UNESCO Global Geoparks: Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement 2019946971, 9781786304858, 1786304856

Table of contents :
Cover......Page 1
Half-Title Page......Page 3
Title Page......Page 5
Copyright Page......Page 6
Contents......Page 7
The Geoheritage Structure Within the World’s Geoparks: Tension in a Multiplicity of Cultural, Economic and Scientific Contexts......Page 13
I.1. The Geopark H2020 program......Page 17
I.2. A year of upheaval in the initial program......Page 19
I.3. The UGG, a tension between territorial development and heritage enhancement......Page 21
I.4. Inventory and conservation of heritage......Page 25
I.5. Geotourism and education......Page 29
I.6. References......Page 31
PART 1: Objectives, Issues and Tensions Related to the Patrimonialization of Nature......Page 35
1.1. Introduction......Page 37
1.3. A brief history of participatory mechanisms and environmental democracy......Page 38
1.4. Critical assessments of participatory mechanisms and environmental democracy......Page 41
1.5. Points of tension within protected natural areas......Page 45
1.5.1. The significant dimension of the devices......Page 47
1.5.2. The proliferation and professionalization of intermediaries......Page 48
1.6. The example of the Lanzarote geopark: top-down approach and brand logic......Page 49
1.7. Conclusion: the democratic consequences of the contradictions of participation......Page 51
1.8. References......Page 53
2.1. Introduction......Page 57
2.2. Problematic issues......Page 58
2.3. Methodology and construction of the corpus......Page 61
2.4. The construction of the story of the mental territory of the Spanish geoparks......Page 62
2.4.1. First initiatives to protect geological aspects in Spain......Page 63
2.4.2. Various definitions of geological heritage in Spain......Page 65
2.4.3. Cultural enhancement of geological heritage: a disciplinary approach between protection and dissemination of geology......Page 69
2.5. Conclusion......Page 81
2.6. References......Page 82
3.1. Introduction......Page 87
3.2. Economic development and the use of heritage in the Catalan Pyrenees......Page 89
3.3. The protection of Catalan geological heritage and its valorization through geoparks......Page 91
3.4. The Tremp-Montsec Basin Geopark Project and the creation of a territory brand......Page 97
3.5. The declaration of the Tremp Geopark and the definition of its future challenges......Page 105
3.6. References......Page 108
4.1. Introduction......Page 111
4.2.1. The relationship to heritage and patrimonialization in Morocco: between identity, museumization and commodification......Page 112
4.2.2. What is the debate on the social acceptability and local utility of geoparks?......Page 113
4.3. Challenges in the territorial construction of geoparks and their heritage development......Page 116
4.3.1. Challenges in the fight against poverty and/or heritage preservation......Page 117
4.3.2. Challenges of intersectoral articulation and integration......Page 118
4.3.3. Governance challenges for geoparks projects: involving residents......Page 120
4.4. Questions and reservations about the contribution of a UNESCO model of geoparks for development in the South......Page 122
4.5. References......Page 124
5.1. Introduction1......Page 125
5.2. Museums and heritage sites in the market economy......Page 126
5.3. The economic discourse on heritage......Page 129
5.4. Economic evaluation......Page 131
5.5. From the cultural economy to the creative economy......Page 133
5.6. The economic challenges of geopark development......Page 136
5.7. References......Page 138
PART 2: Heritage Inventory and Conservation......Page 143
6.2. Geological context of the study area......Page 145
6.5. SWOT analysis and diagnosis......Page 150
6.6.1. Geoethics framework......Page 152
6.6.2. Assessment of the geodiversity......Page 153
6.6.3. Selection of sites of geological interest for scientific, didactic or tourist use......Page 157
6.6.5. Geosites of didactic interest: fostering the teaching of geology......Page 160
6.6.6. Geosites of geotourism interest: fostering sustainable tourism......Page 161
6.7. Discussion and conclusion......Page 162
6.8. References......Page 163
7.1. Introduction......Page 167
7.2.2. Socioecological transects......Page 170
7.2.3. Study area: Zat Valley (Atlas Mountains, Morocco)......Page 172
7.3.1. Chromatic assessment......Page 173
7.4. Conclusions......Page 176
7.6. References......Page 177
8.1. Introduction......Page 181
8.2. The park......Page 183
8.3. The people......Page 187
8.4. Archaeology: the marks of history......Page 192
8.4.1. A communal feast......Page 196
8.5. Conclusion......Page 199
8.6. References......Page 200
9.1. Introduction: presentation of the site and scientific interest......Page 203
9.2. Contemporary situation of the site......Page 205
9.4. Work of the French team and interest from local authorities......Page 206
9.5. Rock art, a source of regional enhancement, and the dynamics of the integration of rock art into Moroccan heritage......Page 208
9.6. The World Heritage nomination process for the Tighmert Oasis and its surroundings......Page 210
9.7. Contribution of recent work to the preservation of remote and fragile archaeological sites......Page 211
9.8. References......Page 212
PART 3: Geotourism and Education......Page 215
10.1. Introduction......Page 217
10.2.1. Constructing a coherent and readable approach to the territory......Page 218
10.2.2. The virtual museum: a virtual reality or an imaginary space?......Page 219
10.2.3. Which model for the Zat Valley?......Page 220
10.3.1. A virtual museum: why?......Page 221
10.3.2. The case of geoparks......Page 222
10.3.3. A virtual museum: for whom?......Page 223
10.4. The Zat Valley Geopark Project: a story of a territory through an application......Page 224
10.4.1. Overview of available tools......Page 225
10.5. Conclusion......Page 229
10.6. References......Page 230
11.1. Introduction: the value of a study of communication in education in French geoparks......Page 233
11.2. A semiological and content analysis of communication in terms of website education for four French geoparks......Page 234
11.3. Legitimizing by making a site: the enunciation of the educational territory......Page 237
11.4. Legitimizing by making sense: the statement of ESD in schools......Page 241
11.5. Conclusion......Page 244
11.6. References......Page 245
11.7. Documents cited from the corpus......Page 246
12.1. Introduction......Page 249
12.2. Architects’ perspectives on the integration of museums in the territory......Page 251
12.2.1. Analysis of architectural mediation......Page 252
12.3. Geopark museums in China......Page 253
12.4. Presentation of the three geoparks selected......Page 255
12.4.1. The Taishan UGG......Page 256
12.4.2. The Fangshan UGG......Page 261
12.4.3. The Dali Mt Cangshan UGG......Page 265
12.6. References......Page 269
List of Authors......Page 271
Index......Page 275
Other titles from iSTE in Ecological Science......Page 279
EULA......Page 281

Citation preview

UNESCO Global Geoparks

UNESCO Global Geoparks Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement

Edited by

Yves Girault

First published 2019 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address: ISTE Ltd 27-37 St George’s Road London SW19 4EU UK

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street Hoboken, NJ 07030 USA

www.iste.co.uk

www.wiley.com

© ISTE Ltd 2019 The rights of Yves Girault to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Library of Congress Control Number: 2019946971 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-78630-485-8

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yves GIRAULT Part 1. Objectives, Issues and Tensions Related to the Patrimonialization of Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 1. Natural Heritage, Participatory Democracy and UNESCO: a Structure of Disillusionment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Igor BABOU 1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. The participation in question. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. A brief history of participatory mechanisms and environmental democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4. Critical assessments of participatory mechanisms and environmental democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5. Points of tension within protected natural areas . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.1. The significant dimension of the devices . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.2. The proliferation and professionalization of intermediaries . 1.5.3. Standardization of participation models. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6. The example of the Lanzarote geopark: top-down approach and brand logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7. Conclusion: the democratic consequences of the contradictions of participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

1 3

. . . . . . . .

3 4

. . . .

4

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

7 11 13 14 15

. . . .

15

. . . . . . . .

17 19

Chapter 2. The Ambivalences of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory: a Case Study on Spanish UGGs . . . . . . . . . Catalina GONZALEZ TEJADA and Yves GIRAULT

23

2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

vi

UNESCO Global Geoparks

2.2. Problematic issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Methodology and construction of the corpus . . . . . . . . 2.4. The construction of the story of the mental territory of the Spanish geoparks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1. First initiatives to protect geological aspects in Spain 2.4.2. Various definitions of geological heritage in Spain . . 2.4.3. Cultural enhancement of geological heritage: a disciplinary approach between protection and dissemination of geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24 27

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28 29 31

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35 47 48

Chapter 3. The History of the Earth as a New Form of Territorial Marketing: the Case of the Geopark of the Tremp-Montsec Basin (Spain) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fabien VAN GEERT

53

3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Economic development and the use of heritage in the Catalan Pyrenees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. The protection of Catalan geological heritage and its valorization through geoparks . . . . . . . . . 3.4. The Tremp-Montsec Basin Geopark Project and the creation of a territory brand . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. The declaration of the Tremp Geopark and the definition of its future challenges . . . . . . . 3.6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71 74

Chapter 4. Patrimonialization and the Geopark Label: for Which Development Model in the South? The Case of Morocco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ouidad TEBAA and Saïd BOUJROUF

77

4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Geopark in Morocco: new label, new territory and new heritage process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1. The relationship to heritage and patrimonialization in Morocco: between identity, museumization and commodification . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2. What is the debate on the social acceptability and local utility of geoparks? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. Challenges in the territorial construction of geoparks and their heritage development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

77

.

78

.

78

.

79

.

82

Contents

4.3.1. Challenges in the fight against poverty and/or heritage preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2. Challenges of intersectoral articulation and integration . . . . . . . 4.3.3. Governance challenges for geoparks projects: involving residents . 4.4. Questions and reservations about the contribution of a UNESCO model of geoparks for development in the South . . . . . . . 4.5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 5. The Evolution of the Economics of Culture and its Influence on the Development of Geoparks . . . . . . François MAIRESSE 5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Museums and heritage sites in the market economy . 5.3. The economic discourse on heritage . . . . . . . . . . 5.4. Economic evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5. From the cultural economy to the creative economy. 5.6. The economic challenges of geopark development . 5.7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

vii

83 84 86 88 90 91

. . . . . . .

91 92 95 97 99 102 104

Part 2. Heritage Inventory and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

109

Chapter 6. Methodological Proposal for the Valorization of the Geodiversity of Rural Areas Comparable with the Zat Valley . . . . . 111 Joan POCH, Antonio TEIXELL, David GÓMEZ-GRAS, Francisco José MARTÍNEZ, Esteve CARDELLACH and José Luis BRIANSÓ 6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. Geological context of the study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5. SWOT analysis and diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6. Results: methodological proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.1. Geoethics framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.2. Assessment of the geodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.3. Selection of sites of geological interest for scientific, didactic or tourist use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.4. Geosites of scientific interest: fostering scientific research . . . 6.6.5. Geosites of didactic interest: fostering the teaching of geology . 6.6.6. Geosites of geotourism interest: fostering sustainable tourism . 6.7. Discussion and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

111 111 116 116 116 118 118 119

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

123 126 126 127 128 129

viii

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Chapter 7. Interpreting Landscapes from a Socioecological Perspective: a Methodological Approach from the Zat Valley (Morocco) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Martí BOADA JUNCÀ, Roser MANEJA ZARAGOZA, Jaume MARLÈS MAGRE, Josep Antoni PUJANTELL ALBÓS, Sònia SÀNCHEZ-MATEO and Carles BARRIOCANAL LOZANO 7.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1. Chromatic assessment and identification of landscape units. 7.2.2. Socioecological transects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3. Study area: Zat Valley (Atlas Mountains, Morocco) . . . . . 7.3. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1. Chromatic assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

133 136 136 136 138 139 139 142 143 143

Chapter 8. The Feeling of Archaeology and the Sense of History in the Mixteca Alta Geopark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Francisco VALDEZ

147

8.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2. The park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3. The people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4. Archaeology: the marks of history 8.4.1. A communal feast . . . . . . . 8.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

Chapter 9. One of the First Rock Art Sites Discovered and Now Protected in Morocco: the Case of Azrou Iklane (Assa Region, Morocco) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gwenola GRAFF, Maxence BAILLY, Abdelhadi EWAGUE and Martin LOYER

169

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

147 149 153 158 162 165 166

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

9.1. Introduction: presentation of the site and scientific interest . . 9.2. Contemporary situation of the site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3. History of searches on the site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4. Work of the French team and interest from local authorities . . 9.5. Rock art, a source of regional enhancement, and the dynamics of the integration of rock art into Moroccan heritage 9.6. The World Heritage nomination process for the Tighmert Oasis and its surroundings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7. Contribution of recent work to the preservation of remote and fragile archaeological sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

169 171 172 172

. . . . .

174

. . . . .

176

. . . . . . . . . .

177 178

Contents

ix

Part 3. Geotourism and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

181

Chapter 10. Visualizing the Heritage of the Zat Valley Through a Virtual Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Élisabeth HABERT and Ali AOUDA

183

10.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2. From GIS to the virtual museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.1. Constructing a coherent and readable approach to the territory . 10.2.2. The virtual museum: a virtual reality or an imaginary space? . . 10.2.3. Which model for the Zat Valley? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3. The Virtual Museum of the Zat Valley: an innovation at the service of local heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.1. A virtual museum: why? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.2. The case of geoparks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.3. A virtual museum: for whom? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4. The Zat Valley Geopark Project: a story of a territory through an application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.1. Overview of available tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.2. Methodology and tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

183 184 184 185 186

. . . .

187 187 188 189

. . . . .

190 191 192 195 196

Chapter 11. Web Communication of French Geoparks in Education: the Expression of Their Legitimacy . . . . . Aurélie ZWANG

199

11.1. Introduction: the value of a study of communication in education in French geoparks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2. A semiological and content analysis of communication in terms of website education for four French geoparks . . . . . . . . . 11.3. Legitimizing by making a site: the enunciation of the educational territory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4. Legitimizing by making sense: the statement of ESD in schools 11.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.7. Documents cited from the corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

199

. . .

200

. . . . .

. . . . .

203 207 210 211 212

Chapter 12. The Architectural Mediation of Geoparks Museums in China: Between Tensions and Hybridization of Cultures . . . . . . Yi DU and Yves GIRAULT

215

. . . . .

12.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2. Architects’ perspectives on the integration of museums in the territory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2.1. Analysis of architectural mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

215 217 218

x

UNESCO Global Geoparks

12.3. Geopark museums in China . . . . . . . . . 12.4. Presentation of the three geoparks selected 12.4.1. The Taishan UGG . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4.2. The Fangshan UGG . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4.3. The Dali Mt Cangshan UGG . . . . . . 12.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

219 221 222 227 231 235 235

List of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

237

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

241

Introduction The Geoheritage Structure Within the World’s Geoparks: Tension in a Multiplicity of Cultural, Economic and Scientific Contexts

The international consideration of geological heritage conservation has been relatively late in relation to the many decisions taken for nature protection/conservation. For example, the first international symposium on the protection of geological heritage held in Digne-les-Bains (France) in 1991 was coorganized by the European Working Group on Earth Science Conservation (EWGESC) founded in the Netherlands in 1988. The International Declaration of the Rights of the Memories of the Earth (1991), signed on this occasion, refers to “the memory of the Earth” to stimulate public interest in respect and in fine, the conservation of this heritage has, according to Jones, formed the philosophical basis for the future Geopark program (Jones 2008, p. 274). In 1993, in Mitwitz-Cologne (Germany), the EWGESC became The European Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage, better known by its acronym (ProGEO) and it will continue to be involved in the conservation of the geological heritage. However, several authors point out that the idea of creating geoparks emerged at the 30th International Geological Congress in Beijing in 1996 (Zhao and Zhao 2003, p. 391; Zouros 2004, p. 165; McKeever and Zouros 2005, p. 274; Du and Girault 2018, p. 6). The Geoparks Program, presented in 1999 within UNESCO to draw attention to geological conservation as a separate entity to complement the World Heritage

Introduction written by Yves GIRAULT. The work presented in this Introduction is part of the Geopark H2020 program and was funded by the European Union’s Research and Innovation Program Horizon 2020 under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 644015.

xii

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Convention and the Man and the Biosphere Program proposed the following definition: “As recommended by the expert meetings, a geopark will be a dedicated area enclosing features of special geological significance, rarity or beauty. These features need to be representative of the geological history of a particular area and the events and processes that formed it” (UNESCO, 156 EX/11 Rev. 1999, p. 2). Subsequently, the focus of the new geopark concept on the joint consideration of geosite heritage and local development, particularly through geotourism, was confirmed in the charter of the European Geopark Network (EGN) signed in 2000. The EGN was then largely inspired by the LEADER II program (Links between actions for the development of the rural economy)1, whose approach involved a rural development methodology based on a number of key factors including partnership, pyramidal territorial development, innovation and cooperation2. Du and Girault analyzed the many negotiations that have taken place, in particular with the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), the International Geoscience Program (IGCP) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), in an attempt to integrate the Geopark Program into a UNESCO program (World Heritage, MAB Program) (Du and Girault 2018). We will not detail here the elements of this analysis that provide a better understanding of the reasons for the failure of these various proposals for integration into an existing UNESCO program, but we will propose a summary outline (Figure I.1). However, this figure already highlights one important piece of information, namely the parallel evolution of geoparks in two regions of the world, Europe and China. These first global geoparks merged in 2004 with the creation of the Global Geopark Network (remarked later in this GGN book), which led to the creation of many geoparks during the 2000s. Nevertheless, since they did not benefit from UNESCO’s budgetary support, geoparks were forced to be established on the basis of the political will of local authorities with long-term financial support (GGN, Operational Guidelines, 2006, 2008). Following this period of rapid growth, it became clear that Global Geoparks were, at that time and still today, almost all located in the two founding regions of the GGN, namely Europe and China (Figure I.2).

1 See www.adourchalossetursan.fr/Nos-missions/Le-programme-LEADER/LEADER-c-estquoi. 2 See European Commission archives: http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/general-info/faq/ rd-regulation/fr/rd-regulation_en.html#method.

Figure I.1. First step in the emergence of the UNESCO Global Geopark label (source: Du and Girault 2018, p. 9)

Introduction xiii

xiv

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Figure I.2. Distribution map of global geoparks in April 20183. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

It was in 2012, following the consultation of a map of the two-pole distribution of global geoparks, and without knowing the conditions for their creation, that I first asked myself the first questions about geoparks. Did the financial and/or administrative and scientific constraints related to the design and drafting of the application file significantly hinder its creation in countries with fewer resources? Was it possible to foresee a convergence with what Icomos had already pointed out for the strong imbalance in the distribution of the list of World Heritage sites (between 1987 and 1993)4? This international association then highlighted causes of structural (i.e. related to the inscription procedures, as well as the management and protection of cultural property) and qualitative (i.e. related to the way in which properties are identified and evaluated) origins. Were there also geopolitical parameters, particularly given the absence of geoparks in North America, that could explain this distribution? Working within the Local Heritage and Governance research team, I was particularly interested in this observation, which undeniably highlighted global 3 See www.globalgeopark.org. 4 See World Heritage Information Kit, 2008, p. 15.

Introduction

xv

geoheritage governance problems and which could illustrate, on a large scale, one of the themes of this team’s annual seminar: Heritage Ambivalences in the South, Staging and Actors’ Stakes?5. This observation and these first questions led me, in 2012, to organize the first seminar session on this subject6. To better understand the challenges of creating geoparks, we first wanted to analyze the evolution of ethical issues in public environmental policies (Sauvé and Girault 2014), focusing also, and more specifically, on the analysis of the ethical issues of two pioneering organizations in the history of international relations in the second half of 20th Century, namely UNESCO and the Council of Europe (Brianso and Girault 2014). This first work and the growing interest in this research topic led us to respond collectively, in 2013, to a call for tenders for a H2020 program, which has been accepted. Some of the main works of this are the subject of this collective work. I.1. The Geopark H2020 program The progressive recognition of global geoparks by UNESCO has therefore prompted various countries to implement development strategies in line with the good practice management recommendations of international organizations, as previously implemented with the MAB and WH labels. As of October 2013, there were 100 global geoparks and some of these areas included both natural and cultural World Heritage sites (McKeever et al. 2013). In 2013, only the Asian continent obtained Geopark listings (Vietnam, Malaysia, Korea and Indonesia) with a very high concentration in China (29). Latin America only had one geopark (in Brazil) and the African continent had no sites at the time despite several attempts. Indeed, in 2009 the African Association of Women in Geosciences (AAWG) created the African Geoparks Network (AGN), one of whose objectives was to promote and raise awareness among local communities of the need to protect and enhance African geological heritage through the creation of geoparks for sustainable local development. These UNESCO policy initiatives, designed to study, protect, conserve and manage cultural and natural heritage, have been based on a new vision of integrated heritage management that includes nature, culture and civil society as forms of global sustainable development for future generations. In view of this observation7, the initial objective of the Horizon 2020 program, entitled “Geopark”, was to study two geographical areas (Morocco/Spain) facing heritage management

5 This seminar subsequently led to the publication of a collective book (Guillaud et al. 2016). 6 Two other colleagues also took part in this seminar, Patrick de Wever and Isabelle Brianso. Both subsequently participated in the work of the H2020 Geopark program. 7 Statement from the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Research and Innovation Staff Exchange (RISE) application file, Call: H2020-MSCA-RISE-2014 PART B “GEOPARK” (2014, pp. 5–6).

xvi

UNESCO Global Geoparks

based on European models (Charter of European Geoparks) such as the Central Geopark of Catalonia (Spain) included in the GGN membership list in 2013 and the Zat Valley in Morocco8, a country that at the time did not have a GGN and that wished to obtain this label in order to strengthen socioeconomic development and local vitality9. The GGN, which focused the objectives of the geoparks on spectacular geological heritage, territorial development (particularly through geotourism), biodiversity, the environment, ecology and education, required the drafting of a scientifically well-founded application file. Paradoxically, the international experts who analyze the dossiers of the aspiring geoparks were increasingly aware of the involvement of local actors (population, civil society, etc.) both in their investment in the preparation of the application file and in the implementation of an adapted management plan following a sustainable global development (geo-biodiversity, the environment, culture, geotourism and society). Undoubtedly, some countries that did not seem well-prepared to cope with this cumbersome methodology to obtain the GGN label have called on heritage brokers (often GGN expert geologists) or, more often than not, have given up preparing a long and expensive application file. With a wide range of skills in the human, life and earth sciences, the partners in the Geopark H2020 program, which are part of various research institutions, the National Museum of Natural History of Paris (France), the Autonomous University of Barcelona (Spain) and Cadi Ayyad University (Morocco) and a private company (Cerdan), while relying on the two case studies selected, analyzed the problems encountered (scientific expertise, establishment of participatory inventories, local development based in particular on geotourism, co-management with local populations, in particular in the implementation of an interpretation plan, etc.). This preliminary work should also lead them, in a second step, to propose innovative and interdisciplinary methodologies for the co-design, with local populations, of a project to apply for the UGG label and its subsequent management that could be adapted in various countries.

8 The Zat Valley is located in the Moroccan High Atlas about 60 km from the city of Marrakech (World Heritage City, 1985). Covering an area of 452 km², the valley is crossed by the wadi Zat, areas of medium and high mountains (highest point: Jebel Meltsen, 3,600 m altitude), and the high plateau Yagour. With a semi-arid climate and Mediterranean and mountain vegetation, the Zat Valley is based on traditional agricultural activity that barely allows the rural population to provide for itself. Like other valleys in the High Atlas, it has a very rich and varied geological, ecological and archaeological heritage, including the rock carvings of the Yagour (Bellaoui, 1989). 9 Morocco became the first Arab and African country to join the GGN with the creation of the M’Goun Geopark, which was awarded the “Global Geopark Network” label at a ceremony held in Canada in September 2014, after the deadline for submitting our application.

Introduction

xvii

Before presenting some of the main results of this H2020 Geopark program, which are the subject of this book, let us go back in time to the evolution of the institutionalization of geoparks around the world (Du and Girault 2018), which has had a significant impact on this research program. I.2. A year of upheaval in the initial program More specifically, in 2011, at Uruguay’s request, the idea of providing concrete support to ensure a more balanced distribution of geoparks on a global scale was discussed by UNESCO. We have already shown (Du and Girault 2018, p. 11) that in 2013, four options for formalizing the relationship between global geoparks and UNESCO were put forward and discussed by the Working Group (WG) on the Global Geopark: (1) status quo, (2) GGN becomes an NGO which in turn becomes formally associated with UNESCO for particular projects via a memorandum of understanding, (3) an intergovernmental program and (4) an initiative with a light administrative structure (UNESCO, 192 Ex/9, 2013). In November 2015, at the 38th session of UNESCO’s General Conference, the International Geoscience and Geoparks Program (IGMP) approved the creation of a new UNESCO Global Geopark (UGG) label (UNESCO, 38 C/14, 2015) (Figure I.3).

Figure I.3. Diagram of the final stages of negotiations to create the UGG label (source: Du and Girault 2018, p. 12)

The Global Geopark Network (GGN) therefore integrated the UNESCO Global Geopark label (UGG) at the end of 2015 as part of its “Main line of action 4: Fostering international science collaboration for earth systems, biodiversity, and disaster risk reduction”, at the same time as the MAB program. “The UNESCOsupported Global Geoparks Network promotes the establishment of sites of outstanding geological value which are the basis of local sustainable development” (UNESCO, 37 C/5, 2014, p. 95).

xviii

UNESCO Global Geoparks

In addition to the objectives related to the promotion of sustainable development, Du and Girault stressed the fact that a new peace-building role (particularly in Africa and Latin America) has been added to the global geopark mission, probably with the objective of joining UNESCO’s founding missions (Brianso and Girault 2014; Du and Girault 2018): “International collaboration to develop common pathways to manage the earth’s resources is central to the mandate of UNESCO in science, and not only contributes to sustainable development but also to building a culture of peace and dialogue” (UNESCO, 37 C/5, 2014, p. 95)10. Particular attention was also paid to regions of the world where there were few or no UGGs, particularly in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as South Asia and South-East Asia and the Pacific, especially in small island developing States (SIDS). As a result, the program’s performance indicator no longer seemed to be the number of new sites and transboundary sites, but rather the number of Member States that have created new UGGs, with a target of 16 Member States, including two in Africa (UNESCO, 37 C/5, 2014, p. 95). More specifically, for the period 2014–2017, there was a plan to create at least 40 new global geoparks, including four transnational geoparks, notably in Africa and Latin America (UNESCO, 37 C/5, 2014, p. 96). However, it seems to us (Du and Girault 2018, p. 14) that in reality this second wave of geological heritage institutionalization was not only manifested during the preparation of the IGMP, which itself reoriented global geoparks around the three axes of UNESCO’s activity (science, education and culture), but was also accompanied by increased attention from conservation communities. Indeed, a UIGS task group, “GeoHeritage”, was launched and has been led since 2010 by Patrick de Wever, professor at the French National Museum of Natural History and member of the European H2020 Geopark program, with the aim of enhancing geological heritage through an inventory and legislative approach. In parallel, IUCN and the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) have established a Geoheritage Specialist Group (GSG) to work on the conservation of geological heritage in protected areas. Gradually becoming aware of this whole context of geopark institutionalization leading to the creation of the label at the end of 2015, it seemed impossible for us not to take it into account in the framework of our research program even though we still had three years of operation.

10 The objective of creating cross-border geoparks was also part of “Global Priority Africa” for its “Flagship1: Promoting a culture of peace and non-violence” and for “Flagship 4: Fostering science for the sustainable management of Africa’s natural resources and disaster risk reduction”.

Introduction

xix

However, and as David Berliner and Chiara Bortolotto point out (Berliner and Bortolotto 2013, p. 19), “UNESCO’s heritage policies are difficult to grasp because of the scope of their applications and the complexity of the mediations through which they are created, translated and appropriated in a plurality of contexts”. We therefore had to broaden both our research avenues (anthropological, ethnological, economic, educational approaches, etc.) and our fields by opening up to China, which plays a leading role in the current development of geoparks. This is why we have brought together research colleagues working in other regions of the world (Beijing Normal University, University of Mexico), and colleagues from various research institutions in France (New Sorbonne University, Paris Diderot University, Aix-Marseille University, Avignon) working in very complementary disciplines to try to take a critical look at this development of geoparks in the world while promoting privileged contacts with colleagues working in existing geoparks (UGG of Lanzarote and el Hierro, Spain). Finally, we have integrated a new private company specializing in heritage photography, which offers 360° and gigapixel interactive virtual tours of sites, particularly archaeological sites11. These are, therefore, some of the main results of this research that are presented in this book structured into three parts12. These various contributions question again the aims of the UGG in terms of heritage conservation, participation of local populations, local development of a territory and its enhancement through heritage interpretation. I.3. The UGG, a tension between territorial development and heritage enhancement UGGs are “geographical areas in which sites and landscapes of international geological significance are managed to promote local development by proposing geotourism activities and by enhancing the territory’s heritage”13. While these territories often do not have their own legal status conferring on the local, regional or national legislation of each country in which they are located, the right to protect these sites, the 140 geoparks, which in 2018 held the UGG label, must nevertheless

11 www.martinloyer.fr/tag/visite-virtuelle. 12 We have selected only some of the most comprehensive original work done during these four years, which has resulted in many other works. For more information on the entire program, see: http://geopark.mnhn.fr/. 13 Definition given on the official website of the UGG, accessed 2 November 2018, www.unesco.org/new/fr/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/.

xx

UNESCO Global Geoparks

be managed “according to a global concept of protection, education and sustainable development”14. As several contributors of this book point out, geological heritage or geoheritage (in their various meanings), which is now part of UNESCO’s international governance, is subject to strong, often contradictory, injunctions between its enhancement “as the concrete expression of museum interpretation in the form of exhibitions of panels” (Desrosiers 2011, p. 108) and/or their valuation, a term used “by those who support the functional approach [such as] developers, tourism operators or economists” (Davallon 2006, p. 53), which is considered as “economic reasons” (Di Méo 2008, p. 1). Thus, while scientific experts (mainly geologists) have most often been at the heart of the process of creating geoparks, some current tensions arise from asymmetries between groups of stakeholders (politicians, managers, scientists, representatives of local populations), particularly for the preparation of heritage inventories and the implementation of projects for the interpretation of the territory/economic development of these heritages. It is also worth noting that in most of its recommendations, and in particular in its texts defining geoparks, UNESCO intends to take into account “local communities” and stakeholders, with a view to participation, all in a movement supposedly led by these communities (bottom-up). However, research on the analysis of participatory experiences in the context of World Heritage parks highlights significant differences between statements of intent and what can be observed from field surveys. This is what Igor Babou shows based on two field studies. After having taken stock of the theoretical questions on the difficulties of defining the participation of “local communities” and on the critical assessment of participatory and environmental democracy, this author identifies the problems encountered within geoparks and in particular some of the fundamental questions to be asked. Where did the initiative to create a geopark come from? Who are the manufacturers? How do we define the local communities concerned by the creation of a geopark and how do we analyze the possible benefits in terms of quality of life that they will (or will not) have as a result of this creation? How can we also take into account the opinions and desires of local populations, which are not limited exclusively to economic, political and cognitive aspects, but sometimes to sensitive dimensions? He concluded his study with a brief presentation of the first results of an investigation carried out within the Lanzarote UGG (Spain), stressing in particular that due to a very rapid project set-up (in about two weeks), it was designed by a very small team of experts. The first question formulated by Igor Babou, from which the initiative to create a geopark originated, is largely taken up and analyzed by Catalina Gonzalez Tejada and Yves Girault, on the basis of the experiences of 40 actors involved in the 14 Information collected from the official UGG website, accessed 2 November 2018, www.unesco. org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/.

Introduction

xxi

creation of 11 Spanish UGGs. While mobilizing the concept of “mental territory” (Mayrand 2004, p. 49) to refer to the process of co-designing an eco-museum with the inhabitants, these authors were interested in analyzing the aims and values that motivated the creation of Spanish geoparks by studying their impacts in the initial phase of the conception of the territory story (Mayrand 2007). After presenting the evolution of the consideration of geological heritage conservation in Spain, and based on the fact that there are currently four definitions of geoheritage in Spain, they first highlight the existence of an epistemological conflict relating to the relationship to geology. Subsequently, and depending on the definition to which these managers of Spanish geoparks referred to during the creation project, they show that the heritage reflection was carried out according to two different logics. The supporters of the disciplinary logic advocate the enhancement of the territory either via the conservation of the geological heritage (UGG within the natural parks of Andalusia, which underlines a strong tension with the territorial development objectives of the geoparks) or via the museum interpretation (Desrosiers 2011, p. 108). The supporters of territorial logic defend the enhancement of geological heritage through tourism. By analyzing in a more specific way the application of the Tremp-Montsec basin geopark in Spain (labeled UGG in 2017), Fabien Van Geert extends this reflection by focusing on understanding the tourist rationales put in place to create an image of the territory based on local geological outcrops recognized in the scientific community. This geopark project was indeed perceived as the possibility of creating a holistic interpretative discourse of the territory (origens Pallars Jussà: Viatge als origins – Pallars Jussà: A Journey to the Origins), making it possible to highlight its geological heritage from a unique “brand” in Catalonia. This search for a territorial image has led to the development of a holistic narrative that articulates the various heritage assets of the territory, combining archaeology, ethnography, history and earth sciences. According to the managers of the Tremp Geopark, “this approach to geotourism by aiming to go beyond the concepts of ecotourism, cultural tourism and adventure tourism has become synonymous with ‘quality tourism’, respecting nature and the authenticity of the territory, or ‘sustainable tourism’, offering an opportunity for the territory”. However, Fabien Van Geert expresses reservations by wondering whether the holistic interpretative narrative proposed for the territory does not run the risk, by diluting the consideration of geology, of ultimately becoming nothing more than a setting, or even a simple rhetorical discourse at the service of the development of a “quality tourism” favored by managers. The last two questions formulated by Igor Babou, how do we analyze the possible repercussions in terms of quality of life for local populations and how do we take into account the opinions and desires of local populations, are taken up by Ouidad Tebaa and Saïd Bourjouf. These two authors focus their analysis on the

xxii

UNESCO Global Geoparks

tensions and dynamics created by the different sets of scales and the relationship to knowledge and territory within the Zat Valley in Morocco. First, they refer to the geographical and disciplinary scale of what is included in the heritage, because the heritage induced by the UGGs is neither limited to a reduced space, nor to the intangible, nor even to geology or landscape, but to all these dimensions captured in their infinite interactions, including the ecosystem and economic, social, cultural and even spiritual life. They specify that the population surveyed is highly sensitive to the delimitation of the territory of a hypothetical UGG because it defines for it the perimeter of deprivation of its ancestral land use rights and that, as an illustration, protection should mainly concern places of worship and respect for traditional community rangeland management (Agdal) as the sole and unique reference system. Their investigations show that any protection project in the Zat Valley must first resolve existing conflicts and that the local authority is undoubtedly the most appropriate authority to coordinate and reconcile the many conflicts of interest that will inevitably arise between elected officials, associations, cooperatives, etc. Ouidad Tebaa and Saïd Bourjouf therefore attest that issues of poverty, lack of economic activity, the state of traffic networks and urban dynamics are fully integrated into the process of heritage development. They then ask themselves to what extent can the patrimonialization (especially of the geological heritage), which becomes a manifestation of territorial policies, make sense to local populations when poverty prevails, with its cohort of misdeeds: migration, lack of adaptation to markets and/or submission to principals, which pushes the ecosystem out of balance. Finally, these authors point out that the long time required to co-construct the territory of a geopark for the safeguarding and sustainable preservation of its resources is categorically opposed to the short time required to meet the pressing expectations of its inhabitants in terms of human and social development. It is interesting to note that Francisco Valdez, in a completely different context, within a UGG in Mexico, comes to similar conclusions. However, what is really known about the hypothetical economic benefits following the creation of a UGG? To answer this question, we can first refer to the number of people who visit the UGGs. In China, this is easier because entries are not free and some data are therefore accessible. Yi Du and Yves Girault specify in this book that in 2016 there were, for example, 980,000 visitors to the UGG of Dali Mt Cangshan and 3.45 million visitors to the UGG of Mt Kunlunshan15. Based on the fact that Mount Serrat is one of the main “places of memory” of the Catalans (Balcells 2008), both as a political and a natural symbol – due to its spectacular forms – but also as a religious symbol of their identity, Fabien Von Geert points out 15 These authors point out that the data for these two geoparks come from the geopark’s annual reports. However, the calculation method is not clear for both. Based on discussions with museum staff, it seems to us that the Dali Mt Cangshan Geopark Museum has no data other than group visits that involve the presence of a lecturer.

Introduction

xxiii

that this site of the UGG of Central Catalonia hosted, in 2017, 2.7 million people16. Is it reasonable to pretend, as the managers of this geopark do, that the UGG of Central Catalonia thus welcomes 2.7 million geotourists, even though the vast majority of these people visit this holy place for the Black Virgin, which is kept at the Benedictine Abbey of Santa Maria? As we pointed out (Girault and Le Marec 2016, p. 51), we should therefore first of all be able to analyze the condition of “the public” in geoparks, i.e. to give ourselves the means to answer the question: who is the public in the territories concerned? What are the links between the cultural, scientific and museum structures associated with the life of geoparks? François Mairesse brings other elements of reflection by proposing an analysis of the evolution of economic reasoning on culture and its influence on the development of geoparks. First, it evokes two types of economic arguments that have been used most often to defend the financing of cultural institutions. The first concerns the direct relationship between museum collections (or the research carried out in them) and the results that can be expected by audiences specifically linked to economic production: artists, on the one hand, but also and above all industrialists, producers of manufactured goods or exporters. The second argument, which was very quickly suggested, refers to the fact that museums also provide a service by attracting visitors, particularly foreigners, who will spend their money in the region by extending their stay. By subsequently mobilizing the various economic currents related to culture and heritage, he points out that while the arrival of visitors to a site (such as a geopark) potentially contributes to the economic development of a region, the methods used to calculate the benefits of these operations are at the very least complex to establish, and the results presented are often biased. To clarify this opinion, he refers to numerous studies that, by integrating too much data (local visitors, visitors who would have come anyway, visitors who came for reasons other than visiting the geopark), it had the effect of overestimating, by the multiplier principle, the calculation of the effects induced by this tourist activity. François Mairesse concluded by emphasizing that the reasons given for supporting the financing of geoparks should therefore focus on the real issues in which they participate, namely the preservation of a remarkable heritage, the social role between inhabitants and educational issues, at the risk of tending toward their closure if the economic benefits are not sufficient. I.4. Inventory and conservation of heritage The vast majority of the inventory missions we were supposed to carry out in the Zat Valley were carried out using scientific methodologies developed by specialists 16 Data collected from the Barcelona Provincial Tourism Observatory and relayed by the local press, www.setsetset.cat/noticia/81760/mes-de-2-72-milions-de-persones-van-visitarmontserrat-lany-2017-un-8-8-mes, accessed August 2018.

xxiv

UNESCO Global Geoparks

in each of the disciplines concerned. Thus, in a fairly general way, and as Habert and Ouadi point out, the inventory of the Zat Valley was built by defining study areas (transects) distributed among researchers and doctoral candidates and it was carried out in two main phases (Patel et al. 2003): data acquisition: bibliography and field surveys with GPS points and photographs, and the creation of thematic files. Following the surveys, each team analyzed the results, put them in context and validated them, and then the scientific information collected was integrated into a GIS. Joan Poch, Antonio Teixell, David Gómez-Gras, F.J. Martínez, Esteve Cardellach and José Luis Briansó summarize the main results of their field work, which focused mainly, according to the Brilha method (Brilha 2016), on geological mapping, identification and the subsequent selection of 13 geosites of scientific, educational and tourist interest that represent a major part of the geological history of the Zat Valley. In the context of this collective work, which does not deal exclusively with the Zat Valley, I will not mention these inventory results any further, which are presented in their chapter. Instead, I would prefer to stress the interest of the comparative approach they have adopted. Indeed, based on the principle that it is essential, in the application file to obtain the UGG label, to clearly identify the distinctive elements of other geoparks, particularly neighboring ones, these authors carried out a bibliographic study to determine the characteristics of the study area in relation to the country’s geopark alone (M’Goun’s UGG) and two other territories that aspire to become geoparks, Doukkala-Abda and Tazenakht. They then used a hybrid method (qualitative–quantitative) adapted from Brilha (2016, 2018), in collaboration with local experts in natural sciences and tourism. Finally, they took into account, in their selection of geosites of tourist interest, the results of sediment analyses of the most frequented areas in order to detect the presence of signs of environmental contamination likely to reveal the fragility of these areas. This methodology could therefore easily be used for a possible development of a geopark project in comparable rural areas. However, in the context of a geopark whose main objective is to enhance the value of a territory, while the inventory of geosites is essential, it is not sufficient and it is also necessary to promote methods for analyzing and reading landscapes. The contributions of Martí Boada Juncà, Roser Maneja Zaragoza, Jaume Marlès Magre, Joseph Antoni Pujantell Albós, Sònia Sànchez-Mateo and Carles Barriocanal Lozano are relevant in this regard. These authors first present the most common methodologies, such as Geosystem Territory and Landscape, diachronic image comparison, land use and land cover change analysis used in particular in the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP) for its importance as a central element in the global change process, and finally the graphic representation of landscapes with sketches, cross-sections, diagrams and transects. They renew these approaches by proposing a methodology based on the interpretation of landscapes from the integrative perspective of

Introduction

xxv

socioecological systems that are the result of constant interactions between biophysical and socioeconomic elements. The use of this methodology is particularly interesting because, by aiming to improve the understanding and enhancement of landscapes in a systematic and interdisciplinary perspective, it can be mobilized as a useful holistic tool for environmental education and science communication. Finally, it is illustrated by an example of a study carried out in the Zat Valley (High Atlas, Morocco). This method can also be complemented by other landscape reading approaches such as the one proposed by Francisco Valdez, Americanist archaeologist, who carried out a 45-day immersion mission in the Mixteca Alta UGG, Oaxaca (Sierra Madre Del Sur physiographic province, Mexico). He reveals the path he has gradually followed to raise awareness of this territory’s heritage (see Chapter 2 of this book, by Gonzalez Tejada and Girault) by first of all making a sensitive description of this landscape, which includes four main deposits and geological formations that are clearly distinguished by their colors and textures. He then turned his attention to the traces of agricultural activities carried out in a particularly hostile environment (construction of terraces and irrigation ditches, stone walls on the slopes of the ravines that retain the transported materials, etc.), almost abandoned villages that are nevertheless surrounded by important archaeological sites, and traces of colonial architecture (churches and houses); witnesses of a richer past. Finally, he focuses on the populations by presenting elements of their intangible heritage (crafts, popular festivals, use of indigenous agricultural seeds), as well as their expectations and fears regarding this geopark’s project. This multidisciplinary presentation highlights the importance of taking into account heritage elements that can contribute to the development of geotourism within the meaning of the Arouca definition, which emphasizes the identity of the territory by combining all aspects of this territory (Gonzalez Tejada et al. 2017, p. 12). Finally, many geoparks have archaeological sites on their territory that must be developed while ensuring their protection. Gwenola Graff, Maxence Bailly, Abdelhadi Ewague and Martin Loyer present the work of a multidisciplinary team that has contributed, in four years, to the knowledge, study and protection of the Azrou Iklane slab site (southwest Morocco). The methodology chosen seems to us to be particularly relevant, particularly in the context of work carried out within a UGG or territories seeking to obtain this label, because it combines the approaches and contributions of three disciplines in the human and social sciences (archaeology, geography and ethnology). This complementarity has made it possible to identify certain aspects of pre-Saharan rock art, including, with the assistance of an ethnologist, the most recent phases of its use in which archaeology usually pays little attention. As a World Heritage nomination was submitted in July 2016 by the Permanent Delegation of the Kingdom of Morocco to UNESCO, the authors of this study also carried out a delimitation and a topographical survey of the area to be conserved.

xxvi

UNESCO Global Geoparks

In this research program, we also had to propose inventory methodologies that could be used in various contexts for the creation of geoparks which, within the framework of a bottom-up approach favored by UNESCO, should, if possible, involve local populations in the inventory and management of the heritage of their territory. As Catalina Gonzalez Tejada and Yves Girault have pointed out in this book, taking into account the diversity of representations, which can lead to a kind of “revelation” concerning the relationship to the environment, makes it possible, according to Mayrand (2004, 2007), to identify two stages of evolution: the patrimonial stage (internal reflection/awareness/reconnection) and the stage of the creation of the mental territory (consolidation/exteriorization/sharing). De Varine (2017) presents many examples of ecomuseums that have succeeded in achieving this first stage of building a narrative of territory with local populations. In different contexts, other authors are setting up participatory inventory practices (Arpin et al. 2016; Bagnolini 2016; Legrand et al. 2017) which are increasingly developing within the broader framework of participatory sciences17 such as the Vigie nature programs or the “65 million observers” carried out by the National Museum of Natural History of Paris, France. It should also be noted that a new Vigie-Terre program has been created which, in partnership with the Société géologique de France (author’s translation: Geological Society of France), will be open to all voluntary observers who will thus participate in increasing knowledge on geodiversity and safeguarding it in the face of urbanization and civil engineering works18. For various reasons, which focused both on the epistemological specificities of each of the disciplines encountered and on the misunderstandings or critical positions that the various researchers in the program had on these participatory inventory approaches, they could not really be put in place. Wishing, however, to open the “heritage channel” (Heinich 2012, p. 41) to the inhabitants of the Zat Valley so that they can become “fabricators”19 of the heritage of a hypothetical 17 See, for example, the Sciences participatives biodiversité networks for France: www. naturefrance.fr/sciences-participatives/le-collectif-national-sciences-participativesbiodiversite; and for Europe: https://ecsa.citizen-science.net/; land for the world: http://citizen science.org/. 18 For more information on this subject, see www.geosoc.fr/actualites-sgf/1591-qu-est-ceque-vigie-terre.html. 19 The idea of “heritage fabricators” makes reference to how researchers are implicated and participate in patrimonialization processes. From a seminar and collective work of UMR 208 PALOC MNHN/IRD, the laboratory in which this research comes from is part, is involved in this research. This term does not refer exclusively to researchers but also to other actors in the heritage management field, like policy makers or administrative representatives of national and international institutions, economic actors and local communities, all part of the ideal coconstruction of the territory.

Introduction

xxvii

future geopark that could be created (if they so wished) on the territory of the Zat Valley, a geographical information system (GIS) has been developed by Élisabeth Habert and Ali Aouda – not to draw up a catalogue of species and so that knowledge can be safeguarded, but in the spirit of transmitting these objects to local populations so that they can appropriate them and, according to their wishes, set the limits of the territory of a future geopark and co-construct its story20. I.5. Geotourism and education A territory that wishes to obtain the UGG label must offer varied geotourism (georoutes, education trails, museums, etc.), some of which must already exist when the application is submitted. Given the rapid increase in the number of smartphone users and the access to communication technologies that has become increasingly available over the past two decades to all categories of society, many geopark managers are highlighting their territory on virtual websites and/or museums. Élisabeth Habert and Ali Aouda, after presenting the related bibliography, propose two examples of the creation of a virtual museum (Kanellos and Daniilia 2009) in geoparks (UGG Troode in Cyprus and UGG Beaujolais in France). They then presente the methodology they have chosen for the implementation of a territory narrative, also called a story map, which, according to them, is defined in a specific context and with the objective of developing a cartographic scenario21. Their positioning underlines the importance of taking into account both the construction/production of the card object and the “consumption” as well as the use of the product result before choosing the software that will build this scenario. They conclude their article by specifying that spatialized narration seems to them to be adapted to the enhancement of natural heritage insofar as it is exposed to the public, while being protected in order to guarantee its management and sustainability. The virtual museum therefore allows visitors to identify the heritage sites and objects in a geopark’s territory, and at the same time, it refers the reader to awareness-raising articles on the importance of heritage preservation as a memory of the people, the Earth and the biodiversity of the region. Aurélie Zwang, by comparing the graphic materiality of the scriptural documents of the websites of four French geoparks (Lubéron, des Bauges, du Chablais and des Monts d’Ardèche), analyzes their communicative intentionality in terms of environmental education in the territory. Her work does not focus on the analysis of

20 The GIS data have been uploaded to the EUDAT platform: https://b2share.eudat.eu/. 21 Link to the virtual museum: www.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid= 4b048be0293b4e0d9778785c8a7b488d.

xxviii

UNESCO Global Geoparks

what is being implemented in education for school audiences22 (i.e. the respective “educational territories” of the geoparks studied), but on the “educational maps” as they are, respectively, presented (i.e. on what is being constructed and shown in the context of environmental education for school audiences). Through a meticulous semiotic analysis, it reveals a tension “between the demonstration of territoriality as the embodiment of an educational specificity” and an “adherence to the epistemological, axiological and praxeological frameworks of National Education”. In the context of territories that are in part hyper-patrimonialized (geopark, regional natural park, geological reserve, biosphere reserve), her research, while stressing that according to the various labels there is no specificity in environmental and/or territorial education programs, allows her to show that “it is less the heritage that penetrates than it is the school that extends into the local space by an exemplification”. Under a completely different aspect of mediation carried out within geoparks, and based on a national recommendation stating that “the external design of a geopark museum in China must both fully represent the meaning of the geopark and be in harmony with the building environment”, while also respecting the principles of cost economy and versatility, Yi Du and Yves Girault wanted to analyze the architectural choices of Chinese geopark museums and their consequences in terms of mediation. These authors highlight, in their study of very different geopark museums (Taishan Sacred Mountain UGG Museum, Fangshan Museums which received a best practice award for scientific communication, Dali Mont Gangshan UGG Museum which received the best practice award for the integration of intangible heritage), that these museums represent three major trends in the architecture of geoparks museums. One emphasizing respect for the “spirit of place” refers to traditional Chinese architecture that values Confucian nationalist values. The second, following the desire of the sponsors to promote the construction of a “city museum” that should contribute to building a positive image of the park and the territory to promote economic development through tourism, favors inclusion in the international movement of “supermodernism”. This observation underlines that in the choice of architectural styles for geopark museums in China, there is not simply respect for issues such as those presented in the national guidelines, but rather a hybridization of cultures (defense of cultural identity/opening to globalized culture) that takes place among architects, local elected officials, evaluators from ministries and the GGN. This is particularly explicit in the third architectural trend which, by combining the styles of national tradition and modernism, has gradually evolved into a vernacular version. Finally, this analysis underlines that the architectural project of geoparks is much more retained in terms of an “image project” than in terms of cultural mediation. 22 Aurélie Zwang has analyzed in another article the relationship between technological and pedagogical innovations in ESD, education for sustainable development (Zwang 2019).

Introduction

xxix

I.6. References Arpin, I., Charvolin, F., Fortier, A. (2015). Les inventaires naturalistes : des pratiques aux modes de gouvernement. Études rurales, 195(1), 11–26. Babou, I. (2015). Patrimonialisation et politiques de la nature : le parc national de La Réunion. VertigO [Online]. Available: http://vertigo.revues.org/16038 [Accessed 12 May 2015]. Bagnolini, G. (2016). Inventaire fac’ : un programme de science participative sur les campus étudiants. Cahiers de l’action, 47(1), 47–53. Balcells, A. (2008). Llocs de memoria dels catalans. Proa, Barcelona. Bellaoui, A. (1989). Les Pays de l’Adrar N’Dern, étude géographique du Haut Atlas de Marrakech. PhD Thesis, University of Tours. Berliner, D., Bortolotto, C. (2013). Introduction. Le monde selon l’UNESCO. Gradhiva [Online]. Available: http://gradhiva.revues.org/2696 [Accessed 2 January 2017]. Brianso, I., Girault, Y. (2014). Instrumentalisations politiques et développementalistes du patrimoine culturel africain. Études de communication, 42(1), 149–162. Brilha, J. (2016). Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: A review. Geoheritage, 8(2), 119–134. Brilha, J. (2018). Geoheritage: Inventories and evaluation. In Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection and Management, Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (eds). Elsevier, Amsterdam. Davallon, J. (2006). Le don du patrimoine : une approche communicationnelle de la patrimonialisation. Hermes-Lavoisier, Paris. Desrosiers, P. (2011). L’archéomuséologie : la recherche archéologique entre au musée. Presses de l’Université Laval, Quebec. Di Méo, G. (2008). Processus de patrimonialisation et construction des territoires. Symposium : patrimoine et industrie en Poitou-Charentes : connaître pour valoriser. Geste Éditions, Poitiers-Châtellerault, 87–109. Du, Y., Girault, Y. (2018). A genealogy of UNESCO global geopark: Emergence and evolution. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 6(2), 1–17. Du, Y., Girault, Y. (forthcoming). Pratiques géotouristiques et interprétation de la nature dans les géoparcs chinois : entre tension et hybridation des cultures. In L’éducation à l’environnement au sein des aires protégées et des musées, Girault, Y., Zwang, A. (eds). Éducation relative à l’environnement : Regards – Recherches – Réflexions UQAM, Quebec. Girault, Y., Le Marec, J. (2016). Impliquer la recherche sur les patrimoines et l’enseignement interdisciplinaire dans un dispositif international émergent Les Géoparcs. Colloque inaugural de l’Observatoire des patrimoines, Sorbonne Université, Paris.

xxx

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Gonzalez Tejada, C., Girault, Y. (2019). The Ambivalence of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory: a Case Study on Spanish UGGs. In UNESCO Global Geoparks, Girault, Y. (ed.). ISTE Ltd, London, and Wiley, New York. Gonzalez Tejada, C., Du, Y., Read, M., Girault, Y. (2017). From nature conservation to geotourism development: Examining ambivalent attitudes towards UNESCO directives with the Global Geopark Network. International Journal of Geoheritage, 5(2), 1–20. Guillaud, D., Juhé-Beaulaton, D., Cormier-Salem, M.C., Girault, Y. (eds) (2016). Ambivalences patrimoniales au Sud : mises en scène et jeux d’acteurs. Karthala, Paris. Heinich, N. (2012). La fabrique du patrimoine : de la cathédrale à la petite cuillère. Maison des sciences de l’Homme, Paris. Jones, C. (2008). History of geoparks. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 300(1), 273–277. Kanellos, I., Daniilia, S. (2009). Le concept de musée virtuel thématique : la collection comme visite, la visite comme lecture, la lecture comme stratégie. L’exemple du musée thématique sur l’Annonciation. In Actes du 12ème colloque international sur le document électronique (CIDE’12). Europia Productions, Montreal, 76–92. Legrand, M., Dozières, A., Dupont, H., Scapino, J., Chlous, F. (2017). Étude comparée des dispositifs participatifs du Muséum national d’histoire naturelle. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 25(4), 393–402. Mayrand, P. (2004). Haute-Beauce : psychosociologie d'un écomusée : précis. Cadernos de Sociomuseologia, no. 22. Centro de Estudos de Sociomuseologia, Lusophone University of Humanities and Technology, Lisbon. Mayrand, P. (2007). Essais de terminologie de la nouvelle muséologie sociale, libérons le concept. Cadernos de museologia, 28, 167–176. McKeever, P.J., Zouros, N. (2005). Geoparks: Celebrating Earth heritage, sustaining local communities. Episodes, 28(4), 274–278. McKeever, P.J., Frey, M.L., Weber, J. (2013). Global geopark and geological world heritage. AZ cases study from Germany. World Heritage, 70, 30–34. Patel, M., White, M., Walczak, K., Sayd, P. (2003). Digitisation to presentation: Building virtual museum exhibitions. Vision, Video and Graphics, 1–8. Sauvé, L., Girault, Y. (eds) (2014). Enjeux éthiques des politiques en matière d’environnement. Éthiques publiques, 16(1). Available: https://journals.openedition.org/ ethiquepublique/1411. de Suremain, C.É., Galipaud, J.C. (2015). Fabricacteurs de patrimoine : implication, participation et postures du chercheur dans la patrimonialisation. French Research Institute for Development, Marseille.

Introduction

xxxi

UNESCO (1999). UNESCO Geoparks Programme: A New Initiative to Promote a Global Network of Geoparks Safeguarding and Developing Selected Areas Having Significant Geological Features [Online]. Available: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/ 001151/115177e.pdf. UNESCO (2013). The UNESCO Global Geoparks Initiative [Online]. Available: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002230/223074E.pdf. UNESCO (2014). Approved Programme and Budget 2014–2017 [Online]. Available: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002266/226695e.pdf. UNESCO (2015). Statutes of the International Geoscience and Geoparks Programme (IGGP) [Online]. Available: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002345/234539E.pdf. de Varine, H. (2017). L’écomusée singulier et pluriel : un témoignage sur cinquante ans de muséologie communautaire dans le monde. L’Harmattan, Paris. Zhao, X., Zhao, T. (2003). The socio-economic benefits of establishing National Geoparks in China. Episodes, 26(4), 302–309. Zouros, N. (2004). The European Geoparks Network. Episodes, 27(3), 165–171. Zwang, A. (2019). Quand le numérique interroge la culture scolaire : une étude de cas en éducation au développement durable. Spirale, 63(1), 79–90.

PART 1

Objectives, Issues and Tensions Related to the Patrimonialization of Nature

UNESCO Global Geoparks: Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement First Edition. Edited by Yves Girault. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

1 Natural Heritage, Participatory Democracy and UNESCO: a Structure of Disillusionment?

1.1. Introduction In the social sciences, or in the discourses of actors (texts of major international conventions, laws and decrees, methodological guides, etc.), there is a great diversity of terminology to describe the democratic “openness” of debates and decision-making processes to non-expert populations or non-governmental organizations. This openness is recommended when populations are concerned by a problem in their daily lives, typically scientific, technical, environmental or spatial planning. In most of its recommendations, and in particular in its texts defining geoparks, UNESCO intends to take into account “local communities” and stakeholders from a participatory perspective, all in a movement supposed to be driven by these communities (bottom-up). However, when conducting field research on participatory experiences in the context of World Heritage parks (the author of these words has conducted field research in Argentina and Reunion Island), there are serious differences between declarations of intent and what can be observed from field surveys. As for the survey carried out on the installation of the Lanzarote geopark in the Canary Islands (Spain), it did not reveal any dynamics of participation before and during its creation. The theme of “participation” is therefore, quite conventionally, in tension between declarations of intent and observable practices. This observation of a gap between discourse and practice is not an argument to denounce the duplicity of institutional actors. Rather, it is a matter of pointing out the Chapter written by Igor BABOU. The work presented in this chapter is part of the Geopark H2020 program and was funded by the European Union’s Research and Innovation Program Horizon 2020 under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 644015.

4

UNESCO Global Geoparks

paradoxes corresponding to the categories and mediations that structure environmental democracy. This chapter will first present a brief overview of theoretical issues, including contemporary difficulties to clearly define participation. Then, we will analyze several problematic points that have emerged from observations made in Argentina and Reunion Island, before presenting several observations concerning the Lanzarote geopark, and then finishing on the theme of the necessary reflexivity in scientific and expert practices. 1.2. The participation in question The “participatory” ambition is generally to complement the mechanisms of representative democracy and to compensate for the effects of a public affairs management considered technocratic and centralized by state institutions; the challenges are then to bring out new actors who bring new ideas and new knowledge, linked to more diversified attachments to territories. To quickly establish ideas on participatory mechanisms, one can take the classic example of “consensus conferences”, also called “citizens’ conferences” (Boy et al. 2000): in the case of these mechanisms, an organization that can be governmental brings together a panel representing a population around a problem requiring a political decision. This group consists of 15–30 people, and it is mobilized for a period of one month, mainly during weekends to ensure the availability of panel members. It is accompanied by a mediator and hears experts who are chosen to reflect the diversity of positions on the issue. The group may also request to hear from experts other than those presented to it. Then it deliberates and produces a report in which all opinions must be expressed: there is no vote, but a consensus decision that must set out even the most minority opinions in the final text. This report is then used to inform public policy decisions. The device described above is an ideal-typical version, because there are actually a series of variants that would be too long to describe here. 1.3. A brief history of participatory mechanisms and environmental democracy The social and historical dynamics of the emergence of the participatory approach are complex to describe in a concise way because we are faced with a phenomenon of international scope, and a mixture of institutional voluntarism and democratic renewal acquired in the struggle by non-governmental actors. To these two fields of practice and discourse (that of institutional frameworks and that of public mobilization), we must add the scientific field (from the social sciences to the natural sciences) that plays an ambiguous role, caught between a display of

Natural Heritage, Participatory Democracy and UNESCO: a Structure of Disillusionment?

5

neutrality and an active involvement in the implementation of participatory democracy mechanisms. We can trace the emergence of environmental sensitivity and its support for citizen mobilization to influence public policy in the 19th Century, for example with the mobilization of painters from the Barbizon School, Victor Hugo, Georges Sand and various naturalists, to obtain the classification of the landscape of the Fontainebleau forest threatened by clear cutting. We can also mention the mobilization of scientists, in the United States and Europe, who emerged from their neutrality at the end of the 1940s to publicly denounce, in the media, the looting of the planet and the destruction of nature: the texts of Fairfield Osborn, in 1948 in the United States, or the statements of Roger Heim (former director of the MNHN) in the early 1950s were the starting points for citizen mobilizations that developed from the 1960s onwards around the associative world with famous “deals” well described by environmental sociology (stranding of the Torrey Canyon and oil spill in Brittany in 1967, then the case of safeguarding the Vanoise National Park in 1969). These cases have demonstrated the ability of the public to mobilize to build causes, to investigate and produce robust expertise and to win victories against powerful economic and political actors (Chateauraynaud 2011; Aspe and Jacqué 2012; Kalaora and Vlassopoulos 2013). Alongside these mobilizations, institutions have gradually incorporated public participation and governance with stakeholders into political practices, while building the “environment” as a category of public action (Charvolin 2003). A first emergence can be identified as early as the 1960s in the United States with the Office of Technology Assessment of Congress (Sadowsky 2015), or with Community Action Programs working for community development, and to whom budgets and administrative assistance are provided to solve problems identified by the communities themselves. It was also in the early 1950s and 1960s that eco-anthropology became interested in local environmental knowledge in so-called “traditional” societies (Concklin 1957), although it was not until the late 1980s that this knowledge was recognized and taken into account in biodiversity management by major international NGOs such as WWF and IUCN (Gray et al. 1998; Bouet 2016). Finally, we can mention ecomuseums, which were very early in the implementation of local community participation in their management in the early 1970s (Le Marec 2007), followed by the establishment of the Danish Board of Technology, which organized the first consensus conferences in Europe on scientific and technical issues in 1985 in the Danish Parliament, drawing on the experience of the Congress in the United States (Joss and Durant 1995). This governance, particularly in contexts of management or crisis related to the environment, is now part of a global dimension. Jasanoff and Long Martello thus explain, on the basis of empirical surveys, that three highly interrelated issues emerge from the observations (Jasanoff and Long Martello 2004). First, the solutions adopted for global

6

UNESCO Global Geoparks

environmental governance cannot be thought of without, at the same time, seeking local expressions for them; second, the simultaneous construction of the local and the global and the understanding of environmental problems depend on the production of scientific knowledge and its interaction with power; finally, true governance requires constant translation and back and forth between formations composed of knowledge and power articulated between the global and the local (Jasanoff and Long Martello 2004, p. 5). These articulations become clear as soon as site monographs are drawn up for World Heritage registrations, insofar as the citizen mobilizations and institutional voluntarism observed at the local level cannot be detached from their articulations and translations with various organizations acting at the international level (Babou 2009, 2015). Hence the need for methods and attention distributed at various territorial scales, otherwise an essential part of the issues would be missed in the description of the actors’ games. These mobilizations, as well as this institutional voluntarism, are part of a particular context, that of uncertainty (Callon et al. 2001), itself linked to the transformation processes of industrialized societies. In public policy as in social science research, the rise of the theme of uncertainty accompanies the consideration of the unintended consequences of action (Chalas and Soubeyran 2009). At the same time, this process has led to the implementation of the “precautionary principle” aimed at establishing new principles for living together in a society known as a “risk society” (Beck 2001) in which many observers agree that the influence of politics, science, technology and spatial planning is becoming particularly problematic. Between the 1950s and 1970s, the dominant discourse was that of planning. But in a society that thinks itself to be subject to uncertainty, the planning State becomes the driving State of the territories, and decision-makers can no longer calculate the effects of an action in advance, particularly because of the potential for public mobilization: the action of alert launchers, the emergence of a controversy and the production of citizen counterexpertise leading to a different framing of issues and problems can transform the meaning of a planning action and lead to unpredictable consequences. This is particularly true in the context of environmental issues. From these new contexts emerges a need for reflexivity for planners, consisting of considering the consequences of action in its definition, or even in the thread of planning action, which Soubeyran identifies as a principle of “improvization” (Soubeyran 2014), challenging in passing the common sense of the imagination of improvization as opposing any rational thought: it would be another rationality, less procedural, more adapted to the new environmental context. Here, we come back to the work on the notion of “DIY”, which shows that despite the rhetoric of planning and procedure, the action of many trades oriented toward the creation of artifacts, the production of expected effects, technological innovation, or the engineering of heritage projects relies to a significant degree on DIY, trial and error and experimentation (Odin and Thuderoz 2010; Babou 2017). Finally, Tsing’s (2005) work on the globalization of environmental issues focuses on the unexpected and

Natural Heritage, Participatory Democracy and UNESCO: a Structure of Disillusionment?

7

unstable aspects of “frictions” between cultures that co-produce each other in interaction. Chalas and Soubeyran (2009) point out that the imagination of planners, and of planning, originated in the context of settlements, that is, in a context where the planner does not have to personally suffer the consequences of their actions. The latter made a kind of bet on the future, based on the idea that action should first be taken, and that the negative consequences would eventually be considered later, confidence in technical mastery being ensured. In the colonial context of the 19th Century, the question of the negative consequences of development was not seen as a problem because the colonies were thought of as experimental grounds from which the right models of action would then be repatriated to the metropolis. In addition, local opposition to the projects was not taken into account, since these populations did not vote. The developer was therefore experimenting directly on the countries to be developed without ever having to pay the political or personal price. From the 1950s to the 1960s, according to Chalas and Soubeyran, models and professionals in the field of development were repatriated to metropolitan France following decolonization. The price to be paid for the negative or unintended consequences of the action could no longer be evacuated. In this context, the idea of “understanding what you do by doing it”, to learn from life-size experiences, is more directly opposed to the “guinea pigs” of these experiences. Instead of seeing development or innovation in a positive sense, the idea emerges of endangering a large number of organisms and ecosystems, but also economic systems, cultural values, etc., hence the need to involve local populations, who vote, in decision making. 1.4. Critical assessments environmental democracy

of

participatory

mechanisms

and

Participatory democracy has been the subject of empirical research in the social sciences and now benefits from critical reviews covering international scientific literature (Reed 2008; Barbier and Larrue 2011; Blondiaux and Fourniau 2011), journals, scientific groups, conferences, etc. The first text analyzing participation schemes was published in the United States in 1969 by Sherry Arnstein: it presents a classification of public involvement patterns according to a gradient ranging from simple information (considered by Arnstein as a process of manipulation, when political elites simply bring together poor African-American populations to tell them that medical equipment they have not requested will be installed in their neighborhoods, depriving them of other services) to the point where co-management is considered the ideal to be achieved in order to give power back to those who

8

UNESCO Global Geoparks

usually do not have it (as in the case where residents of a poor neighborhood in Harlem manage a development program and budget themselves) (Figure 1.1).

8

Citizen Control

7

Delegated Power

6

Partnership

5

Placation

4

Consultation

3

Informing

2

Therapy

1

Manipulation

Citizen Power

Tokenism

Non-participation

Figure 1.1. The “eight rungs of the citizen participation ladder” (source: Arnstein 1969)

Arnstein’s article is characteristic of a critical and disillusioned reading of a sector that was barely emerging at the time, but which still remains marked by tensions between, on the one hand, a normative ideal of democratization and capacity building and, on the other, strategic communication that is close to manipulation. And since 1969, research has been constantly alternating between criticizing the illusions of participation and announcing new methods to solve all the problems of the past. Among the major theoretical syntheses carried out in this rather enormous field is the progress report of Barbier and Larrue (2011). These authors have identified, in the literature, large families of participatory devices. But according to them, there are differences in the criteria used by researchers to describe practices that are very heterogeneous and still in the process of being institutionalized. The divergences in the analysis criteria concern, in particular, the degree of public involvement to be used to define whether a practice is participatory (Arnstein’s scale of involvement can be

Natural Heritage, Participatory Democracy and UNESCO: a Structure of Disillusionment?

9

found), or even the possibility of clearly distinguishing between information, public debate, deliberation, shared decision or co-management to determine the scope of what is called “participation”. The authors identify three types of justification for the institutionalization of environmental democracy: – instrumental: participation makes it possible to avoid the subsequent questioning of projects, which is always costly, by creating social acceptability; – substantial: participation improves decision making by providing new knowledge; – normative: participation strengthens citizenship (particularly in the context of environmental justice movements in the United States). When we analyze in detail diversified examples of devices described as “participatory” (Neuman 2006), we are struck by their extreme heterogeneity: – heterogeneity in terms of methods (debates with or without a vote, prepared or not by training experts, etc.); – heterogeneity in terms of the actors involved (from a statistical sample representative of a national population to an expert committee selected by an organizer); – heterogeneity in terms of editorial production (from the report written by citizens based on a problem submitted to them, to the proposal of a scenario presenting visions of the future around a planning practice). In addition to this heterogeneity, there is the fact (here, I rely on personal observations, not Neuman’s work) that these participatory practices are part of an international circulation of models, which are the subject of scholarly or ordinary analysis and criticism, borrowing, conceptual and organizational tinkering, simplification or hybridization between models. Barbier and Larrue’s summary is focused on European or North American cases and on the context of industrialized countries (water governance, citizen mobilization in response to industrial projects, etc.). One aspect that stands out when reading this report, or those of other authors, or even when reading empirical studies, is the lack of consideration of the effects of participation on environmental quality. This is one of the points in the conclusion of their bibliographic summary. However, there are reports carried out quite early, at the end of the 1990s, on participatory management of Central African forests (Nguinguiri 1999), which present extremely interesting reflections, in the context of southern countries, on the relationships between participation methods, the interplay of actors between local

10

UNESCO Global Geoparks

populations and developers, and resource management. This type of approach has the advantage of not focusing exclusively on the sociopolitical dimension of participatory mechanisms, and of integrating the resource dimension in an interdisciplinary perspective with conservation biology, which is often lacking in sociopolitical approaches. This seems to be an important dividing point in the scientific literature: on the one hand, studies and assessments that develop refined analyses of the ways in which populations or stakeholders are involved in the political debate, but leave aside the naturalistic issues of resource management (studies and assessments carried out rather by sociologists and politicians); and, on the other hand, more interdisciplinary approaches that attempt to integrate the political and environmental dimensions, in particular by focusing on resource uses, representations and knowledge about ecosystems, the economy of ecosystems, stakeholder interactions and knowledge flows between populations. Finally, there are empirical studies on participation and governance in protected natural areas, but it seems that they have never been the subject of an overall assessment. One study was conducted on participation in Asian geoparks (Abdul Halim and Azizah Ishak 2017). However, this study suffers from its conceptual weakness: the choice to consider that any organization – from local association to national government – can fall into the category of “local community” smoothes power relations and leads to an ironic description of participation. In addition, its methodology is based on second-hand sources (geoparks studies and websites) and on the sending of a questionnaire to geoparks administrators gathered during a training course organized by the geoparks network. In the absence of sufficient critical distance and field observations, this study obscures political issues and conflict, and leads to a laudatory revival of the actors’ discourse on participation in the geoparks of the region. The final point of division is between social science literature and methodological guides or professional texts. We have the impression of two quite distinct worlds: on the one hand, participation professionals, international conventions, UNESCO and IUCN, sing the praises of the participatory approach as a factor in renewing democracy and taking into account local populations; on the other hand, there is the disenchanted observation of sociologists who observe participatory mechanisms, and who sometimes draw the conclusion that “there is a lot of noise for nothing”. Blondiaux and Fourniau, in another assessment of participation, conclude that we must go beyond the normative horizon on which disillusioned criticism is based (Blondiaux and Fourniau 2011). However, it seems very difficult in the social sciences to conduct good descriptions of democracy independently of any normative horizon.

Natural Heritage, Participatory Democracy and UNESCO: a Structure of Disillusionment?

11

1.5. Points of tension within protected natural areas I will now focus on situations encountered in the field, but without going into the ethnographic details of these situations (Babou 2009, 2015, 2016, 2017). I will rely mainly on the work I have carried out and published on the Península Valdés Natural Park in Argentina (registered by UNESCO for its biodiversity1) and on the Reunion Island National Park (registered by UNESCO for its natural landscape and biodiversity2). One of the fundamental questions to ask is where does the initiative to create heritage come from? In the case of parks and their registration in UNESCO, it is obvious that, with a few exceptions (such as the Cévennes National Park), local communities or associations capable of mastering the administrative and drafting constraints required by this type of exercise are rarely found. The rhetoric of “local community participation” and bottom-up always stumbles over this reality: most of the time it is local and regional authorities that take the initiative on bases that do not allow for real participation, since the legal, political and editorial frameworks are set from the outset and cannot be called into question. Moreover, institutional initiatives for the creation of parks, even when they claim to be participatory (often after creation, when there is a public inquiry or when the management plan or charter needs to be finalized), are almost always in line with previous territorial development policies. In these contexts, there is a fundamental lack of symmetry between, on the one hand, the leaders of development projects, who are often administrative staff of territorial institutions, and, on the other hand, the populations to be developed, from whom we do not often ask in which direction they wish to be developed, and who do not always have the necessary resources to put forward their point of view. What happens next, very often, is that on these bases, park projects or proposals for cultural facilities are perceived by the inhabitants as being imposed from outside and this then hinders participation. The public inquiry in Reunion Island3, with its 800,000 inhabitants, collected only 90 testimonies, despite the establishment of a digital interface to facilitate residents’ access to expression. Similarly, in Argentina, few people mobilized in the village that was to be integrated into the park, as this initiative seemed to come from outside and did not meet any local demand. We then often find ourselves with participative devices without participants.

1 https://whc.unesco.org/fr/list/937. 2 https://whc.unesco.org/fr/list/1317. 3 Reunion Island is a former French colony located in the Indian Ocean, east of Madagascar. It includes a national park created in 2007 and listed as a World Heritage site for its biodiversity in 2010.

12

UNESCO Global Geoparks

On the other hand, residents can get involved when it comes to organizing themselves to fight these projects: this is the case in Reunion Island, as in Argentina, and it clearly shows that the lack of participation is not a sign of a population’s political apathy, but rather functions as a rational response to proposals deemed irrelevant. Another important issue is the definition of the local communities concerned by the creation of a park, and how they will or will not benefit from an improvement in their living conditions, when the organizer expects the participatory to strengthen the capacity to act on behalf of populations considered vulnerable. This is the case when parks are populated by indigenous populations. The literature on World Heritage sites is full of doubts on the ability of development policies to improve the lives of indigenous people, either because tourism benefits already well-endowed external operators (Ramousse and Salin 2007; Babou 2009; Faurie 2011), because of a lack of clear evidence of the correlation between registration and local development (Prud'homme 2008; Duval and Smith 2014), or because harmful economic and cultural upheavals are emerging due to a lack of consistency between the principles of heritage presentation and the nature of the sites and their indigenous uses (Guimbatan and Baguilat 2006). The same types of ambiguities can be identified for World Heritage cultural sites (Absi 2005; Berliner 2010). It is also known, particularly in the case of Lanzarote, that tourism mainly generates low-skilled jobs and does not necessarily have a positive impact on the quality of life of local populations in the long term (Sosa Espinosa 2013). Finally, there are more dramatic cases where the patrimonialization of the environment, by UNESCO or States, leads to the spoliation and deportation of local populations and the militarization of entire territories (Guyot 2004; Neumann 2004; Blanc 2016), sometimes even leading to extrajudicial executions4. But the situation of non-indigenous populations (especially the populations resulting from migration which I worked on in Argentina) who do not even benefit from the indigenous resources available to them, and who are left behind in heritage development, should not be neglected. I found that when faced with issues of expression and identity building where participation was an issue, there was a reinforcement of political and cultural inequalities for migrants (Babou 2013). However, since migration is expected to be one of the major anthropological facts of the coming decades, there is a risk that the continued expansion of heritage areas will further increase these inequalities.

4 See, among the recordings of the conferences of the Managing Inhabited Natural Heritage symposium organised by the University of Clermont-Ferrand in 2013, the tragic cases presented by Joëlle Smadja in the video available at: https://iadt.ubicast.tv/permalink/v1251423f3e4153mus 2g/# start=13.

Natural Heritage, Participatory Democracy and UNESCO: a Structure of Disillusionment?

13

The problem for these populations is that access to expression in participatory systems often depends on resources: folklore, artistic achievements, local knowledge, etc. In addition, the rhetoric of UNESCO and the major international NGOs is calibrated to identify a certain type of resources: those available, for example, to the Amazonian peoples. The imagination that structures this rhetoric of indigenousness and local knowledge is that of the tribe whose traditional way of life is threatened by modernism, which NGOs will defend against industrialization. These cases exist, and fortunately these populations find spokespersons in a sector dominated by administrative rhetoric and project management procedures that are difficult to control and totally unsuitable for what they claim to promote, namely the empowerment of vulnerable populations. But this imagination also prevents the detection of situations of vulnerability in populations resulting from migration that are sometimes as important as those affecting indigenous peoples. We are now getting to what happens when we observe participatory mechanisms in action, such as when discussing management plans. Beyond the many methods and procedures supposed to facilitate participation, three points seem to me to be problematic: the significant dimension of the devices, the proliferation of intermediaries and the standardization of participation models. 1.5.1. The significant dimension of the devices First of all, the problem is the language used: translation problems are far from negligible and this was the case in Reunion Island, where Creole is the majority language among the inhabitants, but where French is the only language spoken in administration. However, the park’s draft charter has never been translated into Creole. In the perspective of the globalization of heritage and participation, there is also the problem of the predominance of English as a working language. However, not all concepts of one culture can be translated into another language. This was also the aim of the book Les Intraduisibles du patrimoine (Cassin and Wozny 2014). With the predominance of English and the low consideration of other languages in heritage projects, power asymmetries are created that the participatory approach will not reduce. Then, we can identify the problem posed by the formalized procedures and modalities of expression of the administrations: charters and management plans are written in a legal vocabulary. In Reunion Island, this has been an obstacle to the participation of the inhabitants most directly concerned (particularly within the Mafate crater), as most of them have not studied beyond elementary school. Local populations are generally asked to express their views and participate in the procedures

14

UNESCO Global Geoparks

and legal systems of administrations. A true democratic opening should, however, make it possible to transform the way administration operates. Finally, the last important problem is that of the material arrangements for participation. Scientists or public administrations are not attentive enough to what makes sense in ordinary social interactions. There is a whole language of interaction that is not reduced to symbolism, i.e. linguistic meaning: knowing, for example, who moves toward whom in a participatory system is thus important because displacement is never just a transport, but always constitutes an operator of legitimacy. By moving toward local populations, the bearers of the draft charter of Reunion Island Park have given legitimacy to inhabitants who are often left behind. This was seen as a positive sign of the involvement of the park’s administrative managers. But, at the same time, it was difficult for these administrative and scientific staff to interpret the use of everyday objects in the argumentation of these local populations who did not have a good command of oral argumentation and public speaking. This has led to the evacuation of certain inhabitants and themes that are very important to them from the discussions. There are, therefore, avenues to be developed to integrate the sensitive dimension, and not only political and cognitive, ones into the reflection on the participatory approach (Berger 2014, 2015; Babou 2016). 1.5.2. The proliferation and professionalization of intermediaries Participation has become a market, and it is a sector in the process of professionalization. There are thus brokers in participation or patrimony, and companies that operate on the basis of formalized models, at an international level, in particular in the field of the environment. We often meet sociologists, mediators, but also NGOs, and also scientists in the natural sciences. In my field in Argentina, it was NGO biologists who organized focus groups to prefigure an interpretation center. They had chosen to contract a company specializing in the animation of participatory mechanisms, which itself had hired a psycho-sociologist. The analysis of the transcripts of these focus groups showed me to what extent this stack of professional speakers could cause an enunciative blurring of the word, i.e. a masking of the organiser’s intentions and issues, which were no longer understandable by the inhabitants. What followed was predictable: there was conflict between the participants and the psycho-sociologist, and an accumulation of resentments on the part of the inhabitants (Babou 2009). This proliferation of intermediaries is not only between the public and the administrations, but also intervenes, causing social and political damage, within the national park administration themselves, where the implementation of focus groups or “shared vision” sessions has created a strong distance between the management spheres and the field agents (Alban and Hubert 2013; Babou 2015).

Natural Heritage, Participatory Democracy and UNESCO: a Structure of Disillusionment?

15

1.5.3. Standardization of participation models In the context of the professionalization of the participatory approach, and the constraints and temporalities of managing UNESCO’s enrolment projects, standardized models of participation have developed. These models circulate at an international level, particularly in the spheres of large environmental or development NGOs. This leads to an astonishing paradox: to give a voice to the local, international consultants are relying on formal models of globalized participation (Babou 2009). The standardization of the participative is antinomic of an authentic understanding of the games of actors and the forms of cultural and political expression within a local population, which are always singular phenomena, all the more so if they are to be understood in their relations with a natural environment. When there is standardization, it can only be done from a rationalized management perspective, and it is precisely against the idea of an administrative and overhanging management of the social that the participatory could effectively complement representative democracy. This is one of the constitutive paradoxes of the participatory approach, and it is perhaps this paradox that makes its achievements and results so contradictory. 1.6. The example of the Lanzarote geopark: top-down approach and brand logic Between 2015 and 2018, I conducted an ethnographic survey on the island of Lanzarote, located in the Spanish archipelago of the Canary Islands5. Lanzarote’s interest is that a geopark6 was created in 2015, it is therefore being set up, and it is located in a territorial context already full of heritage structures7, which allows interesting comparisons. I will briefly summarize here what I have observed from the point of view of the involvement of local communities in this process8. The survey, conducted on the basis of semidirective interviews9 as well as observations of practices and reviews of institutional archives, shows that the 5 Three field survey periods were conducted in June 2016 (1 month), June 2017 (16 days) and finally June 2018 (16 days). 6 www.geoparquelanzarote.org/. 7 A biosphere reserve, a national park, a natural park and several classified landscapes. 8 Several articles are currently being evaluated: they will present a more complete overview of the observations made. 9 The interviews were conducted with geopark managers, managers of political and heritage structures that have followed or contributed to this heritage development, scientists involved in the project, but also staff at the bottom of the institutional hierarchy (field mediators, guards, etc.).

16

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Lanzarote Geopark was created by an institutional initiative, that of its current director. It was assisted by the local government administration and supported by the biosphere reserve authorities. The geological inventory was carried out by geologists from IGME, the Geological and Mining Institute of Spain. I conducted interviews with the drafters of the registration file, asking them to describe their practice to me. It appears that the dossier was drafted extremely quickly (two weeks), which is very different from the usual time frames for registrations on the World Heritage list (Babou 2015; Babou 2017). The team set up for this task included only three geologists from the IGME, the current director of the geopark, who has a background in geology, and a technician with no background in geology, but who was mobilized for her mastery of the layout. The challenge was to submit the application file as a matter of urgency. Several reasons were given: on the one hand, the inclusion of another geopark in the Canary Islands the previous year (El Hierro in 2014), and, on the other hand, the large number of geoparks already created in Spain. In this context of saturation of the territory, the future director of the geopark thought that it was necessary to act quickly or risk losing any chance of creation. The process began traditionally with a geological inventory, carried out by IGME experts who had already worked on the island. They, therefore, mainly carried out work to compile existing data. Another compilation of sociocultural and economic data was obtained from the various departments of local government (tourism, education, hiking trails, etc.). These inventories were all conducted through institutional approaches, without the support of citizen participation. The title of geopark is perceived by its managers as a “label” that only confirms characteristics already present: indeed, the island was strongly artialized between the 1960s and 1990s by a local contemporary artist who had international recognition (César Manrique), with the help of the local government, a technical team and European funds. This artialization of the territory (Calder-style mobiles installed at various points on the island, restaurants or buildings with futuristic and telluric architecture, enhancement of geological sites, etc.), as well as its fine sandy beaches, has contributed to enhancing the island’s geology and to its sustainable inclusion in the international tourism circuits and economy. Other justifications for registration are mentioned in the interviews, in particular the challenge of accessing a global network of exchanges and collaborations that would break Lanzarote’s isolation due to its “double insularity” (the island is seen as isolated within an archipelago itself far from the Spanish peninsula). It was also a tourism diversification objective, which is aimed at attracting tourists who have visited other geoparks: networking, this time within geoparks, once again justifies the island’s candidature. But these justifications do not include support for issues that would have been expressed by civil society.

Natural Heritage, Participatory Democracy and UNESCO: a Structure of Disillusionment?

17

In the interviews with the Geopark management, the theme of participation is absent, while it is spontaneously stated in the interviews conducted with the managers of the biosphere reserve. In addition, when I ask for a reflection on participation, the answers relate to economic activities and the promotion of local agricultural products. The lack of mobilization of the local population prior to the nomination is confirmed by an IGME geologist who participated in the geological inventory. According to her, as according to my other informants, no one in Lanzarote was aware of the existence of this heritage project outside the government institution. Finally, what emerges from the field observations is the importance of building a geopark identity thought of as a “brand”, a term that was explicitly used several times in the interviews. The main challenge for the geopark when it is set up is to address a population that does not yet know it. This “brand” approach is accompanied by an emphasis on promoting the territory, which is reflected in the distribution of promotional items such as mugs decorated with the geopark logo, caps and t-shirts also bearing the same logo, etc. Schoolchildren are one of the main targets of this brand communication, as are the exhibitions held: in the latter, we only see the staging of local populations on the fringes (apart from a few photographs of hikers, no inhabitants are shown in the panels), while the geopark logo, the geology of the island and its landscapes depicted from a wilderness perspective are strongly staged. During this stage of creation, the young geopark must find its place in a territory saturated with older heritage institutions. One of the challenges is then communicative: it is a question of existing in the public space through the diffusion of a logo, marketing techniques and a popularization close to public communication. The official discourse of UNESCO’s network of global geoparks is characterized by the affirmation of a break with the conceptions of World Heritage criticized for their top-down nature. Conversely, geoparks would go in the direction of democratic progress, valuing bottom-up “community” initiatives10. The reality of the practices, at least those observed in Lanzarote, seems more nuanced. 1.7. Conclusion: the democratic consequences of the contradictions of participation The reader will have understood that I wanted to share with them questions, perplexity, even concerns, rather than the results themselves. But I would not like to conclude without drawing attention to the concrete effects of the contradictions of 10 Interview with the head of UNESCO’s Global Geoparks Network. See also: www. unesco.org/new/fr/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/.

18

UNESCO Global Geoparks

the participatory approach. What I have observed, in Argentina and to a lesser extent in Reunion Island, is that when a territory is listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site, it generates extremely high expectations from its inhabitants in terms of respect for the environment, local development and the ethics of discussion. And when these expectations are frustrated by the amateurism of NGOs that get involved in making politics and culture without the background of problematization that can be found in the social sciences, or when it is politicians who use the participatory approach to enhance their mandate record, or when certain sociologists engage in a dynamic of consulting expertise within private companies (which blurs the traditional boundaries between descriptive, prescriptive and normative dimensions), then this has disastrous effects on democratic functioning, but also potentially on the environment. What we observe in the face of disillusionment created by participatory mechanisms (Barber 2005, 2009) is the bitterness and unease of the inhabitants, their withdrawal or irony in the face of public affairs and their withdrawal from activities in favor of the environment, voluntary activities that they had spontaneously promoted before the arrival of heritage developers, UNESCO and NGOs. This is quite simply because we cannot play with democracy without risking profoundly breaking social ties, future prospects and ways of living in a natural environment. It is therefore necessary to be extremely cautious when accepting to enter into the long temporalities and artisanal approaches of ethnographic investigation in order to develop knowledge of local populations in their environment, to understand their culture and the actors’ games, rather than to rely on standardized methods. We must also really ask ourselves, as researchers, about the issues on whose behalf we are setting up a participatory system. There is therefore a great deal of reflexive work to be done, and I am quite sceptical and concerned about the formalisms of procedural and administrative ethics that are currently spreading for the evaluation of research programs (particularly at a European level) or in UNESCO’s listing practices: no formalism, necessarily overhanging in its rationality, will ever replace a true ethics of reflexivity based on the often microlocal nature of ethnographic surveys that can feed it. This brings us back to the concerns I wanted to share in a more distant way, in terms of reflexivity, with regard to the overhanging procedural formalisms that can be described when participatory mechanisms become institutionalized or are part of a globalized market of models and expertise. The reflexive problem to be addressed then becomes that of our scientific ethos, influenced by the stakes of the “general rise”, and which lead to the formalization of overhanging models. In terms of democracy, it is not certain that this positivist ethos is compatible with a political ethos.

Natural Heritage, Participatory Democracy and UNESCO: a Structure of Disillusionment?

19

1.8. References Abdul Halim, S., Azizah Ishak, N. (2017). Examining community engagement in heritage conservation through geopark experiences from the Asia Pacific region. Kajian Malaysia, 35(1), 11–38. Absi, P. (2005). Patrimoine et conflits sociaux: l’exemple de la défense de la montagne minière de Potosi, Bolivia. Espaces et sociétés, 119(1), 199–214. Alban, N., Hubert, G. (2013). Le modèle des parcs nationaux à l’épreuve du territoire. VertigO, 13(2) [Online]. Available: http://vertigo.revues.org/14081. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. JAIP, 35(4), 216–224. Aspe, C., Jacqué, M. (2012). Environnement et société. Quae/MSH, Paris. Babou, I. (2009). Disposer de la nature. Enjeux environnementaux en Patagonie argentine. L’Harmattan, Paris. Babou, I. (2013). Autochtonie et migrations dans les sites du patrimoine naturel de l’UNESCO. Sociologies [Online]. Available: http://sociologies.revues.org/4416. Babou, I. (2015). Patrimonialisation et politiques de la nature: le parc national de La Réunion. VertigO, 15(1) [Online]. Available: http://vertigo.revues.org/16038. Babou, I. (2016). Randonner avec un vidéoprojecteur. La démocratie participative à l’épreuve dans le parc national de La Réunion. Communication, 34(1) [Online]. Available: http://communication.revues.org/6706. Babou, I. (2017). Paysages d’interactions à La Réunion. L’épreuve scientifique de la beauté d’un site du patrimoine mondial. In Paysages d’énigmes. Les paysages entre actions, représentations et institutions, Le Marec, J., Babou, I. (eds). Éditions des archives contemporaines, Paris. Barbier, R. (2005). Quand le public prend ses distances avec la participation. Topiques de l’ironie ordinaire. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 13(3), 258–265. Barbier, R., Larrue, C. (2011). Démocratie environnementale et territoires: un bilan d’étape. Participations, 1(1), 67–104. Beck, U. (2001). La société du risque, sur la voie d’une autre modernité. Aubier, Paris. Berger, M. (2014). La participation sans le discours. Enquête sur le tournant sémiotique dans les pratiques de démocratie participative. EspacesTemps.net [Online]. Available: www.espaces temps.net/articles/la-participation-sans-le-discours/. Berger, M. (2015). Des publics fantomatiques. Dossiers, Pragmatisme et sciences sociales: explorations, enquêtes, expérimentations. SociologieS [Online]. Available: http:// sociologies.revues.org/4935. Berliner, D. (2010). Perdre l’esprit du lieu. Terrain, 55 [Online]. Available: http:// terrain.revues.org/index14077.html.

20

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Blanc, G. (2016). Violence et incohérence en milieu naturel : une histoire du parc éthiopien du Semēn. Études rurales, 197 [Online]. Available: http://journals.openedition.org/ etudesrurales/10691. Blondiaux, L., Fourniau, J.-M. (2011). Un bilan des recherches sur la participation du public en démocratie: beaucoup de bruit pour rien? Participations, 1, 8–35. Bouet, B. (2016). Construction de l’autochtonie et protection de l’environnement à l’échelle internationale: du conflit à la coopération? Desenvolv. Meio Ambiente, 38, 173–189. Boy, D., Donnet Kamel, D., Roqueplo, P. (2000). Un exemple de démocratie participative: la “conférence de citoyens” sur les organismes génétiquement modifiés. Revue française de science politique, 50(4–5), 779–810. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., Barthes, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique. Le Seuil, Paris. Cassin, B., Wozny, D. (eds) (2014). Les intraduisibles du patrimoine en Afrique subsaharienne. Demopolis, Paris. Chalas, Y., Soubeyran, O. (2009). Incertitude, environnement et aménagement. Quelle rupture ? In Comment les acteurs s’arrangent avec l’incertitude, Chalas, Y., Gilbert, C., Vinck, D. (eds). Éditions des archives contemporaines, Paris. Charvolin, F. (2003). L’invention de l’environnement en France. anthropologiques d’une institutionnalisation. La Découverte, Paris.

Chroniques

Chateauraynaud, F. (2011). Argumenter dans un champ de forces. Essai de balistique sociologique. Pétra, Paris. Concklin, H. C. (1957). Hanunoo Agriculture: A Report on an Integral System of Shifting Cultivation in the Philippines. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Duval, M., Smith, W. (2014). Inscription au patrimoine mondial et dynamiques touristiques: le massif de l’uKhahlamba-Drakensberg (Afrique du Sud). Annales de géographie, 697(3), 912–934. Faurie, M. (2011). Impacts et limites de la patrimonialisation à Ouvéa (Nouvelle-Calédonie). Le Journal de la Société des océanistes, 132 [Online]. Available at: http://jso. revues.org/6293. Gray, A., Colchester, M., Parellada, A. (eds) (1998). Derechos indígenas y conservación de la naturaleza. Asuntos relativos a la gestión. IWGIA, FPP, AIDESEP, Copenhagen. Guimbatan, R., Baguilat, T. (2006). Misunderstanding the notion of conservation in the Philippine rice terraces: Cultural landscapes. International Social Science Journal, 58(187), 59–67. Guyot, S. (2004). Derrière l’écotourisme, le politique: conservation et discrimination territoriale en Afrique du Sud. Revue Tiers-Monde, 178, 341–363.

Natural Heritage, Participatory Democracy and UNESCO: a Structure of Disillusionment?

21

Jasanoff, S., Long Martello, M. (eds) (2004). Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance. MIT Press, Cambridge. Joss, S., Durant, J. (eds) (1995). Public Participation in Science. The Role of Conferences Consensus in Europe. Science Museum, London. Kalaora, B., Vlassopoulos, C. (2013). Pour une sociologie de l’environnement. Champ Vallon, Seyssel. Le Marec, J. (2007). Publics et musées. La confiance éprouvée. L’Harmattan, Paris. Neuman, M. (2006). Sciences et Société en mutation. Sciences et Société en mutation, CNRS. Available: www.habiter-autrement.org/16.acteurs/contributions-16/Methodes_ participatives_cnrs.pdf. Neumann, P. R. (2004). Moral and discursive geographies in the war for biodiversity in Africa. Political Geography, 23(7), 813–837. Nguinguiri, J.-C. (1999). Les approches participatives dans la gestion des écosystèmes forestiers d’Afrique centrale: Revue des initiatives existantes. Occasional paper no. 23. Center for International Forestry Research. Odin, F., Thuderoz, C. (2010). Des mondes bricolés? Arts et sciences à l’épreuve de la notion de bricolage. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne. Prud’homme, R. (2008). Les impacts socio-économiques de l’inscription d’un site sur la liste du patrimoine mondial: trois études. [Online] Available at: www.rprudhomme.com/ biblioth%C3%A8que/patrimoine-unesco/. Ramousse, D., Salin, E. (2007). Aires protégées des périphéries sud-américaines: entre réserves stratégiques et valorisation patrimoniale. Monde en développement, 138(2), 11–26. Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417–2431. Sadowski, N. (2015). Office of technology assessment: History, implementation, and participatory critique. Technology in Society, 42, 9–20. Sosa Espinosa, A. (2013). Turismo, planificación y bienestar en Lanzarote. PhD Thesis, Université polytechnique de Valence, Valence. Soubeyran, O. (2014). Pensée aménagiste et improvisation. L’improvisation en jazz et l’écologisation de la pensée aménagiste. Éditions des archives contemporaines, Paris. Tsing, A. (2005). Friction. An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

2 The Ambivalences of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory: a Case Study on Spanish UGGs

2.1. Introduction The “innovations” of UNESCO’s programs and labels for the heritage of nature often appear at a specific moment in response to international conservation challenges and changes in the relationship with nature (Brianso and Girault 2014). In this sense, the creation in 2015 of the UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGG)1 label, described as a carrier of innovation through its “holistic” and bottom-up approaches to the territory, should be inspired by older attempts to make nature and the resulting relationship with the territory that follows, heritage. Is it therefore a different approach that would be based in particular on taking into account “the mistakes of the past” (Lamic 2008, p. 151) to make heritage a territorial project? How was this new label negotiated, imposed and co-constructed, and what was the real place of local communities in these various creative projects? Given the recurrent involvement of geologists in these projects, is it only a project of a territory valued for the knowledge of a scientific discipline, or on the contrary an economic

Chapter written by Catalina GONZALEZ TEJADA and Yves GIRAULT. The work presented in this chapter is part of the Geopark H2020 program and was funded by the European Union’s Research and Innovation Program Horizon 2020 under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 644015. 1 On November 17, 2015, UNESCO’s 195 Member States ratified the creation of a new label, UNESCO’s Global Geoparks, during the organization’s 38th General Conference. The adoption of this label shows the importance given by governments to the holistic management of outstanding geological sites and landscapes.

UNESCO Global Geoparks: Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement First Edition. Edited by Yves Girault. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

24

UNESCO Global Geoparks

valuation of this territory unless it is merely a fashionable effect for the international recognition of territories? These questions led us to analyze the aims and values that motivated the candidacy of the Spanish territories that obtained the UGG label. We are more specifically interested in their impacts in the initial creation phase of the geopark, which makes sense in the relationship between territory, heritage and local communities. To construct our analysis, we borrow certain concepts that have flourished in the context of new museology, particularly under the impetus of ecomuseology. 2.2. Problematic issues The idea of an ecomuseum was launched by Georges Henri Rivière in the early 1950s to develop museum presentations on ecology and regional ethnology. This idea was tested in 1968 in the regional nature parks of Ushant, Mont D'Arrée, Grande-Lande, Camargue and Mont Lozère. It was not until 1971, however, that the expression “ecomuseum” was coined by Hugues de Varine and proposed to Robert Poujade, then the Minister of the Environment in France, who appropriated it and “decided to use this word to rename all museums or interpretation centers that existed or would be created in regional natural parks” (de Varine 2017, p. 39). In 1971, “this neologism had nothing to do with the Creusot” (de Varine 2015, p. 8), but it was in 1973, in search of administrative supervision, that a file was concocted by de Varine and Evrard to “demonstrate why it was possible to bring our Museum of Man and Industry [...] within the category of museums reserved for structures located in the regional natural parks” (de Varine 2015, p. 47). This dossier was accepted by the Ministry of the Environment and thus “the Museum of Man and Industry became the ecomuseum of the urban community of Le Creusot-Montceau” (de Varine 2015, p. 47), which has since become a cultural phenomenon on an international scale. Under de Varine’s influence, the term “ecomuseum” has been used in many countries and has become a structuring concept in the new museology movement. Thus, unlike the traditional function of a museum focused on collections, de Varine sees the “museum as an action, that means a dynamic instrument of social change” (de Varine 2000, p. 182) in which the public is first and foremost the local communities that are also involved in the creation and management of the ecomuseum to participate in local development. The ecomuseum is therefore conceived as a “liberator of the creative forces of society” (de Varine 2000, p. 183) who must be able to benefit from the empowerment of local communities in the actions of the territory and the production of their heritage, while at the same time needing scientists/experts to enable communities, in an egalitarian and democratic

The Ambivalences of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory

25

dialogue, to reveal this freedom and together constitute the story of the territory. Today, as a victim of its success, this term is widely used and sometimes overused in many countries. In 2017, de Varine proposed a new synthetic definition of ecomuseology: “It is a way of managing living heritage through a participatory process, in the cultural, social and economic interest of territories and communities, in other words the populations living in these territories” (de Varine 2017, p. 272). But how can local populations be involved in the inventory and management of the heritage of their territory? Pierre Mayrand, to refer to the process of creating an ecomuseum, uses the term “mental territory” (Mayrand and Mairesse 2000, p. 228; Mayrand 2004, p. 49; Champoux-Paillé 2007, p. 143). This polysemous term, used in various disciplines2, leads us to identify common features of its use as a space for dialogue between actors, their representations and their interests for the construction of a new relationship with the territory based on reflections on the heritage. These reflections will make it possible to “reveal” a sense of place, a meaning to the territory, which will contribute to the creation of a narrative of the territory. According to Mayrand, this consideration of the diversity of representations, which can lead to a kind of “revelation” about the relationship with the environment, makes it possible to identify three stages of evolution for the construction of a “mental territory”. The analysis of these stages is thus part of the understanding of the process of heritage development of a territory. Catalina Gonzalez Tejada was therefore interested, within the framework of her doctoral research, in analyzing the articulation between a patrimonialization “by designation (corresponding to the control of a territory and the discourse held about it by public authorities)” and a patrimonialization “by appropriation (which accompanies the construction of a collective memory and a both public and common space)” (Rautenberg 2004 cited by Babou 2015, p. 10), based on the representations of the land–heritage relationships referred to by the geoparks designers (Table 2.1). In this chapter, we focus only on the first stage, the heritage stage (internal reflection/awareness/re-connection). To guide us in this analysis, we also use the 2 (1) Geographical, concerning spatial planning, by consolidating the objective and subjective approach to the territory (Monnet 1999); (2) psychotherapeutic, concerning non-verbal decoding as a self-awareness and its communication with society (Messinger 2009); (3) economic–psychopolitical, concerning the reconnection of knowledge about society with knowledge about the psychological economy of individuals for the construction of democratic attitudes (Ouriques 2011); (4) communication sciences, reappropriating the approach of Ouriques (2011), concerns citizen participation based on the relationships between the construction of democratic attitudes and the involvement of culture with nature (Gonzales García 2016); (5) artistic, concerning creation as a manifestation of the construction of the mind and the relationship with the environment around it (Penteado 2013; Nielsen 2017); (6) landscape-artistic, concerning the garden as a meeting between man and nature (Clément et al. 2016).

26

UNESCO Global Geoparks

first steps of the patrimonialization process of a territory described by Di Méo, considering the awareness of the territorial heritage and the selection and justification of this heritage (Di Méo 2008, pp. 10–14).

Interdisciplinary factors at each stage

Heritage stage of the “mental territory” (Mayrand)

Creation stage of the “mental territory” (Mayrand) Territory – creation

Sharing – geopark

Configuration of the fabricactors (PALOC) and contexts (Di Méo 2008)

Awareness, selection and justification of territorial heritage (Chaumier 2000; Veschambre 2007; Di Méo 2008; Heinich 2009; Babou 2015)

A territory project from the geological heritage (Davallon 2006; Di Méo 2008; Landel and Senil 2009; Benos and Milan 2013; Alaux et al. 2015)

The “revelation” of the project through interpretation (Tilden 1957; Girault and Sauvé 2008; Viel 2008; Desrosiers 2011; de Varine 2015, 2017; Girault and Barthes 2016)

What are the impacts on community participation?

In the service of what interests is the patrimonial reflection in the service of?

Which articulations of ambivalent interests for creation of a geopark?

Is the proposed territory narrative consistent with the territory project?

Table 2.1. Construction process analysis grid of a “mental territory” adapted to the geopark

We will therefore focus our attention on the “fabric-actors”3 of the geoparks’ heritage who have participated to a greater or lesser extent in modifying heritage relations and rooting discourses that favor certain political, economic, social or ecological interests on the basis of which they have built a meaning for the labeled territory. More specifically, we would like to analyze to what extent these actors, in accordance with the geoparks’ objectives of using a bottom-up approach, wanted and/or were able to open up the “heritage chain” during this first phase

3 The idea of “heritage fabricators” refers to the involvement and participation of researchers in heritage development processes (from Suremain and Galipaud 2015). This term also refers to other actors in heritage development, such as public decision makers or representatives of administrations, representatives of national and international institutions, economic actors and local communities in the context of an ideal of co-construction of the territory.

The Ambivalences of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory

27

(Heinich 2009, p. 41) to other groups of actors. How were they able to take into account different perspectives on the interpretation of heritage and the scientific, symbolic, cultural, aesthetic or touristic values that they were able to bring, in a territorial context, and put them in dialogue for the co-construction of the meaning of the territory? However, we do not forget that, within the framework of international labeling, these designers of the territorial narrative are at the center of existing tensions between other actors (politicians, managers) and interests (national, local) to whom they must respond at each stage of the construction of a geopark’s narrative. 2.3. Methodology and construction of the corpus We have chosen Spain as our field of study because it is the European country with the largest number of geoparks, on the one hand, and on the other hand, in 2015 it was in second place worldwide with 11 geoparks out of the 127 existing in the world, plus two applications in 20164. Spain, through one of its Maestrazgo territories, was also at the origin of the creation of the European Geoparks Network in 2000. Its very active role in the network, its strong global representation and its longstanding involvement in the global geoparks network (EGN 2000, GGN 2004, UGG 2015) therefore give this country all the qualities required to retain it as an essential research field to understand the challenges and developments in geoparks from 2000 to the present day. As part of this study, we are therefore interested in the projects’ proponents or various actors who were involved in the creation of the geoparks (tourism agents, candidacy assessors) and all the current scientific coordinators and managers of the Spanish geoparks. In order to analyze their representations, we produced an interview guide with about 50 questions structured in three main parts: – the institutional context (creation process, geopark design, representation on geological heritage, geotourism and nature conservation); – the cultural mediation (education and interpretation); – the personal information (training, responsibilities in the geopark, work difficulties, developments, expectations related to the geopark). In a transversal way, the questions also aimed to highlight the participation methods of local communities and the holistic approach of the territory project. Finally, the aim was to identify possible tensions present in the territory at different

4 These interviews were mainly conducted in 2016. In 2018, Spain continues to occupy this second position despite the fact that Maestrazgo was eliminated from the global network in 2017, with the two new UGGs; there are 12 UGGs in Spain.

28

UNESCO Global Geoparks

stages: during the creation, for the current management and/or for the appropriation of knowledge and the staging of the territory. The final corpus therefore consists of 40 people interviewed face-to-face, including all scientific coordinators and managers, as well as the former ones (at the origin of the geopark idea). In addition to this first sample, to better take into account the national context, there were interviews with the managers of the two Spanish candidacies in 2016 and the coordinators of the Spanish National Committee of Geoparks5. 2.4. The construction of the story of the mental territory of the Spanish geoparks If the concept of geological heritage, defined in Digne in 1991, is for some the basis for the creation of the Geopark world label as described by UNESCO (Du and Girault 2018), it would seem that at the end of this event two currents advocating different approaches to the relationship with geology appeared according to two types of reflections, one disciplinary and the other territorial: The problem at the 1991 congress, and we also showed it with ProGeo6, is that we were no longer on the same wavelength, because on the one hand there was us, in the broader sense, who saw geology not as an end in itself but rather as an opening to something else, to a philosophy, to another view of the world, to mixtures of dialogues, etc., and on the other hand, we were no longer on the same wavelength with the economy that was still there; and then there were those who looked at the geological heritage brutally and systematically in a scientific, very square way and somewhere we split up7. Thus, it is not surprising that we find these two approaches within the contexts of awareness, selection and justification of the value of the geological heritage in 5 These interviews were conducted by C. Gonzalez Tejada as part of her doctoral research. 6 “ProGEO was the first international geoconservation organization organized as a European and democratic association that has the capacity and legitimate support to speak on behalf of geoconservation stakeholders in Europe [...] ProGEO promotes the protection of important geological sites and landscapes, as well as the diverse heritage of geological features of scientific, educational, tourist and cultural importance”, www.progeo.ngo, accessed March 9, 2018. 7 Interview with Guy Martini at the Musée de la Promenade, headquarters of the UGG de Haute Provence and the Global Geopark Network, accessed March 2, 2018.

The Ambivalences of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory

29

which the various geoparks projects in Spain have emerged, especially since, as we have shown, these various approaches are still very significant (Gonzalez Tejada et al. 2017). We will therefore first analyze the reflections based on a disciplinary logic that advocates the enhancement and/or protection of nature in a territory. We use the term “enhancement” here, like Desrosiers, as “the concrete expression of museological interpretation in the form of exhibitions, interpretation panels, restoration of structural remains, etc.” (Desrosiers 2011, p. 108). Heritage is then perceived as a source of knowledge, identity, memory, inspiration, etc. We will then show that “valorization” is a term used “by those who support the functional approach, [such as] planners, tourism operators or economists” (Davallon 2006, p. 53). Before presenting these two analyses, it seems essential to us to contextualize our work by presenting the evolution of the legal aspects related to geological heritage and the various official uses of this term in Spain. 2.4.1. First initiatives to protect geological aspects in Spain In Spain, the first initiative for the creation of a protected area based on geology dates back to 1914, namely the “Ciudad Encantada Geological National Park of Cuenca” (Casado 2014, p. 20). Although the proposal for the creation of a “national geological park” was not successful, the ideas discussed at that time provide an understanding of some of the current claims to recognize geology as a natural heritage. We have no information that would explain why this proposal has not been followed up, but it has undoubtedly had a major influence on the consideration of geology in protected areas and the creation of geological parks in Spain. Thus, Giménez de Aguilar’s proposal was a pioneering one in that it took place two years before the 1916 law on the creation of Spain’s National Parks. Following the application of this law in 1918, the first two National Parks, Ordesa and Covadonga, with geology as the founding element for their declaration, were created (Carcavilla Urquí et al. 2007, p. 226). However, this protectionist movement, taking into account geology and nature in general, was not followed for a long time within the government that did not declare new protected areas until the late 1940s (DíazMartínez et al. 2014, p. 26). In addition, there was a significant lack of consideration of the geological aspect in nature conservation policies at a time when the Spanish ecological movement assumed itself as a “new form of protest against the dictatorship”, but with “little interest in the geological elements of nature” (Díaz-Martínez et al. 2014, p. 26), which is what Casado describes as an “excessive biological bias” (Casado 2014,

30

UNESCO Global Geoparks

p. 19). According to Gallego and Garcia-Cortes, it was not until 1974 that new protected area declarations appeared for exclusively geological reasons (Gallego and Garcia-Cortes 1996, p. 204). But it was only in 1978, when the Spanish Constitution gave them powers to manage nature (Art. 148, 9), that the first initiatives to draw up an inventory of the geological heritage were carried out in the regions (autonomous communities), and regional protected areas were declared for their geological value. Three other major events have contributed to a better integration of geology into conservation policies. This is a greater dynamic of exchanges around geology that began to emerge with the creation of the Sociedad Española de Geología Ambiental y Ordenación del Territorio (1978) (Durán 2004, p. 25) in parallel with the first national inventory of Puntos de Interés Geológico initiated by the IGME between 1978 and 1989 (Durán 2004, p. 24), then with the creation of the Geological Society of Spain (1985) and the definition of its Geological Heritage Commission (1994). These national and regional dynamics will then be consolidated with the Spanish law 42/2007 “on natural heritage and biodiversity” in which the geological heritage is defined and integrated into nature conservation policy. Finally, it seems important to us to present the nature of the current debates in Spain on paleontology, as this has had and still has important consequences on the issues of paleontological heritage in the creation and functioning of geoparks. Thus, in Spanish law 16/1985 on the Patrimonio Histórico Español for the protection of the paleontological and archaeological heritage, paleontological elements are considered as archaeological elements dependent on the cultural heritage to the detriment of geological elements perceived as natural heritage (Mayoral and Oñate 1997, p. 111). According to the regions, the paleontological heritage is protected by the label of Bien de Interés Cultural (BIC) (Durán 2004, p. 25), which is “more appropriate for archaeological sites” (Melendez and Soria 1997, p. 114), while for natural heritage there is natural monument designation that appears as a legal figure that could adequately cover the protection of a paleontological site since “this heritage, which is indisputably of natural origin, is managed by the ministry, departments and councils of culture [....], [whereas], the new Law 42/2007 on natural heritage and biodiversity considers geological heritage as a whole, including palaeontology, as natural heritage” (Carcavilla et al. 2014, p. 15). This situation has since led to tensions among communities of paleontologists and geologists who have requested legal clarifications in the report on paleontology (Alcala 1999, pp. 45–52; Bohórquez et al. 2006, pp. 113–127), recognition as natural rather than cultural heritage, and a conservation policy adapted to

The Ambivalences of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory

31

paleontology. These debates are still ongoing and are the subject of a recent publication8. In view of this context, we will now present the three most active definitions of geological heritage in Spain that, without doubt, have a very significant influence on heritage awareness as it may emerge within the territories. 2.4.2. Various definitions of geological heritage in Spain As geoparks have been created by geologists with the primary purpose of enhancing the geological heritage, it seems important to try to define this concept. Most often, the authors refer to Article 9 of the definition of geological heritage as proposed in the Digne Declaration international des droits de la mémoire de la terre (international declaration of the rights and the memory of the Earth) (June 13, 1991): Geological heritage is the common good of Man and the Earth. Each man, each government is only the custodian of this heritage. Everyone must understand that the slightest depredation is a mutilation, a destruction, an irremediable loss. Any development work must take into account the value and singularity of this heritage. In reality, this definition is not really used by everyone and its translation from French into various languages, in particular English and Spanish, already poses significant interpretation problems9. We therefore want to show that in Spain, there are, among others, four definitions of geological heritage (Table 2.2) which are not totally similar and will induce tensions from the very first phases of creating a geopark.

8 Revista PH 94. Especial monográfico: Patrimonio paleontológico español (2018). It publishes contributions that are part of the debate on the existing legal framework for the protection of paleontological heritage. See A. Arribas Herrera, “Le patrimoine paléontologique en Andalousie : un grand problème avec une solution simple et raisonnable”, which supports the natural rather than cultural heritage approach, and J.I. Canudo, “Quelques réflexions sur la gestion du patrimoine paléontologique par les administrations espagnoles”, which instead considers this controversy of geological heritage as cultural or natural sterile and focuses on the importance of creating better protection and research strategies. 9 C. Gonzalez Tejada points out in her thesis that the English versions include nine articles instead of 10 in Spanish. In addition, if the term “geological heritage” (patrimoine géologique) is absent in the Spanish version (replaced by common heritage), it is translated into English as “Earth heritage”.

32

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Thus, according to the document that served as a basis for the elaboration of the framework strategy that defines it (Villalobos Megía and Pérez Muñoz 2006), the cultural geo-resource, which we will highlight later, appears to be fundamental in the creation of geoparks in Andalusia, and seems to mark a conceptual break with the commonly acquired idea of geological heritage in Spain. Following the logic of this definition (Table 2.2), which was amended in a document by the following sentence: “The narrow concept of geological heritage has therefore given way, at the turn of the century, to a more modern and broader concept, that of ‘cultural geo-resources’” (Villalobos Megía and Pérez Muñoz 2006, p. 19), we wonder whether the innovation of the concept of “cultural geo-resources” is therefore the idea of bringing to the same level geological aspects that have a scientific value and those that have no great scientific value but rather a cultural and/or economic one? Has what these authors call the “modernization” of the concept of geological heritage been carried out in opposition to the definition of geological heritage proposed in the Digne Declaration, or more precisely to its reinterpretation and adaptation to the Spanish context in the Girona Declaration? (Table 2.2). If we take into account the two conditions that have been pointed out to define a “cultural geo-resource”, we should note that the meaning of the first condition is found throughout the Girona Declaration and the second condition would correspond to the beginning of Article 7 of the same declaration: Geological heritage, if well managed, can become a fundamental element of the social and economic well-being of its environment, as well as an effective contribution to the sustainable development of the rural areas in which it is generally located, and thus progress towards a better understanding between man and nature10. In 1988, there was already another definition of a similar concept within the former IGME structure, ITGE (Instituto Tecnológico Geominario de España), to categorize the first inventories carried out in Spain. It is a “geo-cultural resource” (Table 2.2). The description of “cultural” here seems to be inspired by the tourisminterpretation relationship of heritage as advocated within U.S. national parks. However, Carcavilla Urquí et al. (2007) indicate that the “geo-cultural resource must have geological relevance, even if cultural value may take precedence over geological value, while geological importance for ‘cultural geo-resources’ would not be decisive in relation to its intellectual or spiritual value”. On what basis can the two terms “geological relevance/importance” and “geological value” be 10 Girona Declaration: www.igme.es/patrimonio/links/declaracionGirona.htm.

The Ambivalences of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory

33

distinguished? By consulting the reference document11, we see that there were three different types of interests for a “geo-cultural resource”, namely those of use, content and influence, whereas the inventory of “cultural geo-resources” would only take into account one of the types of interests, that of use referred to here as “valorization”, namely tourism, science and education. If this differentiation between the two concepts seems “very diffused”, as Carcavilla Urquí et al. (2007, p. 33) point out, it seems to us that the relationship between humanity and geology is broadening to include territorial-community issues not only through tourism enhancement linked to the disclosure or understanding of nature (Desrosiers 2011), and to the “valorization” of this heritage (Davallon 2006), but also, with the concept of “cultural geo-resources”, through the improvement of the quality of life of local communities. However, if we compare the representation of tourist, scientific and didactic values/interests with the total number of sites in the two inventories (Madrid Community 1988 and Andalusia Community 2011)12, we see that what is common is the enhancement of heritage aspects that have a “very high” or “high” didactic value. What differentiates these two concepts is therefore the fact that tourist interest is less important for “geo-cultural resources” while tourism is, for “cultural georesources”, almost as important as didactic values to the detriment of scientific aspects. Villalobos Megía and Pérez Muñoz specify in this regard: “A cultural georesource may not have exceptional scientific value but it may have a high potential for economic and geotouristic use, for example” (Villalobos Megía and Pérez Muñoz 2006, p. 19). This observation would undoubtedly be at the origin of the criticism formulated by some geologists who claim that the inventory of “cultural geo-resources” cannot be considered as a geological inventory. Indeed, the latest official definition of geological heritage, in Article 3, 38, of Law 42/2007 of Spain, defended by the IGME (Art. 3, 19, Jefatura del Estado 2007, p. 16), covers only one of the criteria for “cultural geo-resources” (Table 2.2).

11 Mapa de recursos geoculturales de la comunidad de Madrid (ITGE and Autonome Region Madrid 1988, 81). 12 Considering the limits of generalization due to the large difference between the number of sites from one inventory to another, 29 in the case of Madrid and 662 in the case of Andalusia, although these allow us to identify a trend toward their differentiation.

“Geological history, represented by an enormous variety of forms, sedimentary deposits, rocks, fossils, minerals and many other geological manifestations, is a fundamental testimony to the knowledge of the Earth's memory, past climates and landscapes, and the biological and geological varieties of the present. This series of unique geological features, representative of the geological history of each particular region, and of the Earth as a whole, constitutes the geological heritage...”. “Element, set of elements, places or spaces of high geological value that meet at least one of the following conditions: (1) which have a high scientific and/or didactic value and must therefore be adequately protected and managed; (2) which are likely to be used and managed as a resource in order to increase the overall attractiveness of the territory on which they are located and, consequently, to improve the quality of life of the population around them”. “All geological natural resources of scientific, cultural and/or educational value, including geological formations and structures, landforms, minerals, rocks, meteorites, fossils, soils and other geological features that enable us to know, study and interpret: (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” (Art. 3, 38, of the Spanish Law 42/2007).

Geo-cultural resource (ITGE 1988)

Girona Declaration on Geological Heritage (1998)

Cultural geo-resource (Andalusia 2006)

Official definition of geological heritage (2007)

Table 2.2. Chronological presentation of four definitions of geological heritage in Spain

“The (geological) elements of the natural environment that serve mankind to broaden knowledge of its own history and its rooting in the environment, to satisfy a wide range of spiritual or intellectual needs” (ITGE 1988 in Carcavilla Urquí et al. 2007, p. 33).

34 UNESCO Global Geoparks

The Ambivalences of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory

35

So we see that there is a disciplinary conflict in Spain over the relationship with geology. This is illustrated in the various definitions proposed by the national institution IGME, that of the region of Andalusia, which are for example mobilized within natural parks, and which go beyond the stated objectives of taking into account, protecting/using and disseminating geology. Given these differences, can we think that under the influence of top-down instructions imposed by UNESCO, there may be a convergence of points of view within Spanish geoparks? We will show that this is not the case and that, on the contrary, according to the definition to which geoparks managers will refer, heritage reflection will be carried out according to a disciplinary logic or, on the contrary, according to a territorial valorization logic. 2.4.3. Cultural enhancement of geological heritage: a disciplinary approach between protection and dissemination of geology The disciplinary logic is linked to reflections whose consideration of geology corresponds to the interests defended by one or more disciplines represented by actors involved in the emergence of a project to create a geopark. These interests can be diverse and therefore come under tension during the various phases of creating a geopark. First of all, we will show that disciplinary logic is at the origin of a majority of initiatives in Spain (six out of 11 geoparks)13. Among these six initiatives, the emergence of geological consideration has taken place within existing protected areas with a conservation objective (3/6) and a dissemination objective (3/6). 2.4.3.1. A disciplinary logic at the origin of a protection policy The Andalusian region has played a leading role in Spain by creating, on the one hand, since 1994, planning tools for its natural parks (the Planes de Ordenacion de los Recursos Naturales (PORN)) and, on the other hand, by advocating, as we have already mentioned, the concept of “cultural geo-resource”, which is fundamental in the creation of geoparks in Andalusia. In this context, the methodological bases for the implementation of the Estrategia Andaluza de Gestion Integrada de la Geodiversidad (Andalusian strategy for integrated geodiversity management) have been established. This strategy, drafted in 2002 (Villalobos Megía et al. 2004, p. 9), presented in 2003 and published in 2010 (Concejería de Medio Ambiente 2010, p. 8), clearly recognized the role of geoparks in relation to this geological heritage, stating in particular that participation in the geoparks’ networks (EGN and GGN)

13 In this article, we have selected only 11 of the 13 geoparks (studied during C. Gonzalez Tejada’s doctoral research), the creation of which was motivated by one of the two logics identified. Due to lack of space, we have not presented here the analysis of the contexts in which the other two geoparks were created, which depended on a mixed logic.

36

UNESCO Global Geoparks

should “guarantee a permanent link with them and thus promote the incorporation of other territories in this region” (Concejería de Medio Ambiente 2010, pp. 92, 146 and 151). Thus, three natural parks in Andalusia that had already taken geological aspects into account in their creation projects, under the influence of geologists, were able to reactivate their policy of conservation and enhancement of the geological heritage with financial assistance from Interreg IIC and by carrying out inventories of “cultural geo-resources” at regional level. Apart from these similarities, we will present some differences that seem to correspond to the steps taken to consider geodiversity in the strategy of the Andalusian region, namely the identification of heritage interest (Cabo de Gata), the process of integration into the natural park concept (Sierras Subbeticas) and the international recognition of its conservation policy (Sierra Norte de Seville). The Cabo de Gata Natural Park, which, as part of its nature conservation policy, has taken into account its geological aspects, was the one in which a first inventory of “cultural geo-resources” was published (Villalobos Megia et al. 1993, cited by Mayoral and Oñate 1997, p. 111). This natural park has benefited from the Planificación y Equipamiento Interpretativo-Turístico de los Georrecursos Culturales de los Espacios Naturales del Entorno Subdesértico Almeriense (1997), the objective of which was to complete the interpretative offer by integrating the concept of “geo-resource”. In order to follow up both the inventory of “cultural geo-resources” and their geotourism development in its other natural parks, the Andalusian region established, in 2000–2001, a cooperation program, Interreg IIC, between the Junta de Andalusia and the PACA region in France. It is in this context of collaboration and under the impetus of José Guirado, director of this park at the time, who also held responsibilities in the regional government and was one of the promoters for the recognition of geology and geoparks within the network of protected areas in Andalusia and the Spanish State, that the idea of a geopark emerged in Cabo de Gata. However, while the justification for raising awareness of the geological heritage in Andalusia was initiated in response to the disciplinary reflections of geologists to give geology a place among the conservation challenges, new justifications have gradually been adopted, in particular that of creating a geopark within natural parks to develop a valorization logic of the territory: In these experiments, we understood the opportunity to develop the only resource that was generally never developed in natural spaces, namely the geological resource.... The whole world was reporting high volcanological value or the geological origin of each territory, but never as an element that could support policies and management actions aimed at developing a territory. No one had realized that a

The Ambivalences of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory

37

territory could, thanks to its geological characteristics, follow a development strategy14. It is interesting to note that the instrumental value of geology is highlighted here, within a natural park, whereas it is a protected area created with the objective of nature conservation by focusing on its intrinsic value. Is it therefore a contradiction or an evolution of the aims of a natural park that will gradually evolve into a geopark? Awareness of the geology of the territory of the Sierras Subbeticas Natural Park began in the 1920s when Juan Carandell, a natural history teacher in this territory, tried to obtain the declaration of the Picacho de la Virgen de la Sierra mountain as a site of natural interest. In 1926, after several unsuccessful attempts at classification, at the XIV International Congress of Geology in Madrid, the first geological congress held in Spain15, he organized the Visita de los Sabios16, which ended with the recommendation of the participating geologists for its declaration as a Sitio de Interes Natural. Following these two events, the Junta de Parques Nacionales declared in 1929 the Sitio de Interes Natural Picacho de la Virgen de la Sierra (Córdoba) (Salazar 2017, p. 176). In 2005, the director of the Sierras Subbeticas Natural Park asked the region for permission to create a geopark in order to promote a new approach encompassing a strong cultural dimension of geological heritage enhancement, which in turn will justify the value of a global discourse on nature: “As I have already told you, geodiversity is the mother of biodiversity, including human beings. We must therefore achieve an integration of everything”17. According to the director of the Sierras Subbeticas Natural Park, this cultural enhancement should be part of a protectionist approach, which is the preferred approach of natural parks. In other words, the natural park defends geological values more than it uses them for tourism, it is more protectionist than the one who uses them. The first thing to ensure is that these values are maintained and then used in a sustainable way. Therefore, for the nature park, environmental education is a priority over tourism (idem.). This positioning seems contradictory to that of the former director of Cabo de Gata, who stressed the importance of geological resources as the basis for the 14 Interview conducted in Almería, Spain, on June 20, 2016. 15 www.congresogeologicoespaña.com/, accessed May 14, 2018. 16 The name given to this visit by the newspapers of the time and which is now used again to refer to this moment. 17 Interview with one of the managers of the Sierras Subbeticas Natural Park, Córdoba, Spain, June 16, 2016.

38

UNESCO Global Geoparks

development of the territory through tourism. However, we also find these two conceptions in the appropriation of the “cultural” aspect of the cultural geo-resource, since it refers both to its educational and tourist potential. This difference could also be explained by the fact that the specific objectives of the PORN are specific to each park. In the 2004 PORN of the Sierras Subbeticas Natural Park, one year before the arrival of the new director, we note that 10 objectives of the plan focused on the biological component of nature as well as on conservation and disclosure issues (Consejeria de Medio Ambiente 2004, pp. 53–54). Would this highlight the biologist’s personal interest in using the geopark as a lever to integrate geology into nature's discourse? This is a different situation from that of Cabo de Gata, where, according to Mayoral and Oñate (1997, p. 109), geology had already been included in the park’s objectives since the first version of the PORN. The Cabo de Gata and Sierras Subbeticas natural parks were also presented as examples of an objective of the Geodiversity Strategy (number 5 of 6) of “the institutional integration of Andalusia into international programs and forums relating to geodiversity and geological heritage, in particular within the European and Global Geoparks Networks” (Concejería de Medio Ambiente 2010, p. 9). Although this strategy was only published in 2010, it influenced the creation of a third geopark within the Sierra Norte Natural Park in Seville, taking advantage of the contributions of Interreg IIC. In this third project, the heritage stage of the mental territory has taken shape on the basis of the paleontological heritage which, as we have specified under Spanish and/or regional laws, is part of the cultural heritage. Nevertheless, it was in 1989, the year of its creation, that an inventory of paleontological points of interest was published, and it was a study in 1996 that had already highlighted the potential for a tourist and educational exploitation of this heritage (Mayoral et al. 1996). This paleontological inventory was extended to other geological aspects following the inventory of the “cultural geo-resources” of Andalusia published in 2004 (Villalobos Megía et al. 2004, p. 11). Thus, unlike the other two territories mentioned above, the idea of creating a geopark emerged in a context where, according to its director, geology was already fully integrated into the park’s conservation policy: Before the project to create a geopark, we had already worked on the enhancement and conservation of natural resources, including geological resources, through a sustainable economy, by increasing the excellence and quality of the products and services that exist in the park and by promoting activities related to geotourism18.

18 Interview with one of the managers of the Sierra Norte de Seville Natural Park, Seville, Spain, on June 14, 2016.

The Ambivalences of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory

39

As we have just mentioned, these three geoparks, which were created in a disciplinary logic of enhancing geology and are part of natural parks, have benefited above all from a very proactive policy at the regional level. Table 2.3 summarizes the strengths of these three natural parks in response to our four considerations for the heritage stadium. We will then present three other examples of geoparks also initiated by geologists in a logic that is disciplinary but much more oriented toward knowledge-spreading activities. The geopark retains the same boundaries of the natural park Cabo de Gata

Sierras Subbeticas

Sierra Norte de Sevilla

Awareness of a geopark Interreg IIC + collaboration with Guy Martini Interreg IIC + personal interest of a new director in geology Interreg IIC + by regional council

Selection (inventory)

Inventory of “cultural geo-resources” within the region

Rationale (values)

Relation to the idea of a geopark Disciplinary logic (protection) extended to public and territorial logic (DD)

Scientific, didactic and touristic

Disciplinary logic (protection and disclosure) Public logic and territorial logic (DD)

Table 2.3. Main elements of the disciplinary logic that, within the three geoparks of Andalusia, induce a protection policy

2.4.3.2. A disciplinary logic at the root of a knowledge dissemination policy The idea of creating the three geoparks followed a proposal from geologists after the development of a geological guide for the Alto Tajo Natural Park and the creation of the Aliaga Geological Park and of the Central Catalonia Geological and Mining Park. In the first two cases, the creation of a geopark extended beyond the boundaries of the park to a larger area. For the Alto Tajo Natural Park, the pre-project promoted the enhancement of geology, which was the origin of the proposal made to the regional government by a local geologist who “wanted to make a network of geological itineraries for geologists and experts, to bring geologists from Germany, Holland and the Natural Park”. The region accepted, but requested the collaboration of another IGME geologist for the implementation of this project since, on the one hand, they “had been working on this territory for 10 years and the government introduced [them]

40

UNESCO Global Geoparks

into the project proposed and asked [them] to participate and supervise what the other person19 was doing”, and on the other hand, it would make the “geo-route” project more in line with the objectives of the natural park manager who wanted to create “geo-routes” for a wide audience. “The objective of the geo-routes is to provide affordable and attractive information that will allow visitors to learn about the rich geological heritage of Alto Tajo and to better understand certain processes in the natural park area” (Carcavilla Urquí et al. 2011, p. 29). This project also aims to encourage nature tourism and learning “about the values of Alto Tajo” (Carcavilla Urquí et al. 2011, p. 27). In this sense, the network of nine geo-routes in the Alto Tajo Natural Park therefore claims to show “the richness and geological diversity of the territory” (idem.) around, it would seem, a narrative framework presenting the modalities of the modeling of the territory by geology. For example, “Geo-road number 3: Man and geological resources” follows a logic of identifying rocks and their use by humanity to build bridges, houses, ovens, etc., without necessarily making a link with the values that these sites can have for the inhabitants (Carcavilla Urquí et al. 2011, pp. 138–149). The inventory that served as a basis for creating the network of “geo-routes” was previously carried out by the same IGME geologist who, according to him, participated in the declaration of various natural parks in the region of Castilla la Mancha: “I worked for the commission for the declaration of geological spaces, protected natural parks, and we declared about 60 to 70, which means a lot of them” (idem.). Driven by the objective of protecting the geological heritage, he had sought to protect new geological sites that, in his view, deserved special protection, and the idea of creating a geopark would contribute to the protection of these sites. However, initially, this IGME geologist said: On the day this geo-route network was inaugurated in July 2006, since all the politicians and local officials were present, I proposed that Alto Tajo Natural Park be converted into a geopark, and they told me to study the idea20. But after having attended the summer course on geoparks held every year at the Lesbos Geopark and having discussed with the heads of the label such as Nicolas Zouros and Patrick McKeever, the IGME geologist came to the following conclusion: “Why qualify natural geopark as a geopark? Even if it already existed in Andalusia, I considered it as a waste of time and so decided no to do it.” (idem.). Finally, this IGME geologist, in order to achieve his objective of protecting “three or 19 Interview with one of the managers of the Molina Alto Tajo geopark in Menorca, Spain, on June 9, 2017. 20 Interview with one of the managers of the Molina Alto Tajo geopark in Menorca, Spain, on June 9, 2017.

The Ambivalences of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory

41

four sites, such as the Fuentelsaz stratotype, for which he could not convince the authorities to set up protection because there was no legislative means to protect them” (idem.), had the following idea: Why not create a geopark on the territory that will include the natural park? And since it already functions as a geopark, why not try to transpose to the rest of the territory what is already being done within the natural park? (idem.) In this new approach to the idea of creating a geopark for the territory of Molina Alto-Tajo, the IGME geologist found a local ally: “I meet Manolo Monasterios [director] of the Molina Museum [...] I explain my idea to him, he likes it very much, I then present it to the region of Castilla la Mancha, which also likes it, and we start implementing this idea” (idem.), that of the Molina Alto-Tajo geopark. In Aliaga, let us recall the proposal of Giménez de Aguilar to declare the “Ciudad Encantada de Cuenca National Geological Park”, in a province that is currently located in the region of Castilla la Mancha, with the objective of protecting the site. Although his proposal in 1914 was not followed up, it seems to have been taken up in another region, Aragon, in 1993, by Jose Luis Simón, “Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Zaragoza and founder of the Aliaga Geological Park, which is the first geological park in Spain”21. A geological park is defined by the IGME22 as “a territory whose geological heritage has been enhanced and which has its own management, infrastructure and educational and/or informative resources aimed at transmitting geological knowledge and promoting geoconservation and sustainable geotourism” (Carcavilla et al. 2014, p. 21). This territory had already important scientific data because, in the first national inventory of the Puntos de Interes Geologico (PIG), carried out in the early 1980s, Maestrazgo was the only territory in the Aragon region to be inventoried (Alcala and Alcala 1996, p. 218). This professor, in collaboration with the city, therefore set up this project with the objective of scientific dissemination (deficit model) aimed not only at a school audience, but also at a wider, non-specialist audience (Soria de Miguel et al. 1996, p. 1457; Carcavilla Urquí et al. 2007, p. 32). The aim was to create a kind of natural space for in situ geological learning, which had already been promoted by the United States National Parks with early interpretive initiatives such as Mills and the Trail School (Mills 1920, p. 254). The elements justifying the 21 Interview with one of the managers of the Maestrazgo geopark, Molinos, Spain, on April 24, 2016. 22 For the IGME, a geopark, in addition to being recognized as a member of the European and global networks, “is characterized by the fact that it preserves a geological heritage of recognized value, which serves as a fundamental point for implementing a strategy for conservation, education and sustainable development” (Carcavilla et al. 2014, p. 21).

42

UNESCO Global Geoparks

choice to create this space in Aliaga were “its very great geological diversity” with which it is possible to appreciate the last 200 million years of the Earth’s history, particularly the almost unique geomorphological attractions that attract scientists from all over the world (Simón 2002, pp. 14 and 16). The geological park promoting the cultural value of geology subsequently integrated the Maestrazgo Cultural Park project, created in 1999, the objective of which was local development based on heritage: When an agreement was created between the Consistory and the Department of Geology of the University of Zaragoza, with funding from the Leader Program [...] in 2000, the geological park was incorporated as a fundamental part of the Maestrazgo Cultural Park and the latter, in turn, in association with other European geoparks, founded the European Geoparks Network23. Finally, it is the concept of a link between cultural development, a disciplinary logic, promoted by the geological park, and its integration into the local development project, promoted by the Maestrazgo Cultural Park, that seems to have given meaning to the considerations for the consolidation of the Geopark label. It should be recalled that it was one of the four pioneering geoparks in Europe. The Aliaga Geological Park has therefore not only served as an inspiration for the design of the European and Global Geopark label, but also for the creation of other geological parks in Spain. Finally, a completely different project has taken shape in Central Catalonia; Professor J.M. Mata24 “launched the idea of creating a geological and mining park in Central Catalonia following the creation of an inventory of geological elements at the initiative of the UPC: Manresa Polytechnic University, the director of which was J.-M. Mata”25. These geologists were keen to create spaces to promote the geological heritage and spread scientific knowledge. Following Mata’s proposal to enhance and protect the geological and mining heritage, it was the government Comarca de Bages that fully assumed responsibility for the creation of this

23 Interview with Jose Luis Simón by Isabel Lopez, November 10, 2010, Aliaga, Laboratorio natural de geologia, www.aragondigital.es/. 24 Jose Maria Mata Perello was one of the founders of the Sociedad Española para la Defensa del Patrimonio Geológico y Minero (SEDPGYM) in 1995 and chaired it until 2004. This company began in Spain as “an institution to defend this rich heritage” and then spread to Latin America. He participated in the preparation of inventories and itineraries of geological and mining heritage throughout Spain, www.sedpgym.es/, accessed May 14, 2018. 25 Interview with one of the managers of the Central Catalonia Geopark in Manresa, Spain, on May 30, 2016.

The Ambivalences of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory

43

geological and mining park, which will take the form in the Geopark Candidacy of Central Catalan. At the level of the Spanish State, on the other hand, the concept of a geological park is assimilated to that of a geopark under Law 42/2007: Geoparks or geological parks: delineated territories that have unique geological forms of particular scientific importance, singularity or beauty and that are representative of the evolving geological history and the events and processes that have formed them. They are also places that stand out for their archaeological, ecological or cultural values related to the Earth (Art. 3, 19, Jefatura del Estado 2007, p. 16). So are they really so different (Table 2.4)? Park Alto Tajo Natural Park becomes Molina Alto Tajo Geopark The Aliaga Geological Park included in the Maestrazgo Cultural Park and Geopark The geological and mining park becomes the Geopark of Central Catalonia

Awareness of a geopark

Selection (inventory)

Rationale (values)

Relation to the idea of a geopark

Project of a local geologist taken over by an IGME geologist

Inventory of LIGs carried out by the IGME

Scientific, educational and cultural

Disciplinary logic (dissemination and protection)

Creation of a space for learning geology in situ with a teacher

National PIG inventory by ITGE (formerly IGME); recognition in the international scientific world

Scientific for the diversity and representation of a part of the Earth’s history

Disciplinary logic (dissemination) in a territorial logic (local development)

Enhancement of the geological and mining aspects of the territory by a professor

Inventory of the local university of “areas of special geological and mining interest”

Scientific based on the representation of geodiversity26

Disciplinary logic (dissemination) surpassed by territorial logic (tourism)

Table 2.4. Main elements of a disciplinary logic that leads to a knowledge dissemination policy in Spain 26 www.geoparc.cat/, accessed May 29, 2018.

44

UNESCO Global Geoparks

2.4.3.3. A territorial logic: the economic valorization of geology for the development of territories In the following examples of geoparks, we will show that it is a territorial development logic that will be favored in the initial stage of preparing the application. However, and like the examples of geoparks that we have already presented, this required the prior presence of a geological heritage on the territory and in particular internationally recognized geosites within the communities of geologists who had been visiting the territory for several years. The geoparks’ managers have shown the same awareness; their geological heritage could become a new resource for the territory, a new tourist resource. This awareness is all the more relevant as they share certain common economic or social conditions with many Spanish and also European geoparks, such as the pioneering initiatives “all facing problems of very low economic development, unemployment and high emigration” (Zouros 2004, p. 165). As Di Meo points out, this patrimonial awareness takes place “mainly in the course of or at the end of periods of intense social crises: whether political, ideological, religious, economic or environmental” (Di Méo 2008, p. 10). In fact, in these mountain landscapes with isolated villages at high altitude, there are also problems of desertification, aging of the population and, ultimately, abandonment of traditional activities: “We are talking about depopulated, aging territories, with many young people fleeing to the big cities [...]. They leave because there is no development opportunity on their territory”27. Within several Spanish regions that will create geoparks, heritage awareness of geology has emerged following natural disasters that have allowed these underprivileged populations to access government financial support to help revitalize the territory through tourism. This is the case, for example, following major fires in the Extremadura region, or after an underwater explosion near the island of El Hierro in the Canary Islands. It was then after environmental and social disasters, and through the funds obtained, that it was possible to consider and facilitate the integration of geology into a new territorial development project. Another factor promoting this awareness is underlined by one of the leaders when she says this: “Tourism was an alternative development for this region”28. This is how Sobrarbe was able to access the financing program of the dinamización turística plan. But as the title of the program indicates, this is a development based 27 Interview conducted with one of the geopark candidacy officials, Conca de TrempMontsec, Barcelona, Spain, on May 20, 2016. 28 Interview with one of the managers of the Sobrarbe Geopark, Boltaña, Spain, on April 15, 2016.

The Ambivalences of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory

45

on tourism, and so the social problems mentioned above have been redefined on the basis of tourist interests and the main concerns were, on the one hand, “seasonality because we already had a fairly large tourist sector but especially in summer, [....] the rest of the year, the truth is that it was an absolute desert” (idem.), and, on the other hand, “there were areas of our territory, especially within the national park, that were very popular and other areas of the national park, despite the fact that the national park is not very large, that remain practically unknown” (idem.). These environmental, social and economic crises experienced within these territories, on the one hand, and the funding allocated, on the other, have led to the need for each territory to define new development strategies, most often focused on tourism. However, as López López et al. outline: It is people’s interest in knowing the particularities of otherness (other landscapes, climates, fauna, flora, nations, cultures, infrastructures, administrations, planning, governments, technologies, cities) that gives tourism a boost, and it is implicitly the search for the “authentic”, that is, what characterizes a region, a nation, a place (López López et al. 2012, p. 14). The new direction to be taken in the near future for economic development seemed obvious at the time: to develop the value of that which characterizes this territory, namely the geological heritage that was studied and identified by researchers, sometimes for long periods of time. It was therefore on this occasion that the consideration of geology as a territory resource was made concrete as part of a project to create a geopark. At a time when the administration said that we would invest money here to carry out a long-term development project, several possibilities were considered and the most successful one on the territory was a geopark29. The Minister, through Segittur, which is one of the public companies, contacted us to analyze a little bit where it might be possible to make this investment. One of the proposals from us, from me [... ] an idea that came to mind was that of a geopark30. These various territories that we have just presented had, despite the problems they had to face, assets to be developed from a tourism point of view, allowing them 29 Interview with one of the managers of the Villuercas Ibores Jara geopark, Cañamero, Spain, on June 27, 2016. 30 Interview with one of the managers of the El Hierro geopark, El Hierro Island, Spain, on June 8, 2016.

46

UNESCO Global Geoparks

to guarantee an influx of tourists in the territory. Examples include Guadalupe Cathedral, a World Heritage Site in Villuercas, Ordesa and Monte Perdido National Park in Sobrarbe and the worldwide recognition of diving in El Hierro. But the consideration for the tourist valorization of the geology of the territory has also been favored by circumstances other than disasters or ministerial funding. In the particular case of the Basque coast, for example, a favorable sociopolitical context has made it possible to envisage considerations for tourist value valorization for the territory. From 1997 onward, the final peace process in the Basque Country was initiated with the armed group ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, “Basque Country and Freedom”)31, which ended in 2007 with the ceasefire agreement. It was therefore in 2008 that a new Basque government was formed on the basis of a policy of “zero tolerance” for any expression of violence or justification of violence (Fisas 2010, p. 14). This situation opened up new opportunities for tourism development in areas where ETA was previously still present and forced them to close their doors to visitors, unlike large cities like Bilbao which, with the construction of the Guggenheim Museum in 1997, had become a popular tourist destination32. This has made it possible to consolidate, since 2007, a tourist offer between these various small territories of Deba, Mutriku and Zumaia: “With the tourist offices Deba and Zumaia, which were also already working on geotourism, we started to take guided tours together and started to design the ‘Ruta del Flysch’”33. This Ruta del Flysch won a regional tourism prize in 2001: “a year later, we received the Basque Government’s prize for the best tourist product in the Basque Country”34, which in turn helped to further popularise this new tourist offer. But, as Capel (2014, p. 8) points out, “tourism is a great ally of heritage and at the same time a great enemy of it” and the need to protect this geoheritage quickly became apparent. Thus, the reflections that have taken shape around the tourism development of this territory have made it possible, on the one hand, to consolidate a tourism offer in the Ruta del Flysch between these three cities, and, on the other hand, to take into account the problem of a possible increase in tourist pressure in the territory that has contributed to the creation of a protected area based on the geological rather than biological aspect of nature. Thus, tourism valorization took 31 “ETA was born in 1959, as a dissidence of the militants of the Basque nationalist parties, and committed its first murderous attack in June 1968. [...] Since the restoration of democracy, all governments have tried to obtain interviews with the armed group” (Fisas 2010, p. 5). 32 Defined as the best building of the second half of the 20th Century, the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao has completely transformed the city, placing it in the world and radically changing its image, www.bilbaoturismo.net/, accessed May 1, 2018. 33 Interview with one of the managers of the Mutriku Tourist Office, Mutriku, Spain, on April 19, 2016. 34 Interview with one of the managers of the Basque Coast Geopark, Zumaia, Spain, on April 18, 2016.

The Ambiva alences of the Co-construction C of a Mental Terrritory

47

place beefore the idea of creating a geopark and d this made it possible to strengthen the workk started. 2.5. Con nclusion In thhis study, we have h thereforre highlighted two specific logics that taake shape within thhese territoriess from the verry beginning of o the heritagee awareness off geology (Figure 2.1). 2 The suppporters of thee disciplinary logic advocaate the enhanccement of the territtory either by the conservattion of the geological heritage (within thhe natural parks off Andalusia) or o by “museollogical interprretation” (Dessrosiers 2011, p. 108). t loggic defend, for f their partt, the valorizzation of The suppporters of territorial geologiccal heritage thrrough tourism m.

Figurre 2.1. The pre esence of two dichotomous logics w within Spanish h territories at the heritage stage s of the ide ea of a geopark

These two objecttives, which may seem contradictory, must neverthheless be U are defined achievedd within thesee various geopparks which, according to UNESCO, as: U UNESCO Gloobal Geoparkks are single, unified geographical areeas w where sites andd landscapes of o internationaal geological significance aare m managed withh a holistic concept of protection, education annd suustainable deevelopment. Their T bottom--up approachh of combininng coonservation with w sustainaable developm ment while involving i loccal coommunities iss becoming inncreasingly popular35. 35 www.uunesco.org/, accessed Septembber 28, 2018.

48

UNESCO Global Geoparks

This observation makes it possible to identify the constraints and obstacles that will have to be overcome during the later design stage of the geopark project. It will have to specify the values, objectives and challenges of the creation of the “mental territory”. How can we combine the enhancement and valorization of the geological heritage? How can we take into account other aspects of the territory when they were particularly absent from the initial consideration? How can local communities be involved even though the projects were initiated by elected officials, local experts and scientists for the first projects analyzed, or for the second they were conceived in a period of crisis with the constraint of having to be carried out in a very short time, which prevents any real co-construction with local communities? This will be the subject of another publication. 2.6. References Alaux, C., Serval, S., Zeller, C. (2015). Le marketing territorial des Petits et Moyens Territoires : Identité, image et relations. Gestion et management public (GMP), 4(2), 61–78. Alcala, L. (1999). Reflexiones acerca de la protección del patrimonio paleontológico español. Coloquios de Paleontología, 50, 45–52. Alcala, B., Alcala, L. (1996). Patrimonio Geológico de Aragón. Geogaceta, 19, 217–220. Babou, I. (2015). Patrimonialisation et politiques de la nature : Le parc national de La Réunion. VertigO [Online]. Available: http://vertigo.revues.org/16038. Bénos, R., Milian, J. (2013). Conservation, valorisation, labellisation ? La mise en patrimoine des hauts-lieux pyrénéens et les recompositions de l’action territoriale. VertigO [Online]. Available: http://vertigo.revues.org/13631. Bohórquez, R.L., Ruiz Muñoz, F., Gonzalez Regalado, M. L., Abad, M. (2006). Derecho y patrimonio paleontológico (I): Patrimonio histórico vs patrimonio paleontológico (Law and Palaeontological Heritage (I): Historical Heritage vs Palaeontological Heritage). Studia Geológica Salmanticensia, 42, 113–127. Brianso, I., Girault, Y. (2014). Innovations et enjeux éthiques des politiques environnementales et patrimoniales : L’UNESCO et le conseil de l’Europe. Revue internationale d’éthique sociétale et gouvernementale, 16(1), 17–37. Capel, H. (2014). El patrimonio: La construcción del pasado y del futuro. Serbal, Barcelona. Carcavilla Urquí, L., Martinez-Lopez, J., Duran Valsero, J.J. (2007). Patrimonio geológico y geodiversidad: Investigación, conservación, gestión y relación con los espacios naturales protegidos. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid. Carcavilla Urquí, L., Ruiz, R., Rodríguez, E. (2008). Guía geológica del parque Natural del Alto Tajo [Online]. Available: www.researchgate.net/publication/259011497_Guia_ Geologica_del_Parque_Natural_del_Alto_Tajo.

The Ambivalences of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory

49

Carcavilla, L., Delverbe, G., Diaz-Martinez, E., García-Cortés, Á., Lozano, G., Rabano, I., Sanchez, A., Vegas, J. (2014). Geodiversidad y patrimonio geológico. Parques Nacionales, Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid. Casado, S. (2014). La geología en los orígenes históricos del conservacionismo español. Enseñanza de las Ciencias de la Tierra (ECT), 22(1), 19–24. Champoux-Paillé, L. (2007). Pierre Mayrand : “Révolutionnaire impénitent”. Muséologies : Les cahiers d’études supérieures, 2(1), 138–145. Clément, G., Lonsdale, M., Pelt, J.-M., Scheyder, P. (2016). Des jardins et des hommes. Bayard éditions, Montrouge. Concejería de Medio Ambiente (2004). Plan de Ordenación de los Recursos Naturales del Parque Natural Sierras Subbéticas [Online]. Available: www.juntadeandalucia.es/ medioambiente/web/Bloques_Tematicos/Patrimonio_Natural._Uso_Y_Gestion/Espacios_ Protegidos/PORN/PORN_PRUG_Sierras_subbeticas/anexo1.pdf. Concejería de Medio Ambiente (2010). Estrategia Andaluza de Gestion Integrada de la Geodiversidad [Online]. Available: www.juntadeandalucia.es/. Davallon, J. (2006). Le don du patrimoine : Une approche communicationnelle de la patrimonialisation. Hermes-Lavoisier, Paris. Desrosiers, P. (2011). L’archéomuséologie : La recherche archéologique entre au musée. Presses de l’université Laval, Quebec. Díaz-Martínez, E., Salazar, Á., García-Cortés, Á. (2014). El patrimonio geológico en España. Enseñanza de las Ciencias de la Tierra, 22, 25–37. Di Méo, G. (2008). Processus de patrimonialisation et construction des territoires. “Patrimoine et industrie en Poitou-Charentes: connaître pour valoriser” symposium. Geste éditions, Poitiers-Châtellerault, 87–109. Du, Y., Girault, Y. (2018). A Genealogy of UNESCO Global Geopark: Emergence and evolution. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 6(2), 1–17. Durán, J.J. (2004). Patrimonio geológico en España: Unas reflexiones desde la experiencia de los últimos 25 años. Enseñanza de las Ciencias de la Tierra (ECT), 12(1), 24–30. Fisas, V. (2010). El proceso de paz en el País Vasco. Quaderns de Construcció de Pau, 16, 14–15. Gallego, E., García-Cortés, Á. (1996). Patrimonio Geológico y Espacios Naturales Protegidos. Geogaceta, 19, 202–206. Girault, Y., Barthes, A. (2016). Postures épistémologiques et cadres théoriques des principaux courants de l’éducation aux territoires. Éducation relative à l’environnement, 13(2), 16. Girault, Y., Sauvé, L. (2008). L’éducation scientifique, l’éducation à l’environnement et l’éducation pour le développement durable. Croisements, enjeux et mouvances. ASTER, 46, 7–30.

50

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Gonzales García, C.R. (2016). El concepto de Territorio Mental en el pensamiento comunicacional de América Latina. Un acercamiento a la epistemología no dualista de Evandro Vieira Ouriques. Horizonte de la Ciencia, 6(11), 27–45. Gonzalez Tejada, C., Du, Y., Read, M., Girault, Y. (2017). From nature conservation to geotourism development: Examining ambivalent attitudes towards UNESCO directives with the Global Geopark Network. International Journal of Geoheritage, 5(2), 1–20. Heinich, N. (2009). La fabrique du patrimoine: de la cathédrale à la petite cuillère. Maison des sciences de l’Homme, Paris. Instituto Tecnológico GeoMinero de España, Autonome Region Madrid (ed.) (1988). Atlas geocientifico del medio natural de la comunidad de Madrid. Instituto geológico y minero de España, Madrid. Jefatura del Estado. (2007). Ley 42/2007 del Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad [Online]. Available: www.boe.es/. Lamic, J.-P. (2008). Tourisme durable : Utopie ou réalité ? Comment identifier les voyageurs et voyagistes écoresponsables. L’Harmattan, Paris. Landel, P.-A., Senil, N. (2009). Patrimoine et territoire, les nouvelles ressources du développement. Développement durable et territoires [Online]. Available: http://developpementdurable.revues.org/7563. López López, Á., López Pardo, G., Andrade Romo, E., Chávez Dagostino, R.M., Espinoza Sánchez, R. (eds). (2012). Lo glocal y el turismo: Nuevos paradigmas de interpretación. Academia Mexicana de Investigación Turística A.C., Distrito Federal, Mexico. Mayoral, E., Oñate, F. (1997). Valoración del patrimonio geológico en los planes de ordenación de los recursos naturales en los parques naturales de la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía. Zubía, 15, 107–112. Mayoral, E., Muñoz, F., Oñate, F., Aranbarri, P., Miras, A. (1996). Patrimonio Geológico y Ecoturismo. Geogaceta, 19, 198–199. Mayrand, P. (2004). Haute-Beauce : Psychosociologie d’un écomusée. Cuadernos de sociomuseologia, 22, 204. Mayrand, P. (2007). Essais de terminologie de la nouvelle muséologie sociale, libérons le concept. Cadernos de museologia, 28, 167–176. Mayrand, P., Mairesse, F. (2000). Entretien avec Pierre Mayrand. Publics et Musées, 17(1), 223–231. Melendez, G., Soria, M. (1997). Problemática actual de la legislación sobre patrimonio paleontológico en España: Medidas y soluciones. Zubía, 15, 113–120. Messinger, J. (2009). Le langage des gestes pour les nuls [Online]. Available: http://banq.pretnumerique.ca/accueil/isbn/9782754035033. Mills, E.A. (1920). The Adventures of a Nature Guide. Doubleday and Page & Company, New York.

The Ambivalences of the Co-construction of a Mental Territory

51

Monnet, J. (1999). Les échelles de la représentation et de l’aménagement du territoire. In Territorio y cultura: Del campo a la ciudad. Ultimas tendencias en teoría y método, Nates Cruz, B. (ed.). Primer Seminario Internacional sobre Territorio y Cultura. Quito, Ecuador. Nielsen, E. (2016). Territoire mental. blog.com/2016/01/territoire-mental.html.

[Online].

Available:

http://dandylan.over-

Ouriques, E.V. (2011). Territorio mental. El nudo gordiano de la democracia. Perspectivas de la comunicación, 4(2), 80–87. Penteado, D. (2013). Uma Viagem ao Território www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtC_WN4JDno.

Mental

[Online].

Available:

Salazar, Á. (2017). Juan Carandell (1893–1937) y los Sitios Naturales de interés nacional. In Patrimonio geológico, gestionando la parte abiótica del patrimonio natural, Carcavilla, L., Duque-Macías, J., Giménez, J., Hilario, A., Monge-Ganuzas, M., Vegas, J. and Rodriguez, A. (eds). Cuadernos del Museo Geominero, XII Reunión Nacional de la Comisión de Patrimonio Geológico, Instituto Geologico y Minero de España, Minorca. Simón, J.L. (2002). Guía fácil del Parque Geológico de Aliaga. Centro para el Desarrollo del Maestrazgo de Teruel, Maestrazgo. Soria de Miguel, A.R., Liesa-Carrera, C.L., Simon-Gomez, J.L. (1996). Parque Geológico de Aliaga. Geogaceta, 20(6), 1457–1459. de Suremain, C. É., Galipaud, J. C. (2015). Fabric-acteurs de patrimoine : Implication, participation et postures du chercheur dans la patrimonialisation. Institut de recherche pour le développement, Marseille. Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting our Heritage. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. de Varine, H. (2000). Autour de la table ronde de Santiago. Publics et Musées, 17(1), 180–183. de Varine, H. (2015). Mes aventures à l’écomusée de la communauté urbaine Le CreusotMontceau 1971–2014. Paris. de Varine, H. (2017). L’écomusée singulier et pluriel : Un témoignage sur cinquante ans de muséologie communautaire dans le monde. L’Harmattan, Paris. Veschambre, V. (2007). Le processus de patrimonialisation : Revalorisation, appropriation et marquage de l’espace. Cafés géographiques [Online]. Available: http://cafe-geo.net/wpcontent/uploads/processus-patrimonialisation.pdf. Viel, A. (2008). Quand souffle l’esprit des lieux [Online]. Available: www.icomos. org/quebec2008/cd/toindex/78_pdf/78-B3X3-152.pdf. Villalobos Megía, M., Pérez Muñoz, A.B. (2006). Geodiversidad y patrimonio geológico de Andalucía: Itinerario geológico por Andalucía: Guía didáctica de campo. Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Seville.

52

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Villalobos Megía, M., Braga Alarcón, J.C., Guirado Romero, J., Pérez Muñoz, A. (2004). El inventario andaluz de georrecursos culturales: Criterios de valoración. De Re Metallica, 3(2), 9–21. Zouros, N. (2004). The European Geoparks Network Geological heritage protection and local development. Episodes, 27(3), 165–171.

3 The History of the Earth as a New Form of Territorial Marketing: the Case of the Geopark of the Tremp-Montsec Basin (Spain)

3.1. Introduction On April 17, 2018, the Tremp-Montsec Basin Geopark (Geoparc de la Conca de Tremp-Montsec) officially joined the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Global Geoparks Network. It is the 13th geopark in Spain and the second in the autonomous community of Catalonia; this recognition was intended to illustrate the international geological quality of 2,000 km2 of the province of Lleida, located on the southern flank of the Pyrenees, a mountain range over 1,500 km long resulting from the continental drift of the Iberian Mesozoic plate and its final collision with the European plate in the Cenozoic. According to the application, this territory presents a relief of great contrasts, formed by a set of mountains and basins with an east–west orientation, determined by the layout of the various overlaps that make up the Pyrenees, making it possible to document the last 550 million years of Catalonia’s1 geological history. The latter would thus have marked many aspects of the natural, cultural and intangible heritage of this territory, which is currently inhabited by nearly 16,000 people.

Chapter written by Fabien VAN GEERT. The work presented in this chapter is part of the Geopark H2020 program and was funded by the European Union’s Research and Innovation Program Horizon 2020 under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 644015. 1 www.projectegeoparctrempmontsec.com/en/geology/territory-geology/, last accessed August 2018.

UNESCO Global Geoparks: Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement First Edition. Edited by Yves Girault. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

54

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Established in 2015 and submitted to UNESCO in 2016, this bid was aimed at the economic development of this territory, and particularly of its center, the comarca2 of Pallars Jussà. Even before its official recognition, the dissemination made by the association that carried out the project indicated that it would make it possible to “promote the territory so that it becomes a high-quality tourist destination by using the communication and promotion tools of the global geoparks network”, and to “strengthen the quality and distribution of local tourist products (agri-food and non-food products)”3. In the aftermath of UNESCO’s positive announcement, Tremp City Hall reaffirmed this idea, stating in its press release that this recognition would make it possible to double the number of visitors over the next 5 years, thus reaching nearly 200,000 annual overnight stays4. In this chapter, we will try to analyze this use of the geopark label as a development strategy, from the perspective of territorial marketing. This candidature will be perceived as illustrating a new type of use of heritage, aimed at creating a specific image of the territory to distinguish it within the competition of rural areas. Based on field work carried out on site during May 2018, barely two weeks after the official recognition of the geopark, a series of visits and interviews with geopark stakeholders made it possible to analyze this particular logic5. During this period, the bid speech was still tangible and new concrete actions were being implemented on the territory, highlighting some of the future conceptual issues, but also the management of this geopark within this marketing strategy. To understand them, we will first define in this chapter how heritage is understood in Catalonia, and particularly in the Pyrenees, as a development strategy. We will then focus, in a second step, on the particularities of the conservation and valorization of the geological and paleontological heritage in this region, in particular through the creation of two geoparks. In a third step, we will discuss the concrete case of the Tremp-Montsec Basin Geopark’s bid based on an understanding of the tourist logics put in place in this territory. Finally, we will describe some of the actions carried out within the geopark since its recognition, before concluding with a series of reflections on the implications and challenges of this new use of geoheritage.

2 The comarca is the basic supra-municipal administrative entity of Spain. In some cases, such as in Catalonia, this entity also corresponds to historical realities from which cultural and economic policies are articulated. On an upper administrative level, we can find provinces and then the autonomous communities also called Spanish regions. 3 www.projectegeoparctrempmontsec.com/en/projecte-geoparc-conca-de-tremp-montsec/per-quevolem-ser-un-geoparc/, last accessed August 2018. 4 www.ajuntamentdetremp.cat/ca/noticies/anul-lats-els-actes-despera-de-la-notificacio-de-geoparcmundial-de-la-unesco, last accessed August 2018. 5 We would like to thank the members of the geopark, and in particular Gonzalo Rivas, Núria Verdeny and Guillem Puras, who, because of the time they gave us, provided us with a better understanding of the history and challenges of this project.

The History of the Earth as a New Form of Territorial Marketing

55

3.2. Economic development and the use of heritage in the Catalan Pyrenees Due to the specificity of the territorial organization of the Spanish State since the democratic period, each Autonomous Community (Comunidad Autónoma) has a large number of competences defined by the 1978 Constitution, the practical details of which are determined in the Statute of Autonomy (Estatuto de Autonomía) of each of the 19 Spanish territories. The latter are therefore largely self-managed, and particularly those who define themselves as “historical nations” (Naciones históricas) and have a series of specific administrative institutions linked to their historical and cultural specificities. Catalonia, one of these nations, thus defines its own policies for territorial development but also for the protection, conservation and enhancement of its “national” heritage as the exclusive competence of this community on its territory. Based on this principle, Catalonia, a geographically very heterogeneous territory, has developed a particular policy for the development of its rural areas, particularly in the high mountains. The latter constitute nearly 46% of its territory and include in particular the eastern part of the Pyrenees, which alone covers nearly 30% of Catalonia (9,559 km2). However, the latter is only sparsely inhabited annually. Thus, in 2017, only 3% of the Catalan population lived in 10 Pyrenean and pre-Pyrenean comarcas (Generalitat de Catalunya 2017). As a result of industrialization and migration to urban areas, a deep process of depopulation of these regions occurred between the 19th and 20th Centuries, accompanied by the abandonment of traditional modes of agropastoral production (Vaccaro and Beltran 2007, p. 13). After this phase of socioeconomic and demographic decline, shortly after their recovery in 1979 following the Francoist period, Catalan institutions passed Law 2/1983 on High Mountains (Llei 2/1983 d'alta muntanya), trying to maintain the population level in these areas, to guarantee them adequate living conditions and also achieve a better internal balance in Catalonia. This process also accompanied the wave of deindustrialization that this region experienced in the second half of the 20th Century, like many European territories, which opened the door to new dynamics in these mountain areas as part of the consolidation of a postindustrial society, based essentially on the service sector. In this context, the Catalan government (Generalitat de Catalunya) tried to revive these areas economically through new territorial planning policies, of which the Mountain Comarca Plan (Pla comarcal de muntanya) became the basic instrument. Its latest version, published in 2009, provided for an investment of nearly three billion euros for this region, divided into a series of mainly structural actions. With this approach, a tertiary economy based essentially on tourism developed in the Pyrenees, based on a new image of the mountain, whose origins go back to

56

UNESCO Global Geoparks

folklore research conducted by 19th Century excursionist circles in the context of the proliferation of alpine clubs in Europe (Sala 2017). In this process, in addition to the creation of new winter sports resorts, heritage conservation played a key role. The first activations of this type had taken place in this territory in the 1970s, particularly by citizen associations and municipal administrations in the context of a post-Francoist recovery of local traditions and identities undermined by more than 35 years of Madrid centralism (Roigé and Arrieta 2010, p. 541). Based on the distinction made by Greffe between “use value” and “existence value” of heritage, this activation was thus based on the latter (Greffe 2003). Indeed, by the very fact of its existence, it is worthy of conservation and valorization, embodying the symbol of a population culturally oppressed during the dictatorship. By pursuing this first momentum, during the 1990s, alongside new development policies, the criteria for heritage valorization gradually changed, now being based on its “use value”, defined by its ability to attract tourism and thus reactivate the local economy. Many activations took place according to this logic, in particular through the exponential creation of parks or nature reserves, but also through the valorization of the ethnographic heritage, articulating therefore the territory on the basis of the leisure and service economy. In the first case, 85 natural areas were declared and protected, encompassing 40.35% of the ten mountain comarcas, while causing a profound change in the use of rural areas and the marginalization of non-intensive economic activities linked to agriculture, livestock and fisheries (Beltran et al. 2008; Santamarina 2005). Indeed, beyond the biological and physical objectives put forward to justify their creation, parks and nature reserves contributed to assigning new values to marginal areas and resources, now integrated into the consumer goods market, in a process of increasing urbanization of rural areas. These areas therefore became ideal settings for hiking, nature sports, observation of local fauna and flora, or aesthetic contemplation of the landscapes that 19th Century Catalan folklore had partly linked to the national imaginary. In the second case, a certain idea of the “authenticity” of these territories constituted the basis for the creation or recreation of “traditional” forms oriented toward tourism, where cultural heritage proved to be central (Roigé and Frigolé 2006; 2010). Museums were thus created during the 1990s in the Pyrenean valleys and mountains, highlighting local history, popular traditions, oral or material and agri-food products, while traditional architecture was reinvented for the occasion based on new forms and contemporary concepts of comfort (Van Geert and Estrada 2018). Two inscriptions on the UNESCO World Heritage List – the Romanesque churches of the Vall de Boí in 2000 and the monuments of Catalonia, Aragon and France in 2015 – largely fed back into this wave of heritage development, further increasing the tourist appeal of this area.

The History of the Earth as a New Form of Territorial Marketing

57

As we will argue in this chapter, in parallel with this logic of heritage use, heritage activations also gradually constituted a fundamental part of the creation of territorial brands, following a logic started by the large cities and part of the Catalan coast. Within the neoliberal context of competition between territories in attracting tourists, but also residents and investors, the latter indeed resorted more and more to marketing in order to build a particular image within the Pyrenees “brand”. Nurtured by the theories of territorial marketing (Kotler et al. 1993; Gold and Ward 1994) and place branding (Moilanen and Rainisto 2008) peddled by many consultants, these territories indeed put in place communication strategies aimed at influencing the travel intentions of potential tourists. In this context, administrations made privileged use of the locally activated heritage between the 1970s and 1990s, perceived as offering an added value of “authenticity” to the perception of these territories for all kinds of visitors (Anholt 2007). This was particularly the case in villages or rural areas which, unlike cities, did not concentrate on the means of economic production, forcing them in a way to turn to their patrimonial “assets” in the creation of a local identity shifted both toward the local but also toward the visitors (Historic England 2017). In addition to their natural and cultural heritage, the territories also promoted other types of “heritage assets”, perceived as having a positive economic value. This was particularly the case for geoheritage. Although the latter’s development is particularly recent, we will see in the next part of this chapter that it has been able to form the basis of territorial marketing strategies in some regions, particularly through the creation of geoparks. Before analyzing these modalities through the case of the Tremp-Montsec Basin Geopark, it is worth momentarily going back to the ways in which this specific heritage is conserved and developed on a Catalan scale. 3.3. The protection of Catalan geological heritage and its valorization through geoparks In this autonomous community, a significant part of the geological heritage is preserved and presented ex situ, within public and private museum institutions. It should be noted that the majority of palaeontological artifacts are kept in the museum of the Catalan Institute of Palaeontology (Museu de l’Institut Català de Paleontologia) in Sabadell, while the Barcelona Museum of Natural Sciences (Museu de Ciències Naturals), one of the largest and oldest of its kind in Catalonia, houses the collections of the city’s former geological museum. In these institutions, the vast majority of collections are protected as part of the “national” heritage. In addition to these two examples, geological collections are also kept in several university museums, such as the “Valentí Masachs” Geology Museum (Museu de Geologia “Valentí Masachs”) of the Polytechnic University of Catalonia

58

UNESCO Global Geoparks

(Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya) located in Manresa. Finally, in a nonexhaustive way, it should be noted that a large part of the geological collections are also kept in many local museums and interpretation centers spread throughout the country, sometimes linked to donations from collectors. In addition to these museum areas, geoheritage, and especially geological formations, are also protected in situ within natural areas, largely defined during the 1990s, when developing rural areas for their economic development. The system of protected natural areas (Sistema d'Espais Naturals Protegits), derived from the Catalan, Spanish and European legislations coexisting in the territory of the autonomous community, defines all these protected areas, equivalent to almost 30% of Catalonia’s territory. This system is governed by the Pla d’Espais d’Interès Natural (PEIN) plan approved by Decree 328/1992 of December 14, 1992, the main higher level planning instrument structuring all natural areas with the rest of the territory, while defining and establishing the necessary conditions for their protection. By taking up the different figures and forms of natural heritage management, it thus establishes a system of 184 natural spaces based on their scientific, ecological, landscape, cultural, social, didactic and recreational values. There are 73 special protection areas (Espais Naturals de Protecció Especial), including those defined by the 1985 law (Llei Espais Naturals de Protecció Especial Llei 12/1985), which itself includes various previous legal figures. There are also 73 less elaborate natural areas (Espais naturals) of protection, protected sites within the Natura 2000 network linked to the application of European Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC, or other protection figures resulting from the ratification of various international treaties or conventions (RAMSAR convention, biosphere reserves, natural reserves on the World Heritage List or specially protected areas of Mediterranean importance) (Generalitat de Catalunya 2015). As a result of this situation, the geological heritage is therefore only protected when it is integrated into natural areas of special protection (such as the volcanic zone of La Garrotxa or the natural space of Cap de Creus), or natural areas of minor protection. As may also be the case in other European countries (Jordan et al. 2004), the PEIN does not really take into account the specificities of this type of heritage, while geological characteristics are also not a strong argument in the decision to protect these areas. More than half of the latter did not mention the presence of geological heritage in their protection plan (Mallarach Carrera et al. 2008, pp. 96–98). The Government of Catalonia acknowledged this situation, stating that: “The Plan for Areas of Natural Interest (PEIN) represents an indisputable quantitative and qualitative advance in the conservation of natural areas in Catalonia, and the protection of the geological heritage, as a natural heritage, should be linked to it. PEIN is considered to be the framework document for the protection of natural

The History of o the Earth as a New Form of Territorial Markketing

59

heritage, but because b it is based b mainly on biodiversiity conservatioon crriteria, it doees not cover the conservaation of geollogical heritage exxhaustively”6 (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1. Map of Catalonia C repre esenting areas s of geological interest (in yyellow) in n areas (in ( green) prep pared by the Department D off Territory relation to protected natural ustainability, Government G off Catalonia7. For F a color verssion of this figure, see and Su www.iste.cco.uk/girault/ge eoparks.zip

In paarallel with this (unsatisfaactory) consid deration of thhe specific feeatures of geologiccal formationss within the logic of thee heritage of natural spacces, some 6 http://m mediambient.genccat.cat/ca/05_am mbits_dactuacio/p /patrimoni_naturral/sistemes_dinnformacio/ inventari__despais_dinterees_geologic/el_ppatrimoni_geolog gic_i_la_seva_pproteccio/estat_aactual_del_ patrimoni__geologic/proteccciodel_patrimooni_geologic_en_ n_el_marc_del_ppein/, last accesssed August 2018. mediambient.genccat.cat/web/.conntent/home/ambits_dactuacio/pattrimoni_natural//sistemes_ 7 http://m dinformaccio/inventari_desspais_dinteres_ddinteres_geologiic/el_patrimoni__geologic_i_la_sseva_prote ccio/estat__actual_del_patrrimoni_geologicc/proteccio_del_ _patrimoni_geoloogic_en_el_marrc_del_pei n/documeents/43_51556.pddf, last accessedd August 2018.

60

UNESCO Global Geoparks

palaeontological sites were also protected as “cultural heritage” under the 1993 Catalan Cultural Heritage Act (Llei 9/1993 de 30 de setembre del Patrimoni Cultural Català). The Inventory of the Archaeological and Palaeontological Heritage of Catalonia ((Inventari del Patrimoni Arqueològic i Paleontològic de Catalunya) thus recognizes 314 palaeontological sites for their scientific value, protecting them in part from a nomenclature of four different types, only five of which received the highest distinction (cultural property of national interest – Bé Cultural d'Interès Nacional)8. However, within this category of archaeological and palaeontological sites, these areas are among 13,889 sites, whose heterogeneity of nature makes it difficult to implement a coherent conservation and enhancement policy. According to the 2002 decree on the protection of the archaeological and palaeontological heritage (Decree 78/2002, de 5 de març, del Reglament de protecció del patrimoni arqueològic i paleontòlogic), these sites include both archaeologically studied historical artifacts and remains from the ground, the subsoil or aquatic areas whether linked to human beings or not. Thus, by pursuing its reflection on the consideration of geological heritage within conservation and protection policies, the Government of Catalonia acknowledges that: “Despite these determinations, protection remains limited and lacks a general and comprehensive framework that integrates all geological and paleontological elements requiring preservation and protection, regardless of their degree of relationship to human history and the biotic environment. As a result of this legislation in force, both at national and autonomous level, there are therefore gaps in the geological heritage, which requires specific regulations, beyond those shared with biotic or historical and cultural heritage”9. According to the Catalan natural history institution, this dual legislation, considered insufficient by the administration itself, would illustrate the delay in the knowledge, identification, valorization, protection and restoration of the geological heritage in Catalonia (Mallarach Carrera et al. 2008, p. 94). Museums and open sites would pay the price, being little known or visited by the public, even if some spaces have a significant number of visitors. The Catalan natural history institution recognizes a series of historical, social and cultural causes of this situation, such as the thin geological culture of Catalan society and the more than minimal role played by geology, this “unloved discipline” (Gohau 2001), in compulsory education. Indeed, because of its aspects that are both “invisible”, difficult to recognize immediately, and sometimes “unattractive” for part of the public, geoheritage is 8 http://invarque.cultura.gencat.cat, last accessed August 2018. 9 http://mediambient.gencat.cat/ca/05_ambits_dactuacio/patrimoni_natural/sistemes_dinform acioinventari_despais_dinteres_geologic/el_patrimoni_geologic_i_la_seva_proteccio/estat_ac tual_del_patrimoni_geologic/marc_legal/, last accessed August 2018.

The History of the Earth as a New Form of Territorial Marketing

61

particularly subject to the challenge of valorization in order to be considered as heritage beyond the scientific community. Finally, geologists would also play against them, often focusing more on productive and extractive activities than on heritage conservation (Mallarach Carrera et al. 2008, p. 94). Beyond this observation, however, some actions have been carried out over the past ten years around the “existence value” of geoheritage. The Government of Catalonia has thus launched an inventory of areas of geological interest (Inventari d'espais d'interès geològic), which should make it possible to reflect on the specificity of geoheritage, in order to implement a conservation and valorization policy that will be more appropriate in the coming years10. Carried out between 1999 and 2000 under an agreement between the Department of the Environment of the Government of Catalonia (Departament de Medi Ambient) and the Autonomous University of Barcelona (Universitat autònoma de Barcelona), this inventory defines a first selection of outcrops and places of interest that reflect the geological evolution of the territory. Note that 157 unique spaces have been inventoried, described and made available to the public on the Internet11, 60% of which are integrated into protected spaces of various kinds (Mallarach Carrera et al. 2008, p. 97). Since the introduction of Law 42/2007, this inventory has also constituted the autonomous action of the still incomplete inventory of places of geological interest in Spain (Inventario de Lugares de Interés Geológico), coordinated by the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente) as part of the Global Geosites Project. In addition to this inventory, geoheritage disclosure actions are also carried out by different actors, such as the “Geolodía”. Organized since 2011 by the Geological Society of Spain (Sociedad Geológica de España), this day is held annually by the various Spanish provincial governments in order to bring the population closer to the Earth Sciences. Photographic works have also emerged in recent years, approaching geological landscapes from an aesthetic point of view. Some of these photographs were also the subject of temporary exhibitions, particularly at the headquarters of the Cartographic and Geological Institute of Catalonia (Institut Cartogràfic i Geològic de Catalunya), a public body responsible for promoting knowledge, prospection and information about the soil and subsoil of the autonomous community. Some approaches also attempt to generate economic income from geoheritage. “Geotourism” activities were thus gradually developed in the territory on the basis 10 http://mediambient.gencat.cat/ca/05_ambits_dactuacio/patrimoni_natural/sistemes_dinformac io/inventari_despais_dinteres_geologic/el_patrimoni_geologic_i_la_seva_proteccio/estat_actual _édel_patrimoni_geologic/marc_legal/, last accessed August 2018. 11 The inventory sheets are available at: http://mediambient.gencat.cat/ca/05_ ambits_ dactuacio/patrimoni_natural/sistemes_dinformacio/inventari_despais_dinteres_geologic/, last accessed August 2018.

62

UNESCO Global Geoparks

of this “use value”, supported by both the public and private sectors, while being promoted by certain widely distributed tourist magazines12. In addition, some geotopes included in the inventory of areas of geological interest are integrated into geoparks. This is the case for the Central Catalonia Geopark (Geoparc de la Catalunya Central), created in 2011 around 47 of these sites, but also for the TrempMontsec Basin Geopark (Geoparc de la Conca de Tremp-Montsec), which includes 16 geotopes. Unlike geosites, whose recognition in the inventory is largely related to their “existence value”, geoparks are based on the “use value” of geoheritage, according to a logic similar to the other types of heritage discussed above. According to UNESCO’s speech, the creation of geoparks is based on a process of recognition and enhancement of geoheritage in terms of science, education and tourism. Political action must therefore be based on three main pillars: 1) site and environmental protection; 2) raising awareness of the Earth and Universe Sciences, through the development of educational programs for all audiences, the promotion of scientific research in its territory, as well as the development of partnerships with universities; 3) the promotion of local and sustainable economic development based on geotourism. By focusing on this third point, however, the two Catalan geoparks correspond to divergent logics, driven by different actors. The Central Catalan Geopark is the result of an initiative originally led by geologists linked to engineering. It was preceded by the creation of the Geological and Mining Park (Parc geològic i miner), conceptualized in 2007 by the Department of Mining Engineering and Natural Resources (Departament d’Enginyeria Minera i Recursos Naturals) of the Polytechnic University of Catalonia. It was only with its recognition by UNESCO in 2012, and despite an almost non-existent budget, that its leadership was gradually taken over by the comarca council of Bages, and especially by its tourist service, by gradually integrating the municipalities of the territory. Densely populated and located less than 50 km from Barcelona, the economic development of the Bages comarca through geoheritage has been based on the existing tourism in Montserrat, visited in 2017 by 2.7 million people13. This mountain is indeed one of the main “places of memory” of the Catalans (Balcells 2008), as a political and natural symbol – because of its spectacular forms – but also a religious one, the black virgin being preserved there at the Benedictine Abbey of Sainte Marie. Based on the tourist 12 This is the case of the Catalan magazine “Descobrir”, which has covered five geo-routes in its articles over the past 5 years, http://blogs.descobrir.cat/perterramariaire/etiqueta/ geoturism/, last accessed August 2018. 13 According to unpublished figures from the Barcelona Provincial Tourism Observatory relayed by the local press, www.setsetset.cat/noticia/81760/mes-de-2-72-milions-de-personesvan-visitar-montserrat-lany-2017-un-8-8-mes, last accessed August 2018.

The History of the Earth as a New Form of Territorial Marketing

63

positioning of this important place, the objective of the geopark is therefore to reuse this flow of visitors, trying to redirect part of it to other places in the Bages, a comarca that is not well developed for tourism. According to this logic, this territory should therefore be presented on the basis of its geological history (of which the Montserrat mountain is the prime example) and its effect on architecture, landscape, agri-food production and the development of the mining economy. However, it should be noted that some recent events may have tarnished the image of the latter, as well as that of the geopark more generally. The company Iberpotash (a subsidiary of Israel Chemical Limited), which exploits potash from the Súria and Sallent mines in particular, was convicted in 2014 for its poor management of waste, which led to heavy contamination of the Llobregat River, the second largest in Catalonia, which supplies the Barcelona metropolitan area with drinking water. Contrary to this logic, and while it does not have any particular prestigious heritage sites among the general public, the objective of the Tremp-Montsec Basin Geopark is different. By also focusing on a comarca, from which local tourism policies are largely developed in Catalonia, its role is to contribute to creating an image of the territory based on its geological outcrops recognized in the scientific world. Unlike the Central Catalonia Geopark, the project therefore originates here from local comarca and, to a lesser extent, autonomous administrations. The bid was supported by the Projecte del Geoparc Conta de Tremp-Montsec association, created in 2015, and brought together all the municipalities of the Pallars Jussà region, as well as some adjacent comarcas. The Scientific Council is represented by the Cartographic and Geological Institute of Catalonia (Institut cartogràfic i geològic de Catalunya), and in particular by its Territorial Support Center for the city of Tremp (approximately 6,000 inhabitants) created in 2014 by the Government of Catalonia to develop its expertise in this territory sensitive to seismic and geological risks. In this context, the geological heritage will become a key asset in the tercialization of this less developed territory, starting with the creation of a territory brand based on geoheritage. This is what we will try to address in the next part of this chapter. 3.4. The Tremp-Montsec Basin Geopark Project and the creation of a territory brand The region of Pallars Jussà, which constitutes the heart of the geopark, and of which Tremp, the capital, was the driving force behind the bid, is not acquainted with the development of the neighboring Pyrenean comarcas, which have enjoyed a strong tourist presence since the 1980s and 1990s, stimulated by the presence of ski resorts (there are 17 on the southern slope of the mountain range), numerous renowned heritage activities, as well as a significant growth in the construction

64

UNESCO Global Geoparks

sector before the current economic crisis. Unlike these territories, however, the Pallars Jussà comarca is experiencing economic stagnation and an increasing ageing of its population, the largest in the autonomous community. As a result of a major rural exodus beginning in the 1960s, particularly after the completion of the construction of hydroelectric dams supplying electricity to the rest of Catalonia, the comarca lost nearly half of its inhabitants (Government of Catalonia 2009, p. 81). As a result, in 2017, the population density of this territory was then only 10.3 inhabitants/km2, one of the lowest in Catalonia’s mountainous areas, while its GDP per capita in 2015 was only €20,500, or 30% lower than the Catalan average14. To this situation is finally added the difficulty of communication with the rest of the territory, both by rail – a single line serving this region from the provincial capital of Lleida – and by road – the geographical composition of the Tremp basin implies the crossing of winding passes of medium altitude to reach the rest of Catalonia. In the early 1990s, however, the Pallars Jussà comarca seemed to be undergoing a phase of economic expansion based on the development of the primary and tertiary sectors, as indicated by the permanent exhibition of the Epicenter-Visitor’s Center of Pallars Jussà (Epicentre-Centre de visitants del Pallars Jussà), created in Tremp in 2013 by the Comarca Council to receive tourists in this territory. According to the latter’s liberal speech, Spain’s incorporation into the European common market in 1985 and the adaptation of its primary sector to the common agrarian policy gave a new impetus to the local economy. Infrastructure was also improved at that time, and tourism began to develop, leading to some economic and population growth. Like the rest of rural Catalonia, various actions to promote the cultural heritage therefore developed in the area, the heart of the medieval region of Pallars with the adjacent comarca of Pallars Sobirà, while various museum spaces were inaugurated, first associative and then public. This is the case of the Raier space (Espai Raier) of La Pobla de Segur, which presents local ethnographic traditions, or the Museum of the Dellà Basin (Museu de la Conca dellà) of Isona, created in 1990 and from which the different paleontological sites of the “Cretaceous Park” have radiated since 1995. This logic continued in the 2000s with the inauguration of the Salt Museum (Museu de la sal) in Gerri de la Sal and the Hydroelectric Museum (Museu Hidroelèctric) in Capdella, both of which are now branches of the National Museum of Science and Technology. In parallel with these museums and interpretation centers, the natural heritage also grew in the territory of Pallars Jussà from the 1990s onwards, mainly as a result of the action of the autonomous administration. In 2017, 30.16% of the region was protected in nine different natural areas, some of which was privatized. This is the case for the Congost de Mont-rebei, managed since 1999 by the Catalan banking foundation Catalunya-La Pedreda, which received more than 100,000 tourists in 14 www.idescat.cat/emex/?id=25#h400000000, last accessed August 2018.

The History of the Earth as a New Form of Territorial Marketing

65

201715, becoming one of the most visited natural sites in the region. Various tourist offers were developed around this natural heritage of the region. The opening to the public in 1991 of the Val Fosca cable car after its use for the construction of the Sallente reversible power plant is one of these symbols, becoming one of the gateways to the Aigüestortes and Saint Maurice Lake National Park (Parc Nacional d’Aigüestortes i Estany de Sant Maurici), the only Spanish national park located in Catalonia. Finally, the ski resort Vallfosca Interllacs Esquí Resort was also to be created on the mountain peaks. Projected at the end of the 1990s before finally being abandoned in the midst of the economic crisis and the bursting of the real estate bubble, the presence of cable car pylons, construction houses and unfinished apartments still recalls this episode in the Val Fosca landscape. The economic recession initiated in 2007, the consequences of which were very major in Spain, therefore, according to the Epicenter, marked the weakness of this economic model as well as the obsolescence of the economic, tourist and heritage infrastructures of the Pallars Jussà. After a consultation process with local experts and businesses, the Comarca Council decided to focus much more heavily on tourism to reactivate the local economy, in conjunction with the provincial and autonomous administration. One of the main lines of action focused on boosting the agri-food sector, in particular through the recovery of vines, which were once particularly exploited before the arrival of phylloxera at the end of the 19th Century. This policy is part of the development of local know-how initiated by producers, which led to the integration, in 1998, of wines from the Tremp basin into the “Denomination of Origin” (Denominació d'origen) Costers del Segre label of the province of Lleida. In 2007, the city of Tremp also developed the “At your pleasure, food of Pallars” (Al teu gust, aliments del Pallars) program, set up in 2009, in collaboration with various social and commercial actors in the region. In addition to agri-food, new tourist offers were also promoted by the administration around rural tourism and ecotourism16, including the “Fifth Lake” hiking trail (El Cinquè llac), which in 2017 received the prize for “Best Active Tourism Product” at the International Tourism Fair (Fitur) in Madrid, and the “Lakes Train” tour (El Tren dels llacs). Beyond these actions, however, the administration stated that the tourist economy of Pallars Jussà suffered from the lack of a coherent image that articulated the entire territory. Unlike the other strongly positioned adjacent territories (such as the regions of Val d'Aran and Pallars Sobirà or Val de Boí located in the adjacent region of Alta Ribargorça), local, national and international tourists do not have a 15 www.segre.com/noticies/comarques/2017/02/24/la_regulacio_per_evitar_massificacions_ mont_rebei_partir_la_setmana_santa_12927_1091.html, last accessed August 2018. 16 www.tremp.cat/public/129/docs/b77b82ba6784ea2ffb6f8601492b57b4.pdf, last accessed August 2018.

66

UNESCO Global Geoparks

precise representation of what this territory has to offer. From a geographical and natural point of view, the region exhibits very different landscapes, close to the south of the great plains with a Mediterranean climate, with rugged relief in the high mountain valley of the Val fosca, passing through the pre-Pyrenean depression in the center, which ensures natural communication between the plain and the mountains. Only the town hall of the Torre de Capdella had created an image of territory. In connection with the villages of the valley, the brand “Vall fosca” (the dark valley) and the tourist slogan “the energy of the Pyrenees” (L’Energia dels Pirineus) were created by highlighting the history and heritage linked to the first hydroelectric power stations in Catalonia installed on its territory, which thoroughly transformed the landscape and society of this valley. Faced with this situation, and following the advice of a consulting firm, the municipality of Tremp and the Regional Council have decided, since 2011, to focus on the territory’s endogenous geoheritage resources, which have not yet been used economically. No less than 30% of the palaeontological sites inventoried in Catalonia are concentrated in the territory of Pallars Jussà, including three of the five sites declared “cultural property of national interest”. As indicated by the Tremp town hall: “The recognition of the rich diversity of the rocks that make up the Pyrenees and the high quality of its outcrops since the beginning of the 20th Century have made this place an open-air laboratory, both for research and technological training carried out by hydrocarbon exploration and industrial services companies”17. Researchers from all over the world have been traveling through this territory for more than a century, enabling them to understand the different phases of the formation of the Pyrenees. In 2003, before the creation of the geopark, an open-air geological learning campus (the Geocampus) had even been created by the administration, in collaboration with private actors, in order to promote scientific research in this territory. Traces of this experience, which has since been abandoned, still exist, including landscape interpretation panels. In addition to the richness of the geological formations, but also its influence on the mining history of this region, the paleontological remains of dinosaurs preserved in some museums and archaeological sites open to the public were also perceived as being articulated from this history of the Earth, with particular emphasis on the fact that this territory constitutes the last European place of life of dinosaurs before their extinction. It is in this context that the slogan “Pallars Jussà: journey to the origins” 17 www.ajuntamentdetremp.cat/ca/coneixer-tremp/geologia/centre-de-suport-igc, last accessed August 2018.

The History of the Earth as a New Form of Territorial Marketing

67

(Pallars Jussà : Viatge als origens) of the Comarca Council was born in 2013 in order to articulate this new narrative in a touristic way to the heritage elements activated during the 1990s on the territory. The Epicenter was also created in Tremp the same year, in place of the former Comarca Museum of Natural Sciences (Museu Comarcal de Ciències Naturals), in order to embody a point of tourist information, as well as a center for exhibitions and cultural activities for the whole region. Finally, according to the same logic, following the establishment, in 2014, of the Territorial Support Center of the Cartographic and Geological Institute of Catalonia in Tremp, the city also proclaimed itself a “geological city” (ciutat geològica), as can be seen on the signs located at the two entrances to the city. An urban renewal project is also currently being planned around the Support Center, where different statues, installations and street furniture refer to local geology. In this context, the ongoing development of geoparks, particularly in Catalonia, will be seen as a golden opportunity to give new strength to the creation of this territorial image, based in particular on the prestige brought by UNESCO’s recognition. Joan Ubach, Director of the Geopark, stated after his official recognition in 2017, that “it is a stimulus for the region, because a prestigious organization has recognized the richness of the Tremp and Montsec basin, which will bring us great visibility and international recognition”18. The geopark is not strictly speaking a logic of heritagization, but rather a matter of interpretation, thus meeting the interests of the comarca administration in the creation of their image of territory. The figure of the geopark was indeed perceived as the possibility of creating a holistic interpretative discourse of the territory from its geoheritage, thus allowing it to be highlighted as a “brand” that is unique in Catalonia. Well in line with the philosophy of the UN institution, the prefix “geo” therefore refers to the idea of “Mother Earth” (Gonzalez Tejada et al. 2017, p. 12). The geopark project brings together areas of geological, paleontological and mining interest, as well as the natural and cultural attractions of the territory (Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2). Geological Palaeontological Intangible heritage heritage heritage 16

17

8

Industrial heritage 11

Caves Heritagethat can linked be visited stores 4

6

Exhibition spaces 13

Table 3.1. Table showing the number of different spaces of interest integrated into the geopark project

18 http://premsa.gencat.cat/pres_fsvp/AppJava/notapremsavw/305661/ca/unesco-reconeix-geoparcconca-tremp-montsec.do, last accessed August 2018.

68

UNESCO Global Geoparks

In order to gain in strength, the bid also went beyond the strict boundaries of the Pallars Jussà, by integrating some adjacent municipalities, whose “heritage assets” would strengthen the geopark’s interpretative discourse. The prehistoric archaeological remains of the neighboring region of La Noguera were thus included19, as was the enhancement of the astronomical observations that had been carried out there by amateurs since the 1990s, due to its meteorological conditions and very low light pollution. The Government of Catalonia decided to create the Montsec Astronomical Park (PAM) in 2010 in order to provide Catalonia with basic facilities for research, training and dissemination in the field of astronomy, but also to create an economic dynamic in the Montsec mountain range. The Center for Observation of the Universe (Centre d’observació de Univers) was created in this context in 2015 in Àger, attracting more than 30,000 visitors each year. In 2013, 24 municipalities in La Noguera finally received certification as “Starlight tourist destinations”, while 11 were even declared “Starlight reserves” by the Starlight Foundation, in collaboration with UNESCO, making PAM affirm that the “Montsec sky is one of the best in the world for astronomical observation and enjoying starlight”20. As a result of these characteristics, the association “Projecte del Geoparc Conca de Tremp-Montsec” was finally composed of 19 municipalities from four comarcas of the province of Lleida. It includes all 14 municipalities that make up Pallars Jussà, but also three municipalities in the north of La Noguera located in the Montsec mountain range (Àger, Camarasa, Vilanova de Meià), one municipality in the south of Pallars Sobirà linked to salt extraction (Gerri de la Sal) and one in the southwest of Alt Urgell (Coll de Nargó) where dinosaur remains were found. The various supramunicipal administrations also participated in this project. The annual €150,000 of the association, which has become an independent entity, is financed equally by these different municipalities, but also by the province of Lleida and the Department of Territory and Sustainability (Departament de Territori i Sostenibilitat) of the Government of Catalonia, through, in particular, the Institute for the Development and Promotion of the High Pyrenees and Val d’Aran (Institut per al Desenvolupament i la Promoció de l’Alt Pirineu i Aran), created in 2003 by the government to promote the economic development of these mountainous regions. The latter will also contribute to the financing of concrete projects, as did the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). According to Joan Ubach,

19 The “Origin” (Orígens) interpretation area was inaugurated in Camarasa in 2013, as part of the creation, in 2010, of the cross-border route “Route of Origins” (Ruta dels orígens) between Catalonia, Aragon and the French Midi-Pyrénées region subsidised by the European Union’s POCTEFA program 2007–2013. This itinerary included archaeological sites, but also astronomical observation. 20 www.parcastronomic.cat/un-cel-starlight, last accessed August 2018.

The History of o the Earth as a New Form of Territorial Markketing

69

presidennt of the geopaark and mayoor of Tremp, for f each of theese invested eeuros, the economiic return for thhe entire territtory was calcu ulated betweenn 10 and 20 euuros21.

Figure e 3.2. Institutio onal map of the e geopark terrritory produced d by the Carto ographic and d Geological Institute I of Cattalonia. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.cco.uk/girault/ge eoparks.zip 21 http:://premsa.gencaat.cat/pres_fsvp//AppJava/notaprremsavw/3056661/ca/unesco-recconeix-geo parc-concca-tremp-montseec.do, last accesssed August 201 18.

70

UNESCO Global Geoparks

COMMENT ON FIGURE 3.2.– This map represents the territory integrated into the Tremp-Montsec Basin Geopark in relation to Catalonia and the Pyrenean and prePyrenean areas. The various attractions are referenced (points of different colors), as well as areas of geological interest (surrounded in orange) and protected natural areas (in green)22. Thanks to this project, according to Joan Ubach, the number of tourists in the territory should multiply, while spreading over the whole year, and no longer only over the summer period where the approximately 100,000 visitors are currently concentrated. Following the recommendations of the UN institution, this tourism will then be qualified by the association as well as by the Master Plan of the geotourism project, in a sense close to the definition of this concept that was made at the International Congress of Geotourism in Arouca in 2011. Following the classification of the different meanings of this term established by Gonzalez Tejada et al. (2017), this concept of geotourism would indeed correspond to the promotion of a territorial identity that combines all aspects of the territory, in order to connect people to the history of the Earth and promote the empowerment of people through territorial and tourist development. This approach to geotourism therefore aims to encompass, but also to go beyond, the concepts of ecotourism, cultural tourism and adventure tourism (Dowling 2013), by becoming synonymous, for the managers of the Tremp geopark, with “quality tourism”, which respects the nature and authenticity of the territory, or “sustainable tourism”, offering an opportunity for the territory. The first materializations of this project were created shortly before the recognition of the geopark, when the association carried out an intense dissemination campaign aimed at both the population and international evaluators. The bid was thus presented in the press while an open-air photographic exhibition entitled “Where the Stones Speak” (On les pedres parlen) took place around Tremp Cathedral, in the heart of the city center, where photographs highlighted the monumental aspect of the local geological formations. “Roll-up” impressions presenting the geopark were also displayed in all the cultural facilities of the territory, while similar fixed information was created at the main railway and road entrances to the geopark territory. Identical white banners were also hung in places particularly visible from the municipalities belonging to the association, stating “We hope to be a UNESCO World Geopark” (Esperem ser Geoparc mundial de la UNESCO). After UNESCO’s positive decision, a sticker affixed to the latter rectified the information by stating “We are UNESCO’s global geopark” (Som Geoparc mundial de la UNESCO). A public act was also to enable the entire population of Tremp to receive this response collectively and directly from 22 Geopark website: www.projectegeoparctrempmontsec.com/en/projecte-geoparc-conca-detremp-montsec/on-som/, last accessed August 2018.

The History of the Earth as a New Form of Territorial Marketing

71

UNESCO, before the town hall postponed it as a sign of mourning following a rockslide that caused the death of a local couple on their honeymoon. Finally, two dinosaur-shaped figures (Crestaure and Urpes) were created for the occasion and added to the family of local “giants”, guardians of traditional Catalan culture. However, it is only with the declaration of the geopark in 2017 that a series of concrete actions were planned which nevertheless faced a series of major challenges related largely to its use in territorial marketing. 3.5. The declaration of the Tremp Geopark and the definition of its future challenges On May 10, 2018, less than one month after UNESCO recognized the geopark, it adopted the commercial name “Catalan Pyrenean Origin Geopark” (Geoparc Orígens-Pirineus catalans) in order to strengthen the positioning of the territory, as stated at the press conference23, by integrating a large part of the promotional actions developed previously. The “origin” concept, already used by the Regional Council since 2013, refers here to the history of the Earth, the history of the universe or palaeontology, particularly attractive for young audiences, to which the representation of a titanosaurus footprint on the logo, one of the last dinosaurs to have lived in Europe, refers. In addition, it also refers to the origin of hydroelectric energy, as highlighted by the Val Fosca. It also makes it possible to evoke the “authenticity” of the territory, a concept semantically close to that of origin, due to its low urban development. Finally, the geographical location of the geopark has been extended by the mention of the Pyrenees, thus anchoring this territory in the imagination of this mountain range particularly visited by local, national and international tourists. This image of territory thus implies the materialization of a holistic narrative articulating the various heritage assets of the territory based on the history of the Earth. The main challenge of the geopark is to bring together, in the same story, the many touristic products created in the territory by municipalities, European institutions, Catalan and local administrations. These different actors must therefore collaborate and unite their efforts around a common project, overcoming the possible divisions that may arise as a result of political changes within these different administrations. Located on the interpretation side, the story must offer geotourists, or “quality tourists”, a coherent visit experience, in situ but also ex situ, within museums and different heritage sites.

23 www.projectegeoparctrempmontsec.com/2018/05/10/geoparc-origens-pirineus-catalans-nomcomercial-per-al-territori-de-la-conca-de-tremp-montsec/, last accessed August 2018.

72

UNESCO Global Geoparks

To do this, interpretations had to be made of the main geotopes of the geopark. An example produced for UNESCO evaluators, visible on site during our fieldwork, illustrated the interpretation envisaged by the scientific management of the geopark. Geoheritage was presented on the basis of its aesthetic, cultural, economic, ecological or scientific values, as defined by Reynard (2005), but also through an interpretation of the landscape. On the existing panel, the geological forms of the Collegats parade (protected as a natural area) were explained, both from local legends and from educational illustrations from the point of view of the Earth Sciences. This information was also intended to be adaptable to the different types of visitors, whereas geotourism brings together a very heterogeneous public. According to the geopark’s scientific director, this logic, which combines Earth Sciences, ethnography, but also archaeology and history, depending on the sites planned, should continue for the construction of future interpretation panels. This approach was also to form the basis of the georoutes, most of which did not yet physically exist in May 2018 (except for the Fifth Lake Road, discussed earlier, and included in the bid). This is what we saw during the guided tour of various sites in the Val fosca, organized as part of the Geolodía 2018, which was to be the prototype for the interpretation of the future georoutes of this area. During the latter, the Eureka mine in Castell-Estaó was visited. The history of the aborted uranium exploration that took place during the Francoist period was indeed explained based on an approach that combined geology and the social and political history of the region. With regard to ex situ interpretation, the articulation between the different museum sites was also redefined on the basis of the same holistic narrative. While the geopark has the great convenience of not involving the construction of new museums, the discourses of existing institutions had to be coordinated in order to offer a complementary vision of the territory based on a common thread linked to the history of the Earth. The Epicenter presented the foundations of this story, integrating the comarca’s various heritage assets into its exhibitions. Its rooms were thus entitled “the spectacle of nature”, “the dark sky of the Pallars”, “geology and land of dinosaurs” and “the passage of cultures”, which addressed the history of the region from prehistory to the present day. Thanks to a grant of €315,000 awarded by the ERDF for 2019, the Isona Museum was to be completely renewed in the coming years, allowing it to focus in more detail on the territory’s palaeontological heritage. Finally, the Territorial Support Center of the Cartographic and Geological Institute of Catalonia, the third major exhibition center of the geopark, should gradually host small-format scientific and artistic exhibitions. Beyond this interpretive narrative, the desire to create an image of a territory from the geopark also implied, according to its managers, the development of new geotourism products in collaboration with local private actors. Apart from the company Eureka SGN, created in 2011 by local geologists and which collaborates

The History of the Earth as a New Form of Territorial Marketing

73

with the geopark in its scientific dissemination activities, no other actor of this type exists in the territory. In addition, the geopark managers would also like to strengthen the links between local agri-food production and the history of the Earth, thus jointly articulating the two main axes for the area’s tourism development since 2007. This is what other European geoparks have tried to do, such as the GEOFood brand created by the Magma geopark in Norway to offer a special gastronomic experience to its visitors24. In Tremp, some winegrowers of the Al teu gust program had already established this dynamic even before the creation of the geopark, referring in particular to the geological history of the territory on the labels of their bottles. Fossils and other paleontological traces decorate these products, offering them a particular distinctive feature that could be sought by geotourists. By insisting on the effects of geology on local products, these craftsmen contribute to the creation of a local brand, inseparable from the image of the territory that the geopark wishes to create. Some of these products have since been sold in the territory’s cultural equipment stores, where they are presented as geopark products. Finally, in addition to agri-food products, other initiatives linked to the creation of a territorial imagination should also be promoted, such as the “Jurassic Pallars” logo, printed on certain clothing, referring to local paleontological history through the eponymous world famous Hollywood blockbuster. However, these various actions should not make us forget other ongoing projects, which we have only rarely discussed here, the scope of which imply a sharp increase in the association’s annual budget. These include the visualization of the geopark and its activities, which are currently particularly present on social networks, the installation of signage on the territory and the publication of promotional and outreach materials. It should also be noted that there is a need to set up an ambitious research policy in the field, while contributing to strengthening the dissemination of Earth Sciences and training at the educational level, currently provided by the Tremp learning environment (Entorn d’Aprenentatge de Tremp), which offers an educational service to support official teaching, in particular in conjunction with the Territorial Support Center of the Catalan Cartographic and Geological Institute25. Finally, let us not forget either the need for certain structural improvements, particularly in terms of communications and tourist reception. On these various aspects, the Tremp geopark seemed to be a “good pupil” so far, while the optimism generated by the declaration in April 2017 suggested future coordinated actions between the scientific council, the management body and the various administrative levels. This use of geoheritage within marketing strategies, 24 For more information, www.geofood.no, last accessed August 2018. 25 http://serveiseducatius.xtec.cat/eda-tremp/el-camp/, last accessed August 2018.

74

UNESCO Global Geoparks

which illustrates a new use of heritage that extends, but also goes beyond the use value logic previously developed in the Catalan Pyrenean region, raises questions. It questions the future role of geoheritage, especially when these strategies are defined by tourism and administrative authorities, as is the case in Tremp. Beyond the holistic interpretative narrative proposed on the territory, it is indeed necessary to wonder if the latter would not run the risk of finally becoming, over the years, a setting, or even a simple rhetorical discourse at the service of a tourist development. The latter, of course, would therefore be little different from the rest of the mountain areas, being essentially based on the consumption of local products and the visit of cultural and natural areas that some geological formations can make particularly impressive. The ambiguous notion of geotourism could contribute to this by reducing the geological component of the term. Indeed, according to the definitions we have seen, this concept would now include visitors whose main motivation may be very far from geology, as was the case in Montserrat, the main motor of the Central Catalan Geopark. This is also the case in Tremp, where the holistic definition of geotourism used would imply that all tourists now visiting the territory would be understood as geotourists, even if their motivation can largely be based on a “classical” discovery of nature and local culture. The gradual shift toward the concept of “quality tourism”, preferred to that of geotourism, thus suggests that this risk of dilution of geology is very real. Faced with a hegemonic tourism practice that has been in place in Catalonia for almost a quarter of a century, and which is particularly well integrated with the population, there is a risk that geoheritage will become secondary, after having served as a “visiting card” of the territory and being legitimized by UNESCO, while remaining little known by civil society and insufficiently taken into account by the conservation policies put in place by the Catalan government. Not losing sight of the very nature of geoheritage, nor its “existence value”, through a constructive dialogue between managers and scientists, is undoubtedly one of the greatest challenges facing the geopark of the Tremp-Montsec basin in the years to come, but also perhaps its greatest opportunity, by helping to give Earth Sciences the place they deserve in understanding our world. 3.6. References Anholt, S. (2007). Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Balcells, A. (2008). Llocs de memoria dels catalans. Proa, Barcelona. Beltran, O., Pascual, J.J., Vaccaro, I. (2008). Patrimonialización de la naturaleza. El marco social de las política ambientales. Ankulegi Antropologia Elkartea, Saint Sébastien.

The History of the Earth as a New Form of Territorial Marketing

75

Dowling, R.K. (2013). Global geotourism – An emerging form of sustainable tourism. Czech Journal of Tourism, 2(2), 59–79. Generalitat de Catalunya (2009). Pla comarcal de muntanya 2009-2012 [Online]. Available: http://territori.gencat.cat/ca/01_departament/05_plans/02_plans_sectorials/territori/plans_ comarcals_de_muntanya/pla_comarcal_de_muntanya_2009-2012/ [Accessed August 2018]. Generalitat de Catalunya (2015). La planificació estratègica dels Espais Naturals Protegits de Catalunya [Online]. Available: http://mediambient.gencat.cat/web/.content/home/ ambits_dactuacio/patrimoni_natural/senp_catalunya/el_sistema/els_espais_naturals_de_pr oteccio_especial/espais_naturals_interactiul.pdf [Accessed August 2018]. Generalitat de Catalunya (2017). Principals indicadors socioeconòmics dels territoris de muntanya de la Generalitat de Catalunya [Online]. Available: http://territori. gencat.cat/web/.content/home/06_territori_i_urbanisme/03_costes_i_muntanya/politica_d e_muntanya/territoris_de_muntanya/documents/Indicadors2017.pdf [Accessed August 2018]. Gohau, G. (2001). La géologie, discipline mal aimée. In Études sur l’enseignement des sciences physiques et naturelles, Hulin, N. (ed.). ENS éditions, Lyon. Gold, J.R., Ward, S.V. (1994). Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity and Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Gonzalez Tejada, C., Du, Y., Read, M., Girault Y. (2017). From nature conservation to geotourism development: Examining ambivalent attitudes towards UNESCO directives with the global geopark network. International Journal of Geoheritage, 5(2), 1–20. Greffe, X. (2003). La valorisation économique du patrimoine. La Documentation française, Paris. Hart Robertson, M. (2015). Heritage interpretation, place branding and experiential marketing in the destination management of geotourism sites. Translation Spaces, 4(2), 289–309. Historic England (2017). Using Heritage in Place Branding [Online]. Available: https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/using-heritage-in-placebranding/heritage-place-branding.pdf/ [Accessed August 2018]. Jordan, P., Hipp, R., Reynard, E. (2004). La protection des géotopes et la création de géoparcs en Suisse. In Paysages géomorphologiques, Reynard, E., Pralong, J.-P. (eds). Institut de géographie de l’université de Lausanne, Montagny-près-Yverdon. Kotler, D., Haider, D.H., Rein, I. (1993). Marketing Places. Free Press, New York. Mallarach Carrera, J.M., Otzet, J.G., Sabaté Rotés, X., Basora Roca, X. (2008). Protegits, de fet o de dret? Primera avaluació del sistema d’espais naturals protegits de Catalunya. Institució Catalana d’Història Natural, Barcelona. Moilanen, T., Rainisto, S. (2008). How to Brand Nations, Cities and Destinations. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Reynard, E. (2005). Géomorphosites et paysages. Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement, 3, 181–188.

76

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Roigé, X., Arrieta, I. (2010). Construcción de identidades en los museos de Cataluña y País Vasco: entre lo local, nacional y global. Pasos, 8(4), 539–553. Roigé, X., Frigolé, J. (2006). Globalización y localidad. Perspectiva etnográfica. Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona. Roigé, X., Frigolé, J. (2010). Constructing Cultural and Natural Heritage. Parks, Museums and Rural Heritage. Institut Català de Recerca en Patrimoni Cultural, Girona. Sala, T. (2017). Visions dels Pirineus. Entre la Renaixança i el Modernisme. Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona. Santamarina, B. (2005). La patrimonialización de la naturaleza: figuras (espacios protegidos) y discursos (desarrollo sostenible). In Protegiendo los recursos? Áreas protegidas, poblaciones locales y sostenibilidad, Pascual Fernandez, J., Florido Del Corral, D. (eds). Fundación El Monte, Seville. Vaccaro, I., Beltran, O. (2007). Ecología política de los Pirineos. Estado, Historia y Paisaje. Garsineu Edicions, Tremp. Van Geert, F., Estrada, F. (2018). Construint el territori: arquitectura tradicional i paisatge a Catalunya. Departament de Cultura de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona.

4 Patrimonialization and the Geopark Label: for Which Development Model in the South? The Case of Morocco

4.1. Introduction In Morocco, the UNESCO Global Geopark (UGG) label covers only one geopark in the Central High Atlas: the M’Goun geopark. The question of territorialized recognition of these heritage units is therefore still in its infancy. But the process of patrimonialization as an approach to preserving territorial resources, and the debates around the specification mobilized in the development of local territories constantly have more importance in society, here as elsewhere (Portal 2017). Morocco’s strong link to globalization and international openness reinforces this aspect. Different areas and environments have experienced different forms of preservation or enhancement (national parks, biosphere reserves, natural reserves, UNESCO World Heritage Sites, etc.). The development of tourism in these territories in peripheral or marginal areas responds to a strong urban metropolitanization with a growing interest in tourism and leisure spaces. In parallel, the territorialization of public policies and actions through decentralization, deconcentration and regionalization responds to the need to integrate the new emerging elites from the hinterlands. The fight against poverty and the pressing human development needs of these territories have opened eyes to new formulas or models of sustainable territorial development. Heritage enhancement through specification, labeling and enhancement is increasingly perceived as an unexpected

Chapter written by Ouidad TEBAA and Saïd BOUJROUF. The work presented in this chapter is part of the Geopark H2020 program and was funded by the European Union’s Research and Innovation Program Horizon 2020 under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 644015.

UNESCO Global Geoparks: Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement First Edition. Edited by Yves Girault. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

78

UNESCO Global Geoparks

windfall by the various stakeholders. The UGG label is fully in line with this approach, but the adoption of this UNESCO approach to development faces various unresolved challenges of transfer, adaptation, acceptance, appropriation and territorial management. 4.2. Geopark in Morocco: new label, new territory and new heritage process The UGG label is beginning to take over in Morocco’s territorial system for the preservation of both tangible and intangible heritage. The stakes around the creation of the UNESCO label (Brianso and Tebbaa 2016) are numerous and are starting to position Moroccans favorably in relation to the heritage development process. What should be done with this heritage to be labeled? For which objectives? For which uses? With whom? 4.2.1. The relationship to heritage and patrimonialization in Morocco: between identity, museumization and commodification Is an interest in Moroccan heritage a necessity for Moroccans to face the looting and degradation of their physical and human, tangible and intangible heritage? Is it a path to the reconstruction of identity and safeguarding inheritances with a view to their possible transmission to future generations? Or is it just a way of enhancing the value of common goods for economic profitability, strictly linked to tourism development? These questions naturally lead to others, linked to the actions to be taken and for whom. If in Morocco, the link to heritage (Turath ‫ التراث‬in Arabic) is very strong, especially in this Islamic, Arab-Amazigh civilization, its angle of appreciation or treatment owes much to the colonial vision during the French and Spanish presence (1912–1956). The Western European model has long won awards in the classifications of historical sites and monuments or national parks. Upon his arrival in Morocco, General Lyautey took an immediate interest in heritage, and created the Department of Antiquities, Fine Arts and Historic Monuments, which later became the Inspection of Historic Monuments. A policy of renovation and revitalization of “indigenous arts” has been launched, with the creation of an “authentic art”, in conformity with the Western vision of the East, with what “Berber arts” and “urban art” should be (Girard 2006). This model also ensures that what is local-indigenous and what is Western is maintained without mixing, and above all by respecting identity. From the outset, the relationship to heritage has been defined as “a duty to help tourists to fully understand Morocco”. However, the valuation dimension is not excluded from the asset management approach.

Patrimonialization and the Geopark Label

79

Labeling thus becomes a central step in recognizing the quality, authenticity, specificity or degree of identity importance of a monument, site or heritage of any kind. The official recognition of the heritage value of tangible or intangible objects becomes the obligatory prelude to their museumization or the staging of heritage objects. It is the private sector or civil society that make an important contribution to this process, following the development of tourism, especially cultural and urban tourism, by creating museums intended for an essentially foreign clientele1. Starting in 2008, tourism, agricultural and artisanal development strategies will reposition Morocco’s heritage in a new labeling area, through certifications that recognize quality, authenticity, specificity linked to origin for products, know-how, spaces or objects, etc.2 A link between these different sectors is emerging, with a view to ensuring sustainability for heritage, but also to reinforce its visibility. In this sense, we can speak of a paradox linked to the internalization of the concern for heritage concurrent with the outsourcing of heritage (Roussillon 2010). In this context, protected areas in Morocco are areas with delimitation, legal status for the conservation and protection of nature, ecosystem services and local cultural values. These are, in fact, nature reserves, national parks and “sites of biological interest”, the number of which is constantly increasing, reaching 11 and 154, respectively. These forms of heritage development are governed in Morocco by various laws, most of which date back to the last century, particularly in the 1930s, with the promulgation of the 1934 law on national parks. 4.2.2. What is the debate on the social acceptability and local utility of geoparks? The debate on the social acceptability of geoparks refers us to a broader debate, within UNESCO’s own bodies, on how local populations can be taken into account

1 As in the case of Marrakech, Morocco’s leading tourist center, where the private sector has created several museums and art galleries to promote Morocco’s identity, cultures and specificities. There are more than 40 cultural and museum structures in Greater Marrakech, including the Boucharouite Museum, the Orientalist Museum, the Yves Saint Laurent Museum, the House of Photography, the Mouassine museum, the Tiskiwin museum, MACMA Museum of Art and Culture, the Palmeraie Museum, Museum of African Contemporary Art Al Maaden, the Museum of Marrakech (Omar Benjelloun foundation), the Berber Museum, the Perfume Museum, the Museum of Bijoux Nawahi, the Museum of Women, the Jardin des arts, the Museum Arsat Moulay Abdeslam, etc. 2 The Green Morocco plan from 2008, the 2010 and 2020 visions of tourism and that of crafts in 2015.

80

UNESCO Global Geoparks

in labeling processes. In this respect, “local populations” or “local communities” only appeared in UNESCO’s standard-setting texts very late in the day. The 1972 Convention only applies the criterion of the exceptionality of cultural or natural properties. In addition, the criteria and methods of expertise, which are intended to be objective, attribute quality to monuments according to value systems that are foreign to the societies that host them. It was necessary to wait for the 2003 UNESCO Convention (PCI) with its definitions (Article 2): “This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups according to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus contributing to promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity [...]”. Even more than with the notion of a “cultural landscape”, this initiative significantly broadens and influences the philosophy that guides heritage conservation at UNESCO, aiming primarily at knowledge and know-how, and secondarily their material expression and possibly their anchoring in particular sites. Above all, it entrusts the priority of recognizing the cultural value of this knowledge and know-how to those who carry it, recognizing in them, “where appropriate”, the ability to see it as a form of heritage themselves, far from the “monumentalist” approach that had prevailed during the first decades, with the long exclusive exercise of scholarly expertise. It is UNESCO’s standard-setting texts that will definitively anchor this notion in the labeling process: “The participation of the local population in the nomination process is essential to be able to share with the State Party the responsibility for the maintenance of the property. States Parties are encouraged to prepare nominations with the participation of a wide range of stakeholders, including site managers, local and regional authorities, local communities, NGOs and other interested parties” (Guidelines, World Heritage–UNESCO, Item 123). In parallel with this recognition process, UNESCO is engaged in a reflection on the impact of labels on populations, which focuses first on historic centers (UNESCO, World Urban Forum, “Social Sustainability of Historical Districts”, September 13, 2004, Barcelona, Spain), addressing the phenomenon of gentrification in a concrete way through the concept of social sustainability. Thus, citing Jean du Plessis of the Center on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), the

Patrimonialization and the Geopark Label

81

UNESCO representative, Brigitte Colin, mentioned at the opening of the forum, “an international epidemic of forced evictions” following the inscription of the sites on the World Heritage List. But what about the relationship of populations to the Geopark label? A UGG is, according to UNESCO, “a territorial area with a geological heritage of international importance. This heritage allows people to become aware of and find the keys to respond to the geodynamic context of the planet on which we all live”. A large number of UGGs are helping to raise awareness of geological risks, such as volcanic hazards, earthquakes and tsunamis and in this context are developing strategies to mitigate these risks within local communities. This definition refers to the twofold dimension, commonly used by UNESCO, of the local and the global. It places the labeling process at the center of a global challenge in a reflective approach that goes far beyond the simple community or territory in which the geopark is located, but at the same time, it highlights the specific role of local populations who embody risk mitigation strategies on the ground at the territorial level. Such a definition obviously does not reflect the perception that people in Morocco can have of their territory, both through the novelty of the label and through a nascent awareness and recognition of the geological heritage and its tourist value. Indeed, this notion of heritage still remains the prerogative of a scientific community and has little influence on the local populations concerned, who perceive a geopark label at best as a lever for development and at worst as a direct threat that can, in the long term, deprive them of their tangible and intangible assets and their rights. Examples of forest delimitation or, above all, the creation of nature reserves, have sometimes been experienced in a traumatic way in Morocco, particularly when the first national parks were established. The example of Toubkal National Park is illuminating by the reluctance, even hostility, it has aroused among the populations directly concerned, if not threatened in their ancestral way of life. The aversion they still have for the forest ranger, who maintains the boundaries between the protected and the unprotected, which they consider to be artificial, says a lot about their lack of ownership of this form of patrimonialization. This goes further than a dichotomy between a bottom-up or top-down approach to heritage development. The question is not only due to the consequences of a patrimonialization from above or below, but it is also due to the tensions and dynamics created by the different levels (local, regional, national, international, private, public, etc.). Thus, even when the top-down approach prevails in terms of recognition, there is a gap between local and national, even international,

82

UNESCO Global Geoparks

appreciation of heritage (Gravari-Barbas and Renard 2010). It is precisely this type of contradiction that the Geopark label can and must overcome. 4.3. Challenges in the territorial construction of geoparks and their heritage development The notion of patrimonialization tends to be increasingly linked to territorial development policies, particularly in the marginal areas of poor countries. At least, in this way, the countries of the South can grasp the international dynamics of heritage development, extend it in its geographical dimensions and build on it to give national and international visibility to the necessarily modest territorial development strategies they implement. The example of the Zat Valley in Morocco is particularly illuminating in this regard, given the research that has been carried out on it, which reveals not only elements that could shed light on other heritage processes in the world, but also serves as an example or inspiration for changes in UNESCO’s concepts and practices. In this respect, the question of the heritage development of the Zat Valley, the possibility of which has been studied, could almost serve as a model. The question of UGG tends to become a new form of dynamics that will densify territorial policies by extending the notions of labeling to that of heritage. What is at stake is a form of reconciliation of the tangible and intangible dimensions of heritage in their inscription within a given territory, which gives them a geographical dimension and a sectoral depth that goes far beyond the conceptions of heritage as they have developed so far. It is no longer the monument, circumscribed to a reduced space, nor the intangible, nor even geology or landscape that are the object of patrimonialization, but all these dimensions, captured in their infinite interactions, including the ecosystem and the economic, social, cultural and even spiritual life, which, inscribed in a territory, become a new object, going beyond previous contradictions. Consequently, the question of poverty, economic activities, traffic networks and urban dynamics is an integral part of the process of heritage development. The patrimonialization becomes a manifestation of territorial policies. Like what happens in tourism, it becomes a resource for the territories that can be used for general objectives. It is rewarding. In doing so, it profoundly renews the question of authenticity because the heritage of territories can only be conceived in a dynamic way. Finding new resources for traditional crafts can, in some cases, make it possible to preserve the craft and thus preserve a living heritage, but only if it is transformed by making it a heritage. This is why it is necessary to think about the interplay of the interacting actors. In the Zat Valley, preserving weaving craftsmanship also means preserving the production of wool and natural colors of the territory. It is therefore also

Patrimonialization and the Geopark Label

83

preserving pastoral activities, with all their organization, as well as that of the local biodiversity providing the segments. This is, therefore, another way of preserving landscapes and understanding the impact of human activities. Finally, all this must be seen in the context of the effects of climate change and therefore in the resilience of ecosystems, as well as in the capacities and adaptation strategies of populations. 4.3.1. Challenges in the fight against poverty and/or heritage preservation As we have seen, the UGG label is the symbol of territorial heritage. But a question immediately arises when it comes to the heritage of fragile territories. Like degraded or heavily eroded landscapes, these territories are experiencing a destructuring of their traditional balances. Artisanal sectors are disappearing because of a lack of sufficiently profitable outlets, a lack of inputs, pressure from intermediaries or simply because of international competition. Intermediaries, in particular those able to direct demand, to provide lower quality inputs, or even modify local know-how, contribute to weakening the transmission of knowledge, and scattering the accumulated capital of knowledge, techniques and rituals which have, since ancient times, been linked to the production of a sector. This is also true of pastoral traditions, herd control systems and transhumance calendars. It is, therefore, necessary to carefully observe the economic and social dynamics that are at work, and in particular those that are most eroded by commodification. This is a prerequisite, especially in a labeling process in a developing country. The fight against poverty is an important dimension. Faced with deteriorating living conditions, communities no longer have sufficient resources to maintain their ecosystems. What meaning can then be given to preserving the geological heritage when poverty prevails, with its cohort of ills: migration, adaptation to markets, submission to purchasers, which pushes the ecosystem out of balance. Therefore, the whole issue is, prior to any heritage development, to prevent these radical transformations and to succeed in preserving the quality of the ecosystem so that it retains sufficient internal resources to maintain its regulatory capacities and be a stakeholder in the heritage development process, particularly when it comes to the Geopark label, which immediately projects itself on the international scene. The fight against poverty, implemented by national and territorial policies as well as by international organizations, thus acquires a new status. It is no longer only a question, which remains absolutely legitimate, of allowing communities to live in a decent way, but also of maintaining a threshold above which the conditions for the sustainability of social ecosystems are ensured.

84

UNESCO Global Geoparks

4.3.2. Challenges of intersectoral articulation and integration Intersectoral supportive policies remain the poor relation of national and international development policies. The surveys carried out as part of the Geopark H2020 program prove that poverty reduction policies focus mainly on infrastructure: roads, access to water and education. Investments address problems identified as such, but which are always considered as separate from each other. Private investors can sometimes rely on targeted public policies to engage in specific areas, such as guest houses, tourism and so on. But the imperative question is that of the relationship and articulation between the different sectors. This issue is exacerbated by the UNESCO label in that it considerably strengthens the attractiveness of a territory, the expectations of local populations, but also the desires of many economic actors at different levels. In a territory which is in the process of being labeled or is newly labeled, what relationship can be established between its different components: water and tourism or even education and roads? In Morocco, as surveys and statistical data prove, we always think in terms of flows: financing, investments, resources, etc. However, a reflection on all flow systems is absent. This strict ecosystem dimension with its flexible points, its movement and it cracks, that make up how the whole thing works, still needs to be created. An example illustrates the point: the nature of the buildings (earth, stone, cinder block) is an indication of development, or at least an indication of living conditions. It is assumed that breeze block or concrete is better than stone or earth. But what does this indicator mean? These are the supposedly superior virtues of concrete on earth. It is certainly an indicator for linking construction to the market economy. It is indeed possible to build an earthen house within the framework of a collective organization of the community, as with the Tuiza principle. However, it is absolutely impossible to make concrete. It will therefore have to be purchased on the market and it will therefore be possible to quantify this purchase and measure this investment flow. When you think about it carefully, how would concrete be a sign of development compared to earthen construction? This second is available nearby, it is perfectly biodegradable, and regulates temperature and hydrometry, which limits the use of heating and air conditioning. It helps to preserve a healthy environment, it is easy to maintain and it is based on traditional knowledge, organized by cooperations of trades with their own structures, rules, rituals and tools, an entire ecosystem that deserves to be preserved. On the contrary, concrete is a formidable thermal bridge, requiring vapor barriers to regulate humidity, integrated ventilation systems and layers of insulation. But since not all of this is implemented (we are satisfied with blocks and a coating), the sanitary quality of the air is poor, which affects living conditions. Concrete must be transported over a long distance, which is expensive in

Patrimonialization and the Geopark Label

85

terms of oil and contributes to climate change, in addition to the production of concrete, which is very energy intensive. Concrete houses are increasingly altering the traditional douars built of adobe. The urban landscape of the douars, this tangible and intangible heritage, is slowly being eroded, when it could be enhanced to promote hiking and therefore tourism. Finally, it should be added that communities must take on debt for the purchase of concrete and that they may therefore have to abandon traditional production systems for migration, wage employment or even to survive by creating a small local business, which in turn weakens traditional activities. This simple example shows that territorial heritage development requires a holistic diagnosis that attempts to understand ecosystem balances. It is necessary to go beyond the sectoral policies thought out and evaluated in isolation, independently of all the other dimensions of social life. A reflection on the relevance or not of acquiring the UGG label is also an opportunity, in the current period, to articulate territorial policies to fight poverty and international policies conditioned by the International Agenda of the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs). Whatever is said, these two dimensions are not credited with great success in many countries when compared to Morocco, despite general progress and undeniable success stories. In fact, the international agenda, including UNESCO, tends to justify many of the discourses and orientations that contribute to the construction of “great narratives”, that also serve as an ideological framework for the reproduction of relations of domination between developed and developing countries. Territorial policies in the countries of the South, and this is particularly the case in Morocco, appear incapable, despite their concrete efforts, of curbing poverty, gender inequality, social inequalities in general and the feeling of despair, which can lead to mass protest movements. State policies are discredited and in any case considered to be poorly aligned with the real needs of the population. Nevertheless, it can be hypothesized that territorial patrimonialization can be precisely the place where local and international policies are hybridized. Through the acquisition of a UGG label, the very need to focus on the territorial ecosystem can lead to institutional innovation, ensuring the right articulation between the different strata of public development actions, which are no longer simply juxtaposed but tend to be organically intertwined. A project to create a UGG combining both types of policies can achieve this, provided that communities are involved and their capacity for mobilization and action is strengthened. The whole issue of a heritage development of this nature, especially in a southern country, involves this decisive issue of good governance.

86

UNESCO Global Geoparks

4.3.3. Governance residents

challenges

for

geoparks

projects:

involving

“Involve the inhabitants”, “develop participatory governance” and “integrate civil society into political decision-making” are new slogans, which must be taken seriously while removing their invocatory character and the illusions they may create. In the current logic of good governance, the call for participatory governance does not usually aim, in most cases, to sincerely consult with the population or inhabitants to improve the diagnosis, verify hypotheses, or connect flows for the good of all, but rather to bypass state structures and leave the field open to market forces. This is not the way to build a territorial heritage. The market has its place in it, but it must be regulated, supervised and oriented to fit into the whole ecosystem. The market is the driving force, but it must be balanced by the community, either directly by the inhabitants who can intervene in the public debate or by institutions that allow them to express their opinions. In addition to the survey carried out as part of the Geopark H2020 program, on the scale of the entire Zat Valley and on the socioeconomic conditions in which people live in a potentially labeled territory, a specific survey was carried out3 among the population of the Jebel Yagour, known for its rock engravings and rooted pastoral life associated with authentic traditional agriculture (Boujrouf 2017). This survey aimed, through the implementation of a participatory territorial diagnosis, to highlight the local roots of the various actions and to get closer to the representations of the population on protected areas in order to ultimately decipher the local expectations of the different individuals and groups. This study reveals some very interesting elements regarding the perception of the inhabitants questioned about a UGG label. It has become clear that not all protection, safeguarding or preservation actions are always conceived as a project of the territory by the population. The inhabitants still do not know what a protected area is. For them, protection means carrying out actions of cleanliness, safeguarding local morals and customs and preserving the role of the community or laJmaa in the management of local affairs. Water scarcity and the degradation of food activities (agriculture and transhumance) must be addressed. Protection, according to them, should also concern places of worship and respect for traditional community rangeland management (Agdal) as the sole and unique reference system. This survey revealed proposals for a possible aspiring geopark project, knowing that any protection project must first resolve existing 3 With the participation of doctoral students from the Laboratoire des études sur les ressources, les mobilités et l’attractivité (LERMA), Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech.

Patrimonialization and the Geopark Label

87

conflicts and that the local authority is undoubtedly the most qualified to coordinate and reconcile the many conflicts of interest between elected officials, associations, cooperatives, etc. Above all, it should not be underestimated that any attempt at heritage enhancement, such as that of a UGG label, develops, among the inhabitants, the feeling of a loss of ownership of land devoted since time immemorial to agriculture and rangelands, but also that this points to the threat of a concrete loss of occupation of these areas where rock engravings are installed. The preservation of rock heritage is not a priority for them because they do not yet sufficiently measure the significance of the engraved slabs. However, this position goes hand in hand with the realization that any form of protection of these areas could reduce women’s drudgery in finding wood and could help collective organization through the creation of an association or cooperative to improve the situation of women in their villages. The surveyed population is very sensitive to the delimitation of the territory of a hypothetical UGG because it concretizes for them the perimeter of deprivation of their ancestral land use rights. In fact, the long co-construction time of the park’s territory for the safeguarding and sustainable preservation of its resources is categorically opposed to the short time of their pressing expectations, in terms of human and social development. The maintenance work, carried out in various areas with these populations, nevertheless shows that there is recognition of the importance and diversity of the various components of the local heritage. But the respondents also point out the imperative need for information and awarenessraising actions among the various actors. The recognition of the UGG label and, more generally, territorialized heritage development is an opportunity to change the system of governance and to overcome the double impasse of development policies pursued so far, whether in strategies that base development on the State or, conversely, those that leave it to the private sector, particularly tourism, to exploit the opportunities or comparative advantages of a newly labeled site. In both cases, the inhabitants, although the first concerned, are only marginally involved. In both cases, it is not the interests of the communities that are taken into account, but the possibilities of profit in the short or medium term, or even institutional or administrative logic. Some villages in Zat have been able to benefit from rapid electrification because of the very proactive policy pursued in this sector, even though the construction of roads or sections of road toward these villages was limited to what was strictly necessary for the transport of electrical equipment without these roads being consolidated or studied to open up the villages. Although the inhabitants were satisfied with their access to electricity, they were even more disappointed by the lack of real roads, particularly to access the surrounding villages, which are necessary for the transport of goods and people.

88

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Involving residents in the process of heritage development is therefore an imperative condition for better articulating sectoral logics and participating in a holistic vision of development. The notion of ecosystem considers the territory or the question of development not as a series of juxtaposed problems that have nothing to do with each other, but, on the contrary, as an organic whole where interactions are as important to consider as each of the sectoral problems. The inhabitants naturally express these interfaces because they constitute the very fabric of their daily existence. We can therefore see that, in any form of national or international heritage development, we must go beyond the sometimes cosmetic rhetoric of “participation”. Public policy actors must immerse themselves and not overlook local populations, take the necessary time to become fully aware of the organic interactions of a territory and, finally, of what constitutes its very life, especially since in the case of the creation of a UGG, it is the very life of communities that is likely to be defined as the heritage in a specific territorial dimension. 4.4. Questions and reservations about the contribution of a UNESCO model of geoparks for development in the South The inhabitants of the territories concerned by the research work undertaken in the Geopark H2020 program are aware of the beginning of a process of heritage development and territorial construction. In this context, there are many challenges, both for the recognition of heritage as a cultural and identity value, and for its added value in economic and tourism terms. But the labeling phase, as a crucial step in the heritage process, still raises many uncertainties because the scientific knowledge, that of the experts, who produce the contents and models of heritage, is still at odds with the knowledge and practices of the local population. The different registers of the scholarly system of heritage values are not really in keeping with local cultural values and their environment dominated by poverty and illiteracy. On the other hand, local populations know their needs as best they can, with a strong demand focused on human and social development. However, their capacities are insufficient to translate their needs into territorial projects. In many cases, opportunities from the outside are lost along the way, due to the weakness of human resources to be mobilized or the inability of local institutions to integrate the territorial dynamics created by actors, especially those related to heritage globalization. The lack of trust in everything that comes from outside also sometimes reinforces suspicion or rejection of territorial projects, even those of a human and social nature. In this environment, is the UGG label model the foundation for real territorial and sustainable development actions? What are its origins and exact aims? For which target territories? Why is it attracting so much interest today? Are the UGGs able to take into account the specificities of the countries of the South?

Patrimonialization and the Geopark Label

89

In several cases, this model of territorial development barely adapts to the sociopolitical characteristics of the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean (Koop et al. 2010). Because this patrimonial approach model is still unclear for different local actors, especially in Morocco, they do not know how to do it and even what its use is. This model must certainly be adapted to the expectations of the populations living on these heritage sites to be safeguarded and enhanced. Moreover, conflicts that may result from the UGG label’s listing are not dealt with after such projects have been carried out. Support for actors and stakeholders, particularly following their involvement in this type of project, is insufficient or non-existent. The actors are generally left to their own devices after obtaining the label. The challenge of appropriating the UGG labeling model in Morocco is therefore to move from the “park approach” (Selmi 2006), i.e. the setting up of a public administrative system, to the creation of a participatory structure that has so far lacked a real local anchoring, even if it is often carried out by associations and/or local authorities. In the absence of effective participation by the main stakeholders, the inhabitants of these labeled territories, or those to be labeled, the park’s management method is, sooner or later, confronted with problems of agreement on the modes of governance to be invented, in an environment known by the multiplicity of actors and levels. In such situations, the inhabitants, who had initially welcomed the idea of creating a UGG, can quite naturally turn against the system and question the project and its label. If the territorialization of the UGG model and its certification by UNESCO promote the emergence of new heritage fields in marginal territories, particularly in the South, the model itself should answer the central questions raised by local populations regarding the nature of the sociocultural and economic impacts of such projects and labels. In this respect, scientists and experts should become more involved in this inclusive approach as informed territorial mediators. Finally, the model should demonstrate its ability to produce land projects that can promote heritage culture and create resources anchored in local territories. These projects can, of course, reinforce the State’s actions in favor of the development of these territories by involving the various associative actors and/or local authorities. But the state remains, in a country like Morocco, the facilitating and accompanying actor of any territorial development (Leloup et al. 2005; Pecqueur 2005; Koop et al. 2010; Amilhat-Szary and Koop 2011), because the reality in the South and the socioeconomic difficulties are often such that the role of the State remains crucial for their development and the various actors on the ground cannot make up for its absence.

90

UNESCO Global Geoparks

4.5. References Amilhat-Szary, A.-L., Koop, K. (2011). Introduction. Approche critique des transferts contemporains des modèles de développement territorial vers les Suds. L’information géographique, 4, 6–14. Boujrouf, S. (2017). Le plateau du Yagour vu par sa population: une aire protégée dans la vallée du Zat? Rencontre Geopark H2020. Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, Paris. Brianso, I., Tebbaa, O. (2016). Enjeux sociaux d’une labellisation UNESCO: quelle prise en compte des populations locales? Rencontre Geopark H2020. Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, Morocco. Girard, M. (2006). Invention de la tradition et authenticité sous le Protectorat au Maroc. L’action du Service des Arts indigènes et de son directeur Prosper Ricard. Revue socioanthropologie, 19, 31–46. Gravari-Barbas, M., Renard, C. (2010). Une patrimonialisation sans appropriation? Le cas de l’architecture de la reconstruction au Havre. Norois, Environnement, Aménagement, Société, 217(4), 57–73. Koop, K., Landel, P.-A., Pecqueur, B. (2010). Pourquoi croire au modèle du développement territorial au Maghreb? Une approche critique. EchoGéo, 13 [Online]. Available: https://journals.openedition.org/echogeo/12065. Leloup, F., Moyart, L., Pecqueur, B. (2005). La gouvernance territoriale comme nouveau mode de coordination territoriale? Géographie, Économie, Société, 7(4), 321–332. Pecqueur, B. (2005). Le développement territorial: une nouvelle approche des processus de développement pour les économies du Sud. In Le territoire est mort: vive les territoires! Une refabrication au nom du développement, Antheaume, B., Giraut, F. (eds). IRD, Paris. Portal, C. (2017). Paysages géopittoresques et modélisation spatiale des géoparcs européens: vers de nouveaux espaces naturels et culturels protégés? Annales de géographie, 717(5), 654–674. Roussillon, A. (2010). À propos de quelques paradoxes de l’appropriation identitaire du patrimoine. In Patrimoines en situation. Constructions et usages en différents contextes urbains. Exemples marocains, libanais, égyptien et suisse. Presses de l’Ifpo, Beyrouth/Rabat [Online]. Available: http:// books.openedition.org/ifpo/908. Selmi, A. (2006). Administrer la nature. Le parc national de la Vanoise. MSH/Quae, Paris.

5 The Evolution of the Economics of Culture and its Influence on the Development of Geoparks

5.1. Introduction1 For a long time, the situation of heritage sites was clear: it was primarily reasons of conservation, research or education that pushed the founders of these places to invest in them and obtain subsidies. The conventions related to the heritage of humanity, established by UNESCO in 1972, in which geological sites are included, aim first and foremost at the preservation and enhancement of these sites considered exceptional at the international level. Although the public authorities did not finance these institutions as much as their managers would have liked, they were nevertheless satisfied with these explanations related to the preservation and enhancement of the heritage. Nowadays, it is still possible to convince a potential patron or politician of the merits of such an undertaking by referring to these higher interests. However, many decision makers are finding it increasingly difficult to be convinced by these arguments alone, joining some utilitarian or commercial minds wondering about the reasons for financing such non-directly productive investments, a kind of hobby that is difficult to justify reasonably. Very quickly, therefore, other arguments were also raised to justify the need to finance these establishments: in particular, as part of the stakes of prestige and (brand) image of a city or region, museums or monuments may appear as new markers of economic success. The tourism dimension and, at the same time, the economic activity it could generate, is

Chapter written by François MAIRESSE. The work presented in this chapter is part of the Geopark H2020 program and was funded by the European Union’s Research and Innovation Program Horizon 2020 under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 644015.

UNESCO Global Geoparks: Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement First Edition. Edited by Yves Girault. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

92

UNESCO Global Geoparks

another argument that has been widely highlighted throughout the 19th Century and continues to be used in an increasingly sophisticated way. Geoparks are part of this type of claim and discourse. It is first of all preservation and enhancement objectives that lead to the emergence of this category. The geopark model, in this sense, is one of the types of the classic heritage model, quite close, for example, to the nature reserve and its interpretation center, not far from the museum model (whose logic differs somewhat because of its link with the collection, although the distinctions in this respect are diminishing) or ecomuseum. The same reasons related to economic development (especially in the context of local development) are also promoted by the idea of geotourism as a principle of territorial development. In this chapter, I would like to refer more generally to the question of the economic challenges of development, but also to the reasons that lead public authorities to support geoparks, through the discourse that has been produced since the 19th and 20th Centuries around heritage sites. The evolution of these principles of justification has gone through different stages, which need to be carefully considered in order to understand how current arguments in favor of these places are used and what they mean. First, I will mention the prehistory of these arguments, which can be traced back to the invention of the modern museum. I will then focus on the first phase, strictly speaking, of the economic justification of these places, which can be traced back to the late 1960s and which has developed mainly since the 1980s. A second phase began at the end of the 1990s, in which we still find ourselves, focusing not only on the principles of the cultural economy, but also on the challenges of creativity in relation to the global economy. Finally, I will analyze, in conclusion, the current positioning of geoparks in the light of these different types of arguments. 5.2. Museums and heritage sites in the market economy The idea of the museum or heritage sites associated with economic development is much older than initially thought; it accompanies the design and development of the modern museum. The art collections (the Louvre or the British Museum) are most often associated with the museum; however, it is worth recalling the much more diversified nature of the institution at its genesis, when art, nature and technology come together in curiosity cabinets and the first encyclopedic museums. However, some of these materials, particularly scientific and technical collections, are directly related to economic development issues: the creation of new machinery for land use or improved production depends largely on the examination of previous techniques, and therefore on the material contained in the collections collected in the cabinets. It is through this argument that the philosopher Leibniz, for example,

The Evolution of the Economics of Culture

93

justified at the end of the 18th Century the interest of creating natural history and physics cabinets within the Academies, with the Elector of Saxony, the Elector of Hanover or the Elector of Brandenburg: “A single invention, either mechanical or chemical, which elsewhere will be worth nothing, applied there will bring in perhaps ten or twelve thousand pension thalers” (Foucher de Careil 1875, p. 143). This type of utilitarian discourse is not limited to the field of science alone; it is used, for example, on many occasions during debates on the creation of art museums and, in particular, during the French Revolution, in the course of discussions on the creation of the Louvre. The museum presents itself first of all as a reservoir of models – the copy being at the heart of the educational system – for the development of the artists of the French School, and thus to enable the latter to establish itself on the art market. But the works offered to the public by the future Musée central des Arts would also make it possible to refine the knowledge of craftsmen, and thus to develop exports of manufactured products (Poulot 1997). It is in the same perspective that the Conservatoire national des arts et métiers, designed by Abbé Grégoire, was created in 1794, its collections developing in parallel with the organization of national industrial exhibitions throughout the first half of the 19th Century. The museum, as a collection of patents and inventions, is a modern database that is particularly useful for inventors and industrialists wishing to perfect their models (Mairesse 2018). A few years later, the argument was again used to finance the South Kensington Museums in London, and in particular its decorative arts section, which would constitute the Victoria & Albert Museum: model collections, intended for craftsmen and factory workers, were brought together to stimulate their creativity and develop the quality of British industry’s manufactured products. It is worth mentioning the Portland vase, whose copy encouraged the development of Wedgwood’s industry and reported several times the investment devoted to the acquisition of this collection of antiques. Throughout the 19th Century, the creation of decorative and industrial arts museums throughout Europe and the American continent was part of this logic very largely oriented toward the development of an economy then conditioned by the quality of its manufactured goods (Mairesse 2010). The logic of the so-called commercial museums, which have now disappeared, follows in the wake of this type of economic reasoning. The museum once again presents itself as a data bank enabling investors to improve their knowledge and use it in the exercise of their profession. In the context of commercial museums, collections of manufactured products or raw materials were intended to provide importers and exporters in the country with all the information necessary to acquire and sell products, manufactured or not, throughout the world. The Philadelphia Commercial Museum, but also the Brussels Commercial Museum, presented as the most successful of its time (des Tournelles 1888), undoubtedly constitute the ultimate stage of a certain idea of the museum in its direct links with economic

94

UNESCO Global Geoparks

development. These commercial museums, the idea of which was established at the École supérieure de commerce de Paris around 1820 (Mairesse 2018), spread throughout the world at the end of the 19th Century, but were gradually replaced by foreign trade offices during the following century. While most of the collections of these museums are disappearing, the same fate is not reserved for industrial art museums, although their primary mission (to provide models for the improvement of manufactured products) has gradually been abandoned. Presented nowadays as decorative art museums, the artistic quality of their collections and their potential valorization on the art market has saved them from extinction. From that time on, two types of arguments related to the economy were used. The first concerns the direct relationship between museum collections (or the research carried out in them) and the results that can be expected by audiences specifically linked to economic production: artists, on the one hand, but above all industrialists, producers of manufactured goods or exporters. The museum, as a database, contributes directly to the enrichment of certain specific audiences that visit it: industrialists, craftsmen and artists. Because it only brings direct benefits to its visitors and not to the museum itself, its economic model must be supported by the public authorities (or the chambers of commerce and industry). A second type of economic argument is also very quickly suggested: even when they are not addressed to professionals but to the general public, museums also serve a purpose by attracting visitors, especially foreigners, who will spend their money in the region. It is not impossible to think that it is specifically to take advantage of this contribution that a certain number of private or public museums were created in Italy during the period of the Grand Tour and its tourists, while there were, from the beginning of the 19th Century, unequivocal statements to claim the creation of such establishments. This is the case, for example, of the founder of the Brussels Museum, Guillaume Bosschaert, who pleaded in 1801 with the French Government to send paintings to Brussels (Loir 1998). The major works from these regions had been sent to Paris by the revolutionary troops and the inhabitants of Brussels were eager to recover them in order to create a real art museum in Brussels. Bosschaert does not hesitate to plead that “it is also the interest of the city where travellers can no longer find anything that holds them back. [...] The government, in acceding to our request, will remember that the charm of the arts is the most powerful attraction that can be offered to foreigners” (Fetis 1863, p. 20). Stopping the traveller’s steps means taking him to stay one more day in one of the city’s inns and spending his money in a few shops. By providing visitors passing through with cultural resources, the museum or heritage site thus indirectly contributes to the wealth of local traders. The argument seems logical and is still used today. The evolution of the direct relationship between museums and industry has decreased significantly, if not almost disappeared in the 20th Century. Few establishments can boast of contributing to the development of a country’s

The Evolution of the Economics of Culture

95

manufacturing industry. The link between museums and tourism, on the other hand, has gradually emerged over time, as the tourism industry itself has developed, and nowadays it is one of the most flourishing sectors in the world (UNWTO 2017). 5.3. The economic discourse on heritage Economics, as a university discipline, is relatively recent – it was not until the second half of the 20th Century that it gained real independence, after the establishment of economics departments. Economic thought, on the other hand, is older, even if its discourse was not structured until the end of the 18th Century, with Adam Smith and the so-called “classical” economists (Goodwin 2006). The first economist to focus more specifically on museums was William Stanley Jevons, one of the leaders of the marginalist school that succeeded the classics. It is from the notion of utility that Jevons evokes museums (but also cultural places as a whole). The question that arises a priori, for public authorities, is simple but fundamental: should we or should we not follow the arguments aimed at subsidizing museums and heritage places (preserving the heritage, developing research, stopping the traveler’s steps)? Economic rhetoric cannot be taken for granted: the preservation of the nation’s heritage or prestige cannot be evoked if they do not integrate the rules of economic reasoning, driven in particular by the notion of maximizing the utility of consumers (or citizens), and if possible measured by means of reliable indicators. To this question of funding, Jevons responds positively by referring to a principle he proposes to call the multiplication of utility: the utility of collectibles in public places increases according to the potential number of their users. To maximize the usefulness of consumers (the ultimate goal of a certain vision of the economy), it is necessary to support those institutions that reduce the cost of viewing these collections and thus benefit society as a whole. However, it is difficult to analyze the effects produced by the museum, notes the author, who refers in particular to the very relative effects of museum education (Jevons 1883). Jevons’ reasoning remains theoretical and is not directly followed by other more sophisticated reflections. It took almost a century, not until the 1960s, for some economists to take up the subject by analyzing it empirically. Baumol and Bowen’s (1966) book, Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma, makes a significant contribution to the entire arts sector and is the cornerstone of a specific field of study, the economics of art and culture. Baumol and Bowen’s analysis is based on precise financial data (sometimes going back several decades) and succeeds in demonstrating the constraints of the “archaic” sectors of the economy, including the performing arts but also, more broadly, heritage. Such sectors, unlike industries, cannot rely on new inventions to develop productivity gains as can be expected for

96

UNESCO Global Geoparks

the production of cars or computers (which are produced much faster nowadays than they were before). A Beethoven quartet always requires the same execution time, not allowing savings on wages and therefore generating a considerable increase in costs compared to sectors where productivity is increasing (wage costs are decreasing). Baumol’s demonstration, for the performing arts sector, is based on the principle that cost increases cannot be passed on to consumers of cultural goods either (the price elasticity being high) and that the increase in philanthropic contribution could not ultimately offset the increase in the sector’s operating costs, hence the need to consider public funding. This question of public support through subsidies is – since Jevons – central to the economic approach to cultural institutions, as economists seek to demonstrate, on the basis of their position in the field of economic theory, whether or not the State should take charge of these institutions. Baumol and Bowen position themselves in the wake of Keynesian thinking that had developed since the 1930s, advocating increased government commitment to investing in economic life through major works or investments in education, culture or health. Keynesian thought developed considerably until the mid-1970s. On the other hand, other economists – since Adam Smith – have always been very skeptical about government intervention, accusing it of being at best ineffective and inoperative, but most often less effective than the market, i.e. consumers themselves. In the heritage sector, market-based financing implies that only consumers pay for the service, for example through an entrance fee. Many establishments (notably associative, but also lucrative, such as the Musée Grévin) operate in this way, but most of those that live solely on private income disappear after a few years of existence (Mairesse 2010). The vast majority of economists therefore agree on public support. One of the first articles actually devoted to museums from this economic perspective was written by Peacock and Godfrey (1997), taking a position in the 1970s in the debate that was then being launched in the British Parliament on the introduction of an entrance fee to national museums. At the time, economists mentioned the very low importance of the revenue expected from the introduction of an entrance fee compared to subsidies (an argument often used in many debates on the entrance fee; Mairesse 2005), and immediately stressed the indirect effects (education, heritage preservation, tourism) induced by museums (spillover benefits), while stressing the difficulty of their measurement. Nevertheless, the authors are opposed to the excessive control of the public authorities, of which they are suspicious (Towse 2005), citing the need for additional financing, in particular a greater reflection on the entrance fee and the means of pricing making it possible to optimize revenues, or even the possibility of selling part of the assets contained in the institutions in order to better manage the available “stock” and adapt it to the current situation. These two issues, which are not directly at the center of this chapter, continue to be the subject of intense debate within the heritage community.

The Evolution of the Economics of Culture

97

While the first economic reflections on heritage sites developed during the 1960s and 1970s, they remained relatively isolated. It was only during the following decade that production intensified, in a totally disrupted economic context. The postwar period had been marked by 30 years of uninterrupted growth in the West, favoring the redistribution of wealth, particularly in favor of culture. The context changed radically in the 1970s, after the first oil crisis and the ensuing major economic crisis. The economic discourse itself changed, with the neoclassicals, in favor of less state intervention and better use of market mechanisms, far outweighing the New Keynesians. The dominant economic discourse was then marked by the school of public choice (Buchanan and Tullock 1962), taking a much more critical look at cultural institutions and in particular their public funding, referring to the inefficiency of their organization and presenting their leaders as motivated solely by their interests (scientific or artistic) and not that of the public. One of the economists’ targets (Pommerehne and Frey 1980, 1993), at the time, was festivals (and in particular the Salzburg Festival) and theater, but through them, the whole world of culture was targeted, including museums and heritage sites. Museums are increasingly being analyzed from the perspective of the consumer (exhibition visitors) alone, not in terms of their scientific production or heritage conservation (Heilbrun and Gray 2001, Frey and Meier 2006). Some economists, such as William Grampp (1989, 1996), went so far as to demand the total disappearance of public funding for museums, so that they could only be financed by visitors. Most contemporary economists, while advocating for a stronger opening of heritage sites to the market – in order to make visitors pay better, or even to sell part of the site’s collections – remain in favor of the hypothesis of public support, provided that it can be shown to be of interest. Since it is impossible to suggest that these places contribute directly to the economy (as was the case with industrial or commercial museums), it is the induced effects, the spillover benefits mentioned by Peacock, that are the subject of more detailed analyses. The main reason given for this is their contribution to tourism. 5.4. Economic evaluation To justify the role of the State not only as a regulator, but also partially as a funder, it must be demonstrated that the output of museums and heritage sites generates a positive surplus over the sums invested by the public authorities. This principle was applied in 1979 by the economist William Hendon (1979), based on a cost–benefit analysis, to calculate the contribution of the Akron art institute’s activities to the local economy. The author of this analysis and, following him, many other economists, includes in this output what can be measured, preferably in monetary terms; either the direct revenues of these places (ticket sales or shop revenues, funded research) or the indirect revenues, realized through the

98

UNESCO Global Geoparks

contributions of museum work within his region. In this last type of calculation, they therefore try to estimate how the public, who came to visit a museum or heritage site, also spent their money in other places (hotels, shops, etc.) located in the region, since without the heritage activity, they would not have come. The museum and, in the case at hand in this chapter, the geopark are directly responsible for this contribution. To this double movement of financial flows, a third movement must be added: the induced effects. It can be hypothesized that visitor spending will in turn generate other revenues, as nearby restaurateurs or shops, enriched by this new financial contribution, will in turn increase their spending: hiring staff, ordering supplies, renovation work, etc. which, in turn, enters the local economy. This principle, that of the multiplier, has been conceptualized to justify the economic impact of external public expenditure (from a national government or international power, for example) on local (or regional) economic activity. Some authors (Martin 1993) go so far as to include in their calculations, in a questionable way, the share of taxes that citizens would be willing to devote to maintain a museum in their region (one can easily imagine the level of subjectivity of such an analysis) (Mairesse 2004). Xavier Greffe’s (1990) analysis of these different methods is quite severe, as not all the evaluations presented show a high level of reliability. The use of a multiplier, for example, has a significant impact on the cash flow estimations, but its calculation is very complex, leaving the door open to many biases when using it. Through these methods, it seems easy to obtain favorable results that justify the activity of an artistic or heritage place; it is much less so to demonstrate that other alternative activities could not also obtain better results. The philosopher Nelson Goodman already noted that “if museums attract tourists and stimulate business, it will always be less than casinos” (Goodman and Elgin 1990, p. 72). These are the same risks that Yann Nicolas (2006) points out, insisting that this type of analysis must remain essentially local (whereas it is regularly presented at a regional or national level) to demonstrate a certain relevance. The estimation of multiplier coefficients must be based on this concrete local reality and, in particular, exclude the integration of occasional visitors or those who would have come in any case but only changed their dates to participate in a cultural event (exhibition or festival), otherwise too many biases will be introduced into the analysis. Negative effects (increased local public spending, for example, on security) should also be taken into account. In addition, for Nicolas, this type of study generates three types of risks: most of these studies are not neutral, being commissioned by cultural organizations themselves; they develop an argument contrary to the principles of the “cultural exception” aimed at taking culture out of economic reasoning; finally, they can bias the political interpretation linked to investment choices, since it is not a question of demonstrating that a cultural investment deserves to be made because it would be profitable indirectly, but that this investment overrides all other alternative possibilities (educational, social, ecological projects, etc.).

The Evolution of the Economics of Culture

99

Very quickly, museums and heritage sites seized these techniques, publishing apparently remarkable results in terms of the revenues generated by these sites (Vandell et al. 1979; Cwi 1981; Port Authority of New York & New Jersey 1993; Smith 1993). The inauguration of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao in 1997 is a milestone in the use of this type of survey. Its instant success – it quickly attracted more than a million visitors annually – presents it as an economic success story. Many analyses were then carried out on the economic benefits of this investment by the Basque government, which exceeded all expectations (Scholars on Bilbao 2018). The example of the Guggenheim will therefore be used as a case study perfectly illustrating the economic impact of a cultural investment on its city, generating an abundant economic literature. For example, the KEA report on the economy of culture in Europe, published in 2006, celebrates the “Guggenheim effect” (Balzola 2003) as an example of the economic success of a cultural activity on the development of its region. In 2005, the museum would have generated 26 million euros in direct income, but above all 139 million euros in indirect income (hotels, restaurants, cinemas, shops) and would have created more than 4,300 jobs since its inauguration. The Guggenheim effect would thus have contributed to transforming Bilbao’s image, while allowing all the city’s other museums to benefit from its dynamics, and many art galleries to establish themselves (KEA 2006, pp. 156–157). The report presented by the KEA office is emblematic of the gradual use that would be made of economic impact studies in the field of art and culture. This study aims to calculate, in particular, the importance of the cultural sector in Europe, as well as its contribution to employment and overall economic growth. By concluding that culture had a turnover of €654 billion in 2003 (twice as much as the automotive sector), contributed nearly 20% to growth and employed nearly 6 million people, or more than 3% of the European labor force, the survey sought to show the importance of the sector, but above all the need for public support (KEA 2006, p. 6). In the United States, the Americans for the Arts Foundation (2016) is pursuing broadly the same objectives, seeking to demonstrate that “the arts mean business” and that the entire sector contributes very significantly to national prosperity (166 billion dollars, 4.6 million jobs, etc.). The same logic has been applied more recently by the American Alliance of Museums (Stein 2017), as well as by the Ministry of Culture in France (2013): an exercise directly linked to the hope that, in times of crisis, its budget will not be sacrificed on the altar of budgetary restrictions. 5.5. From the cultural economy to the creative economy By the end of the 1980s, the discourse on the financing of cultural sites therefore took a significantly different turn from what it had been two decades earlier, largely

100

UNESCO Global Geoparks

guided by dominant economic thinking. It is not uninteresting to note, in this context, how much this discourse carries different values from those that prevailed a few years earlier. Thus, the British audit commission, set up by Margaret Thatcher’s government, when developing the reasons to be examined to justify funding museums (Chong 1996), did not hesitate to reverse the hierarchy that had previously prevailed. For this organization, if museums must be able to benefit from public support (as far as they can justify it), it is first of all (1) because they improve the quality of life of a territory, then (2) for their assistance in favor of tourism and (3) for reasons of economic development; finally, it is for their support for (4) research and education, on the one hand, and (5) heritage conservation on the other hand (Audit Commission 1991). Such a classification, as can be seen, reverses the order of justifications traditionally used to explain support for museums and heritage places. The issue of tourism development (the second justification) is very directly linked to the economic evaluations mentioned above. The notion of quality of life (first justification) presents an undoubtedly more vague argument, but which has also been widely used in recent years. Museums or heritage sites are, in this perspective, infrastructures that improve the living environment of the citizens of a city or region through the services they offer or the positive benefits (the quality of the public they attract) they generate. This type of reasoning was already mentioned more than a century ago, with American museologist George Brown Goode (1896) insisting on such issues to explain the reasons for setting up museums in a community, and urban planner Patrick Geddes (1904) detailing the importance of museums in improving the living conditions of residents. While the principle of the development of citizens has always been supposed to guide the choices of public officials, the reasoning that has taken place in recent years is undoubtedly more directly addressed for reasons of competition between cities and regions. The notion of quality of life of a site, if it contributes to the well-being of citizens, makes it possible above all to attract or retain rich taxpayers (middle classes, companies, etc.) whose taxes will, in turn, contribute to maintaining or increasing the public finances of the locality. Such an urban planning and economic vision has been developing since the late 1990s, and Bilbao is also a reference in this field. It is in this context that many territorial projects are emerging, such as the establishment of the Centre Pompidou in Metz and the Louvre in Lens, but also the construction of the Musée des Confluences in Lyon, that of many museums in Valencia in Spain, etc. (Kemp and Trotta 2008). These principles have been theorized from an economic point of view, but also from an urban planning point of view. The notion of “creative class” was conceived by Richard Florida (2002) in order to describe the part of the population most directly involved in the creation of tomorrow’s added value: new computer designers, digital industries, etc. By focusing on the particular context in which this

The Evolution of the Economics of Culture

101

new class is deployed (in San Francisco, for example), Florida seeks to characterize the indicators that attract new Steve Jobs and Elon Musks, and highlights, in particular, the need to invest in cultural infrastructure in order to develop a framework conducive to the creativity of these new talents. The notion of the creative city, sometimes criticized (Vivant 2009), is associated with that of the creative economy and creative industries. It was during the 1990s that the term appeared in economic discourse, first in Anglo-Saxon countries (Australia and the United Kingdom) (Throsby 2001). “Creativity can be compared with intelligence to the extent that it is characterized by heuristic, open or divergent thinking, rather than by an algorithmic or convergent thought process” (Bryant and Throsby 2006). Such a mode of intelligence, at the heart of the production of new forms of added value, appears to be central to economic growth. However, organizations working in the field of culture seem to have an influence on creativity in general, as creators feed on the achievements of others (KEA 2009). Australia and Great Britain adopted measures in the late 1990s to promote so-called creative industries, which are considered one of the factors for future economic growth. Thus, in London, the Creative London platform has been set up, which seeks to demonstrate the city’s strengths in terms of infrastructure and support to facilitate the establishment of companies active in the creative sectors. This logic, aimed at creating incubators for new talent, is quickly found in other cities, notably Berlin, Montreal and Vienna (Cohandet and Simon 2007). Following the same logic, UNESCO launched a network of creative cities in 2004, federated around cultural themes such as cinema, design and gastronomy. To date, about 30 cities around the world have joined this network. This logic of a movement in favor of the creative industries will be found not only at the heart of the support system for culture in Europe from the 2000s onwards, but also in other international bodies, such as the United Nations. Thus, the creative industries sector is presented as responsible for 3.4% of world trade, and exports of more than 400 billion dollars (UNCTAD 2008). The same principles are used by UNESCO (2011) to promote cultural diversity, and it is with this in mind that the European Union’s Green Paper, Unlocking the Potential of Cultural and Creative Industries, was published in 2010. The creative industries sector appears to be much larger than that of traditional cultural industries alone (books, music, cinema, press) and the arts sector (plastic art, heritage and performing arts). The relatively broad definition of creative industries thus includes advertising, architecture, the art market, crafts, design, fashion, cinema, leisure software, music, the performing arts, publishing, computer services, radio and television, while reserving a limited place for heritage. However, the definition of the sector continues to raise questions and criticism, particularly from Philippe Bouquillion, Bernard Miège and Yann Nicolas. The notion of creativity appears as a kind of magic formula, making it possible to develop the countries and regions that would seize it (Bouquillion 2012). The biases already mentioned, particularly by Nicolas (2006), in the context of economic impact analyses appear

102

UNESCO Global Geoparks

even stronger here: the question of calculating the profitability of these investments remains very hypothetical, the political choices linked to these proposals generally appear to be just as biased in the context of “creative” investments as in the context of economic and tourism logic, while reinforcing – for better or for worse – the idea that culture is an economic sector like any other. 5.6. The economic challenges of geopark development When the European Geoparks Network was created in 2000, the world of heritage was already very much associated with a logic of economic development, particularly based on tourism. Such a path had already been initiated in the 1970s among the founding parks of the network, as shown by Gonzalez Tejada et al. (2017): tourism was already emerging as a development opportunity in remote rural areas. This argument will never be abandoned, far from it. The use of economic arguments for the development of geoparks and heritage sites presents a specific problem. Generally located outside cities, these organizations cannot really develop an argument based on the notion of quality of life in a locality, except by being part of a regional dynamic. The arguments currently being listened to, on the role of heritage institutions and, more generally, cultural organizations as creative industries, do not appear to be the most favorable for these institutions, which are primarily concerned with heritage and natural issues. From this perspective, it is of course the tourism logic that appears to be one of the main arguments in favor of financing these particular places, in a context linked to local development: by welcoming visitors, geoparks contribute to the economic development of their region through the mechanism detailed and analyzed above. Such a perspective can be considered for both places whose only previous potential was agriculture or forestry (which is also the case for many natural parks) and for former mining regions that are now deindustrialized, such as the Tuscan mining park (Italy) or Hidalgo (Mexico). In this context, we can only recall the various risks associated with this undertaking, which are certainly absolutely reasonable in substance, but sometimes difficult to demonstrate. As mentioned above, the arrival of visitors to a site potentially contributes to the economic development of a region, but the methods used to calculate the benefits of these operations are at the very least complex to establish, and the results presented are often biased: many studies tend to include data that should not be included in the calculations (local visitors, visitors who would have come anyway, visitors who came for reasons other than visiting the geopark), while the calculation of the effects induced by this activity (the multiplier principle) is most often estimated too generously. This is all the more true when studies are funded by cultural organizations themselves, either to justify the

The Evolution of the Economics of Culture

103

subsidies received, or in hope of others, or even to justify future projects, as the estimates (often very fanciful) on the number of potential visitors, and therefore on their future economic impact, are highly questionable. The investments made for the creation or enhancement of the Port-Musée de Douarnez or the Louvre-Lens museum, mentioned by Jean-Michel Tobelem (2017, pp. 203–206), were based on economic studies that were undoubtedly too optimistic, relying on high levels of frequentation (and in particular the arrival of visitors from outside the region) and, a posteriori, leading to major management difficulties. There is a significant risk that politicians, initially attracted by the development prospects, will subsequently decide to give less support to the cultural organization, claiming that the estimated attendance has not been reached – which led, for example, in 2014 to the Regional Council, which is a stakeholder in the financing of the Centre Pompidou in Metz, to reduce its grant by 1 million euros (Langard 2014). However, such inconveniences are only a minor difficulty related to these studies and this type of reasoning with regard to a problem that I consider to be major. By integrating the argument of economic development as a reason to finance it, the managers of a geopark or any other cultural organization are adopting the same principles that guide many other places to apply for recognition of a label, such as that of World Heritage (Marcotte and Bourdeau 2010). Thus, there is sometimes a pile of labels, used mainly to receive subsidies and to improve its reputation – many geoparks have presented themselves or also present themselves, for example, as regional nature parks or even as ecomuseums (Roux-Durant 2012). But the commitment to this path of economic development differs, as Yann Nicolas (2006) noted, from the principles of the “cultural exception” aimed at not raising issues directly related to the world of culture in the field of economics. By accepting that the culture and, in particular, the heritage of a geopark can be discussed from the economic point of view, from the point of view of tourism, they run a double danger: on the one hand, their projects may only be assessed in terms of the economic benefits that can be obtained by this type of investment, while being compared with other economically more profitable (but culturally weak) projects, such as the construction of an amusement park or that of a new factory. On the other hand, by placing geoparks or other cultural institutions in terms of economic reasoning, we must accept the consequences, and in particular those related to negative financial developments of the institution, involving the cessation of its activities. If such reasoning seems logical for companies subject to market rules, it can have catastrophic consequences in terms of assets. The collections of commercial museums have for the most part disappeared, those of industrial art museums have been saved, not because they proved more profitable, but because they were, in a second stage, considered artistic, and therefore preserved for their heritage interest. On the other hand, what about cultural or geological projects financed because of their supposed economic impact alone?

104

UNESCO Global Geoparks

While geoparks, museums, nature reserves and their interpretation centers contribute, through their activities, to the economic life of a region, and while their success sometimes attracts a large number of foreign visitors who will in turn spend part of their money in hotels, restaurants and shops, the reasons given to support the financing of these institutions must first and foremost focus on the real issues in which they participate, and in particular the preservation of a remarkable heritage, but also a social role between the inhabitants, educational issues, etc. The economic argument, if it exists, cannot make us forget these fundamental questions for the development of humanity and respect for our environment at the risk of seeing the essential disappear one day. 5.7. References Americans for the Arts (2016). Arts & Economic Prosperity 5. Report [Online]. Available: https://www.americansforthearts.org/by-program/reports-and-data/research-studies-publi cations/arts-economic-prosperity-5 [Accessed Sept. 2018]. Audit Commission (1991). The Road to Wigan Pier? Managing Local Authority Museums and Art Galleries. HMSO, London. Balzola, A. (2003). The Guggenheim Effect. SM Ediciones, Madrid. Baumol, W.J., Bowen, W.G. (1966). Performing Arts. The Economic Dilemma. The Twentieth Century Fund, New York. Bouquillion, P. (ed.) (2012). Creative Economy. Creative Industries, Des notions à traduire. Presses universitaires de Vincennes, Saint-Denis. Brown Goode, G. (1896). The principles of museum administration. Report of the United States National Meseum for the year ending June 30, 193–240. Bryant, W.D.A., Throsby, D. (2006). Creativity and the Behaviour of Artists. In Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, Ginsburgh, V.A., Throsby, D. (eds). Elsevier, Amsterdam, 507–529. Buchanan, J.M., Tullock, G. (1962). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. University of Michigan Press, Chicago. Chong, D. (1996). The audit explosion: Performance management and national museums and galleries in the United Kingdom. Ninth International Conference on Cultural Economics, Boston. Cohendet, P., Simon, L. (2007). Playing across the playground: Paradoxes of knowledge creation in the videogame firm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(5), 587–605. Cwi, D. (1981). Economic studies with impact. Museum News, 5–6, 60–63. European Commission (2010). Green Paper – Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri= celex%3A52010DC0183 [Accessed January 2019].

The Evolution of the Economics of Culture

105

Fetis, E. (1863). Catalogue descriptif et historique du musée royal de Belgique (Bruxelles). Typographie de H. Thiby-Van Buggenhoudt, Brussels. Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. Basic Books, New York. Foucher de Careil, A. (1875). Œuvres de Leibniz. Tome 7. Firmin Didot, Paris. Frey, B., Meier, S. (2006). The economics of museums. In Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, Ginsburgh, V. A., Throsby, D. (eds). Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1017–1050. Geddes, P. (1904). City Development. A Study of Parks, Gardens, and Culture Institutes. A Report to the Carnegie Dumferline Trust. Saint George Press, Birmingham. Gonzalez Tejada, C., Du, Y., Read, M., Girault, Y. (2017). From nature conservation to geotourism development: Examining ambivalent attitudes towards UNESCO directives with the global geopark network. International Journal of Geoheritage, 5(2), 1–20. Goodman, N., Elgin, C. (1990). Esthétique et connaissance, pour changer de sujet. Éditions de l’éclat, Paris. Goodwin, C. (2006). Art and culture in the history of economic thought. In Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, Ginsburgh, V. A., Throsby, D. (eds). Elsevier, Amsterdam, 25–68. Grampp, W. D. (1989). Pricing the Priceless, Art, Artists and Economics. Basic Books, New York. Grampp, W.D. (1996). A colloquy about art museums: Economics engages museology. In Economics of the Arts: Selected Essays, Ginsburg, V., Menger, P.-M. (eds). Elsevier, Amsterdam. Greffe, X. (1990). La valeur économique du patrimoine. Anthropos, Paris. Heilbrun, J., Gray, C. (2001). The Economics of Art and Culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hendon, W.S. (1979). Analysing an Art Museum. Praeger, New York. Jevons, W.S. (1883). Methods of Social Reforms and Other Papers. MacMillan, London. Kancel, S., Itty, J., Weill, M., Durieux, B. (2013). L’apport de la culture à l’économie en France. Inspection générale des finances et Inspection générale des affaires culturelles [Online]. Available: www.economie.gouv.fr/files/03-rapport-igf-igac-culture-economie. pdf [Accessed September 2018]. KEA (2006). Study on the economy of culture in Europe, Bruxelles. Étude conduite pour la Commission européenne [Online]. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/culture/ library/studies/cultural-economy_en.pdf [Accessed September 2018]. KEA (2009). The impact of culture on creativity. Étude conduite pour la Commission européenne [Online]. Available: www.keanet.eu/docs/impactculturecreativityfull.pdf [Accessed January 2019].

106

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Kemp, R.L., Trotta, M. (eds) (2008). Museums, Libraries and Urban Vitality. McFarland, Jefferson. Langard, D. (2014). Le Centre Pompidou-Metz: le Conseil régional réduira sa subvention de 1 million [Online]. Available: https://culturebox.francetvinfo.fr/patrimoine/centrepompidou-metz-le-conseil-regional-reduira-sa-subvention-de-1-million-149089 [Accessed September 2018]. Loir, C. (1998). La sécularisation des œuvres d’art dans le Brabant (1773-1842). La création du musée de Bruxelles. Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles, Brussels. Mairesse, F. (2004). Missions et évaluation des musées: Une enquête à Bruxelles et en Wallonie. L’Harmattan, Paris. Mairesse, F. (2005). Le droit d’entrer au musée. Labor, Brussels. Mairesse, F. (2010). Le musée hybride. La Documentation française, Paris. Mairesse, F. (2018). Aux origines du musée d’entreprise: musées industriels et commerciaux. Recherches en communication, 45, 7–21. Marcotte, P., Bourdeau, L. (2010). La promotion des sites du patrimoine mondial de l’UNESCO: compatible avec le développement durable ? Revue Management & Avenir, 4, 270–288. Martin, F. (1993). Une méthode d’évaluation économique des musées. HEC, Chaire de gestion des arts, Montreal. Nicolas, Y. (2006). L’analyse d’impact économique de la culture. Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication, working document no. 1271 [Online]. Available: www. enluminures.culture.fr/culture/deps/2008/pdf/dt1271.pdf [Accessed September 2018]. Peacock, A., Godfrey, C. (1997). The Economics of Museums and Galleries. In Cultural Economics: The Arts, the Heritage and the Media Industries, Towse, R. (eds). The International Library of Critical Writings in Economics, Cheltenham, 364–375. Pommerehne, W.W., Frey, B.S. (1980). Les musées dans une perspective économique. Revue internationale des sciences sociales, XXXII(2), 345–362. Pommerehne, W.W., Frey, B.S. (1993). La culture a-t-elle un prix? Plon, Paris. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (1993). The Arts as an Industry: Their Economic Importance to the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Region. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, New York. Poulot, D. (1997). Musée, nation, patrimoine. Gallimard, Paris. Roux-Durant, M. (2012). Les labels du Patrimoine culturel. La lettre de l’OCIM, 142, 28–37. Scholars on Bilbao (2018). Academic works that analyse the urban regeneration of the city of Bilbao [Online]. Available: www.scholars-on-bilbao.info/ [Accessed September 2018].

The Evolution of the Economics of Culture

107

Smith, J.K. (1993). The Economic Impact of Major Exhibitions at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Museum of Modern Art, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. Alliance for the Arts, New York. Stein, R. (2017). Museums as Economic Engines. An Economic Impact Study for the American Alliance of Museums. American Alliance of Museums, Washington. Throsby, D. (2001). Public funding of the Arts in Australia: 1900–2000. In Australian Yearbooks 2001, Trewin, D. (ed.). Australian Bureau of Statistics, 548–561. Tobelem, J.-M. (2017). La gestion des institutions culturelles. Armand Colin, Paris. des Tournelles, F. (1888). Les musées commerciaux à l’étranger. Report, Ministère de la Marine et des Colonies, Chalamel et Cie éditeurs, Paris. Towse, R. (2005). Alan Peacock and cultural economics. The Economic Journal, 115(504), F262–F276. Towse, R. (2010). A Textbook of Cultural Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. UNCTAD (2008). Creative Economy. Report 2008, United Nations [Online]. Available: www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditc20082cer_en.pdf [Accessed August 2013]. UNESCO (2011). Politiques pour la créativité. Guide pour le développement des industries culturelles et créatives [Online]. UNESCO, Paris. Available: www.unesco.org/new/fr/ culture/themes/cultural-diversity/diversity-of-cultural-expressions/tools/policy-guide/ [Accessed July 2013]. UNWTO (2017). Annual report 2017 [Online]. Available: www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18 111/9789284419807 [Accessed September 2018]. Vandell, K.D., Barry, T. E., Starling, J. D., Seib, P. (1979). The arts and the local economy: the impact of “Pompeii AD 79”. Curator, 22(3), 199–215. Vivant, E. (2009). Qu’est-ce que la ville créative? Presses universitaires de France, Paris.

PART 2

Heritage Inventory and Conservation

UNESCO Global Geoparks: Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement First Edition. Edited by Yves Girault. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

6 Methodological Proposal for the Valorization of the Geodiversity of Rural Areas Comparable with the Zat Valley

6.1. Introduction This chapter shows, in a synthetic way, the main contributions to the GEOPARK Project of a team of the Department of Geology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). The work carried out focuses on the values of the geodiversity of the Zat Valley (Oued Zat) and the surroundings. A methodological proposal is presented for the realization of an inventory and the valuation of the geodiversity, which may be suitable for the eventual implementation of a UNESCO Global Geopark in this study area and comparable rural areas. 6.2. Geological context of the study area Located 65 km southwest of the city of Marrakech, the Zat Valley is a deeply incised river valley in the northern slope of the High-Atlas Mountains, an orogenic belt that formed during the Cenozoic times in the northern African plate, as a result of its tectonic collision with the Eurasian plate (Figure 6.1). For the last 250 million years, Morocco’s history has been influenced by the Tethys Sea and later, since 180 Ma, by the opening of the Atlantic Ocean (e.g. Hsü 1971). Synthesis of the geological history of the High-Atlas and surroundings regions can be found in Piqué Chapter written by Joan POCH, Antonio TEIXELL, David GÓMEZ-GRAS, Francisco José MARTÍNEZ, Esteve CARDELLACH and José Luis BRIANSÓ. The work presented in this chapter is part of the Geopark H2020 program and was funded by the European Union’s Research and Innovation Program Horizon 2020 under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 644015.

112

UNESCO Global Geoparks

(1994), Teixell et al. (2003, 2005), Gasquet et al. (2008) and Frizon de Lamotte et al. (2018). The overall plate tectonic setting is presented in the Western Tethys paleogeographic and environmental maps by Dercourt et al. (2000).

Figure 6.1. Schematic structural map of Morocco indicating the main Cenozoic mountain belts and sedimentary basins, including the prominent chain of the HighAtlas. The square indicates the location of the study area, located 65 km southwest of the city of Marrakech. Modified after Teixell et al. (2009). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

As for the geology, the Zat Valley can be subdivided into two parts: (1) a northern part consisting of the Cenozoic Haouz Plain and the foothills belt, dominated by folded Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks, and (2) a southern part upstream, displaying the highest topographic altitudes (over 3,500 m), and characterized by Precambrian-Paleozoic and Triassic rocks, affected by steep thrust and normal faults. A simplified geological map of the area is presented in Figure 6.2. The foothills belt is dominated by Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks folded into a system of ENE- to NE-trending folds. No major thrusts are observed between the folds, although the abrupt boundary between the Haouz basin and the foothills suggest the existence of a frontal thrust fault by which the High-Atlas foothills

Methodological Proposal for the Valorization of the Geodiversity of Rural Areas

113

overrode the Cenozoic basin, although this fault is not exposed at the surface, covered by recent alluvial and colluvial deposits (Domènech et al. 2015).

Figure 6.2. Geological sketch map of the Zat Valley (Morocco). Authors: A. Teixell, D. Gómez-Gras and F.J. Martínez. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

Figure 6.3 shows a geologic cross-section along the Zat Valley, illustrating the structure of the foothills belt. Synclines are wide and occupied by a succession that spans from the Infracenomanian red beds to the Eocene limestone. Anticlines are narrow, and in outcrop they are characterized by uppermost Triassic red shale and basalt. Among the main synclines are the Ait Ourir and Toukribine synclines; these synclines display a box-fold geometry, with flat bottom and steep to overturned limbs.

Figure 6.3. Geologic cross-section along the Zat Valley (Morocco). Author: A. Teixell. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

114 UNESCO Global Geoparks

Methodological Proposal for the Valorization of the Geodiversity of Rural Areas

115

The Precambrian basement crops out extensively in the upper part of the Zat Valley. They are Neoproterozoic Pan-African rocks, part of the so-called Ouzellarh “promontory” or “salient”. Triassic and basement rocks dominate the rest of the Zat Valley upstream, from the Tighdouine area to the High-Atlas drainage divide in the South. The structure of the Triassic rocks is the result of the Triassic extension plus the superimposition of the Cenozoic compression (the Atlas orogeny), whereas the Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks, more intensely deformed, have experienced older orogenic events (Pan-African and Variscan orogenies; Teixell et al. 2005). In the northern part, near Tighdouine, Triassic red beds display a structure of tilted blocks, limited by steep faults, oriented NE-SW. An antiformal structure just west of Tighdouine shows Paleozoic (Carboniferous) rocks in its core (Figure 6.3). The Paleozoic in the Zat valley is only represented by a flysch formation made of sandstone and siltstone alternance with calcareous pebbles, occurring just south of the Tafrawt fault. This flysch of Visean age belongs to the Souktana member of the Al Haouz Group. The remainder of the Zat Valley south of the Meltsene thrust is characterized by Precambrian exposure, younger rocks being inexistent (Teixell et al. 2005). The stratigraphy of the Triassic red beds of the middle part of the Zat Valley is characterized by the following units: (1) a basal conglomerate and sandstone unit, (2) a siltite unit (called the Ramuntcho formation), (3) a thick fluvial channelized sandstone unit (the Oukaimeden sandstone formation) and (4) an upper shale formation, capped by volcanic basalts (Knight et al. 2004). To sum up, the geodiversity of the study area is characterized by: – a long geological history represented, from Precambrian to Cenozoic; – diversity of rock types and processes, igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary; – pedagogic and accessible exposures of sedimentary rocks; – tectonic evolution can be uniquely deciphered by well-exposed - synsedimentary extensional faults of the rifting stage (Triassic) - and folds and thrusts of the Atlas orogeny (Cenozoic); – well-expressed relationships of geological substratum-vegetation types; – exceptional landscape value (including human–landscape interactions).

116

UNESCO Global Geoparks

6.3. Objectives The objectives of the research work are (a) the evaluation of the geodiversity to assess the potential of the study area to eventually implement a UNESCO Global Geopark and (b) the proposal of a methodology for the valorization of the geodiversity of the study area, which could be useful for a possible development of a GEOPARK project in comparable rural areas. 6.4. Methodology In order to elaborate a methodological proposal that could be useful in scenarios similar to the study area, we started from the study of the local geodiversity, combining the review of the literature on inventories and geoconservation, within the framework of the UNESCO geoparks, with the fieldwork in collaboration with local experts in nature sciences and tourism. The data collected from these activities have been used in a SWOT analysis to obtain a diagnosis of the study area (see section 6.5). The fieldwork has focused mainly on the geological mapping and the subsequent identification and selection of geosites of scientific, didactic and tourist interest. The proposal for a geodiversity assessment methodology was made once the results were compared with the UNESCO Global Geopark Conca de Tremp–Montsec (Lleida Province, Spain). The geological study has been complemented with the geochemical analysis of sediments in tourist geosites. Chemical elements have been sought, which may reflect the state of healthiness or contamination of the soils, in order to have more information to improve the management of the territory. 6.5. SWOT analysis and diagnosis A SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) was carried out considering the management needs of the geological heritage of the geoparks. It is not a holistic analysis but a specific one for the evaluation of the utility of geodiversity as a natural resource for scientific, didactic or tourist use. This analysis has been made with the data collected from the bibliography, field work and meetings (formal and informal) with local experts, which incorporate input from local communities. Table 6.1 shows the SWOT analysis.

Methodological Proposal for the Valorization of the Geodiversity of Rural Areas

117

Strengths

Weaknesses

– A long geological history represented, from Precambrian to Cenozoic.

– Population distributed in small scattered villages, some of which are difficult to access. – In the headwaters of the valleys there are communities little used to tourism. – There is no specific legislation for the protection of geological heritage. – An exceptional geological heritage has not been identified. – There are some elements of local heritage that are vulnerable (for example, petroglyphs) and lack effective protection. – There are no infrastructures related to the disclosure of heritage (visitor centers, museums).

– Good practices in the management of the primary sector in the Zat Valley (agdal system). – There are organizations that facilitate the participation of local communities in the management of the primary sector. For example, the Association des Amis du Zat (Association of the Freinds of Zat) (AAZ). – Network of stable schools. – Network of tourist refuges (gites) suitable for geotourism. Opportunities

Threats

– Improvement of the road network to access the villages of the valley, as part of the government’s strategy to maintain the rural population in the territory. – Organized tourist activities, including guided visits to geosites.

– Recurring natural risks related to alluvial processes. – Tourism development that may exceed the carrying capacity of the territory.

Table 6.1. SWOT analysis of the study area focused on the basic needs of the geopark model

From the SWOT analysis, it can be established, as a diagnosis, that it is a rural area with communities based on a sustainable agrarian and livestock economy, though it is also fragile and endogenous, threatened by natural risks. It should be noted that one of the pillars of the geopark model, the participation of the communities in the management of the territory, is here guaranteed by various organizations like the AAZ. The recent improvement of roads favors economic development, especially tourism, which is reinforced by local guide services and a network of shelters equipped with electricity and managed by the aforementioned association (AAZ). However, the existence of closed communities, which have little contact with tourism, requires ethical reflections to preserve the rural way of life in the face of the opening that would imply entering a global network. From the point of view of geodiversity, the area does not have any singular element of international relevance, but there is a high geodiversity that concentrates numerous outcrops of scientific, didactic and tourist interest. Together, they allow

118

UNESCO Global Geoparks

the study and dissemination of the structure and composition of the High-Atlas and its geological history. The distribution of vegetation allows the outstanding geology to be well exposed, and this makes the area an ideal scientific destination for geologists from across the world. But the excellent exposure also means geological features and structures can be explained to non-geologists. 6.6. Results: methodological proposal In order for the territory to function de facto as a geopark, it is necessary to develop in the territory, among others, the following lines of work related to Earth sciences: (1) scientific research, (2) literacy and (3) geotourism (Zouros 2004). Thus, in order to achieve the objectives defined in this chapter, the following elements (see sections 6.6.1–6.6.6) have been integrated into a methodological proposal, which is preliminary because on the date of writing of this publication, the GEOPARK Project has not yet finished. 6.6.1. Geoethics framework The elements of geodiversity that can be used – in a sustainable way – for the benefit of local communities, within the framework of the management of geoparks, do not cease to be natural resources. The use of these resources entails an ethical dimension called “geoethics” that forces us to consider our responsibility as geologists (Peppoloni and Di Capua 2015). Given the limitation of natural resources and their fragility, it is considered that: “Geoethics is concerned with promoting the analysis of the use of our natural resources, to promote correct information on natural hazards and the development of technologies that are respectful with the environment, while extending its principles for planetary protection” (Martínez-Frías et al. 2011). In other words, “Geoethics represents an opportunity for Geoscientists to become more conscious of their social role and responsibilities in conducting their activity. Geoethics is a tool to influence the awareness of society regarding problems related to geo-resources and geoenvironment” (International Association for Promoting Geoethics 2019). This is the framework of ethical commitment of the team of UAB geologists that participate in this project. This commitment has been present in their contributions and relations with local people, which may result, eventually, in ecological conservation changes due to deliberate interventions or changes in land-use priorities.

Methodological Proposal for the Valorization of the Geodiversity of Rural Areas

119

6.6.2. Assessment of the geodiversity In terms of geoconservation (a broad concept that includes inventory, valorization, protection and management of geological heritage), Morocco is still in its first stages. This issue is discussed in scientific events organized by the Moroccan Earth Sciences Association (AMST) (see, for example, Nahraoui et al. 2011). It is worth mentioning that Hassan II Academy of Sciences and Technology finances projects on Moroccan geoheritage (El Hadi et al. 2015). The geological inventory is the first step in the conservation of geological heritage. Cendrero (1996) insists on the need to identify three types of values of the elements of geodiversity: the intrinsic value, the value linked to the potential for use and the value linked to the need for protection. Although there is no general accepted method, three groups of assessment procedures may be distinguished: qualitative, quantitative and qualitative–quantitative methods. Qualitative assessment of geodiversity is based on the experience of a group of experts. These methods are characterized by a relatively small degree of objectivity that sometimes causes lack of comparable data when comparing territories (geoparks and aspiring geoparks). Examples can be found in Gray (2013), Bradbury (2014) and Kale (2015). Quantitative methods use different sets of parameters to determine the values of geodiversity elements and they derive from analyses of field measurements and numerical calculation. Many indicators and indices may also be subject to statistical modeling (Serrano and Ruiz-Flaño 2007, Ruban 2010, Pereira et al. 2013, Silva et al. 2015). An advantage of these methods is the repeatability of the results and the high objectivity of the assessment, which is useful when comparing territories’ geodiversity. Finally, qualitative–quantitative methods are based on a combination of quantitative data and relational/explanatory data (see examples in Benito-Calvo et al. 2009, Najwer et al. 2016). In the Zat Valley case study, a hybrid qualitative–quantitative method, adapted from Brilha (2016), has been chosen. Bearing in mind that the UNESCO Global Geoparks Network does not have an approved inventory model, the main reason for this choice is the convenience of being able to compare geodiversity among geoparks and aspiring geoparks, in order to avoid territories with a redundant heritage in the Network, and also the need to incorporate the knowledge of local experts, including indigenous knowledge, as part of the required bottom-up approach in geoparks’ policy. As a preliminary phase to the inventory, a bibliographic review has been carried out to determine the characteristics of the study area in comparison with the only

120

UNESCO Global Geoparks

geopark in the country (M’Goun UNESCO Global Geopark) and two other areas that aspire to be geoparks. The aim is to identify the distinctive elements to avoid redundancy and to concentrate conservation efforts on this distinctive heritage. Table 6.2 shows the main geological characteristics of the territories that have been compared. Geopark/aspiring geoparks M’Goun UNESCO Global Geopark (2014). Central High-Atlas Mountains Doukkala-Abda Moroccan coastal block of the western Meseta

Main features Triassic and Jurassic. Abundant dinosaur trackways of theropods and sauropods. Centuries-old presence of the Amazigh (Berber) people with typical traditional architecture (source: http://www.unesco.org/). Mesozoic and Cenozoic formations overlying folded Paleozoic formations (Errami et al. 2013). Precambrian and Paleozoic. Major Anti-Atlas Fault; ophiolitic complexes; pre-Pan African basic dykes (Errami et al. 2013).

Tazenakht Central Anti-Atlas

Table 6.2. Main distinguishing characteristics of the geodiversity of the selected territories that have been compared with the study area before carrying out the geological inventory

The qualitative assessment is based on the experience of the team of the Department of Geology of UAB taking into consideration communications from local experts, including indigenous knowledge (verbal or written descriptions and documentary materials). The quantitative method is based on Brilha (2016), which focuses on the determination of the value of in situ geodiversity elements. Table 6.3 presents the set of criteria for the chosen method to evaluate the geodiversity of the case study (based on Brilha 2018). Attributes of the assessment

Criterion

Goals

Purpose

Practical values (focus on the geopark)

Use of geosites as a resource (scientific, educational, geotourism). Comparison among (aspiring) geoparks’ geodiversity.

Subject

Set of components of the geodiversity

Geoconservation strategy focused on distinctive values (different to the other geoparks and aspiring geoparks).

Methodological Proposal for the Valorization of the Geodiversity of Rural Areas

121

Scope

Structural and system properties

Select geosites to understand and explain the geological history registered in rocks, including geological processes of ecosystem services.

Spatial range

Local

Feasibility study of the selected area in the project to be a UNESCO Global Geopark.

Time scale

Past and present

Selection of sufficient sites to explain the geological history up to the present. This includes current geological processes (to better understand the past).

Procedure

Quantitative– qualitative assessment

Multicriteria evaluation (including the point of view of the experts and numerical valuations).

Source of data

Direct methods

Field work to calculate the value of geodiversity.

Presentation

Descriptive and graphic

Tabular and cartographic visualization.

Table 6.3. Attributes and criteria for the assessment of the geodiversity used in this project (based on Brilha 2018)

According to Lima et al. (2010) and Brilha (2016), the following sequential tasks have been followed: 1) definition of the topic, the value, the scale and the aim of the inventory (focused on geoparks’ strategy); 2) geological literature review; 3) consultation with experts who have worked in the area before (including indigenous knowledge); 4) field work and identification of sites based on qualitative assessment; 5) list of potential geosites; 6) field work aiming at the final selection of geosites, with complete characterization based mainly on quantitative assessment; 7) discussion about the coherence of the final scores (scientific team and local experts); 8) delivery of the results to the coordinator of the GEOPARK Project.

122

UNESCO Global Geoparks

The following selection criteria (qualitative assessment) have been used for the identification of potential geosites (Brilha 2016): – scientific use: representativeness (contribution to understanding the regional geological history), integrity (present conservation status) and scientific knowledge (existence of scientific data already published); – educational use: didactic potential (geological feature to be easily understood by students), accessibility (conditions of access for the general public) and safety (minimum risk for visitors); – geotourism use: interpretative potential (geological feature to be easily understood by lay people), accessibility and safety. To get the final list of geosites, the criteria for quantitative assessment are presented in Table 6.4 (based on Brilha 2016). It includes the respective weigh (%) for the calculation of the final score. Criterion

Scientific use

Educational use

Geotourism use

Representativeness

80%

–

–

Integrity

10%

–

–

Scientific knowledge

10%

–

–

Didactic potential

–

50%

–

Interpretative potential

–

–

40%

Accessibility

–

25%

30%

Safety

–

25%

30%

Table 6.4. Criteria for the quantitative assessment of the final list of geosites and respective weight for the calculation of the final score. Data from Brilha (2016). Percentages are normalized based on the criteria used in the case study

To complete the characterization of the selected geosites (final list), Table 6.5 presents the assessment of their risk of degradation (combination of fragility and vulnerability, according to Fuertes-Gutiérrez and Fernández-Martínez (2010, 2012)). The procedure for the numerical assessment was proposed by Brilha (2016). The calculation of a geosite’s degradation risk is of great value for the preparation of the geological heritage management plan of a potential UNSECO Global Geopark. The assessment of ex situ geodiversity elements is not considered in this study. For this topic, it is advisable to consult the methods proposed by Henriques and Pena dos Reis (2015) or by De Wever and Guiraud (2018).

Methodological Proposal for the Valorization of the Geodiversity of Rural Areas

Criterion

123

%

Deterioration of geological elements as a consequence of their fragility and vulnerability.

35

Proximity to areas/activities with potential to cause degradation (e.g. recreational areas, roads, mining, etc.).

20

Legal protection (direct or indirect).

20

Accessibility (conditions of access to the site for the general public).

15

Density of population that live near the site.

10

Table 6.5. Criteria and percentages (respective weight) used for the calculation of geosites’ degradation risk. Data from Brilha (2016)

6.6.3. Selection of sites of geological interest for scientific, didactic or tourist use The results of the survey allow us to select reference geosites of scientific, educational and geotourism interest (see Table 6.6). Together, these geosites account for most of the geological history of the study area. Each photo includes coordinates (latitude and longitude). Code/name GEOZAT–01 Intrusive granitoids Geological values Granitoid intrusions (laccoliths) in foliated metasediments and gabbro/diorite. Neoproterozoic. Near Tizirt. Interest Lat.: 31.28114 Long.: –7.49913

Scientific, educational Code/name GEOZAT–02 Meltsene Thrust Fault Geological values Overlap of Precambrian crystalline rocks (ocher, left site of the photo) on the Triassic rocks (red, right side) witness of the Atlas orogeny. Near Azgour.

Lat.: 31.345183 Long.: –7.498868

Interest Scientific, educational

124

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Code/name GEOZAT–03 Carboniferous sandstone and shale Geological values Sandstone and shale alternations from a sedimentary sequence deposited by turbidity currents under deep water subsea conditions. Carboniferous. Near Tafrawt. Lat.: 31.416075 Long.: -7.531195

Interest Scientific, educational, geotourism Code/name GEOZAT–04 Carboniferous–Permian contact Geological values Contact between folded rocks of Carboniferous (ocher, left side) and Permian (red, right side). It constitutes the geological register of the Variscan orogeny and the postVariscan rifting. Aït Bou Said Valley (west of Tighedouine).

Lat.: 31.402222 Long.: –7.519444

Interest Scientific, educational, geotourism Code/name GEOZAT–05 Lamprophyre dikes Geological values Late lamprophyre dikes crosscutting the Neoproterozoic Precambrian granitoids. They record the early stages of the opening of the Atlantic Ocean during the Triassic period.

Lat.: 31.33463 Long.: –7.49873

Interest Scientific, educational, geotourism Code/name GEOZAT–06 Triassic lava flows Geological values These basalts form a transcontinental volcanic event called the Central Atlantic magmatic province (CAMP), which records the opening of the Atlantic Ocean and continental drift. Triassic. Near Timzilite.

Lat.: 31.48262 Long.: –7.533868

Interest Scientific, educational, geotourism

Methodological Proposal for the Valorization of the Geodiversity of Rural Areas

125

Code/name GEOZAT–07 Aeolian sandstone Geological values This sedimentary rock of the Oukaimeden Formation has its origin in the accumulation of sand in a wind desert environment during the Triassic period. Yaggour Plateau. Lat.: 31.311389 Long.: –7.562222

Interest Scientific, educational, geotourism Code/name GEOZAT–08 Fluvial sandstone Geological values This sedimentary rock of the Oukaimeden Formation has its origin in the accumulation of sand in a river environment during the Triassic period. Access road to the Yaggour Plateau.

Lat.: 31.307222 Long.: –7.596944

Interest Scientific, educational, geotourism Code/name GEOZAT–09 Ait Hamza Salinas Geological values Salinas that have their origin in the circulation of rainwater through the rocks of the Triassic that contain rock salt in the subsurface. Ait Hamza.

Lat.: 31.457778 Long.: –7.651944

Interest Scientific, educational, geotourism Code/name GEOZAT–10 Toukribine Syncline Geological values View of the northern limb of the Toukribine syncline in the foothills of the High-Atlas, showing folded layers of Cretaceous age.

Lat.: 31.530683 Long.: –7.561321

Interest Scientific, educational, geotourism

126

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Code/name GEOZAT–11 Sediments of Zat River Geological values Current sediments of the Zat River, which show the fluvial dynamics, in the lower part of the valley. Lat.: 31.54515 Long.: –7.645308

Interest Educational, geotourism

Table 6.6. Selected geosites (provisional list) of the study area. Each photo includes coordinates (latitude and longitude). For a color version of this table, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

6.6.4. Geosites of scientific interest: fostering scientific research Scientific material has been produced to stimulate the interest of the local scientific community to continue with the research. Scientific activities are essential for the geo-conservation strategy in the geoparks. The results of this research can provide new data that, once transferred to society, should contribute to the improvement of the conservation and dissemination of geodiversity values. For this purpose, the geological study has produced the following results: 1) geological mapping and illustrative cross-section construction (see Figures 6.2 and 6.3); 2) sampling of the High-Atlas Precambrian crystalline basement along the upper Zat Valley. The sampling has been carried out in three different campaigns during 2016 and 2017, which have supplied a total of 108 samples. All the samples have been studied under the petrographic microscope at the UAB; 3) selection of geosites of scientific interest (see Table 6.6). 6.6.5. Geosites of didactic interest: fostering the teaching of geology The set of selected geosites allow the non-specialized public to be informed of the main events in the history of the Moroccan High-Atlas geology and current geological processes, such as fluvial or hillslope dynamics. As a strategy for the literacy of Earth sciences, geosites of didactic interest allow us to connect current geological processes with the formation of some rocks. For example, the fluvial dynamics registered in the current sediments (GEOZAT-11)

Methodological Proposal for the Valorization of the Geodiversity of Rural Areas

127

facilitate the teaching of sedimentary rock formation that originated in fluvial sediments millions of years ago (GEOZAT-08). These rocks, in turn, allow us to better understand the natural risks in river basins. 6.6.6. Geosites of geotourism interest: fostering sustainable tourism The United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) has defined (1998) sustainable tourism as “Sustainable tourism development that meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future”. It is envisaged as leading to the management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems. Geotourism is a type of sustainable tourism. It is noteworthy that, through involving local communities in innovative strategies and geomarketing (such as creating geotours, geoproducts, geomuseums, geotourism and geoparks), we try to promote the local economy and public knowledge about geology (Farsani et al. 2010). The government of Morocco has recognized the positive impact tourism can bring to the country by creating economic opportunities and contributing to the general quality of life of local communities (Ngwira and Musinguzi 2011). A network of geotrails would help promote socioeconomic activities and create jobs, which would increase the income of the local population whose economy is mainly based on agriculture and cattle breeding (El Hadi et al. 2015, Enniouar et al. 2015). Some of the geosites of tourist interest are usually used by local guides and allow the integration of geological and non-geological values in the growing offer of geotourism. For example, the guides can complement the visit to the petroglyphs of the plateau of Yagour (Rodrigue 1999) with the reconstruction of a desert from millions of years ago, which was recorded in the sandstone of the geosite GEOZAT–07. As a preliminary step to the selection of geosites of tourist interest, sediment analysis of the most frequented areas has been carried out to detect signs of environmental contamination that may reveal the fragility of these places. The results do not reveal contamination, only high concentrations of iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn), provisionally related to the natural composition of the sediments. Figure 6.4 shows data obtained near the shelter (gite) of Tizirt, at about 1500 m above sea level.

128

UN NESCO Global Geoparks G

Figure 6.4. 6 The shelte er (gite) of Tizzirt (photo on the top) is loccated in the Z Zat Valley, about 1,500 m above sea level, an nd is part of th he network off tourist refuge es, which t based d on guided tours. In the vicinity of thiis refuge, support an incipient tourism sedimen nt samples have been analy lyzed with a mass m spectrom meter at the U UAB. The prelimina ary results (th he photograph h on the botto om shows an example of a graph of the proportions of majjor chemical elements) e do not n reveal ano omalous conce entrations related to o pollution derrived from the e tourist use off the area. For a color versiion of this figure, se ee www.iste.cco.uk/girault/ge eoparks.zip

6.7. Dis scussion and conclusio on The work presenteed here only includes the first results of o the geologiical study o within thhe framework of the GEO OPARK Projecct. To advancce in the carried out holistic management of local heeritage, charaacteristic of the t UNESCO O Global n to inntegrate the values v of ecoloogy and cultuure, which Geoparkk model, it is necessary are preseented in other chapters. In thhe absence of o specific leegislation for geoconservaation, it is coonsidered necessarry to gather information relaated to protectted natural and cultural areaas as well as the leegal regulations relating too all of them.. Their interest lies in knoowing the

Methodological Proposal for the Valorization of the Geodiversity of Rural Areas

129

level of protection they could provide to the geosites. The implementation of legislation to protect geological heritage is necessary for similar cases. This will favor the establishment of adequate management and protection plans. This study is only the first step. Several factors are essential to ensure the success of geoconservation strategy, including national and international competencies; partnerships with tourism professionals, namely tourism offices, policy makers, elected officials, local community; etc. In conclusion, the methodological proposal has allowed establishing the bases to select useful geosites in the fields of research, literacy of Earth sciences and geotourism, as well as promoting a dynamic that allows progress in each of these areas so that some agents of the territory (scientists, tour guides, secondary school teachers, etc.) can consolidate these lines of work, and extend them to the local population, so that the territory eventually will arrive to operate de facto as a geopark. 6.8. References Benito-Calvo, A., Pérez-González, A., Magri, O., Meza, P. (2019). Assessing regional geodiversity: The Iberian Peninsula. Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 34(10), 1433–1445. Bradbuy, M. (2014). A keyed classification of natural geodiversity for land management and nature conservation purposes. Proc. Geol. Assoc, 125, 329–349. Brilha, J. (2016). Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: A review. Geoheritage, 8(2), 119–134. Brilha, J. (2018). Geoheritage: Inventories and Evaluation. In Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection and Management, E. Reynard and J. Brilha (eds). Elsevier, Amsterdam. Cendrero, A. (1996). El patrimonio geológico. Ideas para su protección, conservación y utilización. MOPTMA. In El Patrimonio Geológico. Bases para su valoración, protección, conservación y utilización. Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transportes y Medio Ambiente, Madrid. Dercourt, J., Gaetani, M., Vrielinck, B., Barrier, E., Biju-Duval, B., Brunet, M.F., Cadet, J.P., Crasquin, S., Sandulescu, M. (eds). (2000). Atlas Peri-Tethys and Explanatory Notes. CCGM, Paris. Domènech, M. (2015). Rift opening and inversion in the Marrakech High Atlas: Integrated structural and thermochronologic study. PhD thesis, UAB, Barcelona. Domènech, M., Teixell, A., Babault, J., Arboleya, M.L. (2015). The inverted Triassic rift of the Marrakech High Atlas: A reappraisal of basin geometries and faulting histories. Tectonophysics, 663, 177–191.

130

UNESCO Global Geoparks

El Hadi, H., Tahiri, A., Brilha, J., El Maidani, A., Baghdad, B., Zaidi, A. (2015). Geodiversity examples of Morocco: From inventory to regional geotourism development. Open J. Ecology, 5, 409–419. Enniouar, A., Errami, E., Lagnaoui, A., Bouaala, O. (2015). The geoheritage of the Doukkala-Abda region (Morocco): An opportunity for local socio-economic sustainable development. In From Geoheritage to Geoparks, Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism, E. Errami et al. (eds), Springer, Switzerland. Errami, E., Ennih, N., Bendaoud, A., Bouzidi, O., Chabou, M.C., Andrianaivo, L., Ben IsmailLattrache, K., Hassine, M. (2013). Inventaire du géopatrimoine en Afrique : état des lieux et perspectives. In Actes du colloque 10–12 octobre 2012 : Géopatrimoine, un lustre d’inventaire en France, G. Egoroff, A. Cornée, P. De Wever, A. Lalanne (eds). Société Géologique de France, Digne-les-Bains, 13, 128–139. Farsani, N.T., Coelho, C., Costa, C. (2010). Geotourism and geoparks as novel strategies for socio-economic development in rural areas. Thesis, Aveiro University, Aveiro. Frizon de Lamotte, D., Zizi, M., Missenard, Y., Hafid, M., El Azzouzi, M., Maury, R.C., Charrière, A., Taki, M., Benami, M., Michard, A. (2008). The Atlas System. In Continental Evolution: The Geology of Morocco: Lecture Notes in Earth Science, A. Michard, O. Saddiqi, A. Chalouan, D. de Lamott (eds). Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Fuertes-Gutiérrez, I., Fernández-Martínez, E. (2010). Geosites inventory in the León Province (North-western Spain): A tool to introduce geoheritage into regional environmental management. Geoheritage, 2(1–2), 57–75. Fuertes-Gutiérrez, I., Fernández-Martínez, E. (2012). Mapping geosites for geoheritage management: A methodological proposal for the Regional Park of Picos de Europa (León, Spain). Environ. Manage, 50, 789 – 806. Gasquet, D., Ennih, N., Liégeois, J.-P., Soulaimani, A., Michard, A. (2008). The Pan-African belt. In Continental Evolution: The Geology of Morocco: Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, A. Michard, O. Saddiqi, A. Chalouan, D. Frizon de Lamotte (eds). Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Gray, M. (2013). Geodiversity – Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature, 2nd edition. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester. Hafid, M. (2006). Styles structuraux du Haut Atlas de Cap Tafelney et de la partie septentrionale du Haut Atlas occidental : tectonique salifère et relation entre l’Atlas et l’Atlantique. Notes Mem. Serv.geol. Maroc, 465, 172. Henriques, M.H., Pena dos Reis, R. (2015). Framing the palaeontological heritage within the geological heritage: An integrative vision. Geoheritage, 7, 249–259. Hsü, K.J. (1971). Origin of the Alps and western Mediterranean. Nature, 233, 44–48. International Association for Promoting Geoethics (2019). Definition of Geoethics [Online]. Available: http://www.geoethics.org/geoethics. Kale, V.S. (2015). A 10-digit geo-coding system for classification of geomorphosites in India. Geophys. Res. Abst, 17, 4–19.

Methodological Proposal for the Valorization of the Geodiversity of Rural Areas

131

Knight, K.B., Nomade, S., Renne, P.R., Marzoli, A., Bertrand, H., Youbi, N. (2004). The Central Atlantic magmatic province at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary: Paleomagnetic and 40Ar/39Ar evidence from Morocco for brief, episodic volcanism. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 228, 143–160. Lima, F.F., Brilha, J., Salamuni, E. (2010). Inventorying geological heritage in large territories: A methodological proposal applied to Brazil. Geoheritage, 2(3–4), 91–99. Martínez-Frías, J., González, J.L., Pérez, F.R. (2011). Geoethics and deontology: From fundamentals to applications in planetary protection. Episodes, 34(4), 257–262. Nahraoui, F.Z., El Wartiti, M., Zahraoui M., Dabi, S. (2011). Geomorphosite valorization: A view to sustainable development: Case of Ait Hajji, Oued Boulahmayel Valley, Central Morocco. Journal of Geographic Information System, 3, 12–17. Najwer, A., Borysiak, J., Gudowicz, J., Mazurek, M., Zwoliński, Z. (2016). Geodiversity and biodiversity of the postglacial landscape (Dębnica river catchment, Poland). Quaest. Geogr., 35(1), 5–28. Ngwira, P.M., Musinguzi, D. (2011). Tourism and poverty alleviation in Zambia: Opportunities, challenges and the way forward. Int. J. Asian Tour. Manag, 2(2), 172–186. Peppoloni S., Di Capua G. (2015). The meaning of geoethics. In Geoethics: Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Science, S. Peppoloni, M. Wyss (eds). Elsevier, Waltham, Massachusetts. Pereira, D., Pereira, P., Brilha, J., Santos, L. (2013). Geodiversity assessment of Paraná State (Brazil): An innovative approach. Environ. Manag., 52, 541–552. Piqué, A. (1994). Géologie du Maroc, les domaines régionaux et leur évolution structurale. Ed. Pumag, Marrakech. Rodrigue, A. (1999). L’art rupestre du Haut Atlas marocain. L’Harmattan, Paris. Ruban, D.A. (2010). Quantification of geodiversity and its loss. Proc. Geol. Assoc., 121, 326– 281. Serrano, E., Ruiz-Flaño, P. (2007). Geodiversity: A theoretical and applied concept. Geogr. Helv., 62, 140–147. Silva, J., Rodrigues, C., Pereira, D. (2015). Mapping and analysis of geodiversity indices in the Xingu River basin, Amazonia, Brazil. Geoheritage, 7, 337–350. Teixell, A., Arboleya, M.L., Julivert, M., Charroud, M. (2003). Tectonic shortening and topography in the central High Atlas (Morocco). Tectonics, 22(5), 1051. Teixell, A., Ayarza, P., Zeyen, H., Fernandez, M., Arboleya, M.L. (2005). Effects of mantle upwelling in a compressional setting: The Atlas Mountains of Morocco. Terra Nova, 17, 456–461. Teixell A., Bertotti G., Frizon de Lamotte D., Charroud M. (2009). The geology of vertical movements of the lithosphere: An overview. Tectonophysics, 475, 1–8.

132

UNESCO Global Geoparks

United Nations World Tourism Organisation. (2004). Guide for local authorities on developing sustainable tourism. World Tourism Organisation, Madrid. De Wever, P., Guiraud, M. (2018). Geoheritage and museums. In Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection and Management, E. Reynard, J. Brilha (eds). Elsevier, Amsterdam. Zouros, N. (2004). The European Geoparks Network – Geological heritage protection and local development. Episodes, 27(3), 165–171.

7 Interpreting Landscapes from a Socioecological Perspective: a Methodological Approach from the Zat Valley (Morocco)

The concept and definition of landscape has evolved through time and has been broadly discussed in different disciplines. In this sense, the main objective of this work is to develop a methodology to interpret landscapes from the integrative perspective of socioecological systems, which are a result of the constant interactions between biophysical, cultural and soecioeconomic drivers. The initial phase for this methodology consists of the identification of great landscape units and their subdivisions (landscape units and subunits) through a chromatic assessment. Afterward, each landscape unit and subunit is specifically analyzed to obtain a transect representation where the different socioecological elements are graphically symbolized by an alphanumeric and a pictographic codification. A representative example in the Zat Valley (High-Atlas, Morocco) is presented here. This methodology becomes a useful holistic tool for environmental education and scientific communication, which aims to enhance the comprehension and the valorization of landscapes from a systematic and interdisciplinary perspective.

7.1. Introduction The concept of landscape and its interpretation has evolved through time. In the 19th Century, Alexander von Humboldt defined landscape as “the total character of Chapter written by Martí BOADA JUNCÀ, Roser MANEJA ZARAGOZA, Jaume MARLÈS MAGRE, Josep Antoni PUJANTELL ALBÓS, Sònia SÀNCHEZ-MATEO and Carles BARRIOCANAL LOZANO. The work presented in this chapter is part of the Geopark H2020 program and was funded by the European Union’s Research and Innovation Program Horizon 2020 under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 644015.

UNESCO Global Geoparks: Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement First Edition. Edited by Yves Girault. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

134

UNESCO Global Geoparks

a region” (Makhzoumi and Pungetti 1999). Later, Sauer (1925) defined landscape, at a regional level, as a space defined by different associations of morphologies, both physical and cultural, while, in 1950, Troll defined landscape as a part of Earth’s surface with a space unity and with a specific character, due to its external image, the joint action of its phenomena, which can be delimited by geographic and natural borders (Farina 2006; Sànchez-Mateo 2010). A modern view by Green et al. (1996) considers landscape as a particular configuration of the topography, vegetation cover, land uses and the structure of the population that delimits certain coherence in natural and cultural processes and activities. Otherwise, the discipline of landscape ecology considers landscape as a delimited study unit, result of a complex interaction between special structures and the ecological processes that occur in it. From this perspective, landscape is understood as a differentiated and measurable unit with different relevant ecological characteristics: it is a recognizable and repeated grouping of ecosystems and disturbance regimes (Forman and Godron 1981). All of the definitions discussed above agree on the idea that landscape is the result of the interaction between biogeophysical and socioeconomic factors. In this sense, landscapes can be approached as socioecological systems for their analysis and interpretation. Likewise, the concept of socioecological system is defined as the result of the interaction between a social (human) component and an ecological (biophysical) component, which determines a complex system that is constantly evolving, according to the occurrence of changes. Socioecological systems can be defined at different scales, from local to global, delimited by spatial or functional boundaries (Walker and Salt 2006; Gallopin 2003; Glaser 2008). Based on this, the concept of socioecological heritage has been defined as the historical and place-specific set of social–ecological interactions of human beings with one another and with their environment as well as the practices that yield diverse, autonomous and resilient socioecological systems (Otero et al. 2013). This is an integrative definition of the concept of heritage, which proposes overcoming the dualism between natural heritage and cultural heritage, showing its interrelation. The concept includes both material and immaterial elements, understood as the result of the management practices and the socioecological interactions described above. Thus, elements such as water canals or dry stone walls are the result of the interaction between the natural resources provided by the environment and the human appropriation activity, being hybrid elements between humans and nature (Boada and Otero 2006). Different methodologies for landscape analysis have been proposed from geography, among which the methodology known as Geosystem, Territory and Landscape (GTP) can be highlighted. Designed by Bertrand and Bertrand (2002), geosystem refers to the biophysical dimension of the landscape, while the concepts

Interpreting Landscapes from a Socioecological Perspective

135

of territory and landscape refer to its socioeconomic and cultural dimensions, respectively. In general, the GTP system emphasizes the complex and versatile nature of the geographical environment and the impossibility of limiting its study to a single model (Bertrand and Bertrand 2002; Bertrand 2007). Métailié (2007) highlighted the GTP methodology as a didactic tool through the use of maps, explanatory figures, pictures, sketches and drawings. The diachronic comparison of pictures is another tool, developed for the qualitative analysis of landscape changes (Rogers et al. 1984; Métailié 1986, 1988; Veblen and Lorenz 1991), which allows the analysis of landscape dynamics and the evolution of vegetation comparing old photographs and vegetation maps with contemporary ones. Subsequently, other authors have used the diachronic method for the qualitative analysis of landscape changes (Métailié 1986, 1988; Boada 2001; Sànchez-Mateo 2010). This methodology is based on the principle of the interpretive regressive method: from a known present state, it requires an exercise of extrapolation to the past by successive stages based on the available images and data (Sànchez-Mateo 2010). Moreover, the use of images as a central element for the interpretation of landscape changes becomes an excellent pedagogical tool. Another methodology for landscape interpretation corresponds to the analysis of land use and cover change (Stamp 1948), which has evolved throughout the second half of the 20th Century. It has been studied at a global scale since 1993 by the LUCC program (Land Use and Cover Change), within the framework of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP) (Turner et al. 1995; Lambin et al. 2006), for its importance as a central component in the process of global change (Turner et al. 1994; Vitousek 1994; Boada 2001; Lambin et al. 2001; Chhabra et al. 2006; Sànchez-Mateo 2010; Pujantell 2012). The concept of land cover refers to the biophysical conditions of the earth’s surface (Meyer and Turner 1992; Lambin et al. 2001; Boada and Saurí 2002), while land use refers to the human transformation of the land surface (Sànchez-Mateo 2010). Historically, the graphic representation of landscapes through sketches, crosssections, schemes and transects has focused on the elements of vegetation (Panareda 1994; Panareda 2000). In this sense, Dansereau (1951) created the lollipop diagrams, introducing cryptograms to represent the vegetation. On the other hand, fauna has always had a minor role, and there are few previous works with an integrated representation of vegetation and fauna (Lozano 2000; Lozano and Meaza 2003; Boada et al. 2012; Serrano and Gomez 2017). In a similar situation, social and cultural elements are not usually represented together with biodiversity (Meaza 2000; Boada et al. 2012). However, in the last decades there is an increasing recognition that landscape is a hybrid expression of social and natural history (Turner 1989; Toledo 1998; Boada and Saurí 2002).

136

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Thus, the interpretation of landscapes by means of graphic representations becomes an effective methodological tool for environmental education establishing links between science and social stakeholders involved in the management of ecosystems, their resources and the environmental services they provide (Castillo 2001; Maneja 2006). The objective of this paper is to develop a methodology to interpret the landscape from the integrative perspective of socioecological systems, including the representation of biodiversity – both fauna and vegetation – and cultural elements. 7.2. Methodology 7.2.1. Chromatic assessment and identification of landscape units The first phase of the methodology consists of a general panoramic visualization of the landscape for its analysis and interpretation (chromatic assessment), starting from the large chromatic sets and differentiated tonalities of the great land covers. Throughout the seasons, the chromatic evaluation may vary, since the presence of deciduous and evergreen species will be more evident and contrasted during the autumn and winter. The analysis must be developed from an optimum elevated point to visualize and to clearly identify the great units, units and subunits of landscape at the macroscale (Boada et al. 2012). This first approach can be complemented using binoculars, high-resolution photographs and field drawings. The division of units into subunits will be only necessary in those cases where landscapes are complex and heterogeneous and so a more accurate analysis is required. 7.2.2. Socioecological transects A transect will be designed for each landscape unit or subunit previously identified through the graphic representation of the most relevant biodiversity and cultural elements present in the unit. Data on vegetation and vertebrate fauna, along with cultural tangible and intangible elements and practices, will be obtained through an exhaustive on-site survey. Photographs and plant samples will be taken, if required, for fauna and vegetation species identification using specific field guides. Semistructured interviews with the local population will contribute to identifying and interpreting cultural elements. Next, for each landscape unit, the three most representative species of each group will be determined, as shown in Table 7.1 (Boada 1984, 2002). The vegetation elements will be classified in four categories: wooded stratum, shrub stratum, herbaceous stratum and liana stratum. The elements of vertebrate fauna will be classified into mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish. The cultural elements will be defined from the following

Interpreting Landscapes from a Socioecological Perspective

137

classification, adapted from the classification of socioecological heritage (Otero et al. 2013): – tangible elements: material elements (for agrosilvopastoral activities, water use and management, etc.); – intangible elements: elements that are expressed immaterially (legends, beliefs and the worldview of the inhabitants of the territory); – practices: activities of appropriation and management of the environment (logging, agricultural practices, grazing, collection of plants, mushrooms, wild fruits, etc.). Wooded stratum

Fauna abundance

A Dominant species

1

Dominant species

B Second dominant species

2

Second dominant species

C Third dominant species

3

Third dominant species

Shrub stratum

Fauna symbols

A1 Dominant species

Reptiles

B1 Second dominant species

Amphibians

C1 Third dominant species

Fishes

Herbaceous stratum a Dominant species

Birds Mammals

b Second dominant species c Third dominant species Liana stratum

Socioecological heritage

a1 Dominant species

Tangible elements

b1 Second dominant species

Intangible elements

c1 Third dominant species

Practices

Table 7.1. Proposal of codification for the graphic representation of biodiversity and cultural elements

Once all the elements of the system have been defined, the proposed alphanumeric coding for the vegetation strata (wooded, shrub, herbaceous and liana), fauna (fishes, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals) and the social elements (tangible elements, intangible elements and practices) is applied. The first

138

UNESCO Global Geoparks

of the three species of each group will be the most abundant and important, and in the alphanumeric coding will be accompanied by the number “1”, while the second and third will be accompanied by the numbers “2” and “3”, respectively (Table 7.1) (Boada et al. 2012). 7.2.3. Study area: Zat Valley (Atlas Mountains, Morocco) An approach of the proposed methodology is here presented for a case study located in the Zat Valley, in the Moroccan High-Atlas (province of Al-Haouz, Morocco). Its population is 22,971 inhabitants (RGPH 2014), distributed in a set of small dispersed nuclei. The capital of the valley is Arbaa Tigdouine (approximately 5,000 inhabitants), which concentrates most of the services and commercial activity (Domínguez 2007). In the Zat Valley, there are different settlements of the Amazigh population, whose main economic activity is transhumant grazing and smallholder agriculture. The need to keep pastures available throughout the year explains the existence of the “agdal”, a land management system that has been maintained for generations, with practices that regulate access to pastures through tribal laws (ruled by customary law), located in the Yagour plateau. These areas of collective pastures are protected until the end of spring, when the agdal vegetation reaches its maximum diversity and biomass. Grazing starts at the beginning of summer, when the vegetation begins to dry, at a pre-established date for the pastoral community. In this way, the agdal system has allowed the adaptive and sustainable management of the landscape, including the conservation of endemic species (Domínguez and Benessaiah 2015). Agricultural land is usually located in the surroundings of human settlements, where irrigated home gardens provide vegetables and fruits, while dry land crops are located further away (Dominguez 2007; Dominguez and Benessaiah 2015). Dry land crops consist basically of barley, wheat and corn. The home gardens consist mainly of alfalfa, peas, garlic, onions, potatoes, tomatoes and cabbage, while the most common fruits are walnut, almond, apricot, peach, apple, vineyard, pomegranate and quince. The study area presents a continental climate, with cold and moderately humid winters, and very dry and warm summers. Precipitation is irregular, with a torrential regime, since the 2,400 m of difference between the highest and lowest areas of the study area determine huge thermal and pluviometric gradients (Domínguez 2007). The geology of the study area is mainly includes granite substrates originated in the Precambrian and clays and stoneware from sedimentary deposits of the PermoTriassic (Domínguez 2007). The vegetation of the Zat and the Yagour varies according to the altitudinal degree, the climate and the type of soil. In the low part of

Interpreting g Landscapes frrom a Socioeco ological Perspecctive

139

the valleey, Juniperuss phoenicea and Tetraclin nis auriculataa are the maain forest communnities, while foorests of Querrcus ilex rotun ndifolia and Juuniperus oxyccedrus are located at a higher areass ( 2000 m higgh). In the hig ghest parts off the valley and Yagour plateau, Juniperus thurifera t foreests and xerrophytic vegeetation are tthe main Domínguez 20005). communnities found (D 7.3. Res sults and discussion 7.3.1. Chromatic C as ssessment Threee great landsccape units haave been defin ned in the Zaat valley baseed on the chromatiic assessmentt: low Zat Vaalley, high Zaat Valley andd the Yaggouur plateau (Figure 7.1). 7

Figure 7.1. Map of the lim mits of the stud dy area and th he three large landsccape units ide entified. Authorr: Adrià Costa a. For a color version v of this figure, see www.iste e.co.uk/girault/ t/geoparks.zip

140

UN NESCO Global Geoparks G

Figurre 7.2 shows the t chromaticc representatio on of the greaat landscape uunit of the Yaggourr plateau. Foor this specific case, six x subunits were identifiedd: forest, shrublannd, crops, villlage, aquatic environmentt and rocks. The panoram mic view shows laarge sets of coolor and differrent tones of the t different laand covers, m made from high-resoolution photoggraphs using ArcGIS A softw ware.

Figure 7.2. Ch F hromatic asse essment of the e Yagour plate eau. For a colo or version off this figure, se ee www.iste.co o.uk/girault/ge eoparks.zip

Interpreting Landscapes from a Socioecological Perspective

141

For each great landscape unit, up to three landscape units were distinguished: high mountain, medium mountain and low mountain. For each landscape unit, different landscape subunits were differentiated: forest, saline area, crops, aquatic environment, riparian forest, home gardens, rocks and high mountain (Table 7.2). Once all landscape units and subunits were defined, all transects for each landscape subunit were designed. Next, we present an example of a transect representation for the subunit Forests included in the unit high mountain that belongs to the great unit of landscape of Yagour Plateau (Figure 7.3). This transect shows the most representative biodiversity and social elements in order of abundance and importance, with their codifications. With this methodology, the main elements that make up a socioecological system are represented in an integrative figure. Great unit

Low Zat Valley

Unit

Low mountain

High mountain

High Zat Valley

Medium mountain

Low mountain

Yagour Plateau

High mountain

Subunit a)

Forests

b)

Saline area

c)

Crops

d)

Aquatic environment

e)

Forests

f)

Home gardens

a)

Forests

b)

Riparian forest and aquatic environment

c)

Home gardens

d)

Village

a)

Forests

b)

Riparian forest and aquatic environment

c)

Home gardens

a)

Forests

b)

Shrubland

c)

Crops

d)

Village

e)

Aquatic environment

f)

Rocks

Table 7.2. Great units, units and subunits of landscape of the Zat Valley

142

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Wooded stratum A

Juniperus thurifera Shrub stratum

A1

Juniperus thurifera

B1

Juniperus oxycedrus

C1 D1

Reptiles 1

Quedenfeldtia trachyblepharus

2

Podarcis vaucheri

3

Scelarcis perspicillata Birds

Ephedra fragilis

1

Oenanthe seebohmi

Bupleurum spinosum

2

Lanius senator

3

Phoenicurus moussieri

Herbaceous stratum a

Asphodelus ramosus

Social elements

b

Stipa tenacissima

Singular Juniperus thurifera trees

c

Dactylis glomerata

Cattle pasture

Figure 7.3. Transect representation of the subunit Forests, in Yagour Plateau. Image author: Carles Puche

7.4. Conclusions Regarding environmental education and the interpretation of the landscape in a broad sense, Giordan and Sochon (1995) propose that the recipients of environmental education must learn to identify, hierarchize and articulate elements of different orders – political, economic, social and environmental – for the awareness about the analysis of correlations between phenomena and situations. In this sense, the presented methodological proposal fulfills these objectives, especially in the social and environmental aspects, given that it is a proposal for landscape analysis. This methodology has been previously tested in the Montseny and Montnegre massifs (Catalonia) (Boada et al. 2012) and can be extrapolated to any landscape. The proposed qualitative methodology combines different types of elements that make up the socioecological systems (vegetation, fauna and social elements), graphically represented in the same image from a holistic and integrated perspective. The graphic representation of landscapes as socioecological systems becomes a

Interpreting Landscapes from a Socioecological Perspective

143

useful tool to support environmental education establishing a link between science and society, enhancing knowledge about biodiversity and cultural elements, as well as showing their interrelation. 7.5. Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge Carles Puche for its graphic work and Adrià Costa for the GIS work; Mohamed Ghamizi, Said Boujrouf, Soumia Moutaouakil, Hanane Massar, Hassan Benaissa, Lhcen Mostakim, Abderrahim S’Khifa and Said Abannay; Mari Carmen Romera, Pablo Knobel, Albert Cama, Alejandra Castro and Fricka Schmid from the Institute of Science and Technology (ICTA) at Autonomous University of Barcelona. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 644015. 7.6. References Becker, E. (2012). Social-ecological systems as epistemic objects. In Human-Nature Interactions in the Anthropocene: Potentials of Social-Ecological Systems Analysis, Glaser, M., Krause, G., Ratter, B., Welp, M. (eds). Routledge, London. Bertrand, C., Bertrand, G. (2002). Une géographie traversière. L’environnement à travers territoires et temporalités. Arguments, París. Bertrand, C., Bertrand, G. (2007). Geografía del medio ambiente. El sistema GTP: geosistema, territorio y paisaje. Universidad de Granada, Granada. Boada, M. (1984). Flora, fauna i plantes remeieres del Baix-Montseny-Montnegre. CEDBMM, Sant Celoni. Boada, M. (2001). Manifestacions del Canvi Ambiental Global al Montseny. PhD Thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra. Boada, M., Saurí, D. (2002). El canvi global. Rubes, Barcelona. Boada, M., Toledo, V. (2003). El planeta, nuestro cuerpo. La ecología, el ambientalismo y la crisis de la modernidad. FCE, Mexico. Boada, M., Otero, I. (2006). La protecció dels espais d'interès natural i l'economia agroforestal. Congrés del Món Rural de Catalunya, Barcelona. Boada, M., Sànchez, S., Barriocanal, C. (2012). Propuesta metodológica para la interpretación biogeográfica de los sistemas socio-ecológicos. VII Congreso Español de Biogeografía, Planes de Son.

144

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Castillo, A. (1999). La educación ambiental y las instituciones de investigación ecológica: hacia una ciencia con responsabilidad social. Tópicos de Educación Ambiental, 1, 35–46. Castillo, A. (2001). Comunicación para el manejo de ecosistemas. Tópicos de Educación Ambiental, 3(9), 41–54. Dansereau, P. (1951). Description and recording of vegetation upon a structural basis. Ecology 32(2), 172–229. Dominguez, P. (2005). Ocupación del espacio y usos de los recursos naturales en el Alto Atlas marroquí: el caso de los agro-pastores bereberes Aït Ikkis y el agdal del Yagour. Perifèria: revista de investigación y formación en antropología, 2. Dominguez, P. (2007). Exhibition Univers Yagour. AECID (Ministry of Foreign affairs)/Association des Amis du Zat. Domínguez, P., Zorondo-Rodríguez, F., Reyes-García, V. (2010). Relationships between religious beliefs and mountain pasture uses: A case study in the High Atlas mountains of Marrakech, Morocco. Human Ecology, 38(3), 351–362. Domínguez, P., Bourbouze, A., Demay, S., Genin, D., Kosoy, N. (2012). Diverse ecological, economic socio-cultural and political values of a traditional common natural resource management system in the Moroccan High Atlas: The Aït Ikiss Tagdalts. Environmental Values, 21(3), 277–296. Domínguez, P., Benessaiah, N. (2017). Multi-agentive transformations of rural livelihoods in mountain ICCAs: The case of the decline of community-based management of natural resources in the Mesioui agdals (Morocco). Quaternary International, 437(Part B), 165–175. Farina, A. (2006). Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology: Towards a Science of Landscape. Springer, Dordrecht. Forman, R.T.T., Godron, M. (1981). Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. BioScience, 31(10), 733–740. Gallopin, G. (2003). Sostenibilidad y desarrollo sostenible: un enfoque sistémico. CEPAL, Santiago. Giordan, A., Sochom, C. (1995). La educación ambiental: guía práctica. Díada, Sevilla. Glaser, M., (2008). The social dimension in ecosystem management: strengths and weaknesses of human-nature mind maps. Human Ecology Review, 13(2), 122–142. Green, B.H., Simmons, E.A., Woltjer, I. (1996). Landscape Conservation: Some Steps Towards Developing a New Conservation Dimension. A draft report of the IUCN-CESP Landscape Conservation Working Group. Department of Agriculture, Horticulture and Environment, Ashford. Haut-Commissariat au Plan du Maroc (2014). General Census of Population and Housing. Centre National de Documentation, Morocco.

Interpreting Landscapes from a Socioecological Perspective

145

Lambin, E.F. et al. (2001). The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change, 11, 261–269. Lambin, E.F., Geist, H., Rindfuss, R. R. (2006). Introduction: Local processes with global impacts. In Land-Use and Land-Cover Change. Local Processes and Global Impacts, Lambin, E.F., Geist, H. (eds). Springer, Berlín. Lozano, P. (2000). Métodos y técnicas en zoogeografia. In Metodología y práctica de la Biogeografía, Meaza, G. (ed.). Ediciones del Serbal, Barcelona. Makhzoumi, J., Pungetti, G. (1999). Ecological Landscape Design and Planning. The Mediterranean Context. E & FN Spon, London. Maneja, R. (2006). Interpretación de las percepciones socioambientales infantiles y adolescentes. Propuesta de implementación a escala local y regional. La Huacana, Michoacán, México. PhD thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Bellaterra. Meaza, G. (2000). Metodología y Práctica de la Biogeografía. Ediciones del Serbal, Barcelona. Métailié, J.P. (1986). Photographie et histoire du paysage: un exemple dans les Pyrénées luchonnaises. Revue Geographique des Pyrénées et du sud-oest, 57(2), 179–208. Métailié, J.P. (1998). Les paysages d’Ariège d’un siècle à l’autre. Inventaire des sources photographiques et préselection de sites d’observation diachronique pour un observatoire photographique des dynamiques paysagères. Working Paper, Université Toulouse-Le Mirail. Métailié, J.P. (2007). Henri Gaussen en Andorra. In Henri Gaussen 1891–1981, Escorihuela, I. (ed.). Govern d’Andorra, Andorra la Vella. Meyer, W.B., Turner II, B.L. (1992). Human population growth and global land-use/cover change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23, 39–61. Otero, I., Boada, M., Tàbara, D. (2013). Social-ecological heritage and the conservation of Mediterranean landscapes under global change. A case study in Olzinelles (Catalonia). Land Use Policy, 30, 25–37. Panareda, J. M. (1994). Pautes per fer un estudi de vegetació. In L’estudi de la vegetació de Catalunya, passat, present i futur, Bolós, O., Nuet, J., Panareda, J.M. (eds). Editorial Montblanc-Martín, Barcelona. Panareda, J. M. (2000). Cartografía y representación fitogeográfica. In Metodología y práctica de la Biogeografía, Meaza, G. (ed.). Ediciones del Serbal, Barcelona. Pino, J., Rodà, F. (1999). L’ecologia del paisatge: un nou marc de treball per a la ciència de la conservació. Butlletí de la Institució Catalana d’Història Natural, 67, 5–20. Pujantell, J. (2012). Les manifestacions del canvi global en àrees de muntanya mediterrània. Un cas d’estudi al Baix Montseny. PhD Thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Bellaterra.

146

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Rogers, G.F., Malde, H.E., Turner, R.M. (1984). Bibliography of Repeat Photography for Evaluating Landscape Change. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Sànchez-Mateo, S. (2010). Anàlisi socioecològica a la vall de Santa Fe (massís del Montseny). La transformació del paisatge a través de la història ambiental. PhD Thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Bellaterra. Sauer, C.O. (1925). The morphology of landscape. University of California Publications in Geography, 2(2), 19–53. Serra, P., Saurí, D., Pons, X. (2008). Land-cover and land-use in a Mediterranean landscape: A spatial analysis of driving forces integrating biophysical and human factors. Applied Geography, 28, 189–209. Serrano, J. L., Gómez, J. (2017). Propuesta metodológica para la inclusión de la fauna en los estudios de paisaje. El ejemplo de la playa de Casasola, Málaga (España). Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, 73, 61–76. Stamp, L.D. (1948). The Land of Britain: Its Use and Misuse. Longman, London. Taillefumier, F., Piegay, H. (2002). Contemporary land use changes in prealpine Mediterranean mountains: A multivariate GIS-based approach applied to two municipalities in the Southern French Prealps. Catena, 51, 267– 296. Toledo, V. (1998). Estudiar lo rural desde una perspectiva interdisciplinaria: el enfoque ecológico-sociológico. In Memorias del V Congreso Latinoamericano de Sociología Rural, Valdivia, E. (ed.). UACH, Mexico. Turner, M.G. (1989). Landscape ecology. The effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 20, 171–197. Turner, B.L., Clark, W.C., Kates, R.W., Richards, J.F., Mathews, J.T., Meyer, W.B. (1990). The Earth as Transformed by Human Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Turner, B.L., Meyer, W.B., Skole, D.L. (1994). Global land-use/land-cover change: Towards an integrated study. Ambio, 23(1), 91–95. Turner, B.L., Skole, D., Sanderson, S., Fischer, G., Fresco, L., Leemans, R. (1995). Land-Use and Land-Cover Change. Science/Research plan. IGBP Report No. 35. IGBP/HDP, Stockholm/Geneva. Veblen, T.T., Lorenz, D.C. (1991). The Colorado Front Range: A Century of Ecological Change. Utah University Press, Salt Lake City. Vitousek, P.M. (1994). Beyond global warming: Ecology and global change. Ecology, 75(7), 1862–1876. Walker, B., Salt, D. (2006). Resilience Thinking. Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Island Press, Washington.

8 The Feeling of Archaeology and the Sense of History in the Mixteca Alta Geopark

The experience of an archaeologist traveling through the Mixteca Alta Global Geopark (Oaxaca, Mexico) reveals the sense of the history that is present in the domesticated scenery of this outstanding geopark. Oaxaca is a Mexican state that has one of the most diversified geologic formations of the country. The patterned landforms that are recognized throughout the park are the archaeological traces of the adaptation processes that humans have undertaken during the last 4,000 years to transform the apparently barren geo-forms into a highly productive agricultural landscape. The people that currently inhabit the park region are the direct descendants of a great pre-Columbian civilization, the Mixtecas, and their cultural traditions have survived the succeeding invasions of the Aztecs and the Spaniards, who conquered Mexico in the early 16th Century. Syncretism blends with the traditional rural life modes to express the importance of the different sorts of heritage that are abundant in this amazing region.

8.1. Introduction A good way to describe the impression an archaeologist has when they arrive in the Mixteca Global Geopark (MAGG) is that of participating in a road trip, where one explores an impressive geography of partly barren mountains, surrounding vast agricultural fields with patches of forest here and there. Important parts of the landscape are the towns and villages that are scattered in the backdrop. When we observe the general geography of the park and the characteristic landforms that geology and erosion have molded into the scenery, we wonder how the people Chapter written by Francisco VALDEZ. The work presented in this chapter is part of the Geopark H2020 program and was funded by the European Union’s Research and Innovation Program Horizon 2020 under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No 644015.

UNESCO Global Geoparks: Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement First Edition. Edited by Yves Girault. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

148

UNESCO Global Geoparks

who lived here managed to overcome the limits that the natural environment imposed on all living creatures that thrived here. One feels the weight of geology in the region, so when we see the landforms we begin to think of the different actions that humans must have taken over the ages to build the landscape that we now witness. The transformations and arrangements that society makes are actions taken to adapt to the apparently hostile settings. However, not everyone recognizes the emergence of the landscape as cultural construction that has survived and reinvented itself over and over again for over 5,000 years. As archaeologists, we feel that the natural environment is the scene that humans transform into a landscape (Troll 2007). When one observes the traces, the material evidence of the human passage through time, one begins to understand the power of culture that is ever so present here in all domains. Eventually, feeling the different traces of the human taming of the environment, we end up detecting a profound sense of history. The Mixteca is a land of contrasts, colors, textures and people who work and play; it is a place where life is at its full, and these elements mark the scenery. As one walks the roads, one appreciates the shades, the sounds, the odors and the tastes of the Mexican countryside that literally overwhelm the senses and inebriate the mind. One jumps from one scene to another and experiences the drama of the enactment of the elements that are mixed with the laughter of the people who – in spite of many adverse circumstances – enjoy life. The different sensations that one obtains on the road form a complex set of components that describe the Mixteca physically, historically and mentally. One feels the weight of history through the visual evidence of humankind’s passage in a rather rough territory. It is this story that is represented in the landscape and if we read it properly we could even get an insight into the ways they managed to construct a complex society. As one treks the countryside and talks to the people about their feelings on the geopark experience, there is a leitmotif that comes on repeatedly. Everyone wonders how the park will change their lives and their economy. They are conscious that tourism is not a simple matter; they have been experiencing it for over decades. Not everybody profits from the flow of cash into the region. It is evident that there will be new opportunities to be developed, but not everyone is prepared to affront them. The grand majority of the local farmers only will get a small amount of fringe benefits, such as the availability of more frequent public transport to certain areas, or the work involved in the maintenance of the roads. Everyone is aware that tourism will not solve the main tribulations of the region, problems like unequal land tenure, prolonged seasonal dryness, or lack of local markets. Youth suffers from the circumstances of the constant changes in modern technology and this affects their life and expectations. Realities like the lack of work opportunities are tough, or the constant urge to migrate to the city, to another state or even abroad. Migration in itself is another leitmotif in everybody’s mind, but its consequences are harsh for the countryside; the community feels the lack of men and young people in general. Still,

The Feeling of Archaeology and the Sense of History in the Mixteca Alta Geopark

149

everybody is confident that some sort of progress will eventually come to these deep country rural areas. The eyes of the nation are placed on the UNESCO Global Geopark (UGG), so everyone thinks that the federal government will make an effort to promote good relations between the local population and the foreign and national visitors to the park. Communications have already begun to get better and the information flow is somehow optimistic regarding the potential investments that will soon materialize. The state and UNAM university officials are due to make conjoint visits and that should facilitate the forthcoming development programs. At this rhythm, we can say that we are witnessing a new historic course of adaptation to the globalization process that makes society advance. 8.2. The park The MAGG is located in northwestern Oaxaca, covering nine municipalities1 on an area of approximately 415.4 km2. The geographical coordinates of the MAGG are 17o 25´ 20´´–17o 39´ 27´´ N, and 97o 11´ 53´´–97o 27´ 40´´ W. It was one of the two parks proposed by Mexico that were officially recognized by UNESCO in 2017 as the first Global Geoparks of that country. Alongside with La Comarca Minera, both were presented on the initiative of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) (Figure 8.1).

Figure 8.1. Location of La Mixteca Alta in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico (adapted from Fig. 1 in Prieto et al. 2016). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

Prieto et al. (2016) affirm that the geopark is characterized by four main geologic formations and deposits that are clearly distinguished in the natural scenery 1 San Andrés Sinaxtla, San Bartolo Soyaltepec, San Juan Teposcolula, San Juan Yucuita, San Pedro Topiltepec, Santa María Chachoapam, Santiago Tillo, Santo Domingo Tonaltepec and Santo Domingo Yanhuitlán (Palacio-Prieto et al. 2016).

150

UNESCO Global Geoparks

by their distinctive colors and textures. We summarize their description for a general overview of the MAGG’s geology: Teposcolula Formation, consisting of cream or dark gray limestones that turn white with weathering […]. The Yanhuitlán Formation overlies the Teposcolula Formation and consists of a succession of thin rhythmic layers with a high content of silt and reddish clay […]. This formation is one of the most significant in the geopark in terms of surface area, and its low consolidation and resulting fragility explain the conspicuous development of the erosive features that predominate and characterize the geopark. The Llano de Lobos Tuff overlies the Yanhuitlán Formation; it consists of a sequence of rhyodacite and andesitic tuffs with conglomerates of a sandy matrix with fragments of limestone […]. The Llano Toba de Lobos Tuff is covered by andesitic flows (Andesita Yucudaac), a trachy-andesite or basalt with enrichment of trachytictexture plagioclase […]. Finally, Quaternary alluvial deposits consist of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt and clay derived from pre-existing rocks (Palacio-Prieto et al. 2016). Thus, the geopark is characterized by these geological formations that give the region a series of different hues of colors and textures. These traits furnish a special beauty to the natural whims of its jagged orography. Palacio-Prieto et al., citing Centeno (2004), define it as the most complex geology of Mexico (idem.). Red mountains prevail in the scenery with touches of orange and purple that mingle with the white strokes of volcanic ash that were deposited thousands of years ago (Figure 8.2).

Figure 8.2. Characteristic view of the Yanhuitlán formation in the MAGG. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

The general geography of the Mixteca Alta is limited by the boundaries of the surrounding mountain ranges: Sierra Madre del Sur and the Sierra Madre Oriental. The interior valleys include the inclined flaks, extensive base plains and different

The Feeling of Archaeology and the Sense of History in the Mixteca Alta Geopark

151

sized hills, crossed by a number of hydrologic features of different volumes and temporalities. A vast range of biotic resources that change with the seasons at different altitudes complements the geodiversity. The geopark has very heterogeneous sets of backdrops that probably reflect the varied landscapes that the people have shaped throughout time, allowing the visitors to experience a panorama of the evolution of nature and the social history of the people that have lived there. The most impressive aspect of the scenery is undoubtedly the widespread exposure of the subsurface materials. Many factors have intervened in the erosion process; along with the heavy seasonal precipitations and intense aeolian episodes, we must add the massive deforestation brought on by humanity since the 17th Century. The transformation of the natural vegetation mantle into grasslands for pasture of different sorts of herds has dramatically loosened the surface and the organic soils have been drained away recurrently. The erosion process has also exposed a great variety of rock formations and other geological features, such as antique volcanic lahars, plutonic/magmatic dykes or andesitic flow intrusions. The erosional-depositional sequences produce chemical and physical weathering processes that affect and differentiate the soils and eventually the land use. Some of these specific differences can be observed in various parts of the region where intensive farming exists on the landscape. It is a fact that the natural vegetation cover reflects the nature of the ground. The alluvial deposits in the base of the valleys are good farmland where corn and grain cultivation are the main features. Plowing has now replaced the traditional Coa stick mode of planting, but in many areas the Cajete system is widely practiced. This is probably a prehispanic method where one digs down with the Coa stick, and eventually a shovel, to place the seeds in a deep level of over 30 cm, where the damp or even wet earth can be found. This is usual where ground humidity is kept by the underlying volcanic ash substratum. We had the chance to see several farmers employ this method effectively (Figure 8.3). They claim that it is a good way to plant and to prepare for the coming rainy season.

Figure 8.3. Traditional Coa digging-stick for manual plowing. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

152

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Ronald Spores states that the Mixteca Alta has geographical distinctions with regard to the relationships among alluvial bottomlands, slopes, hills and mountains, soils, erosion patterns and plant cover, and also claims that the same can be said of its people. There is significant regional variation to relate them to their natural and social environments, and to observe and relate to human groups, communities and regional variation through time (Spores 1972). In many instances, the natural landscape was progressively transformed into fertile agricultural fields. This is typically the case of the agricultural terraces that have been crafted on the inclined flanks, aligned against with the natural curbs of the slopes to act as retainers for the soil and the humidity that flows down with the heavy precipitations that provoke erosion and, at times, landslides. These features appear as long and deep stonewalls that appear along the hillsides. There is another type of terrace that has been grafted into the sloping width of the gullies. These terraces (locally known as lamabordos) retain the flow of water and sediments that come down the crevasses (Figure 8.4).

Figure 8.4. Agricultural terraces, locally known as lamabordos, retain soils and humidity. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

In the wet season many, apparently barren, slopes come back to life and become prodigiously green with vegetation over some very fertile soils. The terraces not only hold the sloping fields in place, but they also restock the water table levels that lay on the hardened volcanic substratum layers. Such terraces have been built all over the world ever since people understood the dynamics of the agricultural cycles, and realized the importance of keeping the brown fertile soils in place. Here, this simple technology has resisted against the heavy winds and torrential rains and helped to change the xerophytic background into opulent gardens.

The Feeling of Archaeology and the Sense of History in the Mixteca Alta Geopark

153

In the gullies, we can often find agricultural plots that have been crafted by strong walls up to 5 m tall (20–30 layers of stone). An ingenious dry masonry technique has fitted different size rocks perfectly, one over another and some are kept in place using wedges, smaller stones. The walls are curved and inclined against the natural slope of the gully, and hold in place large amounts of earth that retain humidity. A succession of three or four of these plots runs down the wide extent of the gully, forming a naturally irrigated succession of plots and gardens. 8.3. The people Efrén Orozco López, a young Mexican anthropologist and philosopher, begins his book with the following paragraph: Mexico is a country that has multiple natural resources that have been at the source of diverse cultures; but it is also a nation with profound social iniquities. The places where we can clearly observe the contrasts of its cultural diversity, the exclusion and the iniquity, are the spaces inhabited by the ancestral indigenous people of our country. Three centuries of European invasion and more than 200 years of internal colonialism have convoluted the environment in which the different ethnic groups of Mexico are situated (Orozco López, Lucha, resistencia y educación, 2017:11 our translation). This passage probably best qualifies the relationship between people and nature in the post-Hispanic Mexican experience. Natural resources have always been associated in different forms with the Mexican people: minerals, oil, cacao, agave, etc. When one meets the Mixtecos in their environment, one can feel how the community is an important component of the milieu. The people are so well integrated into the landscape that one cannot disassociate the modern community from the traditional ways of life that have shaped the features of the habitat. These have been developed and experienced in this territory for thousands of years. This is not only visible in the agricultural activities since the Mixtecos are traditionally gifted craftsmen, talented goldsmiths, excellent potters, ingenious weavers and very aggressive traders. Commerce has left deep traces in the landscape, not only in the architectural structures that reflect past opulent societies, but also in the simple foot trails and causeways that entwine the different regions of the province. Many of these have been adapted and transformed by the Europeans that arrived in the 16th Century. The use of horses and wheeled vehicles demanded broad surfaces and straighter lines, but many of the country roads still follow the ancient paths of distant regions through mountains and meadows of a very complicated geography.

154

UNESCO Global Geoparks

The inhabitants of La Mixteca have a history common to many Mesoamerican cultures2. The first occupants of the territory were probably hunters and gatherers that wandered through the region following game and harvesting seasonal fruits in the moist zones. As the humans learned the process of plant reproduction, they began to settle down in different areas and developed permanent villages based on an agricultural complex. Archaeological studies (Flannery et al. 1976; Robles 1988) describe well the lifeways of the peoples of this part of Mesoamerica during the Formative or Preclassic period (1,500/500 BC). By the beginning of the Common Era (the Classic period), they were part of the Zapotec society that flourished between AD 200 and 900 (Winter 1994), and later they became individually known as the Mixtecs, or Ñuu savi as they still call themselves. They developed a very complex society that probably reached this climax around the year AD 1,000 in the Postclassic period. They thrived in different regional kingdoms until the Nahuas (Aztecs) conquered them around the 12th Century, but their lifeways were not drastically changed; they merely had to pay tribute and accommodate the new rulers. At the time, the Mesoamerican ways of life were widespread, with a highly developed agriculture that was the base of the economy, and with a varied craft production that was marketed through the means of a well-managed system of local and long-distance trade interactions. In the early 16th Century, the Spanish conquered the Aztecs and with them all the related local kingdoms, so the Mixtecs were again under foreign rule, but this time their traditional universe slowly begin to undergo severe changes. Although the Spanish imposed a new religion and new economic patterns, the lifeways of the peasant farmers were not truly altered. For a certain time, the local rulers still claimed obedience in their communities, but progressively the new Spanish system of encomiendas3 began to radically change the rights to the property of the land and the means of production. The local population had to pay different kinds of tributes to the new civil and ecclesiastical authorities. In many ways, the Mixteca was under the protection of the Catholic Church, with the establishment of many Dominican convents and church-owned farmlands.

2 Mesoamerica is a cultural area defined by scholars who studied the pre-Hispanic cultures of a geographical region that extends roughly from Mexico to Costa Rica. 3 Encomienda was an institution established by the Spanish authorities in the newly conquered territories in the Americas, where the crown assigned or granted a determined area and the indigenous people that lived there to a Spaniard, known as the encomendero (the caretaker). The institution established a series of rights and obligations between the grantee and the people under his care. The indigenous people were required to provide tribute and free labor to the grantee, who in turn was responsible for their welfare and their Christianization. The authority given to the encomendero was practically that of a feudal lord.

The Feeling of Archaeology and the Sense of History in the Mixteca Alta Geopark

155

When one observes the landscape, one understands that the history of these people was not stopped in the 16th Century with the arrival of Europeans; rather it evolved and took on new experiences and conditions that brought on greater transformations. To truly understand the meaning and implications of this history, one must interact with the population, and see how they feel about their history, how they see it expressed in their territory and how has it evolved over time. This is even more so when one is dealing with the rural segment that has been more or less marginal to the modern economic development of the region and the country. Today, the region is marked by a low population density and demographic growth. Due to the lack of economic opportunities, emigration to urban areas and abroad is significant and keeps the population in low numbers. The total population is about 7,000 inhabitants (Palacio-Prieto et al. 2016). Our observations aimed to understand the differences between the modern peasants of this part of Oaxaca and the archaeological Mixtecas. We wanted to establish the relationship between humans and nature, within the logic of the geopark and, in order to do that, we first had to try to understand how the people view themselves, what their sense of identity, of history, and of their future is. In short, we had to establish the real link between the population, history and the environment as it is expressed through their deeds and those of their ancestors. The Mixteca is a region that is affected by strong seasonal changes caused by the lack or the excess of humidity. These are the factors that unchain the process of erosion in some heavily sloped terrains. The interest of this study was to examine how the Mixtecas have adapted their lifeways to this specific set of natural constraints. These actions and traits could be termed as the fingerprints of identity, either ethnical or simply cultural, and through them we can see their place and value in the Mixteca Alta Geopark (MAGG). We were interested in the expectations of the population regarding the park project. Did they feel that tourism is a valid venture as an option to their economic constraints? Are they ready to undertake the challenges that go with the exposure of their territory and themselves to the flow of visitors? How will their traditional forms of government react and accept the changes involved? Palacio-Prieto et al. (2016) state that their “political organization is unusual, being based on practices and customs (usos y costumbres); authorities are elected according to local traditions and diverse groups participate in the territorial administration”. The Asamblea General, or the people’s general assembly, takes all the major decisions. The municipal mayor merely enforces the decision of the assembly. The Mixtecos have traditional institutions, such as the tequio, a communal work force that involves the whole community. They also have traditional feasting ceremonies, both civil and religious. Will these be a force or a drawback for the administration of the park with the regulations set by the UNESCO label (MAGG)?

156

UNESCO Global Geoparks

During our wanderings in the Mixteca countryside, we had the opportunity to speak with many people and they gave us a few hints of their identity, their conditions and their expectations of the geopark regarding their present and future. They have high hopes that the park will change their fragile economy and their lives. They are optimistic but they recall the major problems of rural lifestyles. Constant issues were: uncertain seasonal changes, lack of work opportunities that lead to migration and the lack of men or youths in certain places. To a lesser degree, the younger population complains of the poor level of the local education and their preference for certain urban style facilities, modern jobs and the need to meet other kinds of people. Some of their accounts are very illustrative… We met an elderly gentleman called Juan on the road as he was on his way to prepare his fields for the next season. We chatted about his work and the many potsherds one can find on the rocky ground. Those are fragments of the pots of the Gentiles that lived here a long time ago. Every time we turn the earth we find these sherds that our forefathers left as proof that they lived and worked the land in the same manner that we do today. We commented that this region must have been densely populated in the past. He said that the Mixtecas were a great people that had many cities with temples and palaces all through the land. We said but how was this possible, since the conditions for agriculture seem so rough? He replied with a smile, “They worked hard and they controlled vast territories, of course the conditions were better then. Food was abundant and many things came from other places. There were many merchants who had connections with other valleys and with the seacoast. Other people lived there and traded with them.” We asked if there were any palaces or temples near this area, and he mentioned a place called Yucuita that was located on the hills, not very far away. “There, some people have unearthed some ancient walls and stone houses from the times of the Gentiles.” On another occasion, we were admiring the landscape from a hilltop, where some children were playing after school. When they saw us pick things up from the ground, they approached us with curiosity on what had caught our interest. They asked us if we were looking for precious stones or fossils. We showed them the potsherds and chert blades we were admiring, and they laughed and said that those things were worthless, since they are found everywhere. We told them that we were archaeologists and that these were the traces of the people that once lived there many hundreds or thousands of years ago. They all stopped laughing and looked at the sherds with disbelief. One of them said: “Really these things are that old? But how is it possible that they have lasted on the ground for so long?” Another one remarked “I think you are mistaken because these look just like the pottery we have at home, and when they get broken we toss them out into the trash”. One of the children who had been picking up some pottery fragments said, “I think he is right,

The Feeling of Archaeology and the Sense of History in the Mixteca Alta Geopark

157

because these are not really like the ones in my house, they are painted with weird images. These are definitely from the Gentiles that lived here”. All of a sudden their interest was awakened and they all began to pick up stones and sherds, looking for the fancy ones. A boy laughing loudly shouted, “Hey, I have some nice, pretty ones, do you want them... I can sell them to you…”. Somehow they had found new value to the refuse of their ancestors. Isidro Montesinos, aged 60, is a member of the Suchistlán municipal board; he shared some comments about his town after a town meeting. We are very attached to these lands, to our people and to our ancestors. The Mixtecos have roots in this town, even though they may live far away; they are always nostalgic of their homes. Even though some are now living in Mexico City or in the United States, they miss their towns and often come back for the holidays. We just had a meeting regarding some aspects of our town and district. Among other things we talked about the pertinence of the geopark, of its benefits and drawbacks. We all feel that the park will attract tourism, and that should help the economy of the region. Nevertheless, the local infrastructure needs to be worked on to meet the new demands and that should bring new investments. In the reunion, some felt the need of a museum, where we could keep some of the things that the people think that are of interest. The museum could attract visitors, and even researchers of different themes. Not too long ago, two ladies, who were experts in restoring ancient books, came to look at some of the old scrolls and books that we keep in our church. They said that these were important documents that should be properly kept, since they are very old. They said that some of the texts were written in Mixteco, and others in Latin. Apparently these were Graduales, old Gregorian chant hymns from the colonial times. There’s also a map of the region that shows the original boundaries of the community. We feel that these books and maps should be kept and displayed in the museum. We're very interested in the history of our town, for instance our causeways and ancient roads that link the different towns. The old traditional roads that were used by arrieros (mule drivers) still run along the modern highways. Others have been re-used by the modern roads. In the times of governor Chacón, the town chief rebuilt a road from Santiago Tillo that was so straight, it reached Yanhuitlán in no time. There is also the Royal road that goes to

158

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Parián. These were pre-Columbian roads built by our ancestors, though now we have added new directions, such as the YanhuitlánSuschitlan-Eltlatongo. We are very proud of our agricultural terraces, and we are interested in preserving the lamabordos. In ancient times there were no engineers, but the people thought of how they could retain the elements that erosion was taking away. In the fields we always find many ceramic vessel fragments and stones from a long, long time ago. Some of these things we cannot always understand. But they are part of our heritage. 8.4. Archaeology: the marks of history Today, Oaxaca is one of Mexico’s main tourist attractions on account of the relevance of its prehispanic roots that are expressed in all aspects of the modern day culture. The interest in the archaeological heritage is mostly concentrated around the big cities that are visited by travelers. Near Oaxaca city, the archaeological evidence of the pre-Columbian civilizations includes such famous sites as Monte Alban, Mitla or San José el Magote near Etla. Throughout the 20th Century, the government’s policy had been to exploit its glorious past; showing the uniqueness of the Mexican identity as a way of promoting the tourist industry. The local and central governments have made an effort to promote the big centers, but little has been done in the rural areas where the present way of life has not really changed since the Spanish colonial times. Nevertheless, the Mixteca Alta also has many architectural complexes built on hilltops or on the summits of mountains that are renowned for the quality and the intricacy of their layout. The architecture included wellorganized ceremonial centers, with high stone pyramids, large plazas and numerous residential quarters set out with an urban character. Examples of these traits can be seen on the archaeological sites that have been studied in the geopark limits: Cerro Jazmín, Yucuita, Yucunundahui, Cerro Verde, Lomas Ayuxi and Las Conchas. The Mixtecas were truly one of the great cultures of Mesoamerica and their traces can be seen in the MAGG. Their history is reflected in the landscape by the archaeological remains that appear in the soil, as well as in the architectonic remnants that can be seen in various places. The remains of constructions made of stone, volcanic tuff, waddle and dub or adobe are found throughout the geopark. Some constructions are symptomatic of the elite governing populations that held the economic and political power within the region. The construction of pyramids and palaces are characteristic of a certain time, known in Mexican archaeological parlance as the Classic period of the Mixteca (Winter 1994). Others reflect on the post-Hispanic changes that were brought on during colonial and the republican times.

The Feeling of Archaeology and the Sense of History in the Mixteca Alta Geopark

159

As we have said, we came to the Mixteca with a challenge; we wanted to see the place that the archaeological heritage had among the communities that were living within the limits of an area characterized by a rough geographical setting. The prolonged dry seasons are exposed to hot temperatures and strong winds, so it’s only natural that in many areas there is a scarce vegetation cover. The historic process of adaptation started in prehispanic times and culminated with the development of a complex and highly hierarchized society. This was accomplished by transforming the limited natural habitat by reducing the physical mechanics of erosion. In certain areas, drainage ditches were dug to manage the seasonal heavy rains; in others, the slopes were cut horizontally and transversal terraces were formed in the hills transforming the scenery. The observation of the cyclical formation of gullies taught humans the force of gravity, so thought of ways to make the flow of water work in their favor. They built deep stone walls in the gulley slopes that would retain the transported materials and progressively filled the crevices with moist and selected soil deposits. The farmers gained highly productive soils on the agricultural terraces, known locally as camellones or lamabordos (lama = soils, bordos = walls). These methods retained moisture and accumulated rich loams and silts. The environment was thus domesticated. Archaeological work done on some terraces has shown that these were already in use about 3,400 years ago (Leigh et al. 2013, pp. 4107–4111) (Figure 8.5).

Figure 8.5. Agricultural terraces, walls built to contain the flow of humid materials inside the gullies. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

160

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Although these remains are omnipresent on the landscape, some are more evident than others, and the local population knows them by their everyday contact with them. Such is the case of the ceramic and stone remains found frequently in the agricultural toils. The population has a notion of what these things are and whom they belong to through the national education they receive in schools; nevertheless, an important part of the common knowledge comes from the oral tradition that is still channeled by the families within the rural communities. To illustrate how history has impregnated the landscape and what the impact is on the local population, we can mention the case of a town situated on the geopark: San Pedro y San Pablo de Teposcolula. It has several monuments, classed as National Heritage, in a perimeter of 2 km2. When one visits Teposcolula, the most obvious historic monument is located in the town center. It is interesting since it is a magnificent example of the process of human adaptation to the circumstances and to the environment. A Dominican stone church, built in the 16th Century, reflects the Spanish religious architecture of the Renaissance. However, it is exceptional because it has a most peculiar feature, on the exterior, adjacent to the main entrance. Popularly known as the “open chapel”, it is a unique feature that has no counterpart in the Americas. It is an open-air vaulted temple structure constructed to receive the numerous indigenous populations. The experienced work of the Mixteca stonemasons constructed it under the guidelines of the Spanish architects with a mixture of grand gothic and renaissance styles. The Dominicans had it built because it fitted well with the Mixtec tradition of a large ceremonial altar located in an open plaza (Spores 1972). The 600 tons of gray and red stones, from the local quarries, served the Dominicans who wanted to visually impose and sway the population of new converts. The use of the different sorts of stone quarries that are abundant in the region assured the twofold cultural impact: the integration of the Christian faith to the might of the local natural resources. By this massive construction, the friars were imposing the acceptance of the new cult on the traditional beliefs and customs. The modern religious practices are still charged with a flamboyant syncretism that reveals the power of the profound indigenous traditions. The same strategy was used in several other locations such as Yanhuitlán and Coixtlahuaca, where imposing stone churches were also built in the 16th Century. The magnificent temples are still the main attraction of a tourist course called the Dominican Route that was established before the recognition of the MAGG (Figure 8.6). Impressive architecture was a feature that the Mixtecs used to express power and the dignity of political authority. Undoubtedly, the Dominicans adapted these notions when they built their opulent temples and convents (Spores et al. 2009).

The Feeling of Archaeology and the Sense of History in the Mixteca Alta Geopark

161

Figure 8.6. Massive Dominican church architecture built in the 16th Century (Teposcolula and Yanhuitlán). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

The colonial architecture is not limited to the churches; there are many houses in the region that are reminiscent of a bygone era that socially still lingers. These are made of local stone or built with tapial and adobe, which are materials made with mixtures of different sorts of clay, gravel and dry grasses. These constructions have survived earthquakes, political unrest and the passage of time in general. A characteristic of these dry earth materials is the inclusion of prehispanic ceramic sherds that are ever present in the sediments used as construction materials. These old dirt walls are like a history book that contains the traces of the past inhabitants of the land. On a neighboring hilltop, not far away from the town square, rests the old town of Teposcolula, which has a history of over 2,000 years of human occupation. Different sorts of architectural features that include palaces, plazas, temples, residential quarters, causeways, and terraces have transformed the hill, known today by the Mixtec name Yucundaá (Spores et al. 2008). Archaeological research programs have brought light to these ancient monuments and have given a solid explanation to the lifeways of the prehispanic Mixtec chiefdoms and how these changed during the Spanish colonial times. Evidence of the material culture of different time periods has been studied and we now have an account of the cultural development of the original inhabitants. Museums and local collections show the different elements that characterized the Mixtecs and the ways in which they transformed the apparently harsh environment. The architectural layout of the hilltop shows an urban pattern that has a rural counterpart in the surrounding flanks and in the valley. The archaeologists have estimated the population of this Mixtec city at more than 10,000 people (Spores 2009, p. 12) (Figure 8.7). Archaeological research in Yucundaá has revealed many tombs of different times and social status; some show examples of the cultural interbreeding that resulted from the Spanish conquest. The nature and the wealth of the offerings show that the deceased had economic and/or symbolic long distance interactions with several distant regions, including the Pacific coast.

162

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Figure 8.7. Prehispanic Mixtec architectural ruins in MAGG. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

8.4.1. A communal feast A thought-stimulating experience provided us with the evidence that many of the prehispanic traits of the Mixteca society are still deeply embedded in the present communities that inhabit the geopark. We had the opportunity to witness a mise en scène that clearly portrays the residents as the living element of this historic region. The memory of the Mixtecs was reenacted in a spontaneous manifestation of their identity and their heritage. We participated in a popular feast held in honor of San Isidro Labrador (Saint Isidore the Laborer) in the municipality of Santo Domingo de Tonaltepec. The semireligious feast was doubled with the community festival of the indigenous agricultural seeds that were soon to be planted. It was also a celebration for the local potters that exhibited their traditional craft. Several authorities of the neighboring municipalities were invited, and an exceptional tribute was paid to some special guests who were honored at the festivity, among them was Ronald Spores. As usual, the event included local band music, plenty of local gastronomic specialties and all sorts of beverages. These are part of the traditional ritual. While the ceremonies took place, we could not help but wonder if what we were witnessing was something that has been common in the Mixteca over thousands of

The Feeling of Archaeology and the Sense of History in the Mixteca Alta Geopark

163

years. The different parts of the ceremonies and the traditional sequence of events was what sparked our suspicions and we began to take note of the different elements that were involved in the festivity. To begin with, a special table was set for the invited personalities and several speeches were made to honor their presence and work. While the speeches were being made, two men mingled among the guests with a large ceramic jar and several terracotta mugs. They were welcoming the participants by serving them with the traditional tepache (a slightly fermented drink made of maize and herbs). The procedure was carried out with a natural sense of hospitality, and each guest showed their recognition and good humor. The local mayor spoke and underlined the importance of maintaining the use of the indigenous seeds of the different foods that are regularly produced and consumed in the region. Evidently, maize was the staple that was honored, since it was domesticated and consumed during many thousands of years in this part of the Americas. The nutritional value and the cultural importance that maize and beans have for the Mixteca is undeniable. So it is natural that the community felt the need to protect the sources of their traditional foods from the global actions of certain international companies that, through hybridization of the seeds, force the peasants to purchase their products. In many instances, the new varieties have started to eliminate the use of the traditional self-produced kernels. The same speaker proceeded to exalt the different traditional crafts that have been practiced in Tonaltepec. He clearly underlined the importance of the potters, since this craft has been the hallmark of the community for hundreds of years. A special showcase was placed in the town square to house a large variety of the functional earthenwares that are produced by the community (Figure 8.8).

Figure 8.8. Modern Mixtec pottery exhibited at the festivities of a patron saint in Tonaltepec. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

164

UNESCO Global Geoparks

After the speech, all were invited to the community banquet that was served in the town hall. The logistics were substantial, large tables had been prepared, and at the entrance, a special place had been arranged to serve as a sort altar for the patron saint. Around the holy statue, there were candles, flowers and a dish specially adorned to receive cash offerings. Behind the altar, several banners were placed, marking the presence of the neighboring municipalities, each with the holy image of their own patron saints. As one entered the hall, one had to pay his/her respects in front of the altar, and then proceed to take an assigned place at the table. The ritual gestures were very personal and some people took a longer time venerating the sacred images. The public came in and participated in the ceremonial feasting, eating and drinking. Different sorts of maize tortillas, poultry and meat in mole sauce were generously served with continuous rounds of tepache, beer and refreshments. Last but not least came a round of mezcal, the most popular Mexican strong alcohol, distilled locally from agave. In a special place in the central square, sports competitions were in full swing, recalling the importance of the traditional Mixteca ball game (Pelota Mixteca – Mixteca-style ball), a tradition from pre-Columbian times. Another part of the ritual was the religious service held at a shrine that had been specially built for the occasion on a nearby hill. The festivity was now well underway with music and singing in different parts of the large square. People cheered and gaiety filled the grounds; after a short while some couples began to dance, although the official ball was to be held later that night. Throughout the whole experience, we had the feeling of witnessing an ancestral communal ceremony. In the mind of an archaeologist, the feast that we had witnessed seemed very similar to the festivities that would leave the material traces we often find in the ceremonial centers we study. The space was organized in a rather rectangular layout, with a special place for the authorities, and a large communal area, around which many people were gathered for different activities. Although apparently informal, the protocol of the festivity was followed and the different stages of the event were played in a natural order. The food and beverages that were served throughout the banquet were mostly composed of the traditional pre-Columbian staples: maize, beans, gourds, amaranth, etc. The ceramic wares that were used in the event were fairly common functional dishes, bowls, pitchers, jugs, bowls and saucers, all made from the local clays. The honored guests had the use of special wares, but the food and drink were the same for everyone that took part of the banquet. Many of the women were dressed in traditional Mixtec attire, but most people simply wore casual country style clothes. All in all, the events we had participated in had many material resemblances to the proceeding of the multistaged protocol that was reported by the early chronicles

The Feeling of Archaeology and the Sense of History in the Mixteca Alta Geopark

165

of the indigenous Mexican people. We literally had the feeling of having been transported to another time, and the archaeologist had a full perception of the events that gave a profound sense of the social history of the Mixteca. 8.5. Conclusion At the end of our sojourn in the Mixteca Alta, we were amazed by the lessons we had learned about the Mixtecs through the observation of the transformed natural landscape and through the interaction with the population. Our wanderings took us from the privileged positions where we met the authorities, the geopark staff, the hotel managers and the local tradesmen, to the deep Mixteca country where the peasant farmers toiled the earth, and found the roots of their identity in their everyday chores. We witnessed that the adaptation process continues to the present day, the traditional techniques are still being used and agriculture is still the main activity of the local population. The peasants are proud to exhibit the inherited technical traits and in spite of their apparent marginality, the countryside is very active economically and culturally. The territory, with its natural regions and features, has been transformed to suit human needs. There are several points of convergence in the landscape that act as a showcase of the identity and the cultural heritage that the community has and is continuously producing at the present time. Heritage includes the natural scenery, the cultural landscapes, all natural and cultural resources, and the intangible traditions, customs, beliefs and memories of the community. The cultural heritage shows how people have adapted and transformed the environment in the process of satisfying their multiple necessities. In short, we have all the elements that Jadé describes as constituents of the immaterial heritage concept (2006). The MAGG displays this as an open exhibition of its people, immersed in their historical environment, through their actions and their traditions. The attentive visitor will be aware of the human characteristics that distinguish this particular geopark. The interest of the local population is naturally aroused by the possibility of achieving an economic gain for the community through the potential employment of its members and the possible financial impact of tourism in the region. One aim of the geopark is of course to achieve the sustainable development of the people and their territory. The park project combines the protection of geo and cultural heritage, with a visual education aspect that can be both attractive and sustainable through an original, worldwide network of exchange and cooperation. Following the conception of an ecomuseum presented by Canavese et al. (2018, p. 44) and other authors, such as Hugues de Varinne (2017), we feel that the MAGG has been conceived and acts as a sort of substantial ecomuseum. It appears as the

166

UNESCO Global Geoparks

fruit of a bottom-up process through which the community shows itself in its natural environment. The geology and the geography of the region are the scene of a history of human adaptation in order to produce and exploit a great number of natural and cultural resources. In this process, the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México has played a key role in preparing the local community for the proper development of the geopark concept and the formation of a proper staff. In this order of ideas, the geopark associates the community with identification and recognition of the living heritage of the territory. Through the proper training of certain members, they take part in all the aspects and stages of heritage management. The preparation was vital since the local staff members did not have any previous formal training in geology or heritage matters. In such a case, the MAGG can be considered as a sort of ecomuseum where history makes sense and the archaeological past is revived through the sensations we feel as we witness a new adaptation process to the apparent harsh environment of the 21st Century. 8.6. References Canavese, G., Gianottiand, F., de Varine, H. (2018). Ecomuseums and geosite community and project building. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks (IJGP), 6(1), 43–61. Centeno-Garcia, E. (2004). Configuración geológica del estado. In Biodiversidad de Oaxaca, García Mendoza, A.J., Ordoñez, M.J., Briones-Salas, M. (eds). Instituto de Biología, UNAM-Fondo Oaxaqueño para la Conservación de la Naturaleza. World Wildlife Fund, Mexico, 29–42. Flannery, K. (ed.) (1976). The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, New York. Jadé, M. (2006). Patrimoine Immatériel. Perspectives d’interprétation du concept de patrimoine. L’Hartmattan, Paris. Leigh, D.S., Kowalewski, S.A., Holdridge, G. (2013). 3400 years of agricultural engineering in Mesoamerica: Lama-Bordos of the Mixteca Alta, Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 4107–4111. Orozco López, E. (2017). Lucha, resistencia y educación. Una experiencia organizativa del pueblo Tsotsil en el sureste mexicano. Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas, Centro de Estudios Superiores de México y Centro América, Editorial Itaca, Mexico. Palacio-Prieto, J.L., Rosado-González, E., Ramírez-Miguel, X., Oropeza-Orozco, O., CramHeydrich, S., Ortiz-Pérez, M.A., Figueroa Mah Eng, J.-M., Fernández de Casto-Martínez, G. (2016). Erosion, culture and geoheritage; the case of Santo Domingo Yanhuitlán, Oaxaca, México. Geoheritage, 8(4), 359–369. Robles García, N.M., (1988). Las unidades domesticas del Preclásico superior en la Mixteca Alta. BAR, Oxford.

The Feeling of Archaeology and the Sense of History in the Mixteca Alta Geopark

167

Spores, R. (1972). An Archaeological Settlement Survey of the Nochixtlan Valley, Oaxaca. Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Spores, R. (2009). Yucundaa. Pueblo Viejo de Teposcolula. FAHHO, INAH, MSPySP de Teposscolula, NGS, Oaxaca. Spores, R., Robles García, N.M., Diego Luna, L., Tenorio, J.L., Roldán, L., Matsubara, N. (2008). Investigaciones arqueológicas en Yucundaa. Pueblo Viejo de Teposcolula, Oaxaca. Arqueologia, 37, 155–173. Troll, C. (2007). The geographic landscape and its investigation. In Foundation Papers in Landscape Ecology, Wiens, J.A., Moss, M.R., Turner, M.G., Mladenoff, D.J. (eds). Columbia University Press, New York, 71–101. de Varine, H. (2017). L’écomusée, singulier et pluriel. L'Harmattan, Paris. Winter, M. (1994). The Mixteca prior to the Late Postclasic. In Mixteca-Puebla. Discoveries and Research in Mesoamerican Art and Archaeology, Nicholson, H.B., Quiñones, E. (eds). Labyrinthos, Culver City, 201–221.

9 One of the First Rock Art Sites Discovered and Now Protected in Morocco: the Case of Azrou Iklane (Assa Region, Morocco)

9.1. Introduction: presentation of the site and scientific interest In southwest Morocco, between Guelmim and the Draa Valley, the Azrou Iklane slab is located at the bottom of a dry wadi called Elmatboâa. In a structural relief, this oroclinal wadi cuts a possible anticlinal fold and unfolds its course (in fact a gorge of reduced extension) between two scales of silicified sandstone that outcrops in this region. As part of a flush scale, the brown quartzite sandstone slab is 140 m long and 20 m wide, covering an area of 2,800 m2 and covered with several thousand engravings from recent prehistory to the present day (Figure 9.1). And this is why it is given the name pierre tatouée, the “tattooed stone” (Azrou Iklane). The site is almost 1 km long with a continuity of several concentrations of engravings. The main concentration is the subject of the study presented here. Indeed, some sporadic stations were recorded in and around the wadi bed. Numerous concentrations of engravings, mainly from the Libyco-Amazigh phase, have been found on the rock outcrops of the mountain facing the site. The slab flush with the wadi, nevertheless, represents the area of greatest concentration of engravings and superimposition of all the chronological and cultural styles known in the region.

Chapter written by Gwenola GRAFF, Maxence BAILLY, Abdelhadi EWAGUE and Martin LOYER. The work presented in this chapter is part of the Geopark H2020 program and was partially funded by the European Union’s Research and Innovation Program Horizon 2020 under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 644015.

UNESCO Global Geoparks: Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement First Edition. Edited by Yves Girault. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

170

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Figure 9.1. General view from the west of the slab decorated in the wadi bed (source: author). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

In 1974, a Cultural Heritage Inventory Center was created in Morocco (le Centre d’inventaire du patrimoine culturel), which carried out an inventory of rocky sites in the south of the country. The site we studied was already part of it and has the number: 150 220 Azrou Iklane (Taïdalt). This administrative structure has been part of the Directorate of Cultural Heritage since 1988. The Centre national du patrimoine rupestre, a national center for rock art heritage, which was one of our main scientific partners for this project, was established in 1994 and located in Agadir. Three main levels of engravings can be observed on the Azrou Iklane site. The only rock style known in southern Morocco and not present in Azrou Iklane is the oldest of all, called the “Tazina” style. It seems that the oldest engravings on the site, in the so-called “bovine” style, difficult to distinguish because of their complete patina and the superposition of motifs, have gone completely unnoticed until now. Most of them were covered by alluvial deposits at the bottom of the slab. It turns out that we are in the presence of a particularly rich and original ensemble for this stylistic phase. The engravings of the “bovine” phase are 437 in number, which represents a numerically important set for this group. Only medieval engravings had attracted attention so far. They are to be linked to the Libyco-Berber style, also called Libyco-Amazigh. There are 2,292 engravings of the Libyan-Amazigh phase. It is also at this phase that the inscription mentioned below must be linked. Finally, post-medieval (1,720) and contemporary (4,794 in total) engravings are superimposed on the older ones. Some new engravings appeared on the slab between two survey campaigns. The site is therefore still alive and the practice continues.

One of the First Rock Art Sites Discovered and Now Protected in Morocco

171

The different phases of engraving, which correspond to different chronological and cultural phases, are distinguished from each other both by their technique and their themes: – the ancient phase, known as the “bovine” phase, is characterized by the predominance and diversity of images of bovines. This animal has undoubtedly played an important role in the economy and beliefs of the populations of these places. The engravings of this phase are sometimes accompanied by animals of the African megafauna, such as rhinos, but also antelopes. Representations of throwing weapons (Metgourine axes) are frequently found. Human representation is very rare. Only one human figure is known on the Azrou Iklane slab, which belongs to this ancient phase of the site’s occupation; – a second phase is made up of Libyco-amazigh inscriptions; – a third phase corresponds approximately to the European Middle Ages, with armed riders or infantrymen who fight each other or hunt lions and ostriches; – more recent phases include for example a so-called privateer ship used from the 16th to 18th Century, a bride in a palanquin perched on a camel, or Land Rover pick-up trucks a few decades old. Anthroponyms or quotations from the Koran in Arabic are also common. The patina of the engravings also evolves: the oldest incisions, exposed to light for longer, are darker than the recent ones, which can be seen as white notches on the surface of the very dark slab. 9.2. Contemporary situation of the site The site is located in a pastoral area between the Arabic-speaking tribe of Aït Oussa and the Berber-speaking tribe of Aït Brahim. During the summer, the slab is still a place for camping and the annual meeting of the fractions of the Sahrawi tribe of the Aït Oussa. A nomadic family’s camp is usually set up in the spring on the raised terraces along the slab on either side of the wadi. The chosen location, sheltered from the wind, possible flooding but flat enough to install a large tent, is reused every year. The children or young girls of the family, escorted by dogs, take their herds of goats and sheep either to the upper part of the wadi or to the slopes of Mount Taskala, on the other side of the wadi, crossing the decorated slab. The repeated passage of the hooves of animals hammering the engravings is one of the main anthropogenic risks that threaten the site. The oldest member of the family, over 90 years old, says he saw children carving their footprints into it while he was a shepherd himself. When questioned during ethnographic interviews, he gave a global interpretation of the engravings, both recent and old, in which the notions of ownership of herds and territories occupy the largest part.

172

UNESCO Global Geoparks

The nomadic populations living around the site, such as those encountered in the surrounding villages, gave a warm welcome to the archaeological team and willingly lent themselves to ethnographic surveys. They were very curious to understand the reasons for the interest of scientists from so far away in this site that is so familiar to them and proud to see that their culture and heritage were being addressed. Very good neighborly relations have been established over the years between the team set up in bivouacs above the slab and the families under the tent in the surrounding area. The team was able to appreciate how much the tradition of nomadic hospitality is still alive. 9.3. History of searches on the site The Azrou Iklane site has been known for a long time. It may be one of the first reported in Morocco (Rodrigue 2007, p. 93). It was first mentioned by Rabbi Mardochée Aby Serour in 1875. It is he who gives his name to the site (Duveyrier 1875). Some publications mention it (Monteil 1940; Mauny 1954). However, it has never been the subject of a complete study. Only medieval engravings, especially the one considered as a sailboat (Martinet 1996), and anthropomorphic figures (Rodrigue 2007) attracted attention. An alphabetical Libyco-berber inscription is also inventoried and mentioned on the Libyco-Berber Inscriptions Online Database1. Most people interested in Moroccan rock art know and have visited the Azrou Iklane site. The first of them were French amateurs who, intrigued by these graphic practices, initiated their study during the time of the French protectorate. They went individually to the site, where they probably spent only a few hours during regional tours. Although known to all these pioneers and current Moroccan researchers, no collective project to study this site had been set up and no systematic and complete study envisaged. 9.4. Work of the French team and interest from local authorities From the end of 2011, a collective project was developed and implemented by three researchers from the Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD), namely Laurent Auclair (geographer), Romain Simenel (anthropologist) and Gwenola Graff (archaeologist) (Graff et al. 2014). The initial idea was to combine the approaches and contributions of three disciplines of the human and social sciences to better understand certain aspects of pre-Saharan rock art. 1 www.institutum-canarium.org/lbi-project/index.php.

One of the First Rock Art Sites Discovered and Now Protected in Morocco

173

The objective of the work on this site is to record it in an exhaustive manner, taking into account all the phases of its use, including the most recent ones in which archaeology is not usually interested, with the help of ethnologists. It was thus possible to record 9,243 engravings, all periods combined. As the conditions of access to the site are difficult, a reflection is carried out and an adapted methodology is developed, which aims to enhance this site in spite of its isolation using innovative digital technologies. In November 2012, a prospecting mission was carried out in the Guelmim region by a team composed of French researchers from the IRD, Moroccan researchers from Cadi Ayyad University in Marrakech and the National Institute of Heritage Sciences and Archaeology in Rabat. It led to the choice of the Azrou Iklane site for joint and multidisciplinary work. The archaeological team was led by Gwenola Graff, while Romain Simenel was in charge of the ethnological component (Graff et al. 2016). The study and registration of the slab required four field campaigns in April 2013, March 2014, November 2015 and April 2017. Various scientific and technical members of UMR 208 Paloc (IRD-MNHN), UMR 7269 LAMPEA (Aix-Marseille University and CNRS) and the Centre national du patrimoine rupestre d’Agadir in Agadir formed the team. They were assisted by a freelance photographer, approved by the Monuments Historiques, M. Loyer. The project was supervised and supported by the Moroccan Directorate of Cultural Heritage, under the Ministry of Culture. At each mission, an archaeologist from the Center in Agadir, chosen by its Director, Mr. Ahmed Oumouss, represented their institution among the members of the mission and acted as a liaison with both local administrations and the population (Figure 9.2). Scientific and institutional collaboration has thus been established between the DPC and the IRD, which has resulted in a research agreement2.

2 These missions were made possible by the funding obtained within the framework of the SOCMED call for projects “Sociétés en Méditerranée”, the ECCOREV Research Federation, the call for tenders for the launch of projects at the Aix-Marseille University ATRI, as well as the contributions from the equity of LMI Mediter (IRD-University of Rabat), UMR 7269 LAMPEA (Aix-Marseille University) and UMR 208 PALOC (IRD-MNHN) and UMR 151 LPED (Aix-Marseille University-IRD). Since November 2015, partial responsibility for the missions has been taken over by the ERC via the Geopark project, led by the MNHN of Paris. The Assa Provincial Council also generously contributed by taking charge of the 2017 bivouac campaign. The logistical resources of the IRD representation in Morocco and the LMI Mediter were requested for these missions. The mission and the project have benefited greatly from the constant support and assistance of the Moroccan Cultural Heritage Directorate, in particular thanks to the close follow-up of its director, Mr A. Alawi.

174

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Figure 9.2. Team from the last field campaign in April 2017. Present are the heritage curator of the Assa-Zag region, the director of the CNPR and the Inspector of Historical Monuments (source: author)

From the archaeological point of view, the objective of these campaigns was the complete recording of the slab decoration, all stylistic phases combined, their characterization and, as far as possible, their interpretation. The methods usually used in such cases in recent image archaeology work have been implemented. The presence of local populations in the vicinity of the site had no impact on the methodology used, except that the members of the team with the linguistic ability to do so took the time to explain to our neighbors what we were doing. 9.5. Rock art, a source of regional enhancement, and the dynamics of the integration of rock art into Moroccan heritage The southern provinces are the subject of a strong development impulse initiated and financed by the central government. Indeed, the latter is looking for local economic development opportunities for these isolated regions, which have not been the subject of large-scale tourism development until now. An awareness of the potential of these regions for ecotourism and cultural tourism leads to a reconsideration of the resources of these highly preserved areas, while respecting

One of the First Rock Art Sites Discovered and Now Protected in Morocco

175

their identity and contributing to their aspiration to recognize their cultural particularities. In parallel, the country’s scientific stakeholders have expressed the need to complete the inventory of archaeological sites and develop a systematic mapping service for cultural and archaeological sites. Inscription on the national heritage list is one of the levers made available by existing bodies to combat the looting and degradation of this cultural wealth, which is also an economic resource. An educational component is also included in this project to raise awareness among the younger generations of their heritage and to train the scientists and cultural development actors needed to ensure the sustainability of the project. It is in this context that a study day on rocky sites in the southern provinces was held in March 2017 in Guelmim. This meeting followed a previous meeting held in 2014. The National Council for Human Rights of Morocco participated in this demonstration. Measures to identify and inventory rocky sites were recommended during the day and their implementation is the subject of investments by both the Ministry of Culture and the Agency for Economic and Social Development of the Southern Provinces, as well as by the Cherifian Office of Phosphates. The implementation of this rehabilitation is entrusted to local actors in the provinces concerned, supported by local delegations of national authorities, under the authority of the wali and provincial governors. In May 2017, the first national meeting on rock art was held in Agadir. During two days, scientific communications followed one another to make an inventory and present the new site discoveries. This scientific meeting was organized by the National Center for Rock Art Heritage, in partnership with the Souss Massa Center for Cultural Development, the National Forum of Saharan Youth and the Center for Research and Studies on the Moroccan Space with the financial support of the Ministry of Culture, the National Council for Human Rights and the Regional Council of Souss Massa, as well as with the contribution of several local associations for the preservation of rock art. Invited by the Directorate of Cultural Heritage to participate in this event, the first author of this article presented the results of the work in Azrou Iklane to all her Moroccan colleagues. This meeting was also an opportunity to begin the development of a national database of the most important rock sites. Reflection workshops focused on the conservation measures to be taken to preserve rock heritage when it is in danger, including vandalism and illicit excavations (Figure 9.3).

176

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Figure 9.3. Presentation of the site by G. Graff to the Secretary General of the Provincial Council of the Assa-Zag region accompanied by the district caïd and the Historic Monuments Inspector, April 2017 (source: author)

9.6. The World Heritage nomination process for the Tighmert Oasis and its surroundings Continuing this momentum, a project to inscribe the Tighmert Oasis and its surroundings on the World Heritage List was submitted in July 2016 by the Permanent Delegation of the Kingdom of Morocco to UNESCO. The Tighmert oasis chain is a series of palm groves, belonging to the rural commune of Asrir, 12 km south-east of Guelmim, or 200 km south of Agadir. The abundance of archaeological remains scattered in and around the palm groves requires the application of protective laws against companies looting the remains, and threats induced by certain dramatic climatic episodes, hence the urgency of its classification. Aware of the problem, the team of multidisciplinary Saharan studies (équipe des études sahariennes pluridisciplinaires [EESP]), from the Institut universitaire de la recherché scientifique (IURS), Mohamed V University, Rabat, developed a strategy and an action plan, following which a plan for the protection of the Tighmert oasis chain was submitted to the Development Agency of the Southern Provinces, Rabat, and finally to the Ministry of Culture.

One of the First Rock Art Sites Discovered and Now Protected in Morocco

177

The Azrou Iklane site is part of the scope for which this listing is requested and our team has contributed to providing information for the preparation of the file. We have thus carried out a topographical demarcation of the area to be protected, accompanied by a survey, and returned a text presenting the site and its scientific interests. The work we have carried out on this site has thus naturally taken place within a local movement, led by local cultural associations, to highlight the heritage of this region, which has also been economically affected. In addition to a local identity interest in their heritage, local development stakeholders expect economic benefits from these measures through tourism development. We should mention that there is already a geopark3 that encompasses the Djbel Bani and Anti-Atlas massifs, including the Tighmert oasis (but not the Azrou Iklane site). 9.7. Contribution of recent work to the preservation of remote and fragile archaeological sites At the Agadir symposium, the Director of Cultural Heritage at the Ministry of Culture and Communication, Abdellah Alaoui, recommended that the country’s main rock art sites be included in the national heritage register. Five applications have recently been submitted to the Ministry of Culture and Communication to join the list of national heritage. This project is being carried out under the supervision of the Regional Inspectorate of Historic Monuments and Sites of the Guelmim-Oued Noun Region, under the Ministry of Culture and Communication at the request of the municipalities whose territories host these sites. This initiative is part of the integrated development program of the southern provinces. Once the sites were listed, a file for each site was compiled, including the complete inventory, a topographical study, a detailed technical sheet and a brief history. These files were then submitted to the Ministry of Culture. The Azrou Iklane site was one of the sites concerned. To contribute to the preparation of the files, at the request of Mohammed Hammou, heritage curator of the Assa-Zag region and responsible for putting together the file, our team carried out a delimitation and a topographical survey of the area to be preserved. The mission’s topographer also carried out some topographic transects of the wadi profile and delivered a version of the digital terrain model (DTM) adapted to the requirements of the file. 3 The address of this geopark’s website is: http://ecotourisme.geoparcjbelbani.com/.

178

UNESCO Global Geoparks

The Azrou Iklane site was thus inscribed on the national heritage list in 2017. As a result, the Ministry of Culture, under Act No. 22-80 regulating the protection and management of cultural heritage, will undertake a series of long-term actions for the preservation and conservation of such sites. The Ministry, through its regional offices, is also responsible for setting up a guard to monitor the listed sites. It is therefore planned that a permanent dwelling will be built near the site, which will house the guard responsible for looking after the site. It will most likely be the father of the family who was camping around the slab when we were working there who will be promoted to site guardian. For him, it is both a modest but fixed salary that will help him to support his family and a recognition of his interest in the site and the interest and curiosity he has shown during our campaigns. The team received the support of the local authorities to whom it presented its results twice, at the Moussem de la Zaouia in Assa in December 2016 and at the Assa-Zag Provincial Council in May 2017. We were also able to note the interest of the general public to whom information was relayed by the television press (two television teams, one regional and one national, came to the site to interview us and present our work, as well as various echoes in the written press and on electronic blogs4). It is therefore a great satisfaction for the Franco-Moroccan scientific team, after 4 years of work on this remarkable site, the Azrou Iklane slab, to have not only contributed to the knowledge and study of this site but also contributed to its protection and to the awareness of local authorities of the wealth of their heritage. The third part of the results of our work concerns training and scientific development on which we are currently working with the preparation of a collective book reporting on our work as well as a project for a traveling exhibition that would make it possible to introduce the general public, both in Morocco and France, to this major site of Moroccan rock art. 9.8. References Duveyrier, H. (1875). De Mogador au Djebel Tabayoudt, par le rabbin Mardochée Abi Serour, résumé du journal de voyage. Bull. Soc. Géog., 6, 561–573. Graff, G., Auclair, L., Lemjidi, A., Ewague, A., Simenel, R. (2014). Paysages graves: Approche comparée de l’art rupestre au sud de la Méditerranée (Égypte/Maroc). In L’archéologie pour le développement, Galipaud, J.-C., Guillaud, D. (eds). Éditions La Discussion, Marseille, 47–56.

4 For example: www.leconomiste.com/article/1028600-guelmim-oued-noun-veut-classer-sonpatrimoine-archeologique.

One of the First Rock Art Sites Discovered and Now Protected in Morocco

179

Graff, G., Kelany, A., Bailly, M. (2015). Prospections dans le secteur Est du Wadi Abu Subeira: premiers résultats et perspectives. In From the Delta to the Cataract. Studies dedicated to Mohamed el-Bialy, Jimenez-Serrano, A., Pilgrim, C. (eds). Brill, Leyde, 48–63. Graff, G., Simenel, R., Bailly, M. (2016). La longue durée de l’art rupestre au Sahara, questions et enjeux: l’exemple d’Azrou Klane (Sud Maroc, région de Guelmin). Les Chroniques de PréhMed [Online]. Available: https://pm.hypotheses.org/414. Martinet, J. (1996). Le voilier du site d’Azrou Klane (« La pierre tatouée ») (Sud marocain). Bulletin de la société d’études et de recherches préhistoriques les Eyzies, 45, 83–97. Mauny, R. (1954). Gravures, peintures et inscriptions rupestres de l'Ouest africain. IFAN, Dakar. Monteil, V. (1940). Les pierres tatouées du Sud-Ouest marocain. Revues d’études islamiques, I, 1–26. Nami, M. (2005). Art rupestre marocain: styles, techniques et chronologie. In Hunters vs. Pastoralists in the Sahara: Material, Culture and Symbolic Aspects, Barich, B.E., Tillet, T., Striedter, K.H. (eds). BAR Publishing, Oxford. Rodrigue, A. (2007). Les représentations anthropomorphes d’Azrou Klane (Maroc). Bulletin de la société d’études et de recherches préhistoriques, les Eyzies, 56, 92–98. Simoneau, A. (1975). Documents rupestres du Sud marocain. Bulletino del Centro Camuno Distudio Preistorio, 12. Simoneau, A. (1977). Catalogue des sites rupestres du Sud marocain. Ministère d’État chargé des Affaires culturelles, Rabat.

PART 3

Geotourism and Education

UNESCO Global Geoparks: Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement First Edition. Edited by Yves Girault. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

10 Visualizing the Heritage of the Zat Valley Through a Virtual Museum

10.1. Introduction In a world where globalization has brought people closer together, computers have become a part of our daily lives since most of the world’s population has Internet access via a mobile phone or computer. With the emergence of these new information tools in the 21st Century, multimedia use has become increasingly common in homes; cultural and scientific institutions are adapting and developing new tools for creating and delivering online applications. Access to collections is gradually taking the form of databases that move from online files to virtual exhibitions (Schweibenz 2004). Online searchable database growth will require the implementation of a storage and query system capable of managing multiple databases in a simple and flexible way, involving metadata use and integration. As a result, the virtual museum has now become a kind of innovation when we speak of the museology concept, since the heritage rationales of modern museums are gradually converging toward a common concern through which we will be able to find ways to open the collections to as large and varied audiences as possible. In other words, the virtual museum tends toward a wide dissemination of heritage collections and sites, thus allowing access to cultural, archaeological, biological and geomorphological properties. In this context, we will try to show the importance of the dissemination and enhancement of heritage through the case of the Geopark

Chapter written by Élisabeth HABERT and Ali AOUDA. The work presented in this chapter is part of the Geopark H2020 program and was funded by the European Union’s Research and Innovation Program Horizon 2020 under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 644015.

184

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Virtual Museum of the Zat Valley, and we will explain our choices and methodology for the establishment of a virtual museum for a wide audience. 10.2. From GIS to the virtual museum Nowadays, most of the digital data produced contain a spatial reference; Mericskay et al. (2018, p. 5) refer to almost systematic spatial indexing. Also, geomatics approaches integrating spatial remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) are often a central element in the implementation of land use planning projects. These applications generally form the basis of multi-stakeholder approaches by involving the various public and private partners involved in the development plan. The implementation of a tourism project, whether international, local or regional, requires the use of the territory and therefore geo-referenced, spatialized and cartographic databases (Gadal 2010, p. 3). Describing, analyzing and representing the territory on which a tourism project will be implemented, having tools to assist in planning and decision-making, are essential to program development as a means of promoting results to institutions, policies and the public. The development, deployment and implementation of GIS and its visualization tools require competent and qualified personnel. 10.2.1. Constructing a coherent and readable approach to the territory Following the researchers’ field missions associated with the project, the diversity of the survey and analysis work quickly revealed the need for a coherent archiving of the collected data in order to ensure its sustainability and restitution, and also to produce the multidisciplinary analyses that the program requires. The cartographic material at our disposal, IGN maps on a 1:50,000 scale, satellite imagery, population censuses, faunistic and floristic inventories and geological missions naturally required us to set up a geolocated database. A tool for heritage management and protection at the disposal of the Moroccan partner for territorial governance, GIS, was developed using the ArcGis software. Beyond the spatial analysis capabilities, the application has enabled us to generate thematic maps and illustrations necessary to advance the program. The maps produced may also be used to compile a file for a UNESCO classification request. In the medium term, objects at different spatial and temporal scales may be added to the GIS in order to ensure possible tourism and environmental monitoring of the territory.

Visualizing the Heritage of the Zat Valley Through a Virtual Museum

185

Difficult to access by the general public due to its complexity, GIS remains a tool used by professionals. How can discourse on the territory be started from geolocated data? 10.2.2. The virtual museum: a virtual reality or an imaginary space? Since the emergence of the virtual museum concept, researchers have not been able to agree on a precise concept definition since it is constantly changing: the ENSIBB1 has simply defined it as a digital exhibition created and distributed on the Internet; Andrews and Schweibenz have defined it as a collection of digitized objects logically articulated and composed of various supports which, by its connectivity and multiaccess nature, makes it possible to transcend traditional modes of communication and interaction with the visitor. The fact that there is no real place or space does not prevent objects and information from being distributed all over the world (Schweibenz 2004). These two definitions remain incomplete insofar as they do not make it possible to distinguish the virtual museum from digital museums such as the educational museum. Other approaches consider the virtual museum as an exhibition that offers an original collection, establishing links with various digitized museum collections or with collections of digital works or websites (Welger-Barboza 2001, p. 145). The virtual museum then remains the synonym for several terms such as digital museum, cyber museum, online museum, electronic museum or smart museum, but whatever the term used, the extension of this type of museum on the Internet takes different forms and classifications (Table 10.1) (Elmalah 2015, pp. 4–5).

Virtual museum created according to objectives

Simulation museum

Creates the same experience as the traditional museum without adding any new information.

Information museum

Complements the traditional museum since it provides information that is not available in the museum.

Electronic museum

Contains elements of the traditional museum, but remains independent through the elements made available only through the Internet.

1 École nationale supérieure des sciences de l'information et des bibliothèques (National Superior School of Information Science and Libraries).

186

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Virtual museum created according to the degree of realism

Extreme reality museum

Shows the details and complexity of the traditional museum environment. The designer emphasizes the interaction of visitors within this environment.

Selective facts museum

Simplified representations of certain aspects and characteristics chosen from a traditional environment but treated with a very high degree of realism.

Abstract museum

The designer modifies and processes reality in a way that will allow visitors to understand it.

Web museum (Le Roux 2013)

General and varied information that facilitates access to the traditional museum and helps to identify its most important collections.

Digital museum

Offers complete online museum services and experiences and contains several electronic museum tools such as collections, exhibition rooms, virtual tours and electronic exhibitions.

Virtual museum created according to its nature

Table 10.1. Typology of virtual museums (source: Elmalah 2015, pp. 4–5)

10.2.3. Which model for the Zat Valley? Based on the data available and the virtual museum models described above, how can we (re)present the geoheritage of the Zat Valley? We have tried to create a model that combines the following characteristics: – expose the natural and cultural heritage of the Zat Valley without fear of deterioration; – provide visitors with the opportunity to acquire knowledge that is difficult to access, either because of danger or distance; – encourage social interactions between a large number of visitors; – obtain new information on the exhibits; – provide educational tools to help young people discover and connect the past with the present and the future.

Visualizing the Heritage of the Zat Valley Through a Virtual Museum

187

10.3. The Virtual Museum of the Zat Valley: an innovation at the service of local heritage Located on the road to Ouarzazate about 1 h from the pink city of Marrakech, the Zat Valley has remarkable geological and archaeological assets, with one of the main rock engravings sites of the High Atlas of Marrakech, landscapes of terraced cultures and the source of Sidi El Wafi, a refreshing place with known therapeutic properties. Still little frequented in the early 2000s by Moroccan and foreign tourists compared to the neighboring valleys, Ourika, Rherhaîa and Nfis (Bellaoui 2005, p. 4), tourism in the valley tends to increase between July and September with an average of 100 people per day for local tourists and 10 people per day for international tourists (Boujrouf and Tebaa 2011, p. 231). Describing the territory and its infrastructures, crafts and tourist assets, knowing the Zat Valley to better protect and manage it, this has been our mission throughout this project. Our main objective was to contribute to the attractiveness of the territory and to stimulate a new dynamic of local economic development based on the richness and discovery of the local heritage. Geoparks affirm the land base and the recognition of this heritage as an economic resource, a vector for local geotourism development in the sustainable development context (Portal 2008, p. 4). 10.3.1. A virtual museum: why? Funded by the European Commission, the European project Geopark H2020 Rise aims to study in a comparative way (North/South) the processes of heritage development (nature, culture) in a context of international labeling by UNESCO. Structured around the following themes: geological, mineralogical and biological inventories, geotourism as a socioeconomic dynamic, the project also includes a “mapping of the natural and cultural heritage of the Zat Valley” (Babou 2016) axis to carry out a digital enhancement, in particular through the creation of a virtual museum. These data, which will be made available to the local population, can be mobilized, according to their wishes, within the local economic development framework project based on the wealth and discovery of local heritage. In September 2014, Morocco became the first Arab and African country to join the Global Geoparks Network, which then had 111 territories in 32 countries. To obtain this label, the M’Goun geopark had to meet two criteria: to present a territory that contains a rich and varied natural, geological, cultural and architectural heritage as well as a socioeconomic development strategy based in particular on sustainable development criteria such as geotourism and sustainable tourism.

188

UNESCO Global Geoparks

10.3.2. The case of geoparks We studied the 139 geoparks listed on the UNESCO2 website and noted that the map was poorly represented. More than 60% of the sites have a sitography without mapping, 20% of the sites are not accessible or the URL is incorrect. As shown in the graph we produced in September 2018 (Figure 10.1), only 20% of websites offer dynamic mapping.

Inaccessible sites (wrong links, no access) Sites without interactive mapping Sites with interactive mapping 20 40 60 80 100 Number of websites visited Figure 10.1. Geoparks: websites and maps?3

In most cases, the geopark website has one or more maps of hiking trails or accommodation sites. Features are generally limited to scaling with zoom modification and some information layers. Few sites use photographs to illustrate the geopark’s remarkable points or geosites. However, two sites caught our attention. The first, the Troodos Geopark site in Cyprus, presents an application based on the map and the approach is similar to our project4. Based on a model of Esri’s Story Map, the map on the right-hand side of the screen shows the geosites with red pictograms numbered from 1 to 50. Photographs numbered from 1 to 50 appear on the left of the screen and point to the map when we select one (Figure 10.2). A “detail” tab provides access to the legend of the photograph. Easy to use, this model is based on two themes, geosites and mines, and is intended for the general public who wish to visualize the geopark before a visit.

2 www.unesco.org/new/fr/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/ list-of-unesco-global-geoparks/. 3 www.unesco.org/new/fr/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/ list-of-unesco-global-geoparks/. 4 https://staridasgeography.gr/web-gis/troodos/geosites/.

Visualizing the Heritage of the Zat Valley Through a Virtual Museum

189

Figure 10.2. An example of geosite development: the case of the UNESCO 5 Global Geopark in Troodos . For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

The second site we have chosen, that of the Beaujolais6 Geopark, offers a more elaborate interactive mapping insofar as a typology of the different sites (geological, natural, cultural and visiting areas) has been defined and the clickable geological map of Beaujolais has been added to the Google Maps base. 26 geosites are illustrated with photographs and explanatory texts. Developed by an IT service provider, the site opens on the map and the user can consult the geosites by choosing the list mode, which displays 26 remarkable site photographs. 10.3.3. A virtual museum: for whom? In our case, the museum is an important means of communication between the past and the present; in other words, it is the collective memory of people, protecting heritage and works of art of traditional value, disseminating information to the general public and encouraging young people to stimulate their interest in heritage and its wealth. “Too often, however, the museum remains a closed place, a bastion unrelated to its periphery: the museum-bunker” (Gervereau 2006, p. 46). The virtual and interactive visit of a territory therefore offers information to varying degrees and can help to prepare for or complete the actual visit. 5 https://staridasgeography.gr/web-gis/troodos/geosites/. 6 www.geopark-beaujolais.com/carte-interactive-des-geosites.html.

190

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Despite the important role that a virtual museum can play in the local economy of the Zat, this requires that the population has easy access to the Internet. Over the past two decades, Morocco has seen a rapid increase in the number of smartphone users and access to communication technologies is becoming increasingly available to all segments of society. According to the annual survey conducted by the Agence Nationale de Réglementation des Télécommunications (ANRT, National telecommunications regulatory agency) on telecommunications equipment and use, mobile telephone coverage has become widespread for almost all rural households, confirming the democratization of this service by 90.7% at the local level. According to the Haut-commissariat au plan (HCP, High commission for planning), 88% of households in the municipality of Tighdouine own a mobile phone despite the area’s isolation and high poverty rate. However, access to an Internet connection by cable remains very difficult since coverage does not exceed 2.4%7. To date, the telecommunications infrastructure of the Zat Valley is not sufficiently deployed to play a major role in the development of this territory, but the demographic structure can in the medium term accelerate access to communication technologies and the Internet throughout the valley. According to the High Commission for Planning, young people under the age of 24 represent about 54% of the total population, while the enrolment rate for children aged 7–12 is about 92.8%. By 2014, the illiteracy rate had reached about 56% throughout the valley. We can therefore believe that this generation will play a key role in the development of its territory in the near future, which we have taken into account in the virtual museum project by targeting the under 24 age group. 10.4. The Zat Valley Geopark Project: a story of a territory through an application Whether in the artistic, journalistic, cultural, educational or geographical fields, the uses of digital mapping are now expanding rapidly. The map object in digital form is considered as a support for new social expressions through the development of geolocation tools. Applications developed on the basis of mapping allow users to interact with the territory from their computer or smartphone. The idea of creating a cartographic narrative tool accessible to non-computer specialists became a reality in 20128 with the availability of a “Cloud”9 type web platform for the ArcGis Online GIS developed by ESRI.

7 General population and housing census, 2014, Haut-commissariat au plan, Morocco, website: https://www.hcp.ma. 8 http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/educ17/papers/educ_98.pdf. 9 Storage on remote servers and accessible via the Internet.

Visualizing the Heritage of the Zat Valley Through a Virtual Museum

191

In our case, the story of a territory also called a story map is defined, in a specific context and with a specific purpose, as a process of developing a mapping scenario. This positioning underlines the importance of taking into account both the construction/production of the map object and the “consumption” and the use of the result produced before choosing the software that will build our story. 10.4.1. Overview of available tools Technically, various mapping tools exist on the market, for example, Google Tour Builder based on Google Earth mapping and its associated services, but despite its simplicity and the fact that it is free of charge, its use requires an email address and the range of tools offered to the user is limited. Sébastien Caquart and Stefanie Dimitrovas define Google Tour Builder as a tool “perfectly adapted to stories structured around tourist activities” (Caquart and Dimitrovas 2017, p. 14). Esri Story Maps with ArcGis Online10 offers a choice of 10 types of stories and a more elaborate graphic design. Linked to the geographic information system, the application is easy to implement if we do not need to manage time. Unlike Story Maps, Mapstory integrates temporality into its applications, but its unintuitive implementation remains complex in open source IT developments. For its part, the Story map JS published by KnightLabs offers an intuitive interface that resembles PowerPoint and the photographs can be annotated as text and enriched with interactivity because of the Gigapixel mode. No experience in IT development is required. Other tools capable of creating virtual museums are less well-known, but they have reliable functionalities for interactive mapping: Umap OpenstreetMap offers basic features with which a user can create maps from the OpenstreetMap11 maps library, which is a free and simple collaborative mapping tool for creating collaborative and interactive maps. For professionals, Leaflet, available on Github12, offers html widgets packages but requires very advanced knowledge of Javascript. The same is true for Odyssey.js, developed by CartoDB with the support of the Knight Foundation, which offers three interface models: slide, scrolling and timeline. These open source interfaces are used by journalists. To make development easier and faster for designers and developers, Odyssey.js has enabled users without coding skills to build interactive stories using text, images, videos and maps from a powerful Javascript library made available to them.

10 A Cloud-based mapping platform. 11 OpenStreetMap creates and provides royalty-free geographic data. 12 Code sharing platform.

192

UNESCO Global Geoparks

For our virtual museum project, we chose Esri Story Maps because it combines geographic content management (GIS) with a structured narrative and offers several modifiable interface models (Figure 10.3). Depending on the design and ergonomics chosen, the consultation will be more or less dynamic for the reader.

Figure 10.3. Creating the Zat Valley story. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

10.4.2. Methodology and tools Virtual museums are designed with the idea of creating an interactive space in which scientific knowledge is transmitted through a virtual visit of a space via a database (Kanellos and Daniilia 2009). Data narration then makes it possible to present a place, a territory, and tell a story using dynamic maps and multimedia documents in order to bring the website’s content to life, making it accessible, attractive and educational. Narrative mapping implementation begins with the creation of a localized database to link multimedia content with geographic data. 10.4.2.1. The collection of information The plant and animal species inventory and local knowledge was carried out with the aim not to draw up a catalogue of species or knowledge to be protected but in the spirit of making these objects known and transmitting them to the populations with the need to protect and conserve them for future generations. For the collection

Visualizing the Heritage of the Zat Valley Through a Virtual Museum

193

and location of the heritage of the Zat Valley, geopark researchers have adopted a scientific method based on field surveys to collect data on all the valley’s heritage resources (geography, geology, biology, paleontology, archaeology). The inventory was built by defining study areas (transects), distributed among researchers and doctoral candidates, and included two main phases (Patel et al. 2003): – data acquisition: bibliography and field surveys with GPS points and photographs; – the constitution of thematic files: as a follow up to the surveys, each team analyzes the results, puts them in perspective and validates them. The collected scientific information is formatted into files (xls, Word and Png) that constitute the raw data for our project of a virtual museum in the Zat Valley. They are then integrated into the ArcGis GIS. 10.4.2.2. Data preparation The second step consists of converting them into GEOJSON files13; this type of file is an open source encoding format to represent geospatial data using the Geographic JavaScript Object Notation standard. This format supports point, line, string or polygon data as well as sets and subsets of these data types and allows the addition of non-spatialized information attributes. This database format has been used by the free Javascript interactive mapping software library since version 0.6. Used by the OpenStreetmap project, this allowed us to design the virtual museum using Javascript code for more innovation in the form and final result of the work (Sbeih 2013, pp. 105–107). As for the photographs taken by researchers, we can say that they form the basis of the virtual museum because they offer a support that makes it possible to “fix” the memory by drawing up a report on the state of the heritage or places at a given moment. Transmission involves raising awareness, which consists of making people aware of the interest of an object or a theme. The image constitutes a “trace” to which one can refer; it is a reflection of the heritage and makes it possible to preserve it. It also makes it possible to illustrate the census that is done in writing and thus to make it more lively and concrete. Photography plays a role regarding memory, but it also makes it possible to enhance the value of heritage. It is an excellent material for the spread of knowledge and makes it possible to reach a wide audience. Thus, images are

13 https://docs.safe.com/fme/html/FME_Desktop_Documentation/FME_ReadersWriters/geojson/ geojson.htm.

194

UNESCO Global Geoparks

archived and stored by the inventory, but they are also made available to the public in the database (Deloche 2001). Used to illustrate the works published by the inventory, to set up exhibitions or to build virtual routes, the photographs must be protected by copyright, numbered and standardized (resolution, height, width) before they can be inserted either directly into Esri Story Map or into a photo hosting site (Flickr or Google+/Picasa). In our case, the photographs are hosted on a server and inserted into the virtual museum using JavaScript code: cool popup with images:
. 10.4.2.3. The design of the application As users of ArcGIS software, we could choose between the different Story Map models to publish our own web application maps. We have opted for the Story Map Series that offers the possibility of presenting a series of themes via tabs, numbered bullets or a lateral accordion. In this case, each tab combines interactive mapping with content enriched with photographs and text. An optional descriptive pane displays articles and other content associated with each map, such as videos or hyperlinks (Figure 10.4)14.

Figure 10.4. The virtual museum of the Zat Valley15

14 To consult the application, use the following URL: www.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/ index.html?appid=4b048be0293b4e0d9778785c8a7b488d. 15 www.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=4b048be0293b4e0d9778785c8a7b488d.

Visualizing the Heritage of the Zat Valley Through a Virtual Museum

195

Photographs, videos and text are referenced by mapping entities or incorporated during the publication process. This offers a wide choice to find a suitable model for our project. The mapping background offer allows us to associate the data processed in the previous step (spreadsheets and GIS data) with photographs and explanatory texts. The application data are stored on a Cloud-based platform and makes it easy for the application administrator to add or update content without being dependent on a computer, since the operation can be performed in various locations with an Internet connection and with different machines. Designed to highlight the scientific results of the Geopark H2020 partner team’s scientific results in the Zat Valley, the virtual museum is promoted by a flashcode on the panels of the end-of-program exhibition and a link to the Story Map will be available from the project’s web page. One of the strengths of the virtual museum is its accessibility for a novice computer user. Tabbed navigation techniques and pop-up windows for displaying photographs add flexibility in use. Intuitive, the web browsing interface makes it easy to move from one location to another and invites the user to discover the most remarkable sites in the Zat Valley. The visitor can find their way around the museum at any time, stop their visit and resume it later from the same point (Gelin 2006); the space/time is defined in the virtual medium. The map is presented as a way to navigate more intuitively through a body of data in order to interest an audience that is less and less captive, as they are in a hurry and overwhelmed with information. “The questions raised by interactivity are extremely interesting insofar as they lead the designer, otherwise known as a ‘transmitter’ in the communication scheme, to consider that the cultural product is intended for a ‘receiver’, i.e. an audience, and that one no longer goes without the other” (Besnard 2008, p. 3). The construction of a virtual application gives visibility to geographical places and heritage knowledge but can also serve as publicity for the region’s tourism development. 10.5. Conclusion Through our experience, we can say that spatialized narration, to us, seems to be adapted to the natural heritage enhancement insofar as it is exposed to the public while being protected in order to guarantee its management and sustainability. The virtual museum allows visitors to identify the geological park’s heritage sites and objects, and at the same time refers the reader to articles that raise awareness of the importance of heritage preservation as a memory of the region’s people, land and

196

UNESCO Global Geoparks

biodiversity. The socioeconomic context of the Zat Valley raises questions about the impact of the application in the near future for people for whom digital media and the Internet remain anecdotal, but the generation aged 24 years and below, more open to new technologies, will probably play a key role in the development of the Zat Valley. Describing, analyzing and representing the territory on which a development project will be implemented, and having tools that assist in planning and decision-making are essential to the development of the program. 10.6. References Babou, I. (2016). Geoparks: Heritage, Education and Sustainable Development – an Innovative Methodology for Southern Countries. Sciences & Médias [Online]. Available: https://sciences-medias.fr/blogs/geoparks-heritage-education-and-sustainable-developmentan-innovative-methodology-for-southern-countries/ [Accessed 14 August 2019]. Bellaoui, A. (2005). La vallée du Zat : un pays d’accueil touristique émergeant dans l’arrièrepays montagneux de Marrakech. Téoros, 24(1) [Online]. Available: http://journals.open edition.org/teoros/1493 [Accessed 30 August 2018]. Besnard, M.-P. (2008). La mise en valeur du patrimoine culturel par les nouvelles technologies. Schedae preprints of Caen-Normandy University, 1–96. Boujrouf, S., Tebaa, O. (2011). Tourisme et pauvreté. Archives contemporaines, Paris, France. Caquard, S., Dimitrovas, S. (2017). Story Maps & Co. Un état de l’art de la cartographie des récits sur Internet/Story Maps & Co. The state of the art of online narrative. Cartography. Mappemonde, 121 [Online]. Available: http://mappemonde.mgm.fr/121_as1/. Deloche, B. (2001). Le musée virtuel. Vers une éthique des nouvelles images. PUF, Paris, France. Elmalah, T., (2015). Electronic museum, scientific research. The Electronic Education Magazine, Mansoura University, Egypt. Gadal, S. (2010). SIG : démarches et outils intégrateurs de projets d’aménagement et de valorisation touristiques internationaux multi-acteurs. COPINTOUR, Guyancourt, France. Gelin, R. (2006). Comment la réalité peut-elle être virtuelle ? Le Pommier, Paris, France. Gervereau, L. (2006). Vous avez dit musées ? Tout savoir sur la crise culturelle. CNRS éditions, Paris, France. Kanellos, I., Daniilia, S. (2009). Le concept de musée virtuel thématique : la collection comme visite, la visite comme lecture, la lecture comme stratégie. L’exemple du musée thématique sur l’Annonciation. Actes du 12ème colloque international sur le document électronique (CIDE’12). Europia Productions, Montreal, Canada, 76–92.

Visualizing the Heritage of the Zat Valley Through a Virtual Museum

197

Le Roux, G. (2013). Pratiques curatoriales et cyber-narrations autour de l’art contemporain autochtone. Colloque e-toile Pacifique, Paris, France. Mericskay, B., Noucher, M., Roche, S. (2018). Usages des traces numériques en géographie : potentiels heuristiques et enjeux de recherche. L’Information géographique, 82(2), 39–61. Patel, M., White, M., Walczak, K., Sayd, P. (2003). Digitisation to presentation: Building virtual museum exhibitions. Vision, Video and Graphics Conference, Bath, UK, 1–8. Portal, C. (2008). Patrimonialisation des reliefs dans les parcs naturels de la façade atlantique européenne. Géographie et cultures, 66, 45–60. Saïd, B., Ouidad, T. (2011). Tourisme et pauvreté. Archives contemporaines, Paris, France. Sbeih, Y.M. (2013). Guide complet d’Arcgis Online [Online]. Available: https://magazinegeo.blogspot.com/2013/09/arcgis.html?m=1. Schweibenz, W. (2004). Le musée virtuel. L’évolution du musée virtuel. Les nouvelles de l’ICOM, 3, 3. Welger-Barboza, C. (2001). Le patrimoine à l’ère du document numérique. Du musée virtuel à la médiathèque. L’Harmattan, Paris, France.

11 Web Communication of French Geoparks in Education: the Expression of Their Legitimacy

11.1. Introduction: the value of a study of communication in education in French geoparks In France, in 2018, seven areas are labeled “UNESCO World Geoparks”: the Haute-Provence national nature reserve, the Luberon massif, the Bauges Mountains, the Chablais Alps, the Ardèche Mountains, the causses du Quercy and the Beaujolais. Based on the remarkable abiotic characteristics of the territory, this recognition, renewable every 4 years, is often awarded to natural and/or cultural sites to be protected or enhanced, being superposed on heritage sites: the Luberon massif concentrates the classifications into regional natural park, geological natural reserve, biosphere reserve and European and world geoparks. More than half of French geoparks, namely the Luberon massif, the Bauges Mountains, the Ardèche Mountains and the causses du Quercy, are also regional natural parks. Geoparks are spaces set up and managed by a structure with a recognized legal status. They are made up of partners (such as associations and local authorities) who accept common goals, in accordance with the standards of certification. One of them is to acculturate the population to heritages, be they natural, biotic and abiotic, or cultural, tangible and intangible; education being a lever for local development policies (Barthes and Blanc-Maximin 2015), in particular through geotourism (Gonzalez Tejada et al. 2017).

Chapter written by Aurélie ZWANG. The work presented in this chapter is part of the Geopark H2020 program and was funded by the European Union’s Research and Innovation Program Horizon 2020 under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 644015.

UNESCO Global Geoparks: Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement First Edition. Edited by Yves Girault. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

200

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Among the target audiences for geoparks’ educational activities, schoolchildren are privileged. The evaluation item “Information and Environmental Education” (UNESCO 2016) is mainly oriented toward formal educational environments (university and school). In other words, in order to obtain the label, the geopark must be able to justify its active participation in school education for sustainable development (ESD), which addresses socioenvironmental issues related to the territory and heritage. For its part, the National Education Department identifies and legitimizes certain educational resources for ESD and communicates them to teachers via institutional websites (Zwang 2017). However, a search on these sites1 using the keywords “géoparc”/“geopark” in 2016 led to a very low occurrence (two), a result that should probably be compared to the recent appropriation by the territories of this heritage approach (Hoblea et al. 2010) and therefore to a previously rather confidential dissemination to the general public. French geoparks are thus faced with a dual problem of public recognition, sometimes in a context of hyper-patrimonialization, and a demand for deployment to formal educational environments. We propose to examine here how they respond to these problems through the notion of communication in education, defined as all productions worked with a communicative intentionality and relating to educational, conceptual and organizational actors and frameworks in a given context. This perspective focuses the point of view not on what is actually implemented in education for school audiences but on what is constructed and presented on education for these audiences. In short, it is not a question of looking at the “educational territory” as it is, but at the “educational map” as it is presented. 11.2. A semiological and content analysis of communication in terms of website education for four French geoparks Communication in education can be studied through different documents: brochures, articles, catalogues, educational sheets and web pages. Assuming that the digital approach is now favored by teachers seeking information on available educational resources, a preliminary survey of online communication on geoparks was conducted in early 2017. It was established that there are static information websites, on the one hand, and profiles hosted on a social network allowing the reader to “like” and “share”, on the other hand. In other words, either static websites built on the editorial intention of a main enunciator2 (Desprès-Lonnet and Cotte 1 These include the EDD competence center in Amiens, the EDD sites in life and earth sciences, history and geography, the academies of Aix-Marseille and Grenoble, as well as the national site and local territorial departments of Canopé (public operator offering services, resources and training to teachers). 2 The enunciator is the body identified as responsible for a statement.

Web Communication of French Geoparks in Education

201

2007) who can act, from a technical template, on the forms of communication, or dynamic websites where there are multiple digital enunciators (Paveau 2017) but where the forms of writing are constrained by technosemiotic frameworks (Jeanneret 2014). In this case, the editorial enunciation of the screen page, i.e. the way in which the text is presented to the reader to see and read by giving them a concrete and symbolic image, is totally predefined by the communication device (Jeanneret and Souchier 2005). While the research question focuses on the communicative intentionality of geoparks, only websites with an enunciator have been chosen, especially since labeling takes into account the existence of a “specific website with general information on environmental education in the territory” (UNESCO 2016). The approach to the study of forms of communication in the education of French geoparks is semiological (Bonaccorsi 2016). It considers online documents in their scriptural and visual materiality, i.e. in the density of their editorial enunciation3. It is interested in their graphic universe through the colors and visual areas used and the iconicity of the text and the “passing signs” that allow the reader to click and move between the pages of the site (Souchier et al. 2003). It also focuses on identifying the brands of the editorial authority behind which the multiple actors of the established territory are based. It thus gives access to the symbolic and cultural dimensions worked in by the enunciator, or, in a way, to his enunciation policy, in that it involves both his identity and his authority, here in the field of education. On each website relating to the geoparks studied, an enunciating body merges into a “voice”, that of the heritage entity, in the proposals made by the various partners for school children. This educational content is analyzed according to dimensions (Zwang 2016): – epistemological, i.e. its founding conceptions of education, its educational themes and its institutional frameworks; – teleological, i.e. its aims and educational and strategic objectives; – axiological, i.e. its environmental values and educational principles; – praxeological, i.e. its methods, pedagogical approaches, means and tools. This set is compared with the requirements of the National Education for Sustainable Development, with the last circular (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale 2015) as the main reference text.

3 The editorial statement is the set of contributions at the origin of the collective elaboration of an “image of the text”, in the material sense (layout, format, typography, etc.) and in the figurative sense, in terms of its notoriety.

202

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Only the sites relating to the geoparks of the Luberon, Bauges, Chablais and Ardèche Mountains were studied, with a collection of documents carried out between April 2017 and 2018. Barely certified, the geoparks in the causses du Quercy and Beaujolais did not yet have structured communication in terms of education on the Web. As for the Haute-Provence geopark’s site, it shows a communication on the subject limited to a few videos, in a breach of labeling standards probably explicable by its pioneering status. The study, therefore, focused on five Internet sites because, for each of the four selected geoparks, the configurations are different: the Chablais geopark has a specific site, the Luberon and the Bauges have a common site for their geopark and their regional natural park, and for the Ardèche Mountains, a site is dedicated to the geopark and an education portal is common with the regional natural park. The documents were collected from the education homepages to the following pages of the tree structure via the passing signs. This dynamic method is based on a usage logic. The corpus does not, therefore, meet an exhaustiveness criterion –28% of the occurrence of “education” is included – but rather a qualitative logic, from generalities to more specific pages on education. The 58 documents studied (Figure 11.1) are web pages containing images, texts, maps and videos, and documents from an online port, also having an offline existence (Paveau 2015). The rare videos would require a specific methodology and were not analyzed. Websites

Documents that exist offline (PDF)

16

Number of documents

14

2

3 1

12 10

5

8 6 4

14

13

13

7

2 0

Ardèche Mountains Bauges Mountains Monts d’Ardèche Massif des Bauges (MA) (MB)

Chablais Alps Chablais (CHA)

Luberon Massif Massif du Luberon (ML)

Figure 11.1. Number and distribution of online documents from websites (source: Zwang)

Web Communication of French Geoparks in Education

203

The results show that the educational communication of these geoparks is an expression of their legitimacy to educate the school public. 11.3. Legitimizing by making a site: the enunciation of the educational territory The Latin word situs means both the place and the extent of a country or a region. One of the functions of the websites of the labeled territories is precisely to show the remarkable places and landscape characteristics on which their recognition is based. By extension, while the “need for a web page [is] to express its own thematic vocation, to be identifiable in its statements and purpose” (Candel et al. 2011, p. 174), the communicative intentionality perceptible on websites relating to geoparks is to denote and constantly connote the territory concerned. Editorial choices converge to “make a site” in the dual sense of the technosemiotic system and the geographical space to which it refers. Unifying the entire website, these editorial choices of territorial enunciation are not specific to the pages related to education. Their operativity is, nevertheless, to place education in the singular topography of places and landscapes by assigning it a place. To open a web page of a site related to a geopark is to immerse yourself in a (geo)graphic environment. At the bottom of the page or in a banner, panoramas of landscapes are displayed. Functionalities allow the dynamic scrolling of photographs [MB 14; ML 1; ML 1; MA 2] with the objective of exposing the richness of the place. Designed as a scene, the background of the site houses a central text space, which can even be retracted by the reader (Figure 11.2). In the absence of a background photograph or as a complement, solid-colored blocks of colour, beige and brown for the rocks and soil of the Chablais (Figure 11.3), or violet for the Luberon of Provence and its lavender [ML 1] highlight a territoriality. The passing signs of the main menu are thus inscribed directly on the landscape or on colored blocks connoting the territory [CHA 1; ML 1]. Sometimes arranged in “small forms of ideographic order” (Candel et al. 2011) containing an action verb and a pictogram representing a landscape element or an object [CHA 1; MB 1], they invite the visitor to explore, with his mouse and in the field: binoculars to “visit”, a map to “discover”, fir trees to “understand” (Figure 11.3). In the case of Chablais, the “Geopark”, an anglicism marking the international dimension of this recognition, is the only declaration of the website, which is materialized by the red logo of the banner. But in those of hyperpatrimonialized territories, given the generic name “park”, a set of shapes and colors allows the

4 This notation corresponds to the references of the documents.

204

UNESCO Global Geoparks

identification of the editorial authority. In all cases, it is the regional natural park and not the geopark: the paratext of the Luberon massif site only presents the ovoid green star logo of the regional natural park [ML 1], a star which, on the word “Geopark” of the Ardèche Mountains, signs the main declaration, which is reinforced by the green of the title and the side menu (Figure 11.2). The same visual rubric chart is adopted by the Bauges site, which also uses green for hyperlinks [MB 1]. With the exception of the UNESCO logo, green thus seems to refer to the regional natural park as an embodiment of biotic nature, while red, a color also favored on the Chablais site in the subtitles and the side menu, seems to symbolize the telluric forces of abiotic nature (Figure 11.3).

Figure 11.2. Extract from the site of the Ardèche Mountains Geopark [MA 1]. The “-” sign allows the entire central frame to be retracted

We then enter educational territory through different paths that have the dual characteristic of stating the context and status of education, namely its physical and symbolic place. The site’s tree structure speaks for itself in this regard. Thus, on the French version of the Luberon massif site, an “education area” tab always located at the top of the page gives permanent access to the pages located in the “an environment to preserve” section. In contrast to this preservation display and rather to enhance the value of the territory, as discussed further in section 11.4, the Bauges Mountains site places education under a subsection of the “Act” section: “Ensure the enhancement of actions”. With a positive angle, access to the education pages of the Chablais site is through “learning” and “knowing” (Figure 11.3). As for the Ardèche Mountains, although an education portal is entirely dedicated to it, the geopark site offers an “education and geology” section with no content on the home page (Figure 11.2).

Web Communication n of French Geo oparks in Educa ation

205

Figure 11 1.3. Extract fro om the home page p on educa ation in the Ch hablais geoparrk, in French (source: ( [CHA A 1])

From m the educatioon home pagee, traffic is po ossible througgh side menus and the banner, but b also, withhin the page, by b an alignmen nt of titled phhotographic thhumbnails [CHA 1;; ML 1; MB; MB 1] and/or by lists of hyperlinks h [MA 1; MB 1] leading to documennts internal too the site or to t the partners’ sites. These arrangemennts give a visual im mpression of the t multiplicity of places, actors and sittuations: the eeducation offered in the labeleed territory seems s varied and overabuundant. To reeflect the diversityy of educationnal interventionns, the Chablaais site presennts a map withh location icons shhowing all acttivities [CHA 2]. By placin ng them in a topography oof labeled places annd landscapess, the Chablaiss thus insists on their idioggraphical dimeension, as a promisse of pedagogiical added vallue. In faact, the territoory as an educcational field is shown throough photogrraphs that seem to capture pedaagogical mom ments. In thesse images aree the characteers of the educatedd and the educcator whose characteristics are recurrent. The educated child is most oftten a child wiith a cap, inteegrated into a group and caarrying out ann activity (Figure 11.3): observiing a landscappe, taking notes, reading an a interpretation panel, monial repressentations walking in single file, dancing andd laughing, etcc. These testim nal offer and innsist on the coollegiality accentuaate the exhaustive effect of the education of the acctivities of heeritage discovvery. At the center of the groups, g the edducator is presented from the frront and in ann explanatory y posture: he shows, speakks, seems nce (Figure 11.3). 1 It emboodies the focused on his task and captivatees his audien y, the one in which w the benneficiaries cultural and scientificc mediation off the territory bsent from thee images is thee teacher. can havee confidence. In contrast thhe educator ab

206

UNESCO Global Geoparks

However, they are the target of communication in terms of websites about the education of geoparks with two main objectives. The first objective is to indicate that the enunciative instance is at its service. For example, it proposes a “teacher’s guide” [MA 3] where clicking on an outstretched hand provides an answer on ESD to a question formulated in the second person (Figure 11.4). The teacher is in fact the beneficiary to whom “tools” are systematically offered, most often in the form of an inventory: a title, a short description and one or more hyperlinks giving access to paid brochures or annual catalogues [ML 3; CHA 3], and, more rarely, to free resources [MB 3]. Programmes scolaires « EEDD » et ressources du territoire

Avez-vous besoin d’un peu d’EEDD ?

Partenariats Education nationale / PNR

Figure 11.4. Excerpt from the “Teacher’s Guide” page of the MA portal, in French (source: [MA 3])

The second objective is to display the competence of the enunciator in education, an objective of educational legitimization that leads to a game of enunciations. It makes conspicuous elements whose interest and understanding are particularly relevant to teachers. It can devote a current page to the signing of an agreement with the French Ministry of Education [CHA 5] or a third of an A4 page to a testimony on an educational service [MB 4]. Similarly, links to school curricula can be a single item (Figure 11.4) or visually occupy half of each catalogue record in a table [CHA 3]. The partnership agreements with the French Ministry of Education are also very accessible (Figure 11.4), until they are the first documents to download from certain web pages [CHA 4; MB 2]. Their content is not editorialized in the graphic layout of the site, a contrast that materializes their authenticity, while also showing the logos and institutional signatories. Systematically included on offline documents for teachers, the National Education logos are the marks of the enunciator’s educational legitimization (Zwang 2017). The editorial authority then becomes a pedagogical authority. This symbolic challenge can lead to an adaptation of the enunciator according to the content: the Bauges Mountains signs a geological

Web Communication of French Geoparks in Education

207

booklet with the name of the geopark [MB 3] and indicates the two heritage features in a more general way [MB 5]. 11.4. Legitimizing by making sense: the statement of ESD in schools The analysis of the statements on the education of the websites of French geoparks according to the different dimensions of a unified educational theory for each territory shows that, beyond the specific territorial features advanced, convergence with education for sustainable school development is preponderant. By placing its content in a frame of reference that makes sense in terms of teaching professionalism, the educational offer of geoparks maximizes their chances of being solicited to educate schoolchildren. The examination of the epistemological dimension shows that this paradox is rooted in the founding conceptions of labeled territories. Geoparks are part of an environmental education that most often considers the territory as a place of appropriation (Girault and Barthes 2016). Education is a means, “a tool at the service of a sustainable local development and planning project and a new social project” [ML 4, p. 16]; heritage spaces being defined with a strong economic importance: regional natural parks are “territories with high added value” [ML 4, p. 6] and “Geoparks [...] contribute to tourism and economic development” [MB 4]. However, “environmental and territorial” education for the school population is defined in local or national conventions that constitute the reference frameworks for their educational intervention. In order to reflect the legitimacy in place, enshrined in these frameworks, the enunciator of documents with an offline existence for teachers is identical to the signatory of the partnership. Thus, unlike Chablais, which has a specific agreement with the National Education Department under the aegis of the geopark [CHA 6], the Luberon massif and the portal of the Ardèche Mountains only refer to the regional natural park because, for the former, the educational charter is exclusive to the regional natural parks of the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur region [ML 4] and, for the latter, without a specific agreement, the 2001 one between the regional natural parks and the National Education Department has the authority (Figure 11.4). At the same time, the themes of the geoparks are presented from a local perspective: the chestnut tree of the Ardèche Mountains, the bories (dry stone huts) of the Luberon massif, the sharing of waters in the Bauges Mountains, etc. But an analysis of the supply of the five geoparks showed that with different proportions, i.e. more geology (water, landscapes, geological history) and less agriculture and ecology, “all the themes [of the] secondary life and earth sciences programs [...] are represented in the main themes of the [...] geoparks. Geoparks, therefore, seem to be committed to providing an educational offer that responds to the themes proposed by the programs” (Serrÿn 2016, p. 62) (Table 11.1).

208

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Themes of biology and geology school programs

Main themes of the educational offers of French geoparks

Issues and responsibility

Climate, resources and energy, territory, issues

External geology

Erosion, water, landscape

Internal geology

Tectonics and geological history, volcanoes, petrology, risks

Fossils and evolution

Fossils

Agriculture and soil

Agriculture and soil

Biodiversity and ecology

Biodiversity and ecology

Table 11.1. Comparison of educational themes (source: Serrÿn 2016, p. 61)

These results are consistent with the analysis of the teleological dimension. The educational objectives stated are common to those of the National Education Department, i.e. to educate for a responsible citizenship for the achievement of sustainable development. But the strategic objectives of the parks are specific to their challenges, namely “developing education in the territory among the public” [MA 6] by mobilizing teachers, qualified as “living forces” [ML 5, p. 2] to, as already noted above, “ensure the enhancement of actions” [MB 1]. Thus, the deployment of the school offer “is based on the opportunities of the territory to propose very concrete illustrations of the educational programs” [ML 8] or on a “pedagogical use” [ML 4] of the geosites “with a view to obtaining the label” [MA 4]. At the same time, geoparks show support for national education to achieve its strategic objectives: the generalization of ESD is expressed by the idea of a “proactive policy of education for the environment and sustainable development” [ML 4, p. 8] and participation in steering committees [CHA 8] seems to contribute to increasing the number of institutions in the process of sustainable development (Ministère de l’Education nationale 2015). As for the educational objectives, they agree on behavioral changes and, in particular, in Chablais, on the acquisition of knowledge. In addition, the new objective of “reconnecting students directly with nature” (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale 2015) can be reflected in the aims of geoparks for the appropriation of land and heritage, in an ethical oxymoron characteristic of the sustainable development paradigm (Bergandi and Blandin 2012). The comparison of the axiological dimension between geoparks and national education shows the same alliance between a strong conservationist bias in environmental management and a more protective preservationism of nature. In National Education, after a period of opposition to the currents of nature protection (Zwang 2016), the last circular (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale 2015) reintroduces “environmental education”, the word “nature”, as well as the ecocentric

Web Communication of French Geoparks in Education

209

definition of the environment of the very first circular (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale 1977), without quoting it, which it juxtaposes with the one, anthropocentric of 2004 – “living conditions for man” – supposed to replace it. Similarly, in line with the ambivalence of UNESCO texts defining geoparks (Gonzalez Tejada et al. 2017), the school supply catalogue in Le Chablais, for example, refers 11 times to the “riches” of the territory while at the same time issuing a code of good conduct to protect natural environments: “Do not pick wild flowers that are often fragile, moderate your crops [....], do not leave any traces [...]” [CHA 3]. Concerning educational principles, in response to the requirements of the National Education on the posture of neutral impartiality that teachers and partners must adopt (Zwang 2016), geoparks state that they “remain vigilant against any proselytism and participate in the development of critical thinking” [ML 4, p. 22] or that they “offer all guarantees in moral and pedagogical relations with students and teachers” [CHA 6, p. 7]. The purpose of communicating this code of ethics is to reassure people about their educational skills, as is the case with the display of accreditations by the National Education Department of people working in the field or host structures, which can be identified on a full page on education [MB 1] or within an exhaustive list that specifies the number and validity date of the accreditation [CHA 6]. The study of the praxeological dimension reveals a paradox between the display of specificities by geoparks and their conformity to the expectations of the French Ministry of Education. In contrast to “traditional” pedagogy [MA 5], they claim an active, field-based pedagogy, according to two main trends: in geoparks labeled regional natural parks, the “territorial approach” [ML 4, p. 18] is embodied rather in sensitive approaches: “feel, touch, listen to your environment but also travel, escape, love your territory” [ML 2], whereas in Chablais the approach is scientific and is part of the geological aspect of geotourism (Gonzalez Tejada et al. 2017). The originality of the intervention proposals is expressed by neologisms in regional natural parks – “Topocontes” [MA 2], “Coup de pousse éducatif” [MA 4; ML 5], “Géo Parcs-Cours” [MA 4; MB 4], “pédagéologiques” [MB 1] and “géo-trouvent tout” [MA 4]5 – and in Chablais, the pedagogical method of recounting geological phenomena is qualified as “innovative” [CHA 7]. But geoparks show above all that their approaches are likely to meet institutional requirements. First, they constantly refer to the curricula and monitor the educational variations of the national education system: the Luberon massif specifies that “the reform of the colleges has given rise to the creation of a new axis of work around interdisciplinary practical teaching” [ML 6] and, to create the newly prescribed natural corners (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale 2015), it announces a target of 10,000 vegetable gardens and pedagogical 5 In effect, “Topological stories”, “Educational push”, “Geoparks courses” (a play on the word parkour), “Pedageological”, and “Geo-find everything”, (in essence, to discover everything in a geological context).

210

UNESCO Global Geoparks

gardens [ML 7]. Second, they highlight approaches advocated in ESD such as interdisciplinarity: “The richness of the pedagogical actions presented by the Geopark lies in its ability to build bridges between these different subjects” [CHA 3, p. 6]. Third, in Chablais, the constant reference to working with academics facilitates scientific legitimization (Zwang 2017) in response to the demand for “adapted” and “expert” resources (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale 2015). Finally, from the point of view of resources and while the economic aspect is the first criterion for educational legitimization (Zwang 2016), the free nature of certain offers or the assistance proposed for their financing is intended to encourage teachers to solicit geoparks, which is also facilitated by the provision of “relay teachers” paid by the National Education Department6. The partnership can take the form of hybrid educational tools between formal and non-formal education, such as the “Mon collège en Luberon” binder, published for each student in the territory and which remains in the life and earth sciences room [ML 8]. 11.5. Conclusion The analysis of communication in the field of education of French geoparks reveals tension between their enunciation and their statement. They constantly oscillate between the demonstration of a territoriality as the embodiment of an educational specificity and the adherence to the epistemological, axiological and praxeological frameworks of the National Education. In other words, outside the uniqueness of the instituted natural and cultural space, there would be a smoothing of education in the territory, which would be confirmed by the fact that, in the same territory, there is no apparent difference between education within the geopark and that in the regional natural park. The educational equivalence of these two heritage spaces would tend to show that it is less that the heritage penetrates the school space than the school extends over the local space. In an economic context of enhancement of the territory and professionalization of environmental education actors (Aspe and Jacqué 2012), which therefore links the search for educational legitimization to the development of a market, the observation made through this study therefore raises a more general question about what is being played out at the borders of the school world. While it is increasingly recognized that the introduction of “education to” disrupts the habitual teachers and the school form by a hybridization that would preferentially move from the non-formal educational sphere to the school (Barthes and Alpe 2018), it seems necessary to question in return how the search for educational legitimization by the partners of 6 Relay teachers are teachers who have a complementary mission in a cultural institution that is a partner of the French Ministry of Education.

Web Communication of French Geoparks in Education

211

the school translates, in a hollow way, a definition of the school of legitimate culture beyond its walls. 11.6. References Aspe, C., Jacqué, M. (2012). Environnement et société: Une analyse sociologique de la question environnementale. Maison des sciences de l’Homme, Paris. Barthes, A., Alpe, Y. (2018). Les “éducations à”, une remise en cause de la forme scolaire? Carrefours de l’éducation, 45(1), 23–37. Barthes, A., Blanc-Maximin, S. (2015). L’éducation au patrimoine, un outil pour un développement local durable, ou une instrumentalisation de l’éducation au service de la labellisation des territoires? Revue francophone du développement durable, 3, 8–22. Bergandi, D., Blandin, P. (2012). De la protection de la nature au développement durable: genèse d’un oxymore éthique et politique. Revue d’histoire des sciences, 65, 103–142. Bonaccorsi, J. (2016). Approches sémiologiques du Web. In Manuel d’analyse du Web, Barats, C. (ed.). Armand Colin, Paris. Candel, E., Jeanne-Perrier, V., Souchier, E. (2011). Petites formes, grands desseins. D’une grammaire des énoncés éditoriaux à la standardisation des écritures. In L’économie des écritures sur le Web, Davallon, J. (ed.). Hermès-Lavoisier, Paris. Després-Lonnet, M., Cotte, D. (2007). Nouvelles formes éditoriales en ligne. Communication et langages, 154, 111–121. Girault, Y., Barthes, A. (2016). Postures épistémologiques et cadres théoriques des principaux courants de l’éducation aux territoires. Éducation relative à l’environnement: regards, recherches, réflexions, 13(2). Gonzalez Tejada, C., Du, Y., Read, M., Girault, Y. (2017). From nature conservation to geotourisme development: Examining ambivalent attitudes towards UNESCO directives with the global geopark network. International Journal of Geoheritage, 5, 1–20. Hoblea, F., Hoblea, F., Cayla, N., Guyomard, A., Peisser, C., Renau, P. (2010). Géosciences et projets de territoire: comparaison et conciliation de trois projets de géoparcs dans les Préalpes françaises du Nord. Géovisions, 37, 23–36. Jeanneret, Y. (2014). Critique de la trivialité: les médiations de la communication, enjeu de pouvoir. Éditions Non standard, Paris. Jeanneret, Y., Souchier, E. (2005). L’énonciation éditoriale dans les écrits d’écran. Communication et Langages, 145, 3–15. Ministère de l’Éducation nationale (1977). Instruction générale sur l’éducation des élèves en matière d’environnement. Circular no. 77-300 from 29 August. Ministère de l’Éducation nationale (2015). Instruction relative au déploiement de l’éducation au développement durable dans l’ensemble des écoles et établissements scolaires pour la période 2015-2018. Circular no. 2015-018 from 4 February.

212

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Paveau, M.-A. (2015). Ce qui s’écrit dans les univers numériques. Matières technolangagières et formes technodiscursives. Itinéraires, 2014(1). Paveau, M.-A. (2017). L’analyse du discours numérique: Dictionnaire des formes et des pratiques. Hermann, Paris. Serrÿn, C. (2016). L’éducation dans les géoparcs mondiaux de l’UNESCO en France. Étude des offres éducatives proposées aux scolaires du secondaire dans les géoparcs mondiaux de l’UNESCO en France. Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, Paris. Souchier, E., Jeanneret, Y., Le Marec, J. (2003). Lire, écrire, récrire: Objets, signes et pratiques des médias informatisés. Bibliothèque publique d’information, Paris. UNESCO (2016). Grille d’autoévaluation des candidats au label des géoparcs de 2016. Formulaire d’auto-évaluation. Zwang, A. (2016). La légitimation d’expositions itinérantes pour l’éducation au développement durable: des objectifs de l’École à ceux des producteurs. RDST, 13, 21–49. Zwang, A. (2017). La communication environnementale légitimée pour éduquer au développement durable: de l’attente envers l’autorité éditoriale comme rapport de l’École à la trivialité. Questions de communication, 32, 105–124.

11.7. Documents cited from the corpus The last consultations were held in August 2018. Ardèche Mountains – Monts d’Ardèche – Geopark site and education portal [MA 1] www.geopark-monts-ardeche.fr/education-et-geologie-geopark.html. [MA 2] http://education.parc-monts-ardeche.fr/. [MA 3] http://education.parc-monts-ardeche.fr/-Le-guide-de-l-enseignant-.html. [MA 4] www.geopark-monts-ardeche.fr/education-et-geologie-geopark/coups-de-poussegeopark/les-geo-parc-cours-geopark.html. [MA 5] http://education.parc-monts-ardeche.fr/-Avez-vous-besoin-d-un-peu-d-EEDD-.html. [MA 6] www.education.parc-monts-ardeche.fr/L-action-educative-du-parc.html.

Bauges Mountains – Massif des Bauges [MB 1] www.parcdesbauges.com/fr/agir/que-fait-le-parc/assurer-la-mise-en-valeur-desactions/education-au-territoire.html.

Web Communication of French Geoparks in Education

213

[MB 2] www.parcdesbauges.com/fr/documentation-education-au-territoire.html. [MB 3] www.parcdesbauges.com/images/contenus/agir/que-fait-parc/assurer-mise-valeur-actions/ Educ-territoire/livret_geol/Livret_peda_geologie_5e_avril_2014.zip. [MB 4] www.parcdesbauges.com/images/contenus/agir/que-fait-parc/assurer-mise-valeur-actions/ Educ-territoire/appel_projet/GEOPARCOURS_collegiens2016.pdf. [MB 5] www.parcdesbauges.com/images/contenus/agir/que-fait-parc/assurer-mise-valeur-actions/ Educ-territoire/appel_projet/2018/PP_une_%C3%A9cole-un_site_pdf.

Chablais Alps – Massif du Chablais [CHA 1] www.geopark-chablais.com/pedagogie.html. [CHA 2] www.geopark-chablais.com/images/pedagogie/cartes_offre_globale18-19.jpg. [CHA 3] www.geopark-chablais.com/documentation/32–4.html. [CHA 4] www.geopark-chablais.com/pedagogie/scolaires.html. [CHA 5] www.geopark-chablais.com/geopark-chablais/actualites/170-education-signature-dune-convention-avec-l-education-nationale.html. [CHA 6] www.geopark-chablais.com/images/pedagogie/PJ5_-_Convention_de_par tenariat_DSDEN_Geopark.pdf. [CHA 7] www.geopark-chablais.com/pedagogie/une-methodologie-innovante.html. [CHA 8] www.geopark-chablais.com/geopark-chablais/actualites/180-le-geopark-membredu-copil-e3d-unesco-du-college-du-bas-chablais.html.

Luberon massif – Massif du Luberon [ML 1] www.parcduluberon.fr/quotidien-a-preserver/education-au-territoire-2/. [ML 2] www.parcduluberon.fr/top-menu/espaces-elus/espace-education/. [ML 3] www.parcduluberon.fr/quotidien-a-preserver/education-au-territoire/programme-dactionseducatives-2016-2017/. [ML 4] www.parcduluberon.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/EET_Charte_EducationTerritoire. pdf. [ML 5] www.parcduluberon.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/EET_PA2016-2017.pdf. [ML 6] www.parcduluberon.fr/un-quotidien-a-preserver/education-au-territoire/programmedactions-educatives/les-plus-pour-le-second-degre/. [ML 7] www.parcduluberon.fr/10000coinsnature/. [ML 8] www.parcduluberon.fr/colleges-et-lycees-du-parc-du-luberon/mon-college-en-luberon/.

12 The Architectural Mediation of Geoparks Museums in China: Between Tensions and Hybridization of Cultures

12.1. Introduction Many works carried out in the field of Heritage Studies indicate that heritage is not only the result of a revealing construction of contemporary social dynamics and power issues, but also an instrument for agreements at different levels, between actors and institutions, between scientists from different disciplinary backgrounds or between global and local values. “In all cases, this heritage can be seen through its presentation in different settings, media or places of memory, and through the mobilization of different actors, social communities, local groups or institutions responsible for heritage enhancement operations” (Juhé-Beaulaton and Girault 2016, p. 7). Based on this observation, this research is part of more general work carried out within our research team on the analysis of the ambivalences1 of heritage, which leads us in particular to reconsider the interweaving and interactions between the categories imposed by international institutions such as global/local, nature/culture, modernity/tradition, etc. Our current work focuses on the analysis of heritage display and interpretation practices in geoparks and geopark museums in China. At first Chapter written by Yi DU and Yves GIRAULT. The work presented in this chapter is part of the Geopark H2020 program and was funded by the European Union’s Research and Innovation Program Horizon 2020 under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 644015. 1 The term “ambivalence” is used in the sense used by Juhé-Beaulaton and Girault (2016, p. 7): “That is, their ability to convey different meanings and even different issues from one point of view to another. [...] These ambivalences, which are quite systematic, seemed to us to be an interesting prism to mobilize because they can be revealed, even increased by more or less visible staging of the heritage, or on the contrary hidden”.

UNESCO Global Geoparks: Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement First Edition. Edited by Yves Girault. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

216

UNESCO Global Geoparks

glance, one might think that these mediation activities are in tension between the model imposed by the policies promoted by the West (mainly UNESCO programs) and Chinese intellectuals (such as members of the Academy of Sciences) on the one hand, and by segments of “traditional” cultures that still have a significant influence on the relations that the majority of the Chinese population maintains with nature, on the other hand (Xu et al. 2014, p. 1142). However, it seems more fruitful to us, starting from this complex situation, to rethink the interpretation of the heritage of a geopark in China as a practice of interactions between cultures and identities. To analyze this hybridization process that seems to be taking place within China’s global and national geoparks, we refer to Pieterse’s (2009, p. 44) work, in which he proposes to think of globalization as “a process of cultural mixing or hybridization between places and identities”. Chen et al. (2015, p. 226) describe the missions of geoparks in China through functions similar to those of global geoparks, namely geoheritage conservation, geoscience promotion and sustainable development. However, the definition of national geoparks in China is much more focused on aesthetic values and landscape. Hou et al. (2003, p. 50) thus consider that the aesthetic value applied to tourism is one of the two essential values of the geopark, the other being the scientific value. The consideration of these two values, one rooted in traditional Chinese culture (the aesthetic and cultural aspect of landscapes) and the other in western modernity (the scientific aspect), has inevitably led to conflictual use and representations of landscape interpretation activities, which we have already analyzed (Du and Girault 2019). In this chapter, we wish to extend our work on this subject by analyzing what is happening within architectures of Chinese geoparks. Indeed, in terms of reflections on museum architecture, there seems to be two major opposing trends. While some architects and decision makers are committed to defending and expressing a historical cultural identity, others defend an openness to globalized culture. Koolhaas points out in this regard: “The stronger the identity, the more it imprisons, the more it resists expansion, interpretation, renewal and contradiction” (Koolhaas, 2011, p. 46). Given the fact that Chinese geopark museums have been created very recently, it seems interesting to us to analyze which of these two paradigms they are located in. Will their architectural design be part of a globalized culture and/or, on the contrary, favor a strong identity anchoring? However, and as we have pointed out for natural heritage interpretation activities in China, we hypothesize that this complex context would rather lead to a process of hybridization of architectural styles. This view seems to be shared by Jianfei Zhu who specifies: “Modern Chinese architecture has not developed from within but has been stimulated or generated at its earliest moments by Western forces. The result, however, is not a transplanted Western or European

The Architectural Mediation of Geoparks Museums in China

217

architecture, but a hybrid, with various ways of combining and synthesizing different traditions” (Zhu 2008, pp. 9–10). 12.2. Architects’ perspectives on the integration of museums in the territory Since the creation of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao in 1997 by the North American architect Frank Gehry, the architectural design of museums has changed completely. Indeed, having long played a role as a showcase for the collections they held and presented, museums have undergone a major transformation from the principle of museums that exhibit to that of museums that exhibit themselves (Moukarzel 2011, p. 90) at the risk of acting as a screen. Indeed, Frank Gehry, through his creation of the Guggenheim Museum, initiated a new paradigm: museum architecture transposed into a communication tool (Moukarzel 2011). Without denying the great influence of this architect, we cannot ignore the fact that others defend the purpose of a more classical museum. Thus, Antoine Chaaya, an architect associated with Renzo Piano, asserts that “the container volume must be simple and unpretentious [...]”. It is there to reflect the specificity of its content while integrating perfectly into its natural and built environment. In particular, Piano’s architecture emphasizes the need to give priority to place and culture “which must be respected rather than destroyed, swallowed up by modernity” (Piano 2007, p. 51, according to Moukarzel 2011, p. 92). This point of view is shared by the Chinese architect Qu (2011), who believes that the architectural design of geopark museums should be integrated into the overall geopark environment. He stressed that the key issue for geopark museum architects is to “prioritize respect for the spirit of place2 in design rather than imposing a spatial form of exterior design”. It is necessary to create space by absorbing the phenomena coming from the place, and by merging the boundaries between the museum and the site in order to arrive at a state that “although artificial seems so natural that it seems to have been done by the sky” [sui you ren zuo, wan zi tian kai] (Qu 2011, p. 69). By mobilizing this principle of the classical Chinese landscape, the architect refers to respect for the spirit of place intrinsically anchored in the specific relations in China between humanity and the world. 2 This concept is defined by ICOMOS as: “The set of tangible (sites, landscapes, buildings, objects) and intangible (memories, oral narratives, written documents, rituals, festivals, crafts, know-how, values, smells), physical and spiritual elements that give meaning, value, emotion and mystery to the place. Rather than separating the spirit of place, the immaterial from the material, and putting them in opposition, ICOMOS explored the different ways in which the two are united in a close interaction, one building on the other. The spirit builds the place and, at the same time, the place invests and structures the spirit”, excerpt from the results of the 16th ICOMOS General Assembly, Quebec, September 29–October 4, 2008, www.icomos.org/ quebec2008/results/pdf/GA16_ICOMOS_Results_EN.pdf.

218

UNESCO Global Geoparks

There are also controversies in China about the conflicts that may exist between the architect and the clients, most often the local government. According to Qu, the main conflict is related to the choices between “the nature museum” or “city museum”. Thus, when architects consider the geopark museum as a museum in nature whose design should blend in as closely as possible with its natural environment, they specify that the sponsors are much more interested in promoting the construction of an “urban museum” or “city museum”. “Sponsors generally express their dissatisfaction [with the architect's proposed design strategy] by stating: it’s not impressive enough, not avant-garde enough, it doesn’t catch the eye. They consider that the characteristics of a city museum – such as its imposing size, remarkable image [landmark] and brilliant modern materials – can contribute to building a positive image of the park and the territory, and thus contribute to the achievement of their ambitions on economic development through tourism” (Qu 2011, p. 70)3. The requests from local officials therefore refer, according to this author, to a vision of a geopark museum as an “image project” (xingxiang gongcheng)4, which is based on economic reasons, just like many museums in cities in other parts of the world, and this vision inevitably imposes an architectural structure that stands out. According to this author, this is therefore a threat to the atmosphere of the geopark and a manifestation of the vision of “man dominating nature” (Qu 2011, p. 70). What about Chinese geopark museums? 12.2.1. Analysis of architectural mediation In order to provide an analysis of the architectural forms that make sense to users, we rely on the criteria of the classic architectural analysis of Vitruvius5 taken 3 Loose translation of Chinese: “委托方普遍表达 了“不够气派、 不够 超前、不够显眼”的质疑，他们认为城市博物馆般的高大气派、标志性以及现代材料光 鲜亮丽等特点有利于为地方和景区呈现良好的形象，从而实现以旅游拉动经济发展的 雄心壮志”. 4 “Image projects” (xingxiang gongcheng), “face projects” (mianzi gongchengm) or “performance projects” (zhengji gongcheng) are projects whose objective is to demonstrate the achievements of a local politician. Cai (2014) summarizes three characteristics of image projects in China: “First, these projects are a means to an end, and they exist in a number of areas ranging from infrastructure construction to economic development. Second, since the objective is to establish projects that look impressive, their actual functions are not a major concern of those who launch them. As one report suggests, ‘Some executives are only interested in the number and appearance of projects, as opposed to their actual quality and functions [...]’. Third, given the emphasis on the symbolic function of these projects, they often generate resentment because these activities can neglect people’s interests or produce negative externalities” (Cai 2014, pp. 30–31). 5 This book De architectura (“on the subject of architecture” in English) was dedicated to Emperor Augustus. Claude Perrault, quoting a famous passage from the first volume of this

The Architectural Mediation of Geoparks Museums in China

219

up by Laudati. This is divided into three phases: structure (columns, beams, sails, etc.), aesthetics (geometry, symmetry, colors, style, materials, etc.) and function (layout, distribution of space, function of use) (Laudati 2014, p. 190). Based on the analysis of visual semiotics, we only use this approach to study the aesthetic aspect, which does not require specific training in architecture. In terms of expression, the substance is represented by the inventory of perceived spatial data (materials, colors, scales, etc.), known as ontological characteristics of spatial architecture. “The form of expression results from the organization and composition of spatial data in a form recognizable according to the spatial, temporal and social context in which this form manifests itself” (Laudati 2016, p. 5). As Laudati points out, the process of recognition is not taken into account here because it would already involve treatment by a cognitive subject: “Rather, we consider that at this stage the structuring of perceived data has in itself the capacity to be recognized according to the modalities of its manifestation: the iconic properties of perceived forms constitute the intrinsic characteristics, specific to the object, that allow its recognition (as well as each of its ontological characteristics)” (Laudati 2016, p. 5). It is therefore an immediate recognition of the signifying elements that give rise to conventional meanings – which implies a process of association and referencing based on everyone’s cultural background. It is, for example, a reference to a church easily recognizable by its bell tower, a mosque by its minaret, or a station by its clock. We will therefore apply this method of analysis to three geoparks that we have chosen. 12.3. Geopark museums in China The geopark museum is a highly standardized institutionalized structure at the national level in China. A definition can be found in the Chinese National Geopark Construction Operating Guide (2006): “Geopark museum is an important component of national geoparks. Geopark museum is a place that uses images, texts, models, objects, videos and information systems to provide visitors with a comprehensive introduction to the resources of the geopark, its geological and other landscapes, its natural and social environments and its geological history. It is a place that promotes scientific book, formulates the Vitruvian triad that architecture must satisfy: firmitas (solidity/ robustness), venustas (beauty/aesthetics), utilitas (convenience/utility) (Laudati 2014, p. 187).

220

UNESCO Global Geoparks

knowledge, raises awareness of conservation, and provides tourist information”6. It should be noted that for a territory in China to obtain the “national geopark” label (an essential label if it is to hope to obtain the UGG label later on), it must absolutely have a museum that will become the central point of the territory’s mediation. The recommendations made for China’s national geoparks have therefore inevitably had an impact on China’s global geoparks. It should be noted that recently created museums of the territory or the mountains, created specifically for a geopark, are most often located at the entrance to the tourist area, but they can also sometimes be inserted into the urban fabric. These benefit from a strong trend in the creation of museums in China, their number having increased from 2,970 in 2008 to 4,826 in 20167. At the same time, since the policy of free admission has been gradually implemented since 2008, their attendance has also increased, with the total number of museum visitors increasing from 250 million in 2007 to 900 million in 20168. “Provincial museums generally have more than a million visitors per year, [...] the long line in front of the museum entrance during holidays or major exhibitions has become a common scene” (Duan 2017). However, the situation of geopark museums, which are most often not recognized by ICOM China, seems very different. Although we do not have overall information on their use, we do have some fragmented data. For example, in 2016, there were only 60,000 visitors to the museum out of 980,000 visitors to the Dali Mt Cangshan Global Geopark, and only 1,600 entries to the museum out of 3.45 million visitors to the Mt Kunlunshan9 Global Geopark. So, what could be the obstacles to visiting geopark museums? As Céline Schall points out: “Attending a museum exhibition implies a physical, 6 Translation from Chinese: “地质公园博物馆是国家地质公园的重要 组 成部分质公园博物馆是利用图片、文字、模型、实物、影视及信息系统等多媒体形，向 游客全面介绍地质公园的资源、地质及其他景观、自然和社会环境以及地质发展历史， 向游客进行科学知识宣传和环绕保护意识的教育，并提供各种旅游信息的场所”. 7 According to official figures from museums registered with SACH. 8 According to figures provided by Yong Duan (former Vice-President of ICOM China). Nevertheless, Duan states in his book: “Several museum directors have told me that the number of visitors and the number of exhibitions in a museum are not always in linear growth because there are annual variations. However, the governments of each hierarchy require that these figures be increased each year, and if the figure decreases, there is a risk of a decrease in subsidies, or even punishment for the museum director. As a result, these directors are obliged to announce an increase between 10% and 20% based on the previous year’s figure” (Duan 2017, Kindle location 1138–1139). 9 The data for these two geoparks are derived from the geopark’s annual reports. However, the calculation method is not clear for both. Based on discussions with museum staff, it seems to us that the Dali Mt Cangshan Geopark Museum has no data other than group visits that involve the presence of a lecturer.

The Architectural Mediation of Geoparks Museums in China

221

intellectual and symbolic journey, which allows visitors to move from the ‘ordinary everyday’ space – outdoor, urban or rural, natural, tourist or commercial – to that of the museum – the world of art, science, the past, or in short, culture” (Schall 2015, p. 185). In the context, on the one hand, of the practices of visiting Chinese tourists who favor an aesthetic approach to nature and, on the other hand, of audiences who most often lack cultural museum practices, what is being done to facilitate this transition? Could the choice of the architectural language of a geopark museum facilitate this transition by representing in particular the specificities of the geopark and its geoheritage? Indeed, according to the Chinese National Geoparks Operating Guide (zhong guo guo jia dizhi gongyuan jianshe zhinan) (2006): “The exterior design of the geopark museum must both fully represent the meaning of the geopark and be in harmony with the building environment, while respecting the principles of cost savings and versatility” (p. 14). But then how can we represent the specificities of the geopark? According to architect Qu (2011), the themes of the exhibition and the specificities of geoheritage should be represented in architecture in an abstract way by symbols and metaphors, which would stimulate the visitors’ imagination. This author has therefore come to criticize the fact that many geopark museums remain in a superficial representation of geoheritage. “The museum becomes an expanded or reduced exhibition, presented to visitors regardless of their environment. It could therefore be transported to all other geoparks with the same theme; the museum would therefore lose its local specificity[...] and would rather become the mass production of a certain model” (Qu 2011, p. 71). In order to analyze these architectural choices and their consequences in terms of mediation, we mobilize, in this chapter, the approach to urban mediation developed by Laudati as “the symbolic process that takes place between individuals and urban spaces: a process of establishing or restoring the spatial and social link through which the individual reaffirms his own identity (reflexivity) and his status in relation to place and others (representations)” (Laudati 2016, p. 3). 12.4. Presentation of the three geoparks selected Without in any way claiming that the sample of the three Chinese geoparks we selected could be representative of the 37 Chinese UGGs existing in 2018, we nevertheless took into account various criteria so that the analysis of the data collected could answer questions relevant to our study (geographical situation, number of annual visitors, thematic anchoring of the geopark). First of all, it seemed obvious to us to choose one of the geoparks built on the historically famous mountain, Mount Tai. It is the sacred mount of the East in China which, historically, has been a place of convergence between royal worship, popular belief and literary

222

UNESCO Global Geoparks

tourism. We have also selected the two Chinese geoparks that received a “best practice” award from UNESCO in 2016: Fangshan UGG, awarded for the quality of interpretation work in geosciences, and Dali Cangshan UGG, awarded for “integrating in Geopark important intangible heritage”. 12.4.1. The Taishan UGG The Mount Taishan UGG Museum is located within the domain of Daimiao Temple, the Taoist temple of the God of Mt Tai. This complex of historic architecture and a ceremonial site used for fengshan10 sacrifices is one of the three components of Mt Taishan World Heritage listed in 1987. It covers 100,000 m2 in a garden located in downtown Tai’an11 at the foot of Mt Tai in the subdistrict of the well-populated Dai Temple12. Daimiao Temple is considered to be the center of the historic city, and the beginning of the canonical ascent path to the summit of Mt Taishan (via the “Red Gateway”, Hongmen). This site, visited both for the veneration of Mt Taishan and for the Temple fair13, also houses in the ancient buildings of the Dai Temple a series of exhibitions: “the ancient photos of Mt Taishan”, “the epigraphers”, “the imperial culture of the Qing dynasty”, “the stele paintings14 of the Han dynasty”, and “the rock sculptures”15 (Figure 12.1). Since 2005, the Taishan Global Geopark Museum (known as the “Geological Museum” to site staff) has been located on the north side of the courtyard in the Taoist Yuhua16 Garden, and fully merged with the spirit of the place. To get there, visitors

10 This is a worship ceremony practiced for 2,000 years by the Chinese emperors in homage to Heaven and Earth, under the aegis of the Son of Heaven himself. 11 Tai’an is the city (prefectoral level) where Mt Tai is located. The name of the city is translated as “the stable Mt Tai”, which signifies China’s political stability. 12 The subdistrict (jie dao) of Dai Temple (Daimiao) is an administrative division of 9.6 km2 which had 135,165 inhabitants in 2010 (source: www.citypopulation.de/php/china-townshiptaian_c.php). 13 Temple fairs (miao hui) are events organized in temples to celebrate the upcoming Spring Festival. Traditionally religious (Buddhist- and Taoist-inspired), these fairs are nowadays mainly used to organize markets. 14 Hua xiang shi are architectural stelae or plaques with frescoes, often used in the tombs or temples of ancestors during the Han dynasty (206 BC to AD 220), but there are also model paintings of the Song dynasty (AD 960–1279) on display in the Yuhua courtyard. 15 Visit the official site of the museum of the city of Tai’an, www.daimiao.cn/channels/93.html. 16 The Yuhua Court (literally “the abbey of flowers in the rain”) was initially the office and home of the Taoist priests. Since the 13th Century, the courtyard has had various facilities and functions: stelae conservation areas, art education rooms for priests, the site of the community parliament, a hotel and public baths in 1928. See Xiangming Zhao’s article, “The historical

The Architectural Mediation of Geoparks Museums in China

223

must first cross the Yuhua courtyard, which was rebuilt in 2007 and has since served as the Mt Taishan lapidarium for exhibiting the collection of engraved calligraphy (shike), the relief paintings on stelae (shi hua) and the rock sculptures (shi diao) (Figure 12.2, no. 3). Walking through this lapidarium therefore allows visitors to make a transition between the artistic and sacred perception of rocks in Chinese culture and a more scientific perception by staging, in a second garden, some geological samples from the rock collection that are presented with an interpretive board. At the end of this garden, the museum, with an exhibition area of 760 m2, is housed in a recent building with an exterior façade in the traditional style of the Daimiao Temple buildings. It is indeed surmounted by a false decorative roof resembling the lu style roof. The yellow glazed tile17 is used on the roof of the museum, as in the Tian Kuang pavilion (central pavilion of Daimiao Temple).

Figure 12.1. Satellite photo of Dai Temple (source: map.baidu.com) and exhibitions on the Daimiao temple site (photographs source: Yi Du and Yves Girault). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

evolution and protection today of the Yuhua Court of Dai Temple”, www.daimiao. cn/contents/193/5400.html. 17 Yellow is the color reserved for imperial palaces and temples according to traditional building codes.

224

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Figure 12.2. Arrangement of the various elements in the Yuhua garden (photographs source: Yi Du and Yves Girault). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

Figure 12.3. Locations of Daimiao Temple and the new museum project in the Mt Taishan landscape area (dark-colored territory) and buffer zone (light yellow color) 18 (map source: Mt Taishan landscape area planning (2016–2035 )). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip 18 www.mount-tai.com.cn/11734.shtml.

The Architectural Mediation of Geoparks Museums in China

225

Before continuing our analysis of the other two geopark museums, we also note another project used to create the new Mt Taishan Geopark Museum. Indeed, it was launched by the municipalities of Tai’an in February 2018, with the objective of meeting not only the current constraints of the museum19 but also economic development. According to the local press, this new museum should contribute to increasing tourist interest by serving as a new focal point for the city of Tai’an20. The new building will have a surface area21 of 32,000 m2. According to the architect, this project, which is based on an architecture composed of seven square pavilions inspired by the “high mountains and flowing waters” pavilion located at Mt Taishan22 was supposed to “integrate into Mt Taishan and take root in its culture” (Figures 12.3–12.5). The theme of the exhibition would illustrate the saying “if Mt Taishan is stable, the world is stable”23. Nevertheless, this project, located in the middle of the axis linking the Dai Temple and the Red Door overlooking the entrance to Mt Taishan, was suspended on July 2, 2018 by the State Administration for Cultural Heritage (SACH). This institution, which manages the country’s museums, cultural relics and World Heritage sites, has asked the Tai’an municipalities to take the following additional steps: 1) clarify the relationship between the project site and the protection zones established by the plan for the Mt Taishan World Heritage site and other surrounding cultural relic units;

19 Since 1986, the Tai’an City Museum has been using the protected historic buildings of the Daimiao Temple for the exhibition and conservation of its collections, which prevents both the necessary conservation and exhibition conditions from being met and the museum from being free of charge for the public. See Zhang (2018) 泰山博物院：历史文化轴 线新地标. Qilu wanbao, March 11, A9-A10, http://epaper.qlwb.com.cn/qlwb/PDF/20180 311/A09.pdf. 20 According to the press of the city of Tai’an, which is part of Shandong Province, this project is part of the province’s economic development strategy, which aims to facilitate the transition from traditional industries to new sources of growth, including the tertiary sector (source: http://taian.sdnews.com.cn/taxw/201802/t20180227_2354246.htm). 21 Zhang, J. (2018). 泰山博物院：历史文化轴线新地标. Qilu wanbao, March 11, A9-A10, http://epaper.qlwb.com.cn/qlwb/PDF/20180311/A09.pdf. 22 This pavilion, built in 1572, is named gao shan liu shui (literally “high mountains and flowing waters”) to pay tribute to the history of the friendship (in the 6th Century BCE) between the scholar/musician Boya Yu and his friend Ziqi Zhong who was able to visualize his friend’s thoughts by listening to his music. 23 This saying is used today in various promotional documents for Mt Taishan. We do not know its source, but according to some journalists, it must have been formulated in 1945 in the Tai’an County Development Discussion (source: www.ce.cn/culture/rw/cn/xw/ 200903/04/t20090304_18388794.shtml).

226

UNESCO Global Geoparks

2) further study the long-term influence of the construction on the natural and cultural landscape of the Daimiao–Mt Taishan Temple axis; 3) reduce the area and simplify the architecture, avoid building units with courtyards and add greenery to borders to reduce impacts on the landscape and historic areas; 4) clarify the aims of the museum, and insist on the demonstration and explanation of the outstanding universal values of Mt Taishan World Heritage. It therefore seems that the SACH’s objection to this architectural project initiated by the Tai’an municipality is mainly due to two conflicts. The first is the municipality’s desire to stimulate the local economy through the development of a flagship attraction for tourism versus SACH’s concerns about the potential impacts on the protection of Mt Taishan’s heritage and historic sites. The second concerns the focus on the identity of Taishan desired by local elected officials versus the focus on the enhancement of the World Heritage label desired by SACH.

Figure 12.4. Architecture of the new Mt Taishan museum, which is inspired by 24 the “high mountains and flowing waters” pavilion located at Mt Taishan

24 www.xinhuanet.com/city/2018-02/28/c_129818906.htm.

The Archite ectural Mediatio on of Geoparks Museums in Ch hina

227

Figure 12.5. 1 The “high h mountains and a flowing waters” pavilion located l at Mt T Taishan25

12.4.2. The Fangsh han UGG The Fangshan UG GG Museum is located in n the Fangshhan district off Greater m from the Beeijing metropo olitan area (also known ass Beijing) Beijing, about 60 km 1 orange and a pink). (Figure 12.6,

Figure e 12.6. Locatio on of the Fang gshan UGG Museum M (indicated by the m museum 26 icon) in n Fangshan diistrict, southwe est of central Beijing B . For a color version n of this figure, see www w.iste.co.uk/girrault/geoparks.zip 25 Photoggraph source: http://blog.sina.c h com.cn/s/blog_ _5019abe00001002v2ui.html.

228

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Fangshan district was known for its production of coal and building materials. According to media reports, before 2002, about 70% of the coal and building materials sold on the Beijing markets came from Fangshan. In the context of a national policy to transform the industrial model and the implementation of the Beijing City Air Quality Action Plan (2013–2017), local authorities have committed themselves to changing their resource-based industry. Between 2011 and 2015, more than 1,200 quarries and factories of lime and clay bricks were closed and in 2015, more than 30 groups of cement plants, chemical industries, foundries and coal industries were closed27. Since 2015, and to compensate for this significant deindustrialization of the territory, the Fangshan government has invested in a territorial strategy to build a “village of investment funds” (jijin xiaozhen28) based on Greenwich Village near New York. As part of this modernization and territorial development project, a 24,800 m2 international conference center was built in 2015 (Figure 12.7).

Figure 12.7. Satellite photograph of the Fangshan UGG Museum site29

26 Map source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_of_Beijing. 27 Data source: www.xinhuanet.com/2015-10/19/c_128333333249.htm. 28 About 45 “investment fund villages” were built in China between 2012 and 2017 (source: http://stock.cnstock.com/stock/smk_jjdx/201806/4237816.htm). The one in Fangshan is known as the Beijing Investment Fund Village. 29 Satellite photograph source: map.baidu.com.

The Architectural Mediation of Geoparks Museums in China

229

Today, facing the international conference center, on the other side of a wide road on which there is a reconstruction of the Arc de Triomphe, the GGN Museum in Fangshan was built on a site of which half of the rock layer has been stripped to a thickness of 6 cm – “a wound to nature left by man”, as the architects describe it. This museum is housed in a gigantic modern three-storey building, 24 m high and 10,000 m2 in area (including an exhibition area of 5,800 m2), all located on a site devoid of any foliage, covering an area of 61,065.79 m2 (Figure 12.8)30. It should also be noted that, of the three geoparks museums selected in this chapter, only Fangshan UGG is signed by an architect as an architectural work31.

Figure 12.8. The main entrance to the Geological Museum of Fangshan UGG (source: Yi Du)

Construction began in 2009 and it has been open to the public since 2011. It is a building built of reinforced concrete, with curtain wall facades composed of glass panels and rock slabs (Figure 12.9). The external walls are covered by local slate slabs in reference to local geology.

30 Including the museum building, the scientific popularization square, the parking lot, etc. 31 Several articles on the architectural design of the Fangshan UGG Museum have been published by the architect’s team in architecture and design journals. The Fangshan UGG Museum is presented as a flagship work of architect Yinong Li (see the interview with the architect: www.archcy.com/interview/designer/326fd80620b88cd7).

230

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Figure 12.9. The contrast of the textures on the north façade. The Fangshan Museum UGG (source: Li et al. 2010). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

If the architectural form represents “an allegory of the orogenesis and metaphor of the origin of man”, as the architect Yinong Li claims, it seems that this is not perceived by many visitors, among whom we include ourselves. Yinong Li also insists on his idea “to use architecture to repair nature: architecture intervenes in the middle of the Man/Nature divide, it fills this gap to harmonize their relationships” (Li et al. 2010, p. 63). By claiming to “bridge the gap” between humanity and nature, the architect refers to the destroyed ground (which she describes as “the wound of the earth”). Nevertheless, without any local mediation in relation to the context of the project, this intellectual metaphor seems difficult to decode because it is rather a domination of humanity over nature that seems to be evoked here by this architecture. Indeed, this museum is located in a purely mineral environment; there

The Architectural Mediation of Geoparks Museums in China

231

is no lawn, no tree, no pond and no animals, unlike the integration of the Taishan museum which is at the center of a garden, a real artistic creation that reveals a compromise between an aesthetic and symbolic approach to nature. These first two examples of geopark museum architecture therefore reflect an important ontological difference between Fangshan’s, which represents modernism, characterized by a return to minimal decoration, pure and functional geometric lines and the use of new techniques, and Taishan’s, which, by integrating with traditional Chinese culture, underlines harmony with nature. 12.4.3. The Dali Mt Cangshan UGG Dali (and Yunnan province in general) is located in southwest China at a cultural crossroad. The Dali Mt Cangshan32 UGG Museum was built in July 2014 with a view to applying for the Global Geopark (GGN) label obtained in 2014. It is located in the village of Dali (dali zhen), 3 km from the area known as the “ancient city of Dali” (dali gucheng), which itself was designated as a “historical and cultural city” by the central state in 1982. This city was built in 1382 by the Ming army on the former site of the Yangjumie city 羊苴咩城, which, during the period from 779 to 1253, was the capital of the kingdoms of Nanzhao 南诏 and Dali (Yi and Bai regimes), as well as the center of power in the Yunnan region at that time. In fact, despite the fact that, after the conquest of Dali by the Mongolian troop of Kubilai Khan in 1253, the center of Yunnan’s power was transported to the city of Yachi 押赤城 (today in Kunming, about 350 km from Dali), the ancient city of Dali remains an important place in Yunnan’s history. It includes, for example, the base of the Muslim rebels against the Manchu Qing dynasty in the Panthay Revolt (1856– 1873)33. As we have mentioned, the Dali Mt Cangshan UGG Museum is not located in the center of the old town, but on the outskirts of the city in an area developed for

32 Dali’s name comes from the kingdom of Dali 大理 (937–1253). Today, there are three legal scales of the territorial administrative subdivision, namely the Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture (zizhi zhou) (3.6 million inhabitants), the municipality (shi) of Dali (652,045 inhabitants) and the village (zhen) of Dali (82,566 inhabitants). The Geopark Museum is located in the village of Dali, which occupies the area (and its surroundings) now called “the ancient city of Dali” (dali gucheng). 33 In 1950, the capital of the autonomous prefecture of Dali was moved from the ancient city of Dali to the city of Xiaguan (15 km from the ancient city). As the Global Geopark is a project led by the Prefectural Government, the main staff in charge of the Geopark are based in the city of Xiaguan, and only employees of the Dali Travel Group Co., Ltd. are present daily onsite for any official visits.

232

UNESCO Global Geoparks

tourism purposes. It is located at the foot of the mountain, on the road leading to the Ximatan cable car station opened in 2011. This cable car managed by the Dali Travel Group Co., Ltd.34 is presented as the highest cable car in the world (1,648 m of altitude ascent) and the longest in China (5,555 m)35, making it one of Dali’s main tourist attractions. In addition, the museum adjoins (and shares the car parking with) the “Demigods and Semi-Demons” studio, which was built in 2002 for the television adaptation of a novel of the Wuxia genre, which is very popular in China. Since 2004, this studio has been transformed into a themed leisure park, also managed by Dali Travel Group Co., Ltd. Every morning and afternoon, the theme park offers theatrical performances and the music and festive atmosphere can be heard up to the entrance to the UGG Museum in Dali (Figures 12.10 and 12.11). Visitor center Geopark Museum (2014)

"Demi-Gods and SemiDevils” Studio (Wuxia theme park) (2002)

Mt Cangshan Heritage Exhibit Halls (2014)

Entrance to Mt Cangshan / cable car ticket office (2011)

Figure 12.10. The UGG Museum of Dali and its surroundings36

34 Dali Travel Group Co., Ltd. is a state-owned company established in 2002. With its nine subsidiaries, the group operates the main tourist sites in Dali, such as the Temple of the Three Pagodas, the Source of Butterflies, the “Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils” studio, the Ximatan cable car, the Erhai Lake Park, etc. 35 Dali Daily, http://dalidaily.com/toutiao/20110905/150350.html. 36 Satellite photo: map.baidu.com.

The Architectural Mediation of Geoparks Museums in China

233

Figure 12.11. The Dali Mt Cangshan UGG Museum in rectangular shape next to the visitor center (right) and the emblematic stele of the geopark (left) (source: Yi Du)

The museum building is divided into two buildings connected by a staircase, and the total area is 3,081.46 m2. The style of architecture mixes both functionalist modernism and the regionalist genre. The Geopark Museum is thus clearly distinct from most other local museums, the architectural style of which is mainly traditional (some are located in former refurbished buildings), such as the Dali Prefecture Museum (Figure 12.12) and the Tie Dyeing Museum (Figure 12.13).

Figure 12.12. The Dali Prefecture Museum built in 1986 in a localized style of the Tang dynasties, recognized for its fine arts approach (source: Yves Girault)

In contrast, the Dali UGG building is much more modest, marked by functionalism, the dominant style of public buildings in China (Zhu 2008, pp. 109– 110). “This may be regarded as a type of socialist modernism, as it was rational and functionalist with a clear idea that architecture was to serve the masses and the state” (Zhu 2008, p. 109).

234

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Figure 12.13. The Tie Dyeing Museum in Zhou village, Dali (source: Yves Girault)

However, it seems to us that the Dali UGG Museum also embodies socialist functionalism, i.e. in addition to these forms ensuring the role of architecture in the service of society and the State, local decorative elements are integrated into this modern architecture (Figures 12.14 and 12.15). By using the iconic architectural elements of the region, the complex of buildings reaffirms the great traditions of Dali (i.e. the canonical landscape of Lake Erhai and Mount Cangshan). “It is an architecture of decoration, an architecture of social and socialist realism. The ideas or content expressed though these images concerned grand narratives of the nation, its grand tradition, its heroic revolution and its glorious future” (Zhu 2008, p. 110).

Figure 12.14. The security guards’ stand in the form of a traditional pavilion in front of the museum entrance (source: Yi Du)

The Architectural Mediation of Geoparks Museums in China

235

Figure 12.15. A bank of frescoes in relief reflects both the local style of the Zhao bi architecture and the iconic landscapes of Dali (source: Yi Du)

12.5. Conclusion While a national recommendation specifies that the exterior design of the geopark museum must both fully represent the meaning of the geopark and be in harmony with the building’s environment while respecting its principles, the three museums selected illustrate three major trends in geopark museum architecture. One refers to traditional Chinese architecture that values Confucian nationalist values, and the second, by combining national tradition and modern structure, has gradually evolved into a vernacular version that has produced the neo-nationalist style (Zhu 2008, p. 117). Finally, the latter favors inclusion in the international movement of “supermodernism”. This observation highlights that other issues, than those presented above in the national guidelines, are sometimes included in the architectural choices of geopark museums by architects, local elected officials, evaluators from ministries and the GGN. These choices reveal a hybridization of cultures that, as Pieterse put it, implies that “what is happening is a process of cultural mixing or hybridization between places and identities” (Pieterse 2009, p. 44). In future work, we will analyze to what extent these different architectural choices are, or are not, consistent with the narrative proposed in the permanent exhibition of these museums by presenting information related to geosciences and/or by presenting the cultural aspects such as inscribed rocks and intangible heritage. 12.6. References Cai, Y. (2014). State and Agents in China: Disciplining Government Officials. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

236

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Chen, A., Lu, Y., Ng, Y.C.Y. (2015). The Principles of Geotourism. Springer, Berlin. Du, Y., Girault, Y. (2019, in press). Pratiques géotouristiques et interprétation de la nature dans les géoparcs chinois : Entre tension et hybridation des cultures. Éducation relative à l’environnement : Regards – Recherches – Réflexions. Duan, Y. (2017). 当代中国博物馆 House, Nanjing.

(Contemporary Chinese Museum). Yilin Publishing

Hou, L., Xu, X. (2003). 国家地质 公园及其旅游开发 (National geopark and its tourism development). 地域研究与开发 (Areal Research and Development), 22(5), 54–57. Juhé-Beaulaton, D., Girault, Y. (2016). Entre effervescence et ambivalences : Les déclinaisons locales du patrimoine. In Ambivalences patrimoniales au Sud : Mise en scène et jeux d’acteurs. Karthala, Paris. Koolhaas, R. (2011). Junkspace. Repenser radicalement l’espace urbain. Payot, Paris. Laudati, P. (2014). Formes de l’architecture : Langages, images et pratiques partagés. In Formes en devenir. Approches technologiques, communicationnelles et symboliques, Lardellier, P. (ed.). ISTE Editions, London. Laudati, P. (2016). Médiation urbaine. Expérience sensible et sens de l’espace. In Sens et Médiation : Actes du Congrès de l’Association française de sémiotique, Bertrand, D., Colas-Blaise, M., Darrault-Harris, J., Estay Stange, V. (eds). Université du Luxembourg, Luxembourg. Laudati, P. (2018). Penser les lieux. La conception architecturale des espaces comme déclencheur de reconnaissance et réflexivité. In Communication colloque international “Des lieux pour penser. Musées, bibliothèques, théâtres”. Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris.

设 设 设 自然：房山世界地质 公园博物馆 ’, 建筑创 作 (Designing Li, Y., Ma, L., Li, H. (2010). 设 and compiling the nature: Fangshan Museum of World’s Geological Park). Archi Creation, 10, 76–87. Moukarzel, J.R. (2011). Du musée-écrin au musée-objet. Les musées, outils de communication et gages de contemporanéité. Hermès La Revue, 61(3), 90–95. Pieterse, J.N. (2009). Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange, 2nd edition. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.

设相关问问研究 (The Research on Related Issues of 公园博物馆 建筑设 Qu, T. (2011). 地质 Geopark Museum Design). 华 中科技大学 (Huazhong University of Science & Technology), Wuhan. Schall, C. (2015). De l’espace public au musée. Le seuil comme espace de médiation. Culture & Musées, 25, 185–206. Xu, H., Cui, Q., Sofield, T., Li, F.M.S. (2014). Attaining harmony: Understanding the relationship between ecotourism and protected areas in China. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(8), 1131–1150. Zhu, J. (2008). Architecture of Modern China: A Historical Critique. Routledge, Abingdon.

List of Authors

Ali AOUDA

Martí BOADA JUNCÀ

Cadi Ayyad University Laboratoire des études sur ressources, mobilités et attractivité Marrakech Morocco

Autonomous University of Barcelona Institute of Environmental Science and Technology Barcelona Spain

Igor BABOU

Saïd BOUJROUF

Paris Diderot University Centre d’études et de recherches interdisciplinaires en lettres, arts et cinéma Paris France

Cadi Ayyad University Laboratoire des études sur ressources, mobilités et attractivité Marrakech Morocco

Maxence BAILLY

Autonomous University of Barcelona Barcelona Spain

Aix-Marseille University Laboratoire méditéranéen de préhistoire Europe Afrique Marseille France

Carles BARRIOCANAL LOZANO Autonomous University of Barcelona Institute of Environmental Science and Technology Barcelona Spain

José Luis BRIANSÓ

Esteve CARDELLACH Autonomous University of Barcelona Barcelona Spain

Yi DU Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle UMR Patrimoines locaux et gouvernance, Paloc MNHN/IRD Paris France

UNESCO Global Geoparks: Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement First Edition. Edited by Yves Girault. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

238

UNESCO Global Geoparks

Abdelhadi EWAGUE Chouaib Doukkali University Laboratoire Maroc et pays méditerranéens: histoire civilisationnelle, politique et culturelle El Jadida Morocco

Yves GIRAULT Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle UMR Patrimoines locaux et gouvernance, Paloc, MNHN/IRD Paris France

David GÓMEZ-GRAS Autonomous University of Barcelona Barcelona Spain

Catalina GONZALEZ TEJADA Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle UMR Patrimoines locaux et gouvernance, Paloc MNHN/IRD Paris France

Gwenola GRAFF Institut de recherche pour le développement UMR Patrimoines locaux et gouvernance, Paloc MNHN/IRD Paris France

Élisabeth HABERT Institut de recherche pour le développement UMR Patrimoines locaux et gouvernance, Paloc MNHN/IRD Paris France

Martin LOYER Freelance photographer Paris France

François MAIRESSE New Sorbonne University Paris 3 Centre de recherche sur les liens sociaux Paris France

Roser MANEJA ZARAGOZA Autonomous University of Barcelona Institute of Environmental Science and Technology Barcelona Spain

Jaume MARLÈS MAGRE Autonomous University of Barcelona Institute of Environmental Science and Technology Barcelona Spain

Francisco José MARTÍNEZ Autonomous University of Barcelona Barcelona Spain

Joan POCH Autonomous University of Barcelona Barcelona Spain

Josep Antoni PUJANTELL ALBÓS Autonomous University of Barcelona Institute of Environmental Science and Technology Barcelona Spain

Sònia SÀNCHEZ-MATEO Autonomous University of Barcelona Institute of Environmental Science and Technology Barcelona Spain

List of Authors

Ouidad TEBAA Cadi Ayyad University Laboratoire Langues, identités, médias, patrimoines, cultures et tourisme Marrakech Morocco

Antonio TEIXELL Autonomous University of Barcelona Barcelona Spain

Francisco VALDEZ Institut de recherche pour le développement UMR Patrimoines locaux et gouvernance, Paloc MNHN/IRD Paris France

Fabien VAN GEERT New Sorbonne University Paris 3 Centre de recherche sur les liens sociaux Paris France

Aurélie ZWANG Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle UMR Patrimoines locaux et gouvernance, Paloc MNHN/IRD Paris France

239

Index

A, B

D, E

artialization, 16 biodiversity, 5, 11, 21, 30, 37, 59, 83, 135–137, 141, 143, 195 brand, 15, 17, 57, 63, 66, 67, 73, 91 territory, 63 brokers in participation, 14

democracy, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 18, 46 environmental, 4, 7, 9 participative, 11, 15 development, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 24–26, 31, 32, 36–39, 41–47, 50, 52, 54–58, 62–65, 67, 68, 70–72, 74, 75, 77–79, 81–89, 92–94, 99, 100, 102–105, 116–118, 127, 130, 132, 149, 150, 155, 159, 161, 165, 166, 174, 175, 177, 178, 184, 187, 189–191, 195, 196, 199, 200, 207–211, 216, 218, 225, 226, 228, 236 economic, 44, 45, 54, 55, 58, 62, 68, 92, 100, 102, 103, 117, 155, 174, 187, 207, 218, 225 local, 12, 18, 24, 42, 43, 92, 102, 177, 199, 207 model, 77 tourism, 36, 46, 73, 78, 100, 117, 127, 174, 177, 187, 195 economic evaluation, 100 economy, 10, 16, 25, 28, 38, 55, 56, 63–65, 84, 92–95, 97, 99, 101, 105, 107, 117, 127, 148, 154, 156, 157, 171, 190, 226

C Canary Islands, 3, 15, 16, 44 Catalonia, 39, 42, 43, 53–70, 72, 74, 142, 145 China, 215–222, 228, 231–233, 235, 236 colony, 7 commercial museum, 93, 94, 97, 103 communication, 8, 17, 19, 25, 54, 57, 64, 66, 106, 133, 185, 189, 190, 195, 199–203, 206, 210–212, 217, 236 educational, 203 communicative intentionality, 200– 203 creative industries, 101, 102 Creole, 13 cultural construction, 148

UNESCO Global Geoparks: Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement First Edition. Edited by Yves Girault. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

242

UNESCO Global Geoparks

editorial authority, 201, 204, 206 enunciation, 201 education for sustainable development, 200 legitimization, 206, 210 objectives, 208 enhancing geography, 31, 39 enunciator, 200, 201, 206, 207

G geodiversity, 35–38, 43, 111, 115–122, 126, 129, 131, 151 geographic data, 191, 192 geological heritage, 26–38, 40–42, 44–48, 54, 57, 58, 60–63, 66, 67, 73, 74, 81, 83, 116, 117, 119, 122, 129, 130–132, 186, 216, 221 geopark, 3, 4, 15–17, 19, 24, 26–28, 31, 35–41, 43–45, 47, 48, 77, 81, 86, 92, 98, 102, 103, 105, 117, 118, 120, 129, 147, 148–151, 155–158, 160, 162, 165, 166, 177, 187–189, 200, 202–205, 207, 210–213, 215–221, 225, 233, 235, 236 French, 199–211 Tremp-Montsec, 54, 57, 70, 74 geotourism, 27, 36, 38, 41, 46, 50, 62, 70, 72, 74, 75, 92, 105, 117, 118, 120, 122–127, 129, 187, 199, 209 governance, 5, 9, 10, 85–87, 89, 184

H, I heritage fabricators, 26 indigenous, 12, 13, 78, 119–121, 153, 154, 160, 162, 163, 165 interaction, 6, 7, 14, 80, 134, 165, 185, 186, 217 interdisciplinarity, 210

interpretation, 14, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 47, 58, 64, 66–68, 71, 72, 75, 92, 98, 104, 133–136, 142, 171, 174, 205, 215, 216, 222 landscape, 66, 135, 216 inventory, 16, 17, 25, 30, 33, 36, 38–43, 61, 62, 111, 119–121, 130, 170, 175, 177, 192, 193, 206, 219

L, M label, 16, 23, 28, 30, 40, 42, 54, 65, 77, 78, 81–89, 103, 155, 187, 200, 208, 212, 220, 226, 231 UNESCO, 78, 84, 155 language, 13, 14, 221 Lanzarote, 3, 4, 12, 15–17, 21 legal vocabulary, 13 local community, 3, 11, 12, 15, 23, 24, 26, 27, 33, 47, 48, 80, 81, 116–118, 127 management plan, 11, 13, 122 migration, 12, 13, 55, 83, 85, 156 Mixtec, 154, 160–162, 165 Morocco, 77–79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 89, 90, 111–113, 119, 127, 130, 131, 133, 138, 144, 169, 170, 172, 173, 175, 176, 178, 187, 190

N, O, P NGO, 14, 18 Oaxaca, 147, 149, 155, 158, 166, 167 Pallars Jussà, 54, 63–66, 68 park national, 5, 11, 14, 29, 32, 41, 45, 46, 65, 77–79, 81 natural, 11, 24, 35, 36–41, 43, 47, 102, 199, 204, 207, 209, 210 participation, 3–5, 7–17, 19–21, 25–27, 35, 51, 80, 86, 88, 89, 117, 200, 208 stadardized models of, 15

Index

participatory approach, 4, 10, 13–15, 18 passing sign, 201–203 patrimonialization, 12, 25, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 200 pedagogy, 209 planning, 3, 6, 7, 9, 25, 35, 45, 55, 58, 100, 184, 190, 196, 207, 224 spatial, 3, 6, 25 public inquiry, 11 Pyrenees, 53–55, 57, 66, 68, 71

R, S reflexivity, 4, 6, 18, 221 registration file, 16 rock art, 170, 172, 174, 175, 177, 178 school audience, 41, 200 semiology, 200–202 sensitive, 14, 63, 87, 209 settlement, 7, 138 southern countries, 9 specificity, 24, 26, 94, 95, 133, 220

T, U territorial marketing, 54, 57, 71 territorialization, 77, 89

243

territory, 16–18, 23–29, 34, 36–38, 40, 41, 43–48, 53–56, 58, 61–67, 69–74, 78, 81, 82, 84, 86–88, 100, 116–118, 129, 135, 137, 148, 153–155, 165, 166, 177, 184, 185, 187, 189, 190, 192, 196, 199–201, 203–205, 207–210, 217, 218, 220, 224, 228 theme, 14, 101, 107, 157, 171, 187, 188, 194, 201, 207, 208, 221 tourism, 12, 16, 27, 29, 32, 33, 37, 38, 40, 43–47, 55, 56, 62–65, 70, 73–75, 77–79, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 91, 95–97, 100, 102, 103, 116, 117, 127–129, 132, 148, 155, 157, 165, 174, 177, 184, 187, 195, 207, 216, 218, 222, 226, 232, 236 Tremp, 44, 53, 54, 62–71, 73, 74, 76, 116 uncertainty, 6 unintended consequences of action, 6

V, W, Z virtual, 183–187, 189–196 website, 10, 185, 188, 200–203, 206, 207 wilderness, 17 Zat Valley, 82, 111–113, 115, 117, 119, 126, 128, 133, 139, 141, 183, 184, 186, 187, 190, 192–195

Other titles from

in Ecological Science

2019 AMIARD Jean-Claude Industrial and Medical Nuclear Accidents: Environmental, Ecological, Health and Socio-economic Consequences (Radioactive Risk SET – Volume 2) BOULEAU Gabrielle Politicization of Ecological Issues: From Environmental Forms to Environmental Motives KARA Mohamed Hichem, QUIGNARD Jean-Pierre Fishes in Lagoons and Estuaries in the Mediterranean 2: Sedentary Fish Fishes in Lagoons and Estuaries in the Mediterranean 3A: Migratory Fish Fishes in Lagoons and Estuaries in the Mediterranean 3B: Migratory Fish OUVRARD Benjamin, STENGE Anne Incentives and Environmental Policies: From Theory to Empirical Novelties

2018 AMIARD Jean-Claude Military Nuclear Accidents: Environmental, Ecological, Health and Socioeconomic Consequences (Radioactive Risk SET – Volume 1) FLIPO Fabrice The Coming Authoritarian Ecology GUILLOUX Bleuenn Marine Genetic Resources, R&D and the Law 1: Complex Objects of Use KARA Mohamed Hichem, QUIGNARD Jean-Pierre Fishes in Lagoons and Estuaries in the Mediterranean 1: Diversity, Bioecology and Exploitation

2016 BAGNÈRES Anne-Geneviève, HOSSAERT-MCKEY Martine Chemical Ecology

2014 DE LARMINAT Philippe Climate Change: Identification and Projections

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT Go to www.wiley.com/go/eula to access Wiley’s ebook EULA.