Natural Heritage Mapping of the Las Batuecas-Sierra De Francia and Quilamas Nature Parks (SW Salamanca, Spain)

Transcription

1 Natural Heritage Mapping of the Las Batuecas-Sierra De Francia and Quilamas Nature Parks (SW Salamanca, Spain) ANTONIO MIGUEL MARTINEZ-GRAÑA 1, JOSE LUIS GOY Y GOY 1 and CARIDAD ZAZO CARDEÑA 2 1 Department of Geology, External Geodynamics Department, Faculty of Sciences, Square Merced s/n , Salamanca, University of Salamanca, SPAIN; amgranna@usal.es. 2 National Museum of Natural Sciences, Geology Section, C/ José Abascal no 2 Madrid, SPAIN. Abstract Natural heritage mapping is a significant tool for the conservation of protected natural areas because it allows the manager to rationally plan for the human use of these areas. This approach incorporates the characteristics of different assets (geological, ecological, biological, scenic and cultural), the categories to which the assets belong (areas, places and things), and the scientific, educational and cultural enhancement of the area s resources. We introduce the notion of binomial spatial biodiversity-geodiversity. This mapping effort is justified by the different requirements of environmental management (e.g., environmental impact assessment, environmental assessment, and urban planning). For these purposes, it is essential that thematic mapping identify the natural resources that constitute the natural heritage and that may be affected by anthropogenic activity. (Received 23 rd December 2010; Revised 15 th October 2011; Accepted 2 nd November 2011) ISSN doi: /jom

2 1. Introduction This paper provides an analysis of the geodiversity and biodiversity of two natural protected areas, the Batuecas-Sierra de Francia and Quilamas Nature Parks, in southern Salamanca province (Castilla y León, Spain). The paper will focus on the areas natural heritage. This focus will include the identification, evaluation and classification of instruments of social management (the planning of conservation and protection measures and the legislation specifying limitations on uses and activities) and the use of this heritage (e.g., nature classrooms, interpretive centers, itineraries, and hiking routes). The natural heritage includes the set of goods and resources associated with the natural sources of biological and geological diversity. The values of these goods and resources may be environmental, landscape, scientific or cultural (BOE, 2007). The geological heritage is the set of natural geological resources of scientific, cultural and/or educational value. It includes the formations and geological structures, landforms, minerals, rocks, meteorites, fossils, soils and other geological manifestations that facilitate the knowledge, study and interpretation of the following: a) the origin and evolution of the Earth; b) the processes that have shaped it; c) the climates and landscapes of the past and present; and d) the origin and evolution of life (BOE, 2007). The natural heritage found in a natural area, especially the geological heritage, has a variety of elements of social and scientific significance in addition to its intrinsic nature. These elements have a scientific dimension (e.g., stratigraphic, geomorphological, lithological, and paleontological) and a landscape dimension, both with implications for land management (Bruschi, 2007). The geodiversity or geological diversity of an area can be understood as the variety offered by geological elements, including the rocks, minerals, fossils, soils, forms of relief, formations and geological units and landscapes that are the product and record of the evolution of the Earth. If the geological diversity of the area is noteworthy and abundant, geological parks must be designated. Geological parks are delimited territories that present geologically unique forms of special scientific importance, singularity or beauty and that are representative of the evolutionary and geological history and of the events and processes that have formed the unique features of the area. A geological park may also be a place with outstanding archaeological, ecological or cultural values related to its geology (ITGE, 2000; Nieto, 2001; Palacios Suárez Val Grande, 2002; Gray, 2003; IGME, 2005; BOE, 2007; Parks and Mulligan, 2010). In land planning and management, it is crucial to perform an inventory and to catalog natural and social attractions to establish a comprehensive policy for optimal management. The goal of the policy is to favor environmental sustainability in the short and long term in a way that enhances the socioeconomic development of the local populations in a form compatible with the conservation aims for the area. The measures adopted as instruments foster the value, management, and protection of the geological 601

3 resources (georesources), both inside the natural area itself and in the peripheral zones of protection. For the natural areas discussed in this paper, criteria for biodiversity conservation have been predominant and virtually exclusive. Geological attractions have been ignored in planning and zoning. Therefore, the mapping will be complemented with a Natural Heritage inventory of existing georesources. This additional diagnosis and assessment encourages the conservation and preservation of the geological heritage, including the natural and historical heritage of the countryside. The mapping permits the implementation of educational, cultural, and tourism programs. This analysis suggests that adequate space be provided for visitors and thus strengthens the value of the area. The documentation and evaluation presented in this paper and in the accompanying map will help to manage and protect the site. This information will also help to implement the sustainable development of the area through wise and rational land use. These measures can minimize site degradation and can make the public aware of geodiversity, help the users of the area to better understand and enjoy their geological heritage, and integrate geological aspects of environmental education into classroom activities. 2. Materials and Methods The conservation and protection of the biotic elements of the landscape has been the chief reason for the designation of the 552 World Heritage Areas (Eder, 1999; Wimbledon et al., 2000; UNESCO, 2004). Only 36 areas have been selected for their natural and geological value, and only 3 areas have been selected for their geological value alone (Pemberton, 2001). Because social awareness of geological heritage protection is poorly developed, those responsible for the management of natural areas are guided by an emphasis on the protection and conservation of biodiversity, or, at most, by an emphasis on landscape. 2.1 Geological Heritage Geological features bear witness to the evolution of the Earth. These features merit conservation priority because their preservation facilitates the investigation, analysis and interpretation of all of the processes that have shaped the history of the Earth. It is likely that geological heritage areas will gain a significance beyond their role as a scientific and educational resource. They can represent a considerable economic resource 602

4 (a georesource) of growing interest for sustainable development strategies (geotourism), especially in protected natural areas. Moreover the prevailing view that biodiversity is more fragile than geodiversity does not recognize that some elements of geodiversity are equally vulnerable to irreversible loss. These vulnerable elements include the following: a) paleontological features and mineral deposits that provide information about the paleoenvironment, climatic conditions and paleogeography; b) deposits and geodynamic external forms that provide needed information about events and past geological processes so that the patterns of currents and ancient landscapes can be explained; and c) outcrops with stratigraphic structures that enable the interpretation of sequences of sea-level change and movements of the area related to plate tectonics and geological faults. The geodiversity of an area is one of the key factors that favor biodiversity (Gray, 2008; Ruban, 2010). In the region included in this study, the Peña de Francia area exemplifies opportunities for the development of geotourism. This topographically elevated site is one of the region s most important tourist areas. The features of the site include the views of the landscape provided by its scenic outlook and its religious, historical and cultural interest. It is a site of pilgrimage, and a hermitage and a monastery are situated at the top. The site s legends and myths are associated with historically important periods. The area is also of faunistic and botanical interest. The present geodiversity in this sector - Peña de Francia - is of significant value and enjoys a welldeserved reputation. The site consists of a tectonic clump, or high horst, and exhibits features characteristic of Appalachian relief. A hanging wall syncline may be observed at the highest summit. Quartzite is present at this highest point. This location bears witness to past marine environments and includes evidence of fossil-bearing sediments. These sediments are now far removed from the coastal zone. The dynamic dimensions of these features and the evidence of geodynamic evolution that they provide enriches the interest and scientific attraction of the site. Therefore, the area is demonstrably of fundamental geomorphologic, paleontological, petrologic, structural and stratigraphic interest. The installation of interpretive panels presenting the geological evolution of the area in schematic fashion would promote the area by highlighting its geodiversity. Information on the other components of the area s remaining natural heritage would add further value to the implementation of the geodiversity signage (Hackett, 1967). Geodiversity is vulnerable because geological education is inadequate. Some georesources lose value simply owing to a lack of protection. Losses are caused by the theft and indiscriminate removal of specimens for collections, by the extraction of materials for construction (e.g., the use of fossil-bearing materials for the whitewash of houses), and by the posting of notices or the placement of paintings to cover stratigraphic sequences. Losses also result from a lack of conservation and planning (e.g., erosive processes and improper building). Geodiversity includes the number and variety of structures and geological materials that comprise the bedrock of a region (Nieto, 2001; Brocx and Semeniuk, 2010). The regional geomorphology is also important and must be considered to evaluate the geo- 603

5 diversity of the Las Batuecas-Sierra de Francia and Quilamas natural areas. The landscape provides the context for the existing high biodiversity in the area. Because of the landscape s high biodiversity, areas of special protection for fauna and flora have been designated. We distinguished among areas, places, and points of geological interest. This process enabled us to identify, document, evaluate, and describe the geological interest of different features of the study area. Areas of geological interest (AGIs) are those with a large territorial extent (measured in km 2 ) and include relevant geological outcrops (e.g., the Appalachian relief as an indicator of regional geological events), evidence of significant geomorphological processes (e.g., a scarp that determines fluvial sedimentation and the formation of gullies) and landscape elements that offer insight into the history and geology of the study area. For example, several points of geomorphological, paleontological, petrological, stratigraphic and/or structural interest are found in the Las Batuecas valley. Places of geological interest (PGIs) are territorial sectors of lesser extent (approximately 1,000 m 2-1 or 2 km 2 ) than AGIs. The information used to identify PGIs reflect the different regional patterns that characterize the area. Unlike AGIs, PGIs may include elements that are also found in other parts of the same region. We can include information about different materials (i.e., their genesis), environments (i.e., depositional elements) and processes (e.g., erosion, denudation and/or deposit-flood processes). For example, the karst area of La Rinconada formations, algal organic structures, carbonate dissolution processes, and other features that characterize and identify the paleoenvironments and processes unique to this region. Geological points of interest (GPIs) are geological outcrops or sites at which a given environment, shape and/or key geological process in regional history can be analyzed. Their territorial extent (1 m m 2 ) is less than that of PGIs. For example, a GPI could be a geological location composed of a quartzite outcrop that may be discordant with the Cambrian limestone, a paleontological or educational site, or a profile that exhibits certain folded structures. If several GPIs occur in mutual proximity in a sector of a territory, that sector is included in a PGI. Similarly, several PGIs produce one AGI. These designations differ according to the major or minor presence of geodiversity (a scientific/geological criterion), the dimensions or extent of the area (a spatial criterion), and the effects of geotourism (Hose, 1997). These terms are commonly used in discussions of the topic of geological heritage (O Halloran et al., 1994; Fiore et al., 2003; UNESCO, 2004; Van den Ancker, 2005; Bruschi, 2007). We first collected information about different points of geological interest. This information was obtained from publications and from thematic experts (geologists who have written doctoral theses in fields and on topics pertaining to the study area, including the stratigraphy of the Ordovician, tectonics, petrology and paleontology). Subsequent 604

6 field investigations were made during several trips that included photography, geological sampling, making maps and data collection. This information was tabulated on cards. One card was used for each CPI, PGI and AGI. Three parameters of value were recorded: a) the state of conservation of the point of interest; b) the quality of the georesource as shown by its commonness or rarity in the region and the nation, its spatial extent and diversity, and its scientific importance and didactic interest; and c) the potential for use, as indicated by possible tourist activities, accessibility, the types and availability of equipment, the conditions under which the researchers observed the site and the number of potential tourists. These parameters were applied to evaluate the different points of geological interest, using the cards to develop a valuation procedure. The scientific or educational significance of each point of interest was specified, and the cards corresponding to the points of interest were then sorted by value, from the highest-ranked point to the lowest-ranked point. This procedure for ranking the points by value incorporated full knowledge about the areas and sites most relevant for conservation (Flawn, 1970; Panizza et al., 1983; Gallego and Garcá-Cortes, 1996; Panizza, 2001; Garcá-Cortes et al., 2000). The cartography of the geological heritage investigated in this study was developed by digitizing the relevant vector information (points, lines and polygons) within a GIS. The procedure used georeference orthophotography at a scale of 1:10,000. The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection (European Datum 1950 (ED50), Zone 30) was selected. The coordinates of the points of geological interest were measured in the field using a global positioning system (GPS) receiver. Owing to the relatively high spatial extent of the study area, the cartography used for the mapping of the geological heritage information was developed at a scale of 1:50, Landscape Heritage The landscape heritage is defined to include scenic areas of higher perceptual quality that are included in Natural Heritage mapping to recognize the importance of the landscape resource and to promote the conservation of the relevant sectors (Stevens et al., 1992; Reynard, 2002; Pereira and Pereira, 2010). First, intrinsic quality is defined on the basis of geomorphology (geomorphological domains, slope, and sinuosity of the land), lithology (lithological domains), hydrology (rivers and lakes), and vegetation (the plant community, and its diversity, density and stratification). Extrinsic quality is then determined based on the distribution of urban areas and property and in terms of the characteristics of visibility, accessibility, and human visits. The thematic cartography that defines the intrinsic quality was developed as follows: a) at a scale of 1:50,000 for geoprocessing technologies (to portray the slopes and sinuosity of the terrain); b) with previous stereoscopic photointerpretations at a scale of 1:18,000 to detail the geomorphologic units that 605

7 have been simplified by representing them as geomorphologic domains (these domains were digitized and georeferenced to produce a map of the geomorphologic domains); and c) by scanning and digitizing the cartographies developed from this information (a geological map). In a later stage of the analysis, the maps were transformed from vector format to raster format for later multi-criterion analysis. The pixels were reclassified by analyzing their ranges of values and establishing a weighting in which the geological components were given higher priorities than the other components. The map of the intrinsic quality of the landscape was developed from these analyses. The thematic cartography used to obtain the map of the extrinsic quality of the landscape was developed entirely with GIS technologies (digital elevation model, interpolation, calculations of distances, and tracings of the visibility of sites from roads and urban areas). The information used was essentially in the form of boolean (0-1) maps. These maps were then weighted by assigning high values to the sectors containing significant geological heritage sites. These outstanding sites were characterized and further recognized by their altitude, by their impact on the landscape, and by their uniqueness. The "Peña de Francia" included several such outstanding sites. The information thus obtained was analyzed using the algebra of maps to obtain the map representing the extrinsic quality of the landscape. The map of the quality of the landscape was then developed from the previous two maps by assigning more weight to the map of intrinsic quality than to the map of extrinsic quality. This analysis produced a map of the overall quality of the landscape ata scale of 1:50, Ecological Heritage Ecological heritage consists of ecologically sensitive areas with different ranges of biodiversity protection (the biotic component and ecosystems) and of geodiversity (the abiotic component). Ecological heritage is recognized and documented through the mapping of Protected Natural Areas, Special Interest Natural Areas, Sites of Community Importance (SCI) or Special Areas of Conservation, Humid Areas and Special Protection Areas for Birds. These maps were downloaded from Natura 2000 ( servicios/banco-de-datos-biodiversidad/informacion-disponible/red_natura_2000.aspx) of the Department of Environment in a georeferenced shape file (UTM projection, European Datum 1950 (ED50), Zone 30). These maps were sometimes difficult to use because the graphics for some protected areas were superimposed on those for others, whilst we had to develop independent cartographic representations of every ecological area. Moreover, the downloaded maps included several combinations of different textures and colors. 606

8 2.4 Biological Heritage The botanical component of biological heritage was analyzed by identifying points of interest and the outstanding botanical features associated with these points. This information included species of outstanding interest and the presence of endemic forms (Sutherland and Hill, 1995). Biodiversity, unlike geodiversity, is recognized in Spain by specific, extensive legislation that favors biotic protection. This legislation also identifies the faunal component of the biological heritage. However, the measurement of faunal parameters is difficult because of the ongoing dynamism of the fauna. The available data consist of information on the points at which species of interest have been observed, either directly or through indirect evidence of their presence. Recovery plans are available for some species, such as the Imperial Eagle and Black Stork. These recovery plans have produced maps of critical areas in which the species of concern are found in our study area. The cartography for the faunal component of biodiversity was developed by digitizing the points at which species of interest occurred or at which evidence of singular and endemic species was available. This analysis was based on georeferenced orthophotos. Some of these points were identified by referencing the UTM coordinates given by the faunal cards produced by the environmental administration. Other points were identified through sightings reported by hunters in the area. The biodiversity maps were produced in a format similar to that of the study s other maps at a scale of 1:50,000 (UTM projection, European Datum 1950 (ED50), Zone 30) 2.5 Socioeconomic Heritage Socioeconomic heritage was included in the analysis by identifying the historical, artistic, and cultural life of the Las Batuecas-Sierra de Francia and Quilamas Natural Areas and the associated areas of socioeconomic influence. To achieve the goals of conservation and protection in the future planning and management of these natural areas, the analysis of the socioeconomic heritage also includes cultural assets. To develop the map of the socioeconomic heritage, specific elements of the study area s patrimony were identified. Numerous such elements were found, primarily within urban areas or in the surrounding countryside. Some villages contain designated Historical Monuments and have different features that are protected (e.g., castles, bridges, walls). The socioeconomic heritage also includes the archaeological heritage (e.g., cave paintings and Roman settlements). These points were plotted directly on the natural heritage map. The GPS information from the field research was digitized with coordinates obtained from the Department of Culture and Information. The information used 607

9 for this analysis identified the historical and artistic heritage of the study area in its cultural context. The patrimonial resources considered in this section of the paper include the form of life, customs and traditions. The maps in paper format at scales of 1:100,000 and 1:500,000 were georeferenced. We included sectors of agricultural protection and protected public hills in the study area by digitizing this information at a scale of 1:50,000. These forms of protection have permitted the balanced and sustainable development of these mountain areas. We included sectors protected by national laws, including such features as the different categories of drovers paths (i.e., cañadas (glens), cordeles (strings of paths), veredas (sidewalk paths) and coladas). These routes or itineraries are used for the passage of livestock or have been used traditionally for this purpose. The UTM projection was used (European Datum 1950 (ED50), Zone 30) at a scale of 1:50,000. The final maps were edited using a vector format (points, lines and polygons) transformed to a Boolean raster. 3. Results and Discussion By combining geological, landscape, ecological, biological, and socioeconomic heritage elements, we obtained a natural heritage map for the study area. This paper and the map portray a major Geological Heritage region in Spain. This study identified 4 AGIs, 8 PGIs, and 41 GPIs in the region. Most of these areas are located within the protected natural areas, but some occur in the external zones of influence of the protected areas. The geological diversity revealed by the study can be characterized in terms of several different aspects: a) geomorphological (e.g., quarries, river encasement); b) lithological (e.g., quartzite, slate), with varying degrees of metamorphism; c) stratigraphic and sedimentological (e.g., marine environments with different characteristic sedimentary structures); and d) paleontological (ichnofossils and fossils characteristic of different geological periods) (Figure 1). The geology, flora and fauna of the natural areas of the Natural Park of Las Batuecas- Sierra de Francia clearly illustrate the interdependence of geodiversity and biodiversity. Scientific, cultural, educational and recreational values are simultaneously present. Both natural areas are represented by their geological points of interest. Nature classroom programs and other educational activities will benefit from an understanding and comprehension of the processes and geological history of the areas and the region. In this study, the landscape layer was developed by first evaluating different landscape units through direct and indirect methods. Only the areas of high- and very high-quality landscape were selected. Landscape of outstanding quality represents an essential ele- 608

10 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Figure 1. Examples of Geological Heritage: (a) syncline (appalachian relief); (b) "crucianas" (trilobites s tracks) in the Peña de Francia; (c) folds and structures exhibiting refraction; (d) algal laminations; (e) exhumation and jointing of the granite surface in Sequeros; (f) wave ripples. 609

11 ment for the conservation and management of any natural area. The direct methods allowed us to perform semi-quantitative analyses. We used weighting methods based on visual information, on classification schemes for field data and on panoramic photographs. This approach allowed us to model the area in three dimensions using raster GIS methods with information on the color, form, representation and size of the components of the landscape (rocks, vegetation, soils and water). The indirect quantitative methods consisted of a cartographic procedure that integrated the cartography of the different components (lithology, geomorphologic domains, hydrology and geological heritage) before weighting. The results of this procedure were used to construct a cartographic model based on the algebra of maps. Both methods of analysis of the landscape (direct and indirect) complement each other perfectly in this natural space. This result justifies the high valuation placed on the cartographies that included geological components. In this procedure for natural heritage mapping, these cartographies together with the layers of the landscape (determined by the geology) represent the components that a priori form the structure of the territory. This representation is complemented at the level of major detail by other ecological, biological and socioeconomic components. 4. Conclusion The cartography of the natural heritage in these protected natural spaces reveals the spatial co-occurrence of substantial geodiversity and biodiversity. Our research also establishes a broader scientific and educational approach to territorial analysis. This mapping effort shows excellent complementarity and interelationships for the following: a) environmental sustainability (protection, conservation); b) promoting the creation of integrated products for tourism (e.g., scientific and didactic itineraries, routes of hiking); and c) encouraging competitiveness in the development of rural alternative tourism, thereby offering new sustainable opportunities for the inhabitants of the abovementioned areas (e.g., the improvement of infrastructure, increase in the quality of life, employment). The correct spatial distribution of the points and areas of major natural interest, especially of the geodiversity (more often known for its lack of detailed cartographies) allows the development of the territory in a different way based on the unique elements present in the Nature Reserve. The Map of the Natural Heritage readily promotes the possible inclusion of geotourism (through the AGIs, PGIs, and GPIs), in pre-established itineraries incorporating the time dimension and the history of the Earth in physical, landscape and cultural analyses. The substantial volume of digital cartographic information included in the cartography of the natural heritage (i.e., the holdings) demonstrates the need for GIS tools in cartographic applications. This approach offers the following capabilities: a) the convenient 610

12 editing and capture of spatial information; b) the generation of geodatasets (images and photography); c) the analysis of proximity (used to address the extrinsic quality of the landscape); d) the overlapping of different layers of thematic information; e) changes in the formats and design of the elements of geodiversity georeferencing; and f) the ability to obtain new cartographies with the algebra of maps and to implement these maps in a framework that can be examined before a definitive model is constructed. An equally important feature of this research is the substantial extension of the sector of study represented by the processing of the information on any maps originally produced at a scale of 1:10,000. The points on these maps corresponded to digital information. However, these points were not originally represented on the 1:50,000 scale used in this study. In this study, the changes in the type and size of the symbology, and the variety of color schemes available allowed a better integration of any wealth assets in the cartography used to construct the Natural Heritage map (holdings). This approach facilitated a global and integral vision of the distribution and relative spatial position of the different caps of the heritage map. Software The Natural Heritage Map was developed using ESRI ArcGIS 9.3 for georeferencing, digitizing the different thematic maps and the production of the different thematic maps. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the helpful comments by the reviewers and the support furnished by the following National Projects: CGL /BTE, CGL /BTE and the Project of the Junta de Castilla y León: SA041A08. References BOE (2007) Ley Orgánica 16/2007, de 13 de diciembre, complementaria de la Ley para el desarrollo sostenible del medio rural, Boletín Oficial del Estado, 299, 51,275 51,327. BROCX, M. and SEMENIUK, V. (2010) Coastal geoheritage: a hierarchical approach to classifying coastal types as a basis for identifying geodiversity and sites of significance in Western Australia., Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 93, BRUSCHI, V. M. (2007) Desarrollo de una metodología para la caracterización, evaluación y gestión de los recursos de la geodiversidad, Unpublished MSc Thesis, University? 611

13 EDER, W. (1999) UNESCO GEOPARKS. A new initiative for protection and sustainable development of the Earth s heritage, Neues Jahrbuch für Gologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen, FIORE, A., PIEDILATO, S. and MORETTI, V. (2003) Conservazione e Valorizzazione del Patrimonio Geologico. Geologia dellšambiente., vol. Suplemento 1, Società Italiana di Geologia Ambientale., 272 pp. FLAWN, P. T. (1970) Environmental Geology. Conservation, Land-Use Planning and Resource Management, Harper and Row, New York. GALLEGO, E. and GARCÁ-CORTES, A. (1996) Patrimonio Geológico y Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Geogaceta, 19, GARCÁ-CORTES, A., BARETTINO, D. and GALLEGO, E. (2000) Patrimonio Geológico: Conservación y Gestión, chap. Inventario y catalogación del Patrimonio Geológico Español. Revisión histórica y propuestas de futuro, ITGE-Spain, pp GRAY, M. (2003) Geodiversity. Valuing and conserving a biotic nature, Wiley, 434 pp. GRAY, M. (2008) Geodiversity: developing the paradigm, Proceedings of the Geologists Association, 119 (3-4), HACKETT, J. E. (1967) Geology and Physical planning, In Water, Geology and the future, Water Resources Centre, pp HOSE, T. A. (1997) Geotourism. Selling the Herat to Europe, Engineering Geology and the Environment, IGME (2005) Geociencias, Recursos y Patrimonio Geológicos, No. 3 in Serie Geología y Geofísica, IGME, 210 pp. ITGE (2000) El Patrimonio Geológico, Serie Ingeniería Geoambiental, ITGE, 23 pp. NIETO, L. M. (2001) Geodiversidad: propuesta de una definición integradora, Boletín Geológico y Minero, 112, O HALLORAN, D., GREEN, C., HARLEY, M. and KNILL, J. (1994) Geological Landscape and Conservation, London Geological Society. PALACIOS SUÁREZ VAL GRANDE, J. (2002) Geodiversidad y riqueza patrimonial de Castilla y León, Tierra and Tecnología, 24, PANIZZA, M. (2001) Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and examples of geomorphological survey, Chinese Science Bulletin, 46 (Suppl 1), 4 5. PANIZZA, M., BERTOLANI, M., CARTON, A. and SOLMI, M. (1983) Principali evidenze geomorphologiche della provincial de Midena. Relazioni sullo statu dell ambiente nella provincia di Modena, Assessoratoalla Difusa del Suelo e de llambiente, PARKS, K. E. and MULLIGAN, M. (2010) On the relationship between a resource based measure of geodiversity and broad scale biodiversity patterns, Biodiversity and Conservation, 19 (9), PEMBERTON, M. (2001) Conserving Geodiversity: the case of geoparks, Division of Earth Sciences. UNESCO. 612

14 PEREIRA, P. and PEREIRA, D. (2010) Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment, Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement, 2/2010, REYNARD, E. (2002) Report of meeting of the working group Geomorphological Sites,. RUBAN, D. A. (2010) Quantification of geodiversity and its loss, Proceedings of the Geologists Association, 121 (3), STEVENS, C., GORDON, J. E., GREEN, C. P. and MACKLIN, M. G. (1992) Conserving Our Heritage: Envolving Landforms and Ice-Age Heritage, English Nature. SUTHERLAND, W. J. and HILL, D. A. (1995) Managing Habitats for Conservation. Managing Habitats for Conservation, Cambridge University Press. UNESCO (2004) Operational Guideline for National Geoparks seeking UNESCOŠs assistance, Paris. VAN DEN ANCKER, H. (2005) The EU manifesto on Herat Heritage and Geodiversity, Rev. European Geologist, 19, 8 9. WIMBLEDON, W. A. P., ISCHENKO, A. A., GERASIMENKO, N. P., KARIS, L. O., SUOMINEN, V., JOHANSSON, C. E. and FREDEN, C. (2000) Patrimonio Geológico: Conservación y Gestión, chap. Proyecto Geosites, una iniciativa de la Unión Internacional de las Ciencias Geológicas (IUGS). La ciencia respaldada por la conservación, IGME, pp