local level of significance on geological values and recognized as such. Estuaries that stand out globally as distinct
or geomorphically significant and that can be used as estuarine reference sites include Lake St Lucia, the Gironde
estuary, the deltaic complex of the Ganges-Brahmaputra,
Walpole-Nornalup Inlet estuary (Western Australia),
Fitzroy River estuary (Queensland), Gulf of Saint Lawrence, Chesapeake Bay, and the Amazon estuary. Aside
from those of Global significance, many other estuaries,
geologically, qualify to be allocated to national
significance.
Estuaries readily conform to being allocated to one of
the categories of geoheritage significance, viz., as reference sites and/or type locations, as those of cultural or historical importance, as geohistorical sites, or as sites where
earth processes are still active, as many stand as classic
examples of the type of estuary they represent and are
quite active today as interactive riverine-to-marine systems and also steeped in human history. Since geoheritage
encompasses a wide range of disciplines within the earth
sciences and involves geological features at all scales,
from the scale of large estuaries to the microscopic, there
is potential to involve many natural phenomena within
estuaries. At the largest scale, the range of end-member
estuary types and their climate setting may render an estuary to be a geoheritage feature of global significance. At
the smallest scale, the precipitation of exotic minerals or
the mineralization of plants in the tidal zone may render
an estuarine environment also as a geoheritage feature of
global significance.
Estuaries carry a large degree of geodiversity, exemplified by variation in their setting, shape, size, estuarine
landforms, hydrology, sedimentary processes, diagenesis,
and internal functioning and can be classified as to many
estuarine types. They also carry geodiversity in their history as expressed in their geomorphology, quaternary
paleogeomorphology, and stratigraphy. As such, they lend
themselves for use as geoparks where Quaternary history
and Holocene geological processes and landscape evolution can be demonstrated.
Bibliography
Brocx, M., 2008. Geoheritage – From Global Perspectives to Local
Principles for Conservation and Planning. Perth: Western Australian Museum.
Brocx, M., and Semeniuk, V., 2007. Geoheritage and
geoconservation – history, definition, scope and scale. Journal
of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 90, 53–87.
Brocx, M., and Semeniuk, V., 2009. Developing a tool-kit for
geoheritage and geoconservation in Western Australia. ProGeo
News, 2009(1), 5–9.
Ellis, N. V., Bowen, D. Q., Campbell, S., Knill, J. L., McKirdy,
A. P., Prosser, C. D., Vincent, M. A., and Wilson, R. C. L.,
1996. An Introduction to the Geological Conservation Review,
GCR Series No. 1. Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Peterborough.
Fisher, W. L. 1969. Facies characterization of Gulf Coast basin delta
systems, with some Holocene analogues. Gulf Coast Association
of Geological Societies Transactions, 19, 239–261.
Ramsar Convention Bureau, 1991. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting
of the Conference of Contracting Parties, Montreux, Switzerland. Gland: Ramsar Convention Bureau.
Roy, P. S., 1984. New South Wales estuaries: their origin and evolution. In Thom, B. G. (ed.), Coastal Geomorphology in Australia.
Sydney: Academic.
Semeniuk, C. A., and Semeniuk, V., 1995. A geomorphic approach
to global wetland classification for inland wetlands. Vegetatio,
118, 103–124.
Zouros, N., 2000. 2nd European Geoparks Meeting: The European
Geoparks Network, History Museum of the Levos Petrified Forest (Island of Lesbos) Greece. [cited June, 2002] www.aegean.
gr/petrified.forFramesest//HTML/English/EGMeeting.htm
Cross-references
Determining Geoheritage Values
GEOMORPHOLOGICAL MAPPING
Michael A. O’Neal
Department of Geological Sciences, University of
Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
Definition
Geomorphological mapping refers to the process of defining, identifying, and graphically delimiting the fundamental geomorphic units that comprise a landscape.
Principles and background
Geomorphological maps typically are developed for geographically small areas between 10
1 and 10
4 km
2 at scales
between 1:5,000 and 1:50,000. Despite this relatively narrow range of areal and scale parameters, a hierarchy of different geomorphic features can be identified as basic units
(Knight et al., 2011; Smith, 2011). Map units typically
reflect the intrinsic characteristics of the landforms (i.e.,
morphology, morphometry, chronology, and formation
processes) and related non-geomorphological data regarding the geographic, geologic, or environmental setting
(Pavlopoulos et al., 2009). Many forms and processes,
such mass wasting, can be identified over a wide range
of scales. However, at small scales, small features and processes are difficult to identify and delimit, while large features, which cannot be delimited at large scales, are more
obvious. Therefore, the intended purpose of the map dictates the smallest forms or processes that should be
depicted.
Historically, the cartographic manifestations of geomorphological mapping efforts were largely symbolic maps.
By the mid-twentieth century, improvements in the accessibility of aerial imagery and topographic data led to an
increased interest in, and usefulness of, geomorphological
maps (Verstappen, 2011). However, unique sets of
map symbols, developed independently by different
researchers, made it difficult to compare geomorphological maps, even when developed for similar terrains.
344
GEOMORPHOLOGICAL MAPPING
or geomorphically significant and that can be used as estuarine reference sites include Lake St Lucia, the Gironde
estuary, the deltaic complex of the Ganges-Brahmaputra,
Walpole-Nornalup Inlet estuary (Western Australia),
Fitzroy River estuary (Queensland), Gulf of Saint Lawrence, Chesapeake Bay, and the Amazon estuary. Aside
from those of Global significance, many other estuaries,
geologically, qualify to be allocated to national
significance.
Estuaries readily conform to being allocated to one of
the categories of geoheritage significance, viz., as reference sites and/or type locations, as those of cultural or historical importance, as geohistorical sites, or as sites where
earth processes are still active, as many stand as classic
examples of the type of estuary they represent and are
quite active today as interactive riverine-to-marine systems and also steeped in human history. Since geoheritage
encompasses a wide range of disciplines within the earth
sciences and involves geological features at all scales,
from the scale of large estuaries to the microscopic, there
is potential to involve many natural phenomena within
estuaries. At the largest scale, the range of end-member
estuary types and their climate setting may render an estuary to be a geoheritage feature of global significance. At
the smallest scale, the precipitation of exotic minerals or
the mineralization of plants in the tidal zone may render
an estuarine environment also as a geoheritage feature of
global significance.
Estuaries carry a large degree of geodiversity, exemplified by variation in their setting, shape, size, estuarine
landforms, hydrology, sedimentary processes, diagenesis,
and internal functioning and can be classified as to many
estuarine types. They also carry geodiversity in their history as expressed in their geomorphology, quaternary
paleogeomorphology, and stratigraphy. As such, they lend
themselves for use as geoparks where Quaternary history
and Holocene geological processes and landscape evolution can be demonstrated.
Bibliography
Brocx, M., 2008. Geoheritage – From Global Perspectives to Local
Principles for Conservation and Planning. Perth: Western Australian Museum.
Brocx, M., and Semeniuk, V., 2007. Geoheritage and
geoconservation – history, definition, scope and scale. Journal
of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 90, 53–87.
Brocx, M., and Semeniuk, V., 2009. Developing a tool-kit for
geoheritage and geoconservation in Western Australia. ProGeo
News, 2009(1), 5–9.
Ellis, N. V., Bowen, D. Q., Campbell, S., Knill, J. L., McKirdy,
A. P., Prosser, C. D., Vincent, M. A., and Wilson, R. C. L.,
1996. An Introduction to the Geological Conservation Review,
GCR Series No. 1. Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Peterborough.
Fisher, W. L. 1969. Facies characterization of Gulf Coast basin delta
systems, with some Holocene analogues. Gulf Coast Association
of Geological Societies Transactions, 19, 239–261.
Ramsar Convention Bureau, 1991. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting
of the Conference of Contracting Parties, Montreux, Switzerland. Gland: Ramsar Convention Bureau.
Roy, P. S., 1984. New South Wales estuaries: their origin and evolution. In Thom, B. G. (ed.), Coastal Geomorphology in Australia.
Sydney: Academic.
Semeniuk, C. A., and Semeniuk, V., 1995. A geomorphic approach
to global wetland classification for inland wetlands. Vegetatio,
118, 103–124.
Zouros, N., 2000. 2nd European Geoparks Meeting: The European
Geoparks Network, History Museum of the Levos Petrified Forest (Island of Lesbos) Greece. [cited June, 2002] www.aegean.
gr/petrified.forFramesest//HTML/English/EGMeeting.htm
Cross-references
Determining Geoheritage Values
GEOMORPHOLOGICAL MAPPING
Michael A. O’Neal
Department of Geological Sciences, University of
Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
Definition
Geomorphological mapping refers to the process of defining, identifying, and graphically delimiting the fundamental geomorphic units that comprise a landscape.
Principles and background
Geomorphological maps typically are developed for geographically small areas between 10
1 and 10
4 km
2 at scales
between 1:5,000 and 1:50,000. Despite this relatively narrow range of areal and scale parameters, a hierarchy of different geomorphic features can be identified as basic units
(Knight et al., 2011; Smith, 2011). Map units typically
reflect the intrinsic characteristics of the landforms (i.e.,
morphology, morphometry, chronology, and formation
processes) and related non-geomorphological data regarding the geographic, geologic, or environmental setting
(Pavlopoulos et al., 2009). Many forms and processes,
such mass wasting, can be identified over a wide range
of scales. However, at small scales, small features and processes are difficult to identify and delimit, while large features, which cannot be delimited at large scales, are more
obvious. Therefore, the intended purpose of the map dictates the smallest forms or processes that should be
depicted.
Historically, the cartographic manifestations of geomorphological mapping efforts were largely symbolic maps.
By the mid-twentieth century, improvements in the accessibility of aerial imagery and topographic data led to an
increased interest in, and usefulness of, geomorphological
maps (Verstappen, 2011). However, unique sets of
map symbols, developed independently by different
researchers, made it difficult to compare geomorphological maps, even when developed for similar terrains.
344
GEOMORPHOLOGICAL MAPPING