Advertisement

Geoheritage

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 373–393 | Cite as

The Role of Cultural and Indigenous Values in Geosite Evaluations on a Quaternary Monogenetic Volcanic Landscape at Ihumātao, Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand

  • Ilmars Gravis
  • Károly Németh
  • Jonathan N. Procter
Original Article

Abstract

The Ihumātao Peninsula is located within the wider Mangere region in South Auckland, New Zealand. Significant sites of geological, cultural and ecological value are a recorded feature of this area. One of the most significant sites in the region is the Otuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve (OSHR). Geologically, this area is a Quaternary lava flow field with tuff rings, scoria and spatter cones. It sits within the Auckland Volcanic Field (AVF), and the landscape of the OSHR and the wider Ihumātao Peninsula may be seen as the physical expression of a unique convergence of ecological, geological and cultural values. Geosite evaluation methods applied to the Ihumātao Peninsula, following two distinct methods, shed light on potential high geoheritage values the region holds. These values may be looked at as a good base to develop effective geoeducational, geoconservational and geotouristic programs. The study also showed that implementing management strategies to add and conserve geosite values in the region could provide positive outcomes; however, reduction of its main geosite values would be inevitable and irreversible should proposed urban development take place on a block of land immediately bordering the OSHR. The Ihumātao Peninsula is one of several areas of South Auckland where urbanization has left significant areas relatively untouched until the present, whereby they are now threatened by intense housing and industrial development. The geological features of these areas unquestionably hold geological heritage values, allowing understanding of the interplay between low coastal land and rising basaltic magma. This interplay has resulted in a landscape potentially featuring the greatest volcanic geodiversity of the entire AVF. In addition, this relatively undeveloped land provides an unbroken physical and cultural record dating to arrival of the first humans in New Zealand. Of particular note is the physical artefacts and archaeological sites telling a story of settlers attracted to, utilizing and shaping this discrete region of the AVF. Geosite evaluations demonstrate that high geoheritage values of regions like the Ihumātao Peninsula are influenced by the strong cultural link between the community (in particular the indigenous population) and the volcanic landscape. These cultural factors could be given more weight in currently used geosite evaluation methods, enabling such geoheritage values to be demonstrated in a more explicit and meaningful way and providing a basis for further community education and protection of specific sites within the geographical context of the Ihumātao Peninsula.

Keywords

Geoheritage Geosite Monogenetic volcanic field Scoria Basalt Human occupation Māori 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper dedicated to the memory of John Divers, 1958–2016.

We would like to thank all for the support of geoheritage research in the Ihumatao Peninsula: David Veart, Bruce Hayward, Ian Lawlor, Peter Crossley, Jeremy Treadwell, Members and supporters of Save Our Unique Landscapes Campaign (Waimarie McFarland, Moana Waa Thomas Katene, Pania Newton, Haki Wilson, Qiane Matata-Sipu, Bobbi-Jo Pihema), Mangere Mountain Education Centre (Ane Karika, Graeme Campbell, Brendan Corbett, Farrell Cleary). This research is partially supported through Massey University. KN was supported through the New Zealand National Hazard Platform project and Massey University Research Fund. Formal reviews of the manuscript by Bruce Hayward and Hugo Murcia lifted significantly the quality of this work, many thanks for the valuable comments and suggestions.

References

  1. AC (2013) The proposed Auckland unitary plan. Notified 30 September 2013. New Zealand [Auckland Council], AucklandGoogle Scholar
  2. AC (2015) Special housing areas—frequently asked questions [Fact-sheet]. Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved from: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/ratesbuildingproperty/housingsupply/Documents/specialhousingareasfaqs.pdf
  3. Affleck DK, Cassidy J, Locke CA (2001) Te Pouhawaiki volcano and pre-volcanic topography in Central Auckland: volcanological and hydrogeological implications. N Z J Geol Geophys 44(2):313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agustin-Flores J, Nemeth K, Cronin SJ, Lindsay JM, Kereszturi G (2015a) Construction of the North Head (Maungauika) tuff cone: a product of Surtseyan volcanism, rare in the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand. Bull Volcanol 77(2)Google Scholar
  5. Agustin-Flores J, Nemeth K, Cronin SJ, Lindsay JM, Kereszturi G (2015b) Shallow-seated explosions in the construction of the Motukorea tuff ring (Auckland, New Zealand): evidence from lithic and sedimentary characteristics. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 304:272–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Agustin-Flores J, Nemeth K, Cronin SJ, Lindsay JM, Kereszturi G, Brand BD, Smith IEM (2014) Phreatomagmatic eruptions through unconsolidated coastal plain sequences, Maungataketake, Auckland volcanic field (New Zealand). J Volcanol Geotherm Res 276:46–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Antrop M (2005) Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc Urban Plan 70(1–2):21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ARC (1994a) Archaeology and brief history of the Ambury area (Auckland Regional Council Ambury Regional Park Management Plan) [Auckland Regional Council]. Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  9. ARC (1994b) Archaeology and brief history of the ambury area (Auckland Regional Council ambury Regional Park management plan. 1994). New Zealand [Auckland Regional Council], AucklandGoogle Scholar
  10. Best E (1925) The cultivated food plants of the natives of New Zealand, with some account of native methods of agriculture, its ritual and origin myths. Dominion Museum, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  11. Bollati I, Pelfini M, Pellegrini L (2012) A geomorphosites selection method for educational purposes: a case study in Trebbia Valley (Emilia Romagna, Italy). Geografia Fisica E Dinamica Quaternaria 35(1):23–35Google Scholar
  12. Boskov J, Kotrla S, Jovanovic M, Tomic N, Lukic T, Rvovic I (2015) Application of the preliminary geosite assessment model (GAM): the case of the Bela Crkva municipality (Vojvodina, North Serbia). Geographica Pannonica 19(3):146–152Google Scholar
  13. Brand BD, Gravley DM, Clarke AB, Lindsay JM, Bloomberg SH, Agustin-Flores J, Nemeth K (2014) A combined field and numerical approach to understanding dilute pyroclastic density current dynamics and hazard potential: Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 276:215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brilha J, Andrade C, Azeredo A, Barriga F, Cachao M, Couto H, Cunha PP, Crispim JA, Dantas P, Duarte LV, Freitas MC, Granja HM, Henriques MH, Henriques R, Lopes L, Madeira J, Matos JMX, Noronha F, Pais J, Picarra J, Ramalho MM, Relvas J, Ribeiro A, Santos A, Santos VF, Terrinha P (2005) Definition of the Portuguese frameworks with international relevance as an input for the European geological heritage characterisation. Episodes 28(3):177–186Google Scholar
  15. Brocx M, Semeniuk V (2007) Geoheritage and geoconservation—history, definition, scope and scale. J R Soc West Aust 90(Part 2):53–87Google Scholar
  16. Brocx M, Semeniuk V (2009) Coastal geoheritage: encompassing physical, chemical, and biological processes, landforms, and other geological features in the coastal zone. J R Soc West Aust 92(Part 3):243–260Google Scholar
  17. Brocx M, Semeniuk V (2010) Coastal geoheritage: a hierarchical approach to classifying coastal types as a basis for identifying geodiversity and sites of significance in Western Australia. J R Soc West Aust 93(Part 2):81–113Google Scholar
  18. Brocx M, Semeniuk V (2015) Using the geoheritage tool-kit to identify inter-related geological features at various scales for designating geoparks: case studies from Western Australia. In: Errami E, Brocx M, Semeniuk V (eds) From geoheritage to geoparks: case studies from africa and beyond. pp 245–259Google Scholar
  19. Brown H (1961) The despoliation of Auckland’s archaeological sites. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 4(2):96–100Google Scholar
  20. Bulmer S (1985) Auckland’s vanishing stonefield sites. Auckland Regional Committee of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Newsletter 14(3):1Google Scholar
  21. Cameron E, Hayward B, Murdoch G (1997) A field guide to Auckland. Exploring the region’s natural and historic heritage. Godwit, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  22. Campbell M, Hudson B (2011) The NRD site community report. CFG Heritage, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  23. Carruthers B, Kelly B (2012) Gavin H Wallace ltd & Ors v Auckland council [2012] NZEnvC: NZEnvC 120 (case notes). Resource Management Law Association of New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand Retrieved from: http://www.rmla.org.nz/casenote/view/id/18 Google Scholar
  24. Cassidy J, Locke CA, Miller CA, Rout DJ (1999) The Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand: geophysical evidence for its eruption history. Geol Soc Lond, Spec Publ 161:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chapple G (2016) A very special area. New Zealand Listener 254(3967):20–25Google Scholar
  26. Clough R, Bickler S (2015) Response to section 64 information requirements, draft heritage report on the Oruarangi SHA (Simon Bickler, Adina Brown, Zarah Burnett and Rod Clough. Mangere Oruarangi SHA. Oruarangi Road, historic heritage assessment, pp 545–561.Google Scholar
  27. Coney S (2007) Heritage gem will be lost amid ‘big boxes’. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10433184op. April 9
  28. Cranwell L (1981) The botany of Auckland. A book for all seasons, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  29. Csillag G, Korbely B, Nemeth K (2004) Volcanological sites of Balaton uplands National Park as key points for a proposed geopark in western Hungary. Occasional Papers of the Geological Institute of Hungary 203:49–49Google Scholar
  30. Curran-Cournane F, Vaughan M, Memon A, Fredrickson C (2014) Trade-offs between high class land and development: recent and future pressures on Auckland's valuable soil resources. Land Use Policy 39:146–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Davidson J (1993) The chronology of occupation on Maungarei (mount wellington): a large volcanic cone pa in Auckland. N Z J Archaeol 15:39–55Google Scholar
  32. de Vries BvW, Marquez A, Herrera R, Granja Bruna JL, Llanes P, Delcamp A (2014) Craters of elevation revisited: forced-folds, bulging and uplift of volcanoes. Bull Volcanol 76(11)Google Scholar
  33. Delcamp A, de Vries BW, Stephane P, Kervyn M (2014) Endogenous and exogenous growth of the monogenetic Lemptegy volcano, Chaine des Puys, France. Geosphere 10(5):998–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Doyle P, Easterbrook G, Reid E, Skipsey E, Wilson C (1994) Earth heritage conservation. The geological society in association with Open University. City Print (Milton Keynes) Ltd, United Kingdom, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Dunn CE (2007) Participatory GIS - a people's GIS? Progress in Human Geography 31(5):616–637Google Scholar
  36. Edbrooke SW, Mazengarb C, Stephenson W (2003) Geology and geological hazards of the Auckland urban area, New Zealand. Quat Int 103:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. English P (2001) Stones tell of a rich history. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=171478, February 7
  38. Fairfield F (1938) Puketutu pa on Weekes’ Island, Manukau Harbour. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 47(3(187)):119–128Google Scholar
  39. Firth CW (1930) The geology of the northwest portion of the Manukau County, Auckland. Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand 61:85–137Google Scholar
  40. Fowlds G (1928) Auckland’s unique heritage: 63 wonderful volcanic cones and craters: an appeal to save them. (report on preservation of volcanic cones and craters / by the Auckland town planning Associaton). Auckland Town Planning Association, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  41. Fowlds G (1967) The Maori association with the volcanic hills and craters of the Auckland isthmus. Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  42. Fowlds GM, Golson J (1974) Auckland's volcanic cones : a report on their condition and a plea for their preservation. In: Golson J. (ed) Appendix by G. M. Fowlds. Historic Auckland Society. Unity Press, Auckland, p 32Google Scholar
  43. Furey L (2005) Mangere Puhinui rural zone review: archaeological appraisal (report to Manukau City council). GFC Heritage, Auckland, New Zealand Retrieved from: http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/districtplanmanukau/changes/pc14proposedapp8.pdf Google Scholar
  44. Furey L (2006) Maori gardening. An archaeological perspective. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  45. Geotechnics (2015) Quarry road site report—ground penetrating radar survey. http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/meetings_agendas/hearings/Documents/CloughGPRReport.pdf
  46. Grierson H (2015) Mangere gateway sub precinct D. Qualifying development application. Fletcher Residential Limited, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  47. Groube L (1966) Rescue excavations in the bay of islands. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 9(3):108–114Google Scholar
  48. Harawira W (2015) Sacrifices but no reward. E-tangata.(2015, October 4). Retrieved from: http://e-tangata.co.nz/news/sacrifices-but-no-reward
  49. Hargreaves R (1959) The Maori agriculture of the Auckland province in the mid-nineteenth century. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 68(2):61–79Google Scholar
  50. Harmon B, Viles H (2013) Beyond geomorphosites: trade-offs, optimization, and networking in heritage landscapes. Environment Systems & Decisions 33(2, Sp. Iss. SI):272–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hayward B (1983) Prehistoric pa sites of metropolitan Auckland. Tane 29:3–14Google Scholar
  52. Hayward B, Murdoch G, Maitland G (2011) Volcanoes of Auckland: the essential guide. Auckland University Press, Auckland, New Zealand, p. 234Google Scholar
  53. Hayward BW (2007) Protecting what's left of Auckland's volcanic heritage. Geological Society of New Zealand Newsletter 143:36–40Google Scholar
  54. Hayward BW (2009) Protecting fossil sites in New Zealand. In: Lipps JH, Granier BRC (eds) . PaleoParks - The Protection and conservation of fossil sites worldwide.- Brest, FranceGoogle Scholar
  55. Hayward BW, Mason AP (2008) Did Hochstetter plagiarise Heaphy's map of Auckland volcanoes? Geological Society of New Zealand Miscellaneous Publication 124A:217Google Scholar
  56. Hayward JJ, Hayward BW (1995) Fossil forests preserved in volcanic ash and lava at Ihumatao and Takapuna, Auckland. Tane 35:127–142Google Scholar
  57. Heaphy C (1860) On the volcanic country of Auckland, New Zealand. Quarterlv Journal of the Geological Society London 16:242–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hochstetter F (1864) Geology of New Zealand. Government Printer, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  59. Hochstetter F (1867) New Zealand, its physical geography, geology, and natural history with special reference to the Resulls of government expeditions in the provinces of Auckland and Nelson. J.G. Cotta, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  60. Horrocks M, Lawlor I (2005) Plant microfossil analysis of soils from Polynesian stonefields in South Auckland, New Zealand. J Archaeol Sci 33(2):200–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Horvath G, Csullog G (2013) A new Slovakian-Hungarian cross-border geopark in Central Europe—possibility for promoting better connections between the two countries. European Countryside 5(2):146–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Houghton BF, Wilson CJN, Smith IEM (1999) Shallow-seated controls on styles of explosive basaltic volcanism: a case study from New Zealand. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 91(1):97–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ilies DC, Josan N (2009) Geosites—geomorphosites and relief. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites II/1(3):78–85Google Scholar
  64. Kereszturi G, Cappello A, Ganci G, Procter J, Nemeth K, Del Negro C, Cronin SJ (2014a) Numerical simulation of basaltic lava flows in the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand-implication for volcanic hazard assessment. Bull Volcanol 76(11)Google Scholar
  65. Kereszturi G, Nemeth K, Cronin SJ, Agustin-Flores J, Smith IEM, Lindsay J (2013) A model for calculating eruptive volumes for monogenetic volcanoes—implication for the quaternary Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 266:16–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kereszturi G, Nemeth K, Cronin SJ, Procter J, Agustin-Flores J (2014b) Influences on the variability of eruption sequences and style transitions in the Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 286:101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kereszturi G, Nemeth K, Vioufti MR, Cappello A, Murcia H, Ganci G, Del Negro C, Procter J, Zahran HMA (2016) Emplacement conditions of the 1256 AD Al-Madinah lava flow field in Harrat Rahat, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—insights from surface morphology and lava flow simulations. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 309:14–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kermode LO (1992) Geology of the Auckland urban area [with map in scale 1: 50 000]. Institute of geological & nuclear sciences geological map 2. 1 sheet + explanatory book 63 p. Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, Lower Hutt, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  69. Korbely B, Csillag G (2004) Proposed protection and conservation strategies of volcanological features in a monogenetic volcanic field in the western Pannonian Basin; a perspective of Balaton uplands National Park, Hungary. Occasional Papers of the Geological Institute of Hungary 203:68–68Google Scholar
