Multifinality in geoheritage inventories: a cross-cutting approach of geotourism and geoconservation issues in the “Causses du Quercy” Regional Natural Park (Lot, SW France)

Multifinality in geoheritage inventories:

a cross-cutting approach of geotourism

and geoconservation issues in the “Causses du Quercy”

Regional Natural Park (Lot, SW France)

François Bétard

Univ. Paris-Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, laboratoire PRODIG, UMR CNRS 8586, francois.betard@univ-paris-diderot.fr

Alexandre Poiraud

Bureau d’études Inselberg, apoiraud@inselberg.fr ; Laboratoire GEOLAB, UMR CNRS 6042, apoiraud@yahoo.fr

Grégory Dandurand

Agence Protée, gregory.dandurand@gmail.com

Philippe Viette

Agence InSitu, philippe.viette@sfr.fr

Agathe Kuhnel

Parc Naturel Régional des Causses du Quercy, akuhnel@parc-causses-du-quercy.org

Geotourism and geoconservation are the main management issues of geoheritage inventories. In France, the INPG (National Inventory of Geological Heritage) constitutes a good basis for the definition of future protected areas and the further promotion of geoheritage. However, methodological adjustments are often necessary to fit with the different finalities of the inventory. This paper proposes a cross-cutting approach of geotourism and geoconservation issues in the “Causses-du-Quercy” Regional Natural Park (Lot, SW France), a rural territory typified by a rich geoheritage with a predominance of palaeontological and karstic sites. On one hand, a qualitative approach with risk-based assessment led to the definition of an original geoconservation strategy inspired by experiences in natural risk evaluation and biological conservation.

On the other hand, a suitable geotourism-based method of geosite assessment enables to distinguish three main groups of geosites classified as a function of gradual priority for geotourism promotion in accordance with the Regional Park management policy. As a whole, this integrated work constitutes a solid prospective basis, a powerful tool and a strong decision support for the current project of Geopark application.

A

I ntroduction

Geotourism and geoconservation are the main management issues of geoheritage inventories. In France, the INPG (National Inventory of Geological Heritage) constitutes a good basis for the definition of future protected areas and the further promotion of geoheritage (De Wever et al., 2015). However, methodological adjustments are often necessary to fit with the different finalities of the inventory. The aim of this paper is to propose a cross-cutting approach of geotourism and geoconservation issues in the “Causses-du- Quercy” Regional Natural Park (PNRCQ), a rural territory typified by a rich geoheritage with a predominance of palaeontological and karstic sites (Fig. 1).

This geoheritage is currently the subject of protection measures (creation of a National Nature Reserve of geological interest, RNNg) and promotion actions (project of Geopark application). Because numerous geosites of the Regional Park are not managed, the PNRCQ aims to develop a substantive, integrated geoheritage project well beyond the limits of the reserve and extended to the whole PNR territory. To achieve this, two parallel studies (geoconservation and geotourism) were launched in 2013-2014. On one hand, a qualitative approach with risk-based assessment – inspired by experience in natural risk evaluation – was proposed for the definition of a geoconservation strategy applied to karstic sites. On the other hand, a semi-quantitative method of geosite assessment – based on multi-criteria analysis adapted to geotourism purposes – met the need to define a ranking or priority-based classification of geosites of geotouristic interest, in accordance with the Regional Park management policy and the geoconservation issues. As a whole, this integrated work constitutes a solid, prospective basis for consolidating the project of Geopark application.

1 . Inventorying geoheritage: the INPG database

1.1 INPG as a prefiguration of geoheritage in the study area In France, the INPG (Inventaire National du Patrimoine Géologique) is a national program launched in 2007 in order to inventory the geoheritage of France (De Wever et al., 2015). It constitutes a good basis for the definition of future protected areas as well as the promotion of geoheritage through education and geotourism. If the inventory is not completed at a national level, the Lot is one of the first departments of France to have achieved its inventory (completed in december 2007 and validated by CSRPN in march 2009; Cabrol et al., 2009).

Fig. 1 – Location map of the study area encompassing the territories of the Regional Natural Park (PNRCQ) and the National Nature Reserve of geological interest (RNNg).

The inventory highlighted the great richness of geoheritage in the PNR territory, with a total of 143 geosites including 19 geosites with 3 stars, 34 with 2 stars and 53 with 1 star (Fig. 2). The number of stars is attributed according to the note obtained by numerical assessment during the inventory process, and categorises the importance of the geosites within the national territory - from low heritage value for sites with local interest (0 star) to high heritage value for sites of international relevance (3 stars).

Fig. 2 – Distribution of the geosites inventoried in the Lot department. Geosites with 3 stars.

Map from Rey and Pélissié (2014).

1.2 The predominance of palaeontological and karstic sites

In the study area, the INPG database revealed the predominance of palaeontological sites, mainly associated with the « Phosphatières » (i.e. phosphate mines) exhibiting the world-famous Eocene-Oligocene phosphorite deposits of Quercy (Legendre et al., 1997). Located in the southern part of the regional park, these phosphorites allow to reconstruct the evolution of terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals…) and associated palaeoenvironments over 30 m.y. Fossil assemblages are particularly abundant and well preserved, promoting several sites (Escamps, Garouillas, Mas de Pauffié) to the rank of international standard localities in biostratigraphy. Another palaeontological site of international relevance is considered in this study since it belongs to the RNNg: the « Pterosaur Beach » or Upper Jurassic Crayssac Lagerstätte (Gaillard et al., 2005). This geosite is world-famous for its exceptional assemblages of ichnofossils that provide direct evidence of trackways made by a variety of aquatic, terrestrial (crocodiles, dinosaurs, turtles…) and even predominantly aerial vertebrates (pterosaurs) (Mazin et al., 1997).

The national inventory also points out the omnipresence of karstic geosites in a region dominated by Jurassic limestone caprock (Pélissié et al., 2014).

Beyond their morphogenetic linkage with the phosphorite deposits formed by infilling of paleokarst cavities, these geosites illustrate the great diversity of exokarst features: sinkholes, karren, swallets, canyons, dry valleys, etc.

Even if the INPG does not take into account the underground heritage, several geosites of hydrogeological interest were inventoried, including major disappearing streams (e.g. Réveillon) and karst perennial springs of Vauclusian-type (Cabouy, St-Sauveur).

2 . Conserving geoheritage: a risk-based approach

2.1 Qualitative approach with risk-based assessment

The geoconservation study wore on 6 representative karstic sites subject to different threats (Poiraud and Dandurand, 2015). One of the main problems of geoconservation is the necessity of using alternative legislation from natural heritage or urbanism (Avoine and Jonin, 2010; Jonin and Avoine, 2010; Erikstad, 2013). To optimize legislation tools, we have to know perfectly the different interests of a geosite, from a geoscientific viewpoint, but also from their additional values (Reynard et al., 2007). As we must evaluate the sensibility of each interest value under the risk of deterioration, we applied the concept from risk analysis to each geosite (1):

(1)

with V, the vulnerability, T, the threats, I, the issues and P, the protection status. Each item was evaluated on a 4 grades scale (Table 1).

Thereby, we evaluated natural values (fauna, flora, geology, geomorphology, interaction between biotic and abiotic) and cultural values (aesthetical, historical, archeological, sociological) for each geosite by field investigation and interviews of various stakeholders.

For each item of specific natural or cultural values, we calculated indices to characterize it:

• N, the number of occurrence of the item,

• Tot, the sum of notes,

• H’, the diversity of notes,

• I, the multiplication of N, Tot and H’.

2.2 Main results and conservation strategy

Geoheritage of the 6 sites is always associated with biotic interest (chiroptera, birds, specific flora) which is dependent on geoscientific context of the karstic site. The interaction between abiotic and biotic is always a strong component of the sites. Landscape, historic or archeological interests are frequently associated with geomorphic feature.

Three sites are protected by legislation for natural heritage, landscape or historical heritage. This kind of protection is effective for geoheritage relatively to touristic project intentions.

Table 1 – Evaluation matrix of risk analysis.

0 Vulnerability

Internal threat External threat

Issue Conservation

policies Risk

none none none none none none

low low low local urbanism

policies low

medium medium medium microregional

conventional conservation medium

high high high regional and more legal conservation

high

* ** ***

Two sites have specific protection for geoheritage (paleontological and geomorphological interest) and are included in the perimeter of the RNNg.

Table 2 synthesizes the main results on specific items.

The vulnerabilities of sites are various and rarely related to geoheritage.

Gravity is a major internal threat of karstic sites with direct consequences on the quality of outcrop and integrity of the site. The main external threat is the frequenting of the sites and outdoor activities. They cause disturbances (biotic component) or damages on abiotic and cultural components (buildings, infrastructures). The main issues are biologic heritage, landscape and archeological feature.

Finally, since we cannot mobilize specific geoheritage legislation for all geosites, we used the additional heritages and their specific legislation to preserve geoheritage indirectly. We proposed two strategies:

- site strategy with determining for each site the target issue (geoheritage) and the gearing issue (additional heritages) which mobilize specific protection tools;

- global strategy inspired by collaborative sciences and experiences in biotic conservation (citizen watch, property survey or popular university).

3 . Promoting geoheritage: a geotourism approach

3.1 A geotourism-based method of geosite assessment

A geotourism study was conducted in 2013-2014, with the aim to propose a strategy of tourism promotion of the geological heritage in the whole PNR territory (Viette and Bétard, 2014). Although the INPG methodology includes an evaluation of patrimonial interest of the geosites and a rating about the need of protection (De Wever et al., 2015), it does not include some added values that are important for geotourism activities, such as accessibility or aesthetic value. Here we propose a semi-quantitative assessment method of geosites based on multi-criteria analysis adapted to geotourism purposes (Table 3).

For each site retained in the preliminary inventory, a score is assigned (rating from 1* to 4* for each criteria) in order to propose a ranking or priority-based classification of sites with geotourism potential that can be used as a tool for defining a management strategy.

Vulnerability

Internal threat

External threat

Issues

Deposit 3

2 2

2

2

2 0 1

32

2 2 1

1

1

2

2

2 2 2 2

2

2

2

2 0

0

0 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 3 1 2 2

2

1

1

2

1 3

3

3

3

33

3 3

3 2

1 2

3 0 Hydrologic system

Biotic Habitat Landscape dynamic Social representation

Art Fauna

Gravity Weathering Hydrologic dynamic

Afforestation Landscape closure

Water pollution Growing urbanization

Infrastructure Outdoor tourism

Vandalism Landslide mitigation

Geoheritage Natural Hazard Biologic heritage Landscape/Architecture

History/Archeology Conservation

RISK

Ethno-sociology

Swallet

of Réveillon Quarry

of Mémerlin Ridge

of Marcilhac Igue

de Crégols Cave and tufa

of Lacauhne Corniche

des Anglais N Tot H’

1 2 1 3 21 1 4 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 4 2 3 3 1 54 31

3 5 2 5 43 2 4 1 3 3 2 3 2 0 5 5 4 6 1 117 6 3

0,00 0,67 0,00 1,05 0,690,00 0,00 1,39 0,00 0,00 0,64 0,00 0,64 0,00 0,00 1,33 0,67 1,04 1,01 0,00 1,551,08 1,01 0,00

I 0,00 0,08 0,00 0,19 10,07 0,00 0,00 0,26 0,00 10,00 0,07 0,00 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,31 0,08 0,15 0,21 0,00 1,000,36 0,21 0,00 Table 2 – Synthesis of risk analysis.

**** *** ** *

Scientific worth International National Regional Local

Educational interest Very high High Medium Low

Uniqueness / rarity Exceptional Rare Uncommon Common

Exemplarity Very high High Medium Low

Aesthetic value Exceptional Remarkable Interesting Commonplace

State of preservation Well preserved Slightly degraded Partly destroyed Strongly destroyed

Site management and

protection Managed and

protected Managed but not

protected Not managed, without

potential negative impact Not managed, with potential negative impact Accessibility Site clearly visible and

well accessible Site barely visible but

well accessible Site difficult to access

for tourists Site unavalaible for tourists Present and potential

touristic use Yet promoted/used as

geosite Used but insufficiently

promoted as geosite Not used but with

touristic potential Not used and difficult to use as geosite

Vulnerability

Internal threat

External threat

Issues

Deposit 3

2 2

2

2

2 0 1

32

2 2 1

1

1

2

2

2 2 2 2

2

2

2

2 0

0

0 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 3 1 2 2

2

1

1

2

1 3

3

3

3

33

3 3

3 2

1 2

3 0 Hydrologic system

Biotic Habitat Landscape dynamic Social representation

Art Fauna

Gravity Weathering Hydrologic dynamic

Afforestation Landscape closure

Water pollution Growing urbanization

Infrastructure Outdoor tourism

Vandalism Landslide mitigation

Geoheritage Natural Hazard Biologic heritage Landscape/Architecture

History/Archeology Conservation

RISK

Ethno-sociology

Swallet

of Réveillon Quarry

of Mémerlin Ridge

of Marcilhac Igue

de Crégols Cave and tufa

of Lacauhne Corniche

des Anglais N Tot H’

1 2 1 3 21 1 4 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 4 2 3 3 1 54 31

3 5 2 5 43 2 4 1 3 3 2 3 2 0 5 5 4 6 1 117 6 3

0,00 0,67 0,00 1,05 0,690,00 0,00 1,39 0,00 0,00 0,64 0,00 0,64 0,00 0,00 1,33 0,67 1,04 1,01 0,00 1,551,08 1,01 0,00

I 0,00 0,08 0,00 0,19 10,07 0,00 0,00 0,26 0,00 10,00 0,07 0,00 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,31 0,08 0,15 0,21 0,00 1,000,36 0,21 0,00

**** *** ** *

Scientific worth International National Regional Local

Educational interest Very high High Medium Low

Uniqueness / rarity Exceptional Rare Uncommon Common

Exemplarity Very high High Medium Low

Aesthetic value Exceptional Remarkable Interesting Commonplace

State of preservation Well preserved Slightly degraded Partly destroyed Strongly destroyed

Site management and

protection Managed and

protected Managed but not

protected Not managed, without

potential negative impact Not managed, with potential negative impact Accessibility Site clearly visible and

well accessible Site barely visible but

well accessible Site difficult to access

for tourists Site unavalaible for tourists Present and potential

touristic use Yet promoted/used as

geosite Used but insufficiently

promoted as geosite Not used but with

touristic potential Not used and difficult to use as geosite Table 3 – Criteria of geosite assessment used in the geotourism study.

Vulnerability

Internal threat

External threat

Issues

Deposit 3

2 2

2

2

2 0 1

32

2 2 1

1

1

2

2

2 2 2 2

2

2

2

2 0

0

0 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 3 1 2 2

2

1

1

2

1 3

3

3

3

33

3 3

3 2

1 2

3 0 Hydrologic system

Biotic Habitat Landscape dynamic Social representation

Art Fauna

Gravity Weathering Hydrologic dynamic

Afforestation Landscape closure

Water pollution Growing urbanization

Infrastructure Outdoor tourism

Vandalism Landslide mitigation

Geoheritage Natural Hazard Biologic heritage Landscape/Architecture

History/Archeology Conservation

RISK

Ethno-sociology

Swallet

of Réveillon Quarry

of Mémerlin Ridge

of Marcilhac Igue

de Crégols Cave and tufa

of Lacauhne Corniche

des Anglais N Tot H’

1 2 1 3 21 1 4 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 4 2 3 3 1 54 31

3 5 2 5 43 2 4 1 3 3 2 3 2 0 5 5 4 6 1 117 6 3

0,00 0,67 0,00 1,05 0,690,00 0,00 1,39 0,00 0,00 0,64 0,00 0,64 0,00 0,00 1,33 0,67 1,04 1,01 0,00 1,551,08 1,01 0,00

I 0,00 0,08 0,00 0,19 10,07 0,00 0,00 0,26 0,00 10,00 0,07 0,00 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,31 0,08 0,15 0,21 0,00 1,000,36 0,21 0,00

**** *** ** *

Scientific worth International National Regional Local

Educational interest Very high High Medium Low

Uniqueness / rarity Exceptional Rare Uncommon Common

Exemplarity Very high High Medium Low

Aesthetic value Exceptional Remarkable Interesting Commonplace

State of preservation Well preserved Slightly degraded Partly destroyed Strongly destroyed

Site management and

protection Managed and

protected Managed but not

protected Not managed, without

potential negative impact Not managed, with potential negative impact Accessibility Site clearly visible and

well accessible Site barely visible but

well accessible Site difficult to access

for tourists Site unavalaible for tourists Present and potential

touristic use Yet promoted/used as

geosite Used but insufficiently

promoted as geosite Not used but with

touristic potential Not used and difficult to use as geosite

Table 4 – Results of the geotourism-based method of geosite assessment.

Number Site SW EI UN EX AV SP MP AC TU Score Rank

G1 Gouffre de Réveillon ** *** *** *** *** *** ** * ** 22 20

G2 Igues d’Aujols ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 26 6

G3 Cloup d’Aural **** **** **** **** *** **** **** **** **** 35 1

G4 Mas de Got *** ** *** ** ** ** *** ** ** 21 20

G5 Coulou *** ** *** *** ** ** *** ** ** 22 15

G6 Coupe de Belmont * ** *** ** * ** ** *** ** 18 30

G7 Ouvala de Berganty * ** *** ** * ** ** *** ** 18 30

G8 Sablière de Pech-Merle ** *** *** ** * *** *** ** ** 21 20

G9 Grotte de Pech-Merle ** *** ** *** *** **** **** **** *** 28 4

G10 Falaise de Cabrerets ** ** *** * * ** ** ** ** 17 35

G11 Mémerlin-Prajoux *** ** *** *** ** ** *** ** ** 22 15

G12 St Sauveur-Cabouy ** *** *** *** *** *** **** *** *** 27 5

G13 Coupe de Calvignac ** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** ** 23 11

G14 Belvédère de Calvignac * ** * ** * ** **** *** *** 19 28

G15 Tuilerie de Puy-Blanc ** ** ** * * ** ** *** ** 17 35

G16 Braunhie-Planagrèze ** ** ** ** ** *** ** *** *** 21 20

G17 Carrière du Pech

d’Anjou * ** *** ** ** ** ** ** ** 18 30

G18 Trou-Madame ** ** ** ** ** ** *** *** ** 20 26

G19 Carrière de grèze

Cornus ** ** ** ** * ** ** * ** 16 37

G20 Plage aux Ptérosaures **** **** **** **** **** *** **** **** **** 35 1

G21 Igue de Crégols ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 26 6

G22 Les Tempories *** *** *** ** ** ** *** ** ** 22 15

G23 Fonds de la Braunhie ** ** ** *** ** ** **** *** *** 23 11

G24 Canyon de l’Alzou * *** ** ** *** *** **** *** *** 24 8

G25 Grotte de Lacave * ** * * ** ** **** **** ** 18 30

G26 Falaise de Pech-

Affamat ** ** ** ** ** *** *** *** ** 21 20

G27 La Balme *** *** ** *** ** *** *** *** ** 24 8

G28 La Pierre-Martine * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 24 8

G29 Marais de Bonnefont * ** ** ** * *** **** *** *** 21 20

G30 Source Salmière ** *** *** ** ** ** * *** ** 20 26

G31 Gouffre de Padirac *** **** **** *** **** *** ** *** *** 29 3

G32 Belvédère de la

Corniche * ** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** 23 11

G33 Belvédère de St-Cirq W * ** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** 23 11

G34 Cirque de Vénes * ** ** ** *** *** *** *** *** 22 15

G35 La Toulzanie ** * ** * * *** *** * * 15 38

G36 Vallée du Célé * ** ** *** ** ** ** *** ** 19 28

G37 Butte-témoin de la

Pauze ** ** ** ** * *** ** ** ** 18 30

G38 Tranchée de Vaylats ** *** ** ** ** *** *** *** ** 22 15

SW: scientific worth; EI: educational interest; UR: uniqueness/rarity; EX: exemplarity; AV: aesthetic value;

SP: state of preservation; MP: site management and protection; AC: accessibility; TU: present and potential touristic use.

3.2 Assessment results

and priority-based classification of geosites

The semi-quantitative assessment enables to distinguish three groups of geosites classified as a function of priority for geotourism promotion in accordance with the Regional Natural Park management policy (Table 4):

- high priority: 7 geosites belong to this category (score=35-26): the

“Phosphatières” of Cloup d’Aural, the “Pterosaur Beach”, Padirac, Pech-Merle, the Vauclusian springs of Cabouy and St-Sauveur and the karst sinkholes of Aujols and Crégols; this group of “major” geosites may be considered as emblematic of the geoheritage of Quercy and should concentrate the main efforts of geotourism promotion;

- medium priority: 13 geosites may be ranged into this group (score=24-22); they may be considered as complementary geosites for valorizing the whole geodiversity of Quercy; panoramic geomorphosites are included (Rocamadour, St-Cirq-Lapopie) with the aim to highlight the links between geomorphological and cultural landscapes;

- low priority: 18 geosites belong to this last category (score<22);

they currently appear as non-prioritary in terms of valorization and promotion of geoheritage and geodiversity of the territory.

These results finally allowed to define a global geotourism strategy that remains in agreement with the geoconservation issues (e.g., creation of the RNNg) and the project of Geopark.

4 . A working basis towards Geopark application

4.1 Integrating geoconservation

and geotourism into a unique project

The PNRCQ has the project of application to the European Geopark Network (EGN). According to the EGN charter supported by UNESCO, every territory wishing to submit application to become a European Geopark has to meet a list of criteria, among which the need to demonstrate methods of protecting and conserving geoheritage (geoconservation) and to have a management plan dedicated to socio-economic development through geotourism (Farsani et al., 2011). Owing to the geoconservation and geotourism strategies presented in this integrated work, together with the PNR structure and the recent creation of a “geological” reserve within its territory, the PNRCQ fulfills the main criteria to support an application to the EGN. The principal challenges deal with geoeducation (awareness of the importance and scope

of preserving geoheritage) and networking (linkages with the EGN and the local enterprises to promote and support the creation of new by-products related to geoheritage).

4.2 Integrating the cultural value of geoheritage:

a key of Geopark application

Whereas the scientific values of geosites are well recognized and assessed during geoheritage inventories, the cultural values of geoheritage are often neglected despite their importance for public awareness and geotourism purposes. They may be considered as “additional” values and appear as a key of Geopark application. Indeed, even if the majority of sites of the candidate territory must be part of geoheritage, their interest may also be archaeological, ecological, historical or cultural. The great value of cultural heritage in the PNRCQ and its various linkages with the geoheritage are a definite asset to support the application dossier. The geoheritage of Quercy may be opportunely linked to (1) architectural heritage (dry stone walls, agricultural and rural heritage, famous cultural landscapes associated with the hilltop villages of Rocamadour and St-Cirq-Lapopie), (2) historical heritage and prehistoric sites (painting caves of Pech-Merle, megalithism and prehistoric quarry of Livernon), (3) geo-industrial heritage (phosphate mines, clay pits and tilery, former mineral water industry associated with karst springs).

Bibliography

AVOINE J. & JONIN M. (2010). – Réserves naturelles et patrimoine géologique. – Géologie de la France, 1, 11-17.

CABROL P., DURANTHON F. et coll. (2009). – Inventaire des sites géologiques de la région Midi- Pyrénées – Le département du Lot. Note de synthèse, DREAL Midi-Pyrénées, 4p.

ERIKSTAD L. (2013). – Geoheritage and geodiversity management – the questions for tomorrow.

– Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 124(4), 713-719.

DE WEVER P., ALTERIO I, EGOROFF G., CORNÉE A., BOBROWSKY P., COLLIN G., DURANTHON F., HILL W., LALANNE A. & PAGE K. (2015). – Geoheritage, a National Inventory in France. – Geoheritage, 7(3), 205-247.

FARSANI N.B., COELHO C. & COSTA C. (2011). – Geotourism and geoparks as novel strategies for socio-economic development in rural areas. – International Journal of Tourism Research, 13, 68-81.

GAILLARD C., HANTZPERGUE P., VANNIER J., MARGERARD A.L. & MAZIN J.M. (2005).

– Isopod trackways from the Crayssac Lagerstätte, Upper Jurassic, France. – Palaeontology, 48, 947-962.

JONIN M. & AVOINE J. (2010). – Sites classés et patrimoine géologique. – Géologie de la France, 1, 19-23.

LEGENDRE S., SIGE B., ASTRUC J.G., de BONIS L., CROCHET J. Y., DENYS C. et coll. (1997).

– Les phosphorites du Quercy : 30 ans de recherche. Bilan et perspectives. – Geobios, 30, 331-345.

MAZIN J.M., HANTZPERGUE P., BASSOULLET J.P., LAFAURIE G. & VIGNAUD P. (1997).

– Le gisement de Crayssac (Tithonien inférieur, Quercy, Lot, France): découverte de pistes de dinosaures en place et premier bilan ichnologique. – Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, Series IIA, 325(9), 733-739.

PELISSIE T., LAGASQUIE J.J. & TREMOULET J. (2014). – Les clefs des paysages des Causses du Quercy : géologie et géomorphologie. – Les Essentiels du Parc vol. 1, Edicausse, Arcambal, 112p.

POIRAUD A. & DANDURAND G. (2015). – Préservation des sites karstiques majeurs du Parc naturel régional des Causses du Quercy : étude de cas sur 6 sites emblématiques – Rapport final. – Rapport d’étude Inselberg et Protée, PNR des Causses du Quercy, Labastide-Murat, 109p.

REY J. & PELISSIE T. (2014). – Le Parc Naturel Régional des Causses du Quercy, un territoire lotois au riche patrimoine géologique. – Regards sur le Parc, Bulletin du Conseil Scientifique et de Prospective du PNR des Causses du Quercy, 21, 1- 4.

REYNARD E., FONTANA G., KOZLIK L. & SCAPOZZA C. (2007). – A method for assessing

«scientific» and «additional values» of geomorphosites. – Geographica Helvetica, 62(3), 148-158.

VIETTE P. & BETARD F. (2014). – Etude de définition et de formalisation du projet de développement et de valorisation pédagogique et touristique du patrimoine géologique, PNR des Causses du Quercy (Lot). – Rapport d’étude Agence InSitu, PNR des Causses du Quercy, Labastide-Murat, 63p. + annexes.