Evaluation of Geodiversity Index using Kernel Density Function (Case study: Qezel Ozan basin, Kurdistan Province)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Department of Geography, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/gmpj.2024.429204.1471
Abstract
Extended Abstract

Introduction

Rapid environmental changes and the challenges of achieving sustainable development have highlighted the need for better understanding and management of nature. Geodiversity has played a key role in land management and conservation approaches, and its concept has been accepted by scientific societies worldwide. In general, geodiversity is known as a variety of geological phenomena that constitute natural heritage and need to be preserved and protected. Considering the importance, functions and applications of geodiversity, the range of related studies is increasing. In parallel with the conceptual design, so far a set of approaches have been presented to evaluate and measure geodiversity based on qualitative and quantitative methods. The kernel density function is one of the quantitative methods for evaluating and analyzing the geodiversity index. In the current research, the geodiversity index in the Qezal Ozan river basin in Kurdistan province will be analyzed and evaluated using the kernel density function.

Methodology

In this research, data, relevant tools and kernel density function have been used to achieve the geodiversity index, each of which will be mentioned below. The variables include geology, geomorphology, soils, faults and hydrography. Regarding the method of investigation that requires the use of software; ArcGIS software version 10.4.1 has been used in this research. Kernel density can be calculated for both point and linear features. This function is included as an additional tool in the spatial analysis section of ArcGIS software. After entering the point data into the kernel density calculation tool, the parameters of population, cell size, search radius and area units for output map need to be defined. The result will be the kernel density of geodiversity.



Results and Discussion

The variables that have been selected based on the aforementioned method in order to evaluate geodiversity index in Qezel Ozan basin of Kurdistan province are geology, geomorphology, soil science, faults and hydrography. For kernel density evaluation, in addition to the metric coordinate system, all layers need to be in polygon. In this research, for all the layers, the Universal Transverse Mercator System (UTM), which is a metric coordinate system, has been used. Apart from the geological, geomorphological and soil layers, which are polygons, in the first step it was necessary to define the fault and hydrographic layers as polygons. For this purpose, by defining a buffer, the linear layers of fault and hydrography were converted into polygons.

In the output raster map, based on the input layers, the size of each cell was 595.5 meters by 595.5 meters, and in order to increase the accuracy of the search, each cell were defined as 100 meters by 100 meters. The search radius, which is determined based on the spatial relationships of points and a special algorithm, was 3614.7 by default, which was used without change. It should be noted that the final selection of cell size and search radius was achieved after several tests on these parameters. The output metric unit was also determined as square kilometers. Finally, taking into account all the necessary conditions, by entering the point layer in the kernel density operator and selecting the output cell size, search radius and metric unit, the geodiversity index of the watershed was extracted. Based on the numerical values, the resulting map was divided into 5 classes by the natural break method that highlights the difference between the classes. The range of numbers of each class represents the number of points or in other words the number of features per square kilometer. Finally, based on the numerical index of geodiversity in each class, a qualitative range including very low, low, medium, high and very high density was extracted.

Conclusion

The final map of the geodiversity index shows that the range of points in the cells of the output map varies between 0 and 166. The highest density or in other words the highest geodiversity can be seen in the west of the basin. In parts of the north, east and south of the basin, smaller centers with the greatest value in terms of geodiversity can be seen. The important point is that the highest geodiversity index in the west corresponds to the heights of Saral and Chihl Cheshme, which are important geotourism areas of Kurdistan province. This feature is also true for Bijar and its northern areas, as well as the important heights of Bair and Parishan in the south of Qorveh. The lowest amount of geodiversity can be seen in the areas in the southwest and southeast of Dehgolan city and in the east and southeast of Qorve city. These areas, which have the lowest value in terms of geodiversity index, correspond to the flat plains of the basin. The amount of geodiversity in other sectors is in the range of low to high variation.

The evaluation of the importance of the variables or inputs shows that the geomorphology was the most important in the evaluation of the geodiversity index. The reason for the high value of this variable can be the great variety of landforms in the Qezal Ozan basin. In preparing the geomorphological map of the basin, in addition to volcanic, glacial, river, karst, etc. landforms, adding topographical landforms including mountain, hill, and plain units has increased the diversity and importance of this variable in the model. The hydrographic and geological information layers are ranked second and third with a slight difference. Drainage density in the basin is very high due to the wide spread of erodible geological units; So that the Badlands have a significant dispersion. Geologically, Qezel Ozan basin has a remarkable diversity. The layers of fault and soil are ranked fourth and fifth, respectively. Faults can be seen everywhere in the basin. Their highest concentration is in the western part of the area. The soil map of the basin does not have much diversity and only includes seven soil types.
Keywords