  70. Kubalikova L, Kirchner K (2016) Geosite and geomorphosite assessment as a tool for geoconservation and geotourism purposes: a case study from Vizovicka vrchovina highland (eastern part of the Czech Republic). Geoheritage 8(1):5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lawlor I (2009) Destroying our past in the present: promoting respect for a better future. mangere historical society presentation. [Blog]. Retrieved from: www.ian-lawlor-shc.com/Blog_(ITL)/Entries/2009/7/21_Destroying_Our_Past_in_the_Present__Promoting_Respect_for_a_Better_Future_Mangere_Historical_Society_Presentation_(21_Jul_2009).htmlh. 21 JulyGoogle Scholar
  72. Lilburn K (1982) Ambury Farm Park archaeological investigations: stage 1, sites N/421143, 1137 & 1251: interim report. Auckland, New Zealand, New Zealand Historic Places TrustGoogle Scholar
  73. Lindsay JM (2010) Volcanoes in the big smoke: a review of hazard and risk in the Auckland volcanic field. In: Williams AL, Pinches GM, Chin CY, McMorran TJ, Massey CI (eds) Geologically active. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp. 63–72Google Scholar
  74. Lindsay JM, Leonard GS, Smid ER, Hayward BW (2011) Age of the Auckland volcanic field: a review of existing data. N Z J Geol Geophys 54(4):379–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Marra MJ, Alloway BV, Newnham RM (2006) Paleoenvironmental reconstruction of a well-preserved stage 7 forest sequence catastrophically buried by basaltic eruptive deposits, northern New Zealand. Quat Sci Rev 25(17–18):2143–2161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. MCC (2006) Otuataua stonefields historic reserve conservation plan [Manukau City Council]. Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  77. McGee LE, Smith IEM, Millet M-A, Handley HK, Lindsay AM (2013) Asthenospheric control of melting processes in a monogenetic basaltic system: a case study of the Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand. J Petrol 54(10):2125–2153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mills M (2003) Restoring the mauri of Oruarangi Creek. Water Sci Technol 48(7):129–137Google Scholar
  79. Molloy L (1993) Soils in the New Zealand landscape. The living mantle. New Zealand Society of Soil Science, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  80. Moufti MR, Németh K (2013) The intra-continental Harrat Al Madinah volcanic field, western Saudi Arabia: a proposal to establish Harrat Al Madinah as the first volcanic geopark in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Geoheritage 5(3):185–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Moufti MR, Németh K, El-Masry N, Qaddah A (2013a) Geoheritage values of one of the largest maar craters in the Arabian peninsula: the Al Wahbah crater and other volcanoes (Harrat Kishb, Saudi Arabia). Central European Journal of Geosciences 5(2):254–271Google Scholar
  82. Moufti MR, Németh K, Murcia H, Al-Gorrry SF, Shawali J (2013b) Scientific basis of the geoheritage and geotouristic values of the 641 AD Al Madinah eruption site in the Al Madinah volcanic field, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Open Geology Journal [Bentham Science Publisher] 7:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Murcia H, Nemeth K, Moufti MR, Lindsay JM, El-Masry N, Cronin SJ, Qaddah A, Smith IEM (2014) Late Holocene lava flow morphotypes of northern Harrat Rahat, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: implications for the description of continental lava fields. J Asian Earth Sci 84:131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Murdoch G (2009) Statement of evidence of Graeme John Murdoch in the matter of The Resource Management Act 1991; and in the matter of the Proposed Plan Change 14 to the Manukau District Plan; and in the matter of Proposed Private Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement; and in the matter of Notices of Requirement by Manukau City Council to designate land for public open space purposes at Ihumatao, and for AIAL to designate land for “Auckland International Airport: Land use (Renton Road Area)”Google Scholar
  85. Neches IM (2013) From geomorphosite evaluation to geotourism interpretation. Case study: the sphinx of Romania's southern Carpathians. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites 12(2):145–162Google Scholar
  86. Németh K (2010) Monogenetic volcanic fields: origin, sedimentary record, and relationship with polygenetic volcanism. The Geological Society of America Special Paper 470:43–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Németh K, Kereszturi G (2015) Monogenetic volcanism: personal views and discussion. Int J Earth Sci 104(8):2131–2146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. O’Malley V (2012) The meeting place. Māori and Pākehā encounters, 1642–1840. Auckland University Press, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  89. Panizza M (2001) Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and examples of geomorphological survey. Chin Sci Bull 46:4–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Panizza M (2009) The Geomorphodiversity of the dolomites (Italy): a key of geoheritage assessment. Geoheritage 1(1):33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Paxton C (2001) Saving Mangere’s agricultural history. New Zealand Geographic 50:10–11Google Scholar
  92. Peart R (2004) A place to stand. The protection of New Zealand’s natural and cultural landscapes. Environmental Defense Society, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  93. Pereira DI, Pereira P, Brilha J, Cunha PP (2015) The Iberian massif landscape and fluvial network in Portugal: a geoheritage inventory based on the scientific value. Proc Geol Assoc 126(2):252–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Petronis MS, Delcamp A, de Vries BvW (2013) Magma emplacement into the Lemptegy scoria cone (Chaine Des Puys, France) explored with structural, anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility, and Paleomagnetic data. Bull Volcanol 75(10)Google Scholar
  95. Petrovic MD, Vasiljevic DA, Vujicic MD, Hose TA, Markovic SB, Lukic T (2013) Global geopark and candidate – comparative analysis of Papuk Mountain geopark (Croatia) and Fruska Gora Mountain (Serbia) by using GAM model. Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences 8(1):105–116Google Scholar
  96. Reynard E, Coratza P, Giusti C (2011) Geomorphosites and geotourism. Geoheritage 3(3):129–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L, Scapozza C (2007) A method for assessing «scientific» and «additional values» of geomorphosites. Geographica Helvetica 62(3):148–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Rickard V, Veart D, Bulmer S (1983) A review of archaeological stone structures of South Auckland. New Zealand historic Places Trust, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  99. Searle EJ (1959) The volcanoes of Ihumatao and Mangere, Auckland. N Z J Geol Geophys 2(5):870–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Searle EJ, Mayhill RD (1981) City of volcanoes: a geology of Auckland. Longman Paul, Auckland, New Zealand, p. 195Google Scholar
  101. Smale A (2016) There’s no place like home. Mana - Māori Perspect 127(44–53)Google Scholar
  102. Stone R (2001) From Tamaki-makau-rau to Auckland. Auckland University Press, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  103. Sullivan A (1972) Stone walled complexes of Central Auckland. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 15(4):148–160Google Scholar
  104. Taylor A (1961) Five Manukau pa sites. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 4(2):89–94Google Scholar
  105. Veart D (1986) Stone structures and land use at three South Auckland volcanic sites (unpublished master’s thesis). Auckland University, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  106. Veart D (1994) Archaeological survey of Puketutu Island. Department of Conservation, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  107. Vujicic MD, Vasiljevic DA, Markovic SB, Hose TA, Lukic T, Hadzic O, Janicevic S (2011) Preliminary geosite assessment model (GAM) and its application on Fruska Gora Mountain, potential geotourism destination of Serbia. Acta Geographica Slovenica-Geografski Zbornik 51(2):361–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Wilson H (2015) Sworn affidavit of Haki Wilson dated 7 December 2015. (WAI 2547, #A1). Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington, New Zealand Retrieved from: https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_99361888/A0001.pdf Google Scholar
  109. WT (1989) Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Manukau claim, Wai 8, 2nd edn. Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The European Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilmars Gravis
    • 1
  • Károly Németh
    • 1
  • Jonathan N. Procter
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Agriculture and EnvironmentMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations