Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 124 (2013) 713–719

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pgeola

Geoheritage and geodiversity management – the questions for tomorrow

Lars Erikstad a,b,*
a
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 Oslo, Norway
b
Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Box 1172 Blindern, NO-0318 Oslo, Norway

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Geodiversity is an important term for future geoheritage management strategies. It is modelled on the
Received 26 March 2012 term biodiversity that today dominates the work of nature conservation. It describes a complexity of
Received in revised form 6 June 2012 natural attributes in all scales and represents both opportunities and challenges for management
Accepted 2 July 2012
strategies. Drawing on experience of geoconservation from across Europe this article focusses on three
Available online 4 August 2012
major issues important to the future geoheritage work: (1) geodiversity as a comprehensive framework
for management, (2) the importance of legislation and strategies and (3) practical conservation,
Keywords:
management and land use. In focussing on these issues it should not be forgotten however that the very
Geodiversity
need for conservation of the geological heritage is still not well developed and accepted in many
Geological heritage
Conservation countries and needs to be promoted as a priority. It is argued here that the term geodiversity should be
Land-use planning used flexibly to retain relevance across different aspects of geoscience, natural terrains, countries and
aspects. Cooperation between institutions and countries is necessary to maintain and develop
geoconservation strategies and should be given higher priority, defined scientifically to promote the
scientific and educational status, promoted and shared internationally. National legislation is also very
important and should be backed by international conventions and international organisations. In Europe
geoheritage, geoconservation and geodiversity should be accepted as EU policy and integrated into EU
directives.
ß 2012 The Geologists’ Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Geoconservation and the recognition that geoheritage and
geodiversity (Table 1) should be managed have a long history. This
history is linked to the development of nature conservation in the
19th and 20th centuries (Burek and Prosser, 2008). It is fascinating
to see that some of our current issues that we perceive as modern
and important for new and updated conservation strategies have
followed us from the start. Examples of this are the multidisci-
plinary integration of abiotic and biotic elements with landscape in
the early National Park movement and the link between
geotourism and geoconservation in caves (Erikstad, 2008). The
need to build future strategies based on cumulative practical and
theoretical knowledge is a major issue in securing robustness in
the management of our shared geoheritage.
Future strategies for geoconservation must acknowledge the
complexity of the field both with respect to scale and to varying
scientific requirements. In later years the term ‘‘geodiversity’’
(Gray, 2004) has been accepted throughout the world. We can
extract two very important elements from this term when building
* Correspondence address: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA),
Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 Oslo, Norway.
E-mail address: lars.erikstad@nina.no.
management strategies for the future: (i) the term reveals its
kinship with the term ‘‘biodiversity’’ and by so doing underlines
that geoconservation and geoheritage are close to biologically
(ecologically) motivated conservation and management and on a
general scale are a part of natural management in a broad sense, (ii)
the use of the word ‘‘diversity’’ indicates that the issue is not a
simple and straightforward one, but a comprehensive issue of great
complexity. In a world where simple solutions seem to be
attractive this represents a dilemma and major challenge for
future strategies.
In this article I will focus on three major issues in the future
development of geodiversity management:
 Geodiversity – a comprehensive framework for management.
 Conservation legislation and strategies.
 Conservation, use and management.
My method in approaching these issues is for a large part a
literature search of geoconservation, mostly related to Europe, plus
on-going general discussions within the The European Association
for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage, ProGEO
(www.progeo.se), which capture practical experience with geo-
conservation, geoheritage and geodiversity from countries with
very different social conditions, legislation and history linked to
nature management.

0016-7878/$ – see front matter ß 2012 The Geologists’ Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2012.07.003
714 L. Erikstad / Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 124 (2013) 713–719
Table 1
Important definitions used in the paper.
Geodiversity The natural range of geological rocks, minerals,
fossils, geomorphological forms and processes
as well as soil features. It includes their
assemblages, relationships, properties and
systems (Gray, 2004).
Geological heritage Geoheritage is an integral part of the global
natural heritage – it encompasses the special
places and objects that have a key role in our
understanding of the history of the Earth – its
rocks, minerals and fossils, and landscapes
(ProGEO, 2011).
Geosite A locality or area showing geological features of
intrinsic interest – features that allow us to
understand the history of the Earth – its rocks,
minerals and fossils, and landscapes (ProGEO,
2011, adjusted).
Nature conservation The protection, preservation, management, or
restoration of wildlife and of natural resources
such as forests, soil, and water.
www.thefreedictionary.com.
Geoconservation Geoconservation is conservation of the abiotic
part of nature, i.e. the geological heritage in a
restricted sense, geodiversity in a general sense.
2. Geodiversity – a comprehensive framework for management
Biodiversity has been a term that has dominated the nature
conservation debate and theory for some decades. As with all new
terms in the interface between science and policy it is complex in
its nature, but used very often in a simplistic manner. It is easy to
see that biodiversity is often used as a substitute for old, more
precise, terms. The interpretation of the term as ‘species diversity’
is especially frequent, even if by international agreement the term
also includes genetic as well as ecosystem diversity (Noss, 1990).
Specifically, the global efforts linked to the survival of single
species have been projected down to a single-species approach on
a local level. The existence of red-listed species in specific areas is
quite often used as a proxy for biodiversity value. Important as the
protection of a single species is, this illustrates the quite normal
process of restriction of the practical use and common under-
standing of new semi-political terms. For diversity, this is a serious
and problematic development, as the very term points towards a
deeper understanding that complexity and interrelations in nature
represent a value in themselves. One serious side-effect of
the biodiversity concept for geoconservation was that abiotic
nature nearly disappeared from the theoretical foundation of
nature conservation or was reduced to a background factor in
influencing environmental conditions relevant to a biotic response.
It is therefore a major achievement for the management of
geological heritage that geodiversity has been introduced as a
parallel term and that it has received a widespread recognition.
Geodiversity can be defined as the natural range of geological
rocks, minerals, fossils, geomorphological forms and processes as
well as soil features. It includes their assemblages, relationships,
properties and systems (Gray, 2004), or more simply the diversity
of geological and geomorphological phenomena in a defined area
(Johansson et al., 2000). With a simple and practical viewpoint, it is
a descriptive term that recognises the infinite complexity of
geology (ProGEO, 2011) and geomorphology included. The major
differences in the existing definitions are mostly the level at which
‘‘geology’’ or ‘‘abiotic nature’’ such as bedrock, sediments, land-
forms, and soils are defined. Some do, however, restrict the
definition to the diversity of geosites (Ruban, 2010). This is a subset
of geodiversity that may be useful in some work calculating indices
of geodiversity loss, etc., but does not cover the full meaning of
geodiversity as used in this paper (Table 1). Although there are
Fig. 1. Island in the Oslo fjord. The bedrock consists of early Paleozoic sedimentary
rocks of high stratigraphic value and can be argued to have regional to national
value. They are nicely folded and form northeast–southwest running limestone
ridges which are a major contribution also to the local landscape character.
The cluster of erratics has no defined value, but do also add to the local landscape
character. Moreover a lot of such rocks have been removed and therefore reduced
the local geodiversity along large parts of the coastline.
differences in specifications and especially in the meaning of the
terms ‘‘geo’’ in geodiversity and ‘‘geology’’ in geological diversity,
there seems to be a high level of consensus that the term covers
abiotic nature and therefore geology, geomorphology and soil
(Gray, 2004; Johansson et al., 2000). Terms like geomorphosites
and geomorphodiversity have been introduced to make specifica-
tions within the wider concept (Panizza, 2009). The term
geodiversity is flexible and it is useful in describing the complexity
of nature. The term does not only need to be restricted to natural
occurrences of geodiversity but can also be used in ex situ context
such as building stones.
The term geodiversity is descriptive, not normative. It is a
neutral description of nature. When we want to manage nature
and conserve or protect parts of it we recognise that the totality of
nature, however, has a value for us. Geodiversity describes nature
and is the backbone of what we want to conserve – the geological
heritage (Fig. 1).
Introducing terms like geodiversity and biodiversity raises the
question of how to measure them. This is an obvious problem, as
the terms operate on the highest level of complexity. Simple
solutions such as measuring the amounts of certain species or rock
types are only rudimentary indicators and if developed and used in
valuation schemes are quite problematic as their main attribute
(the complexity) is reduced to simple measurements.
A good example of the possibilities and limitations of
measuring geodiversity within specified areas is given by
Pellitero et al. (2011). Geodiversity is regarded as an indicator
for abiotic richness and as an individual component of natural
heritage. Geodiversity is measured as the number of defined
elements within defined geomorphological and habitat units.
This approach is similar to an approach described from northern
Finland (Hjort and Luoto, 2010) where geodiversity is measured
as the density of predefined geodiversity elements although in a
grid model, not within specified land units. Both these studies
show diversity as a useful index within specified areas. The
calculation is, however, very vulnerable to scale changes and the
selection of geodiversity elements to be included in the index
(Pellitero et al., 2011).
On another scale (national or global) the effect of these indices
may be misleading when used as a value indicator. Geological units
with low internal geodiversity may be extremely important on a
regional to global scale (external diversity). Large geological units
such as lava plateaus, granite outcrops or sediment flats represent
important elements on a global scale regardless of their internal
 L. Erikstad / Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 124 (2013) 713–719
geodiversity. As with biodiversity, geodiversity can also be
described in different scales (Serrano and Ruiz-Flaño, 2007). It
has also been stated that geodiversity should not be used in or on
areas with low internal diversity (Piacente, 2005). This would be a
different approach to what is used for biodiversity on an ecosystem
level, and will make geodiversity assessments on a global scale
difficult. It is not a consensus that numerical calculations of indices,
etc. are the best way to assess geodiversity (Panizza, 2009). In
doing so, it is extremely important that there is a transparent use of
all criteria and a high level of consciousness of the effect of scale
and element selection. In some cases a transparent use of criteria
without numerical summations may be as good as numerical
methods as it can focus more on the balance between subjective
and objective elements of the assessment (Erikstad et al., 2008).
One of the problems here is partly due to a lack of distinction
between the description and the evaluation of nature. The
evaluation of nature must be defined in its own right (Erikstad
et al., 2008), and indicators of diversity may be of great interest as
value criteria. If these indicators are designed to measure a part of
the total diversity and are used as a value indicator they must be
supplemented by other value criteria, see for example Bruschi et al.
(2011). It is especially problematic when the absence of a limited
value indicator is used to indicate a lack of value. This may seem
rather obvious, but in a practical management situation it is a real
danger that has to be taken into account when indices like this are
applied.
3. Conservation legislation and strategies
At the turn of the 19th Century, conservation was a new idea
promoted by groups of intellectuals and scholars into the
legislative systems of many countries. Geology was a strong
science and it achieved attention accordingly both in practical
actions such as in establishing National Parks as well as in
legislation, at least in some countries (Erikstad, 2008). As a
legislative element the aim was to protect specific values (sites)
and the approach has been expert-driven (defining value criteria,
inventories and site selection) ever since, and also a top-down
process linked to formal administrative procedures. This has
resulted in a vast number of protected areas around the world, but
also in scepticism, even hostility in many local societies among
landowners and stakeholders. Moreover, the very system of
evaluation and selection is streamlined to facilitate this expert-
driven selection of sites. This implies that it is a great challenge to
introduce conservation as a positive element in local management
and development strategies (Prosser, 2011). One example of the
local perspective is the voluntary work of amateurs in many
countries, possibly best developed in UK where the local
perspective has also been formalised through the RIGS programme
and geodiversity action plans (Burek, 2008). This seems to work,
but the limiting factor is the existence of enough people with
strong enough interest to commit themselves to this sort of
activity. It is likely to have a better effect in heavily populated areas
and is an example of strategies that will vary from country to
country and region to region (Stevens et al., 1994).
Even if conservation as such is not automatically a popular term
in local management and strategies, it is normal to see local action
groups forming if some nature value, where local awareness exists,
is threatened. The key issue to mobilise local action is awareness,
and local awareness is not necessarily mobilised through the same
scientific justification as is established on national or international
levels. Local awareness is about information, local pride and
mutual economic interests and does not follow strict scientific
criteria and divisions. Scientific flexibility and multidisciplinary
approaches may be an advantage. For example, landscape will
often be a gateway to local pride and also to local economic
715
development (Lugeri et al., 2011). Landscape is also a setting where
several geological elements have a central impact (Hose, 2008;
Gordon, 2012), especially general bedrock structure, nutrient
content and geomorphology. Landscape is also a management and
planning field in its own right. In Europe it is covered by an
international Convention (http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/
heritage/landscape/default_en.asp). In this Convention, landscape is
defined as: ‘‘an area, as perceived by people, whose character is
the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human
factors’’. This is a definition that calls for a long series of comments
and raises a lot of challenges in practical multidisciplinary
cooperation (Fig. 2). The major point of interpretation is the
phrase ‘‘as perceived by people’’. Does this mean that manage-
ment of landscapes is impossible, because there is no consensus
on landscape? All people are different so how should we decide
what a landscape is? Who are ‘‘people’’ in this context? Or does
this phrase merely indicate that in the evaluation of landscape,
local opinion matters? When managing landscape we cannot
ignore local views on its value and use. As Gordon (2012) says:
‘‘We need to rediscover a sense of wonder in the landscape’’ and
the possibility of doing that through a combination of geo(mor-
phological) analysis and local links to the landscape through a
long history of cultivation is nicely demonstrated by Lugeri et al.
(2011). This not only includes the local sense of landscape value,
but also identifies a special geoheritage, sometimes on the fringe
of what can be understood as cultivable land.
In any case, the local perspective is strong and it underlines the
importance of landscape when it comes to local initiatives in
planning, land use and conservation. The distinction between
definition, characterisation and valuation is important. The former
two indicate an input of elements telling us about the landscape
and its features belonging to geology, geomorphology, ecology,
cultural heritage and human lives today. This input may be in the
form of geodiversity indices (Hjort and Luoto, 2010; Pellitero et al.,
2011) or of qualitative assessment and characterisation (Panizza,
Fig. 2. The complexity of landscape and the links between geology, biodiversity,
cultural history and landscape aesthetical values are well demonstrated by the
landscape around lake Nemi, Italy. The landscape character includes geodiversity,
biodiversity, cultural heritage and mythical landscape values as well as beautiful
scenery. The main landscape structure is the volcanic crater belonging to the
ColliAlbani volcano. The explosion crater has given room for the lake is called ‘‘the
mirror of Diana’’ and within it the ruin of the Diana temple is found. Along the lake
shores Roman villas have been located and from the lake, large ceremonial ships
were excavated in the interwar period. Today the area is dominated by small scale
agricultural activities. The lake and landscape around have been most appreciated
for their beauty and are a well-known motive in landscape paintings for a long
period.
716 L. Erikstad / Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 124 (2013) 713–719
2009; Lugeri et al., 2011). Evaluation, on the other hand, is about
understanding what this landscape means to us, assessing its value
based on a subjective criterion-based assessment, or using specific
numerical methods based on different value criteria (Erikstad et al.,
2008; Bruschi et al., 2011). Here we define our opinion and in the
best case reach a consensus of what we love and of our local pride,
or we meet conflicts related to land use and landscape changes.
This is the tool in which management is born and geology has its
place, and it should be better developed to serve this need on a
variety of scales.
How do we then evaluate local values? Is this the same as
evaluation on a national and international level or is it – or should
it be – something different? Most described systems for site
selection and evaluation are tuned to select sites of high (normally
national to regional) value and this may conflict with local views
on what is important. There may therefore be a need to better
develop a system to identify local values as a supplement to
traditional evaluation methods (Erikstad et al., 2008). In
landscape evaluation the term ‘‘landscape character’’ is defined
as ‘‘a distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of elements, be
it natural (soil and landform) and/or human (for example
settlement and development) in the landscape that makes one
landscape different from another, rather than better or worse’’
(http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/landscape/englands/
character/default.aspx). It is what makes an area unique. This is a
highly useful term and indicates that on local assessments
representativity is a more relevant value criterion than rarity
(Erikstad, 2008), and used for geology including geomorphology it
comes close to the suggested definition by Panizza (2009) that the
basis of geodiversity could be the geological elements that
characterise the landscape or territory. I would suggest that this
is a perspective that is very useful for local value assessments, but
will oppose a general limitation of the term geodiversity to this
perspective alone. Furthermore it indicates that it is necessary to
keep more than one thought active at the same time. Working locally
is not the same as scaling down national work, managing
geodiversity needs both!
This dual perspective shows that the legislation needed should
cover legislation to secure the very special, the national and
international values present in a country, and that it is also of great
importance for the conservation and sustainable use of the
complexity of geodiversity, to secure incorporation of geoheritage
in planning systems, environmental impact assessments and in
local landscape strategies. On a European level it is a problem that
geoconservation is not integrated in the union directives (Pellitero
et al., 2011). This does not prevent possibilities in each and every
country for pushing geoconservation forward in practical action,
but it is a drawback for geoconservation when it comes to
importance and priority. Moreover it makes it difficult to initiate
international research pursuing progress in understanding and
researching geoheritage. Not being a part of EU policies,
geoheritage does not become an issue in the research frameworks
in Europe.
Geoconservation has, however, been integrated in the EU Soil
Strategy, a strategy that has been intended to develop into a
directive (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/three_en.htm).
This process has been halted and the future of the Soil Strategy
is currently uncertain. Including geoconservation in the Soil
Strategy is an improvement, but it does not have the same
implications as being a part of a directive. It is also a sign of a
fragmented thinking when geoheritage finds its place within a
directive linked to pollution and soil degradation control as one of
seven defined soil functions: ‘‘archive of geological and arche-
ological heritage’’. One thing is that the definition of soil has to be
severely extended to actually incorporate geoheritage. Another
thing is that the text gives the heritage a passive position as the soil
is described as an archive for heritage. Within such a wide
definition of soil as the text implies, the soil is the geological
heritage, it does not only serve as an archive of bits and pieces of
heritage. The most severe problem is, however, that geoheritage is
isolated from the general basis of nature management and nature
conservation covered in the Habitats Directive. This is a view that
has dominated the thinking of nature management for decades,
but did not initially as can be seen from legislation in many
countries such as Spain (Carcavilla et al., 2009). The fragmented
directive system of the EU makes it difficult to develop
multidisciplinary solutions for the wide task of sustainable
management of nature (biotic and abiotic alike) and incorporating
this with landscape and cultural heritage in a way that works both
nationally and locally.
Contrasting this is the new development that can be seen both
internationally as geodiversity now has been recognised by IUCN
(Dı́az-Martı́nez and Guillén-Mondéjar, 2009.), and accepted by
the European Council of Ministers (http://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.
jsp?id=740629&Lang=en, ProGEO News no. 2, 2004) as well as in
national legislations as for example in Spain (Carcavilla et al.,
2009). Another example is the new nature management legislation
in Norway (Erikstad, 2010) – The Nature Diversity Act – http://
www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/laws/Acts/nature-diversity-act.
html?id=570549. It states its overall aim to secure biological,
geological and landscape diversity, and it contains directives in
how this should be done at the highest level (protection by law), at
an intermediate level (special measure in spatial planning) as well
as through general obligations to take it into account for all
activities and planning (Fig. 3). The coupling of biological,
geological and landscape diversity underpins the necessity of
holistic synergy when working with nature but without
compromising the integrity and need for the different scientific
branches and their need to solve specific problems. The new
legislation has resulted in a new description and classification
system of habitats (called nature type – http://www.biodiversity.
no/frontpage.aspx?m=23), which also includes geological perspec-
tives and a new red list of nature types (Fig. 4). The classification is
specified over four scales (substrates, ecosystems, landscape
elements and landscape). It is based on a systematic use of
environmental attributes that build up natural gradients such as
moisture, nutrients, and disturbance, supplemented by a descrip-
tive system containing seven sources of additional variation of
which landforms is one. For a practical use of the system on a
landscape scale in a marine environment, see Thorsnes et al.
(2009). The total framework is designed for a holistic approach for
Fig. 3. The scale principle of the new Nature Diversity Act of Norway. Targets are
defined on a hierarchical scale from legal protection to general planning.
Illustration from Sørensen (2010).
 L. Erikstad / Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 124 (2013) 713–719
Fig. 4. Earth pyramids are one of the most threatened nature types according to the
new red-list of nature types in Norway (www.biodiversity.no). This nature type is
extremely rare in Norway and natural processes will eventually limit their
existence. The best locality is protected as a Natural Monument (Kvitskriuprestin
Natural Monument). It illustrates the use of landform as a descriptor in defining
nature types in the new classification system of nature types in Norway, and that
geomorphosites is included in the terms listed in the Nature Diversity Act under the
term ‘‘geological diversity’’. It also illustrates the importance and management
challenges in protecting sites with active geomorphological processes (Erikstad,
2006).
both national and local actions to secure nature diversity.
Geological heritage will have no problem in defining its place as
a part of the nature management system under this legislation
regardless of on which level one operates.
4. Conservation, use and management
Traditionally, conservation has implied some sort of restriction
of the free use of land and resources to protect defined nature
values. This has been necessary because human activity has
expanded at an increasingly high rate with technology that has the
power to wipe out important nature and landscapes both on a local
landscape scale and on a national and international scale. At the
same time, it is evident that this sort of protection or conservation
(often called classical nature conservation) does not solve all
problems as it only affects a small portion of the land (Fig. 3) and
that a great many general nature values can be secured in
combination with human use (often referred to as sustainable
development). In a geodiversity setting, perhaps the most
prominent example is Geoparks. Through history there has always
been a strong need for dissemination of the values for protected
geosites (Wimbledon, 1996). The organisation of formal Geoparks
as a tool in this respect can be linked to the 1st International
Conference on Geological Heritage in Digne, France in 1991
(Martini, 1994). Since then, the Geopark movement has grown and
it is now an important movement aimed at creating local
sustainable economic development based on the tourism value
of geosites and landscapes.
Using geological heritage for different purposes (scientific,
education, amateur or professional collecting, and tourism) within
a framework of sustainability is a demanding challenge. It is easier
to talk about sustainability than to secure sustainability in practice.
Therefore the popular trend for using our heritage for different
purposes raises the need to strengthen the management of the
heritage and indeed to develop enough reliable knowledge to base
this management on. Two major principles are vital to achieve this:
(i) Management plans and
(ii) Monitoring.
717
Producing and maintaining management plans is a process
where aims and means must be openly discussed, defined and
specified. This secures local and NGO participation and makes
management robust and justified. Monitoring is necessary for all
management as a tool to measure whether the development of an
area is in accordance to defined management goals. This is
especially important when the management is linked to different
sorts of use, to ensure that problems will be discovered and to give
confidence among the public and NGOs that the area does not lose
heritage value.
It is important to recognise that a combination of economic
interests and management responsibility can result in conflicts of
interest and therefore that the robustness of the management relies
on transparency and involvement in a way that does not erode this.
This is even truer because a lot of management principles may be
problematic and not necessarily agreed on. One good example is in
relation to the sale of geological specimens (when defined as
geoheritage). The Geopark movement is very restrictive on this and
its charter states that this can only be accepted for ‘‘scientific and
educational purposes’’ (http://www.europeangeoparks.org/isite/
page/8,1,0.asp?mu=4&cmu=26&thID=0). Within a sustainability
concept, it can be argued that the present rule or the interpretation
of it, may be too restrictive. In some places it would be easy to find
examples where sale of geological material do not affect sustain-
ability. For example, the Gea Norvegica Geopark in Norway
(www.geanor.no), with its proximity to large quarries producing
larvikite building stone, where more than 90% of quarried stone is
recognised as waste (Heldal and Neeb, 2000), would not suffer from
using waste material from the industry in local souvenir production.
Other places, for example the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site in
Dorset, UK, has a management strategy of accepting collection, even
commercial collection and the sale of fossils, under the rules of a
code that is intended to secure sustainability (Edmonds, 2011). This
strategy has been criticised by Page (2011) who argues that
calculations indicate an overall loss of geoheritage in the area.
Whether or not this is correct, it illustrates the need for high quality
monitoring data. Developing monitoring strategies, which are
robust and practically feasible is a challenge that should receive
more scientific attention.
5. Conclusion
It is still of vital importance to appreciate that geoheritage,
geodiversity and geoconservation are not accepted theoretically or
practically in most countries in the world. Therefore, the basic
promotion of these concepts (ProGEO, 2011) should still have a
first priority in the years to come. New research results and
practical experience must be integrated in this strategy. For
Europe, geoheritage and geoconservation should be integrated in
the Habitats Directive, and EU policies on landscape should be
strengthened and include geodiversity.
It is important to support and enhance the global movement
on geotourism generally and Geoparks especially. It should,
however, be stressed that these are activities that should
supplement and strengthen the work of geoconservation, not
compete with it. The commercial use of sites is not conservation,
but it needs conservation to become sustainable. We need more
than one or a few focus points in the work of conserving our
geoheritage. As nature is diverse, our strategies also need to be
diverse.
One of the elements that needs to be developed is the
integration of geoheritage in local landscape strategies, supporting
local sense of place and local pride as a positive element in local
management. Without including the local perspective in the
strategies, most of the diversity will fall outside our management
efforts. In local assessments representativity rather than rarity is
718 L. Erikstad / Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 124 (2013) 713–719
the major value criterion in building up an understanding of
landscape character. To be able to meet all challenges in the future
it is necessary to strengthen links to other scientific fields of
knowledge and management with ecology, cultural heritage and
landscape being the most important. Working together is an
imperative, and for local perspectives even more so, as the
resources available for one-science initiatives must be expected to
be low. Institutions working with geoheritage should approach the
landscape community and launch projects to test if this will work
locally. Experiences with local participation in many geoparks
could be of great value in such a process.
Geoconservation is not a strong movement in most local
communities, countries or internationally. New strategies for
geoconservation must therefore be based on strong national and
international cooperation. Such cooperation has existed for a long
time, but its effect has been hampered by the lack of resources both
with respect to manpower, funding and status. All these three
factors are correlated and form three different key aspects of
needed action.
Within existing resources cooperation is the one action that
will give immediate results for the status of this work. We can
see tendencies of competition for scares resources both on
national and international levels, but perhaps strongest between
national actions and international cooperation. Large institu-
tions in the form of management organisations or geological
surveys must give priority to international cooperation. Today
possibilities exist within ProGEO and the Geopark network.
These two organisations should also improve cooperation and
seek all possible synergy between their activities. It is also
possible to contribute through IUGS. For the third time now
geoconservation and geoheritage is on the programme for the
International Geological Congress (IGC) as it appears in several
regional and national symposia. These have attracted attention,
but it is a challenge to link them with ongoing activities and
developments elsewhere. For the first time the leading nature
conservation organisation (IUCN) has accepted geoheritage and
geoconservation as a part of their interest and as a result ProGEO
has become member of IUCN as have the Geological Society of
Spain. It would improve geoconservation status if more geo-
organisation did the same and made a broad worldwide platform
for the liaison between bioconservation and geoconservation.
This could also be a platform on the longer run to make large
European organisations such as EU recognise geoheritage and
preferably be able to integrate such recognition in their habitat
directive.
To succeed in improving the status of geoheritage the most
important issue will, however be linked to knowledge. Geoheritage
must be a field of scientific study and education. Without this
element in place funding will fail and recruitment of people to
work within the field will be slim. All too long too much of the
scientific activities within the field have been in the form of
national programmes that do not contribute to the overall
development of the field internationally. The establishment of
the scientific journal Geoheritage (Springer) has improved the
possibilities to publish scientific contributions and the amount of
international articles has indeed increased. All national and
international programmes or projects should aim at publishing
key results internationally, not only in national reports with a very
limited outreach. All organisation working with geoheritage
should seek to cooperate in international networking as well as
in scientific and practical projects. But if geoheritage, geodiversity
and geoconservation are ‘‘alien’’ within education, the base for
recruitment will not develop. Therefore incorporation of the field
in existing geoscientific education is extremely important (Henri-
ques et al., 2011). An increased number of bachelor and PhD
theses within the field will contribute to the development of
geoconservation in a most significant way. The geological surveys,
universities and also management organisations have here an
opportunity for a strategic initiatives where even modest
improvement can have large impacts.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to colleagues in NINA and ProGEO for inspiration and
support in working with geoconservation for many years. Thanks
also to Naomi Stevenson of Natural England for checking the
language of the manuscript.
References
Bruschi, V.M., Cendrero, A., Albertos, J.A.C., 2011. A statistical approach to the
validation and optimisation of geoheritage assessment procedures. Geoheritage
3, 131–149.
Burek, C.V., 2008. The role of the voluntary sector in the evolving geoconservation
movement. In: Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), The History of Geoconservation,
vol. 300Geological Society, London, pp. 61–89, Special Publications.
Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), 2008. The History of Geoconservation, vol. 300.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications no. 300.
Carcavilla, L., Durán, J.J., Garcı́a-Cortés, López-Martı́nez, J., 2009. Geological
heritage and geoconservation in Spain: past, present and future. Geoheritage
1, 75–91.
Dı́az-Martı́nez, E., Guillén-Mondéjar, F., 2009. A major achievement towards geo-
conservation. ProGEO News 1, 2–3 http://www.progeo.se/ (accessed 2012).
Edmonds, R., 2011. Review of the West Dorset (UK) fossil collecting code of conduct.
ProGEO News 2, 1–6 http://www.progeo.se/ (accessed 2012).
Erikstad, L., 2006. Protection and management of finite nature resources represent-
ing active geoprocesses. ProGEO News 1–2, 1–3 http://www.progeo.se/
(accessed 2012).
Erikstad, L., 2008. History of geoconservation in Europe. In: Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D.
(Eds.), The History of Geoconservation, vol. 300Geological Society, London, pp.
249–256, Special Publications.
Erikstad, L., 2010. New legislation in Norway. ProGEO News 1–2, 1–2 http://
www.progeo.se/ (accessed 2012).
Erikstad, L., Lindblom, I., Jerpåsen, G., Hanssen, M.A., Bekkby, T., Stabbetorp, O.,
Bakkestuen, V., 2008. Environmental value assessment in a multidisciplinary
EIA setting. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28, 131–143.
Gordon, J.E., 2012. Rediscovering a sense of wonder: geoheritage, geotourism and
cultural landscape experiences. Geoheritage 4, 65–77.
Gray, M., 2004. Geodiversity – Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd, Chichester.
Heldal, T., Neeb, P.R., 2000. Natural stone in Norway: production, deposits and
developments. Norges geologiske undersøkelse Bulletin 436, 15–26.
Henriques, M.H., Pena dos Reis, R., Brilha, J., Mota, T., 2011. Geoconservation as an
emerging geoscience. Geoheritage 3, 117–128.
Hjort, J., Luoto, M., 2010. Geodiversity of high-latitude landscapes in northern
Finland. Geomorphology 115, 109–116.
Hose, T.A., 2008. Towards a history of geotourism: definitions, antecedents and the
future. In: Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D. (Eds.), The History of Geoconservation, vol.
300Geological Society, London, pp. 37–60, Special Publications.
Johansson, C.E., Alpassi, M., et al., 2000. Geodiversitet i Nordisk Naturvård, vol. 8.
Nordic Council of Ministers, Nord, pp. 1–149.
Lugeri, F.R., Amadio, V., Bagnaia, R., Cardillo, A., Lugeri, N., 2011. Landscapes and
wine production areas: a geomorphological heritage. Geoheritage 3,
221–232.
Martini, G. (Ed.), 1994. Actes du premier symposium international sur la protection
du patrimoine géologique. Mémoires de la Société géologique de France, p. 165.
Noss, R.F., 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach.
Conservation Biology 4, 355–364.
Page, K., 2011. Consultation on fossil collecting within the ‘Jurassic Coast’ World
Heritage Site, Dorset and East Devon, UK: response by ProGEO and the Inter-
national Subcommission on Jurassic Stratigraphy 2011. ProGEO News 4, 1–4
http://www.progeo.se/ (accessed 2012).
Panizza, P., 2009. The geomorphodiversity of the Dolomites (Italy): a key of
geoheritage assessment. Geoheritage 1, 33–42.
Pellitero, R., González-Amuchastegui, M.J., Ruiz-Flaño, P., Serrano, E., 2011. Geodi-
versity and geomorphosite assessment applied to a natural protected area: the
Ebro and Rudron gorges Natural Park (Spain). Geoheritage 3, 163–174.
Piacente, S., 2005. Geosites and geodiversity for a cultural approach to geology. In:
Piacente, S., Coratza, P. (Eds.), Geomorphological Sites and Geodiversity, vol.
18. Il Quaternario, pp. 11–14.
ProGEO, 2011. Conserving our Shared Geoheritage – A Protocol on Geoconservation
Principles, Sustainable Site Use, Management, Fieldwork, Fossil and Mineral
Collecting. 10 pp. http://www.progeo.se/progeo-protocol-definitions-201109
15.pdf (accessed 2012).
Prosser, C.D., 2011. Principles and Practice of Geoconservation: Lessons and Case
Law Arising from a Legal Challenge to Site-based Conservation on an Eroding
Coast in Eastern England, UK. .
 L. Erikstad / Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 124 (2013) 713–719
Ruban, D.A., 2010. Quantification of geodiversity and its loss. Proceedings of the
Geologists’ Association 121, 326–333.
Serrano, E., Ruiz-Flaño, P., 2007. Geodiversity: a theoretical and applied concept.
Geographica Helvetica 62, 140–147.
Stevens, C., Erikstad, L., Daly, D., 1994. Fundamentals in earth-science conservation,
Actes du premiere symposium international sur la protection du patrimoine
geologique. Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France 165, 209–212.
Sørensen, H., 2010. The new approach – the Norwegian Nature Diversity Act. In:
Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) to the Convention on
719
Biological Diversity (CBD). Nagoya, Japan, 28 October http://www.regjeringen.
no/en/dep/md/Whats-new/Speeches-and-articles/Speeches-and-articles-
by-political-staff/Speeches-and-articles-by-State-Secretary-Heidi-Sorensen/
2010/the-new-approach–the-norwegian-nature-d.html?id=622807 (accessed
2012).
Thorsnes, T., Erikstad, L., Dolan, M.F.J., Bellec, V.K., 2009. Submarine landscapes
along the Lofoten–Vesterålen–Senja margin, northern Norway. Norwegian
Journal of Geology 89, 5–16.
Wimbledon, W.A.P., 1996. Geosites a new conservation initiative. Episodes 19, 87–88.