The Karkonosze National Park and the English Geopark

MAZURSKI K. R. 2013: The Karkonosze National Park and the English Geopark: comparative study
of protection and education. Opera Corcontica 50/S: 123–134.
The Karkonosze National Park and the English
Geopark: comparative study of protection and
education
Karkonoski Park Narodowy i angielski geopark: stadium
porównawcze ochrony i edukacji
KRZYSZTOF R. MAZURSKI
High College of Management „Edukacja” in Vrotslav, Faculty of Tourism, Chair of Tourism, PL, [email protected]
Abstract: Geoparks are a new form in the popularisation of abiotic nature in Poland. The Karkonosze National Park
was awarded such status in which the nature is protected on the strength of a general act in 2010. It was interesting
in this situation to compare the possibilities and directions of the Park performing as a geopark with the experiences
of already existing parks of this type in Western Europe. The Abberley – Malvern Heritage Geopark was chosen as
a comparative subject. Source-studies and personal observations from this Park have been used as the basis for analysis and conclusions. The results can also be applied to the Karkonosze (Giant) Mts.
Keywords: geopark, geoturism, geodiversity, Karkonosze, Malvern Hills
Abstrakt Geoparki są nową formą popularyzacji przyrody nieożywionej w Polsce. Status taki w 2010 r. otrzymał
Karkonoski Park Narodowy, gdzie przyroda chroniona jest na mocy ogólnej ustawy. W tej sytuacji stało się interesujące porównać możliwości i kierunki działania Parku jako geoparku z już istniejącymi, doświadczonymi tak
parkami w Europie Zachodniej. Wybrany został Abberley – Malvern Heritage Geopark jako obiekt porównawczy.
Studia źródłowe i własne obserwacje z tego Parku posłużyły jako podstawa analiz i wniosków. Rezultaty mogą być
zastosowane także w Karkonoskim Parku Narodowym.
Słowa kluczowe: geopark, geoturystyka, georóżnorodność, Karkonosze, Malvern Hills
Introduction
The uncontrollable and outright predatory manner
of using the Earth’s natural resources – in this case
of mineral resources, put in question the further
development of human civilization in the latter part
of the 1960s. A dramatic report visualized such a situation for the world’s society in 1972 (MEADOWS et al.
1972). This initiated a number of activities to support
the rationalisation of the economic aspect of Man’s
behaviour towards the natural environment. In this
way the tool set was enriched. These tools protect
different forms of nature, but are primarily directed
towards protecting biotic elements (MAZURSKI 1998).
Until this time the protection was focussed on indi-
vidual geological objects, such as rocks or waterfalls,
in form of so called nature monuments (for example, in Poland), as well as on greater areas with prevailing geological and geomorphological features
(for example, the Grand Canyon of the Colorado
in the United States). The evolution of human attitudes in the understanding of the ecological unity
of biotic and abiotic elements as being essential for
the existence of the environment has begun to be
embraced by wider and wider circles of laypersons,
in addition to the closed circle of specialists. Therefore, the idea of geodiversity – alongside biodiversity – was formulated and began to be a focal point
for the following activities. It has been developing
since the beginning of the 1990s in Australia in the
124
OPERA CORCONTICA 50/S 2013
context of lithosphere protection (geoconservation),
while in Poland – of geosphere protection. It is interpreted as the differentiation of all abiotic elements
of the environment at different levels in the synthesis of geographical space and Man’s diverse influences – so geocomplexes instead of ecosystems – are
captured in the scale of geological time. The character of the substratum – the bedrock or base of the
geocomplex – that is to say the rocks (lithosphere),
underlie the qualification of geodiversity. Its significance relies primarily on its utility for Man (in perspective), and not only on the state of preservation
of the abiotic environment.
The values of abiotic nature have become known
as the Earth’s heritage, which should be protected by
wide education and popularisation. The idea of geoparks (the abbreviation for geological and geomorphological park), which realizes these postulates in a complex manner, was born in this way (ALEKSANDROWICZ
2006). This directs a practical approach towards tourism, in which the instructive and educational values
are undeniable. Geotourism – that is to say, tourism
directed towards the cognition of the aforementioned
Earth’s heritage, has consequently not only become
a form of its protection, but also a new, attractive offer
on the tourist market. Such manner of recreation also
corresponds with the realisation of the idea of sustainable development, thanks to the care and adaptation of geosites for tourist movements (SIDORCZUK
et al. 2012). They must possess suitable tourist infrastructure, and take into account the hitherto existing
(also in the historical aspect) exploitation of mineral
raw materials, as well as the biotic nature and cultural heritage. The rank of geoparks is divided into
three levels: national, European (continental) and
world formats.
