geotope, geosite, geomorphosite - valahia · geotope, geosite, geomorphosite ... investigation of...

The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009 ____________________________________________________________________________________________

7

` GEOTOPE, GEOSITE, GEOMORPHOSITE

Mihai IELENICZ1

1University of Bucharest

Abstract: During the last decennia, the terms of geosite and geomorphosite have been introduced in the geographic literature, to delineate and to express the tourist value of certain places (mainly as relief forms and reliefogenic processes). We have followed successively the relations between geotope and geosite and then geosite and geomorphosite and insisted on the features leading to the differentiation of types and subtypes of geosites and on the calculation of the tourist value of the objectives they belong to, according to a differentiated score awarded based on several criteria. Key words: tourism, geotope, geosite, geomorphosite, cultural geomorphology

1. Geotope-Geosite A few decennia ago, was introduced in the geographic literature, with many

geomorphological exemplifications, the term of geotope, to define the smallest geographic unit constituting an undividable system of this kind (the basis of all the systemic complexes organized in a hierarchy).

During the last decennium, in some countries of the Mediterranean basin (Italy, France), desiring to express as eloquently as possible the connections between a large part of the relief forms and sometimes between the geomorphological processes and tourism (especially in the sense of valorizing them for different tourist activities), in the specialized literature was introduced the term of Geomorphosite. The meaning was that of morphological element (indicated as process or form of relief) with a certain value for tourism. It can also be a reply to some terms (archeological site, historical site) used with a very high frequency in these states with an extremely rich history.

Then, there was a move on from the simple definition to the determination of four to five features that can lead to the selection of a reliefogenic site. They were completed using several criteria based on which they can be quantified and, finally, an average value can be calculated, which would lead to significant hierarchies for a realistic economic valorization.

Timidly, there has appeared as well the tendency of evading towards other components of the geographic system or of the geological, historical systems as well, in which it is also possible to differentiate elements that through their characteristics are significant for different tourist activities. Knowing all of them (those that belong to the relief but also all the others) is only possible via field investigations materialized in mapping, surveys, measurements, then followed by the realization of maps, brochures, diverse writings and finally by the calculation of an average value that would lead to hierarchies with significance for a valorization in tourism.

Almost in parallel have appeared, beside the terms of geomorphosite and geosite, notions that are often used in an undifferentiated way, although the first constitutes a component of the other.

That is why it is necessary to come with clarifications, firstly in the relations between the notions with a larger content (geotope and geosite) and then between geosite and geomorphosite.

The first terms phonetically express similar situations (geo=geo; tope=site=place) small geographic spots, or small spots on the surface of the Earth with a certain specific. The


8

difference is given, however, not by location or size, but by the sphere of comprehension of the functional expression of this place in relation to specific demands (in the first situation, we are dealing with a complex level of the geographic meaning, while the significance of the second is meaningful for a tourist valorization). In this sense, the geotope is a minor, indivisible geographic unit (the basis of the geographic systems of different orders) with a certain makeup, structure and functionality, resulted from a genesis, evolution and combination of certain elements of all the environmental components, yet differentiated as significance).

It remains the basic unit in any geographic analysis in which the main accent is of a scientific nature (ex. river bed, talweg, river rapid, inselberg, glacis, CROV, peak, plateau, cuesta, cliff, beach etc.). From here results the family of geomorphotopes classified according to different criteria (agent, process etc.) or according to regions with specific geomorpholandscapes (a set of geomorphotops) that all belong to the science of the relief (landscapes of the glacial geomorphotopes from the massifs Făgăraş, Parâng, Retezat, Rodnei etc.; karst landscapes of the mounts Aninei, Pădurea Craiului, Mehedinţi Plateau etc.; sufosion and rams landscapes in the plains of Bărăgan, Covurlui etc.; structural cuesta and plateau landscapes in the Moldavian Plateau etc.). Secondly, the sphere of comprehension of the notion o “geotope” leads on the one hand to the possibility of realizing hierarchies on different levels (from basic unit to regions, tiers, zones) dominated by the high frequency of a geotope and then, on the other hand, through synthesis, to the differentiation of specific types of geotopes.

The term of geosite, however, involves, depending on the direction in which they are used, other assessment criteria, combined in different proportions. Their weight depends on the final purpose of the activities (related to science, tourism, economy etc.), and also on the person (people) who realize the assessment act. The specialist in one domain (geography, geology, history etc.) will focus on the scientific component that he/they will consider as basic, not just in point of location, but also in point of the attributes he/they provide(s) in the genetic, evolutive, chronological etc. explanations, both on a general and on a local level. So, it is the scientific knowledge that is primordial, while the aspects resulted from the investigation of other directions will have a secondary role and only to the extent to which they support the essential ones. For instance, let us take the case of the paleontological knowledge of a fossiliferous spot or the interpretation of a stratigraphic column for the chronoevolutive assessment of a relief. In this case, for the geographer, the geosite is almost identified with the geotope.

The use of the term in a different direction (for tourism) and so collaterally in relation to the purely scientific side changes the relative weight of these characteristics. For example the neck on which a fortified city (Rupea) is situated has a differentiated scientific value for the geographer (altitude, shape, evolution of the plateau, economic valorization etc.), geologist (genesis, makeup, evolution etc.), historian (strategic basis for the building of the fortified city, point of observation) and in a low but varied proportion for each of the other domains (cultural, artistic etc.). Collaterally, for an architect become significant (primordial) the type of construction through its adaptation to declivity, rock, exposure and degree of preservation. For a tourist, significant (primordial) are the purely historical data and the landscape, and secondarily all the others; for a military strategist, essential is the motivation of the role of such a place in the network of Transylvanian walled cities belonging to the middle Ages.

So, a geosite can be looked at from several directions by different specialists or by simple passers-by (tourists), which results in distinct differences in the attribution of characteristics, then in an assessment in point of value and eventually in decisions of


9

scientific patrimonial expertise (historic, artistic, architectonic etc.), on a local, national, international level, and in an economic, tourist etc. valorization.

So, the sphere of the term of geosite is extremely large, leading to distinguishing a group (family) of separated geosites depending on the main direction of approach of the investigation (scientific, cultural-artistic, economic, sportive, tourist, etc.).

The connections between them impose secondary directions that can form a hierarchy in point of the participation to the ways of valorization.

In the sphere of the scientific direction, in the geographic domain there is the term of geotope and in the domain of history, the term of archeological site, while for the other domains there are no such comprehensive notions.

The geographers have made the first steps in the differentiation of the geosites for tourism. Yet, tourism is a domain which involves specialists with very different orientations. This situation has led to the introduction and use of a diverse terminology in time (potential, patrimony etc.) and which, in many cases, is interpretable and can even lead to confusions.

The sense the geographer gives to the term of geosite used in tourism must have a complex character, comprising several aspects, the type of tourist objective, with the value imposed by the sum of certain characteristics resulted from a symbiosis in time between the natural and the anthropic patrimony (historical, architectonic, artistic elements etc.) to which is added the level of endowment and of exploitation. So, on a local level it reflects at any time its tourist patrimony and also the extent to which it is known and valorized.

The idea of the extension of the sites with value for tourism (correct: touristsites) and of their inclusion in a comprehensive term – geosites implies, however, as well, the discussion of three interpretations of a taxonomic nature of the term of geosite, related to different extensions. The first interpretation refers to strictly geographic sites, the second includes the interpretations from the sphere of geosciences (geographic, geological, ecological) and then there is a third all-comprehensive interpretation (fig. 1) referring to terrestrial sites of different geneses (to the previous interpretations are added the historical, economic, cultural etc. ones) but which present a tourist value.

Fig. 1 – Sphere of the Geosite in 3 situations

The final purpose of some territorial analyses would be to asses the tourist potential

present in a region with the purpose of its future economic valorization. It naturally leads to accepting the third direction of interpretation, a situation requiring nevertheless team evaluations with specialists from a large horizon of knowledge and preoccupation (obligatorily the tourist domain along with the specialized ones).


10

Through the extension of the sphere of comprehension of this notion (any site with tourist value situated on all the surface of the earth) is overpassed the strict limitation to the alpine units where they have a distinct concentration being frequently present in the landscape. In this sense, the alpine areas of the Alps or of the other massifs of the Mediterranean basin which have constituted pioneering applicative models for the ideas related to the touristsites directly imposed by the relief (definition, categories, characteristics, assessment criteria, score, valorisation ideas) have proven auspicious, yet insufficient (table 2).

By extension, even to the alpine areas from other geographic regions, some of the ideas (especially the direction of the characteristics) have proven unrealistic, unconvincing for the analysis. That is why it is necessary to determine geosite families for each domain (geographic, geologic, ecologic, historical etc.), the verification on places (units) as varied as possible in structure and frequency and then the determination of general and also particular (clearly defined) assessment criteria, with a corresponding score for each family.

2. Geomorphosite The alpine area, through the multitude of elements (dominantly those imposed by the

relief) and of landscapes with tourist value largely known and appreciated by tourists, including also an infrastructure and endowments for diverse tourist activities, was the area where the geographers have looked for the application and then the launch of the first term of the family of geosites.

The geomorphosite. It refers only to certain forms of relief and reliefogenic processes that have features conferring them a destination for tourism. In order to impose the term and the methods of analysis, a multiple lobby has been carried out during the last few years, supported by papers presented in scientific conferences – national or international -, by the creation of workgroups and of a commission of the International Geomorphological Association with a view to deepening the directions of activity and to printing several books.

It was prefigured even the idea of the belonging of this direction of investigation to a new section in geomorphology (Cultural geomorphology) in connection to Cultural geography, giving it, in a forced manner, the scientific support of knowledge and a side of transposition towards the spiritual patrimony.

But, next to the reliefogenic elements specific to the geomorphosites, we have submitted to analysis as well other elements belonging to other components of the geographic system (e.g. glaciers, lakes that have to do with the hydrosphere etc.) or resulting from the correlation of the forms of relief with a different geographic element (waterfall – step leading to the falling of a river’s water). This imposes the necessity of multiplying the types of geographic geosites, which in the natural system alone would lead to terms such as hydrosites, glacialsits, karstsites, limnosites, ecosites, coastsites, anthroposites etc.). By this we arrive to families of geographic geosites (Table 3) each with several divisions (e.g. the situation of the geomorphosites).

The characteristics of the geomorphosites. They derive from those of the geosites, as the purpose is to relate the relief to the interests of those who carry out the investigation and to objectively determine the elements imposing the geomorphosite to the tourists’ attention, supporting different types of tourist activities that can be practiced with a certain degree of arrangement. Important are a few demands:

- the determination based on the criterion value and importance for tourism of certain adequate characteristics that can be used as landmarks for the selection of the geomorphosites and coming from the set of relief forms and reliefogenic processes regardless of the region (be it alpine, hilly, plain, plateau etc.). Here what matters is the physiognomy, the connection to certain forms of tourist practice (camping, training, ecological education, recreation-rest etc.),


11

the uniqueness in a large area, the degree of accessibility corroborated with the level of development of the infrastructure and of the material endowment, the association with other types of geographic geosites or with sites of a different nature (table 4, 5).

The appreciation of the geomorphosites on the basis of certain features. We distinguish two primordial categories (imposing the significance of the geomorphosite for tourism) and secondary (highlighting some of its features) sometimes, for certain forms of tourist activity, one of the secondary features becomes essential (for cultural tourism). The appreciation will be made by means of a score, differentiated according to the categories (taxonomy).

The subjectivism in the evaluation of the geomorphosites depends on the degree of training of those that carry out the assessment, on the correct appreciation of the relation between the elements “provided” by the geomorphosite and what interests (the demand of) those receiving them for diverse tourist activities. Although the mainstream directions are prevalent, those directions that are significant for a small number of tourists cannot be neglected either (table 4).

The results of the estimations of the geomorphosites are introduced in tables, and on the basis of these results, we can get to appreciations concerning the frequency of the subtypes in a certain region and then we can assess the role they could have in the development of an average region, including for the deployment of different tourist activities, from those involving large masses of visitors (especially camping) to smaller teams taking part in specific actions (alpinism, rafting, photographing, painting etc.). But, in order to appreciate the potential of a given region, the data concerning the morphosites (which are frequently the most numerous), need to be correlated to those resulting from the correlation to those resulted from the estimation of other types of geosites present there. Only in this way can we get to differentiated appreciations, regional averages and the realization of viable tourist management projects (table 6). That is why the series of analyses on the geomorphosite level will be continued by others referring to other geosites: geographic, historical, cultural, anthropic etc.


12

Tabl

e 1

– Re

latio

ns b

etw

een

Geo

tope

and

Geo

site


13

Table 2. Characteristics and criteria which evidence the touristic value of a same type of a geomorphosite (after literature)

Score Absent Small Moderate High Very high Average Characteristic Criteria

0 0,25 0,50 0,75 1 - paleogeographic importance (elements for reconstruction) null small modest high very high - representatively (importance in differentiating the evolution forms, suggestiveness)

null small modest high very high

- surface (percent in the region) - <25 25-50 50-90 >90 - singleness (rarity in the region as number of present sites) >7 5-7 3-4 1-2 unique - integrity (degree of remaining faced to natural or cultural intervention) destroyed highly

deteriorate medium

deteriorate Low

deteriorate untouched

Scientific

- ecologic interest - reduced moderate high very high - number of point from where can be seen - 1 2-3 4-6 > 6 - medium distance until the bellevue points - <50 m 50-200 m 200-500 m > 500 m - site surface (km2) in relation with similar sites - small moderate high very high - altitude (high level faced to other elements) (from grandiose to monotonous) 0 low medium tall very tall Aesthetic

