Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 38, Issue 3 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(3): 411-422 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/08/20 | Accepted: 2023/09/18 | Published: 2023/10/2
Received: 2023/08/20 | Accepted: 2023/09/18 | Published: 2023/10/2
How to cite this article
Miri E, Amirahmadi A, Akbari E. Developing an Integrated Decision-Making Model Based on RS and GIS to Identify the Geomorphotourist Capabilities of Tajnood Valley and Hemmatabad Desert. GeoRes 2023; 38 (3) :411-422
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1522-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1522-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Geomorphology and Climatology, Faculty of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran
2- Department of Remote Sensing and GIS, Faculty of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran
2- Department of Remote Sensing and GIS, Faculty of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (98 Views)
Introduction
From a natural and geological perspective, Iran occupies an important position globally [Saadatyfar et al., 2021]. In recent years, tourism has increasingly shifted its focus toward nature-based tourism [Papoli Yazdi & Saqai, 2006]. Geomorphological landscapes exert a profound influence on the lives of local residents [Beheshti Khole Zo, 2022]. Their role and structure are particularly significant in tourism, to the extent that their attractiveness determines their capacity to draw tourists [Yamani et al., 2012]. Some researchers have introduced geotourism as one of the newest forms of tourism, categorized under ecotourism or nature-based tourism [Amri Kazemi, 2009], while others have referred to it as geographic tourism [Tharvati et al., 2008]. The primary aim of geotourism is to identify and assess the potential and criteria of geosites and geomorphosites [Moghimi et al., 2012]. Since geotourism represents an applied dimension of community development in underprivileged areas with latent tourism potential, it is essential that geomorphosites be evaluated and their capacities revealed [Amir Ahmadi et al., 2013].
At the global scale, researchers have examined geotourism through the analysis of morphogenetic systems in relation to geotourism issues [Rahimi Herabadi et al., 2018; Salmani et al., 2018]. Hence, geomorphological forms and processes can be transformed into geomorphosites with appropriate tourism infrastructure, thereby acquiring unique scientific, ecological, cultural, aesthetic, and economic values [Maghsudi et al., 2012]. In geotourism potential assessment, both in Iran and worldwide, scholars have consistently focused on the evaluation of geosites and geomorphosites [Zangane Asadi et al., 2016; Shayan Yegane et al., 2023]. Landforms generated by dynamic internal and external processes are key elements for tourism development, while other attractions such as cultural, social, historical, and geological features may serve as complementary factors enhancing their value [May, 1993]. Within this framework, geomorphosites can act as a bridge between abiotic phenomena and biotic or human-civilized aspects [Lugeri et al., 2011; Panizza, 2001]. At present, most studies on geomorphosites and the development of geotourism knowledge in Iran remain at preliminary stages [Rahimi Herabadi et al., 2021].
In geotourism scholarship, the values of a geomorphosite are generally categorized into two groups:
Zirkouh County, from a geomorphological perspective, possesses unique capabilities, comprising a variety of geomorphological processes and landforms of tectonic, desert, arid, and fluvial origin. Consequently, as a geomorphosite with a diverse range of phenomena, it provides a suitable context for geotourism development. The central aim of this study is to present an integrated decision-making model based on remote sensing and GIS to identify the capabilities of the study area (Tajnoud Basin and Hematabad Desert), with a focus on geomorphosites in arid regions.
Methodology
This study employed a quantitative–survey design conducted during 2022–2023 to identify and evaluate the geomorphotourism potentials of Zirkuh County in South Khorasan Province. Following the identification of landforms, geomorphological features, and geosites through remote sensing, several evaluation models, including Fassilous, GAM, and Comănescu, were applied to prioritize and assess the geotourism potential of geosites, geomorphosites, as well as cultural and economic sites. The Tajnoud Basin and Hematabad Desert, located in the southern part of Zirkuh County, constituted the study area. Zirkuh County, with Hajjiabad as its center, lies 85 km east of Qaen and 190 km from Birjand, the capital of South Khorasan Province.
To address the limitations of individual evaluation models, the study integrated multiple value-assessment methods through a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approach within GIS, producing a comprehensive suitability zoning map for geosites. This integration allowed for the simultaneous consideration of multiple factors, thereby harnessing the strengths of each individual model.
In preparing the final geotourism map of the study area, the necessary criteria were first determined. These criteria were selected based on a review of previous studies and geotourism mapping projects, supplemented by field observations in the Tajnoud Basin and Hematabad Desert and expert interviews with local specialists. Ultimately, eleven criteria were identified, grouped under two main categories:
In the third step, after determining the final weight of each element and criterion, GIS was used to create separate data layers for each criterion. These layers were subsequently classified according to their geotourism significance in the study area. Finally, after applying multiple evaluation models (Fassilous, GAM, and Comănescu), shortcomings were addressed, and through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), as an MCDM approach in GIS, a composite geotourism suitability zoning map for geosites was produced [Bijani et al., 2017]
Findings
After determining the final weights of each element and criterion, separate GIS layers were created in ArcGIS for each criterion. These layers were subsequently classified based on their geotourism significance within the study area.
To prepare the layer for attractive and unique geomorphic processes and forms, Landsat 8 satellite imagery, Google Earth images, 1:50,000 topographic maps, and field surveys were utilized. Landforms and geomorphic processes in the area were identified, including both fluvial and aeolian landforms. The significance of each landform for geotourism and its potential to attract visitors was then assessed using the applied evaluation models.
The protection status layer was generated using Google Earth imagery. The protected area, located in the northeastern part of the study area and covering approximately 7003 hectares in the Ahangaran Mountains, hosts twenty plant and animal species important for geotourism. However, the area has recently been affected by negative impacts of tourism. Geologically, the region is suitable for tourism due to its high mountain ranges, and geomorphologically, wind and water erosion are the main processes shaping landforms in this area.
To assess natural hazards, river break points were extracted from satellite images. The analysis of earthquake-prone points and break points indicated neotectonic activity and uplift in the region. The area is mainly a plain, and riverside zones, due to settlements, are prone to flooding. Additionally, the presence of major active faults (Ardakol, Abiz, Yazdan) highlights the tectonic significance of the area. Wind erosion has also caused sandstorms, which partially bury natural features.
Accessibility analysis showed that historical, cultural, and religious sites were close to the study area, facilitating tourist visits. The region also contains unique ecological zones, including Ahangaran Protected Area (Darreh Ahangaran), Mohammadabad grove (3 km from Mohammadabad village), Shaghayegh Hajjiabad hills (5 km south of Hajjiabad), Hematabad Desert (60 km from Zirkuh), and the verdant Tajnoud valley (5 km from Hematabad Desert). Main access roads include Yazdan Bazaar Road and Khosh-Abeh Road, with secondary dirt roads also available for tourists. Four population centers of Shahrokht, Petergan, Tajnoud, and Hematabad are located in the study area, and their proximity to attractions positively influenced tourism.
Tourism carrying capacity was assessed using an ecological capacity evaluation model. Tourist areas were identified based on parameters such as elevation, slope aspect, slope degree, soil type, and geology, resulting in a five-class zoning map. Despite limitations such as high temperatures and sparse vegetation, the area was found suitable for tourism.
Tourist numbers were estimated using the physical carrying capacity equation, yielding a total of 1,342 visitors per day. The higher capacity in the first class under extensive tourism was due to the larger area, while limitations reduced capacity under concentrated tourism.
Final evaluation of geosites: Using Fassilous, Comănescu, and GAM models, the final value of each geosite was calculated by integrating the results of all three models. Due to differences in scoring approaches and criteria emphasis, the models produced varying results. The final geosite scores were obtained by averaging the three models. According to Fassilous, the historical Tajnoud Dam geosite scored highest (81), followed by Shaskuh Shrine (69.8) and Zahan Garden (69). Comănescu results ranked Tajnoud Dam highest (73), followed by Shaskuh Shrine (72) and Zahan Garden (71). GAM results indicated Zahan Garden as highest (68), followed by Shaskuh Shrine (66.2) and Darband Stone Dam (65.6). The final ranking showed Tajnoud Dam as the top geosite (mean score 73), followed by Zahan Garden (72.6) and Shaskuh Shrine (69.3), confirming the study area's suitability for geotourism.
Landform weighting (based on pairwise comparison matrix) revealed that sand plains were most significant (weight = 0.178, rank 1), followed by sand islands (weight=0.171, rank 2). Aeolian landforms dominate Hematabad Desert and are highly suitable for geotourism. Sand plains were selected as the top geosite due to their large area, accessibility, and tourism facilities, followed by sand islands, active alluvial cones, and ancient alluvial cones.
A one-sample t-test confirmed significant relationships between the three applied models (Fassilous, Comănescu, GAM) and the AHP method, with p-values<0.05.
Geotourism zoning maps: Initial geosites were evaluated using Fassilous, Comănescu, and GAM models, ranked, and the most important geosites identified. Final weights were applied to GIS layers, multiplied, and combined to produce the final maps. Fassilous model results showed that zones with high tourism value covered 32% and very high value 39% of the area. Comănescu indicated 39% high-value and 46% very high-value areas, mainly in the center, north, south, and west, due to accessibility, geomorphological diversity, presence of shrines, and amenities. GAM model showed 28% high-value and 37% very high-value areas, corresponding to the center, north, and west, attributed to historical sites, tourist services, and accessibility.
Final integrated geotourism zoning map: By combining Fassilous, GAM, and Comănescu models, 36% of the area was classified as high-value and 51% as very high-value zones, corresponding to geomorphological landforms with good accessibility, scenic viewpoints, geomorphological diversity, rarity, and site integrity.
Discussion
Geotourism knowledge is currently experiencing an evolutionary and upward trend worldwide, prompting the design and implementation of various indigenous models, particularly in European countries. In 2005, Gonzalez and Serrano evaluated geosites in protected natural areas such as Pico de España [Serrano & Gonzalez-Trueba, 2005]. In the same year, Pralong introduced and evaluated geosites in Chamonix, Switzerland, presenting a method for geotourism assessment in the region [Pralong, 2005]. Reynard et al. highlighted ecological and aesthetic values as independent criteria alongside economic value in evaluating geosites [Reynard et al., 2007]. Pereira et al., while assessing geotourism potential in Montezinho Natural Park (Portugal), argued that scientific value, use value, protection value, and integrity criteria should be considered sequentially in geosite studies [Pereira et al., 2007]. Rovere et al. have developed a model to evaluate underwater geosites in the Sery region of Lesbos Island, Greece [Rovere et al., 2010]. Comănescu et al. have assessed scientific and complementary values of selected geosites in the Vista Valley, finding geosites geologically similar and well-developed but economically and culturally limited [Comanescu et al., 2011]. Fassoulas et al. have designed a quantitative evaluation method for geosites in the Sílverits Geopark (Greece) based on six main criteria covering scientific, conservation, and tourism values [Fassoulas et al., 2012]. Kubalíková examines the relationship between geographic diversity, geoheritage, and geotourism, emphasizing scientific, cultural, and economic parameters [Kubalíková, 2013]. Santangelo and Valente explored the role of geoheritage and geotourism [Santangelo & Valente, 2020].
In Iran, Ghanavati et al. have reviewed geotourism developments and applied models [Ghanavati et al., 2012]. Salehei et al. have assessed geosites in Chahardangeh Rural District, Sari County, using Fassoulous and Nicholas methods [Salehei et al., 2016]. Zangane Asadi et al. have introduced a novel approach for evaluating Iranian geosites [Zangane Asadi et al., 2016]. Mokhtari et al. have conducted a comparative study of geotourism potential in Alishtar County using Pralong and Pereira models [Mokhtari et al., 2018]. Ganjaeian et al. have evaluated and zoned geosite development potential in Marivan County using GEM, Fassoulous, and Kubalíková methods [Ganjaeian et al., 2018]. Salmani et al. have assessed geotourism potential of dry-area geosites in Tabas County [Salmani et al., 2018]. Abaszadeh et al. have applied the Comănescu method to evaluate potential geosites in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province [Abaszadeh et al., 2020].
A review of Iranian studies revealed that most models have not sufficiently addressed environmental sustainability, rural-urban entrepreneurship for locals, or optimal land use. Few studies have implemented a localized, region-specific model. Moreover, the Pralong model has been the most frequently applied, raising questions about its generalizability to other regions, given its origin in Switzerland and its design for a specific geographic area. Additionally, studies often reference the model by the author’s name, providing limited insight into the model’s conceptual framework.
In this study, by addressing the limitations of previously applied models in the geosites of the study area, the advantages of all models were utilized, and an integrated geosite zoning map was produced. Key limitations identified included the lack of effective measures for geosite identification, introduction, and registration, insufficient comprehensive data on local geosites, inadequate tourism management structures, and limited awareness of scientific tourism approaches among responsible authorities. Accordingly, a key recommendation based on the findings is to design and implement a localized model derived from field experiences and surveys, which can support geosite conservation while maintaining geomorphic balance
Conclusion
The integrated Fassoulas–GAM–Comănescu model (FA-CO-GM), based on the AHP method, can address the limitations of previously applied geosite models in the study area, leverage the advantages of all models, and produce an appropriate geosite zoning map.
Acknowledgments: The authors sincerely appreciate the cooperation of the Natural Resources Organization and the Hajiabad Tourism Office in data collection.
Ethical Permission: There are no ethical issues to report.
Conflict of Interest: The authors affirm that they have adhered to publication ethics, including avoiding data fabrication, duplicate submission/publication, plagiarism, and other misconduct. The authors received no payment for this work, have no commercial interests, and confirm that this work has not been submitted or published elsewhere.
Author Contributions: Miri E (first author): Methodologist/Principal Researcher/Introduction Writer/Statistical Analyst/Discussion Author (60%); Amirahmadi A (second author): Methodologist/Principal Researcher (15%); Akbari E (third author): Methodologist/Principal Researcher/Statistical Analyst/Discussion Author (25%)
Funding: No funding was reported by the authors.
From a natural and geological perspective, Iran occupies an important position globally [Saadatyfar et al., 2021]. In recent years, tourism has increasingly shifted its focus toward nature-based tourism [Papoli Yazdi & Saqai, 2006]. Geomorphological landscapes exert a profound influence on the lives of local residents [Beheshti Khole Zo, 2022]. Their role and structure are particularly significant in tourism, to the extent that their attractiveness determines their capacity to draw tourists [Yamani et al., 2012]. Some researchers have introduced geotourism as one of the newest forms of tourism, categorized under ecotourism or nature-based tourism [Amri Kazemi, 2009], while others have referred to it as geographic tourism [Tharvati et al., 2008]. The primary aim of geotourism is to identify and assess the potential and criteria of geosites and geomorphosites [Moghimi et al., 2012]. Since geotourism represents an applied dimension of community development in underprivileged areas with latent tourism potential, it is essential that geomorphosites be evaluated and their capacities revealed [Amir Ahmadi et al., 2013].
At the global scale, researchers have examined geotourism through the analysis of morphogenetic systems in relation to geotourism issues [Rahimi Herabadi et al., 2018; Salmani et al., 2018]. Hence, geomorphological forms and processes can be transformed into geomorphosites with appropriate tourism infrastructure, thereby acquiring unique scientific, ecological, cultural, aesthetic, and economic values [Maghsudi et al., 2012]. In geotourism potential assessment, both in Iran and worldwide, scholars have consistently focused on the evaluation of geosites and geomorphosites [Zangane Asadi et al., 2016; Shayan Yegane et al., 2023]. Landforms generated by dynamic internal and external processes are key elements for tourism development, while other attractions such as cultural, social, historical, and geological features may serve as complementary factors enhancing their value [May, 1993]. Within this framework, geomorphosites can act as a bridge between abiotic phenomena and biotic or human-civilized aspects [Lugeri et al., 2011; Panizza, 2001]. At present, most studies on geomorphosites and the development of geotourism knowledge in Iran remain at preliminary stages [Rahimi Herabadi et al., 2021].
In geotourism scholarship, the values of a geomorphosite are generally categorized into two groups:
- Scientific values, which relate to the nature, structure, aesthetics, diversity, and other inherent features of geomorphosites.
- Complementary values, which encompass historical, social, cultural, environmental, and economic aspects [Comanescu et al., 2011].
Zirkouh County, from a geomorphological perspective, possesses unique capabilities, comprising a variety of geomorphological processes and landforms of tectonic, desert, arid, and fluvial origin. Consequently, as a geomorphosite with a diverse range of phenomena, it provides a suitable context for geotourism development. The central aim of this study is to present an integrated decision-making model based on remote sensing and GIS to identify the capabilities of the study area (Tajnoud Basin and Hematabad Desert), with a focus on geomorphosites in arid regions.
Methodology
This study employed a quantitative–survey design conducted during 2022–2023 to identify and evaluate the geomorphotourism potentials of Zirkuh County in South Khorasan Province. Following the identification of landforms, geomorphological features, and geosites through remote sensing, several evaluation models, including Fassilous, GAM, and Comănescu, were applied to prioritize and assess the geotourism potential of geosites, geomorphosites, as well as cultural and economic sites. The Tajnoud Basin and Hematabad Desert, located in the southern part of Zirkuh County, constituted the study area. Zirkuh County, with Hajjiabad as its center, lies 85 km east of Qaen and 190 km from Birjand, the capital of South Khorasan Province.
To address the limitations of individual evaluation models, the study integrated multiple value-assessment methods through a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approach within GIS, producing a comprehensive suitability zoning map for geosites. This integration allowed for the simultaneous consideration of multiple factors, thereby harnessing the strengths of each individual model.
In preparing the final geotourism map of the study area, the necessary criteria were first determined. These criteria were selected based on a review of previous studies and geotourism mapping projects, supplemented by field observations in the Tajnoud Basin and Hematabad Desert and expert interviews with local specialists. Ultimately, eleven criteria were identified, grouped under two main categories:
- Scientific values: geomorphological hazards, historical geomorphology, unique and attractive geomorphic processes and forms, and conservation status.
- Complementary values: land use, ecological attractiveness, accessibility to cities and population centers, carrying capacity and sensitivity, historical–cultural values, transportation networks, and tourist numbers, behavior, and utilization patterns.
In the third step, after determining the final weight of each element and criterion, GIS was used to create separate data layers for each criterion. These layers were subsequently classified according to their geotourism significance in the study area. Finally, after applying multiple evaluation models (Fassilous, GAM, and Comănescu), shortcomings were addressed, and through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), as an MCDM approach in GIS, a composite geotourism suitability zoning map for geosites was produced [Bijani et al., 2017]
Findings
After determining the final weights of each element and criterion, separate GIS layers were created in ArcGIS for each criterion. These layers were subsequently classified based on their geotourism significance within the study area.
To prepare the layer for attractive and unique geomorphic processes and forms, Landsat 8 satellite imagery, Google Earth images, 1:50,000 topographic maps, and field surveys were utilized. Landforms and geomorphic processes in the area were identified, including both fluvial and aeolian landforms. The significance of each landform for geotourism and its potential to attract visitors was then assessed using the applied evaluation models.
The protection status layer was generated using Google Earth imagery. The protected area, located in the northeastern part of the study area and covering approximately 7003 hectares in the Ahangaran Mountains, hosts twenty plant and animal species important for geotourism. However, the area has recently been affected by negative impacts of tourism. Geologically, the region is suitable for tourism due to its high mountain ranges, and geomorphologically, wind and water erosion are the main processes shaping landforms in this area.
To assess natural hazards, river break points were extracted from satellite images. The analysis of earthquake-prone points and break points indicated neotectonic activity and uplift in the region. The area is mainly a plain, and riverside zones, due to settlements, are prone to flooding. Additionally, the presence of major active faults (Ardakol, Abiz, Yazdan) highlights the tectonic significance of the area. Wind erosion has also caused sandstorms, which partially bury natural features.
Accessibility analysis showed that historical, cultural, and religious sites were close to the study area, facilitating tourist visits. The region also contains unique ecological zones, including Ahangaran Protected Area (Darreh Ahangaran), Mohammadabad grove (3 km from Mohammadabad village), Shaghayegh Hajjiabad hills (5 km south of Hajjiabad), Hematabad Desert (60 km from Zirkuh), and the verdant Tajnoud valley (5 km from Hematabad Desert). Main access roads include Yazdan Bazaar Road and Khosh-Abeh Road, with secondary dirt roads also available for tourists. Four population centers of Shahrokht, Petergan, Tajnoud, and Hematabad are located in the study area, and their proximity to attractions positively influenced tourism.
Tourism carrying capacity was assessed using an ecological capacity evaluation model. Tourist areas were identified based on parameters such as elevation, slope aspect, slope degree, soil type, and geology, resulting in a five-class zoning map. Despite limitations such as high temperatures and sparse vegetation, the area was found suitable for tourism.
Tourist numbers were estimated using the physical carrying capacity equation, yielding a total of 1,342 visitors per day. The higher capacity in the first class under extensive tourism was due to the larger area, while limitations reduced capacity under concentrated tourism.
Final evaluation of geosites: Using Fassilous, Comănescu, and GAM models, the final value of each geosite was calculated by integrating the results of all three models. Due to differences in scoring approaches and criteria emphasis, the models produced varying results. The final geosite scores were obtained by averaging the three models. According to Fassilous, the historical Tajnoud Dam geosite scored highest (81), followed by Shaskuh Shrine (69.8) and Zahan Garden (69). Comănescu results ranked Tajnoud Dam highest (73), followed by Shaskuh Shrine (72) and Zahan Garden (71). GAM results indicated Zahan Garden as highest (68), followed by Shaskuh Shrine (66.2) and Darband Stone Dam (65.6). The final ranking showed Tajnoud Dam as the top geosite (mean score 73), followed by Zahan Garden (72.6) and Shaskuh Shrine (69.3), confirming the study area's suitability for geotourism.
Landform weighting (based on pairwise comparison matrix) revealed that sand plains were most significant (weight = 0.178, rank 1), followed by sand islands (weight=0.171, rank 2). Aeolian landforms dominate Hematabad Desert and are highly suitable for geotourism. Sand plains were selected as the top geosite due to their large area, accessibility, and tourism facilities, followed by sand islands, active alluvial cones, and ancient alluvial cones.
A one-sample t-test confirmed significant relationships between the three applied models (Fassilous, Comănescu, GAM) and the AHP method, with p-values<0.05.
Geotourism zoning maps: Initial geosites were evaluated using Fassilous, Comănescu, and GAM models, ranked, and the most important geosites identified. Final weights were applied to GIS layers, multiplied, and combined to produce the final maps. Fassilous model results showed that zones with high tourism value covered 32% and very high value 39% of the area. Comănescu indicated 39% high-value and 46% very high-value areas, mainly in the center, north, south, and west, due to accessibility, geomorphological diversity, presence of shrines, and amenities. GAM model showed 28% high-value and 37% very high-value areas, corresponding to the center, north, and west, attributed to historical sites, tourist services, and accessibility.
Final integrated geotourism zoning map: By combining Fassilous, GAM, and Comănescu models, 36% of the area was classified as high-value and 51% as very high-value zones, corresponding to geomorphological landforms with good accessibility, scenic viewpoints, geomorphological diversity, rarity, and site integrity.
Discussion
Geotourism knowledge is currently experiencing an evolutionary and upward trend worldwide, prompting the design and implementation of various indigenous models, particularly in European countries. In 2005, Gonzalez and Serrano evaluated geosites in protected natural areas such as Pico de España [Serrano & Gonzalez-Trueba, 2005]. In the same year, Pralong introduced and evaluated geosites in Chamonix, Switzerland, presenting a method for geotourism assessment in the region [Pralong, 2005]. Reynard et al. highlighted ecological and aesthetic values as independent criteria alongside economic value in evaluating geosites [Reynard et al., 2007]. Pereira et al., while assessing geotourism potential in Montezinho Natural Park (Portugal), argued that scientific value, use value, protection value, and integrity criteria should be considered sequentially in geosite studies [Pereira et al., 2007]. Rovere et al. have developed a model to evaluate underwater geosites in the Sery region of Lesbos Island, Greece [Rovere et al., 2010]. Comănescu et al. have assessed scientific and complementary values of selected geosites in the Vista Valley, finding geosites geologically similar and well-developed but economically and culturally limited [Comanescu et al., 2011]. Fassoulas et al. have designed a quantitative evaluation method for geosites in the Sílverits Geopark (Greece) based on six main criteria covering scientific, conservation, and tourism values [Fassoulas et al., 2012]. Kubalíková examines the relationship between geographic diversity, geoheritage, and geotourism, emphasizing scientific, cultural, and economic parameters [Kubalíková, 2013]. Santangelo and Valente explored the role of geoheritage and geotourism [Santangelo & Valente, 2020].
In Iran, Ghanavati et al. have reviewed geotourism developments and applied models [Ghanavati et al., 2012]. Salehei et al. have assessed geosites in Chahardangeh Rural District, Sari County, using Fassoulous and Nicholas methods [Salehei et al., 2016]. Zangane Asadi et al. have introduced a novel approach for evaluating Iranian geosites [Zangane Asadi et al., 2016]. Mokhtari et al. have conducted a comparative study of geotourism potential in Alishtar County using Pralong and Pereira models [Mokhtari et al., 2018]. Ganjaeian et al. have evaluated and zoned geosite development potential in Marivan County using GEM, Fassoulous, and Kubalíková methods [Ganjaeian et al., 2018]. Salmani et al. have assessed geotourism potential of dry-area geosites in Tabas County [Salmani et al., 2018]. Abaszadeh et al. have applied the Comănescu method to evaluate potential geosites in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province [Abaszadeh et al., 2020].
A review of Iranian studies revealed that most models have not sufficiently addressed environmental sustainability, rural-urban entrepreneurship for locals, or optimal land use. Few studies have implemented a localized, region-specific model. Moreover, the Pralong model has been the most frequently applied, raising questions about its generalizability to other regions, given its origin in Switzerland and its design for a specific geographic area. Additionally, studies often reference the model by the author’s name, providing limited insight into the model’s conceptual framework.
In this study, by addressing the limitations of previously applied models in the geosites of the study area, the advantages of all models were utilized, and an integrated geosite zoning map was produced. Key limitations identified included the lack of effective measures for geosite identification, introduction, and registration, insufficient comprehensive data on local geosites, inadequate tourism management structures, and limited awareness of scientific tourism approaches among responsible authorities. Accordingly, a key recommendation based on the findings is to design and implement a localized model derived from field experiences and surveys, which can support geosite conservation while maintaining geomorphic balance
Conclusion
The integrated Fassoulas–GAM–Comănescu model (FA-CO-GM), based on the AHP method, can address the limitations of previously applied geosite models in the study area, leverage the advantages of all models, and produce an appropriate geosite zoning map.
Acknowledgments: The authors sincerely appreciate the cooperation of the Natural Resources Organization and the Hajiabad Tourism Office in data collection.
Ethical Permission: There are no ethical issues to report.
Conflict of Interest: The authors affirm that they have adhered to publication ethics, including avoiding data fabrication, duplicate submission/publication, plagiarism, and other misconduct. The authors received no payment for this work, have no commercial interests, and confirm that this work has not been submitted or published elsewhere.
Author Contributions: Miri E (first author): Methodologist/Principal Researcher/Introduction Writer/Statistical Analyst/Discussion Author (60%); Amirahmadi A (second author): Methodologist/Principal Researcher (15%); Akbari E (third author): Methodologist/Principal Researcher/Statistical Analyst/Discussion Author (25%)
Funding: No funding was reported by the authors.
Keywords:
References
1. Amri Kazemi A (2009). Atlas of geopark & geotourism resources of Iran, Tehran. Tehran: Geological Survey of Iran Publication. p. 22-23. [Persian] [Link]
2. Abaszadeh A, Ebrahimi A (2020). Assessing the potential of talented geosites in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province using the Comanescu method. Geography and Human Relationships. 2(4):400-412. [Persian] [Link]
3. Amir Ahmadi A, Zanganeh Asadi MA, Balouchi N, Koohestanian M, Elahi S (2013). Geotourism potential of the southern slopes of the Makran (south of balouchestan). Geographical Notion. 7(14):119-136. [Persian] [Link]
4. Beheshti Khole Zo A (2022). Investigating the role of geomythology in northeast Iran with the aim of developing geotourism. thesis. Sabzevar: Hakim Sabzevari University. [Persian] [Link]
5. Bijani A, Behzad A, Naderifar H (2017). Analysis of zones for the ecotourism by using AHP and TOPSIS models (case study basin Seiyahrud, Rudbar, Gilan province, Iran). Geography & Regional Planning. 7(29):93-103. [Persian] [Link]
6. Comanescu L, Nedelea A, Dobre R (2011). Evaluation of geomorphosites in Vistea Valley (Fagaras Mountains-Carpathians, Romania). International Journal of the Physical Sciences. 6(5):1161-1168. [Link]
7. 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. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s12371-011-0046-9]
8. Ganjaeian H, Feridoni Kordestani M, Ebrahimi A (2018). Prone areas the development of geosites based on assessment methods and zoning (case study: Marivan). Quarterly Geographical Journal of Territory. 15(57):49-68. [Persian] [Link]
9. Ghanavati E, Karam A, Fakhari S (2012). Review on process geotorism evolutions and models that used in Iran. Quarterly Geographical Journal of Territory. 9(2):77-93. [Persian] [Link]
10. Kubalíková L (2013). Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes. Czech Journal of Tourism. 2(2):80-104. [Link] [DOI:10.2478/cjot-2013-0005]
11. Lugeri FR, Amadio V, Bagnaia R, Cardillo A, Lugeri N (2011). Landscapes and wine production areas: A geomorphological heritage. Geoheritage. 3(3):221-232. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s12371-011-0035-z]
12. Maghsudi M, Alizadeh M, Rahimi Har Abadi S, Hadai Arani M (2012). Capability assessment of tourism geomorphosites in Kavir national park. Tourism Management Studies. 7(19):49-68. [Persian] [Link]
13. May V (1993). Coastal, tourism, geomorphology and geological conservation: The example of south England. In: Wong PP (editor). Tourism vs environment: The case for coastal areas. The GeoJournal Library. 26:3-10. Dordrecht: Springer. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-94-011-2068-5_1]
14. Moghimi E, Rahimi harabadi S, Hadaii arani M, Alizadeh M, Oroji H (2012). Geomorphotourism and feasibility measurement of road geomorphosites using the Periyara method; Case Study: Qom-Kashan freeway. Journal of Applied Researches in Geographical Sciences. 27(12):163-184. [Persian]. [Link]
15. Mokhtari L, Bahramabadi E, Solgi L (2018). Comparative study of the geotourism abilities of Aleshtar city using Pralong and Perira models. Geography and Development. 16(52):69-96. [Persian] [Link]
16. Panizza M (2001). Geomorphosites: Concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey. Chinese Science Bulletin. 46(1):4-5. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/BF03187227]
17. Papoli Yazdi MH, Saqai M (2006). Tourism (nature and concepts). 1st Edition. Tehran: SAMT. [Persian] [Link]
18. Pralong J-P (2005). A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites. Géomorphologie Relief Processus Environnement. 11(3):189-196. [Link] [DOI:10.4000/geomorphologie.350]
19. Pereira P, Pereira D, Caetano Alves MI (2007). Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geographica Helvetica. 62(3):159-168. [Link] [DOI:10.5194/gh-62-159-2007]
20. Rahimi Herabadi S (2018). Explaining and compiling the management model of geotourism in the desert region of Iran (case study: Tabas city) [dissertation]. Tehran: Kharazmi University. [Persian] [Link]
21. Rahimi Herabadi S, Saffari A, Ghanavati E (2021). Management pattern in geotourism with emphasis on geomorphosites of Iranian desert territory, case study: Tabas County. Quantitative Geomorphological Research. 9(3):108-131. [Persian] [Link]
22. Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L, Scapozza C (2007). A method for assessing "scientific" and "additional values" of geomorphosites. Geogr. Geographica Helvetica. 62(3):148-158. [Link] [DOI:10.5194/gh-62-148-2007]
23. Rovere A, Vacchi M, Parravicini V, Bianchi CN, Zouros N, Firpo M (2010). Bringing geoheritage underwater: Definitions, methods, and application in two Mediterranean marine areas. Environmental Earth Sciences. 64:133-142. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s12665-010-0824-8]
24. Saadatyfar R, Zanganeh Asadi MA, Goli Mokhtari L (2021). The importance of tourism land and a proposal for geopark: A priority in the economy of the northwestern region of Neishabour-Khorasan Razavi. Sustainable Development of Geographical Environment. 3(4):58-72. [Persian] [Link]
25. Sai-leung NG, Jiangfeng LI, Shiming F, Young CYNG (2010). Geodiversity and geoconservation in Hong Kong. Asian Geographer. 27(1-2):1-11. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/10225706.2010.9684149]
26. Salehei S, Aflaki Z, Mousazadeh H, Zangiabadi Z (2016). Assessment geo-sites in the villages of Chahardange using Fasilous and Nicholas method (case study: villages of Chahardangeh, city of Sari). Journal of Rural Research. 7(2):300-315. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.21859/jjr-07023]
27. Salmani Moghadam M, Akbari E, Miri E (2017). Evaluation the influence of border market on the trend of city physical development case study: Yazdan border market of the Hajiabad city. Geography and Territorial Spatial Arrangement. 6(21):19-32. [Persian] [Link]
28. Salmani M, Oroji H, Osati AS, Rahimi Harabadi S (2018). Geotourism capabilities assessment of the dry lands geomorphosites (case study: playa and desert regions of Tabas county). Geography and Territorial Spatial Arrangement. 8(28):235-256. [Persian] [Link]
29. Santangelo N, Valente E (2020). Geoheritage and geotourism resources. Resources. 9(7):80. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/resources9070080]
30. Serrano E, Gonzalez-Trueba JJ (2005). Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: The Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Géomorphologie: Relief Processus Environment. 11(3):197-208. [Link] [DOI:10.4000/geomorphologie.364]
31. Shayan Yegane AA, Zangane Asadi MA, Amir Ahmadi A (2023). Evaluating geomorphosites and geoconservation of the proposed geopark of west Khorasan Razavi using Shayan Yeganeh et al.'s native model and comparing with the global models of Comanescu, Fassoulas, and Brilha. Spatial Planning. 13(1):1-20. [Persian] [Link]
32. Tharvati MR, Kazazi E (2008). Geotourism and its planning opportunities in Hamadan province. Geographical Space. 16. [Persian]. [Link]
33. Yamani M, Negahban S, Harabadi S, Alizadeh M (2012). Geomorphotourism and comparison of methods for the assessment of geomorphosites in tourism development (case study: Hormozgan provice). Journal of Tourism Planning and Development. 1(1):83-104. [Persian] [Link]
34. Zangane Asadi MA, Amir Ahmadi A, Shayan Yeganeh AA (2016). A new approach to assessing Iran's geomorphosites and geosites as one of the geopark introducing tools. Tourism Management Studies. 11(34):41-64. [Persian] [Link]