Geologic Column: The double-edged sword of commercialization

by Lisa A. Rossbacher
Friday, January 20, 2012

Everyone has a mental image of a “commercialized” geologic site — Niagara Falls, anyone? My vision includes crowds, noise, clutter, distracting visual stimuli, neon signs, traffic, and a price on everything from scenic views to water. Souvenirs, including T-shirts, snow globes, shot glasses and fudge, are usually for sale.

In the August issue of EARTH, I introduced this topic by questioning my colleagues about what they think is the most commercialized geologic site. Answers varied from Niagara Falls to Howe Caverns to the Grand Canyon. A lot of people also asked “What defines commercialization?” That question got me thinking. I tend to think of commercialization as a dirty word. But does it have to be? Does commercialization necessarily ruin a site? Or can it be part of preserving a site?

First of all, what I mean by a commercialized geologic site is one that is developed for the purpose of making money — whether for profit or simply to support the upkeep of the site. By definition, that’s neither good nor bad. National parks, for example, require admission, but because much of that money goes to preservation of the park and does not degrade the experience of the site, that form of commercialization — perhaps we should call it development instead of commercialization — is not a problem. Even having a modest gift shop or a restaurant on site may not be too commercial. Commercialization implies levels above development. I think the problem arises when we cross into advertising: putting up big, ugly signs, or charging money for everything from advertorial clothing and trinkets to carnival-type food and tchotchke-type souvenirs.

In the larger view of the role of nature in modern human lives, we all likely fall somewhere on the spectrum between those who want high-end resorts and condominiums centered around a scenic natural feature to those who prefer hikein- only access that limits the crowds and distractions. I’m much closer to the latter end, although I recognize the importance of ensuring access to nature and outstanding scenery to everyone, including people with physical limitations. The challenge is how to ensure that the experience of a great geological site is sustainable.

With that in mind, I have developed a rating system to assess the commercialization of a geologic site. There are 20 categories of commercialization characteristics, and each characteristic is rated on a five-point scale. The least commercialized rating a site could get is 20, and the most commercialized would be 100. You can now judge sites for yourself.

Based on this approach, I’ve come up with a preliminary score for Niagara Falls of 82. I give the Grand Canyon a modest 55. Amicalola Falls, the highest waterfall east of the Mississippi, located in a state park in north Georgia, scores a relatively noncommercialized 32. The ratings are subjective, but they provide a way to compare locations.

It’s certainly true that areas around interesting geologic features can be developed in ways that support a positive cash flow and minimal intrusion on a natural experience.

Preserving important geologic sites — while making them accessible to the public and being able to fund their preservation — is a basic goal of geoheritage sites. In the December issue of EARTH, we’ll look into how that form of commercialization can actually be a good thing.

© 2008-2021. All rights reserved. Any copying, redistribution or retransmission of any of the contents of this service without the expressed written permission of the American Geosciences Institute is expressly prohibited. Click here for all copyright requests.