Advertisement

Geoheritage

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 1067–1087 | Cite as

Evaluating Geomorphosites and the Geomorphological Hazards that Impact them: Case Study—Cozia Massif (Southern Carpathians, Romania)

  • Adriana-Bianca Ovreiu
  • Laura Comănescu
  • Iulian-Andrei BărsoianuEmail author
  • Alexandru Nedelea
Review Article

Abstract

This paper intends to evaluate the most important geomorphosites in the Cozia Massif (Southern Carpathians) area and the geomorphological hazards that can affect and damage them. The methodology used for the evaluation stage is based on a method elaborated by Reynard et al. in Geoheritage 8:43–60, 2016, and additionally on other approaches built by researches from Lausanne, Modena and Reggio Emilia, Cantabria, Valladolid, Minho or Bucharest universities. The evaluation methodology measures quantitatively the scientific central value as well as the level of protection and promotion of specific geomorphosites. The most crucial geomorphological hazard in the area is disintegration. In order to evaluate its impact, the authors used geomechanical analysis methods; the evaluation included analysing features such as lithology, geomorphology (altitude, exposure and declivity), fissures (density, width, orientation and continuity), size and density of the base blocks, all according to the 1980 Shelby method. The Cozia Massif was considered to be an appropriate study area given their great variety in geomorphosites. Thirteen geomorphosites were included in this study, and all of them achieved scores between 0.38 (Traian’s Table) and 0.82 (Cozia Gorges). These geomorphosites are in different stages of degradation with values varying from 40 (Stone Gate Archway) to 82 (Gardului Waterfall). The study ended with identifying not only the most important geomorphosites for scientific research (e.g. Cozia Gorges) and for tourism value (e.g. Gardului Waterfall) but also the most vulnerable ones that require immediate action in terms of protection and conservation (e.g. Stone Gate Archway). The values registered are in general lower than the values achieved in other massifs of the Southern Carpathians.

Keywords

Geomorphosites Evaluation Degradation Cozia massif Southern Carpathians Romania 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the Cozia National Park for their support in collecting the data. We wish to thank to Mr. Cruceru Nicolae for providing the Hammer Schmidt tool. All authors have contributed equally to the development of this article.

References

  1. Badea L (1983) Defileul Coziei si valea subcarpatică a Oltului. Studii și cercetări de Geologie – Geofizică – Geografie, Geografie XXX:30–34, BucureștiGoogle Scholar
  2. Brandolini P, Pelfini M (2010) Mapping geomorphological hazards in relation to geotourism and hiking trails. In: Regolini-Bissig G, Reynard E (eds) Mapping geoheritage. Institute of Geography, Lausanne (Géovisions 35), pp 31–45Google Scholar
  3. Brilha J (2005) Património geológico e geoconservação: a conservação da natureza na sua vertente geológica. Palimage Editores, Viseu, p 190Google Scholar
  4. Brilha J et al (2005) Definition of the Portuguese frameworks with international relevance as an input for the European geological heritage characterisation. Episodes 28(3):177–186Google Scholar
  5. Bruschi VM, Cendrero A (2005) Geosite evaluation: can we measure intangible values? Il Quaternario 18(1):293–306Google Scholar
  6. Bruschi VM, Cendrero A (2009) Direct and parametric methods for the assessment of geosites and geomorphosites. In: Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (eds) Geomorphosites. Pfeil, Munchen, pp 73–88Google Scholar
  7. Bussard J (2014) Protection et valorisation du patrimoine géomorphologique du Parc naturel régional Gruyère Pays-d’Enhaut. Etat des lieux et perspectives. Master’s thesis, University of Lausanne. http://mesoscaphe.unil.ch/igul/memoires/bd/
  8. Carcavilla Urquí L, López Martinez J, Durán Valsero JJ (2007) Patrimonio Geológico y Geodiversidad: investigación, conservación, gestión y relación con los espacios naturales protegidos. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid, p 360Google Scholar
  9. Cocean G (2011) Munţii Trascău. Relief, Geomorfosituri, Turism. Edit. Presa Universitară Clujeană, Cluj-Napoca (in Romanian), p. 269Google Scholar
  10. Cocean G, Surdeanu V (2011) The assessment of geomorphosites of tourist interest in the Trascău Mountains. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai, Geographia 2:67–81Google Scholar
  11. Comănescu L, Dobre R (2009) Inventorying, evaluating and tourism valuating the geomorphosites from the central sector of the Ceahlău National Park. GeoJ Tour Geosites 1(3):86–96Google Scholar
  12. Comănescu L, Nedelea A (2010) Analysis of some representative geomorphosites in the Bucegi Mountains: between scientific evaluation and tourist perception. Area 4:406–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Comănescu L, Nedelea A (2012) The assessment of geodiversity – a premise for declaring the geopark Buzăului County (Romania). J Earth Syst Sci 121(6):1493–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Comănescu L, Nedelea A (2015) Public perception of the hazards affecting geomorphological heritage—case study: the central area of Bucegi Mts. (Southern Carpathians, Romania). Environ Earth Sci 73(12):8487–8497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Comănescu L, Nedelea A (2017) Geomorphosites assessments of the glacial and periglacial landforms from Southern Carpathians, Landform Dynamics and Evolution in Romania, Chapter 10, Springer Geography, p 215–246Google Scholar
  16. Comănescu L, Nedelea A, Dobre R (2009) Inventoring and evaluation of geomorphosites in the Bucegi Mountains. Geogr Forum Geogr Stud Environ Prot Res 8:38–44Google Scholar
  17. Comănescu L, Dobre R, Nedelea A (2011) The identification of geomorphosites in different cartographic materials. The study case—Bucegi Mts (Romania). Egypt J Environ Chang 3(1):25–33Google Scholar
  18. Comănescu L, Nedelea R, Dobre R (2012) The evaluation of geomorphosites from the Ponoare Protected Area. Geogr Forum Geogr Stud Environ Prot Res 11(1):54–61Google Scholar
  19. Comănescu L, Nedelea A, Dobre R, Bandoc G (2014) Inventoring the principal geomorphosites for determining geomorphodiversity. Case study—the central sector of the Bucegi Mountains (the Carpathians, Romania). J Environ Prot Ecol 15(4):1849–1857Google Scholar
  20. Coratza P, Giusti C (2005) Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites. Il Quaternario 18(1):307–313Google Scholar
  21. Droz Y, Miéville-Ott V (eds) (2005) La polyphonie du paysage. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne, p 236Google Scholar
  22. Durán Valsero JJ, Urquí L, López-Martínez J (2005) Patrimonio geológico: una panorámica de los últimos 30 años en España. Bol Real Soc Esp Hist Nat (Sec Geol) 100(1–4):277–287Google Scholar
  23. Gavrilă I, Anghel T (2013) Geomorphosites inventory in the Măcin Mountains (South-Eastern Romania). GeoJ Tour Geosites 11(1):42–53Google Scholar
  24. Ghika St.–Budesti (1958) Depresiunea intramontană Lovistea și creasta horstului Cozia, Studii si cercetări de geologie, p. 61–78, BucurestiGoogle Scholar
  25. Grandgirard V (1999) L’évaluation des géotopes. Geol Insubr 4(1):59–66Google Scholar
  26. Grangier L (2013) Quelle place pour le géotourisme dans l’offre touristique du Val d’Hérens et du Vallon de Réchy? Etat du patrimoine géo(morpho)logique et propositions de valorisation. Master’s thesis, University of Lausanne. http://mesoscaphe.unil.ch/igul/memoires/bd/
  27. Hann HP (1990) Cozia Gneiss (South Carpathians): Petrography, Structure, Genesis. D S Inst Geol Geofiz 74/5:41–59 BucurestiGoogle Scholar
  28. Ilieș D (2014) Tourism planning and management for natural heritage. Edit. Bernardinum, Poland, p 134Google Scholar
  29. Ilieş D, Josan N (2007) Preliminary contribution to the investigation of the geosites from Apuseni Mountains (Romania). Revista de geomorfologie 9:53–59Google Scholar
  30. Ilieș D, Josan N (2009) Geosituri și geopeisaje. Edit. Universității din Oradea (in Romanian), p 246Google Scholar
  31. Ilieş D, Ilieş A, Herman G, Baias Ş, Morar C (2011) Geotourist map of Baile Felix-Băile 1 Mai-Betfia (Bihor County, Romania). GeoJ Tour Geosites IV(8):219–227Google Scholar
  32. Ilinca V, Comănescu L (2011) Aspects concerning some of the geomorphosites with tourist value from Vâlcea county (Romania). GeoJ Tour Geosites, Year IV 7(1):22–32Google Scholar
  33. Irimia D, Toma B (2012) The identification of the geomorphosites in Buzău Subcarpathians. Tourism capitalization options. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai—Geographia LVII 2:161–171Google Scholar
  34. Irimuş IA, Petrea D, Vescan I, Toma B, Vieru I (2011) Vulnerability of touristic geomorphosites in Transylvanian saliferous areas (Romania). GeoJ Tour Geosites 2(8):212–219Google Scholar
