IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v7y2015i5p4893-4918d48685.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community Involvement in Geoconservation: A Conceptual Approach Based on the Geoheritage of South Angola

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandre Oliveira Tavares

    (Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra (Polo II), Rua Sílvio Lima, 3030-790 Coimbra, Portugal
    Department of Earth Sciences, University of Coimbra (Polo II), Rua Sílvio Lima, 3030-790 Coimbra, Portugal)

  • Maria Helena Henriques

    (Department of Earth Sciences, University of Coimbra (Polo II), Rua Sílvio Lima, 3030-790 Coimbra, Portugal
    Geosciences Centre, University of Coimbra (Polo II), Rua Sílvio Lima, 3030-790 Coimbra, Portugal
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Artur Domingos

    (Magistério Primário do Lubango-Nambambe, Lubango, Angola
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Abel Bala

    (Instituto Superior Politécnico da Tundavala and Escola Secundária do 2° Ciclo/Quilengues, Huíla, Angola
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

In this work, it is argued that effective protection of geological objects displaying heritage value requires the local community’s involvement in all geoconservation actions, i.e. , inventory, evaluation, conservation, valuation and monitoring procedures, and not only at the final part of the process, when it is expected from local communities that the physical integrity of such objects is guaranteed. Community involvement in geoheritage inventory and evaluation procedures can be appraised by using a classification system that integrates both the geoheritage properties displayed by the geological objects and usually recognized by geoscientists ( i.e. , relevance grade) and the social role attributed to geological objects by communities outside Earth scientists that arise from the public perception of such objects ( i.e. , abstract perceptiveness). Using two case studies from southern Angola (Huíla Province) where both social and scientific components were taken into account in geoheritage evaluation procedures (Tundavala and Leba geosites), we propose a conceptual community-based model, which can be applicable to geoconservation purposes and actions in other African regions and converging with the main goals of the “African Alive Corridors” initiative.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandre Oliveira Tavares & Maria Helena Henriques & Artur Domingos & Abel Bala, 2015. "Community Involvement in Geoconservation: A Conceptual Approach Based on the Geoheritage of South Angola," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-26, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:5:p:4893-4918:d:48685
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/5/4893/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/5/4893/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Helena Henriques & Keynesménio Neto, 2015. "Geoheritage at the Equator: Selected Geosites of São Tomé Island (Cameron Line, Central Africa)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Alexandre Oliveira Tavares & Pedro Pinto dos Santos, 2014. "Re-scaling risk governance using local appraisal and community involvement," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7), pages 923-949, August.
    3. Bram Buscher & Elna de Beer, 2011. "The contemporary paradox of long-term planning for social-ecological change and its effects on the discourse-practice divide: evidence from Southern Africa," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 301-318.
    4. Munda, Giuseppe, 2004. "Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 662-677, November.
    5. Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), 2014. "Handbook of Sustainable Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15312.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Canan Cengiz & Şükran Şahin & Bülent Cengiz & Mükerrem Bahar Başkır & Pelin Keçecioğlu Dağlı, 2021. "Evaluation of the Visitor Understanding of Coastal Geotourism and Geoheritage Potential Based on Sustainable Regional Development in Western Black Sea Region, Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-31, October.
    2. Henriques, M.H. & Castro, A.R.S.F. & Félix, Y.R. & Carvalho, I.S., 2020. "Promoting sustainability in a low density territory through geoheritage: Casa da Pedra case-study (Araripe Geopark, NE Brazil)," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    3. Gricelda Herrera-Franco & Paúl Carrión-Mero & Niurka Alvarado & Fernando Morante-Carballo & Alfonso Maldonado & Pablo Caldevilla & Josué Briones-Bitar & Edgar Berrezueta, 2020. "Geosites and Georesources to Foster Geotourism in Communities: Case Study of the Santa Elena Peninsula Geopark Project in Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-24, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrea Saltelli, 2007. "Composite Indicators between Analysis and Advocacy," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 81(1), pages 65-77, March.
    2. Rachele Corticelli & Margherita Pazzini & Cecilia Mazzoli & Claudio Lantieri & Annarita Ferrante & Valeria Vignali, 2022. "Urban Regeneration and Soft Mobility: The Case Study of the Rimini Canal Port in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-27, November.
    3. Johann Audrain & Mateo Cordier & Sylvie Faucheux & Martin O’Connor, 2013. "Écologie territoriale et indicateurs pour un développement durable de la métropole parisienne," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 523-559.
    4. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    5. Giuseppe Munda, 2005. "“Measuring Sustainability”: A Multi-Criterion Framework," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 117-134, January.
    6. White, Leroy & Lee, Gregory John, 2009. "Operational research and sustainable development: Tackling the social dimension," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(3), pages 683-692, March.
    7. Locatelli, Bruno & Rojas, Varinia & Salinas, Zenia, 2008. "Impacts of payments for environmental services on local development in northern Costa Rica: A fuzzy multi-criteria analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 275-285, April.
    8. Adams, Michelle & Wheeler, David & Woolston, Genna, 2011. "A participatory approach to sustainable energy strategy development in a carbon-intensive jurisdiction: The case of Nova Scotia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2550-2559, May.
    9. Sebastian Schär & Jutta Geldermann, 2021. "Adopting Multiactor Multicriteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Energy Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    10. Cordier, Mateo & Pérez Agúndez, José A. & Hecq, Walter & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2014. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological–economic modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 86-96.
    11. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2207-2215, June.
    12. Frank Hanssen & Roel May & Jiska van Dijk & Jan Ketil Rød, 2018. "Spatial Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool Suite for Consensus-Based Siting of Renewable Energy Structures," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-28, September.
    13. Yuxue Yang & Xuejiao Tan & Yafei Shi & Jun Deng, 2023. "What are the core concerns of policy analysis? A multidisciplinary investigation based on in-depth bibliometric analysis," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Zepharovich, Elena & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Rist, Stephan, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation of land-use scenarios in the Chaco Salteño: Complementing the three-pillar sustainability approach with environmental justice," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    15. Shailly Kedia & Rita Pandey & Ria Sinha, 2020. "Shaping the Post-COVID-19 Development Paradigm in India: Some Imperatives for Greening the Economic Recovery," Millennial Asia, , vol. 11(3), pages 268-298, December.
    16. Amidou Kpoumié & Sébastien Damart & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2012. "Integrating Cognitive Mapping Analysis into Multi-Criteria Decision Aiding," Working Papers hal-00875480, HAL.
    17. AlSabbagh, Maha & Siu, Yim Ling & Guehnemann, Astrid & Barrett, John, 2017. "Integrated approach to the assessment of CO2e-mitigation measures for the road passenger transport sector in Bahrain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 203-215.
    18. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    19. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    20. Tommaso Luzzati & Ilaria Tucci & Pietro Guarnieri, 2022. "Information overload and environmental degradation: learning from H.A. Simon and W. Wenders," Papers 2209.01039, arXiv.org.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:5:p:4893-4918:d:48685. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.