A review of geological heritage methodologies, with a bibliography of publications and reports on the methodology of geological heritage in Australia and overseas

E. B. Joyce

Introduction

How can geological features or sites be located, classified and assessed as part of our geological heritage? Methodologies have been developed in several countries, and in several parts of Australia, to carry out this procedure, and are reviewed here.

In the broader context, geological features and sites include palaeontological and stratigraphic features, as well as geomorphological features, the active processes associated with them, and also palaeo-landforms and paleo-processes.

A brief overview

The first approaches in Australia to this problem were made by the South Australian and Queensland subcommittees of the Geological Society of Australia (GSA) working on geological conservation (Table 1). At that time, in the 1970s, they were subcommittees of their respective GSA divisions, and operated quite independently of any central GSA control.

The respective conveners, Maud McBriar in South Australia and Neville Stevens in Queensland, were aware of the work of the Geology and Physiography section of the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) in the United Kingdom, and used it to help develop their ideas (Joyce 1988). Later they both were to visit the UK and study NCC work at first hand.

A Standing Committee of the GSA was established in 1974 to help with the exchange of ideas between the seven subcommittees operating at that time and since – Queensland, NSW, ACT (with NT), Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia (to list the GSA divisions clockwise from the top end of the continent). The history of the Standing Committee has been recently reviewed (Joyce 1994c).

Meetings of the Standing Committee, seminars and papers at GSA conventions, and two workshops sponsored by the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) and held in Canberra in 1982 and 1984, led to an interchange between subcommittees of ideas on how to work in the geological heritage area.

As a result of the two workshops a report on sites of International and National significance in Australia was sponsored by the AHC (Cochrane and Joyce 1986). This summarised the approaches used up to that time by each GSA subcommittee.

Further reviews of Australian work are available in papers from two recent international conferences, the first held at Digne in France in 1991 and the second at Malvern U.K. in 1993 (see for instance McBriar and Hasenohr 1994).

An approach to studying geological heritage has been described by Joyce (1994a) and can be summarised as the IDEM concept_Identification, Documentation, Evaluation and Management. In this present discussion we are dealing essentially with the Documentation of sites or features, leading to an Evaluation or assessment of significance. A common way to carry out this task involves classifying sites by geological or geomorphological type, and a classification scheme has been developed by each GSA subcommittee and also in the national study of Cochrane and Joyce (1986).

The seminal studies by the NCC were an important early influence on GSA work in Australia. The AHC approach to the classification and assessment of natural sites, using a detailed set of Criteria, later exerted its influence on Australian geological work, and this approach is discussed and evaluated in some detail by Ollier in the accompanying appendix 2.

Continuing in historical sequence (Table 1) the World Heritage approach of UNESCO to natural sites has also influenced Australian methodologies, both in its use in recent Australian nominations to the World Heritage List, and its further development as a specific geological approach by the Task Force study in Paris in 1992 (Joyce 1991, Cowie and Wimbledon 1994).

Other methodologies which have been developed as state government studies include the work of the Land Conservation Council (LCC) in Victoria, and consultant projects such as those of Rosengren(1980) in Victoria, including his most recent study on the 'Eruption Points of the Newer Volcanics Province of Victoria' (Rosengren 1994a, b). The approach to a methodology specifically to include geomorphological and soil features, as developed in the Forestry, and Parks and Wildlife agencies, of the Tasmanian government has most recently attracted interest (Dixon 1991; Sharples 1993, Dixon 1995).

Geological heritage work is now flourishing in a number of countries other than the UK and Australia, and details have been reported in the proceedings of the two recent international conferences mentioned earlier (see O'Halloran, Green, Harley, Stanley, and Knill 1994; and Proceedings_1991 published in Memoires de la Societe geologique de France, 1994, n.s. 165.)

Recently the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, successor to the NCC in the UK, has reconsidered the methodology used for its long-standing Geological Conservation Review (Earth Science Branch, 1994), providing further useful new ideas from the organisation which first influenced Australian work.

Most recently of all, the regional assessment process now being developed by the AHC is likely to be a future influence on geological heritage, and is reviewed at some length here. The current development of a Natural Heritage Charter for Australia (Steering Committee 1995) will also require further consideration of the concepts underpinning geological heritage methodologies in Australia.

Discussion

Conserving our geological heritage means we must first be able to identify the features and sites which are worthy of conservation. The normal procedure is to identify possible features or sites, document their attributes, classify them, and assess their significance; the next stage is to work for their conservation, concentrating management effort on the most significant sites or features.

The methodological procedure can be summarized as:

Identification

Documentation

Assessment of significance

Management

or IDAM for short (Joyce 1994a).

In Australia, as in other countries, much time is often spent in the first phase, identification. The usual procedure is to carry out a survey of an area using the published literature and maps, personal contacts and finally, if possible, field work to verify existing documentation and discover further sites. The result is an inventory of sites of possible significance, with more or less complete documentation.

Two different approaches can be noted in Australian work. Some states have prepared a series of reports, each covering a different part of the state, with the eventual aim of achieving a more or less complete state coverage, for example in South Australia. Other states have aimed for an initial overall survey, or inventory, of all sites that can be identified, reporting on these in a necessarily brief form, for example in Victoria (Joyce and King 1980) and the Northern Territory (Fortowski, Crick and Lau 1988); further detailed work then follows, guided by the overall picture provided by the inventory. In either case, concepts and methods may change during the lengthy period over which the full study is carried out, leading to the reassessment of some of the original identifications and evaluations.

The next phase, which must precede active promotion of the final phase of conservation including management, is that of assessment of significance (sometimes called evaluation).

The assessment of geological significance

The concept of significance lies at the centre of any discussion of the evaluation of geological features or sites (Joyce and King 1980). Significance is assessed after the feature or site has been identified as being of possible interest, and documented as fully as possible. The documentation includes a description of the site, including its size, physical type, geological type and age and so on. Some of these aspects are discussed below.

A useful distinction may be made between a site and a feature (Joyce and King 1980 p.154). A site is an area, which may be large or small, but a feature shows an aspect of geology or geomorphology (such as a fossil locality, a type section, a landform or other geological feature) without itself necessarily having a particular extent. For example, a feature may be an unconformity, or the continuing geomorphological process of coastal cliff erosion by waves.

The site may be an outcrop or natural section, a cutting or quarry, a landform, landscape or view point, or fall into some other category.

Twelve types are listed in Cochrane and Joyce (1986) and these were based on earlier listings used in work by the GSA subcommittees, which were in turn based on a scheme used in the U.K. (Geological Curators Group 1976).

The types are:

palaeontological

geomorphic

palaeoenvironmental

igneous

sedimentary

metamorphic

stratigraphic

structural

mineralogical

relationship

economic

other (including historical).

A similar set of types was adopted as part of the procedure to be used in the Working Group meeting in Paris in 1991.

The possible use of a geological feature or site is one of its attributes, and a distinction can be usefully drawn between sites suitable or already used for scientific research or scientific reference, such as type sections or type localities, and those which may be good teaching sites.

Aspects of present or future management of a site which may relate to the assessment of the significance of a site include its size, type, condition (good to poor), whether robust or fragile, or sensitive to change, whether public (government) or privately-owned land, its nearness to population centres and so the likelihood of a high degree of use, its present management, its accessibility for scientific study (and whether its management unduly restricts scientific access including collecting), the availability of alternate sites for teaching or research, and the possibility of danger in using sites such as old mines. Problems of safety can restrict the use of sites by large groups, and may be a major problem in geological education in the future.

Threats to sites may be by degradation, destruction, burial or removal (Joyce and King 1980 p.29). Threats may be noted as part of management problems. A threat to a site does not increase its significance, but may be a factor in deciding to take action for its conservation.

The need to keep sites safe from damage by visitors may require that their exact locality be kept secret, which may then limit access for scientific research. Current procedures used by the AHC and state government organisations for the protection of archaeological sites and aboriginal sacred sites may be helpful here.

However, accessibility for research, including collection of specimens for study and analysis, is a necessity if a site is to retain its significance, otherwise as new techniques of study are developed, they will be applied elsewhere, and the original site will no longer be as relevant. This was recognised at the Working Group meeting in Paris, where continuing accessibility was listed as an important aspect of any site. This can be a particular problem if sites are in national parks or similar reserves, where collecting and removal of material is normally prohibited or restricted.

The location and development of alternative sites to relieve pressures of use, the maintenance of sites such as old quarries, and the preferred use of self-renewing sites such as landsliding coastal cliffs, may all be parts of management planning.

The definition of geological significance

The significance of a geological feature or site lies in its value in research, reference or education at the local, national, international or world level. Significance may be thought of as lying along a scale of values, from highly significant to little or no significance, or as being divisible into two groups, significant and not significant.

The significance of a feature or site is based on its documented description, under headings such as those discussed above. The feature or site may have one or several geological types present, have value for scientific study or education, may be managed or not, and may be accessible or not.

The concept of significance is sometimes spelt out by the use of the term geological monument (Joyce and King 1980, p.156).

'Geological monuments are those features of a region which form the essential basis of geological education, research and reference: the total network of geological monuments incorporates the minimum number of sites to adequately represent the Geology and Geomorphology of the region'

This definition was developed in Australia in 1977, supposedly based on that used by the NCC in the U.K.

This definition suggests that geological conservation is a matter of building up a representative set of sites. However, the term geological monument, often without a formal definition, has been widely used for outstanding or unique features in Australia and elsewhere.

In any assessment of significance, two approaches are used, whether consciously or unconsciously. These can be termed the Representative and the Outstanding approach.

Confusion in assessing significance often arises over the use of the term unique. In one sense each geological feature or site is unique, and the term outstanding is more useful, particularly if coupled with some discussion of how rare the feature may be. A spectrum of importance, from outstanding or striking, to common or ordinary, could be used. For example, in a volcanic field the most outstanding volcano, based on its size, exposure, age, or other aspects, might be given a high significance. At its most outstanding or striking, a feature might be classed as unique.

The concept of representation allows a significance to be attached to one or several features which can best represent a group of similar features e.g. a representative of a group of volcanic cones could be selected. A representative feature need not be outstanding or striking, but need only be typical of the group it is to represent.

A further concept, that of rarity, has been used by several GSA subcommittees, and by the AHC nationally, as part of their assessment work on geological sites (Joyce and King 1980). The degree of rarity may be considered as ranging across a scale from rare to common. At the rare end of the scale we may have a unique site. At the common end we may have a group of features, from which a representative example could be selected.

The level at which a feature or site is given significance may range from local to international or world level. The assessment is based on the importance of the site in terms of similar sites elsewhere, which are known to the person making the assessment. At each increasing level a greater degree of knowledge is needed to make the appropriate comparison, and in general a more exacting process of decision-making is needed.

The level at which a feature is assessed applies to the representative approach, when we are selecting a representative of a group at the local level, or at a regional level, or national level, or international or world level. The representativeness of the selected feature covers a particular set of features e.g. at regional level the group of features found over an area of regional extent.

When an outstanding feature or site is selected, we must again consider whether it is outstanding at a particular level, from local to international.

A review of some techniques of geological heritage assessment

Methods of arriving at an overall significance for a site were originally developed by GSA subcommittees in each state of Australia fairly independently. Methods of assessing significance for Australia nation-wide, from local or regional areas to nationally or internationally, have been developed for the Register of the National Estate by the Australian Heritage Commission, which has built on some of the experience of the GSA subcommittees in its approach to the assessment of geological features.

The methods by which significance is assessed vary with the organisations, and brief descriptions of their procedures follow below.

Each state or territory in Australia has developed its own procedures for assessing significance (Joyce 1988). The work has been carried out by the voluntary subcommittees of the GSA which have been set up in each of the Society's Divisions, which are based in each state and territory.

The first subcommittees to begin work were in South Australia and Queensland, and these began publishing their work in volumes which included brief discussions of the techniques they used in their studies. Other states developed their own techniques in the following years (Cochrane and Joyce 1986).

The assessment methods were in part based on the methods used in the United Kingdom by the Nature Conservancy Council. Each Australian state and territory also looked to some extent at work going on in other parts of Australia, and in two workshops in 1982 and 1984 discussions were held between the states and territories in an attempt to achieve some degree of uniformity (Joyce 1988). However most states and territories have continued to follow their own methods.

Queensland divided their sites into Category A - 'larger, more scenic features' which were done first, and Category B - 'smaller, more scientific or educational features' (Rienks, Willmott and Stephenson 1984 p.1). The aim was to 'identify only those especially unusual, rare or scientifically important, (or 'highlight') features' because of the large area of Queensland (Rienks and others 1984 p.2).

Western Australia has produced a volume which covers most of the state (Carter 1987). Level of significance was divided into four classes. Class I was International Importance, Class II was National Importance, Class III was State Importance and Class IV was Local Importance. Geological Monuments were sites in Classes I, II and sometimes III, and the less significant group called Geological Sites were in Classes III or IV. Other aspects considered in assessment of significance were Information Values - Research, Reference, Education - and Landscape Values (Carter 1987 p.6,7).

Victoria has used a definition of geological monument which incorporates the representative concept (see definition above). Documentation has been carried out using a Keyword Index Sheet. On this sheet a Significance section allowed a feature or site to be assessed as significant for either Representation (Essential or Listed only) or Outstanding Nature (Unique/major importance or Minor importance); a high significance of either type led to the feature being classed as a Geological Monument (Joyce and King 1980 p.25).

South Australia has a definition of geological monument which uses the term outstanding, but in practice sites may also be representative, and it is intended that the geological monuments of the state, when taken together, should adequately represent the geological history and physiography of the region (McBriar and Mooney 1988). All sites which are assessed at a suitable level are thereafter called geological monuments. They are not ranked in any internal order, although the level of significance - local, State, national, international - is indicated.

The approaches used by each Australian state and territory have been summarised in Cochrane and Joyce (1986 pp.3-6). While showing some similarities in their approaches, and often having drawn on early concepts and practices developed in the U.K., each state or territory subcommittee has developed its own approach. In most cases each has operated, fairly successfully, without having available a fully-defined set of criteria for use in assessment. This suggests that a group of geologists, working in an area they know well, can carry out assessment in an ad hoc manner and still achieve useful results.

The most recent statement regarding the assessment of sites and features, and the criteria to be used, is given in the Society's statement 'Policy on Geological Heritage in Australia (Legge and King 1992). This includes the recommended use of the term Significant Geological Feature, and the following definition is given (Legge and King 1992 p.18).

'Significant geological features (SGF) are those features of special scientific or educational value which form the essential basis of geological education, research and reference. These features are considered by the geological community to be worthy of protection and preservation.'

A new term geodiversity has recently been suggested for use when discussing geological heritage activities. The term has been used by Sharples (1993) in Tasmania to cover 'the diversity of earth features and systems' and Dixon (1996) defines it as 'the range or diversity of geological (bedrock), geomorphological (landform) and soil features, assemblages, systems and processes' and refers to discussion in a further paper in preparation by Sharples.

The term appears to have been developed as an attempt to match the widely-used term biodiversity, but may be attempting to draw too strong a parallel between sites, landscape features and processes in biology and geology. In particular, geological and biological processes contrast strongly in their time attributes. Ecosystems with life cycles of tens to hundreds of years do not closely parallel the much longer-term landscape systems, with weathering, erosion and deposition controlled by processes acting over many thousands or millions of years, or internal earth processes such as volcanic activity and plate tectonics where even longer-term cycles are controlled by processes arising from inside the earth.

Even greater perhaps is the contrast between an active ecosystem involving living organisms which may end completely e.g. by the death of the organisms, and then be restarted by the introduction of similar (or different) organisms from elsewhere, with the non-living processes of the landscape or the earth's subsurface, where processes may stop, restart, and change with no parallel to the death or extinction of living organisms.

The possible use of the term geodiversity was suggested by some participants and discussed at the 1993 international conference at Malvern U.K. but failed to receive significant support, and barely rates a mention in the published conference proceedings (O'Halloran, Green, Harley, Stanley, and Knill 1994; see p.516, and no index entry). Only one conference paper mentioned geodiversity, in a discussion of geotopes in Germany (p.117) .

The term has most recently appeared in the draft report Summary of Stage 1 and Interim Charter of the Australia Natural Heritage Charter Project (Steering Committee 1995) prepared for the Australian Committee of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Australian Heritage Commission, Australian Local Government Association, and Environment Institute of Australia. Geodiversity is defined in the report as 'the natural range of Earth features including geological, geomorphological, soil and hydrogeological features, systems and processes of the Earth' (Steering Committee 1995). Discussion in the draft report fails to develop fully concepts of landforms, geomorphological processes, and other geological processes, and their ability to renew features and sites in ways not identical with those of biodiversity.

Comments on the Charter and in particular the use of the term geodiversity are currently being made by the GSA subcommittees and the Standing Committee for Geological Heritage.

The Australian Heritage Commission was set up by the government of Australia in 1975. Among other things the Commission is to compile a Register of the National Estate (RNE). This is to include places of natural, historic and Aboriginal heritage which should be kept for present and future generations.

A set of criteria was devised for use in assessing the suitability of a geological feature or site for nomination to and inclusion in the RNE (Australian Heritage Commission 1983).

These were -

Representative or diverse landforms or features

Rare/outstanding landforms

Fragile areas vulnerable to impacts of human or natural disturbance

Places which contain evidence of geological or geomorphological evolution

In November 1988 the Australian Heritage Commission revised the criteria by which the significance of a site is judged. A set of seven criteria are now in use (Australian Heritage Commission 1989 pp.13,14), four of which can be applied to the assessment of geological sites. These are -

Criterion A: Its importance in the course, or pattern, of Australia's natural ... history (includes processes and landscapes).

Criterion B: Its possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia's natural ... history (includes natural landscapes).

Criterion C: Its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia's natural ... history (includes research sites, teaching sites, type localities, reference or benchmark sites).

Criterion D: Its importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of: (I) A class of Australia's natural ... places; (includes landscapes).

Both the original and current criteria include the concept of rarity and outstanding nature, and of representative nature.

The Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 was amended in January 1991 and incorporated the AHC criteria listed above to give them a legislative status.

A recent listing of AHC criteria (Australian Heritage Commission 1990b) discussed the RNE and provided explanatory notes for each criteria, including scope, inclusion and exclusion guidelines, and actual examples of geological and geomorphological features for each criteria. Some changes to the explanatory notes were recommended at the methodology workshop (Appendix 4).

The work of the AHC is discussed in a report (Australian Heritage Commission 1990a) which includes notes on AHC Natural Environment panels, identification and assessment procedures, assessment methodology, and RNE nomination forms.

Natural environment places which have been nominated to the RNE are often presented to a Natural Environment Panel, set up in each state to consider local submissions. The panel consists of a group of specialists, and may include one or more geologists, geomorphologists, botanists and zoologists, each of whom may have a specialised interest, such as palynology or speleology, together with representatives of the government parks service, universities and college academics, and others with particular expertise relevant to the sites being considered.

The places or sites are often a complex of geological and biological features, and the assessment must consider all of these natural aspects.

The documented sites are presented for discussion, with each panel member contributing their particular specialised knowledge to the discussion. The site's attributes are compared with the AHC's criteria. The importance of being able to justify decisions on the level of significance is constantly kept in mind. Assessment may lead to either a finding of significance or a call for further information to be documented and the nomination resubmitted to the panel.

With this procedure, it is often possible to add information using the panel's expertise, and point to specific further information which is needed. When the significance has been properly assessed, the nomination is passed to the AHC for its consideration.

A major AHC-sponsored methodology study by Davey (1984) on the evaluation of caves and karst in Australia was funded by the National Estate Grant Program in 1975/76. A questionnaire was used to obtain a list of important karst and cave systems and their relative ratings. As a result of a survey of speleologists, the circulation of discussion papers, and discussions at workshops, the report was able to provide discussion on the determination of significance and criteria of significance, and reach conclusions about identifying representative and outstanding examples of caves and karst in Australia.

Once again, similar concepts to those used by the GSA subcommittees appeared, varied by the addition in this study of some emphasis on aesthetics, and the consideration of biological and hydrogeological aspects of caves and karst.

A further report (Davey and White 1986) also discussed the evaluation of significance, and strategies for management and cataloguing of Victorian caves and karst.

AHC typology approach: in 1990 the AHC proposed a typology and type profile approach to the assessment of significance (Australian Heritage Commission 1990c). The report discussed environmental typology, type profiles, and their applications. It gave as an example a river meander type profile. In the typology approach, a detailed set of reference examples is drawn up, and proposed new features are then assessed against the types. The range of types may also be used to investigate the completeness of such lists as the RNE.

This approach was considered in the current methodology study, and at the workshop, but did not receive acceptance because of the great detail which would be required to provide a complete geological and geomorphological typology. It was also apparent that such a scheme would not be used by the GSA subcommittees, which operate in the group consultative manner described elsewhere is this review, and are very aware of the difficulty (if not impossibility) of classifying geological and geomorphological phenomena into the closely-defined categories required by a typology approach.

The accompanying volume by Grimes provides an alternative check-list approach for reviewing the completeness of listing such as the RNE.

A meeting of a Working Group in Paris in February 1991 considered a list of geological sites of possible World Heritage significance from around the world. A set of sixteen Australian sites were tabled for discussion (Joyce 1991). The Australian sites included several areas already on the World Heritage List, and others in process of nomination by Australia. The list tabled had been prepared by an ad hoc group consisting of officers of the Department of Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, which deals with World Heritage matters in Australia, and of the Australian Heritage Commission, which deals with Heritage matters within Australia.

At the Paris meeting, the sites for Australia and the other countries of the world were discussed by a Working Group with representatives from seven countries - Brazil, Canada, Australia, Kenya, China, USSR and the United Kingdom.

Each site was considered, with assistance from World Heritage staff and several observers, in terms of the World Heritage criteria of UNESCO.

Natural Heritage is defined (UNESCO 1988 section D. 35) as

'natural features consisting of physical ... formations or groups of such formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view; ...

natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty.'

To be of 'outstanding universal value' a geological or geomorphological property must meet one or more of the following criteria (UNESCO 1988, Section D. 36) -

(a)

(i) be outstanding examples representing the major stages of the earth's evolutionary history; or

(ii) be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing geological processes ... ; or

(iii) contain superlative natural phenomena, formations or features ... ;

and

(b) also fulfil the following conditions of integrity:

(i) the sites ... should contain all or most of the key elements ... .

(ii) The sites should have sufficient size ... to demonstrate the key aspects of the process ... .

(vi) The sites ... should have adequate long-term ... protection ... and a management plan should be prepared and implemented ... .'

Note that at World Heritage level, significance is be entirely of Outstanding type, and Representation is not regarded as important.

At the Paris meeting some dissatisfaction was expressed with the UNESCO criteria given above, and a small working group prepared a revised set of the criteria relating to geological and geomorphological sites, placing clearer emphasis on ongoing processes, and in particular on landforms (Table 2). UNESCO has recently adopted the suggested revisions almost word for word.

At the Paris meeting the seven Working Group members considered a long list of sites from around the world, and assessed the sites, separating them into three categories of importance. Discussion also took place on the way in which such lists should be compiled and analysed, i.e. the process of identification, documentation and evaluation discussed above.

Several of the Working Group members were palaeontologists. Palaeontologists have often been the first to promote geological conservation, when fossil sites have been threatened. Many of these work at museums, and so museum palaeontologists are generally well-represented in geological conservation.

However, as at the Paris meeting, this can lead to problems in assessing sites. It was possible, using the expertise of the palaeontologists present, to compare and contrast the value of proposed sites of palaeontological significance with others around the world. Those doing the assessment knew how to make the appropriate comparisons. But in a group which was mainly palaeontologists, it is not so easy to reach agreement over, say, geomorphological sites, such as volcanoes, caves and waterfalls.

A full report to UNESCO on the Paris meeting has been prepared by the chairman of the Working Group, Dr John Cowie of Bristol, U.K. and the work is also discussed in Cowie and Wimbledon (1994).

Most recently UNESCO has developed the use of a checklist to evaluate fossil sites submitted to the World Heritage List. This list was developed and applied to the recent nomination by Australia of the fossil sites at Murgon, Riversleigh and Naracoorte (IUCN 1994) and is shown in Table 3.

Other countries which have developed schemes for assessing geological heritage include New Zealand, Germany, France and the U.K. Recent accounts of work by countries beyond Australia are given in the the proceedings of two recent international conferences, at Digne, France in 1991 (Proceedings-1991, published in Memoires de la Societe geologique de France, 1994) and Malvern, UK in 1993 (O'Halloran, Green, Harley, Stanley, and Knill, 1994).

The UK's system has had a continuing influence on Australian systems of assessment and Joyce (1980) provided a review. The current UK procedure is summarised in Nature Conservancy Council (1990).

A simple outline and history of the Nature Conservancy Council and its work is given in Knill (1994). Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are selected as a result of consultation with researchers. A systematic geological program by the NCC commenced in 1964 and was extended to geomorphic sites in 1972. The Geological Conservation Review began in 1977, as a systematic study, by area and stratigraphy, with sites identified by selected research workers acting as consultants to the NCC.

Sites have been selected both as 'outstanding' (exceptionally well displayed) and as part of a network of sites.

A second tier of sites constitutes the Regionally Important Sites (RIGS) in which local organisations and people are involved in site protection and management (Harley 1994). Sites are selected for scientific importance, educational value, historic association or aesthetic character, and a set of geological categories (petrology, stratigraphy, etc.) is also used.

Most recently the Joint Nature Conservation Committee has reconsidered the rationale of the long-standing Geological Conservation Review, and while continuing to identify and conserve a series of SSSI for 'their geology and physiography' has required that each site must be of national or international importance, either in isolation or as part of a network of closely related sites.

Selection is based on the minimum number of sites needed to demonstrate the current understanding of the diversity and range of earth science features. Three key criteria are used - representativeness, the presence of exceptional features (spectacular, rare or remarkable features) and international importance (standard or reference localities such as stratotypes).

Each sites is assessed in one of a total of 103 networks across Great Britain (Earth Science Branch, 1994). The networks are classified into seven main categories:

stratigraphic networks

palaeontological networks

structural and metamorphic geology networks

igneous geology networks

mineralogy networks

Quaternary networks

geomorphology networks.

Two recent books from the UK may be mentioned. Earth Heritage Conservation (Wilson 1994) is a book aimed at amateur and professional geologists who wish to learn about Earth heritage conservation, conservationists whose main background so far has been in biology, and individuals with a general interest in nature (in the UK often referred to as the 'countryside'). The three regional groups (England, Scotland and Wales) which have arisen from the original NCC, and the Geological Society and Open University are the supporters of the book, which apparently will also be used in Open University teaching.

The second book is Geology on your Doorstep: The role of urban geology in earth heritage conservation (Bennett, Doyle, Larwood and Prosser 1996). Aimed at a similar audience, this complementary book is also published by the Geological Society.

Recent Regional Assessment Studies by the AHC and state government conservation and environment departments

The AHC has recently adopted a new approach to the assessment of geological and other features. This was begun in an attempt to provide assessment of the southern forests of WA in 1991 where 'old growth forest' had become the subject of controversy. A 'forest area' approach was developed in WA and then used for two further studies in Victoria–the East Gippsland Joint Forest Project and the Central Highlands Joint Forest Project. These two area were studied in an overlapping time period, and the final reports are still appearing.

As part of this new approach, methodologies were developed and these form the topic for the following section.

Regional Assessment (RA) is defined in the glossary in Australian Heritage Commission (1994a) on p.155 as 'A type of project in which the Australian Heritage Commission works in conjunction with State and local authorities and other groups to identify all national estate values in a designated region.'

The term Comprehensive Regional Assessment (CRA) has been used in a recent National Forest Policy Statement (reported in ERINYES No. 22 November 1994) and a CRA Process is defined as the process used to identify and assess the full suite of forest environment and conservation values in an area. Future CRA projects reported in ERINYES as under negotiation are the Central Highlands of Victoria and the South-East Queensland region.

In these two new approaches by Commonwealth and state governments, RA and CRA, regions have so far been selected for the need to review areas of 'old growth forest' but it would follow that other criteria e.g. semi-arid climate, coastline, rangeland, tablelands, riverine plains, could form the basis for defining areas for future Regional Assessments (RAs) involving the AHC and other interested groups, such as the GSA subcommittees. The deciding factor for defining the boundary of the region to be studied could be land-use, biology, geology, geomorphology or some other criteria. In the studies so far carried out, the region has not been a uniform geological or geomorphological entity. However in some ways it is similar to the broad area approach discussed elsewhere by Ollier (Appendix 2) although he is concerned with an area of uniform geology or geomorphology. As many planning areas today are being reformed into catchment-based regions, with a mixture of rock types, landforms, and active processes, the RA approach may be increasingly needed, and we will investigate how the geological and geomorphological aspects have been carried out in the studies so far completed by the AHC.

The AHC and CALM (WA Department of Conservation and Land Management) jointly carried out this study, the first of its type, in south-west Western Australia. The methodology used is described in Australian Heritage Commission (1992).

The methodology built on previous work by the AHC, and was applied in close consultation with CALM. The objective was to delineate those areas in the Southern Forest Region which should be listed on the Register of the National Estate. Sites were analysed against the Commission's criteria for significance. A flow diagram was used to illustrate the procedure of data collation, determination of distribution of attribute, map location, assessment against relevant National Estate criteria, determination of threshold, identification of areas wholly or partly above the threshold, comparisons, and determination of boundaries for listing on the RNE.

Landform and soils diversity was determined from available maps by Churchward, from other reports, topographic maps at 1:50,000 and Landsat imagery, and areas of significance were outlined. Coastal and non-coastal sub-regions were also defined, and coastal landforms and areas of undisturbed dunefields were outlined. Other aspects related to geology were Wilderness, and Landscape/aesthetic values. Geology as a value was not specifically used in this study.

