DOCSLIB.ORG

GCR Volume 3 Issue 2 Pages 97-127.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GCR Volume 3 Issue 2 Pages 97-127.Pdf Original Article Julie Palmer 1, Károly Németh1, Alan Palmer 1, Szabolcs Kósik2 1. Massey University, School of Agriculture and Environment, Turitea Campus, Palmer- ston North, New Zealand 2. Horizon Regional Council, Palmerston North, New Zealand © Author(s) 2020, this article is published with open access at http://gcr.khuisf.ac.ir Abstract The Manawatu and Wairarapa regions, lower North Island, are an important geological archive for New Zealand but are not among the iconic geotourism attractions of New Zealand. Recently the geoheritage values of the region have been discussed by various groups including Massey University and Horizons Regional Council with an aim to promote the region to visitors seeking destinations with geological significance. The suggestion has been made the Manawatu River form the backbone of a geopark. While Manawatu River is regionally significant, we argue it lacks the unique attributes needed for globally significant geoheritage value. Here we demonstrate the wider region has at least two globally unique and geologically superb features that should be evaluated using global comparative studies. Exceptional turbidite successions representing accretionary prism successions are exposed in the Wairarapa region. These are comparable to the iconic “flysch” locations of the North American Cordillera, the Alps, the Pyrenees and the Carpathians. Furthermore, a succession of thrust faults and related mélange sequences are among the best exposed and most accessible in New Corresponding Author: Zealand. These undoubtedly carry high geoheritage value and we propose that Károly Németh Massey University, School of Agriculture these two geological features, with community support, regional council funding and Environment, Turitea Campus, and the local university (Massey) facilitating the transfer of knowledge to the Palmerston North, New Zealand community, should be signposted and promoted to visitors. In the long term the ORCID: 0000-0003-1026-0407 stunning geological succession of the Wairarapa Mudstone Country should gain Email: [email protected] international recognition and form the basis of a UNESCO Global Geopark. Keywords: Geoheritage, Geopark, Geotoursim, Geoeducation, Geosite, Flysch, Sea level change, Global change Introduction Zecha and Regelous 2018; AlRayyan et al. 2019; Geoheritage research is an increasingly important Lee et al. 2019; Migon and Pijet-Migon 2019; aspect of Earth Science education (Barasoain and Rapprich et al. 2019), nature conservation (Brilha, Azanza 2018; Justice, 2018; Reynard et al. 2018; 2002; Henriques et al. 2011; Németh and Moufti 2017; Escorihuela 2018; Gordon 2018; Melendez Access this article online 2018; Prosser 2018; Brocx and Semeniuk 2019) DOI: 10.30486/gcr.2020.677854 and geotourism (Hose 1997; Hose 2006; Newsome and Dowling 2006; Hose et al. 2011; Hose 2012a; Received: 31 Jul, 2020 Accepted: 12 Oct, 2020 Hose 2012b; Lim 2014; Németh et al. 2017; Dowl- Volume 3 / Issue 2 / pages(97-127) e-ISSN: 2588-7343 p-ISSN: 2645-4661 97 Palmer: Geoheritage Values of the Wairarapa Geoconservation Research ing and Newsome 2018; Erfurt 2018; Newsome and environment to promote geoheritage (Clary 2018; Dowling 2018; Rozycka and Migon 2018; Suzuki Dowling 2018; Farsani et al. 2018; Lagally 2018). and Takagi 2018; Vasiljevic et al. 2018; Beraaouz The geosites need to be destinations keenly sought et al. 2019; Guo and Chung 2019; Maghsoudi et by visitors either as individual tourist activities or al. 2019). Identifying the geoheritage values of the more structured ways, such as guided visits (Migoń, natural environment is an important aspect of this 2018; Newsome and Dowling 2018). Their scientif- research (Reynard and Brilha 2018). Methods used ic significance must be clearly articulated (Brilha to define the value of geological sites include sys- 2016; Brilha 2018). To ensure this the geosites need tematic quantification of their main (e.g. scientific, to be presented in an appealing and informative man- educational, aesthetic, protection etc) and additional ner which can take many years of work (Hose 2006; (e.g. functional touristic etc) values (Brilha 2016; Migoń 2018). Defining the geoheritage values is the Sa dos Santos et al. 2016; Brilha 2018; Brilha et key and is best achieved through ongoing research al. 2018; Forte et al. 2018). While there is no gen- and dissemination of the findings to the wider com- eral agreement on the best practice for doing this, munity by publication in local media and discussion such valorisation defines the fundamental roles in or workshop opportunities to share knowledge with land-use planning, development of various geotour- the local population. Geoheritage research will of- ism activities or geoeducation opportunities. The ten define the scientific values of geosites and these ultimate goal of the work is to develop thematic findings can be distributed through academic jour- geoconservation sites with recognised local, region- nals (Brilha 2016; Brilha 2018). The geodiversity al or international (global) geoheritage values that of sites is also an important factor that warrants in- will promote Earth Science and the fundamental clusion in the research (Gray 2018a; b; Reynard et role of the geosystem in understanding Planet Earth al. 2018). (Reynard et al. 2011b; Brocx and Semeniuk, 2015; Chakraborty et al. 2015; de Vries et al. 2018; Gray Geoheritage values tend to be biased toward the 2018a). The formal geoconservation aspect of such tourism values of geosites in particular the visual projects is to establish local geoparks and promote landscape (Panizza 2001; Reynard et al. 2007; De geotourism (Joyce 2010b; Zeng 2014; Errami et Waele and Melis 2009; Ielenicz 2009; Ilies and al. 2015; Warowna et al. 2016; Németh and Mouf- Josan 2009; Reynard et al. 2009; Erhartic 2010; ti 2017; Dowling 2018; Gray 2018b; Beraaouz et Joyce 2010b; Pereira and Pereira 2010; Coratza et al. 2019; Mikhailenko and Ruban 2019). Depend- al. 2011; Doniz-Paez et al. 2011; Miccadei et al. ing on the significance of the geosites identified 2011; Pellitero et al. 2011; Reynard et al. 2011a; during the research some features may be suffi- Serrano et al. 2011; Harmon and Viles 2013; Rey- ciently important as to warrant the establishment nard and Coratza 2013; Zglobicki and Baran-Zglo- of an UNESCO Global Geopark. UNESCO Global bicka 2013; Reynard et al. 2018). However, research Geoparks are protected and managed regions with is concluding that geoheritage itself has absolute geological and geomorphological features of global values that are not based solely on morphology of significance (Eder 1999; Keever and Zouros 2005; the landscape and its visual aspects so often (Bril- Dowling 2011; Petrovic et al. 2013; Turner 2013; ha 2002; Brilha 2016; Brilha 2018). Tourism driven Henriques and Brilha 2017; Justice 2018; UNESCO geoheritage is too often based on the preconception 2018). Achieving UNESCO Global Geopark status of what visitors wish to experience at a geological requires scientific expertise and the involvement of site. However, for many sites the geological val- local communities, including indigenous peoples ue is not limited to the visual scene (Dowling and and cultures. Visitor experiences are the key to pro- Newsome 2018). When the focus is primarily on vide real, hands on information about Earth history geotourism, especially where there is government and the processes that shape the non-living natural support for tourism (Hayes and Lovelock 2017), 98 Volume 3 / Issue 2 / pages(97-127) e-ISSN: 2588-7343 p-ISSN: 2645-4661 Geoconservation Research Palmer: Geoheritage Values of the Wairarapa tourist hot spots develop and tourism routes tend to “slow tourism” (Caffyn, 2012; Guiver and McGrath build around a network of popular sites while less 2015; Weaver, 2016; Agyeiwaah et al. 2017; Pike well known sites, some of which are off the beat- 2017), is a better fit to the fundamental goals of en track, are rarely promoted and not considered as geotourism away from the main-stream tourist net- valuable (Pearce 2000; Morrow and Mowatt 2015; works (Gravis et al. 2020). Migon and Pijet-Migon 2016). Recently there ap- pears to have been shift away from focusing only Locations with strong geological heritage in regions on popular geosites to studying less well known re- that are considered to be outside of major tourism gions where new sustainable tourism developments hot spots are commonly disadvantaged. They tend could be established (O’Connor, 2008; Gerner et al. to be remote and not well-promoted despite having 2009; Joyce 2010a; Bitschene and Schueller, 2011; high geoheritage values. Post COVID-19 will pro- Boley et al. 2011; Burlando et al. 2011; Cutler vide an opportunity to develop local programs fo- 2011; Dowling 2011; Farsani et al. 2011; Gordon, cussing on sites with valuable scientific values that 2011; Grant 2011; Letos and Muntele 2011). The are also attractive to tourists (both domestic and in- recent COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant ab- ternational), recreation, conservation or education sence of international tourists to New Zealand has (Farzanegan et al. 2020; Fong et al. 2020; Galvani demonstrated that “hot spot” driven tourism with et al. 2020). There is also opportunity to include its narrow view of the geoheritage values is unsus- topical subjects such as climate change, sea level tainable long term. Other crisis situations such as rise and geological processes. This is behind a new various natural disasters, for example the eruption trend in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EGN Magazine Issue 10
    EGN MAG 10 backup2:EGN MAG 9.qxd 10/5/2013 10:45 Page 1 europeaneuropean Issue 10 GEOPARKSGEOPARKS European Geoparks Magazine TheThe 190190thth SessionSession network ofof UNESCO’sUNESCO’s ExecutiveExecutive BoardBoard andand GeoparksGeoparks OutcomesOutcomes fromfrom 1111th EuropeanEuropean GeoparksGeoparks ConferenceConference atat AroucaArouca GeoparkGeopark (Portugal)(Portugal) EGN MAG 10 backup2:EGN MAG 9.qxd 10/5/2013 10:45 Page 2 Foreword Magazine 10 celebrates and provides an overview of the range of activ- ities and achievements in the life of the European Geoparks Network (EGN) in 2012. These include the festival of European Geoparks Week, the highly successful 11th European Geoparks Conference and the addi- tion of three new geoparks, Central Catalunya Geopark – Spain, Bakony–Balaton Geopark – Hungary, and Lesvos Geopark - Greece. The progress in transforming the Global Geoparks Network into a UNESCO European EDITORIAL Global Parks Initiative is also reported. The 11th European Geoparks Conference with the theme “Geoparks: A Geoparks Network Contribution for a Smart, Inclusive and Sustainable Growth” was held in Arouca Geopark, Portugal, between 19 -21 September, 2012. The con- Magazine ference was attended by 324 delegates from 42 countries. Of the 152 Issue No 10 / 2013 abstracts published in the Conference Proceedings, about 81% were PARKS delivered at the conference, and about 29 % were presented as posters. Published by: The meeting also included an educational workshop entitled “In & Out”, Natural History Museum of the Lesvos and the event “Geo-expo’12” designed to promote social, cultural and Petrified Forest on behalf of the European environmental sustainability, ran in parallel with the Conference. On the Geoparks Network last day participants had the opportunity to visit some of the most impor- european GEO tant geosites of the Arouca Geopark.
    [Show full text]
  • Geoparks Sustainable Tourism Destinations
    European Geoparks Magazine●Issue 14 Geoparks sustainable tourism destinations THE EUROPEAN GEOPARKS NETWORK www.europeangeoparks.org 2017 21-26 March 2017: 39th European Geoparks Meeting Burren and Cliffs of Moher UGG, Ireland, European CALENDAR www.burrengeopark.ie/egn-meeting Geoparks Network 12-22 June 2017: International Intensive Course on Geoparks Magazine UNESCO Global Geoparks and Geotourism Activities Lesvos island UGG, Greece www.petrifiedforest.gr/geoparks2017 Issue No 13 / 2016 24th May – 11th June 2017: European Geoparks Network Published by: Week in all European Geoparks, Europe www.europeangeoparks.org Natural History Museum of the Lesvos Petrified Forest on behalf of the European Geoparks 12th – 22nd June 2017: International Intensive Course Network on Geoparks. UNESCO Global Geoparks and Geotourism Developement Executive editor: Nickolas Zouros Lesvos Island UNESCO Global Geopark, Greece www.petrifiedforest.gr/geoparks2017 Publication Editor: Tony Ramsay 5th – 6th September 2017: 40th European Geoparks Editorial board: Network Meeting Tony Ramsay, Jutta Weber, Nickolas Zouros 7th – 9th September 2017: 14th European Geoparks Contributors: Conference Tony Ramsay, Vesa Krökki, Mikko Kiuttu, Barnabás Azores UNESCO Global Geopark, Portugal Korbély, Florian Dierickx, Irina Pavlova, Sarah http://www.egnazores2017.com/ Gaines, Staridas Spyros, C. Fassoulas, Melanie Border, Annie-Marie Donslund, Ana Lima, 16th – 17th September 2017: UGG Council Meeting Diamantino Pereira, Sílvia Marcos, Mojca Gorjup 18th APGN September 2017: APGN AC and CC Meetings Kavčič, Bojan Režun, Nina Erjavec, Jaka Kenk, 19th – 22th September 2017: 5th Asian Pacific Geoparks Sanja Marija Pellis, Eamon Doyle, Tiffany Sarre, Sophie Justice, Mona Holte, Andreas Schüller, Julia Network Symposium Franzen, Luis Alcalá, Luis Mampel, Francisco Javier Zhijindong Cave UNESCO Global Geopark, China Verdú, Guiseppe Mogavero, Pasquale Li Puma, Abu Sharib, T.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Application by the Basque Coast Geopark Project to Become a European Geopark
    CANDIDATURA OFICIAL DEL GEOPARQUE DE LA COSTA VASCA A LA RED EUROPEA DE GEOPARQUES ÍNDICE Índice propuestoOFFICIAL de la memoria de la candidatura APPLICATION a la Red Europea de Geoparques (EGN) DescripciónBY THE BASQUE COAST A. Identificación del Geoparque. Definición del territorio 1. Nombre GEOPARKdel lugar que solicita ser geoparque. PROJECT 2. Localización y límitesTO del territorio. BECOME A 3. Superficie,EUROPEAN elementos geográficos y humanos GEOPARK 4. Organización responsable del geoparque B. Descripción científica de la región propuesta a la nominación de Geoparque Europeo 1. Caracterización geográfica del territorio (Definición de la zona geográfica donde se localiza el territorio) 2. Descripción geológica general 2.1. Introducción 2.2. Estratigrafía 2.3. Tectónica 2.4. Historia geológica 2.5. Relevancia del patrimonio geológico 2.5.1. Estratigrafía 2.5.2. Paleontología 2.5.3. Tectónica 2.5.4. Geomorfología y paisaje 2.5.5. Hidrogeología 3. Listado y descripción de los puntos de interés geológico (o “geositios”) 4. Detalles del interés de estos puntos (científico, educativo, etc.) 5. Amenazas o impactos actuales o futuros en el territorio y en los “geositios” MUTRIKU - DEBA - ZUMAIA NOVEMBER 2009 OFFICIAL APPLICATION BY THE BASQUE COAST GEOPARK PROJECT TO BECOME A EUROPEAN GEOPARK A. Description of the Geopark territory 2 1. Name of the area applying to become a European Geopark 2 2. Location of area applying to become a geopark 2 3. Physical and human geography 3 4. Organisation in charge of the geopark 4 4.1. Background 4 4.2. Management of the geopark 5 4.3. Geopark funding 6 B. Scientific description of the region applying to become a European Geopark 6 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Basque Coast Geopark: Support for Good Practices in Geotourism
    GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites Year IV no.2, vol. 8, November 2011, pp. 272-280 ISSN 2065-0817, E-ISSN 2065-1198 Article no. 08111-90 THE BASQUE COAST GEOPARK: SUPPORT FOR GOOD PRACTICES IN GEOTOURISM Joan POCH* GEOSEI S.C.P; Autonomous University of Barcelona, Faculty of Science, Department of Geology, Edifici C, Cerdanyola del Vallès (08193) Barcelona, e-mail: [email protected] Jon Paul LLORDÉS Coastal Flysch Route, Xenda Natura S.L., Ategorrieta, 59, G-II (20013) San Sebastián, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: Over an eight-year period, a wide variety of geology and nature tours has been created in the Basque Coast Geopark, offering many different options to a very diverse public: varying duration of the visits and difficulty of the routes, different topics, prices, types of experience, etc. Examples include boat trips to observe the main coastal outcrop, visits on foot to different geosites, or combined land and sea visits, etc. Despite there being no tradition of geotourism in the zone, or any history of paid guided tours, the geopark’s model is successful. This makes us determined to consolidate what has been achieved and prepare to take on new challenges. Key words: geopark, geotourism, good practices, working groups, network * * * * * * INTRODUCTION European Geoparks assisted by UNESCO offer a unique context for sustainable development based on a special geological heritage. These territories are members of a broad Network (European Geoparks and Global Geoparks Network) which has high quality standards in relation to the sustainable management of geological heritage. The survival of the Network itself depends on a continuous process of quality improvement, a process which is connected to the acquisition of new tools for sustainable management.
    [Show full text]
  • Geopark Progress Reports
    EUROPEAN GEOPARKS NETWORK Geopark Progress Reports September 2012- March 2013 Updated: 2013-04-14 Contents GEOPARK Page Adamello Brenta Geopark – ITALY 3 Apuan Alps - ITALY 5 Bakony-Balaton - HUNGARY 7 Basque Coast – SPAIN 9 Bauges – FRANCE 11 Beigua - ITALY 13 Bergstrasse-Odenwald - GERMANY 15 Cabo de Gata – Nijar Natural Park - SPAIN 17 Carnic Alps - AUSTRIA 19 Central Catalunya - SPAIN 21 Chablais - FRANCE 23 Chelmos Vouraikos – GREECE 25 Copper Coast – IRELAND 27 English Riviera – UK 29 Fforest Fawr – Wales, UK 31 Gea Norvegica – NORWAY 33 GeoMon – Wales, UK 34 Harz Braunschweiger Land Ostfalen – GERMANY 36 Lesvos Island - GREECE 38 Madonie – ITALY 40 Maestrazgo Cultural Park – SPAIN 42 Magma – NORWAY 44 Papuk – CROATIA 46 Parco Nazionale del Cilento e Vallo di Diano, Campania – ITALY 48 Park Naturel Régional du Luberon – FRANCE 50 Psiloritis Natural Park – GREECE 52 Rocca di Cerere – ITALY 53 Rokua – FINLAND 55 Sardenia Geominerario Park - ITALY 57 Shetland – SCOTLAND, UK 59 Sierra Norte de Sevilla Natural Park - SPAIN 61 Sierras Subbeticas Natural Park – SPAIN 63 Sobrarbe – SPAIN 65 Steirische Eisenwurzen – AUSTRIA 67 Swabian Alb – GERMANY 68 Terra.Vita Naturpark – GERMANY 70 Tuscan Mining Geopark - ITALY 72 Villuercas-Ibores-Jara – SPAIN 74 Vulkaneifel European Geopark – GERMANY 76 1 Reports after deadline: GEOPARK Page Hateg - ROMANIA 78 Bohemian Paradise - CZECH REPUBLIC 79 Burren and Cliffs of Moher - REPUBLIC OF IRELAND 81 Arouca - PORTUGAL 83 Naturtejo - PORTUGAL 85 Katla – ICELAND 87 North Pennines AONB – ENGLAND UK 89 Muskau Arch - GERMANY- POLAND 91 Marble Arch Caves– NORTHERN IRELAND and REP OF IRELAND 93 No report from: GEOPARK North West Highlands – SCOTLAND UK Novohrad-Nógrád - HUNGARY-SLOVAKIA Réserve Géologique de Haute - Provence – FRANCE Vikos-Aoos - GREECE 2 Adamello Brenta – ITALY Environmental Education Activities 1.
    [Show full text]
  • UNESCO Global Geoparks the EUROPEAN GEOPARKS NETWORK
    European Geoparks Magazine●Issue 13 UNESCO Global Geoparks THE EUROPEAN GEOPARKS NETWORK www.europeangeoparks.org 2016 European CALENDAR 20-30 June 2016 Geoparks Network International Intensive Course on Geoparks Magazine UNESCO Global Geoparks Lesvos Island UNESCO Global Geopark – Greece. http://www. Issue No 13 / 2016 petrifiedforest.gr/geoparks2016/ Published by: July 2016: Natural History Museum of the Lesvos Italian Geoparks Conference Petrified Forest on behalf of the European Geoparks Pollino UNESCO Global Geopark - Italy Network 27-28 July 2016: Executive editor: Nickolas Zouros The Geoparks Niigata International Forum Itoigawa UNESCO Global Geopark, Niigata City, Japan. Publication Editor: Tony Ramsay http://www.city.itoigawa.lg.jp/geopark-forum/en/index.html Editorial board: 27 August - 4 September 2016: Tony Ramsay, Jutta Weber, Nickolas Zouros International Geological Conference Cape Town, South Africa, http://www.35igc.org/ Contributors: Tony Ramsay, Vesa Krökki, Mikko Kiuttu, Barnabás 1-10 September 2016: Korbély, Florian Dierickx, Irina Pavlova, Sarah IUCN World Conservation Congress Gaines, Staridas Spyros, C. Fassoulas, Melanie Hawaii - USA. http://www.iucnworldconservationcongress. Border, Annie-Marie Donslund, Ana Lima, Diamantino Pereira, Sílvia Marcos, Mojca Gorjup org/ Kavčič, Bojan Režun, Nina Erjavec, Jaka Kenk, 25th-26th September 2016: Sanja Marija Pellis, Eamon Doyle, Tiffany Sarre, 38th European Geoparks Meeting Sophie Justice, Mona Holte, Andreas Schüller, Julia English Riviera UNESCO Global Geopark - UK Franzen,
    [Show full text]
  • Inventario LIG Geoparkea
    Dr. Asier Hilario / Dra. Miren Mendia / Dr. Luis Miguel Agirrezabala / Dra. Arantza Aramburu / Martin Arriolabengoa / Dr. Xabier Orue-Etxebarria / Dr. Manu Monge-Ganuzas / Dra. Inma Mugerza ÍNDICE 1. Contexto y antecedentes 2. Objetivos 3. Grupo de trabajo y metodología 4. Geología 4.1. Mapa geológico 4.2. Descripción geológica 4.2.1. Contexto geológico 4.2.2. Caracterización geológica 4.2.3. Historia geológica y estratigrafía 4.2.4. Paleontología 4.2.5. Tectónica 4.2.6. Geomorfología 4.2.7. Hidrogeología 4.2.8. Extracción 5. Inventario de lugares de interés geológico 6. Análisis del inventario 6.1. Distribución geográfica 6.2. Distribución temática 6.3. Índice bibliométrico – nivel de estudio 6.4. Valor intrínseco 6.5. Uso público 6.5.1. Nivel de comprensión 6.5.2. Divulgación y material didáctico 6.5.3. Accesibilidad e infraestructuras de uso público 6.6. Valor intrínseco + uso público 6.7. Geoconservación 6.7.1. Estado de conservación 6.7.2. Vulnerabilidad 6.7.3. Normativa Anexo 1: Parámetros de valoración Anexo 2: Tabla de valoraciones Bibliografía DICIEMBRE 2013 3 1. CONTEXTO Y ANTECEDENTES El Geoparque de la Costa Vasca fue declarado como tal en el año 2010, pero rio de LIG se convierte en el primer trabajo que se debe realizar para detectar las iniciativas encaminadas a conseguir dicha certificación comenzaron algu- este patrimonio y diseñar una correcta estrategia de gestión. nos años antes. Los hitos más significativos han sido los siguientes: A pesar de que durante las últimas décadas se ha generado mucho material • Año 2005: Apertura del centro de interpretación Algorri.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstracts Volume
    1 CONTENT 11TH SEPTEMBER 2018: KEYNOTE THE GLOBAL GEOPARKS NETWORK ________________________________________________ 21 Nickolaos Zouros UNESCO GLOBAL GEOPARKS AND AGENDA 2030 _____________________________________ 22 Patrick J. Mc Keever UNESCO GLOBAL GEOPARKS AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS. THE NEW CHALLENGE OF ADAMELLO BRENTA UNESCO GLOBAL GEOPARK IN PARTNERSHIP WITH AUDI FOR EMISSIONS REDUCTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION ____________________________________________________ 23 Fabrizio Longo 11TH SEPTEMBER 2018: ORAL PLANNING SMARTER, INCREASING IMPACT _________________________________________ 25 Sophie Justice, Amélie Giroux ASO UNESCO GLOBAL GEOPARK: PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AFTER A SERIES OF DISASTERS ______________________________________________________________ 26 Shino Miyakita & Shin‘ichiro Ikebe TRAINING AND DESIGN WITH LOCALS (GEO-DESIGN) ________________________________ 27 Maziar Qaseminejad Abdolmalaki, Satoko Hara GEO-SERVICES FOR PEOPLE - REFLECTIONS ON THE CONCEPT OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND THE GEOPARK APPROACH __________________________________________ 28 Roman Lenz, Siegfried Roth MARKETING PLACE – THE STUDY CASE OF PAIVA WALKWAYS IN AROUCA UNESCO GLOBAL GEOPARK (PORTUGAL) ____________________________________________________ 29 Antonio Duarte, Margarida Belém & Verónica Bernardo GEOPARK SUSTAINS LOCAL COMMUNITIES: AN EXAMPLE IN ZIGONG UGGP _________ 30 Li Sun, Lulin Wang & Mingzhong Tian THE INDIGENOUS VOICE IN LATIN AMERICAN UNESCO GLOBAL GEOPARKS _________ 31 Gorfinkiel Denise,
    [Show full text]
  • Territories of Resilience
    European Geoparks Magazine ● Issue 18 European Geoparks: Territories of resilience THE EUROPEAN GEOPARKS NETWORK Geoparks: www.europeangeoparks.org CALENDAR European Territories of resilience Geoparks Network FORWORD CALENDAR Magazine he European Geoparks Network (EGN) is one of invited listeners to join audio tours. Virtual reality Tfour regional networks of the Global Geoparks models illustrate the landscape’s history in Rokua 2021 Network (GGN) which includes all areas designated UGGp. Geotourism provision is increased by a new Issue No 18 / 2021 March 2021: 3nd European Geoparks Network Digital as UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGps). guided tour in Eisenwurzen UGGp, the promotion of Forum Published by: In 2020, the Covid -19 global pandemic and lesser known geosites in Bohemian Paradise UGGp April 2021: 211th Session of UNESCO Executive Board – Natural History Museum devastation of the travel, tourism and hospital- and the completed section of the Via GeoAlpina Nomination of New UNESCO Global Geoparks. of the Lesvos Petrified Forest ity industries curtailed activities in European Ge- in Sesia Val Grande UGGp. Ore of the Alps UGGp on behalf of the European Geoparks Network 22nd April 2021: International Mother Earth Day - Geopark oparks. The biannual EGN Coordination Commit- advocates mythogeography as the motto for pro- tee meetings were substituted by digital fora and moting resilience in adults and children. activities Executive editor: Nickolas Zouros scheduled evaluation and revalidation missions International Museum Day - Geopark Marketing and promotion are essential activities. 18th May 2021: were postponed. Nonetheless, the Basque Coast Publication Editor: Tony Ramsay The ‘’Photo Marathon’’ is a successful marketing activities UGGp celebrated its 10th year as a member of the tool in Novohrad–Nógrád UGGp.
    [Show full text]