LOSS OF GEODIVERSITY Threats to geodiversity
In general terms, threats to geodi- versity are the result of development pressures and land-use change (Gordon & MacFadyen, 2001), but also may result from natural processes or from human- induced changes in natural processes (e.g. climate change and sea-level rise), though it is often difficult to separate these effects (Harrison & Kirkpatrick, 2001).
rapid increase since then. ‘‘Under the onslaught of people during the peak sum- mer season, the most popular national and state parks are often overcrowded with cars and trailers and are plagued by noise, traffic jams, litter, vandal- ism, deteriorating trails, polluted water, drugs and crime. . .. Park Service rang- ers now spend an increasing amount of their time on law enforcement instead of on resource conservation and man- agement’’.
Also, Hunt (1988) explained the view that in the United States, there is a danger of people “loving their national parks and historic sites to death”. The situation in Egypt is very similar to this. However, the impact of increased visitation is leading to the destruction of the Geo-sites. The use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), in particular, severely damages the sites.
Figure 4: Destroyed feature due to misuse of the place.
Some of these impacts affect spe- cific sites of geoconservation value while other impacts have wide effects across large land areas, but all may lead to loss of or damage to elements of geodiversity. Major reviews of the human impact on the environment have been undertaken by several authors and readers are referred to Detwyler (1971), Turner et al. (1990), Goudie & Viles (1997) and Goudie (2000).
V. Causative Factors:
Climatic factors are not considered to be important causes of geodiversity loss in the study areas: rather, the main factor is the anthropogenic factor, espe- cially since the rapid rise of tourism to the oases in recent decades. The recent great increase in the rate of destruction can be shown to be due to misuse of the geological features by the tourists.
1. Tourism Pressures
Recreational travel and tourism is a significant factor in the Egyptian economy, but can lead to damage to biodiversity and geodiversity.
Miller (1998, p. 404) quotes a 12-fold increase in the number of visitors to US National Parks between 1950 and 1990 and there has been a further
50 TPG •
Oct.Nov.Dec 2017
It seems that the absence of aware- ness in not only the local community, but also the tourists and the (natural resource) management system in Egypt has contributed to the geodiversity loss, which at least in part is due to the lack of information and awareness. Therefore the provision of interpretation materials such as signage and leaflets should be of a high priority.
VI. Future prospects and plans
Restoration of the lost features will be impossible, so to prevent further damage rules and regulations governing visitor behavior need to be developed and enforced to protect the remaining geoheritage: these rules would be similar to those developed and used by UNESCO in preserving world heritage sites.
Figure 7: This is the plaque of the protected area of the crystal mountain, was destroyed completely to prevent people to know the location of the moun- tain.
Gray (2008) made recommendations for management of Geo-sites in the UK. I have adapted them below to conditions in this Egyptian environment.
A planning team responsible for man- agement of the property is needed. The team would be responsible for the prepa- ration of annual plans and the monitor- ing of and reporting on the effectiveness of its management, which should
Figure 5: One of the tourists hiking the feature; an obvious crack appears below her.
A buffer zone should be planned around the geo-sites. This buffer zone should ideally be managed as a part of an international organization, such as, for example, UNESCO. A buffer zone has already been identified to protect the property from wider threats, including
• recognize that geo-diversity as an essential component of our natural heritage.
• utilize land management practices that recognize conservation of geo- diversity as a major aim and attri- bute high value and importance to it.
• promote education about geo-diver- sity by raising awareness through interpretation on appropriate
www.aipg.org
those from visitation and traffic. This zone could be extended further in order to provide additional safeguards and to facilitate management.
Figure 6: the white sand preserves Eocene- Miocene Pelecepoda in the lowest areas of the desert. Many have been destroyed beneath the wheels of passing cars.
No vehicle access should be permitted, to provide well-controlled geo-tourism in part of the property. Effective and well- designed visitor facilities are needed to present the geology of the property, to guide visitors to key localities via foot- paths, to allow prevention of vehicular traffic on the property and to provide for limited on-site accommodation.
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