Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identification of Geoheritage Elements in a Cultural Landscape: a Case Study from Tokaj Mts, Hungary

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Geoheritage Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cultural landscapes were developed as a result of continuous interaction between nature and human culture. During their evolution, the geodiversity was also considerably influenced by human activities. Recently, geoheritage studies have become more sensitive towards man-made cultural landmarks. In this paper, we explore a methodology to compile a regional inventory for a historic mountainous cultural landscape with remarkable geological, volcanological, and mining heritage in Tokaj Mts, (NE Hungary). The databases of the natural and cultural heritage contribute to the extension of regional inventories with a large number of geodiversity-related records. The specific selection procedure with a combination of GIS and fieldwork assessment resulted in the final list of potential sites. The applied three stage classification forms a basis for territorial analysis. The selected 60 geosites of 700 km2 represents well the geological history of the study area, while another 160 geodiversity and geocultural sites emphasize further enhancement of natural and cultural diversity. The functional classification referring to the physical nature of the sites was useful to define specific conservation management priorities. The thematic grouping of the sites defined new interpretation possibilities for geotourism and geoeducation taking into account volcanological, geomorphological, and mining heritage values.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arruda KEC, Garcia MGM, Del Lama EA et al (2017) Selection method and proposals to the use of geodiversity sites: the case of the north coast of São Paulo state, Brazil [Método de seleção e propostas de uso dos sítios da geodiversidade: Exemplo do litoral norte do estado de São Paulo, Brasil]. Anu do Inst Geociencias 40:24–47. https://doi.org/10.11137/2017_3_24_47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bíró KT (1984) Distribution of obsidian from the Carpathian Sources on Central European Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites. Acta Archaeol Carpathica 23:5–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Bíró KT (2002) Advances in the study of early Neolithic lithic materials in Hungary. Antaeus 25:119–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Brilha J (2016) Inventory and Quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8:119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brilha J (2017) Geoheritage and geoparks. Geoheritage Assessment, Prot Manag:323–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00018-6

  • Browne MAE (2012) Geodiversity and the role of the planning system in Scotland. Scottish Geogr J 128:266–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702541.2012.725862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carreras J, Druguet E (1999) Geological heritage, an essential part of the integral management of world heritage in protected sites. In: Barettino D, Wimbledon WAP, Gallego E (eds) Geological heritage: its conservation and management. Third International Symposium ProGEO on the Conservation of the Geological Heritage. Madrid, pp 95–110

  • Coratza P, Hobléa F (2018) The specificities of geomorphological heritage. Geoheritage:87–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00005-8

  • Coratza P, Gauci R, Schembri J, Soldati M, Tonelli C (2016) Bridging natural and cultural values of sites with outstanding scenery: evidence from Gozo, Maltese islands. Geoheritage 8:91–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0167-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CORINE Land Cover 2006 seamless vector data (2016) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/clc-2006-vector-data-version accessed 26th February 2016

  • Czech Geological Survey (2014) Significant geological localities of the Czech Republic. http://www.geology.cz/%0Aextranet-eng/geology-for-all/geological-localities

  • de Lima FF, Brilha JB, Salamuni E (2010) Inventorying geological heritage in large territories: a methodological proposal applied to Brazil. Geoheritage 2:91–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-010-0014-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Fazio S, Modica G (2018) Historic rural landscapes: sustainable planning strategies and action criteria. The Italian experience in the global and European context. Sustain 10:1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erhardt G, Pentelényi L (1966) Geological map of the Tokaj Mts. 1:25000. Tornyosnémeti. Hung. Geol Inst

  • Ésik Z, Szepesi J (2017) Az Abák vidékének ismeretlen szurdokvölgye. In: Nagy B (ed) Magyarország rejtőzködő túraútvonalai. IPC könyvek, pp 32–40

  • Ésik Z, Rózsa P, Szepesi J (2019) Geoheritage elements of millstone manufactory, Tokaj Mountains, Hungary. Eur Geoliogist 48:38–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Esmark J (1798) Kurze Beschreibungen einer mineralogische Reise durch Ungarn, Siebenbürgen und das Bahnat. Freiberg

  • Faccini F, Gabellieri N, Paliaga G, Piana P, Angelini S, Coratza P (2018) Geoheritage map of the Portofino Natural Park. 5647. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2018.1433561

  • Fichtel JE (1791) Mineralogische Bemerkungen von den Karpathen 2-

  • Frisnyák S (2009) A táj és a természeti erőforrások használata. In: Antropogén ökológiai változások a Kárpát-medencében. L’Harmattan, Pécs, pp 145–163

  • Fuertes-Gutiérrez I, Fernández-Martínez E (2010) Geosites inventory in the Leon Province (Northwestern Spain): a tool to introduce geoheritage into regional environmental management. Geoheritage 2:57–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-010-0012-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuertes-Gutierrez I, Fernandez-Martinez E (2012) Mapping geosites for geoheritage management: a methodological proposal for the regional park of Picos de Europa (Leon, Spain). Environ Manage 50:789–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9915-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatley S, Parkes M (2018) The selection of and characters of a geosite—examples from Ireland. 157–167

  • Geological Survey of Spain (2014) Spanish inventory of sites of geological int erest. http://info.igme.es/ielig/

  • Gordon JE (2018a) Geotourism and cultural heritage. In: Dowling R, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edwar Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 61–75

  • Gordon JE (2018b) Geoheritage, geotourism and the cultural landscape: enhancing the visitor experience and promoting geoconservation. Geosci 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8040136

  • Gray M (2004) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature. John Wiley & Sons Ltd

  • Gray M (2008) Geodiversity: developing the paradigm. Proc Geol Assoc 119:287–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7878(08)80307-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guimarães GB, de Lima FF, Rocha-Campos AC (2018) Chapter 23—Varvite Park, a Brazilian initiative for the conservation and interpretation of geoheritage. Geoheritage 405–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00023-X

  • Gyarmati P (1963) Geological map of the Tokaj Mts. 1:25000. Tolcsva. Hung. Geol Inst.

  • Gyarmati P (1966) Geological map of the Tokaj Mts. 1:25000. Háromhuta. Hung. Geol Inst.

  • Gyarmati P (1972) Geological map of the Tokaj Mts. 1:25000. Sárospatak. Hung. Geol Inst.

  • Gyarmati P, Pentelényi L (1973) Geological map of the Tokaj Mts. 1:25000. Makkoshotyka-Sátoraljaújhely. Hung. Geol Inst.

  • Hartai É, Németh N (2012) The Telkibánya Field Training Educational Park in working order. In: Strba L (ed) Geoparks, geoheritage and geoconservation - IRSE: History of Central European Mining. Technical University of Kosice, Kosice, pp 6–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Horváth G, Csüllög G (2013) A new slovakian-hungarian cross-border geopark in Central Europe -possibility for promoting better connections between the two countries. Eur Countrys 5:146–162. https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2013-0010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horváth G, Lóczy D (2015) Geoheritage, geomorphosites in Hungary. In: Lóczy D (ed) Landscape and landforms of Hungary. Sprineger Switzerland, pp 281–288

  • ICOMOS Hungary (2017) Citrom és savanyú szőlő. Archeologia

  • Ilkey-Perlaki E (1967) Geological map of the Tokaj Mts. 1:25000. Fony. Hung. Geol Inst.

  • Ilkey-Perlaki E (1971) Geological map of the Tokaj Mts. 1:25000. Gönc. Hung. Geol Inst

  • Ilkey-Perlaki E (1977) Geological map of the Tokaj Mts. 1:25000. Nyíri. Hungarian Geological Institute

  • International Council on Monuments and Sites (2008) ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Charter: principles and guidelines for managing tourism at places of cultural and heritage significance. Tourism 1–9

  • Kiss G (2011) Mindennapi kisemlékeink megőrzéséért. Vidékf ejlesztési Minisztérium Környezet- és Természetvédelmi Helyett es Államt itkársága

  • Kiss G, A H, Orsolya B (1999) Komlóskai “telér” tanösvény Kirándulásvezető-füzet. Komlóska Község Önkormányzata

  • Kiss G, Szepesi J, Tamás O, et al (2002) „Kormos Bába” tanösvény. HOLOCÉN Természetvédelmi Egyesület, Miskolc

  • Kiss P, Gméling K, Molnár F, Pécskay Z (2011) Geochemistry of Sarmatian volcanic rocks in the Tokaj Mts (NE Hungary) and their relationship to hydrothermal mineralization. Cent Eur Geol 53:377–403. https://doi.org/10.1556/CEuGeol.53.2010.4.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kováč M, Andreyeva-grigorovich A, Bajraktarević Z et al (2007) Badenian evolution of the Central Paratethys Sea: paleogeography, climate and eustatic sea-level changes. Geol Carpathica 58:579–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubalíková L (2013) Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes. Czech J Tour 2(2):80–104. https://doi.org/10.2478/cjot-2013-0005.Abstract

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubalíková L (2019) Assessing geotourism resources on a local level : a case study from Southern Moravia (Czech Republic ). 10.3390/resources8030150

  • Lakner Z, Kiss A, Merlet I, Oláh J, Máté D, Grabara J, Popp J (2018) Building coalitions for a diversified and sustainable tourism: two case studies from Hungary. Sustain 10:1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Q, Wumaier K, Ishikawa M (2019) The spatial analysis and sustainability of rural cultural landscapes: Linpan settlements in China’s Chengdu Plain. Sustainability 11:4431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lóczy D (2002) Tájértékelés, földértékelés. Dialóg Campus

  • Marosi S (1985) Tájkutatási irányzatok, tájértékelés, tájtipológiai eredmények, Elmélet-Mó. MTA FKI, Budapest

  • Mata-Perelló J, Carrión P, Molina J, Villas-Boas R (2017) Geomining heritage as a tool to promote the social development of rural communities. Geoheritage Assessment, Prot Manag:167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00009-5

  • Mauerhofer L, Reynard E (2018) Contribution of a geomorphosite inventory to the geoheritage knowledge in developing countries : the case of the Simien Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0234-3

  • Migoń P, Latocha A (2013) Human interactions with the sandstone landscape of central Sudetes. Appl Geogr 42:206–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.03.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Migoń P, Pijet-Migoń E (2016) Overlooked geomorphological component of volcanic geoheritage—diversity and perspectives for tourism industry, Pogórze Kaczawskie Region, SW Poland. Geoheritage 8:333–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0166-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Migoń P, Pijet-Migoń E (2017) Viewpoint geosites—values, conservation and management issues. Proc Geol Assoc 128:511–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2017.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell N, Rössler M, Tricaud P-M (2009) World heritage cultural landscapes: a handbook for conservation and management

  • MSZ 20381:2009 (2009) Természetvédelem. Egyedi tájértékek kataszterezése. 17

  • Novák TJ, Szepesi J (2018) Soils of the abandoned gold and silver mining area on volcanic-hydrothermal rocks (Hungary). In: Soil Sequences Atlas III. Nicolaus Copernicus University, Torun, pp 137–149

  • Pécskay Z, Lexa J, Szakács A et al (2006) Geochronology of Neogene magmatism in the Carpathian arc and intra-Carpathian area. Geol Carpathica 57:511–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentelényi L (1970) Geological map of the Tokaj Mts. 1:25000. Abaújszántó. Hung. Geol Inst.

  • Pentelényi L (1971) Geological map of the Tokaj Mts. 1:25000. Erdőbénye. Hung. Geol Inst.

  • Pentelényi L (1972) Geological map of the Tokaj Mts. 1:25000.Füzérradvány-Széphalom. Hung. Geol Inst.

