Evaluation of a Paleontological Museum as Geosite and Base for Geotourism. A Case Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Megatherium Palaeontological Museum
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Phase I: Processing and Systematisation of Information
3.2. Phase II: Semiquantitative Assessment. IELIG, Brilha and GAM
3.2.1. Assessment with IELIG Method
3.2.2. Assessment with Brilha Method
3.2.3. Assessment with Geosites Assessment Model (GAM) Method
3.3. Phase III: Qualitative Evaluation. DELPHI and SWOT Analysis
4. Results
4.1. MPM Processing and Systematisation
4.2. Semiquantitative Assessment with IELIG, Brilha and GAM Methods
4.2.1. Assessment with IELIG Method
4.2.2. Evaluation with the Brilha Method
4.2.3. Assessment with the GAM Method
4.3. DELPHI and SWOT Analysis
4.3.1. DELPHI Method
4.3.2. SWOT Analysis
5. Discussion
- According to the Brilha method [1], the museum has an adequate study area to illustrate elements related to palaeontology. In addition, the scientific progress (integrity and geological occurrence) and its historical, cultural and heritage value make the museum a place of educational and touristic interest. The risk of degradation is low, as the museum’s fossil elements are protected.
- According to the GAM method [33], the MPM has a unique scientific value, with high values of didactic and exemplary characteristics (Figure 8). However, its scenic/aesthetic value is intermediate, as the logistics of the museum do not present a natural environment and industrial activities are less than 5 km away.
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Brilha, J. Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: A Review. Geoheritage 2016, 8, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Serrano, E.; Ruiz-Flaño, P. Geodiversity: A theoretical and applied coneept. Geogr. Helv. 2007, 62, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrión-Mero, P.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Herrera-Narváez, G.; Morante-Carballo, F. Geodiversity and Mining Towards the Development of Geotourism: A Global Perspective. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodynamics 2021, 16, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, M.; Gordon, J.E.; Brown, E.J. Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: The contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2013, 124, 659–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rojas, J. Los desafíos del estudio de la geodiversidad. Rev. Geográfica Venez. 2005, 46, 143–152. [Google Scholar]
- Kubalíková, L.; Drápela, E.; Kirchner, K.; Bajer, A.; Balková, M.; Kuda, F. Urban geotourism development and geoconservation: Is it possible to find a balance? Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 121, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, M. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Kozlowski, S. Geodiversity. The concept and scope of geodiversity. Prz. Geol. 2004, 52, 833–837. [Google Scholar]
- Migoń, P. Granite Landscapes, Geodiversity and Geoheritage—Global Context. Heritage 2021, 4, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medina, W. Importancia de la Geodiversidad. Método de Inventarización y Valoración del Patrimonio Geológico. Ser. Correlación Geológica 2015, 31, 57–72. [Google Scholar]
- Carrión, P.; Herrera, G.; Briones, J.; Sánchez, C. La Geodiversidad, una componente de desarrollo sostenible. J. Sci. Res. 2018, 3, 36–42. [Google Scholar]
- Lazzari, M.; Aloia, A. Geoparks, geoheritage and geotourism: Opportunities and tools in sustainable development of the territory. Geoj. Tour. Geosites 2014, 13, 8–9. [Google Scholar]
- Herrera-Franco, G.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Jaya-Montalvo, M.; Gurumendi-Noriega, M. Worldwide Research on Geoparks through Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burek, C.V.; Prosser, C.D. The history of geoconservation: An introduction. Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ. 2008, 300, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Prosser, C.D. Our rich and varied geoconservation portfolio: The foundation for the future. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2013, 124, 568–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrión-Mero, P.; Borja-Bernal, C.; Herrera-Franco, G.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Jaya-Montalvo, M.; Maldonado-Zamora, A.; Paz-Salas, N.; Berrezueta, E. Geosites and Geotourism in the Local Development of Communities of the Andes Mountains. A Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Ortiz, E.; Fuertes-Gutiérrez, I.; Fernández-Martínez, E. Concepts and terminology for the risk of degradation of geological heritage sites: Fragility and natural vulnerability, a case study. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2014, 125, 463–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brilha, J. Geoconservation and protected areas. Environ. Conserv. 2002, 29, 273–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Serrano, E.; González-Trueba, J.J. Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: The Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Géomorphologie Reli. Process. Environ. 2005, 11, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pereira, P.; Pereira, D.; Caetano Alves, M.I. Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geogr. Helv. 2007, 62, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Crofts, R.; Gordon, J.E. Geoconservation in protected areas. In Protected Area Governance and Management; Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., Pulsford, I., Eds.; ANU Press: Canberra, Australia, 2015; pp. 531–568. [Google Scholar]
- Caust, J.; Vecco, M. Is UNESCO World Heritage recognition a blessing or burden? Evidence from developing Asian countries. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 27, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, S.-K. Biocultural diversity conservation for island and islanders: Necessity, goal and activity. J. Mar. Isl. Cult. 2013, 2, 102–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dowling, R.K. Geotourism’s Global Growth. Geoheritage 2011, 3, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrión Mero, P.; Herrera Franco, G.; Briones, J.; Caldevilla, P.; Domínguez-Cuesta, M.; Berrezueta, E. Geotourism and Local Development Based on Geological and Mining Sites Utilization, Zaruma-Portovelo, Ecuador. Geosciences 2018, 8, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newsome, D.; Dowling, R.K. The future of geotourism where to from here? In Geotourism: The Tourism of Geology and Landscape; Newsome, D., Dowling, R.K., Eds.; Goodfellow Publishers Limited: Wallingford, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Necheş, I.-M. Geodiversity beyond material evidence: A Geosite Type based interpretation of geological heritage. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2016, 127, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruban, D.A. Quantification of geodiversity and its loss. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2010, 121, 326–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Cortés, Á.; Carcavilla, L. Documento Metodológico para la Elaboración del Inventario Español de Lugares de Interés Geológico (IELIG); Instituto Geológico y Minero de España: Madrid, Spain, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Canesin, T.S.; Brilha, J.; Díaz-Martínez, E. Best Practices and Constraints in Geopark Management: Comparative Analysis of Two Spanish UNESCO Global Geoparks. Geoheritage 2020, 12, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Álvarez-Jurado, Á. El Papel del Patrimonio Geológico en la Gestión de Espacios Naturales Protegidos. Available online: http://tauja.ujaen.es/jspui/handle/10953.1/6431 (accessed on 14 May 2021).
- Pereira, P.; Pereira, D. Assessment of Geosites Touristic Value in Geoparks: The Example of Arouca Geopark (Portugal). In Proceedings of the 11th European Geoparks Conference, Arouca, Portugal, 19–21 September 2012; pp. 231–232. [Google Scholar]
- Vujičić, M.D.; Vasiljević, D.A.; Marković, S.B.; Hose, T.A.; Lukić, T.; Hadžić, O.; Janićević, S. Preliminary geosite assessment model (gam) and its application on Fruška gora mountain, potential geotourism destination of Serbia. Acta Geogr. Slov. 2011, 51, 361–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrović, M.; Vasiljević, D.; Vujičić, M.; Hose, T.; Marković, S.; Lukić, T. Geoparque global y análisis candidato-comparativo del geoparque de la montaña Papuk (Croacia) y la montaña Fruška Gora (Serbia) utilizando el modelo GAM. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2013, 8, 105–116. [Google Scholar]
- Carrión-Mero, P.; Loor-Oporto, O.; Andrade-Ríos, H.; Herrera-Franco, G.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Jaya-Montalvo, M.; Aguilar-Aguilar, M.; Torres-Peña, K.; Berrezueta, E. Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of the “El Sexmo” Tourist Gold Mine (Zaruma, Ecuador) as A Geosite and Mining Site. Resources 2020, 9, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jakubowski, K.J. Geological Heritage and Museums. In Proceedings of the Geological Heritage Concept, Conservation and Protection Policy in Central Europe, Cracow, Poland, 3–4 October 2003; pp. 21–28. [Google Scholar]
- Wolniewicz, P. Beyond Geodiversity Sites: Exploring the Educational Potential of Widespread Geological Features (Rocks, Minerals and Fossils). Geoheritage 2021, 13, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCO Land-Based Museums. Available online: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/museums-and-tourism/land-based-museums/ (accessed on 5 May 2021).
