Imp.Pralong&Reynard A PROPOSAL FOR A CLASSIFICATION OF GEOMORPHOLOGICAL SITES DEPENDING ON THEIR TOURIST VALUE Jean-Pierre Pralong & Emmanuel Reynard Institute of Geography - University of Lausanne, BFSH 2 - Dorigny - CH-1015 Lausanne - Switzerland Jean-Pierre.Pralong@unil.ch, Fax +41 (0) 21 692 30 75 ABSTRACT: J.P. Pralong & E. Reynard, A proposal for a classification of Geomorphological sites depending on their tourist value. (IT ISSN 0394-3356, 2005). This paper presents theoretical frameworks concerning the relationships between geomorphological landforms and processes and tourist and recreational activities. Firstly, a global model connecting different components of these relationships is proposed. Secondly, a particular model analysing how geomorphological landforms and processes are recognised and assessed as geomorpho- logical sites in a context of tourist optimization and exploitation is developed. Finally, an ensuing classification of geomorphological sites according to the use of their scenic, scientific, cultural and economic values is developed and illustrated by two case studies in the area of Chamonix-Mont-Blanc (Haute-Savoie, France). RIASSUNTO: J.P. Pralong & E. Reynard, Proposta per la classificazione di siti geomorfologici basata sul loro valore turistico. (IT ISSN 0394-3356, 2005). L’articolo presenta tre quadri teoretici concernenti le relazioni tra forme e processi geomorfologici da una parte e attività ricreative e turistiche dall’altra parte. Viene proposto prima un modello globale che mette in evidenza le differenti componenti di tali relazioni. E’ poi sviluppato un modello che analizza come vengono riconosciuti e valutati i siti geomorfologici in un contesto di valorizzazione e di sviluppo turistico. Infine, viene sviluppata una classificazione dei siti geomorfologici secondo il loro valore scenico, scientifico, culturale ed economico, che viene poi illustrata con due esempi nella zona di Chamonix-Mont-Blanc (Alta Savoia, Francia). Keywords: Geomorphological sites, Landscape, Tourist offer, Environmental impacts, Natural risks, Chamonix-Mont-Blanc. Parole chiave: Siti geomorfologici, Paesaggio, Offerta turistica, Impatti ambientali, Rischi naturali, Chamonix-Mont-Blanc. Il Quaternario Italian Journal of Quaternary Sciences 18(1), 2005 - Volume Speciale, 315-321 1. INTRODUCTION The relationships between geomorphology and tourism may be analysed in four ways (Reynard et al., 2003) at the interface of the natural and socio-econo- mic systems: 1. First of all, geomorphology may be a tourist resource as part of the primary or original offer, that means as an element of the landscape or as a support for par- ticular activities (e.g. climbing, canyonning, etc.). In this sense, geomorphology is a potential for tourist development, a part of the attraction of a tourist site; 2. Geomorphology may also be part of the secondary or derived offer, when tourist infrastructures (e.g. museums, didactic paths), instruments (e.g. pedago- gic booklets) or services (e.g. guided visits) are pro- posed for optimizing the original offer; 3. Geomorphological processes may create changes on the tourist and recreational activities and infra- structures (processes, hazards and risks); 4. Tourist activities and development may also create impacts on geomorphological processes and forms (e.g. soil erosion, slope instability or landform destruction). The aim of this article is mainly to consider the first three points and also to propose a theoretical reflection about the relationships between geomorpho- logical landforms and processes and tourist and recreational activities. Thus, three frameworks will be developed: the first one as a global model at the inter- face of the natural and socio-economic systems, the second one as a model of optimization and exploitation in a tourist context, the third one as a classification allowing to distinguish various types of geomorphologi- cal sites. As application examples, two case studies, related to the Mer de Glace and Bossons glaciers, in the area of Chamonix-Mont-Blanc (Haute-Savoie, France), will be presented. 2. STUDIED AREA The Chamonix-Mont-Blanc region (Fig. 1) is situa- ted in the Arve valley (Haute-Savoie, France). The stu- died area concerns the river floor (Chamonix area) and the right (Massif des Aiguilles Rouges) and the left sides (Massif du Mont-Blanc) of the valley. Chamonix is a small town of 10.109 permanent inhabitants (census 1999) and is one of the largest ski resorts in France with 4.630.000 nights in 1999 (Debarbieux, 2000). The major economic income of the region comes from tourism (skiing, golf, hiking). Winter tourism is largely predomi- nant, but new forms of summer tourism (trekking, biking) are developing, especially on the right side, beside various natural reserves (Aiguilles Rouges, Carlaveyron). From a geological point of view, the area is situa- ted in the Helvetic domain, composed principally by gneiss and granites from the Aiguilles Rouges and the Mont-Blanc units (Espace Mont-Blanc, 2001). These two units are separated by the Chamonix area situated 316 J.P. Pralong & E. Reynard in the valley floor and composed principally by limesto- nes, marls and sandstones. Morphologically, the valley floor is covered by glacial and alluvial deposits (Dorthe- Monachon, 1986) and the right side presents a lot of famous glaciers (Tour, Argentière, Mer de Glace, Bossons, Bionnassay) whereas the left side is practical- ly deprived of ice and presents a lot of lakes and wetlands. 3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 3.1. General framework The Figure 2 presents the relationships existing between geomorphology and tourism. Tourist use of geomorphological landforms is made through the exploitation of geomorphologi- cal sites (1). Geomorphological sites (or geomorphological assets) are defined by Panizza & Piacente (1993; 2003) and Quaranta (1993) as geomorpho- logical landforms (and proces- ses) that have acquired a sce- nic, scientific, cultural/historical and/or social/economic value due to human perception or exploitation. In our case, they can be considered as geo- morphological landforms and processes (e.g. geysers, active volcanoes, glaciers) that have acquired a certain tourist value and that are optimized and exploited for tourist purposes. In that sense, geomorpho- logical sites may be considered as part of the original (or primary) tourist offer (2), which can be defined as the whole of natural, social, cultural or histo- rical features that produce the attraction of a site (Barras, 1987). According to Debarbieux (1995), the primary offer depends on the localisation of the landforms and tourists have to go in situ in order to obtain satisfaction. In the case of geo- morphology, the original offer can be completely based on the presence of a geomorphological landform or process. The tourist attraction of the small village of La-Chaux-les-Passavants in the French Jura is for example only due to the presence of an ice cave. On the other hand, geo- morphology may represent only one part of the tourist value of a site or a region. To take an example, the sugar loaf is not Fig. 1 - Map of the studied region. Chamonix-Mont-Blanc (Haute-Savoie, France). Carta della regione studiata. Chamonix-Mont-Blanc (Alta Savoia, Francia). Fig. 2 - Relationships between geomorphology and tourism: conceptual framework (adapted from Panizza, 2003 and Reynard et al., 2003). Relazioni tra geomorfologia e turismo: quadro concettuale (adattato da Panizza, 2003 e Reynard et al., 2003). the only reason for tourists to visit Rio de Janeiro. However, geomorphology is not only limited to the original offer. A site may become a tourist destina- tion only if amenities (infrastructures, services) are pro- posed to the visitors (Barras, 1987), in order to facilitate their staying and access. Thus, the secondary offer depends on the localisation of the population and touri- sts have to go ex situ in order to gain satisfaction (Debarbieux, 1995). That is the derived (or secondary) tourist offer that may be unspecialised (e.g. parking, tourist office, hostels, roads and railways, etc.) or spe- cialised (e.g. guided visits of a cave, presence of ski lifts in a winter resort, etc.). Exploitation of geomorpho- logy for tourism needs a specialised secondary offer (3), that means services (e.g. the presence of specialised guides), instruments (e.g. didactic boards, booklets, etc.) or infrastructures (e.g. transportation facilities for accessing specific geomorphological points, museum), that allow the exploitation (4) of the geomorphological sites. Thus, these two types of offer create goods and services for material uses (hiking, climbing) and imma- terial uses (relaxation, contemplation). Relationships between geomorphology and touri- sm are not limited to the exploitation of a site, based on the original and derived offer. It is also a question of changes, risks and impacts. On the one hand, geo- morphological processes may create changes on touri- sm (5), especially geomorphological hazards as landsli- des, avalanches, floods, rockfalls, etc., which create a relationship of risks (6). Landslides or floods may for example destroy tourist villages. In this sense, tourist offer is in a situation of vulnerability (7). On the other hand, tourist activities create impacts on geomorpholo- gical processes and landforms (8) (Panizza, 2003). Impacts may be negative or positive and direct, indu- ced or indirect (Cavallin et al., 1994). 3.2. Optimization, exploitation and transformation of geomorphological sites More precisely, in order to understand how the relationships between geomorphology and tourism act in the case of tourist development, a second concep- tual framework is proposed in Figure 3. According to this model, three steps are considered: optimization, exploitation and transformation. 317A proposal for a classification ... The onset is the existence of landforms and pro- cesses, expression of the Earth’s history (1), as well as geological items. By human perception, geomorpho- logy is considered (or not considered) as interesting for tourist purposes. Thus, landscapes with a certain sce- nic, scientific, cultural/historical and/or social/economic value are optimized (2) as (tourist) geomorphological sites. The optimization depends of the degree of ecolo- gical (or geomorphological) sensibility of the tourist actors. When clear ecological ideas are expressed, optimization of geomorphological sites may happen. As a result of an ecological stimulation, tourist developers have two possibilities of action: protection (3) and/or exploitation (4). Protection may happen when geomorphological sites are particularly vulnerable to human presence (e.g. some wetlands). Geomor- phological sites may also be exploited by the tourist industry1 and in that sense, they become the basis for tourist project conception and implementation (e.g. tou- rist caves, natural parks, didactic paths, etc.) by social stimulation. The project implementation creates a deri- ved offer and the sustainability of the project depends of the type of management (5), following the use of geomorphological site values (see Fig. 4). When the project is fulfilled, it may transform (6) the geomorphology and create direct or indirect impacts and induced hazards, that modify (in a positive or a negative way) the original processes and landforms, as a result of the economic stimulation. Examples of transformations are the destruction of spe- leothems by the opening of caves to tourist visits (direct impact), the decreasing of the intensity of processes responsible for bad-lands formation in the case of the creation of protected areas and parallel reduction of livestock activity (indirect impact), and the increase of erosion (and successive landslides and debris flow hazards) due to the creation of ski tracks in mountain areas (induced hazards). These anthropic modifications are recorded as Earth history memory and cultu- ral witnesses (1). Geomorpho- logical landforms and processes of a second generation are the- refore created and also new geo- morphological sites in the sense of “tourist landscape evolution”. We assume that sustainable tou- rist use of geomorphological sites is reached when they pro- duce sufficient financial incomes without negative environmental impacts and in base of a global consensus between the various actors (tourist actors, visitors, land owners, NGOs, etc.). 1 Note that protection and exploita- tion are not exclusive and may hap- pen simultaneously: that is for example the case in natural and national parks. Some areas or objects are strictly protected and sometimes human access is prohi- bited (e.g. the central part of a national park), whereas other parts are open for tourist visits. Fig. 3 - Conceptual model describing the optimization, exploitation and transformation of geo- morphology in a context of tourist development. Modello concettuale che descrive la valorizzazione, l’uso e la trasformazione della geomorfolo- gia in un contesto di sviluppo turistico. 318 4. CLASSIFICATION OF GEOMORPHOLOGICAL SITES The comprehension of the relationships eviden- ced in Figure 2 and 3 allows the classification of geo- morphological sites related to their optimization, exploi- tation and transformation due to tourist and recreational activities. A typology is therefore presented on Figure 4. Three categories are proposed: geomorphological sites (in the strict and the broader sense) and geomorpholo- gical mediums. According to Panizza & Piacente (1993), geo- morphological sites are created by the contact between geomorphology and society, more precisely by the human perception of the value of geomorphological processes and landforms (A). With this process of opti- mization, they acquire a certain scenic, scientific, cultu- ral/historical and/or social/economic value due to geo- logical, geomorphological, historical and social factors. Three groups of geomorphological sites are possible to be defined according to their value (B): 1. If the scenic, scientific or cultural value is concerned at least, without taking into account the economic value, geomorphological assets are defined as geo- morphological sites in the strict sense. These items can be exploited or not (C). In this case, exploitation should be understood in terms of protection (total, with no possibility of human use), which means without any tourist activities in the surrounding of the landforms. Therefore, if a geomorphological site (in the strict sense), according to its value, is protected, it becomes a protected geomorphological site. Otherwise, it stays a geomorphological site in the strict sense. 2. If the scenic, scientific, cultural or economic value is considered, geomorphological assets are defined as geomorphological sites in the broader sense. In this case, landforms may have a tourist function if they are exploited (C) and sometimes protected (partially, with possibility of human use). Thus, geomorphologi- cal sites (in the broader sense) are considered as a tourist and cultural resource (with extensive or inten- sive use). In this case, the question of sustainable management of geomorphology is essential; a too- intensive use of geomorphology may dramatically change the value(s) of the resource and therefore its classification. 3. Finally, if only the economic value is taken into account, geomorphological assets are simply defi- ned as geomorphological mediums (framework, sup- port), without any cultural value (e.g. rock glacier destroyed by ski tracks creation). In a context of tou- rist development, the exploitation of this type of fea- ture (C) creates a tourist and economic resource (with extensive or intensive use); without exploita- tion, landforms can simply be called geomorphologi- cal mediums. For all the six classes, natural and/or anthropic transformation (D) may happen due to tourist activities and infrastructures or geomorphological processes and hazards. Thus, tourist projects may affect the geo- morphological sites and mediums, creating direct, indi- rect or induced impacts and risks (after Cavallin et al., 1994). J.P. Pralong & E. Reynard Fig. 4 - Classification of geomorphological sites according to their values in a context of tourist development. Classificazione dei siti geomorfologici secondo i loro valori in un contesto di sviluppo turistico. 319 5. APPLICATION EXAMPLES The proposed classification (Fig. 4) may be used for assessing sustainability of tourist use of geo- morphological sites. Two examples in the area of Chamonix-Mont-Blanc (Haute-Savoie, France) are pro- posed here as application examples of differential exploitation: the Mer de Glace glacier and the Bossons glacier (see Fig. 1 for location). This comparison may be interesting to illustrate the range between a “tourist and economic resource (with extensive or intensive use)” and a “tourist and cultural resource (with extensive or intensive use)”. 5.1. Case study 1: the Mer de Glace glacier The Montenvers is the final station (1930 m) of a mountain train allowing the access to a wonderful view- point of the Mer de Glace glacier (40 km2) which is the third largest glacier in the Alps in terms of volume (Moreau & Vivian, 2000) after the Aletsch glacier (120 km2, Valais, Switzerland) and the Gorner glacier (65 km2, Valais, Switzerland). From the Montenvers station, the access to the Mer de Glace is possible by a cable car, very impressi- ve in terms of visual impact, or on foot by an establi- shed path. The tourist attractions linked to the glacier (Fig. 5) are a glacial cave (on the right), dug out each spring and autumn for numerous years because of the glacier advance, and an “ice garden” (on the left), a space of pedestrian discovery allowing a walk on a small part of the glacier. In practice, there is a fee to visit the two attractions, which require a daily mainte- nance in reason of the glacial flow and the abundance of visitors (sometimes near to 6.000 per day according to Ballu, 2002). Inside the cave, some rooms and elements of the traditional and regional mountain way of life have been carved out (kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, lounge). Furthermore, it is possible to have a photo taken with Beethoven, a St-Bernard dog, with a little typical “cha- let savoyard” behind it. The walk is regulated by path boards and ends with the cave. No explanation about the glacial dynamic or the ice structure is proposed during the visit. Only a tourist leaflet about the cave and the Montenvers site is available at the cash-box, indica- ted by a signal board only visible after the visit! Concerning the “ice garden”, created in summer 2002, the access is possible by the bridge of the cave (Fig. 5). Then, tourists can walk freely on a part of the glacier measuring about 30 meters by 70 meters, where a lot of glacial forms and micro-forms are visible (erratic blocks, supraglacial moraine, ice sheets, dirt cones, moulin, etc.). As in the cave, there are no explanations (didactic paths, leaflets, or guided visits) about these landforms and the glacier. Furthermore, advertisements about this spot are so limited (e.g. just a few brochures are available at the railway station in Chamonix), that this new recreational offer is considered by some touri- sts as a work site! In comparison with the number of people visiting the cave, few people are interested by this spot which, on the one hand, is completely secure (presence of hazard signboards, carpet on the ice, barriers limiting the space) and on the other hand, has not had the entry price to the site enhanced since its making. So, for the actors managing the site (cave and “ice garden” inclu- ded), the aim of the exploitation is not to give didactic and cultural information, but to welcome a maximum of people in a profit earning logic, especially during the period of high abundance (summer season). In this case, the primary offer (natural glacier) has beco- me less important in terms of exploitation than the secondary offer (artificial glacial cave, “ice garden”, cable car, established paths). The tourist value of the glacier seems to have been emptied of its cultural and scientific values by the econo- mic value in an intensive and “uncultural” manner. But the impacts on the glacier (and not in the surroundings) are not necessarily negative and give a new scenic and cultural value to the Mer de Glace. Thus, by a tourist landscape evolution, these new values have created a geomorphological landform of a second generation. 5.2. Case study 2: the Bossons glacier The Bossons glacier - one of the rare large white glaciers in the Alps (Fig. 6) - is the longest glacial slope in Europe (3500 m), with a tongue flowing down to 1350 meters (Mollier, 2000). A proposal for a classification ... Fig. 5 - Mer de Glace glacier with its numerous artificial caves and its “ice garden”. Chamonix- Mont-Blanc (Haute-Savoie, France). Ghiacciaio del Mer de Glace con numerose grotte artificiali e il suo “giardino glaciale” Chamonix-Mont-Blanc (Alta Savoia, Francia). 320 One of the best tourist view- points to see the glacier is the “Chalet du glacier des Bossons” (1425 m) which is a little restau- rant accessible by a little cable car or on foot from the Bossons village. The restaurant is built on the left lateral Little Ice Age moraine of the Bossons glacier, and composed especially by erratic blocks of granite from the Mont-Blanc unit. In summer, the tourist attraction is the sight of the gla- cier front, which presents a wonderful white colour and fre- quent ice avalanches. From the “Chalet du glacier des Bossons”, two viewpoints (gra- tis) can be reached; the first one at 1425 meters and the second one at about 1460 meters. A didactic path (with 10 boards) allowing the glacial flow and history and movements of the Bossons glacier to be under- stood embellishes the ascen- sion to the last viewpoint. Concerning the didactic path, the pathway is quite incli- ned and narrow. Furthermore, each board is an unprofessional set-up of copies of scientific books (texts and pictures) and the content apparently interests visitors who go to the viewpoint. Finally, some didactic leaflets about the Bossons gla- cier, perhaps used as tools for guided and cultural visits, are available for sale at the kiosk of the restau- rant. Thus, this tourist attraction was not created for an important abundance – as is actually the ice cave of the Mer de Glace glacier - and is an example of extensive and cultural site exploitation. Furthermore, visits do not create vulnerability, risk and impacts in relation to the glacier, because it is impossible to access to its (dan- gerous) front and to walk on and into the glacier2. In comparison with the Montenvers site, the Bossons glacier is completely different in terms of slope, colour and features, and also in terms of the use of values, risk and impacts, because, for the actors managing the site, the aim of the exploitation is to deli- berately propose another way to discover a famous gla- cier. Here, the economic value of the glacial landform is used without trashing its scientific and cultural values. Finally, in this case, the primary offer (natural gla- cier) remains more important in terms of exploitation than the secondary offer (restaurant, pathway, didactic path, viewpoint). The tourist landscape evolution is more natu- ral and the glacier has not really acquired a new scenic and cultural value (no value renewal), and also remains a geomorphological landform of the first generation. 6. CONCLUSION In the relationships between geomorphology and tourist and recreational activities, three main elements are necessary to be studied: geomorphological sites optimization and exploitation, environmental impacts and natural risks. Our study has especially considered the first one. For an understanding of the tourist and cultural evolution of landscapes and geomorphological sites, a step-by-step reflection in terms of optimization, exploi- tation and transformation is relevant. The proposed classification, depending on the scenic, scientific, cul- tural/historical, and social/economic value of the geo- morphological items is based on this idea and shows three categories of geomorphological sites (geo- morphological sites in both the strict sense and the broader sense) and geomorphological mediums segre- gated by the economic value. This method may be interesting for analysing the differential uses of geomorphological sites. We assume that the degree and the modalities of exploitation follow the various values given to geomorphological sites; the comparison between the Mer de Glace (tourist and economic resource) and the Bossons glaciers (tourist and cultural resource) is in this way exemplary. The two examples (both concerning the Chamonix area, Haute-Savoie, France) show that the differences in terms of geomorphological sites optimi- zation and exploitation, environmental impacts and natural risks are not well understood in the simple distinction between soft and hard tourism, because tourist landscape evolution is influenced by a single J.P. Pralong & E. Reynard 2 Before the age of mass tourism, there was a tourist ice cave into the Bossons glacier. Now, some guided visits are organi- sed for walking on the glacier. Fig. 6 - Front of the Bossons glacier from the viewpoint of the “Chalet du glacier des Bossons”. Chamonix-Mont-Blanc (Haute-Savoie, France). Fronte del Bossons ghiacciaio visto dal “Chalet du glacier des Bossons”. Chamonix-Mont- Blanc (Alta Savoia, Francia). human perception of the actors. Such evolution can create different generations of geomorphological sites, whose values evolve. Finally, a statement can be done: when the geo- morphological resource becomes just a consumable product, the exploitation seems to be more oriented on the secondary offer and the impacts and risks are higher. Also, less the actors managing the geomorpho- logical resource take the scientific and cultural value into account, more the renewal of the resource tends to decrease. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We strongly acknowledge our colleagues geo- morphologists at the Institute of Geography of the University of Lausanne, especially N. Summermatter, for their useful comments, as well as the helpful critici- sms of two anonymous reviewers. REFERENCES BALLU Y. (2002) - Drus, Montenvers et Mer de Glace - Paris, Hoëbeke, 141 pp. BARRAS C.V. (1987) - Le développement régional à motricité touristique. De la région polarisée à la région-système - Documents économiques, 33, Fribourg, Editions Universitaires, 285 pp. CAVALLIN A., MARCHETTI M., PANIZZA M. & SOLDATI M. (1994) - The role of geomorphology in environ- mental impact assessment - Geomorphology, 9, pp. 143-153. DEBARBIEUX B. (1995) - Tourisme et montagne - Paris, Economica, 107 pp. DEBARBIEUX B. (2000) - Bilan critique de 50 ans de touri- sme à Chamonix - Rapport n° 1, Urbanisation - Aménagement, Politiques touristiques, Repré- sentation sociales (http://www.sommets-touri- sme.org). DORTHE-MONACHON C. (1986) - Contribution à l'étude de la morphologie glaciaire de la vallée de l'Arve (Haute-Savoie, France) : essai de reconstitution paléogéographique - Thèse de doctorat présentée à la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Lausanne, 249 pp. ESPACE MONT-BLANC (2001) - 50 sentiers à thèmes dans l’Espace Mont-Blanc. Haute-Savoie, Savoie, Valais, Vallée d’Aoste, Grenoble, Glénat, 239 pp. MOLLIER C. (2000) - Du glacier du Mont-Blanc au glacier des Bossons - Yens, Cabédita, 131 pp. MOREAU L. & VIVIAN R. (2000) - Dans le secret des gla- ciers du Mont-Blanc - Grenoble, Glénat, 95 pp. PANIZZA M. (2003) - Géomorphologie et tourisme dans un paysage culturel intégré - In: E. Reynard, C. Holzmann, D. Guex & N. Summermatter (eds.), Géomorphologie et tourisme, Actes de la Réunion annuelle de la Société Suisse de Géomorphologie (SSGm), Finhaut, 21-23 septembre 2001, Lausanne, Institut de Géographie, Travaux et Recherches, 24, pp. 11-20. PANIZZA M. & PIACENTE S. (1993) - Geomorphological assets evaluation - Zeitschr. für Geomorphologie N.F., Suppl. Bd., 87, pp. 13-18. PANIZZA M. & PIACENTE S. (2003) - Geomorfologia cultu- rale - Bologna, Pitagora, 350 pp. QUARANTA G. (1993) - Geomorphological assets : con- ceptual aspect and application in the area of Crodo da Lago (Cortina d’Ampezzo, Dolomites) - First European Intensive Course on Applied Geomorphology, Proceedings, Modena - Cortina d’Ampezzo 24 June - 3 July 1992, pp. 49-60. R EYNARD E., H OLZMANN C. & G UEX D. (2003) - Géomorphologie et tourisme: quelles relations? - In: E. Reynard, C. Holzmann, D. Guex & N. Summermatter (eds.), Géomorphologie et touri- sme, Actes de la Réunion annuelle de la Société Suisse de Géomorphologie (SSGm), Finhaut, 21- 23 septembre 2001, Lausanne, Institut de Géographie, Travaux et Recherches, 24, pp. 1-10. 321A proposal for a classification ...