Evaluation of the Capabilities and Uses of Geomorphosites (Case Study: Geomorphosites of Tabas County)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant professor of geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate professor of geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant professor of geography, Islamic Azad University, Tabas Branch, Tabas, Iran

4 MA in geography and tourism planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction 
Today, Geotourism is one of the sections of tourism that can be developed in the regions with geologic and geomorphologic attractions. Geotourism and geomorpho-tourism is new branch of responsible tourism based on the use of geological and geomorphological attractions. In addition to the natural attractions, the geotourism consider cultural, economic and ecological values.Responsible tourism emphasizes on the conservation of natural resources and human tourism.  In fact, purpose of geotourism is economic and social development of local community and ecologic protection of natural resources by geomorphosites. All geomorphologic, cultural and tourism heritage of geotourism are in the form of sites called geomorphosite. Geomorphosites are landforms involved special values caused human insights and those provide important condition to develop tourism activities and special infrastructures in a region. This is of importance in understanding geohistory. Geomorphosites can present scientific, conservational and tourism values and affect cultural, ecological and economic condition. Conservation is one of the basic conceptions in a geomorphosite. Geoconservation emphasizes on management of geologic features with scientific, cultural, tourism, educational and tourism values. Geoconservation concept is approximately equal with geologic heritage because it is related to collection of activities for decision and geoconservation in special places. Both the concepts of geoconservation and geologic heritage are discussed as recent concern in the geotourism researches. In general, total tourism values are consisted of scientific, conservational and tourism values. Final purpose of geotourism is economic and tourism development in a region and preservation of scientific and conservational values and improvement in tourism values. Therefore, in order to achieve this purpose, it is essential that geomorphosites are assessed with different criteria. In the past years, it is presented and designed different methods for this aseessment. Tabas County in Khorasan Jonobi Province is one of the suitable regions for geotourism development in the country. Since Tabas County is located between two vast desert regions (Dashte-loot and Markazi Kavir) the arid areas of Tabas County are secluded and its capabilities are not analyzed scientifically. According to this concern, in this research, geotourism of Tabas County is assessed using sustainability concept and tourism and economic development.
 
Methodology
In order to assess geotourism capabilities of the geomorphosites, different methods are presented in the recent years. These menthods have mainly focused on conservation value and improvement of scientific and tourism values. In this paper, assessment of geomorphosites is performed for Tabas County. With several geology and different geomorphologic landforms, Tabas County is recognized as a great geology region in Iran. Desert situation of the county and historical and cultural landscapes with geomorphologic potentials also made this area as one of the suitable geotourism regions. One of the spatial characteristics of Tabas County is natural variability in addition to desert condition. Part of this county involves mountain areas in Shotori region and also ecological area in Naybandan region. In order to assess geotourism, in the first stage, geologic and geomorphologic features and landforms are assessed according to spatial and subjective distribution of features. Finally, up to 50 features are determined as geomorphosites for assessment of geotourism of Tabas County. These are 24 geomorphosites in arid and desert area, 17 geomorphosites in mountain areas in Shotori region and 9 geomorphosites in the ecological area in Naybandan region. In order to assess these geomorphosites, GAM method is applied. This method was designed by Mr Vujicic (2011). In this method, several values and criteria are used. This method involve these values: scarsness, representativeness, knowledge on geoscientific issues, level of interpretation, viewpoints, surface, surrounding landscape and nature, environmental fitting of sites, current condition, protection level, vulnerability, suitable number of visitors, accessibility, additional natural values, additional anthropogenic values, vicinity of emissive centers, vicinity of important road network, additional functional values, promotion, organized visits, vicinity of visitors center, interpretative panels, number of visitors, tourism infrastructure, tour guide service, hostelry service, and restaurant service. These criteria are ranged in value from 0 to 1 that consist degrees and grades of suitability and unsuitability.
 
