Geosystems as a Framework for Geoconservation: the Case of Japan’s Izu Peninsula Geopark

Abstract

This article explores the potential of geosystems as a conservation framework within a geopark. The Izu Peninsula Geopark in Japan is analyzed for this purpose. Key characteristics of the geosystems approach are evaluation of geodiversity, holistic appraisal of processes operating at large spatiotemporal dimensions, and emphasis on the underlying unity of different abiotic and biotic environments. However, geodiversity is a neutral descriptive term, and the geosystems approach needs active social participation to become fully functional. This article critically examines how geoconservation is grounded in praxis. An outline of the development of the concept along with related challenges and geotourism angles is followed by the case study. The Izu Peninsula Geopark is one of the largest and most diverse geoparks in Japan. But as the area is close to Tokyo, its geoheritage faces constant pressure from a large urban footprint. The geopark has developed a combination of multiple conservation strategies, but several challenges remain. This study identifies the lack of awareness among the population as the main threat to geodiversity and argues that those communities who have firsthand knowledge of geosystems need more representation in management. While a number of community-driven conservation practices and a rich traditional knowledge of the environment can be identified, these need to be integrated on a holistic platform to provide understanding about interrelationships between phenomena. It is concluded that the geosystems approach requires an optimum utilization of the social diversity and prioritization of the conservation agenda within the regional development and geotourism initiatives.

Old Processes, New Movements: The Inclusion of Geodiversity in Biological and Ecological Discourse

“…"We do not engage in empirical geoscientific evaluation of the geoheritage of the Izu Peninsula Geopark in this paper: we mainly analyze(d) the qualitative aspects of heritage conservation, especially issues like social perception of natural processes, stakeholder dynamics of conservation, aspects of resource use, and tourism impact" [63].…”

Evolving approaches to volcanic tourism crisis management: An investigation of long-term recovery models at Toya-Usu Geopark

“…According to Chakraborty, Cooper, and Chakraborty (2015), the Itoigawa City in Niigata Prefecture was the first territory in Japan to apply the geopark concept to tourism planning, conservation, and local education efforts from 1991. Awareness of geoparks has since diffused rapidly across Japan, particularly after the first three were certified by the Global Certified as Global Geopark…”

“…2 Educational programs enable local residents and tourists to learn about disaster heritage and experience at first-hand the park's volcanic history (Ishikawa, 2013). The 'natural hazards' theme gained additional resonance among Japanese geoparks after the March 2011 disaster (Chakraborty et al, 2015). As the majority are situated in rural peripheries, many Japanese geoparks include remote mountainous regions or island destinations facing severe depopulation due to low birth rates and ageing populations (Fukami, 2014).…”

“…As the majority are situated in rural peripheries, many Japanese geoparks include remote mountainous regions or island destinations facing severe depopulation due to low birth rates and ageing populations (Fukami, 2014). Regional revitalization is thus another management imperative, to be achieved either by attracting new residents or by increasing the number of tourists (Chakraborty et al, 2015). From this tourism promotion perspective, much has been made of geoparks' potential to stimulate economic impact (Farsani, Coelho, & Costa, 2011) and expectations have been further heightened since GGN became an official UNESCO program in 2015.…”

Where is the community in geoparks? A systematic literature review and call for attention to the societal embedding of geoparks

“…Geopark studies regularly include notions that the abiotic environment (the physical landscape) should be included in conservation measures on an equal level to the biotic environment due to its constitutive influence on the biosphere and its non-renewable character (e.g., Badang et al, 2017;Chakraborty et al, 2015;Gray, 2004). Geopark studies regularly include notions that the abiotic environment (the physical landscape) should be included in conservation measures on an equal level to the biotic environment due to its constitutive influence on the biosphere and its non-renewable character (e.g., Badang et al, 2017;Chakraborty et al, 2015;Gray, 2004).…”