Mapping geomorphosites : an analysis of geotourist maps

Within the current research on geomorphosites, the field of mapping is relatively little developed. Studies offering specific mapping methods for geomorphosites are still rare. However, we can observe an important production of maps used for tourism means: “geotourist maps”. This study focuses on such maps. The statistical analysis of fifty or so geotourist maps has allowed us to group them into five categories. This article will discuss the statistical method used (hierarchical cluster analysis) as well as the results obtained. The maps are described according to their graphic components and study of their use illustrates their shortcomings in terms of the transfer of geoscience information. In conclusion, we offer some possibilities for the improvement of geomorphosite mapping for tourist use.


Introduction
Over the last few years, geoscience researchers have been focusing their activities on geological or geomorphological objects of importance for the geosciences: geomorphosites.For some of these researchers (Strasser et al., 1995;Grandgirard, 1997), this importance refers essentially to the scientific characteristics of a site, i.e., geomorphosites are valuable as important witnesses of the history of the Earth, the evolution of the landscape or the climate.Others also invest geomorphosites with additional cultural, aesthetic, economical or ecological values (Panizza & Piacente, 1993, 2003;Reynard, 2004Reynard, , 2005)).
From boosting the value of individual geomorphosites to the creation of geoparks (Frey, 2001), several methods for valorisation have been developed over the last few years: thematic walks, brochures and didactic panels, guided excursions, conferences, and geo-events.Leisure and recreation activities based on geological and geomorphological resources and aiming at interpretations of the latter can also be grouped under the notion of geotourism (Newsome & Dowling, 2006).
Research accompanying the valorisation of these sites has developed methods of evaluation of scientific quality (Grandgirard, 1999;Coratza & Giusti, 2005) and additional values (Reynard et al., 2007) of the geomorphosites.Utilisation values are taken into consideration in the studies of Bruschi & Cendrero (2005), Serrano (2005) and Pereira et al. (2007).Pralong (2005) has developed a more specific method for evaluating the tourist potential of sites.At the same time, mapping methods (Carton et al., 2005) have been elaborated.In the domain of didactics, interpretation techniques have been proposed by several authors (Hose, 2006;Kruhl, 2006;Wölfl, 2006).
In this article, we will focus on the use of the map media in the geotourist field.The role of geomorphosite maps is discussed before presenting the state-of-the-art of research in this field.The analysis of a series of maps forms the heart of this article.By undertaking a Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA), we were able to identify different types of maps.These types will be described according to their graphic characteristics, their content, as well as their field of application.

The role of maps in the geotourism field
Within the domain of geotourism, the map can intervene at two different levels.F or geotourism professionals -managers of a geopark, for example -the map can provide numerous services as a work tool.As a geodatabase, mapping and the detailed description of geomorphosites can be combined and completed with other spatial information (natural hazards, infrastructures and local services or the presence of other points of interest).Targeted requests can then allow a proximity analysis to be undertaken, which can, for instance, illustrate the distances of one or several sites to car parks, hostels, schools, etc. (Wang, 2006), generate thematic maps showing sections exposed to natural hazards (Pelfini et al., 2007) or which sites should be valorised in a specific thematic walkway.As such a database is easily updated it can also be used in the monitoring of sites.
As a communication tool, the map is also an application for the general public.The primary function of a map is often to serve as a n orientation device.In this case, the different itineraries and points of interest are represented.Like a schema or diagram, a map can also be used as a method of visualising geoscientific information.This function is even more important as certain processes which contributed to the formation of a geomorphosite or a geomorphological landscape are no longer or not always clearly visible on the landscape.Thun, an illustration can facilitate understanding of the site and processes.Carton et al. (2005) proposed the terms of maps for specialists and maps for non-specialists to designate these two categories of users as outlined above.

Geomorphosites mapping research -the state-of-the-art
Although thematic maps concerning geomorphosites are elaborated in connection with inventories at different scales, no specific methodology for cartographical representation of geomorphosites is currently available (Bissig, 2007).The important variation observed in this domain, which is not only due to the different objectives of the maps, demonstrates this lack.The absence of a common methodology is explained by the relative infancy of geomorphosite research: these studies are still isolated and are not set within a wider framework (international level).Another explanation is the absence of international standards of geomorphological mapping (Gustavsson et al., 2006) which is often responsible for mapping of geomorphosites.Requirements varying from one project to another favour the variability of the representations.
Inspection of the geotourist maps for non-specialists leads to the same conclusion.As our analysis shows, the variability of maps is important and the only methodology that has been suggested is that developed at the University of Mondena e Reggio Emilia (Castaldini et al., 2005a(Castaldini et al., , 2005b;;Bertacchini et al., 2007).This methodology is based on the adaptation of maps for specialists to a general public.Such adaptation includes two main stages: (1) simplification of the classic map and (2) addition of basic tourist information.We have been unable to find information on the methodology applied for the production of numerous other geotourist maps.
Current studies on geotourist mapping focuse mainly on the optimisation of the visit conditions.We can highlight the suggestions of Carton et al. (2005) to integrate symbols and ideograms on maps indicating observation points (inner or outer observation points) or the best moment to visit a site depending on the light conditions.Other study groups have focused on the security of walkways.A method of evaluation of natural hazards and the vulnerability of visitors was recently proposed by Pelfini et al., 2007.We cannot fail to notice that research questions turn more around "physical" preoccupations, like the protection or security of sites, rather than questions of communication and interpretation of geomorphosites.The exploration of sound mapping techniques, examination of the level of understanding and assimilation of information about the geomorphosites by the general public, are still in its beginnings (Bissig, in press).

Objectives of the study
The study presented here focuses on the analysis of geotourist maps for non-specialists.Having collected numerous examples of maps over the years, we noticed the extreme variability of the maps in terms of both the graphic aspect (methods of representation) as well as the contents (elements represented).It was necessary to establish a typology of maps in order to facilitate an analysis of the function that maps ful-fil.Two questions guided our analysis: How are geomorphosites represented on the maps with a geotourist vocation?What is the importance of scientific and tourist information?

Methods
The analysis is based on a set of maps collected at international conferences on geoparks and geotourism.The sample was further enlarged following a call addressed to the European Geoparks Network (EGN) in autumn, 2006, inviting members to send in maps for this study.At the same time, the members of the Working Group on Geomorphosites of the International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG) were also invited to donate maps.Finally, 51 maps from eight European countries were analysed (table 1).Focusing our study only on the documents that could be brought on a visit, we have not considered any digital or interactive maps.In order to elaborate typology of maps, the hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) method was chosen.This method allows similar individuals to be grouped into homogenous classes basin on a set of defined criteria (Bavaud, 1999).The analysis of the criteria of each class then allows each group to be characterised from one to another.In order to be able to apply this statistical method, a table was generated where each map was broken down into different criteria 1 .These criteria were firstly translated into ordinal or categorial variables, which were then recoded to obtain numerical values.This process can be easily explained with the example of the scale criterion.In this case, there are three possible variables, each of which obtaining a score: small scale = 1, medium scale = 2, large scale = 3. Selection of the seven criteria for the statistical analysis (table 2) was guided by the pertinence of the criteria to mark a significant difference between the maps.The results of the HCA are displayed using a classification tree (or dendrogram), which shows the hierarchy of the groups.The number of groups retained is the result of a compromise allowing both a distinct and clear differentiation of the groups.In this particular case study, five groups were retained, which allows a pertinent typology to be established.
1 The entry table includes information and criteria relating to the following themes: identification of the map, form and format of the map, representation of the geo(morpho)logical contents, information regarding the visit as well as the offer and services of the region.

Results
On the basis of the hierarchical cluster analysis, we have been able to establish a profile illustrating the distinctive characteristics of each group.The description of the common characteristics of each group has enabled us to propose a terminology for each group.This terminology reflects either the objective of the group or the target audience of the group of maps. Figure 2 presents each map type and schematises the principal characteristics of each group.

Type 1: Index map
Maps of the Type 1 are characterised by schematic representation (e.g., relief) and are of small scale.Geomorphosites are marked with punctual symbols indicating their location.This type of representation together with the lack of additional information does not allow the user to appreciate immediately the contents of the site: the scientific information, like the tourist information, is unsubstantial.This type of maps is often found in geopark information brochures and is called an index map.Type 2: Tourist maps In comparison with Type 1, maps of Type 2 provide more tourist information such as picnic areas, car parks, accommodation, etc.For this reason these maps are called tourist maps.Due to the small scale of these often topographical or schematic maps, geomorphosites are always represented by punctual symbols.The scientific information is unsubstantial and the tourist information more or less satisfactory.

Type 3 and 4: Geoscientific maps for amateurs of Earth sciences
The term of Geoscientic map for amateurs of Earth sciences was chosen to designate the maps of small to large scales, which include an important geological and/or geomorphological component.
The distinction between types 3 and 4 is necessary due to the representation of the geomorphosites themselves, represented either as punctual symbols in the first case (Type 3) or by classic mapping symbols in the second case (Type 4).Consequently, the scientific content of the maps is high for both types.The tourist content varies between average (Type 3) and high (Type 4).

Type 5: Interpretive maps
The name "interpretive map" rests on the "interpretative" character of these maps.On one hand, sets of symbols or figurative symbols are projected on a large-scale, schematic background.This allows landscape forms to be shown.On the other hand, this type of maps offers a good mix of explanatory elements concerning the Earth sciences and the tourist information.(Fig. 1.)

Discussion
We were able to note earlier that the degree of complexity of the maps (in terms of scientific information) and the importance of the tourist information are extremely variable between the different types of maps.This changes from the index map, highlighting the location of different sites as the principal information (Type 1), to the geoscience map for amateurs of Earth sciences (types 3 and 4), which provide detailed geological, geomorphological and tourist information.As the diverse geotourist offers are set within a leisure context, the efficiency of the maps should also be considered.According to Lehnes & Glawion (2006), visitors take up only these offers for which they have an impression that the benefits they will gain will be more important than the efforts invested.By applying this principle to the reading of the map, this means that the visitor would like to learn pertinent information without having to deliberate on a map for too long to gain an understanding.
Seen from this point of view, the index maps (Type 1) and the tourist maps (Type 2) are quite poor sources of information.Of course, these maps provide information on the points of interest in the region and, thus, can help in planning of a trip, particularly in selection of sites to be visited for which basic tourist information is available.On the other hand, such maps do not provide any immediate scientific information.This information must be gathered from the texts and photos accompanying the map.
The objective of the geoscience maps for amateurs of Earth sciences (types 3 and 4) clearly aims towards the communication of scientific content.These map provides detailed geological/geomorphological information.Despite a supposed simplification of the original map, the legends are complex (complete stratigraphy and lithology, numerous structural and tectonic elements), hence, a relevant geoscience knowledge is, in our opinion, necessary in order to use effectively this type of maps.We believe that the average user may become discouraged and may prefer to switch directly to the text and illustrations displayed at the margins or on the back of the map.Such maps would then serve more as a source of tourist information on the region.The balance between effort and benefits is not optimal.
In the case of interpretive maps (Type 5), we observed a definite effort of popularization.The territory represented is of a modest size, which allows the landforms to be clearly displayed.The figurative symbols used to designate the particular forms show on what the user needs to focus the attention.In this case the primary information has not only been simplified but also translated into a language easily understandable for non-specialists.The information that may be gained from the map itself (without turning into the accompanying text or illustration) is considerable.The tourist elements are also highlighted with the double aim of providing information on complementary activities and facilitating orientation to a maximum.This results in an easily readable maps.
It is interesting to combine these observations with the repartition of the maps within the five categories (fig 2).The basic maps (types 1 and 2) make up almost half (46%) of studied population.Another important portion (38%) is composed of maps targeted at an audience which is already familiar with the Earth sciences (types 3 and 4).The portion made up by interpretive maps, considered as the most efficient, is quite small (16%).Credits for map backgrounds: 1-3.swisstopo; 4. Lambiel & Reynard, 2003;5. Lambiel et al., 2008 • Źródła: 1-3.swisstopo; 4. Lambiel & Renard, 2003;5. Lambiel et al., 2008 tors, that is, which determine their expectations and also the way they assimilate the information offered to them, are necessary (Pralong, 2006;Reynard & Berrebi, under publication).The results of these studies will help improve the effectiveness of the maps and through this, improve the quality of the tourist offer.

Conclusions
On the contrary to what is practised in the domain of popularization (scientific mediation), where a lot has already been done on textual communication, the principles of vulgarisation still seem to be underdeveloped in regards to graphic information.The production of geotourist maps is undertaken according to unclear principles and appears to be guided more by aesthetic concerns than by didactic concerns.The analysis has shown that the communication potential of maps is currently largely underdeveloped.In order to improve the efficiency of maps, studies to illustrate the needs of visi-

Table . 1
. Origin of the maps studied.

Table 2 .
Entry table for the analysis of the geotourist maps with the coded criteria and variables.
* criteria used for the hierarchical cluster analysis.