Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010, 295-319 GEOMORPHOSITE ASSESSMENT VREDNOTENJE GEOMORFOLOŠKE DEDIŠČINE Bojan Erhartic Pericnik in winter Pericnik v zimski podobi Geomorphosite assessment DOI: 10.3986/AGS50206 UDC: 911.2:551.4(497.4) COBISS: 1.01 ABSTRACT: Geomorphosites comprise natural features and processes, which can carry a certain value, whether that be scientific, aesthetic, historical, cultural, social, economic or other. With the intention of reducing the subjective impacts and enabling a mutual comparison, several assessment methods burst onto the scene. The article mentions four procedures of geomorphosite assessment on the basis of Slovene methodology. Which assessment method seems most adequate, depends on the research aims. For the needs of nature protection, greater emphasis should be put on scientific and management aspects, with additional emphasis on the social component or the cultural value to guarantee a more comprehensive study. KEY WORDS: geomorphology, geomorphosite, assessment, comparison of assessment methods, waterfall, Slovenia The article was submitted for publication on August 27, 2010. ADDRESS: Bojan Erhartic Anton Melik Geographical Institute Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: bojaner@zrc-sazu.si Contents 1 Introduction 2 Geomorphosites 3 Assessment 3.1 Methods 4 Assessment methods 4.1 Swiss method 4.2 Portuguese method 4.3 Method for assessing tourist potential 4.4 Spanish method 4.5 Slovene method 5 Comparison of assessment methods 6 Conclusion 7 References 297 297 297 300 301 301 302 302 304 304 305 308 309 1 Introduction Natural heritage represents that part of nature, »which the society of a particular place and time accepts as a value« (Inventar ... 1988). The Nature Conservation Act from 1999 annulated the term natural heritage and introduced a new one, namely the term »valuable natural feature«. The aforementioned Act defines »valuable natural features as all natural heritage in the Republic of Slovenia« (Zakon ... 2004), which includes alongside »rare, valuable or renowned natural features also other valuable features, elements of biotic or abiotic nature, natural areas or their parts, ecosystems, landscapes or designed landscapes« (Zakon ... 2004). Abroad, geomorphological heritage is defined by the term »geomorphosite«, which is defined by Panizza (2001) as »a landform to which a value can be attributed«. Although such terms are constantly changing, the parts of nature they relate to stay the same. What is of essential importance is that they contain special valuable features (Berginc 2007). Within abiotic heritage researchers first studied mainly the scientific value of landforms and features (Reynard et al. 2007), and later on also the cultural, ecological, economic and aesthetic aspects of assessing abiotic nature (Panizza and Piacente 1993). With the purpose of reducing the subjective impacts and of enabling a comparison of geomorphosites in various parts of the world, several quantitative methods for geomorphosite assessment came to life (Panizza 2003; Reynard et al. 2007; Pereira et al. 2007; Coratza and Giusti 2005; Serrano and Gonzales-Trueba 2005). 2 Geomorphosites As the criteria which determine the value of natural form are based on different characteristics, valuable natural features are categorized into different types (Uredba ... 2002): • geomorphological valuable natural feature; • subsurface geomorphological valuable natural feature; • geological valuable natural feature; • hydrological valuable natural feature; • zoological valuable natural feature; • ecosystem value; • dendrological valuable natural feature; • designed landscape and • landscape value. The decree defines minerals and fossils as two separate types. Seeing that we often have to deal with a mixture of different types, especially when it comes to abiotic valuable natural features, this article joins the geomorphological valuable natural feature with hydrological valuable natural features and defines them together as a geomorphosite or a geomorpho-logical valuable natural feature. The legislation defines these valuable natural features rather loosely as, from the point of view of the Earth's surface, extraordinary, typical, complexly bound, preserved, scarce, scientifically or historically important element of nature, which »can in nature be found mostly as a karstic surface form, a glacial relief form, a fluvial-denudational form, a polygenetic relief form, a coastal relief form, a river, a stream, a lake, a sea, a part of the river, stream, lake or sea, as a glacier, as a spring or as a waterfall« (Uredba ... 2002). 3 Assessment Protection Act of Cultural Monuments and Natural Sites from 1958 dealt with all protected objects in the same way, regardless of their real value or importance. If two features are similar in the geomorphological sense - regarding their form, appearance and processes with which they were formed, they can nevertheless be significantly different in their importance (importance of heritage) and content. In our case, we could say that the waterfall of the Prsljak stream cannot be equal to the waterfall Savica, especially from the cultural and historical point of view, although they are both, according to our classification, placed in the category of valuable natural features. For this reason, in the 1960s natural values were divided into three classes according to their value or importance, namely national or international importance, state importance and local importance. In Slovenia valuable natural features are divided according to their importance into two groups (local and national). The criteria for such classification differ depending on the category of the natural monument in question, as they are in direct correlation with the characteristic of a particular natural monument and the reason for its protection (Peterlin and Sedej 1965). One of the first attempts at the assessment of natural heritage in Slovenia focused on the river Soča and the project of constructing the hydroelectric power plant Kobarid (Peterlin and Sedej 1965; Orožen Adamič 1970). While Peterlin and Sedej based their assessment on descriptions, Orožen Adamič used a simple method, still popular today, which can be used to numerically show the »value« and especially reduce the subjective impacts on the assessment of nature. With this a list of factors, which could be assessed with a specific unit of measure, was formed. The next attempt at assessment was made by the Catalogue of the Most Important Natural Heritage of Slovenia (Inventar ... 1976; 1988; 1991). The following values were defined: • scientific value; • rareness; • representativeness; • cultural-educational value; • ecological value; • landscape value; • recreational value; • endangerment. As the inventory was supplemented, the scientific and recreational values as well as endangerment were dismissed, but the complexity of features was added (Inventar ... 1988; 1991). Even though the values are systematically categorized and precisely defined, assessment is conducted only in descriptive terms, which does not allow comparison among individual (similar) objects. Planjšek et al. (2002) descriptively Figure 2: Waterfalls in Slovenia based on the Register of valuable natural features. p assessed quarries, sites of Miocene sediments, and Vidmar (2008) the cliff in Strunjan on the Slovenian coast. Seeing that geomorphosites in particular display the vast diversity of natural features, more detailed assessment criteria are needed. They must be defined precisely, with a special focus on each individual type. While, for example, with the dendrological valuable natural features the main criterion might be the dimension of the object (Šmid Hribar 2008), the main criteria for geomorphosites could be morphology or aesthetic value. Especially the latter is completely excluded from the Nature Conservation Act (Zakon.. .2004), as it is considered subjective and therefore depends on the individual's perspective. 