Geoheritage DOI 10.1007/s12371-010-0020-y

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Geomorphological Heritage of the Pyrenees National Park (France): Assessment, Clustering, and Promotion of Geomorphosites Thierry Feuillet & Eric Sourp

Received: 11 January 2010 / Accepted: 3 October 2010 # Springer-Verlag 2010

Abstract The Pyrenees National Park is located in the western portion of the Pyrenees. It includes the majority of the peaks of height greater than 3000 m a.s.l. on the French side of the ridge. One region within this area (Cirque of Gavarnie) has been a listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site since 1997. Its geomorphological heritage is exceptional and the National Park would like to promote it. The aim of this paper is thus to propose an example of the assessment and promotion of geomorphosites at a regional scale. The assessment only concerns glacial and periglacial landforms and is based on three criteria: scientific, cultural, and use values. Potential geomorphosite assessment results are divided into two rankings: one is based on a “management score” and the other on a “tourism score”. The highest-priority geomorphosites for management and tourism use are objectively defined, by making use of a hierarchical ascendant classification method which reveals three main groups of homogenous geomorphosites, interpreted as “High priority”, “Medium priority”, and “Low priority”. An example of tourism promotion (an educational panel) is given for one of the priority geomorphosites. Keywords Geomorphological heritage . Geomorphosites . Pyrenees National Park . France

T. Feuillet (*) Institute of Geography, LETG UMR 6554 CNRS, University Paris Sorbonne-Paris IV, 191 rue Saint Jacques, 75005 Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] E. Sourp Pyrenees National Park, Villa Fould, 2 rue du IV Septembre, BP 736, 65007 Tarbes, France e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction Importance of Geomorphosite Assessment Geomorphosites are landforms of different scales characterized by scientific, cultural, and historical, aesthetic and/or social/economic values (Paris Panizza 2001). Many recent studies have developed various methodologies to evaluate geomorphosites in different countries: Reynard et al. (2007) in Switzerland, Serrano and González-Trueba (2005) and Bruschi and Cendrero (2005) in Spain, Pereira et al. (2007) in Portugal, Zouros (2007) in Greece, De Waele and Melis (2008) in Morocco, Coratza and Giusti (2005) in Italy, etc. The dissemination of these studies enables the promotion and protection of geomorphosites, which can be endangered by the impact of human activities. This need for protection led to the organization of an international conference in Paris in June 2009, “Geomorphosites 2009: raising the profile of geomorphological heritage through iconography, inventory and promotion”, by the working group “Geomorphosites” of the International Association of Geomorphologists and the French Group of Geomorphology. This conference brought together most of the specialists in geomorphological heritage from 20 different countries. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the aims of the conference by proposing the assessment of geomorphosites of one of the nine French National Parks: the Pyrenees National Park. This objective is justified by the fact that, one local study aside (Feuillet and Portal 2008), no work has been done on the geomorphological heritage of this park. Description of the Pyrenees National Park The Pyrenees National Park was created in March 1967 and is the only French National Park of the Pyrenees range. Its

Geoheritage

central zone covers an area of 45,707 ha and features a border of 100 km with Spain (Fig. 1). The minimal elevation is 1000 m a.s.l. and the Vignemale Peak is the highest point (3298 m a.s.l.). The protected area is at the junction of biogeographic and climatic Atlantic and Mediterranean influences. Fauna and flora are quite diverse, with many endemic and emblematic species (bear, bearded vulture, capercaillie, izard, desman, etc.). The geological and geomorphological heritage is also significant. Quaternary glaciations sculpted a variety of landscapes according to underlying lithologies: calcareous cirques (Gavarnie, Troumouse, and Estaubé), granitic massifs (Balaïtous, Néouvielle) and a volcanic one (Midi d’Ossau Peak, Fig. 1). Nowadays, only a few small glaciers remain. Pasture represents half of the area. The Pyrenees National Park is the most visited of the nine French National Parks (1.5 million visitors/year).

Method Selection of Potential Geomorphosites The geomorphosite selection is based on four criteria related to the National Park management policy: –

ve Ga

Pau on

Atlantic Ocean

e

ïs

Pyrénées National Park

La Neste

Ba

Lourdes

La

45˚

our

Ad

Bordeaux

Tarbes

au eP

lor

d'O

d ve Ga

FRANCE

The first criterion is genetic. It only considers landforms characteristic of the periglacial belt, that is glacial and periglacial landforms. The National Park wants to assess its geomorphological heritage step-by-step, by first considering only homogeneous landforms, but future work will include other types of landform. The main forms of these two categories, whatever the spatial scale, are taken into account. For the glacial category, it includes erosional as well as depositional landforms: Ushaped valleys, glacial cirques, glacial basins, glacial

Pic du Midi d'Ossau

Pic du Midi de Bigorre

Vignemale 40˚

10˚

Lescun Lescun

5˚

0

0˚

FRANCE

3 298

SPAIN

SPAIN

Gavarnie

20 km

3 375

3 355

Arrens-Marsous Arrens-Marsous

Ga

ve

d'A

sp

e

2876 2267

e Gav

Etsaut Etsaut

Pic Pic du du Midi Midi d'Arrens d'Arrens

Pic du du Midi Midi de de Bigorre Bigorre Pic ve

Ga de

sau d'Os

Gabas Gabas

u Pa

Cauterets Cauterets

Luz-St-Sauveur Luz-St-Sauveur

AZUN 2884 ASPE

Pic du du Midi Midi Pic d'Ossau d'Ossau OSSAU

Balaïtous Balaïtous Pic Pic de de Néouvielle Néouvielle

CAUTERETS

3091

3192

SPAIN 3298

Vignemale Vignemale Gavarnie Gavarnie

Pyrénées National Park central zone Limits of sectors ASPE

Sector name

LUZ

0

10

Kilometres

Roads

Fig. 1 Location map of the Pyrenees National Park

Pic Pic Long Long

Gèdre Gèdre

Le Taillon Taillon Le 3144

3250

Pic Pic du du Marboré Marboré

AURE

Geoheritage

–

shoulders, rock bars, roches moutonnées, striations, moraines and glacial erratics. In the periglacial category, we consider the following forms: rock glaciers, talus fans, debris flows, avalanche tracks, patterned ground, solifluction lobes and ploughing boulders. The second criterion concerns the balance in the geographical distribution. Geomorphosites have to be divided into the six sectors of the National Park central zone (from west to east: Aspe, Ossau, Val d’Azun, Cauterets, Luz, Aure, Fig. 1). All these sectors are frequented by tourists and the Park managers do not wish to concentrate tourist fluxes to a few specific locations. This is why the geomorphosite distribution must be geographically homogeneous. Nevertheless, sector areas vary, so the number of geomorphosites has to be proportional to their area. Thus, there are more selections in the sector of Cauterets than in that of Val d’Azun. The majority of the landforms are present everywhere in the periglacial belt of the central zone.

Table 1 List of the 30 potential geomorphosites (G01= geomorphosite n°1, PER= periglacial, GLA=glacial)

–

–

Nevertheless, some of them are restricted to smaller areas; this is the case for patterned ground, for example, which is only developing in the eastern portion of the National Park. Thus, more common landforms have been selected in the western portion of the area under consideration to restore the balance. The third criterion is tourism. This depends on the number of tourists visiting some sectors. For example, the Luz sector includes the very famous and wellvisited Cirque of Gavarnie. For this reason, this area is given more attention. The fourth criterion relies on the general accessibility conditions. Only those sites accessible without mountain-climbing equipment are considered (i.e., accessible on foot).

These four criteria yield a selection of 30 potential geomorphosites in the Pyrenees National Park central zone

Number

Sector

Site

Type

Landform

G01 G02 G03 G04 G05 G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 G13 G14 G15 G16 G17

Aspe Aspe Aspe Ossau Ossau Ossau Ossau Val d’Azun Val d’Azun Cauterets Cauterets Cauterets Cauterets Cauterets Luz Luz Luz

Saoubathou Arlet Gourgue sec Pombie Ayous Pourtalet Artouste Suyen Las Néous Cambalès Wallon Grande Fache Gaube Ossoue Oulettes Lutour ND des Neiges

PER GLA GLA GLA GLA PER GLA PER GLA PER GLA PER GLA GLA GLA GLA GLA

Inherited rock glacier Glacial landforms of Arlet Lake Glacial landforms of Barbasse mountain Inherited rock glacier and moraines Erratic block Blockstream of Pourtalet pass Glacial landforms of Artouste Lake Avalanche tracks Las Néous Glacier ice margin Active rock glacier Roches moutonnées of Pla de la Gole Active debris flow Oulettes de Gaube Glacier ice margin LIA moraines of Ossoue Glacier Glacial basin of Oulettes d’Ossoue U-shaped valley Rock bar

G18 G19 G20 G21 G22 G23 G24 G25 G26 G27 G28 G29 G30

Luz Luz Luz Luz Luz Luz Luz Luz Luz Aure Aure Aure Aure

Cabane des Soldats Sarradets Saugué Bellevue Gloriettes Pla d’Aillet Pène Blanque Esbarris Barroude Campbieil Pic Long Turon-Maniportet Bastan

PER GLA GLA GLA GLA PER GLA PER GLA PER GLA GLA PER

Ploughing boulders Subactual roches moutonnées Glacial shoulder Glacial shoulder and moraines Roches moutonnées Solifluction lobes Lateglacial moraines Talus fan LIA moraines of Troumouse Glacier Patterned ground LIA moraines of Pays Baché Glacier Glacial landforms of Maniportet Inherited rock glacier

Geoheritage Fig. 2 Example of a potential periglacial geomorphosite: active rock glacier of Cambalès (G10). This landform is one of the rare active rock glaciers in the French Pyrenees; 2600 ma.s. l., ph. T Feuillet (08/2007)

(Table 1). Two examples of glacial and periglacial potential geomorphosites are illustrated (Figs. 2 and 3). Geomorphosite Assessment Criteria Numerous methods for assessing geomorphological heritage are available in the scientific literature, for example in Coratza and Giusti (2005), Serrano and González-Trueba (2005), Pralong (2005), Reynard (2006), Reynard et al. (2007, 2009), Bruschi and Cendrero (2009). We have adapted the criteria proposed by various authors to the regional characteristics and the nature of geomorphosites, as well as the definition of the geomorphosite concept we have chosen. On the one hand, the study site is located in a protected area (National Park). Thus, some management

Fig. 3 Example of a potential glacial geomorphosite: LIA moraines of Ossoue Glacier in the Vignemale Massif (G14). These moraines are especially well-developed (500 m in length) and have a high exemplarity; 2550 m a.s.l., ph. P René (09/2009)

criteria are irrelevant (for example, institutionalization necessity). On the other hand, only periglacial belt landforms have been considered. Finally, we have taken into account the broad definition of the geomorphosite concept, given by Reynard and Panizza (2005) and Reynard (2005): a geomorphosite is defined both by its scientific value (object used to reconstruct the Earth and climate history) and by its additional values (historical, cultural, aesthetic, and use values) which we consider as its tourism value in a broad sense. We have, therefore, assessed Pyrenean geomorphosites according to these two values. We have distinguished them by establishing two ratings: a management rating, especially based on the scientific (geomorphological) value, and a tourism rating, mostly based on additional values (cultural value and use value). These two ratings are designed for the National Park administrators. The first one (management rating) is a decision-support concerning scientific schemes (for example, process monitoring, dating), special environmental protection projects, photographic dataset management, etc. The second one (tourism rating) is a decision-support for tourism promotion. According to these elements, we have selected the following assessment criteria (Table 2). The scientific value is composed of five criteria scored on a scale from 0 to 1 (Table 3). The additional values are composed of eight criteria also ranging between 0 and 1 (Table 4). We have selected these criteria from preliminary studies. Scientific criteria mainly reflect those suggested by Grandgirard (1999) and Reynard et al. (2007): rarity, paleogeographical importance, and representativeness. Exemplarity, in the sense of the pedagogic potential of the site, was proposed by Zouros (2007), while scientific cognition comes from Coratza and Giusti (2005) and Pereira et al. (2007). Historical values are based on Reynard et al. (2007), as well as viewpoints in the use values. Other use value criteria come from two studies:

Geoheritage Table 2 Summary of all geomorphosite assessment criteria

Scientific value

Additional values

Rarity at regional and local scale Paleogeographical interests Representativeness Exemplarity Scientific cognition Total score

accessibility and fragility (Serrano and González-Trueba 2005); color contrast and integrity (Pralong 2005). Some potential criteria have been ignored because they are not appropriate to the restricted landform types of the current study, to scale analysis, or to the context of a National Park. For example, economic values suggested by Pralong (2005) are not so useful in a National Park. The geohistorical importance suggested by Reynard et al. (2007), related to the role of particular sites in the development of geosciences, is also not appropriate here because it does not concern any of the potential glacial or periglacial geomorphosites. Finally, some criteria have been merged to make the numerical assessment lighter. Thus, sub-criteria “state of conservation” and “impacts” defined by Serrano and González-Trueba (2005) have been merged as “integrity” in the present study. Geomorphosite Selection System We consider that the management rating (MR), which is a decision-support aimed at the Park managers for scientific schemes, is mainly based on the scientific values (SV) and to a lesser extent on the additional values (AV). In contrast, the tourism rating (TR), which is aimed at tourism

Use value

Cultural value

Viewpoints Color contrast Accessibility Integrity Fragility

Religious and symbolic importance Historical importance Artistic and literary importance

promotion, is mainly based on the additional values. This distinction will make the classification of the geomorphosites easier, according to the priority of the Park administrators. Thus, these two ratings are calculated in the following way: MR ¼ SV þ ðAV=2Þ and TR ¼ AV þ ðSV=2Þ with AV ¼ CV þ UV where SV is the scientific value, AV the additional values, CV the cultural value, and UV the use value. SV and AV scores are weighted out of ten to facilitate comparisons. MR and TR are also scored out of ten. This scoring is used to establish a classification, which allows us to define the priority geomorphosites, both in terms of management and tourism promotion. For this, one can plot the geomorphosite assessment results in a reference frame where each geomorphosite is depicted as a point with MR and TR as its coordinates. We used a particular method to determine clusters: Hierarchical Ascendant Classification (HAC), or Cluster Analysis, to have maximum objectivity. This hierarchical method consists in combining the observations sequentially, by reducing the number of clusters at each step, until all individuals belong to one cluster only.

Table 3 Numerical assessment of the scientific value Scientific value Score

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

Rarity More than 7 Between 5 and 7 Between 3 and 4 Between 1 and 2 One of a kind Corresponding to the number of identical sites in the Pyrenees National Park. Mark is increased if the site is rare at the slope scale. Paleogeographical interests None Weak Medium High Very high Depends on the site interests in the morphoclimatic reconstructions and on the possibilities of dating. Representativeness None Weak Medium High Very high Depends on the landform representativeness with regard to the producer processes. Landform characteristic or not of the considered processes. Exemplarity None Weak Medium High Very high Depends on the intrinsic qualities of the site (size, geometry, aestheticism, readability). Exemplarity is related to the educational potential of the site. Scientific cognition None Weak Medium High Very high Depends on the number of papers/theses written about the site. Publication impact (local, national, international) has an influence on the score.

Geoheritage Table 4 Numerical assessment of the additional values Additional values Cultural value Score

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

Religious and symbolic Unrelated Weakly related Fairly related Highly related Very highly related importance Defined by the relation of the site to religion. Historical importance No vestige Weak traces Numerous traces Defined by archeological and/or historical vestiges on the site. Artistic and literary No reference Between 1 and 5 Between 6 and 20 Between 21 and 50 More than 50 importance Defined by literary and iconographic references to the site since 1950. Use value Score 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Viewpoints None 1 2 or 3 Between 4 and 6 More than 6 Depends on the number of viewpoints accessible on foot (less than 1 km from the site). Color contrast Identical colors Different Opposed colors colors Depends on the color contrast between the site and the nearby environment (lithologic contrast, disparate vegetation, etc.). Accessibility More than 1 km from Less than 1 km from Close to a Close to a Close to a national or a track a track local road regional road trans-Pyrenean road Depends on the site distance from tracks and roads. Refuge or car park presence increases the score. Integrity Destroyed Very damaged Fairly Slightly Intact damaged damaged Depends on the degree of site destruction (natural and/or human impacts). Fragility High Medium Weak Depends on the site vulnerability factors according to its intrinsic characteristics. The higher the fragility, the more inadvisable is the use. It is a precaution assessment.

Therefore, it starts with all individuals and leads to their separation into smaller groups until there is one object per cluster (Almeida et al. 2007). This method was implemented with the “R” freeware (FactomineR package). The resulting homogeneous groups could be interpreted visually, thanks to the plot.

Results Assessment Results and Classification All the 30 potential geomorphosites have been assessed and the results are summarized in Table 7. A specific example of an assessment concerning the LIA moraines of the Pays Baché Glacier is also shown (G28, Fig. 4 and Tables 5 and 6). Figures 5 and 6, created by GIS (Geographical Information System) processing, show the spatial distribution of the 30 sites according to their management score and tourism score. The eastern part of the National Park is most represented, especially the Vignemale Massif and the Cirque of Gavarnie. This can

be explained by both the higher elevation (all the peaks higher than 3,000 m a.s.l., except the Balaïtous Massif, are located here) which controls glacier occurrence and active periglacial features, and better accessibility and tourism facilities (more roads, refuges, tracks). However, the G04 and G07 sites counterbalance this observation. Figures 5 and 6 and Table 7 reveal a visible correlation between management and tourism scores. This is true, for example, for G01, G02, G13, and G21. Nevertheless, some geomorphosites seem to have a high management ranking with a weak tourism ranking (G09, G27) and conversely (G11, G17). The HAC (Figs. 7 and 8) enables three main groups of homogeneous geomorphosites to be distinguished. Cluster 1 (low coordinates) is composed of 11 geomorphosites, cluster 2 (medium coordinates) contains 15 and cluster 3 (high coordinates) contains 4. These three groups allow us to define 3° of priority for the National Park management policy: –

Low priority: composed of ten geomorphosites characterized by weak management and tourism scores: G01,

Geoheritage Fig. 4 Descriptive card of the G28 geomorphosite (LIA moraines). It is first in the management ranking and third in the tourism ranking

G28 : LIA moraines of Pays Baché Glacier General data Sector: Aure Identification code G28GLA Coordinates 42˚47'59'' N - 00˚06'33'' E Site Eastern slope of Pic Long

