Evaluation and zoning of geo-ecotourism potential of Semirom city

Subject Areas : Natural resources and environmental management

Shila Hajehforoshnia ¹ , Amir Karam ²

1 - Assistant professor, Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran.
2 - Associate Professor, Department of Geomorphology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2021-04-17 Accepted : 2021-08-22 Published : 2022-05-22

Keywords: Shannon Entropy, Semirom County, Reynard, Geocotourism, Ecotourism,

Abstract :

Background and Objective Ecotourism attractions and capabilities are one of the unique assets of each country in the region. That its identification, classification, and planning are very important for the development of scientific tourism, This branch of tourism, especially in compliance with international rules and standards, introduces the phenomena resulting from the landscape, geology, and geomorphology to tourists while preserving their spatial identity, and also organizes the observation of this treasure and it prevents its destruction by humans and on the other hand, can provide the ground for the development of the region. The natural tourism industry, especially ecotourism and Geotourism, as a green industry, has the least dependence on basic water and soil resources, and at the same time is very important in terms of income, employment, and cultural development. A Semirom city in terms of structural features of the existing natural system and also human issues related to its location and having natural capabilities such as waterfalls, springs, caves, rivers, high mountains and peaks and lakes, and beautiful villages and mainly compatible with the natural environment and, etc. It can be one of the potential regions of the country to expand Geo-tourism and attract capital. Meanwhile, this region is located in the southern part of the country and the growing trend of this province and the increase in population, and the need for recreation, employment, and attracting economic investments them is undeniable.Materials and Methods In this research, the fuzzy Shannon-Wiener model has been used to zoning the Geotourism potentials of Semirom city. For modeling, natural and human parameters in the region were used as indicators for Shannon. These indicators include altitude, slope, distance from the river, distance from Geosite, distance from the peak, distance from Imamzadeh, distance from plain, distance from land use, distance from the land unit, distance from the lake, distance from the waterfall, distance from the cave, Distance from spring, distance from the fault, distance from the road, distance from the village, protected areas, and climate. All points were harvested by GPS. The required maps and criteria were prepared in the GIS environment and a number of maps were removed. Using the Shannon entropy technique and with the cooperation of experts, the decision table was first scaled. Then, the weight of each criterion was calculated to be used in prioritizing rural options including Wardasht, Hana, Vanak, Lower Padna, and Upper Padna, Middle Padna (which is the smallest political unit of the city and is considered a study unit). Then, the scale was calculated and in the final step, after calculating the positive and negative ideal solutions of the options, their prioritization was done by calculating the relative proximity of the options to the ideal solution. The weight map of the entropy criterion was calculated for each criterion and the weight of each criterion was multiplied by the criteria score and the final result of the final entropy map was obtained. Numerous different models and techniques have been developed and proposed to study and evaluate Geotourism and ecotourism. Geotourism evaluation models try to study and evaluate the potentials and capabilities of Geotourism at the regional and national levels, identify places or areas with Geotourism capabilities, and introduce them for further planning and actions. In this method, a Geocomposite is interpreted based on three scientific values, added and combined. In the scientific value of the indicators of uniqueness, entanglement, and re-observability, ancient geography is considered. In scientific value, the ancient geographical index is very important because it helps to analyze the earth's condition and climatic history. Because the criterion of ancient geography has a special place in scientific value due to the past of the earth and climate. In value-added, ecological, aesthetic, economic, and cultural indicators are considered with emphasis on the index (land-histories). The purpose of calculating value added is to make a connection between Geomorphology and tourism by highlighting the indicators in question. Under the criteria of combined value, more emphasis is placed on managerial actions of officials and planning for tourism development, creation of tourism infrastructure, and promoting measures. In Reynard's method, group scoring is based on average individual scores or combining the opinions of other experts.Results and Discussion Evaluation of this area shows that Semirom city is a lesser known area for tourists and its geological resources are less identified and introduced; however, in terms of value and science, it offers interesting features to the tourist land. Variety and a high number of phenomena, easy access to almost all parts of the city through asphalt and dirt roads, unique and beautiful geological shapes, and the juxtaposition of different layers and formations with different ages and characteristics, are all among the factors that make this area prone to Geotourism development. Therefore, Semirom city has the necessary capacity to develop tourist land. These potentials and interesting and potential resources can be turned into Geotourist attractions by using library search, websites, maps, asking local people, and field visits were identified and introduced. Then they were evaluated according to the scales defined by the Reynard method. Among the 4 selected landforms, Dengzlu Cave was the first, Takht-e-Soliman was the second, abshar was the third, and Cheshmeh Bazarang was the fourth. Also, the final potential mapping map of the city by entropy method showed that approximately 108.8425 square kilometers (6.7%) of this city have a very low potential for Geo-tourism, 388.275 km2, low potential (23.9%), 322,300 km2. Medium potential (19.8%), 2327.450 square kilometers has high potential (26.3%) and 378.1650 square kilometers have very high potential (23.27%) for Geoecotourism.Conclusion According to the information obtained during the research, the biggest obstacles to the development of tourism and tourism, are land in the city of Semirom, the unknown in this area and its potential resources, and the lack of facilities at the lowest level for tourists that if these barriers are removed can be the city used to attract tourists. Regarding the advantages of the Reynard method, the total value added among all 4 landforms is higher than the other values. Dangzloo Cave and Takht-e Soleiman, as the most valuable geological resources in the region for the development of Geoecotourism, should be given more attention. Above all, the introduction of these resources and the geological attractiveness of these unique natural forms will play the greatest role in the presence of the tourist land.

References:

Beeco JA, Hallo JC, Brownlee MTJ. 2014. GPS Visitor Tracking and Recreation Suitability Mapping: Tools for understanding and managing visitor use. Landscape and Urban Planning, 127: 136-145. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.04.002.

Bernard JE. 2010. Australia’s Geoheritage: History of Study, A New Inventory of Geosites and Applications to Geotourism and Geoparks. Geoheritage, 2(1): 39-56. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-010-0011-z.

Boley BB, Nickerson NP, Bosak K. 2011. Measuring geotourism: Developing and testing the geotraveler tendency scale (GTS). Journal of Travel Research, 50(5): 567-578. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510382295.

Bunruamkaew K, Murayam Y. 2011. Site Suitability Evaluation for Ecotourism Using GIS & AHP: A Case Study of Surat Thani Province, Thailand. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 21: 269-278. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.07.024.

Coratza P, Giusti C. 2005. A method for the evaluation of impacts on scientific quality of Geomorphosites. Il Quaternario, 18(1): 306-312. doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0015.

Erfani M, EhsanZadeh N. 2021. Recreation suitability zoning in part of the Oman sea coast. Journal of RS and GIS for Natural Resources, 12(1): 107-123. doi:http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.26767082.1400.12.1.6.7. (In Persian).

Fassoulas C, Mouriki D, Dimitriou-Nikolakis P, Iliopoulos G. 2012. Quantitative Assessment of Geotopes as an Effective Tool for Geoheritage Management. Geoheritage, 4(3): 177-193. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-011-0046-9.

Fekrizad N, Vossoughi L. 2017. Prioritization of Appropriate Areas for Developing Ecotourism in Talesh County, Using GIS & AHP. Spatial Planning, 6(4): 101-124. doi:https://doi.org/10.22108/sppl.2017.81412.0.

Hedayatipour K, Vahabzadeh Kebria G, Musavi SR. 2021. Identification and evaluation of geotourism potential areas with sustainable development approach (Case study: mount Damavand areas in Haraz watershed). Journal of RS and GIS for Natural Resources, 12(1): 1-19. doi:http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.26767082.1400.12.1.1.2. (In Persian).

Hernandez Cruz RE, Baltazar EB, Gomez GM, Estrada Lugo EIJ. 2005. Social adaptation ecotourism in the Lacandon forest. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3): 610-627. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.08.005.

Jabir K, DasS A. 2014. Evaluation of recreational site selection and the prospects of recreational. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 3(1): 17-21.

Koizumi T, Chakraborty A. 2016. Geoecotourism and environmental conservation education: insights from Japan. GeoJournal, 81(5): 737-750. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-015-9660-4.

Laura C, ru N, Robert D. 2011. Evaluation of geomorphosites in vistea valley (Fagaras Mountains-Carpathians, Romania). International Journal of Physical Sciences, 6(5): 1161-1168. doi:https://doi.org/10.5897/Ijps10.384.

Maghsoudi M, Rahmati M. 2018. Geomorphosites assessment of Lorestani province in Iran by comparing of Zouros and Comanescus methods (case study: Poldokhtar area, Iran). GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 21(1): 226 – 238. doi:https://doi.org/10.30892/gtg.21118-283.

Miljković Ð, Božić S, Miljković L, Marković SB, Lukić T, Jovanović M, Bjelajac D, Vasiljević ĐA, Vujičić MD, Ristanović B. 2018. Geosite assessment using three different methods; a comparative study of the Krupaja and the Žagubica Springs–Hydrological Heritage of Serbia. Open Geosciences, 10(1): 192-208. doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0015.

Pica A, Fredi P, Del Monte M. 2014. The ernici mountains geoheritage (Central Apennines, Italy): Assessment of the geosites for geotourism development. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 7(2): 14.

Pourghasemi HR, Mohammady M, Pradhan B. 2012. Landslide susceptibility mapping using index of entropy and conditional probability models in GIS: Safarood Basin, Iran. CATENA, 97: 71-84. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2012.05.005.

Prolong J. 2005. A method for assessing the tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites, Geomorphologies, Relief, processes. Environment, 3: 189-196. doi:https://doi.org/10.4000/geomorphologie.350.

Ramsay T. 2017. Fforest Fawr Geopark—a UNESCO Global Geopark distinguished by its geological, industrial and cultural heritage. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, 128(3): 500-509. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2016.12.010.

Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L, Scapozza C. 2007. A method for assessing" scientific" and" additional values" of geomorphosites. Geographica Helvetica, 62(3): 148-158. doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-62-148-2007.

Rocha J, Brilha J, Henriques MH. 2014. Assessment of the geological heritage of Cape Mondego Natural Monument (Central Portugal). Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, 125(1): 107-113. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2013.04.005.

Sarvati MR, Kazazi E. 2006. Geotourism and Planning Opportunities in Hamadan Province. Quarterly Journal of Geographical Space, Islamic Azad University, Ahar Branch, sixth year, 10. doi:https://doi.org/10.22131/SEPEHR.2014.12163. (In Persian).

Sharifi SM, Bostani A. 2015. Ecotourism zoning models using fuzzy. Geographical Planning of Space, 5(16): 1-17. (In Persian).

Shayan S, Sharifi Kia M, Zare G. 2011. Evaluating the geomorphotourism potential of landforms based on Praloong method (Case Study: Darab Township). Arid Regions Geographic Studies, 1(2): 73-91. (In Persian).

Wu Y-Y, Wang H-L, Ho Y-F. 2010. Urban ecotourism: Defining and assessing dimensions using fuzzy number construction. Tourism Management, 31(6): 739-743. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.014.

Yan L, Gao BW, Zhang M. 2017. A mathematical model for tourism potential assessment. Tourism Management, 63: 355-365. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.07.003.

Zabihi H, Alizadeh M, Wolf ID, Karami M, Ahmad A, Salamian H. 2020. A GIS-based fuzzy-analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP) for ecotourism suitability decision making: A case study of Babol in Iran. Tourism Management Perspectives, 36: 100726. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100726.

Zouros N. 2005. Assessment, protection, and promotion of geomorphological and geological sites in the Aegean area, Greece. Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement, 11(3): 227-234. doi:https://doi.org/10.4000/geomorphologie.398.