打造過硬品牌 以彰顯地質(zhì)公園在UNESCO世界級名錄中的特殊地位
——PPF理念(“過去—現(xiàn)在—將來”理念)

蓋伊-馬提尼, 張志光, 顧琰菲, 李 薇

1)法國普羅旺斯高地地質(zhì)公園, 法國迪涅萊班 04000; 2)中國地質(zhì)科學(xué)院, 北京 100037; 3)國家地質(zhì)公園網(wǎng)絡(luò)中心, 北京 100037

打造過硬品牌 以彰顯地質(zhì)公園在UNESCO世界級名錄中的特殊地位
——PPF理念(“過去—現(xiàn)在—將來”理念)

蓋伊-馬提尼1), 張志光2,3), 顧琰菲2), 李 薇2)

1)法國普羅旺斯高地地質(zhì)公園, 法國迪涅萊班 04000; 2)中國地質(zhì)科學(xué)院, 北京 100037; 3)國家地質(zhì)公園網(wǎng)絡(luò)中心, 北京 100037

目前世界地質(zhì)公園網(wǎng)絡(luò)(GGN)共有90個成員, 分布在27個國家和地區(qū), 盡管在這個網(wǎng)絡(luò)建立過程中, 聯(lián)合國教科文組織起著關(guān)鍵作用, 但在過去十多年里, 其與地質(zhì)公園的關(guān)系只能被定義為“特別支持”,眼下兩者的關(guān)系應(yīng)該在一個國際倡議或計劃下被正式化, 這將有利于進(jìn)一步提高地質(zhì)公園的管理、交流合作和資源利用。實現(xiàn)該目標(biāo), 就要清晰地闡明地質(zhì)公園核心的獨有特色, 使地質(zhì)公園與聯(lián)合國教科文組織已實施的計劃形成互補, 不會產(chǎn)生沖突或重疊。本文介紹的PPF理念將會是一個有效的方法, 以此創(chuàng)建一個過硬的品牌, 彰顯地質(zhì)公園在UNESCO世界級名錄中的特殊地位。

聯(lián)合國教科文組織; 地質(zhì)公園; 特色; PPF理念

雖然自第一批世界地質(zhì)公園的建立已有10余年的歷史, 但對于一些科學(xué)家、利益相關(guān)者、政治家以及地方與國家級主管機構(gòu), 仍存在將地質(zhì)公園與聯(lián)合國教科文組織發(fā)起的其它世界級名錄混為一談的現(xiàn)象, 有關(guān)地質(zhì)公園(G)、世界遺產(chǎn)名錄(WHS)、生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)(BR)或自然區(qū)域公園(NRP)差異的討論至今仍十分活躍。這一尷尬的現(xiàn)狀將可能影響地質(zhì)公園在全球范圍內(nèi)的發(fā)展, 亟需對此進(jìn)行清晰的分析, 并提出明確且切實的解決方案。

僅從地質(zhì)公園與生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)“原始”定義來看, 二者之間的差異著實難辨。雖然地質(zhì)公園涉及的實際領(lǐng)域與生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)存在明顯不同, 但從理論和概念上, 人們可能將地質(zhì)公園視為專注于地質(zhì)遺產(chǎn)價值的生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)。

盡管自2004年以來, 世界地質(zhì)公園網(wǎng)絡(luò)在運行和管理上取得重要成就, 如地質(zhì)公園獨特且基本的網(wǎng)絡(luò)關(guān)系、真正的國際間合作、經(jīng)驗與人員的交流、四年一次評估機制的建立等, 但“世界地質(zhì)公園仍類似于一個生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)的子類”。

除地質(zhì)公園擁有四年一次評估機制這一差別外,地質(zhì)公園與法國自然區(qū)域公園間的比較也存在類似上述混淆不清的狀況。

地質(zhì)公園的建設(shè)與發(fā)展應(yīng)使其截然有別于聯(lián)合國教科文組織其它世界級名錄, 使到訪游客感受其獨特魅力。但是, 由于各種原因, 地質(zhì)公園在凸顯其獨特身份方面著實面臨諸多困難。

在諸多世界級名錄并駕齊驅(qū)發(fā)展的背景下, 地質(zhì)公園作為具有實驗性和開拓性的區(qū)域, 應(yīng)在園區(qū)建設(shè)及管理技術(shù)方面宣傳其獨特之處。如無法向公眾展現(xiàn)自身與其它世界級名錄在本質(zhì)上的概念差異及其創(chuàng)新型管理技術(shù), 地質(zhì)公園與各類既有名錄下“自然”區(qū)域的相似性將阻礙地質(zhì)公園的進(jìn)一步發(fā)展。

例如, 在多數(shù)情況下, 地質(zhì)公園仍向游客提供任意一種保護(hù)區(qū)和管理區(qū)同樣使用的解說和交流載體。地質(zhì)公園仍局限于1872年第一家美國國家公園創(chuàng)立的“自然裝備三部曲”——教育線路、博物館和解說牌。從設(shè)計的某些角度來看, “三部曲”自150年前創(chuàng)立以來未見任何觀念革新。

地質(zhì)公園明顯的獨特性應(yīng)在于使游客在地質(zhì)公園中見到更多有關(guān)地質(zhì)遺跡的解說牌。因此, 自地質(zhì)公園概念創(chuàng)立伊始, 其核心理念便在于地質(zhì)公園無可爭辯的獨特性, 這目前似乎已被人們遺忘。地質(zhì)公園這種無與倫比的獨特性是其存在并發(fā)揮作用的基礎(chǔ), 該獨特性應(yīng)體現(xiàn)在真正挖掘地質(zhì)遺跡的價值上。

地質(zhì)學(xué)是關(guān)于“地球記憶”的科學(xué), 總體上來說, 是就時間展開的研究。

地質(zhì)公園專注于地質(zhì)學(xué)研究。地質(zhì)公園這一獨特地區(qū)為我們提出了關(guān)于時間的新問題, 探討地質(zhì)公園這一真實的環(huán)境, 并將人類的時間尺度當(dāng)作一種獨特的時間標(biāo)尺, 研究人類社會與地球之間真實存在的內(nèi)在關(guān)聯(lián)和人們對地球的認(rèn)知之間的必要關(guān)系。

再回到地質(zhì)公園這一概念上來。建立地質(zhì)公園的根本目標(biāo)并不僅是“教地質(zhì)”, 而是引導(dǎo)、激發(fā)人們用新的眼光去認(rèn)識時間, 分享新的看待時間的角度,讓人們?nèi)フJ(rèn)識地球45億年的歷史、古環(huán)境的演變和地球過去的“面貌”。地質(zhì)公園為我們提供了時間這一第四維度, 讓我們轉(zhuǎn)換了認(rèn)識地球的常規(guī)視角。

和其它自然保護(hù)區(qū)一樣, 地質(zhì)公園試著打開一扇“時間之窗”。但是這種嘗試僅停留在“現(xiàn)在—過去—現(xiàn)在”的循環(huán)過程中。例如, 對某一景觀或景點及其地質(zhì)起源進(jìn)行直觀的解釋。

即使這類教學(xué)方式有提供第四維度這一步驟,但從概念上考慮, 這一方式并不盡如人意。時間是連續(xù)的, 不能停止于現(xiàn)在, 并讓人們感覺“過去—現(xiàn)在”是一對雙行線。

地質(zhì)公園必須提供第四維度——時間, 并嘗試更好地讓人們理解“今天”, 并通過預(yù)見未來達(dá)成這一嘗試。只有地質(zhì)學(xué)家能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)對于過去的再現(xiàn)。

基于時間這一概念的必要性, “過去(Past)—現(xiàn)在(Present)—將來(Future)”的理念(即PPF理念)可闡明地質(zhì)公園與聯(lián)合國教科文組織其他名錄成員相比所具有的絕對獨特性和無可置疑的差別。2000年P(guān)PF概念的提出基于公園解說的系統(tǒng)性應(yīng)用(Zouros et al., 2003; Martini, 2003, 2006, 2010; Martini et al., 2008, 2010), 使每一個向游客開放的地質(zhì)遺跡點都擁有三個相互重疊的畫面, 三者與該遺跡點的現(xiàn)狀、起源和未來演化相呼應(yīng)。

時間尺度可用來預(yù)見未來, 但未來的畫面并不停滯在一個時間點上, 而是一段必要的時間, 這段未來時間也會很大程度上地改變我們對現(xiàn)狀的認(rèn)識。

為實現(xiàn)PPF理念, 地質(zhì)公園中可使用三種解說方式: 傳統(tǒng)的由“過去—現(xiàn)在—將來”三個時間段組成的靜態(tài)解說牌、動態(tài)解說牌以及虛擬交互解說牌，虛擬交互解說牌是讓游客感受連貫的時間維度的最佳解決方案, 可通過簡單的時間旅行游戲和體驗來實現(xiàn)。

通過應(yīng)用完整且連貫的PPF理念, 地質(zhì)公園將在聯(lián)合國教科文組織各類名錄中獨樹一幟, 并彰顯其功能和獨到之處。

地質(zhì)公園給人們提供了一個感知地球的全新方式, 讓人們經(jīng)歷真正的時間之旅, 與其它地方不同,地質(zhì)公園讓游客重新理解和感受時間。在這里, 游客行走在時間的維度里。

More than 10 years after the creation of the first Geoparks, for some scientists, stakeholders, politicians as well as for local and National authorities, a confusion between Geopark and others territories promoted by UNESCO still exists.

The question concerning the real difference existing between Geoparks(G), World Heritages Sites(WHS), Biospheres Reserves(BR) or Natural Regional Parks(NRP) is still active.

This embarrassing situation, which could be problematic for the Geoparks development worldwide, needs a clear analysis with evident and pertinent solutions.

The difference between these territories is much more difficult to established between G and BR, by reference to their “founding” definitions.

Even if the field reality of Geoparks differs significantly with BR, it could be theoretically considered that, in the concept, Geoparks should be considered like a BR specialized on Geological Heritage values.

In spite of the important achievements of the Global Geoparks Network operation and management since 2004, the Geopark’s unique and fundamental networking, the true transnational cooperation, the exchange of experience and staff, the establishment of a territory revalidation each four years, the “Geoparks are like a BR sub-category”.

This situation is relatively the same within a comparison between Geoparks and French NRP if we don’t take in consideration the topic of revalidation 4 years period.

Geoparks should appear to their visitors totally different with the other categories of territories. But, for several reasons, they have real difficulties to make it evident.

In this territorial juxtaposition, the Geoparks, as experimental territories, need to promote their singularity both on the field and on their techniques to manage their territories. If Geoparks avoid demonstrating to the public fundamental conceptual differences from others territories and innovative territorial management techniques their similarity with all classic “natural” territories will work against Geopark.

For example, Geoparks are offering to visitors, in many cases, the same interpretation and communication tools used by any kind of protected and managed territory. Following the supports created by the first American National Parks in 1872, they are still limited in a vision of “nature equipment trilogy” based on pedagogic trails, museum, pedagogical panels. Trilogy, which has no conceptually evolution — a part on a design point of view — from 150 years.

The unique clear particularity is that a visitor will meet in Geoparks “more” panels on geological heritage!

Therefore in the core of their concept, from their first origin, the Geopark embody an indisputable uniqueness, which seems nowadays forgotten. This unequalled Geopark feature, base of their utility, necessity and function has to be founded in the real semantic significance of the Geological Heritage.

Speaking on geology, on the “Memory of the Earth” is, overall, speaking about time.

Because of its focus on Geology, a Geopark is the unique territory able to provide new questions about time, about that it’s considered like the surrounding reality, about the necessary relativity that it has to be given to the actual interrelation and vision that the human society is developing with the planet, using the human time scale like unique temporal referent.

Coming back to the Geopark concept, the constitutive aim of a Geopark is not simply to “teach geology”, but to educate, share and to inspire thoughts on another vision of time, the vision of the 4.5 billion years of the earths, its millions of paleo-environments, past “faces” of the planet. It’s providing a fourth dimension to the daily vision of the planet.

Geoparks, like others natural territories, are trying to open a kind of “time window”. But this attempt is limited on an elementary round trip Present-Past-Present. For example, a landscape or a site, like it’s directly seen, is explained and its genesis, its geological origin is interpreted.

Even if this type of pedagogy constitutes a step for including a fourth dimension vision, it can’t be considered conceptually satisfactory. Time is a continuum which can’t be stop in a “present” and getting sense in a two-way vision “Past-Present”.

Geoparks have to offer a time fourth dimension, in an attempt of a better comprehension and thoughts of a “today”, needs to be completed necessarily by a vision of a future. A vision, as for a past vision, should only be given by Geosciences.

With this time conceptual necessity,the-Past-Present-Future concept—(PPF concept) should afford the complete specificity and unquestionable difference between the Geoparks and the other territories. PPF concept, on development from 2000(Zouros et al., 2003; Martini, 2003, 2006, 2010; Martini et al., 2008, 2010), is based on the systematic use, in Geoparks, of interpretative supports which could present, on each site open to visitors, three superimposed images of the locality corresponding to its present situation, its origin and genesis and its future evolutions.

The time scale used for the determination of the image for “Future” could be different from a site and based on the necessary time, which will produce significant changes to the present situation.

To materialize PPF concept, in Geopark, three categories of interpretative supports can be defined: classic interpretative static panels composed by a three time segmentation; dynamic interpretative panels; virtual interactive panels which constitute the best solution to provide to visitors the sensation of temporal continuum through an easy time travel play and experience.

With a complete and coherent PPF concept equipment in their territory, Geoparks will be matchless with any kind of existing territory and will demonstrate clearly its uniqueness and function.

A territory is offering another experience with the planet, a true travel in the time, a different place where visitor are invited to develop new thoughts and experiences around the time.

A territory is where visitors are walking in a fourth dimension.

ZOUROS N, MARTINI G. 2003. Introduction to the European Geoparks Network[C]. Proceedings of the 2ndEuropean Geoparks Network Meeting, Lesvos 3-7 October 2001: 17-21.

MARTINI G. 2003. Presentation of the Reserve geologique de Haute-Provence[C]. Proceedings of the 2ndEuropean Geoparks Network Meeting, Lesvos 3-7 October 2001: 25-28.

MARTINI G. 2006. Geoparks…The future?[Z]. The 2ndUNESCO International Conference on Geoparks. Belfast, 17-21 September 2006. Key-note oral presentation.

MARTINI G, ZOUROS N. 2008. Geoparks, a vision of the future[C]. Geosciences, BRGM Numero 7/8, Mars 2008: 182-189.

MARTINI G, FREY M L. 2010. Geo-Geopark-Geotourism: Basic concepts[C]. 9thEuropean Geoparks Conference 2010 Abstract volume, NHMLPF edition, Lesvos Greece.

MARTINI G. 2010. Les Geoparcs pour une evolution du concept du territoire[C]. Geologie de la France: 35-40.

Creating a New Strong Geopark Identity in front of Other World UNESCO Territories: The PPF Concept

Guy MARTINI1), ZHANG Zhi-guang2,3), GU Yan-fei2), LI Wei2)
1) Reserve Geologique de Haute Provence Geopark, Digne les Bains, France 04000; 2) Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing 100037; 3) Chinese Geoparks Network, Beijing 100037

There are currently 90 Geoparks across 27 countries and regions, organized through the Global Geoparks Network (GGN). Despite UNESCO’s central role in establishing this network, its support to Geoparks has been defined as “ad hoc” for over a decade. And now GGN should be formalized as an international initiativeor programme. This formalization would benefit Geoparks through improved governance, enforced network and better utilization of resources. To achieve that, with the unique core features, Geoparks should not duplicate or conflict with other UNESCO territories, but complement other UNESCO programmes. The PPF concept presented in this paper is an effective method to realize this complement, creating a new and strong Geopark identity in front of other world UNESCO territories.

UNESCO; Geopark; features; PPF concept

Guy MARTINI, male, born in 1955, French nationality. International Geopark expert, GGN Bureau member, Reserve Geologique de Haute Provence Geopark director. International experience in nature conservation, earth sciences, Geo-conservation, Geoparks; in addition to developmental strategies for sustainable growth of territories based on their heritage possibilities. E-mail: guy.martini@hotmail.com.

K928.72; K917; F591.99

A

10.3975/cagsb.2013.02.10

2013-2-19; 改回日期: 2013-02-25。責(zé)任編輯: 閆立娟。

蓋伊-馬提尼, 男, 1955年生, 法國國籍。國際地質(zhì)公園專家, 世界地質(zhì)公園網(wǎng)絡(luò)執(zhí)行局成員, 法國普羅斯旺高地地質(zhì)公園主管。在自然保育、地球科學(xué)、地質(zhì)遺跡保護(hù)、地質(zhì)公園領(lǐng)域具有豐富的經(jīng)驗, 在基于潛在遺產(chǎn)的區(qū)域可持續(xù)發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略研究方面具有國際經(jīng)驗。E-mail: guy.martini@hotmail.com。