Multifinality in geoheritage inventories
Multifinality in geoheritage inventories:
a cross-cutting approach of geotourism and geoconservation issues in the “Causses du Quercy” Regional Natural Park (Lot, SW France) François Bétard
Univ. Paris-Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, laboratoire PRODIG, UMR CNRS 8586,
[email protected]
Alexandre Poiraud
Bureau d’études Inselberg,
[email protected] ; Laboratoire GEOLAB, UMR CNRS 6042,
[email protected]
Grégory Dandurand
Agence Protée,
[email protected]
Philippe Viette
Agence InSitu,
[email protected]
Agathe Kuhnel
Parc Naturel Régional des Causses du Quercy,
[email protected]
Abstract Geotourism and geoconservation are the main management issues of geoheritage inventories. In France, the INPG (National Inventory of Geological Heritage) constitutes a good basis for the definition of future protected areas and the further promotion of geoheritage. However, methodological adjustments are often necessary to fit with the different finalities of the inventory. This paper proposes a cross-cutting approach of geotourism and geoconservation issues in the “Causses-du-Quercy” Regional Natural Park (Lot, SW France), a rural territory typified by a rich geoheritage with a predominance of palaeontological and karstic sites. On one hand, a qualitative approach with risk-based assessment led to the definition of an original geoconservation strategy inspired by experiences in natural risk evaluation and biological conservation. On the other hand, a suitable geotourism-based method of geosite assessment enables to distinguish three main groups of geosites classified as a function of gradual priority for geotourism promotion in accordance with the Regional Park management policy. As a whole, this integrated work constitutes a solid prospective basis, a powerful tool and a strong decision support for the current project of Geopark application.
79
80
Congrès Geo inv 2015
Introduction Geotourism and geoconservation are the main management issues of geoheritage inventories. In France, the INPG (National Inventory of Geological Heritage) constitutes a good basis for the definition of future protected areas and the further promotion of geoheritage (De Wever et al., 2015). However, methodological adjustments are often necessary to fit with the different finalities of the inventory. The aim of this paper is to propose a cross-cutting approach of geotourism and geoconservation issues in the “Causses-duQuercy” Regional Natural Park (PNRCQ), a rural territory typified by a rich geoheritage with a predominance of palaeontological and karstic sites (Fig. 1). This geoheritage is currently the subject of protection measures (creation of a National Nature Reserve of geological interest, RNNg) and promotion actions (project of Geopark application). Because numerous geosites of the Regional Park are not managed, the PNRCQ aims to develop a substantive, integrated geoheritage project well beyond the limits of the reserve and extended to the whole PNR territory. To achieve this, two parallel studies (geoconservation and geotourism) were launched in 2013-2014. On one hand, a qualitative approach with risk-based assessment – inspired by experience in natural risk evaluation – was proposed for the definition of a geoconservation strategy applied to karstic sites. On the other hand, a semi-quantitative method of geosite assessment – based on multi-criteria analysis adapted to geotourism purposes – met the need to define a ranking or priority-based classification of geosites of geotouristic interest, in accordance with the Regional Park management policy and the geoconservation issues. As a whole, this integrated work constitutes a solid, prospective basis for consolidating the project of Geopark application.
1. Inventorying geoheritage: the INPG database 1.1
INPG as a prefiguration of geoheritage in the study area
In France, the INPG (Inventaire National du Patrimoine Géologique) is a national program launched in 2007 in order to inventory the geoheritage of France (De Wever et al., 2015). It constitutes a good basis for the definition of future protected areas as well as the promotion of geoheritage through education and geotourism. If the inventory is not completed at a national level, the Lot is one of the first departments of France to have achieved its inventory (completed in december 2007 and validated by CSRPN in march 2009; Cabrol et al., 2009).
Multifinality in geoheritage inventories
Fig. 1 – Location map of the study area encompassing the territories of the Regional Natural Park (PNRCQ) and the National Nature Reserve of geological interest (RNNg).
81
82
Congrès Geo inv 2015
The inventory highlighted the great richness of geoheritage in the PNR territory, with a total of 143 geosites including 19 geosites with 3 stars, 34 with 2 stars and 53 with 1 star (Fig. 2). The number of stars is attributed according to the note obtained by numerical assessment during the inventory process, and categorises the importance of the geosites within the national territory from low heritage value for sites with local interest (0 star) to high heritage value for sites of international relevance (3 stars).
Fig. 2 – Distribution of the geosites inventoried in the Lot department. Map from Rey and Pélissié (2014).
Geosites with 3 stars.
Multifinality in geoheritage inventories
1.2
The predominance of palaeontological and karstic sites
In the study area, the INPG database revealed the predominance of palaeontological sites, mainly associated with the « Phosphatières » (i.e. phosphate mines) exhibiting the world-famous Eocene-Oligocene phosphorite deposits of Quercy (Legendre et al., 1997). Located in the southern part of the regional park, these phosphorites allow to reconstruct the evolution of terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals…) and associated palaeoenvironments over 30 m.y. Fossil assemblages are particularly abundant and well preserved, promoting several sites (Escamps, Garouillas, Mas de Pauffié) to the rank of international standard localities in biostratigraphy. Another palaeontological site of international relevance is considered in this study since it belongs to the RNNg: the « Pterosaur Beach » or Upper Jurassic Crayssac Lagerstätte (Gaillard et al., 2005). This geosite is world-famous for its exceptional assemblages of ichnofossils that provide direct evidence of trackways made by a variety of aquatic, terrestrial (crocodiles, dinosaurs, turtles…) and even predominantly aerial vertebrates (pterosaurs) (Mazin et al., 1997). The national inventory also points out the omnipresence of karstic geosites in a region dominated by Jurassic limestone caprock (Pélissié et al., 2014). Beyond their morphogenetic linkage with the phosphorite deposits formed by infilling of paleokarst cavities, these geosites illustrate the great diversity of exokarst features: sinkholes, karren, swallets, canyons, dry valleys, etc. Even if the INPG does not take into account the underground heritage, several geosites of hydrogeological interest were inventoried, including major disappearing streams (e.g. Réveillon) and karst perennial springs of Vauclusian-type (Cabouy, St-Sauveur).
2. Conserving geoheritage: a risk-based approach 2.1
Qualitative approach with risk-based assessment
The geoconservation study wore on 6 representative karstic sites subject to different threats (Poiraud and Dandurand, 2015). One of the main problems of geoconservation is the necessity of using alternative legislation from natural heritage or urbanism (Avoine and Jonin, 2010; Jonin and Avoine, 2010; Erikstad, 2013). To optimize legislation tools, we have to know perfectly the different interests of a geosite, from a geoscientific viewpoint, but also from their additional values (Reynard et al., 2007). As we must evaluate the sensibility of each interest value under the risk of deterioration, we applied the concept from risk analysis to each geosite (1):
83
84
Congrès Geo inv 2015
(1)
with V, the vulnerability, T, the threats, I, the issues and P, the protection status. Each item was evaluated on a 4 grades scale (Table 1). Table 1 – Evaluation matrix of risk analysis. 0
*
**
***
Vulnerability
none
low
medium
high
Internal threat
none
low
medium
high
External threat
none
low
medium
high
Issue
none
local
microregional
regional and more
Conservation policies
none
urbanism policies
conventional conservation
legal conservation
Risk
none
low
medium
high
Thereby, we evaluated natural values (fauna, flora, geology, geomorphology, interaction between biotic and abiotic) and cultural values (aesthetical, historical, archeological, sociological) for each geosite by field investigation and interviews of various stakeholders. For each item of specific natural or cultural values, we calculated indices to characterize it: • N, the number of occurrence of the item, • Tot, the sum of notes, • H’, the diversity of notes, • I, the multiplication of N, Tot and H’.
2.2
Main results and conservation strategy
Geoheritage of the 6 sites is always associated with biotic interest (chiroptera, birds, specific flora) which is dependent on geoscientific context of the karstic site. The interaction between abiotic and biotic is always a strong component of the sites. Landscape, historic or archeological interests are frequently associated with geomorphic feature. Three sites are protected by legislation for natural heritage, landscape or historical heritage. This kind of protection is effective for geoheritage relatively to touristic project intentions.
Multifinality in geoheritage inventories
Two sites have specific protection for geoheritage (paleontological and geomorphological interest) and are included in the perimeter of the RNNg. Table 2 synthesizes the main results on specific items. The vulnerabilities of sites are various and rarely related to geoheritage. Gravity is a major internal threat of karstic sites with direct consequences on the quality of outcrop and integrity of the site. The main external threat is the frequenting of the sites and outdoor activities. They cause disturbances (biotic component) or damages on abiotic and cultural components (buildings, infrastructures). The main issues are biologic heritage, landscape and archeological feature. Finally, since we cannot mobilize specific geoheritage legislation for all geosites, we used the additional heritages and their specific legislation to preserve geoheritage indirectly. We proposed two strategies: - site strategy with determining for each site the target issue (geoheritage) and the gearing issue (additional heritages) which mobilize specific protection tools; - global strategy inspired by collaborative sciences and experiences in biotic conservation (citizen watch, property survey or popular university).
3. Promoting geoheritage: a geotourism approach 3.1
A geotourism-based method of geosite assessment
A geotourism study was conducted in 2013-2014, with the aim to propose a strategy of tourism promotion of the geological heritage in the whole PNR territory (Viette and Bétard, 2014). Although the INPG methodology includes an evaluation of patrimonial interest of the geosites and a rating about the need of protection (De Wever et al., 2015), it does not include some added values that are important for geotourism activities, such as accessibility or aesthetic value. Here we propose a semi-quantitative assessment method of geosites based on multi-criteria analysis adapted to geotourism purposes (Table 3). For each site retained in the preliminary inventory, a score is assigned (rating from 1* to 4* for each criteria) in order to propose a ranking or priority-based classification of sites with geotourism potential that can be used as a tool for defining a management strategy.
85
86
Congrès Geo inv 2015
Table 2 – Synthesis of risk analysis. Swallet of Réveillon Deposit Hydrologic system Vulnerability
Biotic Habitat Fauna Landscape dynamic Social representation
2
Quarry of Mémerlin
Ridge of Marcilhac
3 2
2 2
2
Art Internal threat
Gravity
1
Weathering Hydrologic dynamic Afforestation
1
1
2
Landscape closure External threat
Water pollution Growing urbanization Infrastructure
1
Outdoor tourism
2
2 0 1
Landslide mitigation Vandalism Geoheritage
1 1
3
3 2
1
Conservation
1
3
2
RISK
2
0
2
Issues
Natural Hazard Biologic heritage Landscape/Architecture History/Archeology Ethno-sociology
2
**** Scientific worth Educational interest Uniqueness / rarity Exemplarity Aesthetic value State of preservation Site management and protection Accessibility Present and potential touristic use
3 2
International Very high Exceptional Very high Exceptional Well preserved Managed and protected Site clearly visible and well accessible Yet promoted/used as geosite
*** National High Rare High Remarkable Slightly degraded Managed but not protected Site barely visible but well accessible Used but insufficiently promoted as geosite
Multifinality in geoheritage inventories
Igue de Crégols
Cave and tufa of Lacauhne
Corniche des Anglais
3 1
2 3 2 1
1
1
3
0 2 2
H’ 0,00 0,67
I 0,00 0,08
1 3 2 1
2 5 4 3
0,00 1,05 0,69 0,00
0,00 0,19 10,07 0,00
1 4
2 4
0,00 1,39
0,00 0,26
1 1 3
1 3 3
0,00 0,00 0,64
0,00 10,00 0,07
1
2
0,00
0,00
2 1 1
3 2 0
0,64 0,00 0,00
0,04 0,00 0,00
1
4
5
1,33
0,31
3
2
5
0,67
2
1
3
4
1,04
0,08 0,15
3 1 5 4 3 1
6 1 11 7 6 3
1,01 0,00 1,55 1,08 1,01 0,00
0,21 0,00 1,00 0,36 0,21 0,00
2 2 3 1
3 3
1
Tot 3 5
2
1
1 2 0
N 1 2
0
1
3
2
Table 3 – Criteria of geosite assessment used in the geotourism study.
**
*
Regional Medium Uncommon Medium Interesting Partly destroyed Not managed, without potential negative impact Site difficult to access for tourists Not used but with touristic potential
Local Low Common Low Commonplace Strongly destroyed Not managed, with potential negative impact Site unavalaible for tourists Not used and difficult to use as geosite
87
Congrès Geo inv 2015
88
Table 4 – Results of the geotourism-based method of geosite assessment. Number Site
SW
EI
UN
EX
AV
SP
MP
AC
TU
Score
Rank
G1
Gouffre de Réveillon
**
***
***
***
***
***
**
*
**
22
20
G2
Igues d’Aujols
**
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
26
6
G3
Cloup d’Aural
****
****
****
****
***
****
****
****
****
35
1
G4
Mas de Got
***
**
***
**
**
**
***
**
**
21
20
G5
Coulou
***
**
***
***
**
**
***
**
**
22
15
G6
Coupe de Belmont
*
**
***
**
*
**
**
***
**
18
30
G7
Ouvala de Berganty
*
**
***
**
*
**
**
***
**
18
30
G8 G9 G10
Sablière de Pech-Merle Grotte de Pech-Merle Falaise de Cabrerets
** ** **
*** *** **
*** ** ***
** *** *
* *** *
*** **** **
*** **** **
** **** **
** *** **
21 28 17
20 4 35
G11
Mémerlin-Prajoux
***
**
***
***
**
**
***
**
**
22
15
G12 G13
St Sauveur-Cabouy Coupe de Calvignac
** **
*** ***
*** ***
*** **
*** ***
*** ***
**** ***
*** **
*** **
27 23
5 11
G14
Belvédère de Calvignac
*
**
*
**
*
**
****
***
***
19
28
G15 G16
** **
** **
** **
* **
* **
** ***
** **
*** ***
** ***
17 21
35 20
*
**
***
**
**
**
**
**
**
18
30
**
**
**
**
**
**
***
***
**
20
26
**
**
**
**
*
**
**
*
**
16
37
G20
Tuilerie de Puy-Blanc Braunhie-Planagrèze Carrière du Pech d’Anjou Trou-Madame Carrière de grèze Cornus Plage aux Ptérosaures
****
****
****
**** ****
***
****
****
****
35
1
G21
Igue de Crégols
**
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
26
6
G22
Les Tempories
***
***
***
**
**
**
***
**
**
22
15
G23 G24
Fonds de la Braunhie Canyon de l’Alzou
** *
** ***
** **
*** **
** ***
** ***
**** ****
*** ***
*** ***
23 24
11 8
G25
Grotte de Lacave
*
**
*
*
**
**
****
****
**
18
30
G26
Falaise de PechAffamat
**
**
**
**
**
***
***
***
**
21
20
G27 G28
La Balme La Pierre-Martine
*** *
*** ***
** ***
*** ***
** ***
*** ***
*** ***
*** ***
** **
24 24
8 8
G29
Marais de Bonnefont
*
**
**
**
*
***
****
***
***
21
20
G30
Source Salmière
**
***
***
**
**
**
*
***
**
20
26
G31
Gouffre de Padirac
***
****
****
*** ****
***
**
***
***
29
3
G32
11
G33
Belvédère de la Corniche Belvédère de St-Cirq W
G34
Cirque de Vénes
G35
G17 G18 G19
*
**
***
**
***
***
***
***
***
23
*
**
***
**
***
***
***
***
***
23
11
*
**
**
**
***
***
***
***
***
22
15
La Toulzanie
**
*
**
*
*
***
***
*
*
15
38
G36
Vallée du Célé
*
**
**
***
**
**
**
***
**
19
28
G37
Butte-témoin de la Pauze
**
**
**
**
*
***
**
**
**
18
30
G38
Tranchée de Vaylats
**
***
**
**
**
***
***
***
**
22
15
SW: scientific worth; EI: educational interest; UR: uniqueness/rarity; EX: exemplarity; AV: aesthetic value; SP: state of preservation; MP: site management and protection; AC: accessibility; TU: present and potential touristic use.
Multifinality in geoheritage inventories
3.2
Assessment results and priority-based classification of geosites
The semi-quantitative assessment enables to distinguish three groups of geosites classified as a function of priority for geotourism promotion in accordance with the Regional Natural Park management policy (Table 4): - high priority: 7 geosites belong to this category (score=35-26): the “Phosphatières” of Cloup d’Aural, the “Pterosaur Beach”, Padirac, Pech-Merle, the Vauclusian springs of Cabouy and St-Sauveur and the karst sinkholes of Aujols and Crégols; this group of “major” geosites may be considered as emblematic of the geoheritage of Quercy and should concentrate the main efforts of geotourism promotion; - medium priority: 13 geosites may be ranged into this group (score=24-22); they may be considered as complementary geosites for valorizing the whole geodiversity of Quercy; panoramic geomorphosites are included (Rocamadour, St-Cirq-Lapopie) with the aim to highlight the links between geomorphological and cultural landscapes; - low priority: 18 geosites belong to this last category (score
