Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Iulian Dinca
 -- 1853 2023-11-17 10:50:02 |
2 Reference format revised.
Lindsay Dong
 -6 word(s) 1847 2023-11-20 03:20:07 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Video Production Services to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Dincă, I.; Keshavarz, S.R.; Almodaresi, S.A. Geotourism and Ecotourism. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51748 (accessed on 15 November 2024).
Dincă I, Keshavarz SR, Almodaresi SA. Geotourism and Ecotourism. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51748. Accessed November 15, 2024.
Dincă, Iulian, Seyede Razieh Keshavarz, Seyed Ali Almodaresi. "Geotourism and Ecotourism" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51748 (accessed November 15, 2024).
Dincă, I., Keshavarz, S.R., & Almodaresi, S.A. (2023, November 17). Geotourism and Ecotourism. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51748
Dincă, Iulian, et al. "Geotourism and Ecotourism." Encyclopedia. Web. 17 November, 2023.
Geotourism and Ecotourism
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/land12040858

The two forms of tourism, ecotourism and geotourism, are considered forms of experiential tourism, and they sometimes also raise questions such as about the differences between them in terms of their elements of attraction. Ecotourists, in addition to ecological activities related to natural attractions, add and focus seriously on the cultural side of the wild side, but also on the constructed, humanised, and culturalised sides of the countryside outside or close to purely geotouristic attractions (hence the assimilation of ecotourism with rural tourism or agrotourism).

geosite geographical diversity Ecotourism Geotourism

1. Introduction

The development of geomorphotourism is one of the ideas behind using landscape touring (or more frequently, landscape tours) [1], starting from the principle that the Earth’s diversity at the ecological level is expressed also by the existence of geosites with historical-cultural, scientific, economic-social, visual, aesthetic [2], and even geo-aesthetic values [3]. From here to imaginary tourism at the expense of landscapes [4], it is a simple decision and cultural sense.
Landscape touring is highly regarded, particularly in industrialised countries. For ecotourism, in addition to the components belonging to natural landscapes, the components belonging to subnatural and humanised landscapes also count.
Geotourism was first defined from an academic perspective in 1995 by Hose, quoted by [5]. Generally, geotourism refers to a collection of activities, infrastructure, and services aimed at enhancing the value of geological heritage through tourism [5]. In fact, geotourism is one of the fields that addresses tourism-related studies that focus on the investigation of geosites dominated by geological and geomorphological perspectives. The term geomorphosite was first proposed in 1993 by Panizza, quoted by [6]. Various terms were used to describe the concept of geomorphological heritage, including geomorphological assets, geomorphological goods, geomorphological sites, geomorphological geotopes, and geomorphological sites of interest [7]. Geotourism may be further described as having a number of basic characteristics. There are five key principles that are fundamental to geotourism: It (a) is geologically based (that is, based on the earth’s geoheritage), (b) is sustainable (i.e., economically viable, community enhancing, and it fosters geoconservation), (c) is educative (achieved through geo-interpretation), (d) is locally beneficial, and (e) generates tourist satisfaction [6].
Modern research [8][9] provided one of the most common but explicit definitions of geotourism. They pointed out that geotourism is a type of tourism in a natural area that focuses specifically on geology and landscape [9] or was reinterpreted as an approach to studying landscape–tourism interactions [10]. It promotes tourism to sites and the protection of geographical diversity and the understanding of earth sciences through appreciation and learning. This is achieved through independent visits to geological features, the use of geographical routes and views, guided tours, geographical activities, and the support of geosite visitor centres [11], among many others, such as signed geotrails, interpretative panels, geoguides, and so on.
Geomorphosites/geosites as landscapes [12] are considered natural goods not only due to their intrinsic values [13] (scientific, aesthetic) but also due to their external values (ecological, historical, cultural, economic). Thus, they are the primary drivers of geotourism development [7]. Ecotourism is a form of nature-based tourism that contributes to social and environmental wellbeing. It is also referred to as green tourism due to its environmentally friendly and educational nature [14]. When developed sustainably, ecotourism has the potential to mitigate negative impacts of tourism, enhance cultural and environmental integrity, improve resource management, and generate revenue [15]. There are views that discuss ecotourism in terms of sustainability that are based on ecological, economic, and socio-cultural pillars [16]; on the natural and social environment [17]; on conservation perspectives and marketing strategies [18]; on plans, including sustainable agriculture, micro-industry, and other activities [19], cited by [17]. However, the representation of ecotourism can go beyond the delicate conceptual ‘lock-in’ established by the ‘form of nature-based tourism’. This is because ecotourism attracts tourists who appreciate not only the natural environment but also the social and cultural environment. In inhabited rural areas, a number of ecotourists interested in discovering nature seek to explore in detail including the anthropo-cultural attractions of the places. Where, at a certain distance from these rural areas [20][21][22][23], there is a natural and attractive heritage, ecotourists have the opportunity to expand their knowledge of such attractions by exploring this heritage on the basis of valuable or at least interesting geological, petrographic, and geomorphological features. In other words, these visitors find that they meet the conditions for typical geotourism activities. In this way, the two types of tourism, ecotourism and geotourism, find common elements and similarities in terms of concept and practice, falling under the forms of rural tourism/agrotourism, cultural-historical tourism, and the tourism of visit-discovery.
In this way of expressing the desire of ecotourists to know, explore, and discover, ecotourism has the potential to be a significant means of poverty alleviation in economically disadvantaged areas endowed with significant natural resources [24]. Thus, ecotourism is a much more complex form of tourism than is being made out.
The two forms of tourism, ecotourism and geotourism, are considered forms of experiential tourism [25], and they sometimes also raise questions such as about the differences between them in terms of their elements of attraction. Ecotourists, in addition to ecological activities [26] related to natural attractions, add and focus seriously on the cultural side of the wild side, but also on the constructed, humanised, and culturalised sides of the countryside outside or close to purely geotouristic attractions (hence the assimilation of ecotourism with rural tourism or agrotourism). It also sets out the elements of closeness between geotourism and ecotourism, both of which are designated by the need to explore natural, pristine places without human intervention that provide lasting experiences [27]. In other words, geotourism is ‘twinned’, as it is complementary to ecotourism. Likewise, geotourism can also be said to be a separate type of ecotourism, with some voices differentiating geotourism from ecotourism in that geotourism focuses on the working landscape of the region [28].

2. Geotourism and Ecotourism

Geotourism and ecotourism are relatively new concepts in tourism studies, but they have grown in popularity and prominence over the last few decades [11][29]. Accordingly, much research has been conducted in this regard. Of particular interest is the pursuit of the benefits of transdisciplinarity through which local or indigenous ecotourism is conducted [15], the importance of ecotourism in the sustainable development of thematic products, and activities belonging to geoparks [30]. In other studies, geotourism is based on geology and landscapes [9][31], including features of natural, subnatural, and humanised landscapes [32][33]. Landscapes themselves become territorial resources for tourism [34][35], promoting the image of the countryside [36][37] and conservation [38][39][40][41], geotourism and recreation activities, and preservation [42][43][44]. Geotourism and ecotourism merge thematically, are close and complementary, and are types of tourism that highlight and orient tourists towards non-consumptive activities of biotic and abiotic wilderness [4][45][46] that should not be degraded by visiting and exploring. This form of tourism, ecotourism, is often associated with geotourism [9][16][17][47][48][49][50]. Here are two formulations in which reference was made to the equivalence, even belonging, of geotourism to ecotourism: “Geotourism is ecotourism with an added geological theme.” [48] (p. 1); “Geotourism has great potential as a new niche ecotourism product, …” [48] (p. 1).
All these parts of nature in which geotourism and ecotourism are or can be practiced are unmistakable landscapes (desert landscapes) [51] that are the object of tourist interest, including photography sessions, with openings for cultural-aesthetic acquisitions and advanced qualitative experiences.
Research in the Iranian geographical area has produced notable results related to geotourism, including ecotourism, which is similar and complementary to geotourism. The intention of the research was that, due to the high geodiversity, biodiversity, and numerous historical and cultural attractions, as many geoparks as possible should be proposed and accepted [49][52][53].
Related to the arid landscapes of the Yazd-Ardakan Plain are recommended studies of geotourism attractions [54] and management solutions to control aridization [55]. The results showed that very beautiful and unique desert attractions, saline lands, Zoroastrian temples located on the slopes of high mountains, aqueducts, and other landscapes provide a suitable ground for attracting scientific tourists. Rezaei [56] conducted a study in Yazd city, examining residents’ perceptions of the tourist impact.
Farsani et al. [57] investigated tourists’ satisfaction and motivation with Isfahan mining geotours. The results indicated that tourists were interested in discovering new destinations, as well as staying in geo-accommodations. They also indicated that visiting underground and surface mining operations, as well as participating in geo-sports, were among their geotour priorities.
Other researchers [58][59] conducted studies on the role of environmental education in geotourism destinations and the significance of urban geomorphological heritage for urban geotourism development. The first study indicated that the lowest score was related to environmental knowledge and facilities. As a result, it was necessary to improve the education of tourists with limited environmental knowledge in order to increase their environmental awareness. The results of the second study indicated that, of the 32 geomorphosites inventoried in the karstic, fluvial, tectonic, anthropogenic, and specific geomorphosite categories, the Falak-ol-Aflak Castle Hill received the highest scores in all three scientific, educational, and geotourism criteria.
Additionally, Ranjbaran et al. [60] examined the geotourism attraction of Hormuz Island in their research. The study concentrated on fieldwork, which included data collection and photography, as well as a review of previously published articles and books. Due to geotourism’s primary attractions, such as rocky beaches, sea caves, vibrant salt domes, and coral reefs, it was demonstrated that Hormuz Island can be proposed and exploited as a geopark [61]. The Pralong method [62] is used in a number of interesting studies. The Pralong method, although not applied today by all researchers assessing the tourism potential of geosites, is still of wide interest. This is explained by the fact that the method uses the six indicators, the experience and results not only of the method’s proponent, but also the experience and results of other studies published before Pralong. In addition, the benchmark indicators taken into consideration fit very well with the intentions of multi- and interdisciplinary analysis and thematics.
Amiri et al. [63] used the Pralong method to examine the Haraz Watershed’s landform potential for educational purposes as well as tourist attraction. Similarly, Baboli Mokher and Ramesht [64] adopted the model to assess the geotouristic potential of the Tashan region of Behbahan city, in a quest to achieve sustainable development. Due to its ancient monuments and unique historical location, the historical area of Tashan (Kalgahzar) had the highest potential for developing tourism and attracting tourists in the region, earning a score of 0.62 for tourism and 0.46 for average value of productivity. Applying the same method, Artugyan [65] appraised geomorphosites in karst terrains in Romanian’s Banat Mountains, focusing on springs, caves, straits, and plateaus. The results demonstrated that it is critical to properly exploit these geomorphosites in the Anina karst area in order to protect the karst landscape.
Wondirad et al. [66] examined the stakeholder collaboration as a major factor for ecotourism development in developing countries. The findings of the study indicated that ecotourism stakeholders have ineffective interactions and collaborations. As a result, in under-resourced and remote destinations, the failure to empower and engage communities undermines ecotourism and jeopardizes the ecosystems’ and communities’ long-term survival.
Ching et al. [67] demonstrated that the opportunities and strengths associated with sustainable ecotourism development in Malaysia’s Cameron Highlands outweigh the threats and weaknesses. They also established that mountainous areas in the region have a high capacity to become attractive ecotourism destinations.

References

  1. Weightman, B.A. Third world tour landscapes. Ann. Tour. Res. 1987, 14, 227–239.
  2. Haryono, E.; Reinhart, H.; Hakim, A.A.; Sunkar, A.; Setiawan, P. Linking Geodiversity and Cultural Diversity in Geoheritage Management: Practice from Karst of Sangkulirangmangkalihat, Indonesia. GeoJournal Tour. Geosites 2022, 42, 671–682.
  3. Krieger, P. Preserving geodiversity in Mexican hyper urban conflict zones: A geo-aesthetic approach. Int. J. Geoheritage Park. 2022, in press.
  4. Wang, Z.; Marafa, L. Tourism Imaginary and Landscape at Heritage Site: A Case in Honghe Hani Rice Terraces, China. Land 2021, 10, 439.
  5. Maghsoudi, M.; Moradi, A.; Moradipour, F.; Nezammahalleh, M.A. Geotourism Development in World Heritage of the Lut Desert. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 501–516.
  6. Raman, V.A.V. Geographical Analysis of Geotourism Based Seasonal Economy in Lahaul and Spiti, Himachal Pradesh (India). GeoJ. Tour. Geosites 2019, 24, 118–132.
  7. Al Mohaya, J.; Elassal, M. Environmental Diversity Assessment to Enhance Attractineness of Eco-tourism in Asir Region, Saudi Arabia, 2020. Preprints 2020, 2020090387.
  8. Newsome, D.; Dowling, R. Setting an Agenda for Geotourism. In Geotourism: The Tourism of Geology and Landscape; Newsome, D., Dowling, R., Eds.; Goodfellow Publishers Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2010; Chapter 1; pp. 1–13.
  9. Dowling, R.K. Global Geotourism—An emerging Form of sustainable tourism. Czech J. Tour. 2013, 2, 59–79.
  10. Stoffelen, A.; Vanneste, D. An integrative geotourism approach: Bridging conflicts in tourism landscape research. Tour. Geogr. 2015, 17, 544–560.
  11. Ólafsdóttir, R.; Tverijonaite, E. Geotourism: A systematic literature review. Geosciences 2018, 8, 234.
  12. Horváth, G.; Budai, T.; Gyalog, G.; Csüllög, G. Representation of geosites, geomorphosites and landscape values of Hungary. In Proceedings of the Congress of Geography Innovation, Toulouse, France, 22–26 September 2015; pp. 167–177.
  13. Ilie, G.C.; Grecu, F. Current Achievements in Geosite Research. In Analele Universității București 2022; Geografie, Anul LXXI; University of Bucharest: Bucharest, Romania; pp. 121–133.
  14. Surjanti, J.; Soejoto, A.; Seno, D.N. Mangrove forest ecotourism: Participatory ecological learning and sustainability of students’ behavior through self-efficacy and self-concept. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2020, 2, 100009.
  15. Asadpourian, Z.; Rahimian, M.; Gholamrezai, S. SWOT-AHP-TOWS analysis for sustainable ecotourism development in the Best Area in Lorestan Province, Iran. Soc. Indic. Res. 2020, 152, 289–315.
  16. Munajat, M.; Avenzora, R.; Darusman, D.; Basuni, S. Ecotourism Pillars Enforcement to Geotourism Destination in Slamet and Serayu Mountainous Areas, Central Java Province. J. Manaj. Hutan Trop. 2022, 28, 72–82.
  17. Buckley, R.C. Environmental Inputs and Outputs in Ecotourism: Geotourism with a Positive Triple Bottom Line? J. Ecotourism 2003, 2, 76–82.
  18. Wight, P. Ecotourism: Ethics or Eco-Sell? J. Travel Res. 1993, 31, 3–9.
  19. Andersen, D.L. Developing Ecotourism Destinations: Conservation from the Beginning. Trends 1994, 31, 31–38.
  20. Wallace, G.N. Wildlands and Ecotourism in Latin America. J. For. 1993, 91, 37–40.
  21. Dincă, I. Descoperire Prin Ecoturism și Prin Turism Rural în Comuna Cetariu/Discovery through Ecotourism and Rural Tourism in Cetariu Commune; Editura Universității din Oradea: Oradea, Romania, 2012.
  22. Kianian Golafshani, M.K. Studying Ecotourism Industry in Iran, Challenges and Suggestions (Case study: Semnan, Iran). In Proceedings of the Protection and Restoration of the Environment XIAt, Thessaloniki, Greece, 3–6 July 2012.
  23. Najmi Faris, A.; Susilo, A.; Sutan Haji, A.T.; Maghfiroh, L. Identification and analysis of geotourism potential in Purwodadi Village, Malang Regency as support for Geopark Areas in East Java. AIP Conf. Proc. 2023, 2540, 060005.
  24. Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.H. Development and validation of the ecotourism behavior scale. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 20, 191–203.
  25. Smith, W.L. Experiential Tourism around the World: Definitions and Standards. Int. J. Serv. Stand. 2006, 2, 1–14.
  26. Juric, B.; Cornwell, T.B.; Mather, D. Exploring the Usefulness of an Ecotourism Interest Scale. J. Travel Res. 2002, 40, 259–269.
  27. Marafa, L.M. Natural Resource Evaluation for Ecotourism and Geotourism Destination in Hong Kong. In Resource Management, Sustainable Development and Governance; Sustainable Development Goals Series; Thakur, B., Thakur, R.R., Chattopadhyay, S., Abhay, R.K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 461–473.
  28. Boley, B.M.S.; Nickerson, N.; Bosak, K. Abstract: A Critical Examination Exploring the Differences between Geotourism and Ecotourism. Travel Tour. Res. Assoc. Adv. Tour. Res. Glob. 2016, 1, 1–8.
  29. Wood, M.E. Ecotourism: Principles, Practices and Policies for Sustainability, 1st ed.; United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics: Paris, France; The International Ecotourism Society: Burlington, NJ, USA, 2002.
  30. Zeppel, H. Indigenous Ecotourism: Sustainable Development and Management; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2006.
  31. Joyce, E.B. Geomorphological Sites and the New Geotourism in Australia; Geological Society of Australia: Melbourne, Australia, 2006.
  32. Hernández, W.; Dóniz-Páez, J.; Pérez, N.M. Urban Geotourism in La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain. Land 2022, 11, 1337.
  33. Raeisi, R.; Dincă, I.; Almodaresi, S.A.; Swart, M.P.N.; Boloor, A. An Assessment of Geosites and Geomorphosites in the Lut Desert of Shahdad Region for Potential Geotourism Development. Land 2022, 11, 736.
  34. Koshim, A.G.; Sergeyeva, A.M.; Bexeitova, R.T.; Aktymbayeva, A.S. Landscape of the Mangystau region in Kazakhstan as a geomorphotourism destination: A geographical review. GeoJ. Tour. Geosites 2020, 29, 385–397.
  35. Bussard, J.; Reynard, E. Heritage Value and Stakeholders’ Perception of Four Geomorphological Landscapes in Southern Iceland. Geoheritage 2022, 14, 89.
  36. Lukić, M.; Filipović, D. Landscape Evaluation for the Purposes of Ecotourism-Case Study of Burgenland. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference Ecological Truth and Environmental Research-EcoTER’19, Bor Lake, Serbia, 18–21 June 2019.
  37. Germaine, M.A.; Ducourtieux, O.; Orban Stone, J.; Cournet, X. Landscapes as drivers of ecotourism development: A case study in Northern Laos. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 2022, 43, 370–392.
  38. Gray, M.; Gordon, J.E.; Brown, E.J. Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: The contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2013, 124, 659–673.
  39. Rifqi, M.F.; Pramukanto, Q. Landscape planning for geodiversity conservation of Ciletuh geo area in Ciletuh Geopark using bioregional approach. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 879, 012039.
  40. Gordon, J.E.; Cofts, R.; Gray, M.; Tormey, D. Including geoconservation in the management of protected and conserved areas matters for all of nature and people. Int. J. Geoparks Park. 2021, 9, 323–334.
  41. Ibetsberger, H.J.; Embleton-Hamann, C. Geoheritage, Geotourism and Landscape Protection in Austria. In Landscapes and Landformes of Austria; Embleton-Hamann, C., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Chapter 7.
  42. Necheș, I.M.; Erdeli, G. Geolandscapes and geotourism: Integrating nature and culture in the Bucegi Mountains of Romania. Lands. Res. 2015, 40, 486–509.
  43. Kirchner, K.; Kubalíková, L.; Bajer, A. Local Geoheritage: Its Importance and Potential for Geotourist and Recreational Activities (a Case Study from Lomnicko Area). In Conference Proceeding: Public Recreation and Landscape Protection–With Nature Hand in Hand?, Brno, Czech Republic, 10–11 May 2017; Fialová, J., Pernicová, D., Eds.; Mendel University in Brno: Brno, Czech Republic, 2017; pp. 202–211.
  44. Contillo, L.; Zingaro, M.; Capolongo, D.; Corradoa, G.; Schiattarella, M. Geomorphology and geotourism for a sustainable development of the Daunia Mts, Southern Italy. J. Maps 2022, 18, 418–427.
  45. Ross, S.; Wall, G. Ecotourism: Towards congruence between theory and practice. Tour. Manag. 1999, 20, 123–132.
  46. Sebahat, A.; Sevgi, G.; Nilgül, K. Determination of ecotourism potential in national parks: Kure Mountains National Park, Kastamonu-Bartin, Turkey. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 5, 589–599.
  47. Coenraads, R.R.; Koivula, J.I. Geologica; Penguin Group: Melbourne, Australia, 2007.
  48. Robinson, A.M. Geotourism: Who is the Geotourist? In Proceedings of the Inaugural National Conference on Green Travel, Climate Change and Ecotourism, (unpublished). Adelaide, Australia, 17–20 November 2008; pp. 1–12. Available online: https://sustain.pata.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Geotourism.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2020).
  49. Horváth, G.; Csüllög, G. The role of ecotourism and geoheritage in the spatial development of former mining regions. In Post-Mining Regions in Central Europe–Problems, Potentials, Possibilities; Oekom, Munich, Germany: 2012; pp. 224–238.
  50. Ziaee, M.; Ferdowsi, S. A Systematic Review of Iranian Research in the Field of Geotourism Studies. Geoheritage 2020, 12, 94.
  51. Maghsoudi, M. Desert Landscapes and Landforms of Iran. In Geography of the Physical Environment (GEOPHY); Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 45–49. Available online: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-58912-7 (accessed on 29 September 2020).
  52. Blamey, R.K. Principles of ecotourism. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism; Weaver, D.B., Ed.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2001; pp. 5–22.
  53. Abad, M.T.K. The Geotourism Potential Investigations in Kashmar Area, Khorasan-e-Razavi Province, NE Iran. Iran. J. Earth Sci. 2012, 4, 51–60.
  54. Omidvar, K.; Khosravi, Y. Geotourism attractions in the bare nature of Yazd province. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2010, 6, 237–246.
  55. Heydari Alamdarloo, E.; Barabadi, H.; Rahimabadi, D.D.; Khosravi, H.; Rafieh Sharifabad, J. Evaluation of desertification control strategies using SWOT model in Yazd-Ardakan Plain. Integr. Watershed Manag. 2022, 2, 1–14.
  56. Rezaei, N. Resident perceptions toward tourism impacts in historic center of Yazd, Iran. Tour. Geogr. 2017, 19, 734–755.
  57. Farsani, N.T.; Esfahani, M.A.G.; Shokrizadeh, M. Understanding tourists’ satisfaction and motivation regarding mining geotours (case study: Isfahan, Iran). Geoheritage 2019, 11, 681–688.
  58. Mokhtari, D.; Roostaei, S.; Khodadadi, M.; Ahmadi, M.; Ebrahimi, O.; Shahabi, H. Evaluation of the Role of Environmental Education in Manesht and Ghelarang Geotourism Destination, Iran. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2019, 20, 681–708.
  59. Moradipour, F.; Moghimi, E.; Beglou, M.J.; Yamani, M. Assessment of Urban Geomorphological Heritage for Urban Geotourism Development in Khorramabad City, Iran. Geoheritage 2020, 12, 40.
  60. Ranjbaran, M.; Zamanzadeh, S.M.; Sotohian, F. Geotourism Attractions of Hormuz Island, Iran. GeoJ. Tour. Geosites 2020, 28, 232–245.
  61. Nateghi, S.; Bayat, M. Qeshm is the gateway to Iran’s Geotourism. J. Iran Nat. 2021, 5, 87–97.
  62. Pralong, J.-P. A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites. Géomorphol. Relief Process. Env. 2005, 11, 189–196.
  63. Amiri, M.; Nohegar, A.; Bouzari, S. Potential Assessment of Geomorphological Landforms of the Mountainous Highland Region, Haraz Watershed, Mazandaran, Iran, Using the Pralong Method. Pollution 2018, 4, 381–394.
  64. Baboli Moakhar, H.; Ramesht, M.H. Evaluation of Geo-Tourist Capabilities of Behshan County, Teshan Region, based on Pralong method to achieve sustainable development. Q. J. Nat. Geogr. 2018, 12, 53–70.
  65. Artugyan, L. Geomorphosites assessment in karst terrains: Anina karst region (Banat Mountains, Romania). Geoheritage 2017, 9, 153–162.
  66. Wondirad, A.; Tolkach, D.; King, B. Stakeholder collaboration as a major factor for sustainable ecotourism development in developing countries. Tour. Manag. 2020, 78, 104024.
  67. Ching, S.L.; Choong, Y.O.; Lau, L.S.; Seow, A.N.; Choong, C.K. Sustainable ecotourism development strategies through strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis: The case of Cameron Highlands, Malaysia. Bus. Strategy Dev. 2020, 5, 110–116.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Geography, Physical
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Iulian Dincă
,
Seyede Razieh Keshavarz
,
Seyed Ali Almodaresi
View Times: 1.1K
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 20 Nov 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    ScholarVision Creations
    Feedback