A method for «scientific» «additional values» of ...repository.supsi.ch/2160/1/Reynard_et_al_2007_Geographic...A method for assessing «scientific» and «additional values» of

148 Geographica Helvetica Jg. 62 2007/Heft3

A method for assessing «scientific» and «additional values» of geomorphosites

Emmanuel Reynard, Georgia Fontana, Lenka Kozlik,Cristian Scapozza, Lausanne

1 Introduction

During the last two decades, several attempts havebeen made to evaluate the quality of geomorpho¬logical heritage in various contexts, for example inenvironmental impact assessment (Rivas et al. 1997;Coratza & Giusti 2005), inventories of natural her¬

itage sites (Serrano & Gonzälez-Trueba 2005),tourist promotion (Pralong 2005) or management ofnature parks (Pereira et al. 2007). In order to reducesubjectivity (Bruschi & Cendrero 2005), numerousmore or less quantitative assessment methods havebeen developed (e.g. Grandgirard 1997; Coratza& Giusti 2005; Serrano & Gonzälez-Trueba 2005;Pereira et al. 2007). The various methods are basedon several assessment criteria - three of them arerecurrent, that is rarity, representativeness and integ-rity (Grandgirard 1999), and others, for example«ecological value», palaeogeographic importance,«educative value», etc., are dependent on the contextof the assessment and on the aims of the research.They also depend on the actual definition of geomor¬phological heritage.

Geomorphological heritage can refer to a collectionof sites of interest called geomorphologjcal sites orgeomorphosites (Panizza 2001). Different terms havebeen used in literature to refer to the individual compo¬nents that make up geomorphological heritage (Rey¬nard 2004), such as geomorphologjcal assets (Panizza& Piacente 1993), geomorphologjcal goods (Cartonet al. 1994), geomorphologjcal sites (Hooke 1994), geo¬morphological geotopes (Grandgirard 1997), sitesof geomorphologjcal interest (Rtvas et al. 1997), andfinally geomorphosites (Panizza 2001). In this paper,we use the term «geomorphosites» to refer to sites ofparticular interest in terms of geomorphological her¬

itage. Study of the literature shows that the variousterms cover a relatively broad spectrum of definitions(Reynard 2005a): for some scholars (e.g. Grandgirard1997), geomorphosites are sites of particular impor¬tance for the knowledge of Earth history and for thereconstruction of history of life, climate and Earth; forothers (e.g. Panizza & Piacente 1993; Panizza 2001),the importance of geomorphosites is not only relatedto their «scientific value» - that is their importance forknowledge of Earth history -, but also to other pos¬sible «ecologjcal», «economic» or «cultural values»(Panizza & Piacente 2003). The two definitions are

not exclusive and their use depends on the objectivesof the research (Reynard 2005a): for inventories ofsites to be protected, the more restrictive definition ofthe term should be used because the sites and areas tobe selected would need to be of particular importancefor the knowledge of Earth history; on the other hand,within the context of geotourism or integrated culturallandscape management, the broader definition may beused in order to facilitate the analysis of possible linksto other areas of culture or science.

The coexistence of different types of definitions andvarious terms for more or less the same coneept doesnot facilitate the development of assessment methods.Further, as Grandgirard (1999) points out, the choieeof the assessment method and criteria depends on theobjectives of the research. It depends also on whethera broad or narrow definition of geomorphosites hasbeen chosen. To contribute towards clarification of thedebate on value of sites, we propose here the use oftwo value sets (Reynard 2005a): a central set dealingwith «scientific value», and an additional set takingpossible other aspects into consideration («cultural»,«economic», «aesthetic» and «ecologjcal value»). Fol-lowing the description of the proposed assessmentmethod, the paper presents the results of its imple-mentation in two different areas in Switzerland.

2 The assessment method

2.1 Evaluation cardFollowing the approach proposed for geomorphologi¬cal mapping (Schoeneich 1993) fifteen years ago, theInstitute of Geography of the University of Lausanneagain aimed to develop an assessment method thatcould easily be applied by students. Consequently,length and complexity of procedure were factors thatplayed more of a role here than perhaps was the casefor other existing methods (Pralong 2005; Pereira etal. 2007).

The evaluation makes use of a card (Reynard 2006)divided into six parts, each with a number of sub-criteria(Tab. l).The actual assessment is dealt with in the thirdand fourth parts («central» and «additional values»),making use of both quantitative and qualitative meas-ures. «Quantitative values» are expressed in parts of 1,with 0 reflecting no value and 1 a very high value.

2.2 General dataPart One on the card deals with the collection of gen¬eral data, the nature of which is described in more

A method for assessing «scientific» and «additional values» of geomorphosites Emmanuel Reynard et al. 149

Parts and criteria Sub-criteria1 General data E.g. code, location, type,

property2 Descriptive data 2a Description

2b Morphogenesis3 Scientific value4 Additional values 4a Ecological value

4b Aesthetic value4c Cultural value4d Economic value

5 Synthesis 5 a Global value5b Educational value5 c Threats5d Management measures

6 References

Tab. 1: Parts of the evaluation and criteria used for theassessmentAbschnitte und Kriterien der BewertungDifferentes parties de l'evaluation et criteres utüises

detail in Tab. 2. The data is expressed in a numericalform (e.g. coordinates, altitudes, size) or by using a

code (e.g. identification, type, property). The identi-fication code is divided into three parts (region, pro-cess and number), each of which has three elements:e.g. VALglaOOl for a moraine (glacial form) assessed

within the inventory of geomorphosites of the Cantonof Valais. The characteristics concerning the propertyrights (private, association, public and common-prop-erty) are particularly important for the managementof sites (Reynard 2005b): sites located on privatelyowned terrains are generally more difficult to protect(or promote) than objects owned by the State or by cor-porations.The property data may be difficult to obtain.In fact, the geomorphosite's owner is not always iden-tical with the terrain owner, as is, for example, the casewith erratic boulders, many of which were acquiredby scientific associations in the 19th Century For largegeomorphosites, referred to here as «geomorphologi¬cal landscapes» (Reynard 2005a), the owners may benumerous and of different kinds. The use of numericaldata and codes is particularly interesting if the data-base is created in a Geographie Information System(GIS), because use can be made of spatial analysis (e.g.selection, Classification).

2.3 Descriptive dataPart Two on the card looks at descriptive data withdata collection concentrating on both description andmorphogenesis. The description is based on observa-tions made by the assessor during fieldwork, as well

as on document analyses (maps, air photographs) andbibliographical information (previous studies). Thedescription deals not only with geomorphologjcalfeatures, but also with features such as archaeologicalfindings, human infrastruetures, biotopes, etc. For themorphogenesis analysis, the emphasis is on the pro¬cesses responsible for the landform genesis and devel¬

opment, and can include temporal information (data-tion) and landform activity In a second phase, humantransformations - if existing - are also analysed.

2.4 «Scientific value»Part Three of the evaluation aims at assessing the «sci¬

entific value» of the site, based on the restrictive defi¬nition of geomorphosites proposed by Grandgirard(1995,1997,1999). The criteria used also reflect thosesuggested by Grandgirard (1999): rareness, repre-sentativeness, integrity and «palaeogeographic value».The terms are defined closer in Tab. 3. The last crite-rion, «palaeogeographic value», is included to encour-age greater context-sensitivity in analysis in terms ofEarth and climate history.

2.5 «Additional values»Part Four focuses on «additional values» to beassessed and can include one or more of the follow-ing categories: ecological impact, «aesthetic», «cul¬tural» and «economic value». The characteristics ofeach category are described in more detail in Tab. 4.

As a geomorphologist can not be expected to evalu-ate technical components covering a large spectrumof disciplines (biology, history, economy), this partof the evaluation builds on bibliographical data andsimple criteria. The aim is not to give an exhaustiveanalysis of the site in terms of economy, ecology, artsor history, but to highlight possible links that mayexist between geomorphology and other aspects ofnature or culture.

The «ecological impact criterion» (Ecl) takes intoaecount the importance of the geomorphosite for thedevelopment of a particular ecosystem or the pres¬ence of a particular fauna and Vegetation. A morainethat allows the presence of a marsh with orchids will,for example, be given a high score. Assessment deci-sions are made based on discussions in the existingliterature or directly with specialists. Concerningthe «protected site» criterion (PS), consideration istaken of sites that are already protected in a nationalinventory, or at cantonal or local level for ecologicalreasons (e.g. marshes, alluvial zones). Several Swissinventories of «natural values», e.g. marsh landscapes,proglacial margins, are moreover based on biologicaland geomorphological selection criteria. The «ecolo¬gical value» corresponds to the arithmetical mean ofthe «ecological impact» and «protected site» criteria:ECOL (Ecl + PS)/2.

150 Geographica Helvetica Jg. 62 2007/Heft3

Identification code Name PlaceCAPITAL LETTERS FOR THEREGION; letters for the process*',numerical code for the site. Eachcode has three characters (seetext).

Name of the landform or verysimplified description of thegeomorphosite (e.g. moraine,group of sinkholes, glacierforefield, meander)

As precise as possible(e.g. Le They, Finhaut, VS)

Coordinates Minimum altitude Maximum altitudeSwiss national System or othernational Systems

TypePCT: punctiform (e.g. sinkhole)LIN: linear (e.g. river)AER: areal (e.g. glacier forefield)

Size

Punctiform: no indication or width[m] (e.g. sinkhole) or volume [m3]

(e.g. erratic boulder)Linear: length [m]Areal: surface [m2]

PropertyProperty of the terrain or theobject:PRI: privateASS: associationPUB: publicCOM: common

Map Pictures SchemesScale: 1:25'000 or LIO'OOO, withprecise localisation or perimeter

Good quality, 300 dpi e.g. diagram, simplified map,paleogeographic sketch

Tab. 2: General data. *'> Codes used for the processes are the following: STR=structural landforms, FLU=fluvial,KAR=karstic, GLA=glatial, PER=periglacial, ORG=organic, EOL=aeolian, LIT=coastal, ANT=anthropic.Allgemeine Informationen. *> Die verschiedenen Codes stehen für folgende Prozesse: STR=Strukturformen,FLU=fluvial, KAR=karstmorphologisch, GLA=glazial, PER=periglazial, ORG=organisch, EOL= aohsch, LIT=Moral, ANT=anthropogen.Donnees generales. *> Les codes concernant les processus sont les suivants: STR=formes structurales,FLU=fluvial, KAR=karstique, GLA=glaciaire, PER=penglaciaire, ORG=organique, EOL=eolien, LIT=littoral,ANT=anthropique.

The assessment of the «aesthetic value» is very subjec-tive. Use is made here of two simple criteria: VP (viewpoints) and STR (structure). The first one takes intoaecount the visibility of a site. A site covered by a forestor very difficult to access would, in this case, have a

lower score than a site visible from several viewpoints.The second criterion takes into aecount research intolandscape pereeption (see for example Grandgirard(1997) or Droz & Mievtlle-Ott (2005) for a review),which indicates that contrasting landscapes, land¬

scapes with a vertical development or landscapes withindividual elements that gjve that space structure aregenerally considered the nicest. Consequently, siteswith colour contrasts (e.g. contrasts due to lithologicalchanges), with high vertical development (e.g. peaks) orwith spatial struetures (e.g. morainic arcuate ridge thatcloses a Valley, braided rivers) will reeeive a higher scorethan monotone reliefs (e.g. alluvial piain, large plateau).The «aesthetic value» corresponds to the arithmeticalmean of the two criteria: AEST (VP + STR)/2.

The «cultural value» criterion is more heterogene-ous in character. It is made up of four independent

sub-criteria: religious importance, historical impor¬tance, artistic or literary importance and geohistoricalimportance. The sub-criterion «religious importance»concerns sites that have a «religious», «mythological»or «mystic value». Numerous erratic boulders have, forexample, been used as religious or mystic sites in thepast (Lugon et al.). «Historical importance» Covershistory in a broad sense, thereby including archaeol-ogy, prehistory and history, and takes into aecountthe presence of vestiges. Further, the criterion doesnot only note the role of an object in political history(e.g. the presence of Castles on glacial locks), but alsotakes into consideration possible roles in tourism (e.g.waterfalls in Switzerland that were tourist attractionsin the 18th Century) or science history (e.g. the PierreBergere erratic boulder in Salvan, Valais, was used byGuglielmo Marconi for the first wireless experimentsin the world - see Reynard et al.). The «artistic andliterary importance» concerns the presence of the sitein artistic realisations (e.g. paintings, sculptures) and inbooks and poems. Finally, «geohistorical importance»is related to the role of particular sites in the develop¬ment of geosciences (Lugon & Reynard 2003). Expe-

A method for assessing «scientific» and «additional values» of geomorphosites Emmanuel Reynard et al. 151

Criterion Evaluation

Integrity State of conservation of thesite. Bad conservation may bedue to natural factors (e.g.erosion) or human factors.

Representativeness Concerns the site'sexemplarity.Used with respect to areference space (e.g. region,commune, country). All theselected sites should cover themain processes, active or relict,in the study area.

Rareness Concerns the rarity of the sitewith respect to a referencespace (e.g. region, commune,country).The criterion serves to identifyexceptional landforms in anarea.

Paleogeographicalvalue

Importance of the site forEarth or climate history (e.g.reference site for a glacialstage).

Tab. 3: Criteria used for the assessment of «scientificvalue»Kriterien zur Ermittlung des WissenschaftlichenWertesCriteres utilises dans l'evaluation de la valeur scienti-

flque

values»). Thus, for the quantitative summary, theresults from the scientific assessment and the mean ofthe results from the «additional values» are presented.The results are not combined in order to underline thedifferent qualities of the two value sets. Further, asthe number of «additional values» assessed may varydepending on the context (see the Trient case studybelow), greater transparency of results is ensured bykeeping the scores separate. For the qualitative sum¬

mary, the «global value» of the site is also described inwords. The description is restricted to one sentence.

In the second section, the importance of the site foreducational purposes is also formulated in a sentence.Thus, for example, a geomorphosite with a high «edu¬cational value» may be a place where the landformsare particularly visible in the landscape or where the

processes are particularly active.

The endangerment level of a particular site isaccounted for in section three. As far as possible, allhuman and natural threats, both existing and potential,are listed. It is possible, for example, that a geomor¬phosite may be disturbed, and even destroyed, by bothhuman impacts and natural processes (Reynard 2004).Human impacts may involve infrastructure, buildings,urbanisation, territorial planning, agriculture, forestry,tourism and vandalism. Natural impacts could includeprocesses linked to climate change (destruction ofa cryospheric geomorphosite), biological processes(weathering), geomorphologjcal and geological pro¬cesses or hydrologjcal phenomena.

rience has shown that geomorphosites generally haveonly one or two of these «cultural sub-values». Forthis reason, the quantification process is differenthere with the highest score obtained in one of the foursub-criteria rather than the average being taken intoaecount.

The «economic value» is obtained by a qualitative -and, if possible, quantitative - assessment (e.g. numberof visitors, benefits) of the produets generated by thegeomorphosite. Only the income actually produced bythe presence of the geomorphosite is evaluated (e.g.number of entrances in a tourist site), and not poten¬tial income or indirect income (e.g. the presence of a

hotel in the surroundings of a tourist cave).

2.6 SynthesisPart Five of the card is divided into four sections (Tab.5). The first section deals with «global value» and is

essentially a quantitative and qualitative summaryof the two previous parts («central» and «additional

Value Criteria

Ecological a. ecological impact (Ecl)value (ECOL) b. protected site (PS)

Aesthetic value a. view points (VP)(AEST) b. contrasts, vertical

development and spacestrueturation (STR)

Cultural value a. religious importance (REL)(CULT) b. historical importance (HIS)

c. artistic and literatureimportance (ART)d. geohistorical importance(GEO)

Economic economic produets (ECO)value (ECON)

Tab. 4: «Additional values»ZusatzwerteValeurs additionnelles

152 Geographica Helvetica Jg. 62 2007/Heft3

Parts ContentGlobal value The global value is expressed by

a sentence that summarizes thecentral and four additionalvalues.

Educational value Importance ot the site toreducation (schools, universities)

Threats/Endangermentlevel

Natural and human, existing andPotential threats

Management measures Proposed measures in order toprotect and/or promote the site

Tab. 5: Synthesis of the assessmentZusammenfassung der BewertungSynthese de l'evaluation

3.2 The inventory o( cultural geomorphosites in theTrient area

Incorporated within a project aimed at promotionof cultural geomorphosites of the Trient area (MontBlanc Massif, Valais, Switzerland) (Reynard et al.), aninventory of geomorphosites focusing on specific «sci¬

entific» and «cultural values» was carried out (Fig. 2).The objective was to find evidence of sites that couldintegrate natural and cultural aspects of landscapes(see Panizza & Piacente 2003). The inventory wascarried out in two phases. A first selection of poten-tial sites was made using document analysis on thegeomorphology and history of the Valley A completeassessment of each site (Kozlik 2006) was then car¬ried out using the method described above. Becausethe focus was on the «cultural value», the other «addi¬tional values» were not assessed.

Drawing on the assessment of «global value» andendangerment level, management measures are thenproposed. They are divided into two groups coveringthe geoheritage issues of protection and promotion.Protective measures may be both active (e.g. build¬ing of protection infrastructures, fencing) and pas¬sive (territorial planning measures and institutionalmeasures such as public policies, property rights)(Reynard 2005b). Promotional measures, on theother hand, would refer to the development of tour-ism or educative goods and Services (geotourism,geodidactics).

3 Case studies

3.1 The inventory o( geomorphosites in the BlenioValley and Lucomagno area

As means of Illustration of the basic approach toassessment of geomorphosites proposed here, twocase studies are presented. The first example istaken from research carried out in the Blenio Valleyand Lucomagno area in Northern Ticino, Switzer¬land. The objective was to contribute towards theNational Park of Adula project with an inventoryof the geomorphological heritage of the area. Thegeomorphosites were assessed with the method pre¬sented above (Tab. 6 and 7) and presented in mapform (Fig. 1).

For both the Blenio Valley and Lucomagno area, twomaps were created. The first one (Fig. 1, above) repre-sents the sites in relation to their morphogeny (pro-cess). In the second map (Fig. 1, below), the «central»and «additional values» are presented. For the «scien¬tific value», use is made of proportional tircles and forthe dominant «additional value», appropriate graphicsare used.

The synthesis map of the cultural geomorphosites is

presented in Fig. 2. The importance of the «geoculturalvalue» is expressed by the size of the circle and thedifferentiation of each circle in two parts (above andbelow) allows insight into the proportional contribu-tion of each element - geomorphology and culture - tothe «global value». This inventory is now contributingto the tourist promotion of the geocultural heritage ofthe area within several projects (see Reynard et al.).

4 Conclusion

The methods developed in previous years for assess¬

ment of the geomorphosites focused essentially ontheir scientific quality (e.g. Rtvas et al. 1997; Grand¬girard 1999; Bruschi & Cendrero 2005; Coratza &Giustt 2005; Serrano & Gonzälez-Trueba 2005).They were used mainly for inventories of natural goodsand environmental impact assessment (EIA) studies.

During the last decade, the promotion of geoheritagehas developed rapidly due to the creation of geoparksand the development of geotourism. In this context, theassessment of geomorphosites is in need of the inclu¬sion of other values in the evaluation process (e.g. cul¬

tural, ecologjcal). The aim of the proposed method istherefore to combine the assessment of central «scien¬tific values» with additional, context-spetific values.

The method was developed with two main objectivesin mind: simplicity, in order to be used by studentsand by research departments, and comprehensiveness.Because the method aims at evaluating more than the«scientific value» of sites, it opens up new perspectivesin the area of geoheritage conservation and manage¬ment. The two case studies themselves were carriedout in quite a large context. The first one (Blenio-Luco¬magno area) was related to the creation of a NationalPark. The project is led by non-geomorphologists and

A method for assessing «scientific» and «additional values» of geomorphosites Emmanuel Reynard et al. 153

Geomorphosite Scientific value

Nr Code Name IntegrityRepresen¬

tation RarityPalaeogeo-

graphical value Total

1 BLEkar003 Karstic area 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.942 BLEkar004 Fluvial/karstic area 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.943 BLEper003 Relict rock glacier 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.944 BLEglaOCG Erratic boulder 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.945 BLEgla004 Ice cave 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.946 BLEkarOOl Karstic area 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.887 BLEgla003 Granite/diorite glacial lock 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.888 BLEperOOl Active rock glacier 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.889 BLEper002 Inactive rock glacier 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.8810 BLEkar005 Residual landform 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.81

11 BLEorgOOl Marsh area 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.75 0.8112 BLEgla006 Postglacial gorge 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.81

13 BLEgla005 Roches moutonnees 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.81

14 BLEfluOOl Alluvial zone 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25 0.7515 BLEgraOOl Postglacial rockfall 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.7516 BLEglaOOl Glacial lake 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.6917 BLEkar002 Sinkhole ahgnment 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.6918 BLEantOOl Gold mine 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.6919 BLEant002 Soapstone quarry 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.6320 BLEant003 Marble quarry 0.75 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.56

GeomorphositeEcological

valueAesthetic

valueCultural value Economic

valueNr Code Religious Historical Artistic

literature Geohistorical

1 BLEkar003 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.752 BLEkar004 0.88 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.753 BLEper003 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.504 BLEglaOCG 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.505 BLEgla004 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.506 BLEkarOOl 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.257 BLEgla003 1.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.508 BLEperOOl 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.009 BLEper002 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0010 BLEkar005 0.38 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.7511 BLEorgOOl 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.5012 BLEgla006 0.25 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.7513 BLEgla005 0.50 0.63 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.25

14 BLEfluOOl 1.00 0.63 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.2515 BLEgraOOl 0.25 0.75 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.5016 BLEglaOOl 0.25 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.5017 BLEkar002 0.88 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.5018 BLEantOOl 0.63 0.13 0.00 0.75 0.25 0.00 0.0019 BLEant002 0.13 0.50 0.00 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.5020 BLEant003 0.63 0.25 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.25

Tab. 6: Geomorphosite assessment in the Blenio Valley Above: «scientific value», below: «additional values».Bewertung der geomorphologischen Geotope im Val Blenio. Oben: Wissenschaftlicher Wert; unten: Zusatz¬werte.Evaluation des geomorphosites du Val Blenio. En haut: valeur scientifique; en bas: valeurs additionnelles

154 Geographica Helvetica Jg. 62 2007/Heft3

Geomorphosite Scientific value

Nr Code Name IntegrityRepresen¬

tation RarityPalaeogeo-

graphical valueTotal

1 LUCkar003 Karstic area 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.94

2 LUCkar005 Fluvial/karstic area 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.943 LUCglaOOl Erratic boulder 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.944 LUCgla004 Ice cave 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.945 LUCglaOCG Granite/diorite glacial lock 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.886 LUCfluOCG Alluvial zone 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.887 LUCperOOl Rock glacier 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.888 LUCkar006 Residual landform 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.819 LUCgla003 Marsh area 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.75 0.81

10 LUCkar004 Cave 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.7511 LUCkarOOl Sinkhole ahgnment 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.69

12 LUCkar002 Gypsum badlands 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.6313 LUCfluOOl Torrential System 0.50 1.00 0.75 0.25 0.63

GeomorphositeEcological

valueAesthetic

value

Cultural value Economic

valueNr Code Religious Historical

Artisticliterature

Geo¬historical

1 LUCkar003 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.75

2 LUCkar005 0.88 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75

3 LUCglaOOl 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.504 LUCgla004 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.505 LUCglaOCG 1.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.506 LUCfluOCG 0.88 0.75 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.75

7 LUCperOOl 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.258 LUCkar006 0.38 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.75

9 LUCgla003 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.5010 LUCkar004 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.5011 LUCkarOOl 0.88 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50

12 LUCkar002 0.38 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.5013 LUCfluOOl 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.25

Tab. 7: Geomorphosite assessment in the Lucomagno area. Above: «scientific value»; below: «additional values».Bewertung der geomorphologischen Geotope in der Region des Lukmanier. Oben: Wissenschaftlicher Wert; unten:Zusatzwerte.Evaluation des geomorphosites de la region du Lukmanier. En haut: valeur scientifique; en bas: valeurs addi-tionnelles.

the original project did not take geomorphology intoaecount at all. The goal was, therefore, to show throughthe realisation of the inventory, the importance of geo¬morphology for the biodiversity of the area. It wasimportant to bring to light which sites have an impor¬tant «ecological value». As was seen in Tab. 6 and 7,several sites score maximum points in this criterion.The map in Fig. 1 shows, moreover, that several siteswith a particularly important «scientific value» (largecircles) and a dominant ecological «additional value»are situated in the northern part of the Blenio Valley, in

the area proposed for the National Park. This concen-tration allowed emphasis to be placed on the relation-ship between geodiversity and biodiversity in this partofthe park, an aspect of particular «didactic value» forthe project.

The second example shows that the method can be

adapted to the objective of the evaluation. In thiscase, the assessment was carried out as one of severalprojects related to heritage and tourist promotion ofthe Trient area. The aim was, therefore, to highlight

A method for assessing «scientific» and «additional values» of geomorphosites Emmanuel Reynard et al. 155

Piz Medel

Piz Terri

| 1 Fluvial landforms

| | Gravitative landforms

1111111 Karstic landforms

| | Glacial landforms

| | Periglacial landforms

| | Organic landforms

X Anthropic landforms

Scopy

Campo

Olivone^Pizzgjel Sole

Aquila nwaldhorn

Pizzo Molare)Gana Bia

A*

^>Don

\Matro

Malvaglia\ -

Biasca

Scientific value

0.94

0.88

© 0.81

0.750.690.630.56

t 5 km

Dominant additionalvalue

Ecological value

| J Aesthetic value

IIIIHI Cultural valueI I Economic value

Limits of Blenio ValleyCanton limits

Fig. 1: Geomorphosites ofthe Blenio Valley Numbers refer to data in Table 6.

Geomorphologische Geotope im Val Blenio. Die Nummern entsprechen denjenigen in Tabelle 6.

Geomorphosites du Val Blenio. Les nombres se rapportent au tableau 6.

Source: data collected by G. Fontana; cartography: G Scapozza

156 Geographica Helvetica Jg. 62 2007/Heft3

Tour Salliere

Switzerland 3218nL

France*

S*A*iJorat

(IMievilleiV Dorenaz

Susanfepass

van d en Bas

.*»alanfe r

vemayazvan d en Haut

*Les Granges.Salvan >

tf*pX>P

Les Marecottes Martigny

©©Le Treuen

13 /*Finhaut

:hS!elForclazpass

1/ <C ir sx Les Jeurs fiTnent

Vallo

Bar enn

va orane

LeBuet *- Ä~\ ^©3096 m Salme pass

Grandsglacier

Moraste pass

W Trient\ glacier

5 km

Pte Fourche

" 3512 mFrance*

?Switzerland

LegendCultural value

Scientific value©Half circle means100% of each value

O Cultural geomorphosites

The radius of circles is proportional to the geomorphological value ofthe site0-0.09 0.2-0.29 0.4-0.49 0.6-0.69 0.8-0.89

0.9-1.00.1-0.19 0.3-0.39 0.5-0.59 0.7-0.79

Fig. 2: Cultural geomorphosites ofthe Trient area. Numbers relate to the 29 geomorphosites included in the inventory.Kulturelle geomorphologische Geotope in der Region Trient. Die Nummern entsprechen den 29 Objekten des Inventars.Geomorphosites culturels de la region du Trient. Les nombres concernent les 29 geomorphosites inclus dans l'inventaire.Source: Kozlik 2006; cartography: L. Kozlik

A method for assessing «scientific» and «additional values» of geomorphosites Emmanuel Reynard et al. 157

relationships that possibly existed between the geo¬morphology and the social and cultural developmentof the Valley, especially from the view point of tourismhistory. The inclusion of the criteria of cultural impor¬tance allowed this link to be made. The inventory ofcultural geomorphosites is currently used as the basisfor the realisation of several tourist and didactic prod¬uets created for the promotion of eco-tourism andgeo-tourism in the area.

The assessment method has, in the meantime, beendeveloped further. It is now available as a GIS Soft¬

ware produet. This new step is expected to facilitatethe realisation of spatial analyses (e.g. quenes, classifi-cations) and simphfy updating of data.

ReferencesBeuschi, V.M. & A. Cendeeeo (2005): Geosite evalua¬tion. Can we measure intangjble values? - In: II Qua-ternario 18,1:293-306.Caeton, A., Cavallin, A., Feancavilla, F., Mantovani,F., Panizza, M, Pellegeini, G.G. & G Tellini (1994):Ricerche ambientali per l'individuazione e la valu-tazione dei beni geomorfologici - metodi ed esempi.- In: II Quaternario 7,1: 365-372.

Coeatza, P & C. Giusti (2005): Methodologjcal pro-posal for the assessment of the scientific quality ofgeomorphosites. - In: II Quaternario 18,1:307-313.Deoz, Y. & V. Mieville-Ott (eds) (2005): La polypho-me du paysage. - Lausanne: Presses polytechmques etuniversitaires romandes.Geandgieaed, V. (1995): Methode pour la realisa¬tion d'un inventaire de geotopes geomorphologiques.- In: UKPIK Cahiers de l'Institut de Geographie del'Umversite de Fnbourg 10:121-137.Geandgieaed, V. (1997): Geomorphologie, protectionde la nature et gestion du paysage. - These de doc-torat, Faculte des Sciences, Universite de Fribourg.Geandgieaed, V. (1999): Levaluation des geotopes.- In: Geologia Insubrica 4:59-66.Hooke, IM. (1994): Strategies for conserving andsustaining dynamic geomorphological sites. - In:O'Halloean, D. et al. (eds): Geological and landscapeconservation. - London: Geological Society: 191-195.

Kozlik, L. (2006): Les geomorphosites culturels desvallees du Trient, de l'Eau Noire et de Salanfe. Inven¬taire, evaluation et valorisation. - Memoire de licence,Institut de Geographie, Universite de Lausanne.Lugon, R. & E. Reynaed (2003): Pour un inventairedes geotopes du canton du Valais. - In: BulletinMurithienne 121: 83-97.

Lugon, R., Pealong, J.-P & E. Reynaed: Sites geocul-turels et geohistonques. Le cas valaisan de quelquesblocs erratiques, d'une marmite glaciaire et d'unemoraine. - In: Bulletin Murithienne (in press).Panizza, M. (2001): Geomorphosites: coneepts, meth¬

ods and example of geomorphological survey. - In:Chinese Science Bulletin 46, Suppl. vol.: 4-6.

Panizza, M. & S. Piacente (1993): Geomorphologicalassets evaluation. - In: Zeitschrift für Geomorpholo¬gie, N.F., Suppl. Bd. 87:13-18.Panizza, M. & S. Piacente (2003): Geomorfologia cul-turale. - Bologna: Pitagora.Peeeiea, P, Peeeiea, D. & M.I. Caetano Alves (2007):Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho NaturalPark (Portugal). - In: Geographica Helvetica 62, 3:

159-168.

Pealong, J.-P. (2005): A method for assessing the tour¬ist potential and use of geomorphological Sites. - In:Geomorphologie. Relief, processus, environnement 3:

189-196.

Reynaed, E. (2004): Geotopes, geo(morpho)sites etpaysages geomorphologiques. - In: Reynaed, E. & J.-P.

Pealong (eds): Paysages geomorphologiques. - Tra¬

vaux et recherches 27, Lausanne, Institut de Geogra¬phie: 123-136.

Reynaed, E. (2005a): Geomorphosites et paysages.- In: Geomorphologie. Relief, processus, environne¬ment 3:181-188.Reynaed, E. (2005b): Geomorphological sites, publicpolicies and property rights. Conceptualization andexamples from Switzerland. - In: II Quaternario 18,1: 321-330.

Reynaed, E. (2006): Fiche d'inventaire des geomor¬phosites. - http://www.uml.ch/igul/pagel7893.html3.7.2007.

Reynaed, E., Bissig, G, Kozlik, L. & S. Benedetti:Assessment and promotion of cultural geomorphosites:a case study in the Trient Valley (Switzerland). - In:Geografia fisica e dinamica quaternaria (in press).Rivas, V, Rix, K, Feances, E., Cendeeeo, A. & D.Beunsden (1997): Geomorphological indicators forenvironmental impact assessment: consumable andnon-consumable geomorphological resources. - In:Geomorphology 18:169-182.Schoeneich, P (1993): Comparaison des systemes delegendes francais, allemand et suisse - prineipes dela legende IGUL. - In: Schoeneich, P & E. Reynaed(eds): Cartographie geomorphologjque, cartographiedes risques. - Travaux et recherches 9, Lausanne,Institut de Geographie: 15-24.

Seeeano, E. & II Gonzälez-Teueba (2005): Assess¬

ment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas:the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). - In: Geo¬

morphologie. Formes, processus, environnement 3:197-208.

Abstract: A method (or assessing «scientific» and«additional values» of geomorphositesOver the last two decades, several methods have beendeveloped to reduce subjeetivity of geomorphositeselection through use of transparent assessment cri-

158 Geographica Helvetica Jg. 62 2007/Heft3

teria. Most of these methods propose criteria suchas integrity, rarity, representativeness and palaeogeo-graphical importance for the evaluation of the «scien¬tific value» of sites. For the assessment of their globalquality, «additional values» of ecological, cultural,aesthetic and economic nature have, at times, beentaken into consideration. This paper proposes a newassessment method that integrates both sets of valuesinto the evaluation of geomorphosites. The methodis described and its implementation in two differentcases presented: compilation of an inventory of geo¬morphosites in the National Park of Adula (Ticino,Switzerland) and evaluation of the geocultural herit¬age of the Trient area (Valais, Switzerland).

Zusammenfassung: Eine Bewertungsmethode für denWissenschaftlichen Wert und die Zusatzwerte geo-morphologischer GeotopeIn den letzten zwei lahrzehnten wurden auf demGebiet der Bewertung von geomorphologischen Geo-topen verschiedene Methoden entwickelt, welche dieSubjektivität durch die Einführung von objektivenKriterien reduzieren. Der Grossteil dieser Methodenbasiert auf der Bewertung von Kriterien (Erhaltungs¬zustand, Seltenheit, beispielhafter Charakter, vonInteresse für die Paleogeographie), die den Wissen¬schaftlichen Wert der Objekte betrifft. Der Gesamt¬wert eines Objekts hängt jedoch auch von verschie¬denen so genannten Zusatzwerten ab. Diese sindökologischer, kultureller, ästhetischer oder ökonomi¬scher Natur. Im Artikel wird eine neue Bewertungs¬methode vorgestellt, welche diese Zusatzwerte in denBewertungsprozess mit einbezieht. Die Methode wirdbeschrieben und anhand von zwei Beispielen verdeut¬licht - ein Inventar von geomorphologischen Geoto-pen, das im Zusammenhang mit dem Projekt Natio¬nalpark Adula (Tessin, Schweiz) erstellt wurde, unddie Erfassung des geokulturellen Erbes des Vallee duTrient (Wallis, Schweiz).

Resume: Une methode d'evaluation des valeursscientifique et additionnelles des geomorphositesDifferentes methodes utilisant des criteres objec¬tifs ont ete developpees durant les deux dernieresdecennies en vue de reduire la subjectivite relativeaux processus d'evaluation des geomorphosites. Laplupart de ces methodes sont basees sur l'utilisationde criteres tels que l'integrite, la rarete, la representa-tivite et la valeur paleogeographique, qui concernentla valeur scientifique des sites. La qualite globale dessites depend toutefois aussi de differentes valeursdites additionnelles, comme les valeurs ecologiques,culturelles, esthetiques et economiques. Cet articlepropose une nouvelle methode d'evaluation qui inte¬

gre les valeurs additionnelles dans le processus d'eva¬luation. La methode est decrite et deux exemples sontpresentes: un inventaire realise dans le cadre du projetde Parc national de l'Adula (Tessin, Suisse) et uneevaluation du patrimoine geoculturel de la vallee duTrient (Valais, Suisse).

Prof. Dr. Emmanuel Reynard, dipl. geo. Georgia Fon¬

tana, dipl. geo. Lenka Kozlik, dipl. geo. Cristian Sca-

pozza, Institute of Geography, University of Lausanne,Quartier Dorigny, Bätiment Anthropole, CH-1015Lausanne, Switzerland.e-mail:Emmanuel. [email protected]@[email protected]@unil.ch

Manuskripteingang/received/manuscrit entre le21.1.2007Annahme zum Druck/accepted for publication/acceptepour l'impression: 3.10.2007