3G’s for Modern Geotourism

Geoheritage (2012) 4:7 – 24 24 DOI 10.1007/s12371-011-0052-y

ORIGINAL ORIGINA L ART ARTICLE ICLE

’

3G s for Modern Geotourism Thomas A. Hose

Received: 2 February 2011 /Accepted: 6 December 2011 /Published online: 10 January 2012 # Springer-Verlag 2012

Abstract Since the initial recognition and definition in the early 1990s of geotourism in the UK by a few academic geologists, and its emergence in Europe as a niche form of sustainablee tourism, new stakeholde sustainabl stakeholders rs have become involve i nvolved; d; the latter ’s bac backg kgrou round nd is of often ten com commer mercia ciall an and d lac lackin king g in an any y significantt academic or scientific engagement. Consequently, significan Consequently, the geosit geosite/geom e/geomorpho orphosite site manage management ment and promo promotional tional approaches they adopt are usually founded on practitioner and supply side led approaches rather than the geoconservation requirements of geosites/geomorphosites and the needs and expectations expectations of their geotourist geotourists. s. This This is probably because the new stak stakehol eholders ders have limi limited ted kno knowled wledge ge and unde understan rstandding of the relevance of the history, development and philoso phy of lan dsc ape con ser vat ion and pro mot ion (th at is geohistory), and the lessons that can be gleaned from such considerations in managing and promoting geosites. This pa per seeks seeks to redres redresss this situation situation by providing providing an outline outline of the historica histo ricall and theor theoretica eticall unde underpin rpinning ningss of geoto geotourism urism and approaches to its sustainable management. It especially examines and defines, underpinned by UK examples, three key interrelated aspects (the ‘3G’s’) of modern geotourism: geoconservation, conserva tion, geohistory and geo-inte geo-interpretation rpretation.. It further updates a prior published geohistorical model and provides a new summary topology and a geotou geotourism rism chronosequence. chronosequence. Finally, it addresses, within the framework of the new definition and its approach, some of the issues generated by the development of geoparks in Europe in the first decade of the twenty-first century.

T. A. Hose (*) School of Earth Sciences, Sciences, Univer University sity of Bristo Bristol, l, Wills Memorial Building, Queens Road, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 1RJ, UK e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords Geoconservation . Geohistory . Geo-interpretation . Geotourism

Geotourism Established

Modern geotourism was first defined (Hose 1995a ), ), the first focus foc us of uni univer versit sity y rese researc arch h (Ho (Hose se 1994a , 2003 2003), ), and pro promot moted ed (Hose 1996 1996)) in the UK as a new form of niche tourism (Hose 2005a ) prior to its emergence in Europe (Hose 1997 1997,, 2000 2000). ). It was developed following recognition in the late 1980s by school,, univer school university sity and museum geologists geologists of the then acceler acceler-ating loss of mines and quarries to unsympathetic after-uses and reclamation programmes; similarly, but to a lesser degree, naturall geolog natura geological ical exposures and geomor geomorphosit phosites es were also increasingly being lost because of unsympathetic planning decisions that permitted, for example, the obscuring of roadside exposures with soil and netting (Baird 1994 1994)) and the construction of hard coastal defences (Leafe 1998 1998). ). Modern geotourism’s purpose then was initially seen as means by which to promote and possibly fund geoconservation, especially for mines and quarries, by maintaining access to such geosites through the development of sustainable tourism products and services ranging from leaflets and guided walks to major new construction projects such as visitor centres. Its early antecedents antecedents includ includee the ninete nineteenth enth century aesthetic and nature conservation movements that contributed to the development of sustainable tourism’s development. The aesthetic movem ement ent in par partic ticula ularr wa wass an ess essen entia tiall pr prelu elude de to ‘Romantic’ mov nature conservation and sustainable development because it “…valued the spiritual over the material, and humans came t o be seen as part of nature, not superior superior to it ” (Hard (Hardy y et al. al. 2002 2002,, p. 476). It coincide coincided d with the first formal attempts in the UK, especially contemporaneously in the English Lake District (Ritvo 2009 2009), ), to pro promo mote te and the then n pre prese serve rve wil wildli dlife, fe, la land ndsc scape apess

8

and geological features much as modern geotourism seeks to achieve. It was the Lake District (Hose 2008) and the Scottish Highlands (Hose 2010a ) that by the first quarter of the nineteenth century drew artists to capture their splendour, and in so doing also their geology and scenery. They interpreted and then painted what lay before them through the cultural filter (Hose 2010b) of the ‘Romantic’ aesthetic movement (Hebron 2006) to produce literal and philosophical views of landscapes. These views are generally unknown to many of the newer stakeholders involved in modern geotourism who lack a geohistorical perspective, but are pervasive in much modern landscape and geological conservation endeavour. Possi bly the ‘Romantic’ movement ’s greatest legacy to modern travellers and tourists, and for populist geotourism provision, is their preference to spend time appreciating aesthetically attractive ‘wild’ or ‘natural’ landscapes rather than the ‘controlled’ and ‘ brutal’ spaces of mining and industry; mountains and cliff-edged coastal lands are particularly preferred places. Genuine ‘wild’ or ‘natural’ areas are, especially within the crowded space of the UK and Europe, almost non-existent today. However, the perception persists today, as it has from the ‘Romantic’ period, that if the influence of humankind is not immediately obvious, there being no buildings or evidence of industry, then a scenically spectacular or rural area must be as Nature created it and worthy of some protective or promotional recognition such as a national park (NP),an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), or even a geopark. Consequently, urban areas and those with extensive mining and industrial legacies struggle to achieve such recognition; generally, at best, they will be considered, and often sanitised, for recognition and promotion as part of the ‘industrial heritage’. Yet, such areas were often the most significant places in the development of scientific geology and in the past attracted the attention of early geotourists (Hose 2008). Modern geotourism provision, with a particular emphasis on rural localities and geoparks (Kavecic and Peljhan 2010), has burgeoned since the t urn of the present century, especially with the emergence of geoparks, although its growth is difficult to accurately quantify, as a recent overview (Dowling 2011) exemplifies. Some measure of this growth can be gauged from changes in geotourism provision in Scotland where it was noted at the opening of the century that it was then “…a relatively new concept and current facilities that promote public understanding and appreciation of rocks, fossils and landforms are relatively few and far between” (McKirdy 2000, p. 103). However, by the close of the century’s first decade, it was suggested that in Scotland it is now the case that “Geotourism is a growing component of the tourism industry, both globally and in Scotland, as recognised by the activities of local communities to develop geoparks and to provide interpretation of local geological landscapes and landmarks” (Gordon and Barron 2011, p. 39). As tourism associated with geosites and geomorphosites and collections,

Geoheritage (2012) 4:7 – 24

it involves ‘special interest travel’ for people going “…somewhere because they have a particular interest that can be pursued in a particular region or at a particular destination” (Read 1980, p. 195). It is a form of ‘special interest ’ tourism in which the “…traveller ’s motivation and decision-making are primarily determined by a particular special interest …” (Hall and Weiler 1992, p. 5) and overlaps with ‘sustainable tourism’ and ‘ecotourism’. The former gained academic credibility with the 1993 launch of the ‘Journal of Sustainable Tourism’. Sustainable development meets present-day needs, but not “…at the expense of future generations, so that a balance should be struck between using natural resources and promote their conservation” (Cavuoto 2005, p. 49). Sustainable tourism can subsume ecotourism, an approach that the World Tourism Organization (1997) suggests manages tourism resources so that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled whilst maintaining cultural integrity; furthermore, essential ecological processes and biodiversity are protected. It seeks to meet the needs of present and future tourists and host communities whilst ensuring the protection and enhancement of the places they visit. Over the past 20 years, ecotourism has developed from an obscure niche trend to a dominant one in tourism provision (Weaver and Lawton 2007). It only appeared for the first time in the academic literature in the late 1980s, gaining credibility with the 2002 launch of the ‘Journal of Ecotourism’, perhaps a rather similar time frame to that of modern geotourism and the launch of ‘Geoheritage’ in 2009.

Recognising and Defining Geotourism

Before any discussion of the significant elements of modern geotourism can be contemplated, some understanding and knowledge of how the concept has evolved and been variously defined is needed to contextualise the selection of specific elements. Given the demonstrated early roots of geotourism (Hose 2008), it should be understood that modern geotourism provision, depending upon how and by whom it is defined, is barely three or four decades old; it is even younger when considered from the perspective of serious academic study (Hose 2003). The first ‘national’, indeed the first anywhere, geotourism conference (Robinson 1998) was held at the Ulster Museum, Belfast, in 1998; whilst sponsored by various agencies, the Geological Society’s GeoConservation Commission sponsorship in particular underscored the key element of initial geotourism. However, few of the wholly unpublished presentations addressed the definition of geotourism, with most except for Hose (1998) focussing on examples and case studies of its provision, a somewhat similar situation to the presentations at the two ‘global’ geotourism conferences (see, for example, Dowling and Newsome 2008a ) in 2008 and 2010. At the time of the first national geotourism conference in the UK, only a few European authors had made any, and


usually slight, references to tourism and geology (for example, De Bastion 1994; Jenkins 1992; Maini and Carlisle 1974; Martini 1994; Page 1998; Spiteri 1994), and few had made any attempt at its definition. These tended to be quite vague definitions such as “travelling in order to experience, learn from and enjoy our Earth heritage” (Larwood and Prosser 1998, p. 98), but commendably its authors included within their discussion the apposite assertion that geotourism is partly “…a consequence of successful Earth heritage conservation as this ensures the presence of a resource to ‘experience and learn from and enjoy’” (Larwood and Prosser 1998, p. 98); their definition readily falls within the remit of special interest tourism (Hall and Weiler 1992) and special interest travel (Read 1980, p. 195). Again, outside and much farther afield than mainland Europe, in Malaysia geotourism (Komoo and Deas 1993; Komoo 1997) and ‘tourism geology’ were mentioned, but not defined. It was suggested that the latter, as an aspect of applied geology, could support ecotourism’s growth and also put “…conservation geology at the same level of importance as…conservation biology…” (Komoo 1997, p. 2973), an early linking of geotourism and geoconservation. Modern geotourism, although undoubtedly practised for some time before (Hose 2008), was actually unrecognised and undefined until the mid-1990s; then, in a themed issue, entitled ‘Let ’s Get Physical’ devoted to Earth science inter pretation of ‘environmental education’, a commissioned article about conserving the UK ’s geoheritage by promoting it to tourists defined it as “The provision of interpretive and service facilities to enable tourists to acquire knowledge and understanding of the geology and geomorphology of a site (including its contribution to the development of the Earth sciences) beyond the level of mere aesthetic appreciation” (Hose 1995a , p. 17). However, it had first been informally and similarly defined a year earlier at the Visitor Studies Association conference in the USA (Hose 1994b). The original formal definition had evolved from an earlier working definition for evaluation research, informally undertaken for the statutory nature conservation agency English Nature (Hose 1994c, 1995b),on ‘site-specific geologic interpretation’: “The promotion and explanation to a non-specialist audience of the geologic features and/or significance of a delimited area by either a fixed facility and/or populist publication” (Hose 1994c, p. 2). Following further research, it was subsequently redefined as “The provision of interpretative facilities and services to promote the value and societal benefit of geological and geomorphological sites and their materials, and to ensure their conservation, for the use of students, tourists and other casual recreationalists” (Hose 2000, p. 136). As variously defined and redefined by Hose, geotourism always encom passes an examination of the physical basis, interpretative media and promotion of geological and geomorphological sites (‘geosites’ and ‘geomorphosites’, respectively); it further encompasses their associated geoscientists’ lives, work,

9

collections, publications, artworks, field notes, personal papers, workplaces, residences, and even final resting places and monuments. At the outset, Hose envisaged that geotourism would both constituency build and provide some funding for geoconservation. Martini (2000) also inclined to the latter view and suggested that geotourism could fund geoconservation when Europe’s governments were unwilling to provide such financial support. Following the Belfast conference and the dissemination and undoubted acceptance in the geotourism and tourism communities, with the widespread republication and citation of the original (Hose 1995a ) and revised (Hose 2000) definitions, several attempts at its redefinition were published by other authors. The original definition and the approach surrounding it was accepted and promoted within UNESCO in the development of the geopark concept. Significantly for modern global geotourism, it was actually incorporated within UNESCO’s initial geopark documentation in which it was stated that “Geotourism came into common usage from the mid-1990s onwards…” (UNESCO 2000, p. 31). The documentation also accepted that the first widely published definition was that by Hose (1995a , b) and included, almost verbatim from contemporary published sources and conference presentations, his approach to geotourism and geoconservation; it noted that “There is no demonstrable conflict between geoconservation and tourism promotion and therefore much to support geotourism’s inclusion within sustainable tourism-schemes” (UNESCO 2000, p. 31), and this approach has underpinned a recent European geoheritage initiatives (Kavecic and Peljhan 2010). In Europe, it was redefined in Germany by Frey (2008) from her experiences in the Vulkaneifel region where geoscientific considerations were included alongside those of commerce and politics in developing geology-based tourism provision; she suggested at a 1998 meeting of the German Geological Society that “Geotourism means interdisciplinary cooperation within an economic, success-orientated and fastmoving discipline that speaks its own language. Geotourism is a new occupational and business sector. The main tasks of geotourism are the transfer and communication of geoscientific knowledge and ideas to the general public.” This is a rather commercially orientated approach, akin to that of the geoparks. In Poland, in the introductory paper of the first issue of the journal ‘Geoturystyka ’, it was redefined as an “… offshoot of cognitive tourism and/or adventure tourism based upon visits to geological objects (geosites) and recognition of geological processes integrated with aesthetic experiences gained by the contact with a geosite ” (Slomka and KicinskaSwiderska 2004, p. 6). The paper ’s abstract indicated that the authors considered “geotourism as a specialized education course and a new interdisciplinary scientific field.” However, it was published a decade after the original geotourism definition and early published studies that had noted the importance

10

of interpretation, that formal educational approaches were inappropriate for geotourists and that it was self-evidently a multidisciplinary field. Somewhat further afield, in Asia, geotourism was redefined in Iran as “…knowledge-based tourism, an interdisciplinary integration of the tourism industry with conservation and interpretation of abiotic nature attributes, besides considering related cultural issues, within the geosites for the general public” (Sadry 2009, p. 17). Within a year, a further redefinition was published in the same country as part of a major published report on its geopark and geotourism resources: “Geotourism is a conscientious and accountable touring in nature with the aim of visiting and recognizing geological phenomena, their development and learning about their formation” (Amrikazemi 2010, p. 442); in a discussion of this definition, the author makes the point that he considers geotourism to only take place in natural places and cannot involve museum visits since these are apparently a complimentary activity. However, the original and revised definitions (Hose 1995a , 2000) had made the geoconservation link between geosites and geo-collections an important element of geotourism provision in the UK and Europe which had both played a pivotal role in the development of scientific geology. Much further afield, in South America, geotourism was redefined in Brazil in 2005 as being “a segment of the tourist activity that he/she has the geological patrimony as his/her main attraction and his/her search protection through the conservation of their resources and of the tourist ’s Environmental Awareness, using, for this, the interpretation of this patrimony the tornado accessible to the lay public, besides promoting his/her popularization and the development of the of the Earth sciences” (Ruchkys 2005, p. 23). This was later refined to it being “… part of the tourist ’s activity in which they have the geological patrimony as their main attraction. Their objective is to search for the protected patrimony through the conservation of their resources and of the tourist ’s Environmental Awareness. For that, the use of the interpretation of the patrimony makes it accessible to the lay public, promoting its popularization and the development of the Earth sciences” (Ruchkys 2007, p. 23). Silva (2007) affirmed in the context of geotourism in Brazil that geomorphology and geology contribute to the scenic aspect of the landscape, and that is the aspect most valued by tourists. Finally and very much further afield, in Australia, the first mention of geotourism was in a presentation to a Geological Society of Australia conference (Casey and Stephenson1996), with the first definition initially published electronically in 2006 as “ people going to a place to look at and learn about one or more aspects of geology and geomorphology ” (Joyce 2006). However, a much earlier study of geology and tourism had been published (Jenkins 1992) and rather neglected by the country’s geology community. This seminal study reported on a survey of the activities and needs of amateur geologists, and


the nature of the provision made for them by the tourist industry, in northern New South Wales. Its conclusions are noteworthy in reporting similar issues of concern that were also found in a major UK geotourism research project (Hose 2003) and a comparatively minor but useful recent Australian study (Mao et al. 2009). The Australia-based editors of the first geotourism textbook (Dowling and Newsome 2008b) suggested, no doubt influenced by their previous major text (Newsome et al. 2002), that it is mainly a form of natural area tourism, and they have defined natural areas as “…regions which have not been significantly altered by humankind… where the natural forms and processes are not materially altered by human exploitation and occupation. Thus the landforms, wildlife and ecological processes are found largely in their natural state” (Newsome et al. 2002, p. 3). They extensively cite the definitions provided by Hose (1995a , 1996, 2000) and then discuss various approaches to geotourism, but state their support for that of Hose (2006), without actually formally providing one of their own in an otherwise fair overview of the then state of geotourism. In their second geotourism textbook, in which they provided a by no means exhaustive table of definitions (see Newsome and Dowling 2010, Table 1.1), they again noted that there is a need for a uniformly accepted definition of geotourism (Dowling and Newsome 2010, pp. 231 – 232); again, they support the seminal author ’s original view (Hose 1995a , b) that it is a geologyfocussed activity. Their latest definition that geotourism is “…a form of natural area tourism that specifically focuses on geology and landscape. It promotes tourism to geosites and the conservation of geo-diversity and an understanding of earth sciences through appreciation and learning. This is achieved through independent visits to geological features, use of geo-trails and view points, guided tours, geo-activities and patronage of geosite visitor centres” (Dowling and Newsome 2010, p. 232) is clearly derived from his original definition; it is reiterated in a recent overview paper by one of these authors (Dowling 2011) on the global growth of geotourism. Apart from it length, its major weakness is its focus on specific current activities that in themselves have no common definition. It seems clearly aimed particularly at the geoparks’ community which they seem to assume provides most of the current or major geotourism developments. They suggest that their redefinition is an attempt to recognise a broad range of stakeholders and infrastructure, which is a laudable objective given the everexpanding range of geotourism’s stakeholders. Crucially, their redefinition ignores, even in their discussion, the significant past and present role of museums and geo-collections in geotourism and geoconservation. However, in that discussion, they commendably refute National Geographic’s erroneous claim to have singularly coined the term, in seeming ignorance of the widely published geology-focussed work in Europe, in the USA. For National geographic, geotourism is an essentially geographical approach referring to a “…destination’s geographic character —


the entire combination of natural and human attributes that make one place distinct from another …” (Stueve et al. 2002, p. 1); as such, it is sustainable tourism with a holistic approach to landscape. National Geographic’s vague non-geological usage has also confusingly pervaded parts of Europe, especially with Norway signing up to their Geotourism Charter in 2005. The scope and range of the various geology-focussed geotourism definitions can be gauged from the summary table (Table 1) herein presented; likewise, their relationship to the new definition of geotourism is proposed in this paper. It is inevitable that various authors, dependent upon their academic and professional foci, will ascribe different attributes to their approaches to geotourism. Thus, with his professional and academic background in Earth sciences, museums, nature conservation and environmental interpretation, the original author presently redefined modern global geotourism as “The provision of interpretative and service facilities for geosites and geomorphosites and their encompassing topography, together with their associated in situ and ex situ artefacts, to constituency-build for their conservation by generating appreciation, learning and research by and for current and future generations.” This new definition has the benefits of demonstrably building upon the author ’s previously widely accepted definitions (Hose 1995a , 2000), including the recent landscape

11

studies work (Hose 2008, 2010a , b). It reinforces the initial geoconservation rationale for its development. It is a succinct summary, employing an easily translatable vocabulary, of the nature, focus and location of modern geology-focussed global geotourism. Many of geotourism’s newer practitioners seemingly lack a good knowledge and understanding of geology both as a science and as a historic force in societal change, arguably essential to inform and underpin geoconservation-focussed sustainable geotourism and its associated geo-interpretation. They often have a limited understanding of the development of geology and the history and significance of its geosites, their relation to geo-collections and their associated personalities — that is, geohistory. Geology’s professionalisation especially from the mid-1970s, with its dependence upon high and expensive technologies and the diminished role of field observation coupled with the development of courses in the history of science (many of whose graduates lack scientific training) from the 1990s, has rather reinforced that misguided view. Furthermore, many academic and professional geologists believe that providing geological and geomorphological information at the level and the focus of public interest is actually ‘dumbing down’ and diminishing the science. They also commonly believe that geohistoric studies are only undertaken by geologists in the twilight of

Table 1 Summary matrix of geotourism definitions and their discussions

This summary inevitably required some qualitative judgement in assessing the meanings and emphasis given to particular phrases within both definitions and their associated discussions. For ease of comparison with other definitions, Hose’s are shown in yellow and the three key elements are shown in dark grey

12


their careers; real geologists get on with the real science, and the rest is done by amateurs. Too many academic geologists are unconcerned about preserving geosites, until they are threatened, and jealously guard, and even sometimes damage (MacFadyen 2007a , 2008), them for their own research and publication purposes. Commercially engaged geologists usually view geoconservation as a threat to their livelihood and the profits of their companies. This paper addresses these various negative perceptions by providing an explanation and theoretical framework, and hence a justification, for three key interrelated aspects that underpin the new redefinition of modern global geotourism: &

&

&

Geohistory Geoconservation Geo-interpretation

The relative significance of these aspects, the 3G’s, of geotourism and their relationship to geoconservation can be visualised in a simple topological diagram (Fig. 1). The three aspects have been selected from a range of geotourism elements, including geo-attractions, geo-collections, geodiversity, geo-education, geoheritage, geo-media, geosites and geomorphosites, and geotourists, because two (geoconservation and geo-interpretation) are the elements that must underpin any approach to sustainable geotourism at geosites and geomorphosites and the remaining one provides both its philosophical basis and an understanding of the evolution of the need for its provision. This is particularly important when there is the danger that geosites in particular can be conserved and promoted without regard to any material from them already in museums and university research collections; often, such material is difficult or impossible to collect from a geosite today because of its nature or limited initial abundance.

Fig. 1 3G’s topological diagram. In this visualisation of the 3G’s approach to geotourism, the sizes of the individual elements and their linking arrows indicate their relative significances

Geohistory

The initial geotourism historical model (Hose 2010b) indicated various practical outcomes and that ‘historical studies’ provide the context for geotourism research. It should perhaps also have been better indicated that desktop studies are the initial stage of scientific geological research; the revised version herein provided (Fig. 2) addresses this shortcoming. It is therefore useful to define geohistory as the “study, evaluation and application of a systematic narrative of geological and geomorphological discoveries, events, personages and institutions contextualised within contemporary socio-economic and cultural trends”. The history, from the nineteenth century onwards, of scientific geology and geomorphology was literally grounded in fieldwork in Britain and Europe, although the latter discipline also benefited from fieldwork in North America. The localities and stratigraphical nomenclature of that period are still prevalent and relevant to modern geology and geomorphology. The preservation and the availability of some of its key localities, and likewise their geological publications (such as palaeontological monographs, field guides, geological maps and sections), are essential to geotourism and some scientific geology. It was also in the nineteenth century that the aesthetic movements, and their associated antiquarian and natural science bodies and personalities, promoted landscape tourism, the antecedent of modern geotourism. The most significant aesthetic movement, the ‘Romantic’, coincided with the rise of scientific geology and its burgeoning scientific and populist literature. It was particularly influential on artists, travellers and tourists between 1780 and 1850. It more than coincidentally matched the growing urbanisation and industrialisation of the UK and Europe that saw the concomitant increase in the numbers and influence of the middle class which aspired to the tastes and travel inclinations of the aristocracy. The developing technology of the period, in terms of transportation and publishing, facilitated that engagement. It both initially drove

Fig. 2 Revised geohistorical model. This revised model both indicates the various practical outcomes of an examination of geotourism’s history and that such historical studies can also be part of the initial stage of scientific geological research


and then met the demand for informed travel and tourism. Many of the features of modern geotourism such as museums, field guides and excursions date from this period. Similarly, many of the museums and localities from that period are still important geotourism localities today, and some (Fig. 3) are mentioned in this paper. The major private geological collections and public geology museums were also largely established in this period. The Sedgwick Museum best exemplifies this development. It started as a museum established from the 1728 bequest to Cambridge University of Dr. John Woodward’s collection. Hence, it was Europe’s earliest geology museum and also the first to be systematically described and catalogued with an associated publication. Woodward established a stipend for professor to show the fossils to the curious and intelligent persons of the day for their information and instruction. His collection is now in the ‘Woodwardian Pew’ (Fig. 4), a reconstructed Woodwardian professor ’s eighteenth century office, within the Sedgwick Museum. Amongst the most distinguished of the Woodwardian professors was Adam Sedgwick after whose death the present museum building was belatedly erected as a memorial. It opened in 1904 as Cambridge University’s then most expensive building, although it was mainly funded by subscription by King Edward VII, pointing to the high regard in which both geology and Sedgwick were held. The UK ’s geological Fig. 3 Location map. This shows the key (but not all of the) localities mentioned in the text. The geosites and geomorphosites are as follows: 1 ‘Jurassic Coast ’; 2 Isle of Wight; 3 Lewes; 4 Crystal Palace; 5 Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark; 6 Sedgwick Museum; 7 Ludford Corner and Mortimer Forest; 8 Wren’s Nest; 9 Hunstanton; 10 Park Hall; 11 Waddesley Fossil Forest; 12 Rochdale churchyard geology trail; 13 Scarborough; 14 Kendal; 15 Windermere; 16 Grasmere; 17 Borrowdale; 18 Bowder Stone; 19 Threlkeld; 20 North Pennines Geopark; 21 Birk Knowes; 22 Fossil Grove; 23 Giant ’s Causeway; 24 Fforest Fawr Geopark

13

community enjoyed similar esteem within Europe in the preceding century. Roderick Murchison and other eminent British geologists were able to travel extensively within Europe after the cessation of the hostilities of the Napoleonic wars. For example, in 1816, William Buckland, George Greenough and William Conybeare travelled into Poland during one of their excursions to study and compare its geology with that of Britain. Due to backing from the Russian Tsar, Murchison travelled freely across Europe in 1840 and 1841. His 1841 excursion from Paris to St. Petersburg passed through presentday France, Germany, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Russia. These excursions enabled him to recognise from his work in Russia the Permian system. Murchison’s achievements at home and abroad are featured in the geology gallery at Ludlow Museum, Shropshire (Hose 2006). There, the Murchison material makes some excellent links, which visitors actually appreciate, between science and social history; it provides an example of best practice that other museums and visitor centres might usefully follow when considering how to communicate geology to non-specialist visitors. During the Napoleonic wars, when travel for the British to Europe’s popular cultural and health (especially spa) destinations was politically impossible and when their coast was under the threat of invasion, they reinvented Britain’s inland landscapes and coastlands to evoke those places they

