Assessing Geotourism Resources on a Local Level: A Case Study from Southern Moravia (Czech Republic)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Assessment of the Geotourism Potential
2.2. Study Areas
2.2.1. Sýkořská Hornatina Mountains
2.2.2. Deblínská Vrchovina Highland
3. Results
4. Discussion and Concluding Remarks
- 1)
- The geodiversity of the assessed areas is not unique on the national level, but the educational value is high: Landforms and processes are illustrative, visible, and relatively simple to understand (e.g., thq role of the rock resistance in the shaping of significant outcrops at Skalky in the Deblínská vrchovina Highland, or typical cryogenic landforms in the Sýkořská vrchovina Mountains) which is supported by numerical assessment of specific localities. Integrity and conditions of landforms are relatively high thanks to the position of the areas outside the main tourist destinations. The landscape is well-preserved and it shows a good example of the co-existing of man and nature. Moreover, specific sites are very important from the paleogeographic point of view (especially epigenetic valleys of Svratka). These issues were assessed as the main resource with high potential for developing sustainable geotourism and educational activities (both for local people and visitors). It has to be emphasized that geotourism provides economic, cultural, and social benefits for both visitors and hosting communities [56].
- 2)
- Added value is closely linked to the geodiversity. Both areas can present numerous examples of the mutual relationships between abiotic, biotic, and cultural components of the landscape (historical values, geomythological aspects, the traces of the landscape memory, and local materials used for local buildings and constructions). This is supported by the high value of several sites—especially in the Sýkořská hornatina Mountains, where numerous sites have an important biotic element which is legally protected there (together with geo-elements). This holistic approach has to be taken into account when planning the management of the landscape and conservation measures: The existing links can help improve acceptance of conservation measures (in Deblínská vrchovina Highland) and can increase the overall attractiveness of the area in the terms of interpretation of the heritage. The mutual links between abiotic, biotic, and cultural components can be used for environmental education as well, and can help to raise awareness about geodiversity in the study areas.
- 3)
- Accessibility of the areas is relatively good; the tourist facilities are average or below the average. It is subject to further discussions about whether the adjacent tourist infrastructure has to be developed. If decided to support the geotourism in these areas, some additional tourist infrastructure should be built; however, this has to be balanced with geoconservation principles. According to Dowling and Newsome [18], the geotourism should be sustainable and environmentally friendly, so this has to be respected while developing the tourist infrastructure, improving the access to the particular sites or building accommodation capacities.
- 4)
- The number of visitors and knowledge/popularity of the areas is not high. The promotion is very irregular. In order to develop the geotourism, the promotion should be assured and should take into account two aspects: The promotion of specific sites of geotourist interest and the promotion of the area as a whole with its cultural heritage related to geodiversity, with its history or with its specific characteristics. Due to the fact that the geotourist resources of these areas cannot compete with the Moravian Karst Protected Landscape Area with its caves, springs, and spectacular outcrops and valleys, these areas will probably never reach high popularity. Nevertheless, they can be promoted as a calm alternative to the overcrowded Moravian Karst or an accessible and pleasant area for short-term recreation and tourism. New geotourism products (e.g., educational path connecting significant sites of geological and geomorphological interest, local products related to the geodiversity resources, and information panels on websites) can attract both visitors and local people.
- 5)
- If it is decided to support the development of geotourist activities, close communication with local communities and initiatives is needed in order to develop the effective management of geotourist resources. Cooperation with research institutions is important, as academic research provides the background for further activities supporting the promotion of geoheritage [57]; however, they have to be implemented by local communities themselves. Thus, a bottom-up approach has to be respected. Moreover, the volunteer activities can increase the local awareness and appreciation of geoheritage [58], and can foster the local identity in general. As there are active NGOs, volunteer associations of municipalities, or Local Action Groups in these areas (as indicated in SWOT analysis), it can be supposed that the bottom-up approach can have success. There have already been several specific cases recorded where the local NGOs made the sites accessible or visible.
- 6)
- The geotourist activities have to accept the intrinsic value of geodiversity and respect the principles of nature conservation (respectively geoconservation as defined by Prosser et al. [59]). Legal protection of specific sites is already set up (in Sýkořská vrchovina Mountains); however, other sites are not protected, thus can be endangered by human activities. The involvement of local subjects, and informing them about these geotourist resources can improve acceptance of the conservation measures. As the geoethical practice is an essential part of geotourism [56], this aspect of using the geotourist resources should be also taken into account.
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hose, T.A. 3G’s for Modern Geotour. Geoheritage 2012, 4, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dowling, R.K.; Newsome, D. Handbook of Geotourism; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2018; ISBN 978-1-78536-885-1. [Google Scholar]
- Ólafsdóttir, R. Geotourism. Geosciences 2019, 9, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olafsdóttir, R.; Tverijonaite, E. Geotourism: A Systematic Literature Review. Geosciences 2018, 8, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hose, T.A. Selling the Story of Britain’s Stone. Environ. Interpret. 1995, 10, 16–17. [Google Scholar]
- Słomka, T.; Kicińska-Świderska, A. Geoturystyka—Podstawowe pojęcia. Geoturystyka 2004, 1, 5–7. [Google Scholar]
- Joyce, E.B. Geomorphological sites and the new geotourism in Australia. Geol. Soc. Aust. Melb. 2006, 2006, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Dowling, R.K.; Newsome, D. (Eds.) Geotourism; Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK; Burlington, MA, USA, 2006; ISBN 978-0-7506-6215-4. [Google Scholar]
- Dowling, R.K. Global geotourism—An emerging form of sustainable tourism. Czech J. Tour. 2013, 2, 59–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arouca Declaration on Geotourism November 12, 2011 Portugal. Available online: http://www.europeangeoparks.org/?p=223 (accessed on 25 September 2018).
- Martini, G.; Alcalá, L.; Brilha, J.; Iantria, L.; Sá, A.A.; Tourtellot, J. Reflections about the geotourism concept. In Proceedings of the 11th European Geoparks Conference, Arouca Geopark, Portugal, 19–21 September 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Gray, M. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. Second Edition; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2013; ISBN 978-0-470-74215-0. [Google Scholar]
- McKeever, P.; Zouros, N. Geoparks: Celebrating Earth heritage, sustaining local communities. Episodes 2005, 28, 274–278. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
- What Is a Geopark. Available online: http://www.europeangeoparks.org/?page_id=165 (accessed on 2 July 2019).
- Štrba, L.; Kršák, B.; Sidor, C. Some Comments to Geosite Assessment, Visitors, and Geotourism Sustainability. Sustainability-Basel 2018, 10, 2578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Network of National Geoparks. Available online: http://www.geology.cz/narodnigeoparky/o-siti (accessed on 1 July 2019).
- Kubalíková, L. Promoting geomorphological heritage: Bringing geomorphology to people. In Landscapes and Landforms of the Czech Republic; Pánek, T., Hradecký, J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 399–410. ISBN 978-3-319-27537-6. [Google Scholar]
- Newsome, D.; Dowling, R. Geotourism: The Tourism of Geology and Landscape; Goodfellow Pub Ltd.: Woodeaton, Oxford, UK, 2010; ISBN 978-1-906884-09-3. [Google Scholar]
- Panizza, M. Geomorphosites: Concepts, methods and examples of geomorphological survey. Chin. Sci. Bull 2001, 46, 4–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reynard, E.; Perret, A.; Bussard, J.; Grangier, L.; Martin, S. Integrated Approach for the Inventory and Management of Geomorphological Heritage at the Regional Scale. Geoheritage 2015, 8, 43–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrión Mero, P.; Herrera Franco, G.; Briones, J.; Caldevilla, P.; Domínguez-Cuesta, M.J.; Berrezueta, E. Geotourism and Local Development Based on Geological and Mining Sites Utilization, Zaruma-Portovelo, Ecuador. Geosciences 2018, 8, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Law 114/1992 Coll. on Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection. Czech Republic, Prague. 1992. Available online: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/1992-114 (accessed on 22 August 2019).
- Kubalíková, L.; Kirchner, K. Relief assessment methodology with respect to geoheritage based on example of the Deblinska vrchovina highland. In Public Recreation and Landscape Protection—With Man Hand in Hand. Conference Proceeding; Fialová, J., Kubíčková, H., Eds.; Mendel University: Brno, Czech Republic, 2013; pp. 131–141. [Google Scholar]
- Kirchner, K.; Kubalíková, L.; Bajer, A. Local geoheritage: Its importance and potential for geotourist and recreational activities (a case study from Lomnicko area). In Public Recreation and Landscape Protection—With Nature Hand in Hand; Fialová, J., Pernicová, D., Eds.; Mendel University: Brno, Czech Republic, 2017; pp. 202–211. [Google Scholar]
- Significant Geological Localities of the Czech Republic—Czech Geological Survey. Available online: http://lokality.geology.cz/d.pl?item=1&l=e (accessed on 26 June 2019).
- Kubalíková, L. Hodnocení Geomorfologických Lokalit V Kontextu Ochrany Neživé Přírody. Ph.D. Thesis, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Demek, J.; Mackovčin, P. Hory a Nížiny—Zeměpisný Lexikon ČR; Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic: Brno, Czech Republic, 2006; ISBN 978-80-86064-99-9.
- Kubalíková, L. Geodiversity as a hidden resource for local development: Possibilities of geotourism growth outside the geoparks. In Proceedings of the Region in the Development of Society 2018, Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference; Mendel University: Brno, Czech Republic, 2018; pp. 333–343. [Google Scholar]
- Pralong, J.-P. A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites. Géomorphologie Relief Process. Environ. 2005, 11, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kubalíková, L. Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes. Czech J. Tour. 2013, 2, 80–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Štrba, L.; Rybár, P.; Baláž, B.; Molokáč, M.; Hvizdák, L.; Kršák, B.; Lukáč, M.; Muchová, L.; Tometzová, D.; Ferenčíková, J. Geosite assessments: Comparison of methods and results. Curr. Issues Tour 2015, 18, 496–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brilha, J. Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: A Review. Geoheritage 2016, 8, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martins, B.; Pereira, A. Residents’ Perception and Assessment of Geomorphosites of the Alvão—Chaves Region. Geosciences 2018, 8, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ovreiu, A.B.; Comănescu, L.; Bărsoianu, I.A. Evaluating Geomorphosites and the Geomorphological Hazards that Impact them: Case Study—Cozia Massif (Southern Carpathians, Romania). Geoheritage 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serrano, E.; Ruiz-Flaño, P. Geodiversity: A theoretical and applied concept. Geogr. Helv. 2007, 62, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellitero, R.; González-Amuchastegui, M.; Ruiz-Flaño, P.; Serrano, E. Geodiversity and Geomorphosite Assessment Applied to a Natural Protected Area: The Ebro and Rudron Gorges Natural Park (Spain). Geoheritage 2011, 3, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zwoliński, Z.; Stachowiak, J. Geodiversity map of the Tatra National Park for geotourism. Quaest. Geogr. 2012, 31, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pereira, D.; Pereira, P.; Brilha, J.; Santos, L. Geodiversity Assessment of Parana State (Brazil): An Innovative Approach. Environ. Manag. 2013, 52, 541–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zwoliński, Z.; Najwer, A.; Giardino, M. Methods for assessing geodiversity. In Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management; Reynard, E., Brilha, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterodam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 27–52. ISBN 978-0-12-809531-7. [Google Scholar]
- Reynard, E.; Panizza, M. Geomorphosites: Definition, assessment and mapping. An introduction. Géomorphologie: Relief Process. Environ. 2005, 11, 177–180. [Google Scholar]
- Pereira, P.; Pereira, D.; Alves, M. Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geogr Helv 2007, 62, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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]
- Pereira, P.; Pereira, D. Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment. Geomorphologie 2010, 16, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kubalíková, L.; Kirchner, K. 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 2016, 8, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boukhchim, N.; Fraj, T.B.; Reynard, E. Lateral and “Vertico-Lateral” Cave Dwellings in Haddej and Guermessa: Characteristic Geocultural Heritage of Southeast Tunisia". Geoheritage 2018, 10, 575–590. [Google Scholar]
- Nazaruddin, D.A. Systematic Studies of Geoheritage in Jeli District, Kelantan, Malaysia. Geoheritage 2017, 9, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ateş, H.Ç.; Ateş, Y. Geotourism and Rural Tourism Synergy for Sustainable Development—Marçik Valley Case—Tunceli, Turkey. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaroš, J.; Mísař, Z. Nomenclature of the tectonic and lithostratigraphic units in the Moravian Svratka Dome (Czechoslovakia). Věstník Ústředního Ústavu Geol. 1976, 51, 113–122. [Google Scholar]
- Maps—Czech Geological Survey. Available online: http://www.geology.cz/extranet-eng/maps (accessed on 26 June 2019).
- Central Nature Conservation List. Available online: https://drusop.nature.cz/portal/ (accessed on 2 July 2019).
- Migoń, P.; Pijet-Migoń, E. Viewpoint geosites—Values, conservation and management issues. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2017, 128, 511–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mackovčin, P. Chráněná území ČR. IX., Brněnsko; Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic: Brno, Czech Republic, 2007; ISBN 978-80-86064-66-6.
- Hanžl, P.; Buriánková, K.; Čtyroká, J.; Čurda, J.; Gilíková, H.; Gürtlerová, P.; Kabátník, P.; Kratochvílová, H.; Manová, M.; Maštera, L.; et al. Vysvětlivky k Základní geologické mapě České republiky 1: 25 000, list 24-321 Tišnov; Czech Geological Survey: Brno, Czech Republic, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Farsani, N.T.; Coelho, C.; Costa, C. Geotourism and Geoparks as Gateways to Socio-cultural Sustainability in Qeshm Rural Areas, Iran. Asia Pac. J. Tour Res. 2012, 17, 30–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, Y.; Wu, F.; Han, J.; Chu, H. Geoheritage and Sustainable Development in Yimengshan Geopark. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, J.E. Geoheritage, Geotourism and the Cultural Landscape: Enhancing the Visitor Experience and Promoting Geoconservation. Geosciences 2018, 8, 136–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pijet-Migoń, E.; Migoń, P. Promoting and Interpreting Geoheritage at the Local Level—Bottom-up Approach in the Land of Extinct Volcanoes, Sudetes, SW Poland. Geoheritage 2019, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miles, E. Involving local communities and volunteers in geoconservation across Herefordshire and Worcestershire, UK—The Community Earth Heritage Champions Project. Proc. Geol. Assoc 2013, 124, 691–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prosser, C.; Bridgland, D.R.; Brown, E.; Larwood, J. Geoconservation for science and society: Challenges and opportunities. Proc. Geol. Assoc 2011, 122, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouzekraoui, H.; Barakat, A.; Mouaddine, A.; El Youssi, M.; Touhami, F.; Hafid, A. Mapping geoheritage for geotourism management, a case study of Aït Bou Oulli Valley in Central High-Atlas (Morocco). Environ. Earth Sci. 2018, 77, 413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cocean, G.; Cocean, P. An Assessment of Gorges for Purposes of Identifying Geomorphosites of Geotourism Value in the Apuseni Mountains (Romania). Geoheritage 2016, 9, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Criterion | Brief Explication | |
---|---|---|
scientific value | integrity | current status of the site or area, degree of degradation of Earth-science features; assessed on the scale from 0 (null) to 1 (excellent); for the areas, the overall landscape quality is assessed |
representativeness | the site’s or area’s exemplarity; assessed on the scale from 0 (null) to 1 (excellent) | |
rareness | the existence of features that are unique on the national level; assessed on the scale from 0 (null) to 1 (excellent) | |
paleogeographical interest | importance of the site for the Earth or climate history; the sites assessed on the scale from 0 (null) to 1 (excellent); this criterion was not applied for the assessment of the areas | |
synthesis | the average of the values (applicable for site assessment) | |
added value | ecological | specific or rare species, important ecosystems; assessed on the scale from 0 (no ecological value) to 1 (high ecological value) |
aesthetical | viewpoints, contrasts, space structuration; assessed on the scale from 0 (no aesthetical value) to 1 (high aesthetical value) | |
cultural | archaeological, historical, artistic aspects of the area related to geodiversity, anthropogenic landforms; assessed on the scale from 0 (no cultural value) to 1 (high cultural value) | |
synthesis | the average of the values (applicable for site assessment) | |
use characteristics | protection status | legal protection and conservation of the Earth-science features, the sites assessed on the scale from 0 (no protection) to 1 (Earth-science feature as a subject of protection) |
threats | risks and hazards: threats to geodiversity—both anthropogenic and natural, assessed on the scale from 0 (existing threats) to 1 (no considerable threats) | |
accessibility | both by public and individual transport, location of the transport facilities in the proximity (in the case of sites); assessed on the scale from 0 (site with a limited accessibility) to 1 (site with a very good accessibility); for the areas, the “permeability of the landscape” is taken into account | |
security | safety and limitations on specific sites, assessed on the scale from 0 (problems with safety) to 1 (no considerable limitations); this criterion was not applied to the area assessment | |
site context | applicable only on the site assessment | |
tourist infrastructure | catering, accommodation, shelters, tourist paths leading to the sites, proximity of these features to the specific sites; assessed on the scale from 0 (missing infrastructure) to 1 (present and diverse infrastructure) | |
interpretive facilities | existing interpretive facilities, promotion of the sites/area, supporting products, the common knowledge of the area, assessed on the scale from 0 (missing interpretive facilities) to 1 (present and diverse interpretive facilities) | |
educational interest | the potential for interpretation, comprehensibility for the lay public; assessed on the scale from 0 (low potential for interpretation) to 1 (high potential for interpretation) | |
synthesis | the average of the values (applicable for site assessment) |
Strengths | Weaknesses | |
---|---|---|
Opportunities | Strengths—Opportunities (S-O) strategy (maxi-maxi): use strengths to take advantage of opportunities | Weaknesses—Opportunities (W-O) strategy (mini-maxi): overcome weaknesses by taking advantages of opportunities |
Threats | Strengths—Threats (S-T) strategy (maxi-mini): use strengths to avoid the threats | Weaknesses—Threats (W-T) strategy (mini-mini): minimize weaknesses and avoid threats |
Criterion/Site | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D5 | D6 | D7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
integrity | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
representativeness | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
rareness | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 0.75 | 0.50 |
paleogeographical interest | 0.75 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.50 |
scientific value (synthesis) | 0.88 | 0.69 | 0.94 | 0.63 | 0.81 | 0.69 | 0.94 | 0.81 | 0.56 | 0.81 | 0.63 | 0.94 | 0.75 |
ecological | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.50 |
aesthetical | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 1.00 |
cultural | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.25 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 |
added value (synthesis) | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.42 | 0.83 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.25 | 0.75 | 0.67 | 0.33 | 0.67 | 0.75 | 0.83 |
protection status | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
threats | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 0.50 |
accessibility | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.75 |
security | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 1.00 | 0.25 | 0.75 |
site context | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1.00 |
tourist infrastructure | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 1.00 |
interpretive facilities | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 0.75 |
educational interest | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
use characteristics (synthesis) | 0.53 | 0.63 | 0.53 | 0.66 | 0.59 | 0.72 | 0.63 | 0.38 | 0.44 | 0.31 | 0.63 | 0.41 | 0.69 |
Criterion | Qualitative Assessment | |
---|---|---|
scientific value | integrity | The current status of the study area is good and it represents a typical example of the sustainable and regardful use of the natural resources (both in past and present), the current status of Earth-science phenomena in general is good as well. |
representativeness | The area represents a well-conserved landscape with traces of past sustainable use of natural resources. Particular sites represent typical examples of cryogenic, fluvial and anthropogenic landforms and processes. | |
rareness | Similar harmonic landscapes can be found in different areas within Moravia, so the degree of rarity is not high. However, the geomorphological diversity is high as numerous landforms are concentrated at relatively small area. | |
paleogeographical interest | n/a | |
added value | ecological | Most of the landscape segments which are legally protected are home to the specific and rare species, so the ecological value of the study area is quite high. |
aesthetical | Within the study area, there are numerous viewpoints to the open landscape. The landscape pattern is quite diverse (small pieces of fields, forests, villages, meadows, alleys), so the study area is aesthetically attractive. Moreover, there are not any large constructions which would disturb the landscape character. | |
cultural | Cultural features are concentrated in the settlements, there are numerous small sacral objects both in the villages (chapels) and in the open landscape (wayside crosses). Also, there are old agricultural buildings and other objects of folk architecture. The landforms of anthropogenic origin (especially agricultural landforms) are important from the historical point of view as they serve evidence of the use of the landscape in the past. A series of paintings of young artist Adam Kašpar and some paintings of Josef Jambor (Moravian landscape painter) reflect the geodiversity of the area. Existence of several legends about Sýkoř Hill. | |
use characteristics | protection status | The conservation of the specific geological and geomorphological phenomena and adjacent ecosystems is adequate—most of these landforms are protected within the category of Natural Reserve or Natural Monument. |
threats | Concerning the environmental, respectively geological and geomorphological hazards, the area is not at risk. There may be anthropogenic pressure connected to the construction activity (new houses, communications). | |
accessibility | The public transport is sufficient as the area is partly included in the Integrated transport system of the South-Moravian region. The permeability of the landscape is quite good thanks to the presence of the network of paths and local communications (both marked and not marked). | |
security | n/a | |
site context | n/a | |
tourist infrastructure | Some of the marked paths lead through the most attractive segments of the area accompanied by shelters. The limited accommodation capacities in Lomnice or Lysice. As the area is rather used for one-day trips, the current tourist infrastructure is relatively sufficient. There are local restaurants even in the smaller villages. | |
interpretive facilities | The area is promoted especially via web pages of the local communities and web pages devoted to the touristic attractions of the South-Moravian region. The knowledge and popularity of the area are rather local/regional (it is not well-known on the national level). | |
educational interest | The cryogenic landforms are well visible (especially during the season without vegetation) and if the short explanation is given (e.g., via information panels), they are also comprehensive for the public. Anthropogenic landforms and processes are also easy to understand as they are related to the common activities of humans (e.g., picking the stones from the fields and accumulating them on the agrarian heaps or ramparts). |
Criterion | Qualitative Assessment | |
---|---|---|
scientific value | integrity | The current status of the landscape is relatively good, however, particular sites can suffer from human activities (e.g., active quarrying, transport, agriculture, expansion of buildings into the open landscape). |
representativeness | The area represents a relatively well-conserved landscape with traces of past sustainable use of natural resources (limestone, kaolin, water resources). Thanks to the high lithological diversity, the morphological diversity is also high (at a relatively small area, there are landforms of different origin). | |
rareness | Similar type of landscape can be found in different areas within Moravia, so the degree of rarity is not high. However, at specific sites, the rareness of the Earth-science phenomena can be considered high at regional level. | |
paleogeographical interest | n/a | |
added value | ecological | Numerous geosites are accompanied by important ecosystems and protected species. The abandoned quarries also play a specific role regarding the biodiversity and ecosystems. Karst caves and old mining landforms (adits) are home to the protected species (bats). |
aesthetical | The mosaic of fields, meadows, and forests is aesthetically valuable, abandoned quarries increase the overall diversity of the landscape. The landscape character is disturbed by extensive built-up areas (inadequate development of living, land occupation) and partly by quarrying. | |
cultural | There is a lot of buildings that use local stone. Generally, the cultural heritage is concentrated in the Tišnov city and Předklášteří village (convent Porta Coeli) and small sacral buildings in the villages within the study area. Thanks to the historical exploitation of natural resources (limestone, ores) and partly conserved mining landforms, the cultural value is also very high. A series of paintings of young artist Adam Kašpar reflect the geodiversity of the area. | |
use characteristics | protection status | The southern part of the area is protected in the category “Natural park”—the category of general protection of nature. The protection of the geological and geomorphological phenomena is not sufficient (particular sites are included in the Database of CGS, but they have no legal protection with the exception of karst caves which are generally protected by law). |
threats | Abandoned quarries are often used as dumps and suffer from vandalism. These undesirable activities can affect or damage natural karst features. Spreading the area of the fields can disturb the harmonic landscape as well as the spreading of the family houses and intensifying the transport. | |
accessibility | The public transport is sufficient as the area is included in the Integrated transport system of the South-Moravian region. The accessibility to the particular sites is in most cases easy, the terrain is not difficult. The permeability of the landscape is quite good thanks to the presence of the network of paths and local communications (both marked and not marked). | |
security | n/a | |
site context | n/a | |
tourist infrastructure | Tourist paths lead through the area, however, some geosites remain out of the reach of these paths. Accommodation and catering are accessible especially in Tišnov and Veverská Bítýška, but in small villages too. The area is usually visited within one-day trips, so currently, the tourist infrastructure is sufficient. | |
interpretive facilities | The area is promoted especially via web pages of the local communities and web pages devoted to the touristic attractions of the South-Moravian region. The knowledge and popularity of the area are rather local/regional (it is not well-known on the national level). Specific sites are well promoted on local guides and websites of the municipalities, but some sites with high scientific and added values remain “unexplored.” | |
educational interest | Karst, fluvial and other features that are present here, are not important in size, but they can provide a solid basis for explanation and educational activities for local schools. Abandoned quarries are a good example of using natural resources in the past and together with cultural aspects can be an important resource for education. |
Strengths
| Weaknesses
|
Opportunities
| Threats
|
S-O Strategy (maxi-maxi)
| W-O Strategy (mini-maxi)
|
S-T Strategy (maxi-mini)
| W-T Strategy (mini-mini)
|
© 2019 by the author. 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kubalíková, L. Assessing Geotourism Resources on a Local Level: A Case Study from Southern Moravia (Czech Republic). Resources 2019, 8, 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030150
Kubalíková L. Assessing Geotourism Resources on a Local Level: A Case Study from Southern Moravia (Czech Republic). Resources. 2019; 8(3):150. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030150
Chicago/Turabian StyleKubalíková, Lucie. 2019. "Assessing Geotourism Resources on a Local Level: A Case Study from Southern Moravia (Czech Republic)" Resources 8, no. 3: 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030150
APA StyleKubalíková, L. (2019). Assessing Geotourism Resources on a Local Level: A Case Study from Southern Moravia (Czech Republic). Resources, 8(3), 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030150