Geoheritage Meaning of Artificial Objects: Reporting Two New Examples from Russia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Method
3. Granite Balls from Saint Petersburg
4. Coal Waste Heaps from Shakhty
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bétard, F.; Hobléa, F.; Portal, C. Geoheritage as new territorial resource for local development. Ann. Geogr. 2017, 717, 523–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ruban, D.A.; Tiess, G.; Sallam, E.S.; Ponedelnik, A.A.; Yashalova, N.N. Combined mineral and geoheritage resources related to kaolin, phosphate, and cement production in Egypt: Conceptualization, assessment, and policy implications. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2018, 28, 454–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santangelo, N.; Valente, E. Geoheritage and Geotourism resources. Resources 2020, 9, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cárdenes, V.; Ponce de León, M.; Rodríguez, X.A.; Rubio-Ordoñez, A. Roofing Slate Industry in Spain: History, Geology, and Geoheritage. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ezquerro, L.; Simón, J.L. Geomusic as a New Pedagogical and Outreach Resource: Interpreting Geoheritage with All the Senses. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 1187–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, J.E. Geoheritage, geotourism and the cultural landscape: Enhancing the visitor experience and promoting geoconservation. Geosciences 2018, 8, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Górska-Zabielska, M. The rock garden of the Institute of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Jan Kochanowski University—a new geo-site in Kielce, central Poland. Geosciences 2021, 11, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kubalíková, L. Cultural ecosystem services of geodiversity: A case study from Stranska skala (Brno, Czech Republic). Land 2020, 9, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moroni, A.; Gnezdilova, V.V.; Ruban, D.A. Geological heritage in archaeological sites: Case examples from Italy and Russia. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2015, 126, 244–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pásková, M.; Zelenka, J.; Ogasawara, T.; Zavala, B.; Astete, I. The ABC Concept—Value Added to the Earth Heritage Interpretation? Geoheritage 2021, 13, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prosser, C.D. Communities, Quarries and Geoheritage—Making the Connections. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 1277–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fedorov, Y.A.; Gar’kusha, D.N.; Trubnik, R.G.; Latushko, N.A.; Ruban, D.A. Coastal peloids as geological heritage: Evidence from the Taman Peninsula (Southwestern Russia). Water 2019, 11, 1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gogin, I.Y.; Vdovets, M.S. Geosites of International Significance in the UNESCO WHS Lena Pillars Nature Park (Sakha Republic, Russia). Geoheritage 2014, 6, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karpunin, A.M.; Mamonov, S.V.; Mironenko, O.A.; Sokolov, A.R. Geological Monuments of Nature of Russia; Lorien: Sankt-Peterburg, Russia, 1998. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Marshall, J.E.A.; Siveter, D.J. The Lake Il’men clint, Russia: A potential Devonian geopark. J. Min. Inst. 2018, 234, 581–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vdovets, M.S.; Silantiev, V.V.; Mozzherin, V.V. A national geopark in the Republic of Tatarstan (Russia): A feasibility study. Geoheritage 2010, 2, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, S.B.; Nayyar-Stone, R.; O’Leary, S. The law and economics of historic preservation in St. Petersburg, Russia. Rev. Urban Reg. Dev. Stud. 1999, 11, 24–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golubev, A. “A wonderful song of wood”: Heritage architecture and the search for historical authenticity in North Russia. Rethink. Marx. 2017, 29, 142–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kazanskaya, L.; Sobor, V. Historical railway bridges of Russia as objects of architectural heritage. Urbanism. Archit. Constr. 2019, 10, 123–132. [Google Scholar]
- Kotlyakov, V.M. Outstanding cultural heritage of Russia. Izv. Akad. Nauk Seriya Geogr. 1997, 3, 152–154. [Google Scholar]
- Kozinsky, O. The historical and Olympic heritage of Sochi. Proj. Baikal 2019, 60, 132–141. [Google Scholar]
- Kuleshova, M.E. Cultural landscapes and prospects for extending Russia’s representation on the World Heritage List. Reg. Res. Russ. 2013, 3, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuleshova, M.E. Cultural Landscapes, Their Position in the World Heritage List and Prospects for Representation of Russia. Reg. Res. Russ. 2020, 10, 260–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazurov, Y.L. Factors of environment and condition of cultural heritage of Russia. Izv. Akad. Nauk Seriya Geogr. 2003, 6, 58–65. [Google Scholar]
- Saksa, A.I. The old cathedral in Vyborg—A unique object of cultural heritage. Strat. Plus 2014, 6, 261–270. [Google Scholar]