- Pérez-Lorente, F. Experiences of geoconservation in La Rioja (Spain). In Geological Heritage: Its Conservation and Management; Barettino, D., Wimbledon, W.A.P., Gallego, E., Eds.; Ministerios de Ciencia y Tecnología: Madrid, Spain, 2000; pp. 165–183. [Google Scholar]
- Ruiz, R.M.M. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España (IGME) Museo Geominero. Alambique Didáctica de las Cienc. Exp. 2018, pp. 82–84. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/ejemplar/503253 (accessed on 3 June 2021).
- Massarani, L.; León-Castella, A.; Aguirre, C.; Reynoso, E.; Lindegaard, L.; Fernandez, E. Guía de Centros y Museos de Ciencia de América Latina y El Caribe; Massarani, M., Ed.; UNESCO: Montevideo, Uruguay, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ministerio de Cultura y Patrimonio Museos. Available online: https://www.culturaypatrimonio.gob.ec/museos/ (accessed on 5 May 2021).
- Román, J. La Paleontología en el Ecuador; Historia y Perspectivas. Esc. Politécnica Nac. 2011, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Sánchez-Cortez, J.L. Conservation of geoheritage in Ecuador: Situation and perspectives. Int. J. Geoheritage Park. 2019, 7, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geoparque Napo Sumaco. Available online: https://geoparquenaposumaco.org/ (accessed on 27 June 2021).
- Herrera, G.; Carrión, P.; Briones, J. Geotourism potential in the context of the geopark project for the development of Santa Elena province, Ecuador. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2018, 217, 557–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jaramillo, J.P.; García, T.; Bolaños, M. Bosque Petrificado de Puyango y sus alrededores: Inventario de lugares de interés geológico. Rev. Científica Geolatitud 2017, 1, 60–75. [Google Scholar]
- Hose, T.A. Editorial: Geotourism and Geoconservation. Geoheritage 2012, 4, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Herrera-Franco, G.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Apolo-Masache, B.; Jaya-Montalvo, M. Research Trends in Geotourism: A Bibliometric Analysis Using the Scopus Database. Geosciences 2020, 10, 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dowling, R.K. Global Geotourism—An Emerging Form of Sustainable Tourism. Czech J. Tour. 2013, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Herrera-Franco, G.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Alvarado, N.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Maldonado, A.; Caldevilla, P.; Briones-Bitar, J.; Berrezueta, E. Geosites and Georesources to Foster Geotourism in Communities: Case Study of the Santa Elena Peninsula Geopark Project in Ecuador. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrera-Franco, G.; Mora-Frank, C.; Rubira, G. Affectations by Anthropogenic Activities of Urban, Rural and Industrial Zone in Geosites of the Santa Elena Peninsula Geopark Project, Ecuador. In Proceedings of the 18th LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education, and Technology: Engineering, Integration, and Alliances for A Sustainable Development Hemispheric Cooperation for Competitiveness and Prosperity on A Knowledge-Bas, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 18–20 July 2018; 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Ceilema Ninabanda, M.I.; Gonzalez Banchon, J.V. Analisis de la Influencia Cultural del Turismo en la Población Local: Salinas-Santa Elena; Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL): Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- UPSE Museo Paleontológico Megaterio. Available online: http://www.upse.edu.ec/museo/ (accessed on 5 May 2021).
- Ministerio de Turismo Museo Paleontológico Megaterio Promueve el Turismo Arqueológico. Available online: https://www.turismo.gob.ec/museo-paleontologico-megaterio-promueve-el-turismo-arqueologico/ (accessed on 5 May 2021).
- Cedeño, J.; Álvarez, A. Plan Promocional para el Museo Paleontológico Megaterio-Upse Cantón La Libertad, Provincia de Santa Elena, año 2014; Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena (UPSE): La Libertad, Ecuador, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Álvarez Loor, A.; Herrera Franco, G.; Erazo Mora, K. Ancón Santa-Elena: Historia-Patrimonio-Geoparque, 1st ed.; Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena: La Libertad, Ecuador, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Haensel, S.; Romero, E. Aplicación para Oculus Go Basada en Fósil de Megafauna Prehistórica Como Soporte a la Divulgación del Patrimonio Paleontológico Ecuatoriano; Universidad Católica Santiago de Guayaquil (UCSG): Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- UPSE. Catálogo de Especies. Available online: http://www.upse.edu.ec/museo/index.php?option=com_sppagebuilder&view=page&id=12&Itemid=197 (accessed on 7 May 2021).
