Identifying and Assessment the geoheritage of desert areas with the aim of developing geotourism (case study: desert areas of Semnan)
Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Department of Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Kish.
2
Department of Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran
10.22034/gmpj.2023.380768.1444
Abstract
Introduction
world and to some extent in Iran. A geosite is a landscape, a collection of roughness forms, a unique roughness, a rock outcrop, a fossiliferous zone, a specific fossil, caves, a crater created by a meteorite impact, a volcano, and even a mine . Geomorphological landforms have a high ability to attract tourism. The connection of landforms with the discussion of the expansion of civilization and ancient, historical, cultural monuments, as well as sports topics, doubles the capabilities of landforms in the field of attracting tourism (Yemani et al., 2013: 70). The purpose of the geomorphosite concept design is to identify landforms that have a special place and importance in describing and understanding the history of the earth's surface Also, they have scientific, ecological, cultural, aesthetic and economic values together and are exploited for the purpose of understanding and exploiting human tourism . Geomorphosites have scientific, cultural, ecological, economic, etc. values . The evaluation of geomorphosites is a topic that shows the motivation and interest of geographers around the world to try to focus on developing and maintaining the evaluation methods that they provided in the past. Identifying different forms of the earth, especially geosites, geomorphosites, geotopes, and other natural forms of the earth is one of the basic principles of nature tourism.
Study area
The desert and desert areas of Semnan province have the ability to be turned into geoparks due to their geomorphological heritage, but due to the spread and size of the region in the north and south of the province, research on geotourism and geoparks has been done on a case-by-case basis, and the officials at the province level cannot plan to attract tourists. have, and for this purpose, with careful identification and study, it is possible to provide the ground for geopark registration. The possession of land and natural resources, which is a suitable platform for the development of geo-tourism and eco-tourism in Semnan province, reveals the necessity of paying attention to the mentioned types of tourism and the importance of attracting tourists and exploiting its many benefits for the country and the province in this regard. By accurately identifying the geotourism capacities of Semnan Province, introducing suitable types of this tourism model in accordance with the region,
Data and research methods
The current research has been applied with a descriptive and analytical approach to introduce and evaluate the geotourism capabilities of the region. In this research, in order to collect the data used, theoretical studies were first conducted with the aim of clarifying the framework of the subject, and in field studies (asking the people of Fan in the region) has been used to identify geosites, and KoboCollect software was used for field visits and registration of geosites and their specifications. Using this software, 90 geosites were identified and a separate birth certificate was prepared and completed for each of the geosites. After examining the birth certificate of geosites by expert experts and professors, 30 potential geosite points (Figure 2) were selected according to the criteria introduced as representatives of geosites, and based on the indicators in the models of Reynard (2013) and Brillha (2016), their valuation and geotourism position was determined.
Data anaysis
Reynard's model and Braille's model describe the relationship between geomorphology and tourism by stating that geomorphology may be the primary or primary source of tourism or as a secondary source, as long as tourism infrastructure, tools (such as educational manuals) or services are used effectively for the primary purpose. will be examined. Final evaluation and comparison of Reynard and Braille models
In general, the oil well geosite is the most valuable geosite in both Reynard and Brill models; With its unique conditions, this geosite has received the highest possible points in both models. Geosite-73 is the second most valuable geosite among the studied geosites with 970 points in the Braille model and 3.93 points in the Reynard model. On the other hand, geosite 37 ranked 29th in the Braille model with 625 points and 30th in the Reynard model with 1.4 points, and it has the lowest overall value among the surveyed geosites. The first method, which was used by Brills (Zafiropoulos and Dernia, 2022), is considered a general-purpose method designed to evaluate any type of geosite considering a wide range of criteria. The inclusion of 12 criteria to evaluate the heritage value of the studied geosites leads to more objective results. On the other hand, Reynard's method includes public views, which in the present study clearly shows the lack of geo-environmental awareness and knowledge. These two methods provide different perspectives on the geoenvironmental value of a given geosite. The first method further deals with the geosite heritage of geological and tourism important places in a broader and deeper way. The second method, while it does not consider many parameters, also includes the opinion of visitors and the general public and education. The braille model is a model for measuring the capabilities of geosites in the scientific, educational, tourism and destruction risk sectors. Each of these sections have their own minimum and maximum points and coefficients, which should be taken into account in scoring. In the evaluation of the Braille model, geosites 68 and 73 both scored 970 points, and the geosite 33 scored the lowest.
Conclusion:
In the current research, the existing geomorphological capabilities were evaluated and ranked from the geotourism point of view. In the meantime, the oil well geosite received the highest score in two methods and was ranked first, and this same geosite is ranked at the bottom with a score of 195 from the point of view of destruction risk. In general, it can be said that the reasons why the oil well got the most points in both methods is the scientific value in both methods, although other cases also have good points, but the important point is the lack of protection of all geosites in the study area.
world and to some extent in Iran. A geosite is a landscape, a collection of roughness forms, a unique roughness, a rock outcrop, a fossiliferous zone, a specific fossil, caves, a crater created by a meteorite impact, a volcano, and even a mine . Geomorphological landforms have a high ability to attract tourism. The connection of landforms with the discussion of the expansion of civilization and ancient, historical, cultural monuments, as well as sports topics, doubles the capabilities of landforms in the field of attracting tourism (Yemani et al., 2013: 70). The purpose of the geomorphosite concept design is to identify landforms that have a special place and importance in describing and understanding the history of the earth's surface Also, they have scientific, ecological, cultural, aesthetic and economic values together and are exploited for the purpose of understanding and exploiting human tourism . Geomorphosites have scientific, cultural, ecological, economic, etc. values . The evaluation of geomorphosites is a topic that shows the motivation and interest of geographers around the world to try to focus on developing and maintaining the evaluation methods that they provided in the past. Identifying different forms of the earth, especially geosites, geomorphosites, geotopes, and other natural forms of the earth is one of the basic principles of nature tourism.
Study area
The desert and desert areas of Semnan province have the ability to be turned into geoparks due to their geomorphological heritage, but due to the spread and size of the region in the north and south of the province, research on geotourism and geoparks has been done on a case-by-case basis, and the officials at the province level cannot plan to attract tourists. have, and for this purpose, with careful identification and study, it is possible to provide the ground for geopark registration. The possession of land and natural resources, which is a suitable platform for the development of geo-tourism and eco-tourism in Semnan province, reveals the necessity of paying attention to the mentioned types of tourism and the importance of attracting tourists and exploiting its many benefits for the country and the province in this regard. By accurately identifying the geotourism capacities of Semnan Province, introducing suitable types of this tourism model in accordance with the region,
Data and research methods
The current research has been applied with a descriptive and analytical approach to introduce and evaluate the geotourism capabilities of the region. In this research, in order to collect the data used, theoretical studies were first conducted with the aim of clarifying the framework of the subject, and in field studies (asking the people of Fan in the region) has been used to identify geosites, and KoboCollect software was used for field visits and registration of geosites and their specifications. Using this software, 90 geosites were identified and a separate birth certificate was prepared and completed for each of the geosites. After examining the birth certificate of geosites by expert experts and professors, 30 potential geosite points (Figure 2) were selected according to the criteria introduced as representatives of geosites, and based on the indicators in the models of Reynard (2013) and Brillha (2016), their valuation and geotourism position was determined.
Data anaysis
Reynard's model and Braille's model describe the relationship between geomorphology and tourism by stating that geomorphology may be the primary or primary source of tourism or as a secondary source, as long as tourism infrastructure, tools (such as educational manuals) or services are used effectively for the primary purpose. will be examined. Final evaluation and comparison of Reynard and Braille models
In general, the oil well geosite is the most valuable geosite in both Reynard and Brill models; With its unique conditions, this geosite has received the highest possible points in both models. Geosite-73 is the second most valuable geosite among the studied geosites with 970 points in the Braille model and 3.93 points in the Reynard model. On the other hand, geosite 37 ranked 29th in the Braille model with 625 points and 30th in the Reynard model with 1.4 points, and it has the lowest overall value among the surveyed geosites. The first method, which was used by Brills (Zafiropoulos and Dernia, 2022), is considered a general-purpose method designed to evaluate any type of geosite considering a wide range of criteria. The inclusion of 12 criteria to evaluate the heritage value of the studied geosites leads to more objective results. On the other hand, Reynard's method includes public views, which in the present study clearly shows the lack of geo-environmental awareness and knowledge. These two methods provide different perspectives on the geoenvironmental value of a given geosite. The first method further deals with the geosite heritage of geological and tourism important places in a broader and deeper way. The second method, while it does not consider many parameters, also includes the opinion of visitors and the general public and education. The braille model is a model for measuring the capabilities of geosites in the scientific, educational, tourism and destruction risk sectors. Each of these sections have their own minimum and maximum points and coefficients, which should be taken into account in scoring. In the evaluation of the Braille model, geosites 68 and 73 both scored 970 points, and the geosite 33 scored the lowest.
Conclusion:
In the current research, the existing geomorphological capabilities were evaluated and ranked from the geotourism point of view. In the meantime, the oil well geosite received the highest score in two methods and was ranked first, and this same geosite is ranked at the bottom with a score of 195 from the point of view of destruction risk. In general, it can be said that the reasons why the oil well got the most points in both methods is the scientific value in both methods, although other cases also have good points, but the important point is the lack of protection of all geosites in the study area.
Keywords
پاپلی یزدی، م.ح و سقایی، م، (1385)، گردشگری (ماهیت و مفاهیم) انتشارات سمت.
داولینگ و دیوید نیوسام (1388): ژئوتوریسم (جهانی)”، مترجمان عادل نجف زاده و بهرام نکوئی صدری، انتشارات منطقه آزاد ارس- جلفا و انتشارات پیام.
سازمان جغرافیایی نیروهای مسلح با همکاری موسسه جغرافیا ( 1401)، نقشه ژئومورفولوژی سمنان، اطلس نقشه های پوشش سراسری مقیاس 500000: 1 ، 43 برگ.
گیتس، الکساندر (1388): ژئوتوریسم: با نگاهی به ایالاتمتحده امریکا «، ژئوتوریسم (جهانی)، رأس داولینگ و
گیلیسون، دیوید (1386): غارشناسی، فرایندها، توسعه، مدیری، ترجمه سعدالله ولایتی و ابوالفضل بهنیافر، مشهد، انتشارات سخنگستر و معاونت پژوهشی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی مشهد.
مختاری داود (1394): ژئوتوریسم، انتشارات دانشگاه تبریز.
مختاری داود، امامی کیا وحید (1395): تحلیلی بر عوامل مؤثر در ایجاد و توسعه ژئومورفوسایتهای پیست اسکی.
مقصودی مهران؛ برزکار، محسن؛ عباسی، موسی و مرادی، انور (1393): ارزیابی توانمندیهای ژئوتوریستی ژئومورفوسایتهای شهرستان مهاباد فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی مطالعات مدیریت گردشگری ساله ششم شماره 25.
مقصودی، مهران، عرب عامری، علیرضا(1396): ارزیابی کمی ژئوسایتهای نمکی استان سمنان با روشهای بریلها و پرالونگ با تأکید بر ژئوسایتهای غرب استان تهران پژوهشهای جغرافیایی طبیعی، دوره 49، شماره 2 تابستان 1396.
منبری فاطمه (1390): ژئومورفولوژی دریاچه زریوار مریوان و نقش آن در توسعه صنعت توریسم و گردشگری بهعنوان یک ژئوپارک، پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه رازی کرمانشاه، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، گروه جغرافیای طبیعی، استاد راهنما،امجد ملکی.
نکوئی صدری بهرام (1388): مبانی زمینگردشگری با تأکید بر ایران”، تهران انتشارات سمت، 1388.
نکوئی صدری، بهرام (1390) " نقش ژئواینترپرتیشن در توسعه زمینگردشگری ایران"، اولین همایش ملی گردشگری و توسعه پایدار، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی – زاهدان، 4 الی 6 خرداد 1390 صص 523 الی 534.
نیوسام، دیوید؛ داولینگ، رأس (1388): قلمرو و ماهیت ژئوتوریسم، ژئوتوریسم (جهانی)، رأس داولینگ و دیوید نیوسام، فصل اول، ترجمه بهرام نکوئی صدری، ناشر سازمان منطقه آزاد تجاری صنعتی ارس، تهران، انتشارات پیام، ص 1- 51.
یمانی، مجتبی و همکاران (1391): ژئومورفوتوریسم و مقایسه روشهای ارزیابی ژئومورفوسایتها در توسعه گردشگری استان هرمزگان مجله برنامهریزی توسعه گردشگری سال اول شماره 1، تهران.
Aplin, G.J. (2002). Heritage Identification, Conservation, and Management, Oxford University Press, Victoria.
Buckley R (2003). Environmental inputs and outputs in ecotourism: Geotourism with a positive triple bottom line? Journal of Ecotourism. 2(1): 76-82. https://doi. org/10.1080/14724040308668135
Coratza, P., & Hobléa, F. (2018). The specificities of geomorphological heritage. In Geoheritage (pp. 87-106). Elsevier.
Coratza, P., & Hobléa, F. (2018). The specificities of geomorphological heritage. In Geoheritage (pp. 87-106). Elsevier.
Davallon, J. (2006). Le don du patrimoine: Une approche communicationnelle de la patrimonialisation, Paris, Hermes sciences publications.
Dowling RK (2011). Geotourism’s global growth. Geoheritage. 3(1): 1-13.
Dowling RK (2014). Geotourism. In Jafari J & Xiao H (Eds), Encyclopedia of Tourism (pp 1-3). Cham: Springer.
Geotourism. Available online: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/maps/geotourism/ (accessed on 19 February 2020).
Gonzalez-Tejada, C., Du, Y., Read, M., & Girault, Y. (2017). From nature conservation to geotourism development: Examining ambivalent attitudes towards UNESCO directives with the global geopark network.
Gordon, J. E. (2012). Rediscovering a sense of wonder: geoheritage, geotourism and cultural landscape experi-ences, Geoheritage, 4(1): 65-77.
Gordon, J. E. and Barron, H. F. (2011). Scotland’s geodiversity: development of the basis for a national framework, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report, No. 417.
Hose TA, Marković SB, Komac B & Zorn M (2011). Geotourism - A short introduction. Acta Geographica
Jiang,J. (2008), Evaluation of the Potential of Tourism to the Contribute to Local Sustainable Development: A Case Study of Tengtou Village,China,Massey University,New Zealand.
Lu، Yong C.YNg (2015) The Principales Geoturism(Anzechen Yunting Beiging Springer Geography2015
Maghsoudi, M., Moradi, A., Moradipour, F. et al. Geotourism Development in World Heritage of the Lut Desert. Geoheritage 11, 501–516 (2019)
Mabvuto Ngwira, P. (2019). Geotourism and Geoparks: Is Africa missing on this new prospect for sustainable tourism development?. Geoconservation Research, 2(1), 26-39.
Martin, S. (2013). Valoriser le geopatrimoine par la mediation indirecte ET la visualisation des objets géomorphologiques, Geovisions 41, PhD Thesis. Université de Lausanne, Institut de Geographie ET Durabilite.
McKeever PJ & Zouros N (2005). Geoparks: Celebrating Earth heritage, sustaining local communities. Episodes. 28(4): 274-278.
Pralong,J (2005): A method for Assessing Tourist Potential and Use of Geomorphological Sites; Geomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement, N 3, 189-19
Shines, J. (2016). Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: a Review. Geoheritage, 8(2), 119-134.
Mantovani, A., Lombardo, V., and Giardino, M.: Geodiversity, Geoheritage, Geoconservation: a semantic challenge, EGU General Assembly 2021, online, 19–30 Apr 2021, EGU21-15820
Reynard, E (2008): Scientific Reserch and Toeist Promotion of Geomorphological Heritage; Geogr. Fis. Dinam. Quat, V 31,225-230
Reynard, E. and Coratza, P. (2013). Scientific research on geomorphosites: A review of the activities of the IAG working group on geomorphosites over the last twelve years, Geogr. Fis. Din. Quat, 36(2): 159-168.
Reynard, E. and Coratza, P. (2016). The importance of mountain geomorphosites for environmental education, Examples from the Italian Dolomites and the Swiss Alps, Acta geogr. Slov, 56(2): 291-303.
Reynard, E. and Giusti, C. (2018). The landscape and the cultural value of geoheritage, In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 147-166.
Reynard, E., Pica, A., & Coratza, P. (2017). Urban geomorphological heritage. An overview. Quaestiones geographicae, 36(3), 7-20.
Reynard,E. (2008). Scientific research and tourist promotion of geomorphological heritage, Geografia Fisica e Dinamica Quaternaria, 31(2): PP 225-230.
Reynard، E & Coratza، P & Giusti, C (2011): Geomorphosites and Geotourism; Geoheritage, V 3, 129-130
Sánchez-Cortez, J. L. (2019). Conservation of geoheritage in Ecuador: Situation and perspectives. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 7(2), 91-101.
Slovenica. 51(2): 339-342. DOI: 10.3986/AGS51301
Štrba, Ľ., Kolačkovská, J., Kudelas, D., Kršák, B., & Sidor, C. (2020). Geoheritage and Geotourism Contribution to Tourism Development in Protected Areas of Slovakia—Theoretical Considerations. Sustainability, 12(7), 2979.
UNESCO. (2016). UNESCO Global Geoparks: Celebrating Earth Heritage, Sustaining Local Communities. Paris: UNESCO
UNWTO (2016). Affiliate Members Regional Reports, Volume four –Tourism in Africa: A Tool for Development. Accessed online from http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/
Zouros N & McKeever P (2009). European geoparks network and geotourism. In New challenges with geotourism. Proceedings of the VIII European Geoparks Conference, Idanha-a-Nova (pp. 14-16).
Zouros,N.; Martini,G. (2003).Introduction to the European geoparks network, In NHM of Lesvos Petri-fied Forest.Proceedings of the 2nd International Sym-posium of Natural Monumentsand Geological Heritage,Lesvos,17–21.
