Loss of Geodiversity in the Bahariya and Farafra oases protect- ed areas, Western Desert, Arab Republic of Egypt.
Kholoud Mohamed Ali
Institute of African Research and Studies- Cairo University- Egypt.
kholoud.mali@
staff.cu.edu.eg,
Kholoud.mohamedali@
gmail.com
Abstract
The Bahariya and Farfara oases are located in the western desert of Egypt at for Farafra oasis. These areas are known for their unique geologic features, and have been mentioned by previous authors as regionally important geologic heritage sites.
During the last decades an incred- ible loss of geodiversity has been clearly detected in the Bahariya and Farafra oasis protected areas. Some Geo-sites have been fully removed, and others have been partially destroyed due to the anthropogenic misuse of the area. Although the effects of weathering are important in the area, the actions of people greatly accelerate the processes of erosion and thus the destruction of the unique features of the area, in the absence of any protective regulations.
Study of the geologic features in the area shows that they are all under a high degree of threat. An effective manage- ment system is highly recommended for the area, as an integrated part of well- controlled Geotourism. An effective and well-designed visitor plan is needed, as preventing vehicular traffic in the area will aid in preservation of the unique geologic features.
Keywords: Geo-diversity loss; Geo- diversity; Western desert; Egypt; Geo- heritage.
I. Introduction
Gray (2004) defines the term Geo- diversity as the natural diversity of geological (rocks, minerals, fossils), geomorphological (landform, physical processes) and soil features, includ- ing their assemblages, relationships,
46 TPG •
Oct.Nov.Dec 2017
properties, interpretations and systems. The term first appears in articles from Tasmania, Australia, in the mid-1990s (Sharples 1993; Dixon 1995; Kiernan 1996) and it is no doubt that this was adopted immediately by many countries of the U.N. Convention on Biodiversity at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Tasmanian geoscientists realized that there are many parallels between biological diversity and diver- sity in the abiotic world. The use of the terms “biodiversity” and “geodiversity” helps to indicate that nature consists of two equal components, living and non- living, which, when considered together, could help to promote a more integrated approach to nature conservation than the traditional biocentric focus.
Because of the increase in awareness of the significance of Earth Heritage (European Manifesto on Earth Heritage and Geodiversity, 2004) geomorphosites (geomorphological landforms that have acquired a scientific, cultural/historical, aesthetic and/or social/economic value due to human perception or exploita- tion (Reynard and Panizza, 2005, after Panizza, 2001) have received much attention from the scientific community. Appraisement methods, classification and conservation strategies have been evolved to safeguard the geomorpho- logical heritage for present and future generations (Reynard et al., 2007). On the other hand, Earth Heritage creates opportunities to develop educational and recreational programs as well as tourism projects.
The advancement of the protection of earth’s heritage brings forth the chal- lenging task of persuading a public of non-specialists (Carton et al., 2005) of the importance of a site not because of
its beauty but because of its value as a testimony to Earth’s history.
Respectful recognition, conservation, promotion, and multi-purpose use of global, national, regional, and local geo- logical heritage has been an agenda for geologists, nature conservationists, and policy-makers for more than two decades (Black, 1985; Lapo et al., 1993, 1997; Wimbledon et al., 1995, 1998; Wimbledon, 1996, 1999; Kislov, 1999, 2001; Gray, 2004, 2008; Prosser et al., 2011; Ruban, 2010; Ruban and Kuo, 2010; Henriques et al., 2011; Asrat et al., 2012; Brown et al., 2012; Gordon, 2012; Fassoulas et al., 2012; Wimbledon and Smith-Meyer, 2012; Tiess and Ruban, 2013). Additionally, tourism and recre- ation based on geological objects have evolved to become an important indus- try (Hose and Wickens, 2004; Doktor and Golonka, 2006; Pajak et al., 2006; Gray, 2008; Dowling and Newsome, 2010; Ruban and Kuo, 2010; Jin and Ruban, 2011; Bruno and Perrotta, 2012; Liccardo et al., 2012). Localities with scientifically important, rare, and beau- tifully preserved fossils and minerals, or other spectacular geological features and landforms, are of primary importance for both of these movements. These geologi- cal heritage sites (geosites) frequently incorporate complex phenomena.
The heritage value of many glob- ally important geosites (Wimbledon et al., 1998) and geoparks (http://
www.unesco.org/new/en/natu- ral-sciences/ environment/earth- sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/ frequently-asked-questions/where-are- the-unesco-global-geoparks/. Accessed 2017/10/21) is determined by the paleo- geographical or paleoenvironmental information that they exhibit. Due
www.aipg.org
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56