1,721,199 research outputs found
Editorial
Reynard Emmanuel, Hobléa Fabien, Delannoy Jean-Jacques. Editorial. In: Collection EDYTEM. Cahiers de géographie, numéro 7, 2008. Karsts de montagne, géomorphologie, patrimoine et ressources. pp. 2-4
Editorial
Reynard Emmanuel, Hobléa Fabien, Delannoy Jean-Jacques. Editorial. In: Collection EDYTEM. Cahiers de géographie, numéro 7, 2008. Karsts de montagne, géomorphologie, patrimoine et ressources. pp. 2-4
The importance of mountain geomorphosites for environmental education: Examples from the Italian dolomites and the swiss alps
Because of their specific physical characteristics (altitude, slopes, orientations, climate), mountain environments have an important natural diversity. In particular, their geodiversity is generally much larger than in the lowlands, and because mountain geosites are often very aesthetic, mountain areas present a great potential for geoheritage, geoconservation and geotourism studies. This paper reviews six reasons why this potential is high and concludes that mountain areas are particularly interesting to develop educational programs on three current environmental issues: climate change; natural hazards; and human impacts on particularly sensitive geomorphological environments. The paper reviews then the principal researches in the field of geoheritage currently carried out on these three topics and presents two case studies in the Italian and Swiss Alps
Gestion des géosites dans les espaces protégés : une introduction
Hobléa Fabien, Cayla Nathalie, Reynard Emmanuel. Gestion des géosites dans les espaces protégés : une introduction. In: Collection EDYTEM. Cahiers de géographie, numéro 15, 2013. Gestion des géosites dans les espaces protégés. pp. 13-14
Managing Geosites in Protected Areas: an introduction
Hobléa Fabien, Cayla Nathalie, Reynard Emmanuel. Managing Geosites in Protected Areas: an introduction. In: Collection EDYTEM. Cahiers de géographie, numéro 15, 2013. Gestion des géosites dans les espaces protégés. pp. 11-12
Geodiversity and Geoheritage: Crossing Disciplines and Approaches
In recent times, two terms, which are being used more and more frequently have been introduced into scientific nomenclature: Geoheritage (cf. Reynard and Brilha 2018 and references therein) and Geodiversity (cf. Gray 2013, 2018 and Najwer and Zwoliński 2014 and references therein). The concept of geoheritage was introduced in the 1970s (cf. Martini 1994), whereas geodiversity has been recognised as a concept worth investigating from the 1990s onwards (e.g. Wiedenbein 1993; Sharples 1995) but several recent attempts have been made to properly define and assess it (cf. Zwoliński et al. 2018 and references therein). Since their appearance, both concepts have aroused strong interest and debate, not only of researchers in Earth Sciences but also of experts in biology (e.g. Parks and Mulligan 2010; Hjort et al. 2012), spatial planning (e.g. Poiraud et al. 2016; Gordon et al. 2018; Bruschi and Coratza 2018 and references therein), general tourism (cf. Newsome and Dowling 2018 and reference therein) as well as national geotourism (e.g. Asrat et al. 2008 for Ethiopia and Migoń 2012 for Poland and references therein) and cultural heritage (e.g. Margottini 2007; Přikryl and Torok 2010; Coratza et al. 2016; Reynard et al. 2017), especially those interested in integrated and interdisciplinary approaches. This increase in awareness is testified within scientific circles by the numerous scientific conferences, workshops and sessions on geoheritage and geodiversity issues organised during the last two decades. Worthy of note is the increasing success from 2013 of the joint session on geoheritage and geodiversity in the European Geosciences Union General Assembly, which demonstrates the importance of heritage issues to the geoscience community
Le renouveau des bisses: au carrefour de l'agriculture, du tourisme, du patrimoine et des sciences sociales
The Geology of Switzerland
The general picture of the physiographic map of Switzerland reflects the tectonic structure rather directly. Local relief in the Jura Mountains is a direct consequence of folding of the detached Mesozoic strata. The Swiss Plateau mimics the Molasse Basin with flat lying sediments while thrusting and tilting of these strata in the Subalpine Molasse amalgamated these units with the Alps. The Alps exhibit nappe stacks of very different origin. Most of them evolved from pre-Triassic crystalline basement rocks and their sedimentary cover. In many cases the cover was detached from its basement and now forms a nappe stack of its own. The Helvetic nappe system derived from the European continental margin contains nappes of cover rocks displaced over 30–50 km; crystalline basement rocks form large-scale domes. The Penninic nappe system is derived from basins that formed in Mesozoic times between the European and Adriatic continents. They contain far travelled nappes of cover rocks, as well as nappes of basement rocks that were transported over considerable distances, too. In addition, nappes of oceanic rocks outcrop as thin slivers at the top. Post-nappe folding within the Penninic nappe stack is reminiscent of their complex formation history. The Austroalpine nappe system was derived from the Adriatic margin and now forms a horizontal layer as the highest unit in eastern and central Switzerland. This nappe system contains crystalline basement as well as Mesozoic cover rocks and was emplaced early in the Alpine history in a ENE direction. The Southalpine nappe system was derived from the Adriatic margin as well. Here thrusting of crystalline basement with its Mesozoic cover was south-directed. The various Alpine nappe piles led to the amalgamation of very different rock types: continental and oceanic basement rocks, shallow marine carbonates, deep marine clastics and radiolarian chert to name the most important. Landforms and landscapes reflect these differences, in addition to the landforms created by fluvial and glacial erosion
- …
