Geology Reference
In-Depth Information
macroscale) = 10 km
×
10 km; medium scale (or meso-
lithology, palaeontology, mineralisation, etc., representing a
wide diversity of processes and products. Thus the themes of
British and European geoheritage cannot be applied else-
where, therefore, we have developed another system to
systematically identify and assess sites of geoheritage sig-
ni
scale) = 1 km
×
1 km or larger; small scale (or micro-
×
scale) = 10
-
100 m
10
-
100 m;
ne
scale
(or
leptoscale): = 1 m
×
1 m; very
ne scale = 1 mm
×
1mmor
smaller.
Levels of signi
cance assigned to geoheritage sites have
cance, and have termed it the
“
Geoheritage Tool-kit
”
been de
ned for Western Australia (Brocx and Semeniuk
2007
), but the principles are applicable worldwide. While
various levels of signi
(Brocx an Semeniuk
2009
). It is called a
because it
provides a series of different steps or procedures (or con-
ceptual tools) that enable the geoheritage practitioner to
systematically progress through the geology of a region, and
identify, describe, categorise, and assess sites of geoheritage
signi
“
tool-kit
”
cance have been used globally,
nationally in Australia, and within Western Australia (viz.,
International, National, State-wide/Regional, and Local),
there generally have not been de
nitions of these terms until
recently (Brocx
2008
). The criteria adopted here for levels of
signi
cance (Fig.
1
). In terms of information and data col-
lected, some parts of
identify categories
(nominal data as categorical data), e.g.,
the
“
tool-kit
”
cance are those of Brocx and Semeniuk (
2007
); they
are: 1. International: one of, or a few, or the best of a given
feature globally; 2. National: though globally relatively
common, one of, or a few, or the best of a given feature
nationally; 3. State-wide/Regional: though globally rela-
tively common, and occurring throughout a nation, one of,
or a few, or the best of a given feature state-wide or
regionally; 4. Local: occurring commonly through the world,
as well as nationally to regionally, but especially important
to local communities.
cation of
regions, or the allocation of sites to category of geoheritage,
while some are ranked semi-quantitative, e.g., assessment of
signi
identi
cance, and allocation to scale of reference.
The
Geoheritage Tool
-
kit
is de
ned as follows: a proce-
dure, or series of
ve steps, that enables a geoheritage
practitioner to identify areas, geosites and/or features of
igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary, stratigraphic, structural,
geochemical, mineralogic, palaeontologic, geomorphic,
pedologic, hydrologic, and other aspects of geoheritage
signi
cance within a given natural region or terrane, allocate
them to a conceptual category of geoheritage and to a scale
of reference, and assess their level of signi
3
The Geoheritage Tool-Kit
cance.
The next, and sixth step in the geoheritage/geoconserva-
tion procedure which is outside the scope of this paper, is to
determine what type and what level of geoconservation or
management the area, geosite, or geological feature requires.
As not all aspects of the geology of the Earth would be
present in one region, and not all aspects of the geology of a
region may be of geoheritage signi
There are a number of ways that sites of geoheritage sig-
ni
ed. British and European litera-
tures provide a history of how this has been achieved, with
the
cance have been identi
nal outcome being an inventory-based approach (Doyle
et al.
1994
; Wimbledon et al.
1995
,
1996
; Brocx
2008
). For
instance, since 1949, the assessment and subsequent selec-
tion of sites in the United Kingdom has been undertaken on
the basis of a series of blocks which may be based on
geological time, subject, or regional divisions, or combina-
tions thereof.
cance, so the steps in the
Geoheritage Tool-kit, after identifying geological regions,
seek to compile an inventory of the geological essentials
comprising that region, and assess their signi
cance.
2002, ProGEO contributed to a
number of important geoconservation initiatives that inclu-
ded the incorporation of a policy statement relating to the
importance of geology and physical landscapes in the Pan-
European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy
(ProGEO
2002
).
The British and European approaches to develop an
inventory of geological features of signi
In 2001
es geological
regions, providing a natural boundary to the area being
investigated in terms of geological and geoheritage features,
and an indication of the types of materials and styles of
geological features that may be expected. It also ensures that
comparisons in assessing levels of signi
Step 1 of the Geoheritage Tool-kit identi
-
cance are under-
taken wholly within similar geological regions. Identifying
the geological essentials of a region requires recognising
those geological features that characterise, or are peculiar to,
or are restricted to a given geological region. Listing the
geological essentials of a region does not necessarily trans-
late to just listing isolated sites of geoheritage signi
cance have been
successful towards the goal of geoconservation in that
numerous and varied aspects of geology have been identi
ed
and secured, but the approach has been thematic. This is
because the geology of British and European terrains is
reasonably well known and the countries are relatively
small. In contrast, Western Australia presents a vast array of
quite varied geological features, from Archaean metamor-
phic and igneous terranes and geological systems, to Pro-
terozoic rock systems, and to Phanerozoic stratigraphy,
cance,
but may also lead to the identi
cation of and linkages to
interrelated ensembles of features.
The Chalk of southern England and the Shark Bay area
of Western Australia illustrate the concept of a region and
that of geological essentials within a region. The Chalk,