Poland and the Sudetes
In Poland, the idea of opening and popularising the
resources of the abiotic environment by way of geoparks and geotourism quickly gained popularity within
specialist circles. However, this was not something
completely new – it will suffice to give examples of
superb geological guides in the accessible form for
wider tourist circles, even if just for the Sudetes (GROCHOLSKI 1969). It has been abundantly dealt with in
standard guides, but unfortunately only by some
authors (MARTYNOWSKI & MAZURSKI 1978), however
geology was always discussed and taken into account
in most of them. So it is nothing new in this country.
It should be differentiated here, as it is pointed out
in (SIDORCZUK et al. 2012), that such forms of popularisation without an individual naturalness, such
as rocky gardens and expositions of definite rocks,
as well as fashionable, but generally trashy and
kitschy, so-called Jurassic parks – JuraPark Bałtów
is a creditable exception here (MAZURSKI & POCHWAŁA
2008). The novelty is presented instead by the idea
of geoparks, which find superb bases for an initiation here. Poland is an area with almost all kinds of
rocks and of all different ages – from Precambrian
to Anthropozoic, as well as with a varied relief of different origins. The special geological and geomorphological wealth is noted in Lower Silesia (southwestern Poland), which creates its high geodiversity
(KOŹMA et al. 2011). Already well-known geosites
and new, permanently listed places (including closed
down exploitive sites, like mines) create a longer and
longer set of proposals for geotourism. Such great
possibilities for their usage are shown in the project
“Geostrada Zachodniosudecka” (West-Sudetic Geostrada) which can be followed along the edge of the
Western Sudetes (ŁODZIŃSKI et al. 2009). Preparations are being made for the creation of a geopark in
the Wałbrzych region (closed down mines, numerous natural sites); similar chances have also been
found in all parts of the Sudetes (MIGOŃ & LATOCHA
2010). These ideas and the popularisation of knowledge about the abiotic part of the environment have
been presented in the columns of the periodical “Geoturystyka” since 2005.
As the first geopark in Poland with the national
status, the Łuk Mużakowski (the Muskau Bend) was
established in 2009 – this is greatest frontal moraine
in Europe, situated in Lusatia within the borderlands
of Poland and Germany (KOŹMA et al. 2011). After
only two years it was included in the European network. In 2010, the Polish Minister of the Environment granted national certificates to the region of
Góra św. Anny and the Karkonosze National Park
(KPN) – together with its cleading. In all cases, this
is the result of proceeding from rank and file initiatives – from local subjects, in this case, from the territorial authorities. This decision was preceded by
MAZURSKI: COMPARISON OF THE KARKONOSZE NP AND AN ENGLISH GEOPARK
many years of arduous preparations for the elaboration of complete and detailed records (www.mos.
gov.pl … 2012). This was carried out through interesting publications in English and Polish, devoted
to tourists (for example: KNAPIK 2011a, 2011b, KNAPIK
et al. 2011). Finances have flowed in from European
Fund for Regional Development “We Cross Borders”
and the Voivodeship Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management in Wrocław. One
unique publication in Poland (KNAPIK & MIGOŃ 2011),
even gained a prize during the All-Polish Review of
Tourist and Country Books 2012 in Poznań. In the
consequence, some other materials were published
(KNAPIK et al. 2011a, MIGOŃ 2012).
In spite of these undoubtable achievements, it could
be beneficial to compare the existing results and solutions with earlier established geoparks which have
many more years of experience. The so-called Czech
Paradise is located nearest to the Karkonosze Mts,
125
but it differs considerably from them in its geology
and morphology. Following criteria of the choice of
the particular geopark as the partner of comparison
were following:
1. the location within old geologic structures,
1. a properly rich/long stratigraphic profile,
3. a considerable petrographic differentiation,
4. an intensive tourist traffic,
5. a developed educational activity,
6. existing experiences in activity.
Due to certain similarities and the knowledge of
the language as well as the country, the Abberley –
Malvern Heritage Geopark (AMHG) in the English
West Midlands was chosen in 2012.
The acquaintance of Karkonosze Mts, especially
Polish part, connects with their penetration by the
author from times of geographical university studies and with the presence in the Scientific Council
of the Karkonosze National Park since 1995. The
0
5
10
kilometres
Shropshire
Worcestershire
Herefordshire
ABBERLEY & MALVERN
HERITAGE GEOPARK
Fig. 1. Localization of AMHG.
Ryc. 1. Lokalizacja AMHG.
Gloucestershire
126
OPERA CORCONTICA 50/S 2013
Fig. 2. Landscape of Malvern Hills.
Ryc. 2. Krajobraz Malvern Hills.
study stay in AMHG permitted to gain own observations from the autopsy together with different
materials.
Finally, the preparation of the present study was
effected in two stages. In the first part, the achievement of knowledge about the chosen park became
built on:
• own observation of the Geopark area in England,
• own observation of the AMHG activity in the range
of organization, education and land management,
• visits in different agencies of AMHG partners,
• interviews and conversations with scientific workers and activists of AMHG and local structures,
• literature studies.
The second stage embraced comparison, analysis
and inference in the composition of the knowledge
about AMHG and the Karkonosze National Park.
Natural characterisation of AMHG
There is no need to give a more detailed description
of the Karkonosze Mts and the Karkonoski National
Park as numerous publications on it have been
issued – in addition to the titles quoted earlier,
including recent monographs (MIERZEJEWSKI 2005,
FLOUSEK et al. 2007). Instead, the presentation of
AMHG is indispensable because of the distance
from Karkonosze. It is relevant to comment that
only two geoparks (not including AMHG), from
among eight British localities in the official network, are found in England.
The compared geopark is situated in the West
of England near the border with Wales and covers 1,250 km2 in the borderland of four counties:
Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Shropshire and
Worcestershire. It stretches from Bridgnorth in
the north towards Gloucester in the south (www.
geopark.org.uk 2012). Its borders have a theoretical
and indicatory character, without legal implications
for the area embraced by them. They outline only the
range of interests and activities of the subjects which
have established the AMHG. Here are two principal
physiographical units, edifying the geopark stem,
namely two ranges of hills, clearly separated in the
landscape and possessing rich geological profiles
as well as morphologically interesting places (river
beds, crags etc.).
In the north, the Abberley Hills – which are named
after the Saxon chieftain Eobald, who lived in the 6th
century – reach 283 m on Abberley Hill and fundamentally originate in the Silurian (MITCHELL et al.
1962). They are not too strongly modelled, but possess the full stratigraphical profile from the Silurian
up to the Triassic. The greater landscape dominant is
created by the Malvern Hills, which means Bare Hill
(Naked, Bald Hill in the Britons’ language); how-
MAZURSKI: COMPARISON OF THE KARKONOSZE NP AND AN ENGLISH GEOPARK
ever their culmination on the Worcestershire Beacon reaches 425 m. These hills have also a meridional length of 13 km between Great Malvern and the
village of Colwall, approaching another well-known
region, namely the Cotswolds. They overlie the so
called Malvern Line, which is composed of numerous upcasts and folds with vulnerable older rocks
(BARCLAY et al. 1997). This is the reason for the domination of local heights over the region. Their rocky
core is built of igneous and orthometamorphic rocks,
covered by Silurian limestone, which was exploited
in the past. The profile in the Gullet Quarry is especially interesting, as it embraces Precambrian rocks,
like diorite, granite, gneiss, pegmatites, dolerite and
crystalline shales. The differentiation of the rocks’s
resistance to weathering and tectonic processes have
led to significant contrasts in the relief between flat
grounds and the high, east-facing or south-facing
edges, while the rest of the region has the character
of softly wavy hills. Already in 1959, part of the Malvern Hills – 105 km2, was designated for protection
as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB),
one of 49 in the United Kingdom. The formal wealth
of local geodiversity consists of 13 geological Sites of
Special Scientific Interest in the national rank (they
are declared on the grounds of British law and are
the responsibility of the government agency Natural
England) and 179 similar geological and geomorphological sites in the regional rank as well as over 100
Local Geological Sites. The outstanding scientific and
educational meaning is connected with the Huntley
Quarry Geology Reserve, which was established in
2007 on 0.87 ha. As the property of Gloucestershire
Geology Trust, it embraces three sites, of which the
most important is Huntley, called the geological gem
for the following reasons:
• the profile consists of rocks, mostly sandstones
and mudstones, from upper Ordovician to lower
Silurian age (445–428 million years old), which
allows us to find various fossils here, unlike in the
strongly metamorphosed cover of the Karkonosze
granite,
• younger volcanic insertions are found here,
• upcasts are easily visible here.
In addition to these features so typical for “old”
England, the park contains chess-boards of partitions of land ownership in the east (pastures) and the
127
Bridgnorth
•
0
5
10
kilometres
Kidderminster
•Bewdley•
• Abberley
Worcester
•
Bromyard
•
• Malvern
Ledbury
•
Gloucester
•
Lower Jurassic
Permo-Triassic
Carboniferous
Devonian and Silurian
Middle and Lower Silurian
Ordovician and Cambrian
Precambrian
Fig. 3. Geology of AMHG. Source: www.geopark.org.uk.
Ryc. 3. Geologia AMHG. Źródło: www.geopark.org.uk.
128
OPERA CORCONTICA 50/S 2013
Tab. 1. Comparison of natural characters.
Tab. 1. Porównanie cech naturalnych.
No.
Character
1
Geographical location
2
3
The Karkonosze NP
AMHG
a. latitude
50º49’08’’ – 50º44’51’’
51º05’27’’ – 52º32’44’’
b. longitude
15º25’30’’ – 15º25’30’’
2º02’15’’ – 2º07’12’’
a. direction
latitudal
meridional
b. length kms
30
105
Spatial orientation
Morphological relief
a. altitude
1056-1602
250-425
b. type
middle mountains
high hills
c. diversity
ridges and valleys
easy hills and river valleys
0.56
1250
a. origin
intrusion, tectonical horst
anticlinal cores
b. profile
full, some breaks
full
c. rocks
2
4
Area km
5
Geological parameters
only crystallinic
crystallinic and sedimental
6
Climate
mild and montane, modified
by oceanic influences
oceanic
7
Plants
submontane, highmontane, atlantic, endemits
relics and endemits
8
Forests %
70
< 20
9
Beginning of nature protection
1923
1959
10
Source of initiative for temporary protection stand
scientists
local society and scientists
11
Establishment of temporary protection
1959
2003
south (fields), small hamlets and villages and great
cultural wealth, such as castles, remains of strongholds, churches, old buildings etc. Of course the
popularisation of abiotic problems is also organized
outside the AMHG borders, for example 1,419 local
sites were traced by Shropshire Geological Society in
Shropshire (www.shropshiregeology.org.uk 2012).
Although they have no legal base for protection, they
are taken into account by local authorities during the
land use management.
The diversity of rocks also causes the diversity of
soil substrata, thanks to which the local flora is one
of the most interesting in the British Isles. Many species especially find their habitats on the lower spread-
ing limestones. The higher elevations are favoured
by acidophilous plants, which are normally only
found high in the Welsh Mountains. For this reason,
the area of AMHG can be called a specific ecological island with many rare species. This is why many
places have been protected as Sites of Special Scientific Interest: from wet habitats to grasslands, also
afforestations, which lately reach higher and higher
up the slopes in consequence of a reduction in the
area of pastures. The concentrations of leafy old trees
in the north and the west add a picturesque accent
to the scenery. There are numerous invertebrates,
especially butterflies, and birds too (www.geopark.
org.uk 2012).
MAZURSKI: COMPARISON OF THE KARKONOSZE NP AND AN ENGLISH GEOPARK
Fig. 4. Gullet Quarry.
Ryc. 4. Kamieniołom Gullet.
Organisation and work of AMHG
The English park came into being as a result of agreement among local lovers of geology, who are generally
members of regional geological and natural history
societies, of which there are a great number in Great
129
Britain. Although this agreement has no support in
legal rules and regulations, it has more the character of a specific forum, but its formation was encouraged by the governmental Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, however without its
further supervision. The forum includes fifteen partners called members, as follows:
• Abberley Hills Preservation Society,
• Bewdley Museum,
• Cob House (the private land owner),
• Gloucester Geology Trust,
• Hereford and Worcester Earth Heritage Trust,
• Herefordshire Heritage Services (unit of county
authorities),
• Malvern Hills Conservators,
• Malvern Outdoor Education Centre (unit of the
Worcestershire county authorities),
• Severn Valley Railway,
• Shropshire Council (county authorities),
• Shropshire Geological Society,
• University of Worcester,
Tab. 2. Comparison of organizational and social characters.
Tab. 2. Porównanie cech organizacyjnych i społecznych.
No.
Character
1
Area of the geopark
The Karkonosze NP
AMHG
a. initiative
own
local society and scientists
b. legal acceptation
ministerial certificate
agreement of local partners
c. date of establishment
2010
2003
2
Spatial borders
declared by state authorities
none
3
Organizational background
The Karkonosze NP
Volunteer organizations, local
partners and authorities
4
Realizers
staff of the Karkonosze NP
members of societies, local groups
and authorities, > 100 volunteers
5
Place of acting
The Park, schools
sites of interest, schools, museums,
particular constructions
6
Financing
state budget, state funds, grants
membership charges, donations,
own (small) incomes, bequests
7
Form of activity
educational paths and excursions,
‘green schools’, own centers,
meetings (f.e. in schools, events,
publications, conferences, training
of Sudetic guides
like on left (except of guides) +
support of local interest groups
8
Tourist consequences
some limits in winter, limited trails
very few
9
Connections to international
organizations
many (IUCN, EuroParc etc.)
none
130
OPERA CORCONTICA 50/S 2013
• Woolhope Naturalist’s Field Club Geology Section,
• Worcester Outdoor & Environmental Learning
Service,
• Worcester Museums.
The Earth Heritage Trust from Worcester which
runs the Geological Records Centre on the university campus is used as the platform for co-ordination and running co-operation and a secretariat. It
came into being in 1996 at local colleges and gathers all materials – maps, site object descriptions,
reports etc., which are produced within the framework of realised projects and assignments, as well as
those provided by partners and volunteers. Private
persons can use them free-of-charge for non-profit
aims, while institutions and firms – on the payment
of a fee. The income from such services, membership
charges, bequests, donations and symbolic charges
for participation in excursions permit them to help
local initiatives and to realise common projects. In
2008, AMHG was nominated to the European Geoparks Net, but quickly a decision not to join was made
for the following pragmatic reasons:
• too much bureaucracy,
• too many strict regulations,
• too high costs in relation to not large enough advantages.
Nowadays, as based on such partnerships, this
Geopark can achieve more and more cheaply. Assign-
Fig. 5. Cave escarp at Bewdley.
Ryc. 5. Skarpa jaskiniowa w Bewdley.
ments are made once or twice a year at the general
meetings. These assignments (Management Plans)
are then realised by each partner within the framework of possessed competences (especially local
authorities, which put them into their own programmes and land use plans) and financial resources.
Some general projects are realised by EHT thanks to
resources being gained from different sources. This
refers especially to publishing houses and greater
undertakings.
The group of over a hundred volunteers – at the
moment they are the staff of EHT, determines the
power and effects of the Geopark. They find geosites and care for them as well as providing information points, popularise the idea of protection of
the Earth’s abiotic heritage, organise different meetings and events. The contact with EHT is stable and
effective.
Forms of activity
The activities of AMHG are very diverse and adapted
to the possibilities of local groups and EHT. The local
level is essential here, because it reflects the value of
its own environment to the local community. Care for
it brings two advantages: the rational and aesthetical
environment (ecological and psychological aspect)
and interest of external visitors, which shifts towards
the initiation and development of tourism (economic
aspect). Small groups – even less than ten persons
can find suitable sites. These can be rocky outcrops,
interesting land forms, as well as constructions made
of local materials as well – houses, bridges, viaducts
etc. After an exact recognition and a preparation –
like Holding Pens (EARTH HERITAGE… 2011), it is possible to lead excursions on tours of such places. Children and adults participate in the meetings, where
they recognize minerals, rocks and fossils. A popular
entertainment is named the Rock and Fossils Roadshow, and the greatest one is the annual GeoFest. It
embraces a three-month programme (the longest in
the United Kingdom) with excursions, discussions,
demonstrations etc.
Comparatively small outlays are connected with
the organisation of rocky gardens, which appear
successively in different places, like at Bewdley
Museum or at subsidiaries of the school at Martley
(Worcestershire). Considerably greater resources
MAZURSKI: COMPARISON OF THE KARKONOSZE NP AND AN ENGLISH GEOPARK
131
has published a very interesting guide for it, containing the 1:100,000 geological map and detailed
parts for each section, prepared by the originators
(THE GEOPARK WAY 2009).
Comparisons and conclusions
Fig. 6. Cloister garth at Worcester Cathedral.
Ryc. 6. Wirydarz klasztoru katedry w Worcester.
are invested in the adaptation of some geosites for
tourism, such as old quarries – car parking places,
information boards, protective barrier rails, paths
and the like. In point of the engagement it can serve
the owners of Cob House who have prepared the
deep-seated geological profile with a suitable protection and information on their own grounds. The
cost of 29,000 GBP embraces the organisation of
three earthquake observatories for educational aims.
Great expenses are invested into the network of six
Geopark Visitor Information Points, numerous, different kinds of publications (including maps), also
for over twenty geological and scenic trails. These
last initiatives are mostly the work of EHT, the Shropshire Geological Society and the Gloucestershire
Geology Trust.
A leading achievement of AMHG is the Geopark
Way – the long-distance (174 km) geological trail,
the first in the United Kingdom. Thanks to the excellent and attractive technical and infrastructural preparation, this route has received a national award. The
idea came from the Herefordshire and Worcestershire Earth Heritage Trust, and was then accepted
by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs. The Geopark Way uses different forms of
transport – by car, bicycle and on foot, on already
existing routes – ways, paths and tourist trails. It
leads along the Severn – the longest English river,
from Bridgnorth via Bewdley to Gloucester. EHT
The Karkonosze Mts – making a comparison between
The Karkonoski National Park (KPN), and AMHG
is difficult. The differences refer first of all to natural
features. The first region includes mountains above
1,200–1,400 m, while the Malvern Hills reach only
above 400 m. The geological composition of KPN
is in principle monotonous due to the domination
of granite – only a small section in the eastern part
embraces diverse metamorphic rocks, without fossils. Their wealth appears instead on the southern
side. AMHG represents an almost complete stratigraphic profile – even with fossils within the oldest formations. The morphology is also different –
The Karkonosze region is mountainous of a horst
type, arrayed by very numerous rocky forms of tor
type. There are also formal differences: the geopark
in KPN is contracted by identified spatial borders,
which mark the range of the highest form of nature
preservation in Poland, also in the Czech Republic. AMHG possesses conventional borders without
similar protective restrictions. KPN is a form of the
State activity, while AMHG – is a remarkable social
and municipal enterprise. Among other factors, this
results from the legal differences existing between
Poland and Great Britain (MAZURSKI 2013).
However, the aforementioned differences do not
mean that it is impossible to find positives. First of
all, the strong social engagement around and in support of the English geopark should be underlined. It
focuses an interest and the help from different forms
of activities: local authorities, cultural and educational
agencies, and even private landowners. It would be
great, if KPN possessed a similar circle, not only as
representatives in its Scientific Council. The great
meaning is complemented by the large group of
volunteers, supporting the geopark work and participating in its projects. It would be advantageous
to undertake efforts to introduce such form of relationships between volunteers and national parks in
132
OPERA CORCONTICA 50/S 2013
the Polish and Czech legal regulations too. Partly it
is already possible thanks to the act of voluntary service. It should find a wider use here too. AMHG is
generally dependant on external sources of financing, while its own constant income is only a supplement. On the basis of Polish regulations, KPN is
financed by the state, while the possibility of gaining
grants also exists, and which KPN has been successful in obtaining. The palette of AMHG possibilities
is however greater: finances can flow in from different foundations or economic corporations and these
sources could also be utilised after a modification of
the regulations in Poland.
Last year showed an approach of forms and promotional techniques, which are practical for both
geoparks. The quantity of publications by KPN is
growing, the editorial quality is also improving constantly. A range of different entertaining events, which
bring local inhabitants closer to the existence of the
essence of the national park and its values, are organised. The borders, distant from localities, do not permit the application of all ideas of AMHG. Alternatively, attempts could be made to use old shafts and
mines for education on the Karkonosze geological
composition.
