Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
DOI 10.1007/s12371-013-0081-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Intra-Continental Al Madinah Volcanic Field, Western Saudi
Arabia: A Proposal to Establish Harrat Al Madinah as the First
Volcanic Geopark in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
M. R. Moufti & K. Németh
Received: 23 December 2012 / Accepted: 25 March 2013 / Published online: 23 April 2013
# The European Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage 2013
Abstract The United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization promotes conservation of geological
and geomorphological heritage through the promotion and
protection of sites of importance and the development of edu-
cational programs under the umbrella of geoparks. Here, we
identify significant volcanic features that could be organised
and promoted as the first geopark in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. The Al Madinah Volcanic Field, or Harrat Al Madinah,
has numerous volcanic geosites relevant to the understanding
of the evolution of intraplate volcanic fields dominated by
Hawaiian and Strombolian style eruptions, and includes the
location of the last historically erupted volcanoes in the Arabian
Peninsula. The unique volcanic features of the proposed Harrat
Al Madinah Volcanic Geopark (HAMVG) are organised within
three precincts, each with specific volcanic phenomena. The
first and most accessible precinct, defined as the “Historic
Eruption Precinct—1256 AD and 641 AD Historic Eruption
Sites”, contains two major geotops with numerous individual
geosites representing the youngest volcanoes of the Arabian
Peninsula, including the lava spatter and scoria cones of the
1256 AD eruption just 10 km SE of Al Madinah city. The
second precinct, “Lava Lakes, Lava Fountains and Volcano
Spreading Precinct—The Mosawdah Volcano”, provides an in-
depth view of an eruption that produced low lava fountains,
clastogenic lava flows, agglutinated lava spatter cones and
extensive lava flows from a central, lava lake-occupied crater.
M. R. Moufti : K. Németh
Geological Hazard Research Unit, King Abdulaziz University,
Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
K. Németh (*)
Volcanic Risk Solutions, Massey University,
Palmerston North, New Zealand
e-mail: k.nemeth@massey.ac.nz
In the third precinct, referred to as “Silicic Lava Domes and
Explosion Craters Precinct”, the results of explosive eruptions
are visible, with deep craters and ash blankets around the vents.
Here, there is also evidence for how trachytic lava can protrude
from single and multiple vents to build lava domes. This
precinct also offers the most dramatic landscape and adventure
volcano tourism opportunity in this arid environment. This
three-level hierarchy of the proposed HAMVG fits well with
the gradual educational program proposed here to demonstrate
the recent and potential future volcanism of the region, from the
most common but less destructive to the less common but more
hazardous eruptions. The proposed HAMVG will promote the
protection of this globally unique, young volcanic landscape
and offer geoeducational opportunities to the general public
and to the scientific community. The Harrat Al Madinah is also
located in a culturally significant place near to Al Madinah city,
which is one of the holiest places to Muslims. The proposed
geopark is easily accessable through highways (and by train in
the near future) and it could provide a significant economic
benefit to Al Madinah city.
Keywords Monogenetic volcanic field . Scoria cone .
Lava fountain . Lava flow . Lava spatter . Geotourism .
Geoheritage
Introduction
Intracontinental volcanic fields are widespread volcanic fea-
tures on Earth and other planets (Valentine and Gregg 2008).
They host the most common volcanic landforms on Earth,
such as scoria (cinder) cones, tuff rings, maars, lava flows and
lava lakes. These types of volcanoes, which form over geo-
logically short durations (days to years) through relatively
186
simple eruption styles, are generally referred to as monoge-
netic and are characterised by their relatively small-volume
volcanic edifices, and their eruptive products which include
edifice building, inter-cone ash plains and associated lava
fields (Németh 2010). The overall duration of the volcanic
activity at a volcanic field can, however, be characterised by
prolonged activity over periods of millions of years (Connor
and Conway 2000; Walker 1993). The monogenetic nature of
the individual volcanoes has been under continuous debate
recently, as many new studies have shown that individual
volcanoes of a volcanic field can form through complex
eruption histories in spite of their relatively short eruption
duration, and can sometimes produce voluminous eruptive
products, especially taking into account the total volume of
associated effusive products (Brenna et al. 2011; Kereszturi
and Németh 2011; Sohn et al. 2012; Sohn and Park 2005;
Valentine and Gregg 2008). Monogenetic volcanic fields can
also be associated with fairly large shield volcanoes reaching
volcanic edifice volumes comparable to small composite and
stratovolcanoes (Agustin-Flores et al. 2011; Valentine and
Gregg 2008; Walker 1993). In addition, monogenetic volca-
noes can be formed by the eruption of more silicic magmas
(Austin-Erickson et al. 2011); however, they are more typi-
cally associated with mafic volcanism. The apparent complex-
ity and diversity of monogenetic volcanoes suggest they
should be viewed as volcanic systems with dispersed volcanic
plumbing that make them clearly separate from more focused
vent and plumbing network-related composite and stratovol-
canoes (Brenna et al. 2010, 2011). These new advances in
understanding the evolution of intra-continental monogenetic
fields have put this type of volcanism at the frontline of
volcanic research globally over the past decades (Martin et
al. 2007; Németh et al. 2011a, b). This increase in interest and
wealth of new knowledge can be directly channelled to the
general public through geoeducational projects. This trend is
clearly visible in the increasing number of studies on volcanic
geosites and geomorphosites (Erfurt-Cooper 2011; Joyce
2009, 2010; Kazancı 2012), with additional proposals
(Anonymous 2012) and establishments of regional and global
geoparks with the aim of protecting volcanoes and promoting
our understanding of monogenetic volcanism in many parts of
the globe (Armiero et al. 2011; Joyce 2010; Zhao et al. 2008).
Currently, the European Geopark Network has 52 official
members from 18 countries (www.europeangeopark.org); of
these, at least five have a strong emphasis on volcanic geolo-
gy, including geoparks located in Germany, Hungary, Iceland,
Slovakia and Spain. Of these volcanic-oriented geoparks,
three clearly deal with volcanic features similar to those iden-
tified and described in this paper from the proposed Harrat Al
Madinah Volcanic Geopark. Worldwide, there are at least five
additional geoparks located in volcanic regions, of which two
are located on monogenetic volcanic fields. Around the world,
there are many heavily populated regions that occupy areas of
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
active volcanic fields, such as Auckland in New Zealand
(Bebbington and Cronin 2011; Kereszturi et al. 2012a, b;
Németh et al. 2012; Sandri et al. 2012), Mexico City in
Mexico (Agustin-Flores et al. 2011; Guilbaud et al. 2009),
or the Bay of Naples in Italy (Armiero et al. 2011; Di Vito et
al. 2011; Isaia et al. 2004; Lirer et al. 2001). While young
volcanic fields are also located in culturally significant areas
where some of the fundamental concepts of volcanology of
monogenetic volcanism has been established, such as those in
Central France at the Chaîne des Puys (Camus et al. 1973;
Jeambrun 1983), Eifel in western Germany (Lorenz 1974;
Schmincke 1977a, b), Eger (Ohre) Graben in Czech
Republic and Germany (Cajz et al. 2009; Lorenz et al. 2003)
or in the Pannonian Basin, mostly in Hungary (Martin and
Németh 2004). With the growing population on Earth, it is
becoming increasingly important to develop geoeducational
programs in these regions and others to disseminate our cur-
rent understanding of this type of volcanism, with an aim to
pass on information about potential eruption scenarios, volca-
nic hazards and available volcanic crisis management to the
general public (Armiero et al. 2011). Similar educational pro-
jects, in conjunction with geoconservation strategies, have
been developed around other natural geohazards, such as
faulting (Zouros et al. 2011) and a growing number of meth-
odological studies have been reported that combine
geoeducation with effective geoconservation, an objective that
underpins geopark projects (Coratza and De Waele 2012;
Fang et al. 2007). In volcanic areas that have not experienced
volcanic eruptions in the recent past (e.g. no living memories,
oral traditions or written documentation are available), the
usage of geoconservation sites is especially important to es-
tablish a link between the preserved volcanic landforms and
their potential link to specific volcanic hazards. Such projects
are also of particular importance in areas where the societal
structure of the local communities is set in a way that mem-
ories of recent volcanic eruptions can quickly vanish. An
example of this is the young volcanic island of Western
Samoa where there is limited information available on the
volcanic origins of the landscape, in spite of the last eruption
taking place only about 100 years ago and many eruptions
occurring in the 3,500 years since human occupation was first
established (Németh and Cronin 2009).
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a region where large
areas of land are volcanic fields that have been active in the
past 10 Ma (Camp and Roobol 1989; Camp et al. 1991,
1992; Dubray et al. 1991; Lindsay 2012; Moufti et al.
2012a, b), leaving behind nearly every volcanic feature
possible in a dispersed intra-continental volcanic field
(Fig. 1a). These regions have not experienced a volcanic
eruption since the last event in 1256 AD (Camp et al. 1987).
However, there is evidence, based on the morphologies of
many of the volcanoes, that indicates that other historic
eruptions may have occurred, but have gone unnoticed
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
because of the low population density of the region in the
past.
Here, we provide geological evidence to demonstrate the
geological value of the monogenetic volcanic fields of the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and propose the formal establish-
ment of a volcanic geopark, located in a culturally and reli-
giously important area near the city of Al Madinah (Fig. 1b).
The proposed Harrat Al Madinah Volcanic Geopark (HAMVG;
Fig. 1b) is associated with dispersed intra-continental volca-
nism forming monogenetic volcanoes including (1) chemical
variety from basaltic to trachytic, (2) eruption style variety from
highly explosive to purely effusive eruption styles and (3)
eruption time and duration variety from older and/or longer-
lived volcanoes. Here, we give, for the first time, a brief
volcanological summary of the proposed geosites, grouped in
specific precincts and naturally linked with a specific part of the
volcanic field. We also provide convincing evidence to demon-
strate that the HAMVG and has world-class, globally signifi-
cant, and scientifically well-characterised features, and provides
a very well exposed and aesthetically dramatic view of a
monogenetic volcanic field, meeting even the most rigorous
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) criteria and specifications for a
geopark (http://www.globalgeopark.org/Portals/1/documents/
2008GGN-guidelinesJuneendorsed.pdf and the European
Geopark network (www.europeangeoparks.eu; Eder 1999,
2008; Farsani et al. 2011; Zouros 2004)..
Geological Setting
The Red Sea Rift forms an active deformation zone between
the African and Arabian continental plates, stretching about
2,000 km from NNW to SSE (Fig. 1a). The rifting along the
Red Sea started about 30 Ma ago, leading to the separation of
the Arabian Plate from Africa (Camp and Roobol 1992). The
evolution of the marginal areas in reference to the axis of the
Red Sea Rift was complex and consisted of a combination of
(1) extension along the Red Sea basin (Bellahsen et al. 2003;
McGuire and Bohannon 1989; Voggenreiter et al. 1988;
Wernicke 1985); (2) a pronounced continental collision be-
tween Arabia and Eurasia since the middle Miocene about
13 Ma (Dewey et al. 1986; McKenzie 1978); (3) and the
development of left lateral strike slip zones in the northwest
margin of the Arabian micro-continent (Garfunkel 1981). This
geodynamically complex situation provided mantle melting
and shear that fed magma rising to the surface, especially in
the western and northern margin of the Arabian plate, to form
volcanic fields close to the plate boundaries (Bord and Bertrand
1995; Camp et al. 1987, 1991, 1992; Camp and Roobol 1989,
1992; Moufti et al. 2012a, b; Nasir 1992). As a result of this
intra-continental volcanism, a thick pile of sheet-like lava flows
and associated networks of shield and fissure fed volcanoes
187
formed over the past 30 Ma (Moufti et al. 2012a, b). These lava
flow dominated fields are known locally as harrats (Fig. 1a).
The word “harrat” is the possessive form of the singular Arabic
noun “harra”, which means “stony area, volcanic country, lava
field” (Wehr 1976): it is related to the adjective “harr”, meaning
“hot” (cross-referenced from Camp and Roobol 1989). Among
these volcanic fields or harrats, the largest (both in eruptive
volume and surface area) is Harrat Ash Shaam, which is located
only partially in the territory of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
(Fig. 1a) and covers an area of 50,000 km2 (Ibrahim et al. 2003;
Ilani et al. 2001; Shaw et al. 2003). The largest harrats in the
territory of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are the Harrat
Khaybar (20,564 km2) and Harrat Rahat (Fig. 1a), which
occupy an area of about 19,830 km2 (Camp and Roobol 1989).
The Harrat Rahat volcanic field consists of at least 500
individual volcanic edifices, many of them with typically
complex edifice structures suggesting their prolonged volca-
nic activity (months to years) and common bimodal chemical
nature (basaltic and trachytic; Camp and Roobol 1989; Moufti
and Hashad 2005; Moufti et al. 2012a, b). The age of the
volcanism is constrained dominantly by K-Ar age determina-
tion of whole rock samples derived from various lava flows
(Brown et al. 1989; Camp and Roobol 1989, 1992; Coleman
1993; Coleman et al. 1983), as well as recent Ar-Ar incre-
mental heating techniques to groundmass separates from dif-
ferent volcanic flows collected from the northernmost part of
the Harrat Rahat (Moufti et al. 2012a, b).
Early K-Ar age determinations allowed the volcanic rocks
to be divided into three major stratigraphic units formally
defined as: Shawahit basalt (∼10 to 2.5 Ma), Hammah basalt
(∼2.5 to 1.7 Ma), and Madinah basalt (∼1.7 Ma to recent;
Moufti et al. 2012a, b). Geological field mapping, aided by K-
Ar and recent Ar-Ar dating, subdivided the Madinah basalt
into lower and upper Madinah basalts (Moufti et al. 2012a, b).
From a lithostratigraphical perspective, the lower Madinah
basalt comprises three stratigraphic (i.e. mapping) sequences
labelled Qm1 to Qm3 (Qm1, ∼1.7 to 1.2 Ma; Qm2, ∼1.2 to
0.9 Ma; Qm3, ∼0.9 to 0.6 Ma); while the upper Madinah
basalt includes four sequences defined as Qm4 to Qm7
(Qm4, ∼0.6 to 0.3 Ma; Qm5, ∼0.3 Ma to 4500 B.P.; Qm6,
∼4500 to 1500 B.P.; Qm7, ∼1500 B.P. to 1256 A.D.; Camp
and Roobol 1989). The proposed HAMVG is located in the
area covered by eruptive products grouped into these various
lithostratigraphic units and represents the youngest volcanic
episode of the Harrat Rahat volcanic field. There is an appar-
ent northward migration of volcanic events, at least in the last
10 Ma, that is linked by some workers to the age progression
of the lithospheric updoming of the Western Arabian Swell as
the northernmost extremities of the larger, regional updoming
of the Afro-Arabian Dome (Almond 1986). This swell is
inferred to be linked to the Ethiopean mantle plume, as its
lobe reaches far north (Camp and Roobol 1992). Recent Ar-Ar
dating has refined the previously proposed volcanic
188
Fig. 1 a Harrats (volcanic fields or lava fields in Arabic) of the
Arabian Peninsula and their eruption duration range (brackets). b
Geology map of Harrat Rahat after Camp and Roobol (1989) and
Moufti et al. (2012a, b) showing the main volcanic lithostratigraphy
units based dominantly on mapped lava sheets. The Al Madinah
volcanic field primarily coincides with the areal distribution of the
northern segment of the ‘Madinah basalt’. Harrat Rahat is inferred to
be a group of volcanic fields spatially overlap each other. The accurate
stratigraphy, providing evidence of far more evenly distribut-
ed volcanic events across the Harrat Rahat (Moufti et al.
2012a, b; Fig. 1b). Specifically, the longevity of volcanism
in the northern section of the Harrat Rahat, defined as the Al
Madinah volcanic field (AMVF), or Harrat Al Madinah
(Fig. 1b), has been found to be longer than previously thought,
suggesting less characteristic uni-directional migration of vol-
canic activity and challenging the idea of a fixed mantle plume
as the source of the volcanism over the past 10 Ma over a
steadily moving Arabian Plate (Moufti et al. 2012a, b).
Instead, the NNW trending distribution of the volcanic vents,
i.e. parallel to the Red Sea and its fault system, suggests that
their origin is related to periodic extensional episodes along
the reactivated Red Sea fault system (Moufti et al. 2012a, b).
The AMVF hosts numerous and diverse volcanic land-
forms that are well exposed and lack vegetation cover,
offering a perfect site to see nearly unmodified volcanic
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
