Advertisement

Geoheritage

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 949–960 | Cite as

Geodiversity and Sense of Place: Local Identity Geological Elements in Portuguese Municipal Heraldry

  • Carlos Marques da SilvaEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The concept of geodiversity is extensively used in geoconservation and geoheritage contexts. Its cultural value, i.e. the value attributed by society to aspects of the abiotic natural environment because of its historical, emotional or community importance, is widely recognised. One important manifestation of the cultural value of geodiversity is the strong bond experienced by humans when interacting with their natural physical environment. These ties to native geodiversity contribute to their sense of place. But how to adequately measure the importance of local abiotic nature in the making of the place identity of a given human community? In this work, municipal heraldry, a widespread and unbiased expression of local identity, is used to empirically show the contribution of geodiversity for the creation of a sense of place in Portuguese local communities. After all, what better display of identity than heraldry? Therefore, in this paper, based on Portuguese contemporary civic symbols, an attempt is made to assess the relative importance of geodiversity in originating place identity based on its representations in municipal emblems. As it turns out, geodiversity depictions are present in 56.2% of the Portuguese municipal coats of arms, corresponding to 18.5% of all the charges represented in municipal insignia. Only the representation of biological elements is more common than that of natural abiotic features, present in 74.4% of the coats of arms and corresponding to 29.6% of all representations. This objectively testifies the importance of geodiversity in the development of place attachment in Portuguese local communities. One could venture to say that even more so than such identity elements as architectural landmarks, local economic activities, historical events, etc., also widely represented in municipal symbols, but in a lesser degree. For humans, the question of “who we are” is inextricably linked to “where we are”, and based on this work, it may be shown that in Portugal geodiversity is a significant part of “who we are”.

Keywords

Geodiversity Rivers Ocean Place attachment Civic emblems Municipalities Portugal 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many thanks are due to Sérgio Horta (Wikipedia Commons) for the Portuguese municipal coats of arms. The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewer, as well as the editor of Geoheritage, for their helpful and constructive comments and suggestions that greatly contributed to improving the final version of this work.

Funding Information

This publication is supported by project FCT UID/GEO/50019/2013—Instituto Dom Luiz of geosciences.

