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