The term geodiversity has been used by geologists and geomorphologists since the 1990s to describe the variety of abiotic nature (Gray 2004, Zwoliński 2004) and its importance in linking Earth, people and cultures was recognised afterwards (Gordon 2012).
Urban geodiversity includes, besides the variety of the geological and physical elements of nature (Sharples 2002), buildings, monuments and other elements that promote and disseminate information about the Earth’s surface (Palacio 2014, Tičar et al. 2017).
The elements of geodiversity that are judged to be significant and worthy of conservation thanks to their values are considered geoheritage (Gray 2004). Such elements of geodiversity are the ones that have value to humans, that is, they provide the scientific evidence of the evolution of life on Earth, are important for research and education, aesthetic value and touristic potential, and the sites give a
Both concepts, geodiversity and geoheritage, constituted reason for debate not only for geoscientists, but also in a variety of other domains such as biology, spatial planning, general tourism, geotourism or cultural heritage (Coratza et al. 2018). According to the goal of the analysis, multiple assessment methods of geoheritage have been proposed (Pralong and Reynard 2005, Fuertes-Gutiérrez and Fernández-Martínez 2010, Jiménez-Sánchez et al. 2011, Kirchner et al. 2017, Pica et al. 2017, Habibi et al. 2018).
At a geoheritage, the natural feature should be the greatest part, but the secondary (man-made) part is important too; in combination, they result in a significant touristic resource (Kubalíková et al. 2016, Kirchner et al. 2017). The anthropogenic part brings us
Kubalíková (2017) considers the following genetic classification with 10 classes to be representative for anthropogenic geoheritage (secondary geodiversity), based on the classification realised by Kirchner, Smolová (2010) and Lóczy et al. (2010): mining landforms, industrial landforms, agricultural landforms, urban landforms, communication landforms, water system landforms with a subset of littoral, military landforms, funeral landforms, celebration landforms and other landforms referring to recreational landforms, archaeological excavations, research landforms and so on.
The settlement named today Craiova is considered to be the inheritor of the old settlement Pelendava, mentioned around 225 AD on the map of the Roman Empire
The urban settlement has extended on the Jiu terraces, which can be described as an amphitheatre, downstream from the confluence with the Amaradia river. Quaternary deposits have shaped the territory on which the city has developed; the exogenous factors have played a major role in quaternary sedimentation and an endogenous factor has had an important role in the convergence area of Craiova. In the Craiova area, the following types of quaternary deposits were identified: a) alluvial deposits made of slightly clayish sands; b) loess-like deposits; c) deposits of wind dunes, not only due to the west winds, but also of the hydrographic network, the wind sands coming mainly from the alluvial sands and d) proluvial and gravitational deposits (Coteț 1957). Neotectonic movements during the Pasadena phase (Middle Pleistocene) reactivated the rise of Balș-Optași, which resulted in a change of the flow direction of the Jiu river to the south and a gradual descent to the southwest, sculpting the terrace system only to the left side of the Jiu river (Boengiu et al. 2011).
The Jiu terraces where Craiova is situated have provided the base for the development of human communities since the Neolithic era. Archaeological evidence belonging to this era and also from the Bronze Age, Iron Age (Georgescu et al. 1977, Nica 1979, Toropu 1979) or the Romanic Culture of V–VII centuries AD (Papilian 1979) attest the permanence of the communities in the area.
Developed as a weekly fair on the first terrace of the Jiu, Craiova became the residence of the
At the end of the 18th century and beginning of the 19th century, the first urbanistic renewal started to emerge, particularly through the expansion of the wells network, sources of drinking water being essential to any modern settlement (Georgescu et al. 1977). In the beginning of the 20th century, extensive systematisation works began, which resulted in drainage of swamps from the floodplain, the draining of local streams and, in their place, the building of main current boulevards (Albă et al. 2018).
Today’s city, designated as a pole of growth in the Oltenia region, is pursuing the implementation of an integrated development strategy, where one of the main directions has been the development of tourism. In this regard, the main elements achieved by the city administration are the refurbishment of parks, rehabilitation of the historical centre and increase of cultural tourism, to which an increase of accommodation capacity has been added.
The expanding of touristic heritage by including sites considered as geoheritage will diversify tourist attractions and can be an additional source of income in the touristic industry of the city.
During the last decades, several attempts have been made to evaluate the quality of geoheritage in various contexts and numerous methods are described for the quantitative assessment of geosites in literature: Bruschi and Cendrero (2005), Coratza and Giusti (2005), Pralong (2005), Serrano and Gonzalez-Trueba (2005), Pereira et al. (2007), Reynard and Panizza (2007), Bruschi et al. (2011), Coratza et al. (2011), Feuillet and Sourp (2011), Pellitero et al. (2011), Comănescu et al. (2012), Coratza et al. (2012), Fassoulas et al. (2012), Kubalíková (2013), Pica et al. (2014), Pereira et al. (2015), Reynard et al. (2015, 2017), Zwoliński et al. (2018) and Coratza and Hobléa (2018) or studies that compare this methods: Erhartič (2010), Kubalíková (2013), Zwoliński et al. (2017).
