Edited by · 2018-10-25 · IX ProGEO Symposium Geoheritage and Conservation: Modern Approaches and Applications Towards the 2030 Agenda Chęciny, Poland 25-28th June 2018 PROGRAMME

Edited by

PROGRAMME AND ABSTRACT BOOK

Ewa Głowniak, Agnieszka Wasiłowska, Paulina Leonowicz

IX ProGEO Symposium

Geoheritage and Conservation:Modern Approaches and Applications

Towards the 2030 Agenda

Chęciny, Poland

25-28th June 2018

PROGRAMME AND ABSTRACT BOOK

Edited by

Ewa Głowniak, Agnieszka Wasiłowska, Paulina Leonowicz

This publication was co-financed by Foundation of University of Warsaw and ProGEO – The European Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage

Editors: Ewa Głowniak, Agnieszka Wasiłowska, Paulina Leonowicz

Editorial Office:Faculty of Geology, University of Warsaw,

93 Żwirki i Wigury Street, 02-089 Warsaw, Poland

Symposium Logo design:Łucja Stachurska

Layout and typesetting:Aleksandra Szmielew

Cover Photo:A block scree of Cambrian quartzitic sandstones on the slope of the Łysa Góra Range – relict of frost

weathering during the Pleistocene. Photograph by Peter Pervesler

Example reference:Dunlop, L. 2018. Natural Capital – placing a value on geoconservation within a landscape framework in the UK. In: E. Głowniak, A. Wasiłowska, P. Leonowicz (Eds), Geoheritage and Conservation: Modern Approaches and Applications Towards the 2030 Agenda. 9th ProGEO Symposium, Chęciny, Poland,

25-28th June 2018 Programme and Abstract Book, p. 25. Faculty of Geology, University of Warsaw.

Print:GIMPO Agencja Wydawniczo-Poligraficzna, Marii Grzegorzewskiej 8, 02-778 Warsaw, Poland

©2018 Faculty of Geology, University of Warsaw

ISBN 978-83-945216-5-3

The content of abstracts are the sole responsibility of the authors

Organised by

Faculty of Geology, University of Warsaw

Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Science

Kielce Geopark

Polish Geological Institue – National Reserach Institute

Under the auspices of

ProGEO – The European Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage

IUGS International Commission on GeoHeritage

IUCN WCPA Geoheritage Specialist Group

Marshal of the Holy Cross Province

Mayor of the Chęciny Town and Municipality

Rector of the University of Warsaw

Co-financed by

Faculty of Geology, University of Warsaw

ProGEO – The European Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage

Rector of the University of Warsaw

University of Warsaw Foundation

Partners

European Center of Geological Education of the University of Warsaw

Bochnia Salt Mine

Museum of the Kielce Village

Ojców National Park

Journal of GeoHeritage

PATRONS

THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO

ACKNOWLEDGE THE VALUABLE SUPPORT

OF OUR PATRONS AND PARTNERS

PARTNERS

6

CONTENTSProgramme Timetable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Keynote Speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Juana Vegas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Kyung Sik Woo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Abstracts in thematic order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Keynote Lectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Vegas Juana. Geoconservation from the public administrations: Fifty years of work at the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Woo Kyung Sik, Ju Seong Ok, Brilha José. Key Geoheritage Area: A potential new programme in IUCN for geoheritage conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Session A: Geoconservation and landscape management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Oral presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Cernatič Gregorič Anica. Typical landforms of Kras (Slovenia), an important constituent part of the Karst landscape and possibilities for their conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Díaz-Martínez Enrique, Charles Nicolas, García-Cortés Ángel, Vegas Juana. European cooperation towards the promotion of geoconservation in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Dunlop Lesley. Natural Capital – placing a value on geoconservation within a landscape framework in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Forte João, Matias Maria Isabel, de Moura Pereira Pascal, Brandão Coelho Luís. Geodiversity in the Terras de Coura Landscape Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Karancsi Zoltán, Horváth Gergely, Csüllög Gábor, Szabó Mária. The role of the landscape aesthetic values in the geotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Lah Marvy. Evaluation of Cultural Landscape within the Cultural Heritage Protection System . . . . . . . . . 30Lee Kuang-Chung. Enhancing Community–School Partnership for Rural Landscape Conservation: a case study in Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31de Siqueira Canesin Thais, Brilha José, Díaz-Martínez Enrique. Geoconservation and management strategies: A case study with two Spanish UNESCO Global Geoparks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Urban Jan, Margielewski Włodzimierz, Radwanek-Bąk Barbara. Concepts of geoheritage and geosite in a strategy and practice of geoconservation and geology promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Posters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Bajraktari Fadil, Behrami Sami, Zogaj Nazmi, Avdia Blerta. Protected areas at the cross-border region Kosovo–Albania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Moura Pâmella, Motta Garcia Maria da Glória, Brilha José. Enhancing geoconservation strategies by quantitative assessment of geosites in the Ceará Central Domain, Northeastern Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Zboińska Katarzyna, Tarka Robert, Szadkowski Mateusz. Protection of inanimate nature in Lower Silesia (Poland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Zwoliński Zbigniew. Spatial scales of geodiversity and landform taxonomic hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Session B: Geoheritage and cultural heritage: mines, quarries, science and communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Oral presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Bąbel Maciej, Jarzyna Adrian, Ługowski Damian, Bogucki Andriy, Yatsyshyn Andriy, Nejbert Krzysztof, Olszewska-Nejbert Danuta. 3D documentation, monitoring and origin of the hydration caves from the unique outcrop of weathering anhydrites at Pisky near Lviv (Ukraine) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

CONTENTS

7

Corbí Hugo, Martín-Rojas Ivan, Martínez-Martínez Javier. Linking geological and architectural heritage through a 3D geological model of a historical quarry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Cropp David. The Geo-Village: from concept to reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Evans Ben. TIPical Valleys: reintroducing local people to iconic mineral spoil landscapes in the South Wales Coalfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Kubalíková Lucie. Bringing geoheritage to people: developing geotourism within urban areas – a case study of Brno (Czech Republic) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Machalski Marcin, Liwiński Wiesław. Geotourism as a vehicle for geoconservation: the case of an abandoned phosphorite mine at Annopol, Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Pieńkowski Grzegorz, Fijałkowska-Mader Anna. Geological and cultural heritage of the proposed Kamienna Valley Geopark, Holy Cross Mountains, Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Pivko Daniel. Stones in history of Slovakian territory and tourist interesting places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Prosser Colin. Using quarries to link communities to their geoheritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Schweigert Günter, Roth Sigfried. Geopark Schwäbische Alb – an outstanding area for Jurassic and Miocene palaeontology and Pleistocene human culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Telbisz Tamás, Gruber Péter, Kőszegi Margit, Mari László, Standovár Tibor, Bottlik Zsolt. Geoconservation – an opportunity for people living on karst terrains? A case study of the Aggtelek National Park (Hungary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Vajskebrová Markéta, Gürtlerová Pavla, Svítil Radek. Systematic data collecting and appropriate ways of their presentations for effective protection of the geological heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Zgłobicki Wojciech, Gajek Grzegorz, Kołodyńska-Gawrysiak Renata. Educational value of quarries located within the proposed Geopark Małopolska Vistula River Gap, Eastern Poland . . . . . . . . . 63

Posters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Bąbel Maciej, Jarzyna Adrian, Ługowski Damian, Vladi Firouz, Bogucki Andriy, Yatsyshyn Andriy, Nejbert Krzysztof, Olszewska-Nejbert Danuta, Kotowski Jakub, Kremer Barbara, Tomeniuk Olena. The hydration caves as a unique geological heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Baráz Csaba, Holló Sándor, Telbisz Tamás. Creation of a new geopark in the Bükk Region (Hungary) – a bottom-up initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Brzezińska-Wójcik Teresa, Skowronek Ewa. Heritage of the Brusno stone work centre as an opportunity to develop and promote rural areas of Roztocze Region (Southeastern Poland) . . . . . . . 69Fermeli Georgia, Koutsouveli Anastasia. The conglomerates of Meteora: a geological heritage monument of Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Jamorska Izabela, Karasiewicz Tomasz, Tylmann Karol. Geodiversity and geoheritage of the glacial landscape areas in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Kałaska Maciej, Siuda Rafał, Sierpień Paula. Application of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and geochemical survey to investigations of old mining center in Radzimowice (Lower Silesia, SW Poland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Kazancı Nizamettin, Suludere Yaşar, Şaroğlu Fuat, Gürbüz Alper, Özgüneylioğlu Aysen, Mülazımoğlu Necip S., Mengi Hamdi, Arslan Sonay Boyraz, Gürbüz Esra, Yücel Tahsin Onur, Ersöz Merve, İnaner Hülya. Archaeological and historical mines in Turkey as instruments for public awareness on geoconservation: JEMİRKO Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Kociuba Waldemar, Brzezińska-Wójcik Teresa, Skowronek Ewa. High-resolution Terrestrial Laser Scanning as a tool for acquisition and analysis data of geo-and cultural heritage: an example from the Roztocze Region (Southeastern Poland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Koźma Jacek. The use of post-mining landscape for geotouristic purposes in Geopark – by the example of the Polish part of UNESCO Global Geopark Muskau Arch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Nikolić Gojko R. Geodiversity and biodiversity complementary in nature protection in Montenegro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

9th ProGEO Symposium, Chęciny, Poland, 2018

8

Özkul Mehmet, Gökgöz Ali, Yüksel Ali Kamil. Travertine Spring Towers as rare depositional morphologies in geothermal fields: the example of the Hisaralan Geothermal Field in NW Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Weis Robert, Di Cencio Andrea. Geoheritage in the Red Rock Region, Southern Luxembourg: towards an integrative view of natural diversity in a cultural landscape? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Woodward Dilyara, Ivanova Natalуa, Yegemberdieva Kamshat, Akiyanova Farida, Fishman Il’ya. Mangistau Aspiring Geopark (Kazakhstan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Session C: Moveable geoheritage and science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Oral presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Kazancı Nizamettin. Mucurtachylites: an ‘astrobleme category’ geosite in the inventory list of Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Posters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Fijałkowska-Mader Anna. Use of ‘rose-like’ calcite for determination of age and origin of the calcite minerals in the Holy Cross Mountains (Southern Poland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Özgen Erdem Nazire, Kazancı Nizamettin. Local fossil sites: a new proposal to be included in the national geological frameworks of Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Session D: Geoconservation in protected areas and nature conservation strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Oral presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Ásbjörnsdóttir Lovísa, Þorvarðardóttir Guðríður. Selecting important geoheritage for a conservation strategy plan in Iceland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Mari László, Telbisz Tamás. European National Parks with karst landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Matthews Jack J., McMahon Sean. Exogeoconservation: Protecting Geological Heritage on Celestial Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Monge-Ganuzas Manu, Salazar Ángel, Herrero Nadia, Guillén-Mondéjar Francisco, HilarioAsier, Lorente Javier, Mata-Perelló Josep María, Utiel Juan Carlos, Díaz-Martínez Enrique. Spanish achievements and initiatives towards geoconservation: 2018 update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Monge-Ganuzas Manu, Salazar Ángel, Herrero Nadia, Guillén-Mondéjar Francisco, Hilario Asier, Mata-Perelló Josep M., Utiel Juan C., Díaz-Martínez Enrique. The inclusion of the geodiversity and geoheritage in the Ordesa-Viñamala Action Plan 2017 – 2025 for the Spanish Network of Biosphere Reserves (SNBR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Motta Garcia Maria da Glória, Brilha José, de Gouveia Souza Célia Regina, Del Lama Eliane Aparecida. Preliminary assessment of ecosystem services provided by geodiversity in the coastal region of the state of São Paulo, Southeastern Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Novak Matevž, Stupar Martina. Geoheritage in Slovenia – a short overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Seghedi Antoneta. Geosites in the area of Dobrogea, Romania, and the need for local geodiversity action plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Woo Kyung Sik, Sohn Young Kwan, Kil Youngwoo. The aspiring Hantangang Global Geopark in Korea: its international geological significance and justification for UNESCO Global Geopark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Posters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108Grabarczyk Anna, Stróżyk Katarzyna. Natural and social aspects of the selection of the GSSP; the case of the Słupia Nadbrzeżna river cliff section (Central Poland), the candidate stratotype for the basal boundary of the Coniacian Stage (Upper Cretaceous) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108Matthews Jack J. Discovery Aspiring Geopark: A candidate for UNESCO Global Geopark from the Bonavista Peninsula of Newfoundland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110Trela Wiesław, Szrek Piotr, Salwa Sylwester. Land of Tetrapod and Petrified Dunes: geoheritage of proposed geopark in the western part of the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

CONTENTS

9

Woo Kyung Sik, Chun Seung Soo, Moon Kyong O. Outstanding Universal Values of the Korean Archipelago Getbol: Its potential for World Heritage Nomination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Session E: Geoconservation for science, education, and tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Oral presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114Corbí Hugo, Alfaro Pedro, Andreu José Miguel, Baeza José Francisco, Benavente David, Blanco-Quintero Idael F., Cañaveras Juan Carlos, Cuevas Jaime, Delgado José, Díez-Canseco Davinia, Giannetti Alice, Martín-Rojas Ivan, Martínez-Martínez Javier, Medina-Cascales Ivan, Peral Juan, Rosa-Cintas Sergio. ‘Geogymkhana’: an outreach activity to bring closer the geoheritage to high schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114Głowacki Wiktor. Diversified approach to dynamic fluvial geoheritage of Western Outer Carpathians – selected problems of conservation and use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116İnaner Hülya, Sümer Ökmen, Akbulut Mehmet. Geosites and protected areas in the western termination of the Büyük Menderes Graben and their importance of science education and tourism . . . . 118Kananoja Tapio. Geoconservation for education – from classroom to reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120Ludwikowska-Kędzia Małgorzata, Wiatrak Małgorzata. Geotourism potential of small river valleys of the Holy Cross Mountains (Central Poland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122Lyakhnitsky Yury, Ivanova Tatiana. Creation of a geotouritstic underground route in the Ruskeala Mining Park (the Republic of Karelia, Russian Federation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124Macadam John, Popa Răzvan-Gabriel, Toma Cristina, Kudor Stefan George, Popa Diana-Alice. Cooking, Culture and Concretions:The Three Cs for compulsive, creative communication in Buzau Land Aspiring Geopark (Romania) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126Manjon Mazoca Carlos Eduardo, Costa Mucivuna Vanessa, Motta Garcia Maria da Glória, Henriques Renato, Del Lama Eliane Aparecida, Bourotte Christine. Panoramic 360° images and 3D models as tools to promote cultural and geological heritage: the example of Bertioga, central coast of São Paulo State, Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128Matthews Jack J. Threats to Geoheritage at the Mistaken Point World Heritage Site: Identification,Monitoring, and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130Migoń Piotr, Duszyński Filip, Różycka Milena, Jancewicz Kacper. Tracing landform evolution through time along a thematic trail in Elbsandsteingebirge (Germany) – application of ergodic principle in interpreting geoheritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131Page Kevin, Pereira Lola, Schouenborg Björn, de Wever Patrick. The International Commission on Geoheritage (ICG): A new partner for developing global geoconservation policy and practice . . . . . . 133Pereira Paulo, Insua Pereira Diamantino, Gonçalves Bruno, Viveiros Carla, Afonso Andreia. Assessment of tourism value in geological heritage: why, what and how . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134Pijet-Migoń Edyta, Migoń Piotr, Rozpędowska Ewelina. Between geoconservation, tourism, education and local community involvement – the past, present and future of volcanic geosites in the Land of Extinct Volcanoes (Pogórze Kaczawskie, SW Poland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135Roberts Raymond. Brymbo: Derelict former steelworks to internationally important geoconservation and geotourism site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137Serjani Afat. Geological context of geosites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139Vegas Juana, Cabrera Ana, Prieto Ángel, Díez-Herrero Andres, García-Cortés Ángel, Díaz-Martínez Enrique, Carcavilla Luis, Salazar Ángel. ‘Watch over a rock’, a Spanish programme towards geosite stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Posters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143Afonso Andreia, Pereira Paulo. Assessment of the geological heritage tourism value in the Peneda-Gerês National Park (Northern Portugal): a site selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143Akiyanova Farida, Adilbekova Fariza, Atalikhova Aksholpan, Jussupova Zulfira, Simabtova Aliya, Dolbeshkin Maxim, Akishev Nurzhan. Conservation and sustainable recreational use of unique ecosystems of the Burabay State National Nature Park (Northern Kazakhstan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145


10

Alenicheva Аntonina А., Semenova Ljudmila R. Geosites of the Sakhalin and Moneron: geotourism development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147Brilha José. The establishment of geoconservation standards: the ProGEO glossary of geoconservation terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149Corbí Hugo, Asensio-Montesinos Francisco, Abellán Antonio, Pardo Vicent, Martínez-Martínez Javier. 3D geological models for promoting geoheritage: the Messinian atoll reef of Santa Pola (SE Spain) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150Gogin Ivan Ya. Regional type-sections of GSSPs as Geological Heritage sites of practical importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152Górska-Zabielska Maria, Witkowska Kinga, Pisarska Magdalena, Musiał Rafał. Erratic boulders in Świętokrzyskie Region and their geotouristic potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154Krzeczyńska Monika, Wierzbowski Andrzej, Woźniak Paweł. For the sake of protection of geodiversity implemented through geological education and geotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156Lundqvist Sven, Ransed Gunnel, Dahl Rolv. Geological heritage in the central part of Scandinavia (GEARS) – a Norwegian-Swedish transboundary Interreg Project (2017–2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158Lyakhnitsky Yury, Ivanova Tatiana. The Kapova Cave (Shulgantash Cave) – one of the well-known geosites of South Ural (Russian Federation). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160Macadam John, Popa Răzvan-Gabriel, Toma Cristina, Kudor Stefan George, Popa Diana-Alice. Using provocative interpretation to manage visitors to the fragile, dynamic geoheritage of mud volcanoes in Aspiring Geopark Buzau Land in Romania? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162Mizerski Włodzimierz, Skurczyńska-Garwolińska Katarzyna. The educational role of the outcrops in qualified geotourism in which one may define the age and process of the tectonic movements – some examples from the Holy Cross Mountains, Central Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164Niculiță Mihai. Bahluieț Valley at Costești village (Romania) geoarchaeosite: the need for its protecting, promoting and managing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166Semenova Ljudmila R. A Significant Geosite – The Lovozero Alkaline Massif (Russia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167Stróżyk Katarzyna, Grabarczyk Anna, Machalski Marcin. Reasons behind plans to conserve the Cretaceous–Paleogene Boundary site at Lechówka, southeast Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169Stupar Martina, Laganis Jana. Recommendations for visitors in the Danube Geoparks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171Szente István, Takács Bence, Harman-Tóth Erzsébet, Weiszburg Tamás G. Geological Garden at Tata (Hungary) – cleaned and beautified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172Szrek Piotr. Geoeducation potential of the Łagów area in the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland . . . . . . . . . 174Trela Wiesław. Scientific and educational aspects of Ordovician and Silurian geosites at Mójcza and Bardo Stawy in the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175Vdovets Marina S., Petrov Oleg V., Gogin Ivan Ya., Semiletkin Sergei A. Representative and unique geosites of the Russian Plate and prospects for their conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Abstracts in alfabetic order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185

11

PROGRAMME TIMETABLE

Sunday 24th of June – Monday 25th of June

Pre-symposium field trip: Top Geosites of the Kraków RegionConvener: Jan Urban

Monday 25th of June

18:00–22:00 Conference registration

19:00–23:00 Icebreaker party and grill dinner in the ECEG Venue in Chęciny

Tuesday 26th of June

7:45–8:45 Conference registration

9:00 Welcoming Ceremony and address

9:45–11:20 Keynote lectures:9:45 Geoconservation from the public administrations: fifty years of work at the Geological

Survey of Spain (IGME). Juana Vegas10:30 Key Geoheritage Area: A potential new programme in IUCN for geoheritage conserva-

tion. Kyung Sik Woo, Seong Ok Ju, José Brilha

11:20–11:40 Coffee break

11:40–13:00 Session D1: Geoconservation in protected areas and nature conservation strategies Convener: Kyung Sik Woo

11:40 The inclusion of the geodiversity and geoheritage in the Ordesa-Viñamala Action Plan 2017–2025 for the Spanish Network of Biosphere Reserves (SNBR). M. Monge- Ganuzas, A. Salazar, N. Herrero, F. Guillén-Mondéjar, A. Hilario, J.M. Mata-Perelló, J.C. Utiel, E. Díaz-Martínez

12:00 Selecting important geoheritage for a conservation strategy plan in Iceland. L. Ásbjörn-sdóttir, G. Þorvarðardóttir

12:20 Preliminary assessment of ecosystem services provided by geodiversity in the coastal region of the state of São Paulo, Southeastern Brazil. M.G. Motta Garcia, J. Brilha, C.R. de Gouveia Souza, E.A. Del Lama

12:40 Geosites in the area of Dobrogea, Romania, and the need for local geodiversity action plans. A. Seghedi


13:20–14:00 Lunch

14:00–15:00 Poster session Convener: José Brilha

B-01 Creation of a new geopark in the Bükk Region (Hungary) – a bottom-up initiative. C. Baráz, S. Holló, T. Telbisz


12

B-02 Heritage of the Brusno stone work centre as an opportunity to develop and promote rural areas of Roztocze Region (Southeastern Poland). T. Brzezińska-Wójcik, T. Skowronek

B-03 Archaeological and historical mines in Turkey as instruments for public awareness on geoconservation: JEMİRKO Project. N. Kazancı, Y. Suludere, F. Şaroğlu, A. Gürbüz, A. Özgüneylioğlu, N.S. Mülazımoğlu, H. Mengi, S.B. Arslan, E. Gürbüz, T.O. Yücel, M. Ersöz, H. İnaner

B-04 Mangistau Aspiring Geopark (Kazakhstan). D. Woodward, N. Ivanova, K. Yegember-dieva, F. Akiyanova, I. Fishman

E-01 Conservation and sustainable recreational use of unique ecosystems of the Burabay State National Nature Park (Northern Kazakhstan). F. Akiyanova, F. Adilbekova, A. Atalikhova, Z. Jussupova, A. Simabtova, M. Dolbeshkin, N. Akishev

E-02 Geosites of the Sakhalin and Moneron: geotourism development. A.A. Alenicheva, L.R. Semenova

E-03 3D geological models for promoting geoheritage: the Messinian atoll reef of Santa Pola (SE Spain). H. Corbí, F. Asensio-Montesinos, A. Abellán, V. Pardo, J. Martínez-Martínez

E-04 A Significant Geosite – The Lovozero Alkaline Massif (Russia). L.R. SemenovaE-05 Scientific and educational aspects of Ordovician and Silurian geosites at Mójcza and

Bardo Stawy in the Holy Cross Mountains (Poland). W. TrelaE-06 Representative and unique geosites of the Russian Plate and prospects for their conserva-

tion. M.S. Vdovets, O.V. Petrov, I.Ya. Gogin, S.A. SemiletkinE-07 Reasons behind plans to conserve the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary site at Lechówka,

southeast Poland. K. Stróżyk, A. Grabarczyk, M. MachalskiE-08 Geoeducation potential of the Łagów area in the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland. P. Szrek

15:00–16:20 Session A1: Geoconservation and landscape management Conveners: Lesley Dunlop, João Forte

15:00 Geoconservation and management strategies: A case study with two Spanish UNESCO Global Geoparks. T. de Siqueira Canesin, J. Brilha, E. Díaz-Martínez

15:20 Typical landforms of Kras (Slovenia), an important constituent part of the Karst land-scape and possibilities for their conservation. A. Cernatič Gregorič

15:40 European cooperation towards the promotion of geoconservation in Africa. E. Díaz-Martínez, N. Charles, A. García-Cortés, J. Vegas

16:00 Enhancing Community–School Partnership for Rural Landscape Conservation: a case study in Taiwan. K.Ch. Lee

16:20 Concepts of geoheritage and geosite in a strategy and practice of geoconservation and geology promotion. J. Urban, W. Margielewski, B. Radwanek-Bąk


17:00–17:40 Poster session Convener: Ewa Głowniak

C-01 Use of ‘rose-like’ calcite for determination of age and origin of the calcite minerals in the Holy Cross Mountains (Southern Poland). A. Fijałkowska-Mader

C-02 Local fossil sites: a new proposal to be included in the national geological frameworks of Turkey. E.N. Özgen, N. Kazancı

D-01 Natural and social aspects of the selection of the GSSP; the case of the Słupia Nadbrzeżna river cliff section (Central Poland), the candidate stratotype for the basal boundary of the Coniacian Stage (Upper Cretaceous). A. Grabarczyk, K. Stróżyk

PROGRAMME TIMETABLE

13

D-02 Discovery Aspiring Geopark: A candidate for UNESCO Global Geopark from the Bona-vista Peninsula of Newfoundland. J.J. Matthews

D-03 Land of Tetrapod and Petrified Dunes: geoheritage of proposed geopark in the western part of the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland. W. Trela, P. Szrek, S. Salwa

D-04 Outstanding Universal Values of the Korean Archipelago Getbol: its potential for World Heritage Nomination. K.S. Woo, S.S. Chun, K. O Moon

17:40–18:00 Session C: Moveable geoheritage and science Convener: Colin Prosser

17:40 Mucurtachylites: an ‘astrobleme category’ geosite in the inventory list of Turkey. N. Kaza ncı

18:00–19:00 Session B1: Geoheritage and cultural heritage: mines, quarries, science and com-munities

Convener: Colin Prosser18:00 The Geo-Village: from concept to reality. D. Cropp18:20 Bringing geoheritage to people: developing geotourism within urban areas – a case

study of Brno (Czech Republic). L. Kubalíková18:40 3D documentation, monitoring and origin of the hydration caves from the unique out-

crop of weathering anhydrites at Pisky near Lviv (Ukraine). M. Bąbel, A. Jarzyna, D. Ługowski, A. Bogucki, A. Yatsyshyn, K. Nejbert, D. Olszewska-Nejbert

19:00–20:00 Dinner

20:00 Departure to the workshop: Conservation, promotion and sustainable use of geo-logical heritage on the urban areas – a case study from Kielce Geopark

Convener: Michał Poros

Wednesday 27th of June

9:00–11:20 Session E1: Geoconservation for science, education, and tourism Conveners: Marina Vdovets, Kevin Page

9:00 ‘Geogymkhana’: an outreach activity to bring closer the geoheritage to high schools.H. Corbí, P. Alfaro, J.M. Andreu, J.F. Baeza, D. Benavente, I.F. Blanco- Quin tero, J.C. Caña veras, J. Cuevas, J. Delgado, D. Díez-Canseco, A. Giannetti, I. Martín- Rojas, J. Mar tínez-Martínez, I. Medina-Cascales, J. Peral, S. Rosa-Cintas

9:20 Geotourism potential of small river valleys of the Holy Cross Mountains (Central Poland). M. Ludwikowska-Kędzia, M. Wiatrak

9:40 Creation of a geotouristic underground route in the Ruskeala Mining Park (the Republic of Karelia, Russian Federation). Y. Lyakhnitsky, T. Ivanova

10:00 Brymbo: Derelict former steelworks to internationally important geoconservation and geotourism site. R. Roberts

10:20 ‘Watch over a rock’, a Spanish programme towards geosite stewardship. J. Vegas, A. Cabrera, A. Prieto, A. Díez-Herrero, A. García-Cortés, E. Díaz-Martínez, L. Carca-villa, Á. Salazar

10:40 Geoconservation for education – from classroom to reality. T. Kananoja11:00 Geological context of geosites. A. Serjani


14


11:40–13:00 Session A2: Geoconservation and landscape management Convener: Barbara Radwanek-Bąk

11:40 Natural Capital – placing a value on geoconservation within a landscape framework in the UK. L. Dunlop

12:00 Geodiversity in the Terras de Coura Landscape Plan. J. Forte, M.I. Matias, P. de Moura Pereira, L. Brandão Coelho

12:20 The role of the landscape aesthetic values in the geotourism. Z. Karancsi, G. Horváth, G. Csüllög, M. Szabó

12:40 Evaluation of Cultural Landscape within the Cultural Heritage Protection System. M. Lah

13:00–14:00 Lunch

14:00–15:00 Workshop: Geoheritage and geoconservation: junior researchers’ perspectives Convener: Paulo Pereira

15:00–16:40 Session D2: Geoconservation in protected areas and nature conservation strategies Conveners: Lovísa Ásbjörnsdóttir, Maria da Glória Motta Garcia

15:00 The aspiring Hantangang Global Geopark in Korea: Its international geological signifi-cance and justification for UNESCO Global Geopark. K.S. Woo, Y.K. Sohn, Y. Kil

15:20 Threats to Geoheritage at the Mistaken Point World Heritage Site: Identification, Moni-toring, and Management. J.J. Matthews

15:40 Spanish achievements and initiatives towards geoconservation: 2018 update. M. Monge- Ganuzas, Á. Salazar, N. Herrero, F. Guillén-Mondéjar, A. Hilario, J. Lorente, J.M. Ma-ta-Perelló, J.C. Utiel, E. Díaz-Martínez

16:00 Geoheritage in Slovenia – a short overview. M. Novak, M. Stupar16:20 European National Parks with karst landscapes. L. Mari, T. Telbisz

16:40–17:00 Coffee break. Group photo.

17:00–18:00 Poster session Convener: Jan Urban

A-01 Protected areas at the cross-border region Kosovo‒Albania. F. Bajraktari, S. Behrami, N. Zogaj, B. Avdia

A-02 Enhancing geoconservation strategies by quantitative assessment of geosites in the Ceará Central Domain, Northeastern Brazil. P. Moura, M.G. Motta Garcia, J. Brilha

A-03 Protection of inanimate nature in Lower Silesia (Poland). K. Zboińska, R. Tarka, M. Szad-kowski

A-04 Spatial scales of geodiversity and landform taxonomic hierarchy. Z. ZwolińskiB-07 The hydration caves as a unique geological heritage. M. Bąbel, A. Jarzyna, D. Ługowski,

F. Vladi, A. Bogucki, A. Yatsyshyn, K. Nejbert, D. Olszewska-Nejbert, J. Kotowski, B. Kre-mer, O. Tomeniuk

B-08 The conglomerates of Meteora: a geological heritage monument of Greece. G. Fermeli, A. Koutsouveli

B-09 Geodiversity and geoheritage of the glacial landscape areas in Poland. I. Jamorska, T. Ka-rasiewicz, K. Tylmann

B-10 Application of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and geochemical survey to investi-

PROGRAMME TIMETABLE

15

gations of old mining center in Radzimowice (Lower Silesia, SW Poland). M. Kałaska, R. Siuda, P. Sierpień

B-11 High-resolution Terrestrial Laser Scanning as a tool for acquisition and analysis data of geo- and cultural heritage: an example from the Roztocze Region (Southeastern Poland). W. Kociuba, T. Brzezińska-Wójcik, E. Skowronek

B-12 The use of post-mining landscape for geotouristic purposes in Geopark – by the example of the Polish part of UNESCO Global Geopark Muskau Arch. J. Koźma

B-13 Geodiversity and biodiversity complementary in nature protection in Montenegro. G.R. NikolićB-14 Travertine Spring Towers as rare depositional morphologies in geothermal fields: the exam-

ple of the Hisaralan Geothermal Field in NW Turkey. M. Özkul, A. Gökgöz, A.K. YükselB-15 Geoheritage in the Red Rock Region, Southern Luxembourg: towards an integrative view

of natural diversity in a cultural landscape. R. Weis, A. Di CencioE-08 Erratic boulders in Świętokrzyskie Region and their geotouristic potential. M. Górska-

Zabielska, K. Witkowska, M. Pisarska, R. MusiałE-09 For the sake of protection of geodiversity implemented through geological education and

geotourism. M. Krzeczyńska, A. Wierzbowski, P. WoźniakE-10 The Kapova Cave (Shulgantash Cave) – one of the well-known geosites of South Ural

(Russian Federation). Y. Lyakhnitsky, T. Ivanova


Convener: Günter Schweigert18:00 Stones in history of Slovakian territory and tourist interesting places. D. Pivko18:20 Geotourism as a vehicle for geoconservation: the case of an abandoned phosphorite

mine at Annopol, Poland. M. Machalski, W. Liwiński18:40 Educational value of quarries located within the proposed Geopark Małopolska Vistula

River Gap, E Poland. W. Zgłobicki, G. Gajek, R. Kołodyńska-Gawrysiak

19:00–20:00 Dinner for non-attending the Gala Dinner

19:15 Departure to the Gala Dinner and Cultural Event at the Ethnographic Park in Tokarnia

Thursday 28th of June

9:00–11:20 Session E2: Geoconservation for science, education, and tourism Conveners: Tapio Kananoja, Enrique Díaz-Martínez

9:00 Assessment of tourism value in geological heritage: why, what and how. P. Pereira, D. Insua Pereira, B. Gonçalves, C. Viveiros, A. Afonso

9:20 Between geoconservation, tourism, education and local community involvement – the past, present and future of volcanic geosites in the Land of Extinct Volcanoes (Pogórze Kaczawskie, SW Poland). E. Pijet-Migoń, P. Migoń, E. Rozpędowska

9:40 Exogeoconservation: Protecting Geological Heritage on Celestial Bodies. J.J. Mat-thews, S. McMahon

10:00 The International Commission on Geoheritage (ICG): A new partner for developing global geoconservation policy and practice. K. Page, L. Pereira, B. Schouenborg, P. de Wever


16

10:20 Diversified approach to dynamic fluvial geoheritage of Western Outer Carpathians – selected problems of conservation and use. W. Głowacki

10:40 Cooking, Culture and Concretions: The Three Cs for compulsive, creative communica-tion in Buzau Land Aspiring Geopark (Romania). J. Macadam, R.-G. Popa, C. Toma, S.G. Kudor, D.-A. Popa

11:00 Geosites and protected areas the in western termination of the Büyük Menderes Graben and their importance of science education and tourism. H. İnaner, Ö. Sümer, M. Akbulut


11:40–12:20 Session E3: Geoconservation for science, education, and tourism Convener: Jack J. Matthews

11:40 Tracing landform evolution through time along a thematic trail in Elbsandsteingebirge (Germany) – application of ergodic principle in interpreting geoheritage. P. Migoń, F. Duszyński, M. Różycka, K. Jancewicz

12:00 Panoramic 360° images and 3D models as tools to promote cultural and geological her-itage: the example of Bertioga, central coast of São Paulo State, Brazil. C.E. Manjon Mazoca, V. Costa Mucivuna, M.G. Motta Garcia, R. Henriques, E.A. Lama, C. Bourotte


Convener: Markéta Vajskebrova12:20 Linking geological and architectural heritage through a 3D geological model of a histor-

ical quarry. H. Corbí, I. Martín-Rojas, J. Martínez-Martínez12:40 TIPical Valleys: reintroducing local people to iconic mineral spoil landscapes in the

South Wales Coalfield. B. Evans

13:00–14:00 Lunch


Conveners: Daniel Pivko, Hugo Corbí14:00 Using quarries to link communities to their geoheritage. C. Prosser14:20 Geopark Schwäbische Alb – an outstanding area for Jurassic and Miocene palaeontolo-

gy and Pleistocene human culture. G. Schweigert, S. Roth14:40 Geological and cultural heritage of the proposed Kamienna Valley Geopark, Holy Cross

Mountains, Poland. G. Pieńkowski, A. Fijałkowska-Mader15:00 Geoconservation – an opportunity for people living on karst terrains? A case study

of the Aggtelek National Park (Hungary). T. Telbisz, P. Gruber, M. Kőszegi, L. Mari, T. Standovár, Z. Bottlik

15:20 Systematic data collecting and appropriate ways of their presentations for effective pro-tection of the geological heritage. M. Vajskebrová, P. Gürtlerová, R. Svítil

15:40–16:20 Poster session Convener: Mehmet Özkul

E-11 Assessment of the geological heritage tourism value in the Peneda-Gerês National Park (Northern Portugal): a site selection. A. Afonso, P. Pereira

PROGRAMME TIMETABLE

17

E-12 The establishment of geoconservation standards: the ProGEO glossary of geoconservation terms. J. Brilha

E-13 Regional type-sections of GSSPs as Geological Heritage sites of practical importance. I.Ya. Gogin

E-14 Using provocative interpretation to manage visitors to the fragile, dynamic geoheritage of mud volcanoes in Aspiring Geopark Buzau Land in Romania? J. Macadam, R.-G. Popa, C. Toma, S.G. Kudor, D.-A. Popa

E-15 Geological heritage in the central part of Scandinavia (GEARS) – a Norwegian-Swedish transboundary Interreg Project (2017–2019). S. Lundqvist, G. Ransed, R. Dahl

E-16 Educational role of the outcrops in qualified geotourism in which one may define the age and process of the tectonic movements – some examples from the Holy Cross Mountains, Central Poland. W. Mizerski, K. Skurczyńska-Garwolińska

E-17 Bahluieț Valley at Costești village (Romania) geoarchaeo site: the need for its protecting, promoting and managing. M. Niculiță

E-18 Recommendations for visitors in the Danube Geoparks. M. Stupar, J. LaganisE-19 Geological Garden at Tata (Hungary) – cleaned and beautified. I. Szente, B. Takács,

E. Harman-Tóth, T.G. Weiszburg


16:40–18:20 ProGeo General Assembly

18:20–19:00 Closing Ceremony Presentation of the proposal of the next ProGEO meeting in Spain by Enrique Diaz-Martinez

19:00–20:00 Dinner

20:00–22:00 Guided Tour in Chęciny Convener: Bartosz Piwowarski

Friday 29th of June – Saturday 30th of June

Post-symposium field trip: Top Geosites of Góry ŚwiętokrzyskieConvener: Stanisław Skompski

18

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

Juana Vegas

Geoconservation from the public administrations: Fifty years of work at the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME)

Tuesday, 26th June, 9:45

Dr. Juana Vegas received her PhD from the Complutense University of Madrid focusing on geology. Since 2005 she has been employed at the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME), where she is currently holding a position of a head of the Geological and Mining Heritage Department. She is also a representative of the Geological Survey of Spain for the Spanish Inventory Geosites in the

Committee of the Spanish Inventory of Natural Heritage of the Ministry of the Environment of Spain.Juana’s reserach interest is focused on geoheritage inventories and geoconservation. Her outstand-

ing research contibution contains the implementation of indicators for the geoheritage conservation in the natural protected areas, and the development of the methodology for integrating geoheritage into environmental impact assessment. These achievements have been developed in cooperation with the geoheritage research team of the Geological Survey in Spain.

Juana is an author of numerous scientific articles, books and chapters in books on geodiversity. She has participated in many scientific conferences devoted to the issues of geodiversity protection.

Kyung Sik Woo

Key Geoheritage Area: A potential new programme in IUCN for geoheritage conservation

Tuesday, 26th June, 10:35

Dr. Kyung Sik Woo is a professor at the Department of Geology, Kangwon National University, Korea since 1986. He graduated from the Seoul National University and received a MS degree in Geological Oceanography at Texas A&M University and a PhD degree in Geology at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. He is the Chair of IUCN WCPA Geoheritage

Specialist Group and has carried out field evaluation of World Heritage nominated sites for IUCN since 2009. He was the founder and the first President of Asian Union of Speleology and he served as the President of International Union of Speleology from 2013 to 2017. He has published ten books and more than 300 International and Korean scientific papers on carbonate sedimentology and diagenesis, speleology, paleoclimatology, paleoceanography, and geoheritage, including his paleoclimatic study using speleothems in Nature in 2014. He was in charge of writing a nomination document for Jeju World Heritage and Jeju Island Global Geopark. He has received many awards including the commendation by the Minister of Environment (2001), the Prime Minister (2003), the President (2009), and received a Medal of Science and Technology by the President (2013) and a National Academy of Science Award (2017).

19

ABSTRACTS IN THEMATIC ORDER

KEYNOTE LECTURES

Geoconservation from the public administrations: Fifty years of work at the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME)

Juana Vegas

Geological Survey of Spain (Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, IGME), Ríos Rosas 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geoconservation, geoheritage, national inventory, Geological Survey of Spain

Much done, but much more to do: At the end of the seventies of the 20th century, the first geoheritage re-search in Spain was started at the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME in Spanish) that is a public research Centre of the General Public Administration. From the beginning, systematic work was promoted through the so-called ‘National Inventory of Points of Geological Interest (INPIG)’. Several method-ological and inventory works were developed in var-ious provinces and geological domains linked to this project. Subsequently, the INPIG was interrupted for budgetary reasons, so the inventorying of geo-heritage was limited to the incorporation of several ‘points of geological interest’ to the mapping work of the National Geological Map (MAGNA), at scale E 1:50,000, from the year 1989.

One of the most noteworthy milestones was the leadership of the IGME in Spain of the International Global Geosites project of IUGS-UNESCO (García-Cortés et al. 2000), which was completed in 2006. Through this project, 21 geological frameworks and 152 geosites exposed in 214 outcrops have been identified (García-Cortés 2008).

The year 2017 has been supposed to be a revo-lution for the geological heritage in Spain with the approval of three state-level laws issued for the conservation of nature that expressly include geoheritage and geoconservation. These laws are the Law 42/2007 of the Natural Heritage and the Biodiversity, the 5/2007 of the Network of National Parks or the 45/2007 of Sustainable Development of the Rural Environment. But without a doubt, the greatest success has been reflected by the inclusion of International Geological Frameworks for Spain (from the Global Geosites Project) in Law 42/2007

on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity in its Annex VIII. In parallel, two decrees were approved in rela-tionship with Law 42/2007. Royal Decree 556/2011, for the development of the ‘Spanish Inventory of Natural Heritage and Biodiversity’ which includes, among others, the Spanish Inventory of Places of Geological Interest (IELIG in Spanish) that is de-veloped methodologically and coordinated by the IGME. The main objective of this Inventory is to have reliable and comparable information at the national level. As a consequence of this new era for Geoheritage in Spain, in the same year, the ‘Geological and Mining Heritage Department’ was created in the IGME’s structure and staff. Its tenth anniversary has been celebrated in 2017.

In this way, IGME is the only public adminis-tration in Spain that expressly includes in its stat-utes this new discipline of Geology, reinforcing the pioneering works which has begun in the 20th

century and today relies on the team of seven re-searchers. Nowadays the frontiers of knowledge of this new discipline have been reinforced with the development of a unified methodology for in-ventory in Spain, system of indicators for geocon-servation and the presidency and secretariat of the National Committee of UNESCO Global Geoparks in Spain. It has strengthened the institutional re-presentation of the IGME on an international scale, such as ProGeo, IUCN, EuroGeoSurveys, ASGMI (Iberoamerican Association of Geological and Mining Surveys) and OAGS (Organization of African Geological Surveys) with PanAfGeo Project. As a public administration, our team will always aim to defend and outreach the geological heritage as a common asset of the entire Society.


20

Key Geoheritage Area: A potential new programme in IUCN for geoheritage conservation

Kyung Sik Woo1, Seong Ok Ju1, José Brilha2

1 Department of Geology, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Gangwondo 24341, Republic of Korea; e-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]

2 University of Minho, Earth Sciences Department, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal;e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geoheritage, conservation, designation, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

Geoheritage site or geosite can be defined as a site with exceptional geological or geomorpholog-ical values, that should be conserved and inherited to future generations. Geoheritage values can be categorized into local to international values, and geoheritage sites must have a statutory protection. Unfortunately, there is no international protec-tion measure for the conservation of nature, thus geosites can be only protected by national laws, if available and/or applicable. Today, significant geoheritage sites are not well recognized at na-tional and international level, particularly when compared to ecological and biodiversity values. Thanks to the international programmes for rec-ognizing geoheritage values, a number of nations have shown interest for UNESCO designation as World Heritage or Global Geoparks. However, both programs are geographically very limited because World Heritage sites should be ‘representatives of the best in the world’ and Global Geoparks should have international geoheritage sites, associated with local communities to promote geotourism and sustainable development. However, there are so many more geosites of national to international

significance which may reveal significant stories about the Earth history.

Therefore, a new programme – Key Geoheritage Area (KGA) – is proposed here to recognize and conserve them. The KGA should be justified, in the first place, by geological (scientific) values, with-out considering additional educational and touris-tic values. For effective designation and protection, objective geological contexts with appropriate cri-teria should be developed considering representa-tiveness, rarity and integrity. This new programme could contribute to conserve geoheritage sites worldwide if adopted by IUCN in the future.

This proposal is being developed under the scope of the Geoheritage Specialist Group of the World Commission on Protected Areas (GSG WCPA, IUCN). The definition of its aims, methods, and outcomes is being clarified, together with the definition of the way links can be established with partner organizations, such as the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), The European Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage (ProGEO), Global Geopark Network (GGN), and others.

21

SESSION AGeoconservation and landscape management

ORAL PRESENTATIONS

Typical landforms of Kras (Slovenia), an important constituent part of the Karst landscape and possibilities for their conservation

Anica Cernatič Gregorič

Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation, Regional unit Nova Gorica, Delpinova 16, 5000 Nova Gorica, Slovenia; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: karst, geodiversity, landscape, conservation, valuable natural features

Goals: Slovenian region of Karst, known in Slo-vene as Kras, is a low carbonate plateau in the southwestern part of Slovenia, on the Slovenian-Italian border. The local name of the plateau (Karst in English) gave the scientific name to all similar land formations around the world. The karstifi-cation of the landscape resulted in numerous and diverse surface and underground geomorpholog-ical karst features. Two parts of karst landscape, surface and underground part, are integrated en-tirety by numerous and various interactions be-tween them; so karst landscape must be treated and studied as a karst landscape system. Because of its characteristics, it is an environmentally sen-sitive landscape. Expansive economic and urban development in the Karst region resulted in numer-ous changes in land use and had damaging effect on the surface geomorphological karst features. Significant parts of the Karst landscape, like do-lines, one of the main surface geomorphological features on Karst, and rocky areas with various small macro- and micro solution features on the rocks, exposed on the surface, are among the most affected. Underestimating geodiversity as an im-portant part of the landscape and Karst landscape as a whole, can affect karst processes, unique hab-itats and the Karst landscape as the non-renewable natural resource. Finally, landscape as an area, whose character is the result of the action and in-teraction of natural and/or human factor (European Landscape Convention, Florence, 2000) can lose its acknowledged identity. It is necessary to em-phasize that the Karst landscape has already been

recognized as a unique natural and cultural heri-tage at the international level.

Methods: Current regulations in Slovenia pro-vide some measures to ensure the protection of some surface geomorphological features. They can be protected as valuable natural features (nat-ural heritage) or as an integral part of landscape elements that are important for the biodiversity conservation. Facing the problem of disappearing typical geomorphological features, we established that existing measures were only partly efficient, and that it was generally impossible to implement the protection of the karst landscape. During our fieldwork, we identified and documented several degradations and misuses of typical karst land-forms, mostly dolines. During the preparation of the nature conservation guidelines for national and municipal spatial plans, we were faced with sev-eral initiatives with a possible devastating impact on karst features, some of which could result in uniform type of landscapes, without typical land-forms. We carried out a number of coordination meetings between municipalities to encourage net-working between them and to reduce the indiffer-ent acceptance of capital that result in the negative impact on landscape.

Conclusions: The Karst landscape is recognized as a significant landscape and because of its charac-teristics – one of the most complex and vulnerable ones. Considering options, provided by applicable legislation and fieldwork experience, conservation measures and approaches provide mostly detailed


22

scale approach and neglect the major geomorpho-logical features. Conservation efforts need to be upgraded by supplementary strategies that would cover other scales and levels of conservation of typical geomorphological features. Conservation of typical geomorphological features as a con-stituent part of the Karst landscape within nature management can be easier, especially on a land-scape scale. Therefore, further measures can be taken to identify, evaluate, and classify possible valuable landscapes in accordance with the Nature Conservation Act. Furthermore, it is necessary to stress the importance of geodiversity as the es-sential foundation for biodiversity and just as an important part of the Earth`s heritage as biodiver-sity is. A clearer stated link between biodiversity, geodiversity and landscape in the legislation could offer new possibilities in the overall framework of nature management.

Finally, we should be aware of the fact that Karst landscape is a product of interactions be-tween humans and the natural environment that it is mostly cultural landscape and a dynamic system that constantly changes. It is inevitable and neces-sary to balance nature conservation with the needs of the human inhabitants of a landscape and the surrounding community constantly. Conservation is therefore about the management of change (Gray 2004). According to our experience, conservation of karst landscape major landforms is more effec-tive by coordination through spatial and sectoral planning process. Some steps in the positive di-

rection have been made. Karst landforms are now recorded in the new municipal spatial plans as one of the important elements of the Karst landscape that must be protected. All institutions performing spatial and sectorial planning, who are aware of the importance of both, natural and cultural landscape elements, could contribute to achieving sustainable development for the benefit of everybody.

ReferencesAntrop, M. 2006. Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fic-

tion or utopia? Landscape and Urban Planning, 75 (3–4), 187–197.

Breg, M. 2007. Environmental aspects of dolines protection in Slovenia. Dela, 28, 43–57. (In Slovenian with En-glish summary).

Council of Europe 2000. European Landscape Convention. Firenze, October 20, 2000.

Erhartič, B. 2007. Landforms as geodiversity (geomorpho-logical natural heritage). Dela, 28, 59–74.

Gams, I. 2003. Karst in Slovenia in space and time, pp. 1–516. ZRC, ZRC SAZU; Ljubljana. (In Slovenian with English summary).

Gray, M. 2004. Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature, pp. 1–434. John Willey and Sons; Chichester.

Gray, M. 2013. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abio-tic Nature (second edition), pp. 1–512. Willey-Black-well; Chichester.

Kovačič, G., Ravbar, N. 2013. Analysis of human induced changes in a karst landscape – the filling of dolines in the Kras plateau, Slovenia. Science of the Total Envi-ronment, 447, 143–151.

Nature Conservation Act. Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 96/2004.

23

European cooperation towards the promotion of geoconservation in Africa

Enrique Díaz-Martínez1, Nicolas Charles2, Ángel García-Cortés1, Juana Vegas1

1 Geological Survey of Spain (IGME), Ríos Rosas 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] French Geological Survey (BRGM), 3 Av. Claude Guillemin, BP 36009, 45060 Orléans Cedex 2, France;

e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geological survey, geoconservation, geosite inventory, international cooperation, Africa

Introduction: The project PanAfGeo, developed between African and European national geolog-ical surveys through the international coopera-tion between their continental federations (the Organisation of African Geological Surveys and EuroGeoSurveys), promotes ‘Geoscientific knowl-edge and skills in African Geological Surveys’. The project spans 2017–2019 and aims to strengthen the capacity of geological survey organizations (GSOs) in Africa. We herein summarize the key aspects of this project as it relates to geoheritage studies within its Work Package 6 (WP6), and pro-vide several guidelines for future steps to be taken towards geoconservation in Africa.

Current status: A previous feasibility study (2013–2016) identified a series of gaps to be tar-geted by the PanAfGeo project, including a prelim-inary analysis of the status of geoheritage studies developed by African GSOs (Díaz-Martínez 2016). Its overall conclusion was that GSOs’ knowledge and responsibilities regarding geoheritage varies significantly, but there are some identifiable main common trends. Some GSOs are not aware of what has been done or what needs to be done in their country regarding geoheritage. This is actually still normal throughout the world, as the methodologies for geoheritage studies and management aimed at proper conservation and public use are seldom applied globally, with concepts and specific tech-niques developed only during the last two decades. The questionnaire identified wide differences be-tween GSOs: some with apparently no interest in the subject and no personnel dedicated to it, and others with plenty of interest and good inventories already completed or on their way. The most im-portant need identified by GSOs was training on geosite inventory (including mapping and value assessment) and geosite management (including planning, restoration and public use). In general, most African GSOs are not aware of geoconserva-

tion concepts and methodologies, and even less of recent advances on geosite value and vulnerabil-ity assessment, geoheritage management, and use of geosites towards local socioeconomic develop-ment, whether as part of geoparks or natural pro-tected areas. Hence, the potential for future devel-opment of geoconservation in Africa is very high.

Trainings on geoheritage: Ten training courses took place during 2017 for the 7 work packages of PanAfGeo at different locations in African countries. The training for WP6 took place in Morocco, with and active and crucial participation of the Moroccan GSO (Direction de la Géologie, Ministère de l’Energie et des Mines), both with personnel and in-kind contribution. A total of 18 trainees from 8 GSOs participated, both in the con-ferences with practical examples at the School of Mines and Natural History Museum of Marrakech, and in the extensive fieldwork at the UNESCO Global Geopark of M’Goun, in the High Atlas. The latter included practical examples of identification, description, mapping, value assessment and man-agement proposal for different types of geosites. An open pit quarry in operation and an archaeo-logical site with rock engravings were also visited in order to discuss the management issues related with natural versus cultural heritage, their proper consideration in legislation, and their potential for tourist and educational use. All the evaluations re-ceived from participants mentioned the usefulness of the knowledge acquired, and at the same time questioned the proper consideration of geoconser-vation principles and methodologies once back at their GSOs.

Two more trainings on geoheritage studies are planned for 2018, in Tanzania and Namibia, in collaboration with the respective GSOs of each country, and a similar content plan. In brief, this includes geoconservation in Africa and the po-tential of GSOs, basic concepts and principles,

SESSION A: Geoconservation and landscape managementSESSION A: Geoconservation and landscape management


24

methodologies for the inventory, identification and assessment of geoheritage, vulnerability and risk of degradation, legislation, protected areas, Global Geosites, moveable geoheritage, geotourism and geoparks in Africa.

Prospects for the future: With proper geoheri-tage inventories and assessment, GSOs can advise their governments and their society, including spe-cial interest groups like local communities, travel agencies or protected areas, towards the sustain-able use proper management of geosites. The tra-ditional division of government agencies between the industrial and business sector on one side, and the environmental and nature conservation sector on the other side, is nowadays losing its meaning. Regional and local socioeconomic development initiatives that reconcile mining with geotour-ism have a huge potential in Africa, particularly when historical mining of world-class deposits has resulted in mining heritage coinciding with type-localities for mineral deposits and geologic processes. New tourist products are yet to be devel-oped herein, not only under the framework of in-ternational networks such as the UNESCO Global

Geoparks, but also considering other types of local initiatives that may not necessarily require such a big economic compromise, but just take advantage of traditional societal and marketing structures al-ready existing.

As in other parts of the world, Africa is only beginning to discover its rich geoheritage and geo-diversity (e.g. Errami et al. 2015). African govern-ments and international organizations must sup-port GSOs in their much needed task of setting the path towards geoconservation by characterizing the geodiversity and identifying the geoheritage to be preserved for future generations and to be sustainably used for local, national and regional socioeconomic development.

ReferencesDíaz-Martínez, E. 2016. Perspectives on geoheritage re-

search and promotion for African geological survey or-ganizations. 35th International Geological Congress, 27 August – 4 September 2016, Cape Town, South Africa, Abstract, 4585 (last access: 11/03/2018), https://www.americangeosciences.org/sites/default/files/igc/4585.pdf

Errami, E., Brocx, M., Semeniuk, V. (Eds) 2015. From Geo-heritage to Geoparks: Case Studies from Africa and Be-yond, pp. 1–269. Springer; Berlin – Heidelberg.

25

Natural Capital – placing a value on geoconservation within a landscape framework in the UK

Lesley Dunlop

English Geodiversity Forum (Chair), Department of Geography and Environmental Science, Northumbria University, Ellison Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: Natural Capital, geoconservation, ecosystems services, management

Natural Capital is a mechanism through which a value can be placed on nature allowing it to be consid-ered alongside other assets. When the Government of the United Kingdom produced a Natural Envi-ronment White Paper ‘The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature’[2] there was no direct mention of geosites, geoheritage or geodiversity.

One ambition of the Natural Environment White Paper was to stop environmental degradation and to rebuild natural capital and to value it. Whilst landscapes are mentioned in the paper neither geo-conservation or geodiversity are not directly and this has been problematic for funding and recogni-tion within the UK. Natural Capital is being used as the basis for many of the environmental reviews therefore it is essential that geoconservation and natural diversity be included within this.

The World Forum on Natural Capital defines natural capital as ‘the world’s stocks of natural as-sets which include geology, soil, air, water and all living things’ (naturalcapitalforum.com). Many other definitions are not so clear. For instance within the UK the Natural Capital Committee defines nat-ural capital as ‘those elements of the natural envi-ronment which provide valuable goods and services to people’. In the main, these goods and services are related to ecology/biodiversity rather than to the full range of natural capital and there is no mention of the geology in the second report[1], preferring to make reference to sub-soil assets.

The English Geodiversity Forum have been pro-ducing case studies as to how this might be done for different locations and this paper will present the work of this and how a value can be attributed to geodiversity, and in particular the benefits of inclu-sion of geoconservation. For example links to tour-ism and recreation within areas such as the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and the Black Country proposed Geopark are easy to place a value on but it is more difficult to include geoconservation and the use of educational, scientific sites within land-

scape management. Using an ecosystems services and biodiversity analogies this paper presents a framework that can be adopted for evaluation of geological sites (English Nature 2006).

It is important that any case study using natu-ral capital to place a value on geodiversity should build upon all aspects. For example, a recent proj-ect within the North Pennines, UK, looked at the regulating potential of peat bogs and how conser-vation of these can add to improvement in the re-sourse and management. Wrens Nest, part of the Black Country aspiring Geopark, has value not just for tourism but also cultural, health and knowledge benefits and the national status of the site aids with geoconservation. Using examples such as these it can be shown that geoconservation has an import-ant role within natural capital and this can be im-portant to highlight this aspect.

ReferencesEnglish Nature 2006. The social and economic value of the

UK’s geodiversity, Research Report 709, pp. 1–113. En-glish Nature; London.

Lawton, J.H., Brotherton, P.N.M., Brown, V.K., Elphick, C., Fitter, A.H., Forshaw, J., Haddow, R.W., Hilborne, S., Leafe, R.N., Mace, G.M., Southgate, M.P., Sutherland, W.A., Tew, T.E., Varley, J., Wynne, G.R. 2010. Making Space for Nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. Report to Defra, pp. 1–119. London.

Internet sources[1] Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(Defra) 2015. The state of natural capital: protecting and improving natural capital for prosperity and wellbeing, pp. 1–73. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/516725/ncc-state-natu-ral-capital-third-report.pdf

[2] Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) 2011. The natural choice: securing the value of nature, pp. 1–84. Her Majes-ty’s Stationary Office. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-natural-choice-securing-the-value-of-nature

SESSION A: Geoconservation and landscape management


26

Geodiversity in the Terras de Coura Landscape Plan

João Forte1, Isabel Maria Matias2,3, Pascal de Moura Pereira2, Luís Brandão Coelho4

1 Geodiversity consultant, Moinho das Moitas, 3240-127, Ansião, Portugal; e-mail: [email protected] Leiras do Carvalhal, Lda., Caminho do Crasto, 289, 4940-687, Paredes de Coura, Portugal;

e-mail: [email protected] Centro de Estudos Arnaldo Araújo/ESAP, Escola Superior Artística do Porto, Largo de S. Domingos, 80, 4050-545, Porto,

Portugal; e-mail: [email protected] Valminho, Av. Miguel Dantas, nº 69, 4930-678, Valença, Portugal; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: landscape plan, geodiversity, Paredes de Coura, territorial management

Paredes de Coura is a municipality located in north-ern Portugal. The Terras de Coura Lands cape Plan was developed in this territory and is a pilot Project in Portugal concerning the implementation of the European Convention for Landscape on a munici-pal level.

This project was possible after the approval of the application presented by the city council for

community funds – North 2020 National Heritage. A partnership was made by the city council with lo-cal agents, namely: Leiras do Carvalhal Lda, a pri-vate company located in Paredes de Coura, Centro de Estudos Arnaldo Araújo/ESAP and Valminho Florestal.

The guidelines for the development of this project followed European methodologies such as

Fig. 1. Geodiversity map of the municipality of Paredes de Coura, Portugal.

27

those defined in Spain, France and Italy. As an example, some common elements with the ‘pla de paisatge’ in various ‘ajuntaments’ of the autono-mous region of Catalonia can be found in Terras de Coura Landscape Plan. Currently it does not exist a legal figure in Portugal to serve as a guideline for the elaboration of landscape plans on a local level.

By implementing this methodology, ten land-scape units were defined and they portray the Paredes de Coura territory. At a subsequent phase quality objectives were established for each one of these units. In the last stage an action plan was elaborated and a variety of actions, such as projects and measures aiming at protecting, managing and planning the landscape units were defined. A fun-damental issue was the involvement of local people trough public participation in this landscape plan. This potentially enables them to preserve their own identity and to motivate the community to its role in the construction of the landscape. Renaming one of the landscape units (Porreiras Granites to São Silvestre Granites) is one example of it. During the public participation process, the community rec-ognised important values related with geodiversity (e.g. intrinsic, cultural, aesthetical).

A new and innovative guideline (Forte 2014; Forte et al. 2018) was implemented, concerning the inclusion of geodiversity in this landscape plan. Analysis of geodiversity was made at municipality level (Fig. 1) and at landscape units. The charac-terization of geodiversity patterns is a major asset for territorial management (Hjort, Luoto 2010) and also for landscape plans. Physical factors such as lithology, landforms and soils, used in this proj-ect, constitute the basis of a landscape (Benito-Calvo et al. 2009). The inclusion of geodiversity in the Terras de Coura Landscape Plan is another milestone and follows the increasing need for the knowledge, promotion and protection of the abiotic elements of natural environment.

Biodiversity and geodiversity can now walk side

by side at in the Terras de Coura Landscape Plan, following the ecosystem approach, even if still lacks the status and standing in political, diplomatic, pol-icy and public arenas, for geodiversity, as referred by Crofts (2014). The authors expect that this pilot landscape plan can lead to a better recognition of geodiversity as part of nature and landscape policies in Portugal. Also that the relationship between bio-diversity and geodiversity can be better understood, since Paredes de Coura municipality enclosures a Natura 2000 area and the Corno do Bico Protected Landscape. Geodiversity is not usually included in the management tools for protected sites, that’s why this landscape plan can represent a new step not only for management of natural protected areas but also as a municipal/landscape scale.

Another major development was made by the establishment of the Landscape Observatory of Paredes de Coura. Its aim is to develop policies related with landscape and it will be complemented with a geodiversity action plan for Paredes de Coura. It will be probably the first geodiversity action plan in Portugal.

ReferencesBenito-Calvo, A., Pérez-González, A., Magri, O., Meza, P.

2009. Assessing regional geodiversity: the Iberian Pen-insula. Earth Surface Processes Landforms, 34 (10), 1433–1445. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1840

Crofts, R. 2014. Promoting geodiversity: learning lessons from biodiversity. Proceedings of the Geologists Asso-ciation, 125, 263–266.

Forte, J.P., Brilha, J., Pereira, D., Nolasco, M. 2018. Kernel Density Applied to the Quantitative Assessment of Geo-diversity, Geoheritage. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0282-3

Forte, J.P. 2014. Avaliação quantitativa da geodiversidade: Desenvolvimento de instrumentos metodológicos com aplicação ao ordenamento do território. Dissertação de Doutoramento, pp. 1–286. Universidade do Minho.

Hjort, J., Luoto, M. 2010. Geodiversity of high-latitude land-scapes in northern Finland. Geomorphology, 115 (1–2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.09.039



28

The role of the landscape aesthetic values in the geotourism

Zoltán Karancsi1, Gergely Horváth2, Gábor Csüllög2, Mária Szabó2

1 University of Szeged, Faculty of Education, Department of Geography and Ecotourism, Boldogasszony sugárút 6, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Eötvös Loránd University, Institute of Geography and Geosciences, Department of Environmental and Landscape Geography, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] (M.S.)

Keywords: landscape evaluation, geoheritage, geopark, geotourism, Hungary

Goals: Landscapes inspire not only the artists but also the tourists. The greatest part of the visitors chooses destinations by the attractiveness of the view. Beautiful scenery touches everyone, because scenic landscapes, together with their natural real-ity and cultural character, have a pleasant ambience and express aesthetic value. When assessing any natural-cultural landscape, it is not easy to evalu-ate the natural landscape only. However, this is the most considerable attractiveness for the visitors, and they certainly find it most worth remembering. The physical condition of the landscape also reflects the anthropogenic effects on the environment (Horváth, Karancsi 2011; Karancsi et al. 2015): the landscape changes in time, societies transform the natural landscapes into cultural landscapes, which process often results in observable conflicts in the life of the landscape. In this context, the state of natural landscapes also acts a mirror or even a self-portrait of humans who use and transform the landscape.

Just like any other products, the natural land-scapes as destinations of tourism also need adver-tising. Even today, postcard pictures play important role in popularizing them (Pócsik et al. 2014). This is why this paper investigates the geographical and aesthetic aspects of the postcards of the authors’ research area. The first Hungarian postcard in this region was printed in 1899; since then, more than 300 different types were published. Most of these postcards satisfy the artistic expectations and pres-ent some attractions, sometimes very interesting attractions, which are typical of the time in which they were made, though they are not characteristic features of postcards today (e.g. man-made land-scape objects like waste dumps or mine shafts). Paintings of landscapes made by painters can also serve for introducing the attractiveness of the land. Paintings and graphics by famous artists often help to raise the interest in landscape tourism too.

Geological, geomorphologic, botanic and other landscape values induce geotourism (Newsome, Rowling 2006). Geotourism, which appeared in the 2000’s together with geopark sightseeing, is one of the youngest branches of the tourism ac-tivities in Hungary. The first geopark in Hungary, a Hungarian-Slovakian transborder geopark, is the Novohrad-Nógrád Geopark (Horváth, Csüllög 2011, 2013). The presentation will introduce the main aesthetic landscape elements of this geopark, like eroded rhyolite surfaces, basalt outcrops partly crowned by medieval castles, sandstone gorges (Horváth 1999), as well as sites of cultural heritage, mining heritage (Horváth et al. 2012; Horváth, Csüllög 2012), folk architecture, folk costumes, etc. and their effect on geotourism.

Methods: Beyond the geographical evaluation, in this this research the investigations in archives have been carried on, as well as landscape analyses and cartographic methods have been applied.

Conclusions: During the assessment of a natural- cultural landscape, the analysis of the scenery plays an important role. The interpretation of the aesthetic values and their visualisation in maps promote controlling geotourism. As a result, the-matic routes linking spectacular places should be created in the geoparks.

ReferencesHorváth, G. 1999. Landscape values in the Medves Area,

North Hungary. In: P. Hlavinková, J. Munzar, (Eds), Re-gional prosperity and sustainability, p. 95–104. Regio-graph; Brno.

Horváth, G., Csüllög, G. 2011. Geoconservation and geo-tourism in a new Central European geopark. In: J.-C. Lin (Ed.), Landscape conservation, p. 31–42. National Taiwan University; Taipei.

Horváth, G., Csüllög, G. 2012. The role of ecotourism and geoheritage in the spatial development of former mining

29

regions. In: P. Wirth, B. Černič Mali, W. Fischer (Eds), Post-mining regions in Central Europe. Problems, Poten-tials, Possibilities, p. 226–240. Oekom Verlag; München.

Horváth, G., Csüllög, G. 2013. A new Slovakian-Hungari-an cross-border geopark in Central Europe – Possibility for promoting better connections between the two coun-tries. European Countryside, 5 (2), 146–162.

Horváth, G., Csüllög, G., Karancsi, Z. 2012. Mines as geo-sites and objectives of geotourism in Hungary. In: M. Bentivenga, F. Geremia (Eds), Geoheritage: Protecting and Sharing, Proceedings and fieldtrip guides of the 7th

International Symposium ProGEO on the Conservation of the Geological Heritage, 24–28 September 2012, Bari, Italy. Geologia dell’Ambiente Supplemento, 3, 141–142.

Horváth, G., Karancsi Z. 2011. Intensity of the anthropo-genic effects on a small landscape unit in North Hunga-ry. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, 55, Supplementary Issue 1, 37–50.

Karancsi, Z., Horváth, G., Sütő, L., Csüllög, G. 2015. An-thropogenic geomorphosites in the Karancs – Medves Region. In: D. Lóczy (Ed.), Landscapes and landforms of Hungary, p. 139–147. Springer; Berlin – Heidelberg.

Newsome, D., Rowling, D. 2006. Geotourism, sustainability, impacts and management, pp. 1–260. Elsevier; Oxford.

Pócsik, E., Kiss, A., Karancsi, Z. 2014. Role of postcards in the ‘sale’ of (historic) landscapes and townscapes. Com-parative analysis of two different Hungarian key tourist areas. Siedlungsforschung, 31, 337–351.



30

Evaluation of Cultural Landscape within the Cultural HeritageProtection System

Marvy Lah

Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Cultural Heritage Service, Metelkova 4, Ljubljana, Slovenia; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: cultural landscape, cultural heritage, evaluation, protection

Goals: The knowledge about historic landscapes is an integral part of the information which is import-ant for spatial planning. Recording, assessing and studying landscapes is the essential contribution to the landscape planning and management.

The cultural landscape is significantly differ-ent from the rest of heritage. The most import-ant factors of the landscape are climate and relief. In accordance with these natural features a plant cover is formed, which is the most visible element of landscape. Man also adapts to natural condi-tions and at the same time he manipulates it to suit his own needs. These interventions are reflected in new forms of settlements, food production and solving or removing the barriers in nature.

Nowadays the changes in the landscape are fast and the traces of earlier periods are disappearing. Each cultural landscape is also a category of pres-ent, and all cultural landscapes are embedded in the technological and economic logic of the current time. We do not deal with cultural landscape as built heritage, which is renewed and later maintained and ensured to preserve the historical image. The essen-tial property of landscape compared to the rest of cultural heritage is that it is continuously changing. In cultural landscape there are always irreversible changes. Therefore it cannot be evaluated with the same criteria as the rest of cultural heritage.

Methods: The assessment method is based on the fact that even, when evaluating cultural landscapes it is possible to identify the structure and monu-mental remains or substance as it is with the rest of the heritage. The structure of a cultural landscape is determined by the distribution of its essential el-ements. Particularly important in regard to historic landscapes is the readability of the structure and the ability to identify individual functional units. The state of both indicates a conservation status which is to be tested using available historical sources.

Conclusions: The interests in the landscape is expressed also within other sectors, e.g. envi-ronment, agriculture and forestry, and the settle-ment. None of them alone can cope with cultural landscapes. Each can only contribute knowledge from a specific professional segment regarding the cultural landscape. Management can only be initiated by a creative dialogue within the spatial planning.

ReferencesLah, M. 2016. Vrednotenje kulturne krajine v sistemu varst-

va kulturne dediščine (Evaluation of cultural landscapes in the system of cultural heritage protection). Master thesis, pp. 1–143. University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty; Ljubljana.

Ogrin, D. 1996. Strategija varstva krajine v Sloveniji (Land-scape Protection Strategy in Slovenia). Master thesis, pp. 1–59. University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Institute of Landscape Architecture; Ljubliana.

Pirkovič, J. 1987. Vrednotenje kulturne dediščine (Evalua-tion of cultural heritage). Varstvo spomenikov. Journal for the Protection of Monuments, 29, 29–40.

Pirkovič, J. 1993. Osnovni pojmi in zasnova spomeniškega varstva v Sloveniji (Basic concepts of monument pro-tection in Slovenia). Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, 11, pp. 1–176; Ljubljana.

Rules on the Cultural Heritage Register. 2009. Uradni list Republike Slovenije, 66/09.

Rules on the Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage. 2002. Uradni list Republike Slovenije, 25/02.

Spatial development strategy. 2004. Ljubljana, Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy, pp. 1–75. Spatial Planning Directorate, Spatial Development Of-fice; Ljubljana.

Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine (Cultural Heritage Protec-tion Act), 1. 2008 Uradni list Republike Slovenije, 16/87.

Internet sources[1] Handbook of legal regimes of cultural heritage protection.

2013. Ljubljana, Ministry of Culture (digital database) (In Slovene). http://giskd6s.situla.org/evrdd/ P_11_11_02.htm (June 2013).

31

Enhancing Community–School Partnership for Rural Landscape Conservation: a case study in Taiwan

Kuang-Chung Lee1

1 National Dong-Hwa University, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, No. 1, Sec. 2, Da Hsueh Rd., Shoufeng, Hualien 97401, Taiwan; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: landscape conservation, rural community development, geo-tourism, school-community-univer-sity partnership, participatory forum

The study area: Academics in Taiwan have been working on landscape conservation for 30 years. Numerous studies focus on investigation, assessment, monitoring and education of special scientifically important geo-conservation sites. However, few researches have been done on the issues of local stakeholder participation and rural community development. The author chooses one of the national- level geo-conservation sites, the Lichi Badland in Taitung County, Taiwan, as a case study area. The area is surrounded by two villages; each has a branch of elementary school (Figs. 1, 2).

Aims: This research aims in looking into the pro-cess as to how the above two communities and two schools collaborated on planning and conducting related community development projects between 2005 and 2010, with focus on analyzing the process and outcomes of setting up a school–community–university partnership platform for conducting the collaborative projects.

Methods: The theory of collaborative planning and management (Healey 1997, 1998) was employed to explore issues of geo-conservation, geo-tourism and local community development. Many participatory


Fig. 1. Location of the study area.


32

forums were designed and conducted in two villages to enhance school–community–university partner-ships for rural landscape conservation of the area. This study employs qualitative data inquiry meth-ods including participant observation, individual in-terviews and group discussions. A focus group dis-cussion was conducted in Lichi village in November 2016 to explore the meanings and values of ‘bad-lands’ perceived by local people and teachers.

Findings and conclusions: The findings show that the ‘school–community–university partnership plat form’ was like a new bridge activating part-nership between local communities and schools. Through regular panel discussions on the platforms

and training workshops, local people and teachers figured out a common ground of their interests and goals. They worked together to draw up and conduct several landscape conservation projects which aimed to enhance better understandings of relationships between local people livelihoods and the badland as resources. Through the implemen-tation processes of these projects, local people and teachers had completed local natural and cultural resources investigation, environmental education and interpretation materials, as well as carried out several pilot programs of geo-tourism. A detailed data analysis shows that the process and outcomes of the school–community–university partnership building of the case study from 2005 to 2010 could be influenced by the following 13 factors, includ-ing: local problems and needs; development goals and visions; strategies and action plans; commu-nity leadership and coherence; school leadership and coherence; collaborative role of the research team; collaborative role of local authorities; role recognition of each other; operational mechanism of the school-community partnership platform; policies and resources of relevant community proj-ects; human resources and participation; finan-cial resource and allocation, and benefits sharing. Besides, the analysis of the focus group discussion in 2016 reveals that the image of ‘badland’ used to be negative perceived by local people has now be-come a resource for local community and tourism development.

The ‘school–community–university partnership platform’ proves to be a genuine assistance to pro-mote knowledge resources, relational resources, and mobilization capacity among the local stakehold-ers and help to promote geo-conservation and rural community development.

ReferencesHealey, P. 1997. Collaborative planning: shaping places in

fragmented societies, pp. 1–338. Macmillan; London.Healey, P. 1998. Building institutional capacity through col-

laborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and Planning A, 30, 1531–1546.

Fig. 2. Lichi badland landscape and the village.

Fig. 3. The ‘school–community–university partner-ship platform’.

33

Geoconservation and management strategies: A case study with two Spanish UNESCO Global Geoparks

Thais de Siqueira Canesin1, José Brilha1, Enrique Díaz-Martínez2

1 Institute of Earth Sciences, Pole of the University of Minho, Campus of Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

2 Geological Survey of Spain (IGME), Ríos Rosas 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geoconservation, geological heritage, geoparks management, UNESCO Global Geoparks

The aim of geoconservation is the proper conser-vation and management of geological heritage. A geoconservation strategy can be more effective when the steps for inventory, assessment, conserva-tion, promotion, and monitoring are applied in se-quence (Brilha 2006). UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGG) have geological heritage with international relevance that is used in action plans towards the sustainable socioeconomic development of these territories. Therefore, geoconservation must be one of the main axes on which other complemen-tary strategies, such as the educational and touris-tic ones, should be based.

We herein describe the geoconservation and management strategies of two Spanish UGG: Las Loras Geopark (LLG) and Molina de Aragón-Alto Tajo Geopark (MATG). This study aims to under-stand how these geoparks were implemented in the territory, to identify what their major challenges are, and finally to suggest procedures that may improve the outcomes of these UGG and others. The data for this analysis was obtained during a 3 months stay at each of the two geoparks. During this period, geopark managers provided relevant documenta-tion, field work was done on 15 geological sites, and contacts were made within each of the communities.

LLG started its activities in 2004/05 and was accepted by UNESCO as a UGG in 2017. MATG was accepted in the European Geoparks Network in 2014, after 8 years of activities together with the Alto Tajo Natural Park and the Museum of Molina de Aragón. These two case studies, with distinct histories, and different management models, allow the identification of some aspects that may be cru-cial for the success of any geopark.

As geological heritage is an essential require-ment for any geopark, geoconservation needs to be properly applied, which requires the presence

of experts within the technical staff of geoparks. Equally important is the existence of management structures that can effectively ensure a connection with the community and with all stakeholders in the territory, so as to ensure an integrated develop-ment of the whole region. A good cooperation with the administration of any protected area is also a remarkable positive factor. Park managers have ex-tensive experience in the implementation of nature conservation and environmental education actions, activities that can certainly benefit any geopark.

The work done in these two case studies allowed to confirm some good-practices that can help the success of any UGG: (1) Establishment of a data-base with all actions and activities organized in the geopark, not only by the geopark’s manage-ment, but also by geopark partners; (2) Existence of geoconservation experts within the geopark’s staff; (3) Creation and implementation of a geoconserva-tion action plan involving all steps of a geoconser-vation strategy; (4) Existence of a multidisciplinary staff team; (5) Existence of management and stra-tegic plans covering key activities of geoparks, namely education, tourism, communication and sustainable development; and (6) Promotion of par-ticipative management with stakeholders and local population, as a tool for the development of the whole territory.

ReferencesBrilha, J. 2006. Proposta metodológica para uma estratégia de

geoconservação. VII Congresso Nacional de Geologia, Estremoz, Portugal, 29 June – 13 July, 2006, 7, 925–927.

Canesin, T. 2017. Análise comparativa da implementação de desenvolvimento dos Geoparques Mundiais da UN-ESCO Las Loras e Comarca de Molina de Aragón-Alto Tajo (Espanha) e propostas de gestão. Dissertação de mestrado em geociências, pp. 1–308. Universidade do Minho.



34

Concepts of geoheritage and geosite in a strategy and practice of geoconservation and geology promotion

Jan Urban1, Włodzimierz Margielewski1, Barbara Radwanek-Bąk 2

1 Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Al. Adama Mickiewicza 33, 31-120 Kraków, Poland; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

2 Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Carpathian Branch, Skrzatów 1, 31-560 Kraków, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geoheritage, geosite, geoconservation, caves, springs

Introduction: The term ‘geoheritage’ was intro-duced in the ‘International Declaration of the Rights of the Memory of the Earth’ adopted during the First International Symposium on the Conservation of our Geological Heritage hold in Digne les Bains, France, 1991. Such circumstances of its creation in-dicate its connection with consciousness of threats and necessity of protection of the Earth and its ele-ments. In order to make significant progress in the geoconservation, the notion of geoheritage should be easily recognized and adopted by various groups of public, also policy makers. The aim of this paper is to indicate arguments and methods that will facil-itate proper and more eager perception of geoheri-tage and its elementary portions, ‘atoms’ – geosites, as heritage needing conservation.

Geoheritage role in human past, present-day and future: Every definition recognises geoheritage as intrinsic scientific features/sites that allow us to un-derstand history of the Earth and life and processes responsible for this history. Some definitions include to the geoheritage features also cultural importance of sites (Brocx, Semeniuk 2007). Nevertheless, there is still a crucial aspect of human-geoscience inter-relation not clearly expressed in these definitions, probably due to the anxiety that it may introduce human perspective into the purely scientific, intrin-sic evaluation of geoheritage features. This idea was emphatically formulated in the ‘Declaration’ in the following phrase: ‘Mother Earth supports us. We are each and all linked to her […]’, and has been developed by van Wyk de Vries et al. (2018), who remind the role of geosciences in understanding the Earth system dynamics and evolution, which have determined human being in the past and currently in the time of violent global changes. Consequently, they postulate the necessity ‘to communicate geo-sciences to the audience of all types from politicians to general public’. Therefore, evidences showing

the role of the Earth (its evolution, structure and processes) and geosciences in the interpretation of human history and present-day situation will be the best promotion of geoheritage and geoconservation. This ‘human centered’ perspective is not contradic-tory to the geoheritage evaluation based on intrinsic value, but adds new, humanistic feature to this eval-uation. We postulate thus to include the role of site in the human history or present-day status into the features of geoheritage.

The extraordinary example of such geoheritage feature proving the direct role of specific geological structure in human history is Wawel Hill crowned with the Royal Castle in Kraków city, a historical capital of Poland. This hill is a tectonic horst built of Jurassic limestone, framed by steep slopes and surrounded by marshy plain of Vistula river val-ley built of Miocene and Quaternary clayey-sandy rocks. Such geological structure and consequent morpho- and hydrological conditions favored hu-man colonization of the hill in the prehistoric and Early Medieval time: the hill population was nat-urally sheltered from enemies, never suffered hun-ger due to fishing and cultivation of different (hu-mid plain and dry plateau) areas, had rock material for construction and convenient communication and river transport (Alexandrowicz et al. 2009).

Apart from the individual sites, there are geo-site categories which structurally illustrate depen-dence of human live on geological/geomorpholog-ical elements, resources or processes. Caves are such category, due to their role in the prehistoric development of human civilisation as well as in present-day cultural activities. The co-occurrence of relevant geological features, and cultural values represented by archeological artifacts of Paleolithic cultures (Madeyska, Cyrek 2002) is principally a direct consequence of cave occurrence, location, shape and general character.

35

Springs are the other geoheritage category whose recognition, studies and conservation is of principal importance for human being. Springs are thus evidences of water resources necessary for live and economy, and provide information on groundwater circulation in the Earth’s crust (Baścik et al. 2009). In the epoch, when people do not connect water with its subsurface resources, the educational role of natural springs is of crucial importance. Springs emphatically illustrate the role of Earth resources and processes and their rec-ognition (thus geosciences) in human live.

Consistent and simple ‘structure of geoheritage’ as a necessary condition of efficient geoconser-vation: The other condition to make geoheritage better perceptible to public and easier to manage by governmental, communal or private agencies is to construct its ‘structure’ consistent, as well as to use terminology and classifications clear and simple. This postulate is not against expanded and complex systems of geosite evaluation and classification de-veloped for the last quarter of a century. It concerns the final reports that present results of geoheritage inventories and evaluations, as well as recommenda-tions on the geoheritage management. Even if these documentations include descriptions of complex features referred to ‘roots of geological knowledge’, they must be clear and understandable for ordinary managers and agency officers, possibly naturalist. A language (terminology) and illustrations are of crucial meaning in this case (van Wyk de Vries et al. 2018). Such final report should include a list of eval-uated geosites and geomorphosites, with a descrip-tion of their values, threats and recommendations on their management, i.e. monitoring, conservation procedures, possible public access (geotouristic us-age). Evaluation of geosites, given in the final re-port, should be based on principal and commonly understood criteria – preferably proposed in the GEOSITE project which were applicable in very different geological regions (Wimbledon et al. 1998, 2001). Presented evaluation levels: local, regional, supraregional and global, ought to include respec-tively all geosites taken into account during the proj-ect realisation. It does not mean that during the pro-fessional categorisation and evaluation much more complex and sophisticated procedures could not be used, however, the final report must be sufficiently clear to guide the conservation and management activities realised by non-geoscientists.

Conclusions: We postulate to properly appreciate and include into the ‘geoheritage structure’ sites and categories of sites that convince public and policy makers that Earth’s elements/features/phe-nomena were and are necessary not only for geo-scientist but they and their recognition have been playing crucial role in the development of human civilization, history and present-day situation.

ReferencesAlexandrowicz, Z., Urban, J., Miśkiewicz, K. 2009. Geo-

logical values of selected Polish properties of the UN-ESCO World Heritage List. Geoheritage, 1 (1), 43–52.

Baścik M., Chełmicki W., Urban J. 2009. Geoconservation of springs in Poland. Episodes 32, 3, 177–185.

Brocx M., Semeniuk V. 2007. Geoheritage and geoconser-vation – history, definition, scope and scale. Journal of Royal Society of Western Australia, 90, 53–87.

Madeyska, T., Cyrek, K. 2002. Cave filling – a chronicle of the past. An outline of the Younger Pleistocene cave sed-iments study in Poland. Acta Geologica Polonica, 52 (1), 75–96.

Van Wyk de Vries, B., Byrne, P., Delcamp, A., Einarson, P., Göğüş, O., Guilbaud, M.-N., Hagos, M., Harangi, S., Jerram, D., Matenco, L., Rapprich, V., Rose, W., Vye, E. 2018. A global framework for the Earth: putting geolog-ical sciences in context. Global and Planetary Change. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.12.019

Wimbledon, W., Ishchenko, A., Gerasimenko, N., Alexand-rowicz, Z., Vinokurov, V., Liscak, P., Vozar, J., Voza-rova, A., Bezak, V., Kohut, M., Polak, M., Mello, J., Potfaj, M., Gross, P., Elecko, M., Nagy, A., Barath, I., Lapo, A., Vdovets, M., Klincharov, S., Marjanac, L., Mijovic, D., Dimitrijevic, M., Gavrilovic, D., Theo-dossiou-Drandaki, I., Serjani, A., Todorov, T., Nakov, R., Zagorchev, I., Perez- Gonzales, A., Benvenuti, M., Boni, M., Brancucci, G., Bortolami, G., Burlando, M., Costanini, E., D’Andrea, M., Gisotti, G., Guado, G., Marchetti, M., Massoli- Novelli, R., Panizza, M., Pavia, G., Poli, G., Zarlenga, F., Satkunas, J., Mikulenas, V., Suominen, V., Kananoja, T., Lehtinen, M., Gongrijp, G., Look, E., Grube, A., Johansson, C., Karis, L., Parkes, M., Raudsep, R., Andersen, S., Cleal, C., Bevins, R. 1998. A first attempt at a GEOSITES Framework for Europe – an IUGS initiative to support recognition of Word heritage and European geodiversity. Geologica Balcanica, 28 (3–4), 5–32.

Wimbledon, W.A.P., Ishchenko, A.A., Gerasimenko, N.P., Drandaki., I., Karis, L.O., Suominen, V., Johansson, C.E., Freden, C. 2001. IUGS’s GEOSITES initiative: science supported by conservation. In: D. Barettino, W.A.P. Wimbledon, E. Gallego (Eds), Proceedings of the Madrid 3rd International Symposium on the Conser-vation of the Geological Heritage, November 23–25th 1999, Madrid, p. 69–94. Instituto Tecnológico Geomi-nero de España; Spain.



36

POSTERS

Protected areas at the cross-border region Kosovo–Albania

Fadil Bajraktari1, Sami Behrami1, Nazmi Zogaj2, Blerta Avdia3

1 Kosovo Institute for Nature Protection, Luan Haradinaj str., New Government Building, 10000, Pristina, Kosovo;e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

2 Competence Center Malisheva, Habib Berisha str. without number, Neighborhood of Mirdita, 24000, Malisheva, Kosovo; e-mail: [email protected]

3 University College Logos, Department of Tourism, Dritan Hoxha str., Comfort Palaces (Over NBG), In front of the Sports Palace Asllan Rusi, Tirana 1001, Albania; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: protected cross-border areas, cultural value, natural heritage, Kosovo–Albania joint manage-ment plans

Natural heritage: The natural heritage of a country is one of its most important assets. The cross-border area Kosovo–Albania is characterized by a high di-versity of natural and cultural values. This area with 116.3 km long is located the southern and western part of Kosovo. The most important natural heritage areas of the Balkan are located along this cross-bor-der region, such as: ‘Bjeshkët e Nemuna’ (Albanian Alps), ‘Pashtriku’ and ‘Sharri Mountains’. Within the cross-border area of Kosovo–Albania, there are three strict nature reserves (‛Koritnik’, ‛Bredhiku’ and ‛Gashi River’), two National Parks (‘Sharri and Bjeshkët e Nemuna’), two Natural Parks (‘Pash-triku’ with ‘Lake of Vermica’, and ‘Korab-Koritnik’ ‒ managed natural resources, category IV). The to-tal surface of these protected areas is about 45 thou-sand hectares.

Need of protection: In the cross-border mountain relief there are a large number of rare habitats (flora and fauna) and endangered species of national and international importance. Based on the scientific, natural, cultural and historical values, this area deserves protection of nature, and development of tourism. The development and protection of cross-border areas can be realized through plans and programs to be implemented by the two coun-tries. The designation of cross-border protected ar-eas increases the possibility to obtain international funding for the protection and conservation of na-ture. The management of these cross-border areas, joint management plans and strategies, which will promote the sustainable economic development of the area, such as: protection of natural and cul-tural heritage, ecotourism, promotion of traditional

products, improvement of existing infrastructure, integration of the local community and improving the social welfare of communities.

Cross-border cooperation is a key element of European Union (EU) policies to support the de-velopment of countries within the EU and in partic-ularly the development of neighbouring countries.

Albania–Kosovo cooperation for environmen-tal protection: The first initiative for cross-border cooperation between Kosovo and Albania for the proclamation of protected nature areas has started in 2006. This cooperation started within the frame-work of the ‛Peace Park’ and the ‛Green Belt’. This initiative for cooperation and proclamation of the cross-border protected areas of Kosovo and Albania, were also supported by the joint meeting of the Government of the Republic of Kosovo and the Government of the Republic of Albania held in 2017, during which was signed a memorandum of cooperation for environmental protection and an-nouncement of protected cross-border area of the Pashtrik Mountain and Lake Vermica.

ReferencesAvdia, B. 2015. Vlerësimi dhe Menaxhimi i Resurseve Naty-

rore dhe Njerëzore të Krahinave Lumë-Gorë (Ko sovë) për Zhvillimin e Qëndrueshëm të Tyre’. PhD Disetacioni, Tiranë.

Bajraktari, F., Behrami, S. 2013. Zonat e Mbrojtura të Ko-sovë, Kërkime Gjeografike, 15, 65‒73. Universiteti I Prishtinës, Fakulteti i Shkencave Matematike ‒ Naty-rore, Departamenti i Gjeografisë, Prishtinë.

Dollma, M. 2015. Geotourism and sustainable development in Skrapar, Acta Geoturistica, 6 (2), 11‒17. https://geotur.tuke.sk/pdf/2015/n02/02_Dollma_v6_n2.pdf

37

Enhancing geoconservation strategies by quantitative assessment of geosites in the Ceará Central Domain, Northeastern Brazil

Pâmella Moura1, Maria da Glória Motta Garcia 2, José Brilha3

1 Federal University of Ceará, Centre of Sciences. Geology Postgraduate Program, Campus do Pici, Bloco 912, CEP 60440-554, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Centre for Research Support in Geological Heritage and Geotourism, Institute of Geosciences, University of São Paulo, Rua do Lago, 562, CEP 05508-080, São Paulo, SP, Brazil; e-mail: [email protected]

3 Institute of Earth Sciences, Pole of the University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, Braga, Portugal; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geoheritage, GEOSSIT, priority protection, management plan

In general, the rural area of Northeast of Brazil is characterised by low socioeconomic condi-tions, partially due to a harsh semiarid climate, as it is the case of the Ceará state. The main geo-logical setting of this state is dominated by the Ceará Central Domain (CCD), one of the oldest tectonic ‘terranes’ in Brazil. It is composed of a mixed assemblage of magmatic and metamor-phic rocks, mainly formed due to compression efforts in the West Gondwana continent during the Neoproterozoic. This domain also includes im-portant features representing the geological evolu-tion of the South American Continent. Taking into account the success of several geoconservation

initiatives implemented around the world in the last two decades, an inventory of geoheritage has been developed in this domain, seeking to identify geological sites (geosites and geodiversity sites) that could be used to promote local sustainable de-velopment. The working area of about 39.000 km² comprises 29 municipalities (Fig. 1). To date, 52 geo logical sites were identified, representing eight geological frameworks (Moura et al. 2017). A quantitative assessment of these geological sites was calculated aiming to reduce the subjectivity of the inventory process and to provide information to allow a proper site management, as stated in Brilha (2016).


Fig. 1. Priority areas for a geoconservation management plan in the Ceará Central Domain, highlighting geosites, geodiversity sites and priority sites for educational and touristic purposes.


38

The Geological Survey of Brazil (CPRM) has developed an online platform named GEOSSIT in order to guide and standardize the inventory and quantitative assessment of national geoheritage (Lima et al. 2012; Rocha et al. 2016). GEOSSIT was adapted from Brilha (2005, 2016) and Garcia-Cortés, Carcavilla (2009) proposals by considering the local conditions in Brazil. Based on the data uploaded by each researcher, the platform calcu-lates the scientific value, the degradation risk, the potential educational and touristic uses, besides the scientific, educational and touristic protection pri-orities. The protection priorities assessment aims to identify which geosites should receive the first actions and resources for conservation, regarding their values, potential uses and degradation risk (Garcia-Cortés, Carcavilla 2009). In this work, it was necessary to ensure that both geosites with high scientific value and relevant potential uses would be included in a future geoconservation management plan; therefore, different priorities were assessed considering each value and use.

According to the GEOSSIT platform, 44 sites were considered as geosites, scoring more than 200 points for scientific value, whereas 8 sites were considered as geodiversity sites, scoring less than 200 points. Degradation risk was moderate for 60% of sites. Educational and touristic uses scored rang-ing 165 to 335 points and 150 to 320 points, respec-tively, from a total of 400 points. Only geological sites scoring more than 250 points for educational or touristic uses and more than 200 points for sci-entific value were considered for the next stages of the work. As a result, three sorted lists of geolog-ical sites were obtained: (1) Scientific protection priority with 14 geosites; (2) Educational protec-tion priority with 14 geosites and (3) Touristic pro-

tection priority with 8 geosites. Four priority areas could be defined based on the distribution of sites inside the CCD and the administrative units of regional planning, according to the Ceará Decree-Law nº 154/2015 (Fig. 1).

The quantitative assessment of geoheritage in the CCD allowed defining the priority sites for pro-tection of scientific value as well as the promotion of potential uses. One of these presented areas will be chosen to develop a geoconservation manage-ment plan based on geoeducational and geotourism purposes.

ReferencesBrilha, J. 2005. Património Geológico e Geoconservação:

A conservação da natureza na sua vertente geológica, pp. 1190. Palimage Editores; Braga.

Brilha, J. 2016. Inventory and Quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage, 8 (2), 119–134.

García-Cortés, A., Carcavilla, L.U. 2009. Documento met-odológico para la elaboración del Inventario Español de lugares de interés geológico (IELIG), 2, pp. 1–164. In-stituto Geológico y Minero de España; Madrid.

Lima, E.R., Rocha, A.J.D., Schobbenhaus, C. 2012. GEO-SSIT: Uma ferramenta para o Inventário de geossítios. 46 Congresso Brasileiro de Geologia, Santos, Brazil, September 30 – October 5, 2012, p. 35. Sociedade Bra-sileira de Geologia; São Paulo.

Moura, P., Garcia, M.G.M., Brilha, J. 2017. Conservation of geosites as a tool to protect geoheritage: the inventory of Ceará Central Domain, Borborema Province – NE Brazil. Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, 89 (4), 2525–2645.

Rocha, A.J.D., Lima, E., Schobbenhaus, C. 2016. Aplica-tivo GEOSSIT: nova versão, 48o Congresso Brasile-iro de Geologia, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 9–13 October, 2016, p. 6389. Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia; São Paulo.

39

Protection of inanimate nature in Lower Silesia (Poland)

Katarzyna Zboińska1,2,3, Robert Tarka2,3, Mateusz Szadkowski3

1 Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Lower Silesian Branch, Jaworowa Avenue 19, 53-122 Wrocław, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

2 University of Wrocław, Department of Earth Sciences and Environmental Protection, Institute of Geological Sciences, Max Born Square 9, 50-205 Wrocław, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

3 Sudetic Foreland Geopark, Piastowska 40, 58-240 Piława Górna, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geosites, documentation sites, geotourism

Lower Silesia is widely recognized as one of the most interesting regions of Poland in terms of ge-ology. The extraordinary richness of inanimate na-ture, numerous geomorphological forms, diversity of geology – mainly in the Sudety Mountains and Sudetic Foreland – confirm the high environmental attractiveness of this part of country. However, de-spite the existence of certain natural values, the level of protection of the abiotic elements of nature in Lower Silesia is very low. This fact is surprising not only because of the enormous natural potential of the region (voivodeship), but also due to the fact that the economic values that carry this type of nature elements are not being used – especially in terms of geotourism. Geotourism is a form of cognitive tourism, based mainly on the educational and sci-entific value of inanimate nature objects. In recent years, the interest in geotourism has significantly increased. Ensuring access to the various geotourist objects should therefore be in the interest of both local authorities and inhabitants of the region.

There are several legally established forms of nature conservation, referring also to the abiotic environment: national parks, landscape parks, na-ture reserves, nature-landscape complexes, natural monuments, documentation sites (Gawlikowska 2000). These forms differ in their legal status of protection and are located throughout the whole Lower Silesia area.

There are two national parks in the region: Karkonosze National Park and Góry Stołowe National Park. Both are characterized by the out-standing qualities of inanimate nature. In the case of the Góry Stołowe National Park, the protection of abiotic environmental components was the main purpose of its establishing.

The issue of nature reserves looks different: on 67 reserves in Lower Silesia only five were

created due to inanimated nature as the main sub-ject of protection. In the case of two additional nature reserves, abiotic features are the purpose of protecting of the area[1]. Also weak empha-sis on the significance of inanimate nature can be seen among natural monuments: among over 2,500 natural monuments in the voivodeship area, only less than 100 are geological and geomorpho-logical objects, of which erratics constitute a sig-nificant part[2]. The issue of documentation sites looks similar: there are around 168 objects of this type in Poland, while in Lower Silesia there are only three[3] (Bochenek 2017). It should be noted, however, that in addition to the formal protec-tion of documentations, there is a rich network of so-called geosites included in the national regis-ter maintained by Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute[4]. However, they are only slightly presented in other catalogues.

As a part of the Global Geosites program coor-dinated by ProGEO, 175 objects from Poland were selected and gathered in the Polish Database of Representative Geosites (Miśkiewicz 2012). The database contains only 13 objects from the Lower Silesia.

The presented statistics indicate the necessity of enhancing the formal protection of inanimate nature in the Lower Silesia voivodeship. Many interest-ing abiotic elements suggested for protection there should be indicated, among them: Skalickie Skałki in Skalice near Henryków, presenting a unique re-cord of the formation of the geological structure of the Niemczańsko-Strzelińskie Hills; Goethe Rock in Krzywina village with specific ‘date-fruit quartz-ites’; loesses in Biały Kościół village, illustrating climate changes in the Pleistocene; Colorful Lakes in Rudawy Janowickie Mountains, created in places where pyrite was exploited, and others.



40

ReferencesBochenek, D. (Ed.) 2017. Environment 2017. Statistical in-

formation and elaborations, pp. 1–551. Central Statisti-cal Office; Warszawa.

Gawlikowska, E. 2000. Geodiversity conservation of the Lower Silesia with Map of protected areas and objects of inanimated nature 1:300 000, pp. 1–72. Ministry of Environment and Polish Geological Institute; Warszawa.

Miśkiewicz, K. 2012. Inanimate nature conservation in Poland with particular reference to nature monuments and nature reserves. In: T. Słomka (Ed.), The catalogue of geotourist sites in nature reserves and monuments, pp. 1–13. AGH University of Science and Technology; Kraków.

Internet sources[1] Rezerwaty przyrody 2017. Biuletyn Informacji Publi cz-

nej Regionalnej Dyrekcji Ochrony Środowiska we Wro-cławiu; Wrocław. http://bip.wroclaw.rdos.gov.pl/rejestr- form-ochrony-przyrody

[2] Rejestr pomników przyrody województwa dolnośląskiego 2018. Biuletyn Informacji Publicznej Regionalnej Dyrek-cji Ochrony Środowiska we Wrocławiu; Wrocław. http://bip.wroclaw.rdos.gov.pl/rejestr-form-ochrony-przyrody

[3] Wykaz stanowisk dokumentacyjnych województwa dolno-śląskiego 2017. Biuletyn Informacji Publicznej Regionalnej Dyrekcji Ochrony Środowiska we Wrocławiu; Wrocław. http://bip.wroclaw.rdos.gov.pl/rejestr-form-ochrony-przy-rody

[4] Centralny Rejestr Geostanowisk Polski. Państwowy Insty-tut Geologiczny – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy. http://geoportal.pgi.gov.pl/portal/page/portal/geostanowiska/

41

Spatial scales of geodiversity and landform taxonomic hierarchy

Zbigniew Zwoliński

Institute of Geoecology and Geoinformation, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, B. Krygowskiego 10, 61-680 Poznań, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geodiversity, landforms, spatial scale

Over the last quarter of century, the understanding of geodiversity from various points of view has been quite widely discussed. As a result, various methods of geodiversity research have developed (Zwoliński et al. 2018). In the multiplicity of meth-ods, there is now a need to standardize the methods of assessing geodiversity. This task is difficult due to the huge diversity of geology and morphology of the earth’s surface, two main factors affecting geodiversity. Finding an objective method and at the same time giving comparable results of this as-sessment is one of the main challenges in the study of geodiversity.

Another important aspect and challenge of the standardization of methods for assessing geodi-versity is the spatial scale of the area’s assessment. There are many such spatial scales in the earth sciences from very small (in mm) to very large (in thousands of km). In general, such scales have 10 levels (e.g. Tricart, Cailleux 1965; Chorley et al. 1984). Therefore, it is possible to propose a 9-level scale: microform, landform, set of land-

forms, type of landform, morphological landscape, geomorphological region, morphogenetic prov-ince, morphogenetic zone, and geomorphic realm. This division of the spatial scale corresponds well to the taxonomic hierarchy of the morphological landscape, which best reflects the geodiversity of any area of assessment. This presentation depicts couple examples of spatial scales of geodiversity with the taxonomic hierarchy of landforms. This comparison of scale and hierarchy shows the de-gree of lowering geodiversity from geomorphic realm to microform.

ReferencesChorley, R.J., Schumm, S.A., Sudgen, D.E. 1984. Geomor-

phology. Earth Sciences and the Past, pp. 1–605. Met-huen; London.

Tricart, J., Cailleux, A. 1965. Introduction a la Geomorpho-logie Climatique, pp. 1–306. SEDES; Paris.

Zwoliński, Z., Najwer, A., Giardino, M. 2017. Methods for assessing geodiversity. In: E. Reynard, J. Brilha (Eds), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management, p. 27–52. Elsevier; Amsterdam.



42

SESSION BGeoheritage and cultural heritage: mines, quarries, science

and communities

ORAL PRESENTATIONS

3D documentation, monitoring and origin of the hydration caves from the unique outcrop of weathering anhydrites at Pisky near Lviv (Ukraine)

Maciej Bąbel1, Adrian Jarzyna1, Damian Ługowski1 , Andriy Bogucki2, Andriy Yatsyshyn2, Krzysztof Nejbert1, Danuta Olszewska-Nejbert1

1 University of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Poland; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

2 Ivan-Franko National University of Lviv, Faculty of Geography, Doroshenka 41, 79000 Lviv, Ukraine; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: hydration, anhydrite, cave, dome, Digital Elevation Model (DEM), Badenian gypsum, Carpathian Foredeep

Introduction: Hydration caves are unique objects the formation of which is associated with the phe-nomenon of anhydrite rocks weathering. Anhydrite (CaSO4) exposed at the surface undergoes hydra-tion under influence of surface and subsurface water. During this reaction a secondary gypsum (CaSO4•2H2O) is formed and, sometimes, an in-crease in the volume of the rock is observed. As a result of this process unusual morphological forms are created at the surface of the swelling rocks. The most important of them are hydration domes with empty chambers inside them. When these chambers fit to the definition of a cave, i.e. they are large enough for a person to enter or to crawl inside, they represent the hydration caves. The characteristic feature of these forms is their rela-tively rapid development. In order to recognise the individual stages of development, it is necessary to monitor them and to provide detailed documen-tation. Until now, only a few places on Earth have been documented where the hydration caves occur. They include: Walkenried (Germany), Dingwall (Canada), Put-in-Bay (USA), as well as Pisky in Ukraine studied by the authors. The outcrop of gypsum-anhydrite rocks with actively growing hy-dration domes and caves was recognised in a semi-closed quarry of the Badenian (Middle Miocene)

gypsum at Pisky (west Ukraine, 25 km south of Lviv) in 1996, and has been studied systematically by the authors since 2012 (Fig. 1A, B). Various methods have been applied for documentation of the hydration forms – in particular the methods permitting their three-dimensional (3D) analysis (e.g. Bura, Janowski 2017). The authors would like to draw attention to the importance of such docu-mentation which is useful not only for the quantita-tive investigation of these unique forms but also for the monitoring their evolution in time as well as for the comprehensive protection.

Methods: The basic data regarding hydration caves were collected in the catalogue of 99 documented hydration domes (and 21 hydration caves among them) recognised at Pisky, where i.a. information about their essential morphometric features and the range on the orthophotomap foundation were in-cluded. Documentation in the form of terrestrial photogrammetry using the ‘Structure from Motion’ tool was used for more detailed analysis. This method is based on automatic localization of the places of the taken photographs and creates the ge-ometry of the space using the ‘Bundle Adjustment’ algorithm, defined as a method for visual recon-structions that attains jointly optimal structure and

43

camera estimates. As a result of several days of fieldwork in 2015, about 4,500 photos covering al-most the entire outcrop were obtained, while in 2016 – 2,700 photographs of selected parts, such as the largest hydration caves, were taken (Ługowski et al. 2016). Photographs were elaborated in the AgiSoft program, where orthophotomap and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) were obtained, a signifi-cant part of them with a resolution of 4.7 mm/pix (orthophotomap) and 3.5 mm/pix (Fig. 1C). Dozens of additional small-scale models with much higher accuracy were also produced. The obtained data were subjected to spatial analysis in the ArcGIS program in order to measure accurately the forms, to create the differential models, the hypsometric profiles, and the basic topographic attributes such as shaded relief, slope and aspect. In addition, a model was created to interpret the stages of devel-opment of selected forms. A comparative analysis of the photographs taken during several years of studies was also used to illustrate changes in the evolution of hydration domes and caves.

Conclusions: The 3D documentation allows to rec-ognise precisely the structure and spatial form of the hydration domes and caves as well as many of their important features like the thickness of the separated rock layers forming the roof of the caves. The differential models prepared for some selected forms combined with many years of field observa-tions made it possible to calculate their average and

maximal growth rate (rate of displacement of rock blocks) and to trace their structural evolution. The obtained results made possible to understand better their development.

Final remarks: In winter 2017–2018 during irre-sponsible activities of the owner of quarry thirteen of the twenty one documented hydration caves were destroyed. Despite significant damage done to the studied area, weathering of anhydrite continues, and hydration forms still develop. It is very import-ant to provide the environmental protection of this site as the potential unique geoheritage place.

Research sponsored by National Science Centre, Poland, grant no. DEC-2012/05/B/ST10/00918.

ReferencesBura, M., Janowski, J. 2017. Virtual trip to the hydration

caves at Pisky near Lviv (results of 3D documentation using a terrestrial laser scanning; TLS). In: M. Bąbel, D. Olszewska-Nejbert, K. Nejbert, J. Kotowski (Eds), Wietrzenie skał gipsowych i anhydrytowych. Polsko- Ukraińskie Seminarium Naukowe, 19–21.01.2017, War-szawa, p. 47–51. Instytut Geologii Podstawowej, Wyd-ział Geologii, Universytet Warszawski; Warszawa. (In Polish).

Ługowski, D., Jarzyna, A., Bąbel, M., Nejbert, K. 2016. Metody dokumentowania zastosowane w badaniach tere nowych stanowiska wietrzejących anhydrytów w Piskach koło Lwowa. Biuletyn Państwowego Instytutu Geologicznego, 466, 201–214.

Fig. 1. Exemplary hydration cave from Pisky quarry. A – Location of Pisky quarry. B – Large opened dome (no. 42) with the cave shaped like tepee structure, in senile stadium of development, c – arrow showing entrance to the cave, photograph taken in 28.07.2016 by Damian Ługowski. C – Portion of Digital Elevation Model of study area (resolution: 3.5 mm/pix) based on photogrammetric survey made in 02–08.09.2015, a – extent of form no. 42 illustrated in B, b – extent of cave, c – arrow showing entrance to the cave.

SESSION B: Geoheritage and cultural heritage: mines, quarries, science and communities


44

Linking geological and architectural heritage through a 3D geological model of a historical quarry

Hugo Corbí1, Ivan Martin-Rojas1, Javier Martínez-Martínez2

1 Department of Earth Sciences and the Environment, University of Alicante, Apdo. Correos 99, 03080 San Vicente del Raspeig, Alicante, Spain; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

2 Geological Survey of Spain (IGME), Ríos Rosas 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geoheritage, 3D geomodel, Betic Cordillera, quarry, historical monuments, western Medi-terranean

Introduction: The geoheritage potential of a site can depend not only on their intrinsic geological characteristics, but also on these elements repre-sented in historical quarries and built monuments (architectural heritage and heritage stones) (Brocx, Semeniuk 2017; De Wever et al. 2017). In this con-tribution, we implement a 3D Geomodel of a histor-ical quarry presented in a western Mediterranean island, called Nueva Tabarca. The 3D Geomodel can be considered as the key for understanding completely the connection between geology, his-tory and architecture.

Geological setting: The Nueva Tabarca Island is located in the eastern sector of the Betic Cordillera (SE Spain). This mountain range, together with the Rif in northern Morocco, constitutes the western termination of the Alpine Perimediterranean orog-eny. According to the stratigraphy and spatial dis-tribution of rocks, the island can be divided in two sectors. In the eastern sector, the island consists of a basement of fine-grained meta-gabbros, grey lime-stones and meta-marls, all of them Triassic in age (Betic Internal Zones). In the western sector (partic-ularly in La Cantera islet), Late Miocene (Tortonian) yellowish calcarenites (Corbí, Soria 2016), which was the main building material used in the outer parts of the constructions, are widely represented. The recent petrological and stratigraphical inte-grated analysis, carried out by Martínez-Martínez et al. (2017) has enabled to subdivide the Late Miocene materials into five informal lithostratigraphic units.

Methodology: First of all, a detailed geologi-cal study of the La Cantera islet quarry has been performed, which includes the following aspects: (1) Facies distribution and establishment of the composite stratigraphical section; (2) Structural analysis, together with a comprehensive geologi-

cal mapping of the quarry area; (3) Hand sample description of building materials; (4) Microscope observations of thin sections under optical micro-scope; (5) Conservation state analysis of the stones in the architectural heritage was carried out at the mesoscale by visual inspection and monument map-ping; (6) Different deterioration patterns observed in rock ashlars were classified; and (7) Correlation of the different calcarenite varieties observed in the city-wall with the rock facies previously defined in the stratigraphic sequence. After this initial stage, we produced a 3D photogrammetric model of the historical quarry using 997 aerial photographs taken by Remotely Piloted Aerial System. The model was constructed using the software Agisoft Photoscan ©. The outcrop model was converted into a re-al-world reference frame using the positions of the images recorded by the in-built GPS device of the aircraft and visual alignment from available georef-erenced LiDAR data and high resolution orthoim-ages. Finally, to construct the geological 3D model we included the detailed geological data onto the 3D photogrammetric model. With these data, we built 49 geological cross sections. All the information was integrated in the 3D geological model using the software Move©. Surfaces were created in Move by kriging the georeferenced lines from the geological map and cross sections. After that, geological vol-umes of each stratigraphic unit were created using the previous surfaces as top and bottom horizons.

Discussion: The 3D geological model we built rep-resents a key for the heritage interpretation of the Tabarca Island, as this model permits a detailed quantification of the rock volumes extracted for the construction of the fortress. Moreover, these volumes can be expressed in terms of the different stratigraphic units, leading to an accurate charac-terization of the origin of the different facies used

45

in each monument. In addition, from the 3D model the remaining rock volumes can also be calculated, information useful for potential restoration of is-land s monuments in the future. Furthermore, the 3D model is an excellent way for visually outreach-ing the geoheritage represented in the island.

Conclusion: This study shows that Nueva Tabarca Island, one of the most significant geological loca-tions of the SE Spain from a scientific, didactic and outreach point of view, is an excellent representa-tive geosite that connects together geoheritage and cultural heritage. This contribution concludes that geosites can be of special significance precisely to their huge potential to connect heritages of varied nature. The closer are the links between the geol-ogy, history and architecture, the higher will be the people concerned in Geoheritage.

ReferencesBrocx, M., Semeniuk, V. 2017. Building stones can be

of geoheritage significance. Geoheritage. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0274-8

Corbí, H., Soria, J.M. 2016. Late Miocene–early Pliocene planktonic foraminifer event-stratigraphy of the Bajo Segura basin: A complete record of the western Med-iterranean. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 77, 1010–1027.

De Wever, P., Baudin, F., Pereira, D., Cornée, A., Egoroff, G., Page, K. 2017. The Importance of Geosites and Heri tage Stones in Cities – a Review. Geoheritage, 9 (4), 561–575.

Martínez-Martínez, J., Corbí, H., Martin-Rojas, I., Baeza- Carratalá, J.F., Giannetti, A. 2017. Stratigraphy, petro-physical characterization and 3D geological modelling of the historical quarry of Nueva Tabarca Island (western Mediterranean): Implications on the heritage conserva-tion. Engineering Geology, 231, 88–99.



46

The Geo-Village: from concept to reality

David Cropp

Teme Valley Geological Society, www.geo-village.eu; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geo-heritage, geo-tourism, rural regeneration, community development

Introduction: Since 2013 the goal of the Geo-Village concept has been to develop a cohesive plan to es-tablish a network of communities, initially across Europe, that can offer high quality and local geolog-ical assets. The intention is that these high-quality sites, which will be much smaller than the inter-national geological destinations such as GeoParks, should be developed by the communities in which they are based, by means of a self-evaluation of practice and provision, and by a European-wide form of self-accreditation. The concept of the Geo-Village was created through the combined actions of the communities of Sentheim in France, Eichstadt in Germany, Boyabat in Turkey, and Martley in The United Kingdom. The subsequent Geo-Village de-sign was offered for presentation, discussion and development at both the International GeoParks Congress in Torquay and the European GeoParks Congress in The Azores during 2017.

Detailed outline: In their self-assessment, appli-cant communities will have few if any conflict-ing priorities in terms of other tourist attractions; but they will have the potential to establish and develop geological assets that will act as attrac-tors to a wider audience, both in terms of general, and geologically specific, tourism. It is at the same time clear that the desire to initiate new geologi-cal destinations for development, where the related tourist infrastructure may not be fully developed, will make it essential to encourage communities to move forward on an agreed programme and timescales that are attainable and match their community capacity. The key initial requirements will be for a community to identify and assess its geo-assets, to identify sources of expertise, to establish local advice and assistance, and hope-

fully individuals or groups that will be keen to drive it through. Inevitably there will need to be a commitment of human and financial resources by communities, as well as some measure of eco-nomic and tourism capacity and support, rather than control, from local government, if the longer term objectives and outcomes are to be secured in a coordinated approach and genuine partnership. Self-evaluation and self-assessment will enable communities to identify a number of potential as-sets above and beyond their geological heritage, and which they either have in place or have the ability to initiate. These benefits may well include: rural regeneration, employment potential, social and community cohesion, health and education, biodiversity, as well as the promotion of locally specific produce and traditional industries. At a wider regional level, such outcomes will also help to develop greater economic and touristic diversity.

Procedural actions: It is proposed that the 9th

ProGEO Symposium will host the official launch of the European Geo-Village. The templates for Expressions of Interest, Initial Information and Registration, and Self-Assessment and Self-Evaluation, will all be available, as will the pro-posed new Logo for successful self-accredited communities.

Conclusions: It is self-evident that not all geol-ogy exists in GeoParks and National Parks. It is also self-evident that there are many communities across the whole of Europe that already have the potential to become part of a new network of geo-logical and touristic destinations, and that these aspirations should now be able to be recognised, encouraged and celebrated.

47

TIPical Valleys: eintroducing local people to iconic mineral spoil landscapes in the South Wales Coalfield

Ben Evans

British Institute for Geological Conservation, C/o Amgueddfa Cymru-National Museum Wales, Cathays Park Cardiff, CF103NP, Wales, UK; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: tips, citizen science, community engagement, co-creation, mining, coalfield

TIPical Valleys is the latest project of the British Institute for Geological Conservation. It aims to inspire and engage communities in rural areas of the South Wales Coalfield, challenging the mis-conceptions surrounding mineral spoil landscapes and reintroducing them to their wonderful geology, biodiversity and heritage.

For many years mineral spoil in South Wales has been viewed as an eyesore in the increasingly green valleys of the former mining area. For de-cades now tips have been planted, removed and reclaimed in the name of progress. Increasingly, however, spoil tips and their associated features are being seen as an important, highly valuable and an increasingly scarce resource.

Neglect and the passage of time has allowed an incredible transformation. The remaining tips have become naturally revegetated and they now form part of an important and locally distinctive mosaic habitat colonised by unique and unusual assemblages of flora and fauna. Scratch the sur-face of these tips and their rocky substrate also provides valuable geological information, yielding rare fossils and unusual minerals. Now that most of the mines have closed, tips provide a valuable and unique window into the rocks that lie beneath much of South Wales.

Amongst local ecologists, geologists and his-torians there is growing appreciation and under-standing of the once considered unsightly tips. Many communities regard the now iconic tip as part of their cultural identity and an important part of their local heritage, displaying a reverend fond-ness for these distinctive landscape features.

Through a two year-long phase of public en-gagement, the TIPical Valleys project will bring together people from local communities with spe-cialists from a wide cross section of stakeholder

organisations and encourage them to work together and take part discovery type activities at mineral spoil localities. Our project will reintroduce com-munities to mineral spoil sites across the Cwm Taf area, encouraging and validating their use and appreciation. Ultimately through education, active citizenship, research and sympathetic commu-nity management, the aim is to raise the profile of mineral spoil, highlighting its importance as an invaluable biological, geological and heritage resource with land managers, decision makers and regulatory bodies.

TIPical Valleys Project has been funded by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.

ReferencesEvans, B.G., Cleal, C.J., Thomas, B.A. 2018. Geotourism

in an Industrial Setting: the South Wales Coalfield Geo-heritage Network, Geoheritage 10 (1), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0226-3

Olds, L. 2015. Spoilt rotten the wonders of colliery spoil tips. Natur Cymru, 56, 24–28.


Fig. 1. Cwm Glo tips becoming colonised with species rich, heathland vegetation. Photograph by Ben Evans.


48

Bringing geoheritage to people: developing geotourism within urban areas – a case study of Brno (Czech Republic)

Lucie Kubalíková

Institute of Geonics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Drobného 28, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: geotourism, geoeducation, urban geosites and geomorphosites, geoheritage

Goals: In the last years, geotourism has shown a considerable growth all over the world and it is appreciated as a useful tool for promoting natural and cultural heritage, both within rural and urban areas. The importance of geodiversity and geoher-itage in towns and cities has been already recog-nized. The geotourism products within urban areas represent a new type of attractiveness and they are considered as a fresh alternative to the traditional urban tourist destinations (London Geodiversity Partnership 2014; Reynard et al. 2017; Pica et al. 2017). However, in some cases, the potential is not fully developed and these resources remain hidden. This is the case of Brno city which is very interest-ing and varied from the Earth-sciences point of view (Bohemian Massif and Carpathian Foredeep meet here, so lithological and morphological diver-sity of the area is very high). Some sites (e.g. lime-stone quarries of Hády or Stránská skála) are al-ready promoted and used for geotourism purposes, there are educational trails about the Earth-science and other (ecological, historical, mining) aspects, but some sites lack of these facilities, although they also possess high educational and tourist potential (e.g. world-known soil profiles at Červený kopec or remarkable elevations composed of Proterozoic volcanic rocks just in the city centre – Petrov and Špilberk).

Methods: For the assessment of geotourism and geoeducational potential of urban geosites, a com-plex method is proposed. The first step, inventory-ing, includes the description of scientific (geolog-ical, geomorphological, ecological, hydrological), cultural (geohistorical, artistic, architectonical), tourist and conservation characteristics. The sec-ond step is the proper assessment of the geotourism and geoeducational potential. It is anchored espe-cially in the concept of geomorphosites (Panizza 2001) and already used methods (e.g. Pralong 2005; Reynard et al. 2007, 2016; Pereira, Pereira 2010;

Kubalíková 2013; Kubalíková, Kirchner 2016; Brilha 2016) and it takes into account wide spec-trum of possible values (scientific, added, tourist, conservation and educational). Consequently, an elaboration of SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weak-nesses, Opportunities and Threats of the site) offers the overview about the real situation of the site. Based on the aforementioned steps, the synthesis, which includes proposals for the rational use of geotourism potential and particular management measures, is done. Proposed method represents an integrated approach to assessment according to the currently accepted holistic concept of geotourism (Dowling, Newsome 2010).

Conclusions: Based on the fieldwork and litera-ture review, two areas of interest within Brno city were selected: Červený kopec and Špilberk/Petrov. Červený kopec include two different sites (old loess pit with soil profiles and conglomerate/sandstone quarries) and it is very important from the palae-opedological, ecological, geohistorical and cultural point of view (Tůma et al. 2011). Špilberk/Petrov are two different elevations, however they are sit-uated in close proximity of each other and geolog-ically and morphologically they are very similar, so we can consider them as one ’study area’. They represent significant urban landscape dominants, on the slopes the outcrops of the oldest rocks of the Brno massif are displayed and they are also specific thanks to historical and cultural values (Müller, Novák 2000).

For every area of interest, the inventory, as-sessment and SWOT analysis were done. Based on that, some proposals for geotourist and geoed-ucational use were designed, especially geo-paths (Červený kopec: a trail connecting the loess pit and conglomerate/sandstone quarries, Špilberk and Petrov: a walk connecting these elevations and in-cluding other specific geo-features of the city cen-ter, e.g. architectonical issues) and some additional

49

activities (e.g. installation of information panels, adaption and cleaning of soil profiles).

The development of geotourist and geoeduca-tional potential within these areas can help better understanding of the uniqueness of the specific Earth-science features, it can extend the tourist offer of the city and above all, it can contribute to the acceptance of the importance of geodiversity and geoheritage within urban areas.

ReferencesBrilha, J. 2016. Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of

Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: a Review. Geoheri-tage, 8 (2), 119–134.

Dowling, R., Newsome, D. (Eds) 2010. Geotourism. The tourism of Geology and Landscape, pp. 1–246. Good-fellow Publishers Ltd; Oxford.

Kubalíková, L. 2013. Geomorphosite assessment for geo-tourism purposes. Czech Journal of Tourism, 2 (2), 80–104.

Kubalíková, L., Kirchner, K. 2016. Geosite and Geomor-phosite Assesment as a Tool for Geoconservation and Geotourism Purposes: a Case study from Vizovická vr-chovina Highland (Eastern Part of the Czech Republic). Geoheritage, 8 (8), 5–14.

London Geodiversity Partnership 2014. London Geodiver-sity Action Plan 2014–2018. London: Capita Symonds with assistance from the London Geodiversity Partner-ship and Natural England. http://www.londongeopart-nership.org.uk/downloads/LGAP%202014-2018.pdf.

Müller, P. Novák, Z. 2000. Geologie Brna a okolí (Geology

of Brno and its surroundings), pp. 1–90. Czech Geolog-ical Institute; Prague.

Panizza, M. 2001. Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey. Chinese Science Bulletin, 46, 4–6.

Pereira, P., Pereira, D. 2010. Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment. Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement, 1 (3), 215–222.

Pica, A., Luberti, G.M., Vercari, F., Fredi, P., Del Monte, M. 2017. Contribution for an urban geomorphoheritage as-sessment method: proposal from three geomorphosites in Rome (Italy). Quaestiones Geographicae, 36 (3), 21–36.

Pralong, J.P. 2005. A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites. Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement, 1 (3), 189–196.

Reynard, E., Fontana, G., Kozlik L., Scapozza, C. 2007. A method for assessing ‘scientific’ and ‘additional val-ues’ of geomorphosites. Geographica Helvetica, 62 (3), 148–158.

Reynard, E., Perret, A., Bussard, J., Grangier, L., Martis, S. 2016. Integrated approach for the Inventory and Man-agement of geomorphological Heritage at the Regional Scale. Geoheritage, 8, 43–60.

Reynard, E., Pica, A., Coratza, P. 2017. Urban geomorpho-logical heritage. An overview. Quaestiones Geographi-cae, 36 (3), 7–20.

Tůma, A., Šebková, K., Musil, Z., Kovařík, M., Kotlánová, M., Hejkal, Z., Vít, J. 2011. Plán péče o Národní přírod-ní památku Červený kopec na období 2012–2021. Care plan of National Natural Monument Červený kopec for the years 2012–2021. Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic. http://drusop.nature.cz/ost/archiv/plany_pece/index.php?frame&ID=24299.



50

Geotourism as a vehicle for geoconservation: the case of an abandoned phosphorite mine at Annopol, Poland

Marcin Machalski1, Wiesław Liwiński2

1 Institute of Paleobiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Twarda 51/55, 00-818 Warsaw, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Urząd Miejski w Annopolu, Rynek 1, 23-235 Annopol, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Key words: phosphorite mining, palaeontology, geocentrum, Annopol, Cretaceous

Introduction: The concepts of geoconservation and geotourism are tightly interconnected. Under certain circumstances, geotourism may even take a leading role so as to accomplish geoconservation goals. We shall try to demonstrate this with the case of an abandoned, underground phosphorite mine at Annopol, Poland.

The mine is located on the right bank of the Vistula river, along the northeastern limb of a small anticline. The Cretaceous marine deposits exposed along the limbs of this anticline range from lower Albian to middle Turonian (Machalski, Kennedy 2013). Starting in 1926 an Albian phosphorite hori-zon at Annopol was mined for use in fertiliser pro-duction. The phosphate extraction continued until 1970, when activities came to an end (Makowska, Jędrzejczak 1975).

Geoheritage values of the Annopol site: After a ‘dark period’ in its history, the Annopol mine was brought back to public attention by spectac-ular finds of Cretaceous reptiles (Machalski et al. 2009). Subsequent palaeontological exploration of the Annopol area (Machalski 2011) yielded ex-tensive collections of fossils, both from the mine itself and from temporary trenches at ground level. This material includes remains of sharks (Siversson, Machalski 2017), chimaeroid fish (Popov, Machalski 2014), sea turtles (Kapuścińska, Machalski 2015), ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs (Bardet et al. 2016) and pterosaurs (Machalski, Martill 2013). The most important specimens came from the mine, and include ichthyosaur skulls and vertebrae and a skeleton of an atypical sea turtle.

It is not only fossils that contribute to the value of the Annopol geosite. The preserved tunnels offer excellent opportunities for observation and sampling of the Cretaceous succession, with spe-cial emphasis to the phosphorite and hardground genesis and stratigraphy (Fig. 1). Several text-book

examples of tectonic phenomena (faults, slick-ensides and tectonic breccias) and karst are also available. Last but not least, elements of mining infrastructure are still preserved in the mine, in-cluding a timber roof and wall support, transpor-tation carts, railway tracks, examples of mining machinery and tools, storehouses and workshops. In summary, the mine at Annopol is an important reference site for the study of Cretaceous strata in Poland and Europe, being also of high educational and touristic acclaim in the fields of physical geol-ogy, history of mining and culture.

Geocentrum project: In view of this unique combination of geoheritage values, the Annopol mine deserves protection and preservation for fu-ture generations. In appreciation of these facts, the mine has been declared a geosite that plays a pivotal role within the concept of the planned ‘Geopark – Małopolska Gap of the Vistula River’

Fig. 1. The Cretaceous succession at Annopol. A – upper Albian phosphorite horizon; B – Cenomanian marls with a composite, burrowed and mineralised hardground at the top; C – lower Turonian limestone with another hardground; D – middle Turonian chalk with flints. Photograph by Marcin Machalski.

51

(Harasimiuk et al. 2011). In view of expected high conservation costs of the Annopol site, a com-bination of geoconservation with underground geotourism (Wieja, Chmura 2013) appears to be the best way to achieve geoconservation goals at Annopol. Accordingly, an idea to create an ed-ucational-geotouristic centrum at Annopol was born, which has resulted in a project worked out by Centrum Projektowe Miedzi ‘Cuprum-Projekt’ sp. z o.o. in co-operation with the authors.

The planned geocentrum will comprise a ground-level building and an extensive under-ground tourist route, both provided with all facili-ties necessary for geoheritage popularisation. This concept has been awarded the status of a strategic project, included into the document ‘Priority un-dertakings for the implementation of the objec-tives of the Lubelskie Voivodeship Development Strategy for the years 2014–2020 (with a perspec-tive up to 2030)’ and positively assessed under the negotiation and agreement procedure for the Regional Operational Programme for the Lubelskie Voivodeship for 2014–2020.

Final remarks: Awaiting completion of the pro-cess, we wish to note that the planned Annopol geocentrum, if succesfully implemented, may be the first object of this type installed around a phos-phate mine on a global scale (the only similar proj-ect we know of concerns an abandoned phosphate site at Ruseifa, Jordan; see AlRayyan et al. 2017). On the other hand, the continuous natural deterio-ration of the mine would ultimately lead to the loss of this important Polish geosite, if our project fails.

The study of the Annopol site by the first author was partially financed by a grant from the Polish National Centre of Science (DEC 2012/05/B/ST10/00710).

ReferencesAlRayyan, K., Hamarenh, C., Sukkar, H., Ghaith, A., Abu-

Jaber, N. 2017. From abandoned mines to a Labyrinth of Knowledge: a conceptual design for a Geoheritage Park Museum in Jordan. Geoheritage. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0266-8

Bardet, N., Fischer, V., Machalski, M. 2016. Large pred-atory marine reptiles from the Albian–Cenomanian of Annopol, Poland. Geological Magazine, 153, 1–16.

Harasimiuk, M., Domonik, A., Machalski, M., Pinińska, J., Warowna, J., Szymkowiak, A. 2011. Małopolski Przełom Wisły – projekt geoparku. Przegląd Geologi czny, 59, 405–416.

Kapuścińska, A., Machalski, M. 2015. Upper Albian chelo-nioid turtles from Poland. Geobios, 48, 385–395.

Machalski, M. 2011. Drugie życie annopolskiej kopalni. Rocznik Muzeum Ewolucji, 3, 20–31.

Machalski, M., Kennedy, W.J. 2013. Oyster-bioimmured ammonites from the Upper Albian of Annopol, Poland: stratigraphic and palaeobiogeographic implications. Acta Geologica Polonica, 63, 545–554.

Machalski, M., Komorowski, A., Harasimiuk, M. 2009. Nowe perspektywy poszukiwań morskich kręgowców kredowych w nieczynnej kopalni fosforytów w Annop-olu nad Wisłą. Przegląd Geologiczny, 57, 638–641.

Machalski, M. Martill, D.M. 2013. First pterosaur remains from the Cretaceous of Poland. Annales Societatis Geo-logorum Poloniae, 83, 99–104.

Makowska, J., Jędrzejczak, M. 1975. Rys historyczny badań geologicznych i górnictwa fosforytów w Annopolu. Biu-letyn Instytutu Geologicznego, 286, 215–235.

Popov, E.V., Machalski, M. 2014. Late Albian chimaeroid fishes (Holocephali, Chimaeroidei) from Annopol, Po-land. Cretaceous Research, 7, 1–18.

Siversson, M., Machalski, M. 2017. Late late Albian (Early Cretaceous) shark teeth from Annopol, Poland. Alche-ringa: An Australasian Journal of Palaeontology, 41, 433–463.

Wieja, T., Chmura, J. 2013. Influence of protection of geo-logical and geodiversity heritage on designing Under-ground Touristic Routes. CUPRUM Czasopismo Nau-kowo-Techniczne Górnictwa Rud, 3 (68), 53–65.



52

Geological and cultural heritage of the proposed Kamienna Valley Geopark, Holy Cross Mountains, Poland

Grzegorz Pieńkowski¹, Anna Fijałkowska-Mader²

1 Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Rakowiecka 4, 00-975 Warsaw, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Holy Cross Mts. Branch, Zgoda 21, 25-953 Kielce, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Key words: geopark, geosite, geoheritage, cultural heritage

The Kamienna River valley between Niekłań and Bałtów, located in the northern part of the Holy Cross Mountains, known in Poland as Góry Świętokrzyskie (central Poland), is an unique area on European scale (Pieńkowski 2008, 2009). Almost 30 easily accessible exposures (geosites) of different Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Quaternary rocks (Urban, Wróblewski 1999; Wróblewski 2000; Pieńkowski 2004; Urban, Gągol 2008). This area is also rich in world-class archaeological sites and unique historical landscapes and monuments, which luckily survived to our times (Fig. 1). Of note is original post-industrial landscape dated back to 19th century, harmoniously woven into the tradi-tional agricultural landscape, which is a very rare case worldwide. All these advantages make this area very attractive for advanced tourism, partic-ularly geotourism, and related archaeological and old industry tourism. Concerning geology, the geo-sites reveal a variety of rocks, representing a wide range of palaeoenvironments – from continental al-luvial redbeds, through alluvial/lacustrine, deltaic and nearshore deposits to shallow-water marine carbonates. In those environments lived, inter alia, dinosaurs and other tetrapods, which left numer-ous tracks. Most famous are dinosaur tracksites, with the oldest known (earliest Jurassic) trackways documenting gregarious behavior of dinosaurs (Sołtyków Jet Preserve). In the same site one can also see the tracks of swimming dinosaurs, the first ever reported evidence of such ability of these ani-mals (Pieńkowski, Gierliński 1987). Starachowice Museum of Technlogy and Nature hosts one of the most spectacular collections of reptile and amphib-ian footprints of the Early Triassic age. No won-der, that the spectacular ‘Jura Park’ with life-size reconstructions of dinosaurs and other attractions was established in this area. There is a chance to collect fossils in several indicated, very fossilif-

erous places, without harming scientific merit of these sites. Cultural monuments are equally inter-esting. The area of proposed Geopark is a cradle of civilization in the Holy Cross Mountains region and beyond, where the continuous development of settelment, mining and metallurgy industry last-ing for 12,000 years is well documented. It starts with Paleolithic (10,000–9,000 BC) pigments (he-matite, ocher) mining site with oldest known ar-tificial mining supports in the area of the Rydno archeological reserve (Fig. 1, geosite 8; Kardyś et al. 2009), through famous Krzemionki Neolithic (5,000–4,000 BC) flint mines complex (Fig. 1, geosite 27, geocenter C; Bąbel A. 2007), and nu-merous iron smelting furnaces from the Iron Age (2nd century AC; Orzechowski 2007). This area was one of the largest sites of iron production of that time. The next medieval period of ancient in-dustry is connected with Cistercian arrival in the Wąchock Abbey (Fig. 1, geosite 9). Development of iron mining metallurgy and watermills, along with stone industry based on local Lower Triassic and Lower Jurassic sandstones (Urban, Gągol 1994), introduction of new systems of agriculture took place, what caused that Kamienna Valley became a center of the Old-Poland’s Industry Region which functioned from 13th, and then in a more com-plete form from 17th to the 19th century. Numerous historical objects, like the Starachowice steel mill complex – the single existing and completely pre-served (with entire technological line) steel mill from the end of 19th century (Fig. 1, geocenter B; Orzechowski, Suliga 2006), ruins of rolling mill in Nietulisko (Fig. 1, geosite 16) or dam on Kamienna river in Brody (Fig. 1, geosite 13), can serve as ex-amples of unique industry monuments of this area.

Moreover, the Kamienna Valley Geopark in-cludes several natural sanctuaries with unique flora (with some endemic ferns) and fauna. This

53

relatively small area in the centre of Europe of-fers a great educational potential, combining many fields of knowledge (such as geology, paleontol-ogy, evolution, paleoecology, ancient mining, an-cient metallurgy industry, historical monuments and landscapes, natural reserves). The main aim of the Kamienna Valley Geopark is to gain, in-terpret and popularize the knowledge about geol-ogy and human history related to the natural re-sources of this region. There is possibility to obtain European Union’s and other subsides, and based on its unique values concentrated in a relatively small area, the Kamienna Valley Geopark with neigh-boring existing and planned geoparks are intended to be included in the European and World Geopark Network.

ReferencesBąbel, A. 2007. Krzemionki. Prahistoryczne kopalnie krze-

mienia pasiastego – Przewodnik, pp. 1–31. Muzeum Historyczno-Archeologiczne; Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski.

Orzechowski, S., Suliga, I. (Eds) 2006. 50 lat badań nad starożytnym hutnictwem świętokrzyskim, p. 13–32 Kie leckie Towarzystwo Naukowe; Kielce.

Orzechowski, S. 2007. Zaplecze osadnicze i podstawy sur-owcowe starożytnego hutnictwa świętokrzyskiego, pp. 1–39. Kieleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe; Kielce.

Pieńkowski, G. 2004. The epicontinental Lower Jurassic of Poland. Polish Geological Institute Special Papers, 12, pp. 1–154.

Pieńkowski, G. 2009. Geopark ‘Dolina Kamiennej’. In: W. Trela, Z. Złonkiewicz (Eds), Perspektywy rozwo-ju geoparków w regionie świętokrzyskim, p. 27–30. Wydawnictwo Kieleckiego Towarzystwa Naukowego; Kielce.

Pieńkowski, G., Gierliński, G. 1987. New finds of dinosaur footprints in Liassic of the Holy Cross Mountains and its palaeoenvironmental back ground. Przegląd Geolo-giczny, 35, 199–205.

Pieńkowski, G. 2008. The Kamienna Valley Geopark – more than dinosaurs. Przegląd Geologiczny, 56, 629–638.

Urban, J., Gągol, J. 1994. Kamieniołomy piaskowców w dawnych ośrodkach górnictwa kamiennego północnej części regionu świętokrzyskiego jako zabytki techniki i przyrody. Przegląd Geologiczny, 42, 193–200 (In Polish with English summary).

Urban, J., Gągol, J. 2008. Geological heritage of the Święto-krzyskie (Holy Cross) Mountains (Central Poland). Prze gląd Geologiczny, 56, 618–628. (In Polish with English summary).

Urban, J., Wróblewski, T. 1999. Representative geosites of the Góry Świętokrzyskie (Holy Cross Mts) and the Nida Basin, Central Poland. Polish Geological Institute Spe-cial Papers, 2, 61–70.

Wróblewski, T. 2000. Geodiversity conservation in the Góry Świętokrzyskie region, pp. 1–88. Wydawnictwo Karto-graficzne Polskiej Agencji Ekologicznej; Warszawa.


SKARŻYSKO-KAMIENNA

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

11

1213

15

14

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

27

C

28

29

AB

C

D

WARSZAWA

OSTROWIECŚWIĘTOKRZYSKI

STARACHOWICE

Kam

ienna

51

A

border of the proposed Kamienna Valley Geopark

geosites

geocentres

0 10 20 km

SKARŻYSKO-KAMIENNA

WARSZAWA

Fig. 1. A map of the proposed Kamienna Valley Geopark.


54

Stones in history of Slovakian territory and tourist interesting places

Daniel Pivko

Department of Geology and Paleontology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Mlynská dolina, Ilkovičova 6, 842 15 Bratislava, Slovakia; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: Slovakia, history, stone products, buildings, historical quarries

Slovakia as a mountainous country is rich in nat-ural stone monuments but also stone resources. Since Middle and more Late Palaeolithic age, knapped stone tools were produced from the Jurassic radiolarite of Pieniny Klippen Belt in Považie region (western Slovakia), the Neogene obsidian (south-eastern Slovakia) and the Neogene limnosilicite (central Slovakia). Six thousand years ago, copper ore from central Slovakia was processed to copper and later to bronze products. Approximately in turn of BC and AD eras the giant defensive rampart was constructed from stone and loess, up to 6 m high, 17 m wide and 60 km long in south-eastern Slovakia. Some for-tified settlements of Púchov culture in northern Slovakia were reinforced by bedded sandstones disintegrated to rectangular pieces, and the mill-stones from rhyolite and limnosilicite in central Slovakia were carved in the same time (Kaminská 2014).

First dressed ashlars from the Neogene lime-stone (Devín village) were used in Celtic buildings on the Bratislava Castle Hill in the 1st century BC. During Roman period some stone buildings (e.g. in the Gerulata Roman camp) were constructed, the ruins of which provided good material for con-structing some medieval buildings up to the 13th

century. Great Moravian churches were built from flat quarry stone. The church in Nitra (9th century AD) from Neogene limestone ashlars was the ex-ception. The process of consolidation of Hungarian Kingdom which has been taking place since the 11th

century was related to the castle, monastery and church construction, which were built from easily dressed rocks like volcanic sandstones (Hronský Beňadik, Rimavské Jánovce, Kalinčiakovo, Bzo-vík), tuffs (Košice), limestones (Bratislava), sand-stones (Nitra, Levoča, Bardejov), conglomerates (Trnava), andesite (Banská Štiavnica) and traver-

tines (Spiš Castle). Unique gothic, slim and delicate sandstone tabernacles are in many churches.Since the 14th century, the period of red ‛marble’ tombstones have begun. The number of ‛marble’ types has increased since the 16th century in the Slovakian territory, where they were also used in the interiors for cladding, flooring, altars, sculp-tures, balustrades and baptismal fonts. Some pol-ishable limestones come from Slovakia (e.g. Stará Ľubovňa, Žarnov, High Nitra region). During the 18th and 19th century, many Trinity and Marian col-umns were carved from porous limestones, sand-stones, conglomerates and tuffs. The most used ornamental stone in the 20th century was a white Spiš travertine, that can be labelled as national stone. Many public buildings and memorials has been built of this stone (Pivko 2010, 2012, in press).

Over 150 historical quarries and some under-ground chambers for the block extraction were iden-tified. Preserved tool marks point to the quarrying methods like levering, wedging, carving, drilling, blasting and sawing. Medieval and Renaissance stepped quarry faces and the straight faces from the 17th century were identified. Some quarries were used as dwellings or cellars (Pivko 2010, 2012, in press).

ReferencesKaminská, Ľ. (Ed.) 2014. Staré Slovensko 2. Paleolit a

mezolit, pp. 1–366. Archeologický ústav SAV; Nitra.Pivko, D. 2010. Významné horniny používané ako opraco-

vané kamene v historických pamiatkach Slovenska. Mineralia Slovaca, 42 (2), 241–248.

Pivko, D. 2012. Stavebný a dekoračný kameň a jeho opra-covanie na stredovekom Slovensku. Archaeologia his-torica, 37 (2), 609–628.

Pivko, D. (in press). Súhrn poznatkov o ťažbe ušľachtilého kameňa v historických kameňolomoch na Slovensku a ich dnešné využitie. Zborník banského múzea; Banská Štiavnica.

55

Using quarries to link communities to their geoheritage

Colin Prosser

Natural England and the Geologists’ Association, Unex House, Bourges Boulevard, Peterborough, UK; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geoheritage, quarries, cultural heritage, communities

Geoheritage, quarries and communities: There is a strong link between geology, geomorphology and cultural heritage that takes many forms and may be illustrated in many ways (e.g. Parkes 2004; Larwood 2017). Quarries are just one way of making these important links. To geologists, they provide exciting opportunities to practice our science, especially in inland lowland areas where natural exposures may not exist. Whilst some members of the public will regard quarries as eyesores in the landscape, oth-ers will be fascinated by such holes in the ground, especially large ones, and are often keen to visit a working quarry should an opportunity arise.

Whilst coastal and river cliffs, mountain crags and gorges provide natural exposures of geology, quarries have an association with human activity, and as such provide a strong link with our culture and history. A quarry exists because humans chose to excavate it, usually to support a way of life at any given time in history. In other words, to support our culture. This link between geology and communi-ties, especially the local community, is important in building the support required to conserve geo-heritage. Such support is particularly important in the case of quarries, where there is often pressure to infill or restore disused quarries to their original level, rather than to leave geological features ex-posed (Prosser 2016). Policy makers now place in-creased emphasis on the ‘services and benefits’ for people that arise from nature conservation, rather than on the intrinsic value of nature itself (Gray et al. 2013). As such, the social, cultural and his-torical narrative associated with quarries provides a unique opportunity to promote geoheritage and geoconservation within communities, and in doing so, to build the support required to help ensure that our geoheritage is protected when threats to it arise.

Making the links: There are examples in many countries, and in most UNESCO Global Geoparks and geological World Heritage Sites, which il-lustrate how links are being made between geo-

heritage exposed and conserved in quarries, and associated historical and cultural aspects of the daily lives of local communities and tourists. Opportunities and good practice is explored here using a number of examples. In England, these include Neolithic flint mining at Grime’s Graves, Norfolk, links between local Jurassic limestone quarries and the buildingstone of Peterborough Cathedral in Cambridgeshire, rock-dwellings at Kinver Edge, Staffordshire, and the links be-tween the Silurian geology and fossils once quar-ried at Wren’s Nest National Nature Reserve, West Midlands, and the identity and culture of the pro-posed Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark in which it sits. There are many different ways to make these links between geoheritage, quar-ries and communities, and innovative approaches such as the Community Earth Heritage Champions Project from Herefordshire and Worcestershire (Miles 2013) and the Irchester Country Park Ironstone Geotrail, Northamptonshire (Fig. 1), which presents its geology trail under a ‘healthy walking’ banner, are also described.


Fig. 1. Launch of an Ironstone Geotrail at Irchester Country Park, Northamptonshire, where the links be-tween geology, quarrying and the community are ex-plored under the banner of encouraging walking for health. Photograph by Julie Harrald.


56

A new opportunity? Finally, with a new Anthro-pocene Epoch being proposed that reflects the im-pact of human activity as recorded in the geolog-ical record (e.g. Zalasiewicz et al. in press), what opportunities might this present for engaging with communities and for conserving geoheritage that illustrates the long-standing relationship between geology and human activity? For example, through using both working and disused quarries?

References

Gray, J.M., Gordon, J.E., Brown, E.J. 2013. Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: the contribution of geo-science in delivering integrated environmental manage-ment. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 124, 659–673.

Larwood, J. 2017. Geodiversity – a cultural template. In: J. Larwood, S. France, C. Mahon (Eds), Culturally Nat-ural or Naturally Cultural? Exploring the relationship

between nature and culture through World Heritage, p. 16–19. IUCN National Committee; UK.

Miles, E. 2013. Involving local communities and volunteers in geoconservation across Herefordshire and Worcester-shire, UK – the Community Earth Heritage Champions Project. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 124, 691–698.

Parks, M.A. (Ed.) 2004. Natural and cultural landscapes – the geological foundation. Proceedings of a confer-ence 9–11 September 2002, Dublin Castle, Ireland, pp. 1–329. Royal Irish Academy; Dublin.

Prosser, C.D. Geoconservation, Quarrying and Mining: Op-portunities and Challenges Illustrated Through Working in Partnership with the Mineral Extraction Industry in England. Geoheritage (2016). http://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0206-z

Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C., Williams, M., Aldridge, D.C. Wilkinson, I.P. The stratigraphical signature of the An-thropocene in England and its wider context. Proceed-ings of the Geologists’ Association (in press). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2017.06.004

57

Geopark Schwäbische Alb – an outstanding area for Jurassic and Miocene palaeontology and Pleistocene human culture

Günter Schweigert1, Sigfried Roth2

1 Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde, Rosenstein 1, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany; e-mail: [email protected] Geschäftsstelle Geopark Schwäbische Alb, Altes Lager Gebäude R 13, 72525 Münsingen, Germany;


Keywords: Jurassic Fossillagerstaetten, Miocene maar volcanism, Steinheim impact crater, early human art

Geological and palaeontological features: The Geopark Schwäbische Alb covers an area of 6,800 km2 and includes the Jurassic of the Swabian Alb Mountains and its northern foreland. Towards the west it is bordered by the Black Forest, towards the east by the Miocene Ries impact crater. In the south the Upper Jurassic strata are overlain by flu-viatile and marine Tertiary deposits of the North Alpine Foreland Basin. The Upper Jurassic lime-stones form the hills of the Swabian Alb, whereas at its foothill Middle Jurassic claystones, marly limestones and sandstones occur, often covered by debris from the overlying limestone formations. In the foreland there are the historical type localities of two Jurassic stages, the Pliensbachian and the Aalenian. The Jurassic deposits of Swabia and their rich and diverse fossil content have been studied by renowned palaeontologists, such as Friedrich August Quenstedt (1809–1889) and Albert Oppel (1831–1865), since the 19th century. In the western part of the Swabian Alb there is a unique Solnhofen-type lagoonal deposit, the Nusplingen Lithographic Limestone, which is of late Kimmeridgian age. It is an important Fossillagerstaette, which yields well-preserved fossils of sharks, fishes, marine crocodiles and pterosaurs as well as cuttlefishes, ammonites with their beaks and stomach content in situ, crustaceans, insects, and terrestrial plants (Dietl, Schweigert 2011). Even better known is the world-famous Lower Jurassic Posidonia Shale, which outcrops in the foreland. It yields excellently preserved marine vertebrates such as ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, crocodiles, fish and gigantic colonies of crinoids settling on logwood. Important sites, where the Posidonia Shale is still quarried, are the vicinity of Holzmaden (with the private Hauff Museum) and of Dotternhausen (with the Museum ‘Werkforum’ of the Holcim-Lafarge Company). Besides the Jurassic fossillagerstaetten we have

to mention the Middle Miocene Randeck Maar (Rasser et al. 2013), a volcanic crater with fossilif-erous lake deposits (mainly insects and plants) and the slightly younger impact crater of Steinheim am Albuch. In the latter, evolution has been demon-strated for the first time in palaeontology (Rasser 2013). The lake deposits of Steinheim have also provided a rich mammal fauna, which is typical for the European Neogene Mammal Unit 7. The Upper Jurassic limestones of the Swabian Alb underwent karstification, resulting in the formation of doli-nas, dry valleys, karstic fissures and numerous caves. Some karstic fillings exposed in quarries have yielded rich mammal faunas ranging in age from the Paleocene until the Pleistocene. A couple of the larger caves are open for the public during summer. Although they are not as spectacular in size as the famous caves in the French Ardèche department or in Croatia, several caves in the Ach and Lone valleys have recently got an UNESCO certification because of the world-oldest examples of human art (Venus of Hohle Fels, bone and ivory flutes; Conard, Kind 2017).

Organization and activities: The Geopark ad-ministration itself is a small bureau with few employees and occasional trainees and volun-teers, who coordinate the various geotouristic activities all over the area. There exist numerous ‘Infostellen’, places, where interested people can get standardized information about the Geopark and its regional highlights. These ‘Infostellen’ are housed within small regional museums or other highly frequented localities. Numerous lo-cal guides (‘Albguides’) offer special hiking tours and further offers for tourists, pupils and other interested people. The Geopark administration has selected the most important geotopic sites and tries to find local people, who care for them. These sites form ‘Geopoints’, small information signs about



58

the special geotopic site. The information provided at geotrails is usually supervised by a committee of the Geopark.

Hazards and challenges: Apart from natural out-crops, the fossiliferous rocks within the area of the Geopark Schwäbische Alb were formerly often ex-posed along roads climbing the hillsides or in small quarries where the rock was exploited for local use. Nowadays many of these outcrops disappeared. Roadsides are covered with shotcrete or thick walls for prevention of rock fall, and small quarries are filled with waste dump. During the last decades it has become more and more difficult to find any outcrops of some Jurassic formations. Collecting fossils has a long tradition in Southern Germany and is no great problem for science, because the most important localities are protected as natural heritage (especially the area around Holzmaden and Nusplingen with special laws), and most of the amateur collectors collaborate with scientists. The bigger problem is that the number of amateurs strongly decline and there are not enough people to study temporary outcrops. Modern exploitation techniques used in large quarries or during road and railway construction destroy all fossils prior to their potential discovery (e.g. there is nobody

to look for fossiliferous karstic fissures in active limestone quarries). Hazards for visitors and tour-ists are steep natural trails, which can be extremely slippery and must be used on own risk. Climate changes may cause landslides like in previous years. However, the Geopark administration has no funds for any precautions, and the funding of the Geopark administration itself is far from being adequate for coping the numerous tasks and chal-lenges.

ReferencesConard, N.J., Kind, C.-J. 2017. Als der Mensch die Kunst

erfand. Eiszeithöhlen der Schwäbischen Alb, pp. 1–192. Theiss; Darmstadt.

Dietl, G., Schweigert, G. 2011. Im Reich der Meerengel – Fossilien aus dem Nusplinger Plattenkalk (2nd ed.), pp. 1–221. Pfeil; Munich.

Rasser, M.W. 2013. Darwinʼs dilemma: The Steinheim snailsʼ point of view. Zoosystematics and Evolution, 89, 13–20.

Rasser, M.W., Bechly, G., Böttcher, R., Ebner, M., Heizmann, E.P.J., Höltke, O., Joachim, C., Kern, A.K., Kovar-Eder, J., Nebelsick, J.H., Roth-Nebelsick, A., Schoch, R.R., Schweigert, G., Ziegler, R. 2013. The Randeck Maar: Pa-laeoenvironment and habitat differentiation of a Miocene lacustrine system. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 392, 426–453.

59

Geoconservation – an opportunity for people living on karst terrains? A case study of the Aggtelek National Park (Hungary)

Tamás Telbisz1, Péter Gruber2, Margit Kőszegi3, László Mari1, Tibor Standovár4, Zsolt Bottlik3

1 Department of Physical Geography, Eötvös University, 1117 Pázmány Péter 1/C, Budapest, Hungary; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

2 Aggtelek National Park, Tengerszem oldal 1, Jósvafő, Hungary; e-mail: [email protected] Department of Regional Science, Eötvös University; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected] Department of Plant Taxonomy and Ecology, Eötvös University; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: karst, visitor numbers, geotourism, national park

Introduction: Karst terrains are generally unfa-vourable for human settlement. However, these natural environments can be relatively well pre-served, and given their special geologic and bio-logic settings, they often became protected areas.

Since the foundation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, the national park (NP) concept has been transformed several times. Important compo-nents of the present NP concept are, for example, protection of ‘pristine’ nature, national identity, tourism, and other elements. The ‘worthless lands’ hypothesis of Runte (In: Frost and Hall 2009) states that ‘before designating public lands as national parks, the US Congress had to be persuaded that those lands were ‘worthless’ for other purposes.’ Our opinion is that karst-lands fit the ‘worthless land’ hypothesis as they provide generally poor conditions for the people living on them. Recently, we investigated human-environment relations in the special context of karst terrains (Telbisz et al. 2014, 2015, 2016). The main conclusion of our stud-ies was that these karst-lands (including Aggtelek Karst, Hungary) were poor areas, affected by de-population in the second half of the 20th century. However, their special natural values and attrac-tions (e.g. caves and gorges) offer a good potential for tourism.

Another important issue is the relationship of nature protection and regional development. It is increasingly emphasized that nature protection should contribute to regional development (Mose 2007). Thus, one of our main study questions is whether the Aggtelek National Park (ANP) can improve the socio-economic conditions of local people or not. Karst tourism is deeply related to geotourism and thus it may provide an oppor-tunity for a better life for local people. Another

question is the relative importance of geoconser-vation and geotourism among the several func-tions of karst NPs.

Methods: First, we demonstrate that the ANP as an employer has a significant direct impact on lo-cal development. Second, we present how geotour-ism has changed over the last century in ANP, us-ing visitor numbers of the Baradla Cave. Third, we try to evaluate the relative importance of geocon-servation, bioconservation and other NP functions within the ANP. In addition to providing an over-view of the official ANP documents, we have used interviews and questionnaires. Semi-structured in-terviews were created with ANP managers and lo-cal stakeholders, as well as questionnaires targeted employees of the ANP, local people and tourists.

The ANP is the largest employer in the mi-cro-region. It has 106 direct employees and 141 people employed in the framework of the ‛public works program in Hungary’. Furthermore, around


Fig. 1. Visitor numbers at the Baradla Cave between 1951 and 2016.


60

200 people work at small companies on the basis of contracts with the ANP. Thus, the mere exis-tence of the ANP has a direct impact on the so-cio-economic conditions of the poor, depopulating micro-region.

Tourism trends at Aggtelek National Park since its inception: The ANP was founded in 1985. However, its main attraction, the Baradla Cave (with total length of 25 km including the Domica Cave, Slovakia) has a very long human history, as it was already known and inhabited by prehistoric man. Exploration has been underway since the 18th century, and the cave already became a tourist target in the second half of the 19th century, when it was the second longest known cave in the world. Thus, in some ways, geotourism was always sig-nificant in this area. In the 20th century, tourism at Baradla Cave was intensively developed and it became a brand name: ‘The Dripstone Cave’ – is a must see for all Hungarians. Visitor numbers continuously increased until 1978 (Fig. 1), and remained relatively high until 1987 with around 240,000–250,000 visitors per year. However, the political and economical change around 1990 had a serious impact on tourism at Aggtelek and since then there has been an almost continuous decrease in visitors. This downtrend was interrupted for a six-year period after the caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst became a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1995, but the decrease then con-tinued until 2013. Since that time, a slight increase in visitors is observable. The question is, whether this is a result of ongoing investments and mar-

keting, and how tourists numbers can be further increased.

External determination versus limited opti-mism: First, the opinion of ANP experts is that the peripheral location of the ANP at the bound-ary of Hungary, relatively far from urban centers, largely limits its opportunities. Second, a signifi-cant proportion of Hungarian tourists travel to for-eign countries, and the ANP is not as appealing as it was before. Third, state funds are sufficient for infrastructure development, but not for everyday operation, and therefore an increase in geotourism would be desirable.

ReferencesMose, I. (Ed.) 2007. Protected areas and regional develop-

ment in Europe: towards a new model for the 21st centu-ry, pp. 1–249. Ashgate; Aldershot.

Frost, W., Hall, M. (Eds) 2009. Tourism and National Parks: International perspectives on development, histories and change, pp. 1–357. Routledge; New York.

Gruber, P., Gaál L. (Eds) 2015. A Baradla-Domica barlan-grendszer, pp. 1–512. ANPI; Jósvafő.

Telbisz, T., Bottlik, Zs., Mari, L., Kőszegi, M. 2014. The Impact of Topography on Social factors, a Case Study of Montenegro. Journal of Mountain Science, 11 (1), 131–141.

Telbisz, T., Bottlik, Zs., Mari, L., Petrvalská, A. 2015. Ex-ploring Relationships Between Karst Terrains and So-cial Features by the Example of Gömör-Torna Karst (Hungary-Slovakia). Acta Carsologica, 44 (1), 121–137.

Telbisz, T., Imecs, Z., Mari, L., Bottlik, Zs. 2016. Changing Human-Environment Interactions in Medium Moun-tains, the Apuseni Mts (Romania) as a Case Study. Jour-nal of Mountain Science, 13 (9), 1675–1687.

61

Systematic data collecting and appropriate ways of their presentations for effective protection of the geological heritage

Markéta Vajskebrová1, Pavla Gürtlerová1, Radek Svítil1

1 Czech Geological Survey, Klárov 3, 118 21 Praha 1, Czech Republic; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Key words: database, web application, geological heritage, protection, geosite, map

The Database of Significant Geological Locali-ties (SGL) of the Czech Republic: The Czech Geological Survey (CGS) has systematically reg-istered significant geological localities from the whole area of the Czech Republic since 1993 (Lorencová, Budil 2005; Lorencová 2005). The Database of the Significant Geological Localities of the Czech Republic[1] currently presents more than 3,000 records publicly available online. The database contains information about localities that are protected on different conservation levels, as well as information about scientifically signif-icant localities. Many of them are subsequently proposed for protection (Budil et al. 2012). The report on each locality consists of descriptive items which specify the position and character of the lo-cality including a detailed geological description, reasons for protection, level of importance and other references. Each record is labeled by hier-archical codes concerning the cadastral unit, map sheet Identification Number (ID), regional geo-logic unit, stratigraphy, type of rock, genesis, geo-logical importance, level of protection, conflicts of interests and the condition of the locality. The

database is used in the Geographic Information System (GIS). More than half of all localities are accompanied by photographs from the CGS Photo archive database[2]. For localities that are situated in currently protected areas it is possible to obtain the official designation documents or current man-agement plan through a direct link to the Nature Conservancy Central Register by the Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic. The SGL data are stored in the CGS Central Data Store (based on the Oracle database) and it forms a part of the National Geological Map Database (NGMD) developed by the CGS. The scientific relevance of the database content is guaranteed by district geologists of the CGS or by specialists from other geological institutions.

Ways to access data: There are three main ways how to obtain information from the Database of Significant Geological Localities on the CGS web-site[3]. Firstly, user can visit our database appli-cation[4] which is suitable for making structured queries according to different criteria (e.g. loca-tion, geological features, etc.). This can be done


Fig. 1. The latest map application ‘The Interesting Geosites of the Czech Republic’ is designed for the mobile devices.


62

by completing a user-friendly form. The other way is to use a map application[5] built upon GIS lay-ers from the central geo-database. Thanks to the implementation of other geoscientific layers (e.g. geological maps and other ones) it gives the user a deeper insight. In the world full of electronic de-vices and a common web-sites access, it seems to be advantageous to design applications especially for these mobile devices (Fig. 1). Therefore, in 2016 the Czech Geological Survey created the light re-sponsive map application ‘Interesting Geosites of the Czech Republic’ with the main focus on provid-ing quick response times and a simple user control, which are the key attributes for use in field[6]. It enables accurate positioning by GPS of the device. Application gives access to more than 1,400 geo-sites chosen from the database considering their at-tractiveness and usefulness with respect to natural scientific and also geotouristic point of view. That is why the descriptions of the geosites are shorter and more popular. The application shows natural geological outcrops, remains of human activities (mainly of mining origin), caves or karst phenom-ena. It also presents outdoor geological exhibits, museum with geological expositions and national geoparks. Moreover it offers excursion guides and animations of the ancient landscape. The layers tool enables the user to turn on and off orthophotomap or additional map layers. The CGS also cooper-ates in recording new geosites with Czech geopark administrative bodies and with external authors. And vice versa, it is possible for the geoparks to use the data and application in a customized map view on their own web-pages or other touristic regional websites, where other private layers could be added. All three above-mentioned applications are connected through the main report of each lo-cality. Photos are stored in the CGS Photo archive database[2], which contains tens of thousands of images from the present as well as from the past. Each of these applications has its own English ver-sion (see links below).

Conclusions: It is important to keep the inserted data up-to-date regarding mainly the actual con-dition, level of protection of the locality, photos, etc. Moreover, further cooperation with external specialists is welcome to extend the database with new localities or more details in existing scientific descriptions. The CGS has been doing this work systematically over the last 25 years with the aim to reach as much complex, actual and representa-tive database as possible. The content, structure and functionality of web-applications make them useful for visitors, students, teachers, museum staff, geolo-gists or specialists from other scientific branches or local authorities responsible for nature protection.

ReferencesLorencová, M. 2005. Geotouristical education in the Czech

Republic carried out by Czech Geological Survey. In: M. Doktor, A. Waśkowska-Oliwa (Eds), Geotourism – New dimensions in 21st century tourism and Chances for Future Development. 2nd International Conference GEOTOUR 2005, 22–24 September 2005, Kraków, p. 77–78. AGH University of Science and Technology Press; Kraków.

Lorencová, M., Budil, P. 2005. The system of conservation and popularization of geological heritage in the Czech Republic. In: 4th International Symposium ProGEO on the Conservation of the Geological Heritage, 3–16 September, 2005, Abstract Book, p. 49. University of Minho; Braga.

Budil, P., Lorencová, M., Stanzelová, Z., Stárka, L., Kříž, J. 2012 Czech Republic. In: W.A.P. Wimbledon, S. Smith-Meyer (Eds), Geoheritage in Europe and its con-servation, p. 93–99. ProGEO; Oslo.

Internet sources[1] http://www.geology.cz/lokality; http://www.geology.cz/

localities[2] http://fotoarchiv.geology.cz[3] http://www.geology.cz; http://www.geology.cz/extranet-

eng[4] http://lokality.geology.cz; http://lokality.geology.cz/d.pl?l=e[5] https://mapy.geology.cz/geologicke_lokality[6] https://mapy.geology.cz/zajimavosti; https://mapy.geolo-

gy.cz/geosites

63

Educational value of quarries located within the proposed Geopark Małopolska Vistula River Gap, Eastern Poland

Wojciech Zgłobicki1, Grzegorz Gajek1, Renata-Kołodyńska Gawrysiak1

1 Faculty of Earth Sciences and Spatial Management, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Kraśnicka 2d, 20-718 Lublin, Poland; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: education, geoheritage, geopark, quarries

Introduction: Within the proposed Geopark Mało polska Vistula River Gap, there are many ex-posures of Upper Cretaceous, Paleogene and Neo-gene rocks as well as Pleistocene and Holocene sediments of varying age and origin. Many of them were quarried in the past, and the extensive quar-ries (Kaliszany, Kazimierz Dolny, Nasiłów) are remnants of that past mining activity. The most interesting sites, characterised by high geological value and historic value as monuments of mining technology, include the old quarry in Bochotnica (with a distinct K–T boundary) and the inactive and currently inaccessible phosphate rock mine in Annopol. The educational value of some sites is enhanced by the occurrence of numerous fossils, mainly in Upper Cretaceous and Neogene rocks (Harasimiuk et al. 2011).

The geological values occurring here influence the high educational potential of many quarries, which gives an opportunity to create educational products designed for a wide audience (Doktor et al. 2015). The potential audience of the educational offer can be divided into three groups: (1) School pupils and students, (2) Students of natural science study programmes, (3) Tourists/geotourists. Field classes are important from the perspective of ed-ucation, interpretation and promotion of geoheri-tage. However, modern school education offers a small number of field classes. This problem also concerns schools and universities located in areas with valuable geoheritage. The convenient loca-tion of the Małopolska Vistula River Gap close to larger (Lublin, Radom, Sandomierz) and smaller towns (Puławy, Kraśnik) enables the organisation of short school trips and conducting geography field classes. At the same time, in Lublin, the larg-est of the cities mentioned above, there are schools of higher education with programmes related to natural science and the tourist industry. Given the educational values of the sites studied, it is possible

to include field classes in the curricula. Many of the quarries studied are located in the Kazimierz Dolny area that is visited by large numbers of tourist each year even though they are attracted mainly by the cultural assets and scenic values of the town and its vicinity. This is an opportunity for enriching the existing ‘traditional’ tourist offer with elements of geoeducation that are innovative in a sense.

Methods: The educational values of 55 quarries (in-cluding 27 old quarries of rocks of the Cretaceous and Palaeogene bedrock) located within the pro-posed Geopark Małopolska Vistula River Gap were assessed. We used 20 frequently applied cri-teria divided into four groups of values: scientific, educational, functional and tourist (Brilha 2016). The method was prepared with consideration to elements significant from the perspective of or-ganising field classes, i.e. the uniqueness of the site on the one hand, and, on the other, its accessibility or safety. Given the varying needs of the audi-ence groups mentioned above, greater or smaller significance was attached to the particular groups of criteria. In the case of an assessment carried out for school education, the greatest significance was ascribed to educational values, in the case of university education – scientific values, and in the case of tourists – tourist values.

Results and discussion: Among four groups of criteria, the highest rating was given to functional values, slightly lower rating to scientific values, and the lowest rating to tourist and educational values. The strengths of the sites include their rep-resentative character, size of exposure, possibil-ity of collecting samples, and accessibility. The geotourist value of some geosites is reduced by a very small number of educational products, poor scenic qualities, lack of a varied educational of-fer, and poor availability of scientific literature.



64

Besides a correlation concerning scientific and ed-ucational values, no correlation was found between the assessment results for the criteria groups under study. This means that preparing an educational offer can be difficult because only one group of criteria is characterized by high values.

The highest rating, above 75% of the maximum score, was given particularly to Cretaceous rock quarries that are no longer operated: (1) The ex-tensive limestone and opoka quarry located on the slopes of the Vistula valley in Kaliszany; (2) The opoka quarry in Kazimierz Dolny; (3) The small quarry in the ‘Kamienny Dół’ quarry where re-mains of a Paleocene crocodile have been found; (4) The ‘Ścianka Pożaryskich’ quarry with the pre-served sedimentary sequence at the K–Pg bound-ary; (5) The Kamienna Góra limestone quarry. The only highly rated geosite presenting younger formations is the glaciofluvial sediment exposure in Rąblów. All the sites, except Kamienna Góra, are located in the northern part of the designed geopark. The results of the assessment carried out for the specific target audience groups indicated that sites with the highest values are attractive to each of those groups. Besides high scientific val-ues, they are characterised by biotic or scenic val-ues. Therefore, they should be the basis for the development of the geotourism offer. In the future, indicating quarries with the highest educational value will enable the preparation of educational materials that could be used to prepare lesson plans for field classes. The first actions are already being taken in this respect. The lack of geoproducts and proper management of old quarries (plant succes-sion) are the biggest challenges.

More than 10 years of experience with European geoparks provide many examples of good prac-tices with regard to the education, interpretation, promotion and accessibility of geoheritage. In this respect, the Arouca Geopark in Portugal plays a

leading role (Pijet-Migoń 2017). By offering sim-ple and complex geotourist products, geoparks can reach a wide target audience. Simple geout-ourist products offered by geoparks in Poland and other European countries include geoeducational materials such as guidebooks, maps, brochures, geo-teaching aids (worksheets and materials for teachers) and popular science materials (Dryglas, Miśkiewicz 2014). They are available in printed form and can also be downloaded from the geopark websites. In addition, there are many virtual/mul-timedia products such as websites providing geoinformation, virtual tours, geo-applications. The geoparks’ geoeducational offer also encompasses trips, field classes, workshops, experiments help-ing understand geological processes, field games, or multimedia presentations. In many geoparks, the existing geoeducational offer is dedicated to specific stages in education, and in some parks it corresponds directly with the curriculum (e.g. Arouca Geopark, Katla Geopark, Petrified Forest Geopark).

ReferencesBrilha, J. 2016. Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of

Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: a Review. Geoheri-tage, 8, 119–134.

Harasimiuk, M., Domonik, A., Machalski, M., Ponińska, J., Warowna, J., Szymkowiak, A. 2011. Małopolski Prze-łom Wisły – projekt geoparku. Przegląd Geologi czny, 59 (5), 405–416.

Doktor, M., Miśkiewicz, K., Welc, E. M., Mayer, W. 2015. Criteria of geotourism valorization specified for various recipients. Geotourism, 3–4 (42–43), 25–38.

Dryglas, D., Miśkiewicz, K. 2014. Construction of the geotourism product structure on the example of Poland. In: 14th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geo-Conference SGEM 2014, SGEM 2014 Conference Pro-ceedings, June 19–25 2014, 5 (2), p. 155–162. Albena. https://sgemworld.at/sgemlib/spip.php?article4834

Pijet-Migoń, E., Migoń, P. 2017. Geopark Arouca w Portu-galii. Przegląd Geologiczny, 65 (2), 89–131.

65

POSTERS

The hydration caves as a unique geological heritage

Maciej Bąbel1, Adrian Jarzyna1, Damian Ługowski1, Firouz Vladi2, Andriy Bogucki3, Andriy Yatsyshyn3, Krzysztof Nejbert1, Danuta Olszewska-Nejbert1, Jakub Kotowski1,

Barbara Kremer4, Olena Tomeniuk3

1 University of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Poland; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

2 Deutsches Gipsmuseum und Karstwanderweg e.V., Düna 9a, 37520 Osterode, Germany; e-mail: [email protected] Ivan-Franko National University of Lviv, Faculty of Geography, Doroshenka 41, 79000 Lviv, Ukraine;

e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Institute of Paleobiology, PAS, Twarda 51/55, 00-818 Warsaw, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: hydration, anhydrite, caves, Quellungshöhlen, secondary gypsum

Origin of hydration caves: More than fifty ge-netic types of caves of non-karstic origin has been recognized so far. Among them there are so-called hydration caves which represent unique speleo-logical objects. They occur exclusively within the calcium sulphate rocks (anhydrite and gypsum) and are formed as a result of weathering (hydra-tion) of the mineral anhydrite (CaSO4). Exhumed anhydrite is thermodynamically unstable under wet surface and subsurface conditions and read-ily dissolves. This process is commonly associ-ated with the crystallization of secondary gypsum (CaSO4•2H2O) at the expense of anhydrite (CaSO4 + 2H2O = CaSO4•2H2O). In some places pressure exerted by the crystallizing gypsum leads to the significant volume increase of the weathering rocks. The pressure is released in the surficial zone of the rock where spectacular deformational struc-tures develop such as pressure ridges or domes. The domal structures form in places where ex-panding surficial layer of the rock detaches from the substrate and rises up. Inside the domes empty chambers appear which enlarge together with the growth of the domes (driven by the anhydrite hy-dration process). Some chambers may reach the sizes large enough to permit a man to crawl in-side and thus represent caves. Such caves were rec-ognised and named the ‛hydration caves’ by Kraus (1905) and the ‘Quellungshöhlen’ (in German), by Biese (1931), known as ‛swelling caves’ in English. The described hydration domes, chambers and caves are known under many various names, as ‘bulge caves’, ‘gypsum bubbles’, ‘pressure blisters’,

‘expansion blisters’, etc. It is important to dis-tinguish the discussed hydration domes and the caves from the morphologically similar weather-ing forms known as ‛gypsum tumuli’ (Calaforra, Pulido-Bosch 1999). The letter originate without any connection with the hydration. It is believed that the gypsum tumuli are formed due to cyclic wetting and drying of the exposed naked gypsum rocks in a semi-dry climate or microclimate.

Occurrence of hydration caves: Hydration caves has been known since 18th century from the south-ern margin of the Harz Mountains in Germany. The most famous site is about one square km large area of Sachsenstein and Höllstein, between Walkenried and Bad Sachsa, where a group of scat-tered forms occurs in the protected forested zone. Many occurrences of hydration caves are known from USA. Large collapsed caves interpreted as hydration forms were described from South Bass Island and Sandusky Bay, on Lake Erie, in Ohio. Tiny hydration caves or chambers are known from New Mexico and Oklahoma. Hydration caves ac-tively form in the abandoned gypsum quarries at Dingwall in Nova Scotia, Canada. Hydration caves were described from the small Alebastrovyye Islands in the Kostin Shar strait, in Novaya Zemlya, in Russia. They also form recently in the gypsum quarries at Pisky near Lviv in Ukraine. How many hydration caves are known depends on the adopted definition of the term cave. Since the common defi-nition says that the cave is a natural, underground cavity large enough to be entered by man, it is the



66

size of the person which decides which hydration chamber is, or not, the cave. Hydration caves are used as shelters and playing area for children.

The largest hydration caves: Among the so far described hydration caves there are a few real spe-leological treasures – the caves in which a group of adult people can shelter. The best known example from the southern margin of the Harz (environs of Walkenried-Bad Sachsa) is the so-called Forest Forge (Waldschmiede in German), the circular floor which is 7.5 per 8.0 m in size and ca. 2 m in height. The people could stand inside this cave. The roof of that cave collapsed in 1966. Height of the largest collapsed and destroyed caves from South Bass Island on the Lake Erie in Ohio was estimated as attaining from 3 to 6 m, and the ex-isting Perry’s Cave reaches 2.74 m in height. Some of these caves could be the largest hydration caves ever known, however unfortunately, the convinc-ing evidences of their origin and the true original sizes are lacking. The largest documented hydra-tion cave from Dingwall in Canada was the actively growing Maruhn Cave with the floor 9.5×4.5 m in size and a maximum height of about 1 m measured in 2003 (Reimann and Vladi 2003). The roof of this cave collapsed before 2017. In the meantime, a larger cave was discovered: the Ramesh Cave, with the floor size of 10.7×6.6 m and the height of 110 cm in 2008. The sizes of this actively growing cave have been changed. The height raised up to 132 cm and the floor size shrunk to 9.95×4.10 m in October 2017. The largest recognized form from Pisky in Ukraine was an actively growing cave inside the so-called Great Dome. The cave showed the maximum dimensions 9.5×7.8 m in plan and its height was about 1.2 m in August 2016 (Bąbel et al. 2017). This cave was destroyed in winter 2016/2017 during irresponsible quarrying operations. The hy-dration caves from Alebastrovyye Islands are up to

1.5 m high. They occur within domes which are up to 10×15 m in size.

Geoheritage value: The hydration caves represent speleological objects of the great scientific, edu-cational and touristic values. They require more studies and systematic monitoring to understand fully their origin. Some of them require urgently the protection.

Research sponsored by National Science Centre, Poland, grant no. DEC-2012/05/B/ST10/00918, and financed from Polish budget funds for sci-ence in 2017–2020 as a research project within the ‘Diamond Grant’ program.

ReferencesBąbel, M., Bogucki, A., Yatsyshyn, A., Ługowski, D., Olsze-

wska-Nejbert, D., Nejbert, K., Jarzyna, A., Bermes, A., Przybylik, G., Tomeniuk, O. 2017. Stanowisko wietrze-jących anhydrytów w Piskach. Część I. Ogólna charak-terystyka. In: M. Bąbel, D. Olszewska-Nejbert, K. Nej-bert, J. Kotowski (Eds), Wietrzenie skał gipsowych i an hydrytowych. Polsko-Ukraińskie Seminarium Nau-kowe, 19–21 styczeń 2017, Warszawa, p. 18–22. Instytut Geologii Podstawowej, Wydział Geologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego; Warszawa.

Biese, W. 1931. Über Höhlenbildung, 1. Entstehung der Gips höhlen am südlichen Harzrand und am Kyffhäuser. Abhandlungen der Preußischen Geologischen Lande-sanstalt, Neue Folge, 137, 1–71.

Calaforra, J.M., Pulido-Bosch, A. 1999. Genesis and evo-lution of gypsum tumuli. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 24, 919–930.

Kraus, E.H. 1905. Hydration caves. Science, New Series, 22, 502–503.

Reimann, M., Vladi, F. 2003. Zur Entwicklung der sog. Zwer genkirche am Sachsenstein bei Walkenried, Land-kreis Osterode am Harz, Niedersachsen und vergle-ichende Beobachtungen zur rezenten Entstehung von Quellungshöhlen in eine maufgelassenen Gipsstein-bruch bei Dingwall, Nova Scotia, Kanada. Mitteilun-gen des Verbandes der deutschen Höhlen- und Karst-forscher, 49, 75–77.

67

Creation of a new geopark in the Bükk Region (Hungary) – a bottom-up initiative

Csaba Baráz1, Sándor Holló1, Tamás Telbisz2

1 Bükk National Park Directorate, 3304 Sánc u. 6, Eger, Hungary; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected] Department of Physical Geography, Eötvös University, 1117 Pázmány Péter 1/C, Budapest, Hungary;


Keywords: geopark, geodiversity, geotourism, cultural heritage, landscape character

Introduction: Due to the increasing awareness about geoparks, some mayors in the Bükk re-gion initiated the creation of the third geopark of Hungary, hence it is a nice example of bottom-up initiatives. At present, Hungary has two UNESCO Global Geoparks, the Novohrad-Nógrad Geopark and the Bakony-Balaton Geo park. While the first is managed by an independent non-profit organi-zation, the second works hand in hand with the Balaton Uplands National Park. The Bükk Mts are basically a national park, but there are many valu-able geosites in the wider Bükk region, which are outside the territory of the national park. The Bükk region has high geodiversity, thus it is a sample area of Hungarian geodiversity research. The rich geological heritage and the bottom-up initiative provide a perfect base for the creation of a new geopark.

History of the initiative: On June 20th, 2017, after some preliminary negotiations, there was a meet-ing in Felsőtárkány for the mayors of settlements in the Bükk region to officially initiate the foundation of the Bükk Region Geopark. Mayors of 105 set-tlements signed a declaration, and they asked the Bükk National Park (BNP) Directorate to elaborate the scientific documents, coordinate the process and carry on the operative tasks. At present, the elaboration of these documents, delineation of the areal extent, designation of geosites (459 are in the list), and the outlining of management structure is in progress. According to the plans, the scientific leadership will be the task of the Bükk National Park similarly to the Bakony-Balaton Geopark.

Location of the planned geopark: The Bükk Mts are found in the North Hungarian Mts, which


Fig. 1. Map and some images of the planned Bükk Geopark.


68

are the southernmost part of the Northwestern Carpathians. In the north and west, the Bükk Mts are surrounded by rugged hills. In the east and south, the topography gradually lowers towards the Sajó river valley and towards the Great Hungarian Plains. The Bükk region includes not only the mountains but the surrounding hilly areas and pied-monts as well. The planned geopark would cover roughly the whole Bükk region, a much wider area than the present national park. The Bükk region is highly diverse from geological, geomorphological, landscape and cultural viewpoints. Altogether, 108 settlements and 2817 km2 would become part of this geopark.

Characters of the planned geopark: The high (geo)diversity of the Bükk region is briefly pre-sented here according to its four main characters:

(1) Geological character: the Bükk Mts and the adjacent Upponyi Mts at its northern side are char-acterized by fold-and-thrust structures, which have mainly formed during the Cretaceous tectogenesis. The rocks are mostly of Ordovician to Jurassic age. Predominant rock types are Triassic limestones, but there are many interesting smaller geologi-cal formations, such as Jurassic pillow lavas in the South Bükk. The hilly areas around the Bükk are rich in Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary rocks, but volcaniclastics related to large explosive Miocene events are also widely distributed.

(2) Geomorphological character: the Bükk Mts are rich in karst phenomena. Surface karst features are mostly formed on Triassic limestones. There are two plateaus with karrenfields, sinkholes and stream sinks. The plateau margins have spec-tacular rockwalls, and at their bottoms, springs and different forms of travertines are found. The Bükk Mts exhibit the highest number of caves in Hungary, there are 1300 caves in the cave cadaster, including 52 specially protected sites. Caves with large entrance halls are typical in the area that have provided good shelter for prehistoric people. There are 46 caves with archeological material.

(3) Hydrogeological character: there is a con-nected large hydrodynamic karst aquifer within the carbonate rocks of the Bükk region. The recharge area is basically the higher, karstified terrain of the Bükk Mts, but the carbonate rocks have a sub-surface continuation below the hills around the mountains, and even below the young rocks of the

Great Hungarian Plains. Hence, the infiltrating wa-ter moves within this aquifer from the mountains towards the lower areas and it uprises along natural faults or artificial wells as thermal water. This the reason for the famous spa locations (e.g. Cave Bath of Miskolctapolca or Eger thermal springs).

(4) Cultural character related to geology: The Bükk region is rich in historical and architectural monuments, e.g. the aforementioned caves of pre-historic people. It is also noted that the Bükk Mts were the cradle of Hungarian prehistoric people research. Several objects of paleolithic or neolithic cultures have been preserved at these sites. Later in history, there was iron ore mining and quarrying in the Bükk region, and several related industrial monuments are preserved. In the southern pied-mont, there are lots of beehive rocks, whose origins are still not perfectly understood, and ignimbrite rocks were highly appropriate for the creation of cellars used for wine production, but there are also cave flats, which were inhabited up to the 20th century.

Suggested geosites: At present, there are 459 sug-gested geosites in the list, mostly caves, artificial caverns, but protected geological outcrops are also abundant, and it is noted that there is an ongoing project to clean and secure these outcrops. Further on, beehive rocks, exogenic karst features and in-dustrial monuments related to mining and quarry-ing are also in the list.

Conclusions: The Bükk region is much larger than the Bükk National Park, and it is a highly var-iegated area from geological, geomorphological, biological, landscape and cultural viewpoints. The Bükk region has good availability, two large cities (Eger and Miskolc) are at the outskirt, and even the capital, Budapest is not far away. The present tourism is already significant, but the geopark may increase the awareness of tourists. In addition, by joining the UNESCO Global Geopark network, the international reputation can be also improved and potentially, geotourists would arrive here from other countries. So, we hope that this bottom-up initiative will become a success story.

This publication is supported by the research proj-ect No. 124497 of the National Research, Deve-lopment and Innovation Office, Hungary.

69

Heritage of the Brusno stonework centre as an opportunity to develop and promote rural areas of Roztocze Region (Southeastern Poland)

Teresa Brzezińska-Wójcik1, Ewa Skowronek1

1 Wydział Nauk o Ziemi i Gospodarki Przestrzennej, Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Al. Kraśnicka 2d, 20-718 Lublin, Poland; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: Brusno Stare, Roztocze region, heritage, stonework, handicraft, regional development

Introduction: Geological and cultural heritage has been analysed in numerous papers in context of strengthening of the industrial development and promoting rural areas (Hose 2007; O’Connor 2008; Farsani et al. 2011; Bański 2017). Our presentation refers to the Polish part of the Roztocze region.

Geological settings: Brusno Stare is situated in the south-east part of Roztocze region. The region consists of a range of hills spreading from Kraśnik (Poland) to Lviv (Ukraine). Geologically, Mesozoic calcareous-siliceous rocks and Caino zoic lime-stones and some sandy formations predominate in this area (Musiał 1987; Cieśliński 1998). The Miocene organodetritic limestones and calcareous sandstones have been the basis for the development of the stonework centre described in this paper.

Aims: Main aims of this paper include: (1) Popula-rising geological and cultural heritage of Roztocze based on the example of the stonework centre in Brusno Stare; (2) Introducing the history of stone-work and presenting features of the artefacts from Brusno; (3) Highlighting the importance of the stonework heritage as the foundation for the multi-functional development of the region relying on the traditional farming and tourism.

Methods: A preliminary survey of bibliographic sources was carried out in order to present the his-tory of the development and features of the artefacts from the Brusno stonework centre (Kawałko 1995, 2001; Mazur 2008; Brzezińska-Wójcik et al. 2015). The assessment of spatial distribution and state of Brusno stonework preservation has been based on the field inventory. Possibilities of developing tour-ist offers have been put forward with reference to some concepts of other authors (Nijssen, Nyssen 2011) and examples of good practices in using geo-logical heritage (Hose 2007; Carvalho, Rodrigues 2010; Coelho et al. 2010; Farsani et al. 2011).

Results: The findings confirm the opinion that Roztocze heritage is a unique natural and cultural resource. History and the artefacts from the Brusno Stare stonework centre make a good example of this heritage. Stonemen’s workshops were made by lo-cal farmers for whom mining and processing rocks around their fields was extra work that supple-mented their income. Passed down from generation to generation, stonework skills had become a local tradition. Initially, the work of the centre was purely functional and was connected with settlement de-veloping. With time, i.e. at the turn of the 17th and the 18th century, artistic work started and flourished from the 18th century to the Second World War. Sepulchral artwork has become the major brand of Brusno Stare stonework. It would feature char-acteristic details, motives, shapes and decorations. Brusno artwork was mainly church sculptures con-nected with Greek Catholic (Greek Uniate) and Roman Catholic churches. However, there are also some sepulchral works of the Evangelical German minority and few Jewish cemetery tombstones. All these forms were preserved at local multireligious cemeteries that are widely considered to be some of the most beautiful European necropoles. Stonework from Brusno makes a visible evidence of a diversity of cultural and religious life of historic inhabitants of the region. The downfall of the Brusno Stare cen-tre was brought about political changes and shifts in the settlement structure of borderland regions that resulted in major depopulations and ethnic changes to the whole region.

Conclusions: Presently, Brusno Stare hardly makes any use of its local heritage. However, there is an urgent need to protect and promote it due to its uniqueness and fragility. Furthermore, it should form a basis for developing various forms of di-dactic tourism (sightseeing, educational, cultural, sentimental, geoturism), eco- and agrotourism, and



70

even qualified tourism (hiking and cycling). In con-text of examples from other areas (i.a. Naturtejo and Arouca geoparks; Świętokrzyski Szlak Archeo-Geologiczny trail; Szlak Rękodzieła Ludowego trail in the Podlaskie Province; or thematic settlements/ villages, e.g. Mining Village in the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Province) this business function may be-come an opportunity to improve economic situation of the inhabitants of this part of Roztocze.

ReferencesBański, J. 2017. Rozwój obszarów wiejskich, pp. 1–159.

Pań stwowe Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne; Warszawa.Brzezińska-Wójcik, T., Skowronek, E., Kondraciuk, P. 2015.

Możliwości wykorzystania dziedzictwa ośrodków ka-mieniarskich Roztocza w turystyce. In: Z. Młynarczyk, A. Zajadacz (Eds), Uwarunkowania i plany rozwoju tury-styki. Turystyka i Rekreacja – Studia i Prace, 15, 91–108.

Carvalho, C.N., Rodrigues, J. 2010. Building a geopark for fostering socio-economic development and to burst cul-ture pride: the Naturtejo European Geopark (Portugal). In: P. Florido, I. Rábano (Eds), Una visión multidisci-plinar del patrimonio geológico y minero. Cuadernos del Museo Geominero, 12, 467–479. Instituto Geológi-co y Minero de España; Madrid.

Coelho, C.O.A., Valente, S., Ribeiro, C. 2010. Northwest Beira Highlands – Freita and Caramulo Hills (Portugal). In: N. Evelpidou, T. Figueiredo, F. Mauro, V. Tecim, A. Vassilopoulos (Eds), Natural Heritage from East to West, Case studies from 6 EU Countries, p. 169–174. Springer; Heidelberg – New York.

Cieśliński, S. 1998. Osady kredowe Roztocza Lubelskiego.

In: Z. Krzowski, M. Harasimiuk, T. Brzezińska-Wój-cik, Z. Michalczyk, J. Rzechowski, J. Superson (Eds), Budowa geologiczna Roztocza (100-lecie badań pol-skich geologów), Przewodnik 69. Zjazdu Naukowego Polskiego Towarzystwa Geologicznego. Krasnobród, 23–26.IX.1998, p. 47–50.

Farsani, T.N., Coelho, C., Costa, C. 2011. Geotourism and geoparks as novel strategies for socio-economic devel-opment in rural areas. International Journal of Tourism Research, 13 (1), 68–81.

Hose, T.A. 2007. Geotourism in Almeria Province, south-east Spain. Tourism, 55 (3), 259–276.

Kawałko, D. 1995. Bruśnieński ośrodek kamieniarski. Zamojski Kwartalnik Kulturalny, 3 (45), 5–8.

Kawałko, D. 2001. Kamieniarstwo na Roztoczu – próba porównania ośrodków bruśnieńskiego i józefowskiego. In: A. Jarosz, A. Michałowski (Eds), Roztocze – pro ble-my ochrony środowiska przyrodniczego i dziedzictwa kulturowego na pograniczu polsko-ukraińskim, 2, p. 315–323. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Państwowej Wyższej Szko ły Zawodowej w Jarosławiu; Lubaczów.

Mazur, J. 2008. Kresowe dziedzictwo. Kamieniarstwo bruś-nieńskie, 12, 1–133. Muzeum Kresów w Luba czo wie; Lubaczów.

Musiał, T. 1987. Miocen Roztocza (Polska południowo- wschodnia). Biuletyn Geologiczny, 31, pp. 1–149. Wy-dział Geologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego; Warszawa.

Nijssen, J., Nyssen, J. 2011. Pre-industrial headstones across the continental North Sea plain. Journal of Historical Geo graphy, 37 (3), 273–287.

O’Connor, P.J. 2008. The role of geotourism in supporting regeneration in disadvantaged rural communities in Ireland. Transaction on Ecology and the Environment, 115, 267–275.

71

The conglomerates of Meteora: a geological heritage monument of Greece

Georgia Fermeli1, Anastasia Koutsouveli2

1 Institute of Educational Policy, An. Tsocha 36, 11521 Athens, Greece; e-mail: [email protected] Kolokotroni 148, 18121 Korydallos, Piraeus, Greece; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: world heritage, Greek world Heritage List, conglomerates, NATURA 2000

Introduction: In central Greece, in the northwest-ern part of Thessaly, giant rocks are rise to create a spectacle landscape. The beauty of geological phenomenon, which is also an important monu-ment for religion, has inspired people’s imagina-tion leading to various myths about their creation, including comparing the original landforms to old and abandoned towers amongst the neighbouring green mountains.

Meteora rocks are molasse sediments, depos-ited in the Mesohellenic trench during the Early Miocene (about 23 million years ago), mainly con-sisting of conglomerates and sandstones. The Mete-ora conglomerates belong to the Pentalophos For-mation and were deposited in a Gilbert deltaic type system where there were large channels entrenched perpendicularly to the axis of the delta.

The main units of sedimentary deposits rec-ognized in Meteora conglomerate are: (1) Wedge

type deposits that are regarded as those deposited in coastal environments and interpreted under the framework of the Gilbert-type Delta model and (2) Channel type deposits that are regarded as those created during the base-level lowering or during the upward movement of the feeding source. The formation of the Meteora landforms is due to: (1) Tectonic events, (2) Fluvial erosion due to flowing water and, to a smaller extent, (3) Aeolian erosion (Dermitzakis et al. 2007). Scientific references to the phenomenon have been made since 19th century (Phillippson 1890) and followed by many others, e.g. Brunn (1956), Aubouin (1959), Bizon (1967), Savoyat et al. (1972).

Conservation and management of Meteora area: Meteora area has been included in the list of World Cultural and Natural Heritage of UNESCO in 1988. The proposal, evaluation and selection


Fig. 1. Meteora conglomerates (Thessaly, central Greece). Photograph by Georgia Fermeli.


72

was mainly based on the UNESCO’s cultural cri-teria (C 1–5)[1] and in one natural environment cri-terion (N 7)[1]. Meteora has also been proposed as a geological heritage monument (Theodosiou et al. 2006) because it represents a significant geomor-phology. Certainly, the UNESCO criterion N-8[1] should also be used for the evaluation of Meteora conglomarates in order to recognise its significant geomorphical features.

Meteora (Meteora-Antichasia area) is inclu-ded in the European network of protected areas, NATURA 2000, which is the main national mean for implementing Directive 92/43/EEC of the European Council ‛for the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora’ (this Directive was incorporated into a Joint Ministerial Decision 33318/3028/11-12-1998, Government Gazette 1289/ B/28-12-98). In particular, Meteora (Meteora-Antichasia area) is included in both Natura 2000 ma-jor units (‘Inland and mountain areas’ and ‘Special Protection Areas’) and the list of ‘Sites of outstand-ing Natural Beauty’. In Meteora-Antichasia area there have been identified rare types of ecosystems, rare plants and rare animals (Hellenic Society for the Protection of Nature 2004).

Conclusions: Meteora is of great interest for scien-tific, environmental, social, cultural, religious and aesthetic reasons. Despite its importance, however, the region is currently under particular pressure arising from both the constantly increasing num-ber of tourists visiting the area and also from from construction works (roads, installation of mobile infrastructure, etc.). The region, in addition to its

exceptional cultural importance and rare ecosystem types, is also a unique region for geology and it has been proposed a geological heritage monument.

ReferencesAubouin, J. 1959. Contribution à l’étude géologique de la

Grèce séptentrionale: les cofins de l’ Epire et de la Thes-salie. Annales Géologiques des Pays Helléniques, 10, 1–525.

Bizon, J.J., Lalechos, N., Savoyat, E. 1968. Présence de l’Eocène transgressif en Thessalie. Incidence sur la paléogéographie régionale. Bulletin de la Société géo-logique de France, 10, 36–38.

Brunn, J.H. 1956. Etude géologique du Pinde septentrional et de la Macédoine occidentale. Annales Géologiques des Pays Helléniques, 7, 1–358.

Dermitzakis, M., Drinia, Ch., Fermeli, G. 2009. Formation and evolution of Meteora conglomerates. In: G. Stageas (Ed.), Proceedings 3rd Historical Congress in Kalamba-ka, 7–9. September, 2007, p. 197–116. Genesis; Kalam-baka-Greece.

Hellenic Society for the Protection of Nature (HSPN), 2004. NATURA 2000 protected areas in Greece, pp. 1–200. HSPN and Ministry of Environment; Athens.

Phillipson, A. 1890. Bericht über eine Reise durch Nord und Mittel Griechenland. Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für erdkunde, 25, 331–406. Berlin.

Savoyat, E., Lalechos, N., Philippakis, N., Bizon, G. 1972. Geological Map Kalambaka Sheet, 1:50,000. Greek In-stitute of Geology and Mineral Exploration; Athens.

Thedosiou, I., Fermeli, G., Koutsouveli, A. 2006. Our geo-logical heritage, pp. 1–102. Kaleidoskopio; Athens.

Internet sources[1] Unesco, 2005. World Heritage. The criteria for selection.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria.

73

Geodiversity and geoheritage of the glacial landscape areas in Poland

Izabela Jamorska1, Tomasz Karasiewicz1, Karol Tylmann2

1 Faculty of Earth Sciences Nicoulas Copernicus University in Toruń, Lwowska 1, 87-100 Toruń, Poland; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

2 Faculty of Oceanography and Geography University of Gdańsk, Al. Marszałka Józefa Piłsudskiego 46, 81-378 Gdynia, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geodiversity, glacial landscape, geosites

Goals: This study aims in the recognition and evaluation of the geodiversity of the young glacial landscape in the north of Poland. Three areas of diversified morfology and geology, located within the extent of the last Weichselian glaciation have been selected as the research area.

Methods: Three basic abiotic components of the environment have been analysed: geology, terrain relief and geosites. The diversity of these compo-nents have been evaluated by means of the point bonitation method (Kot 2012, 2015; Kot, Szmidt 2010; Radwanek-Bąk, Laskowicz 2012) using ArcGIS software as well as applying the geodiver-sity index according to methodology by Serrano and Ruiz-Flaño (2007). According to the Point Bonitation Method the investigated area has been divided into hexagonal test fields, and the diver-sity of the analysed natural components has been defined within particular fields. Every single el-ements has been evaluated and the total number of points specified it’s geotouristic attractiveness. Geosites have undergone the additional evaluation in terms of geological and touristic values, with special focus on erratic boulders. The geodiversity index, on which the other evaluation method is based, has been calculated to the following for-mula (Serrano, Ruiz-Flaño 2007, 2009; Serrano at al. 2009): Gd = EgR/lnS, where: Gd – geodiversity index, Eg – numer of different physical elements in the unit, R – coefficient of roughness of the unit, S – surface of the unit (km2).

Conclusions: The main result of ours study is a general characteristic of geoheritage of Poland’s glacial landscape as well as visualization and map-ping of the most favourable geoturistic regions and sites. The application of two methods of evaluating geodiversity has enabled the verification of apply-ing such method in case of lowlands as well as selection of the area with the best representation of diversified young glacial landscape.

ReferencesKot, R. 2012. Zastosowanie indeksu georóżnorodności dla

określenia zróżnicowania rzeźby terenu na przykładzie zlewni reprezentatywnej Strugi Toruńskiej, Pojezierze Chełmińskie. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, 33, 87–96.

Kot, R. 2015. The Point Bonitation Method for Evaluating Geodiversity: A Guide with Examples (Polish Low-land). Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geogra-phy, 97 (2), 375–393.

Kot, R., Szmidt, K. 2010. Ocena georóżnorodności rzeź-by terenu fragmentu Basenu Świeckiego w skalach 1:10.000 oraz 1:25.000. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, 27, 189–196.

Radwanek-Bąk, B., Laskowicz, I. 2012. Ocena georóż-norodności jako metody określania potencjału geotury-stycznego obszaru. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie- Skłodowska 67 (2), 77–95.

Serrano, E., Ruiz-Flaño, P. 2007. Geodiversity. A theoretical and applied concept. Geographica Helvetica, 62, 1–8.

Serrano, E., Ruiz-Flaño, P. 2009. Geomorphosites and Geo-diversity. In: E. Reynard, P. Coratza, G. Regolini-Bissig (Eds), Geomorphosites, p. 51–63. Verlag Pfeil; Munich.

Serrano, E., Ruiz-Flaño, P., Arroyo, P. 2009. Geodiversity assessment in a rural landscape: Tiermes-Caracena area (Soria, Spain). Memorie Descrittive Della Carta Geoli-gica d’Italia, 87, 173–180.



74

Application of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and geochemical survey to investigations of old mining center in Radzimowice

(Lower Silesia, SW Poland)

Maciej Kałaska1, Rafał Siuda1, Paula Sierpień2

1 Faculty of Geology, University of Warsaw, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Poland; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

2 Institute of Geological Sciences, Polish Academy of Sciences, Research Center in Warsaw, Twarda 51/55, 00-818 Warsaw, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: Light Detection and Ranging LiDAR, ArcGIS mapping, arsenic, geochemical survey, Radzi-mowice

Geological settings: The Radzimowice (currently a small village, located 15 km to the East from Jelenia Gora) is one of the oldest mining center in Lower Silesia. The first mining works were car-ried out in Radzimowice in the 15th century, when the subsurface parts of the deposit were exploited (Dziekoński 1972). Another period of intense devel-opment took place from 18th century to the 1920s. The only small reconnaissance work was conducted here after War World II (Madziarz 2009). The mine in Radzimowice was finally closed in 1963. Several polymetallic veins were exploited there (Stauffacher 1916). During the oldest period of exploitation only copper, silver and lead ores were mined. Later gold was also recovered. In the years 1819–1890 arsenic trioxide and synthetic arsenic pigments were ob-tained from local arsenic ores. The abandoned min-ing facilities, used for processing arsenic, are cur-rently a major ecological threat. The accumulated arsenic compounds in these places migrate to soils and ground waters and then are absorbed by plants (Karczewska et al. 2006; Krzysiak et al. 2007).

Aims: The aim of this research was to make: (1) An inventory of the mining and metallurgical ac-tivity remains based on LiDAR data, (2) Use of geochemical studies in the selected area to iden-tify the location of the abandoned arsenic smelter and equipment for processing of local polymetallic ores, and (3) To create a map of soil contamination with arsenic compounds.

Methods: The research was based on the data from Geoportal2[1]. The geochemical analyzes were carried out by using an X-ray fluorescence spectrometer with EDS (XRF EDS) at the Faculty of Geology, University of Warsaw. The 176 soil

samples collected at a depth of 20 cm were ana-lyzed. The acquired geochemical data were used to prepare a detailed distribution map of selected elements created with the ESRI ArcGIS program.

Conclusions: The LiDAR images enable identi-fication of individual old mining relicts and ore processing sites. One of the oldest mining facilities are: a chain of excavations with latitudinal course, located to the north of Radzimowice Village, and excavations located at the southern slopes of Żelaźniak and Bukowina hills. They were cre-ated during the earliest period of exploitation (15th

century). The exploitation was run by the system of multiple pit shafts. Today on the surface there are perfectly preserved sequences of small hol-lows (called ‘pinga’) which coincide with outcrop of polymetallic ores containing Cu, Pb, Ag and Au minerals. The remains of medieval exploitation are also noticeable near top of Żelaźniak hill.

The remains of mouth of the Heinitz adit, known in Polish as ‛roznos’, is related to mining and metallurgy activity from the 19th and 20th cen-tury. The Heinitz adit was built in the direction of the Louis adit at the beginning of the 19th century. The remains of the buildings of the arsenic smelter and pond for the scrubber come from the same period. The post-mining dumps are perfectly pre-served. They are located in the area of the Louis and Arnold adits and below the Fryderyk drain adit. Those remains are connected with mining activity between the 19th and 20th century.

The geochemical research carried out in the area of old mining buildings (i.a. arsenic smelter, adit mouth) showed the highest concentration of arsenic compound reaching 2% (weight percent)

75

related with place of the old arsenic smelter (Fig. 1). There is also significant concentration of arsenic in the ore processing areas and along the watercourse from the drain adit. The other places with high arsenic concentration indicated former waste pile connected with extraction of ores from the Arnold adit (the southern part of the map). Such signifi-cant concentration of arsenic compounds in soils is a significant threat to the natural environment,

because these compounds can accumulate in plants (Karczewska et al. 2017) and then in animals. The conducted research on the accumulation of As in the soil enables creation of a precise map of con-tamination with these substances and facilitates the planning of reclamation of contaminated areas.

ReferencesDziekoński, T. 1972. Wydobywanie i metalurgia kruszców na

Dolnym Śląsku od XIII do połowy XX wieku, pp. 1–420. Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich Wydawni ctwo Pol-skiej Akademii Nauk; Wrocław – Warszawa – Kraków – Gdańsk.

Karczewska, A., Bogda, A. 2006. Heavy metals in soils of former mining areas in the Sudety Mountains – their forms and solubility. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 15 (2a), 104–110.

Karczewska, A., Bogda, A., Dradrach, A., Lewińska, K., Mołczan, M., Cuske, M., Gersztyn, L., Litak, K. 2017. Solubility of arsenic and its uptake by ryegrass from polluted soils amended with organic matter. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 182, 193–200.

Krysiak, A., Karczewska, A. 2007. Arsenic extractability in soils in the areas of former arsenic mining and smelt-ing, SW Poland. Science of the Total Environment, 379, 190–200.

Madziarz, M. 2009. Kopalnie „Czarnów”, „Miedzianka” i „Stara Góra” w poszukiwaniach okruszcowania urano-wego oraz rud metali w latach 40. i 50. XX w. In: P.P. Za-gożdżon, M. Madziarz (Eds), Dzieje górnictwa – ele ment europejskiego dziedzictwa kultury, 2, p. 166–193. Ofi-cyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej; Wrocław.

Stauffacher, J. 1916. Der Goldgangdistrikt von Altenberg in Schlesien. Zeitschrift für praktische Geologie, 23, 53–88.

Internet sources:[1] www. geoportal.gov.pl


Fig. 1. The map of soil contamination with arsenic compounds.


76

Archaeological and historical mines in Turkey as instruments for public awareness on geoconservation: JEMİRKO Project

Nizamettin Kazancı1,2, Yaşar Suludere2, Fuat Şaroğlu2, Alper Gürbüz2,3, Aysen Özgüneylioğlu2, Necip S. Mülazımoğlu2, Hamdi Mengi2, Sonay Boyraz Arslan2,4, Esra Gürbüz2,5,

Tahsin Onur Yücel2, Merve Ersöz2, Hülya İnaner2,6

1 Ankara Üniversitesi Jeoloji Mühendisliği Bölümü 06830 Gölbaşı, Ankara, Turkey; e-mail: [email protected] JEMİRKO – The Turkish Association for Conservation of Geological Heritage, 06570 Ankara, Turkey;

e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

3 Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Jeoloji Mühendisliği Bölümü, 51240 Niğde, Turkey; e-mail: [email protected] Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü 06800 Ankara, Turkey; e-mail: [email protected] Aksaray Üniversitesi Harita Mühendisliği Bölümü, 68100 Aksaray, Turkey; e-mail: [email protected] Dokuzeylül Üniversitesi Jeoloji Mühendisliği Bölümü, 35370 Buca, İzmir, Turkey; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: archaeological findings, Ottoman mines, Bronze age, Anatolia, JEMİRKO Project

Archaeological mines in Turkey: Some findings, i.e handicrafts, vessels, war tools and ornament objects, which appeared in excavations in Turkey, proved that the mining history in this coun-try goes back to the Chalcolithic Period (Sasson 1995; Özdoğan, Özdoğan 1999). The most ancient mine gallery was dated to the period 4,500 BC in north-central Anatolia (Yalçın 2000). The first metal coins and gold plaques were produced by the Lydians who created the Anatolian civilisa-tion. In general, mining, particularly metallogeny, had started in Anatolia ca. 6,500 yrs ago and then spread to the world. Favorable circumstances for the beginning of mining in Turkey was i.a. forma-tion of ore-deposits.

Geo-archaeological heritage: If one looks back through mining history, it becomes evident that the first metal to be mined in the past was copper, and the stained glass was also discovered during the Iron Age in this country. The carbonate rock known in Turkish as ‘marmor’ (Engl. ‘marble’) was named after the Marmara Island at the Marmara Sea. It was a preferable material of the Rome’s imperial build-ings. Archaeological and historical records show that mining and building activities in Anatolia have continued non-stop despite of ups and downs of ci-vilisations, conquers and kingdoms. Presently, the number of the studied old mines in Anatolia is over 300. Moreover, the names of three modern prov-inces (Gümüşhane, Tunceli, Zonguldak), thirteen towns (e.g. Maden, Küre, Gümüşhacıköy), some mountains and many geographic sites are related

directly to the mineral, metal or mine names. It is also noteworthy, that three active mines (Maden, Küre and Tuzluca mines) were inherited from the Romans. Based on the industrial development in the Middle East and on a clay tablet written to an Assyrian governor by a Hittite officer (Bilgiç 1943), it has been evidenced that mining in Anatolia was essential for the establishment of the Silk Road be-tween Asia and Europe. Nevertheless, presently all these cities and towns have problems related to mi-gration and unemployment.

Conclusions: JEMİRKO – The Turkish Association for the conservation of Geological Heritage leads a project in order to raise awareness on the geotour-ism potential of historical mines to local people, taking into account the geo-cultural heritage. The first results are encouraging and will be presented in detail in this presentation.

ReferencesBilgiç, E., 1943. Researches on the ancient Anatolian so-

cieties in the light of Cappadocian tablets. Dil Tarih ve Cğrafya Fakültesi (DTCF) Dergisi 3, 32–43. (In Turkish).

Özdoğan, M., Özdoğan, A. 1999. Archaeological evidence on the early metallurgy at Çayönü Tepesi. In: A. Haupt-mann, E. Pernicka, Th. Rehren, Ü. Yalçın (Eds), The Beginning of Metallurgy. Der Anschnitt, 9, 13–22.

Sasson, J.M. 1995. Mining and Metalwork in Ancient West-ern Asia. In: J.M Sasson (Ed.), Civilizations of the An-cient Near East, pp. 1–648. Charles Scribner’s Sons; New York.

Yalçın, Ü. 2000. Anfänge der metallverwendung in Ana-tolien. In: Ü. Yalçın (Ed.), Anatolian Metal I. Der An-schnitt, 13, 17–30.

77

High-resolution Terrestrial Laser Scanning as a tool for acquisition and analysis data of geo- and cultural heritage: an example from

the Roztocze Region (Southeastern Poland)

Waldemar Kociuba1, Teresa Brzezińska-Wójcik1, Ewa Skowronek1

1 Wydział Nauk o Ziemi i Gospodarki Przestrzennej, Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Al. Kraśnicka 2d, 20-718 Lublin; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: LIDAR, Terrestrial Laser Scanning, heritage, innovation tourism offer, Roztocze Region, Poland

Introduction: Detailed documentation of geo- and cultural heritage is essential for its preservation and popularisation (Pavlidis et al. 2007). The Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) technique and, in particular, Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) is becoming a frequently used research tool to inves-tigate topics in geology (e.g. Buckley et al. 2010). Geo- and cultural heritage documentation projects still very rarely take advantage of TLS (Shih et al. 2007). This rapidly developing survey technology can be easily applied to site and tourism planning and management (e.g. Guttentag 2010; Ali et al. 2016) as well as geo- and cultural heritage-oriented education and research, providing a digital refer-ence and record for future generations (Rüther et al. 2009; Wei et al. 2009). This study refers to the application of the LIDAR in the Polish part of the Roztocze Region.

Geological settings: The Southern Roztocze be-gins prominently as a range of hills spreading from Kraśnik (Poland) to Lviv (Ukraine). Geologically, Mesozoic calcareous-siliceous rock and Cenozoic limestone and sand formations predominate (Musiał 1987; Cieśliński 1998). An example of the use of local rocks in constructions, including sacral buildings (Kawałko 1995; Mazur 2008), is the Uniate church (presently at ruins) with the adjoin-ing cemetery in Huta Różaniecka village (southern Roztocze Region).

Aims: The aim of the research is to demonstrate the possibilities offered by the use of TLS for pre-cise three-dimensional documentation of rock ex-traction sites and buildings of high historical im-portance. The TLS method, already proven in e.g. geodesy or geomorphology, offers a new opportu-nity such as: (1) Very accurate 3D point cloud copy of the object and surroundings area; (2) Panoramic

digital image; (3) Digital terrain and surface mod-els (DTM, DEM respectively). Currently TLS, which provides detailed and high accuracy infor-mation, has become increasingly popular method for documentation. In addition, the 3D building mesh models can be easily generated from an ac-quired point cloud and recorded digital images. Furthermore, an important goal is to show the ap-plication of modern techniques and tools for the design and enhancement of the attractiveness of tourism offers.

Methods: The measurements were carried out with the use of a Leica ScanStation C10 laser scan-ner. This type of scanner facilitates measurements at a distance up to 300 m with a green impulse laser (532 μm) at a rate of up to50 000 pts/s. The accuracy of the distance measurement 4 mm (up to 50 m), and the 3D position – 6 mm[1].

Results: Measurement data acquired as ‘point cloud’ form the ‘model space’ has been obtained. After merging each point cloud into 3D Digital Terrain Model (DTM), it has been possible to an-alyze the parameters of the study objects (e.g. de-tailed 2D and 3D measurements) and quad and landscape plans.

Conclusions: This study shows that the middle- range TLS has been successfully applied for doc-umentation of both geo- and cultural heritage objects. The use of TLS facilitated digital docu-mentation of the internal and external walls sur-faces of the Uniate church with the cemetery in Huta Różaniecka village, and the site of extraction of the Miocene organodetric limestones used for the construction of the object at Brusno Mountain (ca. 20 km south-east of Huta Różaniecka). An exact copy of the current state of the analyzed ob-jects (in the form of a high-density 3D point cloud)



78

provides the basis for 3D modeling of their original appearance. It also allows using of their image to make the perception of the tourism offer more at-tractive and easier (virtual tourism).

ReferencesAli, A.M., Shukor, S.A.A., Wong, R., Piao, R.C.C. 2016. 3d

terrestrial laser scanning for Sabah historical landmark. Documentation and virtual tourism. Journal of Built En-vironment, Technology and Engineering, 1, 321–329.

Buckley, S.J., Enge, H.D., Carlsson, C., Howell, J.A. 2010. Terrestrial laser scanning for use in virtual outcrop geol-ogy. Photogrammetric Record, 25, 225–239.

Cieśliński, S. 1998. Osady kredowe Roztocza Lubelskiego. In: Z. Krzowski, M. Harasimiuk, T. Brzezińska- Wójcik, Z. Michalczyk, J. Rzechowski, J. Superson (Eds), Bu-dowa geologiczna Roztocza (100-lecie badań polskich geologów), Przewodnik 49 Zjazdu Naukowego Pol-skiego Towarzystwa Geologicznego, Krasnobród, 23–26 September, 1998, p. 47–50.

Guttentag, D.A. 2010. Virtual reality: applications and impli-cations for tourism. Tourism Management, 3, 637–651. http://www.leica-geosystems.co.uk/downloads123/hds/hds/ScanStation%20C10/brochures-datasheet/Leica_ScanStation_C10_DS_en.pdf

Kawałko, D. 1995. Bruśnieński ośrodek kamieniarski. Za-moj ski Kwartalnik Kulturalny, 3 (45), 5–8.

Mazur, J. 2008. Kresowe dziedzictwo. Kamieniarstwo bruś-nieńskie, pp. 1–133. Muzeum Kresów w Lubaczowie; Lubaczów.

Musiał, T. 1987. Miocen Roztocza (Polska południowo- wschodnia). Biuletyn Geologiczny Uniwersytetu War-szawskiego, 31, 1–149.

Pavlidis, G., Koutsoudis, A., Arnaoutoglou, F., Tsioukas, V., Chamzas, Ch. 2007. Methods for 3D digitization of Cul-tural Heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 8, 93–98.

Rüther, H., Chazan, M., Schroeder, R., Neeser, R., Held, C., Walker, S.J., Matmon, A., Horwitz, L.K. 2009. La-ser scanning for conservation and research of African cultural heritage sites: the case study of Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 1847–1856.

Shih, N.J., Wang, H.J., Lin, C.Y., Liau, C.Y. 2007. 3D scan for the digital preservation of a historical temple in Taiwan. Advances in Engineering Software, 38 (7), 501–512.

Wei, O.C., Chin, C.S., Majid, Z., Setan, H. 2010. 3D docu-mentation and preservation of historical monument us-ing terrestrial laser scanning. Geoinformation Science Journal, 10 (1), 73–90.

Internet sources[1] http://www.leica-geosystems.co.uk

79

The use of post-mining landscape for geotouristic purposes in Geopark – by the example of the Polish part of UNESCO Global Geopark Muskau Arch

Jacek Koźma

Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Lower Silesian Branch, Al. Jaworowa 19, 53-122 Wrocław, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: post-mining area, geotouristic path, geotope, geoeducation, geodiversity conservation

Transboundary geopark: The UNESCO Global Geopark Muskau Arch was established in 2011, as a result of a trilateral project implemented by the German State of Brandenburg, the State of Saxony and the Polish Province Lubuskie. The Geopark represents a good geologic and geomorphologic overview of a northern glacial landscape and in-cludes an Elsterian push moraine cut by deep ero-sion. It is a particularly beautiful example of per-fectly formed tongue-shaped ice thrust ridge with deep soft sediment deformation (Koźma, Kupetz 2008).

Geopark’s features: The present, unique land-scape of the geopark has been influenced not only by the natural glaciotectonic structures that occur in its basement, but also by mining activities. In the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, a regionally based industry emerged. It was based on the rich sources of raw materials (coal, glass sand, high-quality clay, alum earth, bog iron ore, mineral springs). Recently, lignite and clay mining is aban-doned, but their traces are distinctly visible in form of narrow belts of elongated artificial lakes, located along the lignite and clay exposures within the gla-


Fig. 1. Geotouristic map of the ‛Babina’ path area.


80

ciotectonic slices. These belts, as well as moraine hills, create really a scenic landscape. Outcropped elements of geological setting, preserved traces of human activity and unique biocoenoses make this area essentially valuable for nature and cultural heritage protection. The Geopark offers an under-standing and a unique experience of geology and the subsequent industrial history. This unique re-lationship between geology and objects formed as a result of old mining activities was the reason for commencing work in order to create a geopark and its tourist attractions.

Geotouristic path: One of them is the geotouristic ‛Babina’ path (Koźma et al. 2016), which belongs to a network of different thematic paths in the in-ternational geopark and goes through the post-min-ing area. The total area of post-mining land of the ‛Babina’ mine is estimated at around 430 hectares. In order to present natural, environmental processes taking place on areas that were strongly altered by mining activities, a decision was taken to open a geological-tourist trail near one of the largest pits of the ‛Babina’ mine. Along a 5.5-kilometer-long path there are several geological sites which include: a vertical profile of a coal seam that will be artificially exposed in the pit slope; an outcrop of brown coal (1 m thick) with a well-marked transverse fault; a land depression in the area of an old underground mine, flooded with acid water characterized by changing

colors; a spring of acid water surrounded with crusts of chemical compounds; an outcrop of fine-grained sands and silts with fragments of coals strongly deformed by the glacial tectonic phenomena and numerous forms of deep erosion by rain water de-veloped on the sediments of mine heaps.

The variety represented by the sites offers a chance of seeing numerous phenomena that con-cern, for example, the rehabilitation of acid soils, chemical transformations in waters that fill pits after brown coal extraction, contemporary pro-cesses of terrain relief changes, plant successions changes in relation to the rocks in the basement, etc. Altogether, on the route of geotouristic path 12 places with information tables were outlined, to explain mentioned environmental processes. In the vicinity are located wooden tables and benches, places for bicycles, diverse view platforms, and one big view tower. The geotouristic path with in-formation tables describes geology, unique natu-ral environment and culture heritage of UNESCO Global Geopark Muskau Arch.

ReferencesKoźma, J., Kupetz, M. 2008. The transboundary geopark

Muskau Arch. Przegląd Geologiczny, 56, 692–698.Koźma J. 2013. Geotouristic ‛Babina’ path as an example of

sustainable development in the Muskau Arch Geopark. Rendiconti Online della Società Geologica Italiana, 28, 93–96.

81

Geodiversity and biodiversity complementary in nature protection in Montenegro

Gojko R. Nikolić

Department of Geography, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Montenegro, D. Bojovic 3, 81400 Nikšić, Montenegro;e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: ecological state, geoecology, geo- and biodiversity, geoheritage, geoconservation, Protected Areas (PAs)

Goals: The biggest challenges in the Mediterranean countries, Montenegro included, presently encoun-ter a critical geographic dimension: protected areas, natural disasters, climate change, energy security, urbanization. Natura intacta and her holistic frame-work is presently at risk of extinction. The aim of this presentation is focus on the protection of bio-diversity. The result is emphasized by biocentrical approach of the modern society (Reynard, Coratza 2007; Hjort et al. 2015). But what about geodiversity! Research source which includes these two conjugate prefixes (geodiversity and biodiversity) has found application in the area of geoecology, an interdis-ciplinary and highly integrated geospatial science.

Methods: The analyses and results are based, through my work, on the field spatial planning documentation, dedicated studies, expertise, re-ports by expert advisory committees (Spatial Plan of Montenegro 2020) and other publications (The Fifth National Report of Montenegro to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity 2014).

Highlights: Geospaces of Montenegro possesses outstanding geodiversity and biodiversity poten-tial, with elements that have a global character. The idea of Montenegro as an Ecological State (declared 1991) is based on this geoecological mo-saic and its geo- and biodiversity. Index of floristic diversity of Montenegro is 0.837, and is the highest of all European countries (Nikolić et al. 2016). It is well known that Montenegrin community started to protect the site Biogradska Gora at Biogradska River in 1878, only six years after the proclamation of the first national park in the world (Yellowstone).

The international status of geospace of Monte-negro is based on two Ramsar sites and two UNESCO sites. The Ramsar sites are the following ones: (1) The reserve for flora and fauna of Tivat Salina (since 2013), and (2) The Montenegrin part

of the Skadar Lake, which is a Ramsar site since 2006. The UNESCO sites are the following ones: (1) Durmitor National Park (World Heritage List since 1980) and (2) Kotor-Risan Bay (World Natural and Cultural Heritage List since 1979). The national ef-forts for conservation of biodiversity and natural as-sets resulted in the designation of several Protected Areas (PAs) under successive Nature Protection Laws. The area of national PAs currently amounts to 167007.49 ha (10.305% of the Montenegro terri-tory). Five national parks (Durmitor, Skadar Lake, Lovcen, Biogradska Gora and Prokletije national parks) are the most important PAs in the country. The other PAs (more than 60) fall under different categories. Nature Protection Law (2016) defines six types of PAs with various coverage. They are as follows: strict nature reserves (3 sites), national parks (5 sites), special nature reserves (1 site), nature parks (3 sites), natural monuments (57 sites), area of exceptional natural values (2 sites). Biological species under protection are given on the List of the Protected Species that has been accepted in December 2006. A number of 307 plants, 111 fungi and 430 animal species are included in the List of the Protected Species (URL1[1], URL 2[2]).

The territory of Montenegro is distinct not only within the regional framework, but also outside, as an area with an extremely complex natural grounds, particularly in terms of geology, hydrog-raphy and geomorphology. Although this area cov-ers a relatively small area, it has a very large num-ber of exceptional geoheritage sites, which belong to various morphogenetic categories. Proposed Catalogue of geoheritage objects (in draft) com-prises 10 categories of geoheritage objects: geolog-ical and stratigraphical objects, structural-tectonic, petrological, neotectonic, climatic, hydrological and hydrogeological objects, geomorfological, spe-leological, pedological, and archeological geoheri-



82

tage objects. About 250 objects have been recorded in these categories (Nikolić, Radusinovic 2017).

Although geodiversity is a category of the high-est rank – the principle of geocentricy (preservation of abiotic part of nature) has not been not fully re-spected by the Montenegrin society, which follows mainly biocentric point of view. The protection of geodiversity in Montenegro has no systematic character. Protection of geosites is implemented as a part of nature conservation, established for the protection of biological elements.

Conclusions: The meaning and scientific founda-tion of geoecology are reflected in the synthesized integrative knowledge of the genesis, content, sig-nificance and sustainability of the geoecological environment. Therefore, knowledge about the cre-ation and functioning of the geoecological envi-ronment is necessary and more valuable in relation to the knowledge about their appearance, because they have characteristics of prediction and sustain-able management. Thus, our research in the field of geodiversity naturally leans towards the nomo-thetic space of geoecology.

This presentation also points to the need for a different and more comprehensive consideration of geodiversity and geoheritage and their relationship with biodiversity in Montenegro; and the need for them to be conceptually based on geoecology. In this study we ascertain need of further studies and ways of using the modern research technologies.

ReferencesThe Fifth National Report of Montenegro to the United

Nations Convention on Biological Diversity 2014, pp. 1–56. Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tour-ism Montenego and United Nations Development Pro-gramme (UNDP); Podgorica.

Nikolić, G.R., Radusinovic, S. 2017. Current situation of geoparks in Montenegro, Workshop of Global Geoparks in Sout Eastern Europe, Idrija, pp. 1–22. Municipal Mu-seum; Idrija ‒ Slovenia.

Nikolić, G.R., Barovic, G., Vujacic, D. 2016. Montenegro in the International System of Protection and Manage-ment of Geodiversity and the European Association for the Conservation of Geological Heritage

ProGEO, Program and Abstract Book. 12th Conference on Cartography and Geoinformation commemorating the World GIS Day, November 16–18, 2016, p. 54–55. Croa-tian Cartographic Society; Zagreb.

Reynard, E., Coratza, P. 2007. Geomorphosites and geodi-versity: a new domain of research. Geographica Helve-tica, 62 (3), 138–139.

Hjort, J., Gordon, J. E., Gray, M., Hunter, JR. 2015. Why geodiversity matters in valuing nature’s stage. Conser-vation Biology, 29 (3), 630–639.

Internet sources[1] URL 1, http://www.me.undp.org/content/montenegroBio

diversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP) 2018.[2] URL 2, http://www.prirodainfo.me/Izvjestaji/PoVrstiZas

ticenogPodrucja Database of Protected Areas in Monte-negro, Agency for the Protection of the Environment of Montenegro, Sector for Nature Protection, Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting, Podgorica 2018.

83

Travertine Spring Towers as rare depositional morphologies in geothermal fields: the example of the Hisaralan Geothermal Field in NW Turkey

Mehmet Özkul1, Ali Gökgöz1, Ali Kamil Yüksel2

1 Pamukkale University, Engineering Faculty, Dept. of Geological Engineering, Kınıklı Campus, 20070 Denizli, Turkey; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

2 Balıkesir University, Engineering Faculty, Department of Geological Engineering, Çağışlı Campus, 10145 Balıkesir, Turkey; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geothermal field, travertine, hazards, aspiring geopark

Location and lithology: Travertine spring towers are one of the rarest and most spectacular deposi-tional morphologies in some geothermal fields, as it is the case of China and the Yellowstone Park in the USA (Hutchinson et al. 1992; Liu et al. 2012; Jones, Peng 2017). This work was developed in the Hisaralan Geothermal Field, located 25 km NE of the Sındırgı town, Balıkesir, in NW Turkey, at an altitude of 300–450 m a.s.l, on a SW slope. The old-est rock units in this area are ophiolitic rocks and limestone blocks of the İzmir-Ankara Flysch Zone. They are superimposes by the Miocene volcanic rocks such as dacite – rhyodacite. Spring towers and associated travertine morphologies have pre-cipitated directly on these Miocene volcanic rocks.

Thermal springs features: The temperature of the thermal springs range from 55 to 99°C. There are more than 60 travertine spring towers recognised in the study area, some of them up to 5 m high. Presently, most of the towers are inactive; only a few of them are active along the Serin stream to the west of the study area. The latter ones are formed by artesian thermal springs.

Conclusions: Thermal waters have been used inappropriately by local people, e.g. for green-house and domestic heating. Consequently, the Hisaralan Geothermal Field needs protection and a proper management. During a workshop held in May 2017, the Hisaralan Geothermal Field was proposed a potential geopark to be established in NW Turkey.

ReferencesHutchinson, R.A., Thompson, J.M. 1992. The Travertine

Totem Forest of Yellowstone National Park, USA – geologic controls and geochemistry. In: Y.K. Kharaka, A.S. Maest (Eds), 7th International Symposium on Wa-ter-Rock Interaction, Park City, Utah, USA, 13–18 July 1992, p. 1419–1421. International Association of Geo-chemists and Cosmochemists; Park City, Utah, U.S.A.

Liu, Y., Zhou, X., Fang, B., Zhou, H., Yamanaka, T. 2012. A preliminary analysis of the formation of travertine and travertine cones in the Jifei hot spring, Yunnan, China. Environmental Earth Sciences, 66, 1887–1896.

Jones, B., Peng, X. 2017. Growth and development of spring towers at Shiqiang, Yunnan Province, China. Sedimentary Geology, 347, 183–209.



84

Geoheritage in the Red Rock Region, Southern Luxembourg: towards an integrative view of natural diversity in a cultural landscape?

Robert Weis1, Andrea Di Cencio1,2

1 Musée national d’histoire naturelle de Luxembourg, section Paléontologie, 25 rue Münster, 2160 Luxembourg, Grand-duchy of Luxembourg; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Geology and Paleontology Technical Studio, via Fratelli Rosselli 4, 50026 San Casciano Val Di Pesa (FI), Italy; e-mails: [email protected]

Keywords: geodiversity, geoconservation, geosites, palaeontological collections, industrial heritage, educa-tion

Introduction: The Land of the Red Rocks is a region of Luxembourg located in the south of the country. It owes its name to the color of the oo-lithic ironstones, also known as ‘Minette’ (Early to Middle Jurassic). The extraction of the iron ore was at the base of the success of the steel industry in Luxembourg, back in the industrial era. Today, the former mining area has established a new identity through combining ancient and new technologies. At the same time, the abandoned open cast mines have evolved into a cultural landscape comprising biotopes with an outstanding value for biodiversity and natural heritage conservation.

Geological background: The Red Rock region comprises three characteristic geological forma-tions:

(1) The ‘Minette’ ironstone formation (Lower–Middle Jurassic: upper Toarcian to Aalenian) represents the most iconic geological feature of southern Luxembourg, ‘Minette-type’ ironstones being known worldwide (Siehl, Thein 1989). The deposits are characterized by a thick succession of limestones and siltstones rich in iron oolites, extracted in open cast and underground mines be-tween ca. 1850 and 1981. Numerous invertebrate fossils, especially ammonites, have been collected by miners and private collectors since the 19th cen-tury (Benecke 1905).

(2) The bioclastic limestone ‘Calcaire de Rumelange’ (Middle Jurassic: lower Bajocian) is a regionally important source for construction ma-terial, extracted in large quarries in the area of Rumelange. Noteworthy geological features are the presence of large coral patch-reefs (Hary 1970), the diversity of marine fossils (Fayard et al. 2005) and also the first dinosaur remains form southern Luxembourg (Delsate et al. 2018); the limestone

quarries offer a high educational potential, intro-ducing students to fossils and various Jurassic ma-rine palaeoenvironments.

(3) The black shales referred to as ‘Schistes bitumineux’ (Lower Jurassic: Toarcian) repre-sent a lateral equivalent of the well-known ‛Posi-donienschiefer’ of Holzmaden (South Ger many). They are particularly rich in well-preserved fossils, predominantly marine, but also of terrestrial origin, justifying an attribution as a ‘Fossil-Lagerstätte’ of international appeal. Palaeontological research has been recently conducted on marine reptiles (Vincent et al. 2017) and bony fish (Taverne, Steurbaut 2017), but also insects (Nel, Weis 2017).

Recognition and protection of geoheritage: The concept of geoheritage has not been in the focus of local and national nature conservation agencies until very recently. Nevertheless, a legal protection of geological sites is in many cases implicitly pro-vided as geological sites often coincide with bio-diversity hotspots. Specifically, some former open cast mining sites are nowadays protected under the status of national nature reserves. Additionally, the geological trail ‘Giele Botter’ near Differdange and the former underground mines linked with the National Mining Museum in Rumelange, are listed as national industrial heritage. However, implicit recognition of the geological heritage of these sites is not yet given, and geoconservation measures yet to be developed. The region is also a source of important fossil, mineral and rock collections. The public collections curated by the Musée national d’histoire naturelle de Luxembourg (MNHNL) display a varied scientific, but also cultural and historical value. Data on ca. 6,000 fossil (including 42 type specimens) and 1,000 mineral and rocks samples are available via the national information

85

system on bio- and geodiversity managed by the MNHNL (Walisch et al. 2007).

Conclusion and outlook: The geoheritage in the Red Rock region, a cultural landscape in southern Luxembourg, is largely the result of former mining activities, and includes geosites and geomorpho-sites as well as geological collections of interna-tional significance. The identity of the Red Rock region, and especially its cultural and industrial heritage, is intrinsically linked with the area’s geo-diversity. Recognition of the importance of geo-heritage and its potential for scientific, educational activities and the development of ‘slow tourism’ seems especially rewarding in case of the former mining sites. An inventory of geosites, with a focus on sites representative of the area’s geodiversity could be a first step. Reinforcing the work capacity of nature conservation agencies and inclusion of geoconservation strategies in the management of protected areas would greatly contribute to valo-rize geoheritage as the ‘natural link’ between nat-ural heritage and cultural/industrial heritage.

ReferencesBenecke, E.W. 1905. Die Versteinerungen der Eisenerzfor-

mation Deutsch-Lothringens und Luxemburgs. Abhan-dlungen zur Geologischen Spezialkarte von Elsaß-Lo-thringen, neue Folge, 6, 1–598.

Delsate, D., Pereda-Suberbiola, X., Felten R., Felten, G.

2018. First thyreophoran dinosaur from the Middle Ju-rassic (Bajocian) of Luxembourg. Geologica Belgica 21 (1–2), 19–26. https://popups.uliege.be:443/1374-8505/index.php?id=5853.

Fayard, J.-P., Gross, N., Lajournade, B., Lathuilière, B., Vailly, G., Weis, R. 2005. Fossiles et minéraux de la car-rière d’Ottange-Rumelange, pp. 1–152. Géolor/AGMP; Thionville/Dudelange.

Hary, A. 1970. Récifs de coraux du Bajocien Moyen aux environs de Rumelange. Archives de l’Institut Grand- Ducal de Luxembourg, Section Sciences Naturelles, Physique et Mathématiques, 34, 431–455.

Nel, A., Weis, R. 2017. A new Early Jurassic damselfly from the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Odonata: Camptero-phlebiidae). Alcheringa, 41 (3), 378–382.

Siehl, A., Thein, J. 1989. Minette-type ironstones. In: T.P. Young, W.E. Gordon Taylor (Eds), Phanerozoic iron-stones. Geological Society, London, Special Publica-tions, 46, 175–193.

Taverne, L., Steurbaut, E. 2017. Osteology and relation-ships of Luxembourgichthys (‘Pholidophorus’) frie-deni gen. nov. (Teleostei, ‘Pholidophoriformes’) from the Lower Jurassic of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Geologica Belgica, 20 (1–2), 53–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.20341/gb.2017.003

Vincent, P., Weis, R., Kronz, G. Delsate, D. 2017. Microclei-dus melusinae, a new plesiosaurian (Reptilia, Plesiosau-ria) from the Toarcian of Luxembourg. Geological Maga-zine, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756817000814

Walisch, T. (Ed.) 2007. Proceedings of the first international Recorder conference. Ferrantia – Travaux scientifiques du Musée national d’histoire naturelle, Luxembourg, 51, pp. 1–151.



86

Mangistau Aspiring Geopark (Kazakhstan)

Dilyara Woodward1, Natalуa Ivanova2, Kamshat Yegemberdieva3, Farida Akiyanova4, Il’ya Fishman5

1 Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Al-Farabi Av. 71, 050040, Almaty, Kazakhstan; e-mail: [email protected] 2 LLP ‘Areal’, Institute of Geology, Kabanbai Batyr 69, 050010 Almaty, Kazakhstan; e-mail: [email protected] LLP Institute of Geography, Kabanbai Batyr 67, 050010 Almaty, Kazakhstan; e-mail:[email protected] International Science Complex ‛Astana’, Kabanbai Batyr 8, of. 313 Astana, Kazakhstan; e-mail: [email protected] LLP KazZarubezhGeology, Samal-2, block-A,12th floor, 58, Almaty, Kazakhstan; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: Kazakhstan, Mangistau, geoparks, fossils, sand соncretions, key geological section, iridium hori-zon, landscapes, Red Data Book, geotourism

Physical and human geography: Mangistau Aspiring Geopark is situated in the west of the Republic of Kazakhstan in an arid zone and occu-pies the territory on the shore of the Caspian sea. It embraces part of the Mangystau Peninsula and Tupkaragan Peninsula. The Shetpe village is the administrative center of the geopark and is situated 158 km from the Aktau city with the international airport and developed tourism infrastructure. The climat is extreme continental here. It results in the formation of a typical desert relief, with markedly

pronounced erosional and aeolian processes. The relief includes mountains (with maximum elevation of 532 m above sea level), plains and depressions. Ridges and cuesta forms of Karatau Mountains are of low relief. In addition, ravines and isolated hills occur, armored by limestones of Neogene age.

Large settlements include Fort-Shevchenko city, Bautino and Shetpe villages. Economic ac-tivity includes: livestock farming, mining industry and fishery. Agricultural lands are used as grazing lands. The development of Fort-Shevchenko city –

Fig. 1. Torysh Valley in Mangistau Aspiring Geopark. Photograph by K. Plakhov.

87

which is regarded as a promising industrial and ser-vice centre with specializations in transportation and servicing, the construction industry, fisheries and agro-industry – is stipulated in the strategic plan for the region’s development. Infrastructure includes roads of national importance, ethnic vil-lages, hotels and guest houses in Shetpe village.

Geological features: Geological structure of the Geopark contains rocks which vary in age from Permian (Palaeozoic Epoch) through Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous (Mesozoic Epoch) up to Paleogene, Neogene, Pleistocene and Holocene (Cenozoic Epoch). All rocks represent sedimentary formations, including coal-bearing ones.

The Permian and Triassic rocks are exposed within the ranges of the Western and Eastern Karatau and Karataushyk. There they form the central part of the anticlinal folds. Sediments of Lower to Upper Cretaceous form the extended de-pressions around these mountain bridges.

Palaeontological highlights: Sections are fosil-ifeorus. All stratigraphic units are characterized to some extent by fossils, for example: large ammo-nites, belemnites, bivalves, echinoid, pelecypods, oysters, fishes, teeth of sharks, microfauna, etc.

At the foot of the North and South Ak-Tau in valleys is tracing the ravine-catoctin relief, which form stunning landscapes for the sake of which tourists from all over the world come to Kazakhstan to enjoy the splendor and charm of these views.

Gigantic sandstone соncretions: The area where the gigantic (6.5 m in diameters) concretions appear extends from Karataushyk mountain to Western Cliff of Ustyrt. The concretions are a great geo-logic attraction of this area. Moreover, this region is known for another unique geological event –

the astroblame. This geological structure is related to a cosmic catastrophe which occurred at the K/Pg boundary (66 million years ago) in the area of Gulf of Mexico. There in this area a large asteroid collided with the Earth. The consequences of this collision are well represented in many marine sed-iments around the globe, including some sections of Mangistau and Usturt. This extraterrestrial ca-tastrophe caused some global ecological changes which were disastrous for many organisms, di-nosaurs included. In the Mangistau area, where Cretaceous dinosaurs apparently did not live, the main witness of the asteroid impact is the irid-ium horizon. It is well represented on the Axiyrtau Mount (to the northeast from Shetpe village).

Conclusions: The most interesting geologi-cal objects in Mangistau Aspiring Geopark are: Zhygylgan pit located in the northern part of the Tubkaragan Peninsula, a number of picturesque gorges, Axiyrtau Mount with iridium horizon and some sacred places – Sultan Epe and Shakpak ata cave mosques.

ReferencesBekzhanov, G.R., Koshkin, V.Ya. 2000. Geological struc-

ture of Kazakhstan, pp. 1–396. Academy of mineral re-sources of Republic Kazakhstan; Almaty.

Fang, Y., Yin, J. 2015. National Assessment of Climate Resources for Tourism Seasonality in China Using the Tourism Climate Index. Switzerland, Atmosphere, 6, 183–194.

Map ‛Mangistay oblast’ scale 1:1 000 000. 2012. National cartographo-geodetic fund. Agency of Republic Kazah-stan on land resources management; Almaty.

Visloguzova, A.V., Vladimirov, N.M., Medeyov, A. 1991. Relief of Kazakhstan (Explanatory note to geomorpho-logical map of Kazakhstan scale 1: 1 500 000), 1. Sapaev K.I. Institute of Geology, Academy of Sciencies of Re-public Kazakhstan; Almaty.



88

SESSION CMoveable geoheritage and science

ORAL PRESENTATIONS

Mucur tachylites: an ‘astrobleme category’ geosite in the inventory list of Turkey

Nizamettin Kazancı1,2

1 Ankara University, Geological Engineering Department, 06830 Gölbaşı, Ankara, Turkey2 JEMİRKO The Turkish Association for Conservation of Geological Heritage, 06-570 Ankara, Turkey;

e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: astrobleme, tachylite, JEMİRKO, Mucur geosite, central Anatolia

Geological and geographical settings: Some ex-tremely heavy, dark in colour and rounded clasts from the Late Miocene deposits of central Anatolia, which vary in size from fine pebbles to boulders (maximum 90 cm in diameter) have been deter-mined as tachylites, both in hand specimen exam-ination and in microscopy (Kazancı et al. 2011). Tachylite is well known a kind of metamorphic rock which can be created under conditions of sud-den and extra high pressure, i.e. generated by im-pact of an asteroid (Dietz 1961). Hence, such rocks are called also ‘impactites’. They occur in walls of impact craters. Such clasts are not common both in the stratigraphic record and on the Earth surface.

Aims: The aim of this study is to present the geosite ‘Mucur tachylites’ and its possible evidence for the geological evolution of the eastern Mediterranean and surrounding regions.

Lithology and stratigraphy: The host deposits of tachylites consist of alternations of weakly com-pacted conglomerate, sandstone and mudstone beds, which represent continental sequence of the Late Miocene age. These deposits are ca. 275 m thick; yellowish to red coloured, and they were de-posited in an alluvial fan environment. Tachylites form ca. 2–5% of clasts in these sediments. Other components of these deposits are composed of limestone and metamorphic rock fragments origi-nating from the Eocene and Palaeozoic formations, respectively. The tachylite-bearing continental se-quence rests unconformably on the evaporite-bear-ing muddy formation of Late Oligocene to Early

Miocene age. Younger and older formations in the succession are continental deposits, and they differ from each other by their red and grey colours. It is noteworthy that the Palaeozoic basement (Kırşehir Massif) was exposed in the area since Late Eocene. Local and regional paleontological records indicate that there is a sharp change of both marine and terrestrial fauna between the Late Paleogene and Neogene beds (Karadenizli 2011). Not only in cen-tral, but also in eastern Anatolia and in the Middle East, the disappearance of many species at the end of Oligocene time coincides in time with the ap-pearance of the tachylite clasts.

Conclusion: We interpreted that a moderate size asteroid impacted to central Anatolia at the end of Oligocene time, and it caused some drastic changes (mass extinction) both in marine and continental environments. The locality near the town Mucur in Kırşehir Province, where tachylite clasts were found, have been assigned to as an ‘astrobleme category’ geosite in the inventory list of Turkey by JEMİRKO (the Turkish Association for the Conservation of Geological Heritage).

ReferencesDietz, R.S. 1961. Astroblemes. Scientific American, 205, 50–58.Karadenizli, L. 2011. Oligocene to Pliocene paleogeographic

evolution of the Çankırı-Çorum Basin, central Anatolia, Turkey. Sedimentary Geology, 237, 1–29.

Kazancı, N., Kibar, M., Kadıoğlu, Y.K. 2011. Findings of an asteroid impact crater within the Late Neogene de-posits in central Anatolia, Turkey. Geological Bulletin of Turkey, 54 (3), 93–107. (In Turkish with an extended English summary).

89

POSTERS

Use of ‘rose-like’ calcite for determination of age and origin of the calcite minerals in the Holy Cross Mountains (Southern Poland)

Anna Fijałkowska-Mader

Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Świętokrzyski Branch, Zgoda 21, 25-953 Kielce, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: museum collection, ‘rose-like’ calcite, ‘Zelejowa Marble’, age determination

The ‘rose-like’ calcite is one of the most beautiful decorative carbonate rocks (called ‘The Holy Cross Marbles’) in the Góry Świętokrzyskie (Holy Cross Mountains) region in southern Poland. Due to white-rosa and white-red colour as well as unique eye-shaped, banded and brecciated textures giv-ing a pattern of small red roses or bows, it was especially valuable and saleable material by stone-masons in the late renaissance, mannerizm and ba-roque (Wardzyński 2014). Blocks of this stone were extracted since end of 16th century till 1954 in a few quarries from which the Zelejowa was the most fa-mous (Czarnocki 1932, 1952, 1958; Fijałkowska, Fijałkowski 1973). Therefore it is known under the technical name ‘Zelejowa Marble’.

The ‘rose-like’ calcite occurs in form of breccia- hydrothermal veins (Rubinowski 1967, 1971, 1994, 1995) cutting the Devonian limestones. Origin of

the ‘rose-like’ calcite was originally bond with the Variscan (C1(Visean)/C2(Namurian)) orogeny (Rubinowski 1967, 1971, 1994), but further studies proved that there was several generation of calcite mineralization in the Holy Cross Mountains. To answer the question how many phases of mineral-ization in fact there was, Migaszewski and others (Migaszewski et al. 1994, 1995, 1996) per formed lithologic, petrographic, isotopic and chemical investigations of calcites, using, among others, samples taken from the ‘Zelejowa Marble’ slabs covering pillars in the Geological Museum of the Polish National Geological Institute National Research Institute, Świętokrzyski Branch in Kielce (Fig. 1). Material for these slabs, being a part of the ‘Holy Cross Marbles’ collection, comes from the Zelejowa quarry.

Based on changes in the isotopic composition of

Fig. 1. Various generation of ‘rose-like’ calcite on the ‘Zelejowa Marble’ slabs with the remarked position and numbers of isotopic samples. Museum of the Świętokrzyski Branch in Kielce of the Polish Geological Institute National Research Institute.

SESSION C: Moveable geoheritage and science


90

the δ13C and δ18O values, four main phases of cal-cite mineralization has been determined: Variscan, older post-variscan, younger post-variscan and Cimmerian–Alpine phase. The ‘rose-like’ calcite from Zelejowa (13C: -0.85 – 0.18‰, 18O: -7.47 – -1.14‰) represents the younger post-variscan (Permian/Triassic) phase. It can be divided into older and younger ‘rose-like’ calcite. The older one is composed of two generation: laminated calcite and palisade calcite, while the younger ‘rose-like’ calcite consists of five calcite generation: (1) Fer-ruginous I generation; (2) Ferrougineous II gener-ation; (3) Wavy generation; (4) Eye-shaped-banded generation, and (5) Block-palisade generation (Fig. 1; Migaszewski et al. 1994, 1996). Strongly variable isotopic compositions (C, O and Sr) in the ‘rose-like’ calcite indicates the complex con-tinental origin, where precipitation of calcite with simultaneous karstification and active tectonic brought about a peculiar mineral hybrid composed of varied temperature hydrothermal calcites, iron oxides and hydroxides. The mean δ18OSMOW 1‰, determined in calcites, is similar to that stated in mid-ocean hydrothermal fluids (Migaszewski et al. 1996). Thus result of isotopic studies confirm the former stated epithermal character of mineral-izing solutions (Rubinowski 1971).

ReferencesCzarnocki, J. 1932. Marmury kieleckie. Przegląd Budow-

lany, 4 (10), 236–237.Czarnocki, J. 1952. Marmury świętokrzyskie. Biuletyn Pań-

stwowego Instytutu Geologicznego, 80, 27–51.Czarnocki, J. 1958. Marmury świętokrzyskie. Prace Insty-

tutu Geologicznego, 21 (5), 100–117.

Fijałkowska, E., Fijałkowski, J. 1973. Historia eksploatacji marmurów w Górach Świętokrzyskich. Zeszyty Przyrod-nicze, 1, 63–141. Muzeum Świętokrzyskie; Kielce. (In Polish with English summary).

Migaszewski, Z.M., Hałas, S., Durakiewicz, T. 1994. Pre-liminary petrographic and isotopc investigations of the ‘Różnka’ calcite from the Holy Cross Mts., Poland. In: O. Jędrysek (Ed.), Isotope Workshop 2, Książ Castle, Poland, May 25–27, 1994. Extended Abstracts, 100–104. University of Wrocław.

Migaszewski, Z.M., Hałas, S., Durakiewicz, T. 1995. Paleo-temperatury minerałów węglanowych i barytów na przy-kładzie Gór Świętokrzyskich. Przegląd Geologi czny, 43, 1011–1016. (In Polish with English summary).

Migaszewski, Z.M., Hałas, S., Durakiewicz, T. 1996. The age and origin of the calcite mineralization in the Holy Cross Mts based on lithologic-petrographic and isotopic evidence. Przegląd Geologiczny, 44, 275–281. (In Pol-ish with English summary).

Rubinowski, Z. 1967. Pozycja żył kalcytowych typu ‘różan-ka’ w regionalnej metalogenezie Gór Świętokrzyskich. Kwartalnik Geologiczny, 11, 962–963.

Rubinowski, Z. 1994. Różanka – żyłowo-brekcjowa odmi-ana marmurów świętokrzyskich i perspektywy wznowie-nia jej eksploatacji. In: J. Szajn, Z. Rubinowski, J. Gągol (Eds), Surowce kamienne regionu świętokrzyskiego Tra-dycje, możliwości i perspektywy wykorzystania, Kielce, 17–19th October, 1994, p. 58–60. Urząd Wojewódzki, Kielce.

Rubinowski, Z. 1995. Geologia, minerały i górnictwo złóż kruszców ołowiu typu karczówkowskiego w okolicach Kielc. In: J.L. Olszewski (Ed.), Karczówka, 93104. Kie-leckie Towarzystwo Naukowe; Kielce.

Wardzyński, M. 2014. ‘Marmury’ świętokrzyskie i ośrodek kamieniarsko-rzeźbiarski w Chęcinach w XVI–XIX wieku. Spotkania z Zabytkami, 7–8, Dodatek specjalny ‘Aedifico et Conservo. Eskalacja jakości kształcenia za-wodowego w Polsce’, 3, pp. 1–40. Fundacja Hereditas; Warszawa.

91

Local fossil sites: a new proposal to be included in the national geological frameworks of Turkey

Nazire Özgen Erdem1, Nizamettin Kazancı2,3

1 Cumhuriyet University Department of Geological Engineering 58140 Sivas, Turkey; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

2 Ankara University Department of Geological Engineering, 06830 Gölbaşı, Ankara, Turkey; email: [email protected] JEMİRKO, Turkish Association for Conservation of Geological Heritage, 06570, Maltepe, Ankara, Turkey;


Keywords: framework list, fossils, geosites list, Turkey

Turkish geological framework list: The geolog-ical framework list of Turkey’s geosites has been recently published (Kazancı et al. 2015; Kazancı, Gürbüz 2016). It is highly similar to the Balkan Framework List (Theodosiou-Drandaki et al. 2004) as it is expected due to the fact that both share the same general geological setting. However, there are differences and redundancies in the Turkish list that should not be negligible, based on local diversities. The Turkish geological framework list includes 87 titles classified in ten categories. Fossils are assigned to the ‛Palaeoenvironment’ category in accordance with the suggestion of ProGEO made in 1998. This category contains the following items: Trace fossils; Palaeokarsts; Foot prints; Mammalia beds with hominoid and hand-crafts; Fish and leaf fossils; Neogene palaeosols; Neogene siliceous trees; Miocene bivalves; Larger Tertiary foraminifera; Bouma turbidite sequences; Incised valleys; Cretaceous ammonites; Devonian fishes; Euxinic environments of Early Silurian; Ordovician and Silurian Graptolites.

A new proposal: We do not agree that this list does not contain the fossils found in Turkey, even if they are used widely for international strati-graphic descriptions. Thus, we would like to pro-pose to include in this list ‘Local Fossil Sites’. A reasonable number of genera and/or species (more than 300 new taxa) have been first described based on fossils found in Turkey. Type localities of these taxa have scientific, educational and even

aesthetic values. They supply geological infor-mation as well as they posses status of neotypes. They provide insight to the evolutionary history of the region. Therefore, it is very important to conserve them.

Conclusions: Our proposal intends to call atten-tion to the Anatolia’s fossil richness, to create a fossil site inventory and to show the importance of the local fossil sites for palaeontological studies, as well as to highlight the importance of geosciences.

ReferencesKazancı, N., Şaroğlu, F., Suludere, Y. 2015. Geological

heritage and framework list of the geosites in Turkey. Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration, 151, 261–270.

Kazancı, N., Gürbüz, E. 2016. The framework list of geo-sites in Turkey. ProGEO Newsletter, 1, 8–9.

Theodossiou-Drandaki, I, R., Nakov, W.A.P., Wimbledon, W.A.P., Serjani, A., Neziraj, A., Hallaci, Sijaric, G., Be-govic, P., Todorov, T., Tchoumatchenco, Pl., Diakantoni, A., Fassoulas, Ch., Kazanci, N., Saroglu, F., Dogan, A., Dimitrijevic, M., Gavrilovic D., Krstic, B., Mijovic, D. 2004. IUGS Geosites project progress – a first attempt at a common framework list for south eastern Europe-an countries. In: M. Parkes (Ed.), Natural and Cultural Landscapes – the Geological Foundation. Proceedings of a Conference, 9–11th September 2002, p. 81–90. Dublin Castle, Ireland, Royal Irish Academy; Dublin.

ProGEO Group, 1998. A first attempt at a geosites frame-work for Europe – an IUGS initiative to support rec-ognition of World Heritage and European Geodiversity. Geologica Balcanica, 28, 5–32.

SESSION C: Moveable geoheritage and science


92

SESSION DGeoconservation in protected areas and nature conservation

strategies

ORAL PRESENTATIONS

Selecting important geoheritage for a conservation strategy plan in Iceland

Lovísa Ásbjörnsdóttir1, Guðríður Þorvarðardóttir2

1 Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Urriðaholtsstræti 6-8, 210 Garðabær, Iceland; e-mail: [email protected] Ministry for the Environment and Natural Resources, Skuggasund 1, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland;


Keywords: geoheritage, geoconservation, strategy plan, inventory, assessment

New Nature Conservation Act (no. 60/2013) in Iceland came into force in 2015, completely re-newing an older law from 1999. In connection with this work a white paper was written on legisla-tion regarding the protection of Iceland’s natural heritage and for the very first time this approach was used. With the Nature Conservation Act geo-heritage got more weight than before in Iceland’s nature conservation. The aim for geoconservation in Iceland is to protect the geodiversity and land-

scape, as well as conserve systematically the con-tinuum of geological processes and formations that give continuous review of the country’s geological history. In the act, increased emphasis is also on specific geoheritage phenomenons that are under special protection. According to the legislation for special protection geoheritage phenomenon are identified as follows: volcanic craters, lava fields, lava caves, rootless vents (pseudocraters) from Holocene, hot springs and other thermal sources,

Fig. 1. The Lake Veiðivötn in the central highlands of Iceland is one of the important geoheritage areas on the conservation strategy plan 2018. Photograph by Lovísa Ásbjörnsdóttir.

93

as well as surficial geothermal deposits (sinter and travertine), lakes and ponds (larger than 1.000 m2) and waterfalls. These geological phenomena are shown in a web viewer online, an easy access and overview for government and planning authorities before making decision on projects that might have an impact on the conservation value.

The Nature Conservation Act requires the min-istry to publish a Nature Conservation Register every five years. This year it will be published for the first time according to the new law. The register is divided into following three sections: (1) Register of protected areas; (2) A strategy plan for protection of new areas; (3) A list of natural heritage applicable for conservation. The Icelandic Institute of Natural History (IINH) has overview of the strategy plan and the list of natural heritage.

A geoheritage inventory is an important part of making an organised overview of geoheri-tage in Iceland, evaluate their conservation value and encourage systematic conservation. The in-ventory is also necessary in assessing sugges-tions for areas on the strategy plan of the Nature Conservation Register. The geoheritage inventory is still in its early stages and an overview of the geoheritage is still unavailable, making the com-parison of geoheritage sites country-wide diffi-cult. Despite this, the IINH proposed important geoheritage areas in need of conservation that are prioritised according to the following main classification and criteria: (1) Vast professional knowledge and geoheritage with high scientific value; (2) Internationally important geoheritage; (3) Work based on older conservation strategies; (4) Geoheritage in immediate danger.

The Lake Veiðivötn in the central highlands of Iceland is one of the important geoheritage areas selected on the conservation strategy plan 2018 (Fig. 1). It is a part of a volcanic fissure swarm that stretches about 100 km from the Bárðarbunga cen-tral volcano towards the southwest and intersects with the Torfajökull central volcano. Two known fissure eruptions in this area in AD 871 and AD 1477 where of phreatomagmatic activity and pro-duced large volume of tephra that can be traced over the country (Elmarsdóttir et al. 2010).

The IINH has begun an approach in select-ing geoheritage, a classification and criteria are promoted in order to evaluate the need for con-servation. The Nature Conservation Act empha-sises a conservation network that should ensure minimum protection for the future, both regarding bio- and geodiversity, the elements that make up the Icelandic natural heritage. An approach was made to choose geoheritage that reflects the geo-diversity of Iceland and a suggestion made on a conservation network for geoheritage, an ideology based on the Natura 2000 network. This conser-vation network is a new approach for geoconser-vation in Iceland, an approach that needs further development with monitoring and revaluating in the near future.

ReferencesElmarsdóttir, A., Skarphéðinsson, K.H., Jónasson, K., Einars-

son, S. 2010: Náttúrufar í Friðlandi að Fjallabaki. In: Ó.Ö. Haraldsson (Ed.), Friðland að Fjallabaki. Ferðafélag Íslands, p. 14–43. Reykjavík.

Ministry for the Environment and Natural Resources: The Nature Conservation Act no. 60/2013.

SESSION D: Geoconservation in protected areas and nature conservation strategies


94

European National Parks with karst landscapes

László Mari1, Tamás Telbisz1

1 Department of Physical Geography, Eötvös University, 1117 Pázmány Péter 1/C, Budapest, Hungary; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: national park, karst, landscape, Europe, geotourism

Introduction: Karst landscapes are generally rich in spectacular geomorphological and speleologi-cal phenomena. On the other hand, karst terrains are less suitable for traditional, agricultural land use. Historically, these settings meant mostly dis-advantages, hence karst landscapes remained less densely inhabited and poor regions relatively to their neighboring areas (Telbisz et al. 2014, 2015, 2016). However, due to the extreme increase of tourism especially after the World War II, the situ-ation changed as some karst phenomena like caves or gorges became popular tourist targets. Although many karst terrains were known for tourists since long ago, new trends like adventure tourism can

be also important due to activities such as canyon-ing, canoeing or caving. Moreover, geotourism is also a new possibility that may increase the aware-ness of tourists also in relation with karst terrains. However, not only the viewpoints of tourism, but the relative intactness of karst landscapes is also a significant factor, which made it possible to des-ignate nature protection areas on karsts. Among IUCN categories, probably the ‘national park’ is the most respected and the best known category. Firstly, it is an interesting question to what extent karst landscapes are represented in this category. Secondly, whether these karstic or partly karstic national parks are able to maintain the local popu-

Fig. 1. Different karst national parks: a crowded (Krka), an old (Ordesa), a less visited (Burren), and one with strong cultural identity (Cevennes).

95

lation and help them getting better life conditions. The third question is, where mass tourism reaches karst areas, is the natural heritage violated in some way or not. In the present study, these issues are examined in a European context.

Spectacular karst phenomena: Karst is found on soluble rocks, especially limestone, marble, and dolomite (carbonate rocks), but is also developed on gypsum and rock salt (evaporite rocks). Karst landscapes are characterized by sinking streams, caves, enclosed depressions, dry valleys, gorges, natural bridges, fluted rock outcrops and large springs. Karst landforms are produced by rain-water dissolving rock, but other natural processes often intervene, such as river erosion and glacia-tion, which modify the karst forms and produce intermediate landscape styles such as ‘fluviokarst’, ‘glaciokarst’, etc. Most caves form by dissolution by normal meteoric waters, although some are dis-solved by thermal waters enriched by CO2 and oc-casionally acidified by oxidized H2S. Other caves form by dissolution at the interface of fresh and salt water along the coast (Williams 2008). This variety of karst landforms and processes are also reflected in the diverse European karstic national parks.

Methods: Based on scientific literature, internet resources and field experiences we have collected a list of European national parks with karstic re-gions has been collected. Their geomorphological and geological values and monuments are com-pared, and their statistical characteristics and spa-tial distribution within Europe are analysed. Based on some selected examples, their role and potential in the tourism of national parks, and in the regional development in general are characterized.

Notable karst national parks in Europe: The first national parks in Europe were established in Sweden in 1909, in Switzerland in 1914 and in Spain in 1918. Spain is notable in our case, because both the Ordesa y Monte Perdido (Fig. 1) and the Picos de Europa national parks founded in 1918 are at least partially on karst terrains, more precisely on glaciokarst terrains, thus they are the oldest karst national parks in Europe. Since that time, more than 400 national parks were designated in

European countries, many of them including karst terrains. There are large differences among karst national parks in foundation year, area, surface karst type, number and extension of caves, visi-tors numbers, etc. The foundation of some national parks is certainly motivated by political factors as well, but most of them were created for na-ture protection and for tourism reasons. Just to mention a few examples, there are national parks with crowds of visitors, for example the Picos de Europa National Park attracts 1.8 million visitors/year, the Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia) receives 1.3–1.5 million visitors/year. Although Postojna Cave (Slovenia) is not part of a national park, it hallmarks the strength of cave tourism, be-cause since its opening to the public in 1819 more than 38 million people have visited it. In some places, the national park administration already had to limit the number of visitors, for example, the number of tourists is restricted to 10,000 persons at a time at Skradinski Buk waterfall (Fig. 1) in the Krka National Park (Croatia) due to concerns over safety and damage to the landscape. On the other hand, there are much less visited national parks (e.g. Burren in Ireland: 75,000 visitors/year, Fig. 1), where national park managers make great efforts to increase the number of tourists. Finally, there are karst national parks, which are seemingly unknown for the large public.

The project has been supported by the research project No. 124497 of the National Research, De-ve lopment and Innovation Office, Hungary.

ReferencesTelbisz, T., Bottlik, Zs., Mari, L., Kőszegi, M. 2014. The

impact of topography on social factors, a case study of montenegro. Journal of Mountain Science, 11 (1), 131–141.

Telbisz, T., Bottlik, Zs., Mari, L., Petrvalská, A. 2015. Ex-ploring Relationships Between Karst Terrains and Social Features by the Example of Gömör-Torna Karst (Hunga-ry – Slovakia). Acta Carsologica, 44 (1), 121–137.

Telbisz, T., Imecs, Z., Mari, L., Bottlik, Zs. 2016. Changing Human-Environment Interactions in Medium Moun-tains, the Apuseni Mts (Romania) as a Case Study. Jour-nal of Mountain Science, 13 (9), 1675–1687.

Williams, P. 2008. World Heritage Caves and Karst, pp. 1–57. International Union for Conservation of Nature; Gland.



96

Exogeoconservation: Protecting Geological Heritage on Celestial Bodies

Jack J. Matthews1,2, Sean McMahon3

1 Department of Earth Sciences, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, NL, A1B 3X5, Canada; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PW, UK3 UK Centre for Astrobiology, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, UK;


Keywords: exogeoconservation, space law, planetary protection, space exploration

Geoconservation is an increasingly widely ad-opted theoretical, practical and administrative approach to the protection of geological and geomorphological features of special scientific, functional, historic, aesthetic, or ecological value. Protected sites on Earth include natural rocky outcrops, shorelines, river banks, and landscapes, as well as human-made structures such as road cuts and quarries exposing geological phenom-ena. However, geoconservation has rarely been discussed in the context of other rocky and icy planets, rings, moons, dwarf planets, asteroids, or comets, which present extraordinarily diverse, beautiful, and culturally, historically and scien-tifically important geological phenomena. Here we propose to adapt geoconservation strategies

for protecting the geological heritage of these celestial bodies, and introduce the term ‘exog-eoconservation’ and other associated terms for this purpose. We argue that exogeoconservation is acutely necessary for the scientific exploration and responsible stewardship of celestial bodies, and suggest how this might be achieved and man-aged by means of international protocols. We stress that such protocols must be sensitive to the needs of scientific, industrial, and other human activities, and not unduly prohibitive. However, with space exploration and exploitation likely to accelerate in coming decades, it is increasingly important that an internationally agreed, holistic framework be developed for the protection of our common ‘exogeoheritage’.

97

Spanish achievements and initiatives towards geoconservation: 2018 update

Manu Monge-Ganuzas1,10, Ángel Salazar2,10, Nadia Herrero3,10, Francisco Guillén-Mondéjar4,10, Asier Hilario5,10, Javier Lorente6,10,

Josep María Mata-Perelló7,10, Juan Carlos Utiel8,10, Enrique Díaz-Martínez9,10

1 Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve’s Service, Environment, Territorial Planning and Housing Department, Basque government, Madariaga Dorretxea, San Bartolome auzoa 34-36, 48350 Busturia, Spain; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Geological Survey of Spain (IGME), La Calera 1, 28760 Tres Cantos, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Dirección general de Medio natural y Biodiversidad. Departamento de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca, Alimentación y

Medio Natural, Generalitat de Catalunya, Doctor Roux 80, 08017 Barcelona, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Grupo de Investigación de Geología, Dpto. Química Agricola, Geología y Edafología, Facultad de Química, Universidad

de Murcia, Campus de Espinardo, 30100 Murcia, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Basque Coast Unesco Global Geopark, Ifar Kalea 4, 20820 Deba, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Qeteo Cultural and Natural heritage, Coso 67-75, 50001 Zaragoza, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Departamento de Ingeniería geológica, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de minas de Madrid, Universidad Politéc-

nica de Madrid, Rios Rosas 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Ayuntamiento de Lerma. Audiencia 6, 09340 Burgos, Spain; e-mail:[email protected] Geological Survey of Spain (IGME), Ríos Rosas 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Commission on Geological Heritage, Geological Society of Spain.

Keywords: geoconservation, Spain, legislation, geoparks

Introduction: During the last 8 years since the up-date that we provided at ProGEO’s 6th Inter national Symposium in 2010, there have been significant advances towards geoconservation in Spain. We herein summarize the main achievements, initia-tives underway, and the needs and perspectives for the future, again hoping to contribute towards the common goals of ProGEO at national and interna-tional levels. The members of the Commission on Geological Heritage of the Geological Society of Spain (CPG-SGE) keep active working on geocon-servation in Spain from their universities, research centers, government organizations and NGOs. We are grateful to their enthusiasm and support, and count on them for the future, because much still remains to be done.

International initiatives: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Resolutions: After the approval of WCC 2008-Res 040 Con servation of geodiversity and geological heritage in 2008, two resolutions were promoted from SGE during the last years: World Conservation Congress (WCC)-2012-Res-048 Valuing and conserving geoheritage within the IUCN Programme 2013–2016 and WCC-2016-Res-083 Conservation of moveable geological heritage[4]. The CPG-SGE has remained active in drafting and submitting the motions, proposing and defending them at the General Assembly of IUCN

together with the new pro-geoconservation mem-bers of IUCN: ProGEO and Sociedad Española para la Defensa del Patrimonio Geológico y Minero (SEDPyM). The motions were voted and adopted as new resolutions by the IUCN General Assembly. The future implications of these resolutions will de-pend on how much effort IUCN and ProGEO mem-bers are willing to put into them.

Global Geosites Program[3]: Spain revised its contribution and we currently have 21 geological frameworks of international relevance since 2015. A total of 20 were originally published in 2001. The corresponding sites of geological interest (geosites) best representing them has also increased. The se-lection was coordinated by IGME, with the collab-oration of specialists from Spanish institutions. An English version of the compiling book was pub-lished in 2011. Although IUGS and UNESCO have currently discontinued their support to the Geosites Program, its original objective is still valid and much needed, and ProGEO members must continue the efforts to gradually fulfill inventory and pro-tection. Much remains to be done: once identified, valued and mapped, geosites must be integrated into legislation and territorial planning.

UNESCO Global Geoparks[8] (UGG): There are currently 12 UGG in Spain. Two more areas are applying in 2018, and more territories are on their way. The idea has become a popular alternative for



98

sustainable development. Since the adoption of the Global Geoparks programme by UNESCO in 2015, the Spanish National Committee on Geoparks was established and started its tasks under the coordi-nation (presidency and technical secretariat) of the Spanish Geological Survey (IGME).

National initiatives: Natural Heritage: Law 42/2007[6] included many articles on the conser-vation and management of geo-heritage and geo-diversity, as well as a list of the geological frame-works identified for Spain under the Geosites Program. This law was slightly modified[7], in-cluding the new geological framework mentioned above for the Global Geosites project development in Spain. In 2011, two de Royal Decrees were approved developing the Natural Heritage Law: National Strategic Plan for Natural Heritage, and the National Inventory of Natural Heritage. Both include direct reference to geoheritage, geodiver-sity and geoconservation.

Regional initiatives: Strategies towards geocon-servation: Andalusia established, approved and is currently developing a regional ‘Strategy towards geodiversity’[5] (sic), and the Basque Country is currently setting its strategy[1], but much remains to be done at all levels of administration.

Inventories of geological heritage: Andalusia, Aragon, Catalonia, Murcia and Basque Country have finished and even revised their inventory of regional geosites. Baleares, Castilla y León, Cas-tilla- La Man cha, Extremadura, La Rioja and Na-varra have partially fulfilled it. Other regions lay way behind, but they will have to do it (Law 33/2015[7]).

Legislation: Several regions now have a law spe-cifically considering geological heritage and the legal declaration of Geosites: Aragon, Basque

Country, Castilla-La Mancha, Castilla y Leon, and Murcia.

Local initiatives: Geological itineraries and georoutes are now frequent alternatives for geotourism, as well as geological gardens, geolog-ical and mining parks, museums, etc. Formal and informal courses on geological heritage and geodi-versity are getting increased demand and are being organized by IGME, universities and geoparks. The ‘geol-o-day’, known in Spanish as geolodía, consists on guided fieldtrips to educate on geol-ogy and geoconservation[2]. It is organized locally since 2006, increasing its size and expanding to its current success, exceeding 10,000 participants in all 53 provinces and the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla.

Future perspectives are interesting and hopeful, but much more effort and support are needed from colleagues at all levels and in all settings.

Internet sources[1] Basque Government, 2018. http://www.euskadi.eus/

plan_programa_proyecto/estrategia-de-geodiversi-dad-de-la-comunidad-autonoma-del-pais-vasco-2020/web01-a2ingdib/es/

[2] Geological Society of Spain, 2018. http://www.sociedad-geologica.es/divulgacion_geolodia.html

[3] Instituto Geológico y Minero de España (IGME), 2018. http://www.igme.es/patrimonio/GlobalGeosites.htm

[4] IUCN, 2018. https://portals.iucn.org/library/[5] Junta de Andalucía, 2018. http://www.juntadeandalucia.

es/medioambiente/[6] Law 42/2007, December, 13, of Natural Heritage and Bio-

diversity. https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A- 2007-21490

[7 Law 33/2015, September, 21, of modification of Law 42/2007 of Natural Heritage and Biodiversity. https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2015-10142

[8] UNESCO, 2018. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural- sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geo-parks/list-of-unesco-global-geoparks/

99

The inclusion of the geodiversity and geoheritage in the Ordesa-Viñamala Action Plan 2017–2025 for the Spanish Network of Biosphere Reserves

(SNBR)

Manu Monge-Ganuzas1,10, Ángel Salazar2,10, Nadia Herrero3,10, Francisco Guillén-Mondéjar4,10, Asier Hilario5,10, Javier Lorente6,10,

Josep María Mata-Perelló7,10, Juan Carlos Utiel8,10, Enrique Díaz-Martínez9,10

1 Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve’s Service, Environment, Territorial Planning and Housing Department, Basque government, Madariaga Dorretxea, San Bartolome auzoa 34-36, 48350 Busturia, Spain; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Geological Survey of Spain (IGME), La Calera 1, 28760 Tres Cantos, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Dirección general de Medio natural y Biodiversidad. Departamento de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca, Alimentación y

Medio Natural, Generalitat de Catalunya, Doctor Roux 80, 08017 Barcelona, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Grupo de Investigación de Geología, Dpto. Química Agricola, Geología y Edafología, Facultad de Química, Universidad

de Murcia, Campus de Espinardo, 30100 Murcia, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Basque Coast Unesco Global Geopark, Ifar Kalea 4, 20820 Deba, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Qeteo Cultural and Natural heritage, Coso 67-75, 50001 Zaragoza, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Departamento de Ingeniería geológica, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de minas de Madrid, Universidad Politéc-

nica de Madrid, Rios Rosas 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Ayuntamiento de Lerma. Audiencia 6, 09340 Burgos, Spain; e-mail:[email protected] Geological Survey of Spain (IGME), Ríos Rosas 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Commission on Geological Heritage, Geological Society of Spain.

Keywords: biosphere reserves, geoheritage, geodiversity, Ordesa-Viñamala Action Plan

The need for a holistic approach in the design of a Nature conservation strategy: Natural di-versity includes biotic elements (biodiversity) and abiotic elements (geodiversity). Biodiversity can be defined as ‘the variability among living organ-isms from all sources including, inter alia, ter-restrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between spe-cies and of ecosystems’ (United Nations 1992[2]). Geodiversity can be defined as ‘the natural range (diversity) of geological (rocks, minerals, fossils), geomorphological (land form, processes) and soil features’ (Gray 2013). Both geodiversity and biodi-versity are the elements determining the possibil-ity of supporting Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (Kozłowski 2004). It is fairly clear that there are several links between both, as geodiversity supports the majority of the biological processes of the Earth (Monge-Ganuzas 2017). Consequently, both should be considered in any Nature conser-vation strategy. Moreover, geoheritage refers to ‘(1) in situ occurrences of geodiversity elements with high value named geosites and (2) ex situ geodiversity elements that maintain a high value’ (Brilha 2016). The management of geosites is also

a decisive step in any Nature conservation strategy (Henriques et al. 2011).

The World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR): As UNESCO (2018)[1] states, composed of almost 670 biosphere reserves, the WNBR of the Man and Biosphere (MaB) Programme rep-resents a unique tool for international co-operation through sharing knowledge, exchanging experi-ences, building capacity and promoting best prac-tices. Thus, it fosters the harmonious integration of people and nature for sustainable development through: (1) Participatory dialogue; (2) Knowledge sharing; (3) Poverty reduction and human wellbeing improvements, and (4) Respect for cultural values and society’s ability to cope with change. In sum, WNBR is an international tool to implement the 17 SDG.

The main aims of biosphere reserves are: (1) Achieving the three interconnected functions: conservation, development and logistic support; (2) Outpacing traditional confined conservation zones, through appropriate zoning schemes; (3) Focusing on a multi-stakeholder approach with emphasis on the involvement of local communities in management; (4) Fostering dialogue for conflict



100

resolution; (5) Integrating cultural and natural di-versity, especially the role of traditional knowledge in ecosystem management; (6) Demonstrating sound sustainable development policies based on research; (7) Acting as sites of excellence for ed-ucation; (8) Participating in the World Network (Batisse 1982).

New MAB Strategy (2015–2025) and Lima Action Plan (2016–2025): MaB has adopted a new Strategy 2015–2025 together with an associated Lima Action Plan 2016–2025 to guide the WNBR. WNBR will work towards the SDG and contribute to implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This will be done through imple-mentation of the MaB Strategy, which consists of vision and mission statements, a series of Strategic Objectives and Strategic Action Areas, and an as-sociated Lima Action Plan. The Lima Action Plan is presented as a matrix, structured according to the Strategic Action Areas of the MaB Strategy. It in-cludes targeted outcomes, actions and outputs that will contribute to the implementation of the stra-tegic objectives. It also specifies the entities with prime responsibility for implementation, together with time range and performance indicators. Using the MaB Strategy and Lima Action Plan as the key points of reference, MaB National Committees and MaB networks are strongly encouraged to prepare their own strategies and action plans.

Ordesa-Viñamala Action Plan 2017–2025: Spain has 48 biosphere reserves. On 21 September 2017, the Spanish Committee of the MaB Programme of UNESCO approved the Ordesa-Viñamala Action Plan to adapt the Lima Action Plan to the Spanish Network of Biosphere Reserves (SNBR). In a new way and for the first time, Ordesa-Viñamala Action Plan has adopted a holistic approach for Nature conservation. This approach has been pushed by the awareness actions carried out by the Commission on Geological Heritage of the Geological Society of Spain, among other organizations, the exis-tence of International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) resolutions about geoheritage and geodiversity, and strongly, the provisions about geodiversity and geoheritage of the Spanish Law 42/2007, about natural heritage and biodiversity. Consequently, this Plan has incorporated the fol-lowing key-actions relative to geodiversity and geo-heritage to be applied in the SNBR: (1) Promote the

Spanish biosphere reserves as places that contribute to the implementation of the IUCN resolutions rela-tive to geodiversity and geoheritage; (2) Implement existing strategies at the regional level relative to geoheritage and geodiversity; (3) Promoting part-nerships for the conservation of the geoheritage and for the benefit of the local population; (4) Promote research and monitoring in relation to climate change and its impacts on geological processes; (5) Promote the conservation of the geoheritage and the sustainable use of its economic value tourist, educational, recreational, or cultural.

Conclusions: The work of awareness-raising in relation to the importance of the geodiversity and geoheritage in the conservation of Nature at sev-eral levels has given its fruit at least in Spain. This is the case of the introduction of these issues in the Ordesa-Viñamala Action Plan 2017–2025 as key-actions. Taking into account that the WNBR are laboratories of export of visions and experience disseminated along the Earth, let us hope that this pioneering initiative go spreading across the net-work over time.

ReferencesBatisse, M. 1982. The Biosphere Reserve: A Tool for En-

vironmental Conservation and Management. Environ-mental Conservation, 9 (2), 101–111.

Brilha, J. 2016. Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: a Review. Geoheri-tage, 8 (2), 119–134.

Gray, J.M. 2013. Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abio-tic nature. Chichester méthodologie et déroulement. Mé-mo ires de la Société géologique de France, 165, 103–109.

Henriques, M.H., Pena dos Reis, R., Brilha, J., Mota, T.S. 2011. Geoconservation as an emerging geoscience. Geo-heritage 3 (2), 117–128.

Kozłowski, S. 2004. Geodiversity. The concept and scope of geodiversity. Przegląd Geologiczny, 52 (8/2), 833–837.

Monge-Ganuzas, M. 2017. Key-elements of the geodiver-sity that influence upon the biodiversity. A proposal for the modification of the Habitats Directive (92/43/CEE). In: L. Carcavilla, J. Duque-Macias, J. Gimenez, A. Hilario, M. Monge-Ganuzas, J. Vegas, A. Rodri-guez (Eds), Patrimonio geológico, gestionando la parte abiótica del patrimonio natural. Cuadernos del Museo Geominero, 21, 401–406.

Internet sources[1] UNESCO, 2018. www.unesco.org[2] United Nations, 1992. Convention On Biological Diver-

sity, pp. 1–30. Nairobi, Kenya. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf

101

Preliminary assessment of ecosystem services provided by geodiversity in the coastal region of the state of São Paulo, Southeastern Brazil

Maria da Glória Motta Garcia1, José Brilha2, Célia Regina de Gouveia Souza3, Eliane Aparecida Del Lama1

1 Centre for Research Support on Geological Heritage and Geotourism (GeoHereditas), Institute of Geosciences, University of São Paulo, Rua do Lago, 562, 05508-080, São Paulo, Brazil; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

2 Earth Sciences Department, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal; e-mail: [email protected]

3 Geological Institute-SMA/SP. Av. Miguel Stéfano, 3900. 04301-903, São Paulo, Brazil. Post-Graduation Programme, Geo-graphy Department, University of São Paulo, Brazil; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: abiotic ecosystem services, geodiversity, inventory, Serra do Mar

Abiotic ecosystem services are defined as the functions provided by geodiversity elements, ei-ther directly or indirectly, for the benefit of the society and future generations. These services are grouped according to five functions: regulation, provision, support, cultural, and knowledge (Gray 2013). The coastal region of the state of São Paulo, Brazil, is a traditional tourism destination known by landscapes that are the result of geological pro-cesses acting mainly since Neoproterozoic. It also comprises important protected areas, including two UNESCO’s Biosphere Reserves related to the Atlantic Forest and it is also home to important traditional communities and stone-and-lime ma-sonry buildings. All these natural systems play an important role in the provision of goods and ser-vices to the population. But being the most popu-lated and industrialised state of Brazil, São Paulo’s coast is the focus of extreme property speculation and a tourism industry that lacks environmental concerns, putting in danger both quantity and quality of these services. As a contribution to an abiotic ecosystem approach, in this work we carry out a preliminary inventory of the contribution of geodiversity for the ecosystem services in the re-gion, both to guide future territorial planning and to promote a smart use of geodiversity resources. We also point out the main threats that affect geo-diversity, which is essential to guide future prop-ositions.

The region has been the focus of geoconser-vation works since 2011. These works include systematic inventories and evaluation of geolog-ical sites, as well as several initiatives to both disseminate this knowledge and to raise aware-ness of geoheritage to the society (Garcia et al.

2017). The preliminary inventory of how geo-diversity contributes for the ecosystem services was carried out according to the following steps: (1) Identification of ecosystems in the region; (2) Identification of geodiversity elements occurring in each of the ecosystems; (3) Selection of the main ecosystem services provided by geodiver-sity, based on the list defined by Gray (2013); and (4) Recognition of the main threats that affect geodiversity elements.

Both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems occur in the area and are related to the Serra do Mar mountain range and to coastal and marine en-vironments. Geodiversity elements include the geological materials (rocks, sediments and soils), structures and landscapes, as well as geological processes that are part of these ecosystems. A synthesis of this survey is shown in Table 1. The main threats to geodiversity are extreme real es-tate speculation, constructions that modify natural coastal dynamics, unplanned exploitation of sand and grit, deforestation, mass tourism, unplanned human occupation, pollution, coastal erosion and other hazards.

The qualitative evaluation presented in this work has identified 29 ecosystem services distrib-uted by the five functions that overview the im-portance of geodiversity in the coastal region of the state of São Paulo. The distinct ecosystems in the area are affected in different degrees by an-thropic and natural threats that have been affecting both quality and quantity of these services. This reinforces the necessity of a broad strategy that in-volves nature conservation as a whole. The survey may also direct future management plans, includ-ing payment for environmental services.



102

ReferencesGarcia, M.G.M., Del Lama, E.A., Bourotte, C.L.M., Maz-

oca, C.E.M., Bacci, D.C., Santos, V.M.N. 2017. Geo-heritage inventories as means, not ends: example of the coastal region of São Paulo State, Brazil. Patrimonio

geológico, Gestionando la parte abiótica del patrimonio natural, 1, p. 131–136. Instituto Geológico e Minero de España; Madrid.

Gray, M. 2013. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abi-otic Nature (2nd Edition), pp. 1–508. Wiley Blackwell; Chichester.

Table 1. Goods and services provided by geodiversity in the coastal region of the state of São Paulo, Brazil.

REGULATION SUPPORT PROVISION CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE

Global climate regula-tion and carbon storage

by marine sediments and paleolagoons

Habitat provision for both animal and vegetal

species

Food supply by habitats for consumable sea

species

Recreation and tourism in coastal islands, rocky shores, beaches, trails,

waterfalls, etc.

Scientific research on several branches of geo-

sciences

Local climate regulation by the Serra do Mar

mountain range

Soil formation con-trolled mainly by the underlying rocks and

sediments

Fuel and gas provision on Santos Basin

Cultural heritage values reflected in legends

Educational values as field resources for geosciences

students

Oceanic circulation promoted by marine

landforms

Places for anchorage by coves and bays

Water supply by several main river basins with sources in the Serra do Mar and in the Atlantic

Plateau

Sense of place and spiritual values specially for tradi-

tional communities

Research centres on coast-al and marine topics

Variety of soil types controls diversity of

habitats

Foundations for human constructions, such as fortresses and colonial

buildings

Rocks, saprolite and sands as ornamental and construction materials

Health and well being pro-moted by scenic beauties

Dissemination of geosci-ences by interpretive pan-els, didactic kits, courses

and guided trails

Natural hazard regula-tion by erosion control

Participation on water cycling (ocean, rivers,

mangroves, etc.)

Energy supply by hydro-electric plants

Artistic inspiration for paintings, music, sculp-

tures, and general handcraftWater flow and flood

regulation by a number of water catchments

Water pathways for transportation by rivers

Promotion of voluntary work on nature conserva-

tion

Shelters for ancient settlements

Protected areas controlled by the occurrence of the Serra do Mar, estuaries,

lagoons, and islands

103

Geoheritage in Slovenia – a short overview

Matevž Novak1, Martina Stupar2

1 Geological Survey of Slovenia, Dimičeva ulica 14, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; e-mail: [email protected] Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation, Regional Unit Nova Gorica, Delpinova 16, 5000 Nova Gorica,

Slovenia; e-mail: [email protected]

Key words: geological heritage, natural values, nature conservation, legislation

Geological heritage of Slovenia: There is prob-ably no pocket-sized country in the world besides Slovenia with such a great number of geological trea-sures. The reason for so many different landscapes and such a variety of natural phenomena lies in the country’s geologic structure of which diversity is the result of a long geological history and its location at the junction of the Eastern Alps, Southern Alps, Dinarides (also known as the Dinaric Alps) and the Pannonian Basin. Although today these geotec-tonic units are in contact, and even overlap in many places, they have very different histories. The rocks of all these units belong to the Adriatic Lithospheric Microplate, which detached from the African Plate during the Mesozoic Era and remained separated. The microplate travelled north and on its journey collided with the Eurasian Plate during the Neogene, causing the uplift of the Alps. This spectacular colli-sion is still a major factor shaping the structure and surface of Slovenia.

The sediments and sedimentary rocks of Slo-venia hold an almost continuous record of 400 mil-lion years of geological history from the Silurian to the present while the oldest Slovenian metamor-phosed rocks of the Pohorje Mountains date back more than three billion years. Slovenian rocks were formed from sediments deposited in widely vary-ing environments, from deep oceans to shallow la-goons, coral reefs, bays, river deltas, volcanoes, hot and dry deserts, glaciers, lakes, marshes, alluvial fans and floodplains. Slovenia has fossils of almost all groups of plants and animals, from dinosaurs to sea horses, and some parts of Slovenia, for example Dovžan gorge (Fig. 1), are among the richest fossil sites in the world.

We also have exquisite and diverse mineral col-lections and one of the oldest mines in Europe, namely the Idrija mercury mine.

Finds have included everything from the tiniest diamonds to three meteorites. Slovenia is rich in


Fig. 1. Dovžanova soteska, a scenic gorge in the Southern Karavanke Mountains, one of the richest localities of Late Paleozoic fossils in the Southern Alps. Photograph by Matevž Novak.


104

natural resources including ores, oil, hydrocarbons and mineral and thermal waters. Several minerals and rocks are named after Slovenian localities or important persons and the karst features of our classic Kras region have been studied in detail re-sulting in Slovenian terms such as dolina and polje being widely used in international terminology. We have many exquisite caves among them Škocjan caves, listed as UNESCO’s World Heritage Site, and one, the Postojna cave with some of the most beautiful and diverse speleothems in the world.

Many of these features are so rare, valuable or unusual that they have been officially proclaimed as part of our natural heritage and it is the role of the Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation to manage the list of our valuable natural assets and ensure that we preserve such treasures for our successors. We already have two UNESCO Global Geoparks, Idrija and Karavanke/Karawanken declared and a third at Kras/Carso in the process of application.

Protection and conservation of geological heritage: Geological image of Slovenia is so re-markable, diverse and recognizable that the pro-tection and preservation of geological features is prescribed in the constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. Initiatives for the protection of the geo-logical heritage in Slovenia go back in 19th century and are intertwined with the initiatives for the pro-tection of nature in general. As a landmark is re-garded the Memorandum, published in 1920, with the initiative for the first protected alpine areas in Slovenia, which also included exceptional geologi-cal phenomena as reasons for protection. Between 1957 and 1980 the basic national institutions were set up and throughout the 1990s the organization of public services was upgraded.

The protection of geological heritage in Slovenia has been developing with upgrading the system of nature protection profession at the Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation (IRSNC) and modernization of the nature protection legislation. Protection and conservation of geologi-cal features as parts of Slovenian natural heritage has been covered by the Nature Conservation Act since 1999 and amendment in 2014[2]. This act pro-vides general protection for all minerals and fossils so that they do not get damaged or destroyed, strin-

gent protection for locations, which are considered geological natural values, and even more stringent protection for exceptional or rare four minerals and nine different groups of fossils. Protection regimes in protected areas are additionally regulated. Nearly 588 sites are officially designated as geological nat-ural values. The legislation governing the protec-tion of minerals and fossils, the method of removing from the nature, storage and transport, determines outstanding and rare types of minerals and fossils and the status of geological natural values. The reg-ister of Slovenian natural heritage is maintained by IRSNC. Geological natural values are defined in the legislation as those parts of nature which bear ex-traordinary, typical, complex, well-preserved, rare, scientifically important or testimonial importance from the perspective of the shape of the Earth’s crust and all processes in its interior or surface and from the perspective of Earth’s history and evolution of life. These phenomena are minerals or fossils and their localities and also tectonic, stratigraphic, min-eralogical, petrological, paleontological, hydrogeo-logical or sedimentological natural forms. In addi-tion to this there are nearly 11,000 known caves and near 6,000 natural features that refer to various nat-ural components, defined as surface geomorpholog-ical, hydrological, botanical, zoological, ecosystem, dendrological and designed nature and landscape features (Berginc et al. 2006). There are also 21 geosites, which are protected as natural monuments, many of them are parts of protected areas (national, regional or landscape parks). They are all listed in the Nature Conservation Atlas of Slovenia[1].

ReferencesBerginc, M., Kremesec-Jevšenak, J., Vidic, J. 2007. Sistem

varstva narave v Sloveniji, pp. 1–128. Ministry of Envi-ronmental and Special Planning; Ljubljana.

Pleničar, M., Ogorelec, B., Novak, M. (Eds) 2009. Geologija Slovenije – The Geology of Slovenia, pp. 1–612. Geološ-ki zavod Slovenije; Ljubljana.

Rman, N., Novak, M. (Eds) 2016. 70 Geological Wonders of Slovenia, pp. 1–204. Geološki zavod Slovenije; Lju-bljana.

Internet sources[1] Nature Conservation Atlas of Slovenia, 2018. www.nara-

vovarstveni-atlas.si/nvajavni/?culture=en-US[2] Slovenian Environment Agency, 2018. Slovenian Envi-

ronment Agency. http://www.arso.gov.si/en/nature/

105

Geosites in the area of Dobrogea, Romania, and the need for local geodiversity action plans

Antoneta Seghedi

National Institute of Marine Geology and Geoecology, Dimitrie Onciul 23-25, 024053 Bucharest, Romania; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geodiversity values, fossil site, nature reserve, promotion

Aims: Dobrogea is a highland area NW of the Black Sea, surrounded to the north and west by the Danube River. This area includes the exposed parts of two main geotectonic units: the North Dobrogea Cimmerian orogen, superimposed on Variscan structures and the East Moesian Platform, which exposes both its Ediacaran basement and the plat-form cover in two structurally distinct units. A new project proposal funded in 2018 by the Ministry of Research and Innovation is dedicated to analyze the geodiversity values of the most representative geosites in the area of Dobrogea, and elaborate ad-equate geoconservation measures. The goal of the project is to integrate geodiversity into local devel-opment plans and strategies for Dobrogea, as well as to promote geosciences and increase awareness of the general public on the importance of geology for the society.

Methods: Based on the existing inventory of the geosites and information from published papers, a data base of protected and unprotected geologi-cal and paleontological reserves in Dobrogea and in the Black Sea coastal area was accomplished, with detailed descriptions of geoconservation val-ues for each of them. A number of 10 geosites was selected for developing geodiversity action plans. Fieldwork in each of the selected geosites was done in order to assess their conservation state. Promotional materials and information boards were designed based on published and unpub-lished data.

Results: Currently, 45 geosites reflect the com-plex geological history of Dobrogea, from the Ediacaran, through Variscan and Cimmerian orogenies, to the formation of the West Black Sea Basin starting in the Middle Cretaceous. Several papers present the geology and paleontological content of these geosites (Iordan 1974; Oaie 1992; Grădinaru et al. 2007; Saint Martin 2013), as well

as geoconservation values of some of them (Aniţăi 2013). A number of 36 geosites representing na-ture monuments or nature reserves are included in the Natura 2000 network of biodiversity pro-tection, but there are still a few important geosites in Dobrogea that do not have a protection status yet. Of these 36 nature reserves, only one is in the custody of a team which includes a geologist. The remaining 35 sites are in the custody of the National Forestry Administration, EPAs or vari-ous NGOs, or in the administration of the Măcin Mountains National Park, all of them being inter-ested almost exclusively in biodiversity protec-tion. Promotion of geodiversity was done through exhibitions, activities like Junior Ranger, events (Geoparks Week, Earth Science Week), geological programs at museums, the educational program ‘The school differently’, as well as websites and Facebook pages (Saint Martin et al. 2010; Aniţăi 2013; Saint Martin 2013; Menabit et al. 2017). Several thematic trails have been accomplished lately in two sites, but all the explanatory panels have been already destroyed. The only exception is the Natura 2000 site Aghighiol Hills, where each of the five panels emplaced to explain the biodiversity of the site display on one side ex-planations related to the Agighiol fossil site with Triassic ammonoids. Due to their high scientific and educational values, the 45 geosites are used as field trip stops during various geological meetings and for educational activities for universities and schools. Many of the sites show landscape values and can be used for organizing geotourist trails. In order to change the perception of custodians and also of local communities and local authorities, a partnership was formed between research in-stitutions, universities, the Geological Society of Romania, NGOs, custodians of Natura 2000 sites, local Environmental Protection Agencies and the National Agency for Natural Protected Areas. The



106

partnership will be extended in the future to in-clude representatives of local administration and local communities.

Conclusions: Due to a complex geological his-tory of the area, geosites from Dobrogea have a great scientific and educational value and many of them have landscape value. Although the most significant sites from a scientific point of view are protected as national geological sites or nature monuments and reserves, these sites are subject to various types of pressures (quarrying, wind parks, fossil collection), while geoconservation measures are not at all adequate, due to lack of knowledge and appreciation from local commu-nities and authorities, and even from their man-agement. Although past exhibitions, some web-sites and Facebook pages already exist, a larger effort of the geological community is necessary for promoting these sites through publications, exhibitions and media. The project undertaken this year by GeoEcoMar has the goal to elaborate local geodiversity action plans and work for their integration into the local development plans and strategies.

ReferencesAniţăi, N. 2013. Paleontological heritage in Dobrogea:

protection, geoconservation, education and promotion. Geo-Eco-Marina, 19, 145–178.

Grădinaru, E., Orchard, M.J., Nicora, A., Gallet, Y., Besse, J., Krystyn, L., Sobolev, E.S., Atudorei, N.-V., Ivanova, D. 2007. The global boundary stratotype section and Point (GSSP) for the base of the Anisian Stage: Desli Caira Hill, North Dobrogea, Romania. Albertiana, 36, 54–71.

Iordan, M. 1974. Study of the Lower Devonian fauna from Bujoarele Hills (Măcin unit – North Dobrogea). Dări de Seamă Institutul Geologic, 33–70. (In Romanian).

Menabit, S., Mureşan, M., Begun, T., Pavel, B., Seghedi, A. 2017. ‘The School differently’ learning about marine pro-tected areas – a proactive educational approach towards implementation of measures of marine habitats conserva-tion and protection. Geo-Eco-Marina, 23, 215–222.

Oaie, G. 1992. Traces of organic activity in the Greenschist Series of central Dobrogea (Romania). Studii şi Cerce-tări Geologice, 37, 77–81.

Saint Martin, J.-P. (Ed.) 2013. Recherche croisées en Do-brogea, pp. 1–227. Amanda Edit; Bucharest.

Saint Martin, J.-P., Saint Martin, S., Oaie, G., Seghedi, A., Grigorescu, D. (Eds) 2010. Des trésors du fond des temps. Le patrimoine paléontologique. In: Le patri-moine paléontologique. Des trésors du fond des temps, pp. 1–296. Institutul Naţional de Geologie şi Geoecolo-gie Marină; Bucureşti.

107

The aspiring Hantangang Global Geopark in Korea: its international geological significance and justification for UNESCO Global Geopark

Kyung Sik Woo1, Young Kwan Sohn2, Youngwoo Kil3

1 Department of Geology, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Gangwondo 24341, Republic of Korea; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Department of Geology and RINS, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Gyeongsangnamdo 52828, Republic of Korea; e-mail: [email protected]

3 Department of Energy and Resources Engineering, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Republic of Korea; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geoheritage, Global Geopark, Hantangang, Korea, UNESCO

The Quaternary Hantangang River volcanic field of the central Korean Peninsula hosts unique and outstanding volcanic landforms associated with fluvial system. The interplate volcanic field by fissure eruption originated from Mt. Orisan and 680 m Peak in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), consists of a series of the Late Quaternary basaltic lava flows. The lava flows filled the paleo-river channel, extending more than ca. 110 km to the terminus in the northern part of Republic of Korea (ROK). Afterwards, the lava flows were eroded by the antecedent river system, producing an array of precipitous exposures of co-lumnar-jointed lava along the channel walls and other volcanic landforms. In addition to fantastic columnar joints along the river, special geological features such as pillow lavas and basalt flow lay-ers overlying fluvial sediments are present along the river, implying that the lava flowed along the

paleo-channel bed. Fifteen geosites are included in the geopark, and geological elements of sev-eral geosites are intimately associated with ecol-ogy, history, culture and archaeology. Comparative analysis with other volcanic landforms (World Heritage sites and Global Geoparks) strongly sug-gests that the volcanic landform of the Hantangang Geopark is truly a unique geological feature in the world and includes invaluable geoheritage val-ues of international significance. The presence of other types of Precambrian to Quaternary rocks (high geodiversity) also provides good chance of geotourism in this area. The location of the geopark is near Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), thus the site has been the area of very limited economic development. Therefore, geological as well as so-cioeconomic potential of this geopark can strongly justify the qualification of this aspiring geopark as a UNESCO Global Geopark.



108

POSTERS

Natural and social aspects of the selection of the GSSP; the case of the Słupia Nadbrzeżna river cliff section (Central Poland),

the candidate stratotype for the basal boundary of the Coniacian Stage (Upper Cretaceous)

Anna Grabarczyk1, Katarzyna Stróżyk1

1 University of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Poland; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: Słupia Nadbrzeżna, Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP), science and communities, geoconservation

The main task of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), which is the body of the International Union of Geological Sciences, is to define and establish global standard chronostrati-graphic chart[1]. The basic unit of the chart is the Stratigraphic Stage, for which the criteria and the Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) should be established and formally accepted. In order to choose the perfect place for ‘golden spike’, the ICS set up Subcommissions, acting through a set of Working Groups responsible for definition and es-tablishing of particular Stages.

The GSSPs are reference sections and points, which define the lower boundary of a stage. Requirements for sections-candidates (stratotypes) are restrictive. Stratotypes need to have sufficient thickness, and should allow to carry out reproducible research. A continuous stratigraphic record, without any sedimentary and erosional hiatuses, is import-ant. Sediments cannot be affected by subsequent tectonic and diagenetic processes, which could in-terfere the original information. Moreover, GSSPs as global stratotypes have to be easily accessible. Outcrops should be located in areas with a well-de-

Fig. 1. The map showing the location of the Słupia Nadbrzeżna river cliff section and the view of the outcrop with the Turonian–Coniacian boundary interval. Photograph by Katarzyna Stróżyk.

109

veloped communication network and have to be eas-ily accessible for scientists and amateurs (Hedberg 1976). Candidate sections which do not fulfill the criteria are disqualified. Although the ICS project began nearly 45 years ago[1] not all stages have their boundary stratotype already established[2]. The base of the Coniacian Stage also struggles with this prob-lem[2]. Three sections are currently under the ICS Coniacian Working Group examination: the Słupia Nadbrzeżna, Poland, together with the Salzgitter-Salder Quarry, Germany (as a composite candidate), the Hot Spring section within the Big Bend National Park, SW Texas[4], and the El Rosario section, in NE Mexico (Ifrim et al. 2014).

In term of completeness of stratigraphic record the best candidate is the Polish section of Słupia Nadrzebeżna (Walaszczyk et al. 2010). However, it is not free from some flaws. The main disad-vantage of this section is its poor exposure. Słupia Nadbrzeżna is a river cliff section, which during an elevated water level periods is flooded (Walaszczyk et al. 2010). Moreover, the section is located within the Natura 2000 protection area. This precludes any activity necessary for a renovation of the site[5]. The only remedy to improve the situation is to take a dialogue between a research team, local authori-ties, and the community. Undoubtedly, a mobiliza-tion of financial resources would be necessary. The Słupia Nadbrzeżna section has already been signed up into the Central Register of Polish Geosites. The section was considered as one of the geosites in the Małopolska Gap of Vistula River Geopark project (Harasimiuk et al. 2011). A weak touristic value and a very poor exposure disqualify this site as a part of this conception (unpublished information).

The aim of our project is to recognize possi-bilities which would allow to improve conditions of this location. We wish to help the Commission to ratify the basal Coniacian GSSP. The following steps are planned to facilitate access to the out-crop: (1) Clearing out the site from trees, that will allow a better exposure of the Turonian–Coniacian boundary interval. The outcrop is located within the Natura 2000 area, what means that more inter-ference will not be possible; (2) Improvement of the quality of the unbeaten access track. Currently, it is a narrow and not much used trail. We would like to

undertake actions towards its stabilization, without affecting natural environment; (3) The security of the river cliff, in which the section is located, in order to prevent a landslide. It seems that the best idea is to ‘fortify’ the scarp. This step requires an engineering consultation.

The contact with the Tarłów Community has been attempted but was not very successful. It seems that there is no person dedicated especially to environmental issues in the Tarłów Commune Office. Even if the Słupia Nadbrzeżna section will not be selected as the basal Coniacian stra-totype, we are sure that it should be protected, as it is the best exposure of the Turonian–Coniacian boundary succession in extra-Carpathian Poland (Walaszczyk oral information). Having this in mind, we are going to continue our efforts to get a support from local authorities to preserve the Słupia Nadbrzeżna section for science, because it would be the first Polish GSSP!

ReferencesHarasimiuk, M., Domonik, A., Machalski, M., Pinińska, J.,

Warowna, J., Szymkowiak, A. 2011. Małopolski przełom Wisły – projekt geoparku. Przegląd Geolo giczny, 59 (5), 405–416.

Hedberg, H.D. (Ed.) 1976. International Stratigraphic Guide: A Guide to Stratigraphic Classification, Terminology and Procedure by the International Subcommission on Strati-graphic Classification of IUGS Commission on Stratigra-phy. xvii + 200 pp. Wiley Interscience Publication; New York.

Ifrim, C., Wiese, F., Stinnesbeck, W. 2014. Inoceramids and biozonation across the Turonian–Coniacian boundary (Upper Cretaceous) at El Rosario, Coahuila, northeast-ern Mexico. Newsletters on Stratigraphy, 47, 211–246.

Walaszczyk, I., Wood, C. J., Lees, J. A., Peryt, D., Voigt, S., Wiese, F. 2010. The Salzgitter-Salder quarry (Low-er Saxony, Germany) and Słupia Nadbrzeżna river cliff section (Central Poland): a proposed candidate compos-ite global boundary stratotype section and point for the Coniacian stage (Upper Cretaceous). Acta Geologica Polonica, 60 (4), 445–477.

Internet sources[1] www.stratigraphy.org[2] www.stratigraphy.org/index.php/ics-gssps[3] www.cretaceous.stratigraphy.org[4] www.cretaceous.stratigraphy.org/archives[5] www.natura2000.gdos.gov.pl



110

Discovery Aspiring Geopark: A candidate for UNESCO Global Geopark from the Bonavista Peninsula of Newfoundland

Jack J. Matthews1,2

1 Department of Earth Sciences, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, NL, A1B 3X5, Canada;e-mail: [email protected]

2 Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PW, U.K.

Keywords: geoheritage, UNESCO Global Geopark, palaeontology, Ediacaran, geoconservation law

The Bonavista Peninsula of Newfoundland, Canada, contains a diverse assemblage of geoheritage from the late Ediacaran and Cambrian. Of most note are the Ediacaran fossils of the Catalina Dome, com-prising exceptionally preserved examples of the Avalon biota – a group of organisms of enigmatic biotic affinity. Following a recent discovery, the area is also the site of the oldest known evidence for muscular tissue, and possibly the oldest animal body fossil, in Haootia quadriformis. Building on the Ediacaran palaeontology, alongside the stunning coastal landscapes, and ~500 years of working with the geology since European inhabitation, the local communities of the region are coming together to apply for UNESCO Global Geopark Status.

This presentation outlines the outstanding and internationally significant geological heritage found within the Discovery Aspiring Geopark, and outlines efforts that are underway to preserve, pro-mote, and develop these sites. The complexities of geoconservation legislation within the Province will be analysed, and measures proposed to im-prove protection. Geotourism has the potential to become an increasingly important section of the economy, especially in this rural area formerly re-liant on fishing. Inscription as a Global Geopark would not only improve scientific and educational understanding of the region’s geology, but also as-sist in the necessary effort to diversify the local economy.

111

Land of Tetrapod and Petrified Dunes: geoheritage of proposed geopark in the western part of the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland

Wiesław Trela1, Piotr Szrek 2, Sylwester Salwa1

1 Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Zgoda 21, 25-953 Kielce, Poland; e-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]

2 Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Rakowiecka 4, 00-975 Warsaw, Poland;e-mail: [email protected]

Key words: geopark, Devonian, Triassic, tetrapod, dunes, Variscan unconformity

Geological setting: The Holy Cross Mountains (HCM) are hilly area in the SE Poland providing access to the Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary rocks in numerous quarries and nat-ural outcrops. The geological map of the HCM shows the Palaeozoic inlier surrounded by the Permian–Mesozoic sedimentary rocks along the north-western, western and south-western bound-ary, and the Cenozoic deposits along the southern and south-eastern margin. The Palaeozoic base-ment reflects multi-stage geological history in-cluding both the Caledonian and Variscan tectonic and sedimentary evolution as well as its post-Cre-taceous uplift (Kutek, Głazek 1972). The western part of the HCM provides insight into the sed-imentary environment and palaeoecology of the Devonian and uppermost Permian up to the Lower Triassic terrigenous and carbonate rocks repre-senting various continental and marine settings. In addition, this area is also distinctive due to its landscape and cultural values as well as remnants of historical ore mining.

Geoheritage: Numerous geosites in this area have a large geotouristic and geoeducational potential, which includes such geological aspects as:

(1) The earliest known tetrapod trace fossils from the Middle Devonian (approximately 390 million years old), about 10 million years older than the oldest body fossils of the related group (Niedźwiedzki et al. 2010, Qwarnström et al. 2018). Track-makers lived on the area of ephemeral lakes close to the coast of the eastern margin of the Laurussia continent. The fossil record of those lakes with clearly non-marine biota are well visi-ble in the Zachełmie quarry. Many other phenom-ena are accompanying to tetrapod footprints and are also accessible for observation in this quarry.

They include paleosols levels, rich invertebrates trace fossils and products of hydrothermal activity, which are represented by iron-rich mineralization (Niedźwiedzki et al. 2014; Narkiewicz, Retallack 2014; Narkiewicz et al. 2015);

(2) The sedimentary record of submarine grav-ity flows on the slope of the Devonian carbonate platform in the Mogiłki quarry as a response to local tectonic mobility and global sea-level rise (Szulczewski 1995);

(3) The Variscan angular unconformity between the Middle Devonian dolostones and the overlying Permian to Lower Triassic red continental mud-stones and sandstones in the Zachełmie quarry;

(4) The unique petrified sand dunes document-ing the Early Triassic (or late Permian) desert envi-ronment on the Pangea supercontinent and related reptile foot prints and invertebrate trace fossils (Gradziński et al. 1979; Gradziński, Uchman 1994; Ptaszyński, Niedźwiedzki 2004).

Conclusions: The above list of geological values gives ground for foundation of a new geopark in the HCM, which is the next after the proposed Kamienna Valey and Kielce-Chęciny geoparks, and the existing Kielce Geopark. Moreover, they are a valuable source of geological data for the research, which should help the promotion of this unique area. Therefore, we postulate the creation of a new geopark under the name ‛Land of Tetrapod and Petrified Dunes’.

ReferencesGradziński, R., Gągol, J., Ślączka, A. 1979. The Tumlin

Sandstone (Holy Cross Mts., Poland): Lower Triassic deposits of aeolian dunes and interdune areas. Acta Geologica Polonica, 29, 151–175.

Gradziński, R., Uchman, A. 1994. Trace fossils from inter-dune deposits – an example from the Lower Triassic ae-



112

olian Tumlin Sandstone, central Poland. Palaeogeogra-phy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 108, 121–138.

Kutek, J., Głazek, J. 1972. The Holy Cross area, Central Po-land, in the Alpine cycle. Acta Geologica Polonica, 22, 603–652.

Narkiewicz, M., Retallack, G.J. 2014. Dolomitic paleosols in the lagoonal tetrapod track bearing succession of the Holy Cross Mountains (Middle Devonian, Poland). Sedimentary Geology, 299, 74–87.

Narkiewicz, M., Grabowski, J., Narkiewicz, K., Niedź-wiedzki, G., Retallack, G.J., Szrek, P., De Vleeschou-wer, D. 2015. Palaeonvironments of the Eifelian do-lomites with earliest tetrapod trackways (Holy Cross Mountains, Poland). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatol-ogy, Palaeoecology, 420, 173–192.

Niedźwiedzki, G., Narkiewicz, M., Szrek, P. 2014. Middle Devonian invertebrate trace fossils from the marginal

marine carbonates of the Zachełmie tetrapod tracksite, Holy Cross Mountains, Poland. Bulletin of Geoscien-ces, 89, 593–606.

Niedźwiedzki, G., Szrek, P., Narkiewicz, K., Narkiewicz, M., Ahlberg, P. 2010. Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland. Nature, 463, 43–48.

Ptaszyński, T., Niedźwiedzki, G. 2004. Late Permian ver-tebrate tracks from the Tumlin sandstone, Holy Cross Mountains, Poland. Acta Geologica Polonica, 4, 289–320.

Qvarnström, M., Szrek, P., Ahlberg, P., Niedźwiedzki, G. 2018. Non-marine palaeoenvironment associated to the earliest tetrapod tracks. Scientific Reports, 8, p. 1074.

Szulczewski M. 1995. Depositional evolution of the Holy Cross Mts. (Poland) in the Devonian and Carboniferous – a review. Geological Quarterly, 39, 471–488.

113

Outstanding Universal Values of the Korean Archipelago Getbol: Its potential for World Heritage Nomination

Kyung Sik Woo1, Seung Soo Chun2, Kyong O Moon3

1 Department of Geology, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Gangwondo 24341, Republic of Korea; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Department of Geology, Chonnam National University, 77 Yongbong-ro, Buk-gu, Gwangju, 61186, Republic of Korea; e-mail: [email protected]

3 World Heritage Promotion Team of Korean Tidal Flats, 4F, Jeonnam Economy Promotion Agency, 2 Oryong-3gil, Samhyang-eup, Muan-gun, Jeonnam, 58564, Republic of Korea; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geoheritage, Getbol, Outstanding Universal Value, World Heritage, Korea, UNESCO

The ‘Korean Archipelago Getbol’ (KAG; Getbol means tidal flat deposits in Korean) in southwesterb Yellow Sea has developed due to the increasing ac-commodation space during the Holocene sea-level rise on the broad epicontinental shelf in the south-eastern part of the Yellow Sea. Sedimentation and evolution show a variety of quite distinctive tidal flat patterns with intertidal and subtidal drain-age systems depending upon the distribution and orientation of islands with rocky shores. It is the unique Recent sedimentary environment with on-going coastal processes which has been formed by exceptional geological – oceanographic – cli-matic setting in the world. The following KAG’s Outstanding Universal Values are suggested to support the World Heritage (WH) nomination:

(1) It is the only place in the world where tide-controlled sedimentation processes have pro-duced broad tidal flats surrounding numerous rocky islands on a broad epicontinental shelf near convergent tectonic boundary. Only in the eastern part of the Yellow Sea tectonic influence produced numerous high-relief areas which became islands due to transgression on the very shallow continen-tal shelf (< 50 m a.s.l.) due to deglaciation after Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Macrotidal cur-rents combined with waves and typhoons in this semi-closed oceanographic setting have provided unique geological and oceanographic conditions

for the tidal flat formation around numerous is-lands. As a result, it displays the most dynamic and complicated coastal depositional system in the world. Complicated island-topography also pro-duced the deepest tidal channels.

(2) Even though the property has been constantly influenced by strong macrotidal currents combined with East Asian Monsoon climate (winter erosion and summer deposition) with occasional typhoons during summer, Getbol has maintained its stable depositional system and tidal flat sediments have been accumulated during the Late Pleistocene and Holocene. Sufficient supply of suspended load through Geumgang River provides sustainable dep-ositional system within the property. As a result, the KAG shows the thickest tidal flat sediments pro-tected by numerous islands in the world. Numerous former islands of relatively elevated areas have been vanished and hidden due to burial by aggrading tidal flat sediments. In addition, the KAG shows a complete story of geological, ecological and con-servational integrity (the wholeness and intactness). Thus, we strongly believe that the KAG has great potential to be inscribed on a World Heritage List for the criterion (viii)[1].

Internet sources[1] https://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/



114

SESSION EGeoconservation for science, education, and tourism

ORAL PRESENTATIONS

‘Geogymkhana’: an outreach activity to bring closer the geoheritage to high schools

Hugo Corbí1, Pedro Alfaro1, José Miguel Andreu1, José Francisco Baeza1, David Benavente1, Idael F. Blanco-Quintero1, Juan Carlos Cañaveras1, Jaime Cuevas1, José Delgado1,

Davinia Díez-Canseco1, Alice Giannetti1, Ivan Martín-Rojas1, Javier Martínez-Martínez2, Ivan Medina-Cascales1, Juan Peral1, Sergio Rosa-Cintas3

1 Department of Earth Science and the Environment, University of Alicante, Apdo. Correos 99, 03080 San Vicente del Raspeig, Alicante, Spain; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

2 Geological Survey of Spain (IGME), Ríos Rosas 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Department general and specific didactics, University of Alicante, Apdo. Correos 99, 03080 San Vicente del Raspeig,

Alicante, Spain; e-mail: [email protected].

Keywords: geoheritage, outreach strategies, education, didactics

Introduction: The dissemination of geoheritage has experienced a great progress in Spain in re-cent few years, both at legislative and outreach levels. For several years, the Department of Earth Sciences and Environment from the University of Alicante (DESE – UA) has carried out numerous initiatives to promote and enhance the geoheritage of the Alicante Province (SE Spain) through some disseminations and teaching strategies. Among them, there have been two leading field activities carried on: Geogymkhana (Geoyincana Alicante) and Geoloday (Geolodía). We focus herein on the Geogymkhana – an outreach activity devoted to high-school students and teachers. This activ-ity effectively favours the promotion of Alicante Geoheritage.

The geoheritage from Alicante Province (SE Spain): The complex geological history of the Alicante Province goes hand in hand with excep-tional geological outcrops, which can be appre-ciated in the steep mountain slopes, spectacular abrupt cliffs, and in many other placers due to thin vegetation cover. There, in this province one can find exceptional outcrops with high educational

and scientific values, both at regional and interna-tional scale. Currently, three of the total number of twenty geological contexts of international rel-evance defined in Spain, are located in Alicante Province: (1) Mesozoic rock formations of the Betic and Iberian chains, (2) The Stratigraphical succes-sion across the Cretaceous/Palaeogene boundary, and (3) The Messinian evaporitic sequence corre-sponding to the Mediterranean Salinity Crisis.

This geoheritage can be better known thanks to two books presenting twenty main sites of geo-logical interest. These are the books ‘Geology of Alicante’ (Alfaro et al. 2004) – compilation of thirty one geosites and ‛Geological walks’ – a guide of Geological Interest Sites of the Province of Alicante (Alfaro et al. 2010).

Geogymkhana-Alicante: Since 2012, the Depart-ment of Earth Science and Environment – University of Alicante organizes the activity ‘Geoyincana Alicante’ addressed to high-school students and teachers (Fuertes-Gutiérrez et al. 2014). Since that time the activity has became more and more popular and presently it exceeds every year thou-sand of participants from Alicante Province. The

115

Geogymkhana consists of a 3 km long guided tour, along the coastline, in the vicinity of Alicante city. This trail is well accessible; and it is of great educa-tional value, showing local geodiversity. There are 10 stands along this trail, offering various activities and explanations of geological phenomena. All this information is summarized in a workbook of activ-ities (Fig. 1; Alfaro et al. 2018;).

In the design of the educational activity differ-ent educational strategies (e.g. workshops, games and direct explanations) have been combined in order to create a fun and informative guided tour, but without losing scientific rigor. The activity is support by academicians, laboratory technicians and geology students, who form a group of 40 to 50 supervisors Basically, the activity can be divided in 10 stands, 5 with direct explanations (sand of the beach, diagenesis of the calcarenites, geological history of the La Huerta Cape, fossils of the Upper Miocene calcarenites and Thyrrenian fossil beach, geomorphology of the La Huerta cape), and 5 stands with games and workshops: (1) ‛Run through geo-logical time’, (2) ‛Human Stratigraphic superposi-tion’, (3) ‛Find the fossils’, (4) ‛Geowhatsapp and geoselfie’ and (5) ‛Geomimic and geological his-tory of La Huerta Cape’.

Conclusions: Since 2012, the outreach Geo-gymkhana activity allows to communicate and popularize the geodiversity of Alicante Province among the high-school students and teachers. This activity uses field trails to highlight participants need to protect the geoheritage. The ‘Geoyincana Alicante’ offers to high-school students comple-mentary geological contents based on fieldwork,

which covers both the most general topics of Earth Sciences and the specific aspects related to the geological heritage. It encourages secondary edu-cation teachers about the importance of practical geological activities, providing them didactic ma-terials and complementary resources.

ReferencesAlfaro, P., Andreu, J.M., Estévez, A., Tent-Manclús, J.E.,

Yébenes, A. 2004. El patrimonio geológico de Alicante. In: Alfaro, P, Andreu, J.M., Esté vez, A., Tent-Manclú s, J.E., Yé benes, A. (Eds), Geología de Alicante, 51–62. Universidad de Alicante.

Alfaro, P., Andreu, J.M., Baeza, J.F., Cañaveras, J.C., Cas-tro, J.M., Corbí, H., Cuevas, J., Estévez, A., García del Cura, M.A., Martínez, J., Lancis, C., López, M., Martín, I., Pina, J.A., Romero, J., Soria, J.M., Tent-Manclús, J.E., Tomás, R., Yébenes, A. 2010. Patrimonio Geológi-co de la provincia de Alicante. In: P. Alfaro and co-au-thors (Eds), Senderos Geológicos, p. 53–75. Diputación provincial de Alicante.

Alfaro, P., Andreu, J.M., Baeza, J.F., Benavente, D., Blanco, I.F., Cañ averas, J.C., Castro, J., Corbí , H., Cuevas, J., Delgado, J., Dí ez-Canseco, D., Esté vez, A., Giannetti, A., Martí n Rojas, I., Martí nezMartí nez, J., Medina, I., Megí as, C., Moruno, J., Ordó ñ ez, S., Peral, J., Pé rez, F., Pina, J.A., Pla, C., Rosa, S., Terradas, M. (Eds) 2018. Geoyincana, pp. 1–24. Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra y del Medio Ambiente de la Universidad de Al-icante. https://dctma.ua.es/es/documentos/geoyincana/folleto-geoyincana.pdf

Fuertes-Gutiérrez, I., Pérez Arlucea, M., González-Villan-ueva, R., Arias, F., Hernández Paredes, R., de Miguel Ximénez de Embún, C., Escorihuela, J., Cuevas, J., García Aguilar, J.M. 2014. El valordidáctico del patri-monio geológico y el valor patrimonial de los recursos didácticos. Enseñanza de las Ciencias de la Tierra, 22 (1), 69–80.

Fig. 1. Different images of the last edition of ‘Run through the Geological time’, ‘Human stratigraphic Superposition’ and ‘Find the fossils’ geogames. Photographs by Rafa Durá.

SESSION E: Geoconservation for science, education, and tourism


116

Diversified approach to dynamic fluvial geoheritage of Western Outer Carpathians – selected problems of conservation and use

Wiktor Głowacki

Krajowy Instytut Polityki Przestrzennej i Mieszkalnictwa, ul. Cieszyńska 2, 30-015 Kraków, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: fluvial geoheritage, Outer Carpathians, conservation, educational use

Goals: Natural outcrops of background rocks ap-pear relatively rarely in Outer Carpathians where mountains are usually forested and their foothills are fertile enough to be cultivated. Small single rocks resistant to the erosion and fresh landslides give only very fragmentary insights into under-ground structures whereas riversides and river-beds enable continuous observation of lithology and tectonics on longer distances. No wonder then that they attracted attention of pioneers of geology (Szajnocha 1925) as well as pioneers of tourism in Beskidy Mountains (Sosnowski 1931). The com-prehensive geological guidebook to Polish Flysh Carpathians between Olza and Dunajec (Unrug 1979) contains detailed description of 23 geological tourist routes out of which 14 run in significant parts along streams or rivers.

The fluvial erosion in flysh Carpathian riv-erbeds shows great dynamics due to irregular hydrologic regime of streams i.e. violent flush-floods interposed with relatively long dry periods with small volume. Several big floods that took place there since 1997 have made this dynamics particularly visible. As a result, the geoheritage of Polish Outer Carpathians, although generally recognized, cannot be fully mapped, catalogued and classified. Apart from a few well known riv-erside outcrops like ‘Stone City’ in Ciężkowice in the valley of Biała or ‘Ściana Olzy’ in Wisłok Valley many parts of river valleys of outstanding geo-educational and geo-touristic value appear in different places. Consequently human approach to their appearance differs significantly depending on local context.

Methods: My presentation is predominantly based on personal on site observations and on supple-mentary studies of literature and internet sources. I would like to show four cases of fluvial geoheri-tage. Some of them are accompanied with human

attempts to preserve them and to use them for edu-cational or entertainment purposes. The four cases are as follows:

(1) Olza/Olša river in Marklowice – it is a place where a group of rocky islands appeared due to bottom erosion downstream from a dam. Natural outcrops of shale, limestone and teschenite can be seen on a short distance of the river. However it is located exactly on the state border between Czech Republic and Poland. Moreover the river flows between a junkyard and sewage plant on Polish side and industrial area on Czech side. Therefore the geodiversity of this place seems to be ignored by inhabitants of both parts of Cieszyn/Tešin city. Does it mean that the very unfortunate location is enough to protect this geosite?

(2) Wieprzówka gorge – the picturesque gorge of Wieprzówka stream carved in black Wierzowskie Shales as a result of subsequent floods since 1980s. Earlier it did not exist. First described in 2002. (Bilan, Płużan 2002). Located in the vicinity of Andrychów city it became a popular recreational area for its inhabitants as well as a tourist destination for people from more distant localities. Formally protected as geosite since 2003. Environmental NGO ‘Gaja’ announced it the river of the year in 2013. However little was done to provide geological information on site.

(3) Black River gorge in Słopnice in Beskid Wyspowy Mountains together with ‘Zaświercze’ educational path constitutes an interesting attempt to use geoheritage for educational purposes. The educational path is 3.5 km long and it has 14 ed-ucational sites out of which 4 are dedicated to ge-ology and geomorphology. Detailed information is provided on tables on each site as well as it is available on internet. However in the Black River valley the path with tables goes along an asphalt road from where the very gorge is not visible. The table includes information about the possibility to

117

go through the gorge and warning against walking on wet slide stones over deep water.

(4) Tropsztyn upon Dunajec – a controversial project of the reconstruction of a castle without respect for its original character. The project in-cludes the arrangement of ‘Indian Rocky Path’ among natural outcrops of sandstone on the bank of Czchów water reservoir.

Conclusions: Conclusions of my presentation would be based on above listed cases. The inter-est of local stakeholders in the use of fluvial geo-heritage is generally positive phenomena and it is worthy of support. However there is a need to find a healthy balance in a few aspects of the use of dynamic geoheritage, for example: the balance be-tween accessibility, safety and land ownership; the

balance between education and entertainment; the place of exotic interests among local values.

ReferencesBilan, W., Płużan, P. 2002. Przełom potoku Wieprzówka w

geologicznych warstwach wierzowskich (The ravine of Wieprzówka stream in Wierzowskie beds). Aura, 1, 24–25.

Sosnowski, K. 1931. O Śląskim Beskidzie Słowo Wstępne (Foreword about Silesian Beskid). Wierchy, 9, 1–5.

Szajnocha, W. 1925. Budowa geologiczna źródłowisk Olzy koło Istebny na Śląsku Cieszyńskim (The Geological Structure of Olza Source Area in Cieszyn Silesia), pp. 1–33. Polskie Towarzystwo Geologiczne; Kraków.

Unrug, R. (Ed.) 1979. Karpaty Fliszowe między Olzą a Dun ajcem, Przewodnik Geologiczny (Flysh Carpathians be-tween Olza and Dunajec a Geological Guidebook), pp. 1–273. Wydawnictwa Geologiczne; Warszawa.



118

Geosites and protected areas in thwestern termination of the Büyük Menderes Graben and their importance of science education and tourism

Hülya İnaner1,2, Ökmen Sümer1, Mehmet Akbulut1

1 Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Geological Engineering, 35160 Buca, İzmir, Turkey; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

2 JEMİRKO – The Turkish Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage, 06570, Ankara, Turkey

Keywords: West Anatolian Extensional Province (WAEP), volcanic rock suits, normal fault, geosite

The Anatolian Peninsula, also called Asia Minor, is one of the best known areas of the world because of its geographical location, which is climatically suitable for human settlement and cultural signif-icance (Sümer 2015). West part of the Anatolia is represented by the West Anatolian Extensional Province (WAEP), one of the most seismically ac-tive and rapidly extending regions in the world (Taymaz et al. 1991). The region is being shaped by an approximately N-S trending continental exten-sion since Miocene era. This extension is subjected to differential uplift and subsidence (graben and horst structure), as a result of westward escape of the Anatolian block along the North Anatolian Fault Zone to the north, and the slab processes at the northern edge of north wards subduction of the African slab along the Aegean–Cyprian trench to the south (Biryol et al. 2011).

The Büyük Menderes Graben (BMG) is one of the best known and the largest geological structure of the WAEP. There are two nature conservation parks and twelve cultural heritage sites within and in the vicinity of the BMG which are important assets for the geoconservation for science, educa-tion and tourism. Also, several geologically dis-tinct locations/features within the BMG and sur-roundings has previously been enlisted as possible Geoheritage/Geosite candidates in the Geological Heritage Inventory of Turkey compiled in 2002 by the Turkish Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage (Jeolojik Mirası Koruma Derneği – JEMİRKO). The studies on renewal of this inventory is still ongoing, however the given local to regional features/structures of the BMG in this current list may be summarized as: (1) The horst and graben structure of the Büyük Menderes

Fig. 1. 3D relief map of the BMG and surrounds illustrating conservation assets (compiled from Sümer 2013).

119

region itself; (2) The tafoni from the augen-gneiss from the southern part of the Menderes Massif (east of Bafa Lake; cf. Alkanoğlu 1984); (3) The ‘zultanite’ (Anatolian diaspore) crystals from the Küçükçamlık-Kurudere-Selimiye region (north-east of İlbirdağı) confined within the fracture zones cross-cutting the İlbirdağı diasporic metabauxite horizon located along the contacts between the three different massive marble units (cf. Hatipoğlu 2010); (4) The tourmaline (dravite) crystals from the Camızağılı-Çine (Fig. 1). In this study we are proposing four Geosites at the western termination of the BMG with three different main geological subjects. The first one is the Yavansu Fault, which has a clearly exposed unique fault surface 2 km south of the Kuşadası village. The fault was first named and defined by Hancock and Barka (1987). The Yavansu Fault is an approximately 15 km long, W-E trending and south-facing range front normal fault (Sümer et al. 2013). Several kinematic indica-tors and fault structures such as corrugations and slickenlines, chatter marks, extensional cracks, and fault breccia have been observed at this Geosite point (Fig. 1, geosite 1). These structural indica-tors are one of the best examples for the WAEP in respect to normal faulting events. The second and third ones are located in the Hisartepe Volcanics. This volcanic rock assemblage is exposed between Kuşadası and Söke at the western termination and northern uplifted horst of the BMG. The volcanic rocks in detail was first identified and named by Ercan et al. (1986). The unit is mainly composed of dark-coloured basaltic andesite, trachyandesite and dacite with lavas, dyke and dome facies. Sümer et al. (2013) reported the Hisartepe Volcanics intruded the Middle–Upper Miocene clastic and carbonate sequences with peperitic contacts and reveal a wet sediment – hot lava interaction. The volcanic rocks are radiometrically dated by Sümer et al. (2013) in yields 12.31 ± 0.09 Ma Ar/Ar ages. The proposed Geosites in these volcanic rocks are located: (a) At the north-western flank of the Hisartepe Hill – with remarkable prismatic cracking of cooling basaltic lava flows up to 5 m high (Fig. 1, geosite 2), and (b) At the west of Davutlar village as a gorgeous feeder dome reaching up to 150 meters height presenting prismatic cooling cracks radius dimeters are exceeding 2 meters (Fig. 1, geosite 3).

Our last suggestion is the Karina marine alluvial fan complex located at the south-eastern border of the Dilek Peninsula National Park. This complex is composed of several coalesced alluvial fans, which prograded into the Aegean Sea. This isolated fan complex is controlled by a normal fault along the contact with marble sequences at the southern mar-gin of the Samsun Mountain. Sedimentological properties and geological evolution of this Plio-Quaternary deposits was given Sümer (2013) in more detail. This fan complex is the largest one in the Western Anatolian scale and has remarkable paragon outcrops up to 20 metres high between Doğanbey and Karina Lagoon (Fig. 1, geosite 4).

ReferencesAlkanoğlu, E. 1984. Menderes masifindeki tafoniler. Yeryu-

varı ve İnsan, 8 (4), 11–13.Biryol, C.B., Beck, S.L., Zandt, G., Özacar, A.A. 2011.

Segmented African lithosphere beneath the Anatolian region inferred from teleseismic P-wave tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 184 (3), 1037–1057.

Ercan, T., Akat, U., Günay, E., Savaşçın, Y. 1986. Söke-Selçuk-Kuşadası dolaylarının jeolojisi ve volkanik kaya-çların petrokimyasal özellikleri. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi, 105/106, 15–38.

JEMİRKO, 2002. Inventory of Turkish Geoheritage ele-ments, pp. 1–159. Ankara. http://www.jemirko.org.tr/turkiye-jeolojik-miras-envanteri/

Hancock, P.L., Barka, A.A. 1987. Kinematic indicators on active normal faults in western Turkey. Journal of Struc-tural Geology, 9 (5–6), 573–584.

Hatipoğlu, M., 2010. Gem-Quality Diaspore Crystals as an Important Element of the Geoheritage of Turkey. Geo-heritage, 2, 1–13.

Sümer, Ö. 2013. Evolution of the Plio-Quaternary Söke- Milet Basin, PhD Thesis, pp. 1–249. The Graduate School of Naturel and Applied Sciences; Dokuz Eylül University.

Sümer, Ö. 2015. Evidence for the reactivation of a pre-ex-isting zone of weakness and its contributions to the evo-lution of the Küçük Menderes Graben: a study on the Ephesus Fault, Western Anatolia, Turkey. Geodinamica Acta, 27 (2–3), 130–154.

Sümer, Ö., İnci, U., Sözbilir, H. 2013. Tectonic evolution of the Söke Basin: Extension-dominated transtensional basin formation in western part of the Büyük Menderes Graben, Western Anatolia, Turkey. Journal of Geody-namics, 65, 148–175.

Taymaz, T., Jackson, J., McKenzie, D. 1991. Active tecton-ics of the north and central Aegean Sea. Geophysical Journal International, 106 (2), 433–490.



120

Geoconservation for education – from classroom to reality

Tapio Kananoja

Geological Survey of Finland, P.O.Box 69, 02151 Espoo, Finland; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geoeducation, out of the classroom learning, museums, geoparks, Finland

Geology and geoconservation in Finnish school curriculum: Geoconservation and geodiversity are unknown words in the Finnish school curric-ulum. This is largely the case among the wider public as well. The correlation between geodiver-sity and biodiversity has been widely adduced only in recent years. To realise this correlation it is es-sential to know how the diversity of nature and the human life depends on geological phenomena and vice versa, how human activities change our geological nature. The situation could be clearer, if geology would be included as an own subject in the school curriculum. There is another grievance: geoconservation is not included in the teaching of geology in the universities. Therefore geoconser-vation is poorly known even among Finnish geol-ogists.

Teaching outside the classroom: Many research studies have evidenced that teaching outside the classroom is successful (Jacobi-Vessels 2013). Learning out of school provides the opportunity to learn in different frameworks (Andrăşanu 2012). Geology museums, geoparks and guiding centres have a lot to offer for out of the classroom ac-tivities. The theory may become a reality there. Especially visiting a real geosite in nature could be an awesome experience.

Geological Survey of Finland has a spectacular geoexhibition and geological museum in the head office in Espoo. The target of the exhibition is to clarify the origin and evolution of the Planet Earth and the geological processes that sculpture the surface of the Earth. Tectonic plates, volcanoes, earthquakes, ice age and sustainable use of geolog-ical resources are exhibited among other things. To school children the exhibition supplements the the-ory from the books. Although the exhibition does not deal with geoconservation so much it increases the common knowledge of geology.

A next step from the geological museum could be a visit in a geopark. Geoparks can transform complicated geological phenomena to understand-

able and exciting knowledge for everybody. Geo-parks can make a major contribution to education by sharing their knowledge and serve as out-door laboratories for traditional education[2]. So geoparks provide ideal destinations for school and university courses requiring experiences in field work. An important task for geoparks is also to introduce local people to the importance of the heritage of their own area.

The aspiring Salpausselkä Geopark is situ-ated in Lahti region, in southern Finland. Its main themes are Salpausselkä ice-marginal formations and the groundwater. Salpausselkä formations represent the best-known geological feature in Finland. These Quarternary formations lie on the Precambrian bedrock. At the end of the last ice age, about 12 800 years ago, during the deglaciation stage of the continental ice sheet, the climate got suddenly colder, and the retreat of the ice sheet margin stopped. The cold period, known as the Younger Dryas period, lasted for approximately 1 200 years. During this period, gravel and sand was deposited at the margin of the continental ice sheet forming the spectacular Salpausselkä formations (Donner 2010).

Salpausselkä formations and eskers with thick sand and gravel layers provide the city of Lahti and other municipalities of the region with good quality groundwater. Groundwater is an import-ant natural resource in the Lahti region e.g. for the region’s strong brewing and food industries. Water consumption in the region is on a sustain-able level – only one third of the groundwater is used. Protection of groundwater is very important to Lahti region, especially in the city of Lahti, where almost 70% of the population live above groundwater bodies. This is a good example of the need for groundwater protection and its sustain-able use[1].

The Geopark theme has already been adopted in the programme in many schools in Lahti re-gion. For example students in Lahti University

121

of Applied Sciences are developing an interac-tive map of geosites in the aspiring geopark area. Workshops with local companies interested in the geopark have been arranged also. There has also been some geology training organised for primary and preschool teachers in the area.

Conclusions: As a conclusion, primary schools need new courses which combine geology, geog-raphy and biology. For example, in Portugal ge-ology and biology have the same importance in the secondary school curricula (Brilha et al. 2012). This kind of understanding of nature processes should be included also in the teachers training in universities. It would increase the positive at-titude to geodiversity and geoconservation. And geoconservation should be incorporated into geol-ogy teaching in universities. In that way students could understand better the interactions between geodiversity, biodiversity and human activities. Experts outside of school, for example staff from museums or research centres, could lead some ge-ology courses and field trips which are essential for understanding the natural world. They would bring the theory in to the real world.

ReferencesAndrăşanu, A. 2012. Learning Earth Science outside the

classroom. In: M. Bentivenga, F. Geramia (Eds), Geo-heritage: Protecting and Sharing. 7th International Symposium ProGEO on Conservation of the Geolog-ical Heritage. Geologia dell’ Ambiente, Suplemento, 3/2012, 193–194.

Brilha, J., Pereira, D., Pereira, P. 2012. Geoconservation education research and outreach: the experience of the University of Minho (Portugal). In: M. Bentivenga, F. Geramia (Eds), Geoheritage: Protecting and Sharing. 7th International Symposium ProGEO on Conservation of the Geological Heritage. Geologia dell’ Ambiente, Suplemento, 3/2012, 191–192.

Donner, J. 2010. The Younger Dryas age of the Salpausselkä moraines in Finland. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Finland, 82, 69–80.

Jacobi-Vessel, J. 2013. Discovering Nature: The Benefits of Teaching Outside of the Classroom. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 41 (3), 4–10.

Internet sources[1] Lahden kaupunki, 2018. Water. European Green Capital

2020 Application. http://lahdenvuosi.fi/european- green-capital-2020-application/9.-water.

[2] UNESCO, 2016. UNESCO Global Geoparks. Cele-breting Earth Heritage, Sustaining local Communities, pp. 1–20. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul-tural Organization; Paris, France. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002436/243650e.pdf



122

Geotourism potential of small river valleys of the Holy Cross Mountains (Central Poland)

Małgorzata Ludwikowska-Kędzia1, Małgorzata Wiatrak2

1 Jan Kochanowski University, Institute of Geography, Świętokrzyska 15, 25-435 Kielce, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Kielce University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Tysiąclecia Państwa Polskiego 7, 25-314 Kielce, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geotourism, geodiversity, fluvial valley, Holy Cross Mountains

Goals: Based on the geodiversity of the Holy Cross Mountains in geological-anthropogenic context, which includes the evidence of former and pres-ent-day environments and geoecosystems in the history of the Earth[1] (Zwoliński 2004; Najwer, Zwoliński 2014), and taking into account anthropo-genic influence (Kozłowski et al. 2004; Kozłowski 2004), an attempt was made to analyse the geotour-ism potential of small river valleys in the central part of the Holy Cross Mountains. As geotourism is considered to be an integral part of tourism po-tential of a given area (Meyer 2010), the research covered the structural resources of the (geo)tour-ism potential of the studied valleys, i.e. the rank of geotourist values (geodiversity resources: objects and phenomena – substantive, cultural and educa-tional values), the degree of geotourist accessibility (communication and topographic – location value), and elements of geotourist development (geotour-ist facilities – infrastructure value) (Ludwikowska-Kędzia, Wiatrak 2012).

Methods: The components of geotourism potential were evaluated using the point grading method, which is functional in the case of evaluation of geotourist objects (Dmytrowski, Kicińska 2011).

Conclusions: The research conclusion shows that the uniqueness of small river valleys in the Holy Cross Mountains consists of the existence of attrac-tive, small-scale complexes of geological and mor-phological objects and traces of mining and metal-lurgical human activity. This fact determines their high geotourism potential[1]. Therefore, the river valleys in the Holy Cross Mountains are especially suited to mark out geotourist routes in their zones (Fig. 1) (Ludwikowska-Kędzia, Wiatrak 2012). The existence of such routes will contribute to activa-tion of local communities and draw attention to the

need for preservation and protection of the geodi-versity of these valleys. It is necessary to discuss many issues concerning functional resources (eco-nomic, demographic, psychological, technological, ecological and political) of (geo)tourism potential.

ReferencesDmytrowski, P., Kicińska, A. 2011. Waloryzacja geotury-

styczna obiektów przyrody nieożywionej i jej znacze-nie w perspektywie rozwoju geoparków. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, 29, 11–20.

Kozłowski, S. 2004. Geodiversity. The concept and scope of geodiversity. Przegląd Geologiczny, 52, 833–837.

Kozłowski, S., Migaszewski, Z.M., Gałuszka, A. 2004. Geodiversity conservation – conserving our geological heritage. Polish Geological Institute, Special Papers, 13, 13–20.

Ludwikowska-Kędzia, M., Wiatrak, M. 2013. Geotouristic attractiveness of the Upper Łagowica Valley. Proposal of geotourist route), pp. 1–112. Instytut Geografii, Uni-wersytet Jana Kochanowskiego; Kielce.

Meyer, B. 2010. Aktywność samorządu lokalnego jako element potencjału turystycznego na przykładzie wy-branych gmin województwa zachodniopomorskiego. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, 590, Ekonomiczne Problemy Usług, 52, 23–32.

Najwer, A., Zwoliński, Z. 2014. Semantics and geodiversi-ty assessment methods – review and research proposal. Landform Analysis, 26, 115–127.

Zwoliński, Z. 2004. Geodiversity. In: A.S. Goudie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Geomorphology, 1, p. 417–418. Rout-ledge; New York.

Internet sources[1] Australian Heritage Commission, 2002. Australian Nat-

ural Heritage Charter for the Conservation of Places of Natural Heritage Significance. Australian Heritage Com-mission in association with Australian Committee for IUCN. Sydney. (last access: 31/03/2018) https://www.iucn.org/content/australian-natural-heritage-charter-stan-dards-and-principles-conservation-places-natural-heri-tage-significance.

123


Fig. 1. Location of Łagów in Poland (A) and geotourist route in the upper Łagowica River valley (Ludwikowska-Kędzia, Wiatrak 2012, changed) (B). Explanations of points: i. geological structure and relief of the upper Łagowica River valley; history of settlement and mining; 1. Nawrocki shaft in Łagów; 2. Traces of galena mining in Płucki; 3. Exposure of Frasnian/Famennian limestones in Płucki; 4. Dule karst gully in Łagów; 5. Exposure of Famennian deposits with cephalopod fauna in the Dule gully; 6. Zbójecka Cave in the Dule gully; W-1. Viewpoint – panorama of the main range of the Holy Cross Mountains; 7. Karst ravine of the Łagowica River; 8a-c. Exposure of Middle and Upper Devonian carbonate series; 9. Lisia Dziura Cave in the scarp of the karst ravine of the Łagowica River, 10. Karst spring in w Masłowiec, W-2. Viewpoint – zone of anthropogenically transformed landscape near Łagów; W-3. Viewpoint – change in the type of the Łagowica River valley: ravine – flat bottomed valley; K. Wzgórze Zamczysko – medieval settlement in Nowy Staw; 11. Exposure of Quaternary deposits in Masłowiec.


124

Creation of a geotouritstic underground route in the Ruskeala Mining Park (the Republic of Karelia, Russian Federation)

Yury Lyakhnitsky1, Tatiana Ivanova1

1 A.P. Karpinsky Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI), Sredny prospect 74, 199106 St. Petersburg, Russia; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: Ruskeala Mining Park, marble, geotouritstic underground route

History of mining: The Ruskeala Mining Park[1] has been created on the basis of the ancient marble quarry. The Ruskeala field of marble is situated in the northern coast of Lake Ladoga in Karelia. It is one of the oldest mines in Russia, which dates back to the 17th century, when Swedish operators began to investigate the marble there. In 1764, Ekaterina the Second issued decree ‘About new audit in Finland’ and in 1766 test mineral exploration of marble blocks began in Ruskeala.

Geological settings: The Ruskeala field is part of large isoclinal folds consisting of amfibolite and bi-otite-amfibolite shists with interlayers of marble of

the Sortavala Series of Early Proterozoic age. The thickness of the productive horizon reaches 600 m.

An excavation route around this ancient pit was established some years ago and in 2009, the geol-ogist I.V. Borisov, one of Ruskeala Natural Park organisers, was already showing visitors ‘Ruskeala Depression’, a ver large underground hall which is partially flooded. During winter when the un-derground lake was frozen, we (members of the Russian Geographical Society and geologists from the Russian Geological Research Institute, VSEGEI) examined the hall. We inderstood that it is possible to equip an underground excursion route, to unit all the park’s attractions on the sur-

Fig. 1. The Big Hall. A track of an underground route. Photograph by Olga Lebedeva.

125

fuce and to create a very interesting tourist com-plex. We have conducted research on underground development in this field, including: Theodolite recording of mine workings, and their condition: a hydrological, hydrochemical and geo-ecologica assessment, and many other studies.

Details of Ruskeala mine structure: The main feature of the site is existence of a large tectonic structure cutting the first adit near the southern wall of the Big Hall (Fig. 1).

Here the marble is broken by several systems of cracks and has been turned into a tectonic brec-cia and clay gouge. The long development of the Ruskeala field has led to the formation of an exten-sive network of underground mine workings for the extraction of marble. Two vertical and one inclined series of workings and many adits have been passed and several large ‛cameras’ (halls) have been cre-ated. The pits and underground mine workings are situated at four levels with the lower horizons of the field are being flooded to the level of 92.6 m.

We have proposed an underground excursion route to the Big Hall and two adits adjoining it. Theodolite recording of the adits, the Depression and Pit have been carried out in order to keep a record of data on the current of coordination of the underground mine workings and elements of sur-fuce relief. During the inspection of the southern blockage of the adit, the size of the blockage and its depth have been defined and a trial dismantling of the blockage has in a sag on a surface above where it wad carried out.

During research on the hydrology of the site it has became clear that the Pit is connected to the Depression by large underground cavities and unloading of these reservoirs is carried out through the second adit and a blockage on a sur-fuce. Water chemical structure is hydrocarbonate calcium-magnesium; potable, and raised content of harmful substances is not revealed.

Measurement of gamma-radiation background of cavities of the Ruskeala field has shown that it is normal. There is no radiation hazard to people

in the adits and the Big Hall. Microclimatic obser-vations have shown there are also no contra-indi-cators for holding excursions. Large ice seasonal sinters were investigated and mapped as well. Art photo of the object for illustration in the report on the research stage of works have been taken as well as advertiseibg.

Following these studies, the design stage of an excursion route has been carried out. Work on the design of an engineering project have also been carried out, including for a special design of adit concrete tops and also for an excursion track on pontoons in the flooded Big Hall. Then arrange-ment of the route has now begun and cave ex-plorers of the Russian Geographical Society have carried out the removal of debris from the Big Hall and a special concrete capping at an entrance to the Big Hall has been equipped for our project by a group of builders. According to our recommenda-tions for minimization of risk of a collapse during an arrangement of the route, excavation of a block-age and concreting of adit top were carried out for no more than 1–1.5 m at a time. Special construc-tions connecting to the surface to ensure the safety of tourists have been built at an exit of Adit 2. The German company, ‘Cave Lighting’ has installed lighting in the Big Hall and adits..

Conclusions: In March, 2017, the underground route began to work regularly and now attracts a great interest amongst visitors. At an ecological forum in Kazan the site was nominated for the Grand Prix. The route has fine aesthetic quali-ties and allows the observation of the geological characteristics of the well-known Ruskeala striate gray marble. In conclusion, the Ruskeala moun-tain park has a very interesting and long history of mining and research and after creation of this underground route, the Ruskeala mountain park has became one of the most interesting natural museums in Europe.

Internet sources[1] http://www.ruskeala.info/en



126

Cooking, Culture and Concretions: The Three Cs for compulsive, creative communication in Buzau Land Aspiring Geopark (Romania).

John Macadam1,2, Răzvan-Gabriel Popa3,4, Cristina Toma3,5, Stefan George Kudor3,6, Diana-Alice Popa3,5

1 Earthwords, Little Kirland, Bodmin, PL30 5BJ, UK; e-mail: [email protected] Camborne School of Mines, University of Exeter, TR10 9FE, UK3 Buzau Land NGO Aspiring Geopark, Beslii 20, Minzalesti, Buzau County, Romania;

e-mails: [email protected], [email protected] Department of Earth Sciences, ETH Zurich, Clausiusstrasse 25, Zurich, Switzerland5 University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geology and Geophysics, Nicolae Bălcescu Blvd, no. 1, 010041, Bucharest, Romania;

e-mail: [email protected] University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geography, Nicolae Bălcescu Blvd, no. 1, 010041, Bucharest, Romania;

e-mail:[email protected]

Keywords: geopark, interpretation, sustainable development

Introduction: Buzau Land Aspiring Geopark in Romania has some inspiring sites (Melinte-Dobrinescu et al. 2017). Salt deposits, strange an-thropomorphic concretions, amber, fossiliferous horizons, tuffs, mud volcanoes …and wonderful scenery where many old traditions survive and butterflies fill herb-rich meadows. The cultural traditions include folk explanations for the geolog-ical oddities: are the burping, belching mud vol-canoes respiring dragons or other mythical beasts deep underground, or maybe they are just belching after ingesting swallowed cows? Are the brownish rocks forming the skyline ‘living stones’ – the ‘Old Ladies of Ulmet’?

Developing the geopark: So far four innovative museums have been opened, as well as booklets produced, TV programmes made by a national station, plus a website, YouTube channel and an active Facebook and Instagram pages set up. Discussions have taken place about on-site in-terpretation for some of the areas of geological interest. It is firmly the intention that this ma-terial will follow best practice, following Tilden who developed his ideas as an employee of the US National Park Service (Tilden 1957) and ideas presented by the first author (Macadam 2017). Despite what some authors present as a simple template for ‘good’ interpretation there is no facile way – and no unique ‘good’ solution. For example, the authors visited the ‘Old Ladies of Ulmet’ and discussion produced several potential attractive options for interpretation. Clearly these

are sandstone concretions and thus hardly rare in the geological record, but diagenesis needs to be explained to non-geologists. They are called ‘Babele’ (‘old ladies’) because of the anthropo-morphic shapes of some of the concretions. But do they grow – as local people claim? Are they living? So local folk-tales could be incorporated. Going further there are easily seen links between the geodiversity and biodiversity – with different plants growing on the sandstone and shales inter-beds. And then from the top of the hill there is an extensive view over the landscape – another topic for interpretation? And soaring over the landscape are eagles – a common enough sight for local people but potentially of great interest to international visitors. The geopark will hope to attract a wide range of visitors, both from within Romania and from across the world to help it develop sustainably. Meanwhile the exposure of a salt diapir at surface has led local people to pickle food in brine rather than using vinegar to preserve it.

Conclusion: There needs to be an audit of all the resources (sites, artefacts, intangible resources, etc.) and an interpretation strategy needs to be written and then a plan made. What seems certain is that the decentralised model of facilities for vis-itors developed in the successful Hateg UNESCO Global Geopark also in Romania will be used for Buzau Land to spread the benefit. And, as in Hateg, local people are involved in discussions and all decisions (Popa et al. 2017): the work is

127

bottom-up, not top-down. And, finally, there is no magic ‘Three Cs’ – or even an ‘A, B and C’ – for effective interpretation, either in Buzau Land or elsewhere.

ReferencesMacadam, J. 2017. Geoheritage: Getting the Message

Across. What Message and to Whom? In: E. Reynard, J. Brilha (Eds), Geoheritage Assessment, Protection, and Management, p. 267–288. Elsevier; Amsterdam.

Melinte-Dobrinescu, M.C., Brustur, T., Jipa, D., Macalet,

R., Ion, G., Ion, E., Popa, A., Stănescu, I., Briceag, A. 2017. The Geological and Palaeontological Heritage of the Buzău Land Geopark (Carpathians, Romania). Geo-heritage, 9, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0202-3

Popa, R., Popa, D., Andrăşanu, A. 2017. The SEA and Big-S Models for Managing Geosites as Resources for Local Communities in the Context of Rural Geoparks. Geo-heritage, 9, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0192-1

Tilden, J. 1957. Interpreting our Heritage, pp. 1–110. Uni-versity of North Carolina Press; Chapel Hill.



128

Panoramic 360° images and 3D models as tools to promote cultural and geological heritage: the example of Bertioga, central coast

of São Paulo State, Brazil

Carlos Eduardo Manjon Mazoca1, Vanessa Costa Mucivuna1, Maria da Glória Motta Garcia1, Renato Henriques2, Eliane Aparecida Del Lama1, Christine Bourotte1

1 Centre for Research Support on Geological Heritage and Geotourism, Institute of Geosciences, University of São Paulo, Brazil; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

2 Earth Sciences Department, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal;e-mail: [email protected].

Keywords: geospatial technologies, geoheritage, built heritage, Bertioga, Brazil

Goal: This work presents a case study aimed in geological sites protection and dissemination of geoscientific knowledge – some of the pillars in which geoconservation is based upon (Brilha 2016; Weber et al. 2017) – through the use of geospatial technologies (Cayla 2014; Martin 2014).

Methods: Several geological points illustrate the importance of Bertioga municipality in such a project. The municipality comprises one of the largest coastal plains of the region, in which there are registered most of the depositional systems observed along the Brazilian coast (Souza 2015), with the escarpments of Serra do Mar at the back-ground. It possesses a large number of protected areas (72% of its territory) and the oldest colo-nial fortification of the country. These facts, and the use of a geo-technological approach, allow the development of interpretive resources useful for educational purposes.

Previous surveys of geological sites and his-torical fortifications enabled the selection of three geological sites suitable for the aims of the project (Mucivuna et al. 2016; Mucivuna et al. 2017): (1)

Bertioga channel and São João Fort; (2) Meanders of the Itapanhaú River; and (3) Marine terraces of Itaguaré Beach. Image acquisition was carried out with a DJI Phantom 4 Pro Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) according to the interpretation products. Hence, 360° aerial images served as input for pan-oramic montages for each site, and oblique photos taken from different heights were used in the con-struction of 3D models for points 1 and 3 through Structure from Motion algorithms. Additionally, aerial footage was produced during the field trip. Obtained data was treated in specialized image processing software, i.e. Agisoft Photoscan Pro, Autopano Giga, Panotour Pro and Adobe Photoshop.

Results: The developed resources fit in both ed-ucational and tourism projects. Consequently, the resources may be used in interpretive activities by teachers at various school grades, as well as by tourism offices. The main contents and inter-pretive elements to be used are shown in Table 1. These geoscientific themes can be added to the topics already explored by school trips and touris-tic routes.

Table 1. Interests and interpretive contents of the selected sites in Bertioga. Main geological inter-ests based on the GEOSSIT Platform, of the Geological Survey of Brazil (Rocha et al. 2016)

Bertioga Channel and São João Fort Meanders of the Itapanhaú River Marine terraces at Itaguaré Beach

Main geological interests Geomorphological; Sedimentary Geomorphological Palaeoenvironmental; Sedimentary;

Palaeontological

Potential interpretive contents

Building material used in the fort and historical aspects of military

fortifications

Formation of the Bertioga Coastal Plain;

Alluvial landforms

Ichnofossils; Marine terraces, Sea-level variation, Coastal dynam-

ics; Alluvial landforms

Other interests Historical and geographical aspects related to the fort

Urban occupation at legally restricted areas

Ecological aspects related to the protected area

129

The products are available online in the form of an interactive platform starting from 360° im-ages to simulate a virtual tour. These images are endowed with ‛hotspots’, hyperlinks calling atten-tion to the locations for which the 3D models were created. Every interactive product is presented with graphical elements and texts with geologi-cal interpretation, as well as hyperlinks pointing to additional web-pages for supplementary infor-mation. Talks are being conducted with the fort management to include an interactive application in the premises, which consists of a 3D model of the building with geoscientific interpretation for the use of visitors. The description presented in each product has respected elements used in inter-pretation principles (Tilden 1957). For this reason, textual information makes use of an accessible lan-guage with few technical or specific terms from Geosciences, as well as provocative sentences that evoke interaction between people’s personal knowledge and physical environment.

Final remarks: Some advantages of using a non-personal media, based on data produced by UAV’s to promote geosciences include the facili-tated visualization of features or processes not eas-ily accessed in the field. It also allows easy content access, as many times the person wants. As these products will be included in the website, enabling easy access, it will include possibilities for persons with disabilities, elders and infants. Furthermore, some environmental education activities are already carried out in the region. These could be improved

if the interpretive products could be included in the existing activities, thus collaborating for an inte-grated view of both biotic and abiotic aspects.

ReferencesBrilha, J.B. 2016. Inventory and quantitative assessment of

geosites and geodiversity sites: a Review. Geoheritage, 8 (2), 119–134.

Cayla, N. 2014. An overview of new technologies applied to the management of geoheritage. Geoheritage, 6 (2), 91–102.

Martin, S. 2014. Interactive Visual Media for Geomorpho-logical Heritage Interpretation. Theoretical Approach and Examples. Geoheritage, 6 (2), 149–157.

Mucivuna, V.C., Del Lama, E.A., Garcia, M.G.M. 2016. For-tificações do litoral paulista: geologia de suas pedras e o estado de conservação. Revista do Instituto Geológico, 37 (1), 29–48.

Mucivuna, V.C., Garcia, M.G.M., Del Lama, E.A. 2017. Inventário e avaliação quantitativa do patrimônio geológico do município de Bertioga, SP. Pesquisas em Geociências (UFRGS), 44 (2), 293–321.

Rocha, A.J.D., Lima, E., Schobbenhaus, C. 2016. Geossit application: New Version. In: 48 Brazilian Congress of Geology. http://sbg.sitepessoal.com/anais48cbg/st22/ID6389_111446_52_Aplicativo_Geossit.pdf. Accessed 22 oct. 2016.

Souza, C.R.G. 2015. The Bertioga Coastal Plain: An Exam-ple of Morphotectonic Evolution. In: B.C. Vieira, L.J.C. Santos, A.A.R. Salgado (Eds), Landscapes and Land-forms of Brazil, p. 115–134. Springer; Netherlands.

Tilden, F. 1957. Interpreting our heritage, pp. 1–212. North Carolina Press; Chapel Hill. (4th edition).

Weber, P.D., Baudin, F., Pereira, D., Cornée, A., Egoroff, G., Page, K. 2017. The Importance of geosites and heritage stones in cities, a Review. Geoheritage, 9 (4), 561–575.



130

Threats to Geoheritage at the Mistaken Point World Heritage Site: Identification, Monitoring, and Management

Jack J. Matthews1,2

1 Department of Earth Sciences, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, NL, A1B 3X5, Canada; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PW, UK

Keywords: geoconservation, Ediacaran, fossils, UNESCO World Heritage Site, monitoring, geotourism

The late Ediacaran rocks of the Mistaken Point Ecological Reserve, Newfoundland, record the oldest known assemblage of large, complex fossils anywhere. These fossils represent the transition in the history of life on earth to large, architecturally complex organisms, following nearly three billion years of a microbially-dominated world. In July 2016, the Reserve was inscribed on World Heritage List. Inscription has led to increased geotourism demands on the locality, a consequence welcomed by the local community who wish to develop the economy. This is potentially at odds with the in-terests of Government and Researchers whose in-clination is often to prohibit all activity that may adversely impact a site.

The total risk associated with a geosite is a product of both natural and anthropogenic pro-

cesses. To better understand this complex mix, a monitoring regime has been set up including in-situ cameras, annual LiDAR surveys, and periodic field observations. Results show a sig-nificant threat to the fossil surfaces comes from slope failure of the overlying glacial gravels and boulders. In addition to monitoring observation, experimental work has been undertaken to de-termine the future risk posed by visitors to the site, especially through footwear erosion. The data suggest the materials used in the current pro-tective footwear may be suboptimal in curbing footwear erosion at the site. Overall the results confirm the importance of monitoring at a range of temporal and spatial resolutions, and the ben-efits of lab-based experimental work to inform active site management procedures.

131

Tracing landform evolution through time along a thematic trail in Elbsandsteingebirge (Germany) – application of ergodic principle

in interpreting geoheritage

Piotr Migoń1, Filip Duszyński1, Milena Różycka1, Kacper Jancewicz1

1 Institute of Geography and Regional Development, University of Wrocław, Pl. Uniwersytecki 1, 50-137 Wrocław, Poland; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: sandstone geomorphology, geomorphological heritage, geo-interpretation, thematic trails

Approaches to interpreting geoheritage: Recent developments in interpreting geoheritage seem to focus on technological innovations and how these can be applied most efficiently (Cayla, Martin 2018). However, the key issue remains what should be the interpretation content provided at geosites (Hose 2005). Storytelling which enlivens the rock record and the physical landscape is preferred over simple factual information but such an approach usually requires more words and images than can be accommodated on a singular information panel (Macadam 2018). Therefore, thematic trails are an option worth exploring but they should ideally fol-low one theme and develop the story (e.g. Migoń, Pijet-Migoń 2017). Here we argue that for certain types of geomorphological heritage the ergodic principle provides a useful background. Ergodic principle, borrowed from physics and understood as ‘space-for-time substitution’, is based on an assumption that different geomorphic features co-existing in space may be considered as differ-ent stages of a directional evolutionary process. For example, one can look at volcanic edifices of various ages, each one re-shaped to some ex-tent by erosional processes, and virtually re-create the process of volcanic cone degradation through time. Here we apply the concept of ergodicity to geoheritage interpretation in the spectacular sandstone terrain of Elbsandsteingebirge in East Germany.

Study area: The study area is located in the east-ern part of Germany, ca. 40 km south-east of the city of Dresden. Geologically, it is dominated by flat-lying Cretaceous sedimentary rocks into which the canyon of the Elbe river is incised. The scenery consists mainly of planar surfaces of pla-teaus, structural benches, plains and mesa tops. These level surfaces are separated by steep escarp-

ments, with the upper slope rock cliffs locally up to 60 m high. The part of the area south of the Elbe river is dominated by isolated tabular hills – mesas and buttes (Rast 1959). They vary in aeral extent of the planar top surface, from more than 1 km long and 0.5 km wide (Grosser Zschirnstein) to less than 50 m across (Zirkelstein), and in the degree of fragmentation by clefts and minor canyons. The outstanding geoheritage values of the region even prompted a feasibility study focused on possible UNESCO World Heritage nomination in the early 2000s.

Concept of trail: The concept of a thematic ‘mesa trail’ utilizes the ergodic principle in the follow-ing way: It is assumed that geomorphic evolution of tablelands with prominent caprock proceeds through ongoing dissection of an original plateau and its fragmentation, whereas bounding escarp-ments retreat over time and they do so non-uni-formly in space. Therefore, whereas the plateau is generally reduced in extent, tabular hills may be isolated in front of the main receding escarpment. They, in turn, reduce in extent too through the concurrent action of joint-guided weathering and erosion within the mesas and escarpment retreat at the perimeter of the mesas. Consequently, they may be separated into minor compartments or be-come buttes. In the penultimate stage only residual caprock blocks are left and they may persist in the landscape long after other evidence of existence of a hill disappears. In the study area seven mesas were selected to illustrate the evolution of tabu-lar hills, from a large and undissected plateau to the penultimate stage where caprock is reduced to a group of disjointed blocks. Easy access to the mesas allows one to see the evidence of processes involved in cliff retreat and disintegration: open clefts, labyrinthine canyons, cliff overhangs, crev-



132

ice and talus caves, boulder accumulations etc. Many of these localities can be considered geosites in their own right, but here they are connected to illustrate an evolutionary sequence.

Evaluation: The ergodic assumption as applied to geomorphology has been criticized on several grounds and these problematic issues emerge in the context of the ‘Mesa Trail’ too. First, the sequence presented here may not be the faithful reflection of the actual evolution of erosional landscape in Elbsandsteingebirge which remains poorly con-strained. Second, mesas and buttes are presented in certain sequence, implying that one form evolves from another whereas in reality parallel pathways may be possible. Third, the scheme largely ignores minor lithological differences which may be lo-cally important and fourth, it does not consider rates of processes and the temporal context of mesa evolution, although this is largely unknown any-way. Nevertheless, the proposed approach has its values too, especially remembering that geo-inter-pretation by necessity involves translation of spe-cialist knowledge into simplified format. The three principal advantages of using ergodic assumption are the following: First, the sequence is easy to visualize and to show on panels, in guidebooks etc., which is of key importance in geo-education

where ‘one picture is worth a thousand words’. Second, the sequence – wherever proposed – can be complemented by further examples, split into pathways, enlarged at both ends etc. Third, it con-veys the message that the Earth is dynamic, even if the current impression is one of prolonged stability. We also argue that the concept of ergodic principle is easily transferrable to other geomorphological settings where landforms of certain type and ori-gin evidently change through time.

ReferencesCayla, N., Martin, S. 2018. Digital geovisualisation technolo-

gies applied to geoheritage management. In: E. Reynard, J. Brilha (Eds), Geoheritage. Assessment, Protection and Management, p. 289–300. Elsevier; Amsterdam.

Hose, T.A. 2005. Geotourism and interpretation. In: R.K. Dowling, D. Newsome (Eds), Geotourism, p. 221–241. Butterworth Heinemann; Oxford.

Macadam, J. 2018. Geoheritage: Getting the message across. What message and to whom? In: E. Reynard, J. Brilha (Eds), Geoheritage. Assessment, Protection and Management, p. 267–288. Elsevier; Amsterdam.

Migoń, P., Pijet-Migoń, E. 2017. Geo-interpretation at New Zealand’s geothermal tourist sites – Systematic expla-nation versus storytelling. Geoheritage, 9, 83–95.

Rast, H. 1959. Geologischer Führer durch das Elbsand-steingebirge, pp. 1–226. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften; Berlin.

133

The International Commission on Geoheritage (ICG): A new partner for developing global geoconservation policy and practice

Kevin Page1, Lola Pereira2, Björn Schouenborg3, Patrick de Wever4

1 Secretary General of the IGC; Secretary of the Heritage Sites and Collections Subcommission (HSCS), School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Science, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Secretary HSS, Departamento de Geología, Plaza de la Merced s/n, Universidad de Salamanca, 37008 Salamanca, Spain; e-mail: [email protected]

3 Chair ICG, CBI Betonginstitutet, Box 857, 501 15, Borås, Sweden; e-mail: [email protected] Chair, HSCS, Géologie, Muséum National Histoire Naturelle, 43 Rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France;


Key words: International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), geoheritage, geodiversity, commission

The International Commission on Geoheritage (ICG) was formally established at the 35th ICG held in Cape Town, South Africa, in August 2016 by combining two pre-existing Task Groups, focussed on Geoheritage and Heritage Stones, which became, respectively, the Heritage Sites and Collections Subcommission (HSCS)[1] and the Heritage Stones Subcommission (HSS)[2]. The ICG’s objectives includes the development and dissemination of guidelines for good practice in the selection and management of geoheritage sites, institutional collections and culturally significant geological resources. The intention is to actively collaborate with and seek partnerships with other commissions, organisations and networks at all scales, from local to regional to international, which are active within the field of geoheritage and related disciplines and promote and co-ordi-nate activities through workshops, conferences, training and other educational activities, as well as through research and publications. The very broad scope of activities envisaged for the ICG are best expressed through the adopted definition of Geodiversity:

The term ‘geodiversity’ encompasses all aspects of the natural non-living materials and processes that formed our planet and continue to shape both its interior and surface today. This broad definition not only includes geological materials (such as modern sediments, rocks, minerals, meteorites and fossils), the processes that formed them (including by rivers and volcanic activity) and the landforms created by such processes (for example cliffs and glacier-cut valleys), it also includes Earth materi-als removed from a natural to a cultural context,

for instance to museums or used as building stones or in jewelry (ICG Terms of Reference, 2018[1]).

Over its first 18 months, the ICG has focussed on consolidating its role and position within IUGS, including establishing comprehensive Terms of Reference to define and manage its activities, as well as a panel of appropriate qualified Voting Members to oversee its activities. Over this period the HSS has been very active in promoting Global Heritage Stone Resources (GHSR), as a way of rais-ing awareness of the cultural and historical value of natural stones as a resource for society, leading to seven designed stone types. The HSS will also hold a meeting on Heritage Stones in Salamanca, Spain, in October 2018. Meanwhile, the HSCS has developed a working structure involving Thematic Working Groups, the first established dedicated to establishing criteria to inform the scientific as-sessment of proposals for new UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGG). Several other Working Groups under discussion, including on Global Geosites, Palaeontological Heritage, Volcanic Geoheritage and Geomorphosites, including as partnerships with other organisations. The challenge is to en-sure that we really can begin to influence policy and practice at a global scale through our new discipline of geoheritage, one which provides the strongest of connections between society and the geosciences.

Internet sources[1] IUGS – Heritage Sites and Collection Subcommission,

http://geoheritage-iugs.mnhn.fr[2 IUCS Subcommission – Heritage Stones, http://globalheri-

tagestone.com/



134

Assessment of tourism value in geological heritage: why, what and how

Paulo Pereira1, Diamantino Insua Pereira1, Bruno Gonçalves1, Carla Viveiros1, Andreia Afonso1

1 Institute of Earth Sciences, Pole of the University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: geological heritage, tourism value, objectives, methods, assessment, criteria

Nature tourism has been a subject related with geo-logical heritage and geoconservation during the years, moreover with the increasing of geotour-ism strategies and geoparks programs. Even if only a part of geological heritage has high scientific value, there are also other sites that should be con-sidered in geoconservation strategies because of their cultural, ecological or tourism values (Brilha 2016). The use of geological heritage as tour-ism attractions constitutes one of the subjects in methodological proposals for geosite assessment. Whereas the majority of the methodological pro-posals include touristic criteria to assess the values of geological heritage (Pereira, Pereira 2010), more recent studies emphasize the assessment of spe-cific criteria such as accessibility, visibility, safety, signage, cleanliness, logistics, or the touristic use of the sites (Rybá r 2010; Š trba, Rybá r 2015; Doktor et al. 2015; Valjarević et al. 2017).

In this work, a general framework of this topic is presented, with a discussion on the objectives (why), the objects (what) and the methods (how) regarding the assessment of the tourism value in geological heritage. Why is related with the need to identify the sites with highest potential touristic use, the ones more prone to degradation with tour-istic use, and the procedures to enhance the visit conditions and tourism attractiveness. What can be connected with the geological heritage features to be assessed, implying the selection of sites and the procedures related with the dimension of geo-sites (single spots, large areas, viewpoints). How respects with the methods to assess the tourism value, that can comprise qualitative or more quan-titative procedures and different criteria regarding the touristic use of the sites.

Recent studies in geoparks, supported in this ‘why, what and how’ approach (Pereira, Pereira 2012; Gonçalves 2013; Viveiros 2016), have re-vealed that the data obtained are essential tools to

geoconservation and geotourism strategies in ter-ritories where geotourism plays a substantial role. In that sense, similar assessment methodologies are being applied in Peneda-Gerês National Park in Portugal, a protected area with high standards in nature conservation but also with high tourism attractiveness (Afonso, Pereira 2018).

ReferencesAfonso, A., Pereira, P. 2018. Assessment of the geological

heritage tourism value in the Peneda-Gerês National Park (Portugal). (In this volume).

Brilha, J. 2016. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geo-sites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage, 8 (2), 119–134.

Doktor, M., Miś kiewicz, K., Welc, E., Mayer, W. 2015. Cri-teria of geotourism valorization specified for various recipients. Geotourism, 3–4 (42–43), 25–38.

Gonçalves, B. 2014. Avaliaç ã o do valor turí stico dos geo-ssí tios do Geoparque Terras de Cavaleiros. Master The-sis in Geological Heritage and Geoconservation, pp. 1–122. University of Minho.

Pereira, P., Pereira, D.I. 2010. Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment. Gé omorphologie: Re-lief, Processus, Environnement, 2, 215–222.

Pereira, P., Pereira, D.I. 2012. Assessment of geosites tour-ism value in geoparks: the example of Arouca Geopark (Portugal). In: A. Sá , D. Rocha, A. Paz, V. Correia, V. (Eds), Proceedings of the 11th European Geoparks Con-ference, Arouca, Portugal, September 19–21, p. 231–232. Associaç ã o Geoparque Arouca; Arouca.

Rybá r, P. 2010. Assessment of attractiveness (value) of geotouristic objects. Acta Geoturistica, 1 (2), 13–21.

Š trba, L., Rybá r, P. 2015. Revision of the ‘Assessment of at-tractiveness (value) of geotouristic objects’. Acta Geo-turistica, 6 (1), 30–40.

Valjarević , A., Vukoič ić , D., Valjarević , D. 2017. Evalua-tion of the tourist potential and natural attractivity of the Lukovska Spa. Tourism Management Perspectives, 22, 7–16.

Viveiros, C. 2016. Geotourism value of the Golden Geopark of Lapland (Finland) sites: assessment and promotion. Master Thesis in Geosciences, pp. 1–196. University of Minho.

135

Between geoconservation, tourism, education and local community involvement – the past, present and future of volcanic geosites

in the Land of Extinct Volcanoes (Pogórze Kaczawskie, SW Poland)

Edyta Pijet-Migoń1, Piotr Migoń2, Ewelina Rozpędowska3

1 Institute of Tourism, Wrocław School of Banking, Fabryczna 29-31, 53-609 Wrocław, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

2 University of Wrocław, Institute of Geography and Regional Development, Pl. Uniwersytecki 1, 50-137 Wrocław, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

3 Stowarzyszenie Kaczawskie, Sudecka Zagroda Edukacyjna, Dobków 66, 59-540 Świerzawa, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geosites, volcanic heritage, geotourism, geoeducation

Setting and outline of volcanic history: The re-gion of Pogórze Kaczawskie (Kaczawskie Upland) in south-west Poland, along with adjacent areas, is host to outcrops of volcanic rocks from different geological periods which are witnesses of various types of volcanic activity. The oldest volcanic rocks are those from the early Palaeozoic and testify to submarine volcanism in rift setting, whereas the youngest ones are Cenozoic basalts and related py-roclastic deposits (Birkenmajer 1967; Grocholski and Jerzmański 1975). Numerous quarries, mainly in basalt, expose internal structures of lava plugs and flows, including fine examples of columnar jointing. In addition, many volcanic outcrops are associated with distinctive geomorphological fea-tures at various scales, from kilometre-long ridges on early Palaeozoic greenschists through rhyolite domes, basaltic cones and cupolas, fluvial gorges cut into pillow lava greenschist to rock cliffs and periglacial basalt block fields (Migoń, Pijet-Migoń 2016). This clustering and visual dimension of vol-canic rocks and structure makes the region excep-tional in Poland.

Towards appreciation of volcanic heritage: The value of volcanic legacy, for both science and gen-eral public, was first brought to attention in the 1960s (Birkenmajer 1967), although it remained appreciated in rather restricted circles of geosci-entists. The first efforts to use them as tourist as-sets date back to the 1980s when a thematic ‘Trail of Extinct Volcanoes’ was marked. However, this initiative was not matched by any developments of interpretation facilities, apart from brief remarks in tourist guidebooks. In 1992 a part of the region was included into the Landscape Park ‘Chełmy’,

which is a category of protected areas in Poland, but the main focus was on biotic components of nature and ecological education. Nonetheless, geo-guidebooks and geotourist maps for general public were produced. Activities intensified in 2000s, with more active role played by represen-tatives of local communities and NGOs, and the phrase ‘Land of Extinct Volcanoes’ was selected as a brand name and promotional tool of the re-gion.

Current activities: Contemporary activities ex-plore several complementary approaches to show geoheritage to the general public, as highlighted by Hose (2012). First, geotourism is promoted through publications, advertisement, social me-dia etc. whereas on-site action includes marking of new hiking trails and erection of interpreta-tion panels at both ‘classic’ and viewpoint geo-sites. Tourists can sign up for specialist guided tours and workshops, typically focused on rocks and minerals. Second, geoeducation is developed (Pijet-Migoń 2016). The solid basis is provided by a new (opened in 2015) geoeducational cen-tre in the village of Dobków, in an old farmstead converted for this purpose. Volcanism is at the core of educational programmes offered by the centre. Third, geoconservation is implemented although this is most difficult to follow due to involvement of various parties, land use and land ownership issues, actual and potential conflicts with nature conservation and forestry practices etc. Nevertheless, notable developments of the last few years include vegetation removal from a few key exposures of columnar jointing in basalt, work towards inventory of all volcanic geosites and an



136

establishment of new protected area which elimi-nates the potential threat of quarrying resumption. A long-term goal is to fulfil criteria for member-ship in the UNESCO Global Geopark network and apply for this status.

Conclusions: The ‘Land of Extinct Volcanoes’ is an example of an area where the bottom-up approach to geoconservation, geoeducation and geotourism is consistently followed for over a de-cade. Volcanic geosites are the principal assets of the region and future efforts should be focused on their proper documentation and development for tourism purposes, without jeopardizing their geoheritage values. The current experience shows that two main issues to resolve are providing easy and safe access and to combat uncontrolled veg-etation growth which in the humid temperate en-vironment of Poland can quickly hide valuable natural features.

ReferencesBirkenmajer, K. 1967. Bazalty dolnośląskie jako zabytki

przyrody nieożywionej (Lower Silesian basalts as mon-uments of inanimate nature). Ochrona Przyrody, 32, 225–276. (In Polish with English summary).

Grocholski, A., Jerzmański, J. 1975. Zabytki paleowul-kanizmu na Dolnym Śląsku w świetle ochrony przy-rody (Paleovolcanic occurrence in the Lower Silesia in the light of nature protection). Ochrona Przyrody, 40, 291–340. (In Polish with English summary).

Hose, T.A. 2012. 3G’s for modern geotourism. Geoheritage, 4, 7–24.

Migoń, P., Pijet-Migoń, E. 2016. Overlooked geomorpho-logical component of volcanic geoheritage – diversity and perspectives for tourism industry, Pogórze Kacza-wskie region, SW Poland. Geoheritage, 8, 333–350.

Pijet-Migoń, E. 2016. Geoturystyka – nowe możliwości wy-korzystania dziedzictwa Ziemi w turystyce. Studium przypadku Krainy Wygasłych Wulkanów w Sudetach Zachodnich (Geotourism – new opportunities to use geo-heritage for tourism development. Case study of Land of Extinct Volcanoes in the West Sudetes). Ekonomiczne Problemy Turystyki, 1 (33), 301–312. (In Polish with En-glish summary).

137

Brymbo: Derelict former steelworks to internationally important geoconservation and geotourism site

Raymond Roberts

Natural Resources Wales, Chester Road, Buckley, CH7 3AJ, UK; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: fossil forest, geoconservation, geotourism

Introduction: Brymbo Fossil Forest is a relatively small area of Duckmantian age (Carboniferous) deposits near Wrexham, North Wales, which has been safeguarded by Natural Resources Wales un-der UK legislation as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). During reclamation of the vast for-mer steelworks in 2005 excavations revealed a rich area of exceptionally preserved fossil plants. The flora included Calamites, Stigmaria and lycophytes in growth position, together with a varied com-pression flora of ferns, cones, fruiting bodies and leaves (Appleton et al. 2011). Planning permission had been granted to completely excavate the site to provide clean overburden to cap the contaminated areas of the site. However, following the discovery of numerous large lycophytes and their identifi-

cation by local geologists, the developers stopped excavating this area and agreed to safeguard the fossil forest as part of the wider Heritage Area. The Heritage Area also comprises a suite of industrial buildings recording more than 200 years of min-eral exploitation, including a blast furnace from the 1790s, a foundry, pattern shop and coal mine.

Conservation challenges: Since its discovery the main challenges have been not only how to protect this fragile fossil resource but also how to make the site accessible for researchers and visitors. Threats include the weather. Coal Measure deposits are particularly susceptible to weathering (Thomas 2016), illicit collecting and vandalism. Parts of the site were covered by geotextile and sand in 2006,


Fig. 1. Lepidodendron and Stigmaria of a giant clubmoss revealed during excavations at the Brymbo Steelworks in 2005 where a section of the ‘trunk’ has already been removed. The complete fossil was removed to a secure location to protect from vandals and the weather, and allow conservation work prevent further deterioration of the specimen. This specimen was the highlight of an exhibition in the local museum and will form the centrepiece of on-site interpretation when the project develops. Photograph by Peter Appleton.


138

but it was prohibitively expensive to cover the whole site and further protection measures were needed. The importance of the fossils was rec-ognised almost immediately, and the site was reg-istered as a Regionally Important Geodiversity Site soon after its discovery, included in the Geological Conservation Review (GCR) in 2013 (Cleal, Thomas 1995) and notified as a SSSI in 2015, con-firming its national importance and providing pro-tection under UK legislation. There have already been significant discoveries at the site (Thomas 2013; Thomas, Seyfullah 2015), but following noti-fication of the site it was decided that there would be no further excavation until a permanent solu-tion was found to cover the site. Material already collected and rescued from the site (see Fig. 1) was moved to the National Museum Wales (NMW) for specialist conservation work (Appleton et al. 2015; Roberts et al. 2016). Other protective measures included security fencing which was paid for by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) through a SSSI management agreement with the landowner.

World-class visitor attraction: A key part of protecting the fossil resource at Brymbo has been the strong community engagement, support by na-tional agencies such as NRW, NMW, Wrexham County Borough Council and the involvement of key academics. All parties, including major funders such as the Heritage Lottery Fund, rec-ognise that the fossil forest is the unique selling point of the Heritage Area and the importance of covering the site to allow safe and protected exca-vation of the finite resource. It is this partnership and a clear vision that has secured multi-million

pound funding to develop the concept of a world class visitor attraction to interpret the 300 mil-lion year old story of the Carboniferous plants and industrial heritage at Brymbo. The development of the site as a financially viable and sustainable visitor attraction is now in sight. Recent funding has allowed the employment of staff who will lead on the development of the fossil forest, including the construction of a building over part of the site, a collecting strategy and the development of edu-cational resources.

ReferencesCleal, C.J., Thomas, B.A. 1995. Palaeozoic palaeobotany

of Great Britain. The Geological Conservation Review Series, 9, pp. 1–295. Chapman and Hall; London.

Appleton, P., Malpas, J., Thomas, B.A., Cleal, C.J. 2011. The Brymbo Fossil Forest. Geology Today, 27, 109–113.

Thomas, B.A. 2013. In situ stems: preservation states and growth habits of the Pennsylvanian (Carboniferous) calamitaleans based upon new studies of Calamites Sternberg, 1820 in the Duckmantian at Brymbo, North Wales, UK. Palaeontology, 57, 21–36.

Appleton, P., Buttler, C., Roberts, R. 2015 Making the most of Brymbo’s plant fossils. Earth Heritage Magazine, 43, 7–9.

Thomas, B. 2015. Stigmaria Brongniart: a new specimen from Duckmantian (Lower Pennsylvanian) Brymbo (Wrexham, North Wales) together with a review of known casts and how they are preserved. Geological Magazine, 152, 871–901

Roberts, R., Appleton, P., Buttler, C. 2016. Root and branch reform for Brymbo fossil. Earth Heritage Magazine, 45, 7–9.

Thomas, B.A. 2016. A Carboniferous Fossil Forest in North Wales: Problems and Potentials Associated with Devel-oping and Conserving a ‘Soft-Rock’ Site. Geoheritage, 8 (4), 401–406.

139

Geological context of geosites

Afat Serjani

ProGEO, Albania; e-mail: [email protected]

Key words: Albania, geosites, geological context

In this presentation I will be concentrating in geo-logical context of geological sites in Albania, during all past geological periods. General features of the geology of Albania are conditioned by the history of the evolution together with neighboring countries.

The geodiversity concept includes geological and geomorphologic aspect of the natural heritage, while geological sites represent rare, unique, and pattern unrepeatable phenomena, reflecting during a separate geological period, in a separate territory, the history of the Earth Crust. Geological sites can be grouped according their values in global, continental, regional, national and local ones. Geomorphologic geosites and landforms constitute the largest group, may be in every country, and they are used for tourism and geotourism, because they first of all reflect aesthetic view (Serjani et al. 2003). Geological and geomorphologic context of every geosite, in most cases it is not known, or not discovered. That is why we think, that it is the time to put an innovative approach of concepts of geoheritage and geotourism. Last years, for the first time in Albania, the concept of geo-eco-sys-tems was appeared (Serjani 2011). According to this concept the special areas, where are located together, geodiversity and biodiversity can be de-fined and named as geo-eco-systems. The promo-tion of the new concepts linked with geodiversity within ProGEO members and commonly in soci-ety we consider a current duty.

Albania, due to its geographical and geologi-cal position in Eastern Alpine Mediterranean Belt, and due to its young mountainous relief, it is rich in special geological phenomena, which constitute geological sites. They not can be repeated. They must be discovered, documented in scientific man-ner, used and protected. The first impression when we are watching a geological site it is to imagine his history of the past, his back ground.

On 2014 I have done new list of geosites in Albania (Serjani 2014). There are in total 582 geo-logical sites, from which were selected 60 geologi-cal sites of regional importance.

General features of the geology of Albania are conditioned by the evolution during the past geo-logical periods, together with neighboring coun-tries, with which it has shared the continuation of tectogenesis, magmatic, geological structures, paleogeography, sedimentary sequences, and met-amorphic processes.

The oldest geosites in Albania were formed during Silurian–Ordovician, when Albanian ter-ritory was part of Gondwana. Traces of Hercynian tectogenesis during late Paleozoic are found in Korabi (Pelagonian) and Gashi zones, represented by Permian sequences of reddish conglomerates known as ‘Verucano Serie’ in Northern Italy. That period coincides in time with the division of Pangea by Hercynian Appalachian System.

During Triassic–Lower Jurassic period in all over nowadays Mediterranean territories, were formed carbonate rocks. Albanian territory was located at the division contact of Pangea, between two orogenic belts. To this period belong Triassic the first findings of ammonites in Kcira, Puka re-gion (Nopsca 1911). Albanian territory was in an extension stage, and some underwater break in sedimentation, ‘Hard Ground’ type geosites were formed, in Ionian, and in Albanian Alps zones.

In Albania there are found traces of the Hercinian tectogenesis, while the Alpine tectogen-esis, during which were formed the most part of geological sites, is expressed in full its form.

During Cimmerian Orogeny, were formed Mirdita ophiolites, representing a laboratory for study of magmatic and volcanic rocks. In Mirdita ophiolite zone there are found and documented many geological sites of the regional importance. Mirdita ophiolites are of classical stratification. Mantel harzburgite-dunite of the Eastern Belt is rich in chromite ore, where is prospected and ex-ploring Bulqiza chromite deposit, a unique geosite, concerning the morphology of folded ore body. In Mirdita zone there are located regional geosites: Gzhiq-Shenmeri oceanic spreading, represented by volcanic rocks with pillow lavas, Gjegjan-



140

Kalimash-Runa petrologic sequences of ultra basic and basic rocks, one of best sections amongst the Mediterranean and Alpine chains from Pyreneans to Pamir and Himalayan (Serjani 1967), Bregu Bibes as a typically genetic association of PGE and Fe-Ni-Cu-Cr, Kaçinar-Munella-Domgjon sheeted dyke complex, Derveni eglogites, which can be compared with outcrops in Algeria and Morocco, Gziqi-Shenpal radiolarite beds of oceanic crust, representing the top of magmatic activity in Mirdita zone (Serjani, Neziraj 2000).

Alpine tectogenesis, beginning since the Early Neogen, it is represented and documentated widely in all territory of Albania. Molases of Pre Adriatic Depression (PAD) and inner depressions in Mirdita zone, are a rare example all over Mediterranean. Dinaride-Albaniade-Hellenice folded Belt, was compressed between Balkanides east and Apulian microplate west. Submeridional geological struc-tures there are crossed by the Shkoder-Peja (Scutari-Pec) transversal fault, which divided Dinarides north from Albanides-Helenides south. Shkoder-Peja fault it is thought to have been formed since the Kimmerigian phase of folding. By the influence of compression, on both sides of the Shkoder-Peja fault, huge foldings in Cukali Zone, north (Komani tectonically-structural geosite), and in Kabashi ul-tramafic massif (Kabashi structural geosite), were originated.

The front of African foreland outcrops just in Llogara, where is the contact between African Plate (Adria Microplate) and Orogen, while in central and northern Albania there are documentated some re-gional overthrust tectonics of inner structures east on the external structures west. The most part of them constitute geosites. In Korabi zone, evaporate sheet tapers gently upward to the surface, forming

large White Mountain and Bellova salt domes of regular isometric form, rounded by flysch forma-tion, while, in Ionian zone, the evaporate eruption (pier cement) happened mainly along with longitu-dinal faults, into their crossing knots with regional transverse ones. Just in tectonic knots were formed salt diapirs in Ionian zone, and volcanic and meta-morphic rocks, representing single example all over Ionian zone in Albania and Greece.

The most part of geomorphologic sites and landscapes in Albania were formed during late tectonic and new tectonic stage, which have played main role in uplifting and relief formation Geological-geomorphologic sites, which constitute the biggest group, there were formed during four main geomorphologic cycles, given in details in this presentation.

ReferencesNopcsa, F. 1929. Geographie und Geologie Nordalbanien.

Geologica Hungarica, Series Geologica, 3, 1–704.Serjani, A. 1967. Stratification of Kukesi ultrabasic massif.

Buletini Universitetit Shteteror Tirane, serie Shkencat Natyrore, 4, 60–71.

Serjani, A., Neziraj, A. 2000. The First Inventory of Geo-logical Sites of Albania, Abstract Book, p. 1–2. Edited by Peter Budil; Prague.

Serjani, A., Neziraj, A., Wimbledon, W.A.P., Onuzi, K., Hallaci, H., Bushati, S. 2003. Geological Heritage Con-servation and Geotourism in Albania, pp. 1–133. Marin Barleti; Tirana.

Serjani, A. 2011. Limestone Aquifers and Karst Geo-Eco-Systems in Albania. Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Limestone Hydrogeology, Besançon, France, September 1–3, 2011, p. 443–446.

Serjani, A. 2014. Regional Geological Sites of Albania. In: Congress of Carpathian Balkan Geological Association Congress, Tirana, Albania, 24–26 September 2014, p. 303–306.

141

‘Watch over a rock’, a Spanish programme towards geosite stewardship

Juana Vegas1, Ana Cabrera1, Ángel Prieto1, Andres Díez-Herrero1, Ángel García-Cortés1, Enrique Díaz-Martínez1, Luis Carcavilla1, Ángel Salazar1

1 Geological Survey of Spain (IGME), Ríos Rosas 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: geoconservation, education, public, geosite, stewardship

Introduction: A public stewardship programme: ‘Watch over a rock’ or ‘Adopt a rock’ is a national volunteering programme[1] established in 2017 by the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME) to promote the conservation of Spanish geoheritage through a follow-up stewardship system. The original idea was launched in 2011 at a local level by the Geology Association of Segovia to promote the stewardship of geosites in this province (Vegas et al. 2012; Díez-Herrero et al. 2012; Gutiérrez-Pérez et al. 2015), and now, under this new national pro-gramme, it extends to all the Geological Sites of Interest (LIG) in Spain undertaken by the institu-tion in charge of geoconservation at the national level. Through a simple registration system, any person may watch over a place of geological inter-est that, for its scientific, educational or touristic value, that person thinks it is worthwhile to be pre-served. Their motivation to watch over it does not matter: because it is close to their town or where they spend vacations and go there frequently, be-cause they have studied it, or simply because they like it. Any reason is good to encourage them to do so. Once they accept being a ‘godfather or god-mother of a rock’ (strict translation of the Spanish motto ‘Apadrina una roca’), they accept a min-imum commitment with the LIG, which greatly helps its conservation: they must watch over the site and care for it.

A personal compromise towards geoconserva-tion: Each person accepting to watch over a geo-site contributes to ensure its conservation with the following compromises: (1) To accept the reg-ulation of norms and obligations that imply to be registered as a volunteer in the programme; (2) To inform IGME of any threat or incident that may occur at the site; if any anomaly is detected, such as e.g. destruction or plundering of miner-als or fossils, the volunteer should write to an e-mail address ([email protected]) and

to a regional coordinator (if already established) indicating the name of the volunteer and the iden-tification of the LIG; as soon as possible, the per-son is contacted and requested to report on the details of the incident through a form enabled for that purpose; (3) To visit, at least once annually, the geological site of interest that is the object of the stewardship. IGME will ask all volunteers once a year, between 1st of October and 30th of November, their opinion on the state of conserva-tion and the observation conditions regarding the geosites they have adopted.

At the same time, in return for the volunteers, there are several benefits: (1) Technical advice for the presentation of allegations (legal charges) against possible threats or incidents that volunteers may have observed during their stewardship; (2) Periodic information on talks, courses and meet-ings for the exchange of experiences, which will be organized for godparents, and last but not least (3) The best reward that volunteers receive is knowing that they are an active part of nature conserva-tion and that their task and efforts are recognized and acknowledged in the National Inventory of Geological Sites of Interest (IELIG).

Organization and national coordination: To sign up for the program, volunteers only have to search in the geosite (LIG) database of IGME, select on the map the LIG they want to protect, and click on the ‘Apadrina’ button. This takes them to a simple registration form, in which they only have to pro-vide some basic data. The program is applicable to most geosites but not all of them, as some LIG are confidential and information on their location is not readily available to the public.

The coordination of the program is carried out from the Department of Geological Heritage and Mining Heritage of the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME) in a generic way for the national territory, and by the regional authorities in those regions



142

(autonomous communities) that have adhered to it. At the moment, out of the four regions that have an official inventory incorporated into the IELIG (Catalonia, Andalusia, the Basque Country, and Aragon), the LIG located in the autonomous com-munities of Andalusia and the Basque Country can already be adopted. In the remaining 13 Spanish autonomous communities, and Ceuta and Melilla, it will also soon be possible to adopt LIG, but in these cases the management belongs to IGME. In those cases in which the autonomous community of the LIG to adopt has its own incident manage-ment system, the volunteer person is redirected to their web page through a link, and the alerts and follow-up reports are managed directly by the re-gional administration.

ReferencesDíez-Herrero, A., Gutiérrez-Pérez, I., Vegas Salamanca, J.

2012. ‘Apadrina una roca’, una iniciativa de voluntariado popular para la conservación del patrimonio geológico. Geo-Temas, 13 (1–4), p. 388.

Gutiérrez-Pérez, I., Díez-Herrero, A., Vegas, J. 2015. En-señanzas de los tres primeros años de funcionamien-to de la iniciativa de geoconservación ‘Apadrina una roca’. Cuadernos del Museo Geominero, 18, 251–256.

Vegas, J., Gutiérrez Pérez, I., Díez-Herrero, A. 2012. ‘Apa-drina una roca’, una iniciativa de voluntariado popular para la conservación del patrimonio geológico. 11o Con-greso Nacional de Medio Ambiente (CONAMA 2012), Madrid, p. 16.

Internet sources[1] Patrimonio Geológico y Minero, http://www.igme.es/pa-

trimonio/ApadrinaUnaRoca.htm

143

POSTERS

Assessment of the geological heritage tourism value in the Peneda-Gerês National Park (Northern Portugal): a site selection

Andreia Afonso, Paulo Pereira

Earth Sciences Institute, Pole of the University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: geological heritage, geodiversity, geosites, tourism value, assessment, Peneda-Gerês National Park, Portugal

Geological and geomorphological settings: Peneda-Gerês National Park (PGNP) is the only national park of the highest status for protected areas in Portugal. It was classified and established in 1971, on the area of 70,920 ha, where remark-able geological, biological, and cultural features appear. The park extend through Peneda, Amarela and Gerês mountains and through five municipal-ities, namely Melgaço, Arcos de Valdevez, Ponte da Barca, Terras de Bouro and Montalegre. The highest point is in the Gerês Mountain and reaches 1,545 m a.s.l. Granitic rocks formed during the Variscan Orogeny (290–296 Ma ago) predomi-nate in the geology of the park. Within that, the Peneda-Gerê s is the most representative granitic pluton there in the park. The massif is poorly cov-ered by vegetation and it is chacterised by vigor-ous landforms. Some intrusive rocks (for example pegmatites) occur in narrow areas of the granite massifs, as dykes and sills, crosscutting the over-lying rocks. In the past, mining exploration of tin, tungsten, molybdenum and gold was undertaken in these dykes leading to the destruction of a sig-nificant part of the mineralogical heritage of the park. An intense network of fractures and weath-ering of granite rocks forms various landforms of different size and shape (tors, gnammas, cas-tle-kopje, bornhardts). The main faults and frac-ture systems are also related with the occurrence of hot springs inside the PGNP area. Typical gla-cial landforms occur as cirques (e.g. Coucelinho), U-shaped valleys (e.g. Homem, Alto Vez, Ribeira das Negras), polished and striated granite surfaces and several moraines. These are evidences of the low altitude glaciations that occurred in the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula during the last 1.8

million years, influenced by the nearby Atlantic Ocean humidity.

The geodiversity is also the basis of the rich bio-diversity in the region. Several endemic plant and animal species and the landscape related with the geodiversity features make the PGNP area worth the status of national park and a reference in nature tourism attractiveness scale, both at national and international level.

Aims: Organizing and regulating the increasing nature tourism activities in PGNP are therefore relevant management tasks. The need to preserve the most valuable geoheritage features requires to focus tourism activities in places where po-tential damages can be contained or minimized. Therefore, the tourism value of PGNP geological heritage is being assessed and this work presents the first results of this assessment, namely the se-lection of geosites with the highest potential tour-ism value.

Discussion: The scarce number of works regard-ing the tourism value assessment may reflect a little attention given to this subject in geoconser-vation or geotourism topics. Our approach follows these proposals with emphasis on some specific criteria for geosites evaluation in terms of tour-istic use (i.e. accessibility, visibility, safety, sig-nage, cleanliness, logistics, current use) (Pereira, Pereira 2012; Gonçalves 2014; Viveiros 2016). A comprehensive inventory of the PGNP geologi-cal heritage doesn’t exist. There exist inventories carried on previously in the PGNP that refer only to a part of the territory, or only to a certain type of geological heritage, such as geomorphosites. Therefore, a list of 170 sites was selected, based on



144

these inventories and a quantitative assessment for each site has been made.

Results: Five criteria have been then applied, namely: (1) Presence of visitors during summer-time or in footpath activities; (2) Promotion on institutional or tourism webpages and blogs; (3) References and promotion in publications such as leaflets, brochures, tourism guides and books; (4) Promotion in PGNP and municipality interpretative centers; (5) Aesthetics of the site. The latter one, be-ing a very subjective criterion, is considered essen-tially for the landscape and photographic potential of the sites. Each criterion was assessed and scored with 0 to 5 points with a maximum of 25 points per site. A number of 19 sites obtained a score of 15 or more points, being selected due to their highest potential tourism value. A more detailed quanti-

tative assessment will be carried on in a future, to determine possible valorisation procedures and geoconservation strategies.

ReferencesGonçalves, B. 2014. Avaliaç ã o do valor turí stico dos geo-

ssí tios do Geoparque Terras de Cavaleiros, Master The-sis in Geological Heritage and Geoconservation, pp. 1–122. University of Minho. (In Portuguese).

Pereira, P., Pereira, D.I. 2012. Assessment of geosites tour-ism value in geoparks: the example of Arouca Geopark (Portugal). In: A. Sá , D. Rocha, A. Paz, V. Correia (Eds), Proceedings of the 11th European Geoparks Conference, Arouca, Portugal, September 19–21, 2012, p. 231–232. Associaç ã o Geoparque Arouca; Arouca.

Viveiros, C. 2016. Geotourism value of the Golden Geopark of Lapland (Finland) sites: assessment and promotion, Master Thesis in Geosciences, pp. 1–196. University of Minho.

145

Conservation and sustainable recreational use of unique ecosystems of the Burabay State National Nature Park (Northern Kazakhstan)

Farida Akiyanova1, Fariza Adilbekova1, Aksholpan Atalikhova1, Zulfira Jussupova1, Aliya Simbatova1, Maxim Dolbeshkin1, Nurzhan Akishev1

1 International Science Complex ‘Astana’, Kabanbay Batyr av. 8, of. 404, Z05HOT3 Astana, Kazakhstan; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: Natural Park, forest ecosystems, tourism, sustainable development

Current situation: One of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidelines for the management of protected areas is a necessity of preservation their landscape features, geology and geomorphology. The Burabay National Park (Akmola Region, Northern Kazakhstan) opened in 2000, directly meets these principles. It is un-usual geological and geomorphological area in the steppe zone which includes Middle Paleozoic granite massif with a system of freshwater and saltwater lakes and relict mountain forest ecosys-tems with a high biological diversity (Akiyanova 1998). The recreational and therapeutic potential of the territory has been noticed in the last century, but increase of tourist and recreational use, accom-panied by uncontrolled exploitation and excessive anthropogenic pressure on natural ecosystems, has been observed during the last 20–25 years. For purposes of unique ecosystems sustainable man-agement, the Shchuchinsk-Borovoye Resort Area with a total area of 159.9 thousand hectares was established in 2005. Since that time the number of visitors has been increasing by 10–15% per year, and in 2016–2017 it has risen up to 25% [1]. Visitors, who did not use the official placements services, are not included in this statistics. In ac-cordance with the Shchuchinsk-Borovoye Resort Area development plan for 2020, it is planned to develop intensively a tourist infrastructure in aim to increase the flow of tourists. This will lead to undesired ecological pressure. Considering the fact that the ecosystems involved in the tourist – recre-ational process vary in resistance to anthropogenic impact, it is necessary to calculate recreational ca-pacity of the Shchuchinsk-Borovoye Resort Area in order to ensure its adequate use for years.

Ecological risks: The intense development of tour-ist infrastructure has had a negative influence on

the mountain forest ecosystems of Shchuchinsk-Borovoye Resort Area as shown by the moni-toring results of the Republican State Enterprise ‛Kazhydromet’ (2017)[2]. Several ecological risks have been detected in this area. They are the fol-lowing ones:

Air, water and soil pollution. Despite of the fact that the air pollution is on a low level, an ex-cess of the maximum permissible concentration (MPC) for individual elements has been observed. Observations of water quality of ten Shchuchinsk-Borovoye Resort Area lakes have revealed in them an excess of the MPC, ranging from a moderate to extremely high pollution level. Additionally, some disturbances of lakes hydrological regime have been observed. Soils studies have shown an excess of the MPC of heavy metal pollution in Borovoye and Shchuchinsk lakes shores in the spring and autumn seasons.

The relict mountain forests degradation prob-lem. The decrease in forest area had been driven by the human activities such as forest felling, fires, grazing and recreation, resulting in forest areas significant decrease and turning into the sparse woods or even disappearance. Relict and unique forest ecosystems restoration is a complex and time-consuming process. For example, it took 500 years to restore relict boxwood forests in Russia.

Biodiversity conservation problem. A num-ber of 840 species of embryophytes grow on the territory of Burabay National Park, about 100 of them require protection and 11 are listed in the Red Book of Kazakhstan. There are 279 species of vertebrates growing in Burabay National Park, of which 15 species need special protection, including 11 ‘Red Book’ species.

Impact of climate change. Global climate change affects the environment and ecosystems of the



146

territory of Shchuchinsk-Borovoye Resort Area. Observations of the climatic conditions show an increasing trend of average annual ground air tem-perature, from October to July. In addition, forest felling caused by storm force winds, has become more frequent.

Sustainable nature management recommen-dations: Shchuchinsk-Borovoye Resort Area is a unique sanatorium, resort and recreational area with well-preserved landscapes of the past. It is an invaluable ecosystem capital and has a high investment potential. To solve aforementioned en-vironmental risks, the scientific research is carried out in aim to: (1) Assess the current state of eco-systems; (2) Assess the level of current ecological loads and the degree of anthropogenic disturbance of ecosystems; (3) Determine their ecological and recreational capacity, and the optimal tourist load; and (4) Preserve and protect the ecosystems.

The research uses a complex ecosystem ap-proach that allows to consider interrelation and interaction between some components of the Shchuchinsk-Borovoye Resort Area natural envi-ronment. The proposed ecosystem approach allows to preserve and reasonably use the unique ecosys-tems of the Shchuchinsk-Borovoye Resort Area at present and in the future. Analysis of the distribu-tion of ecological and recreational loads in different seasons in relation to climate changes, will allow to normalize the tourist pressure during the year.

Based on the research results, a set of recom-

mendations for sustainable nature management with a focus on the development of recreation and tourism will be formulated for Shchuchinsk-Borovoye Resort Area by the research group. The recommendations will be introduced in Burabay National Park and regional government bod-ies. The geoportal ‘Ecosystems of Shchuchinsk-Borovoye Resort Area: monitoring, conservation, tourist and recreational use’ will be created by the research group as a digital information resource for the development of tourism.

ReferencesAkiyanova, F. 1998. Modern geomorphogenesis and relief-

forming processes of Borovsky Massif of Kokshetau. In: I. Severskiy (Ed.), Geographical bases of sustainable de-velopment of the Republic of Kazakhstan, p. 333–338. Gylym; Almaty.

Internet sources[1] Committee on Statistics of the Ministry of National Econ-

omy of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 2017. Information bulletin on the activities of placements in the Republic of Kazakhstan for January–September 2017, pp. 1–26. http://stat.gov.kz/faces/wcnav_externalId/homeNumbersTour-ism?lang=ru&_afrLoop=9212926803601036#%40%3F_afrLoop%3D9212926803601036%26lang%3Dru%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D121pq8m7aw_111.

[2] Republican State Enterprise ‛Kazhydromet’ of the Min-istry of Energy of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 2017. In-formation bulletin on the state of the environment of the Shchuchinsk-Borovoye resort area, 6, pp. 1–176. https://kazhydromet.kz/en/bulleten/okrsreda?year=2017.

147

Geosites of the Sakhalin and Moneron: geotourism development

Аntonina А. Alenicheva1, Ljudmila R. Semenova1

1 A.P. Karpinsky Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI), Sredny prospect 74, St. Petersburg, Russia; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: Sakhalin, Moneron, Russia, volcanic landscapes, geotourism

Introduction: The paper presents the geological heritage sites of Sakhalin and Moneron islands as a basis for promoting scientific and educational pro-grams and geotourism development. Sakhalin is a large Russian island in the North Pacific Ocean. It is located in the Far East of Russia between 45°50’ and 54°24’ N. Various natural objects: mud volca-noes, thermal springs, waterfalls and quaint rocks on Sakhalin are recognized as objects of geologi-cal heritage (geosites) and have a protected status (Karpunin et al. 1998). The most significant of them were officially registered by a Sakhalin re-gional government of the Russian Federation as regional nature monuments. Moneron Island is a small island located in the Tartar Strait. Moneron (7.2 km long and 5.6 km wide) is about 44 km west from the nearest coast of Sakhalin.

Sakhalin geosites: Yuzhno-Sakhalin mud volcano has special educational and scientific importance

as tectonic and hydrogeological geosite. It is a flat cone of methane and carbon dioxide ejection. Mud volcano is composed of mudstones, siltstones and sandstones containing fragments of the Upper Cretaceous ammonite shells. There are several gas conduction cones with griffins in the central part of the volcanic construction. ‘Breathing’ craters rise above the ground only 20–40 cm. The tem-perature of the mud mass is not higher than the temperature of the surrounding soil. The last vol-cano eruption was recorded relatively recently – in June 2011.

Moneron geosites: Moneron Island is Russia’s first marine natural park that received a protected sta-tus in 1995. This natural park is an environmental and scientific research site, which is regulated by the Federal Law ‘On Specially Protected Natural Territories’. The Moneron Island biological diversity represented by marine fauna is of particular value.


Fig. 1. Extrusion basalt columnar jointing of the Moneron Island. Photograph by Antonina A. Aleni cheva.


148

Objects of geological heritage of thr Moneron Island are not less valuable and need conservation. Miocene and Pliocene volcanic rocks are involved in the geo-logical structure of the Moneron Island. During the Moneron Expedition carried out in 2016 by Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI[1]), the au-thor and her colleagues performed a geological route across the island. They examined volcanic bedrock and made sampling for the analytical investigation. The geological sites of the Moneron Island represent various geomorphological types. There is a variety of volcanic landforms on the island: basalt dikes and extrusions, and the basalt columnar jointing (Fig. 1). There are beach placers of agates on the Sivych Cape, products of the Neogene hydrothermal activ-ity (Zharov 2001).

Conclusions: Tourist complex was opened on the Moneron Island in 2008, yet at present, geotourism is not well developed. Geosites are not equipped of

any viewing platforms nor on-site interpretive pan-els for explains the nature of geology. Volcanic ar-eas with unique landscapes are available for study and observation mainly to a small circle of experts: geologists, scientists and rare tourists. The devel-opment of geological tourism requires support at the federal level.

ReferencesKarpunin, A.M., Mamonov, C.V., Mironenko, O.A., Sokolov,

A.R. 1998. In: V.P. Orlov (Ed.), Geological Nature Monu-ments of Russia. Natural heritage of Russia, pp. 1–295. Lorien Publisher; Saint Petersburg. (In Russian).

Zharov, A.E. 2001. Russian Federation State Geological Map at a scale of 1:200,000. Nomenclature Sheets L-54-X–XII, XVI–XVIII, XXII, XXIII. Explanatory Notes. St. Petersburg.

Internet sources[1] www.vsegei.ru

149

The establishment of geoconservation standards: the ProGEO glossary of geoconservation terms

José Brilha

University of Minho, Earth Sciences Department, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geoconservation, terminology, standards, geoheritage

The recent comprehensive book about geoheritage edited by Reynard and Brilha (2018) presents a compilation of chapters written by geoconserva-tionists from all over the world. Some of the chap-ters clearly show that the scientific terminology used by this community is still not uniform. It is possible to get the same perception in international meetings, such as the International Geological Congress (IUGS), the General Assembly of the European Geosciences Union, or the International Conferences on UNESCO Global Geoparks. This situation is due to the fact that geoconservation is still a young branch of geosciences, with a small scientific community and with a low number of scientific organisations dealing with this topic (Henriques, Brilha 2011).

The European Association for the Conservation of Geological Heritage (ProGEO) is one of the few organisations in the world dedicated to geocon-servation. In spite being a European NGO, today ProGEO is recognised worldwide. The vast ex-perience of ProGEO and of its members can be used to contribute to the establishment of a com-mon terminology of geoconservation terms. Such a glossary in English language (later translated into other languages) can be an effective contribution for the setup of international geoconservation stan-dards, to be adopted in the future by all relevant organisations that are active on geoconservation.

A preliminary work has already started in ProGEO. In 2011, ProGEO has published the doc-ument ‘Conserving our shared geoheritage – a protocol on geoconservation principles, sustain-able site use, management, fieldwork, fossil and mineral collecting’ (available at www.progeo.ngo)

and in 2017 the leaflet ‘Geodiversity, geoheritage and geoconservation: the ProGEO simple guide’ (available in the same website in English, French, and Spanish versions). Both documents present some of the main concepts used in geoconserva-tion and that could be accepted by the international community.

In order to expand this work, the Executive Committee of ProGEO has started the preparation of a glossary of geoconservation terms in April 2016. Since that time, members of this committee have been participating actively in e-mail discus-sions, not only to select which terms should be included in the glossary, but also to write the most appropriate definitions. Rapidly it was revealed that, even inside this committee, there were di-vergent views about certain definitions. This was a clear sign that such a glossary is really needed, not only for the international community but also to set a common language inside ProGEO. Before publish a final version, a draft of this glossary will be distributed to the association’s membership in order to receive eventual improvements.

The celebration in 2018 of the 25th anniversary of the formal foundation of ProGEO could be a great opportunity for this NGO to offer a gift to the international geoconservation community.

ReferencesHenriques, M.H., Brilha, J. 2017. UNESCO Global Geo-

parks: a strategy towards global understanding and sus-tainability. Episodes, 40 (4), 349–355.

Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds) 2018. Geoheritage: assessment, protection and management, pp. 1–450. Elsevier; Am-sterdam.



150

3D geological models for promoting geoheritage:the Messinian atoll reef of Santa Pola (SE Spain)

Hugo Corbí1, Francisco Asensio-Montesinos2, Antonio Abellán3, Vicent Pardo4, Javier Martínez-Martínez5

1 Department of Earth Sciences and the Environment, University of Alicante, Apdo. Correos 99, 03080 San Vicente del Raspeig, Alicante, Spain; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Marine and Environmental Sciences, Cádiz University, Spain; e-mail: [email protected]

3 School of Earth and Environment, Faculty of Environment, University of Leeds, UK; e-mail: [email protected] Department of Marine Science and Applied Biology, University of Alicante, Apdo. Correos 99, 03080 San Vicente del

Raspeig, Alicante, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Geological Survey of Spain (IGME), Ríos Rosas 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geoheritage, 3D Geomodel, outreach, coral reef, Mediterranean area

Introduction: The Messinian coral reef (atoll type) of Santa Pola cape (province of Alicante, SE Spain, western Mediterranean area) is one of the most rele-vant geosites from the Neogene record of southeast-ern Spain (Corbí , Yé benes 2012; Corbí et al. 2018). Its scientific and didactic value has been reported in various geosites inventories and catalogues: (1) Geosite (Spanish Geosite Inventory (LIG) car-ried out by the Geological and Mining Institute of Spain), and (2) Palaeontological catalogue of the Community of Valencia. The implemented quanti-tatively assessment methodologies recently carried out by Corbí et al. (2018) evidence that this excep-tionally relevant scientific geosite also has a high didactic and tourism-recreational potential.

Geological context: The Santa Pola Messinian coral reef is located in the northern Bajo Segura basin, a western Mediterranean Neogene basin of the eastern Betic Cordillera. The current relief shows the original morphology of the atoll, provid-ing excellent outcrops where the three-dimensional geometry of the different parts of the coral reef can be recognized. In the reef complex, three sedimen-tary environments can be distinguished: (1) The reef front (semi-circular ledge defining Santa Pola mountain) – has notable regularly spaced channels as well as regularly distributed buttresses along the entire reef crest; it is almost exclusively domi-nated by Porites genera, which assemblages show clear morphological zoning (dishes or plate-like zone, branching zone of finger-like morphologies more or less branched, and massive coral zone); it is especially noticeable that fan-shaped Halimeda

packstones developed in front of the channels; (2) The reef slope – which spreads from the reef front to the ancient open platform; it coincides with the current slope, and thus the deposits are partially covered by rocks fallen in more recent times in subaerial conditions; and (3) Lagoon or back reef zone – formed mostly by reef patches and calcaren-ites with Halimeda and bivalves.

3D geological models: In this contribution differ-ent 3D Geomodels have been developed in order to promote and disseminate to general public the significant geoscientific and didactic value of the geosite. The implemented 3D Geomodels repre-sent the atoll coral reef at different scales (the best representative outcrop of the geosite and entire atoll structure); therefore different methodologies have been carried out. For the first 3D Geomodel, the combined analysis of the digital elevation model (MDT, 1 meter, LIDAR 2009, Generalitat Valenciana; Fig. 1A), the hydrographic network through software Grass type tools, and directly observational field data have been allowed to de-terminate the most interesting outcrop with more use and outreach potential (Fig. 1B). In this outcrop a high-resolution 3D model has been implemented with the Structure from Motion (SFM) photogram-metric technique (Westboy et al. 2012); the data have been processed with the Agisoft Photoscan Professional program. The acquisition of high-reso-lution images have been carried out with Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (Drone Phantom DJI 3 Advanced). Respect the entire atoll structure, scale 3D Geomodels artistically recreated has been de-

151

veloped (Fig. 1C–F). The 3D models have been implemented with a 3D printer Vulcanus Max 40, FDM, PLA material (Fig. 1C–D). After that, plas-ter 3D models have been artistically recreated by addressing their more geosedimentary features of the coral reef (Fig. 1E–F).

ReferencesCorbí, H., Yébenes, A. 2012. El arrecife de coral mes-

siniense de Santa Pola, un lugar geológico de interés

excepcional. In: M.J. Sánchez (Coord.), Santa Pola. Ar-queología y museo: Museos municipales en el MARQ, pp. 96–101. Museo Arqueológico de Alicante-MARQ.

Corbí, H., Fierro, I., Aberasturi, A., Ferris, E.J.S. 2018. Po-tential use of a significant scientific geosite: The Mes-sinian coral reef of Santa Pola (SE Spain). Geoheritage. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0268-6

Westoby, M. J., Brasington, J., Glasser, N.F., Hambrey, M.J., Reynolds, J.M. 2012. ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photo-grammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience ap-plications. Geomorphology, 179, 300–314.


Fig. 1. A: Digital Elevation Model of the Santa Pola coral reef. In the upper part artistic recreation of the atoll. B: High resolution 3D model implemented with the Structure From Motion technique. C: 3D prints of the entire structure and the most relevant outcrop. D: Hand painted artistic recreations in plaster models of the coral reef.


152

Regional type-sections of GSSPs as Geological Heritage sites of practical importance

Ivan Yakovlevitch Gogin

A.P. Karpinsky Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI), Sredny prospect 74, St. Petersburg, Russia; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geosites, geotourism, Russia, Eastern Siberia

Introduction: The stratigraphy team of Federal State A. P. Karpinsky Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI) has worked on classification and detailed studies on regional type-sections of Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points (GSSPs) for Phanerozoic of Russia (Koren 2009; Gogin et al. 2013). The stratigraphic levels chosen possess well-represented biotic and abiotic mark-ers. These markers are either identical or close to the criteria used for designation of International Stage boundaries stratotypes. These stratigraphic levels are characterised in details in the Catalogue and possess highly reliable correlative values. They are regarded as Geological Heritage sites of practical importance.

Stratigraphic discussion: The International Stratigraphic Scale (ISC) is currently being sub-stantially modernised. For the Palaeozoic systems, the modern Global Scale is built from the ground. The boundaries of many ‘traditional’ stages have been re-defined. As a result Russian stratigraphic studies need to be focused on the correlation of the newly established global boundaries in dif-ferent sections across various biogeographic, pa-laeogeographic and facial regions in the country. This work is crucial in particular for geological mapping and palaeogeographic and geodynamic reconstructions in various basins which stratig-raphy has been based so far on the regional strati-graphic schemes. In order to correlate interna-tional standard and regional scales, it is suggested to develop the system of regional type-sections of GSSPs chosen from the best studied sections in different regions of the country. The stage boundaries of General Stratigraphic Scale (GSS) in these type-sections are defined according to the same criteria as used for designation boundary stratotypes. This procedure helps to improve the correspondence of regional stratigraphic units to

the extent that is necessary for modern geological mapping (1: 1,000, 000 and 1: 200,000), as well as general mapping 1: 2,500,000; 1:5,000,000 and others used in international projects. The detailed research on the boundary intervals of the stud-ied sections helps to establish characteristics for their accurate identification in remote regions and boundary stratotypes themselves. Biozonal mark-ers together with global and regional marker levels are used for this purpose.

Brief geosites description: The Cambrian section of Khos-Neleger river basin (Kharaulakh Range, Eastern Siberia) is a typical representative of the regional type-section of GSSP (Lazarenko et al. 2008). The section represents (Fig. 1): (1) The lower boundary of the Guzhangian Stage which is defined by the first occurrence of the trilobite species Lejopyge laevigata, at the base of Lejopyge laevigata Zone. This stage corresponds to the most of the Mayan supra-regional and Chomurdach re-gional stage of GSS. Regionally it can be observed within the lower part of Ogonyor Formation. (2) The lower boundary of Paibian Stage, the base of Kutugun Regiostage GSS and the base of Glyptagnostus retiсulatus Zone (Upper Cambrian), is defined by the first occurrence of the trilobite species Glyptagnostus retiсulatus. The boundary is regionally represented in the middle part of the Ogonyor Formation section. (3) The lower bound-ary of Yanshagian Stage (Upper Cambrian) is de-fined by the first occurrence of the trilobite species Agnostotes orientalis. It is regionally represented in the upper part of Ogonyor Formation.

Conclusions: The regional type-sections of GSSPs have the obvious value for the standard geological mapping. They can and should be considered in the category of significant Geological Heritage sites. They should be monitored, protected and made accessible for scientific tourism.

153

ReferencesKoren, T. N. 2009. International stratigraphic scale of Pre-

cambrian and Phanerozoic: principles of construction and the current state, pp. 1–35. VSEGEI; St. Petersburg. (In Russian).

Gogin, I.Ya., Kossovaja, O.L., Kotlar, G.V. 2013. Problems of regional stratigraphy and updating general strati-graphic scale associated with the development of new generation of geological maps. In: General stratigraphic scale of Russia: current state and ways of perfection, p. 23–24. Geological Institue of RAS; Moscow.

Lazarenko, N.P., Gogin, I.Ya., Pegel, T.V., Sukhov, S.S., Abaimova, G.P., Egorova, L.I., Fedorov, A.B., Raevska-ya, E.G., Ushatinskaya, G.T. 2008. Cambrian stratigra-phy of the northeastern Siberian Platform and potential stratotypes of lower boundaries of the proposed Upper Cambrian Chekurovian and Nelegerian stages in the Ogon’or Formation section at the Khos-Nelege River. In: A.Yu. Rozanov, A.I. Varlamov (Eds), The Cambrian System of the Siberian Platform, 2, North-east of the Si-berian Platform, p. 60–139. Paleontological Institute of Russian Academy of Science; Moscow – Novosibirsk.


02

00

300

25

03

50

40

01

00

50

15

0

Og

on

’or

Fo

rm

at

i on

Metres

PaibianStage

Fu

ron

gia

nS

erie

sU

pp

er

Ca

mb

ria

n)

(U

nd

efin

ed

Se

rie

s

Jiang-shanianStage

Eugonocare(Pseud

eugonocare)borealis

Zone

-

Glyptagnostusreticulatus Zone

Ag orientalisIrvingella

. -Zone

GlobalChronostrati-

graphyAgnostoidtrilobites

Polymeridtrilobites

Biostratigraphy

Agnostotesorientalis Zone

Maladioidellaabdita Zone

Plicatolinaperlata Zone

Parabolinitesrectus Zone

Lotagnostusamericanus

Zone

10Stage

GuzhangianStage

DrumianStage

G. stolidotus ZoneClavagnostusspinosus Zone

Proagnostusbulbus Zone

Lejopygelaevigata Zone

Paraboliniteslevis Beds

RussianRegionalStandard

Khos-NelegerianRegiostage

KutugunianRegiostage

ChomurdakhianRegiostage

MayanSupra-regional

stage

Anomocarioideslimbataeformis

Zone

910

1112

1

1314

151617

Be

ds

5

234

678

1819

2322

2526

27

282930

313233

343536

3738

39404142

434445464748

49

5051

525354

24

2021

Per

mia

n

1

2

3

4

5

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1

The sproposed

levelof Regional

type sections ofGSSPs

Fig. 1. The proposed correlation of the global chronostratigraphic subdivisions of the Cambrian system and Russian regional standard of the Cambrian in Eastern Siberia, indicating position of the levels of regional type-sec-tions of GSSPs. Explanations: 1 – alternation of laminated mudstone to shale, with minor chert and pyrite, terrig-enous-carbonate siltstone and distal carbonate turbidite; 2 – dark-grey wavy limy mud-wackestone with greenish siltstone and argillaceous laminas; 3 – greenish-grey argillaceous-dolomitic wackestone with silty lens-nodular limestone; 4 – marl, argillite and lens-nodular wackestone; 5 – lime mass-flow conglomeratic breccia.


154

Erratic boulders in Świętokrzyskie Region and their geotouristic potential

Maria Górska-Zabielska1, Kinga Witkowska1, Magdalena Pisarska1, Rafał Musiał1

1 Instytut Geografii, Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego, ul. Świętokrzyska 15, 25-406 Kielce, Poland; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: Scandinavian erratics, geoconservation, geoeducation, geotourism

Goals: The poster presents some Scandinavian er-ratics that show evidence of abiotic heritage and are the element of geodiversity of Świętokrzyskie region. The boulders have different significance and play diversified role: cognitive, educational, cultural, geoconservational, aesthetic and geotour-istic. Some examples of the boulders are presented in details. Not less important goal of this work was to examine the inhabitants’ knowledge about the geovalues of communes in which they live and work every day.

Methods: Field work was preceded by litera-ture (e.g. Czernicka-Chodkowska 1980; Urban 1990, 1997, 2012; Alexandrowicz et al. 1992; Wróblewski 2000; Garus 2004, 2005) and map query. Within the field methods, a boulder is measured (a-, b-, c-axes and diameter) and pho-tographed. The petrographic type, as well as the indicative character of the object, if possible, is recognized. The boulder surface is studied ac-cording to some significant features, like for in-stance morphological microforms, which indicate the postdepositional geomorphological processes. All data is written down to a field protocol, which is used later to recalculate the volume and weight of boulders.

Paralelly, the awareness and knowledge of the geological heritage among the local communities is investigated with the help of a diagnostic survey (Musiał 2017; Pisarska 2017; Witkowska 2017).

Conclusions: The presented erratics maintain and strengthen the geographical character of the place, its environment, culture, beauty, heritage, and prosperity of its citizens (Reynard 2008). Their role in the sustainable socioeconomic development of the local community cannot be overestimated. They contribute to the image creation of the region that adapts the elements of inanimate nature for tourist purposes in accordance with the principles of environmental protection.

The surveyed persons have noticed the inan-imate nature most often during holidays; some-times it happened that they had been aware of their presence (e.g. monuments of inanimate nature) in their immediate surroundings. Unfortunately, the respondents’ knowledge about the importance of geotourism facilities is negligible and therefore re-spondents’ plans for using the abiotic resources is related mainly to holiday and holiday trips. None of the respondents was able to indicate how to use these objects for their needs and/or connect their future with them.

The survey has shown, that neither geodiver-sity nor, even more so, the geological heritage is still unknown or understandable to the local inhabitants, and even worse, also to local author-ities. This means that they remain unused in the sustainable development of the commune, as well as in shaping the image of these areas. It is beg-ging for the hosts of the region to utilize elements of inanimate nature to perform tourist functions while maintaining the principles of nature con-servation.

ReferencesAlexandrowicz, Z., Kućmierz, A., Urban, J., Otęska-Budzyń,

J. 1992. Evaluation of inanimate nature of protected areas and objects in Poland, pp. 1–140. Wydawnictwo Państ-wowy Instytut Geologiczny; Warszawa.

Czernicka-Chodkowska, D. 1980. Zabytkowe głazy narzu-towe na obszarze Polski, 3, Polska południowo-wschod-nia i południowa, pp. 1–77. Wydawnictwa Geologiczne; Warszawa.

Garus, J. 2004. Pomniki przyrody województwa święto-krzyskiego. Głazy narzutowe, 1, pp. 1–22. Liga Ochro-ny Przyrody; Kielce.

Garus, J. 2005. Pomniki przyrody województwa święto-krzyskiego. Głazy narzutowe, 2, pp. 1–23. Liga Ochro-ny Przyrody; Kielce.

Musiał, R. 2017. Wybrane geowalory południowego frag-mentu Niecki Nidziańskiej w ocenie respondentów. Praca licencjacka, pp. 1–68. Instytut Geografii Uniwer-sytetu Jana Kochanowskiego; Kielce.

155

Pisarska, M. 2017. Wybrane geowalory obszaru położonego między Morawicą a Bodzentynem – czy istnieją w świa-domości mieszkańców tego regionu? Praca licen cjacka, pp. 1–49. Instytut Geografii Uniwersytetu Jana Kocha-nowskiego; Kielce.

Reynard, E. 2008. Scientific research and tourist promotion of geomorphological heritage. Geografia Fisica e Dina-mica Quaternaria, 31, 225–230.

Urban, J. 1990. Protection of inanimate nature objects in the Góry Świętokrzyskie (Holy Cross Mts) province. Rocznik Świętokrzyski, 17, 47–79.

Urban, J. 1997. Geologia i rzeźba obszaru badań. In: T. Zając (Ed.), Waloryzacja przyrodnicza Szanieckiego Parku Krajobrazowego, pp. 1–30. Archiwum Insty-

tutu Ochrony Przyrody Polskiej Akademii Nauk; Kraków.

Urban, J. 2012. Dziedzictwo geologiczne. In: A. Świercz (Ed.), Monografia Nadnidziańskiego Parku Krajobra-zowego, p. 35–81. Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach; Kielce.

Witkowska, K. 2017. Wybrane geowalory obszaru Mnio-wa, Smykowa i Radoszyc – czy istnieją w świadomości mieszkańców tego regionu? Praca licencjacka, pp. 1–65. Instytut Geografii Uniwersytetu Jana Kochanowskiego; Kielce.

Wróblewski, T. 2000. Geodiversity conservation in the Góry Świętokrzyskie region, pp. 1–87. Ministerstwo Środo-wiska, Państwowy Instytut Geologiczny; War szawa.



156

For the sake of protection of geodiversity implemented through geological education and geotourism

Monika Krzeczyńska1, Andrzej Wierzbowski2, Paweł Woźniak3

1 Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Rakowiecka 4, 00-975 Warszawa, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Institute of Basic Geology, Faculty of Geology, University of Warsaw, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

3 Upper Silesian Branch in Sosnowiec, Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Królowej Jadwigi 1, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geosites protection, geological education, geotourism

Goals: Geology is one of these sciences that is best explained in the place where natural geological objects occur. Geology is not only rocks, miner-als and fossils placed in museum cabinets. This is a whole range of objects in the field, which can not be enclosed in a limited space of the museum. Learning about them in situ – taking into account the environmental background and history of the place and the relationship between biotic elements of the environment – actually gives the opportu-nity to understand the laws of nature.

Considering the above, the Geological Museum of the Polish Geological Institute – National Re-

search Institute (PGI-NRI) in cooperation with its regional branches has been conducting for many years a wide range of activities focused on educa-tion and popularization of knowledge about geolog-ical objects in various regions of Poland, showing their structure, genesis and scientific, didactic and touristic values.

With wider knowledge about inanimate na-ture, awareness of its importance, as well as its economic value as geotouristic objects, the public would be more willing to surround it with a real protection resulting not only from the legal pro-visions, but also from the inner conviction of the

Fig. 1. The aerial view of the Ecological and Geological Education Center GEOSFERA in Jaworzno near Katowice city (Silesian Voivodeship, Southern Poland).

157

need to protect it. This awareness, however, must exist universally, not only among people involved in nature conservation. It must become universal, be everyone’s concern, regardless of their official position, as we are all ‛users’ of the Earth, includ-ing its inanimate part. It is the social consciousness which determines whether protected areas will be effectively protected, valuable objects located in private areas will be maintained with proper care, and mining activity will not destroy the neighbour, unique, natural objects.

Methods: Facing such demand, the educational activity of the Geological Museum of the PGI-NRI is of fundamental importance. This activity is carried out in a multi-directional way. Together with specialists from regional branches of PGI-NRI, the Geological Museum has prepared numer-ous geotouristic paths (Krzeczyńska et al. 2008; Krzeczyńska, Woźniak 2011), information boards (so called ‛GeoPoints’), and landscape planning in inactive quarries (Wierzbowski et al. 2017), as well as documentations necessary for creation of geoparks (Woźniak et al. 2011).

The Geological Museum of PGI-NRI co-orga-nizers in cooperation with regional branches ed-ucational events such as geological festivals and family picnics highlighting local exceptional geo-logical objects (Krzeczyńska, Woźniak 2016). The aim of these events is to draw attention of local communities to the need to protect these objects and to show the possibility of making them avail-able for didactic and geotouristic purposes.

At the invitation of the local government au-thorities, the Geological Museum conducts series

of classes: lessons, workshops and geological ex-cursions for pupils. This activity aims in acquaince of young people with the inanimate nature of their region and arose interest to protect exceptional geological objects. Such activity has been carried out for pupils in the past years in schools all around the country.

Conclusions: Thanks to the educational and geotourist activity, the knowledge of our society on the natural environment, the relationships be-tween its elements and their scientific significance is consistently increasing. This results in the care for protection of inanimate elements of the nature.

ReferencesKrzeczyńska, M., Woźniak, P. 2011. Oblicza geologii –

przykładowe projekty ścieżek geoturystycznych. Prze-gląd Geologiczny, 4, 340–351.

Krzeczyńska, M., Woźniak, P. 2016. Jak popularyzujemy geologię – tegoroczne terenowe inicjatywy edukacyjno- geoturystyczne Muzeum Geologicznego PIG-PIB. Prze gląd Geologiczny, 12, 946–947.

Krzeczyńska, M., Woźniak, P., Gaździcka, E. 2008. Pier-wsza geologiczna ścieżka dydaktyczna na Jurze Kra-kowsko-Częstochowskiej. Przegląd Geologiczny, 12, 1039–1043.

Wierzbowski, A., Krzeczyńska, M., Woźniak, P. 2017. Protection of old quarries as the objects of scientific, educational and geoturitic values: theory and practice. Hereditas Minariorum, 4, 135–151.

Woźniak, P., Krzeczyńska, M. 2014. Kamieniołom Sadowa Góra w Jaworznie – przyszłość pod znakiem GEOsfery. Przegląd Geologiczny, 10/1, 510–513.

Woźniak, P., Sikora, R., Lasoń, K., Markowiak, M., Haisig, J., Szulc, J., Hagdorn, H. 2011. Geopark Góra Św. Anny – ‛król-tułacz’ wrócił na stolicę. Przegląd Geologiczny, 4, 291–310.



158

Geological heritage in the central part of Scandinavia (GEARS) – a Norwegian-Swedish transboundary Interreg Project (2017–2019)

Sven Lundqvist1, Gunnel Ransed1, Rolv Dahl2

1 Geological Survey of Sweden, Box 670, 751 28 Uppsala, Sweden; e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Geological Survey of Norway, P.O. Box 6315, Torgarden, 7491 Trondheim, Norway; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: GEologiskARviindreSkandinavien (GEARS), geoheritage, inventory, assessment, methodology, transboundary collaboration, valuing, outreach, management

Goals: The project is focussing on geological her-itage and geological diversity, a valuable but often overlooked natural resource. The aim is to regis-ter, manage and create values based on the shared geological heritage in the neighbouring counties of

Hedmark (Norway) and Dalarna (Sweden). Study areas chosen (Fig. 1) represent significant geolog-ical features in the following transboundary con-text: from the Caledonides in the west, through the Precambrian sandstones (very well preserved de-spite of younger Caledonian orogeny) in the middle of the area, to the Precambrian crystalline bedrock in the east, including the Siljanastrobleme – the biggest astrobleme in Europe. The glacial history is also a characteristic feature of the area.

These values could be made more well-known in spatial planning, nature management and tour-ism. In the project, we aim to further the use of geodiversity as sustainable tourist destinations, produce good-examples for interpretation and pre-sentation of some of the sites. The Norwegian and Swedish nature management differs in parts, and we find it important to reach a consensus and to find a methodology ranging from inventory, as-sessment, management to transferring of infor-mation regarding the transboundary geodiversity. This has not yet been tested by the countries and would for that reason serve as a pilot study for a common national management.

Results: – A framework for the mapping and valuing of the region’s geological heritage;

– Geological maps and descriptions in selected ar-eas;

– Proposal for outreach methods of how to inform of the geological heritage in selected areas;

– Outreach material about the region’s geological heritage aiming at the public, including residents;

– International seminar on geoheritage.

Expected effects: – An increased local and regional awareness of the importance of geoheritage as an asset for the tourism industry;

Fig. 1. Study areas are chosen to represent significant geological features in a transboundary context, from west to east: Folldal in Norway, Mount Fulufjället national parks in Norway and Sweden, and the Siljanastrobleme in Sweden.

159

– Increased co-operation between tourism indus-try and nature managers on both sides of the border;

– Increased awareness and pride of local landscape character as well as the shared cultural and his-torical identity of the region;

– A better environmental management in the re-gion;

– Better and new products for the tourism industry, leading to better tourist experiences;

– Development of new tourist sites; – Better education in natural science in the region.

Partners: The Geological Surveys of Sweden and Norway are project leaders. In addition, partners from nature management, regional educational in-stitutions and tourism are participating: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, the foundation Folldal mines, County Administrative Board of

Dalarna, County Governor of Hedmark and the local and non-profit association SolleröSockenförening.

The project has been granted funding from Interreg Sweden-Norway, Hedmark County Council, and the Regional Development Council of Dalarna County.

ReferencesJohansson, C.E. (Ed.) 2001. Geodiversitet i nordisk natur-

vård (Geodiversity in Nordic Nature Conservation), Nord 2000, 8, pp. 1–149. Nordiska ministerrådet (Nor-dic Council of Ministers); Copenhagen.

Wimbledon, W.A.P., Smith-Meyer, S. (Eds) 2012. Geoher-itage in Europe and its conservation, pp. 1–405. The European Association for the Conservation of the Geo-logical Heritage, ProGEO; Oslo.



160

The Kapova Cave (Shulgantash Cave) – one of the well-known geosites of South Ural (Russian Federation)

Yury Lyakhnitsky1, Tatiana Ivanova1

1 A.P. Karpinsky Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI), Sredny prospect 74, 199106 St. Petersburg, Russia; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: Kapova Cave (Shulgantash Cave), geosite, branched three-stored spelaean system

Geological settings: The Kapova Cave is situated in Shulgan-Tash Nature Reserve on a right bank of the Belaya river, in the Republic of Bashkortostan (Russia).

Details of Kapova Cave structure: The Kapova Cave is branched three-stored spelaean system. The cave represents the system of high submerid-ional galleries, large isomeric, partially landslide, halls and more shallow cavities which are branch-ing off from them (Lyakhnitsky 2006). It is about 3,000 m in length and 165 m in height. Underwater siphon cavities have been carefully worked out up to depth of 80 m. Entrances of underwater siphon cavities are situated in the largest grotto, called the Portal (Fig. 1).

The Portal is a huge asymmetric arch 37 m long and up to 15 m high opened on a surface. The Cave massif is put by Devonian light pelito-morphic grey col and partially dark organogenic limestones. The site is located in the central part of the large Irgizlinsky syncline broken by large breaks. The cave represents the system of high submeridional galleries; large isomeric, partially landslide halls and more shallow cavities which are branching off from them. Clay deposits are wide-spread. All types of calcareous tufa deposits occur in the Kapova Cave.

Through the Cave the large stream – Shulgan which is absorbed in 3.5 km to the North in the Cave ponor of Ozhiganov and coming to a surface in an entrance grotto – the Portal in the form of the

Fig. 1. The Kapova Cave portal entrance. Photograph by Yury Lyakhnitsky.

161

vaucluse picturesque Blue lake proceeds. Except it, in the Cave there are two more constant lakes: Round Lake in the Portal and Top Big Lake on the second floor. Very rare underwater stalaktites are found in the Big Top Lake. The Top Small Lake in the Second gallery usually dried up in the win-ter. Shulgan’s water discharge changes from 250 l/s in a winter period up to 1.5 m3 during spring floods. Usually in the Cave 3–4 streams function, but during floods there are a lot of shallow water currents with small water discharge.

Karst water is hydrocarbonaceous, sulfate-hy-drocarbonaceous calcium, fresh.

There are various microclimatic zones in the cave. An influence of the surface weather factors is very significant. There is mainly unidirectional outside circulation in this zone in the summer. It proves existence of noticeable circulation of the surface air through zones of a fracture transmis-sivity in the Cave. Radiation situation in the Cave rather various, but as a rule, on an excursion route the background radiation low and does not consti-tute danger to people.

The Cave is very important archaeological cul-tural monument also. Its key feature is the exis-tence of a about 200 Paleolithic images drawn with ochre. The paintings are ca. 17,000–19,000 years old. There are 45 drawings of animals in the Cave in total.

Methods: For preservation a natural complex in the Cave and Paleolithic painting, geological, hydrological, microbiological, entomological re-searches are conducted regular.

Conclusions: Now the Kapova Cave is one of the most interesting, studied in detail and valuable for science caves of Russia.

ReferencesLyakhnitsky, Yu.S. 2006. Long-term researches of a cave

Shulgantash (Kapova) by group of VSEGEI and RGO, as basis of rescue of her Paleolithic painting. Studying of the reserved nature of South Ural. Collection of sci-entific works of the Shulgan-Tash Nature Reserve, 3, 331–382. Ufa. (In Russian).



162

Using provocative interpretation to manage visitors to the fragile, dynamic geoheritage of mud volcanoes in Aspiring Geopark Buzau Land

in Romania?

John Macadam1,2, Răzvan-Gabriel Popa3,4, Cristina Toma3,5, Stefan George Kudor3,6, Diana-Alice Popa3,5

1 Earthwords, Little Kirland, Bodmin, PL30 5BJ, UK; e-mail: [email protected] Camborne School of Mines, University of Exeter, TR10 9FE, UK3 Buzau Land NGO Aspiring Geopark, Beslii 20, Minzalesti, Buzau County, Romania;

e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Department of Earth Sciences, ETH Zurich, Clausiusstrasse 25, Zurich, CH5 University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geology and Geophysics, Nicolae Bălcescu Blvd, no. 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania;

e-mail: [email protected] University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geography, Nicolae Bălcescu Blvd, no. 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania;


Keywords: geopark, interpretation, management, mud volcanoes, sustainable development

Introduction: Buzau Land Aspiring Geopark in Romania has a rich geological heritage (Melinte-Dobrinescu et al. 2017) which includes several sites with mud volcanoes. At two sites information panels have been installed by the land-owners who charge admission to the area. The panels include instructions about conserving the sites but at the most visited site informal observation over around ten minutes on a hot, sunny August day showed that most visitors walked past the wordy panels, ignoring them and thus not reading the conser-vation message. Visitor behavior was observed to include intentionally walking in areas of soft mud and also picking up layers of soft mud and throw-ing it around. There were about 50–100 visitors on the volcano site with a similar number enjoying refreshments at the nearby café-restaurant which was part of the same complex.

Geology: The mud volcano localities extend over approximately 5 km in a north-south line in the Berca region, locally known as ‘The Dragon Hills’. Each site includes active and inactive vents, with pools, cones and holes. In addition to the mud salty water, minor oil and gas which is over 95% meth-ane is erupted. The source is thought to be a sin-gle reservoir at a depth of 3,000 m in the Middle Miocene which has been cored. The salty water re-sults in a restricted halophyte flora around the edge of active vents and developed over inactive vents.

Management: The owner of the most visited site is keen to work with the management of the as-

piring geopark so the site suffers less damage by some visitors and consequently the visitor expe-rience will be improved for all. The current infor-mation panels have many words – and are mostly ignored. Visitors were observed to enter the site from the pay-booth, walk a hundred metres or so in a roughly straight line to the mud volcanoes, then wander around, looking at different vents and pools, taking a few selfies, then walking back the way they came, past the pay-booth. No-one was observed taking any interest in the plants.

A constraint of managing visitors at this site is the unpredictability of the volcanoes so an in-flexible single trail is liable to become unusable rapidly but at least a route taking visitors from the current entrance to the volcanoes then out via the increasing biodiversity towards the restaurant and car park needs investigating.

The information panels need to be replaced by provocative material which aims to get people to stop, gain at least a simple take-away message about the site and its conservation. The panels will follow Tilden’s mantra of ‛provoke, relate, reveal’ (Tilden 1957) so the visitors will read a provoca-tive few words (maybe ‛Come to see the dragons?’) in a large text size which will encourage them to read more information (in a smaller sized text) and read a conservation message (Macadam 2017). The current information panels appear to have been added to rather randomly without an overall plan – and the inks of some coloured illustration of plants have degraded from exposure to UV.

163

Conclusion: An overall interpretation strategy needs to be developed for the site, with discussion with the site owner and local community (Popa et al. 2017). The text aiming to provoke the visitors – to get them to stop and read – will not, of course, be modelled on the very long-winded title of this very short paper! The panels will, (also!) of course, be illustrated, unlike this paper.

References:Macadam, J. 2017. Geoheritage: Getting the Message

Across. What Message and to Whom? In: E. Reynard, J. Brilha (Eds), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and

Management, 267–288. Elsevier; Amsterdam – Oxford – Cambridge.

Melinte-Dobrinescu, M.C., Brustur, T., Jipa, D., Macalet, R., Ion, G., Ion, E., Popa, A., Stănescu, I., Briceag, A. 2017. The Geological and Palaeontological Heritage of the Buzău Land Geopark (Carpathians, Romania). Geo-heritage, 9, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0202-3

Popa, R., Popa, A.-D., Andrăşanu, A. 2017. The SEA and Big-S Models for Managing Geosites as Resources for Local Communities in the Context of Rural Geoparks. Geoheritage, 9, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371- 016-0192-1

Tilden, J. 1957. Interpreting our Heritage (1st edition), pp. 1–110. University of North Carolina Press; Chapel Hill.



164

The educational role of the outcrops in qualified geotourism in which one may define the age and process of the tectonic movements – some examples

from the Holy Cross Mountains, Central Poland

Włodzimierz Mizerski1, Katarzyna Skurczyńska-Garwolińska1

1 Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Rakowiecka 4, 00-975 Warsaw, Poland; e-mails:[email protected], [email protected]

Key words: geotourism, geology, tectonic, education

Tectonic movements in geoeducation and tour-ism: One form of geological education is geotour-ism referring to the problems of tectonic move-ments. These are difficult issues, but they can meet the expectations of many tourists, both the elderly and the young. The tourists can be interested in the processes which have changed the face of the Earth. Visitors can see that in the geological his-tory of Poland several tectonic events took place. These events influenced the form of the Earth’s surface. There, in ancient sea floors, mountains were formed, and later uplifted and destroyed, and again submerged in ocean water. In Poland we can find several outcrops where the effects of orogenic processes are clearly visible. We can also note that Earth’s surface is an area of endless struggle be-tween processes of diversification of Earth surfuce and the procees of flatening.

Some spectacular outcrops of educational sig-nificance appear in the Holy Cross Mountains (known in Poland as ‘Góry Świętokrzyskie’) (Kotański 1968; Stupnicka, Stempień-Sałek 2001; Skompski 2012). In this region we find many out-crops, with rock deformation of different age. We can define age of these deformations bsed on strati-graphic methods. Authors of this presentation offer some geotouristic excursions aiming in explana-tion of the history and tectonic movement dynam-ics of this region.

Geosites description: Pepper Mountains (known in Poland as ‘Góry Pieprzowe’) (near Sandomierz, southern Poland), are also very interesting place in terms of tectonics. There are several interest-ing outcrops exposed along the Vistula escarpment showing deformed and non-deformed Cambrian rocks. We can observe there some folded layers of shale and sandstones adjoining same non- deformed fine-clastic rock layers (Mastella, Mizerski 1981).

The layers in the folds are thicker at the hinge than at flanks, what indicates that the deforma-tions were created when rocks were still rather soft. All folds plunge towards non-folded layers. It is an argument for synsedimentary tectonics caused presumably by some earthquakes. They moved non-consolidated sediments down the basin slope and folded unconsolidated layers.

The geological reserve Biesak south of Kielce (Nita, Myga-Piątek 2010) is located at the foot of Kamienna Hill. There, in the old quarry, some Lower Cambrian layers of mudstones and sand-stones lay in the inverted position on the Lower Ordovician sedimentary beds . We can conclude that there, after the Ordovician period, intensive tectonic movements occurred. They overturned sedimentary rock layers. Additionally, we can ob-serve in the Biesak Quarry that the rock formations are cut by a complex fault system showing numer-ous slickensides with tectonic slickenfibres. The latter ones show a direction of displacement.

In the quarry of Ślichowica Hill in Kielce an important geological reserve is located. It is named after Jan Czarnocki – an outstanding student of the Holy Cross Mountains geology. There in this quarry a spectacular overthrusting fold is exposed. We can deduce that it was created as the result of a tectonic stress from north to south. In its structure many subordered asymmetrical folds may be ob-served: they are inclined, overthrust and reclined. The tectonic stress was sufficient to induce the main fold to lie down. Here one can see that some very regular fractures are located which are re-ferred to as a joint. The joint is another result of the stress in rocks. Many tiny parallel faults are also seen in this fold. At the bottom of the east-ern quarry one can see that the tectonical concern predates the main folding. In the layers of lime-stones there are the breccia strata built from the

165

same limestones which lie under and above these breccia strata. These are the interformational brec-cias which were formed as the result of submarine slides. These slides may have been formed under the influence of abrupt and fast events – proba-bly submarine earthquakes. As the result of these earthquakes the limestone layers slid on the seabed slope, disintegrated and broke.

To make sure that the fold in Ślichowica Hill it is not an isolated example, we can go to the Mogiłki quarry. In the thin-layered limestones and shales there are numerous small upright or inclined in different directions folds. We see that in the thick-layered limestones the folds are absent. It is the result of different tectonic reaction of rocks to the tectonic stress. Thin layers are deformed easily, contrary to thick layers which resist the stress and very often fracture rather than become folded.

To see that the rocks of different hardness but the same age responded differently to the tectonic stress, we can go to a famous Kadzielnia quarry in Kielce city. In this quarry folds are absent. It is because there are massive reef limestones present, intractable to plastic deformations.

When did these movements operate? We may find it out in the Zachełmie quarry (north of Kielce city). There, in this quarry the Middle Devonian dolomites are discordantly overlied by fine-grained sedimentary rocks of Late Triassic age (ca. 250 Ma). The lower surface of Triassic strata is unequal. It is an example of tectonic unconformity which indi-cates tectonic movements. These movements must have occurred after Devonian marine sedimenta-tion and before Triassic non-marine sediments were deposited in this area. This outcrop proves that

the Holy Cross area was uplifted after Devonian times. Then the Devonian and the underlying older Paleozoic rocks were deformed. After these defor-mations the Holy Cross area was eroded and the Triassic sandstones were deposited on the flattened surface. These are Variscan movements. They op-erated after the Early Carboniferous and before the Permian period. For about 50 million years the Holy Cross Mountains area has been eroded and this ero-sion converted this area into a plain.

Conclusions: Described above are only some se-lected examples of the outcrops where tourists can learn about the earth dynamic processes that formed the structure of Paleozoic rocks in the Holy Cross Mointains. The whole model excursion pre-senting tectonic movements will be presented by the authors during the ProGEO Symposium.

ReferencesKotański, Z. 1968 Z plecakiem i młotkiem w Góry Święto-

krzyskie, pp. 1–225. Wydawnictwa Geologiczne; War-szawa.

Mastella, L., Mizerski, W. 1981. Etapy deformacji tektonic-znych utworów kambru środkowego Gór Pieprzowych. Przegląd Geologiczny, 29, 351–355.

Nita, J., Myga-Piątek, U. 2010. Georóżnorodność i geotury-styka w terenach poeksploatacyjnych na przykładzie regionu chęcińsko-kieleckiego. Geoturystyka, 22-23, 51–58.

Skompski, S., Żylińska, A. (Eds) 2015. The Holy Cross Mountains – 25 journeys through Earth history, pp. 1–160. Institute of Geology, Faculty of Geology, Uni-versity of Warsaw; Warszawa.

Stupnicka, E., Stempień-Sałek, M. 2001. Poznajemy Góry Świętokrzyskie. Wycieczki geologiczne, pp. 1–173. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe; Warszawa.



166

Bahluieț Valley at Costești village (Romania) geoarchaeosite: the need for its protecting, promoting and managing

Mihai Niculiță

Department of Geography, Faculty of Geography and Geology, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași, Carol I 20A, 700505 Iași, Romania; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: geoheritage site, geomorphosite, archaeological site, landslides, quaternary, Moldavian Plateau

Introduction: The Bahluieț Valley at Costești vil-lage geosite has been recently studied and pro-posed as a geoheritage site (Niculiță, Mărgărint 2017). Previously this area was investigated due to the presence of the Costești-Cier archaeological site (Boghian et al. 2014) which is currently inte-grated in the National Archaeological Repertoire. In this archaeological site different levels of pop-ulations have been studied (Cucuteni A, Cucuteni AB and Horodiștea-Erbiceni Culture populations) as well as an earth wall from La Tene (8th–10th/11th

century), and a 15th–17th century necropolis.

Geological and geomorphological settings: In the area of the present day Costești village, Bahluieț River leaves the Suceava Plateau area (with al-titudes of 350–550 m a.s.l.) and enters the Jijia Hills (with altitudes of 50 to 200 m a.s.l.), flowing between Ulmilor Hill (306 m a.s.l., at north) and Ruginii Hill (326 m a.s.l., at south). The valley, which is incised 100 m in depth below the plateau level, suddenly becomes broader because of two massive Late Pleistocene or Holocene landslides (Niculiță et al. 2016 a, b). These two landslide covered the former Bahluieț floodplain have been incised by the Bahluieț river which created sev-eral meanders. One of these meanders was cut off creating an island. In the present day topography, the island represents a mound detached from the former floodplain level.

Geological and archaelogical importance: The ancient populations used this relict fluvial me-ander island as a settlement site. The deposits in which the island is cut is multi-layered, consist-ing of landslide and fluvial deposits inclusive pa-leosoils and archaeological remains. These lay-ered deposits have the potential to show the Late Pleistocene and Holocene evolution of the contact

area between the Suceava Plateau and Jijia Hills and the island becomes one of the most represen-tative Quaternary sites of the Moldavian Plateau (Niculiță et al. 2017).

Call for protection: Today the river is eroding the mound and protection measures are needed in order to limit the natural destruction of these im-portant deposits and morphology. At the same time a management plan is needed for promoting the site at local, regional and national level. Further scientific investigations are necessary and can in-crease the value of the site.

ReferencesNiculiță, M., Mărgărint, M.C. 2017. Landslides and For-

tified Settlements as Valuable Cultural Geomorpho-sites and Geoheritage Sites in the Moldavian Plateau, North-Eastern Romania. Geoheritage. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12371-017-0261-0

Boghian, D., Enea, S.C., Pîrnău, R.D., Secu, C. 2014. Ele-mente de Landscape Archaeology în zona siturilor Costesti-Cier și Giurgești-Dealul Mănăstirii, jud. Iași (Elements of landscape archaeology in the area of Costești-Cier and Giurgești-Dealul Mănăstirii sites, Iași county). In: S. Fortiu, A. Cîntar (Eds), In honorem Gheorghe Lazarovici, Interdisciplinaritate în Arheolo-gie, Arheo Vest II2, Timişoara, 6 Decembrie 2014, p. 571–611. JATEPress Kiadó; Szeghed.

Niculiță, M., Mărgărint, M.C., Santangelo M. 2016a. Ar-chaeological evidence for Holocene landslide activity in the Eastern Carpathian lowland. Quaternary Interna-tional, 415, 175–189.

Niculiță, M., Mărgărint, M.C., Santangelo, M. 2016b. Pleis-tocene landslides in the Moldavian Plateau, Eastern Ro-mania, Georeview, 26 (2), p. 67.

Niculiță, M., Mărgărint, M.C., Cristea, I. 2017. Relict land-slides, fluvial landforms and threatened geoheritage – Costești village. In: M. Niculiță, M.C. Mărgărint (Eds), Proceedings of Romanian Geomorphology Symposium, Romania, Iasi, May 11–14, 2017, 1, p. 130–132, Alexan-dru Ioan Cuza University of Iași Press.

167

A Significant Geosite – The Lovozero Alkaline Massif (Russia)

Ljudmila R. Semenova

Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI), Sredny prospect 74, 199106 St. Petersburg, Russia; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: Lovozero alkaline massif, geosites, potential geopark

Introduction: The Lovozero massif is located in the central part of the Kola Peninsula (Russia). The massif has been investigated for over 100 years (Pekov 2001). It is one of the world’s largest mas-sifs of alkaline igneous rocks (650 km2), also be-ing unique in terms of petrology and mineralogy, with large deposits of loparite being mined there. Landforms shaped by glaciers are also of interest. The characteristics of the massif make it appro-priate for the establishment of an internationally significant geopark.

Geological description: The Lovozero Massif is built of igneous rocks including foyaite, ratite, lujavrite and two-feldspathoid syenites (Gosu dar-stvennaya geologicheskaya karta Rossiyskoy Fede-ratsii 2004). It intruded into an Archaean metamor-phic complex around 366–377 Ma ago (Kramm et al. 1993). The Archaean formations comprise fenites and hornfels. The Lovozero massif is very well exposed and represents a classically layered intrusion. The crystallization differentiation of the complex (i.e. the first phase) is exposed across the entire area of the Lovozero pluton. Urtites, foyaite, lujavrites are present and they are usually intercon-nected by transitional margins. The thickness of the first-phase complex is up to 1,700 m. More than 200 beds are discernable, alternating in strictly de-fined intervals and enclosing three-term and two-term members, which repeatedly and rhythmically recur.

During the second phase, the emplacement of an alkaline melt took place, resulting in an eudi-alyte-lujavrite complex. The rocks of the second phase of the intrusive formation comprise a dipping body. Leico-, meso- and melanocratic eudialyte-lu-javrite layers are interlayered within the section, making up about 90% of the subcomplex volume.

Nephelite-sodalite-syenites and related pegma-tites were formed in the last phase of the Lovozero pluton, as a result of the melt oversaturating with alkalis and its enrichment with volatile compo-

nents. This phase is responsible for an especial variety of rock mineral compositions. More than one thousand pegmatite bodies are known from the Lovozero Alkaline Massif.

Mineralogical features: The Lovozero Massif is amongst the most famous mineralogical sites in the world. More than 340 minerals have been recorded, one third of them are rare species, whilst 73 have been newly described (Pekov 2001). Famous min-eralogical finds, as well as numerous discoveries of new minerals, are connected with pegmatites. For example, the unique ‘Yubileinaya’ pegmatite lode, located on the Karmasurt Mountain, is par-ticularly remarkable. This small ultra-alkaline peg-matite body (26 m long by 1 m wide) bears about 50 minerals, half of them are rare and 12 of them have been newly described. In addition, the species are bright and have an impressive habit (Pekov 1995). Another example is the pegmatite body ‘Shkatulka’, located on Alluaiv Mountain in the NW Lovozero Massif. The ‘Shkatulka’ pegmatite represents the world’s largest ussingite pegmatite body and resembles a mineralogical museum due to beautiful and well-developed crystals and a great diversity of rare minerals. These minerals decorate of museum showcases and in Kola town, the geo-logical museum of the Kola Academy of Sciences is especially devoted to the Lovozero minerals and rocks. Geologists of two research centres, the Kola Science Centre of the Kola Academy of Sciences and the Geological Survey of Finland have devel-oped a Barents geotour in northern Fennoscandia, in which some geosites of the the Lovozero pluton are included (Johansson et al. 2014).

Geomorphological features: The Lovozero Moun-tains were shaped by the last Pleistocene glacia-tion. Glacial valleys are usually developed along tectonic zones. Radial split zones, including that of the Seidozero Lake, were less affected by glacial erosion. Various glacial landforms such as flank



168

moraines, glacial circles (‛kars’), and others can be observed in the massif and their study enables the reconstruction of glacial spread and its later retreat. Large glacial cirques and kars are regular-shaped, extending up to 2 km in diameter, with their walls rising up to 200–250 m in height. A characteris-tic feature of this landscape is also the abundance of foreign rock materials brought by glaciers from elsewhere and deposited in this area, especially on the plateau-like summits.

Conclusion: The history of comprehensive geo-logical studies of the Lovozero alkaline massif, conducted by prominent Russian and foreign ge-ologists, has been over 100 years. The massif’s geosites are of great scientific interest in terms of different geosciences (petrology, mineralogy, and geomorphology). Study of these geosites makes it possible to understand certain stages of the Earth’s history, geological processes that occurred in the region, development of its landforms, as well as the effects of human subsurface activity. A well-devel-

oped infrastructure makes almost all of the geo-sites easily accessible and the massif is also of real aesthetic value. Taking all of this together, the Lovozero massif has great potential for the devel-opment of a geopark.

ReferencesGosudarstvennaya geologicheskaya karta Rossiyskoy Fed-

eratsii. Masshtab 1:1 000000 (novaya seriya) 2004. List Q-(35)-37 – Kirovsk. Objasnitelnaya zapiska, pp. 1–193. Kartfabrika VSEGEI; Izdateljstvo St. Petersburg.

Johansson, P., Lauri, L.S., Voytekhovsky, Y.L. 2014. Bar-ents tour for geotourists, pp. 1–109. Geological Survey of Finland and Geological Institute of the Kola Science Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Rovaniemi. (In English, Finish and Russian).

Kramm, U., Kogarko, L.N., Kononova, V.A., Vartiainen, H. 1993. The Kola alkaline province of the CIS and Fin-land: precise Rb-Sr ages define 380–360 Ma age range for all magmatism. Lithos, 30, 33–44.

Pekov, I.V. 2001. Lovozerskiy massiv: istoriya issledovaniya, pegmatity, mineraly, pp. 1–464. Tvorcheskoe objedine-nije ‘Zemlya’; Assotsiazii Ekost; Moskwa. (In Russian).

169

Reasons behind plans to conserve the Cretaceous–Paleogene Boundary site at Lechówka, southeast Poland

Katarzyna Stróżyk1, Anna Grabarczyk1, Marcin Machalski2

1 University of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Poland; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

2 Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Paleobiology, Twarda 51/55, 00-818 Warsaw, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: K–Pg boundary, geosite, geoconservation

It is widely accepted that a catastrophic meteorite impact triggered a mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous (Alvarez et al. 1980; Schulte et al. 2010). The Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) bound-ary has been formally defined in the global stra-totype section near El Kef (Tunisia), at the base of the so-called boundary clay with an anomalous iridium (Ir) concentration (Molina et al. 2009). This natural stratigraphic boundary has been rec-ognised in almost 100 sites all over the world.

An abandoned quarry near the village of Lechówka near Chełm, southeast Poland, provides the first continuous K–Pg succession in Poland (Fig. 1), with the boundary clay at the very base of the Danian strata (Racki et al. 2011). In spite of the fact that the Lechówka section has been distinctly overprinted by weathering processes during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, this site offers a unique combination of data on the K–Pg interval. The international importance of

the Lechówka section is fourfold. First of all, an anomalous concentration of Ir and other sidero-phile elements, consistent with the chondritic composition of the K–Pg impactor, has been de-tected in the section (Racki 2011). However, the main Ir anomaly does not occur in the boundary clay itself, but has migrated downwards in the sec-tion, probably due to activity of humic acid-rich ground waters in Paleogene (Racki et al. 2011). Secondly, the boundary clay at Lechówka contains spherules with nickel- rich spinel grains on their surface (Brachaniec et al. 2014), which confirms the relationship of this layer to an extraterrestrial impact. Thirdly, altered fragments of a fossil iron meteorite have been reported from the clay (Szopa et al. 2017). Its composition is inconsistent with the chondritic nature assumed for the main K–Pg impactor, and therefore, the Lechówka palaeome-teorite is interpreted as an independent fall (Szopa et al. 2017). Fourthly, the upper Maastrichtian


Fig. 1. General view of the Lechówka outcrop. K – Cretaceous (Upper Maastrichtian), Pg – Paleogene (Danian). Photograph by Marcin Machalski.


170

portion of the section contains abundant remains of Cretaceous marine biota, including ammonites (Machalski et al. 2016).

The Lechówka outcrop is located within the ad-ministrative limits of the Siedliszcze Community (Gmina Siedliszcze). Despite its obvious educa-tional and scientific values, the site has not been protected and promoted, except for a series of popu-lar-science articles (e.g. Machalski 2010; Machalski et al. 2010; Machalski, Harasimiuk 2012). The aim of our project is to change this situation and under-take actions towards conservation of the site. Our talks to Leszek Łukaszewski, the owner of the land on which the outcrop is situated, and to Hieronim Zonik, the Mayor of the town of Siedliszcze, have helped in the realisation of the scientific and educa-tional importance of this geosite. Both gentlemen have declared their full willingnes to co-operate in completion of the present project.

The following steps are planned to conserve the Lechówka site: (1) Creation of a formal geosite at Lechówka (in the meaning of Alexandrowicz 2003) on the basis of a council resolution by local author-ities; (2) Publication of a scientific description of the geosite on the Siedliszcze Community website; (3) Formal declaration of the Lechówka section to the Central Register of Polish Geosites (CRPG), run by the Polish Geological Institute – Polish Re-search Institute (PIG-PIB); (4) Operational protec-tion and appropriate marking of the outcrop in the field by installing an information board with ex-planatory notes on its scientific importance.

The present project, although not fully completed yet, provides an example of co-operation between local authorities and scientific and educational insti-tutions. We hope that our project was to afford con-servation of this geosite and, simultaneously, allow outcrop to be available for future scientific studies. Finally, we would like to encourage interested peo-ple to visit this site. The Siedliszcze Community is

the single place in Poland where there is a record of the impact which killed off the dinosaurs!

ReferencesAlexandrowicz, Z. 2003. Ochrona dziedzictwa geologicz-

nego Polski w koncepcji europejskiej sieci geostano wisk. Przegląd Geologiczny, 51 (3), 224–230.

Alvarez, L.W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., Michel, H.V. 1980. Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinc-tion. Science, 208 (4448), 1095–1108.

Brachaniec, T., Karwowski, Ł., Szopa, K. 2014. Spherules associated with the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary in Poland. Acta Geologica Polonica, 62 (1), 99–108.

Machalski, M. 2010. Polski ślad impaktu, który zabił dino-zaury. Wiedza i Życie, 11, 16–17.

Machalski, M., Racki, G., Koeberl, C., Harasimiuk, M. 2010. Ślad kosmicznej katastrofy. Academia, 3 (23), 32–34.

Machalski, M., Harasimiuk, M. 2012. Ślad kosmicznej kata-strofy w Lechówce. Rocznik Muzeum Ewolucji Instytutu Paleobiologii PAN, 4, 2–9.

Machalski, M., Vellekoop, J., Dubicka, Z., Peryt, D., Hara-simiuk, M. 2016. Late Maastrichtian cephalopods, dino-flagellate cysts and foraminifera from the Cretaceous–Paleogene succession at Lechówka, southeast Poland: Stratigraphic and environmental implications. Creta-ceous Research, 57, 208–227.

Molina, E., Alegret, L., Arenillas, I., Arz, J. A., Gallala, N., Grajales-Nishimura, J.M., Murillo-Muñetón, G., Zagh-bib-Turki, D. 2009. The Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point for the Base of the Danian Stage (Pa-leocene, Paleogene, ‘Tertiary’, Cenozoic): auxiliary sec-tions and correlation. Episodes, 32 (2), 84–95.

Racki, G., Machalski, M., Koeberl, C., Harasimiuk, M. 2011. The weathering-modified iridium record of a new Cre-taceous–Palaeogene site at Lechówka near Chełm, SE Poland, and its palaeobiologic implications. Acta Palae-ontologica Polonica, 56 (1), 205–215.

Schulte, P., Alegret, L., Arenillas, I., Arz, J.A., Barton, P.J., Bown, P.R. 2010. The Chicxulub asteroid impact and mass extinction at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. Science, 327, 1214–1218.

Szopa, K., Brachaniec, T., Karwowski, Ł., Krzykawski, T. 2017. Remnants of altered meteorite in the Cretaceous–Paleogene clay boundary in Poland. Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 52 (4), 612–622.

171

Recommendations for visitors in the Danube Geoparks

Martina Stupar1, Jana Laganis1

Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation, Regional Unit Nova Gorica, Delpinova 16, 5000 Nova Gorica, Slovenia; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: geological heritage, Danube Geoparks, tourism, GeoTour

The Danube GeoTour Project: The GeoTour project is carried on within the Interreg Danube Transnational Programme[1]. The goal of the project is to improve management capacities and strategies, to develop practical solutions for the promotion of geodiversity and geo-heritage, and to achieve positive market trends for sustainable tourism development in the eight UNESCO Global Geoparks of the Danube region. Those Geoparks’ constitute the core of an ambitious group which daily faces with project challenges, and which has set up goals for the Danube GeoTour project[1]. The goal of this project is also to strengthen coopera-tion between various regional geoparks along the Danube River, and to act as an innovative tourism initiative to attract more visitors to geoparks. The scope of the project is also to address the challenge of establishing the appropriate balance between geo-conservation aims and geo-tourism develop-ment in geoparks. In accordance with the proj-ect entitled ‘Valorisation of geo-heritage for sus-tainable and innovative tourism development of Danube Geoparks’, various activities are carried on, aiming in preparation of a common strategy for sustainable management of tourism related pres-sures upon the Danube Geoparks. This document includes various recommendations for residents, visitors and investors in geoparks. It is focused on the analysis of capabilities and constraints of sustainable geo-tourism development, and the for-mation of recommendations on how to manage the increasing pressure of the recreation activities and inappropriate tourists’ attitudes such as collecting of fossils or minerals.

The posters of fossils, minerals and geo-sites: Rocks, minerals and fossils are the most recog-nizable geological phenomena. The geological

heritage can be found in geological sections, in mines and quarries, as individual fossil or min-eral findings, or as meteorites. The collection of geological heritage is regulated by law. Law and regulations provide a formal protection frame, whereas each person, regardless its position and education, is responsible for the actual success in preservation of this invaluable geological richness. The Regional Unit Nova Gorica of the Institute of Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation has prepared three different types of posters/leaf-lets to disseminate the information to public, espe-cially to younger visitors. The posters are entitled ‘Minerals’, ‘Fossils’ and ‘Geosites’. They show photographs from Danube geoparks, while on their backsides, the recommendations and rules for vis-itors are listed. The essential code of conduct is given in the form of comments of a boy and a girl, walking over different geo-sites while talking to each other. Posters samples will be available at the Symposium.

Conclusions: We should treat our unique geolog-ical heritage with due responsibility and respect since it is an important part of our national identity. This is the most important message our posters.

ReferencesLaganis, J., Stupar, M, 2017. Common strategy for sustain-

able management of geotourism pressures in geoparks, pp. 1–40. Institute of the Republic of Slovenia; Nova Gorica.

Internet sources[1] Interreg Danube Transnational Programme; Danube

Geotour, Valorisation of geo-heritage for sustainable and innovative tourism development of Danube Geoparks. http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/dan-ube-geotour/news



172

Geological Garden at Tata (Hungary) – cleaned and beautified

István Szente1, Bence Takács2, Erzsébet Harman-Tóth3, Tamás G. Weiszburg1

1 ELTE Geological Garden, Pázmány P. s. 1/c, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected] (T.G.W.)

2 Budapest University of Technology and Engineering, Department of Geodesy and Surveying, Műegyetem rkp. 3, Kép., H-1111 Budapest, Hungary; e-mail: [email protected]

3 Eötvös Museum of Natural History, Pázmány P. s. 1/c, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary; e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: open-air geological museum, geosite maintenance, surveying, peri-Mediterranean Mesozoic, prehistoric mining

Geological framework and historical back-ground: The territory of Hungary, although charac-terized by surface rocks and sediments of predom-inantly Neogene and Quaternary age, is relatively rich in scientifically important and/or spectacu-lar geological sites representing earlier periods of Earth history. Many of them are concentrated in the Transdanubian Range, where Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequences are unmetamorphosed and have not suffered considerable post-depositional deformation. Most of the exposures are, however, scattered and far from roads and settlements. An ex-

ception to this rule is the town Tata situated around 70 km to the NW of Budapest. There a finely ex-posed succession of sedimentary rocks (ranging from the Upper Triassic Dachstein Limestone through various Jurassic facies such as ‘ammonit-ico rosso’ to the Lower Cretaceous (Aptian) Tata Limestone) can be studied in abandoned quarries of the Kálvária Hill (Fülöp 1976; Haas 2007).

Detailed geological survey carried out by József Fülöp (1928–1994) has lead to the recognition of the scientific and educational importance of the Kálvária Hill Mesozoic, and a part of the hill was

Fig. 1. Early Jurassic limestone succession exposed along the quarry wall in the Tata Geological Garden. The oblique darker band has not been cleaned in order to display the state of the wall before the cleaning action as well as to study the effects of weathering and of the growth of vegetation. Photograph by István Szente.

173

declared to be a nature conservation area in 1958. Fülöp had the opportunity to clean large areas from soil and vegetation. In the course of geolog-ical study two chert mines dug by the copper-age man in Middle Jurassic radiolarite was discovered in the late sixties (Fülöp 1973). The pits, now pro-tected by a building, are the only prehistoric min-ing sites accessible to visitors in Hungary.

By this time, the extent of the protected area has increased step-by-step to 3.5 ha and since 1976 it acts as an open-air geological museum, founded by the former Hungarian Geological Institute. The man-agement of the site now called at full length ‛ELTE Tata Geological Garden – Nature Conservation Area and Open-Air Geological Museum’ was taken over by the Eötvös University in 1994. It functions as a place for public outreach, teaching and research. Economic problems related to the changing in soci-ety in Hungary dramatically influenced the history of the Geological Garden. Until 1992, tens of tech-nicians from the Geological Institute cleared away the soil and loose rock pieces as well as plants from the rock surfaces once in two years. In addition to the termination of this service, budget cuts resulted in reduction of the staff members from five to two, making maintenance rather difficult. Rocky sur-faces became more and more vegetated and covered with loose rock pieces and soil.

Renewal of the Geological Garden: In 2015, a grant of 175,300 € received from the European Union provided the opportunity to stop ‛foresta-tion’. Plants and loose rock pieces were removed from quarry walls and rock surfaces were cleaned using hand tools. Final cleaning was carried out by water-blasting. Near 60 cubic meters of rock debris was produced this way. A part of it, removed formation-by-formation, has been stored in wag-ons and is available to visitors as samples of local rocks. Fossils gathered during the cleaning action are kept in the collection of the Geological Garden. The remaining bulk of the material has been used

to construct a new ramp making accessible a spec-tacular exposure of Lower Jurassic crinoidal lime-stone. Local limestone was also used to build a wall supporting a large marl and limestone block undercut by erosion. Now the rocky surfaces ap-pear more attractive than ever before (Fig. 1).

In addition to cleaning activity, geodetic sur-vey of the whole Geological Garden as well as 3D scanning of selected quarry walls and rocky surfaces were carried out. Surprisingly, the sur-veying resulted in recognition of considerable dif-ference between the extent of the area used by the Geological Garden and that indicated by the land registry. Other results of the large-scale renewal include the discovery of a third chert mine located outside of the archaeological exhibition building, as well as repair of the drainage system of the lat-ter. The chert pit was excavated in 2017.

The Geological Garden houses a wealth of bo-tanical values. The last two years saw a welcome increase in the number of the staff that makes gar-dening much more efficient as compared to the preceding decades. Two years seem necessary to clean up the garden entirely.

Planning for the future: The newly discovered chert pit as well as the cleaning of the rock surfaces raised the question whether they can be conserved for a long time in their present state or not. 3D scanning and filling them seem to be an alterna-tive. In that case, visitors could see the rocks lying beneath their feet using VR glasses.

ReferencesFülöp, J. 1973. Funde des prähistorisches Silexgrubenbaues

am Kálvária-Hügel von Tata. Acta Archaeologica Aca-demiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 25, 425.

Fülöp, J. 1976. The Mesozoic basement horst blocks of Tata. Geologica Hungarica. Series Geologica, 16, 1–229. In-stitutum geologicum Hungaricum; Budapest.

Haas, J. 2007. Geological Garden in Tata, Transdanubian Range, Hungary. Nova Acta Leopoldina Neue Folge, 94 (349), 237–251.



174

Geoeducation potential of the Łagów areain the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland

Piotr Szrek1,2

1 Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Rakowiecka 4, 00-975 Warszawa, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Faculty of Geology, University of Warsaw, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warszawa, Poland

Keywords: geotourism, science, palaeontology, Holy Cross Mountains

Goals: The geology of the Łagów commune is well studied and described in many scientific (more than 20 of high-impact articles) and popular papers. Regarding many world-wide famous dis-coveries based of fossil record of Łagów, e.g. sex-ual dimorphism of ammonoids (Makowski 1963), record of the 2nd biggest extinction event in the history of life (Racki et al. 2002), well-preserved big placoderm fish assemblage (Szrek, Wilk 2018), the name of Łagów and its vicinities is becoming to be recognisable among non-geologists tourists. Actually, the marine Devonian strata (419–365 Ma), the most abundant on the described area, are so folded and faulted that the exact nature of the rock succession has not yet been wholly de-termined, and still may bring new discoveries as a ‘scientifically open’ area. In addition the entire area is pretty accessible for seeking geological phe-nomena as underwater landslide sections, sort of lithological types of sediments and fossils. During the last decade, the eastern part of the Łagów com-mune has been a subject of interests of intensive mining activity. Also, many traces of the ancient (starting from the 15th century) mining activities proved very interesting geology and rich natural resources of the Łagów area. All those values have been till now poorly used for local development. It has fundamentally changed the original landscape and brought on many negative environmental changes in comparison with original values of the Łagów area (Kowalczyk, Szrek 2011). Recently, geologists together with local authorities have de-cided to create an educational project which could help to promote the Łagów area as geotouristic at-traction for teachers, school children and all those who are interested in the history of life on Earth and processes that shape the landscape.

Methods: Recent scientific discoveries and curios-ity of media about them, provide directions for use in project. Therefore the field exhibitions (educa-

tional tracks), local natural history museum and a set of lectures are planned to perform in the nearest future. In addition, various types of other activities which are going to be undertaken in this area, such as restaurants, sort of local souvenirs, accommo-dation offers, bicycles trails and others, may in-crease the attractiveness of the Łagów commune.

Conclusions: Some people love to collect fossils and rocks and enjoy their extraordinary mode of preservation and a beauty, while others use them to study the mystery of their evolution. Whatever the purpose, they catch the bug of geology, develop their passion, and fascinate with it other people, it is important to create an opportunity to contin-ues their passion and fascinate the others. Recent efforts to increase the geotouristic advantage of the Łagów commune have been possible thanks to the cooperation of scientists, local authorities and regional touristic organizations. Very import-ant in this case is also a convenient location of the commune in the central part of the Holy Cross Mountains, close to the main road Kielce – Opatów. It is crucial to address the offer to the tourists and to the local people, in the aim to protect the most significant geosites by their everyday attention.

ReferencesKowalczyk, M., Szrek, P. 2011. Wykorzystanie zasobów

naturalnych a planowanie przestrzenne w gminie na przykładzie Łagowa (województwo Świętokrzyskie). Czasopismo Techniczne, Architektura, 17, 235–239.

Makowski, H. 1963. Problem of sexual dimorphism in am-monites. Palaeontologia Polonica, 12, 1–92.

Racki, G., Racka, M., Matyja, H., Devleeschouwer, X. 2002. The Frasnian/Famennian boundary interval in the South Polish-Moravian shelf basins: integrated event-stratigraphical approach. Palaeogeography, Pa-laeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 181, 251–297.

Szrek, P., Wilk, O. 2018. A large Late Devonian arthrodire (Vertebrata, Placodermi) from Poland. Estonian Journal of Earth Sciences, 67, 33–42.

175

Scientific and educational aspects of Ordovician and Silurian geosites at Mójcza and Bardo Stawy in the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland

Wiesław Trela

Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Zgoda 21, 25-953 Kielce, Poland; e-mail: [email protected]

Key words: geosites, cool water limestones, cherts, climate, Ordovician, Silurian

Geological setting: The Holy Cross Mountains (HCM) in the SE part of central Poland are situ-ated between the East European Craton (Baltica) in the east and the Central European Variscides in the west. Numerous quarries and natural outcrops, located in close proximity to each other, provide access to the Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary successions, which are a valu-able geological heritage of Central Europe. The Palaeozoic basement of the HCM largely consists of the Cambrian and Devonian rocks, while out-crops of the Ordovician, Silurian, Carboniferous and Permian deposits are definitely less numerous. Distinctive Ordovician and Silurian rock sections are exposed in the Mójcza and Bardo Stawy vil-lages. They are unique geosites providing inside into the sedimentary evolution of the HCM during the Late Ordovician to earliest Silurian climate and sea-level changes, and therefore they are valuable both in the scientific and educational terms.

The Mójcza geosite: It is located the south-east-ward of Kielce on the Załaźnia Hill. The section ex-posed in this geositeconsists of the Middle to Upper Ordovician condensed limestones of the Mójcza Formation, up to 10 m thick (Trela 2006). They are dated by conodont microfossils (Dzik 1994a) doc-umenting the Darriwilian to Katian global stages. Besides conodonts, the fossil assemblage of the Mójcza Formation consists of trilobites, brachio-pods, echinoderms, ostracodes, bryozoans, mach-aeridians and molluscs (Dzik 1994 bc; Olempska 1994; Pisera 1994), which form a cool water faunal assemblage. The Middle and Late Ordovician facies pattern in the HCM allows to assume that deposi-tion of the Mójcza Formation took place on a small isolated carbonate platform, characterized by the low sediment accumulation rate (Dzik, Pisera 1994; Trela 2005). This sedimentary setting facilitated the early diagenetic phosphate and iron authigen-esis, preserved as thin envelopes on bioclasts, and

various coated grains (ooids and oncoids) concen-trated in distinctive sedimentary intervals (Dzik, Pisera 1994; Trela 2005). Thus, the Mójcza geosite provides inside into the Early Palaeozoic ecosystem and unique carbonate environment.

The Bardo Stawy geosite: It is the natural out-crop in the southern HCM providing access to the Ordovician/Silurian boundary. The uppermost Ordovician is made up of the Zalesie Formation (~4 m thick) consisting of the early Hirnantian greenish grey to yellow mudstones and shales with numerous quartz grains, coeval to the glacio- eustatic regressive event (Trela, Szczepanik 2009). It is noteworthy that similar Hirnantian quartz-rich mudstones in the East-European Craton are inter-preted as glaciomarine deposits left by icebergs derived from the Gondwana ice sheet (Paszkowski et al. 2015). The overlying black cherts and sili-ceous shales of the Bardo Formation (~12 m thick) are dated by the earliest Silurian graptolites of the ascensus/acuminatus to cyphus biozones of the Rhuddanian stage (Masiak et al. 2003). They are interpreted as anoxic transgressive sequence deposited in response to the post-glacial marine flooding initiated during the latest Hirnantian persculptus Biozone (Masiak et al. 2003; Trela, Salwa 2007). Deposition of this sequence was in-fluenced by upwelling induced by the SE trade winds (Trela, Salwa 2007), which generated a large blooms preserved as white laminae and nodules within chert beds (Kremer 2005). The bottom of sedimentary basin was colonized by benthic co-lonial coccoid cyanobacteria that were able to live in darkness using the anoxygenic photosynthetic system (Kremer, Kaźmierczak 2005).

ReferencesDzik, J. 1994a. Conodonts of the Mójcza Limestone. Pale-

ontologia Polonica, 53, 43–128.Dzik, J. 1994b. Machaeridians, chitons and conchiferan



176

molluscs of the Mójcza Limestones. Paleontologia Po-lonica, 53, 213–252.

Dzik, J. 1994c. Bryozoa of the Mójcza Limestones. Paleon-tologia Polonica, 53, 253–282.

Dzik, J. Pisera, A. 1994. Sedimentation and fossils of the Mójcza Limestones. Paleontologia Polonica, 53, 5–41.

Kremer, B. 2005. Mazuelloids: product of post-mortem phos-phatization of acanthomorphic acritarchs. Palaios, 20, 27–36.

Kremer, B., Kaźmierczak, J. 2005. Cyanobacterial mats from Silurian black radiolarian cherts: phototrophic life at the edge of darkness? Journal of Sedimentary Re-search, 75, 897–906.

Masiak, M. Podhalańska, T., Stempień-Sałek, M. 2003. Or-dovician–Silurian boundary in the Bardo Syncline (Holy Cross Mountains) – new data on fossil assemblages and sedimentary succession. Geological Quarterly, 47, 311–329.

Olepmska, E. 1994. Ostracods of the Mójcza Limestones. Paleontologia Polonica, 53, 129–212.

Paszkowski, M., Buniak, A., Kędzior, A., Mikołajewski, Z.,

Porębski, S. 2015. Stormy warming-up of Baltica shelf: transition from Hirnantian ‘iceberg alley’ to Llandovery ‘hot shales’. Abstract Book of 31st IAS Meeting of Sed-imentology, 22–25 June, 2015, Krakow, Poland, p. 402.

Pisera, A. 1994. Echinoderms of the Mójcza Limestones. Paleontologia Polonica, 53, 308317.

Trela, W. 2005. Condensation and phosphatization of the Mid-dle and Upper Ordovician limestones on the Małopolska Block (Poland): response to palaeoceanographic condi-tions. Sedimentary Geology, 178, 219–236.

Trela, W. 2006. Litostratygrafia ordowiku w Górach Świętokrzyskich. Przegląd Geologiczny, 54, 622–631.

Trela, W., Salwa, S. 2007. Litostratygrafia dolnego syluru w odsłonięciu Bardo Stawy (południowa część Gór Świętokrzyskich): związek ze zmianami poziomu mor-za i cyrkulacją oceaniczną. Przegląd Geologiczny, 55, 971–978.

Trela, W., Szczepanik, Z. 2009. Litologia i zespół akritar-chowy formacji z Zalesia w Górach Świętokrzyskich na tle zmian poziomu morza i paleogeografii późnego ordowiku. Przegląd Geologiczny, 57, 147–157.

177

Representative and unique geosites of the Russian Plate and prospects for their conservation

Marina S. Vdovets1, Oleg V. Petrov1, Ivan Ya. Gogin1, Sergei A. Semiletkin1

1 Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI), Sredny prospect 74, St. Petersburg, Russia; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: Russian Plate, representative and unique geosites, geotourism

Introduction: The Russian Plate occupies most of the East European Platform. There, the Ediacaran, Late Permian and Triassic fossil localities, Paleozoic and Mesozoic sections, proposed as Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points (GSSPs), and some deposits and landforms feature represen-tative and unique geosites of this area. Geosites located in the Northwestern Federal District were presented elsewhere (Vdovets et al. 2015).

Geosites description: (1) Afanasievo section (Mos cow Region, Voscresensk District) is consid-ered as the neostratotype of the Kasimovian Stage. The Kasimovian lower boundary has not been established yet. The results of the latest research of the International Working Group revealed the high correlation potential of the conodont species Idiognathodus sagittalis Kozitskaya, which is found in the Moscow Region, the Southern Urals, Donbass, the Cantabrian Mountains of Spain, etc. However, in the Afanasievo section, the first occur-rence of this species is higher than the base of the Kasimovian Stage. The alternative inferior stage boundary is considered at the level of first occur-rence of the conodont species Streptognathodus subexcelsus (Goreva et al. 2009). (2) Tarlovka local-ity (Republic of Tatarstan, Elabuga District, right bank of the Kama River) is famous of the Early Roadian plant association of the pteridosperm- filical type, occurring in the polymictic sandstones. The diversity and excellent preservation of these plants, whose age exceeds 270 Ma, allow studying their cellular structure (Silantiev 2007). (3) Isheevo Wordian vertebrate locality (Republic of Tatarstan, Apastov District) includes dinocephals, pararep-tilia, and fish fossils. It is a reference section for the faunal assemblage that characterizes the final stage of the dinocephal fauna evolution in Eastern Europe. The extinction of the Isheevo fauna was caused by a major ecological crisis occurred at the turn of

the Guadalupian and Lopingian epochs (Silantiev 2007). Section of the Capitanian Stage lower boundary in the Monastyrsky Ravine (Republic of Tatarstan, 10 km of the Tetushi jetty). The bound-ary level is defined at the level of first occurrence of the ostracoda species Suchonellina inornata at the base of the Suchonellina inornata–Prasuchonella nasalis Zone. This level correlates with the bound-ary of the Platysomus biarmicus–Kargalichthys efremovi and Toyemia tverdochlebovi–Platysomus biarmicus zones based on ichtiofauna species. The boundary level accepted on biostratigraphic data coincides with the palaeomagnetic event – change of the magnetic hyperzones: reverse (R1P – Kiama) and normal ones (N1P – Illavara) (Silantiev 2007). (4) Sjomin Ravine locality (Republic of Tatarstan, Tetushi Region) is known of the Capitanian ter-restrial tetrapods, which characterize initial stages of the theriodonts’ evolution. This group origi-nated in Gondwana was represented by the gen-era Dicynodontus, Pareiasaurus and Gorgonops. Since the dinocephal fauna of Eastern Europe evolved from the Gondwana’s predecessor during Guadalupian time, the occurrence of a large num-ber of typical Gondwanian tetrapod groups in the Capitanian deposits of the Russian Plate tes-tifies a new land connection between Gondwana and Eurasia, due to marine regression in the Late Guadalupian (Silantiev 2007). (5) Section of the Wuchiapingian Stage lower boundary near Nizhnie Isady Village (Vologda Region). The boundary is determined at the level of first occurrence of os-tracod of the Wjatkellina fragilis–Dvinella cyrta Zone and corresponds to the tetrapod Chronio-saurus levis Subzone. The boundary level is con-firmed by paleomagnetic studies (Bulletin 2001). (6) Tikhvin locality (Yaroslavl Region, Rybinsk District, right bank of the Volga River) is one of the richest outcrops yelding Early Triassic fauna and flora. It is well-known of the abundance of



178

fossils, their conservation and taxonomic diversity. Numerous finds of vertebrates (tetrapods, fishes), invertebrates (arthropods, mollusks, bryozoans) and plants (plumaceous, charous algae) are known from there. Special scientific interest is focused on the fossil insects. (Kiselev et al. 2012). (7) Dubki section (Saratov Region) represents the most complete succession of the Callovian–Oxfordian boundary recorded in European Russia. The lower boundary of the Oxfordian has been recognized at the level of first occurrence of the ammonite species Cardioceras redcliffense. The section was studied in detail in terms of sedimentology, petrog-raphy and carbon and oxygen isotopes (Kiselev et al. 2013). (8) Section of the lower boundary of the Kimmeridgian Stage on the Unzha River (Kostroma Region, near Makariev town). The boundary is de-termined at the level of first occurrence of the am-monite species Pictonia densicostata at the base of the Pictonia baylei Zone. This boundary cor-relates to the boundary between the Epistomina whligli–lenticulina russiensis foraminifera bio-zone in the Upper Oxfordian and the Epistomina praetatariensis–Lenticulina kuznetsovae foram-nifara biozone in the Lower Kimmeridgian. (9) Puchesh-Katunka Astrobleme (Nizhniy Novgorod and Ivanovo Regions) is one of the world’s largest impact structures (its diameter is 80 km), formed 175 million years ago. Impact breccias are ex-posed within 50 km along the Volga River. There are shatter cones, melting glasses, coesites, impact diamonds and other impact metamorphism mani-festations. Widespread post-impact hydrothermal alterations occur in the section. Available data on the astrobleme (170 wells to 5374 m deep) allow investigating the role of large-scale impact effects on Earth (Masaitis 1994).

Conclusion: All the mentioned geosites have great scientific importance and need to be protected for research and education. However, almost half of them have no official protected status yet. The fol-

lowing steps should be undertaken in Russia in aim to protect these sites: (1) Assigning them an official status of protected geosites, and (2) Geotourism de-velopment as an economical base for geosites pres-ervation and public education. Nature-conservation touristic centers and geoparks are being created for these purposes. In 2016, the Russian Committee of the UNESCO International Geoscience and Geoparks Program was established. One of the au-thors of the present paper (O.V. Petrov) is a co-chair-man of the Committee. Currently, three geoparks are officially registered in Russia.

ReferencesBulletin of the Regional interdepartmental Stratigraphic

Commission for the Central and Southern Russian Plat-form, 3 (2001), pp. 1–183. Russian Academy of Natural Sciences; Мoscow. (In Russian).

Goreva, N., Alekseev, A., Isakova, T., Kossovaya, O. 2009. Biostratigraphical analysis of the Moscovian–Kasimov-ian transition at the neostratotype of Kasimovian Stage (Afanasievo section, Moscow Basin, Russia). Palaeo-world, 18, 102–113.

Kiselev, D.N. 2012. Objecty geologicheskogo nasledia Yaro-slavskoy oblasti: stratigraphia, paleontologiya, paleo geo-graphiya (Geosites of the Yaroslavl Region: strati graphy, paleontology, paleogeography), pp. 1–304. Ustitsinform; Moscow. (In Russian with English table of contents).

Kiselev, D., Rogov, M., Glinskikh, L., Pimenov, M., Mikhai-lov, A., Dzuba, O., Matveev, A., Tesakova, E. 2013. Integrated stratigraphy of the reference sections for the Callovian/Oxfordian boundary in European Russia. Vo-lumina Jurassica, 11, 59–96. Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute; Warsaw.

Masaitis, V. (Ed.) 1994. Gigantskie astroblemy Rossii (Giant astroblemes of Russia), pp. 1–32. VSEGEI; St. Peters-burg. (In Russian).

Silantiev, V.V. (Ed.) 2007. Geologicheskie pamyatniki pri-rody Respubliki Tatarstan (Geosites of the Republic of Tatar stan), pp. 1–296. Akvarel-Art; Kazan. (In Russian).

Vdovets, M., Remizov, D. 2015. The most representative and unique geosites of the North-Western Federal Dis-trict of Russia. In: Abstracts Book of the 8th Internation-al ProGEO Symposium, 9–10 September 2015, Reykja-vik, Iceland, p. 66–67.

179

ABSTRACTS IN ALPHABETIC ORDER

Afonso Andreia, Pereira PauloAssessment of the geological heritage tourism value in the Peneda-Gerês National Park (Northern Portugal): a site selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Thu, p. 143)Akiyanova Farida, Adilbekova Fariza, Atalikhova Aksholpan, Jussupova Zulfira, Simabtova Aliya, Dolbeshkin Maxim, Akishev NurzhanConservation and sustainable recreational use of unique ecosystems of the Burabay State National Nature Park (Northern Kazakhstan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Tue, p. 145)Alenicheva Аntonina А., Semenova Ljudmila R.Geosites of the Sakhalin and Moneron: geotourism development . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Tue, p. 147)Ásbjörnsdóttir Lovísa, Þorvarðardóttir GuðríðurSelecting important geoheritage for a conservation strategy plan in Iceland (Oral Presentation D, Tue, p. 92)Bajraktari Fadil, Behrami Sami, Zogaj Nazmi, Avdia BlertaProtected areas at the cross-border region Kosovo – Albania . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation A, Wed, p. 36)Baráz Csaba, Holló Sándor, Telbisz TamásCreation of a new geopark in the Bükk Region (Hungary) – a bottom-up initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation B, Tue, p. 67)Bąbel Maciej, Jarzyna Adrian, Ługowski Damian, Bogucki Andriy, Yatsyshyn Andriy, Nejbert Krzysztof, Olszewska-Nejbert Danuta3D documentation, monitoring and origin of the hydration caves from the unique outcrop of weathering anhydrites at Pisky near Lviv (Ukraine) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation B, Tue, p. 42)Bąbel Maciej, Jarzyna Adrian, Ługowski Damian, Vladi Firouz, Bogucki Andriy, Yatsyshyn Andriy, Nejbert Krzysztof, Olszewska-Nejbert Danuta, Kotowski Jakub, Kremer Barbara, Tomeniuk OlenaThe hydration caves as a unique geological heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation B, Wed, p. 65)Brilha JoséThe establishment of geoconservation standards: the ProGEO glossary of geoconservation terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Thu, p. 149)Brzezińska-Wójcik Teresa, Skowronek EwaHeritage of the Brusno stone work centre as an opportunity to develop and promote rural areas of Roztocze Region (Southeastern Poland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation B, Tue, p. 69)Cernatič Gregorič AnicaTypical landforms of Kras (Slovenia), an important constituent part of the Karst landscape and possibilities for their conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation A, Tue, p. 21)Corbí Hugo, Alfaro Pedro, Andreu José Miguel, Baeza José Francisco, Benavente David, Blanco-Quintero Idael F., Cañaveras Juan Carlos, Cuevas Jaime, Delgado José, Díez-Canseco Davinia, Giannetti Alice, Martín-Rojas Ivan, Martínez-Martínez Javier, Medina-Cascales Ivan, Peral Juan, Rosa-Cintas Sergio‘Geogymkhana’: an outreach activity to bring closer the geoheritage to high schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation E, Wed, p. 114)Corbí Hugo, Asensio-Montesinos Francisco, Abellán Antonio, Pardo Vicent, Martínez-Martínez Javier3D geological models for promoting geoheritage: the Messinian atoll reef of Santa Pola (SE Spain) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Tue, p. 150)Corbí Hugo, Martín-Rojas Ivan, Martínez-Martínez JavierLinking geological and architectural heritage through a 3D geological model of a historical quarry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation B, Thu, p. 44)Cropp DavidThe Geo-Village: from concept to reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation B, Tue, p. 46)

9th International ProGEO Symposium, Chęciny, Poland, 2018

180

Díaz-Martínez Enrique, Charles Nicolas, García-Cortés Ángel, Vegas JuanaEuropean cooperation towards the promotion of geoconservation in Africa. (Oral Presentation A, Tue, p. 23)Dunlop LesleyNatural Capital – placing a value on geoconservation within a landscape framework in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation A, Wed, p. 25)Evans BenTIPical Valleys: reintroducing local people to iconic mineral spoil landscapes in the South Wales Coalfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation B, Thu, p. 47)Fermeli Georgia, Koutsouveli AnastasiaThe conglomerates of Meteora: a geological heritage monument of Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation B, Wed, p. 71)Fijałkowska-Mader AnnaUse of ‘rose-like’ calcite for determination of age and origin of the calcite minerals in the Holy Cross Mountains (Southern Poland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation C, Tue, p. 89)Forte João, Matias Maria Isabel, de Moura Pereira Pascal, Brandão Coelho LuísGeodiversity in the Terras de Coura Landscape Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation A, Wed, p. 26)Głowacki WiktorDiversified approach to dynamic fluvial geoheritage of Western Outer Carpathians – selected problems of conservation and use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation E, Thu, p. 116)Gogin Ivan Ya.Regional type-sections of GSSPs as Geological Heritage sites of practical importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Thu, p. 152)Górska-Zabielska Maria, Witkowska Kinga, Pisarska Magdalena, Musiał RafałErratic boulders in Świętokrzyskie Region and their geotouristic potential . . . (Poster Presentation E, Wed, p. 154)Grabarczyk Anna, Stróżyk KatarzynaNatural and social aspects of the selection of the GSSP; the case of the Słupia Nadbrzeżna river cliff section (Central Poland), the candidate stratotype for the basal boundary of the Coniacian Stage (Upper Cretaceous) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation D, Tue, p. 108)İnaner Hülya, Sümer Ökmen, Akbulut MehmetGeosites and protected areas in the western termination of the Büyük Menderes Graben and their importance of science education and tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation E, Thu, p. 118)Jamorska Izabela, Karasiewicz Tomasz, Tylmann KarolGeodiversity and geoheritage of the glacial landscape areas in Poland . . . . (Poster Presentation B, Wed, p. 73)Kałaska Maciej, Siuda Rafał, Sierpień PaulaApplication of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and geochemical survey to investigations of old mining center in Radzimowice (Lower Silesia, SW Poland) . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation B, Wed, p. 74)Kananoja TapioGeoconservation for education – from classroom to reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation E, Wed, p. 120)Karancsi Zoltán, Horváth Gergely, Csüllög Gábor, Szabó MáriaThe role of the landscape aesthetic values in the geotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation A, Wed, p. 28)Kazancı NizamettinMucurtachylites: an ‘astrobleme category’ geosite in the inventory list of Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation C, Tue, p. 88)Kazancı Nizamettin, Suludere Yaşar, Şaroğlu Fuat, Gürbüz Alper, Özgüneylioğlu Aysen, Mülazımoğlu Necip S., Mengi Hamdi, Arslan Sonay Boyraz, Gürbüz Esra, Yücel Tahsin Onur, Ersöz Merve, İnaner HülyaArchaeological and historical mines in Turkey as instruments for public awareness on geoconservation: JEMİRKO Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation B, Tue, p. 76)


181

Kociuba Waldemar, Brzezińska-Wójcik Teresa, Skowronek EwaHigh-resolution Terrestrial Laser Scanning as a tool for acquisition and analysis data of geo- and cultural heritage: an example from the Roztocze Region (Southeastern Poland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation B, Wed, p. 77)Koźma JacekThe use of post-mining landscape for geotouristic purposes in Geopark – by the example of the Polish part of UNESCO Global Geopark Muskau Arch . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation B, Wed, p. 79)Krzeczyńska Monika, Wierzbowski Andrzej, Woźniak PawełFor the sake of protection of geodiversity implemented through geological education and geotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Wed, p. 156)Kubalíková LucieBringing geoheritage to people: developing geotourism within urban areas – a case study of Brno (Czech Republic) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation B, Tue, p. 48)Lah MarvyEvaluation of Cultural Landscape within the Cultural Heritage Protection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation A, Wed, p. 30)Lee Kuang-ChungEnhancing Community–School Partnership for Rural Landscape Conservation: a case study in Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation, A, Tue, p. 31)Ludwikowska-Kędzia Małgorzata, Wiatrak MałgorzataGeotourism potential of small river valleys of the Holy Cross Mountains (Central Poland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation E, Wed, p. 122)Lundqvist Sven, Ransed Gunnel, Dahl RolvGeological heritage in the central part of Scandinavia (GEARS) – a Norwegian-Swedish transboundary Interreg Project (2017–2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Thu, p. 158)Lyakhnitsky Yury, Ivanova TatianaCreation of a geotouritstic underground route in the Ruskeala Mining Park (the Republic of Karelia, Russian Federation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation E, Wed, p. 124)Lyakhnitsky Yury, Ivanova TatianaThe Kapova Cave (Shulgantash Cave) – one of the well-known geosites of South Ural (Russian Federation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Wed, p. 160)Macadam John, Popa Răzvan-Gabriel, Toma Cristina, Kudor Stefan George, Popa Diana-AliceCooking, Culture and Concretions: The Three Cs for compulsive, creative communication in Buzau Land Aspiring Geopark (Romania) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation E, Thu, p. 126)Macadam John, Popa Răzvan-Gabriel, Toma Cristina, Kudor Stefan George, Popa Diana-AliceUsing provocative interpretation to manage visitors to the fragile, dynamic geoheritage of mud volcanoes in Aspiring Geopark Buzau Land in Romania? . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Thu, p. 162)Machalski Marcin, Liwiński WiesławGeotourism as a vehicle for geoconservation: the case of an abandoned phosphorite mine at Annopol, Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation B, Wed, p. 50)Manjon Mazoca Carlos Eduardo, Costa Mucivuna Vanessa, Motta Garcia Maria da Glória, Henriques Renato, Del Lama Eliane Aparecida, Bourotte ChristinePanoramic 360° images and 3D models as tools to promote cultural and geological heritage: the example of Bertioga, central coast of São Paulo State, Brazil . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation E, Thu, p. 128)Mari László, Telbisz TamásEuropean National Parks with karst landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation D, Wed, p. 94)Matthews Jack J.Discovery Aspiring Geopark: A candidate for UNESCO Global Geopark from the Bonavista Peninsula of Newfoundland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation D, Tue, p. 110)


182

Matthews Jack J.Threats to Geoheritage at the Mistaken Point World Heritage Site: Identification, Monitoring, and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation E, Thu, p. 130)Matthews Jack J., McMahon SeanExogeoconservation: Protecting Geological Heritage on Celestial Bodies . (Oral Presentation D, Wed, p. 96)Migoń Piotr, Duszyński Filip, Różycka Milena, Jancewicz KacperTracing landform evolution through time along a thematic trail in Elbsandsteingebirge (Germany) – application of ergodic principle in interpreting geoheritage . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation E, Thu, p. 131)Mizerski Włodzimierz, Skurczyńska-Garwolińska KatarzynaThe educational role of the outcrops in qualified geotourism in which one may define the age and process of the tectonic movements – some examples from the Holy Cross Mountains, Central Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Thu, p. 164)Monge-Ganuzas Manu, Salazar Ángel, Herrero Nadia, Guillén-Mondéjar Francisco, Hilario Asier, Lorente Javier, Mata-Perelló Josep María, Utiel Juan Carlos, Díaz-Martínez EnriqueSpanish achievements and initiatives towards geoconservation: 2018 update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation D, Wed, p. 97)Monge-Ganuzas Manu, Salazar Ángel, Herrero Nadia, Guillén-Mondéjar Francisco, Hilario Asier, Mata-Perelló Josep M., Utiel Juan C., Díaz-Martínez EnriqueThe inclusion of the geodiversity and geoheritage in the Ordesa-Viñamala Action Plan 2017–2025 for the Spanish Network of Biosphere Reserves (SNBR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation D, Tue, p. 99)Motta Garcia Maria da Glória, Brilha José, de Gouveia Souza Célia Regina, Del Lama Eliane AparecidaPreliminary assessment of ecosystem services provided by geodiversity in the coastal region of the state of São Paulo, Southeastern Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation D, Tue, p. 101)Moura Pâmella, Motta Garcia Maria da Glória, Brilha JoséEnhancing geoconservation strategies by quantitative assessment of geosites in the Ceará Central Domain, Northeastern Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation A, Wed, p. 37)Niculiță MihaiBahluieț Valley at Costești village (Romania) geo archaeosite: the need for its protecting, promoting and managing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Thu, p. 166)Nikolić Gojko R.Geodiversity and biodiversity complementary in nature protection in Montenegro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation B, Wed, p. 81)Novak Matevž, Stupar MartinaGeoheritage in Slovenia – a short overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation D, Wed, p. 103)Özgen Erdem Nazire, Kazancı NizamettinLocal fossil sites: a new proposal to be included in the national geological frameworks of Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation C, Tue, p. 91)Özkul Mehmet, Gökgöz Ali, Yüksel Ali KamilTravertine Spring Towers as rare depositional morphologies in geothermal fields: the example of the Hisaralan Geothermal Field in NW Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation B, Wed, p. 83)Page Kevin, Pereira Lola, Schouenborg Björn, de Wever PatrickThe International Commission on Geoheritage (ICG): A new partner for developing global geoconservation policy and practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation E, Thu, p. 133)Pereira Paulo, Insua Pereira Diamantino, Gonçalves Bruno, Viveiros Carla, Afonso AndreiaAssessment of tourism value in geological heritage: why, what and how . . (Oral Presentation E, Thu, p. 134)Pieńkowski Grzegorz, Fijałkowska-Mader AnnaGeological and cultural heritage of the proposed Kamienna Valley Geopark, Holy Cross Mountains, Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation B, Thu, p. 52)


183

Pijet-Migoń Edyta, Migoń Piotr, Rozpędowska EwelinaBetween geoconservation, tourism, education and local community involvement – the past, present and future of volcanic geosites in the Land of Extinct Volcanoes (Pogórze Kaczawskie, SW Poland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation E, Thu, p. 135)Pivko DanielStones in history of Slovakian territory and tourist interesting places . . . . . (Oral Presentation B, Wed, p. 54)Prosser ColinUsing quarries to link communities to their geoheritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation B, Thu, p. 55)Roberts RaymondBrymbo: Derelict former steelworks to internationally important geoconservation and geotourism site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation E, Wed, p. 137)Schweigert Günter, Roth SigfriedGeopark Schwäbische Alb – an outstanding area for Jurassic and Miocene palaeontology and Pleistocene human culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation B, Thu, p. 57)Seghedi AntonetaGeosites in the area of Dobrogea, Romania, and the need for local geodiversity action plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation D, Tue, p. 105)Semenova Ljudmila R.A Significant Geosite – The Lovozero Alkaline Massif (Russia) . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Tue, p. 167)Serjani AfatGeological context of geosites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation E, Wed, p. 139)de Siqueira Canesin Thais, Brilha José, Díaz-Martínez EnriqueGeoconservation and management strategies: A case study with two Spanish UNESCO Global Geoparks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation A, Tue, p. 33)Stróżyk Katarzyna, Grabarczyk Anna, Machalski MarcinReasons behind plans to conserve the Cretaceous–Paleogene Boundary site at Lechówka, southeast Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Tue, p. 169)Stupar Martina, Laganis JanaRecommendations for visitors in the Danube Geoparks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Thu, p. 171)Szente István, Takács Bence, Harman-Tóth Erzsébet, Weiszburg Tamás G.Geological Garden at Tata (Hungary) – cleaned and beautified . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Thu, p. 172)Szrek PiotrGeoeducation potential of the Łagów area in the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Tue, p. 174)Telbisz Tamás, Gruber Péter, Kőszegi Margit, Mari László, Standovár Tibor, Bottlik ZsoltGeoconservation – an opportunity for people living on karst terrains? A case study of the Aggtelek National Park (Hungary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation B, Thu, p. 59)Trela Wiesław, Szrek Piotr, Salwa SylwesterLand of Tetrapod and Petrified Dunes: geoheritage of proposed geopark in the western part of the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation D, Tue, p. 111)Trela WiesławScientific and educational aspects of Ordovician and Silurian geosites at Mójcza and Bardo Stawy in the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Tue, p. 175)Urban Jan, Margielewski Włodzimierz, Radwanek-Bąk BarbaraConcepts of geoheritage and geosite in a strategy and practice of geoconservation and geology promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation A, Tue, p. 34)Vajskebrová Markéta, Gürtlerová Pavla, Svítil RadekSystematic data collecting and appropriate ways of their Presentations for effective protection of the geological heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation B, Thu, p. 61)


184

Vdovets Marina S., Petrov Oleg V., Gogin Ivan Ya., Semiletkin Sergei A.Representative and unique geosites of the Russian Plate and prospects for their conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation E, Tue, p. 177)Vegas JuanaGeoconservation from the public administrations: Fifty years of work at the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Key note Lecture, p. 19)Vegas Juana, Cabrera Ana, Prieto Ángel, Díez-Herrero Andres, García-Cortés Ángel, Díaz-Martínez Enrique, Carcavilla Luis, Salazar Ángel‘Watch over a rock’, a Spanish programme towards geosite stewardship . . (Oral Presentation E, Wed, p. 141)Weis Robert, Di Cencio AndreaGeoheritage in the Red Rock Region, Southern Luxembourg: towards an integrative view of natural diversity in a cultural landscape? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation B, Wed, p. 84)Woo Kyung Sik, Chun Seung Soo, Moon Kyong O.Outstanding Universal Values of the Korean Archipelago Getbol: its potential for World Heritage Nomination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation D, Tue, p. 113)Woo Kyung Sik, Ju Seong Ok, Brilha JoséKey Geoheritage Area: A potential new programme in IUCN for geoheritage conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Key note Lecture, p. 20)Woo Kyung Sik, Sohn Young Kwan, Kil YoungwooThe aspiring Hantangang Global Geopark in Korea: Its international geological significance and justification for UNESCO Global Geopark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation D, Wed, p. 107)Woodward Dilyara, Ivanova Natalуa, Yegemberdieva Kamshat, Akiyanova Farida, Fishman Il‘yaMangistau Aspiring Geopark (Kazakhstan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation B, Tue, p. 86)Zboińska Katarzyna, Tarka Robert, Szadkowski MateuszProtection of inanimate nature in Lower Silesia (Poland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation D, Wed, p. 39)Zgłobicki Wojciech, Gajek Grzegorz, Kołodyńska-Gawrysiak RenataEducational value of quarries located within the proposed Geopark Małopolska Vistula River Gap, Eastern Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Oral Presentation B, Wed, p. 63)Zwoliński ZbigniewSpatial scales of geodiversity and landform taxonomic hierarchy . . . . . . . . (Poster Presentation A, Wed, p. 41)

185

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORSAfonso, AndreiaInstitute of Earth Sciences, Pole of the University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugale-mail: [email protected]

Akiyanova, FaridaInternational Science Complex ‘Astana’, Kabanbay Batyr av. 8, of. 404, Z05HOT3 Astana, Romaniae-mail: [email protected]

Alenicheva, Аntonina А.A.P. Karpinsky Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI), Sredny prospect 74, 199106 St. Petersburg, Russiae-mail: [email protected]

Alexandrowicz, ZofiaInstitute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Al. Adama Mickiewicza 33, 31-120 Kraków, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Ásbjörnsdóttir, LovísaIcelandic Institute of Natural History, Urriðaholtsstræti 6-8, 210 Garðabær, Icelande-mail: [email protected]

Barjraktari, FadilKosovo Institute for Nature Protection, Luan Haradinaj, New Government Building, 10000, Pristina, Kosovoe-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

Bąbel, MaciejUniversity of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Bieńkowska-Wasiluk, MałgorzataUniversity of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Brilha, JoséInstitute of Earth Sciences, Pole of the University of Minho, Campus of Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugale-mail: jbrilha@dct. uminho.pt

Bruno, BarbaraUniversity of Hawaii, 1680 East-West Road, 96822 Honolulu, Hawaii, United Statese-mail: [email protected]

Brzezińska-Wójcik, TeresaWydział Nauk o Ziemi i Gospodarki Przestrzennej, Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Al. Kraśnicka 2d, 20-718 Lublin, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Caldas de Melo, FranciscaUniversidade do Minho, Rua Rainha D. Leonor, 4590-612 Paços de Ferreira, Portugale-mail: [email protected]

Cernatič Gregorič, AnicaInstitute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation, Regional unit Nova Gorica, Delpinova 16, 5000 Nova Gorica, Sloveniae-mail: [email protected]

Corbí, HugoDepartment of Earth Sciences and the Environment, University of Alicante, Apdo. Correos 99, 03080 San Vicente del Raspeig, Alicante, Spaine-mail: [email protected]

Cropp, DavidTeme Valley Geological Society, 2 Vernon Close Martley, WR6 6QX Worcester, United Kingdome-mail: [email protected]

Díaz-Martínez, EnriqueGeological Survey of Spain (IGME), Ríos Rosas 23, 28003 Madrid, Spaine-mail: [email protected]

Dmytrowski, PiotrZespół Parków Krajobrazowych Województwa Małopolskiego, Vetualniego 1a, 31-227 Kraków, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Dunlop, LesleyChair of the English Geodiversity Forum; Department of Geography and Environmental Science, Northumbria University, Ellison Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, United Kingdome-mail: [email protected]

Dunlop, Robert27 Queen Emmas Dyke, Witney, OX28 4DT, United Kingdome-mail: [email protected]

Erikstad, LarsNINA, Gaustadalléen 21, 0349 Oslo, Norwaye-mail: [email protected]

Evans, BenBritish Institute for Geological Conservation, C/o Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales, Cathays Park Cardiff, CF103NP, Wales, United Kingdome-mail: [email protected]

Fermeli, GeorgiaInstitute of Educational Policy, An. Tsocha 36, 11521 Athens, Greecee-mail: [email protected]

Fijałkowska-Mader, AnnaPolish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Holy Cross Mts. Branch, Zgoda 21, 25-953 Kielce, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Forte, JoãoGeodiversity consultant, Moinho das Moitas, 3240-127 Ansião, Portugale-mail: [email protected]


186

García-Pardo, BegoñaMadrid, Spaine-mail: [email protected]

Gątkowska, JoannaChęciny, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Głowacki, WiktorKrajowy Instytut Polityki Przestrzennej i Mieszkalnictwa, Cieszyńska 2, 30-015 Kraków, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Głowniak, EwaUniversity of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Gogin, Ivan Ya.A.P. Karpinsky Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI), Sredny prospect 74, 199106 St. Petersburg, Russiae-mail: [email protected]

Gordon JohnUniversity of St Andrews, North Street, KY16 9AL St. Andrews, United Kingdome-mail: [email protected]

Górska-Zabielska, MariaInstytut Geografii, Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego, Świętokrzyska 15, 25-406 Kielce, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Grabarczyk, AnnaUniversity of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Holeksa, SzymonKnauf Bełchatów Sp. z o.o.,Gipsowa 3, 97-427 Rogowiec, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Horváth, GergelyEötvös Loránd University, Institute of Geography and Geosciences, Department of Environmental and Landscape Geography, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C, H-1117 Budapest, Hungarye-mail: [email protected]

İnaner, HülyaDokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Geological Engineering, 35160 Buca, İzmir, Turkey; JEMİRKO – The Turkish Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage, 06570 Ankara, Turkeye-mail: [email protected]

Ivanova, NatalуaLLP ‘Areal’, Institute of Geology, Kabanbai Batyr 69, 050010 Almaty, Kazakhstane-mail: [email protected]

Ivanova, TatianaA.P. Karpinsky Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI), Sredny prospect 74, 199106 St. Petersburg, Russiae-mail: [email protected]

Jamorska, IzabelaFaculty of Earth Sciences Nicoulas Copernicus University in Toruń, Lwowska 1, 87-100 Toruń, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Jarzyna, AdrianUniversity of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Kalinowska, AnnaUniwersyteckie Centrum Badań nad Środowiskiem Przyrodniczym i Zrównoważonym Rozwojem, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Kałaska, MaciejUniversity of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Kananoja,TapioGeological Survey of Finland, P.O.Box 69, 02151 Espoo, Finlande-mail: [email protected]

Kaukinen, IrinaPunkalaidun, Finlande-mail: [email protected]

Kazanci, MübeccelJEMİRKO – Turkiss Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage, Bağlıca, Tekdal Caddesi no 3B/22, Botanik Park Sitesi, Etimesgut, 06790 Ankara, Turkeye-mail: [email protected]

Kazancı, NizamettinAnkara University Geological Engineering Department, 06830 Gölbaşı, Ankara, Turkey;JEMİRKO – The Turkish Association for Conservation of Geological Heritage, 06570 Ankara, Turkeye-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

Kłopotowska, AgnieszkaUniversity of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Kołodyńska-Gawrysiak, RenataFaculty of Earth Sciences and Spatial Management, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Kraśnicka 2d, 20-718 Lublin, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Koutsouveli, AnastasiaPiraeus, Greecee-mail: [email protected]

Koźma, JacekPolish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Lower Silesian Branch, Al. Jaworowa 19, 53-122 Wrocław, Polande-mail: [email protected]

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

187

Krzeczyńska, MonikaPolish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Rakowiecka 4, 00-975 Warszawa, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Kubalíková, LucieInstitute of Geonics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Drobného 28, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republice-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

Lah, MarvyInstitute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Cultural Heritage Service, Metelkova 4, Ljubljana, Sloveniae-mail: [email protected]

Lee, Kuang-ChungNational Dong-Hwa University, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, No. 1, Sec. 2, Da Hsueh Rd., Shoufeng Township, 97401 Hualien County, Taiwane-mail: [email protected]

Leonowicz, PaulinaUniversity of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Lin, Mei-LingThe Experimental Primary School of National Dong-Hwa University, No. 1, Sec. 2, Da Hsueh Rd., Shoufeng Township, 97401 Hualien County, Taiwane-mail: [email protected]

Liwiński, WiesławUrząd Miejski, Rynek 1, 23-235 Annopol, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Lundqvist, SvenGeological Survey of Sweden, Box 670, 751 28 Uppsala, Swedene-mail: [email protected]

Macadam, JohnEarthwords, Little Kirland House, PL30 5BJ Bodmin, United Kingdome-mail: [email protected]

Machalski, MarcinInstitute of Paleobiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Twarda 51/55, 00-818 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Manjon Mazoca, Carlos, EduardoCentre for Research Support on Geological Heritage and Geotourism, Institute of Geosciences, University of São Paulo, Brazile-mail: [email protected]

Mari, LászlóDepartment of Physical Geography, Eötvös University, 1117 Pázmány Péter 1/C, Budapest, Hungarye-mail: [email protected]

Matthews, Jack J.Department of Earth Sciences, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, NL, A1B 3X5, CanadaOxford University Museum of Natural History, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PW, United Kingdome-mail: [email protected]

Meducki, ZbigniewGmina Łagów z siedzibą w Urzędzie Miasta i Gminy w Łagowie, Rynek 62, 26-025 Łagów, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Migoń, PiotrInstitute of Geography and Regional Development, University of Wrocław, Pl. Uniwersytecki 1, 50-137 Wrocław, Polande-mails: [email protected]

Mizerski, WłodzimierzPolish Geological Institute ‒ National Research Institute, Rakowiecka 4, 00-975 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Monge-Ganuzas, ManuUrdaibai Biosphere Reserve’s Service, Environment, Territorial Planning and Housing Department, Basque government. Madariaga Dorretxea, San Bartolomeauzoa 34-36, 48350 Busturia, SpainCommission on Geological Heritage, Geological Society of Spaine-mail: [email protected]

Morżoł, IlonaPolski Komitet ds. UNESCO, Plac Defilad 1, 00-110 Warszawa, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Motta Garcia, Maria da GlóriaCentre for Research Support on Geological Heritage and Geotourism (GeoHereditas), Institute of Geosciences, University of São Paulo, Rua do Lago 562, 05508-080 São Paulo, Brazile-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]

Moura, PâmellaFederal University of Ceará, Campus do Pici, Block 912, 60440-554 Fortaleza, Brazile-mail: [email protected]

Niculiță, MihaiDepartment of Geography, Faculty of Geography and Geology, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași, Carol I 20A, 700505 Iași, Romaniae-mail: [email protected]

Nikolić, Gojko R.University of Montenegro, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Geography, D. Bojovic 3, 81400 Nikšić, Montenegroe-mail: [email protected]

Özkul, MehmetPamukkale University, University street, 20070 Denizli, Turkeye-mail: [email protected]


188

Page, KevinSecretary General of the IGC;Secretary of the Heritage Sites and Collections Subcommission (HSCS); School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Science, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, PL4 8AA Plymouth, United Kingdome-mail: [email protected]

Parkes, MatthewNatural History Museum, National Museum of Irelande-mail: [email protected]

Pereira, PauloInstitute of Earth Sciences, Pole of the University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugale-mail: [email protected]

Pijet-Migoń, EdytaInstitute of Tourism, Wrocław School of Banking, Fabryczna 29-31, 53-609 Wrocław, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Pivko, DanielDepartment of Geology and Paleontology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Mlynskádolina, Ilkovičova 6, 842 15 Bratislava, Slovakiae-mail: [email protected]

Piwowarski, BartoszGeopark Kielce, Botanic Garden, Jagiellońska 78, 25-734 Kielce, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Popa, AdinaHateg Country Dinosaurs UNESCO Global Geopark, Marasti, bl. D3 ap. 10, 330099 Deva, Romaniae-mail: adina_m_ [email protected]

Popa, Dan HoratiuHateg Country Dinosaurs UNESCO Global Geopark, Marasti, bl. D3 ap. 10, 330099 Deva, Romaniae-mail: [email protected]

Poros, MichałGeopark Kielce, Daleszycka 21, 25-202 Kielce, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Prosser, ColinNatural England and the Geologists’ Association, Unex House, Bourges Boulevard, Peterborough, United Kingdome-mail: [email protected]

Radwanek-Bąk, BarbaraPolish Geological Institute-National Research Institute, Carpathian Branch, Skrzatów 1, 31-560 Kraków, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Ribeiro, BrunaUniversidade do Minho, Rua do Rio 26 Palmeira, 4700-736 Braga, Portugale-mail: [email protected]

Roberts, RaymondNatural Resources Wales, Chester Road, Buckley, CH7 3AJ, United Kingdome-mail: [email protected]

Şaroğlu, FuatJEMİRKO, Beril Sitesi 2511. Sokak No: 19 Ümit Mahallesi Çankaya, 06810 Ankara, Turkeye-mail: [email protected]

Şaroğlu, SevimAnkara, Turkeye-mail: [email protected]

Schweigert, GünterStaatliches Museum für Naturkunde, Rosenstein 1, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanye-mail: [email protected]

Seghedi, AntonetaNational Institute of Marine Geology and Geoecology, 23-25 D. Onciul Street, 024053 Bucharest, Romaniae-mail: [email protected]

Semenova, Ljudmila R.A.P. Karpinsky Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI), Sredny prospect 74, 199106 St. Petersburg, Russiae-mail: [email protected]

Serjani, AfatProGEO-Albania; Geological Servey of Albania, Tiranae-mail: [email protected]

de Siqueira Canesin, ThaisUniversity of Minho, Rua da Universidade, 4710057 Braga, Portugale-mail: [email protected]

Skompski, StanisławUniversity of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology,Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Skowronek, EwaWydział Nauk o Ziemi i Gospodarki Przestrzennej, Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Al. Kraśnicka 2d, 20-718 Lublin, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Smith-Mayer, SylviaHosle, Norwaye-mail: [email protected]

Sokolov, SergeyA.P. Karpinsky Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI), Sredny prospect 74, 199106 St. Petersburg, Russiae-mail: [email protected]

Stępień, MarcinUniversity of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Stróżyk, KatarzynaUniversity of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Stupar, MartinaInstitute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation, Regional Unit Nova Gorica, Delpinova 16, 5000 Nova Gorica, Sloveniae-mail: [email protected]

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

189

Szente, IstvánELTE Geological Garden, Pázmány Péter 1/C, H 1117 Budapest, Hungarye-mail: [email protected]

Szrek, PiotrPolish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Rakowiecka 4, 00-975 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Telbisz, TamásDepartment of Physical Geography, Eötvös University, 1117 Pázmány Péter 1/C, Budapest, Hungarye-mail: [email protected]

Theodosiou, Eirini EleniGreek Geological Heritage Committee, Karaoli and Dimitriou 71, 18534 Pireas, Greecee-mail: [email protected]

Þorvarðardóttir, GuðríðurMinistry for the Environment and Natural Resources, Skuggasund 1, 150 Reykjavík, Islande-mail: [email protected]

Trela, WiesławPolish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Zgoda 21, 25-953 Kielce, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Urban, JanInstitute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Al. Adama Mickiewicza 33, 31-120 Kraków, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Vajskebrová, MarkétaCzech Geological Survey, Klárov 3, 118 21 Praha 1, Czech Republice-mail: [email protected]

Vdovets AlexandrSt. Petersburg, Russiae-mail: [email protected]

Vdovets, Marina S.A.P. Karpinsky Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI), Sredny prospect 74, 199106 St. Petersburg, Russiae-mails: [email protected]

Vegas, JuanaGeological Survey of Spain (IGME), Ríos Rosas 23, 28003 Madrid, Spaine-mail: [email protected]

Wasiłowska, AgnieszkaUniversity of Warsaw, Faculty of GeologyŻwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Weis, RobertMusée national d’histoire naturelle de Luxembourg, section Paléontologie, 25 rue Münster, 2160 Luxembourg, Grand-duchy of Luxembourge-mail: [email protected]

Wiatrak, MałgorzataJan Kochanowski University, Institute of Geography, Świętokrzyska 15, 25-435 Kielce, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Woo, Kyung SikChair of IUCN WCPA Geoheritage Specialist Group; Department of Geology, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Gangwondo 24341, Republic of Koreae-mail: [email protected]

Wróblewski TymoteuszPolish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Zgoda 21, 25-953 Kielce, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Zboińska, KatarzynaPolish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Lower Silesian Branch, Al. Jaworowa 19, 53-122 Wrocław, Poland; University of Wrocław, Department of Earth Sciences and Environmental Protection, Institute of Geological Sciences, Max Born Square 9, 50-205 Wrocław, Poland; Sudetic Foreland Geopark, Piastowska 40, 58-240 Piława Górna, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Zgłobicki, WojciechFaculty of Earth Sciences and Spatial Management, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Kraśnicka 2d, 20-718 Lublin, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Ziółkowski, PiotrUniversity of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Zwoliński, ZbigniewInstitute of Geoecology and Geoinformation, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, B. Krygowskiego 10, 61-680 Poznań, Polande-mail: [email protected]

Warszawa 2018

ISBN 978-83-945216-5-3

Edited by · 2018-10-25 · IX ProGEO Symposium Geoheritage and Conservation: Modern Approaches and Applications Towards the 2030 Agenda Chęciny, Poland 25-28th June 2018 PROGRAMME

Documents