Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating Geoconservation and Biodiversity Conservation: Theoretical Foundations and Conservation Recommendations in a European Union Context

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Geoheritage Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nature conservation has become synonymous with biodiversity conservation and despite recent acknowledgements of the importance of geodiversity it is unrealistic to believe current European geoconservation efforts are either equal to those focused on biodiversity conservation, or sufficient to effectively conserve Europe’s geodiversity. This is despite the multitude of studies reporting the inherent linkages between geodiversity and biodiversity and, in particular, the role geodiversity performs in determining biotic species richness patterns. Thus, there is an urgent need to accentuate the principle that natural diversity is composed of both geodiversity and biodiversity, and that proficient conservation requires a holistic approach that views nature as a complex interaction of biodiversity and geodiversity pattern and process. This paper identifies a three-tiered conceptual framework for achieving integrated nature conservation in a European context. The primary in situ conservation method proposed is an integrated European protected area network aimed at representing all aspects of unique geodiversity and biodiversity. Regarding nature conservation as a whole, the benefits of a geo-ecological approach, that is, a conservation approach focused on the interlinked nature of biological and geological processes, landscape functionality, and the inevitably of environmental change, as opposed to individual landform and species conservation, are discussed. As a separate but linked concept, the issue of reducing confusion surrounding terminology in the geoconservation and biodiversity conservation literature is also explored.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexandrowicz Z, Margielewski W (2010) Impact of mass movements on geo- and biodiversity in the Polish Outer (Flysch) Carpathians. Geomorphology 123(3–4):290–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexandrowicz Z, Margielewski W, Perzanowska J (2003) European ecological network Natura 2000 in relation to landslide areas diversity: a case study in the Polish Carpathians. Ekologia (Bratislava) 22(4):404–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Barthlott W, Mutke J, Rafiqpoor MD, Kier G, Kreft H (2005) Global centres of vascular plant diversity. Nova Acta Leopoldina 92:61–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson J, Angelstam P, Elmqvist T, Emanuelsson U, Folke C, Ihse M, Moberg F, Nyström M (2003) Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. AMBIO A J Hum Environ 32(6):389–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Brilha J (2002) Geoconservation and protected areas. Environ Conserv 29(3):273–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burek C, Campbell S, Larwood J (2007) Moving towards a National GAP. Earth Herit 28:18–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke A (2001) Determining landscape function and ecosystem dynamics: contribution to ecological restoration in the southern Namib Desert. AMBIO A J Hum Environ 30(1):29–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett MR, August PV, Brown JH Jr, Killingbeck KT (1998) The influence of geomorphological heterogeneity on biodiversity: i. A patch-scale perspective. Conserv Biol 12(2):363–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carcavilla L, Durán JJ, García-Cortés A, López-Martínez J (2009) Geological heritage and geoconservation in Spain: past, present, and future. Geoheritage 1:75–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Convention on Biological Diversity (2011) Ecosystem approach. http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/. Accessed 30th September 2011

  • Cottle R (2004) Linking geology and biodiversity. English Nature Research Reports. English Nature, Peterborough

  • Dingwall PR (2000) Legislation and international agreements: the integration of the geological heritage in nature conservation policies. In: Barettino D, Wimbledon WAP, Gallego E (eds) Geological heritage: its conservation and management. Instituto Tecnológico Geominero de España, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudley N (ed) (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Erikstad L (2008) History of geoconservation in Europe. In: Burek CV, Prosser CD (eds) The history of geoconservation, vol 300. Geological Society Special Publications, London, pp 249–256

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2012) Soil: report on the implementation of the soil thematic strategy and ongoing activities. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/three_en.htm. Accessed 21st September 2012

  • European Environment Agency (2011) Distribution of Natura 2000 sites across the 27 EU Member States. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/distribution-of-natura-2000-sites-across-eu-member-states-1. Accessed 4th November 2011

  • Fitzpatrick EA (1971) Pedology: a systematic approach to soil science. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon JE, Brazier V, Thompson DBA, Horsfield D (2001) Geo-ecology and the conservation management of sensitive upland landscapes in Scotland. CATENA 42:323–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon J, Kirkbride V, Rennie A, Bruneau P (2008) Climate change: why geodiversity matters. Earth Herit 30:8–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon JE, Barron HF, Hansom JD, Thomas MF (2012) Engaging with geodiversity—why it matters. Proc Geol Assoc 123:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray JM (2001) Geomorphological conservation and public policy in England: a geomorphological critique of English Nature’s ‘natural areas’ approach. Earth Surf Process Landf 26(9):1009–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray M (2004) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray M (2005) Geodiversity and geoconservation: what, why, and how? George Wright Forum 22:4–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray M (2008) Geodiversity: developing the paradigm. Proc Geol Assoc 119:287–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray M (2011) Other nature: geodiversity and geosystem services. Environ Conserv 38(03):271–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grime JP (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Midl Nat 111:1169–1194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves C (2003) Drafting a conservation blueprint: a practitioner’s guide to planning for biodiversity. Island Press, Washington D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Huggett RJ (1995) Geoecology: an evolutionary approach. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jonasson C, Gordon J, Kociánová M, Joseffson M, Dvorák IJ, Thompson DBA (2005) Links between geodiversity and biodiversity in European mountains: case studies from Sweden, Scotland and the Czech Republic. In: Thompson DBA, Galbraith C, Price M (eds) The mountains of Europe: conservation, management and initiatives. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones C (2008) History of geoparks. In: Burek CV, Prosser CD (eds) The history of geoconservation, vol 300. Geological Society Special Publications, London, pp 273–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Küchler AW (1967) Vegetation mapping. The Ronald Press Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane SN, Tayefi V, Reid SC, Yu D, Hardy RJ (2007) Interactions between sediment delivery, channel change, climate change and flood risk in a temperate upland environment. Earth Surf Process Landf 32:429–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leser H, Nagel P (1998) Landscape diversity – a holistic approach. In: Barthlott W, Winiger M (eds) Biodiversity: a challenge for development research and policy. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB (2000) Factors at multiple scales affecting distribution patterns and their implications for animal conservation - Leadbeater’s Possum as a case study. Biodivers Conserv 9:15–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingston BE (1903) The relation of soils to natural vegetation in Roscommon and Crawford counties, Michigan. Michigan Geological Survey Annual Report

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moles NR, Moles RT (2002) Influence of geology, glacial processes and land use on soil composition and Quaternary landscape evolution in The Burren National Park, Ireland. CATENA 47:291–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mori AS (2011) Ecosystem management based on natural disturbances: hierarchical context and non-equilibrium paradigm. J Appl Ecol 48:280–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müeller C, Berger G, Glemnitz M (2004) Quantifying geomorphological heterogeneity to assess species diversity of set-aside arable land. Agric Ecosyst Environ 104:587–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutke J, Barthlott W (2005) Patterns of vascular plant diversity at continental to global scales. Biologiske Skrifter 55:521–531

    Google Scholar 

  • Natural England (2011) Sites of special scientific interest. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/sssi/default.aspx. Accessed 12/11 2011

  • Nichols WF, Killingbeck KT, August PV (1998) The influence of geomorphological heterogeneity on biodiversity ii. A landscape perspective. Conserv Biol 12:371–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks K, Mulligan M (2010) On the relationship between a resource based measure of geodiversity and broad scale biodiversity patterns. Biodivers Conserv 19:2751–2766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pemberton M (2001) Conserving geodiversity, the importance of valuing our geological heritage. National Conference. Geological Society of Australia Inc

  • Pemberton M (2007) A brief consideration of geodiversity and geoconservation. Department of Primary Industries and Water, Tasmania

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrişor A (2009) GIS assessment of landform diversity covered by natural protected areas in Romania. Stud Univ Vasile Goldiş Arad, Ser Ştiinţele Vieţii 19(2):359–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrişor A, Sârbu CN (2010) Dynamics of geodiversity and eco-diversity in territorial systems. J Urban Reg Anal 2:61–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett STA, Parker VT, Fiedler PL (1992) The new paradigm in ecology: implications for conservation biology above the species level. In: Fiedler PL, Jain SK (eds) Conservation biology; the theory and practice of nature preservation and management. Chapman and Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Primack RB (2010) Essentials of conservation biology, 5th edn. Macmillan Science, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • ProGEO (2011) ProGEO objectives. http://www.progeo.se/. Accessed 12th September 2011

  • Prosser C (2002) Terms of endearment. Earth Herit 17:12–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser C (2008) The history of geoconservation in England: legislative and policy milestones. In: Burek C, Prosser C (eds) The history of geoconservation, vol 300. The Geological Society Special Publications, London, pp 113–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser C, Burek C, Evans D, Gordon J, Kirkbride V, Rennie A, Walmsley C (2010) Conserving geodiversity sites in a changing climate: management challenges and responses. Geoheritage 2:123–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prosser CD, Bridgland DR, Brown EJ, Larwood JG (2011) Geoconservation for science and society: challenges and opportunities. Proc Geol Assoc 122:337–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards K, Brasington J, Hughes F (2002) Geomorphic dynamics of floodplains: ecological implications and a potential modelling strategy. Freshw Biol 47:559–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santucci VL (2005) Historical perspectives on biodiversity and geodiversity. Geodivers Geoconserv, George Wright Forum 22:29–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber K-F (1990) The history of landscape ecology in Europe. In: Zonneveld IS, Forman RTT (eds) Changing landscapes: an ecological perspective. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharples C (2002) Concepts and principles of geoconservation. Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service, Hobart

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley M (2000) Geodiversity. Earth Herit 14:15–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16:284–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas BA, Warren LM (2008) Geological conservation in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In: Burek CV, Prosser CD (eds) The history of geoconservation, vol 300. Geological Society Special Publications, London, pp 17–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ, Collingham YC, Erasmus BFN, Siqueira MF, Grainger A, Hannah L, Hughes L, Huntley B, Jaarsveld AS, Midgley GF, Miles L, Ortega-Huerta MA, Peterson AT, Phillips OL, Williams SE (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thwaites RN (2000) From biodviersity to geodiversity and soil diversity. A spatial understanding of soil in ecological studies of the forest landscape. J Trop For Sci 12:388–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Triantis KA, Bhagwat SA (2011) Applied island biogeography. In: Ladle R, Whittaker RJ (eds) Conservation biogeography. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Troll C (1971) Landscape ecology (geoecology) and biogeocenology — A terminological study. Geoforum 2:43–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weighell T (2004) Geoconservation at a local, national and global scale: making the links paper presented at the The International Conference on World Heritage—Earth Heritage, Dorset

  • Whittaker RJ, Araújo MB, Jepson P, Ladle RJ, Watson JEM, Willis KJ (2005) Conservation biogeography: assessment and prospect. Divers Distrib 11:3–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis KJ, Bhagwat SA (2009) Biodiversity and climate change. Science 326:806–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wimbledon WAP (1996) Geosites - a new conservation initiative. Episodes 19:87–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Zonneveld IS (1989) The land unit — A fundamental concept in landscape ecology, and its applications. Landsc Ecol 3:67–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zonneveld IS, Forman RTT (eds) (1990) Changing landscapes: an ecological perspective. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Heather Viles helped in formulating the idea and commented on various drafts of the manuscript. Rob Whittaker, Eden Cottee-Jones, and two anonymous reviewers also provided helpful and critical comments. I am grateful to Alison Pool for constructing the various figures within the manuscript. Finally, Zofia Alexandrowicz is thanked for their kind permission to include one of their figures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Thomas J. Matthews

  2. Conservation Biogeography and Macroecology Group, School of Geography and the Environment, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK

    Thomas J. Matthews

Authors
  1. Thomas J. Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas J. Matthews.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Matthews, T.J. Integrating Geoconservation and Biodiversity Conservation: Theoretical Foundations and Conservation Recommendations in a European Union Context. Geoheritage 6, 57–70 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-013-0092-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-013-0092-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation