138 Geographica Helvetica Jg. 62 2007/Heft3

Geomorphosites and geodiversity: a new domain of research

Emmanuel Reynard, Lausanne, Paola Coratza,Modena

Geoheritage, which draws attention to the geologi-cal and geomorphologjcal elements of nature worthyof conservation, has for years been considered lessvulnerable than biological and cultural heritage. Asa consequence, it has not received the same amountof attention by the conservationist movement as hascultural and ecologjcal heritage. Nevertheless, duringthe last decade, several initiatives have been devel¬oped both at the international level, for examplewith the Declaration of the Earth's Rights by scien-tists in Digne-les-Bains in 1994 (Martini 1994), theestablishment of the European Geoparks Network in2000 (Zoueos 2004), and the Initiative on Geoparksadopted by the UNESCO in 2003 - and at the nationallevel. In Switzerland, for example, a Working Groupon Geotopes was founded by the Swiss Academy ofSciences in 1994 (Heitzmann et al. 2006), a StrategieReport on Geotopes was published in 1995 (Strasseret al. 1995), to be followed by a similar report ongeoparks (Reynard et al. 2007), and the first list ofgeosites of national significance was published in 1998

(Working Group for the Protection of Geotopes inSwitzerland 1999). As a result, «geodiversity» (Gray2004) is now currently used parallel to the term «biodi-versity» to indicate the natural diversity of the abioti-cal part of nature and its influence on both biodiversityand cultural diversity.

This new interest in geoheritage induced the Inter¬national Association of Geomorphologists (IAG) atthe 5th International Conference on Geomorphologyheld in Tokyo in September 2001, to found a spe¬cific working group to deal with issues related to theassessment, the protection and promotion of geo-morphological sites (or geomorphosites; see Panizza2001). These sites were defined as landforms of inter¬est that appeared speeifieally valuable in terms ofnatural heritage. The working group is expected toremain active until the 7th International Conferenceon Geomorphology in Melbourne in 2009. The work¬ing group in particular aims to enhance understand-ing of the definition through scientific research, as

well as improve the assessment, the cartography, theprotection and the conservation of geomorphosites.The group currently has more than 130 membersfrom 29 countries and is chaired by Emmanuel Rey¬nard (University of Lausanne, Switzerland) andPaola Coratza (University of Modena and ReggioEmilia, Italy).

Some ofthe results of research carried out by the mem¬bers of the working group have already been publishedin two special issues of international Journals: Il Qua-ternario 18,1, 2005 (Piacente & Coratza 2005), andGeomorphologie. Relief, Processus, environnement3, 2005 (Reynard & Panizza 2005); a third issue is

currently in press (Geografia Fisica e Dinamica Qua-ternaria, 2007). In this special issue of GeographicaHelvetica, recent research results on the assessmentof geomorphosites and geodiversity carried out in dif¬ferent countries are presented. The articles explorethe coneept of geodiversity, present experience withvarious assessment methods in different contexts, anddiscuss management issues of a geomorphosite at thelocal scale.

The article by E. Serrano & P Ruiz-Flano (Univer¬sity of Valladolid) deals with the coneept of geodiver¬sity. The authors review the changes in the definitionof the coneept over time and argue that geodiversitymay be defined as the constituent elements within thephysical environment that partieipate in the richnessof biotopes, ecosystems or landscapes. They show, asis also the case for biodiversity, that scale is an impor-tant issue in the definition process. The assessment ofgeodiversity may therefore be seen as a geographicalissue concerning both physical geography (analysis ofthe components of geodiversity) and regional planning(insertion of the geodiversity coneept in land planningstrategies).

Three of the articles focus on the assessment of geo¬morphosites. E. Reynard and his co-authors G Fon¬

tana, L. Kozlik and G Scapozza (University ofLausanne) present a method that allows the evalua-tion of not only the scientific value of sites, that is theirvalue for the knowledge of the Earth and climate his-tory, but also the so-called additional values (Reynard2005). It is these latter values that allow the study ofgeomorphologjcal heritage to be integrated with otherfields of research, such as cultural and ecological her¬

itage. The results of implementation of the methodwithin two contexts in Switzerland are presented: theassessment of the geocultural heritage of the TrientValley (Western Switzerland) and the evaluation ofthe geomorphological importance of the NationalPark projeet in the Blenio-Lucomagno area (SouthernSwitzerland).

The methodology proposed by P Pereira, D. Pereiraand M.I. Caetano Alves (University of Minho, Por¬

tugal) has been applied to the evaluation of the geo¬morphological heritage of the Montesinho Natural

Geomorphosites and geodiversity: a new domain of research Emmanuel Reynard, Paola Coratza 139

Park in Portugal. The authors present the various Stepsinvolved in compilation of the inventory and selectionand assessment of sites of geomorphological interestfor promotion by the Natural Park Board, especiallywith regards to their educational value. The methodproposed by the Portuguese geomorphologists is par-ticularly interesting from a geographical point of viewbecause it not only considers the sites for their specificscientific interest, as most of the existing methods do,but it also takes into account places from where theObservation of sites or geomorphological landscapesof special interest may be observed.

The third article dealing with the assessment of geo¬morphological heritage is put forward by N Zouros(University of the Aegean, Greece). The articlepresents the evaluation of geoheritage at two differ¬ent scales: landscape (large sites included in naturalparks) and landform (sites included in the LesvosIsland Geopark). In contrast to the two other articlesherein, this study is specific because the assessment is

clearly oriented toward the promotion and the devel¬

opment of geotourism, and not to the protection of theselected objects in general.

Finally, the paper proposed by V. Panizza & M. Men-nella (University of Sassari, Italy) deals with issues

concerning the promotion of geoheritage. In this case,the assessment does not aim at the selection of sites

potentially usable for the development of a specificgeotourist or geocultural offer - as are the case in theexamples proposed by E. Reynard and N Zouros -but at the resolution of problems due to the tourist orsportive utilisation of sites of geomorphological inter¬est. The article emphasises both issues related to theimpact of human use of a site, and the possible risksinvolved.

Martini, G (1994) (ed.): Actes du premier Sympo¬sium international sur la protection du patrimoinegeologjque. - Memoires de la Societe geologique deFrance 165.

Panizza, M. (2001): Geomorphosites: concepts, meth¬ods and examples of geomorphological survey - In:Chinese science bulletin 46, Suppl. vol.: 4-6.

Piacente, S. & P Coratza (2005) (eds): Geomorpho¬logical sites and geodiversity. - II Quaternario 18, 1

(Volume speciale).Reynard, E. (2005): Geomorphosites et paysages. - In:Geomorphologie. Relief, processus, environnement 3:

181-188.

Reynard, E. & M. Panizza (2005): Geomorphosites:definition, assessment and mapping. An introduction.- In: Geomorphologie. Relief, processus, environne¬ment 3:177-180.Reynard, E., Baillifard, F., Berger, J.-P, Felber,M., Heitzmann, P, Hipp, R., Jeannin, P.-Y., Vavrecka-Sidler, D. & K. von Salis (2007): Les geoparcs enSuisse: un rapport strategjque. - Berne: Academiesuisse des sciences naturelles.Strasser, A., Heitzmann, P, Jordan, P, Stapfer, A.,Stürm, B., Vogel, A. & M. Weidmann (1995): Geo¬

topes et la protection des objets geologiques en Suisse:

un rapport strategique. - Fribourg: Groupe suisse pourla protection des geotopes.Working Group for the Protection of Geotopes inSwitzerland (1999): Inventory of geotopes of nationalsignificance. - In: Geologja Insubrica 4,1: 31-48.

Zouros, N (2004): The European Geoparks Network.Geological heritage protection and local development.- In: Episodes 27,3:165-171.

The selection of papers presented herein gives anoverview of the progress that has been made duringthe last years at the international level in the domainof geomorphological heritage and geodiversityresearch. Further, it draws attention to the potentialthat research in these areas has to offer with regardspromotion of geotourism and geoparks.

ReferencesGray, M. (2004): Geodiversity. Valuing and conservingabiotic nature. - Chichester: WileyHeitzmann, P, Reynard, E. & B. Stürm (2006):Geotopschutz in der Schweiz - quo vadis? - In: Schrif¬tenreihe der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Geowissen-schaften 44: 48-54.

Prof. Dr. Emmanuel Reynard, Institute of Geography,University of Lausanne, Quartier Dorigny, BätimentAnthropole, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.e-mail: Emmanuel.Reynard@unil.chDr. Paola Coratza, Department of Earth Sciences,

University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Largo S.

Eufemia 19,1-41100 Modena, Italy.e-mail: coratza.paola@unimore.it