Advertisement

Geoheritage

pp 1–11 | Cite as

Geotourism as a Specialization in the Territorial Context of the Basilicata Region (Southern Italy)

  • A. PilogalloEmail author
  • G. Nolè
  • F. Amato
  • L. Saganeiti
  • M. Bentivenga
  • G. Palladino
  • F. Scorza
  • B. Murgante
  • G. Las Casas
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Geoheritage: the foundation for sustainable geotourism

Abstract

Geosites, a precious and nonrenewable geosphere resource, constitute a wealth from educational, scientific, naturalistic and cultural points of view, capable of expressing an economic potential proportional to their tourist appeal (Bentivenga 2015). This study is part of an important methodological framework: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005), an international project that defines and quantifies ecosystem services (ES) and assesses changes and their consequences on human well-being. The methodology, which is progressively becoming as a cognitive support aimed at the environmental sizing of territorial policies, is considered particularly effective in assessing the impacts of choices associated with different land use scenarios as well as to protection and/or valorization policies. Adequate tool development for sustainable governance passes through a planning activity based on the integration of ecological, economic and sociopolitical elements within an interdisciplinary framework, to which the ecosystem analysis is able to provide important evaluation elements (Cowell and Lennon Environ Plann C Politics Space 32:263–282, 2014). According to MEA (2005), ES are grouped into four categories: supply, regulatory, support and cultural services. Starting from that, this work contributes to build an interpretative model for the evaluation of a relevant part of the fourth class: the territorial tourist attractiveness of the Basilicata region considering location and spatial distribution of the 113 regional geosites surveyed by ISPRA.

Two different GIS-based methodologies have been applied to the context of the Basilicata region: the first based on linear geographical regression and the second through the use of InVEST, an open source suite. Comparing the results is useful to improve regional tourist attractiveness connected with territorial distribution of natural resources.

Keywords

Ecosystem services Cultural ecosystem services Geosites Geotourist attractiveness Geographically weighted regression 