References

  1. Adams WM (1996) Future nature: a vision for conservation. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams WM (1998) Landforms, authenticity and conservation value. Area 30:168–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avelar S, Mansur KL, Anjos SC, Vasconcelos GF (2015) Community perceptions for geoconservation of a coastal area in Rio de Janeiro. Brazil Geoheritage 7:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azevêdo MTM (2006) Geodiversidade e geoturismo na Bacia do Tejo português: uma abordagem preliminar. Publicações da Associação Portuguesa de Geomorfólogos 3:161–165Google Scholar
  5. Barroca MJ (2001) O aron de Castelo Mendo. In: Estudos em Homenagem a João Francisco Marques. Vol.1, Faculdade de Letras, Universidade do Porto, PortoGoogle Scholar
  6. Brilha J (2005) Património Geológico e Geoconservação. Palimage Editores, BragaGoogle Scholar
  7. Brilha J, Gray M, Pereira DI, Pereira P (2018) Geodiversity: an integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable management of the whole of nature. Environ Sci Pol 86:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burek C (2001) Non-geologists now dig geodiversity. Earth Heritage 16:21Google Scholar
  9. Byerley J (1832) Conventional signs, to express objects in geology and physical geography. The Magazine of natural history and journal of zoology, botany, mineralogy, geology and meteorology, 5:587–588Google Scholar
  10. Calado C, Brandão JM (2009) Salinas Interiores em Portugal: O caso das marinhas de Rio Maior. Geonovas 22:45–54Google Scholar
  11. Chistiakov AI (2013) Regional heraldry and identity. Ethnic symbolism in the emblems of the republics of the Russian Federation. Anthropol Archeol Eurasia 51(4):52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixon G (1995). Aspects of Geoconservation in Tasmania: a preliminary review of significant earth features. Report to the Australian Heritage Commission, Occas Pap 32. Hobart, Tasmania: Parks and Wildlife ServiceGoogle Scholar
  13. Dixon J, Durrheim K (2000) Displacing place-identity: a discursive approach to locating self and other. Br J Soc Psychol 39:27–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Domingues RB, Costas S, Jesus SN, Ferreira O (2017) Sense of place, risk perceptions and preparedness of a coastal population at risk (Faro Beach, Portugal): a qualitative content analysis. J Spat Organ Dyn 5(3):163–175Google Scholar
  15. Eggenkamp HGM, Marques JM, Graça H (2013) Application of stable chlorine isotopes to develop a conceptual model for the origin of the ground water circulating near the “salinas” at Rio Maior (Central Portugal). Comunicações Geológicas 100(1):49–53Google Scholar
  16. Eisenhauer BW, Krannich RS, Blahna DJ (2000) Attachments to special places on public lands : an analysis of activities, reason for attachments and Community Connections. Soc Nat Resour 13:421–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fragoso MAP (2002) O Emblema da Cidade de Lisboa: Suporte comunicacional da identidade Municipal. Livros Horizonte, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  18. Fragoso MAP (2003) O emblema da cidade de Lisboa e a identidade municipal. Pedra & Cal 20:42–43Google Scholar
  19. Gordon JE (2012) Rediscovering a sense of wonder: geoheritage Geotourism and Cultural Landscape Experiences. Geoheritage 4:65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gray M (2004) Geodiversity, valuing and conserving abiotic nature. Willey, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  21. Gray M (2008a) Geodiversity: developing the paradigm. Proc Geol Assoc 119:287–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gray M (2008b) Geodiversity: the origin and evolution of a paradigm. In: Burek CV, Prosser CD (eds) The history of geoconservation. Geological society special publication 300, London, pp 31–36Google Scholar
  23. Gray M (2011) Other nature: geodiversity and geosystem services. Environ Conserv 38(3):271–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gray M, Gordon JE, Brown EJ (2013) Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: the contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management. Proc Geol Assoc 124:659–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Groebner V (2004) Defaced: the visual culture of violence in the late middle ages. Zone Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Guthrie M (2003) Geodiversity – proving its worth. Earth Heritage 19:16Google Scholar
  27. Hinds J, Sparks P (2008) Engaging with the natural environment: the role of affective connection and identity. J Environ Psychol 28:109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johansson CE (ed) (2000) Geodiversitet i Nordisk Naturvard. Nordic Council of Ministers, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaltenborn BP (1997) Nature of place attachment: a study among recreation homeowners in southern Norway. Leis Sci 19(3):175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kenk VD (1963) The importance of plants in heraldry. Econ Bot 17(3):169–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kiernan K (1991) Landform conservation and protection. 5th Regional Seminar on National Parks and Wildlife Management, Tasmania, pp 112–129Google Scholar
  32. Kiernan K (1994) The Geoconservation significance of Lake Pedder and its contribution to geodiversity. Unpublished Report to the Lake Pedder Study GroupGoogle Scholar