Due to a lack of systematic information on the general distribution of geomorphological features in the region, it was not possible to carry out a regional assessment on most landform types. However an assessment of granite rock outcrops (monadnocks) was possible, and a specific study was made of Landforms: monadnocks. These occur in both coastal and non-coastal subregions, and are known to support a diversity of flora and fauna taxa, and thus have associated biological value. The threshold of significance was based on the areal extent and character of outcrops, and the type and level of disturbance in the immediately surrounding area. Finally, boundaries for nominations were decided using a series of overlay maps.

It is notable that in this study, the first of its type, geology was not specifically studied.

The Australian Heritage Commission undertook its first joint assessment of National Estate values in the southern forests of Western Australia in 1991. The Central Highlands and East Gippsland projects in Victoria were the second and third projects undertaken, in conjunction with the Victorian Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (CNR). This discussion draws on the Central Highlands study. The draft project report was released in June 1994 (Australian Heritage Commission 1994a) and a method paper covering natural values in August 1994 (Australian Heritage Commission 1994b).

Seven technical workshops were held to discuss the development of methodologies and the proceedings of each workshop published, but none of these discussed geological sites. A large volume prepared to show values and places was not available for examination, but draft GIS maps prepared to show the values identified were available.

The Central Highlands project refined the procedures developed in the earlier WA project and the concurrent East Gippsland project, and amongst the ways in which this new RA process contrasts with earlier work (i.e. the identification, assessment and nomination to the RNE of individual sites or areas such as reserves) are that a RA aims:

to suit the procedure to the biophysical and cultural patterns of the area;

to fully utilise GIS technology;

to involve the community and address their heritage values;

to formalise the involvement of individual experts and professionals.

The first stage of the RA process for the Central Highlands was to identify the natural and cultural heritage values of the area. Then datasets were compiled, thresholds were set for each value to establish those places to be included in the Register, and these values were mapped to form composite maps, and this identify proposed national estate places. Thus in effect and for the first time in such work cultural and natural values were integrated in determining places for the Register.

The emphasis of the project was on the identification and assessment of forest values. The assessment of geological and geomorphological values was essentially by an expert review of the literature, supported by advice from relevant experts. Gary Dunnett of the AHC is acknowledged in the reports for developing the methodology for geology and geomorphology.

'The sites identified by the consultants, together with the ratings, were then reviewed by AHC and CNR staff, the Geological Society of Australia's Geological Heritage sub-committee (Victorian Branch), and by the Department of Energy and Minerals. The aim of this process was to use appropriate expertise to make comment on the assessment methods, the adequacy of the literature review, and the final significance rating for each individual site' (Australian Heritage Commission 1994b, p.11).

'Those sites which were identified as having a high rating against any of the national estate criteria were accepted as above threshold. Any site, however, which contained the type locality for a formation or fossil species was also considered above threshold, irrespective of the rating (Australian Heritage Commission 1994b, p.12).

The sites identified were apparently not fully assessed against AHC criteria, nor were thresholds applied fully, as they were to flora and fauna values. Instead a simple series of steps were devised (Australian Heritage Commission 1994b Table 3.1) which were used by the consultants (Cochrane and Tan 1993; Cecil 1993) in their literature reviews and consultation with experts.

Sub-criterion C.1 of the AHC focuses on places which are used as research, teaching and reference sites, including type localities. In the Central Highlands project several geological research and teaching sites were given high significance ratings (Australian Heritage Commission 1994b p.101-106).

As with the Western Australian project, aspects of the Central Highlands Joint Forest Project related to geological interests were wilderness, and landscape/aesthetic values. Pioneering work on the assessment of aesthetic values was carried out during the Central Highlands study (Australian Heritage Commission 1994a, p.48), and this aspect is listed as one of the avenues for further research (Australian Heritage Commission 1994a, p.70). The review by Ollier (Appendix 2) explores the relationships of geological and geomorphological heritage, and the landscape aesthetic approach.

In contrast to the Western Australian project, geology has received some limited attention in the Central Highlands study, but a proper methodology for RA process use still needs to be developed and tested, and it is a concern that in the section on 'Avenues for Further Research' (Australian Heritage Commission 1994a, p.70) no mention is made of geology or geomorphology sites and values.

The most recent Regional Assessment is that carried out for Cape York, Queensland, in 1993 and 1994 (Abrahams, Mulvaney, Glasco, and Bugg 1995). The RA was a Joint Initiative of the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments, the Australian Heritage Commission, and Environmental Resources Information Network (ERIN).

A report on 'Sites of Geological and Landform Conservation Significance on Cape York Peninsula' dated 1994 is not yet available. However the report by Abrahams, Mulvaney, Glasco, and Bugg (1995) indicates that areas of geological and landform significance have been identified across the Peninsula using various sources, including GSA subcommittee reports, government geological reports, and other resources held by the AHC. Dune fields have received special attention, and karst, mountains, beaches, floodplains and bauxite profiles are also listed. Further details of how the assessment has been carried out are not yet available.

In one of the latest Regional Assessment studies by the Australian Heritage Commission in the Central Highlands of Victoria the methodologies for geology and geomorphology have not been developed as fully as those for flora, fauna and other aspects. The Central Highlands study has relied on brief listings provided by consultants, and in particular the geomorphological consultant's document has been the subject of criticism by the Victorian Subcommittee for Geological Heritage of the GSA for failing to make use of available experts (including consulting the Subcommittee members and examining its files!) and failure to provide a complete and geomorphologically up-to-date listing.

We must conclude that the methodologies for geological and geomorphological aspects of RAs still need much development. A range of approaches suggest themselves, depending on where the next RA is carried e.g. the Flinders Ranges; the Mallee of Victoria, NSW and SA; Kimberley of WA–these are examples of areas with relatively uniform geology or geomorphology which might be studied in an integrated manner (see Ollier Appendix 2).

If future Regional Assessments, as AHC and State government officers are currently suggesting, are not to be confined to forest areas, but will take a broader approach to regional studies, there will be an opportunity to develop an appropriate new methodology. This could follow some of the suggestions made by Ollier (Appendix 2). It may also be able to draw on the detailed checklist approach of Grimes, in the accompanying volume.

Some recent major state government studies

Two main approaches have been developed in state-government sponsored studies.

Rosengren (e.g. 1980) has carried out reviews of geological and geomorphological features of significance for major areas of Victoria for the state government, more or less independently of the GSA subcommittee in Victoria, but discussing his work with the subcommittee, making use of subcommittee files, and also following a similar approach of identification, documentation and assessment.

Tasmanian government workers are also carrying out similar studies, especially of geomorphological features of significance. The concept of significance is used in a study of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area by Dixon (1991) and further develops the ideas presented earlier in Joyce and King (1980) and Cochrane and Joyce (1986). Dixon points to the subjective nature of assessing significance. He notes that large areas containing a set of features may be found to have a greater level of significance than those of the individual features e.g. the glacial features of the World Heritage area.

Sharples (1993) provides a major review of geoconservation for use in Tasmania. He concentrates on a methodology for the identification of significant landforms, as several other Tasmanian workers are now doing. He argues that the Outstanding/Representative approach needs to be supplemented by the use of a criteria 'Vulnerability'. Such vulnerable features are 'special' in that they require specific management practices. This would seem to apply particularly to geomorphology, both as landforms and ongoing processes, in comparison with the more robust features characteristic of many geological sites.

Sharples (1993) also argues for a systems approach, in which landforms are seen as parts of 'community' or system of earth processes, not just as individual features.

Most recently Dixon (1995) has provided a preliminary review of of significant earth features in Tasmania in a report for the Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania and the Australian Heritage Commission. This extends the coverage of geological and geomorphological sites in Tasmania contained in an earlier report by the local GSA subcommittee, and is to be followed by another report discussing site classification and conservation problems.

Discussion of assessment studies

It is clear that most procedures for assessment must make use of a group of selected experts covering ideally the whole field of geology and geomorphology, who make their assessment by comparison with a set of more or less well-defined criteria.

Assessment requires a constant questioning of the documentation of the feature or site, a continuing exploration of the meaning of the criteria to be used, and a reliance on the experience and knowledge of the panel members. In this latter aspect there must be some subjectivity, as a panel with different members might reach different conclusions. It is the range and depth of expertise of the panel members, and the integrity with which, under the direction of their chairperson, they carry out their assessment, which will determine the value of their conclusions.

The young volcanic province of southeastern Australia provides an instructive example of how significance can be assessed. There are nearly 400 volcanoes, including about 40 maar craters. Extensive basaltic lava flows, some containing lava caves, cover a large part of western and central Victoria, and an adjacent part of South Australia (Joyce 1975).

The significance of about twenty-five volcanoes was assessed in an initial inventory (Joyce and King 1980). Included were volcanoes with young, morphologically well-preserved lava flows, including some with lava caves.

The initial assessment was of individual features such as cones, craters, flow features and lava caves. The possibility and indeed the necessity for further management planning to assess the whole of a particular eruption became evident, so that the cone and crater, flows, and any related features such as lava-dammed drainage were then looked at together.

An example is the Mt Napier volcanic complex (Joyce and King 1980 pp.116-120) consisting of a main volcanic centre with several eruption points, a broad area of lava flows forming a shield, several constricted valley flows with one flow having a major set of lava caves, and an unusual group of lava tumuli. Each set of features (cone, flows, caves, tumuli) initially was given its own significance level. The complex as a whole was later given a national significance.

In assessing the significance of features of the province beyond the local or state level, it was necessary to compare them with areas of similar volcanicity found in northern Queensland. In assessing their significance at international or world level, it was necessary for the assessor to have a good understanding of young basaltic lava fields around the world, such as the Auvergne in France, the Eifel in Germany, and areas in the United States of America, Mexico, New Zealand, and also the area of current activity in Hawaii.

It was also possible to distinguish groups of possible higher significance within the province, such as the forty or so maar volcanoes, which in variety, size and exposure rival those of the type area in the Eifel.

Another group that can be distinguished is that of the lava caves, which are found in several localities in the province, and in a variety of geomorphic settings including valley flows, flank flows, within a cone, and as part of an open vent. These caves are widely known in the geological literature, and one of the main theories for lava cave formation has been based on the study of the caves of this province.

A panel trying to assess the whole province, or its parts, would require local detailed knowledge (a field geologist, geological survey staff member, a geology teacher active in the area), and a knowledge of comparable areas elsewhere (perhaps a geomorphologist, especially if also a physical volcanologist). It would also help to commission a special study, and this has now been done in Victoria under the sponsorship of the Geological Society of Australia and the Victorian Branch of the National Trust of Australia, with funding from the government and a discussion of the methodology used is given in Rosengren (1994a). At the final stage a panel was used to check the assessment of significance carried out by the consultant, justifying significance levels in the broader context of the whole of Victoria, Australia or the world.

In this example it is possible to see how the process of identifying, documenting, and assessing individual features or sites, such as a scoria cone or lava cave, has been followed by the grouping of features, such as the Mt Napier complex, and then by the need to perhaps assess the whole volcanic province, or at least substantial sub-sets such as all lava caves, or all maar craters, at the international level.

The way the evaluation of significance is carried out depends on the composition of the panel of decision-makers, and on the directions given to the panel members by the chairperson, who is guided by a set of criteria, and who keeps in mind the possible need to justify decisions at a later time.

The ideal panel would include the following geological specialists, who should be familiar with the current and historical literature, have studied their speciality in the field over as wide an area of the world as possible, and also be in regular contact with professional colleagues around the world:

a stratigrapher

a palaeontologist

a geomorphologist (surficial geologist);

and where possible:

a local field geologist

a government geological survey geologist

a company (industry) geologist,

and perhaps:

a geology teacher (secondary or tertiary level)

a historian of geology

a geologist working in planning or management, for example in the parks service

a soil scientist

other geological specialists appropriate for the area concerned.

The chairperson needs to be the panel member with the broadest possible view of the science of geology, and preferably a field geologist, with a good knowledge of the region in which the site or feature under consideration is found, whose aim is to see that every relevant aspect of geology is considered when assessing the site or feature.