3.1 Methods The article deals with the comparison of four different foreign methods, the intention of which is to reduce the subjectivity factor and finally compare these methods with Slovene assessment criteria. The methods were »tested« with the assessment of same type features, on the sample of 15 Slovene waterfalls. The sample comprised the following waterfalls: Boka, Čedca, Veliki Kozjak, cascades on the river Krka near Žužemberk, Lahomniški sopot, Nemiljski šum, Nežica, Palenk, the fourth waterfall in Pekel pri Borovnici, Spodnji Peričnik, Pršjak, Savica, Veliki Šumik, Veli Vir and Šum in Blejski Vintgar. Studied cases were chosen systematically, as we tried to choose samples from all over Slovenia and also include some well-known waterfalls with an important cultural and economic component. The analysis captured also less known or even completely unknown waterfalls, which makes the selection, although it includes features of the same type, as broad as possible. We based our assessment on our knowledge of the topic (Erhartič and Jelenko 2010), and on field work as well as on literature (Ramovš 1983; Kušlan 2008). The comparison includes only the central, quantitative part of each method regarding the proposed evaluation criteria. Introductory parts (general data), as for example the coordinates of the cartographic and archival materials, altitude, etc, were left out of our analysis. Since introductory parts are intended for the broader selection of heritage, and are therefore already at our disposal, we based our research on Figure 3: Kozjak waterfall is known for its attractive location. the Catalogue of the Most Important Natural Heritage of Slovenia. The rest of the selection was based on our knowledge of the topic, which enabled the inclusion of the broadest spectrum of waterfalls into the assessment analysis. In order to make a direct comparison possible, we put values assigned by each method on a scale according to their ranking as proposed by the simplest method, namely the Swiss method. Each assessment value has 5 levels, extending from 0 (no value) to 1 (high value). 4 Assessment methods The compared methods are based on different criteria. All methods include the values of rareness, representativeness and the integrity of a feature. Other values, as for example ecological, scientific, educational and cultural values, differ among methods and depend on the aims of the research (Reynard et al. 2007). At first methods for the assessment of geomorphosites were rooted primarily in scientific values (Rivas et al. 1997; Bruschi and Cendrero 2005; Coratza and Giusti 2005; Serrano and Gonzales-Trueba 2005), since they served merely as the basis for making inventories of geomorphosites and determining the impact on the environment (Reynard et al. 2007). With the development of science and the acknowledgment of the importance of abiotic nature, as well as with an increase in public awareness, and the re-evaluation of tourism, the demand for the so-called geotourism grew (Zorn et al. 2010). Geotourism is based on geological and geomorphological heritage, the understanding of it, its research and acknowledgement. Therefore a precise analysis of geomorphosites demands an integrated method, which should include not only aspects of natural sciences but also of sociological sciences and management. 4.1 Swiss method The Swiss method (Reynard et al. 2007) was introduced by the Institute of Geography at the University of Lausanne, and is the simplest among the methods under consideration, because it is intended for students and researchers as well as for experts from the field of natural sciences. The method comprises central scientific values and combines them with additional values. The central element (central scientific values) is based on the rareness of a feature, representativeness, integrity and on the palaeogeographic value (Table 1). The last value has been added in order to emphasize the correlation between the feature or the landform with the Earth and its climate in recent periods. Table 1: Quantitative criteria of the Swiss method. scientific value rareness representativeness integrity palaeogeographic value ecological value ecological impact protected sites aesthetic value view points contrast, vertical development cultural value religious importance historical importance artistic and literary importance geo-historical importance economic value qualitative quantitative Additional assessment criteria refer to the ecological, aesthetic, cultural and economic values of features and landforms. Due to explicit multi-disciplinarity of some criteria, this part of the assessment is based on more simplified criteria. Their intention is merely to shed some light on the possible correlation between geomorphology and other aspects of nature and society. The ecological value also includes current protected areas. The most subjective aesthetic value comprises two elements, namely the object's visibility and the perception of the landscape, with a greater value attributed to more active locations. Cultural assessment values consist of 4 elements: religious, historical, artistic-literary and »geo-historical« importance (the role of a certain object in the development of the science about the Earth). According to the Swiss method, the economic value comprises only the actual income due to the presence of the discussed object of heritage. The global value, which comprises central and additional assessment values, is defined in a descriptive manner. The global value is followed by the educational value, which is also defined descriptively, seeing that the object has a high educational value regardless of the fact if it is clearly visible or if it has been changed or removed by various processes. 4.2 Portuguese method The Portuguese method (Pereira et al. 2007), formed at the Earth Sciences Center at the University of Minho and used in the case of the Montesinho Natural park, is more complex. The assessment is carried out in two steps. The first, the descriptive part (inventory), is intended for the selection of objects which will be part of the analysis. The quantitative part enables the comparison among objects and consists of two parts, namely the assessment and the ranking (Table 2). The two primary assessment values are the so-called geomorphological and management values, while the two secondary values within the geomorphologi-cal are, similar to the Swiss method, the scientific and added values. The latter comprises cultural, aesthetic and ecological values. Management values comprise use value (accessibility and visibility of the object or feature) and the protection value (level of deterioration and expected damage). Table 2: Quantitative criteria of the Portuguese method. geomorphological value scientific value rarity integrity / intactness representativeness diversity additional value cultural aesthetic ecological management value use value accessibility visibility protection value level of deterioration expected damage Individual values are indexed differently, with the sum adding up to the total value of the geomorphosite. The last step of this method also adds up the rankings of an object according to the value reached in each specific category of values. The advantage of adding up results of such rankings is that the heritage which has a high value according to all other values will stand out within the final ranking. Authors say that the main advantage of this method lies in the complete separation of the descriptive and the numerical assessment, which offers the possibility of assessing geomorphological forms only quantitatively. 4.3 Method for assessing tourist potential The method for assessing the tourist potential (Pralong 2005) of geomorphological landforms and processes was developed at the Institute of Geography at the University of Lausanne. This method proposes values for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the objects of heritage. Pralong maintains that all tourist goods, services and infrastructure result from the scientific, aesthetic, cultural and historical as well as socio-economic values of relief landforms or processes. With the use of the aforementioned values and their adequate indexing we are able to determine the (tourist) potential of the geomorphosite and the possibilities of its use. The method comprises two steps, namely the measuring of the tourist value and the exploitation value of the heritage. The tourist value comprises (in equal shares) the aesthetic, scientific, cultural and historical and the socio-economic values, which are precisely defined (Table 3). The criteria for determining the Table 3: Quantitative criteria of the assessment method of tourist potential. tourist value scenic /aesthetic value number of viewpoints average distance to viewpoints surface (size) elevation colour contrast with site surroundings scientific value palaeogeographic interest representativeness surface area (percentage) integrity ecological value cultural / historical value cultural and historical customs iconographic representations historical and archeological relevance religious and metaphysical relevance art and cultural happenings social / economic value accessibility natural risks annual number of visitors in the region official level of protection attractiveness exploitation value degree of exploitation surface areas in use infrastructure seasonal occupancy daily occupancy modality of exploitation use of scenic values use of scientific values use of cultural values use of economic values Table 4: Quantitative criteria of the Spanish method. scientific or intrinsic value genesis morphology dynamics inherited processes current processes chronology lithology geologic structures aesthetic value cultural value association with the elements of heritage value cultural content historical content educational value educational resources scientific value scientific relevance scientific representativeness tourist value actual tourist contents potential for tourist attraction use and management value accessibility vulnerability sensitivity intensity of use risk of degradation state of conservation impacts quality of view limits of acceptable change exploitation value of the heritage site are based on the level and the modality of the use. The latter enables the definition of the exploitation intensity from the spatial and temporal aspect as well as the determination of its potential. 4.4 Spanish method The methodology developed at the Department of Geography at the University of Valladolid comprises three categories (Serrano and Gonzales-Trueba 2005), which are based on the use of the geomorphological map, which serves as the basis for the inventory of geomorphosites. The inventory of relief landforms and processes is followed by the analysis of geomorphosites with the assessment of the intrinsic value of each element, alongside the added (cultural) value as well as the use value and the management value of the landform. Here, the scientific or the intrinsic value differs the most from all other values, as it based solely on geomorphological criteria: genesis, morphology, age, bedrock, etc. Cultural or added value comprises aesthetic, cultural, educational, scientific and tourist assessment values (Table 4). The third part comprises the use and the management values such as accessibility, vulnerability, intensity of use, etc. The method used in the case of the Picos de Europa national park differs a lot from other methods, which makes it harder to compare them. 4.5 Slovene method The new legislation (Zakon ... 2004) assesses the value of nature and its elements in a descriptive manner, very subjectively, and leaves it in the hands of individuals. The assessment criteria (of potential natural values) are the following: exceptionality, representativeness, complex interconnectedness, preservation, rareness, importance of ecosystems, scientific research importance and historical importance. The aforementioned Act does not name exact directives, as only approximate descriptions are given by the Catalogue of the Most Important Natural Heritage of Slovenia (Inventar ... 1991). Table 5: Assessment criteria of the Slovene method. Short description Exceptionality We assess exceptionality within the typological group according to the frequency of appearance, dimensions and other characteristics. Usually the comparison is made within Slovenia, sometimes even wider. We distinguish the absolute and the relative rarity of a feature, exceptional dimensions and extraordinary or unique landforms. Representativeness The criterion for representativeness is used for all objects or areas of natural heritage on the basis of which literature offers descriptions of specific natural features, landforms, processes, or for those objects and areas which are characteristic of or are evidently formed representatives of a specific type of natural features. Complexity Objects or areas of geomorphological heritage frequently intertwine and together form a new value. This can happen due to a peculiar combination of values within an area or due to the merging of objects into bigger, connected units. The value of such complex areas is bigger than the sum of all individual values, and one individual object as part of a bigger unit is assessed on a higher level. Ecological aspect Assessment on the basis of the ecological aspect takes into account ecosystems with higher levels of protection, ecosystems with greater diversity of habitats or species (stable ecosystems), as well as ecosystems that are rare. Cultural aspect The cultural aspect is the most subjective one, as it defines our relationship towards our heritage. It is based on the following criteria: expressiveness, symbolic value, diversity and the landscape aspect (the aesthetic relationship of natural heritage towards the surrounding environment). Exploitation aspect The exploitation aspect (scientific and educational aspects) was used regarding the protection of the heritage and not for its assessment. The assumption was made that all objects which match at least one of the aforementioned criteria are important for scientific study. The suggestion of intended use - what is acceptable from perspective of natural heritage conservation - derives from the evaluation of the conservation aspect and the accompanied exploitation or function. This intended use can partly or fully match other exploitations of space, or it can exclude them. 5 Comparison of assessment methods For the purpose of easier comparison we used somewhat simplified methods in order to assess 15 similar geomorphologicaf and hydrological features. Although we are dealing with the same features in all these cases, waterfalls differ one from another, not only in their height and the quantity of water, but also according to some variables, as shown by the results of the analysis. The most significant and fascinating results are given in Table 6. Although the Catalogue of the Most Important Natural Heritage of Slovenia (Inventar... 1976, 1988, 1991) does not foresee quantitative assessments, we nevertheless tried to numerically assess the chosen waterfalls with Slovene assessment indexes in order to achieve a direct comparison. At the centre of each assessment method, regardless of its aim, lie scientific values. Their relevance is slightly lesser in the methodology whose aim is the assessment of the tourist potential of a geomorphosite. As regards the Slovene method, the scientific relevance has been based on the categories of exceptionality, representativeness and complex connections of features. All methods yield similar results, although some criteria are pretty loose and open to subjective estimates. The biggest scientific-research values carry the following waterfalls: Kozjak, Pericnik, Boka and Cedca, and the lowest Palenk and Lahomniski sopot. Regarding the values themselves, the Spanish methodology somewhat stands out from the rest, as its assessment values differ distinctly from other methodologies. The additional value of landforms is explicitly shown by the Swiss and the Portuguese methods, while the Spanish method exposes added value and equates it with the cultural value. Results differ relatively a lot due to the fact, that the analysis included different numbers of variables. Therefore we should not look at the absolute value of variables, but should merely be interested in the rankings of a particular waterfall according to a specific method. The Swiss and the Portuguese methods are comparable, although the first also includes the economic value among additional values, while the latter does not. Both methods give the highest additional value to the waterfall Savica, particularly on the basis of its cultural value and the epic Krst pri Savici by France Preseren. The majority of Slovene waterfalls have a relatively low additional and added value. An increased cultural value is also perceived in the Krka cascades (due to the proximity Figure 4: Cedca is no longer the highest waterfall in Slovenia but it has a great scientific value due to its active geomorphic processes. ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo -OOOOOO - •ooo ooooooooooooooo •oooooo- •oooo- ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo CD CD CO C CD CD ooooooooooooooo •oooooo- ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooo- •ooo ooooooooooooooo •oooooo- ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo •oooooo- •oooo- ooooooooooooooo Figure 5: Sumik is the highest Slovene waterfall on non-carbonated bedrock. of the Žužemberk castle), Kozjak (due to the remains from the First World War) and Šumik (due to the remains of »drča« (water timber slides for taking wood down into the valley) from the Pohorje area). Even if we employ the quantitative analysis, the subjective element cannot be discarded, since the determination of values to individual relief forms depends on the opinion of each individual assessor and his or her perception of a particular area. This is clearly mirrored by the results obtained while assessing the aesthetic values, which have been perfected the least. Among all of the methods, the method for assessing tourist potential stands out the most, as it is most sophisticated, since it includes the aspect of the size of the area from which a certain feature (landform) can be seen, the number of viewpoints, the distance between them, relative altitude of the landform (waterfall), which also makes this method the most diverse and most exact. Since other methods result in the same values due to the subjective aspect of their nature, we focus mainly on the method for assessing tourist potential, which gives the highest value to Boka, followed by the fourth waterfall in Pekel pri Borovnici, then Peričnik and Vintgarski šum. Surprisingly low in this ranking are Kozjak and Savica, as a result of taking into account also the number of viewpoints over the waterfall and the distance between them. Both waterfalls are located in the gorge and therefore have only one viewpoint, which contributed to their lower aesthetic value. For this reason we could say that the quantification of values does not necessarily offer a universal solution to a more integrated assessment of geomorphosites or other heritage. The Swiss method and the method for assessing tourist potential put greater emphasis on the economic value, while in the Spanish and the Portuguese methods the economic value is regarded as part of the use value. The use value as defined by the Portuguese method can to some extent be compared to the economic value of the Swiss method, although the latter is more restrictive because points are given only to those objects which actually bring in some income. In our case, such waterfalls are only two, namely Savica and partly Šum v Vintgarju. Although procedures differ quite a lot and result in different values, we can nevertheless conclude that alongside Savica and Vintgarski šum, the higher economic value, according to the method for assessing tourist potential, can also be found with Krka, Boka and Peričnik. The Swiss method, which does not explicitly include the use value of a geomorphosite, is intended mainly to raise public awareness and to determine the scientific and added values of geomorphosites, while other methods also focus on the management aspect - the exploitation of the object. Particularly the method for assessing tourist potential, as is clear from the name itself, focuses on the possibilities of exploitation for the purposes of tourism. The waterfalls Pericnik, Boka, Savica, áum v Vintgarju and cascades on the river Krka have the highest use value, since they are all easily accessible and at least moderately endowed with basic and tourism infrastructure. Among the analyzed methods the calculation of the total value of a particular feature is foreseen only by the Portuguese method. In our research we did not calculate this value. The Swiss method does not add up all assessment values, which guarantees a more transparent procedure (Reynard et al. 2007). In agreement with such a protocol is also Skoberne (2010), who thinks that these groups of values are incomparable, as they shed light on natural features from several completely different perspectives (for example the frequency of a feature, morphological changes, the ecological aspect, complexity, perception, relationship towards the surroundings, expressiveness). Therefore some values included in the Swiss method (educational value, endangerment, use) are excluded from the quantitative sample and are given only descriptively, which does not allow comparison with similar geomorphological forms or processes. The Portuguese method also foresees the adding up of all the rankings of an object according to the value reached in each specific category of the criteria. From the calculated sums we can conclude which objects are more important, but as this does not enable comparisons among methods, we did not make a ranking list of all researched objects. Pereira et al. (2007) state that they did not include the dimensions and the age of landforms in their analysis, because they do not affect the assessment in a greater manner. From the scientific perspective we can agree with this statement, but from the perspective of space perception we do not. Our opinion is that dimensions, such as altitude and the amount of water (in some cases the rate of water discharge), especially with waterfalls, should be part of the main assessment criteria. 6 Conclusion Geomorphosites comprise features and processes to which we can appoint a certain value: scientific, aesthetic, historical, material or non-material, cultural, social or economic, depending on man's perception and the needs of research. The aims of newer procedures are to reduce the subjective factor affecting the results with the help of numerical assessment, and raise the level of assessment objectiveness, which enables a better comparison between geomorphosites and other types of heritage. Which assessment method is better depends on the aims of the research, which are also significant when indexing individual assessment values. For the needs of nature conservation greater value is given to the scientific and management aspects, but even here we have to deal with the subjective decisions of an individual, an expert who indexes individual assessment values. For a more comprehensive study it is necessary to add also the social component or the cultural value. Experience shows that geomorphosites usually either lack a cultural value or the latter is really small, which is why this assessment value should be dealt with differently and should be indexed accordingly. The stated values are hard to measure, as we have to deal with intrinsic, intangible, spiritual and other values (Erhartic 2007), which are not based only on expert knowledge and the corresponding expert assessment. On principle, the object is of greater importance, the higher the number of points it acquires (regarding certain criteria). But this is not true in all cases. A waterfall or a landform can meet only one criterion, but the criterion in question might be of such great importance that it ranks the waterfall or landform right at the top of the ranking list. We want to emphasize that the field of the assessment of nature, or of its constituent parts, is on the one hand tough to measure and compare, but on the other it is absolutely vital for the science and for the protection of geoheritage, as this is the only way for nature protection to claw itself out of the narrow frames of amateurs and (outbursts of) emotions. 7 References Berginc, M. 2007: Sistem varstva narave v Sloveniji. Ljubljana. Bruschi, V. M., Cendrero A. 2005: Geosite evaluation: can we measure intangible values? Il Quaternario 18. Roma. Coratza, P., Giusti, C. 2005: Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geo-morphosites. Il Quaternario 18-1. Roma. Erhartič, B. 2007: Reliefne oblike kot geodiverziteta (geomorfološka naravna dediščina). Dela 28. Ljubljana. Erhartič, B., Jelenko, I. 2010: Vpliv naravnih nesreč na naravno in kulturno dediščino. Naravne nesreče 1. Ljubljana. Inventar najpomembnejše naravne dediščine Slovenije. 1976. Ljubljana. Inventar najpomembnejše naravne dediščine Slovenije. 1. del. 1988. Ljubljana. Inventar najpomembnejše naravne dediščine Slovenije. 2. del. 1991. Ljubljana. Kušljan, R. 2008: Slapovi. Ljubljana. Orožen Adamič, M. 1970: Kako naj vrednotimo pokrajino? Proteus 33-4. Ljubljana. Panizza, M. 2001: Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey. Chinese Science Bulletin 46. Beijing. Panizza, M. 2003: Karst landforms as geomorphosites. Dela 20. Ljubljana. Panizza, M., Piacente 1993: Geomorphological assets evaluation. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie 87. Stuttgart. Pereira, P., Pereira, D., Caetano Alves, M. I. 2007: Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geographica Helvetica, 62-3. Lausanne. Peterlin, S., Sedej, I. 1965: Projekt hidroelektrarne Trnovo in varstvo pokrajine. Varstvo narave 2-3. Ljubljana. Planjšek, M., Mirtič, B., Aničic, B. 2002: Naravovarstveno ovrednotenje nahajališč miocenskih sedimentnih kamnin v kamnolomih severovzhodne Slovenije. Geologija 45-2. Ljubljana. Pralong, J.P. 2005: A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites. Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement 3. Paris. Ramovš, A. 1983: Slapovi v Sloveniji. Ljubljana. Reynard, E., Fontana, G., Kozlik, L., Scapozza, C. 2007: A method for assessing »scientific« and »additional values« of geomorphosites. Geographica Helvetica 62-3. Lausanne. Rivas, V., Rix, K., Frances, E., Cendrero, A., Brunsden D. 1997: Geomorphological indicators for environmental impact assessment: consumable and non-consumable geomorphological resources. Geomorphology 18. Amsterdam. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-555X(96)00024-4 Serrano, E., Gonzalez-Trueba, J. J. 2005: Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement 3. Paris. Skoberne, P. 2010: Vrednotenje naravne dediščine. Ustni vir. Ljubljana. Šmid Hribar, M. 2008: Drevo kot dvopomenska dediščina. Magistrsko delo, Biotehniška fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Uredba o zvrsteh naravnih vrednot. Uradni list RS 52/2002, 67/2003. Ljubljana. Vidmar, B. 2008: Naravovarstveno vrednotenje Strunjanskega klifa. Varstvo narave 21. Ljubljana. Zakon o ohranjanju narave. Uradni list RS 56/1999, 31/2000, 110/2002, 119/2002, 22/2003, 41/2004, 96/2004, 61/2006, 63/2007, 117/2007, 32/2008, 8/2010. Ljubljana. Zorn, M., Erhartič, B., Komac, B. 2009: La Slovénie, berceau du géotourisme karstique. Karstologia 54-2. Le Bourget-du-Lac. Vrednotenje geomorfološke dediščine DOI: 10.3986/AGS50206 UDK: 911.2:551.4(497.4) COBISS: 1.01 IZVLEČEK: Geomorfološka dediščina so pojavi in procesi, katerim lahko pripišemo vrednost: znanstveno, estetsko, zgodovinsko, kulturno, socialno, ekonomsko ali drugo. Z namenom zmanjšati subjektivni vpliv ter omogočiti medsebojno primerjavo, so se v zadnjih letih razvile številne metode vrednotenja. V prispevku so obravnavani in s slovensko metodologijo primerjani štirje postopki vrednotenja geomorfološke dediščine. Katera metoda vrednotenja je boljša, je odvisno od ciljev raziskave. Za potrebe varstva narave je treba pripisati večjo težo znanstvenim in upravljavskim vidikom, za celovito obravnavo je nujno dodati še družbeno komponento oziroma kulturno vrednost. KLJUČNE BESEDE: geomorfologija, geomorfološka dediščina, vrednotenje, primerjava metod vrednotenja, slap, Slovenija Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 27. avgusta 2010. NASLOV: Bojan Erhartič Geografski inštitut Antona Melika Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija E-pošta: bojaner@zrc-sazu.si Vsebina 1 Uvod 2 Geomorfološka dediščina 3 Vrednotenje 3.1 Metode 4 Pristopi k vrednotenju 4.1 Švicarski pristop 4.2 Portugalski pristop 4.3 Metoda merjenja turističnega potenciala 4.4 Španski pristop 4.5 Slovenski pristop 5 Primerjava metod vrednotenja 6 Sklep 7 Literatura 311 311 311 312 313 313 314 314 316 316 316 319 319 1 Uvod Naravna dediščina je tisti del narave, »katerega družba določenega kraja in časa spozna za vrednoto« (Inventar najpomembnejše 1988). Zakon o ohranjanju narave je leta 1999 odpravil termin naravna dediščina in vpeljal novega, naravno vrednoto. Po omenjenem zakonu »naravne vrednote obsegajo vso naravno dediščino na območju Republike Slovenije« (Zakon o ohranjanju 2004) in so poleg »redkih, dragocenih ali znamenitih naravnih pojavov tudi drugi vredni pojavi, sestavine oziroma deli žive ali nežive narave, naravna območja ali deli naravnih območij, ekosistemi, krajina ali oblikovana narava« (Zakon o ohranjanju 2004). V tujini se je za geomorfološko dediščino uveljavil izraz »geomorphosite«, ki ga Panizza (2001) definira kot »geomorfološko obliko, kateri lahko pripišemo vrednost.« Ne glede na to, da se izrazi spreminjajo, deli narave, ki so bili kot taki prepoznani, ostajajo isti. Bistveno je, da vsebujejo posebne vrednostne lastnosti (Berginc 2007). Pri neživi dediščini so avtorji sprva proučevali zlasti znanstveno vrednost oblik in pojavov (Reynard in ostali 2007), kateri so se kmalu pridružili kulturni, ekološki, ekonomski in estetski vidiki vrednotenja nežive narave (Panizza in Piacente 1993). Z namenom zmanjšati subjektivni vpliv ter omogočiti primerjavo med geomorfološko dediščino na različnih koncih sveta, so se v zadnjih letih razvile številne kvantitativne metode vrednotenja geomorfološke dediščine (Panizza 2003; Reynard in ostali 2007; Pereira in ostali 2007; Coratza in Giusti 2005; Serrano in Gonzales-Trueba 2005). 2 Geomorfološka dediščina Ker se vrednostne lastnosti nanašajo na različne sestavine narave, so na podlagi značilnosti naravnih pojavov in oblik vrednote opredeljene po zvrsteh (Uredba o zvrsteh 2002): • površinska geomorfološka naravna vrednota; • podzemeljska geomorfološka naravna vrednota; • geološka naravna vrednota; • hidrološka naravna vrednota; • botanična naravna vrednota; • zoološka naravna vrednota; • ekosistemska naravna vrednota; • drevesna naravna vrednota; • oblikovana naravna vrednota in • krajinska vrednota. Uredba obravnava mineral in fosil kot ločeni zvrsti. Ker gre zlasti pri neživih naravnih vrednotah pogosto za mešanje zvrsti, v tem prispevku skupaj obravnavamo površinske geomorfološke in hidrološke naravne vrednote in jih imenujemo geomorfološka dediščina oziroma vrednota. Zakonodaja te vrednote definira precej ohlapno, kot z vidika zemeljskega površja izjemen, tipičen, kompleksno povezan, ohranjen, redek, znanstveno-raziskovalno ali pričevalno pomemben del narave, ki se »v naravi pojavlja zlasti kot kraška površinska oblika, ledeniška reliefna oblika, rečno-denudacijska oblika, poligenetska reliefna oblika, obalna reliefna oblika, reka, potok, jezero, morje, del reke, potoka, jezera ali morja, ledenik, izvir, slapišče ali slap« (Uredba o zvrsteh 2002). 3 Vrednotenje Zakon o varstvu kulturnih spomenikov in naravnih znamenitosti iz leta 1958 obravnava vse zavarovane objekte enako ne glede na njihovo pravo vrednost ali pomembnost. Čeprav sta dva pojava podobna v geomor-fološkem smislu - po obliki, videzu in procesih, s katerima sta nastala, se lahko po pomenu (»dediščinski« pomembnosti) in vsebini zelo razlikujeta. Tako slap potoka Pršjak ne more biti enak slapu Savice, zlasti ne s kulturno-zgodovinske plati, čeprav po naši klasifikaciji oba sodita v kategorijo naravnih vrednot. Zato so bile v šestdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja naravne znamenitosti razdeljene v tri razrede glede na njihovo vrednost oziroma pomen: državna ali mednarodna pomembnost, republiška pomembnost, lokalna pomembnost. V samostojni Sloveniji delimo naravne vrednote po pomenu na lokalne in državne. Kriteriji za določitev pripadnosti enemu od teh razredov so bili pri različnih kategorijah naravnih znamenitosti različni, saj so v neposredni zvezi z značajem naravne znamenitosti in vzrokom njenega zavarovanja (Pe-terlin in Sedej 1965). Slika 1: Savico odlikuje velika kulturna vrednost. Glej angleški del prispevka. Eden prvih poskusov vrednotenja naravne dediščine v Sloveniji se je nanašal na reko Sočo in projekt gradnje hidroelektrarne Kobarid (Peterlin in Sedej 1965; Orožen Adamič 1970). Medtem ko sta Peterlin in Sedej vrednotila izključno opisno, je Orožen Adamič uporabil preprosto, a tudi danes aktualno metodo, s katero lahko številčno ponazorimo »vrednost« ter predvsem zmanjšamo subjektivni vpliv pri vrednotenju narave. Nastala je lista faktorjev, ki jih je bilo mogoče oceniti z določeno mersko enoto. Naslednji poskus vrednotenja podaja Inventar najpomembnejše naravne dediščine Slovenije (1976; 1988; 1991). Sprejeta so bila naslednja merila: • znanstvena vrednost; • izjemnost ali redkost; • značilnost (tipičnost); • kulturno vzgojna vrednost, • ekološka vrednost; • krajinsko oblikovna vrednost; • rekreacijska vrednost; • ogroženost. V dopolnitvah inventarja so se izgubili znanstvena in rekreacijska vrednost ter ogroženost, dodana je bila kompleksnost pojavov (Inventar najpomembnejše 1988, 1991). Merila so sicer sistematično urejena in natančno opredeljena, a je vrednotenje podano zgolj opisno, kar ne omogoča primerjave med posameznimi (podobnimi) objekti. Planjškova in ostali (2002) so tako opisno vrednotili kamnolome, nahajališča miocenskih usedlin, Vidmarjeva (2008) pa klif pri Strunjanu na slovenski obali. Ker zlasti geomorfološka dediščina izkazuje največjo pestrost pojavnih oblik, so potrebna podrobnejša merila vrednotenja. Zasnovana morajo biti specifično, s posebnim ozirom na posamezni zvrsti. Če je pri drevesni dediščini morda ključno merilo dimenzija objekta (Šmid Hribar 2008), sta pri geomorfološ-ki dediščini lahko to morfologija ali slikovitost. Zlasti slednja, estetska vrednost, je popolnoma izločena iz Zakona o ohranjanju narave, saj je najbolj subjektivna in odvisna od človeka. 3.1 Metode V prispevku primerjamo štiri različne tuje metode, katerih osnovni namen je zmanjšati subjektivnost, ter jih soočamo s slovenskimi merili vrednotenja. Postopke smo preizkusili z vrednotenjem istovrstnih pojavov, 15 slovenskih slapov. To so: Boka, Čedca, Veliki Kozjak, slapiči na Krki pri Žužemberku, Lahom-niški sopot, Nemiljski šum, Nežica, Palenk, četrti slap v Peklu pri Borovnici, Spodnji Peričnik, Pršjak, Savica, Veliki Šumik, Veli vir in Šum v Blejskem vintgarju. Primere smo izbrali načrtno, saj smo skušali zajeti čim večji del Slovenije ter vključiti nekaj znanih slapov s pomembno kulturno in ekonomsko komponento. V analizo so zajeti tudi malo ali popolnoma neznani slapovi, da je nabor kljub istovrstnosti pojavov kar se da širok. Pri vrednotenju smo si pomagali s poznavanjem tematike (Erhartič in Jelenko 2010), s terenskim delom in z literaturo (Ramovš 1983; Kušlan 2008). Slika 2: Slapovi v Sloveniji kot jih vodi Register naravnih vrednot. Glej angleški del prispevka. V primerjavo je vključen le osrednji, kvantitativni del vsakega pristopa glede na predpostavljena merila vrednotenja. Uvodne dele - splošne podatke kot na primer koordinate posameznega objekta dediščine, opis, ki temelji tako na terenskem delu kot na analizi kartografskega in arhivskega gradiva, nadmorsko višino in podobno - smo v prispevku opustili. Uvodni deli so običajno namenjeni pripravi širšega izbora dediščine, tega pa smo deloma že imeli, saj izhajamo iz registra oziroma inventarja najpomembnejše dediščine. Preostali del izbora smo opravili glede na poznavanje tematike tako, da je v analizo vrednotenja vključen najširši spekter slapov. Da bi omogočili neposredno primerjavo, smo vrednosti v vseh metodah pretvorili na lestvico, kot jo predvideva najenostavnejši, švicarski pristop. Tako ima vsako merilo vrednotenja pet stopenj, od 0 (brez vrednosti) do 1 (najvišja vrednost). Slika 3: Slap Kozjak je znan po privlačni legi. Glej angleški del prispevka. 4 Pristopi k vrednotenju Primerjane metode temeljijo na različnih kriterijih. Vsem pristopom so skupni redkost, tipičnost in celovitost oziroma ohranjenost pojava. Ostali kriteriji, na primer ekološka, znanstvena, izobraževalna, kulturna vrednost se razlikujejo od metode do metode in so odvisni od ciljev raziskave (Reynard in ostali 2007). Sprva so metode za vrednotenje geomorfološke dediščine temeljile zlasti na znanstvenih kriterijih (Rivas in ostali 1997; Bruschi in Cendrero 2005; Coratza in Giusti 2005; Serrano in Gonzales-Trueba 2005), saj so služile zgolj kot podpora inventarizaciji dediščine in presoji vplivov na okolje (Reynard in ostali 2007). Z razvojem znanosti, zavedanjem pomena nežive narave, ozaveščanjem prebivalstva in prevrednotenjem turizma, se je povečalo tudi povpraševanje po tako imenovanem geoturizmu (Zorn in ostali 2010), ki temelji na geološki in geomorfološki dediščini, na njenem obiskovanju, spoznavanju in razumevanju. Zato natančna analiza geomorfološke dediščine zahteva celosten pristop, v katerega morajo biti poleg naravoslovnih vključeni tudi družboslovni in upravljavski vidiki. 4.1 Švicarski pristop Švicarski pristop (Reynard in ostali 2007) je nastal na Inštitutu za geografijo Univerze v Lozani in je med vsemi najpreprostejši, saj je namenjen tako študentom in raziskovalcem kot naravovarstveni stroki. Metoda zajema osrednja oziroma znanstvena merila vrednotenja ter jih kombinira z dodatnimi merili. Osrednji del - znanstvena merila vrednotenja - temelji na redkosti pojava, tipičnosti, celovitosti in paleogeograf-ski vrednosti (preglednica 1). Zadnje merilo je dodano, da se poudari navezanost pojava ali oblike do Zemlje in podnebja v preteklih obdobjih. Preglednica 1: Kvantitativna merila švicarskega pristopa. znanstvena vrednost redkost tipičnost celovitost paleogeografska vrednost dodatna vrednost ekološka vrednost ekološki vpliv zavarovana območja estetska vrednost razgled/vidnost vizualna pestrost kulturna vrednost verski pomen zgodovinski pomen umetniški, literarni pomen geozgodovinski pomen ekonomska vrednost kakovostna kvantitativna Dodatna merila vrednotenja se nanašajo na ekološko, estetsko, kulturno in ekonomsko vrednost pojavov in oblik. Zaradi izrazite multidisciplinarnosti nekaterih meril, ta del vrednotenja temelji na poenostavljenih kriterijih. Njihov namen je zgolj osvetliti možno povezavo med geomorfologijo in drugimi vidiki narave in družbe. V ekološko vrednost so vključena tudi obstoječa varovana in zavarovana območja. Najbolj subjektivno estetsko merilo vsebuje preprosta kriterija: vidnost objekta ter zaznavanje pokrajine, pri čemer se večja vrednost pripiše bolj razgibanim lokacijam. Kulturna merila vrednotenja tvorijo 4 kriteriji: verska, zgodovinska, umetniško-literarna in »geozgodovinska« pomembnost (vloga posameznega objekta pri razvoju znanosti o Zemlji). Pod ekonomskim merilom so v Švicarskem pristopu upoštevani le dejanski prihodki zaradi prisotnosti obravnavanega objekta dediščine. Skupna vrednost, ki je povzetek osrednjih in dodatnih meril vrednotenja, je podana opisno. Ločeno ji sledi izobraževalna vrednost, prav tako je podana opisno, saj ima lahko objekt visoko izobraževalno vrednost ne glede na to ali je dobro viden ali pa so ga procesi že spremenili ali odstranili. 4.2 Portugalski pristop Portugalski pristop (Pereira in ostali 2007), razvit v Središču za geoznanosti Univerze v Minhu (Earth Sciences Centre, Univerity of Minho) in uporabljen v Naravnem parku Montesinho, je mnogo kompleksnejši. Vrednotenje poteka v dveh korakih. Prvi, opisni del - imenujejo ga inventarizacija - je namenjen izboru objektov, ki gredo v analizo. Kvantitativni del omogoča primerjavo med objekti in je iz dveh delov: vrednotenja in rangiranja (preglednica 2). Primarni merili vrednotenja sta tako imenovani geomorfološka in upravljavska vrednost, sekundarni pa pod geomorfološkimi podobno kot v švicarskem pristopu znanstvena in dodatna vrednost. Slednja obsega kulturna, estetska in ekološka merila. Upravljavska merila se delijo na uporabno vrednost, pod katero sta dostopnost in vidnost objekta ali pojava, ter na ohranitveno vrednost s stopnjo slabšanja in pričakovano škodo. Preglednica 2: Kvantitativna merila portugalskega pristopa. geomorfološka vrednost znanstvena vrednost redkost celovitost/ohranjenost tipičnost pestrost dodatna vrednost kulturna estetska ekološka upravljavska vrednost uporabna vrednost dostopnost vidnost ohranitvena vrednost stopnja slabšanja pričakovana škoda Posamezna merila so različno obtežena, njihov seštevek daje skupno vrednost geomorfološke dediščine. V zadnjem koraku se sešteje še vsota vseh uvrstitev posameznega objekta glede na vrednost po posameznem merilu. Prednost seštevka razvrščanja je, da bo dediščina, ki je po vseh merilih kazala visoko vrednost, v končnem rangiranju bolj izstopala. Avtorji poudarjajo, da je glavna prednost pristopa popolnoma ločeno opisno in številčno vrednotenje, kar omogoča, da se lahko vrednoti geomorfološke oblike le kvantitativno. 4.3 Metoda merjenja turističnega potenciala Metoda za merjenje turističnega potenciala (Pralong 2005) geomorfoloških oblik in procesov je prav tako nastala na Inštitutu za geografijo Univerze v Lozani. Pristop predlaga merila za kvalitativno in kvantitativno analizo objektov dediščine. Pralong sklepa, da so vse turistične dobrine, storitve in infrastruktura, nastali zaradi geomorfološke dediščine, posledica znanstvenih, estetskih, kulturno-zgodovinskih in socialnoekonomskih vrednosti reliefnih oblik oziroma procesov. Z uporabo omenjenih meril in njihovo ustrezno obtežitvijo je tako možno določiti (turistični) potencial geomorfološke dediščine in možnosti za njihovo rabo. Pristop tvorita dva koraka, merjenje turistične vrednosti dediščine ter možnosti za njihovo rabo. Turistično vrednost enakovredno tvorijo estetska, znanstvena, kulturno-zgodovinska in socialnoekonomska merila, ki so natančno razdelana (preglednica 3). Merili za rabo dediščine sta stopnja in način rabe. Slednje omogoča opredelitev intenzivnosti rabe dediščine s prostorskega in časovnega vidika ter ugotavljanje njihovega potenciala. Preglednica 3: Kvantitativna merila metode merjenja turističnega potenciala geomorfoloških oblik. turistična vrednost estetska vrednost znanstvena vrednost kulturna/zgodovinska vrednost število razgledišč povprečna razdalja do razgledišč površina nadmorska višina barvni kontrasti paleogeografska vrednost tipičnost površina ohranjenost ekološka vrednost kulturni in zgodovinski običaji slikovno upodabljanje zgodovinski in arheološki pomen verski in duhovni pomen umetnost in kulturni dogodki raba družbena/ekonomska vrednost stopnja rabe (tudi okolice dediščine) dostopnost naravna tveganja letni obisk stopnja zavarovanja privlačnost površina v rabi infrastruktura sezonskost dnevni obisk način rabe raba estetskih vrednosti raba znanstvenih vrednosti raba kulturnih vrednosti raba ekonomskih vrednosti Preglednica 4: Kvantitativna merila španskega pristopa. znanstvena ali intrinzična vrednost nastanek morfologija dinamika pretekli procesi sedanji procesi starost kamninska zgradba geološke strukture kulturna ali dodana vrednost estetska vrednost kulturna vrednost prisotnost kulturnih spomenikov duhovne, literarne in umetniške vsebine zgodovinska raba izobraževalna vrednost izobraževalni viri znanstvena vrednost znanstvena pomembnost tipičnost turistična vrednost dejanska raba potencialna raba raba in upravljavska vrednost dostopnost ranljivost občutljivost intenzivnost rabe tveganje za uničevanje stopnja zavarovanja človeški vplivi kakovost razgleda sprejemljivost sprememb 4.4 Španski pristop Na Oddelku za geografijo Univerze v Valladolidu zasnovana metodologija sestoji iz treh kategorij (Serrano in Gonzales-Trueba 2005), temelječih na uporabi geomorfološkega zemljevida, ki služi kot osnova za popis geomorfološke dediščine. Inventarizaciji reliefnih oblik in procesov sledi analiza geomorfološke dediščine z ocenjevanjem notranje (intrinzične) vrednosti vsakega elementa, skupaj z dodano (kulturno) vrednostjo in uporabno ter upravljavsko vrednostjo oblike. Znanstvena ali intrinzična (tudi notranja) vrednost se v tem pristopu najbolj loči od ostalih, saj temelji striktno na geomorfoloških kriterijih: genezi, morfologiji, starosti, kamninski podlagi in podobnem. Kulturno ali dodano vrednost tvorijo estetska, kulturna, izobraževalna, znanstvena in turistična merila vrednotenja (preglednica 4). Tretji del predstavlja raba in upravljanje z merili dostopnost, ranljivost, intenzivnost rabe in podobno. Pristop, ki je bil uporabljen v narodnem parku Picos de Europa, se precej razlikuje od ostalih, zato ga je najtežje primerjati z drugimi. 4.5 Slovenski pristop Tudi po novejši zakonodaji (Zakon o ohranjanju 2004) ostaja vrednotenje narave in njenih delov v Sloveniji opisno, zelo subjektivno in prepuščeno posamezniku. Merila vrednotenja (potencialnih naravnih vrednot) so: izjemnost, tipičnost, kompleksna povezanost, ohranjenost, redkost, ekosistemska pomembnost, znanstvenoraziskovalna pomembnost, pričevalna pomembnost. Omenjeni zakon ne podaja natančnejših smernic za vrednotenje, pač pa približne opise nekdanjih meril navaja Inventar najpomembnejše naravne dediščine Slovenije (1991). Preglednica 5: Merila vrednotenja slovenskega pristopa. kratek opis izjemnost Ocenjujemo jo primerjalno znotraj tipološke skupine glede na frekvenco pojavljanja, dimenzije ali druge značilnosti. Običajno primerjamo znotraj Slovenije, v posebnih primerih tudi širše. Ločimo absolutno in relativno redkost pojavljanja, izjemne dimenzije in izredne ali enkratne oblike. tipičnost Merilo tipičnost (značilnost) je uporabljeno za tiste objekte ali območja naravne dediščine, po katerih so v literaturi opisani določeni naravni pojavi, pojavne oblike, procesi oziroma so značilni ali zelo nazorno oblikovani predstavniki za določen tip pojava. kompleksnost Objekti ali območja naravne dediščine mnogokrat nastopajo povezano in tvorijo novo vrednoto. Bodisi je nekaj posebnega kombinacija na enem območju oziroma združujemo objekte v večje, med seboj povezane enote. Vrednost takega kompleksnega območja je večja kot seštevek posameznih vrednot, kakor je tudi posamezen objekt zaradi pripadnosti večji enoti višje vrednoten. ekološki vidik Pri vrednotenju z ekološkega vidika so upoštevani ekosistemi z visoko stopnjo ohranjenosti, ekosistemi z veliko pestrostjo habitatov ali vrst (stabilni ekosistemi) ter redki ekosistemi. kulturni vidik Kulturni vidik je med vsemi najbolj subjektiven, saj opredeljuje naš odnos do dediščine. Merila so pričevalnost, simbolna vrednost, slikovitost ter krajinski vidik (estetski odnos naravne dediščine do okolice). vidik rabe Vidik rabe (znanstvenoraziskovalni in učno vzgojni) je bil uporabljen pri varstveni namembnosti dediščine in ne pri samem vrednotenju. Predpostavljeno je bilo, da so vsi objekti, ki jim lahko pripišemo vsaj enega od zgornjih meril, pomembni tudi za znanstveno proučevanje. Predlog namembnosti - kaj je sprejemljivo s stališča varstva naravne dediščine - izhaja iz naravovarstvenega vrednotenja in s tem ujemajoče se rabe ali funkcije. Varstvena namembnost se lahko delno ali v celoti ujema z drugimi rabami prostora, lahko pa jih tudi izključuje. 5 Primerjava metod vrednotenja Z uporabo nekoliko poenostavljenih metod smo zaradi lažje primerjave vrednotili 15 podobnih geomorfoloških in hidroloških pojavov. Čeprav gre v vseh primerih za iste pojave, se slapovi med seboj zelo razlikujejo, ne le po višini in količini vode, temveč po številnih spremenljivkah, kar kažejo izsledki analize. Najpomembnejši in najzanimivejši rezultati so podani v preglednici 6. Čeprav Inventar (1976; 1988; 1991) ne predvideva kvantitativnega vrednotenja, smo zaradi neposredne primerjave skušali izbrane slapove številčno ovrednotiti tudi s slovenskimi merili vrednotenja. ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ri a •oooooo- •OOOO - ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo oooooo- ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooo- oooo ooooooooooooooo •oooooo- •oooooo- •oooo - £ • Íct ra ^ S • ^ F • - & -it tj r-^ < ^ ^ > ^ — O CDO CDCD TOCD CD TO 13 CD- — CDOič^ _IZZCLCLQ.CL > > ooooooooooooooo -oooooo - •ooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo 3-H ■ S » Slika 4: Cedca ni več najvišji slap v Sloveniji, a ima zaradi aktivnih geomorfnih procesov veliko znanstvenoraziskovalno vrednost/pomen. Glej angleški del prispevka. Slika 5: Šumik je največji slovenski slap na nekarbonatni podlagi. Glej angleški del prispevka. V vseh pristopih ne glede na njihov cilj predstavljajo znanstveni kriteriji jedro vrednotenja. Njihov pomen je nekoliko manjši v metodologiji, katere cilj je ugotavljanje turističnega potenciala geomorfoloske dediščine. Znanstvenoraziskovalni pomen smo v slovenskih merilih vrednotenja izluščili iz kategorij izjemnost, tipičnost in kompleksna povezanost pojavov. Vsi pristopi dajejo podobne rezultate, čeprav so nekatera merila precej ohlapna in prepuščena subjektivni presoji. Največjo znanstvenoraziskovalno vrednost imajo Kozjak, Peričnik, Boka in Čedca, najmanjšo pa Palenk in Lahomniški sopot. Z vrednostmi nekoliko izstopa španska metodologija, saj se merila vrednotenja izrazito razlikujejo od ostalih. Dodatno vrednost oblik posebej izražata švicarski in portugalski pristop, medtem ko španski govori o dodani vrednosti ter jo enači s kulturno vrednostjo. Rezultati se precej razlikujejo, saj je bilo v analizo vključeno različno število spremenljivk, zato ne smemo gledati absolutnih vrednosti, temveč zgolj kako visoko se uvršča določen slap v posameznem pristopu. Švicarski in portugalski pristop sta sorazmerno primerljiva, čeravno prvi med dodatne kriterije prišteva tudi ekonomsko vrednost, drugi pa ne. Oba pristopa kažeta, da ima največjo doda(t)no vrednost slap Savica, zlasti na račun kulturne komponente in Prešernovega Krsta pri Savici. Sicer pa ima večina slovenskih slapov relativno nizko doda(t)no vrednost. Povečano kulturno vrednost imajo še Krka na račun žužemberškega gradu, slap Kozjak na račun ostalin iz prve svetovne vojne v neposredni bližini ter Šumik zaradi ostankov drče za splavljenje lesa s Pohorja. Tudi s kvantitativno analizo se ne moremo otresti subjektivnosti, saj je pripisovanje vrednosti posameznim reliefnim oblikam odvisno od mnenja ocenjevalca in njegovega dojemanja prostora. To se zelo dobro vidi pri rezultatih vrednotenja estetskih meril, ki so najmanj dodelana. Med vsemi pristopi izstopa metoda merjenja turističnega potenciala, ki je najbolj dovršena, saj upošteva velikost površine, s katere se vidi pojav, število razgledišč, oddaljenost med njimi, relativno višinsko razliko reliefne oblike (slapu) in podobno. Zato je ta metoda vsaj kar zadeva slikovitost pojava najnatančnejša. Ker prinašajo ostali postopki zaradi subjektivnosti enake vrednosti, se raje osredotočamo na metodo merjenja turističnega potenciala, po kateri je najvišje ovrednotena Boka, sledijo ji četrti slap v Peklu pri Borovnici, Peričnik in Vintgarski šum. Presenetljivo nizko sta uvrščena Kozjak in Savica, saj metodologija upošteva tudi število razgledišč na slap in razdaljo med njimi. Slapova se nahajata v koritih oziroma v zatrepu, zato imata le po eno raz-gledišče, kar je botrovalo domnevno nižji estetski vrednosti. Vidimo torej, da tudi kvantifikacija meril ne ponuja univerzalne rešitev pri celostnem vrednotenju geomorfološke in druge dediščine. Ekonomsko vrednost posebej izpostavljata švicarski pristop in metoda turističnega potenciala, pri španskem in portugalskem pristopu je vključen v uporabno vrednost. Uporabno vrednost, ki jo navaja portugalski pristop lahko do neke mere primerjamo z ekonomskimi merili švicarske metode, čeprav so pri slednjem bolj restriktivni, saj dobijo točke zgolj objekti, ki dejansko prinašajo dohodek. V našem primeru sta to le dva, v celoti Savica, deloma pa še Šum v Vintgarju. Čeprav se postopki zelo razlikujejo in dajejo različne vrednosti, lahko vendarle zaključimo, da imajo poleg Savice in Vintgarskega šuma večjo ekonomsko vrednost pri metodi turističnega potenciala še Krka, Boka in Peričnik. Medtem ko je švicarski pristop, ki izrecno ne vsebuje uporabne vrednosti geomorfološke dediščine, namenjen predvsem ozaveščanju, ugotavljanju znanstvenih in dodatnih vrednosti geomorfološke dediščine, se drugi posvečajo tudi upravljavski sferi - rabi objekta. Zlasti metoda merjenja turističnega potenciala, kakor pove ime, ugotavlja nosilnost reliefnih oblik in možnost njihove rabe za turistične namene. Največjo uporabno vrednost imajo Peričnik, Boka, Savica, Šum v Vintgarju in slapišča na Krki, saj so lahko dostopni ter imajo vsaj nekaj potrebne splošne in turistične infrastrukture. Izmed analiziranih metod predvideva izračun skupne vrednosti pojava le portugalski pristop, zato vrednosti nismo računali. Švicarski pristop meril vrednotenja ne meša med seboj, saj je tako ohranjena večja transparentnost postopka (Reynard in ostali 2007). S tem se strinja tudi Skoberne (2010), po mnenju katerega gre za neprimerljive skupine meril, saj osvetljujejo naravne pojave z več povsem različnih zornih kotov (na primer frekvenca pojavljanja, morfološke značilnosti, ekološki vidik, kompleksnost, dojemanje, odnos do okolice, pričevalnost). Prav zato so v švicarskem pristopu nekatera merila (izobraževalna vrednost, ogroženost, raba) podana zunaj kvantitativnega vzorca, torej zgolj opisno, kar pa ne omogoča neposredne primerjave s podobnimi geomorfološkimi oblikami ali procesi. Portugalski pristop predvideva tudi seštevanje vseh uvrstitev posameznega objekta glede na vrednost po posameznem merilu. Iz vsot sicer lahko sklepamo, kateri objekti so pomembnejši, vendar na ta način metod ne moremo primerjati med seboj, zato rangiranja nismo izvedli. Pereira in ostali (2007) navajajo, da dimenzij in starosti oblik niso zajeli v analizo, saj ne vplivajo pomembno na vrednotenje. V znanstvenem smislu se s trditvijo strinjamo, z vidika dojemanja prostora pa ne. Menimo, da so dimenzije, denimo višina in količina vode oziroma pretok v določenih primerih, zagotovo pri slapovih, ena od bistvenih sestavin meril njihovega vrednotenja. 6 Sklep Geomorfološka dediščina so pojavi in procesi, katerim lahko pripišemo vrednost: znanstveno, estetsko, zgodovinsko, materialno in nematerialno kulturno, socialno ali ekonomsko, odvisno od človekovega zaznavanja in potreb raziskave. Cilj vseh novejših postopkov je s pomočjo numeričnega vrednotenja zmanjšati subjektivni vpliv, torej povečati objektivnost vrednotenja, kar omogoča boljšo primerjavo med geomorfološko in drugo dediščino. Katera metoda vrednotenja je boljša, je seveda odvisno od ciljev raziskave. Prav tako je od ciljev odvisna obtežitev posameznih meril vrednotenja. Za potrebe varstva narave je treba pripisati večjo težo znanstvenim in upravljavskim vidikom, a se pri obteževanju prav tako srečamo s subjektivnimi odločitvami posameznika, strokovnjaka, ki obteži posamezna merila vrednotenja. Za celovito obravnavo je nujno dodati še družbeno komponento oziroma kulturno vrednost. Izkušnje kažejo, da so objekti geomorfo-loške dediščine pogosto brez kulturne vrednosti ali pa je le-ta majhna, zato je treba to merilo vrednotenja obravnavati drugače, ga obtežiti. Navedena merila je pogosto težko izmeriti, saj imamo opravka tudi z notranjimi (intrinzičnimi), neotipljivimi, duhovnimi in drugimi vrednotami (Erhartič 2007), ki ne temelje le na strokovnem poznavanju in iz tega izvirajoči presoji strokovnjaka. Načeloma velja, da je objekt toliko bolj pomemben, kolikor več točk ima na postavljena merila. Vendar to ne drži v vseh primerih. Slap ali reliefna oblika lahko ustreza enemu samemu kriteriju, vendar ima ta tolikšno težo, da jo po vrednosti uvrsti na sam vrh. Podčrtati želimo, da je področje vrednotenja narave oziroma njenih delov sicer težko izmerljivo in primerljivo, a za znanost in ohranjanje geodediščine nujno, saj se bo lahko naravovarstvo le tako izvilo iz ozkih okvirov ljubiteljstva in (izbruhov) čustev. 7 Literatura Glej angleški del prispevka.