Advertisement

Geoheritage

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 1177–1186 | Cite as

Quantitative Assessments of Geodiversity in the Area of the Seridó Geopark Project, Northeast Brazil: Grid and Centroid Analysis

  • Matheus Lisboa Nobre da SilvaEmail author
  • Marcos Antonio Leite do Nascimento
  • Kátia Leite Mansur
Original Article

Abstract

The evaluation of geodiversity is one of the initial and main steps in the development of geoconservation actions. It is fundamental to establish parameters that quantify elements and places of abiotic nature in order to draw attention to those that are richer than the average. In doing so, it is possible to manage areas for the protection of notable geoheritage and to develop sustainable activities such as geotourism. The literature comprises several methodologies for the quantitative assessment of geodiversity, but the use of geoprocessing tools appears to be the least subjective type of analysis. From this standpoint, this work aimed to analyze the geodiversity in an area of geological interest in the northeast of Brazil by using two methodologies. The first is widely used and involved the definition of a grid to overlay the cartographic datasets that are used to define the geodiversity index. The second method is based on a centroid analysis of intersected datasets. These investigations showed that the two methodologies have similar aspects and produce a high geodiversity index for the area. This outcome supports the reliability of these methods when the results converge, with respect to the delimitation of the valuable places where geodiversity should be protected. These methods may be used as basis for the sustainable management of natural resources.

Keywords

Geodiversity Assessment Methodologies’ comparison Geoprocessing Grid analysis Centroid analysis 

Notes

Funding Information

The authors would like to thank Capes (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) for financing this work and PPGEO (Programa de Pós-Graduação em Geociências - Patrimônio Geopaleontológico / National Museum) for the support.

References

  1. Angelim LAA, Nesi JR, Torres HHF, Medeiros VC, Santos CA, Veiga Jr JP, Mendes VA (2006) Geologia e Recursos Minerais do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte – Escala 1:500.000. CPRM, RecifeGoogle Scholar
  2. Araújo AM, Pereira DI (2016) Mapeamento do Potencial dos Recursos Hídricos e da Geodiversidade do Estado do Ceará (Brasil) com base em SIG. Comun Geol 103(1):99–105Google Scholar
  3. Arruda KEC, Barreto AMF (2015) Índice de Geodiversidade do Município de Araripina - PE, Brasil. Estud Geol 25(1):103–117.  https://doi.org/10.18190/1980-8208/estudosgeologicos.v25n1p103-117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 86:19–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diniz MTM, Oliveira GP (2015) Compartimentação e Caracterização das Unidades de Paisagem do Seridó Potiguar. Braz Geo Jour 6(1):291–318Google Scholar
  6. Diniz MTM, Oliveira GP, Maia RP, Ferreira B (2017) Mapeamento Geomorfológico do Rio Grande do Norte. Rev Bras Geom 18(4):689–701Google Scholar
  7. Forte JP (2014) Avaliação quantitativa da geodiversidade: desenvolvimento de instrumentos metodológicos com aplicação ao ordenamento do território. PhD thesis, Sciences School, Minho UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. Forte JP, Brilha J, Pereira DI, Nolasco M (2018) Kernel density applied to the quantitative assessment of geodiversity. Geoheritage 10(2):205–217.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0282-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gray M (2004) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature, 1st edn. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  10. Gray M (2013) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  11. IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2005) Bases e referenciais. URL: https://mapas.ibge.gov.br/bases-e-referenciais/bases-cartograficas/cartas.html. Accessed in July 2018
  12. IDEMA – Instituto de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Meio Ambiente do Rio Grande do Norte (2009) Atlas para a Promoção do Investimento Sustentável no Rio Grande do Norte. Opção Gráfica Editora, NatalGoogle Scholar
  13. Jačková K, Romportl D (2008) The relationship between geodiversity and habitat richness in Sumava National Park and Krivoklatsko Pla (Czech Republic): a quantitative analysis approach. Jour of Land Ecol 1(1):23–38.  https://doi.org/10.2478/v10285-012-0003-6 Google Scholar
  14. Kot R (2014) The point Bonitation method for evaluating geodiversity: a guide with examples (polish lowland). Geogr Ann 97(2):375–393.  https://doi.org/10.1111/geoa.12079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kozlowski S (2004) Geodiversity. The concept and scope of geodiversity. Prz Geol 52(8):833–837Google Scholar
  16. Melelli L (2014) Geodiversity: a new quantitative index for natural protected areas enhancement. GeoJour of Tou and Geos 13(1):27–37Google Scholar
  17. Pereira DI, Pereira P, Brilha J, Santos L (2013) Geodiversity assessment of Paraná state (Brazil): an innovative approach. Environ Manag 52:541–552.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0100-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L, Scapozza C (2007) A method for assessing «scientific» and «additional values» of geomorphosites. Geogr Helv 62:148–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rodrigues SC, Bento LCM (2018) Cartografia da geodiversidade: teorias e métodos. In: Guerra AJT, Jorge MCO (org) Geoturismo, Geodiversidade, Geoconservação: abordagens geográficas e geológicas, 1st edn. Oficina de Textos, São Paulo. pp. 137–162Google Scholar
  20. Ruban DA (2010) Quantification of geodiversity and its loss. Proc Geol Assoc 121:326–333.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2010.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Santos DS, Mansur KL, Gonçalves JB, Arruda ER Jr, Manosso FC (2017) Quantitative assessment of geodiversity and urban growth impacts in Armação dos Búzios, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Appl Geogr 85:184–195.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Serrano E, Ruiz-Flaño P (2007) Geodiversity. A theoretical and applied concept. Geogr Helv 62:140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Silva MLN (2018) Serviços Ecossistêmicos e Índices de Geodiversidade como Suporte da Geoconservação no Geoparque Seridó. Dissertation, National Museum, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  24. Silva JP, Rodrigues C, Pereira DI (2015) Mapping and analysis of geodiversity indices in the Xingu River basin, Amazonia, Brazil. Geoheritage 7(4):337–350.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0134-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zwolinski Z (2010) The routine of landform geodiversity map design for the Polish Carpathian Mts. Land Anal 11:77–85Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The European Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Program in Geosciences, National MuseumFederal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Department of GeologyFederal University of Rio Grande do NorteNatalBrazil
  3. 3.Institute of GeosciencesFederal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations