The power of colour in geoheritage studies and marketing: some tentative reflections

• Autorzy: Ruban Dmitry A. , Mikhailenko Anna V. , Yashalova Natalia N.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/logos-2021-0005

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Colour is a common physical property in exposures of unique geological objects, but is only marginally addressed in geoheritage literature. We here present our point of view on how this feature can be treated in geoheritage studies, with the general aim at setting up a broad discussion. Three functions of colour in geoheritage are outlined, namely geological interpretation (e.g., compositional and genetic peculiarities of sedimentary rocks), higher visibility due to colour contrast and aesthetic attractiveness to geotourists. Assessment of colour at geosites is challenging, especially because of uncertain colour nomenclatures. We propose to focus on colour identification, calculation of the number of colours, qualitative evaluation of colour contrast and comparison of colours of a given geological object to its landscape context. Geoheritage colours may have different meanings to geosite visitors, and colour-emotion associations revealed by national and international studies are important to trace these meanings.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

aesthetic properties; geoconservation; geotourism; emotions; Western Caucasus

PL

właściwości estetyczne; geokonserwacja; geoturystyka; Kaukaz Zachodni

• Wydawca: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza. Instytut Geologii
• Czasopismo: Geologos
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: Vol. 27, No. 1
• Strony: 57--65
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 61 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Ruban Dmitry A.

• K.G. Razumovsky Moscow State University of Technologies and Management (First Cossack University), Zemlyanoy Val Street 73, Moscow 109004, Russia
• Department of Management, Higher School of Business, Southern Federal University, 23-ja Linija Street 43, Rostov-on-Don 344019, Russia (address for correspondence: P.O. Box 7333, Rostov-on-Don 344056, Russia)

autor

Mikhailenko Anna V.

• Department of Physical Geography, Ecology and Nature Protection, Institute of Earth Sciences, Southern Federal University, Zorge Street 40, Rostov-on-Don 344090, Russia

autor

Yashalova Natalia N.

• Department of Economics and Management, Business School, Cherepovets State University, Sovetskiy Avenue 10, Cherepovets, Vologda Region 162600, Russia

Bibliografia

• Adamia, S., Alania, V., Chabukiani, A., Kutelia, Z. & Sadradze, N., 2011. Great Caucasus (Cavcasioni): A Long-lived North-Tethyan Back-Arc Basin. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 20, 611–628.
• Ali, C.A., Mohamed, K.R. & Komoo, I., 2008. Geoheritage of Pulau Balambangan, Kudat, Sabah. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia 54, 91–95.
• Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J.F., Cañas-Madueño, J.A. & Ruiz-Aviles, P., 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69, 115–125.
• Bollati, I., Pellegrini, M., Reynard, E. & Pelfini, M., 2017. Water driven processes and landforms evolution rates in mountain geomorphosites: examples from Swiss Alps. Catena 158, 321–339.
• Brilha, J., 2016. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8, 119–134.
• Brilha, J., Gray, M., Pereira, D.I. & Pereira, P., 2018. Geodiversity: An integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable management of the whole of nature. Environmental Science and Policy 86, 19–28.
• Cairncross, B., 2011. The national heritage resource act (1999): Can legislation protect South Africa’s rare geoheritage resources? Resources Policy 36, 204–213.
• Carcavilla, L., Díaz-Martínez, E., Erikstad, L. & García-Cortés, Á., 2013. Valuation of geoheritage in Europe. Boletim Paranaense de Geosciencias 70, 28–40.
• Careddu, N. & Grillo, S.M., 2019. “Trachytes” from Sardinia: Geoheritage and current use. Sustainability 11, 3706.
• Carlson, A.A.¸1977. On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty. Landscape Planning 4, 131–172.
• Clay, G.R. & Daniel, T.C., 2000. Scenic landscape assessment: The effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning 49, 1–13.
• Cooper, B.J., 2010. Toward establishing a global heritage stone resource designation. Episodes 33, 38–41.
• Cooper, B.J., Marker, B.R. & Thomas, I.A., 2013. Towards international designation of a heritage dimension stone. Key Engineering Materials 548, 329–335.
• Crofts, R. & Gordon, J.E., 2014. Geoconservation in protected areas. Parks 20, 61–76
• Daniel, T.C., 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 54, 267–281.
• Frank, S., Fürst, C., Koschke, L., Witt, A. & Makeschin, F., 2013. Assessment of landscape aesthetics – Validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecological Indicators 32, 222–231.
• Garcia, M.G.M., 2019. Ecosystem Services Provided by Geodiversity: Preliminary Assessment and Perspectives for the Sustainable Use of Natur.al Resources in the Coastal Region of the S.te of São Paulo, Southeastern Brazil. Geoheritage 11, 1257–1266.
• García-Cortés, Á., Vegas, J., Carcavilla, L. & Díaz-Martínez, E., 2019. Conceptual base and methodology of the Spanish Inventory of Sites of Geological Interest (IELIG). Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid, 102 pp.
• Gordon, J.E., 2018. Geoheritage, geotourism and the cultural landscape: Enhancing the visitor experience and promoting geoconservation. Geosciences 8, 136.
• Gray, M., 2013. Geodiversity. Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, 495 pp.
• Habibi, T. & Ruban, D.A., 2018. Geoheritage of the Neyriz ophiolite-related radiolarite sequence (Cretaceous; southwest Iran): First report and evaluation in regional and global contexts. Journal of African Earth Sciences 145, 227–233.
• Henriques, M.H., Castro, A.R.S.F., Félix, Y.R. & Carvalho, I.S., 2020. Promoting sustainability in a low density territory through geoheritage: Casa da Pedra case-study (Araripe Geopark, NE Brazil). Resources Policy 67, 101684.
• Hose, T.A., 2016. Three centuries (1670–1970) of appreciating physical landscapes. Geological Society Special Publication 417, 1–22.
• Huang, A.S.-H. & Lin, Y.-J., 2020. The effect of landscape colour, complexity and preference on viewing behaviour. Landscape Research 45, 214–227.
• Hull, R.B., IV & Stewart, W.P., 1992. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12, 101–114.
• Ismail-Zadeh, A., Adamia, S., Chabukiani, A., Chelidze, T., Cloetingh, S., Floyd, M., Gorshkov, A., Gvishiani, A., Ismail-Zadeh, T., Kaban, M.K., Kadirov, F., Karapetyan, J., Kangarli, T., Kiria, J., Koulakov, I., Mosar, J., Mumladze, T., M?ller, B., Sadradze, N., Safarov, R., Schilling, F. & Soloviev, A., 2020. Geodynamics, seismicity, and seismic hazards of the Caucasus. Earth-Science Reviews 207, 103222.
• Jonauskaite, D., Abu-Akel, A., Dael, N., Oberfeld, D., Abdel-Khalek, A.M., Al-Rasheed, A.S., Antonietti, J.-P., Bogushevskaya, V., Chamseddine, A., Chkonia, E., Corona, V., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., Griber, Y., Grimshaw, G., Hassan, A.A., Havelka, J., Hirnstein, M., Karlsson, B.S.A., Laurent, E., Lindeman M., Marquardt, L., Mefoh, P., Papadatou-Pastou, M., Pérez-Albéniz, A., Pouyan, N., Roinishvili, M., Romanyuk, L., Salgado Montejo, A., Schrag, Y., Sultanova, A., Uusküla, M., Vainio, S., Wąsowicz, G., Zdravković, S., Zhang, M. & Mohr, C., 2020. Universal patterns in color-emotion associations are further shaped by linguistic and geographic proximity. Psychological Science 31, 1245–1260.
• Kaur, G., Kaur, P., Ahuja, A., Singh, A., Saini, J., Agarwal, P., Bhargava, O.N., Pandit, M., Goswami, R.G., Acharya, K. & Garg, S., 2020. Jaisalmer Golden Limestone: A Heritage Stone Resource from the Desert of Western India. Geoheritage 12, 53.
• Kirillova, K., Fu, X., Lehto, X. & Cai, L., 2014. What makes a destination beautiful? Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment. Tourism Management 42, 282–293.
• Kramar, S., Bedjanic, M., Mirtic, B., Mladenovic, A., Rožic, B., Skaberne, D., Gutman, M., Zupancic, N. & Cooper, B., 2015. Podpec limestone: A heritage stone from Slovenia. Geological Society Special Publication 407, 219–231.
• Kubalíková, L., 2020. Cultural ecosystem services of geodiversity: A case study from Stranska skala (Brno, Czech Republic). Land 9, 105.
• Migoń, P. & Maia, R.P., 2020. Pedra da Boca, Pai Mateus, and Quixadá—Three Possible Key Geoheritage Sites in Northeast Brazil. Geoheritage 12, 51.
• Migoń, P. & Pijet-Migoń, E., 2016. Overlooked Geomorphological Component of Volcanic Geoheritage—Diversity and Perspectives for Tourism Industry, Pogórze Kaczawskie Region, SW Poland. Geoheritage 8, 333–350.
• Migoń, P. & Pijet-Migoń, E., 2017. Viewpoint geosites – values, conservation and management issues. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 128, 511–522.
• Mikhailenko, A.V. & Ruban, D.A., 2019. Environment of Viewpoint Geosites: Evidence from the Western Caucasus. Land 8, 93.
• Mikhailenko A.V., Nazarenko O.V., Ruban D.A. & Zayats P.P., 2017. Aesthetics-based classification of geological structures in outcrops for geotourism purposes: a tentative proposal. Geologos 23, 45–52.
• Mikhailenko, A.V., Ruban, D.A., Yashalova, N.N. & Rebezov, M.B., 2019. The Unique Granite Gorge in Mountainous Adygeya, Russia: Evidence of Big and Complex Geosite Disproportions. Geosciences 9, 372.
• Nazaruddin, D.A., 2019. Selected geosites for geoheritage, geotourism, and geoconservation in Songkhla Province, Southern Thailand. Quaestiones Geographicae 38, 161–177.
• Németh, K. & Moufti, M.R., 2017. Geoheritage Values of a Mature Monogenetic Volcanic Field in Intra-continental Settings: Harrat Khaybar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Geoheritage 9, 311–328.
• Patsfall, M.R., Feimer, N.R., Buhyoff, G.J. & Wellman, J.D., 1984. The prediction of scenic beauty from landscape content and composition. Journal of Environmental Psychology 4, 7–26.
• Pranzini, E., Simonetti, D. & Vitale, G., 2010. Sand colour rating and chromatic compatibility of borrow sediments. Journal of Coastal Research 26, 798–808.
• Pranzini, E., Anfuso, G., Botero, C.-M., Cabrera, A., Apin Campos, Y., Casas Martinez, G. & Williams, A.T., 2016. Sand colour at Cuba and its influence on beach nourishment and management. Ocean and Coastal Management 126, 51–60.
• Prosser, C., Murphy, M. & Larwood, J., 2006. Geological conservation: a guide to good practice. English Nature, Peterborough, 145 pp.
• Reynard, E. & Brilha, J. (Eds.), 2018. Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 482 pp.
• Reynard, E. & Coratza, P, 2016. The importance of mountain geomorphosites for environmental education: Examples from the Italian Dolomites and the Swiss Alps. Acta Geographica Slovenica 56, 291–303.
• Ribe, R.G.¸2002. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions. Environment and Behavior 34, 757–780.
• Ruban, D.A., 2010. Quantification of geodiversity and its loss. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 121, 326–333.
• Ruban, D.A., 2016. Comment on “Geotourist values of loess geoheritage within the planned Geopark Malopolska Vistula River Gap, Poland” by J. Warowna et al. [Quaternary International, 399, 46–57]. Quaternary International 425, 196–197.
• Ruban, D.A., Tiess, G., Sallam, E.S., Ponedelnik, A.A. & Yashalova, N.N., 2018. Combined mineral and geoheritage resources related to kaolin, phosphate, and cement production in Egypt: Conceptualization, as sessment, and policy implications. Sustainable Environment Research 28, 454–461.
• Schirpke, U., Tasser, E. & Tappeiner, U.¸2013. Predicting scenic beauty of mountain regions. Landscape and Urban Planning 111, 1–12.
• Schroeder, H. & Daniel, T.C., 1981. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science 27, 71–80.
• Sharkov, E., Lebedev, V., Chugaev, A., Zabarinskaya, L., Rodnikov, A., Sergeeva, N. & Safonova, I., 2015. The Caucasian-Arabian segment of the Alpine-Himalayan collisional belt: Geology, volcanism and neotectonics. Geoscience Frontiers 6, 513–522.
• Tucker, M.E., 2011. Sedimentary Rocks in the Field: A Practical Guide. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, 276 pp.
• Unjah, T., Leman, M.S. & Komoo, I., 2013. Geological landscape and public perception: A case for Dataran Lang viewpoint, Langkawi. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia 59, 101–107.
• van Hinsbergen, D.J.J., Torsvik, T.H., Schmid, S.M., Matenco, L.C., Maffione, M., Vissers, R.L.M., Gurer, D. & Spakman, W., 2020. Orogenic architecture of the Mediterranean region and kinematic reconstruction of its tectonic evolution since the Triassic. Gondwana Research 81, 79–229.
• Vasey, D., Cowgill, E., Roeske, S.M., Niemi, N.A., Godoladze, T., Skhirtladze, I. & Gogoladze, S., 2020. Evolution of the Greater Caucasus Basement and Formation of the Main Caucasus Thrust, Georgia. Tectonics 39, e2019TC005828.
• Wang, R. & Zhao, J., 2017. Demographic groups’ differences in visual preference for vegetated landscapes in urban green space. Sustainable Cities and Society 28, 350–357.
• Wang, Z. & Yuan, B., 2020. Harmonizing the Branding Strategy of World Natural Heritage in China: Visitors’ Awareness of the Multiple Brands of Wulingyuan, Zhangjiajie. Geoheritage 12, 41.
• Wang, Z., Li, M., Zhang, X. & Song, L., 2020. Modeling the scenic beauty of autumnal tree color at the landscape scale: A case study of Purple Mountain, Nanjing, China. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 47, 126526.
• Warowna, J., Zglobicki, W., Kolodynska-Gawrysiak, R., Gajek, G., Gawrysiak, L. & Telecka, M., 2016. Geotourist values of loess geoheritage within the planned Geopark Malopolska Vistula River Gap, E Poland. Quaternary International 399, 46–57.
• Williams, A.T.¸2019. The concept of scenic beauty in a landscape. Coastal Research Library 26, 17–41.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2021).