LOSS OF GEODIVERSITY


the area, I have documented that most of the observed destruction is done by visitors, whose activities accelerate the degradation of the unique features.


from the comparison between the scien- tific quality before and after the imple- mentation of the project. As a suggestion, for the example that follows:


d1 — no damage, well-preserved = 1;


d2 — some deterioration with loss of some minor elements = 0.75;


d3 — degraded owing to some human activities which hide part of the features = 0.5;


d4 — several human activities which deteriorated the characteristic of the landform = 0.25;


d5 — characteristics of landform destroyed = 0.


Figure 1: Iron ore (hematite) appears in the photo and two people are collecting specimens of the unique mineral habits of the ore in large quantities. The ore minerals used to be more abundant than it appears in the photo, but all the tourists who visit the place collect the ore.


Ruban, (2010) addressed endanger- ment (i.e., damage, but not complete loss) of geological heritage, and ranked it in terms of local, regional, and global effect. Gray (2008) had already drawn an analogy between the established concept of biodiversity and that of geodiversity. Use of these concepts enables a quanti- fication of species endangerment (e.g., Brockington et al., 2008), and, by anal- ogy, endangerment of features of the geo- logical heritage. Devastation of geosites leads to a decrease in their importance, and, hence, reduces their rank (Ruban, 2005). We may thus evaluate the loss of


Figure 2: The Black Desert, so named because the normal sedimentary section is capped by a basaltic flow. Tourists in this area hike the mountain and destroy the fragile basaltic section.


regional geodiversity by the reduction in maximum rank for regionally repre- sented geosite types.


Damage classification of Ruban, (2005)


This represents an attempt to express numerically the scientific importance of geomorphic sites, in order to compare them even when they are assessed on the basis of inhomogeneous scientific back- grounds. Such an approach is indispens- able to the process of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of a proposed action. For the assessment of an envi- ronmental impact (I) related to a project it is necessary to evaluate the degree of damage (d) as a consequence of the implementation of the project. It derives


Figure 3: Unique mushroom-shaped geologic fea- tures are located on white sand. Tourist vehicles are also


seen in the photo,


From the previous studies on the evaluation of the geo-loss on geosites, the Egyptian areas under discussion are under moderate to high risk as shown in Table 1 below.


Table 1: The application of the concept of geodiversity loss according to Ruban, (2005) and Gray, (2008) to the geo-sites in the study area


Geo-site


The black desert (figures 1 & 2)


The white desert (figures: 3-6)


Ruban (2005)


d2: some deterioration with loss of some minor elements.


d4: several human activi- ties have degraded the defining characteristics of the landform


Crystal mountain (figures: 7-9)


d5: characteristics of landform destroyed


Sulfur hot springs d3: degraded owing to some human activ-ities which obliterate parts of the features.


Dinosaur traces Gray (2008)


Partial loss or physical damage.


• Partial loss or physical damage.


• Fragmentation of Interest


• Pollution


Complete loss of an ele- ment of geodiversity.


• Fragmentation of features of inter- est.


• Pollution


All dinosaur skeletons were removed to museums for study. There are no signs or barriers around the area.


www.aipg.org Oct.Nov.Dec 2017 • TPG 49


The crystals were completely removed from the mountain in 50% of the mountain area.


Due to the misuse of the thermal water, there is an obvious lowering of the water level, so the water now has to be artificially pumped to the surface.


Description


Tourists have collected large quantities of the char- acteristic hematite crystals found in dendritic and roses shapes, so that little remains.


Some parts of the tower landforms have been destroyed, and cracks have appeared in others. Also, tourist vehicles have destroyed the fossils preserved in the white sand.


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