14

Fig. 4 The Woodwardian Pew, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University. This environmentally controlled room houses the geological collection of Dr. John Woodward, the Sedgwick Museum’s founding collection. It is probably the oldest surviving intact collection of its type in the world. Over more than 35 years, Woodward collected and catalogued almost 10,000 geological specimens, together with shells, plants and archaeological artefacts from all over the world. He had five walnut cases made to house and display his collection. The specimens are still stored in these today and form part of the display. Woodward bequeathed only two of the cabinets, so the others were subsequently acquired

could not actually visit. Britain’s southwestern coast was imagined and imaged as the Mediterranean; Italianate villas, formal gardens and promenades were erected for the wealthy. By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, they could readily and speedily commute to them by railways from London. The railways also established the region as an upmarket holiday area, marketing two areas as Riviera destinations, one of which is now a geopark. The mountainous areas of northern Britain, such as the Lake District and the Scottish Highlands, were promoted as Alpine locations. The poet Thomas Gray wrote that his Lake District journey into Borrowdale reminded him of Alpine passes with travellers threatened by avalanches. The mountains were depicted and eulogised by a succession of poets, writers and painters, including those now widely known by the British public as being quintessentially English: John Constable, JMW Turner, John Keats and William Wordsworth. Turner, for example, exhibited two Lake District landscapes at the Royal Academy in 1798, the most noteworthy of the two being ‘Morning Amongst the Coniston Fells, Cumberland’. Equally, there are those now generally unknown, such as Samuel Palmer and John Glover, for whom geotourism could generate new recognition of their achievements. Landscapes were, for these nineteenth century artists, literally picture-


framed from scenic ‘stations’ or viewpoints, a very similar approach to the modern ‘ photo-stop’ or ‘scenic viewpoint ’ marked on tourist maps. In the twentieth century, painters such as Paul Nash, Ben Nicholson and John Piper depicted British landscapes (see Mullins 1985) in a generally more stylised and indeed often almost abstract and less romantically pictorial approach termed ‘ Neo-romanticism’. They too were painting in politically turbulent times when the landscapes were under skies filled with the threat of invasion; they were both recording and promoting (for propaganda purposes) landscapes that were evocatively British. The localities depicted by this succession of artists are now generally protected as NPs or AONBs, and some have even become geoparks. Many of their viewpoints are favoured by modern photographers. Although the recording technology has changed from the nineteenth century, the perception of landscape has hardly altered. Oil and water colour might have given way to the pixel and dye sublimation print, but there is still a demand for original paintings and derived prints. For example, in the Lake District, the Heaton Cooper family dominated the twentieth century artistic reproductions of its scenery, especially from their Grasmere studio that opened in 1938. At the close of the twentieth century, the term ‘ Neo-Romantic Movement ’ was employed (Hose 2008) — although given that the term had been used some 50 years earlier in art history circles, it should more correctly with due deference to precedence be termed ‘Ruralism’— in which landscapes are a setting for leisured ‘aristocratic’ pursuits, although they were also a mere backdrop for adrenalin sports such as mountain biking. ‘Ruralism’ in the UK is exemplified by the popularity of books and programmes such as ‘The Country Diary of an Edwardian Lady’ (Holden 1977), something of a misnomer since its author resided in the Birmingham suburbs, and the popularity of National Trust membership. Its popularity coincided with the commencement of the UK ’s industrial decline. Similarly, intensifying agricultural practices reduced the numbers of farms and farm workers so that rural properties could be bought by urban dwellers seeking an idealised country retreat. The new rural landscape was again perceived as a tranquil escape, not a place for agricultural and extractive industries. A good example of this approach is the way that the Lake District ’s extensive industrial and mining interests were deliberately neglected in the promotion of a wild rural idyll by the ‘Lake School’ of poets (Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Robert Southy and William Wordsworth) in the nineteenth century and more or less excluded from the area designated a NP in 1951, and today, the region’s ‘naturalness ’ is promoted. Some of its more scenically located quarries and mines have become museums, such as at Threlkeld (Fig. 5). The Lake District was also the area where in 1778 Thomas West organised its tourist attractions into the region’s first guide book and innovatively promoted ‘stations’, often with purpose-


Fig. 5 Threlkeld Quarry and Mining Museum, Cumbria. Situated near Keswick in the Lake District, it is a private museum established in 1995 and is open from Easter to October. It has a small on-site museum, together with a collection of mining machinery, and offers an underground mine tour accessed via the mine entrance seen in the middle of the photograph

built structures, at which tourists could best observe the landscape whilst perusing a literary description. These stations where artifices whereas previously specific features, such as caverns or grand houses as was the case in the Peak District (Hose 2008), were tourist attractions. However, his ‘stations’ were not universally welcomed; in 1799, one at Windermere’s was considered “too finished and artificial” (Ousby 1990, p. 158). Such reservations did not stop the development of natural features as commercial tourist attractions. The Bowder Stone (Fig. 6), a huge balanced boulder, was turned into its first geo-attraction by Joseph Pocklington; by 1807, he had erected a cottage (for the resident guides), a Druid ’s stone, small chapel and a ladder so visitors could climb to the top of the stone. In reducing the landscape to a series of stations with erudite explanations, tourist behaviours that can be observed almost anywhere today with, for example, well-advertised car parking where they can take digital snapshots, was established. Their influence can be seen, perhaps unknowingly by many practitioners, embedded in today’s geo-interpretation.

Geoconservation

In introducing a report on the European Geosites IUGSsponsored scheme, its authors made the point, still a truism a decade later, that “Sadly, many geoscientists fail to see the fundamental supportive role of geosite conservation. Its role is to keep available the vital site resource that our community needs for future research, as well as for education and training. In essence, it is a simple principle, — no sites, no science” (Wimbledon et al. 2000). However, there is evidence that by the close of this century’s first decade, geoconservation is

15

Fig. 6 The Bowder Stone, Cumbria. This image is slightly modified from a postcard produced in the 1880s – 1 890s of one of the Lake Districts’s best-known tourist features. It is a perched 1,250-tonne block some 9 m high, 16 m across and 29 m in circumference is delicately balanced on a pedestal. It is not a local rock and was probably transported by ice from Scotland in the Ice Age. Its odd name derives from Balder, son of the Norse God Odin, but there are no legends attached to this boulder. The Stone and the surrounding hills were presented to the National Trust by Princess Louise, daughter of Queen Victoria, and brother of King Edward VII in memory of the King, when he died in 1910

finally becoming recognised as an emergent geoscience and that these attitudes might well be changing, especially with the recognition of the importance of geosites for sustainable development education (Henriques et al. 2011). Prior to the twentieth century, there was little perceived need for the conservation of either cultural (such as architectural and industrial) or natural (such as species and habitats) resources. Indeed, the general consensus was that the world and its resources were inexhaustible and placed there for people’s use by a benevolent creator. One of the purposes in the nineteenth century for systematically arranged biological and geological collections was initially to see the Creator ’s design in Nature. Field natural history, of which geology was a component, was the means to observe and appreciate this design in its natural setting. Gradually, scientific geology evolved and the value of fossils in establishing stratigraphical correlation was established. Extracting and selling fossils and minerals to tourists and collectors were common in the nineteenth century (Woodward 1907, p. 115) and continue today. Many of the early collectors financially rewarded quarry workers and miners for good quality geological specimens. At many classic geosites, the commercial collecting, preparing and selling of fossils, and the encouragement of amateurs’ collecting, still forms part of their tourism marketing portfolio; however, the large number of tourists now attracted to some of these by modern mass marketing techniques is potentially a major geoconservation issue. Some modern marketing campaigns such as those for the ‘Jurassic Coast ’, unlike those for biological sites where the emphasis is almost always on acquiring photographs, actually promote the

16

collection and removal of geological specimens. At some of these more scientifically significant geosites, a monitoring scheme is needed so that collected material is at least seen and recorded by a geologist before it is taken off-site; that way, significant new finds could at least be recognised and offered to an appropriate museum or university. Many scientifically important fossils are only recognised by researchers following the efforts of commercial collectors and preparators who perform, if appropriately regulated and managed, a valuable service to academic geologists. However, the commercial pursuit of perfect specimens can lead to the loss of many scientifically important specimens and geosites’ despoliation, such as at Birk Knowes (MacFadyen 2007b) near Lesmahagow in Lanarkshire, Scotland. There is a growing body of evidence that even protected geosites are increasingly threatened by unscrupulous collectors (Wimbledon 2006) and museums that do not seem to fully respect the statutory protection afforded in the place of origin of some of their more recent acquisitions, as with some of the Birk Knowes material that ended up at Berlin’s Humboldt Museum (MacFadyen 2007b). Information and education programmes, which clearly need an international element, can be fruitful in advising commercial collectors and museum staffs of the scientific importance of a specimen’s stratigraphical context and its encasing matrix; an early such scheme was established on the Isle of Wight (Anon ND) and another on the ‘Jurassic Coast ’ (Anon 2004). However, the scientific community can also damage sites by their research activities, and rock coring, despite the publication of a 20-year-old code of conduct, has become a particular issue even at SSSIs and within geoparks, such as at the Malvern and Abberley Hills (personal observation), and rightly has been termed ‘geovandalism’ (MacFadyen 2007a ). Indeed, “if we are unsuccessful in instilling a sense of responsibility toward the conservation of our Earth heritage among fellow Earth scientists what hope have we got of persuading the rest of the population?” (MacFadyen 2007a , p. 13); it is a disappointment that the problem is still prevalent (Wind 2010). Hence, geoconservation requires collaborative relationships between collectors (commercial and amateur) and researchers especially in classic localities, geoparks and World Heritage Sites such as the ‘Jurassic Coast ’ where “… interest is conserved so that scientific investigation can continue, key scientifically important specimens enter the collection of registered museums, fossils are recovered rather than destroyed….The real issue is to ensure that fossils are collected responsibly and at a level that is sustainable” (Edmonds et al. 2005, p. 9). It also requires that statutory protection is actually enforced in the courts (Wimbledon 2006). Measurable sustainable management objectives are required to assess the scientific interest of geosites, their condition and collecting potential. They should ensure the maintenance, if not enhancement, of their chief scientific value, that collecting activities do not threaten them and that important finds are reported. Other


objectives could include modifying geotourists’ behaviour through a collecting code. The initial geotourism approach predicated that it could provide the funding and a commercial rationale for geoconservation, establishing an early sustainable tourism element in its provision. In Europe, Martini (2000) inclined to the view that when governments were reluctant to do so, it could fund geoconservation. Similarly, many landholders and quarrying companies see geoconservation as an assault on their profits, but frequently a necessary expense to either continue or gain new mineral extraction permissions from increasingly conservation-minded planning authorities. In the UK, the 1968 Countryside Act promoted urban fringe tourism through the establishment of Country Parks for informal recreation. Some of these, such as Park Hall in Staffordshire, were established on former quarries; unsurprisingly, this geological interest was usually ignored in their interpretative provision. To many stakeholders, quarries and mines are dangerous eyesores or ruined landscape to be removed by restoration to some commercial or leisure use; societally approved landscapes are cultural constructions whose perception is an admixture of observation and cultural interpretation (Pepper 1996; Hose 2010b). Such a constructed approach underpinned late twentieth century mine and quarry after-use; too conveniently, this was often reliant on infilling with, and sometimes land-forming, domestic and industrial waste. Landfill was the premier reason for the loss of many especially, worked in Devonian, Carboniferous and Cretaceous limestone and volcanics, hard-rock quarries. Other, especially soft rock such as those in near-surface worked Upper Cretaceous and Quaternary sand and gravel, quarries were allowed or encouraged to flood to replace wetlands lost from the end of the eighteenth century to land drainage for agriculture; they are irrevocably lost when their working ceases because their geological significance is not appreciated. For the purposes of this paper, geoconservation is defined as “The act of protecting geosites and geomorphosites from damage, deterioration or loss through the implementation of protection and management measures.” Geoconservation has aesthetic, amenity, historical and cultural values and supports wildlife. Hence, sustainable geotourism must consider what scale of collecting is sustainable; for fossils, sustainable management “…also addresses the wide range of values placed on, and potential uses of, the fossil resource.…Sustainable management integrates scientific, environmental, educational and social considerations” (Edmonds et al. 2005, p. 10). Geoconservation is about ensuring that the current geoheritage is passed on to future generations as a potential: &

&

&

Research opportunity for advancing science and industry Means to understand and monitor environmental sensitivity Palaeoenvironmental record, preserved in landforms and sediments


&

&

&

Training ground for geologists, geomorphologists and pedologists Formal and informal education facility Tourism resource

The first recorded UK attempt to conserve a geomorphosite was in the 1860s when the Cheesewring, a tor structure, was underpinned to protect it from the effects of the adjacent quarry. However, most geomorphosites or landforms are conserved by maintaining their dynamic systems under which they were developed. The conservation of coastal and river geomorphosites together with caves is probably the most challenging, if unrecognised, aspect of geoconservation. They are the most threatened by generic tourism developments, let alone geotourism development involving construction, slope stability and coastal defence work. Cave systems are actually the most popular geo-attractions. They are threatened by both internal and external pressures. Internal pressures are due to cave exploration, recreational usage and scientific investigation; these can all lead to damage to individual passages, cave decorations and sediments as well as faunal disturbance. External pressures include changes in water levels, chemical composition and sediments resulting from land drainage, water abstraction, pollution (especially from agricultural sources) and mineral extraction. Geosites can be categorised for geoconservation purposes in a number of ways, but usefully for geotourism in the context of this paper is their primary geotourist interest (whether mineralogical, palaeontological, or petrological) and their physical and intellectual accessibility (Hose 1997), especially since the latter has some geo-interpretative relationship with geoconservation. It is the most easily physically and intellectually accessible geosites that are most threatened by the actions of geotourists. Due to its exposure and possibilities of anthropomorphic projection, bioconservation has a much higher public profile than geoconservation, even though the latter is vital to the former because it is the diversity of rocks, sediments, soils and geomorphological processes that directly underlie habitats and their floral and faunal communities. Managing dynamic habitats requires an adequate understanding of the physical landscape and its geomorphological processes. Similarly, sustainable development necessitates a consideration of the sensitivity of extant dynamic and relict landforms to natural change and humankind ’s interference. Conserving terrestrial geomorphosites, with their Quaternary and Holocene sediments, is challenging due to their economic value (as aggregate) and agricultural possibilities (such as market gardening and forestry). The geoconservation of specifically geological geosites is somewhat different because retaining access to their benefits from debris removal through the limited disturbance created by well-managed specimen collecting, ensuring that the disturbance is limited, is one of the challenges of geo-interpretation.

17

Geo-interpretation

For the purposes of this paper, geo-interpretation is defined as ‘The art or science of determining and then communicating the meaning or significance of a geological or geomorphological phenomenon, event, or location.” Commonly, it is the human interest of the science of a geosite or geomorphosite, rather than the pure science itself, that most engages people ’s attention. Hence, geohistory can underpin efficacious geointerpretation (Hose 1997, 1998, 2005b). It is often a geosite’s readily observed features rather than its complex geological story that initially attract geotourists’ attention and interest. Having thus gained geotourists’ interest and attention by an initial account based on the geosite ’s human interest and/or obvious feature, more complex accounts of scientific geology and stratigraphy can then be delivered with a greater likelihood than otherwise would be the case that they will be well received. Hence, geo-interpretation is not about ‘dumbing down’ the science but developing vehicles to carry the message to geotourists along a graded journey of knowledge and understanding to the destination of comprehension and empathy with the appropriate mix of text and graphics (Hose 2005b). Geo-interpretation is more than about the mere transmission of facts; its equally important role is to engender concern for a geosite and empathy for geoconservation. Geotourism, underpinned by geoconservation and dependent upon geo-interpretation provision, is a late twentieth century development built upon the earlier foundations of best environmental education practice drawn initially from the USA and implemented and evolved in the UK from the 1960s onwards. However, the UK had some of the earliest attempts to interpret and present geology to non-specialist audiences in the nineteenth century. Two of the most significant were probably the world’s first urban geology trail (Baldwin and Alderson 1996) and the world’s first attempt to create lifesized reconstructions of fossil animals (Doyle and Robinson 1993; McCarthy and Gilbert 1994). The former was established in a Rochdale churchyard in 1881. It consisted of 30 stone pillars, each inscribed with an identification label and a biblical quote, but there does not appear to have been any associated published leaflet. Unfortunately, over a hundred years, several of the pillars were damaged or lost. Fortunately, in 2010, plans were put in hand to restore the trail by replacing the missing columns and cleaning a small area of the original ones to make their examination easier, altogether an unusual geoconservation project. The world’s first attempt to illustrate prehistoric life based upon fossil evidence, from Dorset, was De la Beche’s 1830 oil painting ‘Duria antiquior ’, of which there are several copies, including one at the Sedgwick Museum. The world’s first geological theme park, with laudable educational aims, with three-dimensional reconstructions of prehistoric animals (Fig. 7) and plants on accurately

18

Fig. 7 Crystal Palace, London. One of the Wealden (Upper Cretaceous) reconstructions of a Hyaeolosaur; the body is the original Waterhouse construction, but the head is a modern fibreglass replacement. The whole creature was modelled on the specimen from Tilgate Forest, Sussex, that was then barely prepared from its encasing matrix; it was presented to the Natural History Museum in 1839 by Gideon Mantell who had discovered it in 1832 and who also named it from that specimen

rendered geological sections was at the Crystal Palace (Doyle and Robinson 1993). The 15 life-size reconstructions were commissioned in 1852 for the opening of the Crystal Palace Park. They included reconstructions of the three dinosaur species then known, from just a few bones at the time, to the scientific world in the 1850s, sculpted by Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins under the guidance of the eminent paleontologist Richard Owen. Despite their inaccuracies, even today on first view, it is possible to appreciate why they caused a national sensation, although unlike in Victorian times neither journals nor newspapers would praise their frightening realism! After a £4 m restoration, completed in 2007, the iron-reinforced concrete and brick dinosaur reconstructions were designated by English Heritage as grade I architectural structures. The preservation of spectacular fossils in situ was also developed in the UK in the late nineteenth century. A ‘fossil forest ’ was unearthed in 1873 at the then South Yorkshire County Lunatic Asylum (Sorby1875, p. 458) and subsequently protected by two small viewing sheds, However, these fell into disrepair and the site became overgrown before being excavated by archaeologists and then reburied as a protective measure in the late 1990s (Cleal and Thomas 1995a , pp. 208 – 210). Another fossil forest was uncovered in 1887 in Glasgow (Cleal and Thomas 1995b, pp. 189 – 191) when an old quarry was being landscaped for a park, in an early example of such restoration, to commemorate Queen Victoria ’s Jubilee; the scheme was also, as in modern geoparks, intended to provide much needed employment for former shipbuilders. The site’s most obvious features were 11 fossil tree stumps, some of them almost a metre high, preserved in the position in


which they once grew. A fallen trunk, about 8 m long, and smaller branch and root fragments had also survived. The decision was quickly taken to preserve the forest by erecting a permanent building and to open it to the public. ‘Fossil Grove’ opened on 1st January 1890, and it is the UK ’s longest continuously open geo-attraction. These last two examples considerably pre-date the similar approach adopted in the Haute-Provence Geopark and its associated museum at Digne. The UK ’s and the world’s first purpose-built geology museum open to the public was The Rotunda Museum at Scarborough (Fig. 8). It was designed by William Smith and opened in 1829. The Geological Survey’s Museum of Economic Geology only opened in 1841 in London. After various relocations in converted buildings, it moved to purpose-built premises and reopened in 1935. Its displays partly reflected the content and coverage of the regional geology publications of the Geological Survey. Its 1973 multimedia exhibition ‘The Story of the Earth ’ was the first permanent exhibition to cover plate tectonics. However, in the 1980s, it was absorbed by the adjacent Natural History Museum. In 1996, two new galleries were opened, one of which, ‘Restless Earth’, was probably the first UK permanent exhibition with a geomorphological focus. The UK also led the way in developing populist geological publications, especially those produced by Gideon Mantell.

Fig. 8 Rotunda Museum, Scarborough. Designed by William Smith, the ‘father of English geology’, and opened in 1829, this was the world’s first purpose-built building to house a geology museum. It was opened 2 years after the foundation of the ‘The Scarborough Philosophical Society’ which, being in some of England’s finest Jurassic and Cretaceous geology outcrops, enabled its members to collect a substantial number of fossils, including large marine vertebrates. Mem bers soon discussed the possibility of a museum, and William Smith, recently employed as a land steward on a nearby estate, was at one of these meetings. He became the designer andthen foreman of works of the new Scarborough Museum; it became ‘The Rotunda ’ because of its distinctive cylindrical shape. A unique feature of the museum was the sloping shelves that Smithused to display rocks andfossilsin their correct stratigraphical positions

Geoheritage (2012) 4:7 – 24 ‘The

Fossils of the South Downs’ (Mantell 1822) and ‘Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex’ (Mantell 1827) were large illustrated costly library volumes rich in locality information. Mantell’s ‘The Geology of the South-East of England’ of 1833 was his first pocketable volume and could, ignoring its expense, have been taken into the field and included geotourism information; for example, the beach near Rottingdean “…contains semi-translucent pebbles of agate, and chalcedony, of a bluish grey colour. These are collected by visitors and when cut and polished are used for bracelets and other Fig. 9 Frontispiece of Gideon Mantell’s ‘Geological Excursion Round the Isle of Wight and the Adjacent Coast of Dorsetshire’ of 1854 (third edition). First published in 1847, this is the genesis of the modern, compact illustrated geology field guide

19

ornamental purposes…” (Mantell 1833, pp. 40 – 4 1). His greatest contribution to modern geo-interpretation is the first true geological field guide, ‘Geological Excursion Round the Isle of Wight and the Adjacent Coast of Dorsetshire ’ of 1847; further 1851 and 1854 (Fig. 9) editions indicated how well it sold. It was a readily pocketable and relatively inexpensive illustrated field guide. The first edition’s Preface justified the book ’s approach: “…the Geology of the Island is but little known or regarded by the majority of the intelligent persons who every season flock by thousands to its shores, and, rapidly

20

traversing the accustomed routes, visit the picturesque localities noted in the numerous handbooks, and take their departure without suspecting that they have been travelling over a country rich with the spoils of nature…of the highest interest to the instructed observer. Even the inhabitants…manifest an extraordinary degree of apathy in everything relating to the Geology of the Island” (Mantell 1847). His earlier (Mantell 1846) ‘A Day’s Ramble in and around the Ancient Town of Lewes ’ of 1846 adopted a more holistic approach to geology, with only 1 of its 11 chapters dealing with geology. He also pioneered (Mantell 1849) children’s geology books with his 1849 ‘Thoughts on a Pebble ’ (Fig. 10). The establishment of the Geologists’ Association in 1858 helped popularise geology field trips, mainly for amateur geologists, and these were reported in its Proceedings and also a few summary volumes. Until the 1960s, few other UK geo-interpretation developments are recorded. After the country’s first geological, the Wren’s Nest, National Nature Reserve’s 1956 designation, a major management challenge was the “…danger from overcollecting, and the approach changed to one of look-and-see rather than hammer-and-take” (Robinson 1996, p. 211). Several versions of its trail guide were supplemented by an on-site display in 1996. The 1973 ‘Mortimer Forest Geology Trail’ (Lawson 1977) near Ludlow was the first purposely established rural educational geology trail. In the late 1980s, geologyfocussed visitor centres, such as the National Stone Centre (Thomas and Hughes 1993) and the Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre (Edmonds 1996), providing a range of activities such as talks, identification services and guided walks were established.

Fig. 10 Plate 5 from ‘Thoughts on a Pebble’ by Gideon Mantell. Published in 1849, this was an early, if not the first, attempt at a populist geology book for children. The plate shows the pebble described and explained in the book, although one would never find such a pebble of this composition and fossil content in the real world!


Concomitantly, interpretative panels began to be erected, and amongst the earliest of these were two by English Nature at the coastal resorts of Hunstanton (Hose 1994b, 1995b) and Scarborough (Page 1994). Commemorative plaques, such as that for the Silurian at Ludford Corner near Ludlow (Fig. 11), placed in the late 1970s are rare. They should be more widely employed to increase public awareness of the significant role that the UK and Europe played in scientific geology’s development, and perhaps then their neglect will become an issue; at Ludford Corner, a commemorative bench for a local resident was within a few years placed immediately in front of the international commemorative plaque!

Geoparks and their Significance for the Three Key Elements

Because not all of the world ’s scientifically or historically important geosites could meet the ‘outstanding universal value’ criterion required by the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, an alternative UNESCO designation seemed necessary to recognise and promote their significance; hence, geo parks were proposed and the original UK author ’s geotourism

Fig. 11 Commemorative plaque at Ludford Corner, Ludlow, Shropshire. This was placed at the key exposure of the Ludlow Bone Bed (Upper Silurian) in 1989, to mark the 150th anniversary of the establishment of the Silurian System, and then subsequently obscured by a commemorative bench for a local resident within a few years; it is not difficult to imagine how the two could have been better integrated by the simple repositioning of the bench at the site and perhaps indicates how poorly the significance of the local geology and the specific locality, despite the available and relatively abundant scientific and populist literature, is appreciated by the local community


21

definition and approach was incorporated within the proposal documentation (UNESCO 2000). This envisaged that they would recognise the relationships between people and geology and the potential for economic development. The programme ’s major benefit was to focus attention directly on geological and geomorphological conservation and the related issue of sustainable development. Ideally, the geological interest was to be allied to some archaeological, cultural, historical or ecological interest. Within geoparks, educational provision is required to maintain membership. Significantly for geoconservation, the sale of geological material, whether local or imported, is prohibited within geoparks. UNESCO supported the establishment of European Geoparks as a small network of European sites with significant geological heritage and a sustainable development strategy. In June 2000, the European Geoparks Network (EGN) was established when four founding geoparks signed a convention to share information and expertise. In April 2001, the EGN signed a collaboration agreement with UNESCO’s Division of Earth Sciences on placing it under its auspices. In October 2004, the Network signed the Madonie declaration recognising the EGN as the official branch of the UNESCO Global Geoparks Network for Europe. The EGN is represented in ten countries with some 25 geoparks. In many EGN geoparks, some account is given of the past exploitation and use of their rocks and minerals. They continue and develop the trends in geo-interpretation resulting from the 1970s’ industrial heritage boom that had similar desired outcomes. The first UK geopark, in 2001, was the Marble Arch Caves in Northern Ireland. The first in England, in 2003, was the North Pennines. That geopark gave some consideration of the history of geology and the major personalities involved for its area within its documentation. The recognition of geoparks within the Brecon Beacons (Fforest Fawr) NP in Wales and the

North West Highlands in Scotland, in 2006 and 2007, respectively, coupled with newer geoparks (Abberley and Malvern Hills, English Riviera GeoMon – Anglesey, Lochaber, and Shetland) and geopark candidates (Cornwall and the Welsh Borderland) created nine UK EGN geoparks, but the Abberley and Malvern Hills withdrew from the EGN in 2010. For geoconservation purposes, the impact of people at geosites and geomorphosites can be reduced by adopting singly or in combination various measures:

Fig. 12 Summary chronography of geotourism. Apart from the establishment of the Woodwardiam Museum in 1728, most of the major geotourism events (with an inevitable UK emphasis) are indicated and

contextualised within the approximate timeframes of some of Europe’s key artistic movements

&

&

&

&

Concentrating the activities in ‘honey pot ’ locations so as to reduce geotourists’ disturbance and impact Spreading and restricting (especially seasonally to reduce biodiversity impacts) the activities geographically and temporally so as to dilute geotourists ’ disturbance and impact Segregating different activities and geotourist types to create relatively undisturbed zones Providing geo-interpretation to facilitate geotourists’ self-regulation and behavioural modification

World Heritage Site designation has only been achieved by the Giant ’s Causeway (1986) and the ‘Jurassic Coast ’ (2001), so geoparks are currently the major geotourism development in the UK, but other geotourism provision at a local level probably equals or surpasses their total output. Geoparks are a natural development of the nineteenth century approach to landscape promotion, and, as in the Lake District ’s Kendal to Windermere railway of 1847 (Hose 2008), their development is linked to the regeneration of local and regional economies. The key geoconservation issue is learning the lessons from popular nineteenth century regions where access developments exemplify issues around the impact of higher tourist numbers. In making such landscapes too physically and

22

intellectually accessible, there is the danger that something of their inherently spiritual nature is lost. The continued development of geoparks will re-ignite the debate that Wordsworth’s elite approach to landscape accessibility generated; it is already the case that at many designated geosites, only permit holders, with high-level research and academic credentials, are permitted access and collection, when previously both were allowed to the public.

Closing Comments

Geoparks, to the credit of their marketing and promotional teams, will, as they have already done so, continue to attract new and larger audiences than thitherto to geology; in turn, they will generate new demands and pressures on geosites, for which solution will need to be found from research programmes. Consequently, there will be an ongoing debate about the correct balance to strike between geoconservation and geo-exploitation; presently, it could justifiably be argued for some geosites in geoparks and World Heritage Sites that the balance is inappropriate for sustainable geotourism. Further research and evaluation work to generate geosite and landscape inventories is required to aid the better selection of appropriate geopark candidates; the establishment of new geoparks needs to be more firmly rooted in spectacular and scientifically significant geology within obvious topographical boundaries than is currently the case. Too often, geopark designation is given to areas already protected by legislation or promoted by other schemes; this seems a waste of endeavour when there are just so many worthy geosites in need of some protective designation and protection. The geology and geomorphology of most geoparks and World Heritage Sites requires revision and new research to redress the over-reliance on legacy sources. The actual geological interest within most geoparks requires greater appreciation and emphasis by both managers and visitors. Geopark and World Heritage Site geotourism promotion generally exhibit limited understanding of the relevance of the history, development and philosophy of landscape promotion (that is geohistory), and modern geotourism itself; hence, a chronology of geotourism is herewith presented (Fig. 12). Furthermore, the lessons that can be gleaned from such considerations need to be applied. Modern geotourism’s antecedents and modern approach required a fundamental shift in how landscapes were perceived and then exploited for tourism. Curiosity and aesthetic worth developed before scientific worth as motivators for tourists. The nineteenth century rise of scientific geology encouraged field excursions, and to support these, field guides were published. Their locations and activities are embedded within modern geotourism. The major change has been the nature of the relationship that modern geotourists enjoy with the landscape compared with their historic predecessors. Theirs is a greater emphasis on


pleasure and leisure than intellectual endeavour and spiritual awareness. However, this does not preclude adopting geotourism approaches to educate them on geology’s past and present scientific and cultural significance. Acknowledgements The most constructive review of an earlier draft of this paper by a referee is gratefully acknowledged. This paper has also benefited from the author ’s engagement at conferences and on fieldwork with numerous co-workers. Whilst it would be invidious to attempt to name all of them, acknowledgement is readily given to colleagues in GeoConservationUK (GCUK), the Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites (RIGS) movement, and ProGEO.

References Amrikazemi A (2010) Atlas of geopark and geotourism resources of Iran: geoheritage of Iran. Geological Survey of Iran, Tehran Anon (2004) Fossil collecting on the Jurassic Coast. Dorset County Council, Dorchester Anon (ND) Guidelines for collecting fossils on the Isle of Wight. Isle of Wight County Council, Newport Baird JC (1994) Naked rock and the fear of exposure. In: O'Halloran D, Green C, Harley M, Stanley M, Knill J (eds) Geological and landscape conservation. The Geological Society, London, pp 335 – 336 Baldwin A, Alderson DM (1996) A remarkable survivor: a nineteenth century geological trail in Rochdale, England. Geological Curator 6(6):227 – 231 Casey JN, Stephenson AE (1996) Putting geology into tourism — some tips and practical experience. Geological Society of Australia, 13th Australian Geological Convention, Canberra, February 1996, Abstracts 41, p 79 Cavuoto B (2005) “Sustainable development ”: an elusive concept. Queen Mary Law J 5:49 – 60 Cleal CJ, Thomas BA (1995a) Wadsley fossil forest. In: Cleal CJ, Thomas BA (eds) Geological conservation review, vol 12: Palaeozoic palaeobotany of Great Britain. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 208 – 210 Cleal CJ, Thomas BA (1995b) Victoria Park. In: Cleal CJ, Thomas BA (eds) Geological conservation review, vol 12: Palaeozoic Palaeobotany of Great Britain. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 188 – 191 De Bastion R (1994) The private sector — threat or opportunity? In: O'Halloran D, Green C, Harley M, Stanley M, Knill J (eds) Geological and landscape conservation. The Geological Society, London, pp 391 – 395 Dowling RK (2011) Geotourism’s global growth. Geoheritage 3:1 – 13 Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) (2008a) Inaugural Global Geotourism Conference (Australia 2008) Conference Proceedings. Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) (2008b) Geotourism. Elsevier, London Dowling RK, Newsome D (2010) The future of geotourism: where to from here? In: Newsome D, Dowling RK (eds) Geotourism: the tourism of geology and landscapes. Goodfellow, Oxford, pp 231 – 244 Doyle P, Robinson JE (1993) The Victorian geological illustrations of Crystal Palace Park. Proc Geol Assoc 104(4):181 – 194 Edmonds RPH (1996) The potential of visitor centres: a case history. In: Page KN, Keene P, Edmonds RPH, Hose TA (eds) English Nature Research Reports No. 176 — Earth Heritage Site interpretation in England: a review of principle techniques with case studies. English Nature, Peterborough, pp 16 – 23

Geoheritage (2012) 4:7 – 24 Edmonds R, Larwood J, Weighell T (2005) Sustainable site-based management of collecting pressure on palaeontological sites. English Nature, Peterborough Frey M (1998) Geologie — Geo-Tourismus — Umweltinbildung: Themen und Tatigkeistbereiche in Spannungsfeld Okonomie und Nachhaltige Entwicklung, Terra Nostra, Schriften der Alfred-Wegner Stiftung, 98/ 3, 150 Jahre Dt. Geol. Ges.,n 06-09/10/ ’1998. Programme and Summary of Meeting Contributions. Berlin Technical University, Berlin Frey M-L (2008) Geoparks — a regional European and global policy. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Geotourism. Elsevier, London, pp 95 – 117 Gordon JE, Barron HF (2011) Scotland’s geodiversity: development of the basis for a national framework. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 417. Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh Hall CM, Weiler B (1992) What ’s special about special interest tourism? In: Weiler B, Hall CM (eds) Special interest tourism. Belhaven, London, pp 1 – 14 Hardy A, Beeton JS, Pearson L (2002) Sustainable tourism: an overview of the concept and its position in relation to conceptualisations of tourism. J Sustain Tour 10(6):475 – 496 Hebron S (2006) The Romantics and the British landscape. British Library, London Henriques MH, dos Reis RP, Brilha J, Mota T (2011) Geoconservation as an emerging geoscience. Geoheritage 3:117 – 128 Holden E (1977) The Country Diary of an Edwardian Lady. Michael Joseph, London Hose TA (1994a) Telling the story of stone — assessing the client base. In: O'Halloran D, Green C, Harley M, Stanley M, Knill S (eds) Geological and landscape conservation. Geological Society, London, pp 451 – 457 Hose TA (1994b) Rockhounds Welcome! — A ssessing the United Kingdom client base for site-specific geological interpretation. Unpublished paper delivered to the Visitor Studies Association Annual Conference, 26 – 30 July 1994, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA Hose TA (1994c) Interpreting geology at Hunstanton Cliffs SSSI Norfolk: a summative evaluation (1994). The Buckinghamshire College, High Wycombe Hose TA (1995a) Selling the story of Britain's stone. Env Interpret 10 (2):16 – 17 Hose TA (1995b) Evaluating interpretation at Hunstanton. Earth Heritage 4:20 Hose TA (1996) Geotourism, or can tourists become casual rock hounds? In: Bennett MR (ed) Geology on your doorstep. The Geological Society, London, pp 207 – 228 Hose TA (1997) Geotourism — sellingthe earth to Europe. In: Marinos PG, Koukis GC, Tsiamaos GC, Stournass GC (eds) Engineering geology and the environment. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 2955 – 2960 Hose TA (1998) Is it any fossicking good? Or behind the signs — a critique of current geotourism interpretative media. Unpublished paper delivered to the Tourism in Geological Landscapes Conference (DoENI/Geological Survey NI/GeoConservation Commission), Ulster Museum, Belfast Hose TA (2000) European geotourism — geological interpretation and geoconservation promotion for tourists. In: Barretino D, Wimbledon WP, Gallego E (eds) Geological heritage: its conservation and management. Instituto Tecnologico Geominero de Espana, Madrid, pp 127 – 146 Hose TA (2003) Geotourism in England: a two-region case study analysis. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham Hose TA (2005a) Geo-tourism — appr eciating the deep time of landscapes. In: Novelli M (ed) Niche tourism: contemporary issues, trends and cases. Elsevier, London, pp 27 – 37

23 Hose TA (2005b) Writ in stone: a critique of geoconservation panels and publications in Wales and the Welsh borders. In: Coulson MR (ed) Stone in Wales. Cadw, Cardiff, pp 54 – 60 Hose TA (2006) Geotourism and interpretation. In: Dowling R, Newsome D (eds) Geotourism. Elsevier, London, pp 221 – 241 Hose TA (2008) Towards a history of geotourism: definitions, antecedents and the future. In: Burek CV, Prosser C (eds) The history of geoconservation (Special Publication 300). Geological Society, London, pp 37 – 60 Hose TA (2010a) Volcanic geotourism in West Coast Scotland. In: Erfurt-Cooper P, Cooper M (eds) Volcano and geothermal tourism: sustainable geo-resources for leisure and recreation. Earthscan, London, pp 259 – 271 Hose TA (2010b) The significance of aesthetic landscape appreciation to modern geotourism provision. In: Newsome D, Dowling RK (eds) Geotourism: the tourism of geology and landscapes. Goodfellow, Oxford, pp 13 – 25 Jenkins JM (1992) Fossickers and rockhounds in northern New South Wales. In: Weiler B, Hall CM (eds) Special interest tourism. Belhaven, London, pp 129 – 140 Joyce EB (2006) Geological heritage of Australia: selecting the best for Geosites and World Heritage, and telling the story for geotourism and Geoparks. AESC 2006 Extended Abstract Kavecic M, Peljhan M (2010) Geological heritage as an integral part of natural heritage conservation through its sustainable use in the Idrija Region (Slovenia). Geoheritage 2:137 – 154 Komoo I (1997) Conservation geology: a case for the ecotourism industry of Malaysia. In: Marinos PG, Koukis GC, Tsiambaos GC, Stournas GC (eds) Engineering geology and the environment. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 2969 – 2973 Komoo I, Deas KM (1993) Geotourism: an effective approach towards conservation of geological heritage. Unpublished paper, Badung, Malaysia, Symposium of Indonesia – Malaysia Culture Larwood J, Prosser C (1998) Geotourism, conservation and tourism. Geol Balacania 28(3 – 4):97 – 100 Lawson JD (1977) Mortimer forest geological. Nature Conservancy Council, London Leafe R (1998) Conserving our coastal heritage — a conflict resolved. In: Hooker J (ed) Coastal Defence and Earth Science Conservation. Proceedings of the Conference on Coastal Defence and Earth Science Conservation, Portsmouth, 1997. Geological Society, London, pp 10 – 19 MacFadyen C (2007a) When coring geovandalism. Earth Heritage 27:12 – 13 MacFadyen C (2007b) Missing Birk Knowes fossils: SNH calls it a day. Earth Heritage 27:8 – 9 MacFadyen C (2008) Coreholes: a widespread problem. Earth Heritage 28:17 Maini JS, Carlisle A (1974) Conservation in Canada: a conspectus — Publication No. 1340. Department of the Environment/Canadian Forestry Service, Ottawa Mantell GA (1822) The fossils of the South Downs. Lupton Relfe, London Mantell GA (1827) Illustrations of the geology of Sussex. Lupton Relfe, London Mantell GA (1833) The geology of the south-east of England. Longman, London Mantell GA (1846) A day’s ramble in and around the ancient town of Lewes. Henry Bohn, London Mantell GA (1847) Geological excursion round the Isle of Wight and along the adjacent Coast of Dorsetshire (2nd edn.), Henry G. Bohn, London Mantell GA (1849) Thoughts on a pebble. Benham and Reeve, London Mao I, Robinson AM, Dowling R (2009) Potential geotourists: an Australian case study. Leisure Solutions, Turramura, New South Wales 0

24 Martini G (1994) The protection of geological heritage and economic development: the saga of the Digne ammonite slab in Japan. In: O'Halloran D, Green C, Harley M, Stanley M, Knill J (eds) Geological and landscape conservation. The Geological Society, London, pp 383 – 386 Martini G (2000) Geological heritage and geo-tourism. In: Barretino D, Wimbledon WP, Gallego E (eds) Geological heritage: its conservation and management. Instituto Tecnologico Geominero de Espana, Madrid, pp 147 – 156 McCarthy S, Gilbert M (1994) The Crystal Palace Dinosaurs: the story of theworld’s first prehistoric sculptures. Crystal Palace Foundation, London McKirdy A (2000) Environmental geology: reaching out to a wider audience. Scott J Geol 36:105 – 109 Mullins E (1985) A love affair with nature. Phaidon, Oxford Sadry BN (2009) Fundamentals of geotourism: with emphasis on Iran. Samt Organization Publishing, Tehran Newsome D, Dowling RK (eds) (2010) Geotourism: the tourism of geology and landscapes. Goodfellow, Oxford Newsome D, Moore SA, Dowling R (2002) Natural area tourism: ecology, impacts and management. Channel View Publications, Clevedon Ousby I (1990) The Englishman’s England: taste, travel and the rise of tourism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Page KN (1994) Information signs for geological and geomorphological sites: basicprinciples.In: O'Halloran D, Green C, HarleyM, Stanley M, Knill S (eds) Geological and landscape conservation. Geological Society, London, pp 433 – 437 Page KN (1998) England's Earth heritage resource — an asset for everyone. In: Hooke J (ed) Coastal defence and Earth science conservation. The Geological Society, London, pp 196 – 209 Pepper D (1996) Modern environmentalism: an introduction. Routledge, London Read SE (1980) A prime force in the expansion of tourism in the next decade: special interest travel. In: Hawkins DE, Shafer EL, Rovelstad JM (eds) Tourism marketing and management issues. George Washington University Press, Washington, DC Ritvo H (2009) The dawn of green: Manchester, Thirlemere and modern environmentalism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Robinson E (1996) GEOLOGY RESERVE: Wren’s Nest revised. Geol Today 12(6):211 – 213 Robinson E (1998) Tourism in geological landscapes. Geol Today 14 (4):151 – 153

Geoheritage (2012) 4:7 – 24 Ruchkys UdeA (2005) Patrimônio Geológico e Geoconservação do Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte. Qualificação de Doutorado. Instituto de Geociências. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil Ruchkys U de A (2007) Patrimônio Geológico e Geoconservação no Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais: potencial para criação de um geoparque da UNESCO. Tese de Doutorado — Instituto de Geociências, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Minas Gerais, Brazil Silva FR (2007) A paisagem no Quadrilátero Ferrífero, MG: potencial para o uso turístico da sua ge ologia e geomorfologia. Dissertação de Mestrado, Programa de Pós-Graduação, Departamento de Geografia – U FMG, Belo Horizonte Slomka T, Kicinska-Swiderska A (2004) Geotourism — the basic concepts. Geoturystyka 1:5 – 7 Sorby HC (1875) On the remains of a fossil forest in the coal-measures at Wadesley, near Sheffield. Quart J Geol Soc 31:458 – 459 Spiteri A (1994) Malta: a model for the conservation of limestone regions. In: O'Halloran D, Green C, Harley M, Stanley M, Knill J (eds) Geological and landscape conservation. The Geological Society, London, pp 205 – 208 Stueve AM, Cock SD, Drew D (2002) The geotourism study: phase 1 executive summary. National Geographic, Washington, DC Thomas IA, Hughes K (1993) Reconstructing ancient environments. Teach Earth Sci 18:17 – 19 UNESCO (2000) UNESCO Geoparks Programme Feasibility Study, August 2000. UNESCO, Paris Weaver DB, Lawton LJ (2007) Twenty years on: the state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tour Manag 28:1168 – 1179 Wimbledon WAP (2006) Commercial exploitation versus sustainable use. Earth Heritage 27:7 – 8 Wimbledon WAP, Ishchenko AA, Gerasimenko NP, Karis LO, Suominen V, Johansson CE, Freden C (2000) Geosites — an IUGS initiative: science supported by conservation. In: BarretinoD, Wimbledon WP, Gallego E (eds) Geological heritage: its conservation and management. Instituto Tecnologico Geominero de Espana, Madrid, pp 69 – 94 Wind A (2010) Vandals, wha hae wi’ samples fled. Geosci 20(1):5 Woodward HB (1907) The history of the Geological Society of London. The Geological Society, London World Tourism Organization (1997) What tourism managers need to know: a practical guide for the development and application of indicators of sustainable tourism. World Tourism Organisation, Madrid

3G’s for Modern Geotourism

Recommend Documents