- UPSE. Museo Paleontológico Megaterio: Estadísticas de Visitas por Año; Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena (UPSE): La Libertad, Ecuador, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- UPSE. Museo Paleontológico Megaterio: Estadísticas de Visitas 2019; Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena (UPSE): La Libertad, Ecuador, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- UPSE. Museo Paleontológico Megaterio: Estadísticas de Visitas; Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena (UPSE): La Libertad, Ecuador, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- UPSE. Museo Paleontológico Megaterio: Instituciones Educativas 2019; Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena (UPSE): La Libertad, Ecuador, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Abella, J. Museo Megaterio-UPSE: De Sala de Exposiciones a Museo de Historia Natural. Available online: https://vinculacion.upse.edu.ec/proin/investigacion/proyectos/info/201 (accessed on 23 May 2021).
- Lindsey, E.L.; Lopez Reyes, E.X.; Matzke, G.E.; Rice, K.A.; McDonald, H.G. A monodominant late-Pleistocene megafauna locality from Santa Elena, Ecuador: Insight on the biology and behavior of giant ground sloths. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2020, 544, 109599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrillo-Briceño, J.D.; Villafaña, J.A.; De Gracia, C.; Flores-Alcívar, F.F.; Kindlimann, R.; Abella, J. Diversity and paleoenvironmental implications of an elasmobranch assemblage from the Oligocene–Miocene boundary of Ecuador. PeerJ 2020, 8, e9051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Proyecto Geoparque Itinerario Educativo: Proyecto Geoparque Península Santa Elena. Available online: https://proyectogeoparque.wixsite.com/peninsulasantaelena/post/itinerario-educativo-proyecto-geoparque-península-santa-elena (accessed on 23 May 2021).
- Herrera, G.; Alvarado, N. Geoparque Ancón-Santa Elena en el Contexto del Ordenamiento del Territorio. 2016. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323916623_Proyecto_Geoparque_Ancon-Santa_Elena_en_el_contexto_del_ordenamiento_del_territorio (accessed on 3 June 2021).
- López, E. Informe del Hallazgo de Restos de Megafauna Pleistocénica en Tanque Loma; Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena (UPSE): La Libertad, Ecuador, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- López, E. Primer Informe de Avance del Proyecto Megaterio, Tanque Loma, UPSE; Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena (UPSE): La Libertad, Ecuador, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Ruiz-Sánchez, F.J.; Abella, J.; Román-Carrión, J.L.; Lindsey, E.; Santana, J.; López, E.; Marquina, R.; Crespo, V.; Mansino, S.; Díez, N.; et al. Nuevos datos sobre las faunas fósiles de vertebrados de la zona de Quebrada Seca (Santa Elena, Ecuador). In XXX Jornadas de Paleontología de la Sociedad Española de Paleontología; Royo-Torres, R., Verdú, F.J., Alcalá, L., Eds.; Fundación Conjunto Paleontológico de Teruel—Dinópolis: Teruel, Spain, 2014; pp. 215–281. [Google Scholar]
- Cadena, E.A.; Abella, J.; Gregori, M.D. New findings of Pleistocene fossil turtles (Geoemydidae, Kinosternidae and Chelydridae) from Santa Elena Province, Ecuador. PeerJ 2017, 5, e3215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lindsey, E.L.; Lopez, R.E.X. Tanque Loma, a new late-Pleistocene megafaunal tar seep locality from southwest Ecuador. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 2015, 57, 61–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasson, F.; Keeney, S. Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2011, 78, 1695–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyson, R.G. Strategic development and SWOT analysis at the University of Warwick. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 152, 631–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrera Franco, G.; Alvarez Loor, Á.; Pinoargote Rovello, C.; Montalván Toala, F. Geoparque Santa Elena—Ancón para el desarrollo sostenible. Available online: https://incyt.upse.edu.ec/proin/investigacion/proyectos/info/280 (accessed on 24 June 2021).
- Benítez, M.; Gallegos, W. Análisis de los Recursos Museológicos en la Provincia de Santa Elena para el Diseño de una Ruta Turística; Universidad de Guayaquil (UG): Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Contreras, G. Propuesta de Promoción y Difusión Educativa del Museo Paleontológico Megaterio para Fomentar la Valorización del Patrimonio Cultural de la Provincia de Santa Elena; Universidad Tecnológica Empresarial de Guayaquil: Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Vegas, J.; Channing, A.; Anderson, C.L.; Pais, J.; Santos, A.; Hernández, M.V. Los fósiles vegetales de la Caldera de Taburiente. Investigación, geoconservación y divulgación del patrimonio paleontológico en la isla de La Palma. In Patrimonio Geológico, un Recurso para el Desarrollo; Vegas, J., Salazar, A., DíazMartínez, E., Marchán, C., Eds.; Instituto Geológico y Minero de España: Madrid, Spain, 2013; Volume 15, pp. 353–360. [Google Scholar]
- Turner-Carrión, M.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Turner-Salamea, I.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Aguilar-Aguilar, M.; Zambrano-Ruiz, K.; Berrezueta, E. A Mineralogical Museum as a Geotourism Attraction: A Case Study. Minerals 2021, 11, 582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albani, R.A.; Mansur, K.L.; Carvalho, I.d.S.; Santos, W.F.S.D. Quantitative evaluation of the geosites and geodiversity sites of João Dourado Municipality (Bahia—Brazil). Geoheritage 2020, 12, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Višnić, T.; Spasojević, B.; Vujičić, M. The Potential for Geotourism Development on the Srem Loess Plateau Based on a Preliminary Geosite Assessment Model (GAM). Geoheritage 2016, 8, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa-Casais, M.; Alves, M.; Blanco-Chao, R. Assessment and Management of the Geomorphological Heritage of Monte Pindo (NW Spain): A Landscape as a Symbol of Identity. Sustainability 2015, 7, 7049–7085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Suzuki, D.A.; Takagi, H. Evaluation of Geosite for Sustainable Planning and Management in Geotourism. Geoheritage 2018, 10, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruban, D.A.; Yashalova, N.N. Real and Promoted Aesthetic Properties of Geosites: New Empirical Evidence from SW Russia. Heritage 2021, 4, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Indicators/Subindicators | Description |
---|---|
Representativeness | The MPM presents unique elements at the local and national levels, symbolising the megafauna that lived thousands of years ago in the Santa Elena province. Furthermore, it increases interest in finding discoveries new that strengthen the site’s scientific value. Expeditions have therefore been carried out in different parts of the province such as Atahualpa, Montañita-Olón, San Vicente and Aguadita. In addition, palaeontological work that has been carried out in other provinces, such as Guayas (Playas) and Manabí, is displayed in the museum. |
Geological diversity | Fossil collection (Santa Elena basin) containing some of the largest and best-preserved Pleistocene megafauna remains, contributing significantly to the knowledge about the extinction event of the Late Quaternary in the region. |
Key locality | The stratigraphic record includes 12 formations from the Early Cretaceous to the Pleistocene and it comprises a sedimentary sequence developed on oceanic crust. The formation of interest is the Pleistocene. |
Conservation status | In general, all geological elements are observed to be in good condition. However, there is a possibility of the deterioration of these geological elements. |
Scientific knowledge | There are projects and research work aimed at promoting the geotourism and scientific development of the museum. |
Rarity | The MPM is the first and only museum of a palaeontological kind, with unique integrity on a national level. This museum presents fossil remains such as the skeleton of a Megatherium, Mastodon, American Horse, Megalodon tooth, dolphin fragment, primitive whale, turtle plate, remains of prehistoric mice, opossum and prehistoric pig. |
Integrity | The excellent state of conservation of the site makes it possible to display the fossil elements to visitors that arrive at the museum. |
Vulnerability | The site is located less than 100 m from a busy road and less than 5 km from an industrial area. |
Accessibility | The site is located in an urban area on paved roads. In addition, the museum provides access facilities for wheelchairs. |
Use limitations | The museum allows entry visitors as students and tourists (opening hours: 08H00 to 17H00). |
Safety | The site has safety facilities like steps, handicapped ramp, mobile coverage and emergency services 3 km away. |
Logistics | Accommodation and restaurants are within 3 km of the museum. |
Density of population | Density population of the area is approximately 900–1000 inhabitants/km². |
Association with other values | An illustrative example is the Amantes de Sumpa Museum; the site features a preceramic settlement with evidence of dwellings and a cemetery. The museum is named after two skeletons found hugging each other, belonging to the Las Vegas Culture (catalogued among the oldest ones in the American continent). |
Uniqueness | The site presents a unique feature at the regional level because the museum is an example of palaeontological findings of an ancient fauna located in the Santa Elena province. |
Observation conditions | All fossil elements are found to be in good condition. |
Didactic potential | The guides take visitors on a tour of each museum sector, from the fragments to the Megatherium skeleton. They provide information about the history and culture of the megafauna found in the palaeontological work. In addition, they show didactic material about the information found in the museum. |
Geological diversity | The site has only one type of elements, belonging to the megafauna and microfauna of approximately 50,000 to 8000 years in age. |
Interpretative potential | The site presents fossil elements transparently and expressively to every visitor. |
Proximity of recreational areas | The site is located less than 5 km from a recreational area and tourist attractions, such as the Amantes de Sumpa Museum, La Libertad Central Park, Santa Elena Central Park and Cautivo Beach. |
Deterioration of geological elements | There is the possibility of secondary manipulation of fossil elements. |
Proximity to areas/activities with potential to cause degradation | Industrial areas such as slaughterhouses, warehouses and oil refineries are less than 5 km away. |
Legal protection | The museum has the legal protection of the UPSE University, municipality and ministry of tourism. |
Surface | The museum has an approximate area of 334 m² (including exhibition areas, rooms and toilets). |
Surrounding landscape and nature | Tourists can enjoy an exhibition content and simulated mural of the landscape depicting the Megafauna. |
Environmental fitting of sites | The site fits perfectly in its logistical location. |
MEGATHERIUM PALEONTOLOGICAL MUSEUM (MPM) | |||
---|---|---|---|
UPSE Projects | Status/Finish Date | Title | Objectives |
Approved (2017) | Megatherium-UPSE Museum: From Exhibition Hall to Natural History Museum [64] | Updating the museum’s scientific content through a research protocol associated with museum tasks (new fossil finds). | |
Approved (2017) | Santa Elena Peninsula Geopark Project [67,76] | Developing sustainable strategies in the Santa Elena province through the use of georesources (geosites) and the expansion of the tourism offer. | |
Scientific Articles (“Geological Interest”) | State/Journal/Conference/Institution/ Finish date | Title | Relationship with the MPM |
Published/WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment) (2018) | Geotourism Potential in the Context of the Geopark Project for the Development of Santa Elena Province, Ecuador [46] | This study analysis of the most important geological and tourist sites in the Santa Elena province. Consideration of the MPM as part of geotourism potential sites. | |
Published/IV Congreso Internacional sobre Geología Y Minería Ambiental (2016) | Ancón-Santa Elena Geopark in the Context of Land Use Planning [68] | Analysis of Global Geoparks for the Santa Elena Peninsula Geopark Project Study. Consideration of MPM as part of uniquely valuable geosites. | |
Published/Sustainability (2020) | Geosites and Georesources to Foster Geotourism in Communities: Case Study of the Santa Elena Peninsula Geopark Project in Ecuador [51] | Quantitative assessment of six relevant areas of the Santa Elena Peninsula Geopark project (including the MPM) as potential geosites to promote geotourism. | |
Scientific Articles (“Palaeontological Studies”) | Published/UPSE (2003) | Report on the discovery of Pleistocene Megafauna remains in Tanque Loma / First progress report on the Megather-ium Project, Tanque Loma, UPSE [69,70] | First archaeological finds destined for the MPM by professionals and students of UPSE University. |
Published/XXX Jornadas de Paleontología de la Sociedad Española de Paleontología (2014) | New data on vertebrate fossil faunas from the Quebrada Seca area (Santa Elena, Ecuador) [71] | Geological study of the deposit found in the “Quebrada Seca” area near the deposit “Tanque Loma”. Knowledge of a variety of species that are currently conserved in the MPM. | |
Published/PeerJ (2017) | New findings of Pleistocene fossil turtles (Geoemydidae, Kinosternidae and Chelydridae) from Santa Elena Province, Ecuador [72] | Study of new material from fossil turtles like Geoemydidae, Kinosternidae and Chelydridae lineages. Display of remains found in the museum’s exhibition halls. | |
