آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 28 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 426 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,132 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 6,705,742 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 4,961,894 |
ارزیابی قابلیت‌های ژئومورفوسایت‌های گردشگری (مطالعه موردی: شهرستان تفت) | ||
| برنامه ریزی و توسعه گردشگری | ||
| مقاله 10، دوره 4، شماره 14، آذر 1394، صفحه 193-212 اصل مقاله (789.57 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی-پژوهشی | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| عزت‌اله قنواتی* 1؛ منیره رعیتی شوازی2 | ||
| 1دانشیار گروه جغرافیای طبیعی، دانشگاه خوارزمی | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری جغرافیای طبیعی، دانشگاه خوارزمی | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 27 فروردین 1394، تاریخ بازنگری: 28 مهر 1394، تاریخ پذیرش: 16 آذر 1394 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| ژئومورفوسایت‌ها از مفاهیم کلیدی برای توسعه‌ی ژئوتوریسم هستند که ارزیابی دقیقی از توزیع فضایی ویژگی‌ها و ارزش‌های علمی، فرهنگی، تاریخی، اجتماعی و اقتصادی را فراهم میکنند و بنیانی برای طراحی و مدیریت مناسب ژئوپارک‌ها هستند. در این پژوهش، با استفاده از از روش ارزیابی ژئوسایت (GAM) و بررسی‌های میدانی به ارزیابی پتانسیل ژئومورفوسایت‌های اصلی شهرستان تفت پرداخته شد. مدل ارزیابی ژئوسایت گرافی شامل 9 فیلد است، در منطقه 6 ژئومورفوسایت مناسب برای توسعه‌ی ژئوتوریسم بر اساس ارزش‌های اصلی آنها (علمی/آموزشی، زیبایی و ارزش حمایتی به عنوان تقاضای بازار و حفاظت) و ارزش‌های اضافی (کاربردی و گردشگری به عنوان وضعیت فعلی توسعه) در فیلد Z22قرار گرفتند، که بیانگر سطح متوسطی از دو گروه ارزش‌های اصلی و اضافی در آنهاست. نتایج بیانگر بالاترین امتیاز از مجموع ارزش‌های اصلی به سایت برفخانه طزرجان (75/7) و بالاترین امتیاز از مجموع ارزش‌های اضافی به کوه عقاب (75/8) است. به طور کلی ژئوسایت عقاب کوه دارای بالاترین امتیاز 25/14 و ژئوسایت چشمه تامهر با اختلاف جزئی با امتیاز 14 در اولویت بعدی برای برنامه ریزی در جهت توسعه‌ی پایدار و برنامه‌های حفاظتی باید در مدیریت میراث طبیعی و فرهنگی مورد توجه مدیران قرار گیرند. [1] Geosite Assessment Model | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| ژئوسایت؛ ژئومورفوسایت؛ ارزیابی؛ شهرستان تفت؛ یزد | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Evaluating the Capabilities of Tourism Geomorphosites (Case Study: Taft) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Ezat Allah Ghanavati1؛ Monireh Rayati Shavvazi2 | ||
| 1Associate Professor of Physical Geography, University of Kharazmi | ||
| 2Ph.D. Student of Geomorphology, University of Kharazmi | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Extended Abstract The geomorphosites are the key concepts for geotourism development which can bring about some accurate assessments from the spatial distribution of specifications and also from the scientific, cultural, historical, social and economic values. So they are the base for designing and management the geoparks beneficially. In this study, we have assessed the potentials of main geomorphosites in the Taft by the usage of both geosite assessment method (GAM) and field studies. The geosite assessment model is a graph which contains 9 fields. in the zone; The geomorphosite 6 is suitable for geotourism development on the basis of their main values (scientific/educational, aesthetic /scenic and protection as market appeal and conservation) and additional values (functional and tourism use as current stage of development) would have been placed at the Z22 field which indicates an average level of both main and additional values. According to the results, the upmost score from among the main values is belonged to the Tezerjan snow accumulation site (7/75) and the upmost score from among the additional values is relevant to the Oghab mountain (8/75). Generally, the Oghab mountain has the most score of 14/25 and the Tamehr spring geosite has the shading score of 14 which would be placed as the next preference choice for programming the sustainable development and also conservation programs. So the administrators must pay their attention on it, spacially for managing the natural and cultural heritages. Introduction Geomorphosites are the index which determines value of natural forms based on different geomorphological, geological, hydrological features, animal features, ecosystem, dendrology, and landscape design and landscape value. In fact, special value of geomorphosites is determined considering perception and productivity of human. This value is different based on focus on each of the scientific, environmental, cultural, aesthetic or economic values. Assessment of geomorphosite is necessary in effective management process of land heritage capitals though some features are different in assessment models and uniform methods have not been developed. Values of geomorphosite have two main components: scientific value and additional values (cultural –historical, environmental, economic, cultural and aesthetic value). Identification of sites with the highest value makes possible planning and operationalization of suitable protective design, general actions and also expansion of tourism infrastructures. Goal of this paper is to study main and additional values of their charismas with Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) which is based on the previous methods while identifying main geomorphosites of Taft. Materials and Methods After studying and identifying geomorphological features of sites based on field and library studies, Geosite Assessment Model was used to assess them. GAM was used in 2011 to assess geotouristic potential in FRUKA GORA Mountains of Serbia. In this model, there are 12 subcriteria of main values (Table 1) and 15 subcriteria of additional values (Table 2) which have been ranked from 0 to 1(Table 3) though there are some differences between this model and other methods. GAM method is defined as a simple equation: GAM = Main Values (VSE+VSA+VPr) + Additional Values (VFn+VTr) Based on results of assessment, a matrix of main and additional values is formed (Figure 1). These values are presented through X and Y axes. The matrix is divided into 9 fields (zones) which are expressed with Z(i and j) and (i and j=1,2,3) based on the rank which each geosite has received in the previous assessment stages. Main lines which created each field have been determined in X axis with value of 4 units and in Y axis with value of 5 units. In fact, condition of each field indicates suitable general development of tourism, market demand and special protection management policy. Discussion and Results Considering assessment results of main values (MV) , Taft geomorphosites (Shirkooh Mountains , Tazarjan Snow Accumulation Site, Dareh Gahan Waterfall, Tamehr Spring , Sakhavid Basin , Oghab Mountain). The highest total rank of subcriteria of scientific and educational value (VSE) is given to Shir Kooh Site (2.25). The highest total rank of subcriteria of scientific and educational value (VSE) is given to Shir Kooh Site (2.25). The highest total rank of subcriteria of scientific and educational value (VSA) is given to Tazarjan snow accumulation site (3.25). The highest total rank of subcriteria of protection value (VPr) is given to two Tazarjan Snow Accumulation Site and Sakhoid Basin with equal score (2.5). Additional value (AV) assessment of geomorphosites shows that the highest total score of subcriteria of Functional value (VFn) is related to Oghab Mountain Site (4.25). The highest total rank of subcriteria of Tourism value (VTr) is related to two sites of Tamehr Spring and Oghab Mountain with equal score of 4.25. Then, total scores of subcriteria of main value and additional value were determined according to GAM equation for the said geomorphosites (Table 4). Total scores of all sites show numbers with very little difference. Therefore, all of them were included in Z22 field (Figure 1) indicating their average condition. Conclusions Geosites of Oghab Mountain (14.25) and then Tamehr Spring (14) with little difference and the highest score have high priority for planning in the zone. Of course, total scores of additional value of these two geomorphosites are higher than other geomorphological sites of the zone due to easier access with score of 1, adjacency to propagation centers with score of 1, Additional functional values with scores of 0.75 and 0.5. The tourism values include adjacency to Eslamieh Touristic center with very short distance, higher number of visitors of geomorphosite of Oghab Site due to location beside Yazd-Shiraz Road, round-the-clock services and restaurant near them in these two geomorphosites which have higher score than other geomorphological sites of the zone. Keywords: Geosite, Geomorphosite, Evaluating, Taft, Yazd. References: Almodaresi, S.A. (2012). Paleo Geomorphology of Shirkuh-Yazd, Islamic Azad University, Yazd. (In Persian) Alexandrowicz, Z., Kućmierz, A., Urban, J. and Otęska-Budzyn, J. (1992). Waloryzacja Przyrody Nieożywionej Obszarów I Obiektów Chronionych W Polsce (Evaluation of Inanimate Nature of Protected Areas and Objects in Poland), Polish Geological Institute: Warsaw. Bruschi, V.M. and Cendrero, A. (2005). Geosite evaluation. Can we measure intangible values?, Il Quaternario, Rome, 18(1): 293-306. Comanescu, L., Nedelea, A. and Dobre, R. (2011). Evaluation of geomorphosites in Vistea Valley (Fagaras Mountains-Carpathians, Romania), International Journal of the Physical Sciences, 6(5): 1161-1168. Cendrero, A. and Panizza, M. (1999). Geomorphology and environmental impact assessment: an introduction, Supplementi di Geografia Fisica Dinamica Quaternaria, III/3: 167-172. Eslamizadeh, E. and Samani Rad, SH. (2011). Geological and Lithology environment of the growth place for a medical plant Nepta Astrotricha in igneous rocks of Shirkuh Yazd, Journal of Applied Geology, 3: 170-181. (In Persian) Fassoulas, C., Mouriki, D., Dimitriou, P. and Iliopoulos, G. (2011). Quantitative assessment of geotopes as an effective tool for geoheritage management, Geoheritage, 3: 177–193. Fotohi, S., Taghizade, Z. and Rahimi, D. (2012). Assessing Capabilities of Geomorphotourismy land forms based on Pralong Method Case Study: The tourism regional sample Bisotun (Text in Persian), Journal of Applied Research of Geographic Sciences, 26: 23-46. (In Persian) Fakhri,S., Hodayi Arani, N. and Rahimi Harabadi, S. (2013). Capability Assessment of Tourism Geomorphosites in Arid Zone in the Tourism Development by Using Comparison of Geomorphotourism Models (Case Study: Maranjab), Applied Geomorphology of Iran, 1: 103-121. (In Persian) Governor of yazd. (2012). Planning Department of Yazd Governer, Develop a strategic plan to develop, Taft township, p. 46. (In Persian) Grandgirard, V. (1999). L'évaluation des géotopes, Geologia Insubrica, Milano, 4-1: 59-66. Hose, T.A. (1997). Geotourism - selling the earth to Europe. (In P. G. Marinos, G. C. Koukis, G. C. Tsiambaos. & G.C.Stournaras (eds.), Engineering geology and the environment), Rotterdam: A.A Balkema, 2955–2960. Hose,T.A. (2000). European Geotourism–Geological Interpretation and Geoconservation Promotion for Tourists. Geological Geritage: Its Conservation and Management, Instituto Tecnologico Geominero de Espana, Madrid, 127–146. Kubaliková. L. (2013). Geomorphosite assesment for geotour-ism purposes, Czech Journal of Tourism, 2: 80–104. Lima, F., Brilha, J. and Salamun, E. (2010). Inventorying geological heritage in large territories: a methodological proposal applied to Brazil, Geoheritage, 2: 91–99. Miroslav, D.V., Djordjije, A.V., Slobodan, B.M., Thomas, A.H., Tin, L., Olga, H. and Sava, J. (2011). Preliminary geosite assessment model (gam) and its application on Fru{ka gora mountain, potential geotourism destination of Serbia, Acta Geographica Slovenica, 51(2): 361–377. Mokhtari, D. (2010). Assessment of Ecotourism Potential of Geomorphic Sites at AsyabKharabeh Catchment Area in North West of Iran by Pralong Method, Geography and Development, 18: 27-52. (In Persian) Maghsoudi, M., Alizadeh, M., Rahimi, S. and Hodayi Arani, M. (2012). Capability assessment of tourism geomorphosites in Kavir National park, Tourism Management Studies, 19: 49-52. (In Persian) Moufti, M. R., Németh, K., El-Masry, N. and Qaddah, A. (2013). Geoheritage values of one of the largest maar craters in the Arabian Peninsula: the Al Wahbah Crater and other volcanoes (Harrat Kishb, Saudi Arabia), Central European Journal of Geosciences, 5(2): 254-271. Moghimi, E., Rahimi Herabadi, S., Hodaei Arani, M., Alizadeh, M. and Oroji, H. (2012). Geomorphotourism and capability assessment of road geomorphosites by using Pereira Method, case study: Qom-Kashan freeway, Journal of Applied Research of Geographic Sciences, 27: 163-184. (In Persian) Negaresh, H., Khaledi, SH., Gol karami, A. and Zandi, R. (2009). Geotourism attractions mud volcanoes in the province of Sistan and Baluchestan, Journal of Environmental Amayesh, 6: 78-97. (In Persian) Nojavan, M.R., Mir Hosseini, A.G. and Ramesht, M.H. (2009). Yazd Geotopes and its attractions, Geography and Development Iranian Journal , 13: 47-60. (In Persian) Panizza, M. (2001). Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey, Chinese Science Bulletin, 46: 4–6. Panizza, M. and Piacente, S. (2003a). Geomorfologia Culturale, Bologna: Pitagora Editrice, 87: 13–18. Pereira, P., Pereira. D. and Caetano Alves, M.I. (2007). Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal), Geographica Helvetica, 62: 159-168. Pralong, J.P. (2005). A method for assessing the tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites, Géomorphologie, Relief, Processus, Environnement, 3: 189-196. Rivas, V., Rix, K., Francés, E., Cendrero, A. and Brunsden, D. (1997). Geomorphological indicators for environmental impact assessment: consumable and non-consumable geomorphological resources, Geomorphology, 18: 169-182. Reynard, E. (2005). Géomorphosites et paysages Géomorphologie, Relief Processus Environ, 3:181-188. Reynard, E., Fontana, G., Kozlik, L. and Scapozza, C. (2007). A method for assessing scientific and additional values of geomorphosites, Geographia Helvetica, 62(3): 148–158. Reynard, E. (2008). Scientific research and tourist promotion of geomorphological heritage, Geografia Fisica e Dinamica Quaternaria, 31(2): 225-230. Reynard, E. (2009). The Assessment of Geomorphosites, Geomorphosites, Munchen: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, 240. Serrano, E. and González-Trueba, J.J. (2005). Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain), Géomorphologie. Formes, Processus, Environnement, 3: 197-208. Stürm, B. (1994). The geotope concept: geological nature conservation by town and country planning, Geological and Landscape Conservation, Proceedings of the Malvern International Conference, London: Geological Societ. Watson, E. and Slaymaker, O. (1966). Mid-Wales, a Survey of Geomorphological Sites, Aberystwyth: Department of Geography, University College of Wales. 92. Yamani, M., Negahban, S., Rahimi Harabadi, S. and Alizadeh, M. (2012). Geomorphotourism and comparison of methods for the assessment of geomorphosites in tourism development (Case study: Hormozgan provice), Journal of Planning and Tourism Development, 1: 83-104. (In Persian) Zgłobicki W., Baran-Zgłobicka, B., Ziółek, M. and Ziółek, G. (2005). Atrakcyjność wizualna krajobrazu polskich parków nar-odowych a ich wartości przyrodnicze (Scenic beauty of Polish national Parks landscape and their natural val-ues), Parki Narodowe i Rezerwaty Przyrody, 24: 135–151. Zouros, N.C. (2007). Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece The Case study of the Lesvos island – coastal geomorphosites, Geographica Helvetica, 62-3: 169-180. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Geosite, Geomorphosite, Evaluating, Taft, Yazd | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,355 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,613 |
||