  35. Kubalíková L (2013) Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes. Czech J Tour 2(2):80–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lima FF, Brilha JB, Salamuni E (2010) Inventorying geological heritage in large territories: a methodological proposal applied to Brazil. Geoheritage 2(3–4):91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martins B, Pereira A (2018) Residents’ perception and assessment of geomorphosites of the Alvão—Chaves region. Geosciences 8:381.  https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8100381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Massé MO, Morissette A, Hétu B, Tita G, Vigneault B (2011) Inventaire du patrimoine géomorphologique de l’archipel des Iles-de-la- Madeleine et identification des stratégies de valorisation géotouristique. Centre de recherche sur les milieux insulaires et maritimes (CERMIM), Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Québec)Google Scholar
  39. O’Halloran D, Green C, Harley M, Stanley M, Knill J (eds) (1994) Geological and landscape conservation. The Geological Society, London, p 530Google Scholar
  40. Pagano L (2008) Inventaire des géotopes géomorphologiques du Val Bavona et du Val Rovana. Sélection, évaluation et perspectives. Master’s thesis, University of Lausanne. http://mesoscaphe.unil.ch/igul/memoires/bd/
  41. Panizza M (2001) Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey. Chin Sci Bull 46(suppl Bd):4–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Panizza M (2018) Outstanding intrinsic and extrinsic values of the geological heritage of the dolomites (Italy). Geoheritage 10:607.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0259-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Panizza M, Piacente S (2003) Geomorfologia culturale, Pitagora, Bologna, p 350Google Scholar
  44. Pereira P, Pereira D, Caetano Alves MI (2007) Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geogr Helv 62(3):159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pereira P, Pereira D (2010) Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment. Géomorphologie 2:215–222Google Scholar
  46. Pérez-Umaña D, Quesada-Román A, De Jesús Rojas JC (2018) Comparative analysis of geomorphosites in volcanoes of Costa Rica, Mexico, and Spain. Geoheritage.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0313-0
  47. Perret A (2008) Inventaire de géomorphosites du Parc Jurassien vaudois. Essai d’intégration des géotopes spéléologiques et valorisation géomorphologique des réserves naturelles. Master’s thesis, University of Lausanne. http://mesoscaphe.unil.ch/igul/memoires/bd/
  48. Popa G, Popa A, Andrășanu A (2017) The SEA and big-S models for managing geosites as resources for local communities in the context of rural geoparks. Geoheritage 9:175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Popescu NC, Călin D (1987) Munţii Coziei, Colecţia „Munţii noştri”, Ed. Sport-turism, BucureştiGoogle Scholar
  50. Popescu B, Szasz L, Hann H, Schuster A (1977) Harta geologică a R.S.R., scara 1:50.000, foaia Călimănesti (L-35-97-B) , I.G.G., BucurestiGoogle Scholar
  51. Pralong JP (2005) A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites. Géomorphologie 3:189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pralong JP (2006) Géotourisme et utilisation de sites naturels d’intérêt pour les sciences de la Terre. Les régions de Crans-Montana-Sierre (Valais, Alpes suisses) et Chamonix-Mont-Blanc (Haute-Savoie, Alpes françaises). Ph.D. thesis, University of Lausanne. https://doc.rero.ch/record/6171/files/These_PralongJP.pdf
  53. Reynard E (2005) Géomorphosites et paysages, Géomorphologie 3:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reynard E (2009) The assessment of geomorphosites. In: Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (eds) Geomorphosites. Pfeil, Munchen, pp 63–71Google Scholar
  55. Reynard E (2012) Geoheritage protection and promotion in Switzerland. Eur Geol 34:44–47Google Scholar
  56. Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L, Scapozza C (2007) A method for assessing scientific and additional values of geomorphosites. Geogr Helv 62(3):148–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Reynard E, Perret A, Bussard J, Grangier L, Martin S (2016) Integrated approach for the inventory and managementof geomorphological heritage at the regional scale. Geoheritage 8:43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Selby MJ (1980) A rock mass strenght classification for geomorphic purposes: with tests from Antarctica and New Zeeland. Z Geomorphol 24:31–51Google Scholar
  59. Sellier D (2010) L’analyse intégrée du relief et la sélection déductive des géomorphosites: application à la Charente-Maritime (France). Géomorphologie 2:199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Serrano E, González Trueba JJ (2005) Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Géomorphologie 3:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sharples C (2002) Concepts and principles of geoconservation. Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service website. http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/geoconservation.pdf
  62. Vasile M (2014) Procese şi forme de dezagregare fizică a rocilor în areale din Carpaţii Meridionali şi Munţii Măcin, Teză de doctorat, Universitatea din BucureștiGoogle Scholar
  63. Wimbledon WAP, Benton MJ, Bevins RE, Black GP, Bridgland DR, Cleal CJ, Cooper RG, May VJ (1995) The development of a methodology for the selection of British geological sites for geoconservation: part 1. Mod Geol 20:159–202Google Scholar
  64. Wimbledon WAP, Ishchenko AA, Gerasimenko NP, Karis L. O, Suominen V, Johansson CE, Freden C (2000) Geosites-an iugs initiative: science supported by conservations. In: Barettino D, Wimbledon WAP, Gallego E (eds) Geological heritage: its conservation and managementGoogle Scholar
  65. Zouros N (2007) Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece. Case study of the Lesvos Island—coastal geomorphosites. Geogr Helv 62(3):169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The European Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Geography, Department of Geomorphology-Pedology-GeomaticsUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations