 |
Volume 7, Issue 2 (072402)
Geoconservation Research (GCR)
https://doi.org/10.57647/gcr-2024-si-ct61
UFR Arts et Médias, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, 8 avenue de Saint-Mandé, 75012 Paris, France
*Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected]
Received:
01-Mar-2024
Revised:
06-Jun-2024
Accepted:
09-Jul-2024
Published:
28-Sep-2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Geoheritage, as an emerging type of heritage, is presented in geopark museums and interpretation centers as well as in galleries of many natural history museums. It has however been taken up differently by these institutions, whose displays have their own characteristics, in which the very term geoheritage is often absent. However, a study of these locations in the French and Spanish Catalan contexts also reveals commonalities. Even though the popularization of the geoheritage concept can probably explain this sit- uation, there have been profound changes in museums and more broadly in the heritage sector in recent decades. This is because these institutions face the need to recreate the link between natural and cultural heritage in a context marked by both decolonization issues and the challenges of the climate crisis.
Keywords: Geoheritage; Geoparks; Interpretation Centers; Natural History Museums; Franc Catalonia
As a researcher in Museum Studies working in an Art and Media College, I only recently dis- covered geoheritage, perhaps a consequence of the long academic divide between the “hard” and “soft” sciences. This happened in 2016, following my participation in the Geopark project of the Eu- ropean Union’s H2020 program, coordinated by Yves Girault of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris. My interest in analyzing the ra- tionale behind the creation of geoparks, in connec- tion with a new trend that uses geoheritage as a place branding tool (Van Geert 2019a), led me to
visit geology and paleontological galleries located outside geoparks, mainly in Western Europe cit- ies. Trained in the humanities and social sciences and having hitherto been interested in analyzing changes in ethnographic museums (Van Geert 2020), these institutions seemed far removed from my research interests. Looking at some of them for the first time through the filter of my research in geoparks (Van Geert 2019b), I was particularly surprised by the absence of direct/explicit refer- ence to the geoheritage concept within the texts, labels and interpretive displays of these galleries. How can this situation be explained?
One possible reason is the division between “Mu- seum Studies” (centered mainly on major ex situ museums) and “Heritage Studies” (focused main- ly on in situ displays, site museums and interpre- tation centers), which has had a major impact on professional practices. There is a further split with- in Museum Studies between “Museology” and “Science Museology”, the latter being based on different theories and practices from those found in museums exhibiting cultural heritage. There is then a deep divide between the presentation of geoheritage in geoparks, and the planning of exhi- bitions of geological and paleontological collec- tions in natural history museums, located mainly in cities. It is important to state at the outset that this situation has not arisen from the people work- ing in geoparks and in museums, who may some- times be the same, but rather from specific internal logics that evolve differently, with little dialogue.
Here, I address the different ways in which the concept of geoheritage has been taken up through their exhibitions and narratives in museums and interpretation centers in geoparks and natural history museums. We first review the geoheri- tage concept based on French and internation- al literature, before exploring the specifics of its presentation in displays in geoparks and natural history museums on the basis of observations made in Spanish (specifically Catalan) and French Geoparks and museums between 2017 and 2022, with special attention to exhibitions, texts, devic- es, interpretation panels and websites. Despite different practices, there are some commonalities driven by fundamental transformations in the role of heritage institutions, in line with prevalent soci- etal issues around the need to rethink our relation- ship with nature and our planet in the context of the current climate crisis.
While the history of the geoconservation concept goes back a long way and has been the subject of
much debate (Burek & Prosser 2008), the notion of geoheritage emerged in the early 1990s, follow- ing the First International Symposium on the Con- servation of our Geological Heritage at Digne-les- Bains in France. The appearance of this concept and its subsequent consolidation gave rise, as for all types of heritage, to the constitution of a “Her- itage Chain” (Fabre 2013) made up of five links: designation, classification, conservation, resto- ration and dissemination. The designation link consists of the preparation of geoheritage inven- tories to serve as a basis for the implementation of conservation policies (De Wever et al. 2018). After documentation, measures for the (geo)con- servation and restoration of geoheritage can take place at different scales. Finally, the dissemination link is made up of promotion and activities aimed at making heritage appreciated beyond the sci- entific community through publications, guided tours, panels, exhibitions, museums, interpretation centers, media programs, etc.
The consolidation of this heritage chain has been accompanied by reflections on this new heritage concept at the crossroads between natural sciences and heritage studies. The meaning of geoheritage quickly extended beyond all the material traces located in situ at geosites representing phenom- ena (volcanism, magmatic segregation, meta- morphism, alteration, sedimentation, etc.) and/or bearing witness to the history of the Earth (pale- ontology, global tectonics, climate, etc.), to also include the material (and therefore transportable) aspects of these traces, preserved ex situ in natu- ral history museums since at least the end of the 18th century (Fröhlich et al 1998), but also most recently in interpretation centers and visitor cen- ters created alongside the new natural parks and/ or geoparks. This approach, uniting the different aspects of geoheritage, has been increasingly dis- cussed since then and has been the subject of a growing number of publications, such as this vol- ume.
From a conceptual point of view, the term geo- heritage has also gone beyond a unique geological and/or paleontological concept. Reynard (2005) already pointed out that the values of geomor- phosites go beyond mere scientific values (bear- ing witness to the Earth’s history) to include economic, historical, cultural or even aesthetic values. Following this same logic, Bétard (2017) indicates that geological collections in museums are not limited to the abiotic portion of natural heritage, but are also most often charged with a cultural dimension, allowing them to be consid- ered as “hybrid constructs at the interface between naturalistic or geoscientific knowledge, a sensi- tive approach, a collective appropriation and/or a political decision.” In the same way, Brocx & Semeniuk (2007) indicate that geoheritage offers “information or insights into the evolution of the Earth; or into the history of science, or that can be used for research, teaching, or reference.” As a result, geoheritage encompasses not only geo- logical sites and museum specimens but also “ob- jects bearing witness to the history of the Earth and natural geological phenomena. The heritage values of these sites and objects reside in the in- formation they contain and in the cultural signif- icance that is attached to them” (Qu’est-ce que le géopatrimoine? 2023).
This concept of geoheritage has formed the basis of geoparks since the early 2000s (Du & Girault 2018), which were recognized by UNESCO as a means of promoting geoheritage from a scientif- ic and educational point of view, as well as (geo) tourism (Olson & Dowling 2018), to encourage the economic development of local (rural) areas. Situated at the (sometimes tense) intersection between territorial development and heritage en- hancement in an area (Girault 2019), geoparks use the term “geoheritage” to encompass all the heritage (cultural and natural) present in an area through the history of the Earth. Therefore,
This concept of geoheritage is reflected in many interpretation tools visible in geoparks, particularly on in situ information panels and ex-situ museums/ interpretation centers located within their territories.
Figure 1. Les Morreres geosite interpretation panel in the Origins Geopark (Catalonia-Spain). Author’s photograph, May 2018. This panel shows how the Geopark’s interpretation of the landscape is conceived on two levels. The first one (visible on the right of the panel) is based on a pedagogical approach to scientific phenomena, intended to be accessible to as many people as possible through the use of educational drawings. The second level is based on an “ethnographic” approach, explaining the rock formations on the basis of local folklore (associating in this case the shape of the Collegats Gorge with a sleeping giantess).
Many of the museums/interpretation centers with- in geoparks in France and Spain, and more gener- ally in Western Europe, were inaugurated before the creation of the geoparks, mainly as natural parks interpretation centers (many geoparks were in fact created on the basis of previous natural parks) or as local museums, linked to the discov- ery and presentation of traces of Earth history, but also of paleontological, archaeological, and even ethnographic artifacts. Following the creation of geoparks, the collections and interpretations in these pre-existing institutions have been rebadged as geoheritage, even if this term is not mentioned in their texts and displays. In the Central Catalo- nia UNESCO Geopark, the first geopark created in Catalonia, this is the case in the Valentí Ma-
sachs Geological Museum. Founded in Manresa in 1980 and attached to the Higher Engineering School of the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC), this museum aimed to display the geolog- ical and mining resources of central Catalonia. Renamed Geomuseum after the recognition of the geopark by UNESCO in 2012 (although this did not involve any changes in the museum displays), it encourages visitors to discover the geoheritage of the territory through the exhibition of rich min- eralogical collections.
Located 100 km further north, the various mu- seums integrated into the Tremp Basin-Montsec Geopark project were also built before its recog- nition by UNESCO in 2018. Without involving a restructuring of their exhibitions, the narratives
Figure 2. Entrance to the Museum of Gerri de la Sal, in the Origins Geopark (Catalonia-Spain). Author’s photograph, May 2018. Like all the museums located in this Catalan Geopark area (then in its planning stage), a panel presenting the Geopark project was erected in front of the entrance to the Museum of Gerri de la Sal, dedicated to the interpretation of the village’s saline history in order to inform visitors and residents alike of what a geopark is, as well as the area’s geoheritage wealth, such as the presence of salt.
presented in these institutions (whether it is the production of salt at the Museum of Gerri de la Sal or the presence of dinosaurs at the Museum of the Conca Dellà in Isona) are expressed through geoheritage, although this concept does not appear in their texts and labels. Despite this, geoheritage is presented through information brochures on the geopark and the cultural spaces it encompasses, and geopark logos prominently displayed at the museum entrances, explaining what a geopark is (Fig. 2). Geoproducts are also on sale in the mu- seum shops, such as hiking maps, animal obser- vation guides, souvenirs, or even local products whose marketing strategy is based on the history
of the Earth. Following the logic of the Geofood program initially set up in Norway’s geoparks (Geofood: Geoparks, People, Nature and Food 2021), visitors can buy bottles of wine, whose names and labels refer to the geological history of the territory, which is said to condition its taste and color. This is also the case in France in the Normandy-Maine Geopark where visitors can buy chocolate worked in the shape of the fossils that can be found in the geopark.
This rebadging of territories and their heritage as geoheritage is made more explicit in some of the visitor centers created later, as part of a drive to develop tourism. This is the case in the Epicen- ter-Pallars Jussà Visitor Center located in the city of Tremp. This was built in 2013 at the heart of the Origins Geopark to introduce visitors to the tourist attractions of the Pallars Jussà comarca . Its rich- es, whether cultural, natural, intangible, geologi- cal or paleontological, each with its own dedicated room, are included in the narrative created around the memory of the Earth. This was reinforced in recognition of the Geopark by UNESCO in 2018 through new interpretive panels presenting the geopark, its specific features and its objectives to connect and bring together the various heritages present in the comarca.
The way in which these geoheritage narratives are articulated is undoubted because this institution is closer to the interpretation centers model than to museums strictly speaking. Rather than plac- es dedicated to a given heritage that needs to be preserved and displayed in their exhibitions, the approach taken by these institutions is more one of communicating with the public about a given heri- tage outside the center, be it a natural space, an ar- chaeological site, a town, or an area (Chaumier & Jacobi 2009). The sense of narrative and discourse is therefore more important than the display of collections (Mairesse 2022) - even if the latter are not completely absent from these centers. Display
fossils, minerals, and paleontological traces often favor those with the greatest visual impact, mak- ing particular use of didactic devices, panels with texts and photos, and even dioramas to provide visitors with a few keys to understand and appre- ciate what they will discover in the geopark. In this respect, it is particularly interesting to note that the Tremp Epicenter uses a number of immersive dig- ital devices, which, rather than offering a scientif- ic account of the region, highlight the beauty of its landscapes and the richness of its heritage. Along with this storytelling perspective, these types of spaces can also present other approaches to the history of the Earth, describing the particular use that can be made of rocks and sediments.
The challenges induced by their specific geology can also be the subject of some panels, showcases or devices, aimed at showing the fragility of this natural space, but also the impacts that must be considered in its development, as could be seen for example in 2020 in the exhibition “Catastro- phe! Natural hazards in the Chablais” at the J. Hal- lemans Museum of Prehistory and Geology in Sci- ez-sur-Léman, located in the Chablais Geopark in the French Alps. Following the same logic, some of these centers present artefacts, audiovisual pro- jections, testimonies, and even contemporary ar- tistic collections that bear witness to the ways in which the history of the Earth in these geoparks has influenced nature, its landscapes and the cul- ture of its inhabitants. This is for example the case in the Digne-les-Bains Promenade Museum in France which exhibits contemporary works of art inspired by the geological details of the Haute- Provence Geopark.
As mentioned earlier, the concept of geoheritage that influences geopark museums and interpreta- tion centers seems to be less present in exhibition spaces located outside geoparks, where most of
the geoheritage is preserved. In France for exam- ple, according to the National Museum of Natural History, there are no fewer than 296 spaces open to the public that showcase geological or prehistoric collections (Egoroff 2012), without including uni- versity collections, most of which are closed to the public.
Much of this can be explained by the compartmen- talization in many museums, and especially nat- ural history museums, between the departments, with little dialogue between their respective exhi- bitions and interpretation principles, unlike the in- terpretation centers that are smaller and have less staff. In some cases, geology and paleontology de- partments may use different exhibition methods, with the latter making extensive use of the “wow effect” of dinosaurs among young visitors, which is more effective than using the term geoheritage. In short, the logic at work in these museums ap- pears to be opposed to that governing the interpre- tation displayed in geoparks whose aim is to bring together different disciplinary approaches around geoheritage.
As far as geology is concerned, another explana- tion lies in the fact that many of the visible exhib- its during our research are quite old, some dating from well before the 1990s, i.e. before the popu- larity of geoheritage and the creation of interpreta- tion initiatives within the geoparks. In France and Spain for instance, geology galleries seem to be of rather secondary importance to the authorities, especially as they are not much visited by the pub- lic. While geology is still an “unloved discipline” (Gohau 2001), and unattractive to the public, the universities, engineering schools and research centers that have traditionally managed a good number of these institutions have seen deep sepa- rations between these museums and research. Fur- ther, the research conducted in these institutions may have diminishing relevance to local geologi- cal questions and so diminishing connection to the
artifacts preserved in the museum collections.
Many of these institutional galleries appear to be out of step with the latest museological trends. As an example, we could note the poor state of the showcases, the collections, the interpretation devices, and, more generally, the architecture of the top floor of the Paleontology and Comparative Anatomy Gallery of the Paris National Museum of Natural History, for which a major renovation has been announced from time to time since 1998. Other (local) museums can operate in slow motion (or even close their doors), sometimes only thanks to the interest shown by some of their employees, and especially volunteers and museum friends, without renovating their exhibitions in line with the “revolution in science museology” over the last decades (Koster & Schiele 1998). This is par- ticularly true in the Anglo-Saxon world where the educational, social and community role of muse- ums is traditionally much more pronounced than in France and Spain (and more generally in Latin Europe). In North America, the Hall of Geology, Gems and Minerals at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History is a big hit with vis- itors, thanks to its modern and interactive mu- seography. In Great Britain, the Natural History Museum in London presents a highly interactive presentation of geological phenomena notably in the Volcanoes and Earthquakes Gallery inaugurat- ed in 1996.
Since the 1980s, some natural history museums in France (and in Spanish Catalonia to a lesser extent where natural history museums are less numer- ous) have tried to break away from a vision of the science museum as a space where knowledge is celebrated, by placing the visitor at the heart of the process (Eidelman & Van Praët 2000). To connect with their audiences, some have tried to rearrange their collection displays according to at least three main approaches. These are not mutually exclu- sive, and are often found together within the same
institution, especially around the end of the 2010s:
Firstly, a number of museums, following some ethnographic and contemporary art museums, try to establish links between their collections and the interests of contemporary society (Van Geert & Viau-Courville 2022). The presence of geolog- ical materials in a territory, their influence on the appearance of its landscapes, but also their cul- tural uses for the creation of jewelry and many everyday products are often present in museums, as the Confluences Museum in Lyon, France (Fig. 3). Some institutions have also opted to rede- sign their collection displays on the basis of media or popular culture with which visitors are familiar. This is the case, for example, with meteorites, and more broadly with cosmology, whose representa- tions are numerous in literature and movies and that can serve as a starting point for an exhibition. This is the case at the Pierre and Marie Curie Uni- versity in Paris, whose meteorites and lunar items are surrounded by press extracts and photographs that evoke the world of science fiction and disaster films.
On a wider scale, the environmental crisis prompt- ed natural history museums to reinvent themselves as biodiversity museums or sustainable develop- ment museums following the 1992 Rio Summit (Davallon et al. 1992). Some exhibit together dif- ferent types of natural science collections to pres- ent a more holistic narrative about the Earth, its history, its biotic and abiotic factors and its inhab- itants, in line with the US and UK natural history museums mentioned above. In Catalonia for ex- ample, this is the case for the “Planet Life” per- manent exhibition at Barcelona’s Natural Science Museum, inaugurated in 2011 in the institution’s new headquarters. Some geological collections have also been presented through the prism of re- sources and sustainability issues, by attempting to promote in the museum a social and political debate on the rational exploitation and good man-
Figure 3. Display of the “Societies. The Theatre of Men” a permanent exhibition of the Confluences Museum (Lyon, France). Author’s photograph, February 2018. The aim of the Confluences Museum opened in 2014, is to combine natural history and anthropology, through the exhibition of collections formerly housed in various museums in the city of Lyon. As such, this exhibition presents ethnographic and geological collections together to explore human creation through the transformation of natural resources.
agement of these natural resources to preserve the environment and ensure the sustainable develop- ment of our societies. This is the case in the Valentí Masachs Geological Museum in Manresa where a
room entitled “Minerals and the people” was cre- ated at the end of the exhibition around questions such as “Is a miner child a child?” or “Minerals at the cost of blood”.
In some institutions, these kinds of questions in- troduce the concept of decolonization, now in vogue in museums, by questioning the “neo-co- lonial” aspects of the extraction of these resources by the major Western mining or oil companies and its often dramatic economic, social and environ- mental consequences on the local populations. An example is the Africa Museum in Tervuren (Bel- gium), which reopened in 2018 after a five years’ renovation and which now presents its mineral collections on the basis of mining extraction and
A second approach consists of an aesthetic dis- play of the collections, especially the minerals and gems, following the principles of art history, which have strongly marked the collective imag- ination of how society perceives museums, par- ticularly in France, Spain, and the whole Med- iterranean area (Gómez Martínez 2006). This presentation is easily understandable by the public as it is not based on scientific content but rath-
Figure 4. Display in the “Treasures of the Earth” permanent exhibition of the National Museum of Natural History (Paris, France). Author’s photograph, March 2019. This shows that the selection of specimens exhibited in the display case is based on aesthetic criteria, favoring those whose colors and shapes are most likely to appeal to visitors, regardless of their knowledge of geology.
er on an aesthetic appreciation of the shapes and colors of the specimens. The objects are presented as works of art, sometimes focusing on their con- tours, materials, or their brilliance. The concepts of “treasures”, “wonders” or even “masterpieces” of the Earth often guide these exhibitions, as is the case at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris whose permanent exhibition on minerals re- opened in 2014 under the name “Treasures of the Earth” (Fig. 4). In 2020–2021, the same institu- tion also staged a temporary exhibition “Precious Stones”, in partnership with the French luxury jewelry, watchmaking and perfume company Van Cleef & Arpels, during which dialogue was estab- lished between 500 minerals, gems and art objects of the museum and 200 jewelry pieces from the company. Such an aesthetic display can also be a starting point for a scientific interpretation which attempts to explain the reasons for these shapes and colors through geological, chemical and phys-
ical phenomena. In the Paris Museum, digital de- vices enable visitors to find out more about these processes in the permanent exhibition.
Finally, the third approach is based on the creation of a heritage narrative. In some museum exhibi- tions, the collections but also the scientific texts and treatises that deal with them can be presented as illustrations of the progress of the geosciences and the interests of researchers at different points in history, that is “scientific heritage”. This per- spective also often makes it possible to give a new meaning to the old displays in the galleries. These can be “musealized” for the occasion, as well as parts of the exhibition rooms, following a “muse- um of the museum” perspective, whose displays allow a historical and heritage narrative. This is, for example, the case of the Mines ParisTech Min- eralogy Museum, one of France’s oldest univer- sity geology museums, inaugurated in 1794, and which has long served for the training of engineers
from the École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris, and whose old museography is a remind- er of this long history (Fig. 5). According to this logic, the museum emphasizes the importance of certain historical figures in the acquisition of its collections (via donors in particular) but also in the creation of the museum and its management (often insisting on the importance of certain di- rectors and their visions for the museum and sci- ence). In 2023–2024, with the temporary exhibi- tion “Minerals: collectors’ items”, the museum offered an overview of its history, looking back at the different approaches to collection acquisition that have prevailed since its creation, very much in line with the underlying trend in museums to- day to deal with their histories in their exhibition spaces and activities.
Figure 5. Display at the entrance of the Mines ParisTech Mineralogy Museum (Paris, France). Author’s photograph, March 2019. The first room of the museum, which retains many of its historic display cases, honors some of its founders, donors and directors (one of whom is depicted in the painting visible in the photograph), while also offering a selection of its most prestigious and impressive collections from an aesthetic point of view.
Although many museologists share the need to rebadge geological collections, these trends are not always to everyone’s taste. In some cases, sci- entists within museums may be reluctant to adopt these approaches, insisting that the scientific as- pect of the collections must take precedence over these other perspectives. This “conflict” bears witness to the persistence within geology galler- ies, undoubtedly more than in other departments of natural history museums, of what Davallon de- fines as a “museology of ideas” centered on ver- tical transmission of scientific knowledge through exhibitions (more or less didactic), as opposed to a “museology of points of view”, as evidenced by trends towards the rebadging of collections de- scribed above, centered on visitors rather than ob- jects and knowledge, where the latter “is used as material for the construction of a hyper-media en- vironment in which the visitor is invited to move around, offering one or more points of view on the subject dealt with by the exhibition” (Davallon 1992). It is not surprising then to note that the ren- ovation of certain museographic displays within these museums sometimes extends this “museol- ogy of ideas”, even though it is increasingly chal- lenged by younger generations who are convinced of the value of scientific mediation and the need for a more interpretative and societal approach to the collections, based on visitors’ daily lives, their experiences and their questions, rather than on their (usually very limited) knowledge of geology.
If I compare both interpretation practices within and outside geoparks, mainly in natural history museums, it appears that the logic at work in each context is different, bearing witness to the divide referred to in the introduction. However, beyond these apparent differences, the examples I dis- cussed demonstrate some convergence.
While the updating of natural history museum exhibits does not seem to be linked explicitly to geoheritage thinking, the resulting exhibitions and displays are not so far away from it, even if the term geoheritage is rarely mentioned. There are indeed similarities with the interpretation in geoparks, such as the aesthetic treatment of geo- sites, landscapes and collections, the heritage nar- rative or the presentation of issues linked to geol- ogy, such as the exploitation and use of resources, or its impact on ways of inhabiting the territory. In short, even if the term ‘geoheritage’ is absent in the museum galleries, its gist is present as a result of the Zeitgeist focusing on the social role and his- tory of collections, and focusing on our relation- ship with the Earth. To put it another way, these two types of institutions each attempt, in their own way and according to different thoughtys, to ex- plore and rebuild the relationship between Nature and Culture.
This social construction, structural to our society and our way of thinking about the world, has long been a part of Western literature (Latour 1993; De- scola 2013) and was probably felt much earlier in colonized countries where this modern perception of the world was imported from the 16th century to the detriment of local ontologies. Since then, it has been the subject of temporary exhibitions and displays in major natural history museums and before them in local Ecomuseums (particularly in France and Spain since the 1980s) whose main objective is to present together the natural and cul- tural heritage of a territory (Davis 1999). This so- cial construction is in fact now being challenged, partly because of the growing influence of decolo- nial thinking, but also because of the current con- text of climate collapse, which urgently requires us to rethink our relationship with the Earth (Janes 2023). In short, both geoheritage and the various strategies for rebadging natural history museum collections merge into the will to rethink our cat- egories of Nature and Culture. At the same time,
they question other forms of distinction, such as the division between “Museology,” emerging largely from the practices of museums exhibiting cultural heritage, and “Science Museology,”, or between “Heritage Studies” and “Museum Stud- ies” that some authors sought to merge into “Her- itology” (Šola 2015) as a more holistic academic field that covers all activities linked to the conser- vation and protection of heritage, whether or not it is preserved in museums.
This process requires that we recreate links, not only between the different departments of natural history museums but also between these institu- tions and ethnographic, fine art and contemporary art museums. All these museums (as well as in- terpretation centers) are simply ways of looking at geoheritage, since all human cultures and cre- ations are intrinsically related and conditioned by the history of the Earth and the resources that make life on it possible. All museums are thus a specific version of the museum of humans on Earth. In any case, it is one of the basic premises that museums need to start from if they want to give meaning to their institutions and our heritage in a common future that implies profound conceptual changes if our species is to survive.
Authors declared no competing interest
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Li- cense, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give ap-
propriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third par- ty material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the ma- terial. If material is not included in the ar- ticle’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the OICC Press publisher. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0
Bétard F (2017). Les géopatrimoines, de nouvelles ressources territoriales au service du dévelop- pement local. Annales de Géographie. 5(717): 523–543.
Brocx M, Semeniuk V (2007). Geoheritage and geoconservation– history, definition, scope and scale. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia. 90: 53–87.
Burek CV, Prosser CD (2008). The history of Geoconservation: An Introduction. Geological Society London Special Publications. 300(1): 1–5.
Chaumier S, Jacobi D (2009). Exposer des idées. Du musée au centre d’interprétation. Paris: Complicités.
Davallon J (1992). Le musée est-il vraiment un média? Publics et Musées. 2: 99–123.
Davallon J, Schiele B, Grandmont G (1992). L’environnement entre au musée. Lyon: Presse Universitaires de Lyon.
Davis P (1999). Ecomuseums. A Sense of Place.
Leicester: Leicester University Press.
De Wever P, Egoroff G, Cornée A, Graviou P, Avoine J & Baillet L (2018). Patrimoine géologique. Inventaire national. Paris: EDP Sciences.
Descola P (2013). Beyond Nature and Culture.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Du Yi ,Girault Y (2018). A genealogy of UNESCO global geopark: Emergence and evolution. In- ternational Journal of Geoheritage and Parks. 6(2): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.17149/ijgp.j.is sn.2577.4441.2018.02.001
Egoroff G (2012). Les musées. Patrimoine géologique national. https://pgn.mnhn.fr/in- dex.php?catid=15&blogid=1 Retrieved De- cember 15, 2022.
Eidelman J, Van Praët M (2000). La muséologie des sciences et ses publics. Regards croisés sur la Grande Galerie de l’Evolution du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Fabre D (2013). Emotions patrimoniales. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Hom- me.
Fröhlich F, Lorenz J, Cornée A (1998). Actes des journées nationales du patrimoine géologique: Paris, 18/19 novembre 1997. Paris: Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle.
Geofood: Geoparks, People, Nature and Food (2021). Geofood. https://geofood.no/geo- food-science/igcp-programme/presenta- tion-of-the-project/. Retrieved January 26, 2023.
Géopatrimoine et patrimoine géologique (2019). Geopark H2020 Rise. http://geopark.mnhn.fr/ fr/geopatrimoine/elements-definition/geopatri- moine-patrimoine-geologique. Retrieved Jan- uary 26, 2023.
Girault Y (2019). UNESCO Global Geoparks. Tension Between Territorial Development and Heritage Enhancement. London: ISTE Science
Publishing/Wiley.
Gohau G (2001). La géologie, discipline mal aimée. In Hulin (ed.), Etudes sur l’Enseigne- ment des Sciences Physiques et Naturelles (pp. 67–79). Lyon: ENS éditions.
Gómez Martínez J (2006). Dos museologías: Las tradiciones anglosajon y mediterránea: diferen- cias y contactos. Gijón: Trea.
Janes R (2023). Museums and Societal Collapse. The Museum as Lifeboat. London: Routledge.
Koster EH, Schiele B (1998). La révolution de la muséologie des sciences. Lyon: PUL.
Latour B (1993). We Have Never Been Modern.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mairesse F (2022). Dictionary of Museology.
London: Routledge.
Olson K, Dowling R (2018). Geotourism & Cul- tural Heritage. Geoconservation Research. 1: 37–41.
Qu’est-ce que le géopatrimoine? (2023). C.I.R.I.R. https://cirir-edu.org/quest-ce-que-le-geopatri- moine/. Retrieved January 26, 2023.
Reynard E (2005). Géomorphosites et paysages.
Géomorphologie. 11(3): 181–188.
Sera-Shriar E (2023). From museumization to decolonization: fostering critical dialogues in the history of science with a Haida eagle mask. The British Journal for the History of Sci- ence. 56(3): 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0007087423000043
Šola T (2015). Mnemosophy – an Essay on the Science of Public Memory. Zagreb: EHA.
Van Geert F (2019a). The uses and challenges of the geopark label as a place branding tool. The case of the Geopark of the Tremp Basin-Mont- sec (Catalonia-Spain). International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks. 7(2): 72–84. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2019.03.005
Van Geert F (2019b). In situ interpretation and ex situ museum display of geology. New oppor- tunities for a geoheritage based dialogue? In- ternational Journal of Geoheritage and Parks. 7(3): 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ij- geop.2019.05.001
Van Geert F (2020). Du Musée Ethnographique au Musée Multiculturel. Chronique d’une Trans- formation Globale. Paris: La Documentation Française.
Van Geert F (2022). The exhibition of geoheritage in geoparks and geological museums. Museo- logia e Patrimônio. 15/1: 164–183.
Van Geert F, Viau-Courville M (2022). Introduc- tion. Pour une mise en perspective internatio- nale des musées de société. Culture & Musées. 39: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.4000/culturemu- sees.7528