Summary
The paper gives a comparative study of the Abberley – Malvern Heritage Geopark in the borderland
between West England and Wales, being focused on
its natural and organisational character, as a basis
for practical conclusions which could be used in the
Karkonosze National Park. The idea of geoparks is
very new in Poland, so foreign experiences should be
looked for and adopted wherever possible. The geological base is very similar – the stratigraphic profile is
very old and rich. In spite of the essential natural and
formal differences, which exist between English and
Polish geoparks (but both are areas where the geological composition plays the most important role),
some methods and forms of the AMHG activities can
also be useful for KPN which already has some significant successes in this field. First of all, the creation of a wide volunteers’ circle is at stake – basically
from the local community, but also from other lovers
of the Karkonosze Mts. Before 1945, members of German Bergwacht were working in the interest of these
mountains, after 1945 – the Polish Guard of Nature
Preservation (the voluntary formation), which was
unfortunately abolished in 2001. It would be profitable to extend the circle of donors in the face of the liquidation of auxiliary farms in 2010 as sources of own
earnings in national parks. It is necessary to emphasize the engagement of local authorities in the realisation of the idea of the geodiversity protection in
England as opposed to the generally arrogant attitudes towards protected areas in Poland.
Streszczenie
Artykuł przynosi studium porównawcze Abberley – Malvern Heritage Geopark z pogranicza między zachodnią Anglią a Walią, skupiając się na jego
przyrodniczej i organizacyjnej charakterystyce, jako
podstawie dla praktycznych wniosków, które mogłyby
móc użyte w Karkonoskim Parku Narodowym. Idea
geoparków jest bardzo nowa w Polsce, stąd zagraniczne doświadczenia powinny być poszukiwane
i adoptowane wedle możliwości. Geologiczna podstawa jest bardzo podobna – profil stratygraficzny jest
bardzo stary i bogaty. Pomimo zasadniczych innych
przyrodniczych i formalnych różnic, które zachodzą
między angielskim i polskim geoparkami (ale oba są
obszarami, gdzie budowa geologiczna gra najważniejszą rolę), niektóre metody i formy działalności
AMHG mogą być użyteczne też dla KPN, który ma
już kilka znaczących sukcesów na tym polu. Przede
wszystkim, podstawowym zagadnieniem jest tworzenie szerokiego kręgu ochotników – zasadniczo
spośród lokalnej społeczności, ale też innych miłośników Karkonoszy. Przed 1945 r. członkowie niemieckiego Bergwacht działali w interesie tych gór,
po 1945 r. – polska Straż Ochrony Przyrody (organizacja ochotnicza), rozwiązana, niestety, w 2001 r.
Byłoby korzystne rozszerzenie kręgu donatorów
wobec likwidacji gospodarstw pomocniczych przy
parkach narodowych w 2010 r. jako źródła ich własnych dochodów. Konieczne jest podkreślenie zaangażowania władz lokalnych w realizacji idei ochrony
MAZURSKI: COMPARISON OF THE KARKONOSZE NP AND AN ENGLISH GEOPARK
georóżnorodności w Anglii jako przeciwstawienie
ogólnie roszczeniowym zakusom na obszary chronione w Polsce.
References
ALEKSANDROWICZ Z. 2006: Geoparki – nowe
wyzwanie dla ochrony dziedzictwa geologicznego. Przegląd Geologiczny 1: 36–41.
BARCLEY W. J., AMBROSE K., CHADWICK R. A.
& PHARAOH T. C. 1997: Geology of the country
around Worcester. Stationary Office.
156 pp.
EARTH HERITAGE TRUST NEWS 2011. Worcester,
28: 1.
FLOUSEK J., HARTMANOVÁ O., ŠTURSA J. & POTOCKI J.
(eds) 2007: Krkonoše – příroda.historie.život.
Baset. 863 pp.
GROCHOLSKI W. (ed.) 1969: Przewodnik geologiczny
po Sudetach. Wydawnictwo Geologiczne.
536 pp. + 12 tables.
KNAPIK R. 2011a: Geoturistic guide to the
Karkonosze National Park. Karkonoski Park
Narodowy. 49 pp.
KNAPIK R. 2011b: Guidebook to the geoturistic
trail in the East Karkonosze. Karkonoski Park
Narodowy. 51 pp.
KNAPIK R. & MIGOŃ P. 2011: Atlas.
Georóżnorodność i atrakcje geoturystyczne
Karkonoskiego Parku Narodowego i otuliny.
Karkonoski Park Narodowy. 100 pp.
KNAPIK R., MIGOŃ P., SZUSZKIEWICZ A.
& ALEKSANDROWSKI P. 2011a: Geopark
Karkonosze – georóżnorodność i geoturystyka.
Przegląd Geologiczny 4: 311–322.
KNAPIK R., RYBSKI R. & SZUSZKIEWICZ A. 2011b:
Minerals of the Polish Karkonosze. Karkonoski
Park Narodowy. 61 pp.
KOŹMA J., CWOJDZIŃSKI S., IHNATOWICZ A., PACUŁA J.,
ZAGOŻDŻON P. P. & ZAGOŻDŻON K. D. 2011:
Możliwości rozwoju geoturystyki w regionie
dolnośląskim na przykładzie wybranych
projektów dotyczących inwentaryzacji
i waloryzacji geostanowisk. In: ŻELAŻNIEWICZ A.,
133
WOJEWODA J. & CIEŻKOWSKI W. (eds), Mezozoik
i kenozoik Dolnego Śląska. LXXXI Zjazd
Naukowy PTGeol. Wrocław, WIND:
137–158.
ŁODZIŃSKI M., MAYER W., STEFANIUK M., BARTUŚ T.
& MASTEJ W. 2009: Atrakcje geoturystyczne
Geostrady Zachodniosudeckiej. Geoturystyka
4: 19–42.
MARTYNOWSKI Z. & MAZURSKI K. R. 1978: Sudety.
Ziemia Kłodzka i Góry Opawskie. Sport
i Turystyka. 368 pp.
MAZURSKI K. R. 1998: Podstawy sozologii. OW
Sudety: 253–285.
MAZURSKI K. R. 2013: Wykorzystanie lokalnych
zasobów przyrodniczych dla aktywizacji
gospodarczej – na przykładzie angielskiego
geoparku AMHG. Gospodarka Przestrzenna In
press.
MAZURSKI K. R. & POCHWAŁA K. 2008: Bałtow –
prikład turisticznogo wibuchu (text in English:
Bałtow – example of tourist explosion). Visnyk
Lviv Univ Ser. Mizhnarodni Vidnosyny 24:
172–178.
MEADOWS D. H., MEADOWS D. L., RANDERS J.
& BEHRENS III W. W. 1972: The limits to growth.
Universe Boos. 205 pp.
MIERZEJEWSKI M. P. (ed.) 2005: Karkonosze.
Przyroda nieożywiona i człowiek. Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. 510 pp.
MIGOŃ P. 2012: Karkonosze – skały i krajobraz.
Karkonoski Park Narodowy. 98 pp.
MIGOŃ P. & LATOCHA Z. 2010: Zróżnicowanie
abiotycznych elementów środowiska i ich
wykorzystanie w rozwoju funkcji turystycznej
regionu sudeckiego. In: CIOK S., MIGOŃ P. (eds),
Przekształcenia struktur regionalnych – aspekty
społeczne, ekonomiczne i przyrodnicze. Instytut
Geografii i Rozwoju Regionalnego Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego: 397–417.
MITCHELL G. H., POCOCK R. W. & TAYLOR J. H. 1962:
Geology of the country around Droitwich,
Abberly and Kidderminster. Stationary Office.
147 pp.
134
OPERA CORCONTICA 50/S 2013
SIDORCZUK M., KRZECZYŃSKA M. & ŚCIBISZ M. 2012:
Rozwój geoturystyki w Polsce oraz możliwości
jej adaptacji do turystyki społecznej. Prace
Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego,
Wrocław 259: 85–94.
THE GEOPARK WAY 2009. Herefordshire & Worcestershire Earth Heritage Trust, Worcester.
136 pp. + map.
Websites
WWW.GEOPARK.ORG.UK [CIT. 10.10.2012]
WWW.MOS.GOV.PL/KATEGORIA/2372_geologia_dla_
turystyki [cit. 15.12.2012]
WWW.SHROPSHIREGEOLOGY.ORG.UK/RIGS/RIGS_
VIEW.HTML [CIT. 6.02.2012]