- colorful contrast (landscape’s contrast) identical colors

low difference

different colors medium difference

opposite colors

- cultural and historical relevance of the site - weak connections

moderate connections

strong connections

multiple connections

- iconoclastic representation (paintings, engravings, pictures) - 1-5 6-20 20-50 >50 - existence of historical, archeological and architectural sights - reduce medium many a lot of… - religious relevance, traditions, faith - reduce medium many a lot of…

Cultural historic

- cultural and historical events (celebrating days, holidays connected with the importance of the site)

- rare circumstantial dense every year

- accessibility trails >1 km

trails <1km local road regional road national road

- natural and manmade hazards very high high partial controlled

strongly controlled

without hazard

- annual average of visiting from local area <10.000 10.000 – 100.000

500.000 1.000.000 >1 mil

- protection degree (if the site is highly exploited it will be low protected) complete unlimited medium limited limited without protection

Economic

- attractiveness - local regional national international

Total average (characteristics, global touristic value)


14

Table 3. Geomorphosites types and their relations with other geosites


15

Table 4. Characteristics, criterias and score for geomorfosites’ estimation

Degree of estimation through score (from 0 to 2) Exemplex for the three types of score Characteristic Estimation criteria 1 2 3 1 2 3

- attractiveness Weak (0,5) Medium (1) Strong (2) Roşu Mountain

Bratocea Ridge

Zăganu Ridge

- visibility <100 m (0,5) 100-1000 m (1) >1000 m (2) Babele la Sfat Tigăile Mari Ciucaş Peak

- surface <5 m2 (0,5) <50 m2 - (1) >50 m2 (2) Sfinxul Bratocei

Babele la Sfat Tigăile Mari - dimension

- length or height <100 m (0,5) 100-500 m (1) >500 m (2) Pârâul Alb Gorges

Strâmbu Gorges

Teleajenului Gorges

Spatial position

- constraint in landscape’s assembly through shape and color Weak (0,5) Moderate (1) High (2)

Basaltic column in Firiza quarry

Basaltic column in Racoş quarry

Detunata Goală Peak (with basaltic column)

- physiognomy as result of composition, genesis and evolution Weak (0,5) Moderate (1) Clear (2)

Carstul pe sare de la Sovata

Carstul pe sare de la Ocna Sibiu

Carstul pe sare de la Meledic

- in local horizon

Frequent (0,1) Medium (0,5) Rare (1,5)

Towers in Ciucaş and Ceahlău Mountains

Towers in Bucegi Mountains

Towers in Călimani Mountains - rarely

through genesis and dimension

- in a large region

Frequent (0,5) Medium (1) Rare (2)

Great landslides in Subcarpatians

Great landslides in Oriental Carpathians

Great landslides in Dobrogea

- source of investigation Reduce (0,5) Medium (1) Important

(1,5)

Glimee (Transilvania Plaine)

Glimeea from Cornăţel

Glimeea from Saschiz

Prim

ordi

al

Scientific

- source of instruction and ecological education Reduce (0,5) Medium (1) Important (2)

Places with small muddy volcanoes (Berca)

Muddy volcanoes at Hasag and Arbănaşi

Muddy volcanoes at Paclele Mari and Paclele Mici


16

Null Weak Medium - source of inspiration (pictures, photo, poems, religious, sculpture, history, traditional art etc.); there is a score for each of them

0 0,5 1,5

Any landform who is not imposed in local landscape

Landforms who contribute through physiognomy at the landscape’s harmony (alpine ridges, plateaus, beaches, valleys)

Landforms highlighted by the contrasts with the landscapes parameters (peak, gorges, scarp, cave, volcano)

Domain Null Less significant Significant - place of an

event - historical 0 0,5 1,5

Absence

Baia battle

Alignment Oituz Soveja-Mărăşeşti

- cultural 0 0,5 1,5 Absence Non-periodical

Annual

- history

0 0,5 1,5

Absence Tabula Traiana in the Danube Gorges

Freedom Plain (Blaj)

Cultural-historical

Cultural-historical

- important place for an event or a personality

- culture 0 0,5 1,5 Absence Non-periodical

Annual, biannual

Null Less significant Significant - mountaineering

0 0,5 1,5

Absence

Steeps partially used

Steeps frequently used (Bicazului Gorges, Bucegi Mountains)

- climbing on peaks and ridges with high altitude 0 0,5 1,5

Absence

Ridges at over 2000 m in Carpathians

Peaks at over 1000 m in Great Britain

Seco

ndar

y

Sportive performance

- rafting, canyoning etc. 0 0,5 1,5 Absence

Short gorges or defiles

Făgăraş and Bucegi Mountains


17

Mures Defile and Bistriţa Defile

Less significant Significant Important - basis for this

0,1 0,5 1

Any peak, ridge who can be used as bellevue point

The ridges for Dacian castles on Orasitie Valley

The plateau on the Maigrad Ridge

Connection with other

geosites

- geology, - history

- element in landscape composition

0,5 1 1,5

River plaine of Brasov Depression for Prejmer, Hărman

The cliff where was sculpted Decebal face (Danube Gorges)

Volcanic necks where Deva and Rupea castles are.

Null Significant Important - local

0 0,5 1

Absence

Frequent ecologic activities, plantations

Monuments of the nature Ecological

protection - actions at level…

- national 0 0,5 1 Absence

Establish the protected areas

Effecting protection of this areas

Null Un-modernized Modernized Accessibility - network (from trails to auto road)

(each type will be punctuated) 0 0,5 1,5

Without or with difficult access

Trails, forestry roads gravel roads

Roads and auto road

Null Less affected Strongly affected

- antropic processes

1 0,5 0

Stabile land

Partly affected by the rock exploitation

Strongly affected through deforestation and quarry so.

Seco

ndar

y

Vulnerability and degree of conservation

- natural processes 1 0,5 0 Stable land

Areas affected by the landslides, gullies

Strongly affected by the geomorphologic processes.


18

Absent Weak Good for each type

- existence of touristic arrangements

0 0,2 0,5

Absence or a camp

Shelter, camp

From camp to hotel, arrangements, so..

Sub 100 100-1000 >1000 - - -

Capitalization - number of tourist/year or an average established on some polls in different touristic activities focused on geomophosites 0,5 1 2 - - -


19

Table 5 – Criteria for the selection of the geomorphosites

Characteristics Criteria Score Physiognomy - common

- bizarre - original

0 1 2

Frequency - large in the local horizon - singular in the local horizon - singular in large areas

0 1 2

Relation to other types of geosites - support - association

1 2

- lack - in locality - outside locality 0

- not modernized

- in locality - outside locality 0.5

Accessibility

Means of communication

- modernized - in locality - outside locality

0.5 1

Endowments - lack - weak - good

0 1 2

Types of tourist activities - camping - rest, recreation - training - investigation

0.5

Importance for regional development - not at all - low at present - important in the future

0 0.5 1


20

Tabl

e 6

– M

etho

d of

ana

lysi

s of t

he to

uris

t pat

rim

ony

in th

e lig

ht o

f its

futu

re v

alor

izat

ion


21

Tabl

e 7

– G

eosi

te c

lass

ifica

tion

acco

rdin

g to

env

iron

men

ts a

nd u

nits


22

Selective bibliography:

Comănescu Laura, (2008), Inventarierea geomorfositurilor, Comunicări de geografie,

nr. XII, Universitatea din Bucureşti, p.17-29 Comănescu Laura, 2009, Evaluarea turistică a geomorfositurilor (Tourist assessment

of geomorphosites), Comunicări de Geografie, nr. XIII, Universitatea din Bucureşti, p. 25-30

Comănescu Laura, Dobre R.,(2009), Inventorying, evaluating and tourism valuating the geomorphosites from the central sector of the Ceahlău National Park, Comunicări de Geografie, nr. 3, Universitatea din Bucureşti, p. 86-96

Panizza M. (2001), Geomorphosites, Concepts, methods, and examples of geomorphological survey, Chinese Science Bulletin, 46, nr. 4-6

Panizza M., Piacente S., (2003), Geomorfologia culturale, Bologna, Pitagora Editrice. Panizza M., Piacente S., (2008), Gemorphosites and geoturism, Rev. Geogr.

Academica, 2, nr. 2 Reynard E., Panizza M.,(2005), Géomorphosites: définition, évaluation et

cartographie, Une introduction, Géomorphologie – Relief, processus, environnement, 3

Reynard E., (2005), Geomorphosites et paysages, Geomorphologie: – Relief processus, environnement, 3

Reynard E., Fontana G, Kozlik L., Scapozza C, (2007), A method for assessing “scientific” and “additional values” of geomorphosites, Geographica Helvetia, 62, nr.3

geotope, geosite, geomorphosite - valahia · geotope, geosite, geomorphosite ... investigation of...

Documents