distinction and delineation of the time and space boundary of the extent
of the Al Madinah volcanic field is under current research. Its boundary
marked with thick line that is somehow ambigous in the south and
therefore represented by a slightly thinner section for the same bound-
ary line. The outline of the proposed Harrat Al Madinah Volcanic
Geopark is marked by a rectangular in the northern section of the Al
Madinah Volcanic Field
landforms that are inferred to represent the syn-eruptive
volcanic morphology of monogenetic volcanoes as defined
elsewhere (Kereszturi et al. 2012a, b) . The most common
volcanic landforms of the AMVF are the basaltic scoria and
lava spatter cones associated with pahoehoe and a’a lava
fields (Moufti and Hashad 2005; Moufti et al. 2011). Many
of them show a complex eruptive history with multiple
craters and nested crater rims. Lava domes of mugearite,
benmoreite and trachyte compositions are particularly com-
mon in the centre of the volcanic field (Moufti et al. 2012a,
b) and form a spectacular scene of circular (in map view)
and steep sided lava domes, many of them crowned with a
characteristic solidified spine a few tens of metres above the
main lava dome bodies. In addition to constructional volca-
nic landforms, there are a few, but large in diameter and
depth, volcanic craters commonly surrounded by tuff rings
or steep sided pyroclastic constructs closely resembling tuff
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
cones. Large areas are covered by trachytic tephra blankets
resulting from pyroclastic surges, block-and-ash flows, and
fallout.
The proposed HAMVG will provide a holistic
geoeducational and geoconservation area to demonstrate
the diverse volcanism associated with the evolution of
long-lived monogenetic volcanic fields in intra-continental
regions. Volcanic fields can provide vital information on
magma generation and ascent, on the style of volcanic
eruption and on the interaction between volcanism and the
surrounding terrestrial basins in which the volcanoes
erupted. This information can be related to the number and
eruption styles of individual volcanoes (White 1991), the
timing and frequency of eruptions (Conway et al. 1998;
Kiyosugi et al. 2010; Martin et al. 2004), the distribution
pattern of volcanoes (Connor 1987, 1990) and the relation-
ship of the volcanoes to tectonic features such as basins,
faults and rift zones (Connor et al. 2000). The proposed
HAMVG offers insights for both the general public and for
the research community which can broaden our understand-
ing of the evolution of long-lived intra-continental monoge-
netic volcanism.
Geosites–Geotop–Precinct–Geopark
A hierarchic system has been established to arrange the
geological features for geoconservation, geoeducation and
geotouristic purposes. The smallest unit in this system is the
geosite (Fuertes-Gutierrez and Fernandez-Martinez 2012;
Henriques et al. 2011; Kazancı 2012) or geomorphosite
(Panizza 2001; Reynard et al. 2009)—depending on wheth-
er it is the geological or the geomorphological aspect of the
identified site that is emphasised. Geosites should be single
geologically and/or geomorphologically important features
that not only deserve protection (Panizza 2009; Puga et al.
2009; Rodrigues and Fonseca 2010) but also are good
candidates to be part of a geoeducational program and
geotouristic activity (Eder 2008). Geosites are the core
features of any geoeducational, geoconservation and
geoheritage programme developed within a geopark.
Geosites should be defined in the context of the region they
are found in. For example, in some regions, a geological
phenomenon meets the requirements to be a geosite, while
the same phenomenon elsewhere would not generate
enough attention among experts (and the public) to be
viewed as a geosite. For instance, a sand dune could be
defined, protected and promoted as geosite in Central
Europe, while the same geological (geomorphological) fea-
ture would never be defined and listed as a geosite in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. However, if the same sand dune
in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were to have some specific
features, or it were globally significant (e.g. by its size,
189
volume, movement, composition, etc.), it could then be
defined as a geosite. In the case of volcanic features, while
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is rich in young volcanoes
erupted in the past 10 Ma and is literally pitted by volca-
noes along its western margin (and volcanoes, therefore,
could be looked at as a common geological phenomena in
this region), the individual geological value of many of
these volcanoes (including the landscape-forming aesthetic
value) make these features stand out and offer themselves
to be listed as geosties, geotops or precincts and organised
into a geopark.
A specific geological phenomenon can be comprised of
numerous geosites. In volcanic realms for instance, a volcanic
cone can host numerous geosites that are important to our
understanding of the formation, evolution and erosion of the
volcanic cone itself. Such groups of geosites can be defined as a
geotop, applying a similar concept to that ecologists apply for
biological features (Drandaki et al. 1997; Gonggrijp 1997). The
geotop concept has been recently used to describe the geolog-
ical values of volcanic cones and lava fields in Mendoza,
Argentina, as an inventory of volcanological features that could
form the backbone of a proposed volcanic geopark (Risso et al.
2006). Many specific geotops that are naturally linked and/or
are of the same type can be defined as a precinct (e.g. a group of
specific type of volcanic cones). In turn, a geopark is the
umbrella under which the formally defined geosites, geotops
and precincts are organised and presented to the public (Eder
1999; Keever and Zouros 2005; Wang 2007; Xun and Milly
2002; Zouros 2004). A geopark should be organised along a
common concept (e.g. a specific type of volcanism in our case)
(Fang et al. 2007) and connected to human society (e.g.
www.europeangeoparks.org). Geoparks may have a significant
role in the economic development of rural areas or a local
economy through geotourism (Dowling 2011; Farsani et al.
2011, 2012; Yang et al. 2011). They are also complex
geoeducational sites where fundamental knowledge can be
passed to the general public on how the Earth works (Azman
et al. 2010, 2011). While the separation and definition of these
geoconservation-, geoeducational- and geotourism-defined
units seems simple, there are numerous obstacles and de-
bates, especially around how specific geological and geo-
morphological features should be selected as geosites/
geomorphosites or be defined as a geotop or as a geopark
(Deraman et al. 2010; Fang and Tang 2010; Giusti and
Calvet 2010; Joyce 2010; Liu et al. 2010). The definition
and distinction between geosites and geotops are debatable
and/or their definitions evolve in time as a reflection of the
progress of the geoconservation of a region and/or the
evolution of the scientific research. Here, we use the concept
of precincts as building blocks for the proposed HAMVG.
These precincts define the main volcanic geoheritage,
geoconservation and geoeducational sites of one of the most
accessible harrats in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
190
Conceptual Framework of the HAMVG
In the proposed HAMVG, we have identified three geograph-
ically distinct regions offering a broad range of observable
volcanic phenomena (Fig. 2). The exceptionally well-exposed
and preserved nature of the volcanic landforms, in concert
with the stable weather conditions, can allow for year-round
activity in the geopark and the three precincts offer three
different levels of accessibility of volcanic features, aligned
with three levels of knowledge transfer.
This three-layered precinct hierarchy is well-reflected in
the logistical difficulties and level of planning required to
visit the three well-distinguished areas. It is also reflected in
the level of knowledge the visitor could gain from visiting
each precinct, with knowledge levels building as the visitor
moves through the geopark. A similar concept was applied
to the Kanawinka Geopark in southern Australia and
Victoria (http://www.kanawinkageopark.org.au/) where spe-
cific precincts defined the main character of the region and
the fundamental knowledge a visitor can expect to gain from
their visits (Joyce 2009; Joyce 2010).
In the proposed HAMVG, the area easiest to access is
that where the two youngest volcanoes of the Arabian
Peninsula are located and is referred to here as the Historic
Eruption Precinct—1256 AD and 641 AD Historic Eruption
Sites. These areas are located near to the south–southwest-
ern boundary of the city of Al Madinah offering easy daily
tour options for visitors to the volcanologically most signif-
Fig. 2 Map of the Harrat Al Madinah Volcanic Geopark from Google
Earth showing the three distinct precincts labelled precinct 1, 2 and 3.
The locations of the identified 501 volcanic vents are also marked
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
icant sites of the most recent eruption scenario in the region.
These eruptions are the youngest in the field and are well-
documented in the written historical records. This precinct
will be the backbone of the geoeducational and volcanic
hazard educational programs for the geopark, due to its
scientific value and easily accessible nature.
The second precinct is viewed as an expansion of the
first, offering the visitor a more in-depth understanding of
the type of volcanism very common in the Harrat Al
Madinah. This precinct is named here as the Lava Lakes,
Lava Fountains and Volcano Spreading Precinct—The
Mosawdah Volcano. In addition to the more graphic and
detailed information the visitor can gain on understanding
the eruption mechanism of lava fountain-driven eruptions
and contemporaneous volcano instability, visiting this pre-
cinct a full adventure style-day trip is required, elevating the
level of excitement for volcano enthusiasts and adventure
tourists and satisfying the expectations of dramatic natural
phenomena, landscape views and contact with a very differ-
ent natural environment that most of the geotourists may
never have ever experienced. Such values are commonly
described as the fundamental driving forces of volcano
tourism (Erfurt-Cooper 2011). It is important to note, how-
ever, that didactically, the geological information offered by
this precinct partially overlaps with that of the first precinct.
However, the volcanic geology in this precinct allows a far
more detailed and dramatic understanding of the results of
lava fountain-fed eruptions.
The third precinct is the From Silicic Lava Domes to
Explosion Craters Precinct. Visits to this precinct need the
most logistical preparation and fitness. It is primarily offered
for volcano adventurers and best arranged as a guided day or
overnight trip. There is no doubt that this precinct offers the
greatest value to see dramatic and highly diverse arid, desert
landscapes as an added value. The distinguishing feature of
this precinct is that about 10–15 % of the eruptive products
and the volcanoes of the AMVF were produced either by
more silicic (benmoreitic, mugearitic or trachytic) lava
domes and associated small volume block-and-ash flows
or by explosive eruptions producing large and deep volcanic
craters closely resembling small calderas or large maars
(Moufti et al. 2012a, b). This type of volcanic activity seems
to be concentrated in the centre of the volcanic field in
remote areas, and their estimated eruption age is a few
hundreds of thousands years before present (Moufti et al.
2012a, b). In this respect, this type of volcanism was part of
the near past of the volcanic evolution of the region, and a
vital part of the volcanic landscape of the harrat. Visiting
this precinct will provide a full picture of the type of more
silicic, explosive volcanism experienced at the Harrat Al
Madinah in its past, which can teach us about the possible
volcanic future of the region.
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
Historic Eruption Precinct—1256 and 641 AD Historic
Eruption Sites
Description
The Historic Eruption Precinct provides a great opportunity
for visitors to view the most recent volcanic activity in the
region and get a glimpse of the potential effect of such an
eruption if it were to occur in the future. The Historic
Eruptions Precinct contains the two most recent eruptions
and their products. The two sites are easily accessible from
Al Madinah City, and can be offered as day tours by tour
operators, guided tours or as independent visitors following
provided guides outlined later in this paper. Here, we dem-
onstrate the volcanological features of the Historic
Eruptions Precinct and demonstrate that this location and
its geosites are world-class examples for demonstrating the
effects of effusive and explosive volcanic eruptions trig-
gered by basaltic magmas.
The two historical eruptions and their eruption products,
which are grouped in the youngest volcanic stratigraphy
unit, Qm7, occurred in 641 and 1256 AD near the Holy city
of Al Madinah Al Munawwarah (Fig. 3).
A brief description of the 641 AD eruption is given in an
Arabic book “Wafa Al-Wafa Bi’Akhbar Dar Al-Mustafa”
written by Nooruddin Ali Bin Ahmed Al-Samhoodi
(Al-Samhoody 1440–1506 A.D). The description states that
during the reign of the second Rashidi Khalifah Omar bin
A l - K h a t t a b (1 3 – 2 3 A . H . [ H i j r i C a l e n d a r ] 6 3 4 –
644 A.D.[Gregorian Calendar]), a small fire rose from Harrat
Al Madinah and soon died out; this has subsequently been
interpreted as a volcanic eruption. According to the written
accounts (Al-Samhoody 1440–1506 A.D), the 1256 AD his-
torical volcanic eruption was preceded by several locally felt
volcano tectonic tremors and earthquakes for 4 days, followed
by a widely felt strong earthquake on the 5th day, which
severely shook the houses throughout the ancient city of Al
Madinah Al Munawwarah. A powerful volcanic eruption then
occurred around 20 km southeast of the City of Al Madinah Al
Munawwarah and continued for 52 days.
The 1256 AD eruption and its eruption products form a
chain of volcanic cones (Fig. 4a) and NW–SE elongated
areas of lava fields just ∼20 km southeast from the centre of
Al Madinah city (Camp et al. 1987). The eruptive products
are distinctly visible from the air (Fig. 4a) and the most far-
reaching lava flow forms the termination of one of the main
runways of the City’s airport. The results of the 1256 AD
volcanic eruption are clearly visible in the southern outskirt
of the modern city of Al Madinah as branches of lava flows
are cut through and surface rubble is cleared off for road
construction and production of new sections for future de-
velopment. The city margin is now fast approaching the
191
1256 AD eruption site, and therefore its protection is be-
coming more critical. This is also the case for the 641 AD
historic eruption site. This eruption formed a chain of mod-
erate sized scoria cones and some fissure fed lava flows
located in the western edge of the modern city, surrounded
by houses which are quickly becoming part of the modern
city and impacting their pristine volcanic morphology;
therefore their protection is also crucial. The 641 AD erup-
tion site is an easy taxi ride distance from the centre of the
city, and can be visited as a standalone destination or added
to a day trip with a visit to the 1256 AD eruption site as well.
The seven volcanic cones designated to host the core of
the 1256 AD Al Madinah Volcanic Geotop vary in size (cone
volume, cone base, cone height and crater width), creating a
major volcanic complex in the northern extremity of the
volcanic chain (Fig. 4b). Each of the volcanic cones show
evidence of cone crater floor subsidence, crater wall col-
lapse (Fig. 4c) and some degree of rafting of the cone’s outer
flank through lower cone flank lava outbreaks (Fig. 4d). The
southernmost volcanic cone seems to have suffered mechan-
ical spreading due to the emplacement of a lava lake that
would later on break through its fissure axis edges and rafted
part of the structure away, a process commonly recorded in
scoria and lava spatter cones (Németh et al. 2011a, b; Riggs
and Duffield 2008). The northernmost volcanic cone is also
partially open to the north (Fig. 4a) and forms at least four
distinguishable benches of cone inner walls as a result of
repeated rafting, crater floor subsidence and crater rim
rehealing. The lava flows associated with the 1256 AD
eruption is typically and volumetrically dominated by a’a
lava surface textures (Fig. 5a), as a reflection of higher
viscosity and/or rapid flow movement preventing the devel-
opment of clear lava tubes. However, in proximal areas
where lava flow seems to form ponded zones (Fig. 5b),
pahoehoe lava surface textures, such as inflated ponded
zones with tumuli (Fig. 5c), basaltic ropy surfaces, convo-
luted lava fingers and small lava tubes, are common. The
lava flows form truncated flow surface textures in areas
where the flows break out from elevated ponded zones and
cascade down on steep slopes, leaving behind typical a’a
lava surface textures (Fig. 5d). Channelised a’a lavas are
also common, as they engulf rafted blocks transported away
from the cone rims earlier. The lava flows are estimated to
be about 4–10 m thick and their composition is typically
alkali basalt with plagioclase and olivine phenocrysts
grouped in three distinct chemical groups (low K, high K
and hybrid types) as a reflection of various magma sources
from various levels from chemically stratified reservoirs as
well as subsurface and near-surface mixing of these melts
(for detailed chemical data, see Camp et al. 1987).
The 1256 AD Al Madinah Volcanic Geotop offers excel-
lent individual volcanic geosites which can promote
192 Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206

