Introduction

Geotourism, essentially the tourism of geology and landscape, has been around for a long time. Definitions cover, since a broad spectrum related to the geographic tourism adopted by National Geographic (Stueve et al. 2002), to a more specific definition in which the concept ‘geo’ makes reference not to geography but geology and geomorphology and natural resources, forms, fossils, rocks, minerals and related process. These two meanings and all their nuances coexist, promoted by the different agents who develop and study geotourism.

In this article our approach to geotourism follows the perspectives and definitions provided by Frey (1998), Gray (2004), Hose (1995), Dowling and Newsome (2006), Newsome and Dowling (2010), Newsome et al. (2012) and Dowling (2013). These authors express different nuances in their definitions of geotourism; nevertheless, all of them agree with the interpretation of the importance of geological and geomorphological features. Also, they affirm that learning and geoconservation are the main purposes of geotourism, which promotes sustainable tourism development based on visitors’ geological experiences. The Instituto Geológico y Minero de España (IGME) concurs with this geologic approach, in which the learning process goes further than simple contemplation and enjoyment (Carcavilla et al. 2009).

Frey (1998) recognised ‘geotourism’ as a discipline within the German geoscientific community since the late 1990s. Badman (1994) defined geotourism as the art of explaining the meaning and significance of sites visited by the public. Hose (2003) noted the interpretative provision of geotourism that is necessary to promote geoheritage and the geoconservation of geosites. Dowling and Newsome (2006) and Newsome and Dowling (2010) added to the concept the connections that geotourism can have with other tourism sectors without losing its entity. These other sectors may be ecotourism, adventure tourism and/or cultural tourism. They also provide five key aspects of geotourism, which are:

  1. 1.

    Geologically based

  2. 2.

    Sustainable

  3. 3.

    Geologically informative

  4. 4.

    Locally beneficial, and

  5. 5.

    Provides tourist satisfaction.

The broad spectrum of geotourism definitions coincide with the general range of potential geotourists. Grant (2010) suggests that there is a spectrum of geotourists from general visitors who are either unaware or interested in geological tourism, to ‘geo’ tourists who range from geo-amateurs, to geo-specialists to geo-experts.

The Geological Park of Aliaga (Teruel) (PGA) was created in 1993 in Spain, and it is a pioneer in the development of parks as a means of focusing on exceptional national and international geoheritage (Fig. 1). A ‘Geological Park’ is not a new category of protected area, but is a new concept related to geoheritage, in which the main objectives are to conserve and value the geological, natural and cultural resources of a site (Escorihuela 2011). At present, the Geological Park of Aliaga is situated within the Maestrazgo Cultural Park, but the PGA does not participate in the European Geopark Network (EGN), nor it is governed by this network’s principles (Carcavilla et al. 2011). Nevertheless, the PGA is guided by the principles of sustainability and interpretation promoted by UNESCO in relation to geotourism (UNESCO 1999).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Location of Geological Park of Aliaga and the Maestrazgo Cultural Park (Parque Cultural de Maestrazgo) within Spain

Full size image

The PGA was the first Geological Park in Spain to focus on its geologic resources and tourism, and for this reason, it has accumulated a large amount of expertise in the field of geotourism. It has one of the largest trajectories in geotourism in Spain, although the related information that is available in scientific bibliography has not been updated and in some cases is incorrect. For example, some articles or websites confuse the Geological Park of Aliaga with the Maestrazgo Cultural Park, and in some cases, its origins as a pioneer of Spanish geotourism are ignored. The main purpose of this article, therefore, is to make known the geotouristic activities conducted in the park and to highlight the difficulties and threats for the sustainability of geotourism in this rural area located in the Maestrazgo Region (Fig. 1).

The Origins of Geological Park of Aliaga: Establishment and Foundation

The PGA is situated in Teruel Province, in the municipality of Aliaga. The Geological Park of Aliaga was created in 1993 with two main objectives—to teach about and promote geology by guiding visitors around several sites and signed routes of special interest. The park provides a sound overview of the last 200 million years of Earth history. Some of its geological formations and structures, molded into impressive landforms, have been valued by scientists as unique examples of geology (Soria de Miguel et al. 1996). A number of outstanding outcrops provide a complete stratigraphical record from the Upper Triassic to the Quaternary, with well-developed Cretaceous and Palaeogene-Neogene formations. In addition, it comprises a variety of tectonic structures including the superposition of two north-south and east-west fold systems, which may be related to Caenozoic unconformities, as well as a spectacular landscape shaped by selective erosion (Soria de Miguel et al. 1996). The Geological Park of Aliaga allows the investigation of the history of the Earth through its superimposed rock layers where the history of our planet is written.

Tectonic Structures and Landscape: the Complexity of Two Superimposed Fold Systems and Their Last Phases of Geological Evolution

During the Alpine Orogeny, two fold systems with different trends developed in the Aliaga region. The formation of a large NNW-SSE anticline between Campos and Villarroya de los Pinares continued during most of the Eocene and Oligocene. At the beginning of the Miocene, new ENE-WSW trending folds were superimposed on the former. In the northern part only, a conical syncline formed on the western limb of the first anticline. In the southern sector, where the anticlinal crest had already been denudated by erosion, the vertical eastern limb underwent independent shortening and folding giving rise to spectacular meandering, vertical axis folds.

The summits of hills and plateaus surrounding Aliaga are the remains of an old erosion surface uplifted to altitudes between 1400 and 1500 m. Slopes and valleys were formed by the downcutting of the Guadalope River and its tributaries. Slopes have undergone different degrees of erosion depending on the rock types exposed on them. Generally, the more resistant limestone, dolomitic and conglomeratic beds form crests and cliffs, whereas clay, marl and sandy beds coincide with gentle slopes. In this way, the complex folding structures, which were completely leveled by the erosional surface, have been revealed again by selective erosion. The ensemble of points of interest in the Park is grouped into itineraries representative of the area’s geology, with different educational features (Fig. 2). Some of the most important are (Simón-Gómez 1992):

Fig. 2
figure 2

Panoramic view of Geological Park of Aliaga

Full size image

  • Panoramic view of twisted crests fold in limestones of Urgonian facies, an angular unconformity between horizontal Miocene conglomerates and Urgonian limestones affected by meandering folds and Upper Triassic Keuper facies red clay and Jurassic (Carniolas facies and marine limestones).

  • Marine, transitional and continental Lower Cretaceous deposits, including the Chert formation (sandy and bioclastic limestone), Forcal formation (grey marls with oyster shells and sandy limestones), Villarroya formation (limestones with rudist bivalves, gastropods, corals, echinoderms and orbitoline foraminifera), Escucha formation (calcareous sandstones with oyster shells, clay and coal) and Utrillas formation (white sand and clay).

  • Disharmonic and meandering folds in Upper Cretaceous limestones and microstructures related to them (stylolites, faults, flexural slip striations)

  • A spectacular ‘meandering fold’ of an international relevance because of its uniqueness and dimensions.

  • Reverse fault zones in vertical beds of Urgonian facies, causing an anomalous superposition of the Villaroya formation on the Chert formation (with slickensides, fault breccia and solution cleavage).

  • Apex zone of an alluvial fan (lowermost Miocene) with a progressive angular unconformity between massive conglomerate and sandstone beds. Thick beds of conglomerate and sandstone showing bar and channel structures alternating with the red silty sediment of a flood plain.

Interpretation

Interpretation within the park has progressively evolved since the origins of the PGA in 1993. This has included different types of informative resources including: (a) location panels for geological outcrops and walking trails; (b) parking signs for vehicles; and (c) route markers that allow visitors to follow the itineraries away from roads. Informative in situ panels have been made from screen-printed ceramic tiling. There are different medium-sized panels which include diagrams of landforms and several small-sized plates that highlight points of geologic interest (such as stratigraphic limits, tectonic or sedimentary structures, fossil occurrences, etc.). Primary educational and informative resources comprise two 1990s geological guidebooks as well as another guidebook for educators which includes interactive material. In 2006, a visitor centre was established (Fig. 3), and it currently contains audiovisual resources (including an educational short film), panels and geological models (Soria de Miguel et al. 1996).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Visitor centre and information points

Full size image

Geotourist Activity Since 2006

In 2006, when the visitor centre was established, a local company, Jumidosiv, was appointed to manage geotourism within the Park. Activities in the PGA have three themes: Geoscience education and environmental/territorial awareness, park promotion and increasing the scientific understanding of the Aliaga region.

Geoscience Education

Education in geosciences is addressed at different levels depending on the types of geotourist and their educational level (Fig. 4). They include:

Fig. 4
figure 4

Guided tours for general geotourists and for primary and secondary students

Full size image

  • Guided tours for general geotourists (visitors to the PGA include family groups and groups of friends, geologists, academics involved in environmental themes, land managers and local groups)

  • A special program of guided tours and courses for primary and secondary students, and

  • Education about geological and natural features for younger children (<11 years).

To undertake these activities, visitors are given an introduction to the geology of the area at the visitor centre. This is then followed by a guided tour of the surrounding landscape led by an interpretive guide. These guided tours include visits to several geosites where the participants are given appropriate interpretation about the geological features seen in situ. Interpretations follow different scales from large to small, e.g. landscape, landforms, rock outcrops, rock types, sediments, soils and crystals. In these guided tours, geotourism is combined with ecotourism (Fig. 5). In this way, the nature and biodiversity are interpreted with the associated geodiversity. The relationship between the two spheres ‘geo’ and ‘eco’ provides a more holistic approach to generating touristic satisfaction in visitors whilst providing appropriate knowledge for the interpretation of the environment and territory. In addition, the mining history of Aliaga makes it necessary to interpret not only the nature of the local ‘brown coal’, but also to explain the industrial archaeology of old mining sites, following the geotourism principles espoused in the United Kingdom (Durham Country Council 1994).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Hierarchy of features of potential geotourism and ecotourism interest (modified from Dowling and Newsome 2006)

Full size image

In this activity, it is necessary to make an analysis of the strategy and interpretative media provision to determine the degree of detail required for a range of audiences to absorb what is being shared during their visits (as noted by Hose 2003). Ham (1992) suggested that environmental interpretation involves translating the technical language of natural sciences into terms in which people who are not scientists can readily understand and learn from and in a way that is both entertaining and interesting.

Special courses in geology and nature for children were established in 2011. These courses are possible because of the collaboration of two interns from a programme of cooperation between commercial companies and students. It is important to highlight the educative relevance of these kinds of courses in an era in which geosciences are disappearing from the Spanish school curriculum. Thus, the introduction of geology, as well as the interpretation of geo-resources, at an early age establishes a better understanding of the Earth, which is fundamental for future land managers.

Promotion in National and International Meetings

The dissemination of information from the PGA is important in order to promote activities in the PGA and its problems in a scientific sphere. To provide such information, the park manager has promoted the area at various meetings and workshops, as well as at national and international scientific meetings. In these national meetings, the PGA can also share its experiences with other managed areas, and it can connect with other specialists in geotourism, as well as in geological and mining heritage. These contacts and exchanges of information with national institutions have contributed to the establishment of geotouristic activities in the park, as well as to underpinning the PGA and its management. In addition to these specialised forums, the park promotes its activity to the general public and politicians through media such as television and the press.

Compilation of a Scientific Bibliography

In 2010, the PGA started the compilation of scientific studies about its regional geology and geoheritage in collaboration with the Department of Paleontology at the University of Zaragoza. Currently, these documents are available in the municipal library for anyone wanting to access them.

Obstacles for Geotourism in Geological Park of Aliaga

Geotourism in the PGA faces several problems which limit the progress of its activity and threaten the conservation of its geoheritage. Despite the important geotouristic activity promoted by Jumidosiv in the park, some aspects have not been addressed effectively.

Although national and international awareness of the PGA is evolving in a positive way, as evidenced by an increase of students and scientists visiting the park, this student influx is disadvantaged by the lack of available accommodation in the area. Aliaga only has had a few rural lodgings suited for small groups of tourists, and it is not able to accommodate larger student groups. Although Aliaga can offer places for camping during the summer months, storms during this period can make camping unsuitable for lengthy stays. The local population provides some hosting of student groups at times, including through private lodgings, and the town council wishes to build a municipal hostel, but it has not had enough funds to undertake this.

The PGA has a visitor centre which includes a classroom which is available for students and groups. However, despite the original purpose of providing the classroom with scientific materials (e.g. stereoscopes, aerial photographs and other useful equipment for geological research), there is no such material at present. International groups must, therefore, provide this equipment themselves and bring it with them on their visit. In addition, there are no clear regulations for student groups when they stay in the region, and they sometimes arrive in the village without informing the local authorities about their origin and activity. Local European legislation for the protection of natural heritage is often not effective from a scientific, geotouristic or conservationist point of view, and some visiting groups remain unaware of the adverse impacts of activities such as hammering or digging within the PGA. Such activities sometimes damage both geological and paleontological outcrops (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Ripple marks damaged by students

Full size image

From the beginning of the PGA to the present day, there has not been any coordination between ‘management’ and the ‘scientific’ activities in the Park. So the knowledge generated by research is not available for tourists in order to enhance their geotourism experiences. For this reason, the quantity of information for tourists is limited, and the PGA cannot offer it to different groups of specialist geologists or students who visit the park. Finally, the management of the park is constrained by a lack of economic funds and legal competencies to drive effective regulative, informative, logistic and scientific measures, despite its in situ experiences over the past decade.

Considerations for Geotourism in the Future

For geotourism to be successful in the future, it is essential that a range of issues in the park is addressed (Fig. 7):

Fig. 7
figure 7

The balance of geotouristic activities in the PGA

Full size image

The positive aspects of geotourism are shown on the right hand side of the figure and include the education sector. For a good educative experience, there should also be an interpretative strategy to provide geoconservation understanding (Hose 2012). This has been adopted by the PGA over the last decade, promoting the transfer of geosciences knowledge to a range of market segments including geotourists as well as the general public. Four segments of geoscience transfer have been identified (Frey et al. 2002). They are:

  1. 1.

    The general public which includes adults, local residents, individual visitors and visiting groups of scholars

  2. 2.

    Scientists including university academics and researchers

  3. 3.

    The tourism industry sector

  4. 4.

    The media who assist by writing scientific articles and presenting advertising campaigns on television and in the local press.

The park also has a number of elements which may hinder the development of geotourism and also threaten geoheritage conservation and sustainable development (see left side of Fig. 7). At the start of an activity in the natural environment, both the geotourism and ecotourism sectors need to provide an understanding of the resource which may be impacted by tourists. This is because one of the principal purposes of such activities is the conservation of resources (Newsome and Dowling 2010; Epler 2002). If we do not take this precaution, the risk of damage may be produced by a ‘pull factor’ for different visitors and students who do not properly respect the geological and paleontological heritage. To this irreversible effect, we must add the lack of facilities and regulative measures for visitors. In this way, geotourism in Aliaga could lose one of its main objectives for supporting local development, as geotouristic activities must be organised within existing legislation and should reinforce sustainable territorial politics for local development (Zouros 2004). The PGA has no power to regulate visitors and must work with local politicians. Dowling and Newsome (2006) highlight the problems of’ communications between academics and politicians due to a lack of common objectives. Another problem is that although the same language may be used, they often mean different things. This fact can be verified in the PGA.

Conclusions

The evaluation and research into geotourism provision requires a multidisciplinary approach. It is clear that sound geoscience knowledge and field expertise are necessary research attributes. Likewise, the knowledge and application of social science, tourism and geographical methodologies is deemed essential (Hose 2011). In this way, the experience acquired during 10 years of geotouristic activity in the Geological Park of Aliaga has generated an effective multidisciplinary approach to its management which promotes geoscientific knowledge for a range of audiences. Nevertheless, this interpretative activity is mainly threatened by the absence of any strategy which includes geoconservation.

In many countries, key geological sites for understanding phenomena with national and international relevance have been lost due to the absence of geoconservation plans (Henriques et al. 2011). As Hose (2011) suggests, evaluation tools and lessons learned from their application in the 1990s in England in the development of geotourism have been learned as a result of the destruction of several geosites. Without geotourism support for geoconservation, it is questionable if it can have a positive impact on geoparks (Escorihuela 2013).

New challenges are outlined from the management of the PGA to balance its geotouristic goals. They are distributed in four strategies—in relation to education, science, logistics and management. They include:

  1. 1.

    Education—the student exchange from different countries provided by the European Community’s Comenius Programme provides a great opportunity for the PGA. The Geological Park allows the exchange of geological knowledge between countries, with different activities for the assessment of natural and geological resources.

  2. 2.

    Science—it is important to promote research activities in the PGA. The information obtained from these studies would then be available for geotouristic interpretation. Thus, knowledge of the geosites can evolve and can then be offered to all visitors, including geologists, the general public and students

  3. 3.

    Logistics—it is appropriate to develop municipal hosting facilities for large groups of students.

  4. 4.

    Management—it is necessary to implement increased regulations and management for student visits. Due to the in situ nature of the geotouristic features, regulatory measures involving local administrations could be improved. In this way, with appropriate information provided to universities, the park could be an intermediary for the local administration in the supply of all documentation about such regulations.

In conclusion, due to a limitation of the possibilities for visitor regulation, the positive effects of the geotouristic activity promoted by the Geological Park over the past decade have been threatened. Being included within a Geopark does not offer guarantees of appropriate regulation if local administrations do not develop effective tools for coordinating with local tourism providers.