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

Document Type : Full length article

Authors

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

10.22059/jphgr.2026.410354.1007916

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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]
  11. 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
  12. 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]
  13. Grandgirard, V. (1999). L'évaluation des géotopes. Geologia Insubrica, Milano, 41, 59-66.
  14. 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]
  15. 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.
  16.  http://dx.doi.org/10.61186/jgs.25.77.1 [In Persian]
  17. Ielenicz, M. (2009). Geotope, Geosite, Geomorphosite. Geographical Series, 9, 1- 22.
  18. 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.
  19. 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]
  20. 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]
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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]
  24. 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]
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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]
  28. 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
  29. 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]
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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.
  36. 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].
  37. Reynard, E. (2005). Geomorphosites et paysages. Geomorphol. Relief Proces. Environ, 3, 181 -188 (in French). doi:10.4000/geomorphologie.338
  38. Reynard, E., & Panizza, M. (2005). Geomorphosites: definition, assessment and mapping. An introduction. Géomorphologie: Relief, processus, environnement, 3, 177-180. doi:10.4000/geomorphologie.337
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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.
  43. 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
  44. Ulloa, A., & Goicoechea, C. (2013). Geotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica. Tourism and Karst Areas, 6(1), 43-56.
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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.