Fig. 3 Close up map of ‘The

Historic Eruptions’ precinct on
Google Earth image. White
arrows mark the “harram” area
restricted for Muslims only.
Black arrows mark major ring
roads from where the two
historic eruption site (marked
with yellow circle) can be
accessed easily marking the
main intersection of motorways
(red circle). Dashed arrow
shows the main pathway of the
1256 AD lava flows

volcanological knowledge on the evolution of a fissure fed
lava fountain-dominated volcanic eruption. A walking cir-
cuit is offered that can be taken in a full-day guided or
independent trip across the fissure and would cover about
6 km in distance, about 100 m of relative elevation differ-
ences and a terrain pristine and completely exposed. Along
the proposed walking track, volcanic features such as lava
tumuli, rootless cones, lava tubes, lava spatter cone, pit
craters, lava lake benches, crater wall collapses, lava flow
outbreaks, rafted cone blocks, various lava surface textures,
lava bomb fields and the extensive tephra blanket can be
visited. Such locations are easy to arrange into an

Fig. 4 a Air view of the volcanic chain of the 1256 AD eruption site.
Red dot mark a lava flow outbreak that formed channelised a’a lava
toward two directions (yellow arrows). Note the steps in the inner
crater slope as a result of repeated subsidence of the crater due to lava
lake drain (dashed arrows). A circle shows a zone of rafter cone flank.
Yellow circle marks the view shown on “B”. b Looking toward the
main fissure-aligned crater of the northernmost volcanic complex of
the AD 1256 eruption site. Arrow points to a lava rampart formed upon
lava lake draw back. c Evidences of collapsing crater walls such as
fractures, striation marks (white arrows) and squeeze ups (yellow
arrow) are common in the crater rim of the main crater (red arrow)
of the AD 1256 eruption site. Circle shows a cross-sectional view of a
clastogenic lava unit. d Typical a’a lava surface morphology in a small
lava outbreak
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
Fig. 5 a Typical a’a lava
surface next to a pahoehoe lava
flow. b Ponded and drained
pahoehoe lava field with lava
benches (red arrow) in its
margin. c Pahoehoe lava flow
inflation and deflation is
evidenced by the presence of
numerous lava tumuli and drain
back features. d Solidified a’a
lava flow cascaded down from
the centre of the fissure-fed
eruptions
educational walking path and explanation of their formation
can be provided in various forms such as panels, smart
phone applications and educational leaflets.
Scientific Value and Uniqueness
While lava spatter and scoria cones are among the most
common volcanic landforms on Earth, to see perfectly ex-
posed and unmodified landforms is becoming increasingly
difficult because they are either remotely located, have
suffered from significant anthropogenic modifications or
they are in areas where the vegetation cover inhibits views
of the original landscapes. The Historic Eruption Precinct—
1256 AD and 641 AD Historic Eruption Sites precinct of the
proposed HAMVG comprises volcanic landforms that are
well exposed, easy to access and record a unique volcanic
process associated with a sustained fissure-fed volcanic
eruption which are considered to be the last volcanic erup-
tion in the Arabian Peninsula. Volcanic phenomena repre-
sented in this precinct include the results of prolonged lava
fountain fed eruptions, such as cone rafting and associated
lava lake infill and drain back, as well as lava flow out-
breaks at various points on the fissure–axis edges of the
developed volcanic cones. The variety of volcanic features
associated with lava fountain type volcanic eruptions is
great and ranges from identification of traces of lava–lake
level fluctuations in the inner crater walls and clastogenic
(rootless) lava flow formation through rapid accumulation
of lava spatter in the inner and proximal outer flank of the
volcanic cones, to rock records that document fully devel-
oped and well established volcanic conduit conditions pro-
moted by Strombolian style magmatic gas bubble outburst-
193
driven explosive dispersal of pyroclasts, forming extensive
tephra blankets (Valentine and Gregg 2008; Valentine et al.
2007). This geotop, therefore, will be a significant educa-
tional site, where visitors can learn about the complexity of
magmatic effusive and explosive eruption styles that may
occur along a long lived and evolving fissure, the interaction
between effusive and explosive stages of eruptions, as well
as the link between changes of eruptive rate and the
resulting volcanic landform (and landscape) and the dynam-
ic processes that may take place in volcanic craters. The
proximity and easy access to the Historic Eruption Precinct
—1256 AD and 641 AD Historic Eruption Sites to the city,
coupled with the young age of the eruptions and the histor-
ical documentation, make this site the perfect location for
providing eye-opening evidence of the style of eruptions the
region may face in the future.
Lava Lakes, Lava Fountains and Volcano Spreading
Precinct—The Mosawdah Volcano
Description
This proposed precinct focuses on a single location that can
be accessed only by 4WD tours. It is relatively far from Al
Madinah city, but a well-maintained 4WD track leads
straight to the crater rim of a spectacular volcano (Fig. 6).
On the way to this location, the visitor will be able to see
other lava spatter cones and extensive lava fields with tu-
muli, surface features and flat ephermal river and lake beds.
The site can be visited as a single full-day trip or can be
combined with a short morning visit to the Historic
Eruption Precinct—1256 AD and 641 AD Historic
194
Eruption Sites and then a visit to the Lava Lakes, Lava
Fountains and Volcano Spreading Precinct—The
Mosawdah Volcano. Due to the fact that this site requires
four-wheel drive transportation and a level of fitness to cope
with desert climate conditions, it is recommended that visits
to this precinct are offered as organised tours.
Mosawdah volcano (24°14′10″N, 39°47′51″E; 1,010 m
asl) is a complex nested lava spatter cone (Fig. 7a) with
multiple crater rims, spreading fractures across the eruptive
products surrounding the main crater (Fig. 7b) and an at
least 30 m deep, perpendicular walled pit crater exposing a
welded and rheomorphic lava spatter rim (Fig. 7c). The
volcanic cone of Mosawdah volcano itself represents a
single well-defined geotop where several individual geosites
can be defined in accordance with the visible volcanological
features. Each potential geosite is within walking distance of
the other. The volcano has been assigned to be ∼0.6 Ma and
4500 B.P. (Camp and Roobol 1989) in age, based on relative
stratigraphy relationships with nearby volcanic landforms.
At least three concentric nested crater rims can be identi-
fied around the main pit crater (Fig. 7a). Each crater rim
has a steep, near-perpendicular crater wall and relatively
flat outward dipping outer rim (Fig. 7b). The entire vol-
cano appears as a large (about 700 m wide) nested
Fig. 6 Overview of the proximity of the Mosawdah volcano on Google
Earth image. Yellow arrows point to a main sealed road, while white
arrows follow dirt road access to the main geotop of the “Lava lakes and
lava fountains” precinct
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
volcanic landform with multiple craters (Fig. 7a). In this
respect, Mosawdah shows some similarities to the AD
1256 nested volcanic cones (Figs. 4a and 7). However,
Mosawdah provides a more graphic example of an eruption
that produced fast-moving, large-volume lava flows, high
eruption rate driven lava fountaining and a complete
rheomorphism of the accumulated pyroclasts (Figs. 7c and d)
along the active vents, similar to those that have been
described during the Izu Oshima eruption in Japan in 1986
(Sumner 1998).
The likely eruption scenario that formed this volcanic
landform differs from the eruptive scenario expected on
the basis of the syn-eruptive volcanic landforms of the AD
1256 eruption site. The Mosawdah volcano is open toward
the northwest (Fig. 7a), from where a ∼10 km long lava flow
initiated towards the SW at about the same elevation from
the outside flank of the cone as the base of the central pit
crater. The lava flows are relatively thin (few metres) tube
fed pahoehoe flows and channelized a’a lavas that spread
broadly across the low lying areas around the cone. The lava
fields are clearly visible from the top of this geotop and
provide a spectacular view of a lava flow field that partially
engulfs the central cone, leading to its gradual spreading and
rafting. The main volcanic cone is about ∼0.6 km in diam-
eter at the base, with a maximum height of ∼50 m,
suggesting some sort of gradual spreading of the cone on
top of a hot and fluid lava base.
The Mosawdah proximal crater rim forming successions
are typical for fast accumulating lava spatters that locally
form welded and clastogenic zones that squeezed re-melted
material between individual lava spatter clasts (Figs. 7c and
d). The outline of lava spatters can be recognised; however,
their recognition is becoming increasingly difficult toward
the centre of the volcano (Sumner et al. 2005; Wolff and
Sumner 2000). This facies architecture indicates that the
volcano erupted dominantly lava fountains, which must
have been relatively low (in the range of up to tens to few
hundreds of metres) in order to be able to retain enough heat
upon landing to allow the lava spatters to agglutinate and
weld together locally, feeding clastogenic lava flows (Wolff
and Sumner 2000). The near-continuous section exposed in
each of the preserved inner crater walls suggests no time
break or interruption in lava fountaining (Fig. 7c). The fast
accumulation of lava spatters and the ongoing clastogenic
lava flow formation must have generated an inferno in the
proximal areas of the volcano, providing a soft, molten base
to slowly slide and spread apart the cone itself, promoting
repeated lava lake drawbacks, refill, volcanic sector dilation
and partial cone rafting (Wolff and Sumner 2000). On the
basis of this reconstructed volcanic eruptive scenario, this
location can be viewed as a unique geotope and defined as
the Lava Lakes, Lava Fountains and Volcano Spreading
Precinct—The Mosawdah Volcano.
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206 195

Fig. 7 a Aerial view of the

Mosawdah volcano shows the
volcano’s partially collapsed and
rafted volcanic cone architecture.
Yellow circle marks the main
parking for 4WD cars. Arrow
points to the main pit crater. b
Close up aerial view of the main
pit crater of the Mosawdah
volcano. Arrows point to lava
spatter rampart along the pit crater
(1). In the outer crater rim
agglutinated spatter is common
(2) that tend to collapse crater-
ward (3). Radial fracture network
also visible as a sign of the
gradual collapse of the volcanic
edifice (dashed arrow). c Lava
spatter rampart along the main pit
crater. Note the lava bomb zone
slightly off from the crater
marked by an arrow. d
Agglutinated lava spatter layers
form the outer cone

Scientific Value and Uniqueness
Large lava spatter cones are common volcanic landforms
associated with extensive low viscosity basaltic eruptions on
intra-continental to ocean island settings (Bertotto et al.
2006; Kereszturi and Németh 2012; Stárková et al. 2011;
Thordarson and Self 1993). There are numerous, well de-
scribed examples of active lava spatter cone formation from
Hawaii (Lefevre et al. 1991; Parfitt and Wilson 1994; Parfitt
et al. 1995) or Iceland (Thordarson and Self 1993). Lava
spatter cone remnants are common volcanic landforms
among many of the Miocene to Pleistocene European or
western US intra-continental volcanic fields where they are,
however, commonly heavily vegetated and only sporadic
outcrops of preserved rocks are visible.
The Mosawdah volcano offers a perfectly exposed, non-
vegetated, large volume example of the result of lava spatter
eruptions. Mosawdah volcano also has a regional signifi-
cance in terms of understanding the full spectrum of volca-
nic processes in the Harrat Al Madinah. The volcanism that
created the Mosawdah volcano represents an end-member
of the eruptive style spectrum, characterised by continuous
and prolonged activity of relatively low lava fountains that
provided fast accumulation of lava spatter around the active
vent(s), promoting the formation of localised agglutinate
and clastogenic lava flows. The high heat source and the
fast accumulation rate of lava spatter, in concert with a
stable lava lake in the centre of the volcano, created a
ductile, partially molten base of the volcano, promoting
gradual spreading and repeated lava lake drain-back and
infill associated with extensive lava flow outbreaks. In this
respect, the Mosawdah volcano is probably the best exposed
and easiest to access site in the Harrat Rahat, providing an
insight into an active lava fountain and lava lake driven
eruption style that was common in the eruptive history of
many of its volcanoes. Therefore, Mosawdah volcano and
the proposed precinct around it have a significant
geoeducational value, demonstrating the highly effusive,
moderately explosive style of volcanism the region has
experienced in the past and could experience in the future.
From Silicic Lava Domes to Explosion Craters Precinct
Description
Explosive volcanic processes are typically the most hazard-
ous aspect of volcanism to human life and the associated
built environments of a modern society. Explosive volca-
nism registers on a broad scale from weak to highly explo-
sive eruption styles.
The From Silicic Lava Domes to Explosion Craters pre-
cinct offers a very dramatic insight for the visitors into the
eruptive products that result from various types of explosive
volcanism from different magma compositions (Fig. 8).
Explosive volcanism associated with monogenetic intra-
continental volcanic fields is typically caused by magmatic
gas expansion of volatile-rich magmas, commonly more
silicic in composition, and/or by magma–water interaction,
causing phreatomagmatic explosions that form base surges
and other pyroclastic density currents and construct maars
and tuff rings (Valentine and Gregg 2008). The central part
of Harrat Al Madinah contains the best, closely spaced
196
examples demonstrating the results of explosive volcanism
in the form of extensive pyroclastic density current deposits
and broad and deep explosion craters. These violent types of
volcanism are inferred to be several hundreds of thousands
of years old (Moufti et al. 2012a, b), seemingly forming a
concentration of specific volcano types in a remote but
accessible region of the proposed volcanic geopark
(Fig. 8). As it is the furthest precinct from Al Madinah city,
as well as it contains some of the oldest volcanism in the
Harrat Al Madinah, it is logical to offer this precinct as the
last for the visitor. The logistical difficulties in visiting this
precinct also make this location suitable for the more ad-
venturous tourist with higher levels of fitness. However,
visitors to the precinct will be rewarded with probably the
most dramatic, and one of the most unique, volcanic land-
scapes anywhere on Earth.
As is typical of arid areas with limited ground and
surface water availability, the Al Madinah volcanic field
has dominantly produced scoria cones, spatter cones and
large lava flows, all derived from “dry” magmatic erup-
tions as presented in the previous two precincts (Camp and
Roobol 1989). However, climate changes over the lifespan
of a volcanic field (millions of years) can dramatically
change the hydrology and hydrogeology of the region
and an otherwise “dry” eruption style-dominated field
can quickly can be switched to a “wet” eruption dominated
system, even without requiring dramatic magmatic com-
position changes (Kereszturi et al. 2011). As a result, such
volcanic fields can produce phreatomagmatic volcanoes
such as maars and tuff rings.
The Gura 1 volcano in the northern part of the precinct
(Fig. 8) is a typical example of a “simple” explosion crater,
which is a low-rimmed crater of 600 m diameter that has
been partly overlapped by later a’a lava flows with abundant
tumuli (Fig. 9a). The crater rim of Gura 1 exposes pyroclas-
tic surge-dominated sequences and extremely poorly sorted
explosion breccias that are dominated by a range of country
rock lithologies. The deposits of the Gura 1 crater are
confined to the rim around the crater and quickly pinch
out over a few hundreds of metres from its crater rim.
There are no widespread pyroclastic deposits (neither fall
nor flow) associated with this crater, indicating that its
formation was dominantly controlled by the explosive in-
teraction of rising magma and ground water where the
explosions generated ground-hugging base surges that trav-
elled a few hundreds of metres from their source. The basal
deposits of the tuff ring are dominated by dense, angular
trachytic lithologies, indicating the presence of silicic lava
dome associated rocks beneath the vents that were disrupted
by the explosive eruptions through the formation of Gura 1.
Gura 1 can be interpreted as a shallow maar volcano, and
highlights the potential effect of the presence of ground
water on the resulting volcanic landform.
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
Gura 2 volcano is a large volcanic crater (Figs. 8 and 9b)
that has produced the most widespread pyroclastic flow
deposits in the area of the proposed precinct. The wide-
spread pyroclastic deposits cover the surrounding low lands
and climb over small obstacles, and can be traced high up on
distant and tall volcanic cones (Figs. 8 and 9c). The pyro-
clastic flow deposits’ light colour provides a dramatic land-
scape to the area that the visitor cannot miss (Fig. 9c). The
pyroclastic flow-forming eruption style and the silicic
(trachytic) composition of the magma involved in this erup-
tion make Gura 2 volcano a unique place where a devastat-
ing and significant landscape-modifying volcanic eruption
can be demonstrated to the visitors. This is a fundamental
concept in the design of this precinct, because the general
preconception for the eruption style and eruption effect of a
mafic intra-continental volcanic field is generally mildly
explosive and largely effusive. While this is certainly the
case for the latest eruptions of the Harrat Rahat presented in
the previous two precincts, Gura 2 volcano provides a
graphic example that highly destructive and explosive erup-
tions took place in the Harrat Al Madinah in the not-too-
distant pass (about 0.7 Ma).
Gura 2 is also a spectacular volcanic landform with
enormous aesthetic and adventure volcanic tourism values.
It consists of a crater of 500 m diameter within a tuff ring of
700–800 m diameter (Fig. 9d). The inner crater wall at the
eastern edge of the volcano exposes an earlier constructed
evolved basaltic cone and lava flow complex, which was cut
in half by the explosion and potential crater floor subsidence
(Fig. 9d). While the crater gives the impression that its floor
is below the syn-eruptive landscape, spot elevation measure-
ments and views mostly from the north confirm that it is
actually about 70–100 m above it. The entire tuff ring forms
a low-angle outward-dipping rim that is gradually
transforming into a pyroclastic flow deposit-covered land-
scape mantling successions traceable over at least 2 km to a
maximum of 3.8 km (Figs. 9a and b). The primary pyro-
clastic deposits also form reworked pyroclastic fans which
enter into neighbouring valleys, providing a valuable, per-
fectly exposed volcanic facies association traceable from the
source to its reworked fans. Gura 2 volcano in this respect
embodies not only unique volcanological aspects of the
intra-continental volcanism of the Harrat Al Madinah, but
also gives an opportunity to study the interaction between
pyroclastic flows and pre-existing topography, as well as
post-depositional reworking processes.
The accumulated pyroclastic successions are perfectly
exposed and the lack of vegetation cover makes it a perfect
playground for experts and general public to investigate the
effect and style of pyroclastic flow deposit accumulation.
There are very limited variations on the general stratigraphy
of the Gura 2 pyroclastic succession which tends to be
simpler in distal areas. Its basal pyroclastic units are
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206 197

