Geoheritage and Geotourism

CHAPTER

GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

17

David Newsome1 and Ross Dowling2 1

2

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

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

305

306

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

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

17.2 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

307

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

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

308

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

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

17.3 EXAMPLES OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GEOTOURISM

309

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

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

310

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

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

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

17.3 EXAMPLES OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GEOTOURISM

311

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

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

312

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

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

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

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

17.3 EXAMPLES OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GEOTOURISM

313

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

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

314

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

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

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

17.3 EXAMPLES OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GEOTOURISM

315

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

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

316

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

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

17.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

317

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

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

318

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

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

REFERENCES

319

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

320

CHAPTER 17 GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM

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

REFERENCES

321

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