perspective, 310 312, 312f tourism in large areas or landscapes, 315 316 volcanic rocks and landforms, 313 315 and sustainable development, 352 visualisation for, 294 296 3D model for prehistoric cave replicas, 294, 295f collection of mobile applications GeoGuide, 294 296 GEOvisual project initiated by Magma UNESCO Global Geopark, 298 Geovisualisation, 297 298 GGN. See Global Geoparks Network (GGN) Gigapixel panoramic photographs, 291 292 Silverlight page of project, 291 GILGES. See Global Indicative List of Geological Sites (GILGES) GISs. See Geographical information systems (GISs) Glacial geomorphosites, 94 Glaciers, 244 fluctuations, 160 rock, 158 GlacierWorks project, 291 292 Global chronostratigraphic unit, 179 Global geoheritage convention, 219 Global Geoparks Network (GGN), 224, 323 324, 435 Global Geosites Project, 436 Global Indicative List of Geological Sites (GILGES), 323, 436 Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP), 179 180, 225 ICS, 180 182 International chronostratigraphic chart, 180 182 marker plaque for, 181f preservation and maintenance of, 182 184 proposal, 180 181 at Zumaia, Basque Coast Unesco Global Geopark, 184 188 Gold Belt, 402 Gold Belt Tour National Scenic Byway, 401 Golden Spike, 180 181, 182f Goods and services, 15 16, 36 Goseong dinosaur site, 313 Gosselet, Jules, 129, 130f

445

Graffiti, 314 Granite, 241 landscapes on World Heritage List, 245t terrains, 244, 244f Gravitational erosion, 206 207 Great Britain, 199 200 site type conservation framework applied in, 200 203 SSSI, 216 ‘Greenest’ construction method, 275 GSSP. See Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) Guanajuato, 171

H H&S training. See Health and safety training (H&S training) Habitats Directive (1992), 219 Hazards, 274 at geoheritage sites, 274 geological, 157 geomorphological, 100 101 natural, 16 Health and safety training (H&S training), 204, 274 Henty Road east west dunes, 366b, 366f Heritage, 13, 88, 88f heritage-making process, 147, 308 revelation, 158 Heritage geomorphology, 100 101. See also Geomorphological heritage Hettangian mudrocks, Illegal strip-mining of, 110, 111f High value of geodiversity elements, 74 77 Holistic management, 202 Hong Kong Geoheritage, geotourism and geoparks via, 309 310 Hoodoos, 194 Human(s), 276f, 277 278 development, 183 impacts, 400 401 ‘Hypothetical Geodiversity’ subbox, 15

I IAG. See International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG) IAIA. See International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) ICOM. See International Council of Museums (ICOM) ICS. See International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) Identified Geodiversity, 15 Idrija mine, 170 IGHP. See Irish Geological Heritage Programme (IGHP) IGU. See International Geographical Union (IGU) Immaterial heritage, 147 Imperial topaz, 170 In situ petrified tree stumps, conservation of, 394 396 Inactive geomorphosites, 94 97, 96f

446

Index

Indicators, 37 38 Indices, 36 38 Indirect methods, 32 Information boards, 267, 269, 283 Infrastructure development projects, 352 353 Inland geosites conservation containing sensitive and fragile fossils, 206 207, 208f Inland integrity geosite conservation, 207 209 Integrated Protection Areas, 310 Integrity, 76, 410 scientific, 273 sites, 114, 200 202 Interactivity, 297, 297t Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 158 International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), 257 International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG), 87, 239, 436 International chronostratigraphic chart, 180 182 International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), 179 182 International Council of Museums (ICOM), 136 International Geoconservation Site Networks, 18 19 International Geographical Union (IGU), 436 International Programme on Geoscience and Geoparks, 435 International stage in geoconservation, 435 436, 438 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 13, 125, 216, 239, 435 436 International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), 116, 125, 180, 225, 239, 436 Interpretation, 269 270, 270f Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, 397 399 keeping interpretation safe, 272f, 275 276 producing interpretation strategy, 271 Interpretative potential, 77 Interpretive Centers, 283 Interwoven human traces, 149 Intrinsic degradation, 203 204 Inventory and monitoring of palaeontological sites, 390 391 IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Irish Geological Heritage Programme (IGHP), 19 Itu town, 407, 407f, 410 412 Itu Varvite, 408, 410 411 IUCN. See International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) IUGS. See International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) Iwami Ginzan mine, 171