Fig. 8 Google Earth image of

the third precinct named as
“From Silicic Lava Domes to
Explosion Craters”. Yellow
arrows mark the sealed access
road. Black dashed line follows
dirt road visitors can access the
various geosites and geotops of
this precinct (white dots and
name labels). White dashed
lines mark sections where
moderate level walking is
required to access specific
views of the geosites and
geotops

dominated by dense, slabby greenish grey aphanitic to
crystal-rich trachyte with variable amount of exotic acciden-
tal lithologies, such as basaltic scoria picked up and/or
excavated below, moderately metamorphosed syenite and
other shallow and deep crustal rocks. This basal unit is
similar in texture, but richer in juvenile particles and larger
in volume, than the basal units documented from Gura 1
volcano. This unit is capped by a complex sequence of fine-
grained pyroclastic flow deposits interbedded with some
pyroclastic dry surge deposits and minor falls.
The top of the section contains at least one (occasionally
up to three) massive pyroclastic flow units with an increas-
ingly vesicular juvenile particle content. Localised welding-
and bed-specific flattening of moderately vesicular juvenile
lapilli is common in deep valleys. Gura 2 volcano provides a
more violent and complex eruption scenario in comparison
to Gura 1. It is inferred to be initiated by an explosive
interaction of trachyte intrusion with ground water, leaving
behind the basal dense, green breccia. The initial vent open-
ing was quickly followed by eruptive phases producing

Fig. 9 a Gura 1 simple

explosion crater from air; b
Gura 2 crater view with a cross-
sectional view of a pre-crater
scoria and lava cone; c view
toward the south from Gura 2
crater rim with far reaching
pyroclastic flow blanket
covering the southern area of
Gura 2 volcano (black arrows);
d the outer flank of the Gura 2
crater exposes thick pyroclastic
successions formed by
phreatomagmatic base surge
forming explosive eruptions
and magmatic gas-driven
pyroclastic-flow (block-and-ash
flow) generating explosive
eruptions
198 Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206

pyroclastic flows that travelled up to several kilometres. The

initial cratering and un-roofing that was probably triggered
by phreatomagmatism was followed by volatile-rich tra-
chyte magma emplacement, triggering a series of explosive
eruptions, generating dense and particle-charged, “heavy”
eruption clouds—probably about 3–10 km tall—that quick-
ly collapsed and inundated an area of about 20 km2 by
pyroclastic flow and surge deposits.
Gura 3 volcano is another volcanic crater in this precinct
(Fig. 8); it has a crater diameter of about 500 m (Fig. 10a) and
similar geometry and deposits as documented for Gura 1. The
crater rim exposes pyroclastic surge deposits and consists of
rare dense trachyte-dominated juvenile pyroclasts that are
predominantly accidental lithics clasts of altered syenite and
meta-sedimentary rocks. A small spine-like trachytic lava
dome occupies the centre of the flat crater floor and indicates
that in the late stage of the eruption, after the crater formed,
some degassed melt was able to squeeze through (Fig. 10b).
The laterally restricted deposits of the Gura 3 volcano are
covered by pyroclastic flow deposits derived from the Gura
2 volcano, providing a relative stratigraphic age; however,
there is no evidence of significant erosion and/or soil forma-
tion on top of the Gura 3 and below the Gura 2 deposits.
Similarly to Gura 1, Gura 3 is also the result of an explosive
interaction between rising trachytic magma and ground water.
Altogether the Gura 1, 2 and 3 volcanoes provide a very
graphic and distinctly different example of the volcanism of Fig. 10 a Aerial view of the Gura 3 maar formed by magma–water
the Harrat Al Madinah and provide real evidence that the interaction-driven explosive eruption. Gura 1 and 2 craters are also marked
otherwise calm, and moderately explosive nature generally on the view. b Small trachytic lava dome in the crater of Gura 3 maar
envisaged for intra-continental monogenetic volcanism may
need some revision. Further toward the east, there are other intra-continental systems that are commonly referred to as
similar volcanic craters as Gura 1–3; however, they are more monogenetic fields (Brenna et al. 2011).
remote and less accessible and so have not been included in In the proposed precinct, three well-distinguished and
the proposed geopark at this stage, but could be a possibility easy-to-access trachytic lava domes are included. In addi-
for future expansion. tion, from the top of Gura 2 volcano, distant lava domes can
Beside the dramatic volcanic landscapes of the explosion be seen toward the east and northeast (Fig. 11a). The pre-
craters, the From Silicic Lava Domes to Explosion Craters cinct allows the physical processes associated with lava
Precinct includes truly unique volcanic landforms that record dome formation to be compared, with cryptodomes through
silicic lava dome formation and associated features. It is an to explosion craters, and complex volcanic structures show-
interesting aspect of the Harrat Al Madinah’s volcanism, ing evidence for multiphase, and commonly multi-chemical
which has global significance, that silicic (mostly trachytic) (basaltic to trachytic), eruptions.
lava domes have been produced in the same region where In the NW entry to the precinct, an unsurfaced road
basaltic scoria and lava spatter cone forming eruptions were follows a dry valley that connects to a broad alluvial fan
dominant (Moufti and Hashad 2005; Moufti et al. 2012a, b). which is bordered by the large Matan lava dome (Figs. 8 and
There has been a diverse range of silicic volcanism through 11b). The latter is a complex volcano with a basal diameter
non-explosive lava dome eruptions to block-and-ash flow of about 1.8 km. The dome is clearly a composite lava dome
generating violent eruptions (Moufti 1985). Seeing these fea- recording multiple styles of silicic magma emplacement that
tures coexisting with features from basaltic and trachytic range from rigid to more plastic emplacement. Lava dome
monogenetic volcanism, is one of the most geologically in- rock facies are diverse as a reflection of variously degassed
triguing aspects of the proposed geopark, in terms of under- and viscous trachyte being emplaced in a relatively confined
standing the origin of the evolved volcanism in the dispersed, area. Lithological domains can be seen in outcrops and they
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206 199

Fig. 11 a Large trachytic lava

dome next to Gura 1 crater. Note
the gentle sloping pyroclastic
deposit blanket in the northern
flank of the Gura 2 voclano. b
Matan lava dome complex from
the air showing a wide crater in
its western edge (arrow) and
multiple trachytic domes. Yellow
dot indicates access point from
where walking is required to see
the crater. c Mouteen lava dome
formed inside of an older scoria
cone. Sealed access road
(arrows) and 4WD track (red
line) are marked on the image. d
Um Junb lava dome in the
eastern side of the Gura 2
volcano were a likely producer
of thick pyroclastic successions.
Note the “constructional” edifice
architecture of the Gura 2
volcano visible from the north

are commonly reflected by colour differences in the exposed
rocks. The lava dome itself is dominated by coherent lava
dome cores with some rockfall and lava dome carapace
breccias, some short run-out (<500 m) relatively thin pyro-
clastic flows can be traced around the main body of the lava
dome complex.
On the SW side of the lava dome, a volcanic crater with a
flat floor suggests some initial explosive volcanic eruptions
prior to the emplacement of the main Matan lava dome
complex. This explosion crater is the source of at least two
pyroclastic flow units traceable over a kilometre from the
preserved crater rim. This location not only provides a
graphic example of trachytic lava dome formation, but it
also links the trachytic explosion craters with trachytic lava
dome-forming events, giving an example of the interplay
between dramatically different eruptions styles. Along the
4WD road to the heart of this precinct, just about 3 km from
the Matan lava dome toward the SE, the visitor can view the
Mouteen lava dome (Figs. 8 and 11c) which is smaller
(∼800 m across) and simpler than the Matan lava dome
structure. Interestingly, this lava dome is nearly completely
intruded, invaded and truncated by an earlier basaltic scoria
cone that is exposed in its SE side.
Um Junb is a lava dome complex with a 1.5 km diameter
volcanic cone and lava dome structure (Figs. 8 and 11d). The
pyroclastic cone has been invaded by benmoreitic magma that
formed explosive and effusive eruptive products. The pyro-
clastic record of this volcano indicates an initial explosive
eruption that produced pyroclastic flows that engulfed nearby
obstacles, such as a pre-existing scoria cone that is partially
infilled by the pyroclastic flow deposit. The pyroclastic flow
deposits from Um Junb volcano are restricted and hardly
traceable further than 500 m from the preserved, otherwise
eroded volcanic edifice.
Scientific Value and Uniqueness
This precinct offers some spectacular views of trachytic lava
domes, showing great similarities to other well-known, recently
erupted silicic lava domes, including Unzen in Japan (Kaneko et
al. 2002) and Mount St Helens (USA; Pallister et al. 2005). The
similarity in size, volume and eruptive products of the trachytic
lava domes of the Harrat Al Madinah to those lava domes
generally associated with subduction-related strato and/or com-
posite volcanoes, makes the HAMVG truly unique and globally
significant—a potential “Makkah for Volcanologists” that again
justifies the establishment of the HAMVG and its precincts. The
scientific value of this precinct is self-defined. The perfect
exposures, the lack of vegetable cover, the great visibility and
the numerous longitudinal sections along gullies offer great
research potential in these locations to scale the physical param-
eters of pyroclastic flow-forming eruptions. In addition, the
availability of pyroclastic deposit-engulfed scoria cones and
other morphological obstacles can help to calibrate the energy
budget of pyroclastic flows and therefore the precinct could
serve as an important study location for such volcanological
scaling work. Considering the “monogenetic volcanism” on
display, this precinct offers a dramatically new view that will
200
enable visitors to appreciate the complexity of such volcanism
and see the link between focused (strato- and composite volcano
producing) and dispersed (purely monogenetic volcano produc-
ing) magmatic plumbing system-associated volcanism, which
will potentially make this volcanic geopark globally very
significant.
Discussion on Implementation and Global Links
To promote the above described volcanic features, several
strategies are suggested to target various age, gender, national
and educational backgrounds of potential visitors. The educa-
tional programs are designed to be accessible to a broad
audience and will be offered free of charge or for a low fee
to interested operators. The backbone of the geoeducational
program is providing introductory workshops for tour opera-
tors (Guo et al. 2011), information centres, city council offi-
cers, university lecturers, secondary educational institute
personnel and researchers and human resource managers of
professional organisations. This could be coordinated through
one of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s universities. King
Abdulaziz University (KAU) in Jeddah, for example, has a
long history of research work on the volcanic fields (Harrats)
of Saudi Arabia. KAU also hosts a consulting office that
promotes the concept of geotourism and geoparks in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and therefore would be ideally
placed to facilitate the workshops.
Web Site: www.arabiageoparks.com
The most effective method to disseminate information today
is to utilise internet-based resources, which have been wide-
ly used in many recent geoeducational, geoconservation and
geotourism projects (Yan et al. 2008). To promote the
HAMVG, a new website, called www.arabiageoparks.com,
is planned to be launched soon. This website will act as a
resource centre for visitors and other users (e.g. tour opera-
tors) of the HAMVG, providing easy-to-understand infor-
mation on the geopark’s volcanism, links to interested tour
operators and other end-users who wish to be part of the
geoeducational and geoconservational activities, as well as
serving as a hub which links to sites elsewhere on Earth that
are relevant to the volcanic features and/or geoeducational
purposes of the HAMVG. In addition, the website will
provide links to further information for visitors or re-
searchers wishing to access more in-depth information on
the geology and volcanism of the geopark.
Educational Leaflets
While educational leaflets are considered by some to be
‘old-fashioned’, they remain effective tools to provide basic
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
and correct information on the specific types of geological
features the proposed geopark will promote. Such leaflets
will contain basic maps, GPS coordinates, colour images
and very short descriptions of expected geological features
that a visitor may encounter. Such leaflets have been suc-
cessfully prepared for the Kanawinka Geopark in Australia.
These leaflets will also provide the basic health and safety
information that is especially needed for independent
geotourists wishing to visit the remote areas of the geopark.
Educational/Interpretative Boards at Entry Points to Sites
and Main Regional Transportation Hubs
Educational/interpretative boards are widely used in many
geoparks and nature conservation sites worldwide and they
are considered an effective tool for transferring knowledge
to visitors (Kazancı 2012; Moreira 2012). This form of
information dissemination is particularly effective for ad
hoc visitors. While preparing such resources as a desirable
project, they are generally costly, require regular mainte-
nance and they are difficult to update as new information
becomes available. In addition, educational boards are sus-
ceptible to damage due to weather or vandalism. While
vandalism is rather rare in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
the weather is a major issue since the proposed geopark is
located in an area where the summer temperatures common-
ly approach 50 °C and flash floods or strong sand storms
and wind blasts are also not uncommon. In the first phase of
the development, educational boards will be established
only at major entry points, particularly at the sites which
are expected to be most visited, in particular sites of the
historic eruptions near Al Madinah city. A similar set of
boards to those on-site could be placed at major transporta-
tion hubs, such as airports and bus stations, where visitors
are expected to arrive to visit the region.
Smart Phone Applications
Smart phones (and web-capable tablets, notebooks, etc.) are
widespread and increasingly accessible for the general pub-
lic. In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the mobile phone
network is well-developed, and in many major centres cur-
rently being upgraded for 4G capability. Mobile internet
hotspots and/or free or low-service charge WIFI internet
access are common in many tourist accommodation spots,
as well as in specific parts of towns. Mobile network cov-
erage is good, in spite of the large distances and low popu-
lation densities outside of major urban areas. The territory of
the proposed HAMVG is well covered by mobile networks,
with the exception of the proposed From Silicic Lava
Domes to Explosion Craters Precinct, whose remote loca-
tion and hillside shadow zones can interfere with mobile
phone coverage In the main urban area of Al Madinah city,
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
however, internet can be accessed easily through any mobile
3G/4G or WIFI capable devices. On the basis of this devel-
oped technological background, it is a logical to put most of
the information on the Harrat Al Madinah onto a mobile-
compatible website (as discussed above). The information
will be in a form that is downloadable, to enable visitors to
access the information on their mobile devices, ideally prior
to departure to visit the precincts of the geopark, should they
not wish to access the internet while in the park.
Development of smart phone applications is also suggested.
Examples of such applications are interactive maps, geosite
descriptions, and a volcanological dictionary that are closely
linked with real-time weather forecasts, sunset/sunrise times
and moon phase information, as well as emergency “what to
do” information. These smart phone applications could be
accessed by a nominal low fee, similar to other smart phone
applications.
Organisation of Information Flow Through Local
and Global Travel Agencies
One of the most important aspects of the success of the
HAMVG project is to link information providers to end
users. This can be coordinated and achieved by working
closely with the appropriate governmental agencies in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To increase the number of inter-
national visitors, licensed designated travel agencies need to
be linked with the activities offered at the proposed geopark.
To facilitate this program, regular training sessions and
workshops, with field visits, will be held, where, beside
the geological information specific to the area, some basic
training will also be given on volcanology, nature and
specifically geoconservation. These workshops should be
designed, organised and provided regularly by an expert edu-
cational institute. It is anticipated that this geoeducational
program for tour operators will ensure a slow but steady
increase in the numbers of participants in nature conservation
and geoeducation programs.
Global links
The Harrat Al Madinah Volcanic Geopark has many com-
plementary features to those found in many other geoparks
around the world and there is a unique opportunity to link it
with other geoconservation sites on intra-continental mono-
genetic volcanic fields. Examples of possible partner
geoparks include the Kanawinka Global Geopark in
Australia (www.kanawinkageopark.org.au), Jeju Island
Geopark (www.geopark.jeju.go.kr), Nógrád/Novohrad
Geopark on the border of Hungary and Slovakia
(www.nogradgeopark.eu), Bakony–Balaton Geopark in
H u n g a r y ( w w w.b ak on y-b al a t o n-g eo pa r k .e u) an d
Vulkaneifel Geopark in Germany (www.geopark-
201
vulkaneifel.de). Not all features of each of these geoparks
are relevant to each of the precincts of the proposed HAMVG
but many of them share similarities with the volcanism on
show in one or more of the HAMVG precincts.
The Historic Eruption Precinct—1256 AD and 641 AD
Historic Eruption Sites and its proposed geoeducational
programs could be easily linked to other similar sites around
the world, such as Bakony–Balaton Geopark in Hungary
and the Wudalianchi Geopark in China (http://
english.wdlc.com.cn). The chain of well-exposed volcanic
cones in the Craters of the Moon National Monument in
Idaho (www.nps.gov/crmo/) also shows similar volcanolog-
ical features to the Historic Eruption Precinct—1256 AD
and 641 AD Historic Eruption Sites. In addition, a similar
scenario is known from a few volcanic cones on natural
protected areas in Lanzarote (Carracedo et al. 1992; Kervyn
et al. 2012) and Tenerife (Kereszturi et al. 2012a, b; Paez
2010), both in Canary Islands, Spain or Laki Fissure in
Iceland (Thordarson and Self 1993). Scoria cones and sim-
ilar intra-continental monogenetic volcanic landforms are
organised and arranged in Geoparks in the Eifel, Germany
(www.geopark-vulkaneifel.de) or in the Kanawinka
Geopark in Australia (www.kanawinkageopark.org.au).
These sites, however, are generally covered with dense
vegetation or grassland and, while the original volcanic
landforms are young and well-preserved, the accessibility
and visibility of the syn-eruptive volcanic landforms are
more difficult than in the proposed sites near Al Madinah.
In addition, the Nógrád/Novohrad Geopark on the border of
Hungary and Slovakia (www.nogradgeopark.eu) has volca-
nic features associated with monogenetic volcanism, but
these can only be seen on eroded volcanic landforms, where
the core of a scoria cone, lava spatter cone or tuff ring core is
exhumed due to erosion. Similar connections with the pro-
posed HAMVG can be drawn from the protected volcanic
sites of the Auckland Volcanic Field in New Zealand or the
UNESCO World Heritage Site of Jeju Island in Korea.
However, these sites are also heavily vegetated and the
syn-eruptive volcanic features are commonly obscured.
The Mosawdah volcano and the proposed precinct
around it could serve as an ideal analogue site to study other
similar, but less accessible, volcanic landforms and volcanic
phenomena. For example, the Craters of the Moon in Idaho
and several lava spatter and scoria cones in the San
Francisco volcanic field in Arizona could be viewed as
prominent analogues to the eruption styles documented at
the Mosawdah volcano. Forming links with such sites
through coordinated geoeducational strategies would pro-
vide benefits to the international research effort to under-
stand lava spatter cone formation, lava effusion and cone
instability caused by a partially molten base of a volcano
during the course of its eruption. In addition, Mosawdah
volcano could also be linked and compared with modern
202
lava spatter forming eruption analogies from Hawaii and
Iceland.
The volcanic features ready to be studied in the “From
Silicic Lava Domes to Explosion Craters Precinct” can be
linked with other geoeducational and geoconservation pro-
grams on silicic volcanism elsewhere. Commonly, such
volcanic features are associated with subduction-related vol-
canism that has a different origin but similar manifestation
to that volcanism this precinct can show. Possible
geoeducational exchange programs could be established
with the Unzen Volcanic Area Global Geopark in Japan
(www.unzen-geopark.jp). While the geological setting is
strikingly different between the Harrat Al Madinah and
Unzen, the resulting volcanic landforms and associated vol-
canic eruption styles are very similar. There are also poten-
tial links between this precinct and the Jeju Island Geopark
and UNESCO World Heritage site. Jeju Island is also the
home of numerous silicic lava domes and scoria cones
together forming an extensive volcanic field formed over
the past 1 Ma (Brenna et al. 2011).
Fig. 12 Diagrammatic summary of volcanic features the Harrat Al Madinah Volcanic Geopark and its three precincts can offer for the visitors to
see. The three levels of precincts offer a geologically logical array of volcanism to be studied for the visitors
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
Conclusion
The proposal and establishment of the HAMVG is the first
such attempt in the territory of the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. The success of this project will be likely to affect
future geoconservation and geoeducational projects planned
elsewhere in the Kingdom and potentially could provide an
example for future similar activities elsewhere in the
Arabian Peninsula. The impact of the proposed geopark on
geotourism is expected to be huge. The Harrat Al Madinah’s
volcanic geology is the perfect place to see a wide array of
volcanic features, dramatic volcanic landscapes and the
interaction between the extreme climate and volcanic land-
forms associated with intra-continental monogenetic volca-
nism (Fig. 12). The Harrat Al Madinah is a globally unique
intra-continental monogenetic volcanic field due to (1) the
large number of young (<1 Ma) monogenetic volcanoes it
hosts,( 2) the wide range of chemical compositions of mag-
ma that formed the specific volcano types (from basaltic to
trachytic), (3) the diverse eruption styles (e.g. from
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
Hawaiian- and Strombolian-style magmatic explosive erup-
tions to phreatomagmatic maar and/or tuff ring forming
eruptions) and (4) the dramatically different volcanic land-
forms and associated volcanic rocks (e.g. from lava spatter
cones and scoria cones to trachytic maar volcanoes and lava
domes) that can be seen in a perfectly exposed manner. The
diversity of volcano types in the proposed geopark that can be
visited and seen perfectly is probably among the greatest
amongst other intra-continental monogenetic volcanic fields.
It is suggested that the proposed geopark is linked informally
with geoeducation, geoconservational and geotouristic activ-
ities conducted and promoted by potential “sister geoparks”
elsewhere, such as the Bakony–Balaton Geopark (Hungary),
Nógrád/Novohrad Geopark (Slovakia/Hungary), Vulkaneifel
Geopark (Germany), Jeju Island Geopark (Korea), Unzen
Volcanic Area Geopark (Japan), Kanawinka Geopark
(Australia) and Wudalianchi Geopark (China). These “sister
geoparks” demonstrate volcanic features associated with sim-
ilar types of volcanism to the Harrat Al Madinah, but with
differences that make the parks complementary, including the
level of vegetation cover (e.g. vegetation covered maars with
lakes from the Vulkaneifel Geopark that are in contrast with
the Harrat Al Madinah’s dry maars and explosion craters),
exposure level (e.g. exposed volcanic conduits of similar
monogenetic volcanoes to those at the Harrat Al Madinah
are visible in the Bakony–Balaton and Nógrád/Novohrad
Geopark) and variations in volcano types related to variations
in the volcanic eruption styles that formed them (e.g. active
lava domes from Unzen Volcanic Area Geopark or the great
size, shape and volcanic succession variations in Jeju Island,
Korea). Linking and contributing to the coordinating of sci-
entific research, geoeducational and geoconservation pro-
grams and the geotouristic aspects of these “sister” geoparks
would be a desirable approach for the future.
Acknowledgments Part of this research is a direct outcome of the
VORiSA (Volcanic Risk in Saudi Arabia) International Project (Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia and New Zealand). Field work and research on the
subject was financed by the King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah. Careful
reading and comments on the manuscript by Dr Kate Arentsen made the
text more focused and clear. Suggestions of two anonymous journal
reviewers and journal editor, Dr José Brilha are greatly appreciated and
helped to clarify many aspects of the original manuscript.
References
Agustin-Flores J, Siebe C, Guilbaud MN (2011) Geology and geochem-
istry of Pelagatos, Cerro del Agua, and Dos Cerros monogenetic
volcanoes in the Sierra Chichinautzin Volcanic Field, south of
Mexico City. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 201(1–4):143–162
Al-Samhoody NAA (1440–1506 A.D) Wafa Al-Wafa Bi-Akhbar
DarAl-Mustafa. Reprinted (1955) By Mohammad Mohiuddin
Abdul Hamid with comments. Dar Al-Ahya Al-Sarawat Al-
Gharbi: Beirut, Lebanon. pp. 1–776
203
Almond DC (1986) The relation of Mesozoic–Cenozoic volcanism to
tectonics in the Afro-Arabian dome. J Volcanol Geotherm Res
28:225–245
Anonymous (2012) Synthesis: Nomination for inscription on the
World Heritage List—tectono-volcanic ensemble of the Chaine
des Puys and the Limagne fault, France. Conseil général du Puy-
de-Dome, Clermont-Ferrand, France, p 44
Armiero V, Petrosino P, Lirer L, Alberico I (2011) The GeoCaF
Project: proposal of a geosites network at Campi Flegrei (South-
ern Italy). Geoheritage 3:195–219
Austin-Erickson A, Ort MH, Carrasco-Nunez G (2011) Rhyolitic
phreatomagmatism explored: Tepexitl tuff ring (Eastern Mexican
Volcanic Belt). J Volcanol Geotherm Res 201(1–4):325–341
Azman N, Halim SA, Liu OP, Komoo I (2011) The Langkawi Global
Geopark: local community’s perspectives on public education. Int
J Herit Stud 17(3):261–279
Azman N, Halim SA, Liu OP, Saidin S, Komoo I (2010) Public
education in heritage conservation for Geopark community. In:
Jelas ZM, Salleh A, Azman N (eds) International Conference on
Learner Diversity 2010. pp 504–511
Bebbington MS, Cronin SJ (2011) Spatio-temporal hazard estimation
in the Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand, with a new event-
order model. Bull Volcanol 73(1):55–72
Bellahsen N, Faccenna C, Funiciello F, Daniel JM, Jolivet L (2003)
Why did Arabia separate from Africa? Insights from 3-D labora-
tory experiments. Earth Planet Sci Lett 216:365–381
Bertotto GW, Bjerg EA, Cingolani CA (2006) Hawaiian and
Strombolian style monogenetic volcanism in the extra-Andean
domain of central-west Argentina. J Volcanol Geotherm Res
158(3–4):430–444
Bord C, Bertrand H (1995) Geochemistry of recent alkaline volcanism
from Saudi Arabia—relevance to Red Sea rifting. Comptes
Rendus De L Academie Des Sciences Serie Ii 320(1):31–38
Brenna M, Cronin SJ, Németh K, Smith IEM, Sohn YK (2011) The
influence of magma plumbing complexity on monogenetic erup-
tions, Jeju Island, Korea. Terra Nova 23(2):70–75
Brenna M, Cronin SJ, Smith IEM, Sohn YK, Németh K (2010)
Mechanisms driving polymagmatic activity at a monogenetic
volcano, Udo, Jeju Island, South Korea. Contrib Mineral Petrol
160(6):931–950
Brown GF, Schmidt DL, Huffan Jr AC (1989) Geology of the Arabian
Peninsula, shield area of western Saudi Arabia,. U.S. Geological
Survey professional paper 560-A,:1–188
Cajz V, Rapprich V, Erban V, Pecskay Z, Radon M (2009) Late
Miocene volcanic activity in the Ceske stredohori Mountains
(Ohre/Eger Graben, northern Bohemia). Geologica Carpathica
60(6):519–533
Camp VE, Hooper PR, Roobol MJ, White DL (1987) The Madinah
eruption, Saudi Arabia: magma mixing and simultaneous extru-
sion of three basaltic chemical types. Bull Volcanol 49(2):489–
508
Camp VE, Roobol MJ (1989) The Arabian continental alkali basalt
province. 1. Evolution of Harrat Rahat, Rahat, Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. Geol Soc Am Bull 101(1):71–95
Camp VE, Roobol MJ (1992) Upwelling asthenosphere beneath West-
ern Arabia and its regional implications. J Geophys Res Solid
Earth 97(B11):15255–15271
Camp VE, Roobol MJ, Hooper PR (1991) The Arabian continental
alkali basalt province. 2. Evolution of Harrats Khaybar, Ithnayn,
and Kura, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Geol Soc Am Bull
103(3):363–391
Camp VE, Roobol MJ, Hooper PR (1992) The Arabian continental
alkali basalt province. 3. Evolution of Harrat Kishb, Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. Geol Soc Am Bull 104(4):379–396
Camus G, Goer de Herve A, de Kieffer G, Mergoil J, Vincent P (1973)
Nouvelle interpretation du systeme Puy Chopine-Puy des Gouttes
204
(Chaine des Puys, Massif Central francais). C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris
277(D): 1121–1124
Carracedo JC, Rodriguez Badiola E, Soler V (1992) The 1730–1736
eruption of Lanzarote, Canary slands: a long, high-magnitude
basaltic fissure eruption. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 53:239–250
Coleman RG (1993) Geologic evolution of the Red Sea. Oxford mono-
graphs on geology and geophysics, 24. Oxford University Press,
New York, pp 1–186
Coleman RG, Gregory RT, Brown GF (1983) Cenozoic volcanic rocks
of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabian. Deputy Minister of Mineral Re-
sources, Open File Report 590 USGS-OF93:1–82
Connor CB (1987) Structure of the Michoacan–Guanajuato volcanic
field, Mexico. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 33(1–3):191–200
Connor CB (1990) Cinder-cone clustering in the Transmexican volca-
nic belt—implications for structural and petrologic models. J
Geophys Res Solid Earth 95(B12):19395–19405
Connor CB, Conway FM (2000) Basaltic volcanic fields. In: Sigurdsson
H (ed) Encyclopedia of volcanoes. Academic, San Diego,
pp 331–343
Connor CB, Stamatakos JA, Ferrill DA, Hill BE, Ofoegbu GI, Conway
FM, Sagar B, Trapp J (2000) Geologic factors controlling patterns
of small-volume basaltic volcanism: application to a volcanic
hazards assessment at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. J Geophys Res
Solid Earth 105(B1):417–432
Conway FM, Connor CB, Hill BE, Condit CD, Mullaney K, Hall CM
(1998) Recurrence rates of basaltic volcanism in SP Cluster, San
Francisco volcanic field, Arizona. Geology 26:655–658
Coratza P, De Waele J (2012) Geomorphosites and natural hazards:
teaching the importance of geomorphology in society. Geoheritage
4(3):195–203
Deraman A, Yahaya JH, Salim J, Idris S, Komoo I, Leman MS, Unjah
T (2010) A geodiversity repository system based on digital object
modeling: an applied research on Langkawi geoparks. In: Soli-
man KS (ed). Knowledge management and innovation: a business
competitive edge perspective, vols 1–3. pp 1208–1217
Dewey JF, Hempton MR, Kidd WSF, Saroglu F, Sengör AMC (1986)
Shortening of continental lithosphere: the neotectonics of Eastern
Anatolia—a young collision zone. In: Coward MP, Ries AC (eds)
Collision zone tectonics. London Geological Society, London, pp
3–36
Di Vito MA, Arienzo I, Braia G, Civetta L, D’Antonio M, Di Renzo V,
Orsi G (2011) The Averno 2 fissure eruption: a recent small-size
explosive event at the Campi Flegrei Caldera (Italy). Bull
Volcanol 73(3):295–320
Dowling R (2011) Geotourism’s global growth. Geoheritage 3(1):1–13
Drandaki IT, Koutsouveli A, Ioakim C (1997) Geological geomorpho-
logical heritage—geotopes. In: Marinos PG, Koukis GC,
Tsiambaos GC, Stournaras GC (eds). Engineering geology and
the environment vol. 1–3. Athens, Greece, pp 3021–3026
Dubray EA, Stoeser DB, McKee EH (1991) Age and petrology of the
tertiary As Sarat volcanic field, Southwestern Saudi Arabia.
Tectonophysics 198(2–4):155–180
Eder W (1999) UNESCO geoparks—a new initiative for protection
and sustainable development of the Earth’s heritage. Neues
Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie-Abhandlungen 214(1–
2):353–358
Eder W (2008) Geoparks—promotion of earth sciences through
geoheritage conservation, education and tourism. J Geol Soc India
72(2):149–154
Erfurt-Cooper P (2011) Geotourism in volcanic and geothermal envi-
ronments: playing with fire? Geoheritage 3(3):187–193
Fang SM, Li JF, Zhang J, Chang DF (2007) The theory and method
research on the geopark information system building. In: Zhao P,
Agterberg F, Cheng Q (eds). Proceedings of the IAMG ‘07:
Geomathematics and GIS Analysis of Resources, Environment
and Hazards. pp 767–772
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
Fang SM, Tang JY (2010) Information technology and geological
heritage management. In: Duserick F (ed) Ninth Wuhan Interna-
tional Conference on E-Business, Vols I–III. pp 1964–1970
Farsani NT, Coelho C, Costa C (2011) Geotourism and geoparks as
novel strategies for socio-economic development in rural areas.
Int J Tour Res 13(1):68–81
Farsani NT, Coelho C, Costa C (2012) Geotourism and geoparks as
gateways to socio-cultural sustainability in Qeshm rural areas,
Iran. Asia Pacific J Tourism Res 17(1):30–48
Fuertes-Gutierrez I, Fernandez-Martinez E (2012) Mapping geosites
for geoheritage management: a methodological proposal for the
regional park of Picos de Europa (Leon, Spain). Environ Manag
50(5):789–806
Garfunkel Z (1981) Internal structure of the Dead Sea leaky transform
(rift) in relation to plate kinematics. Tectonophysics 80:81–108
Giusti C, Calvet M (2010) The inventory of French geomorphosites
and the problem of nested scales and landscape complexity.
Geomorphologie-Relief Processus Environnement 2:223–244
Gonggrijp GP (1997) Geotope motivation and selection: a way of
objectifying the subjective. In: Marinos PG, Koukis GC,
Tsiambaos GC, Stournaras GC (eds). Engineering geology and
the environment, vols 1–3. pp 2949–2954
Guilbaud MN, Siebe C, Agustin-Flores J (2009) Eruptive style of the
young high-Mg basaltic-andesite Pelagatos scoria cone, southeast
of Mexico City. Bull Volcanol 71(8):859–880
Guo J, Tian MZ, Yang J, Zhang HZ (2011) The training and manage-
ment of tour guides in geopark. In: Hu QM (ed). 2011 Interna-
tional Conference on Education Science and Management
Engineering. pp 1613–1617
Henriques MH, dos Reis RP, Brilha J, Mota T (2011) Geoconservation
as an emerging geoscience. Geoheritage 1–12
Ibrahim KM, Tarawneh K, Rabba I (2003) Phases of activity and
geochemistry of basaltic dike systems in northeast Jordan parallel
to the Red Sea. J Asian Earth Sci 21(5):467–472
Ilani S, Harlavan Y, Tarawneh K, Rabba I, Weinberger R, Ibrahim K,
Peltz S, Steinitz G (2001) New K-Ar ages of basalts from the
Harrat Ash Shaam volcanic field in Jordan: implications for the
span and duration of the upper-mantle upwelling beneath the
western Arabian plate. Geology 29(2):171–174
Isaia R, D’Antonio M, Dell’Erba F, Di Vito M, Orsi G (2004) The
Astroni volcano: the only example of closely spaced eruptions in
the same vent area during the recent history of the Campi Flegrei
caldera (Italy). J Volcanol Geotherm Res 133(1–4):171–192
Jeambrun M (1983) Le puy Chalard et le maar de Laty, appareils
complementaires du systeme phreatomagmatique developpe au
Nord de la Chaine des Puys (Massif Central Francais). Bulletin
De La Societe Geologique De France 25(2):273–275
Joyce B (2009) Geomorphosites and volcanism. In: Reynard E, Coratz
P, Regolini-Bissing G (eds) Geomorphosites. Pfeil, München,
Germany, pp 175–188
Joyce E (2010) Australia’s geoheritage: history of study, a new inven-
tory of geosites and applications to geotourism and geoparks.
Geoheritage 2(1–2):39–56
Kaneko T, Wooster MJ, Nakada S (2002) Exogenous and endogenous
growth of the Unzen lava dome examined by satellite infrared
image analysis. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 116(1–2):151–160
Kazancı N (2012) Geological background and three vulnerable
geosites of the Kızılcahamam–Çamlıdere geopark project in An-
kara, Turkey. Geoheritage 4(4):249–261
Keever PJM, Zouros N (2005) Geoparks: celebrating earth heritage,
sustaining local communities. Episodes 28(4):274–278
Kereszturi G, Jordan G, Németh K, Doniz-Paez JF (2012a) Syn-
eruptive morphometric variability of monogenetic scoria cones.
Bull Volcanol 74(9):2171–2185
Kereszturi G, Németh K (2011) Shallow-seated controls on the evolu-
tion of the Upper Pliocene Kopasz-hegy nested monogenetic
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
volcanic chain in the Western Pannonian Basin (Hungary). Geol
Carpathica 62(6):535–546
Kereszturi G, Németh K (2012) Structural and morphometric irregulari-
ties of eroded Pliocene scoria cones at the Bakony–Balaton High-
land Volcanic Field, Hungary. Geomorphology 136(1):45–58
Kereszturi G, Németh K, Csillag G, Balogh K, Kovács J (2011) The
role of external environmental factors in changing eruption styles
of monogenetic volcanoes in a Mio/Pleistocene continental vol-
canic field in western Hungary. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 201(1–
4):227–240
Kereszturi G, Procter J, Cronin SJ, Németh K, Bebbington M, Lindsay
J (2012b) LiDAR-based quantification of lava flow susceptibility
in the City of Auckland (New Zealand). Remote Sens Environ
125:198–213
Kervyn M, Ernst GGJ, Carracedo JC, Jacobs P (2012) Geomorphometric
variability of “monogenetic” volcanic cones: Evidence from Mauna
Kea, Lanzarote and experimental cones. Geomorphology
136(1):59–75
Kiyosugi K, Connor CB, Zhao D, Connor LJ, Tanaka K (2010) Re-
lationships between volcano distribution, crustal structure, and P-
wave tomography: an example from the Abu Monogenetic Vol-
cano Group, SW Japan. Bull Volcanol 72(3):331–340
Lefevre R, Gaudichet A, Leguern F (1991) Hawaiian lava fountains: a
new source of glassy microspherules, various in chemical com-
position, for atmospheric aerosols. Comparison with Etna.
Comptes Rendus De L Academie Des Sciences Serie Ii
313(1):105–111
Lindsay J (2012) VORiSA: Volcanic Risk in Saudi Arabia: progress
report: March 2011–May 2012. In: IESE REPORT: 17.2012.01.
The University of Auckland, New Zealand. Institute of Earth
Science and Engineering, Uniservices Ltd, The University of
Auckland, Auckland, pp 1–107
Lirer L, Petrosino P, Alberico I (2001) Hazard assessment at volcanic
fields: the Campi Flegrei case history. J Volcanol Geotherm Res
112(1–4):53–73
Liu SW, Tian MZ, Shi WQ (2010) Digital Earth, a new approach for the
geoconservation—case study of Hexigten Global Geopark, Inner
Mongolia. In: Guo H, Wang C (eds) Sixth International Symposium
on Digital Earth: Models, Algorithms, and Virtual Reality.
Lorenz V (1974) On the formation of maars. Bull Volcanol 37(2):183–
204
Lorenz V, Suhr P, Goth K (2003) Maar-Diatrem-Vulkanismus—
Ursachen und Folgen. Die Guttauer Vulkangruppe in Ostsachsen
als Beispiel für die komplexen Zusammenhänge [Maar-diatreme
volcanism—causes and consequences. The Guttau Volcano
Group in eastern Saxony as an example for the complex processes
and relationships]. Zeitschrift für Geologische Wissenschaften,
Berlin 31(4–6):267–312
Martin AJ, Umeda K, Connor CB, Weller JN, Zhao DP, Takahashi M
(2004) Modeling long-term volcanic hazards through Bayesian
inference: an example from the Tohoku volcanic arc, Japan. J
Geophys Res Solid Earth 109(B10)
Martin U, Nemeth K (2004) Mio/Pliocene phreatomagmatic volcanism
in the western Pannonian Basin. Geologica Hungarica, Serie
Geologica 26:192–192
Martin U, Németh K, Lorenz V, White JDL (2007) Introduction: maar-
diatreme volcanism. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 159(1–3):1–3
McGuire AV, Bohannon RG (1989) Timing of mantle upwelling;
evidence for a passive origin for the Red Sea Rift. J Geophys
Res Solid Earth 94:1677–1682
McKenzie D (1978) Active tectonics of the Alpine–Himalayan belt,
the Aegean Sea and surrounding regions. Geophys J Roy Astron
Soc 55:217–254
Moreira J (2012) Interpretative panels about the geological heritage—a
case study at the Iguassu Falls National Park (Brazil). Geoheritage
4(1–2):127–137
205
Moufti MR, Hashad MH (2005) Volcanic hazards assessment of
Saudi Arabian Harrats: geochemical and isotopic studies of
selected areas of active Makkah–Madinah–Nafud (MMN) vol-
canic rocks. Final project Report (LGP-5-27) 679 submitted to
King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia:1–401
Moufti MR, Matsah MI, Soliman MA, Moghazi AM (2011) Arabian
plume dynamics beneath Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah region
and its related geohazards. Final project Report (ARP-26-79)
submitted to King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 1–382
Moufti MR, Moghazi AM, Ali KA (2012a) 40Ar/39Ar geochronology
of the Neogene-Quaternary Harrat Al-Madinah intercontinental
Volcanic Field, Saudi Arabia: implications for duration and mi-
gration of volcanic activity. J Asian Earth Sci. doi:10.1016/
j.jseaes.2012.09.027
Moufti MR, Moghazi AM, Ali KA (2012b) Geochemistry and Sr-Nd-Pb
isotopic composition of the Harrat Al-Madinah Volcanic Field, Saudi
Arabia. Gondwana Res 21(2–3):670–689
Nasir S (1992) The lithosphere beneath the northwestern part of the
Arabian Plate (Jordan)—evidence from xenoliths and geophysics.
Tectonophysics 201(3–4):357–370
Németh K (2010) Monogenetic volcanic fields: origin, sedimentary
record, and relationship with polygenetic volcanism. In: Canon-
Tapia E, Szakacs A (eds) What is a volcano? Geological Society
of America, Boulder, Colorado, pp 43–66
Németh K, Cronin SJ (2009) Volcanic structures and oral traditions of
volcanism of Western Samoa (SW Pacific) and their implications
for hazard education. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 186(3–4):223–
237
Németh K, Cronin SJ, Smith IEM, Flores JA (2012) Amplified hazard
of small-volume monogenetic eruptions due to environmental
controls, Orakei Basin, Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand.
Bull Volcanol 74(9):2121–2137
Németh K, Haller MJ, Siebe C (2011a) Maars and scoria cones: the
enigma of monogenetic volcanic fields. J Volcanol Geotherm Res
201(1–4):V–Viii
Németh K, Risso C, Nullo F, Kereszturi G (2011b) The role of
collapsing and cone rafting on eruption style changes and final
cone morphology: Los Morados scoria cone, Mendoza, Argenti-
na. Central Eur J Geosci 3(2):102–118
Paez JD (2010) The cinder cones of Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain):
implications for volcanic hazard and volcanic risk. Scripta Nova-
Revista Electronica de Geografia y Ciencias Sociales 14(324)
Pallister JS, Thornber CR, Clynne MA, Cashman KV, McGee KA
(2005) Field geology and petrology of the 2004–2005 Mount St.
Helens dome Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 69(10):A271–
A271
Panizza M (2001) Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and examples
of geomorphological survey. Chin Sci Bull 46:4–6
Panizza M (2009) The geomorphodiversity of the dolomites (Italy): a
key of geoheritage assessment. Geoheritage 1(1):33–42
Parfitt EA, Wilson L (1994) The 1983–86 Pu’u’o’o Eruption of Kilau-
ea Volcano, Hawaii—a study of dike geometry and eruption
mechanisms for a long-lived eruption. J Volcanol Geotherm Res
59(3):179–205
Parfitt EA, Wilson L, Neal CA (1995) Factors influencing the height of
Hawaiian lava fountains: implications for the use of fountain
height as an indicator of magma gas content. Bull Volcanol
57(6):440–450
Puga E, Díaz de Federico A, Nieto JM, Díaz Puga MA, Rodríguez
Martínez-Conde JA (2009) The Betic Ophiolitic Association: a
very significant geological heritage that needs to be preserved.
Geoheritage 1(1):11–31
Reynard E, Coratz P, Regolini-Bissing G (2009) In: Friedrich P (ed)
Geomorphosites. Pfeil, München, Germany, p 240
206
Riggs NR, Duffield WA (2008) Record of complex scoria cone erup-
tive activity at Red Mountain, Arizona, USA, and implications for
monogenetic mafic volcanoes. J Volcanol Geotherm Res
178(4):763–776
Risso C, Németh K, Martin U (2006) Proposed geotops on Pliocene to
recent pyroclastic cone fields in Mendoza, Argentina. Zeitschrift
der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft 157(3):477–490
Rodrigues ML, Fonseca A (2010) Geoheritage assessment based on
large-scale geomorphological mapping: contributes from a Portu-
guese limestone massif example. Geomorphologie-Relief
Processus Environnement 2:189–198
Sandri L, Jolly G, Lindsay J, Howe T, Marzocchi W (2012) Combining
long- and short-term probabilistic volcanic hazard assessment
with cost-benefit analysis to support decision making in a volca-
nic crisis from the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand. Bull
Volcanol 74(3):705–723
Schmincke H-U (1977a) Eifel-Vulkanismus ostlich des Gebietes
Rieden-Mayen. Fortschr MIneral 55(2):1–31
Schmincke HU (1977b) Phreatomagmatische Phasen in quartaeren
Vulkanen der Osteifel. Geologisches Jahrbuch. Reihe A: Allgemeine
und Regionale Geologie BR Deutschland und Nachbargebiete,
Tektonik, Stratigraphie, Palaeontologie (39):45–45
Shaw JE, Baker JA, Menzies MA, Thirlwall MF, Ibrahim KM (2003)
Petrogenesis of the largest intraplate volcanic field on the Arabian
plate (Jordan): a mixed lithosphere-asthenosphere source activat-
ed by lithospheric extension. J Petrol 44(9):1657–1679
Sohn YK, Cronin SJ, Brenna M, Smith IEM, Nemeth K, White JDL,
Murtagh RM, Jeon YM, Kwon CW (2012) Ilchulbong tuff cone,
Jeju Island, Korea, revisited: a compound monogenetic volcano
involving multiple magma pulses, shifting vents, and discrete
eruptive phases. Geol Soc Am Bull 124(3–4):259–274
Sohn YK, Park KH (2005) Composite tuff ring/cone complexes in Jeju
Island, Korea: possible consequences of substrate collapse and
vent migration. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 141(1–2):157–175
Stárková M, Rapprich V, Breitkreuz C (2011) Variable eruptive styles
in an ancient monogenetic volcanic field: examples from the
permian levín volcanic field (krkonoše piedmont basin, bohemian
massif). J Geosci 56(2):163–180
Sumner JM (1998) Formation of clastogenic lava flows during fissure
eruption and scoria cone collapse: the 1986 eruption of Izu-
Oshima Volcano, eastern Japan. Bull Volcanol 60:195–212
Sumner JM, Blake S, Matela RJ, Wolff JA (2005) Spatter. J Volcanol
Geotherm Res 142(1–2):49–65
Thordarson T, Self S (1993) The Laki (Skaftar-Fires) and Grimsvotn
eruptions in 1783–1785. Bull Volcanol 55(4):233–263
Valentine GA, Gregg TKP (2008) Continental basaltic volcanoes—
processes and problems. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 177(4):857–
873
Geoheritage (2013) 5:185–206
Valentine GA, Krier DJ, Perry FV, Heiken G (2007) Eruptive and
geomorphic processes at the Lathrop Wells scoria cone volcano.
J Volcanol Geotherm Res 161(1–2):57–80
Voggenreiter W, Hötzl H, Jado A (1988) Red Sea related history of
extension and magmatism in the Jizan area (southwest Saudi
Arabia): indication for simple shear during Red Sea rifting. Geol
Rundsch 77:257–274
Walker GPL (1993) Basaltic-volcano systems. In: Prichard HM,
Alabaster T, Harris NBW, Nearly CR (eds) Magmatic processes
and plate tectonics, special publications. Geological Society, Lon-
don, pp 3–38
Wang LY (2007) Multi-designated geoparks face challenges in China’s
heritage conservation. J Geogr Sci 17(2):187–196
Wehr H (1976) A dictionary of modern written Arabic [An enlarged
and improved version of ‘Arabisches Wörterbuch für die
Schriftsprache der Gegenwart’ and includes the Contents of the
'Supplement zum Arabischen Wörterbuch für die Schriftsprache
der Gegenwart by Otto Harrauowltz, Wiesbaden 1961, 1966,
1971]. Spoken Language Services, Inc., New York, p 492. Third
Edition [ISBN 0-87950-001-8]
Wernicke B (1985) Uniform-sense normal simple-shear of the conti-
nental lithosphere. Canadian J Earth Sci 22:108–125
White JDL (1991) The depositional record of small, monogenetic
volcanoes within terrestrical basins. In: Fisher RV, Smith GA
(eds) Sedimentation in volcanic settings. Society for Sedimentary
Geology, Tulsa (Oklahoma), pp 155–171
Wolff JA, Sumner JM (2000) Lava fountains and their products. In:
Sigurdsson H, Houghton BF, McNutt SR, Rymer H, Stix J (eds)
Encyclopedia of volcanoes. Academic, San Diego, pp 321–329
Xun Z, Milly W (2002) National geoparks initiated in China: putting
geoscience in the service of society. Episodes 25(1):33–37
Yan ZW, Feng W, Cao W, Yang Q (2008) A preliminary study on e-
business system of world geoparks in China. pp 798–802. [978-0-
9800510-0-1]
Yang GF, Chen ZH, Tian MZ, Wu FD, Wray RAL, Ping YM (2011)
On the growth of national geoparks in China: distribution, inter-
pretation, and regional comparison. Episodes 34(3):157–176
Zhao YW, Fan QC, Bai ZD, Sun Q, Li N, Sut JL, Du XX (2008)
Preliminary study on Quaternary volcanoes in the Halaha River
and Chaoer River area in Daxing’an Mountain range. Acta
Petrologica Sinica 24(11):2569–2575
Zouros N (2004) The European geoparks network—geological heri-
tage protection and local development. Episodes 27(3):165–171
Zouros N, Pavlides S, Soulakellis N, Chatzipetros A, Vasileiadou K,
Valiakos I, Mpentana K (2011) Using active fault studies for
raising public awareness and sensitisation on seismic hazard: a
case study from Lesvos Petrified Forest Geopark, NE Aegean
Sea, Greece. Geoheritage 3(4):317–327