The Integrated Assessment of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites to Develop Sustainable Tourism: A Case Study of Grădina Zmeilor Geomorphosite, North-West Region, Romania
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Methodological Approach
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Irimuş, I.A.; Bálint-Bálint, L.; Dombay, S.; Crişan, H.F.; Magyari-Saska, Z. Classification and Evaluation Criteria for Volcanic Geomorphosites in Harghita Mountains. SGEM 2015, 1, 77–84. [Google Scholar]
- Crişan, H.-F.; Irimuș, I.A.; Hirlav, C.; Peteley, A.; Nita, A. Geomorphosites in Haghimaș Mountains. SGEM 2015, 1, 257–263. [Google Scholar]
- Crisan, H.F.; Irimuș, I.A.; Peteley, A.; Balint-Balint, L.; Cioban, T.D.; Dombay, S. Tourism valorification on geomorphosistems Karst in Surduc-Munticelu. SGEM 2016, 771–777. [Google Scholar]
- Bálint-Bálint, L.; Irimuş, I.; Peteley, A.; Magyari-Saska, Z.; Dombay, S. Ecoturism at the volcanic Geomorphohydrosite Mohos Peat Bog Romania. SGEM 2019, 19, 205–212. [Google Scholar]
- Comănescu, L.; Nedelea, A.; Stănoiu, G. Geomorphosites and geotourism in Bucharest city center (Romania). Quaest. Geogr. 2017, 36, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mucivuna, V.C.; Garcia, M.d.M.; Reynard, E. Comparing Quantitative methods on the evaluation of scientific value in geosites: Analysis from Itatiaia National Park, Brasil. Geomorphology 2022, 396, 107988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reynard, E.E.; Coratza, P.; Regolini-Bissig, G. The Assessment of Geomorphosites Reynard. In Geomoprhosites; Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil: Munich, Germany, 2009; pp. 63–71. [Google Scholar]
- Reynard, E.; Panizza, M. Geomorphosites: Definition, assessment and mapping. An introduction. Géomorphologie 2005, 3, 177–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, P.; Pereira, D. Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment. Géomorphol Relief Process. 2010, 2, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lima, F.F.; Brilha, J.B.; Salamuni, E. Inventorying geological heritage in large territories: A methodological proposal applied to Brazil. Geoheritage 2010, 2, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brilha, J. Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: A Review. Geoheritage 2016, 8, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, P.K.; Rai, A.; Abdelrahman, K.; Rai, S.C.; Tiwari, A. Land Degradation, Overland Flow, Soil Erosion, and Nutrient Loss in the Eastern Himalayas, India. Land 2022, 11, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Migoń, P.; Goudie, A. Pre-Quaternary geomorphological history and geoheritage of Britain. Quaest. Geogr. 2012, 31, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newsome, D.; Dowling, R. The scope and nature of geotourism. In Geotourism; Dowling, R.K., Newsome, D., Eds.; Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2005; Volume 3, p. 25. [Google Scholar]
- Kubalíková, L.; Kirchner, K. Geosite and geomorphosite assessment as a tool for geoconservation and geotourism purposes: A case study from Vizovicka vrchovina highland (eastern part of the Czech Republic). Geoheritage 2017, 8, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brocx, M.; Semeniuk, V. Geoheritage and geoconservation—History, definition, scope and scale. J. R. Soc. West. Aust. 2007, 90, 53–87. [Google Scholar]
- Dowling, R.K. Geotourism’s global growth. Geoheritage 2011, 3, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Žáček, V.; Hradecký, P.; Kycl, P.; Ševčík, J.; Novotný, R.; Baroň, I. The Somoto Grand Canyon (Nicaragua) a volcanic geoheritage site one decade after discovery: From field geological mapping to the promotion of a Geopark. Geoheritage 2017, 9, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zwoliński, Z.; Hildebrandt-Radke, I.; Mazurek, M.; Makohonienko, M. Existing and proposed urban geosites values resulting from geodiversity of Poznań City. Quaest. Geogr. 2017, 36, 125–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouzekraoui, H.; Barakat, A.; Elyoussi, M.; Touhami, F.; Mouaddine, A.; Hafid, A.; Zwoliński, Z. Mapping geosites as gateways to the geotourism management in Central High-Atlas (Morocco). Quaest. Geogr. 2018, 37, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acharya, A.; Mondal, B.K.; Bhadra, T.; Abdelrahman, K.; Mishra, P.K.; Tiwari, A.; Das, R. Geospatial Analysis of Geo-Ecotourism Site Suitability Using AHP and GIS for Sustainable and Resilient Tourism Planning in West Bengal, India. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wimbledon, W.A. Geosites—A mechanism for protection, integrating national and international valuation of heritage sites. Geol. Dell’ambiente 2011, 2, 13–25. [Google Scholar]
- Wimbledon, W.A.; Andersen, S.; Cleal, C.J.; Cowie, J.; Erikstad, L.; Gonggrijp, G.P.; Johansson, C.; Karis, L.; Suominen, V. Geological World Heritage: Geosites—A global comparative site inventory to enable prioritisation for conservation. Mem. Descr. Carta Geol d’It. 1999, 54, 45–60. [Google Scholar]
- Perret, A. Géopatrimoine Des Trois Chablais: Identification Et Valorisation Des Témoins Glaciaires. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Lausanne, Grenoble, France, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Elena, D. Clima Orașului București. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitatea din București, București, Romania, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Liteanu, E. Geologia zonei oraşului Bucureşti. Com. Geol. Stud. Tehn. Econ. Hidrogeol. 1952, E, 83. [Google Scholar]
- Liteanu, E. Geologia Ńinutului de câmpie din bazinul inferior al Argeşului şi a teraselor Dunării. Stud. Tehn. Econ. Hidrogeol. 1953, E, 99. [Google Scholar]
- Iuliana, A. Risc Și Vulnerabilitate, Metode De Evaluare Aplicate În Geomorfologie; Universității din București: București, România, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Coteț, P. Geomorfologia României; Tehnică București: București, România, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Bretotean, M.; MacaleŃ, R.; łenu, A.; Tomescu, G.; Munteanu, M.T.; Radu, E.; Drăguşin, D.; Radu, C. Delimitarea şi caracterizarea corpurilor de apă subterană din România. Hidrotehnica 2006, 50, 33–39. [Google Scholar]
- Zăvoianu, I. Morfometria Bazinelor Hidrografice; Editura Academiei Române: Bucureşti, România, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Mihăilescu, V. Considerații Asupra Geografiei Ca Știință; Editura Atelierele Grafice Socec &Co: București, România, 1945. [Google Scholar]
- Posea, G.; Popescu, N.; Ielenicz, M. Relieful României; Editura Ştiinţificã: Bucureşti, România, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Gabriela, C. Munții Trascău. Relief, Geomorfosituri, Turism; Editura Presa Universitară Clujeană: Cluj-Napoca, România, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Swizewski, C.; Oancea, D. Geografia turismului; Partea I-a; Universitatea Alexandru Ioan Cuza: Iasi, România, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Department of Environment & Heritage. Heads of Agreement on Commonwealth and State roles andresponsibilities for the Environment. In Council of Australian Governments November attachment 1; Council of Australian Governments: Canberra, ACT, Australian, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Claver, I. Gufa Para La Elaboration De Estudios Del Medio Fisico; Contenido y Metodologia; Ceotma-Mopu: Madrid, Spain, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Cendrero, A.; Panizza, M. Geomorphology and Environmental Impact Assessment: An introduction. Suppl. Geogr. Fis. Dinam. Quat. 1997, 3, 167–172. [Google Scholar]
- Cendrero, A. Ideas para su protección, conservación y utilización. In El Patrimonio Geológico. Bases Para su Valoración, Protección, Conservación y Utilización. Serie Monografías Del Ministerio De Obras Públicas, Transportes y Medio Ambiente; Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transportes y Medio Ambiente: Madrid, Spain, 1996; pp. 17–27. [Google Scholar]
- Cendrero, A. Propuestas sobre criterios para la clasificación y catalogación del patrimonio geológico. In El patrimonio geológico. Bases para su valoración, protección, conservación y utilización. Serie Monografías del Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transportes y Medio Ambiente; Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transportes y Medio Ambiente: Madrid, Spain, 1996; pp. 29–38. [Google Scholar]
- Coratza, P.; Giusti, C. Methodological proposal for the assessment of scientific quality of geomorphosites. II Quat. Italien. J. Quat. Sci. 2005, 18, 307–313. [Google Scholar]
- Pralong, J.P.; Reynard, E. A proposal for the classification of geomorphological sites depending on their tourist value. Quaternario 2005, 18, 315–321. [Google Scholar]
- Pereira, P. Património Geomorfológico: Conceptualizaçăo, Avaliaçăo e Divulgaçăo. Aplicaçăo ao Parque Natural de Montesinho. Ph.D. Thesis, Departmento de Cięncias da Terra, Universidadedo Minho, Braga, Portugal, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Reynard, E. Scientific research and tourist promotion of geomorphological heritage. Geogr. Fis. Dinam. Quat. 2008, 31, 225–230. [Google Scholar]
- Bruschi, V.M.; Cendrero, A. Direct and parametric methods for theassessment of geosites and geomorphosites. In Geomorphosites; Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G., Eds.; Verlag Dr. FriedrichPfeil: München, Germany, 2009; Section II; pp. 73–88. [Google Scholar]
- Fassoulas, C.; Mouriki, D.; Dimitriou-Nikolakis, P.; Iliopoulos, G. Quantitative assessment of geotopes as an effective tool for geoheritage management. Geoheritage 2012, 4, 177–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mondal, B.K.; Acharya, A.; Nandan, T. Assessing the Geo-Ecotourism Potentiality of West Bengal with Special Reference to its Coastal Region Using Geospatial Technology. In Social Morphology, Human Welfare, and Sustainability; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Herrera-Franco, G.; Apolo-Masache, B.; Escandón-Panchana, P.; Jácome-Francis, K.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Mata-Perelló, J.; Carrión-Mero, P. Perception of the Geological-Mining Heritage to Promote Geotourism in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Geosciences 2022, 12, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brilha, J. Património Geológico e Geoconservação: A Conservaçãoda Natureza na sua Vertente Geológica; Palimage Editores: Viseu, Portugal, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Henriques, M.H.; Pena dos Reis, R.; Brilha, J.; Mota, T.S. Geoconservation as an emerging geoscience. Geoheritage 2011, 3, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strasser, A.; Heitzmann, P.; Jordan, P.; Stapfer, A.; Stürm, B.; Vogel, A.; Weidmann, M. Géotopeset la Protection Des Objets géologiques en Suisse: Un Rapport Stratégique; Fribourg, Groupe detravail pour la protection des géotopes en Suisse: Fribourg, Switzerland, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Grandgirard, V. Méthode pour la réalisation d’un inventaire de géotopes géomorphologiques UKPIK. Cah. De L’institut De Géographie De L’université De Fribg. 1995, 10, 121–137. [Google Scholar]
- Grandgirard, V. Géomorphologie, Protection De La Nature Et Gestion Du Paysage—Thèse De Doctorat; Université de Fribourg, Faculté des Sciences: Fribourg, Switzerland, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Grandgirard, V. L’évaluation des géotopes. Geol. Insubr. 1999, 4, 66–69. [Google Scholar]
- Panizza, M. Geomorphosites: Concepts, Methdos and Example of Geomorphological Survey. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2001, 46, 4–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panizza, M.; Piacente, S. Geomorfologia Culturale; Pitagora: Bologna, Italy, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Reynard, E. Géotopes, géo(morpho)sites etpaysages géomorphologiques. In Paysages Géomorphologiques; Reynard, E., Pralong, J.-P., Eds.; Institut de Géographie, Université de Lausanne: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Serrano, E.; González-Trueba, J.J. Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: The Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Géomorphologie. Formes Process. Environ. 2005, 3, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moura, P.; Garcia, M.G.M.; Brilha, J.B.; Amaral, W.S. Conservation of geosites as a tool to protect geoheritage: The inventory of Ceará Central Domain, Borborema Province—NE/Brazil. An. Da Acad. Bras. De Ciências 2017, 89, 2625–2645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pagès, J.S. Actes du premier symposium international sur la protection du patrimoine géologique—Digneles-Bains, 11–16 juin 1991. Mém. Soc. Géol. 1994, 165, 266. [Google Scholar]
- Gray, M. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature, 1st ed.; Wiley, J., Ed.; The Atrium, Southern Gate: Chichester, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO List of UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGp). Available online: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/list-of-unesco-global-geoparks (accessed on 7 August 2022).
- ANPM Ministerul Mediului, Agentia Nationala pentru Protectia Mediului, NATURA 2000. Lista Siturilor Natural. Available online: http://www.anpm.ro/ro/arii-naturale-protejate-de-interes-international (accessed on 7 August 2022).
- Alexandrowicz, Z. Geopark–nature protection category aiding the promotion of geotourism (Polish perspectives). Geoturystyka 2006, 2, 3–12. [Google Scholar]
- Alexandrowicz, Z.; Alexandrowicz, W.P.; Buczek, K. Conservation of the Natura 2000 Areas in the Context of Environmental Changes in Past and Present: A Case from the Polish Carphatians Geoheritage. Geoheritage 2018, 11, 517–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, A.; Ali, M.; Rachid, H.; Manuel, M.; Saïd, C.; Soufian, M. A quantitative approach to geosites assessment of the Talassemtane National Park (NW of Morocco). Estud. Geológicos 2020, 76, 123. [Google Scholar]
- Bollati, I.; Coratza, P.; Panizza, V.; Pelfini, M. Lithological and structural control on italian mountain geoheritage: Opportunities for tourism, outdoor and educational activities. Quaest. Geogr. 2018, 37, 53–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cioacă, A. Grădina Zmeilor (Județul Sălaj)—Monument al Naturii; Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România: Bucureşti, România, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Ciupagea, D.; Paucă, M.; Ichim, T. Geologia Depresiunii Transilvaniei. Editura Academiei: Bucureşti, România, 1970; pp. 256p. [Google Scholar]
- Sestras, P.; Roșca, S.; Bilașco, Ș.; Naș, S.; Buru, S.M.; Kovacs, L.; Spalević, V.; Sestras, A.F. Feasibility Assessments Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Technology in Heritage Buildings: Rehabilitation-Restoration, Spatial Analysis and Tourism Potential Analysis. Sensors 2020, 20, 2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ruban, D.A.; Mikhailenko, A.V.; Ermolaev, V.A. Inverted Landforms of the Western Caucasus: Implications for Geoheritage, Geotourism, and Geobranding. Heritage 2022, 5, 2315–2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarrete, E.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Dueñas-Tovar, J.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Jaya-Montalvo, M.; Berrezueta, E. Assessment of Geosites within a Natural Protected Area: A Case Study of Cajas National Park. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reynard, E.; Fontana, G.; Kozlik, L.; Scapozza, C. A method for assessing “scientific” and “additional values” of geomorphosites. Geogr. Helv. 2007, 62, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruschi, V.M.; Cendrero, A.; Albertos, J.A.C. A statistical approach to the validation and optimisation of geoheritage assessment procedures. Geoheritage 2011, 3, 131–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quesada-Román, A.; Torres-Bernhard, L.; Ruiz-Álvarez, M.A.; Rodríguez-Maradiaga, M.; Velázquez-Espinoza, G.; Espinosa-Vega, C.; Toral, J.; Rodríguez-Bolaños, H. Geodiversity, Geoconservation, and Geotourism in Central America. Land 2022, 11, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, P.; Pereira, D.I. Assessment of geosites tourism value in geoparks: The example of Arouca Geopark (Portugal). In Proceedings of the 11th European Geoparks Conference, Arouca, Portugal, 19–21 September 2012; pp. 231–232. [Google Scholar]
- Fuentes-Gutiérrez, I.; Fernández-Martínez, E. Mapping geosites for geoheritage management: A methodological proposal for the regional park of Picos de Europa (León, Spain). Environ. Manag. 2012, 50, 789–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coratza, P.; Giusti, C. GIS e valutazione di Beni Geomorfologici: Un esempio nella pianura modenese (Emilia Romagna). In GEOSTORIE, Bollettino e Notiziario del Centro Italiano per gli Studi Storico-Geografici; Università di Firenze, CD-Rom: Florenţa, Italy, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Zouros, N. Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece. The case of the Lesvos island—Coastal geomorphosites. Geogr. Helv. 2007, 62, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Štrba, L.; Kršák, B.; Sidor, C. Some Comments to Geosite Assessment, Visitors, and Geotourism Sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia, M.G.M.; Del Lama Ea Mart Ins, L.; Mazoca Cem Bouret, C. Inventory and assessment of geosites to stimulate regional sustainable management: The northern coast of the state of São Paulo, Brazil. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 2019, 91, e20180514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bilașco, Ș.; Roșca, S.; Vescan, I.; Fodorean, I.; Dohotar, V.; Sestras, P. A GIS-Based Spatial Analysis Model Approach for Identification of Optimal Hydrotechnical Solutions for Gully Erosion Stabilization. Case Study. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bilașco, Ș.; Hognogi, G.-G.; Roșca, S.; Pop, A.-M.; Iuliu, V.; Fodorean, I.; Marian-Potra, A.-C.; Sestras, P. Flash Flood Risk Assessment and Mitigation in Digital-Era Governance Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and GIS Spatial Analyses Case Study: Small River Basins. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Givulescu, R. Les Conifers du Tertiaire de la Roumanie; Ptilophyllum maculatum s.n. Acta Palaeobot. 1997, 37, 55–59. [Google Scholar]
- Grec, A. The Impact of the Tourism and Ecological Footprints on Protected Natural Areas. Case study-Dragon’s Garden: Salaj county, Romania. Present Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 11, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irimus, I.A.; Petrea, D.; Rus, I.; Pop, O.T.; Pop, C.C. Geomorfositul Grădina Zmeilor, Propuneri de Conservare și Valorificare Turistică, În vol. Geografia în Contextul Dezvoltării Contemporane; Presa Universitară Clujeană: Cluj-Napoca, România, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Medve, A.; Abrudan, I. Ghidul Ariilor Naturale Protejate Din Județul Sălaj; Editura Școala noastră: Zalau, Romania, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Carrión-Mero, P.; Ayala-Granda, A.; Serrano-Ayala, S.; Morante-Carball, F.; Aguilar-Aguilar, M.; Gurumendi-Noriega, M.; Paz-Salas, N.; Herrera-Franco, G.; Berrezueta, E. Assessment of Geomorphosites for Geotourism in the Northern Part of the “Ruta Escondida” (Quito, Ecuador). Sustainability 2020, 12, 8468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arrad, T.Y.; Errami, E.; Ennih, N.; Ouajhain, B.; Ettachfini, E.M.; Bouaouda, M.S. From geoheritage inventory to geoeducation and geotourism implications: Insight from Jbel Amsittene (Essaouira province, Morocco). J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2020, 161, 103656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costea, A.; Bilasco, S.; Irimus, I.-A.; Rosca, S.; Vescan, I.; Fodorean, I.; Sestras, P. Evaluation of the Risk Induced by Soil Erosion on Land Use. Case Study: Guruslău Depression. Sustainability 2022, 14, 652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, J.E. Geoheritage, Geotourism and the Cultural Landscape: Enhancing the Visitor Experience and Promoting Geoconservation. Geosciences 2018, 8, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Scientific Criterion (Sce) | Subcriteria | Score | Given Value |
---|---|---|---|
Integrity (Intg) | Site destroyed | 0 | 0.75 |
Low integrity | 0.25 | ||
Medium integrity | 0.50 | ||
Integrity up to 70% | 0.75 | ||
Unaffected | 1 | ||
Representativity (Re) | Presence of vegetation | 0 | 1 |
Presence of conglomerates | 0.25 | ||
Presence of sandstones | 0.50 | ||
Presence of geomorphological processes | 0.75 | ||
Composition of the geological bedrock | 1 | ||
Genesis (G) | Common genesis | 0 | 1 |
Genesis involving a single factor | 0.25 | ||
Genesis involving three factors | 0.50 | ||
Genesis involving five morphogenetic factors | 0.75 | ||
Genesis involving more than five morphogenetic factors | 1 | ||
Rarity (Rar) | Common site | 0 | 0.75 |
Site of local interest | 0.25 | ||
Site of regional interest | 0.50 | ||
Site of national interest | 0.75 | ||
Site of international interest | 1 |
Ecological Criterion (Eco) | Subcriteria | Score | Given Value |
---|---|---|---|
Protection (P) | Lack of protection 0% | 0 | 0.75 |
Site with a protection of 0–30% | 0.25 | ||
Site with a protection of 30–50% | 0.50 | ||
Site with a protection of 50–70% | 0.75 | ||
Site entirely protected > 70% | 1 | ||
Fauna/Flora (F) | Affected biotope | 0 | 0.25 |
Presence of less important vegetal associations and of common animals | 0.25 | ||
Presence of important vegetal associations and of forest animals | 0.50 | ||
Rare faunistic and floristic biotope | 0.75 | ||
Presence of endemic plants and rare animals | 1 | ||
Endemic plants (PE) | Lack of endemic plants | 0 | 0.25 |
Endemic plants sporadically identified | 0.25 | ||
Endemic plants identified only in the study area | 0.50 | ||
Endemic plants specific to the landforms | 0.75 | ||
Protected endemic plants | 1 |
Cultural Criterion (Cult) | Subcriteria | Score | Given Value |
---|---|---|---|
Religious importance (RI) | Lack of religious buildings | 0 | 0 |
Presence of churches | 0.25 | ||
Presence of monasteries | 0.50 | ||
Presence of cathedrals | 0.75 | ||
Presence of religious buildings and attractions | 1 | ||
Geohistorical importance (GI) | No importance | 0 | 0.50 |
Site of minor interest (geologically and historically) | 0.25 | ||
Site of major interest (geologically) | 0.50 | ||
Site of major interest geologically and historically | 0.75 | ||
Prehistoric site | 1 | ||
Bibliographical importance (BI) | No importance | 0 | 0.25 |
Presence in books, studies | 0.25 | ||
Presence in the university curricula | 0.50 | ||
Presence in the high school curricula | 0.75 | ||
Presence in the school study curricula | 1 |
Esthetic and Landscape Criterion (Est) | Subcriteria | Score | Given Value |
---|---|---|---|
Panoramic viewpoints (PV) | No panoramic viewpoints | 0 | 0.75 |
One panoramic viewpoint | 0.25 | ||
Two panoramic viewpoints | 0.50 | ||
Three panoramic viewpoints | 0.75 | ||
More than five panoramic viewpoints | 1 | ||
Chromatic contrast (C) | No chromaticity | 0 | 0.50 |
Unimportant chromatic contrast | 0.25 | ||
Medium chromatic contrast | 0.50 | ||
High chromatic contrast | 0.75 | ||
Intense chromatic contrast | 1 | ||
Artistic importance (ART) | No artistic importance | 0 | 0.25 |
Present in 5-10 media presentations | 0.25 | ||
Present in 10-15 media presentations | 0.50 | ||
Present in more than 20 media presentations | 0.75 | ||
Presence of the site in an art opera | 1 |
Assessed Criterion | Subcriteria | Score | Given Value |
---|---|---|---|
Visibility (VIS) | Visible from a distance of less than 1 km | 0 | 0.25 |
Visible from a distance of 1 km | 0.25 | ||
Visible from a distance of 3 km | 0.50 | ||
Visible from a distance of 5 km | 0.75 | ||
Visible from a distance of more than 10 km | 1 | ||
Accessibility (ACC) | Lack of any access road to the site | 0 | 1 |
Presence of a road more than 1 km from the site | 0.25 | ||
Presence of a road at 1 km from the site | 0.50 | ||
Presence of a road to less than 500 m from the entrance to the site | 0.75 | ||
Presence of a road directly to the entrance to the site | 1 | ||
Risk typology (RSC) | Technological risk | 0 | 1 |
Climatic risk | 0.25 | ||
Geological risk | 0.50 | ||
Geomorphological risk | 0.75 | ||
All of the above | 1 | ||
Infrastructure (INF) | Poor facilities | 0 | 0.25 |
Facilities at the periphery of the site | 0.25 | ||
Modern facilities within the site | 0.50 | ||
Facilities and services both at the entrance and within the site | 0.75 | ||
Modern infrastructure both along the access routes, and within the site and in its surroundings | 1 | ||
Tourist flows (TUR) | Between 0 and 50 tourists/day | 0 | 0.25 |
Between 51 and 100 tourists/day | 0.25 | ||
Between 101 and 150 tourists/day | 0.50 | ||
Between 151 and 200 tourists/day | 0.75 | ||
More than 200 tourists/day | 1 | ||
Visiting hours (H) | Between 10.00 and 14.00 | 0 | 1 |
Between 10.00 and 16.00 | 0.25 | ||
Between 10.00 and 18.00 | 0.50 | ||
Between 10.00 and 20.00 | 0.75 | ||
No visiting hours (visit possible at any time) | 1 | ||
Specific products (PROD) | No specific products | 0 | 0.25 |
Between 1 and 3 specific products | 0.25 | ||
Between 3 and 6 specific products | 0.50 | ||
Between 6 and 10 specific products | 0.75 | ||
More than 10 specific products | 1 |
Assessed Criterion | Subcriteria | Score | Given Value |
---|---|---|---|
Socio-economic features of the region (ECO) | Towns under 10,000 inhabitants located at a distance of less than 35 km | 0 | 0.75 |
Towns of 15,000 inhabitants located at a distance of more than 35 km | 0.25 | ||
Towns of 25,000 inhabitants located at a distance of more than 35 km | 0.50 | ||
Towns of 50,000 inhabitants located at a distance of more than 35 km | 0.75 | ||
Cities of more than 100,000 inhabitants located at a distance of more than 35 km | 1 | ||
Sustainable development (DEV) | Site is missing from managerial projects | 0 | 0.75 |
Site is present in one development project | 0.25 | ||
Site is present in two-three development projects | 0.50 | ||
Site is present in protection projects | 0.75 | ||
Site completely protected by law and closed for public | 1 | ||
Educational activities (EDU) | No educational activities performed | 0 | 0.25 |
Presence of school field trips | 0.25 | ||
Presence of routes dedicated to pupils | 0.50 | ||
Performance of school-related festivities | 0.75 | ||
Performance of numerous educational activities | 1 |
Assessed Criterion | Subcriteria | Score | Given Value |
---|---|---|---|
Vulnerability to risks (VUL) | The site is totally destroyed | 0 | 0.50 |
The site has vulnerabilities but it is not affected | 0.25 | ||
The vulnerabilities affect the site in a proportion of 50% | 0.50 | ||
The site is partly destroyed | 0.75 | ||
The site has no vulnerabilities | 1 | ||
Presence of risks that may affect tourism activities (R) | Risk of total destruction for the site | 0 | 0.50 |
Risk of landslides | 0.25 | ||
Risk of degradation of formations | 0.50 | ||
Risk of collapse of formations | 0.75 | ||
Lack of risks | 1 | ||
Inaesthetic elements (IE) | Presence of industrial units and infrastructures | 0 | 0.75 |
Natural inaesthetic elements | 0.25 | ||
Degraded households | 0.50 | ||
Presence of waste | 0.75 | ||
Lack of inaesthetic elements | 1 |
Assessed Criterion | Initially Assessed Subcriteria and Given Values | Subcriteria Resulting from Proposals | New Given Values |
---|---|---|---|
Infrastructure (INF) | Facilities at the periphery of the site (0.25) | Modern infrastructure both along the access routes, and within the site and in its surroundings | 1 |
Tourism flows (TUR) | Between 51 and 100 tourists/daily (0.25) | More than 200 tourists/daily | 1 |
Educational activities (EDU) | Presence of school field trips (0.25) | Performance of many educational activities | 1 |
Specific products (PROD) | Between 1 and 3 specific products (0.25) | Between 6 and 10 specific products | 0.75 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Codrea, P.M.; Bilașco, Ș.; Roșca, S.; Irimuș, I.-A.; Iuliu, V.; Rusu, R.; Fodorean, I.; Sestras, P. The Integrated Assessment of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites to Develop Sustainable Tourism: A Case Study of Grădina Zmeilor Geomorphosite, North-West Region, Romania. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9816. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199816
Codrea PM, Bilașco Ș, Roșca S, Irimuș I-A, Iuliu V, Rusu R, Fodorean I, Sestras P. The Integrated Assessment of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites to Develop Sustainable Tourism: A Case Study of Grădina Zmeilor Geomorphosite, North-West Region, Romania. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(19):9816. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199816
Chicago/Turabian StyleCodrea, Paula Minerva, Ștefan Bilașco, Sanda Roșca, Ioan-Aurel Irimuș, Vescan Iuliu, Raularian Rusu, Ioan Fodorean, and Paul Sestras. 2022. "The Integrated Assessment of Degraded Tourist Geomorphosites to Develop Sustainable Tourism: A Case Study of Grădina Zmeilor Geomorphosite, North-West Region, Romania" Applied Sciences 12, no. 19: 9816. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199816