Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Urban Geoheritage of Clermont-Ferrand: From Inventory to Management Cover

The Urban Geoheritage of Clermont-Ferrand: From Inventory to Management

Quaestiones Geographicae
Volume 39 (2020): Issue 3 (September 2020)
By: Viktor Vereb,  Benjamin van Wyk de Vries,  Marie-Noëlle Guilbaud and  Dávid Karátson  
Open Access
|May 2020

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1

The location of Clermont-Ferrand in France and in Auvergne.
The location of Clermont-Ferrand in France and in Auvergne.

Fig. 2

The main geological – geomorphological features of Clermont-Ferrand.A – A DEM (CRAIG 2013) view from southeast, indicating the extension of built-up areas as well (OSM 2020).B – the view of the city from its highest point, the Plateau of Côtes du Clermont. The Plateau of Gergovie in the background is an inverted relief feature as well, but outside the city limits.
The main geological – geomorphological features of Clermont-Ferrand.A – A DEM (CRAIG 2013) view from southeast, indicating the extension of built-up areas as well (OSM 2020).B – the view of the city from its highest point, the Plateau of Côtes du Clermont. The Plateau of Gergovie in the background is an inverted relief feature as well, but outside the city limits.

Fig. 3

The simplified geomorphological map of Clermont-Ferrand.
The simplified geomorphological map of Clermont-Ferrand.

Fig. 4

Geographical distribution of geosites and geodiversity sites in Clermont-Ferrand according to the local inventory.
Geographical distribution of geosites and geodiversity sites in Clermont-Ferrand according to the local inventory.

Fig. 5

Quantitative assessment of geoheritage interest of the local geosites and geodiversity sites of Clermont-Ferrand with INPG.
Quantitative assessment of geoheritage interest of the local geosites and geodiversity sites of Clermont-Ferrand with INPG.

Fig. 6

Quantitative assessment of vulnerability and protection of the local geosites and geodiversity sites of Clermont-Ferrand with INPG.
Quantitative assessment of vulnerability and protection of the local geosites and geodiversity sites of Clermont-Ferrand with INPG.

Fig. 7

Common conditions of an exposure of Oligocene sedimentary outcrops; example of CF1515 geosite at Rue de Trémonteix. Soil and colluvium top the small exposure, with a grassy talus.
Common conditions of an exposure of Oligocene sedimentary outcrops; example of CF1515 geosite at Rue de Trémonteix. Soil and colluvium top the small exposure, with a grassy talus.

Fig. 8

Three examples of slope stabilization of outcrops of Grave Noire lava flow.A – a still unconsolidated site at Rue Henry Arnaud 21 – CF1207. The temporary fence suggests an acknowledgement of some hazard, the danger is that poorly thought out remediation may destroy the sites values.B – a gentle and intelligent solution of stabilization that preserves geoheritage value at Résidence Cheops 2 – CF1206, and adds some architectural value.C – a brutal solution that mostly destroyed geoheritage value at Rue Pont de Naud 21 – CF1201. Note the older more harmonious stone wall on the left side is a more reasonable way to stabilise the rock.
Three examples of slope stabilization of outcrops of Grave Noire lava flow.A – a still unconsolidated site at Rue Henry Arnaud 21 – CF1207. The temporary fence suggests an acknowledgement of some hazard, the danger is that poorly thought out remediation may destroy the sites values.B – a gentle and intelligent solution of stabilization that preserves geoheritage value at Résidence Cheops 2 – CF1206, and adds some architectural value.C – a brutal solution that mostly destroyed geoheritage value at Rue Pont de Naud 21 – CF1201. Note the older more harmonious stone wall on the left side is a more reasonable way to stabilise the rock.

Fig. 9

The outcrop of Grave Noire lava flow at Impasse Dr. Cohendy (CF1212).A – before the stabilization.B – after the stabilization with bolting and mesh. While we still think that the meshing is an overreaction, it is a compromise between total destruction and the perceived hazard.
The outcrop of Grave Noire lava flow at Impasse Dr. Cohendy (CF1212).A – before the stabilization.B – after the stabilization with bolting and mesh. While we still think that the meshing is an overreaction, it is a compromise between total destruction and the perceived hazard.

Fig. 10

The proposed geotouristic routes in Clermont-Ferrand with the names of the most important geosites along the tracks.
The proposed geotouristic routes in Clermont-Ferrand with the names of the most important geosites along the tracks.

The list of current geosites in the geoheritage inventory of Clermont-Ferrand_ GS/GDS means a site that was classified as geosite (GS) or geodiversity site (GDS) on the basis of expert decision (final decision in parenthesis)_

Geosite IDName of geo(diversity) siteGeoheritage Interest scoreNumber of geoheritage interest starsVulnerability and need for protectionStatus by geoheritage starsPrimary Geological interest
CF–1001Puy de la Poix – bitumen spring3738geositehydrogeology
CF–1002R. Cheval – Oligocene sediments2018geodiversity sitesedimentology
CF–1003Puy de Var – inverted relief3738geositevolcanism
CF–1101Puy de Crouël – peperitic volcanic neck4636geositevolcanism
CF–1102Quarry of Gandaillat – Oligocene sediments4038geositesedimentology
CF–1103Puy Longue – Anthropogenic garbage deposit23210GS / GDS (GDS)sedimentology
CF–1104R. Oradou 62 – Oligocene sediments1817geodiversity sitesedimentology
CF–1105R. Oradou 98 – Oligocene sediments1417geodiversity sitesedimentology
CF–1106R. Oradou 98 – Grave Noire lava flow1417geodiversity sitevolcanism
CF–1107R. Oradou 118 – Grave Noire lava flow21211GS / GDS (GDS)volcanism
CF–1108R. Oradou 128 – Grave Noire lava flow2629GS / GDS (GS)volcanism
CF–1109Montferrand – marls mount1718geodiversity sitegeomorphology
CF–1201R. Pont–de–Naud 21 – Grave Noire lava flow1415geodiversity sitevolcanism
CF–1202R. Marivaux 9 – Grave Noire lava flow2016geodiversity sitevolcanism
CF–1203R. Docteur Chibret 2 – Grave Noire lava flow1616geodiversity sitevolcanism
CF–1204Av. Léon Blum 65– Grave Noire lava flow1116geodiversity sitevolcanism
CF–1205R. Neuf Soleils 38– Grave Noire lava flow1816geodiversity sitevolcanism
CF–1206Résidence Cheops 2 – Grave Noire lava flow2328GS / GDS (GDS)volcanism
CF–1207R. Henry Andraud 21 – Grave Noire lava flow3029GS / GDS (GS)volcanism
CF–1208Pilon of the viaduct of Saint–Jacques – Grave Noire lava flow1116geodiversity sitevolcanism
CF–1209R. Pont Saint Jacques 62 – Grave Noire lava flow1114geodiversity sitevolcanism
CF–1210R. Desdevises du Dèzert 20 – Grave Noire lava flow + spring34310geositevolcanism
CF–1211Cité Universitaire Dolet – Grave Noire lava flow2829GS / GDS (GS)volcanism
CF–1212Imp. Dr. Cohendy – Grave Noire lava flow25210GS / GDS (GS)volcanism
CF–1213R. Étienne Dolet 60 – Grave Noire lava flow1418geodiversity sitevolcanism
CF–1214R. Roty 35 – Grave Noire lava flow1418geodiversity sitevolcanism
CF–1215Al. Rocailles 2 – Grave Noire lava flow2628GS / GDS (GDS)volcanism
CF–1216Av. Landais 8 – Grave Noire lava flow2018geodiversity sitevolcanism
CF–1217Creux de l’enfer – Grave Noire lava flow4138geositevolcanism
CF–1218R. Louis Dabert 20–24 – Grave Noire lava flow1418geodiversity sitevolcanism
CF–1219Saint–Astrimoine – Grave Noire lava flow33312geositevolcanism
CF–1220Margeride tram stop – Grave Noire lava flow3129GS / GDS (GS)volcanism
CF–1221R. Étienne et George Sauvestre – Alluvial infill of Maar de Gantière1618geodiversity sitesedimentology
CF–1222Av. Léon Blum 76 – Grave Noire lava flow1417geodiversity sitevolcanism
CF–1401Saint–Alyre – travertine spring4437geositehydrogeology
CF–1402R. Durtol 85 – Oligocene sediments1617geodiversity sitesedimentology
CF–1403R. Farnettes 31 – Oligocene sediments1618geodiversity sitesedimentology
CF–1404Montjuzet – Oligocene sedimentary residual2728GS / GDS (GS)geomorphology
CF–1501Plateau of Côtes de Clermont inverted relief3738geositegeomorphology
CF–1502Ch. Mouchette 40 – Oligocene sediments2018geodiversity sitesedimentology
CF–1503Al. Écureuils 1 – Oligocene sediments1619geodiversity sitesedimentology
CF–1504R. Blanzat 245 – tephra and paleosol40310geositestratigraphy
CF–1505R. Blanzat 237 – Oligocene sediments2019geodiversity sitesedimentology
CF–1506Puy de Chanturgue – Miocene lava flow quarry2428GS / GDS (GDS)geomorphology
CF–1507Puy de Chanturgue – landslides3238geositegeomorphology
CF–1508Puy de Chanturgue – gullies with sedimentary flank outcrops1616geodiversity sitegeomorphology
CF–1509R. Puyou 7 – Oligocene sediments1618geodiversity sitesedimentology
CF–1510R. Bouys 43 – Oligocene sediments1417geodiversity sitesedimentology
CF–1511R. Nohanent 184 – stromatolithes35310geositepaleontology
CF–1512R. Victor Charreton 18 – Oligocene sediments1619geodiversity sitestratigraphy
CF–1513Rue V. Charreton x – Oligocene sediments2018geodiversity sitesedimentology
CF–1514Rue V. Charreton y – Oligocene sediments2329GS / GDS (GDS)stratigraphy
CF–1515R. de Trémonteix – Oligocene sediments2728GS / GDS (GDS)stratigraphy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2020-0020 | Journal eISSN: 2081-6383 | Journal ISSN: 2082-2103
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 5 - 31
Submitted on: Feb 1, 2020
Published on: May 14, 2020
Published by: Adam Mickiewicz University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
geosite inventory,
urban geoheritage,
geoconservation,
geodiversity action plan,
Clermont-Ferrand,
France
Related subjects:
Geosciences,
Geography

© 2020 Viktor Vereb, Benjamin van Wyk de Vries, Marie-Noëlle Guilbaud, Dávid Karátson, published by Adam Mickiewicz University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Volume 39 (2020): Issue 3 (September 2020)Next article