Advertisement

Geoheritage

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 123–135 | Cite as

Evaluation of Geosite for Sustainable Planning and Management in Geotourism

  • Dorota Anna SuzukiEmail author
  • Hideo Takagi
Review Article

Abstract

Geosites are sites of scientific interest based on geology or geomorphology that can serve various purposes such as research, conservation, education, tourism, and sustainable development. Quantifying their value to potential visitors and researchers is widely recognized as a useful tool for the effective development and management and for the protection of geological heritage of a certain area. Although many quantitative evaluation schemes have been proposed for various types of sites in Europe, over the past two decades, the schemes can give widely variable results for the same sites due to differences in needs and expectations, which can present difficulties for inter-site comparison for management purposes. It therefore remains necessary to develop a uniform evaluation scheme with low overall complexity to assist with prioritization and management. This study presents a new evaluation scheme based on the most commonly used attributes for quantifying geosites as applied to geomorphological landscapes and geological processes with natural and/or cultural heritage. The utility of the evaluation scheme is demonstrated through application to selected geosites in Japan, Germany, and Poland. The results clearly show the present condition of geosites, identify their promotional advantages and disadvantages, and provide a widely applicable reference for planning and development of such sites for geotourism.

Keywords

Geosite Evaluation Geopark Geotourism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors express their sincere thanks to Mr. Jacek Koźma of the Committee of the Muskau Arch Global Geopark for the support and materials included in this work. Thanks are also due to the many graduate students at Waseda University who supported this research in 2015. This research was supported in part by funding from the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Waseda University, 2015.

References

  1. Bruschi VM, Cendrero A (2005) Geosite evaluation; can we measure intangible values? II Quaternario, Italian J Quarternary Sci 18(1):293–306Google Scholar
  2. Coratza P, Giusti C (2005) Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites. Il Quaternario 18(1):307–313Google Scholar
  3. Geological Society of Japan (2010) Exploration map of Jogashima Island (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  4. Geological Survey of Japan/AIST 1:200,000 Geological map of: Tokyo NI-54-25 (1987), Utsunomiya NJ-54-30 (1991), Nagano NJ-54-36 (1998), Kofu NI-54-21 (2002), Yokosuka NI-54-26 (2015) Google Scholar
  5. Gusti C, Gonzalez-Diez A (2000) A methodological approach for the evaluation of impacts on sites of geomorphological interest (SGI), using GIS techniques. ISPRS Archive 33(Suppl. B7):47–53Google Scholar
  6. Hara H, Hisada K (2007) Tectono-metamorphic evolution of the Cretaceous Shimanto accretionary complex, central Japan: constrains from a fluid inclusion analysis of syn-tectonic veins. Island Arc 17:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haracz P, Iwlecz B, Jagiełło K, Koźma J, Maciantowicz M (2012) European Geopark Muskau Arch. Three different perspectives… (in Polish). Association of Geopark Muskau ArchGoogle Scholar
  8. Ielenicz M (2009) Geotope, geosite, geomorphosite. Ann Valahia Univ Târgovişte, Geogr Series 9(Issue I):7–22Google Scholar
  9. Ishiyama D, Miyata M, Shibata S, Satoh H, Mizuta T, Fukuyama M, Ogasawara M (2011) Geochemical characteristics of Miocene Fe-Cu–Pb–Zn granitoids associated mineralization in the Chichibu skarn deposit (central Japan): evidence for magmatic fluids generation coexisting with granitic melt. Geol Soc, London (Special Publications) 350:69–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IUGS Geoheritage Task Group (2014) Annual report 2014 (retrieved from http://geoheritage-iugs.mnhn.fr)
  11. Kapuścik DA (2015) Geoeducation and disaster prevention through exploring the Jogashima geosites. JpGU Meeting Abstract. O01-P02, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  12. Koźma J, Kupetz M (2008) The transboundary Geopark Muskau Arch (Geoparku Łuk Mużakowa, Geopark Muskauer Faltenbogen). Przegl Geol 56(8/1):692–698Google Scholar
  13. Koźma J, Sandak D, Bieniasz J (2013) Geotouristic “Babina” path as an example of sustainable development in the Muskau Arch Geopark. Soc Geol Ital 28:93–96Google Scholar
  14. Kubalikova L (2013) Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes. Czech J Tour 2(2):80–104Google Scholar
  15. Panizza M (2001) Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and examples of geomorphological survey. Chin Sci Bull 46:4–6Google Scholar
  16. Panizza M, Marchetti M, Patrono A (1995) A proposal for a simplified method for assessing impacts on landforms. ITC J 4:324Google Scholar
  17. Pereira P, Pereira D, Caetano Alves M (2007) Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geogr Helv 62:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pralong J-P (2005) A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites. Géomorphologie 3:189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L, Scapozza C (2007) A method for assessing <<scientific>> and <<additional values>> of geomorphosites. Geogr Helv 62:148–158Google Scholar
  20. Ruban DA, Kuo I (2010) Essentials of geological heritage site (geosite) management: a conceptual assessment of interests and conflicts. Nat Nascosta 41:16–31Google Scholar
  21. Rybár P (2010) Assessment of attractiveness (value) of geotouristic objects. Acta Geot 1(2):13–21Google Scholar
  22. Serrano E, González-Trueba J (2005) Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Géomorphologie 3:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Skoczyńska-Gajda S, Labus M (2011) Metal speciation in river bed sediments within the polish part of Muskau Arch Geopark. Arch Environ Protection 37(3):87–99Google Scholar
  24. Stow D, Taira A, Ogawa Y, Soh W, Taniguchi H, Pickering K (1998) Volcaniclastic sediments, process interaction and depositional setting of the Mio-Pliocene Miura group, SE Japan. Sediment Geol 115:351–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Štrba L, Rybár P (2015) Revision of the “Assessment of attractiveness (value) of geotouristic objects”. Acta Geot 6(1):30–40Google Scholar
  26. Štrba L, Rybár P, Baláž B, Molokáč M, Hvizdák L, Kršák B, Lukáč M, Muchová L, Tometzová D, Ferenčíková J (2015) Geosite assessments: comparison of methods and results. Curr Issues in Tourism 18(5):496–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Takagi H (2012) Creating a geopark in Sanriku region: for saving lives in future (in Japanese). Waseda University Booklet No. 013, 90pGoogle Scholar
  28. Takahashi O (2000) Tectonostratigraphic study of the Chichibu and Shimanto belts in the Kanto Mountains, central Japan. Jour Geol Soc Japan 106(12):836–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tomić N, Božić S (2014) A modified geosite assessment model (M-GAM) and its application on the Lazar Canyon area (Serbia). Int J Environ Res 8(4):1041–1052Google Scholar
  30. Ueno H, Tonouchi S (1987) Paleomagnetic evidence for the timing of formation of the Chichibu pyrometasomatic deposits. Japan Econ Geol 82:1723–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vujičić MD, Vasiljević DA, Marković SB, Hose T, Lukić T, Hadžić O, Janićević S (2011) Preliminary geosite assessment model (GAM) and its application on Fruška Gora Mountain, potential geotourism destination of Serbia. Acta Geogr Slov 51:361–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Warszyńska J (1970) A methodological framework for evaluation of the village in terms of tourism attractiveness (in Polish). Prace Geogr UJ 27:103–113Google Scholar
  33. Wimbledon WAP (1999) GEOSITES—an International Union of Geological Sciences initiative to conserve our geological heritage. PGI (special papers) 2:5–8Google Scholar
  34. Zouros NC (2007) Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece. Case study of the Lesvos Island coastal geomorphosites. Geogr Helv 62:169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The European Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute for Science and EngineeringWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Education and Integrated Arts and SciencesWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations