3G’s for Modern Geotourism

Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 DOI 10.1007/s12371-011-0052-y ORIGINAL ARTICLE 3G’s for Modern Geotourism Thomas A. Hose Received: 2 February 2011 / Accepted: 6 December 2011 / Published online: 10 January 2012 # Springer-Verlag 2012 Abstract Since the initial recognition and definition in the early 1990s of geotourism in the UK by a few academic geologists, and its emergence in Europe as a niche form of sustainable tourism, new stakeholders have become involved; the latter’s background is often commercial and lacking in any significant academic or scientific engagement. Consequently, the geosite/geomorphosite management and promotional approaches they adopt are usually founded on practitioner and supply side led approaches rather than the geoconservation requirements of geosites/geomorphosites and the needs and expectations of their geotourists. This is probably because the new stakeholders have limited knowledge and understanding of the relevance of the history, development and philosophy of landscape conservation and promotion (that is geohistory), and the lessons that can be gleaned from such considerations in managing and promoting geosites. This paper seeks to redress this situation by providing an outline of the historical and theoretical underpinnings of geotourism and approaches to its sustainable management. It especially examines and defines, underpinned by UK examples, three key interrelated aspects (the ‘3G’s’) of modern geotourism: geoconservation, geohistory and geo-interpretation. It further updates a prior published geohistorical model and provides a new summary topology and a geotourism chronosequence. Finally, it addresses, within the framework of the new definition and its approach, some of the issues generated by the development of geoparks in Europe in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Keywords Geoconservation . Geohistory . Geo-interpretation . Geotourism Geotourism Established Modern geotourism was first defined (Hose 1995a), the first focus of university research (Hose 1994a, 2003), and promoted (Hose 1996) in the UK as a new form of niche tourism (Hose 2005a) prior to its emergence in Europe (Hose 1997, 2000). It was developed following recognition in the late 1980s by school, university and museum geologists of the then accelerating loss of mines and quarries to unsympathetic after-uses and reclamation programmes; similarly, but to a lesser degree, natural geological exposures and geomorphosites were also increasingly being lost because of unsympathetic planning decisions that permitted, for example, the obscuring of roadside exposures with soil and netting (Baird 1994) and the construction of hard coastal defences (Leafe 1998). Modern geotourism’s purpose then was initially seen as means by which to promote and possibly fund geoconservation, especially for mines and quarries, by maintaining access to such geosites through the development of sustainable tourism products and services ranging from leaflets and guided walks to major new construction projects such as visitor centres. Its early antecedents include the nineteenth century aesthetic and nature conservation movements that contributed to the development of sustainable tourism’s development. The aesthetic ‘Romantic’ movement in particular was an essential prelude to nature conservation and sustainable development because it “…valued the spiritual over the material, and humans came to be seen as part of nature, not superior to it” (Hardy et al. 2002, p. 476). It coincided with the first formal attempts in the UK, especially contemporaneously in the English Lake District (Ritvo 2009), to promote and then preserve wildlife, landscapes T. A. Hose (*) School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queens Road, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 1RJ, UK e-mail: [email protected] Sustainable development meets present-day needs. almost non-existent today. and . Belfast. p. only a few European authors had made any. The first ‘national’. and often sanitised. They interpreted and then painted what lay before them through the cultural filter (Hose 2010b) of the ‘Romantic’ aesthetic movement (Hebron 2006) to produce literal and philosophical views of landscapes. 195). Given the demonstrated early roots of geotourism (Hose 2008). Sustainable tourism can subsume ecotourism. it is even younger when considered from the perspective of serious academic study (Hose 2003). Over the past 20 years. that if the influence of humankind is not immediately obvious. in 1998. but not “…at the expense of future generations. It seeks to meet the needs of present and future tourists and host communities whilst ensuring the protection and enhancement of the places they visit. as a recent overview (Dowling 2011) exemplifies. Consequently. for example. p. or even a geopark. as recognised by the activities of local communities to develop geoparks and to provide interpretation of local geological landscapes and landmarks” (Gordon and Barron 2011. some understanding and knowledge of how the concept has evolved and been variously defined is needed to contextualise the selection of specific elements. few of the wholly unpublished presentations addressed the definition of geotourism. it was suggested that in Scotland it is now the case that “Geotourism is a growing component of the tourism industry. However. Recognising and Defining Geotourism Before any discussion of the significant elements of modern geotourism can be contemplated. has burgeoned since the turn of the present century. As tourism associated with geosites and geomorphosites and collections. with most except for Hose (1998) focussing on examples and case studies of its provision.8 Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 and geological features much as modern geotourism seeks to achieve. These views are generally unknown to many of the newer stakeholders involved in modern geotourism who lack a geohistorical perspective. It only appeared for the first time in the academic literature in the late 1980s. although its growth is difficult to accurately quantify. urban areas and those with extensive mining and industrial legacies struggle to achieve such recognition. it involves ‘special interest travel’ for people going “…somewhere because they have a particular interest that can be pursued in a particular region or at a particular destination” (Read 1980. However. geotourism conference (Robinson 1998) was held at the Ulster Museum. by the close of the century’s first decade. At the time of the first national geotourism conference in the UK. 49). there being no buildings or evidence of industry. such areas were often the most significant places in the development of scientific geology and in the past attracted the attention of early geotourists (Hose 2008). whilst sponsored by various agencies. fossils and landforms are relatively few and far between” (McKirdy 2000. p. indeed the first anywhere. generally. ecotourism has developed from an obscure niche trend to a dominant one in tourism provision (Weaver and Lawton 2007). as it has from the ‘Romantic’ period. p. it should be understood that modern geotourism provision. 39). but are pervasive in much modern landscape and geological conservation endeavour. Modern geotourism provision. so that a balance should be struck between using natural resources and promote their conservation” (Cavuoto 2005. a somewhat similar situation to the presentations at the two ‘global’ geotourism conferences (see. an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). Some measure of this growth can be gauged from changes in geotourism provision in Scotland where it was noted at the opening of the century that it was then “…a relatively new concept and current facilities that promote public understanding and appreciation of rocks. the Geological Society’s GeoConservation Commission sponsorship in particular underscored the key element of initial geotourism. is barely three or four decades old. then a scenically spectacular or rural area must be as Nature created it and worthy of some protective or promotional recognition such as a national park (NP). perhaps a rather similar time frame to that of modern geotourism and the launch of ‘Geoheritage’ in 2009. It was the Lake District (Hose 2008) and the Scottish Highlands (Hose 2010a) that by the first quarter of the nineteenth century drew artists to capture their splendour. is their preference to spend time appreciating aesthetically attractive ‘wild’ or ‘natural’ landscapes rather than the ‘controlled’ and ‘brutal’ spaces of mining and industry. depending upon how and by whom it is defined. the perception persists today. furthermore. Dowling and Newsome 2008a) in 2008 and 2010. It is a form of ‘special interest’ tourism in which the “…traveller’s motivation and decision-making are primarily determined by a particular special interest…” (Hall and Weiler 1992. especially within the crowded space of the UK and Europe. at best. However. with a particular emphasis on rural localities and geoparks (Kavecic and Peljhan 2010). they will be considered. both globally and in Scotland. and in so doing also their geology and scenery. mountains and cliff-edged coastal lands are particularly preferred places. social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled whilst maintaining cultural integrity. Yet. The former gained academic credibility with the 1993 launch of the ‘Journal of Sustainable Tourism’. Genuine ‘wild’ or ‘natural’ areas are. essential ecological processes and biodiversity are protected. 103). for recognition and promotion as part of the ‘industrial heritage’. an approach that the World Tourism Organization (1997) suggests manages tourism resources so that economic. especially with the emergence of geoparks. p. Possibly the ‘Romantic’ movement’s greatest legacy to modern travellers and tourists. 5) and overlaps with ‘sustainable tourism’ and ‘ecotourism’. and for populist geotourism provision. gaining credibility with the 2002 launch of the ‘Journal of Ecotourism’. p. Maini and Carlisle 1974. Martini (2000) also inclined to the latter view and suggested that geotourism could fund geoconservation when Europe’s governments were unwilling to provide such financial support. then. De Bastion 1994. work. 2973). field notes. 98). personal papers. 195). The original definition and the approach surrounding it was accepted and promoted within UNESCO in the development of the geopark concept. was actually unrecognised and undefined until the mid-1990s. but not defined. Geotourism is a new occupational and business sector. These tended to be quite vague definitions such as “travelling in order to experience. but commendably its authors included within their discussion the apposite assertion that geotourism is partly “…a consequence of successful Earth heritage conservation as this ensures the presence of a resource to ‘experience and learn from and enjoy’” (Larwood and Prosser 1998. on ‘site-specific geologic interpretation’: “The promotion and explanation to a non-specialist audience of the geologic features and/or significance of a delimited area by either a fixed facility and/or populist publication” (Hose 1994c. Following the Belfast conference and the dissemination and undoubted acceptance in the geotourism and tourism communities. p. she suggested at a 1998 meeting of the German Geological Society that “Geotourism means interdisciplinary cooperation within an economic. p. As variously defined and redefined by Hose. it was redefined in Germany by Frey (2008) from her experiences in the Vulkaneifel region where geoscientific considerations were included alongside those of commerce and politics in developing geology-based tourism provision. and to ensure their conservation. The original formal definition had evolved from an earlier working definition for evaluation research. 98). it was subsequently redefined as “The provision of interpretative facilities and services to promote the value and societal benefit of geological and geomorphological sites and their materials. Page 1998. an early linking of geotourism and geoconservation. it was redefined as an “… offshoot of cognitive tourism and/or adventure tourism based upon visits to geological objects (geosites) and recognition of geological processes integrated with aesthetic experiences gained by the contact with a geosite” (Slomka and KicinskaSwiderska 2004. However. could support ecotourism’s growth and also put “…conservation geology at the same level of importance as…conservation biology…” (Komoo 1997. references to tourism and geology (for example. in Malaysia geotourism (Komoo and Deas 1993. their definition readily falls within the remit of special interest tourism (Hall and Weiler 1992) and special interest travel (Read 1980. Komoo 1997) and ‘tourism geology’ were mentioned. It was suggested that the latter.Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 9 usually slight. p. respectively). geotourism always encompasses an examination of the physical basis.” However. akin to that of the geoparks. tourists and other casual recreationalists” (Hose 2000. several attempts at its redefinition were published by other authors. The documentation also accepted that the first widely published definition was that by Hose (1995a. although undoubtedly practised for some time before (Hose 2008). The paper’s abstract indicated that the authors considered “geotourism as a specialized education course and a new interdisciplinary scientific field. outside and much farther afield than mainland Europe. and few had made any attempt at its definition. p. it was published a decade after the original geotourism definition and early published studies that had noted the importance . Hose envisaged that geotourism would both constituency build and provide some funding for geoconservation. b) and included. Significantly for modern global geotourism. publications. it further encompasses their associated geoscientists’ lives. and even final resting places and monuments. 136). p. entitled ‘Let’s Get Physical’ devoted to Earth science interpretation of ‘environmental education’. p. 17). success-orientated and fastmoving discipline that speaks its own language. Again. At the outset. artworks. learn from and enjoy our Earth heritage” (Larwood and Prosser 1998. residences. it had first been informally and similarly defined a year earlier at the Visitor Studies Association conference in the USA (Hose 1994b).” This is a rather commercially orientated approach. informally undertaken for the statutory nature conservation agency English Nature (Hose 1994c. Spiteri 1994). 6). The main tasks of geotourism are the transfer and communication of geoscientific knowledge and ideas to the general public. Modern geotourism. and this approach has underpinned a recent European geoheritage initiatives (Kavecic and Peljhan 2010). Martini 1994. 1995b). Jenkins 1992. it was actually incorporated within UNESCO’s initial geopark documentation in which it was stated that “Geotourism came into common usage from the mid-1990s onwards…” (UNESCO 2000. p. it noted that “There is no demonstrable conflict between geoconservation and tourism promotion and therefore much to support geotourism’s inclusion within sustainable tourism-schemes” (UNESCO 2000. with the widespread republication and citation of the original (Hose 1995a) and revised (Hose 2000) definitions. p. Following further research. 2). in a themed issue. In Europe. for the use of students. interpretative media and promotion of geological and geomorphological sites (‘geosites’ and ‘geomorphosites’. almost verbatim from contemporary published sources and conference presentations. as an aspect of applied geology. In Poland. 31). 31). his approach to geotourism and geoconservation. collections. a commissioned article about conserving the UK’s geoheritage by promoting it to tourists defined it as “The provision of interpretive and service facilities to enable tourists to acquire knowledge and understanding of the geology and geomorphology of a site (including its contribution to the development of the Earth sciences) beyond the level of mere aesthetic appreciation” (Hose 1995a. workplaces. p. in the introductory paper of the first issue of the journal ‘Geoturystyka’. an interdisciplinary integration of the tourism industry with conservation and interpretation of abiotic nature attributes. its major weakness is its focus on specific current activities that in themselves have no common definition. The Australia-based editors of the first geotourism textbook (Dowling and Newsome 2008b) suggested. their development and learning about their formation” (Amrikazemi 2010. the interpretation of this patrimony the tornado accessible to the lay public. For that. and they have defined natural areas as “…regions which have not been significantly altered by humankind… where the natural forms and processes are not materially altered by human exploitation and occupation. Crucially. Thus the landforms. This was later refined to it being “…part of the tourist’s activity in which they have the geological patrimony as their main attraction. p. geotourism was redefined in Brazil in 2005 as being “a segment of the tourist activity that he/she has the geological patrimony as his/her main attraction and his/her search protection through the conservation of their resources and of the tourist’s Environmental Awareness. This seminal study reported on a survey of the activities and needs of amateur geologists. 232) is clearly derived from his original definition. However. geotourism is an essentially geographical approach referring to a “…destination’s geographic character— . Somewhat further afield. p. no doubt influenced by their previous major text (Newsome et al. They suggest that their redefinition is an attempt to recognise a broad range of stakeholders and infrastructure. a much earlier study of geology and tourism had been published (Jenkins 1992) and rather neglected by the country’s geology community. and that is the aspect most valued by tourists. that formal educational approaches were inappropriate for geotourists and that it was self-evidently a multidisciplinary field. in Australia. Silva (2007) affirmed in the context of geotourism in Brazil that geomorphology and geology contribute to the scenic aspect of the landscape. 2002. and the nature of the provision made for them by the tourist industry. for this. in which they provided a by no means exhaustive table of definitions (see Newsome and Dowling 2010. which is a laudable objective given the everexpanding range of geotourism’s stakeholders. promoting its popularization and the development of the Earth sciences” (Ruchkys 2007. in seeming ignorance of the widely published geology-focussed work in Europe. again. they support the seminal author’s original view (Hose 1995a. 23). geo-activities and patronage of geosite visitor centres” (Dowling and Newsome 2010. the significant past and present role of museums and geo-collections in geotourism and geoconservation. with the first definition initially published electronically in 2006 as “people going to a place to look at and learn about one or more aspects of geology and geomorphology” (Joyce 2006). geotourism was redefined in Iran as “…knowledge-based tourism. in that discussion. Table 1.10 Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 of interpretation. 231–232). they again noted that there is a need for a uniformly accepted definition of geotourism (Dowling and Newsome 2010. 2009). they commendably refute National Geographic’s erroneous claim to have singularly coined the term. Finally and very much further afield. guided tours. within the geosites for the general public” (Sadry 2009. p. Their objective is to search for the protected patrimony through the conservation of their resources and of the tourist’s Environmental Awareness. Apart from it length. p. They extensively cite the definitions provided by Hose (1995a. in Asia. besides promoting his/her popularization and the development of the of the Earth sciences” (Ruchkys 2005. the first mention of geotourism was in a presentation to a Geological Society of Australia conference (Casey and Stephenson 1996). Its conclusions are noteworthy in reporting similar issues of concern that were also found in a major UK geotourism research project (Hose 2003) and a comparatively minor but useful recent Australian study (Mao et al. It promotes tourism to geosites and the conservation of geo-diversity and an understanding of earth sciences through appreciation and learning. 1996. without actually formally providing one of their own in an otherwise fair overview of the then state of geotourism. wildlife and ecological processes are found largely in their natural state” (Newsome et al. 17). 3). using. their redefinition ignores. in the USA. However. Much further afield. a further redefinition was published in the same country as part of a major published report on its geopark and geotourism resources: “Geotourism is a conscientious and accountable touring in nature with the aim of visiting and recognizing geological phenomena. pp. In their second geotourism textbook. besides considering related cultural issues. the author makes the point that he considers geotourism to only take place in natural places and cannot involve museum visits since these are apparently a complimentary activity. that it is mainly a form of natural area tourism. in a discussion of this definition. It seems clearly aimed particularly at the geoparks’ community which they seem to assume provides most of the current or major geotourism developments. in northern New South Wales. 23). 2000) had made the geoconservation link between geosites and geo-collections an important element of geotourism provision in the UK and Europe which had both played a pivotal role in the development of scientific geology. but state their support for that of Hose (2006). 