THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAVE AND KARST MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION IN CHINESE KARST AREA
Abstract
The Australian Cave and Karst Management Classification (Davey et al 1982) has been used as a useful management tool in various parts 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 SCHEME
| Category 1: | Public access caves | 1.1 Adventure caves |
| 1.2 Showcaves | ||
| Category 2: | Special purpose sites | 2.1 Reference sites |
| 2.2 Sites of special natural and/or cultural value | ||
| 2.3 Dangerous sites | ||
| Category 3: | Wild (& unclassified) sites | 3.1 Cave classified as wild |
| 3.2 All unclassified caves |
Classifications and their use
Cave management is strongly based on two fundamental principles:
- the nature of the features of interest i.e. the cave and karst features and the physical landscape setting (including processes) concerned.
- the uses man has and employs for these features and the potential advantages and disadvantages these have to the features themselves.
The major problem in Australia has been the confusion between the classification of the site as to its management or use compared with classification of caves and karst per se. Many Australian speleologists have confused these two quite different classification exercises.
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
- By internal characteristics
- By size: aggregate length or depth or volume
- By measure of vertical or horizontal dimensions
- By plan form: entrance or niche (abri), chamber (room), linear passage, branchwork, network, anastomosis, spongework, multiphase branchworks, rectilinear combinations
- By passage cross section form: circular or elliptical, canyon, breakdown, compound
- By relation to a regional water table: water table cave, phreatic, compound, relict
- By categories of deposits: speleothem cave, gypsum (crystal) cave, sand cave, ice cave, archaeologic site, etc
- In relation to external factors
- Modes of geological control: rock type (limestone, gypsum, etc); joint-guided, fault-guided, etc; horizontal strata, steeply dipping, folded, etc
- By topographic setting: mountain caves, plateau caves, etc
- By relation to topography: underdrain valley or valley flank, meander cut off, connect poljes, foot cave, etc
- By role in fluvial system: allogenic river caves, holokarst drains, shortcut caves, combinations, sea cave, etc
- By aquifer type: ideal pipe cave - continuum - perfect spongework cave
- By role in geomorphic and hydraulic cycles: active cave - episodic relict cave (preserved, intercepted, truncated, destroyed)
- By climatic setting: humid tropical, semi-arid, mediterranean, temperate, alpine, arctic, etc
(Ford and Williams (1989) p.243)
TABLE 3: CLASSIFICATION OF KARST SOLUTION CAVES
Unconfined circulation
| A: Normal meteoric waters | In karst rocks = hypergene caves | 1. Common caves (80% of known caves?) |
| Confined circulation in karst rocks, or partial circulation in non karstic rocks; includes some hypogene caves | 2. Maze caves and outlet basal injection caves | |
| 3. Combinations of types l & 2 | ||
| B: Deep enriched waters | Enriched by exhalative CO2, (normally thermal waters) hypogene caves | 4. Hydrothermal (~10% of known caves) |
| Enriched in H2S etc (basin waters connate waters) | 5. Carlsbad-type & gypsum replacement caves | |
| C: Brackish waters | Chiefly marine & fresh waters mixing | 6. Coastal mixing zone cavities |
| D: | Combination of B or C with A, developing in sequence | 7. Hybrid caves |
(Ford and Williams (1989) p.244)
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). Nevertheless 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:
WHETHER THE SITE -
- has contributed substantially to development of explanations about a wider class of sites
- is the location of important research investigations
- contains evidence with potential for understanding the past (e.g. speleothems, sediments, palaeontological or archaeological deposits, cultural relics)
- has important associations with prehistoric or historic human activities, especially if connected with important events, personalities or the developments in the history of the region or of cave science
- contains especially clear examples which are of educational value
- is the type locality for any species
- is the habitat of an endemic species
- is the habitat for any troglobitic species
- is the breeding locality (maternity site) for any species, or is important to any species for acclimatisation, over wintering, staging or roosting
- is habitat for a species which is endangered, rare, restricted, or near the limits of its range
- is aesthetically impressive or of high visual or other sensory quality
- contains unusual recreation opportunities
- has potential for non-destructive use which will contribute to the local and regional economy and employment
- is one of the few remaining or best preserved of its class
- is part of a related compilation of sites which collectively meet one or more of the other criteria above
(Davey and White 1986, pp33-34)
TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
- rarity, in a total (worldwide) sense
- scarity or abundance, in a spatial distribution sense
- scale and extent
- clarity of expression or exposure ("display")
- state of preservation
- juxtaposition against or combination with other features
- extent to which the site has contributed to understanding of natural or cultural events with implications elsewhere
- proximity to or separation from other features /or concentrations of people
- image, or distinctive character, because of the particular natural setting and/or cultural context
- potential for providing further research insights
- universality, whereby the site provides crucial insights into environmental phenomena
- comparability with other known examples
(Davey and White 1986, pp35)
In Australia, despite and perhaps because of, the concerns for the physical environment we have predominantly concentrated on the first of the fundamental principles i.e. the nature of the caves and the physical setting concerned. This concern with the features themselves has been the source of much confusion with the scheme. However the use that humans make of a site is important in the management of it. In Australia we do not make use of caves in as many ways as occurs in other parts of the world. In developing countries in particular, prior and current uses of cave sites means that successful management of karst areas must take these uses into account.
Modification of Scheme
Managers, especially in Third World countries, are interested 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 cannot 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 (Ml25), Dicksons Caves (M30), Starlight Cave (W5); recreation, both show caves and less structured recreation e.g. Buchan tourist caves, Wilsons Cave, Potholes and general 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 (1991) 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
| Category 1: | Public recreation caves | 1.1 Adventure caves |
| 1.2 Showcaves | ||
| Category 2: | Special purpose sites | 2.1 Reference sites |
| 2.2 Sites of special natural and/or cultural value | ||
| 2.3 Dangerous sites | ||
| Category 3: | Wild (& unclassified) sites | 3.1 Cave classified as wild |
| 3.2 All unclassified caves | ||
| Category 4: | Human industry sites | 4.1 Agricultural sites |
| 4.2 Manufacturing/industrial | ||
| 4.3 Residential sites | ||
| 4.4 Storage sites | ||
| 4.5 Speleotherapy | ||
| 4.6 Military/strategic use | ||
| 4.7 Other |
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 1980s. 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, Zhang Zhy and Tai 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 Shen Zhuang 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 the 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 shows cave, known use and classification. In this area there are 5 caves used 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.
TABLE 7 MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION
| CAVE No | NAME | MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION | REASON FOR CLASSIFICATION |
| 1 | UNNAMED | 3.1 | |
| 2 | YUQUAN CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 3 | MAYI CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 4 | FEIYUN CAVE | 2.2 | SEDIMENTS GEOMORPHOLOGY |
| 5 | BIANFU CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 6 | No.1 YUNUTAN CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 7 | No.2 YUNUTAN CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 8 | XIANGSHUI CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 9 | QINLONG CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 10 | SHUIXI CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 11 | LONGQIU CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 12 | FUPAN CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 13 | TIANSHEN CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 14 | LAOHU CAVE | 2.2 | BATS |
| 15 | No.1 LAOHU CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 16 | No.2 LAOHU CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 17 | TIANGO CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 18 | BAZI CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 19 | MAYI CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 20 | BIANFU CAVE | 1.2 | TOURIST SHOW CAVE |
| 21 | LUOSI CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 22 | LINGGU CAVE | 1.2 | TOURIST SHOW CAVE |
| 23 | BEIHE CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 24 | XIANREN CAVE | 1.1 | TOURIST SHOW CAVE |
| 25 | LUWANG CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 26 | MULI CAVE | 1.2 | TOURIST SHOW CAVE |
| 27 | XISHI CAVE | 2.2 | GEOMORPHOLOGY |
| 28 | XIANHE CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 29 | HAIHUI CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 30 | FENHUANG CAVE | 2.2 | GEOMORPHOLOGY |
| 31 | LAOHU CAVE | 4.4 | RUBBISH STORAGE FROM QUARRY |
| 32 | CHONGTIAN CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 33 | BAIYUN CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 34 | GENGU CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 35 | XIANREN CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 36 | No.1 TIAOHUA CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 37 | No.2 TIAOHUA CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 38 | CHATIN CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 39 | SHUANJUAN CAVE | 1.2 | TOURIST SHOW CAVE |
| 40 | XIANGBAO CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 41 | No.1 FURONG CAVE | 3.1 | |
| 42 | No.2 FURONG CAVE | 4.4 | RUBBISH STORAGE FROM QUARRY |
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.
Acknowledgements
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, Arrigo A, 1978 A classification of Karstic Phenomena. International Jo. Speleology 10:3-9
Davey, Adrian, Worboys, Graeme & Stiff, Clyde (1982) Report on Cave Classification Report to 4th Australasian Conf. Cave Tourism & Management, Yallingup WA, September 1981. in: Watson, J.R ed. (1982) Cave Management in Australia IV, WA National Parks Authority, Perth & A.S.F. Broadway
Davey, Adrian G & White, Susan (1986) Preliminary Management Classification and Catalogue of Victorian Caves and Karst. Report to Caves Classification Committee, Victorian Dept. Conservation, Forests & Lands, Applied Natural Resource Management, Canberra
Davey, Adrian (in press) Some Experience in Applying the Australian Cave Management Classification Scheme in: Spate, A.P., ed. (in press) Cave Management in Australasia, VII; Proc. 7th Australasian Cave Management & Tourism Conference, SE NSW, May 1987. NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Sydney; & A.S.F. Broadway
Ford, D.C. and Williams, P.W. 1989 Karst Geomorphology and Hydrology. (Chapman & Hall, London)
Hamilton-Smith E. 1991 Some Issues in Cave Classification, Proc. 9th ACKMA Conference, Margaret River, Sept 1991:15-18
Kiernan, Kevin 1991 Living with Limestone ( Some Impressions of Karst Management in China) Proc. 9th ACKMA Conference Margaret River, Sept 1991:1-12
Larkin, P. 1994 Cave Classification Systems: Time for Review, Cave Management in Australia Proc. 10th ACKMA Conf., Rockhampton May 1993:60-64
Skinner, A. 1973 Mass Recreation at Ida Bay: The Development of Exit Cave, Unpub. Thesis, Tasmanian College of Advanced Education
White, Susan 1991 Living with Limestone (Some Impressions of Karst Management in China), Proc. 9th ACKMA Conference, Margaret River, Sept 1991:13-14