References to this volume
It is suggested that either the following alternatives should be used for future bibliographic
references to the whole or part this volume:
Sá, A.A., Rocha, D., Paz, A. & Correia, V. (eds.) 2012. Proceedings of the 11th European
Geoparks Conference. AGA – Associação Geoparque Arouca, Arouca, 319 pp.
Zouros, N. 2012. Measuring progress in European Geoparks: a contribution for a smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth of Europe. In: Sá, A.A., Rocha, D., Paz, A. & Correia, V. (eds.)
2012. Proceedings of the 11th European Geoparks Conference. AGA – Associação Geoparque
Arouca, Arouca, 5-6.
___________________________________________________________
All papers in this publication were presented during the
11th European Geoparks Conference
All abstracts were submitted to peer review by two referees.
Refereeing has been extended by editors to typographical errors
or to graphic quality as far as this was possible.
___________________________________________________________
©AGA – Associação Geoparque Arouca
Rua Alfredo Vaz Pinto
4540-118 Arouca – Portugal
Phone/Fax +351 256 943 575
www.geoparquearouca.com
[email protected]
ISBN 978-989-96055-6-5
Legal Deposit 349118/12
Impressão:
Impressão e acabamento: Gráfica M. Vide
Geoparks
11th European Geoparks Conference 2012
Arouca Geopark, Portugal, 19-21 September 2012
Organized on behalf of the European Geoparks Network by the Arouca Geopark and
the Municipality of Arouca
Under the auspices of
!
PROTE CTING AND US ING G E OS ITE S : A PROJE CT TO E STABLIS H
G E O H ERITAG E MANAG EMENT PRO C E D URE S
A. Carvalho1, P. Pereira1,2* & J. Brilha1,2
Geology Centre, University of Porto1 Earth Sciences Department, University of Minho2
*[email protected]
K eywords : geoconservation strategy; geoheritage; management
A geoconservation strategy for a region or a country must be based on six main stages:
inventory, quantification, classification, conservation, promotion and monitoring of geosites
(Brilha, 2005). The first two steps constitute the geosites assessment and the following four are
considered to be their management. Inventory methods and especially proposals for the
quantification of different types of geodiversity values have been the subject of numerous
studies, during the last years. This kind of methodological information is already sufficient to
support assessment procedures at local, regional or national scales (Reynard et al., 2009; Pereira
& Pereira, 2010). However, there are few works supporting procedures related with geosites
management. The scarce examples of methodological proposals in geosites classification,
protection and monitoring do not justify the solutions presented (Mampel et al., 2009, Puga et
al., 2009; Lipps, 2009). On the other hand, some works focus on geosites touristic or
educational values, directed primarily to protected areas or geoparks in Portugal (Araújo 2005;
Catana, 2008; Vasquez, 2010), Brazil (Moreira, 2008; Mansur, 2009) or in specific contexts
such as mountain environments (Pralong, 2006; Cayla, 2009) without discussing the
background, the feasibility and the effectiveness of these tools. Works specifically on these
methods are scarce (Hose 2006; Carcavilla et al ., 2010) and much of the interpretation and
dissemination of geosites is based on general principles of environmental interpretation.
Geoconservation research has been subject to substantial progress in recent years in Portugal,
following a global trend. This is expressed by the multitude of scientific publications devoted to
geosites inventory and quantification methods. However, there are still a significant number of
difficulties linked with management, especially regarding legal classification and effective
protection of geosites. The recently finished inventory of geosites with national and
international relevance encloses 322 geosites spread over 27 thematic categories that were
surveyed for more than 70 geoscientists (Brilha et al ., 2010). It is now important to ensure
proper and effective management of these geosites and others of lesser importance by means of
classification, conservation, promotion and monitoring.
The project here presented aims to lay the groundwork for a geoconservation strategy in
Portugal, providing a methodological basis and technical support to these management
procedures, which must be performed sequentially and concerted. The work aims to address
issues for which there has been no objectivity such as: how to classify a geosite? What is the
most appropriate legal figure in each case? How to delimit the area to be classified? How to
solve issues of ownership of land? What are the appropriate techniques to protect and/or
promote different types of geosites? Should some geosites be protected in situ or ex situ? Tools
such as interpretative panels are functional in geological heritage? What kind of language
should be used? What is the most appropriate type of illustration? What are the communication
media best suited for each type of visitor (tourist, student, scientist)? How, when and who
should perform the monitoring? What monitoring indicators should be used?
Ac knowledgements: the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology sponsors the
Geology Centre of the University of Porto and the grant SFRH/BPD/68850/2010.
63
!
References:
Araújo E. (2005). Geoturismo: Conceptualização, Implementação e Exemplo de Aplicação ao Vale do
Rio Douro no Sector Porto-Pinhão. Dissertação de Mestrado da Escola de Ciências da Universidade do
Minho.
Brilha J. (2005). Património geológico e geoconservação. A Conservação da Natureza na sua Vertente
Geológica. Palimage, Viseu.
Brilha J. and more 71 authors (2010). The national inventory of geosites in Portugal. Abstracts Book of
the International Conference on Geoevents, Geological Heritage and the Role of IGCP (First Meeting of
ProGEO Regional Working Group SW Europe), Ayuntamiento de Caravaca de la Cruz, Spain, 18-24.
-
. (2010). La divu
, 104, 93-110.
Catana M. (2008). Valorizar e divulgar o património geológico do Geopark Naturtejo. Estratégias para o
Parque Icnológico de Penha Garcia. Tese de mestrado em Património Geológico e Geoconservação,
Universidade do Minho.
&D\OD /H SDWULPRLQH JpRORJLTXH GH O¶DUF DOSLQ 'H OD PpGLDWLRQ VFLHQWLILTXH j OD YDORULVation
géotouristique. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Savoie.
Hose, T. A. (2006). Geotourism and Interpretation. In Dowling, R. & Newsome, D. (eds.) Geotourism,
Sustainability, Impacts and Opportunities, Elsevier, Oxford, 221-241.
Lipps J.H. (2009).
/ Notebooks on Geology, Brest, Book 2009/03, Chapter 01.
Mampel, L., Cobos, A., Alcalá, L., Luque, L. & Royo-Torres R. (2009). An Integrated System of
Heritage Management Applied to Dinosaur Sites in Teruel (Aragón, Spain). Geoheritage, 1 (2-4), 53-73.
Mansur, K. (2009). Projetos educacionais pa
ncias USP, 5, 63-74.
Moreira J. C. (2008) Patrimônio Geológico em Unidades de Conservação: Atividades Interpretativas,
educativas e geoturísticas. Tese de Doutorado, Centro de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas da Universidade
Federal de Santa Catarina.
Pereira P. & Pereira D. (2010). Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment.
Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement, 2010/2, 215-222.
Pralong J.P. (2
-
-
-
aise).
-
-
.
Puga E., Díaz de Federico, A., Nieto J, Díaz M. Puga & Rodríguez J. 2009.The Betic Ophiolitic
Association: A Very Significant Geological Heritage That Needs to be Preserved. Geoheritage, 1 (1), 1131.
Reynard E., Coratza P., Regolini-Bissig G., (eds) (2009). Geomorphosites. Pfeil, München.
Vasquez L. (2010). Estratégias de valorização de geossítios no Geoparque Arouca. Tese de mestrado em
Património Geológico e Geoconservação, Universidade do Minho.
64