On the Duality of Marine Geoheritage: Evidence from the Abrau Area of the Russian Black Sea Coast

Ruban, Dmitry A.

doi:10.3390/jmse9090921

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, justified rank can be local (<100), regional (100-249), national (250-499), and global (>500). As noted above, this method was tested successfully (it brought meaningful results important for general judgments of geoheritage and further interpretations) in several areas, and not only Russian ones [64][65][66]69].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…First, it does not depend on the "traditional", European geo-graphical contexts of geoheritage studies. Second, it has already been applied in the other regions of Russia [65,66], and, thus, its use in the Republic of Tatarstan contributes to the nationally consistent geoheritage assessment. To avoid repetition of the earlier published methodological notes [64,66], this method is explained below only generally.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Earth Science Frontier at Urban Periphery: Geoheritage from the Vicinity of Kazan City, Russia

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Characterizing geological heritage sites (geosites) available in Russia remains an urgent task. The present study focuses on two geosites from the vicinity of Kazan—a large city on the Volga River. They are attributed to the standardized geoheritage types and scored by means of several criteria. It is found out that the Pechischi geosite represents nine geoheritage types, from which the stratigraphical type (stratotype section of the Upper Kazanian regional unit of the Guadalupian) and the geohistorical type (history of the Permian System studies) are the most important. This geosite reaches 675 out of 750 maximum possible scores, and it is ranked globally. The Cheremushki geosite represents six geoheritage types, from which the stratigraphical type (reference section of the Urzhumian regional unit of the Guadalupian) and the paleontological type (locality of diverse fossils, including tetrapods) are the most important. This geosite reaches a score of 250 and is ranked nationally. The undertaken study allows for recommending several actions for the effective conservation and exploitation of these geosites. The innovative interpretation is that the presence of geosites at the urban periphery makes its general (not only geological) heritage value comparable to that of the city’s center.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Earth Science Frontier at Urban Periphery: Geoheritage from the Vicinity of Kazan City, Russia

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various approaches have been proposed for the assessment of geoheritage and geosites [33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. In Mountainous Adygeya, a comprehensive assessment of geoheritage resources has been realized recently by Ruban et al [26].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three geoheritage points considered in the present study are only fragments of geosites, and, thus, it is not reasonable to undertake their quantitative analysis with the noted approaches aimed at geosites. Nonetheless, they require qualitative description, which can be based on the principles specified by Ruban [38], with certain additions and minor modifications. A template for descriptions is composed (Table 1), and it is used for each considered locality.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Islands in the Caucasian Sea in Three Mesozoic Time Slices: Novel Dimension of Geoheritage and Geotourism

Ruban

2022

JMSE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Framing geoheritage thematically is important to reveal its diversity. Field investigations in the western part of the Greater Caucasus orogen have allowed for the characterization of three localities representing palaeoislands of the Caucasian Sea, which evolved as a semi-enclosed, marginal palaeosea during the Mesozoic. The Gosh locality represents coarse siliciclastics formed on the cliffed shore of the early Induan (Early Triassic) island. The Lipovy locality exhibits conglomerates accumulated on the shore of the early Toarcian (Early Jurassic) island due to erosion of the uplifted crystalline rocks. The Shakhan locality boasts a representative section of cross-bedded sandstones deposited on the alluvial plain of the Hauterivian (Early Cretaceous) island. All these localities are interpreted as geoheritage points, which are parts of larger geosites. Taken together, these points constitute thematic geoheritage sites reflecting the existence of palaeoislands in all Mesozoic periods, which is essential for the understanding of the evolution of the Caucasian Sea during this era. These localities are perfectly accessible, but visiting them requires professional interpretation. The importance of the thematic geoheritage makes its adequate management urgent (particularly, maintenance of geoheritage points, the installation of interpretive panels, and promotion). A geoexcursion route is proposed to facilitate geotouristic exploitation of the characterized geoheritage sites.

show abstract

“…Geoheritage resources are distributed highly heterogeneously within the Russian South. Presently, three geoheritage-rich areas are established there, namely Lower Don [38], Abrau [39], and Mountainous Adygeya [14] (Figure 1). To avoid repetition of the published information, the geoheritage characteristics of all three areas are summarized in Table 1, and some representative examples are shown on Figure 2.…”

Section: Study Territorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Large-Scale Accessibility as a New Perspective for Geoheritage Assessment

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The exploitation of geoheritage resources depends on their accessibility. The latter is usually established for geosites, whereas reaching the areas where geosites concentrate also deserves attention. Here, a novel, multi-criteria, score-based approach for assessing the large-scale accessibility of geoheritage-rich areas is proposed. The study takes into account various information about external and internal public transportation, road infrastructure, local services (including accommodation opportunities), and general settings. This approach is applied to the Russian South, where there are three geoheritage-rich areas, namely Lower Don, Abrau, and Mountainous Adygeya. Using new criteria, these areas differ by their large-scale accessibility, which is excellent in Lower Don and moderate in Abrau and Mountainous Adygeya. It is established that the co-occurrence of geoheritage-rich areas and popular tourist destinations does not guarantee excellent accessibility. The findings of the present study seem to be important for the development of optimal geoheritage resources policy, as well as for planning research and educational activities, such as the currently realized geochemical investigations and the regular field educational campaigns in the Russian South.

show abstract

On the Duality of Marine Geoheritage: Evidence from the Abrau Area of the Russian Black Sea Coast

Cited by 11 publications

References 46 publications

Earth Science Frontier at Urban Periphery: Geoheritage from the Vicinity of Kazan City, Russia

Earth Science Frontier at Urban Periphery: Geoheritage from the Vicinity of Kazan City, Russia

Islands in the Caucasian Sea in Three Mesozoic Time Slices: Novel Dimension of Geoheritage and Geotourism

Large-Scale Accessibility as a New Perspective for Geoheritage Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About