Advertisement

Geoheritage

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 783–792 | Cite as

Inventory and Quantification of Geosites in the State Tourist Park of Alto Ribeira (PETAR, São Paulo State, Brazil)

  • Ana Rita Rodrigues Ferreira
  • Heros Augusto Santos LoboEmail author
  • José Alexandre de Jesus Perinotto
Original Article

Abstract

The territory of Brazil has a high potential for the development of geotourism, due to its natural and cultural diversity. The State Tourist Park of Alto Ribeira (PETAR) is one of the oldest protected areas in the State of São Paulo, created in 1958. The importance of the area is the result of the association between the Atlantic Rainforest with an exceptional biodiversity and karst and caves systems with a unique underground scenario. The area presents distinct tectonic environments that represent the Precambrian geological evolution of south-southeastern Brazil. The karst and caves of the PETAR were already recorded and described as an important national area to the speleological, geological, and paleontological interest, as also classified as UNESCO’s Natural Heritage and included in a proposal to the creation of a Geopark. In the present work, there were inventoried and quantified 19 geosites in the region of PETAR, most of them with speleological interest. The inventory was conducted using the following criteria: representativeness, integrity, accessibility, and scientific and esthetic value. The quantification of geosites was based on four categories of values: intrinsic value, scientific value, tourism value, and value of management. Finally, the relevance of each geosite was calculated, evidencing one geosite with international (Santana cave) and other 12 with national relevance. The conclusions raise the necessity of planning and implementing management procedures to increase the conservation and sustainable use of the analyzed geosites, despite that they are located in a natural protected area.

Keywords

Inventory Geoconservation Geotourism Speleology Vale do Ribeira 

Notes

Funding Information

The research that initially generated the data from this article was supported by the State University of São Paulo (Universidade Estadual Paulista—Unesp) and was funded by CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Coordination for Enhancement of Higher Education Personnel). Additional researches were made with support and funding of CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico—National Council for Scientific and Technological Development).

References

  1. Almeida FFM (1977) O Cráton do São Francisco. Revista Brasileira de Geociências 7:349–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borsanelli FA, Lobo HAS (2015) Impactos causados à comunidade local com o fechamento das cavernas turísticas do PETAR em 2008 na visão dos stakeholders envolvidos. Anais do 33° CBE. Campinas:719–727Google Scholar
  3. Brasil (2000) Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação – SNUC. Congresso Nacional, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  4. Brazilian Geological Survey (CPRM) (2018) Sistema de cadastro e quantificação de geossítios e sítios da geodiversidade. CPRM. https://www.cprm.gov.br/geossit/. Accessed 10 August 2018
  5. Brilha J (2005) Patrimônio geológico e geoconservação: a conservação da natureza na sua vertente geológica. Palimage Editores, ViseuGoogle Scholar
  6. Brilha J (2016) Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8:119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campanha GAC, Basei MAS, Faleiros FM, Nutman AP (2016) The Mesoproterozoic to Early Neoproterozoic passive margin Lajeado Group and Apiaí Gabbro, southeastern Brazil. Geosci Front 7:683–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cigna AA, Burri E (2000) Development, management and economy of show caves. Int J Speleol 29:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cruz FW, Burns SJ, Karmann I, Sharp WD, Vuille M, Cardoso AO, Ferrari JA, Silva Dias PL, Viana O Jr (2005) Insolation-driven changes in atmospheric circulation over the past 116 ky in subtropical Brazil. Nature 434:63–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dowling RK (2011) Geotourism’s global growth. Geoheritage 3:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Faleiros FM, Campanha GAC (2004) Petrografia e microestruturasde tectonitos da Zona de Cisalhamento Ribeira, Vale do Ribeira, SP e PR: implicações no zoneamento metamórfico e estrutural do Supergrupo Açungui e unidades correlatas. Revista Brasileira de Geociências 34:419–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fundação Florestal, Ekos Brasil (2010) Plano de manejo espelológico do Parque Estadual Turístico do Alto Ribeira. Secretaria do Meio Ambiente, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  13. Forti P, Galli E, Rossi A (2000) New rare cave minerals from the Perolas-Santana karst system (São Paulo State, Brazil). Int J Speleol 29:127–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. García-Cortéz A, Carcavilla-Urquí L (2009) Documento metodológico para la elaboración del inventario español de lugares de interés geológico (IELIG). Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, MadridGoogle Scholar
  15. Garcia MGM, Brilha J, de Lima FF et al (2017) The inventory of geological heritage of the State of São Paulo, Brazil: methodological basis, results and perspectives. Geoheritage 10:239–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillieson D (2011) Management of caves. In: Van Beynen P (ed) Karst and cave management, springer, pp141–158Google Scholar
  17. Grandgirard V (1999) Switzerland - the inventory of geotopes of national significance. In: Vallejo M, Gallego E (eds) Barettino D. Towards the balanced management and conservation of the geological heritage in the new millennium, Sociedad Geológica de España, pp 234–236Google Scholar
  18. Gray M (2004) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature. John Wiley and Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  19. Hasui Y, Carneiro CDR, Coimbra AM (1975) The Ribeira folded belt. Revista Brasileira de Geociências 15:257–266Google Scholar
  20. Henriques MH, Reis RP, Brilha J, Mota T (2011) Geoconservation as an emerging geoscience. Geoheritage 3:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karmann I (1994) Evolução e dinâmica atual do sistema cárstico do alto Vale do Rio Ribeira de Iguape, sudeste do Estado de São Paulo. Universidade de São Paulo, ThesisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karmann I, Ferrari JA (2002) Carste e Cavernas do Parque Estadual Turístico do Alto Ribeira (PETAR), SP – Sistemas de cavernas com paisagens subterrâneas únicas. In: Schobbenhaus C, Campos DA, Queiroz ET, Berbert-Born M (eds) Sítios geológicos e paleontológicos do Brasil. DNPM/CPRM, pp 401–413Google Scholar
  23. Labegalini JA, Auler AS (1997) Caverna Santana, Brazil. In: Hill CA, Forti P (eds) Cave minerals of the world. National Speleological Society, pp 340–342Google Scholar
  24. Lima FF (2008) Proposta metodológica para a inventariação do patrimônio geológico brasileiro. Universidade do Minho, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  25. Lima FF, Brilha JB, Salamuni E (2010) Inventorying geological heritage in large territories: a methodological proposal applied to Brazil. Geoheritage 2:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lobo HAS (2015) Tourist carrying capacity of Santana cave (PETAR-SP, Brazil): a new method based on a critical atmospheric parameter. Tour Manag Perspect 16:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lobo HAS (2017) Entre 117 e 1344: qual o limite diário recomendável para a visitação da caverna Santana (PETAR-SP)? Revista Brasileira de Ecoturismo 10:645–669Google Scholar
  28. Mansur KL, Rocha AJD, Pedreira A et al (2013) Iniciativas Institucionais de valorização do patrimônio geológico no Brasil. Boletim Paranaense de Geociências 70:2–27Google Scholar
  29. Moreira JC (2008) Patrimônio Geológico em Unidades de Conservação: atividades interpretativas, educativas e geoturísticas. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  30. Nascimento MAL, Ruchkys ÚA, Mantesso Neto V (2008) Geodiversidade, Geoconservação e Geoturismo: trinômio importante para a proteção do patrimônio geológico. Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  31. Pereira RGFA (2010) Geoconservação e desenvolvimento sustentável na Chapada Diamantina (Bahia–Brasil). Universidade do Minho, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  32. Pnud – Programa das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento (2010). Índice de desenvolvimento humano. IBGE. https://cidades.ibge.gov.br. Accessed 5 march 2018
  33. Ruchkys UA (2007) Patrimônio geológico e geoconservação no Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais: potencial para a criação de um geoparque da UNESCO. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  34. Ruchkys UA, Machado MMM (2013) Patrimônio geológico e mineiro do Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais – Caracterização e iniciativas de uso para educação e geoturismo. Boletim Paranaense de Geociências 70:120–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Santos P, Brilha J (2016) Base studies for the promotion of a highquality geotourism in the Tourist State Park of Alto Ribeira (Brazil). Proceedings of 7th International Conference on UNESCO Global Geoparks, Torquay, pp 241Google Scholar
  36. Schobbenhaus C (2006) Projeto Geoparques: proposta de projeto. CPRM. http://www.cprm.gov.br/publique/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?sid=134. Accessed 2 June 2014
  37. Schobbenhaus C, Silva CR (2012) Geoparques do Brasil: propostas. CPRM, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  38. Sharples C (2002) Concepts and principles of geoconservation. Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service, TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  39. SBE – Sociedade Brasileira de Espeleologia (2018) Cadastro Nacional de Cavernas. SBE. http://www.cavernas.org.br Accessed in 5 December 2017
  40. Theodorovicz A (2014) Geoparque Alto Vale do Ribeira: proposta. CPRM, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  41. Uceda AC (2000) - Patrimonio geológico; diagnóstico, clasificación y valoración. Jornadas Sobre Património Geológico y Desarrollo Sostenible, Soria, pp. 23–37Google Scholar
  42. Unesco (1999) Atlantic forest south-east reserves. Unesco. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/893. Accessed 15 February 2018
  43. Wall G, Mathieson A (2006) Tourism: change, impacts, and opportunities. Pearson Education, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  44. Wimbledon WAP (1996) Geosites – a new IUGS initiative. Episodes 19:87–88Google Scholar
  45. Wimbledon WAP (2011) Geosites – a mechanism for protection, integrating national and international valuation of heritage sites. Geologia dell’Ambiente 2:13–25Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The European Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Post-Graduation Program on Geosciences and Environment – Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)São Paulo State UniversityRio ClaroBrazil
  2. 2.Federal University of São Carlos – Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar)SorocabaBrazil
  3. 3.São Paulo State University – Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Rio ClaroBrazil

Personalised recommendations