442). use of geo-trails and view points. 2002). in South America. p. However.1). 2000) and then discuss various approaches to geotourism. even in their discussion. it is reiterated in a recent overview paper by one of these authors (Dowling 2011) on the global growth of geotourism. Within a year. This is achieved through independent visits to geological features. For National geographic. the use of the interpretation of the patrimony makes it accessible to the lay public. b) that it is a geologyfocussed activity. the original and revised definitions (Hose 1995a. Their latest definition that geotourism is “…a form of natural area tourism that specifically focuses on geology and landscape. p. They often have a limited understanding of the development of geology and the history and significance of its geosites. likewise. 2010a. b). geohistory. employing an easily translatable vocabulary. will ascribe different attributes to their approaches to geotourism. learning and research by and for current and future generations. The scope and range of the various geology-focussed geotourism definitions can be gauged from the summary table (Table 1) herein presented. They also commonly believe that geohistoric studies are only undertaken by geologists in the twilight of This summary inevitably required some qualitative judgement in assessing the meanings and emphasis given to particular phrases within both definitions and their associated discussions.Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 11 the entire combination of natural and human attributes that make one place distinct from another…” (Stueve et al. Furthermore. Many of geotourism’s newer practitioners seemingly lack a good knowledge and understanding of geology both as a science and as a historic force in societal change. their relation to geo-collections and their associated personalities—that is. to constituency-build for their conservation by generating appreciation. nature conservation and environmental interpretation. with its dependence upon high and expensive technologies and the diminished role of field observation coupled with the development of courses in the history of science (many of whose graduates lack scientific training) from the 1990s. it is sustainable tourism with a holistic approach to landscape. many academic and professional geologists believe that providing geological and geomorphological information at the level and the focus of public interest is actually ‘dumbing down’ and diminishing the science. dependent upon their academic and professional foci. Hose’s are shown in yellow and the three key elements are shown in dark grey . together with their associated in situ and ex situ artefacts. their relationship to the new definition of geotourism is proposed in this paper. Thus. Geology’s professionalisation especially from the mid-1970s. It is inevitable that various authors. especially with Norway signing up to their Geotourism Charter in 2005.” This new definition has the benefits of demonstrably building upon the author’s previously widely accepted definitions (Hose 1995a. It is a succinct summary. with his professional and academic background in Earth sciences. For ease of comparison with other definitions. p. focus and location of modern geology-focussed global geotourism. 1). 2002. the original author presently redefined modern global geotourism as “The provision of interpretative and service facilities for geosites and geomorphosites and their encompassing topography. as such. 2000). arguably essential to inform and underpin geoconservation-focussed sustainable geotourism and its associated geo-interpretation. of the nature. has rather reinforced that misguided view. National Geographic’s vague non-geological usage has also confusingly pervaded parts of Europe. It reinforces the initial geoconservation rationale for its development. museums. including the recent landscape Table 1 Summary matrix of geotourism definitions and their discussions studies work (Hose 2008. the revised version herein provided (Fig. field guides. promoted landscape tourism. evaluation and application of a systematic narrative of geological and geomorphological discoveries. from the nineteenth century onwards. geodiversity. for three key interrelated aspects that underpin the new redefinition of modern global geotourism: & & & Geohistory Geoconservation Geo-interpretation Geohistory The initial geotourism historical model (Hose 2010b) indicated various practical outcomes and that ‘historical studies’ provide the context for geotourism research. of geotourism and their relationship to geoconservation can be visualised in a simple topological diagram (Fig. including geo-attractions. because two (geoconservation and geo-interpretation) are the elements that must underpin any approach to sustainable geotourism at geosites and geomorphosites and the remaining one provides both its philosophical basis and an understanding of the evolution of the need for its provision. It was particularly influential on artists. facilitated that engagement. Too many academic geologists are unconcerned about preserving geosites. and hence a justification. personages and institutions contextualised within contemporary socio-economic and cultural trends”. The history. and geotourists. of scientific geology and geomorphology was literally grounded in fieldwork in Britain and Europe. the sizes of the individual elements and their linking arrows indicate their relative significances Fig. The localities and stratigraphical nomenclature of that period are still prevalent and relevant to modern geology and geomorphology. geological maps and sections). It both initially drove The relative significance of these aspects. the antecedent of modern geotourism. geo-media. geosites and geomorphosites. It more than coincidentally matched the growing urbanisation and industrialisation of the UK and Europe that saw the concomitant increase in the numbers and influence of the middle class which aspired to the tastes and travel inclinations of the aristocracy. 2 Revised geohistorical model. The developing technology of the period. Commercially engaged geologists usually view geoconservation as a threat to their livelihood and the profits of their companies. events. The three aspects have been selected from a range of geotourism elements. geo-education. the 3G’s. geoheritage. 1 3G’s topological diagram. and even sometimes damage (MacFadyen 2007a. The most significant aesthetic movement. 1). 2) addresses this shortcoming. real geologists get on with the real science. often. the ‘Romantic’. Fig. and likewise their geological publications (such as palaeontological monographs. coincided with the rise of scientific geology and its burgeoning scientific and populist literature. and the rest is done by amateurs. 2008). geo-collections. It is therefore useful to define geohistory as the “study. such material is difficult or impossible to collect from a geosite today because of its nature or limited initial abundance. until they are threatened. The preservation and the availability of some of its key localities.12 Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 their careers. are essential to geotourism and some scientific geology. although the latter discipline also benefited from fieldwork in North America. It should perhaps also have been better indicated that desktop studies are the initial stage of scientific geological research. This paper addresses these various negative perceptions by providing an explanation and theoretical framework. in terms of transportation and publishing. travellers and tourists between 1780 and 1850. This revised model both indicates the various practical outcomes of an examination of geotourism’s history and that such historical studies can also be part of the initial stage of scientific geological research . and their associated antiquarian and natural science bodies and personalities. them for their own research and publication purposes. It was also in the nineteenth century that the aesthetic movements. In this visualisation of the 3G’s approach to geotourism. This is particularly important when there is the danger that geosites in particular can be conserved and promoted without regard to any material from them already in museums and university research collections. and jealously guard. 20 North Pennines Geopark. Murchison travelled freely across Europe in 1840 and 1841. These excursions enabled him to recognise from his work in Russia the Permian system. There. 18 Bowder Stone.Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 13 and then met the demand for informed travel and tourism. although it was mainly funded by subscription by King Edward VII. 10 Park Hall. John Woodward’s collection. 17 Borrowdale. Germany. 19 Threlkeld. Amongst the most distinguished of the Woodwardian professors was Adam Sedgwick after whose death the present museum building was belatedly erected as a memorial. Many of the features of modern geotourism such as museums. This shows the key (but not all of the) localities mentioned in the text. During the Napoleonic wars. Shropshire (Hose 2006). 3) are mentioned in this paper. For example. 22 Fossil Grove. Due to backing from the Russian Tsar. The geosites and geomorphosites are as follows: 1 ‘Jurassic Coast’. 9 Hunstanton. when travel for the British to Europe’s popular cultural and health (especially spa) destinations was politically impossible and when their coast was under the threat of invasion. It opened in 1904 as Cambridge University’s then most expensive building. William Buckland. 15 Windermere. field guides and excursions date from this period. His collection is now in the ‘Woodwardian Pew’ (Fig. between science and social history. The Sedgwick Museum best exemplifies this development. 21 Birk Knowes. in 1816. which visitors actually appreciate. Lithuania. 4 Crystal Palace. within the Sedgwick Museum. 6 Sedgwick Museum. 24 Fforest Fawr Geopark community enjoyed similar esteem within Europe in the preceding century. The UK’s geological Fig. 5 Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark. 3 Lewes. The major private geological collections and public geology museums were also largely established in this period. pointing to the high regard in which both geology and Sedgwick were held. they reinvented Britain’s inland landscapes and coastlands to evoke those places they . It started as a museum established from the 1728 bequest to Cambridge University of Dr. 11 Waddesley Fossil Forest. 2 Isle of Wight. and some (Fig. the Murchison material makes some excellent links. Latvia. 23 Giant’s Causeway. 8 Wren’s Nest. 14 Kendal. 7 Ludford Corner and Mortimer Forest. 4). 12 Rochdale churchyard geology trail. a reconstructed Woodwardian professor’s eighteenth century office. Hence. Similarly. Roderick Murchison and other eminent British geologists were able to travel extensively within Europe after the cessation of the hostilities of the Napoleonic wars. it was Europe’s earliest geology museum and also the first to be systematically described and catalogued with an associated publication. Petersburg passed through presentday France. Poland. Woodward established a stipend for professor to show the fossils to the curious and intelligent persons of the day for their information and instruction. Murchison’s achievements at home and abroad are featured in the geology gallery at Ludlow Museum. George Greenough and William Conybeare travelled into Poland during one of their excursions to study and compare its geology with that of Britain. it provides an example of best practice that other museums and visitor centres might usefully follow when considering how to communicate geology to non-specialist visitors. 3 Location map. His 1841 excursion from Paris to St. 16 Grasmere. Estonia and Russia. 13 Scarborough. many of the museums and localities from that period are still important geotourism localities today. writers and painters. He had five walnut cases made to house and display his collection. were promoted as Alpine locations. Turner. a very similar approach to the modern ‘photo-stop’ or ‘scenic viewpoint’ marked on tourist maps. By the last quarter of the nineteenth century. but there is still a demand for original paintings and derived prints. literally picture- framed from scenic ‘stations’ or viewpoints. A good example of this approach is the way that the Lake District’s extensive industrial and mining interests were deliberately neglected in the promotion of a wild rural idyll by the ‘Lake School’ of poets (Samuel Taylor Coleridge. They too were painting in politically turbulent times when the landscapes were under skies filled with the threat of invasion. ‘Ruralism’ in the UK is exemplified by the popularity of books and programmes such as ‘The Country Diary of an Edwardian Lady’ (Holden 1977). Britain’s southwestern coast was imagined and imaged as the Mediterranean. for example. The railways also established the region as an upmarket holiday area. such as Samuel Palmer and John Glover. Although the recording technology has changed from the nineteenth century. the most noteworthy of the two being ‘Morning Amongst the Coniston Fells. together with shells. Woodward collected and catalogued almost 10. Oil and water colour might have given way to the pixel and dye sublimation print. Woodward bequeathed only two of the cabinets. intensifying agricultural practices reduced the numbers of farms and farm workers so that rural properties could be bought by urban dwellers seeking an idealised country retreat. they were both recording and promoting (for propaganda purposes) landscapes that were evocatively British. plants and archaeological artefacts from all over the world. It is probably the oldest surviving intact collection of its type in the world. in the Lake District. the region’s ‘naturalness’ is promoted. often with purpose- . For example. it should more correctly with due deference to precedence be termed ‘Ruralism’—in which landscapes are a setting for leisured ‘aristocratic’ pursuits. not a place for agricultural and extractive industries. Equally. The Lake District was also the area where in 1778 Thomas West organised its tourist attractions into the region’s first guide book and innovatively promoted ‘stations’. so the others were subsequently acquired could not actually visit. Similarly. one of which is now a geopark. they could readily and speedily commute to them by railways from London. The poet Thomas Gray wrote that his Lake District journey into Borrowdale reminded him of Alpine passes with travellers threatened by avalanches.14 Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 Fig. Sedgwick Museum. JMW Turner. At the close of the twentieth century. 4 The Woodwardian Pew. for these nineteenth century artists. the Heaton Cooper family dominated the twentieth century artistic reproductions of its scenery. The mountainous areas of northern Britain. something of a misnomer since its author resided in the Birmingham suburbs. especially from their Grasmere studio that opened in 1938. the term ‘Neo-Romantic Movement’ was employed (Hose 2008)—although given that the term had been used some 50 years earlier in art history circles. The specimens are still stored in these today and form part of the display. including those now widely known by the British public as being quintessentially English: John Constable. Its popularity coincided with the commencement of the UK’s industrial decline. and some have even become geoparks. Many of their viewpoints are favoured by modern photographers. Cambridge University. for whom geotourism could generate new recognition of their achievements. painters such as Paul Nash. Ben Nicholson and John Piper depicted British landscapes (see Mullins 1985) in a generally more stylised and indeed often almost abstract and less romantically pictorial approach termed ‘Neo-romanticism’. Some of its more scenically located quarries and mines have become museums. Cumberland’. there are those now generally unknown. the perception of landscape has hardly altered. Over more than 35 years. 5). This environmentally controlled room houses the geological collection of Dr. John Keats and William Wordsworth. and today. formal gardens and promenades were erected for the wealthy. marketing two areas as Riviera destinations. such as the Lake District and the Scottish Highlands. exhibited two Lake District landscapes at the Royal Academy in 1798. Robert Southy and William Wordsworth) in the nineteenth century and more or less excluded from the area designated a NP in 1951. and the popularity of National Trust membership. The new rural landscape was again perceived as a tranquil escape. The localities depicted by this succession of artists are now generally protected as NPs or AONBs. John Woodward. Landscapes were. although they were also a mere backdrop for adrenalin sports such as mountain biking. Italianate villas. The mountains were depicted and eulogised by a succession of poets. the Sedgwick Museum’s founding collection. In the twentieth century. such as at Threlkeld (Fig.000 geological specimens. that “Sadly. In essence. still a truism a decade later. Field natural history. Their influence can be seen. such as caverns or grand houses as was the case in the Peak District (Hose 2008). when he died in 1910 Geoconservation In introducing a report on the European Geosites IUGSsponsored scheme. there is evidence that by the close of this century’s first decade. no science” (Wimbledon et al. The Bowder Stone (Fig. a huge balanced boulder. 6). It is not a local rock and was probably transported by ice from Scotland in the Ice Age. Cumbria. The Stone and the surrounding hills were presented to the National Trust by Princess Louise. by 1807. 2000). scientific geology evolved and the value of fossils in establishing stratigraphical correlation was established.Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 15 Fig. it is a simple principle. at which tourists could best observe the landscape whilst perusing a literary description. he had erected a cottage (for the resident guides). the general consensus was that the world and its resources were inexhaustible and placed there for people’s use by a benevolent creator. 5 Threlkeld Quarry and Mining Museum. still forms part of their tourism marketing portfolio. 2011).—no sites. it is a private museum established in 1995 and is open from Easter to October. Indeed. However. and the encouragement of amateurs’ collecting. tourist behaviours that can be observed almost anywhere today with. together with a collection of mining machinery. as well as for education and training. Gradually. Fig. preparing and selling of fossils. Such reservations did not stop the development of natural features as commercial tourist attractions. In reducing the landscape to a series of stations with erudite explanations. 158). daughter of Queen Victoria. At many classic geosites. but there are no legends attached to this boulder. 16 m across and 29 m in circumference is delicately balanced on a pedestal. Cumbria. It is a perched 1. was turned into its first geo-attraction by Joseph Pocklington. was the means to observe and appreciate this design in its natural setting. p.250-tonne block some 9 m high. son of the Norse God Odin. This image is slightly modified from a postcard produced in the 1880s–1890s of one of the Lake Districts’s best-known tourist features. and brother of King Edward VII in memory of the King. unlike those for biological sites where the emphasis is almost always on acquiring photographs. was established. Situated near Keswick in the Lake District. and offers an underground mine tour accessed via the mine entrance seen in the middle of the photograph built structures. Its role is to keep available the vital site resource that our community needs for future research. of which geology was a component. Many of the early collectors financially rewarded quarry workers and miners for good quality geological specimens. 115) and continue today. geoconservation is finally becoming recognised as an emergent geoscience and that these attitudes might well be changing. one at Windermere’s was considered “too finished and artificial” (Ousby 1990. Prior to the twentieth century. the commercial collecting. These stations where artifices whereas previously specific features. in 1799. 6 The Bowder Stone. there was little perceived need for the conservation of either cultural (such as architectural and industrial) or natural (such as species and habitats) resources. his ‘stations’ were not universally welcomed. It has a small on-site museum. One of the purposes in the nineteenth century for systematically arranged biological and geological collections was initially to see the Creator’s design in Nature. a Druid’s stone. However. well-advertised car parking where they can take digital snapshots. Some modern marketing campaigns such as those for the ‘Jurassic Coast’. p. its authors made the point. perhaps unknowingly by many practitioners. small chapel and a ladder so visitors could climb to the top of the stone. especially with the recognition of the importance of geosites for sustainable development education (Henriques et al. were tourist attractions. for example. embedded in today’s geo-interpretation. the large number of tourists now attracted to some of these by modern mass marketing techniques is potentially a major geoconservation issue. however. many geoscientists fail to see the fundamental supportive role of geosite conservation. actually promote the . Extracting and selling fossils and minerals to tourists and collectors were common in the nineteenth century (Woodward 1907. Its odd name derives from Balder. and rock coring. Geoconservation is about ensuring that the current geoheritage is passed on to future generations as a potential: & & & Research opportunity for advancing science and industry Means to understand and monitor environmental sensitivity Palaeoenvironmental record. They should ensure the maintenance. It also requires that statutory protection is actually enforced in the courts (Wimbledon 2006). quarries and mines are dangerous eyesores or ruined landscape to be removed by restoration to some commercial or leisure use. unsurprisingly. Landfill was the premier reason for the loss of many especially. quarries were allowed or encouraged to flood to replace wetlands lost from the end of the eighteenth century to land drainage for agriculture. 10). that way. amenity. the commercial pursuit of perfect specimens can lead to the loss of many scientifically important specimens and geosites’ despoliation. establishing an early sustainable tourism element in its provision. Measurable sustainable management objectives are required to assess the scientific interest of geosites. too conveniently. which clearly need an international element. Other objectives could include modifying geotourists’ behaviour through a collecting code. despite the publication of a 20-year-old code of conduct. has become a particular issue even at SSSIs and within geoparks. In the UK. fossils are recovered rather than destroyed…. the 1968 Countryside Act promoted urban fringe tourism through the establishment of Country Parks for informal recreation. historical and cultural values and supports wildlife. for fossils. deterioration or loss through the implementation of protection and management measures. this was often reliant on infilling with. were established on former quarries. educational and social considerations” (Edmonds et al. 2005. of their chief scientific value. geoparks and World Heritage Sites such as the ‘Jurassic Coast’ where “… interest is conserved so that scientific investigation can continue. key scientifically important specimens enter the collection of registered museums. the scientific community can also damage sites by their research activities. geoconservation requires collaborative relationships between collectors (commercial and amateur) and researchers especially in classic localities. There is a growing body of evidence that even protected geosites are increasingly threatened by unscrupulous collectors (Wimbledon 2006) and museums that do not seem to fully respect the statutory protection afforded in the place of origin of some of their more recent acquisitions. Hence. if appropriately regulated and managed. and sometimes land-forming. the fossil resource. but frequently a necessary expense to either continue or gain new mineral extraction permissions from increasingly conservation-minded planning authorities. this geological interest was usually ignored in their interpretative provision. Many scientifically important fossils are only recognised by researchers following the efforts of commercial collectors and preparators who perform. To many stakeholders. a valuable service to academic geologists. as with some of the Birk Knowes material that ended up at Berlin’s Humboldt Museum (MacFadyen 2007b).16 Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 collection and removal of geological specimens. 13). Some of these. p.…Sustainable management integrates scientific. Such a constructed approach underpinned late twentieth century mine and quarry after-use. 2005. Scotland. a monitoring scheme is needed so that collected material is at least seen and recorded by a geologist before it is taken off-site. sustainable geotourism must consider what scale of collecting is sustainable. many landholders and quarrying companies see geoconservation as an assault on their profits. environmental. such as at the Malvern and Abberley Hills (personal observation). Information and education programmes. and rightly has been termed ‘geovandalism’ (MacFadyen 2007a). Hose 2010b). if not enhancement. and potential uses of. In Europe.” Geoconservation has aesthetic. geoconservation is defined as “The act of protecting geosites and geomorphosites from damage. such as at Birk Knowes (MacFadyen 2007b) near Lesmahagow in Lanarkshire. an early such scheme was established on the Isle of Wight (Anon ND) and another on the ‘Jurassic Coast’ (Anon 2004). p. sustainable management “…also addresses the wide range of values placed on. Carboniferous and Cretaceous limestone and volcanics. domestic and industrial waste. their condition and collecting potential. 9). significant new finds could at least be recognised and offered to an appropriate museum or university. Similarly. they are irrevocably lost when their working ceases because their geological significance is not appreciated. Other. especially soft rock such as those in near-surface worked Upper Cretaceous and Quaternary sand and gravel. it could fund geoconservation. Hence. For the purposes of this paper. Indeed. that collecting activities do not threaten them and that important finds are reported. can be fruitful in advising commercial collectors and museum staffs of the scientific importance of a specimen’s stratigraphical context and its encasing matrix.The real issue is to ensure that fossils are collected responsibly and at a level that is sustainable” (Edmonds et al. it is a disappointment that the problem is still prevalent (Wind 2010). such as Park Hall in Staffordshire. hard-rock quarries. worked in Devonian. However. preserved in landforms and sediments . At some of these more scientifically significant geosites. However. The initial geotourism approach predicated that it could provide the funding and a commercial rationale for geoconservation. p. “if we are unsuccessful in instilling a sense of responsibility toward the conservation of our Earth heritage among fellow Earth scientists what hope have we got of persuading the rest of the population?” (MacFadyen 2007a. societally approved landscapes are cultural constructions whose perception is an admixture of observation and cultural interpretation (Pepper 1996. Martini (2000) inclined to the view that when governments were reluctant to do so. from Dorset. Unfortunately. Hence. over a hundred years. geohistory can underpin efficacious geointerpretation (Hose 1997. plans were put in hand to restore the trail by replacing the missing columns and cleaning a small area of the original ones to make their examination easier. Geo-interpretation is more than about the mere transmission of facts. the UK had some of the earliest attempts to interpret and present geology to non-specialist audiences in the nineteenth century. recreational usage and scientific investigation. Due to its exposure and possibilities of anthropomorphic projection. in 2010. a tor structure. but there does not appear to have been any associated published leaflet. aspect of geoconservation. bioconservation has a much higher public profile than geoconservation. or petrological) and their physical and intellectual accessibility (Hose 1997). was De la Beche’s 1830 oil painting ‘Duria antiquior’. if unrecognised. even though the latter is vital to the former because it is the diversity of rocks. Geosites can be categorised for geoconservation purposes in a number of ways. 2005b). sediments. External pressures include changes in water levels. They are the most threatened by generic tourism developments. underpinned by geoconservation and dependent upon geo-interpretation provision. its equally important role is to engender concern for a geosite and empathy for geoconservation. Fortunately. It consisted of 30 stone pillars. The former was established in a Rochdale churchyard in 1881. 1998. is one of the challenges of geo-interpretation. event. most geomorphosites or landforms are conserved by maintaining their dynamic systems under which they were developed. However. The geoconservation of specifically geological geosites is somewhat different because retaining access to their benefits from debris removal through the limited disturbance created by well-managed specimen collecting. The world’s first geological theme park. more complex accounts of scientific geology and stratigraphy can then be delivered with a greater likelihood than otherwise would be the case that they will be well received. especially since the latter has some geo-interpretative relationship with geoconservation. soils and geomorphological processes that directly underlie habitats and their floral and faunal communities.” Commonly. Having thus gained geotourists’ interest and attention by an initial account based on the geosite’s human interest and/or obvious feature. with their Quaternary and Holocene sediments. . geo-interpretation is defined as ‘The art or science of determining and then communicating the meaning or significance of a geological or geomorphological phenomenon. Cave systems are actually the most popular geo-attractions. Conserving terrestrial geomorphosites. each inscribed with an identification label and a biblical quote. was underpinned to protect it from the effects of the adjacent quarry. sustainable development necessitates a consideration of the sensitivity of extant dynamic and relict landforms to natural change and humankind’s interference. cave decorations and sediments as well as faunal disturbance. with laudable educational aims. altogether an unusual geoconservation project. with three-dimensional reconstructions of prehistoric animals (Fig. ensuring that the disturbance is limited. let alone geotourism development involving construction. McCarthy and Gilbert 1994). However. rather than the pure science itself. but usefully for geotourism in the context of this paper is their primary geotourist interest (whether mineralogical.Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 17 & & & Training ground for geologists. pollution (especially from agricultural sources) and mineral extraction. it is the human interest of the science of a geosite or geomorphosite. these can all lead to damage to individual passages. palaeontological. Two of the most significant were probably the world’s first urban geology trail (Baldwin and Alderson 1996) and the world’s first attempt to create lifesized reconstructions of fossil animals (Doyle and Robinson 1993. including one at the Sedgwick Museum. water abstraction. geo-interpretation is not about ‘dumbing down’ the science but developing vehicles to carry the message to geotourists along a graded journey of knowledge and understanding to the destination of comprehension and empathy with the appropriate mix of text and graphics (Hose 2005b). They are threatened by both internal and external pressures. 