ارزیابی پتانسیل ژئوتوریستی ژئوسایت‌های کارستیک مطالعه موردی: بخش هورامان، استان کردستان

نوع مقاله : مقاله کامل

نویسندگان

1 گروه جغرافیا ، دانشکده حقوق و علوم اجتماعی ، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران

2 گروه ژئومورفولوژی، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران

3 گروه جغرافیا، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران

10.22059/jphgr.2026.410354.1007916

چکیده

امروزه ژئوتوریسم به‌عنوان زیرمجموعه گردشگری سهم زیادی در توسعه گردشگری دارد. یکی از مناطق مستعد توسعه ژئوتوریسم و گردشگری، مناطق کارستیک هستند. ازآنجایی‌که بخش اعظم جاذبه‌های ژئوتوریستی نواحی زاگرس در ایران را پدیده‌های کارستی تشکیل می‌دهد؛ در این تحقیق به ارزیابی پتانسیل ژئوتوریسم کارست منطقه هورامان در زاگرس مرتفع پرداخته شد. با بهره‌گیری از اطلاعات کتابخانه‌ای و میدانی، ژئوسایت‌های ارزشمند ازنظر توسعه ژئوتوریسم شناسایی شدند. با توجه به یکسان نبودن ارزش و اهمیت ژئوسایت‌ها، با استفاده از دو روش رینارد و گام، ژئوسایت‌های مستعد منطقه ارزش‌گذاری شدند. علاوه بر ارزش‌گذاری هر یک از ژئوسایت‌ها در این دو روش، به‌منظور تعیین ارزش نهایی ژئوسایت‌ها، ارزش‌های به‌دست‌آمده از دو مدل باهم ترکیب شدند. ارزش نهایی هر ژئوسایت بر اساس ژئوسایت مربوطه محاسبه شد. میزان ارزش به‌دست‌آمده برای هر ژئوسایت به‌صورت درصد محاسبه شد. بر مبنای این درصدها ارزش نهایی هر ژئوسایت بر اساس دو مدل رینارد و ارزیابی ژئوسایت محاسبه گردید. این ارزش‌ها در هر دو مدل با اندکی تفاوت مشابهت نزدیکی را نشان می‌دهد. بر اساس نتایج این پژوهش و میانگین درصدی حاصل از هر دو مدل، چشمه آبشاری بلبر با 64/77 درصد از مجموع امتیازات دارای بالاترین ارزش بود و بعدازآن بزرگ لاپیه‌های سلین با 04/69 درصد، رودخانه سیروان با 48/67 درصد و دامنه‌های جنوبی کوسالان با 24/64 درصد از مجموع امتیازات در رده‌های بعدی قرار دارند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessment of Geotourism Susceptibility of Karstic Geosites: A Case Study of the Hawraman District

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohamad Sedihg Ghorbani 1
  • Farzad Veisi 2
  • Fatemeh Salehi 3
1 Department of Geography, Faculty of Law and Social Science, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Geomorphology, Faculty of Natural Rescorces, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
3 Department of Geography, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

ABSTRACT
Today, geotourism, as a subset of tourism, plays a significant role in tourism development. Karstic regions are one of the areas prone to geotourism and tourism development. Since the majority of geotourism attractions in the Zagros regions of Iran are composed of karstic phenomena, this research evaluated the geotourism potential of the karst area in the Hawraman region of the High Zagros. Utilizing library and field data, valuable geosites in terms of geotourism development were identified. Due to the non-uniform value and importance of the geosites, the prone geosites in the region were valued using two methods: Reynard and GAM. In addition to valuing each geosite using these two methods, the resulting values from both models were combined to determine the final value of the geosites. The final value for each geosite was calculated based on its characteristics. The value obtained for each geosite was calculated as a percentage. Based on these percentages, the final value of each geosite was calculated according to both the Reynard and the GAM evaluation models. These values showed close similarity in both models, with slight differences. Based on the results of this study and the average percentage obtained from both models, the Belbar Waterfall Spring had the highest value with 77.64% of the total score, followed by the Selin Grand Lapies with 69.04%, the Sirwan River with 67.48%, and the southern slopes of Kousalan with 64.24% of the total score.”.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
The tourism industry is a highly competitive, destination-based activity that varies in every region according to its natural, cultural, and constructed resources The relationship between tourism and geological sites and their features, including geomorphological sites and landscapes, is discussed under the title of geotourism. Therefore, geotourism is one of the new fields of tourism that completely follows the principles of tourism and is a combination of geology, geomorphology, natural landscapes, topography, rocks, and minerals, with an emphasis on the processes that create these forms. One of the regions with great potential in terms of geotourism is the karstic regions, where various solutional phenomena such as sinkholes, caves, springs, canyons, and karrens (lapies) are formed, which collectively are termed karst phenomena.
In Iran, the majority of karstic regions are located in the Zagros belt. Among these, the Hawraman region in Kurdistan and Kermanshah provinces has provided suitable potential for tourism due to its geological, geomorphological, climatic, and historical characteristics. Hawraman is one of the areas situated in limestone structures, and considering its geographical location and the presence of diverse landscapes, it has high potential for the development of the geotourism industry, specifically karst geotourism.
 
Methodology
"This research is based on descriptive-analytical methods, and the survey method, as well as library studies, were used to gather information. In the present study, two methods, Reynard and GAM, were used to evaluate the promising geosites in the region.
Reynard Method: In this method, a geomorphosite is interpreted based on its scientific and Additional values. In fact, this method uses evaluation cards for geomorphosites that cover two parts: scientific value and Additional value.
Scientific Value: In the scientific value, the indicators of rarity, interconnectedness, repeatability of observation, completeness, and paleogeography value are considered. In scientific value, the paleogeography indicator is very important due to its contribution to the analysis of earth conditions and paleoclimate.
Additional Value: The Additional values section evaluates several dimensions, including environmental, aesthetic, cultural, and economic aspects.
GAM Method: This method was developed for the evaluation of one of the mountains in Serbia. The GAM model uses a table structure of main and complementary values for the evaluation of geosites.
 
Results and discussion
The area is located in the High Zagros zone. Based on the 1:250,000 geological map of Marivan-Baneh, the entire study area is composed of layered to massive limestone rocks of the Bistoon Formation. The Bistoon limestones in this area have been incised by about 2000 meters by the Sirvan River, resulting in the formation of deep canyons. In addition to the main Sirvan Canyon, other secondary canyons, such as the Jivar natural-historical canyon and the Howraman Takht-Belbar Canyon, are part of the region’s karstic landscape.
In this research, the characteristic karstic geosites of the region, including sinkholes, karst springs, caves, various types of lapies, and canyons, were primarily identified and examined during field visits.
Geosite Evaluation:
Reynard Method: In this method, geosites are evaluated based on scientific and additional values. According to the items in Table 1, the region’s geosites were evaluated based on their scientific values. Based on the results obtained, the Belbar springs had the highest value with 3.25 points out of a total of 4 points. Following this, the Selin megakarren (Selin giant karren), the Sirvan canyons, and the southern slopes of Kousalan were ranked next, with 3, 2.85, and 2.5 points, respectively.
After evaluating the geosites based on scientific criteria, in order to complete the potential assessment and comprehensive evaluation of the geosites, these geosites were also evaluated for their additional value. The results of this evaluation are shown in Table 2. In this assessment, similar to the evaluation based on scientific values, the Belbar waterfall spring has the highest value with 3.25 points out of 4, and the Sirvan River, the Selin megakarren, and the southern slopes of Kousalan are next with 3, 2.5, and 2.25 points, respectively.
GAM Method: The results of the GAM evaluation indicate that, similar to the Reynard method, the waterfall spring has the highest value with 19.25 points out of a total of 26 points. Following this, the Selin Grand lapies, the southern slopes of Kousalan, and the Sirvan River are ranked next with 18.25, 18, and 17.25 points, respectively. It should be noted that this method considers features such as aesthetics, visual diversity, extent, infrastructure, accessibility, etc., so geosites with better status in these respects have higher values."
 
Conclusion
"Following the library and field studies in this research, finally, 15 geosites were selected and evaluated as the final and potential geosites for investigation using the two methods, Reynard and GAM. The main goal was to evaluate the geotourism potential of the region’s geosites based on combining the results obtained from these two methods.
To determine the final value of the geosites, the set of information obtained from both methods was combined to determine the final value of each geosite. To do this, in the Reynard method, the average of the scientific and additional scores for each geosite was calculated, and the average score of each geosite based on both criteria was determined as a percentage. In the GAM method, based on the multiple values of each geosite, their final rank was also determined as a percentage. Then, to determine the final value of each geosite in the Reynard and GAM methods, the obtained scores, which were converted to percentages, were averaged, and finally, the final value of each geosite was specified.
Based on the combined results obtained (Table 5), the Belbar waterfall spring has the highest value with 77.64% of the total score, followed by the Great Selin Lapies with 69.04% in second place. The geotourism value of the other geosites is in the following ranks.
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Geotourism
  • Karst
  • Hawraman
  • Reynard Model
  • GAM Model
  1. اباذری نوجه ده، کلثوم؛ رجبی، معصومه و رهنمون، حبیب. (1397). تعیین راهبردها و سیاست‌های توسعه ژئوتوریسم در شهرستان مشکین‌شهر. فضای گردشگری، 6(23)، ۱۶-۱.
  2. ابراهیمی، عطرین؛ مختاری، داود و روستایی، شهرام. (1400). ارزیابی نقش منابع کارستیک توسعه‌یافته در توانمندی‌های ژئوتوریسمی شهرستان کامیاران. پژوهش‌های ژئومورفولوژی کمّی، 10(3)، 1-18.  doi: 10.22034/gmpj.2021.284818.1273
  3. احمدی، منیژه. (۱۳۹۷). تحلیل عوامل مؤثر بر توسعه گردشگری فرهنگی و اثرات آن در پایداری اقتصادی نواحی روستایی استان زنجان. فصلنامه برنامه‌ریزی منطقه‌ای، 8(29)، ۹۲-۷۹. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.22516735.1397.8.29.7.5
  4. اربابی سبزاروی، آزاده. (1393). ارزیابی توانمندی‌های و قابلیت‌های ژئوتوریسم در توسعه پایدار (مطالعه موردی: سراب دربند در شهرستان صحنه). فصلنامه جغرافیای طبیعی، 7(26)، 86-65.
  5. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20085656.1393.7.26.6.4
  6. اصغری سرسکانرود، صیاد؛ معدنی، جواد و نظری گزیک، زهرا. (1403). بررسی و ارزیابی پتانسیل ژئوتوریستی حوضه آبریز دشت مشهد. فصلنامه جغرافیا و مطالعات محیطی، 13(51)، 45-22. doi: 10.71740/ges.2024.979166
  7. افراسیابیان، احمد. (۱۳۷۷). اهمیت مطالعات و تحقیقات منابع آب کارست در ایران. مجموعه مقالات دومین همایش جهانی منابع آب در سازندهای کارستی (۱۲۶-۱۳۷). تهران-کرمانشاه.
  8. جهان تیغ مند، سمیه؛ کرم، امیر؛ قنواتی، عزت‌الله و کیانی، سارا. (1404). تحلیل سیستم ژئوتوریسم در شهرستان فیروزکوه و ارائه مدل توسعه آن از منظر قابلیت ژئوپارک. تحقیقات کاربردی علوم جغرافیایی، 25(77)، 243-218.
  9. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.61186/jgs.25.77.1
  10. حاتمی زادگان، علیرضا؛ قنبری، عبدالرسول و وخشوری، علی. (1403). معرفی و قابلیت سنجی توان‌های ژئوتوریسم شهرستان میناب بر اساس مدل‌های Pereira & Reynard. فصلنامه جغرافیای طبیعی، 17(65)، 83-101.
  11. https://sanad.iau.ir/Journal/jopg/Article/1121008
  12. قنواتی، عزت‌اله و رعیتی شوازی، منیره. (1394). ارزیابی قابلیت‌های ژئومورفوسایت‌های گردشگری (مطالعه موردی: شهرستان تفت). برنامه‌ریزی و توسعه گردشگری، 4 (14)، 212-193.
  13. کرمی, فریبا؛ رجبی، معصومه و رنگرز فروغ، فاطمه. (1404). ارزیابی توان‌های ژئوتوریستی چشمه‌های آبگرم دامنه شمالی رشته‌کوه بزقوش. جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی، 29(92)، 65-41. doi: 10.22034/gp.2024.60096.3226
  14. کرمی، فریبا؛ مختاری، داود؛ شرفی، سیامک و بازوند، علی. (1404). ارزیابی توانمندی‌های ژئوتوریستی مناطق کارستی جنوب غرب استان لرستان. پژوهش‌های ژئومورفولوژی کمّی، 14(1)، 63-84. doi: 10.22034/gmpj.2025.488335.1534
  15. محمدخان، شیرین؛ ویسی، عبدالکریم و ریاهی، سمانه. (1396). پتانسیل سنجی قابلیت‌های ژئوسایتهای توده کوهستانی شاهو با به‌کارگیری مدل GAM. فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت گردشگری، 38، 83-110.
  16. https://doi.org/10.22054/tms.2017.13428.1380
  17. مقصودی، مهران؛ رحیمی هرآبادی، سعید و هدایی آرانی، مجتبی. (1391). ارزیابی قابلیت ژئومورفوسایتهای پارک ملی کویر. مطالعات مدیریت گردشگری، 19، 49-68. doi: 20.1001.1.23223294.1391.7.19.3.9
  18. مقصودی، مهران؛ یمانی، مجتبی؛ مقیمی، ابراهیم؛ رضوانی، محمدرضا و بهاروند، مهدی. (1397). شناسایی و ارزیابی ژئومورفوسایت‌های کارستی با استفاده از مدل تلفیقی کوبالیکوا و کرچنر (نمونه موردی: ژئومورفوسایت‌های کارستی شهرستان پلدختر-استان لرستان). پژوهش‌های ژئومورفولوژی کمی،7 (1)، 12-1.
  19. doi: 20.1001.1.22519424.1397.7.1.1.5
  20. مهدی نسب، مهدی. (1398). ارزیابی قابلیت‌های ژئوتوریستی تالاب‌های پل‌دختر بر اساس مدل پریرا و رینارد. اکوبیولوژی تالاب (تالاب)، 11(40)، 27-38.
  21. Afrasiabian, A. (1998). The importance of studies and research on karst water resources in Iran. In Proceedings of the 2nd World Symposium on Water Resources in Karst Formations, (126-137). Tehran-Kermanshah, Iran. [In Persian]
  22. Ahmadi, M. (2018). The analysis of the factors affecting the development of cultural tourism and its effects on economic sustainability: A case study on the rural areas of Zanjan Province. Journal of Regional Planning, 8(29), 79-92. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.22516735.1397.8.29.7.5 [In Persian]
  23. Arbabi Sabzevari, A. (2014). Assessment of Geotourism Capabilities and Potentials in Sustainable Development (Case study: Darband Pond in Sahneh City). Journal of Natural Geography, 7(26), 65-86. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20085656.1393.7.26.6.4[In Persian]
  24. Asghari Sarsekanrood, S., Madani, J., & Nazari Gazik, Z. (2024). Investigating and Evaluating the Geotourism Potential of the Mashhad Plain Watershed. Journal of Geography and Environmental Studies, 13 (51), 22-45. doi: 10.71740/ges.2024.979166 [In Persian]
  25. Castaldini, D., Valdati, J., & Ilies, D. C. (2005). The Contribution of Geomorphologic Mapping to Environmental Tourism in Protected Areas: Examples from the Apennines of Modena (Northern Italy). Revista de geomorfologie, 7, 91-106.
  26. Comănescu, L., Nedelea, A., & Dobre R. (2011). The evaluation of geomorphosites from the Ponoare protected area. Forum Geografic, 11(1), 54–61. doi:10.5775/fg.2067-4635.2012.037.i
  27. Coratza, P., Galve, J., P., Soldati, M., & Tonelli, C. (2012). Recognition and assessment of sinkholes as geosites: lessons from the Island of Gozo (Malta). Quaestiones Geographicae, 31(1),25-35. doi:10.2478/v10117-012-0006-8
  28. Vujičić, M., A. Vasiljević, D., B. Marković, S., A. Hose, T., Lukić, T., Hadžić, O., & Janićević, S. (2011). Preliminary Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) and its Application on Fruška Gora Mountain, Potential Geotourism Destination of Serbia. Acta geographica Slovenica, 51-2, 361–377. doi:10.3986/AGS51303
  29. Dowling, R. (2013). Global Geotourism – An Emerging Form of Sustainable Tourism. Czech Journal of Tourism, 2(2), 59-79. doi:10.2478/cjot-2013-0004
  30. Ebrahimi, A., Mokhtari, D., & Roostaei, S. (2021). Assessment of the role of developed karst resources in the geotourism capabilities of Kamyaran County. Quantitative Geomorphological Researches, 10(3), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.22034/gmpj.2021.284818.1273 [In Persian]
  31. Gelvez-Chaparro, J., Herrera-Ruiz, J., Zafra-Otero, D., Barajas-Rangel, D., Díaz-Carreño, J., & Ríos-Reyes, C. (2018). Geotouristic potential in karst systems of Santander (Colombia): the beginning of right geoeducational and geoconservational practices. International Journal of Hydrology, 2(6), 713-716. doi:10.15406/ijh.2018.02.00148
  32. Ghanavati, E. A., & Rayati Shavvazi, M. (2015). Evaluating the Capabilities of Tourism Geomorphosites (Case Study: Taft). Journal of Tourism Planning and Development, 4(14), 193-212. [In Persian]
  33. Grandgirard, V. (1999). L'évaluation des géotopes. Geologia Insubrica, Milano, 41, 59-66.
  34. Hatami Zadegan, A. (2024). Introducing and evaluating the capabilities of geotourism in Minab city Based on Pereira & Reynard models. Physical Geography Quarterly, 17(65), 83-101. [In Persian]
  35. Hooke, J. M. (1994). Strategies for Conserving and Sustaining Dynamic Geomorphologic Sites”: In: O'Halloran, D. et al. (Eds), Geological and landscape conservation. London, Geological Society.
  36.  http://dx.doi.org/10.61186/jgs.25.77.1 [In Persian]
  37. Ielenicz, M. (2009). Geotope, Geosite, Geomorphosite. Geographical Series, 9, 1- 22.
  38. Jahantigh mand, S., Karam, A., Ghanavati, E., & Kiani, S. (2025). Analysis of geotourism system in Firoozkouh township and presentation of its development model from the perspective of geopark capability. Journal of Applied Researches in Geographical Sciences, 25 (77), 218-243.
  39. Karami, F., Mokhtari, D., Sharafi, S., & Bazvand, A. (2025). Evaluation of the geotourism capabilities of karst areas in the southwest of Lorestan province. Quantitative Geomorphological Research, 14(1), 63-84. doi: 10.22034/gmpj.2025.488335.1534 [In Persian]
  40. Karami, F., Rajabi, M., & Rangraz Forog, F. (2025). Assessment of the Geotourism Capabilities of Hot Springs in the Northern Slopes of Bozgoush Mountain Range. Journal of Geography and Planning, 29(92), 65-41. doi: 10.22034/gp.2024.60096.3226 [In Persian]
  41. Kevin, L., Jie, L., Mark, W., Cong. L., Shuzhuo, L., & Ying, L. (2019). A Comparative Analysis of Participating and Non Participating Households in ProPoor Tourism in Southern Shaanxi, China. Tourism Planning & Development, 16(3), 318-333. doi:10.1080/21568316.2018.1490340
  42. Khalaf, E. E. D. A. H. (2024). Karst Heritage as a Tourist Attraction: a Case Study in the White Desert National Park, Western Desert, Egypt. Geoheritage, 14(94), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00727-3.
  43. Maghsoudi, M., Yamani, M., Moghimi, E., Rezvani, M., & Baharvand, M. (2018). Identification and evaluation of karst geomorphosites Using the combined model of Kubalikova and Kirchner (Case Study: Karst geomorphosites in Poldokhtar- Lorestan province). Quantitative Geomorphological Research, 7(1), 1-12. doi: 20.1001.1.22519424.1397.7.1.1.5 [In Persian]
  44. Maghsudi, M., Alizadeh, M., Rahimi harabadi, S., & Hadai arani, M. (2012). Capability Assessment of Tourism Geomorphosites in Kavir National Park. Tourism Management Studies, 7(19), 49-68. doi: 20.1001.1.23223294.1391.7.19.3.9 [In Persian]
  45. Marija, P., & Slobodanka, S. (2022). Application of GAM model to protected areas of the NorthWestern part of Central Serbia. Arshives for Technical Sciences, 26 (1), 91-100. Doi: 10.7251/afts.2022.1426.091P
  46. Matthew, O. A., Ede, Ch., Osabohien, O., Ejemeyovwi, J., Ayanda, T., & Okunbor, j. (2018). Interaction Effect of Tourism and Foreign Exchange Earnings on Economic Growth in Nigeria. Global Business Review, 1(12), 1-16. doi:10.1177/0972150918812985
  47. Mehdinasab, M. (2019). Evaluation of geotouristic capabilities of Poldokhtar wetlands based on the Pereira and Rhineard models. Wetland Ecobiology. 11 (2), 27-38. [In Persian]
  48. Migon, P. (2011). Development of karst phenomena for geotourism in the Moravian Karst (Czech Republic). Geotourism/Geoturystyka, 26–27, 3-24. https://doi.org/10.7494/geotour.2011.3-4.3
  49. Mohammadkhan, S., Veys, A., & Riahi, S. (2017). Feasibility of the Geo Site Potentials of Shahoo Mountain, Based on GAM Model. Tourism Management Studies, 12(38), 83-110. doi: 10.22054/tms.2017.13428.1380[In Persian]
  50. Özşahin, E. (2017). Geodiversity assessment in the Ganos (Isıklar) Mount (NW Turkey). Environmental Earth Sciences, 76(7), 271-271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6591-z
  51. Panizza, M. (2001). Geomorphosites: Concepts, methods and examples of geomorphological survey. Chin. Sci.Bull. 46 (Suppl 1), 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03187227
  52. Pereira, P., Pereira, D., & Caetano Alves, M. I. (2007). Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geogr. Helv, 62, 159–168. https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-62-159-2007
  53. Perić, M., & Stankov, S. (2022). Application of GAM model to protected areas of the northwestern part of Central Serbia. Archives for Technical Sciences, 1(26), 91–100. doi: 10.7251/afts.2022.1426.091P
  54. Pralong, J. (2005). A method for Assessing the Tourist Potential and use of Geomorpho-logical Sites. Geomorphologie, Rrlief, Processus, Environment, 3, 189-196. https://doi.org/10.4000/geomorphologie.350
  55. Quaranta, G. (1993). Geomorphological assets: conceptual aspect and application in the area of Crodo da Lago (Cortina d'Ampezzo, Dolomites). In Panizza M., Soldati M., Barani D. (Eds), European Intensive Course on Applied Geomorphology. Proceedings, Modena - Cortina d'Ampezzo, 49–60.
  56. Rajabi, M., Rahnemon, H., & Abazari, K. (2017). Determining the Approaches and Development Policies of Geotourism in Meshkinshahr. Geographical Journal of Tourism Space, 6(23), 1-16. [In Persian].
  57. Reynard, E. (2005). Geomorphosites et paysages. Geomorphol. Relief Proces. Environ, 3, 181 -188 (in French). doi:10.4000/geomorphologie.338
  58. Reynard, E., & Panizza, M. (2005). Geomorphosites: definition, assessment and mapping. An introduction. Géomorphologie: Relief, processus, environnement, 3, 177-180. doi:10.4000/geomorphologie.337
  59. Reynard, E., Fontana, G., Kozlik, L., & Scapozza, C. (2007). A method for assessing «scientific» and «additional values» of geomorphosites. Geographica Helvetica, 62(3),148-158. doi:10.5194/gh-62-148-2007
  60. Rivas, V., Rix, K., Francés, E., Cendrero. A., & Brunsden, D. (1997). Geomorphological indicators for environmental impact assessment: consumable and non-consumable geomorphological resources. Geomorphology, 18,169-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(96)00024-4
  61. Serrano, E., & González-Trueba, J. J. (2005). Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: The Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement, 11(3), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.4000/geomorphologie.364
  62. Stueve A.M., Cooks S. D., & Drewd, D. (2002). The Geotourism Study: Phase I Executive Summary. National Geographic Traveler and Travel Industry Association of America. 22p.
  63. Tamang, L., Mandal, U. K., Karmakar, M., Banerjee, M., & Ghosh, D. (2023). Geomorphosite Evaluation For Geotourism Development Using Geosite Assessment Model (GAM): A Study From A Proterozoic Terrain In Eastern India. International Journal Of Geoheritage And Parks, 11(1), 82-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2022.12.001
  64. Ulloa, A., & Goicoechea, C. (2013). Geotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica. Tourism and Karst Areas, 6(1), 43-56.
  65. Ursache, M. (2015). Tourism – Significant Driver Shaping a Destinations Heritage. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 188,130- 137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.348
  66. Wu, Y., Ning, Y., Mingxing, Y., Jun, Y., Min, Z., & ShiQiang, Y. (2024). Sustainable development of geological resources: the Characteristics of Red Karst Landscape and Tourism Development in Tongren, Guizhou[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 10(1), 141-171. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2024009
  67. Yingzhi, G., Seongseop, K., & Yong, C. (2014). Shanghai Residents’ Perceptions of Tourism Impacts and Quality of Life. Journal of China Tourism Research, 10(2), 142-164. doi:10.1080/19388160.2013.849639
  68. Zouros, N. C. (2007). Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece Case study of the Lesvos island – coastal geomorphosites. Geogr. Helv, 62, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-62-169-2007.