  • Pereira P, Pereira D (2010) Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment. Géomorphologie Reli Process Environ 16:215–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piller WE, Harzhauser M, Mandic O (2007) Miocene Central Paratethys stratigraphy – current status and future directions. Stratigraphy 4:151–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinczés Z (1998) A Tokaji-hegység geomorfológiai nagyformái. Foldr Ert 3:379–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Poiraud A, Chevalier M, Claeyssen B, Biron PE, Joly B (2016) From geoheritage inventory to territorial planning tool in the Vercors massif (French Alps): contribution of statistical and expert cross approaches. Appl Geogr 71:69–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.04.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prosser CD (2018) Geoconservation, quarrying and mining: opportunities and challenges illustrated through working in partnership with the mineral extraction industry in England. Geoheritage 10:259–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0206-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prosser CD, Díaz-Martínez E, Larwood JG (2017) The conservation of geosites: principles and practice. Geoheritage Assessment, Prot Manag 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00011-3

  • Regolini-Bissig G, Reynard E (2010) Mapping geoheritage_6 papers. Inst Geogr Geovisions:127

  • Reynard E (2009) Geomorphosites: definitions and characteristics. In: Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (eds) Geomorphosites. Pfeil, München, pp 9–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynard E, Giusti C (2017) The landscape and the cultural value of geoheritage. Elsevier Inc.

  • Reynard E, Giusti C (2018) The landscape and the cultural value of geoheritage. Elsevier Inc.

  • Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L, Scapozza C (2007) A method for assessing “scientific” and “additional values” of geomorphosites. Geogr Helv 62:148–158. https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-62-148-2007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richthofen F (1861) Studie aus dem ungarisch-siebenbürgischen Trachytgebirgen. Jahrb d k.k Geol Reichsanst 11:153–278

  • Rolfo F, Benna P, Cadoppi P, Castelli D, Favero-Longo SE, Giardino M, Balestro G, Belluso E, Borghi A, Cámara F, Compagnoni R, Ferrando S, Festa A, Forno MG, Giacometti F, Gianotti F, Groppo C, Lombardo B, Mosca P, Perrone G, Piervittori R, Rebay G, Rossetti P (2015) The Monviso Massif and the Cottian Alps as symbols of the alpine chain and geological heritage in Piemonte, Italy. Geoheritage 7:65–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0097-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruban DA (2019) Jurassic trace fossil localities of adygeya (Russia): new geoheritage under anthropogenic pressure. J Geogr Inst Jovan Cvijic SASA 69:83–89. https://doi.org/10.2298/IJGI1901083R

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharples C (1993) A methodology for the identification of significant landforms and geological sites for geoconservation purposes. Forestry Commission of Tasmania

  • Sharples C (2002) Concepts and principles of geoconservation. Tasmanian Park Wildl Serv website 2002:81

  • SRTM global DEM https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/SRTM1Arc)

  • Szakáll S, Gatter I (1993) Magyarországi ásványfajok. Fair System Kft., Budapest

  • Szepesi J, Sütő L, Soós I (2015) Vizsoly, riolittufa kőfejtő földtani alapszelvény – természeti emlék természetvédelmi kezelési tervdokumentációja

  • Szepesi J, Harangi S, Ésik Z, Novák TJ, Lukács R, Soós I (2017) Volcanic geoheritage and geotourism perspectives in Hungary: a case of an UNESCO World Heritage Site, Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape, Hungary. Geoheritage 9:329–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0205-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szepesi J, Ésik Z, Soós I, et al (2018a) Földtani objektumok értékminősítése: módszertani értékelés a védelem, bemutatás, fenntarthatóság és a geoturisztikai fejlesztések tükrében. Földtani Közlöny 148:143–160. 10.23928/foldt.kozl.2018.148.2.143

  • Szepesi J, Lukács R, Bíró K.T, et al (2018b) Geology of Tokaj Mountains obsidians. Archeometriai Műhely XV:167–179

  • Szepesi J, Lukács R, Soós I, Benkó Z, Pécskay Z, Ésik Z, Kozák M, di Capua A, Groppelli G, Norini G, Sulpizio R, Harangi S (2019) Telkibánya lava domes: Lithofacies architecture of a Miocene rhyolite field (Tokaj Mountains, Carpathian-Pannonian region, Hungary). J Volcanol Geotherm Res. 385:179–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2019.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timothy J, Witt JD (2019) Legal aspects of rock, mineral, and fossil collecting. https://geology.com/minerals/legal-aspects-of-rock-collecting/

  • Tóth S, Szijártó Á, Kiss G (2012) Az egyedi tájértékek nyilvántartásának tájvédelmi szempontú elemzése. J Landsc Ecol 10:139–152

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2014) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture Guidelines and Criteria for National Geoparks seeking UNESCO’s assistance to join the Global Geoparks Network (GGN). 13

  • Vujičić MD, Vasiljević DA, Marković SB, Hose TA, Lukić T, Hadžić O, Janićević S (2011) Preliminary geosite assessment model (GAM) and its application on fruška gora mountain, potential geotourism destination of Serbia. Acta Geogr Slov 51:361–377. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS51303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wimbledon WAP (1999) GEOSITES - an International Union of Geological Sciences initiative to conserve our geological heritage. 8:5–8

  • Zangmo GT, Kagou AD, Nkouathio DG, et al (2017) The volcanic geoheritage of the Mount Bamenda Calderas (Cameroon Line): assessment for geotouristic and geoeducational purposeS. 255–278. 10.1007/s12371-016-0177-0

  • Zangmo GT, Román AQ, Umaña DP (2020) Geomorphosites inventory in the Eboga Volcano (Cameroon): contribution for geotourism promotionInventaire des géomorphosites du volcan Eboga (Cameroun): contribution à la promotion du géo-tourisme. Géomorphologie Reli Process Environ 26

  • Zelenka T, Gyarmati P, Kiss J (2012) Paleovolcanic reconstruction in the Tokaj Mountains. Cent Eur Geol 55:49–83. https://doi.org/10.1556/CEuGeol.55.2012.1.4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zouros N (2005) Assessment, protection, and promotion of geomorphological and geological sites in the Aegean area, Greece. Géomorphologie Reli Process environnement, 2005:227–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004, www.geomania.hu, accessed 21.01.2020

Download references

Acknowledgments

The first author as a chairman of Hungarian Geological Society, ProGEO Section on conservation of the geological heritage would like to thank the ProGEO community for the fruitful discussions. We also thank the Aggtelek National Park for providing the database of unique landscape cadastre. Additional fieldwork and qualitative assessment are related to the PhD study of Z. Ésik at the University of Debrecen.

Funding

This research has been funded by the FK131869 project of the National Research Development and Innovation Office (Hungary). The work was also supported by the European Union and the State of Hungary, co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund in the project of GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00009 ‘ICER’.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MTA-ELTE Volcanology Research Group, Pázmány Péter Sétány 1/c, Budapest, H-1117, Hungary

    János Szepesi, Ildikó Soós, Szabolcs Harangi & Réka Lukács

  2. Isotope Climatology and Environmental Research Centre (ICER), Institute for Nuclear Research, Debrecen, Hungary

    János Szepesi & Zsuzsanna Ésik

  3. Department of Mineralogy and Geology, University of Debrecen, Egyetem Tér 1, Debrecen, H-4010, Hungary

    Zsuzsanna Ésik

  4. School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Turitea Campus, Palmerston North, New Zealand

    Boglárka Németh

  5. Institute of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Eszterházy Károly University, 6-8 Leányka u, Eger, Hungary

    László Sütő

  6. University of Debrecen Department of Landscape Protection and Environmental Geography, Egyetem Tér 1, Debrecen, H-4010, Hungary

    Tibor József Novák

  7. Department of Petrology and Geochemistry, Eötvös University, Pázmány Péter Sétány 1/c, Budapest, H-1117, Hungary

    Ildikó Soós & Szabolcs Harangi

Authors
  1. János Szepesi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zsuzsanna Ésik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ildikó Soós
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Boglárka Németh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. László Sütő
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tibor József Novák
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Szabolcs Harangi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Réka Lukács
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to János Szepesi.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(DOCX 43 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Szepesi, J., Ésik, Z., Soós, I. et al. Identification of Geoheritage Elements in a Cultural Landscape: a Case Study from Tokaj Mts, Hungary. Geoheritage 12, 89 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00516-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00516-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation