Geoheritage Threats in South African National Parks
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- Negative impacts due to geoheritage and geotourism development;
- Priority threats that can hinder geoheritage and geotourism development;
- Possible solutions to manage the geoheritage threats.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Human-Induced Geoheritage Threats
“…the greatest threat to geological sites is mining. The problem whether that is minerals or things like granite or building materials or road materials, all of those are extremely destructive and they are permanent. So you can have spectacular geological site that gets mined and it’s gone. It’s not like biology where you can put cattle in an area and you can overgraze it for 20 years and take them out and recover it. Geological damage is permanent and it’s gone forever.”
“…So besides protecting these sites for the sake of them being geoheritage sites, you also protect them for the sacredness because some communities have some sacredness which ethically you [tourists] cannot just go and tamper with them…”
“…the whole issue when you are dealing with community leaders. You find that you are engaging with the community leaders but down the line you find somebody [new]. There are disputes all the time from the communities on who told you that this is our leader we elected that one, we don’t know him and things like that and you have split up groups. You find in-fighting among the communities. These are some of the challenges that make it difficult to run proper programs. They think somebody is getting the benefits and so and so is not. So you don’t always get communities that are well organised.”
3.2. Nature-Induced Geoheritage Threats
“…people [tourists] can get to places where they can fall and get injured as well as safety against animals. But those are things that can be managed…”
3.3. Management of Geoheritage Threats
- Clear boundaries of the resources;
- Capacity to protect the resources;
- Effective decision-making and conflict resolution mechanisms;
- Capacity to monitor the quality of the resources;
- Organisational efficiency, i.e., people organized in small or nested groups to enable regular contact and communication;
- Incentives and benefits for good resource management;
- Inputs—people have the necessary labour, technology, information, capital, and other inputs necessary for sustainable management; and
- Shared value of conservation or commitment to preserving natural resources.
“…as the government there are three spheres of government, national, provincial and local. Within the three spheres of government, you also have national entities that are charged legislatively with the mandate to look after natural and protected sites such as SANPARKS… However, in terms of the national government managing these sites, they need to work closely with the provincial and local authorities… Obviously at local government as well we [need to make sure] that the local government arm begins to interact with the local community and businesses and private sector within that local community where we bring the local community into the fold of looking after these natural heritage resources. You can view it [stakeholder engagement] as government, private sector, and the local community working together through a formalised structure…”
4. Conclusions
- Government at a national level develops the necessary strategies, guidelines, or regulations for the protection, preservation, and management of geoheritage sites against human- and nature-induced geoheritage threats in protected areas such as national parks and world heritage sites;
- These strategies are necessary for current and future generations and must be developed in consultation with key stakeholders such as protection areas managers, local communities, government departments and agencies, and academia;
- Further research must be conducted to expand knowledge on the impacts of ongoing climate change on geoheritage sites.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Newsome, D.; Dowling, R. Geoheritage and Geotourism. In Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection and Management; Reynard, E., Brilha, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 305–321. [Google Scholar]
- Matshusa, K.; Leonard, L.; Thomas, P. The Contribution of Geotourism to Social Sustainability: Missed Opportunity? Int. J. Sustain. Econ. Soc. Cult. Context 2021, 17, 95–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crofts, R.; Gordon, J.E. Geoconservation in Protected Areas. In Protected Area Governance and Management; Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., Pulsford, I., Eds.; ANU Press: Canberra, Australia, 2015; pp. 531–568. [Google Scholar]
- Ólafsdóttir, R.; Tverijonaite, E. Geotourism: ASystematic Literature Review. Geosciences 2018, 8, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reis, D.L.R. Evaluation of the Geotourism Potential of Serra do RolaMoça State Park, MG. RBTUR, São Paulo 2019, 13, 92–107. [Google Scholar]
- Matshusa, K.; Leonard, L.; Thomas, P. Challenges of Geotourism in South Africa: A Case Study of the Kruger National Park. Resources 2021, 10, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prosser, C.; Murphy, M.; Larwood, J. Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice; Natural England: Peterborough, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Gordon, J.E.; Wignall, R.M.L.; Brazier, V.; Crofts, R.; Tormey, D. Planning for Climate Change Impacts on Geoheritage Interests in Protected and Conserved Areas. Geoheritage 2022, 14, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kubalikova, L.; Kirchner, K. Geoconservation in the Czech Republic and Geomorphosite Assessment for the Geotourism and Educational Purposes: A Case Study from Podyji National Park. Cah. Géographie 2013, 15, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
- Ruban, D.A. Geotourism—A Geographical Review of the Literature. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2015, 15, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaya, A.; Sumantri, I.; Bachri, D.I.; Bachri, D.I.; Maulana, B.R. Understanding and Quantitative Evaluation of Geosites and Geodiversity in Maros-Pangkep, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Geoheritage 2022, 14, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia-Ortiz, E.; Fuertes-Gutierrez, I.; Fernandez-Martinez, E. Concepts and Terminology for the Risk of Degradation of Geological Heritage Sites: Fragility and Natural Vulnerability, a Case Study. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2014, 125, 463–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selmi, L.; Canesin, T.S.; Gauci, R.; Pereira, P.; Coratza, P. Degradation Risk Assessment: Understanding the Impacts of Climate Change on Geoheritage. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kubalíková, L.; Balková, M. Two-Level Assessment of Threats to Geodiversity and Geoheritage: A Case Study from Hády Quarries (Brno, Czech Republic). Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023, 99, 107024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ZangmoTefogoum, G.; DongmoKagou, A.; Nkouathio, D.G.; DedzoGountié, M.; Kamgang, P. The Volcanic Geoheritage of the Mount Bamenda Calderas (Cameroon Line): Assessment for Geotouristic and Geoeducational Purposes. Geoheritage 2016, 9, 255–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehdioui, S.; El Hadi, H.; Tahiri, A.; Brilha, J.; El Haibi, H.; Tahiri, M. Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites in Rabat-Tiflet Region (North Western Morocco): Preliminary Study to Evaluate the Potential of the Area to Become a Geopark. Geoheritage 2020, 12, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quesada Román, A.; ZangmoTefogoum, G.; Pérez Umaña, D. Geomorphosite Comparative Analysis in Costa Rica and Cameroon Volcanoes. Geoheritage 2020, 12, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matshusa, K.; Thomas, P.; Leonard, L. A Methodology for Examining Geotourism Potential at The Kruger National Park, South Africa. GeoJournal Tour. Geosites 2021, 34, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ech-charay, K.; Boumir, K.; Ouarhache, D.; Ouaskou, M.; Marzouki, A. The Geoheritage of the South-Eastern Frontal Zone of the Middle Atlas (Morocco): First Inventory and Assessment. Geoheritage 2022, 14, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehdioui, S.; Hadi, H.E.; Tahiri, A.; Haibi, H.E.; Tahiri, M.; Zoraa, N.; Hamoud, A. The Geoheritage of Northwestern Central Morocco Area: Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites for Geoconservation, Geotourism, Geopark Purpose and the Support of Sustainable Development. Geoheritage 2022, 14, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steffen, D.; Schlunegger, F.; Preusser, F. Drainage Basin Response to Climate Change in the Pisco Valley, Peru. Geology 2009, 37, 491–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christian, C.S. The Caribbean’s Geotourism Potential and Challenges: A Focus on Two Islands in the Region. Geosciences 2018, 8, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- CNN. Irma: A Hurricane for the History Books. Available online: https://edition.cnn.com/specials/hurricane-irma (accessed on 29 November 2022).
- Crofts, R.; Gordon, J.E.; Brilha, J.; Gray, M.; Gunn, J.; Larwood, J.; Santucci, V.L.; Tormey, D.; Worboys, G.L. Guidelines for Geoconservation in Protected and Conserved Areas. In Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 31; Groves, C., Ed.; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Crofts, R.; Tormey, D.; Gordon, J.E. Introducing New Guidelines on Geoheritage Conservation in Protected and Conserved Areas. Geoheritage 2021, 13, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, M.N. Sampling for Qualitative Research. Fam. Pract. 1996, 13, 522–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gentles, S.J.; Charles, C.; Ploeg, J.; McKibbon, A.K. Samplingin Qualitative Research: Insights from an Overview of the Methods Literature. Qual. Rep. 2015, 20, 1772–1789. [Google Scholar]
- Maxwell, J.A. Designinga Qualitative Study. In The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, Part II: Applied Research Designs; Bickman, L., Rog, D.J., Eds.; Sage Pubilcations: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 214–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roulston, K.J. Open-Ended Questions. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods; Given, L.M., Ed.; Sage Pubilcations: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albudaiwi, D. Survey: Open-Ended Questions. In The Sage Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods; Allen, M., Ed.; Sage Pubilcations: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, R.; Holland, J. What Is Qualitative Interviewing? Bloomsbury Academic: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Leonard, L. Mining and/or Tourism Development for Job Creation and Sustainability in Dullstroom, Mpumalanga. Local Economy 2016, 31, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buler, G. An Assessmentofthe Socialand EconomicImpacts of Tourism Developmentin Dullstroom, Mpumalanga. Available online: http://fosaf.co.za/documents/Dullstroom-Tourist-Study-Socio-economic-Impacts.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2022).
- Brilha, J. Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geositesand Geodiversity Sites: A Review. Geoheritage 2016, 8, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wild, R.; McLeod, C. Sacred Natural Sites: Guideline for Protected Area Managers; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Ehsan, S.; Leman, M.S.; Begum, R.A. Geotourism: A Toolfor Sustainable Development of Geoheritage. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 622, 1711–1715. [Google Scholar]
- Dwyer, L.; Edwards, D.; Mistilis, N.; Roman, C.; Scott, N. Destination and Enterprise Management for a Tourism Future. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Randrianaly, H.N.; DiCencio, A.; Rajaonarivo, A.; Raharimahefa, T.A. Proposed Geoheritage Inventory System: Case Study of Isalo National Park, Madagascar. J. Geosci. Environ. Prot. 2016, 4, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Matshusa, K.; Thomas, P.; Leonard, L. Developing a Scale for Measuring Influential Factors towards Geotourism Development. Acta Commer. 2020, 20, a861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmadi, M.; Mokhtari, D.; Khodadadi, M.; Shahabi, H. Geodiversity Evaluation and Geoconservation Using Grid Analysis: Case Study, North of Ilam Province. Appl. Geo. 2021, 13, 537–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, J.M. Sustainability and Sustainable Development. Available online: http://isecoeco.org/pdf/susdev.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2022).
- United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. Africa Regional Report on the Sustainable Development Goals: Summary. Available online: https://www.uneca.org/sites/default/files/uploaded-documents/SDG/africa_regional_report_on_the_sustainable_development_goals_summary_english_rev.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2022).
- El Hassi, M.F.; Muftah, A.M. An Inventory Study of the Geosites in the Area from Susa to Darnah in Al Jabal al Akhdar, Libya: A Proposed Geopark. Geoheritage 2022, 14, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chikodzi, D.; Nhamo, G.; Dube, K.; Chapungu, L. Climate Change Risk Assessment of Heritage Tourism Sites within South African National Parks. Int. J. Geoheritage Park. 2022, 10, 417–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wollenberg, E.; Colfer, C. Social Sustainability. In Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation; Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Buchan, D., Eds.; IUCN: Cambridge, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Diez-Herrero, A.; Vegas, J.; Carcavilla, L.; Gomez-Heras, M.; Garcia-Cortes, A. Techniques for the Monitoring of Geosites in Cabaneros National Park, Spain. In Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection and Management; Reynard, E., Brilha, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 417–430. [Google Scholar]
- Moura, P.; Garcia, M.G.M.; Brilha, J.B.; Amaral, W.S. Conservation of Geosites as a Tool to Protect Geoheritage: The Inventory of Ceará Central Domain, Borborema Province—NE/Brazil. Ann. Braz. Acad. Sci. 2017, 89, 2625–2645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Brilha, J. Geoheritage and Geoparks. In Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection and Management; Reynard, E., Brilha, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 322–336. [Google Scholar]
- Vereb, V. Geoheritage and Resilience: Selected Studies of Volcanic Geoheritage Areas from Different Geographical Environments and Different Levels of Protection. Ph.D. Thesis, EötvösLoránd University, Budapest, Hungary, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Participant Group | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Types of Threat | Government | Representatives of Local Communities | Local Residents | Tourism Agency | Tour Operators | High School Teachers | |
Human threats | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Natural threats | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | X | √ |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Matshusa, K.; Leonard, L. Geoheritage Threats in South African National Parks. Tour. Hosp. 2023, 4, 202-213. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp4010012
Matshusa K, Leonard L. Geoheritage Threats in South African National Parks. Tourism and Hospitality. 2023; 4(1):202-213. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp4010012
Chicago/Turabian StyleMatshusa, Khodani, and Llewellyn Leonard. 2023. "Geoheritage Threats in South African National Parks" Tourism and Hospitality 4, no. 1: 202-213. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp4010012
APA StyleMatshusa, K., & Leonard, L. (2023). Geoheritage Threats in South African National Parks. Tourism and Hospitality, 4(1), 202-213. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp4010012