| چکیده انگلیسی مقاله |
AbstractTo find the geotourism potential of a region or to measure the tourist potential of geoparks, researchers in Iran and the world have always sought to evaluate the geosites and geomorphosites of regions. The purpose of this study is to compare the models of Brilha, Comanescu, and Fassoulas, with Shayan Yeganeh et al.’s native model. It examines the strengths and weaknesses of each of the international models with the Iranian model. The study area with an area of 4257 square kilometers is located in the west of Khorasan Razavi, which can include parts of Sabzevar and Davarzan cities. This research has dealt with the subject with an analytical-comparative method. The data were collected using documentary and field methods and analyzed using GIS, SPSS, and Excel graphic and statistical software. The results of the research show that geomorphosites that are water erosion subsets have the highest scores in all models, and in contrast, wind erosion geomorphosites have the lowest scores. From the comparison of the models, it can be concluded that Shayan Yeganeh et al.’s model is the most consistent with Brilha’s model. The Brillha model can be used to evaluate the ophiolite and desert regions. The native model of Shayan Yeganeh is designed for the dry and semi-arid deserts and mountainous regions, and it seems that it is necessary to give a few changes and modifications for coastal and glacial areas. Regarding the innovation of the study, it investigates the latest Iranian model for evaluating geomorphosites and geosites and examines its strengths and weaknesses.Keywords: Evaluation, Geomorphosite, Geotourism, Geopark, Geoconservation, Khorasan Razavi. IntroductionGeomorphosites and geosites are parts of geodiversity and geoheritage. The protection of the geological heritage is an important goal for planners and managers (Brilha, 2015). Geomorphosites are the main components of the development of geotourism, which have certain values such as scientific, cultural, historical, aesthetic, and social economics. The maintenance and discovery of geodiversity and their evaluation can be geoconservation objectives and are considered the basis of particular geotourism activities (Andrasanu, 2009). One of the most effective ways of protecting and conserving geodiversity is to protect and preserve its valuable landmarks such as geoheritage (geological and geomorphic heritage). This study aims to compare the models of Brilha, Comanescu, and Fassoulas, with Shayan Yeganeh et al.’s (2017) native model. The study area with an area of 4257 square kilometers is located in the west of Khorasan Razavi. It includes parts of Sabzevar and Davarzan cities. The longitude of the area is between 56 to 57 degrees (east) and the latitude is between 35 to 36 degrees (north). Materials and MethodsThis study uses an analytical-comparative approach for the evaluation of geosites and geomorphosites. The data were collected using library and field methods and analyzed using GIS, SPSS, and Excel software. The native model of Shayan Yeganeh et al. (2017) designed for Iran's geoparks is computed with eight scientific, educational, service, protection and conservation, cultural, aesthetic, ecological, and indigenous values. In Brilha’s model, geosites and geomorphosites are scored based on the four main criteria of science, educational potential, touristic potential, and degradation risk (protective value). Comanescu’s model (2011) is based on five values (scientific, aesthetic, cultural, economic, and management). Fassoulas et al. (2012) presented a method of four educational, tourist, ecological, and conservation criteria (a score of 1 to 10) for a quantitative study of geosites to protect the geoheritage. Research FindingsThe results of this study show that Kalshoor River, watercolor, Sheikholeslami Qanat, Ophiolite Melange, Kamiz Dam, talus, fans, watershed management, catching in the watershed, and Mushroom Stone are respectively 10 geomorphosites that have the highest geoconservation scores. Drawing shapes, ripple marks, meander, Dike Nahaldan, Sabzevar Claypan, fault, perpendicular layers, sandy pyramids, manifold, and hamada have the lowest scores in geoconservation, respectively. In total, it can be said that geomorphosites that are water erosion subsets have the highest scores in all models; instead, wind erosion geomorphosites have the lowest scores. The Brilha method is the closest method to Shayan Yeganeh et al. for evaluating geomorphosites considering that the aesthetic and economic aspect of geomorphic cultures is insignificant. The models of Comanescu and Fassoulas are at later stages. Comanescu paid less attention to service values, and Fassoulas weakly examines the ecology of geomorphosites. Discussion of Results and Conclusion According to this study, it can be said that Shayan Yeganeh et al.’s model has good coverage of geomorphotoristic potential assessment. After assessing the potential of geomorphotourism, it can be calculated for each geopark as well. In this model, water forms like the Kalshoor River, watercolor, and Qanat Shaykholeslami have the highest protection levels, and wind and water shapes like drawing shapes, ripple marks, and Meander, have the weakest scores in the geoconservation of geoheritage. It can be concluded from the comparison of the models that Shayan Yeganeh et al.’s model is the most consistent with Brilha’s model. The latter can be used to evaluate the ophiolite and desert regions. The native model of Shayan Yeganeh et al. is designed for the dry and semi-arid deserts and mountainous regions. References- Abedini, M., Hemmati, T., Nezafat Tekle, B., & Khayati, A. (2022). Evaluating the capabilities of sustainable tourism development of geomorphosites using the Comanescu model and the Pavlova model (Case study: Sabalan tourist route to Hiran Pass). Quarterly Journal of Tourism Space, 11(44), 19-37 (in Persian).- Andrasanu, A. (2009). Geoeducation-a key part of geoconservation. Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai, Geologia, 5-16.- Arora, K., Rajput, S., & Anand, R. (2020). Geomorphosites assessment for the development of scientific geo-tourism in north and middle andaman's, india. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 32(4), 1244-1251. DOI 10.30892/gtg.32408-564.- Artugyan, L. (2017). Geomorphosites assessment in karst terrains: Anina karst region (Banat Mountains, Romania). Geoheritage, 9(2), 153–162 . DOI:10.1007/s12371-016-0188-x.- Brilha J. (2015). Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: A review. The European Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage.- Burek, C. V., & Prosser, C. D. (2008). The history of geoconservation: An introduction. London: Geological Society, 1-5.- Carrión-Mero, P., Ayala-Granda, A., Serrano-Ayala, S., Morante-Carballo, F., Aguilar-Aguilar, M., Gurumendi-Noriega, M., … & Berrezueta, E. (2020). Assessment of geomorphosites for geotourism in the northern part of the “ruta escondida” (Quito, Ecuador). Sustainability, 12(20), 8468.- Cleal, C. J. (2007). Geoconservation – what on earth are we doing? Regional Conference on Geoconservation: Geological heritage in the South-European Europe. Book of abstracts (p. 25). Ljubljana: Environmental Agency of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved from http://arsis.net/circular/ProGEO-Abstract.pdf.- Cocean, G., & Cocean, P. (2017). An assessment of gorges for purposes of identifying geomorphosites of geotourism value in the Apuseni Mountains (Romania). Geoheritage, 9(1), 71–81. DOI: 10.1007/s12371-016-0180-5.- Comanescu, L., Nedelea, A., & Dobre, R. (2011). Evaluation of geomorphosites in vistea valley (Fagaras Mountains-Carpathians, Romania). International Journal of the Physical Sciences, 6(5), 1161 -1168.- De Lima, F. F., Brilha, J. B., & Salamuni, E. (2010). Inventorying geological heritage in large territories: A methodological proposal applied to Brazil. Geoheritage, 2, 91–99. DOI:10.1007/s12371-010-0014-9.- Ebrahimpour, H., Nemati, V., & Nezafat Taklhe, B. (2022). Investigating the geotourism capabilities of Ardabil province using the Kubalikova model and the Fiolet model (Case study: Nir, Nemin, Sarein). Journal of Geography and Human Relations, 5(3), 144-161 (in Persian).- Fassoulas, C., Mouriki, D., Dimitriou-Nikolakis, P., & Iliopoulos, G. (2012). Quantitative assessment of geotopes as an effective tool for geoheritage management. Geoheritage, 4, 177–193. DOI:10.1007/s12371-011-0046-9.- Kamran, H., Alizadeh, M., & Nikbakht, R. (2020). Evaluation of the capabilities of selected geosites of Isfahan province with Braille model. Geography (Quarterly Scientific-Research and International Journal of the Geographical Society of Iran), 18(64), 5-22 (in Persian).- Kubalíková L., & Kirchner K (2015). Geosite and geomorphosite assessment as a tool for geoconservation and geotourism purposes: A case study from Vizovická vrchovina Highland (eastern part of the Czech Republic). Geoheritage, 12. DOI:10.1007/s12371-015-0143-2- Maghsoudi, M., & Arabameri, A. R. (2017). Quantitative assessment of salt geomorphosites in Semnan Province using Brilha and Pralong methods with emphasis on west province geosites. Physical Geography Research Quarterly, 49(2), 241-258. https://doi.org/ 10.22059/ JPHGR. 2017. 62844 (in Persian).- Maghsoudi, M., Ganjaeian, H., Safdari, E., & Abdolmalki, M. (2020). Identification and evaluation of pre-geosites of Zanjan province and its impact on sustainable tourism development. Journal of Tourism Management Studies, 14(48), 149-178. https://doi.org/10.22054/tms.2020.28234.1804 (in Persian).- Newsome, D., & Dowling, R. K. (Eds.) (2010). Geotourism: The tourism of Geology and Landscape. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers Ltd.- Özşahin, E. (2017). Geodiversity assessment in the Ganos (Isıklar) Mount (NW Turkey). Journal of Environmental Earth Sciences, 76(7), 271.- Panizza, M. (2001). Geomorphosites: Concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey. Chinese Science Bulletin, 46, 4-6.- Pereira, P., & Pereira, D. (2010). Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment. Geomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environment, 16(2), 215-222. https://doi.org/10.4000/geomorphologie.7942- Raeisi, R., Dinca, I., Almodaresi, S. A., Swart, M. P., & Boloor, A. (2022). An assessment of geosites and geomorphosites in the Lut Desert of Shahdad Region for potential geotourism development. Land, 11(5), 736. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050736.- Reynard, E. (2004). Geotopos, geomorphosites et paysages geomorphologiques. In Reynard, E., and Pralong, J. P. (Eds.), Paysages geomorphologiques, Travaux and Recherches. 27, IGUL, Lausanne, 123-136.- Reynard, E., Fontana, G., Kozlik, L., & Scapozza, C. (2007). A method for assessing the scientific and additional values of geomorphosites. Geographica Helvetica, 62(3), 148-158. DOI:10.5194/gh-62-148-2007.- Saadatyfar, R., Zanganeh Asadi, M. A., & Goli Mokhtari, L. (2021). The importance of tourism land and a proposal for geopark: A priority in the economy of the Northwestern region of Neishabour - Khorasan Razavi. Journal of Sustainable Development & Geographic Environment, 3(4), 58-72. https://doi.org/10.52547/SDGE.3.4.58 (in Persian).- Salari, M. (2019). Evaluation of geomorphosites and analysis of their strengths and weaknesses using GAM and M-GAM models (Case study: Sardasht city). Journal of Environmental Hazards Management, 6(2), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.22059/JHSCI.2019.283578.481 (in Persian).- Yamani, M., Azimirad, S., Bagheri, S., & Shakari, S. S. (2012). Investigating geotourism capabilities of geomorphosites in Saymarreh region using the Pralong method. Journal of Geography and Environmental Sustanability, 2(1), 69-88 (in Persian).- Zanganeh Asadi, M. A., Amirahmadi, A., & Shayan Yeganeh, A. A. (2018). Mechanism of protection of proposed Geopark West of Khorasan Razavi by the Brilha method. Journal of Geography and Planning, 22(63), 117-137 (in Persian). |