  33. Kiernan K (1997) the conservation of landforms of coastal origin. Forest Practices Unit, Hobart, TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  34. Kiernan K (2015) Landforms as sacred places: implications for geodiversity and geoheritage. Geoheritage 7:177–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lancastre e Távora LG [Marquês de Abrantes] (1983) O Estudo da Sigilografia Medieval Portuguesa. Panorama dos estudos sigilográficos no nosso país e normas para a sua sistematização. II. Esboço de um Corpus Esfragístico Medieval Português. Secretaria de Estado do Ensino Superior, Ministério da Educação, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  36. Lappegard HA (2007) Identity and place: a critical comparison of three identity theories. Archit Sci Rev 50(1):44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manosso FC, Nóbrega MT (2016) Calculation of geodiversity from landscape units of the Cadeado range region in Paraná. Brazil Geoheritage 8:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Manzo LC (2003) Beyond house and haven: toward a revisioning of emotional relationships with places. J Environ Psychol 23:47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martín Escorza C (2009) Geología y heráldica. Tierra y Tecnología 35:81–86Google Scholar
  40. Matos F (2001) A bandeira municipal de Lisboa: introdução à vexilologia autárquica olisiponense. Cadernos do Arquivo Municipal de Lisboa 5:108–127Google Scholar
  41. May JA (1970) Kant’s concept of geography and its relation to recent geographical thought. Department of Geography Publications, University of Toronto press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  42. Menéndez Pidal de Navascués F (1993) Los Emblemas Heráldicos. In: Una Interpretación Histórica. Real Academia de Historia, MadridGoogle Scholar
  43. Morais-Alexandre P (1988) O vestuário e a Heráldica. Subsídios para o seu estudo. MSc Thesis, Universidade Lusíada, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  44. Morais-Alexandre P (2006) A Arte e a Heráldica Autárquica em Portugal. Tabardo 3:109–128Google Scholar
  45. Ollier C (2012) Problems of geoturism and geodiversity. Quaestiones Geographicae 31(3):57–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pantens-Van den Bergen C (1993) La représentation et la signification des animaux comme cimiers héraldiques. Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 62:5–15Google Scholar
  47. Pena dos Reis R, Henriques MH (2009) Approching an integrated qualification and evaluation system for geological heritage. Geoheritage 1:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Proshansky HM (1978) The city and self-identity. Environ Behav 10:147–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pye RF (1986) The logic of shapes and numbers: some provocative reflections on the art and the science of heraldry. In: Genealogia & Heráldica, Actas 17 Congresso Internacional das Ciências Genealógica e Heráldica. Instituto Português de Heráldica, Lisbon, pp 495–503Google Scholar
  50. Qazimi S (2014) Sense of place and place identity. Eur J Social Sci Edu Res 1(1):306–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Raymond CM, Brown G, Weber D (2010) The measurement of place attachment: personal, community and environmental connections. J Environ Psychol 30:422–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rocchini F (1868) Álbum fotográfico sobre Lisboa e Sintra. Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa. Lisbon http://purl.pt/25802 Accessed 25 April 2018
  53. Seixas MM (2010) As insígnias municipais e os primeiros armoriais portugueses: razões de uma ausência. Ler História 50:155–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Seixas MM (2012) A heráldica em Portugal no séc. XIX: sob o signo da renovação. Análise Social, Revista do Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa, 202, XLVII(1):56–91Google Scholar
  55. Shamai S, Qazrin I (1991) Sense of place: an empirical measurement. Geoforum 22(3):347–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shamai S, Arnon S, Schnell I (2012) From home to community and settlement: sense of place in different scales. Stud Home Community Sci 6(3):153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sharples C (1993) A methodology for the identification of significant landforms and geological sites for geoconservation purposes. Forestry Commission, TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  58. Silva CM da (2009) Fósseis ao Virar da Esquina: Um percurso pela Paleontologia e pela geodiversidade urbana de Lisboa. Paleolusitana 1:459–463Google Scholar
  59. Silva CM da (2016) Fossils, smartphones, geodiversity, internet and outdoor activities: a technological geoeducational bundle. In: Vasconcelos, C (ed), Geoscience Education Indoor and Outdoor, Science Education, Springer Verlag, pp 133–156Google Scholar
  60. Silva CM da (2017) Urban geodiversity and decorative arts: the curious case of the “rudist tiles” of Lisbon (Portugal). Geoheritage, DOI  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0253-0
  61. Stanley M (2002) Geodiversity – linking people, landscapes and their culture. Abstract for Natural And Cultural Landscapes Conference. Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, 14Google Scholar
  62. Stavrescu-Bedivan M-M, Şchiopu EB (2011) Animal, vegetal and mythological symbols in the coat of arms of Romanian administrative divisions – a biological inventory. Scientific Papers, UASVM Bucharest, A 14:492–497Google Scholar
  63. Vassilieva-Codognet O (2013) Ambiguous figures of otherness: redoubtable beasts in princely badges of the late Middle Ages. In: Walker-Vadillo M, Chico Picaza MV, García García FA (eds) Animal and otherness in the Middle Ages. Perspectives across disciplines, 2500, British archeological reports, International series, Archaeopress, pp133–150Google Scholar
  64. White K (2003) Geopoetics: place, culture, world. Alba Editions, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  65. Wiedenbein FW (1993) Ein Geotopschutzkonzept für Deutschland. In: Quasten H (ed) Geotopschutz, probleme der methodik und der praktischen umsetzung. 1. Jahrestagung der AG Geotopschutz, Otzenhausen/Saarland, 17. University de Saarlandes, SaarbruckenGoogle Scholar
  66. Will K (2016) When is a panther not a panther? Representing animals in early modern English heraldry. Early Modern Cult 11:78–98Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The European Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Geologia and Instituto Dom Luiz of geosciences, Faculdade de CiênciasUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations