In this paper, we present how geoconservation and geoheritage inventorying can be adapted to an urban context, using the example of the city of Clermont-Ferrand, in the centre of the Auvergne region of the Massif Central, France (Fig. 1). We identify all geological outcrops and landforms in the city and include them in a local inventory, assessing their geoheritage values. Using this inventory, we address some key issues of urban geoconservation and the possible popularization of geoheritage within a city.
According to Lima et al. (2010), geosite inventories and their assessment methods should consider the
France has an advanced system of national geosite inventory (de Wever et al. 2015) and five national geosites are located in the city of Clermont-Ferrand. These give a good overview of the area’s geodiversity on a national and even local level. However, some locally important features are missing, as they do not achieve the level of an outstanding example of a geological feature on a national or regional level. Furthermore, for the five national geosites listed, the inventory does not specify the location of each outcrop or detail all the features in the case of geosites of significant areal extent, such as the extensive lava field associated with the
Our first source of information for locating potential geosites was pre-existing databases, historical maps and photographs, and oral discussions with local experts. We also compiled a simplified urban geomorphological map, which allowed us to have an overview of the city’s main geomorphological features and its geodiversity, and helped identify areas with potential geosites (geodiversity hotspots). Finally, a thorough, highly-detailed, street-by-street survey of the whole city was the major way we obtained our information.
From the fieldwork, more than 50 sites were recorded and assessed, following the database format and semi-quantitative assessment method by de Wever et al. (2015). Underground elements, in particular the caves dug into the Clermont tuff ring, under the medieval city centre, were omitted to respect privacy, and we also omitted a detailed assessment of the heritage stone potential of the city. However, considering the flexibility of the inventory, these elements could be included in a future phase.
In the discussion, we underline the importance of site-specific management strategies in an urban environment through the example of selected geosites and geodiversity sites. The educational and geotouristic potential of these sites is illustrated through the proposal of geotouristic routes. We consider the possibilities for future development and look at issues such as the involvement of citizens in geoconservation (e.g., crowd-mapping), the management of geosites in private areas, and the cooperation of adjacent municipalities in highly urbanized areas. Finally, we look at the relationship of the city with the nearby natural UNESCO World Heritage site, which shares the same geological context, and also some of the same peripheral urban problems.
Urbanization is a global phenomenon, seen in the constant increase of urban population – reaching 56% globally (UN DESA 2018) – and in urban sprawl that is the dynamic growth of areas covered by infrastructure, housing projects, industrial facilities and so on. This sprawl constantly diminishes natural or semi-natural areas, destroying their biotic and abiotic values, or placing them into a new, urban context. Densification of existing urban areas at the expense of remnant natural spaces adds to the loss of natural environment.
To address these problems, multiple and often interdisciplinary studies have examined the complex interactions of the urban environment with natural elements, for example, urban geology combining engineering and risk management (de Mulder 1993, Huggenberger et al. 2011), and urban geomorphology considering the relationship between landforms and the urban fabric (e.g., Cooke 1976, Thornbush 2015).
Research on urban geoheritage, which aims to understand the complex interactions between geodiversity elements and the urban environment and its potential for geotourism, is an emerging domain of geoheritage studies. Several studies have discussed the geotouristic potential of cities by designing special itineraries (e.g., Robinson 1982, del Lama et al. 2015, Pica et al. 2018) and others have addressed the assessment and conservation of geoheritage in urban areas (Pica et al. 2016, Zwoliński et al. 2017, Erikstad et al. 2018). A separate, but linked theme is the description of heritage stones, which reveal the importance of locally-extracted, natural building materials in the cityscape and in cultural heritage (Přikryl, Török 2010, Pereira et al. 2015, Brocx, Semeniuk 2019).
Reynard et al. (2017) synthesized the principal considerations of urban geomorphological heritage. An urban geomorphological site could be either any geomorphosite situated within the limits of the urban space (
Geoheritage in the urban context could:
contribute to the landscape, the cityscape, be a constraint, but also an advantage to urban development, provide resources, such as exploitable stone or an aquifer cause or be affected by natural hazards, a potentially vulnerable element to encroaching urbanization.
Urban geoconservation requires a different approach due to the high vulnerability of sites and the specific management challenges of an urban context compared to rural areas. Human impact and disturbance is severe, with frequent construction works, a tendency to reduce natural areas, and often significant throughflow of people. Indirect forms of protection for geoheritage through biodiversity or natural diversity reserves are less common in cities than in rural or natural areas. Direct protection of geoheritage values is also limited, as geoheritage inventories dedicated to cities are still scarce and are rarely integrated into urban planning (e.g., the example of London, GLA 2009).
Landforms are often covered up, therefore, the reliance on indirect information sources (e.g., historical maps, satellite images, drilling data) is more common than in geosite inventories and assessments of natural or semi-natural areas, and field evaluation is often limited or challenging. Potential sites are often already disturbed or partially destroyed, therefore, scientific values such as representativeness or integrity are often much lower than in rural places and the effectiveness of standard assessment methods could be limited.
Situated in central France, the city of Clermont-Ferrand is the historic capital of the
Earliest traces of human occupation date back to the Neolithic, with a remnant of a dolmen at the national geosite of
Massive urbanization occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries due to the growing economic importance of companies such as
The cityscape is formed by major elements of the geology of the Massif Central including the
The city centre Clermont has been located since Roman times at the edge of the
Northwards, the hill and park of
The eastern and southern parts, which represent 60% of the total city area, are dominated by alluvial and colluvial deposits that are part of the
However, the predominantly flat, alluvial plain is intersected with some important geological features. The Oligocene sedimentary quarry of
The border with the
Finally, the district of
To compile the geoheritage inventory of Clermont-Ferrand, we followed the guidelines of Reynard et al. (2016), taking into consideration the definitions proposed by Brilha (2016) and the existing urban geoheritage inventories, such as that of Rome (Pica et al. 2016) and Poznań (Zwoliński et al. 2017). Reynard et al. (2017) highlighted that the selection of potential urban geomorphosites often requires a significant reliance on bibliographical sources, as field identification might be hindered by the physical coverage of features either by buildings or vegetation.
Publications about the geological and geomorphological features of Clermont-Ferrand only address some geoscientific aspects, as they are mostly focused on the volcanological context of
Historical maps of Auvergne, such as the one of La jonchère, Désbrulins (1739) or Desmarest (1823), clearly depict the geomorphological context of the city, specifically the
After the initial bibliographic study, we created the simplified geomorphological map of Clermont-Ferrand. As demonstrated by del Monte et al. (2013) in Rome, the identification of the main landforms and geomorphological processes on geomorphological maps that are often covered by an urban fabric could help in the location of potential geoheritage areas. Besides giving a general overview of the geodiversity of the whole area, certain geodiversity hotspots could be highlighted by a higher density of different phenomena. These could help in the field identification of geosites (Fig. 3). The map covering the whole administrative area is based on the 5 m resolution LiDAR dataset of
Finally, potential geosites revealed by the bibliography research and areas with high geodiversity were investigated by detailed, street-by-street field work. All outcrops or landforms located in public areas were recorded. Sites located in private land, but well-visible from the street were also inventoried. As noted before, privacy was the principal reason for the exclusion of the
Field data was recorded with the open-source framework of ODk (Open Data kit) Collect and Aggregate application (Vereb et al. 2018A) and then converted to a Microsoft Access database. The inventory database closely followed the structure of the French National Inventory and its central database, the iGéotope (de Wever et al. 2015), the background and structure of which is described below.
The
The INPG is a predominantly qualitative assessment form, with numerous fields for text description, but includes some quantitatively assessed criteria. Information is grouped into fields, namely
Quantitatively assessed criteria are organized into two groups (Table 1). The first,
By closely following the framework of the INPG, it means that the selected geosites at a local level can easily be incorporated into the national inventory in the future, if the representativity justifies it. A slight modification we made was the addition of some descriptive fields (e.g., identification of canton and cadastral number inside the city), which could be of administrative help in the city municipality where the database is to be integrated. The identification number of geosites has also been adapted to the local context using the following naming standard: CFxxyy, where xx is the official number of the city canton, while yy is the individual number of the site.
Synthesis of the national geosite inventorying method of France, the INPG, based on de Wever et al. (2015).
The majority of the city area is a widespread alluvial and colluvial plain as noted in the geological description (Fig. 3). Fluvial microforms commonly associated with changes in the location of river channels or areas of sediment deposition were not observed, probably because they have been eradicated or highly modified by urbanization. This area on the map only displays anthropogenic features such as buildings and road networks, and some residual (e.g.,
In contrast, a high diversity of geomorphological and geological features is observable in the western part of the city area (Fig. 3). The Quaternary lava flow of
A total of 53 sites were recorded and assessed with the INPG methodology as of 2019 (Fig. 4, Table 2).
The list of current geosites in the geoheritage inventory of Clermont-Ferrand. GS/GDS means a site that was classified as geosite (GS) or geodiversity site (GDS) on the basis of expert decision (final decision in parenthesis).
Geosite ID | Name of geo(diversity) site | Geoheritage Interest score | Number of geoheritage interest stars | Vulnerability and need for protection | Status by geoheritage stars | Primary Geological interest |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CF–1001 | Puy de la Poix – bitumen spring | 37 | 3 | 8 | geosite | hydrogeology |
CF–1002 | R. Cheval – Oligocene sediments | 20 | 1 | 8 | geodiversity site | sedimentology |
CF–1003 | Puy de Var – inverted relief | 37 | 3 | 8 | geosite | volcanism |
CF–1101 | Puy de Crouël – peperitic volcanic neck | 46 | 3 | 6 | geosite | volcanism |
CF–1102 | Quarry of Gandaillat – Oligocene sediments | 40 | 3 | 8 | geosite | sedimentology |
CF–1103 | Puy Longue – Anthropogenic garbage deposit | 23 | 2 | 10 | GS / GDS (GDS) | sedimentology |
CF–1104 | R. Oradou 62 – Oligocene sediments | 18 | 1 | 7 | geodiversity site | sedimentology |
CF–1105 | R. Oradou 98 – Oligocene sediments | 14 | 1 | 7 | geodiversity site | sedimentology |
CF–1106 | R. Oradou 98 – Grave Noire lava flow | 14 | 1 | 7 | geodiversity site | volcanism |
CF–1107 | R. Oradou 118 – Grave Noire lava flow | 21 | 2 | 11 | GS / GDS (GDS) | volcanism |
CF–1108 | R. Oradou 128 – Grave Noire lava flow | 26 | 2 | 9 | GS / GDS (GS) | volcanism |
CF–1109 | Montferrand – marls mount | 17 | 1 | 8 | geodiversity site | geomorphology |
CF–1201 | R. Pont–de–Naud 21 – Grave Noire lava flow | 14 | 1 | 5 | geodiversity site | volcanism |
CF–1202 | R. Marivaux 9 – Grave Noire lava flow | 20 | 1 | 6 | geodiversity site | volcanism |
CF–1203 | R. Docteur Chibret 2 – Grave Noire lava flow | 16 | 1 | 6 | geodiversity site | volcanism |
CF–1204 | Av. Léon Blum 65– Grave Noire lava flow | 11 | 1 | 6 | geodiversity site | volcanism |
CF–1205 | R. Neuf Soleils 38– Grave Noire lava flow | 18 | 1 | 6 | geodiversity site | volcanism |
CF–1206 | Résidence Cheops 2 – Grave Noire lava flow | 23 | 2 | 8 | GS / GDS (GDS) | volcanism |
CF–1207 | R. Henry Andraud 21 – Grave Noire lava flow | 30 | 2 | 9 | GS / GDS (GS) | volcanism |
CF–1208 | Pilon of the viaduct of Saint–Jacques – Grave Noire lava flow | 11 | 1 | 6 | geodiversity site | volcanism |
CF–1209 | R. Pont Saint Jacques 62 – Grave Noire lava flow | 11 | 1 | 4 | geodiversity site | volcanism |
CF–1210 | R. Desdevises du Dèzert 20 – Grave Noire lava flow + spring | 34 | 3 | 10 | geosite | volcanism |
CF–1211 | Cité Universitaire Dolet – Grave Noire lava flow | 28 | 2 | 9 | GS / GDS (GS) | volcanism |
CF–1212 | Imp. Dr. Cohendy – Grave Noire lava flow | 25 | 2 | 10 | GS / GDS (GS) | volcanism |
CF–1213 | R. Étienne Dolet 60 – Grave Noire lava flow | 14 | 1 | 8 | geodiversity site | volcanism |
CF–1214 | R. Roty 35 – Grave Noire lava flow | 14 | 1 | 8 | geodiversity site | volcanism |
CF–1215 | Al. Rocailles 2 – Grave Noire lava flow | 26 | 2 | 8 | GS / GDS (GDS) | volcanism |
CF–1216 | Av. Landais 8 – Grave Noire lava flow | 20 | 1 | 8 | geodiversity site | volcanism |
CF–1217 | Creux de l’enfer – Grave Noire lava flow | 41 | 3 | 8 | geosite | volcanism |
CF–1218 | R. Louis Dabert 20–24 – Grave Noire lava flow | 14 | 1 | 8 | geodiversity site | volcanism |
CF–1219 | Saint–Astrimoine – Grave Noire lava flow | 33 | 3 | 12 | geosite | volcanism |
CF–1220 | Margeride tram stop – Grave Noire lava flow | 31 | 2 | 9 | GS / GDS (GS) | volcanism |
CF–1221 | R. Étienne et George Sauvestre – Alluvial infill of Maar de Gantière | 16 | 1 | 8 | geodiversity site | sedimentology |
CF–1222 | Av. Léon Blum 76 – Grave Noire lava flow | 14 | 1 | 7 | geodiversity site | volcanism |
CF–1401 | Saint–Alyre – travertine spring | 44 | 3 | 7 | geosite | hydrogeology |
CF–1402 | R. Durtol 85 – Oligocene sediments | 16 | 1 | 7 | geodiversity site | sedimentology |
CF–1403 | R. Farnettes 31 – Oligocene sediments | 16 | 1 | 8 | geodiversity site | sedimentology |
CF–1404 | Montjuzet – Oligocene sedimentary residual | 27 | 2 | 8 | GS / GDS (GS) | geomorphology |
CF–1501 | Plateau of Côtes de Clermont inverted relief | 37 | 3 | 8 | geosite | geomorphology |
CF–1502 | Ch. Mouchette 40 – Oligocene sediments | 20 | 1 | 8 | geodiversity site | sedimentology |
CF–1503 | Al. Écureuils 1 – Oligocene sediments | 16 | 1 | 9 | geodiversity site | sedimentology |
CF–1504 | R. Blanzat 245 – tephra and paleosol | 40 | 3 | 10 | geosite | stratigraphy |
CF–1505 | R. Blanzat 237 – Oligocene sediments | 20 | 1 | 9 | geodiversity site | sedimentology |
CF–1506 | Puy de Chanturgue – Miocene lava flow quarry | 24 | 2 | 8 | GS / GDS (GDS) | geomorphology |
CF–1507 | Puy de Chanturgue – landslides | 32 | 3 | 8 | geosite | geomorphology |
CF–1508 | Puy de Chanturgue – gullies with sedimentary flank outcrops | 16 | 1 | 6 | geodiversity site | geomorphology |
CF–1509 | R. Puyou 7 – Oligocene sediments | 16 | 1 | 8 | geodiversity site | sedimentology |
CF–1510 | R. Bouys 43 – Oligocene sediments | 14 | 1 | 7 | geodiversity site | sedimentology |
CF–1511 | R. Nohanent 184 – stromatolithes | 35 | 3 | 10 | geosite | paleontology |
CF–1512 | R. Victor Charreton 18 – Oligocene sediments | 16 | 1 | 9 | geodiversity site | stratigraphy |
CF–1513 | Rue V. Charreton x – Oligocene sediments | 20 | 1 | 8 | geodiversity site | sedimentology |
CF–1514 | Rue V. Charreton y – Oligocene sediments | 23 | 2 | 9 | GS / GDS (GDS) | stratigraphy |
CF–1515 | R. de Trémonteix – Oligocene sediments | 27 | 2 | 8 | GS / GDS (GDS) | stratigraphy |
The geosites in the inventory are organized geographically in two main clusters: the sedimentary features and inverted relief in the north (22 sites), and the lava flow of
Individual, isolated sites include the Petrified Source of
The results of the quantitative evaluation are summarized in Figures 5 and 6 according to the two main criteria of INPG: 1) the
Figure 5A shows that geoheritage interest values cover a wide range, and that every site has reached a minimum total score of 10 points or 1 geoheritage interest star (cf. de Wever et al. 2015). This confirms that all of the selected sites have a certain level of geoheritage value, therefore, their inclusion in a geoheritage inventory is justifiable.
Several studies on the inventorying and assessment of geosites (e.g., Reynard et al. 2016, Brilha 2016) recommend that only sites of exceptional or high value (especially from a scientific perspective) selected from an initial list of potential geosites should be considered as geosites and included in a final inventory. Sites in the present inventory with a low total score and low scientific value might be viewed as sites not fulfilling this geosite requirement (e.g., CF1105, CF1208). However, the urban context significantly raises the vulnerability of sites, and those sites that are not listed in an official inventory would be more likely to undergo destruction or irreversible modification. Even sites of limited scientific importance, such as minor outcrops or small landforms can have important additional values (e.g., recreation spots for locals or habitat for flora and fauna). Taken together, they have a greater cumulative importance, combining to create a geodiversity background worthy of protection.
In order to ensure the inclusion of every surviving geological outcrop, geomorphological landform and other important geoscience elements in the inventory, but also acknowledging the necessity to rank the sites especially for their scientific value, we combined the INPG method with the terminology of Brilha (2016). The latter distinguishes between geosites, which are sites with high scientific relevance, and geodiversity sites, which are sites with low to moderate scientific significance but high additional value (e.g., for supporting biodiversity). The 0–1 star or 0–20 points: geodiversity sites, 28 sites out of a total of 53. 2 stars or 21–30 points: classification into the geosite or geodiversity site category was carried out with a second, subjective consideration of scores for each indicator by experts. This is based on their knowledge of the values of the site that could complement the objective pointing system. In all, 13 out of 53 sites were classified by the experts’ validation in the following manner:
Geosites (later referenced as confirmed geosites, together with the 3 star sites): CF1108, CF1207, CF1211, CF1212, CF1220, CF1404, Geodiversity sites: CF1103, CF1107, CF1206, CF1215, CF1506, CF1514, CF1515. 3 stars or 31–48 points: geosites, 12 out of 53 sites.
Since the
However, it must be noted that increased preservation efforts would probably not cause a rise in
The score for
In the
As noted before, the national geosite of
The highest-ranking category of the inventory also includes other key sites and elements of the geodiversity of Clermont-Ferrand (and the broader context of the
The
Note that 42 of the 53 sites lack effective protection so far, either physically in the form of slope stabilization or regulatory in the form of a legislative framework. An example of such protection for biodiversity and archaeology is the protection of CF1505 (Plateau of
The inventory of geoheritage sites in Clermont-Ferrand illustrates that the city has a significant geoheritage, but that it is highly vulnerable due to the urban context, calling for dedicated geoconservation initiatives. The geosites have significant potential as a resource for citizens and visitors because they are natural spots and are hence important for maintaining and improving the city environment. They are also attractions for geotourism and education about geosciences, raising environmental awareness and improving resilience to natural hazards.
Here, we present some key considerations and future projects, some of which are already under discussion with local authorities, as the inventory is on the way to being integrated into the city planning process. This progress could be turned into a geodiversity action plan (Dunlop et al. 2018) for the city of Clermont-Ferrand, which would be the first plan of this type dedicated to geoheritage management for a city in France. Such a plan is urgently needed, as the sites we have identified have undergone degradation and destruction even during the writing of this paper.
One of the principal reasons for compiling the present local-level geoheritage inventory in addition to the existing national one has been to give a powerful tool to the city municipality for the customized, site-specific management of urban geosites (Prosser et al. 2018).
With the above evaluation of geoheritage aspects, geosites should also be examined for:
biodiversity importance (e.g., habitat for flora and fauna elements), relevance to cultural heritage, by inviting experts to record the potential connotations of each site in that respect, safety and conservation by engineers and landscape architects who can survey the sites to find creative ways to ensure safety, while preserving this heritage and integrate it in a sustainable way within the urban fabric.
As the majority of geosites on the current list are outcrops with steep slopes or cliffs, stabilization is highly important for safety, especially in the vicinity of infrastructure such as roads or buildings.
The lithological context of the sites controls much of the conservation scenario. For example, the outcrops of the Oligocene marls, limestones and clays have gentle slopes that are often covered with colluvium or scree (Fig. 7). Depending on the local slope conditions, they can be relatively stable, however, potential landslides might occur following heavy rain when the mixture of permeable and impermeable layers tends to be mobilised (e.g., at CF1104 and CF1105, CF1502 to CF1505). They are often stabilized by natural and planted vegetation. Such growth may be effective from an engineering viewpoint and desirable for preserving habitats, but it could greatly diminish the geoheritage values of the site by reducing the level of exposure. Therefore, each site should be considered individually to create a solution that allows a compromise to be found between the preservation of geoheritage and biodiversity.
The trachybasaltic lava outcrops of the
Geological outcrops and landforms as well as hydrological sites, besides their geoheritage interest, usually function as habitats for wildlife. The partial covering of sites by vegetation inevitably hides some geological elements, but it can also have a protective function (see above), and enhance the aesthetic value, while additionally aiding biodiversity. Natural cracks in lavas and loose material of some sedimentary rocks can house a significant insect population, while larger cavities such as natural caves in lavas or cellars in the tuff ring of Clermont-Ferrand are used by small mammals (e.g., bats) and birds. Biodiversity appears as an additional value in several inventories, but its detailed assessment in the present inventory should be carried out separately by appropriate experts.
This study has primarily focused on the surface elements of geodiversity, specifically outcrops, landforms and hydrological elements. However, the subsurface elements of Clermont-Ferrand’s geoheritage also have significant value. The main example of these are the so-called caves or cellars of the
Taking into consideration the present situation and the significant geoheritage potential of the cavities, several measures should be taken in the short to mid-term:
In order to visualize the distribution of the currently known cellars, while still respecting privacy, the data inventoried by ACAVIC and the municipality could be compiled in the form of a heatmap, following the example of Nisio et al. (2017) for Rome, Italy, where only the density of caves and cellars in certain areas is observable, and their exact coordinates are not shown. An action plan could be implemented by the municipality for the comprehensive management of cellars, in particular with respect to cellar stability and so on, but also allocating financial resources to help landowners carry out the necessary structural surveys and reinforcement work. A comprehensive inventory of cellars could be compiled using the data already compiled by ACAVIC and the municipality, and extending it to other areas with possible caves and cellars such as the The cellars that show the most representative outcrops of the tuff ring and associated features, or are of historical importance (confirmed gallo-roman and medieval structures and exceptional archaeological findings), could be opened for tourists following well-known examples, such as the catacombs of Paris or the underground necropolises of Cappadocia. A public cellar might be turned into an underground visitor centre or a small museum, presenting this unique heritage of Clermont-Ferrand. Many bars have cellars beneath them, and the lower levels could be opened up to customers as features of geoheritage interest.
The issue of private property is also an issue for surface elements of geoheritage. Only those sites that are located in public areas or private ones that are directly visible from the streets have been inventoried in this first phase. There are several outcrops in private gardens (e.g., CF1202, see below) or in buildings (e.g., CF1210) that might have scientific significance, or at least have additional value, such as forming habitats for flora and fauna. Their management, such as adequate slope stabilization, could only be carried out effectively if they are inventoried and assessed from geoheritage, biodiversity and engineering viewpoints as well. We note that while they may be in private property, often the rock itself is the responsibility of the municipality, who could then interact with the inhabitants to develop a community-based action plan of such sites.
The inclusion of these sites in an inventory would only be possible with the broadest cooperation of citizens and the municipality, and can be done with a campaign to record privately owned outcrops, sharing good management practices especially in terms of slope stabilization and the allocation of financial funds for the latter. A possible way of inventorying could be participatory mapping or crowdmapping (Brown et al. 2017), where the owners themselves report the existence of an outcrop or interesting geomorphological landform in their properties and ask for help about their effective management, respecting the heritage values.
An example of the importance of raising the issue of geoheritage values of an outcrop in a private area is the CF1202 (
This case study clearly demonstrates that the municipality agents still have little knowledge of the concept of geoheritage, and tend to apply off the shelf methods for site security instead of considering the value of the site and looking for measures that can be adapted to the natural site itself. However, once discussion is opened between private owners and the authorities, and with pressure from local inhabitants, compromises and acceptable solutions can be found. The integration of the inventory into the city plans will help in creating awareness of the benefits that result from applying more inventive strategies to secure unstable slopes. But the role of individual citizens is vital as well.
Participatory mapping is not the only way to promote the active participation of city dwellers in geoconservation. A number of outcrops in private gardens are already well integrated into the microlandscape as they are used as elements of decoration, and some outcrops are even preserved within building walls. Recognition of these in the inventory can reward the owners and help them further value this geoheritage.
Local communities could help in the daily management of some public geosites as well, maintaining vegetation and regularly supervising the cleanliness of the sites, especially if they are used as recreational sites. The park of
Privately-owned geological outcrops or cavities could be
The aesthetic value of specific geosites can also be amplified and used to drive local businesses. A good example of this is the CF1210 geosite (
Cultural connotations of the presently inventoried geosites should be examined in more detail as well, by local history experts. Examples are the strategic importance of positive landforms such as Montferrand raised platform, the Plateau of
A future phase of the inventory and the geodiversity action plan of the city municipality could also deal with what represents a close connection between cultural and geological heritage, namely the heritage stones (Brocx & Semeniuk 2019). The
The
As the city hosts a major university, which includes one of the largest European research institutes in volcanology and geoscience, some geosites such as the
The general geological description of a geosite is a requirement for the INPG during the inventorying and assessment process. University courses could help add material to the sites and students could help with the monitoring as part of their training. A more detailed description of outcrops, paleontological examination of less known outcrops such as CF1002 at
Twenty of the more than fifty geosites have received high or the highest scores in the evaluation of pedagogical interest (2–3 points). Not all of them are easily interpretable at the level of elementary or secondary education, but a collection of sites should be selected that could give an excellent tool for teachers to illustrate the basic phenomena of Earth processes at easily accessible examples: the sites are often only a short tram or bus ride away from schools. Such sites include the Quarry of
Geosites can be used to improve the resilience of people to natural hazards and improve environmental awareness as well. The lava flow outcrops of the
The anthropogenic site of
Clermont-Ferrand is the tourist hub of the
Several considerations that have been discussed above about geoconservation and geoeducation also apply to geotourism. The caves of the
Urban geoheritage can be promoted through geotours offering a dedicated tourist (and educational) package. Inspired by examples in London (Robinson 1982), São Paulo (del Lama et al. 2015) and Rome (Pica et al. 2018), we propose four initial itineraries (Fig. 10) that provide an overview of the geodiversity of Clermont-Ferrand and could be included in the tourist strategy and promotion of the city.
The Grand Geotour of Clermont-Ferrand gives a complete overview of the geodiversity of the city, with the best examples of different geological-geomorphological phenomena. It is subdivided into two sections.
The Grand Geotour North section that starts at The Grand Geotour South section starts with ancient geological features in the Go with the flow (fr: Inversion Ideas: this trail climbs the series of lava-capped plateaus in the northwest part of the city (
Starting points are defined for all these geotours except for the circuit of Go with the Flow. However, the easy accessibility by public transport of almost any section of these routes (Fig. 10) means that they could be cut into multiple segments, or only selected sections could be visited by (geo)tourists. The southern section of the Grand Geotour is possible to do on foot or by bicycle while the northern section and the Inversion Ideas are more easily done on foot due to the steeper topography. The Go with the flow circuit is ideal for running, jogging or cycling, which could make this long loop more enjoyable.
So far, the only interpretation panels about geological importance are placed at
Previous work on urban geoheritage (e.g., del Lama et al. 2015, Pica et al. 2016, Zwoliński et al. 2017) concentrated on large cities with populations of several hundred thousand to several million, whereas this work addresses a smaller, provincial city (ca. 140,000 inhabitants). Urban geoheritage inventories and geodiversity action plans can be implemented in smaller urban centres (towns) as well as for rural areas (villages). Besides complementing the city’s inventory, another objective in the future should be its geographical expansion, by incorporating the surrounding administrative units as well. Such inventories would be especially valuable in the case of Clermont Ferrand for the villages that are located within the neighbouring World Heritage site.
Clermont-Ferrand is the centre of the
A good example of shared geoheritage around the borders of Clermont is the scoria cone
In this paper, we presented the geosite inventory of the city of Clermont-Ferrand starting with the concept and methodology involved in the compilation process, moving to the discussion of future steps and applications, underlining the impact of the urban context on geoconservation.
We described the first, most important phase of the inventorying, which consists of recording the surface elements and associated phenomena, specifically geological outcrops and geomorphological landforms. In the future, a second phase may consist of inventorying the cellars dug into the tuff ring under the city centre (and possibly other cellars throughout the city), after clarifying the legal and privacy issues of these properties. A third phase could use community mapping, where each property owner could report a potentially valuable geosite in their private property (e.g., outcrop in the garden), asking for help with sustainable geoconservation (e.g., stabilization of slopes with less destructive and less invasive solutions) from the city authorities. Finally, a fourth phase might include the detailed inventorying of heritage stones, requiring close coordination with cultural heritage experts and possibly a different database and assessment format.
The principal role of urban geoheritage inventories is to record those elements of geodiversity that form islands in urbanized areas. This context calls for a different approach. Thus, sites in natural areas that are considered insignificant can acquire value in the urban context, as they represent the few remaining exposures of a geological feature, a habitat for wildlife or an organic element of the cityscape. We have shown that the sites can be rated, based on their scientific value, and this can be used as a tool to prioritize their management. However, this does not mean that sites with lower scientific value should be excluded from an urban inventory. Importantly, we found that, at least in Clermont-Ferrand, a site that is included in an official register is less likely to be significantly modified or destroyed, as demonstrated by the example of
This inventory, restricted to the boundaries of Clermont-Ferrand, has been compiled with the intention of providing input for the municipality towards a dedicated geoconservation strategy, including the creation of a geodiversity management plan (Dunlop et al. 2018), a pioneering initiative yet to be used in France. We presented some key considerations that could be included in such an action plan or in the management strategy of the municipality. Important considerations that should be tackled not just in the present inventory, but in future initiatives in other areas are:
ensuring the stabilization of slopes with a holistic approach including geodiversity, biodiversity and engineering aspects, assessing limiting factors and future potential of geosites in private areas, and exploring geoeducation and geotourism perspectives.
Given the continuing trend of massive urbanization globally, more and more geodiversity elements will be incorporated into an urban context, and hence, excluded from direct or indirect forms of protection such as rural geoparks, World Heritage sites or national parks. As a result, the creation of urban geoparks such as the Hong kong UNESCO Global Geopark should be encouraged.
As a concluding remark, urban geoheritage inventories and action plans have the potential to raise the awareness of authorities on the conservation of geodiversity elements, and are opportunities to involve citizens in the appreciation of geological features as integral parts of natural heritage.