Published/Journal of South American Earth Sciences (2015) | Tanque Loma, a new late-Pleistocene megafaunal tar seep locality from southwest Ecuador [73] | New Late Pleistocene excavations at “Tanque Loma” on the Santa Elena province, Ecuador. | |
Published/Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology (2020) | A monodominant late-Pleistocene megafauna locality from Santa Elena, Ecuador: Insight on the biology and behavior of giant ground sloths [65] | Generation of a developmental analysis of the Tanque Loma locality on the 22 individuals of the ground sloth Eremotherium laurillardi (species presented in the MPM). | |
Published/PeerJ (2020) | Diversity and paleoenvironmental implications of an elasmobranch assemblage from the Oligocene–Miocene boundary of Ecuador [66] | New fossil finds of elasmobranch vertebrates in the Montañita-Olón fossil site. Fossil remains on display at the MPM. |
Degradation Susceptibility (DS) | TOTAL |
---|---|
SD: (F*V)/400 | 52 |
PROTECTION | |
---|---|
PpSc | 31.23 |
PpAc | 31.23 |
PpTo | 14.33 |
Pp | 24.88 |
Strengths | Weaknesses | ||
---|---|---|---|
Internal factors | 1. Fossil elements of particular character at the local and national level 2. Main routes in good condition 3. The museum is in a strategic location 4. Good infrastructure for the reception of visitors 5. Trained professionals to share information | 1. Limited links with private and governmental entities 2. Low ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) index towards the academic and social environment. 3. Limited funding for improvements and new development projections. 4. Limited POP (Point of Purchase) material for visitors. 5. Lack of relationship with national and international museums | |
External factors | |||
Opportunities | Strengths and Opportunities | Weaknesses and Opportunities | |
a. Promote heritage recognition at the national and international levels. b. Create academic and tourism programmes that promote information about the museum. c. Manage job placements, internships and training programmes aimed at professionals and students of related careers. d. Develop new palaeontological discoveries for the museum’s exhibition. e. Development strategies that help realise financial linkages | 1.3.5.a. Promote the MPM through the Santa Elena Geopark Development Plan. 3.4.b.e. Alliances with academic and governmental entities for geotourism development. 2.4.a.b.e. Manage publicity events through the use of accessible technologies | 1.3.c.d. Provide opportunities for professionals and students through external funding for future infrastructure projects and discoveries. 2.4.a.b.e. Enhance the museum’s publicity of its history, culture and representativeness, locally and nationally. 1.3.d.e. Improve and increase the tourist infrastructure through institutional and municipal support. 5.a.b. Implement academic and tourism strategies | |
Threats | Strengths and Threats | Weaknesses and Threats | |
a. Lack of constant maintenance of the museum’s internal and external facilities. b. Temporary closure of the entrance to the museum caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. c. Limited interest of the surrounding people about the type of culture presented by the museum. d. Weak positioning of the Megatherium context as part of a tourist attraction. e. Negative manipulation of fossil elements by visitors | 2.3.c.d. Inform people about the MPM using intensive communication strategies. 1.4.a.e. Implement legal regulations and norms that promote the protection of the museum’s fossil elements. | 1.3.a.e. Investment in conservation methods for fossil elements of a vulnerable nature. 2.b.c. Development of tourism strategies for welcoming people to the museum 4.5.c.d. Implementation of primary demand development strategies based on tourist attractiveness. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Herrera-Franco, G.; Erazo, K.; Mora-Frank, C.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Berrezueta, E. Evaluation of a Paleontological Museum as Geosite and Base for Geotourism. A Case Study. Heritage 2021, 4, 1208-1227. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030067
Herrera-Franco G, Erazo K, Mora-Frank C, Carrión-Mero P, Berrezueta E. Evaluation of a Paleontological Museum as Geosite and Base for Geotourism. A Case Study. Heritage. 2021; 4(3):1208-1227. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030067
Chicago/Turabian StyleHerrera-Franco, Gricelda, Karla Erazo, Carlos Mora-Frank, Paúl Carrión-Mero, and Edgar Berrezueta. 2021. "Evaluation of a Paleontological Museum as Geosite and Base for Geotourism. A Case Study" Heritage 4, no. 3: 1208-1227. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030067
APA StyleHerrera-Franco, G., Erazo, K., Mora-Frank, C., Carrión-Mero, P., & Berrezueta, E. (2021). Evaluation of a Paleontological Museum as Geosite and Base for Geotourism. A Case Study. Heritage, 4(3), 1208-1227. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030067