- Voskresenskaya, E.; Vorona-Slivinskaya, L.; Kazakov, Y. Study of the protection of the architectural heritage of Russia. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 135, 03041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habibi, T.; Ponedelnik, A.A.; Yashalova, N.N.; Ruban, D.A. Urban geoheritage complexity: Evidence of a unique natural resource from Shiraz city in Iran. Resour. Policy 2018, 59, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordin, V.E. Development of cultural tourism in a megacity: The St. Petersburg phenomenon. Reg. Res. Russ. 2011, 1, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraikovski, A.; Bogachev, N.; Lomakina, I. Playing maritime capital: The Baltic Sea in the touristic representations of St. Petersburg. Int. J. Marit. Hist. 2020, 32, 928–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zelenskaya, E.; Elkanova, E. Designing place brand architecture: The potential of a sub-brands strategy. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2021, 30, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurakov, Y.I.; Samofalov, V.S.; Malikov, I.N.; Kolomiets, V.A. Coal mining in the Russian Donetsk Basin. Coke Chem. 2010, 53, 121–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plakitkina, L.S.; Plakitkin, Y.A.; Dyachenko, K.I. Development of the coal industry in the Rostov Region in 2000–2025. Gorn. Zhurnal 2018, 12, 4–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsaturov, V.V.; Agafonov, O.A.; Chernyak, V.A. The tasks of advanced development of mining production at the enterprises of “South Coal Company”. Ugol 2020, 8, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruban, D.A.; Sallam, E.S.; Khater, T.M.; Ermolaev, V.A. Golden Triangle Geosites: Preliminary Geoheritage Assessment in a Geologically Rich Area of Eastern Egypt. Geoheritage 2021, 13, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCO. Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/540/ (accessed on 7 July 2021).
- Lavrov, L.P.; Perov, F.V. “Appropriate architecture”. Capriccio on the vasilyevsky Island Strelka. Vestn. St.-Peterbg. Univ. Iskusstv. 2016, 6, 52–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Molotkova, E. Environmental approach to the formation of public spaces of the capital city on the spit of Vasilevskiy Island. E3S Web Conf. 2020, 164, 04021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorgadze, A.; Gordin, V.; Belyakova, N. Semantic analysis of the imperial topic: Case of St. Petersburg. e-Rev. Tour. Res. 2019, 16, 3–13. [Google Scholar]
- Lapin, V.V. St. Petersburg as an imperial capital. Ural. Istor. Vestn. 2016, 52, 14–22. [Google Scholar]
- De Wever, P.; Baudin, F.; Pereira, D.; Cornee, A.; Egoroff, G.; Page, K. The Importance of Geosites and Heritage Stones in Cities—A Review. Geoheritage 2017, 9, 561–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaur, G.; de Oliveira Frascá, M.H.B.; Pereira, D. Natural Stones: Architectonic heritage and its global relevance. Episodes 2021, 44, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, D.; Van den Eynde, V.C. Heritage Stones and Geoheritage. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bulakh, A.G. Ornamental stone in the history of St Petersburg architecture. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2015, 407, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulakh, A.G.; Gavrilenko, V.V.; Panova, E.G. Rapakivi granite in St Petersburg: Architecture and mineralogical-petrografical observations. Vestn. St. -Peterbg. Univ. Seriya Geol. I Geogr. 2016, 3, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bulakh, A.; Harma, P.; Panova, E.; Selonen, O. Rapakivi granite in the architecture of St Petersburg: A potential global heritage stone from Finland and Russia. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2020, 486, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziskind, M.S. Decorative-Facing Stones; Nedra: Leningrad, Russia, 1989. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Blair, T.C.; McPherson, J.G. Grain-size and textural classification of coarse sedimentary particles. J. Sediments Res. 1999, 69, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blott, S.J.; Pye, K. Particle size scales and classification of sediment types based on particle size distributions: Review and recommended procedures. Sedimentology 2012, 59, 2071–2096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruban, D.A.; Ponedelnik, A.A.; Yashalova, N.N. Megaclasts: Term Use and Relevant Biases. Geosciences 2019, 9, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Terry, J.P.; Goff, J. Megaclasts: Proposed revised nomenclature at the coarse end of the Udden-Wentworth gain-size scale for sedimentary particles. J. Sediment. Res. 2014, 84, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruno, D.E.; Ruban, D.A. Something more than boulders: A geological comment on the nomenclature of megaclasts on extraterrestrial bodies. Planet. Space Sci. 2017, 135, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blott, S.J.; Pye, K. Particle shape: A review and new methods of characterization and classification. Sedimentology 2008, 55, 31–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruban, D.A.; Yashalova, N.N. New Evidence of Megaclasts from the Russian South: The First Report of Three Localities. Geosciences 2021, 11, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sleptsov, Y. Problem of Slagheaps of Donbass. E3S Web Conf. 2020, 217, 04005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danilin, O. On the way to decline: The development of the Donbass coal-mining industry from the 1950s to the 1980s. Inst. Min. Metall. Trans. Sect. A Min. Technol. 2002, 111, A167–A171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maksimenko, E.P. Black “bread of industry”: Giving the insight into the coal mining during first post-revolutionary years. Ugol 2017, 11, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellman, M. Soviet industrialization: A remarkable success? Slav. Rev. 2004, 63, 841–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poberezhnikov, I.V. Modernization in the history of Russia: Trends and investigation problems. Ural. Istor. Vestn. 2017, 57, 36–45. [Google Scholar]
- Szabó, J. Anthropogenic Geomorphology: Subject and System. In Anthropogenic Geomorphology: A Guide to Man-Made Landforms; Szabó, J., Dávid, L., Lóczy, D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 3–10. [Google Scholar]
- Kozma, J. The transboundary Muskau Arch geopark. Prz. Geol. 2011, 59, 276–290. [Google Scholar]
- Luud, A.; Liblik, V.; Sepp, M. Landscape evaluation in industrial areas. Oil Shale 2003, 20, 25–32. [Google Scholar]
- Portal, C.; Kerguillec, R. The Shape of a City: Geomorphological Landscapes, Abiotic Urban Environment, and Geoheritage in the Western World: The Example of Parks and Gardens. Geoheritage 2018, 10, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gwenzi, W.; Hinz, C.; Bleby, T.M.; Veneklaas, E.J. Transpiration and water relations of evergreen shrub species on an artificial landform for mine waste storage versus an adjacent natural site in semi-arid Western Australia. Ecohydrology 2014, 7, 965–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masalehdani, M.N.-N.; Mees, F.; Dubois, M.; Coquinot, Y.; Potdevin, J.-L.; Fialin, M.; Blanc-Valleron, M.-M. Condensate minerals from a burning coal-waste heap in Avion, Northern France. Can. Mineral. 2009, 47, 573–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wrede, V.; Mügge-Bartolovic, V. GeoRoute Ruhr-a Network of Geotrails in the Ruhr Area National GeoPark, Germany. Geoheritage 2012, 4, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gawor, L.; Jankowski, A.T.; Ruman, M. Post-mining dumping grounds as geotourist attractions in the Upper Silesian coal basin and the Ruhr district. Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2011, 19, 61–68. [Google Scholar]
- Brzezinska-Wójcik, T.; Skowronek, E. Tangible Heritage of the Historical Stonework Centre in Brusno Stare in the Roztocze Area (SE Poland) as an Opportunity for the Development of Geotourism). Geoheritage 2020, 12, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nita, J.; Myga-Piatek, U. Geotourist potential of post-mining regions in Poland. Bull. Geogr.—Phys. Geogr. Ser. 2014, 7, 139–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brilha, J. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: A review. Geoheritage 2016, 8, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kubalíkova, L.; Drápela, E.; Kirchner, K.; Bajer, A.; Balková, M.; Kuda, F. Urban geotourism and geoconservation: Is it possible to find a balance? Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 121, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Štrba, L.; Rybar, P.; Balaz, B.; Molokac, M.; Hvizdak, L.; Krsak, B.; Lukac, M.; Muchova, L.; Tometzova, D.; Ferencikova, J. Geosite assessments: Comparison of methods and results. Curr. Issues Tour. 2015, 18, 496–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warowna, J.; Zgłobicki, W.; Kołodyńska-Gawrysiak, R.; Gajek, G.; Gawrysiak, L.; Telecka, M. Geotourist values of loess geoheritage within the planned Geopark Małopolska Vistula River Gap, E Poland. Quat. Int. 2016, 399, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brilha, J.; Gray, M.; Pereira, D.I.; Pereira, P. Geodiversity: An integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable management of the whole of nature. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 86, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Capdevila-Werning, R. Preserving Destruction: Philosophical Issues of Urban Geosites. Open Philos. 2020, 3, 550–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chakraborty, A.; Gray, M. A call for mainstreaming geodiversity in nature conservation research and praxis. J. Nat. Conserv. 2020, 56, 125862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mikhailenko, A.V.; Ruban, D.A.; Ermolaev, V.A. Geoheritage Meaning of Artificial Objects: Reporting Two New Examples from Russia. Heritage 2021, 4, 2721-2731. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/heritage4040153
Mikhailenko AV, Ruban DA, Ermolaev VA. Geoheritage Meaning of Artificial Objects: Reporting Two New Examples from Russia. Heritage. 2021; 4(4):2721-2731. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/heritage4040153
Chicago/Turabian StyleMikhailenko, Anna V., Dmitry A. Ruban, and Vladimir A. Ermolaev. 2021. "Geoheritage Meaning of Artificial Objects: Reporting Two New Examples from Russia" Heritage 4, no. 4: 2721-2731. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/heritage4040153