J Jeju Island, 375, 376t Jurassic Coast World Heritage site, Dorset, UK, 204 205

K Kamchatka, 3D models of Valley of Geysers in, 292 293, 293f Knowledge services, 16 Kvarken archipelago, 247 248

L La Rioja, Northern Spain, 203 204, 203f, 206 207 La Risca Gorge, Segovia, Central Spain, 207 209, 208f Lalibela rock-hewn churches, 350 Land art and ecovandalism, 284 Land management in Tasmania geoconservation, 355 357 on reserved land, 358 361 in Tasmanian forestry, 361 366 geodiversity, 355, 358 location of Tasmania and Macquarie Island, 356f natural geomorphic processes, 357 Tasmanian geoconservation database, 367 368 Landforms, 94, 97, 313 315 Landscape, 87, 92, 94, 147 149, 215 216 aesthetics question, 151 152 drawings, 151 and geoheritage, 148 marble, 148 metrics, 37 38 tourism in, 315 316 value of geoheritage, 147 152, 150f ‘Landschaft’, 148 Landschaftskunde, 149 Langkawi UNESCO Global Geopark, 277 Late Paleozoic Ice Age, 406, 410 Legal framework, 137 144 acquisition, 137 141 ex situ geoheritage protection, 141 142 France, South Africa and Turkey, 142 144 Legal measures, 121 124 LGAPs. See Local Geodiversity Action Plans (LGAPs) LGS. See Local Geological Sites (LGS) Limestone, 155 156 caves, 373, 380 381, 383 slabs in Palaeozoic orthocone nautiloids, 141, 141f LIPs. See Local Information Points (LIPs) Local Geodiversity Action Plans (LGAPs), 54 production and reflection, 56 60 Local Geological Sites (LGS), 53 Local Information Points (LIPs), 282 London GAP, 61 Loss mitigation, 391 Lower Gordon River, 360b, 360f Luochuan Loess National Geopark on Chinese Loess Plateau, 315 316 Lyme Regis to Charmouth coastline, 204 205, 205f

Index

M MAB. See Man and Biosphere Programme (MAB) Macquarie Island, 359, 359f Madonie Declaration, 323 324 Magnitude of impacts, 261 Main Ethiopian Rift, 339 Malta, 159 Man and Biosphere Programme (MAB), 323 Manglaralto Coastal Aquifer, 173 Map algebra, 38 Mapping geomorphosites, 101 techniques, 27 28 Marina construction, 202 203 Marine environment, 219, 225 Marine Geodiversity and Geoheritage, Scotland, 22 Matterhorn, 90 91, 91f Mauritius, tourism site in, 310 311, 311f MDGs. See UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) MEA. See Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) Mesozoic Era, 341 Methodological knowledge, 27 28 Micraster, 142, 143f Microfossils, 380 Microorganisms, 373 Microtopographic features, 380 Mid Paleocene Biotic Event (MPBE), 185 Middle Jurassic Oxford Clay, 206 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 16, 217 Mine closure, 167 168, 169f Mining heritage, 168 routes, 172, 172t Mixed landscape, 237 238 Modified McKelvey Box, 14, 14f Mont-Saint-Michel Bay, tidal flat in, 241 Monte Cervino. See Matterhorn Mosasaurus of Maastricht, 139, 140b Mount Granier, 97 99, 99f Movable Natural Values. See Moveable geological heritage Moveable geological heritage, 114 MPBE. See Mid Paleocene Biotic Event (MPBE) Murc¸o´s mines, 172 Museum, 129, 134, 137, 282 283 collections and, 136 137 uses of collections in, 130 131 Museum collections, conservation of, 393 394 ´ Museum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, 136, 137f

N National Geographic Society, 305 306 National geoheritage site selection, 19 20 National Geological Natural Reserve (NGNR), 315

447

National Parks and Access to Countryside Act, 216 National Reserves, 124 National Science Foundation (NSF), 268 National stage, 437 439 Natural landscape, 237 238 Natural diversity, 218 219 Natural geomorphic processes, 357 Natural hazards, 253 Natural heritage, 112, 153 154, 218 219 Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs), 19 Natural History Museum (NHM), 110 Natural landscape, 149 ‘Natural monument’ concept, 151 Natural processes, 198 199, 253 Natural resources, 167 Natural scenery beauty, 94 Natural sciences, 108 109 Natural stones, 155 156 ‘Naturdenkmal’ concept, 151 Nature Conservancy and Birdlife International for biodiversity conservation, 220 221 Nature Conservancy Council (NCC), 114 Nature conservation, mainstreaming geoheritage conservation into, 226 227, 227t Nature Conservation Act (2002), 368 Nature Diversity Act (Norway), 217 218 NCC. See Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) NGNR. See National Geological Natural Reserve (NGNR) NHAs. See Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) NHM. See Natural History Museum (NHM) Nonextractable resources, 251 252 NPS. See US National Park Service (NPS) NSF. See National Science Foundation (NSF)

O Odsherred UNESCO Global Geopark, 285 Oki Island UNESCO Global Geopark, 277 Open data, 296 Operator State model, 28 Optimal Stimulated Luminescence, 380 Oral traditions, 155 Ordovician trace fossils of giant worms national park geosite, 419 OSPAR Convention (1992), 219 Ouro Preto, 170 Outstanding universal value (OUV), 237, 242f, 323 Oxford Clay, 206

P Palaeomagnetism, 380 Palaeontological/palaeontology, 239 240 asset assessment, 390 392 Big Stump, 392f

448

Index

Palaeontological/palaeontology (Continued) inventory and monitoring of palaeontological sites, 390 391 survey of collections and publications, 391 392 legal approaches to palaeontological heritage contribution of amateur to geosciences, 123f international initiatives, 124 125 legal measures, 121 124 mixed messages on Jurassic Coast ‘World Heritage’ site, 122f managing sites of palaeontological importance collected fossil, 115f educational fossil-collecting at Writhlington Geological Reserve, 121f geological resource nature, 114 115 ‘rescue collecting’ of Lower Jurassic insects, 118f scientific resource nature, 116 117 threats to resource and management solutions, 117 121 Messel pit, 245 practical functionality of palaeontology programme, 399 400 Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 184 185 Paleontological Resources Preservation Act, 388 Paleozoic Era, 341 PAMCs. See Protected Area Management Categories (PAMCs) Paran´a Basin, 407, 410 411 Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS), 355 357 Partnership, 54, 56 57 Pedodiversity, 310 PETM. See Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) Petrified trees, 390, 400 Physical weathering, 420 421, 425 Place names, 155 Point bonitation method. See Score evaluation method Points of geological interest (POGIs), 168 Potosi city, 170 171 Prehistoric cave replicas, 3D model for, 294, 295f Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple, 92, 93f ProGEO. See European Association for Conservation of Geological Heritage (ProGEO) Protected Area Management Categories (PAMCs), 227 228 Protected Deba-Zumaia Coastal Biotope, 185 Provisioning services, 16 PWS. See Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS)

Q Qualitative methods, 32 36 Qualitative-quantitative methods, 39 41 Quantitative assessment, 77, 78t, 79t, 80t, 81t Quantitative methods, 36 38, 77 78 indices, 36 38 map algebra, 38 Quarry GAPs, 55

R R2G. See Recommended Geopark Guides (R2G) Rarity, 76 Recommended Geopark Guides (R2G), 310 Recreation, 112 113, 330 331 Reference material, 131 Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites (RIGS), 53, 222 223 Regolith perspective, 310 312, 312f Regulating services, 16 Rehabilitated mines as new resource, 168 173 Rehabilitation of mining areas, 168 Relative humidity (RH), 390 Representativeness, 76 Reserved land, geoconservation on, 358 361 RH. See Relative humidity (RH) RIGS. See Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites (RIGS) Rio Convention, 138 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 17, 257 Risk assessment, visualisation for, 291 293 Gigapan of Yosemite Valley wall faces for rock falls, 292f high-resolution imaging in Yosemite national park, 291 292 3D models of Valley of Geysers in Kamchatka, 292 293, 293f River flooding, 421, 425 Rochechouart impactite, 132 133, 132f Rocher du Chaˆteau, 92, 93f Rock falls, 291, 292f Rock Hound, 110 Rock outcrops, 154 155, 214, 313 Rock Park, 62 Rock-controlled landscapes, 244, 244f Rocky maps and walls section, 283 284 Rottnest Island, 306 ‘Rumi’, 173 RUMYS project, 173 Rural communities, 167 168 ‘Russian dolls’ geomorphosite, 98 99

S Safety, 76 77 SAIH. See Automatic Hydrologic Information System (SAIH) Saltscape Heritage Lottery Fund Landscape Partnership, 60 Sandstone, 155 156, 241, 244, 244f, 245t Sassi di Matera, 89, 156 157 Sasso Lungo Group, 92, 93f Scenery, 77, 79, 94 Scientific basis for geoheritage conservation, 224 225 Scientific knowledge, 76 Scientific research, 204, 436 and management, 396 397

Index

Scientific resource, nature of, 116 117 Score evaluation method, 38 Scottish Fossil Code, 119, 120f SEA. See Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Segonzano Pyramids, 97 Selandian Stage, 185 ‘Sense of place’ of virtual geoheritage, 298 Sensitivity, 198 199 to threat, 196 ‘Shaligramma’, 107 Sheringham Park, 306 Significance of impacts, 261 Single-digit code, 33 Sinkhole Guidelines, 363 364 ‘Sister park’ relationship, 400 Site access, 391 Site management, 275 Site monitoring, visualisation for, 291 293 Gigapan of Yosemite Valley wall faces for rock falls monitoring, 292f high-resolution imaging in Yosemite national park, 291 292 3D models of Valley of Geysers in Kamchatka, 292 293, 293f Site Type conservation framework applied in Great Britain, 200 203, 201t Sites, statutory protection, 216 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), 216 Soil conservation, 219 220 Soils, relationship between geoheritage and tourism from, 310 312, 312f Source of data, 32 South Africa, cultural heritage in, 142 144 South China Karst, 246 247, 247f South Korea Cultural Heritage Production Act, 383 384 establishment of evaluation criteria, 378 381, 379t evaluation procedure and results, 381 383 cave description, 383f cave location map, 382f evaluation form, 384f geoheritage value, 384 385 natural caves in, 374 375 legal protection, 375 377, 377t, 378t Spanish Geological Survey, 261 Spatial aggregation of values, 38 Special Protection Areas, 310 Speleothems, 379 380, 379t SSSIs. See Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Statistical modelling, 38 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), 226 Stratigraphic section, 183, 283 284 sites, 256 Stratotype sections, 180

449

Stream erosion, 203 204, 206 207 Structural geology site Tectonic Arena of Sardona, 246 Subjectivity, 260 Submersion in stagnant surface water, 203 204 Superlative natural phenomena, 239 240 Supporting services, 16 Sustainability, 168 173 Sustainable development, 168, 226 227, 327 Swiss Alps, 158 Sylvinite, 172 Symbolic fossils, 108 Systematic site inventory, 74t, 75 76

T Tasmania, land management in geoconservation, 355 357 on reserved land, 358 361 in Tasmanian forestry, 361 366 geodiversity, 355, 358 location of Tasmania and Macquarie Island, 356f natural geomorphic processes, 357 Tasmanian geoconservation database, 367 368 Tasmanian Geoconservation Database (TGD), 358, 367 368 Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA), 357 Tectonic processes, 246 TEEB. See The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Teff (Eragrostis tef), 339 Terras de Cavaleiros Global Geopark, Portugal, 23, 23f TGD. See Tasmanian Geoconservation Database (TGD) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), 16 Threat(s) to resource and management solutions, 117 121 and sensitivity, 196, 198 199 3D models for prehistoric cave replicas, 294, 295f of Valley of Geysers in Kamchatka, 292 293, 293f Three tier zoning system, 309 310 Time lines sections, 283 284 Toarcian ammonites, 107, 108f Toblerone chocolate, 90 91 Topographic Position Index (TPI), 39 40 Topographical Wetness Index (TWI), 39 Torrential flooding, 421 423 Touristic interest sites, 183 TPI. See Topographic Position Index (TPI) Transported regolith, 310 Tropical forest, 157 Turkey, cultural heritage in, 142 144 TWI. See Topographical Wetness Index (TWI) TWWHA. See Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) Tyrannosaurus, 138

450

Index

U UGGs. See UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGs) UK geodiversity action plan (UKGAP), 62 63, 63t Ultraviolet (UV), 271 damage, 275 radiation, 271 UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), 219 220 UN Sustainable Development goals, 226 227 UNESCO. See United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGs), 18 19, 218, 224 225, 324 325, 353 Unit stratotype, 180 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 237, 267, 435 Convention, 142 initiatives, 323 programme, 438 World Heritage, 290, 294 Urban GAP, 61 US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 401 US National Environmental Policy Act (1969), 257 US National Park Service (NPS), 20, 269, 284, 387 Use values, 91 92 UV. See Ultraviolet (UV)

V Valley of Geysers in Kamchatka, 3D models of, 292 293, 293f Values, geodiversity, 36 Varvite Park, 406 413. See also Caban˜eros National Park bird’s-eye view, 408f dropstone, 409f former mining faces of, 409f geological setting, 406 410 history and designation of geosite, 410 411 interpretive panels, 412f location of Itu town and city of Sa˜o Paulo, 407f management and public use, 411 413 scientific value, 410 VASOs. See Visualisation Abstraction Stage Operators (VASOs) Vegetation encroachment, 194 View Stage Operators (VSO), 28 Virtual geoheritage, ‘sense of place’ of, 298 Virtual heritage, 289 Virtual models, from geoheritage to, 290f Virtual reality (VR), 285 Visitor centres, 282 283 Visual Mapping Transformation Operators (VMTOs), 28 Visualisation Abstraction Stage Operators (VASOs), 28 Visualisation Transformation Operators (VTOs), 28 VMTOs. See Visual Mapping Transformation Operators (VMTOs) Volcanoes, 214, 244 volcanic caves, 373, 383

volcanic eruptions effects, 220 volcanic rocks, 313 315 Voulterion parvulus (V. parvulus), 133 134, 135f VR. See Virtual reality (VR) Vredefort Dome, 243 VSO. See View Stage Operators (VSO) VTOs. See Visualisation Transformation Operators (VTOs) Vulnerability, 79 80, 198 199

W Washington Convention. See Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Washington monument, Washington, DC, USA, 21 Water level in El Chorro stream, 427f in Estena River, 427f Waterfall(s), 94, 214 discharge, 425 El Chorro de los Navalucillos waterfall geosite, 428 national park geosite, 420, 421f WCPA. See World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Weathering processes, 157 WG. See Working Group (WG) Whittlesey Brick Pits and Kings Dyke Nature Reserve, Peterborough, UK, 206, 207f Wieliczka Salt Mine in Poland, 171 Wooden materials, 275 Working Group (WG), 87 World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), 218 219, 435 436 World Heritage, 237 239, 238t, 242f Convention, 219 geoheritage on World Heritage list criteria of inscription scope for protection of geoheritage, 239 240 earth science themes, 243 244 representation, 240 242, 240t, 241t, 242f Sites, 168 Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), 220 221

Y Yellowstone National Park (USA), 246 Yosemite National Park, high-resolution imaging in, 291 292

Z Zigong mines in China, 172 Zumaia, Basque Coast Unesco Global Geopark, GSSP at, 184 188 chronostratigraphic and geochronologic boundaries in, 183f geological context and description, 184 185 protected GSSPs in, 185 188