باتجربه، م.، حسین زاده، س ر.، محسنی رود پشتی، ن.، لکزیان، ا.، 1401. شناسایی نقاط داغ ژئودایورسیتی حوضه آبریز رودخانه درونگر با استفاده از یک روش کمی، پژوهش‌های ژئومورفولوژی کمی، دوره 11، شماره 3، صص 88-102.
جودی، ع.، ستاری، م ت.، 1395. ارزیابی عملکرد روش های مبتنی بر کرنل در تخمین میزان بار رسوبی معلق رودخانه (مطالعه ی موردی: رودخانه ی صوفی چای مراغه)، پژوهش های جغرافیای طبیعی، دوره 48، شماره 3، صص 413-429.
زینلی، س.، حسینعلی، ف.، صادقی نیارکی، ا.، کاظمی بیدختی، م.، عفتی م.، 1394. تحلیل مکانی تصادفات در تقاطع های برون شهری با به کارگیری روش های خود همبستگی مکانی و برآورد تراکم کرنل، مهندسی فناوری اطلاعات مکانی، دوره 3، شماره 2، صص 21-42.
صالحی پور میلانی، ع.، صدوق، س ح.، رفیعی، ر.، 1400. ارزیابی ژئودایورسیتی حوضه های آبریز مشرف به دریاچه نمک و حوض سلطان، پژوهش‌های ژئومورفولوژی کمی، دوره 10، شماره 2، صص 84-105.
صیدایی، ا.، جهانگیر، ا.، دارابخانی، ر.، پناهی، ع.،1399. شناخت نقاط حادثه خیز محورهای استان البرز با استفاده از روش تخمین تراکم کرنل، پژوهشهای جغرافیای انسانی، دوره 52، شماره 3، صص 939-951.
مقصودی، م.، محمدخان، ش.، شرفی، س.، کامرانی، پ.، 1402. ارزیابی ژئودایورسیتی با استفاده از شاخص کیفی-کمی GI (مطالعه موردی: استان لرستان)، پژوهش‌های ژئومورفولوژی کمی، دوره 12، شماره 2.
Ahmadi, M., Derafshi, K., Mokhtari, D,. Khodadadi, M., Najafi, E. 2022, Geodiversity Assessments and Geoconservation in the Northwest of Zagros Mountain Range, Iran: Grid and Fuzzy Method Analysis. Geoheritage, no 14, vol, 132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00769-7.
Berred, Sanae., Berred, Khadija., Fadli, Driss., 2022. Geodiversity of Kingdom of Morocco: Tata Province geomorphosites inventory for creating a geopark project (Anti-Atlas),International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages 367-382.
Brilha, J., Gray, M., Pereira D.I., Pereira, P., 2018. Geodiversity: an integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable management of the whole of nature. Environ Sci Pol, 86, pp.19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.envsci.2018.05.001
Chrobak, A., Novotny, J., Struś, P., 2021. Geodiversity assessment as a first step in designating areas of geotourism potential. Case study: Western Carpathians. Frontiers in Earth Science,vol 9, pp. 1-20.
Coronato, Andrea., Schwarz, Soledad., 2022, Approaching geodiversity and geoconservation in Argentina,International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks,Volume 10, Issue 4, pp. 597-615.
Da sliva, M.L.N., Do Nascimento, M.A.L., Mansur, K.L., 2019. Quantitative Assessments of Geodiversity in the Area of the Seridó Geopark Project, Northeast Brazil: Grid and Centroid Analysis. Geoheritage 11, 1177–1186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00368-z.
Forte J.P., Brilha, J., Pereira, D.I., Nolasco, M., 2018. Kernel density applied to the quantitative assessment of geodiversity. Geoheritage 10(2), pp.205– 217.
Gray, M., 2004. Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature. Wiley, Chichester, p 434
Gray, M., 2008. Geodiversity: developing the paradigm. Proc Geol Assoc, 119, pp. 287–298.
Gray, M., 2013. Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, p 495
Gray, M., 2018. Geodiversity: The backbone of geoheritage and geoconservation. In E. Reynard, & J. Brilha (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, protection, and management (pp. 13–25). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Gray, M.,2021, Geodiversity: a significant, multi-faceted and evolving, geoscientific paradigm rather than a redundant term, Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, Volume 132, Issue 5, pp. 605-619.
Gonçalves, J., Mansur, K., Santos, D., Henriques, R., Pereira, P.,2022. Is It Worth Assessing Geodiversity Numerically? A Comparative Analysis between Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in Miguel Pereira Municipality, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Geosciences, 12, 347.
Kot, R., 2014. The point Bonitation method for evaluating geodiversity: a guide with examples (polish lowland). Geogr Ann 97(2), pp.375–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoa.12079
Kozlowski, S., 2004. Geodiversity. The concept and scope of geodiversity. Prz Geol 52(8), pp.833–837
Najwer, Alicja., Reynard, Emmanuel., Zwoliński, Zbigniew., 2023. Geodiversity assessment for geomorphosites management: Derborence and Illgraben, Swiss Alps. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 530. DOI: 10.1144/SP530-2022-122.
Newsome, David., Ladd, Philip.,2022, The dimensions of geotourism with a spotlight on geodiversity in a subdued landscape,International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp.351-366.
Pereira D.I., Pereira, P., Brilha, J., Santos, L., 2013. Geodiversity assessment of Paraná state (Brazil): an innovative approach. Environ Manag 52, pp.541–552.
Pereira, L.S., Farias, D.S., 2020. Assessing the cultural values of the geodiversity in a Brazilian city: the historical center of João Pessoa(Paraíba, NE Brazil), Mata da Aldeia chart. Int J Geoheritage Parks 8(1):pp.59–73.
Reynard, E., Fontana, G., Kozlik, L., Scapozza, C., 2007. A method for assessing «scientific» and «additional values» of geomorphosites. Geogr Helv 62, pp.148–158
Ruban, D.A., 2014. Geodiversity. In: Tiess G, Majumder T, Cameron P, editors. Encyclopedia of Mineral and Energy Policy. Berlin (Heidelberg): Springer, p. 1–2.
Sharples, C., McIntosh, P. and Comfort, M., 2018. Geodiversity and geoconservation in land management in Tasmania – a top-down approach. In: Reynard, E. and Brilha, J. (eds) Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, pp. 355–371.
Silva, J.P., Rodrigues, C., Pereira, D.I., 2015. Mapping and Analysis of Geodiversity Indices in the Xingu River Basin, Amazonia, Brazil. Geoheritage, 7, pp. 337–350.
Silverman, B. W., 1986, Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Zwoliński, Z., 2009. The Routine of Landform Geodiversity Map Design Forthe Polish Carpathian Mts. Landf. Anal. 11, pp. 77–85.