Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Quaestiones Geographicae

The Journal of Adam Mickiewicz University

4 Issues per year

CiteScore 2016: 0.43

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.258
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.359

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Contribution for an Urban Geomorphoheritage Assessment Method: Proposal from Three Geomorphosites in Rome (Italy)

Alessia Pica / Gian Marco Luberti
  • Department of Evaluation, Inspections and Environmental Sustainability, Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, Rome, Italy
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Francesca Vergari / Paola Fredi / Maurizio Del Monte
Published Online: 2017-09-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/quageo-2017-0030


Urban geomorphology has important implications in spatial planning of human activities, and it also has a geotouristic potential due to the relationship between cultural and geomorphological heritage. Despite the introduction of the term Anthropocene to describe the deep influence that human activities have had in recent times on Earth evolution, urban geomorphological heritage studies are relatively rare and limited and urban geotourism development is recent. The analysis of the complex urban landscape often need the integration of multidisciplinary data. This study aims to propose the first urban geomorphoheritage assessment method, which originates after long-lasting previous geomorphological and geotouristic studies on Rome city centre, it depict rare examples of the geomorphological mapping of a metropolis and, at the same time, of an inventory of urban geomorphosites. The proposal is applied to geomorphosites in the Esquilino neighbourhood of Rome, whose analysis confirm the need for an ad hoc method for assessing urban geomorphosites, as already highlighted in the most recent literature on the topic. The urban geomorphoheritage assessment method is based on: (i) the urban geomorphological analysis by means of multitemporal and multidisciplinary data; (ii) the geomorphosite inventory; and (iii) the geomorphoheritage assessment and enhancement. One challenge is to assess invisible geomorphosites that are widespread in urban context. To this aim, we reworked the attributes describing the Value of a site for Geotourism in order to build up a specific methodology for the analysis of the urban geomorphological heritage.

Keywords: urban geomorphology; urban geomorphosites; urban geomorphoeritage assessment; human impact; Rome


  • Armellini M., 1891. Le chiese di Roma dal secolo IV al XIX. Roma.Google Scholar

  • Aurigemma S., 1962. Le mura “serviane”, l’aggere e il fossato all’esterno delle mura, presso la nuova stazione ferroviaria di Termini in Roma. Bollettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 78: 19–36.Google Scholar

  • Borghi A., Berra V., D’Atri A., Gino G.A., Gallo L.M., Giacobino E., Martire L., Massaro G., Vaggelli G., Bertok C., Castelli D., Costa E., Ferrando S., Groppo C., Rolfo F. 2015. Stone materials used for monumental buildings in the historical centre of Turin (NW Italy): architectonical survey and petrographical characterization of Via Roma. In: Global heritage stone: towards international recognition of building and ornamental stones. Geological Society, London, Special publication 2015: 201–218.Google Scholar

  • BSG [British Society for Geomorphology], 2017. What is Geomorphology? On line: geomorphology.org.uk/what-geomorphology-0 (accessed 19 July 2017).

  • Brown A.G., Tooth S., Chiverrell R. C., Rose J., Thomas D. S., Wainwright J., Bullard J.E., Thorndycraft V.R., Aalto R., Downs P., 2013. The Anthropocene: is there a geomorphological case? Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 38(4): 431–434. DOI: 10.1002/esp.3368.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brown A.G., Tooth S., Bullard J. E., Thomas D.S.G., Chiverrell R.C., Plater A. J., Murton J., Thorndycraft V.R., Tarolli P., Rose J., Wainwright J., Downs P., Aalto R., 2016. The geomorphology of the Anthropocene: emergence, status and implications. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 42(1): 71–90. DOI: 10.1002/esp.3943.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bufalini L., 1551. Pianta di Roma. Second edition issued by Antonio Trevisi in 1560, woodcut map on 24 sheets, 200 × 190 cm.Google Scholar

  • Cayla N., 2014. An overview of new technologies applied to the management of geoheritage. Geoheritage 6: 91–102. DOI:10.1007/s12371-014-0113-0.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cayla N., Hoblea F., Biot V., Delamette M., Guyomard A., 2012. De l’invisibilité des géomorphosites à la révélation géopatrimoniale. Géocarrefour 87: 171–186.Google Scholar

  • Cifani G., 2008. Architettura romana arcaica. Edilizia e società tra Monarchia e Repubblica, Roma. “L’Erma” di Bretschneider.Google Scholar

  • Clivaz M., Reynard E., 2017. How to integrate invisible geomorphosites in an inventory: A case study in the Rhone River valley (Switzerland). Geoheritage. DOI:10.1007/s12371-017-0222-7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Coarelli F., 2012. Roma. Guide Archeologiche Laterza, Roma-Bari.Google Scholar

  • Cooke R.U., 1976. Urban geomorphology. Geographical Journal 142: 59–65.Google Scholar

  • Corazza A., Marra F., 1995. Carta dello spessore dei terreni di riporto. In: Funiciello, R., (ed.) La geologia di Roma: il centro storico.Memorie Descrittive della Carta Geologica d’Italia, 50, tav. 13.Google Scholar

  • Côté A., Joly M.C., Verner A., 2009. Géotourisme urbain. Le cas de Montréal. Téoros 28(2): 97–99.Google Scholar

  • Crutzen P.J., Stoermer E.F., 2000. The Anthropocene. Global Change Newsletter 41: 17–18.Google Scholar

  • Del Lama E.A., de La Corte Bacci D., Martins L., da Glória Motta Garcia M., Dehira L.K., 2015. Urban geotourism and the old centre of São Paulo City, Brazil. Geoheritage 7: 147–164. DOI:10.1007/s12371-014-0119-7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Del Monte M., Fredi P., Pica A., Vergari F, 2013. Geosites within Rome city center (Italy): A mixture of cultural and geomorphological heritage. Geografia Fisica e Dinamica Quaternaria 36(2): 241–257.Google Scholar

  • Del Monte M., D’Orefice M., Luberti G.M., Marini R., Pica A., Vergari F., 2016. Geomorphological classification of urban landscapes: the case study of Rome (Italy). Journal of Maps 12: 178–189.Google Scholar

  • Dóniz-Páez J., Becerra-Ramírez R., 2015. Geoturismo urbano en Puerto de la Cruz (Tenerife, Canarias, España). In: Hilario A., Mendia M., Monge-Ganuzas M., Fernández E., Vegas J., Belmonte A., (eds.) Patrimonio geológico y geoparques, avances de un camino para todos. Publicaciones Del Instituto Geológico Y Minero De España Serie: Cuadernos Del Museo Geominero Nº 18.Google Scholar

  • Douglas I., 2005. The urban geomorphology of Kuala Lumpur. In: Gupta A. (ed.), The Physical Geography of South-East Asia. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 344–357.Google Scholar

  • Dupérac E., 1577. Nova Urbis RomaeDescriptio. Provided by the Roma Tre University, Architecture Dept. Library.Google Scholar

  • Falda G. B., 1676. Novissima et accuratissima delineatioRomaeveteris et novae. In viatorumusum et commoditatemexcusa. One 500×590 mm sheet map. Provided by the Archivio Capitolino, Comune di Roma.Google Scholar

  • Ferrario M.F., Bonadeo L., Brunamonte F., Livio F., Martinelli E., Michetti A.M., Censi Neri P., Chiessi V., Comerci V., Höbig N., 2015. Late Quaternary environmental evolution of the Como urban area (Northern Italy): A multidisciplinary tool for risk management and urban planning. Engineering Geology 193: 384–401.Google Scholar

  • Funiciello R., Giordano G., 2008. La nuova carta geologica di Roma: litostratigrafia e organizzazione stratigrafica. In: Funiciello R., Praturlon A., Giordano G. (eds.) La geologia di Roma dal centro storico alla periferia. Memorie Descrittive della Carta Geologica d’Italia 80(1): 39–85.Google Scholar

  • GAI, 1954. Volo Italia. Gruppo Aereo Italiano, Istituto Geografico Militare Italiano. Photographs of Rome, 23×23 cm, provided by the Dpt. of Earth Sc., ‘Sapienza’ University of Rome, and by the Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), Rome.Google Scholar

  • Gierlinger S., Haidvogel G., Gingrich S., Krausmann F., 2013. Feeding and cleaning the city: the role of the urban waterscape in provision and disposal in Vienna during the industrial transformation. Water History 5: 219–239.Google Scholar

  • Gomez-Heras M., Smith B.J., Viles H.A., 2010. Oxford stone revisited: causes and consequences of diversity in building limestone used in the historic centre of Oxford, England. In: Přikryl R., Török Á (eds.), Natural stone resources for historical monuments. London, The Geological Society, Special Publications 333: 101–110Google Scholar

  • Haraa Y., Danai T., Kazuhiko T., 2008. Landform transformation on the urban fringe of Bangkok: The need to review land-use planning processes with consideration of the flow of fill materials to developing areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 84(1): 74–91.Google Scholar

  • Hose T.A., 2012. 3G’s for modern geotourism. Geoheritage 4: 7–24Google Scholar

  • IGM [Istituto Geografico Militare], 1873. Tavoletta 150 IV NO “Castel Giubileo”; Tavoletta 150 IV SO “Roma” (Sheet 150 IV NO “Castel Giubileo”;Sheet 150 IV SO “Roma”). Topographic maps, scale 1:25000. Istituto Geografico Militare, Firenze. Source: Società Geografica Italiana, Roma.Google Scholar