Results and discussion 
In order to assess geomorphosites of Tabas County, many experts of tourism, geology, and geomorphology with knowledge about Tabas County, have assigned values and assessed the criteria of this research for each of the geomorphosites. Finally, value of each geomorphosite has been determined for each criterion. By using cooperation total values, final value of each geomorphosite has been determined. Final results indicate that geomorphosites of Derenjal outcrop, Sarzamin Siah, Shotori alluvial fan, Mazino coal phenomenal and Rig Shotoran are determined as the most suitable. Therefore, large scale geomorphosites has higher value. Scientific value of Mazino coal phenomenal is related to paleology. Sarzamin Siah and Rig Shotoran have much variety and good perspective. In final stage, geomorphosites are assessed separately with scientific, conservational and tourism values. Scientific, conservational and tourism values are chosen from GAM method and their values are determined for geoorphosites. The results also indicate that the geomorphosite of Derenjal phenomenal is suitable for scientific value, geomorphosite Korit valley for conservational value and geomorphosite Roohe Marghom Lake for tourism value. 
 
Conclusion
Geotourism planning can realize the importance of tourism uses and conditions amd potentials for each geomorphosite.According to the results of this research, geomorphosites of Derenjal outcrop, Sarzamin Siah, Naybandan crag fault, Kalmard old low height mountains, Darrin unconformity, and Halvan sandy hills are determined as tourism goods that can be presented for tourists. Other geomorphosites should be improved in scientific, conservational and tourism values to serve tourists. The results also show that there is not proportion between different values of geomorphosites. Although it should be noticed that conservation of actual earth heritage in Tabas county and local communities have very small share in the result of tourism development. This is due to lack of facilities and official decisions making to development of geotourism and improving tourism.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

تریکار، ژان، 1369 ، اشکال ناهمواری در نواحی خشک؛ ترجمة صدیقی و محسن پورکرمانی، چاپ اول، نشر معاونت فرهنگی آستان
قدس رضوی، تهران.
.2 تقوایی، مسعود، احسانی، غلامحسین و اعظم صفرآبادی، 1388 ، نقش و جایگاه برنامه ریزی چندبعدی در توسعة توریسم و
اکوتوریسم، مجلة جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی محیطی، سال بیستم، شمارة پیاپی 35 ، شمارة 3 ، صص 45 - 62 .
.3 رنجبر، محسن، 1388 ، قابلیت های ژئوتوریستی تنگ زینگان صالح آباد شهرستان مریوان، فصلنامة چشم انداز جغرافیایی،
سال چهارم، شمارة 9، صص 81 - 100 .
.4 ساجدی فر، آیلار، 1386 ، ژئوتوریسم بیابان های ایران، وزارت صنایع و معادن، سازمان زمین شناسی و اکتشافات معدنی کشور، پایگاه
ملی دادة علوم زمین ) www.ngdir.com .)
.5 کاظم پور، محسن، 1390 ، پناهگاهی برای زرده یوز، روزنامة جام جم، سه شنبه 17 خرداد 90 ، شمارة 10 ، ص 10 .
.6 مختاری، داود، 1389 ، ارزیابی توانمندی های اکوتوریستی مکان ژئومورفیکی حوضة آبریز آسیاب خرابه در شمال غرب
ایران به روش پرالونگ ) Pralong (؛ مجلة جغرافیا و توسعه، سال هشتم، شمارة 18 ، صص 27 - 52 .
.7 مقصودی، مهران، علیزاده، محمد، رحیمی هرآبادی، سعید و مجتبی هدایی آرانی، 1391 ، ارزیابی قابلیت ژئومورفوسایت های
گردشگری در پارک ملی کویر با استفاده از روش Pereira ؛ مجلة مطالعات گردشگری، سال هفتم، شمارة 19 ، صص 49 - 68 .
.8 مقیمی، ابرهیم، رحیمی هرآبادی، سعید، هدایی آرانی، مجتبی، علیزاده، محمد و حسن اروجی، 1391 ، ژئومورفوتوریسم و
قابلیت سنجی ژئومورفوسایت های جاده ای با بهره گیری از روش پری یرا، مطالعة موردی: آزادراه قم کاشان، نشریة -
تحقیقات کاربردی علوم جغرافیایی، دانشگاه خوارزمی تهران، سال دوازدهم، شمارة 27 ، صص 163 - 184 .
.9 ناظمی، محمد و شهلا مغزی نجف آبادی، 1386 ، بررسی های نوزمین ساختی در مسیر کال جنی شمال طبس، مجموعه -
مقالات سومین همایش منطقه ای معدن و علوم وابسته، صص 56 - 59 .
10. Bruschi, V. M., Cendrero, A. and Cuesta Albertos, J. A., 2011, A Statistical Approach To The Validation And Optimization Of Geoheritage Assessment Procedures, geoheritage, Vol. 3, No. 3, PP. 131-149. 11. Carcavilla, L., Duran Juan, J., Garcia-Cortes, A. and Lopez-Martinez, J., 2009, Geological Heritage and Geoconservation in Spain: Past, Present and Future, Geoheritage, Vol. 1, No. 2-4, PP. 75–91. 12. Comanescu, L., Nedelea, A. and Dobre, R., 2011, Evaluation of geomorphosites in Vistea Valley (Fagaras Mountains-Carpathians, Romania), International Journal of the Physical Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 5, PP. 1161 -1168. 13. De Waele, J. and Melis, M. T., 2009, Geomorphology and Geomorphological Heritage of the Ifrane–Azrou Region (Middle Atlas, Morocco), Environ Geol, Vol. 58, No. 3, PP. 587–599. 14. Fassoulas, C., Mouriki, D., Dimitriou-Nikolakis, P. and Iliopoulos, G., 2011, Quantitative Assessment of Geotopes as an Effective Tool for Geoheritage Management, geoheritage, Vol. 4, No. 3, PP. 177-193. 15. Fassoulas, C., Paragamian, K. and Iliopoulos, G., 2007, Identification and Assessment of Cretan Geotopes, bulletin of geological society of Greece, international congress Athens. 16. Feuillet, T. and Sourp, E., 2011, Geomorphological Heritage of the Pyrenees National Park (France): Assessment, Clustering, and Promotion of Geomorphosites, Geoheritage, Vol. 3, No. 3, PP. 151–162. 17. Hose, T. A., 2011, 3G’s for Modern Geotourism, geoheritage, Vol. 4, No. 1-2, PP. 7-24. 18. Johari, M., 2009, Scientific Travel In Iran, Tabas, seintific information, Vol. 23, No. 7, PP. 50-52. (In Persian) 19. Kazempour, M., 2011, Shelter For Zardeh Yooz, Jame Jam, 6 July 2011, No. 10, P. 10. (In Persian) 20. Lugeri, F. R., Amadio, V., Bagnaia, R., Cardillo, A. and Lugeri, N., 2011, Landscapes and Wine Production Areas: A Geomorphological Heritage, Geoheritage, Vol. 3, No. 3, PP. 221–232. 21. Maghsoudi, M., Alizadeh, M., Rahimi Herabadi, S. and Hodaei Arani, M., 2012, Capability Assessment Of Tourism Geomorphosites In Kavir National Park By Using Pereira Method, tourism researches, Vol. 7, No. 19, PP. 49-68. (In Persian) 22. Maran, A., 2010, Valuing The Geological Heritage Of Serbia, Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, Vol. 3, No. 2, PP. 47-66. 23. Mihai, B., Reynard, E., Werren, G., Ionut, S., Ionut, S. and Zenaida, C., 2009, Impacts of Tourism on Geomorphological Processes in the Bucegi Mountains in Romania, Geographica Helvetica, Vol. 64, No. 3, PP. 134-147. 24. Moghimi, E., Rahimi Herabadi, S., Hodaei Arani, M., Alizadeh, M. and Oroji, H., 2012, Geomorphotourism and Assessment of Road Geomorphosites by Using Preira Method, Case Study: Ghom-kashan Freeway, applied researches of geographic sciences, Vol. 12, No. 27, PP. 163-184. (In Persian) 25. Mokhtari, D., 2010, Assessment of Ecotourism Capabilities for geomorphic Zone Asiab Kharabeh Basin in Northwest Iran by Pralong Method, geography and development, Vol. 8, No. 18, PP. 27-52. (In Persian) 26. Nazemi, M. and Maghzi Najafabadi, S., 2007, Neo-Tectonic Surveys in Kal Jeni Road, North Of Tabas County, regional seminar of mine and associated sciences, PP. 56-59. (In Persian) 27. Panizza, M. and Piacente, S., 2008, Geomorphosites and Geotourism, Rev.Academica, Vol. 2, No. 1, PP. 5-9. 28. Panizza, M., 2011, Geomorphosites: Concepts, Methods and Examples Of Geomorphological Survey, Chinese Science Bulletin, Vol. 46, No. 1. PP. 4-5. 29. Pereira, P., Pereira, D. and Caetano, A., 2007, Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal), Geographica Helvetica, Vol. 62, PP. 159-168.
30. Pralong, J., 2005, A Method for Assessing Tourist Potential and Use of Geomorphological Sites, Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement, No 3, PP. 189-196. 31. Ranjbar, M., 2009, Geotourism Capabilities of Zinagan Salehabad Strait in Marivan County, geographical perspective, Vol. 4, No. 9, PP. 81-100. (In Persian) 32. Reynard, E., 2008, Scientific Research and Tourist Promotion of Geomorphological Heritage, Geogr. Fis. Dinam. Quat, Vol. 31, No. 2, PP. 225-230. 33. Reynard, E., Regolini-bissig, G., kozlik, L. and Benedetti, S., 2009, Assessment and Promotion of Cultural Geomorphosites in the Trient Valley (Switzerland), Mem.descr. Carta Geol, Vol. 2, No. 2, PP. 181-189. 34. Rovere, A., Vacchi, M., Parravicini, V., Bianchi, C. N., Zouros, N. and Firpo, M., 2011, Bringing Geoheritage Underwater: Definitions, Methods, and Application in two Mediterranean Marine Areas, Environ Earth Sci, Vol. 64, No. 1, PP. 133–142. 35. Sai-leung, N. G., Jiangfeng, L. I., Shiming, F. and Young, C. Y., 2010, Geodiversity and Geoconservation in Hong Kong, Asian Geographer, Vol. 27, No. 1-2, PP. 1-11. 36. Sajedifar, A., 2007, Geotourism of Iran Deserts; Industries and Mines Ministry, Mine Explores and Geology Organization, Rtrieved from: National Site of Earth Data (www.ngdir.com). 37. Serrano, E. and Gonzalez Trueba, J. J., 2011, Environmental Education and Landscape Leisure Geotourism Map and Geomorphosites in the Picos de Europa National Park, geojournal of tourism and geosites, Vol. 8, No. 2, PP. 295-308. 38. Taqvaei, M., Ehsani, Q. and Safarabadi, A., 2009, Role and Importance of Multi-Dimensions Planning in Tourism and Ecotourism Development, geography and environmental planning, Vol. 20, No. 35, PP. 45-62. (In Persian) 39. Trikar, J., 1990, Forms of Heights in Arid Zones, Translated by Seddiqi & Pourkermani, M., First edition, Astan Qods Razavi, Tehran. 40. Vujicic, D. M., Djordjije, A., Vasiljevic, D. A., Markovic, B. S., Hose, A. T., Lukic. T., Hadzic, O. and Janievic, S., 2011, Preliminary Geosites Assessment Model (GAM) and its Application on Fruska Gora Mountain, Potential Geotourism Detinarion of Serbia, Acta geographica Slovenica, Vol. 51, No. 2, PP. 361–37.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 20 June 2014
  • Revise Date: 14 August 2014
  • Accept Date: 16 August 2014

Share

How to cite

Statistics