The chairperson must also direct the panel, reminding them and if necessary interpreting for them the criteria under which they are working. The chairperson should be aware of the need to reach agreement as a panel, but with each member able to defend their part in the decision making if called upon later to do so.

The criteria to be used should be as clear and unambiguous as possible. This normally means that the panel members begin work with an initial set of criteria, and then provide suggestions for revision of the criteria as they find there are problems applying them. In 1991 the criteria for World Heritage Listing were found difficult to apply to geological features and sites during the Paris Working Group meeting earlier this year, and part of the Working Group's report successfully recommended revisions to the criteria for use in future geological evaluations at World Heritage level.

The final assessment will ideally be reached by a process of consensus amongst the various geology specialists on the panel, rather than by any voting procedure, or any procedure based on, for example, building up an agreed points score. The procedure cannot be rigid in its overall approach, and the final decision must be in part subjective, and to some extent based on the panel members experience in previous assessment of significance. It must also be the agreed decision of the whole panel, but with each person able to feel that they can defend the decision if called upon to do so.

This may not appear to be a rigorous and exact way of assessing geological significance, but in my personal experience it is a workable and realistic procedure. It can be explained to those who want the assessment made. It can be justified to those who query its decisions. It is capable, if necessary, of being repeated more or less closely by another, similar group of geologists.

Conclusions

Geological features and sites must be assessed to determine their significance in terms of geological type, uniqueness or representativeness, scientific, or educational value, management, and accessibility. They can be classed as important at local, regional, national, or international (world) level.

Techniques of assessment have been developed in the various states of Australia, and for Australia as a whole by the Australian Heritage Commission, as well as in several overseas countries, and internationally by UNESCO.

Assessment of significance must be in part subjective, but a working procedure carried out by an expert group will provide an assessment which can be justified and defended.

The best method for assessing geological significance is to use a group of experienced geologists, who make their decisions as a group, using a well-defined set of criteria, and in the knowledge that they may later need to justify their assessment.

Such groups have worked in Australia for the GSA subcommittees at state level, and for Australia as a whole in the Natural Environment Panels set up by the AHC to consider nominations to the RNE. The UNESCO World Heritage Working Group Task Force on a Global Inventory of Geological and Fossil Sites which met in February 1991 in Paris was a similar group.

The major problems in an assessment procedure are assembling a group which is broad enough in its interests and experience in the geological field, and providing it with a suitably-defined set of criteria with which to work.

The development and use of a simple form, with well-defined lists of choices, with provision for free-form written descriptions and statements of significance, assisted by the use of checklists to help in making appropriate choices and preparing complete written statements incorporating suitable keywords, is the aim of the methodology study associated with this review.

Table 1: Some organisations developing geological heritage methodologies

Methodologies for locating, classifying and assessing geological heritage features have been developing over the past 50 years, and some details of the organisations involved are listed below in approximate historical order.

1. U.K.

Nature Conservancy (later Nature Conservancy Council) began in 1949.

Geological Curators Group of the GSA London (Geological Curators Group 1976)

Geological Conservation Review began in 1977

Strategy published (NCC 1990)

Recent work of Joint Nature Conservation Committee (Earth Science Branch, 1994)

2. GSA subcommittees

Earliest work by South Australia and Queensland with AHC-sponsored reports in the 1970s

Other states especially Victoria in the 1980s

3. Australian Heritage Commission founded in 1975

4. World Heritage List-UNESCO

incl. Australian submissions to the World List

5. AHC-sponsored report on caves and karst by consultant Davey (1984)

6. GSA Standing Committee for Geological Heritage

AHC-sponsored report by Cochrane and Joyce (1986)

7. Studies commissioned by the Victorian state government

Land Conservation Council, 1970s and 1980s.

Reports by Rosengren and associates on Gippsland, Portland, Otway, Westernport, Port Phillip Bay, Alps, Western Region of Melbourne and other areas, late 1970s and 1980s.

8. UNESCO World Heritage Task Force on Geological Sites, Paris 1991

Joyce (1991), Cowie and Wimbledon (1994)

9. Work in other countries

As reported to international conferences held at Digne in 1991 and Malvern in 1993
(see conference volumes: O'Halloran, D., Green, C., Harley, M., Stanley, M. and Knill, J. (eds), 1994; Proceedings–1991 in Memoires de la Societe geologique de France, 1994, n.s. 165.)

10. AHC Regional Assessment studies

WA, Victoria and Queensland 1991-1994

11. Tasmania government departments
Tasmania Forestry, Parks and Wildlife
Sharples (1993), Dixon (1995)

12. National Estate grant to the National Trust (Victoria) and GSA Victorian Division
Study of volcanic features of Victoria by Rosengren (1994)

13. Australian Natural Charter Project
Steering Committee (1995)

Table 2:

Revision of World Heritage Criteria

From a note prepared by E.B. Joyce in 1991

During the UNESCO World Heritage Working Group Task Force on a Global Inventory of Geological and Fossil Sites in Paris in February 1991 a small working group chaired by Bernie Joyce met to consider the current criteria used by the World Heritage Convention, which are given in paragraph 36 in 'Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention'.

It was agreed by the members that the criteria should clearly indicate the three aspects of:

• geology

• geomorphology - processes (ongoing)

• geomorphology - landforms

This can be achieved by adding a note to criteria (i), by separating out the geological/geomorphic aspects of criteria (ii), leaving the other aspects to be presented separately, and by similarly separating out the relevant aspects of criteria (iii).

The recommended new criteria are given below -

(a) (i) be outstanding examples representing the major stages of the earth's history, including the record of life (i.e. geology, as usually understood); or

(ii) be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing geological processes; this focuses upon ongoing processes in the development of landforms (i.e. geomorphic/physiographic processes, such as volcanic eruption, erosion, sedimentation, etc.); or

(iii) be outstanding examples representing significant geomorphic/physiographic features (i.e. landforms such as volcanoes, fault scarps, inselbergs, etc.).

Note:
These revised criteria have now been adopted by UNESCO in almost the form given above.

Table 3:

Fossil Sites: Evaluation Checklist

(IUCN 1994 p.5)