Geomorphological Heritage of Cretaceous Sandstone Terrains in SW Poland: Diversity, Conservation and Interpretation Issues

Duszyński, Filip; Migoń, Piotr

doi:10.1007/s12371-022-00667-y

Cited by 8 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of their attractiveness, a significant proportion of the geoheritage inventories have been carried out in karst or pseudokarst regions, where we find repeated references to the magnitude of the geosites (e.g. Vdovets et al, 2010; Pellitero et al, 2011; Martin-Duque et al, 2012; Nachev and Sinnyovsky, 2014; Ferreira et al, 2019; Chen et al, 2022; Duszyński and Migoń, 2022). These works supposedly selected the geosites by conventional criteria, but describe spectacular examples (italic letters are literal words) of tuffaceous morphologies, gorges, cavities and tectonic structures (Ebro and Rudrón Gorges Natural Park, Spain); large caves, including the cave with the tallest entrance in the world (∼215 m) (Alto Ribeira Tourist State Park, Brazil); landscapes of well-developed Cretaceous red beds, dissected by prominent erosional landforms (Danxiashan Global Geopark, China); clusters of 17 folds, tens of meters high and the largest cave in the Republic of Tatarstan (Russia); outstanding examples of karst landscapes in Covalagua and Las Tuerces (Spain), including one of the highest concentration of sinkholes in Spain (387 in ∼10 km 2 ) and an extensive karst labyrinth or bogaz of more than 50 ha; an emblematic and unique geological phenomenon in Bulgaria, consisting of a group of majestic limestone columns of algal biohermal reefs, some up to 10 m in height and 8 m in diameter; or spectacular landforms on sandstones in Sudetes (Poland), with extensive erosional landscapes, impressive landslides (the largest landslide complex in the region), long erosional corridors (>20 km) and abundant and prominent sandstone tors (in such a number and unusual size ), notches, cavities, cliffs or block fields .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

The magnitude rule in geoheritage site inventories

Ferrer,

Vegas,

Díez-Herrero

2023

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 1990s, an international consensus has been emerging with respect to the methods used to identify and assess geosites. These conventional methodologies generally differentiate between the intrinsic or scientific-natural dimension and the social dimension in the potential value of the geological elements. The aim of this article is to analyse the possible existence of other concepts that may underlie these criteria and that could be operating as evaluation parameters even though they are not explicitly and formally described as such in the published studies. An exhaustive analysis of articles on geosite inventories published in Science Citation Index journals in the last 15 years revealed a systematic reference to conceptions of magnitude (in the sense of degree of development and physical prominence) in geosite descriptions around the world, and in particular with respect to sites of geomorphological interest. To contrast this indication, we subjected the geosites inventory of Lanzarote (Canary Islands, Spain) to a Magnitude Rule hypothesis. This inventory is part of the Spanish Geosites Inventory (IELIG, for its initials in Spanish), which was carried out using conventional assessment procedures. Applying this rule, according to which each geosite is the most prominent example of its typology within the reference geological domain, we obtained an almost complete match. That is, geomorphological sites that were selected, a priori, according to intrinsic and social dimension were also (or one could even say ‘actually’) selected, implicitly, on the predominant basis of magnitude. This paper discusses why and how the magnitude parameter may be playing a key role as a subliminal non-explicit driver in the evaluation of geosite relevance, and how this finding may open new perspectives and bring methodological advantages in the inventory of geological heritage.

show abstract