| THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAVE AND KARST MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION
IN
CHINESE KARST AREA Sue White
Abstract The Australian Cave and Karst Management Classification (Davey et al 1982) has been used as a useful management tool in various pans of Australia and since 1982 has undergone various modifications (Davey, in press). As it is a classification on the use of caves rather than a classification of karst features, the allocation of the type of management category is of prime importance. The method of allocation of sites to the different management categories has been developed further for the Australian situation and in particular specific functions intended for the different categories have been clarified. In the Victorian study (Davey & White, 1986) fifteen specific grounds for site evaluation were identified and the specific functions of the categories and their significance delineated. As the scheme was developed for Australian karst areas, the management conditions have the Australian physical and human environment in mind and the use of the scheme in other physical environments and societies presents certain problems. The modification of such a scheme to other parts of the world especially developing countries is necessary if the scheme is to be useful outside Australasia. Interest has been shown in the scheme in the Peoples' Republic of China by both cave managers and consultants. This paper will outline the differences in the physical and human karst environments of Australia and China and present an outline of a modified Cave and Karst Management Classification scheme for developing countries. A pilot application of this modification for the karst areas of Yixing County, Jiangsu Province, China will be shown. Introduction The concept of a management classification for Australian caves was first suggested by Skinner (1973) and was developed further by Davey and Worboys and Stiff • (1982). This basic management classification (Table 1)has been used as a management tool to varying degrees of success in Australia, e.g. Davey and White (1986). TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF AUSTRALIAN CAVE MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION SCIIEME
Classifications and their Use Cave management is strongly based on two fundamental principles:
As shown by Larkin (1994, this volume), the Australian Cave Management System is a classification of use and users rather than of caves. It is a specific land use classification; comparable to many used by land managers, geographers and planners. It can be seen as being one of a group of planning tools that use classification to assist managers in the determination of appropriate management regimes for particular areas. As discussed in Hamilton-Smith (1991) the use of the Australian Cave Management System should be seen in the context of what it aims to do and should not be confused with access policies, significance assessment or conservation management. It does not solve all of the problems of management and it certainly does not classify caves and karst. When it has been used appropriately, albeit with some variation, a reasonable level of agreement in its actual application has occurred. Caves and karst are usually classified by geomorphologists according to external factors of internal characteristics (Ford and Williams, 1989) as shown in Table 2. Karst solution caves can be classified as features (Table 3). However although these classifications and others are useful none of them solve all of the problems of the different variables (Cigna, 1978). They all need to be distinguished from other classification types. From all of the discussions, it is obvious that any classification is limited by its own boundaries, terms of reference and intention. The basis of the Australian Cave Management System is the use of caves themselves. TABLE 2: SOME CLASSIFICATIONS OF SOLUTION CAVES (A) By internal characteristics
(B) In relation to external factors
TABLE 3 CLASSIFICATION OF KARST SOLUTION CAVES
The other aspect of any classification is the allocation of sites to management categories. As stated in Davey (1987) it is easy to confuse the difference between primary cave values and the "management function" or purpose of classifying a particular site into a particular category. Most sites are classified as wild as they are managed as wild sites (category 3.1) However sites would be allocated another category if they are used in that category or if specific management actions are required for particular sites eg. protection of natural or cultural values. Similarly, the scheme as expanded in the Victorian study, identifies 15 specific grounds for site evaluation to assist in the allocation of sites to categories in the scheme (Table 4). This is particularly important in terms of assessing whether a site needs management according to category 2.2 (special natural and / or cultural value). Never the less this still is not an attempt to grade or rank the values of the cave Associated with this Davey & White (1986) identified a series of further criteria on level of significance (Table 5). TABLE 4 GROUNDS FOR SITE EVALUATION AS REPRESENTATIVE AND/OR OUTSTANDING:
1) has contributed substantially to development of explanations about
a wider class of sites
TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Modification of Scheme. Managers, especially in Third World countries, are into rested in schemes that assist in resource management especially where tourist development and income are needed to improve living standards. Nevertheless in Third World countries, conservation of the physical environment can not occur satisfactorily if traditional uses are summarily banned. Interest shown in the Australian scheme from Chinese karst managers has resulted in modifying the Cave Management Classification System to a wider range of human uses of cave resource. Australia uses caves in predominantly three major ways: natural feature conservation including bat sites e.g. Exponential Pot (Ml 25), Dickeons Caves (M30), Starlight Cave (W5); recreation, both show caves and less structured recreation e.g. Buchan tourist caves, Wilsons Cave, Potholes and genera speleology; and as cultural archaeological and scientific sites e.g. palaeontological sites such as G5 and geomorphological sites such as the Potholes. In China as well as these uses, caves are used for present day. residential, industry, medical and military purposes. As described in Kiernan(i 991) and White (1991) the uses that China has for caves and karst is much more varied than in Australia. The Australian system is too limited and inflexible as a result of being developed for a much more restricted range of uses of caves and needs expanding to be useful in such a third world context. The modified scheme results in a fourth category of human industry sites. (Table 6). TABLE 6: MODIFIED CAVE MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
Yixing Karst Area, Jiangsu Province, China. The Yangxian tourist area of Yixing County, Jiangsu Province, China, is located near Lake Tai and is a beautiful area with both lake and hill scenery and is famous in Central China as 'the world of caves'. In this area, the well known tourist caves, Shanjuan Cave and Zhangong Cave are regarded as the amongst the best scenic sites in Jiangnan (Southern part of the Yangste/Jiangsu area). With increasing tourism since 1986, both internal and external, the tourist numbers to the Yangxian area rose to 1,200,000 pa (1986) which is double that of the early 1980's. This is concentrated in peak tourist seasons, and in 1986 over 10,000 people per day visited Shanjuan Cave alone. This has led to concern by management that there are too many visitors for the cave and the visitor services. The area is otherwise rural although it is includes one of the major pottery producing areas of China. The whole area needs careful management of its physical and tourist service resources so that maximum benefit to both the physical environment and the economic and social needs of the local people are met. Between 1988 and 1989 the Geography Department of Nanjing University investigated the karst geomorphology, cave atmosphere, water chemistry, and economic/tourist developments of the limestone areas of Yangxian County, so as to assist the local authorities to develop policies on appropriate tourist development and the planning of the tourist industry in Yixing"Yiangxian area. The main mountain ranges are of hard quartzite and trend East/West. To the north there are sandstone quartzite and quartz conglomerate hills under 300m ASL which trend NE to SW. These two sets of hills are separated by the agricultural elongated basins of the Hufu, ZhangzhyandTai Hua. The foothills of these main ranges have exposed carbonates where obvious karst features have developed. Limestone is about 70% of the total area and there are 42 known caves. The caves tend not to be very large; only 7 caves are over 500m long but include some large caverns as in Muli Cave and Linggu Cave, river passages (Shanjuan cave and Muli Cave) and include some well decorated passages. Some caves fill with gravel during flood times and these lack speleothems. Small caves have interesting passages but little decoration. The caves are concentrated in 3 narrow belts: Zhanggong cave to Chenzhi village; Ganxia to Shenzhuang and Shanjuan cave to Furong Cave. The zone includes Zhanggong Cave to Chenzhi village has the highest concentration of caves. Two thirds of the caves in the area (29) are located here and this area has the most potential for cave exploration. Application of the Modified scheme to Yixing Area. The cave management authorities in the county have expressed an interest in thee management classification a a tool to assist in the improved management of the karst resources in the county. As there is an increasing tourist industry in the area the managers are eager to develop strategies and policies which maximise the appropriate management of the area whilst realising that the rural population which to improve their economic situation. A pilot management classification of the 42 caves in Yixing area can be seen in Table 7. This show cave, known as tourist show caves and two caves have been used for quarry rubbish disposal while the others fall generally within the category of wild caves. It is unusual that few other human uses are currently active in this area. In other areas of China a much wider use of caves by humans is normal. There is a need to investigate in detail those caves, or sections of caves which have special values as well as planning for traditional uses. Conclusion The development of this pilot cave management classification scheme has been a useful exercise in two ways. Firstly it has encouraged development of the bases on which the original scheme is based and has provided a relevant framework to question the bases of the scheme. In the past this has been to demand that the scheme attempt to encompass areas for which it is not intended and to move move into areas which have confused rather than developed the scheme. Secondly by attempting to apply it outside the society in which it is developed one can see where specific cultural limitations or aspects exist. Acknowledgments Support in the form of a small internal research grant and leave was received for this work in 1991 and 1992 from Faculty of Applied Science, Victoria College of Advanced Education ( now Deakin University) Melbourne. The continued support in 1993 of the Faculty of Arts, Deakin University is also acknowledged. Bibliography Cigna, ArrigoA, 1978 A classification of Karstic Phenomena. International
Jo. Speleology 10 :3 - 9.
TABLE 7 MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION
|