References

  1. Acquafredda P, Palmentola G (1986) Il glacialismo quaternario nell’Italia meridionale dal Massiccio Matese all’Aspromonte. Biogeographia, n.s. 10:13–18Google Scholar
  2. Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Petrov B, Csaki F (Eds.): 2nd symposium on information theory, Budapest, Akadé miai Kiadó, 267–281Google Scholar
  3. Barca F (2009) An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy: a place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectationsGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentivenga M, Coltorti M, Prosser G, Tavarnelli E (2004a) A new interpretation of terraces in the Taranto Gulf: the role of extensional faulting. Geomorphology 60:383–402Google Scholar
  5. Bentivenga M, Coltorti M, Prosser G, Tavarnelli E (2004b) Recent extensional faulting in the Gulf of Taranto area: implications for nuclear waste storage in the vicinity of Scanzano Ionico (Basilicata). Boll Soc Geol It 123:391–404Google Scholar
  6. Bentivenga M (2015) I geositi: non solo geologia, prospettive economiche e occupazionali. Geologia dell’Ambiente. Periodico trimestrale della SIGEA. Supplemento al n.1/2015. ISNN 1591-5352Google Scholar
  7. Bentivenga M, Giano S I, Saganeiti L, Nolè G, Palladino G, Prosser G, & Murgante B (2017a) Deep-seated gravitational slope deformation in urban areas matching field and in-SAR interferometry surveys: the case study of the Episcopia village, southern Italy. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (662–674). Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  8. Bentivenga M, Giano SI, Murgante B, Nolè G, Palladino G, Prosser G, Saganeiti L, Tucci B (2019) Application of field surveys and multitemporal in-SAR interferometry analysis in the recognition of deep-seated gravitational slope deformation of an urban area of Southern Italy. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 10(1):1327–1345.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2019.1574910 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bentivenga M, Palladino G, Prosser G, Guglielmi P, Geremia F, Laviano A (2017b) A geological itinerary through the Southern Apennine Thrust Belt (Basilicata-Southern Italy). Geoheritage 9(1):1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0168-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brunsdon C, Fotheringham AS, Charlton M (1996) Geographically weighted regression: a method for exploring spatial non-stationarity. Geogr Anal 28(4):281–298Google Scholar
  11. Casetti E (1972) Generating models by the expansion method: applications to geographic research. Geogr Anal 4(1):81–91Google Scholar
  12. Casnedi R (1988) La Fossa Bradanica: Origi, Sedimentazione e Migrazione. Mem Soc Geol It 41:439–448 7 ffGoogle Scholar
  13. Cowell R, Lennon M (2014) The utilization of environmental knowledge in land-use planning: drawing lessons for an ecosystem services approach. Environ Plann C Politics Space 32:263–282Google Scholar
  14. Regio DG (2011) The programming period 2014–2020-monitoring and evaluation of European Cohesion Policy (European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund) - concepts and recommendations, guidance document, Directorate-General for Regional Policy, European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. Dowling R, Newsome D (2006) The scope and nature of geotourism. In: Dowling R, Newsome D (eds) Geotourism. Routledge, Oxford, pp 31–53Google Scholar
  16. Dvarioniene J, Grecu V, Lai S, Scorza F (2017) Four perspectives of applied sustainability: research implications and possible integrations. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 10409 LNCS)Google Scholar
  17. EC (2008) Green paper on territorial cohesion turning territorial diversity into strength communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic And Social Committee. European Commission COM (2008) 616 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. EC (2010a) Investing in Europe’s future: fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. European Commission BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. EC (2010b) EUROPE 2020 - a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Communication from the Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  20. Fakeye P, Crompton J (1991) Image differences between prospective first-time and repeat visitors to the lower Rio Grande Valley. J Travel Res 30(2):10–16Google Scholar
  21. Ferrario F (1979) The evaluation of tourist resources: an applied research (part 2). J Travel Res 17(4):24–30Google Scholar
  22. Fotheringam A S, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2002) Geographically weighted regression. The analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, LTDGoogle Scholar
  23. Gray M (2004) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  24. Genest J, Legg D (2003) The premier-ranked destinations workbook 2001. Retrieved from www.ttra.com/publications/uploads/o32.pdf
  25. Geremia F, Bentivenga M, Palladino G (2015) Environmental geology applied to geoconservation in the interaction between geosites and linear infrastructures in South-Eastern Italy. Geoheritage. 7:33–46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0145-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gizzi F, Proto M, Potenza M (2019) The Basilicata region (Southern Italy): a natural and ‘human-built’ open-air laboratory for manifold studies. Research trends over the last 24 years (1994-2017). Geomat Nat Haz Risk 10(1):433–464Google Scholar
  27. Gordon JE (2018) Geoheritage, geotourism and the cultural landscape: enhancing the visitor experience and promoting geoconservation. Geosciences 8(4):136Google Scholar
  28. Henriques MH, Pena dos Reis R, Brilha J, Mota T (2011) Geoconservation as an emerging geoscience. Geoheritage 3:117–128Google Scholar
  29. Hirons M, Comberti C, Dunford, R (2016) Valuing cultural ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41:545–574Google Scholar
  30. Hose TA (2000) European geotourism - geological interpretation and geoconservation promotion for tourists. In: Barretino D, Wimbledon WP, Gallego E (eds) Geological heritage: its conservation and management. Instituto Tecnologico Geominero de Espana, Madrid, pp 127–146Google Scholar
  31. Hurvich CM, Simonoff JS, Tsai CL (1998) Smoothing parameter selection in nonparametric regression using an improved Akaike information criterion. J R Stat Soc Ser B 60(2):271–293Google Scholar
  32. Kopperoinen L, Luque S, Tenerelli P, Zulian G, Viinikka A (2017) Mapping cultural ecosystem services. In: Burkhard B, Maes J Mapping ecosystem services. PENSOFTGoogle Scholar
  33. Kroll H (2015) Efforts to implement smart specialization in practice - leading unlike horses to the water. Eur Plan Stud 23(10):2079–2098Google Scholar
  34. Lanorte A, Cillis G, Calamita G, Nolè G, Pilogallo A, Tucci B, De Santis F (2019) Integrated approach of RUSLE, GIS and ESA Sentinel-2 satellite data for post-fire soil erosion assessment in Basilicata region (Southern Italy). Geomat Nat Haz Risk 10(1):1563–1595Google Scholar
  35. Las Casas G, Scorza F (2016) Sustainable planning: a methodological toolkit. In: Gervasi O, Murgante B, Misra S, Rocha MA, Torre C, Taniar D, Wang S (eds) Computational science and its applications -- ICCSA 2016: 16th International Conference, Beijing, China, July 4–7, 2016, Proceedings, Part I (627–635). Springer International Publishing, ChamGoogle Scholar
  36. Las Casas G, Scorza F (2017) A renewed rational approach from liquid society towards anti-fragile planning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 10409 LNCS)Google Scholar
  37. Lentini F, Carbone S, Di Stefano A, Guarnieri P (2002) Stratigraphical and structural constraints in the Lucanian Apennines (Southern Italy): tools for reconstructing the geological evolution. J Geodyn 34:141–158Google Scholar
  38. Manganelli B, Pontrandolfi P, Azzato A, Murgante B (2014) Using geographically weighted regression for housing market segmentation. Int J Bus Intell Data Min 9(2):2014Google Scholar
  39. McCann P, Ortega-Argilés R (2015) Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to European Union Cohesion Policy. Reg Stud 49(8):1291–1302Google Scholar
  40. Menardi Noguera A, Rea G (2000) Deep structure of the Campanian-Lucanian Arc (Southern Apennine, Italy). Tectonophysics 324:239–265Google Scholar
  41. Migliorini C (1937) Cenno sullo studio e sulla prospezione petrolifera di una zona dell’Italia meridionale. ІІ Congresso Mondiale Petrolio, Parigi, 1–11Google Scholar
  42. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystem and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  43. Mohl P, Hagen T (2010) Do EU structural funds promote regional growth? New evidence from various panel data approaches. Reg Sci Urban Econ 40(5):353–365Google Scholar
  44. Monaco C, Tortorici L, Paltrinieri W (1998) Structural evolution of the Lucanian Apennines, Southern Italy. J Struct Geol 20:617–638Google Scholar
  45. Murgante B, Tilio L, Scorza F, Lanza V (2011a) Crowd-cloud tourism, new approaches to territorial marketing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)Google Scholar
  46. Murgante B, Tilio L, Lanza V, Scorza F (2011b) Using participative GIS and e-tools for involving citizens of Marmo Platano-Melandro area in European programming activities. J Balkan Near Eastern Stud 13:97–115Google Scholar
  47. Ólafsdóttir R, Dowling R (2014) Geotourism and geoparks - a tool for geoconservation and rural development in vulnerable environments: a case study from Iceland. Geoheritage 2014(6):71–87Google Scholar
  48. Ólafsdóttir R, Tverijonaite E (2018) Geotourism: a systematic literature review. Geosciences 2018(8):234Google Scholar
  49. Palladino G, Prosser G, Bentivenga M (2013) The geological itinerary of Sasso di Castalda: a journey into the geological history of the Southern Apennine thrust-belt (Basilicata-Southern Italy). Geoheritage 5:47–58.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-012-0073-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pieri P, Sabato L, Tropeano M (1996) Significato geodinamico dei caratteri deposizionali e strutturali della Fossa Bradanica nel Pleistocene. Mem Soc Geol It 51:501–515Google Scholar
  51. Pilogallo A, Saganeiti L, Scorza F, Las Casas G (2018) Tourism attractiveness: main components for a spacial appraisal of major destinations according with ecosystem services approach. In: Gervasi, O. et al. (Eds.): ICCSA 2018, LNCS 10964, 712–724, 2018Google Scholar
  52. Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129Google Scholar
  53. Richards DR, Friess DA (2015) A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale: content analysis of social media photographs. Ecol Indic 53:187–195Google Scholar
  54. Scorza F (2013) Improving EU cohesion policy: the spatial distribution analysis of regional development investments funded by EU structural funds 2007/2013 in Italy. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)Google Scholar
  55. Scorza F, Grecu V (2016) Assessing sustainability: research directions and relevant issues. In: Gervasi O, Murgante B, Misra S, Rocha M A, Torre C, Taniar D, Wang S (Eds), Computational science and its applications -- ICCSA 2016: 16th International Conference, Beijing, China, July 4–7, 2016, Proceedings, Part I (627–635). Cham: Springer International PublishingGoogle Scholar
  56. Scorza F, Murgante B, Las Casas G, Fortino Y, Pilogallo A (2018a) Investigating territorial specialization in tourism sector by ecosystem services approach. In Stratigea A, Kavroudakis D. Paving the way for smart, inclusive and resilient cities and island communities in the Mediterranean: current research paths and experience-based evidence, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  57. Scorza F, Pilogallo A, Las Casas G (2018b) Investigating tourism attractiveness in inland areas: ecosystem services, open data and smart specializations. In Calabrò F, Della Spina L, Bevilacqua C. New metropolitan perspectives - local knowledge and innovation dynamics towards territory attractiveness through the implementation of Horizon/E2020/Agenda2030 – volume 1, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  58. United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable developmentGoogle Scholar
  59. United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2017) Tourism and the sustainable development goals – journey to 2030. In: World Tourism Organization and United Nations Development Programme, Madrid 2017Google Scholar
  60. Vengesayi, S., Mavondo, F., & Reisinger, Y. (2009). Tourism destination attractiveness: Attractions, facilities, and people as predictors. Tourism Analysis 14(5):621–636.  https://doi.org/10.3727/108354209X12597959359211 Google Scholar
  61. Wimbledon WAP, Ishchenko AA, Gerasimenko NP, Karis LO, Suominen V, Johansson CE, Freden C (2000) In: Barettino D, Wimbledon WAP, Gallego E (eds) Geosites - an IUGS initiative: science supported by conservation. Geological heritage: its conservation and management, Madrid (Spain), pp 69–94Google Scholar
  62. World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) (2017) Travel and tourism global economic impact and issues, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  63. Technopolis Belgium, Fraunhofer ISI & UNU-MERIT (2012) Regional innovation monitor annual report “governance, policies, and perspectives in European regions”, report to the European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry, Directorate D-Industrial Innovation and Mobility Industries (Brussel: Technopolis Belgium)Google Scholar
  64. Technopolis Belgium, Fraunhofer ISI & UNU-MERIT (2013) Regional innovation monitor annual report “credible actions key to regions’ future innovation performance”, report to the European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry, Directorate D-Industrial Innovation and Mobility Industries (Brussel: Technopolis Belgium)Google Scholar
  65. Tobler W (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ Geogr 46(2):234–240Google Scholar
  66. Zavala C, Mutti E (1996) Stratigraphy of the Plio-Pleistocene Sant’Arcangelo Basin, Basilicata, Italy. Atti riunione annuale Gruppo Informale di Sedimentologia, Catania, pp 279–282Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The European Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Urban and Regional Systems Engineering (LISUT), School of EngineeringUniversity of BasilicataPotenzaItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Methodologies for Environmental Analysis (IMAA), Italian Research Council (CNR)TitoItaly
  3. 3.Institute of Earth Surface DynamicsUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of ScienceUniversity of BasilicataPotenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations