The Role of Geomorphosites in the Local Economy Development of the Carpathian and Sub-Carpathian Area of Vrancea County, Romania

Ionuț Tufănoiu

Details zu Zeitschrift und Ausgabe

Quaestiones Geographicae

Zeitschriftendaten

Format: Zeitschrift
eISSN: 2081-6383
Erstveröffentlichung: 01 Jun 1974
Erscheinungsweise: 4 Hefte pro Jahr
Sprachen: Englisch

Nowadays, tourism has become an important sector of the global economy and a specific characteristic of modern society, a society for which travel, relaxation or a healthy lifestyle play a major role in planning and organising activities. Being one of the most dynamic and competitive industries (Kavaliauske, Kocyte 2014, Drăghici et al. 2015, Grecu et al. 2019), the tourism industry requires continuous adaptation to global changes and tourists’ needs (Vivek et al. 2020). At the same time, the field of tourism represents one of the most important economic sectors globally. In 2018, tourism contributed to the global economy with >8.8 trillion USD, representing >10.4% of the gross domestic product (GDP). Moreover, >319 million jobs belonged to the tourism industry in the same year, which in percentages equals around 10% of the available jobs (World Travel & Tourism Council 2019). For Romania, in 2018, tourism had a contribution of approximately 5.3% of the economy, with an increase of 3% compared to the previous year (World Travel & Tourism Council 2019).

One of the newest concepts in the field of tourism, geotourism has become an activity practised worldwide (Newsome, Dowling 2018). It aims to highlight the geological and geomorphological features of the landscape by promoting them as tourist attractions (Stoffelen, Vanneste 2015). Geotourism proves to us that different fields of study, such as geosciences and tourism, can coexist and correlate (Garofano 2012), creating a way to promote, preserve and understand the geoheritage (Hose 1995), which includes elements of the geodiversity that need to be protected because of their value (Gray 2018). Geotourism is also an efficient economic activity that generates benefits for the economy (Newsome, Dowling 2018) by incorporating several tourism activities, from transportation and accommodation to ways of leisure or recreation. Moreover, geotourism has educational values, with tourists having the opportunity to accumulate various useful information about how the environment works, the need for preserving the geotourism heritage and the importance of practising sustainable tourism (Comănescu, Nedelea 2010, Yolal 2012, Dowling 2015, Necheș, Erdeli 2015). Over the years, geotourism has been defined from different perspectives, with some researchers presenting it as geological tourism and others considering it as geographical tourism (Newsome, Dowling 2018). In this context, during an International Congress on Geotourism in 2011, geotourism was defined as ‘the tourism which sustains and enhances the identity of a territory, taking in consideration its geology, environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage and the well-being of its residents’ (Arouca Declaration 2011).

As a relatively recent term (Panizza 2001), ‘geomorphosite’ is considered one of the multiple types of geosites (Kubalikova 2013) and can be understood as a landform that has acquired a special value due to human perception or exploitation (Panizza, Piacente 2003). The value of the geomorphosite can vary depending on the orientation: scientific, ecological, cultural, aesthetic and/or economic (Reynard 2005). Another definition of the geomorphosites states that it can be any part of the Earth's surface that is important for understanding the Earth, its climate or the history of life (Grandgirard 1999, Reynard 2005). Different authors declared that geomorphosites can be single geomorphological objects or larger landscapes and can be affected, modified or even destroyed by human activities (Reynard, Panizza 2005).

The geomorphosite quality of an object is established following an evaluation process carried out according to specific methodologies, with a series of studies addressing this aspect (Bruschi, Cendrero 2005, Pralong 2005, Pereira et al. 2007, Reynard et al. 2007, Comănescu et al. 2011, Vujičić et al. 2011, Brilha 2018, Pal, Albert 2021).

Geomorphosites can have an important role in increasing the complexity of the functions of tourism within an area and can have a positive influence on local economies (Brilha 2018, Newsome, Dowling 2018). In order to demonstrate their role, an integrated economic analysis is needed to understand the evolution of the economy in an area, as well as the complex relationships that are created within (Nica et al. 2018, Ren et al. 2019). Moreover, economic development involves the creation of plans and strategies with the aim of increasing the economy of a place or area (Vivek et al. 2020), but using local resources.

Although in the literature from this field of study there are various works that focus on the assessment of geomorphosites or on the economic analysis of the tourism sector, there is no research that approaches the relationship between geomorphosites and the tourism share trend in local economies. Such methodology is necessary in order to demonstrate the influence of geomorphosites on the tourism sector in a certain area and implicitly on local economies.

The aim of the present study is to demonstrate the role of geomorphosites in the development of local economies in the Carpathian and Sub-Carpathian area of Vrancea County, Romania. To achieve this goal, this research will develop an assessment method for geomorphosites that best fits all of the features of the area, calculate the share of the tourism sector in local economies from 2000 to 2018 and find a way to observe the influence of geomorphosites on the tourism sector share trend over time. The study also aims to raise awareness about the value of the geomorphosites (including the economic one) in the analysed area, to offer a starting point for rethinking the protection and conservation measures and to promote the geotourism activities.

Methodology

The study was divided into three main stages, as described below.

The assessment of geomorphosites

The first stage follows the geomorphosite assessment in the Carpathian and Sub-Carpathian area of Vrancea County, in order to establish the geomorphosite feature of the tourism attraction within the analysed area. For this stage, the evaluation methodology was proposed by Tufănoiu et al. (2020). It involves four sub-stages (Fig. 1).

The different stages of studying geomorphosites (Tufănoiu et al. 2020).

Starting from the already existing evaluation methodologies (especially the works of Comănescu et al. 2011 and Pereira et al. 2007), it was aimed to obtain an evaluation of geomorphosites that takes into consideration the classic values of geomorphosites (scientific, aesthetic, ecological and cultural), but especially the useful characteristics for the tourism exploitation of geomorphosites or for increasing the degree of their integrity. As the geoheritage is just a part of the geodiversity of an area (Reynard et al. 2015), the objectives targeted by the evaluation process were selected after reading the literature of this field of study, consulting the topographic map of Romania, the satellite images and, most importantly, during the field trips, keeping in mind the four main pillars that support a good inventory: the topic, the value of the site, the scale and the aim (Lima et al. 2010). Once the geomorphosites were selected for evaluation, a database with their most important attributes could be created. The database was used in the evaluation process and also for creating the cartographic materials. The evaluation of the selected geomorphosites was done according to the criteria presented in Table 1.

Table 1

The criteria proposed for the evaluation of the geomorphosites (acc. to Comănescu et al. 2011, with modifications and additions by Tufănoiu et al. 2020).

Scientific value		Economic value		Aesthetic value		Cultural value		Management and use value
	25 points		20 points		20 points		20 points		15 points
1.5	Rareness at national level	4	Infrastructure	4	Visibility	4	Symbolic value	3	Preservation degree
1.5	Rareness in relation to the area	4	Accessibility	4	Colour contrast	4	Cultural characteristics	3	Intensity of use
3	Degree of scientific knowledge on geomorphological issues	4	Number of types and forms of use (inclusively touristic)	4	Level difference	2	Iconographic/literary representations	3	Use of aesthetic, cultural and economic value
3	Palaeogeographic interest	4	Yearly number of visitors	4	Landscape framing	4	Religious characteristics	2	Vulnerability / natural risks
3	Integrity / intactness	4	Economic potential (incomes)	4	Space structuring	4	Historical characteristics	2	Relationship with planning policies
3	Use in educational purposes					2	Cultural manifestations	2	Equipment and support services
2	Diversity
5	Ecologic value
2	Representativeness
1	Other geological features
	Vs points		Ve points		Va points		Vc points		Vmu points
					Total points
0	Minimum				Total value			1	Maximum

The total value of each geomorphosite was calculated according to the formula: $Vtot = Vs + Ve + Va + Vc + Vmu / 100$ {\rm{Vtot}} = {\rm{Vs}} + {\rm{Ve}} + {\rm{Va}} + {\rm{Vc}} + {\rm{Vmu}}/100 –

Vtot – total value of the geomorphosite,

–

Vs – scientific value,

–

Ve – economic value,

–

Va – aesthetic value,

–

Vc – cultural value,

–

Vmu – management and use value.

The evaluation involves the distribution of 100 points (absolute maximum) among the five values (scientific, economic, aesthetic, cultural, and management and use) with their sub-criteria. Each of the five values receives more (or less) points depending on the degree of importance established by the author. The total points accumulated by each geomorphosite following the application of the criteria were divided by 100, so that the final value of the evaluated geomorphosite was between zero (minimum value) and one (maximum value). The results obtained by each geomorphosite were classified so that the values obtained for each individual criterion could be compared. They can be extremely useful in the eventuality of improving protection measures, but also for tourism promotion.

A Geographic Information System (GIS) software (Arc Map 10.3 – Esri, Redlands, California, USA) was used to create the cartographic materials.

The economic analysis regarding the share of tourism in the local economy

This second stage of the present study involves the analysis of the 47 Administrative Territorial Units (ATUs) in the Carpathian and Sub-Carpathian area of Vrancea County from a tourism perspective by using four economic indicators: the number of companies, number of employees, turnover and profit from tourism. An economic database was created with the four previously mentioned indicators for a period of 19 years (2000–2018), based on each four-digit Classification of National Economic Activities (NACE) code. Once the database was created, it was possible to calculate the shares of the four tourism sector indicators in the total economy of each ATU. The resultant data was used to generate trend matrices regarding the share of the tourism sector in the total economy of each ATU and suggestive graphic and cartographic materials regarding the tourism sector share trend in the local economies of the Carpathian and Sub-Carpathian area of Vrancea County, Romania.

Visual comparison of the geomorphosite assessment results with the economic analysis results

The last stage of the study was focussed on making a parallel of the results obtained after the first two stages in order to demonstrate the relationship between geomorphosites and the evolution of tourism in the analysed area, as well as the role of geomorphosites in the development of local economies. A database was created, including all 47 ATUs and attributes resulting from the geomorphosite evaluation and the economic analysis. Thus, suggestive cartographic materials that can demonstrate the influence of geomorphosites on local economies in the Carpathian and Sub-Carpathian area of Vrancea County, Romania, were obtained.

Study area

The study area is located in the western part of Vrancea County, in southeast Romania, extending over approximately 70% of its surface (Fig. 2), which means around 3358 km² (including 47 ATUs). The main major relief units that define the position of the studied area are the following ones: the Vrancea Mountains, which represent the Carpathian part of the study area and are located on its western side; and the Vrancea Sub-Carpathians between Trotuș Valley and Râmnic Valley, which occupy the eastern part of the analysed area. These main relief units of the analysed area were formed during alpine orogenesis following the epeirogenic movements and belong to the flysch deposits (Roman 1989). One of the main characteristics of the Vrancea Mountains and Vrancea Sub-Carpathians is petrographic heterogeneity (Roman 1989), which contributes to the formation of an important geoheritage in the area. With a friendly temperate–continental climate, the study area offers favourable conditions for practising geotourism. The dominant vegetation cover is represented by forests, of which the coniferous ones are the most significant. Another important aspect of the study area is that it includes the Putna–Vrancea Natural Park, a major natural protected area in Romania that corresponds to the fifth category according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classification. All of the above characteristics make the Carpathian and Sub-Carpathian area of Vrancea County an area with geotouristic potential that is suitable for such a study.

Following field trips and consultation of available materials, a total of 22 geomorphosites from the Carpathian and Sub-Carpathian area of the Vrancea County were selected for evaluation (Fig. 3): Cascada Putnei (Fig. 4), Valea Algheanului, Cheile Tișiței (Fig. 5), Groapa cu Pini, Strâmtura Coza, Cascada din Horn, Cascada Văsui, Cascada Mișina, Cheile Nărujei, Căldările Zăbalei (Fig. 6), Râpa Roșie, Lacul Negru (the lake bed), Grumaz, Vârful Lăcăuți, Vârful Goru, Vârful Zboina Neagră, Vârful Tisaru Mare, Vârful Zburătura, Vârful Coza, Vârful Pietrosu, Vârful Zboina Frumoasă and Măgura Odobești.

The location of the analysed geomorphosites.

Results

The assessment of geomorphosites

The evaluation process of the 22 geomorphosites was applied as in Table 2 (e.g., geomorphosite no. 2: Cascada Putnei), by assigning points to each geomorphosite according to the criteria presented above in Table 1. The final values and scores of the geomorphosites are presented in Table 3 and Figure 7.

Table 2

An example of the assessment (applied on the geomorphosite no. 2 Cascada Putnei).

Scientific value		Economic value		Aesthetic value		Cultural value		Management and use value
25 points		20 points		20 points		20 points		15 points
1.5	Rareness at national level	3	Infrastructure	4	Visibility	3	Symbolic value	2.5	Preservation degree
1.5	Rareness in relation to the area	4	Accessibility	4	Colour contrast	4	Cultural characteristics	2.5	Intensity of use
3	Degree of scientific knowledge on geomorphological issues	2	Number of types and forms of use (inclusively touristic)	4	Level difference	0.5	Icono graphic / literary representations	2.5	Use of aesthetic, cultural and economic value
3	Palaeogeographic interest	3	Yearly number of visitors	2	Landscape framing	2	Religious characteristics	1	Vulnera bility / natural risks
2.5	Integrity / intactness	3	Economic potential (incomes)	2	Space structuring	2	Historical characteristics	1	Relationship with planning policies
3	Use in educational purposes					0.5	Cultural manifestations	1.5	Equipment and support services
1.5	Diversity
4	Ecologic value
2	Representativeness
1	Other geological features
	23		15		16		12		11
					77 points
0	Minimum				0.77			1	Maximum

Table 3

The ranking of geomorphosites.

No.	Name	Scientific value	Economic value	Aesthetic value	Cultural value	Management and use	Total points	Evaluation score	Rank
1.	Cheile Tișiței	23	11	17	11	10	72	0.72	2
2.	Cascada Putnei	23	15	16	12	11	77	0.77	1
3.	Groapa cu Pini	21	6	15	13	7	62	0.62	7
4.	Strâmtura Coza	19	6	15	11	7	58	0.58	10
5.	Cascada din Horn	12	4	16	12	6	50	0.50	14
6.	Cascada Văsui	10	5	11	11	4	41	0.41	18
7.	Cascada Mișina	21	6	18	11	8	64	0.64	5
8.	Cheile Nărujei	22	8	17	11	7	65	0.65	4
9.	Căldările Zăbalei	23	7	16	11	8	65	0.65	4
10.	Râpa Roșie	21	10	14	11	7	63	0.63	6
11.	Lacul Negru	20	7	15	11	6	59	0.59	9
12.	Valea Algheanului	18	9	11	12	6	56	0.56	12
13.	Grumaz	8	5	15	13	5	46	0.46	16
14.	Măgura Odobești	16	9	17	15	10	67	0.67	3
15.	Vârful Zburătura	12	3	19	8	7	49	0.49	15
16.	Vârful Tisaru Mare	12	6	20	8	9	55	0.55	13
17.	Vârful Zboina Neagră	14	7	20	9	11	61	0.61	8
18.	Vârful Lăcăuți	12	6	19	9	10	56	0.56	12
19.	Vârful Goru	16	3	20	10	8	57	0.57	11
20.	Vârful Pietrosu	8	3	18	6	6	41	0.41	18
21.	Vârful Coza	9	4	18	8	6	45	0.45	17
22.	Vârful Zboina Frumoasă	12	3	20	8	7	50	0.50	14

Following the evaluation, the maximum value of 0.77 was obtained by geomorphosite number 2 (Cascada Putnei), and the minimum value was recorded by geomorphosites 6 and 20 (Cascada Văsui and Vârful Pietrosu), obtaining a total value of 0.41.

Considering that most of the analysed geomorphosites are part of a protected area (some of them even have the status of independent nature reserves), they enjoy a favourable legislative framework, which positively influences their protection.

The economic analysis regarding the share of tourism in the local economy

In order to create the map of the tourism sector share trend in the local economies of the Carpathian and Sub-Carpathian area of Vrancea County, the shares of the economic indicators of the tourism sector from the indicators related to the entire economy were initially calculated for each year and each individual ATU.

Trend matrices (one for each indicator: number of companies, number of employees, turnover and profit from tourism) regarding the share of the tourism sector in the total economy of each ATU were generated. The resulting numerical data served as the foundation for the creation of evolution graphs (Figs 8, 10, 12 and 14), as well as suggestive cartographic materials (Figs 9, 11, 13 and 15). For each tracked economic indicator, two examples of evolution are presented in the graphs (a positive evolution in blue and a negative evolution in orange). In the trend maps, the red colour marks a negative trend, the yellow/orange indicates a constant trend or no tourism data during the analysed period, and the green highlights a positive trend. The average share of the analysed period is displayed (with blue colour) for each ATU and each economic indicator in order to set a reference regarding the intensity of practising tourist activities. Thus, regarding the share of tourism companies in the total number of active companies, the trend matrix was composed of 16 ATUs with a positive trend, four ATUs with a negative trend, and 27 ATUs with a constant evolution (Fig. 9).

Tourism companies share trend for Tulnici and Valea Sării, 2000–2018 (acc. to Research Centre for Integrated Analysis and Territorial Management, 2022).

Tourism companies share trend for each ATU, 2000–2018 (acc. to Research Centre for Integrated Analysis and Territorial Management, 2022).

Tourism turnover share trend for Tulnici and Câmpuri, 2000–2018 (acc. to Research Centre for Integrated Analysis and Territorial Management, 2022).

Tourism turnover share trend for each ATU, 2000–2018 (acc. to Research Centre for Integrated Analysis and Territorial Management, 2022).

Tourism employees share trend for Soveja and Câmpuri, 2000–2018 (acc. to Research Centre for Integrated Analysis and Territorial Management, 2022).

Tourism employees share trend for each ATU, 2000–2018 (acc. to Research Centre for Integrated Analysis and Territorial Management, 2022).

Tourism profit share trend for Tulnici and Câmpuri, 2000–2018 (acc. to Research Centre for Integrated Analysis and Territorial Management, 2022).

Tourism profit share trend for each ATU, 2000–2018 (acc. to Research Centre for Integrated Analysis and Territorial Management, 2022).

For the second indicator used in our analysis, the trend matrix includes 14 ATUs with a positive trend of the share during the 19 years of analysis, three ATUs with a negative trend and 30 ATUs with no data (Fig. 11). The share of tourism sector employees had an increasing trend in the case of 15 ATUs, a decreasing trend for another three ATUs, and an unchanged evolution for the remaining 23 ATUs of the study area (Fig. 13).

Regarding the last indicator used, the trend matrix of tourism profit share registered a positive evolution during the studied period for 13 ATUs, a negative trend for two ATUs and a constant evolution for the remaining ATUs (Fig. 15).

Depending on the share trends obtained for each individual economy at the level of the tourism sector during the 19 years of analysis, five categories of tourism sector share trends in local economies were obtained (Fig. 16). The first category represents a clearly negative evolution of the tourism sector share trend in the local economy, in which the evolutions of all four indicators had this tendency during the 19 years of analysis. The second category represents a predominantly negative evolution, in which three of the four indicators had a negative evolution, while the fourth indicated the opposite. The third category is that of ATUs whose tourism sector had no contribution to the local economy, thus there was no evolution of the share. The fourth category marks the ATUs that experienced a predominantly positive evolution of the tourism sector share trend in the local economy, with three out of four indicators confirming the positive evolution, while the last category represents a clearly positive evolution.

The relationship between the geomorphosite assessment and tourism sector share trend for each ATU, 2000–2018 (acc. to Research Centre for Integrated Analysis and Territorial Management, 2022).

Visual comparison of the geomorphosite assessment results with the economic analysis results

To highlight the relationship between geomorphosites and the evolution of tourism in the analysed area, a map that includes attributes specific to the geomorphosite evaluation stage, but also attributes specific to the economic analysis stage, of the evolution of the tourism sector in the analysed area was created (Fig. 16).

Discussion

Many authors have addressed the evaluation of geomorphosites (Coratza, Giusti 2005, Serrano, Gonzalez-Trueba 2005, Pereira et al. 2007, Comănescu, Nedelea 2010, Erhatic 2010, Comănescu et al. 2011, Vujičić et al. 2011, Brilha 2018, Tufănoiu et al. 2020, Barbălată, Comănescu 2021, Pal, Albert 2021), as well as the economic approaches of tourism (Drăghici et al. 2015, Grecu et al. 2019), but none have presented a method that combines these two types of study, geomorphosite assessment and tourism economic analysis, to demonstrate the relationship between geomorphosites and the tourism sector.

At first glance, it is clear that the majority of the geomorphosites are concentrated in the western and northwestern parts of the study area. It can also be observed that seven out of the 22 geomorphosites are located within or in the immediate vicinity of the administrative boundary of Tulnici ATU, and many others are located in the areas of neighbouring ATUs. It is important to analyse the results from a quantitative point of view (the density of the geomorphosites in a specific area), but especially from a qualitative one, because an important geomorphosite can have a greater influence on the local economy than several others with lower values. In this regard, it can be observed that two (Cascada Putnei and Cheile Tișiței) out of the seven geomorphosites located in the area of Tulnici ATU represent the geomorphosites that obtained the first two positions following the evaluation carried out in the first stage of the study.

Drawing a parallel between the positioning of geomorphosites, the score obtained by them in the evaluation and the evolution of the tourism sector share trend in the economy, we can assume that the geomorphosites have a positive influence on the evolution of the tourism sector and the development of local economies. Even if the area of Tulnici–Soveja ATUs confirms the efficiency of the method, it is a partial one because it can be observed that in the analysed area, there are some ATUs with a positive evolution of the tourism share trend in the local economy, although they are not directly influenced by geomorphosites (Adjud, Străoane, Broșteni, Cârligele, Cotești and Dumbrăveni). The positive evolution of the tourism sector share trend in the economies of these ATUs can be explained by a tourism activity stimulated by other factors (the practice of wine tourism, positioning along a heavily trafficked road section or urban centres).

The perfect method for this research does not exist; there will always be a slight subjectivity from the evaluator (Pal, Albert 2021) or difficulty in obtaining relevant data. Although the presence of geomorphosites is an important aspect that influences economic indicators, there can be other reasons that contribute to the positive evolution of the tourism sector (attractive vegetation and fauna; presence of cultural heritage such as old wooden churches; ecotourism activities). Despite the fact that this method is only a visual comparison of the results and has limitations, it can aid in understanding the complex relationship between geoheritage and economy and can serve as a jumping-off point for future research.

Conclusions

The first stage of the study consisted of the evaluation of geomorphosites in the Carpathian and Sub-Carpathian area of Vrancea County. The results of this first stage highlight very high values of aesthetic value for most of the analysed geomorphosites, an important aspect for the eventuality of touristic exploitation of these objectives. With a few exceptions, the scientific value represents a large part of the total value of the geomorphosites, which demonstrates their great importance from a scientific point of view. Regarding the cultural value, an important aspect for possible tourism utility, the fact that the analysed area is under the influence of the cultural region known as ‘Țara Vrancei’ has a big impact. It should be noted that most of the geomorphosites scored low for economic value, mostly due to the lack of infrastructure and poor accessibility, but also for management and use value. This fact should prompt immediate measures by the local authorities in order to improve the weak points.

The second stage of the present study represented the contribution of economic data necessary to establish the evolution of the tourism sector in the period 2000–2018 at the level of each ATU. Following the completion of the trend matrix and trend maps regarding the share of the tourism sector in the economy of each ATU for each of the four economic indicators, it can be observed that some evolutions were positive, some were negative, but most of them had a constant evolution (the ATUs with a share of zero for all 19 years). Even though several ATUs experienced a positive trend in the share of the tourism sector in the economy during the analysed period (Tulnici, Soveja, Reghiu, Străoane, Adjud, Broșteni, Cârligele, Cotești and Dumbrăveni), the Tulnici ATU stood out through a much clearer evolution than the others.

The results of the third stage of the study consist of a graphic representation that includes both the information obtained from the completion of the first stage and the information resulting from the second stage of the study. It allows us to have an overview of all attributes and to observe that there is a connection between the position of geomorphosites, their values and the tourism sector share trend in local economies.

This study can make an important contribution to the development of methodologies dedicated to the analysis of the role of geomorphosites for the development of the tourism sector and local economies, but it can also increase the degree of awareness among the population regarding the tourism value of geomorphosites and help to re-evaluate strategies for protecting or promoting them.

Zahlen und Tabellen

The criteria proposed for the evaluation of the geomorphosites (acc. to Comănescu et al. 2011, with modifications and additions by Tufănoiu et al. 2020).

Scientific value		Economic value		Aesthetic value		Cultural value		Management and use value
	25 points		20 points		20 points		20 points		15 points
1.5	Rareness at national level	4	Infrastructure	4	Visibility	4	Symbolic value	3	Preservation degree
1.5	Rareness in relation to the area	4	Accessibility	4	Colour contrast	4	Cultural characteristics	3	Intensity of use
3	Degree of scientific knowledge on geomorphological issues	4	Number of types and forms of use (inclusively touristic)	4	Level difference	2	Iconographic/literary representations	3	Use of aesthetic, cultural and economic value
3	Palaeogeographic interest	4	Yearly number of visitors	4	Landscape framing	4	Religious characteristics	2	Vulnerability / natural risks
3	Integrity / intactness	4	Economic potential (incomes)	4	Space structuring	4	Historical characteristics	2	Relationship with planning policies
3	Use in educational purposes					2	Cultural manifestations	2	Equipment and support services
2	Diversity
5	Ecologic value
2	Representativeness
1	Other geological features
	Vs points		Ve points		Va points		Vc points		Vmu points
					Total points
0	Minimum				Total value			1	Maximum

An example of the assessment (applied on the geomorphosite no. 2 Cascada Putnei).

Scientific value		Economic value		Aesthetic value		Cultural value		Management and use value
25 points		20 points		20 points		20 points		15 points
1.5	Rareness at national level	3	Infrastructure	4	Visibility	3	Symbolic value	2.5	Preservation degree
1.5	Rareness in relation to the area	4	Accessibility	4	Colour contrast	4	Cultural characteristics	2.5	Intensity of use
3	Degree of scientific knowledge on geomorphological issues	2	Number of types and forms of use (inclusively touristic)	4	Level difference	0.5	Icono graphic / literary representations	2.5	Use of aesthetic, cultural and economic value
3	Palaeogeographic interest	3	Yearly number of visitors	2	Landscape framing	2	Religious characteristics	1	Vulnera bility / natural risks
2.5	Integrity / intactness	3	Economic potential (incomes)	2	Space structuring	2	Historical characteristics	1	Relationship with planning policies
3	Use in educational purposes					0.5	Cultural manifestations	1.5	Equipment and support services
1.5	Diversity
4	Ecologic value
2	Representativeness
1	Other geological features
	23		15		16		12		11
					77 points
0	Minimum				0.77			1	Maximum

The ranking of geomorphosites.

No.	Name	Scientific value	Economic value	Aesthetic value	Cultural value	Management and use	Total points	Evaluation score	Rank
1.	Cheile Tișiței	23	11	17	11	10	72	0.72	2
2.	Cascada Putnei	23	15	16	12	11	77	0.77	1
3.	Groapa cu Pini	21	6	15	13	7	62	0.62	7
4.	Strâmtura Coza	19	6	15	11	7	58	0.58	10
5.	Cascada din Horn	12	4	16	12	6	50	0.50	14
6.	Cascada Văsui	10	5	11	11	4	41	0.41	18
7.	Cascada Mișina	21	6	18	11	8	64	0.64	5
8.	Cheile Nărujei	22	8	17	11	7	65	0.65	4
9.	Căldările Zăbalei	23	7	16	11	8	65	0.65	4
10.	Râpa Roșie	21	10	14	11	7	63	0.63	6
11.	Lacul Negru	20	7	15	11	6	59	0.59	9
12.	Valea Algheanului	18	9	11	12	6	56	0.56	12
13.	Grumaz	8	5	15	13	5	46	0.46	16
14.	Măgura Odobești	16	9	17	15	10	67	0.67	3
15.	Vârful Zburătura	12	3	19	8	7	49	0.49	15
16.	Vârful Tisaru Mare	12	6	20	8	9	55	0.55	13
17.	Vârful Zboina Neagră	14	7	20	9	11	61	0.61	8
18.	Vârful Lăcăuți	12	6	19	9	10	56	0.56	12
19.	Vârful Goru	16	3	20	10	8	57	0.57	11
20.	Vârful Pietrosu	8	3	18	6	6	41	0.41	18
21.	Vârful Coza	9	4	18	8	6	45	0.45	17
22.	Vârful Zboina Frumoasă	12	3	20	8	7	50	0.50	14

Referenzen

Arouca Declaration, 2011. International congress of Geotourism, Arouca Geopark, Portugal 9–13 November 2011. Online: https://www.europeangeoparks.org/?p=223. Arouca Declaration 2011 International congress of Geotourism Arouca Geopark, Portugal 9–13 November 2011 Online: https://www.europeangeoparks.org/?p=223. Search in Google Scholar

Barbălată L., Comănescu L., 2021. Environmental sustainability and the inclusion of geomorphosites in tourist activity – case study: The Baiului Mountains, Romania. Sustainability 13(14): 8094. DOI 10.3390/su13148094. BarbălatăL. ComănescuL. 2021 Environmental sustainability and the inclusion of geomorphosites in tourist activity – case study: The Baiului Mountains, Romania Sustainability 13 14 8094 10.3390/su13148094 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Brilha J., 2018. Geoheritage: Inventories and evaluation. Geoheritage. Assessment, Protection, and Management, Elsevier: 69–85. DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00004-6. BrilhaJ. 2018 Geoheritage: Inventories and evaluation Geoheritage. Assessment, Protection, and Management Elsevier 69 85 10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00004-6 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Bruschi V.M., Cendrero A., 2005. Geosite evaluation; can we measure intangible values? Il Quaternario 18(1): 293–306. BruschiV.M. CendreroA. 2005 Geosite evaluation; can we measure intangible values? Il Quaternario 18 1 293 306 Search in Google Scholar

Comănescu L., Nedelea A., 2010. Analysis of some representative geomorphosites in the Bucegi Mountains: Between scientific evaluation and tourist perception. Area 42(4): 406–416. DOI 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2010.00937.x. ComănescuL. NedeleaA. 2010 Analysis of some representative geomorphosites in the Bucegi Mountains: Between scientific evaluation and tourist perception Area 42 4 406 416 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2010.00937.x DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Comănescu L., Nedelea A., Dobre R., 2011. The evaluation of geomorphosites from the Ponoare protected area. Forum Geografic 11(1): 54–61. DOI 10.5775/fg.2067-4635.2012.037.i. ComănescuL. NedeleaA. DobreR. 2011 The evaluation of geomorphosites from the Ponoare protected area Forum Geografic 11 1 54 61 10.5775/fg.2067-4635.2012.037.i DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Coratza P., Giusti C., 2005. Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites. Il Quaternario 18(1): 307–313. CoratzaP. GiustiC. 2005 Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites Il Quaternario 18 1 307 313 Search in Google Scholar

Dowling R.K., 2015. Geotourism. In: Cater C., Garrod B., Low T. (eds.), The encyclopedia of sustainable tourism. CABI, Oxford: 231–232. DowlingR.K. 2015 Geotourism In: CaterC. GarrodB. LowT. (eds.), The encyclopedia of sustainable tourism CABI Oxford 231 232 Search in Google Scholar

Drăghici C.C., Pintilii R.D., Peptenatu D., Comănescu L.G., Sirodoev I., 2015. The role of SPA tourism in the development of local economies from Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance 23: 1573–1577. DOI 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00400-1. DrăghiciC.C. PintiliiR.D. PeptenatuD. ComănescuL.G. SirodoevI. 2015 The role of SPA tourism in the development of local economies from Romania Procedia Economics and Finance 23 1573 1577 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00400-1 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Economic data source: Project UB no. 10681/2021, Research Centre for Integrated Analysis and Territorial Management, 2022. Economic data source: Project UB no. 10681/2021 Research Centre for Integrated Analysis and Territorial Management 2022 Search in Google Scholar

Erhatic B., 2010. Geomorphosite assessment. Acta Geographica Slovenica 50(2): 296–309. DOI 10.3986/AGS50206. ErhaticB. 2010 Geomorphosite assessment Acta Geographica Slovenica 50 2 296 309 10.3986/AGS50206 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Garofano M., 2012. Challenges in the popularization of the earth sciences. Geotourism as a new medium for the geology dissemination. Anuario do Instituto de Geociencias-UFRJ 35(1): 34–41. DOI 10.11137/2012_1_34_41. GarofanoM. 2012 Challenges in the popularization of the earth sciences. Geotourism as a new medium for the geology dissemination Anuario do Instituto de Geociencias-UFRJ 35 1 34 41 10.11137/2012_1_34_41 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Grandgirard V., 1999. L’evaluation des geotopes. Geologia Insubrica 4(1): 59–66. GrandgirardV. 1999 L’evaluation des geotopes Geologia Insubrica 4 1 59 66 Search in Google Scholar

Gray M., 2018. Geodiversity: The backbone of geoheritage and geoconservation. Geoheritage. Assessment, Protection, and Management, Elsevier: 13–25. DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00001-0. GrayM. 2018 Geodiversity: The backbone of geoheritage and geoconservation Geoheritage. Assessment, Protection, and Management Elsevier 13 25 10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00001-0 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Grecu A., Gruia A.K., Marin M., Bănuță M., Olteanu C., Constantin I., Gadoiu M., Teodorescu C., Dobrea C.R., Drăghici C.C., 2019. Specificity of sustainable structural dynamics of local economy in Romanian tourist resorts. Sustainability 11: 1–21. DOI 10.3390/su11247155. GrecuA. GruiaA.K. MarinM. BănuțăM. OlteanuC. ConstantinI. GadoiuM. TeodorescuC. DobreaC.R. DrăghiciC.C. 2019 Specificity of sustainable structural dynamics of local economy in Romanian tourist resorts Sustainability 11 1 21 10.3390/su11247155 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Hose T.A., 1995. Selling the story of Brain's stone. Enviromental Interpretation 10(2): 16–17. HoseT.A. 1995 Selling the story of Brain's stone Enviromental Interpretation 10 2 16 17 Search in Google Scholar

Kavaliauske M., Kocyte R., 2014. Sustainable tourism development in Neringa region. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 156: 208–212. DOI 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.174. KavaliauskeM. KocyteR. 2014 Sustainable tourism development in Neringa region Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 156 208 212 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.174 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Kubalikova L., 2013. Geomorphosite assessment for Geotourism purposes. Czech Journal of Tourism 2(2): 80–104. DOI 10.2478/cjot-2013-0005. KubalikovaL. 2013 Geomorphosite assessment for Geotourism purposes Czech Journal of Tourism 2 2 80 104 10.2478/cjot-2013-0005 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Lima F.F., Brilha J., Salamuni E., 2010. Inventorying geological heritage in large territories: A methodological proposal applied to brazil. Geoheritage 2: 91–99. DOI 10.1007/s12371-010-0014-9. LimaF.F. BrilhaJ. SalamuniE. 2010 Inventorying geological heritage in large territories: A methodological proposal applied to brazil Geoheritage 2 91 99 10.1007/s12371-010-0014-9 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Necheș I.M., Erdeli G., 2015. Geolandscapes and Geotourism: Integrating nature and culture in the Bucegi Mountains of Romania. Landscape Research 40(4): 486–509. DOI 10.1080/01426397.2014.939616. NecheșI.M. ErdeliG. 2015 Geolandscapes and Geotourism: Integrating nature and culture in the Bucegi Mountains of Romania Landscape Research 40 4 486 509 10.1080/01426397.2014.939616 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Newsome D., Dowling R., 2018. Geoheritage and Geotourism. Geoheritage. Assessment, Protection, and Management, Elsevier: 305–321. DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00017-4. NewsomeD. DowlingR. 2018 Geoheritage and Geotourism Geoheritage. Assessment, Protection, and Management Elsevier 305 321 10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00017-4 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Nica E., Sima V., Gheorghe I., Drugau-Constantin A., Mirica (Dumitrescu) C.O., 2018. Analysis of regional disparities in Romania from an entrepreneurial perspective. Sustainability 10(10): 1–21. DOI 10.3390/su10103450. NicaE. SimaV. GheorgheI. Drugau-ConstantinA. Mirica (Dumitrescu)C.O. 2018 Analysis of regional disparities in Romania from an entrepreneurial perspective Sustainability 10 10 1 21 10.3390/su10103450 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Pal M., Albert G., 2021. Examining the spatial variability of geosite assessment and its relevance in geosite management. Geoheritage 13(8): 1–15. DOI 10.1007/s12371-020-00528-6. PalM. AlbertG. 2021 Examining the spatial variability of geosite assessment and its relevance in geosite management Geoheritage 13 8 1 15 10.1007/s12371-020-00528-6 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Panizza M., 2001. Geomorphosites: Concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey. Chinese Science Bulletin 46: 4–5. DOI 10.1007/BF03187227. PanizzaM. 2001 Geomorphosites: Concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey Chinese Science Bulletin 46 4 5 10.1007/BF03187227 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Panizza M., Piacente S., 2003. Geomorfologia Culturale. Pitagora Editrice, Bologna. PanizzaM. PiacenteS. 2003 Geomorfologia Culturale Pitagora Editrice Bologna Search in Google Scholar

Pereira P., Pereira D., Caetano Alves M.I., 2007. Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geographica Helvetica 62(3): 159–169. DOI 10.5194/gh-62-159-2007. PereiraP. PereiraD. Caetano AlvesM.I. 2007 Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal) Geographica Helvetica 62 3 159 169 10.5194/gh-62-159-2007 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Pralong J.P., 2005. A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites. Geomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 3(3/2005): 189–196. DOI 10.4000/geomorphologie.350. PralongJ.P. 2005 A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites Geomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 3 3/2005 189 196 10.4000/geomorphologie.350 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Ren T., Can M., Paramati S.R., Fang J., Wu W., 2019. The impact of tourism quality on economic development and environment: Evidence from Mediterranean countries. Sustainability 11(8): 2296. DOI 10.3390/su11082296. RenT. CanM. ParamatiS.R. FangJ. WuW. 2019 The impact of tourism quality on economic development and environment: Evidence from Mediterranean countries Sustainability 11 8 2296 10.3390/su11082296 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Reynard E., 2005, Geomorphosites et paysages. Geomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 3: 181–188. DOI 10.4000/geomorphologie.338. ReynardE. 2005 Geomorphosites et paysages Geomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 3 181 188 10.4000/geomorphologie.338 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Reynard E., Fontana G., Kozlik L., Scapozza C., 2007. A method for assessing “scientific” and “additional values” of geomorphosites. Geographica Helvetica 62(3): 148–158. DOI 10.5194/gh-62-148-2007. ReynardE. FontanaG. KozlikL. ScapozzaC. 2007 A method for assessing “scientific” and “additional values” of geomorphosites Geographica Helvetica 62 3 148 158 10.5194/gh-62-148-2007 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Reynard E., Panizza M., 2005. Geomophosites: Definition, assessment and mapping. An introduction. Geomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 3: 177–180. DOI 10.4000/geomorphologie.337. ReynardE. PanizzaM. 2005 Geomophosites: Definition, assessment and mapping. An introduction Geomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 3 177 180 10.4000/geomorphologie.337 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Reynard E., Perret A., Bussard J., Grangier L., Martin S., 2015. Integrated approach for the inventory and management of geomorphological heritage at the regional scale. Geoheritage 8: 43–60. DOI 10.1007/s12371-015-0153-0. ReynardE. PerretA. BussardJ. GrangierL. MartinS. 2015 Integrated approach for the inventory and management of geomorphological heritage at the regional scale Geoheritage 8 43 60 10.1007/s12371-015-0153-0 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Roman F., 1989. Munții Vrancei. Ghid turistic, ed. Sport – Turism, Bucharest. RomanF. 1989 Munții Vrancei. Ghid turistic ed. Sport – Turism Bucharest Search in Google Scholar

Serrano E., Gonzalez-Trueba J.J., 2005. Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: The Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Geomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 3: 197–208. DOI 10.4000/geomorphologie.364. SerranoE. Gonzalez-TruebaJ.J. 2005 Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: The Picos de Europa National Park (Spain) Geomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 3 197 208 10.4000/geomorphologie.364 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Stoffelen A., Vanneste D., 2015. An integrative Geotourism approach: Bridging conflicts in tourism landscape research. Tourism Geographies 17(4): 544–560. DOI 10.1080/14616688.2015.1053973. StoffelenA. VannesteD. 2015 An integrative Geotourism approach: Bridging conflicts in tourism landscape research Tourism Geographies 17 4 544 560 10.1080/14616688.2015.1053973 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Tufănoiu I., Simion A., Mărunțelu A., Teriș B., Grecu A., 2020. The geomorphosites assessment for determinating the Geotourism potential. Case study on the Natural Park Putna-Vrancea Romania. International Scientific Conference Geobalcanica Proceedings: 499–512. DOI 10.18509/GBP.2020.56. TufănoiuI. SimionA. MărunțeluA. TerișB. GrecuA. 2020 The geomorphosites assessment for determinating the Geotourism potential. Case study on the Natural Park Putna-Vrancea Romania International Scientific Conference Geobalcanica Proceedings 499 512 10.18509/GBP.2020.56 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

Vivek V., Saranya S., Chandrasekar K., 2020. Tourism development and fundamentals to promote sustainopreneurship in tourism industry. Our Heritage 68: 10598–10603. VivekV. SaranyaS. ChandrasekarK. 2020 Tourism development and fundamentals to promote sustainopreneurship in tourism industry Our Heritage 68 10598 10603 Search in Google Scholar

Vujičić M.D., Vasiljević D.A., Marković S.B., Hose T.A., Lukić T., Hadžić O., Janićević S., 2011. Preliminary geosite assessment model (gam) and its application on Fruska Gora Mountain, potential Geotourism destination of Serbia. Acta Geographica Slovenica: 51–2: 361–377. DOI 10.3986/AGS51303. VujičićM.D. VasiljevićD.A. MarkovićS.B. HoseT.A. LukićT. HadžićO. JanićevićS. 2011 Preliminary geosite assessment model (gam) and its application on Fruska Gora Mountain, potential Geotourism destination of Serbia Acta Geographica Slovenica 51–2 361 377 10.3986/AGS51303 DOI öffnen Search in Google Scholar

World Travel & Tourism Council., 2019. Travel & Tourism Global Economic Impact & Trends. Online: https://wttc.org (accessed 12 May 2022). World Travel & Tourism Council 2019 Travel & Tourism Global Economic Impact & Trends Online: https://wttc.org (accessed 12 May 2022). Search in Google Scholar

Yolal M., 2012. Geotourism and Geoparks: The case of Kizilcahamam-Çamlidere Geopark. Geo Journal of Tourism and Geosites 10: 193–203. YolalM. 2012 Geotourism and Geoparks: The case of Kizilcahamam-Çamlidere Geopark Geo Journal of Tourism and Geosites 10 193 203 Search in Google Scholar

Quaestiones Geographicae

The Role of Geomorphosites in the Local Economy Development of the Carpathian and Sub-Carpathian Area of Vrancea County, Romania

Ionuț TufănoiuIonuț Tufănoiu

Online veröffentlicht: 04 Feb 2023

Volumen & Heft: Volumen 42 (2023) - Heft 1 (March 2023)

Seitenbereich: 107 - 122

Eingereicht: 01 Sep 2022

Details zu Zeitschrift und Ausgabe

Quaestiones Geographicae

PDF-Vorschau

Artikel

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

Fig. 12

Fig. 13

Fig. 14

Fig. 15

Fig. 16

Zahlen und Tabellen

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

Fig. 12

Fig. 13

Fig. 14

Fig. 15

Fig. 16

The criteria proposed for the evaluation of the geomorphosites (acc. to Comănescu et al. 2011, with modifications and additions by Tufănoiu et al. 2020).

An example of the assessment (applied on the geomorphosite no. 2 Cascada Putnei).

The ranking of geomorphosites.

Referenzen

Neueste Artikel

Ionuț Tufănoiu
Ionuț Tufănoiu