  • IGM [Istituto Geografico Militare], 1924. Piano Topografico di Roma e suburbio (Topographic Plan of Rome and surroundings). Topographic map, scale 1:5000, in 12 plates. Surveyed by the Istituto Geografico Militare in 1907, updated in 1924. Comune di Roma. Source: Archivio Capitolino, Comune di Roma.Google Scholar

  • Jordan H., Hamilton K., Lawley R., Price S.J., 2016. Anthropogenic contribution to the geological and geomorphological record: A case study from Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK. Geomorphology 253: 534–546. DOI:10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.07.008.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lanciani R., 1893–1901. Forma Urbis Romae. Archaelogical map, scale 1:1000. Ulrico HOEPLI.Google Scholar

  • Luberti G.M., Prestininzi A., Esposito C., 2015. Development of a geological model useful for the study of the natural hazards in urban environments: an example from the eastern sector of Rome (Italy). Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment 2, 41–62, pls. 1. DOI: 10.4408/IJEGE.2015-02.0-04.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Luberti G.M., Marra F., Florindo F., 2017. A review of the stratigraphy of Rome (Italy) according to geochronologically and paleomagnetically constrained aggradational successions, glacio-eustatic forcing and volcano-tectonic processes. Quaternary International 438(B): 40–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2017.01.044.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • MAPRW [Mediterranean Allied Photo Reconnaissance Wing], 1943–1944. Royal Air Force flights on Rome. Mediterranean Allied Photo Reconnaissance Wing. Photographs, 23×23 cm, provided by the Aerofototeca Nazionale (AFN), Ministero dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo, Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, Roma.Google Scholar

  • Marra F., Rosa C., 1995. Stratigrafia e assetto geologico dell’area romana. In: Funiciello R., (ed.), La geologia di Roma: il centro storico. Memorie Descrittive della Carta Geologica d’Italia 50: 49–118.Google Scholar

  • Martin-Diaz J., Nofre J., Oliva M., Palma P., 2015. Towards an unsustainable urban development in post-war Sarajevo. Area 47: 376–85.Google Scholar

  • Martin S., Regolini-Bissig G., Perret A., Kozlik L., 2010. Elaboration et évaluation de produits géotouristiques. Propositions méthodologiques. Téoros 29(2): 55–66.Google Scholar

  • Martin S., 2014. Interactive visual media for geomorphologicalheritageinterpretation. Theoretical approach and examples. Geoheritage 6(2):149–157Google Scholar

  • McCall G.J.H., De Mulder E.F.J., Marker B.R., 1996. Urban Geoscience. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar

  • Menghi O., 2008. Le indagini più recenti e gli aggiornamenti. In: Barbera M., Magnani Cianetti M. (eds.), Archeologia a Roma Termini. Le Mura serviane e l’area della stazione: scoperte, distruzioni e restauri: 30–47.Google Scholar

  • Mohapatra S.N., Pani P., Sharma M., 2014. Rapid Urban Expansion and Its Implications on Geomorphology: A Remote Sensing and GIS Based Study. Hindawi Publishing Corporation Geography Journal, Volume 2014, Article ID 361459, 10 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/361459

  • Moltke H.K.B., 1852. Carta Topografica di Roma e dei suoi contorni fino alla distanza di 10 miglia fuori le mura. Berlino, Simone Schropp e C°. Topographicmap, surveyed in 1845–46, scale 1:25000.Google Scholar

  • Mozzi P., Fontana A., Ferrarese F, Ninfo A., Campana S., Francese R., 2016. The Roman City of Altinum, Venice Lagoon, from Remote Sensing and Geophysical Prospection. Archaeological Prospection 23: 27–44. Online: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arp.1520/full (accessed April 2017). DOI: 10.1002/arp.1520.

  • Nolli G., 1748. Nuova pianta di Roma data in luce da Giambattista Nolli l’anno MDCCXLVIII. Topographic map composed of 12 copper plates: 430/440 x 680/690 mm and 480 x 720 mm each, scale 1:2910, and 5 pls. of text.Google Scholar

  • Palacio-Prieto J.L., 2015. Geoheritage within cities: Urban geosites in Mexico City. Geoheritage 7:365–373. DOI:10.1007/s12371-014-0136-6CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Perez-Monserrat E.M., Buergo M.A., Gomes-Heras M., Muriel M.J.V., Gonzalez R.F., 2013. An urban geomonumental route focusing on the petrological and decay features of traditional building stones used in Madrid, Spain. Environmental Earth Sciences 69: 1071–1084.Google Scholar

  • Pica A., Fredi P., Del Monte M., 2014. The Ernici Mountains Geoheritage (Central Apennines, Italy): Assessment of the Geosites for Geotourism Development. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites 7/2(14): 193–206.Google Scholar

  • Pica A., Vergari F., Fredi P., Del Monte M., 2016. The AeternaUrbs Geomorphological Heritage (Rome, Italy). Geoheritage 8(1): 31–42. DOI 10.1007/s12371-015-0150-3.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pica A., Reynard E., Grangier L., Ghiraldi L., Perotti L., Del Monte M., 2017. GeoGuides, Urban Geotourism Offer Powered by Mobile Application Technology. Geoheritage. DOI:10.1007/s12371-017-0237-0CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pinza G., 1925. Introduzione geomorfologica alla storia della Civiltà Latina dalle origini al V sec. a. C. Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Roma.Google Scholar

  • Pratesi F., Tapete D., Del Ventisette C., Moretti S., 2016. Mapping interactions between geology, subsurface resource exploitation and urban development in transforming cities using InSAR Persistent Scatterers: Two decades of change in Florence, Italy. AppliedGeography 77: 20–37.Google Scholar

  • Presidenza del Censo, 1839. Carta topografica del suburbano di Roma, desunta dalle mappe del nuovo censimento e trigonometricamente delineata nella proporzione di 1.15000 per ordine dell’E.mo e R.mo Principe Sig. Cardinale Gio. Francesco Falzacappa. Stato Pontificio, Roma. Provided by the Archivio Capitolino, Comune di Roma.Google Scholar

  • Quilici L., 1990. Forma e urbanistica di Roma arcaica. In: Cristofani M. (ed.), La grande Roma dei Tarquini, L’Erma di Bretschneider, Rome: 29–44.Google Scholar

  • Rea R., 2011. Cantieristica archeologica e opere pubbliche: la linea C della metropolitana di Roma. A cura di Rossella Rea. Mondadori Electa, Milano.Google Scholar

  • Rendina C., 2000. Le Chiese di Roma. Newton & Compton Editori, Milano.Google Scholar

  • Reynard E., Kaiser C., Martin S., Regolini G., 2015. An application for Geosciences communication by smartphones and tablets. Engineering Geology for Society and Territory 8: 265–268. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-09408-3_46.Google Scholar

  • Reynard E., Perret A., Bussard J., Grangier L., Martin S., 2016. Integrated Approach for the Inventory and Management of Geomorphological Heritage at the Regional Scale. Geoheritage 8: 43–60. DOI: 10.1007/s12371-015-0153-0.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Reynard E., Pica A., Coratza P., 2017. Urban geomorphological heritage. An overview. Quaestiones Geographicae 36(3).Google Scholar

  • Robinson E., 1982. A geological walk around the City of London—royal exchange to Aldgate. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 93: 225–246.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Robinson E., 1984. London: illustrated geological walks. Scottish Academic Press, v.1.Google Scholar

  • Robinson E., 1985. London: illustrated geological walks. Scottish Academic Press, v.2.Google Scholar

  • Rodrigues M.L., Machado C.R., Freire E., 2011. Geotourism routes in urban areas: a preliminary approach to the Lisbon geoheritage survey. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites 8(2): 281–294.Google Scholar

  • S.A.R.A.-Nistri [Società per Azioni Rilevamenti Aerofotogrammetrici], 1934. Aerial photograph flight on Rome. Photographs, 18×13 cm, provided by the Aerofototeca Nazionale (AFN), Ministero dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo, Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, Roma.Google Scholar

  • Szabó J. Lóránt D., Dénes L. (eds.), 2010. Anthropogenic Geomorphology. A Guide to Man-Made Landforms. Springer Science+Business Media B.V. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-3058-0.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ventriglia U., 1971. La geologia della città di Roma. Amministrazione Provinciale Roma.Google Scholar

  • Ventriglia U., 2002. Geologia del territorio del Comune di Roma. Amministrazione Provinciale Roma.Google Scholar

  • Witcher R., 2005. The extended metropolis: Urbs, suburbium and population. Journal of Roman Archaeology 18: 120–138.Google Scholar

  • Youssef A.M., Pradhan B., Sefry S.A., Abu Abdullah M.M., 2015. Use of geological and geomorphological parameters in potential suitability assessment for urban planning development at Wadi Al-Asla basin, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 8(8): 5617–5630. DOI:10.1007/s12517-014-1663-9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-05-09

Revised: 2017-07-20

Published Online: 2017-09-29

Published in Print: 2017-09-01

Citation Information: Quaestiones Geographicae, ISSN (Online) 2081-6383, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/quageo-2017-0030.

Export Citation

© 2017 Alessia Pica et al., published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in