7) and plants on accurately The first recorded UK attempt to conserve a geomorphosite was in the 1860s when the Cheesewring. The world’s first attempt to illustrate prehistoric life based upon fossil evidence. chemical composition and sediments resulting from land drainage. that most engages people’s attention. Internal pressures are due to cave exploration. Hence. It is often a geosite’s readily observed features rather than its complex geological story that initially attract geotourists’ attention and interest. several of the pillars were damaged or lost. Geotourism. The conservation of coastal and river geomorphosites together with caves is probably the most challenging. is challenging due to their economic value (as aggregate) and agricultural possibilities (such as market gardening and forestry). slope stability and coastal defence work. It is the most easily physically and intellectually accessible geosites that are most threatened by the actions of geotourists. or location. Similarly. geomorphologists and pedologists Formal and informal education facility Tourism resource Geo-interpretation For the purposes of this paper. is a late twentieth century development built upon the earlier foundations of best environmental education practice drawn initially from the USA and implemented and evolved in the UK from the 1960s onwards. Managing dynamic habitats requires an adequate understanding of the physical landscape and its geomorphological processes. of which there are several copies. The Geological Survey’s Museum of Economic Geology only opened in 1841 in London. 458) and subsequently protected by two small viewing sheds. A fallen trunk. The decision was quickly taken to preserve the forest by erecting a permanent building and to open it to the public. but the head is a modern fibreglass replacement. especially those produced by Gideon Mantell. Its displays partly reflected the content and coverage of the regional geology publications of the Geological Survey. was at one of these meetings. The whole creature was modelled on the specimen from Tilgate Forest. ‘Fossil Grove’ opened on 1st January 1890. as in modern geoparks. the scheme was also. A unique feature of the museum was the sloping shelves that Smith used to display rocks and fossils in their correct stratigraphical positions . it was presented to the Natural History Museum in 1839 by Gideon Mantell who had discovered it in 1832 and who also named it from that specimen rendered geological sections was at the Crystal Palace (Doyle and Robinson 1993). preserved in the position in which they once grew. The 15 life-size reconstructions were commissioned in 1852 for the opening of the Crystal Palace Park. it became ‘The Rotunda’ because of its distinctive cylindrical shape. However. this was the world’s first purpose-built building to house a geology museum. these fell into disrepair and the site became overgrown before being excavated by archaeologists and then reburied as a protective measure in the late 1990s (Cleal and Thomas 1995a. to the scientific world in the 1850s. After various relocations in converted buildings. one of which. enabled its members to collect a substantial number of fossils. sculpted by Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins under the guidance of the eminent paleontologist Richard Owen. that was then barely prepared from its encasing matrix. from just a few bones at the time. recently employed as a land steward on a nearby estate. 7 Crystal Palace. and opened in 1829. including large marine vertebrates. was probably the first UK permanent exhibition with a geomorphological focus. Designed by William Smith. in an early example of such restoration. and it is the UK’s longest continuously open geo-attraction. They included reconstructions of the three dinosaur species then known. Sussex. pp. 8 Rotunda Museum. 8). One of the Wealden (Upper Cretaceous) reconstructions of a Hyaeolosaur. the body is the original Waterhouse construction. Fig. it was absorbed by the adjacent Natural History Museum. It was designed by William Smith and opened in 1829. completed in 2007. it is possible to appreciate why they caused a national sensation. In 1996. Another fossil forest was uncovered in 1887 in Glasgow (Cleal and Thomas 1995b. even today on first view. London. He became the designer and then foreman of works of the new Scarborough Museum. to commemorate Queen Victoria’s Jubilee. and smaller branch and root fragments had also survived. it moved to purpose-built premises and reopened in 1935. Scarborough. two new galleries were opened. However. some of them almost a metre high. being in some of England’s finest Jurassic and Cretaceous geology outcrops. The UK’s and the world’s first purpose-built geology museum open to the public was The Rotunda Museum at Scarborough (Fig. pp. although unlike in Victorian times neither journals nor newspapers would praise their frightening realism! After a £4 m restoration. A ‘fossil forest’ was unearthed in 1873 at the then South Yorkshire County Lunatic Asylum (Sorby 1875. about 8 m long. 208–210). p. Members soon discussed the possibility of a museum. The UK also led the way in developing populist geological publications. Despite their inaccuracies. the ‘father of English geology’. and William Smith. intended to provide much needed employment for former shipbuilders. The site’s most obvious features were 11 fossil tree stumps. The preservation of spectacular fossils in situ was also developed in the UK in the late nineteenth century. ‘Restless Earth’. the iron-reinforced concrete and brick dinosaur reconstructions were designated by English Heritage as grade I architectural structures.18 Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 Fig. Its 1973 multimedia exhibition ‘The Story of the Earth’ was the first permanent exhibition to cover plate tectonics. These last two examples considerably pre-date the similar approach adopted in the Haute-Provence Geopark and its associated museum at Digne. It was opened 2 years after the foundation of the ‘The Scarborough Philosophical Society’ which. 189–191) when an old quarry was being landscaped for a park. in the 1980s. and. and chalcedony. the beach near Rottingdean “…contains semi-translucent pebbles of agate. of a bluish grey colour. The first edition’s Preface justified the book’s approach: “…the Geology of the Island is but little known or regarded by the majority of the intelligent persons who every season flock by thousands to its shores. These are collected by visitors and when cut and polished are used for bracelets and other Fig. ‘Geological Excursion Round the Isle of Wight and the Adjacent Coast of Dorsetshire’ of 1847. It was a readily pocketable and relatively inexpensive illustrated field guide. 40–41). 9) editions indicated how well it sold.Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 19 ‘The Fossils of the South Downs’ (Mantell 1822) and ‘Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex’ (Mantell 1827) were large illustrated costly library volumes rich in locality information. 9 Frontispiece of Gideon Mantell’s ‘Geological Excursion Round the Isle of Wight and the Adjacent Coast of Dorsetshire’ of 1854 (third edition). for example. further 1851 and 1854 (Fig. First published in 1847. compact illustrated geology field guide ornamental purposes…” (Mantell 1833. pp. this is the genesis of the modern. have been taken into the field and included geotourism information. Mantell’s ‘The Geology of the South-East of England’ of 1833 was his first pocketable volume and could. His greatest contribution to modern geo-interpretation is the first true geological field guide. ignoring its expense. rapidly . geoparks were proposed and the original UK author’s geotourism Fig. the Wren’s Nest. Ludlow. 11 Commemorative plaque at Ludford Corner. such as that for the Silurian at Ludford Corner near Ludlow (Fig. 211). 10 Plate 5 from ‘Thoughts on a Pebble’ by Gideon Mantell. a commemorative bench for a local resident was within a few years placed immediately in front of the international commemorative plaque! Geoparks and their Significance for the Three Key Elements Because not all of the world’s scientifically or historically important geosites could meet the ‘outstanding universal value’ criterion required by the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention. Published in 1849. They should be more widely employed to increase public awareness of the significant role that the UK and Europe played in scientific geology’s development. Shropshire. an alternative UNESCO designation seemed necessary to recognise and promote their significance. it is not difficult to imagine how the two could have been better integrated by the simple repositioning of the bench at the site and perhaps indicates how poorly the significance of the local geology and the specific locality. The establishment of the Geologists’ Association in 1858 helped popularise geology field trips. although one would never find such a pebble of this composition and fossil content in the real world! Fig. and then subsequently obscured by a commemorative bench for a local resident within a few years. providing a range of activities such as talks. He also pioneered (Mantell 1849) children’s geology books with his 1849 ‘Thoughts on a Pebble’ (Fig. few other UK geo-interpretation developments are recorded. The plate shows the pebble described and explained in the book. and perhaps then their neglect will become an issue. identification services and guided walks were established. 11). placed in the late 1970s are rare. if not the first. After the country’s first geological. geologyfocussed visitor centres. a major management challenge was the “…danger from overcollecting. and these were reported in its Proceedings and also a few summary volumes. In the late 1980s. National Nature Reserve’s 1956 designation. attempt at a populist geology book for children. Until the 1960s. The 1973 ‘Mortimer Forest Geology Trail’ (Lawson 1977) near Ludlow was the first purposely established rural educational geology trail. Several versions of its trail guide were supplemented by an on-site display in 1996. this was an early. Even the inhabitants…manifest an extraordinary degree of apathy in everything relating to the Geology of the Island” (Mantell 1847). despite the available and relatively abundant scientific and populist literature. and amongst the earliest of these were two by English Nature at the coastal resorts of Hunstanton (Hose 1994b. interpretative panels began to be erected. Commemorative plaques. and the approach changed to one of look-and-see rather than hammer-and-take” (Robinson 1996. with only 1 of its 11 chapters dealing with geology. at Ludford Corner. is appreciated by the local community .20 Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 traversing the accustomed routes. visit the picturesque localities noted in the numerous handbooks. Concomitantly. His earlier (Mantell 1846) ‘A Day’s Ramble in and around the Ancient Town of Lewes’ of 1846 adopted a more holistic approach to geology. 10). This was placed at the key exposure of the Ludlow Bone Bed (Upper Silurian) in 1989. 1995b) and Scarborough (Page 1994). p. such as the National Stone Centre (Thomas and Hughes 1993) and the Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre (Edmonds 1996). to mark the 150th anniversary of the establishment of the Silurian System. and take their departure without suspecting that they have been travelling over a country rich with the spoils of nature…of the highest interest to the instructed observer. mainly for amateur geologists. hence. In October 2004. Geoparks are a natural development of the nineteenth century approach to landscape promotion. In April 2001. That geopark gave some consideration of the history of geology and the major personalities involved for its area within its documentation. In making such landscapes too physically and Fig. educational provision is required to maintain membership. UNESCO supported the establishment of European Geoparks as a small network of European sites with significant geological heritage and a sustainable development strategy. but other geotourism provision at a local level probably equals or surpasses their total output. Significantly for geoconservation. the sale of geological material. their development is linked to the regeneration of local and regional economies. in 2001. coupled with newer geoparks (Abberley and Malvern Hills. the Network signed the Madonie declaration recognising the EGN as the official branch of the UNESCO Global Geoparks Network for Europe. The EGN is represented in ten countries with some 25 geoparks. was the North Pennines. 12 Summary chronography of geotourism. in 2003. so geoparks are currently the major geotourism development in the UK. The key geoconservation issue is learning the lessons from popular nineteenth century regions where access developments exemplify issues around the impact of higher tourist numbers. as in the Lake District’s Kendal to Windermere railway of 1847 (Hose 2008). Within geoparks. The first UK geopark. For geoconservation purposes. in 2006 and 2007. most of the major geotourism events (with an inevitable UK emphasis) are indicated and contextualised within the approximate timeframes of some of Europe’s key artistic movements . some account is given of the past exploitation and use of their rocks and minerals. English Riviera GeoMon–Anglesey. The first in England. the impact of people at geosites and geomorphosites can be reduced by adopting singly or in combination various measures: & & Concentrating the activities in ‘honey pot’ locations so as to reduce geotourists’ disturbance and impact Spreading and restricting (especially seasonally to reduce biodiversity impacts) the activities geographically and temporally so as to dilute geotourists’ disturbance and impact Segregating different activities and geotourist types to create relatively undisturbed zones Providing geo-interpretation to facilitate geotourists’ self-regulation and behavioural modification & & World Heritage Site designation has only been achieved by the Giant’s Causeway (1986) and the ‘Jurassic Coast’ (2001). historical or ecological interest.Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 21 definition and approach was incorporated within the proposal documentation (UNESCO 2000). the EGN signed a collaboration agreement with UNESCO’s Division of Earth Sciences on placing it under its auspices. cultural. the European Geoparks Network (EGN) was established when four founding geoparks signed a convention to share information and expertise. In many EGN geoparks. Apart from the establishment of the Woodwardiam Museum in 1728. was the Marble Arch Caves in Northern Ireland. the geological interest was to be allied to some archaeological. The programme’s major benefit was to focus attention directly on geological and geomorphological conservation and the related issue of sustainable development. and Shetland) and geopark candidates (Cornwall and the Welsh Borderland) created nine UK EGN geoparks. whether local or imported. In June 2000. and. They continue and develop the trends in geo-interpretation resulting from the 1970s’ industrial heritage boom that had similar desired outcomes. respectively. Ideally. but the Abberley and Malvern Hills withdrew from the EGN in 2010. Lochaber. is prohibited within geoparks. The recognition of geoparks within the Brecon Beacons (Fforest Fawr) NP in Wales and the North West Highlands in Scotland. This envisaged that they would recognise the relationships between people and geology and the potential for economic development. Goodfellow. for which solution will need to be found from research programmes. Geological Curator 6(6):227–231 Casey JN. presently. pleasure and leisure than intellectual endeavour and spiritual awareness. Chapman and Hall. Western Australia Dowling RK. London. Theirs is a greater emphasis on References Amrikazemi A (2010) Atlas of geopark and geotourism resources of Iran: geoheritage of Iran. and to support these. Edith Cowan University. Thomas BA (1995b) Victoria Park. 176—Earth Heritage Site interpretation in England: a review of principle techniques with case studies. this seems a waste of endeavour when there are just so many worthy geosites in need of some protective designation and protection. Keene P. pp 335– 336 Baldwin A. pp 188–191 De Bastion R (1994) The private sector—threat or opportunity? In: O'Halloran D. The Geological Society.22 Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 intellectually accessible. Whilst it would be invidious to attempt to name all of them. Geological Society of Australia. a chronology of geotourism is herewith presented (Fig. Tehran Anon (2004) Fossil collecting on the Jurassic Coast. Acknowledgements The most constructive review of an earlier draft of this paper by a referee is gratefully acknowledged. Closing Comments Geoparks. it could justifiably be argued for some geosites in geoparks and World Heritage Sites that the balance is inappropriate for sustainable geotourism. Thomas BA (eds) Geological conservation review. with high-level research and academic credentials. field guides were published. Stanley M. this does not preclude adopting geotourism approaches to educate them on geology’s past and present scientific and cultural significance. acknowledgement is readily given to colleagues in GeoConservationUK (GCUK). they will generate new demands and pressures on geosites. Geoheritage 3:1–13 Dowling RK. Harley M. Thomas BA (eds) Geological conservation review. when previously both were allowed to the public. Green C. Dorset County Council. development and philosophy of landscape promotion (that is geohistory). London Dowling RK. there will be an ongoing debate about the correct balance to strike between geoconservation and geo-exploitation. Newsome D (eds) (2008a) Inaugural Global Geotourism Conference (Australia 2008) Conference Proceedings. February 1996. pp 16–23 . Elsevier. pp 231– 244 Doyle P. as they have already done so. Peterborough. continue to attract new and larger audiences than thitherto to geology. vol 12: Palaeozoic palaeobotany of Great Britain. In: O'Halloran D. Their locations and activities are embedded within modern geotourism. London. This paper has also benefited from the author’s engagement at conferences and on fieldwork with numerous co-workers. p 79 Cavuoto B (2005) “Sustainable development”: an elusive concept. Newsome D (eds) (2008b) Geotourism. the establishment of new geoparks needs to be more firmly rooted in spectacular and scientifically significant geology within obvious topographical boundaries than is currently the case. Harley M. Stephenson AE (1996) Putting geology into tourism—some tips and practical experience. 13th Australian Geological Convention. The Geological Society. Newsome D (2010) The future of geotourism: where to from here? In: Newsome D. In: Page KN. Isle of Wight County Council. Alderson DM (1996) A remarkable survivor: a nineteenth century geological trail in Rochdale. Dowling RK (eds) Geotourism: the tourism of geology and landscapes. are permitted access and collection. Consequently. Chapman and Hall. Newport Baird JC (1994) Naked rock and the fear of exposure. The nineteenth century rise of scientific geology encouraged field excursions. Oxford. Queen Mary Law J 5:49–60 Cleal CJ. there is the danger that something of their inherently spiritual nature is lost. to the credit of their marketing and promotional teams. Abstracts 41. Hose TA (eds) English Nature Research Reports No. In: Cleal CJ. hence. Thomas BA (1995a) Wadsley fossil forest. Edmonds RPH. only permit holders. Too often. the Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites (RIGS) movement. it is already the case that at many designated geosites. The continued development of geoparks will re-ignite the debate that Wordsworth’s elite approach to landscape accessibility generated. Knill J (eds) Geological and landscape conservation. and ProGEO. Furthermore. Canberra. vol 12: Palaeozoic Palaeobotany of Great Britain. Knill J (eds) Geological and landscape conservation. 12). Modern geotourism’s antecedents and modern approach required a fundamental shift in how landscapes were perceived and then exploited for tourism. Further research and evaluation work to generate geosite and landscape inventories is required to aid the better selection of appropriate geopark candidates. Curiosity and aesthetic worth developed before scientific worth as motivators for tourists. Geopark and World Heritage Site geotourism promotion generally exhibit limited understanding of the relevance of the history. The actual geological interest within most geoparks requires greater appreciation and emphasis by both managers and visitors. The geology and geomorphology of most geoparks and World Heritage Sites requires revision and new research to redress the over-reliance on legacy sources. English Nature. pp 391–395 Dowling RK (2011) Geotourism’s global growth. will. Proc Geol Assoc 104(4):181–194 Edmonds RPH (1996) The potential of visitor centres: a case history. the lessons that can be gleaned from such considerations need to be applied. England. Geological Survey of Iran. geopark designation is given to areas already protected by legislation or promoted by other schemes. Perth. The major change has been the nature of the relationship that modern geotourists enjoy with the landscape compared with their historic predecessors. In: Cleal CJ. and modern geotourism itself. Stanley M. However. Green C. in turn. Dorchester Anon (ND) Guidelines for collecting fossils on the Isle of Wight. London. Robinson JE (1993) The Victorian geological illustrations of Crystal Palace Park. London. pp 208–210 Cleal CJ. In: Marinos PG. Balkema. Goodfellow. Peljhan M (2010) Geological heritage as an integral part of natural heritage conservation through its sustainable use in the Idrija Region (Slovenia).Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 Edmonds R. Geol Balacania 28(3–4):97–100 Lawson JD (1977) Mortimer forest geological.n 06-09/10/’1998. trends and cases. and telling the story for geotourism and Geoparks. conservation and tourism. Deas KM (1993) Geotourism: an effective approach towards conservation of geological heritage. Knill S (eds) Geological and landscape conservation. Belhaven. London Mantell GA (1827) Illustrations of the geology of Sussex. Stournass GC (eds) Engineering geology and the environment. In: O'Halloran D. Dowling RK (eds) Geotourism: the tourism of geology and landscapes. 98/ 3. London Mantell GA (1847) Geological excursion round the Isle of Wight and along the adjacent Coast of Dorsetshire (2nd edn. pp 221–241 Hose TA (2008) Towards a history of geotourism: definitions. Department of the Environment/Canadian Forestry Service. London. Hall CM (eds) Special interest tourism. Env Interpret 10 (2):16–17 Hose TA (1995b) Evaluating interpretation at Hunstanton. Rotterdam. Ulster Museum. Madrid. pp 127–146 Hose TA (2003) Geotourism in England: a two-region case study analysis. High Wycombe Hose TA (1995a) Selling the story of Britain's stone. In: Weiler B. London. Belhaven. USA Hose TA (1994c) Interpreting geology at Hunstanton Cliffs SSSI Norfolk: a summative evaluation (1994). Pearson L (2002) Sustainable tourism: an overview of the concept and its position in relation to conceptualisations of tourism. pp 37–60 Hose TA (2010a) Volcanic geotourism in West Coast Scotland. Elsevier. Earthscan. Geological Society. London. Proceedings of the Conference on Coastal Defence and Earth Science Conservation. Bohn. Instituto Tecnologico Geominero de Espana. Earth Heritage 28:17 Maini JS. Peterborough Frey M (1998) Geologie—Geo-Tourismus—Umweltinbildung: Themen und Tatigkeistbereiche in Spannungsfeld Okonomie und Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Malaysia. London Hose TA (1994a) Telling the story of stone—assessing the client base. Edinburgh Hall CM. pp 27–37 23 Hose TA (2005b) Writ in stone: a critique of geoconservation panels and publications in Wales and the Welsh borders. Harley M. Geoheritage 2:137–154 Komoo I (1997) Conservation geology: a case for the ecotourism industry of Malaysia. Lupton Relfe. Unpublished paper. Michael Joseph. In: Novelli M (ed) Niche tourism: contemporary issues. 1340. Brilha J. In: Hooker J (ed) Coastal Defence and Earth Science Conservation. Newsome D (eds) Geotourism. Green C. pp 1–14 Hardy A. London. In: Barretino D. Oxford. The Geological Society. London Mantell GA (1846) A day’s ramble in and around the ancient town of Lewes.). Henry Bohn. Belfast Hose TA (2000) European geotourism—geological interpretation and geoconservation promotion for tourists. London Mantell GA (1833) The geology of the south-east of England. Geoheritage 3:117–128 Holden E (1977) The Country Diary of an Edwardian Lady. London. Cadw. Prosser C (eds) The history of geoconservation (Special Publication 300). Koukis GC. pp 2955–2960 Hose TA (1998) Is it any fossicking good? Or behind the signs—a critique of current geotourism interpretative media. Scottish Natural Heritage. Gallego E (eds) Geological heritage: its conservation and management. Berlin Frey M-L (2008) Geoparks—a regional European and global policy. Prosser C (1998) Geotourism. Symposium of Indonesia–Malaysia Culture Larwood J. London. AESC 2006 Extended Abstract Kavecic M. Carlisle A (1974) Conservation in Canada: a conspectus— Publication No. Newsome D (eds) Geotourism. pp 13–25 Jenkins JM (1992) Fossickers and rockhounds in northern New South Wales. Mota T (2011) Geoconservation as an emerging geoscience. London. Tsiamaos GC. Hall CM (eds) Special interest tourism. London Henriques MH. Koukis GC. pp 54–60 Hose TA (2006) Geotourism and interpretation. Unpublished paper delivered to the Visitor Studies Association Annual Conference. Rotterdam. 150 Jahre Dt. Geological Society. In: Coulson MR (ed) Stone in Wales. Berlin Technical University. J Sustain Tour 10(6):475–496 Hebron S (2006) The Romantics and the British landscape. The Buckinghamshire College. Unpublished paper delivered to the Tourism in Geological Landscapes Conference (DoENI/Geological Survey NI/GeoConservation Commission). In: Dowling RK. Barron HF (2011) Scotland’s geodiversity: development of the basis for a national framework. Weighell T (2005) Sustainable site-based management of collecting pressure on palaeontological sites. In: Marinos PG. Programme and Summary of Meeting Contributions. Lupton Relfe. 1997. Geol. Raleigh. In: Burek CV. pp 207–228 Hose TA (1997) Geotourism—selling the earth to Europe. University of Birmingham. Portsmouth. Earth Heritage 4:20 Hose TA (1996) Geotourism. pp 2969–2973 Komoo I. Dowling R (2009) Potential geotourists: an Australian case study. London. Weiler B (1992) What’s special about special interest tourism? In: Weiler B. North Carolina. Stanley M. pp 10–19 MacFadyen C (2007a) When coring 0 geovandalism. London. Longman. or can tourists become casual rock hounds? In: Bennett MR (ed) Geology on your doorstep. London Mao I. pp 95–117 Gordon JE. New South Wales . antecedents and the future. London. AA Balkema. pp 451–457 Hose TA (1994b) Rockhounds Welcome!—Assessing the United Kingdom client base for site-specific geological interpretation. Stournas GC (eds) Engineering geology and the environment. Cooper M (eds) Volcano and geothermal tourism: sustainable geo-resources for leisure and recreation. Earth Heritage 27:12–13 MacFadyen C (2007b) Missing Birk Knowes fossils: SNH calls it a day. pp 259–271 Hose TA (2010b) The significance of aesthetic landscape appreciation to modern geotourism provision. In: Newsome D. Larwood J. In: Dowling R. 417. Unpublished PhD thesis. Ges. Schriften der Alfred-Wegner Stiftung. Wimbledon WP. London Leafe R (1998) Conserving our coastal heritage—a conflict resolved. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. Elsevier. Robinson AM. In: Erfurt-Cooper P. dos Reis RP. pp 129–140 Joyce EB (2006) Geological heritage of Australia: selecting the best for Geosites and World Heritage. Tsiambaos GC. Nature Conservancy Council. British Library. Beeton JS. London Mantell GA (1849) Thoughts on a pebble. Turramura. Benham and Reeve. Leisure Solutions. Geological Society. 26–30 July 1994. Badung. Birmingham Hose TA (2005a) Geo-tourism—appreciating the deep time of landscapes. Henry G. Terra Nostra. Ottawa Mantell GA (1822) The fossils of the South Downs. Earth Heritage 27:8–9 MacFadyen C (2008) Coreholes: a widespread problem.. Cardiff. English Nature. Elsevier. Knill S (eds) Geological and landscape conservation. Washington. George Washington University Press. National Geographic. DC Thomas IA. Madrid. World Tourism Organisation. Cambridge Page KN (1994) Information signs for geological and geomorphological sites: basic principles. Gerasimenko NP. Tese de Doutorado—Instituto de Geociências. Instituto de Geociências. Paris Weaver DB. Phaidon. London Read SE (1980) A prime force in the expansion of tourism in the next decade: special interest travel. Geol Today 12(6):211–213 Robinson E (1998) Tourism in geological landscapes. pp 433–437 Page KN (1998) England's Earth heritage resource—an asset for everyone. Crystal Palace Foundation. In: Hawkins DE. Rovelstad JM (eds) Tourism marketing and management issues. Gallego E (eds) Geological heritage: its conservation and management. Oxford Newsome D. Geological Society. near Sheffield. The Geological Society. Shafer EL. Samt Organization Publishing. London. London World Tourism Organization (1997) What tourism managers need to know: a practical guide for the development and application of indicators of sustainable tourism. pp 147–156 McCarthy S. August 2000. Dissertação de Mestrado. Tour Manag 28:1168–1179 Wimbledon WAP (2006) Commercial exploitation versus sustainable use. Dowling R (2002) Natural area tourism: ecology. Clevedon Ousby I (1990) The Englishman’s England: taste. Instituto Tecnologico Geominero de Espana. In: Hooke J (ed) Coastal defence and Earth science conservation. Wimbledon WP. Minas Gerais: potencial para criação de um geoparque da UNESCO. Freden C (2000) Geosites—an IUGS initiative: science supported by conservation. Tehran Newsome D. Teach Earth Sci 18:17–19 UNESCO (2000) UNESCO Geoparks Programme Feasibility Study. Madrid. In: O'Halloran D. Green C. Thirlemere and modern environmentalism. Earth Heritage 27:7–8 Wimbledon WAP. Quart J Geol Soc 31:458–459 Spiteri A (1994) Malta: a model for the conservation of limestone regions. The Geological Society. DC Ritvo H (2009) The dawn of green: Manchester. Green C. Ishchenko AA. London McKirdy A (2000) Environmental geology: reaching out to a wider audience. Gilbert M (1994) The Crystal Palace Dinosaurs: the story of the world’s first prehistoric sculptures. pp 69– 94 Wind A (2010) Vandals. Gallego E (eds) Geological heritage: its conservation and management. Moore SA. Harley M. Knill J (eds) Geological and landscape conservation. Geoturystyka 1:5–7 Sorby HC (1875) On the remains of a fossil forest in the coal-measures at Wadesley. Madrid . Belo Horizonte Slomka T. Oxford Sadry BN (2009) Fundamentals of geotourism: with emphasis on Iran. Harley M. Qualificação de Doutorado. Programa de Pós-Graduação. Washington. pp 383–386 Martini G (2000) Geological heritage and geo-tourism. Belo Horizonte. UNESCO. Stanley M. Hughes K (1993) Reconstructing ancient environments. impacts and management. wha hae wi’ samples fled. pp 196–209 Pepper D (1996) Modern environmentalism: an introduction. Routledge. Lawton LJ (2007) Twenty years on: the state of contemporary ecotourism research. Minas Gerais. In: O'Halloran D. London. In: Barretino D. Instituto Tecnologico Geominero de Espana. Cock SD. MG: potencial para o uso turístico da sua geologia e geomorfologia. In: O'Halloran D. Geol Today 14 (4):151–153 Geoheritage (2012) 4:7–24 Ruchkys UdeA (2005) Patrimônio Geológico e Geoconservação do Quadrilátero Ferrífero.24 Martini G (1994) The protection of geological heritage and economic development: the saga of the Digne ammonite slab in Japan. London. pp 205–208 Stueve AM. University of Chicago Press. Harley M. The Geological Society. Stanley M. Suominen V. Channel View Publications. Brazil Ruchkys U de A (2007) Patrimônio Geológico e Geoconservação no Quadrilátero Ferrífero. Drew D (2002) The geotourism study: phase 1 executive summary. Brazil Silva FR (2007) A paisagem no Quadrilátero Ferrífero. travel and the rise of tourism. Chicago Robinson E (1996) GEOLOGY RESERVE: Wren’s Nest revised. Departamento de Geografia–UFMG. Knill J (eds) Geological and landscape conservation. Minas Gerais. In: Barretino D. Kicinska-Swiderska A (2004) Geotourism—the basic concepts. Wimbledon WP. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Geosci 20(1):5 Woodward HB (1907) The history of the Geological Society of London. The Geological Society. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Dowling RK (eds) (2010) Geotourism: the tourism of geology and landscapes. London. Johansson CE. Stanley M. Scott J Geol 36:105–109 Mullins E (1985) A love affair with nature. Goodfellow. Cambridge University Press. Green C. Karis LO.