Advertisement

Geoheritage

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 195–219 | Cite as

The GeoCaF Project: Proposal of a Geosites Network at Campi Flegrei (Southern Italy)

  • Valentina Armiero
  • Paola PetrosinoEmail author
  • Lucio Lirer
  • Ines Alberico
Original Article

Abstract

Campi Flegrei is a 75-km2 volcanic area located to the west of Naples, Italy. Declared a regional park in 1997, this area combines fascinating geology with its unique long natural history, unique customs and outstanding ancient Greek and Roman civilization. Campi Flegrei comprises a substantial number of sites that are remarkable in terms of their scientific quality, rarity, aesthetic appeal and educational value, most of which are valuable for their geological heritage, although their interest to scientists and the general public may also be archaeological, ecological, historical or cultural. The Campi Flegrei volcanic fields also represent one of the highest volcanic risk areas in the world. However, this fact is not fully appreciated by the inhabitants of the towns located within the area. All of these features make Campi Flegrei a very suitable area to be designated a volcanological Geopark, which would help to promote knowledge of the importance of active volcanoes in this area. A new detailed geological survey of the area has allowed us to identify many sites that are of high pedagogical and educational value. Using this survey as a starting point, we draw particular attention to seven geosites, namely, Cuma, Averno, Monte Nuovo, Solfatara, Piperno, Monte di Procida and Procida (GeoCaF network). All of these sites are also of lively archaeological and historical interest, as testified to by the numerous ancient documents collected and investigated during the research. Each geosite satisfies the criteria adopted for the most recent Italian geosites, i.e. representativeness, scientific interest, rarity, landscape value, educational value, accessibility, preservation and vulnerability. We therefore hypothesize a Campi Flegrei Geopark that includes these seven geosites, which are linked by roads and, occasionally, by collapsed tunnels that were dug in Roman times for military purposes. This geopark could represent a step forward in terms of the promotion of the geological heritage of this area by increasing the awareness of locals and visitors to future volcanic risks.

Keywords

Geosite Geopark Volcanic risk perception Campi Flegrei 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers, whose suggestions greatly improved the manuscript. The editor in chief J. Brilha is also thanked for his courtesy. Finally, a grateful thank you goes to all the headmasters and teachers of the schools involved in the volcanic hazard education program.

Supplementary material

12371_2011_33_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (29.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 30188 kb)
12371_2011_33_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (10.7 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 10921 kb)

References

  1. Armiero V (2010) GeoCaf: una rete di geositi ai Campi Flegrei quale strumento di sensibilizzazione della popolazione in un’area di vulcanismo attivo. PhD thesis. University of Napoli Federico II, NaplesGoogle Scholar
  2. Armiero V, Lirer L, Petrosino P (2007) La Solfatara: rilevamento vulcanologico e proposta di istituzione di un Geosito nei Campi Flegrei. Rend Soc Geol Ital 5:3–30Google Scholar
  3. Barberi F, Davis MS, Isaia R, Nave R, Ricci T (2008) Volcanic risk perception at Vesuvius and Phlegrean Fields (Naples, Italy). J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172(3–4):244–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blong RJ (2000) Volcanic hazard and risk managment. In: Sigurdsson H (ed) Encyclopedia of volcanoes. Academic Press, New York, pp 1215–1240Google Scholar
  5. Brancucci G, Burlando M (2001) La salvaguardia del patrimonio Geologico. Scelta strategica per il territorio. L’esperienza in Liguria, Franco Angeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  6. Camagni R (1994) Processi di utilizzazione e difesa dei suoli nelle fasce periurbane: dal conflitto alla cooperazione fra città e campagna. In: Boscacci F, Camagni R (eds) Tra città e campagna: periurbanizzazione e politiche territoriali. Il Mulino, Bologna, pp 13–85Google Scholar
  7. Carlino S, Somma R, Mayberry G (2008) Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: comparisons with other volcanic areas and implications for emergency management. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172(3–4):229–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cicia G, Colantuoni F, Del Giudice T, Pascucci S (2010) Community supported agriculture in the urban fringe: empirical evidence for project potentiality in the metropolitan area of Naples (Italy). In: 119th EAAE Seminar ‘Sustainability in the Food Sector: Rethinking the Relationship between the Agro-Food System and the Natural, Social, Economic and Institutional Environments’. European Association of Agricultural Economists, Capri, Italy. CD-Rom of the papers of the meeting, 1–15Google Scholar
  9. D’Andrea M, Colacchi S, Gramaccini G, Lisi A, Lugeri N (2003) Un progetto nazionale per il censimento dei geositi in Italia. Geol Ambiente 1:25–34Google Scholar
  10. De Gennaro M, Cappelletti P, Langella A, Perrotta A, Scarpati C (2000) Genesis of zeolites in the Neapolitan Yellow Tuff: geological, volcanological and mineralogical evidences. Contrib Mineral Petrol 139:17–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deino AL, Orsi G, Piochi M, De Vita S (2004) The age of the Neapolitan Yellow Tuff caldera-forming eruption (Campi Flegrei Caldera—Italy) assessed by 40Ar/39Ar dating method. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 133(1–4):157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Di Girolamo P, Ghiara MR, Lirer L, Munno R, Rolandi G, Stanzione D (1984) Vulcanologia e petrologia dei Campi Flegrei. Boll Soc Geol Ital 103:349–413Google Scholar
  13. Di Vito M, Lirer L, Mastrolorenzo G, Rolandi G (1987) The 1538 Monte Nuovo eruption (Campi Flegrei, Italy). Bull Volcanol 49:608–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Vito MA, Isaia R, Orsi G, Southon J, D’Antonio M, de Vita S, Pappalardo L, Piochi M (1999) Volcanism and deformation since 12000 years at the Campi Flegrei caldera (Italy). J Volcanol Geotherm Res 91:221–246Google Scholar
  15. Dingwall P, Weighell T, Badman T (2005) Geological World Heritage: a global framework. A contribution to the global theme study of World Heritage natural sites. Protected Area Programme, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  16. Dobran F (2006) Vesuvius 2000: toward security and prosperity under the shadow of Vesuvius. In: Dobran F (ed) Vesuvius education, security and prosperity. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 3–69Google Scholar
  17. Dowling RK, Newsome D (2006) Geotourism. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  18. Eder W (1999) Geoparks for the future. Earth Herit 12:18–20Google Scholar
  19. EGN (2010) The organization. Available at: www.europeangeoparks.org. Accessed from January 2009 to November 2010
  20. Fassoulas C, McKeever PJ (2004) European Geoparks Network ProGeo News 2/2004:4–7Google Scholar
  21. Fedele L, Scarpati C, Lanphere M, Melluso L, Morra V, Perrotta A, Ricci G (2008) The Breccia Museo formation, Campi Flegrei, southern Italy: geochronology, chemostratigraphy and relationship with the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption. Bull Volcanol 70:1189–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frey ML (2002) European Geoparks Network Das Geo-Naturerbe als Grundlage nachhaltiger Entwicklungsansätze in Europa. Nat Mensch 44:2–5Google Scholar
  23. Gray M (2004) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  24. ISPRA (2010) Il censimento nazionale di geositi. Available at: http://sgi2.isprambiente.it/geositi/. Accessed from February 2008 to November 2010
  25. Johnston-Lavis HF (1889) Report of the Committee appointed for the investigation of the volcanic phenomena of Vesuvius and its neighbourhood. Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnston D, Ronan K (2000) Risk education and intervention. In: Sigurdsson H (ed) Encyclopedia of volcanoes. Academic Press, New York, pp 1229–1240Google Scholar
  27. ISTAT (2001) Istituto Centrale di Statistica Roma. Available at: www.demo.istat.it
  28. Lirer L (2011) I Campi Flegrei: storia di un campo vulcanico. Quaderni dell’Accademia Pontaniana, Naples, pp 1–180Google Scholar
  29. Lirer L, Petrosino P, Alberico I, Armiero V (2011) Cartografia. In: Lirer L (ed) I Campi Flegrei: storia di un campo vulcanico. Quaderni dell’Accademia Pontaniana, Naples, pp 10–160Google Scholar
  30. Massoli-Novelli R (2001) Inventari di geositi in Italia: stato dell'arte. Geol Ambiente 1:10–13Google Scholar
  31. Orsi G, Civetta L, Del Gaudio C, De Vita S, Di Vito MA, Isaia R, Petrazzuoli S, Ricciardi G, Ricco C (1999) Short-term ground deformations and seismicity in the nested Campi Flegrei Caldera (Italy): an example of active block resurgence in a densely populated area. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 91:415–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Panizza M (2005) Manuale di Gemorfologia applicata. Franco Angeli Edizioni, RomeGoogle Scholar
  33. Panizza M, Piacente S (1999) Il concetto di "bene" nel paesaggio fisico. In: Bertacchini M, Giusti C, Marchetti M, Panizza M, Pellegrini M (eds) I Beni Geologici della Provincia di Modena. Artioli Editore, Modena, p 8Google Scholar
  34. Panizza M, Piacente S (2002) Geositi nel paesaggio italiano: ricerca, valutazione valorizzazione Un progetto di ricerca per una nuova cultura geologica. Geol Ambiente 2:3–4Google Scholar
  35. Panizza M, Piacente S (2009) Cultural geomorphology and geodiversity. In: Reynard E, Regolini-Bissig G, Coratza P (eds) Geomorphosites: assessment, mapping and management. Pfeil Verlag, Munich, pp 35–48Google Scholar
  36. Petrosino P, Lirer L (2009) Proposta di istituzione di un geosito al monte di Cuma nei Campi Flegrei. Quaderni del Centro di Studi sulla Magna Grecia 20:17–25Google Scholar
  37. Petrosino P, Alberico I, Caiazzo S, Dal Piaz A, Lirer L, Scandone R (2004) Volcanic risk and evolution of the territorial system in the volcanic areas of Campania. Acta Vulcanol 16:163–178Google Scholar
  38. Rittmann A, Vighi L, Falini F, Ventriglia U, Nicotera P (1950) Rilievo Geologico dei Campi Flegrei. Boll Soc Geol Ital 69:211–264Google Scholar
  39. Rolandi G, Bellucci F, Heitzler MT, Belkin HE, De Vivo B (2003) Tectonic controls on the genesis of the Ignimbrites from the Campanian volcanic Zone, southern Italy. In: De Vivo B, Scandone R (eds) Ignimbrites of the Campanian Plain. Mineral Petrol (special issue) 79:3–31Google Scholar
  40. Ronan KR, Johnston DM (2001) Correlates of hazard education programs for youth. Risk Anal 21:1055–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Solana MC, Kilburn CRJ, Rolandi G (2008) Communicating eruption and hazard forecasts on Vesuvius, Southern Italy. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172(3–4):308–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. UNESCO (2006) Guidelines and criteria for National Geoparks seeking UNESCO’s assistance to join the Global Geoparks Network. Episodes 29(2):115–118Google Scholar
  43. Wimbledon WAP (1996) Geosites—a new conservation initiative. Episodes 19:87–88Google Scholar
  44. Wimbledon WAP, Ishchenko AA, Gerasimenko NP, Karis LO, Suominem V, Johansson CE, Freden C (2000) Geosites: an IUGS initiative: science supported by conservation. In: Barettino D, Wimbledon WAP, Gallego E (eds) Third Int Symp ProGEO on the Conservation of the Geological Heritage. ProGEO, Madrid, pp 69–94Google Scholar
  45. Zarlenga F (1996) I geotopi, dalla ricerca scientifica alla pianificazione, controllo e gestione. Geol Ambiente 4(2):3–6Google Scholar
  46. Zouros N (2004) The European Geoparks Network. Geological heritage protection and local development. Episodes 27(3):165–171Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valentina Armiero
    • 1
  • Paola Petrosino
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lucio Lirer
    • 2
  • Ines Alberico
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Naples Federico IICentro Interdipartimentale di Ricerca Ambiente (C.I.R.AM.)NaplesItaly
  2. 2.Scienze della Terra DepartmentUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations