Geomorphosites

Emmanuel Reynard, Paola Coratza

and Géraldine Regolini-Bissig
(editors)

Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil • München 2009

 9

1 Geomorphosites:
definitions and characteristics

Emmanuel Reynard*

Abstract
Geomorphosites are a type of geosite, which can be defined as portions of the geosphere
that present a particular importance for the comprehension of Earth history. They are
spatially delimited and from a scientific point of view clearly distinguishable from their
surroundings. Various groups of geosites may be distinguished according to their sci-
entific interest: structural, paleontological, hydrogeological, sedimentological etc. Sites
of geomorphological interest are called geomorphological sites or geomorphosites and
two levels of definitions have been proposed: a restrictive definition – that considers
geomorphosites as testimonies of the Earth history –, and a broader one – that considers
as geomorphosites all the landforms to which a value can be given. Five types of value
may be differentiated: scientific, ecological, aesthetic, cultural and economic and it has
been proposed that the first one should be considered as central, whereas the four others
are additional values. Geomorphosites are multiple: they can be single objects or larger
systems, active geomorphosites that allow the visualisation of geomorphological processes
in action (e.g. river systems, active volcanoes) or passive ones that testify past processes;
in this case, they have a particular heritage value as Earth memory (landscape evolution,
life history and climate variations). The vulnerability of geomorphosites is related to both
natural and human impacts.

1 Introduction
This book deals with issues concerning the assessment, protection and management of geomor-
phological heritage. The concept of heritage refers to what is transmitted from one generation to
another; the geomorphological heritage may, therefore, be considered as the set of landforms
worthy of being protected and transmitted to the future generations. During the last two decades
scientific research has been carried out in various parts of the world in order to better under-
stand the main characteristics of such geoheritage and to develop methods aimed at selecting,
qualifying and managing the main landforms. In recent years, the term generally used to refer
to the geomorphological part of geoheritage is “geomorphosites”, a contraction of “geomorpho-
logical sites”, proposed by M. Panizza in 2001. In this chapter we propose a discussion of the
definitions and terminology used for qualifying the geomorphological heritage and we discuss
the relationships (similarities, differences) with other fields of geoheritage studies.

* Prof. Emmanuel Reynard, Université de Lausanne, Institut de Géographie, Anthropole, CH-1015 Lausanne,
Switzerland. E-mail: emmanuel.reynard@unil.ch

Geomorphosites, p. 9-20 – © 2009 Pfeil, Munich – ISBN 978-3-89937-094-2

10

2 Geosites

2.1 Geomorphosites: a type of geosites

Geomorphosites are one of the multiple types of geosites referring to all the disciplinary fields
of geosciences (structural, paleontological, sedimentological, stratigraphical, mineralogical, geo-
chemical, petrographical, hydrogeological, speleological, pedological, geomorphological sites,
etc.) (Grandgirard 1999). Geosites (synonyms: geotopes, Earth science sites, geoscience sites)
may be considered as portions of the geosphere that present a particular importance for the
comprehension of the Earth’s history (Reynard 2004a). They are testimonies of climate changes,
tectonic evolution and the related changes in the history of life at the surface of the Earth. They
allow the reconstruction of ancient processes, and of past climates, environments and geogra-
phies. Geosites are also important to observe recent (Quaternary) and current processes and
geological features. For all these reasons, geosites are considered as heritage sites – that should
be conserved for the future generations –, as well as other natural and human heritage places.
Geoheritage conservation has a quite long history if we consider that the first geological objects
were protected at the beginning of the 19th century, as is the case of the “Pierre-à-Bot” erratic
block in Neuchâtel (Switzerland) that was put under protection by the city of Neuchâtel in 1838
on the request of Louis Agassiz who used it as an indication of the former extension of the Rhone
glacier in his famous Discourse on glaciers (1837). Nevertheless, geoheritage studies, aiming at
defining, characterising and assessing geosites are much more recent, and it is not before the
beginning of the 1990s that the scientific community began to study geoheritage systematically
(Actes 1994, O’Halloran et al. 1994).

2.2 Two definitions

Since this time, two main approaches have developed for defining what geosites are (Reynard
2004a): a restrictive one and a broader one. According to the restrictive definition, geosites are
considered as geological objects that present a particular interest for the comprehension of the
Earth, climate and life history (Grandgirard 1997, 1999). They allow the analysis of the spatial
and temporal evolution of an area and for the meaning of surface processes and the importance
of rocks in the development of specific landscapes to be comprehended (Strasser et al. 1995).
Their evaluation should, therefore, be based essentially on criteria characterising their scientific
quality (rarity, exemplarity for the Earth sciences, etc.).
Some authors (Panizza & Piacente 1993, 2003, Panizza 2001) have proposed a broader defini-
tion. They consider as geosites each geological object – a mineral site, a landform, a fossil, etc.
– that presents a certain value due to human perception or exploitation. These authors distin-
guish four types of values: scientific, aesthetic, cultural/historical and economic. They consider
that the scientific interest concerns both the importance of the site for the reconstruction of the
Earth’s history (geological interest in a broad sense) and its importance for the development of
life, with the geosite showing the links between the geological characteristics and the biotopes
(ecological interest). Successively, Reynard (2004b, 2005a) has proposed to consider only the
geological value as “scientific value” and to add, therefore, a fifth main value that is the ecological
one. He also proposed to distinguish the values of geosites at two levels: the central (scientific)
and additional values (ecological, aesthetic, cultural and economic) (Fig. 1)
Uluru (Ayers Rock) in Central Australia (Fig. 2) is a good example to illustrate the two defini-
tions described above. From a scientific point of view, Uluru is first of all a very good example
of an inselberg (geomorphological interest), but also a key element for explaining the geological
and climatic evolution of the Central Australia desert (Sweet & Crick 1992). In fact, the current
shape of Uluru is due to a complex geomorphological evolution: the quartz sandstones of Uluru
are currently vertically layered but they were formerly deposited in a large alluvial fan and suc-
cessively deformed by tectonic movements. Uluru is, therefore, only a very small part of a larger

Section I – What are geomorphosites?

 11

Additional values
– cultural, historical,
Scientific religious Global
value + – ecological
= value
– social/economic
– aesthetic
Fig. 1. Central and additional values of geosites.

alluvial system partly covered by successive deposition processes (Sweet & Crick 1992).
Concerning the additional values, Uluru is important for ecological, aesthetic, cultural and
economic reasons. The aesthetic value is linked with the color changes at sunrise and sunset,
which constitute a unique characteristic at world level. The aesthetic value is responsible for the
economic interest of the landform: an important tourist development has occurred during the
last decades both on the site itself (especially the construction of view points for both sunrise
and sunset hours) and in the neighbour town of Alice Springs. The cultural value is related to
the religious importance of the site for the Aboriginal population. The whole site is sacred as
well as specific places – especially taffonis – on the walls of the relief. The area is also known for
its traditional stone paintings (archaeological remains). The landform has also a high ecological
value: it presents many rare and endemic plants and is situated in the Uluru–Kata Tjuta National
Park. The site is also recognised as World Heritage Site by UNESCO for both cultural (since 1994)
and natural (since 1987) interests.
The high religious value on the one hand and the high aesthetic and economic values on
the other launch specific management conflicts: due to its sacred value Aborigine people do
not climb Uluru, whereas climbing the steep sides of the relief is considered as a challenging
activity by numerous tourists visiting the site, although 35 people have died over the last years

Fig. 2. Uluru, Australia, a geosite presenting a large spectrum of central and additional values. – Photo:
E. Reynard.

Geomorphosites: definitions and characteristics

12

b
Fig. 3. Two examples of taffonis. In the first case (a, Lesbos Petrified Forest Geopark, Greece), the
landforms are typical examples of surface weathering processes in coastal areas (scientific interest),
whereas in the other case (b, Tempio Pausania, Sardinia, Italy), large taffonis at the surface of granite
boulders have been used as sites for the building of a hut for shepherds (scientific and cultural inter-
est). – Photos: E. Reynard.