In order to assess the sites proposed to be geoheritage in Craiova city the method built up by the University of Rome and the Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research was considered the most suitable; a version of this this method was first applied to assess and include the sites from Rome, in the geoheritage category. The method used by Pica et al. (2017) has two main stages:
the urban geomorphological analysis by means of multidisciplinary processing of multitemporal data; urban geomorphosites selection and geomorphoheritage assessment.
In our case, the first stage was accomplished by analysing the historical documents, by interpretation of historical and recent topographic maps, by interpretation of lithostratigraphic map and multi-temporal aerial photographs and on-field geomorphology survey, in order to reconstruct the evolution of the geomorphological landscape of Craiova.
For the second part of the method, we calculated the VSGh index RP – V – GeoHIS – AP – TAR –
For the VSGh, Pica et al. (2017) do not propose scores for each attribute; but similar to the basic method developed by Pica in 2014, Zwoliński et al. (2017), consider that each attribute will have a maximum value of 5 points.
In addition, Zwoliński et al. (2017) bring an improvement in the classification of the VSGh index, considering it suitable to start from 5, since each attribute may have the lowest value of 1 and never has 0. Their proposal for division into classes is as follows:
low class, from 5 to 15, medium class, from 16 to 20, high class, from 21 to 25.
This method was also applied to assess the geoheritage from Poznań City (Zwoliński et al. 2017), where the procedure was compared with two other methods: Reynard et al. (2007) and Pica et al. (2014).
After an analysis of documents and historical maps and of visual evidence from the past – photos, postal cards or sketches regarding the development of the city, we have selected for analysis and assessment three secular elements of Craiova:
The analysis of the terrain was realised through the geomorphological examination on-site, the study of previous researches and by comparison of multitemporal maps and photos.
The assessment of the sites followed the two stages of the method created by Pica et al. (2017): geomorphological characterisation of the area and characterisation of the geoheritage.
During the Quaternary evolution, in the Craiova area, the Jiu river was characterised not only by a permanent movement towards the west, but also by a vertical one, which is reflected in the morphology of the area. The consequence of the neotectonic movements during the Pasadena phase (Middle Pleistocene) was the creation of the terrace system on the left side of the Jiu river. Besides the subsidence caused by the movements of the Earth’s surface, erosion has also occurred in the configuration of the Jiu corridor.
Until the Jiu embankment in the second half of the 20th century, the floodplain flooding frequently occurred in large flash floods, sometimes reaching up to the
From a lithological point of view, the area of Craiova is defined by the Quaternary deposits. The lithostratigraphic column of the Quaternary is based on clays, albescent and yellowish sands, followed by a layer of fine gravels
In
In the 18th century,
In addition to the sketch of the city from 1780 (Fig. 3a), a representative image of the
After systematisation of the city, in the interwar period, the springs of the 7 Wells were roundup and the resulting water was used to fill up the Tineretului swimming pool located nearby. The hillslope was terraced (Fig. 6), and the
At present, nothing reminds us of the former valley or the 7 Wells, the area being partly asphalted (Câmpia Islaz street) and partially integrated into the St. Dumitru Park, named also as Băniei Garden or Roses Garden.
Although today it is an invisible geomorphosite (Clivaz, Reynard 2017, Pica et al. 2017), it is a representative site for urban landscape evolution, showing the magnitude of landscape transformation (RP = 5), at present, the geomorphosite is unidentifiable, but in the evidence of the past (photos, postcards, sketches), the site had good visibility (V = 5), the site is mentioned in historical records such as photos, postcards, sketches of the city (GeoHIS = 3), certainly, the presence of seven fountains in a very small area was noted in the past from the landscape; but at present, identification of the site can be made only on the basis of the surrounding elements (St. Dumitru Church, Madona Dudu Church, Baniei House) (AP = 3), the site is a tourist attraction because it is presented as a continuation of the Roses Garden park, but the lack of geotourism information leads to valorisation only for the urban value, without highlighting its intrinsic value (TAR = 4).
According to Clivaz and Reynard (2017),
The current hydrological network outlined at the end of the Early Pleistocene and the beginning of the Middle Pleistocene, also the completion of the current valley of the Jiu and the small tributaries in the Craiova area, was settled in Holocene.
The presence of a clay basal deposit is brought to light from the drillings executed on the left side of the Jiu, over which are found intercalations of sands, clays and sandy clay. The well-developed floodplain is made up of alluvial deposits (Fig. 7).
As
Reconstruction of the hydrographic map for the year 1880 (Fig. 8), realised in previous studies (Albă et al. 2017, 2018) shows us that the points where the three wells are located represent the limit of large swamp areas which restricted urban expansion in the floodplain.
Works of sewage for the Geanoglu and other ponds, draining of several local streams and of the water that resulted from
In the second half of the 19th century, the area of the marshes in the floodplain sector was included in the current perimeter of the city and represented approximately 28% of it; as a result of the public works launched in 1891 and continued since then (except for the periods of the two world wars), the area of the floodplain marshes decreased to about 2.5% in 1974, currently representing approximately 1.35%.
The Obedeanu Well (Fig. 9a, 9b) was built after the year 1774 (Stoicescu 1970) by Stefan Parșcoveanul (a kind of governor) on the place of another well
Over time, the old well had deteriorated, especially during the Russian–Turkish war from 1768 to 1774, which led to its rebuilding. Near the new well, Stefan Parșcoveanul had arranged a pond, a courtyard and a gazebo. During the Austro-Russian-Turkish war of 1789–1792, the well degraded again, the gazebo had disappeared, and the pond was left in decay. At that time, a service for the maintenance of wells was created, consisting of four persons exempt from taxes
In the years 1835–1836, through a channel system consisting of over 15,500 tiles
At present, it is one of the few functional wells in the city, and a part of the inhabitants from the northwestern part of the city still prefer to use the water from it for supplying, considering it to have water of superior quality.
For Obedeanu Well, the index VSGh was calculated as VSGh = 17, which resulted from the following:
the site is an element that marks the transformation of the landscape in the area (RP = 3), the Obedeanu Well was and is still located along the road that connects the city to Transylvania (another region of Romania) and has good visibility (V = 5), the site, through the related registrations, helps us to recreate previous image of the landscape and the anthropic transformations suffered (GeoHIS = 3), it constitutes an element that attracts the attention of the passer-by (AP = 3), although it is not located in a tourist area of the city and is not specifically signalled, attractiveness of the Obedeanu Well can become more if the history of the place is known to visitors and the place would be adequately arranged (TAR = 3).
The
Besides the essential role of supplying water for the inhabitants, at that time, the fountains were given particular attention by the religious duties, being embellished and hallowed almost like the churches. This feature of Wallachian fountain decoration was also noted by foreigners who passed through Craiova, and likened them to those in Turkey and Eastern countries. The Popova Well was preferred by those who travelled through the city, military or civilians, being considered a
Regarding this well, several repairs and restorations were recorded between the 18th and 20th centuries, of which notable are the restoration made by the family of the landowner Constantin Mihail in 1905 (Nicolaescu et al. 1997) and the one in 1910 when his grandson, Dini Mihai, rebuilt the fountain, discovering during the works two other previous catches, behind the drinking fountain, one worked in oak and another in the wall (Georgescu 1936). In the remnants of the previous capture wall, traces of a rudimentary aqueduct and several Roman bricks were identified (Georgescu 1936). A. Georgescu considered the capture from the wall as the one made by the ancestors of Matei Voda Basarb and the wooden one from the 18th century. Nowadays, the Popova Fountain is a historical monument built of brick, a cubic-shaped construction with a side of approximately 4 m and two sides show the inscriptions-pisans from 1651 to 1652 and 1905 (Fig. 10b). From the preserved descriptions and sketches of the well result that the current shape of the fountain (Fig. 11) preserves the original architectural form and style.
The accessibility towards the Popova Well is now facilitated by the recent road development at the intersection of which the well is situated, but the history and importance of the well are too little known, and therefore poorly promoted.
The VSGh index for Craiova’s oldest fountain, preserved to date, is very high: VSGh = 21:
the Popova Well represents the limit of an intensely transformed area, formed in the past predominately from ponds and marches (RP = 4), the site is well maintained and easily accessible and visible for the visitors (V = 5), having the longest history among the wells of Craiova, the Popova Well has been recorded in many documents, bringing through them numerous pieces of evidence of the transformation that the relief in the area has suffered (GeoHIS = 5), the anthropic part of the site highlights it, increasing its value by preserving the original architectural style (AP = 4), although it is the oldest fountain in Craiova preserved today, the lack of adequate promotion and the lack of inclusion in touristic circuits do not highlight the site as having a special attraction (TAR = 3).
In the urban settlement, the man is the main actor in the landscape transformation, and this is also applied in the case of the three sites analysed in this study. The anthropogenic part of geoheritage highlights two of the sites presented (Obedeanu and Popova fountains), but totally hides the
In the first stage, these geomorphosites were evaluated based on the initial method created by Pica et al. (2014), but accessibility and representativeness, the two attributes of the initial VSG index, as defined here, were not relevant for urban geomorphosites. The method enhanced by Pica et al. (2017) and completed by Zwoliński et al. (2017) can be successfully applied for the analysis of urban geomorphosites. However, it must be adapted in case of invisible geomorphosites since the criteria of visibility and attractiveness are impossible to apply in the same way as for the current geomorphosites. In this regard, Reynard et al. (2017) reiterate some solutions for the interpretation of the invisible urban geomorphological heritage: 3D reconstructions, interpretive images or the reconstructions of ancient landscapes inserted on current urban landscape photographs.
An invisible geomorphosite, such as the
Through this study, we have assessed three urban geoheritage sites from the city of Craiova, Romania; two of them –