Landform Moraines Elevation 2 800 – 2950 m a.s.l. Type Surfacic

Ph. T. Feuillet (07/2006) These moraines, located on the eastern slope of Pic Long, date from the LIA maximal advance of the Pays Baché Glacier (1856). The actual glacier has decreased by 93% for the last 150 years. Today it is covered by paraglacial debris. This site is particularly interesting for educational purposes and for well-known deglaciation chronology. Similar geomorphosites : G14, G26. SV = 8/10 AV = 5/10 MR = 7/10 TR = 6/10 Management ranking = 1/30 Tourism ranking = 3/30

–

G02, G03, G05, G06, G08, G12, G15, G21, G25, and G30 (Class 1). Medium priority: composed of 16 geomorphosites characterized by medium management and tourism scores: G07, G09, G10, G11, G13, G16, G17,

–

G18, G19, G22, G23, G24, G26, G27, and G29 (Class 2). High priority: four geomorphosites that must be considered a priority for management and tourism: G04, G14, G20, and G28 (Class 3).

Table 5 Numerical assessment of the scientific value of the G28 geomorphosite Scientific value Score

0

Rarity

X

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

LIA moraines exist mostly in the current or formerly Pyrenean deglaciated sites (Ossoue, Taillon, Oulettes, Mont Perdu Glaciers, etc.), even at a local level. Paleogeographical interests X Glacier pushed forward the morainic ridges summit in 1856 (historical evidence). The melting of ice phases is well-documented. Thus, all the proglacial zones present a high paleoenvironmental interest. Representativeness X Very high representativeness in glacial geomorphology. Exemplarity X Very high exemplarity. Scientific cognition X Scientific references to the site: Michelier (1887), Eydoux and Maury (1907), Gaurier (1921), Boucau (1922), Barrère (1953), Höllermann (1967, 1968), Grove and Gellatly (1995), Grove (2004), González-Trueba et al. (2007), Feuillet and Sellier (2008), Woodward (2009). Scientific score: 4/5 i.e. 8/10

Geoheritage Table 6 Numerical assessment of the additional values (cultural and use values) of the G28 geomorphosite

Additional values Cultural value Score

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

Religious and symbolic importance X Unrelated. Historical importance X The body of an izard hunter, Maubic, was discovered in July 1868, in the upper part of the morainic ridge. The Maubic nickname was “Pays Baché”, which gave its name to the glacier. Artistic and literary importance X No reference. Use value Score 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Viewpoints X Numerous viewpoints, especially from the Campbieil peak. Color contrast X Moraines are made up of crystalline elements settled on a substratum made of sedimentary rocks. Moraine visual distinction is, therefore, made easier. Accessibility X Close to a track, but about 3 h walk from the car park. No refuge. Integrity X Intact. Fragility X Weak. Additional values score: 4/8 i.e. 5/10

Arrens-Marsous Arrens-Marsous Lescun Lescun Pic Pic du du Midi Midi d'Arrens d'Arrens

Etsaut Etsaut

Pic Pic du du Midi Midi de de Bigorre Bigorre

Cauterets Cauterets

Gabas Gabas G01 G01 G07 G07 G07 G02 G02 G02

G30 G30 G30

Luz-St-Sauveur Luz-St-Sauveur

G05 G05 G05

G08 G08 G08

G04 G04 G04

G03 G03 G03 Pic Pic du du Midi Midi d'Ossau d'Ossau

G09 G09 G09

Balaïtous Balaïtous

G06 G06 G06

G16 G16 G16

G10 G10

G29 G29 G29

G11 G11 G11

Pic Pic de de Néouvielle Néouvielle

G12 G12 G12 G28 G28 G28 G13 G13 G13

Management score

Pic Pic Long Long

Gèdre Gèdre

G27 G27 G27

Vignemale Vignemale Vignemale

G14 G14 G14

G15 G15 G15

G20 G20 G20

> 5.94

G22 G22 G22

G17 G17 G17

5.15 - 5.94

Gavarnie Gavarnie

Pyrénées National Park central zone

4.77- 5.15 Roads

4.25- 4.77 Main refuges

G19 G19 G19 Le Le Taillon Taillon

< 4.25

G24 G24 G23 G23

G18 G18 G18

0

10

Kilometres

Fig. 5 Geomorphosite distribution according to the management ranking

Pic Pic du du Marboré Marboré

G25 G25 G25

G26 G26 G26

Geoheritage

Arrens-Marsous Arrens-Marsous Lescun Lescun Pic du du Midi Midi d'Arrens d'Arrens Pic

Etsaut Etsaut

Pic du Pic du Midi Midi de de Bigorre Bigorre

Cauterets Cauterets

Gabas Gabas G01 G01 G01 G07 G07 G07 G02 G02 G02

G30 G30 G30

Luz-St-Sauveur Luz-St-Sauveur

G05 G05

G08 G08

G04 G04 G04

G03 G03 G03 Pic Pic du du Midi Midi d'Ossau d'Ossau

G09 G09 G09

Balaïtous Balaïtous

G06 G06

G16 G16 G16

G10 G10 G10

G29 G29

G11 G11 G11

Pic Pic de de Néouvielle Néouvielle

G12 G12 G12 G28 G28 G28 G13 G13 G13

Tourism score

Pic Long Pic Long

Gèdre Gèdre

G27 G27 G27

Vignemale Vignemale Vignemale

G14 G14

G15 G15

G20 G20

> 5.5

G22 G22 G22

G17 G17 G17

Pyrénées National Park central zone Roads

4.96 - 5.5

Gavarnie Gavarnie

4.38- 4.96 4.04- 4.38

G24 G24 G24 G23 G23 G23

G18 G18 G18

G26 G26 G26

G25 G25 G25

G19 G19

Main refuges

Le Le Taillon Taillon

< 4.04 0

Pic Pic du du Marboré Marboré

10

Kilometres

Fig. 6 Geomorphosite distribution according to the tourism ranking

Note that in cluster 2 (medium priority), G17 (roches moutonnées in Gavarnie) can be distinguished from other geomorphosites of the same cluster because of its very high tourism ranking (5/30) but only a medium management ranking (13/30). Thus, this geomorphosite can be considered as a high priority in terms of tourism promotion. Example of Promotion The high and medium tourism priority geomorphosites should be the subject of promotion for the Pyrenees National Park visitors by using several approaches. For example, Carton et al. (2005) developed a geomorphological site mapping method pointing out the interest of GIS processing. A web GIS enables a lot of information to be presented to people at different scales. Coratza and Regolini-Bissig (2009) recently suggested methods for mapping geomorphosites. Promotion also consists in publishing educational handbooks on geomorphosites. In the Pyrenees National Park, as a short-term measure, it was decided to construct panels close to the site. We show here an example for G18 (Fig. 9): ploughing boulders of Pouey Aspé (tourism score, 5.5; ranking 6/30). These landforms are located at a site well used by hikers (south Taillon Block close to the Cirque of Gavarnie) and present, in addition, a very high exemplarity and educational value. Recently, a few studies have aimed at promoting earth sciences using educational panels (Summermatter 2003; Pralong 2003, 2006). These studies offered several recommendations about illustrative and educational approaches.

The panel is accordingly composed of the four main elements characterizing effective teaching (Summermatter 2003): a location map, color photos, diagrams, and text. To these, an abstract, a list of references and a Quaternary chronology were added to the basic structure. Texts had to be understood by the general public. Thus, technical terminology is avoided and sentences and paragraphs are made short. Nevertheless, we included boxes with more specific terminology for more curious visitors. Schematic diagrams occupy a central place because the educational panel is mainly visual. A block diagram is particularly suitable for this task because of its easy readability. All these elements have to be well-balanced for a more informative effect (Summermatter 2003). The educational panel, recently printed in A0 paper format, will be set up at three local well-visited sites: the Sarradets refuge and National Park valley houses (Gavarnie and Luz). According to the observed popularity of this first test, other priority geomorphosites will be promoted.

Discussion Three missions determine the aims and actions of the Pyrenees National Park: knowing and preserving the natural, cultural, and landscape heritages; favoring sustainable development and a management that preserves natural heritages; promoting heritages to the general public. According to these missions, the present study offers many interesting features. Firstly, it enables the knowledge of the geomorphological heritage, currently poorly under-

Geoheritage Table 7 General numerical assessment of the 30 potential geomorphosites

Number

Sector

Type

Management score/10

Tourism score/10

Management ranking

Tourism ranking

G01 G02

Aspe Aspe

PER GLA

4.35 4.35

4.21 4.21

21 22

21 22

G03 G04 G05 G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 G13 G14 G15 G16 G17 G18 G19 G20

Aspe Ossau Ossau Ossau Ossau Val d’Azun Val d’Azun Cauterets Cauterets Cauterets Cauterets Cauterets Luz Luz Luz Luz Luz Luz

GLA GLA GLA PER GLA PER GLA PER GLA PER GLA GLA GLA GLA GLA PER GLA GLA

3.81 6.90 4.48 4.00 4.77 3.35 5.15 4.79 4.65 3.17 5.56 6.88 4.46 4.90 5.08 6.00 5.23 6.54

3.63 5.79 3.96 4.50 5.04 3.71 4.29 4.58 5.29 2.83 5.13 6.25 4.42 4.79 5.67 5.50 4.96 6.08

27 2 19 26 17 28 12 16 18 30 9 3 20 15 13 5 11 4

28 4 26 16 11 27 20 15 7 30 9 1 17 13 5 6 12 2

G21 G22 G23 G24 G25 G26 G27 G28 G29 G30

Luz Luz Luz Luz Luz Luz Aure Aure Aure Aure

GLA GLA PER GLA PER GLA PER GLA GLA PER

4.25 4.33 5.27 5.90 3.27 5.79 5.94 7.00 4.92 4.02 4.97

4.00 4.67 4.04 5.29 3.04 5.08 4.38 6.00 4.33 4.04 4.66

24 23 10 7 29 8 6 1 14 25

25 14 23 8 29 10 18 3 19 24

Dendrogram

7

35 6.5

Cluster 3

G17

5.5

G07

5 G22

4.5

G06

4

G15 G01

G30

Cluster 1 G08

3.5 3

G18 G13

G11 G16 G10 G29

G02

30

G28 G04

G19

G09 G23

25

G24 G26

G27

Dissimilarities

Tourism score /10

G14 G20

6

Cluster 2

G21 G05 G03

20 15

Cluster 1

Cluster 3

Cluster 2

10

G25 G12

5 0

2 2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

Obs6 Obs22 Obs15 Obs1 Obs2 Obs30 Obs5 Obs21 Obs12 Obs25 Obs3 Obs8 Obs4 Obs28 Obs14 Obs20 Obs17 Obs18 Obs24 Obs19 Obs13 Obs26 Obs10 Obs16 Obs7 Obs11 Obs27 Obs23 Obs9 Obs29

2.5

Management score /10

Fig. 7 Clustering of the 30 geomorphosites

Fig. 8 HAC dendrogram showing three homogeneous geomorphosite clusters

Geoheritage

Fig. 9 Example of geomorphosite promotion: educational panel on ploughing boulders (G18)

stood, to be improved and organized into a hierarchy. Secondly, the geomorphosite knowledge helps the National Park to better define the effects of global warming on periglacial landscapes. Thus, the National Park will support complementary studies about the altitudinal mobility of periglacial features. Thirdly, from a management and preservation point of view, the integration of a georeferenced dataset into a GIS enables the geomorphological heritage to be spatialized and taken into account in land use projects or other particular use projects. Finally, tourism promotion is considered at different levels: on site through educational panels and on the website through the online GIS. Within this, it is intended to create a data layer about geomorphosites so that any internet user can obtain information about the Pyrenean geomorphological heritage. A film is also planned, aiming to present the geological and geomorphological heritage of the Pyrenean landscapes.

Conclusion Thirty glacial and periglacial geomorphosites were assessed. We used a clustering methodology (factor analysis) to define

homogeneous groups of geomorphosites. This approach, original and repeatable in other areas, ensures an objective selection of promoted and used sites. This point is an important fact because subjectivity is often a problem in geoheritage assessment in general (Bruschi and Cendrero 2005, 2009). The three defined geomorphosite clusters (“High priority”, “Medium priority” and “Low priority”) are used to target the priority geomorphosites both in terms of management and tourism uses. We propose the promotion of one of these priority sites, the ploughing boulders of Gavarnie, by printing an educational panel for the general public. This Pyrenees National Park geomorphosite assessment represents the first general work on the French Pyrenean geomorphological heritage. It provides effective decisionsupport for the National Park administrators concerning landscape management. At the same time, it is a means by which numerous tourists may become aware of some of the exceptional landforms in the protected area. In this study, only glacial and periglacial geomorphosites of the Pyrenees National Park were assessed. Clearly, this assessment could be extended to other landform types (structural, gravitational, fluvial, paraglacial, etc.), in order to consider all National Park landscapes.

Geoheritage Acknowledgment The authors wish to thank D. Mercier for his suggestions, S. Candel for improving the language, as well as E. Reynard and an anonymous reviewer for their corrections.

References Almeida JAS, Barbosa LMS, Pais AACC, Formosinho SJ (2007) Improving hierarchical cluster analysis: a new method with outlier detection and automatic clustering. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 87:208–217 Barrère P (1953) Équilibre glaciaire actuel et Quaternaire dans l’Ouest des Pyrénées Centrales. Rev Géogr Pyrén Sud Ouest 24(2):116– 134 Boucau H (1922) Les glaciers des Pyrénées occidentales, d’après M. Ludovic Gaurier. Rev Géogr Alp 10(4):635–648 Bruschi VM, Cendrero A (2005) Geosite evaluation; can we measure intangible values? Quaternario 18(1):291–306 Bruschi VM, Cendrero A (2009) Direct and parametric methods for the assessment of geosites and geomorphosites. In: Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (eds) Geomorphosites. Pfeil, München, pp 73–88 Carton A, Coratza P, Marchetti M (2005) Guidelines for geomorphological sites mapping: examples from Italy. Géomorphol Relief Processus Environnement 3:209–218 Coratza P, Giusti C (2005) Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites. Quaternario 18(1):307–313 Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (2009) Methods for mapping geomorphosites. In: Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (eds) Geomorphosites. Pfeil, München, pp 89–103 De Waele J, Melis MT (2008) Geomorphology and geomorphological heritage of the Ifrane-Azrou region (Middle Atlas, Morocco). Environ Geol 55:587–599 Eydoux D, Maury L (1907) Les glaciers orientaux du Pic Long (Pyrénées centrales). Géogr 16(1):1–18 Feuillet T, Portal C (2008) Les glaciers rocheux des Pyrénées centrales: un patrimoine naturel à découvrir. Pyrén 235:267–280 Feuillet T, Sellier D (2008) Observations sur la limite inférieure de l’étage périglaciaire dans les Pyrénées centrales françaises (Bigorre). Environ Périglac 15:59–68 Gaurier L (1921) Etudes glaciaires dans les Pyrénées françaises et espagnoles de 1900 à 1909. Garet-Haristoy, Pau, 363 pp Grandgirard V (1999) L’évaluation des géotopes. Geol Insubrica 4:59–66 González-Trueba JJ, Martín Moreno R, Serrano E (2007) El glaciarismo de la Pequeña Edad del Hielo en las Montañas Ibéricas. Síntesis y estado actual de conocimiento. Rev CG 21 (1–2):57–86 Grove JM (2004) Little ice ages. Routledge, London, 718 pp Grove JM, Gellatly AF (1995) Little ice age glacier fluctuations in the Pyrénées. Z Gletsch Glazialgeol 31:199

Höllermann PW (1967) Zur Verbreitung rezenter periglazialer Kleinformen in den Pyrenäen und Ostalpen. Gött Geogr Abh (40):198 pp Höllermann PW (1968) Die rezenten Gletscher der Pyrenäen. Geogr Helv 23(4):157–168 Michelier M (1887) Etude sur les variations des glaciers des Pyrénées. Ann Bur Cent Météorol Fr Paris Panizza M (2001) Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and examples of geomorphological survey. Chin Sci Bull 46:4–6 Pereira P, Pereira D, Caetano Alves M (2007) Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geogr Helv 62(3):159–168 Pralong JP (2003) Valorisation et vulgarisation des sciences de la Terre: les concepts de temps et d’espace et leur application à la randonnée pédestre In: Reynard E, Holzmann C, Guex D, Summermatter N (eds) Géomorphologie et Tourisme, Institut de géographie, Université de Lausanne, Travaux et Recherches 24 pp 115–127 (available on-line: http://mesoscaphe.unil.ch/ Site-IGUL-Jahia/travaux_recherches.php) Pralong JP (2005) A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites. Géomorphol Relief Processus Environnement 3:189–196 Pralong JP (2006) Géotourisme et utilisation de sites naturels d’intérêt pour les sciences de la Terre. PhD Thesis, University of Lausanne (available on-line http://mesoscaphe.unil.ch/Site-IGUL-Jahia/ travaux_recherches.php) Reynard E (2005) Géomorphosites et paysages. Géomorphol Relief Processus Environnement 3:181–188 Reynard E (2006) Fiche d’inventaire des géomorphosites. -http:// www.unil.ch/igul/page17893.html Reynard E, Panizza M (2005) Geomorphosites: definition, assessment and mapping. An introduction. Géomorphol Relief Processus Environnement 3:177–180 Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L, Scapozza C (2007) A method for assessing «scientific» and «additional values» of geomorphosites. Geogr Helv 62(3):148–158 Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (2009) Geomorphosites. Pfeil, München, 240 pp Serrano E, González-Trueba JJ (2005) Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Géomorphol Relief Processus Environnement 3:197–208 Summermatter N (2003) Quelques réflexions sur les techniques scripto-illustratives utilisées dans les brochures relatives aux itineraries didactiques In: Reynard E, Holzmann C, Guex D, Summermatter N (eds) Géomorphologie et Tourisme, Institut de géographie, Université de Lausanne, Travaux et Recherches 24 pp 129–144 (available on-line: http://mesoscaphe.unil.ch/ Site-IGUL-Jahia/travaux_recherches.php) Woodward J (2009) The physical geography of the Mediterranean. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 663 pp Zouros N (2007) Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece. The case of the Lesvos island coastal geomorphosites. Geogr Helv 62(3):169–180