Section I – What are geomorphosites?

 13

(Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park 2005). This example illustrates the possible conflicts generated
by the presence of various values on a single site (Reynard 2005b). At Uluru, an important rivalry
exists between the cultural (religious) and economic (tourist) values of the site, a rivalry that is
also illustrated by the cohabitation of two names: Uluru (Aboriginal name) and Ayers Rock (name
given in 1873 in honour of the then-Chief Secretary of South Australia, Sir Henry Ayers). Even
if the currently official name is Uluru, Ayers Rock continues to be best known by tourists.
Both definitions are usable and the choice between one approach or the other will depend on
the context. For conservation aims, one will prefer to consider only (or in priority) the scientific
value. The selection of sites worth being protected for geological or geomorphological reasons
should be guided firstly by geoscientific reasons. In a context of tourist promotion and cultural
development (in a broad sense), the additional values should be taken into account, especially for
stressing the links between geomorphology and other fields of culture (Fig. 3). In all the cases,
sites worth being protected or promoted should have a high scientific value.

2.3 Characteristics of geosites

Geosites in general, and geomorphosites in particular, do not have any standard size, neither
minimum nor maximum size (Grandgirard 1999). Stratotypes are for example often very small
(some square metres), whereas geomorphological sites are often quite large (several square
kilometres). For that reason, we have proposed to speak about “geomorphological landscapes”
for large geomorphological sites (Reynard 2004b, 2005a). Larger geosites may include smaller
ones. The size is, therefore, not a discriminating criterion; nevertheless, each geosite may be
clearly delimitated.
In terms of activity, one generally distinguishes active and fossil (or passive) geosites. Ac-
tive geosites are important for observing processes currently active at the surface of the Earth,
whereas passive geosites testify processes or natural conditions that no longer exist. Their de-
struction is, therefore, irreversible. In some cases, destroyed or damaged active geosites may
be artificially rebuilt. This is the case in alluvial plains where the reactivation of fluvial processes
may allow the reshaping of fluvial landforms (meanders, braided sectors). But, in many cases,
active processes are difficult to reactivate and their destruction is to be considered as irrevers-
ible at human scale. This is the case of active rock glaciers or karst landforms whose formation
has needed several millennia. The conservation of active processes addresses the problem of
both natural hazards and possible auto-destruction by the erosion processes (Hooke 1994).
Most of the geosites are due to natural processes. Some man-made or man-induced geosites exist
also. They are sometimes called artificial geosites. Their formation or visibility is due to human
activities, such as quarrying, gravel extraction, stone exploitation, construction of infrastructure,
etc. Some sites may be visible only during some weeks. This is the case of sites discovered dur-
ing building projects. In this case, the approach used by archaeologists (emergency excavations,
sample collecting, photographs) is privileged and the site is then covered by the building or
infrastructure. Sometimes, the project is modified in order to preserve the whole or parts of the
geosite, as it has been the case for preserving Late Jurassic dinosaur track sites of international
importance along the Transjuranne motorway in Switzerland (Marty et al. 2007).

3 Geomorphosites
Geomorphosites are one type of geosites; they have, therefore, the characteristics described
above. They present also some specificities that are developed in this chapter.

3.1 Terminology
“Geomorphosite” is the term – proposed in 2001 by M. Panizza – that is currently widely used in
the geomorphological community for qualifying landforms that are part of the geomorphologi-

Geomorphosites: definitions and characteristics

14

cal heritage. Other terms have, however, been used in the last two decades. They may all be
considered as synonyms and are summarised in Table 1. In general German speaking countries
and French speaking countries traditionally used the term “geotope”, whereas the term “geosite”
is mostly used in English speaking areas. The neologism “geomorphosite” seems to become
widely used in various language areas (geomorphosite in English, geomorphosito in Italian,
géomorphosite in French, etc.). For this reason, we have chosen to use this term as a generic
word in this book.

3.2 Specificities of geomorphosites

Three main characteristics may be considered as specific to geomorphosites (Reynard 2004b):
the aesthetic dimension, the dynamic dimension and the imbrication of scales. Many geomor-
phosites have often a central aesthetic character (Fig. 2, Fig. 4), which is less the case of some
other categories of geosites (e.g. stratigraphic sites, geochemical sites). This is the reason why
in several public policies on nature conservation, geomorphosites are qualified as “natural monu-
ments”. We must stress, however, that the assessment of geomorphosites should not be based
only on this aesthetic dimension, which remains an additional dimension of geomorphosites.
The second recurrent dimension is the dynamic one. Here again, it allows geomorphosites to be
distinguished from other types of geosites (e.g. paleontological sites). Geomorphosites are the
type of geosites that best allow the observation of current Earth dynamics processes. The main

Table 1. Different terms synonymous of geomorphosites with reference to the first authors that have
used them (from Reynard 2004b, modified).

Term Reference Notes

Geomorphological asset Panizza & Piacente 1993 The authors propose two types of
Quaranta 1993 evaluation: aesthetic (intuitive) and scientific
(more rationale, possibly quantitative).
Geomorphological good Carton et al. 1994 The authors propose to evaluate geomorpho-
logical goods on the basis of four types of
interests (scientific, aesthetic, cultural,
economic). The scientific value is based
on the assessment of five characteristics:
example of geomorphological evolution,
educational exemplarity, paleogeomorpho-
logical testimony, naturalistic rareness,
and ecological value.
Geomorphological site Hooke 1994 The author refers to dynamic geomorpho-
logical sites. They have three main interests:
observation of active processes,
aesthetic value, ecological value.
Geomorphological Grandgirard 1995, The assessment of geomorphological
geotopes 1997, 1999 geotopes may be based essentially
on their scientific value.
Site of geomorphological Rivas et al. 1997 The sites are defined on the basis of scientific,
interest educational and recreational interests.
Geomorphosites Panizza 2001 “A geomorphosite is a landform to which
a value can be attributed”

Section I – What are geomorphosites?

 15

Fig. 4. The Pyramids of Segonzano (Italy) are a typical example of “natural monument” of geomor-
phological nature. Beside the aesthetic dimension of the landform lies the difficult question of the
origin and stages of development of the landform that was discussed by Carton & Panizza (1984) and
that stresses the fact that the aesthetic dimension should not hide the scientific dimensions. – Photo:
E. Reynard.

Fig. 5. The Dent de Jaman is a perched syncline in the area of Montreux (Switzerland). The presence
of historical protection structures against avalanches, perfectly integrated in the landscape, adds a
historical dimension to the site and increases the global geoheritage value of the geomorphosite. –
Photo: E. Reynard.

Geomorphosites: definitions and characteristics

16

One main process Isolated Group of

One type of landforms landform landforms

Increasing complexity
One main process Complex
Several types of landforms of landforms

Several main processes Geomorphological

Several types of landforms system

Fig. 6. A classification of geomorphological objects proposed by Grandgirard (1997).

issues in terms of geoheritage management related to active landforms are the auto-destruction
by the process activity and the impacts of the active landforms on human activities. In the lat-
ter case, protection measures – that often aim at reducing the process intensity – may oppose
geoheritage management – that should on the other hand tend to conserve the dynamic activ-
ity of the landform. In some cases, the presence of protection infrastructures may increase the
global value of the site (Fig. 5).
The scale dimension is much more complex. Grandgirard (1997) has highlighted that geomor-
phological heritage is visible at all scales, from the small isolated landform to large landscapes.
He has, therefore, proposed a classification in four categories (Fig. 6). Isolated landforms and
groups of landforms are due to one dominant process. The difference between groups and
complexes of landforms is the number of different landforms. A karren field with only karren
will be classified as a group of landforms, whereas a karren field with karren and sinkholes will
be considered as a complex of landforms. Geomorphological systems present a combination
of several processes and related landforms. For naming large geomorphosites (several square
kilometres) we have proposed the term “geomorphological landscape” that may be defined as
a portion of Earth relief viewed, perceived and sometimes exploited by Man (Reynard 2004b,
2005a).
The case of the Tsanfleuron karren field (Fig. 7), in the Swiss Alps, is a good example of a
complex geomorphosite (Reynard 2008) that combines various kinds of geomorphological objects
at different scales and levels of complexity. The site is a large karren field (more that 10 square
kilometres) (number 1 on Figure 7) partly occupied by a glacier. The karren field may be divided
in two main parts separated by the glacier’s position during the Little Ice Age (Nr 2). Below this
line (Nr 3), the karst area has been deglaciated since the beginning of the Holocene, whereas
above the line (Nr 4), the glacier retreat happened only after 1850 AD. It results in the presence of
numerous glacial-karstic landforms (Reynard 2008), whereas in the lower part of the karren field
karst features are predominant. The upper part of the area is still occupied by the Tsanfleuron
glacier (Nr 5). The recently deglaciated area may be divided in three parts: a glacial-karstic sector
(Nr 6), where erosional landforms – both karstic and glacial ones – are predominant; a morainic
sector (Nr 7) characterised by the presence of several morainic ridges documenting the stages
of the glacial retreat; and a fluvial-glacial deposition area (sandur, Nr 8) still active. Outside the
Little Ice Age extension a sector with Lateglacial moraines is also visible (Nr 9).
This is a good example of the difficulty of delimitating large complex geomorphosites. Ac-
cording to Grandgirard’s classification, the whole geomorphosite is a geomorphological system
(Nr 1). The lower part of the karren field should be considered as a complex of landforms (Nr 3),

Section I – What are geomorphosites?

 17

5
4
6
2
7
3
8
9

Fig. 7. Example of landforms at various scales in a complex geomorphosite in the Swiss Alps: the
Tsanfleuron karren field. 1. Geomorphosite’s limits; 2. Position of Little Ice Age glacier advance;
3. karstic complex of landforms; 4. geomorphological system; 5. Tsanfleuron glacier isolated land-
form; 6. glacial-karstic geomorphological system; 7. morainic group of landforms; 8. fluvial group
of landforms; 9. Lateglacial morainic group of landforms. – Photo: E. Reynard.

whereas the upper part is a geomorphological system (Nr 4) that can be divided into a geomor-
phological system (the glacial-karstic karren, Nr 6), and two groups of landforms (the morainic
Little Ice Age part, Nr 7; the fluvial part, Nr 8). The glacier (Nr 5) is an isolated landform, whereas
the Lateglacial morainic complex is a group of landforms. The whole geomorphosite may also
be qualified as a geomorphological landscape (Reynard 2008).

4 The vulnerability of geomorphosites

As with other types of geosites, geomorphosites are vulnerable and may necessitate management
and protection measures. The study of vulnerability refers to both human impacts on landforms
and effects of natural processes on the evolution of landforms (Fig. 8 and 9). The first type of
threats may be analysed within the general framework proposed by Cavallin et al. (1994) and
Cendrero & Panizza (1999) (Fig. 8). Threats of human origin concern mainly urbanisation – that
may completely cover the original shape of a relief –, building of infrastructures, tourism, farm-
ing, forestry and vandalism (Fig. 9). Accumulation landforms are particularly sensitive to gravel
extraction.
Natural processes may also threaten geomorphosites. Some landforms can be destroyed by
the activity of the process (auto-destruction) – e.g. braided rivers covering former meander sectors
due to fluvial metamorphosis at the beginning of the Little Ice Age (Bravard 1989) –, others may
be destroyed or damaged by the activity of other processes – e.g. volcanic event covering and
disturbing landforms created by other processes. In many cases, climate change may damage
the landforms. This is the case of glacial geomorphosites that are changing very quickly due to
the current climate warming in mountain regions (Fig. 10). Finally, in many contexts, the damage

Geomorphosites: definitions and characteristics

18

Passive Active
Geomorphological environnement

Active Passive
Man

Geomorpho- Geomorpho-
Human Space of
logical logical
activity vulnerability
resource hazards

IMPACT RISK

Fig. 8. Relationships between geomorphology and society (Cendrero & Panizza 1999).

HUMAN IMPACTS NATURAL PROCESSES

– Infrastructures, urbanisation – geomorphological processes
– Land planning – Natural processes – geological processes
– Human activities – Natural degradation – hydrological processes
(e.g. tourism, agriculture, (e.g. glacier melting) – climate
forest management) – biological processes
– Vandalism

Geomorphosites
Fig. 9. Vulnerability of geomorphosites related to both natural and human processes.

to geomorphosites may occur under the pressure of both natural and anthropic factors; this is
particularly the case of coastal geomorphosites.

5 Conclusion
This brief overview has allowed us to distinguish various kinds of geosites and two levels for
defining them. Both definitions are pertinent and the choice between one or the other will depend
on the objectives of the study. In a context of protection or Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA), one should prefer the strict definition. The selection of sites worthy of being protected
should be based firstly on their importance for the knowledge and study of the Earth’s evolu-
tion. In a context of tourist promotion and cultural approach to landscapes (Panizza & Piacente
2003) a larger definition should be preferred. Considering the geomorphological landforms also
by their relationships with other sectors (natural and cultural) of heritage sciences may facilitate
the global comprehension of the complex relationships existing between the various fields of

Section I – What are geomorphosites?

 19

Fig. 10. Top of Mont Blanc (France, Italy). Climate warming and glacier melting modify the shape of
glacial geomorphosites in mountain regions.

heritage sciences (geoheritage, bio-heritage and human heritage) and allow the development of
an integrated history of landscapes (Panizza & Piacente 2003, Pralong 2004).

References
Actes du premier symposium international sur la protection du patrimoine géologique (1994). – Digne-
les-Bains, 11-16 juin 1991, Mém. Soc. Géol. France, 165.
Bravard, J.-P. (1989). La métamorphose des rivières des Alpes françaises à la fin du Moyen-Age et à
l’époque moderne. – Bull. Soc. Géogr. Liège, 25: 145-157.
Carton, A. & M. Panizza (1984). Evoluzione geomorfologica dell’area fra l’Altopiano di Piné e Segonzano
(Trento) – Acta Geologica, 61: 191-197.
Carton, A., A. Cavallin, F. Francavilla, F. Mantovani, M. Panizza, G. G. Pellegrini, C.Tellini, et al. (1994).
Ricerche ambientali per l’individuazione e la valutazione dei beni geomorfologici – metodi ed
esempi – Il Quaternario, 7 (1): 365-372.
Cavallin, A., M. Marchetti, M. Panizza & M. Soldati (1994). The role of geomorphology in environmental
impact assessment – Geomorphology, 9: 143-153.
Cendrero, A. & M. Panizza (1999). Geomorphology and Environmental Impact Assessment: an intro-
duction – Suppl. Geogr. Fis. Dinam. Quat., 3 (3): 167-172.
Grandgirard, V. (1995). Méthode pour la réalisation d’un inventaire de géotopes géomorphologiques
– UKPIK, Cahiers de l’Institut de Géographie de l’Université de Fribourg, 10: 121-137.
– (1997). Géomorphologie, protection de la nature et gestion du paysage – Thèse de doctorat, Uni-
versité de Fribourg, Faculté des Sciences.
– (1999). L’évaluation des géotopes. – Geol. Insubr., 4 (1): 69-66.

Geomorphosites: definitions and characteristics

20

Hooke, J. M. (1994). Strategies for conserving and sustaining dynamic geomorphological sites. – In:
O’Halloran, D., C. Green, M. Harley & J. Knill (eds.): Geological and landscape conservation. –
London, Geological Society, 191-195.
Marty, D., J. Ayer, D. Becker, J.-P. Berger, J.-P. Billon-Bruyt, L. Braillard, W. A. Hug & C. A. Meyer
(2007). Late Jurassic dinosaur tracksites of the Transjurane highway (Canton Jura, Switzerland):
overview and measures for their protection and valorisation. – Bull. für angewandte Geologie, 12:
75-89.
O’Halloran, D., C. Green, M. Harley, M. Stanley & J. Knill (eds.) (1994). Geological and landscape
conservation. – London, The Geological Society.
Panizza, M. (2001). Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey –
Chinese Science Bulletin, 46, Suppl Bd.: 4-6.
Panizza, M. & S. Piacente (1993). Geomorphological assets evaluation. – Zeitschr. für Geomorphologie,
N.F., Suppl. Band 87: 13-18.
– (2003). Geomorfologia culturale. – Bologna, Pitagora.
Pralong, J.-P. (2004). Pour une mise en valeur touristique et culturelle des patrimoines de l’espace
alpin : le concept d’« histoire totale ». – Histoire des Alpes, 9: 301-310.
Quaranta, G. (1993). Geomorphological assets: conceptual aspect and application in the area of Croda
da Lago (Cortina d’Ampezzo, Dolomites). – In: Panizza, M., M. Soldati & D. Barani (eds.): European
Intensive Course on Applied Geomorphology – Proceedings. – Istituto di Geologia, Università degli
Studi di Modena, 49-60.
Reynard, E. (2004a). Geosites. – In: Goudie, A. S. (ed.): Encyclopedia of Geomorphology. – London,
Routledge, 440.
– (2004b). Géotopes, géo(morpho)sites et paysages géomorphologiques. – In: Reynard E. & J.-P.
Pralong (eds.): Paysages géomorphologiques. – Travaux et recherches 27, Lausanne, Institut de
Géographie, 123-136.
– (2005a). Géomorphosites et paysages. – Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement, 3:
181-188.
– (2005b). Geomorphological sites, public policies and property rights. Conceptualization and exam-
ples from Switzerland. – Il Quaternario, Volume speciale, 18 (1): 321-330.
– (2008). Le lapiaz de Tsanfleuron: un paysage glacio-karstique à protéger et à valoriser. – In: Ho-
bléa, F., E. Reynard & J.-J. Delannoy (eds.): Karsts de montagne: géomorphologie, patrimoine et
ressources. – Chambéry, Collection Edytem, Cahiers de Géographie, 7: 115-126.
Rivas, V., K. Rix, E. Frances, A. Cendrero & D. Brunsden (1997). Geomorphological indicators for env-
ironmental impact assessment: consumable and non-consumable geomorphological resources.
– Geomorphology, 18: 169-182.
Strasser, A., P. Heitzmann, P. Jordan, A. Stapfer, B. Stürm, A. Vogel & M. Weidmann (1995). Géotopes
et la protection des objets géologiques en Suisse : un rapport stratégique. – Fribourg, Groupe de
travail pour la protection des géotopes en Suisse.
Sweet, I. P. & I. H. Crick (1992). Uluru and Kata Tjuta: a geological history. – Canberra, Australian
Geological Survey Organization.
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park (2005). Welcome to Aboriginal land Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park.
Visitor guide and maps. – Darwin, Colemans Printing (retrieved from the Department of the Envi-
ronment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Australian Government website: www.environment.gov.
au, 7.09.2008).

Section I – What are geomorphosites?

Geoheritage – that are the geological and geomorphological elements
of nature worthy of being conserved – is an important component of
the natural heritage. In most cases, it constitutes the skeleton of the
landscape. The new interest of the scientific community for the geo-
morphological heritage – the so-called geomorphosites – has induced
the International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG) to create in
September 2001, at the 5th International Conference on Geomorphology
held in Tokyo, a specific working group aiming to improve knowledge
and scientific research on the definition, assessment, cartography, pro-
motion and conservation of geomorphosites. During the last eight years,
experiences were shared during workshops and international confer-
ences and the main results were published in international journals. This
book proposes a synthesis of the research on the geomorphological
heritage, both at the conceptual and methodological level. The results
presented here are based on numerous studies carried out by various
researchers in different contexts (academic research, environmental
impact assessment, conservation, geotourism) and countries. This
book, written by a first class international team, will help researchers
and students dealing with geotourism, geodiversity, geoconservation
and geoparks in their tasks.

ISBN 978-3-89937-094-2